Midrashic Setting of Yitzhak's Blessings to his Sons: Pesach or Rosh HaShana

Parashat Toledot tells the famous story of the blessing that Yitzchak sought to confer upon Esav. Rivka heard of her husband’s plan, and persuaded Yaakov to disguise as his brother and receive the blessings in his stead. As Yitzchak had instructed Esav to hunt an animal and prepare him a meat meal before receiving his blessing, Rivka, in preparing Yaakov for his ruse, told him to bring two goats which she then prepared as meat for Yitzchak (27:9).

Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel comments that Rivka prepared two goats for her husband because this incident occurred on Pesach eve. One goat served as the actual korban pesach, while the other was designated as the korban chagiga (“festival offering”) which one would eat prior to partaking of the korban pesach. Rashi cites a similar comment in the name of Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 32): “Did Yitzchak normally eat two goats? Rather, one he offered as his paschal sacrifice, and the other was made as delicacies.”

This view of the Midrash, that the incident of Yitzchak’s blessing took place on Pesach, is in contrast to a comment of the Zohar (vol. 3, p. 258), which writes that it occurred on Rosh Hashanah. The Zohar takes note of Yitzchak’s instruction to Esav, “and make for me delicacies” (27:4), and views this command as symbolic of God’s instruction to His children, to all Benei Yisrael, to celebrate this day as a festival each year. As the Zohar writes, “How many delicacies and foods have Israel made on this day!”

This question as to when the incident of the blessing took place may actually have practical implications regarding the customs of Rosh Hashanah. The Rama (O.C. 583:1) records the well-established practice to eat apples on the holiday of Rosh Hashana. The common understanding, of course, is that the apple’s sweet flavor is symbolic of our hopes for a “sweet” year. The Maharil, cited by the Taz, explained differently, associating this custom with the Kabbalistic notion of the “chakal tapichin” (“apple orchard”). The Vilna Gaon, however, in hisBei’ur Ha-Gra, explains based on Yitzchak’s exclamation upon smelling the fragrance of Yaakov’s clothing when he brought him meat to receive the blessing: “Behold, my son’s fragrance is the fragrance of a field blessed by the Lord!” (27:27). The Gemara in Masekhet Ta’anit (29b) comments that Yitzchak refers here to the fragrance of an apple orchard. The Vilna Gaon then writes, “And this occurred on Rosh Hashanah, as is well known.” Meaning, the custom to eat apples on Rosh Hashanah serves to commemorate the event of Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov, which occurred on Rosh Hashanah, and during which Yitzchak smelled the fragrance of apples in Yaakov’s garments. It thus emerges that this custom follows the position of the Zohar, and is in opposition to the position of Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer which Rashi cites.

Volver al capítulo

Selling the Birthright - Or Sacrificial Rites?

Parashat Toledot tells the perplexing story of Yaakov’s “purchase” of the bekhora (“birthright”) from his older twin, Esav. In relating this incident, the Torah does not clarify what exactly the birthright entailed, which rights or privileges Yaakov acquired that day from his brother. Rashi (25:31), based on the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 63:13), explains that Yaakov sought to acquire the rights to offer sacrifices. Back then, the privilege of performing the avoda(sacrificial rites) was granted to the firstborn, and thus Esav was naturally assigned to this position of “priesthood.” Yaakov correctly deemed Esav unworthy of this role, and thus jumped at the opportunity presented to usurp the birthright from his undeserving brother.

A number of later writers raised the question of how this kind of stature can be subject to purchase. The privilege of the birthright seems to have been the pre-Matan Torah equivalent of the kehuna. Clearly, a kohen could never “sell” his priestly privileges to a non-kohen. On what basis, then, was Yaakov able to “purchase” the status of birthright from Esav?

The Taz, in his Divrei David, answers that this status of bekhora did not, in fact, precisely correspond with the later institution of the kehuna. There was (quite obviously) no halakha in place banning non-bekhorim from offering sacrifices. Rather, the custom evolved to reserve this privilege for the firstborn. What Yaakov obtained from Esav, then, was not his personal status, but rather a promise to permanently forego his avoda rights and allow Yaakov to enjoy this privilege. This explains why the “transaction” concludes with Esav making an oath to Yaakov (25:33). An oath is precisely what Yaakov wanted; what he purchased was not any kind of asset, but rather Esav’s guarantee that he would forever more allow Yaakov the privilege of the avoda. (The Maharal, in his Gur Aryeh, explains similarly.)

It should be noted that the Gemara appears to have understood this “sale” differently. In Masekhet Sota (13a), the Gemara tells that before Yaakov’s burial in Me’arat Ha-makhpela, Esav arrived and protested his deceased brother’s right to the remaining plot. He insisted that he, not Yaakov, was entitled to the coveted burial site in the Makhpela cave. The Gemara records the exchange that ensued between Esav and Yaakov’s children, in which clear reference is made to the sale of the bekhora. In the end, it is indeed confirmed that the sale of the bekhora included the rights to burial in Makhpela, and even from the outset, Esav acknowledged that through the sale he had forfeited his right to a double portion of his father’s inheritance (see Rashi s.v. nehi di-zvinti). Clearly, then, the Gemara assumed that this transaction referred to the financial privileges of the bekhora, and not to the rights of the avoda. This is, indeed, the approach taken by several commentators, including the Rashbam and Ibn Ezra.

Volver al capítulo

Squandering the Birthright

Towards the beginning of Parashat Toledot we read of Esav's "sale" of his birthright to Yaakov in exchange for food. In narrating this incident, the Torah offers us a glimpse into Esav's thought-process as he agrees to this transaction: "Behold, I am going to do die; for what do I need the birthright?" (25:32). The commentators offer different approaches in explaining Esav's intent in this remark. Rashi explains this comment as a reference to the numerous and demanding laws governing the sacrificial service, the responsibility towards which were to fall on the shoulders of the eldest son. Yaakov informed Esav of the many prohibitions involved in this ritual service, many of which are punishable by death. Esav thus exclaims, "Behold, I am going to die!" He feared his inability to maintain the strict standards entailed in the responsibilities of the birthright, and therefore gladly rid himself of this burden in exchange for Yaakov's stew.

Rashi's reading of this verse should perhaps be understood in light of the phrase with which the Torah concludes this narrative: "Va-yivez Esav et ha-bekhora" ("Esav scorned the birthright" – 25:34). In theory, one can interpret this clause in one of two ways. First, one might suggest that in the spirit of the Aesopian "sour grapes," Esav denigrated the birthright in order to retroactively rationalize his sale of the birthright. Recognizing that he forfeited an eternal privilege in exchange for momentary gratification, Esav convinced himself of the worthlessness of the birthright he had just squandered, thereby consoling himself for having made this decision. Alternatively, however, the Torah here perhaps offers some clarification regarding the sale, informing us that Esav forfeited his firstborn privileges because he "scorned the birthright," meaning, because he did not afford it any value. According to this reading, this verse should be understood to mean, "This all happened because Esav scorned the birthright." This appears to be Rashi's intent in his commentary to this verse: "The Torah testified to his sinfulness, in that he scorned the service of the Almighty." Rashi seems to explain that the Torah here testifies to the fact that what had just transpired resulted from Esav's contempt for the birthright.

This "testimony" of the Torah concerning Esav's squandering of the birthright sheds light on Rashi's earlier comments, regarding Esav's fear upon hearing of the responsibilities associated with the status of firstborn. The Torah here instructs that excusing oneself from a certain task that appears too daunting and demanding effectively amounts to disregarding the importance of that task. The attitude of "It's too hard for me" often results from a lack of appreciation for the value of the given undertaking. A person who understands the importance of a task will be prepared to accept the challenges involved and commit himself to confronting them successfully. Esav explained his preference on the basis of his fear of the rigorous standards he would have to meet as firstborn, but the Torah testified that he in truth "scorned the birthright." Had he afforded this privilege the value it deserves, he would have accepted the difficult challenges involved, rather than flee from them.

(Based in part on Rav Moshe Feinstein's comments in Kol Ram, vol. 2)

Volver al capítulo

Why Avimelekh Changed his Attitude toward Yitzhak

We read in Parashat Toledot of Yitzchak's tribulations in the Philistine region in Gerar, where his extraordinary farming success during a year of drought aroused the envy and then enmity of the local population. The Philistine king Avimelekh ultimately drove Yitzchak out of the region, due to the tension and hostility that had begun brewing in the kingdom. Later, however, Avimelekh and his general visited Yitzchak and asked for a truce, and explained their sudden change of heart: "We have indeed seen that the Lord was with you…" (26:28).

Rashi notes the seemingly redundant expression used by Avimelekh and his general in this verse – "ra'o ra'inu" ("we have indeed seen") – which suggests that they "saw" something in addition to the fact that "the Lord was with you." The subtle reference, Rashi explains, was to the success of Yitzchak's father. Avimelekh explains his shift in attitude on the basis of the fact that God's providence over both Avraham and Yitzchak was clearly evident, prompting him to seek peaceful relations with Yitzchak and his descendants.

The obvious question arises, how did the success and blessing enjoyed by Avraham decades earlier contribute to Avimelekh's change in policy towards Yitzchak? If Avraham's success was significant enough to impact upon Avimelekh's treatment of Yitzchak, he should never have driven Yitzchak away in the first place. How did God's evident protection over Avraham and Yitzchak impact upon Avimelekh's attitude towards Yitzchak?

Rav Dov Weinberger, in his Shemen Ha-tov (vol. 4), suggested that Avimelekh initially perceived Yitzchak as failing to perpetuate his father's legacy. Yitzchak's quality of gevura – unyielding justice – contrasted sharply with Avraham's attribute of chesed – his warm acceptance and kindness towards all human beings, deserving or otherwise. Yitzchak differed so fundamentally from his father that Avimelekh was unimpressed. Though he (or his father who bore the same title "Avimelekh") had suffered the consequences of mistreating Avraham, until he came to recognize his greatness, Avimelekh was not intimidated by Yitzchak. Ultimately, however, Avimelekh came to recognize that "the Lord was with you," that God came to Yitzchak's side and assisted him just as He had accompanied Avraham, and at that point Avimelekh acknowledged Yitzchak as Avraham's spiritual heir. Despite their differences in character and approach, both achieved spiritual greatness and earned special divine protection. It was at that point that Avimelekh chose to seek a truce with Yitzchak.

In a sense, this question surrounding Yitzchak's status underlies the entire narrative presented in this parasha regarding Avraham's wells. The Pelishtim had stuffed the wells dug by Avraham until Yitzchak's servants dug them anew, at which point the Pelishtim claimed rights to them. These quarrels over the wells of Avraham perhaps reflect the question over the continuation of Avraham's legacy. The Pelishtim argued that Avraham's spiritual legacy died with Avraham the person; the "waters" he had discovered through his teaching and influence can no longer continue, as Avraham had left no successor. The "stuffing" of the wells thus represents the rejection of Avraham's teachings.

Yitzchak had to struggle to prove that despite the differences between him and his father, he is legitimately the one to "dig anew" Avraham's "wells," that Avraham's legacy can and must be perpetuated even after his death, by his more reticent and rigid son. The story concludes with the Pelishtim's recognition of Yitzchak as Avraham's heir, that Avraham's legacy indeed continues with Yitzchak, and that the influence of a great, pioneering leader can be felt even many generations after the leader's passing, despite the differences between him and his successors.

Volver al capítulo

Traits That Yitzhak Looked For

The Torah tells towards the beginning of Parashat Toledot that Yitzchak loved his older son, Esav, "ki tzayid be-fiv" (literally, "for there was game in his mouth" – 25:28). According to most commentators, the phrase "his mouth" refers to the mouth of Yitzchak. Thus, for example, Targum Onkelos, Ibn Ezra and others explain that Yitzchak developed a particular affinity for Esav because Esav would bring him meat from the hunt. According to Rashi, the term tzayid refers not to actual hunting, but rather to deception. In his view, Yitzchak preferred Esav only because Esav deceptively presented himself as a righteous man, disguising his iniquity under a mask of piety and meticulous halakhic observance.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary, translates this phrase as, "for he was also a hunter with his mouth." According to Rav Hirsch, "his mouth" refers to Esav's mouth, rather than Yitzchak's, and the Torah tells that Yitzchak admired Esav for his hunting skills. Rav Hirsch explains this admiration based on the notion of "the attraction of opposites." He writes:

We see Isaac, risen up again from death on the altar, preferring to withdraw from the bustle of the world and to live quietly in the proximity of the desert…away from the busy traffic of men. That Esau's lusty active nature appealed to him, and that he perhaps saw in him a force which he has lost and could be a support to the home, would be quite possible.

According to Rav Hirsch, Yitzchak preferred Esav because he saw within him what he himself lacked – an "active nature," street-smarts, worldly skills. These talents would serve as a "support to the home" and compensate for the absence of these qualities within Yitzchak's nature.

More recently, Rav Yehuda Henkin, in his work New Interpretations on the Parsha, advanced a similar interpretation, though from a different angle. He, too, explained the term tzayid be-fiv as a reference to Esav's hunting skills, his ability to put "game in his mouth." According to Rav Henkin, Yitzchak admired Esav's self-reliance, his ability to fend for himself and take independent initiative. Yaakov was perceived by his father as lacking this quality of practical know-how and proactive initiative. In choosing the son that would perpetuate the legacy of Avraham, Yitzchak had to decide – so he thought – between Esav, the skilled hunter, and Yaakov, a man of spiritual greatness but who lacked his brother's worldly talents. Rav Henkin describes Yitzchak's choice as follows:

He chose Esau because Esau would be able to father a great people, as Avraham had been promised. The spirituality Esau lacked, he or his children could acquire later. But what good were Yaakov's spiritual qualities, if he was incapable of meeting the challenges of life?

Later, however, when Yaakov deceptively seized the blessings intended from Esav, he demonstrated that he, too, was capable of the same kind of bold initiative as his brother. Therefore, upon discovering that he had blessed Yaakov, rather than Esav, Yitzchak confirmed the blessing ("gam barukh yiheyeh" – 27:33), as he now realized that Yaakov in truth possessed both qualities required of God's special nation: spiritual greatness, and practical know-how; both the "voice of Yaakov," as well as the so-called "hands of Esav."

Volver al capítulo

When Rivka Went to Seek God

Towards the beginning of Parashat Toledot, we read of Rivka's difficulties during her pregnancy, in response to which "she went to seek out the Lord" (25:22). Where exactly did she go, and what was she "seeking"?

Rashi explains that Rivka went to the prophet Shem to find out "what will be with her in the end." Rivka feared that her unusual pains would mean an unsuccessful pregnancy, and so she anxiously sought a prophetic prediction as to the outcome of her pregnancy. As we read in the next verse, she was informed that the difficulties she experienced resulted from the two opposing nations gestating in her womb, and she will deliver two healthy children who will establish two powerful peoples. Other commentaries, including Targum Onkelos and Chizkuni, explain similarly. (This also appears to be the interpretation of the Rashbam; see also Derashot Ha-Ran, 2.)

The Ramban, however, disagrees, claiming that the verb employed in this verse – d.r.sh.- always refers to prayer when used in reference to "seeking" God. Thus, according to the Ramban, the Torah here tells that she went to pray to the Almighty for relief. (This is the view as well of Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer, 32.) God's response, namely, the information that she will bear twins from whom two great nations will descend, was intended to offer encouragement and hope, which would help her deal emotionally with the pain she endured.

Rav Yaakov Koppel Schwartz, in his work Yekev Efrayim, suggests a novel interpretation of this verse, claiming that Rivka perhaps did not actually experience any unusual pains during her pregnancy. Rather, when the verse states, "The sons struggled inside her," it refers to a dream she beheld of two fetuses wrestling with one another inside her uterus. She therefore went to a prophet to learn the meaning behind this peculiar vision, and she was informed that the skirmishes between the two fetuses symbolize the struggle that will ensue between her two children, Yaakov and Esav, and their descendants. Thus, "she went to seek out the Lord" refers neither to prayer nor information concerning the outcome of her pregnancy, but rather to prophetic consultation for the purpose of deciphering her dream.

Volver al capítulo

Requesting the "Red Stuff"

In the opening section of Parashat Toledot, we read of the transfer of the birthright from Esav to Yaakov, which Yaakov demanded in response to Esav's request that he feed him some of the food he was preparing. The Torah tells that Esav returned from the field and said to Yaakov, "Hal'iteini na" – "please pour for me" some of the food. Rashi explains the word hal'iteini as referring to the pouring of large amounts of food directly into someone else's mouth. He cites a Mishna in Masekhet Shabbat (155b) which employs this term in reference to feeding a camel. Several writers detected in this terminology an expression of Esav's lack of etiquette, dignity and self-respect. The word hal'iteini means not simply "pour for me," but probably a rough equivalent to "dump for me" or "throw over here," and it thus reflects Esav's unrefined and boorish character.

Rav Moshe Leib Shachor, in his Avnei Shoham, notes that if, indeed, hal'iteini signifies Esav's incivility and coarse nature, then the word that immediately follows – "na," or "please" – seems wholly inconsistent with the tenor of Esav's remarks. If Esav really does speak so boorishly, why does he insert the word "please"? What more, later in the parasha, we find that Yaakov's use of this term while disguising as Esav led Yitzchak to suspect that he was not Yaakov. Commenting on Yitzchak's famous declaration, "The voice is the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are the hands of Esav" (27:22), Rashi explains that Yaakov had spoken politely to his father, kindly asking, "Please, go and sit and partake of my hunt" (27:19). Esav, however, when he returns from his hunt, shouts, "Get up, my father" (27:21), without saying, "please." It appears, then, that Esav was not accustomed to refined, courteous speech. How, then, do we account for the word na – "please" – in his request for food from Yaakov?

Rav Shachor answers by suggesting a most novel interpretation of this verse. In Sefer Shemot (12:9), the Torah writes, "al tokhelu mimenu na" – one may not partake of the korban pesach (paschal offering) when it is na, which means not fully roasted. Accordingly, Rav Shachor suggests, we might interpret the word na here in Parashat Toledot as likewise referring to food that has not yet been fully cooked. Esav does not ask, "Please pour me," but rather "pour it to me half-cooked." The word na specifically emphasizes Esav's impatience and insistence that he be fed immediately, without waiting for the stew to fully cook, and it is thus entirely consistent with the connotation of the term hal'iteini. This also explains the final words in Esav's request – "ki ayeif anokhi" ("for I am weary"). Esav tells Yaakov to serve him the food as is, without letting it finish cooking, because he was famished and could not wait any longer.

Rav Shachor adds that this may also explain why Esav asks Yaakov to serve him "min ha-adom ha-adom ha-zeh" – "from this red, red stuff." Why does he emphasize the food's color? Rav Shachor explains that Yaakov was preparing red lentils (see 25:34), whose red color gradually fades over the course of cooking. Esav asked that Yaakov give him the lentils in their current state, even before their redness fades, rather than waiting until they are fully cooked.

Volver al capítulo

משל או מציאות?

בכל העולם מתפעלים עד היום מתיאורי הארבה של יואל, הם מדויקים כל כך. רק מי שראה מאות מיליוני הגָזָם-האַרבֶּה-היֶלֶק-הֶחָסיל (א', ד) בְּמוֹ עיניו, יכול לתאר אותם כך:

(ב', ג) -
כגן עדן הארץ לפניו,
ואחריו מדבר שממה...

(א', ז-יב) -
שָׂם גַפני לשַמָה (=שממה),
וּתְאֵנָתי לִקְצָפָה (=גזע לבן),
חָשֹׂף חֲשָׂפָהּ (=קילף הכל) והשליך (שאריות),
הִלבּינוּ שָׂריגֶיהָ (=ענפיה);

שדות התבואה וכל עצי הפרי, וגם שדות המרעה נאכלו עד תום; אפילו הנחלים והמעיינות התייבשו (א', יח-כ), והעדרים צעקו מרעב ומצמא - להקות הארבה עלו על החומות, נכנסו לכל הבתים "בְּעַד החַלוֹנים יָבֹאוּ כַּגַנָב" (ב', ט).

כמעט הכל מתאים, אבל - נחילי הארבה מתקבצים ללהקות עצומות אחרי גשמים מרובים במזרח אפריקה, הפרטים מקבלים צבע חום-אדמדם והתנהגותם הופכת תוקפנית. הם עולים על מצרים ועל ארץ ישראל ושכנותיה מדרום, לא מצפון.

בפסוקי הנחמה ה' הבטיח - "ואת הצפוני ארחיק מֵעליכם..." (ב', כ). וזה מתאים לצבאות אשור ובבל שבאו על הארץ מצפון, השחיתו והשמידו את הכל. לכן נראה לי, שתיאורי הארבה אכן מציאותיים, והם סופרו מדור לדור באימה ובחרדה (א', ב-ג), אבל הם הפכו בפי הנביא למשל על הגוי "הצפוני" שיבוא ויחריב הכל.

(ב', ד-ז) -
כמראה סוסים מראהו, וכפָרָשים כן יְרוּצוּן,
כקול מרכבות על ראשי ההרים ירקדון...
כעם עצום עֱרוּך מלחמה...
כאנשי מלחמה יעלו חומה…

הארבה דומה לצבא האויב, והצבא דומה לארבה, ועל זה יבכו הכהנים במקדש.
(ב', יז) -
חוּסה ה' על עמך,
ואל תִתֵן נַחֲלָתךָ לחֶרפָּה לִמְשָל בָּם גוים...

כשם שבא הגשם וצמחו יבולי ברכה בשדות אחרי האַרבֶּה (ב', כא-כו), כך התפלל הנביא לישועה גדולה מאסון הגוי "הצפוני", וההקבלות לשני הפרקים האחרונים, מוכיחות.

באדיבות אתר 929

Volver al capítulo

חגי התשובה

Volver al capítulo

Rav Soloveichik's Approach to Esav as a Man of the Hunt and the Field

Today we will present the approach taken by Rav Soloveitchik zt"l to the precise difference between Yaakov and Esav based on the Torah's brief description of their personalities in Parashat Toledot, from a shiur transcribed by Ayton Holtzer and printed (in Hebrew translation) in Yeshivat Har Etzion's publication, "Daf Kesher."

The Torah (25:27) describes Esav with two expressions: "ish yodei'a tzayid" ("a man proficient in hunting") and "ish sadeh" ("a man of the field"). Rav Soloveitchik suggested that "hunting" in this context refers to aggressive ambition, the drive to work and achieve and continue working to achieve even more. More specifically, an "ish yodei'a tzayid" relies on no one other than himself and his own initiatives and efforts. He denies the concept of providence as the primary factor determining a person's successes and failures, and thus focuses exclusively on honing his talents and exerting himself to the utmost in pursuit of his goals.

While "ish yodei'a tzayid" describes Esav's approach to pursuing his goals, the second term – "ish sadeh" – tells us what his goals were. According to Rav Soloveitchik, an "ish sadeh" is a person driven by a passion for wealth, luxury and fame. The "field" – the workplace – is not only the place where he earned his livelihood, but the very essence of his life. He devotes himself tirelessly to the accumulation of wealth and luxury, and in this relentless pursuit, ideals such as compassion and sensitivity become obstacles, rather than limits. Esav, as Chazal describe, cared little for the needs of those around him, preferring instead to focus his energies entirely on his personal aggrandizement, rather than concern for others.

In this context, Rav Soloveitchik drew a parallel between modern, western man and the Biblical Esav. Like Esav, modern man also relies exclusively on his own efforts and refuses to acknowledge God's hand in his fate. Furthermore, 20th-century man was guilty, Rav Soloveitchik claimed, of being an "ish sadeh," of allowing the pursuit of wealth, comfort and fame to overtake his life and define his very essence. The accumulation of wealth has become an end unto itself, and an end that justified virtually all means. People feel responsible only for themselves and their fortunes, and thus allow themselves to trample over others during their frantic pursuit of affluence.

Jewish tradition teaches us to instead follow the example of Yaakov, whom the Torah here describes as an "ish tam, yosheiv ohalim" – "a simple man, a dweller of tents." Yaakov's "simplicity," the Rav argued (citing his father, Rav Moshe zt"l), cannot possibly refer to simplemindedness or naivete. After all, over the course of his life he manages to outmaneuver both his murderous brother and his insidious uncle. Rather, Yaakov's simplicity manifested itself in the nature of his lifestyle, which was characterized by humility and contentment. In direct contradistinction to Esav, Yaakov felt no need to pursue luxury or prominence. He felt perfectly content dwelling in his "tents" of study, learning and practicing the laws of God, pursuing spiritual excellence rather than material excess. Understanding what his brother couldn’t, that our sustenance and very lives depend upon divine grace, Yaakov invested his energies in the service of God, rather than devoting himself exclusively to the pursuit of material gain.

Interestingly, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this difference between the two brothers is manifest in the different blessings they receive from their father. Although Yitzchak blesses both with "dew of heaven" and "fat of the earth" (see 27:28 and 27:39), in Yaakov's blessing, Yitzchak emphasizes the hand of God which bestows this blessing of abundance: "May God give you of the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth." In his blessing to Esav, by contrast, Yitzchak simply declares, "Your abode shall enjoy the fat of the earth and the dew of heaven above." Esav will not receive his bounty from the Almighty, but rather, as the blessing continues, "You shall live by your sword." Esav, the "hunter," insists on his ability to achieve with his personal efforts, dependent on no one. He therefore forfeited the unique blessing of providence granted to Yaakov, who receives his "dew" and "fat" from the outstretched hand of the Almighty, rather than "by the sword."

Volver al capítulo

Midrashic Setting of Yitzhak's Blessings to his Sons: Pesach or Rosh HaShana

Selling the Birthright - Or Sacrificial Rites?

Squandering the Birthright

Why Avimelekh Changed his Attitude toward Yitzhak

Traits That Yitzhak Looked For

When Rivka Went to Seek God

Requesting the "Red Stuff"

משל או מציאות?

חגי התשובה

Rav Soloveichik's Approach to Esav as a Man of the Hunt and the Field

Pages

📲 Instala nuestra App