Yaacov and Eisav at Birth

          The source of last week's midrashim was the blindness of Yitzchak, which occurs in the latter part of his life. We began from that point in our discussion of his life because of what it said about Yitzchak's life and religious career in general, as I explained – at length – in the previous shiur. Today we return to the beginning of the Yitzchak story, at the beginning of the parashat Toldot, which opens with the birth of Yitzchak's children, Yaacov and Eisav.

Actually, if I may stray for a second from the midrash, Yitzchak's life story, which is wholly found in parashat Toldot, runs from the birth of his children until the story of his blessings to them. The years before (except for the akeida, which belongs to the life of Avraham) and after are more or less ignored, though we are told how Avraham and Eliezer arranged for him to marry Rivka (without his active participation). This strengthens my point from the previous shiur, that actual occurrences and incidents of Yitzchak's life are not important. From the external point of view usually covered in biographies, Yitzchak is the link between Avraham and Yaacov. We will, eventually, discuss the few incidents of Yitzchak's life which are covered in Toldot. But now to return to the birth of his children, or, more correctly, to the pregnancy of his wife, Rivka. For the first forty years of their marriage, Rivka is barren.

Yitzchak prayed ("atar") to God concerning his wife."

R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

R. Yochanan said: He poured out prayers in abundance ("be-osher," richness. The Aramaic form of "osher" is "atar").

Resh Lakish said: He overturned the decree. That is why his prayer is called "atar," for it overturns the grain in the threshing-place ("eter" is the shovel used to turn over the wheat). (63,5)

1. Long or Short

Prayer, one of the basic religious actions, is actually not described very often in the Torah. In this case, an unusual verb – va-ye'etar - is used, and the midrash explores its significance. The first opinion, that of R. Yochanan, notes the similarity to the Aramaic root meaning "rich," and therefore explains "atira" as "rich prayer," meaning abundant prayer. To "la-ator" is to pour out prayer like a torrent, long and unceasing. Yitzchak besieged God with his prayer.

          The question we have to ask is whether this is a recommendation for the proper form of prayer? On the one hand, Yitzchak, as a forefather, should definitely serve as an exemplar for the religious life. On the other hand, this meaning is specifically related to this particular root, "atar," and that an unusual one, so perhaps there are different forms of prayer. The question then becomes, why was this occasion, a prayer for deliverance of his wife Rivka, one that gave rise to "abundant" prayer? This question becomes especially acute when compared to another famous prayer in the Torah, that of Moshe who asked God to cure his sister Miriam. The entire prayer consists of five words, "Merciful God, please cure her." (This is even more impressive in the Hebrew, where four of the words have only two letters and the fifth has three. Each word is only one syllable.)

          On the other hand, it is stated of Moshe that after the sin of the golden calf, he prayed for forty days and forty nights. The midrash (quoted in Berakhot 34b) relates:

Once there was one who went down before the lectern (he was the chazzan) in the presence of R. Eliezer, and he was extremely drawn-out (in his prayer). The disciples said to R. Eliezer: What a long-winded one is he! He said to them: Is he more drawn-out than Moshe, about whom it is written, "forty days and forty nights"?

Another time one of the disciples went down before the lectern in the presence of R. Eliezer and he was excessively terse. The disciples said to him: What a shorted-winded one is he! He said to them: Is he more terse than Moshe, who said, "Merciful God, please cure her"? (Yalkut Shimoni 742).

          So perhaps the point of the midrash is that there are many types for prayer and no single mandatory form. Why Yitzchak chose to pour out his soul in length at this occasion is rooted in the particular personal relationship Yitzchak had with God. Each person has to pray depending on the particular circumstances of the moment. Yitzchak's "atira," lengthy, rich prayer, is one suggested type.

2. Overturning

Resh Lakish, in the second opinion quoted above, connects the verb "la-ator" to the noun "eter," which is a sort of shovel used to turn over the wheat while winnowing. Prayer is called "atira" because it overturns – it overturns bad decrees in heaven. This interpretation is definitely addressed to a particular type of prayer. As we saw when we discussed the barrenness of Sara, the midrash assumes that the matriarchs were barren in a radical manner – totally, physically unable to bear children. As the midrash states in the case of Rivka,

"For she was barren" – R. Yudan in the name of Resh Lakish: She had no womb at all. (63,5).

For whatever reason, nature decrees that Rivka not have children. The prayer of Yitzchak is not merely to have something that he does not have, but to overturn a natural state of affairs. There are many ways to obtain food, or money, or a new computer, but there is no way to overturn a divine decree once it has been signed and sealed – except one, prayer. This special power of prayer is called "atira."

There is an unstated implication of this interpretation that strengthens it in an amazing and audacious manner. The verb "va-ye'etar" which denotes Yitzchak's prayer is answered by the verb "va-yei'ater," which denotes God's accepting his prayer, and is the passive form of the same verb. If "va-ye'etar" means that Yitzchak "overturned," then "va-yei'ater" means that GOD was overturned. The decree of Rivka's barrenness is a divine decree, so overturning it means changing, so to speak, the will of God. Prayer has the power not only to appeal to God but also to "overturn" His decree. Atira is not merely petition, but implies something akin to an assault. Of course, the Sages do not believe that one can overcome the will of God without His agreement. Prayer is not magic. But they wish to assert and emphasize that something real does change in prayer, and that it is never too late for prayer to be efficacious.

(It is hard for me to resist at this point in informing you that my eldest daughter is named Atira.)

There is a third explanation in the midrash for the verb "atar," especially the double parallelism of "va-ye'etar" and "va-yei'ater."

Va-yei'ater lo HaShem" – R. Levi said: Like a prince who was "digging" (scheming, perhaps?) towards his father in order to obtain a pound of Gold, and the king was digging from within as he dug from without. In Arabia, they call a "chatirta" (a tunnel made by digging) "atirta."

This is similar to the opinion of Resh Lakish. The image of God "digging a tunnel beneath the heavenly throne" to allow the acceptance of prayer that cannot get in the usual way is common in rabbinic literature. Here the king has apparently cut off his son and will not give him any more money, at least not directly. But secretly, the king is opening the doors for the son to get the money anyhow. As I noted above, no prayer will work if God does not accede to it. But there are times that for one reason or another, the decree is made and at the same time God will accede to an effort made by man to overturn it or, in the metaphor of R. Levi, to detour around it. Even the will of God is complicated and there is always room for prayer and another effort.

But to get on to the pregnancy and birth.

3. Difficult pregnancy

"The children ran about within her" – R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

R. Yochanan said: This one was running to kill the other and this one was running to kill the other.

Resh Lakish said: Each one permitted that which was forbidden to the other.

R. Berechya in the name of R. Levi said: So that you do not think that only after he (Eisav) was born did he attack Yaacov; rather, even in his mother's womb his fist was drawn against him. (63,6)

The midrash paints a picture of innate hostility between Eisav and Yaacov. There is no question that these midrashim are not speaking particularly of the individuals who were the sons of Yitzchak, but of the future nations of the world, Israel and Rome, Israel and the power that rules in the world. This is clear from the second opinion of Resh Lakish, which already refers to prohibitions; i.e., to morality and Torah. The same is clearly true for Rav Yochanan as well. Yaacov and Eisav do not merely have antagonistic values, they are violently opposed to one another on the existential level as well. As R. Berechya adds, the threat of violence is innate in the relationship between the two.

R. Berechya  is expressing the idea - and basically attributing this idea to the verse - that the animosity between Yaacov and Eisav is not based on a particular reason drawn from their history, which begins only with birth, but is innate, prenatal. The conclusion of such an approach will be that there is no real way to diffuse this hatred or reconcile them. This pessimistic conclusion is found often in Chazal, most often expressed in the famous dicta, "It is a law, it is known that Eisav hates Yaacov" (Quoted by Rashi to Bereishit 33,4; taken from the Sifrei to Bemidbar 9,10). Rav Yochanan's statement does not indicate a cause, but it does clearly state that the rivalry and animosity is mutual (which is not true of R. Berechya). Resh Lakish, on the other hand, while not ascribing an ultimate cause to the antagonism, does place it in context - it is based on different value systems. The rivalry is not primarily political-national, but behavioral-ethical. This is not as obvious as one might think. There is a widespread attitude today to claim that all people are alike, and that conflict is based on opposing interests. The conclusion is that if we could only understand the interests of the other, which are basically similar to our own, the conflict could be resolved. Interjecting concepts of good and evil into international politics, for instance, is seen as self-serving propaganda in this view. Resh Lakish is saying that, at least in some cases, specifically Yaacov-Eisav, the conflict is not one of pragmatic interests but is ideological, rooted in different values, different concepts of the permitted and the forbidden. Deep down, not all people are the same. While not as mystically pessimistic as R. Berechya, Resh Lakish also does not point out a way of reconciliation, unless one is willing to give up one's values.

Chazal do not view Eisav as simply lacking the high ideals of Yaacov, but rather as espousing an opposite set of ideals. This is made clear in the following midrash.

"The children ran about within her" - When she would stand next to synagogues and study-halls, Yaacov would stir and try to get out; and when she would stand next to houses of idolatry, Eisav would stir to get out.

Eisav does not lack what Yaacov has, he is committed to a parallel world, with its own buildings and attendant values. This is made even clearer in the midrashic interpretation of God's message to Rivka explaining her troubled pregnancy.

"God said to her: Two peoples ("goyim") are in your belly".

Two proud ("gaiyei") of the peoples are in your belly; one proud of his (spiritual) world and one proud of his kingdom.

Two proud of the peoples - Hadrian of the idolaters and Shlomo of Israel. (63,7).

     Eisav, here in the role of the Roman emperor, is not an inferior individual, a petty thief or brigand (as Yishmael is portrayed in Chazal). He is one of the two "gaeyei goyim," pride of the nations, a powerful dominating figure of strength. Yaacov and Eisav are TWINS, opposing in parallel strength. This dichotomy explains, for Chazal, the rest of human history, which in their times they ascribed to Jerusalem and Rome, two capitals of the world, one a world of its own, one a kingdom of might.

_________________________________

For now we conclude this study on Reading Midrash. Any and all comments are welcome, you may write the author via the comment form below.