Vayishlach (Part 4) - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Rape.

It's not an easy topic to talk about, but it is repeated in the Torah a number of times.

Raping a married Jewish woman is really bad (death), raping a slave woman owned by another, bad, but not as bad (pay a fine), raping a gentile woman and forcing her to be your wife because she was really cute, that's fine, and as for an unmarried non-virgin woman? Well, the Torah is silent on the topic.

I go at length about Rape In The Torah, here.

There is a Christian apologist who explains that "God couldn't denounce slavery, because if He did, nobody would have listened to him."

I suppose the same thing can be applied to rape.

But let's look at the rape of Dinah for a couple of minutes.

If you read the classical commentators, they seem to have a lot of blame to go around, not unlike what you hear in modern society. "She was asking for it.", "It's the fault of her parents", "Look at the people that she was keeping company with." All of that, and more.

According to one commentary, had Jacob only given her to Esau, to marry one of his sons, then it would have all been better. In fact, the rape took place because God did not approve of Jacob keeping Dinah away from the Esau clan.

Remember, that Jacob made a deal with YHVH: "...return me to my father's house in peace, and then you will be my Elohim".

Jacob had yet to return to his father's house, but it looks like YHVH, like an evil genie, was playing with the deal, keeping JACOB safe. Rachael dies in childbirth. Dinah is raped. Joseph is sold into slavery ("Well, it turned out OK in the end, right?").

YHVH was sticking to the deal, keeping JACOB safe.

As far as how old was Dinah, the text doesn't say. She could have been anywhere from 6 years old, to 12, based on her being born sometime during Jacob's final term with Laban.

The final part of the story, where her two teenage brothers wipe out the town, supposedly in her honor, and then claim it as their home base, is interesting.

What does Jacob do when he hears that his daughter is raped? He is silent. When the rapist and his dad come visit and offer a deal, Jacob is silent about any complaint. What does he do when he finds out what his sons did, it is only THEN that he complains, saying that the neighbors might attack them. And when he is confronted by the question, "Would you have our sister be treated as  a whore?", what is his response?

He was silent.

Just like his God.

Vayishlach (Part 3) - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Esau's Bite

In all of Genesis, if you read of the interactions between Esau and Jacob, which one is the jerk?

According to traditional Judaism, Esau was the personification of brutishness, a killer, with little morals, and nonredeemable. 

And that is what most students of Torah learn, and that's what they accept.

Prior to this story, we read the Jacob withheld food from his starving brother until he relinquished over his first-born inheritance double-portion. Then we read of Jacob pretending to be Esau, which is the only time he mentions God, in order to steal a blessing that would make his descendants rulers over his brothers. Esau is angry, says some things to someone who tells Jacob's mother, who sends Jacob to get a wife.

But Jacob doesn't do that. Instead of heading north, he heads south and lives there for some time. His brother never bothered him, and instead, marries a 1st-cousin like Jacob was supposed to be doing. And he remained the household provider, while Jacob was off doings...whatever.

And that's it.

In this week's story, Jacob is supposed to be going to his father's house. Bu doing so, he would fulfill the bargain he made with God, that if Jacob returns to his fathers house in peace, then YHVH will be Jacob's God.

But instead of going south, he decides to go west and go where hi brother Esau was waiting.

Now, Jacob was nervous. He had lied and cheated his brother, and left his with the duty of aiding their ailing father. So what does Jacob do?

He sends an angel to brag to Esau about all of the wealth and family that he has, which, in effect, puts this stealing of the blessing event right back in front of Esau's face.

And what does Esau do?

He rushes to meet him, and with tears, Esau fell upon Jacob's neck and kissed him. 

This is the same expression that will be used when Jacob will reunite with the son whom he thought was dead. But in the version with Esau, Jewish tradition does something odd to the Torah scroll. It adds a number of dots over the word "and-he-kissed-him".

The traditional interpretation is, "Esau tried to bite Jacobs neck, but it turned to stone and broke Esau's teeth".

Esau just can't get a break from the commentators!

After the meeting, Jacob and Esau stay together for a few day. Esau thinks that all is fine and wants to unite and tells Jacob where to find him. Jacob say, "Uh, sure! You go ahead. I have a bunch of slow kids with me. I don't want to hold you back. See ya!"

So Esau leaves.

And what does Jacob do?

He goes in the opposite direction!

He lied to his brother once more, and he never sees him again.

So who was the good guy in the story?

Vayishlach (Part 2) - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Disclaimer:

(Before beginning, I want to clarify my position on the E/J/P/D hypothesis, which I do at this link.)

Duality within the Torah

Just as we have two Creation stories, two "rescuing Job" stories, and two (or three) "don't tell the King that you're my wife, say that you are my sister" stories, you also have two "Jacob gets a new name" stories.

These stories have some important differences. In one, Jacob is renamed "Israel" (ישראל) by a man whom he wrestles with and we are told what it means, and the other, Elohim physically appears to him and gives him a new name, without telling us what it means. In one case, Jacob has to steal the blessing by promising to let the man go only after he give it to Jacob, and in the other, God simply gives Jacob a blessing.

This is important because there is only one story of Abram being renamed Abraham, and the result is that every reference to him after that, he is only referred to as "Abraham". There is even a halachah that one should not refer to him as anything but "Abraham". (Of course, "Avraham Aveinu" - Abraham, our father, is certainly permitted).

With Jacob and the two stories, we find that the stories that follow will sometimes refer to him as "Jacob", and other times as "Israel". I am suggesting that just as "Elohim/YHVH" can sometimes signal a difference in writers, so too will "Jacob/Israel"sometimes signal such a source. And just as "Elohim/YHVH" can signal a different view of the nature of God, so too can this signal a different view of the patriarch of the 12 tribes. 

This has become such a sticking point that that are countless interpretations about what is so symbolic about each. 

The irony of this is that I think that the people who are interpreting significance to the name difference are often right on target. However, they see it as God telling us how to frame our view of Jacob, and I am saying that it is really a dual view by different authors on how they each held Jacob in different ways.

In the first version (Genesis 32:25-31) we have the following descriptions (I am simplifying all verses to expediency. For literal translations, look them up.)

• Jacob wrestled with a man until dawn (nobody else was there).
• When the man saw he wasn't going to win, he cheated a bit, dislocating Jacob's thigh.
• Man wants to be let go because of dawn (?!). Jacob demands a blessing (see Gen/ 27:28)
• Man wants to know Jacob's name (?!). Jacob tells him.
• "You will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel for you wrestled (SARta) with ELohim and men and prevailed". 
• Jacob: "What's your name?" Man: "None of your business" and he blesses him.
• And JACOB called the place PENI-EL for "I have seen ELohim face-to-face (PENI) and my soul (nefesh) survived!.

The story ends with "And this is why Israelis don't eat the sinew of the thigh-vein to this day." This seems to make this story as an insert during a later period to explain a halachah: "Why we don't eat this part of the meat".

Now, here is the second one (35:9-13):

• And Elohim appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-Aram, and blessed him.
• Elohim: "Your name will no longer be Jacob anymore, but Israel will be your name" and He called him "Israel".
• And Elohim said, "I am EL SHADDAI, be fruitful and multiply...a nation of kings shall come from your loins".
• He promises Jacob and his descendants the land.
• And Elohim went up over him from that place where He spoke with him.

Story problems

• There is no angel in the story. None.
• The first story is obviously put in there to explain a rule about "why we don't eat that part of the meat from kosher animals." It's an odd justification, to be sure.
• Why the man needs to leave before sunrise is never explained. Some commentaries say that it's an angel who needs to sing praises to God at sunrise since all of the other angels will be doing that. Again, there is no description of an angel. It's someone who can't beat a human in a wrestling match without a bit of cheating!
• Both forms say, "You will no longer be called Jacob". And in both versions he is called "Jacob" by the narrator right away. And all the stories that come later, he is called "Jacob" more often than "Israel", and they occur in clusters, not in single-sentence alternations.
• One form tells us why he is called "Israel", and the other does not.
• The stealing of a blessing also seems to be a common thing here with Jacob.
• The name "El Shaddai" is always used to infer God as a God of fertility and/or protection. That is the name Elohim uses after Jacob is done having children! Is it possible that this version should have appeared earlier on? With all of the confusion earlier as to where he was and where he was going before he finally arrived at Laban's house, it's possible.

There are several anthropomorphisms here:

• "Elohim appeared" - he does that a few times.
• "I have seen Elohim face-to-face"
• "And Elohim went up over him" - "ma'al" indicated above and over, like one who leaps over a fence. In this case, to wherever Elohim dwells, which appears to be "up". It is a physical being.
• The Targum Onkelos has problems with each of these three verses, which should cause one to pay more attention to them!

Conclusion

The first story of Jacob getting a name change is very anthropomorphic ("I have seen Elohim face to face") and the text calls the person a man. Jacob often sees God who appears to him, awake and asleep, but only after Jacob leaves his parent's home. This appears to be an insert to explain why Israelis (b'nei Yisrael) don't eat certain parts of kosher animals.

The second verse also has a name change, but this is given by God who appears to Jacob, who also gives him a blessing before rising up to the heavens (or atop a mountain). The fact that there are two versions of this story where both refer to God in a physical form, and as giving Jacob a blessing, and making similar promises ("you shall nevermore be called Jacob") that do not come to pass.

These are interesting points to keep in mind while reading these two versions of the same story. 

Vayishlach - Genesis 32:4-36:43

Adding-to or Subtracting from Torah

“You shall not add to that which I command you and you shall not subtract from it, to keep the commandments of the YHVH your G-d...” (Deut. 4:2)

In this week's parashah, you will read about the rape of Dinah, and the response of her brothers, Simon and Levi. Tricking the men of the town to give themselves a circumcision, they hack all of the residents to death, which is no mean feat for the teenage boys. It says in verse 34:25 that all of the men were in pain. It is assumed that they were completely incapacitated and that the town, which Simon and Levy will take for their own, was incapable of protecting itself from a couple of teenage boys - neither the men who were in pain, nor the women who were not.

It's a miracle!

But how much pain could they have been in?

When people think of circumcision, they think of brit periah, which is how it has been done for about the last 1900 years (sometime after 120 CE, most likely). Brit milah is something else.

Most people don't know this, nor can they tell you the difference.

During the BCE period, Jews were already assimilating and wanted to be part of the Greek culture. That culture found the public uncovering of the head of the penis unseemly, and many activities during that time required that participants, especially in gymnasiums, be nude.

According to Martial, a 1st century author in "Epigrams", writes of Jews who tried to pretend that they were uncircumcised by pulling the foreskin back over the heat of the penis and tying it with a fibula, and were embarrassed when they came undone in public.

The Talmud reports of Rabbis passing rules that this act of "Epispasm" (undoing the circumcision), is forbidden, and threatened those who were doing so with "no share in the world to come". The Rambam echoes this in his Mishneh Torah Tshuvah 3:6.

While people read these words, they rarely think upon them.

How does one stretch the foreskin after a circumcision?

If you are thinking of a brit periah, as circumcisions are done today, it would have been impossible for Jews to do epispasm. What could they pull? What skin could they stretch to force the skin to eventually cover the head of the penis?

Despite the number of possible techniques, the reality is that the type of circumcision reported by 1st century doctors prior to to implementation of brit periah is this:

The one performing the circumcision would take a sheet of leather with a small hole. The child's penis would be pressed against to that only the head of the penis with the surrounding foreskin protruded. A knife was used to trim that extra skin (those born with shorter foreskins did not have more of it removed). And that was brit milah.

Brit Periah was the Rabbinical brainchild to stop the mass assimilation that was going on after the fall of the temple and the holocaust known as the Bar Kochba Rebellion.

What is Brit Periah?

Today, the mohel trims away all of the orlah (foreskin), then goes down further and scrapes away the periah, the mucus membrane that provides lubrication, usually with the thumbnail. Some Rabbis justify the change by saying that brit periah is what God intended (see the commentaries in Joshua 5:3-5:5 which doesn't mention any such thing, but is often used to justify the act).

So did the people of Shechem suffer?

As with any type of cutting, removing a small bit of foreskin was probably irritating as hell, and given the lack of antiseptics, there was likely some inflammation.

But it certainly wasn't incapacitating.

Was it enough to stop the men from defending themselves? And were the Middle-Eastern women so dainty that they couldn't defend their husbands? According to Deuteronomy 25:12, women were pretty adept to defend their husbands, even without weapons.

No. It's just a plot device in the story to explain how a couple of kids could wipe out an entire city and take possession of it all by themselves.

And it's just a story. Just like saying that the circumcision that Jews do today was commanded by God.

Vayetzei (Part 4) Genesis 28:10-32:3

Leah's Drug of Choice

Here is a tongue-in-cheek explanation of Genesis 30:14-16:

I wrote it in this way to make it easier to remember. But let's look at what I meant by "weed".

What was the "weed"

In the Torah, the term is דודאים, or the plural of דודא which has found its way into modern Hebrew as "mandrake".

But was the duadim really a mandrake?

The idea of a Mandrake was acquired because the Septuagint used it as such, perhaps based on some tradition of the time, and the Latin Vulgate continued it, and the English translations maintained it. Even Jewish texts that translate into English use "Mandrake". And as I mentioned, modern Hebrew also uses that term.

Ibn Ezra, who was quoting the Targum Onkelos, who was quoting the Talmud (see below) calls it yivruchin.

It should also be noted that if a noun ends with an aleph (א), and has an "ah" sound, it usually means that it is a feminine Aramaic word, since Hebrew would end a feminine noun with a heh (ה), which makes the same sound.

It's something to consider. (Another possibility is that, like Rephaim, the word is Canaanite and incorporated into the Hebrew text.)

Other Traditions

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 99b) quotes the supposed keepers of the oral tradition. So one would expect the answers there, right?

"What is duadim? Rav said, "yavruchei". Levi said, "siglei", Rabbi Yonatan said, "seviskei".

The Targum Onkelos was siding with the first opinion, and modern scholars consider this to be a term for Mandrake, although the Rashi on that page of the Talmud says, "It is unclear what this is". As for the other words, seglei are either "violets" or "cyprus" or "narcissus", depending on which commentator you prefer. And seviskei is :a certain kind of spice" according to Rashi.

So even the keepers of the oral traditions cannot keep it straight, nor the interpreters of the keepers' traditions. (This should give religious Jews some pause, but it doesn't).

As noted, Ibn Ezra goes along with Onkelos, and adds that it has a pleasant fragrance as this word is used in Song of Songs 7:14 and adds that it has a human form, obviously interpreting yavruchei as "Mandrake". He, the Ramban, and the Radak (all post Middle-Ages) agree that the plant does not have any special powers of inducing a pregnancy. Earlier periods believed that it could. ("Get thee pregnant on a mandrake root" - John Donne poem).

The Ramban said that Rachael simply wanted the Mandrake for their fragrance. Based on 30:15, he suggests that the root can arouse man's sexual desires. According to the Radak, Rachael was mistaken in believing that it could help her get pregnant.

The Rashbam, based on the last usage of dudaim (Jeremiah 24:1) where it speaks of them as baskets (שני דודאי תאנים - "two BASKETS of figs"), that they are figs.

I was considering that since baskets can be made of hemp, that perhaps that was the drug, the weed.

But, then again, maybe not.

Nobody seems to know.

Conclusion

Based on these few verses, nobody seems to know what the dudaim are. They have come to a consensus, based on preferences, on anything from mandrake to violets to a cypress (or figs).

The verse itself seems to indicate something special (not figs), something that can be picked in the field (not cypress), and something that an unloved wife (29:31) could use to entice her husband to desire her. Was it the false belief in it's aphrodisiac powers? What was so special that Leah's son was picking them for his mother that an infertile Rachael wanted them?

The text doesn't say. We can only conjecture, and many do.

But here's a final thought:

There is a tradition in Judaism that, "Without the Oral Torah, one cannot understand the Written Torah", and "The sages were the keepers of the Oral Torah".

Here is but one tiny example that the sages didn't know, that they were making things up based on what sounded good as part of a story, or perhaps were repeating what someone else thought sounded good. But in any case, they were not keepers of any ancient wisdom.

Like other primitive societies, they believed that certain plants could do things that they couldn't.

And THAT is probably how the LXX, echoing the views of the sages, determined that "Mandrake" was the drug of choice.

Vayetzei (Part 3) Genesis 28:10-32:3

The Story of Esau, the Believer, and Jacob, the Skeptic

In the Book of Genesis, we read the story of twins being born, Jacob and Esau.

Jacob sees that his brother is starving, near death, and is willing to only give him food if he gives him something in return, the bechorah, a  non-physical association with getting a double-portion of an inheritance.

Esau does so, after all "What good is a bechorah to me if I am dead?" (25:32)

Jacob seems to keep this bit of extortion to himself.

Jacob's mother prefers her son Jacob over Esau, and she knows the special "blessing" that her husband is about to give will define which of her sons will serve the other. So she orders Jacob (27:8) to listen to her, and to do as he is told, by deceiving Isaac.

It is only in the middle of deceiving his father, of pretending to be Esau, that Jacob says the name YHVH. He is obviously trying to pretend that he is the religious one, the brother who went out to bring fresh meat to his ailing father.

It is the only time, since he was born, and as long as Jacob lives in the house of his father, that "God" was ever mentioned by him. Even saying a name of "God" that he had heard his brother utter was only done as part of a deception.

Now let's fast forward to Jacob leaving home to find a wife. His father blesses him with God's name "El Shaddai", which is primarily used when wanting to express God as a force of fertility and protection. 

Jacob doesn't respond. He just leaves. He even goes the opposite direction from where his father tells him, hangs out for an unspecified amount of time in Be'er Sheva, and it is only then, that he begins his trip to marry his cousins. (When Esau finds this out, in order to try to get back into his mother's good graces, he marries a first-cousin as well, from his Uncle Ishmael.)

While sleeping, Jacob sees God standing next to him.

It should be obvious that Jacob's understanding of what a God is was quite primitive, and was, up until that point, of no interest to him.

When Jacob wakes up, he says, addressing his words in the third person, as if to himself, he makes a neder (a personal vow), and at the end, changes to the second-person, to confirm this to God, saying:

"If YHVH-Elohim will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to wear [and make it] so that I will come back to my father's house in peace... THEN  YHVH shall be my Elohim, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be Elohim's house; and of all that You will give me, a tenth, I will give the tenth to You." (28:20-22)

Jacob is making a deal, "I know what Gods are supposed to be able to do. So if you can do these things for me, proving that you are Who you claim, then I will serve you. Until then, I'll hedge my bets."

It also appears that he still had a very anthropomorphic idea of what a God was.

And as we will read in the next parashah, Jacob will be comfortable not returning home, and it is only after YHVH insists, and Jacob checks it out with his wives, that he leaves the house of his father in-law to head in the opposite direction!

No wonder YHVH sent an angel to beat some sense into him!

Vayetzei (Part 2) Genesis 28:10-32:3

One of the first stories in this parashah is that of what is famously known as "Jacob's Ladder".

This story is about 11 lines long and so much has been written bout it.

Since the story is fairly short, let's look at some of the interesting points as well as the problems. Any word with an asterisk (*) after it is a word that is often used, but one that I would prefer not to, but to explain every sentence change would make this post way too long!

28:11 -  And he happened upon* the place, and he stayed* there [all night], because the sun had set*; and he took [one of the] stones from the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.

One word that I will explain is "happened upon". פגע is an odd word to use and typically means that there is some sort of intermediary involved, as when Abraham requested the local people to plead his place on his behalf to another. Because of that, Rashi and others comment that this indicates that Jacob prayed, even though, from the time he was born until he was ready to leave home, the only time that he mentioned God was to pretend to be Esau and fool his father, indicating that Esau was more of a faithful believer than Jacob.

And yes, he chose to have a rock for a pillow.

28:12 - And he dreamed, and behold! A ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to the heavens*; and behold! The angels of Elohim ascending and descending on it.

The Hebrew word, "HaShamayim" is often translated as "the heavens". Some will mangle it to "heaven" to fit an ideological view. Keep in mind that, as noted in Genesis 1:8, "shamayim" is but a euphemism for "rakia", meaning the "firmament", a solid surface that was but a few miles above.

The angels flying (or climbing) up and down these ladders (the sages argue as to which order. Did they ascend and then descend?) are the source of many metaphysical interpretations by modern theists. The simple explanation is that this spot was the place where angels would arrive to the land and return back home, above the heavens.

Later on, Jacbo will encounter a camp of these angels and get them to work for him (in the next parashah, "And [Jacob] sent them...").

28:13 - And, behold, YHVH stood beside him, and said: "I am YHVH, Elohim of Abraham, your father, and Elohim of of Isaac. The land that you are lying upon, I will give to you and to your seed."

Onkelos had a problem with the anthropomorphic "YHVH stood beside him" and changed it to "the glory of YHVH stood beside him". Because that which is standing beside you, even in a dream, should not be a God. Although later on, Jacob will also say, "I have seen God face to face", and the Targumist will take issue with that as well.

Most likely, YHVH is simply repeating his promise (as one who deals in real estate) that was given to Abraham and Isaac, and not simply the special angel land that he was lying upon.

Angels and an anthropomorphic God - as the introduction to a story, that alone should tell us that this is a supernatural event.

28:14 And your seed will be as [numerous as] the dust of the earth, and you (your descendants) will spread out to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. And with you and in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

When Isaac sent Jacob forth, he blessed him in the name of "El Shaddai". This name is primarily used to describe God as on of fertility and protection. Here, YHVH is echoing that theme.

28:15 - "And, behold! I am with you and will protect you wherever you go, and will bring you back into this soil; for I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken to you."

The Targumist has a lot of problems with God saying "I will be with you", since that implies a physical presence which is disturbing. So he changed it to "My memra will assist you". A memra is a supernatural entity that represents God, but isn't God. It is a sort of intermediary that the Sages invented to get around God having a form, but only made things worse!

Later on, you will see that YHVH does keep his promises, and is hanging around Jacob, and has a heck of a time getting Jacob to return to the soil where he had the vision, and thus complete the bargain in the next line:

28:16 - And Jacob awoke from his sleep, and he said: 'Surely YHVH is by this place; and I didn't know it!'

The Targumist was also uncomfortable with God having a form and being "by this place" or "near this spot", so he changed it to "the glory of YHVH dwells by this spot".

28:17 -  And he was awestruck and said: 'How terrifying is this place! this is none other than the house Elohim, and this is a gateway of the heavens!"

The belief of the time is that there were entry points into the raqia. This is expressed during the flood story, and is still maintained as part of Jewish prayer. Every Friday night they praise God who "...opens daily the doors of the gateways of the East, and splits the openings of the rakia" to let the sun in and out.

Jacob was astounded that he found such a place.

28:18 - And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

The "pillar" or מצבה (matzevah) is something that Jacob will do a lot. In the book of Genesis he is erecting them repeatedly (a total of 6 times). It is a term used today for a headstone, but it means a marker, a reminder of something special about that place as an announcement to others.

28:19 - And he called the name of that place Beth-El, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.

There is an interesting thing about this naming. It would appear that this place was known as Luz, and Jacob renamed it. But why mention what it was named before? Later, he will go to "Luz, which is Beth-El" and when he is reunited with Joseph, he will remind him that God appeared to him in Luz, but won't mention Beth-El. And other books too. For example, Joshua will connect Luz to Beth-El 3 times, while Judges mentions Luz twice, but not Beth-El.

This is helpful in dating some of these books and is interesting to think about.

28:20 - And Jacob made a vow (neder), saying: 'If YHVH-Elohim will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on...

A "neder" is not really a vow, but there is no really good single English word for it. It is akin to establishing something as though it has been commanded (say, a halakha) and treating it as a personal commitment.

But look at what he is saying, so long as YHVH-Elohim is with him on the way, protecting him, giving him food and clothing, and brings Jacob back to his father's house (next verse) THEN the promise takes effect.

Now ask yourself, did this happen? If so, when? If not, did the neder ever become fulfilled?

It's worth pondering.

28:21 - so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then YHVH shall be my Elohim...

This is the last part of God's part of the deal that Jacob is putting on God!

But what does it mean that "YHVH will be my Elohim"? Remember, up to that point, Jacob hadn't really been into having a God. And Elohim is a particular expression of a God as one who is to be obeyed, feared, with no expectation of a reward. I explain the nature of an Elohim here.

There is no satisfactory commentary about this sentence. The Targum uses, "...then the memra of YHVH will be my Elohim." Here, the Targum is treating "Elohim" as though it is speaking of a supernatural expression of YHVH (like an angel), and that Jacob is referring to that. Rashi somewhat alludes to that, but again, it's not a satisfying answer.

I prefer, "You do this for me, then I will be yours, to serve and obey in all things."

28:22 - and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be Elohim's house; and of all that you will give me, a tenth, I will give the tenth to You.'

We now have a play on words, and that "Beth-El" is based on "the house of Elohim", which refers to the rock. The Targum tweaks this because he doesn't like the sound of handing things to God. He prefers, "I will lay before you a tenth...".

It should be noted that a "house of God" is a place of worship, and so Rashi indicates that when Jacob leaves Laban's house, he stops by and pours a libation upon it. Prayer wasn't a thing that Jacob did. He erected stones, made promises, and made offerings. Of course, there is no text that says that he offered a tenth of all of his flocks to God.

Perhaps this was an insert by the later priesthood?

It's hard to say!

Vayetzei (Genesis 28:10-32:3)

This parashah is chock full of fun things.

But let's look at the first four words: "And Jacob want out from Be'er Sheva" (28:10).

When Jacob was mentioned previously (28:5), he was north of Be'er Sheva, living with his parents, and it says "...and he (Jacob) went to Paddan-Aram..."

Paddan-Aram (an Aramaic word, which is also interesting), is NORTH of where Jacob was living with his parents.

Here's a map:

According to the verses, Jacob was with his parents where the bottom arrow is pointing, and 5 verses later he is dwelling south of them, and then has to head north (upper arrow) to get to his final destination.

It's almost as thought the author of this part of the story wasn't interested in having continuity with the other story (which has a few verses breaking them apart when it talks about Esau getting married to his 1st cousin, just as Jacob was planning to do the same).

There are many apologetics about this. One is that Jacob was running away from Esau (the verse doesn't say that, of course), and hiding, and waited to head north again past where Esau lived to get to his uncle's house.

Another is that Shem and Eber had a yeshivah there and Jacob decided to go learn for a few years before heading north. Not to avoid Esau, but to learn things. (Again, there is no verse that indicates that Shem and Eber were hanging out together, or that Jacob knew them, or that they lived in Be'er Sheba.

Be'er Sheba is also interesting because after the Akeida, instead of heading home, as one would expect Abraham and his son and the attendants to do, they also went in a different direction and went to Be'er Sheba instead. Abraham talks to God, then goes to Be'er Sheba, but it doesn't say why. It does seem to be a holy place to YHVH (Genesis 21:33-34).

Later, when he is older, Isaac also goes to Be'er Sheba and encounters YHVH who appears to him (Genesis 26:24).

And as Jacob starts to leave Be'er Sheba, and settles down for the night, he sees YHVH in a dream who introduces Himself (28:13), which causes problems with Exodus 6:3.

So let's go back to the original question, why was Jacob in Be'er Sheba?

Was it to meet YHVH, like his father and grandfather did? Was it to go study Torah with Shem and Eber? Was it to hide from his brother?

Or is this another example of discontinuity due to multiple authors?

The text doesn't say, but I'm leaning towards the latter position.

Toldot (Part 2) - Genesis 25:19-28:9

This is simply a list of 26 odd things in the parashah that some people may miss:

25:19 - In the previous verses, it started with "these are the generations of Ishmael" and then immediately listed all who came after. This one does not. It just...stops. It's almost as if it belongs to the previous chapter, but a new story was then attached to it, inserting some unrelated stories.

25:20 - For those who want to say that the burial of Sarah happened immediately after the Akeida rather than years later, then there are those who calculate that Rebecca was 3 years old when she married Isaac. For those who hold that there was a delay of several years between the two, that problem does not exist.

25:21 - The Hebrew word עתר is commonly translated as "entreat". It is used to ask God for a favor. להתפלל, a word that we commonly associate with "to pray", only occurs in the Torah 7 times (not in this section), and is always used to beg God to stop killing!

25:22 - "And [Rebecca] walked to 'seek higher guidance' from YHVH." The apologetic is that she walked to talk to a prophet. Really? The only one up to that point that YHVH was talking to, according to the text, was Abraham, so why not give his name? No, this is an anthropomorphism that is disturbing to some.

25:26 - The name "Jacob" can also mean "one who follows", who came after Esau. But it is also one who does not want to lead as we will see through the rest of Genesis as he flips between the names Israel and Jacob.

25:26-27 - Jacob was a mamma's boy, and didn't like to go out. He preferred cooking. Isaac preferred Esau who loved the outdoors and was a provider of meat for the family.

25:31 - This entire section of selling the bechora makes no sense as a plot device for any future stories. It is never mentioned again (except in passing in Genesis 27:36 when Esau cries that Jacob took what was not his to take, TWICE), and nobody else in the family seems to know about this and ignores Esau's later complaint. It appears that this is simply a way of explaining the Edomites and their relationship with the Jewish people, with Esau as their patriarch.

26:1 - "There was a famine in the land" - this seems to be a reoccurring theme. However, unlike the Abraham version of the exact same story, including the name of the king, God tells Isaac to avoid Egypt. God even repeats all of the promises in the next few sentences: "go to a land that I will show you" and "I will give these lands to you and your offspring".

26:6 - Here we have a repeat of the two Abraham versions of "don't tell them that you are my wife, tell them that you are my sister" decades after Abraham supposedly did the same thing. What is more likely, that this was a common practice, or this was all the same story, but different versions?

26:18 - Isaac is following inf the foots of his father, repeating his travels, and re-digging the wells, finding water where there was none. This will be a common theme later on, where some descendants seem to have a knack for finding water.

26:21 - "Sitnah" - This is the feminine form of the word "Satan". The term "Satan" is used in a few places in the Torah, but is never a personification of the supernatural, but an adjective or verb form.

26:24 - YHVH appeared to Isaac, just as he had to Abraham and will to Jacob. Some translations are uncomfortable with YHVH appearing in any form that can be seen, whether awak or in a dream. The verse hear says it was night, but not that Isaac was dreaming.

26:28 - This is a repeat of King Abimelech making a deal with a Patriarch, and celebrating that together just as Abimelech did with Abraham (although some commentators, such as the Rashbam, chastise Abraham for making the same deal.)

26:24 - This verse telling us that Esau got married likely belongs at a later point in the story since Esau seems to still be living at home and there is no mention of his wife or family during the episodes that follow.

27:1 - "When Isaac became old" - It should be noted that Isaac will live for A LOT of years after this. He will be alive with Joseph becomes king! Also, it says that his "eyes became dim from seeing". Most people are not sure what that means, especially since he just spent a large amount of time travelling around, digging wells, and making deals with a king.

27:5 - The conspiracy between Rebecca, who didn't care for he hairy son, and Jacob, who never mentioned the bechorah scene, is very odd. If you have faith in God, there's no reason to cheat your way to the top. But there is something else - what is the big deal about a blessing? It is being treated as though it is a special magical spell. In fact, the entire blessing seems to be a prophecy imposed by the writer. What Isaac declared would happen did not happen to Jacob, but, it was a theme that is found in many of the prophetic texts, promising that nations of the world will bow to you and so forth. Obviously a story written much later as a promise of hope.

27:18 - The interaction between Isaac and Jacob is reminiscent of Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf - "you voice", "your scent", etc. It has caused some commentators to say that Isaac know what was going on, but played along anyhow. That may or may not be true, based on Isaac's reaction later on.

27:23 - "He did not recognize [Jacob] because his hands were hairy" is a comical farce.

27:33 - Isaac trembling when he found out that he was duped should indicate that he wasn't aware that Jacob had fooled him. But then, he never complains after that.

27:35 - Apparently all blessings have a 1-time use. But then, you can't have the Edomites being blessed by God since they were seen as oppressors and this is likely a commentary on how they will one day be subservient to the Jews. (see 27:40).

27:41 - This might be immediately after the deception event, or it could be years later. Both positions are cited. Some also use the verse to indicate that Esau wanted to have his father killed. It also appears that he would not kill his own brother until after his father was dead. Who will live on for decades.

27:42 - Somebody told all of this to Rebecca. It doesn't say who. For some odd reason, Rebecca never tells Isaac, but only Jacob.

27:46 - Rebecca manipulates Isaac once more to get Jacob out of the picture. After all, he's over 40 and should have a wife.

28:2 - Isaac tells Jacob to go visit his uncle and find a cousin to marry.

28:3 - "Shaddai" is always cited for either fertility or protection on the road. Here it is the latter, although Jacob is going for the purpose of marriage.

28:9 - Esau finally heard what bothered his father so much - taking Canaanite wives instead of marrying cousins! So he goes and marries the daughter of Ishmael, who is his cousin. What a son!

Toldot - Genesis 25:19-28:9

We are told of the story of the birth of Jacob and Esau, Jacob's "issues" with his brother, the stealing of the blessing, and his running away from home (which would take place years later).

But when did all of this happen, and in what order was it?

Often, while growing up, people will hear sermons explaining things, telling us that Jacob was preparing a mourner's meal, that Esau held his father's legacy in disdain, and many other details that are nowhere in the story.

Adding details is often what teachers do. In many cases, it is their primary teaching tool.

But what about the timeline for this event?

The initial genealogy

Let's look at the Torah's genealogy up to this point, using the creation of the world as "Year-0":

0000 - Adam       (5:1)
0130 - Seth       (5:4)
0235 - Enosh      (5:7)
0325 - Kenan      (5:9)
0395 - Mahalalel  (5:12)
0460 - Jared      (5:15)
0622 - Enoch      (5:18)
0687 - Methuselah (5:21)
0874 - Lamech     (5:25)
1056 - Noah       (5:28)
1556 - Shem       (5:32)  

1658 - Arpachshad (11:11)
1693 - Shelah     (11:12)
1723 - Eber       (11:14)
1757 - Peleg      (11:16)
1787 - Reu        (11:18)
1819 - Serug      (11:20)
1849 - Nahor      (11:22)
1878 - Terach     (11:24)
1948 - Abraham    (11:26)
2048 - Isaac      (21:5)
2108 - Jacob      (25:26) 

Whoever wrote chapter 5 was very precise in how it listed the genealogy from Adam to Shem.

Whoever wrote chapter 11 was also very precise, with one exception. Verse 11:10 tells us that Shem had a son 2 years after the flood, when Shem was 100. But 5:32 told us that Shem was born when Noah was 500, and that the flood began when Noah was 600.

It is this distinction that shows that the authorship of chapter 5 and chapter 11 were very close, not not exactly the same.

About those lentils...

The rest of the Torah is usually not that specific. Normally, you have to work to get any information, and this parashah is no different.

Here is what we have:

Abraham dies at age 175 (25:7) - in the year 2123.

At that time, Jacob was 15 (see verse 25:26). Several verses later (25:30), we have the story of Esau giving up his first-born rights for some red food to Jacob.

These are unrelated stories, but the assumption is that they are in sequence and that they are happening in rapid succession.

Yet the verse tells us that Abraham dies, then it tells us that earlier Jacob was born, and then it tells us that later, there was Jacob preparing a meal of "red stuff".

The assumption by many is that Esau and Jacob were 15 years old when Jacob was preparing food, but the text doesn't tell us that.

So were they 15? The text doesn't say. They could have been much older.

Further, there are those who combine the earlier statement that Abraham died with the later text about the meal, and make a connection, telling us that it was a meal for mourners when, again, the text is silent about that as well.

One odd bit that should be noted is the price of the "red stuff" extorted by Jacob to his starving brother was his "bachor", his status as a "first born", having come out of the womb first.

After that even, nothing more is ever said about the "bachor". In fact, Isaac seems to be completely unaware of this odd transaction. I suggest that this little story is a stand-alone to tell us why Esau wll later be called "Edom" (red), and explain why there are Edomites in the land.

The magical blessing...

The next time we read of an age, Esau (and by extension, Jacob) was 40 years old (26:34). He married two woman that his mom and dad didn't approve of. Rebecca appeared to not like the match more than Isaac. In fact, Isaac still had a fondness for Esau, for whom he had a special blessing.

The next part of the story, we have Rebecca convincing Jacob to trick her husband into giving Jacob that magical blessing.

The entire blessing episode is very weird. The Sages debate whether Isaac was really ignorant of who was wearing those hairy arm pieces. It is reminiscent of Little Red Riding Hood, "My, what an odd voice you have."

Now, did this part happen before or after Esau got married? After all, Esau seems to be hanging around the house quite a bit, providing for the family. It is quite possible that the marriage part happened later and the deception happened before.

The text doesn't tell us, and the Torah will often jump backward and forward in time as different stories are stitched together.

And in verse 27:41, Esau is upset because the magical blessing was, for some reason, a one-shot magical spell, and so, he plots to kill Jacob.

(As an aside, the blessing that Isaac gives Esau seems to be representative of the relationship between Israel and the Edomites of a later period, and it could be that the author of those times was inserting a prophecy that was fulfilled in his days).

In verse 28:5, Jacob leaves his parents' house to get a wife. In verse 29:11, he sees and wants Rachael for his wife.

So how old was he?

The Yeshivah of Shem and Eber...

Whenever one of the characters need a gap of time to be inserted, the sages pulled the Yeshivah of Shem and Eber" card. The patriarchs seemed to like to spend time there.

Of course, Shem died in 2158 at the ripe old age of 600, when Jacob was 50. So they would like to have you believe that Jacob left home before he was 50, spent time in the local Yeshivah, and then went to Laban's house to look for a wife.

It is important to note that Rashi says that Jacob spent 14 years in the study halls of Shem and Eber.

How old was Jacob when he met Laban?

While the text doesn't tell us how old Jacob was when he arrived, we can us other verses to retroactively approximate it.

First, Jacob met Pharaoh when he was 130 years old (47:9). So this is the year 2238.

And we are told how long Joseph ruled (9 years - 45:6 and 41:53). And we are told that when Joseph got the job, he was 30 years old (41:46). So he was 39 years old when his father was 130.

So Joseph was born when Jacob was 91.

Some people mistakenly say that Jacob left Laban's house when he was 91 based on this, but they leave out his other travels and setting up camps (he really did NOT want to return home to his father who was still alive (he died in 2228 at the ripe old age of 180).

Now how long Jacob and his family traveled between the time he left Laban and settled in one place after another, he met Esau, his daughter was raped in Shechem, the sons of Jacob took over Shechem as their center of operations.

It should have been months. But it was likely a few years, due to the rape of Dinah and her age relationship with Joseph.

Since Joseph was born when Jacob was 91, this means that, in 2199, Jacob was still working for Laban when his son Joseph was born.

In 31:38, Jacob wants to leave Laban and tells him that he had been with him for 20 years.

It appears that Jacob left soon after the birth of Joseph. If that is so, then Jacob went into Laban's employ in 2179, or when Jacob was 71.

So that leaves us with 56 years, from age 15-71, that we cannot really pin down what happened, and when it did.

If you want to use Rashi's argument that Jacob went to learn for 14 years before going to Laban, then he left home at age 57.

And so, this is why you have some commentators say that Jacob's deception took place when he was in his teens (to connect the bachor to the blessing), and Esau was seething for decades, until he had enough, he was married at 40, was creating a legacy, and his parents still favored Jacob.

And if we hold that some of this is part of the story, then he held onto the grudge for 17 years.

Of course, that's all conjecture.

In reality, the Torah is silent when all of this happened.

Everything else is just Midrash.

Chayei Sarah (Part 4) - Genesis 23:1-25:18

One of the things that I find fascinating about Genesis 24 is that it introduces two new words that we've not seen before: בתולה and עלמה (b'tulah and almah).

B'tulah means "virgin". It always does. There is only a feminine form, for obvious reasons.

Almah means "one who was unseen but then was seen", and there are masculine as well as feminine forms; elem is the masculine form and almah is the feminine form.  

It is difficult for me to mention these two without bringing up Christian apologetics concerning almah because that is the word in Isaiah 7:14 that they translate as "virgin" in order to fit their specific ideology. 

However, it doesn't mean that.

(Note: I will be representing the letter ע with "A", ל with "L", ם or מ with "M", ה with "H", and נ with "N").

As I have said, there is a Hebrew word עלם (ALM - elem) which is a masculine term meaning "one who was hidden (not seen) and is now seen". See 1Samuel 17:56 and 20:22 for examples.

The feminine form is עלמה (ALMH almah), meaning "one who was hidden (not seen) and is now seen". Several examples of that will be listed below. It is the same 3-letter root, but a "ה" (heh) is appended to it to make it feminine. 

An elem (ALM) may or may not have had intercourse in his life, but that's irrelevant because intercourse does not define him as an elem. But if he was behind a tree, hidden from view, and then he steps to one side and you new see him, that defines him as an elem.

In another book (Exodus 2:8), we will read of Miriam who was watching her baby brother (Moses) from behind the bulrushes and stepped forward to be seen and address Pharaoh's daughter. The status of her hymen did not define her as an almah (ALMH), but, rather, her going from being unseen to being seen by the daughter of Pharaoh. 

Let me repeat: both almah (ALMH) and elem (ALM) are share the same root, "ALM", and is connected with the Hebrew word ne'elem, (NALM) meaning "hidden one.".And the Hebrew word Betulah will always refer to a virgin (there is, obviously, no male counterpart). 

So why didn't the translators use "female who appeared" rather than "maiden", as it is used in some places?

Most likely, there was no Greek word equivalent, and so they simply used a Greek word for "maiden", even though an almah can be of any age, and any marriage status.

It is when the Vulgate used "virgo" in only the Isaiah 7:14 occurrence of almah that Christian apologetics went into full force.

A few more forms of ALM:

להתעלם - (l'hitalem - to ignore. Reflective form of "to not perceive")
להעלם - (l'heialem - to disappear. Passive form of "not perceived")

Almah is a noun form with the same root idea: "had not been perceived" or more simply, "she who has come into view".


So let's look at a list of where almah/elem is used.

Proverbs 30:18-20

There are three things that are concealed from me, and four I do not know: The way of the eagle in the heavens, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with an Almah.

This verse is focusing on the idea of concealment. We have an eagle that is too high to see, a serpent that is blending in with a rock and remains unseen, a ship that moves beyond the horizon and is unseen by those standing by the shore, and a woman who was not seen who shows herself to the man, and the two of them hide from prying eyes. All four of them deal with concealment. The first three have no ulterior motive, while the fourth is for a specific indulgence, and the next verse indicates:

Thus is the way of an adulterous woman. She eats and wipes her mouth and says, “I have committed no sin”.

(Note: many commentators, both Jewish (Metzudat David, Eben Ezra, etc.) and Christian (Barnes, Matthew Henry, etc.) agree that there is an intimacy going on between the man an the almah in verse 30:19. And so, for them, verse 30:20 is seen as an extension of verse 30:19, as in "the way of a man with an almah, [for] such is the way of an adulterous woman..." this is based on the numbering in verse 30:18.

Even if you hold that the almah in 30:19 is unconnected to verse 30:20, and hold that the almah is not committing adultery (and is an unmarried woman simply involved in a lover's tryst), we still do not know if she is a virgin. We only read of her passion being physically expressed, and so the status of her hymen is irrelevant).

Psalm 68:26

The singers go before and the minstrels follow after. In the midst there are Ahlmah (pl.) playing timbrels.

A parade is coming down the street, and the ladies playing their timbrels are coming into view. The status of their hymens are irrelevant.

Song of Songs 1:3

Because of the fragrance of your goodly oils, your name is ‘oil poured forth.’ Thus the Ahlmah (pl.) loved you.

The verse speaks of a young woman coming out of hiding into the bedroom of her lover. 

The super commentator, Rashi, indicates that if this is a selfish love (prostitute), then she is not a virgin, but if this is a pure love, then she is a betulah. Almah, in this case only represents her coming into view before her lover.

Song of Songs 6:8

There are 60 queens and 80 concubines, and Ahlmah (pl.) without number.

Each of these three categories represents the lovers of the king. In short, they are all non-virgins. The first category are the queens, who are married and enjoy their exalted position with the king. The next are the concubines, who will also provide offspring for the king, although without the exalted status. The final status are those (without number) who come being unseen (outside) and go into the king's chamber, have sex, and leave, never to be seen again.

Genesis 24:16

This is the story of Rachael being spied upon by Eliezer, seeking of one who is virtuous enough for his master. From the point of view of God, seeing her through the eyes of Eliezer we read:

Now the na'arah (girl) was very fair of appearance. A betulah (virgin).

Eliezer did not know the status of her hymen, but God did. 

Genesis 24:43

And when Eliezer describing to Rachael's father how he was waiting for a sign and the daughter came into view he says:

…Let it be the almah who comes out [appears] to draw and to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water to drink from your jug.”

Exodus 2:8

When Miriam comes out of hiding from the bulrushes to speak to the daughter of Pharaoh:

The daughter of Pharaoh said, “Go [fetch a wet nurse]” so the almah went and summoned the boy’s mother.

Whether or not she had a hymen was irrelevant to the story, only that she came out of hiding and approached the princess.

Joel 1:8

I am using this verse for virgin, just because it is sometimes used as an exception, when it is not:. Here, context is everything:

Lament like a betulah (virgin), girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.

This is speaking of one who should weep like a virgin, who was betrothed, and he died before their wedding night.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore He, my lord, will give you a sign. Behold, the almah [she-who-came-into-view] is pregnant, and she shall give birth to a son and call him "God is with us".

This brings us back to the beginning of this explanation. 

The King is shaky in his faith and he sees that the battle ahead against the enemy will be a long one. The prophet goes to him to say "See that young lady coming into view? Before she has given birth to a child, you will have won this war and you will call [her child] "Immanu-El" for you will know that God was with you."

It is akin to saying, "By the rise of the first moon, You will be king!" where the prophecy is about being king, not about the rising of the moon, which is just establishing a time period.

Summary

To say that almah means "virgin" is a lie.

As to the Greek word used, there really isn't any for "female who was not seen and now is", and so "betrothed" was used. And, perhaps, a betrothed woman could be a virgin, which would explain the Latin use of the term.

But there are no virgin births in the Hebrew text. 

Here is a meme that summarizes this nicely:

Chayei Sarah (Part 3) - Genesis 23:1-25:18

In the story of Rebecca, of the servant of Abraham bringing gifts (among which are camels), watching if she would water his camels, to bringing her back on a camel, and her falling off (or perhaps an inelegant dismount) from the camel when she saw Isaac (Genesis 24:64), one would think that there were camels everywhere in the Canaanite territories.

Well, during the period when much of Genesis was actually written or compiled, there were camels. But that was several centuries after the period when these events were supposed to have taken place.

It's akin to having a story set in the bronze age talking about having made so many iron tools (Genesis 4:22), or mentioning the Kings of Israel (Genesis 36:31) in a setting that was centuries before there were any kings.

It should be obvious to but the most loyal religionist that Moses (if he existed) did not write the Book of Genesis. His name isn't anywhere to be found within the text, and, as with Deuteronomy 1:1, there are so many indicators that the text was written so much later.

It's something to consider.

Finally, here's is a meme to summarize all of this:

Chayei Sarah (Part 2) - Genesis 23:1-25:18

To Beg, or to Harm?

In Genesis 23:8, we read:

וַיְדַבֵּר אִתָּם, לֵאמֹר:  אִם-יֵשׁ אֶת-נַפְשְׁכֶם, לִקְבֹּר אֶת-מֵתִי מִלְּפָנַי--שְׁמָעוּנִי, וּפִגְעוּ-לִי בְּעֶפְרוֹן בֶּן-צֹחַר

"And he spoke with them, saying: 'If it be your mind that I should bury my dead out of my sight, y'all hear me, and entreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar,"

The piel form of pigah (noted in red) generally means "to inflict harm". Yet in the Torah, it can also mean to ask one to deliver your message to another, to act upon your behalf. The connector (the lamed - ל) after pigah, indicates that difference, while the harming form would take on a different connector (את). 

It's a nuance that is often missed, that this active verb can be used two ways (like the verb lsapair can mean to get a haircut, or tell a story, which is also dependent upon the connectors).

So here we have Abraham initiating the request for a family burial cave. The people respect him (calling him "my lord"), and Ephron, the son of Tzochar (some transliterate Tz-Kh-R as Zohar) owns the plot of land.

Was Ephron a bad guy?

If you read the commentaries, Ephron was an opportunist who took advantage of a grieving widower and overcharged him. From the various Midrashim, he was described a bad person.

And if you ask many people who hear sermons about this guy, they will tell you, that he was a jerk.

But if you ignore what people are parroting and simply read the text, you will see that he, like Bilaam and others, wasn't really a bad guy. He offered to give Abraham the property for free!Abraham became belligerent and demanded to pay. And if Abraham has to repeat himself to somebody, well, that somebody must be up to no good!

No. Ephron wasn't a bad guy.

He was just someone trying to be helpful after the townspeople gave him Abraham's emotional request, addressed Abraham as "my lord". Some commentators will tell you that לא אדוני isn't simply "No, my lord", but "You are not my lord!".

Read the plain text for yourself as if you had never heard of this story before. It is sometimes hard not to parrot what you have been told. Don't read it as "How it should be read", but read it as it is written.

Just as the people of Babel did not wrong ("They must have! God didn't like what they were doing!"), neither did Ephron.

Chayei Sarah - Genesis 23:1-25:18

The Text

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ, הַמֹּשֵׁל, בְּכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ:  שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ, תַּחַת יְרֵכִי

24:2. And Abraham said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had: 'Put, please, your hand under my thigh.

וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ--בַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וֵאלֹהֵי הָאָרֶץ:  אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תִקַּח אִשָּׁה, לִבְנִי, מִבְּנוֹת הַכְּנַעֲנִי, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּקִרְבּוֹ

24:3. And I will make you swear by YHVH, Elohim of the heavens, and Elohim of the earth/land, that you shall not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.

The Swearing

In Genesis 24:2-3, Abraham tells his servant to make an oath, and to place his hand on Abraham's "thigh" and swear. According to Rashi, "One who takes an oath must take in his hand an object of commandment [by God]...and circumcision was the first commandment given to Abraham...it was precious to him."

If you look up the etymology of "Testify", it is related to the word "testicles", which was the object in the Roman empire where such oath-taking took place.

The sages who lived among the Romans had no problem with understanding "thigh" as being a euphemism for "genitals" (as it is also used in Numbers 5:27). It is the modern sensibilities that typically causes one to go, "What?!" when confronted with such a swearing in ceremony (which we no longer use today, as far as I know!).

A reverse Illeism (or not?)

Typically, when using the name YHVH, or YHVH-Elohim and another noun to identify God as also being that other thing as well, the personal pronoun הוא ("he") is used (e.g., "YHVH, HE is the Elohim" - Deut. 4:35). This is to specify, without ambiguity, that YHVH and Elohim are one and the same, at least, according to the Deuteronomists.

Another, but earlier form is to use "YHVH Elohim" to also indicate a unified deity. When YHVH-Elohim is in action, He is normally referred to in the singular form (there are rare exceptions, such as Genesis 3:22)..

A true Illeism would be Genesis 9:6, "...for in the image of Elohim, He made man", where there is an ambiguity who "He" is. To eliminate this ambiguity, "....for Elohim made man in His image" should have been used. It is the vague "He" that is causing the problem.

Genesis 24:3 doesn't create ambiguity from using "He", but creates it by omitting it. That's why I refer to it as a sort of "reverse illeism", if there is such a thing.

Because there are at least 6 different uses of the title "Elohim", meaning that it could refer to YHVH, or it could refer to other Gods, etc., saying:

"YHVH Elohim of the heavens, and Elohim of the land"

Could easily refer to:

• YHVH, Elohim of the heavens, and Elohim of the land" (3 Gods, which Christians would just love!)
• YHVH-Elohim of the heavens, and Elohim of the land (2 Gods for the dualists)
• YHVH-Elohim of the heavens, [who is] Elohim of the land (1 God for the monotheists).

So one can interpret this either way.

24:7 Refers to YHVH, Elohim of the heavens" but leaves out "Elohim of the land" when referring to the God who saved him. Which is interesting to me.

What the original intent was, we don't know. Since the Targum doesn't change this portion of the text, while I like the second version, I am leaning towards the third possibility, and chalking it up to sloppy writing. But it is fun to consider the other possibilities as well.

Anthropamorphism

There is one anthropomorphism in the verse that the Targum "tweaks" because he was uncomfortable with YHVH having a form, standing by Abraham while he was making his servant swear.

"I will make you swear by YHVH..."

The Targumist changes it to read, "I will make you swear by the memra of YHVH...". In this context, memra means God's divine-ness. 

However, memra, often makes the verse more strange than had it been left along.

For more about memra, click here.

Vayera (Part 4) - Genesis 18:1-22:24

(Because of my vacation, this post will be short)

Chapter 19 of Genesis has the famous story of Sodom & Gomorrah. It should be noted that while YHVH as a name appears an umber of times, as well as His angels, Elohim only appears near the end when it summarizes the chapter.

Genesis 19:24 - "Then YHVH caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone (nafrit) and fire."

And here is the summary line:

Genesis 19:29 - "And it came to pass, when Elohim destroyed the cities of the plains (kikar), that Elohim remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the turmoil (hafachah - to turn upside-down, ruin), when He overturned the cities where Lot dwelled.

This sets us up for a classic Illeism:

This mixing of the names represents different periods, and different views of God. One cannot use the typical "Well, YHVH is God when He is merciful,, and Elohim is when He is strict judgement", because both were quite destructive, and produced the same result. In fact, there are times when Elohim is very kind (speaking to Hagar when she cried out from being tortured by Sarah, promising her future son great things), and, like here, YHVH can be very strict.

The use of different names is not an indicator of a different God, nor of a different personality, but of a different group of people who held God to have a specific personality and background that was different from another group - the Yahwist versus the Elohist argument.

When this sudden shift takes place, as it does in Genesis 2:4, where Elohim ends and YHVH begins, we can often see that as as an indicator for a new story.

And because of that, it seem that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah ends at verse 19:28, and a new story with Elohim begins, telling us about the incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters.