The New Order
Before we continue, let's review the order of events (and hence the order of the parshiot) according to this interpretation.

After successfully confronting Esav (parshia A), Yaakov continues on to Eretz Canaan, stopping first in Shechem to build a mizbayach and thank God (parshia B), just as Avraham Avinu had done. While in Shechem, he buys a parcel of land for 'future use,' hoping to one day return to this area with his family. After buying the field and building a mizbayach, Yaakov continues to Bet-El to fulfill his "neder" (parshia E). There, God confirms the blessing of "bechira" and changes his name from Yaakov to Yisrael (see 35:9-12). [According to our suggestion, Yaakov had been blessed by the "malach" only several days earlier! See 32:26-28 and Shiur #1 on Vayishlach]. Even though he is not in a position at this time to build the actual Bet-Elokim that he promised, he re-affirms his promise by once again anointing the matzeyva and calling that site Bet-El (see 35:14-15). (See Board #6, again.) [See "Further Iyun" section for a more complete discussion.]

Next, Yaakov travels toward Hebron to see his parents. Along the way, Rachel dies and is buried on the roadside (still parshia E - see 35:16). (See Board #7, again.) Then, he sets up tent in Migdal Eder (see 35:21), most likely in an area not too far from Yitzchak's home. It is here that the incident with Reuven and Bilha takes place (35:22). Although we may reasonably assume that Yaakov sharply criticized Reuven, the Torah for some reason abruptly curtails this story, right in the middle of a sentence! [See 35:22! See also 49:4!]

Some time later, maybe a year or two (or even five), Yaakov moves with his family to Shechem - after all, he did purchase a parcel of land there specifically for that purpose. By now, the children are older - old enough for the incident with Dena (as detailed in parshia C - chapter 34) to occur. (See Board #8.) Now, it also makes sense that the people of Shechem see Yaakov as a permanent neighbor, rather than a transient, and they therefore seek marital and economic ties with Yaakov's family. Finally, this also explains why specifically Shimon and Levi take leadership roles at this time; Reuven had most likely been 'demoted' from his position as firstborn after the incident with Bilha (35:22).

After the brothers wipe out Shechem, Yaakov fears the revenge of the neighboring population. God therefore commands him to move from Shechem to Bet-El for protection (parshia D - see 35:1-7). Just as Bet-El had protected Yaakov when he was faced with the threat of his brother Esav, so will Bet-El protect Yaakov now from his latest crisis. [Note how specifically this point - danger from Esav - is mentioned over and over again in this parshia (i.e. 35:1-8, see 35:1,3,7!). Note also that these psukim imply a recent, immense expansion of Yaakov's family and possessions (see 35:6 - "v'chol ha'am asher imo" and 35:2 - "v'el kol asher imo"). This may also explain why Yaakov must remind these 'newcomers' to rid themselves of their idols before ascending to Bet-El (35:2).]

So Yaakov now moves his permanent residence to Bet-El, which had already been established as his Bet Elokim (back in parshia E, which had already happened), and accordingly builds a mizbayach (parshia D - see 35:1,3,7, and see Board #9). [It makes sense that the matzeyva, marking the spot (in parshia E), should be set up before the mizbayach (in parshia D), for the matzeyva is the symbol of God's presence and the mizbayach is set in front of it (see Shmot 24:4!). Again, this fits nicely if we place 35:9-15 (E) before 35:1-8 (D)!]

Finally, Yaakov returns to Hebron before Yitzchak's death (parshia F - see 35:27-29). (See Board #10.)

Let's use a chart once again to show the 'new order' of the parshiot - see Board #11. (Contrast with Board #1.)

Thus, by simply changing the location of a single parshia, nearly all our questions are solved. However, our approach raises a much bigger question: why isn't this parshia (E - 35:9-22) recorded where it belongs? As stated above, the Torah will present events out of chronological sequence only when there is a compelling reason to do so.

As usual, we must return to the primary theme of Sefer Breishit - the process of "bechira" and "dechiya" to answer this question.

Recall from previous shiurim that the theme of Sefer Breishit progresses with each set of Sifrei Toladot. Throughout the progression, someone from among the "toladot" is 'chosen' while the others are 'rejected.' Recall also that in Parshat Va'yishlach we are still under the 'header' of "toldot Yitzchak" (see 25:19). The story of "toldot Yitzchak" clearly reaches its conclusion with the parshia of 35:23-29 (F), which describes Yitzchak's death. [Note also that "toldot Esav" (parshia G - 36:1) follow immediately afterward.]

This parshia, 35:23-29 (F), must therefore appear at the conclusion of "toldot Yitzchak." But why was parshia E transplanted from its chronological location to here, immediately preceding parshia F? The answer lies in the somewhat innocuous though very telling statement that introduces F:

"And the children of Yaakov were twelve..." (see 35:23-26)

This interpretation may also explain why 35:22 ends mid-sentence. It would seem that the pasuk should end with Yaakov's curse of Reuven, which becomes apparent in 49:4. However, because the whole point is to show that Reuven remains part of the 'chosen family,' the second half of the sentence is 'cut off.' Instead, the entire parshia is attached to the statement "and the children of Yaakov were twelve - the children of Leah: the firstborn of Yaakov = Reuven, and Shimon, Levi..." (i.e., the beginning of parshia F - 35:23-24).

[One could suggest further that once the Torah informs us that Yaakov had purchased a parcel of land in Shechem (parshia B - 33:19), Chumash continues with what later took place in Shechem as a result of this purchase, i.e. parshiyot C and D - 34:1-35:8. Then, after completing that story, Chumash returns to the story of Yaakov's first 'return' to Bet-El (parshia E - 35:9-22), which in fact took place much earlier.]

In closing, I must admit to having some reservations regarding the conclusions of this shiur. Hopefully it provides some 'food for thought' worthy of your consideration. Your comments are welcome!

Shabbat Shalom,
    Menachem