Torah Study Vayishlach 5785

B’Reisheet/Genesis 32:4-36:43, Ovadiah/Obadiah, Matthew 2:13-23

Torah Portion B’Reisheet/Genesis 32:4-36:43

Genesis 32:7–9 “The messengers returned to Jacob, saying, “We came to your brother Esau; he himself is coming to meet you, and there are four hundred men with him.” Jacob was greatly frightened; in his anxiety, he divided the people with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps, thinking, “If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, the other camp may yet escape.””

1. Why is Yakov “greatly frightened” since HaShem told him Genesis 28:15, “I will protect you wherever you go” and in Genesis 31:3 “I will be with you”? # 1

a. Yakov could be frightened for his family and servants sake

b. Yakov might be confident he will be protected but he does not want to harm or kill his brother or anyone else.

c. Yakov did not act in fear, he did not run away, he did not gather a bunch weapons or hire fighters, he did not hide, and he did not foritfy up.

RASHI In his anxiety. The Hebrew is a verb, but the passive “and was distressed” of OJPS is misleading. It is a Hiphil, a causative verb: “he caused Jacob to feel distressed.” Jacob was afraid of being killed and distressed that he himself might have to kill. RASHBAM Jacob was greatly frightened. But he kept this to himself. Even though Esau had demonstrated to the messengers that he intended to treat Jacob with respect, Jacob did not believe that Esau had good intentions but assumed that he really intended to do him harm. In his anxiety. Not a noun in Hebrew, but a verb from a geminate root, where the repeated second root letter is dropped in some forms. He divided. Here the missing third letter of the root is not a repetition of the second but a ה. IBN EZRA Jacob was greatly frightened. Despite his physical strength. KIMHI Jacob was greatly frightened; in his anxiety … The Hebrew is really a pairing of two verbs: “Jacob was greatly afraid and was distressed” (OJPS), indicating how frightened he was. Into two camps. Says R. Hiyya: The Torah teaches you the way of the world. One should not keep all one’s wealth in a single place. NAHMANIDES Jacob was greatly frightened. Hearing that Esau was on his way with 400 armed men, Jacob was afraid for his life, thinking “He would not have brought 400 armed men unless he intended to fight me.” To me, it implies that Esau did not actually receive the messengers or pay them any mind, not having given them permission to come and speak with him. The text would have told us that Esau asked how he was and told them to let Jacob know he was coming to see him. But the text does not tell us that the messengers brought Jacob any message at all from Esau. So it would seem that he was still angry and brought these forces to do Jacob some harm. The messengers had at least had the opportunity to reconnoiter and find out that he and the 400 men were on their way. That is another implication of “also” (v. 7): not only did he not receive us or send you any message, he is “also” coming in force. In his anxiety. Rather, this is a second verb (see OJPS). He was already somewhat frightened; after hearing this report from the messengers, he was even more “distressed.” The Sages point to this explanation with the distinction they make between “your brother” and “Esau” (both v. 7) in the reply of the messengers. But eventually, when he saw how respectfully Jacob treated him, and how he prostrated himself, Esau was overcome with feeling toward his brother and realized, as I said, that Jacob was acknowledging that Esau was the elder and the first-born. So Esau was reconciled with him. For minds are under the Lord’s control; He can direct them as he wishes. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Jacob was greatly frightened; in his anxiety. He “was distressed” (OJPS) because he did not know what to do. If Esau’s intentions were evil, he needed to barricade himself in, or flee; but if Esau’s intentions were good, this would be extremely suspicious (Bekhor Shor). He was “frightened” of Esau and “distressed” about the 400 men. But this was not for lack of faith; like one who wants to eat pork but refrains because it is forbidden, Jacob’s faith in God’s promise enabled him to overcome his physical fear. As Aristotle says in the Ethics, true bravery is not the lack of fear but the choice to press on despite one’s fear. In fact, there are comparable examples every day, when a person must force himself to drink some disgusting medicine that he knows intellectually is good for him (Abarbanel). He divided the people with him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps. Taking a protective measure that Esau would not necessarily recognize as one (Bekhor Shor). He put the people—his wives and children—in the camp on the opposite side of the stream, and the livestock on the side where he thought Esau was approaching; Esau might think that was all Jacob had. But of course the people were much more important (Abarbanel).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 290.

Genesis 32:11 “I am unworthy of all the kindness that You have so steadfastly shown Your servant: with my staff alone I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps.”

2. What does Yakov mean that he is unworthy of all the kindness Hashem has steadfastly shown him? # 2

a. Avraham and Yitsak also said similar phrases. Imposter syndrome?

b. Could be concerned as he has not done has part of the vow/covenant, to worship HaShem as he should.

c. That he is depenedant upon HaShem and is not able to do this alone.

RASHI I am unworthy of all the kindness. More literally, “I have become smaller from all the kindness.” My merits have been diminished through all the steadfast kindness You have shown me. So I am afraid that perhaps since You gave me those promises I have indulged in some sin that would cause me to be handed over to Esau. Steadfastly. In the Hebrew this is a second prepositional phrase: “of all the mercies, and of all the truth” (OJPS), meaning “the truth of Your words.”—For You did keep all the promises You gave me. With my staff alone. I had neither silver, gold, nor livestock; just my staff alone.—But according to a midrash, “with my staff alone I crossed this Jordan” means that he used his staff to split the Jordan. RASHBAM I am unworthy. The translations understand the sense of this expression correctly. Compare the nonmetaphoric usage of the same Hebrew verb in “too small to hold the burnt offerings” (1 Kings 8:64). All the kindness that You have so steadfastly shown Your servant. More than I deserved, since I have not yet fulfilled my vow and worshiped as I should. That is why I am afraid despite Your promises. For You judge a man according to his actions.—We find this with Hezekiah, to whom the prophet Isaiah said, “You are going to die; you will not get well” (2 Kings 20:1/Isa. 38:1). But after Hezekiah’s prayer, the Holy One granted him an extra 15 years of life. IBN EZRA I am unworthy. Literally, “I am too small” to deserve all this. All the kindness that You have so steadfastly shown. I have explained “the mercies” and “the truth” (OJPS) in my comment to “true kindness” (24:49). ADDITIONAL COMMENTS All the kindness that You have so steadfastly shown Your servant. For the combination of “mercies” and “truth” (OJPS), see what David says to Ittai in 2 Sam. 15:20: “Go back, and take your kinsmen with you, [in] true faithfulness” (Hizkuni). With my staff alone I crossed this Jordan. To fend off dogs (Gersonides).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 292.

Genesis 32:25 “Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.”

3. Who is Yakov “getting dusty with”? This is the direct translation and is an idiom that means to wrestle. # 3

a. Prince/Angel of Esav/Edom Hosea 12:5

b. Esav himself

RASHI Jacob was left alone. He had forgotten a few small items and returned to get them. And a man wrestled with him. Menahem identifies the verb as deriving from the word meaning “dust”: the man “got himself dusty.” The scraping of their feet on the ground raised a cloud of dust. But to me it seems that this must mean the man “wrapped himself” around him as men do when they wrestle, trying to fell their opponents. That is how this root is used in Aramaic. In any case, our Sages explain this “man” as being the prince of Esau. RASHBAM Jacob was left alone. He had taken everything he had across; there was nothing left to bring across but himself. And he meant to follow behind them, intending to flee rather than encounter Esau. And an angel wrestled with him. To keep him from fleeing, so that he would see the fulfillment of the Holy One’s promise: Esau would not harm him. IBN EZRA Jacob was left alone. It is not correct to say that Jacob was trying to run away, abandoning his family and all his possessions. He had already informed Esau he was on his way, and had sent the gift he promised. If he fled now, that would just get Esau angry again, and he would kill the entire camp. Jacob was a smart man—how could anyone think he would do this? And a man wrestled with him. Etymologically, the man “had a dustup” with him; their struggle raised dust. Until the break of dawn. The Hebrew idiom is literally “until the darkness lifted.” But some understand this word to refer not to darkness but to light, the light seen on the clouds before the sun itself has risen; “for one who speaks thus there shall be no dawn” (Isa. 8:20). NAHMANIDES Jacob was left alone. See Rashi’s comment. But the straightforward explanation must indeed be that the repeated verb in v. 24 (see OJPS) is being used in two different ways (see NJPS). First he personally brought his family across; then he went back and “sent across” his possessions with his servants, leaving him as the last one on that side. And a man wrestled with him. See Rashi’s comment. Since the Sages apparently had difficulty in pronouncing п, they often replaced it with א; so our verb may indeed refer to “grappling”; a comparison of Zech. 6:3 with Isa. 63:1 (and perhaps also Ezek. 27:24 with Song 1:10) demonstrates that this interchange did sometimes occur in the Bible as well. But Genesis Rabbah makes mention of the “dust” of Menahem’s explanation, which is in fact the correct one. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Jacob was left alone. The “few small items” our Sages say he forgot is a reference to his “possessions” (v. 24); he had returned to that side to organize their transfer. They were “small” in comparison to his wives and children (Abarbanel). And a man wrestled with him. The Hebrew verb is unique, occurring only here (Masorah). Calling this man “the prince of Esau” should not be understood to mean that individuals have angelic princes of this kind. But the prince of Edom was also the prince of Esau, the founder of that nation (Abarbanel).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 296.

Genesis 32:26–27 “When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he wrenched Jacob’s hip at its socket, so that the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for dawn is breaking.” But he answered, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.””

4. Why is it important for the entity that Yakov is wrestling with, to be gone by dawn? # 4

a. if the being is an Angel it has a set time to perform tasks and report back.

b. if it is a man then he will be clearly seen and known to Yakov and any others.

RASHI For dawn is breaking. And when the day arrives I must be on duty to recite songs of praise. Unless you bless me. Confirm for me the blessings that my father blessed me with, which Esau is disputing. RASHBAM For dawn is breaking. Now that it is daylight you should be on your way. Unless you bless me. You must release me healthy and not injured from wrestling with you.—For now that it was light, Jacob realized that this was an angel. KIMHI Let me go. If you are through with me, I will be on my way. (But Jacob was not through with him.) For dawn is breaking. You need not fear being left alone in the dark. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Let me go, for dawn is breaking. As the Sages say, evil spirits cannot do harm or even appear during the day (Bekhor Shor). Since this all occurred in a dream, it had to end when Jacob woke up, which he customarily did at dawn (Gersonides). The implications for Jacob’s descendants are that Edom will only be able to harm them until “dawn is breaking,” when the darkness of exile disappears at the time of the future redemption (Abarbanel). I will not let you go, unless you bless me. You came to harm me, so you must agree to make peace with me, and admit that I beat you (Bekhor Shor).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 297.

Genesis 32:30 “Jacob asked, “Pray tell me your name.” But he said, “You must not ask my name!” And he took leave of him there.”

5. Why does Yakov ask for the entities name and why is he told “You must not ask my name” or “Why are you asking about my name?”# 5

a. It is not important as an Angel’s name is reflective of their mission and can change.

b. it is pointless to know since he will not see this Angel again.

RASHI You must not ask my name! Rather, “why are you asking my name?” (compare OJPS). “We do not have permanent names; our names are constantly changing to match the particular mission we are being commanded to fulfill.” And he took leave of him there. Rather, “he blessed him there” (OJPS). As I said in my comment to the previous verse, Jacob was not willing to wait until he got to Bethel to be blessed. The angel was forced to confirm his blessings right then and there, though the angel “implored him” to wait. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Pray tell me your name. Which will inform me of your form and the action that results from it. I can then comprehend why you arose as an adversary to me, repent of my sin, and pray (Sforno). You must not ask my name! The winner wants his name known, but the loser does not; people will just say, “What a loser!” But of course angels also do not want people to be able to conjure them up at will (Bekhor Shor). Rather, “Why do you ask my name?—There is no need.” When strangers who meet part on friendly terms, they exchange names in case they meet again; but this was not going to happen (Hizkuni). Ordinarily the loser of such a match could expect to be summoned at any moment to serve the winner; but this does not apply to angels (Abarbanel). And he took leave of him there. First making peace with him (Bekhor Shor). KIMHI Pray tell me your name. Angels are named according to their missions; Jacob wanted to know what this angel was assigned to do. When Samson’s father asked an angel this same question, he replied, “It is unknowable”—even I do not know what it is going to be changed to next. And he took leave of him there. Rather, “And he blessed him there” (OJPS). He blessed him further, in addition to the blessing conveyed by naming him Israel. And he blessed him “there” in addition to the blessing he would be given later at Bethel. NAHMANIDES You must not ask my name! Rather, “Why are you asking about my name?” (compare OJPS). “There is no point in your knowing it. There is no strength or power that does not come from the Holy One himself. If you called me, I would not respond, nor would I deliver you from your distress. But I will bless you now, for so I have been commanded.” And he took leave of him there. Rather, “and he blessed him there” (OJPS), as he had been commanded to do. But the text does not say what blessing he gave him. The explanation given by the Sages is a plausible one—that he was forced to confirm all the blessings right there. Jacob did not want to have to wait until he got to Bethel.

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 298.

Genesis 33:14 “Let my lord go on ahead of his servant, while I travel slowly, at the pace of the cattle before me and at the pace of the children, until I come to my lord in Seir.””

6. What is Yakov saying to Esav? # 6

a. I got work to do and children to raise, I will make it to Seir when I make it to Seir.

b. Yakov is not being decietful and Esav understands this as he does not come back for him later when Yitsak dies. Genesis 35:29

RASHI Let my lord go on ahead. Do not delay your own journey unnecessarily. Go as far on your way as you need to, even if you end up quite far from us. While I travel. The ה at the end of the verb is extraneous: “I will travel” (compare OJPS). A similar form (with a different verb) is found in “I will go down to see” (18:21). Slowly. “In my slowness,” that is, “gently” (OJPS); the ל is not a preposition but a root letter. Compare “deal gently with my boy Absalom” (2 Sam. 18:5); “the gently flowing waters of Siloam” (Isa. 8:6). At the pace of the cattle. Literally, “according to the legs of the work,” that is, the pace of the animals I must lead. And at the pace of the children. According to their legs, to how fast they can walk. Until I come to my lord in Seir. More precisely, “to Seir” (compare OJPS). He told him the direction he was going, though he had no intention of going farther than Succoth. He thought, “If he intends evil, he will wait until I reach him.” But he did not go to Seir at all. And when will he finally go? In the days of the Messiah, when “liberators shall march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau” (Obad. 1:21). And there are many midrashic elaborations of this as well. IBN EZRA At the pace of. Literally, “at the foot of”—but that is an idiomatic way of saying “for the sake of.” IBN EZRA While I travel. The ה at the end of the verb implies “while I travel with them.” Slowly. The י at the end of this word, if not superfluous, is a second indication of “I.” At the pace of the cattle. Literally, “at the pace of the task,” referring indeed to the cattle that were Jacob’s livelihood. To me, it seems most plausible that the Hebrew word refers to whatever is within a person’s power to do, whether directly or indirectly; the word can even refer to someone’s wealth: “he has not laid hands on the other’s property” (Exod. 22:7). The word for a “messenger” derives from the same root, since a messenger (including a divine “messenger,” an angel) is under the control of the one who sends him. As for “at the pace,” it is really the same word and same idiom as “wherever I turned” of 30:30. But of course this literally means “for the foot,” and they are actually walking on their feet. KIMHI Until I come to my lord in Seir. As we noted in our comment to 32:4, Esau was living there already even though he had not yet settled his family there. According to Genesis Rabbah, Jacob’s punishment for calling Esau “my lord” eight times was the eight Edomite kings listed in 36:31–39. NAHMANIDES Until I come to my lord in Seir. Jacob might indeed have returned home via Seir. Esau’s suggestion at the end of v. 12 could then be interpreted to mean “I will travel next to you,” saying that he did not want to separate from Jacob until he had made it all the way back home, to pay his respects to his father. But Jacob replied, “I will be traveling slowly; my lord should go back to the city where he rules, and if I pass that way he can welcome me and travel with me as far as he likes.” Jacob was in no sense vowing that he would come to Seir, which Esau did not really need him to do in any case. Our Sages say that Jacob had no intention whatsoever of going to Seir and was merely trying to put as much distance as he could between himself and Esau, letting Esau think he would come as far as Seir. That would certainly have been a good plan. They have yet another midrash, explaining that Jacob will keep his word in the Messianic Era, based on the verse “For liberators shall march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau” (Obad. 1:21). ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Until I come to my lord in Seir. Really “in Seir” goes with the first phrase in the verse; Jacob is saying that he is on his way to “his lord,” by which he meant his father. Even if an older brother deserves to be treated like one’s father, that does not mean that “lord” could apply equally to both here (Abarbanel).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 302–303.

Genesis 34:14–15 “and said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us. Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.”

7. What is the significance and meaning of circumcision here? Do they really want them to circumcise themselves? # 7

a. By circumcising themselves they where converting to be of Israel.

b. The deciet or guile here is they think they are giving Shechem and Hamor something they either would refuse themselves or their fellow people would refuse.

RASHI Will we agree with you. Will we be reconciled with you. Compare “the priests agreed” (2 Kings 12:9). ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Only on this condition will we agree with you. They assumed it would never happen. As the old saying goes, “Shechem got the wife and Mabgai got the knife?” Once the men of Shechem refused, the sons of Jacob would be able to take their just revenge. This little scheme was the “guile” on their part (Bekhor Shor). If Shechem could not convince the men of his town to do this, he was not much of a “chief”; and if Shechem himself would not do it they would have a good excuse for not marrying Dinah to him (Gersonides). They assumed that no one would actually agree to be circumcised, and that Shechem would realize they were insulting him and react angrily—which would permit them to take their revenge (Abarbanel).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 308.

Genesis 34:25–26 “On the third day, when they were in pain, Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, brothers of Dinah, took each his sword, came upon the city unmolested, and slew all the males. They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword, took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went away.”

8. Why did Simeon and Levi slay all the males? # 8

a. They still had Dinah! she had been captive the entire time.

b. all of the men had discussed what happened and accepted and agreed with it.

RASHI Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons. The text is emphasizing that despite being Jacob’s sons Simeon and Levi conducted themselves without regard to that. They did not take counsel with him about what to do. Brothers of Dinah. In their praise, they are also identified as Dinah’s brothers, for they put themselves in harm’s way for her sake. Unmolested. Since the men of the town were all in pain. But the Hebrew more literally means “confident.” A midrash says: They were confident in the strength of their old man. RASHBAM When they were in pain. The straightforward sense, both of the text and of the situation, is that they were still in pain as they had been on the first and second days. Came upon the city unmolested. Rather, “came upon the city unawares” (OJPS). More precisely, they “came upon the city” where the residents were living so “securely” that they were not on their guard. Whether in the Torah or the Prophets, the Hebrew word always refers to people who are living in security, not to the security of the attackers. IBN EZRA On the third day. Which is always the most difficult, being halfway through one quarter of a lunar cycle. Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, brothers of Dinah. They did this with the full knowledge of their brothers; remember that all “Jacob’s sons” spoke “with guile” (v. 13). Jacob was angry at Simeon and Levi in particular because they are the ones who did the killing. KIMHI Two of Jacob’s sons. Even though they had all been in agreement when “speaking with guile” (v. 13), the others begged off out of fear. Brothers of Dinah. They were not afraid; they showed themselves to be true brothers. Unmolested. Rather, they came “securely”—as securely as if there had been many of them. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS On the third day, when they were in pain. According to Joseph Kara, it would take three days to circumcise them all, so it would take until the third day for all of them to be “in pain” (Bekhor Shor). Hamor proposed marriage immediately, on the very day Shechem lay with Dinah; Shechem circumcised himself on the next day; and all the others were circumcised “on the third day” (Abarbanel). And slew all the males. Had they slain only Shechem, the others would eventually have taken revenge for him. They may have acted as if they were coming to tend to them, made sure they were alone with each man, and killed them without the man’s wife and children realizing what they had done (Gersonides). Gersonides’ suggestion is plausible; there is no question that this was “a little city, with few men in it” (Eccles. 9:14), which is why Simeon and Levi were able to carry out this plan (Abarbanel).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 310.

Genesis 35:12 “The land that I assigned to Abraham and Isaac I assign to you; And to your offspring to come Will I assign the land.””

9. We see this promise stated again. What is the significance of HaShem stating something 3 times? # 9

a. The land and all of the land and all of the blessings and the authority and the future of all humanity interacting with HaShem is found only in the decendants of Israel.

NAHMANIDES The land that I assigned to Abraham and Isaac I assign to you. And in the same way—by swearing an oath. That is the implication of the phrase. The land had originally been assigned to Jacob without such an oath, but now, as with his father and grandfather, the implication was that the land would be assigned to him whether or not he might subsequently sin. We see that the land was assigned to Jacob by oath just as to the others by the expressions used subsequently throughout the text, e.g., “the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your offspring will I give it’ ” (Exod. 33:1). Or it may simply be that this repetition of the prophecy is the equivalent of swearing; see my comment to 26:3. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS And to your offspring to come will I assign the land. Jacob, unlike Abraham and Isaac, is given the promise that all of his sons will inherit the land (Abarbanel). Not “the land” but “the earth.” At the end of days the whole earth will belong to your offspring, when (as 28:14 puts it) “you shall spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south” (Sforno).

Michael Carasik, ed., Genesis: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018), 314.

Haftorah Portion Ovadiah/Obadiah 1

Obadiah 1 “The vision of Obadiah. Thus says Adonai Elohim concerning Edom: We have heard a report from Adonai— and an envoy has been sent among the nations: “Arise and let us rise up against her in battle.””

Obadiah is thought by some to have been an Edomite convert and adviser to Ahab.

The first 5 verses of Obadiah and Jeremiah 49 verses 14-16 and verse 9 mirror each other.

Verses 1-14 are about Judgment on Edom and verses 15-21 are about Judgment on the nations. # 10

There are two reasons to separate the first (vv. 1–14) and the second (vv. 16–21) part of the book into different compositional layers: (i) the thematic tensions that exist between them and (ii) the different historical situations presupposed by them (Rudolph 1971: 296; Barton 2001: 118): 1. The role of the nations is different: in vv. 1–14 they are the tool for Edom’s punishment; in vv. 16–21 they are the object of judgement. 2. The object of the threat is different: Edom in vv. 1–14, the nations in vv. 15–21. 3. The means of judgement are different: the nations in v. 5, the house of Jacob/Joseph in v. 18. 4. The addressees are different: Edom in vv. 1–15 (second person singular), Judah in v. 16 (second person plural). 5. The focus is different: vv. 1–14 seem to have a specific historical situation in mind, vv. 15–21 are more general, even ‘eschatological’, with their introduction of the Day of the Lord theme. Related to this final point is the contention that vv. 1–14 and vv. 16–21 reflect two different historical backgrounds. The first part fits with the immediate aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE, while vv. 16–21 require a later date. This issue will be taken up in the following chapter.

Tchavdar S. Hadjiev, Joel, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah: An Introduction and Study Guide, ed. Adrian Curtis, T&T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament (London; New York; Oxford; New Delhi; Sydney: T&T Clark, 2020), 43.

Obadiah 15–16 ““For the day of Adonai is near against all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you. Your dealing will return on your own head. For just as you have drunk on My holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually. Yes, they will drink and gulp down, and then be as though they had never existed.”

10. How do you understand the phrase “… so all the nations shall drink continually. Yes, they will drink and gulp down, and then be as though they had never existed.”?

Obadiah 21 “The victorious will go up on Mount Zion to judge the hill country of Esau. Then the kingdom shall be Adonai’s.”

11. How do you understand this verse?

Basorah Portion Matthew 2:13-23

Matthew 2:13 “Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of Adonai appears to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the Child, to kill Him.””

12. What was Herod’s ancestry? # 11

a. King Herod was a very complex character. From his Idumean/Edomite roots and his Nabatean/Arabic Nomad mother to his Hellenistic upbringing and the religion forced upon his ancestors, his was a life of contradictions.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/how-jewish-was-herod

Matthew 2:23 “And he went and lived in a city called Natzeret, to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets, that Yeshua shall be called a Natzrati.”

13. Which prophets or what prophecy says Yeshua will be called a Natzrati? # 12

a. None

b. The Messiach ben David is reffered to as a Netzer meaning branch of David. It has no connections to the town of Natzeret or Nazareth. Natzrati means a native of Natzeret/Nazareth.

This is a problematical verse. In every instance where Mattityahu is showing the fulfillment of a Scriptural prophecy (see list in 1:23N), a specific writer—Isaiah, Jeremiah, David—is named, or “the prophet,” or “the Tanakh,” followed by a verse or passage. Here the prophets (uniquely plural) are mentioned, and no text is quoted. This is clear from the fact that Mattityahu leaves out “legontos” (“saying”), the Greek keyword he uses to cite Scripture. Rather, he seems to be alluding to a general concept found in several prophets, capable of being fulfilled by the Messiah’s being what the Greek text here calls a Nazôraios? (in some other places the word is “Nazarênos”). The questions: Which prophets? What did they actually say? And what is a Nazôraios/Nazarênos? Some have suggested that the verse has to do with Yeshua’s taking the vows of a Nazirite (Numbers 6:1–23). But this is improbable, since there is no record that Yeshua, who was not an ascetic (11:16–19), ever did such a thing. A second possibility is that since Natzeret (Nazareth, see Lk 1:26N) was a place people made fun of—as in Natan’el’s remark, “Natzeret? Can anything good come from there?” (Yn 1:46)—Mattityahu is referring to the many Tanakh prophecies that say the Messiah would be despised (e.g., Psalm 22, Isaiah 52:13–53:12) and is informing us that these prophecies would be fulfilled, in part, by his having the onus of being a Natzrati, a resident of Natzeret. The third possibility is that Mattityahu is speaking of the prediction that the Messiah will be a netzer (“branch”) from the stock of Yishai, King David’s father (Isaiah 11:1); but compare Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15; Zechariah 3:8, 6:12, where the word is “tzemach,” (“sprout”). Thus several prophets use the idea, though not the word “netzer.” (For more on “the prophets” see 5:17N.) What I consider most probable is that Mattityahu is combining the second and third alternatives by means of wordplay, a technique very common in Jewish writing, including the Bible. Yeshua is both netzer and Natzrati. Finally, although one of the earliest names for the Jewish believers was “Notzrim” (“Nazareth-ites,” that is, “followers of the man from Nazareth,” Acts 24:5&N), it would be odd for Mattityahu to use the same term for the one they followed. The Talmud refers to him as Yeshu HaNotzri (B’rakhot 17b, Sotah 47a). In modern Hebrew “Notzri” remains the everyday word for “Christian”; but it is wrong and confusing to speak of “Yeshua the Christian,” i.e., the follower of Christ—he could not follow himself! The Talmud’s expression should be understood as meaning “Yeshua the Natzrati, Yeshua from Natzeret.” I use the term “Natzrati” instead of “Notzri” (both are acceptable modern Hebrew) in order to get away from the modern connotations of “Notzri” in Hebrew.

David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Mt 2:23.