So Jacob took a stone and set it up [as] a monument.

And Jacob said to his kinsmen, "Gather stones,"

and they took stones and made a pile, and they ate there by the pile.

And Laban called it Yegar Sahadutha, but Jacob called it Gal ed.

And Laban said, "This pile is a witness between me and you today."

Therefore, he called it Gal ed.

(Bereishit 31: 45-48)

 

And Jacob said to his kinsmen: [That is,] to Laban's kinsmen, as in, and Pharaoh spoke to his brothers (Bereishit 47:3) - Joseph's brothers (RaMBaN), and see 51 and 54 below. And perhaps it was the custom of the Hebrews to set up a monument [matzeva] (as we saw in 28 and 18 above, as well as in Joshua 24), while the Arameans would set up a pile [gal] of stones. So Jacob set up a monument but told Laban's kin to make a pile. Although the monument and the pile had been mentioned several times, when the time came to utter the essential part of his oath, Laban only mentioned the pile: that I will not pass this pile [to go] to you (verse 52). And perhaps the Arameans would make piles of many stones as a sign of the many Gods they worshipped, while the Hebrews rejected that custom and set up monuments made of a single rock to signify the single God Whom they worshipped.

(ShaDaL Bereishit 31:46)

 

And Jacob said to his kinsmen - Rashi explains in accordance with the midrash that by his kinsmen he meant his children... that it is ill-mannered to ask important people to collect rocks in order to eat on them, so they [the people whom told to do that] must have been his sons. An explanation is still needed why he did not ask his male and female servants to do it, and why it is written his brothers rather than his children. This was in order to express Jacob's tendency to live with other people in safety and peace, even in the case of Laban, who had greatly annoyed him, especially when he [Laban] said in his concluding words that, all you see is mine. Nevertheless, Jacob paid it no attention and wanted to pursue peace and make a gesture to propitiate him, and he further wanted to accustom his children to that wonderful trait, therefore he asked them to gather the stones for this purpose. If he would have said, "My children, gather stones" they would not have appreciated the moral idea involved; they would have thought they were merely executing a command from their father. That is why he told them, ‘My brothers, collect stones" to express the correctness of this trait, that even if it were not a matter of obeying their father's command it would still be proper to maintain the trait of dwelling in safety, and see below how the meaning of safety [betah] is to avoid - as far as is possible - irritating the nations of the world, and this is a sign to the children and a lesson for his seed to reconcile quickly with those who do them wrong and to make a gesture to draw near the hearts of those who are distant, as Jacob did with Laban.

(HaNaTziV MiVolozhon, Ha'Emek Davar, Bereishit 31:46)

 

"A bat kol came forth and said"

Dalia Marx

While discussing which people do not have a share in the world to come, the Talmud describes how King Manasseh "expounded [upon Scripture] in a disparaging way" (Sanhedrin 99b). He studied Scripture and complained, "Had Moses nothing to write but..." and cited two seemingly pointless verses. One of them was from our own parasha, Bereishit 30:14: Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found dudaim [mandrakes] in the field. In reaction to Manasseh's deprecatory readings, a bat kol [heavenly voice] came out and scolded him harshly: You sit and talk against your brother; you slander your mother's son. You did these and I remained silent; you thought that I would be like you. I will contend with you and set up before your eyes (Psalms 50:20-21). A bat kol (literally - daughter of a voice) admonished Manasseh for slandering his brother - Moses - and compared the latter's mind with that of God.¹ Here I would like to focus on one dimension of this interesting tradition: the emission of bat kol, its nature and message. The Sages explain the phenomenon of bat kol in a dictum from the Tosefta (Sota 13:3):

Since Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the last of the prophets, died, the Holy Spirit ceased within Israel. Nevertheless, they were made to hear a bat kol.

In this dictum the Sages reflect upon their own situation: the last prophets were Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi, and since their deaths God's direct revelation to His people has ceased. However, the Tannaim maintain that they are still visited by a minor form of revelation, that of bat kol. The Shekhinah (Divine Presence) has grown distant from Israel and the Holy Spirit no longer gives inspiration, but the eternal covenant and God's continuing engagement with His people remain, even in the "day of small things" which the Prophet Zachariah (4:10) tells us not to dismiss lightly. The present alienation from God and the covenant's eternality are inseparably bound to each other. Accordingly, we find tens of references to bat kol in the literature of the Sages. The term bat kol is used there to refer to widely variegated phenomena: a minor revelation (as in the passage quoted above); a kind of oracle through which people's questions are answered; a rumor, dictum or truism; or a simple human voice. The semantic scope here is so wide that sometimes it seems that the various items called "bat kol" share only the same name in common; that is to say: "bat kol" is a polysemic term. I hope to demonstrate elsewhere that all of these phenomena are interlinked and that they all belong to a single system. Here I will focus on the divine bat kol which delivers the word of God to human beings.

In his diatribe against the Babylonians ("By God, I hate you!"), Resh Lakish quotes Song of Songs 8:9, If she be a wall, we will build upon her a turret of silver;, if she be a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar, and explains: "Had you [Babylonians] made yourself like a wall and had all come up in the days of Ezra, you would have been compared to silver, which no rottenness can ever affect. Now that you have come up like doors, you are like cedarwood, which rottenness prevails over" (Bavli Yoma 9b). R. Abba understands the phrase "cedarwood, which rottenness prevails over" as referring to bat kol, which is inferior to silver, "which no rottenness can ever affect."² The Talmud does not tell us what corresponds to the silver which is free of rot, but the context implies that it alludes to prophecy (and the MaHaRaShA also explains it in this way). If so, bat kol is not a full prophetic revelation; it is passing and not eternal. Resh Lakish's simile can be understood as implying that there is something degrading about having bat kol serve as the sole conduit for God's voice, however, bat kol still does serve as a kind of minor revelation of God to His people.

Bat kol appears in situations of conflict, in situations in which there is need for a decision, a rebuke, or a promise. For example:

It is further related of R. Eliezer that once he stepped down before the Ark and recited the twenty-four benedictions [for fast days] and his prayer was not answered.

R. Akiva stepped down after him and exclaimed: Our Father, our King, we have no King but You; our Father, our King, for Your sake have mercy upon us;

And rain fell.

The Rabbis present suspected [R. Eliezer], whereupon a bat kol was heard proclaiming.[The prayer of] this man [R. Akiva] was answered not because he is greater than the other man, but because he is ever forbearing and the other is not. (Ta'anit 25b, this and following Talmudic passages are based the Soncino translation)

Here bat kol plays a double role: on the one hand it mediates between sages and teaches that the one is not greater than his fellow. On the other hand, it praises the character of one party to the debate, who is prepared to "be forbearing" - making his prayer accepted - while the character of the other party is criticized. Here bat kol explains the Heavenly decision to make it rain; in other instances bat kol itself decides, such as in the case of the controversy which Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai could not decide on their own:

R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the former asserting, "The halakhah is in agreement with our views" and the latter contending, "The halakhah is in agreement with our views." Then a bat kol issued announcing, "[The utterances of] both are the words of the living God, but the halakhah is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel." (Eruvin 13b)

Here bat kol once again takes the same tack as in the earlier cited case; it does not decide that Beit Hillel was right or that their view was preferable. On the contrary, "both are the words of the living God." However, there was a need for an unambiguous ruling to be made. According to the Talmud, we follow the opinion of Beit Hillel "because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shammai, and were even so [humble] as to mention the actions of Beit Shammai before theirs" (ibid).

From the quotations I have cited it may be noticed that in contrast to the exalted prose style of the prophets, bat kol speaks in simple and prosaic language (even if, as in the case of the bat kol addressed to King Manasseh, it can quote Scripture). While prophetic utterances endure through the generations and are applicable to every hour, the words of bat kol are appropriate for a particular time and situation. Take for example the bat kol promising a person life in the World to Come (Bavli Berakhot 61b) or the bat kol which scolds Manasseh for his slanderous comments on Scripture mentioned above.³

Sometimes it seems that bat kol is not the original voice, but rather its echo; an expression of God's word but not God's word itself. Bat kol has no independent existence; it only exists when coming forth towards human beings. R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (1597-1654) wrote in his commentary on the Mishnah: "Some have written that it is called bat kol [literally: ‘daughter of a voice'] because it is not the actual voice of prophecy, but rather something like it and its form in a lower order of being. That is why it is called bat kol, that it is, ‘daughter [bat] of a voice.' In recognition of its weakness it is called bat kol rather than ben kol ['son of a voice']." Not only is bat kol a mere echo - it is a weak echo.

The Talmud's commentators and researchers have not taken notice that bat kol's feminine gender can explain not only its weakness but also the fact that bat kol often gives expression to God's compassion and the Shekhinah's providence over her people. For example, in answer to the Prophet Elijah's question regarding the voice heard in the ruin, R. Yossi states: "I heard a bat kol, cooing like a dove, and saying: Woe to the children, on account of whose sins I destroyed My house and burnt My temple and exiled them among the nations of the world!" (Berakhot 3a).

The Sages are not divided over the question of bat kol's very existence, but they do argue about whether its utterances should be considered authoritative from a legal point of view. A famous example of this is found in the story of Tanuro shel Akhna'i [the debate over ritual purity involving an oven constructed from independently existing segments]. After R. Eliezer fails in his impressive attempts to convince his colleagues to accept his opinion on this halakhic matter, we read:

Again he said to them: "If the halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!"

Whereupon a bat kol cried out: "Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halakhah agrees with him!"

R. Yehoshua arose and exclaimed: "It is not in heaven" (Devarim 30:12).

What did he mean by It is not in heaven?

R. Yirmiyah said: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a bat kol. (Bava Metzia 59b)

Even though the Sages recognize bat kol's divine origin, they reject its authority to determine halakhah. The Sages recall that the age of prophecy has ended and that from now on it has been given over to fools; decisions must be made in house of learning. Nevertheless they do not desist from seeking God's voice, even if it is a mere reflection of His voice.

May we also merit hearing even the echo of God's voice, as we walk along the road, as we lie down and rise up, even if it were the faintest of faint voices arising through our good deeds and pure thoughts, calling us to good and the worthy actions! May we seek it all our days!

1. It is unclear why Manasseh was troubled by this verse in particular. In a parallel version of the story found in Mahzor Vitri, a further question is appended to his complaint: "What are dudaim to you?" (section 426). That is to say, what point was there in Moses including such a trivial deed in the Torah? Further on, the Talmud mentions a tradition attributed to the Amora Rav which explains why the story needed to be mentioned: "From here we learn that the righteous keep clear of theft." Rashi explains that even though the incident occurred after the field had been harvested and "everyone was allowed to enter into their fellow's field," Reuben took care not to collect wheat but rather only dudaim, which are ownerless and permitted to all, and from this we learn that the righteous are careful about theft.

2. Rashi explains R. Abba's statement thus: "Some of it is eaten away by worms, and some of it endures, thus some of the vision of the Shekhinah was there [in the bat kol] but it was not entirely there" (ad loc)

3. Sometimes the words of a bat kol are repeated over and over. After R. Yossi exited the ruin in the story cited above, the Prophet Elijah tells him: "By your life and the life of your head! It [the bat kol] does not say this only at this time; rather it speaks thus three times every day."

Dr. Dalia Marx is spending the year as a visiting professor at Potsdam University and at Geiger College in Berlin.

 

 

And the Stone was Great on the Mouth of the Well

Generally the cover of a well designed for general public use, is made to be removed as easily as possible to facilitate its use for everybody. But here - this introduces us to the character of the Arameans - no one trusted the other and nobody meant anybody else to have the slightest advantage. One person might take a drink more than the other. Hence they made the cover so heavy that no person alone but only by their combined effort could the well be used.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bereishit 29:2, Levy translation)

 

And he said, "The day is yet long; it is not the time to take in the livestock. Water the sheep and go, pasture."

(Bereishit 29:7)

 

The day is yet long - The righteous despise injustice even when perpetrated against strangers, as it says, The unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, and he whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked (Proverbs 29:27).

(Sforno 29:7)

 

...So Moses fled from before Pharaoh. He stayed in the land of Midian, and he sat down by a well. Now the chief of Midian had seven daughters, and they came and drew [water], and they filled the troughs to water their father's flocks. But the shepherds came and drove them away; so Moses arose and rescued them and watered their flocks.

(Shemot 2:16-17)

 

So Moses arose and rescued them - Since both parties to the dispute were strangers to him, he was not motivated by vengeance. Neither did he rebuke them in order to reform their ways. He simply rose up to rescue the oppressed from the hands of their oppressors.

(Seforno ad loc)

 

God Cares for the Weak

And the Lord saw that Leah was unloved.

(Bereishit 29:31)

 

As Scripture says: The Lord supports all who stumble (Psalms 145:14) - The qualities of the Holy One Blessed be He are unlike those of humans. When a human has a wealthy friend he cleaves to him and submits to him, and when he sees that he has faltered and become impoverished, he no longer values him, but rather places a stone on him. But when the Holy One Blessed be He sees someone who has been subdued and faltered, he lends him a hand and stands him upright, as it says, The Lord supports all who stumble and makes all who are bent stand straight.

(Aggadat Bereishit, 49)

 

And the first-born is the son of the unloved one - Scripture states this with certainty, in the same manner as it states, and the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, for the Lord sees the broken-hearted so as to support them.

(Or HaHayyim on Devarim 21:15)

 

Fairness in Labor Relations is Required Equally of Both Employer as well as Employee

In the same way that the home owner is warned not to rob the poor-man's wage or delay its payment, so too the poor-man is warned not to rob the employer of work by repeatedly taking breaks from work so that he spends the day dishonestly. Rather he is required to be strict with his own time. See how they said he should not recite the fourth blessing of the grace after meals [so that he would get back to work quickly], and so he is required to work with all his strength, for the saintly Jacob said I have served your father with all my might. That is why he took his reward even in this world, for it says so the man became exceedingly prosperous.

(RaMBaM Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sekhirut 13: 7)

 

Readers respond

Issue 572 of Shabbat Shalom quoted a passage from a book by Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l, He'arot LeParshiyot HaShavu'a in which he drew conclusions that he thought were implied by the midrash Pitron Torah's comments on the verse, He surrounds him all day (Devarim 33:12). Here is part of what Leibowitz had to say:

In this midrash we read something new about, He surrounds him all day and between his shoulders he dwells. Moses' prophetic blessing was actually realized, for the sanctuary which stands there today, the sanctuary of an alien nation, is not a site of idolatry. This sanctuary is a temple of a people which recognizes the Oneness of God and means to serve God, even if it did not receive the Torah and does not serve God by observance of the commandments. We find, then, that this is still a temple for those who worship God in truth [my emphasis - A.S.].

Leibowitz's statement may create the impression that the author of the midrash was being tolerant of Islam and Moslems, and perhaps even sympathetic to them and that he had to some extent made his peace with the fact that the Moslems who controlled the Land of Israel in his day had erected a mosque on the Temple Mount. This impression is blatantly false. Prof.Efraim Urbach, who edited the midrash, mentions how, taken as a whole, Pitron Torah reflects its author's strongly negative view of Moslems and their religion. For some reason Leibowitz decided to ignore the midrash's attitude towards the Moslems, apparently in order to amplify the implied significance of its mentioning that the mosque standing atop the Temple Mount is in the possession of monotheists.

The author of the midrash does write that, "even today those people who control the Temple [Mount] made it into a choice and great and honorable house of worship to the one God Who created heaven and earth...that is why it says [He surrounds him] all day (pg.339). However, he did not relate to the situation he faced as something normal with which one should become reconciled. Indeed, according to the author, Jews could find a degree of comfort in the fact that the place of the Temple continued to be honored in his day (in the language of our generation: it had not become a "piece of real estate"), since, even if "the Shekhinah did not dwell in" the place of the Temple, the continuing honor granted it constituted a kind of fulfillment of the verse, He surrounds him all day. However, according to the author of the midrash, the honor granted to the place of the Temple in his day was only of a temporary sort. It would only continue "until the arrival of the teacher of justice and the future day, and in that day the righteous worship will resume in it, which will be acceptable before God [Shaddai]."

Amos Samuel, Jerusalem

 

Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, responds:

I thank Rabbi Amos Samuel for his response.

Unfortunately, Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l is not capable of clarifying his intentions, but I do not think that he attributes any attitudes to the author of Pitron Torah beyond those he explicitly mentions. Furthermore, Prof. Leibowitz quotes the midrash in its entirety in his longer work, Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat HaShavua (pp. 948-950). My own opinion is that despite Leibowitz's principle that all prophecies are "conditional," he quotes Pitron Torah as nothing more than an illustration of how a commentator grapples with midrashim which read the verse He surrounds him all day as an absolute prophecy even while the verse appears to be contradicted by existing reality.

 

 

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

1 Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700

1 English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

5,000 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.