ויאמר אלוקים אל יעקב קום עלה בית אל ושב שם, G’d said to Yaakov: “rise and move to Bet-El and settle down there.” The meaning of the word ושב, in this instance is “let your mind come to rest.” He was to erect an altar to G’d there when he had recovered from his disturbed frame of mind. The fact that G’d appeared to him would contribute to Yaakov’s recovering his peace of mind.

הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, “remove the alien deities!” These were the various images captured as part of the loot of the town of Shechem which the Torah mentioned as described already by Rashi. In spite of the fact that such artifacts were permissible for use by people prior to the Torah having been given seeing that they had undergone a process of involuntary abandonment by their owners which disqualified them from further use as idols, (Avodah Zarah 52), Yaakov commanded the members of his household to remove these former idols and to sanctify themselves in order for them to qualify to serve G’d. This is what is implied in the words: “let us arise and go to Bet-El.” He meant that he would offer a sacrifice there to G’d. Yaakov based himself on a concept found in Kohelet 4,17: שמור רגלך כאשר תלך אל בית אלוקים, “watch your step when you are on the way to the House of the Lord.”

והטהרו, “and become ritually clean!” The verse teaches us that sin itself is called ritual impurity. We have a similar verse in Ezekiel 20,7 where the prophet warns his compatriots ובגלולי מצרים אל תטמאו, “and do not defile yourselves by committing the kind of sins committed by the Egyptians.” On the other hand, anyone who abandons sin is described as ritually pure, as we know from Leviticus 16,30 מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה’ תטהרו, “you will become cleansed (ritually pure) from all your sins against G’d.” Another verse expressing a similar sentiment is found in Joshua 22,17 המעט לנו את עון פעור אשר לא הטהרנו ממנו, “is it perhaps not enough to have committed the sin of Pe-or from which we have not yet been cleansed (completely)?” King David also mentioned such a thought when he said (Psalms 51,9) “Remove my sin by means of hyssop until I am pure.” In verse 4 of the same psalm he said: ”wash me thoroughly of my iniquity so that I may be purified from my sin.”

והחליפו שמלותיכם, “and change your garments!” From this we learn that both they and their garments had become defiled through contact with idolatrous images, or through contact with the bodies of the people who had been slain in Shechem.

ויטמון אותם יעקב, “Yaakov buried them, etc.” The Biblical requirement of disposing of idolatrous objects prescribes not burial but scattering to the winds or throwing such items into the sea. Moses did so when he scattered the dust of the golden calf as we know from Exodus 32,20 “he ground it until it was quite fine particles (of dust) and then he sprinkled it on the face of the water.” The fact that Yaakov contented himself with a lesser degree of destruction of these one time idols proves that actually they were no longer forbidden from a Biblical point of view. Another way of explaining this episode is that even assuming that these artifacts had still retained their status as idolatrous and therefore forbidden objects, the fact that he could not destroy them by throwing them into the Dead Sea, made Yaakov do the next best thing, i.e. to bury them. He was also unable to burn these artifacts so that he would not be unduly delayed giving the people around Shechem a chance to organize themselves against him. Under the circumstances, he did the best he could in order to dispose of them and buried them.

הוא וכל העם אשר עמו, “he and all the people who were with him.” It is recorded in a Midrash called מלחמות השם, (and quoted by Nachmanides) that the neighbouring towns of Shechem did indeed gather together and fought three battles against he sons of Yaakov. Had it not been for their father Yaakov who personally girded himself with his sword and other weapons, they would indeed all have been in mortal danger. Our sages refer to this when they interpret the words of Yaakov on his deathbed when he described himself as personally having taken the town of Shechem from the Emorite with his sword and bow (Genesis 48,22). It is the custom of the Bible to furnish us with only the barest details of such encounters, seeing that the kind of miracle which G’d employed was a “hidden miracle,” i.e. not a miracle in which known laws of nature have been visibly changed. Another example of the Bible being sparse with information about such encounters is what happened to Avraham in Ur Casdim i.e. when Nimrod threw him into a furnace and he escaped unharmed. The wars fought by the sons of Esau against the people of Chorite (36,21) are similarly not mentioned here. The Torah contents itself by referring to the “hidden” miracle by simply writing that Yaakov and all those with him arrived at their next destination, i.e. that not a single casualty was sustained by Yaakov’s entourage during the attacks upon them by the Emorites.

ויקרא למקום אל בית אל, “he called the name of that place ‘El Bet- El.’” According to the plain meaning of the text, the line means: “after G’d had appeared to him, he named the site: ‘the house of G’d.” I have already explained a kabbalistic approach to this verse when I discussed the meaning of Genesis 31,13.

ותמת דבורה מינקת רבקה, “Devorah, Rivkah’s nursemaid died.” This verse has been inserted between the report of two appearances by G’d which Yaakov enjoyed. This fact serves to prove the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 81,5 on this verse who see in it a hint to Yaakov that his mother Rivkah had died. This justified the fact that Yaakov named the oak beneath which Devorah was buried “the oak of weeping.” This is the opinion of Nachmanides. He writes that it would not have been appropriate for the Torah to describe Yaakov as grieving thus merely about the death of his mother’s nursemaid, a woman who must have been very old, that the site would be called after her for all future time. Yaakov grieved over the fact that his mother who had promised to send him word when it was safe to return and face Esau was no longer able to do what she had intended to do and that therefore there would not be a reunion between him and Rivkah. According to Nachmanides, the Devorah mentioned here was one who had never accompanied Rivkah when she left her brother’s house to marry Yitzchak. Her death in Yaakov’s presence triggered his awareness that his mother must have died. G’d’s next appearance to Yaakov was intended to console him over this loss of his mother. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 82,4, explain that the words “G’d blessed him” in our verse represent the blessing given to mourners. We find a similar blessing being bestowed by G’d on Avraham in Genesis 25,11. The Talmud in Sotah 14 reports something similar concerning Genesis 25,11 where G’d is reported as blessing Yitzchak. This occurred immediately after the death of Avraham, Yitzchak’s father. G’d’s blessing is understood as a blessing bestowed on mourners. We find support for this interpretation of the words “G’d blessed Yaakov” in verse 27 in our chapter where the Torah reports Yaakov as returning “to his father Yitzchak in Mamre the city of Arba.” We all knew of the city of Arba and Mamre, so why tell us where Yitzchak lived at that time? The implication of the verse is that Rivkah had died. Had she been alive, surely the Torah would have described Yaakov as returning to both his parents, i.e. Yitzchak and Rivkah, especially so since it had been Rivkah who had promised to call Yaakov back to come home as soon as she thought it was safe for him to do so. Seeing she had died, the Torah did not consider it appropriate, i.e. as in her honor, to mention this fact outright. The Torah concealed the time of her death.

Nachmanides quotes a Midrash (Tanchuma Ki Tetze 4) where the matter is explained. Although G’d promised Avraham that he would die of a ripe old age, he died at 175 years of age, 5 years younger than his son Yitzchak. The reason was in order to save him the mental anguish of seeing his grandson Esau become corrupt. In the case of Yitzchak, the latter was blind and could not see what his son Esau was up to. According to this Midrash, both Avraham, Yitzchak, and Rivkah ended their lives experiencing a degree of shame. Rivkah’s funeral lacked the presence of her loving son Yaakov, and presumably the presence of her son Esau who hated her. When she died, people cursed the passing of a woman whose breasts had nursed an evil person such as Esau. For these and other reasons G’d decided to console Yaakov by blessing him at this time. The plural form בכות, “weeping,” is accounted for because as soon as Yaakov was about to weep for the death of Devorah, he received word that his mother had died. His weeping was for the passing of both these women.

שמך יעקב, “your name Yaakov, etc.” According to Nachmanides, although Esau’s guardian angel had already told Yaakov that his name would henceforth be Israel, (32,29) G’d told him that as of this moment his name was still Yaakov. However, from that time on his name would be Israel. This is the meaning of the words: ויקרא שמו ישראל. Thus far Nachmanides’ comment. This then is the meaning of Isaiah 48,12 וישראל מקוראי, ”and Israel whom I have called.”

Rabbeinu Chananel explains that the name Israel which G’d bestowed on Yaakov was in addition to the name Yaakov which Yaakov retained. The word עוד in our verse means “only, exclusively.” The correct translation of our verse is: “your name will no longer be Yaakov exclusively, but your name will (also) be Israel.” We find something analogous to this in Jeremiah 3,16 לא יאמרו עוד ארון ברית ה’, “they will no longer refer to the ark of G’d as the only location where G’d can be found, etc.” but the whole of Jerusalem will be so designated.” They will refer to the whole of Jerusalem as כסא ה’, “the throne of the Lord.” Similarly, here; the words כי אם ישראל יהיה שמך, “but Israel shall be your name, i.e. sometimes you will be referred to as “Yaakov,” other times as “Israel.” This is precisely what the prophet had in mind in Isaiah שמע אלי יעקב, ישראל מקוראי. We find something similar in Isaiah 46,28 אל תיראי עבדי יעקב, ואל תחת ישראל, “do not fear My servant Yaakov, do not be scared Israel.”

אתן את הארץ, “I will give the land.” The promise is repeated twice in the same verse. The Torah does not indulge in such repetitions unless there is a compelling reason. If we adopt a kabbalistic approach the word הארץ at the beginning of the verse is a reference to an attribute of G’d, i.e. the attribute with which all three patriarchs were blessed when the Torah categorised these blessings with the words בכל, מכל, כל, respectively. The meaning then would be “that which I have already granted to Avraham and Yitzchak I will grant to you also, i.e. I will give this land to you (in your own right). It would be similar to Kings I 5,26 “and G’d had granted wisdom to Solomon.” [Seeing that verse commences with an unaccounted for letter ו, our author understands the whole word as a reference to the gift of authority, מלכות (in this instance control of the land of Israel) which G’d had bestowed on David’s son Solomon.] The meaning of the repetition of the word ארץ is that Yaakov’s descendants too would receive the gift of that land in their own right at the appropriate time. We also find a repetition in verse 13 where the Torah writes ויעל מעליו אלוקים במקום אשר דבר אתו, “G’d ascended from upon him in the place where He had spoken with him.” This “place” had already been mentioned earlier (verse 9). It is therefore likely that the word refers to an attribute of G’d such as we find in ברוך ה’ ממקומו, (Ezekiel 3,12) or ברוך המקום (Haggadah shel Pessach). Seeing that our sages have said that the patriarchs are the true carriers of the Shechinah, the Torah has to repeat itself on occasion in order for us to know when it refers to them in such a capacity and when not.

ויצב יעקב מצבה במקום אשר דבר אתו אלוקים, "Yaakov erected a monument in the place where G’d had spoken with him." The Torah repeats the words “where G’d had spoken with him,” with which the last verse had ended. The meaning is that G’d had spoken to Yaakov at that place already on a previous occasion at Bet El. At that time Yaakov had erected a monument. When the Torah makes reference to Yaakov erecting a monument at this point, it meant to tell us that this monument had already been erected by Yaakov many years ago; he did not now erect a second monument (compare Genesis 28,18). The difference between the meaning of the terms מזבח and מצבה respectively, is that the word מצבה refers to an altar consisting of a single stone, whereas מזבח is an altar consisting of a number of stones. Both structures serve the purpose of offering sacrifices. The מצבה serves the purpose of offering drink-offerings and the anointing with oil, whereas the מזבח is suitable for any kind of offering acceptable to G‘d. Seeing that G’d had just told Yaakov that he would no longer be called Yaakov but Israel, it is surprising that the Torah describes the person erecting the monument as Yaakov instead of as Israel. The fact that the Torah here refers to Yaakov by his original name is further proof that the name Israel was an additional name and not a substitute for the name Yaakov. We will find from now on that the Torah uses both these names on different occasions.

ויסעו מבית אל ויהי עוד כברת דרך לבא אפרתה, “they journeyed from Bet-El, and there still remained a tract of land before their arrival at Efrat, etc.” Efrat is another name for Bethlehem. The Torah spells this out in verse 19 where Rachel’s being buried is being described. Nachmanides explains that he personally had measured that the distance between the tomb of Rachel and Bethlehem is less than a mile. He concludes therefore that the commentators who want to derive the word כברת as stemming from כביר, “something major,” are in error. Yaakov could not have excused his burying Rachel there because the distance to Bethlehem was too great. The word כברת describes a certain land measure just as Rashi has said. The three letters ברת are root letters, the letter כ is not. The measure was one which was well known in those days.

ותמת רחל ותקבר בדרך אפרתה, “Rachel died and was buried on the way to Efrat.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah claim that the dignity of women requires that they be buried at the place they die. [not found in my edition of Bereshit Rabbah. Ed.] They use the example of Rachel being buried at the site she died as the precedent for their statement. We also find that Sarah was buried at the site she died as the Torah wrote: “Sarah died at Kiryat Arba which is presently called Hebron,” i.e. she died in Hebron and was buried in Hebron as the Torah reports in Genesis 23,19 “afterwards (after the purchase of the local burial ground) Avraham buried his wife Sarah.” We also find that Miriam was buried where she died (Numbers 20,1)

ויט אהלו ההלאה למגדל עדר, “and he pitched his tent to beyond Migdal Eder.” The meaning of the word מהלאה is “close to.” The same word occurs in the same sense in Genesis 19,9 where it means “come closer.” We also find the word having this meaning when Jonathan told his lad in Samuel I 20,22 החצים ממך והלאה, “the arrows are closer to you.” So here too the meaning of the word is that Yaakov pitched his tent opposite the place called Migdal Eder. This was the place where the number of the twelve tribes had become complete with the birth of Binyamin. In commemoration of that event we read in Micah 4,8: “and you O Migdal-Eder, outpost of Fair Zion.”

וישכב את בלהה, “he slept with Bilhah.” Our sages in Shabbat 55, describe this act as בלבל מצעו של אביו, “he disturbed the couch of his father.” When his father referred to the incident on his deathbed (Genesis 49,4), he too used the same expression, saying אז חללת יצועי עלה, “then you desecrated Him who mounted my couch.” Yaakov did not criticize Reuven for sleeping with Bilhah but for mounting the couch on which his father used to sleep with. her. You find something similar in Samuel I 2,22 where the sons of the High Priest Eli are accused of sleeping with the women (married women) who performed certain tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Eli reprimanded his sons after the rumors had come to his attention. The Talmud in Shabbat there also explains that this verse is not to be taken at face value but that what the sons of Eli did made them subject to such accusations being leveled against them. What is described there as the severe sin of the sons of Eli is the fact that they delayed offering the bird-offerings of women who had either been ritually impure through having given birth or had suffered the disease known as זבה. By delaying these offerings, these women’s husbands were effectively prevented from sleeping with their wives until the matter of the offerings had been taken care of. The prophet Samuel accounts this for the sons of Eli as if they had prevented these husbands from sleeping with their wives because they themselves had slept with these wives.

If you will count the words from ויסע ישראל until שנים עשר, you will find that the number of words in this verse amounts to 26, the numerical value of the four-lettered name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה. Perhaps this is the way of the Torah hinting that Reuven did not in fact commit a culpable offense as otherwise G’d would not have associated His Holy Name with him by including him in the twelve sons of Yaakov, [a reference to their loyalty to their father’s religious principles, Ed.] We have mentioned elsewhere that when he tribes were counted in Numbers 26,7 the ancestor of the tribe of Reuven is described as הראובני, a description which is the same as that of Shimon. In both of these instances the addition of the letters ה-י in the case of these two tribes was meant to stress that they (the tribal ancestors) were not considered morally or religiously inferior to their brothers of whom no negative deeds are recorded in the Torah.

Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah stated “the sons of Yaakov were twelve,” is meant to tell us that Yaakov did not later beget any other sons. Reuven disturbed the couch of his father precisely because he was afraid that his father wanted to sire more children with Bilhah as their mother. The Torah therefore saw fit to inform us that Yaakov did not beget any more children at all after this episode. An additional reason for the Torah making this statement at this point was to reassure us that all of his sons were equally worthy of being sons of their illustrious father. Just as the other sons were not guilty of culpable sins neither was Reuven.

בכור יעקב ראובן, “Yaakov’s firstborn was Reuven.” The distinctive title “firstborn” is accorded to Reuven at the very place where his misdemeanour has been recorded. The Torah informs us that although as a result of this misdemeanour Reuven lost the distinction of being looked up to by his brothers as the firstborn, the Torah implies that what Reuven lost to Joseph as a result was only the double share in the father’s inheritance that the firstborn is entitled to and possibly the respect normally accorded to the firstborn by his younger siblings. The status of being a “firstborn” in matters of genealogy, etc. remained unchanged. This is why the Torah underlined: “Reuven was the firstborn of Yaakov.” We find this confirmed in Bereshit Rabbah 82,11. The Midrash uses the words ויהי בשכון ישראל in verse 22 to elaborate on this theme. Rabbi Simon is quoted as saying that it is difficult for G’d to uproot genealogical facts. The Torah proves this when describing Reuven as the firstborn immediately after having recorded his misdemeanour. Rabbi Yudon added that Reuven remained the firstborn in respect to officiating as the family’s priest (as was customary prior to the sin of the golden calf); he remained officially the oldest; and he remained the firstborn in respect of תשובה, (i.e. that his repentance was accepted assuring him his claim to his former title). Rabbi Azariah added that he also remained the firstborn in respect of prophecy as we read in Hoseah 1,2 that G’d communicated first with Hoseah (seeing he enjoyed the privilege of being senior to the other prophets who were his contemporaries).