Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
SEDRA VA YISHLACH: YA’AKOV AT PENU-EL
Q: Why does a god wrestle with a mortal man?
Good question. Let's try and work it out.
Q: When does a tribal hero change his name?
A: When he commits manslaughter, flees from his country and is adopted by another tribe (cf Mosheh in Exodus 2:11 ff); when he ascends a throne and acquires a kingly title; or when he occupies a new country. The latter applies to Av-Raham. Crossing the Yavok (Jabbok) plus what happened at Gil'ad/Gal-Ed, could make the latter also apply to Ya'akov, as previously he was a hired servant but now an independent tribal chief in his own right.
Q:What was the nature of the thigh injury?
A: Hippocrates describes a dislocation of the hip among wrestlers as leading to the inflicted having to walk on his tip-toes. Dislocation of the femur-head lengthens the leg, tightens the thigh tendons and puts the muscles into spasm, causing a rolling, swaggering walk with the heel permanently raised, like Hephaestus in Homer. More likely though is the limping dance performed in a trance by devotees of Ba'al (1 Kings 18:26). Beit Hoglah near Yericho (Jericho) was a site of such, with the Arabic word Hajala meaning "a ring dance", also "to hobble" or "to hop". This suggests that Penu-El was a ceremony, and if so, it must have been linked with the sacred pillar, cairns and stolen teraphim of Gil'ad/Gal-Ed. The Yehudit verb for "limping", "hobbling" or "hopping" in this manner is... LIPHSO'ACH, from the root PASACH.
The asking of a god's name is the original sense of blasphemy: deities were chary of giving their names as they could then be used for improper purposes. In Mark 5:9 Jesus exorcises a devil at Gerasa by demanding to know the demon's name ("My name is Legion, for we are many", was the answer he received): the Romans called this technique elicio, whence "to elicit" (and who knew that Jesus had travelled fully 30 miles east across the Yarden river?!).
The thigh-bone was sacred to the Greeks and the Kena'anites, and constituted the royal portion to the Beney Yisra-El (see 1 Samuel 9:23-24 et al). Shemu-El's dismemberment of King Agag may well have involved a ritual eating of the king's thigh-bone.
The King James version has a slightly different numbering from other versions, Jewish and Christian: it had a 55th verse in chapter 31, where others had 54; I have marked the KJ numbering in brackets.
32:4: VA YISHLACH YA'AKOV MAL'ACHIM LEPHANAV EL ESAV ACHIV ARTSAH SE'IR SEDEH EDOM
וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב מַלְאָכִים לְפָנָיו אֶל עֵשָׂו אָחִיו אַרְצָה שֵׂעִיר שְׂדֵה אֱדוֹם
KJ (King James translation; 32:3) And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.
BN (BibleNet translation): And Ya'akov sent messengers ahead to Esav his brother, to the land of Se'ir, the field of Edom.
MAL'ACHIM (מלאכים): used here explicitly to mean "messengers", and not "angels", which, as we have noted previously, is the correct meaning and usage of MAL'ACHIM; do we need to reconsider verse 32 immediately before this? If Penu-El was, as must be presumed, an existing shrine, then MAL'ACHEY ELOHIM or "messengers of Elohim" in that context could as well have been staff of the guest-house manager come to get advance warning of Ya'akov's overnight needs, rather than angels of the deity as presumed, especially as those angels said nothing and did nothing, so there was no obvious reason for their being sent. And it is odd to have exactly the same word twice within three verses and for them not to have the same meaning.
ARTSAH SE'IR SEDEH EDOM (ארצה שעיר שדה אדום): since when was Esav living at Se'ir? When we last saw him he was still living at Be'er Sheva; presumably, following the matrilocal pattern we have already noted, he moved to his wife's tribe. But which of his several wives? Note that Se'ir is now called "the field of Edom"; and of course Esav always was ISH SADEH (איש שדה) "a man of the fields", but we were given to understand that that meant "hairy", which is to say SE'ARAH, linked by root to SE'IR. Connecting Se'ir with Edom is vital, as it confirms the pattern of the supplanted, and red-haired, elder sons, all the way from Adam to Kalev (Caleb).
Why, though, is Ya'akov sending messengers to Esav? Given that Esav is living in Se'ir, which is east of the river Yarden, and south of the Dead Sea, there is no likelihood of Ya'akov accidentally running him at any future point, ever; nor is it at all likely that Esav would hear by chance that his brother has come home... unless Ya'akov is coming home by a most circuitous route, south and then east rather than west of the Sea of Galilee, down through Petra and Mo-Av, then Edom, and back into Kena'an south of the Dead Sea (which would be remarkably close to the route taken by the Beney Yisra-El in the final stages of the Mosaic journey).
What we are told is that Ya'akov wants to make peace with his brother; we are given the mood inside Ya'akov, and through this prefiguration the nature of the wrestling-match at Penu-El is shifted. What was originally the coronation ritual for the priest-king - and remember that the boundaries of his new land have just been agreed in a covenant with the moon-god at Gal-Ed - is transformed by the Redactor into a psychological short story of a very modern kind, detailing Ya'akov's terror (see verse 8, and then follow the allusuion back to Pachad Yitschak - see my note at Genesis 31:42) that his brother is coming with an army to take revenge for the double-theft of twenty years before; and then the cathartic anagnorisis which is the denouement of the tale.
32:5: VA YETSAV OTAM LEMOR KOH TOMRUN LA ADONI LE ESAV KOH AMAR AVAD'CHA YA'AKOV IM LAVAN GARTI VA ECHAR AD ATAH
וַיְצַו אֹתָם לֵאמֹר כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו כֹּה אָמַר עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב עִם לָבָן גַּרְתִּי וָאֵחַר עַד עָתָּה
KJ (32:4): And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:
BN: And he instructed them, saying, "This is what you shall say to my lord Esav, 'Thus says your servant Ya'akov: I have sojourned with Lavan, and stayed until now...
Note that he calls Esav his "lord" and himself Esav's "servant". This is not mere diplomatic language, nor should their relationship be misinterpreted; it is pure fear and shame on Ya'akov's behalf.
TOMRUN (תאמרון): anachronistic grammar.
ECHAR (אחר): Unusual usage of this root
32:6: VA YEHI LI SHOR VA CHAMOR TSON VE EVED VE SHIPHCHAH VA ESHLECHA LEHAGID LE ADONI LIMTSO CHEN BE EYNEYCHA
וַיְהִי לִי שׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר צֹאן וְעֶבֶד וְשִׁפְחָה וָאֶשְׁלְחָה לְהַגִּיד לַאדֹנִי לִמְצֹא חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ
KJ (32:5): And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and womenservants: and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight.
BN: "And I have oxen, and asses, and flocks, and men-servants, and maid-servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, in hope to find favour in your sight."
Is he trying to counter-frighten him with his strength, or appease/impress him with gifts?
Note that in this version he doesn't have any camels, though two verses on, and he will indeed have camels. Given that they would be (if they existed at that time in Arabia, which they did not) more valuable than any cattle, goats or sheep, and he sending messages to impress his brother with his wealth... do we again have more than one version badly multi-tracked?..
32:7: VA YASHUVU HA MAL'ACHIM EL YA'AKOV LEMOR BA'NU EL ACHIYCHA EL ESAV VE GAM HOLECH LIKRAT'CHA VE ARBA ME'OT ISH IMO
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּלְאָכִים אֶל יַעֲקֹב לֵאמֹר בָּאנוּ אֶל אָחִיךָ אֶל עֵשָׂו וְגַם הֹלֵךְ לִקְרָאתְךָ וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת אִישׁ עִמּוֹ
KJ (32:6): And the messengers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him.
BN: And the messengers returned to Ya'akov saying, "We came to your brother Esav, and he is even now on his way here to meet you, and four hundred men with him."
ARBA ME'OT ISH: Which was a veritable army in those days - Av-Ram (Genesis 14:14) won the War of the Kings with only 318.
GAM HOLECH: The inference is that Esav was already on his way, and not that he is now coming in response to Ya'akov's message. A declaration of war? Ya'akov's reaction in the next verse suggests that he thinks it is, has assumed it would be. How did Esav know that Ya'akov was coming? (Mighty sheikhs have people who report back to them what's happening in their territory; unimportant nobodies wait for messengers.)
32:8: VA YIYRA YA'AKOV ME'OD VA YETSER LO VA YACHATS ET HA AM ASHER ITO VE ET HA TSON VE ET HA BAKAR VE HA GEMALIM LI SHNEY MACHANOT
וַיִּירָא יַעֲקֹב מְאֹד וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ וַיַּחַץ אֶת הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ וְאֶת הַצֹּאן וְאֶת הַבָּקָר וְהַגְּמַלִּים לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת
KJ (32:7): Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed: and he divided the people that was with him, and the flocks, and herds, and the camels, into two bands;
BN: Then Ya'akov was greatly afraid, distressed even. So he divided the people that were with him, and the flocks, and the herds, and the camels, into two camps.
Certainly Ya'akov thinks it is a declaration of war, and the next verse further confirms it. The last he heard from Esav was reports of his brother threatening to murder him - but that was his mum, twenty years ago. Is his guilt running even deeper than his terror, and thereby its cause?
VA YETSER: "And he was inclined" or "it inclined him", either of which is an unfinished phrase. To what? "Distressed" is less a translation that an attempt to flesh out the skeleton of an ungrammatical phrase.
VE HA GEMALIM (והגמלים): why no ET (את)?
MACHANOT (מחנות): this surely is the real meaning of MACHANAYIM (מחנים), yet another tale needed to explain the naming of a significant person or place - though it was actually explained otherwise at the end of the previous sedra (Genesis 32:3). It could mean a double oasis, or two wells, but in this instance the map shows clearly the junction of two tributaries of the river Yavok (Jabbok).
At the same time, however, at the mythological level, we have seen the Milky Way, the sun, the moon, and also that one thing which the ancients must surely have known was a falsehood in their cosmology, the division of the heavens into "four quarters". It is not simply the matter of northern and southern hemispheres looking out at different skies - this they would not have known. But merchants who had used the stars as GPS in Heliopolis and Shalem and Damasek and then in Charan en route to the Indus Valley or even Sin (China) beyond it, they would have known that the positions of the stars shift with each persepective, that horizons are cut off, new horizons encountered. So they must have known that "four quarters" was a falsehood - and perhaps this is why two of the four are mere handmaidens of their mistresses, and why, like every bifurcation in the cosmos, like day and night and two sides of the firmament and male and female and land and sea, so Ya'akov divides his people into two camps - and the mythological stage for his coronation is now rather more correctly set.
32:9: VA YOMER IM YAVO ESAV EL HA MACHANEH HA ACHAT VE HIKAHU VE HAYAH HA MACHANEH HA NISH'AR LIPHLEYTAH
וַיֹּאמֶר אִם יָבוֹא עֵשָׂו אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה הָאַחַת וְהִכָּהוּ וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה
KJ (32:8): And said, If Esau come to the one company, and smite it, then the other company which is left shall escape.
BN: And he said, "If Esav comes to the one camp, and smites it, then the camp which is left shall escape."
He also expects to lose any battle. What does he put in which camp? Priorities. Le'ah and Rachel together or apart? Bilhah and Zilphah together, or with their misteesses? Which sons? None of this is given, but for a classroom teacher this could be an interesting activity: imagine you are directing the movie version of this scene; draw a detailed set design, placing goods, possessions, servants, humans etc…
And of course, if Esav is strong enough, and determined enough, he can obliterate both camps separately; so the defensive measure is inadequate – perhaps what he really means is: if we look like losing, I can signal to the other camp to run as fast as they can.
32:10: VA YOMER YA'AKOV ELOHEY AVI AV-RAHAM VE ELOHEY AVI YITSCHAK YHVH HA OMER ELAI SHUV LE ARTSECHA U LE MOLADET'CHA VE EYTIYVAH IMACH
וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי אַבְרָהָם וֵאלֹהֵי אָבִי יִצְחָק יְהוָה הָאֹמֵר אֵלַי שׁוּב לְאַרְצְךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתְּךָ וְאֵיטִיבָה עִמָּךְ
KJ (32:9): And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee:
BN: And Ya'akov prayed, "O gods of my father Av-Raham, and gods of my father Yitschak, and YHVH who said to me, 'Return to your country, and to your kindred, and I will look after your well-being'...
ELOHEY: It is generally translated as "God" (which is anyway an incorrect translation from the Jewish into the Christian), without specifiying which god this means; but actually he says gods plural on each occasion in this verse.
32:11: KATONTI MI KOL HA CHASADIM U MI KOL HA EMET ASHER ASIYTA ET AVDECHA KI VE MAKLI AVARTI ET HA YARDEN HA ZEH VE ATAH HAYIYTI LI SHENEY MACHANOT
קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכָּל הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת
KJ (32:10): I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands.
BN: "I am not worthy of all the mercies, nor of all the truth which you have shown to your servant; for with my staff I passed over this river Yarden; and now I am become two camps...
HA EMET: This notion of "truth" is one that Ya'akov really does need to start dealing with. It is by no means obvious what he means by the word here. Righteousness perhaps?Justice? Fairness? Is "coronation" in the epic saga synonymous with "reaching adulthood"?
VE MAKLI: Ezekiel 39:9 uses the word as a part of the military gear, though it is not obvious which. Jeremiah 1:11 has what Merlin and Gandalf would have had, as Aharon had (Numbers 17:8), which was a rod made from the branch of an almond tree, the original "magic wand" of the shaman. Are we in this verse witnessing the opening ceremony and liturgy for his anointment as sacred king?
HA YARDEN (הירדן): not necessarily the river; the use of HA ZEH (הזה) suggests a decline or steep hill, or possibly some of the streams that source the Yarden; and this makes sense, as the archaeologists regard Machanayim as being much closer to the Yavok than the Yarden.
32:12: HATSIYLENI NA MI YAD ACHI ESAV KI YAR'E ANOCHI OTO PEN YAVO VE HIKANI EM AL BANIM
הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו כִּי יָרֵא אָנֹכִי אֹתוֹ פֶּן יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי אֵם עַל בָּנִים
KJ (32:11): Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear him, lest he will come and smite me, and the mother with the children.
BN: "Deliver me, I beseech you, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esav; for I fear him, lest he come and smite me, the mother with the children...
There is a detailed psychological study waiting to be written on Ya'akov and his behaviour and his fears and his deceits throughout the tale, but especially this Penu-El story. The phrasing here, as well as the anxiety-dream that is the wrestling-match with the "man", show us the depths of his fear of Esav, which can only be read as the depth of his guilt, and of his sense of guilt, in relation to Esav. This is in part mitigated by the fact that Esav sold his birthright willingly and therefore has no cause to seek the sort of revenge that Ya'akov fears in that regard. As to the blessing...
EM (אם): note that EM = "mother", while AM (עם) which sounds identical but is spelled differently (Ayin rather than Aleph first letter), means "the people"; on the other hand LE'UMI (לאומי) = "a nation" comes from the same root as "mother", not the same root as "people", which may be surprising. Nonetheless we are in the realm of two-letter roots, which are the base roots of the Yehudit language, its aboriginal form. It is easy to imagine those who first constructed the language making an almost conscious correlation between the mother and the people, and choosing words as close as possible, a mere spelling point apart. But it is mother, not father, just as Israel is motherland, not fatherland. The roots lie in matriarchy, not patriarchy. Every single Bible story reconfirms this.
And do not forget: when we asked at the beginning of the tale, what is the birthright that Ya'akov is stealing... this, this is it, and this Esav's last chance to try to reclaim it (if he even wants it).
32:13: VE ATAH AMARTA HEYTEV EYTIV IMACH VE SAMTI ET ZAR'ACHA KE CHOL HA YAM ASHER LO YISAPHER ME ROV
וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב
KJ (32:12): And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.
BN: "And you said, 'I will surely look after you, and make your descendants like the sands of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.'"
YISAPHER: Why does the pointing insist on this being YISAPHER, when grammatically it should surely be YISAPER?
End of first fragment
32:14: VA YALEN SHAM BA LAILAH HA HU VA YIKACH MIN HA BA VE YADO MINCHAH LE ESAV ACHIV
וַיָּלֶן שָׁם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא וַיִּקַּח מִן הַבָּא בְיָדוֹ מִנְחָה לְעֵשָׂו אָחִיו
KJ (32:13): And he lodged there that same night; and took of that which came to his hand a present for Esau his brother;
BN: And he lodged there that night, and took from everything that he had with him a present for his brother Esav.
MIN HA BA BE YADO (מן הבא בידו): "from what came into his hand" is an odd phrase. It suggests he just grabbed any old thing that happened to be lying about, whereas the context suggests he would have chosen rather more fastidiously.
MINCHAH (מנחה): why not MATANAH (מתנה), or even KISHRON (כשרון)? MINCHAH is usually a gift given to a god, i.e. a sacrifice. The afternoon prayer service to this day is named Minchah, in remembrance of the afternoon sacrifices in the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im. Then is he actually making sacrifice to his god, as a backing to what is effectively a prayer uttered in the verses immediately beforehand? The answer is no, according to the verses that follow, and the size of the gift. But perhaps we can assume that both in fact took place, the propitiatory sacrifice and the gift; or perhaps Ya'akov is anticipating, or hoping, that Esav will himself offer up some of the beasts in sacrifice, even perhaps for a reunion meal. The translation used throughout this piece is "offering", which allows all these options.
32:15: IZIM MA'TAYIM U TEYASHIM ESRIM RECHELIM MA'TAYIM VE EYLIM ESRIM
עִזִּים מָאתַיִם וּתְיָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים רְחֵלִים מָאתַיִם וְאֵילִים עֶשְׂרִים
KJ (32:14): Two hundred she goats, and twenty he goats, two hundred ewes, and twenty rams,
BN: Two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats, two hundred ewes and twenty rams.
Loose change! Is there anything significant about the numbers? If he just wanted to feed the four hundred, he wouldn't have needed anything like this number. This is enough to start a serious farm. And there is more to come - see next verse.
Note the Rechelim again.
32:16: GEMALIM MEYNIYKOT U VENEYHEM SHELOSHIM PAROT ARBA'IM U PHARIM ASARAH ATONOT ESRIM VA EYARIM ASARAH
גְּמַלִּים מֵינִיקוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים פָּרוֹת אַרְבָּעִים וּפָרִים עֲשָׂרָה אֲתֹנֹת עֶשְׂרִים וַעְיָרִם עֲשָׂרָה
KJ (32:15): Thirty milch camels with their colts, forty kine, and ten bulls, twenty she asses, and ten foals.
BN: Thirty milch camels and their colts, forty cows and ten bulls, twenty she-asses and ten foals.
Again, is there anything significant about the numbers?
This is just what he had to hand! Whatever wealth Yitschak may have had to leave in his will, it cannot be have been more than Ya'akov is giving Esav now, and still only a small part of his wealth. Can we can imagine that Esav will be contented, or at least appeased; this is what continues to worry Ya'akov. See verse 21.
The technical term here is "reparations"; if it had been required by law, it would have been called "damages".
We also need to envisage this, to imagine filming it for the Hollywood version. This is an entire nomadic tribe on the move, a sheikh, four wives, thirteen children, dozens of concubines, household servants, shepherds and goatherds and cowboys guiding probably thousands of animals... and when we do, we realise, as with No'ach's Ark, that this simply doesn't work. Written by a city-dweller who has never farmed! Livestock management over long distances is complex, and keeping the males and females apart is the easy bit - we have bulls here, several of them, and billy-goats, and rams, and no possibility of putting up fences while you're travelling, and stabling them overnight, and are they simply being allowed to graze as they go - we are on the Golan Heights, which isn't easy terrain, and definitely not Kansas prairie or Kentish weald...
32:17: VA YITEN BE YAD AVADAV EDER EDER LEVADO VA YOMER EL AVADAV IVRU LEPHANAI VE REVACH TASIYMU BEYN EDER U VEYN EDER
KJ (32:16): And he delivered them into the hand of his servants, every drove by themselves; and said unto his servants, Pass over before me, and put a space betwixt drove and drove.
BN: And he handed them over to his servants, one drove at a timef; he and said to his servants, "Pass over before me, and keep a space between drove and drove."
Is Ya'akov playing tricks again? No, but he is once again creating two camps, and probably a good idea if he is giving sheep, camels, goats and cattle - my point at the end of the last verse. And probably an even better idea if they are attacked.
Note also that the verb AVAR = "to cross over", which is one of the explanations of the name "Hebrew", keeps on cropping up in this passage which is about to create the name Yisra-El, though it may just be a pun or a coincidence.
32:18: VA YETSAV ET HA RI'SHON LEMOR KI YIPHGASH'CHA ESAV ACHI VISH'ELCHA LEMOR LE MI ATAH VE ANAH TELECH U LE MI ELEH LEPHANEYCHA
KJ (32:17): And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee?
BN: And he instructed the first, saying, "When Esav my brother meets you, and asks you, saying, 'Whose are you?' and, 'Where are you going?', and, 'Whose are these before you?'...
Beautifully constructed sentence to convey the terror that is running through Ya'akov's entire being.
But alas it is also another flaw in the story-telling, because the messengers have already been, and met Esav, and returned with the news that he is on the way (verse 7); so Esav won't ask any of those questions. If this verse and the following were placed between verses 4 and 5, they would make perfect sense - and indeed the text of 4 flows perfectly into the details given in 15-17. Or is it simply that he wants to make sure the servants get the wording right: "servant Ya'akov" and "lord Esav" especially?
32:19: VE AMARTA LE AVDECHA LE YA'AKOV MINCHAH HI SHELUCHAH LE ADONI LE ESAV VE HINEH GAM HU ACHAREYNU
KJ (32:18): Then thou shalt say, They be thy servant Jacob's; it is a present sent unto my lord Esau: and, behold, also he is behind us.
BN: "Then you shall say, "These are your servant Ya'akov's; it is an offering sent to my lord, to Esav; and behold, he is behind us.'"
He always was a shrewd and calculating man, and this is brilliant. The use of the MINCHAH as well; see my previous note (verse 14) and then wonder how Esav will understand the usage of the word in this context.
VE HINEH GAM HU ACHAREYNU: The phrase parallels the one used by the messengers in verse 7: "VE GAM HOLECH LIKRAT'CHA - and moreover he is coming to meet you."
32:20: VA YETSAV GAM ET HA SHENI GAM ET HA SHLISHI GAM ET KOL HA HOLCHIM ACHAREY HA ADARIM LEMOR KA DAVAR HA ZEH TEDABRUN EL ESAV BE MOTSA'ACHEM OTO
KJ (32:19): And so commanded he the second, and the third, and all that followed the droves, saying, On this manner shall ye speak unto Esau, when ye find him.
BN: And thus too did he instruct the second, and the third, and everyone who was following the droves, saying, "In this manner shall you speak to Esav, when you find him...
The gift is irresistible, the manner of offering it even more so. The terror is palpable.
32:21: VA AMARTEM GAM HINEH AVDECHA YA'AKOV ACHAREYNU KI AMAR ACHAPRAH PHANAV BA MINCHAH HA HOLECHET LEPHANAI VE ACHAREY CHEN ER'EH PHANAV ULAI YISA PHANAY
KJ (32:20): And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me.
BN: "And you shall also say, 'Look, your servant Ya’akov is behind us.'" For he said to himself, "I will appease him with the offering that I am sending ahead of me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps he will turn his face positively towards me."
ACHAPRAH: Yes, appease; Ya'akov himself uses the word.
Ya'akov's fear made manifest in the extent of his assuagement of it. The first truly psychological account of the nature of guilt in world literature.
English translations tend to assume that the words after "for he said" are part of what he says to the servants; the text here actually separates them, treating them as the thoughts he expressed privately to himself. I have therefore placed the closing speech-mark at that point. It is hard to imagine that Ya'akov would have wanted them said to Esav.
The text has suddenly become quite remarkably complex. Ya'akov is making an offering, and hopes as a reward to see Esav's face. "His face" in the Yehudit is, quite normally and correctly PANAV; but we are at a place that is shortly to be renamed PENU-EL, "the face of El", as a result of Ya'akov wrestling with "the man", or "the angel", or "the alter ego", or just his conscience. In whatever terms, Esav and the deity become inseparable; each is first confronted by a traveller entering a new realm and scared of what will happen to him; each receives a MINCHAH; each then appears "in the face", in person. And as always, there are MAL'ACHIM, and as always three.
YISA PHANAY: How can the translators - all of them, every one of them, Greek, Latin, English, French, Jewish, Christian, secular... how can they all have missed this so obvious allusion (Numbers 6:25-27, or 24-27 in some versions):
32:22: VA TA'AVOR HA MINCHAH AL PANAV VE HU LAN BA LAILAH HA HU BA MACHANEH
KJ (32:21): So went the present over before him: and himself lodged that night in the company.
BN: So the offering passed over before him; and he himself lodged that night in the camp.
VA TA'AVOR HA MINCHAH AL PANAV: Why would any writer or story-teller phrase it in this manner? "So the messengers left with the gifts" - surely? But this uses three very precisely specifically significantly not-just-ordinary words, with liturgical and mythological and historical connections that are not simply random. TA'AVOR which "passes over", and the name Ivri (Hebrew) is connected. A gift to a man which is also an offering to a god and the name of an act of worship. Brotherly offerings that take us back as far as Kayin and Havel, and as far forward as Passover, whose correct name - the Pesach, the Limping-Festival... but wait for the next chapter for this; enough to say it connects back to Ya'akov's sacred heel as well as to the sinew of the thigh that is about to be torn... and Penu-El itself, foreshadowed in all of this, and all of it transposed into apparently daily speech.
32:23: VA YAKAM BA LAILAH HU VA YIKACH ET SHETEY NASHAV VE ET SHETEY SHIPHCHOTAV VE ET ACHAD ASAR YELADAV VA YA'AVOR ET MA'AVAR YAVOK
KJ (32:22): And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.
BN: And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven children, and passed over the ford of the Yavok.
The Yehudit here uses YELADAV (יְלָדָיו), which is masculine plural, and the number given is eleven (Bin-Yamin comes later). If both sons and daughters were intended, the masculine plural would still be used; but then eleven would need to be twelve, to include Dinah. I am merely noting this oversight.
Or perhaps it isn't an oversight, and, having now parted from the moon (Lavan/Ha Lavanah), the about-to-be risen sun-king is crossing over that elemental materiality which separates dry land from dry land and heavens from heavens, and his eleven constellations are crossing it with him (which makes him the twelfth), and his four planetary companions as well (which is which? and why only four?). I am simply speculating.
MA'AVAR YAVOK (מעבר יבק): the ford of Jabbok in most translations, a stream near Mount Gilead (or Gil'ad, or Gal-Ed) on the borders of the Beney Amon, flowing into the river Yarden on the east; probably what is now Wadi Zurka. YAVOK is probably from the root AVAK (עבק) = "dry, dusty"; a tributary of the Yarden half-way between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee. But the use of "ford" rather than "stream" allows yet again the use of AVAR, so perhaps in the Jacobite clan traditions he was regarded as the first "Hebrew", which makes sense since the Jacobite liturgy includes the statement "my ancestor was an Aramaean", and Ya'akov is not only about to become Yisra-El, but to do so right here, where the letters of his old name (יעקב) anagram both into the name of the place where the transformation happened (YAVOK - יבק), and the method by which it happened (YE'AVEK - יעבק - see verse 25 below).
Again Ya'akov is playing tricks, though on this occasion it may just be strategy, sneaking his family away by dead of night so that his servants, and especially his messengers to Esav, do not know precisely where he is (and this is also why two camps are so important). If Esav is negative despite the gifts, and wants trouble, if he coerces the messengers into giving the details of the camp so he can plan an attack, their information will be honest, no doubt, but still wrong, because Ya'akov has changed the detail of his arrangements after their departure.
32:24: VA YIKACHEM VA YA'AVIREM ET HA NACHAL VA YA'AVER ET ASHER LO
KJ (32:23): And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and sent over that he had.
BN: And he took them, and sent them over the stream, and sent over everything he had.
This is precisely where King David crossed the river on his return from the exile imposed on him by Av-Shalom's rebellion (2 Samuel 19).
The word AVAR appears twice in this sentence, far too often now to be just coincidence; it is obtaining the weight of mantra.
32:25: VA YIVATER YA'AKOV LEVADO VA YE'AVEK ISH IMO AD ALOT HA SHACHAR
KJ (32:24): And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
BN: And Ya'akov was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
VA YE'AVEK (ויעבק): somehow we have been waiting for this. The Yehudit poet loves his plays on letters, and this one was inevitable, at once a verbal anagram in the written form, and an aural pun in the spoken: aleph-bet-quf (א-ב-ק) in place of ayin-quf-bet (ע-ק-ב) - but augmented by the other verbal-aural pun that has been running through this story, because Yavok-Ya'akov is functioning in the same manner – YA'AKOV, YAVOK, YE'AVEK.
ISH (איש): it goes without saying that the following episode is not to be taken literally, but is a metaphor or allegory for his inner struggle. Having said which, and taking this as literally as one can get, "he" is a LIL (ליל), one of the LILIM or night spirits whose mother was LILIT (Lilith), Adam's first wife according to Midrash; equivalent of the Greek Erinyes (Furies), and generally depicted in mythology as a white horse, female of course, whence the term "nightmare". To understand the full details, this is where we most need to go to the opening of Frazer's "Golden Bough", though the Golden Fleece, or Fafner's defeat by Siegfried, even Frodo versus Gollum, would give us the gist: the guardian of the goddess' sacred shrine fights to defend his championship; if he wins, he serves another term; if defeated, a new champion takes over.
ALOT HA SHACHAR (עלת השחר): is Kibbutz Ayelet Ha Shachar connected to this, by name or by location? - probably not, AYELET has a first letter aleph (א), where ALOT has an Ayin (ע)? However (I am quoting the standard translation of Gesenius precisely here, from his etymology of AYELET), "it is hard to be explained what it means in the title of Psalm 22, AL AYELET HA SHACHAR, 'on the hind of the dawn'... probably was the morning sun itself shedding its first beams, which the Arabians call gazelle, comparing, according to the use of the language, the rays to horns (see KEREN)", the latter being the so-called "Horns of Mosheh", likewise understood to be the sun's rays.
Which leads to another question: Is there any significance in speaking of the rising of the dawn here, rather than the rising of the sun - and see again my planetary speculations above? And then look at the precise detail of the stalemate, at the end of the wrestling-match, in verse 27.
There is also a possible link to the tribe of Yisaschar (Issachar), perhaps through Ish Shachar, which may originally have been Ishah Shachar, the Dawn Goddess, rather than Ishah Shachur, the Black Madonna (however Genesis 49:14 clearly regards Yisaschar as "a large-boned donkey" and not as a gazelle). Is Alot Ha Shachar then the correct pronunciation, or should it be Ayelet Ha Shachar? (Check also the connections to Ayalon, in Joshua 10:12, where there seems to be some sort of lunar or solar eclipse).
And then there is Tseret Ha Shachar (צֶ֥רֶת הַשַּׁ֖חַר), in Joshua 13:19, which, if you followed my link on Wadi Zurqa (above), you will have seen was an alternate name for that particular location (click here for more).
32:26: VA YAR KI LO YACHOL LO VA YIGA BE CHAPH YERECHO VA TEKA KAPH YERECH YA'AKOV BE HE'AVKO IMO
KJ (32:25): And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
BN: And when he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Ya'akov's thigh was torn as he wrestled with him.
KI LO YACHOL (כי לא יכל): literally means "that he was unable". But unable to what? Most Christian translations add "prevail", and Christian commentaries likewise speak of Ya'akov "prevailing" in this battle; but is that correct? Probably yes, but with a qualification: that neither could Ya'akov. What is most critical to this story is precisely that neither party was able to prevail - itself a triumph for Ya'akov and a failure by the angel, because this should not have been the outcome; but still not a victory. Despite the "man's" statement in verse 29, the outcome is in fact a stalemate, in which both mutually agree the terms of closure - just as was the case with Lavan and Ya'akov at Gal-Ed, just as will be the case with Esav very shortly.
CHAPH YERECH (כף-ירך): "hollow of the thigh" is a lovely euphemism – "grabbed him by the testicles and squeezed" is more colloquially and prosaically precise, though probably, in the original of this tale, it meant full and literal castration - compare the tale of Ouranos, and see my notes to the aftermath of the flood chez No'ach (Genesis 9:19 ff); but of course Yerech (ירך) = "the thigh" links by aural pun to Yareyach (ירח) = "the moon", and dawn squeezing the moon is also worth commenting upon. The thigh, as noted earlier, was sacred, and we have witnessed the placing of the hand under the thigh as the methodology of swearing an oath, earlier in this tale.
Hertz translates what happened to the thigh as "strained", rather than "put out of joint", which latter is the usual rendition. All Jewish translators and commentators down the centuries have looked to prove or even improve the euphemism, arguing it was his stomach, his knee-cartilage, his thigh-bone, but the fact is, we are reading what is already a watered-down account of an aboriginal priest-king's coronation rites, and what actually happened in the original original was almost certainly castration: the making of a eunuch. This was then reduced to the mere "thigh-strain" of the Ya'akov story, and then to Av-Rahamic circumcision; a fact which may well allow us to place the Ya'akov stories chronologically earlier than the Av-Rahamic ones.
One more consideration (cf Genesis 24:3 and my notes there): the placing of the hand "under the thigh" was also a manner of swearing an oath. Is the angel in fact beginning the coronation process, of which the blessing, and the name-change, become parts two and three? The two are not in conflict: indeed, both are likely, the making of a eunuch and the oath: both aspects of the coronation ceremony (making a eunuch may seem contrary to the fertility cult, but in fact it is essential: the power of fertility must remain with the goddess, not the priest-king; the obvious example of this is the Catholic priesthood).
All the above helps us confirm that the man really was a man, and that "angel" was a late alteration. Not that it really matters, because the entire tale is metaphorical and allegorical, not literal, anyway.
32:27: VA YOMER SHALCHENI KI ALAH HA SHACHAR VA YOMER LO ASHAL'ECHACHA KI IM BERACHTANI
KJ (32:26): And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
BN: And he said, "Let me go, for the day is breaking." And he said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
Once again it is a blessing that Ya'akov is most interested in obtaining.
The man has to be gone before the sun rises - like Dracula! What kind of creature then is he? One of the Lilim, as noted above (verse 25). The night connects him to the moon goddess and to fear of the sun-god; though again the sun is not mentioned, but only the dawn; except that the dawn is the advance guard of the sun, the rising of the sun. But he is under the command of the moon, hence his night status and night-fight. The dawn star becomes significant among the Beney Yisra-El from the time of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah), although scholars are in disagreement about the precise meaning of Isaiah 14:12: "אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹלֵשׁ עַלגּוֹיִם - Aych naphalta mi shamayim, heylel ben shachar. Nigdata la arets. Cholesh al goyim - How you are fallen from the heavens, O bright morning-star, son of the dawn. How you are cut down to the Earth, you who once cast lots over the nations." The debate is over "heylel ben shachar" which literally means "morning-star, son of the dawn", a prefiguration of Milton's description of Lucifer, the "brightest star", "hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky, With hideous ruin and combustion, down To bottomless perdition; there to dwell In adamantine chains and penal fire, Who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms." The chains are in our verse too: SHALCHENI: "Release me".
32:28: VA YOMER ELAV MAH SHEMECHA VA YOMER YA'AKOV
KJ (32:27): And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
BN: And he asked him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Ya'akov."
"Q: When does a tribal hero change his name?" I asked, at the top of this page. And answered: "A: When he commits manslaughter, flees from his country and is adopted by another tribe; when he ascends a throne and acquires a kingly title; or when he occupies a new country."
If this is an angel, the question is rhetorical, because he obviously knows who he has been sent to wrestle with. Is this is the official in a coronation ceremony, then the question is theatrical, a function of the ritual or liturgy, a prelude to his formal taking of the king-name.
32:29: VA YOMER LO YA'AKOV YE'AMER OD SHIMCHA KI IM YISRA-EL KI SARIYTA IM ELOHIM VE IM ANASHIM VA TUCHAL
KJ (32:28): And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
BN: And he said, "Your name shall no longer be Ya'akov, but Yisra-El; for you have striven with Elohim, and with men, and have prevailed."
Remember that he has asked for a blessing, and receives a name; then the name must be that blessing, and this must be a positive statement of his triumph, a title of victory. As in the English rites, the crown is placed in the new monarch's head "in the name of Jesus Christ Our Lord..."
YISRA-EL: He is the man who has wrestled with his god, a Champion. Again, see Frazer...
IM YISRA-EL (עם ישראל): IM (עם) usually means "if, whether, in case, or"; and has no logic in this phrase; unless a word is missing; and strangely the phrase that follows appears to be the missing phrase, except that the two then overlap and repeat themselves: "for you have wrestled with Elohim". Was IM YISRA-EL added by the Redactor to make a point? And note that it is Elohim here, not YHVH.
IM ELOHIM VE IM ANASHIM (עם אלהים ועם אנשים): meaning what? How has he fought with gods and men; El and Elohim are here identified together; but which men has he fought with? Is it the ceremonial language of coronation?
SARIYTA (שרית): means what precisely? Given as "prevailed", but thinking of Sar and Sarah from the same root, "made a prince" is just as logical a translation.
VA TUCHAL (ותוכל): and again this strange use of the verb "to be able".
The notes on this verse are no more than that: a starting-point.
32:30: VA YISHAL YA'AKOV VA YOMER HAGIDAH NA SHIMCHA VA YOMER LAMAH ZEH TISH'AL LI SHMI VA YEVARECH OTO SHAM
KJ (32:29): And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
BN: Then Ya'akov asked him, saying, "Tell me, I pray you, your name." And he said, "Why do you ask my name?" And he blessed him there.
The change of name at this point in the story is not insignificant; as with Av-Ram's change of name, it marks the end of one story and the beginning of another. From now on Yisra-El is an old man who has sons more important than himself; relegated to tribal patriarch, his story is to all intents and purposes told. However, unlike Av-Ram, the change of name is dramatic, and full of new meanings. Are we then talking about a different character, with the death of the goat-god lost in here somewhere? Compare the transfiguration of Dionysus into Apollo with this of Ya'akov into Yisra-El.
See also the story of Mano'ach in Judges 13. Is there some sort of blackmail going on in the asking of the name? Note that the name is changed, but the text goes on using the old name, and in fact the new name is hardly ever used in the Tanach in relation to Ya'akov, but only in relation to the people as a tribe.
See the earlier note on the significance of asking a god his name.
One small and possibly irrelevant point (see the note to Lucifer above however): the use of the verb LISH'OL, which has underworld connections through Sha'ul.
End of second fragment
32:31: VA YIKRA YA'AKOV SHEM HA MAKOM PENI-EL KI RA'ITI ELOHIM PANIM EL PANIM VA TINATSEL NAPHSHI
KJ (32: 30): And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
BN: And Ya'akov called the name of the place Peni-El: "For I have seen Elohim face to face, and my life is preserved."
YA'AKOV (יעקב): the change of name still not yet applied.
PENI-EL (פמיאל): Is this one of the rare occasions when the explanation seems to fit the name? Actually, and sadly, no - we are told that he has fought with a "man", though a MAL'ACH was referred to, somewhat confusingly with two different meanings, earlier in the episode. But even if it was "an angel of Elohim", it is still only the angel and not Elohim. Clearly the place was already sacred, and so he can say that "Elohim is in this place and I did not know it", which is what he said when he woke up at Beit-El after dreaming the angelic ladder (Genesis 28:16), though on that occasion it was YHVH and not Elohim.
The implication is that he did not need to ask the name because it was neither a man nor an angel nor a messenger but the god himself with whom he wrestled. This does not concord with everything else we have understood about the tale, if we read ELOHIM anthropomorphically. However, if we understand ELOHIM to mean "the gods", in the metaphorical sense of "powers", then the seeming contradiction is allayed.
As so often, the slight variation in the pronunciation of the name is a question of pointing only. But why Peni-El here, and always Penu-El elsewhere? On several occasions we have noted, and will again throughout the Tanach, that the variations occur with Yud (י) and Vav (ו) and may in fact be nothing but a scribal variation, as the one is merely an elongation of the other.
TINATSEL (תנצל): the classic Beney Yisra-El myth (other cults too) that to look upon the face of a god is to provoke death. Cf Exodus 33:20: "And he said: 'You can not see my face, for Humans shall not see me and live." Does it indicate a sun-god - after all, to look into the sun's "face" causes blindness at the very least (in Exodus 33:20, as we shall see, it was the intensely flaming heat of a volcanic eruption that was the reason)?
Is Tinatsel in fact the future of the passive form of Tsel'a (צלע) = "to limp" which recurs in the next verse? Or a variation of, indeed a play on words with, TSEL (צל) = "a shadow", which is the image cast by that un-lookable-at face, if it is the sun?
32:32: VA YIZRACH LO HA SHEMESH KA ASHER AVAR ET PENU-EL VE HU TSOLE'AH AL YERECHO
KJ (32:31): And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.
BN: And the sun rose above him as he passed over Penu-El, and he limped because of his thigh.
One of the most loaded sentences in the entire Tanach. Why YIZRACH LO (יזרח לו)? How did he AVAR ET PENU-EL (עבר את פנואל) if he was not himself the moon? [note the use of Avar yet again; and while with Yavok it made sense, here it is actually the most inappropriate verb]. Why TSOLE'AH (צלע), with all its insinuations of god-status? And the pun again connecting "thigh" = YERECH, to "moon" = YARE'ACH in Yehudit, or HA LAVANAH/LAVAN in the Syriac: moon-Ya'akov stumbling one way out of Penu-El while the sun-god slowly rises from the other direction, and we understand that we have witnessed a perfect reversal of Shimshon versus Delilah: here the moon is male and the sun female, here it is the night which has prevailed over the day, but now the day can, and must, inevitably rise again, prevail again, Shimshon recovering his long hair, Delilah retreating into the "shadows", but knowing that in a few hours she will tie Shimshon to the pillars again... and round and round the round table, knight after knight after night after night, Gil upon Gal, eternally - or at least until the Last Supper.
Yet another pun connecting Tsole'ah (צלע) to Tsel (צל) = "shadow"?
The better because more lyrical translation reads: "limping because of his thigh".
What the Crucifixion is to the Christian story (what Hamlet is to European literature and Oedipus to modern psychology), so we can see that Penu-El, the culmination of Ya'akov's epic odyssey, that Penu-El (Penu-El, not Sinai), is the centrifugal force of the pre-Jewish Bible.
32:33: AL KEN LO YO'CHLU VENEY YISRA-EL ET GID HA NASHEH ASHER AL KAPH HA YARECH AD HA YOM HA ZEH KI NAGA BE CHAPH YERECH YA'AKOV BE GID HA NASHEH
KJ (32:32): Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.
BN: Therefore the children of Yisra-El do not eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein which is on the hollow of the thigh, to this very day; because he touched the hollow of Ya'akov's thigh, even in the sinew of the thigh vein.
All this wonderful tale and fable and parable and myth and psychological insight, just to tell us we can't eat blood pudding?!
This likewise needs a lot of explaining, because a tabu is only ever established around the divine, and Ya'akov is not apparently one of the divine. Or is he? It is worth having a look at the food taboos in the Torah to see just how many of them are an attempt to break free of Egyptian god-taboos - the prohibition of pork, for example, clearly has less to do with hygiene (the pig is actually an extremely clean animal in terms of its own hygiene and its susceptibility to parasites; far cleaner than any of the animals that are permitted) than to do with Set-worship, and the orgiastic revelries connected to the eating of the boar which was the killer of Osher/Osiris. Interesting to know which came first, the story or the taboo.
What is really being proscribed is the genitalia. But Hertz, of course, like most religious commentators, cannot accommodate the genitalia, and so opts for the sciatic nerve which, along with other arteries and tendons, is removed from a slaughtered animal as part of kashrut. But Ya'akov is not a slaughtered animal, he is a victorious prince being crowned priest-king. What is wrong with it being genitalia? Even Hertz has no problem with them when they are for the purposes of swearing an oath. Because it was a Kena'anite/pagan custom? Or because it makes us realise that all these mythological tales quite likely had their origins tens of thousands of years earlier, way back in Cro-Magnon times, when troglodytes battled with the darkness of the caves and the forests let alone the night, and the human brain was barely formed.
YO'CHLU (יאכלו): note that it should be YO'CHLIM (יאכלים), meaning "we" do not eat, but it is given as "they" do not, as though the Bene Yisra-El were another people altogether from the ones reading this book - perhaps for the Redactor and his readers, the "Hebrews" were!
How much of the above is simply a way of seeking out the root of the name Yisra-El, as the name Yehudah will be sought out among the tribes. Yisra-El would have liked to see itself as the elder among the tribes; Yehudah itself likewise.
End of chapter 32
32:17: VA YITEN BE YAD AVADAV EDER EDER LEVADO VA YOMER EL AVADAV IVRU LEPHANAI VE REVACH TASIYMU BEYN EDER U VEYN EDER
וַיִּתֵּן בְּיַד עֲבָדָיו עֵדֶר עֵדֶר לְבַדּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עֲבָדָיו עִבְרוּ לְפָנַי וְרֶוַח תָּשִׂימוּ בֵּין עֵדֶר וּבֵין עֵדֶר
KJ (32:16): And he delivered them into the hand of his servants, every drove by themselves; and said unto his servants, Pass over before me, and put a space betwixt drove and drove.
BN: And he handed them over to his servants, one drove at a timef; he and said to his servants, "Pass over before me, and keep a space between drove and drove."
Is Ya'akov playing tricks again? No, but he is once again creating two camps, and probably a good idea if he is giving sheep, camels, goats and cattle - my point at the end of the last verse. And probably an even better idea if they are attacked.
Note also that the verb AVAR = "to cross over", which is one of the explanations of the name "Hebrew", keeps on cropping up in this passage which is about to create the name Yisra-El, though it may just be a pun or a coincidence.
32:18: VA YETSAV ET HA RI'SHON LEMOR KI YIPHGASH'CHA ESAV ACHI VISH'ELCHA LEMOR LE MI ATAH VE ANAH TELECH U LE MI ELEH LEPHANEYCHA
וַיְצַו אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן לֵאמֹר כִּי יִפְגָּשְׁךָ עֵשָׂו אָחִי וִשְׁאֵלְךָ לֵאמֹר לְמִי אַתָּה וְאָנָה תֵלֵךְ וּלְמִי אֵלֶּה לְפָנֶיךָ
KJ (32:17): And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee?
BN: And he instructed the first, saying, "When Esav my brother meets you, and asks you, saying, 'Whose are you?' and, 'Where are you going?', and, 'Whose are these before you?'...
Beautifully constructed sentence to convey the terror that is running through Ya'akov's entire being.
But alas it is also another flaw in the story-telling, because the messengers have already been, and met Esav, and returned with the news that he is on the way (verse 7); so Esav won't ask any of those questions. If this verse and the following were placed between verses 4 and 5, they would make perfect sense - and indeed the text of 4 flows perfectly into the details given in 15-17. Or is it simply that he wants to make sure the servants get the wording right: "servant Ya'akov" and "lord Esav" especially?
32:19: VE AMARTA LE AVDECHA LE YA'AKOV MINCHAH HI SHELUCHAH LE ADONI LE ESAV VE HINEH GAM HU ACHAREYNU
וְאָמַרְתָּ לְעַבְדְּךָ לְיַעֲקֹב מִנְחָה הִוא שְׁלוּחָה לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו וְהִנֵּה גַם הוּא אַחֲרֵינוּ
KJ (32:18): Then thou shalt say, They be thy servant Jacob's; it is a present sent unto my lord Esau: and, behold, also he is behind us.
BN: "Then you shall say, "These are your servant Ya'akov's; it is an offering sent to my lord, to Esav; and behold, he is behind us.'"
He always was a shrewd and calculating man, and this is brilliant. The use of the MINCHAH as well; see my previous note (verse 14) and then wonder how Esav will understand the usage of the word in this context.
VE HINEH GAM HU ACHAREYNU: The phrase parallels the one used by the messengers in verse 7: "VE GAM HOLECH LIKRAT'CHA - and moreover he is coming to meet you."
32:20: VA YETSAV GAM ET HA SHENI GAM ET HA SHLISHI GAM ET KOL HA HOLCHIM ACHAREY HA ADARIM LEMOR KA DAVAR HA ZEH TEDABRUN EL ESAV BE MOTSA'ACHEM OTO
וַיְצַו גַּם אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי גַּם אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי גַּם אֶת כָּל הַהֹלְכִים אַחֲרֵי הָעֲדָרִים לֵאמֹר כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה תְּדַבְּרוּן אֶל עֵשָׂו בְּמֹצַאֲכֶם אֹתוֹ
KJ (32:19): And so commanded he the second, and the third, and all that followed the droves, saying, On this manner shall ye speak unto Esau, when ye find him.
BN: And thus too did he instruct the second, and the third, and everyone who was following the droves, saying, "In this manner shall you speak to Esav, when you find him...
The gift is irresistible, the manner of offering it even more so. The terror is palpable.
32:21: VA AMARTEM GAM HINEH AVDECHA YA'AKOV ACHAREYNU KI AMAR ACHAPRAH PHANAV BA MINCHAH HA HOLECHET LEPHANAI VE ACHAREY CHEN ER'EH PHANAV ULAI YISA PHANAY
וַאֲמַרְתֶּם גַּם הִנֵּה עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב אַחֲרֵינוּ כִּי אָמַר אֲכַפְּרָה פָנָיו בַּמִּנְחָה הַהֹלֶכֶת לְפָנָי וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן אֶרְאֶה פָנָיו אוּלַי יִשָּׂא פָנָי
KJ (32:20): And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me.
BN: "And you shall also say, 'Look, your servant Ya’akov is behind us.'" For he said to himself, "I will appease him with the offering that I am sending ahead of me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps he will turn his face positively towards me."
ACHAPRAH: Yes, appease; Ya'akov himself uses the word.
Ya'akov's fear made manifest in the extent of his assuagement of it. The first truly psychological account of the nature of guilt in world literature.
English translations tend to assume that the words after "for he said" are part of what he says to the servants; the text here actually separates them, treating them as the thoughts he expressed privately to himself. I have therefore placed the closing speech-mark at that point. It is hard to imagine that Ya'akov would have wanted them said to Esav.
The text has suddenly become quite remarkably complex. Ya'akov is making an offering, and hopes as a reward to see Esav's face. "His face" in the Yehudit is, quite normally and correctly PANAV; but we are at a place that is shortly to be renamed PENU-EL, "the face of El", as a result of Ya'akov wrestling with "the man", or "the angel", or "the alter ego", or just his conscience. In whatever terms, Esav and the deity become inseparable; each is first confronted by a traveller entering a new realm and scared of what will happen to him; each receives a MINCHAH; each then appears "in the face", in person. And as always, there are MAL'ACHIM, and as always three.
YISA PHANAY: How can the translators - all of them, every one of them, Greek, Latin, English, French, Jewish, Christian, secular... how can they all have missed this so obvious allusion (Numbers 6:25-27, or 24-27 in some versions):
YEVARECHECHA YHVH VE YISHMERECHA: May YHVH bless you and watch over you.
YA'ER YHVH PANAV ELEYCHA VIYCHUNECHA.(Note that PANAV = face; we are about to reach Penu-El: the face of El):
May YHVH set his face to shine on you, and be gracious to you.And then, the allusion here:
YISA YHVH PANAV ELEYCHA VE YASEM LECHA SHALOM: May YHVH turn his face towards you, and bring you peace(actually it means more than that; it means make everything in your life complete, but Ya'akov here is thinking of the more idiomatic-colloquial usage of the word).
32:22: VA TA'AVOR HA MINCHAH AL PANAV VE HU LAN BA LAILAH HA HU BA MACHANEH
וַתַּעֲבֹר הַמִּנְחָה עַל פָּנָיו וְהוּא לָן בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא בַּמַּחֲנֶה
KJ (32:21): So went the present over before him: and himself lodged that night in the company.
BN: So the offering passed over before him; and he himself lodged that night in the camp.
VA TA'AVOR HA MINCHAH AL PANAV: Why would any writer or story-teller phrase it in this manner? "So the messengers left with the gifts" - surely? But this uses three very precisely specifically significantly not-just-ordinary words, with liturgical and mythological and historical connections that are not simply random. TA'AVOR which "passes over", and the name Ivri (Hebrew) is connected. A gift to a man which is also an offering to a god and the name of an act of worship. Brotherly offerings that take us back as far as Kayin and Havel, and as far forward as Passover, whose correct name - the Pesach, the Limping-Festival... but wait for the next chapter for this; enough to say it connects back to Ya'akov's sacred heel as well as to the sinew of the thigh that is about to be torn... and Penu-El itself, foreshadowed in all of this, and all of it transposed into apparently daily speech.
32:23: VA YAKAM BA LAILAH HU VA YIKACH ET SHETEY NASHAV VE ET SHETEY SHIPHCHOTAV VE ET ACHAD ASAR YELADAV VA YA'AVOR ET MA'AVAR YAVOK
וַיָּקָם בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא וַיִּקַּח אֶת שְׁתֵּי נָשָׁיו וְאֶת שְׁתֵּי שִׁפְחֹתָיו וְאֶת אַחַד עָשָׂר יְלָדָיו וַיַּעֲבֹר אֵת מַעֲבַר יַבֹּק
KJ (32:22): And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.
BN: And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven children, and passed over the ford of the Yavok.
The Yehudit here uses YELADAV (יְלָדָיו), which is masculine plural, and the number given is eleven (Bin-Yamin comes later). If both sons and daughters were intended, the masculine plural would still be used; but then eleven would need to be twelve, to include Dinah. I am merely noting this oversight.
Or perhaps it isn't an oversight, and, having now parted from the moon (Lavan/Ha Lavanah), the about-to-be risen sun-king is crossing over that elemental materiality which separates dry land from dry land and heavens from heavens, and his eleven constellations are crossing it with him (which makes him the twelfth), and his four planetary companions as well (which is which? and why only four?). I am simply speculating.
MA'AVAR YAVOK (מעבר יבק): the ford of Jabbok in most translations, a stream near Mount Gilead (or Gil'ad, or Gal-Ed) on the borders of the Beney Amon, flowing into the river Yarden on the east; probably what is now Wadi Zurka. YAVOK is probably from the root AVAK (עבק) = "dry, dusty"; a tributary of the Yarden half-way between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee. But the use of "ford" rather than "stream" allows yet again the use of AVAR, so perhaps in the Jacobite clan traditions he was regarded as the first "Hebrew", which makes sense since the Jacobite liturgy includes the statement "my ancestor was an Aramaean", and Ya'akov is not only about to become Yisra-El, but to do so right here, where the letters of his old name (יעקב) anagram both into the name of the place where the transformation happened (YAVOK - יבק), and the method by which it happened (YE'AVEK - יעבק - see verse 25 below).
Again Ya'akov is playing tricks, though on this occasion it may just be strategy, sneaking his family away by dead of night so that his servants, and especially his messengers to Esav, do not know precisely where he is (and this is also why two camps are so important). If Esav is negative despite the gifts, and wants trouble, if he coerces the messengers into giving the details of the camp so he can plan an attack, their information will be honest, no doubt, but still wrong, because Ya'akov has changed the detail of his arrangements after their departure.
32:24: VA YIKACHEM VA YA'AVIREM ET HA NACHAL VA YA'AVER ET ASHER LO
וַיִּקָּחֵם וַיַּעֲבִרֵם אֶת הַנָּחַל וַיַּעֲבֵר אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ
KJ (32:23): And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and sent over that he had.
BN: And he took them, and sent them over the stream, and sent over everything he had.
This is precisely where King David crossed the river on his return from the exile imposed on him by Av-Shalom's rebellion (2 Samuel 19).
The word AVAR appears twice in this sentence, far too often now to be just coincidence; it is obtaining the weight of mantra.
32:25: VA YIVATER YA'AKOV LEVADO VA YE'AVEK ISH IMO AD ALOT HA SHACHAR
וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב לְבַדּוֹ וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר
KJ (32:24): And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
BN: And Ya'akov was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
VA YE'AVEK (ויעבק): somehow we have been waiting for this. The Yehudit poet loves his plays on letters, and this one was inevitable, at once a verbal anagram in the written form, and an aural pun in the spoken: aleph-bet-quf (א-ב-ק) in place of ayin-quf-bet (ע-ק-ב) - but augmented by the other verbal-aural pun that has been running through this story, because Yavok-Ya'akov is functioning in the same manner – YA'AKOV, YAVOK, YE'AVEK.
ISH (איש): it goes without saying that the following episode is not to be taken literally, but is a metaphor or allegory for his inner struggle. Having said which, and taking this as literally as one can get, "he" is a LIL (ליל), one of the LILIM or night spirits whose mother was LILIT (Lilith), Adam's first wife according to Midrash; equivalent of the Greek Erinyes (Furies), and generally depicted in mythology as a white horse, female of course, whence the term "nightmare". To understand the full details, this is where we most need to go to the opening of Frazer's "Golden Bough", though the Golden Fleece, or Fafner's defeat by Siegfried, even Frodo versus Gollum, would give us the gist: the guardian of the goddess' sacred shrine fights to defend his championship; if he wins, he serves another term; if defeated, a new champion takes over.
ALOT HA SHACHAR (עלת השחר): is Kibbutz Ayelet Ha Shachar connected to this, by name or by location? - probably not, AYELET has a first letter aleph (א), where ALOT has an Ayin (ע)? However (I am quoting the standard translation of Gesenius precisely here, from his etymology of AYELET), "it is hard to be explained what it means in the title of Psalm 22, AL AYELET HA SHACHAR, 'on the hind of the dawn'... probably was the morning sun itself shedding its first beams, which the Arabians call gazelle, comparing, according to the use of the language, the rays to horns (see KEREN)", the latter being the so-called "Horns of Mosheh", likewise understood to be the sun's rays.
Which leads to another question: Is there any significance in speaking of the rising of the dawn here, rather than the rising of the sun - and see again my planetary speculations above? And then look at the precise detail of the stalemate, at the end of the wrestling-match, in verse 27.
There is also a possible link to the tribe of Yisaschar (Issachar), perhaps through Ish Shachar, which may originally have been Ishah Shachar, the Dawn Goddess, rather than Ishah Shachur, the Black Madonna (however Genesis 49:14 clearly regards Yisaschar as "a large-boned donkey" and not as a gazelle). Is Alot Ha Shachar then the correct pronunciation, or should it be Ayelet Ha Shachar? (Check also the connections to Ayalon, in Joshua 10:12, where there seems to be some sort of lunar or solar eclipse).
And then there is Tseret Ha Shachar (צֶ֥רֶת הַשַּׁ֖חַר), in Joshua 13:19, which, if you followed my link on Wadi Zurqa (above), you will have seen was an alternate name for that particular location (click here for more).
32:26: VA YAR KI LO YACHOL LO VA YIGA BE CHAPH YERECHO VA TEKA KAPH YERECH YA'AKOV BE HE'AVKO IMO
וַיַּרְא כִּי לֹא יָכֹל לוֹ וַיִּגַּע בְּכַף יְרֵכוֹ וַתֵּקַע כַּף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ
KJ (32:25): And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
BN: And when he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Ya'akov's thigh was torn as he wrestled with him.
KI LO YACHOL (כי לא יכל): literally means "that he was unable". But unable to what? Most Christian translations add "prevail", and Christian commentaries likewise speak of Ya'akov "prevailing" in this battle; but is that correct? Probably yes, but with a qualification: that neither could Ya'akov. What is most critical to this story is precisely that neither party was able to prevail - itself a triumph for Ya'akov and a failure by the angel, because this should not have been the outcome; but still not a victory. Despite the "man's" statement in verse 29, the outcome is in fact a stalemate, in which both mutually agree the terms of closure - just as was the case with Lavan and Ya'akov at Gal-Ed, just as will be the case with Esav very shortly.
CHAPH YERECH (כף-ירך): "hollow of the thigh" is a lovely euphemism – "grabbed him by the testicles and squeezed" is more colloquially and prosaically precise, though probably, in the original of this tale, it meant full and literal castration - compare the tale of Ouranos, and see my notes to the aftermath of the flood chez No'ach (Genesis 9:19 ff); but of course Yerech (ירך) = "the thigh" links by aural pun to Yareyach (ירח) = "the moon", and dawn squeezing the moon is also worth commenting upon. The thigh, as noted earlier, was sacred, and we have witnessed the placing of the hand under the thigh as the methodology of swearing an oath, earlier in this tale.
Hertz translates what happened to the thigh as "strained", rather than "put out of joint", which latter is the usual rendition. All Jewish translators and commentators down the centuries have looked to prove or even improve the euphemism, arguing it was his stomach, his knee-cartilage, his thigh-bone, but the fact is, we are reading what is already a watered-down account of an aboriginal priest-king's coronation rites, and what actually happened in the original original was almost certainly castration: the making of a eunuch. This was then reduced to the mere "thigh-strain" of the Ya'akov story, and then to Av-Rahamic circumcision; a fact which may well allow us to place the Ya'akov stories chronologically earlier than the Av-Rahamic ones.
One more consideration (cf Genesis 24:3 and my notes there): the placing of the hand "under the thigh" was also a manner of swearing an oath. Is the angel in fact beginning the coronation process, of which the blessing, and the name-change, become parts two and three? The two are not in conflict: indeed, both are likely, the making of a eunuch and the oath: both aspects of the coronation ceremony (making a eunuch may seem contrary to the fertility cult, but in fact it is essential: the power of fertility must remain with the goddess, not the priest-king; the obvious example of this is the Catholic priesthood).
All the above helps us confirm that the man really was a man, and that "angel" was a late alteration. Not that it really matters, because the entire tale is metaphorical and allegorical, not literal, anyway.
32:27: VA YOMER SHALCHENI KI ALAH HA SHACHAR VA YOMER LO ASHAL'ECHACHA KI IM BERACHTANI
וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ כִּי אִם בֵּרַכְתָּנִי
KJ (32:26): And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
BN: And he said, "Let me go, for the day is breaking." And he said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
Once again it is a blessing that Ya'akov is most interested in obtaining.
The man has to be gone before the sun rises - like Dracula! What kind of creature then is he? One of the Lilim, as noted above (verse 25). The night connects him to the moon goddess and to fear of the sun-god; though again the sun is not mentioned, but only the dawn; except that the dawn is the advance guard of the sun, the rising of the sun. But he is under the command of the moon, hence his night status and night-fight. The dawn star becomes significant among the Beney Yisra-El from the time of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah), although scholars are in disagreement about the precise meaning of Isaiah 14:12: "אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹלֵשׁ עַלגּוֹיִם - Aych naphalta mi shamayim, heylel ben shachar. Nigdata la arets. Cholesh al goyim - How you are fallen from the heavens, O bright morning-star, son of the dawn. How you are cut down to the Earth, you who once cast lots over the nations." The debate is over "heylel ben shachar" which literally means "morning-star, son of the dawn", a prefiguration of Milton's description of Lucifer, the "brightest star", "hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky, With hideous ruin and combustion, down To bottomless perdition; there to dwell In adamantine chains and penal fire, Who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms." The chains are in our verse too: SHALCHENI: "Release me".
32:28: VA YOMER ELAV MAH SHEMECHA VA YOMER YA'AKOV
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו מַה שְּׁמֶךָ וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב
KJ (32:27): And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
BN: And he asked him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Ya'akov."
"Q: When does a tribal hero change his name?" I asked, at the top of this page. And answered: "A: When he commits manslaughter, flees from his country and is adopted by another tribe; when he ascends a throne and acquires a kingly title; or when he occupies a new country."
32:29: VA YOMER LO YA'AKOV YE'AMER OD SHIMCHA KI IM YISRA-EL KI SARIYTA IM ELOHIM VE IM ANASHIM VA TUCHAL
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יַעֲקֹב יֵאָמֵר עוֹד שִׁמְךָ כִּי אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי שָׂרִיתָ עִם אֱלֹהִים וְעִם אֲנָשִׁים וַתּוּכָל
KJ (32:28): And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
BN: And he said, "Your name shall no longer be Ya'akov, but Yisra-El; for you have striven with Elohim, and with men, and have prevailed."
Remember that he has asked for a blessing, and receives a name; then the name must be that blessing, and this must be a positive statement of his triumph, a title of victory. As in the English rites, the crown is placed in the new monarch's head "in the name of Jesus Christ Our Lord..."
YISRA-EL: He is the man who has wrestled with his god, a Champion. Again, see Frazer...
IM YISRA-EL (עם ישראל): IM (עם) usually means "if, whether, in case, or"; and has no logic in this phrase; unless a word is missing; and strangely the phrase that follows appears to be the missing phrase, except that the two then overlap and repeat themselves: "for you have wrestled with Elohim". Was IM YISRA-EL added by the Redactor to make a point? And note that it is Elohim here, not YHVH.
IM ELOHIM VE IM ANASHIM (עם אלהים ועם אנשים): meaning what? How has he fought with gods and men; El and Elohim are here identified together; but which men has he fought with? Is it the ceremonial language of coronation?
SARIYTA (שרית): means what precisely? Given as "prevailed", but thinking of Sar and Sarah from the same root, "made a prince" is just as logical a translation.
VA TUCHAL (ותוכל): and again this strange use of the verb "to be able".
The notes on this verse are no more than that: a starting-point.
32:30: VA YISHAL YA'AKOV VA YOMER HAGIDAH NA SHIMCHA VA YOMER LAMAH ZEH TISH'AL LI SHMI VA YEVARECH OTO SHAM
וַיִּשְׁאַל יַעֲקֹב וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּידָה נָּא שְׁמֶךָ וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה תִּשְׁאַל לִשְׁמִי וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ שָׁם
KJ (32:29): And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
BN: Then Ya'akov asked him, saying, "Tell me, I pray you, your name." And he said, "Why do you ask my name?" And he blessed him there.
The change of name at this point in the story is not insignificant; as with Av-Ram's change of name, it marks the end of one story and the beginning of another. From now on Yisra-El is an old man who has sons more important than himself; relegated to tribal patriarch, his story is to all intents and purposes told. However, unlike Av-Ram, the change of name is dramatic, and full of new meanings. Are we then talking about a different character, with the death of the goat-god lost in here somewhere? Compare the transfiguration of Dionysus into Apollo with this of Ya'akov into Yisra-El.
See also the story of Mano'ach in Judges 13. Is there some sort of blackmail going on in the asking of the name? Note that the name is changed, but the text goes on using the old name, and in fact the new name is hardly ever used in the Tanach in relation to Ya'akov, but only in relation to the people as a tribe.
See the earlier note on the significance of asking a god his name.
One small and possibly irrelevant point (see the note to Lucifer above however): the use of the verb LISH'OL, which has underworld connections through Sha'ul.
End of second fragment
32:31: VA YIKRA YA'AKOV SHEM HA MAKOM PENI-EL KI RA'ITI ELOHIM PANIM EL PANIM VA TINATSEL NAPHSHI
וַיִּקְרָא יַעֲקֹב שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם פְּנִיאֵל כִּי רָאִיתִי אֱלֹהִים פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים וַתִּנָּצֵל נַפְשִׁי
KJ (32: 30): And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
BN: And Ya'akov called the name of the place Peni-El: "For I have seen Elohim face to face, and my life is preserved."
YA'AKOV (יעקב): the change of name still not yet applied.
PENI-EL (פמיאל): Is this one of the rare occasions when the explanation seems to fit the name? Actually, and sadly, no - we are told that he has fought with a "man", though a MAL'ACH was referred to, somewhat confusingly with two different meanings, earlier in the episode. But even if it was "an angel of Elohim", it is still only the angel and not Elohim. Clearly the place was already sacred, and so he can say that "Elohim is in this place and I did not know it", which is what he said when he woke up at Beit-El after dreaming the angelic ladder (Genesis 28:16), though on that occasion it was YHVH and not Elohim.
The implication is that he did not need to ask the name because it was neither a man nor an angel nor a messenger but the god himself with whom he wrestled. This does not concord with everything else we have understood about the tale, if we read ELOHIM anthropomorphically. However, if we understand ELOHIM to mean "the gods", in the metaphorical sense of "powers", then the seeming contradiction is allayed.
As so often, the slight variation in the pronunciation of the name is a question of pointing only. But why Peni-El here, and always Penu-El elsewhere? On several occasions we have noted, and will again throughout the Tanach, that the variations occur with Yud (י) and Vav (ו) and may in fact be nothing but a scribal variation, as the one is merely an elongation of the other.
TINATSEL (תנצל): the classic Beney Yisra-El myth (other cults too) that to look upon the face of a god is to provoke death. Cf Exodus 33:20: "And he said: 'You can not see my face, for Humans shall not see me and live." Does it indicate a sun-god - after all, to look into the sun's "face" causes blindness at the very least (in Exodus 33:20, as we shall see, it was the intensely flaming heat of a volcanic eruption that was the reason)?
Is Tinatsel in fact the future of the passive form of Tsel'a (צלע) = "to limp" which recurs in the next verse? Or a variation of, indeed a play on words with, TSEL (צל) = "a shadow", which is the image cast by that un-lookable-at face, if it is the sun?
32:32: VA YIZRACH LO HA SHEMESH KA ASHER AVAR ET PENU-EL VE HU TSOLE'AH AL YERECHO
וַיִּזְרַח לוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָבַר אֶת פְּנוּאֵל וְהוּא צֹלֵעַ עַל יְרֵכוֹ
KJ (32:31): And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.
BN: And the sun rose above him as he passed over Penu-El, and he limped because of his thigh.
One of the most loaded sentences in the entire Tanach. Why YIZRACH LO (יזרח לו)? How did he AVAR ET PENU-EL (עבר את פנואל) if he was not himself the moon? [note the use of Avar yet again; and while with Yavok it made sense, here it is actually the most inappropriate verb]. Why TSOLE'AH (צלע), with all its insinuations of god-status? And the pun again connecting "thigh" = YERECH, to "moon" = YARE'ACH in Yehudit, or HA LAVANAH/LAVAN in the Syriac: moon-Ya'akov stumbling one way out of Penu-El while the sun-god slowly rises from the other direction, and we understand that we have witnessed a perfect reversal of Shimshon versus Delilah: here the moon is male and the sun female, here it is the night which has prevailed over the day, but now the day can, and must, inevitably rise again, prevail again, Shimshon recovering his long hair, Delilah retreating into the "shadows", but knowing that in a few hours she will tie Shimshon to the pillars again... and round and round the round table, knight after knight after night after night, Gil upon Gal, eternally - or at least until the Last Supper.
Yet another pun connecting Tsole'ah (צלע) to Tsel (צל) = "shadow"?
The better because more lyrical translation reads: "limping because of his thigh".
What the Crucifixion is to the Christian story (what Hamlet is to European literature and Oedipus to modern psychology), so we can see that Penu-El, the culmination of Ya'akov's epic odyssey, that Penu-El (Penu-El, not Sinai), is the centrifugal force of the pre-Jewish Bible.
32:33: AL KEN LO YO'CHLU VENEY YISRA-EL ET GID HA NASHEH ASHER AL KAPH HA YARECH AD HA YOM HA ZEH KI NAGA BE CHAPH YERECH YA'AKOV BE GID HA NASHEH
עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי נָגַע בְּכַף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה
KJ (32:32): Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.
BN: Therefore the children of Yisra-El do not eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein which is on the hollow of the thigh, to this very day; because he touched the hollow of Ya'akov's thigh, even in the sinew of the thigh vein.
All this wonderful tale and fable and parable and myth and psychological insight, just to tell us we can't eat blood pudding?!
This likewise needs a lot of explaining, because a tabu is only ever established around the divine, and Ya'akov is not apparently one of the divine. Or is he? It is worth having a look at the food taboos in the Torah to see just how many of them are an attempt to break free of Egyptian god-taboos - the prohibition of pork, for example, clearly has less to do with hygiene (the pig is actually an extremely clean animal in terms of its own hygiene and its susceptibility to parasites; far cleaner than any of the animals that are permitted) than to do with Set-worship, and the orgiastic revelries connected to the eating of the boar which was the killer of Osher/Osiris. Interesting to know which came first, the story or the taboo.
What is really being proscribed is the genitalia. But Hertz, of course, like most religious commentators, cannot accommodate the genitalia, and so opts for the sciatic nerve which, along with other arteries and tendons, is removed from a slaughtered animal as part of kashrut. But Ya'akov is not a slaughtered animal, he is a victorious prince being crowned priest-king. What is wrong with it being genitalia? Even Hertz has no problem with them when they are for the purposes of swearing an oath. Because it was a Kena'anite/pagan custom? Or because it makes us realise that all these mythological tales quite likely had their origins tens of thousands of years earlier, way back in Cro-Magnon times, when troglodytes battled with the darkness of the caves and the forests let alone the night, and the human brain was barely formed.
YO'CHLU (יאכלו): note that it should be YO'CHLIM (יאכלים), meaning "we" do not eat, but it is given as "they" do not, as though the Bene Yisra-El were another people altogether from the ones reading this book - perhaps for the Redactor and his readers, the "Hebrews" were!
How much of the above is simply a way of seeking out the root of the name Yisra-El, as the name Yehudah will be sought out among the tribes. Yisra-El would have liked to see itself as the elder among the tribes; Yehudah itself likewise.
End of chapter 32
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment