[Par-reg] Parshat Vayishlach - shiur #3
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Dec 2 01:08:32 EST 2009
DEDICATED IN COMMEMORATION OF THE YARZHEIT OF
REUVEN BEN MOSHE A'H
17 KISLEV 5757
**********************************************************
***
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***
PARSHAT VA'YISHLACH - shiur #3
YAAKOV'S RETURN TO BET EL
Upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, why doesn't Yaakov
go
straight home to his parents in Hebron? After all, he has
been
away from his parents for over twenty years!
Secondly, why doesn't Yaakov return immediately to
Bet-el
to fulfill his "neder" [vow]? Hadn't he promised God that
'should he return home safely' he would establish a 'Bet
Elokim' in Bet-el (see 28:21-22)?
However, instead of doing what we would have
expected, it
appears from Parshat Vayishlach that Yaakov prefers to
settle
down in Shechem. Then, only AFTER the incident with Dena,
and
only after God reminds him that he must do so, he finally
returns to Bet-el. [See 33:18-35:1.
So what's going on in Parshat Va'yishlach?
In the following shiur we suggest a very simple (but
daring) answer to these questions, based on a rather
intricate
analysis.
INTRODUCTION
To appreciate the analysis that follows, it is
important
to first pay attention to the division of 'parshiot in
Parshat
Vayishlach. Using a Tanach Koren, or similar, note the
topics
of its first six 'parshiot' (i.e. up until the death of
Yitzchak at the end of chapter 35).
The following table presents a short title for each
section.
As you study it, note the progression of topic from one
'parshia' to the next:
PSUKIM - GENERAL TOPIC
======= ===============
(A) 32:3-33:17 Yaakov's confrontation with Esav upon
his
return to Eretz Canaan.
(B) 33:18-20 Yaakov's arrival in Shechem.
(C) 34:1-31 The incident with Dena in Shechem.
(D) 35:1-8 Yaakov's ascent to Bet-el to flee from
Shechem, and his building of a
mizbayach.
(E) 35:9-22 God's blessing to Yaakov at
Bet-el,followed
by Rachel's death and Binyamin's
birth.
(F) 35:23-29 A summary of Yaakov's children, followed
by
the death of Yitzchak.
We begin our shiur by making some observations
concerning
Yaakov's behavior in the progression of these events.
KEEPING PROMISES
When Yaakov first left Eretz Canaan on his way to
Padan
Aram, God promised to 'be with him' and see to his safe
return
(28:15). In response to this divine promise, Yaakov made a
"neder" (vow) that should God keep His promise, he will
return
to Bet-el and establish a Bet-Elokim (see 28:18-22).
Undoubtedly, Yaakov's safe return from Padan Aram requires
his
fulfillment of the neder. In fact, towards the end of last
week's Parsha, God Himself mentions this promise when He
commanded (and reminded) Yaakov that it was time to
'return
home':
"I am the God of Bet-el, where you anointed a matzeyva,
to
whom you vowed a NEDER. Now get up and LEAVE this land
and
RETURN to the land of your fathers." (31:11-13)
Therefore, upon his return, we should expect Yaakov
to go
immediately to Bet-el to fulfill his "neder." However,
for
some reason, he first settles in Shechem.
HONOR THY FATHER...
Even more troubling is why Yaakov doesn't immediately
go
home to Hebron, at least to say 'hello' to his parents
whom he
hasn't seen in over twenty years! Recall how the Torah
had
earlier informed us that was his original intention:
"Yaakov got up and took his children and wives on the
camels. Then he led his sheep... and everything he
acquired
in Padan Aram to GO TO YITZCHAK HIS FATHER in the land
of
Canaan." (32:17-18)
Nonetheless, when Yaakov arrives in Eretz Canaan, the
Torah tells us he settles down in Shechem. In fact, we
only
learn of Yaakov's return to his father's house
incidentally,
in the final pasuk before Yitzchak's death (see 35:27-29)!
For some reason, the Torah never informs us of the
details
(or the date) of this reunion.
JUST FOR A 'SHORT STOP'?
At first glance, one could answer that Shechem was
nothing more than a short stop along the way to Bet-el. As
we
know, Yaakov's young children and immense cargo forced him
to
travel slowly (see 33:12-15). He may very well have needed
a
rest. Thus, Yaakov's 'brief stay' in Shechem could be
considered no different than his 'brief stay' in Succot
(see
33:17).
[See further iyun regarding Yaakov's stay in Succot.]
But this approach is difficult to accept for two
reasons:
First of all, recall how Yaakov had traveled from
Padan
Aram to Har ha'Gilad in only seven days (see 31:21-23,
read
carefully). Now that journey is much longer than the trip
from
the Gilad to Bet-el. [Check it out on a map.] Therefore,
there
seems to be no reason why Yaakov cannot complete the
remainder
of this journey in two or three days - a week at most!
Secondly, if Yaakov's plan is just to 'rest up' in
Shechem for a few days, why would he buy a parcel of land?
Furthermore, the overall impression from chapter 34 is
that
Yaakov's family has pretty much settled down in Shechem
(see
34:7, 34:10, 34:21 etc.).
Therefore, it seems at thought Yaakov had settled
down in
Shechem for quite a while. In fact, we can prove that
Yaakov
may have stayed even several years in Shechem - by simply
considering the ages of his children at that time. Let's
explain:
BAR-MITZVAH BOYS OR GROWN UPS?
Recall that Yaakov left Lavan after working for him
for
twenty years (see 31:41). Therefore, when he began his
journey back to Eretz Canaan, his oldest child could not
have
been more than 13 years old (see 29:18-23), for he first
married Leah only after completing his seven years of
work.
That would make Shimon & Levi etc. 11 or 12 years old,
etc.
Yet, from the Torah's description of the incident
with
Dena in Shechem (see 34:1-31) it appears that Shimon &
Levi
(and the rest of the brothers) must have been at least in
their late teens. After all, they go to war against an
entire
city!
Furthermore, Dena - Leah's seventh child - could not
have
been older than six and most probably even younger!
[Remember
there was a break between Yehuda and Yisachar/ see 30:9.]
However, from the story in chapter 34, Dena appears to be
at
least twelve, if not older. Even though Shechem does
refer to
her once as a "yaldah" (see 34:4), the Torah consistently
refers to her as a "na'arah" (see 34:3,12).
If these assumptions are correct, then it appears
that
Yaakov remained in Shechem for at least several years
prior to
the story of Dena's abduction.
Even if Yaakov stayed in Succot for 18 months, as the
Midrash claims (see Rashi 33:17), it still doesn't make
sense
that the incident with Dena have taken place when she is
in
'first grade' and Shimon & Levi had just celebrated their
'bar-
mitzvahs'?
Thus, according to "pshat", the incident at Shechem
must
have taken place at least five years later! This
conclusion
strengthens our original question. Why would Yaakov
remain in
Shechem for over FIVE years without first returning to
Bet-el,
and without going home to visit his elderly parents!
'A CALL TO ORDER'
Whenever we arrive at this kind of dilemma the
temptation
is to 'tamper' with the chronological order of the
narrative.
In Chazal, this is better known as the principle of "ein
mukdam u'muchar ba'Torah" - the narrative in Chumash does
not
necessarily progress in chronological order. Clearly, the
principle of "ein mukdam u'muchar" does not mean that the
stories in Chumash are recorded in purely random sequence.
Nor
should it be understood as just a 'wildcard' solution for
difficulties in "peshat". Instead, the Torah often records
certain parshiot out of their chronological order for
thematic
considerations.
[It should also be noted that the principle of "ein
mukdam
u'muchar" usually only applies at the 'parshia' level.
In
other words, that events WITHIN a given 'parshia' are
always
recorded in chronological sequence. Only a 'parshia' in
its
entirety may be presented before an earlier event or
vice-
versa. [This style is sometimes referred to as "smichut
parshiot."]
Let's see now if this principle can help us solve the
problems raised in our shiur thus far.
We'll start by taking a closer look at the various
stages
of Yaakov's journey, and how they relate to the division
into
'parshiot' of Parshat Va'yishlach.
IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF AVRAHAM AVINU
We really should have begun our shiur with a more
basic
question: why does Yaakov stop in Shechem at all? Why
doesn't
he go directly from Succot to Bet-el or Hebron?
The answer lies in the obvious parallel between
Yaakov's
return to Canaan and Avraham Avinu's initial journey from
Aram
to Eretz Canaan. He, too, first stopped in Shechem and
built
a MIZBAYACH:
"And Avram passed through the land, to the place of
SHECHEM... and God appeared to Avram and said: I am
giving
this land to your offspring; and he built there a
MIZBAYACH
to the Lord who appeared to him." (12:6-7)
[Compare also 12:5 with 31:17-18!!]
Correspondingly, Yaakov also makes Shechem his first
stop, and he builds a MIZBAYACH specifically in that
region
(see 33:18-20). In contrast to Avraham, however, Yaakov
ALSO
invests in some real estate - he buys a field (see 33:19).
Soon we will suggest a logical reason for this purchase.
If Yaakov is indeed following his grandfather's
footsteps
(as his arrival in Shechem suggests), then he too should
continue directly to Bet-el, just as Avraham Avinu did
(see
12:7-8). Of course, Yaakov had another reason to proceed
directly to Bet-el - to fulfill his "neder." Then, we
would
have expected him to continue from Bet-el on to Hebron to
see
his parents.
So why does he stay in Shechem?
One could suggest that exactly the opposite happened,
i.e. Yaakov DID NOT STAY IN SHECHEM for more than several
days! Instead, he stopped there only to build a MIZBAYACH,
thanking God for his safe arrival, just as Avraham had
done.
To support this, note how the Torah describes his arrival
in
33:18: "va'yavo Yaakov SHALEM". This most probably
reflects
the phrase in his original "neder" of: "v'shavti b'SHALOM
et
beit avi" (see 28:21).
Furthermore, in 33:20 he calls this mizbayach: "Kel
Elokei
Yisrael", most likely relating to the phrases in his
"neder"
of: "im y'hiyeh ELOKIM imadi..." (28:20) and "v'haya
Hashem li
l'ELOKIM" (28:21).
A WISE INVESTMENT
At that time, he also purchased a plot of land. This
was
a wise investment, for Yaakov is traveling with a large
family, and realizes that sooner or later, he'll need to
settle down in Canaan, and build a house of his own.
Planning
an option for his future, he buys a parcel a land, a
'security' investment should he decide one day to return.
At this point, we posit, Yaakov really does continue his
journey from Shechem to Bet El - and then on to Hebron -
after
only a very short stay. However, the Torah records the
details
of this 'first' ascent to Bet-el - at a later time (see
35:9),
while 'inserting' the details the Dena event in between
(i.e.
in chapter 34), even thought that event took place at a
later
time! [Later in the shiur, we will suggest a reason why
this
story in 'inserted'.]
[To appreciate this theory, it is recommended that you
review those parshiot, especially noting the new
'parshia'
that begins in 35:9.]
Let's take a look at the special wording of the
'parshia'
that begins in 35:9 - which we claim took place BEFORE the
events in chapter 34:
"And God [had already /"od"? / or 'again'] appeared unto
Yaakov UPON HIS ARRIVAL from Padan Aram, and blessed him
...
then Yaakov set up a MATZEYVA at this site... and called
the
name of this site BET-EL. Then they traveled towards
Efrat"
[i.e. on the way toward Hebron], and Rachel gave birth
with
complications [& then died]..." (see 35:9-19)
Our contention is that this entire 'parshia'
(35:9-22)
actually took place immediately upon Yaakov's arrival from
Padan Aram (as its opening pasuk suggests/ compare
33:18!),
several years BEFORE the incident with Dena in Shechem
(i.e.
34:1-35:8).
A very strong proof to this claim may be drawn from
the
words of Yaakov himself (to Yosef) before his death:
"... when I was RETURNING FROM PADAN, Rachel died on the
road, while still a long distance from Efrat, and I
buried
her on the way..." (see 48:7)
Yaakov himself states that Rachel died during his
original journey from Padan to Eretz Canaan. He would not
have
spoken of her death as having occurred "when I was
returning
from Padan" if she died only AFTER Yaakov had spent
several
years in Shechem.
Furthermore, why was Yaakov traveling from Bet-el
southward, towards Efrat? Most likely, he was on the way
home
to his father in Hebron! In other words, it may very well
have
been that Yaakov DID return immediately to visit his
father,
just as we expected him to.
[For some reason, the Torah never records the details of
this encounter. But this question begs itself no matter
how
we explain the order of the 'parshiot.' Only in the
final
summary psukim (i.e. 35:27-19) are we told that Yaakov
had
returned to Yitzchak, and even there it appears to be
only
for Yitzchak's burial. It would only be logical to
assume
that Yaakov must have gone to visit his father much
earlier.]
THE NEW ORDER
Before we continue, let's review the order of events
(and
hence the order of the 'parshiot') according to this
interpretation:
After successfully confronting Esav, Yaakov continues
on
to Eretz Canaan, stopping first in Shechem to build a
MIZBAYACH and thank God, just as Avraham Avinu had done.
While
in Shechem, he buys a parcel of land for 'future use,'
planning possibly to later return to this area with his
family. [Recall that Yaakov owns many sheep, and Shechem
is a
prime area for grazing cattle, just as Yaakov's children
later
return many years later to the Shechem area to graze their
cattle (see 37:13).]
After buying a field in Shechem and building a
mizbayach,
Yaakov continues to Bet-el, where God appears to him, and
Yaakov re-states his intention to ultimately fulfill his
"neder" to make a 'bet Elokim' at that site (even though
he
isn't quite ready yet to begin its construction).
There, God confirms the blessing of "bechira" and
changes
his name from Yaakov to Yisrael (see 35:9-12). [According
to
this interpretation, Yaakov had been blessed and had his
name
changed by the "malach" only several days earlier!/ see
32:26-
28]. Even though he cannot at this point build the actual
Bet-
Elokim that he promised, he re-affirms his promise by once
again anointing the MATZEYVA and calling that site Bet-el
(see
35:14-15).
Next, Yaakov travels toward Hebron to see his
parents.
Along the way, Rachel dies and is buried on the roadside.
Yaakov then sets up tent in Migdal Eder (see 35:21). Even
though we do not know its precise location, it would be
safe
to assume that Migdal Eder is located in an area not too
far
from Yitzchak's home in Hebron. It is here where the
incident
with Reuven & Bilha takes place. Although we may
reasonably
assume that Yaakov sharply criticized Reuven, the Torah
for
some reason abruptly curtails this story, right in the
middle
of a sentence! [See 35:22! / see also 49:4!]
Some time later, maybe a year or two (or even five)
later, Yaakov moves with his family to Shechem - after
all, he
did purchase a parcel of land there specifically for that
purpose. By now, the children are older - old enough for
the
incident with Dena (as detailed in chapter 34) to occur.
It
also stands to reason that at this point the people of
Shechem
see Yaakov as a permanent neighbor, rather than a
transient;
and therefore - they seek marital and economic ties with
Yaakov's family. Finally, this also explains why
specifically
Shimon & Levi take leadership roles at this time. Reuven
had
most likely been 'demoted' from his position of 'family
leader' after the incident with Bilha.
After the brothers wipe out Shechem, Yaakov fears the
revenge of the neighboring population. God therefore
commands
him to MOVE from Shechem to Bet-el for PROTECTION (see
35:1-7,
read carefully). Just as Bet-el had protected Yaakov when
he
was faced with the threat of his brother Esav, so will
Bet-el
protect Yaakov now from his latest crisis. [Note how
specifically this point - danger from Esav - is mentioned
over
and over again in this 'parshia' (i.e. 35:1-8, see
35:1,3,7!).
Note also that these psukim imply a recent, immense
expansion of Yaakov's family and possessions (see 35:6 -
"v'chol ha'AM asher imo" & 35:2 - "v'et kol ashe imo").
This
may also explain why Yaakov must remind these 'newcomers'
to
rid themselves of their idols before ascending to Bet-el.
(see
35:3-4).
So Yaakov now moves his permanent residence to
Bet-el,
which had already been established as the site for his
future
Bet Elokim, and accordingly builds a MIZBAYACH (see
35;1,3,7).
Let's use a chart once again to show the 'new order'
of
the parshiot:
PSUKIM - GENERAL TOPIC
------ ---------------
(A) 32:3-33:17 Yaakov's confrontation with Esav upon
his
return to Eretz Canaan.
(B) 33:18-20 Yaakov's arrival in Shechem [& buys a
field].
(E) 35:9-22 Yaakov arrives in Bet-el, receives his
blessing
and fulfills his "neder"; Rachel dies
along
the way to see Yitzchak near Hebron.
(C) 34:1-31 Yaakov returns to Shechem, Dena is
abducted,
and Shimon & Levi wipe out the city.
(D) 35:1-8 Yaakov flees from Shechem to Bet-el,
where he
builds a mizbayach.
(F) 35:23-29 A summary of Yaakov's children, followed
by
the death of Yitzchak.
Thus, by simply changing the location of a single
'parshia,' nearly all our questions are solved. However,
our
approach raises a much bigger question: WHY isn't this
'parshia' (35:9-22) recorded where it belongs?
As stated above, the Torah will present events out of
chronological sequence only when there is a compelling
reason
to do so. Therefore, we must look for a thematic reason
for
this 'change' in order.
As usual, we will return to the primary theme of
Sefer
Breishit - the process of "bechira" & "dechiya" - to
suggest
an answer to this question.
A THEMATIC REASON
Recall from previous shiurim that the theme of Sefer
Breishit progresses with each set of Sifrei TOLADOT.
Throughout the progression, someone from among the
"toladot"
is 'chosen' while the others are 'rejected.' Recall also
that
in Parshat Va'yishlach we are still under the 'header' of
"toldot Yitzchak" (see 25:19). The story of "toldot
Yitzchak"
clearly reaches its conclusion with the 'parshia' of
35:23-29
[(F) in the above chart], which describes Yitzchak's
death.
[Note also that "toldot Esav" (36:1) follow immediately
afterward.]
This 'parshia' 35:23-29 (F) MUST therefore appear at
the
conclusion of "toldot Yitzchak."
But why was 'parshia' (E) transplanted from its
chronological location to here, immediately preceding
'parshia' (F)?
One could suggest several 'thematic' reasons:
One answer could be alluded to in the somewhat
innocuous
though very telling statement that introduces (F):
"And the children of Yaakov were TWELVE... "
(see 35:23-26, noting the 'parshia' in the middle of a
pasuk)
Unlike Avraham and Yitzchak, ALL of Yaakov's children
are
'chosen' - EVEN his children from the maidservants, EVEN
Reuven who had most likely been berated, etc. One could
suggest that the Torah takes this entire 'parshia' (E) -
which
ends with the incident with Reuven & Bilha (which most
likely
had taken place much earlier) - from its chronological
location and intentionally places it here - NEXT to the
concluding statement of 35:23 - to stress that ALL of
Yaakov's
children are chosen - EVEN Reuven! [See Ramban 35:22! See
also
Rashi, Chizkuni & Radak 35:22.]
This interpretation may also explain why 35:22 ends
mid-
sentence. It would seem that the pasuk should end with
Yaakov's curse of Reuven, which becomes apparent in 49:4.
However, because the whole point is to show that Reuven
remains part of the 'chosen family,' the second half of
the
sentence is 'cut off.' Instead, the entire 'parshia' is
attached to the statement, "and the children of Yaakov
were
twelve - the children of Leah: the firstborn of Yaakov =
REUVEN, and Shimon, Levi..." (35:23-24).
An alternate (and more simple) explanation could be
that
the Torah is simply keeping all of the stories relating to
Shechem together. Hence, once the Torah informs us that
Yaakov
purchased a parcel of land in Shechem (33:19), Chumash
continues with what later took place in Shechem as a
result of
this purchase (34:1-35:8). Then, after completing that
story,
Chumash returns to the story of Yaakov's first return to
Bet-
el (35:9-22), even though it in fact took place much
earlier.
Finally, one could suggest a very significant
thematic
reason for this 're-arrangement' of the 'parshiot'.
Recall
our explanation that Yaakov's naming of 'Bet-El'
reflection
his conviction to one-day establish a 'Bet-Elokim' [a
house
for God] on this site. The first time Yaakov stated this
intention (see 28:19), he could not build a Bet-Elokim at
that
time for he was a fugitive on his way to Padam Aram. The
second time he arrives at Bet-El (see 35:9-15), he once
again
only states his intention. It appears that it is still
pre-
mature to actually begin that project, as he has not yet
established a name for himself in Eretz Canaan. After
all,
the success of his planned Bet-Elokim would depend on his
ability to 'reach out' to the neighboring people, just as
Avraham and Yitzchak had done when they built "mizbachot"
and
'called out in God's Name'.
However, after the 'Dena incident' at Shechem, and
the
actions of Shimon and Levi, Yaakov's status among the
neighboring people has dropped to an 'all time low'. As
Yaakov himself stated in the aftermath of those events:
"achartem oti..." - you have made me look ugly by
embarrassing
me in the eyes of inhabitants of the land..." (see 34:30).
Given this situation, tragically Bet-El becomes a place a
refuge for Yaakov, instead of becoming a Bet-Elokim.
Certainly, in the aftermath of those events, Yaakov will
be
unable to establish a functioning Bet-Elokim in the
foreseeable future.
From this perspective, one could understand the
Torah's
detail of the 'Dena incident' as a thematic explanation
for
why Yaakov was unable to ultimately fulfill his "neder" to
build a Bet-Elokim.
Despite Yaakov's resolve to establish a Bet Elokim,
unfortunately an opportunity for him to do so never
materialized in his own lifetime. Instead, Yaakov would
have
to pass that goal on to his children, who would only have
the
opportunity to achieve it several hundred years later.
shabbat shalom,
menachem
=====================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. Rashi on 33:17 quotes the Midrash that Yaakov spent 18
months in Succot! This is based on the fact that the pasuk
states that Yaakov built a HOUSE there, and set up tents
for
his sheep and cattle. Should this be true, then in any
event,
this pirush only strengthens the question of why Yaakov
did
not return earlier. It does, however, slightly raise the
age
of Yaakov's children by the time the Shechem episode
occurs,
rendering this story a bit more feasible.
B. It is unclear whether Yaakov ever builds the Bet-Elokim
as
he had promised in 28:21. See the meforshim on that pasuk
who
deal with this question, as well as the meforshim here on
35:14.
Nonetheless, anointing the MATZEYVA and calling that
site
Bet-el (see 35:14-15) clearly reveal Yaakov's intention to
eventually build the Bet-Elokim, even though the final
goal
may not be realized until Bnei Yisrael conquer Eretz
Canaan in
the time of Yehoshua. See Devarim 12:8-12, "v'akmal".
C. In closing, it is important to note that there always
remains the possibility that the parshiot are in
chronological
order. If so, we would either have to explain that these
events indeed took place when Yaakov's children were
indeed
quite young, or that Yaakov intentionally did not return
to
Bet-el, either because he felt that the time was not yet
ripe,
or possibly because he was waiting for Hashem to command
him
to go there.
D. Note 34:30, and Yaakov's final statement in his rebuke
of
Shimon and Levi:
"And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: 'Ye have troubled
me, to
make me odious unto the inhabitants of the land, even
unto
the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and, I being few in
number, they will gather themselves together against me
and
smite me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house"
Even though simple "pshat" would explain that the
phrase
'my house' in Yaakov's statement refers to his family, one
could suggest (based on the above shiur) that Yaakov is
referring to 'his house' that he plans to build for God -
for
now that Shimon & Levi have made him look so bad, Yaakov's
plans for building a House for God in Bet-el have now been
'destroyed'.
E. Comments from Rabbi David Silverberg, who has
researched this topic, and found a number of sources which
seem to explicitly indicate that Yaakov traveled to
Beit-El before the story of Dina and Shekhem.
The Gemara in Masekhet Megila (17a) asserts that Yaakov
reunited with his father in Chevron two years after his
departure from Lavan. Along his return from Padan Aram,
the Gemara claims, he spent eighteen months in Sukkot (see
Bereishit 33:16), and another six months in Beit-El.
Rashi, commenting on this Gemara, explains, "He spent six
months in Beit-El when he left Shekhem." Meaning, the six
month-period to which the Gemara refers occurred after the
story of Dina and Shekhem, and the Gemara held a tradition
that when Yaakov traveled to Beit-El after the story of
Dina (35:1), he lived there for six months.
Elsewhere, however, Rashi writes that Yaakov lived for a
period in Beit-El before the incident of Shekhem. In his
commentary to Avot (5:21), Rashi cites the Midrashic
tradition that Levi was thirteen years of age when he and
his brother Shimon killed the male population of Shekhem.
To support this tradition, Rashi comments that "when you
take into account the two years Yaakov spent in Beit-El,"
it indeed emerges that Levi was thirteen years old at the
time of his attack on Shekhem. Yaakov left Padan Aram
thirteen years after his marriage to Leah, and, according
to Seder Olam (chapter 2), Leah delivered each of her
children after just seventh months of pregnancy. Levi,
Leah's third son, was thus born just about two years after
her marriage to Yaakov, and hence Levi was eleven years of
age when Yaakov left Padan Aram. After the two years that
"Yaakov spent in Beit-El," Levi was thirteen years of age,
and it was at that point, Rashi claims, that Shimon and
Levi killed the people of Shekhem.
Rashi thus clearly held that Yaakov spent time in Beit-El
before settling near Shekhem, as Rabbi Leibtag contended.
The Midrash Lekach Tov, commenting on the story of Shekhem
(34:25), likewise calculates the age of Shimon and Levi at
the time of their assault on Shekhem, and claims that Levi
was eleven when the family left the home of Lavan. The
story of Shekhem, the Midrash claims, occurred after the
period of "two years when he [Yaakov] was offering
sacrifices in Beit-El." Like Rashi, the Midrash Lekach
Tov held that Yaakov first proceeded to Beit-El upon
returning from Canaan, before settling near Shekhem, and
he spent two years "offering sacrifices." Apparently,
there was a Midrashic tradition that disputed the
chronology espoused by the Gemara in Megila, according to
which Yaakov spent eighteen months in Sukkot and then six
months in Beit-El after the incident in Shekhem. This
tradition, which Rashi appears to have adopted in his
commentary to Avot, and was accepted by the author of the
Midrash Lekach Tov, held that the Torah's narrative does
not follow chronological sequence, and Yaakov's pilgrimage
to Beit-El occurred before he settled near Shekhem.
Immediately upon returning to Canaan, Yaakov proceeded to
Beit-El and spent two years offering sacrifices in
fulfillment of his vow. Only thereafter did he settle
near the city of Shekhem.
We should note, however, one important difference
between the position reflected in these sources and Rabbi
Leibtag's theory. According to Rashi in Avot and the
Midrash Lekach Tov, Yaakov spent two years in Beit-El and
then settled near Shekhem before reuniting with his father
in Chevron. Rabbi Leibtag suggested that Yaakov proceeded
to Beit-El to fulfill his vow, and then continued
southward to Chevron to see his parents. He remained
there for several years, and then moved with his family to
Shekhem, at which point Shimon and Levi were in their late
teens. These sources provide a basis for the contention
that Yaakov first visited Beit-El before settling near
Shekhem, but not for the theory that he reunited with his
parents before moving to Shekhem.
David Silverberg [S.A.L.T. 5767]
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list