Creative Conundrums

Vayishlach

Note: email me at iwe@religiousliberalism.org to receive this sheet by email each week.

Whither the Sun?

And as he passed over Peni᾽el the sun rose upon him, and he limped upon his thigh.

The last time the word for sun, shemesh was mentioned, was when Yaakov left the land:

He came upon a certain place and stopped there for the night, for the sun had set.

Might there be a metaphorical meaning to this? After all, when Jacob leaves Israel, he left his parents, and Esau with them. What would the future hold?

Perhaps the world is cast into metaphorical shadow when Jacob leaves Canaan and his parents, to sojourn with Lavan. And so, the sun sets.

But then, after all that Yaakov experienced (and during which time the sun is not mentioned at all), and then contending with the angel, the sun rises. Could it be that, with Yaakov back in the land, the future is looking much brighter? Might this be a symbolic understanding of the use of shemesh in the text?

Intruders at Night

וַיִּֽזְרַֽח־ל֣וֹ הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ, the sun rises upon him

Is found in two places in the Torah. Once, after wrestling with the angel. The second time is when it is a commandment for dealing with a thief in the night. Is this a coincidence?

If the thief is found at night, the homeowner may fight and kill the intruder. But:

אִם־זָרְחָ֥ה הַשֶּׁ֛מֶשׁ, if the sun rose, bloodguilt there is on his account (Ex. 22:2)

Is it possible that Jacob’s actions set the precedent for the commandment? Jacob fights at night, but stops when day breaks.

Might this also be a broader lesson about dealing with inadequate information? Is the sun a metaphor for knowledge or understanding more broadly than just whether or not there are lots of photons shining down?

After all, when the sun rose on Jacob, he had gained a lot of knowledge beyond merely seeing his opponent.

Might this suggest that the commandment dealing with intruders might also be understood as telling us about the knowledge the homeowner may have, as opposed to merely whether or not the sun is still over the horizon?

Might this understanding explain why this phrase is used both of these places, and in similar circumstances?

Respect for Women?

Shimon and Levi’s reaction to Shechem is certainly violent, and it garners Yaakov’s ire.

But is it coincidental that after Sarah and Rivka were taken by men who were not their husbands, and Avraham and Isaac do not respond with violence?

Yet with Leah, the male response is murderous violence.

Is it as a result of Shimon and Levi’s violence that there is not another Jewish woman taken against her will in the rest of the Chumash? Might this justify their actions?

Reuven’s Actions – and Isaac?

The text seems to suggest that Jacob was in no hurry, after entering the land, to see his father. He sees Esau, then he settles in Shechem, then he goes to Bet-El… why was Jacob not in a hurry to go home?

Might it be connected to the fact that Rivka’s nurse was apparently with Jacob:

Devora, Rivka’s nurse, died. She was buried below Bet-El, beneath the oak, so they called its name: Allon Bakhut/Oak of Weeping.

Does this suggest that Yaakov knew he would not be going home to his mother? Was mourning Devora a proxy for mourning for Rivka?

Later on, Jacob decides to go to his father. What happened just before this event?

And it was when Yisrael was dwelling in that land, that Re’uven went and lay with Bilha, his father’s concubine. And Yisrael heard–

But Yaakov does nothing! He does not expel Reuben, or fight with him. Instead, he decides to go home.

What is the connection? Did Yaakov, having experienced betrayal and tolerated it, decide that his own father, who had been betrayed by Yaakov in the matter of the blessings, might also have chosen to tolerate it? Did Yaakov gain a better understanding of his father’s position, and only then decide to reunify?

Might this all be connected to the fact that Yaakov and his sons were the first generation since before Terach that the father and sons chose to live together, despite their challenges? Might this explain why Reuven was included in the shevatim despite having committed a sin that certainly was as bad – or worse – than anything Ishmael or Esau had done?

Esau and Lot?

Esav took his wives, his sons and his daughters, and all the persons in his household, as well as his acquired-livestock, all his animals, and all his acquisitions that he had gained in the land of Canaan, and went to [another] land, away from Yaakov his brother, for their property was too much for them to settle together; the land of their sojourning could not support them, on account of their acquired-livestock.

Doesn’t this sound familiar?

Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents, so that the land could not support them staying together; for their possessions were so great that they could not remain together.

Here is the key Hebrew:

Esau

כִּֽי־הָיָ֧ה רְכוּשָׁ֛ם רָ֖ב מִשֶּׁ֣בֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו וְלֹ֨א יָֽכְלָ֜ה

Lot:

יַחְדָּ֑ו כִּֽי־הָיָ֤ה רְכוּשָׁם֙ רָ֔ב וְלֹ֥א יָֽכְל֖וּ לָשֶׁ֥בֶת יַחְדָּֽו׃

Is the Torah telling us that both Esau and Lot were essentially excluded for economic reasons? How can we justify that? Today we do not accept such reasons as a justification for splitting families apart.

Was excluding Esau for these reasons a missed opportunity?

Might it explain why the Torah honors Esau by giving an extensive list of Esau’s descendants?

This parsha question sheet takes the approach of reading the Chumash very closely. It is assumed that every letter and word has meaning, and all questions can be answered. So you’ll find the questions offered every week are deeply textual, seeking relevance to our lives today from the foundational document for Judaism and indeed all of Western Civilization.

This sheet is distributed with the general approval of Rabbi Rose.

See creativejudaism.org (use the search tool). Or email me at iwe@religiousliberalism.org. This sheet is emailed out Thursday evenings to those who have requested it.

• A BJSZ member