Genesis · Chapter 32

And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of Hashem encountered him.

ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלהים AND THE ANGELS OF GOD MET HIM — The angels who minister in the Land of Israel came to meet him in order to escort him into the Holy Land (see Genesis Rabbah 74:17).

AND THE ANGELS OF G-D MET HIM. Rashi comments: “The angels who minister in the Land of Israel came to meet him. And he called the name of that place Mahanaim: the plural form implies two camps, one consisting of the angels ministering outside of the Land of Israel who had accompanied him thus far, the other consisting of those ministering in the Land of Israel who had come forth to meet him.”But I wonder at this, for Jacob had not yet reached the Land of Israel and was still distant from there for he sent messengers to Esau from afar. And then it says there, And he passed over the ford of the Jabbok, which is the river Jabbok which is the border of the children of Ammon. This is to the southeast of the Land of Israel, and he still had to pass the boundary of the children of Ammon and Moab, and then the land of Edom, and his first entry into the Land was at Shechem, as it is said, And Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan. This poses a difficulty to Rashi’s interpretation of “Mahanaim.” Instead, we must say this vision came to Jacob as he arrived in enemy territory in order to inform him that “they that are with him are more than they that are with them.” And the name of the place was called “Mahanaim” in the plural, for such is the way of Scripture with names. It may be that “Mahanaim” refers to His camp and the camp of the higher beings, that is to say that His camp on earth is as the camp of the angels, all of them being camps of G-d, blessing Him and confessing His Unity, may His name be blessed forever.

"And God's angels met him" — to assist him along the way. He alone saw a camp of angels surrounding his camp. He therefore called that place Mahanaim — on account of the two camps: one his own, and one belonging to the angels.

ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוקים, G'd's angels met him. We need to understand the meaning of "they met him." We also need to examine what new insight Jacob contributed by calling the angels' encampment "a camp of G'd." What exactly is the meaning of the word מחנים? Bereshit Rabbah 74,17 offers a variety of explanations all of which are homiletical. The plain meaning of the verse is that G'd sent Jacob angels in the guise of human beings to gain the confidence of Esau and to find out his intentions concerning him, as we observe in the course of what develops. How did Jacob know that he had been met by angels? The arrival of these people (angels) was not in the manner of ordinary human beings who are seen approaching before they arrive and set up camp. These angels materialised suddenly as if out of nowhere, as if they had sprouted up in front of him. The word ויפגעו alludes to the first sudden and unexpected encounter Jacob had with these beings. This is why he described their encampment as a camp of G'd the moment he set eyes on them. He called the place where this occurred מחנים, i.e. two camps. One camp consisted of Jacob's own people who had prepared with him for war against Esau, the second one was the camp of these angels who had assumed the appearance of human beings. They usually do so whenever they are despatched by G'd to assist someone who is dear to G'd, such as Jacob the choicest of the patriarchs.

ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוקים, “and angels of G’d met him.” These were the same angels who had been mentioned at the beginning of the portion who had been ascending and descending the ladder Yaakov had seen in his dream. This is what the Torah added כאשר ראם, “as he had seen them.” In other words, he was already familiar with these angels. We have a similar construction in Ezekiel 10,20 היא החיה אשר ראיתי, “this is the angel whom I had seen, etc.” Actually, the Torah could have written ויפגע במלאכי אלוקים, “he encountered angels of G’d.” The reason the Torah wrote that the angels met Yaakov instead of vice versa is a compliment to Yaakov. The purpose of the encounter was in order to protect Yaakov. It is similar to Psalms 91,15 כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will command His angels to guard you (the righteous) on all your paths.” There is a discussion in the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 78,2 as to who is greater, the guardian or the person whom he guards? The Midrash concludes that the person being guarded is greater than the guardian. The Midrash came to this conclusion based on the verse (Psalms 91,12) “to guard you on all your paths to carry you in their hands lest you hurt your foot on a stone.” The Midrash also asks: “who is greater the carrier or the one being carried?” It concludes that the person being carried is the more important of the two. Finally, the Midrash asks: “who is more important the one being met or the one who goes out to meet someone?” The Midrash concludes that the person being met is the more important of the two. We find some support for this in connection with the prophet Elisha. We read in Kings II 6,15: “when the attendant of the man of G’d rose early and went outside, he saw a force, with horses and chariots, surrounding the town and he said to his master: ‘what shall we do?’” The verse goes on to say: “do not be afraid there are more on our side than on theirs.” A little later the verse continues: “G’d opened the eyes of the servant and he saw and here the mountain all around Elisha was covered with horses and chariots of fire.” [The paragraph started with the one who meets, only to conclude with the ones being met, the latter becoming the victors in the ensuing battle. Ed.]

ויפגעו בו מלכי אלוקים, ”angels of G’d met him.” Rashi explains that these were the angels assigned to protect him while he was in the land of Israel. These angels now came to welcome Yaakov, whereas the ones who had accompanied him thus far still had not taken their leave. מחנים, “i.e. two camps.” Nachmanides is astounded at this interpretation by Rashi of these two verses, in view of the fact that Yaakov had not yet crossed into the territory of ארץ ישראל, and in fact was a long way distant from the border even when he sent messengers to Esau in verse 4. We were told shortly before that he had crossed the fording of the river Yabbok, a river which flows from East to West and ends up as a tributary to the river Jordan, the dividing line between the land of Canaan and the territories of Ammon and Moav. Even the land of Edom still lay between him and the Holy Land. Yaakov’s entry into the Holy Land occurred only when he arrived at Shechem physically and spiritually whole, as the Torah testifies in verse 18. We must therefore view what the Torah described here as a vision granted to Yaakov, a vision which was to reassure him that he had more friendly forces on his side than had Esau, his brother, whom he still had to confront. He called the location מחניים, to symbolize the occasion. There is nothing unusual in that.

And Jacob said, when he saw them: "This is a camp from before Hashem." And he called the name of that place Mahanaim.

מחנים means two camps — the one consisting of the angels ministering outside the Holy Land who had come with him thus far, the other, of those ministering in the Land of Israel who had come to meet him (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayishlach 3).

מחנה אלוקים זה. Now that the angels have seen fit to join me there can be no doubt that mine is a godly camp. Just as Yaakov had called the place where he had had the dream of the ladder Bet El, so he now referred to his camp as machaneh elokim. In either instance the reason was that he had been found worthy of a divine revelation. מחנים, two camps; the camp of G’d (angels) and his own. The grammatical formulation with the plural ending following the vowel patach, the stress is on the penultimate syllable as this indicated the number 2. Parallel examples are paamayim, shevuayim, shenatayim, etc.[the kametz here substitutes for the patach as it is the end of the sentence. Ed.]

מחנים, “camps;” a reference to two camps of angels meeting at this place; the ones who had protected him thus far, and the ones assigned to so while he would be in the Holy Land.

ויקרא שם המקום ההוא מחנים, “he called the name of that place Machanayim,” i.e. “two camps, meaning the camp of Yaakov and the camp of the angels. The Torah compared, i.e. accorded similar stature, to both camps. This teaches that the righteous are as important on earth as are the angels in the celestial spheres, the function of both being to carry out the will of their Creator. Another meaning of the name מחנים may be that it is an allusion to the future when the Jewish people would receive the Torah. At that time the angels would descend to earth in their hundreds of thousands to witness that event in order to watch the 600,000 Israelites who were all descendants of Yaakov. This is the meaning of Tanchuma Tetzaveh 11 that the words מחנה אלוקים זה, “this is the camp of the Lord,” refer to the 600,000 Israelites encamped around Mount Sinai. Concerning this same phenomenon we read in Song of Songs 7,1 שובי שובי השולמית, שובי שובי ונחזה בך מה תחזו בשולמית כמחולת ה-מחנים. “Turn back, turn back, O maid of Shulem! Turn back, turn back, that we may gaze upon you. “Why will you gaze at the Shulamite in the dance of Machanayim? [the joy at the giving of the Torah]”.

And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother, to the land of Seir, to the field of Edom.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים AND JACOB SENT MESSENGERS (Heb. מלאכים angels) — actually angels (Genesis Rabbah 75:4). ארצה שעיר means TO THE LAND OF SEIR — A word that requires a ל as prefix has a ה placed as a suffix (Yevamot 13b).

This section was written in order to inform us that the Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His servant, and He redeemed him from the hand of him that is stronger than he, and he sent an angel and saved him, and in order to further teach us that Jacob did not place his trust in his righteousness and that he strove for delivery with all his might. There is yet in this section a hint for future generations, for everything that happened to our father with his brother Esau will constantly occur to us with Esau’s children, and it is proper for us to adhere to the way of the righteous by preparing ourselves in the three things for which he prepared himself: for prayer, for giving him a present, and for rescue by methods of warfare, to flee and to be saved. Our Rabbis have already derived this hint from this section, as I shall mention. TO ESAU HIS BROTHER UNTO THE LAND SE’IR. Since the southern part of the Land of Israel adjoins Edom, and Jacob’s father dwelt in the land of the South, he had to pass through Edom or near there. Therefore, he feared lest Esau hear of it, and he took the initiative by sending messengers to him in his country. But the Sages have already taken him to task for this, saying in Bereshith Rabbah:2. “Like one that taketh a dog by the ears is he that passeth by, and meddleth with a strife not his own. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob, ‘Esau was going his way, and you send him messengers, and say to him, Thus saith thy servant Jacob!“ here. In my opinion this too hints at the fact that we instigated our falling into the hand of Edom [Rome] for the Hasmonean kings during the period of the Second Temple entered into a covenant with the Romans, and some of them even went to Rome to seek an alliance. This was the cause of their falling into the hands of the Romans. This is mentioned in the words of our Rabbis, and is well publicized in books. It was a popular work with the people of the Middle Ages. See also Ramban on Leviticus 26:16.

"And he sent" — We know that the land of Edom lies between Haran and the Land of Israel. This is a refutation of the Gaon [Saadia], who said that Sinai, Seir, and Paran are adjacent to one another. These messengers mentioned here were from among his servants.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים, in order to find out Esau’s state of mind concerning him. ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, to the region of Seir where he lived. At that time he had not yet conquered the whole Chori, the inhabitants of that land. (compare 36,8)

וישלח, He sent, etc. Why did the Torah say: לפניו, ahead of him, a word which appears to be superfluous? The word אחיו also needs justification. Who did not know that Esau was Jacob's brother? Even the words ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, "to the land of Se-ir the field of Edom," need an explanation. What difference would it make to the angels where Esau was located? Furthermore, why did the Torah use the expression ארצה instead of לארץ? Although Yevamot 13 states that wherever the letter ל is required at the beginning it can be substituted for by the letter ה at the end, this does not explain when the Torah chooses one method rather than another. The verse wants to justify the expression "he sent angels." Why did Jacob employ heavenly beings without a pressing need? He could have accomplished the same thing by employing human messengers! The Torah says לפניו, to tell us that since Jacob had already met with these angels and they had obviously come to help him, he was permitted to use them as messengers for a task that human messengers might prove inadequate for. Jacob reasoned that seeing that these messengers would meet an important man such as Esau, he might not consider messengers of a lower order as appropriate to his stature (compare Bereshit Rabbah 75). Esau might not have responded to any other messengers at all. It is also possible that Esau would immediately pounce on Jacob's human messengers as the eagle does when he swoops out of the skies, thus not giving him any warning before attacking him. For all these reasons Jacob was justified in employing celestial beings to act as his messengers. Perhaps he also hoped that when Esau became aware that he, Jacob, had celestial beings do his bidding he would desist from his planned attack on Jacob altogether. The Midrash we quoted above refers to those angels as being garbed in "fiery garments, riding horses of fire, etc." The reason the Torah mentions the word "his brother," is to emphasize that Jacob despatched the messengers in a spirit of brotherliness and that he accorded Esau the honour due to an older brother. He was afraid of engaging Esau in warfare in case the latter should invoke his father's merits. Another approach is also possible. The Torah emphasizes: אל עשו in order to tell us that on the one hand Esau hated him; on the other hand, the Torah wrote אל אחיו, to tell us that he did not hate him, that he was his brother. The messengers should be guided in their approach to Esau according to the frame of mind they would find him in. Since only celestial beings could divine Esau's frame of mind with any certainty, Jacob had to send celestial messengers to accomplish this task. Still another possibility is that Jacob's strategy was to send messengers to Esau before Esau had a chance to hear about his approach from another source. This is in line with the various Midrashim in which Jacob is criticised severely for not letting sleeping dogs lie, for demeaning himself by repeating so many times "your servant Jacob," etc. He chose to send angels who would not have to exert themselves by excessive travel. To the angels the whole universe appeared no greater than four cubits do to us mortal human beings. When the Torah reports that Jacob sent messengers ahead of him to Esau, the word לפניו, before him, is an allusion that the angels were still literally in his presence although they performed their mission to Esau who was quite a distance away. The reason that the Torah wrote ארצה שעיר instead of לארץ שעיר, is to emphasize that the angels did not actually have to go anywhere. All they had to do was to face in a different direction. The reason that the field is called "Edom" is that they would arrive at Esau's, i.e. the field of Edom, before the latter had a chance to even to get under way towards Jacob. This verse may also be understood as alluding to three different historical periods during each of which Esau's conduct would be different. One period finds Jacob and Esau in a brotherly relationship. This is alluded to by the words: "to Esau his brother." This period would extend until the destruction of the Holy Temple. Even though there were times prior to that when the Edomites were subjugated by Israel, such periods were relatively brief. During a different period in history, after the destruction of the Holy Temple until the end of the present era (before the advent of the Messiah), Esau would occupy a lofty position on earth and Israel would not even be considered by it as of any importance at all. This is the period which is alluded to here by the words ארצה שעיר, with the vowel patach under the letter א. This vowel underlines the superior position of Esau. The third period is the one we are hoping for when Edom will become an inheritance (for the Jewish people). This period is alluded to by the words שדה אדום, i.e. that Edom will be ploughed over as predicted by the prophet.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים, “Yaakov sent out messengers;” the meaning of the word: malachim here is, as understood by both translators into Aramaic, izgedin, runners, messengers; [human beings. Ed.] ארצה שעיר, “towards the land of Seir.” This land had originally belonged to “Seir,” but when Esau married Oholivamah, daughter of Ana, he inherited this land courtesy of his wife whose maternal links had been Ana, a daughter of Tzivon as stated in Genesis 36,2. Esau had moved there from the land of Canaan to spend more time with his wives to whom he felt greatly attached. Eventually this land was named after him, i.e. “field of Edom.” This term reminds everyone of Esau’s primary vocation as hunter in the field.

מעין נרפש ומקור משחת צדיק מט לפני רשע אכול דבש הרבות לא-טוב וחקר כבודם כבוד “A righteous man who falters in front of the wicked, is like a murky well and a polluted fountain. It is no good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to seek personal glory.”(Proverbs 25, 26-27) According to Bereshit Rabbah 75,2, Solomon taught us something here about the true measure of a righteous person. When you observe such a person falter in the face of the superior might of a wicked person, such a weakness is only momentary; it does not represent a capitulation of the righteous in face of evil. He will recover from such weakness (with the help of G’d.) This is why Solomon already wrote in Proverbs 24, 16: “For the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times.” In the end he will regain his composure and his honour and dignity. The whole matter can be compared to a well of spring water which someone steps into and momentarily causes the waters in that well to become murky. After a short while of leaving those waters to themselves they will become clear again. Similarly, the righteous will regain his composure and hence his dignity. The wicked is unable to permanently suppress the superior qualities of the righteous. Why did Solomon, or the sages who interpreted these verses of Proverbs, choose this comparison between a murky well and a polluted fountain? It is a well known fact that a river is fed by a fountain whereas the fountain draws on an original source of water. Both are recipients of their respective waters. The reason why the fountain is called מעין, i.e. something derived from עין, and we have the expression עין המים, (Genesis 24,13 where Eliezer met Rivkah) is that the eye, i.e. עין receives its water from the דמעה, the tear. Tears originate in the brain. When someone indulges in too much weeping he causes his brain to dry out. The מקור, “the source,” does not rely on outside sources for its input. It is a “self-starter.” Its waters keep increasing and never stop flowing. This is why the name מקור is an apt name applied to G’d, seeing that He is the fountainhead of everything, and seeing that because of this there is no danger that this source will ever fail. This is reflected in Jeremiah 17,13 מקור מים חיים את ה', that “the source of (life-giving) spring water is G’d Himself.” We also have Psalms 36,10 where the psalmist describes the source of such water as being with G’d, i.e. כי עמך מקור חיים, “with You is the fountain of life.” These considerations prompted Solomon to describe a righteous person who falters in the presence of a wicked person as comparable to murky waters and a polluted fountain. Both of these defects are temporary in nature and the force of the clear water is bound to reassert itself in time. Having told us that it is impossible to permanently sully and debase the reputation of a righteous person, just as it is impossible to permanently pollute such waters as he had described, Solomon goes on to say that one must investigate, i.e. seek out and praise the good qualities of the righteous. He describes the moral/ethical value of discovering these good qualities of the righteous by a conscious effort to find these qualities as something better than eating a lot of honey. Whereas the consumption of too much honey is not beneficial, spending a lot of effort in finding the good character qualities of the righteous is a very worthwhile discipline and trains a person to think along the right lines. There can be no question that praising the character of a righteous person is the result of a good nature, one that seeks out the good in a person rather than the negative qualities he may have. This is why Solomon describes the time spent extolling the righteous, the virtuous, as better than the time spent eating honey. The reverse is true of someone who praises good qualities he has found in a wicked person. This reflects bad characteristics of the person doing so and if persisted in will lead to the one who thought he had discovered “goodness” in the wicked person praising him altogether, not just a particular good characteristic he had discovered in such a person. It is a psychological truth that a person is apt to extol the virtues of people whose general characteristics he shares, i.e. when you hear who praises whom you know that they are “birds of a feather.” In chapter 28,45 of his Book Proverbs, Solomon is on record as עזבי תורה יהללו רשע, that “praising a wicked person is typical of someone who has abandoned the path of Torah.” The reason is simply that people have a habit of praising those with whom they have the most in common, or מין במינו, in the parlance of our sages. King David already made the same point in Psalms 15,4 when he said: ואת-יראי ה' יכבד, “but who honors those who fear the Lord;” [He had previously spoken about that same person saying that if he considers himself a הולך תמים, living without blame, he would have to display his disdain for the wicked. Ed.] Our sages in Makkot 24 understood this verse to apply to Yehoshaphat, King of Yehudah, who used to rise from his chair when he saw a Torah scholar and who would embrace him and kiss him and call him “my teacher.” There is something puzzling in all this. Why did the sages of the Talmud describe this particular characteristic of King Yehoshapat as something remarkable, when it is something which is incumbent upon every single Jew? Why was Yehoshaphat so special that if he complied with a virtue practiced by many, his complying with it should deserve special mention? Did not our sages comment on Ezekiel 4,14 נבלה וטרפה לא אכלתי, “I have not eaten that which died by itself or that which was torn,” (the prophet speaking) that they could not see what news the prophet told us that we had not known before? Had we then expected the prophet to have been guilty of eating such things? The sages explained that the prophet spoke about that which was permitted to him legally but which he had refrained from as there was a question if such animal had been rendered unfit as a sacrifice due to some concealed defect which had come to light too late for the sacrifice to have qualified for consumption. In the case of Yehoshaphat we could have assumed that the fact that he was King and as such not only not obligated but maybe even not allowed to waive his honour in favour of Torah scholars, he would have refrained from paying them such honour. If, nonetheless, he did honor them it was worth noting as it demonstrated an exceptional virtue. Coming back to our verse and the Midrash’s interpretation of it, we must remember that when Yaakov displayed a demeaning attitude when bowing repeatedly to Esau the wicked and addressing him as “my master,” as well as when sending gifts to him, this was all part of Yaakov’s momentary weakness though in the end he roused himself and assumed the posture fitting to a man of his stature. וישלח יעקב מלאכים לפניו אל עשו אחיו ארצה שעיר שדה אדום “Yaakov sent messengers ahead of him to his brother Esau to the Mountain of Se-ir the land of Edom.” The word מלאכים includes both messengers dispatched by human beings and messengers dispatched by G’d. Seeing that at the time Yaakov had been forced to flee to Padan Aram due to his fear of his brother Esau, he now made an attempt to assuage Esau’s hurt feelings and to ask his goodwill by sending messengers, i.e. servants, members of his household. These messengers were accompanied by the messengers (angels) who had met him at Machanayim as we had read in the previous paragraph. In this matter he acted just as had his grandfather Avraham when he had sent Eliezer on an errand to secure a wife for Yitzchak when he had prayed to G’d and had assured Eliezer that a celestial messenger would assist him in his quest (compare Genesis 24,7 “He will send His angel ahead of you.”) I already explained in that connection that the angel preceded Eliezer at the well. Something similar happened here in that the angels G’d had sent to meet Yaakov and who went with the messengers whom Yaakov sent out with the gifts preceded the gifts and thus prevented Esau his brother from harming Yaakov. All of this is based on the fact that the word מלאכים can have either of the two meanings we mentioned earlier. If we need to look for proof that celestial messengers were involved here also, all we need to look at are the words: וישובו המלאכים אל יעקב לאמור, “the messengers returned to Yaakov saying, etc.” If these returning messengers had been human beings, the Torah should have reported: “the angels came to Esau and told him such and such; subsequently they returned to Yaakov reporting that they had carried out their instructions.” The Torah does not mention any of this. This proves that the messengers in question were celestial creatures and the words (verse 7) in which the Torah reports a reply by the messengers telling him that Esau approaches with 400 armed men indicate that they answered Yaakov (וישובו) without having bothered to first go there. They had been there and they knew that Esau approached with hostile intentions. When the Torah continues in that same verse with the words באנו אל אחיך, “we have come to your brother,” this refers to human messengers; this is why the Torah had to report things in a sequential manner, i.e. that the messengers returned and told Yaakov they had completed their mission. When analysing the more mystical aspect of the matter, it is possible to view these messengers as fulfilling a dual role, i.e. both as Yaakov’s messengers and as G’d’s messengers, similarly to Eliezer functioning both as a celestial messenger when the Torah described him as האיש, and as an ordinary human being, servant of Avraham, when the Torah referred to him as העבד, “the servant.” This would account for the fact that the Torah described the messengers as מלאכים, although they were creatures of flesh and blood. Both approaches correspond to the truth. It is simply a matter of emphasis, i.e. whether we concentrate on the external aspects of what occurred, i.e. that which was visible to the physical eye, or whether we concentrate on the more fundamental aspects of the matter, something not visible to the naked eye. It appears that the opinion of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra is based on his commentary on Parshat Balak (Numbers 22,28), where he writes ”the correct interpretation is that the she-ass actually spoke,” [i.e. that this was one of the ten miracles mentioned in the Mishnah in Avot 5,6 and Pessachim 54, involving a radical departure from the laws of nature]. If one understands the mystical aspect of the mission of the angels who came to visit Avraham, one can similarly understand the mystical aspect of the mission of the messengers described in our verse.” Thus far Ibn Ezra. It is well known (based on Nachmanides) that Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father, resided in the southern part of Eretz Yisrael at this time, so that Yaakov would have had to pass through the land of Edom on his return from Padan Aram in order to rejoin his father. This is why he was so scared of Esau, as he feared Esau would come out to block his way. This is why he sent the messengers to head off any hostile confrontation. The sages of the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 75,2 take a different view. They describe Yaakov as taking hold of the ears of a dog by getting involved in a struggle which was not his. The last we had heard of Esau was that he pursued his own interests and married another wife to mollify his parents (28,9). According to Bereshit Rabbah 75,5 Yaakov acted very precipitously by sending messengers to Esau and reminding him of his existence, almost provoking him into a confrontation. This is how they interpret the verse in Proverbs we started out with, i.e. that Yaakov unnecessarily muddied the waters. They ascribe an overly obsequious letter from Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi to the governor of Palestine Antoninus as reflecting this lack of backbone displayed here by his ancestor Yaakov. Antoninus reputedly replied to this letter by questioning Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi: “are you then my servant? I wish I would become your servant in the hereafter.” Rabbi Yehudah replied “I am not greater than my ancestor Yaakov; and you are not smaller than your ancestor Esau.” After all, my ancestor Yaakov sent a message to your ancestor Esau in which he addressed him as ‘your servant Yaakov.’” According to an opinion in that Midrash, we learn from here that Royalty must be addressed deferentially.

“And Jacob sent angels before him.” Rashi explains these were actual angels. Some say he derived this from the proximity of this sending to the verse and angels of God encountered him. Others say it is derived from the initials of Machanayim — from that army Jacob took angels. Rabbeinu Bachya explains that he derived it from the writing “and the angels returned” when we don’t find mention of them going — because before they went, they had already returned. One can explain that this is derived from the phrase before him [lefanav] which is only mentioned here. For it says And Moses sent messengers (Numbers 20:14), and it is written And Israel sent messengers (Numbers 21:21), but “before him” is not mentioned. Rather, here it speaks of actual angels whose way is to go before him, as it is written For My angel shall go before you (Exodus 23:23). This hints that they were before him constantly, even while they were with Esau, and they appeared in two distant places simultaneously — something only possible with actual angels. And if you wish to interpret and the angels returned as referring to their verbal response when they answered him we came to your brother then it necessarily follows from within the text itself that they were actual angels.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים לפניו, “Yaakov sent messengers ahead of him.” Their assignment was to walk in front of him. Alternatively, their assignment was to investigate the “face” of Esau, i.e. his attitude toward Yaakov at this time. Although G’d had given Yaakov all kinds of assurances, (some time earlier) he did not rely on his righteousness alone to save him from Esau, but took every prudent precaution to minimize the risk to his family and to himself. Yaakov’s conduct is to serve as a model for his children and future descendants to teach them how to deal with the descendants of Esau. Just as he prayed, offered bribes, and was prepared for battle, so his descendants should employ these three means of insuring their survival also. ארצה שעיר, שדה אדום, “the land Seir, the field of Edom.” Anyone traveling from Charan to the land of Israel travels through the land of Seir. Even though Esau spent most of his time in the land of Canaan, as is clear from Genesis 36,6: “Esau took his wives and went to “a (another) land,” on account of his brother Yaakov,” Yaakov had reason to believe that he would encounter him near his wives, who had come from the land of Seir. Our sages have criticized Yaakov, comparing his conduct to the proverbial “he who grabs the ears of a dog must not be surprised if he gets bitten.” Yaakov’s sending gifts ahead to Esau alerted him to the fact that he was about to approach him. Yaakov’s mistake was repeated during the latter days of the second Jewish commonwealth, when the Romans were invited by a Jewish king Aristobul, descendant of the Maccabees, to conclude an alliance with him. This was the beginning of the collapse of the Jewish commonwealth and of the second Temple, followed by total loss of Jewish independence, such as it had been.

And he commanded them, saying: "Thus shall you say to my lord, to Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob — I have sojourned with Laban and have tarried until now.

גרתי I HAVE SOJOURNED — I have become neither a prince nor other person of importance but merely a sojourner. It is not worth your while to hate me on account of the blessing of your father who blessed me (27:29) “Be master over thy brethren”, for it has not been fulfilled in me (Tanchuma Yashan 1:8:5). Another explanation: the word גרתי has the numerical value of 613 - תרי״ג - it is as much as to say, “Though I have sojourned with Laban, the wicked, I have observed the תרי״ג מצות, the 613 Divine Commandments, and I have learned naught of his evil ways.

THUS SHALL YE SAY UNTO MY LORD ESAU: THUS SAITH THY SERVANT JACOB. He commanded them that they should say “to my lord Esau we belong,” or “we were sent to him,” and to say to him, Thus saith thy servant Jacob: I have sojourned with Laban. A similar example in this section is the verse: When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? The verse concludes that they are to tell him that it is a gift “to my lord Esau.” Again Jacob is telling them what to say. It may be that in their presence Jacob called Esau “my lord Esau” in order to caution them not to mention Esau in any other but a respectful way even when not in his presence, inasmuch as their lord calls him “my lord.”Know that this respect which Jacob showed for his brother by fearfully saying “my lord” and “thy servant” was due to it being the custom of the younger brother to give recognition and respect to the firstborn as if he were his father, just as the Torah also hints to us on this matter: Commenting on the letter vav in the expression, ve’eth imecha (“honor thy father ‘and’ thy mother“), our Rabbis said: “This includes your oldest brother!” “This includes your oldest brother.” Now Jacob had taken his birthright and his blessing, for which Esau hated him, and now he is acting towards Esau as if the effect of that sale was nil as far as he was concerned, and he is conducting himself towards him as to a firstborn and father in order to remove the hatred from his heart.

"Thus shall you say to my lord" — He instructed them to say this, so that it would become clear to them that he regarded Esau as his master, and that they should speak with him in the manner of a servant's deference. As for "until now" [עַד עָתָּה] — the aleph is a marker of the first person speaker, and the quiescent nun that follows it stands in place of the root aleph; similarly, "I love those who love me" (Proverbs 8:17), because it is heavy on the tongue to pronounce two alephs. The form belongs to the qal binyan.

ואחר עד עתה. This is why I did not come to pay my respects to you until now.

ויצו אותם לאמור, He instructed them to say, etc. We must first understand the reason for the word לאמור, seeing that Jacob had already said to these messengers: "thus you shall say." Perhaps Jacob meant that they should tell Esau that they had been instructed to say precisely the words they were about to say. Otherwise, Esau might form the impression that the messengers related to him with deference and called him "his master," being aware that he was the senior brother and that it was only common courtesy to address him in that fashion, but that Jacob himself had never uttered the word אדון in relation to his brother. Jacob wanted to be sure that Esau realised that he himself had addressed him as אדון, master. He did so in order to remove any vestige of hatred and jealousy Esau might still, harbour against him in his heart. Were this not the true reason it is difficult to understand why Jacob should refer to Esau as his master even while Esau was not present. We must conclude therefore that Jacob used this term of flattery in order to avoid a possible war between himself and Esau. עם לבן גרתי, "I have sojourned with Laban, etc." What precisely did Jacob tell Esau in this speech that Esau had not known? Perhaps it is the custom between brothers who are on good terms with one another to exchange details about their experiences in life. Jacob may have done so in order to show that he considered himself on good terms with Esau. In addition Jacob may have acted very cleverly by implying that there was no point in Esau behaving in a hostile manner, that Laban had already tried this for many years and it had not benefited him at all. The words: עם לבן גרתי were a veiled reference to the wickedness of that man. If he, Jacob, after so many years in the house of that man returned now as a wealthy man with a large family this was proof that it paid to be on good terms with a man such as he. He added: ואחר עד עתה, I delayed my return until now, meaning that all of his wealth had not been acquired in a short period of time but that his success had been ongoing. When he added that he had acquired a substantial amount of wealth, he intimated that his wealth notwithstanding he described himself as junior, as "a servant" to his older brother. His words were designed to melt even a heart of stone.

לאדני, לעשו, “to my lord, to Esau.” We find Yaakov addressing Esau as “my lord,” no fewer than eight times in this portion. This may be the reason why eight kings ruled in the land of Edom before the first king ruled in the land of Israel. כה אמר עבדך יעקב, “thus has said your obedient servant Yaakov;” Yaakov used this subservient posture in order to cool Esau’s burning anger at what he perceived that Yaakov had done to him. He hinted broadly that his father’s blessing which had portrayed Esau as subservient to him had not been fulfilled at all. In fact, he, Yaakov, was quite ready to recognise his older brother as also his senior. עם לבן גרתי, he explains that he had learned to adopt such a wealth of animals and servants this was due to my having stayed with my uncle many years. If he had stayed in someone else’s house during all these years he would still be penniless. An alternate explanation of the line: “I have sojourned with Lavan; ”you are aware that I stayed with Lavan as my father and mother have commanded me.” He said this in order to underline that Esau should not flatter himself that he had been a fugitive from Esau’s wrath. A third alternate exegesis of these words: Esau should not be cross that he had not come sooner to pay his respects to him; the only reason for this was that he had been indentured to Lavan under contract.

כה תאמרון לאדוני לעשו, this what you are to say to my lord Esau, etc.” This does not mean that Yaakov addressed Esau as “my lord” even in his absence. It means that Yaakov instructed messengers that if they would be asked they were to say that what they were guarding and guiding was destined as “a gift for my lord Esau”, just as the Torah describes in verse 19. עם לבן גרתי, “I have stayed with Lavan, etc.” He was anxious to at one and the same time describe the fact that he had not stayed away from home for 22 years out of fear of his brother’s vengeance, but had remained with Lavan as he had had to work very hard. We find the words גרתי משך in that context in Psalms 120,5 where the psalmist bemoans the fact that he had to dwell for a long time with the Meshech and the clans of Kedar. Secondly, he informed Esau that he had become very wealthy though this was of secondary importance to him. G’d had granted him wealth in return for his hard labour. His wealth was the result of the sweat of his brow, he had not inherited it from his fathers. Had his wealth derived from an inheritance, Esau would have been entitled to his share of the inheritance. Thirdly, he wanted Esau to know that he came in peace and was interested in a brotherly relationship with Esau. He was sending the messengers and the gifts to prepare the way for a friendly reunion.

“Thus says your servant Jacob: I have sojourned with Laban and stayed until now.” Rashi explains garti [I have sojourned] [in two ways]: [First,] I did not become a prince or important person, but rather remained a stranger [ger]. Alternatively, garti [has the numerical value of] 613 — [indicating that] I kept the 613 commandments. These two interpretations contradict each other, because if he was telling him “I did not become a prince,” then he was approaching him with submission. But if he was telling him “I kept the 613 commandments,” this implies the opposite — that he was sending a message that he was not afraid of him, because he had kept the 613 commandments and therefore was not included in [Isaac’s blessing to Esau] when you shall break free, you shall break his yoke from your neck. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why he called him my Lord and referred to himself as servant, along with the other acts of submission he showed him. Additionally, it is puzzling why the verse would express [the keeping of] 613 [commandments] through the language of garti [sojourned]. Therefore my heart says that these two interpretations both show the truth simultaneously, not like Rashi’s explanation of “another interpretation,” which implies that each interpretation stands on its own. This is the explanation of the matter: Jacob sent [a message] to say “I have dwelled with Laban” — I did not become an important official but rather a stranger/sojourner, telling him that the blessings had not been fulfilled in him. He did not come to contradict his father or Heaven forbid make his blessings worthless, but rather said this: When my father blessed me, he thought I was Esau and blessed me with this understanding, and the deception I carried out did not benefit me, for the deceitful one will not roast his prey — referring to what he fed his father to obtain the blessings. For no person can touch what is prepared for another, and all the blessings follow my father’s intention, and in his mind they were meant to take effect on Esau’s head and so it shall be. The proof of this is that I am a stranger in the land, not an important official. And if you would say the blessings will eventually be fulfilled in me, and the reason I haven’t become important until now is because I haven’t fulfilled the Torah — for this was the condition at the time of receiving the blessings, contingent on fulfilling the 613 commandments, as it is said And it shall be when you break free and cast off his yoke etc. To this he said garti [I dwelled] — behold I kept the 613 commandments and nevertheless did not become important, rather certainly my actions did not help, for deception does not benefit the deceiver, and the blessings will take effect on the head of whom Isaac intended at the time of giving the blessings. Therefore he said garti, which includes both meanings — the concept of being a stranger/sojourner, and the concept of 613 [commandments], telling you that even though I kept the 613 commandments, nevertheless I am a stranger in the land. For if not this, why did he say garti [I dwelled]? He should have said “avadeti [I served],” for in truth he was a servant to Laban which demonstrates even more the opposite of the blessing be master over your brothers. Rather, it was to understand from the word garti the letters of “taryag” (613). And if I were not afraid of my colleagues, I would erase “another interpretation” from Rashi’s commentary, for in truth both interpretations need each other.

כה תאמרו לאדוני לעשו, “thus you shall say to my lord, to Esau.” This does not mean that Yaakov called his brother: “my lord,” as this would not make sense unless you are in the presence of the person so described. It means that he commanded his servants to address Esau with the title “my lord, thus has said your servant Yaakov.” when they would meet him. It is also possible that that Yaakov did refer to Esau as “my lord” even when he was not in his presence in order to warn his messengers to address him with the proper degree of deference even when they were not in his presence. They would do so once they noticed that even their own master did so even in his absence. All of this was not an unusually obsequious behaviour by Yaakov, but it was customary for the younger brother to refer to his older brother in such terms, as a sign of respect. The reason the Torah reports all this, is to tell us that although Yaakov had purchased the birthright from his brother, he still considered him the senior brother, biologically speaking. He hoped to persuade Esau by this stratagem that the “birthright” in terms of personal honour, was of no concern to him whatsoever. עם לבן גרתי, ”I have sojourned with Lavan, etc.” I have stayed all this time even though he kept treating me like a stranger (and not like a son-in-law). ואחר עד עתה, “I delayed my return until now.” I was not forced by external pressures to delay my return, but I did so of my own free will.

And I have oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants, and I have sent to inform my lord, to find favor in your eyes."

ויהי לי שור וחמור AND I HAVE OXEN AND ASSES — Our father promised me, (27:28) “[God will give thee] of the dew of heaven and of the fat places of the earth” — these are neither of the heaven nor of the earth שור וחמור (literally, an ox and an ass) — It is the customary thing to speak of many oxen as an ox (Genesis Rabbah 75:6) — a man says to his fellow, “During the night the cock crowed”; he does not say “the cocks crowed” ואשלחה להגיד לאדוני AND I HAVE SENT TO TELL MY LORD — to announce that I am coming to you. למצא חן בעיניך THAT I MAY FIND FAVOUR IN THY EYES, for I am at peace with you and seek your friendship.

AND I HAVE SENT TO TELL MY LORD. I.e., “to announce that I am coming to you. That I may find favour in thy sight for I am at peace with you and seek your friendship.” These are Rashi’s words. Rashi’s intent is that the verse; I have sent to tell my lord, does not refer to the previous verse, I have sojourned with Laban, etc. but, instead, it says, “And I have sent to tell my lord that I have come to find favour in thy sight and to do whatever my lord will command.”But it is more correct to say that it refers to the verse above: “And I have sent to tell my lord that I have wealth, belongings, and precious things, to do with them according to your desire and will.” He thus hinted to him that he would send him a present from them, or that Esau may take from him whatever he desires. And so, when Esau asked Jacob, What meanest thou by all this camp which I met? he [Jacob] said: To find favour in the sight of my lord.

"Ox and donkey" — these are generic nouns denoting the species. "And I have sent to tell" — meaning: it is my wish to do whatever he commands. This is the sense of "to find favor."

למצוא חן בעיניך, for I have no doubt that you will be happy to see that I have become wealthy and the fact that I tell you the good news will please you.

למצוא חן בעיניך, in order to find favour in your eyes.” Yaakov wants a reconciliation with his brother, and in order to achieve this he is willing to be completely transparent with Esau concerning all that he owns.

ויהי לי שור וחמור, “I acquired oxen and donkeys, sheep and servants.” Yaakov mentioned his great wealth by understating it, i.e. as if he had only acquired a single ox and a single donkey, etc., as he did not want to appear boastful. He followed the dictates of Jeremiah 9,22 “let not the wealthy boast of his wealth.” It is customary for all righteous people to belittle themselves and their belongings. The wicked, by contrast, boast of their wealth as we see from Esau who claimed יש לי רב, “I own a great deal” (33,9). Actually, if the Torah had followed its own rules, it should have mentioned the sheep first, i.e. צאן וחמור, שור seeing that the category called צאן, i.e. sheep and goats, is the most superior species amongst the animals. We find that the Torah does so in the case of Avraham (Genesis 12,16) “and he treated Avram well on her account so that he acquired (flocks of) sheep and (herds of) cattle, etc.” We find a similar sequence in the way the Torah describes Yitzchak’s wealth (Genesis 26,14) “he acquired flocks of sheep and herds of cattle.” We also find this order of Yaakov’s wealth when the Torah (as distinct from Yaakov) describes it in 30,43: ”he acquired many sheep and maid-servants and men-servants and camels and donkeys.” You will note that in all of these instances the sheep (and goats) are mentioned first. If Yaakov did not want to mention his sheep and goats first this was because Esau had “lost” his blessing on account of these goats. Rivkah had sent Yaakov to the צאן, instructing him to select two good goats to prepare a meal for Yitzchak which could compete with the venison Esau was expected to hunt.(27,9). Mentioning the צאן first would have sounded like rubbing salt in Esau’s wound. It is interesting to note that after the angels had returned to Yaakov with their report of Esau approaching in a hostile manner, the Torah describes Yaakov as dividing his earthly possessions into two camps (32,8). Again the Torah lists the צאן before any other livestock. Even after Yaakov and Esau had reconciled and Esau had accepted Yaakov’s gifts as a sign of the reconciliation, the Torah again lists the צאן first in 33,13 A Midrashic (Tanchuma Vayishlach 1) approach to our verse: “Why did Yaakov first mention the fact that he had acquired oxen? He hinted that Joseph, who was going to be known as שור, “ox”, had already been born. Joseph was to be the natural enemy of Esau and what Esau represented. When describing future events, the prophet Ovadiah, 18 uses Joseph as symbolic of the entire Jewish people when he predicts: “and the House of Joseph flame, and the house of Esau straw; they shall burn it and devour it, and no survivor will be left of the House of Esau, -for the Lord has spoken.” In Deuteronomy 33,17 when Moses blesses the Jewish people, he wrote of Joseph: בכור שורו הדר לו, “like the firstling bull in his majesty, he has horns like the horns of a wild-ox.”

And I have oxen and donkeys. Rashi explains that a person refers to many oxen as a single ox. Since Jacob said Thus says your servant Jacob, calling himself a servant, he was saying to Esau that the blessing Be master over your brothers belongs to you [Esau], and I am your servant. And what a servant acquires belongs to his master, so what benefit is there to the owner if the servant has nothing in his possession? And how will a poor servant find favor in his master’s eyes? Therefore, Jacob said I have everything — oxen and donkeys — because through this I will find favor in your eyes, and what’s mine is yours. This is why he said I have sent to tell my Lord, to find favor in your eyes, for a wealthy servant finds more favor in his master’s eyes than a poor servant. This is why he referred to many oxen as a single ox, to say that what I have is not mine, and many oxen are like one ox because I am under others’ authority, therefore everything is considered in my eyes as minimal. Another explanation: He came to minimize himself and say that just as the blessing Be master over your brothers was not fulfilled in me, so too all the other blessings were not fulfilled in me. For my father told me [I would receive] from the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth, but this [wealth] is neither from heaven nor from earth — this is Rashi’s language. However, this is difficult — if so, where did the animals come from? From the air? Or were they created ex nihilo? Rather, this is its explanation: My father said And may God give you from the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth. The “and” [vav] of and may give indicates that I am first obligated to act naturally, doing everything within my power to work and bear the burden through my own efforts for all my needs. And this small amount that I can achieve through my own strength and might — God will send His blessing into it with abundant increase and abundance, until this small amount before me will break forth abundantly. This is the blessing from the dew of heaven — like this dew which does not depend on man nor wait for humans. Similarly, the additional blessing of abundance does not depend on the work of one’s hands. Likewise, the earth will add from its finest and fatness an increase of abundance. Therefore it says and may give with a vav, because in addition to what I achieve through my toil, God will add to me from His blessing an abundance of satisfaction and fullness of God’s blessing. As it is written (Sifrei Re’eh 158), “One might think even if he sits idle? Therefore Scripture states in all the work of your hands which you do. And so I did — I was not sitting idle but rather worked and toiled greatly, and sleep fled from my eyes these 20 years, until this handful of rest that I have was achieved from handfuls of toil and vexation of spirit. And this small amount, like a small man’s palm, is all in exchange for my work and this is mine. But I have not seen any additional blessing here. If the blessings were fulfilled in me, that God would add to me from the dew of heaven and fat of the earth as He said, then by rights I should have oxen and donkeys and servants and maidservants twice as many, a thousand times over. And according to the proportion of the blessings, all that you see that I have is considered as nothing more than one ox and one donkey, and I don’t see in my handiwork any multiplication of abundance and blessing, only what the nature of toil requires. For I have dwelled with Laban, and not for nothing did I dwell with him, but rather for the hard work which I toiled, and everything was in payment for my work. But there is no additional blessing here, for in proportion to the blessings, this is nothing but one ox. And if you were to say the blessings have indeed been fulfilled in you, and that the reason you only have this small amount is because you only labored for a short time — a year or two — and according to the natural return for such effort, you shouldn’t have even this much wealth, except that God’s blessing rests upon your handiwork. To this he [Jacob] responds, I have sojourned with Laban, and furthermore, until now — from the day I left you until now it has been 20 years in his house. And with all the effort over such a long period, my hand has not found great wealth, but only this small amount which I have, which is what one might naturally obtain through much toil and effort. If so, this cannot be [the fulfillment of the blessing of] the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth. And if you will say [one might object], “I never worked for all this except for a short time, and it increased greatly due to the blessings.” And what you took as proof from the statement “until now” is not proof, for who can say that you toiled and worked all those days? Perhaps you worked only some of the days, and afterwards you lived there without serving because living there was pleasing in your eyes, as sometimes it is difficult for a person to separate from good people with whom he dwells and is accustomed to. Therefore, he [Jacob] specified saying I have sojourned with Laban — this Laban, the deceiver and scoundrel, you know the man and his deeds — and woe to me that I had to dwell such a long time with a man of evil deeds. And why did I delay until now? This is only because necessity brought me to this point, for with all my toil over this long time, my hand has only attained this small amount which is before me. And if you will ask why I delayed for such a long time, [one might think] it was because “a place finds favor in the eyes of its inhabitants” and I was a permanent resident there, therefore the separation was difficult for me. To this he responds I have sojourned [garti] — I was merely a temporary dweller there and not a permanent resident, and I was wandering in fields and forests. Therefore, neither the charm of the place upon its inhabitants applies here, nor the charm of its owner, for Laban is his name and villainy is with him. Nevertheless, I stayed there for such a long time. Even so, I have acquired ox and donkey — for in comparison to the blessings [I was supposed to receive], everything amounts to just one ox, and there is no blessing here except what naturally results from toil. Thus, none of the blessings were fulfilled in me — neither the blessing of be a master [since I am merely a sojourner], nor the blessing of abundant prosperity that comes from the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth, for all this came through toil and not from the abundant blessing that comes from heaven’s dew and earth’s richness. Therefore it says he took from what came to his hand as a gift for Esau — showing him as if everything he had was not from heaven and earth, but rather from what came to his hand, meaning what came to him through his strength and the labor of his hands, and did not come through additional divine blessing. He hinted at this to Esau when he instructed his messengers to respond to the question to whom do you belong with to your servant Jacob. Why would they say to your servant Jacob? After all, the earth and its fullness belong to God — they should have said that these servants were given to Jacob by God! Rather, [they said this] so that Esau would not understand that the servants came to him through additional divine blessing, but rather through Jacob’s own toil. Nevertheless, God forbid to say that Jacob attributed his capability to his own strength and might. Rather, out of fear he spoke falsely, and when confessing before the Holy One, blessed be He, he said exactly the opposite, as will be explained shortly in the verse I have become small [katonti].

ויהי לי שור וחמור, “I acquired herds and flocks, etc.” Even though I have always been considered a יושב אהלים, a “yeshivah bachur, a “highbrow,” a misfit in the world of “men of the world,” I am not as naïve as you think, as thanks to G’d’s help I have become wealthy. This was not a boast, but Yaakov wanted to make Esau think twice before he would launch a military attack on him. ואשלחה להגיד לאדוני, “I have sent messengers to inform my lord of my impending arrival.” According to Rashi these words were meant to show Esau that Yaakov came with friendly intentions, bent on healing any breach that had existed between them. According to this explanation, the words are not a repetition of something implied previously. Nachmanides does understand the last few words as referring to what had been said before, i.e. Yaakov’s announcing that he had become wealthy since he had last seen Esau. Seeing that he had attained such wealth, he was able to treat Esau with the honour due to an older brother. i.e. this was the reason for the tokens of his esteem he had sent ahead of himself. If Esau, preferred, he could make a selection of the gifts Yaakov had sent for his approval. Some commentators see in Yaakov’s conduct confirmation of what Solomon said in Proverbs 19,7 כל אחי-רש שנאהו, “all the brothers of a poor man hate him.” Yaakov wanted Esau to know that he did not have to hate him, as he had not come as a potential burden, i.e. a poor relation who is in need of a handout. On the contrary, he was bent on finding favour in his eyes.

And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying: "We came to your brother, to Esau, and he is also coming to meet you, and four hundred men are with him."

באנו אל אחיך אל עשו WE CAME TO THY BROTHER, TO ESAU — to him of whom you said he is my brother, but he behaves towards you as Esau, the wicked — he is still harbouring hatred (Genesis Rabbah 75:7).

AND THE MESSENGERS RETURNED TO JACOB, SAYING. These messengers had fulfilled their mission, but Scripture did not relate this for it would serve no purpose. The meaning of the expression, And moreover he cometh to meet thee, is that “even as you go to meet him, so he goes to meet you, and you will quickly encounter one another.”

"And moreover he is coming to meet you" — because he was told that you are coming.

וגם הולך לקראתך, not only have we seen him, but he did not react with satisfaction when we told him about your wealth. But, אגם הולך לקראתך עם ארבע מאות איש, he also marches toward you with 400 men in order to attack you. The expression לקראת meaning to approach with hostile intent is repeated in Numbers 20,20 when again Edom (Esau) is threatening the Israelites.

וישבו המלאכים, The messengers returned, etc. The meaning is that they brought back a reply and said "we have come to your brother, to Esau, etc." i.e. he presented himself as your brother, whereas in actual fact he has remained Esau. "He is also coming to meet you," i.e. as a brother, but since he has taken four hundred armed men with him this is proof of his evil intentions against you. The words "we have come to your brother" may also mean that although he has met us with a happy face i.e. displaying brotherliness, we displayed anger ourselves seeing that he has remained Esau true to form. This is what the Midrash we have quoted meant when it described the messengers as appearing garbed in fiery garments riding on fiery horses. The reason the messengers did not bring back a definitive evaluation was because outwardly Esau displayed brotherliness whereas in his heart he was still the same old Esau, hating Jacob.

וגם הולך לקראתך, “he is also coming toward you happy to welcome you.” וארבע מאות איש עמו, “he took them along in order to honour you.”

וגם הולך לקראתך, “and he is also coming towards you, etc.” It is possible to explain the word וגם as including the celestial representative of Esau. who was also on the way to engage Yaakov in battle as we know from verse 25 ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.” This would reinforce what I have written earlier that if the מלאכים which the Torah describes Yaakov as having sent ahead as spies or messengers had been mere mortal human beings, how would these have known anything about the celestial representative of Esau being on the way to engage Yaakov in mortal combat? The reason the Torah uses two expressions to describe Yaakov’s fear, i.e. ויירא ויצר לו, is that Yaakov worried both about the approaching physical ecounter with Esau and at the same time he worried about the spiritual confrontation which was apparently about to take place between his and Esau’s spirit. וארבע מאות איש עמו., “and four hundred (armed) men with him.” These men were all ready for combat. The reason the Torah did not describe these men as coming with Esau by the word אתו rather than עמו, is that the expression אתו is reserved for the righteous. We find it in connection with the righteous Joseph such as in Genesis 39,23 באשר ה' את, seeing that G’d was with him.” The reverse is true of the wicked when we read in Chronicles 2,32,8 עמו זרוע בשר, ועמנו ה' אלוקינו לעזרנו, “with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our G’d.”

“We came to your brother, to Esau.” The messengers said to him [Jacob], “You told him Thus says your servant Jacob, as if acknowledging the blessings, saying ‘you are the mighty Lord and I am your servant.’ However, Esau did not accept this and said he is not a servant but rather a brother. This is what they meant when they said we came to your brother — according to Esau’s own words that he said ‘he is my brother’ and not ‘my servant.’ Through this, he revealed to us that his heart is not at peace with you. And not only is he not at peace with you, but he is also coming towards you — and this can only mean to wage war against you. The proof of this is that 400 men are with him, which can only be for the purpose of war. Another explanation of we came to your brother is that he shows signs of brotherhood and love, however, we see the opposite of this as well, for he is coming out to meet you. Therefore we are perplexed by the matter. For this reason Jacob said Save me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau — for he presents himself as a brother, but in truth he is Esau in his wickedness and the deceptive hunter. As it says God is with me among my helpers (Psalms 118:7) — referring to those who present themselves as helpers and lovers, while hatred is concealed in their hearts.

וגם הולך לקראתך, “he is also on his way to meet you.” Just as you are walking towards him, so he is coming towards you, and you will soon meet up with one another. The reason the messengers phrased Esau’s approach not as בא לקראתך, the usual syntax, but said הולך לקראתך, was to alert Yaakov that while on the way, Esau was mobilizing his soldiers, before meeting up with his brother.

And Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed, and he divided the people who were with him, and the flocks and the cattle and the camels, into two camps.

ויירא... ויצר HE FEARED GREATLY AND WAS DISTRESSED — He was afraid lest he be killed, and he was distressed that he might have to kill someone (Genesis Rabbah 76:2).

THEN JACOB WAS GREATLY AFRAID. This was because they told him that Esau had gone forth from his city and was coming to meet Jacob, and moreover, that he took along many men — four hundred. He thus greatly feared for his life, for he said, “He has not taken all these men except for the purpose of waging war against me.”It appears to me in this matter that Esau did not receive the messengers properly and paid them no heed. Perhaps they did not even come before him for he did not at all give permission for them to come before him and speak to him for otherwise, Scripture would have related that Esau questioned them concerning his brother’s welfare and about his circumstances and those of his household and children. [Scripture further would have told how Esau requested] that they convey greetings to Jacob and tell him that he is proceeding towards him to see him, and they would have told it thus to Jacob. Scripture, however, does not narrate that the messengers transmitted a word in Esau’s name. Instead, he [Esau] kept his wrath in his heart, and he came with his army for the purpose of doing Jacob evil. Now the messengers had investigated the matter in the camp, and they knew that he was going to meet Jacob. This is the meaning of the word vegam (and moreover) [in the verse, and moreover he goeth to meet thee], for they said, “We came to thy brother Esau, here. but he did not answer us a word, and he sent you no greeting, and moreover, he goeth to meet thee with might and an army.” This was why he added fear to his fear, as Scripture says, And Jacob was greatly afraid, and was distressed. And so our Rabbis said that the messengers recognized hatred in him[Esau]. Thus they said: “We came to thy brother Esau. You behave towards him like a brother, but he behaves towards you like Esau the villain.” However, in the end, when Esau saw the great honor that Jacob bestowed upon him and how he prostrated himself before him, bowing to the ground seven times from the distance until he approached him, his mercy was aroused, and he thought that Jacob is recognizing his birthright and his pre-eminence, as I have explained. And with this he was comforted, for the hearts belong to G-d, Who turns them whither He will.

"And he was distressed" [וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ] — this word belongs to the heavy binyan [pi'el], like "and it shall distress you" (Deuteronomy 28:52). "And he divided" [וַיַּחַץ] — the yod is opened [i.e., takes a patah] on account of the guttural letter that follows it, as in "and Moses went up" (Exodus 19:20).

ויירא יעקב, Jacob was afraid, etc. He prepared himself to either kill or be killed. He was very afraid of being killed; he was pained by the possible need to kill Easu in self-defence. This is why the verse mentions מאד, very much, in connection with this fear. Inasmuch as the angels had warned him of Esau's duplicity, that he would pretend to be brotherly, Jacob was afraid not to prepare himself for war in the event Esau planned to kill him while he was unarmed. On the other hand "it distressed him" that the very fact that their encounter would be an armed one might precipitate a war which Esau had not really intended until he saw Jacob armed. His hatred would be rekindled only because he presumed that Jacob confronted him in a fighting stance when he looked at his weapons. As a result of such considerations Jacob divided his camp; the first camp would display friendliness whereas the second camp would be armed and ready for battle.

ויירא יעקב מאד (upon hearing this) “Yaakov was very much afraid;” you may well ask that after Yaakov had been met by angels, as we read at the end of the last portion, and these angels were clearly meant to protect him, what did he have to worry about? This obvious question is answered by our sages by explaining that one of these angels was Michael, Yaakov’s protective angel, whereas the second one was Samael, Esau’s angel. Knowing this, Yaakov had no way of knowing which of these two angels was more powerful. This is why he became very fearful. Yaakov feared that although he had sent a conciliatory message to Esau, he was afraid that through some inadvertent sin he might have committed recently, he might fall victim to his older brother. He was especially conscious of the fact that he had overstayed his time at Lavan for six years in order to amass some money, instead of returning to the land of Canaan and fulfilling the commandment of honouring his father and mother, especially so, seeing that his father was blind. (Based on Bereshit Rabbah 76,2) He therefore did not credit Esau with having friendly intentions. Another exegesis about the words: באנו אל אחיך, ”we have come to your brother;” (but he did not respond with a single word). He only said that he would proceed to meet Yaakov; he did not have to come to him, and the messengers returning added that Esau was accompanied by four hundred men. Esau did say that he would speak with Yaakov personally. Yaakov’s fear resulted from the fact that now he was no wiser than before. He had no clue as to Esau’s real intentions. ויצר לו, “he was anxious;” the letter י has the vowel tzeyreh underneath it; ויחץ את העם אשר אתו, “he split up the entourage that was with him;” Yaakov had said to himself: “if Esau should see me fleeing, (instead) I will awaken feelings of hatred within him.”

ויירא יעקב מאד ויצר לו, “Yaakov was very fearful as well as distressed.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 comment on this that the word ויירא refers to Yaakov’s fear of being killed, whereas the word ויצר refers to his discomfort at the thought of having to kill Esau in self-defense. Seeing that twenty years earlier G’d had assured him in the dream of the ladder that He would be with him and would protect him, why did he have any reason to be afraid at all? Our sages answer that Yaakov never considered G’d’s promise as ironclad but as subject to his conducting himself as worthy of it. Yaakov worried that he might have committed sins during the last twenty years which had invalidated G’d’s promise to him. This, at any rate is the approach of the Talmud to this problem in Berachot 4. The sages of the Talmud there comment further: “why is there a dot in Psalms 27,13, on the word לולא? David said: לולא האמנתי לראות בטוב ה', “If I had not had the assurance that I would enjoy the goodness of the Lord, etc.” He meant “O Lord, I am certain that You will repay the righteous in the hereafter for the good deeds they have performed on earth. However, I am not at all sure that I will have a share in the hereafter as I may have forfeited my share through sin.” Seeing that David referred to himself as חסיד, “pious,” (compare Psalms 86,20), how could he doubt that he would have a share in the hereafter? Again the sages answer that he was afraid that some sin he had committed would result in his forfeiting his claim to the hereafter. [The dot on the second letter ל in the word לולא is considered as restrictive, as if to say “if nothing contrary to the present condition will occur.” Ed.] Another approach: Yaakov was altogether not concerned about anything happening to himself, personally. After all, he was a recipient of G’d’s promise and he considered this as perfectly adequate. He was concerned about his children, his wives, and the members of his household who had not received such an assurance from G’d. This is the meaning of (verse 8) “he divided up the children (between two camps).” As proof for this interpretation look at the words פן יבא והכני אם על בנים, “lest he come and smite me by killing children with their mother.” He did not say the word והכני, “and strike me,” as an independent statement referring to him personally, as something that he was afraid of for himself. After all, Esau’s quarrel was with Yaakov, not with his wives or children. He was not concerned about himself per se. His only fear was of what might happen to his children and to his wives. You ought to appreciate that this paragraph contains an explanation of what exactly did happen to Yaakov as a result of his encounter with Esau. There is also a hint of what would be a correct form of relationship between the respective descendants of Esau and Yaakov during the long course of Jewish history. It is worth our while to consider Yaakov’s preparations for his fateful encounter with Esau as something to use as a model for ourselves in our dealings with the descendants of Esau. Basically, Yaakov used a three-pronged approach. 1) He prepared to wage war if it were forced upon him. 2) He prayed to G’d for deliverance. 3) He prepared gifts to soften the mood of his adversary. The first stage of his preparation, mobilising for war, is described in our paragraph in verse eight when the Torah writes that he divided the camp in two to give himself the maximum chance for at least one camp to escape unharmed. He then engaged in prayer when he appealed to G’d, saying (verse 12) “please save me from my brother, from Esau.” The third part of his preparation, i.e. sending gifts (or bribes if you will), is found in verses 14-21. A great Jewish King, the King Chiskiyah learned from Yaakov when Jerusalem was under siege when he faced Sancheriv, [who during his time was the foremost conqueror of the world who had already liquidated the Northern Kingdom and exiled the Ten Tribes, Ed.]. We read in Kings II 18,15 that Chiskiyah gave all the silver that was in the treasury of the Temple and in his own vaults to Sancheriv in accordance with that King’s demands. He also readied what few forces remained at his disposal for war (Chronicles II 32,6). Finally, he prayed (Kings II 19,15) asking G’d to demonstrate His power to the world at large by saving the Kingdom of Yehudah. We have to act similarly whenever we find ourselves threatened by hostile Gentile forces. However, nowadays when G’d’s displeasure with us has become manifest seeing we are still in exile, we must not provoke war against our enemies as is evident from Song of Songs 2,7 השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וגו', “I have made you take an oath o daughters of Jerusalem, etc.” One opinion in the Talmud Ketuvot 111 understands the oath as an undertaking by Jews in exile not to rebel against the local rulers and try and recapture the land of Israel by force of arms.

“And Jacob was very afraid and distressed.” Regarding this fear, all the commentators went out to gather [explanations] but did not find a satisfactory reason for why and about what he was afraid, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had promised him twice to protect him — the first time in the vision of the ladder where it was said I will protect you wherever you go, and the second time when he was in Laban’s house where it was said Return to your native land and I will be with you. And what they explained — that he was afraid that sin might cause [the promise to be nullified] — the mind refuses to accept this opinion, because it was just eight days ago that he was told in Laban’s house Return to your native land, and could it possibly enter one’s mind to say that in the meantime he became corrupted and committed such a great sin that would cause this destiny to be nullified? And the Abarbanel struggled greatly with this question. What seems most correct to me in resolving this uncertainty is based on what our Sages said (Sotah 41b): Rabbi Elazar said, “Whoever flatters his fellow will ultimately fall into his hands.” Similarly here, Jacob sensed within himself that he had sinned by flattering the wicked one when he said Thus says your servant Jacob. Our Sages also criticized Jacob for this, as it concludes (in Genesis Rabbah 75:2), “Esau was going his way… and Jacob made the sacred profane by calling Esau ‘my Lord’ out of flattery, as he flattered the wicked one.” Therefore, he was afraid because Jacob knew that this is the natural consequence — that whoever flatters the wicked will ultimately fall into his hands. This is why it says Jacob was afraid. And although Jacob undoubtedly had so many merits that would outweigh this sin, nevertheless, he was distressed that some of his merits would be deducted in order to save him from his brother Esau. This is why it says and he was distressed. Some say that Jacob was afraid [means he feared] that Esau would kill him, and he was distressed because he was distressed about the [possible] death of his father Isaac. For Esau had said Let the days of mourning for my father draw near, then I will kill my brother (Genesis 27:41). Therefore, [Jacob] thought that since Esau was coming out to meet him, his father must certainly have died already. This is the conclusion drawn in the book Toldot Isaac. And it seems to me that this explains what was said above (Genesis 31:42) and the Fear of Isaac, while here it says the God of my father Isaac. After all, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not associate His name with the righteous during their lifetime (Tanchuma Toldot 7). So why does it say here the God of my father Isaac? Rather, it is because at this point he believed that his father Isaac was dead, since Esau was coming out to meet him to kill him. According to this explanation, we do not need Rashi’s interpretation here, where he explained that “I come with two promises…” And there are those who say that the name “Elohim,” which indicates the attribute of strict justice, he [Jacob] specifically mentioned in reference to his forefathers, because the merit of the forefathers would be sufficient for him to withstand even the attribute of strict justice. However, his own merit was small, such that on his own merits he could only stand before the attribute of mercy. Therefore it says “Hashem who said to me,” [using the name indicating mercy], because in the face of strict justice I cannot stand as I don’t have enough merits, for I have been diminished by all the kindnesses — meaning I have received reward far greater than my deeds deserve, for God’s kindnesses have exceeded all His works. Thus all of His works [our deeds] are small compared to His kindnesses, as it is written For His kindness has overwhelmed us (Psalms 117:2).

ויירא יעקב, “Yaakov was afraid (when he heard this). He worried that the merit of Esau having practiced the commandment of honouring father and mother during the 35 years when Yaakov had not been able to do this, would give him an edge in any hostile confrontation.

And he said: "If Esau comes upon the one camp and strikes it, the camp that remains shall escape."

המחנה האחת והכהו TO THE ONE CAMP AND SMITE IT — The word מחנה is treated grammatically as masculine or feminine: in (Psalms 27:3) “Though a camp should encamp (תחנה) against me” it is feminine; in (Genesis 33:8) “this (הזה) camp” it is masculine. Similarly there are other words treated grammatically as both masculine and feminine. For example, the word שמש in (Genesis 19:23) “The sun was risen (יצא) upon the earth” and in (Psalms 19:7) “His (the sun’s) going forth (מוצאו) is from the end of the heaven”; here it is masculine, but in (2 Kings 3:22) “and the sun shone (זרחה) upon the water” it is feminine. Similarly with רוח: in (Job 1:19) “and behold there came (באה) a great wind” it is feminine, and in the same verse “and smote (ויגע) the four corners of the house” it is masculine; in (1 Kings 19:11) “and a great (גדולה) and strong (וחזק) wind rent (מפרק) the mountains” it is both masculine and feminine. So also in the case of אש: in (Numbers 16:35) “and fire came forth (יצאה) from the Lord” it is feminine, and in (Psalms 104:4) “The flaming (להט) fire” it is masculine. והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה THEN THE REMAINING CAMP MAY ESCAPE in spite of him, for I will fight against him He prepared himself for three things: to give him a present — as it states (Genesis 32:22) “So, the present passed before him”; for prayer — as it states (Genesis 32:10), “And he said, ‘O God of my father Abraham”; for war — as it states in this verse, “then the remaining camp may escape”, for I will fight against him (Tanchuma Yashan 1:8:6).

THEN THE CAMP WHICH IS LEFT SHALL ESCAPE. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, Jacob stated this as a possibility. He said that perhaps one camp shall escape, for during the time he [Esau] smites one, the other will flee, or perhaps his anger will subside or deliverance will come to them from G-d. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,2176:2. “The Torah teaches you proper conduct: a man should not leave all his money in one corner.” And Rashi wrote: “‘Then the camp which is left shall escape in spite of him for I will fight against him.’ He prepared himself for three things: for prayer, for giving Esau a gift, and for war.” And I have seen in the Midrash: “What did Jacob do? He armed his people underneath, and clothed them in white from outside, and he prepared himself for three things.” And this is the most correct [interpretation, in line with Rashi and the Midrash, who say that he prepared himself also for war, as opposed to the simple meaning first mentioned]. The intent of this is that Jacob knew that all his seed would not fall into Esau’s hands. Therefore, in any case, one camp would be saved. This also implies that the children of Esau will not formulate a decree against us designed to obliterate our name entirely, but they will do evil to some of us in some of their countries. One of their kings will formulate a decree in his country against our wealth or our persons while simultaneously another king will show compassion in his place and save the refugees. While waves of persecution, expulsions and massacres were a steady feature of Jewish life in most European countries, refuge was always found in some country. At the time of Ramban, Spain was a place of relative relief for Jews from France and Germany. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,2476:3. “If Esau come to the one camp, and smite it — these are our brethren in the south. Then the camp which is left shall escape — these are our brethren in the Diaspora.” Our Rabbis thus saw that this chapter alludes also to the future generations.

"Machaneh" (camp) is both masculine and feminine, like "bayit" (house) and "makom" (place). "The remaining camp shall escape" — perhaps they will flee, or perhaps his brother's anger will be appeased after striking one of the camps, or perhaps relief and salvation will come to them from Hashem. Similarly: "If the Arameans are too strong for me, you shall save me" (2 Samuel 10:11). As for what Rabbenu Shlomo [Rashi] said — that the remaining camp would be saved against Esau's will — that is the way of derash. Although Hashem said to him "your seed shall be as the dust of the earth" (Genesis 28:14), Jacob did not know whether this referred to the children he had now or to others he would have later. For when Joseph was sold, Jacob was alive yet knew nothing of it — a prophet does not know hidden things unless Hashem reveals them to him. And Elisha said: "The Lord has hidden it from me" (2 Kings 4:27). This also answers those who ask: how could Jacob be afraid when Hashem had promised him protection, saying "I will be with you" (Genesis 31:3)? This also explains what Jacob meant when he said "and You declared: I will surely do you good" (v. 13) — it was possible that only he himself would escape. Furthermore, we know that every transgression, great or small, is judged in proportion to the one who commits it; therefore even a minor sin committed by a great person is called great. Jacob feared that he might have sinned or erred in thought, and that on account of this Hashem would no longer be with him. Do not be surprised at this — for behold, Moses, than whom there is none greater, was the very one Hashem sent to bring Israel out of Egypt, yet because of a single inadvertent transgression Hashem sent an angel to kill him.

והיה המחנה הנשאר לפלטה, while he will be busy gorging himself on the loot captured in the first camp the second camp will be able to make good its escape, or will have prepared itself for battle.

ויאמר אם יבא עשו, He said: "If Esau were to come to the one camp, etc." In the event Esau would come upon the first camp and defeat it, the second camp which he had prepared for battle would help even the first camp not to be annihilated since as soon as Esau's hostile intentions were obvious the second camp would engage him. Jacob did all this in order to save G'd the trouble of performing a miracle.

אל המחנה האחת, “to one of the camps;” some commentators understand the word האחת here, as a reference to the camp containing the matriarchs and their children. והיה המחנה הנשאר לפלטה, “this will afford the people in the remaining camp to escape.” [Presumably Esau will not be aware that there are two camps, so that he will not bother to search for it. Ed.] An alternate explanation of Yaakov’s strategy: while Esau will battle with the people making up the first camp, there will be time enough for the people making up the second camp to flee and escape destruction.

אם יבא עשו אל המחנה האחת והכהו, “if Esau comes to one of the camps and defeats it, etc.” The first camp Esau was to encounter was that which contained Zilpah and Bilhah and their respective children. If he were to kill the people in that camp — והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה, “then the remaining camp would survive.” The second camp contained Rachel, Leah, and their respective children. In order to explain this verse completely, we have to understand it as follows: “Yaakov divided the children to Rachel and Leah respectively and to the two maid-servants and their children respectively in order for them to survive attempted murder by Esau.” The expression לפליטה occurs in that sense in Jeremiah 51,50 פליטים מחרב, “fugitives from the sword.” This verse is also the source which taught the prophet Ovadiah to divide the fledgling prophets whom he hid by separating them into two groups, each in a different cave. This is why Jeremiah wrote in Kings I 18,13 quoting Ovadiah: “I have hidden 100 of the Lord’s prophets, 50 each per cave; and I have fed them bread and provided them with water.” Our sages in Baba Metzia, basing themselves on our verse, made the rule that a person is well advised to diversify his wealth into three types of investments. 1) land. 2) commerce; 3) ready cash or easily convertible and immediately accessible assets. They also base this on Deut. 28,8 “G’d will command His blessing for you in your storehouses.” The “storehouses” are a reference to warehouses serving as the place where the merchant keeps his stock-in-trade. The next words in that verse ובכל משלח ידיך, “and your every undertaking,“ are understood as a reference to ready cash or otherwise easily cashable assets. The last expression in the above verse, i.e. וברכך בארץ, “and He will bless you on the land,” refers to G’d blessing one’s investment in land (for agriculture). The Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 76,3 sees in the line “if he will come to he one camp and smite it,” a reference to our brethren in the South, meaning if the Jews who reside in the South [either of the land of Israel under foreign occupation, or the Jews in Yemen? Ed.] will be smitten, at least the ones in exile under various other host countries will be safe. What these sages had in mind was that Yaakov knew for certain that in the future one part of the Jewish people would be saved. No matter what efforts Esau or his descendants would make to annihilate all the descendants of Yaakov, one part of the nation would always survive. Yaakov wanted to facilitate the survival of part of the Jewish people by demonstrating already now that the best way to ensure this was not to have all of them in the same camp, i.e. the same location. In fact, there is an allusion here to the historical truth that whenever a Kingdom or Empire expelled all its Jews, there was some other country willing to grant these exiles refuge and opportunities to establish themselves anew.

והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה, “so that the remaining camp may escape.” Some believe that the plain meaning of the verse is that Yaakov hoped that if the first camp that would be attacked by Esau would be defeated, then the people in the second camp might be able to save themselves through fleeing in time, or Esau’s anger might have spent itself so that he would not give pursuit, or that help might materialize through Divine intervention. Rashi explains that the words mean that the second camp would definitely survive as Yaakov himself would engage Esau in battle. Personally, I think that Yaakov’s certainty was based on the fact that he knew that not all his offspring would fall victim into Esau’s hands at anyone time. This was also to be a sign for his sons to remember that the descendants of Esau will never be able to obliterate all the Jewish people. Whenever, during the long years of our exile, one king or government would issue harsh decrees against us, another king somewhere would be prepared to offer refuge and shelter.

And Jacob said: "O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac — O Hashem, who said to me: Return to your land and to your birthplace, and I will do good to you —

ואלהי אבי יצחק AND GOD OF MY FATHER ISAAC — But in another place (Genesis 31:42) he said, “And the Dread of Isaac”! Then also why did he again mention the Proper Name of God (first invoking him as God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and then continuing “O Lord, who saidst unto me”)? It should have been written “O God of Abraham and God of Isaac (omitting ‘O Lord’) who saidst unto me, “Return unto thy country” etc. But the explanation is as follows: Jacob said to the Holy One, blessed be He, “You made me two promises. One was when I left my father’s house at Beersheba when You said to me (Genesis 28:3) “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham thy father and the God of Isaac”, and on that occasion you promised me (Genesis 28:15) “and I will keep thee whithersoever thou goest”. Then again in Laban’s house You said to me (Genesis 31:3) “Return unto the land of thy fathers and to thy kindred and I will be with thee”. There You revealed Yourself to me by Your Proper Name alone, as it is said (Genesis 31:3) “And the Lord said unto Jacob “Return unto the land of thy fathers etc.” Relying upon these two promises I now come before You invoking you as “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac” and also simply as “the Lord” under which names You made me these two promises respectively.

אלוקי אבי אברהם, Yaakov first listed the praises of the Lord, acknowledging His deeds of loving kindness, before coming to the point of pleading for His help in his hour of need. When the sages of the Great Assembly formulated our daily prayers they followed the example set by Yaakov here in devoting the first three benedictions to praising the Lord and acknowledging both His power and His Holiness, before launching into listing our requests from Him.

ויאמר יעקב, “Yaakov said (in his prayer to G-d); according to Rashi on verse 10, in 31,42 Yaakov avoided referring to his father’s G-d by His name in connection with Him, but had used a euphemism, i.e. פחד יצחק, whereas now he speaks of אלוקי אבי יצחק, without using any euphemism. He answers that Yaakov here refers to the promise of G-d in his dream with the ladder, in which he quotes G-d as having described Himself as the אלוקי יצחק, “the G-d of Yitzchok.” In 31,3, G-d had asked him to return to the land of his fathers. In recalling these instructions from G-d which he had complied with, he sees the justification for appealing to G-d to save him from Esau while he is on the way to fulfill G-d’s commandment.

אלוקי אבי אברהם, “the G’d of my father Avraham, etc.” It would have appeared more appropriate for Yaakov to first mention the Ineffable Name (as he did later in the same verse). He should have said ה' אלוקי אבי אברהם. This should have been followed by אלוקי אבי יצחק האומר אלי. According to a kabbalistic approach, if Yaakov had done as we have just suggested, the Ineffable Name would have been perceived as an allusion to repentance, i.e. as if it represented the attribute of Justice. [Rabbi Chavell, quoting האזרח בישראל, as well as תורת חיים, explains that the emanations are perceived as proceeding from the highest to the lowest. In a descending order we have כתר, חכמה, בינה, (the latter being symbolic of repentance). It is followed by חסד -גבורה- תפארת and their branches. Had Yaakov used the Ineffable Name in connection with Avraham, that name would have alluded to the emanation בינה. [Our sages want Avraham to be associated primarily with the attribute of חסד, akin to “Mercy,” and when we begin to pray we first mention the patriarch Avraham as a symbol of that attribute. Ed.] We also conclude the benediction with a reference to Avraham in order to stress that we rely primarily on the attribute of Mercy when addressing our prayers, i.e. our requests to G’d. Yaakov also used that attribute last and that is why the attribute appears next to Yitzchak, though Yitzchak represents a higher attribute as we have pointed out elsewhere. You will note that when G’d spoke to Yaakov earlier when He told him to return to the land of birth (31,3), He also employed first the Ineffable Name. You are aware that the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 82, have already stipulated that the patriarchs are the true מרכבה, “carriers of the Presence and glory of G’d.” You are also aware that based on Ezekiel’s vision in chapter one of Ezekiel, as interpreted in Berachot 16 that there were only three patriarchs, i.e. Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. Four such carriers are needed. But only three people have qualified as “patriarchs” (compare Berachot 16). We know this because G’d describes Himself only as אלוקי אברהם, אלוקי יצחק, ואלוקי יעקב (Exodus 3,15). We do not find that the prophets such as Moses or Jonah ever qualified for G’d calling Himself: “the G’d of Moses, or the G’d of Jonah.” Although we find that Moses is described as imploring his G’d in Exodus 32,11 (ויחל משה את פני ה' אלוקיו) and something similar in the case of Jonah, this does not mean that these prophets qualified as being part of the מרכבה, the Divine entourage, or “chariot.” There is not a single instance in which G’d associates His name in an exclusive manner with either of these two prophets. On the other hand, we do find G’d saying to Chiskiyah in Kings II 20,5 אלוקי דוד אביך, “the G’d of your father David.” This verse caused the senior Kabbalist in Spain הרב יצחק בן הרב אברהם to say in his prayers אלוקי דוד ובונה ירושלים, "G’d of David and the builder of Jerusalem.” He did so in order that he should be able to mention a מרכבה of G’d consisting of the required minimum of four carriers and that these carriers should all be human beings. However, Elisha’s question in Kings II 2,14 איה ה' אלוקי אליהו, “where is the Lord, the G’d of Elijah?” is not of the same category. This was a prayer and the wording is to be considered as merely rhetorical. This leaves us with the question why our sages never included David in the list of the patriarchs or as one of the pillars of the מרכבה at all. Our sages were concerned with the vision of Ezekiel in the first chapter of his Book. There we find the מרכבה consisting of four phenomena of which only three are assigned a specific location. The text reads: ודמות פניהם פני אדם, ופני אריה אל הימין לארבעתם ופני שור מהשמאל לארבעתם ופני נשר לארבעתם. (Ezekiel 1,10) “Each of them had a human face (at the front). The meaning of the words that “each of them had a human face,” is this was the face facing the prophet. The face on the right was that of a lion, whereas the face on the left was that of an ox. The prophet did not describe the location of the face of the eagle, such as saying that it was facing the back, for instance. The reason is that this was an attribute of G’d which deserved to remain hidden. Keeping this in mind, the Kabbalists followed this approach and did not include David in the regular number of the pillars of the מרכבה. [There is an interesting Midrash in which David implored G’d to become one of the patriarchs, meaning that when we commence the daily עמידה prayer we should begin with the words “G’d of Avraham, G’d of Yitzchak, G’d of Yaakov and G’d of David.” G’d explained to David that the three patriarchs had attained their stature due to their having successfully passed tests G’d had subjected them to. When David heard this he begged to be tested also. Although G’d warned him not to take such a chance, David insisted and was subjected to the test with Bat Sheva. We all know that he failed this test and this is why he did not join the ranks of the patriarchs. I do not recall the source of this Midrash at the moment. Ed.]

my merits are too small for all the kindnesses and all the goodness that You have done with Your servant, for alone I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps.

קטנתי מכל החסדים I AM TOO UNWORTHY OF ALL THE MERCIES (This may be rendered “I am small — unworthy — because of all the kindnesses) — My merits are diminished in consequence of all the kindness and truth which You have already shown me. For this reason I am afraid: perhaps, since You made these promises to me, I have become depraved (נתקלקלתי) by sin (another version of Rashi has נתלכלכתי, I have become defiled by sin) and this may cause me to be delivered unto Esau’s power (Shabbat 32a). ומכל האמת [my merits are diminished in consequence] OF ALL THE TRUTH — of the true fulfillment (אמיתת) of Your promises — because You have already kept all the promises You made me כי במקלי FOR WITH MY STAFF — I had with me neither silver nor gold nor cattle — only this staff of mine. The Midrashic explanation is, that he had placed his staff in the Jordan and Jordan had divided for him to pass over.

‘KATONTI’ OF ALL THE MERCIES, AND OF ALL THE TRUTH. “My merits have diminished as a consequence of all the kindness and truth which You have already shown me. For this reason I am afraid lest I have become depraved by sin since the time You made these promises to me, and this may cause me to be delivered into the hand of Esau.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not a correct interpretation because it does not fit into the language of the verse, [for katan refers to size, not quantity]. Furthermore, Jacob said afterwards, And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, here. but of what efficacy would this promise be if subsequent sin caused him to be deprived of it? Moreover, Jacob mentioned two promises which the Holy One, blessed be He, had made him — one in Beth-el, and one in Haran — and he first stated the promise given to him in Haran, O Eternal, who saidst unto me: Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will do to thee good, here. this being what was said to him when he was about to leave the house of Laban: Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred, and I will be with thee. Now following this promise, G-d did not bestow good upon Jacob to account for all these mercies and truths of which Jacob mentioned that his merits should be diminished on account of them. The word katonti rather means that he is too small to have been worthy of all the mercies which He had done for him. Likewise, How shall Jacob stand? for he is small, that is, too small to be able to bear all that was decreed against him. And so the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,3076:4. “Katonti. Rabbi Abba said that it means ‘I am not worthy.’” Now hachasadim (the mercies) are the kindnesses which G-d did for him without having vowed to do them, and ha’emeth (the truth) is the kindness which He promised him and fulfilled. Jacob thus said that he was unworthy of G-d’s promising him and performing those kindnesses which He promised him, nor was he worthy of those other many kindnesses which He did for him without having promised to do them. But I have not understood the opinion of Onkelos who translated, “from all the mercies and all the good,” when he is accustomed to translate chesed ve’emeth as “mercy and truth.” Perhaps Onkelos is rendering chasadim here as referring to Jacob’s rescue, that is, the many times He had saved him from his troubles. Onkelos rendered emeth as referring to all this good which Jacob possessed, for G-d had given him sons and daughters, wealth and belongings, and honor. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that long-lasting kindnesses such as children and wealth are called emeth, which is from the root of emunah (faith), just as: ‘Vene’eman’ (and confirmed shall be) thy house and thy kingdom forever, This was said to David, whose kingdom was assured of existence. which connotes assured existence; His bread shall be given, his waters ‘ne’emanim’ (shall be sure), just as the prophet said, Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful brook as waters that are not ‘ne’emanu’ (sure)?

"I am too small" [קָטֹנְתִּי] — like "I have prevailed" (Genesis 30:8). The meaning is: I am too lowly and small to have merited all these acts of kindness You have done with me. I have already explained the terms "chesed" and "truth."

קטונתי מכל החסדים, I was not worthy of all the acts of kindness I have experienced at Your hands. ומכל האמת, the good You did for me on account of the merit of my father and grandfather. Seeing that You have already seen fit to treat me well beyond my deserts, I beg of You to continue to do so. Our regular prayers reflect this sentiment when we use the expression כגודל חסדך, “in accordance with the greatness of Your kindness.” Moses used this expression in Numbers 14,19 when praying for forgiveness of the people after the debacle with the spies.

קטונתי מכל החסדים, "I am not worthy of all the kindnesses, etc." Jacob first mentioned חסדים, kindness, and then אמת, divine assistance, which he felt he had qualified for. Actually, Jacob should have mentioned the אמת before mentioning the חסדים, something he was not even entitled to. He mentioned the חסדים first because they are something that it is impossible for man to repay to G'd. He called it אמת because man is incapable of requiting these acts of kindness. We know this from Job 35,7: אם צדקת מה תתן לו, "even assuming that you were righteous, what can you possibly give to Him?" This is why services rendered for the dead are called חסד של אמת, seeing that the dead cannot repay us (Bereshit Rabbah 96,5). Jacob also wanted to mention separately two kinds of favours that G'd had done for him. The first was the kindness that He displayed for him by providing Jacob with an abundance of material wealth. The second was the fact that G'd had enabled Jacob to hold on to his gains and that G'd did not allow Laban to steal them from him forcibly and thereby displayed His truth. You must appreciate that there are occasions when G'd does show a person kindness whereas that person is subsequently deprived of his gains by outsiders exercising their free will. G'd in turn compensates the person who has suffered such a robbery. In such instances the person in question has experienced partial comfort only. He would have felt much better if he had not been robbed of what G'd had granted him in the first place. He will never forget that he had once become the victim of a robbery. He will imagine that if he had not been robbed he would now be still better off, not realising that G'd had only compensated him for what he had been robbed of. Secondly, the fact that G'd did not interfere with the robber will continue to bother such a person. He would have felt completely at ease had G'd restored to him the very goods the robber had taken. Jacob had experienced this latter kind of personal supervision by G'd as we know from 31,9, where Jacob described how G'd had saved his cattle from Laban and restored them to him. When Jacob spoke about "all of G'd's truth," this is the kind of interference by G'd which he had in mind.

קטונתי מכל החסדים, “I have not been worthy of all the acts of kindness;” Yaakov explains what prompts him to be so fearful; he says that G-d has already done more for him than he could have expected, seeing that he did not feel worthy of it. As a result of his unworthiness he was afraid that Esau who had performed the commandment of honouring his father and mother all the years when he had been absent, had accumulated sufficient merits to emerge victorious in a military confrontation with him. [After all, his father had blessed him with being successful with his sword. Ed.] Whenever the expression חסד and אמת occur in the Scriptures (together), they refer to someone having performed kind deeds, beyond the call of duty. Examples Genesis 49,29, when Yaakov asks his son Joseph to transport his remains to the land of Canaan and for him to be buried next to his wife Leah, although he had buried Joseph’s mother on the roadside where she had died. We find another example in Samuel II 15,20, where David excuses Gittai, from Gat, a gentile, from endangering himself while remaining in his company while he has to flee from his own son Avshalom.

קטנתי מכל החסדים, “I am not worthy of all the kind acts You have performed for me.” This teaches us that when a person engages in prayer that he should emphasize his own inadequacies and extol the power of the One to whom he addresses his prayer. Yaakov made this point plain by describing his relationship with G’d as “your servant.” One must also mention the manifold and varied kind deeds which G’d had already performed for the supplicant. This is what King David did in Psalms 16,2 when he said אתה טובתי בל -עליך, “You are my Lord, my benefactor; there is none above You.” He meant that the experience he had had of G’d’s kind deeds had convinced him that there is no one equal to Him as a master. A master’s kindness vis-a-vis his servant is something entirely voluntary. Similarly, all the acts of kindness performed by G’d are not rooted in any claim man has upon G’d, but are totally spontaneous. Only after having expressed such sentiments as an introduction to one’s prayer does one proceed to ask for one’s specific needs. At this point Yaakov asked: “please save me!” As to the meaning of the words ומכל האמת, “and of all the truth,” This suggests at first glance as if G’d acted out of a sense of obligation, i.e. attribute of Justice when performing these kind deeds. Onkelos, aware of our being apt to misconstrue the meaning of the word אמת in this instance, changed the meaning of the words when he translated them as מכל טבוון instead of as קשוט. The plain meaning of the word אמת in our verse is: “seeing giving the land of Canaan to Yaakov was fulfillment of a long-standing promise by G’d to both Avraham, Yitzchak and himself, the fulfillment of that promise was not so much an act of kindness as an act of truth.” This is also the plain meaning of the verse in Micha 7,20 תתן אמת ליעקב חסד לישראל, “You give as an act of truth to Yaakov something that You promised to Avraham as an act of pure kindness.” G’d had not been under any obligation to promise the land of Israel to Avraham; He was, however, under an obligation to fulfill His promise to Avraham in Yaakov’s time. כי במקלי, “for with my staff, etc.” this teaches that one must remember the days of starvation during the time one has prospered in order not to forget the fact that one is so much better off now than then. Solomon also taught us this in Kohelet 7,14: ביום טובה היה בטוב, וביום רעה ראה, “in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune reflect.” What Solomon meant was: “reflect on the time when you suffered misfortune now that you enjoy good fortune.”

“I have become small from all the kindnesses.” It appears that Jacob mentioned two promises before the Holy One, Blessed be He, as Rashi explained. Jacob said, “Just as You fulfilled one promise for me, so too fulfill the second one for me.” For the first promise was regarding protection, as it is written I will guard you wherever you go and I will return you to this land. Since he was already promised protection and that He would return him to his native land, why then did he need to be promised a second time in Laban’s house, Return to your native land and I will be with you? Rather, certainly this [second] promise was not spoken about protection from all evil in the sense of “turn away from evil” — meaning to remove harm from him. Instead, this promise was about “do good,” namely to bestow benefit upon him. That is why here, in place of “I will be with you,” it states and I will do good with you — which is an explanation of “I will be with you.” And regarding the matter of bestowing good: It [the text] should have said “and I will do good to you,” but instead it uses with you [imkha], to teach that in matters of receiving goodness, the owner must be with Him in his work. For a person needs to act within the natural way of things, doing all that is within their power to do, and then the Holy One, Blessed be He, will complete it through him and add an abundance of blessing to it. This is explained above in the verse and I have acquired ox and donkey. This is what is meant by I will do good with you. This is the second promise that He promised to send blessing to his storehouses, and regarding this promise he [Jacob] spoke in a way that suggested it had already been fulfilled, saying I have become small from all the kindnesses, for Jacob was small and his strength was weak to attribute all his found wealth and possessions to his own power and might. Rather, certainly it was God’s kindness all day long — He was the one who made him this fortune. And the proof of this is that with my staff alone I crossed this Jordan. I was completely empty-handed, having nothing but my staff. And now I have become two camps. By saying and now, it indicates that it was as if he accumulated all this wealth just now, in the blink of an eye. For he worked 14 years for [Laban’s] two daughters and six years for his flocks, and when Laban said to him Name your wages and I will give them, in a short time he amassed great wealth and possessions, which naturally would have been impossible to acquire such enormous wealth in such a brief period, if not for the hand of God doing this. Even though Jacob sent the exact opposite message to Esau, as explained above in the verse I have acquired ox and donkey, he denied [the truth] out of fear, uttering falsehood by telling him that he had labored with his flocks for the full 20 years, but the truth is not so. For heaven forbid to say that Jacob would claim that his own strength and might made him this wealth. This is what is meant by and now I have become two camps — in the blink of an eye. For if he had already possessed flocks and cattle when he crossed the Jordan, I would say that his wealth increased through natural means. But now that he admitted that he crossed the Jordan with only his staff, when then did all this glory come into being from nothing? Surely this was from God. Therefore, he requested: Just as You fulfilled this second promise, so too fulfill the first promise that You made to me regarding protection. Save me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him. The word him [oto] is superfluous, but it alludes to that sin he committed by flattering the wicked and treating the sacred as mundane, and him refers to the sin. Some say that he was not afraid for himself since he was already promised protection, rather he feared lest [Esau] come and strike mothers with children, for they were not promised protection.

קטונתי מכל החסדים, “I am unworthy of all the acts of love and kindness, etc.” According to Rashi, Yaakov means that each act of kindness performed on his behalf by G’d diminished the sum total of his remaining merit balance. Nachmanides does not accept this interpretation as linguistically correct, seeing that the words “small” and “big” are appropriate for bodies but not for concepts such as merits. These concepts are measured according to quality not according to quantity. The correct interpretation therefore is that Yaakov did not consider himself worthy of the kind deeds G’d had seen fit to perform in his interest. The difference between the חסדים and the אמת lies in deeds performed for his sake even without the benefit of his having vowed to give tithes and to build a Temple, They refer to the promises G’d had made him prior to his having made any vow whatsoever. The word אמת is a reference to assurances given to Yaakov by G’d, and these having been fulfilled (in his lifetime). They are named thus as man is entitled to expect G’d to make good on His promises. (unless he had done something to forfeit the claim these assurances were based on) כי במקלי עברתי את הירדן הזה, “for when I previously crossed this river Jordan, all I possessed was my walking staff.” I used to have a problem with the expression “this river Jordan,” seeing that Yaakov’s route was far distant from the river Jordan. The Jordan constitutes the eastern boundary of the land of Israel! My brother Rabbi Yehudah answered my question by pointing out that actually it was not Yaakov who crossed the Jordan but his staff, which by splitting the Jordan (as per tradition of our sages) enabled Yaakov to cross the river. [the meaning of the prefix ב in the word במקלי is not “with” but “by means of.”] The use of the word זה, “this,” for something not at hand, is not unique. We encounter it, for instance in the line כי זה משה האיש, “for this man Moses,” (Exodus 32,1) as a reference to Moses who, at that time, was on Mount Sinai, far from the camp of the Israelites.

Deliver me now from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, lest he come and strike me down, mother together with children.

מיד אחי מיד עשו FROM THE HAND OF MY BROTHER, FROM THE HAND OF ESAU — from the hand of my brother who does not treat me as a brother should, but as Esau, the wicked.

AND HE SMITE ME, THE MOTHER WITH THE CHILDREN. Commentators The verb “smite” thus applies to the beginning and end of the sentence. have explained it as meaning. “And he smite me and smite the mother with the children.” There are many similar verses.

"And he will strike me" — the verb governs both itself and another with it, as in "two commanders of raiding parties [belonging to Saul's son]" (2 Samuel 4:2). [Footnote: meaning, like "commanders belonging to Saul's son" — Radak.] And so the sense is: "and he will strike me, and strike mother along with children."

Mother and children alike. Literally, “he will strike me, mother with sons” — i.e. he would deal Yaakov a devastating blow by killing his family, even if he himself escaped.

הצילני נא, "Save me please!" He used the word נא, a combined form of "please" and "now." He pleaded with G'd not to allow Esau to cause him any losses instead of letting him recoup his losses later on. מיד אחי, מיד עשו, from my brother's hand, from Esau's hand. Rashi understands the word אחי as a plea that Esau should not treat him like a brother but rather as befitted the wicked Esau. According to this explanation Jacob should only have said מיד אחי עשו, and we would have understood the Torah's meaning from the otherwise superfluous "my brother," seeing that Esau was his only brother. I believe therefore that the correct meaning is that Jacob prayed and addressed himself to the fact that there were two facets to Esau's character. On the one hand Esau was a son of Isaac and Isaac's merits would assist him. On the other hand, he was a person in his own right, a very powerful person at that; it would require great strength to be saved from attack by such a person. Jacob therefore prayed to G'd that Isaac's merit should not now assist him; this is what he meant by "save me please from the hands of my brother," i.e. although he is my brother. Concerning Esau's being a powerful adversary in his own right, Jacob prayed "please save me from Esau!" Jacob also had in mind that if Esau were to use the fact that he was his brother as a trick to attack him after feigning brotherliness, G'd should save him from such machinations. He also needed G'd's help, however, if Esau proclaimed his hostility openly. Jacob also drew G'd's attention to the enormity of Esau's crime if he were to try and murder his own brother, מיד אחי; surely the mere thought of committing such a heinous crime should provide sufficient excuse for G'd to humble Esau; on the other hand, Esau's wickedness (without considering the fact that in this case he set out to murder a brother) was sufficient to warrant G'd's intervention on behalf of Jacob.

מיד אחי, מיד עשו, from (the hand of) my brother, from (the hand of) Esau.” If Yaakov had only referred to Esau as “my brother,” it could have referred to any blood relative. If he had referred to Esau only by his name, it could have been understood as referring to anyone named Esau. [Yaakov had used the same caution when spelling out for whom he would serve Lavan for his future wife, i.e. “your younger daughter, Rachel.” (29,18) Ed.] פן יבא והכני אם על בנים, “lest he come and smite me both mother and children.” Yaakov implied that if this were to happen, G-d forbid, how could the promises G-d had made to him that his children would develop into numerous tribes (28,13) come true. A different exegesis of this phrase: Yaakov was not at all concerned about being killed himself because he had G-d’s assurances. He was only concerned about the lives of his wives and children, concerning whom he did not have G-d’s assurance. G-d had only promised him personally that He would bring him safely back to his home (even though it might entail many detours, i.e. בכל אשר תלך), “wherever you will go” (28,15). This is why he specifically spelled this out with the words: אם על בנים, “mother and children.” Use of the preposition על in the sense of “with,” also occurs in Numbers 28,10: על עולת התמיד, “with the daily burnt offering,” as well as in Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרף, “it is to be burned with its dung.”

הציליני נא מיד אחי מיד עשו, “save me please, from my brother, from Esau!” (According to Rashi) the prayer was the result of Yaakov having been told that Esau does not come to meet him in order to welcome him back like a brother, but that he is coming to meet him as an adversary, as an Esau. This is why Yaakov prayed for Divine help. One may also explain the wording of this prayer in a different way. Yaakov prayed for what he needed immediately and for his needs during future generations. As far as his immediate needs were concerned, he needed to be saved from “my brother.” During future generations, throughout a good part of Jewish history, he or his descendants would need to be saved “from Esau.” Concerning such future times, David also formulated a prayer in Psalms 10,15 when he said: שבור זרוע רשע, “break the power (arm) of the wicked!” כי ירא אנכי אותו, “for I am afraid of him.” Yaakov’s fear stemmed from the fact that Esau knew no mercy. We have proof of this in the writings of our prophets (Amos 1,11) על רדפו בחרב אחיו ושחת רחמיו, “because he pursued his brother with the sword and repressed all pity.” פן יבא והכני, “lest he come and smite me,” and he would then also murder the "mothers and the children". The Midrash wonders how such a thing is possible in view of the Torah expressly forbidding the slaughter of both mother animal and her young on the same day (Leviticus 22,28)? We have a similar prohibition concerning fowl in Deut, 22,6 where the Torah words it thus: “do not take the mother bird together with her young ones.” Yaakov was fearful of Esau violating this commandment in the future as it is written in Hoseah 10,14 אם על בנים רוטשה, “when mothers and babies were clubbed to death together.”

והכני אם על בנים, “and he will smite me, mother and children.” He means “mothers and their children.”

And You said: I will surely do good to you, and I will make your children as numerous as the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted because of its abundance."

היטב איטיב I WILL SURELY DO [THEE] GOOD — The use of two words denoting “doing good” is intended to signify: היטב doing good to thee on account of your own merits, איטיב I will also do good to thee on account of your father’s merits (Genesis Rabbah 76:7). ושמתי את זרעך כחול הים AND I WILL MAKE THY SEED AS THE SAND OF THE SEA — Where, indeed, did God promise him this? Did he not promise him only (Genesis 28:14) “And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth"? But the explanation is that He had at the same time promised him (Genesis 28:15) “for I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken about thee”, and to Abraham he had promised (Genesis 22:17) “and I will greatly multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore”.

AND THOU SAIDST: I WILL SURELY DO THEE GOOD. Even though he was afraid lest the sin cause him to lose that which he was promised, Jacob said: “You have done great kindnesses for me even though I was unworthy of them. Certainly You will do for me this undeserved kindness which You have promised me, namely, that You will bestow good upon me and increase my seed. My sin should not withhold from me the good You have promised me, for in the beginning I was also unworthy of it had You marked against me mine iniquities. And You did not promise it to me on account of my deeds, but only out of Your abundant mercies.”And some commentators say Thus Jacob’s fear was not lest his sin cause him to lose that which he was promised, but because he did not know, etc., as explained in the text. that Jacob had compassion for his children and household lest Esau smite them, because he did not know whether the promise, And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, applied to these or to others, it being possible that he himself would escape and have additional children. But in my opinion this is not correct, for if this was his thought, how did he say in his prayer, And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good and make thy seed as the sand of the sea? Moreover, it was told to him in Beth-el, And behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and I will bring thee back into this land. If his children were to fall before his brother’s sword, this promise would not be fulfilled, and it is to this promise that Jacob alluded when he said, And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good. Similarly with the promise, And I will do thee good: here. all this Jacob said on the basis of it having been said to him, And I will be with thee. But all his misgivings were on account of the fear of sin, for it is the way of the righteous to be always fearful. Thus Jacob was fearful that perhaps even after he left Haran, he sinned by entering into a covenant with Laban, who was an idol-worshipper, or in some other matter, and Who can discern errors?

ואתה אמרת היטב איטיב עמך, if what I am afraid of were to happen this would be the reverse of Your promise to me. How can I watch the destruction of my family? ושמתי את זרעך, even if only my children will be killed this will be the opposite of what You promised. It behooves You to let them survive for the sake of Your great name, even if I myself do not deserve to survive. We use this kind of argument in our prayers when we say (based on Jeremiah 14,7) אם עונינו ענו בנו עשה למען שמך, “if our sins testify against us, (save us) for the sake of Your name!”

And I will make your offspring like the sand of the sea. This promise was given to Abraham during the Binding of Isaac [Akeidah], and there both the stars and the sand were mentioned. Apparently, the stars represent both multiplication and elevation, whereas the sand only represents multiplication alone. If so, why didn’t Jacob mention in his prayer here the comparison to stars, which are eternal? This would have been more relevant to what he was praying for — that they should endure and not be destroyed by Esau. I say that we find that Israel is compared to three things: dust, sand, and stars. In times of peace and prosperity, they are compared to stars — “exalted and lifted up very high,” and those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and ever. This is also how Rashi explains the verse And behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven (Deuteronomy 1:10). In times of lowliness, when they are like dust to be trampled upon, it is said your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread out… This was a promise about their time in Egypt, when they would be like dust that everyone plows over, as it is written The plowers plowed upon my back (Psalms 129:3). At that time, they would rise from their low state and spread westward and eastward, from one extreme to the other, as explained above in Parashat Vayetzei (28:14). And in the intermediate time between these two states — namely, when they have no rest from enemies who pursue them and stand ready to destroy them, but the Holy One, Blessed be He saves them from their hands — they are compared to this sand. Just as all the waves of the sea threaten to flood the world, but when they reach the sand they break and cannot pass beyond it, so too the nations who rise against Israel, as it is written All Your breakers and Your waves have gone over me (Psalms 42:8), cannot destroy Israel. For this reason, Israel is compared to sand. Therefore, Jacob mentioned in his prayer the promise of sand, to save him from the pursuer Esau, so that Esau would not prevail over him — just as the waves cannot prevail over the sand, so too Esau would not prevail over him.

ואתה אמרת היטיב איטיב עמך, ”and You have said: “I will keep on doing good with you.” Nachmanides explains that although Yaakov was afraid that sins he might have committed would prevent G’d from making good on His promises to him, he refers to very generous kind deeds G’d had already performed, implying that he had not been worthy of these favours. He argues that if G’d had seen fit to perform favours for him which He had not promised, He will most certainly perform those which he had promised him, regardless of any sins he might have become guilty of inadvertently in the meantime. Some commentators claim that Yaakov was concerned as a loving father that Esau should not be allowed to harm members of his family, as it was possible that he would stage a hit and run raid, and only he, Yaakov, would escape due to G’d’s protection of him as promised. In such an event, G’d could still fulfill His promise by enabling Yaakov to start a new family and to raise children. This scenario, as something which Yaakov had in mind with his words here, is not plausible, as if this was what Yaakov had in mind he could not have formulated his prayer with the words “and You yourself have said, etc.,” a reference to people whose very life he attributed to G’d having already fulfilled part of His promise. Furthermore, part of G’d’s promise during the dream of the ladder had been that He would protect Yaakov on all his journeys etc. If his family would become victims of Esau’s vengeful attack, how could this promise still come true? We must attribute Yaakov’s fear as worry only about any sins committed since the promise of G’d had been received as a cause of invalidating such a promise.

And he lodged there that night, and he took from what had come into his hand an offering for Esau his brother:

הבא בידו AND TOOK OF THAT WHICH CAME TO HIS HAND (literally, in his hand) — in his possession, similar to (Numbers 21:26) “and he had taken all his land out of his possession (מידו).” A Midrashic explanation is: מן הבא בידו — precious stones and jewels which a person ties up in a package and carries in his hand. Another explanation is: מן הבא בידו THAT WHICH A MAN MAY TAKE INTO HIS OWN POSSESSION — of that which no longer has a sacred character — for he had set aside the tithe, just as you read (28:22) “[And Jacob vowed] … I will surely give the tenth unto Thee”. Only afterwards did he take the present of what was left after the tithe had been set aside, and this was that which he might rightly take into his own possession.

OF THAT WHICH HE HAD WITH HIM A PRESENT. Scripture states that he composed a gift out of that which he had since his wealth consisted of flocks and herds, and it was from them that Jacob sent a gift, for he was en-route and he had no opportunity to send him vessels of silver, and vessels of gold… and precious things.

מנחה לעשו אחיו, “as a gift for his brother Esau.” He meant to be conciliatory regardless of Esau’s intentions concerning him.

מן הבא בידו, “from that which had come into his hand, etc.” The Torah means “from that which he had acquired rightfully, as opposed to things which are acquired by illegal means. We have a verse in Malachi 1,13 specifically targeting gifts (offerings to G’d) which the owner had not acquired honestly. “and you bring (as a gift) the stolen or the lame. Would I accept it from you- said the Lord?” Another meaning of the words: מן הבא בידו could be that it referred to gemstones, i.e. literally: “valuables capable of being carried in one’s hand.” There is a commentator who understands that expression to mean that there is a certain bird called falcon which is an expert hunter. Seeing that Esau was a hunter, Yaakov thought that presenting him with such a bird which had been domesticated like a hunting dog would please Esau. We would then have to translate the whole verse something like this: ”he took a gift for Esau his brother from amongst these birds, i.e. from a species Esau used to carry in his hand.”

“And he took from what had come into his hand, etc.” As I explained above, this was stated according to what he outwardly showed to Esau — that all this came neither from heaven nor from earth, but rather from what had come into his hand through his own toil, strength, and might. However, in truth, Jacob acknowledged that it was God who gave him the power to accumulate wealth, and this small amount that came into his hand through his labor would increase abundantly through God’s blessing which brings riches. And it troubled Jacob to give from God’s blessing to this wicked person, for this additional abundance flows from a holy source, and this wicked one is not worthy to make use of it. However, since mixed within this was also that small portion that came into his hand through natural means and as compensation for his labor, Jacob reasoned that it was permissible to take from that portion and send it as a gift to the wicked one. Therefore it says from what had come into his hand. And there are those who say, from that which came to his hand specifically [refers to] the animals that were in his possession and under his control — these he sent as a gift, but not the shepherds, because they had converted [to Judaism] and were freed, and were not under Jacob’s control. Therefore it says When Esau asks you ‘To whom do you belong and to whom are these before you?’ because perhaps he will think that I am sending him the animals together with the shepherds as a gift. And [thus Jacob instructed] you shall say ‘to your servant [Jacob]’ — this is the answer to the question of to whom do you belong, meaning [to tell Esau that] the shepherds are not for you, only the gift [of animals] is sent to my Lord.

מן הבא בידו, “from something he had acquired.” The gift he prepared was not something he had to buy, but it came out of his own possessions, Seeing that he was not near any town, he did not have time to look for something especially suited as a gift. He took from the items which represented his wealth.

two hundred female goats and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams,

עזים מאתים ותישים עשרים TWO HUNDRED SHE GOATS AND TWENTY HE GOATS — Two hundred she goats have need of twenty he goats, and so too in the case of all the various species the males were in number according to the need of the females. In Genesis Rabbah 76:7 an inference is made from here as regards the minimum period imperative for the marital duty imposed by the Torah - [for] the men of leisure, every day; [for] the laborers, twice a week; [for] the donkey drivers, once a week; [for] the camel drivers, once in thirty days, [for] the sailors, once in six months. I am unable however to show exactly how this inference is arrived at. But it appears to me that we may learn from here at least that this period is not the same for every person, but that it depends upon the amount of labor imposed upon him by his occupation. As we have found here that ten she goats were given to each he goat, and so [too] to each ram; [as] since they are free from work, their way is to be frequently involved in sexual relations and to impregnate ten females - and once an animal becomes pregnant, it does not accept a male. And [concerning] the bulls that engage in work, it only gave four females to the male; and to the donkey who goes on long journeys, [it gave] two females to the male; and to the camels that go on [even] longer journeys, [it gave] one female to the male.

"Two hundred she-goats" — in the case of the small livestock [צאן] he set the females at ten to one male; for the cattle, four to one; and for the he-asses, two to one — for he knew their natural rates of reproduction.

עזים מאחים, two hundred goats, etc. I have heard from my grandfather of blessed memory that Jacob intended that the total number of animals he sent as a gift to Esau should correspond to the numeriacl value of the letters in the word שעיר (580). Therefore he sent a total of 440 sheep and goats, thirty camels plus a young one each, i.e. a total of 60 camels. Add to this the forty cows and ten bulls, the twenty she-asses and ten donkeys, and you have a total of 580. The word שעיר symbolises Esau's power; the animals Jacob sent him as a gift were supposed to neutralise that power.

עזים מאתים ותישים עשרים, “two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats.” Yaakov sent ahead the goats as is customary amongst the flocks. We have other examples in Scripture when the species of goats precedes a list of other animals, such as in Jeremiah 50,8 “and be like the goats which lead the flock.” Another piece of information contained in our verse is the fact that the males of the goats and the sheep were more numerous than those of the other herds of animals Yaakov sent Esau as a gift. We observe that the camels appear to have been monogamous, seeing that Yaakov sent identical numbers of males and females. When it came to mentioning the cows and donkeys, each of which were the same number, the Torah first lists the pure species, i.e. the cows. You will observe that in each instance the female of the species was mentioned before the male seeing the females outnumbered the males. Another way of looking at the sequence in which these animals are listed is that they are listed in order of the time it takes for the respective species to reproduce, i.e. the length of pregnancy of the mother animal. Sheep and goats reproduce after a pregnancy of five months, camels after six months, cows after nine months and donkeys after a pregnancy of twelve months. I have written earlier (verse 1) that Yaakov did not really want to commence with the goats seeing that the goats had been what had enabled him to snatch the blessing away from Esau and that this was the reason he listed oxen as the first in a list of the possessions he had acquired; why then did he send precisely these goats ahead of any other flock? The answer is relatively simple. As long as he had not prayed for G’d’s help and it was a matter of how the angels (or human messengers) were to announce his impending arrival to Esau, Yaakov did not want to do anything which could be interpreted as provocative. Now that he had prayed and had prevailed over the celestial force representing Esau, he had changed his stance and wanted to do something which would make Esau afraid of him rather than the reverse. He therefore deliberately placed the goats first to hint that he had no reason to feel afraid of him. Had he not obtained the blessing through having presented his father with two goats and obviously G’d had approved the part in which his father had said “be an overlord over your brothers, etc.?” He wanted to remind his brother that their father had designated Esau as becoming a servant to Yaakov. By placing the asses and donkeys last, in that order, Yaakov hinted that in the distant future the descendants of Esau would become the victims of the Jewish messiah who would appear riding on a donkey. We find the following verse in Zechariah 9,9 concerning this future event: “Rejoice fair Zion; raise a shout fair Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you He is victorious, triumphant, yet humble, riding on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass.” When you look at things in that way you will find that Yaakov caused Esau to become afraid of him both by the first part of the gift he sent, i.e. by the goats, as well as by the last item, the donkeys. When looking at the immense wealth possessed by both Esau and Yaakov, the gift listed here did not represent a meaningful addition to the wealth of either brother. The meaning of the gift was therefore more in its symbolic significance. Keeping this in mind, Rabbeinu Chananel points out that the total number of animals sent by Yaakov to Esau amounts to 550. This number corresponds to the number of years the descendants of Esau preceded Yaakov (Israel) as an organized state.

thirty nursing camels with their young, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys.

גמלים מיניקות MILCH CAMELS שלשים THIRTY, ובניהם means AND THEIR COLTS with them — A Midrashic explanation of ובניהם is that it is the same as וּבַנָּאֵיהֶם their builders (those that build them up) i.e., one male for each female. Because, however, it (the camel) is chaste in its ways Scripture does not state this plainly (Genesis Rabbah 76:7) but employs a term from which it may be inferred. ועירים means MALE ASSES.

גמלים מיניקות, “female camels;” ובניהם, and their masculine young. The total number of camels was 30. How is this number arrived at? There were twenty female camels and 10 male camels. [Each mother animal had a female young with her. Ed.] The ratio was similar to that of the male and female donkeys which also totaled 30. After having read the details of the latter, we understand what is meant about the camels. According to Rashi, however, there were 30 male camels plus thirty female camels.

גמלים מיניקות, “camels with their young.” The males of the species were not mentioned here. Some people claim that the word גמל, camel, is the description for both the male and the female of the species. We would then assume that there were 10 adult males, 10 adult females, and their 10 female young. The male/female ratio of the camels would then correspond to the male/female ratio of the donkeys.

ובניהם, according to the plain meaning the males which the camels were suckling. When there are both females and males, the Torah does not mention the females separately.

And he placed them in the hand of his servants, each drove by itself, and he said to his servants: "Pass on before me, and put a space between drove and drove."

עדר עדר לבדו EVERY DROVE BY ITSELF — each species forming a drove by itself. עברו לפני PASS ON BEFORE ME, a day’s journey or less and I shall follow you). ורוח תשימו AND PUT A SPACE — one drove before the other at a distance as far as the eye can see, in order to satisfy the eye (the cupidity) of that wicked man and to amaze him by the size of the gift (Genesis Rabbah 76:8).

AND PUT A SPACE BETWEEN DROVE AND DROVE. I.e., in order to satisfy the covetous eye of that wicked man and to amaze him by the size of the gift. In Bereshith Rabbah 5:13. the Rabbis express the opinion that there is an allusion to the future in this matter: “Jacob said before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘O Master of the universe! If troubles will come upon my children, do not bring them one after another, but allow them intervals from their troubles.’” On the basis of this verse, the Rabbis thus hinted that the tributes and taxes which the children of Esau will collect from Jacob’s seed will have intervals and cessations between one another.

"And put space" [רֶוַח] — meaning an interval. Close to it in sense is "for there was respite" (Exodus 8:11) — an interval between one plague and another. Similar also to "and relief came to Saul" (1 Samuel 16:23).

עדר עדר לבדו. In order for Esau to realise that each species of animals had the appropriate number of males with it to ensure that these herds would continue to develop without hindrance. This is what he meant when he urged Esau קח נא את ברכתי, “please accept my blessing” (33,11) He meant that his gift was designed to be an ongoing blessing for his brother. וריוח תשימו בין עדר לעדר, to prevent the animals form one herd to jump into the adjoining herd, so that anyone seeing this gift would not appreciate its quality and scope.

ורוח תשימו בין עדר ובין עדר, “and place a space between one herd and the next.” He wanted the eye of this wicked person Esau to satiate himself by these successive gifts. Yaakov hoped to impress him with the generous size of the gift. According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 Yaakov said to G’d: “if the Jewish people will be beset by troubles in the future, please let these troubles befall them at intervals so that they have a chance to recover between successive waves of persecution.” He referred specifically to heavy taxation which would be imposed by rulers in the countries in which Jews were going to be exiled.

ורווח תשימו בין עדר לעדר, “and place some distance between one herd of animals and the next.” This measure was also to serve as a model for the behaviour of Jews in the future; Yaakov was asking G’d that if the need would arise to chastise the Jewish people, the decrees should not all be carried out at the same time, but that G’d should allow the people to recover from one disaster before having to contend with the next one. Some commentators understand the words ורווח תשימו as ensuring that different species of animals were not to mix with one another.

And he commanded the foremost one, saying: "When Esau my brother meets you and asks you, saying: To whom do you belong, and where are you going, and to whom do these that are before you belong —

למי אתה means TO WHOM DO YOU BELONG, implying who has sent thee? The Targum should be דמאן את “of whom are you” and not למאן את as some editions have. ולמי אלה לפניך means and these which are before you whose are they; i.e. to whom is this present being sent? The letter ל is used as a prefix in place of של “belonging to”; e.g., (31:43) “and all that thou seest is mine (לי)” i.e. belongs to me; (Psalms 24:1) “The earth is the Lord’s (לה') and the fullness thereof” i.e. belongs to the Lord.

"And your asking him, saying" [וְשָׁאֵלְךָ] — like "because he loves you" [כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ] (Deuteronomy 15:16).

ויצו את הראשון לאמור, He instructed the first one (messenger) to say, etc. The apparently superfluous word לאמו was that even if Esau were not to phrase his enquiry in exactly the words Jacob assumed he would, he would no doubt use words to that effect. Jacob may also have used the word לאמור to tell his messengers to use exactly this formula even if they would not be asked directly by Esau but by some intermediary. He added the word ושאלך, "and if he will ask you," to indicate that such a question might be addressed to the messenger second hand, not by Esau himself.

כי יפגשך עשו אחי, “when Esau my brother will encounter you,“ My father of sainted memory, the ר'אש, commented on this that Yaakov instructed his messengers not to open a conversation with Esau, but only to reply to him if he engaged them in conversation first. If Esau did not begin a conversation they should simply proceed on their way to Esau’s home.

you shall say: It is an offering from your servant Jacob, sent to my lord, to Esau; and behold, he himself is also coming behind us."

ואמרת לעבדך ליעקב THEN SHALT THOU SAY THEY ARE THY SERVANT JACOB’S — You shall answer the first question first and the last question last, saying:”In reply to what you have asked”, “Whose art thou?”, “I belong to thy servant Jacob” — and it should be rendered in the Targum דעבדך דיעקב belonging to your servant, belonging to Jacob” —and in reply to what you have asked, “And whose are these before thee?” “It is a present sent etc.” והנה גם הוא AND, BEHOLD, ALSO HE IS BEHIND US — The word “he” refers to Jacob.

ואמרת: "לעבדך ליעקב". He instructed his shepherds not to give the impression that they knew Esau was on the way in their direction and that they had been sent to him. The phrasing Yaakov instructed his messengers to use was meant to give the impression that Yaakov had no knowledge that Esau was marching toward him with hostile intentions. The messenger should give the impression that he had been sent by Yaakov to Seir where Esau lived, with a gift for him.

ואמרת לעבדך ליעקב, you will say: "to your servant, to Jacob." This means that the appropriate answer to the question: "who do you belong to?" would be: "to your servant Jacob;" the appropriate reply to the question: "where are you headed for?" is "to bring a gift which has been despatched." The appropriate answer to the question: "who is the gift for?" is "for my lord, for Esau."

?למי אתה, “Who do you belong to?” ואמרת: ״לעבדך וגו׳״, “you will say: ‘to your servant, etc.” Yaakov ordered his servants, the ones who accompanied the herds of gifts, to answer each question in the order in which it had been asked. To the question of: “who do these herds belong to?” the answer was to be: “they belong to your servant Yaakov and are a gift for my lord Esau.” In response to the question: ולמי אלה לפניך, “and to whom do these animals in front of you belong?” They were all to answer: “and he (Yaakov) is also following a short distance behind us.”

And he commanded also the second, and also the third, and also all who were walking behind the droves, saying: "According to this word shall you speak to Esau when you find him.

"Also all those walking" — for there were five groups there. "When you meet him" [בְּמֹצַאֲכֶם] — the tsadi takes a patah on account of the guttural letter, and there is no other form like it.

כדבר הזה תדברון אל עשו, he instructed each one what to reply to Esau’s enquiry. He should simply mention that he belonged to the other herds following him, all of them being Yaakov’s a gift for his older brother Esau.

And you shall say: Moreover, your servant Jacob is coming behind us." For he said: "I will appease his anger with the offering that goes before me, and afterward I will see his face — perhaps he will receive me favorably."

אכפרה פניו I WILL APPEASE HIM — I will remove his anger. Similarly, (Isaiah 28:18) "and your covenant with death shall be annulled (וכפר)”; (Isaiah 47:11) “Thou shalt not be able to put it away (וכפרה”. I am of the opinion that wherever the verb כפר is used in association with iniquity and sin and in association with anger (פנים), it always signifies wiping away, removing. It is an Aramaic expression occurring frequently in the Talmud: “He wiped his hand off (כפר ידיה)”, and (Gittin 56a) ‘‘he wants to wipe (לכפורי) his hands off on this man” (i.e. he desires to put the responsibility upon me). In Biblical Hebrew, also, the bowls of the Sanctuary are called, (Ezra 1:10) "כפורי of gold” — and they are so called because the priest wiped his hands on them — on the rim of the bowl (Zevachim 93b).

‘ACHAPRAH’ (I WILL APPEASE) HIM WITH THE PRESENT. I.e., “I will dissipate his anger.” Similarly: ‘Vechupar’ (and annulled shall be) your covenant with death; Thou shalt not be able ‘kaprah’ (to put it away). I am of the opinion that whenever the word kaparah is used in association with iniquity and sin and in association with the word panim (anger), it always signifies erasing and removing. It is an Aramaic expression occurring frequently in the Talmud: “He wished to wipe his hands on that man.” In Biblical Hebrew, also, the bowls in the Sanctuary are called ‘Kipurei’ of gold because the priest wiped his hand on them, that is, on the rims of the bowl. These are the words of our Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi]. And so also did Onkelos translate: “I will calm his anger.” If so, the explanation of the verse will [not] be that Jacob said these words, but that Jacob thought to himself, “I will appease him.” It is Scripture that tells us this [but it is not part of Jacob’s instructions to his messengers], for it would have been improper for the messengers to do so and thereby remind Esau of his antagonism towards Jacob. And so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain it. But it does not appear to me to be correct that Scripture should find it necessary to tell us Jacob’s thought at this time when it is a well known matter pertaining to all who send presents. Besides, if it were so, Scripture should have mentioned this originally [in connection with the first drove, in Verse 19], And, behold, he is also behind us, for he thought, “I will appease him with the present,” for now [when commanding the leaders of the second and third droves] he did not add to that instruction [which he gave the leader of the first drove]. However, the correct interpretation is that now Jacob additionally explained to them that they should say in a respectful manner, Behold, he is also behind us, that is to say, “Behold, your servant Jacob is also behind us, and he has sent us before him in order to give a ransom for his life, using this present as a means of seeing your honor’s face, just as servants present their ransom when they are given permission to see the king’s face. And afterward I will see his face, for perhaps he will accept me and honor me by permitting me to be among those who see the king’s face.” This was a way of expressing Esau’s exalted status and was due to Jacob’s fear of him. The expression achaprah panav is then being used as it is used in the verse, The wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise man ‘yechaprenah,’ meaning he will give ransom to allay the wrath. And the connotation of “wiping away” attached to forgiveness is not valid in the Sacred Language but rather in the Aramaic tongue. Similarly, ‘kipurei’ of gold is the Babylonian name for bowls, for the word kaparah is never used in association with “sin,” meaning “wipe away,” but instead Scripture says: ‘lechapeir’ (to make atonement) for your souls; ‘lechapeir’ (to make atonement) for him, and he shall be forgiven, i.e., for his soul. And Scripture also says: ‘achaprah’ (I shall make atonement) for your sin. All of these are related to the expression, Then shall they give every man ‘kopher’ for his soul, which means a ransom.

"For he said" — Jacob said this within his heart. These are the words of Moses [the narrator]. And the meaning of "I will appease his face" [אֲכַפְּרָה פָנָיו] — I will cover and conceal. And "his face" refers to his anger; similarly, "and her face was no longer [as it had been]" (1 Samuel 1:18).

ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרינו, he told each of them to reply with the same words in addition to the words that each one had been instructed to answer individually. The purpose behind these detailed instructions was to convince Esau that Yaakov was indeed not far behind on his way to Seir the destination of these gifts which he had sent ahead of him. כי אמר אכפרה פניו במנחה, these were the words he had instructed the shepherds leading the gift to say, in order to soften Esau’s attitude by Yaakov assuming a somewhat servile attitude prior to their coming face to face with one another. אראה פניו, an expression denoting the “paying of a visit,” as we know from Exodus 34,23 where the Jewish people is instructed to visit the Temple three times annually with the same formula, i.e. יראה כל זכורך... ולא יראו פני ריקם, “every male of you is to visit Me; when they pay this visit they shall not come empty-handed.” Yaakov himself confirmed the meaning of the formula אראה פניך when he said to Esau in 33,10 על כן ראיתי פניך כראות פני אלוקים, “inasmuch as visiting you is akin to visiting the presence of G’d.” It was an accepted custom for a visitor to highly placed persons to arrive bearing gifts.

ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרנו, you will say: "your servant Jacob is also following behind us." The messengers explained why Jacob neither preceded nor accompanied them. The reason was simply that Jacob wanted to appease Esau's anger so that the latter would receive him in a good frame of mind.

ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרינו, you are to say: “your servant Yaakov is also not far behind us.” He made them repeat this answer twice. He told his servants that when they would see Esau they should not be afraid to address him in such a manner, i.e. by referring to their own master as Esau’s servant. In the event Esau would ask them why Yaakov did not precede them in order to welcome him, as befits a younger brother when he meets his older brother, you will say: etc.: he reasoned that he wanted Esau to be in a good frame of mind concerning him before actually setting eyes on him.” They were to reveal that Yaakov had felt the need to appease his older brother by means of the gift he had sent ahead of himself. He hoped that in view of this substantial gift Esau would be good tempered when they came face to face after so many years. These latter words were not spoken by the servants of Yaakov who walked with the animals, but are to be understood as editorial comment by the author of the Torah. If they had done so, Yaakov would have committed the psychological error of reminding Esau of how he had once deceived him.

And you shall say: ‘Moreover, behold your servant Jacob is behind us.’ There is a significant question here: Since he [Jacob] said to the second and third groups thus shall you speak, which implies that everything the first group spoke, you too shall speak, if so, why was it necessary to specify separately and detail and you shall say: Moreover, behold your servant Jacob is behind us? For this was already told to the first group to say so, and when he said to the second and third groups thus shall you speak, this certainly included what the first group said, and this [phrase] was included as well. So why did he repeat to the second group and you shall say: Moreover, behold etc.? An answer to the matter. For Jacob said [that] when Esau my brother meets you and asks you three questions — “Who are you?”, “Where are you going?”, and “Who are these [animals] before you?” — you shall answer him first question first: To “Who are you?” you shall say To your servant, to Jacob. And “Where are you going?” — to bring the gift, for it is a gift being sent. And “Who are these before you?” — to whom it is being sent — to my Lord, to Esau. And in addition to these three questions, even if he doesn’t ask you where Jacob is, nevertheless you should tell him on your own Here, he is behind us, so that he won’t be displeased about my honoring him through messengers and emissaries while I’m not going myself to greet him. And when Jacob said to the second and third [group] Thus shall you speak, it’s obvious that they needed to answer his three questions. This is because if one of these three [answers] is not given, the entire mission of that group is nullified. For if it doesn’t come from Jacob, or doesn’t go to Esau, or comes and goes but this gift isn’t for Esau — then how will he appease him through this group? However, the statement and here, he is behind us is not an answer to his questions, and the acceptance of the gift doesn’t depend on this so much, because whether he comes or doesn’t come, ultimately the gift is being sent. This is nothing but an additional statement beyond his questions. One might have thought that since the first group already informed that Jacob would come after us, there’s no need for the second group to also say that he is behind us, as this information would be redundant. Therefore, Jacob needed to specify that the second group should also say and here, he is behind us The reason for this is that he was afraid the first group would appear as liars in his eyes, because when they say and here, he is behind us, he would understand from their words that Jacob would come immediately with the next group. When he sees that Jacob isn’t coming with the second group, he would say that the first group was deceitful in saying and here, he is behind us. Therefore, he commanded that the second group should also say and here, he is behind us, and for the same reason, he commanded the third group to say the same.

כי אמר: אכפרה פניו, “for he had said: ”I want to gain his goodwill.” Rashi understands this as an attempt to mollify Esau’s anger. Whenever the word כפרה occurs in connection with sin, either intentional or inadvertent, this is its primary meaning. Nachmanides comments that if we accept Rashi’s explanation the words are not words spoken by Yaakov at all, but are the Torah’s report of what motivated Yaakov’s entire conduct in offering a gift to his brother. Why would the Torah spell out Yaakov’s thoughts, when we had already read in verse 15 what was the reason for his preparing this gift. Not only that; most people who send gifts ahead of themselves do so for precisely the same reason, namely to put the recipient in a good mood so that they can be certain of a friendly reception. Another difficulty with Rashi’s comment raised by Nachmanides is that this consideration by Yaakov should have appeared at the beginning of this paragraph. Moreover, what possible reason is there for the Torah to quote the messengers as saying והנה גם הוא אחרינו, ”and lo he is also behind us?” Surely, this is not part of Yaakov’s thoughts at that time! For these various reasons Nachmanides explains that Yaakov now added as an afterthought that the messengers should add the words: “here he is also behind us,” as a polite way of explaining that the gift was indeed something preparatory to Yaakov’s personal arrival, designed to ensure that Esau would grant him an audience. Yaakov’s entire behaviour reflects Proverbs 16,14: ואיש חכם יכפרנה, “a wise man can appease it.” (the king’s anger)

And the offering passed on before him, while he himself lodged that night in the camp.

The Midrash connects the word פניו in על פניו with פנים anger — he (Jacob) was also in an angry mood that it should be necessary for him to do all this (Genesis Rabbah 76:8).

AND HE HIMSELF LODGED THAT NIGHT IN THE CAMP. Scripture states that he did not enter his tent that night but lodged in the camp together with his servants and the shepherds of the flocks, set in array, as a man for war, lest his brother come at night and attack him.

ותעבור המנחה על פניו, Yaakov rehearsed the proceedings in order to satisfy himself that it would accomplish to give the impression he had meant for it to convey.

והוא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה, “and he (Yaakov) spent that night in the camp.” This is a reference to what we have read in verse14: וילן שם בלילה ההוא, “he spent the night there.” It has been repeated, as the gift that Yaakov sent to Esau has been reported in the meantime in detail.

והוא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה, “whereas he himself spent that night in the camp.” He did not enter his tent but spent the night in the company of the shepherds, in order not to become the victim of a surprise attack by his brother.

And he rose in the night and took his two wives and his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Yabbok.

ואת אחד עשר ילדיו AND HIS ELEVEN CHILDREN — But where was Dinah? He placed her in a chest and locked her in so that Esau should not set his fancy upon her (desire to marry her). On this account Jacob was punished — because he had kept her away from his brother for she might have led him back to the right path; she therefore fell into the power of Shechem (Genesis Rabbah 76:9). יבק JABBOK — the name of the river.

AND HE TOOK HIS TWO WIVES, AND HIS TWO HANDMAIDS. There is no significance to being mentioned earlier or later in this verse with respect to rescue work. [Hence even though his wives are mentioned here first, from which you might infer that they appeared before Esau first, Scripture later states — 33:6 — that the handmaids came first.] Instead, Scripture states that he gathered his wives and handmaids and children at the edge of the brook, and he alone traversed the ford of the Jabbok to see if the waters were high, and then he returned and took them all with him at one time and made them pass the brook, here. and after that he made pass that which was his, here. namely, his camp and his belongings.

"And he crossed the ford of the Jabbok" — he himself crossed first, and only afterward took his wives and children and brought them across. Thus the meaning of "and he crossed" is that he had already crossed, and he returned at the end to check whether anything had been left behind.

ויקם בלילה, “he arose during that night;” he intended to flee via a different route. (Rash’bam) ויקם בלילה הוא, “a truncated phrase, which if grammatically correct should have been: ויקם הוא בלילה, “he arose during the night.” ויקח את שתי נשיו ואת שתי שפחותיו ואת אחד עשר ילדיו, “he took hold of his two wives, his two servant maids and his eleven children;” the wives are mentioned before the children, i.e. he transported them across the river first; he transported the wives across the river first, as he was more concerned with the children than with his wives; if Esau by chance should already have reached the far side of the river and was bent on killing him and his family, he would meet his wives first. At the time when Lavan had chased Yaakov, (from behind), Yaakov had positioned his wives, Lavan’s daughters behind him, so that Lavan would meet up with his daughters first. יבק, “the name of the river.” There are some commentators who claim that this is an alternate name for the river Jordan. They arrive at this conclusion by quoting Yaakov as saying to G-d in verse 11: “I have crossed the river Jordan the first time equipped only with my walking stick, and by now I have become two camps.” Here the river has been called: Yabbok.

ויעבר את מעבר היבוק, “he crossed the ford of the Yabok.” He wanted to test if the river bed would rise for him (according to Nachmanides) and would enable him to cross on foot. Once he saw that the water level was shallow enough — ויקחם ויעבירם את הנחל, “he took them and brought them across the river.” He then retraced his steps and —ויעבר את אשר לו, “and he brought his belongings across.” He commanded his servants to do this. As a result he himself was the last one left on the wrong side of the river.

ויקח את שתי נשיו ואת שתי שפחותיו, “he took his two wives and his two maid servants, etc.” Nachmanides comments that we must remember that the Torah is not obliged to report events in chronological order, and that therefore the order in which the people in this verse are mentioned is not indicative of any order of priorities. The Torah simply mentions the steps taken to save the lives of these people by transporting them across the river. He himself remained on what was considered the exposed bank of that river. Yaakov’s crossing the fording of the river was designed to establish whether the water level was low enough to cross that fording safely without danger of drowning. After having satisfied himself on that score, he made all his people and livestock cross the river.

And he took them and brought them across the wadi, and he brought across what was his.

את אשר לו [HE MADE PASS] THAT WHICH WAS HIS — the cattle and movables. He acted as a ferry-man taking them from one side and setting them down on the other.

ויעבר את אשר לו, he ordered all of them to precede him in crossing the river; we have a similar construction in Samuel II 18,23 ויעבור את הכושי, “he passed the Cushite.”

And Jacob was left alone, and a man strove with him until the break of dawn.

ויותר יעקב AND JACOB WAS LEFT ALONE — He had forgotten some small jars and he returned for them (Chullin 91a). ויאבק איש AND A MAN WRESTLED — Menachem (ben Seruk) explains: “a man covered himself with dust”, taking the verb as connected in sense with אבק “dust”. It would mean that they were raising the dust with their feet through their movements. I, however, am of opinion that it means “he fastened himself on”, and that it is an Aramaic word, as (Sanhedrin 63b) “after they have joined (אביקו) it", and (Menachot 42a) “and he twined (the “Fringes”) with loops”. It denotes “intertwining”, for such is the manner of two people who make strong efforts to throw each other — one clasps the other and twines himself round him with his arms. Our Rabbis of blessed memory explained that he was Esau’s guardian angel (Genesis Rabbah 77:3).

AND JACOB WAS LEFT ALONE. That is, for he had forgotten some small jars, and he returned for them. These are the words of Rashi. But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse, And he took them, and made them pass the brook, here. means that he made them [his family] pass together with him, and he made pass that which was his here. — [i.e., his camp and his belongings] — by commanding others to do it. He returned [to his camp after ferrying his family across], and he commanded that all others pass over the brook before him, and so he remained behind them. ‘VAYEI’AVEIK’ A MAN WITH HIM, A man covered himself with dust. So Menachem ben Saruk explained it, being derived from the word avak (dust); by their movements, they were raising dust with their feet. I, however, am of the opinion that it means “and he attached himself to,” and that it is an Aramaic word, as in, “After they have joined (aviku) it;” “And they twined the Fringes with loops.” This is all the language of Rashi. In the language of the Sages, avikah is often used to convey the sense of chavikah (loop), as in: “There are avkso (loops) in the punishing scourge;”, “A couch is called dargesh when it is set up and taken apart by means of loops, through which the cords are fastened.” Similarly the word avukah (a torch) is so called in the language of the Sages because it is made up of small pieces of wood which are tied and bound together. This is because the letter cheth is difficult to pronounce in their language and so they used the easier aleph. Many times the cheth disappears completely as in tuteich (underneath) in place of techuteich; mesuta (a bath) in place of maschuta; asita (a mortar) in place of chasita. And it is possible that the word vayei’aveik is actually vayeichaveik, as vayechabkeihu (and he embraced him), for perhaps it is the way of the Hebrew language to interchange the aleph and cheth. Thus we find: And in the fourth chariot grizzled ‘amutzim’ horses, which is the same as chamitzim, derived from the expression, ‘chamutz’ (crimsoned) garments. Commentators have said that ‘va’aruzim’ for thy merchandise is like vecharuzim, derived from the expression, thy neck ‘bacharuzim’ (with beads). So too did they say concerning the word vate’altzeihu that it is like vatechaltzeihu (and she pressed him), this being an inverted form of vatilchatzeihu, [the root of which is lachatz (oppression)]. Perhaps this is the opinion of Onkelos who said, in translation of the word vayei’aveik, ve’ishtadeil, and so also he translated the expression, And if a man ‘yephateh’ “as if yeshadeil,” if he embraces and kisses which is the manner of seduction. It may be that Onkelos found no word comparable to vayei’aveik, and so he considered it a matter of cunning, for all effort implies cunning and a clarification of circumstances. In Bereshith Rabbah 7:3. the Sages said: “Who became filled with dust? The man that was with him.” This agrees with the words of Menachem [ben Saruk, who said that vayei’aveik means “he covered himself with dust] “, and this is the correct interpretation.

"And he wrestled" [וַיֵּאָבֵק] — from the root avak [dust]; dust rose up between them. "Until the rise of dawn" — until the darkness of night departed. Some say that shachar refers to the form of light — what appears through the clouds before the sun rises; and so too: "for which there is no dawn" (Isaiah 8:20).

ויותר יעקב לבדו, he was the last one to leave from the camp as he was busy directing all his family and servants and chattels to cross the fording so that nothing would be left behind. ויאבק איש עמו, this was the work of an angel at the instigation of G’d (that is why he is called איש). The description is parallel to Kings II 13,17 It is immaterial whether the instrument of the salvation is a merely symbolic one such as the arrows described in the Book of Kings which Elisha instructed King Yoash to shoot in the direction of the far away Kingdom of Aram. Salvation occurs at the end of a period of ups and downs, and though Yaakov/Israel suffered many reverses in his struggle with Esau, (in the historical global struggle between the two philosophies) in the end Yaakov triumphs. [freely translated as the author is ambiguous to my mind. Ed.] The blessing given by the angel here to Yaakov at the end of the struggle, at daybreak, symbolises the synopsis of Jewish history.

ויאבק איש עמו, “a man began to wrestle with him.” The “man,” was an angel who had assumed the form of a human being. The angel, Esau’s protective power, had come to prevent Yaakov from escaping from Esau. He realised soon that G-d’s assurances to Yaakov were strong enough to protect him against being harmed by Esau. (Rash’bam) עד עלות השחר, “until dawn.”

ויותר יעקב לבדו, “when Yaakov had remained alone, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 77,3 state that these words should be read as if Yaakov returned for his jug (read לכדו instead of לבדו). This teaches that Yaakov went back across the river to retrieve small vessels which had been overlooked. This teaches that the righteous are very meticulous even with relatively low-cost items seeing that when you acquire things by making certain none of them has been tainted by being stolen or otherwise illegally acquired, one does treasure what one has more than do other people who do not mind to acquire things less honestly. This is Rashi’s approach to our verse. Another approach: the vessels were used to drink out of and Yaakov was concerned that the younger children should have a chance to drink from them on the journey. [According to this interpretation, the correct translation of the words פכים קטנים, would be “vessels that the little ones drink from,” rather than “small vessels.”] He endangered himself in order to have convenient drinking vessels for his small children. ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning of ויאבק is the same as ויחבק seeing that the letters אהע"ח are frequently interchangeable. Our sages in Sotah 21 use the word אבוקה and חבוקה interchangeably. An אבוקה, torch, is so called as it is composed of pieces of wood which “embrace” each other, i.e. חבוקה. A Midrashic approach. (Bereshit Rabbah 76,3 and 77, 2) The word ויאבק is derived from אבק, “dust.” It means that Yaakov became enveloped by the dust of the person engaging him in a struggle. The “man” was the celestial representative of Esau. It is well known that had it not been for the original sin in Gan Eden there would not be a noticeable difference between man and angel. On the contrary, man would outrank the angel in every respect. We base this on Sanhedrin 93 “the righteous are greater than the angels.” Accordingly, the “angel” came to try and find a sin Yaakov was guilty of in order to use the sin as a weapon to overpower him. However, he did not succeed. The only “sin” he could find was that Yaakov had married two sisters during their lifetime, something which had not yet been forbidden The Torah alludes to this when writing: “he inflicted an injury on Yaakov’s hip joint.” This was a euphemism for his sexual organs and the seat of sexual desire. The “punishment,” such as it was, was administered near that organ so that Yaakov limped for a while. Another allusion included in the words ויגע בכף ירכו, “he struck the socket of his hip,” is that the damage inflicted by the celestial representative of Esau would manifest itself in later generations, amongst descendants of Yaakov who would suffer under the Romans. When the Torah wrote that the “angel” was unable to harm Yaakov, i.e. כי לא יכול לו, the meaning is that he was unable to harm Yaakov personally. He did not have permission to do so as Yaakov was unblemished. Later generations who would not be so unblemished would become victims of Esau, however. This happened in the generation of Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava and his colleagues when that Rabbi became a martyr in order to save his students during the period when the Romans tried to wipe out Jews and Judaism (Sanhedrin 13). The Talmud tells the following story. Rabbi Chiyah bar Abba said: “if someone were to tell me to offer my life for the holy name of G’d I would be prepared to do so on condition that they would kill me quickly. If I had been asked to do the same during the period of שמד, [the persecutions of Jews and Judaism under Emperor Hadrianus] I would not be able to do so as I am not able to undergo such tortures.” What did they do in that generation? They brought iron bars which had been made white-hot. They then placed these bars under the arm pits of the victims and this is the way these people died.

And Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. Regarding the matter of the wrestling with Jacob, there are many opinions, indeed the length of one page is too short to record all the commentators’ views. I said, “Surely interpretations belong to God,” I will also answer my portion and say: Since most commentators agreed that this angel was Samael, the guardian angel of Esau, who is called “Samael Esau,” for all his desire and focus is to blind [same’a] people’s eyes and strike them with blindness, making them blind with the intellectual eye, until the seer cannot see the visions of truth, to come and see the face of God, and to enter into the counsel of God given to those who fear Him in the secrets of the Torah. For he is Satan, he is the Angel of Death, he is the Evil Inclination (as stated in Bava Batra 16). And a hint to this matter is that Samael is the partner of “anavim” [grapes] in the alphabet’s secondary letters [the letters that follow the letters that spell out Samael can spell anavim], for just as wine that comes from grapes, when it intoxicates a person, makes them blind by closing their eyes, as it is said His eyes shall be red with wine (Genesis 49:12). And typically, a drunk person walks like a blind person, so too this Samael, his partner, all his schemes are to blind people’s eyes until they cannot see the sun. Thus, grapes blind the physical eye, and his partner Samael blinds the intellectual eye, so that one cannot see divine visions, and this is Samael — a compound word. Furthermore, what you need to know is that the evil inclination is compared to a fly (Berakhot 61), as I explained above in Parshat Bereishit regarding the verse sin crouches at the door (Genesis 4:7). For typically, a fly does not settle on the intact flesh of a person, as it lacks the strength in its mouth to create a new opening in healthy flesh. Therefore, the fly settles between the lips where it finds a slightly open entrance — there it will settle to widen the wound’s opening. Similarly, the evil inclination does not engage with the completely righteous person who has not at all breached their boundaries nor opened any entrance for sin and impurity. With the person who is perfect in all their deeds, it has no connection or business, as it cannot overcome them at all. However, when a person themselves opens even a small entrance and breaches their boundaries even with a minor transgression, then immediately the evil inclination engages with them saying “surely you are my flesh and bone,” and then it will escalate from minor transgressions to severe ones, striving to widen the breach until violence rises beyond remedy, breaking down their fence leaving them trampled (Isaiah 5:5). Similarly, this angel Samael, the guardian angel of Esau, upon seeing Jacob’s dealings with Esau which depend on Torah observance as it is written and it shall be when you break free…. Now, as long as no iniquity was seen in Jacob at all, it did not engage with him to completely blind his intellectual eyes. But when it saw that Jacob slightly breached his boundaries with this departure — for God had blessed him and given him everything including great wealth, possessions, and honor — and Jacob stepped slightly beyond the boundary of contentment, and Jacob remained alone [some say “for his jug”], in a dangerous place, for night is the time when all harmful forces gather, and he remained alone at night for small jars, forsaking lofty and elevated matters, and for something insignificant held in contempt he remained alone in a dangerous place. Then Samael said “Aha! I have found my iniquity!” Since Jacob began with corruption and made himself somewhat blind to his situation — for who is as blind as those who love money, about whom it is said the eyes of man are never satisfied (Proverbs 27:20). Then Samael said “Now is the time to draw near and embrace him, and I will add impurity to fill his eyes with dust and dirt so that he will be completely blind, even with his intellectual eye.” This is what is meant by and Jacob remained alone — when he crossed the boundary of contentment and remained alone/for his jug, he was truly alone because his reasoning was negated by that of all others. For who would be foolish enough to endanger themselves for such an insignificant matter? This can only be a deluded heart that has turned from the path of the upright to so cherish money which causes one to forget God above, as it is written and when your silver and gold multiply… your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord (Deuteronomy 8:13). Immediately, “And a man wrestled with him.” Samael engaged with him to cause him to completely forget God. The word vaye’avek [wrestled] is similar to “vayechabek” [embraced], as the letters Alef, Chet, Heh, and Ayin are interchangeable. It was written as vaye’avek with an Alef to derive from it the meaning of “dust” [avak], because he wanted to blind his intellectual eye like dust that rises and blinds human eyes. Similarly, it arose in his mind to blind his intellectual eye in order to bring him to deny God above. This is what our Sages meant when they said (Chullin 91) that the dust rose up to the Throne of Glory, as this refers to the blinding of Zedekiah’s eyes, which touches upon the fundamental belief in the blessed Creator and the existence of His glorious throne. And regarding what they said that he was touching the Throne of Glory, they learned this from what was said until the break of dawn — meaning until but not including [dawn itself]. For the break of dawn prevented him from being able to bring [Jacob] to a denial of God, because through the break of dawn he truly recognized that the world has a Creator and Guide, as explained in the Akeidah [by Rabbi Isaac Arama] in Parshat Genesis on the verse And you shall know today and take to your heart that the Lord is God (Deuteronomy 4:39) — that through knowledge of the daily orbital movement, namely the sun, the learned person can understand that the Lord is God. Similarly, Abraham only recognized his Creator through the movements of the sun and its initial rising at dawn, as it is written Who inspired [the one] from the east with righteousness (Isaiah 41:2) — and this verse is interpreted as referring to Abraham. This is the precious pearl that hung from Abraham’s neck — that he would publicize to all the existence of God, blessed be He, and upon his death he attached this knowledge to the sun’s orbit. And the Rabbi explained that this is what they meant when they said (Yoma 20b) “If not for the sun’s orbit announcing the existence of God, blessed be He, the sound of Rome’s crowds denying His existence would be heard.” Therefore it says until the break of dawn but not including [dawn itself], because through knowledge of the sun’s movement Jacob knew that the Lord is God. And for this reason, the judgment of the wicked is [carried out] in the mornings, as evidenced by Sodom, and as it is written Every morning I will destroy all the wicked of the land (Psalms 101:8), because they did not take instruction from the break of dawn and did not know God. And when Samael saw that he could not completely blind his intellectual eye, he then attempted another strategy to at least partially blind his intellectual eye so that he would not be able to see into the secrets of the Torah and the hidden matters which are symbolized by the thigh, as it is written the curves of your thighs (Song of Songs 7:2). Just as the thigh is hidden, so too are the words of Torah hidden (Sukkah 49b). This is what is meant by and he touched the socket of his hip. I do not wish to remove this verse from its literal meaning, for certainly he actually touched his hip, but I am providing a reason for why he specifically touched the socket of his hip — it was to hint that through becoming a lover of money, one will undoubtedly become blind in the eyes of his intellect. And even though Jacob’s strength was such that he did not come to complete heresy, nevertheless the matter affected his hip socket, because through this he would not be able to see into the secrets of the Torah and wisdom. And Jacob’s hip socket was dislocated — to teach that these two possessions, Torah and money, are in conflict with each other, and dislocated means that one is pushed aside for the other, as it is written It is good for me that I was afflicted, so that I might learn Your statutes (Psalms 119:71).

ויותר יעקב לבדו. “Yaakov remained alone.” According to Rashi, Yaakov had gone back in order to retrieve small and inexpensive utensils. Nachmanides explains the plain meaning of the statement to be that Yaakov had accompanied his family and folk and livestock across the river. After having done so, he commanded his servants to ferry the chattels across, while he supervised the work personally. ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him, etc.” The word ויאבק descries an activity similar to ויחבק, “he embraced him,” presumably in a kind of bear hug. The letter א frequently substitutes for the letter ח.

And he saw that he could not prevail against him, and he touched the socket of his thigh, and the socket of Jacob's thigh was strained in his striving with him.

ויגע בכף ירכו HE TOUCHED THE HOLLOW OF HIS THIGH — The upper thigh-bone that is sunk in the hip is called כף because the flesh on it (on this bone) has the form of the hollow part of a pot-ladle (כף). ותקע AND WAS STRAINED — It was violently torn from its joint. Similar in meaning is (Jeremiah 6:8) “Lest My soul be alienated (תקע) from thee” — i.e. removed from thee; and in the Mishna, לקעקע בצתם, which means to remove violently (לשרש) their roots.

AND HE SAW THAT HE PREVAILED NOT AGAINST HIM. Ye angels of His, ye mighty in strength, that fulfill His word. Because of this the angel could not prevail against him to harm him for it was not permitted to him to do other than that which he did to him, namely, to disjoint the hollow of his thigh. Now the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah:4. “He touched all the righteous people who were destined to come from Jacob. This refers to the generation of religious persecution.” The purport of this Midrash is that this entire event constitutes a hint to his generations, indicating that there will be a generation from the seed of Jacob against whom Esau [Rome] will prevail to the extent of almost uprooting his seed. This occurred in one generation during the period of the Sages of the Mishnah, which was the generation of Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba and his companions. As they said: “Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said, ‘If a person were to tell me, “Give your life for the sanctification of the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He,” I would give it, providing only that they slay me immediately. But in the generation of religious persecution I could not endure!’ And what did the Romans do in that generation? They would bring iron balls and heat them in fire and then place them under their arm-pits and cause their death.” And there are other generations in which they have done to us such things as these and even worse, but we have endured and it has passed over us, just as it is hinted in the verse, And Jacob came in peace.

"For he could not prevail over him" — the angel could not prevail over Jacob. "And he touched the socket of his hip" — Jacob's hip. "And it was wrenched" [וַתֵּקַע] — like "lest my soul be torn from you" (Jeremiah 6:8); the hip socket was displaced from its place.

לא יכול לו, seeing that most of Yaakov’s striving was oriented toward G’d and heavenly concerns. Both his thinking and his conversation had G’d and His will as its focus. ויגע he informed him that in the future, i.e. כף ירכו, many of his offspring would become guilty of sins against G’d. While this troubled Yaakov he momentarily digressed from his concentration on G’d so that the angel could inflict an injury upon him during his lapse of concentration.

וירא, “the angel saw;” (realised) כי לא יוכל לו “that he could not overpower Yaakov;” the words: לא יוכל, must be understood in the sense that Moses used them before taking leave from his people, when he said: in Deut. 31,2: לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבא, “I cannot any longer lead you in war,” where he was physically fully able, but G-d had forbidden him to do so. The author cites more examples of the word יכול occurring in that sense. ויגע, “the angel touched in a manner which twisted (his hip joint); בכף ירכו, “his hip joint;” he tried to dislocate his hip joint, hoping that this would cause him to fall down. ותקע, “he succeeded in dislocating it.” This is one of the words which can be interpreted in two opposite ways depending on the context in which they appear. A well known example is the root דשן, which can mean “to saturate,” i.e. to heap more and more of a substance onto something, but it also appears as removing excess ashes from the altar. (Compare Exodus 27,3) The root תקע is more familiar to us as meaning to firmly establish something, such as the pegs holding a tent to the ground it is on. Compare Genesis 31,25, ויעקב תקע את אהלו בהר, “and Yaakov placed his tent firmly on the mountain.” Compare Leviticus 6,3, Psalms 80,10, and Psalms 52,7. In our verse it describes the angel’s attempt to uproot Yaakov. כף ירך יעקב, “the hip joint of Yaakov.” The angel succeeded to injure Yaakov despite G-d’s assurances to him that “I will protect you wherever you go;” because Yaakov allowed himself to be frightened of Esau in spite of G-d’s assurances. [This was a lack of faith in G-d’s promise. Ed.] We find something similar with Moses, whom the angel injured and almost killed. (The incident at the inn on the way to Egypt) He had been assured of G-d’s support (Exodus 3,12) but displayed fear of Pharaoh, and refused the mission to become the leader of the Jewish people and to return to Egypt. (Exodus 3,13) He had asked G-d to send anyone but him.

וירא כי לא יכול לו, “when the man realized that he could not overpower him, etc.,” actually, he could have overpowered Yaakov, seeing that he was an angel disguised as a human being, איש; however he had not received permission to do this. All he had been allowed to do was to dislocate Yaakov’s hip joint. This injury too was intended to serve as a warning to the Jewish people in the future that there would arise a descendant of Esau, the Roman Empire, who would threaten to totally annihilate the people. ויגע בכף ירכו, “he ‘touched’ his thigh-joint.” He intended thereby to cause Yaakov to fall to the ground, in the manner of two people wrestling, when each one attempts to first force his opponent to the ground. Some commentators claim that the angel tried to inflict a disabling blow on Yaakov, one that would disqualify him from performing service on the altar, as a penalty for his having taken the birth right from Esau, i.e. Esau’s privilege to perform such service for G’d. on the altar. Prior to the building of the Tabernacle all such service was performed by the firstborn of each Jewish household.

And he said: "Release me, for dawn has broken." And he said: "I will not release you unless you have blessed me."

כי עלה השחר FOR THE DAY BREAKETH, and I have to sing God’s praise at day (Chullin 91b; Genesis Rabbah 78:1). ברכתני [EXCEPT] THOU BLESS ME — admit my right to the blessings which my father gave me and to which Esau lays claim.

לא אשלחך, this utterance by Yaakov confirms what the sages tell us that the righteous are greater than the ministering angels (Sanhedrin 92).

לא אשלחך, "I will not let you depart, etc." When the angel said to Jacob that he had struggled with a celestial being and had prevailed, he meant that he now could not depart without Jacob's permission. When Jacob said: "unless you bless me," he meant that he would assure him that the injury he caused to Jacob's hip-joint would not be permanent. It is also possible that the mere fact that Jacob now realised he had wrestled with an angel prompted him to ask for a blessing from that angel.

שלחני כי עלה השחר, “give me permission to leave for dawn has arisen!” “Until now I held you up from proceeding according to plan; now you have permission to proceed on your way.” An alternate exegesis of this strange conversation: The angel told Yaakov that since it now was almost daylight, he no longer had anything to fear from him. It is not customary for destructive forces to do their jobs during the daylight hours. כי אם ברכתני, “unless you first give me a blessing.” Yaakov meant that he would not accept the angel’s words until he had demonstrated that he meant it, by giving him a blessing. After that he would feel confident that he no longer had reason to fear him and would not seek revenge because he had failed to disable him. (Rash’bam)

ויאמר שלחוני, “he (the angel) said: ‘let me go!’” The angel was afraid that if he were to leave without having obtained Yaakov’s permission they would punish him in heaven with having to endure the פולסי דנורא [some physical punishment administered by a fiery rod and mentioned in Chagigah 15 and elsewhere as an instrument for disciplining wayward angels. Ed.] We have another reference to this incident in (Hoseah 12,5) “He strove with an angel and prevailed; the other had to weep and implore him.” כי עלה השחר, “for dawn as risen.” When the angel asked to leave before daybreak Yaakov asked him: “are you a thief that you need to fear daylight?” He answered “I am an angel and ever since I have been created I have not yet had the opportunity to sing a song of praise to the Lord in the heavenly choir. Today is my opportunity.” There is a reference to this in Scripture (Job 38,7) ברן יחד כוכבי בוקר ויריעו כל בני אלוקים. “When the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy.” The time of dawn is the time when the קדושה is recited as mentioned by Isaiah 6,3 “and one would call to he other: Holy, Holy, Holy.” Hearing this, Yaakov replied: לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, “I will not let you go unless you first bless me.” He wanted Esau’s angel to acknowledge that the blessing he had received from Yitzchak was acknowledged by Esau as being rightfully his. Thereupon the angel said: לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל, “your name will no longer be Yaakov but Israel.” He meant that from now on people will no longer say that you obtained the blessings by subterfuge, but they will admit that you are the rightful recipient of them. Alternatively, what the angel meant was that if anyone were to accuse Yaakov of having swindled Lavan they would be proven wrong as Yaakov had been accorded the attribute “Truth”, i.e. that he had acted truthfully in all his undertakings. This was confirmed in Michah 7,20 “You have given “truth” to Yaakov.”

And he said, “Let me go, for dawn has broken.” [This means:] “For I can no longer bring you to deny God, now that you have set your mind and attention to the rising of the dawn.” As it is said [in the next verse], And he [Jacob] said, I will not let you go unless you bless me — meaning that you [the angel] should acknowledge to me that you cannot overcome me in matters of perceiving and contemplating the existence of the blessed God. [This was] so that the evil angel would be compelled to answer “Amen” against his will, and the prosecutor would become the defender, just as Satan does on Yom Kippur.

כי אם ברכתני, “unless you have first blessed me.” In accordance with the accepted principle that the person who inflicts injury is in a better position to heal same than anyone else by pronouncing a formula wishing his victim a speedy recovery. The angel wanted to know Yaakov’s name, as it is mandatory for the healer to know the victim’s name if his efforts are to be crowned with success. Another explanation of the meaning of כי אם ברכתני, has Yaakov asking for a blessing from the angel, as an acknowledgment that he had prevailed in the struggle. with celestial forces. This was the reason why Yaakov asked the angel for his name. He wanted to be able in the future to be able to tell whomever it concerned that he had battled an angel to a standstill. The angel protested that it would be embarrassing for him that Yaakov should boast to have overcome him. In lieu of revealing his name, he bestowed a blessing on Yaakov that incorporated an allusion to this nocturnal encounter every time he would be addressed by this name.

And he said to him: "What is your name?" And he said: "Jacob."

And he said: "No longer shall Jacob be called your name, but rather Israel, for you have contended greatly before Hashem and with men, and have prevailed."

לא יעקב [THY NAME SHALL] NO MORE BE CALLED JACOB [BUT ISRAEL] (literally, “not Jacob — supplanting — shall any more be said to thee”) — It shall no longer be said that the blessings came to you through supplanting and subtlety but through noble conduct (שררה) and in an open manner. Because later on the Holy One, blessed be He, will reveal Himself to you at Bethel and will change your name. There He will bless you, and I shall be there and admit your right to them (the blessings). It is to this that the passage refers (Hosea 12:5), “And he strove with an angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him” — it means the angel wept and made supplication unto him (Jacob). What was the subject of his supplication? This is stated in the next verse: “At Bethel He will meet us and there He will speak with us — implying the request. “Wait until he will speak with us there, and then I will admit your right to the blessings.” Jacob, however, would not agree to this, and against his own wish he had to admit his right to the blessings. That is what is meant when it states (v. 30) “And he declared him blessed there”, that he begged him to wait and he did not agree to do so (cp. Genesis Rabbah 78:2). ועם אנשים AND WITH MEN —Esau and Laban. ותוכל AND HAST PREVAILED over them.

For Ibn Ezra's commentary on this verse, see Ibn Ezra on Genesis 33:10.

לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך, a reference to the end of days when Israel will have survived the destruction of the gentile nations When that time comes no one ever will again use the name Yaakov for the Jewish people [and the stigma that used to be associated with that name. Ed.] The very word יעקב already contained within this message that the bearer of this name will triumph at the end. Once he has triumphed there is no more point in having a name which alludes to something which will be realised only in the future. The future will then have arrived! כי אם ישראל כי שרית, they will only refer to as “Israel.” This new name is to confirm that שרית עם אלוקים ועם אנשים, this is analogous to Isaiah 24,21 יפקוד ה' על צבא המרום במרום ועל מלכי האדמה על האדמה, “in that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on earth.”

כי שרית עם אלהים, “you have now become the equal of angels, but you have not succeeded in outranking them.”

כי שרית עם אלוקים, “for you have contended with Divine forces.” In this instance the word elohim refers to the angel representing Esau with whom Yaakov had wrestled. The words ועם אנשים in the same line, refer to Lavan and Esau. According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,3 the words כי שרית עם אלוקים mean that Yaakov’s countenance was engraved on the throne of G’d and the angel had realized this after looking at Yaakov.

“And he said, ‘Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but rather Israel.’” The term Israel comes from the root “yashar El,” because “yashar” is related to seeing/vision, as in the phrase I shall see him, but not near (Numbers 24:17). Through this, he [the angel] acknowledged that Jacob sees the face of God, and he [the angel] did not succeed in blinding him to the reality of the blessed God. And in saying for you have striven with God, he uprooted the name Jacob from him, because “Jacob” [Yaakov] indicates the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), while “Israel” denotes straightness, as it is written regarding the future: And the crooked shall be made straight (Isaiah 40:4). This is not merely straightness as it appears in the eyes of people, but rather straightness as it appears in the eyes of both God and man. Therefore, he said for you have striven with God and with men, because through the virtue of your actions you will be a prince and leader with both God and men, and you will prevail. This is the meaning of “Israel” — “yashar El” — straightness that is apparent even in the eyes of the blessed God.

And Jacob asked and said: "Tell me now your name." And he said: "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there.

למה זה תשאל WHEREFORE IS IT THAT THOU DOST ASK [AFTER MY NAME]? — We have no fixed names; our names change, all depending upon the service we are commanded to carry out as the errand with which we are charged (Genesis Rabbah 78:4).

WHY IS IT THAT THOU DOST ASK AFTER MY NAME? The angel said: “There is no advantage to you in knowing my name for no one possesses the power and the capability other than G-d alone. If you will call upon me I will not answer you, nor will I save you from your trouble. However, I will now bless you, for so I am commanded.” But Scripture does not explain the contents of the blessing. That which our Rabbis have said See also the explanatory note on this verse in my Hebrew commentary, p. 186. is most probable, namely that the angel, despite himself, conceded to him at that place the legitimacy of his father’s blessings, as Jacob did not wish to wait for him until he arrived at Beth-el.

הגידה נא שמך, which would describe your essence, your function, and how you would go about performing same. This would enable me to understand why you attacked me in the first place. I would then be able to do penitence for my sin, something I cannot do as long as I do not know what precisely my sin consists of.?למה זה תשאל לשמי, our (angels) format does not in any way correspond and shed light on the level of our intelligence which cannot be explained in terms of language used by human beings. The angel confronting Manoach in Judges 13,18 summed this up in the single word: “פלאי,” it is concealed, [because it would only be misunderstood if put into words. Ed.] The angel’s activity reflects G’d’s will at the time. [Clearly, this implies that most angels perform their tasks ad hoc. Ed.]

הגידה נא שמך, "please tell me your name!" Although Jacob was aware that angels do not have fixed names, he asked him what this particular angel's name was at this particular time. למה זה תשאל לשמי, "Why do you ask after my name?" Whereas it made sense that the angel asked Jacob's name seeing he intended to change it to Israel, or at least, to inform him of that impending change. Jacob's asking the angel for his name did not have such a purpose, however. The angel therefore wanted to know the reason for Jacob's enquiry. The angel may also simply have hinted that there was no point in asking him his present name as it was apt to be changed as soon as he had accomplished his present mission. He would only have to ask him again for his name on a future occasion.

למה זה תשאל לשמי, “why are you asking for my name?” The angel informs Yaakov that there is no point in knowing his name; he explains that when people that have not seen one another ever, upon meeting, will extend greetings with one another and bless each other wishing each other well, and ask one another for their names, they justify this in the event that they wished to communicate with each other in the future. If they do not know one another’s name and address, how could they communicate with each other? Knowing the angel’s name, just as in the case of Manoach in Judges 13,17, is important only when such occasions will arise. The angel assures Yaakov that in this instance there is no need for this as he knows his name and address and will not forget it. Another interpretation of why the angel retorted to Yaakov’s question with a question of his own, instead of with an answer, though he complied with Yaakov’s request to bless him: the reason why angels do not like to reveal their names is to prevent human beings to make them swear an oath concerning the mission that they had fulfilled. And we also found that it is also written about Manoach to whom the angel says, "Why do you ask for my name? And it is wonderful" (Judges 13,18). Another interpretation: I asked what is your name in order to mention it in the name of the act, but what will my name be of any use to you? Why would you ask me?

למה זה תשאל לשמי, “why is this that you ask for my name?” He meant: “we do not have a fixed name; our names always change according to the mission we are sent on.” Another meaning of these words: “why do you ask for a name seeing that we are not in the habit of revealing our names?” The reason an angel does not like to reveal his name is so as not to appear to crown himself with the success of any mission he has been sent on. He does not want a human being to go around saying: “this and this angel has performed such and such a miracle.” He is a servant, a mere extension of his Master in Heaven and he is careful not to do something which would create the wrong impression. This was the reason that the angel who had announced to Manoach and his wife that they would have a son resented being asked for his name (Judges 13,18) saying that his name was פלאי, “something concealed. This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,7: כל הנקרא בשמי-לכבודי בראתיו, “everything which bears My name,- I have created it for the sake of My honour.” This is also the thrust of David saying in Psalms 29,1: “ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.” There are some commentators who have explained the words “why do you ask for my name” as “seeing that I have been defeated, what is the pointed in your knowing my name? Usually the victor wants his own name to become known. The loser does not want his name known so as to suffer the minimum of embarrassment. ויברך אותו שם, “he blessed him there.” He acknowledged that Yaakov was the rightful owner of the blessings his father had bestowed upon him. According to a Midrash the blessing the angel bestowed upon Yaakov at this time was identical with what would later on become the standard formula of the Priests blessing the Jewish people as recorded in Numbers 6,24-27. A logical/investigative approach: The words: “a man wrestled with him,” refer to Gavriel. [We have shown on other occasions that Gavriel is referred to as איש “man.” Ed.] According to the philosophers, Gavriel is symbolic of the active investigative intelligence. [According to Kabbalistic writings this disembodied intelligence supplies the outer form to human beings based on their endowments (genes), Ed.] This force is the tenth of the emanations (the lowest counting from the top) the one we call מלכות which is just one rung above the physical universe, the עולם העשיה. This is the reason that the term איש which is usually only associated with tangible creatures is applied to Gavriel. Yaakov wanted to know if it is possible that this “man’s” soul while still enclosed in a body could attain or represent a spiritual level equal to disembodied intelligences such as the force with whom he had done battle. [In other words, this category of angel might be perceived as the link between the highest intelligence found inside a body and the lowest intelligence able to exist as a disembodied entity. Ed.] The angel, i.e. Gavriel, answered him that this was possible only after dawn, i.e. until the various forces which darken the soul have disappeared with the light of morning. This physical light, though symbolic of spiritual light, is here described as עלות השחר. Let me now explain the whole episode to you based on the premise we have just outlined. I am basing myself on a Jewish philosopher in Seville who wrote this commentary in the course of his discourse on Song of Songs. I have merely translated what he wrote into Hebrew: ויותר יעקב לבדו, “Yaakov remained alone deep in thought, divesting himself of the influences exerted upon him by his body so that his thinking was unimpaired by such influences.” He desired to know if his own intellect had attained the level which when the Torah speaks of certain celestial forces (such as Gavriel) is described as איש. It is understood that what is described as התאבקות, “a wrestling match,” takes place between evenly matched opponents. The Torah informs us here that in that struggle Yaakov did not attain superiority, i.e. the ability to function just like a disembodied spirit free from bodily influences, until the break of dawn. The word שחר stands for the restrictive influence of the body on the mind. Until Yaakov was able to rid himself of that influence, i.e. עד עלות השחר, “until the departure of that שחר,” he was not able to fully assert his שכל הפועל, his free-roaming intellect. וירא כי לא יוכל לו, now that the disembodied intellect no longer held an advantage over Yaakov’s intellect, though the latter was imprisoned in a body, ויגע בכף ירך יעקב, and the forces of the body are identified by the expression כף ירך, the part of the physique which is essential in man, it became clear to Yaakov that his disadvantage vis-a-vis disembodied intellects was due only to the fact that he was imprisoned in a body. ויאמר שלחני כי עלה השחר, at this point the disembodied intellect hints that the intellect embodied within Yaakov will become totally independent once the restrictive shackles of being imprisoned in a body, i.e. שחר are removed. The נפש השכלית, the intellectual life-force within Yaakov is on a par with the intellects of such disembodied beings as the angels. He (the “angel”) mentioned this simile as something similar to someone who dismisses a servant or friend as he no longer needs him. It was a compliment the angel paid to Yaakov. ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, this teaches that the intellectual life-force within Yaakov’s body held on to the disembodied intellect represented by the “angel”. He (Yaakov) was not prepared to let go of the disembodied spirit he had embraced during this nocturnal encounter until this force had left an imprint on him which would not become dispelled as soon as he released the disembodied intelligence from his “embrace.” He insisted on attaining the intellectual level he had aspired to in an irreversible manner, not merely as a temporary spiritual-intellectual “high.” ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך, remember that the name Yaakov has a connotation of “humiliation, degradation.” We encounter this when he was born when the Torah described him as holding on to his twin brother’s heel (Genesis 25,26). Such an activity as holding on to someone else’s heel is certainly creating an image of someone servile, someone in a degrading condition. After all, the heel is the very lowest part of the body. The name ישראל by contrast evokes the image of something superior. This is why the “angel” said: “you are entitled to be known by a name which conveys something lofty.” He gave as the reason for this change of name the fact that כי שרית עם אלו-הים ועם אנשים, that Yaakov’s intellectual life-force had proven to be equal to the intellect of disembodied spiritual beings even though his own intellect was still imprisoned within a body, This is the meaning of the words ועם אנשים. Actually, there had been no need for this word; if someone holds his own in a contest with divine forces he is most certainly understood to be even to or superior to any human contestant. The use of the words עם אנשים therefore adds a new dimension to our verse. Yaakov was very anxious to have confirmation that his own נפש השכלית, was on a par with that of disembodied spiritual creatures though his own spirit was still connected to his body. הגידה נא שמך, he wanted confirmation of what the “angel” had said by being able to identify him by name. The name would give Yaakov a clue as to the essence of that spiritual force. But the angel did not fulfill his request. He responded למה זה תשאל לשמי — that Yaakov did not need this information as he had already achieved a great deal and had risen to the level of disembodied heavenly spirits. The Torah goes on with a report of the consequences of this encounter by writing על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה אשר על כף הירך, “this is why the children of Israel are not to eat the displaced sinew of the hip-socket.” This means that seeing the נפש השכלית is meant to adjust to the norms of the disembodied intellect, the true Israelites are not to engage in activities which arouse the libido which is seated near the hip-socket. The meaning of the word “eat” here does not only mean the actual consumption of this part of animalistic tissue but also what it symbolizes, i.e. absorbing the philosophy it represents. From a purely physical point of view, this sinew is a very tough sinew and comparable to a tough cord. Cords become harder and tougher with use through pulling wagons, etc. Similarly, when one engages in such activities as arousing one’s libido, this leaves a progressively deeper imprint on one’s personality. The more frequently one engages in such activities the more they become part of one’s personality. Hence, the prohibition of “eating” that sinew has also deep psychological significance for the Jewish people. Preoccupation with such concerns gradually estranges one to G’d. The act of “eating” if performed within reason, i.e. in quantities appropriate to the body’s need, actually promotes both good physical and spiritual health. Eating to excess results in corruption of the body and ultimately the soul. The same is true when one indulges any of the other תאוות הגוף, physical desires. אשר על כף הירך, the importance of this particular sinew is that the entire body relies heavily on it so that if it is damaged one cannot even move. It therefore represents all physical desire. עד היום הזה, this does not refer to a specific date. The meaning of the words is that as long as the desires of the body assert themselves in man the restriction expressed in this prohibition remains in force. The arrival of the hereafter signifies a new יום, “Day,” as documented by many of our prophets. Hence, the Torah says that as long as man (Israel) is a mortal human being this prohibition will remain in force. כי נגע בכף ירך יעקב, the reason the Torah deliberately reverts to naming Israel “Yaakov” at this juncture, is to stress that the influence of physical desire is what “separates the men from the boys,” i.e. what is the true impediment of every “Yaakov” developing into an “Israel.” It is within the power and scope of physical desires to drag down the נפש השכלית in man to the level represented by Yaakov at birth, i.e. a degraded person who hangs on to the heel of his totally physically oriented brother. We find an interesting parallel of this concept in Kings I 18,31 ויקח אליהו שתים עשרה אבנים כמספר שבטי בני-יעקב אשר היה דבר ה' אליו לאמור ישראל יהיה שמך. “Eliyahu took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of Yaakov, to whom G’d had said: ‘your name shall be Israel.’” What was the need for the Book of Kings to add the words: ‘to whom G’d had said: ”your name shall be Israel?’” Are we then fools that we did not know who Yaakov was? The answer is that at the time of the prophet Eliyahu the Israelite people were in a state of rebellion against G’d. They actively worshiped the Baal, misled by the prophets and priests who preached the religion of the Baal. Eliyahu reminded them in the verse quoted that they were guilty of devoting themselves to the physical, to the desires of the body, whereas their task in life had been to devote themselves to the meta-physical, to the Divine. The word יעקב in the verse above symbolized the physical whereas the word ישראל symbolized the spiritual, the meta-physical. Eliyahu reminded them that G’d had instructed them to become שכליים, intellectually oriented people, similar to the angels. We also find in Psalms 82,6 that at one time G’d had said of Man “you are divine,” only to find that due to their having committed a sin involving following their physical desires they became mortal, far from divine. In 35,9 when G’d says to Yaakov לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב כי-אם ישראל יהיה שמך, “you will no longer be called Yaakov but your name shall remain Israel,” the message is not so much a compliment but a moral/ethical imperative to live according to the yardsticks applied to individuals deserving of the distinctive title ישראל. This is why our sages in Berachot 13 stated that ישראל was henceforth Yaakov’s major name, the name Yaakov being used only in a secondary sense. This also explains G’d’s instructions to Moses in Exodus 19,3 prior to the giving of the Torah כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל, “thus you shall say (briefly) to the house of Yaakov, and tell (in detail) to the children of Israel.” The women were referred to as “Yaakov,” as they are adjuncts to the men (in terms of Torah study), the men as “Israel.” Thus far the words of the philosopher. If I perhaps have not translated his words verbatim, this was because I basically wanted only to convey the gist of his approach. I would add, based on the approach of this philosopher, that the fact that the Torah calls the name of the place where Yaakov had this encounter once פניאל and another time פנואל, is a hint that the first name alludes to this angel representing the tenth emanation (meaning of the letter י) the type of angel known as איש. Once Yaakov/Israel had passed that place and had properly assimilated this new concept of man’s נפש שכלית being capable of matching the spiritual level of the intellect of the disembodied angels, the place was called פנואל with the letter ו, as we now find that Yaakov was limping on his hip-socket. He had become aware of his body’s being an impediment to spiritual progress which needed to be overcome. A kabbalistic approach to this episode: The words ויאבק איש עמו are a reference to כבוד נברא במלאכים, a concept we encountered when the angels visited Avraham. [Briefly, if I understand it correctly: on the one hand we find the term מלאך applied to man, on the other hand, we find the term איש applied to angels. Whenever such “inverted” terms are used they are expressions of honor, compliments to the person or angel undergoing the respective experience. In this instance the מלאך assuming human form compliments the human being who is to experience his presence, whereas when a human being is described as מלאך this is a compliment to the angels into whose spheres he has been transplanted for the experience described. In more mundane terms “when in Rome do as the Romans do,” and vice versa. Ed.]

למה זה תשאל לשמי?, “why do you have to know my name?” The angel implies that knowing his “name” will be of no use to Yaakov at all. The reason is that he does not possess any powers of his own, he is only a tool in the hands of G’d, so much so that if Yaakov were ever to call upon him he would not even respond. What he was able to do however, was to give Yaakov a blessing. The reason he could do so was because G’d had commanded him to do so. The Torah did not spell out the text of the blessing. Our sages add that Yaakov thanked the angel for his blessing. ויברך אותו שם, “he blessed him there.” In that same location Yaakov was not willing to wait until he would get to Beyt El to receive this blessing; therefore the angel spelled it out already now.

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for he said: "I have seen the angels of Hashem face to face, and my life has been spared."

פנים אל פנים, face to face. Jacob's amazement was not due to the fact that he had had an encounter with an angel; he had previously encountered angels. What amazed him was that he had been in a confrontation with an angel. The word פנים אל פנים is a term used in warfare as we know from Kings II 14,8.

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face. This is the matter which I spoke about — that Samael wanted to blind the eyes of his intellect with the dust of evil speech, to the point where he would deny God’s existence and not see the face of God. And when my soul was saved through the rising of dawn, then I saw God face to face, to grasp His blessed existence through the shining of the sun at dawn’s rise, contrary to the view of Samael who blinds and defiles and mixes the holy with the mundane. This is what is meant by and the sun rose for him — namely to heal him. Yet afterward it says and he was limping on his hip — these verses seem to contradict each other. Rather, the meaning is that through the rising of the sun came healing for the blow that Samael wanted to strike him with, which was to blind his intellectual eyes and bring him to deny God. Therefore it says for him — for his benefit — as the sun of righteousness shone upon him with healing in its wings, and because of its rising his eyes shall see the King in His beauty. Nevertheless, Samael’s actions succeeded in making him limp on his hip and closing the gates of understanding before him, preventing him from entering into the secret counsel of God reserved for those who fear Him, so long as his eye was on his money and he was consumed by the uncontrolled desire for worldly possessions.

And the sun shone upon him as he passed Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh.

ויזרח לו השמש AND THE SUN SHONE UPON HIM— This is the expression that people use: “When we reached such-and-such a place the dawn broke upon us”. This is its literal sense. But the Midrash says that לו means, “for his needs” — to heal his lameness. Thus, too, you read in Scripture a similar metaphor (Malachi 3:20) “the sun of righteousness with healing in its wings”. The hours that it had set before its time for his sake when he left Beer-Sheba (cp. Genesis 18:11) it now rose before its time for his sake (Sanhedrin 75b). והוא צלע AND HE LIMPED — He was limping when the sun rose.

The sun shone upon him. This verse must be inverted — after he passed Penuel, still limping, the sun shone and healed him. Similarly, in the time to come the “sun” of the redemption will shine and heal the righteous.

כאשר עבר את פנואל, as he passed Pnu-el. Perhaps Jacob was the only one who called that place Pni-el instead of Pnu-el. We find the name Pnue-el also in Judges 8.

ויזרח לו השמש, “the sun shone for him.” In the In the Western hemisphere, the sun’s rays rise earlier and became stronger on a daily basis starting in the month of Tevet, until in the month of Tammuz the days again start to become shorter and the sun’s rays weaker. Our author tries to show how the season’s variations are hinted at in the words of the Torah here. The reason why the author does this is because he was troubled by the Torah in our verse making it appear as if the sun shone only for Yaakov and not the rest of the world. He uses the numerical value of the word: 36=לו, as the basis of this exegesis. [I have decided to omit the details of this astronomical part of his exegesis of this verse. Ed.] והוא צולע על ירכו, “and he was limping, i.e. dragging his feet.” He had not been able to leave Peduel before the sun was shining strongly and its healing rays enabled him to walk. An alternate exegesis: no one had noticed his limp until the sun shone. The grammatical construction of our verse would be parallel to Genesis 29,25 when the Torah writes: ויהי בבקר והנה היא לאה, “it was morning when he found out (Yaakov) that it was Leah (in bed with him)”.

ויזרח לו השמש כאשר עבר את פנואל, “the sun shone for him as son as he had passed Penuel.” The Torah means that the sun had risen already long before Yaakov reached Penuel. The reason why it took him so long to get there was that he now had a limp to contend with. Another interpretation of the words והוא צולע על ירכו, “he was limping on his thigh-joint,” is that he walked deliberately so slowly that onlookers did not even notice that he was limping. During the extra time it took Yaakov to reach Penuel the sun had already long risen and begun to shine. Only now did his limp become recognizable, due to the bright light of the sun.

Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh-vein that is on the socket of the thigh, to this day, for he touched the socket of Jacob's thigh at the sinew of the thigh-vein.

גיד הנשה THE SINEW OF THE THIGH-VEIN — Why is its name called גיד הנשה? Because it sprang נשה) and rose from its proper position. The word has the meaning of “springing”. Other examples are: (Jeremiah 51:30) “Their strength sprang away (נשתה)” and (41:51) “for God hath made all my trouble spring away from me נַשַּׁנִי)".

"The sciatic nerve" [גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה] — it is well known, as our early masters of blessed memory transmitted it, and there is no doubt about it except to those who lack knowledge and lineage — those who interpret it as referring to the organ, and who derive nasha from the root meaning "women" [nashim]. According to the opinion of one who holds that the angel who appeared to Jacob was a corporeal being, the matter will be clarified for you — if Hashem opens your heart — in the passage of "for My name is within him."

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל, in order to ensure that the damage inflicted to Yaakov’s offspring as predicted by the angel should be kept to a minimum as long as they remind themselves of the symbolic meaning of that injury suffered by Yaakov during his nocturnal encounter with this angel. [I believe that even commentators who concentrate on the plain meaning of the text, such the ones whose commentaries I am translating in these volumes, feel free to treat the text allegorically when the narrative of the Torah itself appears pointless unless we understand it in historical terms, offering moral and ethical teachings and warnings of long term significance. Ed.] Alternatively, the moral lesson is that just as the gid hanashe is totally devoid of taste, does not appeal to the palate, so that consuming it would not provide the sinner with any kind of gratification, we are taught not to second-guess G’d’s legislation by treating this commandment as not important.

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה. This is why the children of Israel do not eat the disjointed sinew, etc. This sinew was dislocated from its holy origin and became subject to dominance by the קליפה ["external forces" in the scheme of the emanations, Ed.]. G'd forbade anything which has thus become defiled wherever it appears. There is a mystical element in this. This sinew does not have a taste, an allusion to its originating in the "external forces." The reason is that it had been uprooted from a holier source.

על כן לא יאכלו, “therefore it is appropriate that the Israelites do not eat, etc.;” this construction is parallel to Isaiah 10,7: והוא לא כן ידמה, “but it does not seem like this to him;” in other words: it would be right and proper to punish the Israelites not to eat that particular sinew as they should not have allowed their founding father to be exposed to hostile forces at night. Yaakov’s sons were physically strong, and they should have been at hand to assist their father if the need arose to do so. Seeing that they failed to do this, the blame for the injury sustained by their father was theirs. From now on they would have learned their lesson and would practice the commandment to accompany their father, or for that matter, any older and wiser person, especially at night. Yaakov himself set an example when he accompanied his son Joseph part of the way on a mission which he had sent him on, and which was potentially dangerous. (Genesis 37,14) A different approach to the verse above: as a result of their father Yaakov having stood up to the protective celestial force of Esau, his sons stopped eating the part of the body that the angel had been able to injure. They did this out of a feeling of pride in their founding father. A third approach to this verse: due to their father Yaakov having sustained an injury, his descendants voluntarily decided not to eat the part of the body of an animal that had been injured in their father’s body. This has to be understood better by the use of a parable; a person suffered from a headache or from pains in a different part of his body. As a reminder of that pain he decides not to eat that part of the body of an animal as a symbol of his having been healed from that pain, so that it (abstention) would serve as a remedy for them (preventive medicine) in the future. We have a Baraitah in Chulin 101 which relates that people came to Rabbi Yehudah who had expressed the opinion that the prohibition not to eat that part of an animal also applied to animals that were altogether forbidden to be eaten, questioning his interpretation by citing the fact that only the descendants of Israel were forbidden to eat this part of an animal, and that the Jews had never been called “Children of Israel” until they had been given the Torah at Mount Sinai. He answered them that it is true that this custom did not become law until the Torah was given, but it had been observed already earlier. It was recorded here only in order for us to understand the reason behind this prohibition. Prior to the legislation of dietary laws at Mount Sinai, Yaakov’s descendants were allowed to eat also the meat of animals that were outlawed at Mount Sinai.

“Therefore, the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve/tendon [gid], etc.” Our Sages found that deep matters whose comprehension is difficult are compared to tendons [giddin], as Rashi explained in Parshat Yitro on the verse and tell [v’tagged] the children of Israel (Exodus 19:3). Comprehension is referred to in the language of eating, as we find regarding the four who entered the Pardes (Chagigah 14b), where concerning hidden investigation beyond mortal understanding, the verse If you have found honey, eat only what you need (Proverbs 25:16) is cited. This commandment hints for generations to prevent Israel from investigating hidden matters, as stated (Chagigah 13a) “You have no business with hidden things,” because there is concern that they might damage their intellect and come to heresy, as not many will be wise enough to understand all the secrets in their proper context, due to their intellect passing through a murky valley, for the vanities of this world and its desires confuse human understanding. The prohibition of eating the tendon hints for generations, to be a reminder before their eyes that God withheld from them the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, that they should not feed their intellect matters as hard as tendons. For it touched Jacob’s hip socket, and if this stumbling occurred temporarily to the perfect Jacob when he deviated slightly from the balanced path, what shall the common people do, whose main pursuits are in worldly vanities and desires? Therefore, they should not engage in hidden matters except for the unique individuals of the generation like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and those similar to him, who rejected and despised worldly vanities like Jacob. For if this happened to Jacob only temporarily, when he remained alone by himself for his jug, undoubtedly after the wrestling incident with Samael occurred, he recognized his error and turned from that path. Proof of this is that it says Jacob arrived whole/complete, which our Sages interpreted (Shabbat 33a) as “complete in his Torah.” This explanation is precious in value, and the wise will listen and increase in learning.

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה, “this is why in the future the Jewish people would not eat the disjointed sinew.” The Jews not eating this sinew are comparable to sons who make a point of fasting on the anniversary of their father’s death. Another way of looking at this law: In the future, the Jewish people would be commanded not to eat this sinew in order that they should remain aware of the miracle which had occurred when a mortal man, their ancestor Yaakov, had been able to prevail against a celestial force trying to wrestle him to the ground.