וישלח יצחק את יעקב, “Yitzchak sent Yaakov, etc. Here the question arises that seeing Yaakov left his father’s home at the command of his parents, why do the sages claim that the separation of 22 years which Yaakov experienced from his son Joseph was due to his failure to observe the commandment of honouring father and mother during that period? (compare Megillah 17) Perhaps we must assume that his parents had meant for him to marry Leah and to return home forthwith when his father would send for him. Yaakov, however, had set his mind on marrying Rachel on account of her beauty; he was therefore not fulfilling a parental command by doing so and his delay in returning home was accounted against him. In fact, he had volunteered to serve seven years for Rachel (Genesis 29,18).

וילך פדנה ארם אל לבן בן בתואל הארמי, “he went towards Padan Aram, to Lavan son of Bethuel the Aramite.” While he was on his way he intended to marry one of the daughters of Lavan. This is why the Torah describes him as going “to Lavan.” After all, this had been what his father had commanded him to do when he said to him (verse 2): “arise and go to Padan Aram to the house of Bethuel and take for yourself from there a wife from amongst the daughters of Lavan your mother’s brother.” There is also the question of why the Torah had to write: “the brother of Rivkah, the mother of Yaakov and Esau.” Did we not know that Lavan was Rivkah’s brother, etc.?

According to the plain meaning of the text we must interpret this line as a complimentary comment on Yaakov who was prepared to follow a parental command and marry a girl who was the daughter of two generations of wicked people, i.e. Bethuel and Lavan. The Torah wanted to justify Yaakov by pointing out that though Lavan was a wicked person, his sister Rivkah was a fine woman, righteous in her own right. He could therefore assume that Lavan’s daughters, much like Bethuel’s daughter Rivkah, might be just like their aunt. The Torah continues complimenting Rivkah who became the mother of both “Yaakov and Esau.” The Torah wanted to emphasise that Rivkah, as opposed to her husband, had always loved Yaakov best (25,28), although she could have preferred her elder son as is customary.

I have heard from my teacher that the words “mother of Yaakov and Esau” are to show us that Rivkah deliberately sent Yaakov to a place where the biological relationship to Yaakov and Esau were of the same degree so that Lavan would not have a reason to favour Esau over Yaakov and allow Esau to harm Yaakov who had come to seek shelter under the roof of his uncle.

An investigative/rational approach to our verse: The Torah reminds us that when twins are born there are two afterbirths seeing each twin grows within its own setting. In the case of Esau and Yaakov, however, something unnatural occurred. Although they grew up within a single afterbirth, nonetheless their characters were so totally at variance. This was foreshadowed when Rivkah experienced that the fetuses were fighting with one another inside her (25,22). The Torah had to remind us that Rivkah had already endured much before these sons had been born.

בברכו אותו ויצו עליו לאמור לא תקח אשה מבנות כנען, "when he had blessed him and commanded him saying: ‘do not take a wife from amongst the daughters of Canaan.’” The experience of the fathers was being repeated with the sons. This is why Yitzchak commanded his son not to take a wife from the people of Canaan but to go to his own family and members of his father’s family, just as his father had commanded concerning his own choice of a potential marriage partner at the time.

Why did Yitzchak bless Yaakov again (28,1) and why did the Torah repeat this fact in our verse? Why was this matter referred to a third time with the words בברכו אותו? The Torah wanted to make it clear beyond any doubt that the fact that on the first occasion Yitzchak had not been aware whom he had really blessed had become totally irrelevant and that Yaakov‘s blessing was confirmed beyond dispute and that even Esau was fully aware of it. Bereshit Rabbah 67,17 writes that the second blessing was necessary as there had been a weakness concerning the validity of the original blessing. This “weakness” was now eliminated and it was clear to everyone that Yaakov’s blessing was legal beyond any doubt or dispute. The blessings received by Yaakov here were in the nature of a confirmation, a stamp, if you will, on the original blessing. It was similar to the practice of confirming a bill of divorce with such a stamp. In Jewish law, a bill of divorce is valid only if it bears such stamp. Without such confirmation there would still be people accusing Yaakov of having “snatched” the blessing away from Esau for whom it was intended. It also showed that if Yaakov had not agreed to become part of the short-lived charade to show his father how easily he could be tricked he would have obtained the blessing due him anyway.

We observe in history that the blessing has a way of being transferred from generation to generation. We find the first basic blessing of mankind being given to Adam and Chavah in Genesis 1,27. When, due to the curse which rested on the world at the time of the deluge this blessing had to be renewed, we read in Genesis 9,1 that G’d bestowed this blessing again on Noach and his sons. When the generation of the Tower had become guilty of a collective sin, the blessing which had been in a state of suspended animation was given to Avraham in Genesis 12,2 and he was given the power to direct it as he saw fit. Avraham was entitled to pass on this blessing to Ishmael, his oldest son as was the custom in those days. However, Avraham refrained from doing so as G’d had told him that his principal heir was Yitzchak. At the same time, since he did not want to cause rivalry and feuding between his sons Ishmael and Yitzchak, he decided not to allocate this power to bless to either one of this sons and to leave it to G’d to decide when and to whom to grant this power. G’d intervened and gave this blessing to Yitzchak (25,11). Yitzchak was entitled to give the blessing to Esau, seeing he was the firstborn. This is why Yaakov agreed to trick his father as he had become the legal firstborn. As a result of Esau selling his birthright he had lost both it and the power to receive or bestow the blessing. When Yaakov founded a family of twelve sons each of whom became the head of one of the twelve tribes making up the Jewish nation, he would have been entitled to transfer this blessing and the powers associated with it to his own firstborn Reuven. He did not do so, however, seeing Reuven had been guilty of a serious trespass as a result of which his father transferred the birthright to Joseph (Chronicles I 5,1). When these blessings were fulfilled for Yaakov the third of the patriarchs, this serves as an assurance to us in this our third exile that they will also be fulfilled at the time of the redemption from this exile.

Seeing that the Torah tells us that even the spiritual representative of Esau at the celestial court agreed that Yaakov had deserved to be the recipient of these blessings and he himself conferred a blessing on Yaakov (Genesis 32,30), this was a forerunner of what the prophet Isaiah said concerning the redemption in the future: והיו מלכים אומניך ושרותיהם מיניקותיך אפים ארצה ישתחוו לך ועפר רגליך ילחכו וידעת כי אני ה’ אשר לא יבושו קווי, “Kings shall tend your children, their queens shall serve you as nurses; they shall bow before you, face to the ground and they lick the dust of your feet, and you shall know that I am the Lord; those who trust Me shall not be shamed.” (Isaiah 49,23).

בברכת ישרים תרום קרת ובפי רשעים תהרס, “by the blessings of the righteous the city is elevated; but it is torn down by the mouth of the wicked.” (Proverbs 11,11)

In the course of his Book, Solomon makes mention of all positive and negative virtues. In the course of his words he stipulates that the צדיק, the righteous person, personifies precisely the opposite virtues of the רשע, the wicked person. Similarly, the ישר, the upright person, is the reverse of the devious person, the traitor. Throughout the Book of Proverbs Solomon contrasts opposite virtues. In chapter 21,18 this is spelled out very clearly when we read כופר לצדיק רשע ותחת ישרים בוגד. “The wicked will be a ransom for the righteous; the traitor in place of the upright.” Solomon clearly contrasts the righteous with the wicked and the upright with the traitor, the deceiver. These two types of people are absolute opposites. Solomon makes another statement along these same lines when he writes in 11,6 צדקת ישרים תצילם וסלף בוגדים ישדם. “The righteousness of the upright saves them; the treacherous will be trapped by their malice.”

The ישר is the person who knows straightforward honesty, he treasures it, and he deliberately chooses to pactice it. He is prepared to endure all the various unpleasant effects of sticking to his mode of life. All of this he does because he is captive to the motto of being truthful. The בוגד, the treacherous person, on the other hand, is the reverse. First of all, in many instances he does not even recognise the truth when he sees it. Secondly, even when he does recognise the truth he does not admit it but endeavours with all the means at his disposal to pervert the truth. In spite of all this we find that in some verses in this Book Solomon contrasted the virtue of uprightness with wickedness (instead of with treachery) and in the verse we quoted at the beginning of this paragraph he tells us that the upright man who dwells in a town causes the entire town to be morally and ethically uplifted on his account; in other words, Solomon defines the upright man as someone conferring benefits on his fellow citizens so that the whole town benefits from his conduct. Not only do the words of his mouth benefit his townspeople but he benefits them by means of the blessing which rests upon him. In other words, whatever G’d has endowed him with is transferred also to the community within which such an upright person resides. The very reverse is true of the wicked person, and this is why our verse continues with ובפי רשעים תהרס , “by the mouth of the wicked the town is destroyed.” The wicked person not only does not make a contribution to society, i.e. to the people with whom he associates, but he causes such a society to disintegrate due to his very presence. He does so merely by the words which come out of his mouth and by his haughty and overbearing manner. The righteous, on the other hand is not only a source of honour to the town he lives in but even his property is also a blessing for that town. This is the meaning of the words בברכת ישרים תרום קרת. The general principle which Solomon teaches is that the good deeds of the righteous as well as his words bear fruit. This is the meaning of Kohelet 11,3: ואם יפול עץ בדרום ואם בצפון מקום שיפול העץ, שם יהוא “If a tree falls down in the south or the north, wherever it falls there it remains.” Solomon speaks of a righteous person. The “tree” in the parable is a symbol for the righteous. Wherever he makes his residence there he will produce fruit. When our portion commences with the words ויצא יעקב וגו’ “Yaakov departed, etc,” this implied that a worthwhile person left the Holy Land and the whole land experienced his absence. When a righteous person resides within a city this makes an impression on that town’s fortunes. This is why the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 68,6) used this wording to teach this lesson. The Midrash felt that surely Yaakov had not been the only person who had ever left Beer Sheva. Why then did the Torah make special mention of his departure? [Remember that we already read about his leaving in 28,8 when he is reported as וילך פדנה ארם, “he went in the direction of Padan Aram.” Ed.] We can understand then that his departure is mentioned as it may have been the first time that a righteous person left Beer Sheva permanently. Since it would have sufficed to tell us where Yaakov was headed, i.e. “he went towards Charan,” the words ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע tell us that with his departure the glory of that town departed also.

ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע, “Yaakov left Beer Sheva, etc.” Beer Sheva is part of the land of Israel as we have been told in 26,23 that Yitzchak moved from the land of the Philistines to Beer Sheva. Seeing that that we know that Yitzchak never left the land of Israel, it is clear that Beer Sheva was part of this land. We had also read that Yitzchak had named the town (26,33).

Whereas the Torah had never mentioned that Yaakov moved to Beer Sheva, it is clear that when the Torah mentioned that he departed from there he must have first obtained permission from G’d to do so. He did so as otherwise he could not comply with the commandment of his father to go to his uncle Lavan and to marry one of his daughters. The words “he went to Charan” then may mean that he obtained permission for this specific journey and its purpose. [According to the Midrash we must assume that at the time Yaakov and Yitzchak lived in Kiryat Arba, and the reason Yaakov went there was to consult G’d who had previously communicated with his father there and given him assurances]. According to Bereshit Rabbah 68, Yaakov reasoned that just as G’d had appeared to his father at this spot so He might appear to him in response to his prayer. If He were to permit him to leave the land of Israel he would go, if not he would not leave this country.

If this were not the correct interpretation the Torah really should have written ויצא יעקב מחברון, “Yaakov departed from Chevron,” as this is where both he and his father lived at that time and that is where he received the blessings. You may now understand the proper sequence of what occurred. 1) Yaakov left, he encountered G’d; he spent the night there (verse 16) where he had that encounter. The word במקום with the vowel patach under the letter ב, alludes to a place he knew, i.e. Mount Moriah where he had previously had a vision of G’d. Permission to travel northwards was granted as G’d said to him He would be with him on the way he would travel, etc. (verses 13-15). After Yaakov had spent the night at Mount Moriah and G’d had given him permission to leave, i.e. had promised him to bring him back to this land, the reference of “to this land” was to Beer Sheva which is part of the land of Israel. Having had this assurance, Yaakov set out in an easterly direction. [according to this interpretation by our author Yaakov took a very round about route, first traveling north from Kiryat Arba (Chevron) to Mount Moriah (Jerusalem); from there he traveled south to Beer Sheva (passing his hometown Kiryat Arba on the way) and from Beer Sheva in a north-easterly direction heading for Charan. Another difficulty is that the Torah never reported Yaakov as returning to Beer Sheva. It only mentions his return to Kiryat Arba (35,27) Ed.] He set out directly for Charan only after having stopped over in Beer Sheva. Our entire portion then discusses only what he experienced at Mount Moriah and after he had spent at least one night at Beer Sheva. We need to understand the words וילך חרנה as a general statement, whereas the words וישא יעקב רגליו וילך ארצה בני קדם, “Yaakov lifted his feet and proceeded in the direction of the land of the easterners,” is the detailed description of his journey.

According to Bereshit Rabbah 68,8 Yaakov covered the distances reported here in a single day all the way from Beer Sheva to Charan. The basis for this is the similarity of the wording here with the description of Eliezer’s journey in 24,10-11. [I suppose the mention of the time of day when Eliezer arrived i.e. in the evening is the part of the narrative the Midrash focuses on. Ed.] According to the Talmud Sanhedrin 95 the people of whom Scripture wrote the words ויקם וילך in that order, all experienced that the earth telescoped beneath them and they completed a lengthy journey in a single day. They were: Eliezer, Yaakov, and Avishai. Eliezer had made mention of the fact that he arrived at the well the same day (24,42) when he said ואבא היום אל העין, “I arrived at the fountain this day,’”i.e. the day he had left Avraham.

Another Midrash (Chulin 91) focusing on the words ויפגע במקום, “he encountered the place,” states that when Yaakov was already close to Charan it suddenly occurred to him that he might have passed by a place where his father and grandfather had offered a prayer to G’d and he had failed to do so. As he made ready to retrace his steps, the earth “folded” beneath his feet so that he encountered the spot in question without having to go back all that way. The place in question was Mount Moriah. The true message of that Midrash is that Yaakov expressed a longing for Mount Moriah and the chance to offer a prayer there. G’d obliged him by saving him the journey and he experienced a sensation equivalent to Mount Moriah being where he found himself. In order to reconcile the two Midrashim we must say that Yaakov experienced two such miraculous telescoping of the earth beneath him. The first time was when he went from Beer Sheva to Charan in a single day, a journey which he had undertaken willingly. The second time he experienced this phenomenon was in order to save him the trouble to retrace his steps.

There is also a Midrash in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 35, according to which Yaakov took 12 of the stones of the altar Avraham had built on Mount Moriah and on which his father had been bound. This was a hint that in the future twelve tribes would emerge from him and that they would all merge to become a single nation. The words: “He took the stone which he had put under his head” are an allusion to the unification of the Jewish people of whom David had said in Samuel II 7,23 (verse 18) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ, “and who is like Your nation Israel, a unique and unified nation on earth.”

וישכב במקום ההוא, ”he lay down in that place.” All the Torah had to write was: “he lay down,” just as the Torah wrote וילן שם, “he spent the night there.” Why did the Torah add the words: “in that place?” The words במקום ההוא are restrictive. The Torah means that all he did in that place was to lie down. But in another place, i.e. at the academy of Ever he spent 14 years studying Torah before journeying on to Charan and to Lavan.

ויחלום , “he had a dream.” This dream was not of the same order as are ordinary dreams people dream. However, at the same time it was not a true prophetic vision either. This is why the Torah wrote at the end: וייקץ יעקב משנתו והנה חלום, “and Yaakov awake from his sleep, and here it had been a dream.” A true prophetic vision would be described by the Torah not as שנה, sleep, but either as במראה אליו אתודע, or as בחלום אדבר בו, as we know from Numbers 12,7. Seeing that neither of these two expressions is in evidence here, this downgrades the visionary element.

והנה סולם מוצב ארצה, “and here a ladder was standing on the ground, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yaakov observed that the feet of the ladder stood in Beer Sheva, where he was lying; this is the meaning of the words מוצב ארצה, whereas the meaning of the words: “its head reached heavenwards” refers to the Temple. This is the gateway from which the angels ascend to heaven or descend to earth. When G’d appeared to be standing on top of the ladder, Yaakov realised that the site he was lying on was the gateway to heaven, and that it was an appropriate place for prayer. The Holy Temple is the House of G’d. Yaakov realised that the Holy Temple was of crucial importance in channeling communication from man to G’d and vice versa. [When the author speaks of the plain meaning of the text, I believe he refers to Yaakov subsequently describing what he had seen and what it meant (verse 16-17) Ed.] Rashi too quotes Bereshit Rabbah 68, where Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra describes the bottom of the ladder as standing at Beer Sheva, the angle being such that the top was vertically above Mount Moriah. When the Midrash spoke about the שיפוע, the angle of the elevation, it meant that at its zenith the ladder was above Mount Moriah. In other words, the point at which it appeared to reach heaven was directly above where the Holy Temple would stand in the future.

A Midrashic approach sees the dream as hyperbole of the revelation at Mount Sinai in the future. The word סלם, ladder, is equated with סיני, Mount Sinai. The numerical value of the letters in both words are the same, i.e. 130. The words מוצב ארצה, are a reference to the Jewish people who would stand at the bottom of the Mountain at the time of the revelation. ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר (Exodus 19,16). The words וראשו מגיע השמימה are akin to Deut. 4,11 וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים, “and the mountain was all aflame burning up unto the heart of the heaven.” The words ומלאכי אל-הים are a reference to Moses and Aaron who acted as G’d’s messengers, Moses ascending the mountain. Seeing that Moses was also reported as descending (Exodus 19,14), he symbolised both of the motions ascribed to the angels in the dream. When G’d addressed Yaakov, saying אני ה’ אלוקי אברהם אביך, this was equivalent to G’d saying to the Jewish people at Sinai אנכי ה’ אלוקיך, “I am the Lord your G’d, etc.”

According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 35 G’d showed Yaakov in his dream the four empires who would host Israel in its various exiles, showing them to him in their ascendancy as well as in their eventual decline. He showed him how the celestial representative of the Kingdom of Babylon would ascend seventy rungs on the ladder only to descend all of them again. He showed him the Medes ascending 52 of the rungs of this ladder and then descending again. Then He showed him that the spiritual representative of the Greek Empire ascended 180 rungs of this ladder only in order to have to descend all of them again. Finally, he showed Yaakov how the spiritual representative of the Roman Empire climbed the whole ladder without descending. While doing so that representative boasted that he would conquer heaven whereas Yaakov quoted Isaiah 14,14 where the descent of the Roman Empire is predicted also by the words אך אל שאול תורד “but You will bring him down to She-ol.” G’d had told him “even if you rise like the eagle I will bring you down from there” (Ovadiah 4).

According to this Midrash Yaakov’s dream contained a prophetic message that at the end of all the various exiles the Jewish people would resume their leading role in the world, seeing that all the patriarchs had similar visions starting with the covenant between the pieces when Avraham was first told about the exile his descendants would experience before they would inherit the land of Israel as their homeland. We have already quoted these various Midrashim in connection with our commentary on Genesis 15,12.

Other Midrashim variously describe the angels Yaakov saw ascending and descending as the angels of Sodom which had been demoted as their charges had been destroyed, or that they were the angels who accompanied Yaakov while he was in Eretz Yisrael now taking their leave in order to be replaced by other angels who would guard him while he was in Charan, etc. Other Midrashim describe the angels Yaakov saw ascending and descending as inquisitive angels who wanted to get a close up look at the choicest of the patriarchs, Yaakov, whose likeness was engraved on G’d’s throne. None of these Midrashim are mutually exclusive as the ladder was not narrow and many angels were able to climb or descend at the same time, each one at his own speed.

A rational approach to the dream. The ladder represents the various levels of this universe. The universe may be regarded like a pyramid with the terrestrial part, the part inhabited by man at the bottom of the pyramid. Above our world is that of the planetary system; still “higher” is the world inhabited by disembodied creatures. In other words: the ladder has three basic rungs. David also characterized the world in a similar manner when he said (Psalms 103,20): ברכו ה’ מלאכיו, “bless the Lord, His angels.” He followed this by saying: (verse 21) ברכו ה’ כל צבאיו, משרתיו, עשי רצונו, “bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants, who do His will; “ Finally, he said (verse 22) ברכו ה’ כל מעשיו וגו’, “bless the Lord all His creatures, etc.” Solomon also portrayed the world in a similar way in Song of Songs in three consecutive verses in Song of Songs 5,13-14-15). The verses are: לחיו כערוגות הבושם, מגדלות מרקחים. שפתותיו שושנים נוטפות מור עובר. ידיו גלילי זהב, ממולאים בתרשיש, מעיו עשת שן מעולפת ספירים. שוקיו עמודי שש, מיוסדים על אדני פז. מראהו כלבנון בחור כארזים. The conventional translation of these verses is as follows: ”His cheeks are like beds of spices, producing banks of perfume; His lips are like lilies, they drip flowing myrrh. His hands are rods of gold, studded with beryl; his legs are like marble pillars set in sockets of fine gold. He is majestic as Lebanon, stately as cedars” The author views Solomon as paraphrasing different parts of the universe and its functions. He uses the cheeks, hand and thighs, to describe these three levels of the universe. In those verses the spiritual concept of the Jewish people, known in Talmudic parlance as כנסת ישראל, praises the Lord and His creation. The לחיו, “cheeks,” represent the world of the angels who tell the prophets what they should prophesy; the hands represent the world of the planetary systems The word שפתותיו, “his lips,” are a reference to the prophets who relate what they have been told by the angels, the source of their information. The word נוטפות, is the actual prophetic message. The word is derived from והטף אל דרום, (Ezekiel 21,2) “let your words flow southwards.” Solomon also compares prophecy to מור, “myrrh”, as the soul derives similar pleasure from prophecy as it does from the spice by that name. “His hand,” is a reference to the planetary system, the word גלילים being essentially the same as גלגלים, “orbiting planets”. They are compared to “hands,” as all of man’s activities are influenced by these orbiting stars and planets. In fact everything that goes on in our terrestrial world depends on these planets. The words “filled with beryl,” is a reference to the stars which form the satellites of many of these planets. The word תרשיש represents something more precious than gold. Whereas the planets themselves are in outer space, the “stars” are perceived of filling some of the void between earth and the planets. The words מעיו עשת שן are a reference to the 12 horoscopes; this is why Solomon mentioned מעולפת ספירים, adorned with sapphires, i.e. with 12 sapphires. The words שוקיו are a reference to our terrestrial world, the bottom rung of this material existence. Just as the legs of a human being are the “lower” part of his whole body, so the part of the universe we live in is the low end of the entire universe. The word שוקיו applies to the two elements fire and wind, whereas the word אדני פז are a reference to the other two elements water and earth. The entire universe is portrayed as if it were a ladder.

G’d informed Yaakov in this dream/vision that He stands above this pyramid and oversees all that goes on within it. He mentioned the lower part of the universe first as it was the part which Yaakov was standing on and which was therefore closest to his thinking. The words וראשו מגיע השמימה, “and its head reached to heaven,” are a reference to the world of the planetary system, who appear to touch the outer fringes of the universe. When David describes them as proclaiming the honour of the Lord (Psalms 19,2), they are described as part of the celestial regions. Finally, when the dreams described the angels ascending and descending on that ladder, the reference is to that celestial region inhabited by disembodied intelligences. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 68,12) used this division of the world into three parts (rungs) to state that the angels, (their habitat) represent one third of the universe. They base it on a verse in Daniel 10. We are not to understand this to mean that the “upper third” of the universe is reserved for the angels, but that angels “share” in all three parts of the world.” This is the way Nachmanides explains this in connection with his commentary on the cherubs on top of the Holy Ark. [Rabbi Chavell could not find this except in the writings of Maimonides in his “Moreh” section 2 near the end of chapter 10. Ed.] According to this view the words עולים ויורדים בו, “ascending or descending on it,” refer to the temporary nature of angels who have been created for specific tasks and who are destroyed when they have completed that task. The existence and usefulness of an angel is described as עליה, ascent, whereas the redundancy and subsequent destruction of the angel is described as ירידה, descent. Our sages in Eichah Rabbati 3,21 phrased it thus: “On every single day G’d creates a class of angels who proceed to praise him in song and are then going on their way.” These are the types of angels that came into existence on the fifth day of creation. A different group of angels whom G’d created on the second day of creation enjoy permanent life. The word בו in our verse refers to the ladder which had served as the illustration for the composition of the universe as a three-tiered pyramid. G’d is described as towering above the ladder (universe) exerting His influence even on the angels. The angels in turn exert their influence on the tier of the planetary system, which in their turn exert their influence on the creatures in the terrestrial part of the universe. In other words, all the creatures in the terrestrial universe are subject to the direct influence of the planetary system. This was confirmation to Yaakov of the validity of astrology as a discipline worth studying. These planets, etc. however, were not independent powers but were presided over by the agents of G’d called “angels,” who in turn were under the direct supervision of G’d Himself. Solomon described this system when he wrote (Kohelet 5,7) אם עשק רש וגזל משפט וצדק תראה במדינה אל תתמה על החפץ כי גבה מעל גבה שומר וגבהים עליהם. “If you see oppression of the poor, and the suppression of justice and right in the State, do not be astonished at the fact, for there is One higher than the high who watches and there are high ones above them.” The first part of the verse speaks of the injustice perpetrated in the terrestrial part of the universe. Solomon warns us not to jump to the conclusion that the world consists only of this part and that therefore the whole universe must be corrupt. Justice does exist, and there are forces at work which are superior to those which are active in our terrestrial part of the universe, and the considerations which guide these forces are of the kind that we human beings often cannot understand, because His reasoning is so much superior to our reasoning (Isaiah 55,8). This ultimate Supervisor of what is allowed to go on in the universe is none other than the Creator Himself. Solomon refers to G’d in the plural as גבהים, matching the plural ending in the word אל-הים. This is not the only occasion when G’d [who is primarily known as One, Unique, Ed.] is referred to in Scripture in the plural. Another example is Joshua 24,19 כי אל-הים קדושים הוא, “for G’d is holy (pl).” You will note that Joshua adds the word הוא, “He,” after the word קדושים (pl), to make certain that we do not misunderstand that the word אל-הים implies power-sharing by G’d. The reason that the word אל-הים is in the plural is because in the final analysis G’d combines within Himself all the various forces that are active within His universe.

Maimonides’ approach to the dream involving the ladder (Moreh Nevuchim 1,15) is that the Torah included the planets in the part of the universe called here “ladder.” The words מוצב ארצה refers to this planetary system being based on earth its lower extremity, whereas the words וראשו מגיע השמימה refer to the upper extremity of that part of the universe. The heaven is also known as ערבות, as we know from Deut. 33,26 רוכב שמים בערבות, “riding through a part of the heavens called ערבות.” It is a collective name for the entire system known as מרכבה, ”G’d’s entourage.” On this ladder anyone who wants to is free to ascend or to descend. The מלאכי אל-הים which the Torah speaks of are the prophets as per Numbers 20,16 וישלח מלאך ה’, the meaning obviously being “a prophet.” The same term is found in Chagai 1,13 where the word מלאך also refers to the prophet, a mortal human being. When the Torah describes such prophets as ascending the ladder it tells us that there is a limit to how high a prophet can ascend. Once he has reached his destination he receives the prophetic instruction G’d wants to grant him. When the prophets are also described as “descending the ladder,” this means that they are returning and preparing to deliver their respective messages.

On the other hand, in the tenth chapter of section two of this same work, Maimonides writes in a different vein concerning the same subject. He first introduces the subject by saying that the planetary system is composed of the four basic raw materials which also make up earth and all that is part of the terrestrial universe and that as a result they are exerting their influence on what goes on earth. For instance, the moon exerts a gravitational pull on the waters on earth causing tides. The sun on the other and, exerts a powerful pull on the terrestrial element fire. The five other fixed stars combined exert their influence on the terrestrial element wind, whereas the moving stars exert their combined influence on the fourth terrestrial element, the earth.

Accordingly, we may assume that the various planets are made up of the same basic raw material, elements, as is the כדור הארץ, our globe. According to Maimonides we have to conclude that the ladder had four rungs, seeing that the planets each exerted influence on 4 separate elements on earth. [According to Rabbi Chavell Maimonides bases himself on a version of a Midrash Tanchuma saying the ladder had four rungs. This version is not extant today. Ed.]

According to what Maimonides writes in chapter 10 section 2 of the Moreh, Yaakov first achieved an understanding of the elements which exist and which extend as far heavenwards as the parts of the heaven known as ערבות. This is the meaning of מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה, “standing on earth its top extending up until heaven.” The “heaven” meant by the verse is that called ערבות. G’d presides, i.e. “was standing” above that part of heaven. The words מלאכי אל-הים appear to refer to the four basic elements two of which were observed by Yaakov as ascending the ladder whereas the other two were perceived by him as descending. The “light” elements he perceived as ascending, whereas the two “heavy” elements, water and earth, he perceived as descending by comparison. If the dream appears to describe the planets as first descending and then ascending, i.e. when G’d is described as immediately above the heaven, this may be parallel to a vision described by Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1,16. The prophet’s vision also included four phenomena... [I confess that I do not understand the meaning of that prophecy. Maimonides apparently seizes on the word אופנים as being equivalent to גלגלים, the planets. The author supports what he perceives as Maimonides’ understanding of this prophecy. Since I do not understand it myself, I will omit this passage. Ed.]

והנה ה’ נצב עליו “and here the Lord was standing above it, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word עליו refers to the ladder. A kabbalistic approach: the word עליו refers to Yaakov, i.e. G’d appeared to Yaakov as if He were standing above him.” What the Kabbalists are trying to tell us is that Yaakov viewed himself in this dream as the carrier of the שכינה, the Divine Presence, and its entourage. The Torah would thereby have compared Yaakov to one of the cherubs of whom it has been said וירכב על כרוב ויעוף, (Samuel II 22,11) “He mounted a cherub and flew.” The patriarchs are the true מרכבה, the “chariots” supporting the שכינה, the benevolent Presence of G’d. They performed a task on earth which the angels perform in the celestial spheres. Kabbalists (True scholars, i.e. the sages of the Talmud) have expressed this thus when speaking about the כרובים, cherubs: The face of a human being is considered the major “face,” whereas the face of the cherub is considered as the “minor” face. (compare Rashi, Sukkah 5B where the cherubs on the lid of the Holy Ark are discussed). According to Kabbalists it was this idea David referred to in Psalms 104,25 where he referred to חיות קטנות עם גדולות, “small and large חיות.” Let me enlighten you on this subject. We already mentioned that Yaakov’s facial features are engraved on G’d’s throne (Bereshit Rabbah 68,12 and that the angels descended to compare Yaakov’s sleeping countenance with that engraved on G’d’s throne). This was the reason the Torah describes him as יושב אהלים, “dweller in tents,” (25,27) i.e. he was “at home” both in a celestial residence as well as in a terrestrial one. This idea is expressed even more forcefully in connection with the revelation at Mount Sinai where the “nobles” of Israel (Exodus 24,10) are described as having a vision of אל-הי ישראל ותחת רגליו, “of G’d, and Israel who is at His feet.” This is also what Yaakov had in mind when he said to Rachel who had demanded that he make children for her (30,2) התחת אל-הים אנכי. This statement was not a rhetorical question but he explained to Rachel that he was not G’d-like, but his image was inscribed below, i.e. beneath the throne of G’d who has the power to bestow children.

אני ה’ אלוקי אברהם אביך ואלוקי יצחק, I am the Lord G’d of Avraham and the G’d of Yitzchak.” According to the plain meaning of these words G’d here assures Yaakov that He will give the land to Yaakov and his descendant, that he will be with him and will protect him in all his undertakings, similar to Psalms 91,11 כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will command His angels to protect you on all your paths.” The reason that the pronoun אני is used is to show that the angel who appeared to Yaakov wanted him to understand that he was acting as G’d’s messenger, i.e. was part of the Divine establishment. It is as if G’d had said: אני חלקך ונחלתך, (Numbers 18 20) “I am your share and your heritage.” The Priests were informed that they are an integral part of the Divine. Similarly, we have a statement (Deut. 32,9) describing the whole Jewish nation in similar terms, i.e. כי חלק ה’ עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו, “For His people are part of G’d, Yaakov is a portion of His heritage,” and not merely a portion of the angels which had been mentioned.

This paragraph contains both an assurance to Yaakov personally at this time that G’d will be with him on the journey he had undertaken and that He would bring him safely back to his father’s house, but G’d also gave him an assurance regarding his offspring. G’d would be with them also wherever they would be even if at times they would be in exile just as Yaakov at this time. Our sages in Megillah 29 expressed it thus: Wherever the Jewish people will be exiled the שכינה will be exiled with them. The שכינה would look after the Jewish people and protect them from many troubles they would otherwise experience while in captivity.

A kabbalistic approach to our verse and passage: When G’d said “I am the G’d of your father Avraham and the G’d of Yitzchak,” He mentioned two attributes. The attribute of גדולה and the attribute of גבורה. Remember that the site upon which Yaakov was dreaming was Bet El, a site of which Yaakov was to say when he woke up “this must be a House of G’d, and hence the gateway to heaven.” The place was also known as Luz. it is not the same Bet El as the one which is located near the town of Ai which Joshua had trouble capturing and near which Jerobam placed one of his golden calves to prevent his subjects from making the pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem (Kings I 12,29). Yaakov named the site Bet El (verse 19) because this is where he had a vision of G’d. This verse does not mean to conceal something but to explain something. It explains such statements as אל-הים קדושים (Joshua 24,19), and אל-הים שופטים (Psalms 58,12), where it appears at first glance as if the plural ending applied to G’d as “Holy” or “Judge,” indicates that there is more than one G’d. This is also the reason that Onkelos translates the words מה נורא as מה דחילו (pl) and not as מה דחיל (sing.) as we could have expected. Concerning this revelation to Yaakov that G’d appeared to him as two attributes Isaiah said (Isaiah 6,2) שרפים עומדים ממעל לו, “seraphim are standing above him.” It was a reference to two attributes of G’d.

These two attributes of G’d are particularly manifest at Bet El. This was also the reason that the heretic King Jerobam was careful to erect not one golden calf but two golden calves. The Jewish people in the desert had made one golden calf for themselves when Moses did not return when they expected him. They had thought that he was dead and they felt they needed a new symbol to replace Moses and to serve as their visible inspiration. They were fully content with a single leader. Jerobam had a different motivation. He wanted to counteract the Divine attribute of גדולה and hoped that the presence of that golden calf, something G’d hated, would drag away spiritually positive influences and forces from Jerusalem, i.e. from the Temple. The second golden calf which Jerobam made was intended to counteract the Divine attribute of גבורה, as he wanted to be the stronger of the two kings ruling over Israel. This attribute is the specific attribute with which a king ought to be endowed. He hoped that by weakening the presence of this attribute in Jerusalem he would thereby strengthen his own hold on that attribute. The reason that he placed both golden calves outside of Jerusalem was that he wanted to undermine Jerusalem as the עיר דוד, “the city of David.” Jerusalem was also known as the עיר הצדק, “the city of righteousness (Isaiah 1,26)”. The power of the Kingdom of David was concentrated in that city as the attribute of righteousness is manifest in that city. צדק, righteousness was the outstanding attribute, the virtue of David. We know this from Isaiah 32,1 הן לצדק ימלך מלך, “a king shall reign in righteousness” (the king being the Messiah, a descendant of King David). Jerobam was intent on nullifying this monarchy. It had been made even stronger both symbolically and spiritually, seeing that the Temple in Jerusalem was “opposite” the celestial Temple. All these considerations prompted Jerobam to distance himself from the site of the Holy Temple and the holy city Jerusalem. The Talmud Sanhedrin 102 phrases it thus: וירבעם יצא מירושלים מפתקה של ירושלים, the words: “Jerobam left Jerusalem” mean much more than that he set foot outside the walls of Jerusalem. These words mean that he wanted to put all that Jerusalem stood for behind him, never to return to that city.” Actually, Jerusalem comprised the five lower emanations. He wanted to escape the restrictions inherent in one’s being on the level of the lower emanations only. His plan was fatally flawed as he meant to attain access to higher emanations only in order to dethrone David and what his dynasty stood for. This is why the sages applied to him the verse from Proverbs 28,24 “that if someone robs his own father or mother saying he did not commit any sin he thereby becomes a companion to the destroyer, i.e. איש משחית.” What he did was to rob the higher regions of G’d’s universe in order to make profane use of his plunder. Seeing that the regions he robbed were the emanations known as כבוד and תפארת, that Jerusalem comprised the lower 5 emanations beneath that of תפארת, harmony, this is the mystical dimension of the verses in Kings I12, 26-27: “Jerobam said in his heart now: ‘there is a danger that the kingdom will return to the dynasty of David. If the people were to go up to Jerusalem to offer meat-offerings in the House of G’d in Jerusalem and the heart of the people will become friendly towards Rechavam their master the King of Yehudah, they will kill me and return to Rechavam the King of Yehudah’”. The King took counsel and constructed two golden calves saying to the people: “enough of your pilgrimages to Jerusalem; here are your symbols of the G’d of Israel, the ones who have led you out of Egypt.” The plural used when he said הנה אלוהיך ישראל, referred to the two emanations or attributes of G’d which we have mentioned. When the Book of Kings proceeds to describe where these two golden calves were placed, i.e. one at Bet El and one in Dan, he had clearly violated the commandment לא תעשון אתי אלוהי כסף, “do not make beside Me silver or golden deities (Exodus 20,23).” However, the worst part of his sin was that he portrayed what he had done as a shortcut to heaven, wanting to make his people believe that now that they had symbols of higher emanations than were to be found in Jerusalem there was no longer any point in making the trip to the Temple in Jerusalem. The Book of Kings testified to Jerobam’s real concern namely that when the people would make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem it would not take them long to find out that they had been fooled by their King, and they would then kill him. You are aware that the prophet (Amos 7,8) already predicted doom and retribution concerning Bet El and said that he saw the attribute of Justice demanding the destruction of both Bet El and Dan. The wording there is: והנה א-דני נצב על חומת אנך ובידו אנך....ויאמר א-דני הנני שם אנך בקרב עמי ישראל לא אוסיף עוד עבור לו וקמתי על בית ירבעם בחרב. “Lo, my Lord G’d was standing on a wall and He was holding a plumb line. And the Lord G’d declared: ‘I am going to apply a plumb line to My people Israel, I will pardon them no more. And I will turn upon the house of Jerobam with the sword.” The “plumb line” mentioned is a measuring rod used to determine the guilt level of the people. The numerical value of the Hebrew word אנך is 71, an allusion to the 71 elders in the Supreme court needed to pass judgment on a Jewish King. The words לא אוסיף לעבור, mean that G’d will not continue to appear to ignore the iniquities perpetrated by the King as well as his people. The unusual expression ונשמו במות ישחק, “the shrines of Yitzchak shall be laid waste,” which is also part of the prophet’s prediction should really have been ונשמו במות ירבעם, “the shrines of Jerobam will be laid waste.” The reason for this unusual statement as well as the unusual spelling of the name Yitzchak with the letter ש instead of the customary צ, is due to Jerobam having seized on the attribute of Yitzchak, i.e. גבורה in his nefarious scheme. The letter ש is reminiscent of the element אש, fire, itself an allusion to the attribute גבורה.

We find this supported in the Sefer Yetzirah 3,8, the idea being that the shape of the letter ש suggests the upward draft of fire, of flames. In Amos 7,9 the prophet continues to describe what will happen to מקדשי ישראל, “the Sanctuaries of Israel which will be destroyed.” The plural form of this expression is a clear hint that the prophet refers to the two sites Dan and Bet El where the respective golden calves were positioned. Seeing that Amos prophesied this destruction as occurring at Bet El, it is not surprising that immediately afterwards (verse 10) the prophet reports the local High Priest Amatziah sending word to the King that a rebellion was occurring against Jerobam, that the prophet Amos was inciting against him telling the people to uproot any so-called sanctity in Bet El and to return to the true source of sanctity in Jerusalem. He advised Amos to flee to Jerusalem and to pursue his career as a prophet there. He ordered Amos to desist from prophesying in Bet El (verse 13), claiming that the Temple in Bet El and Jerobam were in fact one and the same (philosophically speaking). The words מקדש מלך and בית ממלכה referred to in Amatziah’s threat against Amos, were references to the respective attributes or emanations גדולה and גבורה which we have spoken of.

והיה זרעך כעפר הארץ “and your descendants will be as the dust of the earth, etc.” From a purely textural point of view, G’d assures Yaakov in this verse that his descendants will be very numerous, comparable to the dust of the earth. He could have used another simile, namely that the descendants of Yaakov would be like the stars in the heavens, a simile which had been used in 26,4. The reason G’d did not choose that particular simile was that he wanted to allude to a second element here, something not connected to a numerical increase. The reference to dust always evokes feelings of something low, something that one steps on, in other words a reference to periods when the Jewish people would be in exile, treated by their host countries as if they were merely dust to be walked on. There is another aspect to dust, i.e. a positive, encouraging side. As a result of stepping on dust, the dust frequently rises and covers the person who has stepped on it, or at least his feet. Thus, in due course, after completion of their various exiles the Jewish people will experience that they rise above those who had previously trodden upon them. Isaiah 14,2 expressed it thus: והיו שובים לשוביהם ורדו בנוגשיהם, “they shall be captors of their captors and masters of their taskmasters.” This then explains why G’d compared the descendants of Yaakov to dust. We have another statement by Isaiah 26,5 in which the prophet makes a similar point: that initially “He leveled Israel to dust in order to eventually orchestrate its redemption.” (compare Rabbi Yochanan in Rosh Hashanah 31 where he explains Isaiah 52,2). We sing the words of that verse weekly in the Lecha Dodi hymn when we usher in the Sabbath [at the time of the author that song had not yet been composed, Ed.] by singing התנערי, מעפר קומי, “rouse yourself and rise from the dust.”

In Yaakov’s dream G’d immediately added the words “and you will spread out to the west, to the east, to the north and to the south, to make plain that the mention of “dust” was to be interpreted positively as the dust of the earth endures forever. Similarly, Yaakov’s descendants would endure forever.

והנה אנכי עמך, “and here I am going to be with you, etc.” Onkelos translated these words as והא מימרי בסעדך, “and this word (promise) will assist you.” When the Torah writes in Exodus 3,12 ואהיה עמך, “and I shall be with you,” (G’d encouraging Moses to accept the role of leader) Onkelos translates this as ארי יהי מימרי עמך, “behold My promise will be with you” The (apparently minute) difference in the way Onkelos renders G’d’s promise to Moses reflects the difference between the spiritual level of these two men at the time G’d communicated with them. Seeing that in verse 13 the Torah wrote והנה י-ה-ו-ה נצב עליו ויאמר אני י-ה-ו-ה, Onkelos was forced to use the description בסעדך similar to when the Talmud in Shabbat 89 quotes G’d as telling Moses he should have assisted Him when he saw G’d write the crowns on the Torah. Yaakov was on a level where G’d applied to him the attribute of שדי, G’d as Master of nature. Whatever assistance Yaakov would receive would not be by means of נסים גלוים, the kind of miracles which upset the laws of nature. Moses, on the other hand, was already being addressed by the Ineffable Name, by a higher attribute of G’d. Yaakov only dreamed; Moses was wide awake when he saw the burning bush. If you were to challenge my explanation by pointing out that in 46,4 Onkelos translates the words אנכי ארד עמך as אנא איחות עמך, indicating that Yaakov was on a level not inferior to that of Moses, the context of that verse forced Onkelos to translate it in the way he did. The purpose of G’d’s message at that time was to reassure Yaakov that even in exile G’d’s Presence would be with the people, i.e. the שכינה would descend to Egypt with the Israelites.

וזה שער השמים, “and this must be the gate to heaven.” The expression זה occurs three times in this verse. Bereshit Rabbah 69,7 therefore claims that G’d showed Yaakov a Temple built and destroyed; when Yaakov saw the Temple built, he exclaimed: “how awesome is this place!” When he was shown the Temple ruined, he exclaimed אין זה, “this cannot be!” When he was finally shown the Temple rebuilt, he exclaimed “this must be the gateway to heaven.” According to this version of the Midrash G’d showed Yaakov only two Temples.

It is possible to explain our verse in a manner which shows that it contains allusions to all three Temples. It is a well known fact that the word זה on occasion serves as an allusion to G’d, such as in Exodus 15,2 זה אלי ואנוהו, ”this is my G’d and I want to glorify Him.” When Yaakov said “מה נורה המקום הזה, “how awesome is this place,” he referred to the first Temple which was a home for G’d’s Presence, for the שכינה. When he exclaimed אין זה he referred to the second Temple which did not house G’d’s presence seeing that such symbols of G’d’s Presence as the Holy Ark, the cherubs, the Urim Vatumim in the High Priest’s breastplate, etc, were all lacking. We have this information on the authority of the prophet Chagai who wrote in Chagai 1,8 וארצה בו ואכבדה, and the word ואכבדה is spelled defective, the last letter being missing. Since the last letter was the letter ה, this was an allusion to five important ingredients which were absent in the second Temple. Both the heavenly fire which consumed the sacrifices and the שכינה were also missing. When Yaakov was shown the third Temple he exclaimed וזה שער השמים, “and this finally is the gateway to heaven.” The reason he chose the word שמים when referring to the third Temple is that we have a tradition that the reason the first two Temples were destroyed is that they were built by mortal man. Seeing that the third Temple will be built by G’d Himself, there is no need to worry about it being destroyed, ever. This is the mystical dimension of the words ישכון לבטח עליו, “He will reside upon it in safety.” When Moses (Deut. 33,12) blessed the tribe of Binyamin in whose territory the Temple will be built, he alluded to all three Temples. The words ישכון לבטח עליו refer to the first Temple seeing that G‘d’s presence which is referred to as ידיד ה' will reside there. The words חופף עליו כל היום, ”He hovers over it all day long,” refer to the second Temple. Finally, the words ובין כתיפיו שכן, “and He will rest between its shoulders,” refer to the third Temple. You will find that in Nazir 32 the words היכל ה' היכל ה', היכל ה' המה (Jeremiah 7,4) are understood as referring to the three Temples. If there had to be three Temples, this is proof that the first two were going to be destroyed. [Jeremiah’s words in that chapter were spoken some time before the destruction of the first Temple. Ed.] You will note from the plural המה in that verse that the people who spoke these words, and whom the prophet quotes sarcastically, must have made a Freudian slip when they said this word, not being aware that they referred to two Temples that were going to be destroyed.

The word המה has been used to describe something permanent in Ezekiel 10,20 when the prophet describes ואדע כי ככרובים המה, “and I realised that they were cherubs.” Similarly, we find this expression used to describe something enduring in Psalms 25,6 כי מעולם המה, “for they are as old as time.” Our sages, commenting on Exodus 27,20 כתית למאור, ”pounded for illumination,” say that whereas the first Temple stood for 410 years and the second Temple stood for 420 years the combined total being 830 years, this total is reflected in the numerical value of the letters in the word כתית. The expression כתית pounded, crushed, expressed the fate in store for the first two Temples. Concerning the third Temple, however, the verse in Exodus 27,20 continues with the word להעלות נר תמיד, “to provide eternal light.”

There is a Midrash in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 35 referring to the words: וזה שער השמים, “and this is the gateway to heaven.” According to this Midrash we learn from this verse that when one prays in Jerusalem one is as if praying opposite the gateway to the celestial Sanctuary, to the throne of G’d’s glory. The meaning of the Midrash is that from Jerusalem, the gateway to heaven, prayers ascend to their ultimate destination.

וישם אותה מצבה, “he set it up as a pillar.” He did not erect this pillar at the site where he slept, i.e. Beer Sheva, but at Bet El which is Jerusalem, the site where the ladder’s top reached Heaven.

ויצק שמן על ראשה, “he poured oil on its top.” The act of either pouring oil or wine on a pillar is equivalent to offering a sacrifice on the altar. Rabbi Saadyah Gaon writes that the reason for Yaakov pouring oil on this pillar was in order for him to be able to identify this particular stone pillar so that in the future he could separate it from other adjoining stones. Seeing that oil remains visible for a long time, he would in due course be able to make an altar of it.

Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 35 adds that when Yaakov returned to gather up the stones which had formed his “pillow,” he found that they had all merged into a single stone. Upon seeing this he poured oil on that stone, the oil being provided by heaven. The Midrash derives this from the words in our verse “he poured oil on its head” [instead of “on their heads”, seeing that the Torah had described Yaakov as taking “from the stones” pl). when he lay down to sleep. When G’d observed Yaakov doing what he did, He dipped the right leg of that stone into the deep recesses of the earth, תהום, linking it to the very core of the earth. He made a wedge of this stone much as a person who places a wedge in an arch. This is why the foundation of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was known as אבן שתיה, the stone the whole universe is supported by. It is part of the “navel” of the earth. From that place the earth “opened up” and the Sanctuary was erected on that site. This is precisely what Yaakov had in mind when he predicted that “this stone will become the House of the Lord.” Having anointed the stone with “miracle” oil, Yaakov proceeded to Charan and covered the distance instantly.

ואולם לוז שם העיר לראשונה, “however, the name of this town used to be Luz.” The place they called Bet El at that time is Jerusalem now. Why did the Torah bother to tell us that at a still earlier point in history the town had been known as Luz? What benefit do we derive from such information? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint that the name Luz had been the starting point of the earth rejuvenating itself. It was the site at which earth first started to develop into the globe as we know it. The words לוז השדרה, (Vayikra Rabbah 18,1) mean the place in the spine from which the tissue is able to regenerate itself at the time of the resurrection. Just as the coming into existence of the physical universe out of nothing was something miraculous, so the resurrection when it occurs will be a miracle of similar dimensions. King David had already alluded to this phenomenon when he described the creation of soul, body as well as the eventual resurrection as originating in the “centre” called Zion. He phrased it thus in Psalms 3, 1-3: אל אלוקים ה' דבר, ויקרא ארץ ממזרח שמש עד מבואו. מציון מכלל יופי אלוקים הופיע. “G’d the Lord spoke and summoned the world from east to west.. From Zion, perfect in beauty, G’d appeared.”

וידר יעקב נדר לאמור, “Yaakov vowed a vow, saying, etc.” Bereshit Rabbah 70,1 concentrating on the apparently extraneous word לאמור, wants to know the need for this word. The answer given is that Yaakov wanted to teach his future offspring that the time to make vows is when one finds oneself in difficulties one does not know how to extricate himself from. Although, as a general rule, the Torah frowns on the making of vows, when a person vows due to finding himself in distress this is perfectly permissible. This why David said (Psalms 119, 106) “I have sworn an oath and I mean to keep it.”

ונתן לי לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש, “and He will give me bread to eat and clothes to wear, etc.” This is what the righteous ask of G’d. They are only allowed to pray for necessities, the definition being things which a human being cannot do without. We are all aware that man has a tendency to ask for things which he could do well without and these are the very things which are liable to cause him problems, confusion, aggravations. This is why it befits a truly G’d-fearing individual to practice the advice of our sages (Avot 4,1) that the truly wealthy person is he who enjoys the portion G’d has allotted to him. Solomon expressed the same sentiment when he said (Proverbs 15,16) “better a little with fear of the Lord, than a great treasure with trouble.” Solomon immediately provides an illustration of what he means when he said in verse 17 of the same chapter: “better a meal of vegetables where there is love, than a fattened ox where there is hate.”

[At this point the author sermonizes on this theme quoting various sources which all convey the same lesson. I have decided to omit this. — Ed.]

The author claims that gemstones, etc. which are found only in a few places on earth are proof that one can do well without them. Had they been necesssary, G’d would have provided them in abundance. Similarly, the author distinguishes between one kind of necessity and another. Whereas a person can go for days without eating, he can only survive a relatively short time without water or other drinks. This makes water a more urgent necessity than food. Air, on the other hand, is even more critical to man’s survival than water, as one cannot even live for 10 minutes when one is deprived of air to breathe. Yaakov asked for the kind of necessities which are essential but not critical every minute of the day.

ושבתי בשלום אל בית אבי, “and I shall return in peace to my father’s house, etc.” We notice that every detail which formed part of Yaakov’s vow and whatever he mentioned was fulfilled for him. When he asked G’d ושמרני בדרך, “and He will watch over me on the journey,” G’d most certainly watched over him and protected him. As to his request for לחם, bread or food, this was a reference to the women whom he married. The term לחם to describe someone’s wife is used by Joseph (Genesis 39,6) when he told the wife of his master Potiphar that the only thing in his household Potiphar had withheld from him was הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “the bread which he eats.” Another instance where לחם, bread, is used to describe someone’s wife, is found in Exodus 2,2 where Yitro tells his daughters to invite Moses so that “he may eat bread.” He did not mean to invite him merely to eat bread but to let him marry one of his seven unmarried daughters. As to Yaakov’s request for clothes to wear, this was part of his wealth when he had large flocks of sheep which provided him with wool. His request to return to his father’s home safely and in good health was answered when we read in 33,18 ויבא יעקב שלם, “Yaakov arrived home safely.” As to Yaakov fulfilling his part of the bargain and making אלוקים his G’d [ to make the attribute of Justice the yardstick by which G’d would measure him; Ed.] this is referred to in the Torah in 33,20 where we read: ויקרא לו קל אלוקי ישראל, “Yaakov called G’d the G’d of Israel.”

עשר אעשרנו לך, “I will give two tithes of it to You.” Yaakov kept his promise to give a tithe of everything that was his, including even his children. [This has been discussed in connection with 27,19. Ed.] Our verse forms the basis of a Talmudic statement in Ketuvot 50 that even someone who dispenses charity very generously should not disburse more that one fifth of his wealth so as not to risk becoming a charge on charity himself. Yaakov serves as the example seeing he tithed 20% of his wealth.