The intergenerational spiritual-level links of events in the lives of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov, and the deeper meanings associated to the name Ya'akov

Question: How could holy Rivka and Yitschak allow their son to have such a derogatory name - heel?!

.

Explanation: Ya’akov  emerges in birth holding his twin-borther Esav's heel ("akev Esav"), as Esav was emerging before him from the womb they shared. The Torah tells us that as a result he was given a name based on the root word ‘akev’ = heel, specifically Ya’akov = "he will heel".

Jacob, the ancestor of the Jewish People , was given what seems to be a derogatory name - presumably by his father; 

Later, Esav refers to this name and its meaning, pejoratively , regarding the selling of the birthright for porridge incident and the taking of the blessings, when he says "Yes, he 'heeled' me twice" ("ויעקבני זה פעמיים"  [outmaneuvered/cheated me].

It’s odd that the great Patriarch Yakov would be named with a negative connotation.

How can it be that Holy Forefather Isaac could give his son such a name? What was Isaac thinking to give such a name to his son, the progenitor of the Jewish people?

Actually, the Torah doesn't say explicitly who called him this name, so it almost seems as though it was NOT his parents. So perhaps it was the birth-nurses and others in the household? But if so, why would Holy Yitschak and Rivka actually call him by that name?

The Patriarchs had names given by God: Abram was changed by God to Abraham, and Sarai was changed by God to Sarah. Isaac was given the name by God, and Yakov had the name Yisrael (Israel) added later by God (at first via an angel), similalrly for Yishmael. [Caveat/Note: Though given by God the name Isaac = Yitschak = “will laugh” could almost sound pejorative, coming as it does in relation to Abraham’s laughter upon hearing from God that he would father a child. However since God does not chastise him for this laughter we can see the reference to it in his name as a positive matter, as explained in my parsha posts of the the past two weeks.]

If Yitschak was aware that names were so potent (after all God had intervened to change the names of his parents, and had decreed his own name) , how could he allows Yakov to acquire a name in such a cavalier manner rather than a carefully thought out name; and why give him a name with such seemingly pejorative connotations?

Towards an answer: On the one hand of course this act of holding the heel symbolized the struggle of Esav and Yakov in the womb that the Torah tells us of, and their subsequent struggle throughout life, and is therefore very appropriate.

However, did Yitschak realize this?! It would seem that Rivka did not tell Yitschak (Isaac) of the prophecy she received regarding the two sons, and so he presumably did not know of this cosmic struggle being enacted through his sons (at the level of simple text: he certainly did not act in accordance with the prophecy, to give the blessing to the younger son, Ya’akov) and so perhaps Yitschak could not necessarily see the cosmic significance of the heel-holding!

If so, why give such a name to his son, or allow such a name to be attached to him? [Actually, does anyone actually call him that? Was it perhaps only others rather than his parents wo used that name? Yakov uses the name Esav in talking to Yitschak, but is Yakov's name used anywhere, as directed to him by someone? But the Torah refers to him that way, so presumably that's how his parents referred to him. If it was only the Torah referring to him in this way, we could say it is because it is a reflection of the "prophecy" to Rivka.]

Presumeably Isaac knew the stories of what happened to his father and mother when they found out he was to be born, and if so then Isaac knew that his own name was based on the laugh of his father (and perhaps mother as well); however he also presumeably knew that this name was given by God, and so he realized that this laughter was obviously therefore a deep and powerful augury of his life, and not an insignificant incident; perhaps he concluded that the holding of the heel was similarly significant and named his son based on this, or allowed his son;s name to be this.

There are however several hints in the text to a higher-level meaning to the name Ya’akov, which are definitely not pejorative, and would make the name very appropriate-sounding to Yitschak.

Indeed, the name Ya'akov is in the future tense and so can be interpreted not just as Esav did, regarding future interactions with him, but rather as a prophecy regarding the later struggle with the 'man', the higher-level Esav.

...

b) Hints suggested by anagram

But Names Will Never Harm Me: Further clues that Ya’akov Was No Heel

Parallels: Connecting:

1. the aftermath of the akeda of Yitschak;

2. the promise to Isaac of future generations;

3. the birth of Yaakov & Esav;

4. the aftermath of the taking of the blessing by Yaakov instead of Esav, when Isaac states, shockingly since the blessing seems to have been 'stolen', that indeed Isaac will be blessed

How the events are connected: The seminal moment in Isaac’s life and probably Abraham’s as well is when Abraham brings Isaac to sacrifice, and right before and rigth afterwards there are two possible hints to the future Yaakov who will be born from Yitschak as the first of the promised progeny:

i) At the beginning of the akeda we have the words: “and (he) cleaved (the wood)” which are one word in Hebrew: “vayevaka”, ויבקע which are exactly the Hebrew letters forming the one Hebrew word “and Ya’akov”! [vayevaka = ve’Ya’akov] ie the name yaakov יעקב is an anagram of ויבקע . Thus instead of the orinigial reading: “[And Abraham took.].. Isaac his son; and (he) cleaved [the wood] "ואת יצחק בנו ויבקע” we'll read it as a hint to: “And Abraham took (ie was ready to sacrifice)... Isaac his son; and Ya’akov” [ie “ve’et Yitschak bno, vayevaka" --> “ve’et Yitschak bno ve’Ya’akov”]. In other words, sacrificing Isaac meant sacrificing his entire line, beginning with the not-yet-born first one, Ya’akov. So for us readers, if we encounter the name Yaakov as part of the akeda, it resonates positively in our ears, and is a name with deep positive intent rather than a derogatory name.

ii) Another clue is that right after the akedah (sacrifice), when the ram was substituted, God tells Abraham (via an angel) "All nations will be blessed via your descendants since (ekev) you listened to my voice" Gen 22:18

ויקרא מלאך ה'... ולא חשכת את בנך... ארבה את זרעך..

והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ עקב אשר שמעת בקלי

you will have many generations, and all the nations will be blessed via your seed, since ('ekev') you did not withhold your son (Isaac)” etc.

Who is the first of this promised chain? Isaac’s son Yakov. And the first word of the above key passage is“since”=“ekev”, with the same letters as “heel” from which Ya’akov’s name was taken ( ie EKEV and AKEV are spelled completely identically in the Torah.

We will also assume that Abraham told this great message from God to his son Yitschak given that he was right there and played a central role in the event bringing about the prophecy (or perhaps Isaac also heard this prophecy as well), so these words right after this turning point in his life, including the word "ekev', would be ringing in his ears, and to Isaac, the word EKEV must have had tremendous significance, especially as applied to his descendants. 

After Avraham dies, God tells Yitschak not to go down to Egypt, and then mentions "zar'acha" three times and then 'ekev' maybe as a hint that his seed is via Yaakov! God promises Ytschak:  26:4,5

  וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ, כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְנָתַתִּי לְזַרְעֲךָ, אֵת כָּל-הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל; וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ.

4 and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves;

ה  עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי; וַיִּשְׁמֹר, מִשְׁמַרְתִּי, מִצְוֺתַי, חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי.

So God is here again using the same key-word Ekev, which would certainly reverberate in Yitschak's head, due to its echo of the words God used in speaking to his father immediately after he was brought to the binding (for the 'sacrifce'), but this time it is said directly to Isaac, perhaps thereby divinely post-facto ratifying the use of the name "Yaakov' for his son. In other words when later on when he saw his son emerge holding the heel of his brother, and those nearby remarked on it using the word 'Akev' heel, I would conjecture that the word EKEV may have echoed in his head., and it may well have had deep significance to him even if not to the others who were using this word. And so giving a name based on the powerful words of God's message about this fulfilment of God's promise of continued progeny to his father Abraham, and to him, engraved in his heart mind and soul, it seemed portentous rather than derogatory. 

If so, then to us, great granchildren of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the name Ya’akov can refer not simply to the ‘heel’ event at his birth, but in its hidden symbolism represents the great sacrifice that Yitschak was willing to make, a sacrifice which would have denied him his promised existence but which thrned out to be perhaps the very reason his father was blessed to have him, and so that name carried a very heavy positive energy for him throughout his life.

[Aside: It is interesting to note the context in which Isaac himself later hears this word in a divine message directed at him, not to Avraham. Yitschak was distinguished from his father Abraham and son Yaakov in that God explicitly requests that he not leave the Land (despite hardship there), and in the context of that request/command by God to Isaac, God ratifies the promise of the Land to his descendants, and it is then the God iagain uses the term 'ekev' :ie the Promise to Abraham of descendants andof inheriting the Land was due to 'the binding of Isaac'.]

iv) Rivka beseeches her son Yaakov to follow her command and make sure to receive the blessings, and when he points out that he cannopt cheat his father and maybe the blessing will turn onto a curse if the deception is found out,Rivka says:

ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בני, אך שמע בקלי ולך קח לי בראשית כז יג "Alai kilelascha bni, akh shma be-koli.."'

"On me will be your curse, just harken to my voice and go bring...".

However this is very odd: Can someone accept reponsibiliy for someone else's wrong act? And if A tells B to go steal something, can B be innocent just because A asked him to do it and accepted the guilt? No!

However Rivka adds something very significant - that the brocho is from God (Yitzchok hadn't said this to Esav).

By this statement Rivka means that

1) therefore it should go to him, it is important, and

2) since God told her that it goes to Yakov, she can say 'I take the responsiblity', as opposed to telling him to do somethign wrong, here she is telling him "this is God's command, and I take reponsibility if I misinterpreted what God wanted".

3) God includes in the Torah a hint about this higher-level intention: either hinting to us the reader who sees a larger picture via the various parts, or hinting to Yitzchak via utilizing these key words - either Rivka knew of the prophecy to Abraham and later to Isaac with the key-words עקב אשר שמעת בקלי, and עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקלי or she or Isaac had related it to Yaakov in explanation of the hidden inner meaning of his name, and so the words she uses to beseech her son Yaakov to follow her command and make sure to receive the blessings are very loaded: Gen 27:13  בראשית כז יג:

Alai kilelascha bni = on me will be your curse = ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בניי

 ....

Appendices:

• We understand why yakov struggles in the womb, and perhaps it is because Rivka is meant to notice it and ask God.

• We understand the later struggle when Yaakov is an adult, with 'theman' (saro shel esav = the higher-level root-angel esav).

• But why does yaakov emerge holding esav's heel?

The Torah states: "And behold, twins!". We can imagine the scenario: let's think of what might have been going through Rivka's mind, and Yitzchak's mind, separately, based on their own experiences and knowledge, and for Yaakov himself.

A) For Yaakov: here are later implication for Yaakov himself when he grows up and learns of the crcumstances of his bith and the origin of his name:Partly it is to ensure that Yaakv will have a name that always reminds him ofhis role in the cosmic struggle with Esav.

B) For Rivka: Rivka sees Yakov come out holding Esav and immediately understands that this is a verification that when she asked her question "to God" about the tumult in her belly (as we spoke of regarding last week's Torah portion), the response she received as an answer, was indeed prophecy:

1) there ARE twins!

2) And even moreso, when she saw that the second son was clutching the heel of the first she realized they had indeed been struggiling in the womb as to who would emerge first.

So all this was a sign that the message she had received - which Yitschak had not been privy to - was indeed from God, and thus realized that it will indeed be her mission to make sure of the fulfillment of God's message - that this younger one will get the blessing.

So Rivka understands that calling him by this name is actually a hidden augury of his future, and is part of God's plan - especially as we can see that he is called not "held the heel" but rather in the future tense "he will heel".

Rivka is a real proactive hero in recognizing that it was not just information but a mission, how she would be able to affec tthe future, not just know what it would be, and she executed her divinely-appointed task despite the great sacrifice involved.

...

[Note: Question: "Ve’hinei": Does this imply they were surprised that it was twins?: If so, this is a hint that Rivka didn’t tell anyone. And if she had doubts about the reality of the prophecy, this dispelled them. Or is it a reference to the prophecy speaking to the reader, or is it about Rivka's reaction, ie affirmation.?]

...

And what might Yitschak have been thinking if it is true that he did not know of the prophecy of twins and struggle?

The laughter of Yitschak:

1. He knows that his name "He will laugh" sounded odd as well, and could have been seen as a disparagement, however he knows that it was a special name, and so to with yaakov. Yitschak knew about his own name:

• though it followed from circumstances involving Sarah's laugh (and then Abraham's) the name Yitschak was given at God's command,

• "Yitschak"is in the future tense ie it is a reference to a future event, "he WILL laugh" not "he DID laugh" so it is prophetic.

• it is about HIM, that HE will laugh, not that others laughed. Not "tzachaku" = they laughed, nor "yitzcheku" = they will laugh, but rather Yitschak = HE WILL laugh,

Given this background to his own name, perhaps when Yitzchak hears those standing by at the birth of his son give this odd name, he would recognize that it was a portent of something deep - especially as it did not reference a past event but rather a future one, as was the case with his own name! (yaakov = "he WILL 'heel'", as opposed to "he DID heel" as with Yitschak = he WILL laugh not they) DID laugh).And he may have understood the reference to 'ekev asher' as we pointed out earlier...

An illegitimately-seized blessing does not carry metaphysical benefit. On the one hand as we saw Rivka was being instructed by God to ensure that the younger would inherit the older, so the blessing was meant to go to Yaakov, however from the point of view of Yitschak it was illegitemately-taken.

Maybe therefore it was imporant that Yitschok sees the struggle at the birth of the twins - with the stress on 'ekev' - and remembers "ekev asher" etc, and realizes there is more to the story, so that years later after giving the brochos (blessings) to Yaa'kov when thinking he was Esav, Yitschok suddenly realizes the meaning of the 'ekev' aspect, and says 'gam boruch yiheh' (indeed he will be blessed). That is, perhaps God arranged for the brith with one holding the heel of the other so that years later, after fact of the deceit in taking the blessing, Yitschok would accept the result (the blessing going to yaakov instead of to Esav) and would ratify it - thus enabling the divine metaphysical power of the brocho to have its intended power.

So there are three events in Yitschak's life seemed tragic or negative but ended up being the opposite: 

1. the akeda;

2. the seeming struggle of his twin sons at birth and the seemingly-derogatory name this gave rise to;

3. the realization that he gave the blessing to the 'wrong' son. 

So the name 'Yitschak' as interpreted mystically ("he will eventually realize that what seemed negative was actually necessary and good") is perhaps a propos the case here as well that he eventually realized that the brotherly-struggle was ordained by God, and lived to understand that his son Yaakov received a name from God, a holy name but nevertheless the same name as this semeing derogatory one. So in other words Yitchak again eventually 'laughed' re this seemingly-unfortunate event as well. [Just as when Yischok sees Yaakov emerge holding the heel he understands that something 'cosmic' is being worked out, so too later on when he realizes that Yaakov has tricked him into giving the blessing, and realizes that indeed the blessing took effect, he understands the hinted 'cosmic' message - that it was meant to be this way -and so he gives Yaakov another blessing, this time full-heartedly knowing that it was being given to Isaac who will be the bearer of the 'blessing of Abraham'..]

.

Conclusion: May we all be blessed, as his descendants, to be able to eventually realize how it was allfor the good, ie to  'laugh; at tragic-seeming events in this way.

עלי קללתך בני,          

, אך שמע בקלי ולך קח ל

= le Yaakov!

...

Note that Yaakov's later name 'yisrael' can also be interpreted as future tense despite the passage which states it as about an already occured event. If so then it can refer to all his descendants, named 'bnei yisrael'... 

Since as we saw, really Yakov and Yisrael are the same name, therefore Yaakov is actually a very holy name as well.

....

A True Hero: Rebecca/Rivka (in this week's Torah portion)

.[Unedited: Hopefully I'll have time to edit this after shabbat]

1. How were Rivka and her son Yakov (Jacob) allowed by God to trick the holy Yitschak (Isaac) regarding the blessing (in next week's portion)? And what led them to do this deed?

2. How could Rivka say to her son Yakov “Do it, the curse will be on me”. Can one do an evil deed at the behest of another, just because that other person agrees to take the responsibility, blame or consequences?!

3. How could a blessing sourced in God be acquired via trickery? (Wouldn't God withhold the divine energy needed to power a blessing?)

4. Why is it that God seems to love Yakov despite all this?

[Side-note: Rivka's story begins in this week's portion ("chayei Sarah", read this upcoming Saturday morning) and reaches significant points in next week's portion (the beginning of which is read this upcoming Saturday afternoon, during 'mincha', about the birth of Jacob and Esav etc). Since this week's tale about her is the introduction to all that, we will present our analysis of who she was now, in order to have the entirety in perspective.]

The answers (condensed version): The interpretation I offer is that Rivka's greatness lay in not treating the message about the birth of twins and their rivalry as information, a passive prophecy of the future, but rather as a prescription for future proactivism. Specifically, she understands God's communication to her not as a prediction but rather as conveying God's Will that the younger son gets the blessing. ANd she furthermore understands that God is conveying this to her because it is her mission, it will become fact only if she takes action to make it happen. What she did as a result involved tremendous sacrifice, and utilized her full background/temperament including channeling 'inherited' negative characteristics. She indeed ensures that the younger son gets the blessing, despite the havoc this would wreak in her relationship with her other son, and between these two twin sons, and with her husband the great patriarch Isaac).

Full explanation (in several sections)

As is often the case, the narratives in the Torah are presented in a way which makes it possible to interpret the heroes of its stories negatively, but with additional insight one sees the deeper level, where the actions take on a positive light.

This is also the case sometimes in our own interactions with people, where occasionally an observer of our action my have an initial negative judgment, which would be dispelled were they to have greater insight.

.

It is clear via a contextual reading that Rivka was acting in accordance with God's wishes: God had given Rivka a message "two nations are in your belly....the older will serve the younger". Rivka was a true hero - as was the case with the great prophet Abraham her father-in-law, she understood that in many cases divine prophecy is not just a prediction but a mission - a life-task!

.

Rivka understood that since God had not shared this message (that "the older would serve the younger") with Yitschak, then when the time was right she herself was meant to act on this.

If instead God is telling her this message, she understands that for some reason Yitschak was not part of this - and so in some way it would be up to her to make this happen (and as it turned out: to do so despite Yitschak, rather than with his help).

.

Later, when she saw that Yitschak was intending to give the blessing to Esav, Rivka understood that this was the moment, it was now that her destiny was to be fulfilled. Rivka intuits that If God had meant for Isaac to give the blessing willingly to Ya’akov, God would have given the message to Isaac, not to her, and she rose to the challenge - with great self-sacrifice - to make sure that events followed God’s plan as revealed to her - that it was Yaakov who was to receive the blessing.

.

This enables us to answer the questions we raised earlier:

1. Of course the trickery on blind Issac seems horrifying, however Rivka was fulfilling God's intention that she make sure the blessing would go to Yaakov, and so her trickery was not for the sake of gain or manipulation or other impure motive, it was purely for the intent of fulflling God's Will;

2. We can now also understand the meaning and validity of her words of reassurance to Yakov that “it’s on me” - meaning that I was authorized by God to do this.

3 It is only because God intended that Yaakov receive the blessings that the transmission of the blessings to him 'worked' despite the trickery via which it was received.

.

In this week's portion: We are given the prelude to all the above, where Rivka is presented first in context, in order to be able to understand her later actions in the correct light: we see that she is the embodiment of 'chesed' (loving-kindness). Then right at the beginning of next week's portion we see that she is very spiritual in going to ask God why she feels tumult in her belly. Rivka's greatness included that she understood that the kicking in her belly was a message, so that she went to ask God, not a doctor.

.

We can understand the enigmatic statement by rivka "‘im ken lama zeh anochi" as meaning: ‘ok, this is unusual, what is this trying to tell me, what am I supposed to be doing about all this’.That’s why after saying this she went to consult 'God', perhaps via the prophet of the time, and we see from the story that she is righteous enough for her to be directly answered.

..

All this context provided in the passages of this week's portion should be enough to enable anyone who wishes to, to read the next parts of the story - regarding the cheating of Yitschak and Esav - in a way which shows Rivka in a favorable light.

.

Of course we cannot directly and simply understand why it is that God calls upon heros to take such actions, why it is that history must work out in such non-straightforward paths, but there are many many Torah stories - and life experiences - which indicate that this is the reality of our existence (and of course there are many mystical insights and philosophical approaches which attempt to explain why this is all so).

....

Rivka’s Main Qualification:

.

As we saw above, in order to judge Rivka in context, we need to see the first part of the story, when God instructs her of her mission. It was NOT her judgement of what was right and wrong, it was her brave and righteous undertaking to carry out this very difficult divine task.

.

She came from a shady family, but was the embodiment of kindness and generosity. Because of her family's dodgy practices, Rivka able to see through her son Esav’s wilyness very clearly, and she had the courage to do the correct thing even though it was a rather harsh step against her own son. In contrast, Isaac was so accepting that he wanted to give the blessing to Esav – perhaps because he felt Esav needed it more.

Isaac grew up in the upstanding home of Abraham whereas his wife Rivka grew up in the home of sly Lavan: she not only recognized hypocrisy and evil, and was also familiar with her son Esav's slyness (inherited from the family as well), but very importantly she had 'inherited' via her background the slyness she then used as a tool to fulfil God's wish. Importantly, as indicated by the story of the camels, she developed the characteristics of chesed (lovingkindness), combining them successfully ('gvurah'?) to fight evil. Fighting evil does not make one evil – just the opposite; not fighting evil does not keep one pure – quite the opposite.

.

Rivka knows the family history, knows that the men in the family operate on a different plane: Yishmael was cast out only because Sarah wanted it but not Avraham, he was not clued-in the way Sarah was; and Rivka sees directly that Avraham sent Eliezer to Haran without a clear plan. Just as Avraham likes the 'wrong' son, she sees that his son Yitschak also likes the 'wrong' son. She sees that the men are not able to safeguard the lineage, ensuring Jewish survival, and Rivka understands that that is HER role.

[As part of this, after asking her son Yakov 'ish tam' (man of straightforward simplicity) to go totally against his nature and trick his revered father, she sends him to her family to shake him up with further training, and teach him the 'survival skills' he will need to encounter and fight evil.

.

Rivka's cousin Lot had managed to be a tremendous master of kindness to guests in the most wicked spot. Although he 'redeemed the spark whose great holiness led to the warpedness of Sdom' and thus merited being the ancestor of King David and moshiach and was able to pass on tot hem the benefits of his struggles (see the commentary I posted last week re this), but was negatively influenced by his surroundings (perhaps it was similarly for Terach and those of his descendants who did not continue to Cna'an as originally planned but stayed instead 'halfway there', in Harran).

More re Rivka’s Main Qualification:

.

As we saw above, in order to judge Rivka in context, we need to see the first part of the story, when God instructs her of her mission. It was NOT her judgement of what was right and wrong, it was her brave and righteous undertaking to carry out this very difficult divine task.

.....

Rivka managed to attain or retain purity despite her surroundings (maybe because she was young, and this would be a good reason for choosing her so young), and thus was qualified for this delicate mission. That’s why Eliezer - with the help of the 'malach' (angel) which Avraham sent along with them - chose Rivka based on chesed, especially as she developed or maintained this trait in the horrible den of twisted people she was raised in (perhaps twisted by the effect of "the shells of powerful sparks" which they not so successfully tried to redeem). Rivka's triumph of character was remarkable, and also it meant that she had innate ability to overcome the type of evil prevalent in her household, and hopefully therefore be able to use the cunning when necessary, but to do so for the right reason, maintaining purity ('redeeming that spark').

.

So Abraham was in this way able to get both aspects that he wanted in the match for Yitschak - 'chesed'(kindness) and family

.

So it is only when we see the end of the story that we understand why Avraham sent for a bride from that area, the cheaters, but with chesed, ie she was different than them but was not naïve and could beat them at their own game if she had too, as indeed her son Yakov eventually did back there with Lovon (Laban), [regarding being cheated of his salary and then with the escape].

.

[Abraham sends for a bride for Yitschak only after Sarah's death, however perhaps one can speculate that perhaps it was Sarah who guided his understanding that only someone with Rivka's combination of character and background would be able to achieve this.... and that was the intention of God's command to Abraham "Listen to ALL that your wife Sarah tells you", in other words, not just about expelling Yishmael to protect Yitschak, but also about guaranteeing the next step, choosing Yaakov over Esav, which perhaps - as part of some deep divine plan - Abraham was made aware of but not Isaac.]

...

Rivka's combination of extreme goodness and a wily cunning . How do the two work together in one person?

Cunning was in Rivka's genes and environment, and her task was to channel it for good, guided by her incredible selfless kindness; and to use it when needed at God's behest even at great cost to herself). Nothing is by itself good or bad, it is only how it is used that makes it so. Sometimes killing & war is righteous (eg the US vs the Nazis), sometimes it is evil, certainly if one can prevent the disappearance of the Jewish People using cunning rather than war (as against Lavan, or in modern times how Israel acts against many of our enemies), it is preferable, and the cunning act is then holy.

..

Aside

There's a famous hasidic tale (somewhat adapted from a story in Talmud/midrash):

A Rabbi says "everything is holy, everything that was created has its purpose".

A student responds "but what about atheism?"

Rabbi: "Even atheism was created for a purpose: when you see a poor person, don't be very 'religious' and say to yourself 'I won't give him money because that would be to interfere in God's way of doing things, if he's poor it is God's will' and don't say 'I don't have to help him, God will help him'. Instead, for that moment be an atheist!"

(Of course this was meant by the Rabbi somewhat tongue in cheek, there's plenty of reason for a God-fearing person to help the poor, as pointed out in the Talmud version, but it's a great story).

.

So too, cunning and lying etc have their place, and can be holy as well (eg without great cunning by the country Israel - named after Yakov - its enemies would have had nuclear weapons long ago and perhaps used them to do what they have openly declared their goal is, to wipe Israel off the map).

....

Judging Favorably:

It must have been wrenching and tragic for Rivka when she realized that to achieve her divinely-ordained mission she needed to cheat her saintly & blind husband and cause enmity between her twin sons. [Rivka may have only understood the message in general at first, but years later when she heard that Yitschok was about to give the brocho (blessing) to Esav she understood that she needed to now take a step, and did it despite great personal pain (cheating her blind old husband and causing enmity between her twin sons)].

.

She understood all and acted as needed, fulfilling her destiny, albeit with great self-sacrifice & a high personal cost.

.

If we had watched her actions from the sidelines, not having heard God's prophecy revealed to her, we would have judged her very harshly. So we can learn that even when we witness an event that seems clearly evil, it might in fact have been done as a result of greatness - as here, where a very kind person was in this way ensuring that God's plan worked out, and acting under the authority of a direct revelation from God as to what she must bring about, despite the wrenching difficulty and tragic consequences.

.

So we need to be VERY careful when we judge others, despite what we see.

.

Conclusion:

Like Rivka, we too all have a purpose, and maybe receive a "message" about it in one way or another.

.

May we all be blessed:

* to be aware that it's a message;

* to understand its intent;

* to know how to implement the mission;

* to be complete with the role we are meant to play;

* for it not to involve suffering, neither of our own nor of others.

* to have the inner strength to judge everyone favorably....

...................

[Abraham sends for a bride for Yitschak only after Sarah's death, however perhaps one can speculate that perhaps it was Sarah who guided his understanding that only someone with Rivka's combination of character and background would be able to achieve this.... and that was the intention of God's command to Abraham "Listen to ALL that your wife Sarah tells you", in other words, not just about expelling Yishmael to protect Yitschak, but also about guaranteeing the next step, choosing Yaakov over Esav, which perhaps - as part of some deep divine plan - Abraham was made aware of but not Isaac.].

...................

Rivka's combination of extreme goodness and a wily cunning . How do the two work together in one person?

Cunning was in Rivka's genes and environment, and her task was to channel it for good, guided by her incredible selfless kindness; and to use it when needed at God's behest even at great cost to herself). Nothing is by itself good or bad, it is only how it is used that makes it so. Sometimes killing & war is righteous (eg the US vs the Nazis), sometimes it is evil, certainly if one can prevent the disappearance of the Jewish People using cunning rather than war (as against Lavan, or in modern times how Israel acts against many of our enemies), it is preferable, and the cunning act is then holy..

.

There's a famous hasidic tale (somewhat adapted from a story in Talmud/midrash):

A Rabbi says "everything is holy, everything that was created has its purpose".A student responds "but what about atheism?"Rabbi: "Even atheism was created for a purpose: when you see a poor person, don't be very 'religious' and say to yourself 'I won't give him money because that would be to interfere in God's way of doing things, if he's poor it is God's will' and don't say 'I don't have to help him, God will help him'. Instead, for that moment be an atheist!"(Of course this was meant by the Rabbi somewhat tongue in cheek, there's plenty of reason for a God-fearing person to help the poor, as pointed out in the Talmud version, but it's a great story).

.

So too, cunning and lying etc have their place, and can be holy as well (eg without great cunning by the country Israel - named after Yakov - its enemies would have had nuclear weapons long ago and perhaps used them to do what they have openly declared their goal is, to wipe Israel off the map)....

....

heme: What prophecy means: being pro-active, Rivka, (M”R?), Yona etc

Toldos: The greatness of Rivka as a proactive prophetess:  

Ve’hinei: they were surprised that it was twins: this is a hint that Rivka didn’t tell anyone. And if she had doubts about the reality of the prophecy, this dispelled them.
Like Yosef whose dream was in order to create the events which led to the realization of the dream, rivka’s prophecy was meant as a prescription for her future proactivism, not a passive prophecy of the future (Yona also of course).  When we see the end of the story we understand why Avraham sent for a bride from that area, the cheaters, but with chesed, ie she was different than them but was not naïve and could beat them at their own game if she had too, as indeed Yakov eventually did with lovon, with the sheep and then with the escape. Also we can understand rivka’s enigmatic ‘im ken lama zeh anochi’ as ‘ok, this is unusual, what is this trying to tell me, what am I supposed to be doing about all this’ and that’s why she went to ask God. Like M Rabenu w the b bush, seeing noticing stopping, remarking on it: ‘asurah na v’er’eh e hamareh hagadol hazeh, madu’ah lo yiv’ar hasneh’...”.
Rivka knows the family history, knows that yishmael was cast out, that sarah wanted it but not avraham, he was not clued in the way sarah was, also that avraham sent eliezer to haran without a clear plan, so she understands that the men in the family operate on a different plane, avraham likes the wrong son, yitschak likes the wrong son, the men are not involvled in the ‘practical’ realm of ensuring Jewish survival etc and that is her role. And after asking yakov ish tam to go totally against his nature and trick his father etc, she sends him to her family to shake him up with further training, teach him survival skills.
That’s why eliezer with the malach that avraham sent chose rivka based on chesed, she was in the horrible den of twisted people, and yet was full of chesed, this was remarkable, and also it meant that she had innate ability to use the twistedness when necessary, so be’di’eved he got both things he would have wanted, chesed and family.

Now we can see the struggle in the womb and at birth by which he earned this name as a portent to how  Yaakov earned a new name on his own merit, Israel, the name by which are called the future generations of Jewish People – the generations promised to Abraham and willingly sacrificed, and so we are Bnei Yisrael, Children of Israel, meant to live in the Land of Israel.  Just as he earned his original name by holding on to his brother, he earns this new powerful name by holding on to the ‘man’ = angel in his all night struggle, not letting him go just like he held the heel as he was being born after the struggle in the womb, thereby earning his original name: clearly there is a connection between the two events and the names given as a result of thes eevents.

.......

.....

As is the case with others, Yakov's life is a helix, closing circles with the same event recurring, but at a higher level. 

......

-------

vaye'ovek would be the letters of his name but it is with aleph

---

Interesting the Y then tells yaakov to flee, and gives his "the brocho of Avarahm"

....

must have had tremendous significance, especially as applied to his descendants, ie those fathered by his as yet unborn son, whom he named based on this term.it may well have had deep significance, 

…….

Ptoactive: M"R and Yosef, like Rivka (sort of)

Yosef’s proactive ‘prophecy’: Yosef is not just interpreting a dream - not just giving its meaning as a prediction of the future -  but rather he adds on the reason Par’oh is getting this dream, that God is telling him about the famine in order to give him an opportunity to prevent its dire consequences! Like Rivka, and Yonah.

....

מעמד הסנה כנסיון למשה רבינו

 ואכן משה רבינו סר לראות, ולא התעלם מהסנה, ובכך הלך בדרכיו של ה'......

Need to mention that Torah stresses "Vayar Hashem ki sar lir'ot"…  M”R was proactive in this sense….

………

T

After Avraham dies, God promises Ytschak:  26:5  עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקלי וישמר משמרתי מצותי חקותי ותורתי 

The context is 

  וַיְהִי רָעָב, בָּאָרֶץ, מִלְּבַד הָרָעָב הָרִאשׁוֹן, אֲשֶׁר הָיָה בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם; וַיֵּלֶךְ יִצְחָק אֶל-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ-פְּלִשְׁתִּים, גְּרָרָה. 

God tells Yitschak not to go down to Egypt, and then mentions "zar'acha" three times and then 'ekev' maybe as a hint that his seed is via Yaakov!

  וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ, כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְנָתַתִּי לְזַרְעֲךָ, אֵת כָּל-הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל; וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ.

4 and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves;

ה  עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי; וַיִּשְׁמֹר, מִשְׁמַרְתִּי, מִצְוֺתַי, חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי.

However the next story is re Avimelekh and Rivka, which doesn;t at all mention the two children esav and yaakov.

Then is the birthright saga, so  the hint did not work.

.And his hand was  holding his brother's heel

There's also possibly a deep reference to Genesis in all this.

The Eden account relates the rivalry between humans and snake in this way:  הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב He will rear his head to poison you) and you will turn your heel (to protect yourself by crushing him. 

But where do we see a head and a heel together? Yakov's head under Esav's heel as they are born!

Yakov is holding Esav's heel, ie Esav's heel is perhaps trying to crush Yakov's hand, ie perhaps Esav was trying to stamp out Yaakov, and the hand is trying to prevent the heel from hitting it, not trying to pull itself out first!!! 

So who is the snake here, Yaakov or Esav? Yakov's head is near Esav's heel, but the word 'heel' is the name then given to Yaakov!

But Yaakov is the one who lies!

Comparison of Rivka to the cases of Joseph, Moses and Jonah:

The greatness of Rivka as a proactive "prophetess":  understanding that this was her task - rather than simply accepting the message as "information" - made her into a great (almost-prophetess)-leader.

That this is not trivial we can see from these instances:

• Yona (Jonah) 

•                   He was the most the successful prophet, paradoxically because what he predicted (the overturning[destruction] of Ninveh) didn't come true!!! (At least not in the literal sense.) 

  •          However, the PURPOSE of the prophecy was not prediction, it was quite the opposite - prevention. In otehr words, to cause the people to change their ways (be 'overturned') in order to prevent destruction. And it WORKED! [Yonah, with or against his will, was an instrument in proactively warning people so that the intended consequence would turn out (ie the opposite of the outer-level message of impending doom), it was not meant to be a sterile 'prediction', a fated event, but was rather a call to action to prevent this 'fate'.

  •            We'll see now that Jonah understood his mission but did not want to play that role. Jonah's reason for running away (according to Tradition) was to prevent that nation from repenting and being saved from destcruction and then going on to destroy Israel eventually (as they indeed did) - ie Yonah felt that if he did not give the people of Ninveh the warning they would be destroyed by God, which would save the Jewish people from them. 

  •                From the fact of  Yona's attempt to run away from his mission we can see that Yonah was told to take action, but because of ramifications he clearly wasn't onboard with his own role in achieving that purpose (for good reasons as we saw). So a blessing to someone that they know their mission is not quite enough.

• There is a similarity to the case of Yosef's dreams. 

•           The dreams were realized when he became the source of wheat for his brothers (in the dream their wheat bowed to his wheat). So the dreams were not just prophecy, rather their purpose was to start the chain of events which led to their realization!

•             Yosef telling his dreams to his brothers brought about a particular realization of the dreams (they brought about his sale to Egypt, which set the stage for his eventual rise to rulership over Egypt). Later, he not only understood Pharaoh's dream [Yosef’s had proactive ‘prophecy’: he not just interprets the dream - not just giving its meaning as a prediction of the future -  but rather he adds on the reason why Par’oh is getting this dream, that God is telling him about the famine in order to give him an opportunity to prevent its dire consequences!] Yosef aslo understood HIS OWN purpose regarding the situation - and he took the dangerous step of suggesting to Pharaoh what to do about the dream, not just to give an interpretation as he was asked to do. Fortunately Pharaoh also understood, and rather than resenting Yosef's impertinence at making unsolicited suggestions he recognized Yosef to be the appropriate persons to complete the intended call-to-action - in this sense they were a perfect pair and they were both onboard with their personal life-purpose. That is indeed a blessing.

• Moses stopped to wonder at the bush which was on fire but was not consumed (others seeing it presumably didn't stop: the Torah stresses "Vayar Hashem ki sar lir'ot"…  he stopped to marvel and figure things out, ie he was proactive in this sense , and the passage states that this is why God spoke to him.) However, despite the fact that Moses saw something, understood it was a message, and investigated, nevertheless from the ensuing conversation with God we see that at first he wasn't aboard with the application to his own destiny [For good reasons of course (humility), but it was misplaced, as he later on grew to realize.] At the time of the event itself he eventually accepted his mission of course, but not with a full heart.

• Rivka was close to perfect: she understood that the kicking in her belly was a message, she knew whom to ask (God, not the doctor). 

  • We can now understand the enigmatic statement by rivka "‘im ken lama zeh anochi". It means: ‘ok, this is unusual, what is this trying to tell me, what am I supposed to be doing about all this’. And that’s why after saying this she went to consult 'God' (or the prophet of the time). This was like Moses at the burning bush, seeing noticing stopping, remarking on it: ‘asurah na v’er’eh e hamareh hagadol hazeh, madu’ah lo yiv’ar hasneh’...”; he didn't just say "what an amazing event", or make a brocho (blessing) on it, he understood that it was incumbent upon him to investigate.] 

  • We can see from the later action Rivka took that she undertood exactly that it was a message about her own personal mission (she may have only understood it in general at first, but years later when she heard that Yitschok was about to give the brocho to Esav she understood that she needed to now take a step, and did it desite great personal pain (cheating her blind old husband and casuing enmity between her twin sons). She understood all and acted as needed, fulfilling her destiny, albeit with great self-sacrifice & a high personal cost.

……

The moral: 

May we be blessed with the inner resources, and "good eyes", to see the true meanings of events, and the underlying patterns in history and in our lives; and may our names always have positive meaning!

"Yischak is the son of Avraham"

The Torah opens the parsha by presenting Yischak as" son of Avraham", which we of course know. But this is to let us know that just as Avraham was promised children but was initially without a real inheritor, and then had Yitschak, so too that son had a similar divine assistance, and had children despite barren-ness.

[The Torah tells us of the barreness of Rivka in that context, ie we read of the barren-ness but since it is yitschok son of avraham we know there is going to be some resolution of this, ie just as Avraham didn;t have children but they overcaseme it, so too here.]

[Also perhaps to contrast with Avraham: Sarah gave him hagar which might have been a mistake, rivka didnt do that, and instead they davened for her to have children. Yitschak was the product of the tension  between Sarah and Hagar and maybe he understood what to do to prevent that, he made sure to have only one wife; but the effect was the same, two children instead of one and one became the enemy of the other, as with Avraham's chilren, so it didn't help in that respect.]

Sarah told Avraham the plan: א וְשָׂרַי אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם, לֹא יָלְדָה לוֹ; וְלָהּ שִׁפְחָה מִצְרִית, וּשְׁמָהּ הָגָר.  ב וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל-אַבְרָם, הִנֵּה-נָא עֲצָרַנִי יְהוָה מִלֶּדֶת--בֹּא-נָא אֶל-שִׁפְחָתִי, אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּה; וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, לְקוֹל שָׂרָי but Avraham didn't say he'll daven for Sarah nor did Sarah ask, but in contrast, with Avraham's son it DID happen.

....

Note that when they first met, it was when he was davening opposite her:

( וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה, לִפְנוֹת עָרֶב; וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה גְמַלִּים בָּאִים.  סד וַתִּשָּׂא רִבְקָה אֶת-עֵינֶיהָ, וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-יִצְחָק; וַתִּפֹּל, מֵעַל הַגָּמָל.  סה וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל-הָעֶבֶד, מִי-הָאִישׁ הַלָּזֶה הַהֹלֵךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה לִקְרָאתֵנוּ, וַיֹּאמֶר הָעֶבֶד, הוּא אֲדֹנִי; וַתִּקַּח הַצָּעִיף, וַתִּתְכָּס. ) 

so it is fitting that here too it is written: וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ

....

Alot of similar sounds, and heh's: סז וַיְבִאֶהָ  ,  הָאֹהֱלָה,  וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ

These three combined without any other words could have been a concise pasuk, but instead there are other words filling it in, as if it were Rashi:

סז וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק, הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-רִבְקָה וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ;

.........

...

3/6.  Lamaze(h) Birth technique

 When feeling the pre-birth struggle inside her of Eav and Yakov, Rivka says:

25:22:  “if so, why am I “ = “im ken, Lama-zeh anochi”, about the struggle between Esav & Yaakov in the womb - the phrase expressing Rivka's perplexity and intention of determining the meaning, leading to her destiny, the mission of making sure Yaakov "ruled over" Esav. 

Years later, at a seminal moment in this struggle, when selling the birthright, Esav says:

25:32:  I will die “why do I need the birthright” = “lama zeh li bchora”, the phrase relating to Esav's attitude about his destiny, and bringing about the realization of Rivka's mission in some sense.

One can give three interpretations of this parallel:

• 1) It conveys that this was a reward to Rivka: due to her proactivity she earns the successful achievement of the first step of her mission.

• 2) It implies the justification for Yaakov to withold food from his brother in order to gain a return - it was part of the divine mission imposed on Rivka;

• 3) It tells us that this was an official transfer based on the higher-level rather than a simple careless act that is unenforceable.

Note: Quite possibly Yaakov never knew that his mother had used this expression, and so he himself would not realize all this, but probably Rivka heard about the verbal exchange (after all, she even knew that which according to the Torah was in Esav's intentions only [to kill yaakov], not spoken). If so, she would realize the above connections.

[Rivka might have told Yaakov the story, it is reasnable that she would, and it would explain Yaakov's actions. But shemight not have told him of these words; she certainly would not have told Esav the story, so it wasn't a conscious echo. Of course it might also be that he HAD heard the story and the words, somehow, and this WAS a conscious echo, and perhaps in some sense ironic or sarcastic, and therefore NOT legally valid. Which is why the trnasfer was consummatd later on in the long nightime "struggle" between Yaakov and the "man".]

 .....

4. Incensed at their Daughters-in-law

 The Torah tells us that Yitschak was blinded. According to Tradition it was caused by the smoke of the incense offered by Esav’s wives to their deities; these daughters-in-law were “a bitterness of spirit” to Yitschak and Rivka. 

AR: Support for this attribution of Isaac’s blindness to Esav’s wives can be found perhaps in the alliteration/parallel of the key words in the two relevant passages: 

26:35 “and they were (a bitterness of spirit)”: and they (feminine plural) were = “vati h’yena”

27:1 “and (his eyes) were blinded”: and were blinded = “vatich-h’yena”.

........

5. You Can Purchase a Degree on the Internet, Can You Purchase Blessings?

 The blessings of Isaac were to got to the eldest – how could they go through trickery to the younger? Would they not be invalid?

Esav says “Ya’akov ‘heeled’ me twice, he took my birthright and he took my blessings”. He is essentially admitting that Yakov had the right to the blessings since Esav had sold him the birthright, which was the ticket to the blessings.

Note also that the words for “birthright” and “blessing” in Hebrew - “birchosi" and “bchorosi”  - are composed of exactly the same (Hebrew) letters, symbolizing that when Ya’kov bought the birthright  - the bchora -  he was purchasing the right to the purpose of the birthright, namely the blessing – the brocho.

..

6. Yakov’s Karma

 Chazal point out parallels (see below; we'll add a few as well) which imply that every action has a metaphysical effect, and they further imply that had Yakov and Rivka managed things differently perhaps Esav need not have become an enemy. The same regarding Avraham, Sarah and Yishmael. 

Yakov: Although he acted as he should have at that moment, he eventually paid for his trickery:

1)    Esav says: “give me please (hal’iteni na) of this porridge for I am very hungry/tired (ki ayef anochi)” 

As a result of exploiting Esav’s plea above, Yaakov was affected by events leading to this request to God:

“save me please (hatzileni na) from Esav for I am very afraid (ki yarey anochi)”

 2)    a) Yaakov presented himself to Isaac as if he was Esav,  to get the blessings instead of Esav.  Lavan exchanges one sibling for the other, presenting Yakov with Leah instead of Rachel. 

b)       Isaac says to Ya'akov: "your brother came in deception". Yakov the ‘deceiver’ in that case later asks Lavan “Why did you deceive me” using the same Hebrew word, indicating that the deception by Lavan was a direct or metaphysical result of Yakov’s own previous deception ('direct' meaning that lavan eventually heard about Yakov's trick and used the same trick on Yakov).

c)       Yakov tells Lavan “I finished my seven years of work, give me my wife” and doesn’t use her name, and Lavan gives him “a wife”, giving him the wrong one since he didn’t specify her name, playing with the words as Yakov said “I am your son Esav” when he was not, justifying it (according to some) by splitting the words “I am your son” without specifying which one, and then adding the word Esav.

d)       Lavan tells Yaakov “In our place we don’t give the younger before the older” whereas of course Ya’akov the younger sibling had usurped the rights of the older. And in case, if indeed Yakov bought the birthright and was thus the elder now, he should marry the elder of Lavan’s daughters, not the younger.

..........

The Moral: 

In all these cases, it is not criticism. Instead, there is the realization that when things came to the point they did, there was no other option but to follow the course the Avos & Imahos took, but by pointing out the parallels chazal's implication seems to be that it would have perhaps been better if things would not have gotten to that point. 

Perhaps the Torah wants us to keep this in mind, that the results of our actions will come back in 'revenge', so that it is worthwhile exerting extra effort to prevent events from deteriorating to the point where such actions are necessary.

....................

Section III: Somewhat political 

(Perhaps skip this section it may not be to your taste) 

Trickery: by Avimelech, Lavan, Rivka & Yakov

 Hucksters, Tricksters and Gangsters in the Torah

Avimelekh, Lavan, Bila’am etc seems to be upstanding but the Torah shows more subtly that they were not; similarly Esav seems upstanding but the Torah hints that he was not: we are told that Esav’s wives were a source of bitterness to both his parents (26:35 27:46  28:8), a rather radical statement, and even Isaac who wanted to give him a blessing requested of Esav  27:4  “make me savoury food, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.” : perhaps we can read this as implying that Isaac couldn’t bring himself to give Esav a blessing without being in a good mood first!

The great miracle of the splitting of the Re(e)ed Sea was via a strong wind and so any sceptic could claim that it was a natural event, and similarly for other public miracles. So too the Torah allows the hypocrites of the world to see their fellow hypocrites Avimelech, Lavan and Esav as righteous, while seeing Avraham and Rivka and  Yakov as wicked. The Torah often employs a double standard, holding the righteous to a higher scrutiny, usually only hinting at the moral failings of the wicked, while highlighting those of the righteous.

May we be blessed to have "good eyes", to see matters as they really are...

Marriage: Assimilation vs Creation of a National Identity

Although Abraham and his grandson Yakov (Jacob) left Israel for Egypt in time of famine, God insisted that Isaac not go even in time of trouble: Tradition states that Isaac was forbidden to leave the Land of Israel. Why could Abraham and Yakov - Isaac’s father and son – leave Israel but not he? [1]

Basically there are three elements involved in Abraham's instruction to Eliezer: 

a. the ban on leaving Israel;

b. the requirement not to marry the local people;

c. the hope of marrying within the family.

Actually there is a subtlety related to c. Eliezer seems to want a member of Abraham's family, but Abraham specifies only that she be from the region the family originated, though perhaps the latter implies the former. I 

Summary: Abraham knew that his family was special and hoped that a suitable wife would be found for Isaac among them, meaning a woman from Harran - which is outside of Israel - but he made it clear that Isaac was not to actually live there[2] (ie on the one hand he was NOT to marry locally, but on the otherhand he was definitely to LIVE locally). Which of the three (a,b,c) was most important? Which one could be violated to keep the others? (eg: Why not prevent the possibility of an eventual move by Isaac to Harran by ensuring that he marry locally?)

To answer, we’ll combine two Traditional ideas:

·         God promised Abraham ‘your seed’ will inherit the land, and tells him that ‘Isaac will be your seed’. Presumably therefore it is via Isaac that the Land was to be inherited. 

·         According to Jewish Law unchallenged occupancy of land over some period of time indicates ownership. That is, abandonment of a piece of land by its owners for that period constitutes abandonment of the claim to ownership.

Isaac couldn’t leave the Land for the following reason: The Jewish People did not claim the Land via conquest but rather via the covenant which God had made with Abraham to give the Land to his seed, Isaac. Had Abraham left Harran only for his son to return to live there the claim to the Land might have been nullified, at least in the eyes of other nations. Therefore it was important that one full generation live in the Land before the exile to Egypt began in the time of Yakov: it couldn’t be Abraham since he immigrated there, and so it was the mission of his son Isaac. 

Isaac’s claim to the Land was cemented by a life-time of his residence there. It was therefore possible for his son Yakov to leave, even for a lengthy stay, and for this to be considered temporary since it was always the intention to return, and because the Jews were eventually enslaved and couldn’t return on their own, and returned as soon as they escaped slavery. 

[Possible message for today: Now that there is no foreign major power dominating Israel, like the Roman English or Ottoman Empires, the Jewish People should move back to the land to reinforce our claim to it.]

 ..................................

 First of all it never happened; Secondly: I didn’t do it ; Thirdly: You did it!

Whether is it Lavan or Avimelech or someone else: Our enemies cast their sins on us; we are called nazis by those who slaughter us, who themselves want to exterminate us.  

·         Those who cannot accept how successful is Zion, attribute it to a conspiracy, and even create false histories complete with the protocols of the alleged meetings of the conspirators. 

·         As they work to destroy the Temple Mount from the inside they proclaim to all that it never existed. 

·         And though they dream of creating another Holocaust, they deny it ever happened since they cannot reconcile it with their paranoid fantasy of a worldwide network of all-powerful Jews. 

·         After a generation of denial, whatever will then be left of the Holocaust will be attributed to the Jews themselves: they will say: first of all it didn’t happen, secondly the Jews deserved it because they are nazis, and thirdly the Jews perpetrated it themselves just as they did with the WTC.

 ...……………

Loaded Silence

The Torah seems to present the connection between each Patriarch and God in a manner which grants them exclusivity: no two Patriarchs are recorded as having conversation with God in the same period: 

• After the first recorded communication by God with Isaac there isn’t any with Abraham anymore;

• after the first recorded conversation with Yakov there’s none with Isaac.

The timing of each of these transitions is also interesting. For example the last recorded communicating from Abraham to God is the one word “Hineni”, and immediately following is God’s request to take Isaac as a sacrifice. From that moment on Abraham, though totally obedient, does not talk to God. (The word hineni and the consequent silence is perhaps echoed by the words and silence between Abraham and Isaac on their three-day journey towars the 'akedah' at Moriah.)

 ......

MISC: delete these?

Why not marry a local woman: The bulk of the surrounding people were Cananites, who were involved in abominable practices, and so were not an option to bgin with. 

However even marrying a local non-Cananite woman could have led to assimilation into the larger surrounding culture, would dilute the idea of Abraham’s descendants being a new nation, and would involve Abraham in unwanted family connections and treaties with local people. (And the promise "to your seed will I giv this land" becomes a very different "your seed will marry into the local people and will rule here").

Countering Revisionist Historians: Perhaps never in history since that time has the Jewish claim to the Land been as challenged by others as it is now: our enemies in the past destroyed our Temple, but our enemies today deny that it ever existed, and make attempts to destroy archaeological evidence of its existence, and so living there now is especially important – it is a reaffirmation of our covenant.

From file "chumash english material email myu NEW"

………………….....
Chayeh Soroh: Eliezer finds rivka
Q: Why is the story of eliezer and rivka in parshas chaye sarah, ie why does all this happen after her death?
Answer: All this could happen only after Sarah died, if she had been alive she would have taken charge etc, but Sarah had to be out of the wife-selection process, this was meant for Avrahma nd Eliezer. Also, Yischak was ready to start being the next generation of the avot only after the akedah; also, at this point there needed to be room for his wife to be the matriarch, so Sarah’s time as matriarch was over, and so she died.

Q: Why didn’t Avraham himself choose a wife for Yitschak? Why didn’t he at least give explicit directions to Eliezer how to choose? If Avraham was not specifying that the girl be from his family, only from that region, then why bother sending Eliezer to his ancestral home at all – surely he should have said ‘find a girl from my family’ not ‘from the region where my family comes.
How did Eliezer dare make a condition? Why that condition? Why was he hesitating, waiting to see if God had given him success after seeing her fulfil the condition? And if he was hesitating, why give her the nezem etc? And why did he thank God only after finding out who she was? And when telling it over to her family why did Eliezer change the story of how he met Rivka etc, and how was he justified in doing so?
Answers:
Yitschak was special, an akeda, he needed a special wife. Best would be from the family, from shem and etc. But she had to be with midos, so eliezer was conflicted – choose family or chose based on chesed, and in the end he got both. If he went with family he would never know if he could have done better for yischak, but hashem made it happen that the best in terms of chesed turned out also to be form family. Eliezer knew that he was being sent to the family home to get a girl from the family, why else, but he wasn’t told that specifically, so that couldn’t be the criterion. So there was ambiguity in what had to happen. So that explains Avraham’s non-instructions, but he sent a mal’ach to guide eliezer, ‘shomer psoyim hashem’ avrohom trusted, eliezer made the right choice of condition and asked the malach to arrange it, and it worked. Of course the fact that the condition worked indicated success of some sort, but until it was revealed that she was family, he didn’t know if
it really was hatzlacha in the broader sense. [Also, the fact that rivka was the first one perhaps made it suspiciously easy, so he could be understood if he is wondering.] And that’s why now eliezer said that God had not withheld “chasdo ve’amito” to avraham, it was chesed and emet to avraham but also rivka had chesed which was the important criterion and also had the family connection (so why is this ‘emet’?), and ‘not withheld’ menaing that eliezer was not forced to choose between one or the other, so that one would be defacto withheld.
Imagine the family’s reaction if they realized that eliezer came to town and didn’t immediately come to thm, hs relatives. And if he didn’t first see if they had a girl for yitschak. This would be gross insult, all the town would laugh at the family and hold them in contempt that his relative, wealthy etc came to town for a shiddach and picked up an anonymous girl at the well and they wouldn’t even have known that eliezer was in town at all. So eliezer changed the story,. And how could he do that/ because actually he was sent to the town because et was where the family lived and clearly that was because the preferred shiddach was form family, and they so it was the truth in a way, and indeed eliezer only considered it a hatlacha when he found she was family.
......
From all this we can see why eliezer has his name, or deserved it.
............
Why did eliezer ask re place to sleep? And hay etc, and why wait to talk of shiddach til later, and why sleep over, or why mention it? Maybe bec it was important he arrive at sunset when the girls come to the well, so as not to be in town earlier, because lovin/besuel would find out and ruin it all, so it was necessarily evening so they had to sleep over, but why is it improtantn enough to b par tof the sotry.

If it was afer sunset and rivka was coming home with the water, they should all have eated together, a big festive meal for the guuset, especiallyas there was a shiddach. But maybe they gave him food separately because he ws an eved, a he made clear when he said ‘adoni avraham’.

            …………..

The greatness of Eliezer:

A was a king, defeatred the major kings in battle, malkitzedek and melech sdom recognized hi m as leader, but he didn’t cal himself king, his title of honor was eved hashem.

Eliezer was eved avraham, who was eved hashem

Eliezer was sent for shiddach – imagine who would this family trust to find a shiddach for …☺ A sent a malach to accompany E, why need E if have malach? Bec Eliezer was so special.

Eliezer’s descent is not explained in chumash, name elokai be’ezri where is this entoined. First to have name with el in it?look thru lists of names before him.

E was A’s shamash on theior trip abroad (war), and Z was the rov’s shamash on their mission..

Eliezer was sent by Avraham on a mission to a foreign land, so was R Ch Eliezer as a young man (lucky that the mssion didn’t involve returning – tzedoko tatzil mimovess)

E chose  rivka bec of chesed, and z chose name of chofetz chaim fo yeshiva as a way of teaching aobut chesed etc.(ch ch also wrote sefer ahavas chesed)..and so if the ch chaim was named for his sefer, and Z named his yeshiva for the person and sefer, then Z chaimcould say his nakme chaimwas also after the ch chayim.

E davened to Hashem and was answered, had great siyatah dishmaya (maybe it was the malach sent by A, maybe it was zechut of A, but the fact is that A entrusted it all to him!)

But Avrohom was eved hashem as a term of affection, avid and also ohavi. But if your master calls himself ‘eved hashem’, then what better homnor than to be considered eved by your master. This parsha is about Avrom and his eved Eliezer who was so great that he was to be Avrom’s yoresh! So ‘eved’ is something special. God gives Avrohom the yerusha (eretz yisrael), gives his eved Avrohom and Avrohom to his eved Eliezer.

………

Jews name their children after Eliezer!: Tradition to name after deceased: we don’t see this in chumash much at all, in Nach there are no “Avram Yitschak Yaakov Yosef Moshe etc”. But in our parsha we have Nachor, grandson of nachor [presumably after his grandfather died (ages work out, interesting that Avrohom Haran and nachor are said to be bron at a certain age of terach, as though they are triplets, but they were not, so there were ore years until the 2nd and 3rd were born, so the numbers can easily work out.]

Great non-Jews: Chanoch, who must have had descendants who revered his name and maybe continued his tradition. Shem had various children. Even Pharoah who took Sarah realized from the nega’im what the source was and took the correct steps. Malkitzedek (Shem?), Lot who was willing to put his life in jeopardy to save strangers.

Terach is first to go to eretz canaan.

Why did R Elizer and R Yishmoel have names after non-Jews (there’s nno R Esov or R Bil’om!) But nowadays noone takes name Yishmoel.

….

Rivka had ruach hakodesh not nevuah, knew what esav thought , to kill Y. Same for lidrosh et hashem.

.....…

Re Rivka, Devorah http://www.ou.org/torah/article/vayishlach_from_devorah_to_devorah

…

Avimelech: there are psychological motives at work. Even regarding 'asher lo yada et yosef' it is not clear what is meant, if it is a conscious psychological attitude, a non-conscious denial, or real ignorance of the earlier history. Same here. And the same with people and heads of state - Netanyahu's father Sharon and Obama's predecessor as AviMelech Bush, met and made a brit, but Obama never heard of nor mentioned it. The Saudi's didn't ask the US to bomb Iran.

Clearly the brit was not part of their relationship for whatever reason, and Yitschak had to make a separate agreement about the wells, Israel knows a lot about buying the same merchandise multiple times. The bottom line is that Avimelech's character is consistently sneaky, just that his MO is more cautious after his earlier brush. 

It was convenient for Avimelech to pretend he didn't know Yitschak, that way he didnt have to return the wells he stole or plugged. But he couldn;t help himself with lust. So he operated surrepetitiously. He probably himself didn't know what he would do if it turned out that Rivka was Yitschak's wife.

Why would he be frightened if he neither remembered the earlier incident nor received a nevuah? If he remembered the earlier incident, he wouldn't need a nevuah, and should have behaved differently. His behavior was as though he 'didnt remember, never heard, wasn't told'. So when his fears from the first encounter couldn;t overcome his desires, he peeked, and was shown the truth in clear terms and received a stark warning.

..

I don't need to rebut, there are various ways to explain/understand things, his and mine are two of many.

We all of us know human behavior, which includes denial, and Avimelech is famous for his denial " וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ--לֹא יָדַעְתִּי, מִי עָשָׂה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה; וְגַם-אַתָּה לֹא-הִגַּדְתָּ לִּי, וְגַם אָנֹכִי לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי--בִּלְתִּי הַיּוֹם."

He could know of Avraham and still act as if he didn't. He could know he should stay away, and he'll instead peek in the window. Like Bil'am knowing God doesnl;t want him to go but going anyway, with some innner excuse.

So I don't think that necessarily one could look at this story and analyze it purely on cold logic, since people don;t do what is logical, especially when it comes to a man who desires a woman. One needs to use logic to think through what it is logical to assume was done by a man in lust who is into denial and is powerful enough to get away with a lot, but who fears a possibly greater power. 

If Avimeleck knew of Avraham and knew that Yitschak is his son, then presumably Yitschak knew Avimelech and knew that Avimilech had known Avraham. If so, Avimelech had reason to be afraid to do anything, and in any case there had been brit between them etc. Avimelech said אִם-תִּשְׁקֹר לִי, וּלְנִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי so this brit goes for Yitschak as well, and if Yitschak felt Avimelech was not in denial about it, he would be trustworthy and could be told the truth. And so why not just say this is my wife, and Avimelech would stay away. From the fact that Yitschak felt that he needed to hide this, it seems that Avimelech would NOT stay away even if he knew. Avimelech's servants had stolen wells and he made protestations of innocence that sound very suspicious (see no evil hear no evil, know no evil), Avimelech himself took Sara without her permission, and he peeked in a window, he obviously is not a fine person. 

 וְכָל-הַבְּאֵרֹת, אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ עַבְדֵי אָבִיו, בִּימֵי, אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו--סִתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וַיְמַלְאוּם עָפָר

In any case I think that because they were there a long time and Avimelech did not see any children, nor did he see Rivka pregnant at all, he assumed that she was his sister indeed, and it was possible to pretend this enough for him to justify to himself that he could peek in the window (which is of course evil in any case). Had she had children or been even in the beginning of a pregnancy, it would not have passed as an excuse (even if she is Y's sister, she is someone's wife). Of course this does not excuse his peeking in the window.

And Avimelch had said:  וּלְשָׂרָה אָמַר, הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי אֶלֶף כֶּסֶף לְאָחִיךְ. so he agreed that the term Achoti could apply to a married woman, and so this should have been a code word to him from Avraham's son that Sarah is his wife, and he should have left them alone. And it does not constitute an untruth, a violation of אִם-תִּשְׁקֹר לִי, וּלְנִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי . He could ask permission this time, with the understanding that he could be politely refused. But he didn't, he peeked in the window.

So he knew and din;t know, was afraid and yet in lust and acting in risky behavior way, but a little prudent in case. Trying to push the envelope, to see what he could get away with.

But had the children been around, and Rivka and Yitschak and the children walking about, he would have stayed away, since it does not matter whether Yitschak is the husband, someone clearly is, and in any case he knows that 'achoti' includes hisband. 

I guess this is all a little confused, but I think that people's motives are. Maybe I should work out exactly a specific scenario of psychological self-deception etc.

But in any case I don;t mean t refute someone else's way of seeing it.

...

BTW:

Maybe there's something in this parallel/contrast

כ וַיַּעֲבֹד יַעֲקֹב בְּרָחֵל, שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים; וַיִּהְיוּ בְעֵינָיו כְּיָמִים אֲחָדִים, בְּאַהֲבָתוֹ אֹתָהּ. 

 וַיְהִי, כִּי אָרְכוּ-לוֹ שָׁם הַיָּמִים, וַיַּשְׁקֵף אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן

………

יצחק

מטרת ההודעה לאברהם על לידת יצחק

"וגם נתתי ממנה לך בן" (יז, טז)

מדוע הודיע ה' לאברהם (ואח"כ לשרה) על לידת בנו עוד לפני ההריון, בשונה מהגר, שרק אחרי שהרתה, אמר לה המלאך שיהיה לה בן (לפי הפשט, ש"הנך הרה" מתייחס להריון שכבר היה לה)? הרי אם המטרה היתה לומר לו איזה שם לקרוא לו, היה יכול להמתין עד ההריון, כמו שאצל הגר, אמר לה את השם רק אחרי ההריון?

ייתכן שכיוון שכוונות האב והאם בשעת התשמיש משפיעות על אופי הילד, רצה ה' להודיע להם לפני ההריון, כדי שיוכלו לכוון בשעת תשמיש את הכוונות המתאימות להולדת ילד שעתיד להמשיך את שליחותו הגדולה של אברהם. ולכן הודיע להם מראש את שמו, ואת הטעם לנתינת שמו, שמלמד על אופיו של יצחק, ובהתאם לזה יכוונו בשעת תשמיש. זאת בניגוד לתשמיש סתמי, שעליו נאמר "יצחק מצחק את רבקה אשתו" (כו, ח), כלומר שאין בו כוונות כל כך גבוהות כמו בתשמיש המכוון להולדת ממשיך השרשרת, אף שברור שאצל ענקי עולם גם ה"מצחק" הוא בדרגה גבוהה.

הצחוק של אברהם על בשורת לידת בנו

"וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָהָם עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּצְחָק" (יז, יז)

מדוע אין ביקורת על צחוקו של אברהם כמו הביקורת על צחוקה של שרה (יח, יג)?

אפשר להסביר, שבניגוד לשרה שצחקה "בקרבה" (יח, יב), כמו מי שצוחק בלעג, הרי אצל אברהם לא כתוב "בקרבו", אלא הוא צחק בגלוי, מה שמראה שלא צחק מתוך לעג. ועוד, שלפני שצחק הוא נפל "על פניו", כאות של הכנעה לה', מה שמראה שאינו לועג אלא שמח. ואכן אונקלוס מתרגם 'וחדי', לשון שמחה. 

עוד אפשר להסביר שאברהם אכן צחק מתוך זלזול, אבל לא היה בכך פגם, כיון שזו תגובה טבעית לבשורה כזאת; ואכן כששמע אברהם את הבשורה בפעם השנייה, מן המלאכים, לא צחק. וגם לגבי שרה, הביקורת לא היתה על שרה, אלא על אברהם, שלא סיפר לה  ששמע את ההבטחה מה' ולכן צחקה כששמעה מאורחים, כפי שנסביר להלן.

...............FROM A LATER PARSHA.......

מתי אירע מעשה אבימלך?

"וילך יצחק אל אבימלך מלך פלשתים גררה" (כו, א)

יש כמה ראיות שמעשה אבימלך היה לפני לידת יעקב ועשו, אף שהוא נכתב אחריה:

א) יעקב ועשו לא נזכרים בכל המעשה (פרק כו פסוקים א-לג).

ב) אם יעקב ועשו היו שם, איך טען יצחק שרבקה היא אחותו? אם כן, מי אמם של הילדים? ודחוק לומר שהסתירו את יעקב ועשו כל אותו הזמן, שהרי זה היה זמן ארוך כמו שכתוב "וַיְהִי כִּי אָרְכוּ-לוֹ שָׁם הַיָּמִים".

ג) לשון ההבטחה "כִּי-לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת-כָּל-הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל, וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-הַשְּׁבֻעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ, וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְנָתַתִּי לְזַרְעֲךָ אֵת כָּל-הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל; וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ", שמזכירה את הזרע בצורה סתמית, לא מתאים למי שיש לו שני ילדים, שהרי ה' היה צריך להודיע לו איזה מהם יקבל את הארץ.

ד) יותר מסתבר שאבימלך מגלה עניין ברבקה אם היא צעירה.

אם כך הוא, בפסוק "והנה יצחק מצחק את רבקה אשתו" (כו, ח), אפשר לפרש את המלה "מצחק" במובן שיצחק מנסה להכניס את רבקה להריון (שהרי בשלב זה היא עדיין עקרה), משום שיצחק הבין שנקרא "יצחק", לשון עתיד, כדי ללמד שזרעו יבוא לו בדרך "צחוק".

ומה שהתורה כתבה את הסיפור שלא במקומו, הוא משום שאילו נכתבה לידת הבנים אחרי מעשה אבימלך, היה אפשר לחשוב שהיא הרתה מאבימלך. 

מה ראה אבימלך אצל יצחק?

"וַיַּשְׁקֵף אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ פְּלִשְׁתִּים בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה יִצְחָק מְצַחֵק אֵת רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ" (כו, ח)

איך ידע אבימלך שהיא אשתו? אולי היא אחותו, והם מגלי עריות, והיה צריך להורגם? או היה לו לנצל זאת כדי להרוג את יצחק באשמת גילוי עריות, ולקחת את רבקה? ומדוע לא העניש את יצחק על כך ששיקר?

ועוד, מדוע אח"כ אמר לכל עמו "הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּאִישׁ הַזֶּה וּבְאִשְׁתּו מוֹת יוּמָת" (כו, יא) - ממה הוא פחד כל כך? 

נראה שהמלה "וישקף" רומזת שאבימלך קיבל מסר מעין-נבואי מה', שזוהי אשתו, ושהוא איש קדוש, שאל לו לאבימלך לנגוע בו לרעה. ולכן הוא עצמו לא פגע ביצחק, ואף הזהיר את עמו מלפגוע ביצחק.

דבר זה מקביל לחלום שקיבל אבימלך (אותו אבימלך או מלך קודם שנקרא כך) כשלקח את שרה, שבו הזהיר אותו ה' שלא יגע בה לרעה.

רמז למשמעות הנבואית של המלה "וישקף", יש בפסוק (מלכים א' ז, ד-ה):  "ושקופים, שלושה טורים, ומחזה אל-מחזה, שלוש פעמים, וכל-הפתחים והמזוזות, רבועים שקף, ומול מחזה אל-מחזה, שלוש פעמים" - הסמיכות של "שקופים" ל"מחזה" רומזת שיש כאן עניין נבואי כמו במחזה. ו"שלוש פעמים" רומזים לחלום אבימלך, השקפת אבימלך כאן, והענשת פרעה כשלקח את שרה.

הבארות של יצחק

"ויקרא להן שמות כשמת אשר קרא להן אביו" (בראשית כו, יח)

יצחק דאג לקרוא לבארות המים שחפר באותם השמות שניתנו ע"י אברהם אביו (אף שבזמן התנ"ך לא נהגו לקרוא לילדים על שם אבותיהם כנהוג היום, ובוודאי לא היה מנהג כזה בשמות בארות). הוא התכוון בזה להדגיש לעבדי אבימלך שהבארות שייכים למשפחתו זמן רב, ולא חפר אותם באיסור על אדמתם.

אבל זה לא עזר לו, ועדיין רבו עמו עבדי אבימלך על הבארות (פסוקים כ-כא). 

רק אחרי זמן, הכירו בצדקתו ואמרו: "ויאמרו ראו ראינו כי היה ה' עמך" (כו, כח). נראה שהכרה זאת נבעה ממה שראו שבכל פעם שחפרו עבדי יצחק בארות, מצאו מים. מציאת בארות מים במדבר היה הדבר שעליו היה תלוי הכל - החיים והפרנסה. מזה הכירו עבדי אבימלך שמה' יצא הדבר.

סגולה כזאת של הבארות מצויה גם אצל המעשה באליעזר: מתוך מה שעשתה לו רבקה ליד הבאר, אמר "ברוך ה' אלקי אדני אברהם" (כד, כז). זאת אומרת שע"י הבאר, הכיר שהיה כאן יד ה', ובזכות זה זכה יצחק ברבקה.

אחר כך, כשחפרו עבדי יצחק באר נוספת, נאמר: "ויקרא אתה שבעה על כן שם העיר באר שבע עד היום הזה" (כו, לג). נראה שהייתה זו באר שחפר אביו, והוא קרא לו "שבעה" או "באר שבע" על שם שבע כבשות הצאן ששימשו לאביו כעדות שחפר את הבאר ההיא (כא, ל-לא), כתוכחה לעבדי אבימלך, וכדי להכריז על זכותו לבאר, ולהזכיר את הפרת השבועה ע"י עבדי אבימלך.

.......הגר וישמעאל......

גירוש הגר וישמעאל עם לחם חמת מים בלבד

"ויקח לחם וחמת מים ויתן אל הגר" (כא, יד)

מתעוררת השאלה, מדוע אברהם סיכן את הגר ואת ישמעאל בכך שנתן להם ביציאתם למדבר רק חמת מים ולחם?  אמנם ה' אמר לו לשמוע בקול שרה, אבל שרה דיברה רק על גירוש, ולא לשלוח אותם אל מותם.

יתכן שאברהם סמך על כך שהגר תלך לאותו הבאר שהיתה לידו כשגורשה בראשונה: "וימצאה מלאך ה' על עין המים במדבר על העין בדרך שור" (טז, ז).

גם עכשו אברהם היה באותו זמן קרוב לשור, שהרי גירוש הגר וישמעאל בא אחרי המעשה עם אבימלך, ששם נאמר  'וישב בין קדש ובין שור' (כ, א).

ואכן, הגר היתה קרובה לאותו באר, אלא שהתבלבלה בדרך כמו שכתוב 'ותתע', ולכן לא ראתה את הבאר עד שהתפללו היא וישמעאל, ואז 'ויפקח אלוקים את עיניה ותרא באר מים' (פסוק יט).

זאת ועוד: אברהם ידע שהמלאך הבטיח להגר שבנה ישמעאל יחיה ויהיו לו צאצאים 'ולא יספר מרוב' (טז, י), ומכאן הוא ידע שישמעאל לא ימות במדבר.

השכמת אברהם לגירוש הגר וישמעאל 

"וישכם אברהם בבוקר" (בראשית כא, יד)

מדוע השכים אברהם לגרש את הגר ואת ישמעאל? מה רוצה התורה להדגיש על ידי ציון פרט זה?

ניתן למצוא כמה תשובות לדבר:

א. ה' אמר לאברהם "שמע בקולה" (פסוק יב), ובכך בקשת שרה לגרש את הגר וישמעאל הופכת להיות ציווי של ה'; ומאחר שזהו ציווי של ה', אברהם משכים בבוקר כדי לקיימו. אפשר ללמוד מכאן שמאחר שה' ציווה עלינו לשמוע לדברי חז"ל, אנו צריכים להתייחס למצוות ולאיסורים דרבנן כמו שאנו מתייחסים למצוות ולאיסורים דאורייתא.

ב. התורה מספרת לנו פרט זה כדי לשבח את אברהם על כך שהיה מוכן גם לגרש את בנו כציווי ה', ולא די שלא התמהמה אלא אף השכים בבוקר.

ג. התורה רוצה להראות שכמו שבעקידת יצחק, נאמר "וישכם אברהם בבוקר", כך גם כאן, משום שאברהם התייחס לבניו ישמעאל ויצחק באופן שווה.

התרחקות הגר מישמעאל "כמטחוי קשת"

"ותלך ותשב... כמטחוי קשת כי אמרה אל אראה במות הילד" (בראשית כא, טז)

מה פשר ציון מרחק זה - 'כמטחוי קשת'?

יתכן והגר רצתה לחסוך מישמעאל את הייסורים הנוראיים של מוות ברעב, והחליטה להורגו בעצמה, אך מאחר ולא רצתה לראות "במות הילד" בחרה להרוג אותו בחץ וקשת, כדי שתוכל להורגו מרחוק ולחסוך ממנו את ייסורי הרעב, בלי לראות במותו.

בכך מובן הקשר בין "ותלך ותשב לה מנגד הרחק כמטחוי קשת" לבין "כי אמרה אל אראה במות הילד".

לאחר שהלכה מישמעאל וישבה כמטחוי קשת "ותשב מנגד ותשא את קולה ותבך"; ולפני שהספיקה להורגו, קרא אליה מלאך ה' להציל את ישמעאל.

זה מסביר גם את מה שנאמר לגבי ישמעאל: "ויהי רבה קשת" (בראשית כא, כ) - כיון שלהגר הייתה קשת, והיא ידעה להשתמש בו, היא לימדה את ישמעאל להשתמש בו.

"כמטוחי קשת" רומז גם לנושא המנהיגות בעם ישראל, כדלהלן:

זהותו של המנהיג של עם ישראל היה בספק, במשך כל הדורות,  מזמנו של אברהם, עד שה' הכריז על זרע דוד כמלכי ישראל לנצח.

בעיית ירושת המנהיגות בעם היהודי התחילה באפשרות שישמעאל יירש את אברהם, מפני שהיה בכורו. סופה של בעיה זו הייתה כשיהונתן ויתר מרצונו לטובת דוד על כס המלכות.

הקשר בין מעשה הגר וישמעאל, ששם קץ לאפשרות שישמעאל יירש את המנהיגות, לבין מעשה דוד ויהונתן, מבוטא בחץ וקשת: החיצים שיונתן יורה לעבר דוד כסימן מוסכם ביניהם בעת בריחת דוד (שמואל א' כ, לו ואילך), ודוד עמד כמטוחי קשת מיהונתן; והגר שעמדה כמטוחי קשת מישמעאל. 

קריאת המלאך להגר

"ויקרא מלאך אלקים אל הגר מן השמים" (בראשית כא, יז)

לשון דומה לזו של פניית המלאך להגר שתציל את ישמעאל, מצאנו בעקידת יצחק, בפניית המלאך לאברהם שיציל את יצחק: "ויקרא אליו מלאך ה' מן השמים" (כב, יא).

השינוי הבולט בין הפסוקים הוא כינוי המלאך: אצל הגר - 'מלאך אלקים', מידת הדין, ואצל אברהם - 'מלאך ה'', מידת הרחמים.

מדוע נאמרה הצלתו של ישמעאל בלשון מידת הדין? 

שתי תשובות לדבר:

א. ישמעאל ניצל ע"י כך שהוא נבדק "באשר הוא שם" (ראש השנה טז ע"ב), בלי להתחשב במה שיהיה בעתיד. בדרך כלל, המידה של "באשר הוא שם" היא מידת הדין, שהרי ללא התחשבות בעתיד אין אפשרות של תשובה עתידית; אלא שלגבי רשע שעוד לא חטא, כמו ישמעאל, הדברים הפוכים. לעומת זאת, יצחק ניצול דווקא ע"י ראייה לעתיד, שהרי הובטח שיהיה לגוי גדול, וזוהי מידת הרחמים.

ב. עבור ישראל, הצלתו של ישמעאל היא שלילית, ולכן הצלתו נחשבת מידת הדין; ואילו הצלת יצחק נחשבת מידת הרחמים, מאחר שהיא חיובית לעם ישראל.

קבלת תפילתו של ישמעאל

"וישמע אלקים את קול הנער... והחזיקי את ידך בו" (בראשית כא, יז-יח)

הפסוק מספר שהגר בכתה, ואינו מספר שישמעאל בכה, ובכל זאת נאמר שה' שמע את קול ישמעאל. מדוע נענה ה' לקולו ולא לקול הגר? 

נראה שהגר בכתה בגלל הסכנה לישמעאל, וישמעאל בכה שהוא רוצה את אמו, כמו כל ילד. ה' אינו מתייחס לתפילתה או לבכיה של הגר למען ישמעאל, כי בעצם כבר הובטח לאברהם ולהגר שישמעאל יחיה ויהיה גוי גדול. במקום זה מתייחס ה' אל תפילתו של ישמעאל על הגר, ונענה לה,  ובזה מובטח שגם הגר תחיה, כדי שהיא תגדל את ישמעאל. 

בכך מוסבר הביטוי 'והחזיקי את ידך בו': הרי היא תחיה רק בזכות תפילתו של ישמעאל, וכדי לגדל אותו. לכן אומר לה ה': "והחזיקי את ידך בו" - ישמעאל הוא העיקר, וכדי שהגר תחיה, היא צריכה להחזיק בו.  לא 'החזיקי את ידו בך', כאילו הוא זקוק לה, אלא היא זקוקה לו: 'החזיקי את ידך בו'.

.........................................

נסיון העקידה  

"ויאמר אליו אברהם ויאמר הנני" (בראשית כב, א)

בעקידת יצחק היה נסיון כפול לאברהם:

א) האם הוא מוכן להקריב את בנו, היקר לו מכל, על פי ציווי ה'.

ב) האם הוא רואה סתירה בין הבטחת ה' "כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע" לבין העלאתו של יצחק לעולה. אברהם לא היסס ולא התחכם, על אף הסתירה לכאורה. ואין לומר שהוא ידע (בגלל סתירה זו) שה' יציל את יצחק ברגע האחרון, שהרי ה' מעיד עליו שהוא התכוון באמת לשחטו: "כי עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלקים אתה ולא חשכת את בנך" (פסוק יב) (ומה שאמר "ונשובה אליכם", [פסוק ה] כרומז לכך שגם יצחק יחזור, לא היה מתוך מודעות, אלא שניבא ולא ידע מה ניבא).

עוד פרט בהתנהגות אברהם בעקידה העיד על התעלותו המיוחדת:

בשתי פניותיו הראשונות של ה' לאדם, המוזכרות בתורה, ה' מקבל תשובה לא הולמת:

לגבי אדם: "ויקרא ה'... ויאמר לו איכה ויאמר... ואחבא כי ירא אנכי" (בראשית ג, ט-י).

לגבי קין: "ויאמר ה'... אי הבל... השומר אחי אנכי" (ד, ט).

התחמקות זו מה' העידה שהאנושות עדיין לא הייתה מוכנה למשימה של שמירת מצוות. אברהם אבינו הוא הראשון שמשיב לה' תשובה הולמת: "ויאמר אליו אברהם ויאמר הנני" (כב, א). תשובתו מראה על הבנתו הנכונה של הקשר בין האדם לה', ולכן הוא נבחר.

ואכן אחרי העקידה, אין עוד אזכור לקשר בין הקב"ה לאברהם, מפני שמשימתו הושלמה.

הסתירה בין העקידה לבין הבטחת הזרע לאברהם

"קח נא את בנך" (כב, ב)

איך יתכן שה' יצווה על אברהם להקריב את בנו, והלא הוא הבטיח לו שיהיה לו זרע רב מיצחק (כא, יג), ואיך הוא יפר את הבטחתו?

נראה שאכן ה' דייק בלשונו, באמרו "קח נא" - "נא" הוא לשון בקשה, ולא ציווי. ה' השאיר לאברהם לבחור, אם לעשות את בקשת ה', ולוותר בכך על הזרע, או לא לעשות את בקשת ה', כדי שיהיה לו זרע. נמצא שה' בעצם אינו חוזר בו מהבטחתו, והוא רק מבקש מאברהם לוותר על קיום ההבטחה.

לפי זה, נסיונו של אברהם היה האם יהיה מוכן לעשות מה שה' ביקש, לא לשם שכר ולא כדי להינצל מעונש (שהרי רק על הפרת ציווי יש עונש), אלא בגלל עצם העובדה שה' ביקש זאת.

העובדה שהיתה כאן בקשה ולא ציווי מעצימה את מעשהו של אברהם: הוא עשה את מה שעשה מתוך אהבה ולא מתוך יראה, וזו דרגה גבוהה יותר. ולכן אנחנו מבקשים מה' כפרה וחיים בזכות עקידת יצחק, שכן אברהם למעשה היה מוכן להקריב את קיום כל עם ישראל, מתוך אהבתו לה'; וזה רמוז בפסוק "כי ביצחק ייקרא לך זרע" (כא, יב): בזכות המעשה שתעשה ביצחק, זרעך יתקיים לעולם. 

דימוי ישראל לחול שעל שפת הים

"וכחול אשר על שפת הים"  (כב, יז)

הדימוי לחול על שפת הים קשה: הרי אברהם היה גר באזורים מדבריים, והיה יותר נכון לתת  דימוי לחול המדבר שהוא רב מאד, וזהו דימוי יותר מוחשי לדרי המדבר.

נראה שהתשובה לכך הוא, שהיו גוים באותו זמן שעבדו לחול המדבר כעבודה זרה (אולי מפני שחול זה מכסה הכל ואי אפשר לגבור עליו), כפי שאומר רש"י על "יוקח נא מעט מים ורחצו רגליכם" (יח, ד). לכן בחר ה' דווקא בדימוי  ל'חול הים' ולא ל'חול המדבר'.

...

תולדות

.............יעקב..........

השם 'יעקב': 

"ויקרא שמו יעקב" (בראשית כה, כו) לכאורה יש משמעות שלילית בשם זה (יצחק ורבקה נתנו לו שם זה מפני שהחזיק את עקב עשו אחיו בלידתם), כפי שעשו אומר "הכי קרא שמו יעקב ויעקבני זה פעמים" (כז, לו). אלא שייתכן שיש ערך נסתר לשם:

• יש רמז לשמו בפרשת העקידה. בנכונות  אברהם לעקוד את יצחק (ובנכונות יצחק להיעקד) בעצם הוא ויתר על המשכיות זרעו, ובפרט ויתר על לידת בן ליצחק. כשכר על נכונותו, הובטח לו זרע: "הרבה ארבה את זרעך... עקב אשר שמעת בקלי" (לעיל כב, יז-יח). יש כאן רמז ליעקב, שבו התקיימה הבטחת הזרע ליצחק.

• עוד נרמז יעקב בפרשת העקידה, בפסוק: "ואת יצחק בנו, ויבקע" (כב, ג): אברהם ידע שבהקרבת יצחק, הוא בעצם מקריב גם את הדורות הבאים, החל מיעקב. "ויבקע" אותיות "ויעקב", כלומר הוא לקח עמו לעקידה "את יצחק בנו ו[את]יעקב".

• יש לשם זה משמעות חיובית גם כסמל למאבק בין יעקב לעשו, שעליו אמר ה' לרבקה "ולאום מלאום יאמץ ורב יעבוד צעיר" (כה, כג), ולכן יעקב החזיק בעקב עשיו, מפני שהוא רצה להיות הבכור.

עם זאת, נשאלת השאלה, מדוע יצחק נותן שם שיש לו משמעות שלילית במבט ראשון, והרי הוא לא ידע על הנבואה שקיבלה רבקה? ייתכן שיצחק עשה זאת בעקבות השם שהוא עצמו קיבל, שיש לו לכאורה משמעות שלילית, על חוסר האמונה של שרה; בכל זאת ה' קרא לו בשם זה, ויצחק הבין מזה שיש ערך נסתר גם לשם שיש לו משמעות שלילית לכאורה, ולכן בחר אף הוא בשם כזה לבנו.

הסתרת רשעותו של עשיו

"ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד איש שדה" (כה, כז)

התורה אינה מספרת לנו על רשעותו של עשו; את זאת אנחנו יודעים רק מן התורה שבעל פה.

עם זאת, אנחנו מוצאים רמזים לרשעותו בתורה, ממה שנאמר על נשותיו: "ותהיין מורת רוח ליצחק ולרבקה" (כו, לה), "קצתי בחיי מפני בנות חת" (כז, מו). עוד רמז הוא ממה שיצחק ביקש ממנו "ועשה לי מטעמים... בעבור תברכך נפשי" (כז, ד), משמע, שהוא לא היה מסוגל לברך את עשו אילולא היה במצב רוח טוב במיוחד.

לעומת זאת, התורה מאריכה בסיפור חטאיהם של צדיקים. זאת כדי לתת בחירה חפשית, כדי שהצבועים בעולם יוכלו לטעון שחבריהם הרשעים הם בעצם צדיקים.

יחסם של יצחק ורבקה ליעקב ולעשו

"ויאהב יצחק את עשו... ורבקה אוהבת את יעקב" (כה, כח)

התורה אינה מסבירה למה רבקה אהבה את יעקב כמו שהיא מסבירה שיצחק אהב את עשיו "כי ציד בפיו". נראה שרבקה נקשרה אל יעקב באופן טבעי בגלל הנבואה שקיבלה על עתידו של יעקב: "ורב יעבוד צעיר" (פסוק כג), כלומר, שהצעיר יקבל את מעמד הבכור. כיון שאהבתה היתה טבעית ולא בגלל סיבה נראית לעין, התורה לא כותבת טעם לאהבתה.

הנבואה ששמעה רבקה היא גם הסיבה לכך שרבקה אמרה ליעקב לרמות את יצחק בלקיחת הברכות, ולכך שהיא לקחה על עצמה את החטא שלו, באומרה "עלי קללתך" (כז, יג), ולכך שידעה שהברכה תחול על יעקב אף שיצחק כיוון אותה לעשו. 

מצד שני, רבקה לא אהבה את עשו, מפני שגדלה בביתם של לבן ובתואל, ולכן הייתה פיקחית ויכלה להבחין ברשעותו של עשו, בצורה שיצחק שגדל בבית אברהם אבינו לא יכל לראות.

מדוע רבקה לא סיפרה ליצחק אודות הנבואה, כדי שידע שיעקב הוא הנבחר, ולא יטעה לאהוב את עשו? נראה שבתחילה רבקה עצמה לא היתה בטוחה שהנבואה היא נבואת אמת, ולכן לא סיפרה ליצחק. רק כשהחלק הראשון של הנבואה (לידת התאומים) התממש, כמו שכתוב "והנה תאומים בבטנה" (פסוק כד) (בלשון של הוכחה לאמיתות הנבואה, ובלשון של הפתעה, כיון שלא סיפרה לאחרים על הנבואה), היא השתכנעה שהחלק השני, "ורב יעבוד צעיר", יתגשם גם הוא. אבל אז היה זה מאוחר מדי לספר ליצחק, כי לא היה ליצחק סיבה להאמין לה. הוא היה עלול לחשוד שהעובדה שלא סיפרה לו קודם, בשעת ששמעה את הנבואה, מוכיחה שהיא המציאה את הסיפור.

זאת ועוד: מאחר שרבקה קיבלה את הנבואה ולא יצחק, היא הבינה שה' אינו רוצה שיצחק ידע על כך, מסיבה כלשהי, והבינה שה' רוצה שהיא תצטרך לדאוג לכך שהנבואה תתגשם.

אשר לאהבת יצחק לעשו, נראה שהוא אכן ידע לפחות במידה מסוימת מה טבעו האמיתי, ובכל זאת אהב אותו. הרי על נשותיו של עשיו נאמר:  "ותהיין מורת רוח ליצחק ולרבקה" (כו, לה). מאחר שיצחק ידע שנשותיו של עשיו אינן ראויות, בוודאי הבין שזה מלמד משהו על טבעו של עשיו. בכל זאת, אהב את צידו החומרי של עשו.

בכך אפשר להבין מדוע אומר יצחק לעשו: "ועשה לי מטעמים... בעבור תברכך נפשי בטרם אמות" (כז, ד) - הווה אומר שללא ציד זה יצחק לא היה מסוגל לברך את עשיו. אפשר להסביר, שדווקא החומריות של עשיו היתה האמצעי שאיפשר ליצחק לברכו בברכה חומרית. אחרי ההנאה החומרית מצידו של עשיו ומריח השדה, כשיצחק שקוע בחומריות, רק אז יוכל לברך את עשיו החומרי בברכה חומרית. צדו השלילי של עשו, ברוחניות, שיצחק ידע עליו, לא היתה רלוונטית בעיניו לברכה החומרית שרצה לתת לו (או שמא הוא חש שעשיו זקוק לברכה יותר מיעקב, בגלל רשעותו).

אבל בסופו של דבר, יצחק הרגיש בעת נתינת הברכה ליעקב שהברכה חלה באמת, והבין שהברכה מגיעה ליעקב, ולכן אמר לעשו אחר כך "גם ברוך יהיה" (כז, לג).

מכירת הבכורה 

"מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי" (כה, לא)

מקובל לומר שעשו מכר את הבכורה ליעקב תמורת נזיד העדשים. אבל הדבר אינו מפורש בפסוקים, ואפשר לפרש בדרך אחרת:

אפשר שיעקב קבע כתנאי לנתינת הנזיד לעשו, שעשו יסכים למכור את הבכורה ליעקב. לפי זה, לשון "מכרה כיום", אין פירושו שימכור עכשיו, אלא שיתחייב למכור. ולכן היה צורך בשבועה, כדי לתת תוקף להתחייבותו, כי הבטחה למכור גרידא אין לה תוקף בלי שבועה (עי' ס' ההתחייבות, לר"א ורהפטיג, פרק חמישי); אבל אילו היה מוכר מיד, המכר היה חל גם בלי שבועה.

אחרי שעשו הסכים, יעקב ערך סעודה טקסית עם לחם והנזיד, לציון ההסכם. לפי פירוש זה מובן מדוע נתן לו לחם (שכלל לא ביקש מנמנו) - כחלק מסעודה לציון ההסכם; ואילו הנזיד היה התמורה לבכורה, לא היה צריך לתת לו לחם.

מכל מקום נראה שגם המכירה התבצעה באותו יום, אף לפני הסעודה, שהרי כתוב "וימכור את בכורתו ליעקב" (פסוק לג) לפני תיאור הסעודה.

ותמורת מה מכר ליעקב את הבכורה? ברור שנתן לו תמורה, שאם לא כן אין זה מכר אלא מתנה. אבל נראה שהיה זו תמורה נמוכה, שהרי אמר "למה זה לי בכורה" (פסוק לב), כלומר שאינו צריך אותה כלל,  וכן נאמר "ויבז עשו את הבכורה" (פסוק לד). 

קולו של יעקב

"הקול קול יעקב" (כז, כב)

מפסוק זה משמע שליעקב ועשיו היו קולות שונים ושיצחק הכיר אותם לפי קולם, במיוחד לאור העובדה שיצחק היה עיוור וסמך על חוש השמיעה. מכאן מתעוררת השאלה, מדוע שאל יצחק "מי אתה בני" (כז, יח), הרי ידע שזה קולו של יעקב (מה עוד שיצחק אמר "מה זה מיהרת למצוא", כלומר שלא ציפה שעשיו יחזור כל כך מהר, ואם כן היה צריך לדעת שזה יעקב)? ואין לומר שיעקב חיקה את קולו של עשיו, שהרי אם כן לא היה יצחק אומר "הקול קול יעקב". 

צריך לומר שלא היה הבדל ניכר בין קולותיהם של יעקב ושל עשיו (או שהיה הבדל ניכר ביניהם, אבל יעקב חיקה את קולו של עשיו עד שנשמע כמעט כקולו של עשיו), ולכן יצחק לא היה בטוח בזיהויו, מה עוד שהיו סימנים נוספים שזה לא היה יעקב:  א) ידיו היו שעירות, ב) יעקב היה איש תם (כה, כז), ויצחק לא העלה על דעתו שיעקב יטעה אותו (לאמיתו של דבר, יעקב היה איש תם, אבל התמימות לא הייתה טפשות; הוא פעל בכל השכל והעורמה לקדם את רצון ה' בהיסטוריה, והכל בתמימות, כלומר לשם שמים).

לכן מצד אחד אמר יצחק שזה קולו של יעקב, ובכל זאת חשב שזה עשיו.

[באתר העירו שכבר הרמב"ן אומר שקולותיהם היו דומים או שחיקה את קולו, או ש"הקול קול יעקב" היינו בסגנון הדיבור].

במה התחזה יעקב לעשיו?

"הקול קול יעקב" (כז, כב)

מדוע לא חיקה יעקב את קולו של עשיו, כדי שיצחק לא יכיר אותו ע"י קולו?

מכאן נראה שאכן יעקב לא התכוון להסתיר את זה שהוא יעקב, וההסבר הוא כדלהלן:

אנחנו יודעים שעשיו נקרא "אדום" בגלל מעשה הנזיד, כמו שכתוב "על כן קרא שמו אדום" (כה, ל). מלשון הפסוק משמע שהכל קראו לו אדום, כלומר שמעשה הנזיד היה ידוע לכל, והכל ידעו שעשיו מכר את בכורתו ליעקב. ומן הסתם שמועה זו הגיעה גם ליצחק.

כך משתמע גם מהפסוק "וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי זֶה פַעֲמַיִם, אֶת בְּכֹרָתִי לָקָח, וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה לָקַח בִּרְכָתִי" (כז, לו), משמע שעשיו מתלונן על דבר שיצחק כבר ידע עליו, ומשמע גם שעשיו ידע שאביו ידע.

אף על פי שיצחק ידע שיעקב קנה את הבכורה, הוא רצה לתת לעשיו ברכה, ולשם כך ביקש ממנו להביא לו מטעמים. דבר זה רמוז בהקבלת המלים בפסוקים "שא נא... וְהָבִיאָה לִּי וְאֹכֵלָה  בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֶכְךָ נַפְשִׁי בְּטֶרֶם אָמוּת" (כז, ד), "הַלְעִיטֵנִי נָא.... הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ לָמוּת ולמה זה לי בכורה... ויאכל" (כה, ל-לד).

בכל זאת, יצחק מסכים לתת את הברכות ליעקב, מפני שהוא מניח שאחרי ששלח את עשיו לצוד ציד, יעקב עמד על כך שהברכה מגיעה לו (או בגלל המכירה או מפני צדקותו), ועשיו ויתר לו, ביודעו שהדין עם יעקב.

כשקנה יעקב את הבכורה מעשיו, קנה ממנו גם את שמו "עשיו", ושמו של עשיו מאז היה "אדום" מפני שאיבד את זכותו הבלעדית לשם "עשיו". לכן הפסוק מדגיש "וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ הַגָּדֹל", מפני שבעצם היתה ליעקב זכות שווה על שמו של עשיו.

ומאחר שיעקב קנה את השם "עשיו", כשהוא אומר "אנכי עשו בכורך" (כז, יט), הוא אינו משקר ואינו מרמה את אביו. הוא אינו מנסה לחקות את קולו של עשיו, מפני שהוא בא לבקש את הברכה מכוח מה שעשיו מכר לו, ויצחק יודע על המכירה.

אם כן, מדוע לבש יעקב את הבגדים השעירים של עשיו, אם לא כדי להתחזות לעשיו? נראה שיצחק העדיף את התכונה של "יודע ציד" על פני התכונה של "יושב אהלים", כפי שמסבירים המפרשים את אהבתו לעשיו בכך שהוא סבר שבחיר ה' צריך להיות מעורב עם הבריות. עטיפת הבגדים השעירים העניקה ליעקב את אופי של "יודע ציד". בגדים אלו התאימו גם לשימושו בשם "עשיו", שהרי זה היה הטעם שנקרא כך, מפני שנולד "כולו כאדרת שיער" (כה, כה).

כשיצחק ממשש את בגדי עשיו, הוא אומר "הידים ידי עשו" (כז, כב), כלומר, אכן מגיע ליעקב לקבל את הברכות, מפני שאימץ את האופי ה"ידני" של עשו, המסומל בציד מול ישיבת אהלים.

לפי זה אפשר לפרש את המלים "אולי ימושני אבי והייתי בעיניו כמתעתע" (כז, יב) - שאילו לא היה לובש את בגדי עשו, היה יצחק מרגיש שאמנם יעקב זכה בבכורה, אבל לא מגיע לו לקבל את הברכה שיצחק הועיד לעשיו, בגלל אופיו השונה.

אם יעקב אכן לא הסתיר את זהותו, מדוע נאמר "וְלֹא הִכִּירו" (כז, כג)? אפשר לפרש שהכוונה היא שלא ידע יצחק שאופיו הפנימי של יעקב לא השתנה. יעקב לא התכוון לשנות את אופיו הפנימי ולהפסיק להיות "יושב אהלים". את זה הסתיר מיצחק. אבל באופן אירוני, בסופו של דבר הוא נאלץ להפסיק להיות "יושב אהלים", בגלל כוונותיו של עשיו להרגו, כתוצאה מהמרמה בלקיחת הברכות, ומאז הוא משתמש ברמאות מול לבן. כלומר, מבחינה סובייקטיבית (כוונתו של יעקב) היתה כאן מרמה, אבל מבחינה אובייקיבית, לא היתה מרמה, מפני שבאמת יעקב היה מתאים לקבל את הברכה (שיצחק הועיד למי שמעורב עם הבריות) מפני שהיה "מעורב עם הבריות".

מדוע דווקא כשבא עשיו, נודע ליצחק שהיתה כאן מרמה, כפי שהוא אומר "בא אחיך במרמה ויקח ברכתך" (כז, לה)? נראה שכשבא עשיו עם המטעמים, ודרש את הברכה, הבין שעשיו מעולם לא ויתר ליעקב על הברכה (שלא כמו שהבין תחילה, שויתר לו אחרי שיצחק שלח אותו לצוד). 

אבל דוקא משום כך הוא אומר "גַּם-בָּרוּךְ יִהְיֶה" (כז, לג) - מפני שבכך שיעקב פעל כאן במרמה, הראה שבעצם הוא "יודע ציד" במובן הרחב שלו, והברכה שהועיד יצחק למי ש"מעורב עם הבריות" - מגיעה ליעקב.

ביקורת על אופן לקיחת הברכות ע"י יעקב

"בא אחיך במרמה ולקח ברכתך" (כז, לה)

אף שיעקב לקח את הברכות בדין, אנחנו מוצאים רמזים לביקורת על התנהגותו, כפי שנראה.

כנראה, הוא היה צריך לקבל את הברכות מעשיו בדרך אחרת, או שהיה צריך להתנהג באופן שיצחק יבין שהברכות מגיעות לו, ויתן לו אותן במישרין, ולא היה צורך בכלל לקחת אותם מעשיו. 

ואלו הרמזים לביקורת על יעקב:

א. מצאנו הקבלה בין לשון הפסוק בפרשת מכירת הבכורה: "ויבא עשיו מן השדה" (כה, כט), לבין לשון הפסוק בפרשת הדודאים: "ויבא יעקב מן השדה" (ל, טז); "הלעיטני נא" (כה, ל) - "תני נא לי מדודאי בנך" (ל, יד); "את בכרתי לקח והנה עתה לקח ברכתי" (כז, לו) - "המעט קחתך את אישי ולקחת גם את דודאי בני" (ל, טו). אפשר להסביר, שעשיו אמנם ביזה את הבכורה, אבל יעקב גרם לו לנהוג כך; וכעין עונש על כך, גם ראובן, בכורו של יעקב, ביזה אותו, במעשה הדודאים. יעקב קונה את הבכורה עבור נזיד עדשים, ולכן הוא עצמו נקנה לאשתו עבור הדודאים.

ב. מצאנו הקבלה בין בקשת עשיו מיעקב "הלעיטני נא מן האדם האדם הזה כי עיף אנכי" (כה, ל), לבין בקשת יעקב מה' לגבי עשו "הצילני נא מיד אחי מיד עשו כי ירא אנכי" (לב, יב). אפשר להסביר שיעקב הרגיש שהיה זקוק לעזרה מיוחדת מה', ולכן ביקש בלשון דומה למילות עשיו. אולי יעקב חשש שהיה צריך לתת לאחיו העייף לאכול ולשתות כשביקש זאת בלי לגבות ממנו מחיר, ושעכשיו עליו לשלם על שלא עשה כן. ובאמת הוא נאלץ להאבק עם שרו של עשיו, ורק כשגבר עליו ידע שהוא צדק ושהקב"ה יצליח את דרכו.

ג. לבן רימה את יעקב, כפי שאומר לו יעקב: "ולמה רמיתני" (כט, כה). יש בזה כעין עונש על מה שעשה יעקב: "בא אחיך במרמה" (כז, לה).

ד. נאמר בעשו "ויצעק צעקה גדולה ומרה עד מאד" (כז, לד). ועל מרדכי כתוב: "ויקרע מרדכי את בגדיו וילבש שק ואפר... ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה" (אסתר ד, א). אולי צאצאי עשיו, העמלקים, הצליחו במידת מה כעונש על פגיעת יעקב כאן בעשיו.

תלונת עשיו על לקיחת הברכות

"את בכרתי לקח והנה עתה לקח ברכתי" (כז, לו)

עשיו אינו אומר שיעקב "גנב" את הבכורה אלא "לקח". מכאן עולה שעשיו מסכים שמכירת הבכורה ליעקב היתה תקפה. יתר על כן: ע"י ההיקש שהוא עשה בין הבכורה והברכה (ברכתי - בכרתי: אותן אותיות) מראה עשיו שהוא מסכים שגם הברכה לא נגנבה ממנו אלא רק  "נלקחה" ממנו. ובהיקש הזה הוא מראה גם שהוא מודע לכך שהברכה אבדה לו בגלל מכירת הבכורה, שכן כשהוא מכר את הבכורה, הוא ידע שהוא מוכר בכך את זכות הברכות.

אבל למרות שידע עשיו שהמכירה היתה תקפה, הוא מרגיש שלא היתה הוגנת, כיון שנעשתה בערמה. לכן: "וישטום עשיו את יעקב על הברכה אשר ברכו אביו" (פסוק מא)

תכנונו של עשיו להרוג את יעקב 

"יקרבו ימי אבל אבי ואהרגה את יעקב אחי" (כז, מא)

עשו תיכנן להרוג את יעקב אחרי שימות יצחק, כדי שיצחק לא יצטער. אבל בפועל אומרים חז"ל (בראשית רבה פרשה עח) על המלה "וישקהו" (לג, ד), שעשיו תיכנן להרוג את יעקב אז, וזאת אף שיצחק היה בחיים. צריך לומר שמאחר שיצחק האריך ימים, סבלנותו של עשיו פקעה, הוא שינה את תכניותיו ורצה להרוג את יעקב עוד בחיי יעקב (אולי גם שמתוך אהבתו לאביו, לא רצה לקוות שאביו ימות רק בכדי שיוכל להרוג את יעקב).

ייתכן שרבקה צפתה אפשרות כזאת, ולכן אף שהיא ידעה שעשיו תיכנן להרוג את יעקב אחרי שימות יצחק, כמו שכתוב "ויוגד לרבקה את דברי עשו" (כז, מב), היא לא סיפרה ליעקב פרט זה, ושלחתי אותו לחרן עם ההוראה "וישבת שם ימים אחדים עד אשר תשוב חמת אחיך" (כז, מד), כדי שלא יחשוב שכל זמן שיצחק בחיים אין סכנה מעשיו. ואכן יעקב פחד מעשו, כמו שכתוב "ויירא יעקב מאוד" (לב, ח) - מפני שלא ידע שהתכנית של עשו היתה לחכות עד מות יצחק.

עוד אפשר להסביר שאף שלא תיכנן עדיין להרוג את יעקב, כיון שיצחק היה בחיים, הרי כשראה אותו מולו, התעורר אצלו כעס, ורצה להרוג אותו, שלא ע"פ התכנית. זה מיישב קושי אחר: הרי רבקה אמרה ליעקב שכשיירגע כעסו של עשו, "ושלחתי ולקחתיך משם" (כז, מה); ורש"י (לה, ח) אומר שאכן שלחה את דבורה מינקתה אליו לקרוא לו לשוב; הרי שהיא התרשמה שכעסו של עשו כבר נרגע; ואם כן איך זה שהוא רצה להרוג את יעקב, ומדוע יעקב פחד ממנו? צריך לומר כאמור, שאף שהוא נרגע, הפגישה העלתה את חמתו שוב, ולכן רצה להורגו, וגם יעקב פחד שזה יקרה (ואילו רבקה שלחה אליו שכבר אין סכנה, מפני שחשבה שלא ייפגשו כיון שעשו היה רחוק בארץ שעיר).

בזה מוסבר גם מדוע ה' לא הופיע לעשיו בחלום להזהיר אותו מפני עשיית "מטוב עד רע" ליעקב כמו שהזהיר את לבן (לא, כד) - מפני שעשו אכן לא תכנן להרגו, ורק כשנפגשו, עלה כעסו.

שינוי נוסף מהתכנית של עשו הוא מה שעשו שלח את אליפז בנו להרוג את יעקב (רש"י להלן כט, יא), אף שיצחק עדיין היה בחיים. לעניין זה לא שייך להסביר שזה היתה מתוך פקיעת סבלנותו, שהרי זה היה זמן קצר אחרי לקיחת הברכות. צריך לומר שהוא חשב שיצחק לא יצטער כל כך אם לא עשו עצמו יהרוג את יעקב אלא מישהו אחר, ולכן היה מוכן לעשות זאת עוד בחיי יצחק.

..................