 |
Parshat
Toldot |
 |
|
|
Parshat
Toldot |
|
A Student Publication of the Torah Academy of Bergen County
Parshat Toldot
4 Kislev 5764
November 29, 2003
Vol.13 No.12
In This Issue:
Dr. Joel M.
Berman
Ely
Winkler
Josh
Rossman
Uri Carl
Rabbi Chaim Jachter
Food For Thought
|
This week’s
issue of Kol Torah has been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Krinsky, |
You Don't Have To Be Annoying To Get God's
Attention
by Dr. Joel M.
Berman - Science Department
In opposite corners of the same room, Yitzchak and
Rivkah both pray to Hashem because Rivkah is barren. Hashem only listens to
Yitzchak, and then Rivkah conceives (25:21). Why did Hashem only listen to
Yitzchak? What could possibly be lacking in Rivkah’s Tefillah? Rashi explains
that the prayers of a Tzaddik Ben Tzaddik (Yitzchak) are of greater value than
that of a Tzaddik Ben Rasha (Rivkah). This is puzzling in light of the famous
Gemara that states that the status of a Baal Teshuvah is much more elevated than
that of a Tzaddik Gamur.
I often learn in the Ohr Somayach Beit Midrash in Monsey, Yeshiva primarily for
Baalei Teshuvah. It is interesting to watch the boys there Daven and learn.
Their excitement and enthusiasm is inspiring.
Contrast this with some of the Brachot I hear from our own “Frum from birth” (FFB)
students: “Boru Chata Anoy Heynu…”
Let’s translate this interesting Nusach (the author thanks Rabbi Shlomo Cohen
for help in the “translation”):
“Boru”: This means “They created.” Briah, creation, can only be attributed to Hashem. Therefore, the Brachah has begun with heresy!
“Chata”: I’m not sure what this means… “You sinned” or “They sinned”.
“Anoy”: If you want God’s attention, I guess you have to annoy Him! And how do you annoy Him?
“Hey, Nu!”
Between Davening, Bentching, and various
Brachot, we spend nearly two hours each day in direct communication with Hashem.
Why not do it right? Why is this so difficult for many “Frum from birth” people
and relatively easy for Baalei Teshuvah?
It is more difficult for the “Frum from birth.” The successful FFB must
constantly work on himself in order to prevent himself from becoming a bored,
stale, comfortable, “Frum from habit” (FFH) Jew. He must seek to rise even
beyond the levels he was raised with in order to achieve the level of Tzaddik
Ben Tzaddik. On the other hand, as a newcomer to Judaism, it is relatively easy
for a Baal Teshuvah to remain excited and fresh. Since Yitzchak was able to keep
his connection with Hashem exciting and fresh, his prayers were more efficacious
than his wife’s.
Shirat Hayam includes the words, “Elokei Avi Vaaromimenhu,” “I will exalt
the God of my father.” Rav Hirsch teaches us that even though a person has
learned to recognize Hashem from his parents, he himself must raise (i.e. exalt)
this level in his own lifetime. This was the path of Yitzchak Avinu. We must
make it our constant effort to make this most rewarding path our path as well.
A Family Divided
by Ely WInkler
This week’s Parsha contains the famous story of Yaakov
tricking his father into thinking that he was Esav in order to receive the
Brachot of the firstborn. This story has led many people to numerous
conclusions, including that the Jew is always dishonest. However, a careful
study of the Pesukim sheds a different light on this topic. The story begins
with Yitzchak asking Esav to go hunt for game to serve to him before he gives
the Brachah. Rivkah overhears this conversation and begs Yaakov to go to
Yitzchak as an imposter and receive the blessings first. Yaakov reluctantly
agrees and allows his mother to prepare foods and to dress him up to go to his
father posing as Esav. After verifying that this person bringing his food is
indeed “Esav,” Yitzchak does bestow the sacred blessing on Yaakov right before
the real Esav comes home from the hunt.
To understand Rivkah’s reasoning, we must first look at the original fight
between Rivkah and Yitzchak. This fight was over two elements that were
represented by Yaakov and Esav. Yitzchak saw the material power in Esav, while
Rivkah saw the spiritual power in Yaakov. Both factors were necessary for the
future of Bnai Yisrael. Yitzchak might have believed that the promise of Hashem
was supposed to be carried on by both Esav and Yaakov as brotherly nations
complementing each other. Therefore, he planned on giving Esav a blessing of
material content, and one of spiritual content to Yaakov. Rivkah, on the other
hand, knew from her brother and her own upbringing that such a division would
fail. She recognized the curse that arises out of materialism without
spirituality. Rivkah, unlike Yitzchak, saw Yaakov with both of these forces in
his hands.
Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch explains that we must accept the words of our
Talmudic sages to understand this story. We also must not try to overlook
anything about the events recorded here. Rav Hirsch examines what Rivkah
thought she would gain by sending Yaakov in as an imposter. She knew from the
beginning that Yaakov would not be able to hide what he did for long. Esav was
scheduled to return, and there was no way to keep Yaakov’s actions a secret.
Accordingly, if this was a blessing that Hashem was to give through Yitzchak,
how could Rivkah expect Hashem to bless someone receiving it by trickery? How
could the blessing of Avraham, which was then passed to Yitzchak, move on to the
next generation through an imposter? Also, if this blessing also had some kind
of legal status to it, how could Rivkah expect the status to be binding? The
Brachah would have been given under false pretences, and could be repealed!
Rav Hirsch explains that Rivkah had very different intentions. She really
wanted to prove to Yitzchak that he was mistaken about who should be receiving
this blessing. If Yaakov, a person unlearned in the ways of the world, could so
easily trick Yitzchak to believe he was the material son Esav, than how easily
could Esav, a cunning hunter, trick Yitzchak into thinking that he was the
learned one! This explanation is proven by the words that Yitzchak himself says
in his conversation with Esav, “...he shall even be blessed!” Yitzchak does not
take away Yaakov’s blessing here; in fact, he validates it.
When Yitzchak was forced to come to terms with how short Esav fell in terms of
spiritual insight, and when he found out that Esav had rejected his destiny by
selling his birthright, he was convinced that Rivkah was right. He therefore
validated Yaakov’s blessings, and recognized Yaakov as the sole spiritual
inheritor of the blessings.
It is true that it is forbidden to disobey the Torah even at the request of a
parent, but Yaakov saw in his mother’s demand an aspect of prophetic wisdom that
made him listen to her. There are times when the rules, if prophetically
stated, can be pushed aside for a greater purpose. Yaakov’s actions were
directly in conflict with his true essence that opposed all falsehood, cheating,
and dishonesty.
As Jews, we need to be closely in touch with our heritage of honesty. We need
to constantly be aware that we are the ones who make or break our forefather
Yaakov’s image in the world. Our actions directly affect people’s acceptance or
rejection of the lies that have been perpetuated about Yaakov. We must take this
responsibility seriously, and we should be proud and overjoyed that we are
fortunate enough to have it. Most of all, we should be sure never to cause a
Chilul Hashem, a disgrace to Hashem’s name.
Clowning Around
by Josh Rossman
In the beginning of
this week’s Parsha, the Torah states “Vieileh Toldot Yitzchak Ben Avraham,
Avraham Holid Et Yitzchak” (25:19). Rashi states that the reason for this
Lashon Kaful (double language) is to show us that Yitzchak looks very similar to
his father Avraham. Why would the Torah waste words on something as
insignificant as this? Rashi states further that Hashem made sure that Yitzchak
looked similar to Avraham so that the Leitzanei Hador (clowns of the generation)
would not say that Yitzchak was in fact Avimelech’s son and not Avraham’s. This
brings about a more intriguing question as to why Hashem would care that the
fools of the generation had to say, especially since no one would take notice to
them. This can be answered in two ways. Firstly it shows us the Koach Hadibur.
It teaches that we much watch our mouths because Hashem even pays attention to
the words of fools. We must realize that even if we think that our words do not
matter that Hashem pays attention to everything we say. Rabbi Adler recently
addressed the student body and quoted a Gemara which states that each person
only has a certain amount of words which he his granted to use in his lifetime.
We must make sure to use these words to learn Torah and do Mitzvot, and not Chas
Vishalom to do Aveirot. A second thing we learn from this Rashi is the
severity of a Chilul Hashem. We see that we should try to prevent a Chilul
Hashem even if it is only in front of the Leitzanai Hador. We should be
careful to always treat people with respect and act properly especially
in the presence non-Jews. Dr. Berman once told us a story of a Rabbi who made
sure that he always presented himself in a clean and neat way. One day he was
walking in the street and a filthy homeless man who was sitting on the side of
the road yelled out “dirty Jew.” Even the lowest people want to put us down and
make fun of us, but we must strive to make sure to put all of our effort into
making a Kiddush Hashem rather than a Chilul Hashem.
Hungry? Grab Lentils
by Uri Carl
The Midrash on Parshat Toldot states that the day that
Esav gave away his Bechorah was the day that Avraham died. We know this
because Yaakov cooked lentils, and eating lentils is a sign of mourning. One
can ask a question regarding Esav’s request to Yaakov: In Perek 25, Pasuk 30,
the Torah says, “Vayomer Esav El Yaakov, Hal’iteini Na Min Haadom Haadom
Hazeh,” “Esav said to Yaakov, ‘Please give me from this red, red
substance.’” Why doesn’t Esav mention the lentils by name, instead of saying “Haadom
Haadom Hazeh”?
The Beit Halevi
answers that Esav ate the lentils because he was hungry, not because he was a
mourner. Once people would see he that was eating the lentils, they would think
he was a mourner. Since it would be uncomfortable for him not to be mourning
when everyone else was, he had to cover up that he was eating lentils. For this
reason he pretended to not know that he was eating lentils, so he called it “Haadom
Haadom Hazeh.” This is also the reason he said “Haliteini” – he
wanted Yaakov to put the lentils directly into his mouth, so that no one would
see that he was eating lentils. As proof of this, Esav said “Ki Ayef Anochi,”
expressing that he was tired and therefore did not want to pick up the spoon and
eat it himself. Rather, he wanted to have Yaakov pour it directly into his
mouth. Thus, Esav was not only showing greed, but was also trying to save his
self-image.
A New
Perspective on Yaakov’s Purchase of the Birthright
by Rabbi Chaim
Jachter
Introduction
Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (Orot HaKodesh 3:11) writes that it
is forbidden for one to develop his Yirat Shamayim (fear of Heaven) at
the expense one’s natural sense of morality. Rav Kook insists that one must
strive to integrate Yirat Shamayim and his natural sense of morality.
One may extrapolate from Rav Kook that the Torah fundamentally never conflicts
with natural morality, an idea that Rav Walter Wurzberger develops at length in
his work Ethics of Responsibility. Indeed, Rav Wurzburger develops the idea
that one’s natural morality should serve as a hermeneutical tool to interpret
the Torah. For instance, Halachic decisors strive to resolve problems of
Mamzeirut and Igun in light of this principle. For example, Rav
Avraham Shapira writes, “It is the accepted practice amongst our rabbinical
sages to expend extraordinary effort to find a Halachic solution to relieve
someone from the status of Mamzer” (Techumin 9:27).
Commentaries to the Chumash vigorously apply this principle to the narrative
sections of the Torah. They will often interpret texts in a manner that
satisfies our natural sense of morality. An example is the manner in which
commentaries of all generations seek to harmonize the story of Yaakov’s purchase
of the birthright from Esav with our sense of natural morality (for a summary of
many of these approaches see Rav Yehuda Nachshoni’s Hegut BiParshiot HaShavua
1:96-100). The reader of the story recoils from what appears at first
glance to be Yaakov’s exploiting Esav’s hunger and impulsivity in order to
secure the birthright. Yet none if any of the classical commentaries assert
that Yaakov sinned by engaging in this activity. Let us examine two major and
representative approaches to this issue and subsequently suggest a somewhat
novel approach to resolve this problem.
Rashi’s Approach
Rashi (Bereshit 25:31, based on Bereshit Rabbah 63:13) interprets
that Yaakov was seeking the Bechorah to attain the privilege of serving God
(presumably in the Tabernacle and Temple service), as the service of God is
performed by the first-born. According to Rashi, Esav did not deserve the
privilege of this honor, as Esav was wicked. Indeed, Rashi seizes every
opportunity to highlight the wicked character of Esav. It appears that Rashi
concedes that Yaakov’s actions were immoral per se. The actions are justified,
though, because the Torah sanctions acting immorally with immoral individuals
(see Samuel II 22:26-27, Psalms 18:26-27, Daat Mikra commentary to Bereshit
2:297, and Rav Elchanan Samet, Iyunim Biparshat Hashavua pp.178-191).
A potential weakness, though, in Rashi’s approach lies in its seeming
anachronistic approach to this story. A Pshat (straightforward reading of the
Biblical text) approach might have difficulty with Rashi’s assertion that Yaakov
was seeking to secure the right to serve God in the Tabernacle or Temple. A
Pshat approach would have difficulty sustaining Rashi’s introduction of a
concept from the books of Exodus and Numbers to the book of Bereshit. In fact,
in the book of Bereshit we find that Hevel as well as Kayin offered sacrifices
even though Hevel was not a first-born (although Kayin offered first presumably
because of his first-born status, see Rav Elchanan Samet, Iyunim Biparshat
Hashavua 1:11). Perhaps it is for this reason that the Rashbam and Ibn Ezra
do not interpret the right of the first-born in this context as the right to
serve in the offering of sacrifices.
Rashbam’s Approach
The Rashbam presents a more Pshat oriented approach to this problem. He
asserts (as does Ibn Ezra) that Yaakov merely sought to purchase from Esav the
first-born’s customary double share in Yitzchak’s future estate. Daat Mikra,
Bereshit 2:231 notes that it was customary in the Near East during the time of
book of Bereshit for the first-born to receive a double share in the father’s
estate. Rashbam asserts that Yaakov paid full value for this purchase of the
right of primogeniture. The Rashbam insists (as does the Seforno) that the soup
was merely a technical means to seal the deal similar to the Kinyan Suddar
(formal act of transaction) that is described in the book of Ruth (4:7).
According to this approach, Yaakov did not exploit Esav’s hunger to attain the
right of the first-born for a mere bowl of soup. Rather, he paid full price for
this monetary purchase. Rashbam thus resolves moral conflict surrounding this
story by diminishing the significance of Yaakov’s purchase and “increasing” the
amount Yaakov paid.
One might, however, raise two problems with this approach. First, Esav
certainly perceives in hindsight that he was manipulated into selling the right
of the first-born, as Esav later expresses to Yitzchak (Bereshit 27:36).
Second, is that if Yaakov merely purchased the right to the double share of the
first born it is difficult to understand why the Torah presents this story. Why
must the Torah inform us of details surrounding the division of Yitzchak’s
estate?
A New Approach
Both Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (commentary to Bereshit 25:34) and Daat Mikra
Bereshit 2:235) assert that Yaakov’s purchase of the birthright from Esav was an
invalid sale. Rav Hirsch notes that Bereshit Rabbah (63:14) records Bar Kappara
referring to this transaction as “Mischakim,” games. Daat Mikra notes
that in the ancient Near East such a sale would not be valid unless the father
consented. Accordingly, why did Yaakov engage in this false and seemingly
meaningless sale and why does the Torah dignify this story by recording it for
posterity? One might answer that Yaakov was engaging in a character test to
objectively determine whether Esav was worthy of his first-born rights and
obligations (Rav Mordechai Breuer, Pirkei Bereshit pp.494-496, presents a
similar idea but takes it in a different direction than we do). Someone who
would relinquish his birthright in exchange for soup, even if he were ravenously
hungry, is not a worthy successor to the legacy of Avraham. Indeed, the Jewish
People have survived through the millennia only because of the willingness and
readiness of Jews to preserve the Torah even in the most severe
circumstances.Moreover, Esav’s impulsivity and lack of emotional self-control
also constitute sufficient reason for him to lose the birthright. Indeed, it is
for this reason that Reuven is later to lose his rights as the first-born (see
Bereshit 49:4 and Divrei Hayamim 1:5:1). Indeed, Yehuda demonstrates that his
leadership skills are superior to Reuven by their respective responses to a
crisis artificially created by Yosef. Reuven seeks to convince his father to
immediately permit Binyamin to travel to Egypt by offering to kill two of his
children if he does not return with Binyamin to Canaan. Yehuda, on the other
hand, does not immediately seek to convince Yaakov to permit Binyamin to travel
to Egypt. Rather, he patiently waits until the food supply has run out and
Yaakov is left with no other viable choice other than to permit Binyamin to
travel. Reuven’s impulsive and irrational solution to the problem as opposed to
Yehuda’s patient and effective resolution of the problem, prove Yehuda to be the
true leader and Reuven lacking the temperament to lead. In the case of the
“sale” of the birthright Esav exhibits impulsivity and lack of emotional
self-control, as he expresses, “I am about to die, why do I need the
birthright?” (Bereshit 25:32), thereby demonstrating his inadequacy as a leader
(the Seforno 25:31 articulates a similar approach).
The right of the first-born that Esav is ready to relinquish in exchange for a
bowl of soup seems to refer to the privilege to serve as the leader of a family
that will preserve and cultivate the legacy of Avraham and Sarah (as indicated
by the Ramban and Chizkuni). We recall that character tests to determine if one
is worthy of membership in good standing of Avraham’s immediate family abound in
the book of Bereshit. Avraham servant’s character test of Rebecca (as explained
by commentaries collected and expanded upon by Nechama Leibowitz, Iyunim
Bisefer Bereshit 157-161) and Yosef’s testing his brothers (as explained by
Abravanel to Bereshit 42) to see if they would acquiesce to Binyamin’s
enslavement are two examples of such character tests. The three angels’ visit
to the tent of Avraham and Sarah disguised as travelers may be construed as a
test to determine the worthiness of Avraham and Sarah to merit having a child at
a very advanced age (see Yonatan Grossman, Megadim 29:24). Rashi (Bereshit
22:1) in one explanation suggests that the episode of the binding of Yitzchak
was designed to test and demonstrate Yitzchak’s worthiness to serve as the
successor to Avraham (as opposed to Yishmael).
The reason why Yaakov felt a need to engage in such a character test was the
imbalance in Yitzchak’s family. The Torah (Bereshit 25:28) notes, in what might
constitute an introduction to our story, that Yitzchak loves Esav because of the
meat from the hunt that the latter serves the former. Yaakov may have wished
for Yitzchak to be told of this incident and subsequently realize that Esav is
unworthy the right of the first-born.
Indeed, Esav reveals this incident to Yitzchak in the immediate aftermath of
Yaakov’s dressing as Esav to receive the blessing from his father. A major
question posed by the commentaries such as Ibn Ezra (Bereshit 27:40) is why
Yitzchak did not revoke the blessing he mistakenly conferred upon Yaakov based
on deception. An answer might be that when Yitzchak discovered that Esav sold
the right of the first-born under pressure, Yitzchak realized that Esav was
unworthy to continue the legacy of Avraham and Sarah and thereupon suggested to
Esav that he abandon the land of Israel in favor of life in Seir east of the
Jordan River (see Daat Mikra commentary to Bereshit 27:40).
Another reason for Yaakov to subject Esav to this character test is to determine
the propriety of engaging in extraordinary means to secure the right of the
first-born. Rav Elchanan Samet (Iyunim Biparshat Hashavua 1:71) wonders
what constituted the moral license for Yaakov to engage in deception to secure
the right of the first-born. According to our interpretation, Yaakov engaged in
this character test in order to verify his assumption that Esav was unworthy of
the right of the first-born. The result of Yaakov’s experiment was that
Yitzchak was blinded to Esav’s spiritual inadequacies to be the leader of or
even a member of the future house of Avraham. Thus drastic action was justified
in order to correct Yitzchak’s misperception that threatened the future of the
legacy of Avraham and Sarah.
Moreover, Rav Samet (Iyunim B’Parshot HaShavua p. 63 notes Yaakov’s
determination and steadfastness when he presents himself to Yitzchak as Esav.
Yaakov does not break under the pressure of Yitzchak’s repeated questioning and
investigating his identity. This reflects Yaakov’s full confidence that he
acting entirely appropriately. What gave Yaakov such confidence? One might
answer that since Yaakov had empirical evidence that Esav was unworthy of the
birthright, he had no doubt that he was correct to take the birthright from Esav.
Finally, the last words of this incident “and Esav denigrated the birthright” (Bereshit
25:34) may support our interpretation. Unlike Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni who
interpret that after he ate the soup Esav denigrated the worth of the
birthright, Rashi interprets that this is the voice of the Torah noting that
Esav has denigrated the birthright. This might be interpreted as the Torah’s
summary of this incident, that Esav thereby denigrated the birthright. Note
that the text does not summarize the incident by stating that Esav has sold the
birthright, for indeed, he has not! Rather, in this character test, Esav has
denigrated the birthright and has proven himself unworthy of its privileges and
obligations. We should note that our novel approach to this issue might be
implied by Rashi’s comments to this story, if we understand Rashi in a
non-literal manner.
Although Yaakov’s actions were both correct and necessary, he had to pay a price
for engaging in such drastic activities (as Rav Elchanan Samet develops at
length in Iyunim BiParshat HaShavua pp.68-71 in the context of Yaakov
posing as Esav). Just as he subjected Esav to a character test, so too Yaakov
suffered from the character test that was necessary for Yosef to impose upon his
brothers. In certain circumstances it is necessary to choose between the lesser
evil of two bad choices. The choice to subject Esav to a character test was a
less offensive choice than to permit Yitzchak to elevate Esav to a position of
leadership or even membership in the house of Avraham. Nevertheless, a price
had to be paid for engaging in an activity that per se is offensive, but
necessary due to the circumstances involved, as demonstrated at length by Rav
Samet in the context of Yaakov dressing as Esav.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Yaakov did not exploit Esav in this incident. Rather, he laid the groundwork to
preserve the future of the legacy of Avraham and facilitated the creation of the
Jewish People. Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary actions.
Food For Thought
by Jerry M. Karp
1)
The Torah reveals to us in
Bereshit 25:23 (and explicitly in 25:24) that Rivkah was carrying twins.
However, in 25:22, the Torah seems to assume that we know that Rivkah will be
giving birth to more than one child. In fact, Rivkah seems to know this herself
– therefore, she asks God to explain what is happening. Why does the Torah not
explicitly inform us that Rivkah is carrying twins before Rivkah asks God for an
explanation?
2)
Why is 26:6 (“Vayeshev
Yitzchak Bigrar”) not part of the next Pasuk?
If
you have a response to these questions, please contact us at
koltorah@koltorah.org
Responses
may be published on agreement of the provider.
Staff at time of publication:
Editors-in-Chief Emeritus: Shuky Gross, Effie Richmond
Editors-in-Chief: Avi Rosenbaum, Simcha Tropp
Publication Editors: Jerry Karp, Sam Wiseman, Willie Roth
Publishing Managers: Ely Winkler, Andy Feuerstein-Rudin
Publication Manager: Orin Ben-Jacob
Business Manager: Moshe Zharnest
Staff: Etan Bluman, Chanan Strassman, Ben Katz, Jesse
Dunietz
Faculty Advisor: Rabbi Chaim Jachter
Webmaster: Ariel Caplan
This publication contains Torah matter
and should be treated accordingly.