Any word that requires a ל prefix... It does not mean just any word, as we find this rule applies only to names of places and countries, such as בבלה and חברונה, and sometimes to vessels, such as המזבחה.

He who has sufficient blessings... Otherwise, why is this particular Name of Hashem mentioned here?

May that nation descend from you as well as that blessed seed. Otherwise, [if it simply meant that Yaakov should be blessed as Avraham was,] it should say ויתן לך ברכת אברהם. But את ברכת אברהם implies taking Avraham’s blessing and bequeathing it to Yaakov. Why does Rashi not relate ברכת אברהם to inheriting the Land, saying that Yaakov, over and above Yitzchok’s other sons, should receive the Land? Because inheriting the Land is a gift, not a blessing. (Re’m)

I do not know what this teaches us. Some ask: What is Rashi telling us — that he does not know? If he does not know, let him not comment! The answer is: Rashi knew a number of answers that could be given, but did not know which is true according to the simple meaning of Scripture. (Kitzur Mizrachi; see Tzeidah L’Derech)

We learn from this that he hid in the house of Eiver for fourteen years and afterwards went to Charan. Question: Why does Rashi here mention [only] Eiver, while when explaining the verse “She went to inquire of Hashem” (25:22), he mentions [only] Sheim, and when explaining the words “They clashed” (ibid), he mentions [both] Sheim and Eiver? The answer is: “They clashed” is a blanket statement. When she would pass houses of Torah study, Yaakov would agitate and rush to come out. Sheim and Eiver had different study halls, as it is written (25:27): “Yaakov was a man without fault, dwelling in tents,” [in the plural form. See Rashi there.] Assumedly, Scripture means that Yaakov agitated by both tents. But regarding “She went to inquire of Hashem,” Rivkah went to [only] one of them, and surely she went to Sheim, since he was the grandfather of Eiver, and greater than him. While here, Rashi mentions only Eiver because, by this time, Sheim had already died.

When it finished it went back to the previous subject. I.e., Rashi’s original question was: Why does Scripture need to repeat the point and write, “Yaakov left,” when it had already written (28:5), “Yitzchok sent Yaakov on his way”? Rashi answers: Since the narrative of Yaakov was interrupted by the subject of Eisov—and proceeds to explain why it was interrupted: since [Yitzchok sent Yaakov away,] Eisov understood that Yitzchok considered the daughters of Canaan evil, so Eisov went to Yishmael. After explaining why the narrative was interrupted, Rashi goes back to complete his explanation of why Scripture repeats the point: “When it finished...” (Kitzur Mizrachi, see there)

It had only to be written: “And Yaakov went to Charan...” [Rashi knows this] because it is written in another place, “Yaakov... went to Paddan Aram” (28:5), without writing beforehand, “Yaakov left.” Perforce, if he went to Paddan Aram, he left Beer Sheva! Here too, Scripture should have written only, “Yaakov went.”

This tells us that the departure... makes an impression... [Rashi is answering the question:] Why did Scripture write two departures, so to speak? It says, “Yaakov left,” and also, “He went towards Charan,” [which itself implies that he left.] Perforce [the answer is]: One teaches that his person departed, and the other teaches that the brilliance, splendor and glory departed. (Re’m) Maharshal comments on this: Re’m’s explanation differs from Bereishis Rabboh (68:7), which says: It is written ויצא (singular), and not ויצאו. But did not also camels and other animals leave with him? Perforce, it teaches: “Its brilliance has departed....” [Maharshal continues:] It seems that we need both the explanation of Re’m and of Bereishis Rabboh, as follows: Since it is written “Yaakov left” and also “He went,” it is appears to be redundant. Perforce, it comes to say that he left and not another. This raises a question: Did not also camels leave with him? Perforce, [it speaks specifically of him] because when Yaakov left, the glory and brilliance departed—which would not be so if someone else had left.

While a righteous person is in the city, he is its glory... I.e., when a tzaddik is in the city, the men and people are also righteous because they are ashamed of him [and do not sin]. Also, because he reproves them.

Once he has left there, its glory has departed... I.e., the people of the city commit sins. We need not object that Yitzchok was still there, as Bereishis Rabboh already answered: The righteousness of one tzaddik is not like the righteousness of two tzaddikim.

“And she left the place,” which is written concerning Naomi and Ruth. Question: Why does Rashi bring a proof from Ruth, when in Ruth, he brings a proof from here? The answer is: Without the proof from Ruth, we might think that the two leavings written here are (1) the departure of his person and (2) the departure of his money, flock and cattle which left with him. Thus, Rashi brings proof from Ruth that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression—as there, it cannot refer to the departure of their property. For it is written there that she said (Ruth 1:21), “Hashem has brought me back empty,” indicating clearly that she had no property. And in Ruth, Rashi brings a proof from here, because we might think that it makes an impression only if no tzaddik remains behind, as was the case there. But where there are tzaddikim, how do we know that the departure of a tzaddik makes an impression? Thus Rashi proves it from here, as Yitzchok and Rivkah remained, yet Yaakov’s departure still made an impression. (See Tzeidah L’Derech, who offers a lengthy explanation.)

He left in order to go to Charan. Rashi is answering the question: וילך חרנה seems to imply that he came to Charan. But how can this be? It is written after the verse, “He reached the place [of Mt. Moriah],” which occurred before he came to Charan! It is difficult to say that וילך means what it sounds like, that he got to Charan, and then Scripture goes back to explain the place he reached while traveling—this is not the norm of Scripture. Thus Rashi explains: “He left in order to go to Charan” [but he did not get there yet].

Scripture does not identify which place... Rashi is answering the question: The verse is written to explain, not to be indefinite. Why then does it not specify the place? Thus Rashi explains: “It refers to the place mentioned elsewhere.”

As in, “And it reached Jericho”... There it means to come to rest, not to meet.

The Sages explained it as a term for prayer... Accordingly, במקום means “to Hashem,” Who is called מקום (“Place”) since He is the world’s place. (Re’m)

Scripture used an alternate word and did not write ויתפלל**to teach you... [**Rashi is answering the question:] In the verse אל תפגע בי, it is understandable [that it says תפגע], as it conveys: do not come to Me to entreat. But for [Yaakov praying to] Hashem, this meaning does not fit, so why does Scripture use the alternate word? [Rashi answers:] Perforce, because פגיעה also means to meet, thus teaching that the earth shrank [and Yaakov “met” Mount Moriah which came toward him]. But if our verse would have said ויפגוש [the usual word for “meet”], we would not have learned anything about prayer. Therefore the verse writes ויפגע, which conveys both meanings. (Maharshal)

It should have said “And the sun set” and he “spent the night there”... Although there is no difference [in meaning] between ויבא השמש וילן שם and וילן שם כי בא השמש, [Rashi is saying that] it should have been in [chronological] order, as in (Shoftim 19:9) it is written: “Behold, now the sun has waned and it is setting. Please remain overnight.” Perforce, our verse conveys that the sun set suddenly. A further explanation: It is written, “He spent the night there because the sun set,” implying that otherwise he would have traveled on. This proves there still was much daytime left. If so, why did the sun set [early]? Perforce, “The sun set... so that he should stay there overnight.” This is Rashi’s explanation in Sanhedrin 91b.

He made them in the form of a drainpipe around his head... Otherwise it should say, “He took a stone.”

They began to argue with one another... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, the verses contradict one another. Here it is written, “He took some of the stones of that place,” i.e., many stones. But then it is written (v. 18), “And he took the stone.” Perforce, at first there were many stones, but “they began to argue....” You might ask: How does Rashi know he took many stones? Perhaps he took one stone from among (מאבני) the stones of that place, and that is why it is written later, “And he took the stone.” Tosafos answer this in Chulin 91b: then Scripture should have written ויקח אבן, as in (Shemos 17:12) ויקחו אבן וישימו תחתיו . This is because our verse is written to explain, not to be indefinite. Perforce, since it is written מאבני without further explanation, it means [he took] many stones.

It states עולים**first and יורדים afterwards...**Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say “descending” first, since the angels dwell in heaven?

To guard him. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does נצב עליו mean? [“Above the ladder.” But this cannot be, as] the whole world is filled with His Glory! Perforce, it refers to [guard] Yaakov. You might ask: Why did Hashem need to guard him now, and not before? The answer is: Yaakov’s image is inscribed on the Throne of Glory. The angels now saw Yaakov and realized that it was his image [inscribed on the Throne]. They were jealous of him, as he was closer to the Throne than they were, and wanted to harm him. Thus, Hashem protected him. Another answer: The angels of the Land were ascending, and the angels of outside the Land, descending. In between [the changing of the guard], while no angels were with him, Hashem guarded him. (Re’m)

Hashem folded the entire Eretz Yisrael beneath him... Otherwise, what was so great about giving him the land he was lying on, which was just four cubits? Thus Rashi explains, “Hashem folded...” Question: Why did Hashem fold it beneath him? The answer is: To make the whole land as easy to conquer as the four cubits he was lying on, as all of Eretz Yisrael was included in it. This is similar to (Melachim II 13:17): “And Elisha said, ‘Shoot!’ And he shot. And he said, ‘This is an arrow of salvation from Hashem....’”

“You will become strong,” as in וכן יפרוץ. The meaning is not as in פן יפרץ בם (Shemos 19:25), where it means destruction.

Because he feared both Eisov and Lavan. Otherwise, why does it say, “I am with you,” which implies, “I will protect you”? Yaakov was afraid on his way there, lest Eisov pursue him, and on his way back, lest Lavan do so, as it actually happened. That is why the verse continues, “I will guard you wherever you go, and I will bring you back.” (Nachalas Yaakov) אם

, here, is used in the sense of כי**.**Rashi is answering the question: “I will not forsake you until” implies He surely will not forsake him until then. So why does it say אם, which implies uncertainty? Thus Rashi explains that אם means כי, which conveys certainty. Rashi is saying that since כי can mean אם, it follows that אם can mean כי.

For He had not spoken to Yaakov prior to this. You might ask: Perhaps אשר דברתי לך refers to what He just spoke to Yaakov: “I am Hashem...” (v. 13)? The answer is: If it referred to what He just spoke, it should have said כל אשר אני מְדַבֵר עמך, rather than דִבַרְתִי which is past tense. This is because it is one prophecy, and everything was in one dream; Yaakov did not wake up in between.

For had I known I would not have slept... Rashi is answering the question: What difference does it make that he did not know?

This ladder stood in Beer Sheva... Rashi is answering the question: Yaakov said, “This is... בית אלהים,” implying he was in Beis Eil, as it is written later (v. 19): “He named that place Beis Eil.” This indicates that the ladder stood in Beis Eil. Yet, Scripture implied before that the ladder stood in Beer Sheva. For it is written (v. 12), “He dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth.” And since it does not state the location of the ladder, we interpret it as referring to the place mentioned just before, which is Beer Sheva. If so, the verses appear to be contradictory. Thus Rashi explains that the ladder was standing in Beer Sheva, as Scripture implies, and the middle of its slope reached opposite the Beis Hamikdosh, which is Yerushalayim. And its top was in Beis Eil, as the verse also implies. It cannot be that the top of its slope is opposite the Beis Hamikdosh, for then Yaakov would be outside of the ladder. This is because Beer Sheva is in southern Yehudah, while the Beis Hamikdosh is in its north. If so, by what merit would Luz, [far away in northern Binyamin,] be called the House of God and the gate of Heaven? Neither the foot nor the top of the ladder is there! Thus Rashi explains that the middle of its slope is opposite the Beis Hamikdosh, and the top of the ladder is opposite Beis Eil, which is Luz. Maharshal writes: It seems to me that the verse and Rashi’s commentary on it mean as follows. Rashi says, “Our Sages have stated... ‘This righteous person has come to My Dwelling Place.’” [Rashi is saying that this raises the question:] Hashem’s “Dwelling Place” is Yerushalayim. Yet, Scripture implies here that Yaakov slept in Beis Eil, [not in Yerushalayim! Rashi continues:] “And they stated furthermore: ‘Yaakov called Yerushalayim, Beis Eil.’” [Rashi says that this raises the question:] “Yet, this place that he called Beis Eil was Luz, not Yerushalayim!” [Rashi knows this] because it is written (v. 19), “But Luz was the original name of the city.” And even if we answer it all by saying that Luz is Yerushalayim, [Rashi continues that] a question remains: “From where did they derive that [this was the site of the Beis Hamikdosh, and it is all the same place?” Rashi then rejects the idea that Beis Eil is Yerushalayim, and explains:] “I say that Mount Moriah was uprooted and came here, [to Beis Eil].” Accordingly, Yaakov gave the name of “Beis Eil” to both places at once: to Luz, which was the original name of the city, and to Yerushalayim, which came there. This properly explains the statements of our Sages [quoted by Rashi]. This explanation opposes the approach of Re’m, [who writes that Rashi is answering two questions: 1.Perhaps Luz is Yerushalayim? 2.How did our Sages know Luz that is not Yerushalayim?] In our text of Rashi it is written that Yaakov called Yerushalayim, “Beis Eil,” but according to Re’m, this is not needed. Furthermore, Re’m says that the phrase, “Yet this place was Luz and not Yerushalayim,” is part of the Sages’ statement—but we do not find it written anywhere. Furthermore, even according to Rashi’s answer [that the ground “shrank”] the question would remain: Perhaps Luz really is Yerushalayim, and when Yaakov reached half way there, it came to him. It is without doubt that Rashi was always certain that Yerushalayim is not Luz. This is evident from the verses, as I explained.

Should you ask: When Yaakov passed the Beis Hamikdosh why did He not detain him there? This is a quote from the Gemara, and is posing a question: Why did Hashem not detain him? The Gemara answers: “If it did not enter his mind... should Heaven detain him?” I.e., since Yaakov did not pray of his own accord, why should Hashem detain him? Hashem does not force a person to perform a mitzvah.

The Targum translates it: How דחילו**is this place...**Rashi is proving that the word דחילו, which is Onkelos’ translation of נורא, [is a noun. It means “awesome.” Despite the ו, it] is not a plural [verb]. Rather, it is Onkelos’ way [to add a ו], such as with the noun תבונה (understanding), which Onkelos translates as סוכלתנו. And so he translates the noun בגד (garment) as וכסו. This shows that it is usual for Onkelos to do so.

Its Midrashic ... the Heavenly Beis Hamikdosh is situated directly... It seems that the Midrash is not disagreeing. It is explaining why this is the place where prayers ascend: because it is right below the Heavenly Beis Hamikdosh. Nonetheless, “the gate of heaven” is allegorical; heaven has no gate or window. (Nachalas Yaakov)

If He will keep these promises that He promised me... Rashi is answering the question: Is not the verse repetitive? It is written אם יהיה אלקים עמדי, which is the same as ושמרני. Thus he explains that אם יהיה אלקים עמדי refers to keeping the promises. You might ask: How could Yaakov Avinu have been in doubt whether Hashem would keep His promise? The answer is: Yaakov was afraid his sins might cause Hashem not to guard him. Another answer: Yaakov thought the promise might be a [mere prophetic] dream, and every dream includes some nonsense (Berachos 55a). Therefore he said, “If He will keep these promises...” You might ask: Since Rashi is showing where the promises are written, where did Hashem promise Yaakov “clothing to wear”? The answer is: If Yaakov was promised bread, surely he was promised clothing. For Chazal say (Bava Metzia 52a): “Exploit for your back, but only its worth for your belly.” This means: exploit (i.e., misuse) your money to buy overpriced clothing [if necessary]. “But only its worth for your belly.” For your stomach, do not pay more [for food] than it is worth. It also says in Chulin 84b: “A person should always eat below his means, but dress above his means.” So if Hashem promised him food, surely He promised him clothing as well. Otherwise, Yaakov would have to cut down on food in order to buy clothing, and would not have [sufficient] food to eat — yet, Hashem promised him [sufficient] food! (Mahara’i)

Completely free from sin... This too was part of Hashem’s promises. He said (v. 15), “...Until I have done what I spoke to you,” on which Rashi explains: “In your interest and concerning you.” And if Yaakov would not be free of sin, but would learn from Lavan, then Hashem’s promises surely would not be fulfilled. For all Hashem’s promises are on condition that sin should not cause [their nonfulfillment]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

As it is translated ... And he, indeed, did so upon his return... Rashi says, “And he indeed did so...” so that we will not ask: How does Onkelos know that “become a House of God” means specifically that Yaakov will serve** Hashem on this monument, [i.e., will bring offerings on it?] Rashi answers: We see that Yaakov brought offerings in the end. Evidently, this was his intention from the beginning. The phrase, “And Hashem will be my God” (v. 21), is part of the condition [that Yaakov set for his vow,] not part of [his promise in] the vow. Therefore Onkelos says here, “I shall serve Hashem upon it,” implying: Even if Hashem does not keep His promise, I surely will bring offerings to Him—but not on this altar. You might object: It says וכל אשר תתן לי עשר אעשרנו לך, implying: “And if You do not keep the promise, I will not give You a tenth.” The answer is: [The ו of וכל denotes “but”. Accordingly,] this phrase means: “But of all that You give, I will surely give a tenth to You, even if You do not keep the promise.” However, the Maharshal writes: It seems that Yaakov was saying as follows: “If You keep the promise—עשר אעשרנו, I will give two tenths. And if not, I will give one tenth.” And so he did.