A particularly fascinating – and revolutionary – approach to the story of Esav's sale of the birthright to Yaakov is taken by one of the renowned 19th-century commentators.

In Parashat Toledot the Torah informs us that after Avraham's death, the Pelishtim (Philistines) stuffed the wells of water that he had dug in the Negev, and his son, Yitzchak, now digs them anew (26:15,18). At first glance, this conduct of the Pelishtim seems totally irrational and self-destructive. We can easily understand the incident briefly recorded earlier, in Parashat Vayera (21:25), where servants of the Philistine king, Avimelekh, stole one of Avraham's wells and claimed rightful ownership over it.

לפניכם קטע מתוך דף הלימוד של "מתן על הפרק" בו תמצאו שאלות מנחות והרחבות לעיון והעמקה בפרק:

Towards the beginning of Parashat Toledot, we read of the "sale" of Esav's "bekhora" (birthright) to Yaakov. This incident raises many questions, which have been dealt with by both Biblical commentators as well as halakhists. For one thing, scholars have discussed the legal significance of this sale. The privileges associated with the birthright take effect only upon the father's death; as such, these privileges fall under the halakhic category of "davar she-lo ba la-olam" – something that has yet to come into one's possession.

Parashat Toledot tells of Yitzchak's experiences living among the Pelishtim. Having settled in Gerar among the Pelishtim to escape the famine that ravaged most of the region, Yitzchak, much to the local population's astonishment, engages in highly successful agricultural pursuits: "Yitzchak sowed in that land and reaped a hundredfold the same year" (26:12).

לפניכם קטע מתוך דף הלימוד של "מתן על הפרק" בו תמצאו שאלות מנחות והרחבות לעיון והעמקה בפרק:

Among the important - and, very often, the most controversial - issues that arise when studying the stories of our avot and imahot (patriarchs and matriarchs) is the possibility of criticizing their conduct based on a careful reading of the verses. Is a scholar entitled to point to a moral or religious flaw in one of our avot or imahot based on his careful and thorough analysis of the text, or must we limit our critique of these saintly people to that which appears explicitly in the text and Midrashim?

Parashat Toledot tells the famous story of Yaakov's deceptive seizure of his father's blessing intended for Esav. As Esav left at his father's behest to hunt game and prepare meat for him, Rivka dresses Yaakov in Esav's clothing to help him trick his blind father into giving him the blessing. Interestingly, the verse describes the clothing as "bigdei Esav… ha-chamudot" - "the beautiful clothing of Esav" (27:15). Rashi brings two possible interpretations as to what this might mean.

Undoubtedly, the most troubling feature of Parashat Toledot is Yitzchak's decision to afford Esav a special blessing. How could he have selected Esav over Yaakov? Needless to say, several different approaches have been offered by commentators throughout the centuries. Yesterday we looked at the Abarbanel's theory, that Yitzchak's judgment was clouded by his love and affection for Esav. Others, however, refuse to accept the fact that Yitzchak was misled into making such a grave error. They have therefore come up with other explanations as to what Yitzchak had in mind.

The Torah introduces the chapter of Yitzchak's blessings to his children by recording Yitzchak's loss of vision: "When Yitzchak was old and his eyes were too dim to see, he called his older son Esav… " (27:1). On one level, this information is necessary for us to understand how Yaakov managed to trick his father and disguise himself as Esav. However, the Abarbanel interprets this verse as the basis for not only Yitzchak's inability to identify the recipient of his blessing, but also his preference of Esav over Yaakov.