Genesis · Chapter 25

And Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

קטורה KETURAH — This is Hagar. She was named Keturah because her deeds were as beautiful (sweet) as incense (Ketoreth) (Genesis Rabbah 61). And since she closed her 'opening,' as she did not mate with anyone from the time she separated from Avraham (Genesis Rabbah 61:4).

"Keturah" is not Hagar, for it is written: "and to the sons of the concubines… Abraham gave" (Gen. 25:6), and the meaning of pilegesh (concubine) is a maidservant. Moreover, this designation does not apply to a male. We may, however, interpret "concubines" as referring to wives.

ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה, “Avraham continued life as usual by taking a wife;” this is a reference to Hagar who now had a another name, Keturah. We find a similar formulation to the above in Isaiah 8,5: ויוסף ה' דבר אלי עוד, “the Lord continued by speaking to me again;” the Torah wished to teach us civilised norms by reporting this, i.e. that when widower’s sons have grown up but have not married yet, he should wait with remarrying until his children are married. (According to matnot kehunah in Breshit Rabbah the apparently superfluous word ויוסף, “he continued,” is to teach us that it was the same woman to whom he had been married once before, i.e. Hagar.) In order to make the point that a widower under the right conditions is to marry again is why the above line has been written immediately after the Torah had reported the marriage of Yitzchok to Rivkah. ושמה קטורה, “whose name was Keturah; Rashi comments on this that her name now was קטורה as her good deeds were comparable to the incense, קטורת later on offered twice daily in the Holy Temple. To your question that this appears to contradict what we have read in Rashi’s own commentary on Genesis 21,14 ותלך ותתע, that Hagar had returned to the idolatrous practices she had learned in her father’s house, you will have to say that in the many years since then (over 40 years) she had become a penitent, and on account of that her name had been changed by the Torah. According to the plain meaning of the text, Keturah is not identical with Hagar. (Rash’bam).

“And Abraham proceeded to take another wife, and her name was Keturah.” He went back and married Hagar and called her Keturah because her deeds were as pleasant as incense [ketoret]. This is implied by the language and he proceeded, indicating that he married her a second time. We must explain why he called her Keturah now, based on her deeds, especially since this seems to contradict Rashi’s explanation in Parashat Vayeira (21:14) on she went and wandered that she had returned to her father’s house’s idolatry. What seems correct to me is that initially he divorced her at Sarah’s request, as Abraham was secondary to Sarah in prophecy. Sarah knew prophetically that she [Hagar] would eventually return to her father’s house’s idolatry, and she also saw that her son Ishmael was mocking, which carries the connotation of idol worship, as it says they rose to make merry (Exodus 32:6). Therefore she said, Drive out this maidservant and her son, for their deeds were alike, for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac, meaning he would not inherit Abraham’s ways. The matter distressed Abraham because he did not know through divine inspiration about the idolatrous beliefs in their hearts, therefore he was told Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice, from which they learned that Abraham was secondary to Sarah in prophecy. He immediately sent her away with divorce, and she went and wandered as Sarah had said. If so, since he divorced her because of the impropriety of idolatry, it is difficult to understand how he could take her back. Therefore, the text comes to explain that she had repented, just as her son Ishmael had also repented. To publicize this, Abraham called her name Keturah, referring to the incense [ketoret], thus making public that she had repented. For every penitent, their intentional sins become like merits, and these sins rise as a pleasant aroma like merits. Therefore he compared her to incense, where galbanum, which has a bad smell, rises as a pleasant aroma like all other spices. This is an apt comparison to the sins of penitents that rise as a pleasant aroma, as it is written for her iniquity is pardoned (Isaiah 40:2). For after repentance, even the sin is accepted and favorable, therefore she was called Keturah.

ושמה קטורה, “whose name was Keturah.” Rashi claims that Keturah was identical with Hagar, who appears in a new guise. Her new name reflected her new and improved attitudes, comparable to the incense offered on the altar, the most beloved of Israel’s sacrificial offerings. In order to reconcile this comment with what Rashi had written on Genesis 21,14 where Hagar is described as ותלך ותתע, as returning to the idolatrous practices she had absorbed in her home as a child, we would have to postulate that in the interval she had become a penitent. Although she was of Egyptian origin [and therefore no better than a Canaanite from the point of view of Avraham’s criteria for intermarriage Ed.] she was not only of perfectly good character, but seeing that the first time Avraham had married he had done so with Divine approval, she was now also permissible to him as a wife. I have seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah 61,4 that even at this stage Avraham married her at G’d’s instructions This is why the Torah wrote ויוסף אברהם ויקח, “he again married, etc.” The word ויוסף is to tell us that just as it had been with G’d’s approval that he had married Hagar the first time, he still enjoyed G’d’s approval when he took her back. The Midrash describes an argument between two scholars of the Talmud who debated this subject.

And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

.ותלד לו את זמרן, she raised them in his house, similar to the “five sons of Michal” who raised the children of her sister Merav who had died at an early age, and had born those to Adriel (compare Samuel II 21,8) Michal had no children of her own at all. Although Avraham had personally only sired Ishmael and Yitzchok, he had adopted these children as seems clear from Chronicles I 28, and 32.

ותלד לו את זמרן,”she bore Zimron for him.” Concerning Isaiah 29,22 אשר פדה אברהם, “who redeemed Avraham,” which according to our sages means that Avraham was freed from the burden of raising children, and which seems incompatible with the fact that he had to raise 6 children by Keturah, apart from the fact that most fathers enjoy having many children to raise, we must assume that what the author of that comment had in mind was that Avraham dd not have to experience the problems his grandson Yaakov faced when his son Joseph went missing, when his daughter Dinah was raped, and when various of his sons at different times behaved in a manner unacceptable to him.

And Jokshan fathered Sheba and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were camp-dwellers, and tent-dwellers, and commanders.

אשורם ולטושם The names of chieftains of clans (Genesis Rabbah 61:5). As regards the translation of Onkelos I cannot make it fit in exactly with the words of the text. He explains אשורם by למשירין which means “camps” (cf. שיירא a caravan). If you say that this cannot be correct on account of the א in אשורם which is not a root letter in the word from which משירין is derived (whilst in אשורם we have an א) then I would reply that we find some words which should have no א at the beginning, but still א is placed before them. Such are אנך in (Amos 7:7) “a wall made by a plumbline (אנך)”, where the word is of the same root as נכה in (2 Samuel 4:4) “stricken (נכה) in his feet”, and אסוך, a cruse containing anointing oil, in (2 Kings 4:2) “a pot (אסוך) of oil” which is of the same root as וסכת in (Ruth 3:3) “wash thyself and (וסכת) annoint thyself”. The לטושים (according to Onkelos) are owners of tents who spread about in all directions and travel about each in the “tents of his palace” (Rashi uses a Biblical phrase (Daniel 11:45), but he means nothing more than “each in his own tent”). Indeed Scripture says (1 Samuel 30:16) “Behold they were spread (נטושים) over all the ground”, for ל and נ may interchange (so that לטושים is equivalent to נטושים).

ASSHURIM, AND LETUSHIM, AND LEUMMIM. Rashi comments: “These were the names of clan chieftains. But I cannot reconcile Onkelos’ translation with the language of the text.” ” Upon this Rashi comments that he cannot make Onkelos’ translation fit in exactly with the words of the text. Ramban now proceeds to explain Onkelos’ understanding on the verse and also the reason why he was forced to make this translation. It appears to me that Onkelos was of the opinion that Asshurim means camps, companies that travel the roads from city to city, just as it says, a company of Ishmaelites. Onkelos thus considered Asshurim as being derived from the expressions, To His steps (‘ba’ashuro’) hath my foot held fast; His steps (‘ashurav’) do not slide. And Onkelos’ opinion of Letushim is that they are the ones who dwell in tents that are scattered over the face of the earth, resting today in one place and tomorrow in another, for the letter lamed and nun interchange in many places, [thus Letushim would be like Netushim (scattered ones)] just like lishchah and nishchah, [both of which mean “chamber”]; And on that day men were appointed over ‘haneshachoth’ (the chambers). From this root is derived the expression, a sword ‘netushah,’ which is the same as letushah (sharpened). And of the word Le’ummim Onkelos said ulenagvon, [which is Aramaic for the Hebrew word] iyim (islands). Onkelos was stirred to this translation by the word hayu [and the children of Dedan ‘hayu’ (were) Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim], when it would have been proper to express it similarly to the verse, And Mitzraim begot Ludim, and Ananim, and Lehabim, and Naphtihim. And in Bereshith Rabbah we find:4. “Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though we translate these names and say, ‘Merchants, flaming ones, and heads of peoples,’ all of them were heads of peoples.” The matter is as I have explained. The translators rendered Asshurim as “merchants, those who walk the road.” From the word Letushim (sharp, shiny) they derived “men of wickedness,” their faces are faces of flame, burning as torches, from the roots: to sharpen (liltosh) his plowshare, and his coulter; He sharpened (yiltosh) his eyes upon me. But Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though they are accustomed to thus translate these names, they are still only the proper names of the heads of people, there being no descriptive name among them at all. And such is the case.

"Asshurim" — some say that "Asshurim" were those who knew the roads; "Letushim," those who look out from afar. But in my view these are proper names and carry no adjectival meaning.

אשורים, the name given to tent-dwelling nomads. לטושים, people who live scattered, and do not form a cohesive civilisation. The meaning is similar to the word נטושים people who have been abandoned on the fields, the letter נ having been exchanged by the letter ל.

אשורים ולטושים ולאומים. According to Rashi these are all names of the eventual nations they developed into. Personally, I fail to reconcile what Onkelos says on these name with the wording of the text. Nachmanides writes that he understands Onkelos as saying that אשורים are camps and caravans which move from city to city, similar tote caravans of Ishmaelite traders described in the story of the sale of Joseph. The word is related to Job 23,11 באשורו אחזה רגלי, “I have followed in his tracks.” The word לטושים he understands as referring to Bedouins, dwellers in tents, instead of people housed in permanent structures. These are apt to be abandoned in time of need. The letter ל and נ are often used interchangeably as in נשכה instead of לשכה.”office.” (Nechemyah 13,7) Onkelos translates לאומים as נגון, i.e. a word meaning “islands.” (island dwellers) Probably Onkelos was alerted to the change in the text from יקשן ילד, “Yakshon sired,” to בני דן היו instead of בני דן ילדו, to see in the three words אשורים, ולטושים, and ולאומים something other than additional offspring. We would have expected a formulation parallel to Genesis 10,13 ומצרים ילד.

And the sons of Midian: Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah.

And Abraham gave all that was his to Isaac.

AND ויתן אברהם וגו AND ABRAHAM GAVE etc. — R. Nehemiah said, he gave him the blessing as a legacy (literally, will, testament). The Holy One, blessed be He, had said to Abraham (12:2) “Be thou a blessing” which means “the blessing are entrusted to you that you may bless whomsoever you please”, and Abraham transferred them to Isaac (cf. Genesis Rabbah 61:6).

And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. He transferred inheritance from all his sons because this is what Sarah wanted when she said the son of the handmaid shall not inherit, etc., and the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with her and said Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice, for through Isaac your seed will be called. And the reason it specifically says all that he had refers to everything that Abraham had worked for through his effort and labor, that which came to him through his sweat and the work of his hands — this thing that was specifically his own, for who would eat and who would feel [the effort] except for him — all of this he gave to Isaac. However, to the sons of the concubines, meaning the sons of Hagar [for pilagshim (concubines) is written without the letter ‘vav’ (indicating it refers to one concubine)], he gave those gifts that he had received from the Egyptians through Sarah when he said she is my sister. At that time they gave him gifts, and those gifts he gave to the sons of Hagar the Egyptian, for it is proper that they return to the place from where they came, returning to their planting. Another interpretation: He gave Isaac his portion in the World to Come, which is referred to as all that he had, because what Abraham chose as his portion - namely the reward of the World to Come - was what he was promised in the verse “your reward shall be very great” (Genesis 15:1). This is called all that he had absolutely, and strangers have no part in it. This is in contrast to what a person has in hand, something given from hand to hand, which is not absolutely his because strangers might plunder his efforts. Similarly, Monbaz said (Bava Batra 11a), “My fathers stored treasure in a place where human hands could reach; I stored treasure in a place where human hands cannot reach” - meaning his treasure is stored for the World to Come, a place where human hands have no control. Furthermore, it’s possible that in the middle of one’s life, one might abandon to others the wealth and walls that they built and planted. Therefore, the reward of this world is not absolutely his, except for the reward of the World to Come which is his alone. This portion he gave to Isaac, that he too would receive his share in the World to Come, for there is no reward for mitzvot in this world for the righteous. But to the sons of the concubines he gave gifts - things given from hand to hand - meaning they would receive their portion in this world, as it is said (Deuteronomy 7:10), He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. If a wicked person performs some mitzvah, the Holy One Blessed be He gives them their complete reward in this world. It’s possible that this is what Sarah prophetically meant when she said “the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son Isaac (Genesis 21:10). For at first glance, it seems she should have simply said ”the son of this maidservant shall not inherit from you.“ Rather, she meant to say that while the son of the maidservant deserved to inherit, he would not inherit equally with her son, as the inheritances are not equal - the son of the maidservant would inherit his portion in this world, as it is written (Genesis 21:13) I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation, meaning his portion in this world. But Isaac would receive his portion in the eternal world, after Ishmael had already received his portion. This is what is meant by he sent them away from Isaac his son eastward [kedmah, which can also mean, beforehand] - that they were given precedence in receiving their reward, similar to what is said about Jacob (Genesis 25:26) his hand grasping Esau’s heel, meaning his hand of dominion would grasp the end of Esau’s boundary, symbolized by the heel which is the end of the foot. This suggests that after Esau’s foot of pride is removed from the marketplace in this world, then Jacob’s dominion will begin. Thus Esau receives his reward first, and similarly, Abraham sent the sons of the concubines eastward to give them precedence in receiving their reward in this world - something given from hand to hand. This excludes the reward of the World to Come, enjoying the radiance of the Divine Presence, to which the language of ”giving“ does not apply.

ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק, “Avraham deeded all that was his to Yitzchok. Some people question this procedure, basing themselves on Ketuvot 53 where the Talmud rules that a father must not re-allocate part of his estate from a son who is morally unfit to one who has developed morally and ethically to his liking, seeing he does not know how the grandson from either son will turn out. It is stated there that a convert the son of Hagar, i.e. a slave woman, cannot inherit at any rate, as whatever is his belongs to his master. Whereas this is a good answer concerning the status of Yishmael, it leaves unanswered the question how Avraham could disinherit the sons of Keturah. I believe that there is no difficulty at all, seeing the Torah had told Avraham specifically that his seed will only be known through Yitzchok, i.e. that Yitzchok will be his only heir. It does not mean that the other sons were intrinsically unfit because of their character or some other impediment, According to Rashi, quoting Sanhedrin 91, Avraham handed to these sons שם טומאה, i.e. seeing they referred to their idols by the sacred name of the Creator, he taught them to refer to these idols by some other name. It is also possible that the meaning of this strange sounding comment by the Talmud is that he informed them of a name for G’d which it is permissible to use even in their state of ritual impurity. All this, because he observed that these sons of Keturah were practicing different forms of idolatry and worshipping those idols. The reason that these sons of Avraham also practiced this form of idolatry was their being so anxious to obtain information about their impending fate, something which the religion of their time promised to have for those who practiced their cults. By informing them of this name for the true G’d, he told them that by invoking it they would become privy to knowledge of the future. [According to the Maharal from Prague the reason Avraham taught his sons the “names” of these idolatries, i.e. the essence of their teachings, was to enable them to counter the damaging influence the power of these demons exercised upon them. According to the author of the כתב והקבלה, Rabbi Mecklenburg, the מתנות, “gifts” Avraham gave to his sons was the know how to protect themselves against the insidious influence of the various religious cults prevalent in their neighborhood. Ed.]

But to the sons of the concubine who belonged to Abraham, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from his son Isaac while he was still alive, eastward, to the land of the east.

הפילגשים THE CONCUBINES — The word is written deficient, (without י, but our texts have a י in both places) because he had only one concubine, Hagar, who is identical with Keturah. Wives are those whom a man marries with a marriage-contract (Ketubah): concubines have no marriage contract, as we explain in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 21a) in reference to David’s wives and concubines. נתן אברהם מתנות ABRAHAM GAVE GIFTS — Our Rabbis explained (Sanhedrin 91a) that he transmitted to them the names of impure things. Another explanation is: all that he had received as gifts because of Sarah — and other gifts that people had given him — all these he gave to them because he did not wish to derive any benefit from these.

BUT UNTO THE SONS OF THE CONCUBINES, THAT ABRAHAM HAD. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, since it was said to Abraham, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee, and in no other seed, all his consorts were concubines to him, not as wives since their children would not be among his heirs. Thus, Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid, was his concubine. However, Keturah he took unto himself as a wife for if she whom he took as a concubine had been a handmaid in his house, Scripture would not have said, And Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. here. She is called “concubine” in Scripture — it is written in Chronicles, And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine — only for the reason that I have explained, [namely, that it had been said to Abraham, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee]. Thus we note that Abraham took unto himself a wife from the daughters of Canaan! And should you say that she was an Egyptian or from the land of the Philistines, we may yet question why he did not send to his country and to his kindred as he did in the case of his son. But the answer is that he guarded only the seed of Isaac since it was concerning him that the Covenant was made. Furthermore, Scripture does not say, “And Abraham took a wife by the name of Keturah, the daughter of a certain Hivite or Philistine or Egyptian from a certain land,” as it says concerning Esau’s wives and similar cases. Rather, Scripture mentions only Keturah’s name because she was a Canaanite, and therefore it cut short her genealogy. Scripture does so in many places where it is not concerned with the genealogy. Perhaps Keturah was called “concubine” because she was a handmaid who was descended from a family of slaves. And if she was a handmaid in his [Abraham’s] household and he had connection with her, Scripture would not mention her genealogy since even among the matriarchs, such as Zilpah and Bilhah, it mentions only their names. Now Rashi wrote, “Wives are those whom a man marries with a marriage-contract; concubines have no marriage-contract, as it says in reference to the wives and concubines of David, in Tractate Sanhedrin.”16721a. But the matter is not so. A woman is called a concubine only when there is no betrothal, for a marriage-contract is only a Rabbinic ordinance. And the correct text in Tractate Sanhedrin is: “A concubine has no marriage-contract or betrothal.” However, it is possible that the sons of Noah too when they married wives, as is their law, by intercourse, were accustomed to write them a marriage-contract which granted dowry and gift. However, for one who wished to be a concubine to them, whom he could send away when he pleased and whose children would not be among his heirs, he would not write anything. But according to the opinion of our Rabbis that Keturah is Hagar, she was certainly a concubine [since it clearly says that Hagar was Sarah’s handmaid].

"Gifts" — he gave them money. "Eastward" — its meaning is: to the land of the east. Likewise: "those who would not serve him — Nebuchadnezzar" (Jer. 27:8). "East" [kedem] denotes the lands east of the Land of Israel. Some say it refers to the place of a son of Ishmael. The first interpretation is correct, since [a son of Ishmael] is called "Kedemah" (Gen. 25:15).

Avraham gave gifts. He did not wish to rely on a will, so he distributed his property while he was alive. בעודנו חי, while he had still been alive, as he did not want to rely on written instructions to be carried out after his death.

ולבני הפילגשים, And to the sons of the concubines, etc. The Torah does not mention that Abraham bequeathed any gifts to Ishmael when he expelled him. We have explained on Genesis 17,5 that Ishmael was himself a slave and as such anything that would be given to him would automatically not be his but his master Isaac's who was the rightful heir of Abraham and Sarah.

ולבני הפילגשים, “and to the sons of the concubines;” according to Rashi this word has been spelled defectively, the letter י before the final letter ם which would indicate the plural mode, being absent, in order to teach us that there was only one concubine. Concubines refers to Hagar and Ketura. [The fact is that in our Torah scrolls nowadays that letter is not missing. Concubines did not enjoy the financial protection offered by a ketuvah. Ed] נתן אברהם מתנות, “Avraham gave substantial gifts;” [in lieu of a share in his estate. Ed.] Our sages (in Sanhedrin 91 understand the word מתנות as referring to the names of different types of pagan deities, i.e. he taught them how to protect themselves against curses uttered in the name of such “deities.” Our author, quoting another source believes that we must understand this as what is taught in Sanhedrin 65, הלן בבית הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה, “if someone spends the night in a cemetery in order to endear himself to the demon whose domain this is, he is guilty of violating the commandment no to seek advice from the dead.” (Deuteronomy 18,1) The fact that the word מתנות is spelled defectively, (without the letter ו before the final letter) lends support to this interpretation, as the way it is written the numerical value of the word 890) מתנת) is equal to the numerical value of the combined words למדם להשביע השדים, “he taught them how to swear by the demons in order to neutralise their power.”[According to this editor’s arithmetic the numerical value of למדם להשביע השדים totals only 854. The whole subject is wrapped in mystery. The interested reader is referred to the Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher of blessed memory, who on page 996 of his commentary on this parshah has a great deal more to say about it. Ed.] וישלחם מעל יצחק בנו בעודנו חי, “he sent them far away from his son Yitzchok while he was still alive. He wanted to prevent them from staking a claim to part of Yitzchok’s inheritance. אל ארץ קדם, to a country further east to which he had ancestral claims dating back to his father Terach. The region of Aram is east of the land of Canaan. These were the “gifts” he bestowed upon the sons of the concubine(s). (Compare Isaiah 9,11) We have also read in Genesis 22,21 about Utz being one of the sons of Milkah; Job is also known to have originated in the land of Utz, presumably the same land inhabited by Nachor, Avraham’s brother. Job is described there as the most outstanding personality in the whole ארץ קדם, the land given (in part) to the sons of Avraham’s concubine(s). We are entitled therefore to consider the land of Utz as identical with the region of Aram.

ולבני הפילגשים אשר לאברהם, “and to the sons of the concubines who were Abraham’s, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 61,4, the word פלגשם is spelled without the letter י which indicates a plural ending, suggesting that Avraham had only one concubine ever, Hagar, and that he had remarried her after Yitzchak was married. Keturah was none other than Hagar whom we know from both Lech Lecha and Vayera. The reason she is here called פלגש, “concubine,” is only because she was descended from slaves. In 16,3 she was called אשה, “wife,” because Avraham had given her a כתובה, a financial settlement, something not given to concubines. Sanhedrin 21 explains the verse in a similar fashion. [Our versions of the Torah have פילגשים with an extra letter י, not without any letter י. Ed.] The reason why the Torah did not tell us whose daughter Keturah was may have been that she was a Canaanite and therefore the Torah did not want to bother with her genealogy, (Nachmanides). Had she been Egyptian, or from any nation other than the Canaanites, the Torah would have given us more details about her background. We have proof of this when the Torah detailed the genealogy of the women whom Esau and Ishmael married (compare 28,9). Seeing that Keturah was a member of an accursed nation, the Torah preferred not to go into details (for the sake of Avraham?) Do not question me how it was possible for Avraham to marry a local Canaanite woman after he had made such a point of making even his trusted servant Eliezer swear that he would not take a woman of Canaanite descent for his son Yitzchak. The prohibition never applied to anyone with the exception of Yitzchak who was predestined to carry on the line of Avraham and to be a further link in the formation of the Jewish people. Only concerning Yitzchak had G’d said: “for through Yitzchak your seed shall be known” (Genesis 21,12). Once Yitzchak was married and the stage had been set for fulfilment of the prophecy that Yitzchak would become the founding father of the Jewish people, Avraham had no reason not to marry any woman who was qualfied as suitable for him on the strength of her personal virtues. Bereshit Rabbah 61,4 which held that Keturah was none other than Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, Avraham’s other son, claims that the name Keturah reflects the concept of קטורת, incense, because her personal deeds were as pleasing to G’d as incense is to Him as a sacrificial offering. The approach reflected by this Midrash would account for the fact that this paragraph has been introduced with the words ויסף אברהם ויקח, “Avraham continued and married (remarried), etc.” After all, she had already been his servant before he had expelled her at the command of G’d and Sarah. The expression ויוסף has been used also in that sense in Genesis 35,26 when the Torah reports that Yehudah did not again sleep with Tamar after he had become aware of her true identity.

ולבני הפילגשים, “and to the sons of the concubines, etc” No doubt Hagar’s status in the household of Avraham had been that of a concubine, whereas Keturah was his wife in the full sense of that term. If she had been a servant maid in his household and he had raised her to the status of concubine the Torah would not have described this as ויקח אשה ושמה קטורה, “He married a woman named Keturah.” If the Torah here describes Keturah as a concubine, this was only since G’d had decreed that Yitzchok would be Avraham’s sole heir, so that sons from any other woman would have to content themselves with gifts handed to them during their father’s lifetime. Avraham had taken these women from the Caaanite women, for if Keturah had been an Egyptian or Philistine by birth the Torah could not have said that Avraham dispatched these sons somewhere to the Far East, but he would have sent them back to Egypt or the land of the Philistines when their mother had come. The prohibition of marrying Canaanite women applied only to Avraham’s heirs, not to children who would not inherit his estate, and thus represent his outlook on life.

And these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham, which he lived: one hundred and seventy-five years.

מאה שנה ושבעים שנה וחמש שנים A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE YEARS — (lit, a hundred years, and seventy years and five years) — at the age of one hundred years he was as strong as at seventy, and at the age of seventy he was as five — without sin.

And Abraham passed away and died in a good old age, aged and full of days, and was gathered to his people.

OLD AND FULL OF YEARS. He witnessed the fulfillment of all the desires of his heart and was sated with all good things. In a similar sense is [the verse written in connection with Isaac’s life], and full of days, which means that his soul was sated with days, and he had no desire that the future days should bring something new. This is as it is said of David: And he died in a good old age, full of days, riches and honor. This is a story of the mercies of the Eternal towards the righteous ones, and of their attribute of goodness by virtue of which they do not desire luxuries, just as it is said of them, Thou hast given him his heart’s desire, and not as it is said of other people, He that loveth money shall not be satisfied with money, and as the Rabbis have commented thereon: “No man leaves the world having amassed half of his desires. If he has a hundred, he desires two hundred. If he succeeds in acquiring two hundred, he desires to make of it four hundred, as it is said, He that loveth money shall not be satisfied with money.” In Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis have said:3. “The Holy One, blessed be He, shows the righteous in this world the reward He is destined to give them in the Coming World, and their souls become full and they fall asleep.” e., they die without pain. The Sages were stirred by this and they explained the verse which says, and full of years, with this vision [of the reward that G-d shows the righteous before they die].

The word va-yigva ("and he expired") denotes the departure of the breath from the body in a single instant, without suffering or delay — note that "he gathered his feet to the bed" (Gen. 49:3) and immediately expired. Thus every gevi'ah is a death, but not every death is a gevi'ah; hence it is written of the Flood: "and they expired" (Gen. 7:21). The meaning of va-yamot Avraham ("and Abraham died") is that he died in good old age. "And was gathered to his people" — some say this refers to the honor of the soul: while it is engaged with the body it is as a separate part, but upon separation from the body its splendor is gathered to its people. Others say this is simply an idiom meaning that he walked in the way of his fathers, as though joining them — as it is written: "And you shall come to your fathers in peace" (Gen. 15:15).

ושבע; he had achieved all he had set out to achieve and had wished for. ויאסף אל עמיו, he was attached to the bundle of souls who are part of the life after death, all of whom the righteous of the various generations who were like him in lifestyle, [as in those regions biological relationships are irrelevant, and the term “his people” is applied to other common denominators than on earth. Ed.] The reason why the Torah employs the term עמיו his peoples” in the plural is that there are all kinds of different spiritual levels among the righteous souls, not all attained the same level of righteousness while on earth although all of them share the experience of enjoying eternal life. (compare statements in Baba Batra 75 on that subject.)

ויגוע, “he expired; according to Rashi thisexpression denoting someone’s passing is reserved for use with the righteous. [This Rashi is not found in our editions of Rashi at this point at all. Ed.] This raises the question of why this term has been applied to the death of almost all of mankind during the deluge, the people who had perished there having been clearly described as everything but “righteous.” (Compare Genesis 7,21) [There the Rashi is not found either. Ed.] The answer is that what Rashi meant was the combination of the term גויעה and אסיפה, “i.e.simultaneous death and transfer of the soul to the domain where the ancestors enjoy the benign radiance of G-d’s spirit.” [afterlife, in plain English.] Even though the combination of these two terms also occurs where the Torah records the death of Yishmael (25,17), our sages see in this proof that the latter had become a penitent prior to his death.

זקן ושבע ימים, “old and content.” Seeing that the Torah had told us previously that Avraham had been blessed by G’d in all that mattered, and that he had been the recipient of material wealth and honour of every conceivable kind, the Torah tells us that because of this he died without any regrets, did not feel that there were things he had not been able to achieve. This was in pronounced contrast to the fate of the average person of whom we are told in Kohelet Rabbah 1,34 that “when a person dies, half his aspirations in life for acquisitions went unfulfilled.” If he had once made the acquisition of say 1 million his objective, he had raised this objective as soon as he had realised it, so that when he died he had felt cheated by life. The author of Kohelet called this syndrome אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, “he who loves silver will never get enough of it (Kohelet 5,9).” ויאסף אל עמיו, “and he was gathered to his people.” Seeing that essentially, death is a separation of phenomena namely the different raw materials which combine to make up the body, which were previously integrated, the Torah informed us that the soul was gathered into his people, i.e. did not disintegrate. The soul returned to the distinguished environment around G’d’s throne of glory. The soul itself is also known as כבוד, “honour” or “distinction.” We find this term applied to the soul in Psalms 30,13 למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום, ”in order that [my] soul sing hymns to You endlessly;” as well as in Isaiah 58,8 כבוד ה' יאספך, “the place where the כבוד of G’d is gathered in.” The choice of the term עמיו, “his people,” is analogous to expressions used in the Bible for the soul such as Exodus 31,14 where the Torah decrees a form of death of the soul with the words ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מקרב עמיה, “and such a soul shall be cut off from amongst its people,” (its fellow-souls, obviously(Innocent souls are gathered together forming a family, a nation. The same thing applied here. The expression ויגוע to describe the death of the body here may be in order to illustrate that what happened to the body of Avraham was no different than what happened to all the bodies of the animals and the people who died during the deluge where the Torah described their death (Genesis 7,21) as ויגוע כל בשר הרומש על הארץ, “all flesh which moved on the earth died, etc.” Compare also Genesis 6,17 when the deluge had been predicted, and the Torah wrote כל אשר בארץ יגוע, “everything on earth will die.” The author refers to a statement by our sages that the term גויעה for death is used only in connection with the righteous and the obvious problem of the verses quoted from the Torah’s report of the deluge where the sinners died. He says that what was meant by that statement is to be understood as a combination of גויעה plus אסיפה.

And Abraham expired and died at a good old age, elderly and satisfied. Ramban and similarly Rabbeinu Bachya explained that he was satisfied [having fulfilled] all worldly desires. This is not the case with the wicked, who depart from the world with half their desires unfulfilled, but he was satisfied with everything. However, regarding Isaac, where it states elderly and satisfied with days, the language doesn’t carry the same meaning, because the word “satisfied” relates to “days” — meaning he was satisfied with his days, not with worldly desires. Also here [regarding Abraham], why does it connect this matter to his old age, since even in his earlier days he lacked nothing? Furthermore, why does it mention good old age [seivah] first and then elderly [zaken]? Isn’t the state of being elderly [zaken] chronologically before the state of having good old age [seivah]? Therefore, it seems more correct to say that this also refers to Abraham being “satisfied” with his days. And even though “days” are not explicitly mentioned here, since it mentions old age [which implies days], it is alluded that “elderliness [ziknah]” also refers to his days, as will be explained shortly. However, regarding Isaac, where “old age” is not mentioned, it needed to explicitly state “days.” This is because the main reward of the righteous is in the World to Come, therefore they grow weary of and reject the life of this world. All their desire and longing is to bask in the light of eternal life and to enjoy the radiance of the Divine Presence, for in this world “man cannot see Me and live.” Therefore, the wicked, who remain in darkness regarding the World to Come and whose primary contentment is in this world, are never satisfied with their days, for they know they have no portion there, and all their desire is for the days of this world. But the righteous are satisfied with their days and have no desire for them, as David said: O Lord, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am (Psalms 39:5). This means, let me know how long I will be deprived of the true good of the World to Come. Therefore, it says of the righteous that they are “satisfied with days,” for satisfaction refers to something that a person no longer desires. This is why it mentions the days of old age first, to tell you that not only in the days of old age was he satisfied with his days, but even in the days of his elderliness he was satisfied with them. For he had such a great desire to enjoy the radiance of the Divine Presence, and he rejected the life of this world throughout all his days, as he deeply yearned for his Father’s house in heaven. “And he was gathered to his people.” Our Sages said (Bava Batra 16b) that the terms “expiration” [geviah] and “gathering” [asifah] are only used in reference to the righteous. The concept of this “gathering” appears to me to be related to what our Sages taught (Rosh Hashanah 17a) that the wicked are judged in Gehenna for 12 months, where their body is consumed and their soul is burned, and the wind scatters them and they become ash, etc. The term “gathering” is the opposite of scattering — that the wind does not scatter them. We find the language of “gathering” used in reference to bringing into a house, as in and you shall gather him into your house (Deuteronomy 22:2) and but no man gathered them into his house (Judges 19:15). This indicates that God’s glory gathers them to Himself, in contrast to the wicked who are pushed away from the Divine Presence. The reason why the term “gathering” is used with Ishmael is because he repented, as evidenced by the verse Isaac and Ishmael buried him, where Ishmael led Isaac before him. If the Sages’ tradition [here] is an [actual] tradition, we shall accept it, but if there is room for argument, one could interpret the verse differently — that he was so wicked that he didn’t care about his father’s honor and didn’t involve himself in the burial until Isaac first began to handle it, and only then, out of shame, did he also participate in the burial. However, we should not deviate from the Sages’ tradition, and there is proof for their words: After all, Abraham sent away all the sons of the concubines from Isaac while he was still alive, and surely he did not send away Ishmael, for if so, how was he present at the burial? Rather, it must be that he repented and joined with Isaac, and led him before himself.

זקן ושבע ימים, “in a ripe old age.” He had seen all his aspirations fulfilled. The Torah here describes an attitude to life by the pious who do not demand more than has been granted to them by G’d’s grace without their pleading for this.

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre.

יצחק וישמעאל ISAAC AND ISHMAEL — From this we gather that Ishmael repented of his evil ways (cf.Bava Batra 16b) and yielded the precedence to Isaac. This is what is meant by the “good old age” mentioned in connection with Abraham (Genesis Rabbah 38:12).

AND HIS SONS ISAAC AND ISHMAEL BURIED HIM. In the language of Bereshith Rabbah,18062:6. “Here the son of the handmaid bestowed respect upon the son of the mistress” [since he yielded precedence to Isaac].

יצחק וישמעאל, “both Yitzchok and Yishmael;” even though Yishmael was the senior son of Avraham, in fact his firstborn, Yitzchok is mentioned first as he was born by Avraham’s principal wife. Yishmael, after all was the son of a slavewoman.

ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו, “and his sons Yitzchak and Ishmael buried him.” Seeing that Ishmael was the senior of the brothers, the Torah should have mentioned his name first. The fact that the Torah did not do so shows that our sages were correct when they said (Baba Batra 16) that Ishmael had become a penitent while Avraham was still alive and that he had acknowledged Yitzchak’s status as Avraham’s major descendant. When Yitzchak died, the Torah writes: “Esau and Yaakov his sons buried him” (Genesis 35,29). Clearly, the contrast between what is written here and what is written there must tell us something, seeing Esau was a non-penitent firstborn born of the same mother as had given birth to Yaakov. Though he had “sold” his birthright, the Torah still lists Esau there as the elder brother. Death is described in six different forms throughout the Bible, three of which are applicable to the wicked and three to the righteous. The three terms applied to a wicked person dying are: מחייה, אבדן, כרת. Death described as מחייה is the worst of the three deaths. It is applied to the deaths of the kind of wicked people who have neither Torah knowledge nor ordinary wisdom to their credit and remained unaware of the Creator and His wonderful deeds. Such people’s death is no different than the death of animals. Their souls perish as absolutely as do their bodies. Proverbs 13,9 ונר רשעים ידעך, “and the lamp of the wicked will be extinguished,” compares the soul of the wicked person to a lamp, explaining that this soul is dependent on the body it inhabits much as the light of a lamp is dependent on its oil supply. When that supply fails the light is extinguished. This group of wicked people has neither reward nor punishment to look forward to ever. [I suppose the reference is to the time of resurrection. Ed.] Examples of such people were the people of the generation who perished during the deluge of whom the sages have said that just as they have been wiped out on earth their life expectancy in the hereafter has also been wiped out (compare Sanhedrin 108). The sages there concentrated on the words וימח את כל היקום, “He erased all creatures” (Genesis 7,23). This line refers to their destruction in this life, whereas the subsequent words וימחו מן הארץ in verse 24 in the same chapter refer to their becoming extinct in any form of life in the future. The expression אבדן when applied to the death of the wicked refers to such Israelite sinners as died without benefit of having repented their sins prior to their deaths. They are being judged after their physical death in Gehinom; this is the meaning of Leviticus 23,30 והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא. Such a death is worse than the death described by the Torah as כרת. The people guilty of the penalty called כרת are judged and after they have completed whatever length of punishment has been decreed for them, their souls are admitted to the hereafter. The three types of deaths mentioned in connection with the righteous are: 1) גויעה, אסיפה, ביאה — All three of these types of death are mentioned in connection with Avraham. This means that these three are all of the same category [as Avraham certainly died only once. Ed.] We read in 25,8 ויגוע ויאסף; we also have the Torah telling Avraham about his death in the future where G’d said to him in Genesis 15,15 ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, “as far as you are concerned you will come to join your fathers in peace.” Expressions of death involving either of the three words mentioned in connection with Avraham apply to the kind of righteous people who transfer to Gan Eden immediately upon the death of their bodies, not having to face any punishment at all. Such a death was the lot of Ishmael, of whom the Torah writes ויגוע וימת ויאסף אל עמיו. Clearly, he had become a penitent. 2) The second type of death involving the righteous is described in the Torah by the word לקיחה, “being taken away.” Such an expression is applied to people who enter Gan Eden while physically alive such as Chanoch (Genesis 5, 24) of whom the Torah wrote: “he was no longer, as G’d had taken him.” The prophet Elijah experienced a similar “death,” as he had told his disciple Elisha (Kings II 2,10) אם תראה אותי לוקח מאתך, “if you will see me taken from you, etc.” 3) The third type of death applicable to the righteous is described as “rest.” This is an expression promising the righteous participation in the resurrection, a time which our sages have described with the words מנוחה or שבת. This promise was applied to Daniel who had been told (Daniel 12,13) ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין, “But you, go on to the end; you shall rest and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.”

The field that Abraham had purchased from the sons of the Hittites — there Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife.

And it came to pass after the death of Abraham that Hashem blessed his son Isaac. And Isaac dwelt beside the well where the living angel had appeared to her.

ויהי אחרי מות אברהם ויברך וגו AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THE DEATH OF ABRAHAM THAT GOD BLESSED ISAAC etc. — He comforted him with the words of the formula of consolation which we offer to mourners (Sotah 14a). Another explanation is: Although the Holy One, blessed be He, had entrusted the blessings to Abraham to bless whomever he wished yet he (Abraham) feared to bless Isaac, because he foresaw that Esau would be born from him. He therefore said, “Let the Master of the blessings come himself and bless whomever it seems proper in his eyes” — God came and blessed him (Isaac)(Genesis Rabbah 61:6).

AND ISAAC DWELLED BY THE WELL LAHAI-ROI. I.e., near that place, or perhaps because it was not a city, It was thus not a city. Scripture says that he pitched his tent near the well.

ויהי אחרי מות אברהם, “it came to pass after the death of Avraham that G-d blessed Yitzchok.” Rashi explains that although G-d had bestowed the power to bestow blessings on Avraham, in fact had given him a free hand on whom to bestow his blessing, he had not made use of the power to bless Yitzchok. Rabbi Nechemyah claims that although Avraham had passed on that power to distribute blessings to Yitzchok, he himself had not conferred a blessing on his son, so that G-d had now made up for this omission on the part of Avraham. (According to some sources he had not done so as he foresaw the birth of Esau; according to others, he did not want to provoke the anger of Yishmael his first born.)

“And God blessed Isaac his son.” He [God] did not want to bless him during Abraham’s lifetime because the Holy One, Blessed be He, had already said to Abraham and you shall be a blessing — meaning the blessings were entrusted to your hands. So how could the Holy One, Blessed be He, take back from Abraham’s hands what He had already given him? And Abraham did not want to bless Isaac because he feared that Esau might also be included in the blessing. And since Scripture does not specify how He blessed him, and furthermore the word his son appears superfluous [for don’t we already know that Isaac was his son?], we can say that He blessed him that he alone would be considered his son in every respect, and not the sons of the concubines, for they are as if they are not his sons. Only Isaac alone would be called his son and to him belongs the right of inheritance.

וישב יצחק עם באר לחי רואי, “Yitzchok settled near the well which had been named א-לוהי רואי (by the angel who had foretold Ishmael’s birth and rise to greatness. Perhaps the cumbersome description of Yitzchok’s home is due to the fact that it was not an urban location.

And these are the generations of Ishmael son of Abraham, whom Hagar the Egyptian, the handmaid of Sarah, bore to Abraham.

אשר ילדה הגר המצרית, the point of the whole verse is to tell us that the name and significance of Ishmael is not associated with Avraham who fathered him, but with Hagar who had mothered him. When the Torah speaks of Yitzchok, it does not describe him as the son of Sarah, his mother, but as the son of Avraham, his father. (compare verse 19) We find something similar in Ruth 4,18 concerning Peretz who fathered Chetzron.

And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam;

בשמתם לתולדתם BY THEIR NAMES ACCORDING TO THEIR PROGENY — by the order in which they were born one after the other.

and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa;

Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah.

These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their open settlements and by their walled towns — twelve princes according to their nations.

בחצריהם BY THEIR ENCLOSURES — Unwalled towns. In the Targum it is rendered by בפצחיהון because they are מפוצחים, which means “open”; similar in meaning to (Psalms 98:4) ‘‘Open your mouths (פצחו) and sing for joy”.

"And their encampments" [u-ve-tirotam] — palaces, as in "a turret of silver" (Song 8:9). "Their clans" [le-umotam] — written with a shuruk; we find both umot and umim. The lamed of le-umotam is an added lamed, like the lamed of le-goyeihem, and is not the same as the lamed of be-le'ummim (Ps. 44:15), for there it is part of the root, as in "and the elder nation shall be mightier than the younger" [u-le'om mi-le'om ye'ematz] (Gen. 25:23). The upshot is that the word is identical with or without the lamed, and they are two distinct roots.

And these are the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years. And he passed away and died, and was gathered to his people.

ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל וגו AND THESE ARE THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF ISHMAEL etc. —R. Chija the son of Abba asked: Why are the years of Ishmael enumerated? In order to trace through them the years of Jacob (i. e. the years in which the various incidents of his life happened). Calculating from the age of Ishmael (when he died) we may learn that Jacob attended at the School of Eber for fourteen years after he left his father and before he arrived at Laban’s house, for just when Jacob left his father Ishmael died, for it is said, (28:9) ‘‘So Esau went to Ishmael etc.”, as is explained in the Chapter Megilla Nikraath (Megillah 17a) (cf. Rashi on Genesis 28:9). ויגוע AND HE EXPIRED — This expression — expiring — associated with a word denoting dying is only mentioned in the case of righteous people (Bava Batra 16b).

AND THESE ARE THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF ISHMAEL. It appears plausible in line with the simple explanation that Scripture relates, in the case of the sons of the righteous, their generations and the number of their years in order to inform us that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed. However, it did not relate the number of Esau’s years for he outlived Jacob, 42, Note 90. and the narrative was concluded with the death of Jacob. Hence, Scripture did not want to return to the life of Esau since it had already mentioned his generations in their appropriate place. In the Midrash of our Rabbis there are many reasons for the Scriptural account of Ishmael’s years. The correct one among them is that he was righteous, a man of repentance, and Scripture tells of him as it does with all righteous people. AND HE EXPIRED (‘VAYIGVA’). Rashi comments: “This expression — ‘expiring’ — is only mentioned in the case of righteous people.” But in the Gemara The Gemara (teaching) constitutes the collected discussions of the Amoraim, centering around the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara combined are known as the Talmud. the Rabbis objected, “But it says ‘expiring’ with reference to the generation of the flood: And all flesh expired that moved upon the earth, etc., and every man; Every thing that is in the earth shall expire.” And the Gemara answers: “We were referring to [those places where it mentions both] ‘expiring’ and ‘gathering,’” [as it says in the case of Abraham and in the present verse concerning Ishmael]. The intent of the Rabbis is that the expression “expiring” indicates death without prolonged sickness and without pains. This death is merited only by the righteous people, [and concerning their death both “expiring” and “gathering” are mentioned]. But the men of the generation of the flood, who were overthrown as in a moment, and no hands fell upon them, as also those who died in the desert — with them Scripture therefore mentions only “expiring”: when our brethren expired. And so is the sense of the verse, And that man expired not alone in his iniquity, meaning that his iniquity did not cause him instant death. But when Scripture so mentions the term “expiring” in reference to death together with the word vayei’aseph (and he was gathered [unto his people]) or vayamoth (and he died), it hints to the death of the righteous ones. In the words of Bereshith Rabbah,19262:2. “And Abraham expired, and died, here. Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Ilai said, ‘The early pious men used to suffer with intestinal disease for about ten or twenty days before death, thus establishing the principle that illness cleanses from sin.’ Rabbi Yehudah said, ‘All who are said to have expired died of intestinal disease.’” There in Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis also said,19431:15. “Everything that is in the earth ‘yigva’ — will shrivel.”It would appear that to the Rabbis, the word gviyah (expiring) was analogous to Their flesh shall consume while they stand upon their feet. So also is the opinion of Onkelos who translated here ve’isnagid, meaning “fainting,” similar to the expressions: “isnagid (he became faint) and sighed”; “You might think he may pay as a fine five negidim (emaciated) oxen.” In case of a thief who makes restitution for stolen oxen. See Exodus 21:37. Now “you might think that if he stole an ox worth one hundred (weights in gold or silver) he may pay as a fine five oxen emaciated (‘and in near-dying condition’ - Rashi). It is for this reason that Scripture says (he shall pay five oxen) ‘tachtav’ “ — in its place. In other words each one of the five oxen must be equal in value to the stolen ox, “for otherwise he might pay him back five emaciated oxen which together will not equal even the value of the one stolen” (Meiri, Baba Kamma ibid.). It is so said in the case of the flood, as Scripture states, And He blotted out every being. Ramban’s intent here is to be understood in the light of what he has written above on that verse: “And He blotted out every living substance…” After having said, And all flesh perished (‘vayigva’), and having said, whatever was in the dry land, died, Scripture continues to say, “And He blotted out, meaning etc.”(see above p. 112). Here in discussing the meaning of the word gviyah. Ramban brings proof to his theory that gviyah in itself does not mean death but fainting, emaciation, etc. For it is on this basis that we can understand why after having said ‘vayigva’ all flesh Scripture continued to inform us further that it died and was blotted out, since these facts are not included in the term of gviyah. And in the case of Ishmael it is stated in the verse before us: And he expired and died, as a man who is powerless and dies, and this is the measure199“A measure.” In the Lisbon edition of Ramban: “the death.” meted out to righteous people. “It is based upon this (double expression) that the Sages of blessed memory have said that Ishmael repented of his evil ways” (Bachya, p. 219 in my edition). Toldoth.

ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל, “these are the years that Ishmael lived, etc.” According to Nachmanides our sages offer a variety of reasons why the Torah bothered to go into such detail about the years of Ishmael, as well as his offspring. According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah details much about the lives of the righteous, their offspring, etc.; whereas it is sparse with information about the wicked, so that he have no data about how old Esau was when he died, although it is clear that he survived his twin Yaakov. The story of the patriarchs is considered closed with the death of Yaakov, so that no further reference is made to his brother. ויגוע, “he died.” Our sages have said that the formula combining ויגוע ויאסף is used only in connection with the righteous. When the term ויגוע is used without the word ויאסף אל עמיו following, this is an indication that the person concerned did not die as a righteous person. Nachmanides writes that the reason why the word גויעה means “death” is that it describes death not preceded b terminal sickness. When the word is accompanied further by the word וימת or ויאסף, it means that the individual thus described was a righteous person and that he died suddenly. When death is described as גויעה alone, it means the person concerned was a wicked person. Examples are the death of the people during the generation of the flood, and the death of the Jews in the desert as a result of the sin with the spies. ויאסף אל עמיו, “he was gathered in to his people.” Ibn Ezra writes that (according to some) this is a description of the honour being paid to the soul of the deceased. While the relatives are busy with interring the physical remains of the deceased, his soul meanwhile rises to the celestial regions, this being the first time that body and soul are each going their separate ways. Others claim that there is no ulterior meaning to this formulation but that it described the deceased now starting the journey to join his forebears, having already followed in their footsteps while still here on earth. This is what G’d promised Avraham when He said to him: “ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום, “but you will join your fathers in peace.”(prior to the commencement of the 400 years of being strangers or enslaved, Genesis 15,15)

And they settled from Havilah to Hagra, which is before Egypt, reaching toward Assyria. Before all his brothers he dwelt.

נפל (literally, he fell) means ‘‘he dwelt”, as (Judges 7:12) “Now the Midianites and the Amalekites and all children of the East dwelt (נופלים) in the valley.” Here it says “He fell” and there (16:12) it says “In the presence of all his brethren shall he dwell”. But it may be explained thus: before Abraham died it could be said “He would dwell in security: after he died, “he fell” (Genesis Rabbah 62:5).

"Over against all his brothers" — these are Zimran and Yokshan. "He fell" [nafal] — meaning his portion or his lot. Or else: the greater part of Ishmael's descendants move from place to place, as in the sense of "you are falling to the Chaldeans" (Jer. 37:13) — though this is somewhat forced, since his brothers are to the east while Egypt and Assyria are west of the Land of Israel. It is possible that Scripture speaks of Ishmael himself, who died in the lifetime of his brothers after he had fallen; for we do not know the cause of his death.

“He fell before all his brothers.” Later it states he shall dwell (Genesis 16:12). Rashi explains that before Abraham died, he shall dwell, but after Abraham died, he fell. However, if we accept that Ishmael repented after Abraham’s death — since we don’t find that he repented except in the instance where he led Isaac before him — then logically it should have been the opposite: during Abraham’s life he should have fallen, not after his death, since he later repented, so why should he fall? Look to the right and observe:“fell [nafal]” refers to the past, while “shall dwell [yishkon]” refers to the future. Therefore, its true interpretation must be that fell refers to the past — before he repented, and shall dwell refers to the future — indicating that he would dwell after his repentance. We can also interpret “fell” as an expression of submission, as it is the way of all who submit to fall before others. Just as he began to fall before Isaac — even though Isaac was younger than him, he nevertheless led him and submitted to him — so too he submitted before all his brothers, which is the meaning of “falling.” This also resolves Rashi’s difficulty: before he repented, he shall dwell because he had not yet submitted, but after he repented, he fell — meaning he submitted before all his brothers, and this falling was his rectification.

And these are the generations of Isaac son of Abraham. Abraham fathered Isaac.

ואלה תולדות יצחק AND THESE ARE THE PROGENY OF ISAAC — viz, Jacob and Esau who are spoken of in this section. אברהם הוליד את יצחק ABRAHAM BEGAT ISAAC — Just because Scripture wrote, “Isaac, son of Abraham” it felt compelled to say “Abraham begat Isaac”, because the cynics of that time said, “Sarah became with child of Abimelech. See how many years she lived with Abraham without becoming with child”. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He shaped Isaac’s facial features exactly similar to those of Abraham’s, so that everyone had to admit that Abraham begat Isaac. This is what is stated here: that Isaac was the son of Abraham, for there is evidence that Abraham begat Isaac (Midrash Tanchuma, Toldot 1).

AND THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC, ABRAHAM’s SON. Scripture says this of Esau and Jacob, ” Thus the verse reads, And these are the children of Isaac, namely, Esau and Jacob mentioned further on. Compare Ramban at beginning of Seder Noach. Isaac’s sons who are mentioned further on. Scripture further mentions the circumstances of their birth. ABRAHAM BEGOT ISAAC. Rashi comments: “Since it was written, Isaac, Abraham’s son, it became necessary for Scripture to say, Abraham begot Isaac, since the scoffers of the generation were saying, ‘It was from Abimelech that Sarah became pregnant.’ Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, formed Isaac’s facial features similar to those of Abraham so that all should say,4“Say.” In our text of Rashi: “testify.” Abraham begot Isaac.”Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra further says that the meaning of the word holid (begot) is “bring up and raise,” as is the expression, ‘Yuldu’ (were raised) upon Joseph’s knees, The word yuldu there could not mean “were born,” for it would then mean that Joseph’s great grandchildren were actually born upon his knees. It must mean “raised.” Similarly, it means here, “Abraham raised Isaac.” even as it says, And he sent them away from Isaac his son., referring to the other children that Abraham sent away. Thus it is clear that only Isaac was raised by Abraham. In my opinion the correct reason [that Scripture states here, Abraham begot Isaac], is that it now reverts and begins the genealogy with the founding father, in consonance with Scriptural custom, which is to revert to the head of the ancestry when dealing with people of distinction. Similarly, it is written in the book of Chronicles, The sons of Shem: Elam and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. And Arpachshad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber. After Scripture concluded this listing, it began again by saying, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, This is explained by the fact that Shem is the head of Abraham’s ancestry. Hence Scripture reverts to him in tracing the generations. until, Abram, the same is Abraham. So also in the genealogy of Benjamin in the book of Chronicles, Scripture reverts to previous generations and begins, And Ner begot Kish, and Kish begot Saul. Saul was king of Israel. Hence Scripture reverts to his founding ancestor. Here also [the Torah reverts to the founding father and says], Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob, as Scripture will soon mention. It is necessary that Scripture return to relate this12“This” refers to the statement, Abraham begot Isaac. For the purpose of indicating Jacob’s distinction it would have been sufficient to mention, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Merely mentioning Abraham in this connection would have satisfied the Scriptural principle of reverting to the founding father in the case of “people of distinction.” Why then did the Torah continue, Abraham begot Isaac? Ramban proceeds to resolve this difficulty in accordance with Scriptural textual principles as opposed to Rashi, quoted above, who resorted to an Aggadic explanation: “Since the scoffers of the generation were saying etc.” since it said, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son. Now, had it only said, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son, it would appear that Scripture equated Ishmael and Isaac with respect to genealogy and distinction, all the more so since it mentioned the firstborn first. Hence it became necessary to augment Isaac’s distinction by saying, Abraham begot Isaac. Furthermore it would have been fitting that it begin with Abraham and say, “These are the generations of Abraham.” But Scripture did not wish to do this in order to avoid listing Ishmael and the children of Keturah. -4. It is for this reason that Scripture returns and completes the verse by stating, Abraham begot Isaac, as if to say that it is he [Isaac] alone who is Abraham’s offspring. It is considered as if he [Abraham] did not beget anyone else, just as it says, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee. It is for this reason that it also says above, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bore unto Abraham: the phrase, whom Hagar, etc., is for the honor of Isaac, as if to say that the genealogy of these generations is not traceable to Abraham, rather they are the children of the handmaid, even as it says, And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation. Scripture does also similarly in the book of Chronicles. At first it states: The sons of Abraham; Isaac and Ishmael. These are their generations: the first born of Ishmael, Nebaioth. Then it mentions, And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bore Zimran. Now it would have been logical to follow this by saying, “the sons of Isaac,” but instead it reverts and begins: And Abraham begot Isaac. The sons of Isaac: Esau, and Israel. The repetition, And Abraham begot Isaac, is necessary lest we equate “the sons of Ishmael” with “the sons of Isaac.”

"And these" — after having mentioned the descendants of Ishmael, [the Torah] returns to mention the descendants of Isaac, who are Esau and Jacob. Some say the meaning of "begot Isaac" [holid et Yitzhak] is that he resembled his father and all who saw him would testify that Abraham had begotten him. Others say the meaning of holid is "raised and reared," as in "born upon the knees of Joseph" (Gen. 50:23); and the proof is that it says "and he sent them away from Isaac his son" (Gen. 25:6).

ואלה תולדת יצחק, his biography and his descendants. אברהם הוליד את יצחק, only Yitzchok is truly called Avraham’s seed.

ואלה תולדת, And these are the developments, etc. Why did the Torah mention the birth of Isaac instead of the birth of his children at this point? Why did the Torah need to tell us here that Abraham fathered Isaac? The intent of the Torah may be understood thus. "And these are Isaac's developments," refers to events that are mentioned later on in this פרשה. Seeing the Torah will speak about the sons of Isaac, and Isaac himself was not originally capable of siring children since his own existence had been rooted in the "left" side of the emanations [until the fact that he submitted to the binding on the altar resulted in his "graduating" to the status of someone born under the aegis of the "right" side of the emanations (kabbalistic concept) compare 22,2 Ed.], the reader might have asked how Isaac could sire children at all? The Torah therefore hints in this way that the fact that Abraham had fathered Isaac enabled him to bestow upon Isaac the ability to beget children. Alternately, the Torah may refer to Yevamot 64, where we learn that when two righteous people offer a prayer simultaneously, if one of them is also the son of a righteous person G'd will listen to his prayer first. This is why the Torah described G'd as listening to Isaac's prayer in 25,22. Accordingly, the words: אברהם הוליד את יצחק means that Abraham's righteousness was a factor in G'd enabling Isaac to have children. A further meaning may be connected to Bereshit Rabbah 63,2 which explains Isaiah 29,22, where the prophet describes the as yet unborn Jacob as having redeemed Abraham, i.e. saved him from Nimrod's furnace. Had it not been for Jacob's merit Abraham might not have survived that experience. Our verse then would hint that it was only the combined merit of Jacob and Isaac that enabled Abraham to live long enough to beget Isaac. The wording of our verse contains an additional meaning of the word תולדת, "developments, offspring, generations." The true "offspring" of the righteous are their good deeds. The various trials Isaac underwent during his life are not specifically described as such by the Torah, although it was he who offered his life to G'd on the altar at Moriah. There are even commentators (such as lbn Ezra 22,4) who claim that Isaac submitted only against his will. In order to prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion the Torah describes Isaac once more as a true offspring of Abraham, someone who was in no way inferior to his father in his love for and obedience to G'd. This is stressed both by the word בן אברהם and the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה. Isaac continued to accumulate meritorious deeds just as Abraham had done before him. The Torah may also simply hint that Isaac had only one son who followed in the footsteps of Abraham, i.e. "and these are the generations of Isaac, the one who was a true son of Abraham." Still another meaning may be gleaned from the wording "Abraham begat Isaac." Whereas Isaac did indeed match Abraham in good deeds, he could not receive the same credit since he had his father as an example and could model himself accordingly. Abraham was unique. He was "self-made," did not have a father who served as his role model. This was the reason that the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 41,8) quotes G'd as describing Abraham as "the one who loved Him." Abraham had had to initiate this love towards his Creator without the Creator having served as a guiding light for him first. Another reason that Isaac is described as the son of Abraham here once again is to teach us that a צדיק who is himself the son of a צדיק is in class by himself, not to be compared to a צדיק who is the son of a רשע. Even though Bereshit Rabbah 38,12 states that Abraham's father Terach became a penitent before he died, he had been wicked for most of his life. The activities of a sinful father cast a pall over the spiritual light spread by the son. When looked at from that vantage point Isaac was better prepared for a pious life than his father. All this is included in the wording ואלה תולדת יצחק בך אברהם. Isaac did not experience all the painful experiences that Abraham endured. The Torah explains the reason why by writing that he was the son of Abraham. He was the first beneficiary of his father Abraham's great and cumulative merit. If Abraham experienced far more turbulence in his life this was because it could not be said of him that a great man fathered him.

ואלה תולדות יצחק, “and these were the descendants of Yitzchok;” previously the Torah had listed the descendants of Yishmael after the descendants of Keturah; now the Torah goes into details of Yitzchok’s descendants. אברהם הוליד את יצחק, “Avraham sired Yitzchok.” The Torah appears to repeat itself here because it did not refer again to Yitzchok’s mother as opposed to 25,12 where it stressed that Yishmael’s mother was Hagar, stressing that she was of Egyptian origin. Were it not for this detail, I might have said that the reason why the Torah repeated the line that Avraham was Yitzchok’s father was another way of saying that Yitzchok was raised in his father’s house, similar to Moses, of whom the Torah reported that as soon as Pharaoh’s daughter had brought him to Pharaoh’s palace he was raised as if he had been her son. (Exodus 2,10) The repetition is meant to stress that of all the (eight) sons that Avraham fathered, Yitzchok was by far the most important one (for the Jewish people) An alternate explanation: Yitzchok’s father was not Avram but Avraham. As long as Avram’s name had not been changed he had not been able to sire Yitzchok. A third explanation: if you were to ask why the Torah repeated this information, as if Avraham had numerous sons? The Torah wished to stress that ultimately Avraham’s historical stature was assured only by his son Yitzchok. The Torah hints at a famous line by King Solomon in Proverbs 17,6: עטרת זקנים בני בנים, “the crown of the elders are their grandchildren, but the glory of their children are their parents.”

עטרת זקנים בני בנים ותפארת בנים אבותם, “Grandchildren are the crown of their elders, the glory of children are their parents” (Proverbs 17,6). According to the plain meaning of this verse, Solomon informed us that the true crown of parents are their children and grandchildren. We find that Terach, Avraham’s father was crowned with his son Avraham. [Had he not had such a son, his soul would have perished. As it is, Avraham’s outstanding life resulted in Terach’s soul deriving some reflected glory so that he did not forfeit his share in the hereafter; this is one way in which the verse (25,6) describing Avraham as “joining his people may be understood.” Ed.] The parents are truly the glory of their children only when they themselves are upright, G’d-fearing, and are setting the personal example upon which their children can model themselves. When such children point with pride at their parents, the parents can experience real glory. This is why Solomon used a different word to describe the parents’ feelings, not עטרת, “crown.” Viewed superficially, a crown is something of higher rank than תפארת, glory, worn on the inside. However, when children do not follow the path set for them by their parents, it would be foolish to describe such parents as wearing their children as a crown, as something they boast about for all to see. On the contrary, in such instances the children actually shame their parents by their conduct (compare Isaiah 30,5). A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Toldot 4) to these verses. The words עטרת זקנים refer to grandchildren. The righteous are crowned by their grandchildren. This is a reference to Avraham who was crowned by the merit of his grandson Yaakov. When Nimrod threw Avraham into the furnace, G’d saved him because of the eventual merits of his grandson Yaakov. This is the meaning of the words in Isaiah 29,22 לכן כה אמר ה' אל בית יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם, “indeed, this is what G’d said to the house of Yaakov who had redeemed Avraham.” How did Yaakov “redeem” Avraham? He redeemed him from Nimrod’s furnace. This is an example of grandparents being crowned by their grandchildren. How do children “crown” themselves with their fathers? When Yaakov had departed from Lavan and Lavan was in hot pursuit, G’d appeared to him in a dream and warned him not to say anything threatening or complimentary to Yaakov. When, eventually, Lavan caught up with Yaakov he said to him: “had it not been for the fact hat the G’d of your father had addressed me last night, etc.” (Genesis 31,29). Clearly, on that occasion it was Avraham and Yitzchak’s merit which saved Yaakov. Yaakov personally acknowledged this when he said to Lavan during their argument: “if it had not been for the G’d of Avraham and the G’d whom Yitzchak fears who was with me, you would have now sent me away empty-handed” (Genesis 31,42). Lavan was unable to carry out his evil designs due to the interference of the merit of Yaakov’s father and grandfather. Similarly, the evil design of Pharaoh to drown all Jewish boy-babies (Exodus 1,22) boomeranged when G’d drowned Pharaoh and his chariots in the sea (Exodus 15,4). Many hundreds of years later when G’d thwarted the decree of Haman to wipe out all the Jews, it was again the merit of the patriarchs which helped reverse his plan (Esther 9,1). When Bileam wanted to curse the Jewish people and G’d turned his intended curses into blessings (Deut. 23,7), this too was due to the merit of the patriarchs. This is the meaning of Isaiah 54,17 כל כלי יוצר עליך לא יצלח, “No weapon formed against you shall succeed.” Our sages in the Tanchuma there quoted the Roman Emperor Hadrian as having said to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that the power of the sheep which stands (has managed to survive) amongst 70 wolves (the Gentile nations) is very great indeed. To this observation Rabbi Joshua replied that it is the power of the shepherd who wards off the attacks against this sheep and breaks the power of the attackers which is great. He quoted the verse from Isaiah 54,17 to support his words. The prophet there referred to the Gentiles who will perish from this world. This is also implied in Jeremiah 2,3 קדש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתה כל אוכליו יאשמו רעה תבוא עליהם נאום ה'. “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruit of His harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty, disaster will befall them- declares the Lord.” Our history is full of proof that those who tried to eliminate us were eliminated instead. A few examples are: Pharaoh, Amalek, Siserah, Sancheriv, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, and many others like them. This is why the prophet compared Israel to something sacred, like an offering. When a non-priest consumes a portion of that which is sacred, the penalty for such people is death. This is why all the Gentile nations who at one time or another have “eaten” part of the Jewish people will pay for that with their very existence. The reason the Torah had to repeat here that Avraham had fathered Yitzchak was that there were a number of scoffers who attributed Sarah’s pregnancy to her stay at the palace of Avimelech. G’d arranged for Yitzchak to look extraordinarily like his father Avraham in order to discredit the rumours circulated by these scoffers. ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק, “and these are the descendants of Yitzchak the son of Avraham; Avraham fathered Yitzchak.” Tanchuma Toldot 6 explains that we find an interesting parallel between Avraham and Yitzchak on one side and David and his son Kilav. When David’s messengers had gone to see Naval and asked for some material assistance, (Samuel I 25,11) the latter replied: “Who is David Who is the son of Yishai? There are many slaves today who run away from their masters... Should I take my water, my bread, and my meat, which I slaughtered for the benefit of my shearers and give it to people whom I do not know whence they have come?” When David heard this he made ready with his men to assault Naval and to take what they wanted. At that point, Avigayil, Naval’s wife, hastened to take 200 loaves of bread, two jars of wine, five dressed sheep, etc., and she told her servants to carry these ahead of her as a gift offering for David and his men. (Avigayil succeeded in persuading David not to act violently against her husband.) The Book of Samuel continues (verse 38) to describe that ten days after this event Naval took sick with a stroke and died. Upon hearing this, David proposed marriage to Avigayil his widow. After Avigayil accepted his proposal, David did not sleep with her for three months in order to avoid the suspicion that any child born to them would be suspected as having been fathered by Avigayil’s first husband. After the three months had passed, David had marital relations with Avigayil and she conceived and gave birth to a son named כלאב, meaning כולו אב “he looked entirely like his father (David),” to preclude anyone thinking that he had been fathered by Naval.

And these are the generations of Isaac, son of Abraham. Even though it already stated that he was the son of Abraham, nevertheless it needed to say “Abraham begot Isaac,” because regarding Ishmael it says son of Abraham, whom Hagar the Egyptian bore (Genesis 25:12). There we see that while the term “son” is used in relation to Abraham, the actual birth is attributed to Hagar. Therefore, here it needed to specify that both the status of sonship and the actual birth are attributed to Abraham. For in the Hebrew language, there is a distinction between the term “son” [ben] and “generations/offspring” [toldot]. The term “son” is sometimes used even without actual birth, as students are called “sons” even though they weren’t actually born to their teacher. This is similar to how concerning Moses [it states], he became like a son to [the daughter of Pharaoh], and Esther became like a daughter to Mordechai, and Abraham is called father of many nations even though he didn’t actually bear them. Similarly, there is a difference between one’s teacher and one’s actual parent. What a person receives in terms of nature from their teacher is accidental [non-essential] rather than inherent, and this accidental nature can change based on the receiver. However, what a person receives from their biological parent is inherent and won’t change if left to its natural state — unless, through great effort, determination and practice, one can develop a second nature. But the nature received from a teacher can change easily. This is why Moses said (Numbers 11:12), Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them? He was saying that even though they were his students and students are called sons, nevertheless he didn’t actually give birth to them. So what could he do if their actions changed from good to bad? For they devised their own plans, not from him, and the matter didn’t originate from him. Therefore, why should this burden be placed upon him as if their guilt was dependent on him? And regarding what is written (Numbers 3:1) These are the generations of Aaron and Moses and then it lists Nadab and Abihu — the term “generations” needed to be used there because of the mention of Aaron. Therefore, regarding Ishmael, he was only called “the son of Abraham” because he received nothing of his nature except what Abraham taught him through his good deeds, and this was merely circumstantial and changeable for him, as eventually he turned to evil ways. Therefore, the text attributes his lineage to Hagar because he received the nature of Hagar the Egyptian, and the Egyptians were steeped in immorality. Thus, he too engaged in immoral behavior and did not change because he inherently received her nature. Therefore, the circumstantial aspect is attributed to Abraham while the essential nature is attributed to Hagar. However, Isaac received Abraham’s nature and also learned from his deeds, therefore everything is attributed to Abraham — both the term “son” and the term “generations.” Thus, he was not like Ishmael who engaged in sexual immorality even while he was still young, as the scripture refers to him at that time (Genesis 21:12). The scripture tells us about Isaac that he completely received his father’s nature and was so carefully guarded against sexual impropriety that he suppressed his desires and did not marry until he was 40 years old. He waited until he found Rebecca, his destined match, and did not want to marry among the Canaanites who had inherited lewdness from their father Ham, who had sexually abused his father Noah. Therefore, he needed to wait 40 years, as undoubtedly, being an only son of his stature, he had many potential matches. How else could he have remained without a wife for such a long time, if not for the reason we mentioned? And in order to prevent any critic from finding room to dispute and say: “If Isaac was born with such holiness and purity, then why did Esau come from him — who would seduce married women? Surely Sarah must have become pregnant from Abimelech, which is why one son followed Sarah’s nature, and the second followed Abimelech’s nature.” For this reason, our Sages said (Bava Metzia 87) that [God] formed Isaac’s facial features to resemble Abraham’s. Now, according to our approach, in order to remove this doubt, the verse states when he took Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean. Since most children take after their mother’s brother, therefore one of the sons received the nature of Laban, the deceitful hunter. At first glance, it appears that the verse mentioned these three [relatives] to explain the three negative traits we find in Esau, which reflected their source: His seduction of married women was inherited from Bethuel, his mother’s father, who would take advantage of all virgins first, as is found (in Yalkut Shimoni Chayei Sarah 109) and similarly brought in Chizkuni citing this midrash. And what is said about Pour me some of that red stuff etc., that he was among those who eat, drink, and act wildly — this trait was inherited from his mother’s family from Paddan-aram, as is concluded in Genesis Rabbah Parshat Lech Lecha (39:8): “When Abraham was traveling in Aram-Naharaim and Aram-Nachor, he saw them eating, drinking, and acting wildly, and said Let my portion not be in this land.” And the fact that Esau was a deceiver who deceived his father — this he inherited from Laban the Aramean, who was known to be a scoundrel and deceiver. “Abraham begot Isaac.” The word “holid” [begot] is in the causative form, and although this language is grammatically precise since the male begets through the female, we nevertheless find the word “yalad” [gave birth] used also for males, as in and Canaan begot and many similar instances in the Noah portion. So why does it specifically write holid here? It suggests that Abraham caused Isaac to have children and offspring, as it is written And Isaac entreated God, and it is written And God was entreated by him, implying by him and not “by her,” because the prayer of a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person [is more powerful]… According to this, because Isaac was the son of this righteous person Abraham, Abraham’s merit stood for him, and God heard his prayer. Therefore, it appropriately states Abraham begot Isaac — Abraham caused Isaac to beget offspring. And it had not yet explained how Abraham was the cause, therefore it explains this by saying And Isaac entreated God regarding his wife, for from this we derive proof for the statement Abraham begot Isaac.

ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק. “These are the generations of Yitzchok the son of Avraham, Avraham sired Yitzchok.” Rashi explained that the new element the Torah informs us of here, is that Yitzchok’s facial features were almost identical to that of his father Avraham. This was important because it made it impossible for people to claim that Sarah had been impregnated by Avimelech while being kept a prisoner there. Others believe that the reason that the Torah here repeated information we have long been familiar with, is to tell us that Avraham did not only produce Yitzchok physically, but he raised him in his image so that he represented a true continuation of Avraham’s teachings and their impact on his surroundings. This is why people would refer to him primarily as בן אברהם, although he had been named יצחק. Ibn Ezra explains that that the very word הוליד, does not only mean to provide the semen for such a child, but to raise it, educate it, etc. This was also what the Torah had in mind in Genesis 50,23 when the children of Machir, son of Menashe, are described as יולדו על ברכי יוסף, normally translated as “were born on the knees of Joseph.” Surely, what the Torah meant was that Joseph, their grandfather, was still able to become an influence in shaping these children’s character. Nachmanides writes that it is appropriate when speaking of someone’s descendants, to first list his own genealogy. Yichuss, never starts in a vacuum, except with the first man, of course. It is the Torah’s custom, when dealing with people who are of the elite, to list their founding father. The Torah was compelled to do this here in light of having written in 25,12 ואלה תולדות ישמעאל בן אברהם אשר ילדה לו הגר, “these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Avraham, whom Hagar had born for him.” If the Torah had only written:ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, without adding אברהם הוליד את יצחק, we would have equated Yitzchok to Ishmael. As it is, the Torah made plain that we would understand that the only תולדה of Avraham which counts is Yitzchok, and no other biological offspring of Avraham. This is again to remind us that G’d had told Avraham כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, “you will forever be exclusively identified with Yitzchok as your true seed.” 25.20 בקחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” Rashi claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud Ketuvot 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child. In the Sifri, a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a Midrash are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children.

And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, as his wife.

בן ארבעים שנה FORTY YEARS OLD — For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah he received the news that Rebecca was born (22:20). Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, because at that time Sarah died and from the birth of Isaac until the Binding — when Sarah died — there were 37 years since she was 90 years old when Isaac was born and 127 when she died, as it is said, (23:1) “And the life of Sarah was [one hundred and twenty seven years]” — thus Isaac was then 37 years old. At that period Rebecca was born and he waited until she was fit for marriage — 3 years — and then married her (Seder Olam). בת בתואל מפדן ארם אחות לבן THE DAUGHTER OF BETHUEL THE SYRIAN OF PADAN-ARAM, THE SISTER TO LABAN —Has it not already been written that she was the daughter of Bethuel and sister of Laban of Padanaram? But we are told these facts once more to proclaim her praise — she was the daughter of a wicked man, sister of a wicked man, and her native place was one of wicked people, and yet she did not learn from their doings (Genesis Rabbah 63:4). מפדן ארם FROM PADAN-ARAM — Because there were two Arams — Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia) and Aram-Zoba — it is called Padan-aram, (Padan meaning pair). It has the same meaning as צמד in the phrase צמד בקר (Samuel 11:7) which we know signifies a pair of oxen and which is translated in the Targum by פדן תורין a Padan of oxen, so that we see that Padan means a pair. Some, however, explain Padan-aram to be the same as (Hosea 12:13) “the field (country) of Aram”, because in the Arabic language a field is called Padan.

"From Paddan" — [paddan] means field, as it does also in the Ishmaelite tongue. "Sister of Laban" — he is better known and more prominent than her father; similarly: "sister of Nahshon" (Ex. 6:23).

אחות לבן הארמי, and from her emerged Esau who was similar in character to the brother of his mother.

ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, When Isaac was forty years old, etc. The reason the Torah reports the age at which Isaac married, something that we were not told concerning Abraham, is in order to explain why Isaac married so late. The words בקחתו את רבקה, explain that he had to wait that long in order to marry this particular girl. The words: "לו לאשה" "for him as a wife," spell out that only this woman could have fulfilled the role of becoming Isaac's wife. Prior to Rebeccah's birth no בת זוג, suitable potential wife, had existed for Isaac. We have explained in the last פרשה that Rebeccah was very young, having only been born when Isaac lay bound on the altar (at the age of 37) and thus became capable of fathering issue. Under the circumstances no criticism can be levelled at Isaac for not getting married earlier. Rebeccah was only three years old when Isaac married her. בת בתואל הארמי…אחות לבן, the daughter of Bethuel from Aram.sister of Laban. The Torah does not repeat this information in order to remind us who Rebeccah was but in order to defend Rebeccah against possible accusations. Inasmuch as the Torah tells us in the next verse that G'd responded to Isaac's prayer (though both of them prayed simultaneously), someone might have concluded that Rebeccah did not merit that her prayer should be answered by G'd; the Torah explains therefore that the only reason G'd did not respond to her prayer at the time was the fact that her father was the wicked Bethuel. Repeating the information that this Bethuel was an ארמי, is an allusion to the other way of spelling these letters, i.e. רמאי, swindler. The Torah deliberately did not mention the town Bethuel lived in order to have a chance to allude to the fact that the man was a swindler. The reason that the Torah again mentions that Rebeccah was a sister of Laban, something we already knew from the encounter of Eliezer and Laban at the well, is in order explain why such a fine woman gave birth to the wicked Esau. Having both a father who was a swindler and a brother who was a master swindler in her background, the marvel was Rebeccah's innocence, not the fact that one of her sons might turn out to be wicked. Baba Batra 110 already remarks that most sons turn out to have a character resembling that of their mother's brothers. The Torah attests that Rebeccah herself was an absolutely righteous woman when Isaac her husband is described as praying in the presence of his wife. Should you ask why Isaac did not examine Rebeccah's brother's character before he decided to marry her, we have already answered that she was the only woman who was his בת זוג, divinely appointed to become his wife. Had this not been so Isaac would never have married the sister of a wicked person such as Laban. The words אחות לבן also allude to the reason that Rebeccah was barren for so many years. According to Bereshit Rabbah 60,13 this was in order that her fertility could not be credited to the blessings bestowed upon her by her brother Laban in 24,60. The Torah therefore alludes to the cause of barrenness before mentioning the fact that she could not conceive. It was because she was Laban's sister that she needed to wait to conceive until her husband's prayer.

ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, Rashi’s comment on this apparently historically irrelevant detail, is that the Torah informed us that Yitzchok, after marrying Rivkah, waited for three years until she was old enough to engage in intercourse and become pregnant. (14 years old) [In his commentary on Genesis 24,16, item 91 Rabbi Kasher in his Torah Shleymah, deals at length with the conflicting opinions about Rivkah’s age at marriage. Sifri on Deuteronomy 34,7 claims that Rivkah lived to the age of 133 years, same age as that of Kehat, son of Levi. Our author calculates that if Rivkah had only been 3 years at the time when she was married that calculation would be wrong by eleven years. He proceeds to give details tracing the various ages of our patriarchs and matriarchs down to the birth of Kehat. He also understands the Midrash according to which Avraham heard about the fact that Betuel had fathered Rivkah as not meaning that this had occurred at the same time as the akeydah, but that Avraham had belatedly heard about this. As proof that Rivkah could not have been only 3 years old when Eliezrer met her, he cites the fact that her brother and mother refer to her as a נערה, a term never applied to someone younger than 12 and a half years of age. The well known traditional historic text known as seder olam in its first chapter, also writes that when Avraham returned from the Akeydah he was told that Rivkah had been born. The meaning of that Midrash was that she had been born some time ago. Another proof that she was of age is that we have an iron clad rule that parents must not marry off a girl who has already reached puberty unless she has been asked and given her consent.] The fact that in our chapter Rivkah’s family proceeds to ask for her consent proves that without it the parents could not have married her off. מפדן ארם, according to Rashi, this is identical with the region elsewhere described as שדה ארם, (Hoseah 12,13 also sometimes described as שדה פדן. In Arabic it appears as פדן שדה. Yaakov is described in Hoseah 12,13 has having fled from.שדה ארם אחות לבן הארמי, the sister of Lavan from Aram. It is the custom of the Torah to describe the elder brother of a girl/woman as someone’s ancestry. Compare: מרים אחות אהרן, “Miriam, Aaron’s sister” (Exodus 15,12) or מחלת אחות נביות, “Machalat, Nevayot’s sister.” (Genesis 28,15)

קחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” Rashi claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud Ketuvot 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child. In the Sifri, a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a Midrash are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children. אחות לבן הארמי, “sister of Lavan from Aram.” It is customary for the Torah to provide the name of the elder brother of a girl as part of her genealogy.

And Isaac prayed before Hashem on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. And Hashem accepted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

וַיֶּעְתַּר AND ISAAC ENTREATED —He prayed much and urgently. וַיֵּעָתֶר לו WAS ENTREATED OF HIM — He let himself be urged, conciliated and influenced by him. I say that wherever this root עתר occurs it has the meaning of heaping up and increasing. E. g., (Ezekiel 8:11) “And a thick (עתר) cloud of incense” which means an abundance of ascending smoke; (Ezekiel 35:13) “You have multiplied (העתרתם) your words against me”; (Proverbs 27:6) “The kisses of an enemy are importunate (נעתרות)”—they appear to be too many and therefore they are burdensome. old French encresser; English to increase. לנכח אשתו FACING HIS WIFE — He stood in one corner and prayed whilst she stood in the other corner and prayed (Genesis Rabbah 63:5). ויעתר לו [AND THE LORD] WAS ENTREATED OF HIM — of him and not of her, because there is no comparison between the prayer of a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person and the prayer of a righteous person the child of a wicked-person — therefore God allowed himself to be entreated of him and not of her (Yevamot 64a).

"Va-ye'etar" ["and he entreated"] — this is the qal conjugation, since "hav'tiru el Hashem" (Ex. 8:4) is the intensive form. Its meaning is that Hashem was pleased with their words. "Va-ye'ater" ["and He was entreated"] — meaning He was appeased; this is the nif'al conjugation.

לנכח אשתו, even though he had been given an assurance from G’d that he would produce seed, he prayed to G’d that the mother of this child or children should be someone who was meritorious, someone of the calibre of Rivkah who was present and standing opposite him.

ויעתר לו, "He responded to his entreaty." The reason that the Torah does not mention the customary "Isaac knew his wife" (as in Genesis 4,1, or Samuel I 1,19) prior to reporting her pregnancy may have been that they prayed within three days of having had marital relations. Their prayer was that the semen should not go to waste (compare Berachot 60 on the subject of semen turning unfit for conception).

ויעתר יצחק, “Yitzchok prayed;” Rashi continues with: this word when used for prayer always describes an intense prayer, one reflecting the urgent need of the petitioner. He describes this as the meaning wherever we encounter this root in this mode. He proceeds to quote three verses from Scripture as proof. Then he adds that this rule applies to this word generally. לנוכח אשתו, “in order to enable his wife to conceive;” the expression נכח occurs in a similar sense in Judges 18,6 'נכח ה דרככם, “which the Targum renders as: “G-d will ensure that your mission will be successful,” i.e. אתקין ה' ארחכין. He did not pray on his own behalf as he was aware that he was not sterile. The reason that he knew this was so was that G-d had told Avraham his father that his name would be carried on through his son Yitzchok. (Genesis 21,12) כי עקרה היא, ‘for she was barren;” what was the reason why Rivkah up to that point had been barren? G-d did not want the gentiles to be able to credit her fertility to the blessings that her family had bestowed on her when they said: “may you become the mother of thousands and tens of thousands.”(Genesis 24,60). She therefore could not conceive until G-d responded to her husband’s prayer on her behalf.

ויעתר יצחק לנכח אשתו כי עקרה היא, “Yitzchak prayed in the presence of his wife seeing she was barren.” Actually, the Torah should have commenced this verse with the statement ותהי רבקה עקרה וגו', “seeing that Rivkah was barren, Yitzchak prayed, etc.” The reason the Torah first mentioned the prayer was to tell us that this was Yitzchak’s main concern. If the prayer had been evoked only by Rivkah’s being barren, this would make the barrenness the major element in this verse. The Torah wanted to be certain that we appreciate that the major element of what the verse tells us is that Yitzchak prayed and that the prayer was effective. In other words, the only reason G’d had allowed Rivkah to be barren until that time was to get Yitzchak (and Rivkah) to pray. Her barrenness was merely a detail in bringing about Yitzchak’s prayer. A major reason why Rivkah had been barren in the first place is explained by our sages in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,32: “Why were the matriarchs barren? Because G’d longs for the prayers of the righteous.” This teaches the powerful effect prayer has. It is so powerful that it can bring about changes in the laws of nature. This is also the reason the Torah uses the unusual word עתר to describe Yitzchak’s prayer. We would have expected either ויתפלל, or ויצעק, or other expressions associated with the offering of a prayer. Why did the Torah write ויעתר? Our sages explain this in the first chapter of Tractate Sukkah. The question is asked why the prayer of the righteous is compared to an Attar, “a shovel, a pitchfork?” The answer given is that just as a pitchfork turns the floor of a threshing ground upside down (after its use), so the prayers of the righteous succeed in changing the mind of G’d from an intention to employ the attribute of Justice (which implies sorrow for the person at whom it is directed) to the decision to use instead the attribute of Mercy. Technically speaking, the (use of) the pitchfork brings the grain which is on the floor to the top of the heap while placing the grain which was on the top to the bottom. In a similar manner the prayer of the righteous raises certain matters which had been at the bottom of G’d’s priorities to the fore, while submerging other considerations of G’d which had been in the forefront of His thinking until the righteous offered a prayer. As a result, G’d’s bounty which had been held back in an inaccessible region is moved to a region from which it is released for man’s benefit forthwith. The word ויעתר is also related to מחתרת, i.e. from the verb חתר, “dig under,” “subvert,” and is similar to עתר. This would be similar to Sanhedrin 103 where Chronicles II 33,13 dealing with G’d’s efforts to accept King Menashe’s repentance is described. We read in that verse ויתפלל אליו ויעתר לו וישמע תחנתו, “He (Menashe) prayed to Him, and He (G’d) allowed Himself to have His priorities changed, He listened to his prayer, etc.” The fact that before the words: “He listened to him,” we find the words ויעתר לו, indicates that some transformation had to occur in G’d’s thinking before He decided to listen to this prayer. You should remember that three out of our four matriarchs were naturally barren. The Torah wrote concerning Sarai ותהי שרי עקרה, (Genesis 11,30); concerning Rivkah it says here כי עקרה היא, “for she was barren.” The Torah also used the term עקרה, “barren” in connection with Rachel in Genesis 29,31. There is a simple reason for the barrenness of these three women. There were two reasons why Sarah was barren; I) in order that Ishmael should be fathered by Avraham. After all, she herself is on record as saying “G’d has prevented me from giving birth, etc., please sleep with my maid servant.” (Genesis 16,2). 2) This was in order for G’d to change her name and to demonstrate an important lesson. The name change was essential in order to teach her and all of us that just as G’d used the letter ה to create the physical part of the universe, so He uses this same letter to bring about changes in the laws of nature in that universe. The potency of the horoscopic influences on man’s (or woman’s) life was nullified by the substitution of the letter ה' in Sarai’s name (compare commentary on Genesis 2,4 בה-בראם). As to Rivkah’s barrenness, we know that Yitzchak was forty years old when he married her and that he was sixty when Esau and Yaakov were born. In other words, she lived with him for twenty years during which no mention is made of their praying to have children. G’d arranged her barrenness in order that Avraham should not experience the disappointment of seeing that one of his grandchildren became disloyal to his teachings. After all, G’d had assured Avraham (Genesis 15,15): “you will join your fathers in peace (of mind).” We have already pointed out that Ishmael became a complete penitent during Avraham’s lifetime. According to Baba Batra 16, Esau began his career as a wicked person on the very day Avraham died (and he sold his birthright). The reason Rachel remained barren for a few years was so that Bilhah and Zilpah could give birth to four of the twelve tribes (Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher) prior to her becoming pregnant with Joseph.

ויעתר לו, “G’d responded to his prayer.” The emphasis on the word לו is meant to tell us that G’d did not respond to her prayer. The reason is that we have a principle that a prisoner is unable to free himself (without external help) [In this instance it was Rivkah who could not have children, hence she is comparable to someone who is handicapped, like a prisoner in a cell. Compare Sifssey Chachamim on Genesis Ed.]

And the children pressed hard within her womb, and she said, "If it be so, why is this happening to me?" And she went to seek instruction from before Hashem.

ויתרצצו AND [THE CHILDREN] STRUGGLED — You must admit that this verse calls for a Midrashic interpretation since it leaves unexplained what this struggling was about and it states that she exclaimed “If it be so, wherefore did I desire this” (i.e. she asked whether this was the normal course of child-bearing, feeling that something extraordinary was happening). Our Rabbis explain that the word ויתרוצצו has the meaning of running, moving quickly: whenever she passed by the doors of the Torah (i. e. the Schools of Shem and Eber) Jacob moved convulsively in his efforts to come to birth, but whenever she passed by the gate of a pagan temple Esau moved convulsively in his efforts to come to birth (Genesis Rabbah 63:6). Another explanation is: they struggled with one another and quarrelled as to how they should divide the two worlds as their inheritance (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 111:2). ותאמר אם כן means AND SHE SAID, “IF the pain of pregnancy be so great, למה זה אנכי WHY IS IT that I longed and prayed to become pregnant?” (Genesis Rabbah 63:6). ותלך לדרש AND SHE WENT TO ENQUIRE at the school of Shem (Genesis Rabbah 63:6). 'לדרש את ה, TO ENQUIRE OF THE LORD, that He might tell her what would happen to her at the end.

AND SHE SAID: IF IT BE SO, ‘LAMAH ZEH ANOCHI?’”If the pain of pregnancy is so great, lamah zeh anochi (why did I) pray for and aspire to pregnancy?” Thus Rashi. But it is not correct. ” And this, comments Ramban, is not correct. (Gur Aryeh.) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that she asked the women if they had experienced such pains, and they said, “No,” whereupon she said, “If the matter and custom of pregnancy be as they said, lamah zeh anochi, why am I beset with an unusual pregnancy?” Now according to this exposition, the verse is missing and not complete. The correct interpretation in my opinion is that she said, “If it shall be so with me, lamah zeh anochi, [why am I in the world]? Would that I did not exist, that I should die or never have come into existence.” P. S. translation, If it be so, wherefore do I live?, follows Ramban’s interpretation. This is similar to the verse, I should have been as though I had not been. AND SHE WENT ‘LIDROSH’ (TO INQUIRE) OF THE ETERNAL. Rashi comments: “To tell26“To tell.” Our text of Rashi reads: “that He should tell her.” what her outcome will be.” Now I have not discovered the word drishah [lidrosh, to inquire] in relation to G-d except in the context of prayer, as in the verses: I sought (‘darashti’) the Eternal and He answered me; seek ye Me, (‘dirshuni’) and live; As I live, saith G-d the Eternal, I will not be inquired of (‘edareish’) by you. See Ramban on Exodus 18:15.

"Va-yitrotzatzu" ["and they struggled"] — from the root meruzah (running/dashing), with the tzadi doubled. Likewise: "like lightning they dash" [ke-verakim yerotzetzu] (Nah. 2:5). They are called "sons" by virtue of what they would ultimately become — similarly: "you would strip the garments from the naked" (Job 22:6). She [Rebecca] inquired of women who had given birth whether this had happened to them, and they said no. The sense of "and she said" is: if this is the normal state of affairs, why then am I in such an unusual pregnancy?

ותאמר אם כן, after it is a fact that these fetuses already are at each other’s throats I have reason to be afraid that one of them will die so that I endanger myself by giving birth to them, causing one of them to be stillborn. למה זה אנכי, why were my relatives so concerned that it would be I who provide the seed for Yitzchok when they said את היי לאלפי רבבה, “may it be you who will be the source of millions.” (24,60) Also, why did my husband insist that I become the mother of his children?

ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה, The children were quarrelling inside her, etc. Both the expression ויתרצצו, "they quarrelled" and the words למה זה אנכי, "why am I therefore" need examination. Rashi explains that "if the pain involved in giving birth is so intense, why did I bother to pray to become pregnant?" It is difficult to reconcile our image of the pious and righteous Rebeccah with Rashi's comment, i.e. that she did not think the pain worth her while in order to become a mother. Also, if that had been her real concern, how did G'd's response alleviate her problem? Our rabbis have offered many and various explanations none of which are acceptable as the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the word ויתרצצו is based on the root רצץ, to crush. Since there were two fetuses in her womb she felt as if her womb was being crushed. She was afraid that she could not complete her pregnancy and would have a miscarriage as a result. Her question then was rhetorical, i.e. "what good was my becoming pregnant if this pregnancy will not be completed successfully?" The words: "she went to ask G'd," mean that she prayed to G'd to let her complete her pregnancy without mishap. She felt that the miracle of her becoming pregnant after all these years surely should not be wasted by her not giving birth to a healthy child.

ויתרוצצו, “they quarreled;” the word means that something is about to be broken. Compare Chronicles II16,10. אם כן, “if there is so much pain involved in pregnancy, why do I have to remain alive?” I prefer to die immediately and avoid suffering the pains of pregnancy and birth. ותלך לדרוש את ה, “she went to obtain an answer to her problem from one of the prophets in her time.” (Rash’bam) The answer she sought was why the fetuses inside her were engaged in a fight. She was well aware that her term of pregnancy had not yet been completed. She was afraid that after all these pains she might miscarry.

ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה, “the children quarreled inside her.” This particular pregnancy was totally different from all the pregnancies experienced by women up until that time. It was quite unknown for women who gave birth to twins to experience turbulence within their wombs during their pregnancies. The fact that these fetuses had begun to behave in such a manner already while inside the womb made Rivkah very distraught. She had her worst fears confirmed when G’d told her through His prophet Shem (Bereshit Rabbah 63,7) that she was going to give birth to founders of two nations whose outlook on life would be totally different from one another. He assured Rivkah that she, personally, had no cause to worry about the physical phenomenon of that tumult within her. A Midrashic opinion (Avodah Zarah 11) draws attention to the unusual spelling of the words גיים in our verse. The correct spelling should have been גוים. This prompted Rabbi Yehudah to see a hint that there would be two individuals belonging to these two nations, i.e. Emperor Antoninus and Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, whose wealth would be such that all manner of vegetables which were not in season would nonetheless be served on their tables all year. At first glance such a statement is difficult to reconcile with the statement made by the same Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi on his deathbed (compare Ketuvot 104), that he had never permitted himself to use his wealth to indulge himself or to otherwise enjoy the pleasures of life on earth, but had made do with absolute necessities only. We need to understand the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah as describing what Rabbi Yehudah served his guests, not what he himself partook of. Antoninus was a descendant of Esau, of course. He had studied Torah secretly with Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi so that his servants and other members of his Empire would not become aware of this. According to tradition (also quoted in Avodah Zarah 10), Antoninus, (while governor of Palestine) had a subterranean room which was linked by a passage to the home of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. He would take two slaves with him every day. He would kill the first one at the entrance to the house of Rabbi Yehudah, and the second one at the entrance to his own palace so that there would not be any surviving witnesses to his visits at the home of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. He requested of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi that at the pre-arranged times when he would visit, Rabbi Yehudah should not have anyone else present at the house. It happened that on one occasion Rabbi Chanina bar Chama happened to be at the house of Rabbi Yehudah when Antoninus arrived. He became very agitated and complained: “did I not tell you not to have anyone present when I come?” Rabbi Yehudah replied that the apparition in the guise of Rabbi Chanina was not a human being. Thereupon Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehudah: “tell this man to get me the slave who stands on guard at the entrance.” Rabbi Chanina, aware that this slave was going to be killed, deliberated what to do. When he came to the place from where he was supposed to get the slave he found that the slave was already dead. He meditated on what to do, saying to himself that if he told Antoninus that the slave was already dead, he would accuse him of having murdered him. At the same time there is a rule that one need not return to the sender in order to bring bad news. On the other hand, he reasoned, if he were simply to leave the dead man and not go back to the house of Rabbi Yehudah at all, this would be a disgrace, and an insult to the Roman Empire. So he decided to pray. As a result of his prayer the dead guard came to life again and he sent him to his master. Thereupon Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehudah: “I am aware that even relatively insignificant Jews possess the power to bring the dead back to life. Nonetheless, I wish that when I come here no other living soul shall be present.” Antoninus used to provide Rabbi Yehudah with a variety of personal services as well as feed him if necessary on a daily basis. He even expressed a wish to be able to serve Rabbi Yehudah in the hereafter as his mattress. One day he asked Rabbi Yehudah if he could expect to be granted life in the hereafter. Rabbi Yehudah answered in the affirmative. Antoninus questioned this, quoting Ovadiah 18 “there will not be anyone remaining of the house of Esau.” Rabbi Yehudah replied that this verse speaks only of people who live in accordance with the principles of Esau. Thereupon Antoninus quoted another verse, this time from Ezekiel 32,29: “There are Edom, her kings and her princes” [The entire passage deals with the descent to Gehinom of all these Gentile people. Ed.] Rabbi Yehudah replied that the verse referred to “her kings,” but not to “all her kings.” He added that Ezekiel had specifically excluded Antoninus as well as a certain Ketiah bar Shalom from his prediction.

“And the children struggled within her, etc.” This struggling occurred when she would pass by the entrance of the study hall of Shem and Ever — Jacob would struggle to emerge while Esau would hold him back. And when she would pass by the entrance of a place of idol worship, Esau would struggle to emerge while Jacob would hold him back. She thought that this couldn’t be the case, rather that there was only one child in her womb who wanted to emerge both at the entrances of study halls and at the entrance of places of idol worship. If so, Heaven forbid, perhaps there are two [divine] authorities. Therefore, she said Why is this happening to me? — meaning, I am like other women who worship idols, so what advantage do I have over them if, Heaven forbid, there are two authorities? Therefore, she went to inquire of the Lord — meaning, to inquire about the true existence of God, what it really is.

ויתרוצצו, “They quarreled.” According to Rashi the wrangle inside Rivkah’s womb concerned two worlds. According to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that Esau developed a lot of body hair whereas Yaakov was smooth skinned, Esau’s hair kept rubbing Yaakov’s skin, resulting in violent movement inside her womb, Yaakov trying to escape being scratched. ותאמר: אם כן וגו', “she said: ”if so, etc.” according to Rashi she said that “if my desire to found a nation of twelve tribes involves so much pain as part of the pregnancies, why did I ever aspire to become the founding mother of such a nation?” According to a Midrash, Rivkah’s complaint of למה זה אנכי was the reason that it was not she who became the founding mother of the twelve tribes. In practice, it was Esau who inadvertently damaged Rivkah’s uterus to the extent that she could not again become pregnant. Other commentators interpret Rivkah’s complaint not as directed against future pregnancies, but as her immediate fear of her embryos seeing the light of the world too soon due to their conduct within her womb. She was afraid of giving birth to premature babies, babies that would die at birth or shortly thereafter. Her complaint was that if she had to undergo all these pains only in order to abort at the end, what was the point in her becoming pregnant in the first place? Why would she have been singled out for such a difficult pregnancy? Yet other scholars see Rivkah’s question as not addressed to G’d, but to other women who had born children successfully. After these women told her that they had not experienced any of the symptoms Rivkah had been plagued by during her pregnancy, she then addressed the question of why she had been singled out to G’d, (using the head of the academy of Shem and Ever as her intermediary) Nachmanides understands Rivkah’s question as wanting to know if her children were already quarrelling before they were born, her own life would not be worth living and she would be better off dead. ותלך לדרוש את ה', “she went in order to enquire from G’d.” Rashi understands her question as pertaining to the future of these children. Perhaps the reason she preferred to address her enquiry to the head of the Academy of Shem instead of to her father-in-law Avraham, who was still alive at the time, was that she did not want to let him know that she was so beset by mental and physical anguish. Nachmanides understands the words ותלך לדרוש את ה', to mean that Rivkah appealed directly to G’d in prayer seeing that she felt so much anguish.

And Hashem said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, and two kingdoms shall be separated from your womb. Kingdom shall grow stronger than kingdom, and the elder shall serve the younger."

ויאמר ה' לה AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO HER through a messenger: it was told to Shem by holy inspiration and he told it to her (Genesis Rabbah 63:7). שני גויים בבטנך TWO NATIONS ARE IN THY WOMB —The word is written גיים (exalted, noble persons), an allusion to Antoninus and Rabbi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) from whose table neither radish nor lettuce was absent neither in summer nor in winter (Avodah Zarah 11a) ושני לאמים AND TWO RACES — The word לאם always denotes a people that has all the characteristics of a kingdom (Avodah Zarah 2b) ממעיך יפרדו SHALL BE PARTED FROM THY BOWELS —as soon as they leave thy body they will take each a different course — one to his wicked ways, the other to his plain life (Genesis 5:27) מלאם יאמץ SHALL BE STRONGER THAN THE OTHER RACE —They will never be equally great at the same time: when one rises the other will fall. Thus it says, (Ezekiel 26:2) “[Because Tyre (colonised by Esau) says about Jerusalem] I shall be filled with her that is laid waste” — Tyre became full (powerful) only through the ruin of Jerusalem (Megillah 6a).

TWO NATIONS ARE IN THY WOMB. The intent of this is that He informed her that she should not fear, for the reason that the struggle in her womb is that she is pregnant with twins, this being the customary way among women who are pregnant with twins. It is possible that He is also saying that since they are destined to be two peoples, hating and warring with each other, at the very beginning of their creation they initiated a quarrel, thus intimating at the situation which will ultimately exist between them. But He assured her that now they will rest, and she will find rest and quiet for herself.

"And Hashem said to her" — through a prophet; or it may be Abraham himself, for he had not yet died when her sons were fifteen years old. "The elder" [rav] is the subject [in the phrase rav ya'avod tza'ir — "the elder shall serve the younger"], as in "a son honors his father" [ben yekhabbeid av] (Mal. 1:6). I will explain this verse further in my commentary to Gen. 27:40.

שני גוים בבטנך, this is the reason for the quarrelling you experience inside your womb. ושני לאמים, they will also be politically different from one another, being separate kingdoms. ממעיך יפרדו, they will go their different ways after being born, neither of them will die at birth as you fear.

ויאמר ה׳ לה, G'd said to her, etc. Although this verse has been explained by many there is still no truly satisfactory answer. G'd responded to her fear that she would miscarry by explaining to her that there was nothing medically wrong in her womb but that she was carrying two instead of merely one fetus. Whereas normally, when a mother expects twins, the two fetuses get along inside the womb (compare Song of Songs 7,4), in Rebeccah's case they did not. Hence her feeling of being crushed. She did not merely carry twins but each one was destined to become a nation with very different characteristics from one another. Not only would each one be a king in his own right, but these respective nations would endure for thousands of years. All of this would not have resulted in her having a feeling of being crushed were it not for the fact that these twins did not conform to the usual pattern of twins. When G'd explained that ממעיך יפרדו, "they will be totally separate already while still inside of you," this meant that they would not only be separate inside of Rebeccah but their being separate would continue after they were born. At any rate, G'd reassured Rebeccah that there was nothing wrong with her womb. ולאום מלאום יאמץ, "and one nation will be stronger than the other, etc." This means that there is an additional factor preventing these two peoples from dwelling together in harmony; each one will derive its strength from the other (the defeat of the other). We find an example of this concept in a statement in Megillah 6 that the city of Tzor attained its true prominence only through the fall of Jerusalem. Seeing that each nation therefore anxiously awaits the downfall of the other, there is no hope that they will live together in brotherly harmony. ורב יעבד צעיר, "and the senior one will serve the younger." None of the many commentaries on this expression seem to do justice to the words. Our approach will solve the problem. Not only will one of these two nations attain its respective grandeur at the expense of the other, but the nation which is defeated will wind up in servitude to the respective victor. The victor will not content himself with having vanquished his antagonist and deprived him of his assets, but he will oppress him to boot. This will further inhibit any chance of reconciliation and will increase the degree of mutual hatred. This is what the Talmud (Ketuvot 72) had in mind when it stated that a human being and a snake cannot live together in cramped quarters. The words do not mean that Esau and Jacob respectively will live in such a dependence on each other; the meaning is that whoever will be the senior one of these two nations during different periods of history will relate to the other as a tyrannical overlord.

ויאמר ה' לה, “the Lord said to her:” by using a prophet to inform her; some commentators say that seeing that Avraham was still alive. [She had turned to him and that he answered her; others say that the reason she had not told her husband about her problem was that she did not want to cause him pain when hearing about her problem, and about the fact that G-d had not revealed the answer to him.] The reason why Avraham answered her instead of her husband was why Yitzchok could not believe that Esau was a wicked person[, as she never told him about all her problems and the answer she had received]. שני גויים בבטנך, Do not worry that you are experiencing so much pain because you are carrying two nations in your womb and it is common knowledge that the birth pains for two are so much greater than for one. Even though the word for “nations” is spelled in our texts as גיים, it is to be read as if it had been spelled גוים in the regular way. ממעיך יפרדו, “they are fighting for separation from one another already in your womb. Rashi, on this expression, comments: “one wishes wickedness to prevail on earth, the other righteousness.” G-d implied that at this point in time the outcome of who would prevail in this struggle was not yet known. It would only become clear when the two children’s vocational choices had been made, one a hunter, the other a philosopher, making study his primary occupation. ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the older will become subservient to the younger.” This is where the Torah decreed that Yaakov, though the younger, will eventually wind up as the senior one of the twins to be born. Rav Hunna (Bereshit Rabbah 63,6) is quoted as having said that it means if Yaakov merits it he will become the senior, if not, Esau will become senior to him. [Not found in the editions of Bereshit Rabbah at my disposal. Ed.] An alternate exegesis: the word רב does not mean: “the senior one,” but simply means “הרבה,” a great deal,” or “for a long time.” The word occurs when Esau first declined Yaakov’s gift by saying: יש לי רב, “I have lots.” (Genesis 33,9).

And God said to her: “Two nations are in your womb.” [This comes to tell her] the opposite of what you thought — there isn’t [more than] one authority. Rather, there are two children in your womb — one will be a servant of God and one will serve idols, but in fact there is only one God and none other. Some say: It is written And Isaac pleaded to God opposite his wife. This is because he was a righteous person, son of a righteous person, and therefore was confident that from his side would come worthy offspring. However, he was concerned about his wife’s side, since she was the daughter of Bethuel and sister of Laban, that some unfit offspring might come from her, since behold she was barren. The barrenness stemmed from her, and therefore he worried that unworthy offspring might come from her, just as Ishmael came from Hagar, and perhaps this was the reason for her barrenness. And when the children struggled within her — one moving to exit toward the study hall and one moving to exit toward [the house of] idolatry — through this she sensed that surely one would be righteous and one wicked. Therefore she said Why am I thus? — meaning, “I am like Hagar, and how am I any better than her? Why did I pray for this?” And she went to seek out God [asking] what benefit was there to her prayer. And God said to her “Two nations are in your womb” — this refers to Rabbi [Judah HaNasi] and Antoninus. Her prayer was beneficial in that even from Esau would come worthy offspring like Antoninus and other righteous converts, which was not the case with Ishmael, and in this way she was better than Hagar.

שני גויים בבטמנך, “there are two nations within your womb.” G’d informed her not to worry, that her condition was due to the fact that she would give birth to twins. All the commotion going on within her was due to that fact; women who are pregnant with twins usually experience these violent upheavals within their wombs. Alternately, it is possible that G’d informed her that the convulsions she had experienced foreshadowed that these twins would not live harmoniously together, especially at the time preceding the redemption of mankind. In the meantime, these convulsions would cease forthwith. ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the senior one would serve the junior one.” This can be interpreted in various directions. Either, literally, the older one will serve the younger one, or as in Ezekiel 26,2 אמלאה החרבה, where the prophet describes the city Tzor (Tyre) as discontent as long as Jerusalem has not been destroyed. The philosophies of Esau and Yaakov are mutually exclusive, and as long as both are alive and vibrant the other can not be content. Another approach to the word רב sees in it a reference to “abundance, surfeit,” as in ’ורב מקולות וגו, “enough, too much of the thunder, etc.” (Exodus 9,28) Translated into our verse here, the meaning of the prophecy would be that the many would serve the few. (Yaakov’s descendants being “the few.”)

And her days to give birth were completed, and behold, there were twins in her womb.

וימלאו ימיה AND WHEN HER DAYS TO BEAR WERE FULL — But in the case of Tamar it is written, (37:27) “And it came to pass at the time of her travail”, for her days were not fulfilled as she gave birth to them (her children) at the end of seven months. והנה תומם BEHOLD, THERE WERE TWINS — The word for twins is written defective (without א and י) whilst in the case of Tamar it is written תאומים (with א and י); because in the latter case both children proved righteous whilst here one was righteous and the other wicked (Genesis Rabbah 63:8).

"Twins" [tomim] — written with the root-alef missing, as in "if I have not preserved you for good" (Jer. 15:11), where the meaning is "I have made your remnant for good."

והנה תומים בבטנה, before they were born, the onlookers already realised that there were twins in her womb. Therefore, when the first one emerged being completely covered with hair, this was a birth which was presumed to be more difficult than the passage of Yaakov whose skin was smooth and did not cause friction with the lining of the womb, they called the first one עשו, attributing his easy passage to his twin brother who had helped push him out of the womb of his mother. [I believe that the author understands the plural ending in עשו, as equivalent to assu, i.e. the result of a combined effort by both him and his brother.]

והנה תומם, “and behold there were twins.” The word for “twins,” i.e. תומים, has been spelled defectively, the letter י being missing. The reason is to draw our attention to the fact that although, generally speaking, twins resemble each other greatly, in this instance the one was covered with body hair, while the other was smoothskinned. Also, Esau was born with a foreskin, whereas Yaakov was born without. One, Esau, had reddish skin not resembling human skin, whereas Yaakov’s skin was goodlooking. According to Psalms 80,14, the conquerors of Jerusalem are viewed as resembling wild boars, whereas in Jeremiah 50,17 Israel, i.e. Yaakov is described as a lamb. If they were all that different the question arises: “why were they born as twins?” After all, as the proverb says: “where there is straw there must also have been a harvest first.” To quote Ovadiah 1,18, ובית עשו לקש, “the house of Esau will be turned to straw.” We also have a verse: קדש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתו, “Israel is sacred for G-d, the first of His harvest;” (Jeremiah 2,3). The reference to Yaakov in Rivkah’s womb [the Torah describes him as the only one of the two twins who is worthwhile]; hence the word is in the singular mode.

והנה תומם בבטנה, “and here there were twins in her womb.” The word תומם, “twins,” is spelled defectively, with the letters י and א missing. The reason for the defective spelling is that one of Rivkah’s children was going to be a wicked person. The next time the birth of twins is mentioned in the Torah, i.e. the sons of Tamar and Yehudah, Peretz and Zerach, the word is spelled properly, i.e. תאומים, seeing that both of the sons Peretz and Zerach were going to be righteous.

And the first came out ruddy, all of him like a garment of hair, and they called his name Esau.

אדמוני RED — a sign that he would always be shedding blood (Genesis Rabbah 63:8). כלו כאדרת שער means full of hair like a woolen garment that is full of hair. (Old French floche; English flock). ויקרא שמו עשו AND THEY CALLED HIS NAME ESAU — every one called him thus because he was made (עשה means to make) and fully developed with hair as a lad several years old.

The yod of admoni ("ruddy") is a formative yod, like the yod of akhzari ("cruel") (Isa. 13:9). The phrase ke-aderet ("like a hairy mantle") is not in the construct state; rather the meaning is: "all of him [was] hair like a mantle." Others hold that it is in the construct. "And they called his name" — those who saw him. It is also possible that this is an independent occurrence. This birth was a great wonder, for every person emerges in a caul that covers him, yet here both cauls opened at a single instant.

ויצא הראשון “the first one emerged;” why was he born first? In order that he together with any afterbirth, i.e. something dispensable and at the same time despicable content of the womb, would be discarded with the emergence of Esau. Rabbi Abahu illustrated this by means of a parable in Pessikta Zutrata: when entering a bathtub or public bath, the servant always precedes his master in order to clear away any offensive residue left behind by the previous user. An alternate exegesis: the reason why Esau was born first is that he would inherit the material physical parts of the earth, which had been created before the world to come. Another version: he was born first as he was the product of the last drop of Yitzchok’s seminal ejaculation. We owe this insight to Rabbi Yossi, recorded from a conversation he had with a well educated lady, quoted in the above mentioned midrash. He explained to her that if someone puts two pearls inside a tube sealed at one end, and he wants to access the first one he inserted, he first has to remove the ones he inserted at a later stage. In our story also, in order for the world to be able to enjoy the benefits Yaakov contributed to Judaism and thereby to mankind, Esau had to be born first, as he had blocked Yaakov’s way. Yaakov was conceived from Yitzchok’s first drop of semen so that he was innermost in Rivkah’s womb. אדמוני, from the word אדם, a complete human being. He is also described as hairy like a fur coat. Some commentators view the verse as reflecting abbreviations, the word אדרת not being understood as in a construct mode to the word שער, hair. The meaning that results would be: “he was covered with hair as if wearing a mantle.” (Ibn Ezra)

ויצא הראשון אדמוני, “the first one emerged all reddish looking.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,8 the performance of the commandment to take the Lulav and Etrog on the first day of Sukkot (Leviticus 23,40) and to give thanks to G’d for His bounty is the reason that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first, demands payment (for their sins) “from the first one,” “builds for them first,” “brings them (to the Holy Land) first”. The fact that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first is derived from Isaiah 44,6 אני ראשון ואני אחרון; the fact that G’d enacts payment from the first one, i.e. Esau first, is derived from our verse i.e. ויצא.הראשון אדמוני“He builds for them first,” is a reference to the Holy Temple as we know from Jeremiah 17,12 כסא כבוד מרום מראשון, “O Throne of Glory exalted from the first.” The fact that G’d brings the redeemer to the Jewish people first, is attested to by Isaiah 41,27, ראשון לציון הנה הנם ולירושלים מבשר אתן, “the things predicted to Zion originally, behold they are here! And again I send a herald to Jerusalem.” [I am not sure why our author brings this Midrash unless it is to demonstrate that the word ראשון, “first,” does not necessarily imply an advantage, such as when G’d demands an accounting for his sins from Esau first because he emerged first from Rivkah’s womb. Ed.] כלו כאדרת שער, “all of him looking like a fur coat.” The meaning is as if the Torah had written כלו שער, כאדרת, “his entire body covered with hair, just like a mantle.” Seeing he was born with this much hair, people called him איש שעיר, “a hairy man” (27,11). The word שעיר is an all encompassing expression which includes the demonic qualities which are attributed to the deities called שעירים, which the Torah enjoins us from offering sacrifices to (Leviticus 17,7.) The author quotes an unidentifiable Midrash according to which the strength of that demonic power is concentrated in the hair which covers its heart. At the time of the redemption, (arrival of the Messiah), G’d will make the demonic power collapse when He blows the Shofar heralding the redemption, as we know from וה' אלוקים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערת תימן, “and My Lord G’d will sound the ram’s horn, and advance in a stormy tempest” (Zechariah 9,14). [The author appears to substitute the letter ש for the letter ס in the word סערת, something quite common. Ed.]

“And the first one came out red, entirely…” This was a sign that he would be a deceptive hunter who would deceive his father, like the hypocrites who present themselves as modest people. This relates to what is said about the future: And they shall not wear a hairy mantle to deceive (Zechariah 13:4). For such was the custom in those times that modest people would wear hairy mantles. Perhaps this custom also existed in Isaac’s time; therefore he was born with a hairy mantle [of hair], suggesting that he would [appear to] be one consecrated to God from the womb but would actually be among the group of hypocrites. This is also a sign that he would be a keeper of harlots, for the sign of this is that his hair is long, as Maimonides writes in Laws of Personal Development (Chapter 4, Law 19). “And they called his name Esau.” He was made and completed with his hair — this was a sign that this world would be his portion and lot, and he would have no further portion in the eternal world. For the difference between acquiring these two types of perfection is this: Immediately when a person is born, they make use of all physical faculties and all five senses perform their function, and they immediately have desire and will towards all the physical desires that the material being craves and desires — eating, drinking, and other necessary bodily functions. However, regarding the intellectual faculties such as the brain, heart, and the intellect itself, a person does not use these at all on the day of their birth, for man is born a wild donkey’s colt (Job 11:12). Only as they advance in days do they open their intellectual eye and acquire this superior perfection gradually, as we explained in Genesis on the verse and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7). According to this, the fact that Esau was born completed with his hair is proof that all his primary functions would be with the material tools that are made and completed at the time of birth and do not add any increase in their essence.

And after that his brother came out, and his hand was grasping the heel of Esau; and he called his name Jacob. And Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.

ואחרי כן יצא אחיו וגו AND AFTERWARDS HIS BROTHER CAME OUT, ETC. — I have heard a homiletical midrash that expounds it according to its simple meaning: It was with justice that he was grabbing him to hold him back. Jacob was conceived from the first drop and Esau from the second. Go and learn from a tube with a narrow opening - put in it two stones, one after the other. The one that goes in first will come out last, and the one that goes in last will come out first. It comes out that Esau, who was conceived last, came out first, and Jacob, who was conceived first, came out last. And [so] Jacob came to hold him back, so that the first for birth would be the same as the first for conception; and he would open [his mother's] womb and take the first-born status with justice (see Genesis Rabbah 63:8). בעקב עשו ESAU’S HEEL — a sign that this one (Esau) will hardly have time to complete his period of domination before the other would rise and take it (his power) from him ויקרא שמו יעקב AND HE CALLED HIS NAME JACOB — The Holy One, blessed be He, thus named him (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 4). [Some versions add: He said to them (to those who gave Esau that name cf. Genesis 5:25): You have given your first-born a name, I, too, will give my son, my firstborn, (cf. Exodus 4:23) a name. That is what is written, “And He called his name, Jacob” (Genesis 26:26).] Another explanation is: his father called him Jacob because he was grasping Esau’s heel. בן ששים שנה THREESCORE YEARS OLD — Ten years passed from the time when he married her until she became thirteen years old and capable of child-bearing, and a further ten years he hopefully waited as his father did in regard to Sarah. When even then she did not become with child he realised that she was barren and he prayed for her. But He did not wish to take a maidservant as a second wife because he had been sanctified on Mount Moriah to be a burnt-offering without blemish.

"And he called his name" — the one who named him, or Isaac his father.

ויקרא שמו יעקב. The word means he will remain at the heel, and the tail-end. This is based on the future mode of the word יעקב. Our sages (quoted by Rashi) say that the subject in our verse is G’d Who named Esau’s brother Yaakov, the reason for the unusual formulation being that after the destruction of the Kingdom of Edom and other nations, successor of Esau, only Yaakov and his descendants will remain. Our sages base all this on Jeremiah 46,28 אעשה כלה בכל הגויים... ואותך לא אעשה כלה, “I will make an end of all nations…but I will not make an end of you.”

ויקרא שמו יעקב. He called his name Jacob. The Torah refers to G'd, not to Isaac. Proof is that had Isaac been the subject in our verse, the Torah would not have continued: "and Isaac was sixty years, etc," but would have written: "and he was sixty years, etc."

וידו אוחזת, “with his hand grabbing;” the younger baby’s had is portrayed as holding on to the older twin’s heel already while still inside Rivkah’s womb. The author cites as proof for this Hoseah 12,4: בבטן עקב את אחיו, “in the womb he tried to overtake his brother.” The word עקב is understood to mean: “heel, hoof.” Yaakov is presumed to have tried to prevent Esau from becoming the firstborn. He wanted to become the firstborn as he had developed from his father’s first drop of semen as quoted by Rabbi Yossi’s response to the lady’s question in Pessikta Zutrata. This would enable Yaakov to claim the status of being the legal firstborn. His failure to prevent Esau from emerging from Rivkah’s womb first, prompted him years later to acquire that status through buying the birthright from his brother. בן ששים שנה, “sixty years old.” Rashi comments on this that during the first ten years of their marriage Rivkah had not been old enough to conceive, and that during the ten years following he had waited before praying to have children as had his father Avraham during the first ten years in the land of Canaan. When she had failed to conceive during these years, he realised that she was barren and prayed on her behalf. He did not want to sleep with a Canaanite concubine, as his status of having been a burnt offering on the altar on Mount Moriah made this inappropriate. All Canaanites are viewed as “slaves,” both males and females. [The author’s quoting this Rashi at this point is interesting as he had previously gone to some length to prove that Rivkah could not have been so young when she got married. Ed.]

“And afterward his brother came out, and his hand was grasping Esau’s heel.” This indicates that his dominion would not be immediate from the day of his birth, but rather at the end when he would come of age. This is indicated by the word “heel” [ekev] which denotes the end, just as spiritual perfection is primarily acquired towards the end of a person’s earthly days. For the end of matter, all is heard and elderly Torah scholars continue to increase in wisdom. However, on the day of one’s birth, there is no trace whatsoever of that spiritual perfection. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude that there is no reward for the righteous in this world. For the main period of acquiring perfection is in the days of old age, when one is close to the gates of death, as that is when one’s intellect continues to strengthen. So when would one receive his reward? The days of old age are not suited for receiving reward, as all desires have already ceased and the caper berry shall fail (Ecclesiastes 12:5). Thus, you must necessarily say that the hand of the perfect ones grasps the heel of Esau — meaning the end of Esau’s dominion. And his hand was grasping Esau’s heel. This was a sign that in the future, Esau would treat the birthright with contempt, like something that a person tramples with his heel and disregards. And it was specifically that heel that Jacob would grasp — meaning, that which Esau trampled with his heel, Jacob would grasp onto. Similarly, all the “light” commandments that people trample with their heels, and which Satan counts against them, Jacob would grasp onto and fulfill them. The word “ekev” [heel] also carries the connotation of trickery and deception, suggesting that Jacob seized upon Esau’s nature of being a deceiver and hunter, whose actions were all done with trickery and deception. Therefore, Esau was not worthy of being the firstborn, since the service of God was performed by the firstborns. For this reason, Jacob grasped his heel to prevent him from emerging first, as Rashi explains that Jacob came to prevent him from being first in birth, etc. And it was for this reason that he specifically grabbed his heel, for cursed is he who performs God’s work deceitfully, and this is an appropriate allusion. And he called his name Jacob. Regarding Esau it says they called his name Esau because many called him Esau, since evil paths are many while the good path is only one. Therefore, many agreed upon Esau’s name, but regarding Jacob, only the distinguished individuals of the generation and people of virtue would agree [on his name], and those who rise above [spiritually] are few. And you already know that the name Esau indicates worldly possessions that were made and completed immediately at his birth, as explained above. And the name Jacob indicates spiritual perfection that is acquired at the end, therefore regarding Esau it says they called [plural] and regarding Jacob it says he called [singular], and this is easily understood.

וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו, “and his hand was holding on to the heel of Esau.” He tried to keep Esau from becoming the firstborn. Possibly, Yaakov only wanted to emerge from his mother’s womb simultaneously with his brother. He did not want his mother to experience separate birth pangs on his account. ויקרא שמו יעקב, “his father called him ‘Yaakov.’” Seeing that Yitzchok’s name is not mentioned here as such, Rashi considers G’d Himself as the subject of the word ויקרא. His view has been confirmed by the Midrash. When the Jerusalem Talmud states that whereas both Yaakov and Avraham whose names had been given by their respective fathers, underwent changes of name, Yitzchok who had been named by G’d in the first place, never underwent such a change of name, this may not be a contradiction to the Midrash, but may mean that the reason Yitzchok’s name was never changed was that he was so named before Sarah had even conceived him. Seeing that Yaakov was not named by G’d until after he had been born, his name could be subject to change, [or in his case to an addition, seeing that the name Yaakov was never abolished. Ed.]

And the lads grew up. And Esau was a skilled hunter, a man who goes out to the field; and Jacob was a wholesome man, attending the house of study.

ויגדלו… ויהי עשו AND THEY GREW … AND ESAU WAS — So long as they were young they could not be distinguished by what they did and no one paid much attention to their characters, but when they reached the age of thirteen, one went his way to the houses of learning and the other went his way to the idolatrous temples (Genesis Rabbah 63:10). יודע ציד A CUNNING HUNTER literally, understanding hunting — understanding how to entrap and deceive his father with his mouth. He would ask him, “Father how should salt and straw be tithed”? (Genesis Rabbah 63:10) (although he knew full well that these are not subject to the law of tithe). Consequently his father believed him to be very punctilious in observing the divine ordinances. איש שדה A MAN OF THE FIELD — Explain it literally (i.e., not in a Midrashic manner): a man without regular occupation, hunting beasts and birds with his bow. תם A PLAIN MAN — not expert in all these things: as his heart was his mouth (his thoughts and his words tallied). One who is not ingenious in deceiving people is called תם plain, simple. יושב אהלים DWELLING IN TENTS — the tent of Shem and the tent of Eber (Genesis Rabbah 63:10).

"A skilled hunter" — [a man] ever full of cunning, for most wild animals are caught by means of deception. Jacob was the opposite of Esau, for he was a plain man. Esau was also a man of the field, while Jacob dwelt in tents. It is possible to interpret this in the manner of "a dweller of tents and livestock" (Gen. 4:20).

איש שדה, an expert farmer. יושב אהלים, the plural mode indicates that the Torah speaks of two distinctly different kinds of tents; one is the tent used by shepherds, the other the tent described as בל-יצען described in Isaiah 33,20, (a reference to Jerusalem or the Temple). The function of that “tent” is to help people come closer to G’d and to gain insight into His ways and as a result to become holy, inspired by His glory.

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up;” Rashi comments on this statement that they had attained the age of 13 at this point. During the years prior to this they did not show signs of developing radically different from one another. Until that age they had both been tutored by their father and been trained in how to become wholesome personalities, as pointed out in Bereshit Rabbah 63,10. It is pointed out there that as of that age the father may thank the Lord that he has been relieved of the burden of raising his children. [Every father nowadays recites this blessing at his son’s bar mitzvah. Ed.] The deeper meaning of this is that from that day on a father is no longer held accountable for sins committed by his children. You might object by arguing that at the time of the sale of the birthright the children must have been at least 15 years old, seeing that our sages interpret the dish of lentils that Yaakov had cooked as having been the meal offered on the occasion of their grandfather Avraham being buried at the age of one hundred and seventy five, and they added that the reason that Avraham did not live to be one hundred and eighty, was to spare him the anguish of seeing his grandson Esau going astray spiritually. We know from the Torah that Avraham had been one hundred years of age when Yitzchok was born, so that at his death the children of Yitzchok must have been 15 years of age. The answer given by the midrash to this argument is that Esau had succeeded in keeping his wicked deeds secret or misrepresenting them as good deeds for two years. איש יודע ציד, “his vocation was to use trickery to achieve his ends.” Trapping and hunting wild beasts cannot be done successfully without first deceiving those beasts[, as man is physically weaker than they are]. The expression is also used by the Torah as Yitzchok, in due course, would ask Esau: הביאה לי ציד, “bring me some venison.” The Torah therefore had to tell us first that Esau had become a hunter of venison by profession. יושב אהלים, “according to the plain meaning this means that Yaakov tended sheep i.e. slept in tents as the sheep graze where they find meadows. Compare Genesis 4,20, אבי יושב אוהל ומקנה, “the founder of nomads tending sheep and cattle.” Another reason for describing Yaakov in such terms is that he was going to make his livelihood as a shepherd while at Lavan for 20 years.

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,10 after Esau attained the age of 13 he frequented houses of idolatry while Yaakov frequented Torah academies. Our sages in the same Midrash also said that Rivkah had experienced similar experiences during her pregnancy. Whenever she passed either one of the aforementioned institutions one of the fetuses within her seemed anxious to emerge. There is a verse in Jeremiah 1,5 בטרם אצרך בבטן ידעתיך, “even before I formed you in the womb I already appointed you (as a prophet).” From this verse we see that distinct prenatal tendencies are not mere figments of our sages’ imagination. Psalms 58,4 זרו רשעים מרחם, “the wicked are defiant even while in the womb,” confirms this piece of psychological insight. ויהי עשו יודע ציד איש שדה, ויעקב איש תם יושב אהלים, “Esau became a hunter, a man of the field, whereas Yaakov was a simple man a dweller in tents.” This verse conveys the fact that though the brothers were twins they had totally different interests in life. Esau pursued the material pleasures available in life whereas Yaakov was of a philosophical bent. This is why the Torah characterises the difference in the two phrases that Esau was a man of the field, i.e. a man dedicated to the earth, the physical. This is why later on he is called אדום, a word closely reminiscent of אדמה, earth. It is a well known fact that if man dedicates himself to the pursuit of the pleasures which life has to offer, this estranges him to G’d and makes it difficult for him to serve the Lord at the same time as he is busy pursuing his major concerns. Making earthiness a priority must result in making godliness a secondary concern. We see this best reflected when Esau sold the birthright and the Torah (25,34) describes this in a few words: ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך, ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “he ate, he drank, he arose and went of his way; thus Esau demonstrated his disdain for the birthright.” Anyone who is characterised by this negative virtue will eventually find himself deceived. [I believe the author means that sooner or later such people will be disappointed in what they had expected out of life. Ed.] In the case of Esau we find him describing himself as deceived twice when he said to his father (27, 36) “and he (Yaakov) has tricked me twice, he took my birthright and now he has taken my blessing.” Whatever pleasures and satisfactions such people do experience are only temporary and the time will come when they rue their former lifestyle and they cry out bitterly when they realize that “life” has deceived them. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 5,3-4: “for the lips of an immoral woman drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil. But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.” This is precisely the lifestyle of Esau and all those who support him. The philosophy and lifestyle of Yaakov are diametrically opposed to this, for someone characterized as איש תם and as יושב אהלים is the antithesis of someone described as יודע ציד, איש שדה. Not only this, whatever Esau was willing to give up, i.e. to sell, Yaakov was anxious to buy. When the Torah speaks about the dish of lentils, something round, always returning to its beginning, this merely illustrates the concept of the pursuit of the pleasures of this world. This physical universe and all the phenomena in it are constantly being recycled, as Solomon said already at the beginning of Kohelet: “there is nothing new under the sun.” What is perceived as progress, eventually is seen to be merely a retread of something old. Yaakov who had perceived this was therefore anxious to sell such “merchandise,” in return for something which promised enduring progress. The instrument of securing this spiritual progress is the birthright, as it represents the privilege of performing service for the Lord in sacred precincts. Know that seeing the Torah had described both Esau and Yaakov already as איש, i.e. adult, mature in years, it is clear that they must have been at least 13 years of age at the time Yaakov bought the birthright from his twin brother. If, as the Midrash told us, Avraham died five years early in order not to experience how Esau displayed his disdain for spiritual values, this means that the brothers were 15 years old at the time the sale of the birthright took place. Avraham was 160 years old at the time Yaakov and Esau were born. He died at the age of 175, i.e. at a time when his grandchildren were 15 years of age. There is also an allusion in our verse that people such as Esau are slated for Gehinom whereas people such as Yaakov are destined for Gan Eden. We read in Bereshit Rabbah 65,22 that when Yaakov entered Yitzchak’s room in order to receive the blessing, Gan Eden entered with him. On the other hand, when Esau entered the same room a little later, Gehinom entered with him. We have a Midrash Tanchuma Parshat Tzav, 2 which expresses a similar sentiment when the author writes that the words היא העולה, ”it is the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 6,2), are a reference to a nation which is totally אדומית, wrapped up in earthly concerns, and which elevates itself as is written in Ovadiah 4, “even if you rise as high as the eagle I will bring you down, על מוקדה, on the site of the altar where the fire is burning.” The word is a reference to the fires of Gehinom in the hereafter. The words of Daniel 7,11 apply to such people ויהבת ליקדת אשא, “and consigned to the fire’s burning.” ויעקב איש תם, “and Yaakov was a straightforward man.” Actually, the Torah should have written: ויעקב היה איש תם. This would have corresponded to the line ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד, or ויהי הבל רועה צאן (Genesis 4,2). On the other hand, there too Kayin’s vocation is described in the terms וקין היה עובד אדמה, “Kayin had become a tiller of the soil.” Why these changes in describing the development of the respective people and their vocations? The expression היה, “he was,” or “he had become,” is used in connection with Esau as he had been called “Esau” already at birth and he remained Esau until the day he died. Just as Esau’s name did not change so his character did not undergo any change either. Not so Yaakov, who eventually qualified for the name Israel (Genesis 35,10). This is why the word היה, or ויהי would not have been appropriate in connection with describing his vocation. When G’d changed his name, He emphasised the permanence of that change by using the very word יהיה, (a form of הויה) which the Torah had avoided using earlier. Furthermore, actually the Torah should have written: ויעקב איש אמת, “and Yaakov was a man of truth.” His principal characteristic was אמת, “truth.” This is what Michah was at pains to point out when he said (Michah 7,20) תתן אמת ליעקב, “Grant truth to Yaakov, kindness to Avraham, etc.” Instead the Torah added the word תם to describing Yaakov as a יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents,” a student of Torah, in order to already hint at that quality אמת by attributing to him two of the three letters in that word. The letters תם also allude to the quality of being מכריע, reconciling apparent contradictions and deciding on a certain path. The quality is known as תיומת. We encounter the word in connection with the adhesion between two leaves in the Lulav. The quality is one which reconciles opposites and pursues a middle of the way between the two extremes. In this instance Yaakov combined the major characteristics of his grandfather Avraham, i.e. חסד, love, and the major characteristic of his father i.e. פחד or גבורה, and he moulded them into a viable combination. This is why he succeeded in raising 13 children all of whom remained true to his heritage. You are aware that the numerical value of the letters in the name Yaakov (182) when combined with 4 letters of the Ineffable Name (each counted as 1) amount to 186. At the same time, the numerical value of the letters in that Ineffable Name when squared also amount to 186. This may be the reason why Rabbi Akivah said that קוף=the name of G’d. יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents.” The plain meaning of the text is that Yaakov spent his time in the tents of Shem and Ever, i.e. in their academies. A kabbalistic approach to the words: The reason the Torah speaks about the word “tents” in the plural, i.e. אהלים, seeing hat most people dwell in only one tent at a time, is that Yaakov demonstrated that one could live in the tent of the “higher” regions and in the tent of the “lower” regions of the universe simultaneously; We have been taught already (Bereshit Rabbah 68,12) that the countenance of Yaakov is engraved on the throne of G’d. In view of this, the expression יושב אהלים (404) is equivalent to the numerical value of the words יושב הכסא, “The One who sits on the Throne.”

“And Esau was a man who knew hunting, a man of the field.” He would “hunt” [seduce] women from their husbands for 40 years, and according to our Sages’ interpretation (Bava Batra 16b), he would violate betrothed maidens. Therefore, he was called “one who knows hunting” — meaning he would “hunt” women from under their husbands, that is to say, women who were living under their husbands’ authority. But he would always go to hunt them in the fields, as it is said regarding a betrothed maiden for he found her in the field (Deuteronomy 22:27). Therefore, Scripture calls Esau a man of the field, for he would go to seek them there so that their voice would not be heard when they screamed. The word tzayid [hunting] here can be understood either literally as hunting/trapping, or as “hunting with his mouth” through seduction, as is the way of all seducers. “And Jacob was a wholesome man.” According to our Sages’ interpretation (Avot DeRabbi Natan 2:5), he was born circumcised, therefore he was safeguarded from sexual immorality and was a “dweller of tents,” cleaving only to his wife and not to others. This is as it is written Return to your tents (Deuteronomy 5:27), which our Sages (Shabbat 87a) interpreted as referring to the permissibility of marital relations.

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up, etc.” According to Rashi it was not evident until they reached the age of 13 that their actions were noticeably different, one from the other. This was so in spite of the prediction that they would be distinctly different from one another already from birth, i.e.ממעיך יפרדו. To the outsider it was impossible to tell which of the two was the righteous son and which was the sinner. Rashi’s commentary is difficult in that it describes the age of 13 as the one at which it became plain that Esau was the son disloyal to his father’s teachings, as according to our Midrashim the reason that Avraham died at 175 instead of living to the age of 180, was to spare him the anguish of seeing one of his grandchildren rejecting his teachings. If Esau became delinquent at 13, Avraham would only have been 178 years old at that time. There is a Midrash according to which Yitzchok spent 2 years in Gan Eden immediately after the Akeydah, years which are not included when we combine the various periods of his life. According to such a count, Avraham would have been 162 years old at the birth of Yaakov and Esau, and when these boys reached the age of 13, Avraham would have been 175 years old, so that he would have died before becoming aware of Esau, his grandson, rejecting his spiritual heritage If we consider that on occasion, a single day in a year can be equivalent to an entire year, -such as when a King ascends the throne on the last day of the month of Adar, so that the following day is considered as part of the second year of his reign, since in Jewish law the calendar year for kings commences on the first day of Nissan, then by allowing for such an occurrence at the beginning of Yitzchok’s life, and something similar at the beginning of Avraham’s life, we would not have to resort to the Midrash which describes Yitzchok as spending 2 years in Gan Eden in a state of suspended animation from the point of view of calendar calculations.- Even this calculation involves contradictions, seeing that G’d promised the righteous את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will make the days of your life’s year full,” i. e. no year of the life of a person such as Yitzchok or Avraham could possibly contain only a single day.

And Isaac loved Esau, because from his game he would eat; but Rebekah loved Jacob.

בפיו [THERE WAS HUNTING] IN HIS MOUTH — Understand this as the Targum renders it: in Isaac’s mouth (i. e. Isaac ate the venison he brought home). But its Midrashic explanation is: there was hunting in Esau’s mouth, meaning that he used to entrap and deceive him by his words (Genesis Rabbah 63:10).

BECAUSE THERE WAS VENISON IN HIS MOUTH. The commentators explained it as meaning either that he [Esau] gave venison into Isaac’s mouth, or that he brought Isaac venison. The act of giving or bringing is thus missing from the verse. Similarly: The set time which Samuel; Here the word “appointed” is missing, the meaning of the verse being “at the set time which Samuel had appointed.” But the Lord — presented or made — me as a mighty warrior. It is possible to explain that Isaac loved Esau because there was always venison in the mouth of Isaac. All day he would desire to eat the venison, and it was always in his mouth. He would not eat anything else, and Esau was the one who brought it to him, as Scripture said, A cunning hunter. In my opinion the correct interpretation is that it is a metaphor which tells us that Esau, in the mouth of his father, was a hunter, ” as a person is surnamed by his constant occupation. Similarly, Thy habitation is in the midst of deceit; Meaning “in the midst of people of deceit.” But the verse refers to the people by their constant practice. likewise, But I am all prayer. Meaning, “But I am a man of constant prayer.” And so they said in Bereshith Rabbah, “Good meat for his mouth, good drink for his mouth.” This Midrash thus indicates that Esau was constantly engaged in bringing food and drink to his father. Hence Isaac came to call him “hunter” because of his steady preoccupation with bringing him food.

"For game was in his mouth" — he would bring game with his mouth.

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, also Esau, not only Yaakov, even though he must have been aware that Esau was far less perfect than Yaakov. ורבקה אוהבת את יעקב, she only loved Yaakov, recognising the wickedness of Esau.

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, And Isaac loved Esau. According to the Midrash Tanchuma Esau snared the love of his father by misrepresenting his true character such as enquiring about the correct manner of tithing salt. He did not bother to engage in such trickery except when dealing with his father. This was because he was not concerned about the performance of good deeds but only wanted to ensure his father would have no reason to curse him. He also hoped to obtain blessings. His mother could not dispense either, therefore he made no effort to camouflage his true self when in his mother's presence. This is why we find later on (27,41) that Esau waited for the death of his father before killing Jacob, whereas he did not wait for his mother to die before committing murder. The reason Rebeccah did not inform Isaac of Esau's wickedness may have been that Esau was careful never to put on such a charade in her presence so as not to give his mother an excuse to challenge Isaac's love for him. According to Onkelos who renders the words כי ציד בפיו as ארי מצידה הוי אכיל, "that Isaac ate from the game Esau hunted," we must ask why this reason did not also cause Rebeccah to love Esau, for surely they took most of their meals together or at least Esau did not discriminate against her? Perhaps the reason is that in accordance with the commentary of the Maharik on Even Ha-ezer 70,1 Isaac was under an obligation to feed his wife a meat diet. When a wife comes from a family who is used to such a diet the husband must keep her in the style she was accustomed to. Bethuel was a wealthy and influential man in his town, and no doubt Rebeccah had been used to a high standard of living prior to her marriage. She would not therefore be particularly grateful for the venison, considering it merely as her due.

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, “Yitzchok loved Esau;” in connection with Esau the Torah uses the past tense, i.e. ויאהב, to show that Yitzchok did not love Esau all the time, butonly at times when he provided him with venison. When describing Rivkah’s feelings for Yaakov, the Torah uses the present tense, אוהבת, as her feelings for him were constant. Furthermore, it is the nature of women to love those who look after her domestic animals.

ויאהב יצחק את עשו כי ציד בפיו, “Yitzchak loved Esau for he had a taste for game.” The Torah conveys to us here that the reason Yitzchak loved (preferred) Esau was not because he was the firstborn, but because he used to enjoy the venison Esau brought home from the field. This teaches us that the wicked Esau hunted on two tracks. He used to hunt the animals in the field and the desert, true to the Torah’s description of him as an איש שדה. At the same time, he also used to “hunt” his father’s mind, i.e. to mislead him as a hunter does his prey, making Yitzchak believe that he was pious. This is the double entendre of the words כי ציד בפיו, for “the art of hunting was with his mouth.” Our sages in Tanchuma Toldot 8 have said that Esau used to ask his father such questions as “does salt have to be tithed?” This would impress Yitzchak favourably and he would wonder how careful Esau was with the performance of all the commandments. When he used to ask Esau: “my son where have you been today?” Esau would reply that he had been in the house of study. He would proceed to tell his father what he had learned on that day. The Holy Spirit, when hearing such lies, would proclaim: “When he speaks graciously, do not believe him; for there are seven abominations in his heart.“ (Proverbs 26,25) Furthermore, the sages in the same Midrash derived from this wording that the reason Esau went hunting and was feeding the venison he hunted to his father was only in order to secure the blessing for himself. This is the mystical dimension of the Torah writing in Deut. 16,19 “for the bribe blinds the eyes of the wise.” In connection with Yitzchak, the Torah had written “his eyes had become weak from seeing” (Genesis 27,1). Just as Esau was a man paying bribes, so his descendants were willing to receive bribes. The Torah (25,30) reports Esau as saying to Yaakov הלעיטני נא, “please feed me, etc.” Concerning this David said in Psalms 68,31 מתרפס ברצי כסף, “till they come cringing with pieces of silver.” They (Esau’s descendants) derive their power from their celestial counterpart (the scapegoat mentioned in Leviticus 16 offered to Azzazel) who accepts this offering as a bribe by the Jewish people on the Day of Atonement. (compare commentary on Leviticus 16,7). In a similar manner every single nation derives whatever power sustains it from its celestial representative at the court of the angels. It is the same source from which the original serpent had derived its power and ability to seduce Eve. Once it was able to seduce, it was capable of spilling the blood of its victims. Such seducers became the cause of all those who choose to eat blood. Such forces are diametrically opposed to the Israelites who are circumcised (i.e. had given up their blood for G’d instead of consuming it), and who therefore abstain from eating any kind of blood. When an accuser of the Jewish people wants to seduce us, one of the first laws he wants us to break is that of circumcising our male children. Once this law has been broken the consumption of blood is only a small step. [It appears that the author refers to philosophical attempts at converting Jews to Christianity seeing that the Moslems abide by circumcision. Ed.] Adhering to these two laws (circumcision and the prohibition to eat blood), is therefore cardinal in our effort to stave off conversion and this is why the prophet said of the descendants of Esau (Ezekiel 15,6) אם לא דם שנאת, ודם ירדפך, “surely you have hated blood (the prohibition of it) and blood will pursue you.” The prophet predicted Esau’s (Edom) eventual destruction because as descendants of Avraham they rejected the commandment of circumcision as they hated to lose blood (instead of consuming it) This is also the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 48,10 וארור מונע חרבו מדם,”cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood.” (The prophet speaks of the blood of circumcision).

“And Isaac loved Esau because game was in his mouth.” [This was] because when his father would ask him “What do you do in the field all day?” he would defend himself saying that [he was there] to hunt game to bring sustenance for his father’s mouth. And because he was not frequently found near his mother, therefore Rebecca did not love him, and she loved Jacob who was frequently found near his mother and all her longings were for him. And it’s possible to interpret that [the word] “because” indicates timing — telling you that only at the time when he would bring game to his mouth, at that time alone did he love him. But after he had already eaten from his game, when the thing ceased, the love ceased. But Rebecca loved Jacob for no [specific] thing, and such love does not cease.

כי ציד בפיו, “for he would provide venison to eat.” Onkelos explains that Yitzchok would eat from the proceeds of Esau’s hunting expeditions. Accordingly, our verse is slightly abbreviated and should have read: כי יתן ציד בפיו, “for he would feed him venison.” Alternately, the expression בפיו refers to Yitzchok’s mouth, and informs us that Yitzchok was in the habit of dining on venison. He loved Esau, seeing Esau was an expert in providing choice venison. Nachmanides holds that the statement is a euphemism describing Esau as deceiving his father into thinking he was loyal to his teachings by flattering him. The use of euphemisms by the Torah is nothing unusual.

And Jacob cooked a stew, and Esau came in from the field, and he was faint.

ויזד means boiling, as the Targum renders it. והוא עיף AND HE WAS FAINT through murdering people, just as you mention faintness in connection with murder, (Jeremiah 4:31) ‘‘For my soul fainteth before the murderers” (Genesis Rabbah 63:12).

"And he was faint" — in the sense of "like a weary land" (Ps. 143:6): hungry and thirsty.

ויזד יעקב נזיד. Jacob cooked food. Perhaps the reason Jacob did this was that he had observed how effective Esau's providing his father with delicious meals had been in cementing Isaac's love for him. He therefore tried to emulate his brother.

והוא עיף, “and he was worn out;” it is usual for hunters to be worn out after chasing their prey. Moreover, sometimes they lose sight of their prey in the forest and get lost and it takes them a long time to find their way home. They may remain lost for a day or two, and when they finally get home they are totally worn out, hungry and thirsty.

ויזד יעקב נזיד, “Yaakov cooked a dish.” We would have expected the Torah to write that Yitzchak cooked such a dish seeing it was on account of mourning for his father Avraham. Seeing that the mourner must not eat what he has cooked himself, this dish had to be prepared by a third party, i.e. Yaakov. It was a dish of lentils as it was the custom to eat such a dish in the house of mourners. The lentil is round and closed like a wheel, and it thereby symbolizes the recurring nature of physical life on earth which ends where it began, i.e. “dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return.” As the lentil has no “mouth,” opening, so the mourner is not to open conversations (or speak at all). Avraham had died on this day. He had been fortunate to have been spared seeing one of his grandchildren despise the birthright and to forsake his teachings. According to Baba Batra 16 Esau committed five different sins on that very day. 1) He slept with a girl who was betrothed to another man. 2) He killed a human being. 3) He scoffed at the idea of resurrection. 4) He denied the existence of G’d, and reward and punishment. 5) He despised the birthright. The Talmud finds allusions in Scripture to support all these allegations: The Torah describes Esau here as ויבא עשו מן השדה, and in connection with the prohibition of sleeping with a girl who is betrothed to another, the Torah worded this in Deut. 22,27 כי בשדה מצאה “for he found her in the field.” The choice of the words: “in the field” is not arbitrary but an allusion to what happened here. The allusion to Esau committing murder is based on the words here כי עיף אנכי, “for I am exhausted,” and the verse in Jeremiah 4,31 כי עיפה נפשי להורגים, “for my soul is exhausted from killing.” The allusion to Esau denying resurrection of the dead is based on Esau saying here הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am going towards death,” and Job 7,9 כלה ענן וילך כן יורד שאול לא יעלה, “as a cloud fades away, so whoever goes down to Sheol does not come up.” As to Esau denying the existence of G’d and the system of reward and punishment, the sages point at the expression in our paragraph where Esau said למה זה לי, “what good is all this for me,” and the words זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will glorify him;” this was the affirmation of G’d sung by the Jewish people after they had emerged from the sea and the Egyptians had been drowned in it (Exodus 15,2). The fact that Esau despised the birthright needs no allusion as it is spelled out right here.

ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף, “Esau came home from the field, very tired;” he was so tired that he was overcome by a dizzy spell, fainting, so that he concluded that he was about to die soon. He meant that unless he would get something to eat immediately, his condition would deteriorate and result in his death. This being so, what good would the birthright be to him? One of the allegorical explanations of the Midrash claims that his condition was due to his having lost his bearings in the field and the forest, areas that do not abound with markers showing the way; instead of finding deer to kill, he exhausted himself finding the way home. When he found his brother Yaakov tending his father’s flocks in the field, he remarked that he would die soon as there was no one who had the power to restore him except his saintly father. [in the ספר הישר, Esau’s exhaustion is even described as fatigue after having successfully battled two of Nimrod’s soldiers, and his fearing for his life as a result. Ed.] The expression הלעיטני נא, “spoon-feed me,” indicates that this commentary may be close to the truth, as otherwise Esau would have said something like “תן לי,” “give to me!” He was so weak that he could not even lift his hand to his mouth.

And Esau said to Jacob: "Feed me now some of that red, red stuff, for I am faint." Therefore his name was called Edom.

הלעיטני LET ME SWALLOW — I will open my mouth and you pour a lot in. The word is really used of feeding animals as we find the word in the Mishna, (Shabbat 155b) “One may not fatten up a camel on the Sabbath but one may put food (מלעיטין) into its mouth. ” מן האדם האדם הזה FROM THIS RED, EVEN THIS RED THING —red lentils. On that day Abraham had died in order that he might not see his grandson Esau falling into degenerate ways. This would not have been the “good old age” (cf. 25:8) which God had promised him; therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, cut his life short by five years — for Isaac lived 180 years and he only one hundred and seventy five. Jacob was boiling lentils to provide the customary first meal for the immediate mourners. Why should lentils be the mourner’s food? Because they are round like a wheel and mourning (sorrow) is a wheel that revolves in the world (it touches everyone sooner or later as a revolving wheel touches every spot in turn) (Bava Batra 16b). And a further reason is: just as lentils have no mouth — (the word mouth פה is used in Hebrew of a serrated edge) — so, too, mourners have no mouth (appear dumb), for speech (greeting others) is forbidden to them. For this reason, also, it is customary to give eggs to a mourner as his first meal, because they are round and have no mouth (serrated edge) and similarly a mourner has no mouth (may not greet others), just as we say in Moed Katan 21b. “A mourner during the first three days (of the week of mourning) may not respond to the greeting of any person — it follows, of course, that he may not be the first to greet anyone — and from the third to the seventh day he may respond to a greeting but may not be the first to offer a greeting etc.” From “And a further reason” is to be found in an old Rashi text.

OF THIS RED, RED POTTAGE. The dish was either reddened by the lentils which were red, or it had been compounded with some red substance, and Esau, not knowing what it was, called it edom (red). Therefore was his name called Edom since they mocked at him for having sold an honorable birthright for a small dish. For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty. Esau was thus mocked that because of his gluttony he would be reduced to poverty.

"Ha-le'itemni" ["pour into me"] — this word has no cognate. Its meaning is: feed me. The meaning of nazid ("stew") is a cooked dish. The verb va-yazed comes from two quiescent letters [nun and yod] — they are two distinct roots with one meaning, as with "My spirit shall not contend" [lo yadon ruhi] (Gen. 6:3) alongside nidnah (Dan. 7:15).

על כן קרא שמו אדום. When he saw that Esau was so totally absorbed in his futile occupation, an occupation which does not represent the task of man on earth, that he could not even identify the lentils by their name but referred to them only by their colour, he called him by that name himself, i.e. אדום, in the imperative, meaning “paint yourself red by swallowing the red dish!”

על כן קרא שמו אדום, this is why he named him Edom (the red one). Esau called the dish "Edom" not because he called something that was already of a reddish colour "red," but inasmuch as his lifestyle flirted with death and this food was bound to give him an additional lease on life, he called it by his own name. Esau was quite well versed in the significance of names as he himself said in 27,36: "has he (Jacob) not rightly been called יעקב, i.e. "crooked?"

מן האדום האדום “from this reddish looking stuff.” Every time we encounter the adjective “red,” it always appears to be repeated. The author quotes as examples: אדמדם, ירקרק in Leviticus 13,19 and 49.(Rash’bam). When someone requests something urgently, he is always in the habit of repeating the key words in such a request. Esau, on that occasion, was extremely in need of food and drink.

הלעיטני נא, “please let me gulp down, etc.” he spoke foolishly by using such an expression which is normally applied to the manner in which camels eat their food (compare Shabbat 155). This prompted our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 13 to say that “the righteous eat their food in order to sate their biological needs, i.e. לשובע, whereas the belly of the wicked always feels unfulfilled.” You may contrast the conduct of an Eliezer, Avraham’s servant, with that of Esau. The former said הגמיאיני נא מעט מים, “please let me sip a little water(24,17),” whereas Esau said: “let me gulp down!” When the sages spoke of the righteous they referred to Eliezer, whereas when they spoke about the belly of the wicked, they referred to Esau. מן האדום האדום הזה, “from this reddish looking stuff;” the lentils were red, or they were spiced in red looking spice-dishes so that they reflected the colour of the container they were in. Seeing that Esau could not identify the exact nature of the dish he referred to it only by colour, calling it “this red stuff.” Subsequently people who heard about this called him אדום, “the red one,” making fun of his boorishness. They referred to someone who traded a valuable birthright for a mess of some reddish-looking stuff with sarcasm. Another way of looking at our verse: the fact that Esau repeated the word אדום, red, had to do with the discipline of astrology. The planet Mars is (looks) red and as such is a symbol of war and bloodshed. According to the scientists the red-coloured fruit also derives some of its power from that planet. The same applies to certain red-coloured gemstones such as rubies. In other words, the planet Mars extends influence over some of all three categories of phenomena in our world, the living creatures, the plants, as well as the inert. This planet (horoscope) was Esau’s especially, and that is why later on Yitzchak blessed him with a power he already possessed, i.e. the power of the sword. When he asked Yaakov to give him from the “red” dish he meant that this dish more than any other was germane to his character. He expected to renew his flagging spirits from a red dish faster than from any dish of another colour. Esau came by his inclination to shed blood naturally as he had been born under that horoscope. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, in Bereshit Rabbah 63,12 expanding on that theme, said that just as Esau himself was red, so his food was red, his country was red, his clothing was red and when the time comes that he has to give an accounting for his crimes the payment demanded from him will be red, i.e. blood. Mount Seir, which was the land allocated to Esau was also known as ארץ אדום, “the red land” (Genesis 32,4). The Midrash quotes verses documenting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement.

Therefore his name was called Edom. The reason he wasn’t called Edom immediately when he was born, despite being born “ruddy” [red], is because this wasn’t anything new under the sun, as many children are born with a reddish complexion because their blood hasn’t yet been fully absorbed, as in the case mentioned by Rabbi Natan (Shabbat 134). Eventually, this changes and returns to their natural appearance. Therefore, his parents thought that perhaps this red appearance was coincidental and not his natural state. However, when he said “Let me swallow some of this red, red stuff,” it’s questionable why he didn’t call the lentils by their proper name. Rather, this surely revealed his mindset — that he didn’t desire them for what they were, but rather for their red appearance. This indicated that his natural temperament was extremely inclined toward redness due to the dominance of the red bile within him. Therefore, he loved anything that corresponded to his temperament, which was anything red. This is why he was called Edom, because then it became truly known that his nature was red and he was under the influence of the planet Mars, named so because he was a man who sheds blood. This is also why it says for I am weary. Rashi explains “weary from murder,” as in for my soul is weary before murderers (Jeremiah 4:31). What was Esau revealing by saying he was weary from murder? Rather, he was certainly giving a reason for why he called the lentils “red” — because he was engaged at that time in his craft of murder, according to his nature, therefore he requested to be fed food that suited his temperament. The Akeidat Yitzchak gives two reasons for why therefore his name was called Edom, but what I have written aligns better with the plain meaning of the text.

מן האדום האדום הזה, “from this reddish looking dish.” Some commentators understand the second word אדום as a reference to Esau himself who was known as אדום, “the red one.” It was a play on words, the “red one” saying that the reddish looking dish is fit for the reddish looking man, meaning himself.

And Jacob said: "Sell me, as of this day, your birthright to me."

מכרה כיום SELL ME THIS DAY (literally, like the day) — Explain it as the Targum renders it “as this day”: just as this day is certain, so make me a sure sale. בכרתך THY BIRTHRIGHT — Because the sacrificial service was then carried out by the first-born sons, Jacob said, “This wicked man is unworthy to sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He” (Genesis Rabbah 63:13).

SELL ME THIS DAY (‘KAYOM’) THY BIRTHRIGHT. “I.e., as this day.“As this day.” Our text of Rashi reads: “Ketargumo (Explain it as the Targum rendered it), ‘as this day.’” Rashi now proceeds to interpret the Targum to mean, “just as this day is certain, etc.” Just as this day is certain, so make me a binding sale.” This is Rashi’s language. The literal meaning of the word kayom is “at this time,” just as: But stand thou still at this time (‘kayom’), that I may cause thee to hear the word of G-d; At this time (‘kayom’) you shall find him; Let the fat be made to smoke at this time (‘kayom’); But unto us belongeth confusion of face, as at this day (‘kayom’). It would appear from the opinion of Onkelos that because the sale of the birthright was to take effect after the death of his father Isaac, he [Jacob] said, “Sell me the birthright, with the sale to take effect on whatever day [our father’s death] may occur.” But in this way, having stipulated “whenever that may be,” even though the death of Isaac and the subsequent acquisition of the birthright by Esau have not yet occurred, the sale by Esau is nevertheless valid since Jacob stipulated “whenever that may be.” See my Hebrew commentary, p. 145. This is a typical usage of lahein in the Aramaic language: “Wherever (lahein) are you going?” This means, “To what place are you going?” This is derived from the expression, “Whatever (hein) you let me know.” Similarly in Bereshith Rabbah, Parshath Vayishlach, “Wherever (velahein) are they going?” See, however, Theodore’s edition of this Midrash, p. 906, where he quotes from manuscript, velahein, as Ramban has it. is derived from the expression, “Whatever (hein) is broken.” This is their customary usage of language in many places. And in the book of Daniel this form appears with a patach under the letter lamed, similar in meaning to the word ilahin (which): Which ‘lohin’ the angels whose dwelling is not with flesh; whatever54“Whatever, you do, O king….” (‘lohin’), O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee. Now Onkelos translated the Hebrew word zulathi as ilahin Zulathi Caleb (excepting Caleb) is translated by Onkelos as elahin Caleb. To the Aramaic root lahin which appears in the book of Daniel — (see my Hebrew text, p. 145 line 2 from bottom, covering Notes 53 and 55 here) — Onkelos added the letters aleph and yod, thus making it elahin. The intent of Ramban is to indicate that it should not surprise us that Onkelos added a dalet in the text before us, thus making it dilhein, for just as the original word hen was augmented to become lahein so he further expanded it to read dilhein. (Aboab.) its meaning being as the two words, ila hin. Now in carefully edited texts of Onkelos I found the reading, kayom dilhei. This conforms with my interpretation, for hei in their language means “which,” as it is said in the Talmud: “Which (hei) Rabbi Meir?” “Which (hei) Rabbi Yehudah?” and others. It is possible that Onkelos understood the word kayom (as the day) as if it were bayom (on the day). The verse would then be stating, “Sell the birthright to me on the day it will come into your possession.” We find such usage of the letter kaf elsewhere: As (‘Ka’asher’) they go, I will spread My net upon them, meaning ba’asher (wherever they go) rather than “whenever they go.” Similarly, And for the blood (‘kidmei’) of thy children that thou didst give unto them; Ve’kidmei is to be interpreted as ubidmei (and in the blood). For I have spread you abroad as the four (‘ke’arba’) winds of the heavens. Ke’arba is here to be interpreted as be’arba (in the four). And some scholars say It is mentioned in Pesikta Zutrata, and a reference to it is also found in Bamidbar Rabbah 6:2. that the price for the birthright was not the pottage at all. Rather, Scripture tells that when Esau, being faint, desired to eat, Jacob said to him, “Sell me your birthright for money and then eat,” and Esau, in his haste for food, answered him, “What is this birthright to me? It is sold to you.” He then swore to him upon it, and they sat down to eat and drink. Scripture however did not reveal the price. I do not agree with this interpretation.

"Mikhra" ["sell"] — with a hiriq, like "send away the lad" [shalkhah ha-na'ar] (Gen. 43:8) and "lie with me" [shikh'vah immi] (Gen. 39:7). The birthright [bekhorat] entitles one to a double portion of his father's estate. Some say the firstborn always has precedence over the younger: the younger must rise before him and serve him as a son serves a father.

מכרה כיום, seeing that as of now all your interests are focused on your work so that you are so tired that you cannot even recognise a dish of lentils for what it is, there is no question that you would not have the time or energy to perform the duties involved in the obligations associated with being a firstborn.

ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום, Jacob said: "Sell as of this day, etc." The word "as of today," needs amplification. There are aspects to the birthright which do not become effective until after the death of the father, and as such they are legally considered as דבר שלא בא לעולם, something the eventual existence of which is still subject to doubt. The claim to such things cannot legally be established on an "if and when" basis. Jacob added the words "as of this day" in order to make the sale legal at this time. This is in accordance with Baba Metzia 16 and Choshen Mishpat 211,2. When someone who is poor and does not have what to eat goes hunting and offers the proceeds of his hunt for sale adding that such sale be effective "today," the sale is valid. The reason for this is that the poor man desperately needs the proceeds from such a sale. The Geonim write that the word "today" is not critical to the effectiveness of such a sale. Even if the sale was to be effective the day after it would still be valid. The decisive criterion is the critical need for the proceeds of the sale. The only reason the Talmud mentions the word "today" is to exclude dates such as "after thirty days or longer." As long as the time stipulated for the sale to take effect is within one day so that the seller can assure his survival during this space of time he has met the important criterion. When Jacob said "כיום," he did not mean "today" but "in accordance with the rule applying to sales that take effect within a day. He saw Esau was very tired and weak and providing this food for him at that time was a matter of survival. Had Esau not been in a temporarily desperate situation the sale would not have been legal.

מכרה כיום, “Sell me effective immediately!” when the Talmud in B’rachot 32 states that a priest who has killed a person must not perform the priestly service in the Temple, the same applied during Avraham’s time when the priestly services were performed by the respective firstborn males of each family. The priests from the tribe of Levi were appointed only after the sin of the golden calf. An alternate exegesis: while it is true that a person is obligated to give honour to his older brother, the firstborn, no such rule exists when that firstborn is a wicked person. Yaakov no longer considered his brother Esau as worthy of being honoured. כיום, effective as of today;” Yaakov referred to the extent that the rules for the privileges of the firstborns exist now. He knew that in the future the “birthright” would not be subject to being “sold” by the one who had been born to it. An alternate exegesis: the word כיום refers to the monetary value of such a birthright at that time. Clearly it had very little value as so much could happen before the present owner of it could ever make use of it. [Esau’s reference to his impending death in a hunting accident being a distinct possibility makes sense then. Ed.]

מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי, “sell me your birthright effective today!” At that time, the privileges connected with the birthright did not include a double portion in the father’s inheritance as was legislated in the Torah later on. The principal value of the birthright consisted in filling the father’s position of head of the family once the father passed away. It was more a position of honour than of immediate financial advantage. It also was accompanied by a certain amount of authority within the family, of course. According to Nachmanides, once the father had died, the firstborn would be in charge of the family’s estate. This is what Esau referred to when he said: “what good is the birthright to me as my pursuits will lead to my death,” i.e. I will never outlive my father to reap the benefits of my potential privileges. This then is the meaning of the sequence: “he ate, he drank, he went (on his way), i.e. Esau despised the birthright.” He demonstrated his lifestyle by the manner in which he negated the value of the birthright for him.

Sell me your birthright as [this] day. In the tractate (Sanhedrin 110b), Rabbi Akiva says that the ten tribes will not return in the future, as it is said (Deuteronomy 29:27) And He cast them into another land as this day — just as the day goes and does not return, so too the ten tribes [will not return]. Similarly, Jacob said sell [it] as this day meaning that you should not retract [from the sale] just as this day which goes and does not return, so too you shall not retract, and thus “swear to me as this day.” And some say that he said sell as this day referring to the value of the birthright on that specific day, because at that time the main advantage of the birthright was that the firstborn performed the priestly service, and the service was of little value in Esau’s eyes to keep under his control. Therefore he said as this day like one who buys something that is relevant even on that day, namely the priestly service, excluding the inheritance which had not yet come into existence, for who can tell what will be? And in Toldot Yitzchak and also in the Sefer Olat Shabbat I found that [they explain that] he said “sell it ‘like this day,’” meaning as much as the birthright is worth today. For the time of receiving the double portion of the father’s assets only comes after the father’s death, and perhaps Isaac will not have any possessions at that time. Therefore, it is legally proper to sell the birthright for a small amount, like one who purchases something uncertain — for perhaps Isaac will have possessions or perhaps not. Thus the sale should not be like buying for tomorrow, but rather like buying today. However, for all these interpretations, it is difficult [to understand] why it says kayom [like (this) day] — it should have said “kahayom” [like today]. What I have written [earlier] is the main interpretation. Another explanation: Since a person cannot transfer ownership of something that has not yet come into existence, therefore he said sell it kayom [like this day] — meaning from today and after death. Swear to me kayom [like this day] [means] that you will not retract based on the fact that the thing did not exist in the world, but rather it is like selling from today as if it exists visibly on this day. And according to the commentators we mentioned, the phrase swear to me kayom cannot be explained at all.

מכרה כיום, “sell me as of this day!” Rashi understands the word כיום as describing the transaction about to take place to be as clear and beyond misunderstanding as daylight, which illuminates everything clearly. The plain meaning of the word is: “immediately,” as, for instance in Samuel I 2,16 קטר יקטירון כיום את החלה, “let me first burn the fat presently, etc.” Onkelos, taking into account that the sale under discussion will become effective only after Yitzchok’s death, understands the word כיום to mean “as and when, with retroactive closing date as of today.” Some commentators understand Yaakov as saying that the sale, trade, will be effective only today when you are close to death. It is appropriate that you receive some of this dish now for once you have died the entire inheritance of our father will automatically come to me. Esau admitted that Yaakov was right and proceeded to gulp down the red dish. The major problem with the whole transaction is that a birthright has never been understood as something that can be acquired or disposed of by selling and buying. What kind of procedure represents the transfer of the object being sold to the buyer, i.e. what מעשה קנין is there possible? If the object of the sale was the double share of the father’s inheritance decreed by the Torah for the firstborn, we have learned that if someone says “I sell you what I will inherit from my father,” that such a declaration is legally quite meaningless. (Baba Metzia 16) Some resolve this problem by saying that seeing Yaakov should by rights have been the firstborn as he was formed out of Yitzchok’s first drop of semen, and that Esau was born first only because he pushed himself ahead at the time of the delivery, he did not even need to make a קנין, act of acquisition, for something which rightfully was his in the first place. We do not think that this argument is tenable, as the Torah specifically calls the “first born” the one that emerges first from the mother’s womb. (Exodus 13,2) Others hold that Yaakov was convinced that his father was going to deed him all his belongings during his lifetime, just as Avraham had deeded all his belongings to Yitzchok during his lifetime. He would do so in order to forestall any legal protest by Esau when the time came. Still other Rabbis claim that the word בכורתך did not refer to inherited wealth at all, but to the dignity, the standing among his peers that the senior brother usually commands. Yaakov wanted to trade the dish of lentils he was about to give to Esau for that intangible symbol of dignity. Still other sages say that all Yaakov was about to buy from Esau was anything that he might inherit from his father on this very day, (if his father were to die on that day). If so, such a sale would be legally valid. Yaakov used the words מכרה כיום to clarify that legal point. When hearing this, Esau said: ”what good is the birthright to me that you want to buy from me only what might accrue to me this day, seeing that I am not going to outlive my father anyway, you might as will buy my future share in any birthright also.” This is why the Torah testifies in a line later on that Esau displayed his disdain for the birthright. (verse 34) In any event, seeing that the part of the transaction described by Yaakov with the words מכרה כיום was legally valid, any codicil, such as proposed by Esau, would be valid also. Esau seized upon that point later on when he accused Yaakov of ויעקבני זה פעמים (27,36) referring to the fact that Yaakov had tricked him into this codicil, something that would not have had legal standing but for his having first agreed to the sale of limited duration, i.e. מכרה כיום. My late father, the רא'ש of blessed memory, seized on this detail to rule that when someone sells something to one’s neighbour which is not subject to regular methods of acquisition, such as “what I am going to inherit from my father,” or “a loan which I have outstanding for repayment with X and secured only by an oral promise to repay,” both objects not subject to sale in the accepted sense of the word, and the seller adds an oath to his verbal sale, such a sale has become valid, and the court can enforce the terms of the sale from the seller due to the seller having obligated himself by oath. This is all derived from the pains Yaakov took to legalise the sale for the day on which it was concluded by adding the words “swear it to me,“ to Esau.

And Esau said: "Behold, I am going to die — so what use is this birthright to me?"

הנה אנכי הולך למות BEHOLD I AM IN PERIL TO DIE — The birthright is something unstable, for not always will the sacrificial duties be performed by the first-born, for the tribe of Levi will assume this. Further Esau said: What is the nature of this Service? Jacob replied, “Many prohibitions and punishments and many acts involving even the punishment of death are associated with it — just as we read in the Mishna, (Sanhedrin 22b): The following priests are liable to death: those who carry out their duties after having drunk too much wine and those who officiate long-haired. He said: If I am going to die through it, why should I desire it.

The meaning of "behold, I am going to die" is that every day he endangers himself when he goes out to hunt, lest the wild animals kill him, and he may well die before his father.

הולך למות, through the excessive fatigue and exertion associated with my vocation.

הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am going to die;” (prematurely) the inheritance of the land of Israel promised by G-d to Avraham is linked to the birthright. Seeing that it will not be realised until after 400 years as G-d had told Avraham, (15,13) and seeing that Esau did not expect to live that long, of what benefit was the status of being the firstborn to him personally? What could he possibly lose by trading that status for a hot meal at this time? ולמה זה לי הבכורה, “what good is this birthright for me?” Esau means that if he could be assured that he would live that long he would not entertain the thought of selling his birthright, but since G-d Himself had told his grandfather that this would come true only in the fourth generation [and Avraham had therefore been able to make a pact of non aggression with Avimelech covering the next three generations, Ed.] he could sell such an entitlement for next to nothing. His own life was in danger daily due to his vocation as a hunter. In the very best set of circumstances his claim to the Land of Israel could only become of interest after their father Yitzchok had died. [Yitzchok was only 175 years old when this conversation took place. Ed.]

“Behold, I am going to die.” [Esau] agreed with Jacob’s words, as it appears that Jacob intentionally, not by chance, cooked the stew, for he knew that Esau would come from the field. His desire was to purchase the birthright from him, arguing: “Behold, you go every day among bands of wild animals, and your life hangs in balance before you, so what use is the birthright to you? For in my eyes, you are considered as dead each day.” Therefore, he made a lentil stew, which is prepared to comfort mourners, as Rashi explains on the verse (27:42) consoling himself [to kill you] — he has already drunk the cup of consolation over you. Thus did Jacob make a mourner’s meal for Esau, saying to him, “Behold, in my eyes you are as if already dead, so what use is the birthright to you?” And Esau agreed with his words and said, “Behold, I am going to die,” meaning “I am closer to death than to life, so what use is the birthright to me?” In the phrase this to me, he is as if pointing with his finger at the thing to which the birthright pertained even on that day, which was the [priestly] service that was performed by the firstborn.

And Jacob said: "Swear to me as of this day." And he swore to him, and he sold his birthright to Jacob.

SWEAR TO ME THIS DAY. When Esau said, “What is this birthright to me? I do not desire it,” Jacob said to him, “Swear to me that you will not desire it, nor will you inherit it forever.” Thereupon he swore to him, and following that he sold it to him, and Jacob gave him the purchase price This is in accordance with the opinion stated above. Although Ramban does not agree with it, he nevertheless mentions it as an alternate interpretation of the verse. or the pottage he desired. It is possible that Esau said, “What is this birthright to me? It is sold to you,” and Jacob said, “Swear to me that you will never complain about the sale.” And when Scripture says that first he swore to him and then he sold it to him, its intent is as if it said that he sold it to him first and then swore to him.

השבעה לי, seeing that the purchase under discussion was something abstract, the oath would replace the act of physically taking possession of the object purchased and moving it. וימכור את בכורתו, in accordance with the price they had mutually agreed upon. The Torah did not bother to spell out the exact sum.

ויאמר השעבה לי. He said: "swear it to me on an oath." The reason that Jacob requested an oath from Esau was because the whole institution of the birthright contains many intangibles, such as the honour and dignity conferred on the firstborn. Jacob was particularly interested in the privilege of performing duties in the Temple, something which was the duty of the firstborn at that time. We are conversant with the rule that a person cannot transfer the right to intangibles either by sale or by gift (Maimonides Hilchot Mechirah chapter 22). This is why Jacob insisted on making such acquisition by means of an oath. Yoreh Deah 239 rules that both tangibles and intangibles may be acquired by means of an oath. Jacob used the words "swear it to me." Actually the oath is not sufficient to acquire an intangible which does not even exist yet such as becoming heir to one's father if the latter dies before the heir. The reason is that the purchaser cannot truly have convinced himself that he will ever obtain what he has purchased (Baba Metzia 16). If, however, the purchaser was absolutely certain in his mind, the object has indeed been acquired and the oath is quite irrelevant. This is why Jacob had to add the words כיום, as I have explained already. In the meantime I have found a book of the Rivash in which he writes as follows in the course of item number 328. "You have written that you have seen that the son of the Rosh wrote in the name of his father that if someone tried to acquire a "future" by means of an oath such an acquisition is legally valid. He proves the thesis from the sale of the birthright from Esau to Jacob and the fact that the latter insisted on an oath. Since we have neither the signature of the Rosh or his son Rabbi Yaakov to confirm such a theory, it is not admissible to place such theories in the mouths of great men [in order to lend them weight Ed.] seeing that the theory has absolutely no merit. The "so-called" proof from our story is no proof at all seeing that all this occurred before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. It is quite possible that in those days people did not distinguish between selling "futures" and selling "actuals." The oath then would merely have served to reinforce the sale, to protect oneself against the seller changing his mind at a later date. Esau was, after all, a man of violence." Thus far the Rivash. This is exactly in agreement with what we have written, the only difference being that the Rivash did not see fit to provide a reason why Jacob insisted on an oath. The reason Jacob said: "swear an oath on it to me," instead of merely "swear an oath on it," is so that it would be understood that the sale was for the benefit of Jacob (not for someone else). The oath had to be acceptable to Jacob else Esau could have annulled it in his heart. The essential element of an oath is the heart, i.e. what a person has in mind at the time of the oath (compare Rabbi Akiva in Torat Kohanim 12). Rabbi Akiva insists that at the time an oath is sworn the person undertaking it must have no reservations about the declaration he makes on oath. When Jacob said "swear it to me," he meant: "make your oath correspond to my will." Another reason Jacob was careful to add the word לי "to me," was that only he was able to acquire the birthright. Inasmuch as the benefits of the birthright include such intangibles as the duty to perform sacrificial service in the sanctuary, this was something that devolved from Isaac to his son. This privilege could not be sold to anyone who was not a son of Isaac. The dignity of the office of the priesthood (in those days equivalent to the birthright) could also not be transferred to an outsider. וימכור את בכרתו, He sold his birthright, etc. The Torah here had to state the validity of the sale a) because of the reasons we have explained, b) because Esau acted under some kind of duress, c) that Esau sold something for a mere fraction of its real worth. In his commentary on Choshen Mishpat item 227, the Maharik writes as follows: "if someone sold something due to pressing need even at a price significantly below its accepted market value, he cannot retract because he was aware of what he was doing and forgave the difference in value to the purchaser." In view of this ruling the fact that Esau sold the valuable birthright for a single swallow of Jacob's potage did not invalidate the sale. Esau had described his state of exhaustion as: "here I am about to die;" there is no greater emergency than a person selling something in order to save his life. We know from Job 2,4 that a person will give up all that he has for his life. Had Esau not been in such a state, Jacob could not have acquired the birthright from him. When Solomon said in Proverbs 5,22 that the wicked will be entrapped by their iniquities, he had Esau in mind. According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,14 Esau had committed a number of sins on that fateful day and this was the reason that he forfeited the birthright which was transferred to someone more deserving than he.

השבעה לי כיום “swear it to me as of this day. Yaakov requested an oath that Esau would not change his mind about this deal at some time in the future. This was the only way that the sale would have meaning for him. He did so because the Talmud teaches that if someone announces: “I will sell you whatever I will inherit from my father,” such a statement is legally meaningless. (Baba Metzia 16).

And Jacob gave Esau bread and a stew of lentils; and he ate, and drank, and rose, and went away. And Esau despised the birthright.

ויבז עשו THUS ESAU DESPISED—Scripture testifies to his wickedness: that he despised the Service of the Omnipresent!

SO ESAU DESPISED HIS BIRTHRIGHT. Who so despiseth the word shall suffer thereby. Ramban’s intent in quoting this verse is to explain why it was necessary for the verse before us to say, So Esau ‘despised,’ since, as is clearly indicated in Scripture later on, Esau regretted his action and complained that he [Jacob] took my birthright. (Further, 27:36.) Scripture therefore justifies what befell Esau later on by saying here, So Esau ‘despised’ the birthright, and he who despises the word shall suffer thereby. But, indeed, Scripture has already explained the reason that Esau consented to the sale. This was because he was in mortal danger from his hunting animals, and it was likely that he would die while his father was alive, and the birthright carried with it no distinction except after the passing of the father. So of what benefit was the birthright to him? This then is what Scripture says: And he did eat and drink, and he rose and went, and he despised, for, after having eaten and drunk, he returned to his hunt in the field which was the cause of the despising of the birthright. For there is no desire in fools except to eat and drink and to fulfill their momentary desire, not giving a care for tomorrow. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has erred here exceedingly by saying that Esau despised the birthright because he saw his father destitute of wealth. Now, [continues Ibn Ezra,] many wonder about Isaac’s poverty since Abraham left him with great wealth. But have they never seen a person who was wealthy in his younger years and became poor in his old age? An indication that Isaac was indeed poor is the fact that Isaac loved Esau because of his venison. Furthermore, had there been abundant food in his father’s house and he [Esau] “the honorable one in his sight,” he would not have sold his birthright for pottage. Also, if his father ate savory meat every day, what reason was there for him to say to Esau, “Bring me some venison?” Why did Jacob not have costly garments as Esau had?, Verse 15. Why did his mother not give Jacob some silver and gold for his journey when he fled to Haran so that he had to say, And He will give me bread to eat, and a garment to put on? Why did she not send him some money — since she loved him — so that he was required to tend Laban’s flock? The verse which states, Thus the man grew [in wealth], must refer to the period before he became old. Now ignorant people think that wealth is a great distinction for the righteous. Let Elijah prove the contrary. These ignorant people further ask, “Why did G-d cause Isaac to lack wealth?” Perhaps they could also inform us why He caused Isaac’s vision to be diminished? And let them not dismiss me with a reply based upon a d’rash See Rashi further, 27:1, where this is one of several reasons mentioned. for there is indeed a secret in the matter, and we must not probe since the thoughts of G-d are deep and no man has the power to understand them. All these are Abraham ibn Ezra’s words. Now I wonder who has blinded Abraham ibn Ezra’s reasoning in this matter, causing him to say that Abraham left Isaac great wealth, and he lost it just prior to this event, [that is, the sale of the birthright], and for this reason, Esau despised the birthright, for this matter of the sale of the birthright took place when Jacob and Esau were still young, before Esau married, as Scripture tells, (26:34). and after the sale of the birthright, Isaac again became wealthy in the land of the Philistines until he became very great… and the Philistines were jealous of him. Following that, [according to Ibn Ezra, we must say that Isaac] again became poor, and he desired the venison of his son Esau and the savory meats. All this is laughable. Furthermore, the verse says, And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that G-d blessed his son Isaac. Now the blessing refers to increase of wealth, possessions and honor, but where was His blessing if he lost the wealth of his father and became impoverished? Afterwards it says, And I will be with Thee, and I will bless thee, [but according to Ibn Ezra you will have to say that Isaac] became rich and then poor! And if it be true that in matters of wealth, There are righteous men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked, this does not apply to those righteous men who have been expressly blessed by the Holy One, blessed be He, since the blessing of the Eternal maketh rich, and no sorrow is added thereto. Rather, the patriarchs all were as kings before whom kings of the nations came and with whom they made covenants. Now it is written concerning Isaac and Abimelech, And they swore one to another. But if Isaac had suffered bad fortune and lost his father’s wealth, how did [Abimelech, King of the Philistines, and Phichol, the head of his army], say, we saw plainly that the Eternal was with thee, when he was already in financial difficulty? Rather, Esau’s disdain of the birthright was due to his brutal nature. It is possible that the law of double portion to which the firstborn is entitled according to the statutes of the Torah was not in effect in ancient times. [At that time the birthright] was only a matter of inheriting the pre-eminence of the father and his authority so that he [the firstborn] would receive honor and distinction in relation to his younger brother. It is for this reason that Esau said to Isaac, I am thy son, thy firstborn, meaning to say that he is the firstborn who deserves to be blessed. Similarly, [Joseph said to his father, Jacob], For this is the firstborn; put thy hand upon his head, thereby meaning that Jacob should give him precedence in the blessing. Perhaps the firstborn also took slightly more of the inheritance since the law of double portion is an innovation of the statutes of the Torah. However, the Torah established his portion to be two shares. This interpretation differs from Ramban’s original thesis that the firstborn originally had no preference whatever in inheritance, and that the Torah instituted this law. And as for the venison in his mouth which Isaac desired so strongly, this is in keeping with the custom of princes and kings. They prefer venison above all food, and out of fear, all nations bring them gifts of venison. Esau flattered his father by bringing him all the venison so that he may always eat of it to his heart’s content, and the love of a father for his firstborn is easily understood. As for Isaac’s saying that he would bless Esau after he had prepared the savory meats for him, that was not a reward or a recompense for the food. Instead, he wanted to derive some benefit from him so that his very soul would be bound up in his at the time that he brought him the food so that he would then bless him with a complete desire and a perfect will. Perhaps Isaac discerned in himself that following the meal his soul would be delighted and joyous, and then the Ruach Hakodesh90“The holy spirit.” The expression refers to a degree of prophecy. See Moreh Nebuchim, II, 45 (2). would come upon him, [as was the case with Elisha the prophet, who said], ‘But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Eternal came upon him. And as for not giving wealth to Jacob, that was [not due to Isaac’s poverty but rather] because Jacob was fleeing for his life. He left the country alone without his brother’s knowledge, and had he been given along wealth, servants and camels, they would have increased his enemies’ jealousy and resulted in their ambushing him and killing him. Our Rabbis do indeed say that Jacob was robbed [at the outset of his journey Thus another difficulty tending to favor Ibn Ezra’s thesis that Isaac was poverty stricken is resolved. of whatever possessions he had]. And who has told Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra that Jacob had no costly garments, fine linen and silk and embroidered robes? Rather, Scripture states that when going to the field to hunt, Esau would change his garments for his hunting clothes, and due to the fact that [because of his dim eyesight], Isaac always touched his son and his clothes with his hands, Rebekah clothed Jacob with them lest he recognize him by his clothes. You see that this is precisely what Isaac did: And he smelled the odor of his garments because he had put them among calamus and cinnamon, even as it is written, Myrrh and aloes, and cassia are all thy garments. The spices grew in the Land of Israel, and it is for this reason that Isaac said, The odor of my son is as the odor of a field. Because he was a man of the field his garments had the odor of the field or that of the blossoms of the trees, just as our Rabbis explained it: As the odor of a field of apples. And as for the question raised above concerning the quality of Isaac’s lack of vision, it is a question raised by the ignorant, for if Hence he writes here: “If it was brought about.” it was brought about especially by G-d, it was in order that Isaac bless Jacob, this being the purport of the verse, And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, he called Esau. And in line with the natural meaning of Scripture, this was but a manifestation of old age, the explanation of the verse being as follows: And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim in his old age, he called Esau. Now of Jacob himself it is said later on, Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. Of Achiyah the Shilonite it is also written, Now Achiyah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age, and concerning Moses our teacher it is related with wonder that his eye was not dim.

"And Esau despised" — he despised even this birthright, because he saw that his father had no wealth. Many wonder at this, since Abraham had left him great riches. But it is as though they had never seen in their time a man who was very wealthy in his youth and came to poverty in his old age. The proof is that Isaac his father loved Esau on account of his need — for had bread been plentiful in his father's house and had he been esteemed in his father's eyes, he would not have sold his birthright for a stew. And if his father ate delicacies every day, why did he say "bring me game"? And why did Jacob have no fine garments? And why did his mother not give him silver and gold for the road, since [Jacob] himself says: "and He will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear" (Gen. 28:20)? And why did she not send wealth after him, seeing that she loved him? — because he was needed to tend the flocks. As for the verse that says "the man grew great" (Gen. 26:13), that was before Isaac's old age. Those who are blind of heart suppose that wealth is a mark of divine favor for the righteous — Elijah would refute them. They will further ask: why did Hashem deprive Isaac of wealth? Perhaps they will also tell us why He deprived him of the light of his eyes? Let them not put us off with homiletical interpretations, for there is a mystery here and we must not probe it, for the thoughts of Hashem are deep and it is beyond human understanding to comprehend them. Others have also said: he did have flocks, for Rebecca said to him "go now to the flock" — so perhaps some small livestock remained to him. It is likewise plausible that "go now to the flock" means: go to the market where animals are sold.

ויעקב נתן לעשו, he had used the lentils or the dish containing them as the קנין חליפין, a token used to serve as symbol of the transfer of ownership of the object constituting the one being sold. Compare Ruth 4,7 where a shoe is mentioned as serving as such a token. Eisov scorned the birthright. Even after the sale he did not consider the birthright to be worth the money he received for it. Therefore it is not correct to say that he was cheated.

ויקם וילך ויבז עשו את הבכורה, Esau arose, went on his way and despised the birthright. The Torah stresses that Esau's despising the birthright was a conscious act. Had the Torah written: "He arose, he went and he despised the birthright," we could have thought that he merely did so unconsciously. The Torah added the word "Esau" here once more to tell us that Esau deliberately showed disdain for the birthright. Even if Esau had not desperately needed to trade something to obtain some of Jacob's potage he would have sold the birthright cheaply at any time if Jacob had asked him to.

ויעקב נתן לעשו וגו, meanwhile Yaakov had already given to Esau, etc.;” at the same time when Esau had paid him money for the birthright, Yaakov had already fed him bread and a dish of lentils as proof that the sale had taken place. This was a normal procedure when commercial transactions took place in those days. We find an additional example of this in Genesis 31,46, when Yaakov and Lavan conclude a peace treaty by the stone monument. ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “at that point Esau had shown that he despised the birthright;” until Aaron was appointed priest, the Temple service used to be performed by the firstborns of each family, regardless of which tribe they belonged to. In practice what Esau had done was as if he had said: “why should I dirty my hands with the blood of sacrificial animals,” as per Ezekiel 35,6: as I live, declares G-d: “I will doom you with blood, blood shall pursue you;” the reference is to the blood of circumcision as well as to that of sacrificial animals. [Esau is presumed to have poked fun at the need of circumcision also.] An alternate explanation of the line: “Esau despised the birthright;” seeing that Esau did not want people to point at him as the fool who had sold his birthright, he made it plain that he despised the birthright and what it stood for. In the end, we know that he came to regret this as he accused Yaakov of having tricked him out of it. (27,36).

ויעקב נתן לעשו לחם ונזיד עדשים, “and Yaakov had given to Esau bread and a dish of lentils, etc.” At this point in the story the Torah reveals the nature of the dish Yaakov had cooked when Esau arrived home when we read: “Yaakov was cooking a dish.” It would have been more appropriate to mention the kind of dish Yaakov had been cooking already at the beginning of the paragraph and to continue later that Yaakov had given Esau a dish of lentils. It is possible that the Torah chose this sequence in order to describe the haughtiness of Esau as well as his lack of etiquette and regard for others; this is why the Torah did not mention what precisely Yaakov had been cooking until it had told us Esau’s whole range of reactions to what he found at home on that day. As long as we did not know what kind of ordinary dish Yaakov had cooked, we could have credited Esau with demanding the exotic dish that his brother had been preparing and that this had been the reason that he was so willing to trade his birthright for it. When the Torah, finally tells us at the end of the paragraph the nature of the dish for which Esau traded his birthright, it wanted to show us how Esau had related to it in the first place.

“And he ate and drank, and rose up and went away, and despised.” These five words hint at the words of our Sages (Bava Batra 16b) who said that this wicked one [Esau] committed five sins on that day. “And he ate” refers to sexual immorality, as it is written call him that he may eat bread (Exodus 2:20), and except for the bread that he eats (Genesis 39:6). “And drank” refers to bloodshed, as it is written and drinks the blood of the slain (Numbers 23:24). “And rose up” indicates that he denied the fundamental principle [of faith in God], as it is written And this people will rise up and stray after the foreign gods of the land (Deuteronomy 31:16). The term “rose up” is particularly relevant here because one who walks with an upright posture is as if pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence (Berakhot 43b). “And went away” suggests that he denied the resurrection of the dead, as he said Behold, I am going to die, and similarly Job said As the cloud vanishes and goes away, so he who goes down to the grave does not come up (Job 7:9). “And despised” means that he scorned the birthright and despised the service of God. Some say that “rose up and went away” indicates that he walked here and there, to show that he was healthy, so that his sale [of the birthright] would not be considered like the sale of a deathly ill person.

ויעקב נתן לעשו, “meanwhile Yaakov had already given to Esau, etc.” Some commentators believe that the food Yaakov had given to Esau had not been in exchange for the birthright, but had been an ordinary human gesture, something everybody does when faced with an extremely hungry person whom he is able to help. The type and amount of payment Yaakov gave Esau in exchange for the birthright has not been recorded in the Torah. ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “Esau displayed disdain for the birthright.” According to Ibn Ezra, Esau’s disdain for the birthright was rooted in the fact that his father Yitzchok, though initially heir to an immense fortune, had become poor, so that he even depended on his food supply on his son Esau who supplied his meat diet. If bread had been plentiful in Yitzchok’s home at that time, Esau would not have sold his birthright for a mere dish of lentils. Even assuming that Yitzchok had been eating delicacies on a daily basis, how are we to account for the fact that Rivkah sent her son Yaakov empty-handed to find a match in the house of Lavan who was known to cherish money above all else? Yaakov even had to pray to G’d that He should provide him with bread to eat and clothes to wear! (Genesis 28,20) Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the state of affairs in Yitzchok’s household. The Torah testifies that Yitzchok had inherited great wealth. If he had been poor, why would Avimelech have been afraid of the influence which his great wealth bestowed on Yitzchok so that he described him as being more powerful than he, the king of the Philistines? (26,26) It is unreasonable to suppose that in the short interval between Avraham’s death (or even his “retirement,”) and the sale of the birthright he had lost all his wealth. Moreover, the Torah testifies after the death of Avraham that G’d blessed Yitzchok (seeing that Avraham had neglected to do this, so as not to offend Ishmael) If Yitzchok had become a pauper, how would G’d’s blessing have manifested itself as such? The fact that Rivkah did not send a dowry with Yitzchok was not because they were poor, but because she was afraid that this would give Esau additional reason to ambush him and kill him. As to the venison Esau supplied for his father, his father happened to be fond of venison, and he used this supply of venison brought to him by his son Esau in order to strengthen the mutual bond of love between father and firstborn son. [Yitzchok was keenly aware that additional external prompts were needed to firm that relationship. Ed.] The Torah sees the example of Esau’s selling the birthright for a dish of lentils as an illustration of his general lack of moral stature.