va-yeitzei ya'aqov mi-b'eir sheva va-yeilekh haranah va-yiphga ba-makom va-yalen sham ki va ha-shemesh . . . v'hayah ha-Sheim li lei-loqim (And Jacob went out of Beer-sheba and went toward Haran. And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night because the sun had set. . . . Then the Lord shall be my G-d) (Genesis 28:10-21)

The Gemara explains the passage "and Jacob went out of Beer-sheva, and went towards Haran. And he came to a certain place" (va-yiphga ba-makom) as follows:

When he reached Haran he said [to himself], "Shall I have passed through the place where my fathers prayed [i.e. Mount Moriah] and not have prayed too?" He immediately resolved to return, but no sooner had he thought of this (kad yahiv da'ateih li-m'hedar) than the earth contracted and he immediately lighted upon the place [Mount Moriah]. After he prayed he wished to return (ba'i li-m'hedar), but the Holy One, blessed be He said: "This righteous man has come to my habitation; shall he depart without a night's rest?" Thereupon the sun set.

My father, my teacher, my master, the gaon of blessed memory (R. Avraham Glasner, 1826-78) explained that Jacob, who had been ensconced for fourteen years in the academy of Sheim and Eiver, longed to study the Torah so passionately that he despised every worldly activity and complied only grudgingly with the instruction of his parents that he travel to Laban's house to marry because to do so would require him to become involved in mundane activities. So the Gemara tells us that after arriving in Haran, having passed by, without pause, the Divine mountain, the place dedicated to prayer by Abraham and Isaac, Jacob said: "Would it have been possible when I was immersed in the study of Torah in the academy of Sheim and Eiver that I should have passed by such a holy place without feeling its holiness?" Just because he had just passed by Mount Moriah without feeling its holiness, Jacob concluded that his decision to go to Laban's house and to become occupied with mundane matters was not correct, for that decision had already shown its effect: to profane him and to separate him from his attachment to what is holy. He therefore decided to return to the academy of Sheim and Eiver, because only there could he be "a plain man, abiding in tents" (ish tam, yosheiv ohalim). For what would he accomplish by engaging in worldly pursuits that only detract from his holiness? It was just at that moment that Jacob was miraculously transported back to Mount Moriah and he prayed. When he finished praying, he wanted to return (ba'i li-m'hedar) - return to the academy of Sheim and Eiver! But he immediately fell asleep there, because the sun had set (va-yalen sham ki va ha-shemesh), and the Holy One Blessed Be He then showed Jacob that his decision to return to the academy was not correct. For to separate oneself entirely from the matters of this world and to be involved only in reflection is not the function of man in this world. To be involved in reflection only is the calling of an angel that has no evil inclination. But a human being perfects himself by living in a community and rejoicing, as the Torah permits, in the temporal life. This is how one can fulfill the commandment "to know Him in all your ways" (b'khol d'rakheka da'eihu), uniting thereby body and soul.

It was this message that was conveyed by the dream: "and behold a ladder set up on earth" (v'hineih sulam mutzav artzah). The ladder symbolizes man in this world, the world of action, because, at each moment, he is either ascending or descending, going either to a higher level or a lower level. And although the primary place and situation of man is on the ground ("mutzav artzah"), his head may still reach the heavens ("v'rosho magia ha-shamayimah"), for one is required to use this world as a preparation for the next one, as we are told "prepare yourself in the vestibule so that you may enter the banquet hall" (Avot 4:21). The phrase "and behold angels of G-d going up and down on it" (v'hineih malakhei Eloqim olim v'yordim bo) means that even though angels at first stand on a higher level than man, they may be surpassed by a complete person who fulfills his obligation to know G-d in all His ways. As the Gemara here (Hulin 91b) explains, Israel is dearer to the Holy One Blessed Be He than the ministering angels.

And should you say that this test is too difficult, for who can survive a battle with the evil inclination if he does not enclose himself within the four cubits of the law, that is why Jacob was shown that "the Eternal stood above him" (ha-Sheim nitzav alav) - to watch over him. When Jacob awoke he said, "how fearful is this place" (mah nora ha-maqom ha-zeh) by which he meant that this path that he was directed to follow - to join the two opposites in order to unify and perfect himself - is awesome and perilous. And he continued, "this is none other than the house of G-d" (ein zeh ki im beit Eloqim), which means that his ultimate goal must be to unify my heart to my Heavenly Father, "and this is the gate to Heaven" (v'zeh sha'ar ha-shamayim), which means that the way to achieve this goal is to follow the path on which I have started to Haran - to marry a wife and to tend the sheep of Laban. The path is awesome and perilous, for who knows if I will be worthy of achieving my goal. It was for this reason that Jacob made his vow, which at first glance seems calculated and lacking in trust in the Almighty: "If G-d will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father's house in peace and the Eternal shall be my G-d, then this stone which I have put for a pillar shall be G-d's house: and all that Thou givest me I will surely give the tenth to Thee." (from Dor Revi'i on Hulin 91b)

va-yikah mei-avnei ha-maqom . . . va-yiqah et ha-even (and he took of the stones of that place . . . and he took the stone which he had put under his head) (Genesis 28:11, 18)

The Tosafot write (Hulin 91b) that the simple meaning of the verse is not that Jacob took many stones which were miraculously combined into a single stone, but that he took one stone from the stones of the place. However, if that were the proper interpretation, it would be difficult to understand why Hazal deduced from the verse that all the stones gathered into one place, and each one said "let this righteous one lay his head upon me." The most reasonable interpretation would have been that he took that particular stone that he had taken earlier, not that there had been a miraculous combining of many stones. But it appears to me that Hazal did not deduce that a miracle had occurred because they saw any contradiction between the first verse that refers to "stones" and the later verse that refers to "the stone." Rather, they were troubled that since there had been many stones available, since it is written "he took from the stones of the place" (va-yiqah mei-avnei ha-maqom), why did Jacob specifically take that stone upon which he had laid his head, a stone that had been put to a mundane use. It would have been more appropriate to have taken a stone that had never been used by anyone, which would be greater homage to Heaven. They therefore deduced that the stones of the place gathered together and were miraculously transformed into a single stone, so that no others were left. And the proof that this is so is that if the basis for the deduction were, as is usually supposed, a contradiction between the two verses, why was it said that all the stones of the place gathered together? Was it not Jacob who took some stones and arranged them as a kind of border around his head, as Rashi comments on the verse in the Torah. If so, it was only those stones that had been selected already by Jacob that were arguing. So it must be as we have explained it that all the stones of the place were arguing and were transformed into a single stone. And according to the Kabbalists who say that these stones were from the altar upon which Isaac had been bound by Abraham, all the stones desired that Jacob should lay his head upon them. And one could say that Jacob was inspired to use that stone as a pillar owing to his modesty, because he did not believe himself to be sufficiently holy for the stones to have been arguing for his sake and that a miracle was then performed to transform then into a single stone. He instead attributed the argument and the miracle to the desire of the stones to be part of the pillar that they anticipated that he was going to set up.

And with this Aggadah I would explain in a pleasant way Jacob's words "and this stone which I set up as a pillar shall be G-d's house." See the commentaries of Rashi and the Ramban. According to what has been said previously, one could say that a pillar was prohibited when the Torah was given, as it is written, "thou shalt not set up for thyself a pillar" (lo taqum lekha matzeivah). But the Sages said that although a pillar was beloved in the time of the Patriarchs it was despised later, because the idolaters prescribed it as the procedure for offering sacrifices. But this is very difficult, because the idolaters built so many altars, as it is written "and ye shall uproot their altars" (v'nitzatem et mizb'hotam), (Deuteronomy 12:3) and we see that Bilam built many altars, and the entire procedure of offering a sacrifice was followed in idolatry, as it is written "so that they should not sacrifice further to the satyrs" (l'ma'an lo yizb'hu od la-s'irim), and it is also written "and they will eat the sacrifices of the dead and drink the wine of their libations." So there was no difference between our method of sacrifice and theirs except that they were sacrificing to demons and not to the Deity, while we were sacrificing to Heaven to the blessed Ein Sof, and with the intent that was prescribed by the Torah. If so, what was the difference between a pillar and any other altar? But the difference, as Rashi explains, between a pillar and an altar is that a pillar is a single stone and an altar is made up of many stones, so that, according to the explanation that all the stones were combined into one, the pillar that Jacob set up really had the status of an altar, not a pillar, because it was made up of many stones. Jacob therefore said, "this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be fitting to be the House of G-d even after the Torah is given." And in truth, a pillar was always despised by G-d, because of some hidden reason, but Jacob's pillar was different because it was like an altar. v'dok ki hu kaftor va-pherah b'siyata di-shemaya. (From Dor Revi'i on Hulin 91b)

v'ha-even ha-zot asher samti matzeivah y'hiyeh beit Eloqim (and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be G-d's house) (Genesis 28:22)

See Rashi and the Ramban, who each in his own way, explains the words "shall be G-d's house" (y'hiyeh beit Eloqim). But whoever reflects about these commentaries will see that their explanations are forced. And see how Rashi, the Ramban, and Ibn Ezra, commenting on the verse in porashat Shoftim "And you shall not set up a pillar which the Lord your G-d hates" (Deuteronomy 16:22), explain how Jacob could have erected a pillar.

But our master suggested a new interpretation, which is that Jacob our father saved himself from any transgression in erecting this pillar by saying that it should be the house of G-d, and not a pillar which G-d hates. For the difference between a pillar and an altar (mizbe'ah), as the Ramban explains here, is that a pillar is a single stone and an altar is built with many stones. But the pillar that Jacob erected was also from many stones, because Jacob had taken "from the stones of the place" (mei-avnei ha-maqom), and they were transformed miraculously into a single stone, according to the explanation of Hazal which is quoted here by Rashi. Jacob therefore said "and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be G-d's house," and G-d will not hate it because it was made from many stones.

va-tahar lei'ah va-teiled bein va-tiqra sh'mo r'uvein ki amrah ra'ah ha-Sheim b'onyi (And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben, for she said, "Surely the Lord has looked upon my affliction) (Genesis 29:32)

Rashi comments that our Sages explained (Berahot 7b) that she said, "see (r'u) the difference between (bein) my son and the son of my father-in-law. The son of my father-in-law voluntarily sold his birthright, for it is written: "And he sold his birthright unto Jacob." And, nonetheless, behold, it is written of him: "And Esau hated Jacob," and it is also written: "And he said, is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times." My son, however, although Joseph took his birthright from him against his will -- as it is written: "But, for as much as he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph," -- was not jealous of him. For it is written: "And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand."

And the question arises what prompted the Sages to interpret the name Reuben in this way and why they did not accept the explicit statement of the Scripture that she named him Reuben because G-d saw her affliction.

And it appears to our master that while the names of all the other sons of Jacob are recorded only after the reason for the name is given, here the Scripture first records the name and then provides the reason for the name. So it must be that Leah had another hidden reason, which she did not want to reveal. And that is the reason given by our Sages: "see the difference between my son and the son of my father-in-law." But she was not permitted to disclose this reason, just as Isaac was not permitted to disclose to Jacob what had happened to Joseph. She therefore had to state a different reason for the name, which is the one recorded by the Scripture.

va-yatzel Eloqim et miqneh avikhem va-yitein li (Thus has G-d has taken away the sheep of your father, and given them to me) (Genesis 31:9)

It may be questioned why the Scripture writes "avikhem," which is a masculine form, when elsewhere it writes the appropriate feminine form "avikhen." And the explanation of our master is based upon the Scripture below (31:14): "Is there any portion or inheritance left to us in our father's house?" (ha-od lanu heileq v'nahala b'veit avinu) Rashi understands this to mean, "Can we at all hope to inherit anything belonging to our father together with his sons?" This appears difficult, for the law is that daughters do not inherit when there are also sons. So why were Rachel and Leah complaining?

However, based on the verse (Genesis 29:6): "It is well, and, behold, Rachel his daughter is coming with the flock," (shalom, v'hineih rakhel bito ba'ah im ha-tzon) one could offer an answer according to the opinion that Laban originally had no sons and had no one that would tend his sheep. For Laban to be well, i.e., to be at peace, it was necessary to be separated from him completely, and to have no ties with him at all, just as a pot makes peace between fire and water by separating them so that they are not in contact, since fire and water cannot coexist. Only in that way, was peace with Laban was possible. And this is confirmed by the fact that his daughter Rachel was tending the sheep even though it is not customary for females to be shepherds, because Laban would not rely on any outsider to tend to his sheep. So if his daughters did men's work for him by tending to his sheep, they at least deserved to take a portion of Laban's inheritance that was equal to that of the younger sons, who had done nothing to help Laban accumulate his fortune. That is why Jacob said, "G-d has taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me" using the masculine form of your father (avikhem), to indicate that in reference to the cattle that G-d gave him, Rachel and Leah were considered as males who were entitled to an inheritance, inasmuch as it was they, not Laban's sons, who had toiled for it as if they were males. And, on account of their toil, G-d gave Jacob the cattle of Laban.