Untitled

Table of Contents
A Grain of Salt Page 3 Parashat Toldot 5766 - Eisav's Scent Page 5 Riding the Spanish Jitney with the Malbim Page 7 Parashat Toledot: The Divergent Paths of Yaakov and Esau Page 8 A Literary Solution to the Name Variations of Esau's Wives Page 10 Davening Should Be Smoking Page 25 A New Perspective on Yaakovs Purchase of the Birthright Page 26 A Well Tread Path Page 29 Bolt of Inspiration 42 - How a Tzaddik Lies Page 30 I Thought Jacob was Supposed to be the One Who Told the Truth? Page 31 The Warrior Gene Exemplified in Esau Page 35 Parshas Toldos - The Meaning of the Miraculous Food Page 38 Toldot: Spiritual Continuity Page 40 Stealing a Mitzvah Page 43 Borchuni l'shalom, tzeischem l'shalom Page 45
Download thousands of shiurim and articles for free at the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah.org. p. YUTorah.org is a project of Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future
Articles from the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah.org
Table of Contents
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev Parshat Toldot 5771 Page 48 Let's Study Onkelos on Toldot: Extolling Israelite Ancestors Page 56 Learning How to Daven: Yitzchak, Rivka, and our Children Page 59 Another Covenant? Page 60 Toronto Torah: Toldot 5773 Page 64 Keeping Torah: Better in Olam Hazeh as Well as Olam Haba Page 68 Letting Others Know We are Praying for Them Page 71
Articles from the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah.org
Author: Rabbi Josh (AKA "The Hoffer") Hoffman Title: A Grain of Salt
The Torah tells us that when Yaakov and Eisav grew up, Eisav became an ish yodeya tzayid a man who knew trapping, while Ya'akov became an ish tam, yoshev ohalim a complete man who abided in tents. And Yitzchak loved Eisav, because trapping was in his mouth, and Rivkah loved Ya'akov (Bereishis 25:27-28). The difference between Yitzchak and Rivkah in their respective love for their children appears, at first blush, to be disturbing, and needs to be understood. Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam explains that Yitzchak loved Eisav because he provided him with food, as the Targum explains. R. Avraham adds that some midrashim explain ki tzayid befiv (because trapping was in his mouth) to mean that Eisav trapped Yitzchak with his mouth by saying things that deceived Yitzchak and led him to believe he was careful about keeping mitzvos. This midrash clarifies the flow of the passuk: Yitzchak was able to retain his natural love for Eisav (despite his general deviation from God's path) because Eisav had been representing himself as being observant of the mitzvos. Even according to the midrash, however, Yitzchak's love came as a natural result of the physical benefit that he derived from him. Rivkah, however, loved Ya'akov beyond the natural love of a parent, because he spent more time at home, being a dweller of tents, and she therefore simply saw him more than she saw Eisav. Rashi first cites the explanation of the Targum, just as R. Avraham does. He then cites the midrash, but he seems to understand it differently. Whereas R. Avraham finds a way to reconcile the midrash with the simple meaning of the verse, Rashi seems to understand it as being in contradiction to its simple meaning. Eisav, says the midrash, asked his father how one tithes straw and salt. In point of fact, only things which grow from the ground need to be tithed, and, so, Yitzchak was impressed by Eisav's scrupulousness in trying to fulfill the mitzvos. Rashi's apparent understanding of the midrash, explaining it to mean that Eisav deliberately fooled Yitzchak, is very difficult because it is in conflict with his approach to other midrashim about Eisav, as reflected in his commentary later in the parsha. When Eisav discovered that Ya'akov deprived him of their father's blessings, he said in his heart: "The days of mourning for my father will draw near, then I will kill my brother Ya'akov" (Bereishis 27:41). Rashi there writes that this is to be understood 'as it sounds,' meaning, in its literal sense, that Eisav did not want to cause his father pain. Therefore, he would wait to kill Yaakov until after his father's death. Rashi then points out that there are aggadic midrashim which explain the verse in several ways. Nechama Leibovitz, in a seminal essay on Rashi's approach to citing midrashim, points out that there are often many midrashim to any particular verse, but Rashi very seldom tells us this. When he does, he means to reject those midrashim as not being in conformity to the simple meaning of the verse. In this particular instance, the other midrashim view Eisav as representing an additional stage in the development of evil in the world. Why did Eisav wish to wait until after his fathers death to kill Yaakov? Eisav thought that when Kayin killed his brother Hevel, he made a mistake in not waiting until their father had passed away and could not further divide his estate. Therefore, Eisav decided to wait until after Yitzchak died, and then kill Yaakov, so he would not lose his inheritance. Rashi disagrees in that this view of Eisav represents him solely in a negative light, as a symbol of evil. Rashi maintains that Eisav, in fact, had a variegated personality, as he really did care for and honor his father. Therefore, Rashi felt that the midrash, while important for the message it conveyed, did not reflect the simple meaning of the Torah, which presents people as human beings, with all of their complexities. In light of Nechama Leibovitz's insight, it seems very difficult to understand why Rashi in the beginning of the parsha would cite a midrash that seems to contradict the simple meaning of the verse, and, moreover, calls into question the love Eisav had for his father. Rabbi Yerucham Levovitz answers that, in reality, Eisav was sincere in his questions. Indeed, both Rabbi Yosef Rosen (the Rogatchover Gaon) and Rabbi Chaim Kanyevski point out that Eisavs questions were valid: there are situations in which one must, in fact, tithe straw or salt. One could add that Eisav specifically asked his father detailed questions about tithing because this was a mitzvah that Yitzchak took special care to keep, as pointed out by the Rambam in his Laws of Kings. Eisav, then, was not consciously trying to fool his father. However, one cannot ignore the fact that his scrupulousness in performing the mitzvos of honoring his father and tithing his crop were exceptions in his general demeanor. Rabbi Levovitz says that this is the meaning of the words ki tzayid befiv Eisav's mouth and his heart were not consistent. When speaking to his father and tending to his needs, he did and said all the right things. However, in his heart, he did not have an overall dedication to God. Ya'akov, on the other hand, is described as an ish tam, a complete man, in that everything he did was fitting and consistent with his overall
Author: Rabbi Josh (AKA "The Hoffer") Hoffman Title: A Grain of Salt
demeanor. Ya'akov, unlike his brother Eisav, did not adopt stringencies in one area of divine service and completely neglect other areas; rather, he was a complete and integrated person, and thereby merited to be the one to carry on the tradition to future generations.
Author: Rabbi Meir Goldwicht Title: Parashat Toldot 5766 - Eisav's Scent
Parashat Toldot 5766

In the parasha of the blessings, the Torah tells us that Yitzchak requested that Eisav prepare matamim (delicacies) for him before he blessed him. The matamim are repeated six times in this short parasha. Why are these matamim so significant that the Torah repeats them again and again? Additionally, when Yaakov stands disguised before Yitzchak, Yitzchak asks his son to approach him and kiss him. As Yaakov does this, Yitzchak smells his clothing, blesses him, and says, See, the scent of my son is like the scent of a field blessed by Hashem (Bereishit 27:27). The Rishonim challenge this, asking why Yitzchak refers to this as the scent of his son when it is really the scent of his sons clothing. The Chizkuni explains that the passuk should be read as if it was written as follows: See, my son, the scent of these clothes is like the scent of a field blessed by Hashem. However, in the course of things, we will try to understand the passuk as it is actually written, explaining what Yitzchak really meant by mentioning the scent of my son rather than the scent of my sons clothing. The passuk describing the scent of Yaakovs clothing is problematic in another way as well. After Yitzchak smells Yaakovs clothing, the Torah says: And he blessed him and said, See, the scent of my son is like the scent of a field blessed by Hashem. The very next passuk quotes the actual blessing: May Hashem give you the dew of the heavens Seemingly, the phrase and he blessed him is in the wrong place! It should appear immediately before the actual blessing, not before Yitzchak describes his sons scent! The answer to these three questions is as follows: Yitzchak knew exactly who his children were. Before the blessings, the Torah tells us how disappointed Yitzchak was when Eisav married two Hittite women (26:34-5). Before he died, Yitzchak wanted to inspire Eisav to do teshuvah. Yitzchak hoped that after Eisav prepared the matamimturning raw, bloody meat from an animal in the field into sumptuous meatand brought them before his father, Yitzchak would be able to ask him why he couldnt analogously improve the quality of his own life, inspiring him to do teshuvah. The matamim take up such a great role because they were meant to be the tool through which Yitzchak wished to illustrate for Eisav what he needed to do to himself. What Yitzchak didnt realize, however, was that it was impossible for Eisav to add quality to his life, since he lacked reiach (scent). Reiach represents pnimiut. (The gemara says that reiach is something only the neshama benefits from.) When Yitzchak smells Yaakov, however, he detects not only the smell of Yaakovs clothing, but of Yaakov himself. Yitzchak is able to see that the reiach of his son, not his clothinghis pnimiut, not his chitzoniutis like the reiach of Gan Eden. This declaration is part of the blessing as well. And he blessed him does not refer only to the material blessing of the dew of the heavens and the fat of the land, but to the spiritual blessing that Yaakov would always retain his pnimiut, to guide his actions and protect him.
Author: Rabbi Meir Goldwicht Title: Parashat Toldot 5766 - Eisav's Scent
The sense of pnimiut is exactly what the nachash wanted to harm in Adam and Chava, but, baruch Hashem, he did failed to do so. He succeeded in damaging four of the five senses: sight And the woman saw that the tree was good for food (3:6); sound Chava listened to the nachash, and Adam listened to her; touch Chava touched the Eitz haDaat; and taste Adam and Chava ate of the fruit. However, he could not touch their sense of smell, their reiach, their pnimiut. This enabled them to go on to build the world despite their sin. Yosef understood a similar lesson about pnimiut on his descent to Mitzrayim. The Yishmaelim who brought him down with them, who normally transported bad-smelling kerosene, happened to be transporting spices on this trip. Yosef understood from this sweet reiach that his mission would be to protect his own sweet reiach, his pnimiut, under all circumstances. This would give him the power to survive in Mitzrayim and eventually lead Am Yisrael in Mitzrayim. Yeshayah haNavi tells us that one of the unique qualities Moshiach will have will be his ability to smell yirat shamayim. He will smell fear of G-d; he will not judge by the vision of his eyes or rebuke according to what he hears with his ears (11:3). Moshiach will be able to smell our pnimiut and judge us based on this. The importance of reiach is highlighted by Yechezkel haNavi, who says that the future geulah will take place in the merit of the reiach of the ketoret. This is because the ketoret combines sweet-smelling perfumes with chelbenah, a very bitter-smelling spice. The lesson is that even those who are far from Hashem have a reiach of some sort, have some sort of pnimiut. We must not judge them solely on the basis of their externalities. When we understand how to connect with even those who are far from us, we are essentially bringing together reiach and taam (taste, quality). This will merit the reiach and taam of the geulah, speedily in our days. Shabbat Shalom! Meir Goldwicht
Rav Meir Goldwichts weekly sichah on the Parsha and Moadim is a service of YUTorah, the online source of the Torah of Yeshiva University. Get more parsha shiurim and thousands of other shiurim, by visiting www.yutorah.org.
Author: Rabbi Ozer Glickman Title: Riding the Spanish Jitney with the Malbim
Insights into Torah and Halacha from Rav Ozer Glickman :
Riding the Spanish Jitney with the Malbim
The Torahs economy of language requires careful reading. This is the nature of Mikra: the text must be parsed because every word and construction are laden with meaning. When declared , he did not deny that the Torah is elliptical and fraught with levels of meaning, rather that its constructions and diction were intended to fall easily on the human ear. The reader who cherishes Torah as you do must pay careful attention to subtle shifts in language. Fortunately, we need not rely solely on our ears desensitized by a culture that bombards us with words. The more immediate our ability to communicate, the more we learn to devalue language. Studying the parashah each week forces us to concentrate on the subtlety of language. Its words quietly in a still small voice that offers us refuge from the torrential flood of beeping Blackberries and gargantuan Google searches. It is fine wine to be savored unlike the whiskey of words that are written for cumulative effect. I am sitting on a jitney barreling along Route 4 toward Manhattan trying to complete another aliya in my weekly struggle with . As the driver talks on her cell phone and narrowly misses a truck changing lanes, I bury my head in my sefer. As I whisper Rivkas words to Yaakov, I notice a subtle shift in her version that I do not believe I have noticed before. When Yitzchak Avinu sent the son he believed to be Eisav to the fields to hunt, he sought food that would elevate him into the spirit of bracha. In Rivkas retelling, she emphasizes words that were only implicit in Yitzchaks command: . Why has the matriarch deviated from the explicit words of her husband? What has she accomplished by adding this phrase? Surely Yitzchak did not believe that he himself was the source of bracha. When we secure a bracha from an elder, it is not the personal benediction of the mvareich we seek but his or her invocation of ha-Shems power to bless. So why has she added this phrase? The Spanish rock emanating from the speaker above my head has now completely faded from my ear. All I can hear is the song of Torah and I struggle with its lyrics. For a minute, I sit and think hard while scouring Rashi and his mforshim on the page. I remember suddenly that Rashi, his band, and I are not riding alone. Deep in my satchel is the Malbim and I rush to pull it out. We are alone on the jitney: Rivka, Yaakov, the Malbim, and me. Everything becomes clear with the Malbims guidance. Yaakov Avinu was surely puzzled how he might benefit from a bracha given mistakenly by his father. Does the bracha not require the full intention of the one who invokes it? In the telling, Rivka lays bare the thought that was surely implicit in the words of her husband. The bracha comes from Our Father, not the human father who is only his agent. The rest of the ride I sit and silent and meditate on the lesson of the Malbim. The man with the kipa talking loudly on his cellphone does not disturb me as it does the other passengers. I begin to wonder if perhaps Yitzchak sent Eisav to the fields because he found it difficult to participate in the bracha that was Eisavs right as bchor. Did he need to submerge himself in his sons material gifts in order to forget his spiritual deficiencies? Should this father sitting on a jitney stopped in the middle of the George Washington Bridge focus on the achievements of each of his children and thereby learn to invoke ha-Shems bracha from the depths of his own heart? Is perhaps the language of the blessings I offer on their behalf meant to be heard not only by them but by me? I ponder my life and the lessons that inform it from subtle shifts in the Torah I cherish.
These sichos are published by students and admirers of Rav Ozer Glickman shlita. We may be reached at ravglickmanshiur@gmail.com.
This weeks sicha is in honor of Rav Glickmans niece Dr. Aliza Weintraub Braverman and her family in Memphis where Rav Glickman will be visiting this Shabbat.
Author: Rabbi David Horwitz Title: Parashat Toledot: The Divergent Paths of Yaakov and Esau
When I was growing up, in the early 1970s, I heard a song played on the radio called Family Affair. The lyrics began as follows:
One child grows up to be Somebody that just loves to learn And another child grows up to be Somebody you'd just love to burn Mom loves the both of them You see it's in the blood Both kids are good to Mom 'Blood's thicker than mud'
This Different Strokes for Different Folks attitude is definitely not the one that the Torah has regarding the family of Isaac, and his two sons Jacob and Esau.
Genealogy alone is not sufficient to attain entry into the rank of the patriarchs of the Jewish nation. Moreover, our tradition states that it was not simply an arbitrary, capricious will of God that determined that Jacob and not Esau should receive the blessings. Moral uprightness is also a sine qua non for entry into the ranks of the Avot. That is why Rebecca, who perceived the moral superiority of Jacob, did not love them both. She ensured that Jacob, and not Esau, would be the recipient of the blessings of Isaac.
At what point in their lives did the paths of the two twins Jacob and Esau diverge? Alternatively, one may ask this question in the following manner: When did Esau begin to turn out so badly? There are different views in Midrashim and rishonim on this score. (R, Menachem Mendel Kasher, zatzal, in his magisterial Torah Shelemah, quotes quite a number of them.) The most famous view is that of Rashi, following Bereshit Rabbah, who writes that even in the womb, when Rebecca passed a house of idle worship, Esau started to kick. For his part, Don Isaac Abravanel, in his commentary to Chapter 25 of Genesis, writes that God preordained that instead of having twin boys that were similar in character traits, Isaac and Rebecca would have two children who were polar opposites, in the moral/religious sense as well as in the physical sense. Why did the hashgahah ha-elyonah decree that this should be the case, asks Abravanel? Quoting R. Judah Ha-Levis Kuzari, who notes that children often resemble (both physically and morally) their grandparents and not their parents (Kuzari claims that an example of this is Abraham, who did not inherit the defective nature of his father Terah but the good nature of his ancestor Eber), Abravanel notes that Rebeccas father Bethuel was indeed a wicked person. Thus, there was a mixture of good and bad in the genetic makeup of Isaac and Rebeccas children. (Of course, Abravanel did not have the modern understanding of genetics, but the point is clear.) On the one hand there was Abraham, who was not only the first monotheist, but who also possessed a sterling, refined, upright nature. On the other side, there was the defective, deceitful and devious nature of Bethuel, who was an idolater to boot (Abravanel adds that these traits certainly expressed itself in Labans flawed character). God did not want that the offspring of Isaac and Rebecca should be two morally intermediate children. He did not want the patriarchs to be benonim- average, mediocre figures. Hence, God manipulated the genetic material to ensure that all the good qualities should be encapsulated in only one of the twins, namely, Jacob. Consequently, Jacob possessed a pure nature similar to that of his father and paternal grandfather. Esau, on the other hands, turned out like his maternal uncle and grandfather. Thus, the
Author: Rabbi David Horwitz Title: Parashat Toledot: The Divergent Paths of Yaakov and Esau
purity of the patriarchal line was preserved in the person of Jacob. The upshot of his remarkable view, of course, is that Esau was fated to be bad. The entire lives of Jacob and Esau were merely the instantiation of a drama that had already been preordained. This view, of course, rejects the Maimonidean notion of free will or free choice that asserts that one chooses his or her moral destiny. On the other hand, the view that Esau became wicked only after the death of his grandfather Abraham, when he and Jacob were fifteen, implies that he was not fated to do so. Esaus descent into wickedness was his own fateful choice.
Perhaps the polar opposite of Abravanels view can be found in a work of the Hasidic master Reb Chaim of Tchernovitz (1760-1817), who was a disciple of the Maggid of Mezritch and of Rabbi Yechiel Michel of Zlotchov. He authored Be'er Mayim Chayim ("Well of Living Waters"), a commentary on the Torah. (One should not confuse this Hasidic figure with Professor Chaim Tchernowitz (1871-1949). This latter figure was known as Rav Tzair and was the author of Toledot Ha-Posekim.) The Beer Mayim Chaim suggested that the moral collapse of Esau, which legitimated the divine rejection of Esau in favor of Yaakov, occurred only on the very day that Jacob bought the birthright from him. Moreover, it was exclusively due to Esaus illegitimate sexual relations with a betrothed woman on that day. The corollary of this view, of course, is that up until that day, it was indeed in the power of Esau to change his ways and to indeed be a legitimate descendant of Abraham and Isaac, and perhaps even to be considered a patriarch. Esaus fate was not sealed in stone. He, through his own reprehensible behavior, caused his own downfall.
Maimonides words in Hilkhot Teshuvah seem appropriate to a consideration of the approach of the Beer Mayim Chaim.
Free Will is bestowed on every human being. If one desires to turn towards the good way and be righteous, he has the power to do so. If one wishes to turn towards the evil and be wicked, he is at liberty to do so. And thus it is written in the Torah, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22) - there being no other species like it in the following respect, namely, that man, of himself, and by the exercise of his own intelligence and reason, knows what is good and what is evil, and there is none who can prevent him from doing that which is good or that which is evil. And since this is so (there is reason to fear) lest he put forth his hand etc. (ibid.).
Let not the notion, expressed by foolish Gentiles and most of the senseless folk among Israelites, pass through your mind that at the beginning of a persons existence, the Almighty decrees that he is to be either righteous or wicked. This is not so. Every human being may become righteous like Moses, our teacher, or wicked like Jeroboam, wise or foolish, merciful or cruel, niggardly or generous, and so with all other qualities. (Hilkhot Teshuvah 5:1-2)
And in light of the above discussion, we can add the following: good like our forefather Jacob, or bad like Esau the wicked. May we always have the wisdom and foresight to choose the good.
Author: Jed H. Abraham Title: A Literary Solution to the Name Variations of Esau's Wives
Jed H. Abraham
A Literary Solution to the Name Variations of Esau's Wives

Introduction
One of the more intriguing phenomena of the Biblical text is the incidence of personal name variations. Some come readily to mind: Abram-Abraham; 1 Sarai-Sarah; 2 Hosea-Joshua; 3 Esau-Edom. 4 In these cases, the variations are made explicitly, and, in the first and last cases, for explicitly stated reasons. In many other cases, however, the text simply presents name variations without any indication that the original names had in fact been changed or supplemented. 5 These variations appear to the modern reader as stark inconsistencies in the text. 6 Such is the case of the names of Esau's wives: Genesis 26:34-35 When Esau seas forty years old, he took to wife Genesis 36:2-3 Esau took his wives from among the Canaanite womenADAH DAUGHTER OF ELON THE HITTITE, and OHOLIBAMAH DAUGHTER OF ANAH DAUGHTER OF ZIBEON THE HIVITE.
JUDITH DAUGHTER OF BEERI THE HITTITE, and BASEMATH DAUGHTER OF ELON THE HITTITE.
And they were a source of bitterness to Isaac and Rebekah Genesis 28:8-9 Esau realized that the Canaanite women displeased his father Isaac.
10
So Esau went to Ishmael and took to wife, in addition to the wives he had, MAHALATH DAUGHTER ISHMAEL SISTER NEBAIOTH.
And also
OF OF
BASEMATH DAUGHTER OF ISHMAEL SISTER OF NEBAIOTH
This article will review the extensive but, to this author, unsatisfying efforts of traditional Jewish commentators to resolve the inconsistencies in the names of Esau's wives. It will then propose a literary, plain-sense solution to the problem.
The Solutions of Traditional Jewish Exegesis

Traditional Jewish commentators have attempted to solve the problem of Esau's wives' name variations by resorting to one or more of three related propositions: (i) that Esau's wives were renamed, (ii) that they had more than one name at a time, and/or (iii) that Esau had more than three wives. The Bible, they maintain, does not pretend to be a complete history of the events it recounts. Rather, it presents only those episodes which illustrate its major themes. Secondary events, such as name changes and subsidiary marriages, are normally alluded to only in passing. Because the ancient reader would have been familiar with the customs of multiple marriages and the changing of names to reflect developments along the life cycle, 7 he would not have found the Bible's unexplained name variations to be as puzzling as we do. 8
Rashi
Thus, Rashi argues that Esau's wives acquired new names or monikers: 9 Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite, is the original name of Basemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite. She was called Basemath to indicate that she was wont to offer sweet smelling spices (besamim) as incense to idols. 10 Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, is the original name of Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite. Esau called her Judith
11
so as to deceive Isaac his father into thinking that she had abandoned idolatry. 11 "Judith" is taken to be the feminine form of "Judah" (1 will praise [the Lord]"). 12 Basemath, daughter of Ishmael, is the original name of Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael. She was called Mahalath to confirm the midrashic tenet that one's sins are forgiven (mahal) as one enters upon marriage. 13 Rashi felt compelled to identify the Adah and Oholibamah of 36:23 with the Basemath and Judith of 26:34 because 36:2 states: "Esau took his wives from among the Canaanite women." Had Adah and Oholibamah been different from Basemath and Judith, or had they been additional wives, the text would have employed the standard formula: "And Esau took as wives," rather than "Esau took his wives." The latter formulation implies that these wives had already been presented to the reader. l4 There are, however, several problems with Rashi's solution. There is a contradiction in the motivations behind Esau's renaming of Adah and Oholibamah. Adah was renamed Basemath to underscore that she offered sweet smelling spices (besamim) as incense to idols; by contrast, Esau changed the name of Oholibamah to Judith ("I will praise [the Lord]") to conceal that she worshipped idols. It is of course possible that Esau married Oholibamah=Judith after he married Adah=Basemath and that his attitude towards the effect of his wives' idolatry on his parents had by then undergone a revision. The question would remain, however, why Esau would not have given Basemath yet a third name -similar in meaning to Judith-to accord with his revised attitude. Moreover, the plain implication of the order of the text announcing the marriages is that he first married Judith=Oholibamah and then Basemath=Adah.l5 According to Rashi, all the new names appear first in the text, whereas the original names are listed second. In support of this sequence, it would be tempting to argue that, like the name Mahalath, the names Judith and Basemath are both marriage names, and thus, they appropriately appear when Esau's marriages are first mentioned. But Rashi does not make this argument. Indeed, it would tax credulity to suggest that Esau----even Esaushould have broadcast his betrothed's (Adah's=Basemath's) idolatry in the presence of his parents on his wedding day. l6 On the contrary, Rashi seems to suggest that Esau renamed Oholibamah=Judith, and also Adah=Basemath, some time after their marriages, after their idolatry had come to irritate his parents. This, too, however, would also tax credulity. The motivation Rashi suggests for the name changes-the wives' idolatry-is not otherwise apparent in the text. It is certainly possible that
12
it was Esau's wives' idolatry which disturbed Isaac and Rebekah, but it might equally have been some other errant trait, behavior or condition. Although several midrashic sources claim that Judith and Basemath were indeed idolatrous, 17 their interpretations do not appear to be offered as the plain meaning of the text.
lbn Ezra and Rashbam lbn Ezra dissents in part from Rashi's position. He agrees that Adah, daughter of Elon, is Basemath, daughter of Elon; she had two names. Likewise, Basemath, daughter of Ishmael, is Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael; she also had two names. "The are hundreds of such instances in Scripture. . . . [Therefore] do not be surprised [at this phenomenon]," and it needs no further explication. 18 But he contends that Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, is not Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite. Judith did not qualify for mention in the genealogical lists of Gen. 36 because she was childless and the lists are concerned primarily with Esau's offspring. 19 Oholibamah, who takes Judith's place in the lists, was Esau's fourth wife. Ibn Ezra does not tell us what happened to Judith. Nor does he tell us when Esau married Oholibamah-was it before or after he married Mahalath? These lacunae are filled by Rashbam: Judith died childless after Esau married Mahalath=Basemath daughter of Ishmael. Esau then moved from Canaan to Se'ir where he married Oholibamah. 20 According to Ramban, Ibn Ezra felt compelled to depart from Rashi's interpretation because Rashi does not explain how Esau could have accomplished a change in the name not only of Judith but also of her father. Moreover, Rashi's interpretation results in Basemath being the unobjectionable original name of the pedigreed and acceptable daughter of Ishmael (which Esau changed to Mahalath only to connote his own repentance), while at the same time it is the derogatory epithet pinned on the unpedigreed and unacceptable daughter of Elon the Hittite, an inconsistency that lbn Ezra regards as untenable. 21 lbn Ezra's solution, however, does not alleviate either of these objections. Rather, it actually opens the possibility that Judith's=Oholibamah's father simply had two names also, and there is no need to conclude that Judith and Oholibamah are different women. 22 And it, like Rashi's solution, leaves Esau married to two women each bearing the same half of a double name: Basemath=Adah, daughter of Elon, and Mahalath=Basemath, daughter of Ishmael.
13
Ramban Perhaps because of these difficulties, Ramban offers a modified version of lbn Ezra's explanation. He maintains that both Judith, daughter of Beeri, and Basemath, daughter of Elon, died childless, perhaps as punishment for the bitterness of spirit they caused Isaac and Rebekah. Esau then married the deceased Basemath's sister, Adah, daughter of Elon, as well as another woman, Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon. When, later, he married Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, he changed her name, which has a repugnant connotation in Hebrew (from holi=sickness), to Basemath, which has a pleasant connotation (from besamim=spices). By this name change, he articulated his love for Mahalath=Basemath-that she was of family and, as a non-Canaanite, not "evil in the eyes of Isaac his father" (Gen. 28:8). Thus, Mahalath=Basemath was Esau's fifth wife.
Critique of the Solutions of Traditional Jewish Exegesis

Unfortunately, all these interpretations rely upon conjectural events that do not emerge from the plain sense of the biblical text, and none comports with the major themes of the narrative: According to Ibn Ezra/Rashbam, Esau married yet another Canaanite woman after he married Mahalath=Basemath, daughter of Ishmael. This is most unlikely because Esau married Mahalath=Base-math specifically to repent of his previous marriages to Canaanite women! 23 According to Ramban, Esau was bereaved of his original Canaanite wives as punishment for the bitterness they caused his parents; then, unchastened, he promptly married two more Canaanite women (including a sister of one of the deceased!); then, to mollify his parents for his many Canaanite marriages, he married Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael; but he renamed her Basemath after one of the deceased Canaanite wives who had caused his parents so much bitterness! This, too, is most unlikely.
Towards a Literary, Plain-Sense Solution

The search for a plausible, plain-sense solution to the problem of Esau's wives' name variations must build upon the textual cues and the major themes of the biblical narrative. .24
14
As the text reports, Esau decided to take a third wife because his first and second wives, who were Canaanite, displeased his parents. He chose his cousin, the daughter of Ishmael his uncle. Although her pedigree was acceptable to his parents, her name happened to be identical to that of his second wife-Basemath. 25 Therefore, he renamed her Mahalath. 26 The name Mahalath derives from the biblical verb halah (piel, hillah), "to make (the face of someone) sweet or pleasant," and by extention, "to induce to show favor in place of wrath and chastisement." 27 Aptly chosen by Esau, Mahalath retains a shared meaning with Basemath (=sweet smelling spices, incense) while at the same time implying, as Rashi suggested, a new meaning: mahal (="to [bring] forgive[ness])." 28 Esau hoped that his third marriage would mark a new beginning for him and that his earlier choices of wives from unacceptable backgrounds would be forgiven. 29 He did not rest content, therefore, with renaming only his third wife. Lest this name change 'appear to have been opportunistic-to ameliorate the untenable coincidence of his being married to two women bearing the same name, Basemath-he also renamed his other wives. The change of their names, from Judith and Basemath to Oholibamah and Adah, further signaled to his parents that his change of heart was sincere. 30 Oholibamah may be rendered "my tent (oholi) is a shrine (bamah=high place, altar, shrine)." 31 Adah may be derived from 'adah, "to cross over, pass on, advance"; 32 however, the significance of this name does not lie solely in its meaning but also in its history. Adah was the name of Lamech's first wife who bore him Jabal, "the ancestor of those who dwell in tents. . . ." (Gen. 4:19,20). In the biblical narrative until this point, Jacob, Esau's younger twin brother who was ultimately favored by their parents, is described as a humble dweller of tents; Esau, by contrast, is portrayed as a fierce man of the field (Gen. 25:28). Esau now renamed his first wives so as to associate them with the theme of "tents." 33 Esau, "the man of the field," the hunter, thus gave notice to his parents that he was forsaking the wildness of the field and would join his brother Jacob as a humble "dweller of tents." The text supplies additional clues that Judith and Basemath were the wives' original names. The preceding episode told of Isaac's experiences in the field (Gen. 26:13 ff"). He entered into a treaty with a local potentate, Abimelech the Philistine, and his servants dug wells. The text specifically relates that his servants told him "about the well" ('aI odot ha-be'er) which they dug near Beersheba (Gen. 26:32-33; see also 26:15, 18-23, 25). This
15
phrase mimics the name, Judith, daughter of Beeri (Yehudit bat Be'eri). 34 Likewise, the text calls the oath, which bound Isaac and Abimelech to their treaty, an 'alah (Gen. 26:28). This term mimics the name of Basemath's father, Elon. These wordplays are designed as notices to the reader of an essential connection between Isaac's adventures in the field and Esau's improvident marriages. Esau married women from the cultural milieu in which his father circulated in his public role-Judith, daughter of Beeri (from better, well), i.e., the well-man, and Basemath, daughter of Elon (resonant with 'Anah, oath), i.e., the treaty-maker. 35 Isaac, whose father Abraham had arranged for him an acceptable marriage to a kinswoman (Gen. 24), neglected to do the same for his own son. In tending to his activities in the field, Isaac devoted insufficient attention to the affairs of the tent. 36 For this neglect of Esau, Isaac was dealt measure for measure: Esau duly neglected Isaac's sensibilities in the matter of his marriages, which caused bitterness of spirit (morat ru'ah) to Isaac (Gen. 26:34). And for this insensitivity, Esau, too, was dealt measure for measure: When confronted with Isaac's confirmation of the birthright blessing to his rival twin Jacob, Esau in turn cried bitterly (marsh, Gen. 27:34). The wives who had caused bitterness of spirit to Isaac would not bear the beneficiaries of Isaac's blessing (Gen. 28:1-4). 37 This analysis also helps explain the variation in the name of Judith's=Oholibamah's father, Beeri=Anah the Hittite (Gen. 26:34)/ Hivite (Gen. 36:2)/ Horite (Gen. 36:20, 24). The text states that Anah (from 'ayin, wellspring) was renowned for discovering well-water (yemim) in the wilderness (Gen. 36:24). 38 He was also called Beeri, the well-man, 39 apparently to distinguish him from his uncle who was also named Anah. 40 Similarly, the varying usages, Hittite, Hivite and Horite, may be explained as follows: Hittite is a metonym for Canaanite. Thus, Josh. 1:4 uses the term "land of the Hittites" to refer to the entire expanse of Canaan. 41 Hivite means yoshev havot, dweller of tent-villages, 42 while Horite means yoshev horim, troglodyte, cave-dweller. 43 Read together, these designations convey that Anah=Beeri the Hittite=Canaanite was a cave-dweller when he lived in the mountainous Horite country of Se'ir (Gen. 36:20), and he was a tent-dweller when he lived in the less rugged land of Canaan (Gen. 36:2). 44 Both terms serve to associate him generally with the theme of "tent" in contrast to the theme of "field". They consequently strengthen the association of his repentant son-in-law Esau with the theme of "tent" also. 45 In effect, the text is suggesting that the father of Esau's Canaanite wife Judith= Oholibamah (="my tent is a shrine") was a cave/tent-dweller,
16
notwithstanding that he was also associated with the wells of the field. Esau hoped this ideal pedigree would further commend Judith to his parents, especially after her name-change to Oholibamah. 46
Conclusion
The upshot of this interpretation is a thoroughly harmonious rendering of the biblical text. Far from being stark inconsistencies, the name variations of Esau's wives emerge as subtle supports for a unifying theme of the narrative: the superiority of the "tent" of Jacob over the "field" of Esau, and the ultimate repentance of Esau after his traumatic loss of the birthright blessing to Jacob. Although later prophetic and midrashic traditions have generally portrayed Esau (=Edom; =Rome; =the Christian Church) as an unredeemed villain and ultimately as the eternal enemy of Jacob (=Israel), 47 other strands have seen him more sympathetically.48 Indeed, the midrash cited by Rashi that Esau's sins were forgiven when he married Basemath=Mahalath 49 is an example of this more sympathetic strand. It is, in fact, the plain meaning of the biblical text.
Notes
The author would like to thank Dr. Robert D. Biggs, Rabbi Robert Blau, Dr. Barry Eichler, Dr. Norman Golb, Dr. Ben Z. Katz, Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman, Dr. Dermis Pardee, Dr. Jacob J. Schacter and Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik for their helpful comments and criticisms; and librarians Dan Sharon and Andrew Wertheimer of the Sperms Institute of Jewish Studies, Chicago, Charles Jones and Justine Way of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Rev. William Neuman and Heather Grennan of Seabury-Westem Theological Seminary, Evanston, 111., and Eunice Labor of Garrets-Evangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, 111., for their gracious bibliographical assistance. 1. 2. 3 4. "And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I make you the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen. 17:5). "And God said to Abraham, 'As for your wife Sarai, you shall not call her Sarai, but her name shall be Sarah'" (Gen. 17:15). ". . . but Moses changed the name of Hosea son of Nun to Joshua" (Num. 13:16). "And Esau said to Jacob, 'Give me some of that red stuff [ha-adom ha-adom hazeh] to gulp down, for I am famished'-which is why he was named Edom [red]" (Gen. 25:30; see also 36:1,8,19; Deut. 23:8). For example, the prophet Samuel's first-born son is called Joel in 1 Sam. 8:2 (and in 1 Chron. 6:18), and Vashni in 1 Chron. 6:13; Samuel's great grandfather is
5.
17
6.
7.
8.
9. 10.
11. 12. 13.
called Elihu in 1 Sam. 1:1, Eliab in 1 Chron. 6:12, and Eliel in 1 Chron. 6:19. See Ibn Ezra to Gen. 13:7. The son of Rehoboam, King of Judah, is called Abijam in 1 Kings 14 and 15, and Abijah in 2 Chron. 12 and 13. His mother is called Maacah in 1 Kings 15:2 and 2 Chron. 11:20, and Micaiahu in 2 Chron. 13:2. Her father, in turn, is called Abishalom in 1 Kings 15;2, Absalom in 2 Chron. 11:20, and Uriel in 2 Chron. 13;2. See Ibn Ezra to Gen. 13:7 and 36:1. Some of the variations in these examples, such as Elihu=Eliab~Eliel, may be understood simply as nicknames or functional equivalents. Cf. the English names, John=Johnnie=Jack, William~Willy=Will=Billy=Bill, Edward=Ed=Ted. Others, however, such Joel=Vashni, appear to demand a different type of explanation. Cf. D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Beresbit, Vol. 2, trans. [German to Hebrew] A. Wassertiel (Bnei Brak, 1971), 542 (citing Hengstenberg, Green, et al.). See also C. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Genesis, trans. J. Martin (Grand Rapids, repr. 1983), 321. Cf. Ibn Ezra to Gen. 4:16(19): "Were we to know the whole Hebrew language, we could still not know all the events [which inspired unexplicated names]"; 5:29; 10;8. For a critique of Ibn Ezra's general indifference to the potential exegetical significance of variations, see N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim be-Sefer Bereshit, 8th ed. Jerusalem, 1983), 366, n. 7. Gen. 36:2-3, ad loc. There appears to be no direct rabbinic source for this interpretation of Rashi's. See Rashi-Perushei ha-Torah, ed. C. Chavel, 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1983), Gen. 36, n. 183; Rashi ha-Shalem, Vol. 2 Jerusalem, 1988), Gen. 36, and 1-2. Cf. Midrash Lekah Tov to Gen. 27:46. The name Basemath appears to be derived from bosem, "balsam, spice, perfume, sweet smell." Cf. F. Brown, et al., See New Brown-Driver-Brings-Gesenius Hebrew and English lexicon (Peabody, Mass., 1979), 141-42; L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden, 1994), 163. Basemath was also the name of a daughter of King Solomon; she was the wife of Ahimaaz, Solomon's administrative officer in Naphtali (1 Kings 4:15). Cf. the similar names, Ibsam, a descendant of Issachar (1 Chron. 7:2); Mibsam, a son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13; cf. Basemath daughter of Ishmael, Gen. 36:3, and see below); and Mibsam, a descendant of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:25). See above, n. 10. Cf. Gen. 29:35. See Rashi to Gen. 36:3. Rashi bases this interpretation on the dictum of Midrash Samuel 17:1 that the sins of a sage who is selected to a position of authority (who is analogized to a gentile who converts to Judaism), a bridegroom, and a man elevated to political leadership, are commuted upon these respective transitions. As to the bridegroom, the Midrash explains: '"So Esau went to Ishmael and took [to wife] Mahalath,' [Gen. 28:91. But was her name really Mahalath; wasn't her name, in fact, Basemath? Rather, [the biblical text] teaches that she brought him forgiveness (mahalah lo) on all his sins." See Midrash Samuel, ed. S. Buber (Cracow, 1893; repr. Jerusalem, 1965), 48. Cf. T. J. Bikkurim 3:3; Genesis Rabbah 67:13; Rashi ha-Shalem, ad loc., for variations.
18
14. 15.
See Mizrahi to Gen. 36:2. Gen. 26:34-35: Judith=Oholibamah, Basemath=Adah. In Gen. 36:2-3, the order is reversed: Adah=Basemath, Oholibamah=Judith. Gen. 36 ranks Esau's Canaanite wives not according to the priority of their marriages but rather according to the number (and perhaps importance) of their offspring, in descending order. Cf. N. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, 1989), 249~ See also below, nn. 20, 30. 16. It should be noted, however, that Rashi cautiously states that Adah was called Basemath, but that Esau called Oholibamah by the cognomen Judith (Gen. 36;2, ad loc.), intimating perhaps that Adah was called Basemath by someone other than Esau, possibly by Esau's mother Rebekah. Cf. Midrash Lekah Tov, Gen. 27:46; Rashi ha-Shalem, Gen. 36, n. 2. If this were Rashi's reasoning, then it may be objected that it would also tax credulity for Rebekah to so stigmatize Adah on her wedding day and for Esau---.even Esau---to marry her nonetheless. See Midrash Tanhuma, Toledot 8; Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 49; Yalkut ha17. Makhiri to Psalms, Ps. 109:10; Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 12; Genesis Rabbah 65:4; M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, Vol. 4 (5) (New York, 1951), Gen. 26, n. 139. Kasher, however, cites the unpublished manuscript of Remazei ha-Torah leRabbenu Yo'el which interprets the phrase "and they [Esau's wives] were a source of bitterness (morat ru'ah; lit., "bitterness of spirit") to Isaac and Rebekah" (Gen. 26:35) to allude to the incense myrrh (mor) which Basemath employed in her idolatrous practices. This interpretation may, indeed, be based upon wordplay in the biblical text. Basemath, as noted, means ', sweet smelling spice, incense" (see above, n. ); myrrh, although a fragrant spice used for incense, is also bitter-tasting, whence its name mor, from mrr (=to be bitter). See, G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren & H.-J. Fabry, The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 8, trans. D. W. Stott (Grand Rapids, 1997), 557-60. Gen. 26:34-35 can thus be read as an ironic pun: Although Basemath's name suggested she would be '; sweet-smelling," in fact she produced a morat ruah, a "bitter(ness of) smell," to Isaac and Rebekah. For the combination of mor and bosem or besamim in annointing oil, perfume and incense, see, e.g., Exod. 30:23; Cant. 4:14; 5:1,13; Est. 2:12. Ibn Ezra to Gen. 26:34; 28; 36:1; above, n. 8. 18. 19. See Ibn Ezra to 26:34. See Rashbam to Gen. 36:2; D. z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 541. 20. Rashbam further suggests that Oholibamah is a Se'irite woman of Horite extraction. See Gen. 36:20,24-25. The fact that Oholibamah was Esau's last wife also explains why her offspring are listed last in the genealogical lists of Gen. 36:4 ff. Cf. nn. 15, 30. R. D. Z. Hoffmann follows Rashbam's analysis except he rightly insists that Oholibamah must be Canaanite, like Adah. See Gen. 36:2-3: "Esau took his wives from among the Canaanite women-Adah . . . and Oholibamah. . . . And also Basemath. . . ." Oholibamah is mentioned in Gen. 36:2 immediately after Adah because they are both Canaanite; Basemath=Mahalath, who is Ishmaelite, follows separately in Gen. 36:3. By contrast, Oholibamah's offspring are mentioned last in the genealogical lists of Gen. 36:4 ff., following those of Adah and Basemath, because she was Esau's last wife. See D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 540-
19
21. 22.
23.
24.
42. Cf. R. Naftali Z. Y. Berlin, Ha'amek Davar to Gen. 36:2. Moreover, according to Gen. 36:6, Esau took his wives, i.e., those mentioned just a few verses earlier in Gen. 36:2-3, Oholibamah included, from Canaan to live in Se'ir. See Ramban to Gen. 36:3. See above, n. 8. Cf. Rabbenu Avraham hen ha-Rambam to Gen. 36:2, Perush Rabbenu Avraham ben ha-Rambam 'al Bereshit u-Shemot, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem, 1984), 52 (on Gen. 36:2). He adds that "Hittite" is a metonym for "Canaanite," which includes "Hivite"; Ralbag, ad loc. Perhaps for this reason, Rashbam preferred to consider Oholibamah to have been Horite, not Canaanite (see above, n. ). Ibn Ezra, it may be argued, implicitly concludes that Esau, after his marriage to Mahalath=Basemath, daughter of Ishmael, perversely reverted to his former fondness for Canaanite women and married Oholibamah. In response, however, it may pointed out that whereas in the cases of Judith=Oholibamah and Basemath= Adah, Esau had not been expressly forewarned of his parents' aversion to Canaanite women, he was surely on notice thereafter. Just as he was solicitous of his father Isaac's sentiments by refraining from revengefully murdering Jacob during Isaac's lifetime (Gen. 27:41), and he did not carry out his threat thereafter, so, too, he could be expected to respect his father's feelings about not marrying any more Canaanites even after his father's death. Cf. Ha'amek Davar to Gen. 28:8. See M. Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, trans. P. Hackett (Ramat Gan, 1991), 14, 20: [F]rom the biblical standpoint a name is not merely a random and arbitrary label of identification, but rather . . . there is meaning behind a name giving; sometimes the author fits it into the text as an integral part of the literary texture. . . . Here we are dealing with a wider scope of potential derivations: sound effects (e.g., alliteration), word play, subtle riddles, concealed meanings, key motifs, etc.-all are derived from names regardless of their reasonable etymology. The biblical writers utilize these potentialities within the literary units in different ways, not necessarily in connection with the act of naming. The intensity and proliferation of this technique is an outcome of the important position that the name had in the biblical world outlook. (Paragraph divisions omitted.)
cr. Enuma Elish 1:8: "(When) they [i.e., the gods] had not (yet) been called by (their) name(s, and their) destinies had not (yet) been fixed," in A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis; The Story of Creation, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 1951), 18; Berakhot 1b: "shema garem," the name or a [biblical] personality has an effect upon [i.e., is reflected in the narrative of his life. cr. also Ramban to Gen. 38:3 And it would have been doubly intolerable to Isaac and Rebekah for Esau to 25. marry yet another Basemath alter the first Basemath had produced not a sweet but rather a "bitter smell." See above, n. 11. 26. CF. D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol 2, 541-42: Adah, which may carry the unfavorable connotation, "to go, pass (away)" (cr. Rashi to Gen. 4:19: '"adah is Aramaic for surah, 'turn aside'"; Genesis Rabbah 23:2), is the original name or the daughter or Elon. Upon their marriage, Esau changed her name to Basemath
20
(which carries the pleasant connotation, "sweet smelling spices"). When Esau later married the daughter or Ishmael, whose original name was also Basemath, he was obliged to change her name also. He called her Mahalath (which may be derived from hali, "trinket," see Prov. 25:12; Cant. 7:2). Hoffmann correctly notices the problem to be that two or Esau's wives bore the same name, but he does not develop the literary use to which it is put in the narrative (see below). Rather, he abandons this line of analysis and, following Rashbam, concludes that Judith and Oholibamah are different women. There is another example in Genesis of intra-family renaming due to similarity in the meanings or the names. The text relates that, as she lay dying in childbirth, Jacob's second wife Rachel named her newborn "Ben-Oni" ("son of my vigor, i.e., the focus of my final effort), but Jacob called him ';Benjamin" (Gen. 35:18). No reason is given why Jacob renamed the child. It appears, however, that the term on (=vigor) had already been appropriated by Jacob's first wife Leah and applied to her first born, Reuven, whose name Jacob understood to mean kohi ve-reshit oni (=my might and first fruit of my vigor; Gen. 49:3). To avoid a conflict, Jacob gave the child a new name that preserved the meaning of the old-Benjamin (=son or [my] right [i.e., strong] hand "son of [my] vigor)-but which had the additional meanings of "son of the south (Canaan)" (Benjamin being the only one of Jacob's children to have been born in Canaan), and "son of (my) days (=old age)." Oni may also mean "my sorrow, my mourning" (Rashi, Ibn Ezra to Gen. 35:18), in which case "Ben-Oni" again posed a conflict with "Reuven," which Leah understood to mean, "The Lord has seen onyi ("my affliction)" (Gen. 29:32). Although the Hebrew roots for "sorrow" and "affliction" are different, they sound similar enough and are close enough in meaning to be interchangeable. 27. See, F. Brown, et al., The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v., 11. [halah], 318; L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, s.v., 1 halah, 311; Y. Keil, Sefer Divrei ha-Yamim, Vol. 2 (Da'at Micra; Jerusalem, 1986), 2 Chron. 11:18, s.v., mahalat, 646. The vocalization of Mahalath varies slightly among the Masoretic manuscripts. See above, n. 13. Cf. Midrash on Psalms 53:1; 88:1. Although the root mhl 28. (mahal), "to renounce, forgive," is first attested in Mishnaic Hebrew, where it displaces the synonymous biblical verb salah, there is reason to believe that it existed during biblical times also. See M. H. Segal, Dikduk Leshon ha-Mishnah (Tel Aviv, 1936), 5511, 175, 119; H. Albeck, Mavo la-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1959), 162; Y. Aharoni, "Mizbe'ah ha-Levonah mi-Lakhish," Leshonenu 35 (1971): 3-6; ibid., Investigations at Lakhish; The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V) (Tel Aviv, 1915), 5-7. But cf. M. Moreshet, Leksikon ha-Po'al she-Nithadesh bi-Leshon haTanna'im (Ramat Gan, 1980), 85-86, 209, n. 8**. Mahalath may also reflect one of the meanings of the biblical verb hll (hail, heel) "to begin (something new or different)." See, e.g., Gen. 41:53-54. For still another potential biblical derivation of Mahalath, see below, n. 45. The first that Mahalath may lend itself to more than one relevant name derivation does not detract from the above analysis. One the contrary, the greater the number of
21
29.
30.
31.
32.
33-
relevant derivations that present themselves, the greater the power of the wordplay in the name. Mahalath (daughter of Jerimoth the son of King David) is also the name of one of the wives of King Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:18). Curiously, she had a cousin named Basemath (daughter of King Solomon the son of King David). See above, n. 10. Cf. the similar names, Mahlah (l Chron. 7:18; Num. 26:33, et al.), Mahli (Exod. 6:19, et al.) and Mahlon (Ruth 1:2, et al.). Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hil. Teshuvah 2:4. For the penitent to change his name is one of the ways of repentance ("mi-darkhei ha-teshuvah"), "that is to say, [the penitent who changes his name effectively declares:] I am [now] a different person, and I am not the same person who did those [evil] deeds." The literary logic of the order in which the wives' names appear is as follows: A. Judith and Basemath #1----original names by which Esau's first and second wives were known when Esau married them and which they bore until Esau married Mahalath, Gen. 26:34; B. Mahalath (=Basemath #2i-new name given by Esau to his third wife upon their marriage, Gen. 28:9; B'. Adah (-Basemath #1) and Oholibamah (-Judith)-new names given by Esau to his second and first wives upon his marriage to Mahalath; arranged in reverse (chiastic) order to their original names, Gen. 36:2; A'. Basemath #2 (-Mahalath)--original name of Esau's third wife; completes the overall chiastic structure of the order in which the names appear, Gen. 36:3. This chiastic, mirror-image structure in name order----original, new I new, original-implies a mirror-image relationship in the names themselves. Cf. above, nn. 15, 20. See L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Vol. l, s.v. Oholibamah, 19. Cf. Exod. 31:6-7 where the name Oholiah is associated with the word tent. See M. Garsiel, Biblical Names, 216. Cf. also Ezek. 23 for the names Oholah and Oholibah. See also F. Brown, et al., See Hew Brown-Driver-Brings-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, 14, who renders "tent of the high place." See, Job 28:8; F. Brown, et al., The New Broom-Driver-Brings-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v., I. 'Adah, 723; L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, s.v., I 'adah, 189. However, both lexicons derive the name from a second meaning of the verb 'adah, "ornament." Cf. the names Adiel (1 Chron. 4:36, et al.), Adaiah(u) (2 Chron. 23:1, et al.), Elead and Eliadah (1 Chron. 1:20,21), Iddo(') (Zech. 1:1, et al.), and Jedo (2 Chron. 9:29 The name changes also served to neutralize the wives' negative pedigrees-a change in name implies a change in essence-and so obviated the need to send them away. Thus, Gen. 28:9, in a subtle double-entendre, intimates that Esau took Mahalat . . . 'al nashav, "Mahalath ('to [bring] forgive[ness]') . . . upon his (remainin~ wives," lit., "in addition to the wives he had." Cf. Ha'amek Davar to Gen. 28:9, s.v., 'al nasbav. . . ; F. Brown, et al., See New Broom-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, 755: the preposition 'al means, inter alia, ';'in addi-
22
tion to,'. . . [h]ence by an easy transition it denotes 'together with'. . . ." Contra Rashi to Gen- 28:9. 34. For the purposes of the wordplay on odot, Judith is taken to be the feminine form of Judah, which is understood to mean, "I will praise (odeh) [the Lord]." See above, n. 12. 35. Although Isaac's adventures in the field here involved Philistines-whereas Esau's wives were Hittite=Canaanite-the text considers the Land of the Philistines to be part of the Promised Land and therefore part of Greater Canaan (Gen. 17:8; 26:34). This narrow congruence aside, the broader point of the wordplays is that the original names of Esau's wives "confirm" that Isaac is not blameless in the matter of his son's irksome marriages. Cf. Seforno to Gen. 26:34, 28:8; Ha'amek Davar to Gen. 26:34. 36 There is yet another wordplay to support this connection. The tent emphasizes the "peace" that was expected to flow from Isaac's treaty with Abimelech (Gen. 26:29,31). This happy anticipation of events in the field highlights by contrast the "bitterness of spirit" that was soon to erupt in the tent (Gen. 26:34-35). 37. 38. Cf. above, n. 17. See also D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 540. Yemim is a hapax legomenon. There is considerable debate among the commentators regarding its meaning. It is rendered, inter alia, "mules" (see, e.g., Targum Jonathan, Rashi, ad loc.); "warriors" (see, e.g., Targum Onkelos, Rashbam, ad loc.); "wild doves" (see, e.g., E. Ben-Yehuda, A Complete Dictionary o1 Ancient and Modern Hebrew [New York, 1959/601, 2056); "hot springs" (see, e.g., Vulgate, ad loc.; W. Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, trans. S. P. Tregelles [1847; Grand Rapids, repr. 19871, 351; F. Brown, et al., The New Brown-Driver-Brings-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, 411; A. EvenShoshan, ha-Millon he-Hadash (Jerusalem, 19881, 494); "water" (see, e.g., Peshitta, ad loc.; C. J. Ball, The Book of Genesis: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Ext [Leipzig, 18961, 93; cf. E. A. Spenser, Genesis, 279-80). D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 548-49 (cf. Ibid., 541-42), declines to resolve the different opinions. See also B. Z. Luria, '"Hu Anah Asher Maza et ha-Yemim ba-Midbar' (Gen. 36:24)," Bet Micra 30 U984/85): 262-68, who renders "geyser." Cf. Gen. 26:19, 32; D. Z. Hoffmann, Refer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 540-41 (attributed to Hengstenberg). Compare Gen. 36:20 to Gen. 36:24. An analogue exits in the case of Mahli, son of Mushi, who appears to have been named after his uncle Mahli, brother of Mushi, son of Merari, son of Levi. See 1 Chron. 6:4,32; 23:6,21,23; 24:26,30. Cf. below, n. 46. Cf. D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 540, 541; above, n. 22. Also, Gen. 28:1 equates "Canaanite women" with "Hittite women" of Gen. 27:46. And compare Gen. 28:6,8 (;;Canaanite women") with Gen. 26:34 (';Hittite"). See "havvah," E. Ben-Yehuda, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, 1460; ';hivvi," Enziklopedia Mikra't, Vol. 3, col. 45. The Hivites have not been attested as a national entity in any extra-biblical source.
39. 40.
41.
42.
23
43.
44. 45.
46.
47
48
49
See, e.g., S. D. Luzzatto ("Shadal") to Gen. 36:20 (citing Jerome's commentary to Obadiah: "Throughout the southern region of the Edomites, there are small cave dwellings"). Obad. 3 refers to the Edomites as ';you who dwell in the clefts of the rock . " The identification by some scholars of the biblical Horites with the ancient Hurrians is subject to considerable dispute. See E. Speiser, Genesis, 282-83; C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, trans. J. Scullion (Minneapolis, 1985), 564; "hori," Enziklopedia Mikra'it, Vol. 3, cols. 57-63; N. Sarna, Gensis, 105-06. Cf. D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 540. It should not go unnoted that the name Mahalath, in addition to its other possible meanings, may also suggest mehilot, "caves, caverns" (Is. 2:19). With his marriage to Basemath=Mahlath, Esau acknowledged that he was destined to abandon Canaan to Jacob and move on to the cave-country of Se'ir. See Gen. 27:46-28:9; 36:6-8. See above, n. 33 Anah and Oholibamah are the subjects of still other confusions in the text. Anah is listed as Zibeon's brother (Gen. 36:20) and son (Gen. 36:24). Oholibamah is listed as the brother's daughter (Gen. 36:25) and the son's daughter (Gen. 36:2). Ramban explains that Zibeon named his son Anah after his brother Anah, and Zibeon's son Anah named his daughter Oholibamah after his uncle Anah's daughter, Oholibamah. Hoffmann, however, finds this coincidence unlikely in part because it would result in Timnas, the concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz, being the great-aunt of Esau's wife Oholibamah (cf. Gen. 36:12 to Gen. 36:22). See D. Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Bereshit, Vol. 2, 548 (citing Hengstenberg). Perhaps, however, there were also two Timna. Cf. 1 Chron. 1:36,39 cf. the above to Rashi on Gen. 36:2 ff_ Following a midrashic theme (see, e.g., Midrash Tanhuma, Vayeshev l), Rashi attributes these confusions to the gross sexual indecencies characteristic of the extended Esau line. So, Zibeon came upon his mother and sired Anah. Not sated, he later came upon his daughter-in-law, the wife of his son Anah, and sired Oholibamah. See also Rashi on Deut. 32:47. See, e.g., Ezek. 35:5: "Because you [Mount Se'ir=Edom=Esau] harbored an ancient (perpetual) hatred and handed the people of Israel over to the sword. . . ."; Amos l:11: ". . . because he [Edom=Esau] pursued his brother [Israel=Jacob] with the sword and repressed all pity, because his anger raged unceasing (forever) and his fury stormed unchecked (perpetually)"; Sifre, Num. 69: "Rabbi Simeon BenYohai says: 'It is a rule that Esau [perennially, but with rare exception] loathes Jacob. . . .'" See, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 65:16: "Rabbi Simeon bun Gamaliel said: 'All my lifetime I attended upon my father, yet I did not do for him a hundredth part of the service which Esau did for his father. . . .'" See above, n. 13.
24
Author: Rabbi Ally Ehrman Title: Davening Should Be Smoking
A man was davening with great intensity and suddenly he takes out a pack of cigarettes, waves them and then puts them back in his pocket. After davening his friend asked him what he was doing. He explained: "I was in the middle of davening and then I remembered I have a flight coming up. So I imagined myself driving to the airport, taking my luggage out of the car and going through security. Then a stewardess asked me if I want to sit in the smoking or non-smoking section. But I couldn't talk because I was in the middle of davening! So I took out my cigarettes and waved them to show her that I want to sit in the smoking section." In this weeks parsha [perek 24 psukim 64-65] we read that Rivka saw Yitzchak for the first time and asked "Who is that man?" The Medrash says in the name of Rav Huna, that she saw him in the midst of davening and she exclaimed "vadai Adam Gadol hu" - "He is certainly a great man!!" The most accurate way of identifying a spiritual giant is to watch him daven. When a person davens he stands completely in the presence of G-d and his entire being is immersed in the experience. At those moment of connection NOTHING else exists. The soul is floating in the highest realms of Godliness and senses the Divine anxiously listening to every word uttered. When a person davens he stands completely in the presence of G-d and his entire being is immersed in the experience. At those moments of connection NOTHING else exists. The soul is floating in the highest realms of Godliness and senses the Divine anxiously listening to every word that emanates from a heart overcome with emotion, passion and yearning for the ineffable. Rivka saw that Yitzchak was a Great Man due to his intense prayer. Learning can be learning even if the soul is not involved. A intellectual tour-de-force. Chessed can be done with no feeling at all. But davening is different. If the Neshama isn't completely and intensely involved then it is not davening. It is merely a dry recital of an ancient liturgy. Let us pray that we learn how to pray. Love and blessings and a great Shabbos to my sweetest friends!!
25
Author: Rabbi Chaim Jachter Title: A New Perspective on Yaakovs Purchase of the Birthright
Introduction Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (Orot HaKodesh 3:11) writes that it is forbidden for one to develop his Yirat Shamayim (fear of Heaven) at the expense ones natural sense of morality. Rav Kook insists that one must strive to integrate Yirat Shamayim and his natural sense of morality. One may extrapolate from Rav Kook that the Torah fundamentally never conflicts with natural morality, an idea that Rav Walter Wurzberger develops at length in his work Ethics of Responsibility. Indeed, Rav Wurzburger develops the idea that ones natural morality should serve as a hermeneutical tool to interpret the Torah. For instance, Halachic decisors strive to resolve problems of Mamzeirut and Igun in light of this principle. For example, Rav Avraham Shapira writes, It is the accepted practice amongst our rabbinical sages to expend extraordinary effort to find a Halachic solution to relieve someone from the status of Mamzer (Techumin 9:27). Commentaries to the Chumash vigorously apply this principle to the narrative sections of the Torah. They will often interpret texts in a manner that satisfies our natural sense of morality. An example is the manner in which commentaries of all generations seek to harmonize the story of Yaakovs purchase of the birthright from Esav with our sense of natural morality (for a summary of many of these approaches see Rav Yehuda Nachshonis Hegut BiParshiot HaShavua 1:96-100). The reader of the story recoils from what appears at first glance to be Yaakovs exploiting Esavs hunger and impulsivity in order to secure the birthright. Yet none if any of the classical commentaries assert that Yaakov sinned by engaging in this activity. Let us examine two major and representative approaches to this issue and subsequently suggest a somewhat novel approach to resolve this problem. Rashis Approach Rashi (Bereshit 25:31, based on Bereshit Rabbah 63:13) interprets that Yaakov was seeking the Bechorah to attain the privilege of serving God (presumably in the Tabernacle and Temple service), as the service of God is performed by the first-born. According to Rashi, Esav did not deserve the privilege of this honor, as Esav was wicked. Indeed, Rashi seizes every opportunity to highlight the wicked character of Esav. It appears that Rashi concedes that Yaakovs actions were immoral per se. The actions are justified, though, because the Torah sanctions acting immorally with immoral individuals (see Samuel II 22:26-27, Psalms 18:26-27, Daat Mikra commentary to Bereshit 2:297, and Rav Elchanan Samet, Iyunim Biparshat Hashavua pp.178-191). A potential weakness, though, in Rashis approach lies in its seeming anachronistic approach to this story. A Pshat (straightforward reading of the Biblical text) approach might have difficulty with Rashis assertion that Yaakov was seeking to secure the right to serve God in the Tabernacle or Temple. A Pshat approach would have difficulty sustaining Rashis introduction of a concept from the books of Exodus and Numbers to the book of Bereshit. In fact, in the book of Bereshit we find that Hevel as well as Kayin offered sacrifices even though Hevel was not a first-born (although Kayin offered first presumably because of his first-born status, see Rav Elchanan Samet, Iyunim Biparshat Hashavua 1:11). Perhaps it is for this reason that the Rashbam and Ibn Ezra do not interpret the right of the first-born in this context as the right to serve in the offering of sacrifices. Rashbams Approach The Rashbam presents a more Pshat oriented approach to this problem. He asserts (as does Ibn Ezra) that Yaakov merely sought to purchase from Esav the first-borns customary double share in Yitzchaks future estate. Daat Mikra, Bereshit 2:231 notes that it was customary in the Near East during the time of book of Bereshit for the first-born to receive a double share in the fathers estate. Rashbam asserts that Yaakov paid full value for this purchase of the right of primogeniture. The Rashbam insists (as does the Seforno) that the soup was merely a technical means to seal the deal similar to the Kinyan Suddar (formal act of transaction) that is described in the book of Ruth (4:7). According to this approach, Yaakov did not exploit Esavs hunger to attain the right of the first-born for a mere bowl of soup. Rather, he paid full price for this monetary purchase. Rashbam thus resolves moral conflict surrounding this story by diminishing the significance of
26
Yaakovs purchase and increasing the amount Yaakov paid. One might, however, raise two problems with this approach. First, Esav certainly perceives in hindsight that he was manipulated into selling the right of the first-born, as Esav later expresses to Yitzchak (Bereshit 27:36). Second, is that if Yaakov merely purchased the right to the double share of the first born it is difficult to understand why the Torah presents this story. Why must the Torah inform us of details surrounding the division of Yitzchaks estate? A New Approach Both Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (commentary to Bereshit 25:34) and Daat Mikra Bereshit 2:235) assert that Yaakovs purchase of the birthright from Esav was an invalid sale. Rav Hirsch notes that Bereshit Rabbah (63:14) records Bar Kappara referring to this transaction as Mischakim, games. Daat Mikra notes that in the ancient Near East such a sale would not be valid unless the father consented. Accordingly, why did Yaakov engage in this false and seemingly meaningless sale and why does the Torah dignify this story by recording it for posterity? One might answer that Yaakov was engaging in a character test to objectively determine whether Esav was worthy of his first-born rights and obligations (Rav Mordechai Breuer, Pirkei Bereshit pp.494-496, presents a similar idea but takes it in a different direction than we do). Someone who would relinquish his birthright in exchange for soup, even if he were ravenously hungry, is not a worthy successor to the legacy of Avraham. Indeed, the Jewish People have survived through the millennia only because of the willingness and readiness of Jews to preserve the Torah even in the most severe circumstances.Moreover, Esavs impulsivity and lack of emotional self-control also constitute sufficient reason for him to lose the birthright. Indeed, it is for this reason that Reuven is later to lose his rights as the first-born (see Bereshit 49:4 and Divrei Hayamim 1:5:1). Indeed, Yehuda demonstrates that his leadership skills are superior to Reuven by their respective responses to a crisis artificially created by Yosef. Reuven seeks to convince his father to immediately permit Binyamin to travel to Egypt by offering to kill two of his children if he does not return with Binyamin to Canaan. Yehuda, on the other hand, does not immediately seek to convince Yaakov to permit Binyamin to travel to Egypt. Rather, he patiently waits until the food supply has run out and Yaakov is left with no other viable choice other than to permit Binyamin to travel. Reuvens impulsive and irrational solution to the problem as opposed to Yehudas patient and effective resolution of the problem, prove Yehuda to be the true leader and Reuven lacking the temperament to lead. In the case of the sale of the birthright Esav exhibits impulsivity and lack of emotional self-control, as he expresses, I am about to die, why do I need the birthright? (Bereshit 25:32), thereby demonstrating his inadequacy as a leader (the Seforno 25:31 articulates a similar approach). The right of the first-born that Esav is ready to relinquish in exchange for a bowl of soup seems to refer to the privilege to serve as the leader of a family that will preserve and cultivate the legacy of Avraham and Sarah (as indicated by the Ramban and Chizkuni). We recall that character tests to determine if one is worthy of membership in good standing of Avrahams immediate family abound in the book of Bereshit. Avraham servants character test of Rebecca (as explained by commentaries collected and expanded upon by Nechama Leibowitz, Iyunim Bisefer Bereshit 157-161) and Yosefs testing his brothers (as explained by Abravanel to Bereshit 42) to see if they would acquiesce to Binyamins enslavement are two examples of such character tests. The three angels visit to the tent of Avraham and Sarah disguised as travelers may be construed as a test to determine the worthiness of Avraham and Sarah to merit having a child at a very advanced age (see Yonatan Grossman, Megadim 29:24). Rashi (Bereshit 22:1) in one explanation suggests that the episode of the binding of Yitzchak was designed to test and demonstrate Yitzchaks worthiness to serve as the successor to Avraham (as opposed to Yishmael). The reason why Yaakov felt a need to engage in such a character test was the imbalance in Yitzchaks family. The Torah (Bereshit 25:28) notes, in what might constitute an introduction to our story, that Yitzchak loves Esav because of the meat from the hunt that the latter serves the former. Yaakov may have wished for Yitzchak to be told of this incident and subsequently realize that Esav is unworthy the right of the first-born.
27
Indeed, Esav reveals this incident to Yitzchak in the immediate aftermath of Yaakovs dressing as Esav to receive the blessing from his father. A major question posed by the commentaries such as Ibn Ezra (Bereshit 27:40) is why Yitzchak did not revoke the blessing he mistakenly conferred upon Yaakov based on deception. An answer might be that when Yitzchak discovered that Esav sold the right of the first-born under pressure, Yitzchak realized that Esav was unworthy to continue the legacy of Avraham and Sarah and thereupon suggested to Esav that he abandon the land of Israel in favor of life in Seir east of the Jordan River (see Daat Mikra commentary to Bereshit 27:40). Another reason for Yaakov to subject Esav to this character test is to determine the propriety of engaging in extraordinary means to secure the right of the first-born. Rav Elchanan Samet (Iyunim Biparshat Hashavua 1:71) wonders what constituted the moral license for Yaakov to engage in deception to secure the right of the first-born. According to our interpretation, Yaakov engaged in this character test in order to verify his assumption that Esav was unworthy of the right of the first-born. The result of Yaakovs experiment was that Yitzchak was blinded to Esavs spiritual inadequacies to be the leader of or even a member of the future house of Avraham. Thus drastic action was justified in order to correct Yitzchaks misperception that threatened the future of the legacy of Avraham and Sarah. Moreover, Rav Samet (Iyunim BParshot HaShavua p. 63 notes Yaakovs determination and steadfastness when he presents himself to Yitzchak as Esav. Yaakov does not break under the pressure of Yitzchaks repeated questioning and investigating his identity. This reflects Yaakovs full confidence that he acting entirely appropriately. What gave Yaakov such confidence? One might answer that since Yaakov had empirical evidence that Esav was unworthy of the birthright, he had no doubt that he was correct to take the birthright from Esav. Finally, the last words of this incident and Esav denigrated the birthright (Bereshit 25:34) may support our interpretation. Unlike Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni who interpret that after he ate the soup Esav denigrated the worth of the birthright, Rashi interprets that this is the voice of the Torah noting that Esav has denigrated the birthright. This might be interpreted as the Torahs summary of this incident, that Esav thereby denigrated the birthright. Note that the text does not summarize the incident by stating that Esav has sold the birthright, for indeed, he has not! Rather, in this character test, Esav has denigrated the birthright and has proven himself unworthy of its privileges and obligations. We should note that our novel approach to this issue might be implied by Rashis comments to this story, if we understand Rashi in a non-literal manner. Although Yaakovs actions were both correct and necessary, he had to pay a price for engaging in such drastic activities (as Rav Elchanan Samet develops at length in Iyunim BiParshat HaShavua pp.68-71 in the context of Yaakov posing as Esav). Just as he subjected Esav to a character test, so too Yaakov suffered from the character test that was necessary for Yosef to impose upon his brothers. In certain circumstances it is necessary to choose between the lesser evil of two bad choices. The choice to subject Esav to a character test was a less offensive choice than to permit Yitzchak to elevate Esav to a position of leadership or even membership in the house of Avraham. Nevertheless, a price had to be paid for engaging in an activity that per se is offensive, but necessary due to the circumstances involved, as demonstrated at length by Rav Samet in the context of Yaakov dressing as Esav. Conclusion Accordingly, Yaakov did not exploit Esav in this incident. Rather, he laid the groundwork to preserve the future of the legacy of Avraham and facilitated the creation of the Jewish People. Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary actions.
28
Author: Rabbi Maury Grebenau Title: A Well Tread Path
A Well Tread Path

Rabbi Maury Grebenau
Among the many interesting points in the exchange between father and son during Yaakovs stolen blessing, there is a verse on which our sages are quite focused. After the blinded Yitzchak hears and feels Yaakov, he remarks, the voice is the voice of Jacob and the hands are the hands of Eisav (Breishit 27:22). Our tradition takes this statement to be one that speaks to the ages. The voice of Yaakov and his descendents are a central and defining element of the national heritage. The Talmud (Gittin 57b) says that, there is no successful prayer that doesnt come from the descendants of Jacob and there is no successful war that isnt waged by the children of Eisav. The Talmud is telling us of two very different nations. The children of Yaakov will identify with prayer, while the children of Eisav will identify with the sword. The Talmud understands Yitzchaks seemingly nave statement of confusion as a succinct classification of the central elements present in his sons. But this characterization is important for us as well. As the Ramban points out, a central theme of the book of Breishit is the concept of Maaseh Avot Siman LBanim the actions of the fathers are a sign to the children. The actions of our forefathers are important not just for their Historical implications but they have direct significance for us as well. The attributes of our forefathers continue to shape our people to this day. We continue to act on and pass along the spiritual DNA that they created long ago. Yaakovs legacy was prayer and so is ours. But what is prayer? Prayer is many things to many people, but at its core prayer is a way to reach out to G-d. As in any relationship there needs to be constant communication and our relationship with the Almighty is no different. Although prayer is made up of praises, thanks and requests this is a deceptively simple construct. If G-d knows our thought then communicating any of these things to G-d seems to be unnecessary. The reality is that prayer is simply an avenue of connecting to the infinite. The concept of prayer is simple, yet powerful. It is the sanctity of time. We take a few minutes out of our lives to commune with G-d. It is interesting to note that the Talmud (Brachos 27b) tells us that each of our forefathers introduced one of the three daily prayers. Once again we see the more formal aspects of prayer being a part of our spiritual DNA. Avraham, Yitchak and Yaakov all had intense and profound relationships with G-d, and expressed this in part through prayer. Prayer is a time to consider our relationship with G-d and its ramifications. It is a time to step out of our busy days and contemplate the bigger picture. Opportunities to recall the role of G-d in our lives are constant; it is our job to seize them. The time in each of our days is ours to use as we see fit, we must allocate it wisely. Prayer is our chance to utilize our time for furthering our connection to G-d, as we follow in the path of those who came before us.
29
Author: Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn Title: Bolt of Inspiration 42 - How a Tzaddik Lies
Our tradition teaches us that even the ( casual conversations) of the righteous are rich with life lessons. When it comes to Yaakov, we can go further and suggest that even when he must lie, there are valuable lessons to be learned. In order to procure the coveted birth right from his father Yitzchak, Rivkah (Yaakov's mother) and Yaakov develop a plan to deceive Yitzchak. Leave aside the age-old question as to how Yaakov could lie to his father. Suffice it to say that Yaakov knew what his destiny needed and went for it. Rivkah councils Yaakov and tells him: (27:6) - " " -" And Rivkah says to Yaakov her son 'saying', behold I have heard your father speaking to Esav your brother 'saying.' "The Opta Rebbe asks why does it use the word "leymor" (saying) twice? The speech of Yaakov was always gentle. As we say in Koheles (Ecclesiastes) - (9:14) "Divrei Chachamim benachas nishmain", "The words of the righteous are heard while gentle." Yitzchak knew this. In order not to get tricked, he asked Esav to speak when he comes to him in a soft voice because in all likelihood Yaakov is going to try to sound like Esav. But Rivka knew of this secret plan and therefore she told Yaakov to keep his voice as is. That's the explanation of the second "leymor", I heard your father teaching Esav how to speak. This whole ruse hinges upon the accepted premise that Yaakov would always speak gently.
30
Author: Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman Title: I Thought Jacob was Supposed to be the One Who Told the Truth?
awril zn` ozz
When we are first introduced to the personality and unique qualities of Yaakov Avinu, we are told that Yaakov was a tam man, dwelling in the tents (Gen. 25:27).Rashi explains the term tam to mean that he was straightforward. As opposed to Eisav who was a master manipulator, Yaakov was not adept at trickery. His heart and mouth were one. It would appear that Yaakov was a naturally straightforward, truthful individual. Lest one think that this characteristic of Yaakov was corrupted later in his life, the Midrash Rabah (Vilna edition parshah 70 number 7) relates an incident where a certain nonJewish fellow asked Rebbi Meir, you not maintain that Yaakov was completely truthful, as it says, truth to Jacob (Michah Do Give 7:20) ? Certainly.Responded Rebbi Meir. did he not say, whatever You (God) give me I will give You one tenth But he had But From ? twelve sons, and only the tribe of Levi was given to God, he should have given a tenth of the remaining two! Yaakov. The Midrash goes on to relate Rebbi Meir response in defense of the pure truthfulness of s
From this Midrash we see that based on the verse in Michah, Yaakov is viewed as always telling precisely the absolute truth, even later in his life. The Midrash (Tehillim Psalm 15 parashah 6) also comments on the verse in Tehillim (15:2), speaks truth, a reference to Yaakov. He as The Yalkut Shimoni (Shelach, remez 743) says that every tzaddik grasped his unique characteristic, and Yaakov grasped truth, as it says, truth to Yaakov Give . I hate to say it, but it would seem that someone ought to give truth to Yaakov, because he could sure use some in this weeks par If Yaakov is the paradigmatic man of truth, why do we find him shah! outright lying to his father? Eisav is correct when he says, is why he is called This Yaakov (a reference to the heal of the foot) , because he has tripped me up by the heal twice (Gen. 27:36)! In what would appear, at first, to be a desperate attempt to defend the behavior of Yaakov, Rashi explains that Yaakov never lied. When Yitzchok asks, are you, my son? Who Yaakov responds, Eisav your firstborn. I, While this may appear to be an outright lie, Rashi explains that it was true, in a sense. Yaakov
31
awril zn` ozz
meant, [am Yaakov], Eisav is your firstborn1. I When Yaakov says, have done what you said to me,implying that he hunted, captured and I cooked the meal that he had placed before Yitzchok, Rashi explains that, again, nothing was false. It is true that he had done many things that Yitzchok had told him, albeit at other times. When Yitzchok, one last time, asks, you my son Eisav? Are Yaakov responds, I. Rashi comments, did not say, am Eisav. He I It would seem from Rashi that Yaakov never once lied. Is this explanation of Rashi satisfying? At the end of the day, the intent of Yaakov is that Yitzchok should understand his words to mean something else! Just because we can construe the words of Yaakov in such a way that they are true statements, Yitzchok certainly did not understand them that way, and for good reason -Yaakov was trying to deceive him! Yaakov is lying, because he is manipulating his words to be deceptive! So the question remains, where is this pure truth of Yaakov? One wonders in general, why is Yaakov attempting to trick Yitzchok? Rivka calls to Yaakov and insists that he receive the blessings from Yitzchok in this manner. Yaakov is concerned that he will be discovered, but Rivka reassures him. This is not Yaakovidea at all, Rivka was the mastermind. She had s received a prophecy from Sheim and Eiver that the elder will serve the younger (Gen. 25:23), and she felt obliged to ensure its fulfillment. It would appear that she never related this prophecy to Yitzchok. Rav Dessler (vol. 1 page 94) points out that we are used to defining the as what really truth happened, or what we really think, while falsehoodrefers to misrepresentation. However, a more accurate definition of is God wants Ultimately, absolute truth is whatever God desires. truth what . Therefore, when the Torah instructs us to misrepresent a situation, doing so is consistent with the truth. For example, the Talmud (Yevamos 65b) tells us that it is permitted, or even a mitzvah to misrepresent something for the purpose of shalom. We see permission to misrepresent to further shalom, from the fact that, after Yaakov was buried, Yosefbrothers told him that their father had commanded Yosef to forgive s them (Gen. 50:17). This was not true, but they said it to assure peaceful relations in the family. We see a mitzvah to misrepresent for shalom, from the fact that when Shmuel the prophet was instructed to anoint David as the next King of the Jews, he was concerned that if discovered, this would be viewed as a rebellion against King Saul, and he would be executed. God then instructs Shmuel to lie as to the reason for his arrival, so that he will not be suspect. We also know that God Himself misrepresented the comments of Sarah when He related them to Avraham, by leaving out her statement that Avraham is old.
1. The additional term firstborn unnecessary, after all, there was only one Eisav, so obviously if his name is Eisav, then he is the firstborn is of Yitzchok. Why did Yaakov feel it necessary to add firstborn The answer is that it enabled him to be making a true statement, your . am I, Eisav is your firstborn I . 2
32
awril zn` ozz
In these situations, the statements were false, they were lies, but on the other hand, they were the correct behavior in the eyes of God. If so, whenever we are doing a behavior desired by God, we are furthering truth,despite any perceived falsehoodinvolved. When one sees a bride that is not particularly attractive, Bais Hillel instructs us nonetheless to declare her, Beautiful and pleasant (Kesubos 17a). This furthers the desire of God that there be proper shalom bayis. So despite the fact that the statement is a misrepresentation of the facts, the behavior is the truth. Rivka had a prophecy that delineated the proper development of the world. older shall serve The the younger. To further the truth, she instructed Yaakov to misrepresent himself to Yitzchok. Apparently, this was the only way to go about producing the desired result. Therefore, the behavior of Yaakov in this context was the truth.Just like one is permitted, or obliged to misrepresent something to produce shalom, so too it was permitted for Yaakov to lie, in order to further the desire of God, as expressed in the prophecy to Rivka. Based on this, we now wonder why Yaakov bothered to legitimize his words!? If it was truly permitted to lie, because that was the desire of God, why did he need to justify every word as true? My Rebbi, Rav Aharon Kahn, provided the following insight. The Talmud (Yevamos 63a) relates that Rav was married to a woman who would frustrate him. When he would request a certain dish for dinner, she would prepare whatever could possibly be perceived as the exact opposite. When his son, Chiya, was old enough to realize this, he began relating his fathers request as the opposite, so that his mother would prepare what Rav really wanted. Rav commented to Chiya, know, Imma is getting better! You Actually, I told her you wanted the opposite... Chiya let on that it was actually his doing. didnI think of that?Wondered Rav. Why t Nonetheless, you should not behave in this manner, as the verse states in criticism of the Jews, accustomed their tongues to speak falsehood They (Jer. 9:4). One wonders why Rav didn't quote the verse from the Torah, shall distance yourself from You falsehood (Exodus 23:7)2as the source of the prohibition to lie? Why did he quote a verse from Jeremiah? The Maharsha answers that since it was permitted to lie in this context, the prohibition was inapplicable. What Rav was teaching his son, Chiya, was that despite the permitted nature of the act,
2. While at first glance, based on the context one might suggest that this verse is directed at judges, and does not serve as a prohibition for the individual, see how Bais Shammai utilize it in Kesubos 17a in response to Bais Hillelclaim that one should lie about the beauty of a s bride. 3
33
awril zn` ozz
when one lies, he habituates himself to falsehood. A lie becomes easier. It loses its taboo status. Now we can understand Rashi. Rashi is not a desperate attempt to reconcile Yaakovcomments s with the truth. Yaakov was lying, he was misrepresenting himself to his father. However, as pointed out by chazal, Yaakov is the paradigmatic man of truth. He therefore misrepresented himself to further the ultimate truth of Godwill, but simultaneously assured himself the maintenance of his sensitivity to truth by s justifying every word as ultimately true as well. He refused to risk habituating himself to falsehood, despite the obligatory nature of his misrepresentative actions. Therefore, he expressed every word in a way that was also the truth. This is the extent of truth for an ish ha- a man of truth. emes,
34
Author: Leora Perlow Title: The Warrior Gene Exemplified in Esau
THE WARRIOR GENE EXEMPLIFIED IN ESAU
Leora Perlow
Kabbala teaches that the reason for Abraham to sire both Isaac and Ishmael and for Isaac to sire both Esau and Jacob was to filter the negative traits from the nation of Israel. The positive traits were harnessed within Isaac and Jacob, while directing the negative traits within Ishmael and Esau. A particularly villainous character was Esau, who exhibited aggressive behavior, as well as uncontrolled anger, and risktaking, as displayed by his molesting women and committing murder. With recent advances in science, researchers knowledge about the human genome is increasing rapidly. These advances have spurred a new trend within western society: the tendency to blame an individuals actions on his biological, biochemical, and genetic makeup, rather than hold him responsible for his own behavior. Recent studies have proven that the defective gene for the enzyme, monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A), when combined with a high level of testosterone, triggers aggressive behavior; this defective gene is dubbed the warrior gene. The impaired MAO-A gene leads an individual to have much difficulty controlling emotions and stress, resulting in a high propensity toward aggressive behavior, risk-taking, fighting, rape, and murder. An examination of Esaus life and his warrior-like actions reveals the possibility that he had an MAO-A deficiency. If so, this raises an even more difficult question as to whether Esau should be held responsible for his crimes. When functioning properly, the MAO-A gene is responsible for breaking down neurotransmitters in synapses of the brain. A study performed in 2006 on New Zealands Maori, an aggressive population known for fighting, gambling, and addictions, showed that many of them carried a gene known to induce a similar aggressiveness in animals. Researchers theorized that this gene noted in laboratory animals is what led to the particular behavior within the Maori population. At the National Institute of Mental Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, studies were performed comparing the responses of normal individuals and individuals with the warrior gene who were shown frightening, emotion-inducing images, such as terrified faces. Only individuals with the warrior gene expressed hyperactivity in their amygdalae, the area of the brain which responds to fear. The researchers hypothesized that those expressing this defective gene were unable to control their emotions, causing them to behave rashly more often. Additionally, a study performed both in Bethesda and Sweden showed that high levels of testosterone coupled with low MAO-A activity leads to anti-social behavior [1].
ALTHOUGH OF THEIR
PEOPLE NEKUDAT
ARE
NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION HABECHIRA, THE THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR TRYING TO OVERCOME CHALLENGES.
In 1993, a human, six-generational pedigree was compiled of a European family, which included many males displaying violent or aggressive behavior. The last two generations included seven males exemplifying this behavior. Five of these seven were tested for the MAO-A mutation and all five were found to express this deficiency. Eleven males in these two generations were not known for this type of behavior and of them, four were tested; all four had the normally functioning MAO-A gene. Such data provided strong scientific evidence of the behavioral effects of the warrior gene [2]. There is no doubt that Esau had a propensity toward fighting. Even while he was still a fetus, Esau argued with Jacob over who should exit the womb to be the firstborn. In the end, Esau won because he threatened, If you do not let me go out first, I will kill my mother and leave through the stomach wall. Jacob then replied, This wicked one is a murderer from his inception, and allowed Esau to exit
30 DERECH HATEVA
35
first (Midrash HaGadol, Bereishit 25:22) [3]. According to Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Tetzei 4), when Esau did leave Rebeccas womb, he caused such damage that she was not able to bear the twelve tribes. In addition, Shocher Tov (120:7) noted that Esau hated peace [3]. Such an inclination toward fighting is characteristic of MAO-A deficiency Esau was also notorious for risk-taking, best displayed in the selling of his birthright. As noted in the Midrash Shir Hashirim (18), Just as Hashems name rested on Jacob, so too it rested on Esau. Esau was worthy of producing kings and Jacob of priests. All of these gifts were taken away, however, when Esau sold his birthright to Jacob. In the text of the Torah, Esau asked aloud, What use to me is a birthright? Just as the Maori are prone to gambling, Esau was always found taking risks. Explains Tanna dBei Eliyahu Zuta (19), when Esau sold the birthright to Jacob, the two brothers agreed that Esau would take his portion in this world and Jacob would take his portion in the World to Come [3]. Because G-d did not want Abraham to witness the wickedness of his grandsons degenerative actions, such as rape and murder, He shortened Abrahams life by five years. The Talmud, tractate Bava Batra 16b explains that on the day of Abrahams funeral, Esau raped an engaged woman, committed murder, traded his birthright, and denied resurrection of the dead along with Gods existence. Esau was known to have raped several women in his lifetime and there is Talmudic discussion about how many mamzerim came from him. In addition, Esau murdered Nimrod, to take his garments for himself (Breishit Rabba 65:16). Esau also intended to kill Jacob after his father, Isaac, died in order to inherit his brothers lot (Shocher Tov 2:4) [3]. Such aggressiveness and uncontrolled anger are symptomatic of a mutated MAO-A gene. Finally, Esaus warrior gene is possibly best expressed when he encountered Jacob on the battlefield. Esau arrived on the scene with four hundred men, each an army general (Breishit Rabba 75:12). He still harbored his anger against Jacob from decades earlier and was willing to risk his life to battle against his brother. His full intentions were to murder Jacob [3]. Esaus readiness for war displayed another characteristic of the warrior gene within him. Yet, if Esau expressed an MAO-A deficiency, a burn-
ing question arises: should he be held accountable for his actions? After all, he was only playing the cards he was dealt, expressing the traits that G-d Himself had given him. According to Rabbi Akiva Tatz [4], the Westernized mindset would answer that due to Esaus genetic, biochemical mutation, he should not be punished for his actions. Esau was subject to the inherent forces which pulled him to the direction of wickedness. Thus, one cannot blame Esau for his deeds. However, the Jewish approach disagrees. Rabbi Tatz explains that according to Rav Eliyahu Dessler, each individual has a nekudat habechira, a point of free will. It is in this area that one is challenged and must make decisions. Although people are not responsible for the location of their nekudat habechira, they are accountable for trying to overcome the challenges. G-d is not asking, Why is your point of free will at that particular level? Rather, He asks, How did you cope with the tests you were given? Did you raise your nekudat habechira as you struggled to overcome difficulties? [4]. Rav Natan Slifkin, in an essay on Parshat Vayeshev, states, It is in Hashems hands alone to determine what we have. But it is in our hands alone to determine what we are [5]. According to Talmud, tractate Sotah 13a [3], Esau died in protest of Jacobs burial in the Cave of Machpela when Chushim, the deaf son of Dan, struck him with a club, thereby decapitating him. Esaus head rolled into the cave and landed at Jacobs feet. That is where it remained. Rav Aharon Kotler wrote that Esau, who learned Torah from our forefathers Abraham and Isaac, merited having his head be buried in the Cave of Machpela. Yet, since he never took this Torah to heart, since he did not use this Torah to guide his actions, only his head could be buried in the Cave [6]. Judaism holds Esau responsible for his short-temper, risktaking, rape, murder, and overall wickedness throughout his lifetime. Indeed, he was given a difficult lot, possibly possessing the mutated warrior gene, but he did not live up to his potential. He did not strive to overcome this challenge. Rather, he let it dictate his actions and his life. May we all have the strength to overcome the challenge of our nekudat habechira, despite whatever genetic lots we have been given. With Gods help, this will hasten the coming of Mashiach, Bimheira byameinu, Amen.
DERECH HATEVA 31
36
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude toward Dr. Babich for providing the sources for this essay. His enthusiasm for Torah UMadda motivated me to develop the ideas found within this work. Additionally, I would like to thank Rabbi Reuven Gross of Chicago for his review of the Torah content. Finally, I wish to express my appreciation for my parents constant support and encouragement toward a future in medicine. REFERENCES [1] Holden, C. (2008). Parsing the genetics of behavior. Science: 322: 894-895. [2] Cummings, M.R. (2009). Single genes control aggressive behavior and brain metabolism, Human Heredity: Principles & Issues, 8th edition. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, Chicago, IL. [3] Chasidah, Y. (2000). Esau, Encyclopedia of Biblical Personalities: Anthologized from the Talmud, Midrash, and Rabbinic Writings, 5th impression. Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Brooklyn, NY [4] Simple To Remember. Rabbi Akiva Tatz: The Thinking Jews Guide to Life: Free Will - the Real You, http://www. simpletoremember.com/media/a/free-will-the-real-you1/ (Retrieved January 4, 2010). [5] Slifkin, N. (1997). Focus: Classical and Contemporary Issues through the Lens of the Weekly Parasha. Targum/Feldheim, Southfield, MI [6] The Chumash. December 1998. Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Brooklyn, NY
32 DERECH HATEVA
37
Author: Rabbi Avraham Gordimer Title: Parshas Toldos - The Meaning of the Miraculous Food
When Eisav comes from the field with provisions for Yitzchak in order to receive Yitzchaks berachos, and Yitzchak informs Eisav that someone else (Yaakov) had preempted Eisav and already received the berachos, Yitzchak states, and he brought me provisions, and I ate from everything (Bereshis 27:33). Chazal explain that Yitzchaks words convey, I tasted from that food all tastes that I sought to taste. (Rashi ibid., from Bereshis Rabbah)
What is the meaning of this interpretation? Of what significance is it that Yitzchak tasted a variety of tastes from Yaakovs provisions?
One can readily draw a parallel between the above scenario and the Mann (Manna), which, according to one explanation in Chazal (although not invoked by Rashi and many commentators), likewise provided those who consumed it with any tastes that they sought. This approach to Mann maintains that Mann was not merely miraculous in terms of its creation and existence, but that the miraculous quality of Mann applied to its flavor as well.
Mann by its very nature was a testament to the presence of Hashem among Bnei Yisroel. Those who experienced the miracles of Mann were glaringly aware that Mann was one of Gods means of communicating with His nation, and those who partook of Mann were ever-so conscious that they were consuming food from God; the Divine Presence was manifest continually in the hearts and minds of the people who were part of the Mann experience.
The food which Yaakov brought his father Yitzchak likewise engendered a miraculous aura when Yitzchak partook of it; regular food does not feature the choice of any taste that its eater desires. When Yitzchak partook of Yaakovs provisions, he was extremely aware that he was having an encounter with the Shechinah as were those who partook of the Mann several generations later.
Why was it necessary for Yitzchak to experience a Divine aura when he tasted Yaakovs provisions?
Yitzchaks bestowal of the berachos was not merely a kind gesture or even a tefillah; it was the very passing forth of the Mesorah of the Avos, from Avrohom to Yitzchak, and now from Yitzchak to the one who would lead and build the next generation of Klal Yisroel. It was critical that the correct son be chosen for this task there was no room for error. Just as Avrohom Avinu was willing to be ripped off by Ephron in order to secure the Maaras Ha-Machpelah as an eternal burial site for Sarah, as well as for the rest of the Avos and Imahos, as such a site was essential for future generations to connect back to their forebears, and just as Avrohom acted so carefully and insistently in instructing Eliezer and selecting a wife for Yitzchak, so too did Yitzchak now have to make the correct choice and be totally secure with passing down the Mesorah and selecting the next of the Avos.
38
Author: Rabbi Avraham Gordimer Title: Parshas Toldos - The Meaning of the Miraculous Food
This is why Yitzchak had to realize that the food brought by Yaakov carried with it a Divine aura. Yitzchak needed the assurance that the son, Yaakov, to whom he was about to pass on the Mesorah and designate as the next of the Avos, was indeed the correct choice; no doubt or uncertainty could be tolerated. When Yitzchak realized that Yaakovs provisions bore the berachos of Hashem and had a most supernatural and holy quality, he was assured that Yaakov was the correct person and that Yaakovs designation as the next bearer of the Mesorah was the fulfillment of the Divine plan. (It is also for this reason that Yitzchak took note of the scent of Yaakovs clothing before blessing him: And he smelled the scent of his clothing and blessed him, and he said, See the scent of my son is like the scent of a field which God has blessed. (Bereshis 27:27) Rashi thereupon quotes Bereshis Rabbah: The scent of Gan Eden accompanied Yaakov when he entered. This indicates that Yitzchak needed to perceive that bestowing the berachos upon Yaakov was the wish of Hashem; Yaakov thus approached his father with the scent of holiness and eternity. So too do Chazal comment (Rashi ibid. v. 33, from Bereshis Rabbah) that Yitzchak saw the gate of Gehinom when Eisav came near again signaling to Yitzchak and reassuring him that he had made the correct choice in blessing and designating Yaakov as the next of the Avos.)
Major life choices need to be made with as much certainty as possible. Just as we seek Hashems berachos, so too must we seek His guidance to choose correctly. When we make a major decision which we know is right, such that it carries with it a higher sense of intuition or inspiration, let us realize that the sensation we experience by knowing that we have chosen wisely is from Hashem, for behind the scenes He is guiding, just as He guided the scheme in our parshah which resulted in Yitzchaks Divine experience upon making the correct choice.
39
Author: Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Title: Toldot: Spiritual Continuity
Veeleh toldos Yitzchok ben Avraham, Avraham holid es Yitzchok, these are the offspring of Yitzchok, son of Avraham; Avraham begot Yitzchok (Bereishis 25:19).
The opening of Parshas Toldos appears redundant. After all, once the verse states that that Yitzchok is the son of Avraham nothing further is added by repeating that Avraham begot Yitchok. What is gained by this seemingly unnecessary conclusion?
Rashi, in answering this question, cites a remarkable teaching of the Midrash, which recounts that when Yitzchok was born the "leitzanei ha-dor," the cynics of the generation, claimed that Yitzchok was not Avrahams son, but rather was the illegitimate child resulting from Avimelech's abduction of Sarah (ch. 20). To prove their claim the cynics pointed out that Avraham and Sarah had been married for many years without children and it was only now after her time spent with Avimelech that Sarah finally conceived. To counter this contemptuous slander Hashem ensured that Yitzchok and Avraham shared an uncanny physical resemblance, to the extent that it was clear and undeniable that Yitzchok was in fact Avraham's son. And this is the reason, concludes the Midrash, that the verse reiterates that Avraham holid es Yitzchok, to stress Avrahams biological connection to Yitzchok.
Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik (The Rav Speaks 2:6) is perplexed by these comments of the Midrash and Rashi. Since when, he asks, is the Torah concerned about malicious gossip and innuendo spread by idolaters? Moreover, this slander was patently absurd: Everyone knew that Avraham was fertile because he had already fathered Yishmael. Any issues of infertility were obviously Sarahs and, therefore, now that she had conceived why was it so hard to believe that Avraham was the father?
R. Soloveitchik (3:3) explains that the real issue wasnt fertility or genealogy, rather it was ideology. Even though Avraham was successful at disseminating his beliefs, dispelling the pagan myths of his time, and drawing scores of people towards monotheism, there were nevertheless many who assumed that Avraham was just a flash in the pan. True Avraham accomplished a lot, but he was a unique personality with tremendous charisma. But they assumed this success would continue only as long as Avraham remained alive. It was just a passing fad, the cynics claimed; it will never last. There is no way that Yitzchok, or others from his generation, would be interested in accepting Avrahams vision, speaking his language, or following his laws.
It was in this vein, explained R. Soloveitchik, that they argued that it was impossible that Avraham begot Yitzchak, namely, that it was inconceivable that Avraham had a son who would continue his work and perpetuate his legacy. Rather, Yitzchok must be the son of Avimelech, in the sense that he will undoubtedly follow the popular trends of the time rather than retain his commitment to the outdated ideals of Avraham.
40
R. Soloveitchik adds that this is the underlying theme, as well, of Yitzchaks quarrels with the Philistines. The Torah (26:18) relates that after Avraham's death the Philistines stopped up his wells and that, in response, Yitzchok defiantly re-dug those same wells and reiterated that the wells would be called by the same names that his father Avraham had called them.
R. Soloveitchik explains that, symbolically, this clash also related to the cynicism surrounding Avraham's legacy. After Avraham died the Philistines expected that they would finally be able to rid themselves of Avrahams ideas and that they could finally return to the good old days of unrestrained idol worship. They assumed that no one including Yitzchok would be interested in these wells or in continuing Avrahams work and perpetuating Avrahams spiritual approach.
But they were wrong.
Yitzchak continued digging his fathers wells. He committed himself to following his fathers teachings and to ensuring that his father's legacy would continue into the future. In the fullest sense, Avraham holid es Yitzchok, Avraham was Yitchoks biological and spiritual father.
Just as the scoffers of Avrahams day set a precedent which has repeated itself innumerable times ever since, so too has Yitzchoks response has echoed loudly throughout the generations of Jewish history.
Whenever people have predicted that the younger generation would finally shake itself free from its ancestry and Jewish tradition, we see, time after time, that Avrohom holid es Yitzchok, the youth choose to continue following in the ways of their parents and grandparents.
R. Soloveitchik describes witnessing the same phenomenon in his own time, as the Jewish people transitioned from the shtetel and ghetto of Europe to the new world in America and even in Israel. The leitzanim, the cynics, assumed that modern people, educated in the ways of science and technology, would have no interest in or use for the language and legacy of the past. But once again, they were wrong, Avraham holid es Yitzchok. As R. Soloveitchik reflects, with pride:
Who could have foreseen that the young, modern Yitzchok would demand a kosher kitchen and fight for religious education and the like! Who could have guessed that he would speak with the same language that old Avraham spoke, as the author of the Shulchan Aruch, as the Rema, as the Gaon of Vilna, as Rav Chayim of Volozhin?
41
Veeleh toldos Yitzchok ben Avraham, Avraham holid es Yitzchok Yitzchok was not only the son of Avraham, but also his spiritual heir. It wasnt merely an issue of yerusha but of morasha as well; not just lineage, but legacy. And just like Yitzchok many years before them, generations and generations of Jews have remained faithful to the mesorah of their forefathers despite changing and often difficult circumstances. This loyalty confounded the cynics in Yitzchoks time and it remains a mystery to many. But it is the secret of our continuity.
42
Author: Rabbi Michael Taubes Title: Stealing a Mitzvah
When an enraged Eisav discovered that his brother Yaakov received the berachah from their father Yitzchak which he was expecting to receive himself, he angrily accused Yaakov of having taken from him both his birthright and his berachah (Bereishit 27:36). But while the birthright carried with it both the identifiable responsibility of performing the sacrificial service (see Rashi to verse 31 there. s.v. bechoratecha, citing the Midrash in Bereishit Rabbah 63:13) and the right to inherit Eretz Yisrael (see the Gemara in Sotah 13a and Shut HaRama No. 78), and that responsibility and that right can thus accurately be described as having been taken, or stolen, it is somewhat more difficult to understand what it means to take, or steal, someones berachah. There does not seem to be anything tangible to a berachah, and yet it clearly has deep meaning and significance. Without delving here into the specifics of Yaakov Avinus behavior and his right to have done what he did, it is interesting to explore the following related question: Can a definitive monetary value be assigned to something like a berachah, or a mitzvah, such that someone who takes, or steals one from somebody else can be ordered to make restitution for it?
The Gemara in Bava Kamma (91b) teaches that if one accuses somebody else of having cut down his tree or killed his ox (and, as noted in the Shittah Mekubetzet there, s.v. vzeh lashon haRamah, he has witnesses to that effect), the accused can exempt himself from having to pay by responding that the claimant had instructed him to do what he did. The Gemara then clarifies that this argument is accepted specifically in a case where it was known that the ox was to be executed (for having killed a person, as explained by Rashi there s.v. omed laharigah) or that the tree was to be cut down (because it had been worshipped as avodah zarah or because it was leaning into the public thoroughfare and was in danger of falling and possibly killing someone, as explained by Rashi there s.v. omed liketzitzah). Rashi (s.v. ana; see also Meiri there s.v. hayah) points out that it is for this reason that the defendants response is considered believable. As for what claim the accuser had at all against the defendant, given that the defendant merely did what had to be done anyway and thus caused no monetary loss, the Gemara explains that the accuser was declaring that he had wanted to perform the mitzvah himself, the mitzvah being to remove something dangerous from society (see Devarim 19:19, as cited by the Shittah Mekubetzet there, s.v. ana), and the defendant took away that opportunity.
The Gemara then relates a story about someone who slaughtered an animal or a bird (of the particular species to which the mitzvah of kisuy hadam, covering the blood, applies following the slaughter; see Vayikra 17:13), and although it was this slaughterers right to perform the mitzvah of kisuy hadam himself, somebody else came along and covered the blood first, denying the slaughterer his mitzvah. Reacting to this, the Gemara says, Rabban Gamliel required this second person to pay the slaughterer ten golden dinars for having stolen his mitzvah. The Rif in Bava Kamma (32b in his pagination; see also Nimukei Yosef there s.v, vechiyevo) and the Rosh there (8:15) both cite a view that this fine imposed by Rabban Gamliel for stealing someone elses mitzvah is applicable only to the mitzvah of kisuy hadam, but they reject this view on the basis of the discussion in the above Gemara and assert that it in fact applies to other mitzvot as well. We thus learn that some kind of financial value is indeed assigned to a mitzvah and one is entitled to monetary compensation when a mitzvah is stolen from him.
As for exactly how much one who takes away a particular mitzvah from somebody is obligated to pay, the Rambam (Hilchot Chovel UMazik 7:13,14) writes that it is up to the judges to make the determination in each individual case, but he notes that some hold that the amount is always fixed at ten golden dinars, as per the ruling of Rabban Gamliel, regardless of the situation. The latter opinion, apparently held by the Rif and Rosh cited above, is articulated by the Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kamma (8:60), who states that this fixed amount is based on a secret reason. See also Shut Ketav Sofer, Choshen Mishpat No. 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 382:1) likewise presents both of these views; the Shach (ibid. No. 1), analyzing the first opinion that it is up to the discretion of the judges in each case, explains that Rabban Gamliel decided
43
Author: Rabbi Michael Taubes Title: Stealing a Mitzvah
upon the fine of ten golden dinars based on the facts of his specific case. The Sma (ibid. No. 1), elaborating further on that opinion, notes that among the things to be considered by the judges are the commitment of the victim to mitzvot in general, as one who is usually very scrupulous in his mitzvah observance feels a greater sense of loss when deprived of a mitzvah opportunity and is thus entitled to greater compensation, while one who is not that diligent about mitzvot feels less of a loss and is thus entitled to less compensation, as well as the relative difficulty of the mitzvah, as one may sometimes not be that upset to have someone else perform a difficult mitzvah that one might be hesitant to perform himself.
The Gemara in Chullin (87a) also cites the story of the slaughterer from whom the mitzvah of kisuy hadam was stolen and reports that Rabban Gamliel fined the thief ten golden dinars; Rashi there (s.v. liten lo) indicates that the compensation is for the loss of the reward for the mitzvah. The Gemara then goes on to ask whether the compensation relates to the actual mitzvah or to the berachah that the person to whom the mitzvah belonged has now lost. As noted by the Ran there (29a in Rif, s.v. vehu hadin), it is clear from the case in the aforementioned Gemara in Bava Kamma that restitution must be made even when the stolen mitzvah has no berachah associated with it at all; moreover, as pointed out by Tosafot in Bava Kamma (ibid. s.v., vechiyevo), only one payment is demanded in the case where a mitzvah and its particular berachah were both taken, as the mitzvah and its berachah constitute a single unit (see also Aruch HaShulchan to Choshen Mishpat ibid. end of No. 5). The question is what the required compensation is when one has stolen a mitzvah which consists of no action aside from the recitation of a berachah, but where there is more than one berachah involved.
The example given in the Gemara in Chullin there is Birkat HaMazon; it is one mitzvah, but it includes four different berachot. If, then, one was about to recite Birkat HaMazon aloud on behalf of a group of people with whom he ate (as was the practice at one time, when only one person in a group recited Birkat HaMazon, unlike today when even in a group, everyone recites Birkat HaMazon to himself; see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 183:6,7), and someone else in the group came along and recited it instead, stealing the mitzvah from him, to how much compensation is the victim entitled? Assuming that the amount of the fine is indeed fixed at ten golden dinars, does he receive forty golden dinars because what he lost was actually four berachot, or does he receive only ten golden dinars because what he lost was in fact only one mitzvah (see Rashi there, s.v. birkat hamazon)? The Gemara concludes that the compensation relates to the berachah which was lost and the person is thus entitled to forty golden dinars. It should be noted, though, that as pointed out by Tosafot in Bava Kamma (ibid.), if the stolen berachot are recited out loud such that the victim is in any case able to answer Amen, as when one goes up to the Torah and takes somebody elses aliyah, he is not entitled to any compensation (see also Sma, ibid. No. 7 and Aruch HaShulchan, ibid. beginning of No. 5).
Regarding the status of this halachah today, Tosafot both in Bava Kamma (ibid.) and in Chullin (ibid. s.v. vechiyevo) state, based on an earlier Gemara in Bava Kamma (84b), that our Jewish courts at present cannot enforce this ruling, as they do not have authority to assess fines in cases where there is no actual financial loss. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat ibid.) rules accordingly (see Rambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:8-10 and Shulchan Aruch ibid. 1:1), adding, though, that if the victim seizes something valued at ten golden dinars from the person who stole his mitzvah or his berachah, he is permitted to keep it. The Yam Shel Shlomo (ibid.), however, notes that the situation may be entirely different if one purchased the right to an aliyah, as is done in some places, and somebody else then took it from him, as there is a financial outlay in such a case. For a more general discussion regarding the issue of selling mitzvot or the reward for ones mitzvot, see Orchot Chaim (Spinka) to Orach Chaim 153:14.
44
Author: Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman Title: Borchuni l'shalom, tzeischem l'shalom
. " ' "
" ' ' ):( "
' " ", .
", " )" '(
" " " , " ." . ' "
" ) "( " " " , " " . ' ", , " , . ' " , .
. , ' " "
, .
. ,
" " ' " ,
.Download thousands of shiurim and articles for free at the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah.org .p YUTorah.org is a project of Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future
54
" " )' ( , " " ", )" " "( " ". . " ) ' ' " , '( ' '
, " " ". " ., . "
' ",
" , " '. ' " . . " .' " " , ' ' "
, ' '
" , . " . " " " " , ,
" , , " ", , . " "
64
, , , . , , "
, ,
74
Author: HALB DRS Title: Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev Parshat Toldot 5771
Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev
mi`veid
Volume XII - Issue 4
B L A H
mixac
The DRS Weekly Torah Publication By David Silber, 12th Grade
s"xc
,c ck hah
Five Years from Avraham

( ): And Hashem allowed Himself to be entreated by him (25:21) The word the Torah uses to state that Hashem listened to the prayer of Yitzchak is Vayehusiar. Rashi explains that the precise meaning of the word is that Hashem was moved by entreaties, appeased, and convinced. The implication is that Hashem was very reluctant to grant Yitzchaks request for Rivkah to conceive. Why would that be? There is a story told that may help us understand Hashems actions. The Chasam Sofer was approached to pray for a certain woman who was in the throes of a long drawn-out childbirth. To their great surprise he refused, but he justified himself. The Gemara writes that a tzadik will not die unless another tzadik has been born to take his place (Kiddushin, 72b). The Chasam Sofer knew that the child who would be born would fill the void which would arise as the result of the demise of a different tzadik. How could he daven for a quick birth if it resulted in the demise of another tzadik?! The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 63:12) states that originally Avraham was
(Continued on page 7)
DRS OPEN HOUSE!!!! This Sunday, November 7th, at 1:30 p.m
PARSHAS TOLDOS 29 CHESHVAN, 5771 NOVEMBER 6, 2010

All Zmanim are calculated by myzmanim.com for Woodmere, NY (11598)
Candle Lighting: 5:28 pm Latest 22:9 : am Ends: 6:28 pm
"sponsor an To issue of is sponsored by the Silber family in c"kv in ohtmuhv ohrcs' memory of Sara bas R Menachem email us whose first Mendel Silber, ah,at DvarimHayotzim@gmail.com Yahrzeit is Rosh Chodesh Kislev
This weeks issue of
A Positive Influence
By Yoni Kadish, 10th Grade
And Isaac loved Esau, because he ate his trapped game, but Rebecca loved Jacob. (25:28) There are many different explanations as to what this can mean. Among them are the Alshichs explanation and the Maggid of Dubnos interpretation. According the Alshich, Yitzchak hoped to draw his disobedient son, Esav, closer and closer, little by little, by sharing Esavs This weeks issue of trapped game and thus exerting a positive influence on him. Rabbi Pavarsky tells c"kv in ohtmuhv ohrcs the following story about Rabbi Nassan Tzvi Finkel, the Alter of Slobodka. is also sponsored by Two brilliant young men came to study at Rav Nassans yeshivah at the same time. The first one was hard working and diligent in his study of Torah, while the second talmid had a tendency to be lazy and slack off in his studies. The GourmetGlatt.com 516.569.2662 Alter showered an inordinate amount of attention on the second student, praising
48
2
Torah Teasers By Rabbi Moshe Erlbaum

Questions
1. a) In what two contexts does the number 40 appear? b) In what other contexts does the number 40 appear in 4( ? times) 2. a) In what context does jealousy appear? b) In what other cases in was jealously involved? (2 situations) 3. Who in the Torah is referred to as a or a ? (9 people) 4. Who was kissed? 5. is called " since he was grasping the , the heel, of his brother when was born ( .):Where in the is the word or root of used, where it does not mean a heel? (2 times) 6. Who cries in the parsha? b) Where else in the does someone cry? (8 times)
A Righteous and Perfect Man

By Jonny Perlman, 11th Grade
In this weeks parsha, Yitzchak decides to give Esav the blessing of gashmiyos and to give Yaakov the blessing of ruchniyos. Rivkah thinks that Yitzchak has made a mistake and switches the brothers. But why would Rivkah do such a thing? It makes perfect logical sense for Yitzchak to give the blessings in the way in which he thought out? The Gemara in Avoda Zarah mentions a story of two great men. Rav was the Mashgiach at the local butcher in his town and he took upon himself never to take any meat home on credit. Rav Yosef was a Rosh Yeshiva in his town and would not walk four Amos out of the Beis Medrash without tefillin on. Why did these two righteous Jews take upon themselves extra stringencies that are not required of them at all? These acts seem to have no purpose. Rav should be allowed to take meat on credit like everyone else, and Rav Yosef should be able to walk outdoors without tefillin on? The answer is that people held these two righteous men to higher standards than everyone else. Therefore, if they were to do something that might be thought to be below them, even if it was permissible, it would cause a chilul Hashem. Rav Chaim Goldvicht ztl, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Keren BeYavneh, connects the Gemarah to our question. He says that it is not enough in life just to lead a life of gashmiyos and only grow in that way. One additionally needs some ruchniyos to balance his life. Vice versa, someone whose life solely revolves around ruchniyos also needs a little gashmiyos in his life. We must also remember that a chilul Hashem is not merely casting the Jews in a bad light to the world, but it is also doing so within the Jewish world itself. For example, when people talk during davening, others think that it is permissible to talk during davening. However, this is of course erroneous and the Mishna Berurah goes as far as calling thisgadol avono linsoh, a sin that is too great to bear. This expression is only used in Sefer Bereshis when Kayin kills his brother Hevel. The lesson we must take out is that chilul Hashem is not only making a scene to the world, but it is also within the Jewish world itself. Good Shabbos.
(Stories of GreatnessContinued from page 8)
Answers
1. married at the age of 40 ( .):also gets married at age 40 ( .):b) The in lasted for forty days (. ):In , asked Hashem if He would save the city of if there were 40 who lived there ( .):In ,the gift of to included 40 cows ( .):In , was mummified for 40 days before his burial in ):( . 2. a) The were jealous of the success and wealth of .):( b) In , was jealous of the fact that had children ( ,):and in , the brothers of are jealous of because of his dreams (.): 3. The following people are called a or :The eldest daughter of ,):( the oldest son of , ):( ,:)):( ,):( the oldest son of , ) :( , ():( ,):and ):(. 4. kissed when came to receive the . ):( 5. In the promise that Hashem gives to the word " means since ( .):When protested regarding his brother receiving his blessing," means to trick (): 6. cries when he finds out that received the blessings ( .):b) In , cried when she thought that would die ( .):In , cried at the funeral of ):(.In , cried when he met ):(.In ,and cried when they met (.): In , cried about the apparent death of. ):( In , cried when he met in ( .):( According to the "it was who cried when he saw ).In , and cried when they met in .):-( In , cried when passed away ():
large glass of vodka. "Drink this down in one gulp," he said to the Reb Shmuel, "and I'll give you 100 rubles." Reb Shmuel looked from the glass that had been set before him to the sheaf of banknotes that the man held under his nose. Other than a sip of l'chayim on Shabbat and at weddings, Reb Shmuel drank only twice a year -- on Purim and Simchat Torah, when every chassid fuels the holy joy of these days with generous helpings of inebriating drink so that the body should rejoice along with the soul. And the amount of vodka in this glass -- actually, it more resembled a pitcher than a glass (Continued on page 4)
49

From the treasures of the Rav
The Torah relates that passed on to the Imahos as Rivka discovered that Esav well. For example, we find that hated his brother on account of "Hanefesh Asher Asu B'chathe Birthright Blessings that ran", Avraham converted the Yaakov received, and intended men and Sarah converted the to murder Yaakov. Rivka called women. Also, the matriarchs to Yaakov and commanded him were granted prophecy as well, Find for Yourself a Wife to run away to the house of Laas Chazal comment on the verse van, her brother, in order to save himself from Esav. Rivka then "Kol Asher Tomar Aylecha Sarah Shema Bekola", Hashem told approaches Yitzchak and tells him that she is disgusted by the Avraham to listen to whatever Sarah tells him to do since she prospect that Yaakov might marry a local girl from Bnos Cheis. was a Neviah. It was therefore important to guarantee that YaaYitzchak calls Yaakov and commands him to go the house of kov, the third of the Avos, had a proper wife. Besuel and seek a wife there. Yitzchak continues, blessing YaaThe Torah says that Avraham gave everything that he kov with the Bircas Avraham that should be handed to him and had to Yitzchak before he passed away. It is interesting to note his children. The Torah then recounts that Yitzchak sent Yaa- that Yitzchak is given this gift only after he has married Rivka. kov to Padan Aram to the house of Lavan. Avraham giving Yitzchak "Kol Asher Lo" refers to the When Rivka commands Yaakov to flee, she uses the Mesorah. In order for Yitzchak to reach the level of Avos, he term Berach, to run away. When Yitzchak commands Yaakov required a wife that would help him pass on the Mesorah, to seek a wife, he uses the term Lech, to go. Berach is used Rivka. Only then did Avraham grant it to him. when one must leave a place to go elsewhere because of some It is also interesting to note that the Torah goes into external reason, e.g. he is being pursued and faces mortal dan- great detail to describe the mission of Eliezer to Charan to find ger. On the other hand, Lech, to go, connotes the need to go a wife for Yitzchak. Eliezer was a Shaliach of Avraham, howsomewhere else to accomplish a task. ever he also was the Shaliach of Yitzchak (assuming the opinWhy did Rivka command Yaakov only to flee, and not ion that a servant can act as a Shaliach Leholacha in issues of command him to go seek a wife? Why did she ask Yitzchak to Kidushin and Gittin). The Torah clearly indicates this dual role command Yaakov to find a wife? of Eliezer when it says that Eliezer reported to Yitzchak all the The Rav explained that regarding the aspect of saving events that occurred to him on his trip to Charan. Clearly, the life of a child, a mother and father are equally obligated. Eliezer reported these details to Yitzchak because he acted as The child is required to listen to either parent when they com- his messenger as well as the messenger of Avraham. For exammand him to perform an action in order to save himself. How- ple, we find that the messenger who dispatched the Sair ever, the father is obligated to marry off his child. Yitzchak, not L'azazel on Yom Kippur would report back to the Kohen Gadol Rivka, could command Yaakov to carry out the second reason that he completed his mission. So the protocol calls for the for going to the house of Lavan, to find a wife. messenger to report back to the one who sent him, Yitzchak. The Rav asked, why does the Torah recount that YitzThe Rav asked: if Eliezer was the Shaliach of both chak sent Yaakov to Padan Aram to seek a wife? After all, the Avraham and Yitzchak, why does the Torah emphasize the asTorah just previously mentioned that Yitzchak commanded him pect of acting as the messenger of Avraham? The Rav anto go. swered that the Shelichus of Avraham was the more important The Rav explained: Yitzchak never intended to give one. Eliezer was sent by Avraham not only to find a wife for Esav the Bircas Avraham. Bircas Avraham is granted to Yaa- Yitzchak, but also to find the proper wife who would make kov only prior to his leaving to Padan Aram, but it Yitzchak worthy of the Mesorah. This is seen from what Avrawas not included in the Bircas Habechora, V'Yiten ham commanded Eliezer: And you shall take a wife for my son, Lecha. However Bircas Avraham could only be for Yitzchak. You must bring back a wife for my son, a wife passed on when the father was certain that the wife that will make him worthy to receive the Mesorah. of the son is acceptable to the Hashgacha to be one In this respect Eliezer functioned as a plain Shaliach (continued on page 6) of the Matriarchs and the wife of a PatriWeekly D'vrei Torah on the Parsha arch. The Mesorah was not only given to the Avos, it was also
from the Shiurim of HaRav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik
50
cxxxtvx tw ct|xvx
U ltt `x{t? DD{ Ztwx
Weekly insights by members of our Yeshiva Gedolah affiliate, Yeshivat Lev Hatorah
Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are all known for their exemplary midot. Each one is ascribed a specific midah. Avraham is known for chesed, Yitzchak is known for gevurah, and Yaakov is known for tiferes. Despite what many believe, gevurah is not strength. Rather, explains Rav Ahron Soloveichik in The Warmth & the Light, it is perseverance and unlimited patience. This description of Yitzchak is clear from this weeks parsha. The Torah tells us that while living in Grar, Yitzchak uncovered the wells of Avraham that the Plishtim covered. The Plishtim, however, resolved to obliterate all marks Avraham left on the land. Therefore, they reburied the same wells Yitzchak had just uncovered, despite the fact that the Plishtim also could have benefited from them. Unswayed by the Plishtims actions, Yitzchak again unearthed the wells. This showed the tremendous tenacity of Yitzchak. Despite the impediments he faced, Yitzchak persevered. Ultimately, Yitzchak dug his own well, which the Plishtim did not dispute. He named this well Rechovos. What is the purpose of this story of Yitzchak and the Plishtim? The Rabbenu Bachaye explains that is was to show the ultimate example of gevurah. He continues and says that we too must have the same determination to excavate the wells that our ancestors dug. The Ramban explains further that the wells that the story describes were not just wells, rather, they represent the first and second Beis Hamikdash, which were both destroyed. Following the same analogy, the last well, Rechovos, represents the third Beis Hamikdash, which will come in the times of Mashiach. This Beis Hamikdash will be accepted by all and will never be destroyed. We must all exemplify gevurah by following in the paths of our ancestors, and through this, may we be zocheh to see the rebuilding of the third Beis Hamikdash speedily in our times. Have a wonderful Shabbos!
Where is Yitzchak?
By Yoni Orlofsky,
Member of Yeshivat Lev Hatorah
In Parshas Toldos, our forefather Yitzchok Avinu is certainly the main character, however the time that the Torah allots to his life is significantly less than the other Avos. In regards to Avraham, the Torah distributes essentially three full Parshiyos to his life Lech-Lecha, Vayeira, and Chayei Sarah. The Torah depicts all the major events of his life from his journey from his homeland until his death. The Torah relates all his tests and greatness. Similarly we find by Yakov Avinu that the Torah apportions approximately the entire second half of Sefer Bereishis to the story of Yakov and his family. Here too, we know the trials and hard times that Yakov went through in order to become Yakov Avinu. Why is this so? Furthermore, Rav Yakov Kaminetzky in Emes LYakov points out that even when the Rambam discusses the lives of the Avos in Hilchos Avodas Kochavim, he speaks about Avraham and Yakov more than he does about Yitzchok Avinu. Additionally, there is a Gemara in Sanhedrin in Perek Chailek which relates a conversation between Dovid Hamelech and Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Dovid, in all modesty of course, inquires of Hashem why we say Elokei Avraham, Elokei Yitzchok, Elokei Yakov, but we do not say Elokei Dovid? Hashem answers him that they were tested and he was not tested. We see that Yitzchok went through a life of tests which enabled him to reach greatness as well. Of course the Torah speaks about the Akeidah and other events but certainly not to the same extent of the other Avos - why not?
- was more than he would consume on both those occasions combined. Reb Shmuel lifted the glass and drank down its contents. "Bravo!" cried the man, and handed him the 100 rubles. "But this is not enough," said Reb Shmuel, his head already reeling from the strong drink. "I need another 200 rubles to get the poor family out of prison!" "A deal's a deal!" cried the merrymakers. "One hundred rubles per glass! Waiter! Please refill this glass for our drinking buddy!" Two liters and two hundred rubles later, Reb Shmuel staggered out of the tavern. His alcohol-fogged mind was oblivious to all -- the stares of his fellow villagers rushing about in their final preparations for the Holy Day, the ferocious barking of
51
Buying Beans and A Lot More

By Gavi Nelson, 11th Grade
In this week's Parsha we read about the birth of twins to Yitzchok and Rivkah. Yaakov and Esav are very different from the moment they leave the womb. As they grow older, their different personality traits become more and more obvious. Yaakov is a diligent Torah scholar, while Esav is a skilled hunter and very violent. We also read how one day, when Esav returns from the hunt, exhausted and starving, he finds Yaakov cooking a pot of lentils. Esav wants the beans as he is famished. Yaakov offers to give him the food in return for Esavs birthright. As the first-born twin, Esav would have been the one chosen to serve Hashem in the Bais Hamikdash. Esav accepts the offer and the transaction is done. Fast-forward about 275 years. In the Book of Exodun (4:22), Hashem sends Moshe to Paraoh to redeem Bnei Yisrael. Hashem describes them in an interesting manner there, as he calls them Bnei Bchorei Yisrael literally meaning My son, My first born, Israel. Rashi, quoting the Midrash, comments Here the Holy One, Blessed is He, affixed His seal to the sale of the birthright which Yaakov purchased from Esau. Here? It took Hashem so long to put His stamp of approval on a deal that was done hundreds of years earlier? Why is Hashem first approving it only now? Harav Nariah ztl offered the following explanation: You can sell your birthright for beans, but you can't buy a birthright for beans. To throw away one's holy birthright is easy, but to claim that same birthright takes years of effort and hard work. He used the analogy of a war hero who earned a row of medals for bravery and courage while under attack. Sadly, in his old age he was forced to sell his medals in order to live. Someone else walked into the pawnshop and, seeing these war medals for sale, bought them and pinned
(Lev Hatorah Corner Continued from page 4)
them to his chest. He might walk down the street, proud as a peacock, but does it have any meaning? We all know that this man is not a hero; in fact, he is nothing more than a weak, pathetic fool. To wear the badge of Bnei Bchorei Yisrael, the Jewish people had to be worthy of the honor. It wasn't enough that their father Yaakov had purchased the birthright from an undeserving but willing seller. The children of Yakov needed to demonstrate that they understood what it meant to be Children of Israel. When Yaakov bought the birthright from Esav it was a legal deal. One wanted the beans, the other wanted the birthright. But did Yaakov earn that sacred title right away like the war hero, or was he like the fellow who bought the war medals? Generations later, when his children had gone through slavery by the hands of the Egyptians and still with remarkable faith and persistence, kept their heritage, only then they were deemed worthy of the honor of the birthright. Now you are worthy of the birthright. Today you are My Son, My Firstborn, Israel. Many ask why Hashem would choose us, but in essence we chose Hashem. Being Jewish is indeed the birthright of every Jew. But it's not enough that Hashem chose us, we must choose G d. We need to earn our birthright by living as Jews, rather than just relying on the automatic birthright instilled in every Jew. Hashem choosing us is not a license to condescend or look down to others. It is far more a responsibility than a privilege. It's not good enough that our parents and grandparents were good Jews. What are we doing to earn our stripes? What am I doing? So while indeed, you can sell your birthright for beans, you most definitely cannot buy a birthright for beans. Have a good Shabbos!
We know that each of the Avos had their own special Midah that they brought into the world. Araham was Chesed, Yakov was Tiferes, and Yitzchok was Gevurah or Din. To have Gevurah strength, means to stay within one's boundaries. In contrast to Chesed which means to go above and beyond oneself and expressing oneself, Gevurah means to be inwardly focused. Yitzchok was certainly as great as the other Avos but his Avodas Hashem differed from them. For Yitzchok, serving Hashem was more of a private thing. We do not hear about Yitzchok going out to convert the non-Jews or chasing after Orchim. One can suggest that the reason why the Torah doesnt speak about all of details of Yitzchok's life was to teach that besides the aspect of Avodas Hashem that one should display to the world, there is a certain Maalah to having a private relationship with Hashem. For the Torah to expound on all the deals would be antithetical to the Midah of Yitzchok and the message he is trying to deliver to the world.
52
6
(Yoni Kadish Continued from page 1)
Even Eruv Tavshilin

By Eli Lonner, 11th Grade
In this weeks parsha, Parshas Toldos, Hashem tells Yitzchak that he will have many descendants as a result of Avraham listening to Hashem -Ekev asher shema avraham bkoli. Rashi explains that these words mean that Avraham kept all the mitzvos in the Torah, including eruv tavshilin, even though he was not commanded to. Why did Rashi specifically mention the mitzvah of eruv tavshilin when he could have mentioned any other mitzvah in the Torah? The Sokotchover Rebbe, the Bal Avnei Nezer, makes an interesting point about eruv tavshilin, which he uses to answer this question. Logically, it should be permissible for one to prepare for Shabbos on Yom Tov since Shabbos is stricter. However in reality we require an eruv tavshilin to make Shabbos preparations on Yom Tov. This is explained by the Ramban who says that Yom Tov has something that Shabbos does not have, namely that its date is determined based on the Jewish people sanctifying the new month. Shabbos on the other hand automatically exists every seven days because Hashem said so. Therefore Yom Tov is greater in a sense, and one may not prepare for Shabbos on Yom Tov unless he makes an eruv tavshilin. All of this was different in the time of Avraham. Since he was not commanded to keep the mitzvos, Shabbos was not something that came automatically every week. Rather, Shabbos was determined by man just like Yom Tov. Consequently there would be no need for Avraham to perform an eruv tavshilin since Shabbos and Yom Tov were equal. The mention of eruv tavshilin is coming to teach us that Avraham was so meticulous in mitzvos that he performed any mitzvah that would apply in the future, even if there was a halachic reason to exempt him from doing so. Have an awesome Shabbos!
him and giving him all sorts of honor. However, the Alter hardly bestowed any attention at all on the first, who was among the most outstanding talmidim in the entire yeshiva. The first student was very hurt that the Alter was seemingly ignoring his presence and focusing on the other, inferior student. Once, the first student was sitting Shiva for his lost relative, and the Alter came to pay him a call. The young man took this opportunity to inquire to the Alter why he was being neglected. According to my evaluation of you, replied the Alter, you are capable of accomplishing tremendous heights due to your talents and diligence alone. Therefore, when you seek attention, you are motivated by your yetzer hara, your evil inclination. You only want me to boost your ego, to hear me tell you words of praise that will feed your arrogance, which I am not willing to do. It will only do you harm and no good. However, when the other fellow, who is drawn to distractions outside the yeshiva, comes to me for attention, he is seeking to bolster his yetzer tov, and to motivate himself, which I am wholeheartedly willing to do. This was what Yitzchak was trying to do. The Maggid of Dubnos interpretation of this pasuk is slightly different. He states that the difference between Yitzchak and Rivka lay in their background. Esav was a fraud, an evil man posing as a scholar interested in the finer points of law, taking maasir (see Rashi). Yitzchak had been raised in the household of Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imenu, where emes, truth, had been put in front of everything, and where he was unaccustomed to lies. Therefore, he was more easily taken in. In contrast to Yitzchak, Rivka had grown up in the home of Bethuel and Lavan, and was no stranger to trickery, so she was able to see right through Esavs frauds. Have a great Shabbos! Adapted from Talelei Oros
the nobleman's dogs, the joyous tears and profusions of gratitude of the ransomed family -- except to the task of handing over the money to the nobleman and finding his way to the synagogue. For he knew that if he first went home for something to eat before the fast, he would never make it to shul for Kol Nidrei. "On Rosh HaShanah," the Rebbe concluded his story, "we submitted to the sovereignty of Heaven and proclaimed Gd king of the universe. Today, we fasted, prayed and repented, laboring to translate our commitment to G-d into a refined past and an improved future. Now we are heading towards Sukkot, in which we actualize and rejoice over the attainments of the 'Days of Awe' through the special mitzvot of the festival -- a joy that reaches its climax in the hakafot of Simchat Torah. But Reb Shmuel is already there. When he announced the beginning of hakafot at Kol Nidrei last night, this was no 'mistake.' For us, Yom Kippur was just beginning; for him, it was already Simchat Torah...."
53

(Lev Hatorah Corner Continued from page 5)
By David Weitz, 12th Grade

And the children agitated within her Rashi teaches us that when Rivka would pass in front of the Yeshiva of Shem Veiver, Yaakov would kick inside of her and when she passed in front of temples of Avodah Zarah Esav would struggle to come out. We can understand why Esav wanted to go out to- to indulge in idolatry. But Yaakov, who loved learning Torah, had every reason to remain in his mothers womb (for, as Chazal teach us, while inside the womb, an angel teaches a baby the entire Torah). If so, why would Yaakov want to leave? Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef answers that Yaakov wanted to learn Torah through his own toil and effort. He knew that being spoon-fed Torah does not carry with it the same value or permanence as acquiring it with our own effort. Have a great Shabbos!
(MeOtzros HaRav Continued from page 3)
What does it mean to serve Hashem in private? It does not mean that a person should live on top of a mountain somewhere by himself, of course, but it does mean that all aspects of ones Avodas Hashem do not need to be announced publicly for all to hear. It means that at times a person can learn or do Chesed, even though no one else will find out about it. To do something, even though no one will recognize it, helps you focus your actions and Kavanah directly towards the service of Hashem. We say in davening everyday, Lolam Yehei Adam Yarei Shamayim Bsaseir Oovgaloy. One should forever be fearful of God in public and in private. Displaying Yiras Shamayim and doing the right thing in Galoy, public, helps to relate Hashem and Kavod in this world, as the Rambam Hilchos Yesodai Hatorah explains. However, having the aspect of Yiras Shamayim Bsaseir helps us in our more private, more intimate relationship with Hashem. Today, we are called Bnei Yisrael/Bnei Yakov Yakov's Midah was Tiferes, which means a balance of both Chesed and Gevurah. The lesson for us is that that every Jew should possess both of these aspects of Hashem, and we should try to bring out both of these Midos. Have a wonderful Shabbos!
Lkidushin. In order to be worthy to carry on the Mesorah, the future wife had to fit the mold established by Avraham and Sarah, who were the embodiment of Chesed, "Titen Emes LYaakov Chesed L'Avraham". It is noteworthy that the test that Eliezer set for Rivka was one of an act of Chesed. When Yitzchak sent Yaakov to seek a wife, he sent Yaakov as his Shaliach to find a wife that would make Yaakov worthy of the Mesorah. The Torah states that Yitzchak sent Yaakov to Padan Aram to find a wife after Yaakov is given Bircas Avraham. The Bircas Avraham that was just granted to Yaakov, depended on his successful completion of the mission of finding a proper wife from the proper family. Therefore the Torah connected the Bircas Avraham with the specific mention of Yitzchak sending Yaakov to find a wife. (Editor's Note: perhaps this explains why Avraham granted the Mesorah to Yitzchak, Vayiten Avraham LYitzchak Es Kol Asher Lo, after Avraham verified that Rivka was indeed a worthy wife for Yitzchak. However, Yitzchak realized that he might never see whom Yaakov marries, and in the event that Yaakov's wife was not worthy, he would not merit the Bircas Avraham. Yitzchak therefore says V'yiten Lecha Es Bircas Avraham, in the future, conditionally. After you have fulfilled the mission of marrying a wife capable of carrying on the Mesorah, the Bircas Avraham will truly be yours.) The Torah then relates that Esav saw that Yitzchak granted Yaakov Bircas Avraham on condition that he find the proper wife and especially one that was not from Bnos Canaan. Esav follows by taking a wife from Bnos Yishmael. Have a wonderful Shabbos!
(David Silber- Continued from page 1)
destined to have lived one hundred and eighty years. Hashem shortened his life span by five years so that he should not suffer the aggravation of seeing his grandson Eisav commit serious aveiros. If so, it follows that the earlier Eisav would be born, the sooner Avraham would die. Therefore, Hashem wished to delay Rivkahs pregnancy as much as possible. Only after much pleading by Yitzchak did Hashem relent. There is a proof of sorts to this explanation. The gematria of Vayehusair lo yud-kei-vuv-kei is equal to the gematria of chameish shanim (748), indicating that it was because of five years that Yitzchak had to daven so intently for his tefilos to be answered. Have a great Shabbos!
54
STORIES OF GREATNESS
TOLD OVER BY: YEHUDA ISAACS
This shabbos I decided to pick a story that highlights the idea of Dan L'Chav ZeChut, giving your fellow Jew the benefit of a doubt. As this story written by Yanki Tauber shows, things aren't always as they appear. Good Shabbos! Those who arrived early at the village synagogue on Yom Kippur eve could not help but notice the man sleeping in a corner. His soiled clothes and the strong scent of alcohol that hovered about him attested to the cause of his slumber at this early hour. A Jew drunk on the eve of the Holy Day? Several of the congregants even suggested that the man be expelled from the synagogue. Soon the room, filled to overflowing, mercifully concealing the sleeping drunk from all but those who stood in his immediate vicinity. As the sun made to dip below the horizon, a hush descended upon the crowd. The Rebbe entered the room and made his way to his place at the eastern wall. At a signal from the Rebbe, the ark was opened, and the gabbai began taking out the Torah scrolls in preparation for the Kol Nidrei service. This was the moment that the drunk chose to rise from his slumber, climb the steps to the raised reading platform in the center of the room, pound on the reading table, and announce: "Ne'um attah horeita!" Apparently, the crowded room, Torah scrolls being carried out of the open ark, seen through a drunken haze, appeared to the man as the beginning of hakafot on Simchat Torah! The drunk was confusing the most solemn moment of the year with its most joyous and high-spirited occasion. The scandalized crowd was about to eject the man from the room when the Rebbe turned from the wall and said: "Let him be. For him, it's already time for hakafot. He's there already." On the following evening, as the Rebbe sat with his chassidim at the festive meal that follows the fast, he related to them the story of Reb Shmuel, the Kol Nidrei drunk. On the morning of the eve of the Holy Day, Reb Shmuel had heard of a Jew who, together with his wife and six small children, had been imprisoned for failing to pay the rent on the establishment he held on lease from the local nobleman. Reb Shmuel went to the nobleman to plead for their release, but the nobleman was adamant in his refusal. "Until I see every penny that is owed to me," he swore, "the Jew and his family stay where they are. Now get out of here before I unleash my dogs on you." "I cannot allow a Jewish family to languish in a dungeon on Yom Kippur," resolved Reb Shmuel and set out to raise the required sum, determined to achieve their release before sunset. All day, he went from door to door. People gave generously to a fellow Jew in need, but by late afternoon Reb Shmuel was still 300 rubles short of the required sum. Where would he find such a large sum of money at this late hour? Then he passed a tavern and saw a group of well-dressed young men sitting and drinking. A card-game was underway, and a sizable pile of banknotes and gold and silver coins had already accumulated on the table. At first he hesitated to approach them at all: what could one expect from Jews who spend the eve of the Holy Day drinking and gambling in a tavern? But realizing that they were his only hope, he approached their table and told them of the plight of the imprisoned family. They were about to send him off emptyhanded, when one of them had a jolly idea: wouldn't it be great fun to get a pious Jew drunk on Yom Kippur? Signaling to a waiter, the man ordered a
PUBLICATION STAFF
Editors in Chief David Freilich Yaakov Feldstein Associate Editors Judah Max Abittan Dani Scheinman Yitzie Scheinman layout editors Yechiel Auman rabbinic articles Adam Goldstein Avrumi Blisko student articles Andrew Mermelstein director of production Production Staff Nison Basalilov Jeremy Bienenfeld Benjamin Watman
/Authors
Benny Aivazi Yonatan Aivazi Ariel Bagley Dan Bamshad David Beer Marc Eichenbaum Jonathan Eidelstein Eli Gattman Yered Elisha Ginsberg Yitzchak Ginsberg Shmuli Gutenmacher Yaakov Hawk Elisha Ishaal Aaron Joseph Yoni Kadish Barak Klammer Eli Lonner Avi Moisa Yonatan Mehlman Gavi Nelson Adi Pasternak Jonny Perlman Ilan Portnoy Shmulie Reichman Shalom Rosenbaum Yigal Saperstein David Silber Alex Selesny Daniel Stroh Jesse Steinmetz Jeremy Teichman Benjamin Watman David Weitz Maggid of DRS Yehuda Isaacs Menahel Rabbi Y. Kaminetsky Faculty Advisors Rabbi E. Brazil Rabbi M. Erlbaum Rabbi A. Lebowitz
The DRS Yeshiva High School For Boys 700 Ibsen Street, Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 295-7700 - Fax: (516) 295-4790
Weekly Torah Publication of the DRS Yeshiva High School
c"kv in ohtmuhv ohrcs
55
Author: Rabbis Stanley M Wagner and Israel Drazin Title: Let's Study Onkelos on Toldot: Extolling Israelite Ancestors
LETS STUDY ONKELOS
A Guide for Rabbis, Teachers and Torah Students to Study and Teach the Parashat Hashavua through the Eyes of its Most Important Translator By Stanley M. Wagner and Israel Drazin Based on the five volume, Onkelos on the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), Understanding the Bible Text, by Israel Drazin and Stanley M. Wagner, published by Gefen Publishing House, Jerusalem/New York, 20062010. STUDY GUIDE
TOLDOT (CHAPTER 25:1928:9) SUMMARY OF THE TORAH PORTION Rebecca conceives after a long period of barrenness; The twins in her womb struggle and Rebecca receives a prophecy about them; Esau emerges as the firstborn and becomes a hunter while Jacob is a dweller in tents; Esau sells his birthright to Jacob; Isaac relocates to Philistia to escape a famine and the king kidnaps Rebecca; Isaac wants to bless his firstborn, Esau, but Jacob, with Rebeccas complicity, takes the blessing; Esau vows to kill his brother; Jacobs parents tell him to leave the land and go to the home of Rebeccas family, hopefully also to find a wife.
EXTOLLING ISRAELITE ANCESTORS

Rebecca and Jacobs scheme in chapter 17 to secure Isaacs blessing for Jacob before Isaac dies, provoked many interpretations to explain the apparent uncharacteristic behavior of the matriarch and patriarch. Jacob is at first reluctant to deceive his father. He says he does not want to appear in Isaacs eyes as a trickster. Rebecca assures him that your curse will be on me, which Onkelos renders, it was said to me in a prophecy that no curses will come to you (27:13, pages 176179).1 Our commentary explains:
Our targumist might have been uncomfortable with the possibility that Rebecca could be cursed and, therefore, understands on me as the revelation of a prophecy. However, this uncharacteristic, elaborate, imaginative paraphrase is probably a late
1
All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.
56
insertion by an over-diligent scribe. It is not even hinted at in any of the other Targums; nor in Saadiah, or Rashi who frequently repeat what they found in Onkelos; nor is it picked up by ibn Ezra who often states the targumists view, even when he disagrees; nor is it in Radak, Sforno, or Nachmanides. Only Rashbam and Chazkunee approach what appears to be the targumists understanding and mention Rebeccas prophecy; Rebecca was certain that Isaac would not curse his son since God promised (in 25:23) that the older son would serve the younger. Ibn Ezra, Radak, and Sforno have another view; if Isaac will curse you, that curse will not rest upon you, but upon me, since I caused you to do what you did. Saadiah suggests; I will be responsible to remove any curse from you.
We add in our appendix that Pseudo-Jonathan reads: If he blesses you with blessings, let them descend upon you and your children; but if he curses you with curses, let them be upon me and my soul (page 435). We are inclined, based upon our understanding of the targumists style to resist the urge to include imaginative elaborations in his translation, to see this targumic passage as a late scribal insertion. Our view is supported by the absence of the elaboration in commentaries that copied Onkelos' ideas. This scribe wanted to portray Israelite ancestors favorably. We will discover many other altered Targum Onkelos texts. However, it should be noted that our translator also changed the biblical text over one hundred times in Genesis to present a more favorable picture of the Israelite ancestors than is in the Torah, although not as radically. In 27:35 (pages 180 and 181), for example, Isaac responds to Esaus plea for a blessing by stating Your brother came with deceit and he took your blessing. Onkelos replaces deceit with wisdom and took with accepted. He must have felt that he notion that Jacob was deceptive and grabbed or took Esaus blessing was repugnant, so he softened the condemning language. Similarly, with regard to the odious behavior of Jacobs sons in avenging Shechems rape of Dinah, their sister, the Bible describes their discussion with Shechem deceit, while the targumist substitutes wisdom (34:13 and commentary).
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ON ONKELOS A literal reading of the episodes of Jacob taking Isaacs blessing and his sons response to Dinahs dishonor, appear to be morally reprehensible behavior. It requires either exegetical elaborations or, as in the case of the Targum, non literal translations, to reconcile our favorable views of the matriarchs and patriarchs and their children with the reality conveyed by the actual texts. We will have the opportunity of discussing other examples of this occurrence in the future. 2
57
How do you feel about interpretations and translations that defend the honor of Israelite ancestors when the Torah itself is not so inclined? Isnt written: For there is no just man on earth who does (only) good, and does no wrong (Ecclesiastes 7:20)? Isnt it rather instructive that even the patriarchs and matriarchs didnt always act correctly; yet they are considered important people?
GENERAL DISCUSSION In responding to Rebeccas suggestion that he pose as Esau, Jacob resists the idea on the grounds that If my father touches me, I will appear in his eyes as a trickster to him (27:12, pages 176 and 177). Is Jacobs response appropriate? Doesnt it seem that he doesnt want to deceive his father only because he might be discovered? Or, is it possible that Jacob only suggested that the ruse might not work? Why did he do what he did? Wasnt it immoral? Is the fact that Rebecca apparently never saw Jacob again after he fled from Esaus wrath, the Torahs way of indicating that she was punished for her complicity in Isaacs deception? Was Jacobs punishment the stormy exile from his home for two decades and the fact that he was the victim of two deceptions: the substitution of Leah for Rachel as a wife, and the cover up of the disappearance of his beloved son Joseph? Esau is depicted in Targum Onkelos as a cunning hunter and Jacob, as a mild man, who ministered in the house of study (25:27, pages 164167, see commentary). Is the Torah emphasizing that parents should be at least as concerned about the forces that are shaping their childrens lives in the street as they are about the values they want to cultivate in them at home?
FOR FURTHER STUDY

1. See 26:5 (pages 168 and 169) and commentary. The targumist uses memra twice in different ways. 2. See 27:33 (pages 180 and 181) and commentary. Does Rashi misinterpret the Targums translation of Torahs charad and charadah? 3. See 27:40 and commentary, . . . TRANSGRESS THE WORDS OF THE TORAH (page 183). The targumist interprets, rather than translates, an obscure word.
58
Author: Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein Title: Learning How to Daven: Yitzchak, Rivka, and our Children
The Torah writes: "Yitzchak entreated Hashem opposite his wife" (Bereishit 25:21). Rashi observes that the Torah emphasized that Hashem specifically accept Yitzchak's prayer despite the fact that both he and Rivka had prayed. Rashi explains that the prayer of the tzaddik child of a tzaddik is greater than the prayer of a tzaddik child of a rasha.
I always found Rashi's comment perplexing. Why should Hashem discriminate against Rivka's prayer and prefer Yitzchak's simply because Rivka's father was a rasha?
There are two basic components to tefilla. It is referred to as avodah shebalev - service of the heart. On the one hand the most important part of tefilla is the connection of our heart with Hashem. Without the awareness transcendental in our heart that we are standing in front of G-d, our prayer is nothing at all.
At the same time, the expression of the heart is also referred to as an avodah - a G-dly labor. Tefilla is not simply an emotional expression but also a service that requires years of work and direction from those who have attained meaning and closeness in their encounter with G-d.
The Chassam Sofer (Responsa) writes that praying at kivrei tzaddikim is a great virtue, however praying with a living tzaddik is even greater. I believe that this notion is not only a kabbalistic one but also a reflection of the reality that tefilla is not only a spontaneous expression of closeness to G-d but a learned avodah that one is constantly growing in. Being surrounded by someone who has become great in his avodah shebalev is an important component in growing in our avodah shebalev.
This may be an important reason why Yitzchak's prayer was "greater" than Rivka's. Yitzchak was exposed to the serious prayer of Avraham Avinu which improved his own prayer. In contrast, Rivka was exposed to avodah of avodah zara. Of course, our tefilla does not come close to Rivka's, but Yitzchak due to his exposure to Avraham had the opportunity to spend more time working on this avodah.
This can be an important lesson in teaching our children about tefilla. Over the years, my heart has broken as I have watched from a distance while fathers "forced" their children (either physically or verbally) to daven. On the one hand, tefilla is not only a voluntary emotional expression but is also an avodah. At the same time, the best way to learn the avodah is to simply be exposed to people who excel in this avodah. The modeling is a perfect form of education while coercion is almost always counterproductive.
59
Author: Rabbi Shmuel Goldin Title: Another Covenant?
Context
In an episode strikingly similar to an earlier event in Avrahams time, Yitzchak is approached by Avimelech, king of the Philistines, for the purpose of contracting a covenant of non-belligerence. After throwing a celebratory party, Yitzchak apparently agrees and the two camps part in peace.
Questions
How are we to explain Yitzchaks strange behavior? Confronted with the request for a peace treaty with the Philistines, he abruptly ends the conversation and throws a party which lasts through the night.
Why are the rabbis openly critical of Avrahams treaty with Avimelech (see Vayeira 4, Approaches c), yet strangely silent when it comes to Yitzchaks agreement with the same king?
Is it possible that these two episodes, which seem so similar, actually differ in significant ways?
Approaches
As is often the case, a straightforward reading of the pashut pshat of the text before us is extremely revealing. Such a reading brings to light a subliminal dialogue between Yitzchak and Avimelech within this passage, a dialogue that explains the patriarchs seemingly strange behavior and carries tremendous relevance for our own times.
60
As soon as Yitzchak sees Avimelech and his entourage approach, he raises the following objection: Why have you come to me? [It is obvious that] you hate me, for you exiled me from among you.
Avimelech responds by insisting that he has come to contract a covenant with the patriarch: That you shall not do evil to us, just as we did not harm you, and as we did only good to you, for we sent you away in peace.
It is important to note that there is no disagreement between Yitzchak and Avimelech about the facts. They both acknowledge that during their past interaction Yitzchak was exiled from the territory of the Philistines. What they disagree about is, in fact, a much deeper issue. They are arguing about the definition of peace.
To paraphrase the subliminal dialogue taking place between the patriarch and the king:
Yitzchak opens the conversation with the following objection: How can you possibly suggest that we enact a peace treaty? Your intentions until now have been anything but peaceful. Did you not revile me and exile me from your land?
Avimelech responds: How can you say that we hate you? If we hated you, we would have killed you. Our intentions were obviously peaceful because all we did was send you away.
The patriarch and the king are, in effect, living in two different worlds.
Avimelech defines peace as the absence of war and physical violence. As long as the two parties are not killing each other, in the kings eyes, they are living in peace.
To Yitzchak, however, peace means much more. For true peace to exist there must be both an absence of
61
hostility and an effort towards cooperation. Anything less might be defined as mutual coexistence but cannot be considered true peace.
At first glance what the patriarch does next seems abundantly strange. Instead of responding to Avimelechs interpretation of past events, Yitzchak abruptly ends the conversation. Without another word, suddenly, Yitzchak made for them a party, and they ate and they drank.
Armed with our understanding of the verbal interchange until this point, however, we can begin to understand Yitzchaks unfolding strategy in his continued dealings with Avimelech.
The patriarch recognizes that further conversation with Avimelech would be futile. You can negotiate with someone when you share the same reality and when the terms that you use are mutually understood. An unbridgeable chasm, however, separates Yitzchak from the Philistine king. When they each speak about peace, they are talking about two very different concepts. If you cant agree upon the definition of peace, you certainly cannot contract a peace treaty.
Yitzchak, therefore, ends the conversation. As a smokescreen, he throws a celebratory party that lasts through the night.
Upon awakening the next morning, Yitzchak and Avimelech exchange promises with each other. The text, however, conspicuously fails to mention a brit, covenant. Unlike his father, Avraham, Yitzchak does not contract a full treaty with the Philistines. He recognizes that temporary agreements with Avimelech are possible, but a lasting covenant cannot be drawn.
62
Then, finally, Yitzchak executes the coup de grace. With brilliant irony, the text states: He [Yitzchak] sent them away; and they went from him in peace.
Yitzchak turns the tables on Avimelech. In effect he says: I will operate with you according to your definition of peace. Just as you sent me away in peace, I now send you away from me in peace.
The second patriarch learns from his fathers mistakes. Whereas Avraham was comfortable contracting a full covenant with Avimelech and continued to live in the territory of the Philistines for many days, Yitzchak understands the dangers of such an agreement and insists on physical separation. He recognizes that the Philistines can only be trusted in minimal fashion and, even then, only from afar. The rabbis are, therefore, silent concerning Yitzchaks agreement with Avimelech although they had been critical of a similar agreement contracted by Avraham, a generation before (Vayeira 4, Approaches c). Their silence reflects acknowledgement of the lessons well learned by the second patriarch.
Points to Ponder
Once again, the Torah text speaks to us in eerily relevant fashion as we recognize that human experience has not changed much over the centuries. The definition of peace, which lay at the core of Yitzchaks interchange with Avimelech, continues to be at issue today as the State of Israel struggles to live in harmony with its neighbors.
The failure of the peace process in the Middle East is directly traceable to the limited and hypocritical definition of peace in the Arab world. True peace cannot take root in countries where children are raised in hate and where the daily rhetoric lauds murderers and spews venom upon the Jewish nation.
Even those Arab countries that have treaties with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, fall frighteningly short in their definition of what those agreements should mean. Like Avimelech, they maintain that peace is defined by the current absence of war. Cooperation, support and mutual understanding remain far from their reality.
We pray for the day when the world will embrace Yitzchaks vision of true peace.
63
Author: YU/Torah miTzion Toronto Kollel Title: Toronto Torah: Toldot 5773
Toronto Torah
Beit Midrash Zichron Dov
Parshat Toldot 3 Kislev 5773/November 17, 2012
To sponsor an issue of Toronto Torah, please email info@torontotorah.com or call 416-783-6960
Vol.4 Num. 9
The Jig is Up
Immediately after introducing us to Yaakov and Esav, the Torah presents tension in the family, and this serves as a backdrop for the stories to follow: Yitzchak loved Esav, because he was a hunter also with his mouth (tzayid b'fiv), but Rivkah loved Yaakov. (Bereishit 25:28) Although the description tzayid b'fiv (lit. there were trappings in his mouth) is subject to different interpretations, one thing is clear: whereas Rivkah's love for Yaakov stemmed from a pure and simple admiration for his very identity, Yitzchak's favouring of Esav was due to some external behaviour, as a love dependent on something. (Avot 5:16) Though the writings of chazal elaborate on this theme at length, the Torah text itself provides us with ample evidence that Esav was not truly worthy of his father's favour. At the age of forty, Esav took two wives from the people of Cheit, a group who had already given our forefather Avraham difficulty in the past (see Bereishit 23 with commentaries). These women were spiritually defiant towards their new in-laws (Bereishit 26:35), and Esav's identification with them should have served as the clearest indication to Yitzchak that his legacy could not continue through this firstborn son. Nevertheless, the trappings in his mouth kept Yitzchak from that realization; he had been deceived concerning a matter of tremendous consequence. In light of her actions later in our parshah, Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch contends that Rivkah must have expended great efforts earlier in life to show her husband the truth, while maintaining peace in what could have been a rather dysfunctional family. Despite those efforts, Yitzchak's mind would not be changed. To him, Esav was his loyal son and a worthy descendant of the chosen nation; no charges of deception would convince him otherwise. How then, was Rivkah to fend off disaster? Noting the conceptual absurdity of stealing awaya blessing (much less relying upon a subterfuge that was bound to be discovered upon Esav's return), Rabbi Hirsch suggests that Rivkah was not trying to swap b le ssin gs. Rath er , Ri vk ah h ere attempted to win over Yitzchak, so that he would give the blessings to Yaakov of his own free will. With Yaakov as her proxy, Rivkah demonstrated to Yitzchak a truth that was perhaps too hard for him to recognize on his own that he was capable of being fooled, and he was not immune to deceit and bias. In a most elaborate and dramatic way, Rivkah proved to her husband that his
Rabbi Ezra Goldschmiedt

choicest son was the wrong choice: if the innocent and simple son could fool his father with mere goatskins, all the more so the cunning hunter could do so with lies and pretences. Upon Esav's entrance, Rivkah's ruse became apparent. A very great terror seized Yitzchak, and he said: Who then, is the one who hunted game and brought it to me, and I ate from all of it before you came and I blessed him? (Bereishit 27:33) The horror and pain this realization brought upon Yitzchak that his approach to parenting Esav had been misguided was immense. Nevertheless, being confronted with a truth that had been denied for so long, Yitzchak displayed great emotional strength in conceding that Rivkah was right. In just a few short moments, Yitzchak connected the dots and declared, this time willfully, that Yaakov was to continue his legacy; the perplexing declaration, Indeed, he will be blessed (ibid.), is Yitzchak's ultimate confirmation that he received Rivkah's message loud and clear. What are we to learn from this episode? Perhaps we often make the same mistake as Yitzchak seems to commit, presuming that our social awareness and intellects are infallible. Notoriously known as a stiff-necked people (Shemot 32:9), our approach to life, our judgements of others and our opinions can indeed be impervious to change. Despite living in an information age, it is too easy in today's world to be openly insular, learning Torah, reading editorials and absorbing messages of every sort so long as we are confident that these confirm what we already feel and know. To be sure, our own critical eye and thoughtful analysis are always necessary, but these must come together with an openness to other perspectives and an acceptance that things are not always as we see them. egoldschmiedt@torontotorah.com We are grateful to Continental Press 905-660-0311
CONTEMPORARY HALACHAH IN MODERN ISRAEL CONTINUES SUNDAY EVENING:
INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION IN SYRIA

WITH RABBI BARUCH WEINTRAUB 5:15 PM
AT
CLANTON PARK SYNAGOGUE, MEN
8:30 PM AT 4 TILLINGHAM KEEP, MEN

AND
WOMEN
Download thousands of shiurim and articles for free at the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah.org. p. 64 YUTorah.org is a project of Yeshiva University's Center for the Jewish Future
A Noachides Oath
In our parshah three oaths are mentioned Esav sells his birthright to Yaakov and swears as part of the process (25:33); G-d reaffirms the oath he has sworn to Avraham (26:3) to give him the land of Yisrael; Avimelech and Yitzchak swear to each other (26:31). Regarding the second oath, the one made by Hashem, we have no questions; we understand that G-d will, of course, keep His word. But the other oaths require exploration; why did Esav's and Avimelech's vows have any meaning to Yaakov and Yitzchak? Prior to biblical law mandating that we keep our oaths (i.e. Devarim 23:24), what bound people to honour their words, and to expect that others would honour theirs? Keeping one's word is not, seemingly, one of the seven commands given to the sons of Noach. One could argue that Avraham, his descendants and arguably their entire household kept all of the mitzvot. That would explain the case of Esav's oath, as well the oath made by Avraham's slave in last week parshah (24:9). Avimelech's oath will still stand out, though, requiring an explanation of the nature of a non-Jew's obligation to keep oaths. Some contend that this obligation stems from the prohibition against desecrating G-d's name. (Mishneh La Me l e ch Me l a ch i m 1 0 :7 ) Th i s assumption may be based upon the formulation the Chinuch uses in presenting the prohibition against lying under oath (Mitzvah 30): "He who swears in the great Name, and knows he is lying, is as though he was
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub

saying there is no truth [i.e. no G-d BW]" The Chinuch explains that to take an oath means to compare the existence of G-d with the correctness of the fact attested by the oath. Thus, lying under oath is a statement that G-d's existence is untrue, G-d forbid. A different path is taken by the Avnei Nezer (Yoreh Deah 306). He argues that keeping one's promises and oaths is intuitively ethical ('sevara'), and everything intuitively ethical is mandatory for a Noachide, no less than the seven Noachide laws. Why is it so clear that lying is intuitively wrong? On a simple level, people who lie to each other undermine society. However, a deeper reason might underlie this approach: Lying, and especially under oath, undermines language. As more and more people lie, language, and words themselves, lose their meaning. Man, the torah tells us (Bereshit 2:7), was created as a 'living soul' (nefesh chayah). Onkelos translates this term to 'a speaking soul' (ruach memallela). Speaking is part of what make us human part of G-d's image within us. So it is that one must always keep his word, as part of his basic identity as a human being, and so live up to his Divinely granted identity. bweintraub@torontotorah.com
Hitoriri: Jewish Spirituality
The Faith of Yitzchak

Hillel Horovitz ( ", ) " . . . . . . , : ' ".' " " , , . . , . ? ( " , " ) : " ,". ( ' ) , :" . " . : " ..." ( " , ' ). . . " . , , , , , . , " , , .
hhorovitz@torontotorah.com
613 Mitzvot: #216-223, 592-593
A Good Heart
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner
We generally perceive tzedakah as a practical mitzvah, designed to aid the indigent within society. So it is that the Torah instructs a farmer to engage philanthropically on several levels: To leave the corner (peah) of his field or grapevine for the needy and not take it for himself (#216-217, 220-221), to abandon grain or grapes which he dropped (leket) during the harvest (#218-219, 222-223), and to leave the grain he missed (shichichah) during the harvest (#592-593). Sefer haChinuch additional, spiritual outlines an dimension in these practical mitzvot of tzedakah. We are meant to be more than agents of assistance; we are meant to develop a nature which is satisfied with what it receives, and which is eager to share with others. A person who collects all of his harvest, hunting after every kernel to store it away, is never satisfied; there is no quota for his pleasure. A person who declares, "I have reached my threshold," trains himself to view his needs as fulfilled and to rejoice in his lot. torczyner@torontotorah.com
Visit us at www.torontotorah.com
Biography: Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik
Yair Manas
This Week in Israeli History
Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (1820-1892) was the grandson of Rabbi Torah in Translation Chaim Volozhin, who founded the renowned Volozhin yeshiva. He studied in Volozhin from the age of thirteen, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik until his marriage. Rabbi Soloveitchik was later invited to become a Rosh Beit haLevi, Parshat Vayishlach Yeshiva of the Volozhin yeshiva, but he left after ten years due to incompatibility Translated by Yair Manas with the other Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin. Where Rabbi Berlin favoured a traditional approach [In Bereishit 32:12, Yaakov prays, "Please to Torah study, Rabbi Soloveitchik's save from the hand of my brother, from the approach incorporated new analytical hand of Esav."] Since Yaakov only had one methods. brother, Esav, why did he need to say ,"From the hands of Esav"? Saying "my brother" A f t e r l e a v i n g V o l o z h i n , R a b b i Soloveitchik became Rabbi of Slutsk, already clarified his request!... and he served there for about ten years. We can explain that Yaakov, aware that Esav He published a book of responsa as well was coming to greet him, understood that he as a book of commentary to the Torah, could not escape from one of two both titled Beit HaLevi. In 1877, he was possibilities: either Esav would attack him offered the position of Rabbi of Brisk, and want to kill him, or Esav would be and he held that position until his satisfied and return from his anger, and wish death. He was succeeded by his son, to dwell with Yaakov in serenity and unity. Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, who was Yaakov feared both of these scenarios, for succeeded in turn by his son, Rabbi even goodness and love from Esav would be Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (the Brisker bad for Yaakov He didnt want Esav as a Rav). Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, brother or as Esav, and he asked G-d to save famed Rosh Yeshiva at RIETS, was the him from both of these hands great-grandson of, and was named for, Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik. All of the forefathers actions are signs for their children. In Esav's exile, too, he will act When the Beit HaLevi passed away, his in the same two ways with the Jewish people son Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik said that as he sought to do with Yaakov. In the his fathers power to create novel beginning of the exile, Esav will enact terrible insights was inherited by one student, decrees, destruction and suffering, and will his ability to analyze was inherited by fight the Jewish people and seek to destroy another student, his sharpness was them, and G-d in His mercy will not abandon inherited by a third student, his ability them. Finally, Esav will say that he wishes to to decide law was inherited by yet dwell serenely with Yaakov, and his intent in another student, but no student was doing this will be to distance the Jewish able to take his fathers keen ability to people from serving G-d, and to push them provide the basic explanation of a text. away from their belief in G-d (MiPeninei HaRav pg. 209).
Kislev 6, 1975
Yaakov and Esav
Zionism=Racism
R Mordechai Torczyner
Tuesday is the 6th of Kislev For decades, opponents of the State of Israel have challenged her Jewish character; perhaps their greatest success came in November 1975. Building on international condemnation of Israeli ties with apartheid South Africa, a Sovietbacked initiative proposed three resolutions to the UN General Assembly. One promoted a PLO presence at the UN, a second proposed an international body to protect Palestinian Arabs, and the third, Resolution 3379, condemned Zionism as "a form of racism and racial discrimination". This last resolution was passed on 6 Kislev 1975, with 99 nations in favour, 35 opposing, and 32 abstaining. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog, noted that the resolution was passed on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. To the substance of the resolution he replied, "Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That... is Zionism." Herzog tore up a copy of the resolution before the General Assembly. In 1991, as a precondition for the Madrid Peace Conference, the UN rescinded Resolution 3379, saying simply, "The general assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975." torczyner@torontotorah.com
It is like Esav's statement (Bereishit 33:12), "We will travel and go, and I will go opposite you." A midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 78:14) explains that he meant that the two would draw close to each other, and each would abandon a little from his customs, until they became close They would also accept the good fundamental beliefs of Israel, they would also believe in one Creator and Torah from heaven and reward and punishment, and they would desite that Yaakov give up part of his own, and leave some of his acts of service which relate to the next world This is seen in another midrash (Tana d'vei Eliyahu Zuta 14), "You take this world and half the next world, and I will take this world and half the next world." The intent is that you would not be involved exclusively in Torah and mitzvot, but would reduce your service and omit from the mitzvot which create a gap between us, and so you will
ymanas@torontotorah.com receive this world and half of the next world Esav didnt say half of this world, because he knew that once Yaakov would give up even one mitzvah, he would end up with all of this world Thus Yaakov first prayed to be saved "from the hand of my brother," and only afterwards "from the hand of Esav." In the first scenario, there is only a physical subjugation. In the second, there are both, a spiritual and a physical subjugation, for all of the good which Esav offers will only be for the one who abandons mitzvot and thereby abandons his life. One who does not desire to benefit, who does not desire to draw close, will remain in his suffering as he was beforehand, and so the suffering will be in both realms.
Visit us at www.torontotorah.com
Our Haftorah: Malachi 1:1 - 2:7

Who is the prophet of our Haftorah? Malachi is the final prophet of Tanach; passages in his brief book imply that he l i ve d d u r i n g t h e se co n d Be i t haMikdash. Malachi appears to live after the initial construction of the Beit haMikdash, for he makes no reference to the building process. In addition, biblical passages like Ezra 5:1 list the prophets of the start of the second Beit haMikdash, and omit Malachi. The Talmud (such as Megilah 3a and Yoma 9b) places Malachi in the Anshei Kenesset haGedolah ("Great Assembly") which legislated for the Jewish community at the start of the second Beit haMikdash. Views cited in the Talmud (Megilah 15a) identify Malachi as either Mordechai or Ezra, but classical commentaries, including Radak and Abarbanel, do not accept these identifications literally. Malachi addressesa community which is not excited by its Beit haMikdash; people bring inferior korbanot (1:7-8) and do not tithe (3:8), men have abandoned Jewish wives for the daughters of idolatry (2:11), and kohanim are derelict in their duties (2:1 -3). His role is to remind the nation that G-d has selected them for a special destiny (1:2-5) and to remind them that a day of judgment is coming (3:19-24). Malachi concludes his vision with a pledge that Eliyahu haNavi will herald the arrival of Mashiach, which will include a reunion of the generations in the service of G-d. (3:23-24) For more on Malachi, join our class at Shaarei Shomayim, :30 PM on Tuesdays. We begin to study Malachi this week. What is the message of our haftorah? Malachi's style is one of dialogue, in which the prophet plays both sides; he conveys a message from G-d, then tells the people what their response will be, and then offers a Divine rejoinder. At the outset of our Haftorah (1:2), Malachi declares, "G-d loves you." He continues, "You will say, 'How has He loved us?'" To which Malachi then responds, "Esav was the brother of Yaakov, and I demolished his descendants and did not allow them to rebuild," in contrast with the children of Yaakov who had been permitted to return and rebuild. This connects our haftorah with our parshah, in which we read of the Divine blessing passed to Yaakov rather than Esav. Malachi continues (1:6) with words of rebuke for the Jewish nation, accusing them of failure to honour G-d as a child honours a parent, and of failure to fear G-d as a servant fears a master. He
Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner

rebukes the kohanim, in particular, for degrading the Name of G-d, and he then envisions the kohanim responding, "How have we disgraced Your Name?" To this Malachi responds, "You bring blind, lame and diseased animals as offerings; would you dare bring this to your human ruler?" Our haftorah's message concludes on a positive note, with a description of the ideal kohen of G-d. The model priest speaks Torah, deals with others in peace and justice, and leads the nation back from their sins, to lives of piety. (2:6-7) Halachic applications of our haftorah Malachi's rebuke (1:8), "Try bringing that offering to your human ruler," is cited as a basis for laws requiring that the gifts we present to G-d must be respectable. Even though G-d has no real use for our offerings, we must relate to G-d in a respectful manner. So it is that we may not use wine which has a bad aroma for kiddush (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 272:1), and lamps in shul should not use oil which people would consider repellent (ibid 154:12). torczyner@torontotorah.com
Highlights for November 17-23 / 3 Kislev - 9 Kislev

Shabbat, November 17 Or Chaim Shabbaton: Hillel Horovitz, Yair Manas 7:45 AM R Baruch Weintraub, Reasons for mitzvot and the parshah, Or Chaim 10:20 AM R Baruch Weintraub, Parshah, Clanton Park 3:35 PM R Mordechai Torczyner, Daf Yomi: Shabbat 45, BAYT 3:55 PM Adam Frieberg, Shaarei Tefillah After minchah R Mordechai Torczyner, Gemara Avodah Zarah: Interfaith Circumcision II, BAYT 6:40 PM Parent-Child Learning: Welcoming Guests, Shaarei Shomayim Sunday, November 18 9:15 AM Hillel Horovitz, Parshah, Zichron Yisroel, Hebrew (Shacharit 8:30 AM) After maariv R Baruch Weintraub, Contemporary Halachic Questions in Israel, Hebrew, Clanton Park, men 8:30 PM R Baruch Weintraub, Contemporary Halachic Questions in Israel, Hebrew, 4 Tillingham Keep, mixed Monday, November 19 8-10 PM Monday night Beit Midrash at Bnai Torah 8 PM Hillel Horovitz, Shemuel II : Avshaloms Rebellion, Bnai Torah 8 PM R Ezra Goldschmiedt, Mesilat Yesharim, Bnai Torah, high school students 8-10 PM Monday night Beit Midrash at Clanton Park Tuesday, November 20 1:30 PM R Mordechai Torczyner, Malachi 1: Yaakov and Esav, Shaarei Shomayim, Mekorot 7:30 PM Hillel Horovitz, Shemuel Bet: King Davids Period of Glory, KST 8 PM Yair Manas, Chaburah: Sanhedrin, 33 Meadowbrook 8:30 PM R Baruch Weintraub, Rambams Laws of Kings: Pilegesh, Shomrai Shabbos, men 8:45 PM R Ezra Goldschmiedt, Jewish Clothing Controversies, Week 4, BAYT Wednesday, November 21 10 AM R Mordechai Torczyner, Supernatural/Superstition, Week 6: The Soul Part II, BEBY, Melton 8 PM Roving Beit Midrash R Baruch Weintraub, Zionism: Common Past, Shared Future, Shaarei Shomayim Thursday, November 22 8:30 PM R Baruch Weintraub, Sotah, Clanton Park
Coming Up! Nov. 25: Breakfast: Jew in a non-Jewish World Dec. 1: Shabbaton: Athens and Jerusalem, Thornhill Community Shul Dec. 2: Shiur Theatre: When Konstantinos Met Sarah Dec. 4: Panel Discussion: Shana Bet in Israel Visit us at www.torontotorah.com
We would like to thank koshertube.com for filming our shiurim!
Author: HaRav Avigdor Nebenzahl Title: Keeping Torah: Better in Olam Hazeh as Well as Olam Haba
The Torah records that when Esav heard from his father that Yaakov usurped the brachos - "he cried a loud and bitter cry." This cry was from the depths of his heart, his father's blessing was very important to him and it pained him not to receive it. Esav's reaction is very puzzling, why should Yiitzchak's blessing mean anything to him? Is thisnot the same Esav who degraded and mocked the birthright?
Were Esav to believe in Hashem then we would be able to understand his pain - Yitzchak after all was a prophet of Hashem. On the other hand if he does not believe in Hashem, then Yitzchak's prophecy is of little or no significance. Let Yitzchak say whatever he pleases - why should this have any meaning to Esav?
I would like to pose another related question: if Esav does not believe in Hashem then why did Yaakov make his swear? A Jew swears in the Name of Hashem, a goy swears in the name of his avoda zara, what does Esav who does not believe in anything swear on? If an oath is of no significance, why did Yaakov ask Esav to swear? Esav did not think for a moment that, G-d forbid, Hashem does not exist. He certainly believes, rather he does not wish the obligation to follow in the footsteps of his Yitzchak and his grandfather Avraham.
He believes in Hashem and therefore the oath has meaning Yitzchak's blessing has great meaning. Esav believes in Yitzchak's blessing but does not want the obligation of living like a tzaddik and a good person. He may not wish to live a life of Avraham and Yitzchak but he knows in his heart that they are right.
The same idea may be said regarding Bilaam. Bilaam asked that he die the death of tzaddikim and yesharim "may my soul die the death of the virtuous ones, and may my end be like theirs" (Bamidbar 23:10). Bilaam wanted to enter Gan Eden like Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. However, he does not wish to live the lives of the patriarchs. Bilaam was a prophet who prophesied good things for Klal Yisrael but does not wish to live like them. He wants the olam haba without the obligation of living a proper and straight life in olam hazeh. One who does not live the proper life in this world will not have the share of tzaddikim in Gan Eden.
68
The truth is that not only do we have a greater share in olam haba, we have it better in this world as well. There is no greater joy than keeping mitzvos, learning Gemara, speaking to Hashem out of the depths of our heart and establishing a close connection to Him. We have the Rambam, we have Oneg Shabbos and Simchas Yom Tov. They eat, but do not derive the pleasure we have from fulfilling the mitzvos of delighting in the Shabbos, rejoicing on Yom Tov, and eating matzos on Pesach. We say every Shabbos: "velo nesato Hashem Elokenu legoyei haaratzos velo nesato Malkenu leovdei psilim" "You Hashem did not give Shabbos to the nations of the world and our King did not give it to idol worshippers." They do not feel thejoys of Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and being able to relate the story of the exodus on Pesach. They think they have olam hazeh, but in reality we have it better.
Chazal teach us that Hashem will eventually kill the yetzer hara, to the tzaddikim it will appear like a huge mountain and they will wonder how they were able to overpower it, while to the reshaim it will be like a piece of hair and they will wonder why they were unable to conquer it. The explanation is, that if you want you can conquer it. If you truly believe that we have the olam hazeh then as difficult as it may be, we are able to conquer it.
We find in PIrke Avos that R' Shimon HaTzaddik who lived during the early days of the second Beis HaMikdash taught his students that they should not serve their Master in order to receive reward but rather they should be like servants who serve their Master not for the sake of receiving reward. Two of his disciples Tzaddok and Baitus concluded that if they should not serve Hashem in order to receive a reward then obviously there is no reward. From there began the Tzdukkim and Baitusim. Mitzvos meant nothing to their descendants and they joined forces with the Hellenists who were then in power in Eretz Yisrael. Clearly they did not believe in Hashem but only believed in what was good for them. The Greeks had a powerful empire so it was in their best interest to side with the Greeks. When the Chashmonaim were victorious over the Greeks, the Tzdukkim elected to join the Chashmonaim. They now had to profess to believe in the Torah, they came up with the idea of believing in the Written Torah but not in the Oral Torah or in the words of Chazal.
Matityahu and his sons fought for kedusha, for Torah, for Mitzvos. They were victorious. As we mentioned, when they won then it was not in vogue to be Greek. When Greeks were in power they were Greeks, when Chashmonaim were in power they became Chashmonaim and when the Romans were in power they became Romans. They did not care about olam haba but only about olam hazeh and as we mentioned earlier, we have the true joy of olam hazeh. Unfortunately many generations later the Chashmonaim became Tzdukkim, I am not speaking of the saintly family of Matityahu but generations later, nothing remained. The remnants of this
69
family were eventually killed during the time of Antiochus. Matityahu and his sons had shares in this world as well as in the Next World, while the Tzdukkim forfeited both worlds, by not properly keeping Shabbos and other mitzvos then there is no true life in this world.
We say on Chanukah that Hashem handed over giborim beyad chalashim - the strong at the hands of the weak. The simple explanation is that the Greeks were the powerful ones and with Hashem's help, the Jewish nation managed to overpower them. I would like to suggest another explanation: the weak are the Jews who with great sacrifice kept the mitzvos of Shabbos, Bris Milah, did not eat treifos, and much more. They gave up their lives keeping the Torah. Although they were killed, in the end it was the Torah which was victorious. The Greek Empire is no longer. HaRav Bezalel Zolty zt"l, former Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim, once delivered the following drasha on Shabbos Chanukah. In the Haftarah for that Shabbos there is a pasuk: "lo bechayil velo bekoach ki im beruchi amar Hashem Tzvakos" "Not with prowess nor with strength, but only with My spirit, the Eternal L-rd of Hosts has said" (Zechariah 4:6). Rav Zolty zt"l used to say that he saw this happening in his day. The Russian army was invincible with their tanks and sputniks and everything else. Communism is now long and gone. Who did they feel was their arch-enemy? Judaism - the siddur in the hand of a Jew bothered them more than any weapons of foreign armies. Many were killed keeping mitzvos, but in the end Torah was victorious. The siddur of the Jew defeated Communism. We defeated the Greeks, we defeated the Communists and with Hashem's help it is the spirit of Hashem which will always be victorious.
70
Author: Rabbi Zvi Shiloni Title: Letting Others Know We are Praying for Them
One of the opening psukim in this week's parsha is: "vayetar Yitzchak laHashem lenochach ishto ki akara hee" "Yitzchak entreated Hashem opposite his wife, because she was barren" (Bereishis 24:21). Rashi comments that they prayed together, each standing in a different corner.
My father Shlit"a offers an additional explanation, as there are shivim panim laTorah, seventy faces to the Torah, I would like to share it with you. Interestingly, the posuk does not explicitly state that Rivka pray. Of course we can safely assume that she did but it is not spelled out for us. We are told, however that Yitzchak poured his heart out to Hashem. The Torah writes that Yitzchak prayed lenochach ishto which Rashi interprets to mean opposite his wife. However, says my father, the word nochach can also be interpreted to mean "in front of". Rivka was able to see Yitzchak praying. He did not want her to feel that he did not share her pain - on the contrary, he felt it strongly, and he prayed, for both of them.
In Parshat Lech Lecha we ready of Sarah becoming angry at Avraham following the birth of Yishmael "Sarai said to Avraham: 'the outrage against me is due to you!" (Bereishis 16:5). Was it not Sarah who suggested Avraham's marriage to Hagar? Rashi explains that Sarah's complaint to Avraham was: "When you prayed for children, you prayed only for yourself. You did not pray for the two of us."
Perhaps it was with this in mind that Yitzchak chose to pray in this manner - lenochach ishto - in front of his wife. In this manner she would be able to see him praying.
There is an important lesson here. We must feel our friend's pain and besiege Hashem to help our friend. This sounds beautiful, but this is not sufficient - much more is required. We must make sure that our friend knows that we are praying for him and that we share in his pain. In addition to the value of tefillah, this is very comforting. This is our obligation of sharing the pain of others.
71

Untitled

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Untitled

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Table of Contents

Articles from the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah.org

Articles from the Marcos and Adina Katz YUTorah.org

Parashat Toldot 5766

Insights into Torah and Halacha from Rav Ozer Glickman :

Riding the Spanish Jitney with the Malbim

A Literary Solution to the Name Variations of Esau's Wives

BASEMATH DAUGHTER OF ISHMAEL SISTER OF NEBAIOTH

The Solutions of Traditional Jewish Exegesis

Critique of the Solutions of Traditional Jewish Exegesis

Towards a Literary, Plain-Sense Solution

11. 12. 13.

Author: Rabbi Ally Ehrman Title: Davening Should Be Smoking

Author: Rabbi Maury Grebenau Title: A Well Tread Path

A Well Tread Path

awril zn` ozz

awril zn` ozz

awril zn` ozz

awril zn` ozz

Author: Leora Perlow Title: The Warrior Gene Exemplified in Esau

THE WARRIOR GENE EXEMPLIFIED IN ESAU

Author: Leora Perlow Title: The Warrior Gene Exemplified in Esau

Author: Leora Perlow Title: The Warrior Gene Exemplified in Esau

Author: Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Title: Toldot: Spiritual Continuity

Author: Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Title: Toldot: Spiritual Continuity

But they were wrong.

Author: Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Title: Toldot: Spiritual Continuity

Author: Rabbi Michael Taubes Title: Stealing a Mitzvah

Author: Rabbi Michael Taubes Title: Stealing a Mitzvah

. " ' "

" ' ' ):( "

' " ", .

", " )" '(

" " " , " ." . ' "

. , ' " "

" " ' " ,

, " " ". " ., . "

" , . " . " " " " , ,

" , , " ", , . " "

Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev

Five Years from Avraham

DRS OPEN HOUSE!!!! This Sunday, November 7th, at 1:30 p.m

PARSHAS TOLDOS 29 CHESHVAN, 5771 NOVEMBER 6, 2010

Candle Lighting: 5:28 pm Latest 22:9 : am Ends: 6:28 pm

This weeks issue of

A Righteous and Perfect Man

Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev

from the Shiurim of HaRav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik

(Stories of GreatnessContinued from page 2)

Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev

Buying Beans and A Lot More

Even Eruv Tavshilin

(Stories of GreatnessContinued from page 4)

Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev

By David Weitz, 12th Grade

c"kv in ohtmuhv ohrcs

LETS STUDY ONKELOS

EXTOLLING ISRAELITE ANCESTORS

All page numbers refer to the Onkelos on the Torah volume.

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Author: Rabbi Shmuel Goldin Title: Another Covenant?

Author: Rabbi Shmuel Goldin Title: Another Covenant?

Author: Rabbi Shmuel Goldin Title: Another Covenant?