Vayetze

We remember how Yaakov goes out: on the one hand, he flees from Esav, from his anger, as his mom begged him; on the other hand, by Yitzchak's blessing, he goes to take a bride.

If we remember, Rivka said that Yaakov must flee to Charan, while Yitzchak sent Yaakov to Padan-Aram. Let's not go into geographical subtleties; roughly the same thing is being talked about, but the language is different. Here the Torah tells us that Yaakov flees to Charan; that is, Yaakov is fleeing from Esav to a greater extent than he is going for a bride, at least at this moment. The distance from Be'er-Sheva to Charan, so that you can picture it, is 17 days of travel. If we look a little deeper at why the Torah puts the emphasis on this being a flight and not a trip for a bride, then this is the first time that the people of Israel, potentially the people of Israel (for now in the person of one man named Yaakov), goes into exile from the land of Israel. This is precisely the first flight, the first exile. Before this there was Avraham going down to Egypt because of famine, but that was not a flight. Here, though, is the first exile in the history of Israel, in the proto-history of Israel. Where does Yaakov flee? To the city of Charan. And what is Charan? Charan, as we remember, is mentioned when Terach dies, dies in Charan. Immediately after this Avraham appears. And, to some extent, one can say that, from a spiritual point of view, Yaakov flees into the “pre-Avraham times,” goes down into the “pre-Avrahamic” world; into the first exile of the people of Israel. Another meaning of the word Charan is charón Av or the wrath of God. Also the last words of this verse, vayélech charána (and fled to Charan), can be translated as and the wrath went away, Esav's wrath went away. Such a multi-layered sentence. So, Yaakov is in the first exile in the history of Israel.

An amazing verb, lifgóa; we met it when Avraham asked the sons of Chet to meet with Efron ben Tzochar, when he was buying the cave from them. He said: “Give me the opportunity to meet with him (וּפִגְעוּ – לִי).” And the word lifgóa means to meet, to come upon, to run into. Another meaning of this word, which we find in the book of the prophet Yirmeyahu in chapter 7, verse 16, is to intercede or to pray: “…Do not pray to me, do not intercede before me,” says the Most High. The verb lifgóa – to pray, to be immersed in prayer, to pray a prayer of protection.

One can say that Yaakov, in the state of a fugitive with unclear prospects, in a troubled state of soul, walks immersed in prayer; and, moved by this prayer, guided by the Most High, by his inner Divine GPS he comes upon a certain place.

vayálen sham ki-vá hashémesh

… and he spent the night there, because the sun had come…

In the Hebrew language, in the language of the Torah, the expression the sun set (va hashémesh) – the sun came. The sun came to where it had gone in the morning, that is, to the west. Here is a very interesting turn of phrase: he spent the night there because the sun had set. From this one can understand that the sun set earlier than he expected. Again, if we say that Yaakov walks moved by prayer and by his inner desire for direction, for guidance from the Most High, then the Most High sets the sun a little ahead of time, directing Yaakov on this path, so that he would spend the night in this particular place.

…and he took from the stones of that place, and put them at his head, and lay down in that very place.

One can imagine that Yaakov gathered stones, put them under his head and lay down there; this is the literal translation. The commentators tell an amazing story, such an amazing midrash. When we say “midrashim,” and midrashim are sometimes a little magical, we need to understand not the literal meaning but what they have in mind. So, the midrash tells that, when he was choosing the stones, each stone said: “Choose me! Me, put me under your head.” And the Most High, in His mercy, joined the stones into one, made such one big orthopedic stone, on which it was comfortable for Yaakov to sleep. It seems that this, again, is just a magical midrash, but it says that the Most High joins (we say: avoním – stones, baním – sons) us into one people, it speaks of the Most High's ability to make one out of many, because further on we will see that the stone is in fact one.

This can be understood in different ways, including that, here, he himself in the dream, he dreamed that he is a ladder. It is on this verse that we are going to linger for a long time.

Vayachalóm vehiné sulám – and he fell asleep, and behold – a ladder. Let's look at the word sulám – ladder. If someone looks at the Hebrew text, inside the little letter lámed (ל) they will see a dot, that is, sullám, as with a doubled “l.” This means that the root of the word must be read as סלל (samech-lamed-lamed), as paved a way for us or opened a way for us, as it is said: “opened a way for us through his body.” Sullám – a ladder that paves a way to the earth and to the heavens, connects the heavenly and the earthly. We will read about this right away:

…a ladder is set up onto the earth (precisely set up onto the earth, that is, toward the earth), and its head reaches the heavens…

Here we have such “clumsy” Hebrew. One could say that this is clumsy Hebrew, if the One Who gave the Torah were not a great expert in Hebrew. This points to a certain direction of movement. The ladder simultaneously moves in the direction of the earth and of the heavens, both up and down.

…and behold, messengers of God (or angels of God) ascend and descend on it (on the ladder).

It can be understood in different ways, and let's try to recall different interpretations of this dream. Some say: here Yaakov sees that he himself is the ladder, that he is potentially the people of Israel, and he sees himself as a ladder through which all the Divine plans are carried out, all the Divine governance of the world. All the messengers, all the angels of God – all ascend and descend to him, through him; he is like a connecting system between the heavens and the earth. And one can say, if we recall the words of Mashiach: “You will see the angels of God,” that Yaakov sees the promise of Mashiach, the promise of salvation.

Other commentators say that Yaakov was shown the whole history of Israel, the whole history of mankind. He was shown how Babylon ascends the ladder and then descends. Persia, Greece, Rome ascend; they ascend and descend. And the Most High asks Yaakov to ascend this ladder. And Yaakov says: “I am afraid to ascend it, because I too will descend, I too will not stand firm!” And the Most High says: “Yaakov, if you ascend, then you will not descend. I promise you.” But Yaakov does not ascend this ladder. This is one more interpretation, and this interpretation is eschatological, an interpretation connected with world history and its development until the end of the world.

There is an interesting interpretation in the Targum, the ancient Aramaic translation. When we say Targum, these are not exactly commentaries, it is precisely a translation; what was read in the synagogues as a translation (as today we read the Yosifon translation or the Synodal translation), and it was understood as the plain meaning of the Torah. And so, it says in it that two angels were walking, who had remained after the destruction of Sedom. They accompanied Yaakov to the ladder, and they themselves ascended the ladder. Naturally, hosts of angels meet them with questions about what news there is down on earth (we remember that this is a midrash). And the angels say: “We saw a man there (meaning Yaakov), whose face is like the face that is engraved, whose bas-relief is on the throne of the LORD.” And this is a midrash that says that Yaakov's face was like the face of Mashiach, which, as we know, is depicted on the holy throne (there are such midrashim). And the angels were amazed that both in the heavens and on earth there is one and the same man. This is a midrash that speaks of the promise of Mashiach on Earth; and these are all very interesting and deep midrashim, and there are depths and depths of depths around these midrashim. But we must remember that Yaakov is in turmoil, in fear, and, besides enormous pictures of world history, he simply needs encouragement. And therefore there is such a probability, there is such an approach, that Yaakov will be understanding this dream throughout his entire further path, his entire further exile, his entire further life until the return to his father's house. Yaakov will reflect on this ladder, this dream, and will ponder it, and this means that the full meaning of this dream we will uncover only later.

Some say that the LORD stood at the top of the ladder, others that the LORD stood next to Yaakov.

Usually the Most High does not mention living people, as the God of living people who are still alive. So say the midrashim, so say the commentators, that the Most High does not connect His Name with the names of the living, but since Yitzchak is sick, blind, he is already considered as if dead. This is how they try to explain the fact that here the LORD mentions the name of Yitzchak. Others say that Yitzchak, since he has already died, he has already been on the altar (one can say that he is a prototype of the resurrected Mashiach), he is already a firstborn, if not from the dead, then the firstborn of the dead. Therefore he can also be mentioned by God, as the God of Yitzchak. And the Most High continues, and tells him the promise:

…The land on which you are lying, to you I will give it and to your seed.

This is a blessing about the land and a blessing about power; about the fact that the LORD will give Yaakov this blessing, by and large, for the future.

Our Forefather Yaakov receives an enormous promise here. On the one hand, a vision (the ladder), to which it is still hard to give a concrete interpretation. On the other hand, God's promise is such that it could not be more concrete, literally in many phrases repeating the blessing that was given to Avraham: both mishpechót ha'adamá – the seed of the earth, and zar'achá ka'afár ha'áretz – seed, like the dust of the earth. These are promises that were given specifically to Avraham and were not repeated. And Yaakov surely knows about these promises.

The word likótz – to wake up, to be alert, but it is connected a little with the word katzútz, kotz – got pricked, woke from sleep with a sharp start.

What did Yaakov not know? Well, it is clear that in every place on earth His glory fills the whole earth. But here we are talking about a specific presence, about a place where God can be revealed to a person; and perhaps Yaakov is saying: “God saw to it that I would end up in this place, it was God's plan that was present here, and I did not know. God wanted a meeting with me precisely here, God arranged a rendezvous with me here.”

An interesting parallel. Do you remember the story? After the flood the people decided to build a tower in Babylon, and God confused the languages there. They wanted to build a tower in order to rise up to heaven. And here we see a ladder that reaches heaven, that the Most High Himself set up, beside which the Most High Himself stood. The Babylonians themselves, by their folk etymology, called their city Bavel, gates of God. We know the story, that the explanation is actually a different one. There was a time when scholars thought that Babilu really is the gates of God, and that the Torah has an incorrect etymology. Today researchers already speak of a different opinion: Bavel is in reality confusion, chaos; that is, they think that they are the gates of God, but they have a complete mess, while the gates are in fact here, in Beit-El. In the house of God there are the gates of heaven, because there is the ladder that the Most High set up, and this is a clear parallel to the Tower of Babylon.

You see, here there is one stone, while at the beginning there were many of them; that is why the midrash says that the stones were united. Although one can understand this in different ways, and perhaps it is not worth focusing attention on these details.

The stone turned into a matzeva, into a stele; the place turned into the house of God; everything acquires features of holiness, everything, being sanctified, changes. And Yaakov himself must also change. Interesting commentaries say: “Where did Yaakov get oil?” A man who seemingly took nothing, he will later ask for food and clothing. And the commentators say that, when he was gathering the stones, he found a jug of oil, and the oil in it did not run out, and this is the first prototype of the Chanuka miracle. Chanuka, we remember, is a historical holiday connected with oil. The feast of renewal (as it is called in the New Testament) begins with a vessel of never-ending oil. And the commentators say that here, even before the first and second Temple came into being, the first Chanuka miracle had already taken place: Yaakov found a jug of oil. Many are even so bold as to draw such a parallel: “That very same jug of Yaakov's was later found by the Maccabees as well.” Of course, again, when we speak of a midrash, one should not understand it literally. But the same miracle that sent Yaakov oil gave it to the Maccabees too. You will say that, of course, Yaakov could have taken oil with him for the road. Of course he could have taken oil with him for the road, even in the quantity needed to pour on a stone, and that is not just dripping a little drop. Then one has to imagine that he carried with him a heap of all kinds of possessions, and this is a debatable question, because he says: “With only a staff I crossed this road.” And we observe consistently that Yaakov goes out with nothing. In general, those who want to see a miracle see a miracle; those who want to see a rational explanation can see a rational explanation, even without being entirely convinced that it is rational.

We suddenly learn that this place – it is a city. Although it is not a city, but city in Scripture is ir (this is a place where they keep watch). The word ir – city, comes from the word ער – to be watchful, to look, an observation platform, a lookout place, it is located high on a mountain. This place today is more or less known; according to most opinions we know where it is located. Tourists are taken there, it is shown to them. Luz is a city connected with an interesting story. Luz – this is what, in Jewish spiritual anatomy, a small little bone is called, which is located in the occipital part below the skull. And it is precisely the one that never decomposes, and contains, speaking very conventionally, a certain spiritual DNA for resurrection from the dead. All this, of course, is imagery: there was a city Luz in which no one ever died, and so on. Very many midrashim are connected with what Luz is; these are images that we will not go into now. I will just say that Luz is not a simple name. Whoever is interested can look it up; whoever is not interested can disregard it.

Pay attention: Yaakov does not answer the first part regarding the land, does not react in any way. The LORD said: “I will be with you,” and Yaakov says: “If the LORD will be with me.” Again God says: “I will guard you wherever you go,” and Yaakov says: “And will guard me on this way, and I will go on this way.”

So, the LORD promised Yaakov that He would give him land and seed and would make him the one who joins the earth and the heavens. A grandiose promise Yaakov received from the Most High. Yaakov says here: “If the LORD gives me only clothing and food, and keeps me on this very path which I have already chosen, and is with me, and brings me back home.” Here it is very important, pay attention, that, just as the Most High promised to bring him back, so Yaakov too says: bring back home. Why is it important for us to remember this? One can divide this oath like this: “And I will return home, and then I will make this stele the house of God.” And the question arises: what is Yaakov waiting for for six years? 14 years he worked off for two wives, 6 years he worked for the livestock, that is, did Yaakov remain outside the land of Israel simply for the sake of getting rich? And the answer is no. He was waiting for the call of the Most High. The Most High said: “I will bring back,” and Yaakov here waits until the Most High brings him back. If we put a period in Yaakov's oath after the 21st verse, then everything becomes clear. Yaakov swears that, if all these conditions are fulfilled – if the Most High is with him, keeps him on the path on which he is going, gives him bread to eat, clothing to wear, brings him back to his father's house and is God to him – then this stone, on which Yaakov poured oil, which he consecrated and marked (they say that oil does not wash off quickly, even from rain, and Yaakov was not planning to leave for 20 years, he did not know for how long he was leaving), then this stone, in the place of this stone, in the place of this stele, he will make the house of God. Questions arise: why does Yaakov say nothing at all, not a word, about the first promises of the Most High, and why does he sign the agreement with the Most High so modestly? What is this – a lack of faith in the Most High, as many try to say, or is it after all Yaakov's lack of faith in himself? He understands that he may turn out to be unworthy of everything the Most High says. Life is complicated, Yaakov acted strangely many times, and he, perhaps, let's put it this way, humbly says: “If only I could manage just this, if only I could do just this, only to this can I swear, because I do not know whether I will be capable of more.” Very much can be said about this passage, one can talk about it endlessly.

Not simply lifted his feet, of course, the way a man sitting on the couch lifts them when someone nearby is sweeping; that is not what this is about. There is such an expression: vayissá eynáv – and he lifted his eyes, switched on some kind of prophetic vision; this happened to Avraham when he saw another lamb. There is the concept vayissá kol – and he raised his voice, vayissá yad – and he raised his hand (in an oath). That is, to raise to a higher level. One can say, Yaakov became winged, his feet became light, lengthened, grew stronger. And it is precisely this that the Torah describes: he switched on “turbo” mode.

We said that Rivka was sending him to Charan, Yitzchak – to Padan-Aram; it is one and the same. Here is a third name – the eastern land. On the one hand, this is a joining of the two lines – he went to the east. Let's not specify where. On the other hand, this indication could not be more specific, and pay attention to how many parallels surface here. After the murder of Hevel, having received punishment from the Most High, Kayin went away to the east. After separating from Avraham, Lot went away to the east. And a decade later Avraham sends the sons of the concubines away to the eastern land. The east is the direction of exile; there go those who separate from the family, those who sooner or later will disappear from the biblical plot. In our case Yaakov with winged feet goes to the east, goes into galút, into exile. But he remains the main hero of the narrative, the main hero of the biblical line, because the Most High is with him. In this lies the particularity of the fact that the people of Israel in the future is a people that carries the Divine, even while being in exile.

Pay attention to the word הַהִוא (hahi) – this. It would be more correct to write it with the little letter yud(הַהִיא), but here it is written as hu, it is like “he” instead of “she.” And there are eleven such cases in Scripture, and no one knows an explanation for this. Possibly, it is a matter of one of the dialects common at that time.

There is an interesting feature of this whole text. Here tzon (livestock) is mentioned, herds, flocks are mentioned, a well is mentioned, but shepherds are not mentioned. If one reads it foolishly, one might think that it is the sheep themselves who take off the stone and roll it back. The shepherds are not mentioned here, it is as if they are not there. They are there, but they are not there; they will not be there in the course of Yaakov's conversation with them themselves. Yaakov talks, and it is clear that he is talking with the shepherds, but we are forced to draw this in ourselves, because the shepherds are never named.

The word shalóm means peace. Probably everyone who has come across Hebrew even a little knows this word; ha – is an interrogative particle, hashalóm – is there peace with him, is everything all right with him? When a person is asked how his health is, he is asked how his peace is – ma shlomchá, how is your peace or what is the essence of your peace, if translated literally. Such a not-simple, seemingly simple question.

And Yaakov asks the question of a passerby, the question of an onlooker, asks the shepherds a question:

This is a professional's question. And pay attention, we read before this that they answer him through their teeth. He came, spoke in a human way, greeted them, said: “Brothers, tell me.” They do not answer him “brother,” their answers are shorter than his questions, and from the rhythm of the conversation one can understand that they want to get rid of him. But here Yaakov asks a professional question; this stings them.

Naturally, the commentators have different views on this whole story.

First, why does the Torah tell us Yaakov's dialogue with the shepherds without naming the shepherds? In general, we often see scenes at a well; we will often see shepherds throughout Scripture. One can compare, moving into the future, with the story of the Midyanite shepherds, whom Moshe meets and who drive the seven daughters of Yitro away from the well (and with this begins the story of Moshe at Yitro's, the priest of Midyan). Here, though, there is a peculiar collective unity; the shepherds made a social system, a commune, joined together; only together can they water the livestock. Instead of (like the Midyanite shepherds) driving away weak girls, they in this case wait until Rachel appears, and, all in all, they behave in a very friendly way.

There are other views on this question; commentators say that the shepherds seized, conquered this well, they block it with a stone so that no one waters the livestock. And, as I always say, commentators say more about themselves than about those whom they comment on. Those of the commentators who lived in eastern countries and know how shepherds live, they are precisely the ones who say that the shepherds here joined together and behave quite humanely. And here we are simply being described, given such a cross-section of the society in which Lavan exists, his younger daughter Rachel exists, whom the shepherds treat politely, without contempt, and that is worth something.

Before this the shepherds were not named, they were somehow faceless. It was clear that these were shepherds, but no one said that they were shepherds. But here Rachel is a shepherdess, she comes with her sheep. And what does this tell us? That the shepherds regard her as an equal; perhaps she even partly leads them, this too can be understood from this text. In any case, unlike the daughters of Yitro, who are chased away and who wait until everyone else is done, here everyone waits for Rachel. And, apparently, they wait for her not so that she would help them drag off the stone with her strong female hands, but they wait out of respect for her. In any case, that is what the plain meaning of the text says.

Here the commentators differ in their opinions. There are those who say (and we remember what we spoke about at the very beginning – Yaakov has winged feet, he has become cool, he has switched on turbo mode): here he alone rolled off the stone that several shepherds used to put in place. Others say that he, having seen this, decided to help and, together with the shepherds, in a single burst rolled off this stone. If we fill (and we do fill) the pshat, the plain meaning, with symbolism, then it is no longer plain. Let's remember that Yaakov has already lifted a stone in our portion. This is the stone that was at his head; it was connected with the ladder, it was connected with Yaakov joining the heavenly and the earthly, such a promise was given through Yaakov. Here the well is the underground, the ability to raise the Divine water from within, to awaken in others a passion for the Creator. To roll off the stone that does not let the water pour out, and to begin giving out the water (as it is said: everyone who thirsts, come to me and drink) – this too is a kind of prototype of Mashiach, the revealing of the Divine water into the world. And if we look at it this way, then, of course, Yaakov himself uncovered this well.

So, Rachel is let through ahead, and there is a very interesting detail:

The word vayáshk (watered) and the word vayishák (kissed) – in writing this is one and the same word. Yes, one waters with kisses, a kiss is also a kind of watering. Although the roots are different, here it is written the same way. And let's pay attention that Rachel is also a little ewe, the translation of the name Rachel – little ewe. Yaakov watered the livestock and kissed Rachel – this is almost one and the same action.

Why did he weep? Again the commentators say different things. Some say that he wept because he could not restrain himself and kissed the girl, and this is immodest. Others say, and I am inclined to agree with them, that Yaakov wept because he had reached his own kin, because, having covered a long road, he met his own kin, a close person, he met family.

It is quite normal to say it this way, although he is the son of her father's sister. But, since he is older than she is, in the Jewish tradition, in the Eastern tradition, an older cousin can be like an uncle. This is partly the reason for the confusion about the kinship of Mordechai and Ester, but that is not what we are talking about now.

And again Lavan appears on our stage. Lavan – the name in translation is white, but it can also be translated as melubán – seasoned, professional, a seasoned old hand, a seasoned trickster. And, as many say, he is not so lavan, he is not white, he is black. And, by and large, the commentators and midrashim paint him very negatively, but that is if one considers the texts of the Torah to be black and white. For example, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) says: “He kissed him to check what was in his mouth. He embraced him to check whether he was hiding purses.” That is, he was checking what he had brought with him, whether he had anything with him (sometimes children look like this into the hands of adults who have come to visit – whether they brought presents); such a quality is attributed to Lavan. But one can say that Lavan might also simply have been glad: a relative had come. It is not necessarily so that everything human is alien to Lavan.

One more question that is worth examining: what exactly did Yaakov tell Lavan. The first supposition – he said: “Uncle Lavan, I have come to ask for your daughter's hand. I have looked, your daughter is beautiful. Give me your daughter.” Why did mom and dad send him, after all? For a wife. Another option, and it fits the meaning better, because the conversation about the bride will come later: Yaakov told him the whole story of his conflict with Esav and simply asked him for temporary political asylum from his brother, and this is what he told him.

Thirty days is the time when a person can feel like a guest with relatives in the East; after that it is about time to define the relationship.

One may suppose that the thirty days were not only a guest period but also a probationary period. Yaakov is a professional shepherd, sitting in tents, he knows how to handle livestock, the work went well in his hands. And Lavan decided to take him on permanently, and said: “Tell me your salary, even though you are my relative, it is not the way of relatives to use you for free.”

Interesting, right? Until this time we knew only the younger daughter, Rachel. It turns out there is also an elder one, but she managed for a month to stay out of sight, if not of Yaakov, then, in any case, of the reader.

Oh, how many commentaries there are on this point! Many say – her eyes are tear-stained, they are blurred from tears. Why? Because she heard how people were saying: “Look, Lavan has two daughters, and Yitzchak has two sons. The elder will marry the elder, the younger – the younger. How wonderful! How God has arranged everything!” She asks: “And what does the elder one do?” They told her: “The elder one is a hunter, a villain, a murderer.” – “And what about the younger one?” – “The younger one is a righteous man, a shepherd, a good person.” And because of this Lea wept. Others said that Lea had soft and beautiful eyes, and Rachel was good in every way, but her eyes were not very good, because Rachel wept. And she wept because she knew that she was barren, she was afraid that Yaakov would divorce her and she would have to marry Esav. Very many different commentaries about the eyes, because it is hard to understand the expression “soft eyes.” Further on we will meet: concerning David it is said that he is rash, that he is soft, and that he has beautiful eyes. And therefore I am inclined to agree with the commentaries that say that Lea has beautiful eyes. And the Jewish tradition says: if a girl has beautiful eyes, there is no need to look at the rest of the body. She is good, you liked her eyes – take her, marry her, you will come to love her.

That is, either one is more beautiful than the other, or, after all, Lea's soft, weak eyes are a shortcoming. Again, each of the commentators, each of the readers will understand this in their own way; there is the possibility to understand it one way or the other.

We stopped at the point where Lavan offered Yaakov not to work for him for free, but to set a salary for himself. And right away the Torah mentioned that Lavan has two daughters: the elder, Lea, a girl with unusual eyes, and the younger, Rachel, a girl beautiful in appearance.

The commentators say that Yaakov, being a seasoned man himself, knowing who Lavan is, immediately agrees with him concretely that he will work for him for Rachel. Knowing that legally Lavan is capable of renaming his daughters, of “shuffling” his daughters however he likes, he says: “Not your slave woman, not some one of your slave women whom you can name Rachel, but your daughter, and your younger daughter; we are agreeing quite concretely.” Yaakov specifies his salary in as much detail as possible.

Better, of course, are marriages within the large clan. Naturally, God forbid, incestuous marriages are not meant. Lavan says: “A good deal, seven years for a daughter, wonderful.” Well, one can imagine that Lavan receives for his daughter a bride price, to put it in modern language, in the amount of seven annual salaries. Everyone can work out for themselves how much that is.

Moved by love, Yaakov did not notice how the time flew by: that is how much he loved Rachel.

So, usually, when people agreed on a betrothal, they made an agreement that the groom, the potential husband, would carry out a certain work, do a certain task, or that a certain term would pass. Remember, they proposed to leave Rivka in the house for a few months or for a year, so that she would live there for a while. Then the groom, who had already become a husband, would come and demand his wife. Here, according to the customs of that time, Yaakov demands his wife.

Of course, one can understand that what is spoken of here is simply a wedding feast, which Lavan simply arranged in honor of simply the wedding of his daughter. The commentators say that Lavan and all the inhabitants of this place saw how the place began to flourish and develop with the arrival of Yaakov, who brought the blessing with him: the wells became full of water, and there began to be enough fodder. Later we will see that even sons were born to Lavan with Yaakov's arrival. And Yaakov himself says: “You were blessed by my feet.” Remember, at the very beginning of the chapter we read that Yaakov lifted up his feet; this too is one of the factors. And the commentators say that Lavan, possibly, gathered this whole feast in order to conspire, so that the whole people would be in collusion – to keep Yaakov in this place for another seven years, in order to live another seven years without want; such a precious little jug, “Little pot, cook!”, he did not want to let out of his hands.

It is evident that Lea is brought here by force – he took her and brought her to him. Lea here does not act of her own will. A modern woman will naturally ask: “How is it that Lea was not indignant? How did she not resist? How did she allow such a thing to be done to her?” And I completely understand the modern woman and stand in solidarity with her, and thank God that today women can think this way. In those distant times women most often married people they did not love. A rare exception was in the family of that same Lavan, when Rivka was asked whether she wanted to marry. And even up until the 19th century, and what's more, in the 20th century too, parents in the East gave their daughters in marriage without particularly telling them whom they were marrying. And today in Israel, among the Bedouins and Arabs, this is customary: young girls are given in marriage to men who are much older than them, against their will. Do they resist? No. Because this non-resistance, this humility – it is the sign of a good girl, it is good behavior. And, since Lea is a good girl, in this case she does not resist being brought like this and given in marriage. One must always remember that we live in the 21st century and look from the 21st century, but what we are looking at is not our times.

This sentence is constructed in a very complicated way; again, at first glance, illiterately, if its author were not the One Who is the Father of all literacy. Further on we will read about how Lavan gives Bilha as a slave woman to Rachel, and there the construction is a little different; we will pay attention to this. From this text one can see that Bilha and Zilpa, the two slave women, have been switched, as the midrash says; and here too there is a certain deception. Zilpa is the younger and, possibly, Yaakov saw that Zilpa was preparing everything. Zilpa was originally the wet nurse, the nanny of the younger daughter, and that is why Yaakov suspected nothing. Is Lavan a kind man? And can one call it a generous gift that Lavan not only gives the wife for whom Yaakov worked (well, not quite the right one, but he gives her), but also adds a slave woman to each of the daughters? Is this a show of unheard-of generosity? No, it is not. We remember how Rivka was sent off: according to the traditions of those times, besides the wet nurse, they also sent with her na'arót, slave girls, since a girl from a wealthy family often does not care for her own hair; her hair is combed for her. She often does not do many household chores either; depending on the family's wealth, the mistress of the slave women does less and less work. Rachel, being a shepherdess, is clearly not someone who shies away from work; but many things were simply not customary for a woman to do herself. For example, a woman was dressed by slave women, I often talk about this; that is precisely why the fastenings on women's clothing are on the other side. When a woman from a respectable family was given in marriage, they gave her maidservants and slave women to go with her.

The name Zilpa comes from the verb zaléf – leaked out, drained away, that is, something like a squeezed lemon; this name has a very bad connotation.

Also the name Bilha is from the root blai – exhausted, dried up, worn out. One can say these are such not very good names for the girls, which points to their condition; not the best of the slave women.

What raced through Yaakov's head is hard to imagine. A terrible deception. And it is unclear what to do here with Lea. Unclear what Rachel will say about this. And will she say anything? Rachel too is a humble girl, and she too may say: “It's all Dad's will.” Yaakov is in turmoil.

That is, it is there, where you come from, that younger brothers sneak in instead of the elder ones, receive the blessing and run away with it. In our parts such a thing is not customary; in our parts first the elder daughter, and then the younger. Did you think that here too you would get away with this, like with your dad? No, here you will not get away with this.

The midrash tells an interesting dialogue. And again, when we speak of a midrash, we must understand that a midrash lays claim not to some kind of historicity, but to metaphoricity. The midrash tells that Yaakov said to Lea: “How could you treat me like this? After all, all night I said to you: ‘Rachel, Rachel,’ and you answered me.” To which Lea answers him and says, again, sharply: “I learned, I had a good teacher. Was it not you who said to your father: ‘I am your son, Esav?’” What comes back to Yaakov is what is called in Hebrew measure for measure – midá kenéged midá: where he deceived, there he himself turned out to be deceived. This will later come back to Lavan too. But a question arises: why did it turn out this way, was Rachel really destined by fate for Yaakov?

And just as, at first glance, Esav was supposed to receive the birthright, and Yaakov was not, exactly so here too: although it seemed that Rachel was destined for Yaakov, Lea too was destined for him. This is what the Most High foresaw, and further on we will see this. Rachel – this is here and now, what one wants now. Lea – this is the future, Lea – this is a broader view.

Here one can pause, make a small reverse back, to when Yaakov came to the well. In general, in the Russian tradition they say: to meet a woman with empty buckets – this is a bad omen. Jewish tradition says that this is a good omen, beginning with Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, who met Rivka at the well with empty jugs; then Yaakov meets Rachel; then Sha'ul, who meets na'arót (girls) at the well; and Moshe, who meets the daughters of the priest of Midyan at the well. It would seem that a meeting with a woman with empty buckets – this means a wedding with this woman, it would seem there is such an omen; but – no. A meeting at the well with a woman who carries empty buckets, empty jugs – this is a portent of a blessing that the person will receive. And one needs to see in the woman precisely a portent, and not the blessing itself. Maybe it will also mean marriage to this woman. Maybe. But maybe this woman is a path to another woman, as in this case for Yaakov, for his line. Lea will bear more children, and in the future the Mashiach, King Mashiach, will come from Lea; the one who will be called “Seed,” “Mashiach,” will be from Lea. That is, Lea is destined for Yaakov, just as the birthright is destined for Yaakov; and if the birthright he takes, the story with Lea he does not like very much. Lavan continues his answer and says:

Look at how Lavan relates to his daughters: “Finish celebrating the week for this one and we will give you this one too.” Actually, Lavan does not treat his daughters very well here: this one and this one, the way he talks really is so dismissive; and the dismissiveness is not only toward Yaakov, but also toward the daughters, with whose help, in essence, he is teaching Yaakov a lesson. Unlike Lea, for whom one had to work seven years and then marry, Yaakov can take Rachel to himself after a week and is obligated to work another seven years. This is already a system of credit, when you take something and for seven years must pay it off; the attitude toward this is completely different, of course.

Again, Bilha is, one could say, a rather inferior maidservant. In the word לָהּ (la) we see a mapik, that is what the dot inside the letter הּ (hei) is called, the same thing as a dagesh in consonants. That is, la with the emphasis precisely on to her;iThe Russian says la is stressed precisely on a word meaning “to her”, which sounds almost like the letter name hei mentioned just before. It is translated by its meaning, “to her”. giving as a maidservant again points to the fact that there is a design in this, that it was not originally supposed to be like this.

It is worth paying attention to the word also: and loved Rachel also. What does …also more than Lea mean? The commentators say that a man usually (this is a Talmudic tradition, and it lies at the basis of Jewish psychology) loves his first woman, and for the first woman he has the greatest love. Therefore it is a miracle that the second woman, and so quickly at that, Yaakov loved more than Lea. Having come in to Lea, having become Lea's husband, Yaakov loved Lea; when he loved Rachel more, Lea became what is called senuá, and this is often translated into Russian as hated. But what does hated mean? If he hated her, how did she bear him children? Hated – this means that he loved her less. We have met this story earlier. In the book of Bereshit there was a certain Lamech, who took for himself two wives – Ada and Tzilya. Ada – this is the woman for births, childbearing and work around the household. She is idá – the one who leads, the one who is in the community. And Tzilya – the one who is in his shadow, under his shelter, this woman is more for love. With Yaakov, unfortunately, the same division arises in his family. Rachel becomes Yaakov's beloved wife.

I repeat, hated not in the sense in which this is usually said in the Russian language; Lea was neglected, let us say. Pay attention – Lea too was barren at first. The LORD in His mercy opened her womb.

That is, my husband will see the LORD in my eyes, and now my husband will love me. Pay attention that in general in Scripture children are often given names that foretell some role that they will carry in this life, not simply names, as often happens today, when some beautiful or resounding name is chosen. A name is what the family, or the mother and father, acquire together with the child, what this child means for them and what changes in their destiny they want. That is, a name is not given just like that, and one can think about a name in this key as well.

She says: “God hears my condition.” If the first time she said: “The LORD looks,” then here – “The LORD hears me, and that means He is working with me.” This is not luck, not an any-moment-any-moment-any-moment-now it will happen, but: “The LORD hears me, the LORD is leading me to my husband loving me. And I will call this son Hearing, as a sign that the LORD hears me constantly.”

Levi is the one who is melavé (one who sees off, who accompanies or companion). Why did she express such a strange idea? It is nice for a husband to go out for a walk with the children. It is such a pleasant procession; walking with three children is more pleasant than, for example, with a lonely Rachel. My husband will now walk with me, because a retinue of three children goes with me; one can take a stroll like that, puff out one's chest more.

She stopped, “stood from bearing,” if one translates literally, stopped bearing. The commentators say that since she stopped praying, since, in essence, with the child's name she said: “That's it, that's it, thank you, LORD! Now everything will work out!”, this process that began with Shimon (when she spoke about hearing, that the Most High is working), she interrupted: now everything is finished. She herself decided so; therefore it happened that she stopped bearing. She lost, suspended this blessing; this is the way one can understand it.

That is, quite a long time had passed for Rachel to understand: something is wrong with her and she is, apparently, barren.

It is interesting to pay attention to the verb tekanné – became jealous, it also means to be jealous and to envy. If it is used with the little letter בּ (bet), with the preposition b, as here – vattekanné rachél ba'achotá – then this means that Rachel wants to be like her sister, some kind of competition arises; that is, so that there would be no childless ones. If it were written le'achotá, this would mean that she envies her sister: it is unfair, the sister bears children, and I don't want her to have children. That is, in the first case – I want to have children too; in the second case – I don't want her to have children. Between the little letter בּ (bet) andל (lamed) there is such a big difference. What does a woman do with her grief, with her problem? She goes to her husband, to Yaakov.

…AND SHE SAID TO YAAKOV: “BRING ME CHILDREN, AND IF NOT – I WILL DIE.”

How much human suffering can be seen in these words of Rachel. And here one might expect that Yaakov would close his Talmud, put his laptop aside, embrace her, hold her close and say: “Let's pray together,” or at least, like Elkana, say: “I love you anyway.” But Yaakov answers differently.

Charón-af or snorting of the nose – this is a euphemism for anger in the Torah. Yaakov became angry with Rachel.

Here we plainly have a marital quarrel, and a multitude of commentaries on this marital quarrel; and there are not many marital quarrels in the Torah, and it is interesting to comment on them. The commentaries, of course, are all written by men and reflect the view of different men of different times on this situation.

There are commentaries that say (the midrash says): at this moment the Most High said to Yaakov: “You are oppressing a woman who came to you with her grief. You will receive retribution in that all your children will stand before one of her few children, Yosef, and bow down to him.” This will be in chapter 50 of the book of Bereshit, when they come to Egypt and say: “We are your slaves.” And he will say to them: “Am I instead of God?” Yosef could have said this angrily, but he forgives them and says: “There is retribution – measure for measure, and one must not hurt children; one must not hurt women who want children either.”

Other commentators say: “Yaakov got angry because Rachel came and, like a teenage girl, began to blackmail him with suicide. Along the lines of: ‘If you don't give me children, I will kill myself, I will just die.’ Yaakov said: ‘What kind of talk is this in a family? Is this how one is supposed to act in a real Jewish family? You are a Jewish woman, after all, right?’”

Others say that Yaakov said to her: “It is you who have no children. Here it is written – God did not give you children. When Yitzchak, our Patriarch, prayed for Rivka, he did not know which of them was barren, he had no children, and he prayed and therefore received an answer. But I know that I have children, so, sorry, this is your problem – the absence of your children. I come to you, I give you marital covering. So don't be indignant.” There are such commentaries.

Other commentaries say: “I am trying to pray, I prayed for you, but it doesn't work.”

And yet other commentaries say: “Can't you, dear Rachel, pray for yourself?” And further he says: “Look, if you turn to me and say that Avraham prayed for Sara, and Yitzchak prayed for Rivka, then maybe you too will act like Sara and give me your concubine, to start the whole thing with that?” And further we read:

It can also be translated as “I will adopt a son from her,” exactly the same way as they say that, when Hagar was with Avraham and Yitzchak was born, this led to the Most High later having mercy on Sara and giving her fruit. And the commentators say that this is roughly Rachel's reasoning. Others say that here Rachel says to Yaakov: “You misunderstood me altogether. I wanted to tell you not that you should pray for me, and not that you should get me children like a little star from the sky. I started this whole conversation so that you would come in to my slave woman, take her, and she will give birth on my knees, and I will bear you a son; I will have a son, I will be built up from him. That is what I was leading up to with all this. You, as always, didn't hear me out. You never hear me out, now you interrupted me again, and yelled at me on top of that.” So many different approaches that tell about the conflict in the family; and, one can say, of course, the commentators want to justify Yaakov. Yaakov is our Patriarch, he is our teacher, our helmsman, and it would seem he cannot have any mistakes. But my Yaakov, my personal Yaakov (that is how I see it) – is a Yaakov who treated Rachel badly, answered her angrily. Anger toward a woman who feels hurt – this is bad. And he did not hear her out, and when we do not hear a person out, we do not let him speak his mind, this wounds him. The person begins to carry it inside. And we can say: “Women don't act like that.” And we can say: “A little boy cannot be afraid of the dark.” And he goes to sleep in his room with the fear of the dark, suppresses his fear. If he has quarreled with someone, we cannot hate anyone: “God forbid! You cannot have such feelings!” And the person begins to suppress his feelings. Problems in the family, problems in a person's soul begin with him not being heard out. Yaakov acted badly here. And the Most High, I believe this midrash, rebuked him, repaid him measure for measure and said to him: “Yaakov, it is not good to act like this. Yasha, it is not good to treat women like this.” Yaakov is a human being, he is made of blood and flesh, and sometimes he behaves like an ordinary person.

The commentators also ask the question: why does Rachel not give birth? And some say: when there is enormous love between spouses, when there is such love, then the woman has no room left for motherhood, or the man does not want to let her go so that she would settle down as a motheriThe Russian literally says “so that she would stop as a mother”. The meaning is unclear (perhaps “become a mother”), so it is rendered as “settle down as a mother”.; because of excessive love, because of excessive sensuality they cannot have a child. Others say that this is Rachel's sin, that Rachel perceived it that way; this is her sin, somewhere her mistake, somewhere she is at fault. Maybe in the fact that it so happened that she let her sister marry before her, and for a whole week Lea was Yaakov's exclusive wife; maybe in this.

Other commentators, there is such a stratum of sages in Judaism, say that the whole matter lies in the name; in the name there must be the little letter י (yud) or the little letter הּ (hei). When the little letter הּ (hei) is missing, then the woman cannot give birth. There was Sarai (שָׂרַי), she was renamed Sara (שָׂרָה), and she was able to give birth. In the name Rachel (רָחֵל) there is no letter hei, this feminine letter. It really is a very feminine little letter, since it is added to nouns so that they become nouns of the feminine gender. If she were Rachelá or Ra'achel, then she would be able to give birth; one only needs to change the name. There are very many such teachers today, kabbalists, who say: “Change the name here, change the combination here, and everything will work out for you.” Yes, indeed: whoever changes a name, changes the name in its very essence, that one changes his life. But this is not magic and does not work that way. And so the commentators say: “Here I have a slave woman, her name is Bilha. And in the name Bilha (בִלְהָה) there are as many as two little letters hei at the end. Why does she need so many? She is a slave anyway. Let her be BilhaiIn the Russian, the shortened name differs from the full name Bilha only by a softening mark that English spelling cannot show, so both look the same here., and I will be Rachilá. And I will give birth, and she will give birth, and everything will be fine, let me be built up from her.” But one must be careful with all these games with letters.

And let's see the plain meaning in this. And the plain meaning is that Rachel remembers how it was with Sara. Rachel wants children very much, wants there to be children in her tent. Yaakov comes to Lea, who has children, plays with them in the evening. And what is Rachel to do? And she too wants children. She wants to spend time with children herself, wants to be a mother. The matter here is not only Yaakov: Rachel has an enormous instinct for motherhood, an enormous desire for motherhood, and she goes so far as to give her slave woman to Yaakov as a wife. That is exactly what is written – she gave her to Yaakov as a wife.

Interesting: to denote female slaves there are two words in Hebrew. There is the word amá – a maidservant, a female slave who is temporary. There is the word shifchá – a female slave who is a slave forever; this shifchá is usually not from among the Jews. And why are they called here – both Bilha and, later, Zilpa – by the word shifchá? After all, when they get married, they have to be freed; if the mistress gives them in marriage, she frees them. Why then is she called shifchá? Because, as the commentators say, her lineage is like that. She was born of a concubine, therefore she is half illegitimate. So, Rachel, in the old, grandmotherly, Sara's way, gives her slave to Yaakov as a wife.

Pay attention, it is written: and bore Yaakov a son; she did not bear him to Rachel, it is written: to Yaakov. Why is this legally important? Because here we are not simply talking about some family scenes or family showdowns. We are talking about the creation of the tribes of Israel. Bilha bore a son to Yaakov; we will yet return to this wording that is written here.

In the Russian language the expression “the LORD judged me” can be perceived as unambiguously negative – “the LORD condemned me.” Here: “The LORD gave me what was due to me by judgment.” Apparently (if we remember what the commentators say), Yaakov advised Rachel, instructed Rachel to pray for herself, and Rachel prays for herself, and so she says: “The LORD heard my voice.”

But the relations between Yaakov and Bilha do not end there.

And we remember that at this time Lea, having given birth to Yehuda, stopped giving birth. She said: “Now I will bless the LORD. Well, that's it, enough” – and stopped giving birth. She stopped giving birth perhaps because she developed some female problems; we will yet return to this. But now Rachel, as it were, also enters the competition and says: “Look, I already have two. At this rate I will soon catch up with my sister.”

The word naftulé means cunning, guile, connected with weaving, with writhing: writhing, I was intertwined (or wrestled) with my sister (the word elohím, which is usually translated as God, can here be translated as great or mighty; this meaning exists too, there is the notion meumát elohím – a mighty agitation, and so on); with a mighty struggle I struggled with my sister, with a mighty intertwining I was intertwined with my sister.

The word yachólet, lichól means to be able. Victory in many Slavic languages is peremóga: I was able to do more than she, I overpowered her.

Naftalí – my trial, my twisting; or, one could even say, my guile, my cunning. We have already paid attention to the fact that names can contain within themselves certain prayers or thanks. And here she says: “I am a fighter, I am a winner.” Here one can say that she speaks the way an Israeli would say today: “Yes! I did it! I beat my sister!” Very human words. We must remember that these people did not know, none of them knew (I will repeat this for the umpteenth time), that they were living in the Bible. They lived. These were real people who lived, breathed, spoke, argued, quarreled, took offense and could rejoice in their victories. But no such luck.

Why does Lea do this? Only the Rambam (Maimonides), of all the commentators, remarks that, as a matter of fact, women do not like to bring a second wife to their husbands. Apparently, Lea felt some problems on the female side; we will return to this later, when we talk about the remedy for barrenness, red fruits and so on. But for now Lea, who said: “Whoa! So you could do it that way?!”, also gives her slave to Yaakov as a wife.

Here there is a variant reading. There is the notion ktív – the correction of the scribes. One can understand that two words are written – ba gad (בָּא גָד), that is – happiness has come, happiness has come rolling in, luck has started. And one can understand – begad (בְּגָד), was unfaithful. In the sense that he, Yaakov, was unfaithful to me, but I was not unfaithful to him; he was unfaithful to me, had children with another woman, I was not unfaithful to him. This is her view of the situation. In her understanding – we will see this in the next passage – Rachel had altogether taken her husband away from her; and we will also talk about this later.

Gad means accumulating, gathering, bringing luck. A name with very many meanings, and it can be translated in very different ways, and, in general, this verse can be translated in dozens of different ways, really dozens.

Now the score becomes 2:2. Zilpa too bears Yaakov a second son.

All the daughters will bless me – from this one can see that the child was born very beautiful. And all the descendants of Asher, his daughters, will marry kohanim (this is known from later sources), because the girls will be beauties, all taking after their handsome ancestor. That is, Lea saw such a beautiful boy and said: “Well, now all the girls will call me blessed, will bless me, because his daughters, and his granddaughters, and his great-granddaughters – there will be enough beauty for all of them.” And the daughters of others will say: “Wow! What a handsome guy! How lucky his mother is!” And she called him Asher, which means giving happiness.

Let us stop here for now. Re'uven is the firstborn of Yaakov and Lea. As we know, Yaakov lived with Lavan (until the birth of Yosef, of whom there will be more later) for fourteen years. For seven years Yaakov worked for Rachel, he was an unmarried man. The events that are described here – Re'uven and the mandrake apples – take place in the fifth year after Yaakov got married. And this means that Re'uven is a four-year-old boy. This means that he did not get out a plant identification guide and say: “Wow! Mandragora officinarum! I have to bring it to mom, because it helps against barrenness.” Rather, he found either the bright red berries of the mandrake or, most likely, the pink little root of the mandrake, which looks very much like a little man. The little man was interested in the little wooden man he had found in the field. And he brought it as a present to his mom Lea, who sits in the tent, whom Yaakov does not visit. Perhaps she is sad, and perhaps he sees that she is sad. Well, and to cheerful momsiThe Russian says children usually bring presents to “cheerful” moms, although the context of a sad Lea suggests “not cheerful” may have been meant. It is translated literally. children usually bring presents. Re'uven most likely does not know any healing properties of the mandrake, like an ordinary little child. Healing properties are attributed to the mandrake precisely because its root looks like a little man, and that means it also leads to the birth of little men; that is often how people reason. Neither the Torah nor scientific research supports the idea that the mandrake is effective; but such a dietary supplement existed at that time. Re'uven found it and brought it to his mother.

… and brought it to Lea, his mother (he brought his mom a beautiful little root as a present). Rachel said to Lea: “Give me a little of your son's mandrake.”

It probably does not look very nice when one mom asks for a present that a son brought to another mom; all the more so when they are sisters between whom there is such a complicated relationship.

We need to go back a little and remember Lea's state. After Lea gave birth to Yehuda, her fourth son, it is said: and she stopped giving birth. Lea bore her first son, Re'uven, then Shimon, then Levi, then Yehuda, and then she stopped giving birth. Let's note that afterwards she will still bear Yissachar, Zevulun and Dina. Four plus three (it is not hard to count) equals seven. In all, Lea bore seven children in seven years. And a natural question arises: so when did she stop giving birth? Seven children in seven years – any mom will say: “That is a lot.” And most moms will say: “That is way too many.” Who would say that such a woman is barren? And we need to understand what stopped giving birth means, what state she is in, what is happening with Lea now.

Some commentators say that she did stop giving birth for a year after all, and Zevulun and Dina are twins; that is why it comes out as seven children in seven years, but in fact one year was barren. But it is hard to suppose that a woman who has borne four children and has not given birth for a year after that would worry that she is barren, even in those hard times.

Other commentators say that Lea decided not to give birth any more. She said to Yaakov: “The fifth one, Yasha, you will give birth to yourself. I have borne four, if only I can raise these.” And this too is a logical approach, such things happen in families. Or Yaakov decided that he had enough children from Lea. And then again Lea stopped giving birth against her will. Why against her will? Because further on we will understand that, when she gives birth, it is written: “God heard Lea.” She most likely did want to give birth after all.

There is one more important detail, a detail that may not be understandable to every reader, but is understandable to an Eastern reader, one familiar with history. There are certain archetypes, certain principles that are preserved. These are principles by which wives give birth to twice as many as concubines. Nachor has twelve children – eight from his wife, four from a concubine. Lea at that moment has four children, two from the concubine. We know that when the sons of Israel enter Egypt, go down to Egypt, thirty-two descendants of Lea and sixteen descendants of Zilpa will go with them, that is, two to one; fourteen descendants of Rachel and seven descendants of Bilha, also two to one (this is chapter 46 of the book of Bereshit, for whoever is interested and wants to reread it). When Lea has borne four and, as we know, Zilpa will bear two more, with this Lea's mission of giving birth is finished. And therefore, perhaps, it is written that she stopped giving birth. Her husband was never especially interested in her, we see that he loves Rachel more. And all of Lea's happiness is to spend time with the children, and here her son brings her a present, and her sister wants to take this present from her, and Lea moreover knows the healing properties of this dietary supplement, and believes in them.

Not isheinu, not our husband, however strange that sounds today; he was our husband for the girls. But: “You took my husband.” After all, Lea married him first, and Rachel joined this family later, in fact took Lea's husband, took him himself, and his attention, and his love. And so Lea speaks as she feels it: it is not the mouth of a woman speaking, it is the heart of a woman speaking, “the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart.” And here the point is most likely not the medical properties of the mandrake; here the point is sentimentality, love, family relationships.

…and Rachel said: “Therefore let him lie with you this night in exchange for your son's mandrakes.”

She does not say: the husband will lie, because the husband is a clear topic of conversation. A terrible phrase, in fact. Let's read on to understand why terrible.

Let's remember who came from the field the previous time – Esav. Yaakov has what Esav does not have: he has lentil stew, and Esav came with nothing. And Esav wants “the red, the red,” and sells his birthright for it. Here this comes back in an amazing way. Yaakov comes from the field, and, it would seem, it is Yaakov who will now be in the role of Esav, but no: it “ricocheted” onto Rachel, Rachel is in the role of Esav. She gives away her husband's night for “the red, the red,” for the mandrake apples of Lea's son, which in her plan are supposed to give her the possibility to become pregnant.

The midrash says that because she disdained a night with a righteous man (she said: “So what, Yaakov will sleep one night with Lea, nothing terrible will happen”), because of this she is not buried with him. Because she disdained one night spent with him in one bed, she is not buried with Yaakov. And she, as it is written, lost the primacy. Why does the midrash say that she lost the primacy? This is an allusion to Esav. As Esav in his time disdained the primacy, so Rachel disdained equality with her sister. She was supposed to bear four children, and Bilha two more, but it did not turn out that way, because she disdained her love, Yaakov's love for her, as Esav disdained, in his time, the birthright.

But Lea cannot sit still in the tent, so lonely she is and so important to her is one night with her husband. Most likely not at all in order to become pregnant by him, you do not get pregnant from every night. What does she need this one night for? She is seeking her husband's love, Lea is all the time seeking her husband's love. She is seeking her husband's love, and her longing is such that she is ready to bargain humiliatingly, in essence, for one night with her own husband. She could not wait for him in the tent; perhaps she was constantly peeking out past the tent flap, perhaps she kept sending Re'uven out to the road. But, one way or another, Yaakov returns from the field, and impatient Lea meets him.

…and says to him: “You will come to me today, for with payment I have paid for you, for my son's mandrakes.” And he lay with her that night.

And he lay with her that night – this is an allusion to another story, to the story of Lot. About Lot it is said (when he went in to his daughters): and he lay with her that night, he did not know, lying down and getting up… This is the story of Lot.

Yaakov – knows. Lot is drunk, and he acts, one could say, as a victim of violence and deception; one could say, Lot is forced into intimacy with his daughters. In the same way here Yaakov too, like Lot, is compelled, goes in to his wife not of his own will. Yaakov is a passive man in his family: there is no such Yaakov Yitzchakovich here who will bang his fist on the table and say: “What are you doing? Are you Jews?” Or: “Where, where has it ever been seen that in a Jewish family women twist their husbands around like this?” But they do twist them, and how! Yaakov is a passive man, and the Torah shows us this with barely noticeable little strokes.

God heard her longing, God heard her grief. Can one say that Lea was barren, so as to pray for the birth of children? No, she was not. She bore four and said: “I will thank the LORD.” But there is a cry, even deeds can sometimes be a cry of prayer.

Pay attention: if about all four children it is written simply bore, here there is a formula, a wording, as with regard to a concubine – bore Yaakov a fifth son. Why is it written this way? Because, as we said, actually Rachel was supposed to bear this son. But because Rachel disdained the night with Yaakov, she became the mother of fewer tribes. It is impossible to simply say: “So what, I'll give away a night with my husband, and it will end with one night.” Small deeds often have a high price.

And here is the very same phrase that we read in verse 16: “With payment I have paid for you.”

The word sachár itself and the name Yissachár mean will be paid, or the one who will receive payment, or the one who will receive a reward; it points to these very words of Lea: sachór sechartícha, with payment I have paid for you. And the language in which Lea expresses herself also points to this: she speaks about the maidservant whom she gave, about the desire to continue the family line. The maidservant is simply a symbol. Here her deed is a symbol of continuing the birth of the family. Perhaps, because the maidservant gave birth, Yaakov appeared again in Lea's tent, and love flared up in her again. It is very hard to understand the motives of a woman, all the more of a woman who lived more than 3000 years ago. But, since people change little, one can suppose that it is hard to connect the name Yissachar with Yaakov having been bought; well, it is really not nice to give a child such a name. And she saw the root of all the events in her having given her maidservant to Yaakov.

Once again, bore to Yaakov. It is not written simply bore, as about the previous four children; again the wording is as with regard to the concubines.

The word zevadáni means gift, present, some kind of very expensive present; the LORD, one could say, showered me with gold.

In the word yizbeléni the root záyin-bet-lámed (זבל) means will fertilize, will be with me, will fertilize me, will ennoble me, will cultivate me. Although the word zével in modern Hebrew means simply garbage, fertilizer, zével in ancient Hebrew means a place that enriches, ennobles, arranges. And Zevulun is not just a name that is given to a son, it is also one of the names of the Temple.

We have already said that the commentators, trying to explain a certain hint at the barrenness of Lea, who in seven years bears seven children, say that Dina was born together with Zevulun, and that is why there was a year of barrenness. Lea had one year out of seven when she did not give birth, and at that moment she considered herself barren. Why does such a question arise? Because it is not written “and she conceived, and bore a daughter.” And perhaps that is how it is; it is quite possible to translate it that way. But another option, closer to me, more understandable to me, is this: since Dina is mentioned here only because of what will happen to her later, and she is not one of the tribes of Israel, it is not written about her “and she conceived, and bore.” One can understand this one way or the other.

When it is said that the LORD remembered, this of course does not mean that He was sitting there pensive and suddenly remembered: “And how is Rachel doing over there, I need to take a look.” Remembered means the time has come, the time has arrived in the Divine schedule to take up Rachel. And this means that the Most High needs now to intervene in what is happening with Rachel. He, of course, governs the whole world and rules constantly, but sometimes He intervenes, changing the nature of things. When it is written vayizkór, what is meant is an intervention in the natural course of events.

We see that much time passed while Rachel remained barren; and she was supposed to bear, because Lea had already stopped bearing. But what did Rachel do? She sold this opportunity of hers to bear (if one understands it through the commentaries) for mandrake apples. She took a dietary supplement, took a healing herb instead of the help of the Most High, decided to act in some ways of her own, and as a result the mandrake had the opposite effect on her. There is no need to hurry to condemn this woman; she tried as best she could. Sometimes we try to put effort into this world, we do something, thinking that God will bless us. God says: “I will bless you in all your deeds.” Where we do nothing, God cannot bless us. In order to receive a blessing, we must do something; a blessing, it is always upon some deeds. And perhaps this is what Rachel was trying to do; but she gave up a night with her husband in exchange for some biologically active supplement, for some medicine. And her decision was wrong; the motive was good, but the attempt failed. She made a mistake, and we too very often make mistakes, and each of us, it happens, sometimes trades things for mandrakes. And one can try to find the times in life when we did this, discover it and not do it anymore. So, the LORD remembered Rachel, opened her womb.

One can say: took the disgrace off me piece by piece, gathered the disgrace off me, the way one can gather spilled grain from the floor; that is how the LORD took the disgrace off her.

The word יוֹסֵף (yoséf) is close in root to the word אָסַף (asáf). But it was not in gratitude to God for having gathered the disgrace off her that she named him Yosef. We have talked about the fact that when a person names, gives a name to their children, it is a kind of prayer about what will change in the parents' life. And today there is such a thing in the Eastern tradition, for example, among the Turkic peoples: when many girls are born, a girl is called by a name that translates as “will bring a boy,” or one who is called “there will be a turn,” that is, from then on boys will be born. With the help of a name they try not only to plan fate, but also to plan the family. And here, on the one hand, Rachel expresses gratitude to the Most High for the fact that he gathered up the disgrace; on the other hand, one boy is not enough, and she wants to have more children. And it is completely natural that she says: “I believe that God will give me more children,” and names her son Yosef. And at roughly this period the 14 years of Yaakov's life with Lavan come to an end.

Before beginning to read this passage, I would like to say that this passage is very difficult from the point of view of language. Every time there is some difficulty, there are many commentaries. What is the difficulty connected with? With the fact that the passage has very many shepherding terms, connected with agriculture, with the work of shepherds. And the people of Israel were for a long time in galut, in exile, and did not engage in shepherding; therefore many terms, the meanings of many words, have been lost or called into question. We can guess their meaning from the general sense. But can every Russian-speaking person today say what dun, piebald, claybank or leopard-spotted coats of horses mean? Someone who works with horses will easily tell the meaning of each of these words. But most people, even those for whom Russian is their native language, are hardly well acquainted with these words. We are reading a very similar text, so there will be many differing readings. There are also many differing readings because what is being discussed is a kind of legal document. But we will talk about that as we go along.

What is missing here, of course, is “to my father's house.” Why is it missing? The reason here is classic Eastern politeness. It is awkward for our Forefather, Yaakov, to tell Lavan that his family is not here, when his two wives and a heap of children are here with him, with Lavan, his father-in-law. To say: “All right, it's nice at your place; I think I'll go home, to my family,” is somehow not very polite. And Yaakov tries to be polite, and he continues the conversation with Lavan.

Why are the children included in the list? The children are included in the list simply because this is spoken language. And “I served you for them” is said in the feminine plural; for them – for the daughters I served you.

Yaakov did not simply wait for the birth of Yosef; he waited until the seven years had ended that he had to work as a second term for Rachel. Now he owes Lavan nothing, ceases to have the status of a slave, a hired worker, has the status of a free man (we will come back to this), wants to leave. And what is he asking for in this case, if one understands Eastern language? He says: “You know how honestly I served you for your daughters. Now give me the dowry due to your daughters, and I will leave.” Yaakov has nothing to leave with; he crossed the Jordan, as he will later say, “with his staff.” He came with nothing, and now what will he return home with? With twelve children (with twelve, because Dina is the twelfth)? And that's all. But one has to live somehow. Therefore it is logical to ask Lavan for a dowry for the daughters; this is just as honest as he honestly worked for the daughters.

Lavan does not really want to let Yaakov go. This is the beginning of a request.

…I have understood that my blessing has been received through you”

The word nicháshti can mean several things. First: “I divined, I laid out some kind of divination objects and divined.” Second, it can mean: “I guessed, I understood, I figured it out long ago, worked it out long ago.” And the third meaning: “I began to prosper (from an ancient root, this is a kind of local dialect of Lavan).”

We remember that when Yaakov saw the dream, he was told: “All the nations will be blessed in you. Whoever takes you as an ally will receive a blessing.” Here Yaakov receives testimony to this from Lavan, who says: “I saw, I figured it out, I guessed that God blessed me through you.” We see that Lavan had only daughters. Further on we see that he already had sons appear during this time. This is a great blessing. His livestock multiplied, his property multiplied. He sees that with Yaakov's coming the blessing came to him, as God had promised Yaakov.

Perhaps this is the traditional Eastern “stay, sit a while,” as Rabbit said to Winnie-the-Pooh: “Well, if you don't want anything else…,” and one ought to get up and leave; but let us watch Yaakov's reaction.

The root פְרֹץ (protz) in the word וַיִּפְרֹץ (vayifrotz) here is from that very blessing which the Most High gave Yaakov by the ladder: “I will multiply you, I will spread you out.”

Let us remember what we said, “Yaakov took his feet, lifted his feet.” Here these very feet in turbo mode, winged feet, they bring blessing to Lavan.

The phrase la'asót levetí (to do for the house) has become a set expression. When some ruler, president or head of government leaves a state post in order to take up private affairs, they say that he has left la'asót levetí (to do for his own house). Yaakov says: “I have been busy here with you, I lived here for your well-being. When will I take care of myself?”

We remember that Yaakov, in fact, has no money, no means of any kind with which he could return to Canaan.

Here again we see a very interesting phrase. Yaakov made a neder (oath): “Of all that You give me, when I return, if You keep me, I will give You a tenth.” Here, in the conversation, in Yaakov's words there again occur titén (you will give), eshmór (I will keep, I will return). Yaakov says the very same words. Apparently, in his head the whole time there is that same oath, that same blessing, that with which everything began. Why does Yaakov linger, why does he not return to Canaan? He has already married, he has already raised children, and Esav, probably, has long since not been the same. There may be many reasons for this. And the commentators interpret (as I often say) depending on what they themselves think about Yaakov, on their personal attitude toward him. We ourselves so often do this and put into the Torah, into Scripture, some meanings of our own.

Some condemn Yaakov and say: “The LORD promised to bless, one must drop everything and go to Canaan.” Some say: “Well, Yaakov must feed his household, he must support his household.”

There is one more circumstance. We said that Yaakov's oath can be read in different ways. He is perhaps waiting (and there are grounds for this) for when the Most High will bring him back. Here, when he hears Lavan's offers, despite the fact that he already wanted to leave, he begins to speak the words of that oath and waits until the Most High calls him. And he decides to stay. In any case, one should not hurry to condemn Yaakov for the desire to earn money. How many rich Jews live in galut, prosper, make some fortunes there and then come to Israel, and bless Israel. Our goal in any case is not to offend anyone.

So, Yaakov tells Lavan, strictly speaking, the conditions on which he is ready to save his livestock.

Speckled (nakód) – these are small spots, talú – these are large spots.

This can be understood in different ways. Some say this: “Yaakov proposes to Lavan that he take for himself all the speckled, spotted livestock and leave Yaakov only the white, and then everything speckled will be Yaakov's reward, and everything white will just stay with Lavan (Lavan is white, after all, so the white will stay with him).”

The second option, and this option is more convenient when reading, is this. Yaakov is an experienced shepherd, a man who is not at all stupid, and he understands that from white livestock it is hard for speckled ones to be born. Of course, one can say that he knows a magic trick for how to make sheep spotted. One can say that already then he had experienced the revelation of the Most High which he will tell about later.

But such a generous offer should arouse suspicion in Lavan: “Yaakov is up to something here.” And, most likely, Yaakov proposes to set apart, already now, from the whole flock that he pastures, the mottled part. And if the mottled multiplies, this will be his reward, and the white that multiplies will be Lavan's reward. A very simple, logical division. And further Yaakov continues:

And that way it will be clear which little sheep is whose, because one can see: it is spotted – that means mine, white – yours, and the wages will be visible at once. Before you my truth will speak, it will be obvious how much to pay me: everything that is not mottled is yours.

So, and yet not so. Lavan would not be Lavan if he too had not plotted some special operation.

What did he do? From the livestock that belonged to Yaakov under this division, from all the mottled ones, he took the big he-goats, took all the breeding stock and left Yaakov the young animals, which would not be breeding any time soon.

That is, Lavan took the strongest part of the livestock, including the spotted, and left Yaakov the spotted little young ones. And do whatever you want with this, whatever multiplies, that is yours.

There are, I will repeat again, many commentators who say that Yaakov originally asked for himself only the white livestock. And the spotted that comes out of the white, that would be his. There are many different commentaries. We cannot hold to many versions at once, therefore we will hold to this version. And whoever wants to read it differently, well, that is up to him; historically this is not all that important.

Here the root יחמ (yechúm) in the word וַיֵּחַמְנָה (vayechámna) means the sexual arousal of an animal: “and they became heated when they came to drink.” Seeing these speckled little stripes, they warmed up, so they say; and it is as if precisely this sight changed the coat color of the little sheep being born, so says one of the widespread classical readings. RaSaG (Rav Saadia Gaon) also says that an aphrodisiac from these twigs got into the water, a substance got in that prompted them to drink. And other commentators say that, seeing these sticks, they were drawn to them, it amused them, they were frightened, they began to play. Yaakov's goal was, through such play, to arouse the young stock, to prompt the young stock to breed.

That is, Yaakov prompted the young livestock to give offspring. Again here there is water, wells, or – water, watering places – a place that brings fruit.

Science laughs a great deal, this is often subjected to such ridicule, that the ancient Jews believed that if you set up something mottled, then the children too will be mottled. There are many jokes about a donkey that was met on the road, and therefore the son became a donkey; or – that what a woman sees when she is pregnant, such will her children be; this has remained among many peoples. It is obvious that what is seen is like a visual stimulant, a visual object of arousal.

Here he has already divided the flocks, and the flocks have grown up, and the animals themselves warm up to one another.

Further, Yaakov separated the strong ones (and let them get aroused more) and the weak ones, which multiplied less. And it turned out that the strong ones went to Yaakov (natural selection, as it were), and the weak ones remained with Lavan.

Here Yaakov is called for the first time by the word ha'ísh (this man, husband, guy, important person). Instead of Yaakov being a slave, a fugitive, a person who lives and works for Lavan for grub, or for wives, or for something else, he himself spread out and developed very-very much. That is, he traded in livestock, sold livestock, bought slave women, and slaves, and camels and donkeys, and became very, very rich.

We saw how Yaakov stayed. And we ask: “But was Yaakov right to stay? But did he do the right thing?” The blessing of the Most High on his property, on everything that happens to him – all this is wonderful evidence that Yaakov was right to stay.

Let's repeat. Lavan removed the breeding males from his flock, and Yaakov had to promote the arousal of the animals. In the period of their arousal, he first prompted the young animals to multiply and increased all the flocks. Then he separated the speckled and the white, the weak and the strong, and in this way regulated natural selection. One can say Yaakov here is the first selective breeder.

Later on we will read how Yaakov tells a dream, and we will talk more about the secrets of Jewish genetics. This text, this fragment, I will repeat, has very many different translations and variant readings. All of them are both understandable and not understandable at the same time, because there are many agricultural terms and few farmers who worked on translating Scripture.

Such a complicated story this is, in which kabbalists, by the way, also see magic. There are whole worlds in kabbalah, and one can talk about this if one talks about kabbalah, but we are not dealing with it now. There are very many different stories around this account; we, however, have tried to work out its plain meaning.

We stopped at the point that, after the agreement with Lavan about his pay, Yaakov, with the blessing of the Most High, became very, very rich and turned into a very important man.

Pay attention, we already came across this in the previous chapter, that Lavan has acquired sons. Before Yaakov came to him, he had only daughters; now he already has sons. And the commentators see (and Lavan himself speaks about this) that he began to prosper with Yaakov's coming. Sons, I will repeat, are part of the blessing.

That is, people saw (not only the family, but also the people around) that Yaakov was becoming an important man. He has slaves, he has slave women, and he is gaining authority. And Lavan's sons begin to say that no, this is not some blessing of Yaakov's at all, this is our father's blessing. It is because of him, thanks to him, that Yaakov is gaining authority. Remember, in a similar case like this, Avraham answered the king of Sedom: “I will take nothing from you, so that you will not say: I made Avraham rich.” Here, in part, is a similar situation.

The face in this case does not mean simply that he saw his face, his physiognomy, but that he saw how Lavan treats him.

The expression tmól shilshóm (literally yesterday-the-day-before) is translated as quite recently. That is, Yaakov saw that the sons had “started talk going,” although Lavan saw and himself testified that his blessing came through Yaakov and that he had grown very much with Yaakov's coming. And we see that the sons themselves are also part of this blessing. Nevertheless, the talk seeps into Lavan's heart, and Lavan no longer believes so much in what he himself said and no longer treats Yaakov so well. Yaakov understands all this, naturally, sinks into thought and, most likely, Yaakov prays about this.

We remember: when Yaakov was making his oath, we said that there are two readings, and one of the variants is to read: “when God brings me back.” And here the LORD says: “That's it, the time has come for you to return.” And the external situation, and bad rumors started going around, bad thoughts crept in toward Lavan, and the Most High himself confirms – it is necessary, it is time already to get ready.

Pay attention that Rachel comes first in the list. If we go by seniority, as would have been proper to say in the text, then it should have said: and he called Lea and Rachel. And although Lea became his wife first, here Rachel is more important to Yaakov, and therefore the Torah emphasizes this. And today, when we bless daughters, we say: “May the LORD raise you up like Sará, Rivká, Rachel and Lea.” And again Rachel comes ahead of Lea. So that is how it developed historically: chronology does not always determine seniority. And not only among brothers, as with Esav and Yaakov, but we see that among daughters this happens too, though unofficially.

So, Yaakov calls them to the field, to the livestock. This means that, apparently, they do not pasture with him; they live in their father's house, and there Yaakov does not want to talk. The commentators explain: “This is a good Eastern custom – to confer outside the city, where there are no extra ears.” Some commentators speak of a whole etiquette: “Blessed are the people who do not bite off from a whole piece but cut off a little at a time, who do not kiss the lips but kiss the hands, and who take counsel outside the city.” The meaning is this: not to soil others with your conversations; even if a person is not eavesdropping, he should not always have to hear some kind of squabbles. Therefore, if you want to talk about something important and are afraid that the conversation will become long and some argument will arise, go outside the city to talk. This, of course, is not practical advice today, but it is what the sages perceived as a good, positive quality.

So, Yaakov called Rachel and Lea to the field in order to talk with them.

That is, he says: “Your father has changed his attitude toward me, but this is not because I did something bad somewhere. Why do I say this? Because my God, the God of my father, was with me. If I had sinned, both God and Lavan would have turned away from me, and I would be looking for mistakes in myself. But since God is with me, and Lavan is being difficult for some reason, that means the problems are not on my side, the problems are with Lavan.”

An interesting pronoun is atténa (you), which is used when addressing two girls. In modern Hebrew one says attém, with a final m – you, which is used with regard to men (plural); attén, with a final n – you, which is used with regard to women (plural). But in ancient Hebrew there was also the dual number atténa – you, when addressing two girls.

This, of course, is hyperbole here, an exaggeration. Indeed, Lavan changed the pay with regard to Rachel and Lea; indeed, Lavan changed the pay with the speckled, white animals and was dishonest in this. But this, of course, is not 10 times. Here the Torah speaks in human language. It is important for us to know this not in order to understand how many times Lavan actually deceived Yaakov. In the end this is not so critical. It is important for understanding when, in other places of the Torah, we read: “there is no righteous one, not even one”; or: “only thus is perfection achieved,” or: “you are perfect” and so on. One must understand that an expression which we perceive literally, word for word, is an expression of human speech. Even when the Most High speaks, He speaks in human language, and all the more so when psalms are written or when Rachel says: “Give me children or I will die.” All this is human speech, and in the Torah there is much human speech, and in the psalms there is much human speech, and in the prophets there is much human speech, and even when the Most High speaks, He speaks to people and speaks in a human way. Therefore human speech is one of the levels of understanding what is written in the Torah, in the Prophets, in Scripture and, of course, in the New Testament. And this is very important, so as not to interpret like foolish lawyers, but to understand what it is all about, what language is used, to whom it is addressed and how the one who reads it understands it.

We said that lifted the eyes, lifted the voice, lifted the feet – this is a transition to some kind of spiritual vision. And Yaakov saw a prophetic dream.

I have already said that the coat colors of sheep are very hard to translate from Hebrew, since for a long time we had no shepherding, and the terminology was almost lost. But the general meaning is clear: Yaakov sees in a dream that even from white sheep spotted offspring can be born. We read earlier that this was done with the help of the sticks that Yaakov whittled. Now we are reading about a dream that Yaakov tells about. This is so astonishing that some commentators, interpreters – both classical ones and researchers of Scripture – say that Yaakov made up this dream in order to impress the girls. But this is very unlike Yaakov. Let's read to the end and then talk about it.

There are certain rules in how heredity manifests itself. There are certain qualities that are called prevailing or dominant, namely: if one of the parents is dark-eyed and the other is blue-eyed, then it is precisely the dark-eyed one who has more chances of passing on the heredity; if one of the parents is dark-skinned and the other is white, dark skin has more chances of being passed on. Inherited qualities can be weak as well as strong. This does not mean that the weak ones cannot manifest, it means that they will manifest in a smaller number of cases. Here the Most High shows Yaakov in a dream: all the genetics will change, and the genetic rules of the recessive and dominant allele, or genotype, phenotype and all the rest, will not work here at all, because the Most High intervenes. The question arises: so what actually had the effect after all? The sticks or the intervention of the Most High? Or maybe Yaakov really did make up the intervention of the Most High? We read one similar story – about the Tower of Babel. First we learn how the sons of Noach spread out over the earth, and then how they built the tower and how they were scattered. There are the reasons for their scattering, and there is the way God arranged it; the description of the one comes ahead of the description of the other. And here Yaakov acts, does his part, and the Most High does his. Here a secret is revealed: Yaakov can act, he has his own logic, he acts according to laws that belong partly to this world. The Most High, however, is the One Who is able to make the recessive allele become dominant, to make the weak qualities become strong: this is classic Torah, when the weak becomes strong.

And the Most High says: “I stood up for you not because I love you and not because you are chosen, but because I saw what Lavan is doing to you.” That is, the Most High does not reward one at the expense of another if this other behaves as he should. The Most High blessed Yaakov at the expense of Lavan not because Yaakov is loved more than Lavan, but because Lavan behaved not the way he should.

With this quotation of the words of the Most High ends the long speech that Yaakov delivers, as we remember, before his wives – Rachel and Lea. What does he say? He says: “My dear girls, your father is oppressing me, and we are already on the verge of hostility. And although he is your father (I keep repeating that he is your father), you see how he has changed his attitude toward me. But God is with me. And now it is up to you to choose what you will do next.”

do everything that God tells you.”

So, Yaakov laid out the situation and said: “Here is your father, who behaves toward me like this, and here is God. Choose who is right.” It is not always easy – to choose between a father and God. That is, when we sit and reason theoretically and are not standing before a choice, it seems to us that we will, of course, follow God. But it can be hard to go against the family, and here, it must be said, Lavan tried very hard to make this choice easier for his daughters.

Before this, as we remember, the Torah did not mention that Yaakov is actually going to his father, to his own family, since Yaakov said “your father” all the time. But now, after Lavan's daughters said: “You are our family,” one can say: “I am going to my father,” and this will offend no one. And meanwhile...

Terafim – this is a kind of idol. We do not know what it looked like, there are different opinions on this. Either it is some kind of human remains, for example, a skull into which certain potions were put so that it would speak, or it is some other similar things. In general, quite wild things – a human bone or something else, most often connected with truly unclean parts of the dead. Or vessels with oil, also made of bones, which produced a certain music – in a word, some kind of sorcery. What matters is that this is not necessarily some working magic, not necessarily that it worked. What matters is that Lavan believed in it and, apparently, Rachel also believed in it, because she stole it. The description of these terafim is frightening enough that I would not give it here, it would clearly disturb many young men and especially women.

Let's remember that three days is an interesting time. Once Moshe asked to go away a three days' journey and celebrate, and we will still talk about this.

There is Yaakov, who is moving with a lot of property, with livestock, with wives, with camels, and they do not walk fast, they are not sprinters at all, but he is moving nonetheless. And there is Lavan, who apparently moves fast, but he needed seven days to catch up with Yaakov. This too is a kind of miracle.

That is, Yaakov set up tents, pitched camp, and Lavan simply settled down: about Lavan it is not written that he pitched a tent. And this confirms that Lavan was moving without a big camp, without a lot of property. And this again tells us about the different speeds of travel, which would not be very logical if not for God's intervention.

“Like captives you led my daughters away from me, led them away without asking me, without saying goodbye, the way soldiers lead captive women away from a courtyard.” Any army is called chárev (sword), no matter whether it has a sword or not; this is a name for warriors – swordsmen.

What does stole me mean? It means stole my consciousness. There are many different kinds of theft and robbery. For example, if one person keeps another from sleeping, this is called gnivát shiná – theft of sleep. If one person deceives another (for example, by saying: “This product here is good”) or discredits someone else, this is called gnivát dá'at – deception of consciousness, deception of a person's perception of the world, deception of his reality. And here Lavan says: “Why did you steal my knowledge? Why did you steal my perception of the world”?

Kinór – this is not exactly a violin, rather a harp, or a psaltery, or some other string instrument. Today in Hebrew a kinór is a violin. When Hebrew was being revived, the names for instruments or objects that did not exist in Hebrew were often taken from some old texts. So, for example, electricity came to be called chashmál, like the name of the angel in the chariot from the vision of the prophet Yechezkel. And there are many such examples.

Pay attention, Lavan conducts a thorough search, his little gods are dear to him.

There is a certain cushion that is placed between the saddle and the camel and that collects sweat. And although many say that camels do not sweat, there is nevertheless a “sweat collector,” that is, they do secrete some liquid after all.

35. And Rachel said to her father: “Let it not anger my lord that I cannot rise before you, because I have what women usually have.” And he searched, and he did not find the terafim.

The word délek in modern Hebrew means fuel; the verb dalákti – caught fire, flared up. You rushed after me like that!

Here the word brother is used as relative. Yaakov, of course, is without brothers. His household he calls brothers and says: “Come on, pull out everything of yours that you found, show the results of the search. Here are the attesting witnesses. Come on, present it ‘for the record.’

Utterly slavish conditions. There is a notion: however you herd livestock, there is still some damage anyway. That is how it was in many agreements. Although, in many? It is hard to say, because not that many documents from that time have come down to us. But nevertheless we can speak about some things.

In Hebrew nedudé shná is insomnia, a “wandering” of sleep; sleep that goes out for a stroll.

Again the very same hyperbole. Yaakov exaggerates, saying this to Lavan's daughters, who may not be in the know. Here he is talking with Lavan, and it is clear that this is such an exaggeration that it does not mean exactly 10 times.

We said that God does not join His Name to the name of a righteous man; it is dangerous to say it that way. Therefore here he says “the fear of Yitzchak,” that is, the God whom Yitzchak fears.

God judged last night – this apparently refers to God coming to Lavan and speaking with him.

And Lavan makes Yaakov an offer:

Again, we remember, at the beginning of the journey Yaakov takes a stone and builds a stele. And here he builds a stele.

Here to his brothers means to his relatives. He has no brothers here, brothers as such; brothers in this case are those who went with him into his family.

The word גַּל (gál) in modern Hebrew means wave.

In the word sahadutá (testimony) the rootשהד (shin-hei-dalet) is used even in the modern Russian language, when people say the Arabic “shahíds,” from the root of the word witnesses.

The word gal'éd: gál – ridge, ed – mountain of testimony, or eternal mountain.

That is, yegár sahadutá – this is the Aramaic version (Lavan is an Aramean, after all), and Yaakov names it in his own language.

Since this is a ridge, from it one can see in different directions. And the word mitzpá, which is used, comes from the verb litzpót – to look into the distance, to peer. May the LORD be here and peer, look after us, when we are hidden from one another. The LORD – He is Great, All-Seeing, and from Him nothing will be hidden.

You see what an important lesson Lavan learned for himself from this story? He understood that God watches.

Bread – a common celebration. They ate, most likely, not only bread: this is a feast, this is the making of an alliance, the making of a covenant (we will see this later with Moshe as well).

So, they finished what began with a quarrel, finished it with a feast and reconciliation.

This is the last verse of chapter 31, and we move on to chapter 32 and read:

Again Yaakov meets angels. When he was leaving, he met angels; he returns – and again he meets angels. With what the story begins, with that it also ends.

One can and should pay attention that the Most High, bringing Yaakov out of Lavan's house, says: “Here, I have done this for you with the livestock, because I saw what Lavan did to you.” If we draw a parallel with the exodus from Egypt, then there the Most High says: “I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress you” (this is chapter 3 of the book of Shemot).

Here are a few more examples.

Yaakov says to Lavan: “Send me away, and I will go to my house, to my land. Give me my children and my wives and what I have earned with you, and I will go.” And Moshe says: “Let my people go, and they will serve the Most High in the wilderness; and our young ones, and our old ones, and we will go to serve the Most High.”

We read that the Most High gave Lavan's livestock little by little into Yaakov's hands. And we also read: “…and they plundered Egypt.”

Lavan was told that Yaakov had left. And Pharaoh was told that the people had fled. Both of them set out in pursuit. And it is said that the LORD warns Lavan not to do, not to say anything bad to Yaakov. And in the book of Shemot God sends an angel.

Here it says: I saw that You blessed me. And in chapter 12 of the book of Shemot it also says: and they blessed me.

We read that the LORD says: “Now arise and go out of this land.” And Pharaoh says: “Arise and go out.” Here it is written קוּם צֵא (kum tze) in the singular, and in the book of Shemot we will read קוּםוּ צְּאוּ (kúmu tzéu).

I bring these few points in order to show that there is a deep parallel between the galut into which Yaakov descends for the first time and the exit from galut, when this will happen with Israel. Both here and there there will be angels, and there are many, many more parallels. Perhaps, when we reach the book of Shemot, we will talk about this in more detail, but for now I have simply marked out the main points. Very, very rich in events was the portion Vayetze, and it is impossible to go through all of it in every detail.

The name of the weekly portion is translated “And he went out.” And indeed, at the very beginning of the portion we read that Yaakov goes out of Be'er Sheva. Probably the word and he went out (vayetze) sounds solemn and even a little leisurely, but this is not about Yaakov. He is fleeing from the anger of his brother Esav. Some say that he is forced to make his way by roundabout roads, fearing that Esav will catch him. Yaakov goes into the unknown. He has not read the book of Bereshit, he does not know what will be. He has hope in the Most High, but he does not know what will happen to him. On the very first night he sees an amazing dream, receives a revelation and strengthening from the Most High, and, waking up in the morning, Yaakov gives the Most High an oath. A very unusual prayer-oath compared with everything we have read before this. Let us read (Bereshit 28:20):

Let us stop at the word neder, which is usually translated as oath or vow. The Russian oath is a word connected with the word cursed, accursed, and, all in all, it is a cursing of oneself. The Hebrew neder or nadar is that which is made constant, relating to the eternal, the unbroken and the endless. That is, if the Russian oath means curse, then the Hebrew word neder, on the contrary, is closer to blessing, to that which binds you with the eternal, with the source of eternity. For our further conversation this will be very important.

“If God will be with me, and will guard me (or will keep me) on this way on which I am going, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to put on,

That is, it will be the place of my meeting with God, possibly a place of sacrifices.

and everything that you give me, of everything that you give me, I will set apart a tithe.

This is a prayer-oath. The conditions are these: if God will be with me, and will guard me on this way on which I am going, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, and I return in peace to the house of my Father. This is the condition! What will be done if it is so? Then the LORD will be God to me, and this stone which I have laid here will be the house of God, and of everything that You give me I will set apart a tithe.

Let's look at the essence of the deal. And what if he is not guarded? What if Yaakov does not manage to return to his native land? What if he does not always have bread and does not always have clothing? Will the Most High then be his God? Will Yaakov set apart the tithe? What is the essence of the oath, and why swear to the Most High? Why was it not possible simply to say: “LORD, I am going into the unknown, I am going on an unknown way! Have mercy on me! Guard me! Give me bread to eat, clothing to put on, and bring me back to my father's house.” Why is it necessary to bind oneself with an oath? What does the Most High need Yaakov's tithe for? If someone says to me: “Alex, if you give me a hundred shekels, I will give you ten of those hundred,” – a very strange deal, at first glance.

Why is an oath needed? And what is the essence of the oath? And what is Yaakov asking for here?

Yaakov's prayer, as a prayer, would seem to be very simple. Give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, and bring me back home in peace. A simple prayer, which not everyone knows how to pray. We often ask the Most High and receive what is inconvenient for us, what we do not want. What can you do? There is bread, but there are no teeth to eat it. Sometimes there is money, a lot of money, but greed does not allow you to spend it. Sometimes you have spent the money and bought yourself something, but greed does not allow you to get pleasure from this something that you bought. Greed says: “Wait for a suitable occasion, wait for a holiday to put on these clothes, wait for dear guests to eat from this dinner set, wait, don't hurry, when will you ever have this again.” You seem to have bought it, but all your life you never used it. Yaakov asks for a very simple and wise thing. Give me bread and clothing, but in such a way that I get pleasure from them. Bread, so that one can calmly eat it and not think about how much I spent on it and how much each bite costs. Clothing, so that one can calmly put it on, without fearing that I will get it dirty somewhere, that somewhere it will turn out not to fit my status, that somewhere I will be afraid that in such clean clothes I have ended up somewhere I should not be. As my Hebrew-speaking son once said: “I met a girl at the playground, her name is Don't.” That is how he understood that in Russian the girl is called Don't, because that is exactly what she was told all the time. And a person, having something, having put some white dress on himself, can say to himself: “Don't,” and call himself Don't. Well, Yaakov does not need this. Yaakov asks for very simple things. We ask the Most High simply for bread and clothing.

Why is it necessary to swear? There are also other oaths in Scripture. So, for example, in the twenty-first chapter of the book of Bemidbar, when the Canaanite, the king of Arad, tries to attack and attacks Israel and takes many captives, it is written:

Everything that I take, everything will be Yours. I will take no spoils for myself. Everything will be dedicated to You. Again: LORD, do You want to give me victory? Give it. You do not want to give me victory? Well, what can one do! It is not meant for me to win. Are we really trying to bribe the Most High with the property of these cities, from which He, even so, could have taken these people away at will? What is there to say! The whole world belongs to Him.

Another example of an oath is Chana (1 Shmuel 1:11) Chana has no children, she comes to pray before the Most High and also asks him with an oath.

That is, you will let me give birth to a son.

I will dedicate him to the LORD all the days of his life, and a razor will not pass over his head.”

Again Chana asks the Most High: “LORD, have mercy on me, look upon my suffering. Here, look, I stand before You, a simple Israelite woman, who wants nothing more than to have a son, like all women. Have mercy on me, give me a child.” What is the oath needed for, what is it needed for, to dedicate this child to the Most High? And what is most important, why do these oaths work, why does the Most High answer when we ask Him with an oath? Or why are prayers with oaths more often accepted by the Most High? Why are they more important to the Most High?

Oaths were also important to David. As we read, David says in psalm 22:

Yechida – this is a higher level of the soul.

And David has very much more about making good on vows. And in psalm 50 we read:

Further, in psalm 56:

Here David says one more astonishing thing, that oaths before the LORD, vows to the LORD, they are a protection and help him to sense the Divine presence and not to fear people. And what is this thing, a vow? We say the word oath, but here it is more correct to say vow. What does this vow mean? We see that Yaakov too, who says: “I will give You a tithe. You will be the Most High to me, You will be my God.” This does not mean that God is not yet God to him, that the LORD is not yet God to him, that he does not intend to give the tithe just like that. He says: “If I return home, I will testify that this is from You. I will testify that this is Your plan, that this is a manifestation of Your glory. And this tithe in the world will not be like a bribe to You. It will be a testimony of Your glorification, my testimony that it was not I who did this, but You.” Yaakov says before the Most High: “I can do nothing, You do it.” And he ties the fulfillment of his prayer in a knot with something eternal, with something belonging to eternity. That is, my return home will have significance not only for me, but also for something eternal. It will mean something for the Glory of God. An oath is a person's obligation, a person's testimony that what he asks for will reveal the Glory of God on earth.

In exactly the same way also what Yisrael swears, saying: “We will put all these cities under the ban. Everyone will see that we did this not in order to plunder these cities, but in order to glorify You. So that this would be not a momentary event, but an eternal event. So that the Glory of God would be revealed upon us.”

And in exactly the same way the oath of Chana. Chana says: “I will give this child to the house where they serve the Eternal. He will belong to the Eternal. What I ask for, I ask not only for myself, I ask also for Eternity. In order to leave a trace in the world to come, for the glorification of God on this earth.”

And all the vows, all the prayers that David speaks of, are also connected with the glorification of the Most High, the glorification of His name. David speaks about this constantly: “I will glorify You, I will tell about You. Everything that You do for me, all my glory – this is Your Glory, and I will proclaim It. I will act for Your Glory.”

It is very important to say to messianic believers, to those who practice prayer in the name of Yeshua, that these very words which we say at the end: “In the name of Yeshua HaMashiach,” – these are not magic words, not some magic password that gives our prayer a pass into heaven. By this very thing we say that what we ask for, we ask not only for ourselves, but also for the glorification of the Name of Yeshua Mashiach. If You give me this, then I will glorify the Name of HaMashiach Yeshua. That is what I ask this for. In the name of fulfilling that mission (to make the nations disciples) which Mashiach gave us. In order that the nations would come to know HaMashiach. That is why we add these words. This too is a kind of vow. A vow, and not a password with which we get in without waiting in line, so to speak. And this, of course, gives strength to our prayers, as we saw that a vow gives strength to prayers. But we must understand, so that these would not be empty words, so that this would not be a false vow, we must truly understand, where is that which we ask for? Where in this is there a place for the realization of the Divine plan? Where is this truly in His name? We come with His name and ask for something in His name. Will we not be ashamed of Him when He finds out that we asked for this in His Name? This too must be remembered constantly. And these words must be treated carefully, like any vow.

Talking about prayer is a thankless business. This topic is very complicated. A very painful topic for many people who have been praying for years, because we know that there are very many unanswered prayers, there are very many prayers that remain without an answer. And there are many different well-constructed and beautifully devised explanations of why prayers remain without an answer. One can say: “Daddy does not always say ‘yes’! Daddy can say ‘no’!” Daddy can say “no.” But is it really that often? One can say, in reality, the Most High gives us not what we want, but what we need. Good, wonderful, a fair remark. But then why does He ask us about what we need? Why do we pour out our heart before Him? Why do we pour out our soul before Him? Many different explanations, and they do not satisfy a person, because I will explain from the point of view of reason, while a person whose prayer the Most High does not answer feels this with his feelings. Reason cannot explain to feelings. These are different languages, the conversation goes on in different languages. And this feeling of bitterness, frustration, dissatisfaction from an unanswered prayer is familiar to everyone.

The Talmud says that there are three problems from which a person suffers daily. 1) These are thoughts of sin. Not a day will pass without some seditious thought about something creeping in. 2) This is evil speech. If a person is not mute and he talks with people, it happens to him almost daily that he says something bad about someone. 3) And these are the thoughts of prayer. The thoughts of prayer can be understood like this: when we pray, we are looking somewhere in the wrong direction, the wind carries us away, and we are not where we are praying, our thoughts are not there. But one more understanding of the thoughts about prayer is grief over an unanswered prayer. I tried so hard, I laid everything out so well, I really need this so much, I want it so much, it is so important, not even for me. And we pray for very important, for very tragic situations, for the survival of children, for the rescue of families, and who knows what else, and the disappointment is great and constant. And as the Talmud says: “It is characteristic of a person to be disappointed daily by unfulfilled prayers. To feel bitterness because prayers are not fulfilled, do not find an answer.” When we connect the answer to our prayers with eternity, when we are truly ready to connect receiving an answer to our prayers with eternity, the answer to our prayers is transferred into the sphere of eternity, and then the answer will not always be instant. The answer may be, one could say, on a historical scale. This does not comfort, but it begins to comfort when you truly put the emphasis on the glory of God that is in your prayer.

We read in the last weekly portion that when Esav heard that the blessing had been taken from him, he cried out with a great cry. A cry is also a prayer to the Most High. The midrash says: “The Most High heard this cry of Esav, and the payback to Israel came later, in the days of Purim, when Mordechai heard and cried out with a great cry because of the threat to the people of Israel.”

The commentators say that when Sara oppressed Hagar and Hagar cried out to the Most High, He heard her cry, and the descendants of Yishmael oppressed the people of Israel. These are midrashim that say: “Maybe our prayer will not be heard now?” Perhaps a prayer for the healing of this particular child will work toward the healing of another child. But with the Most High no prayers remain unanswered. If we really train ourselves, if we can train ourselves (and I am not yet at the end of this path), if we learn to pray not only for this very healing, but also for the glory of God, which is revealed through healing, then the healing of another child will also be partly an answer to our prayers. No, this will not remove the bitterness that the prayer is not answered. This will not remove the bitterness of death, God forbid, or of a child's illness. But this will give comfort for eternity.

In the history of our Patriarchs, which is told in such detail in the book of Bereshit, there is something astonishing. These are the barren mothers. Midrash Psikta says on this subject: “Seven barren women: Sara, Rivka, Rachel, Lea, Chana, the wife of Manoach (the wife of Manoach, as we remember, is the mother of Shimshon, they too had no children for a long time) and Tziyon. Tziyon in this case is Yerushalayim, which is often likened to a barren woman. Around them, it would seem, there are so many healthy women? Esav marries, and his wives give birth, Yishmael marries, and his wives give birth. But as soon as Yitzchak, or Yaakov, or Avraham takes a wife, these women turn out to be barren. And this is a great riddle, even concerning Lea it is said: “And God saw that Lea was despised and opened her womb.” That is, Lea too needed Divine intervention in order to give birth.

What is happening? Why are there barren women in the house of Yaakov, in the house of Avraham, in the house of Yitzchak? If you came to a rabbi or to a pastor, you would be told: “Dig, dig in your sins. Examine yourselves. Maybe somewhere there is little faith in you. Maybe somewhere you pray wrongly, raise your hands wrongly, or read Scripture wrongly, or do something else wrongly. The maggid of Dubno, Yaakov Krantz, a teacher from Dubno who lived in the 18th century, gave this explanation: “The children of our foremothers, the children of all these women we are talking about here, had to be children obtained from the Most High through prayer, born as the fruit of prayers, as the fruit of miracles, not by the power of biology, by a woman's inclination to give birth. They are the children of Yaakov, not the grandchildren of Lavan, they are born by a miracle. Yitzchak is not a grandson of Terach, because he was born by a miracle. There is Divine intervention in between, which as it were breaks the genealogical chain, breaks the cause-and-effect link. A reboot of the lineage takes place, or a reset of the lineage to the Manufacturer's settings. And Yitzchak's lineage is from Avraham, and not from Terach. The lineage of Yaakov's sons is not from Lavan, but from Lea and from Rachel.

Prayer is needed in order to awaken a miracle. One can, of course, say: “Ah, if I am entitled to it, I will receive it. If I am not entitled to it, I will not receive it. Why should I pray at all?” If we work somewhere, we expect the salary to come into our account. The boss does not expect us to come by for our salary. Why would he need that? This is called setting up processes, so that the salary comes into our account at the right time and we do not bother the boss. Our Boss wants to be bothered, wants us to understand that what we receive is His gift, it is His mercy, a manifestation of His mercy. When we pray to Him, those very vows that are being spoken about here, this is also a promise that our meeting with Him, our communion with Him, has a supernatural nature. There is a well-known joke in different forms about a man who is looking for a parking place and says: “LORD, if You help me find a parking place, then I… Oh, here, sorry, found one!” And the essence of an oath is precisely that we say: “We cannot find it. What will happen to us we will not attribute to a coincidence of circumstances or to our luck. We do not want to receive anything as the fruit of natural worldly events, of a natural worldly event. Although events will develop naturally, we want to see the miracle of Your intervention in what will happen to us.” The fulfillment of our prayer will be disconnected from the cause-and-effect link. This is what we include in our prayer when our prayer, like the prayer of Yaakov, like the prayer of Chana and like the prayers that we saw, is accompanied by a vow. That is the essence of a vow.

Of course, one must understand what we are promising and how we intend to glorify the Most High. A wrong understanding of this can lead to disaster. Such a disaster happened to Yiftach from Gilad from the book of Shoftim, who promised the Most High, in case of victory, to bring as a sacrifice of burnt offering the first thing that would come out to meet him. We know what happened there. His daughter came out to meet him. I have a separate talk on the subject of Yiftach. And here I will only say that it is important to understand how exactly the fulfillment of our prayer, the answer to our prayer, will glorify the Most High. How we will glorify Him for the fulfillment of our prayer. So that it is not so frightening.

To end on an optimistic and cheerful note, I will tell a Jewish joke. A well-known hero of Jewish jokes is Hershele Ostropoller. Hershele from the shtetl of Ostropol – a kind of Jewish counterpart of Ivanushka the Fool or Hodja Nasreddin. Once the rabbi asked him: “Hershele, how do you manage to pray with such a short prayer? I am a learned, literate man, I read better than you. And yet it takes me a very long time to read the prayer. How do you contrive to do it so quickly?” And Hershele answered him: “Rabbi, you are a distinguished and important man, you have many worries about the yeshiva, and about the community, and about money. I am a simple man, and I come to the Most High and say to Him: ‘Father, I am a blockhead. What can be done with me anyway? Bless my wife and my goat, and I will glorify You through them.’”

It can be done this way too, one can glorify the Most High with a very simple prayer, with very simple things. Peace with one's wife, joy from fellowship with one's wife, income, prosperity from a simple household, from a goat, can also glorify the Most High. It does not have to be something grandiose. One need not be afraid to pray about some simple everyday things and say: “Oh, since with our prayer we must only glorify Him, then only in what is festive, only in something great and simpleiThe Russian literally says “only in something great and simple”, which seems to go against the point being made (perhaps “not simple” was meant). It is translated literally..” No, it is enough, what we started with – to eat bread, to put on clothes. A wife and a goat too, please, and that is important too. That is, a simple prayer in the simplest things, about the simplest, about the most important, about the greatest, about the most luxurious, about the most necessary, about everything we want, but for the glorification of the Most High. That is the essence of a vow.

This was a talk about Yaakov's prayer and about prayers and oaths in general.

The weekly portion Vayetze begins with the Patriarch Yaakov, Yaakov Yitzchakovich, going out of his parents' house, fleeing from his parents' house from the anger of his brother Esav. To a certain degree this is the antithesis of what happens in the weekly portion Lech Lecha, when the Most High says to Avraham: “Go from the house of your father, from your homeland, go from your land.” And here Yaakov also goes out of his land, out of the house of his father, not by the command of the Most High, but by the design of the Most High, that is, this is Yaakov's hidden lech lecha. He is going, it would seem, out of the promised land, and not into the promised land. And naturally, he is overcome, beset by many doubts on this way. What if Esav pursues him and kills him? What if for his untruth some punishment overtakes him? He, perhaps, for the first time finds himself alone. If Esav is a hunter, a man who is used to staying alone, then Yaakov is a man who lives in tents. And, perhaps, for the first time he finds himself alone with himself, having gone out of his father's house. One can imagine what is going on in his soul. Here is what the Torah tells us about these events:

10. And Yaakov went out of Be'er Sheva, and went to Charan.

These two words are worth stopping at. Vayifgá bamakóm – one could say and he found himself in some place. And most often this is exactly how it is translated. Although this is the most incorrect of all the translations. The verb vayifgá means to collide with something, to strike against something, to hit something. For example, paga bo – this means he offended him or he hit him. Nifga – this means he was offended. Pigua in modern Hebrew means a terrorist attack. Bgia – this is hitting the target. Yaakov collided with something, met with something. It is very hard to apply this to a place. Perhaps Yaakov really did bump into, stumble upon this place. One can understand it as: Yaakov in this place collided with something special. Many different layers of understanding, many different commentaries on this matter.

Some commentators say that vayifgá means and he prayed. Why? Why does the verb paga also mean prayed? Because when we pray, we seek a meeting with the Most High, we seek how we may collide with the Most High. And therefore the verb is indeed applicable in this meaning as well.

So, Yaakov collides, finds himself in some place, about which the Torah, without naming it, speaks in a special way:

and he spent the night there, because the sun had set

Again the commentators stop at this and ask the question: why write “he spent the night there, because the sun had set”? It is clear that Yaakov will spend the night somewhere when the sun sets.” And the commentators explain that the Most High arranged it so that the sun would set exactly when Yaakov would be at this place. It seems to Yaakov that it is by chance that he fell asleep there, because the sun had set. In reality, the Most High somewhere there reasons: “Yaakov has come. Time for the sun to set, so that Yaakov spends the night here.” The design of the Most High is carried out invisibly.

The Torah describes how he prepares for sleep:

he took from the stones that were in this place, and placed them around his head, and fell asleep in that place.

Three times we read the word makóm (place) in this verse. Some commentators say that makóm is a pointer to the place where the Temple will later be. The place which the Most High chose.

In verse 17 we read that Yaakov, leaving the place, already after everything, says:

After Yaakov sees a dream there, he will understand that this is some special place, which can be called “the gate of heaven” or “the house of God.” What did Yaakov see in the dream? Probably this is one of the most famous dreams in the history of mankind. How many dreams are there that are remembered after several thousand years?

An amazing construction. On one side it comes down to the earth, on the other side it reaches to the heavens. Somewhere we have already read about this, about a very similar construction. In chapter 11 of the book of Bereshit:

Indeed, the Tower of Babel began with the builders having the idea of a structure very similar to this ladder, which would reach from the earth to the heavens. True, it was people who were supposed to walk on this structure, not the angels of God. There are a few more differences: in Yaakov's ladder we see that it does indeed reach the heavens, and the LORD Himself stands above this ladder, in one of the readings at any rate. Regarding the Tower of Babel the Most High says: “I'll just go down and take a look.” That is: “I'll just go down and take a look at what they have built there that reaches to heaven. From the heavens it's not really all that visible.” There's a parallel for you.

On the one hand, the Babylonians themselves, the inhabitants of the city of Babylon, did not believe that the name of their city comes from the verb bilbul (to mix), but thought that it means bab el – the gate of the gods, the heavenly gate. Just as Yaakov said about his place. And they built a tower, they had a memory of this tower, which reached to the heavens, by which people were supposed to ascend. On the other hand, Yaakov.

On the one hand, a heap of fired stones which the inhabitants of Babylon wanted to spend on building the tower. The midrash tells that they valued these fired bricks so much that if someone fell from the ladder during the construction, they did not grieve very much, but if bricks fell, that was a real tragedy for them. On the other hand, what Yaakov constructed is a small pile of stones. But it is somehow connected with something that reaches to the heavens. When we reread Yaakov's dream, one can say the Hebrew there is not very simple, not very clear, and, if one dares to say it, not very correct. I have spoken about this many times already. He fell asleep, and behold, a ladder. One can say he himself felt that he was a ladder. He dreams that he is a ladder on which (on him, on Yaakov) angels walk up and down. It is precisely a person who can become a ladder connecting the heavenly and the earthly. Worked stones are a symbol of industrial achievements, a symbol of man's productive power. The stones that Yaakov gathers are unworked stones, unhewn; from such stones one may build an altar to the Most High. Both a small pile of stones and the ability to reach the heavens. A big heap of worked brick, to which the Most High comes down to see what is there and how things are there.

The Babylonians built their tower so as not to be scattered over the earth. The Most High, as a punishment, scattered them over the earth. In the promise to Yaakov the Most High, on the one hand, says: “I will bring you into this land.” On the other hand, He says: “And you will spread out.” This is no longer as a punishment, but as a blessing. “And you will spread out in all directions.”

What is the secret of this ladder of Yaakov? Why does it turn out to be a more successful project than the Tower of Babel. Perhaps precisely in the stones. The first time we read about stones, we read that Yaakov took some of the stones that were in this place and laid them at his head. Then we read that the stone became as it were one stone. The midrash does not pass this by and says that these are several stones that grew together into one.

And some say: “These are 12 stones, 12 tribes, which joined into one people.” On the one hand, the Most High nurtures, raises one people. On the other hand, the Most High takes care to preserve each of the tribes. All these peoples have their individualities. They grow together into one stone, join into one people, but do not lose their distinctiveness. People become part of one people without becoming new, some kind of renewed Soviet people who have to hew down their character and only once hewn do they fit together. But people, simple, unhewn stones, grow together into one stone while keeping their individuality. If one carries this over into the language of food, one can take some dish like borscht and pilaf, which consists of many components, and each component can be tasted. If you put it through a blender, “purée” it, then it will be a completely different product. Israel is a dish infused with the flavors of all its ingredients. This is what the Most High is preparing Yaakov for. This is what will become the ladder reaching to the heavens. A society of people united into one single whole, but with different individualities, where each one can remain himself. Where each one can keep his individuality and unfold his individuality. The Most High created a diversity of people. We are all different. Each of us has his own talents, his own abilities, his own waves of light, which we reveal in this world. In uniting us into the people of God, the Most High does not “normalize” us, does not average us out, but wants us to unite into one people, with one single goal, with one single service, with the service of the one God. Each in his own language, each with his own instruments, each with his own vessels. And on the level of humanity this is praise in all languages. The Most High wants there to be praise to Him also in the languages of some small peoples. That any person (there is no big and small person) should praise Him with his own instruments, his own vessels. And in this lies the main difference between Yaakov's ladder and the Tower of Babel.

The Tower of Babel is a community of people who were forced to be a community. Who were hewn, fired like bricks, so that they would easily fit to one another. There individuality is lost. Individuality is sacrificed to unity. Yaakov's ladder is conceived as a ladder in which each person is a ladder, on which his own talents, abilities, desires ascend upward and descend blessed, sanctified by the Maker. And this is what will unite the people of Israel. That which unites precisely the people of God. Because God is a God not of uniformity, not of some monotonous order, but a God of diversity that arranges harmony. This is a feature of the Most High's handwriting. And this is what He is leading us to.

Try to grow together with a person who is not like you, accepting someone else's individuality. Try to be in a society of people each of whom is special, each of whom is not like you, maybe dressed not the way you like, thinks not the way you like. maybe believes not quite the way you like and speaks not quite the way you like. The Most High gathers these stones, and they must unite into one people. This is the miracle that the Most High teaches Yaakov. The very first revelation to him, when he is just leaving the land. Of course, there is also a promise here: “I will be with you.” And when we look at some person who is not like us, not at all like us, it is also good to remember that God is with him, God leads him. And Yaakov, who has left his father's house, is at this moment as if adopted by the Most High. The Most High reveals Himself to him as Father: “I am the God of Avraham, your father, the God of Yitzchak.” Why not “of Yitzchak, your father”? Because the concept of father becomes wider. The Most High Himself, as it were, becomes Yaakov's Father. We are His children and must accept His other children, because this is our family. We are a family, we are not just a society. This is the difference, perhaps, between the future Jerusalem and Babylon. It is always worth checking: what exactly are we building? Jerusalem or Babylon?

Of course, there are many views, many other commentaries on this dream of Yaakov, both in a historical key and in a psychological key. What commentaries have not appeared over several thousand years, but today I wanted to talk precisely from this angle.

Today we will talk about the love between the patriarch Yaakov and a girl named Rachel. We will also talk about a murder, although, in reality, of course, there is no murder at all in our weekly portion.

So, Yaakov flees from the anger of his brother. He flees from Be'er-Sheva toward Charan. And he reaches Charan. At the well he meets his relative, a girl named Rachel, who had come to the well with the livestock. We read, this is what the Torah says: vayishák yaakóv lerachél (and Yaakov kissed Rachel), vayisá et-koló (and lifted up his voice) vayévk (and wept). That is the kind of meeting there was between them.

Further on we read that Yaakov, of course, told Rachel who he was and where he came from. Joyful Rachel runs home and tells everything to her dad. And the joyful dad (and Rachel's dad is called Lavan, she is Rachel Lavanovna) invites Yaakov to his house. Here we learn that Lavan has one more daughter. ulelaván sheté vanót (and Lavan had two daughters) shem hagedolá leá (the name of the older daughter – Lea) veshém haketaná rachél (and the name of the younger daughter – Rachel).

The Torah describes the two daughters of Lavan. ve'ené leá rakót (and Lea had soft eyes). Literally the word rakot means soft, but it can mean many things when we describe eyes. We are poorly acquainted with the terms of ancient ophthalmology, so we rely on the commentators, who say: “And Lea was used to weeping, everything comes to her with tears. She sees everything with effort. Nothing is obvious to her, and she has to figure everything out.”

Other commentators say: “Lea wept her whole life away.” Why did she weep her whole life away? Because, from the very beginning, as soon as the girls were born, the older one, Lea, was betrothed to the older brother Esav, and the younger one, Rachel, was betrothed to the younger brother Yaakov. This was customary. This is a tradition that was well known and widespread in those times. And Lea wept over why she had fallen to the lot of such a villain. She wept and, perhaps, also prayed for Esav. There are very many different versions. One way or another, the Torah says here that Lea has some kind of problem with her eyes. This is, in reality, a very serious problem. A serious problem, because in the ancient world, and even now this is obvious, the eyes were considered a reflection, a conductor of a person's inner light. And it is said about a girl that if a bride's eyes are bright, if her eyes are beautiful, there is no need to check anything else. The body does not require checking. That means everything about her is fine. If there are problems with the eyes, that means one has to dig further and check the body. It is a very bad sign in the description of a person when it is said that something is wrong with his eyes.

In contrast, about Rachel the Torah says: verachél hayetá yefat-tóar (and Rachel was beautiful of form, beautiful of figure) vifát mar'é (and beautiful of face). Well, simply a girl with the looks of a model. Rachel is a beauty as if painted, in the literal sense of the word. That is what the Torah says here.

Further on we read: vaye'eháv yaakóv et-rachél (and Yaakov loved Rachel) vayómer (and said to Lavan, the father of both girls) e'evódcha shéva shaním berachél bitechá haketaná (I will serve you 7 years for Rachel, your younger daughter). And further still we read: vaya'avód yaakov berachél (and Yaakov served for Rachel) shéva shaním (7 years) vayihyú ve'enáv (and these seven years were in his eyes) keyamím achadím (like a handful of days) be'ahavató otá (because he loved her).

That is the description of the relationship between Yaakov and Rachel that we read in our weekly portion. It would seem a simple and banal story, although it contains within it, in my view, the most beautiful description of a man's love for a woman, when Yaakov worked 7 years in order to earn Rachel, and these 7 years seemed to him like one day. Who today is ready to wait 7 years for a bride, let alone work 7 years for her? Not an easy decision. Not an easy decision today, and in those times too. And here we are in the 21st century reading this text. And this text has been read over many, many years. And often it was hard for readers, and the commentators are also readers of the Torah, to accept that Yaakov could fall in love with Rachel.

When you first encounter this text in the cheder, when to a boy or a girl who study this text (more often a boy, because girls study it later) at 4 – 5 years old, the teacher in the cheder reads and says this: “And Yaakov kissed Rachel. And lifted up his voice. And wept. In a rush of feelings it so happened that Yaakov could not restrain himself and kissed Rachel and immediately repented of his rash act. How can one just like that take a girl and kiss her? How can one give free rein to one's human feelings? Therefore Yaakov immediately wept. These are tears of repentance.” This is the first commentary on the Torah that an ordinary Jewish boy hears. Yaakov cannot simply kiss his distant relative, even if she is a beautiful girl. Yaakov must kiss her and repent.

Why did Yaakov weep? The commentators give different answers to this question. Some say: “By the Holy Spirit Yaakov saw that they – Rachel and Yaakov – would not be buried together. He saw everything they would go through, that they would not be buried together, and he wept because of that.” Others say: “Yaakov wept comparing himself with Eliezer, the servant of Avraham. Avraham's servant Eliezer came with rich gifts. He gave a nose ring, and earrings, and gave a lot of everything, and bracelets. And Yaakov came empty-handed. ‘How we have degenerated!’ – Yaakov wept.”

And what happens, what we see in the commentaries, when we encounter this kind of interpretation, when our commentators try to explain to us that we might suddenly think that the forefather Yaakov has some human feelings. He is a righteous man, at every step he meets angels. How can he simply kiss a girl? How can he simply weep in a human way? And when we find further on that Yaakov loved Rachel, about whom it is said that she is beautiful, we are also given all sorts of explanations of this phenomenon.

Some say: “Yaakov met Rachel at the well – this is a sign from the Most High. He saw her at the well, just as back then his mother met Eliezer, the messenger of her bridegroom, at the well. This was a sign for him. He saw that this was a sign from God, that Rachel was destined for him by the Most High Himself. And that is why he loved Rachel.”

Others say: “His mother instructed him and said: ‘When you see a girl at the well, beautiful like me, both in form and in appearance, then you know, this is your girl.’ That is how Yaakov recognized her, and that is why he loved her.”

A third group of commentators say: “Of course, Yaakov, as a righteous man, should have first turned to the older daughter, and loved the older daughter, and married the older daughter. After all, a righteous man cannot come to Lavan and say: ‘Listen, I know that you have two daughters, but your older one is not beautiful enough for me, you see. I want to marry the younger one. Your little younger one has caught my eye.’ ‘No,’ – say the commentators. But Yaakov was afraid that if he now also took the girl who had originally been intended for Esav, and we talked about such a tradition, then Esav would no longer wait for the mourning for his father, but, God forbid, would come and kill. Because how long can Yaakov keep making a mockery of poor Esav? If Yaakov also takes his bride, then Yaakov will be in for it. And therefore Yaakov modestly sets his eyes only on Rachel, and does not even think about Lea. Once again, it is hard to admit that Yaakov simply fell in love with the beautiful Rachel.

Others say: “You see, when Yaakov turns to Lavan and says to him: ‘I want to work 7 years for Rachel, your younger daughter, he is saying: ‘I will work here 7 years for your little one, after all she is little, she is small, she is insignificant, she will come out cheaper.’ Yaakov sets his eyes on a girl he can afford. And we, no matter what you do with us, will not see that the Torah says that Rachel is beautiful and Yaakov fell in love with the beautiful Rachel. We will deprive Yaakov of all human feelings. No matter what, we will make him into a righteous man whose calculations are all only holy, and we will not leave anything human to Yaakov.

In chapter 22 of the book of Shemot, in the very last verse (in some translations it is 31, in some 30), the Most High says: “Be holy human beings to Me.” He already has holy angels. You be holy human beings. Be holy together with your holy human qualities, human qualities that you will sanctify. You can fall in love with a beautiful girl. A girl can fall in love with a handsome boy. This is normal. This is a human trait. This human trait will be sanctified. But we so want a righteous man to be deprived of everything human.

In reality, this temptation leads to the fact that we ourselves are often deprived of everything human. “I am a believer, and everything human is alien to me. I studied in a yeshiva. I have smicha as a rabbi. And I do not feel anything human. I am above all these feelings. Above the feelings of my children, above the feelings of my wife. And all this sentimental, girlish mushiness of hers – all this is not for me. I am studying Torah here, leave me alone. And leave Yaakov alone, he is, in reality, not like that. He has only holy calculations.”

That is exactly why I say that commentators, interpreters, readers of the Holy Scripture often kill the heroes of the Holy Scripture, not giving them the right to be human. Not giving Yaakov the right to simply fall in love with a girl. Not giving the right to doubts, to a mistake, to an impulse, to a kiss or to weeping. Not giving him the rights and giving oneself the rights not to feel, not to love, not to weep, not to have compassion, not to be sensitive to the human feelings of others. We will make an angel out of Yaakov and we will play at being the angel Alex, to whom everything will be alien, everything human, everything sensual. And he will live only by a put-on holiness. But, I'll repeat again, the Most High says: “And you shall be holy people to Me.” You first be a human being, and then be holy.

There are, of course, nuances. The nuance is that the story that happened with the amorous Yaakov, Yaakov who fell in love, can happen with us too. And it does happen with us. Yaakov, after the wedding night, suddenly discovered that when breakfast time came, when the girl was supposed to go and bake thin flatbreads, cut brynza, greens, or serve some other breakfast, or whatever other morning they had, and suddenly it's morning, and behold, Lea, not Rachel, but Lea. Every man who marries, every woman who gets married, runs into this – that suddenly it's not Rachel, it's Lea; suddenly it's not Yaakov, but the hands of Esav, stuck just a tiny, tiny bit onto Yaakov. We saw one thing, and when we entered into a closer relationship, when the hidden was revealed, suddenly it turns out that there's Lea in there too. Esav may also have crept in somewhere there. It is precisely our human qualities, which we sanctify, that will allow us to accept that part of the one close to us which needs correction, maybe a breaking-in, which is not model-like, which does not have a model's looks, does not immediately make an impression that brings you to fainting from being in love. This work of Yaakov and Lea, of Yaakov and Rachel, is work for each of us. For Rachel and for Lea – this is also work. But the most important thing for a person who has set out on the path of holiness is to remain human. So that it is a person going toward holiness, not killing anything human in himself, who can allow himself to fall in love with Rachel, so as to love Lea too, who is there inside, so as, maybe, to allow himself to see the beauty of the one he is in love with.

One more time, maybe for the thousand and first time, I'll tell how once, in my young years, a rabbi said to me: “What, are you looking for the most beautiful woman on earth to marry her?” I said: “Well, why not?” He said: “Because I have been married to the most beautiful woman in the world for 20 years already. She is, sorry, taken.” These are human feelings sanctified by holiness. To allow oneself to be human, to consider one's wife the most beautiful woman on earth, and to love her, and to keep holiness with her. And to allow Yaakov to love Rachel, to kiss Rachel, to weep together with Rachel. To allow Yaakov to work 7 years for her, so that they passed like one day. To allow Yaakov simply to say tenderly: “It is Rachel, your younger daughter, that I am speaking of,” and not to haggle over her. To allow oneself to be a person who loves, sympathizes, empathizes.

Do not kill Yaakov, do not kill our patriarchs, do not kill David, Shlomo, do not kill Avraham and Yitzchak. Let us see living people in them.

In Bereshit (29:20) we read: “And Yaakov served for Rachel 7 years. And they were in his eyes like a few days because of his love for her.” A story very well known to everyone, probably, and everyone who studies the Bible has read it more than once. The heroes of the Bible often seem to us somehow so abstract, living in the Bible. But if you try it on yourself, to serve 7 years for a wife, 7 years to strive for your bride, that is a very difficult decision. Again, each one can try it on himself.

The Torah tells us that these 7 years were in his eyes like a few days, because he loved her. Here again a question arises. If I love something, if I want something very much, then as a rule I wait for it impatiently. The more I love something, the more I want something, the more impatiently I wait for it. And if we love someone, we could say: “These 7 years seemed an eternity to him. These 7 years were for him like 7,000 years, because he loved her and wanted to be united with her.” But they seemed to him like a few days. Why is that? And different commentators try to give different answers to the question: why is this so? And, as usually happens, a commentary says more about the commentator than about the text itself.

Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, known as Rashi, says: “When Rivka was sending Yaakov off, she said: ‘Stay there a few days.’ And Yaakov, when he took on the service of 7 years for his bride, understood: those very few days, that very short time, these 7 years – this is, so to speak, his sentence in exile for having acted that way toward his brother, in order to calm his brother down. And therefore he waited quietly, calmly. This is not connected with Rachel at all. He perceived it as a sign that his mother had given him.”

Rabbi Meir Leib Kempner, better known as Malbim, gives a completely different commentary. He says: “Yaakov loved Rachel so much, she was so precious to him, that he reasoned: ‘Big deal, some 7 years compared with Rachel. 7 years – well, there they are, 7 years, but Rachel, wow, how important she is! I would have served 50 years for her. And I would have given my life for her. And here it's only 7 years. Trifles! They asked too little for her. She is worth more. So all it takes is to serve 7 years.’” And when Malbim asks himself the question: “But what about the fact that really a person, when he loves something, waits for it impatiently?” Malbim says that there are two kinds of love. Cheshev – that is when love ultimately returns to me. I can love fish, but in fact I love eating it. In exactly the same way one can, God forbid, love a woman too. You love having her. You love because you enjoy yourself, since she cooks you a tasty borscht or starches your shirts well. You are simply comfortable with her, cozy, joyful, and you love her in your life. Ultimately this is a desire that returns to you yourself. And then, when you wait for her, or wait for lunch, or wait for a trip to Disneyland, you really do wait impatiently. But if the matter concerns the values of the spiritual world, then it turns out there that the end itself sanctifies the means. Some attribute to Machiavelli, some to Ignatius of Loyola the phrase “The end justifies the means.” A strange and most often wrong phrase. But in the spiritual world a holy end can make the means holy, can raise the means to a spiritual level. And Yaakov served, but his soul was not on earth. His soul was in the spiritual world. Therefore, there, it seemed to him like a handful of days.

There is one more commentator – Charlap, who says that this work seemed to Yaakov like a handful of days because Yaakov loved this work. Well, he loved being a shepherd, he liked it. And what is Charlap's idea? That the Most High gave him the opportunity to earn his bride in a way convenient for him – by the work he was able to do. They didn't make him a sysadmin, didn't make him a sous-chef, didn't make him a hairdresser, they let him serve with the work he likes. In this is the manifestation of God's mercy toward him.

I like one more commentary, which says that, in essence, Yaakov after all replaced Rachel in the shepherding field. Before that, as we see, when Yaakov meets Rachel, it is precisely Rachel who tended the flock. And every time he ran after the sheep, when he froze in the tent, when he defended the sheep, when he wore his feet sore, when he was cold or when he was hot, he said: “Thank God that it's me and not Rachel!” And so, out of love for her, because he is protecting her from this work, this service seemed to him like one day.

Such is the question, and such is the variety of answers to this question. And each one can ask himself this question and give himself an answer. Maybe some other one, maybe choose one of these. I am not giving the right answer here. As is my custom, I simply toss some firewood onto the fire of your reflections.

In the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, and that was very long ago, when the Greeks ruled in the Holy Land, they forbade the Jews to read passages from the Torah in the synagogue. The Jews found a way around it and, instead of passages from the Torah, began to read passages from the prophetic books that were close in meaning, so that, as it were, we are not breaking the law and we are hearing the Word of God. The Greeks left the Holy Land and have long since stopped ruling there, but it turns out that we part with occupiers more easily than with our own traditions. The tradition of reading the prophetic books together with the weekly portion has remained, and this passage, which corresponds to each weekly portion, is called haftara (release). In the tradition of the Ashkenazi communities our weekly portion corresponds to the passage that begins with verse 13 of chapter 12 of the book of Hoshea and runs to the end of the book. So, let us begin:

This is the very story that we read precisely in our weekly portion. Yaakov avinu (the forefather Yaakov) flees from the anger of his brother Esav to the Arameans, to the city of Charan, to his uncle Lavan.

…and Yisrael worked for a woman, and for a woman he guarded the livestock.

The prophet once again tells the story we all know, about how Yaakov stayed in the house of Lavan, his uncle. Lavan said to him: “Well, you're not going to work for free!” And Yaakov, who had fallen in love with Rachel, Lavan's daughter, said that he would work for her. In the end he had to work for Rachel not 7 years but 14, but we read that Yaakov loved her so much that the time flew by unnoticed. So, the prophet reminds us of this story and goes on to say:

These two verses, 13 and 14, stand in an amazing harmony with each other, which completely disappears in translation. In order to see this, we need to go back a little to the very first word of the Torah, to the word bereshit (in the beginning). When we read it, we said that the preposition be actually has many meanings, and one can understand it as for the sake of the beginning or with the beginning, as with an instrument, as, for example, with pliers, likewise – with the beginning, one can understand it so; in the beginning. There are different understandings. And to what is said about Yaakov, since it is the same preposition be, one can apply this. Yaakov was in the fields of Aram for the sake of a woman, for the sake of a woman he worked and for the sake of a woman he guarded. One can say he also guarded the woman herself, he was there and guarded not only the livestock but also protected the woman herself. This is a phrase with very many meanings. And the same preposition is used with regard to the Most High and Israel. The Most High sent a prophet to Egypt in order to act through the prophet, through Moshe, of course, through whom the Most High constantly acts and about whom he says: “Moshe is faithful in all My house.” Moshe is the faithful messenger of the Most High to the people of Israel.

So, Hoshea tells us that just as Yaakov lived in the fields of Aram and served there for the sake of a woman, in exactly the same way the Most High went down to Egypt through a prophet in order to bring Israel out. And through a prophet the people of Israel were guarded, again the very same verb. Here there is a comparison of Yaakov and Rachel, of their relationship, with the relationship of the Most High and Israel. One can understand this as a sort of comparison not in Yaakov's favor. One can say that Yaakov got entangled there because of a woman and for 20 years could not return, whereas the Most High went down and brought his people out, and show how much more excellent the Most High is than Yaakov. Or this speaks of Moshe and shows how much more excellent Moshe is than Yaakov. Such understandings exist, it is hard to call them wrong, because they fit into the text, into the context – less so. But this is hardly what the prophet means.

Most likely, the prophet is saying: “Look, My attitude, the Most High's, toward you is like Yaakov's attitude toward Rachel, there it is pure romance, there it is almost being in love. I, in love with you, brought you out of Egypt, look at My mercy, at My love for you.” Our relationship with the Most High is like Yaakov in love. The Most High loves, is in love with us, as Yaakov was in love with young Rachel, and acted just as Yaakov did with Rachel. Just as Yaakov with Rachel, He labored over us and watched over us. This demands respect, reverence, love in return and gratitude. But further on the Most High speaks of anger.

Tamrurim is a very strong bitterness, simply bitter bitterness. Angered Me very much, made it bitter in the soul for Me.

And his blood will be thrown, sprinkled on him, his blood will spatter on him,

That is, his blood will be shed.

and his disgrace his master will return to him.

The LORD will show him what he really is. He will return him to that shameful, unworthy state in which he was without his Master. And this “he” – this is Efrayim, this is Israel, this is our people. Here chapter 12 ends, and chapter 13 begins.

Efrayim is an authoritative comrade among the people of Israel. Yirmeyahu (31:8) says in the name of the LORD: “Efrayim is My firstborn.” For a long time Efrayim as a tribe held a position of leadership among the tribes of Israel, everyone was trembling when he spoke.

he was exalted in Israel, he was respected and honored in Israel, but he turned out to be guilty through association with Ba'al and died, Efrayim fell through his association with idols.

The Jewish Hasidic tradition, Jewish mysticism (and it does not arise out of thin air, it is based on Yaakov's blessing that through Efrayim many nations will come) asserts that Efrayim has the mission of being a hand, a sleeve, connecting Israel and the nations. Through him the service of Israel to the nations was to be carried out, to take place, but this is very dangerous work, like work on high-voltage lines, which requires wearing gloves all the time, so as not to get soiled with idols, so as not to fall into the impurity in the midst of which you find yourself, as in a hospital for infectious diseases. After all, the nations served idols, and there was at times simply unbelievable abomination there. And Efrayim got involved with the Ba'alim, got infected with Ba'alism and through this perished.

That is, they put all their technologies into making this mask.

this is a handmade idol, a work of craftsmen.

The high-tech of that time, high technologies.

and all of this – for idol worship. they say, they, as in the proverb, offer people as sacrifices and kiss calves.

This is a kind of mockery. All people in the whole world, even idol worshippers, offer calves as sacrifices and kiss people. Whom do we kiss? We kiss people, we kiss our loved ones, at one time it was customary to kiss teachers. But they, on the contrary, have so perverted their minds that they kiss calves and offer people as sacrifices. And this cannot go on for long, this is not the right order in the relationship with the Most High and in the relationship with the world. Therefore the Most High says:

What happens to a little morning cloud? It melts away.

like dew that vanishes at dawn, like chaff that is carried off from the threshing floor

This is the kind of example that is used very often, when they toss up the grain and light a fire nearby. The wind carries the chaff toward the fire, because it is light, and the grain falls to the ground.

and like smoke from a chimney.

Through the prophet the Most High gives four examples of fleeting things in this world: a morning cloud, the dew before dawn, chaff that burns up in the fire, and smoke from a chimney. All of this is fleeting, all of this will vanish, all of this is not for long, although it is visible, perceptible, it will not exist for long.

All these servants of the cult, who will vanish, all this service is fleeting. And these idols themselves will also vanish. I am your God from the land of Egypt. For how many years now have you known Me? I am not fleeting, I will not vanish. Don't worry – I have not vanished, and don't hope – I will not vanish. I am that very God who remembers you from the land of Egypt.

and you will not find any god besides me

Everything you try, it is all a fiction, it is an optical illusion. There is no other God.

and there is no savior besides me.

Tal'uvót is land riddled with cracks.

Those who want to study this chapter more deeply with its parallels, look at how much Hoshea builds this chapter on the song Haazinu (Devarim 31:19–21), on the song which Moshe teaches the whole people of Israel. Perhaps because at that time the whole people knew it. How many parallels of all kinds there are here to this song, and how much Hoshea repeats it, clings to it. Just reread these songs, the prophecy of Hoshea here and the song of Moshe there. Their heart was lifted up, and they forgot even those times when they grazed on the salt flats, they had nothing to eat, and they depended on Me entirely, and they forgot Me. And the Most High says: “I will show Myself in your life.”

This expression – kenamér al-dérech ashúr, can also be understood as a tiger going by the way of Assyria. The word ashur can mean the name of a country, or it can mean the verb I will track, I will watch out for. Judging by the spelling, by the peculiarities of the spelling, here the verb is meant after all, I will watch out for you. I will watch out for where to strike you, as a tiger tracks you.

One of the meanings of the verb livgosh in biblical Hebrew is to attack someone. This is a picture very well known to all peoples who live near bears. If you kill a bear's cubs, it finds no peace until it takes revenge. A bear that has lost its cubs is a very terrifying bear. I will meet you like a bear that has lost its cubs.

and I will tear apart that which encloses their heart.

This can be translated as that which made their heart live in safety, some protective structures that they built around themselves, but it can also be understood simply as an animal tears open the rib cage of its prey. A terrifying picture.

And I will devour them there like a lioness, which tears apart, takes some pieces from its prey and then throws them away, and the beast of the field will finish devouring them.

The Most High paints a terrifying picture of what happens because Israel has forgotten the Most High and worships other gods. One can check whether these other gods will save, whether these other powers will save Israel. And the Most High says:

If we compare the relationship of Yaakov and Rachel, the woman is ezer, the man is ez, they help each other. You betrayed your Mainstay, your Support, your Provider, therefore by doing so you destroyed not Me, you destroyed yourself.

This is a story from the first book of Shmuel, when the Most High said: “You are disdaining Me when you want a king. Not the prophet, it is me you are disdaining when you want a king. You are rejecting the relationship with Me. The king began to educate you, to govern you, and so he has led you where he has led you.” This is not a complaint against Sha'ul, not a complaint against a specific king, it is a complaint against the system as such, the one Yisrael insisted he wanted to receive, and the Most High concludes this speech.

In anger – I am not glad that you asked Me for a king. I did not want to give you this king, but I gave him to you. With anger, but I gave. That to which the king led you, to which this whole system led you, when not the Most High but people govern, this I will take away in fury. Why does the Most High begin to speak here about kings and kingdoms? The king engages in politics, this is his profession, one of his official duties. As a politician he concluded a whole bunch of treaties with various countries, including with Assyria, and together with Assyrian politics, with Assyrian cultural influence, with Assyrian consumer goods, Assyrian gods and the Assyrian religion also made their way into the country. The king began to engage in politics, became dependent, the people became dependent on Assyria. And this is what came of it, such a connection with the kingdom, with faith in the power of the king, in the power of politics, with trust in the king. That is why the Most High says about the king:

That is how certain sheets, certain testimonies were filed. This can also be understood as a legal term, your sin is filed in the case file.

and his transgression is hidden away.

And the material evidence I have also put in a safe under secure guard. All the dirt on you is kept with Me.

The word mishbar is understood in different ways. Some understand it as the name of the stool or chair on which a woman gives birth, but it is more likely to understand it as the place through which children come out, the place through which a woman gives birth. The infant refuses to come out of the womb, he does not want to grow up, does not understand that these contractions are supposed to drive him out of some situation, that something in him must die, something must be born, he must somehow reformat himself.

And here is one of the hardest verses to understand in our chapter. The Most High says:

The word nócham is often used in the astonishing sense of God's repentance. For example, when the Torah tells us about the decision of the Most High to send the flood upon the earth and says that the Most High repented, a verb from the same root is used, yináchem. This verse can be understood in completely different ways, depending on how we place the intonations in it. One can say it like this: “Well then, now you think that I will deliver the people from the hands of sheol? Save them from death? Oh no, all regret has been hidden from Me, and now, come on, death, drag out your sores, come on, sheol, drag out your scourge, now I will deal with Israel!” This understanding fits this verse perfectly well. “This time I will certainly not reconsider.” That is how this verse can be understood.

But one can understand it, and we know such an interpretation, which says: “Would I really not have mercy on this people? Would I not deliver it from the hand of sheol? Would I not save it from death? Well, why have you crowded here with your instruments? Why have you come here? I will not execute it. Where now are your instruments, your sores, which you brought here, death? Where will you use them? Where will you put your whip, sheol? Did you really think that compassion, that mercy is hidden from Me?” Such an understanding also exists, and everything depends only on how we place the punctuation marks here.

We encounter astonishing dialogues with the Most High in the prophet Amos. When the Most High partly reveals to him that He will bring some calamity upon Israel, the prophet says: “How is Yaakov to survive? I beg You, forgive, he is so small!” And the LORD relents, the LORD shows mercy. And in the next verse we read a description of the fragility of Israel, the fragility of Efrayim, and of what can happen to him if the mercy of the LORD is not over him.

We will read the first verse of chapter 14 and then we will understand everything at once.

Terrible things will happen if the Most High allows this anger to be revealed in full measure. Such a terrible picture is painted, and the Most High turns to them through the prophet and says: “I do not want this! Do you really want this?” But remember how in the last chapter we talked about the fact that one verse can be read in two ways. If we do read it in such a way that the Most High is not ready to spare his people, then we must also understand what follows in such a way that the Most High says: “I will do all this so that you will finally repent, so that you will return to Me, so that you will finally be born from these contractions. If you are not born from weak contractions, I will shake you up with strong contractions.” One way or another, with a call to repentance. And for the sake of fairness, I repeat, one must also cite this understanding of the text.

No bulls needed, no livestock needed, nothing needed – take words with you.

and return to the LORD. bear our sin and accept, as good, accept, as something good, that we, like bulls, will bring the fruit of our lips.

This is the possibility of replacing sacrifice with prayer. Your own lips, like a bull, this is what the LORD says through the prophet.

Apparently this means, we will no longer take part in some international royal events with ceremonial processions.

and we will no longer call the work of our hands god, because with you there is mercy for the orphan

If you come with such words, all this grief can be prevented.

Again people will sit on benches in the shade of trees, again there will be calm and peace.

again they will plant grain

Literally – they will bring the cereals to life.

and they will blossom like the vine, they will be spreading wide like the vine.

And zichró can be translated as the memory of him, but here it is also fragrance. That which goes out, that which is spread abroad about him, like the Lebanese wine. This is what Efrayim will say:

One can translate the word aníti – I am done with my torment, I have suffered my fill and now I will look only at Him.

I am like a slender cypress, and in me your fruits will be found.

If You seek fruits in this world, You seek glory in this world, seek glorification, so that I would serve You, in my labor there will be fruits for You.

Read also: Toldot, Vayishlach, prayer and the weekly Torah portions.