Thinking Torah
Rav Alex Israel - aletal@netvision.net.il

Parshat Vayeshev 
Tranquility and Turbulence

Rashi quotes a disturbing Midrash in the opening lines of the Parsha:

“Vayeshev Yaakov - Yaakov wished to dwell in calm and tranquillity. The trouble (lit. rage) of Joseph pounced upon him. God says: Tzaddikim want a peaceful life? Is the good that awaits them in the World To Come not sufficient that they desire calm and tranquillity in this world?”

I say that it is disturbing, because if we are to take the message of this midrashic comment to heart, then what is being demanded from the righteous is to expel all aspirations of personal calm and harmony, and to set forth on a path of torment and self denial. Is this the ideology which is recommended by the Midrash? We shall return to the theology in a few minutes. 

But for now, let us attempt to examine the midrashic method itself. How is this Midrash created? From where does it draw its ideas? 

THE TEXTUAL BASIS

The opening line of our parsha creates a number of difficulties. The passuk reads:

“Yaakov settled (vayeSHeV) in the land in which his father had sojourned (meGURei), in the land of Canaan.” (37:1)

At first glance, this is a pretty simple passuk. The verse seems to be informing us that Jacob is living in the same land as his father, somehow imitating him, walking in his footsteps. He has returned to the Land of Canaan after his exile to the house of Lavan. Now he returns to live in the same land as his father. Clearly there is a sense of covenantal continuity here. Yaakov expresses his status as heir to the covenant by his living in Canaan, following and deepening his father’s tradition. Interestingly, Rashi himself (on 37:1) contrasts this to an earlier verse (36:8) that uses similar terminology:

"Esav married wives from the daughter's of Canaan … Esav took his wives, sons and daughters, and all his household, his livestock and cattle and all his possessions that he had acquired in the Land of Canaan and he went to (another) land because of his brother Yaakov … Esav settled (VAYESHEV) in Mt Seir … And these are the generations (ELEH TOLDOT) of Esav.." (36:2-9)

The contrast is clear. In Chapter 36 we read how Esav leaves the land of Canaan in order to settle elsewhere, in the Land of Seir. The aim of the parallel is to demonstrate how Jacob is following the path of the covenant "in the land in which his father sojourned,"  whereas Esav has chosen to leave the land of Canaan in a manner reflective of his non-covenantal status. So we have a contrast between Yaakov and Esav, and we have a statement regarding the sense of unity that links Yaakov to his father Isaac.

And so, on first glance, we understand the thrust of this passuk and its purpose. It gives us the sense that Jacob is the heir to the covenantal legacy.

However, there are two primary problems with this passuk. The first relates to its placement. This is the introductory line to the Joseph saga. In the very next verse, the Torah begins the painful story of family jealousy, attempted murder, the sale of a brother; in short, the epic narrative of Joseph and his brothers. The first question is why this verse acts as an introduction to that story? If the chapter is about Joseph, then how does this connect to Jacob?

Second, the use of language within the verse beckons our attention. Two verbs are used which, in a way, are synonymous. However they do not share an identical meaning. It shall be upon this wordplay that our midrash is based. One verb, "SHUV," has the connotation of “sitting” or “dwelling”. The other, “GUR,” has a resonance of unsettled wandering, an unending movement from place to place as if one cannot find one’s place.

If we accept this difference in language, we then reach the conclusion that Yaakov is settling down in a place that his father was not settled. Yaakov seeks stability and a status in permanence in a land in which his father was a transitory outsider. (The word GER indicates a stranger, an outsider.) If this is true, then we shall have to reverse our earlier understanding. Now, it would appear that Yaakov is not imitating his father. He is acting in a manner which is the very opposite of his father’s way. His father “sojourned;” he “settles down.”

This is precisely the imagery that the Midrash develops. Yaakov’s desire for tranquillity is shattered by the pain and torment of the loss of his beloved son. Yaakov sought an ordinary calm family life, but he was to be denied this from God.

YAAKOV SOJOURNING.

It is interesting to track the reappearance of the word MEGUREI in Yaakov’s life, it resurfaces in a later conversation. Jacob and his family move to Egypt and Jacob is presented to Pharaoh:

“Pharaoh asked Yaakov, ‘How many are the years of your life?’ Jacob answered Pharaoh, ‘The years of my sojourn (MEGURAI) are one hundred and thirty. Few and bad have been the years of my life, nor do they come up to the life spans of my fathers during their sojourns (MEGUREIHEM).’” (47:8-9)

Towards the end of his life, Yaakov realises that his life has been a life of sojourning and not a settled life. In retrospect he has experienced a series of painful episodes which have given him anything but tranquillity and peace.

We have studied the Midrash via Rashi. The original midrash is certainly interesting. It appears in Bereshit Rabba 84:3:

Rav Acha said: When the righteous sit in tranquillity and desire to sit in tranquillity in this world, the Satan acts as accuser. He exclaims “Is that which is set for (the righteous) in the World to Come not enough that they seek serenity in this world?” This is certainly the case – Yaakov Avinu sought to dwell in serenity in this world and the “Satan” of Yoseph attached himself to Yaakov – “And Yaakov dwelt … etc.”(Gen 37:1) 

“I had no repose, no quiet, no rest, and trouble came.” (Job 3:26)
I had no repose – from Esav, 
No quiet – from Lavan,
No rest - from Dinah,
And trouble (lit. anger) came – the trouble of Joseph.

This is the original Midrash. Note the way in which this Midrash utilises the metaphor of Iyov – Job – the long-suffering servant of God as a model for Yaakov: The support verse of the midrash is from Iyov. The appearance of the Satan as the accuser of Yaakov mirrors the story of Iyov as well. 

The Midrash portrays Yaakov as endlessly afflicted by suffering, yearning for respite but not receiving it. Indeed, we might feel that Yaakov deserves some rest! After all, he has been struggling all his life. In-utero, he struggles with his twin brother, a struggle that continues until he flees to Lava. There in Padan Aram he must contend with Lavan, until he returns… to struggle again with Esav. And no sooner is he finished with Esav, we hear of the rape of Dinah and the events at Shechem. Yes! Yaakov is in sore need of some calm. Maybe it is then, not surprising that in the midrash, Yaakov is portrayed as a reflection of the Biblical personality Iyov. He is his partner in travail and endless suffering. Indeed, Yaakov might have wished himself a reprieve from his troubles. It never came. What with the pain of Yosef, and the torment of life in Egypt, we are witness to a rather sad image as we watch the elderly Yaakov reflecting retrospectively upon his life describing it as “bad”. Indeed it has been one long “sojourn.” 

MOVEMENT vs. STAGNATION

Thus far, we have dealt with MEGUREI as the harshness of Yaakov's life. His constant torment. This certainly seems like a harsh existence. What is the problem with a  life of Serenity? IS every good Jew, every Tzaddik destined to a life of suffering and distress?

Let us return to focus upon the words of our Midrash: “yeshiva - dwelling” as opposed to “megurim - wandering;” The notion of rooted-ness as opposed to mobility, stability in contrast to insecurity.

First we should note that ALL the Avot are described as wanderers rather than settlers: God tells Avraham that he will give him, “the land of your sojourn, the entire land of Canaan” (17:8). God instructs Yitzchak: (26:30) “Sojourn in the land,”  and indeed, in the geographical sense of the word, we find the Avot incessantly travelling, moving from place to place: Beit El, Hebron, Beer Sheva, Gerar. They are constantly in transit.

Our Midrash draws our attention to the unsettled, transient, portable dimension of the man of faith. Interestingly, we do find the notion of walking in association with righteous figures in Sefer Bereshit:

5:10 : “And Chanoch walked with God”

6:9 : “Noach walked with God”

17:1 Abraham is instructed: “Walk before me and be perfect.”

But what is it for? This incessant movement, what does it do? The Sefat Emet (5656) suggests a direction:

 “ Lech Lecha - Go forth : Man is defined by his walking, and indeed man must always move up, level by level. One must always aim to extract oneself from habit, from the state of the normal. Even if one has reached a certain standard of Avodat Hashem (religious intensity and practise), that too becomes second nature after a time and becomes the norm. Therefore at all times one must renew one’s soul and one’s religious direction.

Is this the key? Sojourning is walking, mobility, progress, growth. The settled life is a life of complacency, compromise, spiritual paralysis, stagnation. Routine is the nemesis of the individual who is to be constantly infused by self-examination and self improvement. Personal comfort and the obsession with secure surroundings will hinder free spirited searching for God and goodness. 

If this is so, then even at the cost of great suffering, the Avot are forced to be in a constant state of non-settlement, of fluidity, of insecurity. This is a powerful, if difficult, idea.

A CHANNUKA CONNECTION

And as we stand anticipating Channuka, another piece by the  Sefat Emet elegantly complements this theme. TheTalmud in its section that deals with lighting the Channuka lights , is interested in defining a correct timeframe in which to light Channuka Candles. When is the appropriate time for candles to be lit? The Gemara defines it:

“From sunset until the marketplace is empty.” (Shabbat 21b)

A straightforward Halakhic reading of this statement informs us that one may light candles from dusk and that candles may be lit later in the evening, as long as there is a potential for some passer-by to view our Channuka lights. Indeed this is the Halakha.

But the Sefat Emet creates a Midrash of sorts on the words here. He twists the text around and creates something new. The Hebrew phrase here is: 

“Ad sheTicleh HAREGEL min haShuk,” 

Until the foot (REGEL) has left the marketplace.  The Sefat Emet plays with the vowel sounds and rephrases it as 

“Ad sheTichleh HERGEL min Hashuk.”

 Not HaRegel – the feet of the passers by – but Hergel, meaning routine, habit, learned behaviours!

Chanuka for him, is the festival of constant renewal. The existence of a flame is dependent on a steady flow of fuel. The light shining in the darkness.  All of this represents the need to constantly rejuvenate our spiritual lives, to fight the drudgery of routine, and to be constantly letting the lights increase. 

Let us hope that we can manage to achieve renewal and growth in serenity rather than hardship!

Shabbat Shalom and Happy Latkes!

For Further study
See the Ramban to Bereshit 25:8. 
Ask yourself as to the contrast between the image of satisfation and fulfillment as described there, in opposition to the lack of calm and rootedness presented in this shiur. Is it a function of the personal difference between Jacob and Abraham? IS it a contrast between the material and the physical?