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

ויקרא שם המקום ההוא מחנים, “he called the name of that place Machanayim,” i.e. “two camps, meaning the camp of Yaakov and the camp of the angels. The Torah compared, i.e. accorded similar stature, to both camps. This teaches that the righteous are as important on earth as are the angels in the celestial spheres, the function of both being to carry out the will of their Creator.

Another meaning of the name מחנים may be that it is an allusion to the future when the Jewish people would receive the Torah. At that time the angels would descend to earth in their hundreds of thousands to witness that event in order to watch the 600,000 Israelites who were all descendants of Yaakov. This is the meaning of Tanchuma Tetzaveh 11 that the words מחנה אלוקים זה, “this is the camp of the Lord,” refer to the 600,000 Israelites encamped around Mount Sinai. Concerning this same phenomenon we read in Song of Songs 7,1 שובי שובי השולמית, שובי שובי ונחזה בך מה תחזו בשולמית כמחולת ה-מחנים. “Turn back, turn back, O maid of Shulem! Turn back, turn back, that we may gaze upon you. “Why will you gaze at the Shulamite in the dance of Machanayim? [the joy at the giving of the Torah]”.

מעין נרפש ומקור משחת צדיק מט לפני רשע אכול דבש הרבות לא-טוב וחקר כבודם כבוד “A righteous man who falters in front of the wicked, is like a murky well and a polluted fountain. It is no good to eat too much honey, nor is it honorable to seek personal glory.”(Proverbs 25, 26-27)

According to Bereshit Rabbah 75,2, Solomon taught us something here about the true measure of a righteous person. When you observe such a person falter in the face of the superior might of a wicked person, such a weakness is only momentary; it does not represent a capitulation of the righteous in face of evil. He will recover from such weakness (with the help of G’d.) This is why Solomon already wrote in Proverbs 24, 16: “For the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times.” In the end he will regain his composure and his honour and dignity. The whole matter can be compared to a well of spring water which someone steps into and momentarily causes the waters in that well to become murky. After a short while of leaving those waters to themselves they will become clear again. Similarly, the righteous will regain his composure and hence his dignity. The wicked is unable to permanently suppress the superior qualities of the righteous. Why did Solomon, or the sages who interpreted these verses of Proverbs, choose this comparison between a murky well and a polluted fountain? It is a well known fact that a river is fed by a fountain whereas the fountain draws on an original source of water. Both are recipients of their respective waters. The reason why the fountain is called מעין, i.e. something derived from עין, and we have the expression עין המים, (Genesis 24,13 where Eliezer met Rivkah) is that the eye, i.e. עין receives its water from the דמעה, the tear. Tears originate in the brain. When someone indulges in too much weeping he causes his brain to dry out. The מקור, “the source,” does not rely on outside sources for its input. It is a “self-starter.” Its waters keep increasing and never stop flowing. This is why the name מקור is an apt name applied to G’d, seeing that He is the fountainhead of everything, and seeing that because of this there is no danger that this source will ever fail. This is reflected in Jeremiah 17,13 מקור מים חיים את ה', that “the source of (life-giving) spring water is G’d Himself.” We also have Psalms 36,10 where the psalmist describes the source of such water as being with G’d, i.e. כי עמך מקור חיים, “with You is the fountain of life.” These considerations prompted Solomon to describe a righteous person who falters in the presence of a wicked person as comparable to murky waters and a polluted fountain. Both of these defects are temporary in nature and the force of the clear water is bound to reassert itself in time.

Having told us that it is impossible to permanently sully and debase the reputation of a righteous person, just as it is impossible to permanently pollute such waters as he had described, Solomon goes on to say that one must investigate, i.e. seek out and praise the good qualities of the righteous. He describes the moral/ethical value of discovering these good qualities of the righteous by a conscious effort to find these qualities as something better than eating a lot of honey. Whereas the consumption of too much honey is not beneficial, spending a lot of effort in finding the good character qualities of the righteous is a very worthwhile discipline and trains a person to think along the right lines.

There can be no question that praising the character of a righteous person is the result of a good nature, one that seeks out the good in a person rather than the negative qualities he may have. This is why Solomon describes the time spent extolling the righteous, the virtuous, as better than the time spent eating honey. The reverse is true of someone who praises good qualities he has found in a wicked person. This reflects bad characteristics of the person doing so and if persisted in will lead to the one who thought he had discovered “goodness” in the wicked person praising him altogether, not just a particular good characteristic he had discovered in such a person. It is a psychological truth that a person is apt to extol the virtues of people whose general characteristics he shares, i.e. when you hear who praises whom you know that they are “birds of a feather.” In chapter 28,45 of his Book Proverbs, Solomon is on record as עזבי תורה יהללו רשע, that “praising a wicked person is typical of someone who has abandoned the path of Torah.” The reason is simply that people have a habit of praising those with whom they have the most in common, or מין במינו, in the parlance of our sages. King David already made the same point in Psalms 15,4 when he said: ואת-יראי ה' יכבד, “but who honors those who fear the Lord;” [He had previously spoken about that same person saying that if he considers himself a הולך תמים, living without blame, he would have to display his disdain for the wicked. Ed.]

Our sages in Makkot 24 understood this verse to apply to Yehoshaphat, King of Yehudah, who used to rise from his chair when he saw a Torah scholar and who would embrace him and kiss him and call him “my teacher.”

There is something puzzling in all this. Why did the sages of the Talmud describe this particular characteristic of King Yehoshapat as something remarkable, when it is something which is incumbent upon every single Jew? Why was Yehoshaphat so special that if he complied with a virtue practiced by many, his complying with it should deserve special mention? Did not our sages comment on Ezekiel 4,14 נבלה וטרפה לא אכלתי, “I have not eaten that which died by itself or that which was torn,” (the prophet speaking) that they could not see what news the prophet told us that we had not known before? Had we then expected the prophet to have been guilty of eating such things? The sages explained that the prophet spoke about that which was permitted to him legally but which he had refrained from as there was a question if such animal had been rendered unfit as a sacrifice due to some concealed defect which had come to light too late for the sacrifice to have qualified for consumption. In the case of Yehoshaphat we could have assumed that the fact that he was King and as such not only not obligated but maybe even not allowed to waive his honour in favour of Torah scholars, he would have refrained from paying them such honour. If, nonetheless, he did honor them it was worth noting as it demonstrated an exceptional virtue.

Coming back to our verse and the Midrash’s interpretation of it, we must remember that when Yaakov displayed a demeaning attitude when bowing repeatedly to Esau the wicked and addressing him as “my master,” as well as when sending gifts to him, this was all part of Yaakov’s momentary weakness though in the end he roused himself and assumed the posture fitting to a man of his stature.

וישלח יעקב מלאכים לפניו אל עשו אחיו ארצה שעיר שדה אדום “Yaakov sent messengers ahead of him to his brother Esau to the Mountain of Se-ir the land of Edom.” The word מלאכים includes both messengers dispatched by human beings and messengers dispatched by G’d. Seeing that at the time Yaakov had been forced to flee to Padan Aram due to his fear of his brother Esau, he now made an attempt to assuage Esau’s hurt feelings and to ask his goodwill by sending messengers, i.e. servants, members of his household. These messengers were accompanied by the messengers (angels) who had met him at Machanayim as we had read in the previous paragraph. In this matter he acted just as had his grandfather Avraham when he had sent Eliezer on an errand to secure a wife for Yitzchak when he had prayed to G’d and had assured Eliezer that a celestial messenger would assist him in his quest (compare Genesis 24,7 “He will send His angel ahead of you.”) I already explained in that connection that the angel preceded Eliezer at the well. Something similar happened here in that the angels G’d had sent to meet Yaakov and who went with the messengers whom Yaakov sent out with the gifts preceded the gifts and thus prevented Esau his brother from harming Yaakov. All of this is based on the fact that the word מלאכים can have either of the two meanings we mentioned earlier. If we need to look for proof that celestial messengers were involved here also, all we need to look at are the words: וישובו המלאכים אל יעקב לאמור, “the messengers returned to Yaakov saying, etc.” If these returning messengers had been human beings, the Torah should have reported: “the angels came to Esau and told him such and such; subsequently they returned to Yaakov reporting that they had carried out their instructions.” The Torah does not mention any of this. This proves that the messengers in question were celestial creatures and the words (verse 7) in which the Torah reports a reply by the messengers telling him that Esau approaches with 400 armed men indicate that they answered Yaakov (וישובו) without having bothered to first go there. They had been there and they knew that Esau approached with hostile intentions. When the Torah continues in that same verse with the words באנו אל אחיך, “we have come to your brother,” this refers to human messengers; this is why the Torah had to report things in a sequential manner, i.e. that the messengers returned and told Yaakov they had completed their mission.

When analysing the more mystical aspect of the matter, it is possible to view these messengers as fulfilling a dual role, i.e. both as Yaakov’s messengers and as G’d’s messengers, similarly to Eliezer functioning both as a celestial messenger when the Torah described him as האיש, and as an ordinary human being, servant of Avraham, when the Torah referred to him as העבד, “the servant.” This would account for the fact that the Torah described the messengers as מלאכים, although they were creatures of flesh and blood. Both approaches correspond to the truth. It is simply a matter of emphasis, i.e. whether we concentrate on the external aspects of what occurred, i.e. that which was visible to the physical eye, or whether we concentrate on the more fundamental aspects of the matter, something not visible to the naked eye.

It appears that the opinion of Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra is based on his commentary on Parshat Balak (Numbers 22,28), where he writes ”the correct interpretation is that the she-ass actually spoke,” [i.e. that this was one of the ten miracles mentioned in the Mishnah in Avot 5,6 and Pessachim 54, involving a radical departure from the laws of nature]. If one understands the mystical aspect of the mission of the angels who came to visit Avraham, one can similarly understand the mystical aspect of the mission of the messengers described in our verse.” Thus far Ibn Ezra.

It is well known (based on Nachmanides) that Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father, resided in the southern part of Eretz Yisrael at this time, so that Yaakov would have had to pass through the land of Edom on his return from Padan Aram in order to rejoin his father. This is why he was so scared of Esau, as he feared Esau would come out to block his way. This is why he sent the messengers to head off any hostile confrontation.

The sages of the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 75,2 take a different view. They describe Yaakov as taking hold of the ears of a dog by getting involved in a struggle which was not his. The last we had heard of Esau was that he pursued his own interests and married another wife to mollify his parents (28,9). According to Bereshit Rabbah 75,5 Yaakov acted very precipitously by sending messengers to Esau and reminding him of his existence, almost provoking him into a confrontation. This is how they interpret the verse in Proverbs we started out with, i.e. that Yaakov unnecessarily muddied the waters. They ascribe an overly obsequious letter from Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi to the governor of Palestine Antoninus as reflecting this lack of backbone displayed here by his ancestor Yaakov. Antoninus reputedly replied to this letter by questioning Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi: “are you then my servant? I wish I would become your servant in the hereafter.” Rabbi Yehudah replied “I am not greater than my ancestor Yaakov; and you are not smaller than your ancestor Esau.” After all, my ancestor Yaakov sent a message to your ancestor Esau in which he addressed him as ‘your servant Yaakov.’” According to an opinion in that Midrash, we learn from here that Royalty must be addressed deferentially.

כה תאמרון לאדוני לעשו, this what you are to say to my lord Esau, etc.” This does not mean that Yaakov addressed Esau as “my lord” even in his absence. It means that Yaakov instructed messengers that if they would be asked they were to say that what they were guarding and guiding was destined as “a gift for my lord Esau”, just as the Torah describes in verse 19.

עם לבן גרתי, “I have stayed with Lavan, etc.” He was anxious to at one and the same time describe the fact that he had not stayed away from home for 22 years out of fear of his brother’s vengeance, but had remained with Lavan as he had had to work very hard. We find the words גרתי משך in that context in Psalms 120,5 where the psalmist bemoans the fact that he had to dwell for a long time with the Meshech and the clans of Kedar. Secondly, he informed Esau that he had become very wealthy though this was of secondary importance to him. G’d had granted him wealth in return for his hard labour. His wealth was the result of the sweat of his brow, he had not inherited it from his fathers. Had his wealth derived from an inheritance, Esau would have been entitled to his share of the inheritance. Thirdly, he wanted Esau to know that he came in peace and was interested in a brotherly relationship with Esau. He was sending the messengers and the gifts to prepare the way for a friendly reunion.

ויהי לי שור וחמור, “I acquired oxen and donkeys, sheep and servants.” Yaakov mentioned his great wealth by understating it, i.e. as if he had only acquired a single ox and a single donkey, etc., as he did not want to appear boastful. He followed the dictates of Jeremiah 9,22 “let not the wealthy boast of his wealth.” It is customary for all righteous people to belittle themselves and their belongings. The wicked, by contrast, boast of their wealth as we see from Esau who claimed יש לי רב, “I own a great deal” (33,9).

Actually, if the Torah had followed its own rules, it should have mentioned the sheep first, i.e. צאן וחמור, שור seeing that the category called צאן, i.e. sheep and goats, is the most superior species amongst the animals. We find that the Torah does so in the case of Avraham (Genesis 12,16) “and he treated Avram well on her account so that he acquired (flocks of) sheep and (herds of) cattle, etc.” We find a similar sequence in the way the Torah describes Yitzchak’s wealth (Genesis 26,14) “he acquired flocks of sheep and herds of cattle.” We also find this order of Yaakov’s wealth when the Torah (as distinct from Yaakov) describes it in 30,43: ”he acquired many sheep and maid-servants and men-servants and camels and donkeys.” You will note that in all of these instances the sheep (and goats) are mentioned first. If Yaakov did not want to mention his sheep and goats first this was because Esau had “lost” his blessing on account of these goats. Rivkah had sent Yaakov to the צאן, instructing him to select two good goats to prepare a meal for Yitzchak which could compete with the venison Esau was expected to hunt.(27,9). Mentioning the צאן first would have sounded like rubbing salt in Esau’s wound. It is interesting to note that after the angels had returned to Yaakov with their report of Esau approaching in a hostile manner, the Torah describes Yaakov as dividing his earthly possessions into two camps (32,8). Again the Torah lists the צאן before any other livestock. Even after Yaakov and Esau had reconciled and Esau had accepted Yaakov’s gifts as a sign of the reconciliation, the Torah again lists the צאן first in 33,13

A Midrashic (Tanchuma Vayishlach 1) approach to our verse: “Why did Yaakov first mention the fact that he had acquired oxen? He hinted that Joseph, who was going to be known as שור, “ox”, had already been born. Joseph was to be the natural enemy of Esau and what Esau represented. When describing future events, the prophet Ovadiah, 18 uses Joseph as symbolic of the entire Jewish people when he predicts: “and the House of Joseph flame, and the house of Esau straw; they shall burn it and devour it, and no survivor will be left of the House of Esau, -for the Lord has spoken.” In Deuteronomy 33,17 when Moses blesses the Jewish people, he wrote of Joseph: בכור שורו הדר לו, “like the firstling bull in his majesty, he has horns like the horns of a wild-ox.”

וגם הולך לקראתך, “and he is also coming towards you, etc.” It is possible to explain the word וגם as including the celestial representative of Esau. who was also on the way to engage Yaakov in battle as we know from verse 25 ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.” This would reinforce what I have written earlier that if the מלאכים which the Torah describes Yaakov as having sent ahead as spies or messengers had been mere mortal human beings, how would these have known anything about the celestial representative of Esau being on the way to engage Yaakov in mortal combat? The reason the Torah uses two expressions to describe Yaakov’s fear, i.e. ויירא ויצר לו, is that Yaakov worried both about the approaching physical ecounter with Esau and at the same time he worried about the spiritual confrontation which was apparently about to take place between his and Esau’s spirit.

וארבע מאות איש עמו., “and four hundred (armed) men with him.” These men were all ready for combat. The reason the Torah did not describe these men as coming with Esau by the word אתו rather than עמו, is that the expression אתו is reserved for the righteous. We find it in connection with the righteous Joseph such as in Genesis 39,23 באשר ה' את, seeing that G’d was with him.” The reverse is true of the wicked when we read in Chronicles 2,32,8 עמו זרוע בשר, ועמנו ה' אלוקינו לעזרנו, “with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our G’d.”

ויירא יעקב מאד ויצר לו , “Yaakov was very fearful as well as distressed.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 comment on this that the word ויירא refers to Yaakov’s fear of being killed, whereas the word ויצר refers to his discomfort at the thought of having to kill Esau in self-defense. Seeing that twenty years earlier G’d had assured him in the dream of the ladder that He would be with him and would protect him, why did he have any reason to be afraid at all? Our sages answer that Yaakov never considered G’d’s promise as ironclad but as subject to his conducting himself as worthy of it. Yaakov worried that he might have committed sins during the last twenty years which had invalidated G’d’s promise to him. This, at any rate is the approach of the Talmud to this problem in Berachot 4. The sages of the Talmud there comment further: “why is there a dot in Psalms 27,13, on the word לולא? David said: לולא האמנתי לראות בטוב ה', “If I had not had the assurance that I would enjoy the goodness of the Lord, etc.” He meant “O Lord, I am certain that You will repay the righteous in the hereafter for the good deeds they have performed on earth. However, I am not at all sure that I will have a share in the hereafter as I may have forfeited my share through sin.” Seeing that David referred to himself as חסיד, “pious,” (compare Psalms 86,20), how could he doubt that he would have a share in the hereafter? Again the sages answer that he was afraid that some sin he had committed would result in his forfeiting his claim to the hereafter. [The dot on the second letter ל in the word לולא is considered as restrictive, as if to say “if nothing contrary to the present condition will occur.” Ed.]

Another approach: Yaakov was altogether not concerned about anything happening to himself, personally. After all, he was a recipient of G’d’s promise and he considered this as perfectly adequate. He was concerned about his children, his wives, and the members of his household who had not received such an assurance from G’d. This is the meaning of (verse 8) “he divided up the children (between two camps).” As proof for this interpretation look at the words פן יבא והכני אם על בנים, “lest he come and smite me by killing children with their mother.” He did not say the word והכני, “and strike me,” as an independent statement referring to him personally, as something that he was afraid of for himself. After all, Esau’s quarrel was with Yaakov, not with his wives or children. He was not concerned about himself per se. His only fear was of what might happen to his children and to his wives.

You ought to appreciate that this paragraph contains an explanation of what exactly did happen to Yaakov as a result of his encounter with Esau. There is also a hint of what would be a correct form of relationship between the respective descendants of Esau and Yaakov during the long course of Jewish history. It is worth our while to consider Yaakov’s preparations for his fateful encounter with Esau as something to use as a model for ourselves in our dealings with the descendants of Esau. Basically, Yaakov used a three-pronged approach. 1) He prepared to wage war if it were forced upon him. 2) He prayed to G’d for deliverance. 3) He prepared gifts to soften the mood of his adversary. The first stage of his preparation, mobilising for war, is described in our paragraph in verse eight when the Torah writes that he divided the camp in two to give himself the maximum chance for at least one camp to escape unharmed. He then engaged in prayer when he appealed to G’d, saying (verse 12) “please save me from my brother, from Esau.” The third part of his preparation, i.e.. sending gifts (or bribes if you will), is found in verses 14-21. A great Jewish King, the King Chiskiyah learned from Yaakov when Jerusalem was under siege when he faced Sancheriv, [who during his time was the foremost conqueror of the world who had already liquidated the Northern Kingdom and exiled the Ten Tribes, Ed.]. We read in Kings II 18,15 that Chiskiyah gave all the silver that was in the treasury of the Temple and in his own vaults to Sancheriv in accordance with that King’s demands. He also readied what few forces remained at his disposal for war (Chronicles II 32,6). Finally, he prayed (Kings II 19,15) asking G’d to demonstrate His power to the world at large by saving the Kingdom of Yehudah. We have to act similarly whenever we find ourselves threatened by hostile Gentile forces. However, nowadays when G’d’s displeasure with us has become manifest seeing we are still in exile, we must not provoke war against our enemies as is evident from Song of Songs 2,7 השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וגו', “I have made you take an oath o daughters of Jerusalem, etc.” One opinion in the Talmud Ketuvot 111 understands the oath as an undertaking by Jews in exile not to rebel against the local rulers and try and recapture the land of Israel by force of arms.

אם יבא עשו אל המחנה האחת והכהו, “if Esau comes to one of the camps and defeats it, etc.” The first camp Esau was to encounter was that which contained Zilpah and Bilhah and their respective children. If he were to kill the people in that camp —

והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה, “then the remaining camp would survive.” The second camp contained Rachel, Leah, and their respective children. In order to explain this verse completely, we have to understand it as follows: “Yaakov divided the children to Rachel and Leah respectively and to the two maid-servants and their children respectively in order for them to survive attempted murder by Esau.” The expression לפליטה occurs in that sense in Jeremiah 51,50 פליטים מחרב, “fugitives from the sword.” This verse is also the source which taught the prophet Ovadiah to divide the fledgling prophets whom he hid by separating them into two groups, each in a different cave. This is why Jeremiah wrote in Kings I 18,13 quoting Ovadiah: “I have hidden 100 of the Lord’s prophets, 50 each per cave; and I have fed them bread and provided them with water.” Our sages in Baba Metzia, basing themselves on our verse, made the rule that a person is well advised to diversify his wealth into three types of investments. 1) land. 2) commerce; 3) ready cash or easily convertible and immediately accessible assets. They also base this on Deut. 28,8 “G’d will command His blessing for you in your storehouses.” The “storehouses” are a reference to warehouses serving as the place where the merchant keeps his stock-in-trade. The next words in that verse ובכל משלח ידיך, “and your every undertaking,“ are understood as a reference to ready cash or otherwise easily cashable assets. The last expression in the above verse, i.e. וברכך בארץ, “and He will bless you on the land,” refers to G’d blessing one’s investment in land (for agriculture).

The Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 76,3 sees in the line “if he will come to he one camp and smite it,” a reference to our brethren in the South, meaning if the Jews who reside in the South [either of the land of Israel under foreign occupation, or the Jews in Yemen? Ed.] will be smitten, at least the ones in exile under various other host countries will be safe. What these sages had in mind was that Yaakov knew for certain that in the future one part of the Jewish people would be saved. No matter what efforts Esau or his descendants would make to annihilate all the descendants of Yaakov, one part of the nation would always survive. Yaakov wanted to facilitate the survival of part of the Jewish people by demonstrating already now that the best way to ensure this was not to have all of them in the same camp, i.e. the same location. In fact, there is an allusion here to the historical truth that whenever a Kingdom or Empire expelled all its Jews, there was some other country willing to grant these exiles refuge and opportunities to establish themselves anew.

אלוקי אבי אברהם, “the G’d of my father Avraham, etc.” It would have appeared more appropriate for Yaakov to first mention the Ineffable Name (as he did later in the same verse). He should have said ה' אלוקי אבי אברהם. This should have been followed by אלוקי אבי יצחק האומר אלי.

According to a kabbalistic approach, if Yaakov had done as we have just suggested, the Ineffable Name would have been perceived as an allusion to repentance, i.e. as if it represented the attribute of Justice. [Rabbi Chavell, quoting האזרח בישראל, as well as תורת חיים, explains that the emanations are perceived as proceeding from the highest to the lowest. In a descending order we have כתר, חכמה, בינה,, (the latter being symbolic of repentance). It is followed by חסד -גבורה- תפארת and their branches. Had Yaakov used the Ineffable Name in connection with Avraham, that name would have alluded to the emanation בינה. [Our sages want Avraham to be associated primarily with the attribute of חסד, akin to “Mercy,” and when we begin to pray we first mention the patriarch Avraham as a symbol of that attribute. Ed.] We also conclude the benediction with a reference to Avraham in order to stress that we rely primarily on the attribute of Mercy when addressing our prayers, i.e. our requests to G’d. Yaakov also used that attribute last and that is why the attribute appears next to Yitzchak, though Yitzchak represents a higher attribute as we have pointed out elsewhere. You will note that when G’d spoke to Yaakov earlier when He told him to return to the land of birth (31,3), He also employed first the Ineffable Name.

You are aware that the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 82, have already stipulated that the patriarchs are the true מרכבה, “carriers of the Presence and glory of G’d.” You are also aware that based on Ezekiel’s vision in chapter one of Ezekiel, as interpreted in Berachot 16 that there were only three patriarchs, i.e. Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. Four such carriers are needed. But only three people have qualified as “patriarchs” (compare Berachot 16). We know this because G’d describes Himself only as אלוקי אברהם, אלוקי יצחק, ואלוקי יעקב (Exodus 3,15). We do not find that the prophets such as Moses or Jonah ever qualified for G’d calling Himself: “the G’d of Moses, or the G’d of Jonah.” Although we find that Moses is described as imploring his G’d in Exodus 32,11 (ויחל משה את פני ה' אלוקיו) and something similar in the case of Jonah, this does not mean that these prophets qualified as being part of the מרכבה, the Divine entourage, or “chariot.” There is not a single instance in which G’d associates His name in an exclusive manner with either of these two prophets. On the other hand, we do find G’d saying to Chiskiyah in Kings II 20,5 אלוקי דוד אביך, “the G’d of your father David.”

This verse caused the senior Kabbalist in Spain הרב יצחק בן הרב אברהם to say in his prayers אלוקי דוד ובונה ירושלים, "G’d of David and the builder of Jerusalem.” He did so in order that he should be able to mention a מרכבה of G’d consisting of the required minimum of four carriers and that these carriers should all be human beings. However, Elisha’s question in Kings II 2,14 איה ה' אלוקי אליהו, “where is the Lord, the G’d of Elijah?” is not of the same category. This was a prayer and the wording is to be considered as merely rhetorical. This leaves us with the question why our sages never included David in the list of the patriarchs or as one of the pillars of the מרכבה at all. Our sages were concerned with the vision of Ezekiel in the first chapter of his Book. There we find the מרכבה consisting of four phenomena of which only three are assigned a specific location. The text reads: ודמות פניהם פני אדם, ופני אריה אל הימין לארבעתם ופני שור מהשמאל לארבעתם ופני נשר לארבעתם. (Ezekiel 1,10) “Each of them had a human face (at the front). The meaning of the words that “each of them had a human face,” is this was the face facing the prophet. The face on the right was that of a lion, whereas the face on the left was that of an ox. The prophet did not describe the location of the face of the eagle, such as saying that it was facing the back, for instance. The reason is that this was an attribute of G’d which deserved to remain hidden. Keeping this in mind, the Kabbalists followed this approach and did not include David in the regular number of the pillars of the מרכבה. [There is an interesting Midrash in which David implored G’d to become one of the patriarchs, meaning that when we commence the daily עמידה prayer we should begin with the words “G’d of Avraham, G’d of Yitzchak, G’d of Yaakov and G’d of David.” G’d explained to David that the three patriarchs had attained their stature due to their having successfully passed tests G’d had subjected them to. When David heard this he begged to be tested also. Although G’d warned him not to take such a chance, David insisted and was subjected to the test with Bat Sheva. We all know that he failed this test and this is why he did not join the ranks of the patriarchs. I do not recall the source of this Midrash at the moment. Ed.]

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

כי במקלי, “for with my staff, etc.” this teaches that one must remember the days of starvation during the time one has prospered in order not to forget the fact that one is so much better off now than then. Solomon also taught us this in Kohelet 7,14: ביום טובה היה בטוב, וביום רעה ראה, “in a time of good fortune enjoy the good fortune; and in a time of misfortune reflect.” What Solomon meant was: “reflect on the time when you suffered misfortune now that you enjoy good fortune.”

הציליני נא מיד אחי מיד עשו, “save me please, from my brother, from Esau!” (According to Rashi) the prayer was the result of Yaakov having been told that Esau does not come to meet him in order to welcome him back like a brother, but that he is coming to meet him as an adversary, as an Esau. This is why Yaakov prayed for Divine help.

One may also explain the wording of this prayer in a different way. Yaakov prayed for what he needed immediately and for his needs during future generations. As far as his immediate needs were concerned, he needed to be saved from “my brother.” During future generations, throughout a good part of Jewish history, he or his descendants would need to be saved “from Esau.” Concerning such future times, David also formulated a prayer in Psalms 10,15 when he said: שבור זרוע רשע, “break the power (arm) of the wicked!”

כי ירא אנכי אותו, “for I am afraid of him.” Yaakov’s fear stemmed from the fact that Esau knew no mercy. We have proof of this in the writings of our prophets (Amos 1,11) על רדפו בחרב אחיו ושחת רחמיו, “because he pursued his brother with the sword and repressed all pity.” פן יבא והכני, “lest he come and smite me,” and he would then also murder the "mothers and the children".

The Midrash wonders how such a thing is possible in view of the Torah expressly forbidding the slaughter of both mother animal and her young on the same day (Leviticus 22,28)? We have a similar prohibition concerning fowl in Deut, 22,6 where the Torah words it thus: “do not take the mother bird together with her young ones.” Yaakov was fearful of Esau violating this commandment in the future as it is written in Hoseah 10,14 אם על בנים רוטשה, “when mothers and babies were clubbed to death together.”

מן הבא בידו, “from that which had come into his hand, etc.” The Torah means “from that which he had acquired rightfully, as opposed to things which are acquired by illegal means. We have a verse in Malachi 1,13 specifically targeting gifts (offerings to G’d) which the owner had not acquired honestly. “and you bring (as a gift) the stolen or the lame. Would I accept it from you- said the Lord?”

Another meaning of the words: מן הבא בידו could be that it referred to gemstones, i.e. literally: “valuables capable of being carried in one’s hand.”

There is a commentator who understands that expression to mean that there is a certain bird called falcon which is an expert hunter. Seeing that Esau was a hunter, Yaakov thought that presenting him with such a bird which had been domesticated like a hunting dog would please Esau. We would then have to translate the whole verse something like this: ”he took a gift for Esau his brother from amongst these birds, i.e. from a species Esau used to carry in his hand .”

עזים מאתים ותישים עשרים, “two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats.” Yaakov sent ahead the goats as is customary amongst the flocks. We have other examples in Scripture when the species of goats precedes a list of other animals, such as in Jeremiah 50,8 “and be like the goats which lead the flock.” Another piece of information contained in our verse is the fact that the males of the goats and the sheep were more numerous than those of the other herds of animals Yaakov sent Esau as a gift. We observe that the camels appear to have been monogamous, seeing that Yaakov sent identical numbers of males and females. When it came to mentioning the cows and donkeys, each of which were the same number, the Torah first lists the pure species, i.e. the cows. You will observe that in each instance the female of the species was mentioned before the male seeing the females outnumbered the males.

Another way of looking at the sequence in which these animals are listed is that they are listed in order of the time it takes for the respective species to reproduce, i.e. the length of pregnancy of the mother animal. Sheep and goats reproduce after a pregnancy of five months, camels after six months, cows after nine months and donkeys after a pregnancy of twelve months.

I have written earlier (verse 1) that Yaakov did not really want to commence with the goats seeing that the goats had been what had enabled him to snatch the blessing away from Esau and that this was the reason he listed oxen as the first in a list of the possessions he had acquired; why then did he send precisely these goats ahead of any other flock?

The answer is relatively simple. As long as he had not prayed for G’d’s help and it was a matter of how the angels (or human messengers) were to announce his impending arrival to Esau, Yaakov did not want to do anything which could be interpreted as provocative. Now that he had prayed and had prevailed over the celestial force representing Esau, he had changed his stance and wanted to do something which would make Esau afraid of him rather than the reverse. He therefore deliberately placed the goats first to hint that he had no reason to feel afraid of him. Had he not obtained the blessing through having presented his father with two goats and obviously G’d had approved the part in which his father had said “be an overlord over your brothers, etc.?” He wanted to remind his brother that their father had designated Esau as becoming a servant to Yaakov. By placing the asses and donkeys last, in that order, Yaakov hinted that in the distant future the descendants of Esau would become the victims of the Jewish messiah who would appear riding on a donkey. We find the following verse in Zechariah 9,9 concerning this future event: “Rejoice fair Zion; raise a shout fair Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you He is victorious, triumphant, yet humble, riding on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass.” When you look at things in that way you will find that Yaakov caused Esau to become afraid of him both by the first part of the gift he sent, i.e. by the goats, as well as by the last item, the donkeys.

When looking at the immense wealth possessed by both Esau and Yaakov, the gift listed here did not represent a meaningful addition to the wealth of either brother. The meaning of the gift was therefore more in its symbolic significance.

Keeping this in mind, Rabbeinu Chananel points out that the total number of animals sent by Yaakov to Esau amounts to 550. This number corresponds to the number of years the descendants of Esau preceded Yaakov (Israel) as an organized state.

ורוח תשימו בין עדר ובין עדר, “and place a space between one herd and the next.” He wanted the eye of this wicked person Esau to satiate himself by these successive gifts. Yaakov hoped to impress him with the generous size of the gift.

According to Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 Yaakov said to G’d: “if the Jewish people will be beset by troubles in the future, please let these troubles befall them at intervals so that they have a chance to recover between successive waves of persecution.” He referred specifically to heavy taxation which would be imposed by rulers in the countries in which Jews were going to be exiled.

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

ויותר יעקב לבדו, “when Yaakov had remained alone, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 77,3 state that these words should be read as if Yaakov returned for his jug (read לכדו instead of לבדו). This teaches that Yaakov went back across the river to retrieve small vessels which had been overlooked. This teaches that the righteous are very meticulous even with relatively low-cost items seeing that when you acquire things by making certain none of them has been tainted by being stolen or otherwise illegally acquired, one does treasure what one has more than do other people who do not mind to acquire things less honestly. This is Rashi’s approach to our verse. Another approach: the vessels were used to drink out of and Yaakov was concerned that the younger children should have a chance to drink from them on the journey. [According to this interpretation, the correct translation of the words פכים קטנים, would be “vessels that the little ones drink from,” rather than “small vessels.”] He endangered himself in order to have convenient drinking vessels for his small children.

ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning of ויאבק is the same as ויחבק seeing that the letters אהע"ח are frequently interchangeable. Our sages in Sotah 21 use the word אבוקה and חבוקה interchangeably. An אבוקה, torch, is so called as it is composed of pieces of wood which “embrace” each other, i.e. חבוקה.

A Midrashic approach. (Bereshit Rabbah 76,3 and 77, 2) The word ויאבק is derived from אבק, “dust.” It means that Yaakov became enveloped by the dust of the person engaging him in a struggle. The “man” was the celestial representative of Esau.

It is well known that had it not been for the original sin in Gan Eden there would not be a noticeable difference between man and angel. On the contrary, man would outrank the angel in every respect. We base this on Sanhedrin 93 “the righteous are greater than the angels.” Accordingly, the “angel” came to try and find a sin Yaakov was guilty of in order to use the sin as a weapon to overpower him. However, he did not succeed. The only “sin” he could find was that Yaakov had married two sisters during their lifetime, something which had not yet been forbidden The Torah alludes to this when writing: “he inflicted an injury on Yaakov’s hip joint.” This was a euphemism for his sexual organs and the seat of sexual desire. The “punishment,” such as it was, was administered near that organ so that Yaakov limped for a while.

Another allusion included in the words ויגע בכף ירכו, “he struck the socket of his hip,” is that the damage inflicted by the celestial representative of Esau would manifest itself in later generations, amongst descendants of Yaakov who would suffer under the Romans. When the Torah wrote that the “angel” was unable to harm Yaakov, i.e. כי לא יכול לו, the meaning is that he was unable to harm Yaakov personally. He did not have permission to do so as Yaakov was unblemished. Later generations who would not be so unblemished would become victims of Esau, however. This happened in the generation of Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava and his colleagues when that Rabbi became a martyr in order to save his students during the period when the Romans tried to wipe out Jews and Judaism (Sanhedrin 13). The Talmud tells the following story. Rabbi Chiyah bar Abba said: “if someone were to tell me to offer my life for the holy name of G’d I would be prepared to do so on condition that they would kill me quickly. If I had been asked to do the same during the period of שמד, [the persecutions of Jews and Judaism under Emperor Hadrianus] I would not be able to do so as I am not able to undergo such tortures.” What did they do in that generation? They brought iron bars which had been made white-hot. They then placed these bars under the arm pits of the victims and this is the way these people died.

ויאמר שלחוני, “he (the angel) said: ‘let me go!’” The angel was afraid that if he were to leave without having obtained Yaakov’s permission they would punish him in heaven with having to endure the פולסי דנורא [some physical punishment administered by a fiery rod and mentioned in Chagigah 15 and elsewhere as an instrument for disciplining wayward angels. Ed.] We have another reference to this incident in (Hoseah 12,5) “He strove with an angel and prevailed; the other had to weep and implore him.”

כי עלה השחר, “for dawn as risen.” When the angel asked to leave before daybreak Yaakov asked him: “are you a thief that you need to fear daylight?” He answered “I am an angel and ever since I have been created I have not yet had the opportunity to sing a song of praise to the Lord in the heavenly choir. Today is my opportunity.” There is a reference to this in Scripture (Job 38,7) ברן יחד כוכבי בוקר ויריעו כל בני אלוקים. “When the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy.” The time of dawn is the time when the קדושה is recited as mentioned by Isaiah 6,3 “and one would call to he other: Holy, Holy, Holy.” Hearing this, Yaakov replied: לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, “I will not let you go unless you first bless me.” He wanted Esau’s angel to acknowledge that the blessing he had received from Yitzchak was acknowledged by Esau as being rightfully his. Thereupon the angel said: לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל, “your name will no longer be Yaakov but Israel.” He meant that from now on people will no longer say that you obtained the blessings by subterfuge, but they will admit that you are the rightful recipient of them. Alternatively, what the angel meant was that if anyone were to accuse Yaakov of having swindled Lavan they would be proven wrong as Yaakov had been accorded the attribute “Truth”, i.e. that he had acted truthfully in all his undertakings. This was confirmed in Michah 7,20 “You have given “truth” to Yaakov.”

כי שרית עם אלוקים, “for you have contended with Divine forces.” In this instance the word elohim refers to the angel representing Esau with whom Yaakov had wrestled. The words ועם אנשים in the same line, refer to Lavan and Esau.

According to Bereshit Rabbah 78,3 the words כי שרית עם אלוקים mean that Yaakov’s countenance was engraved on the throne of G’d and the angel had realized this after looking at Yaakov.

למה זה תשאל לשמי, “why is this that you ask for my name?” He meant: “we do not have a fixed name; our names always change according to the mission we are sent on.”

Another meaning of these words: “why do you ask for a name seeing that we are not in the habit of revealing our names?” The reason an angel does not like to reveal his name is so as not to appear to crown himself with the success of any mission he has been sent on. He does not want a human being to go around saying: “this and this angel has performed such and such a miracle.” He is a servant, a mere extension of his Master in Heaven and he is careful not to to do something which would create the wrong impression. This was the reason that the angel who had announced to Manoach and his wife that they would have a son resented being asked for his name (Judges 13,18) saying that his name was פלאי, “something concealed. This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,7: כל הנקרא בשמי-לכבודי בראתיו, “everything which bears My name,- I have created it for the sake of My honour.” This is also the thrust of David saying in Psalms 29,1: “ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.”

There are some commentators who have explained the words “why do you ask for my name” as “seeing that I have been defeated, what is the pointed in your knowing my name? Usually the victor wants his own name to become known. The loser does not want his name known so as to suffer the minimum of embarrassment.

ויברך אותו שם, “he blessed him there.” He acknowledged that Yaakov was the rightful owner of the blessings his father had bestowed upon him. According to a Midrash the blessing the angel bestowed upon Yaakov at this time was identical with what would later on become the standard formula of the Priests blessing the Jewish people as recorded in Numbers 6,24-27.

A logical/investigative approach: The words: “a man wrestled with him,” refer to Gavriel. [We have shown on other occasions that Gavriel is referred to as איש “man.” Ed.] According to the philosophers, Gavriel is symbolic of the active investigative intelligence. [According to Kabbalistic writings this disembodied intelligence supplies the outer form to human beings based on their endowments (genes), Ed.] This force is the tenth of the emanations (the lowest counting from the top) the one we call מלכות which is just one rung above the physical universe, the עולם העשיה. This is the reason that the term איש which is usually only associated with tangible creatures is applied to Gavriel. Yaakov wanted to know if it is possible that this “man’s” soul while still enclosed in a body could attain or represent a spiritual level equal to disembodied intelligences such as the force with whom he had done battle. [In other words, this category of angel might be perceived as the link between the highest intelligence found inside a body and the lowest intelligence able to exist as a disembodied entity. Ed.] The angel, i.e. Gavriel, answered him that this was possible only after dawn, i.e. until the various forces which darken the soul have disappeared with the light of morning. This physical light, though symbolic of spiritual light, is here described as עלות השחר.

Let me now explain the whole episode to you based on the premise we have just outlined. I am basing myself on a Jewish philosopher in Seville who wrote this commentary in the course of his discourse on Song of Songs. I have merely translated what he wrote into Hebrew:

ויותר יעקב לבדו, “Yaakov remained alone deep in thought, divesting himself of the influences exerted upon him by his body so that his thinking was unimpaired by such influences.” He desired to know if his own intellect had attained the level which when the Torah speaks of certain celestial forces (such as Gavriel) is described as איש.

It is understood that what is described as התאבקות, “a wrestling match,” takes place between evenly matched opponents. The Torah informs us here that in that struggle Yaakov did not attain superiority, i.e. the ability to function just like a disembodied spirit free from bodily influences, until the break of dawn. The word שחר stands for the restrictive influence of the body on the mind. Until Yaakov was able to rid himself of that influence, i.e. עד עלות השחר, “until the departure of that שחר,” he was not able to fully assert his שכל הפועל, his free-roaming intellect.

וירא כי לא יוכל לו, now that the disembodied intellect no longer held an advantage over Yaakov’s intellect, though the latter was imprisoned in a body, ויגע בכף ירך יעקב, and the forces of the body are identified by the expression כף ירך, the part of the physique which is essential in man, it became clear to Yaakov that his disadvantage vis-a-vis disembodied intellects was due only to the fact that he was imprisoned in a body.

ויאמר שלחני כי עלה השחר, at this point the disembodied intellect hints that the intellect embodied within Yaakov will become totally independent once the restrictive shackles of being imprisoned in a body, i.e. שחר are removed. The נפש השכלית, the intellectual life-force within Yaakov is on a par with the intellects of such disembodied beings as the angels. He (the “angel”) mentioned this simile as something similar to someone who dismisses a servant or friend as he no longer needs him. It was a compliment the angel paid to Yaakov.

ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני, this teaches that the intellectual life-force within Yaakov’s body held on to the disembodied intellect represented by the “angel”. He (Yaakov) was not prepared to let go of the disembodied spirit he had embraced during this nocturnal encounter until this force had left an imprint on him which would not become dispelled as soon as he released the disembodied intelligence from his “embrace.” He insisted on attaining the intellectual level he had aspired to in an irreversible manner, not merely as a temporary spiritual-intellectual “high.”

ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך , remember that the name Yaakov has a connotation of “humiliation, degradation.” We encounter this when he was born when the Torah described him as holding on to his twin brother’s heel (Genesis 25,26). Such an activity as holding on to someone else’s heel is certainly creating an image of someone servile, someone in a degrading condition. After all, the heel is the very lowest part of the body. The name ישראל by contrast evokes the image of something superior. This is why the “angel” said: “you are entitled to be known by a name which conveys something lofty.” He gave as the reason for this change of name the fact that כי שרית עם אלו-הים ועם אנשים, that Yaakov’s intellectual life-force had proven to be equal to the intellect of disembodied spiritual beings even though his own intellect was still imprisoned within a body, This is the meaning of the words ועם אנשים. Actually, there had been no need for this word; if someone holds his own in a contest with divine forces he is most certainly understood to be even to or superior to any human contestant. The use of the words עם אנשים therefore adds a new dimension to our verse. Yaakov was very anxious to have confirmation that his own נפש השכלית, was on a par with that of disembodied spiritual creatures though his own spirit was still connected to his body.

הגידה נא שמך, he wanted confirmation of what the “angel” had said by being able to identify him by name. The name would give Yaakov a clue as to the essence of that spiritual force. But the angel did not fulfill his request. He responded למה זה תשאל לשמי — that Yaakov did not need this information as he had already achieved a great deal and had risen to the level of disembodied heavenly spirits. The Torah goes on with a report of the consequences of this encounter by writing על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה אשר על כף הירך, “this is why the children of Israel are not to eat the displaced sinew of the hip-socket.” This means that seeing the נפש השכלית is meant to adjust to the norms of the disembodied intellect, the true Israelites are not to engage in activities which arouse the libido which is seated near the hip-socket. The meaning of the word “eat” here does not only mean the actual consumption of this part of animalistic tissue but also what it symbolizes, i.e. absorbing the philosophy it represents.

From a purely physical point of view, this sinew is a very tough sinew and comparable to a tough cord. Cords become harder and tougher with use through pulling wagons, etc. Similarly, when one engages in such activities as arousing one’s libido, this leaves a progressively deeper imprint on one’s personality. The more frequently one engages in such activities the more they become part of one’s personality. Hence, the prohibition of “eating” that sinew has also deep psychological significance for the Jewish people. Preoccupation with such concerns gradually estranges one to G’d.

The act of “eating” if performed within reason, i.e. in quantities appropriate to the body’s need, actually promotes both good physical and spiritual health. Eating to excess results in corruption of the body and ultimately the soul. The same is true when one indulges any of the other תאוות הגוף, physical desires. אשר על כף הירך, the importance of this particular sinew is that the entire body relies heavily on it so that if it is damaged one cannot even move. It therefore represents all physical desire. עד היום הזה, this does not refer to a specific date. The meaning of the words is that as long as the desires of the body assert themselves in man the restriction expressed in this prohibition remains in force. The arrival of the hereafter signifies a new יום, “Day,” as documented by many of our prophets. Hence, the Torah says that as long as man (Israel) is a mortal human being this prohibition will remain in force. כי נגע בכף ירך יעקב, the reason the Torah deliberately reverts to naming Israel “Yaakov” at this juncture, is to stress that the influence of physical desire is what “separates the men from the boys,” i.e. what is the true impediment of every “Yaakov” developing into an “Israel.” It is within the power and scope of physical desires to drag down the נפש השכלית in man to the level represented by Yaakov at birth, i.e. a degraded person who hangs on to the heel of his totally physically oriented brother. We find an interesting parallel of this concept in Kings I 18,31 ויקח אליהו שתים עשרה אבנים כמספר שבטי בני-יעקב אשר היה דבר ה' אליו לאמור ישראל יהיה שמך. “Eliyahu took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of Yaakov, to whom G’d had said: ‘your name shall be Israel.’” What was the need for the Book of Kings to add the words: ‘to whom G’d had said: ”your name shall be Israel?’” Are we then fools that we did not know who Yaakov was? The answer is that at the time of the prophet Eliyahu the Israelite people were in a state of rebellion against G’d. They actively worshiped the Baal, misled by the prophets and priests who preached the religion of the Baal. Eliyahu reminded them in the verse quoted that they were guilty of devoting themselves to the physical, to the desires of the body, whereas their task in life had been to devote themselves to the meta-physical, to the Divine. The word יעקב in the verse above symbolized the physical whereas the word ישראל symbolized the spiritual, the meta-physical. Eliyahu reminded them that G’d had instructed them to become שכליים, intellectually oriented people, similar to the angels. We also find in Psalms 82,6 that at one time G’d had said of Man “you are divine,” only to find that due to their having committed a sin involving following their physical desires they became mortal, far from divine. In 35,9 when G’d says to Yaakov לא יקרא שמך עוד יעקב כי-אם ישראל יהיה שמך, “you will no longer be called Yaakov but your name shall remain Israel,” the message is not so much a compliment but a moral/ethical imperative to live according to the yardsticks applied to individuals deserving of the distinctive title ישראל. This is why our sages in Berachot 13 stated that ישראל was henceforth Yaakov’s major name, the name Yaakov being used only in a secondary sense. This also explains G’d’s instructions to Moses in Exodus 19,3 prior to the giving of the Torah כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל , “thus you shall say (briefly) to the house of Yaakov, and tell (in detail) to the children of Israel.” The women were referred to as “Yaakov,” as they are adjuncts to the men (in terms of Torah study), the men as “Israel.” Thus far the words of the philosopher. If I perhaps have not translated his words verbatim, this was because I basically wanted only to convey the gist of his approach.

I would add, based on the approach of this philosopher, that the fact that the Torah calls the name of the place where Yaakov had this encounter once פניאל and another time פנואל, is a hint that the first name alludes to this angel representing the tenth emanation (meaning of the letter י) the type of angel known as איש. Once Yaakov/Israel had passed that place and had properly assimilated this new concept of man’s נפש שכלית being capable of matching the spiritual level of the intellect of the disembodied angels, the place was called פנואל with the letter ו, as we now find that Yaakov was limping on his hip-socket. He had become aware of his body’s being an impediment to spiritual progress which needed to be overcome.

A kabbalistic approach to this episode: The words ויאבק איש עמו are a reference to כבוד נברא במלאכים, a concept we encountered when the angels visited Avraham. [Briefly, if I understand it correctly: on the one hand we find the term מלאך applied to man, on the other hand, we find the term איש applied to angels. Whenever such “inverted” terms are used they are expressions of honor, compliments to the person or angel undergoing the respective experience. In this instance the מלאך assuming human form compliments the human being who is to experience his presence, whereas when a human being is described as מלאך this is a compliment to the angels into whose spheres he has been transplanted for the experience described. In more mundane terms “when in Rome do as the Romans do,” and vice versa. Ed.]