Parashas Vayishlach
18 Kislev 5770
December 5, 2009

Daf Yomi: Bava Basra 106

Guest Author:
Rabbi Shimon Silver

Young Israel of Greater Pittsburgh

http://www.youngisraelpgh.org

  

We are familiar with the quote: “What can you give to the one who has everything!”  The apparent purpose of the minchah that Yaakov sent to Eisav was to soften him up. Another objective seems to have been that one does not show up at a meeting with someone prominent without having sent a gift. However, the enormity of this gift indicates a deeper purpose. Did Yaakov want to ‘buy’ Eisav’s graces by supplying him with his needs? Eisav was enormously wealthy in his own right. Would Yaakov be able ‘make Eisav rich’?
 

First, let us examine the statement of Avraham to the King of Sodom: “You shall not [be able to] say, ‘I made Avraham rich’”! Avraham had won this wealth in battle. He could have kept it without any agreements.  Besides, Avraham was, by all accounts, one of the world’s wealthiest citizens.  How would the king claim that he was the one to make Avraham rich? Avraham knew that an impression would remain in the minds of the bystanders that some of his wealth came by the grace of the King of Sodom. He himself would also feel this way, in the knowledge that the king could have fought for the return of this wealth. He did not want to feel indebted to the king for the rest of his life. He did not want to feel obliged to show him gratitude and praise, and maybe pay him back later for this perceived ‘kindness’.  Furthermore, had he felt obliged, his later prayers for Sodom being spared would have appeared forced by obligation.
  

In the same way, Yaakov knew that Eisav would never attribute his successes to the minchah of Yaakov. However, due to the size of the gift, it could not be considered a token greeting. It would be remembered as one source of Eisav’s wealth. It would force a lasting obligation of gratitude and special consideration.
 

When honoring a wealthy person with a gift, it is customary to give something small, as a token. In fact, the honor is often the donor’s, as the Talmud says; giving to a prominent person is like receiving! The gift is precious, but not grand, like a plaque or a silver Kiddush cup given to a major donor at an institutional affair. This is not payment, not does the recipient need it. Yaakov does just that when he sends Yosef (in Parshas Mikaitz) mizimras ha’aretz, me’at tzari ume’at devash, some spices and nuts. In our Parsha, too, Yaakov sent a small gift ‘from what had come into his hands’ – some say, gemstones. A small bribe is enough to sway the party involved. Why did Yaakov need to send along an additional large gift of livestock, five herds in all?
 

He wanted a lot more than a bribe. He wanted to make Eisav feel obligated for life. Eisav probably understood this, and tried to resist. In the end his temptation won, and he accepted the gift. But Yaakov seems to have been very specific about the items he sent, counting them out and sending separately, and with specific instructions. Yaakov seems to have wanted to make an impression for all time on his own family, the Bnai Yisroel. He needed to remind himself and his children about what was really going on behind the scenes.
 

Baal Haturim points out that the total of the animals was 550. This is also the total of the korbanos offered by the Jewish nation in a year, apart from the daily temidim. What is the significance of this number? Rabeinu Bachye points out that as a result of these 550 animals, Edom merited having kings 550 years before Yisroel. Did Yaakov know this? Chaza’l say that Yaakov’s use of terms of lordship for Eisav and servitude for himself were the reason that Eisav had eight generations of kings before Yisroel. Did Yaakov understand this?
 

The number 55 is the gematria of the word ‘hen’. This word is often used to denote a long term guarantee that a sure fact will remain this way. It even denotes eternity in the future. [Moshe was told, ‘although hen your days to die have drawn close, when you come back at techiyas hamaisim, you will be leading hen ribu, 550,000 tzadikim. (Daas Zekainim, Vayelech. Devarim Rabah, Vezos Habracha).] When Eisav had come to ask for his brochos, Yitzchok told him that he had already blessed Yaakov: ‘hen gvir samtiv lach, for future eternity I have made him lord over you’. It has also been noted that the verses relating the glory of Eretz Yisroel, in Parshas Eikev, have 55 words. The final two words, nasan lach, have the gematria of 550.

Yaakov had been given these brochos of Eretz Yisroel and of eternity. Eisav was furious, believing that he should have been the recipient. Yaakov had purchased the right to offer the korbanos. Eisav felt he had been duped, or perhaps foolish in agreeing to it. Yaakov knew of Eisav’s weakness for short term benefits rather than future eternal benefits, especially if the future benefits were spiritual. After all, was this not the basis for his sale of the right of firstborn! Yaakov offered Eisav a gift of 550 animals, saying (but without spelling it out): “Look, right now I am not the gvir over you! That will take place in the future. Do you really want to wait for the time that the 550 offerings are made, or would you like to enjoy these now? They can be bred into huge herds! I know this from experience! Do you want to wait for the Bais Hamikdash? You said ‘lamah zeh li bechorah!’ You want to rule? Here take the next 550 years! I will wait for my turn, in the far future. Do you want to wait for the fulfillment of nasan lach, or to take 550 very fertile animals right now?”   [Interestingly, when Eisav hesitated at first, he said “achi, yehi lecha asher lach, my brother, you should keep what is yours.” The gematria of asher lach is 551, one off, an allowable discrepancy according to the rules of gematria.]
 

Whether Eisav understood the full consequences of this deal or not, Yaakov felt it was important that he and his sons understood it. We need to realize what a long term eternal havtacha means, and to be wary of exchanging it for immediate gratification, no matter how great. May we all merit the fulfillment of the future eternal blessings. Good Shabbos!

THE WEEKLY SIDRA- VAYISHLACH

Rabbi Moshe Greebel

 

Concerning R’uvain, the first son of Ya’akov and Leah, one of the more striking, if not shocking P’sukim (verses) of the Torah, is found in this week’s Sidra, after the death of Rochail:

            “And it came to pass, when Yisroel lived in that land, that R’uvain went and lay with Bilha his father’s concubine; and Yisroel heard it. Now the sons of Ya’akov were twelve.” (B’raishis 35:22)

  While our Rabbanim of blessed memory, have consolidated the two P’sukim above into one Passuk, there is a natural Hefsaik Parsha (cutting off of the section), between ‘And it came to pass…..’ and ‘Now the sons of Ya’akov…..’  But, more on this Hefsaik Parsha in a short while    Now, the Passuk is extremely accusatory and uncharacteristically graphic against R’uvain.  But, is it even conceivable that a Tzadik (righteous man) the likes of R’uvain would have the unmitigated gall to lie with his father’s wife Bilha?  It is beyond implausible.  However, enter the Gemarah in Shabbos 55b, which teaches:

            “Rabbi Shmuel Bar Nachmani said in Rabbi Yonoson’s name, ‘Whoever maintains that R’uvain sinned, is merely making an error, for it is said, “Now the sons of Ya’akov were twelve,” teaching that they were all equal……’”

            Since all twelve sons of Ya’akov were Tzadikim, R’uvain could not have sinned in this manner.  The Gemarah continues:

            “…..Then how do I interpret, ‘And he lay with Bilha his father's concubine?’ This teaches that he transposed his father's couch, and the Passuk imputes (blame) to him as though he had lain with her.”

            Ya’akov would generally keep his bed in the tent of Rochail, his beloved wife of the four he had.  However, after the death of Rochail, R’uvain was incensed that instead of relocating his bed to the tent of Leah (R’uvain’s mother), Ya’akov moved it to the tent of Bilha.  R’uvain therefore, with great indignation, moved his father’s bed from the tent of Bilha to the tent of his mother Leah.  A few lines later, the above Gemarah describes it in this way:

            “…..But how do I interpret, ‘And he lay with Bilha his father's concubine’?  He made demands against his mother's humiliation.”

            Simply, R’uvain acted solely out of anger at the way his mother- his father’s first wife- was shamed with not having the bed of Ya’akov in her tent.

            Now, that the background data has been furnished, we may proceed.  In his text Mai’Ain Bais HaSho’Aiva, Rav Shimon Schwab of blessed memory (1908- 1993), made the following observations concerning this very accusatory Passuk.

            Our Rabbanim have instructed the following to us in the Mishna of Megillah 25a:

            “The incident of R’uvain is read (publicly in the Torah), but, it is not translated (into Aramaic).”

            In the time of Shas (the Talmud), Jews predominantly spoke Aramaic- not LaShon Kodesh.  In the synagogue, each Passuk of the Torah was read in LaShon Kodesh, and followed with a Targum- an Aramaic translation.  The incident of R’uvain therefore, was not to be translated, for we are concerned with not saying anything derogatory about R’uvain, in a language understandable to all, as per Rashi there.

            Flipping the Amud (page) to Megillah 25b, we find the following very interesting occurrence:

            “The incident of R’uvain is read but not translated.  On one occasion, Rav Chanina Ben Gamliel went to Kabul (Afghanistan?), and the reader of the congregation read, ‘And it came to pass when Yisroel lived in that land,’ and he said to the translator, ‘Translate only the latter part of the verse!’  And the Chachamim commended his action.”

            Basically, according to Rashi there, Rav Chanina did not want the M’turg’mon (translator) to translate the first part of the Passuk, due to its derogatory attitude to R’uvain.  Only after the Hefsaik Parsha, should the M’turg’mon continue his translation with ‘Now the sons of Ya’akov were twelve.’  And, for this action, the Rabbanim praised him.

            Rav Shimon thereupon, asked why would Rav Chanina instruct the M’turg’mon not to translate the first part of the Passuk when he was in Kabul, and not instruct the M’turg’mon in his own home in Eretz Yisroel not to translate it as well?  The answer to this question, will give us the understanding of why the Chachamim praised Rav Chanina.

            In essence, instructed Rav Shimon, there are two great (and very old) translations of the Torah into Aramaic- the Targum Onk’los (2nd century CE), and the Targum of the Tannah Yonoson Ben Uziel (1st century BCE to 1st century CE), the latter having lived in the time of the second Bais HaMikdash.

            Now, in the Targum Onk’los, a very literal translation of our initial Passuk of the incident of R’uvain, would read:

            “And, R’uvain went, and, lay with Bilha…..”

            However, in the Targum Yonoson, we see a translation based on the interpretation of our Rabbanim:

            “And, R’uvain went, and confused the location of the bed of Bilha…..”

            Therefore, concluded Rav Shimon, when Rav Chanina was at home in Eretz Yisroel, where the non accusatory translation of the Targum Yonoson was utilized, he did not mind the M’turg’mon translating the incident of R’uvain into Aramaic.

            However, when Rav Chanina was outside of Eretz Yisroel in a place like Kabul, where the more accusatory translation of Onk’los was utilized, he forbid the M’turg’mon from translating the incident of R’uvain.  And, for being so resolved not to shame a Tzadik like R’uvain, he was praised by the Chachamim.

            Having considered all the above information, two perceptions seem to come to mind.  Initially, one should not badly judge another, until all the facts are borne out. 

            Second, the Torah Sh’Bichsav (written Torah) cannot be understood without the Torah Sh’Ba’al Peh (oral Torah).  The bridge formed only by combining the two Torahs, grants true understanding- true enlightenment.  Let us learn to always appreciate and value our heritage as Jews.

    May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendency- and in our times.  Good Shabbos.