CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS VA'YISHLACH 5770 - BS"D

2) Ch. 33, v. 18: "Va'yovo Yaakov sholeim ir Sh'chem" - To which city did Yaakov come?

3) Ch. 35, v. 14: "Bamokom asher di'beir ito" - Rashi says that he doesn't know what these words teach us. This is extremely difficult to understand. If not for these words we would not know where Yaakov built his altar.

4) Ch. 36, v. 3: "Bosmas" - Rashi says that this is Mochlas (28:9). The name "Mochlas" comes from the source word "m'chiloh," and indicates that Eisov was forgiven for his sins when he married. Is this a freebie?

5) Ch. 36, v. 24: "Hu Anoh" - There is a startling interpretation of Anoh's gender, a female. How does this fit into the words of our verse, which expresses itself in the male form four times when describing Anoh?

ANSWERS:

#1

The Zohar heChodosh says that Yaakov sent the angels Micho'el, Malkiel, and Shanandiel to help him in his difficulties with the upcoming encounter with Eisov. The Zohar adds that the numerical value of the names of these angels equals that of the word "ezras," - help of. They helped Yaakov, and therefore we begin the paragraph of our daily prayers where we extol Hashem for being the succour of our forefathers with the word "ezras." The Nitzotzei Shimshon says in the name of his Rebbi that "Vayishlach Yaakov malochim" has the same numerical value as the names of the three afore-mentioned angels, 676. The Nitzotzei Shimshon adds that this might be alluded to in Rashi when he says "malochim MaMaSH." The letters of the word MaMaSH, spelled Mem-Mem-Shin are the first letters of Micho'el, Malkiel, and Shanandiel. (Brought in Dvash L'fi by the Chid"o)

#2

Although a simple reading of these words states that he came to the city Sh'chem, the Rashbam says to read this verse as, "And Yaakov came to the city named Sholeim, which was the city of the man named Sh'chem."

#3

The answer is that there is a printing mistake, and these words of Rashi belong in verse 13 on the exact same words, "bamokom asher di'beir ito." Here it says that Hashem ascended from Yaakov "at the place that He spoke with him." It is obvious that Hashem left from the place at which He was, in front of Yaakov. Here Rashi's difficulty is understood. Some Chumoshim have this printed properly, indicating that these words of Rashi are on verse 13.

#4

The Breishis Zuta, the Medrash Breishis Rabboh 67:13, and the Medrash Rabboh Shmuel ch.17 all say that Eisov was forgiven because at the time of his marriage to Mochlas thoughts of repentance entered his mind. Possibly, Hashem is very magnanimous with forgiveness at the time one marries, to allow the person to truly be b'simchoh. As happy as he feels, if his n'shomoh is not happy because of sins, there is a lack of true happiness. This might be what is meant with the words "Samei'ach t'samach rayim ho'ahuvim," that Hashem should give happiness to the choson and kalloh. His forgiveness is their true happiness, "k'sa'meichacho y'tzircho," just as you gladdened Odom and Chavoh, who were without sin at the time of their marriage.

#5

Tosfos on the gemara B.B. 115b d.h. "m'la'meid" cites the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that Anoh was a woman. Even though the verse says "HU Anoh asher MOTZO es ha'yeimim bamidbor BIROSO es hachamorim l'Tzivon OVIV" (All the capitalized words are in the male form), Rabbeinu Tam posits that since Anoh inherited property from her father, which is very commonly done by a son rather than a daughter, the Torah uses male terms when discussing her. At first glance this seems to be a far-fetched interpretation. However, the Rebbe Reb Heshel brings a proof for this from Bmidbar 27:7. When Hashem advised Moshe that the daughters of Tzelofchod rightfully should receive an inheritance of their father's parcel of land in Eretz Yisroel, the Torah uses the male form. It says "Noson ti'tein LO'HE*M*," with a Mem in the male form, rather than "LO'HE*N*" in the female form.

It is quite possible that the other Baalei Tosfos who disagreed with Rabbeinu Tam were quite aware of this but felt that this is not a convincing proof. Indeed, where the Torah is actually discussing a woman receiving an inheritance it may be expressed in the male form. The Trumas Ha'deshen on Breishis 31:9, "Va'yatzeil Elokim es miknei avicheM," also points out that the male form is used for Rochel and Leah. He explains that the male form is used because they received a portion of the livestock which is normally an inheritance to sons. He also cross-references the words of the verse mentioned by the Rebbe Reb Heshel. In both of these verses the Torah discusses receiving property which is usually earmarked for a male. However, just because a woman has received an inheritance is not a justifiable reason for the Torah to use the male form when discussing a totally unrelated matter, as in our verse, which relates who Anoh's father was and that Anoh discovered or crossbred animals to create "yeimim" when grazing his (her) father's donkeys.

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights