PARSHAS VAYETZE
The final phase of the establishment of ‘Am Yisroel begins in this Parsha. When Yaakov Ovinu marries Leah and Rachel and his family begins, the third and final of the Three Ovos and the third and fourth of the Four I’mahos are now firmly established.
However, a nation cannot exist only through its Patriarchs and Matriarchs. It cannot consist only of Founders. Founders are remembered only if there are those who continue with their work and extend it throughout time.
Thus, in our Parsha we find the next step beyond the generation of the Founders. The first of the generations of the children begins. Of course, with a need to found a People with three generations of Patriarchs and Matriarchs, it stands to reason, at least after the fact, that the first generation of children will have to be unique in and of itself. It will have to provide a framework for all of the generations to come.
Each member of that first generation, to whom we refer to as Shevatim, will have a role in defining the future of the Jewish Nation, not just continuing it. The imperative nature of each of the Shevatim for this permanence is seen in the Halacha that says “G’mi’rei she’vet lo ko’loh” (Masseches Bava Basra 115 b). We have a tradition that no Shevet will ever be completely decimated.
[That discussion takes place within the framework of the laws of inheritance. That discussion says that everyone born a Jew has a relative who can be his or her heir. Even if one does not find the relative in this generation or the previous one, if you keep looking you will find that today there is some distant cousin, a great-great-great grandchild of some ancestor all the way back who is alive.
Even if you have to go back all the way to Reuven ben Yaakov- you will surely find this relative. The Gemara asks, why does it say even if you trace the ancestry to Reuven? Why doesn’t it say that you trace the ancestry to Yaakov? The Gemara answers that it will never be necessary to trace ancestry to Yaakov Ovinu. There will always be a descendant of each of the Shevatim alive. G’mi’rei she’vet lo ko’loh.]
This point is made very clear when we see the Brachos that are bestowed upon the Shevatim by Yaakov Ovinu and Moshe Rabbenu. Each of those brachos are distinct and unique. Thus, we understand that each of the Shevatim is unique have their own and irreplaceable niche among Am Yisroel. Each have their own communal personality which defines common traits among the members of particular Shevet (without dictating that each and every member of the Shevet possesses those specific traits and no member of any other Shevet does not possess them.)
However, we not look afar to sense the difference between each of the Shevatim because the Torah is most careful in our Parsha to teach us that the names that were given to each of the sons did not stem from their popularity at that time or because of its alliteration-it sounds nice or “just because”.
Each name was chosen for reasons that the Torah chose to place before us. Each name relates to the founding of the new nation as it enters this new stage and each name carries with it a mixture of personal and individual aspects on the one hand and national perspectives on the other hand. It would seem that there is no need for commentary; everything is written black on white.
[This is in contrast to other names in the Torah for which no explanation is given but we search for their meaning through Chazal and the commentaries. See, for example, the explanations of Or HaChaim HaKodosh for the names of the various n’si’im that are listed at the beginning of Sefer B’midbar.]
It would most definitely seem that the words of the Maor VoShemesh are very relevant here, even though they were written in the context of the names that Moshe Rabbenu gave to his children. Commenting on the fact that one of Moshe’s children was named Gershom and Moshe explained the reason for that name as “ki ger ho’yi’si b’e’retz noch’ri’oh” (Sh’mos Perek XX). Because I was a stranger (ger) in a foreign land (shom-there).
Why was this name given, Maor Voshemesh asks? His assumption that names were not dispersed for naught-as some type of travel memoir.
He explains, “…v’ho’yo ka’vo’no’so lish’rosh sho’ro’shim shel Kedusha biv’no Gershom.” By virtue of awarding this name to him, Moshe wished to implant the roots of sanctity in him. The name was to have an impact.
His source is the interpretation of Chazal of a Posuk in Tehillim (Perek 46/Posuk 9). The verse says, “L’’chu cha’zu mif’a’los Hashem asher so shamos bo’o’retz.” Go and see the actions of Hashem Who has made desolate the lands of the nations (Rashi). What does this verse imply?
In Masseches Brachos (7 b) we read a further exposition of names given in our Parsha. These explanations are not easily explained because they do not appear to be in full consonance with the simple meaning of the P’sukim.
The Gemara interprets the name of Reuven, as Rashi brings in his commentary on Chumash, that it is a contraction of two words: reu-see and ben-son. It means “look at this son”. Leah I’meinu said, look at my son and you will see the difference between the budding ‘Am Yisroel and the family of Eisov. Eisov willingly sold the bchorah-his birthright (Perek 25/Posuk 33). Nonetheless, he had a deep and abiding hatred for Yaakov because of that (Perek 27/Posuk 36).
The birthright will be taken from my son by Yosef (who received the double portion that is reserved for the b’chor) without his acquiescence and, despite the pain that was caused to him, he saved Yosef from death (Perek 37/Posuk 22).
What is the basis for interpreting the name in that manner (especially the Torah itself seems to indicate a different meaning for the name (Perek 29/Posuk 32)?
The Gemara continues, ‘M’no lon d’sh’mo go’rim. Omar Rabi Eliezer d’o’mar kro ‘L’chu cha’zu mif’a’los Hashem asher som shamos bo’o’retz’ (Tehillim Perek 46/Posuk SOURCE). How do we know that a person’s name has causality upon his life? We learn it from the verse, ‘Go and see the actions of Hashem Who has made desolate the lands of the nations.’
Certainly, at this point we see no connection whatsoever between the verse and that which it is supposed to prove.
The Gemara continues, “al tikrei shamos elo shei’mos”. Do not read the word (as it should be) shamos-desolation, rather as sheimos – names.
With this new “reading” of the verse, it now means, ‘Go and see the actions of Hashem Who has made names for the lands of the nations.’ Since Hashem made names, they have influence over that which is related to them.
[Maharsha explains the rationale upon this type of drasha which takes a word from the verse and reads it not according to the consonants and vowels. Chazal did not wish to attribute acts of destruction to HaKodosh Boruch Hu. Therefore, based on that perspective, the word shamos-destruction and desolation provided an inappropriate understanding of the versed. Sheimos-which has exactly the same consonants as shamos means names. Hashem made a constructive addition to the world when he introduced “names”.
The verse now means, says Maharsha, ‘Go and see the actions of Hashem Who has made names for the lands of the nations.’ That is a constructive meaning of the verse which certainly to seems to inspire by G-d’s creation (and thus uses the name Hashem rather than E…lo’kim which implies judgment).
For further information on the interpretations that are based on this “al tikrei”-do not read the verse this way; read it the other way’ see the Encyclopedia Talmudit and its entry bearing the name of this principle.]
Let us examine two particular examples of naming in which the Torah itself seems to send differing messages.
When Yosef is born, the Torah tells us, “Va’ta’har va’tei’led ben va’to’mer o’saf E…lo’kim es cher’po’si. Vatikro es sh’mo Yosef lei’mor yo’seif Hashem li ben acher” (Perek 30/P’sukim 23-24).
She [Rochel I’meinu conceived and gave birth to a son and she said Hashem has removed my shame (of being barren-Rashi). And she called his name Yosef, meaning Hashem should add to me another son.
These P’sukim raise two questions. The first is to understand the intention of Rochel and the meaning of the word Yosef she wished to convey.
Since we already have sources in which this type of word can have completely opposite meanings it follows that we must examine the proper intent of the verse.
For example, we read in next week’s Parsha regarding Yehuda and Tamar: “Va’ya’ker Yehuda va’yo’mar tzod’ko mi’me’ni ki ‘al ken lo n’sa’ti’ho l’She’lo b’ni v’lo yo’saf ‘od l’da’toh” (Perek 38/Posuk 26). Yehuda recognized (the articles produced by Tamar) and said ‘she is more righteous than me’ and he did not yosaf live with her anymore.
Rashi tells us, “Yesh omrim lo ho’sif v’yeh omrim lo posak”. There are those who say that “yosaf” means ‘he did not continue’ and there are those who say that ‘he did not cease”. That is, one could suggest that the shoresh of the word “yosaf” is “o’saf” (with an aleph) and that means to add or continue or the shoresh of the word “yosaf” is “sof”-meaning end.
Similarly when we read in Sefer B’midbar (Perek 11/Posuk 25) about the prophecy of Eldad and Medad, the Torah writes “va’yis’nab’u v’lo yo’so’fu”. They prophesized but they did not “yosofu”. It could mean that they did not stop from prophesying (that is the explanation of Onklos) or it could mean that they did not continue to prophesy (Rashi).
Therefore, both of the verses in our Parsha are tenable explanations of the word Yosef. In fact, Rashbam says that is the intention of our verses. “Ha’rei shem zem m’sha’mesh shnei a’mi’ros-osaf vYosef.” This name refers to two statements: osaf-finish and Yosef-addition.
However, the emphasis of the Torah regarding the purpose of calling her first-born Yosef does seem to clearly reflect the meaning of Yosef as “additional”. The second of the two verses says so almost explicitly. That is how Rabbenu Bachaye understands the flow of the verses. “Leimor Yosef Hashem li ben acher”-u’v’haz’ko’ras shem Yosef rom’zoh zeh.” Meaning Hashem should add for me an additional son-the name Yosef intimates this.
How are we to understand this verse that can be easily interpreted in more than one manner?
Additionally, the name Yosef seems to reflect a lack of appreciation for this new-born child. If his birth was celebrated only by the immediate expression of hope and prayer that there should be another son the value of the present son seems to be diminished.
I believe that there is an intentional duality in these verses that reflect the duality in the lives of our Ovos and I’mahos.
Our Ovos and I’mahos were individuals and National Founders concurrently. They had to live their lives as individuals but they also had to live their lives as the initial fulfillment of the Divine Will that they should establish ‘Am Yisroel.
The commentators ask-why did Rochel I’meinu request only “ben acher”-one more son. Why did she not request many more sons? Rabbenu Bachaye explains that Rochel I’meinu was well aware that twelve shevatim would be born to Yaakov Ovinu and thus she was aware that no more than one additional son would be born to her.
[Similarly, the words of Chazal cited by Rashi in our Parsha explaining the name Dina given to Leah’s daughter reflect this truth. Leah realized if this child would be a son, Rochel would have no more than one son and thus be inferior to the shefachos in regard to child-bearing. Thus she prayed that this child be a girl.]
When Rochel said “osaf Hashem es cherposi” she was giving vent to her personal suffering. Rabbenu Bachaye says that there were extraordinarily callous people who would shame her because of her state in which she could not give birth.
On the other hand, however powerful and distressful her personal status and suffering were, Rochel I’meinu never lost sight of the overriding purpose of her role in the Divine Plan. With the birth of Yosef, Rochel Eishes Yaakov was transformed. She was now more than Yaakov’s wife. She became Rochel I’meinu. She became the Mama Rochel to whom Jews would go before to pour out their hearts on the seemingly endless Golus to which we are subjected. She became the final linchpin of the foundation of ‘Am Yisroel.
With such an awareness, together with the intense personal relief that she sensed as the shame she felt and the rudeness she encountered were removed from her forever, she knew that her task as Rochel I’meinu had not reached its conclusion. She awaited the conception and birth of the next son who would complete the establishment of that next generation that would be the bridge between the Founders and their continuity. That was the tachlis that Rochel I’meinu desired.
It was not an affront to Yosef that she imbued in his name the need for ben acher-another son. The contrary is true. Her desire for another son was her aspiration for the fulfillment of the destiny of all of the Shevatim. If there were to be twelve shevatim then until the twelfth was born none would be able to reach their own destiny.
The desire for that ben acher for which Rochel I’meinu gave expression was not from the voice of the private citizen named Rochel bas Lovon. It was the voice of the Matriarch whose dedication to the establishment and permanence of ‘Am Yisroel had almost no boundaries or limits. It was the voice of the Matriarch whom the welfare of all of ‘Am Yisroel was of prime and exclusive interest. It was the voice of the Matriarch that removed from her disquiet parochial concern that could introduce personal considerations into her prayers and into her decision making.
[The extent to which we can see the overriding concern that she had as Rochel I’menu can be seen by the words of Noam Elimelech in Parshas Vayeshev. There (d.h. o yomar) he posits that Rochel I’meinu knew quite well that her life would end when she would give birth to Binyomin and add (= Yosef!) that final building block to the generation of the Shevatim. Based on that assumption, we have a view that when she assumed her role as a Matriarch, literally all other considerations were put aside. She negated her personal interests totally.