chisaron in hasbara=chisaron in havana; the power of Yaakov's tears; an amazing Midrash Talpiyot on the identity of Yehuda's wife

1) In yeshivos they like to quote the aphorism from R' Chaim that a chisaron in hasbara indicates a chisaron in havana.  If you can't explain something, it's a sign that you really don't understand it.  (see this post from earlier this year ).  In last week's parsha, Shimon and Levi disagreed with their father Yaakov about how to respond to what happened to Dinah.  When Yaakov chastised his sons, י֮ עֲכַרְתֶּ֣ם אֹתִי֒ לְהַבְאִישֵׁ֙נִי֙ בְּיֹשֵׁ֣ב הָאָ֔רֶץ, they responded and justified their actions,  וַיֹּאמְר֑וּ הַכְזוֹנָ֕הא יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֶת⁠־אֲחוֹתֵֽנוּ׃.  In contrast, the brothers never revealed to their father what they did to Yosef and why they acted such.  They didn't even have the courage to directly tell Yaakov their concocted story, but rather  וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת⁠־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל⁠־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר⁠־נָ֗אא הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם⁠־לֹֽא׃.  According to Rashbam וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ means through a messenger על ידי בני אדם שלא יגידו מי השולחים, אלא שיאמרו:⁠א זאת מצאנו so that they could hide their hand in the whole affair.  Why hide behind the veil of secrecy?  Why not explain to their father why they acted against Yosef?  R' Shmuel Birnbaum explains that when it came to Shechem, Shimon and Levi understood crystal clear what they needed to do and why their actions were justified.  Therefore, they were able to answer their father.  When it came to dealing with Yosef, the fact that they could not find the words to justify their actions indicates that the rationale for what they were doing was not really clear in their own minds. 

2) Yosef is taken by the Midyanim and sold into slavery in Egypt  וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן⁠־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ (37:28).  The brothers present their story to Yaakov, who refuses to be comforted,  וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל⁠־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל⁠־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי⁠־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל⁠־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽי (37:35)  The Torah then ends that chapter by repeating what happened to Yosef,  וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים.  We then have an entire chapter devoted to the episode of Yehuda and Tamar, and return in Ch 39 to the Yosef narrative,  וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה׃.  Alshich asks: why do we need that final pasuk in ch 37 before the episode of Yehuda and Tamar to tell us again about the Midyanim selling Yosef off?  It really belongs to the start of ch 39.  Instead of that chapter starting וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה, eliminate those words and start by saying הַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם upon which time he was bought by Potifar.  It is more concise, and does away with what seems an extraneous pasuk at the end of ch 37.

The Tzror haMor answers that the final pasuk of ch 37 which tells us וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים is not just there to convey information about what happened to Yosef.  It is actually connected to the description of Yaakov's grief and his refusal to cease crying for his son.  Chazal tell us that even when the gates of tefilah are closed, the gates of tears remain open.  Yosef might have ended up anywhere.  He might have been taken across the sea to a distant land or been carted off to the far reaches of the world.  Were that to happen, the chances of his being reunited with his family would be slim.  Thanks to Yaakov's endless tears, Hashem arranged things so that Yosef did not wind up too far from home.  Of course it would be years before he ultimately was able to see his father again, but the possibility of that happening was already in place and the wheels were in motion from the get-go.

3) Abarbanel comments ואמנם בהפלגת אבלות יעקב הוא מקום תימה רב.  The baalei mussar like the Seforno here: יאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה – קבל עליו אבלות לכל ימיו, מפני שארעה התקלה על ידו ששלח את יוסף אל אחיו  Yaakov refused to be comforted because he saw himself as being at fault because he was the one who send Yosef to check on his brothers.  It was the guilt that weighed him down.  No wonder he refused at first to send Binyamin down to Egypt.  Even though Shimon was being held captive waiting the brothers return, Yaakov had no hand in Shimon's being held, but were he the one to send Binyamin off to harm, in his mind he would be just as much at fault as when he sent Yosef.

3) I just saw this Midrash Talpiyot (bottom of first column( quoted somewhere this week and what an interesting find it is.  וַיַּרְא⁠־שָׁ֧ם יְהוּדָ֛ה בַּת⁠־אִ֥ישׁ כְּנַעֲנִ֖י וּשְׁמ֣וֹ שׁ֑וּעַ  Rashi tries to explain away כְּנַעֲנִ֖י as meaning a merchant.  The M.T. writes that Yeuhuda married the daughter of Eisav (!), whose name contains the same letters as שׁ֑וּעַ.  How could a tzadik like Yehuda have childen like  עֵ֚ר and אוֹנָ֔ן ?  It must be that their mother's genes from Eisav rubbed off on them.  

why Yaakov was upset at Shimon and Levi

I had a thought as to why Yaakov was angry at Shimon and Levi for attacking Shechem.  We know that David haMelech was prevented from building the Beis HaMikdash because he had engaged in bloodshed and warfare his entire life.  Yaakov was en route to the spot where Hashem had appeared to him in a dream when he left home and where he had taken the neder וְהָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר⁠־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים.  This is the same idea - יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים - as building Beis haMikdash!  Yaakov was afraid that if he got bogged down in wars as a result of Shimon and Levi's attack on Shechem it would prevent him from fulfilling his neder.  (It is shortly before shabbos here so I haven't looked to see if any meforshim say this. Just throwing it out there for now.)

Yaakov's mid-life crisis (or so it seems)

  קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכׇּל⁠ הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת⁠ עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת

 הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו כִּי⁠ יָרֵא אָנֹכִי אֹתוֹ פֶּן⁠ יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי אֵם עַל⁠ בָּנִים

 וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.

I want to first focus on a detail in Yaakov's tefilah, the micro, the prat, and then look at the bigger picture, the klal, the macro.

Rashi comments

כי במקלי – לא היה עמי לא כסף ולא זהב ולא מקנה אלא מקלי לבדו.

ומדרש אגדה: נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן.

Whenever Rashi quotes two interpretations, esp if one is pshat and one is derash, the Sifsei Chachamim wants to know why.  The S.C.'s usual methodology is to find plusses and minuses in each interpretation; aware of the shortcomings of one reading, Rashi offers another possibility.  

S.C. explains why Rashi here was not satisfied with pshat and needed to resort to derash:

ומדרש אגדה נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן. ולפי זה עשה לי שתי טובות אחד שנבקע לו הירדן והשני ב׳ מחנות משא״כ לפשוטו אין כאן אלא חסד אחד:

The word חֲסָדִים is plural.  If the pasuk means that Yaakov went from a penniless pauper who had nothing other than his staff to a wealthy man, that is only one chessed, not multiple chassadim.  Therefore, Rashi quotes the derash.  The reference to Yaakov's staff has nothing to do with his wealth, but rather refers to a miraculous splitting of the river that Yaakov did on his way to Lavan's house.  וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת is a second chessed of having a large and well off family. 

If S.C. is correct and Rashi's point is that חֲסָדִים has to refer to multiple chassadim, it begs the question of why the only two items on the list are the miracle of the river splitting, which occurred more than two decades ago when Yaakov was first en route to Lavan's house, and the  ב׳ מחנות, his large family of the present moment.   Nothing else happened in between?  There are no other chassadim that Yaakov could think of to list between the far past and the immediate present?!

Zooming out to look at the tefilah as a whole, Yaakov ends his prayer with a justification as to why G-d should help him: "You, G-d, promised שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב, and therefore you owe me this protection."  We could discuss why Yaakov felt the need to offer any justification at all -- aren't we supposed to ask G-d for help when we are in danger? -- but let's leave that aside and look at the justification itself.  It seems flimsey, and is undermined by Yaakov's own actions.  Yaakov had divided his camp in two.   וַיֹּאמֶר אִם⁠ יָבוֹא עֵשָׂו אֶל⁠ הַמַּחֲנֶה הָאַחַת וְהִכָּהוּ וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה  In this way if Eisav attacked one part, the other could escape.  If so, the promise of שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב would seem to be in no danger of being abrogated.  Even if one part of the camp could not escape, the other part could, and Hashem's promise could be fulfilled through the survivors.  As Netziv puts it:  

ותו, מה זו הוכחה שלא יהרוג חלק מהבנים ותתקיים הברכה בהנשאר.

I saw a thought in the Arugas haBosem here that addresses these issues and I said to myself that even if you don't think it's pshat in the pasuk, it so hit the nail right on the head about how your perspective shifts as you get older.  Do ever find yourself looking back and wishing you could recapture something of how you were in the past?  Don't get me wrong -- I think you do get wiser as you get older, among other advantages to age. But there is something important lost as well, and I don't just mean, using myself as an example, things like no longer being able to throw a baseball the same way or stay up late without feeling tired the next day, or other such loss of physical ability or stamina.  We are coming up to the sugya of Chanukah where the gemara itself (Shabbos 22b) refers to the advantage of "girsa d'yankusa."  When you learn things when you are young, they stick in your head better.  Aside from loss of mental sharpness, I think more importantly one's perspective changes.  There is also a loss of idealism (again, speaking for myself only) as you age.  You age you start to see every issue in shades of grey rather than black and white, which is a good thing most of the time, but sometimes things really are just plain and simple black and white.  I can go on and give other examples, but I'm sure every person can make his own similar, personal list.

The Yaakov Avinu who in our parsha returns home is not the same Yaakov Avinu who left years earlier, and not just because he is now wealthy and has a huge family.  His attitude has shifted as well.  Yaakov is now a man making cheshbonos.  He strategizes before his meeting with Eisav.  He sends gifts, he sends messengers, and most importantly, he divides his camp is the hope that if all else fails, he can at least have half a victory. That's not the Yaakov of decades earlier.  Sticking your staff in the water in the hopes that it will split is not a logical strategy, something you make a cheshbon about.  Walking into a new town and immediately giving mussar to the shepherds and telling them they are not working hard enough is not a sound strategy.  Trying to singlehandedly roll a huge boulder off the well is not a sound strategy.  That's idealism, that's youth, that's trust in Hashem l'maaleh min ha'teva.  That's the Yaakov of old, of youth.

Yaakov looks at himself and says  כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת.  Look what's happened to me! I went from the person who splits the river with his staff to the person who splits his camp in the hopes of half a victory being better than none.  Yaakov is not making a list of chassadim here; he is drawing a contrast between what once was and what now is.  

If I didn't know better, I would say this is the mid-life crisis of Yaakov Avinu.

The problem is that Yaakov Avinu is not you and me.  We may become middle aged pragmatists and lose our idealism, we may have a mid-life crisis when thinking about how we have changed, but we are not the bechir ha'Avos.  Yaakov felt that he should be the same as the Yaakov of old -- titein emes l'Yaakov, and emes remains consistent.  Therefore, there must be some other force at play here forcing him to act as he did.  Maaseh Avos siman la'banim -- what the Avos experienced does not just reflect on their personal lives, but reflects the current of Jewish history as well.  That is no less true in this case.

Netziv asks:

אם נפרש שחשש שיכה האם והבנים יחד וכמשמעות החיצוני מסוף התפילה ״ואתה אמרת וגו׳ ושמתי את זרעך וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, קשה, דלפי זה התכוון יעקב לדבר ה׳ אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו (לעיל יג,טז) ״ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ אשר אם יוכל איש למנות וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, וא״כ למאי שינה לשון הברכה ואמר ״כחול הים״

Why did Yaaskov add the words  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם which are not part of the blessing given to Avraham (13:16 וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אִם יוּכַל אִישׁ לִמְנוֹת אֶת עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ גַּם זַרְעֲךָ יִמָּנֶה), which is what Yaakov is invoking?

The Arugas haBosem points us to the dersha in Yoma 22b:

 ר' יונתן רמי כתיב והיה מספר בני ישראל כחול הים וכתיב אשר לא ימד ולא יספר לא קשיא כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום 

We can either be as numerous as the stars of the sky -- lofty, heavenly -- or be like sand of the sea, lowly and trodden on.  

When Yaakov reflected on his behavior and thinking at that moment, he realized that his behavior had changed because Hashem wanted through him to give guidence not just to great generations, but to generations that are not exactly up to snuff.  There are generations where we are not in the position to walk into a river with just our staff, confident that it will split on our behalf.  We are not in a position to think we can unstop wells that look blocked, or dictate ethics to others.  We make cheshbonos, we operate strategically, more in tune with what derech ha'teva leads us to think than with pure bitachon.  

Yaakov was praying not for his own sake, but for the sake of those generations.  וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.  Even if we are  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם, nonetheless, אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ.  

Rachel's swap of the simanin and the din of bnei temurah - an amazing Maharal

There is a must-see Maharal on the pasuk  וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה (29:25).  It doesn't say that next morning Yaakov *discovered* that he was married to Leah, or that he *saw* that it was Leah.  It says next morning it *was* Leah.  Meaning, at night, it was not Leah --- as Rashi writes, אבל בלילה לא היא לאה -- and then somehow, in the morning, the identity of who Yaakov married changed to someone else.  

How does that work?  Rashi tells us that the switch happened because of the simanin: לפי שמסר יעקב סימנין לרחל. וכשראת שמכניסין לו לאה, אמרה: עכשיו תכלם אחותי, עמדה ומסרה לה אותן סימנין, 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains: אלא ודאי הכי פירושו ״והנה היא לאה״ – בבקר, אבל בלילה לא היתה לאה, לפי שמסרה לה הסימנין, וקיימא לן דסימנין דאורייתא, והוי סימן מובהק, ולפיכך בלילה הרי היא רחל לענין דינא לסמוך עליו:

Since the halacha says that a person can rely on simanim to identify his wife, and the simanim Yaakov was given during the night matched the simanim of Rachel, halacha says that the identity of Yaakov's wife that night Rachel!  Came the morning and that same person appeared to be Leah, at that moment, and not before, her identity became Leah. 

The reality of who Yaakov was married to changed from the night to the morning.

Seems to me that this amazing chiddush renders moot a question raised by the MG"A.  MG"A in OC 240 asks on the din of "bnei temurah," when a person has relations with one woman thinking it's another:

תמורה. אפי' שתיהן נשיו, כגון שנתכוין לזו ונזדמנה לו האחרת (טור) וצ"ע דהלא יעקב נתכוין לרחל ובא על לאה

Wasn't Yaakov Avinu in violation of this din on his wedding night when he thought he was marrying Rachel and it was really Leah?  

 MG"A continues:

ובסי"מ כ' שמשום זה לא נטלו שבט ראובן חלק בא"י רק בעבר הירדן ומ"מ צ"ע שיהיו ח"ו מן המורדים והפושעים ובפרט שהיא נתעברה מביאה זו כמ"ש התו' ביבמות דף ע"ו וצ"ל דדוקא כשראה רחל שוכבת במטה ונתכוין לגוף זה ואח"כ נזדמנה לו לאה תחתיו אבל יעקב בשעת כניסתו לחופה ראה לאה ונתכוין לגופה רק שסבר ששמה רחל לית לן בה, וכיוצא בזה חילקו בסנהדרין גבי נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה:

MB in Shaar haTziun suggests that "bnei temurah" is only a problem if your intent is for a different person than the one in front of you, but if your intent is for the individual who is present, just you think it's someone else, that's not a problem.

Based on Maharal, the question doens't even get off the groud.  Yaakov intended to be married to Rachel that night and al pi din it *was* Rachel that night.  It was only the following morning that הִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה, her identity was changed.

returning home and to one's homeland

 וַיִּנְהַג אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ מִקְנֵהוּ וְאֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ רְכֻשׁוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁ מִקְנֵה קִנְיָנוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכַשׁ בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם לָבוֹא אֶל⁠ יִצְחָק אָבִיו אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן

We know that Yitzchak lived in Eretz Canaan.  He never left Canaan.  Why does the Torah need to mention that for Yaakov, going home meant not just a return to his father, but a return to אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן? 

Netziv answers that the pasuk is telling us that in addition to Yaakov's wanting to return to his father, יִצְחָק אָבִיו, he also longed for Eretz Yisrael. אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן. 

This idea is already anticipated in the Midrash.  

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠ יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל⁠ אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ

What does וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ mean in this context?  Was Hashem not with Yaakov all the years he was in Lavan's home?  Was it not Hashem who protected him from Lavan's trickery?  Was it not Hashem who blessed him with wives and 12 children who would be the shivtei K-h?

The Midrash comments:

 כְּתִיב: זָעַקְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ ה׳ אָמַרְתִּי אַתָּה מַחְסִי חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים (תהלים קמ״ב:ו׳), וַהֲלוֹא אֵין אֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים אֶלָּא צוֹר וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, תַּמָּן שׂוֹבְעָה תַּמָּן זוֹלָא, וְאַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ שֶׁמֵּתֶיהָ חַיִּים תְּחִלָּה לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַּפָּרָא מַיְתֵי לָהּ מֵהָכָא: נֹתֵן נְשָׁמָה לָעָם עָלֶיהָ וְרוּחַ לַהֹלְכִים בָּהּ (ישעיהו מ״ב:ה׳), אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, שׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, אָבִיךָ מְצַפֶּה לְךָ אִמְּךָ מְצַפָּה לְךָ, אֲנִי בְּעַצְמִי מְצַפֶּה לְךָ.

The Midrash Tehillim similarly writes:

ד״א מדבר ביעקב זעקתי אליך י״י בשעה שיצאתי מבית אבי מהו אומר אם יהיה אלהים עמדי, אתה מחסי והנה אנכי עמך, חלקי בארץ החיים מתאוה אני לחזור לארץ ישראל, אמר יעקב ברשות יצאתי אף אני איני חוזר אלא ברשות, א״ל הקב״ה רשות אתה מבקש הרי הרשות בידך שנאמר שוב אל ארץ אבותיך.

Yaakov's journey was not just return home, a return to his biological father's house, לְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ, which Hashem was giving Yaakov permission for, but it was a return to אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, the land of the Avos, his homeland.  

R' Bachyei similarly finds an allusion to Eretz Yisrael in the double language of the pasuk:

כי נכסוף נכספתה לבית אביך – כפל הלשון לרמוז כי נכסף לאביו ונכסף לארץ הקדושה כלשון (תהלים פ״ד:ג׳) נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי לחצרות אלקי.

This R' Bachyei at the end of the parsha goes hand in hand with R' Bachyei at the beginning of the parsha. When Yaakov is en route to Lavan's house, in response to Hashem's promise of protection, he takes a neder (28:20-21)

 וַיִּדַּר יַעֲקֹב נֶדֶר לֵאמֹר אִם⁠ יִהְיֶה אֱלֹקים עִמָּדִי וּשְׁמָרַנִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ וְנָתַן⁠ לִי לֶחֶם לֶאֱכֹל וּבֶגֶד לִלְבֹּשׁ. 

וְשַׁבְתִּי בְשָׁלוֹם אֶל⁠ בֵּית אָבִי וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים 

Ramban and Rashi disagree on how to read that last phrase. Ramban writes

איננו תנאי כדברי רבינו שלמה. אבל הוא הנדר, וענינו: אם אשוב אל בית אבי, אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת במקום האבן הזאת שתהיה לי לבית אלהים, ושם אוציא את המעשר.

While Ramban mentions אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת, he seems to point to avodas Hashem in general, and in particular, taking maaser as the fulfillment of the neder.  R' Bachyei sees the return to Eretz Yisrael itself as the kiyum ha'neder.  Chazal tell us that כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה.  Therefore,  וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים must mean being in Eretz Yisrael:

אין זה תנאי ח"ו כי אם נדר, יאמר שאם ישוב לארץ ישראל אשר שם בית אביו יצחק יהיה השם המיוחד לו לאלהים כי שם יעבדנו בארץ המיוחדת. וזה ע"ד מאמר רז"ל כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה

Maaseh avos siman la'banim.  We find many places in Chazal that double language is darshehed to mean that a task should be repeated multiple times.  A person should not just do the mitzvah once and think he is exempt from then after, e.g. נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ - ומנין (שאם נתת פעם אחת) שאתה נותן לו אפילו מאה פעמים? ת"ל נתון תתן.  (See BM 31a)  I would like to suggest that this is the meaning here as well.  נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ, even if your hope was dashed once, even if you suffered a setback once, אפילו מאה פעמים continue to hope, continue to dream, continue to long for Eretz Yisrael and try to return.  

kislev - month of geulah

Meant to post for Rosh Chodesh Kislev, but better late than never and it's good the whole month anyway.

The navi Zecharya (ch 7) raised the following shayla in the month of Kislev:

וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיָה דְבַר⁠ ה׳ אֶל⁠ זְכַרְיָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי בְּכִסְלֵו.

 וַיִּשְׁלַח בֵּית⁠ אֵל שַׂרְאֶצֶר וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו לְחַלּוֹת אֶת⁠ פְּנֵי ה׳

 לֵאמֹר אֶל⁠ הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית⁠ ה׳ צְבָקוֹת וְאֶל⁠ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הַאֶבְכֶּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי הִנָּזֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים.

Would he have to fast the upcoming Tisha b'Av?

Radak provides the context:

כי עדיין לא היו מאמינים בבנין הבית מפני האויבים שהשביתו את המלאכה כמה שנים ועתה אף על פי ששמעו כי היו בונים היו קטני אמנה ולא היו רוצים לעלות מבבל כי לא היו מאמינים שישלם בנין הבית ויעמד מפני הצרים אותם ושאלו אם יצומו בתשעה באב כמו שעשו שבעים שנה

The rebuilding of Beis haMikdash had started, but the enemies of the Jewish people had caused work stoppages.  It looked far from certain that the project would ever come to completion.  The vast majority of the Jewish people remained in exile in Bavel, waiting to see what would happen, uncertain as to what the future might hold.  

Zecharya wanted to know whether the fact that there was at least something of a Mikdash standing was enough cause to suspend the fast of Tisha b'Av.

Why did he raise this question in Kislev, months and months before it would be relevant l'maaseh?  Why not wait until the three weeks, or some other time closer to Av? 

The Midrash writes at the beginning of Behaaloscha that Aharon was upset because he was left out of the chanukas haMishkan, as all the nesiim brought gifts and korbanos and he did not participate.  Hashem responded that his portion is even greater, as he is tasked with lighting the menorah.  

Ramban explains that the lighting the menorah in our homes in celebration of nes Chanukah is a continuation of the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah.  Aharon's mitzvah of menorah thus continues even after the churban, while the mitzvah of offering korbanos is no longer practiced.  

R' Noson Gestetner writes that when Kislev rolled around, Zecharya sensed the future holiday of Chanukah that would come in 200 years.  Even though he knew there would be a churban ha'bayis of the second Mikdash, he saw in Chanukah a spark of geulah, a spark of the Mikdash that would remain, as the mitzvah of menorah is still with us.  Since the geulah of Bayis Sheni would not completely be extinguished, he wondered whether Tisha b'Av would still be necessary. 

inspiration comes from inside, not outside

The gemara (San 91b) quotes a debate that took place between Rebbi and Antoninus as to when the yetzer ha'ra enters a child -- at conception or at the moment of birth:

ואמר ליה אנטונינוס לרבי מאימתי יצה"ר שולט באדם משעת יצירה או משעת יציאה א"ל משעת יצירה א"ל א"כ בועט במעי אמו ויוצא אלא משעת יציאה אמר רבי דבר זה למדני אנטונינוס ומקרא מסייעו שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) לפתח חטאת רובץ

Rebbi conceded that it was at the moment of birth and not earlier.

We read in our parsha that Rivka was disturbed by the kicking she felt in her womb:

וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם⁠־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי

Rashi quotes from the Midrash:

עוברת על פתחי תורה שם ועבר ויעקב רץ ומפרכס לצאת, עוברת על פתח עבודה זרה ועשו מפרכס לצאת.

If the yetzer ha'ra only enters the child just before birth, why was Eisav kicking when he passed a place of avodah zarah in utero?  How could he already have had a desire to worship avodah zarah when he had no yetzer ha'ra yet?  

I saw this question raised by R' Moshe Yechezkel Tzalach, a sefardic acharon, in his sefer Torat Moshe.  He collects a number of different answers, but I would like to suggest an approach that is not on his extensive list.  

Rashi comments on the opening pasuk of our parsha,  וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת יִצְחָק בֶּן⁠ אַבְרָהָם אַבְרָהָם הוֹלִיד אֶת⁠ יִצְחָק, that the Torah stresses that Yitzchak was born to Avraham because there were scoffers who tried to deny it:

לפי שהיו ליצני הדור אומרים: מאבימלך נתעברה שרה, שהרי כמה שנים שהתה עם אברהם ולא נתעברה הימנו.⁠ מה עשה הקב״ה, צר קלסתר פניו דומה לאברהם, כדי שיאמרו הכל: אברהם הוליד את יצחק. וזהו שכתוב כאן: יצחק בן אברהם היה, שהרי עדות יש שאברהם הוליד את יצחק

It seems incredible that anyone would take these scoffers seriously.  We know that it was Sarah, not Avraham, who was infertile.  Avraham had fathered Yishmael through Hagar.  Secondly, the fact that Sarah could conceive in such old age was a miracle.  Does it make sense that G-d would make a such miracle for a rasha like Avimelech and not Avraham?

On the one hand, maybe there is no rhyme or reason sense to the claims of the scoffers.  People make all kinds of  outlandish claims (if you don't believe me just spend 5 minutes on social media or listen to a Democrat or member of the MSM.)  On the other hand, the Torah sees fit to respond to those claims,  G-d made a miracle and transformed Yitzchak's visage (see Sifsei Chachamim) in order to refute then.  Why bother to refute mishugas if it's just nonsense?

Although the claim that Avimelech physically fathered Yitzchak is too incredible to take seriously, what the Torah might be responding to is the claim that Avimelech was the *spiritual* father behind Yitzchak's birth.

When Yaakov returns from Lavan's home, he sends a message to his brother Eisav telling him  עִם־לָבָ֣ן גַּ֔רְתִּי.  Rashi comments: בָר אַחֵר גַּרְתִּי בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תרי"ג, כְּלוֹמַר, עִם לָבָן גַּרְתִּי וְתַרְיַ"ג מִצְוֹת שָׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.  If Yaakov kept all 613 mitzvos, does it not go without saying that he did not learn from Lavan's ways?

Sometimes it is hard to get up for davening, especially in the winter when it is still dark and cold and you need to head out early before work.  When I walk down my street on those early mornings, I pass a gym at the end of the block.  Without fail, even if it is 20 degrees, pitch back and only 6-something in the morning, every parking spot on the block is taken up by women who want to get to their gym class before they start the day.  I've said to my wife many times that these women are my inspiration.  If they can get up for the gym, then I can get to minyan.  

Of course Yaakov did not follow Lavan's evil ways, but he still might still have learned from him and been inspired by him.  Like those attending the gym class, Lavan was out of bed first thing in the morning.  He was motivated! He was just motivated for all the wrong things.  He used his zerizus, his intensity, his chochma, to pursue kinah, taavah, and kavod.  Yaakov might have said, "If he can do it, I can do it," and Lavan's behavior might have been his model for good.

Sounds like a good strategy, but remember the end of Rashi: וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.  The talmidei haBesh"T taught the following yesod: if tzadik is inspired by the deeds of a rasha, that provides a fig leaf, so to speak, for the rasha.  Even if the rasha never intended it, since the rasha become an example for good, they earn some degree of redemption.  Now, I'm not a tzadik, and the gym goers are not really reshaim, so I take a lesson from them, but Yaakov Avinu was a tzadik, and so he did not want to take a lesson from Lavan.  He did not want to give Lavan's wickedness any cover, any positive quality.  Therefore, he said  וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.

Rashi on our parsha writes (25:20) about Rivka: בת בתואל מפדן ארם אחות לבן – להגיד שבחה: שהיתה בת רשע, ואחות רשע, ומקומה אנשי רשע, ולא למדה ממעשיהם.  Of course Rivka did not learn to do evil from Besuel, Lavan, and her surroundings.  The chiddush is that she did not take her inspiration from them for good either.  Her motivation came from inside, independently from what she saw as their bad example, and so in no way can they take credit for serving as a positive, motivating force.

What the scoffers were saying about Sarah is is that the years of chessed with Avraham were not enough to earn Sarah the right to conceive.  It was only once she was in Avimelech's home, when she had the negative example of his behavior to inspire her avodah, that she was finally able to merit having a child.  (For those who are not happy with seeing this from the Besh"T, see my son's post for a similar vort from the Beis haLevi and other answers as well.)  This is what the Torah comes to refute and tell us that it all came from Avraham.

Getting back to our original question about Eisav --  עוברת על פתח עבודה זרה ועשו מפרכס לצאת -- where does it say that Eisav wanted to get out to **worship** avodah zarah?  I don't want to give Eisav too much credit, but maybe at this point in his life, in utero, pre-the entrance of the yetzer ha'ra, that was not Eisav's intention at all. The difference between Yaakov and Eisav was where to draw inspiration from.  Yaakov wanted to run out to the beis medrash and derive his inspiration from there.  Eisav wanted to see what was going on in the beis avodah zarah because the zerizus for evil is sometimes even stronger than that for good, and can therefore serve as a better example for what we should be doing in a positive sense.

Rivka, who knew not to draw any inspiration from Besuel and Lavan's actions, thought this a very dangerous road to go down and was therefore troubled by Eisav's behavior.  Inspiration needs to come from inside, not from what we see out in the world.