Rabbi Baruch Simon

In this week’s parasha, the Torah describes Yaakov Avinu's purchase of the birthright from Esav. The Rambam explains that although the monetary benefit of a double portion was applicable only after matan Torah, the birthright did bear some significance prior to that event, as well. Upon his father's demise, the bchor - eldest son acquires certain privileges previously afforded to his father. The Ibn Ezra comments that these included such gestures as requiring the other siblings to stand in his presence, in addition to the physical service which they must provide him.

The Ran (Drasha 2) explains Yaakov Avinu’s motivation to buy the birthright from Esav. The Talmud (Bava Batra 16b) relates that this transaction occurred on the same day that Avraham Avinu died. The lentil soup Yaakov was preparing constituted the seudos havra'ah - the mourner’s meal - served by Yaakov to his father. The Ran explains that Esav entered the house of mourning without the appropriate reverence or sadness. Rather, his request of soup revealed his true essence as an arrogant individual interested solely in alleviating his hunger pangs.

It was at this point, explains the Ran, that Yaakov realized that Esav could not possibly be a true heir to Yitzchak. The bchor achieves his status because of his similarity to his father and is therefore considered his father’s successor. A son who exhibits no respect for his ancestors does not express this similarity and therefore, cannot be responsible for representing the family in the following generation. Thus, Yaakov was convinced of the immediate necessity of his assuming this role of family representative.

In this capacity, Yaakov becomes the next link in our tradition; his duty is to imbue himself with the learning and values of his forefathers and to transfer them to the succeeding generations. Yaakov's ultimate success in this task is attested to by his reaching the level of having mitaso shleimah (see Rashi on Breishis (47, 31). All his children were committed to the values and beliefs that he espoused.

Like the birthright, the experience of learning Torah is essential to transmitting our tradition. The Torah of one generation imbues the generation following it with the learning and values of our forefathers. May we be zoche to succeed in our endeavor to receive and convey the tradition of Yaakov.

David S. Feinberg

The sibling rivalry found in our parsha begins even before the twins are born. Rivkah senses their quarreling and, upon inquiring, is told that there are twins in her womb which will develop into two disparate - even rival - nations (Bereishis 25; 22-23). In fact, Chazal, in numerous places, give explanations for the odd terminology found here in the pesukim that explain the nature of the relationship of the nations developing out of Ya'akov and Eisav. In Pesachim 42b, it says that if one is full (in power) the other is in ruins, quoting the terminology found in our Parsha - U'le'om Mi'le'om Ye'ematz. In Megilah 6a, the Gemara warns that if one is told, regarding Keisari and Yerushalayim, (these two places represent Eisav, from which the Romans descended, Keisar being the capitol of Rome in Israel, and Ya'akov, represented by Yerushalayim, the capitol and most holy place for Ya'akov's descendants) that they are both standing, or both in ruins, not to believe it. Yet, if one is told that one is standing and the other is in ruins, one should believe such a statement. Thus, we see that the struggle between Ya'akov and Eisav, is a unique one, whereby neither nation can stand together. (There isn't room in this world for the two of us.) Rashi, on these words, states "Lo Nismal'ah Tzur Ela Michurbanah Shel Yerushalayim" - Tzur (refering to the kingdom of Eisav) was only reinstated upon the destruction of Yerushalayim.

It is, therefore, quite understandable that ideas - even terms - found in Parshas Toldos (where we are introduced to this sibling struggle, which becomes a struggle between nations) parallel terms found later in Tanach, involving descendants of Ya'akov and Eisav. (Furthermore, there is a concept known as Ma'aseh Avos Siman La'banim - the actions of our forefathers are a sign - foreshadowing - for the sons; this idea should certainly seem evident in the following parallels.) There are two incidents in Parshas Toldos in which Ya'akov and Eisav are entangled, (not including the time they spent in their mother's womb,) the selling of the birthright and Ya'akov's taking of the blessings. In both occurrences, Yaakov comes out with the upper hand. In both a parallel can be found in Megillas Ester, in reference to Mordechai and Haman, descendants of Ya'akov and Eisav.

When Eisav returns to the house famished and asks Ya'akov to feed him, he says "Hal'iteini Na Min…" (- give me some of this food) (25:30). The Ba'al HaTurim points out that the first letters of those three words spell Haman, a detail which, if understood independently, seems quite out of place. Of what significance is it that Haman is hinted to in this posuk? As the story progresses, and Ya'akov finally sells the dish to Eisav, who then eats it, the posuk tells us "VaYivez Eisav Es HaB'chorah" - and Eisav spurned the birthright (25:34). The Meforshim condemn Eisav, and point out that this posuk is here to show us that Eisav was aware of what he was doing when he sold the birthright; he simply didn't care for it, accentuating how terrible a Rasha he was. The Ba'al HaTurim, again, makes reference to Haman. Megillas Ester states "VaYivez B'Einav Lishlo'ach Yad B'Mordechai…" (3:6) to explain the feelings Haman had toward Mordechai upon his refusal to bow to him as everyone else had. One cannot ignore the striking parallel of the verb VaYivez, describing both Haman and his ancestor, Eisav. The Ba'al HaTurim's referencing Haman seems so much more appropriate in light of the fact that in Megillah 15a-15b, the Gemara and Rashi indicate that the frustration generated in Haman was over the fact that everyone bowed down to him except for Mordechai, who had good reason not to. Rashi comments that Haman had previously sold himself to Mordechai as a slave for a loaf of bread at a time when Haman was poor. It seems to be no accident that the same terminology is found in both of these to stories.

Eisav's second appearance in Parshas Toldos, also involving Ya'akov overcoming him, is when he finds out that Ya'akov 'stole' his B'rachah. He is enraged and screams out, "VaYitz'ak Tz'akah G'dolah U'Marah Ad Me'od" - and he screamed a very great and bitter cry (27; 34), a very similar phrase to that of "VaYiz'ak Z'akah G'dolah U'Marah" (Meg. Ester 4:1) describing Mordechai's cry upon hearing of Haman's evil decree.

With only the difference of one letter, and seemingly little difference in meaning (both Tz'akah and Z'akah mean a cry) it seems as if Mordechai's cry is paralleled with that of Haman's; it almost seems as if because of Eisav's cry, many generations later Mordechai, a Jew, must cry. Unlike the birthright, which Eisav sold to Ya'akov and even took oath to, the blessings were stolen from Eisav. This grieved Eisav enough to plan on killing Ya'akov after their father died (27: 41). Eisav never does kill Ya'akov, though he attempted to by sending his nephew to kill him; however, many years later, Haman attempts to kill the Jews, and, in response, Mordechai emits a cry.

(It is interesting to note that Yitzchak's immediate response to Eisav is that he can't do anything about the situation. In Yitzchak's response, "Hein G'vir Samtiv Lach V'es Kol Echov Nasati Lo La'Avadim," he is saying, essentially, that Eisav is a slave to Ya'akov, and, as the Rashbam points out, Mah SheKonoh Eved Konoh Rabo - whatever the slave acquires belongs to the master. What point is there in blessing Eisav if he cannot ultimately hold onto it anyway? In light of this, it seems quite interesting to find that Haman sold himself to Mordechai as a slave. Furthermore, as Megillas Ester ends, it turns out that whatever riches and position Haman had, Mordechai received.)

There is, however, a significant difference between the two words "Tz'akah" and "Z'akah," which perhaps could shed insight as to the difference in the nature of the cries of Eisav and Mordechai. Although both words may be translated as a cry, they have different connotations; Tz'akah is a particularly thunderous scream, , while Z'akah denotes an internal, grievous cry, which need not be voiced. Eisav had to voice his cry because his whole persona was one in which the external does not match the internal; he was interested in the external appearance, highlighted by the special external garment that he would wear to trick his father into thinking that he was something other than he truly was. In fact, his cry came at the realization that his brother had stolen his blessing; he was concerned with his honor, an external thing. Mordechai's Z'akah, however, was different in nature, in that he was crying out of distress for the immediate threat to the future of his people. He, as a leader of the Jewish people, felt a national distress, not simply a personal one. His Z'akah, was not necessarily loud, or even voiced. Chazal tell us, in fact, that it is preferred to pray in a whisper as Chanah did, and that one who prays (Shemonah Esrei) out loud is considered to be of little belief. (The Maharal writes in Netiv HaAvodah that a whisper is more spiritual.) Thus, Mordechai's Z'akah was a much more spiritual and meaningful one than Eisav's Tz'akah.

It seems clear that the terminology found in Megillas Ester reminds us of Parshas Toldos. The Ba'al HaTurim doesn't make reference to Haman without reason. It is important that we keep in mind the nature of the Ya'akov-Eisav struggle. Just as our enemies took power when the Jews didn't identify themselves with the Torah properly in the times of Megillas Ester, so too has been the case in other instances in our history. However, when the Jews did do proper T'shuva, Mordechai took over everything that Haman had owned, and we overcame our enemy. The Ya'akov-Eisav struggle never ended in Sefer B'reishis; it continues onward until we end it.

Alex Usdan

There is a very strange Rashi at the end of this week's Parsha. Rashi, on the first pasuk of sh'vii comments on the phrase Eim Yaakov V'Esav, the mother of Yaakov and Esav, and says, "I don't know what this is coming to teach us." Even if this isn't the only occurrence where Rashi makes such a comment, it is definitely one of the few. What is Rashi trying to say and if he really didn't know what the pasuk was teaching us why is he commenting at all? After all, there are many p'sukim in the Torah where Rashi doesn't offer an explanation because he felt that at least on a pshat level the meaning was obvious to the reader.

The Siftei Chachamim answers this question while teaching us an important lesson. He explains that really Rashi knew many explanations to answer the difficulty in the pasuk. However, since he didn't know which was the "true" one, he refrained from answering and was content with leaving a clue to alert the reader to the existence of a problem. This is especially significant to us; even though we learn every day and may think that we must always have all the answers, we see from Rashi that its alright to say "I don't know."

The question that still remains is what is the difficulty in the pasuk? Seemingly, the difficulty lies in the significance of mentioning the mother-son relationship between Rivka and Esav. If one analyzes the parsha it appears as though Rivka's relationship with her eldest son, Esav, was not a good one. This is evident in several instances. Firstly, it is striking that the Torah doesn't record a single episode of dialogue between Rivka and Esav. Secondly, the Torah says that "Yitzchak loved Esav… but Rivka loved Yaakov" (25:28). Finally, after Yitzchak asks Esav to go bring him tzayid so that he will bless him, it says that Rivka heard Yitzchak speaking to his son, Esav. Wasn't Esav her son too?! Maybe this is what our pasuk is coming to teach us. Basically, no matter the impression received from the psukim, Rivka was still the mother of Esav.

The Tur al-HaTorah, in trying to explain what the words Eim Yaakov V'Esav have to do with sending Yaakov away, explains the pasuk along similar lines. Rivka suggested that Yaakov leave because she feared that Yaakov and Esav might kill each other; being their mother, she was concerned for both of them. It is interesting that the Tur uses the word Rachma. While we may associate this word with the trait of Rachmanut- mercy, a more appropriate translation may be the one often given by the Targum- love. (see Targum on 25:28) It was because Rivka loved both Yaakov and Esav that she concluded it would be best if they went their separate ways. Only this type of maternal love could account for Rivka's concern for Esav, a flagrant idol worshipper and murderer. The Tur may have even used the word rachma as related to the word rechem, meaning womb. In other words, this love was unique in the fact that it was forged in the womb and therefore could not be undone by even the lowest deeds of Esav.

There is one instance where the relationship between Rivka and Esav really stands out. In a strange turn of events, Rivka devises a deceitful plan to trick Yitzchak into giving the brachot to Yaakov instead of Esav. This act of deception is amazingly consistent with Esav's character-Tzayid b'fiv. (25:28) Although it is true that they shared the same character trait of taking the initiative, they differed in the way they put it to use. Esav used it to murder and rob, while Rivka used it to have the brachot bestowed upon the proper son. It is important to realize that this phenomenon holds true to all kochot in the world. Namely, that the same kochot used for evil, if directed in the proper way, can be used for good. May Hashem give us the strength to succeed in this challenge.

Michael Gewirtz

Immediately preceding the story of Yitzchak’s blessing his two sons, the Torah records that Eisav married two Hittite women, seemingly to provide an additional reason that Yaakov was more deserving of his father's blessing. Why would Eisav do this? Did he not realize the severe repercussions this would have with his parents, especially considering that he intentionally wedded at age 40 to match his father’s age of marriage, as Rashi notes. Additionally, we must ask whether Eisav’s marriage to women who did not come from Terach’s lineage, resulting in children of tainted lineage, could disqualify him from receiving the "blessing of Avraham".

From Avraham’s discussion with Hashem in Chapter 17 (15-20) when Hashem revealed that he will be born a son from Sarah, it appears that Avraham did not believe that his child need be a maternal descendant of Terach. Avraham seemed content to have Yishmael, the son of Hagar, "live before" Hashem. One might conclude from Hashem’s response that Avraham’s assumption was incorrect, and his descendants must come bilaterally from Terach. This might be why the Gemarah in Megillah (14a) wants to conclude that the Yischah, the granddaughter of Terach mentioned in 11:29, is in fact Sarah. There might, however, be some ancillary reason why Hashem saw it fit for Sarah’s descendant to carry on the blessing.

Furthermore, we find that when Avraham decides it is time for Yitzchak to be wed, he does not allow his servant to choose Yitzchak a Canaanite wife, rather commands Eliezer to travel to his homeland and find a suitable wife for Yitzchak. Once again, we might conclude that it was necessary for Yitzchak to marry a Terachite woman in order to be considered worthy of the blessing. However, in Eisav’s defense, it might just have been the shy and passive personality of Yitzchak which committed his father to find him a wife that would not negatively influence him, like a Canaanite may have; the requirements for the blessing, therefore, played little role in Avraham’s decision to look homeward for an appropriate wife for his son.

Lastly, at the end of this week's Parsha, Yitzchak commands his son, Yaakov, to go to "Paddan-aram, to the house of Betuel" to find a wife, and does not permit him to choose a wife from the local women like his brother Eisav had. Was this merely a precautionary measure to save Yaakov from certain death at the hands of his older brother, or might this have been Yitzchak’s way of insuring Yaakov’s proper right to the blessings he had just stolen from Eisav?

While it is difficult to conclude that Eisav’s marriage to Hittite women precluded him from receiving the "blessing of Avraham," it certainly didn't help any, and may have given Yitzchak some solace, that his misdirected blessing ended up in the right hands. However, Eisav’s decision to live outside of Eretz Yisrael certainly eliminated his being worthy of Avraham's blessing.