Wednesday, March 21, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First, there is a mistake in your title. It should say Was what YAAKOV did to Eisav really that bad? Sorry, just felt like I should point that out. Second, I would like to add to your list of opinions of the commentators. Ramban doesn't say if he thinks Eisav is good or bad, he thinks Eisav gave the birthright away for practical reasons. He thought he was going to die during his father's lifetime anyway, so why would he want the birthright that was ony worth soemthing once his father was dead. Also, back then (before Matan Torah) the firstborns were not given much more of an inheritance, so Eisav would not have gained much more with the birthright anyway.
ReplyDelete