Parshas Vayeitzei - Parsha Stumpers

פרשת ויצא

Parsha Stumpers

1. Where is there a ראיה in this week's parsha that one should wear a shtreimel? :)

2. Three types of people are called “dead” even while they are alive. All three appear in this week's parsha. What are they and where do they come up in the parsha?

3. How could Yaakov avinu come into a foreign land and start bossing around the shepherds and telling them that, as Rashi writes, “If you are hired workers, you have not yet completed the day's work. And if the animals are yours, there is still time in the day...”?

4. Eliphaz was sent by Eisav to kill Yaakov.

            a. Why is this included in kibud av?

            b. What did Yaakov do to get out of the situation?

            c. Why did this satisfy Eliphaz?

5. Why did Lavan not make a huge wedding for Rachel as he did for Leah?
   
   
   
   
6. There are two times other then the episode with the shepherds by the well that Yaakov seems to go on a rant, so to speak, and “lose his cool”. What is the connection between these three times?

7. Who named the shevatim?

8. Why did Leah only name her fourth son Yehuda? Was she not thankful for the first three?
   
   
   
   
9. How could Lavan continue going to Yaakov after Hashem told him explicitly not to? Who else did a similar thing?
   
   
   
   
10. Rashi (31:39) tells us that Yakkov told Lavan that he was very careful when watching his sheep and whether things were stolen during the day or night, Yaakov paid for it all. What would have been the hava amina to differentiate between things stolen during the day and things stolen at night?

11. Why did Yaakov curse the one who took Lavan's idols?

12. What is the significance of eating in this week's parsha? (continuing the theme from last week)

13. Where do you see in this week's parsha that “stealing” could be said in reference to intangible things which “can't be paid back”?

14. What was the difference between the way Lavan and Yaakov each named the גל? Clearly Lavan and Yaakov shared a language in common because they spoke (or at least argued) often, so shouldn't it have been that at the time of a peace treaty that they agree on what to call the mound - especially since what they ended up doing pretty much mean the same thing anyway? Why couldn't they just agree on a language?