Summary

So I think (emphasis on I think) we are coming to the end of our story sometime soon. Here is a short flashback to one part of the story from before.

Esav married a C'naani woman at the age of 40 just like Yitzchak did. Rivkah and Yitzchak were both very upset about who Esav chose to marry. Yitzchak called Esav because he wanted him to make a meal to eat and then bless him. At this point we dont really know if Yitzchak is giving Esav THE bracha or just a bracha in general. Then Rivkah over hears her son and husband talking and quickly intervenes. She call her other son, Yaakov, and comes up with a plan. Rivkah tells Yaakov to get a goat and she will cook it just like Yitzchak likes it. He will put on fur and Yitzchak will bless him instead of his brother. Rivkah thinks she is going a good thing because she got the initial prophecy. Yaakov protests a little because he does not want to trick his father. In the end Rivkah convinces him by saying she will take the blame for it all. Yaakov goes and gets the goat. While Esav is in the field still, Yaakov goes to his father with the meal and his fur on, wanting the bracha. Yitzchak then touches "Esav", speaks to him, and hears him just to make sure its really Esav. Because of the fur he felt like Esav and also smelled like him. The only thing that was off was how he was speaking. "Esav" said that he got back to quickly because Hashem sent him the animal. The real Esav would never speak that way...EVER. Yitzchak was a little put back but overlooked it and proceeded to bless Yaakov. He is bless with the dew of the sky and the fat of the land, nations will bow to him, he will be stronger than his brother, the son of his mother will bow to him, those who cure you will be cursed and those who bless you will be blessed. Yaakov leaves after his bracha and then comes Esav. He stands in front of his father wanting his bracha but Yitzchak just trembles. He realizes what he has done. For some reason, we dont know, Yitzchak just trembles. Esav still gets a bracha. This one is where he dwells there will be fat on the land and he will have the dew of the sky, he will serve his brother, he can be free, and when his brother is up he will be down and when his brother is down he will be up. Esav is very mad about this whole situation and wants to kill his brother for stealing his bracha (which we still don't know if it was THE bracha). Rivkah was very protective over her son Yaakov but she doesn't raise that concern with her husband. Yitzchak gives the wrong son a bracha and then ends up giving Yaakov another blessing of not marrying a Cnaani woman, fruitful, multiply, nations come from him, and the promise of Avraham. Yaakov gets Esav's blessing plus another one and then flees for his life. Esav and Yaakov seem to have a horrible brotherly relationship, with trickery, no love, and hatred. Esav now looks bad because he is the one who wants to kill Yaakov (even though he has somewhat of a good reason). He marries a Cnaani woman and then married someone from Yishmael. Now Esav seems like the bad character.

Esav's marriages

Alyssa posted about how Esav married a woman that was a descendant of Yishmael to appease his father Yitzchak. What he did not understand was who he was allowed to marry that would make his parents happy with him.

We know that Esav may have wanted to make Yitzchak happy, but he may not have known how or why what he had already done (his previous marriage to the Cnaani woman) was wrong. We know that Yitzchak and Esav had a good relationship-- Esav may or may not have been Yitzchak's favorite child. When he (Esav) married the Cnaani woman and Yitzchak and Rivka got angry, he obviously knew that he had done something wrong, but he probably didn't know what it was that he had done wrong. Yaakov was the spiritual one. He would have known about Birkas Avraham and everything that it was about and included. Esav definitely would not have, being the outdoorsy type. He was probably just trying to make his father pleased with him again in whatever way he could think of that he thought could work. He was like a child that does whatever it can think of without thinking to aks how to perfect itself. It was like he was trying to please his father to the best of his ability, so much so that he didn't realize that the location of the girl didn't matter, only her background, faith, and people. And as mentioned before, he probably didn't know anything about the whole nivchar/nidche thing, so how could he have been expected to do the exact right thing if he had never been taught/told? Though Esav was evil according to more than one source, there are sources that say that Esav was very into the mitzvah of Kibbud Av, whether or not that applied to Kibbud Eim. I think that Esav was not entirely evil, and in this case was just trying to do what he thought could remedy the situation.

Yitzchok's Intentions

A closer look at the psukim in class led me to look at my ideas of Yitzchok. From what I saw it looks like he definitely knew what he was doing when he planned to whom he was going to give the brachas.

He knew that Hashem had given Avraham a promise of being a great nation, land and children, so he decided to split the bracha between his 2 children. To Eisav, who valued material possessions and the here and now he was going to give the bracha of a large nation and prosperity. To Yaakov, the more spiritually inclined, and the one who will continue the chosen people, he was giving the more important part of the bracha, zera and aretz. This way he was insuring that Yaakov would continue the Jewish line, but Eisav would still be happy with what he received.

I think that maybe, had Rivka and Yaakov not interfered, Yitzchok's plan would have come to fruition and maybe, just maybe, things would have worked out better between the 2 brothers.

Yitzchok vs. Avraham

I know that Mrs. Perl said we would discuss this in more depth later, but right now it makes a great blog post. In class, we were comparing Yitzchok to Avraham. We discovered that they essentially went through the same challenges. Now, the question becomes why?

With Avraham we see a lot more need for reassurance and arguments with G-d. It is almost like on the fundamental level Avraham does trust G-d, but every now and then, he still has moments of doubt. When things don't work out like he thought they would he needs Hashem to physically remind him He is there. For example when Lot left, or just the fact that Hashem talks to Avraham A LOT.

Yitzchok seems to understand that G-d is completely in control, and never doubts that. He doesn't need the constant reassurance, and is willing to ask G-d for a child. He "understands G-d" at least as much as is possible. He follows what G-d wants him to do without argument, just complete faith.

They both had different backgrounds: Avraham lived among people without his ideals, whereas Yitzchok lived with Avraham. I think that it is much easier to start something new, rather then to follow the path of your parents. Most people want nothing to do with the way their parents raised them, yet Yitzchok does what his father did to prove that he would do it just as well, if not better.

I had accidentally posted it on the navi blog from last year, hence the coloring.

Questions...

I have a few questions on the Pesukim we have studying in class this week. First, we learned that Yitchak's plan was to split the Nivchar leadership [role]. He gave Yaakov the blessing he planned on giving Eisav, which was a blessing for material and political success. Later on he calls for Yaakov and gives him 'Birkat Avraham'. What I don't understand is, how was Hashem OK with Yitzchak splitting the Nivchar leadership between Yaakov and Eisav? If Rivka hadn't intervened then Eisav would have received half of the Bracha and would have been a leader for Bnei Yisrael. Everything would be different. Did G-d want Eisav to receive the bracha as Yitzchak had planned? Did G-d and Yitzchak ever "talk" about who really deserves the bracha/leadership role? Or of G-d really wanted Yaakov to receive the entire bracha, then are Rivka's actions justified?

My next question has to do with the famous "trembling" that occurs in Perek 27, Pasuk 33. The pasuk says, "וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק חֲרָדָה, גְּדֹלָה עַד-מְאֹד". Was this an excited tremble, a nervous tremble, or a scared tremble? One opinion brought up during class is that maybe once Yitzchak realized that Yaakov was capable of being manipulative, he realized that Yaakov might also be capable of receiving the entire Bracha. This would explain why Yitzchak then goes on to give Yaakov the rest of the Bracha. Another opinion is that Yitzchak was nervous/scared of what Eisav might do if he doesn't get any part of the Bracha. Or maybe Yitzchak was upset because he knew Eisav could not get Birkat Avraham and he had really wanted to be able to give Eisav half of the bracha. I don't think that Yitzchak was mad at Yaakov. If he was, then he wouldn't have though that Yaakov deserved Birkat Avraham.

My last question is on the Pasukim 6-9 in Perek 28. Eisav overhears Yitzchak instruct Yaakov to not marry a woman from Caanan. This casues Eisav to realize that Yitzchak did not like the women of Caanan (they did not please him). This is already confusing. How could Eisav not know that Yitzchak didn't want Eisav to marry a Canaani girl? The problem was severe enough to get Yitzchak and Rivka to agree on something! Then, Eisav goes on to marry a woman from Yishmael's family. None of Eisav's logic really makes sense to me. If Eisav really wanted to please his father, then why didn't he go with Yaakov to marry a girl from Rivka's family? Leah, maybe? Why did he think marrying someone from Yishmael's Nidcheh family would please his father who had previously wanted Eisav to be Nivchar?

Mothers

We have learned about the role of the wives and mothers in both Chumash and Navi class. We learned about how the promise of Zerah and Aretz could only be fulfilled through the children of both Avraham and Sarah. We learned about how the two of them prayed for a child. Their prayers were finally answered when they were aged 100 and 90: Yitzchak was born. A similar situation arose with Yitzchak and Rivkah. It took Rivkah roughly thirty years after marriage to have their twin sons, Esav and Yaakov. Once again, both spouses prayed for children. Even though they did this separately, they DID achieve their goal of having children. Yaakov and Rachel went through the same thing.

The mystery arises in Shoftim: the mother of Shimshon, who was also barren, is never given a name. During our analysis in class, Emma pointed out that maybe the fact that she does not have a given name relates to the fact that the Navi does not tell us that she prayed for a child. According to one commentary, during the Plishti oppression, it was dangerous to have children. Shimshon's mother apparently did not want to go through the whole ordeal of pregnancy just to have her only child killed in infancy. As a result, she did not pray. We know in hindsight that Shimshon was an essential player in the Shoftim cycle of his time. Without him, the Jews would have been completely defeated by the Plishtim. Also, the cycle stated that if the people repented, then G-d would send a savior to redeem them from their suffering. If that is the case, why was Shimshon born to people that didn't really want children and didn't make any effort to "beg" G-d for offspring?

Learning about all of these mothers and the power of their prayer (or lack thereof) has given a whole new meaning to being barren. All of these women had to go through some kind of test of faith. I believe that this was it. How would they react to their barrenness? How long would they wait and pray? It's just good food for thought. (I think that Shimshon's mother was nowhere close tot he spiritual level of the others and that she should have gone ahead and prayed for children anyway.)

3 Promises/Blessings

In class, we recently learned about 3 similar but separate blessings, or promises, that Yitzchak gives to his sons.

• The first promise is given to Yaakov when he is dressed as and his father thinks he is Esav. The blessing is that he will have the dew of the sky and the fat of the land (agriculturally fruitful), he will be stronger than his brother who will bow down to him, nations will serve and bow down to him, the people that cursed him would be cursed and those that blessed him would be blessed.
• The second promise is given to Esav after Yitzchak realizes that Yaakov tricked him and took Esav's bracha (even though one could argue that it was really Rivka acting through him). Yitzchak promises agricultural success to Esav the way he meant to in the beginning. He also says that although Esav would be ruled by his brother, there would be times where he would break free.
• The third promise is given to Yaakov like the first, but this time he is being truthful about his identity. Yitzchak says that HaShem should: make Yaakov fruitful, bless him, give him Birkat Avraham, and give him the Zerah and Aretz promise.

We can see from the way the blessings were given that either it was Yitzchak's plan from the beginning to give the whole bracha to Yaakov, or he had to change his plan halfway through when he found out he had blessed Yaakov when he had thought he was blessing Esav. Personally, I think that he had meant to split it all along. We said in class that Yitzchak didn't even mention Bircat Avraham in the first blessing, implying that he was in fact saving it for Yaakov. We also know that Yitzchak didn't mention all the spiritual things when he thought he was blessing Esav. He focused more on the outdoorsy, political type stuff. We said in class that we can see that Yitzchak didn't even mention HaShem being the one to do the blessing when he was (or thought he was) talking to Esav. It's only when he knows he is blessing Yaakov that he says that HaShem should bless him.

I think that, like we said in class, Yitzchak was planning to split the bracha and the nivchar leadership, but when he realized (charada gedolah=lightbulb moment) that Yaakov had manipulated what was going on, Yitzchak realized that maybe Yaakov would be able to handle the other part of the bracha too and gave it all to him.

Was what Yitzchak did to Eisav really that bad?

In class we went through many sources to find out the answer to this question. Rashi-says that Eisav was a complete Rasha and Yaakov was justified into getting the Bechora. Rambam-was pretty equal towards both, that neither of them were bad in any way. Radak-says that Eisavc is not bad, but Yaakov was on a higher level than him. He aslso says that Eisav was staying in the present and Yaakov was looking into the future. Seforno-says that Yaakov was thinking into the future and if Eisav could not have even come up with a name for the soup (he called it red stuff becuase it was red colored) then how could he fulfill his actions as the Bechor? He says that the soup was a symbol that Eisav should not be getting the Bechora.

Why did Yitzchak do the same things as his father?

In class we discussed why Yitzchak did the same things as his father. One opinion was that he was filling in the gaps, completing the actions of his father. Another opinion was that he didn't want to leave the land because he had a special connection to it. My opinion is that these certain events were the events that both Avraham and Yitzchak have to go through for Hashem to know that He is doing the right thing by choosing those people to give his promise to. These tests were the tests that were the Aretz part of the promise.

Interesting.

Why is it that we think of Esav as being evil? He was the victim in our story along with his father, Yitzchak. Surprisingly enough to to what we think that Esav is the only person who does not do anything wrong. Rivkah and Yaakov both are the people who supposedly do the wrongs. I know that some people think what they did was fine and I accept that. My thoughts though are that its still a little not so ok what they decided to do. I also think that it is Rivkah's wrong doing more than Yaakov. If Rivkah had not over heard Yitzchack speaking to Esav before sending him away to hunt some food, Yaakov would have never been pressured into deceiving his father. I mean the real issue is that Rivkah didn't speak to her husband about all of this instead of just sending her other son to just go against her husband, but that is a completely different issue. Clearly this family does not get the family of the year award or anything close to it. I just think its so interesting how the families that built and are the founders of our religion had such messed up families.

Anyway, why do we think of Esav as being the evil child if he didn't actually do anything wrong? I know he gave up his bechorah for a bowl of soup, but that doesn't make him evil. We already decided in class that what he did was justified because he was going to be unfit for the position in the future. I'm fine with that and everything until then. I just can't see why Esav is the evil child. And I also cannot understand why each parent chose one child to be "theirs". Also more family issues.

The bracha was another interesting topic to me. Why did everyone think Yitzchak was giving "Esav" THE bracha? It's funny to me also that in all the brachot we see there is always someone who is strong/higher/ruling over someone else. Why can't everyone just be equal? I also think its interesting how there are so many problems in the Torah. We are supposed to look up to it. It is our guide book. It's interesting to me that in the one thing that is supposed to set an example for us there are so many problems. Neighbor to neighbor problems, family problems, spiritual problems, and so so so many more. I guess that's why its ok to make mistakes because Hashem knows that we pretty much don't have any perfect example to look at.

That's just interesting to me.

Yitzchak's blessing to Yaakov

When Yitzchak is about to die, he wants to bless his children before he dies. Yaakov tricks his father into thinking that he is Eisav, and by doing so Yaakov receives both of his father's blessings. THe blessing that is meant for EIsav is that G-d should give him agricultural success, other nations will serve you, and that he will be stronger than other nations. Those that curse him will be cursed, and those that bless him will be blessed.

Yaakov then receives another blessing that G-d should bless him ( Yitzchak can't give him this), he should be fruitful and multiply, they will be a large nation, and they will get the blessing of Avraham and the land that was given to Avraham (zerah and aretz).

In the Footsteps of Avraham

IN class, we came up with many possibilities about why Yitzchak did many of the same things as Avraham. One of the ideas we came up with ( with the help of the article by Rav Amnon Bazak ) was that he was not the trailblazer that father was. He was not as active, as we learned earlier in the year. BY repeating the actions of his father, he was "cementing" the actions of his father so others could easier find the path. Another idea we came up with that he had a special connection to the land so he did not leave it. It could also be necessary to show us that YItzchak was worthy of receiving the promise of Avraham.

The Bechora: How much was it worth?

We recently learned about the birthright that Esav sold to Yaakov for a bowl of lentil soup. I saw an article about relative values of things based on desire.

The beginning of the article spoke about how the bechora MUST be worth more than a bowl of soup! It then went on to tell a story about a man that needed money to pay for his daughters wedding. His rebbe told him to take the first business opportunity he found. He was in an inn and a rich man decided to make fun of him, so he offered to sell the poor man his Olam Habah for one ruble. The poor man accepted, thinking of what his rebbe had said. The rich man went back home and told his wife what had happened and she freaked out and sent him to buy it back. The poor man initially refused until the rich man offered him the exact amount of money he needed to pay for his daughter's wedding.

The article concludes with an interesting thought. In the first transaction, the portion of Olam Haba was only "worth" one ruble. After, when the rich man was trying to buy it back, it was worth so much more. It was all based on the value to the owner. In the beginning, Esav was willing to sell his birthright for only a bowl of soup. The Chumash says that he "despised" it. Afterwards, he seemed to value it a lot more and was angry that he no longer had it.

Ethical Monotheists

This week in class, we learned a lot about the character of Yitzchak versus the character of Avraham. In short, they did the same things. The only difference was that Yitzchak had to mend and push the things his father did forward. Since this is the case, I was wondering if Yitzchak continued spreading ethical monotheism the way that Avraham had.

We learned that part of Avraham's main purpose and goal was to spread ethical monotheism and educate the people of the world about the one, true G-d. Yitzchak was very different. He was an ethical monotheist and grew up surrounded by Avraham and his ideals. Although Yitzchak did take after Avraham in many ways, he did not have the exact same personality or inclinations. Avraham was more outgoing and a "people person". Yitzchak was more of a reserved person and directed his energy towards improving the internal structure of ethical monotheism. The Torah never tells us that he went out of his way to seek followers. Now, the question is: did G-d change his expectations of his "chosen" people? I don't know the answer to that. All I do know is that Avraham accumulated followers. In the time of Yitzchak, they seem to have disappeared. One theory is that they learned what they could from Avraham and then moved off on their own. After that, they went on to make their own, obscure ethical monotheist religions. As of today, these religions did not turn into worldwide phenomena. (All three "ethical" monotheistic religions came from Avraham biologically.) As far as Yitzchak's role goes, I think that he and G-d decided that it would be better if the religion was contained to the immediate family of Avraham.

In the Torah, we never hear about Avraham's followers again. I have given you my interpretation and explanation of this event, but I would like to know if anyone else comes up with anything that makes more sense logically.

Did Eisav want to be Chosen?

In most readings of the story of the selling of the birthright, its is assumed that once Eisav realized what he did, he regretted his decision to sell the birthright. Once he realizes that Yaakov had "stolen" Yitzchak's blessing, he tell himself that one day he will kill Yaakov. Most people seem to think that Eisav was so hungry that he just gave up the birthright, even though under normal circumstances he would never have given it up. Maybe he did regret his decision. Maybe he did want the birthright-but I don't think he ever wanted to be 'chosen'.

According to Radak, Yaakov paid Eisav the full monetary value of the birthright. Sephorno says that the soup represented the sale but it wasn't the actual price Yaakov paid for the birthright. If this is true then Eisav's hunger had nothing to do with his decision to sell the birthright. Rashi says that there were certain things the person in possession of the birthright couldn't do, and if they did the punishment could be death. Eisav didn't want any restrictions, so he wasn't hesitant to sell the birthright to Yaakov. These commentators prove that Eisav really had no problem with selling the birthright. Radak even mentions that Eisav went right back to work after the 'selling', proving that he was not affected by it at all. He didn't care that he had sold the birthright, because he wasn't interesting in being the chosen one anyway. Ramaban and Radak both say that Eisav thought he was going to die during his father's lifetime because of his hazardous profession or because of the spiritual requirements of the birthright. If he thought he was going to die soon, then why would he care about being the chosen one and continuing the promise. Why would he want to dedicate his life to G-d and live with all of those restrictions?

We know that Avraham made sure that Yitzchak's wife was not from Caanan. Since Yitzchak was the chosen one, he had to marry a girl who also came from a "chosen family". In Perek 28, pasuk Aleph, Yitzchak tells Yaakov not to marry a girl from Caanan. Basically, the 'chosen one' cannot marry a girl from Caanan. It's simple. Yet, when Eisav turns 40 he marries Yehudit--a Caanani woman. It now seems obvious. Not only did Eisav have no interest in being the chosen one, it seems like he is actually actively trying to not be chosen. If he had wanted to be chosen or eve had a slight interest, he would not have married a Caanani girl. What does confuse me here is that Eisav was so dedicated to the mitzvah of Kibud Av, yet he married a Caanani girl when Yitzchak clearly did not want him marrying a girl from there. In Pasuk 35, Perek 26 it even says that Yitzchak was not happy about it! If Yitzchak really didn't want Eisav to marry the girl, then I don't know why he did--I mean, everything else he did seemed to be in order to please his father.

Evil...Really??

What do we really know about Esav? Not a lot thats for sure. We have come accustomed to calling him red, but that is about it. Yes it also says that he was a man of the fields, but really thats it. Us ourselves make him out to be someone evil. As Purim has just passed, there is a character in that story that we also don't know very much about, Vashti. We make her out to be this very evil, ugly, bad person. In reality though that is just how me made her up to be. In actuality the megilah does not say much about her at all. I guess we just assumed her to be a bad person because she rejected the king. Was that so evil of her? If we think about it, if she didn't refuse the king's invitation, Achashverosh would have never had to look for a new queen and Esther would have never come into the picture. Ok maybe she would have because Mordechi still would not have bowed down to Haman, but let's face it the whole story would have been completely different. I'm sure that Esther would not have had it so easy if she hadn't been made the queen.

In my opinion and if I'm not mistaken Rabbi Perl also thought so, that Vashti is really a hero. Maybe not a hero, but definitely not a bad or evil person. If it wasn't for her refusing to join the king at his party who knows what would have happend to the Jewish people. At the time, I'm sure Vashti seemed bad, but in the long run what she did was great for us!

I think its the same with Esav. He might not have been as evil as we thought him out to be. It's not like the Torah told us explicitly that he was an evil person. He hunted, so what? He could have been getting meat to eat. Without Esav giving over the bechorah our fate could have been completely different. Again who knows where we would be right now if he had kept it. I think in this sense Esav is a hero almost. He gave over the bechorah without a fight even. Yes, most people think he was crazy and just for giving it up he was a bad person. If he hadn't given it up, we might all be the complete opposite religion wise right now. Ok, so maybe I wouldn't call him a "hero", but I definitely would not call him evil. And let's be honest, we have all had those times where we thought we were going to die from hunger or exhaustion. Like the Sforno Racheli and I had to learn said, he said he was going to die because he was so tired, but honestly we have all most probably been there. We all over exaggerate sometimes, but that is not a crime.

So basically I do not think Esav is such a bad person. We might make him out to be and everyone thinks he is but in reality no where does it say that for sure. All we know about him is that he was red because he was covered in a red coat of hair and that he was a man of the field. There is nothing in that information to indicate that he was evil or even remotely bad. With Vashti also. She was just judged by how we perceived her, but really its all made up.

Thanks Rabbi Perl for giving me the perfect blog post at your house on Purim!!

Why sell the birthright?

When reading the famous story of the selling of the birthright, the question, "Why would Eisav even think of selling the birthright?" is usually asked. The different Mefarshim answer this question in various ways. Rashi answers that there were many restrictions that went along with being in possession of the birthright. If he were to violate one of the prohibitions, his punishment would most likely be death. For these reasons Eisav did not want it. He did not like to have restrictions, and did not want to die because of them. Radak takes a different approach with his answer. First he says that Eisav thought he was going to die during his father's lifetime anyway, so why would he want the birthright since it had no worth while his father was alive? This point contradicts Rashi's answer. If Eisav didn't want the birthright because he didn't want to die because of the strict restrictions, then he must have not been planning on dying for a while. In Radak's first answer it seems as though Eisav is already aware that he will dying shortly.

Radak's next answer shows that Eisav is only interested in great fortune, not just a small amount. Before Matan Torah, the firstborn was not given a much greater inheritance than the other children. Since Eisav knew he wouldn't be given much more than Yaakov anyway, he did not have a problem with selling his birthright to him. Other commentaries provide different answers, such as Eben Ezra's answer, which is that they were poor anyway so Eisav wouldn't have gained much from the birthright.

I like Rashi's answer and Radak's second answer. I don't believe that Eisav thought he would be dying soon and that was why he didn't want the birthright. From what we already know about Eisav's character, it makes more sense for Eisav to not want the birthright because he did want any restrictions or because he wouldn't gain much more than Yaakov anyway.

Esav

This week in class, we analyzed a bunch of commentaries who talk about what actually happened when Yaakov bought the birthright from Esav for a bowl of soup. Seforno brings a very interesting approach to analyzing this situation.

Seforno's general methodology is that he is very concise. Unlike other commentaries, who might add stories or extra scenarios to support their ideas, Seforno leaves all of the extra things out. In this particular situation, he believes that Esav was always "in the moment" and never really thought about his future. In addition, Yaakov was completely justified in his actions.

And now for the interpretations: Seforno explains the "red stuff" in passuk 30 simply as Esav mocking the soup, instead of acknowledging it as food. He explains "Kayom" as Yaakov's attempt to get Esav to think about his future. Because Esav was so caught up in the present, Yaakov was trying to remind him that doing the right think requires premeditation and careful thought. In passuk 32, Seforno says that Esav was being overly dramatic about dying. He meant that he was so exhausted, which is just like saying "he was dead on his feet." This, again, highlights the fact that Esav only lived in the present. In passuk 32, Seforno explains that the birthright was all spiritual and not tangible. Esav had to swear that it would belong to Yaakov because it is so easy to just take back an intangible object. The trade of the soup was the physical representation of the sale of the birthright. This further justifies Yaakov's actions; he blatantly sold the birthright. That way, there is no question about what really happened. (In passuk 34, Seforno restates that the pot of soup was the physical representation of the sale.)

I do have some problems with this explanation. According to the first article we read, the hardships of the rest of Yaakov's life were the direct punishment for his deception of Esav. This doesn't seem to fit with Seforno's explanation. He says that the sale was very straightforward and that there was not any deception on Yaakov's part. Esav's lack of attentiveness is the factor that tipped the scale. Basically, I don't believe Esav was evil and Yaakov was saint-like. I just think that they were two brothers who each wanted the best for themselves. How can we fit all of the pieces of interpretation together to make a story that both makes sense to us and fits in to the basic understanding of the text?

Relationship between Rivkah and Yitzchak

Rivkah and Yitzchak have a different relationship than Sarah and Avraham did. Rivkah comes from a very immoral and unethical family and Yitzchak comes from a family that strives to be moral and ethical. When Rivkah sees Titzchak doing something she disagrees with, instead of confronting him like Sarah had done with Avraham, she finds a different way to contradict her husband. She does this because she feels like she is on a lower spiritual level than Yitzchak.

Akedat Yitzchak

Hashem commands Avraham to take Yitzchak and bring him up as a korban. Avraham is devastated about losing his son, but he listens to Hashem. He takes Yitzchak (along with a servant) to Har HaMoriah and sets up for the sacrifice. When the altar is finished, Avraham tells Yitzchak that he is going to be sacrificed instead of an animal. Yitzchak readily agrees. As Avraham is about to sacrifice his son, A malach comes and tell Avraham to stop. We see here that Hashem’s word is more important than morals and ethics.
In class, we spoke about why Avraham questioned Hashem when He told Avraham about destroying Sidom, but here, when Avraham is told to sacrifice his son, he doesn’t argue or question Hashem. We said that maybe it’s because when Hashem was destroying Sidom, he was only telling Avraham his plans and not telling him to do anything. When Hashem tells Avraham to sacrifice his son, it’s a direct command. Avraham has to overcome his sadness to sacrifice his son. He also has to go against everything he believes in morally and ethically to sacrifice Yitzchak. His faith that Hashem is righteous and omniscient is renewed and grows when Hashem tells him he doesn’t have to sacrifice Yitzchak. Yitzchak learns that he is going to be sacrificed, but his belief is so strong, he readily agrees. When a Malach comes to tell Avraham to stop, he probably trusts Hashem and believes in Him even more.

Hagar in the desert

In the desert, Hagar sees that Yishmael is dying. She doesn’t want to watch him die, so she puts him under a bush and cries. A Malach comes to her and says that even though Yishmael isn’t the Zerah, he is still going to father a nation. He shows Hagar a small pond and tells her to go back to Avraham’s house. Here we see that even though Yishmael is going to father a nation that isn’t a completely moral and ethical people, it hasn’t happened yet, so he is innocent. Hashem doesn’t jusdge people on what they will do, but what they have already done. Hagar is visited by a Malach, so we see that she has some merit. She is sent from her home and forced to travel through the desert with nothing, she grows stronger from this experience. She also knows a bit more about her future and knows that her son is going to live.

Sending Hagar away

When Yitzchak is born, Sarah tells Avraham to send Yishmael and Hagar away. Avraham tells Sarah to do whatever she wants. Sarah sends them away. When Avraham tells Sarah to do whatever she wants, why doesn’t he tell her to send Hagar away but let him keep his son? In my opinion, Avraham knows that even though he’d be devistated from losing his son, he can’t take Yishmael away from his mother. Sarah has had a child and no longer likes Hagar. Avraham agrees to let Sarah send Hagar away even though it isn’t the best thing to do.

Yitzchak is born

Sarah Gives birth to Yitzchak who is the fulfillment of Zerah. On the eighth day of Yitchak’s life, Avraham perform’s Brit Milah on him. Now that Yitchak is born, Yishmael is officially pushed aside. His whole life, he was brought up as Avraham’s son and as the fulfillment of Zerah, but he is no longer in the ‘first place’ position. Avraham now has a second son. Yishmael has learned that he is no longer the fulfillment of the promise.

Laws of the Birthright

We read in Nachum Sarna's article that there were certain laws about giving the birthright in the time when יצחק and יעקב were alive. The definition that Nachum Sarna gives for "birthright" is "the special status accorded the first born in the biblical world." Apparently, it was not a strange thing to do to give the birthright to a specific son regardless of birth order. The laws of the time did say that if he has two wives, one he loves and one he doesn't, he cannot give the double inheritance to the younger son even if he is the son of the loved wife.

There are three ways according to Nachum Sarna that the possession of the birthright can be passed on from one son to another. It can either be predestined (given to a particular child before either of the children are even born), traded between the two as יעקב and עשו did, or switched because of a major wrongdoing on the part of the elder.

What doesn't make sense is that if the way יעקב traded with עשו for the בכורה is allowed in this, why would Nachum Sarna say that this was the reason for all of his hardships later in life?

As we mentioned earlier last quarter, אברהם and his descendants were to be known for their צדק ומשפט. While it may have been legally acceptable for יעקב to obtain the בכורה the way he did, it might not have been done in a moral/ethical way. There might have been a much better way to do it, and that could be a reason that he had hardships after (even if the hardships weren't all because of this event).

Avraham and Avimelech

Avraham goes out of Isreal (To Gerar) with his wife, Sarah. Avimelech’s servant’s take Sarah to wed Avimelech because Avraham had told them she was his sister. When Avimelech finds out she was Avraham’s wife. Avimelech is upset because Avraham almost made him sin. Avraham had never encountered anyone else that was moral and ethical, so when they travelled, he just assumed Avimelech was a bad person and didn’t stop to think ‘maybe there are other people that are moral and ethical’. Another opinion is that Avraham was testing Avimelech to see if he was a moral and ethical person. Avimelech meets Avraham, they make a treaty. Avraham probably teaches Avimelech about Hashem, causing him to become a better person.Avraham learns that there are other moral and ethical people in the world.

Sidom

Hashem is going to destroy Sidom. He tells Avraham what he is going to do. Avraham asks if Hashem would save Sidom if there are a certain amount of righteous people there. Hashem said if there were righteous people there, He would, but since there aren’t, Hashem tells Avraham he is going to destroy Sidom. Hashem sends a Malach to save Lot and his family. The people in Sidom are the exact opposite of what Avraham stands for-Tzedek and Mishpat. Hashem might have destroyed them because they are lacking everything moral and ethical, but another way to look at why he destroyed them is because they don’t fit in with how the world is supposed to be. Avraham shows that he’s a good moral person by asking if the city could be saved by those people.

יצחק meets רבקה

We know that אברהם sent his servant to find a wife for his son יצחק. He was very adamant that the girl for his son must not be from the כנעני and that יצחק would not leave his home to see her. Yet, when רבקה first sees him out in the field, it seems as though she can't already be back at their home. It had just said that they were going and then it said that יצחק went out to the fields to talk to 'ה. So the question is: had רבקה and the servant already arrived back at the house (in which case, wouldn't she already know that יצחק was the servants master?) or did יצחק meet them when they were still on the way, but not there yet (in which case יצחק would have left his home, which אברהם did not want him to do.)

What It Ok??

We are currently jumping deeper into the debate of if Yaakov's actions were right morally or not. I think at this point we have seen both side. I know I certainly have mixed feelings about the whole thing. In the end though I think the right person to have the bechorah was in fact Yaakov, but I'm still bothered by how he attained it. Perhaps a better way (which would have shown complete faith and trust and belief in Hashem) would have been for him to talk to Hashem or Daven. Even after seeing all these arguments that say that what he did was perfectly fine because of this reason and that reason I still have trouble believing that Hashem was ok with it. Well I mean I guess He wasn't ok with it, because He made Yaakov's life pretty difficult in the future. I guess though Esav really didn't want it and no matter how many times he might have thought that he did, deep down he knew he didn't. Esav was a hunter. He was a murderer. Having him as one of our Avot?? Could you imagine? We have already seen and had SOO many problems with immorality and people being unethical. This would have just been the icing on the cake. Who knows how we would have turned out! Probably not anything good. Hashem probably would have had to break his promise to Noah to not destroy the world again! We spoke about that Esav didn't care about it even after the trade was done so that make it ok, and that Esav only thought about the then and now about everything so Yaakov knew he would not be able to do the right think because that required thought. We also spoke about a number of other reasons as well. Going into this study I thought that it was absolutely wrong and that Yaakov should have handled the situation better. All in all and after doing all this research and hearing from all these different commentaries I think my opinion has swayed a bit, but only a bit. In the back of my head I still feel like it was not totally %100 right of him, but I do see why he did it and I think he had valid reasons making it better.

Nahum Sarna

We read in class a commentary by Nahum Sarna which explains Yaakov's behavior. We see that Yaakov bought the Bchorah from his brother. Sarna explains that in ancient times, this was not an unheard of practice. In ancient Near East societies, there was a legal precedent for Yaakov's actions. But Yaakov was still punished for his actions. Why?

Yaakov was punished because there was really something else wrong with this whole situation. Despite the fact that it was legally okay, what Yaakov did was morally and ethically wrong. He, as an ethical monotheist and as a proponent of tzedek and mishpat, should have known better. Even though it can be argued that this was a necessary step, the way he went about it was not right. Because of this, he was plagued by many problems in his future.

Immoral Actions?

As soon as I read the Yaakov-Eisav story, I really had one basic question. I know that most people see Yaakov as this angel that does no wrong and Eisav as an evil hunter, but the whole lentil soup-Birthright incident seems a little strange. How is Yaakov able to take advantage of his brother like that? Yaakov sees that Eisav is starving and takes advantage if his weakness. This is not allowed in our religion, and not only that it is also against our morals! Yaakov is the grandson of Avraham, the most moral man that ever lived. The Jews are supposed to be known for Tzedeck and Mishpat, and even Avraham's grandchild can't act with simple morals. Yes, we know that Yaakov was the chosen one, but this really can't be the way that G-d wanted him to get the birthright.

In the passage we read in class by Nahum Sarna, he makes it clear that Yaakov really did have a claim on the birthright, but he was not meant to obtain it in this way. In fact, Yaakov was punished for this action many times throughout his life. For tricking Eisav, Yaakov was later tricked by Lavan when Lavan switched Rachel and Leah at the wedding. Also, to just mention a few of the other misfortunes in his life, his son was sold and his favorite wife died. Nahum Sarna's answer shows me that Yaakov was not in the 'right' when he took advantage of Eisav, even if he was meant to have the birthright anyway, but I would still like to know Yaakov's logic behind his actions. There must have been a reason he had decided to get the birthright in this way. He was an ethical man raised/growing up around the most moral people in the world. He must have known what he was doing wasn't moral, so there must have been a reason why he did it.

Playing Favorites

Something I found very interesting in the whole Yaakov-Eisav story can be found in Pasuk 28. It says very clearly that Yitzchak loves Eisav and Rivkah loves Yaakov. Basically, it means they're playing favorites. Maybe Rivka loves Yaakov more because she knows that Eisav is going to be serving Yaakov one day anyway and maybe Yitzchak loves Eisav because Eisav brings him meat (and is known to do the mitzvah of Kibud Av very well). It doesn't say that they don't love the other son, it just says that they specifically love one. I can't imagine that this is all ok. Maybe they were punished sometime later for it.

This actually reminds me of Yaakov's story. He also played favorites in his family (maybe he learned that from his parents). He had a favorite wife (Rachel) and a favorite son (Yosef). Clearly, that didn't work out too well because Rachel died (pretty young) and Yosef was sold by his own brothers to Egypt. Maybe, those are punishments for playing favorites. I just don't understand how these great people are able to do something that even we today aren't allowed/supposed to do.

Eisav and Yaakov

When we are first introduced to Yaakov and Eisav we are shown that Eisav seems like the bad kid and Yakkov seems like the perfect kid. When we are told that Rivka gave birth the description for Eisav was that he was red and hairy and he was named Eisav (he had a physical description and nodescription for his name) and the description for Yaakov was holding onto Eisav's ankle (he had an action and he had a reason for his name). Then it says their personalities-Eisav's being manipulative and Yaakov's being guileless. After that it says that Yitzchav loved Eisav more because he had manipulated Yaakov into loving him, and Rivka loving them and there was no reason meaning that it was genuine love (also Rivka had known about Yitzchak being the stronger child). Than the boys communicate and it says that Eisav was hhungry and tired from working and Yaakov had soup so Yaakov asked for the Bechora in exchange for the soup. This could be Yaakov being manipulative, which is confusing because Eisav was the manipulating one and Yaakov was the perfect child. But could what Yaakov had done been all that bad? Yaakov saw that Eisav would give away the Bechora right away just because he was hungry one day. Yaakov had been thinking about the future and what might happen if he has the Bechora will the nation be better if Eisav or Yaakov was the one who was passed down zerah/aretz? So was what he was doing really that wrong?

Rivka

Rivka was so special. She was getting water for her family and the servant came up to ask her for water for himself. She not only got him water, she got his camels water too. The camels drink about 400 gallons of water and Rivka could only take 2 gallons at a time, so she willingly took 200 trip to get water for complete strangers. Rivka goes with this stranger to go find the man she is going to marry. When Rivka first sees him she falls off her camel then asks the servant who the man is and he told her that was the man she was going got marry and she covered her face showing she is modest. We also see in this Perek how Yitzchak feels about Rivka, but we are never told how Rivka feels. We are told that she does not feel worthy enough for him.

Yaakov's Character

Yaakov's personality is often misinterpreted by those who only read the text and do not put the information back in context. This week in class, we learned about and compared the characteristics of Esav and Yaakov. We learned that Yaakov was born pulling on Esav's heal. We also learn that he was an indoors kind of guy. He sat in tents (possibly studying Torah all day) where Esav was a hunter. The most important question about Yaakov's personality is: was he in the wrong to manipulate Esav? We clearly know he did, but was he wrong? Were there consequences?

I think that Yaakov acted uncharacteristically harsh towards Esav. He took advantage of the fact that Esav was very hungry and just casually got him to sell his birthright for a bowl of soup. How is that not wrong? Anyway, he did get the birthright. What were his consequences? In return for his misdeed, he got an abnormally harsh life. His daughter Dina was kidnapped. His son Yosef was sold into slavery. His favorite wife died. In other words, things weren't swell after that. So now the question is: was he wrong to buy the birthright? I honestly don't think he was. If Esav had gotten the birthright, the new nation of ethical monotheists would never have happened. Hashem might have had to start over with a new person, and that is if they ever showed up. In other words, history dictated that Yaakov needed to get the birthright and continue the nation of ethical monotheists. Manipulation is not the best way to get anything. Let this be a lesson to the rest of us. If we can get the thing we want through honesty, then we should not even resort to cheating. In Yaakov's case, there really wasn't another way. In retrospect, his not-so-perfect life led to the Jewish people, who are proud to have him as a forefather.

יעקב and the בכורה

Today in class we read a couple of pages written by Nachum Sama about whether or not what יעקב did when he tricked יצחק and עשו into giving him the בכורה was good, bad, or otherwise. Nachum Sama felt very strongly that what יעקב did was not at all the right thing to do. He feels that it was so bad that it was the cause of all of his later misfortunes. He brings the פסוקים about the lives of אברהם and יצחק where it says that they lived happy lives, and then he brings the פסוקים about יעקב. It says that "his years were few and hard." Nachum Sama thinks that's because of what he did all those years ago.

On the other hand, when you look at the actual פסוק that Nachum Sama cites, יעקב is actually talking to פרעה. In that case, would יעקב have been being serious and emotional with פרעה? I think that he wouldn't have been. Why would you just spill out your troubles in front of the king of the biggest empire in the area at the time? I think it would be more of a way of giving פרעה an answer to any of his questions without being totally open. We do know that יעקב had a hard life with many troubles, but would he have told פרעה this? I agree that he had troubles, but I don't agree with Nachum Sama that this is a good citation to use, or that all of יעקב's troubles came from what he did with יצחק and עשו. It might have been a bad choice, but I don't think that that is where all of his troubles came from.

Covering Up

We learned that when רבקה was coming with the servant to marry יצחק, she didn't know who he was. We learned that she saw him, fell off her camel, asked the servant who he was, the servant told her, and then she covered up her face.

This brings up the question of why she covered her face at all. If she was doing it to be צנוע, then why didn't she cover her face as soon as she saw יצחק instead of after she was told who he was? And if it wasn't because she was trying to be צנוע, then why would she cover herself? We said in class that she might have been doing it because she saw יצחק meditating and being close to 'ה and she might have felt insignificant and unworthy of marrying such a spiritual person. Therefore, she might have covered her face out of shame and/or embarrassment.

That brings up another question though. How did רבקה know that יצחק was having a spiritual connection with 'ה? She just saw him from far away. How would she have known whether or not he was doing a spiritual action? Also, Why would seeing a man sitting in a field be startling enough that she would fall off of her horse in the first place? It's not like they were the only people in the world, and she had lived around other people her entire life. She hadn't spent a long time wandering around with only a few select people for company. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Aslan's Country

Similar to my last post about moving eastward:

In the 3rd narnia it says that the furthest east anyone can go is the end of the world- Aslan's country. What does that mean with relationship to the idea that we keep moving eastward as we get worse?

Obviously we can't compare ourselves to the Narnia books or movies but I wanted to point something out. For those that have read or seen Narnia, you all know that the books/movies have a very close correlation to Christianity and Aslan is like G-d/ישקי. If the furthest east one can go is Aslan's country, that's the exact opposite of what we do right? Every time we were bad, we moved eastward away from 'ה and גן עדן. Do the Christians think that moving away from גן עדן brought them closer to ישקי? If going as far east as you can is a good thing, is that contradicting our idea of going back to גן עדן in the west? How do we reconcile the Narnian/Christian idea of moving east towards "Aslan's Country" with our idea of moving east away from 'ה and גן עדן? Or should we even try? Is it wrong to try to reconcile the two? If not, how would any of you explain the difference?

Moving East

Much earllier in the year, we spoke about the fact that every time the נבחר people behaved badly and became נדחה they moved eastward. When America became populated and settled, people always spoke of moving west into the wild lands and the prairies. There is a quote by a man named Horace Greeley, "Go west young man, and grow up with the country." So were they still moving east? Were they so far east by then that it had become west? Or was it something else entirely? How far can you go in one direction before it becomes the opposite one? And if they are completely separate, why would people want to go back to the west if they had wanted to move away from the east towards the west earlier? What made them change their minds? Were they doing better religiously? would they be able to go back by improving with regard to 'ה and ethical monotheism?