YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

PARASHAT TOLDOT
Ya'acov and Esav, Part 1
By Rav Michael Hattin

INTRODUCTION

These are the descendants of Yitzchak son of Avraham, Avraham begat Yitzchak.  Yitzchak was forty years old when he took as his wife Rivka the daughter of Betuel the Aramean, sister of Lavan the Aramean from Padan Aram.  Yitzchak implored God on behalf of his wife for she was barren, and God heard his entreaties and Rivka his wife became pregnant.  

The children strove within her and she said: 'if it be so, then why am I?', so she went to enquire of God.  God said to her: 'two nations are within you and two peoples shall part from your womb.  One nation will overpower the other and the great the small shall serve'.  

Her days of pregnancy were complete and behold, there were twins in her belly.  The first one came out all red, completely covered with hair like a mantle, and they called his name Esav.  Afterwards, his brother emerged, and behold, his hand was grasping the heel of his brother, and he called his name Ya'acov.  Yitzchak was sixty years old when they were born.

The lads grew up.  Esav was a man who knew to hunt, a man of the fields, while Ya'acov was a simple man who dwelt in tents.  Yitzchak loved Esav for he provided game, but Rivka loved Ya'acov.  

Ya'acov prepared a stew, as Esav was returning from the field very weary.  Esav said to Ya'acov: 'pour me now from that red, red stuff for I am weary', therefore his name was called 'Edom'.  Ya'acov said: 'sell me your birthright this day'.  Esav responded: 'behold, I am going to die, so why then do I need the birthright?'  Ya'acov said: 'swear to me this day', and he swore to him, so he sold his birthright to Ya'acov.  Ya'acov gave Esav bread and stew of lentils, he ate, drank, arose and went, and Esav despised the birthright (Bereishit/Genesis 25:19-34).

A LIST OF CONTRASTS

Thus begins Parashat Toldot with perhaps the most striking series of contrasts in the entire Torah.  As we indicated above, the section may be divided into five sub-paragraphs that concern 1) the marriage and Rivka's barrenness, 2) the difficult pregnancy and the Divine prophecy, 3) the birth of the twins and their naming, 4) the early development of the lads and their different vocations, 5) the decisive incident of the selling of the birthright.  It may be argued, in fact, the first four sub-sections serve to progressively introduce that pivotal final episode.  That selling of the birthright will return later in the Parasha as the catalyst for Ya'acov's flight eastward to Aram, a journey that in the end takes more than twenty years to complete and results in the founding of the tribes of Israel.  As we shall see, these contrasts are remarkable not only for what they state but also for what they deliberately omit.  

Let us take a moment to consider each of the sections in turn.  Like Sarah before her and Rachel after, Rivka's barrenness is more than physiological.  In the Tanakh, the inability to have children is frequently the precursor to the birth of a child of destiny.  The unnatural barrenness of the mother not only triggers an outpouring of parental prayer and longing, but also highlights that the subsequent birth is to be regarded as particularly fateful.  Besides Sarah, Rivka and Rachel, we may add the mother of Shimshon (Sefer Shoftim/Judges 13:2) who defeated the Philistines, as well as the mother of Shemuel the Prophet (Shemuel/Samuel 1:1:2,5) who lays the foundations for the monarchy in Israel.  Therefore, Rivka's initial inability to conceive heralds the birth of the two boys who will grow to become two nations.

Here, however, there is an additional phase.  Having conceived, Rivka's pregnancy is anything but uneventful.  The pain and upheaval in her womb give her no rest.  Concerned by her travails but blissfully unaware of the fact that she bears twins, she enquires of God.  The earlier sources and later commentaries attempt to ascertain the source of the Divine communication to her, some suggesting Shem son of Noach (Rashi based upon the Midrash), others pointing to a prophet (Ibn Ezra) or even Avraham himself (Radak).  The Torah's silence on the matter, however, is a means of preserving the focus on the main issue: the birth of two nations.

INTIMATIONS OF CONFLICT

Thus, Rivka is informed that her churning belly intimates much future conflict and confrontation.  The two sons that she will bear will not only be at odds with each other, but their respective descendents and worldviews will clash as well.  The poetic and parallel quality of the prophecy captures this divergence:

Two nations are within you, 			two peoples shall part from your womb.  
One nation will overpower the other,		the great the small shall serve'.

While God makes it clear that only one of the peoples will enjoy ascendancy, there is an inherent ambiguity in the text concerning that people's identity.  As Radak (13th century, Provence) so insightfully indicates: "although the Torah states that 'the great the small shall serve' (ve-rav ya'avod tza'ir) it does not make use of the particle 'et' that is used to mark the direct object.  Thus, the matter is left doubtful as to who will serve whom.  Will the great serve the small or will the small serve the great?"  In other words, had the original text stated "ve-rav ya'avod ET tza'ir" the identity of the subject and object would have been obvious.  "Et" introduces the object, thus making "rav" the subject and yielding "the great (subject) shall serve (verb) the small (object)".  However, in the absence of "et" one may just as easily render "the great (object) shall be served (verb) by the small (subject)"!

Radak goes on to explain that in Biblical usage, it is typically the subject that is mentioned first in such a statement (compare Iyov/Job 14:19 – "stones are ground down by water", and Yeshayahu/Isaiah 64:1 – "water is boiled by fire").  Here, however, the imprecision is to emphasize the oscillating nature of the relationship between the two nations.  Often, the great shall serve the small, but sometimes the small will be forced to serve the great.  The thrust of the narrative is therefore to suggest that Rivka's painful pregnancy presages the emergence of two nations that will be in perpetual discord and disagreement.

DIFFERENT APPEARANCES AND DISPOSITIONS

Soon the twins are born.  The first emerges "ruddy and completely covered with hair" and his name is called Esav.  His brother comes out while in grasp of Esav's heel and is called Ya'acov.  While the text suggests the missing contrasts, it does not state them explicitly until later.  Thus, at the time of the bestowal of the blessings, Ya'acov remarks that "Behold my brother Esav is hairy, while I am smooth-skinned" (27:11), thus providing the omitted disparity to Esav being covered with hair.  In a similar vein, we must assume of course that Ya'acov is not ruddy but instead fair-skinned.

In converse, concerning the names, the Torah explains the meaning of Ya'acov but omits to tell us the significance of Esav.  The commentaries have invariably understood that the name is related to the root "ASaH", meaning "done" and have variously explained that it was a reference to his adult-like covering of body hair (Rashi, Rashbam), or else his unusual appearance (Radak).  "Ya'acov" on the other hand, is clearly related to "'AKeV" or "heel", for "his hand was grasping the heel of his brother".  Perhaps we may reconstruct the omission concerning Esav by suggesting that while the heel associated with Ya'acov alludes to his future attempts at ascendancy, for he reaches out to restrain his brother from overtaking him, "Esav" implies a present state of realization and triumph.  His work is "done", so to speak, for the nation that he sires will rule the present while Ya'acov's reign will only unfold at some indeterminate future date.

No where is the contrast between the brothers more pronounced than with respect to their early but life-long interests and vocations.  Esav takes to the hunt, spending his days in the fields searching down and dispatching game.  He lusts for the thrill of stealth, concealment and then sudden death, and delights in the cry of the wounded animal victim and in the spilling of its blood.  Here, again, a later passage sheds light on an earlier one, for there is something wild about the red complexion of the child, and his unusual furry coat of hair.  Is he not nasty in his appearance, beast-like and therefore well suited to his most precious pursuit?

In glaring contrast and much to our relief, Ya'acov delights not in any of these things, for he is "simple and a dweller of tents".  Here, again, we are left to ponder the meaning of Ya'acov's "simpleness", but let its contrast be our guide: "his simpleness means that he was inexpert in all of these matters (of the hunt).  His words were in consonance with his heart. One who is not crafty or deceptive is called "simple'" (commentary of Rashi, 11th century, France).  In other words, if Esav's skill at the hunt implied a furtive and sly nature, an ability to deceive and to overpower, then Ya'acov's simple and straightforward demeanor indicated the opposite: honesty, integrity, and truth.

The text tells us one more preliminary detail concerning Ya'acov's pursuits, for he was also a "dweller of tents".  While Esav spent his time outdoors in the fields, Ya'acov dwelt in the tent.  Esav secured sustenance by killing other creatures, Ya'acov raised sheep: "In all probability, the expression of 'dwelling intents' indicates the vocation of shepherding, just as it says (in 4:20 concerning Yaval) that 'he was the ancestor of those that dwell in tents and tend the flocks'" (Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, 12th century Spain, commentary to 25:27).  Again, the contrast between the brothers is so pronounced as to be almost inconceivable that they were born of the same mother and father, but such are the mysterious ways of Providence.  Finally, the text informs us that while Yitzchak loved Esav because of the game that he provided, Rivka loved Ya'acov.  Again, however, the contrasting couplet is omitted: why did Rivka love Ya'acov?  We can only surmise that she loved him because of what he was NOT: he was not a hunter like his brother but rather a dweller of tents

THE SALE OF THE BIRTHRIGHT

All of the above serves as the background for the climactic event that now unfolds, Esav's exchange of the birthright for a bowl of pottage.  True to form, Esav had been out hunting in the fields, and returns hungry (unsuccessful at the hunt?), weary and in no mood for niceties.  From the distance he smells the burning wood, the aroma of lentils, the substantial stew that his brother has prepared, and his mouth begins to water.  Drawing closer, he peers into the seething pot of reddish ingredients, unsure of their identity but readily associating them with his own bloody pursuits.  "Pour ("haL'ITeini") me now from that red, red stuff, for I am weary!" he exclaims, unwittingly utilizing a verb that will later be typically used in Mishnaic Hebrew to describe the act of force-feeding camels! (see Tractate Shabbat 155B).  

Now it is Ya'acov's turn to take initiative.  Though Esav will later claim to his father that Ya'acov unfairly seized the birthright from him (27:36), nothing could be farther from the truth.  What pains he goes to in order to ensure that Esav understands the nature of the bargain!  Employing no deceit or guile, he calls upon Esav to legally sell the birthright to him and follows up his brother's eagerness by the imposition of a clear and unambiguous oath.  How could Esav possibly fail to realize the significance of the sale, how could he so cavalierly and capriciously dismiss its import, excepting that HE CARED NOTHING FOR THE BIRTHRIGHT!  This is made very clear in the text when his animal-like downing of the stew, captured in the original Hebrew by a striking string of five tight and squat verbs, is immediately followed by the concluding remark: "…and Esav despised the birthright".  He shows no regrets, no pangs of remorse, no sadness over a precious legacy pedaled for a trifle.

Thus far, we have considered the first section of the Parasha, the glaring distinctions that forcefully cast the two brothers in sharp relief.  But there is more.  What is the source of their wildly divergent characters and what is its ultimate outcome?  What is the significance of the fact that the brothers are not only offspring of the same parents but TWINS as well?  How are we to understand the Rabbinic tradition that consistently identifies the offspring of Esav with the Roman empire and its successors?  Next week, we will continue to analyze the matter, bearing in mind that the backdrop to our study will shift from the hills of Chevron to the plains of Aram, and from the house of Yitzchak and Rivka to that of Lavan her wily brother.

TO BE CONTINUED

Shabbat Shalom