Commentary for Genesis 25:35

קטורה KETURAH — This is Hagar. She was named Keturah because her deeds were as beautiful (sweet) as incense (Ketoreth) (Genesis Rabbah 61). And since she closed her 'opening,' as she did not mate with anyone from the time she separated from Avraham (Genesis Rabbah 61:4).

קטורה, according to the plain meaning of the text this woman was not identical with Hagar.

Avraham again took. The word vayosef — “again” — has connotations of continuing a previous relationship, hinting that this was the second time he married her. Keturah. See Rashi. Avraham named her in honor of the holy incense to make it known that she had repented fully after having lapsed into idolatry, so that now even her former deeds ascended to Heaven like the incense.

ויסף אברהם, he took another wife although he already had had two wives. He meant to continue siring children in his old age in order to comply with the blessing/command to increase the world’s population. Seeing that the continuity of his own seed [the Jewish people having originated in seed from both a Jewish father and a Jewish other, Ed.] had been assured, he was not concerned with the antecedents of Keturah. We can be certain, however, that he selected a woman who personally possessed all the good qualities he would have desired also for a wife for his son. The only thing he did not insist on was such a woman’s national background. He was certainly not looking for experiencing disappointments with any children from Keturah, having experienced enough disappointment with Ishmael. We may safely assume that Keturah was not of Canaanitic descent, seeing that even Hagar the Egyptian had not been of such descent. (compare 17,3) Keturah was not a concubine, This is why the Torah writes ויקח אשה, as apposed to the mention of פלגשים, concubines, (verse 5). The sons of the concubines are not mentioned by name whereas the sons of Keturah are all mentioned by their names. This fact alone clearly shows that their status was superior to the sons of Avraham’s concubines. The essential difference between a wife and a concubine is that though both are exclusive partners of the men with whom they live, the former, when becoming wives, underwent the ceremony known as chuppah, and the union was celebrated with a wedding party, whereas a concubine was not accorded all this pomp and ceremony. [after the Torah was given, the essential; difference in status was that no financial settlement, ketuvah, was made when a concubine was taken by a man as his companion.

ושמה קטורה, “whose name was Keturah.” Rashi claims that Keturah was identical with Hagar, who appears in a new guise. Her new name reflected her new and improved attitudes, comparable to the incense offered on the altar, the most beloved of Israel’s sacrificial offerings. In order to reconcile this comment with what Rashi had written on Genesis 21,14 where Hagar is described as ותלך ותתע, as returning to the idolatrous practices she had absorbed in her home as a child, we would have to postulate that in the interval she had become a penitent. Although she was of Egyptian origin [and therefore no better than a Canaanite from the point of view of Avraham’s criteria for intermarriage Ed.] she was not only of perfectly good character, but seeing that the first time Avraham had married he had done so with Divine approval, she was now also permissible to him as a wife. I have seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah 61,4 that even at this stage Avraham married her at G’d’s instructions This is why the Torah wrote ויוסף אברהם ויקח, “he again married, etc.” The word ויוסף is to tell us that just as it had been with G’d’s approval that he had married Hagar the first time, he still enjoyed G’d’s approval when he took her back. The Midrash describes an argument between two scholars of the Talmud who debated this subject.

Because her deeds were as beautiful as קטורת. But [the first explanation] raises a question: Why was she not named Ketores? Thus Rashi offers the [second] explanation: “Because she ‘tied her womb.’” And the second explanation raises a question: Why was she not named Keshurah, which means “tied” in Hebrew, instead of Keturah, which means “tied” in Aramaic? Therefore, Rashi offers the first explanation. (Maharshal)

Dass Abraham sich wieder verheiratete, ist schon deshalb nicht auffallend, weil er ja noch fünfunddreißig Jahre nach Saras Tode lebte, mehr als die jetzt durchschnittliche Dauer einer Ehe. Außerdem ist ja, nach dem Worte der Weisen, der Mann nicht "ganz" wenn ohne Frau, die Aufgabe eines Menschen ist jederzeit zu groß, als dass sie von einem allein voll gelöst werden könnte. Unter Ketura wäre nach R. Jehuda (ב"ר) Hagar zu verstehen, also dasselbe Weib, das ihm Sara zugeführt. Dabei ist nicht zu übersehen, wie rein und menschlich die Weisen ein Verhältnis auffassen, das später so trüb und betrübend erscheint. Jizchak, sagen sie, sei nach dem Brunnen an der Wüste hingegangen, um seinem Vater von dort selbst Hagar, seine, wie wir es nennen, seine "Stiefmutter", zuzuführen! Und er hatte doch seine Mutter so lieb gehabt! Und er war doch, als er dort hinging, noch untröstlich über den Heimgang seiner Mutter! Mag man dies nun als historische Tatsache, oder als Lehrandeutung fassen, so bekundet es ja, in letzterem Falle sogar noch mehr, die Anschauung, die der Zeit unserer Weisen eigen war. Wie tief sinkt dagegen selbst unsere Gegenwart herab, in welcher eine zweite Frau das Verhältnis von erwachsenen Kindern zum Vater gespannt, wenn nicht gar feindlich zu gestalten pflegt! Nach R. Jehuda hieße das ויוסף ויקה, er nahm wieder, und zwar על פי דבור in Folge eines Geheißes desselben göttlichen Wortes, das früher ihm Sara Folge zu leisten geboten, die ihre Entlassung von ihm gefordert. Hagar habe seitdem als קטר) קטורה chaldäisch Knoten) verschlossen und einsam, ohne weitere Verbindung mit einem Manne, gelebt, woher ihr Name (auch Hagar, verwandt mit חגר ,אגר, bedeutet ähnliches), sonst hätte sie wohl auch Abraham nicht wieder nehmen dürfen.

ויקח אשה ושמה קטורה, “he married a wife whose name was Keturah.” Although in years to come, Israelites were not permitted to marry Egyptians, seeing that the Torah decreed in Deuteronomy that only commencing with the third generation after conversion were Egyptians acceptable as potential marriage partners, even if it was Hagar who had been converted, the fact that her father was Pharaoh that made her only a second generation even if we consider him as a first generation convert. According to B’reshit Rabbah 61,4, Avraham married her at the express command by G–d.

ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה, “Avraham continued life as usual by taking a wife;” this is a reference to Hagar who now had a another name, Keturah. We find a similar formulation to the above in Isaiah 8,5: ויוסף ה' דבר אלי עוד, “the Lord continued by speaking to me again;” the Torah wished to teach us civilised norms by reporting this, i.e. that when widower’s sons have grown up but have not married yet, he should wait with remarrying until his children are married. (According to matnot kehunah in Breshit Rabbah the apparently superfluous word ויוסף, “he continued,” is to teach us that it was the same woman to whom he had been married once before, i.e. Hagar.) In order to make the point that a widower under the right conditions is to marry again is why the above line has been written immediately after the Torah had reported the marriage of Yitzchok to Rivkah.

Did not mate with any man from... she separated from Avraham. [You might ask: Why were her deeds so beautiful?] Rashi explained above (21:14), “She returned to her family’s idolatry”! The answer is: She had in mind to return to idolatry because she thought, “Since I was rejected from the House of Avraham, his God has also left me.” But when she saw the miracle of the well for her son, and the angel revealing himself to her, she did not abandon Hashem. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

ושמה קטורה, “whose name was Keturah; Rashi comments on this that her name now was קטורה as her good deeds were comparable to the incense, קטורת later on offered twice daily in the Holy Temple. To your question that this appears to contradict what we have read in Rashi’s own commentary on Genesis 21,14 ותלך ותתע, that Hagar had returned to the idolatrous practices she had learned in her father’s house, you will have to say that in the many years since then (over 40 years) she had become a penitent, and on account of that her name had been changed by the Torah. According to the plain meaning of the text, Keturah is not identical with Hagar. (Rash’bam).

.ותלד לו את זמרן, she raised them in his house, similar to the “five sons of Michal” who raised the children of her sister Merav who had died at an early age, and had born those to Adriel (compare Samuel II 21,8) Michal had no children of her own at all. Although Avraham had personally only sired Ishmael and Yitzchok, he had adopted these children as seems clear from Chronicles I 28, and 32.

ותלד לו את זמרן,”she bore Zimron for him.” Concerning Isaiah 29,22 אשר פדה אברהם, “who redeemed Avraham,” which according to our sages means that Avraham was freed from the burden of raising children, and which seems incompatible with the fact that he had to raise 6 children by Keturah, apart from the fact that most fathers enjoy having many children to raise, we must assume that what the author of that comment had in mind was that Avraham dd not have to experience the problems his grandson Yaakov faced when his son Joseph went missing, when his daughter Dinah was raped, and when various of his sons at different times behaved in a manner unacceptable to him.

THE FIRST ONE EMERGED RED [...]; THEN HIS BROTHER EMERGED. The Midrash states that the reason that Esau emerged first is so that his afterbirth (refuse) would emerge with him. R’ Abahu said, like the bathing master who first scours the bath and then afterwards the king’s son bathes. One can understand the intent of this statement and the allegory that R’ Abahu gave and what additional information he conveyed with the allegory. In all circumstances, the first is the most important and the foundation of what comes after, The first is also greater in stature than the second. This is the significance of the firstborn. However, when one considers BT Pesachim (5a) where a distinction is made in the gemara between where “first” is written by itself and where “first” is written with a “heh ha’yedi’a” (the first.) “First” without the “heh” means literally first and what comes after is subordinate to it. (The gemara is talking about a case) where the first day of the holiday is the most important day and the days that follow are subordinate to it, but where “first” is written with the “heh” (“the first”) it means earlier (but not necessarily most important.) See the verse (Exodus 12:15) which states “on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” that the gemara establishes is referring to the day before Passover and not the first day of Passover, because “the first” implies ordering (and not importance) as in Job (15:7) – “Were you the first man born?” It makes no sense to says that the day before Passover is the most important and the first day of Passover is secondary to it; what is meant is merely that it is before Passover and after it comes the first day of Passover. For example, when a king travels, he is the first in the procession and his minister comes behind him; the king is called “first”. It is known, however, that the king’s servants travel before the king’s procession to clear the way and to announce his arrival; it makes no sense to say that they go first and the king goes after them and is subordinate to them; they are not called “first,” they merely travel earlier and are called “the first” with a “heh.” Afterwards, the king travels in the front of the procession. It makes no sense to say the king is in procession after them; he is only traveling behind them so that they can do their job to clear the way or to give honor to the king (by announcing his arrival.) This is why the verse is exact with regard to Esau since the word “first” is not written, just “the first emerged” (with a “heh”, implying order and not importance.) Esau is not called “first” to imply that Jacob was subordinate to him, he is just called “the first” to imply birth order. Similarly, the verse does not say “after him his brother emerged” because this would imply that he was subordinate to Esau. The verse instead say “afterwards his bother emerged”, that is, after Esau emerged and performed his function by emerging first (to remove the afterbirth and refuse) Jacob emerged. This is the question being answered by the Midrash as to what purpose was served by Esau emerging first; the Midrash answers to clean the way so that Jacob would be clean when he emerged because Esau had emerged and brought the afterbirth and refuse with him. R’ Abahu then gives the allegory “like the bathing master who first scours the bath and then afterwards the king’s son bathes” to say that after to work that the bathing master did to clean the bath, (it is fit for the king’s son to bathe.) I saw some a similar idea in the book “Beit David”, see there. At the outset of their birth, the prophecy of Shem and Ever was fulfilled; they had said to Rivka that the older (“rav”) would perform serve the younger (“tzair”). At the outset of their emerging, Esau did a service for Jacob. This is why they did not say “the firstborn” (bekhor) will serve the younger. Similar to the language of scripture in a number of other places where firstborn (“bekhor”) is used in comparison to younger “tzair”, (for example Exodus 43:33.) In truth, Esau was not the firstborn, Jacob was, since he was conceived first. A similar allegory is brought in the midrash:; two pearls are placed in a vial – the pearl that was placed in the vial second comes out first. Esau is called older “rav” since he was born first, and he will serve the younger brother who is the firstborn (“bekhor”).

אשורם ולטושם The names of chieftains of clans (Genesis Rabbah 61:5). As regards the translation of Onkelos I cannot make it fit in exactly with the words of the text. He explains אשורם by למשירין which means “camps” (cf. שיירא a caravan). If you say that this cannot be correct on account of the א in אשורם which is not a root letter in the word from which משירין is derived (whilst in אשורם we have an א) then I would reply that we find some words which should have no א at the beginning, but still א is placed before them. Such are אנך in (Amos 7:7) “a wall made by a plumbline (אנך)”, where the word is of the same root as נכה in (2 Samuel 4:4) “stricken (נכה) in his feet”, and אסוך, a cruse containing anointing oil, in (2 Kings 4:2) “a pot (אסוך) of oil” which is of the same root as וסכת in (Ruth 3:3) “wash thyself and (וסכת) annoint thyself”.

ASSHURIM, AND LETUSHIM, AND LEUMMIM. Rashi comments: “These were the names of clan chieftains. But I cannot reconcile Onkelos’ translation with the language of the text.”¹⁵⁰Onkelos translates Asshurim as meaning “camps,” Letushim as “owners of tents who spread about in all directions,” and Leumim as “islands” or “sea-districts.” Upon this Rashi comments that he cannot make Onkelos’ translation fit in exactly with the words of the text. Ramban now proceeds to explain Onkelos’ understanding on the verse and also the reason why he was forced to make this translation.
It appears to me that Onkelos was of the opinion that Asshurim means camps, companies that travel the roads from city to city, just as it says, a company of Ishmaelites.¹⁵¹Further, 37:25. Onkelos thus considered Asshurim as being derived from the expressions, To His steps (‘ba’ashuro’) hath my foot held fast;¹⁵²Job 23:11. His steps (‘ashurav’) do not slide.¹⁵³Psalms 37:31. And Onkelos’ opinion of Letushim is that they are the ones who dwell in tents that are scattered over the face of the earth, resting today in one place and tomorrow in another, for the letter lamed and nun interchange in many places, [thus Letushim would be like Netushim (scattered ones)] just like lishchah and nishchah,¹⁵⁴Nehemiah 13:7. [both of which mean “chamber”]; And on that day men were appointed over ‘haneshachoth’ (the chambers).¹⁵⁵Ibid., 12:44. From this root is derived the expression, a sword ‘netushah,’¹⁵⁶Isaiah 21:15. which is the same as letushah (sharpened). And of the word Le’ummim Onkelos said ulenagvon, [which is Aramaic for the Hebrew word] iyim (islands).¹⁵⁷See Isaiah 41:1 and Targum.
Onkelos was stirred to this translation by the word hayu [and the children of Dedan ‘hayu’ (were) Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim], when it would have been proper to express it similarly to the verse, And Mitzraim begot Ludim, and Ananim, and Lehabim, and Naphtihim.¹⁵⁸Above, 10:13.
And in Bereshith Rabbah we find:¹⁵⁹61:4. “Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though we translate these names and say, ‘Merchants, flaming ones, and heads of peoples,’ all of them were heads of peoples.” The matter is as I have explained. The translators rendered Asshurim as “merchants, those who walk the road.” From the word Letushim (sharp, shiny) they derived “men of wickedness,” their faces are faces of flame,¹⁶⁰Isaiah 13:8. burning as torches, from the roots: to sharpen ( liltosh ) his plowshare, and his coulter;¹⁶¹I Samuel 13:20. He sharpened ( yiltosh ) his eyes upon me.¹⁶²Job 16:9. But Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though they are accustomed to thus translate these names, they are still only the proper names of the heads of people, there being no descriptive name among them at all. And such is the case.

ויקשן, The Torah mentions only some of the children of Keturah’s sons. In the case of Yokshon even a grandson of Keturah is mentioned. Altogether the Torah mentions by name 16 such sons and grandsons. We are hard-pressed to know the reason for the Torah’s selectivity in mentioning only part of the many grandsons, etc. Perhaps those whom Avraham or at least Keturah still knew before they died, are mentioned by name, whereas those who were born by his/her sons after he had died were not mentioned. Considering that Avraham had married Keturah when he was 140 years old or older, he lived for only another 35 years, it would have been unlikely that he saw grandchildren from Keturah, considering that we have no record of anyone marrying below the age of 29 in those days.

אשורים ולטושים ולאומים. According to Rashi these are all names of the eventual nations they developed into. Personally, I fail to reconcile what Onkelos says on these name with the wording of the text. Nachmanides writes that he understands Onkelos as saying that אשורים are camps and caravans which move from city to city, similar tote caravans of Ishmaelite traders described in the story of the sale of Joseph. The word is related to Job 23,11 באשורו אחזה רגלי, “I have followed in his tracks.” The word לטושים he understands as referring to Bedouins, dwellers in tents, instead of people housed in permanent structures. These are apt to be abandoned in time of need. The letter ל and נ are often used interchangeably as in נשכה instead of לשכה.”office.” (Nechemyah 13,7) Onkelos translates לאומים as נגון, i.e. a word meaning “islands.” (island dwellers) Probably Onkelos was alerted to the change in the text from יקשן ילד, “Yakshon sired,” to בני דן היו instead of בני דן ילדו, to see in the three wordsאשורים, ולטושים, and ולאומים something other than additional offspring. We would have expected a formulation parallel to Genesis 10,13 ומצרים ילד.

The name of the heads of nations. I.e., from one of Dedan’s sons descended all the Ashurim, and so from the second one [descended all the Letushim]. Otherwise, it should say Ashur and Latush, [in singular]. (Re’m) But Gur Aryeh explains: Otherwise it should say ובני דדן אשורים ולטושים. Why does it say היו? Perforce, because they are “the name of the heads of nations.”

אשורם usw. scheinen, wie auch nach Onkelos, nicht Eigennamen, sondern ihren Nationalcharakter ausdrückende Gattungsnamen zu sein. אשר geradhin schreitend, wovon אשורים, die geradhin gerichteten Schritte. לטש ,לטושים schärfen, Geschärfte, vielleicht einzeln gerüstet Lebende, die zu ihrer Verteidigung sich selbst genug waren.

אשורים, the name given to tent-dwelling nomads. לטושים, people who live scattered, and do not form a cohesive civilisation. The meaning is similar to the word נטושים people who have been abandoned on the fields, the letter נ having been exchanged by the letter ל.

The לטושים (according to Onkelos) are owners of tents who spread about in all directions and travel about each in the “tents of his palace” (Rashi uses a Biblical phrase (Daniel 11:45), but he means nothing more than “each in his own tent”). Indeed Scripture says (1 Samuel 30:16) “Behold they were spread (נטושים) over all the ground”, for ל and נ may interchange (so that לטושים is equivalent to נטושים).

אשורים ולטושים ולאמים, we do not know why the names of these three sons appear with the plural ending ים at the end. Possibly, these sons knew why they had been named thus. It is interesting that מצרים, a son of Cham, also gave his sons names ending with the ים plural ending. According to Onkelos, the names mentioned here were not their real names, as he translates their names as למשריין, ולשכונין, ולנגון.

ויתן, he distributed his wealth during his lifetime in order to forestall quarrels about his inheritance after his death. כל אשר לו ליצחק, he had appointed Yitzchok as his heir as he had been commanded to do by G’d when Ishmael had been expelled. (21,12) Anything the other sons received was in the nature of “gifts,” not “inheritance.”

AND ויתן אברהם וגו AND ABRAHAM GAVE etc. — R. Nehemiah said, he gave him the blessing as a legacy (literally, will, testament). The Holy One, blessed be He, had said to Abraham (12:2) “Be thou a blessing” which means “the blessing are entrusted to you that you may bless whomsoever you please”, and Abraham transferred them to Isaac (cf. Genesis Rabbah 61:6).

ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק, “Avraham deeded all that was his to Yitzchok. Some people question this procedure, basing themselves on Ketuvot 53 where the Talmud rules that a father must not re-allocate part of his estate from a son who is morally unfit to one who has developed morally and ethically to his liking, seeing he does not know how the grandson from either son will turn out. It is stated there that a convert the son of Hagar, i.e. a slave woman, cannot inherit at any rate, as whatever is his belongs to his master. Whereas this is a good answer concerning the status of Yishmael, it leaves unanswered the question how Avraham could disinherit the sons of Keturah. I believe that there is no difficulty at all, seeing the Torah had told Avraham specifically that his seed will only be known through Yitzchok, i.e. that Yitzchok will be his only heir. It does not mean that the other sons were intrinsically unfit because of their character or some other impediment, According to Rashi, quoting Sanhedrin 91, Avraham handed to these sons שם טומאה, i.e. seeing they referred to their idols by the sacred name of the Creator, he taught them to refer to these idols by some other name. It is also possible that the meaning of this strange sounding comment by the Talmud is that he informed them of a name for G’d which it is permissible to use even in their state of ritual impurity. All this, because he observed that these sons of Keturah were practicing different forms of idolatry and worshipping those idols. The reason that these sons of Avraham also practiced this form of idolatry was their being so anxious to obtain information about their impending fate, something which the religion of their time promised to have for those who practiced their cults. By informing them of this name for the true G’d, he told them that by invoking it they would become privy to knowledge of the future. [According to the Maharal from Prague the reason Avraham taught his sons the “names” of these idolatries, i.e. the essence of their teachings, was to enable them to counter the damaging influence the power of these demons exercised upon them. According to the author of the כתב והקבלה, Rabbi Mecklenburg, the מתנות, “gifts” Avraham gave to his sons was the know how to protect themselves against the insidious influence of the various religious cults prevalent in their neighborhood.. Ed.]

He gave him ברכת דייתיקי. [According to the first approach, ברכת דייתיקי means “the blessing of Hashem,” and] Rashi is answering the question: Did not Avraham already give Yitzchok all he had (see Rashi on 24:10)? The word דייתיקי comes from עתיק יומין, which means “Hashem.” Alternatively, דייתיקי comprises three words, דאי תהא קאי, and means, “the gift will be established.” In other words, Avraham now gave Yitzchok active possession of the property he had previously granted him.

ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק, “Avraham gave all that was his to Yitzchok.” How could he have done so, seeing that the Talmud in tractate Baba batra folio 133 denies a father the right to transfer his estate even from a unworthy son to a worthy son, the reason being that the son from whom his potential inheritance is taken away may have a worthy son himself, whereas the son to whom it has been transferred may have an unworthy son. (Compare Talmud tractate Pessachim 49) We read in Job 27,17 concerning the definition of a righteous person that יכין וצדיק ילבש וכסף נקי יחלק, “the just will put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver.” [The problem is how could Avraham disinherit his firstborn son Yishmael legally? Ed.] It is especially puzzling since according to the Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 28, credits him with even having observed Rabbinic ordinances, such as certain procedures for preparing food when a festival day is followed by the Sabbath when preparing food is forbidden. We have to conclude that both Avraham and Yishmael were actually converts, neither having been born as Jews. Converts do not legally inherit their fellow converts, neither by Biblical law nor by Rabbinic decree. (Talmud tractate Kidushin folio 17). Rabbeinu Chananel bar Sh’muel suggests that Avraham gave all he had to Yitzchok before the sons of Keturah had been born, This is indicated by this having been reported already in Genesis 24,36: where he is reported immediately after Sarah having given birth to him as receiving all of his father’s estate. [Seeing that Yishmael, as Hagar’s son was the son of a slave woman, he could not legally own anything that had been Avraham’s or Sarah’s as slaves do not own their master’s or their mistress’ property. So where was the problem? Ed.]

הפילגשים THE CONCUBINES — The word is written deficient, (without י, but our texts have a י in both places) because he had only one concubine, Hagar, who is identical with Keturah. Wives are those whom a man marries with a marriage-contract (Ketubah): concubines have no marriage contract, as we explain in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 21a) in reference to David’s wives and concubines.

BUT UNTO THE SONS OF THE CONCUBINES, THAT ABRAHAM HAD. By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, since it was said to Abraham, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee,¹⁶³Above, 21:12. and in no other seed, all his consorts were concubines to him, not as wives since their children would not be among his heirs. Thus, Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid, was his concubine. However, Keturah he took unto himself as a wife for if she whom he took as a concubine had been a handmaid in his house, Scripture would not have said, And Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.¹⁶⁴Verse 1 here. She is called “concubine” in Scripture — it is written in Chronicles, And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine¹⁶⁵I Chronicles 1:32. — only for the reason that I have explained, [namely, that it had been said to Abraham, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee]. Thus we note that Abraham took unto himself a wife from the daughters of Canaan! And should you say that she was an Egyptian or from the land of the Philistines, we may yet question why he did not send to his country and to his kindred as he did in the case of his son. But the answer is that he guarded only the seed of Isaac since it was concerning him that the Covenant was made. Furthermore, Scripture does not say, “And Abraham took a wife by the name of Keturah, the daughter of a certain Hivite or Philistine or Egyptian from a certain land,” as it says concerning Esau’s wives¹⁶⁶Further, 26:34 and 28:9. and similar cases. Rather, Scripture mentions only Keturah’s name because she was a Canaanite, and therefore it cut short her genealogy. Scripture does so in many places where it is not concerned with the genealogy.
Perhaps Keturah was called “concubine” because she was a handmaid who was descended from a family of slaves. And if she was a handmaid in his [Abraham’s] household and he had connection with her, Scripture would not mention her genealogy since even among the matriarchs, such as Zilpah and Bilhah, it mentions only their names.
Now Rashi wrote, “Wives are those whom a man marries with a marriage-contract; concubines have no marriage-contract, as it says in reference to the wives and concubines of David, in Tractate Sanhedrin.”¹⁶⁷21a. But the matter is not so. A woman is called a concubine only when there is no betrothal, for a marriage-contract is only a Rabbinic ordinance. And the correct text in Tractate Sanhedrin is: “A concubine has no marriage-contract or betrothal.” However, it is possible that the sons of Noah¹⁶⁸See Seder Bereshith, Note 222. too when they married wives, as is their law, by intercourse, were accustomed to write them a marriage-contract which granted dowry and gift.¹⁶⁹Further, 34:12. However, for one who wished to be a concubine to them, whom he could send away when he pleased and whose children would not be among his heirs, he would not write anything. But according to the opinion of our Rabbis that Keturah is Hagar,¹⁷⁰Bereshith Rabbah 61:4. she was certainly a concubine [since it clearly says that Hagar was Sarah’s handmaid].¹⁷¹Above, 16:1.

הפילגשים, Hagar and Keturah.

Avraham gave gifts. He did not wish to rely on a will, so he distributed his property while he was alive.

ולבני הפילגשים, And to the sons of the concubines, etc. The Torah does not mention that Abraham bequeathed any gifts to Ishmael when he expelled him. We have explained on Genesis 17,5 that Ishmael was himself a slave and as such anything that would be given to him would automatically not be his but his master Isaac's who was the rightful heir of Abraham and Sarah.

ולבני הפילגשים he had no concubines from whom he had fathered children, but the concubines in his household were concubines of male servants in his household. Their children were, of course, members of Avraham’s household who had been of service to Avraham and who had adopted his lifestyle. He gave them gifts consisting of silver and gold and livestock according to his own evaluation of who deserved how much. He most certainly gave even more valuable gifts to Ishmael and to the sons of Keturah even though the Torah does not specifically mentions this. If he gave gifts to people towards whom he had no legal obligation at all, it is obvious that people towards whom he did have such an obligation would receive their due.

ולבני הפילגשים, “and to the sons of the concubines, etc” No doubt Hagar’s status in the household of Avraham had been that of a concubine, whereas Keturah was his wife in the full sense of that term. If she had been a servant maid in his household and he had raised her to the status of concubine the Torah would not have described this as ויקח אשה ושמה קטורה, “He married a woman named Keturah.” If the Torah here describes Keturah as a concubine, this was only since G’d had decreed that Yitzchok would be Avraham’s sole heir, so that sons from any other woman would have to content themselves with gifts handed to them during their father’s lifetime. Avraham had taken these women from the Caaanite women, for if Keturah had been an Egyptian or Philistine by birth the Torah could not have said that Avraham dispatched these sons somewhere to the Far East, but he would have sent them back to Egypt or the land of the Philistines when their mother had come. The prohibition of marrying Canaanite women applied only to Avraham’s heirs, not to children who would not inherit his estate, and thus represent his outlook on life.

It is written lacking... there was only one concubine. Rashi knows this because other concubines were not written of, only Hagar. (source unknown)

Selbst als מלא דמלא, wie in allen unseren Codices, können darunter nur die zuvor genannten Söhne Keturas verstanden sein. Sonst wäre ja gerade über deren Ausstattung gar nichts mitgeteilt. Das אשר bezieht sich auf בני und nicht auf פילגשים, und der Plural resultiert aus בני: Keturas Söhne hatten nur die Pilagschimkindern zukommenden Rechte; denn Ketura war nur Pilegesch. Ein Vergleich der vierbuchstabigen Worte: רטפש ,פרעוש ,עכביש ,חרמש ,חלמיש lehrt, dass das ש auch als Bildungsbuchstabe der Radix angefügt wird. So הלם: stark, gedrungen sein, הלמיש: Kiesel; הרם: iwegfangen, vernichten, הרמש: Sichel; עכב: festhalten, (עקב auflauern עכביש: Spinne; פרע: iungebunden, frei, פרעש: Floh; רטף, verwandt mit רטב: feucht, רטפש: faulen. Somit auch פלג: halb sein, geteilt sein, פלגש: die unvollständige, nicht ganz berechtigte Frau (so auch פלגס, rabbinisch, das Mittel- ding zwischen כבש und איל), ein Verhältnis, in welchem — sei es durch קידושין oder ייחוד, welches unentschieden ist — das sittliche, persönliche Band zwischen Mann und Frau hergestellt ist, d. h. die Frau ausschließlich dem Manne angehört, aber כתובה d. h. die bürgerliche Berechtigung in Beziehung auf Vermögen etc. fehlt.

נתן אברהם מתנות, “Avraham had already given gifts.” According to the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 91, these “gifts” were the ability to utter the names of the holy name of the Lord without thereby incurring severe harm. Even nowadays, according to our author, the Moslems who are trained in theology are able to do this without coming to any harm thereby. It was difficult for Rabbi Moses to understand how Avraham a great and devout man could possibly have taught the holy Name of the Lord to wicked people. In view of this problem, Rabbi Yaakov, son of Rabbi Nachman, interpreted that line in the Talmud differently by saying that the word טומאה used in the Talmud there refers to the names of certain demons. The names of these demons are associated with the evil spirits making their homes in certain ruins, or certain cemeteries as described by the Talmud in tractate Chagigah folio 3. This is alluded to by the fact that the spelling of the word “matanot” is spelled as if it were a singular, the letter ו having been omitted. As spelled in the Torah here, the numerical value of the letters in the words נתן אברהם מתנת equals the numerical value of למדם להשביע השדים. [I have not quite figured this out. At any rate, the idea is that Avraham taught these sons of his how, when they used the names of deities when swearing an oath, they could do it in such a way as not to be guilty of violating the third of the Ten Commandments. To The reader who is interested in pursuing this further I suggest that he turns to the commentary on Sanhedrin 91 by Rabbi Reuven Margolies, page 136 מרגליות הים. Ed.]

ולבני הפילגשים, “and to the sons of the concubines;” according to Rashi this word has been spelled defectively, the letter י before the final letter ם which would indicate the plural mode, being absent, in order to teach us that there was only one concubine. Concubines refers to Hagar and Ketura. [The fact is that in our Torah scrolls nowadays that letter is not missing. Concubines did not enjoy the financial protection offered by a ketuvah. Ed]

נתן אברהם מתנות ABRAHAM GAVE GIFTS — Our Rabbis explained (Sanhedrin 91a) that he transmitted to them the names of impure things. Another explanation is: all that he had received as gifts because of Sarah — and other gifts that people had given him — all these he gave to them because he did not wish to derive any benefit from these.

מתנות, gifts of large amounts of money.

בעודנו חי, while he had still been alive, as he did not want to rely on written instructions to be carried out after his death.

מעל יצחק בנו, in order that they should not interfere with him after his death and could not quarrel with him about the inheritance.

Wives are with a kesubah, concubines arewithout a kesubah. Rashi is answering the question: If the concubine mentioned here is Hagar, why before (v. 1) is she called a wife? The answer is: Scripture called her a wife because she had a kesubah like a wife. And it calls her a concubine because Avraham took her only for conjugal relations and not for child-bearing. The word פלגש connotes פלג אשה (a half wife): one who is for conjugal relations and not for child-bearing.

Dass wir überhaupt in dem Leben eines Abrahams und Isaaks finden, dass nur auserlesene, wenige ihrer Kinder fähig waren, nicht nur מתנות, sondern auch נחלה, das ganze geistige Erbe, כל אשר לו des Vaters, anzutreten, dass, während von der späteren Zeit verlangt und erwartet wird, alle Kinder in den geistigen Bund eintreten zu sehen, es selbst einem Abraham nicht gelang, alle dafür zu erziehen, das darf deshalb nicht auffallen, weil ja Abraham und Isaak noch mit ihrer ganzen Mitwelt im Kampfe sich befanden. Außer Abrahams und Isaaks Zelt gabs ja keinen Fußbreit für den Geist und die Sitte des Abrahamsbundes und hatte somit die häusliche Erziehung die Wucht des Beispiels einer ganzen Zeitgenossenschaft zu paralysieren! Wie schwer wird es heutigen Tages einem jüdischen Familienvater, alle seine Kinder in seiner Richtung zu erziehen, im Vergleich mit vor hundert Jahren, und doch finden unsere Kinder auch außerhalb der väterlichen Schwelle noch gleichgesinnte Häuser! Ohnehin war diese Entfernung der Kinder Keturas eine Folge der göttlichen Bestimmung, dass ביצחק יקרא לך זרע. Nach der Erklärung der Weisen umfassen מתנות auch geistige Gaben, die sie aus Abrahams Hause mit hinausgenommen, die aber bei ihnen missbräuchlich ins Unlautere hinabgezogen und שמות טומאה wurden.

נתן אברהם מתנות, “Avraham gave substantial gifts;” [in lieu of a share in his estate. Ed.] Our sages (in Sanhedrin 91 understand the word מתנות as referring to the names of different types of pagan deities, i.e. he taught them how to protect themselves against curses uttered in the name of such “deities.” Our author, quoting another source believes that we must understand this as what is taught in Sanhedrin 65, הלן בבית הקברות כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה, “if someone spends the night in a cemetery in order to endear himself to the demon whose domain this is, he is guilty of violating the commandment no to seek advice from the dead.” (Deuteronomy 18,1) The fact that the word מתנות is spelled defectively, (without the letter ו before the final letter) lends support to this interpretation, as the way it is written the numerical value of the word 890) מתנת) is equal to the numerical value of the combined words למדם להשביע השדים, “he taught them how to swear by the demons in order to neutralise their power.”[According to this editor’s arithmetic the numerical value of למדם להשביע השדים totals only 854. The whole subject is wrapped in mystery. The interested reader is referred to the Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher of blessed memory, who on page 996 of his commentary on this parshah has a great deal more to say about it. Ed.]

קדמה אל ארץ קדם, in order that his sons could take possession of the properties he owned there.

קדמה אל ארץ קדם, he sent them off in an easterly direction. According to another interpretation, the words refer to a specific country among the countries of the East. It could well refer to Charan or Ur Casdim or both, regions which were generally loosely known as ארץ קדם, [just as we speak about the regions of the Middle East, or the Far East in our time. Ed.]

Our sages explained that he transmitted to them impure names... This means [names for] handling demons. Alternatively, it means names [of Hashem] that may be uttered in a state of impurity, as he knew that these sons will not keep themselves pure, so he did not transmit to them Names that require a state of purity.

קדמה, er sandte sie ostwärts, in das Land des Ostens. Das der abrahamitischen Zukunft verheißene Land — Palästina — ist der äußerste westliche Punkt des Morgenlandes an der Grenzscheide des Orients und Okzidents. Westlich liegen die europäischen Länder, auf die sich zunächst dasjenige verpflanzen sollte, dessen Träger Isaaks Nachkommen sein sollen. Alles, was geistig und sittlich, erleuchtend und veredelnd der Menschheit geworden, ist von dieser Grenzscheide aus gekommen. שם und יפת, Judäa und Griechenland, die beiden Länder, von denen Kultur und Religion der Völker ausgegangen, liegen hier "im Nabel der Erde" nahe zusammen. Von da aus geht der Gang der Kultur, der Erleuchtung und Gesittung westwärts. Keturas Kinder werden ostwärts gesandt. Spät erst werden sie in diese geistig sittliche Zukunft eintreten.

וישלחם מעל יצחק בנו בעודנו חי, “he sent them far away from his son Yitzchok while he was still alive. He wanted to prevent them from staking a claim to part of Yitzchok’s inheritance.

He transmitted to them impure names. [Rashi knows this] because Avraham had already given all his possessions to Yitzchok.

אל ארץ קדם, to a country further east to which he had ancestral claims dating back to his father Terach. The region of Aram is east of the land of Canaan. These were the “gifts” he bestowed upon the sons of the concubine(s). (Compare Isaiah 9,11) We have also read in Genesis 22,21 about Utz being one of the sons of Milkah; Job is also known to have originated in the land of Utz, presumably the same land inhabited by Nachor, Avraham’s brother. Job is described there as the most outstanding personality in the whole ארץ קדם, the land given (in part) to the sons of Avraham’s concubine(s). We are entitled therefore to consider the land of Utz as identical with the region of Aram.

מאה שנה ושבעים שנה וחמש שנים A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE YEARS — (lit, a hundred years, and seventy years and five years) — at the age of one hundred years he was as strong as at seventy, and at the age of seventy he was as five — without sin.

ואלה...חי, a verbal construction in the past tense. The root of the verb is either חיי or חיה.

The years … which he lived. According to the Sages he should have lived another five years but was taken early so that he would not see Eisav’s moral decline.

ימי שני חיי usw. siehe oben Kap.23, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 25: 1. Auch Abraham lebte Tage und Jahre, jeder Tag bedeutungsvoll, und alle zusammen ein einheitliches Ganze, und jedes Lebensalter in eigener voller Geltung, und alles dies waren nur Tage aus den Jahren des wirklichen Lebens Abrahams, das weiter reicht, als die diesseitige Lebensspanne. — Eigentümlich, dass wir im Hebräischen bei großen Zahlen den Gegenstand im Singular, bei kleinen im Plural nennen. Es geht wohl mit den Jahren, wie überhaupt mit Massen. Wer Millionen hat, zählt jedes einzelne nicht; wer wenig, jeden Groschen. Ebenso bei Jahren. Die Jahre, die man noch lebt, die sich noch nicht zu einer "Zehnheit", zu einer Gesamtheit gruppiert, erscheinen in ihrer Vielheit שנים, was sich aber bereits zu einer Gesamtheit gerundet, erscheint auch als Einheit שנה.

OLD AND FULL OF YEARS. He witnessed the fulfillment of all the desires of his heart and was sated with all good things. In a similar sense is [the verse written in connection with Isaac’s life], and full of days,¹⁷²Further, 35:29. which means that his soul was sated with days, and he had no desire that the future days should bring something new. This is as it is said of David: And he died in a good old age, full of days, riches and honor.¹⁷³I Chronicles 29:28. This is a story of the mercies of the Eternal¹⁷⁴Isaiah 63:7. towards the righteous ones, and of their attribute of goodness by virtue of which they do not desire luxuries, just as it is said of them, Thou hast given him his heart’s desire,¹⁷⁵Psalms 21:3. and not as it is said of other people, He that loveth money shall not be satisfied with money,¹⁷⁶Ecclesiastes 5:9. and as the Rabbis have commented thereon:¹⁷⁷Koheleth Rabbah 1:34. “No man leaves the world having amassed half of his desires. If he has a hundred, he desires two hundred. If he succeeds in acquiring two hundred, he desires to make of it four hundred, as it is said, He that loveth money shall not be satisfied with money.”¹⁷⁶Ecclesiastes 5:9. In Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁸62:3. “The Holy One, blessed be He, shows the righteous in this world the reward He is destined to give them in the Coming World, and their souls become full and they fall asleep.”¹⁷⁹I.e., they die without pain. The Sages were stirred by this and they explained the verse which says, and full of years, with this vision [of the reward that G-d shows the righteous before they die].

בשיבה טובה, as G’d had foretold him in 15,15. He promised that the oppression which Avraham’s descendants would be subjected to would not commence while he was still alive.

ויגוע וימות, whenever the Torah speaks of גויעה this refers to an easy, painless kind of death not preceded by lengthy illness.

זקן ושבע ימים, “in a ripe old age.” He had seen all his aspirations fulfilled. The Torah here describes an attitude to life by the pious who do not demand more than has been granted to them by G’d’s grace without their pleading for this.

זקן ושבע ימים, “old and content.” Seeing that the Torah had told us previously that Avraham had been blessed by G’d in all that mattered, and that he had been the recipient of material wealth and honour of every conceivable kind, the Torah tells us that because of this he died without any regrets, did not feel that there were things he had not been able to achieve. This was in pronounced contrast to the fate of the average person of whom we are told in Kohelet Rabbah 1,34 that “when a person dies, half his aspirations in life for acquisitions went unfulfilled.” If he had once made the acquisition of say 1 million his objective, he had raised this objective as soon as he had realised it, so that when he died he had felt cheated by life. The author of Kohelet called this syndrome אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, “he who loves silver will never get enough of it (Kohelet 5,9).”

שיב ,שיבה, nicht unwahrscheinlich verwandt mit שגב stark werden, eine Höhe erreichen, die anderes überragt. Was שגב räumlich ist, wäre שיב zeitlich. — זקן ושבע ireif und satt, hatte die dem Menschen erreichbare geistige und sittliche Voll- kommenheit, und in seinem äußeren Geschicke die Erfüllung seiner Wünsche erreicht. — Tiefer und inniger die Weisen, Worte, die den Tod in einer Weise zeichnen, wie sonst wohl noch kein menschlicher Gedanke den Tod gedacht, geschweige denn ein Mund ausgesprochen: "Wenn ein צדיק stirbt, so lässt ihn Gott die seiner harrende Seligkeit blicken, und dieses Seligkeitsgefühl ist so überwältigend, dass an seiner Fülle der Fromme "satt" wird, einschläft und stirbt". —

ויגוע, “he expired; according to Rashi thisexpression denoting someone’s passing is reserved for use with the righteous. [This Rashi is not found in our editions of Rashi at this point at all. Ed.] This raises the question of why this term has been applied to the death of almost all of mankind during the deluge, the people who had perished there having been clearly described as everything but “righteous.” (Compare Genesis 7,21) [There the Rashi is not found either. Ed.] The answer is that what Rashi meant was the combination of the term גויעה and אסיפה, “i.e.simultaneous death and transfer of the soul to the domain where the ancestors enjoy the benign radiance of G-d’s spirit.” [afterlife, in plain English.] Even though the combination of these two terms also occurs where the Torah records the death of Yishmael (25,17), our sages see in this proof that the latter had become a penitent prior to his death.

ויאסף אל עמיו, he was attached to the bundle of souls who are part of the life after death, all of whom the righteous of the various generations who were like him in lifestyle, [as in those regions biological relationships are irrelevant, and the term “his people” is applied to other common denominators than on earth. Ed.] The reason why the Torah employs the term עמיו his peoples” in the plural is that there are all kinds of different spiritual levels among the righteous souls, not all attained the same level of righteousness while on earth although all of them share the experience of enjoying eternal life. (compare statements in Baba Batra 75 on that subject.)

בשיבה טובה, having seen children and grandchildren and having been treated with respect and dignity all his life. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, it means that he lived to see his son Ishmael return to the fold as a baal teshuvah.

ויאסף אל עמיו, “and he was gathered to his people.” Seeing that essentially, death is a separation of phenomena namely the different raw materials which combine to make up the body, which were previously integrated, the Torah informed us that the soul was gathered into his people, i.e. did not disintegrate. The soul returned to the distinguished environment around G’d’s throne of glory. The soul itself is also known as כבוד, “honour” or “distinction.” We find this term applied to the soul in Psalms 30,13 למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום, ”in order that [my] soul sing hymns to You endlessly;” as well as in Isaiah 58,8 כבוד ה' יאספך, “the place where the כבוד of G’d is gathered in.” The choice of the term עמיו, “his people,” is analogous to expressions used in the Bible for the soul such as Exodus 31,14 where the Torah decrees a form of death of the soul with the words ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מקרב עמיה, “and such a soul shall be cut off from amongst its people,” (its fellow-souls, obviously( Innocent souls are gathered together forming a family, a nation. The same thing applied here.
The expression ויגוע to describe the death of the body here may be in order to illustrate that what happened to the body of Avraham was no different than what happened to all the bodies of the animals and the people who died during the deluge where the Torah described their death (Genesis 7,21) as ויגוע כל בשר הרומש על הארץ, “all flesh which moved on the earth died, etc.” Compare also Genesis 6,17 when the deluge had been predicted, and the Torah wrote כל אשר בארץ יגוע, “everything on earth will die.” The author refers to a statement by our sages that the term גויעה for death is used only in connection with the righteous and the obvious problem of the verses quoted from the Torah’s report of the deluge where the sinners died. He says that what was meant by that statement is to be understood as a combination of גויעה plus אסיפה.

זקן ושבע, satisfied with the number of his years he had been granted to live on earth.

Dabei bezeichnet ףoא das Aufnehmen des Verirrten in den bergenden Schutz, des Hinausgewiesenen in die ursprüngliche Heimat — 5) ואספתו אל תוך ביתך. B. M. 22,2) עד האסף מרים (vier. B. M. 12, 15) “הֵאָסֵף" demnach das Jenseits die eigentliche wirkliche Heimat des Menschen und das Diesseits die prüfungsvolle Fremde der Wanderjahre, aus welcher, nach zurückgelegter Wanderschaft, der Geist wieder heimkehrt und Aufnahme findet in dem seiner harrenden Kreis der Seinen.

ויאסף אל עמיו, to join the members of his family who had preceded him in death. The Torah applies this expression to one’s family regardless of whether they were righteous people or sinners.

Eigentümlich ist es nun: es steht niemals האסף אל אבותיו, immer: האסף אל עמיו, mit alleiniger Ausnahme Richter 2, 10 von dem zeitgenössischen Geschlechte Josuas, sonst heißt es immer האסף אל עמיו - שכוב עם אבותיו. Begraben wird man zu seinen Eltern, da kommt das Kind zu Vater und Mutter. Dort oben gibt es kein "Kind" da ist alles verwandt, da ist nicht "Vater und Mutter" was sie geben, das bleibt zurück. Dort oben findet der Geist nur gleichgeartete Menschenseelen, die von dem einen Vater in die hieniedige Hülle gehaucht waren. Und diesem, sowie die Hülle fällt, Hinaufgesammelt-werden zu den ihnen verwandten Geistern, steht gegenüber: das הכרת הנפש מעמיה. Nur die Seele wird in diesen Kreis aufgenommen, die hienieden der Bestimmung nicht untreu geworden, die sie mit dem ihr angehörenden Verein von Seelen teilt. Vielleicht steht daher Richter 2, 10 nicht absichtslos: וגם כל הדור ההוא נאספו אל אבותיו im Gegensatz zu dem darauf folgenden Geschlechte, von dem es Raw Hirsch on Genesis 25: 12 heißt: ויעזבו את אלקי אבותם. Das mit Josua zu Grabe gegangene Geschlecht war den Überlieferungen seiner Väter treu geblieben, sie konnten jenseits bei den עמים, die auf Erden אבותם waren, aufgenommen werden. Nicht so das darauf folgende Geschlecht, das der von den Vätern überkommenen Bestimmung untreu geworden. —

SELL ME YOUR BIRTHRIGHT TODAY – (Our sages) have already inquired how it is proper (for Jacob) to entice his brother to sell the birthright, in particular, for lentils. It is certainly not the case that he intended to gain the right to the (firstborn’s double share of) the estate; also, who even knows whether prior to the giving of the Torah it was customary that the firstborn received a double share of the inheritance. The benefit of the birthright at that time was apparently a sign of virtue and the right to carry on the family name (literally, “to rise to his father’s name”.) The scripture already stated, “through Isaac your heirs will be named” (with regards to Abraham, Bereishit 21:12) and our sages learned “in Isaac” and not “all of Isaac,” meaning that the one who holds on to Isaac’s (righteous) ways has the pedigree to carry on the family name. After (the sale) Esau went out to a bad culture that very day, and therefore to Esau there was no difference whether he had the birthright or not, since how could he rightly be called “firstborn” if he couldn’t be called (Isaac’s) “son” (as a result of his decision to engage in bad behavior.) The only benefit to Esau in having the birthright was to deprive Jacob of it so that he did not have the birthright; Esau so no positive benefit for himself in it. That is the reason Jacob asked Esau to sell it, since Esau did not lose anything in the sale and Jacob had benefit from the sale. This is also why Esau said, “why do I need the birthright” – he stated that it made no difference at all to him whether he had the birthright, since he had no desire at all to be (Isaac’s) son (i.e., to live up to the family name.) This is the reason the scripture states among the attributes of Israel, “Israel, my son, my firstborn.” (Shemot 4:22) Apparently, the word “firstborn” already implies “son” (so why the redundant language?) This language is coming only to repudiate Esau – that Israel has two positive attributes, “son” and also “firstborn,” whereas Esau was not content to spurn the birthright, he also spurned being Isaac’s son.

יצחק וישמעאל ISAAC AND ISHMAEL — From this we gather that Ishmael repented of his evil ways (cf.Bava Batra 16b) and yielded the precedence to Isaac. This is what is meant by the “good old age” mentioned in connection with Abraham (Genesis Rabbah 38:12).

AND HIS SONS ISAAC AND ISHMAEL BURIED HIM. In the language of Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁸⁰62:6. “Here the son of the handmaid bestowed respect upon the son of the mistress” [since he yielded precedence to Isaac].

ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו, seeing they were more honoured than his other sons and had been more beloved by him. This is why they took upon them themselves the procedures connected with their father’s burial even though the sons of Keturah were also in this region. Alternately, Avraham had already sent those sons away during his lifetime so that only Yitzchok and Ishmael remained in the region.

His sons Yitzchok and Yishmael. Avraham informed Yishmael of Hashem’s decree that although he was his son in all other ways, with respect to Yitzchok it was as if he was a stranger. From the fact that he accepted this bitter message the Sages derived that he was a true penitent.

From here ... that Yishmael repented... Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture mention Yitzchok before Yishmael, when Yishmael was older?

אל מערת. siehe oben 23, 19.

יצחק וישמעאל , “both Yitzchok and Yishmael;” even though Yishmael was the senior son of Avraham, in fact his firstborn, Yitzchok is mentioned first as he was born by Avraham’s principal wife. Yishmael, after all was the son of a slavewoman.

'אל מרת המכפלה אל שדה וגו, the expression אל מערת is equivalent to the word במערת “in the cave of.” We find a similar expression in Exodus 25,21 concerning the Holy Ark. There are many more examples of this formulation.

על פני ממרא, we have explained this term already on 23,17.

השדה, every time the burial in this cave is mentioned in the Torah the fact that Avraham had purchased the cave and the field is mentioned also. It is to pay tribute to the love for G’d by Avraham, who in spite of G’d’s promises of owning the entire land, had been unable to bury even his own wife in that land until had had purchased a burial plot for her. Avraham never for a moment queried G’d about this problem he had been forced to cope with.

Der Erwerbstitel wird immer und immer wiederholt, weil in diesem Kauf ja, menschlich gesprochen, den Kindern die einzige Bürgschaft gegeben war, dass ihre Väter in diesem Lande ihr Land erkannten, und sich deshalb ihre bleibende Ruhestätte dort genommen hatten.

מאת בני חת, we have explained this on 23,20.

קבר אברהם ושרה אשתו, compare what we wrote on 24,55.

ויהי אחרי מות אברהם ויברך וגו AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THE DEATH OF ABRAHAM THAT GOD BLESSED ISAAC etc. — He comforted him with the words of the formula of consolation which we offer to mourners (Sotah 14a). Another explanation is: Although the Holy One, blessed be He, had entrusted the blessings to Abraham to bless whomever he wished yet he (Abraham) feared to bless Isaac, because he foresaw that Esau would be born from him. He therefore said, “Let the Master of the blessings come himself and bless whomever it seems proper in his eyes” — God came and blessed him (Isaac)(Genesis Rabbah 61:6).

AND ISAAC DWELLED BY THE WELL LAHAI-ROI. I.e., near that place, or perhaps because it was not a city,¹⁸¹See above, 16:14, for the origin of the name “the well of Lahai-roi,” and there it expressly says that it was by a fountain of water in the wilderness. It was thus not a city. Scripture says that he pitched his tent near the well.

ויהי...ויברך, he made Yitzchok as successful in his undertakings as He made his father Avraham.

וישב יצחק עם באר לחי רואי, “Yitzchok settled near the well which had been named א-לוהי רואי (by the angel who had foretold Ishmael’s birth and rise to greatness. Perhaps the cumbersome description of Yitzchok’s home is due to the fact that it was not an urban location.

He comforted him ... for comforting the bereaved. [Rashi knows this] because if you think “Elokim blessed” follows its simple meaning, why does Scripture say, “After Avraham died”? What does it matter if He blessed Yitzchok during Avraham’s lifetime or after? (Nachalas Yaakov)

Bis dahin war der Segen, den Isaak genoss, nur ein Teil des Abraham zugewendeten Segens. Jetzt segnete Gott ihn selbständig.

ויהי אחרי מות אברהם, “it came to pass after the death of Avraham that G-d blessed Yitzchok.” Rashi explains that although G-d had bestowed the power to bestow blessings on Avraham, in fact had given him a free hand on whom to bestow his blessing, he had not made use of the power to bless Yitzchok. Rabbi Nechemyah claims that although Avraham had passed on that power to distribute blessings to Yitzchok, he himself had not conferred a blessing on his son, so that G-d had now made up for this omission on the part of Avraham. (According to some sources he had not done so as he foresaw the birth of Esau; according to others, he did not want to provoke the anger of Yishmael his first born.)

עם באר לחי ראי, as if the Torah had written בבאר, “at the well.” We have a similar construction in Deuteronomy 8,5 וידעת עם לבבך, “you shall know in your heart.” Or, compare Genesis 35,4 תחת האלה אשר עם שכם, “under the terebinth in Shechem.” Or, compare Samuel II 19,38 עם קבר אבו ואמי “by the graves of my father and mother.”

He was afraid to give the blessings to Yitzchok... You might ask: Did not Rashi say before (v. 5) that Avraham gave the blessings to Yitzchok? The answer is: Avraham empowered him to bless others, but Yitzchok himself was not blessed [until now]. And so wrote Nachalas Yaakov.

אשר ילדה הגר המצרית, the point of the whole verse is to tell us that the name and significance of Ishmael is not associated with Avraham who fathered him, but with Hagar who had mothered him. When the Torah speaks of Yitzchok, it does not describe him as the son of Sarah, his mother, but as the son of Avraham, his father. (compare verse 19) We find something similar in Ruth 4,18 concerning Peretz who fathered Chetzron.

ואלה תלדות ישמעאל, the Torah mentions Ishmael’s descendants as a tribute to his father Avraham, seeing he had been Avraham’s firstborn son. The Torah also wanted to inform us that Ishmael produced 12 princes in accordance with the promise made to Avraham by G’d.

Nur zweimal steht das Wort תולדות ganz voll geschrieben, מלא דמלא, sowohl mit dem Waw der Wurzel als dem Waw des Plurals: אלה תולדות שמים וארץ und (erst. B. M. 2, 4) אלה תולדות פרץ bei Esau fehlt das Waw ,(Ruth 4, 18) der Wurzel, sonst überall das Waw des Plurals, hier bei Ismael fehlen beide. Es dürfte dies gewiß nicht absichtslos sein. Vielleicht weist das fehlende Wurzelwaw auf eine Mangelhaftigkeit in der Erzeugung, somit auf eine innere, das fehlende Plural- waw auf eine Mangelhaftigkeit in der Ausdehnung, der Vermehrung und Verbreitung hin. Die der göttlichen Naturordnung folgenden Erzeugnisse des Himmels und der Erde sind intensiv und extensiv vollkommen. Ebenso die Erzeugnisse des Perez, an welche sich die jüdische Heileshoffnung der Menschheit knüpft. Esaus zahlreiche Nachkommen haben eine extensive Größe, aber ihre innere, geistig sittliche, ist noch mangelhaft. Einmal kommt das Wort auch von Jakobs Nachkommen vor (Kap.37, 12) und da steht es ebenfalls mit mangelndem Wurzelwaw, das ist aber eben da, wo mit dem Vergehen gehen Josef die noch fehlende sittliche Vollkommenheit der Söhne Jakobs zu Tage tritt und die damit beginnende Läuterung eingeleitet wird. Ismaels Nachkommen hatten weder die extensive Größe Edoms, noch die intensvbe Isaaks.

The repetition of the fact that אשר ילדה הגר, was to emphasise that although Ishmael had been the son of a slave-woman, he rose to such eminence. Avraham loved him because he was his firstborn son, and G’d blessed him on account of Avraham, and this was why He made him so successful. (compare 21,20)

בשמתם לתולדתם BY THEIR NAMES ACCORDING TO THEIR PROGENY — by the order in which they were born one after the other.

ואלה...לתולדותם, in the chronological order of their birth. The firstborn of them all was Nevayot.

In order of their birth, one after another. Rashi is saying that בשמותם לתולדותם means, [“Their names] in the order of their birth.” Otherwise, why is this phrase said? This explains why it says afterwards, “Nevayos was Yishmael’s first born.”

Diese Wiederholung ואלה שמות usw. und dann noch einmal בשמתם וגו׳ ist auffallend. Aus Raw Hirsch on Genesis 25: 16 ist ersichtlich, dass die hier Genannten נשיאים waren. Es scheint demgemäß, dass diese Namen als Namen der Stämme der Ismaeliten bekannt waren, und wird hier gesagt, dass diese Namen der Stämme ursprünglich Namen der Söhne Ismaels waren, die sich dann als Stammnamen bei ihren Nachkommen erhalten haben.

בחצריהם BY THEIR ENCLOSURES — Unwalled towns. In the Targum it is rendered by בפצחיהון because they are מפוצחים, which means “open”; similar in meaning to (Psalms 98:4) ‘‘Open your mouths (פצחו) and sing for joy”.

אלה, the general rule follows the individual components of the general rule. This is a method employed by the Torah on many occasions.

בחצריהם ובטירתם Wir haben schon bemerkt, mit welcher Zähigkeit die beiden Charaktere des Vaters und der Mutter sich in den Nachkommen Ismaels vererbt haben. Dem Geiste und dem Verstande nach Söhne Abrahams, der Sitte und dem Freiheitsdrange nach Hagariten, fügten sie sich nicht in den Zwang der Städte und nicht der Gewalt absoluter Herrscher; sie wohnten in חצרים, Gegensatz zu festen Städten. .עזרה war, war beim Tempelhaus חצר was beim Tempelzelt ;עזר verwandt mit ,חצר iHülfsraum zu bedeuten, also diejenige Umgebung der Wohnung, die :חצר Es scheint den Bewohnern zu ihren häuslichen Bedürfnissen und Handtierungen zu Gebote steht. Je mehr Menschen in feste Städte hineingekeilt werden, desto mehr werden sie von der Natur losgelöst, desto größer wird der Gegensatz zwischen Stadt und Land (s. oben bei Kain, Kap.4, 17). חצרות: wo jeder sein Land und den Platz, dessen er bedarf, als Umgebung seines Hauses hat. Er hat alles, war er braucht, in seinem Zelte (אהל die nächste Umstrahlung seiner Person) und in dem es umgebenden Hülfsraum: er ist unabhängig. Später wurde die Bauart mit חצרים auch in die Städte im Orient, wie noch jetzt in Jerusalem, hineingetragen, wo freilich dann in der Regel mehrere Häuser in einem חצר zusammen liegen. — טיר das verstärkte דיר, die Hürde, somit: festere Um- gebung durch Wall und Mauern. —

ואלה שמותם, the Torah reminds us that whenever a person or a people mentioned in Scripture bears any of these names of the princes of Ishmael, he or they are descendants of Ishmael even if many generations previous.

נשיאים. Bei Ismael und Israel heißen die Fürsten: נשיאים, bei Edom: .אלופים נשיאים heißen sonst Wolken, und der reinste Begriff des Fürsten ist damit gegeben. Was die Wolke ist, das hat sie von der Erde, und alles, was sie von der Erde empfängt, empfängt sie, um es, in Segen verwandelt, der Erde wieder zu spenden. Das ist der jüdische Fürst, den Koheleth 2, 12 als den bezeichnet, את אשר כבר עשוהו, den das Volk gemacht, d. i. der aus einer Vereinigung des Edelsten und Besten aus dem Volke bereits hervorgegangen ist. Es ist ein Glück, wenn der Fürst eine Wolke, ein נשיא ist. Ein solcher ממ81-נשיא ist notwendig, ohne ihn kann keine Gesamtheit blühen, und durch ihn werden die Gesamtkräfte des Volkes auf ein Ziel geleitet, dieses Ziel ist aber beim נשיא nicht die Wohlfahrt des Fürsten, sondern die Wohlfahrt des Volkes. Wie bei der Wolke der Erde, kommt durch den rechten Fürsten alle auf ihn vom Volke übertragene Macht und Fülle segnend dem Volke wieder zurück.

בחצריהם ובטירותם, wherever they had claimed their ancestral inheritance they existed in splendour and numerical prominence. The word חצר refers to an open, unwalled city, whereas the word טירות refers to cities which were surrounded by walls.

Dem gegenüber steht אלוף, ein solcher Fürst, der die Kraft des Volkes zu seiner eigenen Machtvergrößerung absorbiert, ein Oberhaupt, durch welches das Volk nicht stark, sondern schwach erscheint. אלף hat böse Vettern in unserer Sprache, es ist verwandt mit עלף: schwach, ohnmächtig werden, עלב, rabbinisch: beschämen, kränken, selbst חלף: ganz in etwas anderes aufgehen, verschwinden. Also: solche Führer, denen gegenüber die Geführten alle Selbständigkeit und Bedeutung aufgeben. Solche אלופים hat man im jüdischen Kreise nicht nötig. Nicht umsonst singt die jüdische Nationalhymne mit Stolz: unsere אלופים sind die am meisten Belasteten - אלופינו מסובלים - die größte Nationalbürde lastet auf ihnen. Sie sind die Höchstbesteuerten! Und umgekehrt die אלופי יהודה (— sie kommen nur dies einemal in Secharja 12, 5 und 6 vor —) fühlen sich nur durch den geistigen Beistand ihres Volkes stark, sie sprechen: אמצה לי יושבי ירושלים בד׳ צבאו׳ אלקיהם!

שנים עשר נשיאים לאומתם, twelve princes corresponding to the number of their families (tribes). Each one of the ones named by the Torah was a tribal chief, member of a family which grew into a mighty tribe bearing the name of their first founder. We find further detailed examples of these tribes in Chronicles I 5,19. A number of these tribes have been mentioned in different contexts in the Books of the Prophets.

ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל וגו AND THESE ARE THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF ISHMAEL etc. —R. Chija the son of Abba asked: Why are the years of Ishmael enumerated? In order to trace through them the years of Jacob (i. e. the years in which the various incidents of his life happened). Calculating from the age of Ishmael (when he died) we may learn that Jacob attended at the School of Eber for fourteen years after he left his father and before he arrived at Laban’s house, for just when Jacob left his father Ishmael died, for it is said, (28:9) ‘‘So Esau went to Ishmael etc.”, as is explained in the Chapter Megilla Nikraath (Megillah 17a) (cf. Rashi on Genesis 28:9).

AND THESE ARE THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF ISHMAEL. It appears plausible in line with the simple explanation that Scripture relates, in the case of the sons of the righteous, their generations and the number of their years in order to inform us that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed.¹⁸²See Psalms 112:2. However, it did not relate the number of Esau’s years for he outlived Jacob,¹⁸³See my Hebrew commentary, p. 42, Note 90. and the narrative was concluded with the death of Jacob. Hence, Scripture did not want to return to the life of Esau since it had already mentioned his generations in their appropriate place.¹⁸⁴Further, Chapter 36.
In the Midrash of our Rabbis¹⁸⁵Megillah 17 a; Bereshith Rabbah 62:8. there are many reasons for the Scriptural account of Ishmael’s years. The correct one among them is that he was righteous, a man of repentance, and Scripture tells of him as it does with all righteous people.

ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל, our sages, both in Megillah 17 and Yevamot 64 deal with the reason why the Torah thought it necessary to inform us of Ishmael’s age at his death. According to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah wrote this out of respect for Avraham. Seeing that the Torah had told us of Avraham’s age being 86 when he fathered Ishmael, and it also told us of Ishmael being 13 years of age when he underwent circumcision, it now concludes by telling us Ishmael’s age at his death.

ואלה, The Torah mentions Ishmael’s age at death also as a form of tribute to his father Avraham as we have already mentioned (verse 12). According to our sages in Megillah 17 this information also serves us to calculate how old Yaakov was during certain episodes which occurred during his life.

ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל, “these are the years that Ishmael lived, etc.” According to Nachmanides our sages offer a variety of reasons why the Torah bothered to go into such detail about the years of Ishmael, as well as his offspring. According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah details much about the lives of the righteous, their offspring, etc.; whereas it is sparse with information about the wicked, so that he have no data about how old Esau was when he died, although it is clear that he survived his twin Yaakov. The story of the patriarchs is considered closed with the death of Yaakov, so that no further reference is made to his brother.

Why are the years of Yishmael enumerated... Rashi is saying that שנה is written after each set [i.e., after hundreds, tens and ones] that it be expounded: “...To trace the years of Yaakov,” but not because all his years were equal in goodness [as it is expounded for Sarah and Avraham]. (Maharshal)

ויגוע AND HE EXPIRED — This expression — expiring — associated with a word denoting dying is only mentioned in the case of righteous people (Bava Batra 16b).

ויגוע, “he died.” Our sages have said that the formula combining ויגוע ויאסף is used only in connection with the righteous. When the term ויגוע is used without the word ויאסף אל עמיו following, this is an indication that the person concerned did not die as a righteous person. Nachmanides writes that the reason why the word גויעה means “death” is that it describes death not preceded b terminal sickness. When the word is accompanied further by the word וימת or ויאסף, it means that the individual thus described was a righteous person and that he died suddenly. When death is described as גויעה alone, it means the person concerned was a wicked person. Examples are the death of the people during the generation of the flood, and the death of the Jews in the desert as a result of the sin with the spies.

Expire is only used with the righteous. Although in 7:21 it says גויעה about the [wicked] generation of the Flood, it is explained in Bava Basra 16b that גויעה refers to the righteous only when it is written with ויאסף. And for the generation of the Flood it does not say ויאסף.

AND HE EXPIRED (‘VAYIGVA’). Rashi comments: “This expression — ‘expiring’ — is only mentioned in the case of righteous people.” But in the Gemara¹⁸⁶Baba Bathra 16b. The Gemara (teaching) constitutes the collected discussions of the Amoraim, centering around the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara combined are known as the Talmud. the Rabbis objected, “But it says ‘expiring’ with reference to the generation of the flood: And all flesh expired that moved upon the earth, etc., and every man;¹⁸⁷Above, 7:21. Every thing that is in the earth shall expire.”¹⁸⁸Ibid., 6:17. And the Gemara answers: “We were referring to [those places where it mentions both] ‘expiring’ and ‘gathering,’” [as it says in the case of Abraham and in the present verse concerning Ishmael].
The intent of the Rabbis is that the expression “expiring” indicates death without prolonged sickness and without pains. This death is merited only by the righteous people, [and concerning their death both “expiring” and “gathering” are mentioned]. But the men of the generation of the flood, who were overthrown as in a moment, and no hands fell upon them,¹⁸⁹Lamentations 4:6. as also those who died in the desert — with them Scripture therefore mentions only “expiring”: when our brethren expired.¹⁹⁰Numbers 20:3. And so is the sense of the verse, And that man expired not alone in his iniquity,¹⁹¹Joshua 22:20. meaning that his iniquity did not cause him instant death. But when Scripture so mentions the term “expiring” in reference to death together with the word vayei’aseph (and he was gathered [unto his people]) or vayamoth (and he died), it hints to the death of the righteous ones.
In the words of Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁹²62:2. “And Abraham expired, and died,¹⁹³Verse 8 here. Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Ilai said, ‘The early pious men used to suffer with intestinal disease for about ten or twenty days before death, thus establishing the principle that illness cleanses from sin.’ Rabbi Yehudah said, ‘All who are said to have expired died of intestinal disease.’” There in Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis also said,¹⁹⁴31:15. “Everything that is in the earth ‘yigva’¹⁸⁸Ibid., 6:17. — will shrivel.”
It would appear that to the Rabbis, the word gviyah (expiring) was analogous to Their flesh shall consume while they stand upon their feet.¹⁹⁵Zechariah 14:12. So also is the opinion of Onkelos who translated here ve’isnagid, meaning “fainting,” similar to the expressions: “isnagid (he became faint) and sighed”;¹⁹⁶Sanhedrin 39a. “You might think he may pay as a fine five negidim (emaciated) oxen.”¹⁹⁷Baba Kamma 67b. In case of a thief who makes restitution for stolen oxen. See Exodus 21:37. Now “you might think that if he stole an ox worth one hundred (weights in gold or silver) he may pay as a fine five oxen emaciated (‘and in near-dying condition’ - Rashi). It is for this reason that Scripture says (he shall pay five oxen) ‘tachtav’ “ — in its place. In other words each one of the five oxen must be equal in value to the stolen ox, “for otherwise he might pay him back five emaciated oxen which together will not equal even the value of the one stolen” (Meiri, Baba Kamma ibid.). It is so said in the case of the flood, as Scripture states, And He blotted out every being.¹⁹⁸Above 7:23. Ramban’s intent here is to be understood in the light of what he has written above on that verse: “And He blotted out every living substance…” After having said, And all flesh perished (‘vayigva’), and having said, whatever was in the dry land, died, Scripture continues to say, “And He blotted out, meaning etc.”(see above p. 112). Here in discussing the meaning of the word gviyah. Ramban brings proof to his theory that gviyah in itself does not mean death but fainting, emaciation, etc. For it is on this basis that we can understand why after having said ‘vayigva’ all flesh Scripture continued to inform us further that it died and was blotted out, since these facts are not included in the term of gviyah. And in the case of Ishmael it is stated in the verse before us: And he expired and died, as a man who is powerless and dies, and this is the measure¹⁹⁹“A measure.” In the Lisbon edition of Ramban: “the death.” meted out to righteous people.²⁰⁰For since in the present verse concerning Ishmael it says both “expired” and “died” the reference must be to the death of a righteous person, as explained in the text above. “It is based upon this (double expression) that the Sages of blessed memory have said that Ishmael repented of his evil ways” (Bachya, p. 219 in my edition).
Toldoth

ויאסף אל עמיו, “he was gathered in to his people.” Ibn Ezra writes that (according to some) this is a description of the honour being paid to the soul of the deceased. While the relatives are busy with interring the physical remains of the deceased, his soul meanwhile rises to the celestial regions, this being the first time that body and soul are each going their separate ways. Others claim that there is no ulterior meaning to this formulation but that it described the deceased now starting the journey to join his forebears, having already followed in their footsteps while still here on earth. This is what G’d promised Avraham when He said to him: “ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום, “but you will join your fathers in peace.”(prior to the commencement of the 400 years of being strangers or enslaved, Genesis 15,15)

נפל (literally, he fell) means ‘‘he dwelt”, as (Judges 7:12) “Now the Midianites and the Amalekites and all children of the East dwelt (נופלים) in the valley.” Here it says “He fell” and there (16:12) it says “In the presence of all his brethren shall he dwell”. Bui it may be explained thus: before Abraham died it could be said “He would dwell in security: after he died, “he fell” (Genesis Rabbah 62:5).

THEY CAMPED [LIT.: FELL] ALONGSIDE ALL THEIR KINSMEN. They dwelt, as it is written (Gen. 16:12), "He will dwell alongside all his kinsmen."

וישכבו, the descendants of Ishmael mentioned by name in this paragraph resided in different regions extending from Chavilah as far as Shur, as these were the regions which became their ancestral holdings.

וישכנו, weniger als וישכנו, bezeichnet mehr ein vorübergehendes Niederlassen, ensprechend dem Nomadenleben der Ismaeliten. — ׳על פני כל אחיו וגו siehe Kap.16, 12. נפל irgendwo hinkommen, wohin man nicht gehört, wo man sich nicht in die übrigen natürlichen Verhältnisse als aus ihnen hervorgegangen einreiht, so גפילים, wie vom Himmel Gefallene. Also hier von Völkerschaaren, die ihre Wohnplätze wählen, wo es ihnen beliebt, "wie dahin geschneit".

על פני כל אחיו נפל, in accordance with the prediction of the angel in 16,12 foretold to his mother even before he had been born. We explained the meaning of the phrase there. The word ונפל is to be understood as similar in meaning to the same word in Judges 7,12, (נופלים) where it means “falling in battle.”

ואלה תולדות יצחק AND THESE ARE THE PROGENY OF ISAAC — viz, Jacob and Esau who are spoken of in this section.

AND THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC, ABRAHAM’s SON. Scripture says this of Esau and Jacob,¹Ramban’s intent is to teach us that the word toldoth is not to be understood in the broad sense of “generations” but in the more specific sense of “children.” Thus the verse reads, And these are the children of Isaac, namely, Esau and Jacob mentioned further on. Compare Ramban at beginning of Seder Noach. Isaac’s sons who are mentioned further on. Scripture further mentions the circumstances of their birth.²Thus, in order to explain fully the story of Jacob and Esau, Scripture begins with an account of their genealogy.

אברהם הוליד את יצחק, according to the plain meaning of the text this statement was necessary to prevent the wrong impression being created by the previous statement in verse 12 where Ishmael is described merely as having been born by Hagar the Egyptian woman. Here when Avraham’s principal son, Yitzchok is the subject of the paragraph, it was important to repeat who had fathered him. He was the son of Avraham’s true wife, his lifetime companion, and G’d had predicted in Genesis 21,12 that Avraham’s descendants would always be known through his son Yitzchok and his descendants. We have a similar verse in Chronicles I 1,28 describing Yitzchok and Ishmael as Avraham’s sons, [but not in the chronological order of their births, to remind us that the principle of preference for the firstborn was ignored. Ed.] In connection with the sons of Keturah, described as the concubine of Avraham, Chronicles does not even spell out that Avraham fathered Keturah’s sons. In fact, in verse 34 of that chapter in Chronicles, the fact that Avraham fathered Yitzchok is repeated once more, no such repetition being made concerning Ishmael.

ואלה תולדת, And these are the developments, etc. Why did the Torah mention the birth of Isaac instead of the birth of his children at this point? Why did the Torah need to tell us here that Abraham fathered Isaac?

ואלה תולדת אברהם יצחק בן אברהם אברהם. Whereas the Torah when listing Ishmael’s descendants had restricted itself to a brief summary, now when reporting about Yitzchok, the Torah elaborates a great deal more both about Yaakov and about his brother Esau.

ואלה תולדת יצחק, his biography and his descendants.

ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק. “These are the generations of Yitzchok the son of Avraham, Avraham sired Yitzchok.” Rashi explained that the new element the Torah informs us of here, is that Yitzchok’s facial features were almost identical to that of his father Avraham. This was important because it made it impossible for people to claim that Sarah had been impregnated by Avimelech while being kept a prisoner there. Others believe that the reason that the Torah here repeated information we have long been familiar with, is to tell us that Avraham did not only produce Yitzchok physically, but he raised him in his image so that he represented a true continuation of Avraham’s teachings and their impact on his surroundings. This is why people would refer to him primarily as בן אברהם, although he had been named יצחק. Ibn Ezra explains that that the very word הוליד, does not only mean to provide the semen for such a child, but to raise it, educate it, etc. This was also what the Torah had in mind in Genesis 50,23 when the children of Machir, son of Menashe, are described as יולדו על ברכי יוסף, normally translated as “were born on the knees of Joseph.” Surely, what the Torah meant was that Joseph, their grandfather, was still able to become an influence in shaping these children’s character. Nachmanides writes that it is appropriate when speaking of someone’s descendants, to first list his own genealogy. Yichuss, never starts in a vacuum, except with the first man, of course. It is the Torah’s custom, when dealing with people who are of the elite, to list their founding father. The Torah was compelled to do this here in light of having written in 25,12 ואלה תולדות ישמעאל בן אברהם אשר ילדה לו הגר, “these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Avraham, whom Hagar had born for him.” If the Torah had only written:ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, without adding אברהם הוליד את יצחק, we would have equated Yitzchok to Ishmael. As it is, the Torah made plain that we would understand that the only תולדה of Avraham which counts is Yitzchok, and no other biological offspring of Avraham. This is again to remind us that G’d had told Avraham כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, “you will forever be exclusively identified with Yitzchok as your true seed.” 25.20 בקחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” Rashi claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud Ketuvot 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child. In the Sifri, a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a Midrash are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children.

Yaakov and Eisov who are discussed in this parshah. Meaning: wherever it is written, “And these,” it is a continuation of that which preceded. Just as Avraham fathered a righteous son and a wicked one, so too did Yitzchok father a righteous son and a wicked one.

Wenn wir bedenken, wie ausführlich im folgenden Verse die Abstammung, Verwandtschaft und Herkunft Rebekkas nochmals vorgeführt wird, so kann uns die Wiederholung der kurzen Notiz: אברהם הוליד את יצחק nicht Wunder nehmen. Diese Ver schiedenheit der beiderseitigen Abstammung erscheint als die tiefeingreifende Ursache alles folgenden.

יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק, “Yitzchok the son of Avraham; Avraham sired Yitzchok. The numerical value of the letters in the word הוליד, is equivalent to the numerical value of the word דומה, “to be a look a like;” it suggests that Avraham and Yitzchok’s facial features made them look as if they were clones.

ואלה תולדות יצחק, “and these were the descendants of Yitzchok;” previously the Torah had listed the descendants of Yishmael after the descendants of Keturah; now the Torah goes into details of Yitzchok’s descendants.

אברהם הוליד את יצחק ABRAHAM BEGAT ISAAC — Just because Scripture wrote, “Isaac, son of Abraham” it felt compelled to say “Abraham begat Isaac”, because the cynics of that time said, “Sarah became with child of Abimelech. See how many years she lived with Abraham without becoming with child”. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He shaped Isaac’s facial features exactly similar to those of Abraham’s, so that everyone had to admit that Abraham begat Isaac. This is what is stated here: that Isaac was the son of Abraham, for there is evidence that Abraham begat Isaac (Midrash Tanchuma, Toldot 1).

ABRAHAM BEGOT ISAAC. Rashi comments: “Since it was written, Isaac, Abraham’s son, it became necessary for Scripture to say, Abraham begot Isaac, since the scoffers of the generation³Those who did not believe in the Divine Providence that guided Abraham’s destiny. were saying, ‘It was from Abimelech that Sarah became pregnant.’ Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, formed Isaac’s facial features similar to those of Abraham so that all should say,⁴“Say.” In our text of Rashi: “testify.” Abraham begot Isaac.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra further says that the meaning of the word holid (begot) is “bring up and raise,” as is the expression, ‘Yuldu’ (were raised) upon Joseph’s knees,⁵Further, 50:23. The word yuldu there could not mean “were born,” for it would then mean that Joseph’s great grandchildren were actually born upon his knees. It must mean “raised.” Similarly, it means here, “Abraham raised Isaac.” even as it says, And he sent them away from Isaac his son.⁶Above, 25:6, referring to the other children that Abraham sent away. Thus it is clear that only Isaac was raised by Abraham.
In my opinion the correct reason [that Scripture states here, Abraham begot Isaac], is that it now reverts and begins the genealogy with the founding father, in consonance with Scriptural custom, which is to revert to the head of the ancestry when dealing with people of distinction.⁷The Hebrew anshei hama’alah, which literally means “men of elevation,” refers to spiritual or political distinction. Similarly, it is written in the book of Chronicles, The sons of Shem: Elam and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. And Arpachshad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber.⁸I Chronicles 1:17-18. After Scripture concluded this listing, it began again by saying, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah,⁹Ibid., Verse 24. This is explained by the fact that Shem is the head of Abraham’s ancestry. Hence Scripture reverts to him in tracing the generations. until, Abram, the same is Abraham.¹⁰Ibid., Verse 27. So also in the genealogy of Benjamin in the book of Chronicles, Scripture reverts to previous generations and begins, And Ner begot Kish, and Kish begot Saul.¹¹Ibid., 9:39. Saul was king of Israel. Hence Scripture reverts to his founding ancestor. Here also [the Torah reverts to the founding father and says], Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob, as Scripture will soon mention.
It is necessary that Scripture return to relate this¹²“This” refers to the statement, Abraham begot Isaac. For the purpose of indicating Jacob’s distinction it would have been sufficient to mention, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Merely mentioning Abraham in this connection would have satisfied the Scriptural principle of reverting to the founding father in the case of “people of distinction.” Why then did the Torah continue, Abraham begot Isaac? Ramban proceeds to resolve this difficulty in accordance with Scriptural textual principles as opposed to Rashi, quoted above, who resorted to an Aggadic explanation: “Since the scoffers of the generation were saying etc.” since it said, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son.¹³Above, 25:12. Now, had it only said, And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son, it would appear that Scripture equated Ishmael and Isaac with respect to genealogy and distinction, all the more so since it mentioned the firstborn first.¹⁴Thus, Ishmael, the firstborn son of Abraham, would seem to be more significant than Isaac since he was referred to in exactly the same manner as Isaac and additionally he was mentioned first. Hence it became necessary to augment Isaac’s distinction by saying, Abraham begot Isaac. Furthermore it would have been fitting that it begin with Abraham¹⁵In other words, instead of saying, And these are the generations of Isaac, it would have been proper that Scripture begin with Abraham, but Scripture had to avoid this for reasons explained further on in the text. and say, “These are the generations of Abraham.” But Scripture did not wish to do this in order to avoid listing Ishmael and the children of Keturah.¹⁶Above, 25:1-4. It is for this reason that Scripture returns and completes the verse by stating, Abraham begot Isaac, as if to say that it is he [Isaac] alone who is Abraham’s offspring. It is considered as if he [Abraham] did not beget anyone else, just as it says, For in Isaac shall seed be called to thee.¹⁷Ibid., 21:12. It is for this reason that it also says above, And these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s handmaid, bore unto Abraham:¹³Above, 25:12. the phrase, whom Hagar, etc., is for the honor of Isaac, as if to say that the genealogy of these generations is not traceable to Abraham, rather they are the children of the handmaid, even as it says, And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation.¹⁸Ibid., Verse 13. Scripture does also similarly in the book of Chronicles. At first it states: The sons of Abraham; Isaac and Ishmael. These are their generations: the first born of Ishmael, Nebaioth.¹⁹I Chronicles 1:28-29. Then it mentions, And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bore Zimran.²⁰Ibid., Verse 32. Now it would have been logical to follow this by saying, “the sons of Isaac,” but instead it reverts and begins: And Abraham begot Isaac. The sons of Isaac: Esau, and Israel.²¹Ibid., Verse 32. The repetition, And Abraham begot Isaac, is necessary lest we equate “the sons of Ishmael” with “the sons of Isaac.”

אברהם הוליד את יצחק, only Yitzchok is truly called Avraham’s seed.

אברהם הוליד את יצחק, we are told in Baba Metzia 86 that Yitzchok’s facial features were so similar to those of his father that anyone ever encountering Yitzchok immediately knew that he must be the son of Avraham. The reason that this had been arranged so by G’d was that when someone claims to have become a father in his old age, some people tend to doubt the “father’s” claim, assuming that the woman who had born that child must have been unfaithful to her husband, or that at least the baby now presented as this father’s was in fact a foundling. Yitzchok’s amazing similarity to his father precluded anyone from making such spurious accusations. Another reason that the Torah repeated something which we all knew, i.e. that Avraham had sired Yitzchok, was that Yitzchok possessed the same virtues and wonderful qualities which Avraham excelled in, so that it was clear who must have been his father not only physically, but that the same father also transmitted a spiritual legacy to his son.

Because the scoffers of the generations were saying... Re’m writes: The reason that Scripture needed to verify that Yitzchok was Avraham’s son was because [the Torah’s writing of, “And these are the descendants of Yitzchok son of Avraham,”] brought about the scoffers of the generation to claim that Sarah conceived from Avimelech. But Re’m’s reason is not correct. Because if so, let it not write the “and” [which connects it to the preceding narrative.] And let it not write the ה [of אברהם, but rather omit mention of Avraham altogether]. It should say simply, אלה תולדות יצחק, as it says אלה תולדות נח (6:9) and אלה תולדות יעקב (37:2). [This way, Scripture would not elicit the scoffing in the first place.] Rather, Rashi means as follows: Our Parshah discusses Yaakov and Eisov, one of whom was righteous, and the other, wicked. Due to them, our verse needs to offer explanation. So we need not ask why it writes “And these,” and אברהם, because [the answer is:] The scoffers of the generations were already claiming at the time of Yitzchok’s birth [that Sarah conceived] from Avimelech. And now, they found support for their claim! One son [of Yitzchak’s] was righteous like Sarah, and the other, wicked like Avimelech. [They claimed] that both sons would be righteous if they came from Avraham. [Our Parshah is thus connected to an earlier narrative, explaining why it says, “And these.”] This is the reason it was necessary to say, “Yitzchok son of Avraham,” and support it by saying, “Avraham was the father of Yitzchok,” [implying that Yitzchok’s face resembled Avraham’s]. And this is why Rashi concludes by saying: “This is the meaning of what is written here....” It is written here because one son was righteous and the other wicked, [as discussed in our Parshah]. Otherwise, it would be written in another place. (Nachalas Yaakov)

The intent of the Torah may be understood thus. "And these are Isaac's developments," refers to events that are mentioned later on in this פרשה. Seeing the Torah will speak about the sons of Isaac, and Isaac himself was not originally capable of siring children since his own existence had been rooted in the "left" side of the emanations [until the fact that he submitted to the binding on the altar resulted in his "graduating" to the status of someone born under the aegis of the "right" side of the emanations (kabbalistic concept) compare 22,2 Ed.], the reader might have asked how Isaac could sire children at all? The Torah therefore hints in this way that the fact that Abraham had fathered Isaac enabled him to bestow upon Isaac the ability to beget children.

אברהם הוליד את יצחק, “Avraham sired Yitzchok.” The Torah appears to repeat itself here because it did not refer again to Yitzchok’s mother as opposed to 25,12 where it stressed that Yishmael’s mother was Hagar, stressing that she was of Egyptian origin. Were it not for this detail, I might have said that the reason why the Torah repeated the line that Avraham was Yitzchok’s father was another way of saying that Yitzchok was raised in his father’s house, similar to Moses, of whom the Torah reported that as soon as Pharaoh’s daughter had brought him to Pharaoh’s palace he was raised as if he had been her son. (Exodus 2,10) The repetition is meant to stress that of all the (eight) sons that Avraham fathered, Yitzchok was by far the most important one (for the Jewish people) An alternate explanation: Yitzchok’s father was not Avram but Avraham. As long as Avram’s name had not been changed he had not been able to sire Yitzchok. A third explanation: if you were to ask why the Torah repeated this information, as if Avraham had numerous sons? The Torah wished to stress that ultimately Avraham’s historical stature was assured only by his son Yitzchok. The Torah hints at a famous line by King Solomon in Proverbs 17,6: עטרת זקנים בני בנים, “the crown of the elders are their grandchildren, but the glory of their children are their parents.”

Alternately, the Torah may refer to Yevamot 64, where we learn that when two righteous people offer a prayer simultaneously, if one of them is also the son of a righteous person G'd will listen to his prayer first. This is why the Torah described G'd as listening to Isaac's prayer in 25,22. Accordingly, the words: אברהם הוליד את יצחק means that Abraham's righteousness was a factor in G'd enabling Isaac to have children.

ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק , “and these are the descendants of Yitzchak the son of Avraham; Avraham fathered Yitzchak.” Tanchuma Toldot 6 explains that we find an interesting parallel between Avraham and Yitzchak on one side and David and his son Kilav. When David’s messengers had gone to see Naval and asked for some material assistance, (Samuel I 25,11) the latter replied: “Who is David Who is the son of Yishai? There are many slaves today who run away from their masters....Should I take my water, my bread, and my meat, which I slaughtered for the benefit of my shearers and give it to people whom I do not know whence they have come?” When David heard this he made ready with his men to assault Naval and to take what they wanted. At that point, Avigayil, Naval’s wife, hastened to take 200 loaves of bread, two jars of wine, five dressed sheep, etc., and she told her servants to carry these ahead of her as a gift offering for David and his men. (Avigayil succeeded in persuading David not to act violently against her husband.) The Book of Samuel continues (verse 38) to describe that ten days after this event Naval took sick with a stroke and died. Upon hearing this, David proposed marriage to Avigayil his widow. After Avigayil accepted his proposal, David did not sleep with her for three months in order to avoid the suspicion that any child born to them would be suspected as having been fathered by Avigayil’s first husband. After the three months had passed, David had marital relations with Avigayil and she conceived and gave birth to a son named כלאב, meaning כולו אב “he looked entirely like his father (David),” to preclude anyone thinking that he had been fathered by Naval.

A further meaning may be connected to Bereshit Rabbah 63,2 which explains Isaiah 29,22, where the prophet describes the as yet unborn Jacob as having redeemed Abraham, i.e. saved him from Nimrod's furnace. Had it not been for Jacob's merit Abraham might not have survived that experience. Our verse then would hint that it was only the combined merit of Jacob and Isaac that enabled Abraham to live long enough to beget Isaac.

The wording of our verse contains an additional meaning of the word תולדת, "developments, offspring, generations." The true "offspring" of the righteous are their good deeds. The various trials Isaac underwent during his life are not specifically described as such by the Torah, although it was he who offered his life to G'd on the altar at Moriah. There are even commentators (such as lbn Ezra 22,4) who claim that Isaac submitted only against his will. In order to prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion the Torah describes Isaac once more as a true offspring of Abraham, someone who was in no way inferior to his father in his love for and obedience to G'd. This is stressed both by the word בן אברהם and the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה. Isaac continued to accumulate meritorious deeds just as Abraham had done before him.

The Torah may also simply hint that Isaac had only one son who followed in the footsteps of Abraham, i.e. "and these are the generations of Isaac, the one who was a true son of Abraham."

Still another meaning may be gleaned from the wording "Abraham begat Isaac." Whereas Isaac did indeed match Abraham in good deeds, he could not receive the same credit since he had his father as an example and could model himself accordingly. Abraham was unique. He was "self-made," did not have a father who served as his role model. This was the reason that the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 41,8) quotes G'd as describing Abraham as "the one who loved Him." Abraham had had to initiate this love towards his Creator without the Creator having served as a guiding light for him first.

Another reason that Isaac is described as the son of Abraham here once again is to teach us that a צדיק who is himself the son of a צדיק is in class by himself, not to be compared to a צדיק who is the son of a רשע. Even though Bereshit Rabbah 38,12 states that Abraham's father Terach became a penitent before he died, he had been wicked for most of his life. The activities of a sinful father cast a pall over the spiritual light spread by the son. When looked at from that vantage point Isaac was better prepared for a pious life than his father. All this is included in the wording ואלה תולדת יצחק בך אברהם.

Isaac did not experience all the painful experiences that Abraham endured. The Torah explains the reason why by writing that he was the son of Abraham. He was the first beneficiary of his father Abraham's great and cumulative merit. If Abraham experienced far more turbulence in his life this was because it could not be said of him that a great man fathered him.

בן ארבעים שנה FORTY YEARS OLD — For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah he received the news that Rebecca was born (22:20). Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, because at that time Sarah died and from the birth of Isaac until the Binding — when Sarah died — there were 37 years since she was 90 years old when Isaac was born and 127 when she died, as it is said, (23:1) “And the life of Sarah was [one hundred and twenty seven years]” — thus Isaac was then 37 years old. At that period Rebecca was born and he waited until she was fit for marriage — 3 years — and then married her (Seder Olam).

בן ארבעים שנה, he is described as 60 years old when the twins Esau and Yaakov were born to him by Rivkah. (verse 28) From the combination of these two verses we know that Rivkah had remained barren for 20 years.

אחות לבן הארמי, and from her emerged Esau who was similar in character to the brother of his mother.

ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, When Isaac was forty years old, etc. The reason the Torah reports the age at which Isaac married, something that we were not told concerning Abraham, is in order to to explain why Isaac married so late. The words בקחתו את רבקה, explain that he had to wait that long in order to marry this particular girl. The words: "לו לאשה" "for him as a wife," spell out that only this woman could have fulfilled the role of becoming Isaac's wife. Prior to Rebeccah's birth no בת זוג, suitable potential wife, had existed for Isaac. We have explained in the last פרשה that Rebeccah was very young, having only been born when Isaac lay bound on the altar (at the age of 37) and thus became capable of fathering issue. Under the circumstances no criticism can be levelled at Isaac for not getting married earlier. Rebeccah was only three years old when Isaac married her.

ויהי יצחק, the verse tells us that G’d intervened benevolently in Yitzchok‘s life just as He had done in the life of his father; Rivkah too was barren, unable to conceive children unless through a miracle. The fact is proven when we consider that Yitzchok married her at 40 and until he was sixty he could not father a child. G’d had deliberately intervened in the bodies of our matriarchs in order to demonstrate to the nations of the world that He loved Avraham and Yitzchok and therefore He performed miracles to enable their wives to bear children for them. Our sages in Yevamot 64 conclude from the above that G’d so looked forward to the prayers of the patriarchs that He quasi provoked them into praying for the gift of children.

קחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” Rashi claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud Ketuvot 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child. In the Sifri, a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a Midrash are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children.

For when Avraham returned from Mount Moriah... The verse’s statement that Yitzchok was forty needs no support. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yitzchok not marry when he was eighteen or twenty? He fulfilled all the Torah, and was a beloved, only son to his father and mother. They should have married him off as soon as he was fit to have children. Rashi answers [that they waited for his destined mate to be born]: “For when...” (Re’m)

Nicht umsonst hören wir, dass Jizchak bereits vierzig Jahre alt war, als er Rebekka heiratete. So sehr es Abrahams innigster Wunsch und ängstliche Sorge war, dass Jizchak die entsprechende Gattin bekomme, ließ er ihn doch erst vierzig Jahre alt werden, obgleich er bei seinem hohen Alter doch nicht wissen konnte, wie lange er noch leben würde. Allein eben diese Zögerung dürfte aus derselben Sorge erwachsen sein. Jizchaks Charakter sollte erst volle, männliche Selbständigkeit und Reife erlangt haben, damit er nicht nur materiell, sondern auch geistig die ganze Stütze der Gattin werden konnte. Deshalb auch das, nach der Überlieferung, noch vollkommene Kindesalter der Rebekka (worauf ja auch schön oben das הסר) נַעְַרָ) hinweisen würde — siehe daselbst — wenn sie nicht als אילונית gleichwohl an Jahren schon älter gewesen sein könnte), damit sie unter dem um so mächtigeren Einfluss des abrahamitischen Geistes umsomehr eine Sara werden könne. Wir haben schon den schneidenden Gegensatz zwischen Rebekka und ihrer Umgebung kennen gelernt. Gleichwohl erinnert uns die Schrift nochmals an ihre aramäische Herkunft und Verwandtschaft. War gleich Jizchak Abrahams Sohn und hat Abraham und nur Abraham auf ihn einen Einfluss geübt, und war er so zu einem echten Sohn Abrahams gereift, so war Rebekka doch, trotz ihrer unleugbaren Vorzüge, die Tochter eines Aramiten, in Aram geboren und erzogen, und die Schwester eines der ausgeprägtesten Aramiten: Labans! Wenn nach dem Erfahrungssatz unserer Weisen die meisten Söhne den Mutterbrüdern ähneln — רב בנים הולכים אחר אחי האם — welche Kinder würden aus dieser Ehe zu erwarten gewesen sein, wenn die meisten Ebenbilder ihres Oheims geworden wären? — und so sind wir von vornherein auf den später hervortretenden Zwiespalt vorbereitet, werden uns nicht wundern dürfen, dass auch ein Esau erscheint, werden uns wundern, neben ihm doch einen Jakob zu finden.

ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, Yitzchok was forty years old, etc.” According to Rashi, the forty year old Yitzchok married a three year old Rivkah. This is difficult as we have learned from the Sifri that there were three people who reached the same age, i.e. Kehat, Ben Azzai and Rivkah, and the Torah stated that Kehat died at the age of one hundred and thirty three. (Exodus 6,18.) If this were correct she must have been eleven years older than three when she married Yitzchok. [There is no Sifri on the Book of Genesis, but the Midrash hagadol, which originated in Yemen, also claims that Rivkah was 14 years old when she married Yitzchok. Ed.] Rashi’s calculation goes as follows: Rivkah was married at 3 years, and was 23 years old when she gave birth to Esau and Yaakov. Yaakov was 63 years old when he fled to Padan Aram as Rashi explains at the end of this portion. He then spent 14 years in the academy headed by Ever, great grandson of Noach. After that he worked 20 years for his uncle Lavan. He spent 2 years on his return journey home during which time he was informed by Rivkah’s nursemaid that his mother had died, as Rashi explains at the end of parshat Vayishlach, in connection with the burial of that nursemaid called Devorah, and the naming of an oak tree after her. According to this calculation, Rivkah could not have lived to an age older than 123 years. This is also the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah according to whom Rivkah must have been 14 years old when she got married. If you accept that view, Rivkah died at the age of 133. According to this calculation, what we read in seder olam, chapter 1, that Avraham was informed about the birth of Rivkah while on the way home from the binding of Yitzchok, she must have been 11 years old already at that time. This is what bothered Rabbi Moshe Shlomoh ben Avraham known by the acrostic אנסימא"ן, when discussing that a virgin is given 12 month between betrothal and consummation of the marriage (Talmud tractate Ketuvot, folio 57) The Talmud there derives this from the words in our portion, when Rivkah’s family demanded 12 months delay from Eliezer before Rivkah going with him. If Rivkah had been 14 years old already, she would have been considered an adult, and her father would not have had the right to tell her what to do (unless she still continued to live in his house) The Talmud there gives a girl who is over twelve and a half years old at betrothal only thirty days before becoming wed to her fiance, just as the length of time required before a widow can remarry. Our author leaves the question open, not having heard how to reconcile these data to the satisfaction of all scholars.

ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, Rashi’s comment on this apparently historically irrelevant detail, is that the Torah informed us that Yitzchok, after marrying Rivkah, waited for three years until she was old enough to engage in intercourse and become pregnant. (14 years old) [In his commentary on Genesis 24,16, item 91 Rabbi Kasher in his Torah Shleymah, deals at length with the conflicting opinions about Rivkah’s age at marriage. Sifri on Deuteronomy 34,7 claims that Rivkah lived to the age of 133 years, same age as that of Kehat, son of Levi. Our author calculates that if Rivkah had only been 3 years at the time when she was married that calculation would be wrong by eleven years. He proceeds to give details tracing the various ages of our patriarchs and matriarchs down to the birth of Kehat. He also understands the Midrash according to which Avraham heard about the fact that Betuel had fathered Rivkah as not meaning that this had occurred at the same time as the akeydah, but that Avraham had belatedly heard about this. As proof that Rivkah could not have been only 3 years old when Eliezrer met her, he cites the fact that her brother and mother refer to her as a נערה, a term never applied to someone younger than 12 and a half years of age. The well known traditional historic text known as seder olam in its first chapter, also writes that when Avraham returned from the Akeydah he was told that Rivkah had been born. The meaning of that Midrash was that she had been born some time ago. Another proof that she was of age is that we have an iron clad rule that parents must not marry off a girl who has already reached puberty unless she has been asked and given her consent.] The fact that in our chapter Rivkah’s family proceeds to ask for her consent proves that without it the parents could not have married her off.

בת בתואל מפדן ארם אחות לבן THE DAUGHTER OF BETHUEL THE SYRIAN OF PADAN-ARAM, THE SISTER TO LABAN —Has it not already been written that she was the daughter of Bethuel and sister of Laban of Padanaram? But we are told these facts once more to proclaim her praise — she was the daughter of a wicked man, sister of a wicked man, and her native place was one of wicked people, and yet she did not learn from their doings (Genesis Rabbah 63:4).

מפדן ארם, from the fields of Aram. Padan Aram is referred to as the field of Aram in Hoseah 12,13. Also in Arabic, the place is known as “the field of Padan.” Alternatively, according to Bab Kama 96, it is possible that the word פדן describes a pair of something, such as a pair of oxen being referred to in the Talmud as פדנא דתורי. There were two countries [according to our author. Ed.] both of which straddle the river Euphrates, one being Aram Tzova, the other Aram Naharayim. This is why each is described as if it were a pair. We know of other “Arams” that are “pairs,” such as ארם דמשק and ארם בית רחב, (Samuel II 10,6). Seeing these localities were each very close to the other they are referred to as if they were twin cities, pairs. It appears that פדן ארם was part of the land known as אור כשדים, whereas ארם נהרים was part of the region known as חרן.

אחות לבן הארמי, “sister of Lavan from Aram.” It is customary for the Torah to provide the name of the elder brother of a girl as part of her genealogy.

And at that time Rivkah was born. He waited for her... Otherwise, why did he wait so long and not marry her as soon as he received the news? [This question arises] because properly speaking, Yitzchok should have married earlier — but could not, as Avraham did not want to marry him to a Canaanite woman. We see this from, “After these words... Milkah has also born children to Nachor” (22:20). There Rashi comments, “The words of the thoughts that came about as a result of the Akeidah...”

בת בתואל הארמי…אחות לבן, the daughter of Bethuel from Aram,..sister of Laban. The Torah does not repeat this information in order to remind us who Rebeccah was but in order to defend Rebeccah against possible accusations. Inasmuch as the Torah tells us in the next verse that G'd responded to Isaac's prayer (though both of them prayed simultaneously), someone might have concluded that Rebeccah did not merit that her prayer should be answered by G'd; the Torah explains therefore that the only reason G'd did not respond to her prayer at the time was the fact that her father was the wicked Bethuel. Repeating the information that this Bethuel was an ארמי, is an allusion to the other way of spelling these letters, i.e. רמאי, swindler. The Torah deliberately did not mention the town Bethuel lived in in order to have a chance to allude to the fact that the man was a swindler.

מפדן ארם, according to Rashi, this is identical with the region elsewhere described as שדה ארם, (Hoseah 12,13 also sometimes described as שדה פדן. In Arabic it appears as פדן שדה. Yaakov is described in Hoseah 12,13 has having fled from .שדה ארם

מפדן ארם FROM PADAN-ARAM — Because there were two Arams — Aram-Naharaim (Mesopotamia) and Aram-Zoba — it is called Padan-aram, (Padan meaning pair). It has the same meaning as צמד in the phrase צמד בקר (Samuel 11:7) which we know signifies a pair of oxen and which is translated in the Targum by פדן תורין a Padan of oxen, so that we see that Padan means a pair. Some, however, explain Padan-aram to be the same as (Hosea 12:13) “the field (country) of Aram”, because in the Arabic language a field is called Padan.

אחות לבן הארמי, because the family was known through him and he conducted the affairs of that house, as we have explained at the time.

Until she was fit for marriage — three years — whereupon he married her. Although she was not fit to conceive, he married her nonetheless, so he would not have improper thoughts.

The reason that the Torah again mentions that Rebeccah was a sister of Laban, something we already knew from the encounter of Eliezer and Laban at the well, is in order explain why such a fine woman gave birth to the wicked Esau. Having both a father who was a swindler and a brother who was a master swindler in her background, the marvel was Rebeccah's innocence, not the fact that one of her sons might turn out to be wicked. Baba Batra 110 already remarks that most sons turn out to have a character resembling that of their mother's brothers. The Torah attests that Rebeccah herself was an absolutely righteous woman when Isaac her husband is described as praying in the presence of his wife. Should you ask why Isaac did not examine Rebeccah's brother's character before he decided to marry her, we have already answered that she was the only woman who was his בת זוג, divinely appointed to become his wife. Had this not been so Isaac would never have married the sister of a wicked person such as Laban.

אחות לבן הארמי, the sister of Lavan from Aram. It is the custom of the Torah to describe the elder brother of a girl/woman as someone’s ancestry. Compare: מרים אחות אהרן, “Miriam, Aaron’s sister” (Exodus 15,12) or מחלת אחות נביות, “Machalat, Nevayot’s sister.” (Genesis 28,15)

That she was the daughter of a wicked person and the sister of a wicked person... You might object that the question still stands. When it said before that she was Besueil’s daughter and Lavan’s sister, we could have learned the same lesson, [so why is our verse needed?] The answer is: By writing this verse, Scripture is testifying that she truly was righteous and did not learn from their deeds.

The words אחות לבן also allude to the reason that Rebeccah was barren for so many years. According to Bereshit Rabbah 60,13 this was in order that her fertility could not be credited to the blessings bestowed upon her by her brother Laban in 24,60. The Torah therefore alludes to the cause of barrenness before mentioning the fact that she could not conceive. It was because she was Laban's sister that she needed to wait to conceive until her husband's prayer.

וַיֶּעְתַּר AND ISAAC ENTREATED —He prayed much and urgently.

ויעתר, an expression denoting a lengthy prayer, as in Ezekiel 35,13 העתרתם עלי דבריכם, “you multiplied your words against Me.”

לנכח אשתו, even though he had been given an assurance from G’d that he would produce seed, he prayed to G’d that the mother of this child or children should be someone who was meritorious, someone of the calibre of Rivkah who was present and standing opposite him..

ויעתר לו, "He responded to his entreaty." The reason that the Torah does not mention the customary "Isaac knew his wife" (as in Genesis 4,1, or Samuel I 1,19) prior to reporting her pregnancy may have been that they prayed within three days of having had marital relations. Their prayer was that the semen should not go to waste (compare Berachot 60 on the subject of semen turning unfit for conception).

ויעתר, he prayed long and hard asking that his wife should bear a child, seeing that he loved her very dearly [and would not consider marrying anyone in addition to her. Ed.] He would not even consider taking any of Rivkah’s handmaids as a partner, as had his father Avraham who had married Hagar. As a result of all this prayer, Rivkah did finally become pregnant.

ויעתר לו, “G’d responded to his prayer.” The emphasis on the word לו is meant to tell us that G’d did not respond to her prayer. The reason is that we have a principle that a prisoner is unable to free himself (without external help) [In this instance it was Rivkah who could not have children, hence she is comparable to someone who is handicapped, like a prisoner in a cell. Compare Sifssey Chachamim on Genesis Ed.]

To be implored and to be placated and swayed by him. [Rashi says this] because וַיֵrָתֶר (He granted his prayer) cannot mean “increase.” Rather it means “implore,” whose meaning is close to that of “increase.” [Although וַיֵrָתֶר comes later on in the verse,] this is why Rashi explains it before לנוכח אשתו: [in order to explain the meaning of the root עתר]. Since נתפצר [implies giving in due to pressure] and may not to be used for Hashem, Rashi adds the word נתפתה, conveying that Hashem “consented” to his request.

חתר ,ויעתר יצחק verwandt mit חתר: einbohren, מחתרת: Einbruch. Das gewaltsame Andringen eines Schiffes gegen Wind und Wellen ebenfalls: חתר (Jona 1, 13). עתר daher ein dringendes Bitten und Beten. Ahnlich עתר ,פגע ב־ noch stärker. Die gerade aufwirbelnde Rauchsäule heißt auch: עתר ענן הקטורת ,עתר (Ezech. 8. 11). נעתרות נשיקות שונא (Prob. 27, 6): Wenn ein Feind uns küsst, so merkt man, dass die Küsse ihm "abgerungen und abgedrungen sind" dass sie nicht vom Herzen kommen. Pharao spricht: העתירו בעדי, im Hiphil, "lasset etwas zu Gott für mich dringen", sendet einen mächtigen, einflussreichen Fürsprecher für mich zu Gott. Er weiß nicht, dass man zu Gott leichter kommt, als zu dem Unterschreiber des Sekretärs eines Amtmannes.

לנח אשתו, “in the presence of his wife.” The numerical value of the word אשתו=707, is the same as the combined numerical value of the words: אש וקש, “fire and straw.” This is a hint that Rivkah would give birth to one son, comparable in spiritual values to fire, and another whose value in terms of spiritual values was no better than straw. The prophet therefore compared Yaakov to fire and Esau to straw. (Ovadiah 18)

On behalf of his wife. The main part of Isaac's prayer was for his wife. He was not afraid, for himself, since if he was not built up through her he would be built up through another -- for behold God had promised (lit. "made him trust" [?]) to Avraham "to your seed I will give this land", and said to Yitzchak that he would call him seed. For this Yitzchak trusted for himself, but he wished to be built up from Rivkah.

ויעתר יצחק, “Yitzchok prayed;” Rashi continues with: this word when used for prayer always describes an intense prayer, one reflecting the urgent need of the petitioner. He describes this as the meaning wherever we encounter this root in this mode. He proceeds to quote three verses from Scripture as proof. Then he adds that this rule applies to this word generally.

וַיֵּעָתֶר לו WAS ENTREATED OF HIM — He let himself be urged, conciliated and influenced by him. I say that wherever this root עתר occurs it has the meaning of heaping up and increasing. E. g., (Ezekiel 8:11) “And a thick (עתר) cloud of incense” which means an abundance of ascending smoke; (Ezekiel 35:13) “You have multiplied (העתרתם) your words against me”; (Proverbs 27:6) “The kisses of an enemy are importunate (נעתרות)”—they appear to be too many and therefore they are burdensome. old French encresser; English to increase.

לנכח, on account of.

לנכח אשתו, on behalf of his wife, explaining that the reason for his intense prayer was that he did not want to marry anyone else. His prayer did not so much concern his becoming a father as his becoming a father of a child born by his wife Rivkah. He prayed in the presence of his wife so that he would be better able to concentrate on her problem. [whereas the Torah had written that both Avraham and Sarah had been barren, nothing about Yitzchok being sterile had been written anywhere. Ed.]

It means imploring and increasing... Rashi is explaining that עתר does not [generally] denote prayer, rather imploring. [Here,] it means he implored and increased his prayers.

לנכח אשתו. Zwanzig Jahre lang hatte Jizchak im Gebete vor Gott um Er füllung des Wunsches gerungen, von Rebekka Kinder zu erhalten. Ihm war ja die Verheißung bekannt: כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע er hatte ja jedenfalls Kinder zu erhoffen; allein ob die Fortträger des Abrahamsbundes von einer Schwester Labans geboren werden würden, daran durfte er, trotz ihrer eigenen Vortrefflichkeit, insbesondere nach so langem Harren, zu zweifeln anfangen, seine Bitte bezog sich daher speziell auf Rebekka. — Wir sehen hier, nicht nur der erste Stein, sondern auch der Weiterbau des Hauses Israels war nur der unmittelbaren Allmachtsspende Gottes zu verdanken. Wie Sara war auch Rebelka עקרה.

לנוכח אשתו, “in order to enable his wife to conceive;” the expression נכח occurs in a similar sense in Judges 18,6 'נכח ה דרככם, “which the Targum renders as: “G-d will ensure that your mission will be successful,” i.e. אתקין ה' ארחכין. He did not pray on his own behalf as he was aware that he was not sterile. The reason that he knew this was so was that G-d had told Avraham his father that his name would be carried on through his son Yitzchok. (Genesis 21,12)

לנכח אשתו FACING HIS WIFE — He stood in one corner and prayed whilst she stood in the other corner and prayed (Genesis Rabbah 63:5).

And similarly: “Exorbitant are the kisses of the enemy,” meaning, they seem exorbitant... Rashi is answering the question: It was explained above that ונעתרות also means “increasing.” But why would an enemy increase his kisses? Thus Rashi explains that they seem exorbitant and are burdensome. I.e., an enemy kisses only once, but it seems as if he kissed exorbitantly, and even the one kiss is burdensome. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not mention נעתרות נשיקות שונא above, when he was explaining וַיֶrְתַר which also means increasing? The answer is: Above, we could have said that עתר has two [separate] meanings: imploring and increasing. This would be similar to וישבר למצרים (41:56), where Rashi explains that שבר can mean either selling or buying. Thus וַיֵrָתֶר could be explained as imploring, since increasing does not apply to Hashem — Heaven forbid we should say He “increased”! If so, נעתרות נשיקות שונא could also mean imploring: one must implore the enemy to kiss his adversary. But now that Rashi explained that even וַיֵrָתֶר means [something similar to] increasing, and that עתר always means increasing, we are forced to explain נעתרות נשיקות שונא as, “They seem exorbitant.”

כי עקרה היא, ‘for she was barren;” what was the reason why Rivkah up to that point had been barren? G-d did not want the gentiles to be able to credit her fertility to the blessings that her family had bestowed on her when they said: “may you become the mother of thousands and tens of thousands.”(Genesis 24,60). She therefore could not conceive until G-d responded to her husband’s prayer on her behalf.

ויעתר לו [AND THE LORD] WAS ENTREATED OF HIM — of him and not of her, because there is no comparison between the prayer of a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person and the prayer of a righteous person the child of a wicked-person — therefore God allowed himself to be entreated of him and not of her (Yevamot 64a).

He was standing in one corner and praying... [Although לנוכח usually means “facing,” Rashi explains it differently here] because it is not normal to pray facing one another.

“His” but not hers. For it is not comparable... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say, “He granted their prayers”? They both prayed! He answers: “‘His’ but not hers. For it is not comparable...”

ויתרצצו AND [THE CHILDREN] STRUGGLED — You must admit that this verse calls for a Midrashic interpretation since it leaves unexplained what this struggling was about and it states that she exclaimed “If it be so, wherefore did I desire this” (i.e. she asked whether this was the normal course of child-bearing, feeling that something extraordinary was happening). Our Rabbis explain that the word ויתרוצצו has the meaning of running, moving quickly: whenever she passed by the doors of the Torah (i. e. the Schools of Shem and Eber) Jacob moved convulsively in his efforts to come to birth, but whenever she passed by the gate of a pagan temple Esau moved convulsively in his efforts to come to birth (Genesis Rabbah 63:6). Another explanation is: they struggled with one another and quarrelled as to how they should divide the two worlds as their inheritance (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 111:2).

AND SHE SAID: IF IT BE SO, ‘LAMAH ZEH ANOCHI?’”If the pain of pregnancy is so great, lamah zeh anochi (why did I) pray for and aspire to pregnancy?” Thus Rashi. But it is not correct.²²For the word anochi (I), according to Rashi, implies “I prayed for pregnancy.” And this, comments Ramban, is not correct. (Gur Aryeh.) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that she asked the women if they had experienced such pains, and they said, “No,” whereupon she said, “If the matter and custom of pregnancy be as they said, lamah zeh anochi, why am I beset with an unusual pregnancy?” Now according to this exposition, the verse is missing and not complete.²³Her inquiring of other women as to their experiences with pregnancy is not even mentioned explicitly although it is central to the thought expressed in the verse, according to Ibn Ezra.
The correct interpretation in my opinion is that she said, “If it shall be so with me, lamah zeh anochi, [why am I in the world]? Would that I did not exist, that I should die or never have come into existence.”²⁴The J. P. S. translation, If it be so, wherefore do I live?, follows Ramban’s interpretation. This is similar to the verse, I should have been as though I had not been.²⁵Job 10:19.

ויתרוצצו, as soon as the fetuses had developed to the point where they were able to move, they moved far more violently than is the custom, so that Rivkah had the impression that quarrelling was going on inside her.

ויתרוצצו, a word derived from רץ, “ran,” as for instance in Jeremiah 51,31 לקראת רץ רץ, “runner dashes to meet runner.” The word describes the constant motion of the two fetuses inside Rivkah’s womb. We have a similar construction of the word קם when it appears next to מתקוממים, or the word לן when it occurs next to the word מתלוננים. If the word had been derived from the root רצץ, as for instance in Job 20,19 רצץ עזב דלים, the Torah would have had to write here vayitratzetzu with the vowel patach, instead of vayitrotzetzu with the vowel cholem. We find such a parallel construction in Jeremiah 13,16 ובטרם יתנגפו רגליכם, “and before your feet stumble.”

"The children agitated within her..." This agitation happened when she would pass by the entrance of the Beit ha-Midrash of Shem and Ever. Yaakov struggled to come out, and Esav grasped his hand. And when she would pass by the entrance of the house of idols, Esav struggled to come out, and Yaakov grasped his hand. But she did not reason out the matter this way, but rather that she had only one fetus in her belly, that wanted to come out whether for a beit midrash or for a house of idols. If true, chas v'shalom, perhaps there are two authorities in existence! Therefore she said, "why am I thus?", if I am just like all the other women who worship idols? What advantage do I have over them if, chas v'shalom, there are two authorities in existence? Therefore, "she went to inquire of ha-Shem", meaning, to inquire after the existence of God and God's essence.

ותאמר אם כן, after it is a fact that these fetuses already are at each other’s throats I have reason to be afraid that one of them will die so that I endanger myself by giving birth to them, causing one of them to be stillborn.

ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה, The children were quarrelling inside her, etc. Both the expression ויתרצצו, "they quarrelled" and the words למה זה אנכי, "why am I therefore" need examination. Rashi explains that "if the pain involved in giving birth is so intense, why did I bother to pray to become pregnant?" It is difficult to reconcile our image of the pious and righteous Rebeccah with Rashi's comment, i.e. that she did not think the pain worth her while in order to become a mother. Also, if that had been her real concern, how did G'd's response alleviate her problem? Our rabbis have offered many and various explanations none of which are acceptable as the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the word ויתרצצו is based on the root רצץ, to crush. Since there were two fetuses in her womb she felt as if her womb was being crushed. She was afraid that she could not complete her pregnancy and would have a miscarriage as a result. Her question then was rhetorical, i.e. "what good was my becoming pregnant if this pregnancy will not be completed successfully?" The words: "she went to ask G'd," mean that she prayed to G'd to let her complete her pregnancy without mishap. She felt that the miracle of her becoming pregnant after all these years surely should not be wasted by her not giving birth to a healthy child.

ויתרוצצו, “They quarreled.” According to Rashi the wrangle inside Rivkah’s womb concerned two worlds. According to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that Esau developed a lot of body hair whereas Yaakov was smooth skinned, Esau’s hair kept rubbing Yaakov’s skin, resulting in violent movement inside her womb, Yaakov trying to escape being scratched.

For it does not clarify what this struggle was... Meaning: since Scripture does not explain the רציצה, assumedly it was [the standard רציצה,] like that of other pregnant women. But if so, why is it written afterwards, “If this is so, why did I desire this?” Did she not know she would have pregnancy pains? Perforce, as the Midrash says, רציצה means moving quickly, not what other women experience. About this Rashi later commented: “She said, ‘If this is so, that the pain of pregnancy is so great’” — more than that of other women — “‘Why did I desire this?’”

ויתרצצו von רוץ, laufen, eilen, im Hiphil: ויריצוהו מן הבור, sie spornten ihn zur Eile an, also: התרוצץ sich, oder, wo wie hier zwei, sich gegenseitig zur Eile drängen. Einer ließ den andern nicht ruhen. — ותאמר אם כן gehört dem Akzente nach zusammen und heißt wohl: sie sagte, wenn es ihr so geschah: Warum ich dies? d. h. warum mache ich so ungewöhnliche Erfahrungen? — ותלך, nach der Erläuterung der Weisen: zu Schem und Eber — den Bewahrern der von Noa empfangenen Traditionen — um durch sie Aufschluss von Gott zu erbitten.

ויתרוצצו, “they quarreled;” the word means that something is about to be broken. Compare Chronicles II16,10.

ותאמר אם כן means AND SHE SAID, “IF the pain of pregnancy be so great,

AND SHE WENT ‘LIDROSH’ (TO INQUIRE) OF THE ETERNAL. Rashi comments: “To tell²⁶“To tell.” Our text of Rashi reads: “that He should tell her.” what her outcome will be.” Now I have not discovered the word drishah [lidrosh, to inquire] in relation to G-d except in the context of prayer, as in the verses: I sought (‘darashti’) the Eternal and He answered me;²⁷Psalms 34:5. seek ye Me, (‘dirshuni’) and live;²⁸Amos 5:4. As I live, saith G-d the Eternal, I will not be inquired of (‘edareish’) by you.²⁹Ezekiel 20:3. See Ramban on Exodus 18:15.

ותאמר אם כן, after she felt these strange movements she consulted with other women who were pregnant or who had born children if they too had experienced such a phenomenon. After they all denied ever having experienced such feelings, she burst out asking: אם כן למה זה אנכי, why should such a thing be reserved for me?

'לדרוש את ה, an inquiry directed at the prophets that were around in her time. We have a verse in Kings I 22,8 as well as in Exodus 18,15 where this expression describes questions addressed by the common people to the prophet.

למה זה אנכי, why were my relatives so concerned that it would be I who provide the seed for Yitzchok when they said את היי לאלפי רבבה, “may it be you who will be the source of millions.” (24,60) Also, why did my husband insist that I become the mother of his children?

ותאמר: אם כן וגו', “she said: ”if so, etc.” according to Rashi she said that “if my desire to found a nation of twelve tribes involves so much pain as part of the pregnancies, why did I ever aspire to become the founding mother of such a nation?” According to a Midrash, Rivkah’s complaint of למה זה אנכי was the reason that it was not she who became the founding mother of the twelve tribes. In practice, it was Esau who inadvertently damaged Rivkah’s uterus to the extent that she could not again become pregnant. Other commentators interpret Rivkah’s complaint not as directed against future pregnancies, but as her immediate fear of her embryos seeing the light of the world too soon due to their conduct within her womb. She was afraid of giving birth to premature babies, babies that would die at birth or shortly thereafter. Her complaint was that if she had to undergo all these pains only in order to abort at the end, what was the point in her becoming pregnant in the first place? Why would she have been singled out for such a difficult pregnancy? Yet other scholars see Rivkah’s question as not addressed to G’d, but to other women who had born children successfully. After these women told her that they had not experienced any of the symptoms Rivkah had been plagued by during her pregnancy, she then addressed the question of why she had been singled out to G’d, (using the head of the academy of Shem and Ever as her intermediary) Nachmanides understands Rivkah’s question as wanting to know if her children were already quarrelling before they were born, her own life would not be worth living and she would be better off dead.

To the house of study of Sheim. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should simply say, “She inquired of Hashem.” Why does it say, “She went”? Hashem fills the whole world! And while Sheim was still alive, she would not go to the house of study of his grandson Eiver. We need not ask why she did not go to Avraham, as he too was a prophet, for the answer is: Hashem hid the meaning of her pregnancy from Avraham so he would not be pained [over his wicked grandson-to-be, Eisov]. We see that before Eisov fell into to evil ways, Avraham died, so that his death would be “in a good old age” (25:8).

אם כן, “if there is so much pain involved in pregnancy, why do I have to remain alive?” I prefer to die immediately and avoid suffering the pains of pregnancy and birth.

למה זה אנכי WHY IS IT that I longed and prayed to become pregnant?” (Genesis Rabbah 63:6).

'ותלך לדרוש את ה, some of our sages (quoted by Rashi) say that she went to the academy of Shem in order to inquire from him about the meaning of such strange goings on inside her. The truth is that Shem was still alive at that time for he survived Avraham by 31 years. If Shem was identical with Malki Tzedek he would have resided in Jerusalem at that time. Why are we told all this? To draw our attention to the fact that she bypassed her father-in-law Avraham, who we would think, was better qualified than Shem to answer her question. Avraham remained alive until Esau and Yaakov were 15 years of age.

ותלך לדרוש את ה', “she went in order to enquire from G’d.” Rashi understands her question as pertaining to the future of these children. Perhaps the reason she preferred to address her enquiry to the head of the Academy of Shem instead of to her father-in-law Avraham, who was still alive at the time, was that she did not want to let him know that she was so beset by mental and physical anguish. Nachmanides understands the words ותלך לדרוש את ה', to mean that Rivkah appealed directly to G’d in prayer seeing that she felt so much anguish.

'ותלך לדרוש את ה, “she went to obtain an answer to her problem from one of the prophets in her time.” (Rash’bam) The answer she sought was why the fetuses inside her were engaged in a fight. She was well aware that her term of pregnancy had not yet been completed. She was afraid that after all these pains she might miscarry.

ותלך לדרש AND SHE WENT TO ENQUIRE at the school of Shem (Genesis Rabbah 63:6).

ותלך, perhaps Avraham and Keturah lived in the same house together with Keturah’s children.

'לדרש את ה, TO ENQUIRE OF THE LORD, that He might tell her what would happen to her at the end.

ויאמר ה' לה AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO HER through a messenger: it was told to Shem by holy inspiration and he told it to her (Genesis Rabbah 63:7).

TWO NATIONS ARE IN THY WOMB. The intent of this is that He informed her that she should not fear, for the reason that the struggle in her womb is that she is pregnant with twins, this being the customary way among women who are pregnant with twins.
It is possible that He is also saying that since they are destined to be two peoples, hating and warring with each other, at the very beginning of their creation they initiated a quarrel, thus intimating at the situation which will ultimately exist between them. But He assured her that now they will rest, and she will find rest and quiet for herself.

ויאמר ה' לה, by means of the prophet who was either Shem or Avraham.

ויאמר ה' לה, G’d’s answer was provided by the prophet.

"ha-Shem said to her: two nations are in your womb." This was the opposite of what she had thought [as described in the previous commentary], that there is only one authority [God]. Rather, there are two children in your womb, one that will serve ha-Shem and one that will serve idols. Yet ha-Shem is always one, there is no other. There are those who interpret, "Yizchak entreated ha-Shem opposite his wife," that since he was a tzadik, the son of a tzadik, therefore it was certain that from his side he could only have suitable descendants. But he feared that from his wife's side, since she was the daughter of Betuel and the sister of Laban, that in order to prevent her having any kind of unsuitable descendants, she was therefore barren. Since her barrenness continued, therefore he was afraid lest she have a descendant without suitability, just like when Yishmael descended from Hagar, and thus perhaps this was the explanation for her barrenness. When "the children agitated within her", one struggled to come out near the entrance to the Beit Midrash and one struggled to come out near the entrance to the house of idols. By this she felt certain that one would be righteous and one evil. About this the text says, "why am I thus?". For I am just like Hagar! In what way am I better than she? And for what purpose did I pray? "And she went to inquire of ha-Shem", what difference did my prayer make? "ha-Shem said to her: two nations are in your womb" -- these are Rebbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi, and his friend, the Roman emperor] Antoninus! This was the difference her prayer made, that Esav would also have kosher descendants like Antoninus [since Esav is the progenitor of Rome], and all the other righteous converts. This was not true of Yishmael, and in this respect, you are better than Hagar.

שני גוים בבטנך, this is the reason for the quarrelling you experience inside your womb.

ויאמר ה׳ לה, G'd said to her, etc. Although this verse has been explained by many there is still no truly satisfactory answer. G'd responded to her fear that she would miscarry by explaining to her that there was nothing medically wrong in her womb but that she was carrying two instead of merely one fetus. Whereas normally, when a mother expects twins, the two fetuses get along inside the womb (compare Song of Songs 7,4), in Rebeccah's case they did not. Hence her feeling of being crushed. She did not merely carry twins but each one was destined to become a nation with very different characteristics from one another. Not only would each one be a king in his own right, but these respective nations would endure for thousands of years. All of this would not have resulted in her having a feeling of being crushed were it not for the fact that these twins did not conform to the usual pattern of twins. When G'd explained that ממעיך יפרדו, "they will be totally separate already while still inside of you," this meant that they would not only be separate inside of Rebeccah but their being separate would continue after they were born. At any rate, G'd reassured Rebeccah that there was nothing wrong with her womb.

שני גויים בבטמנך, “there are two nations within your womb.” G’d informed her not to worry, that her condition was due to the fact that she would give birth to twins. All the commotion going on within her was due to that fact; women who are pregnant with twins usually experience these violent upheavals within their wombs. Alternately, it is possible that G’d informed her that the convulsions she had experienced foreshadowed that these twins would not live harmoniously together, especially at the time preceding the redemption of mankind. In the meantime, these convulsions would cease forthwith.

Through an intermediary. We cannot say that Hashem told her Himself, as she did not speak to Hashem herself. Furthermore, Rashi knew this since it is written ויאמר ה' לה, rather than ויאמר לה ה' as it says for Hagar ויאמר לה מלאך (16:9) and for Rus ויאמר לה בועז (Rus 2:14). Perforce, ויאמר ה' לה means that Hashem told her through an intermediary. גיים

שני גוים וגו׳ ,ושני לאמים וגו׳. ,Uns scheint die Lehre vom Parallelismus, des כפל ענין וכו׳ eine freilich bequeme, aber schon einer ernsten menschlichen Rede, geschweige denn einer Gottesschrift durchaus unwürdige Interpretationskrücke zu sein. Kaum Kinder, höchstens Betrunkene mögen כפל ענין במלות שונות gedankenleer lallen. לאם ist der Staatsverband, אין לאום אלא מלכות. Verschiedene Völker brauchen doch nicht verschieden geartete Staaten zu bilden. Europa zählt eine Menge Völker, und doch sind die meisten europäischen Staaten im Grundprinzip und Wesen fast dieselben. Rebekka wurde gesagt, sie trage zwei Völker in ihrem Schoße, die zwei verschiedene soziale Gestaltungen repräsentieren werden. Einen Staat, der seine Größe auf Geist und Sitte, auf das Menschliche im Menschen erbaut; einen anderen, der seine Größe in Schlauheit und Macht sucht. Geist und Macht, Sittlichkeit und Gewalt stehen einander gegenüber, und zwar schon von der Geburt an werden sie sich einander gegenüberstehen. Ein Staat wird immer mächtiger sein als der andere. Die Schale wird fortwährend schwanken zwischen לאום ולאום. Die ganze Geschichte ist nichts als ein Kampf, ob Geist oder Schwert, ob, wie das Wort der Weisen diesen Gegensatz ausdrückt, Jerusalem oder Cäsarea das Herrschende sein soll.

ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the older one will serve the younger one.” Our author understands the word רב here not as “older, senior,” as do most commentators, but as meaning הרבה, “many, a great number.” Esau himself used the word in that sense when he told his brother Yaakov: יש לי רב, “I have lots,” (Genesis 33,9) The word may mean “lots” in terms of “time;” i.e. Esau would serve Yaakov for a long time.

ויאמר ה' לה, “the Lord said to her:” by using a prophet to inform her; some commentators say that seeing that Avraham was still alive. [She had turned to him and that he answered her; others say that the reason she had not told her husband about her problem was that she did not want to cause him pain when hearing about her problem, and about the fact that G-d had not revealed the answer to him.] The reason why Avraham answered her instead of her husband was why Yitzchok could not believe that Esau was a wicked person[, as she never told him about all her problems and the answer she had received].

שני גויים בבטנך TWO NATIONS ARE IN THY WOMB —The word is written גיים (exalted, noble persons), an allusion to Antoninus and Rabbi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) from whose table neither radish nor lettuce was absent neither in summer nor in winter (Avodah Zarah 11a)

שני גויים, do not be upset, seeing that the additional pain you experience is due to the fact that you will give birth to twins. This normally accounts for a more difficult pregnancy.

ושני לאמים, they will also be politically different from one another, being separate kingdoms.

שני גויים, the word is written with two letters י and a letter ו which is read but does not appear in the text, something which has been explained in the Talmud Avodah Zarah 11 as affording us the opportunity to read it as גיים, or גאים, a reference to both the Roman Emperor Antoninus as well as Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, who both occupied lofty positions and were so wealthy that vegetables which have a limited season were never absent from their table all year round. The reading of the text (as opposed to the spelling) would represent the plain meaning then, i.e. peoples.

ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the senior one would serve the junior one.” This can be interpreted in various directions. Either, literally, the older one will serve the younger one, or as in Ezekiel 26,2 אמלאה החרבה, where the prophet describes the city Tzor (Tyre) as discontent as long as Jerusalem has not been destroyed. The philosophies of Esau and Yaakov are mutually exclusive, and as long as both are alive and vibrant the other can not be content. Another approach to the word רב sees in it a reference to “abundance, surfeit,” as in ’ורב מקולות וגו, “enough, too much of the thunder, etc.” (Exodus 9,28) Translated into our verse here, the meaning of the prophecy would be that the many would serve the few. (Yaakov’s descendants being “the few.”)

is written. This refers to Antoninus and Rabbi... גיים means גאים (great and princely persons) because the י is in place of the א.

ולאום מלאום יאמץ, "and one nation will be stronger than the other, etc." This means that there is an additional factor preventing these two peoples from dwelling together in harmony; each one will derive its strength from the other (the defeat of the other). We find an example of this concept in a statement in Megillah 6 that the city of Tzor attained its true prominence only through the fall of Jerusalem. Seeing that each nation therefore anxiously awaits the downfall of the other, there is no hope that they will live together in brotherly harmony.

רב heißt nie der Altere, sondern immer: groß an Zahl und Macht. Zuletzt wird derjenige, der bis dahin als der Mächtigere erschienen, nur für den materiell Geringeren gearbeitet, dessen Sieg vorbereitet haben, und sich ihm zuletzt selbst unterordnen— der Träger des Geistes und der Sitte geht als der endliche Sieger aus diesem Kampfe hervor, und der Träger der Macht wird nicht vernichtet, wohl aber findet er zuletzt selber sein Ziel in der Huldigung und Hingebung an den andern.

שני גויים בבטנך, Do not worry that you are experiencing so much pain because you are carrying two nations in your womb and it is common knowledge that the birth pains for two are so much greater than for one.

ושני לאמים AND TWO RACES — The word לאם always denotes a people that has all the characteristics of a kingdom (Avodah Zarah 2b)

ושני לאומים, kingdoms, as per Psalms 148,11 מלכי ארץ וכל לאומים, “all kings and peoples of the earth.” We know that this interpretation is correct as otherwise the words גויים and לאומים would simply be a needless repetition. The word לאומים therefore refers to nations. Seeing that the prophet had already begun to foretell Rivkah part of the future, he continued further adding:

ממעיך יפרדו, they will go their different ways after being born, neither of them will die at birth as you fear.

ושני לאומים, in view of this word here, i.e. a second word referring to nations, it is possible that the spelling of the word גיים is parallel to a plural ending as found in the word איים, from אי, “wild beasts.” The problem is that we do not find לאומיים spelled with two letters י anywhere so that we cannot use it as describing the nature of Esau and the Romans descended from him. Our sages in Yevamot 76 view the spelling as teaching that marriage, i.e. weddings in the accepted sense are not legally possible when only one party to such a union is Jewish, i.e. has already converted. The word גיות is also understood in the sense of widowhood during the lifetime of their husbands. (Samuel II 20,3) The prophet told Rivkah that the strange phenomenon she was experiencing in her womb was a sign that two totally different nations would develop from the twins she was about to give birth to. Most children born by the same father and mother will grow up as part of one and the same nation. Not so in the case of Rivkah’s children. The proof that this interpretation was correct was the very fact that they were already quarrelling with one another even before having been born into this world.

Whose tables never lacked radish or lettuce... I.e., Antoninus was a scion of Eisov, and Rabbi [referring to R. Yehudah HaNasi] was a scion of Yaakov. Question: Does it not say in Kesubos 104a that when Rabbi was dying, he lifted his ten fingers toward Heaven and said, “I did not benefit from this world even my little finger’s worth”? The answer is: Rabbi’s household would eat [the special foods], and his table was never lacking. This was the princeliness. But Rabbi himself did not eat them. (Re’m) See Nachalas Yaakov.

ורב יעבד צעיר, "and the senior one will serve the younger." None of the many commentaries on this expression seem to do justice to the words. Our approach will solve the problem. Not only will one of these two nations attain its respective grandeur at the expense of the other, but the nation which is defeated will wind up in servitude to the respective victor. The victor will not content himself with having vanquished his antagonist and deprived him of his assets, but he will oppress him to boot. This will further inhibit any chance of reconciliation and will increase the degree of mutual hatred. This is what the Talmud (Ketuvot 72) had in mind when it stated that a human being and a snake cannot live together in cramped quarters. The words do not mean that Esau and Jacob respectively will live in such a dependence on each other; the meaning is that whoever will be the senior one of these two nations during different periods of history will relate to the other as a tyrannical overlord.

Even though the word for “nations” is spelled in our texts as גיים, it is to be read as if it had been spelled גוים in the regular way.

ממעיך יפרדו SHALL BE PARTED FROM THY BOWELS —as soon as they leave thy body they will take each a different course — one to his wicked ways, the other to his plain life (Genesis 5:27)

ורב יעבוד צעיר, that the younger one would in fact be senior to the older one; as a result of this prophecy Rivkah loved Yaakov more than Esau already from birth.

ושני לאומים, we have already mentioned several times (21,1) that it is the practice of the Torah when repeating something to use different words to say basically the same thing.

The word לאום always means kingdom. Otherwise, why does it say ושני לאומים [after it already said שני גוים]? But R. Noson explained that Rashi knew this from the word יאמץ, which is used only for kings, as Rashi clearly states on Avodah Zarah 12b.

ממעיך יפרדו, “they are fighting for separation from one another already in your womb. Rashi, on this expression, comments: “one wishes wickedness to prevail on earth, the other righteousness.” G-d implied that at this point in time the outcome of who would prevail in this struggle was not yet known. It would only become clear when the two children’s vocational choices had been made, one a hunter, the other a philosopher, making study his primary occupation.

מלאם יאמץ SHALL BE STRONGER THAN THE OTHER RACE —They will never be equally great at the same time: when one rises the other will fall. Thus it says, (Ezekiel 26:2) “[Because Tyre (colonised by Esau) says about Jerusalem] I shall be filled with her that is laid waste” — Tyre became full (powerful) only through the ruin of Jerusalem (Megillah 6a).

ממעיך יפרדו, as soon as they come out of your womb they will each develop in a different way, even physically. One would be hairy, his skin reddish looking, whereas the other would have smooth skin like normal babies. They would be different in their deeds and choice of occupations as soon as they would be old enough to make such choices. The Torah testifies to this by describing Esau as כי ציד בפיו, being a hunter, whereas Yaakov is described as יושב אהלים, a dweller of tents, i.e. studious bookish type. They would also hate one another as a matter of course.

Already from the womb they are separated... Re’m writes that according to Rashi, יִפָרֵדו is to be understood as present tense, for Rashi writes הם נפרדים (they are separated). Here, Hashem is not telling her what is in her womb. He already told her, “Two nations are in your womb.” He is rather telling her the nature of these nations. While still in the womb, as yet unborn, they are exceptionally separated from one another — one to his evil ways and the other to his wholesomeness. This is why Rashi writes נפרדים, present tense, rather than יִפָרֵדו, future tense. He is saying that already in the womb, they are separated. You might ask: Does the Sifrei not say that the evil inclination does not affect a person while he is his mother’s womb? For it is written (8:21), “The inclination of man’s heart is evil מנעריו,” meaning [that he has the evil inclination only] after he is shaken (ננער) from his mother’s womb. The answer is: Before a person is born, the evil inclination does not cause him to lust sins. But Eisov was drawn to the sin of idolatry because it was his nature. He sought out his own kind. (Gur Aryeh)

ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the older will become subservient to the younger.” This is where the Torah decreed that Yaakov, though the younger, will eventually wind up as the senior one of the twins to be born. Rav Hunna (B’reshit Rabbah 63,6) is quoted as having said that it means if Yaakov merits it he will become the senior, if not, Esau will become senior to him. [Not found in the editions of B’reshit Rabbah at my disposal. Ed.] An alternate exegesis: the word רב does not mean: “the senior one,” but simply means “הרבה,” a great deal,” or “for a long time.” The word occurs when Esau first declined Yaakov’s gift by saying: יש לי רב, “I have lots.” (Genesis 33,9).

ולאם מלאם יאמץ, they will never be evenly matched in strength, one of them always being stronger or weaker than the other. (Megillah 6) The letter ל in the word לאם is “weak,” spelled without the dagesh it ought to have. There are numerous such anomalies in Scripture, as for instance Judges 8,2 מבציר אביעזר, where the letter ב in the word mivtzir is unaccountably written without the dagesh. A similar anomaly exists in Ezekiel 32,30 מגבורים בושים, where the letter ג in the word מגבורים should have had a dagesh in it. There are other examples of this phenomenon.

ורב יעבוד צעיר, the word את which we would have expected before the word צעיר is missing. It is not clear who will serve whom, i.e. the predicate in such a construction as is before us. The only clue we have to determine who is meant as serving whom, is the fact that normally the active subject is written first in any verse. In other words, there is a hint that the senior brother (Esau) will eventually be subservient to the junior one (Yaakov). In some verses similarly constructed there is no doubt as to who is the active party. For instance in Job 14,19 אבנים שחקו מים, “water wears away stone,” there is no question that the stone does not wear away water, i.e. that the first subject mentioned is the active one. Similarly, in Isaiah 64,1 מים תבעה אש, “water drowned fire,” there can also be no doubt as to which subject is the active one. The reason we face the problem of meaning in our verse is that the future of the two peoples is not spelled out clearly, in the prophecy, seeing that history teaches that the Jewish people enjoyed distinct periods in which it was in the ascendancy, whereas over the last 1000 years plus the opposite is the case. The only part of the prophecy which is clear is that during most of history Esau was indeed subservient to Israel, hence Esau is mentioned first in this part of the verse, seeing that it is the principally active subject. Not only this, but after the arrival of the Messiah this situation will be restored with Edom/Esau serving his junior brother Israel. The word רב being applied to the older of the twins refers to his seniority at the time of birth, seeing he emerged first from Rivkah’s womb. It follows that the one who emerged last must be referred to as the צעיר, the younger one. We find another examples of the word רב or at least its plural רבים referring to chronological seniority in Job 32,9 לא רבים יחכמו, “it is not the seniors who are wise.”

When one rises the other falls... I.e., both of them cannot be great at the same time because when one rises the other falls. The מ of מלאום is [not] like the מ of מכל מלמדי השכלתי (Tehillim 119:99), which means “more than.” [In other words, מלאום does not imply a comparison, that one government has “more” power than the other.] Rather, the מ of מלאום means “from.” I.e., one government seizes power “from” the other [and thereby acquires its greatness.] Tyre is the kingdom of Eisov.

וימלאו ימיה AND WHEN HER DAYS TO BEAR WERE FULL — But in the case of Tamar it is written, (37:27) “And it came to pass at the time of her travail”, for her days were not fulfilled as she gave birth to them (her children) at the end of seven months.

והנה תומים whenever the Torah speaks about something new it uses the expression והנה in connection with this. Thus we find it in 29,25 where Yaakov is reported as finding that he had slept with Leah instead of with Rachel as he had thought. In 41,7 we also find the expression הנה when Pharaoh awakens from what he thought was a factual experience only to find that it had been a dream.

והנה תומים בבטנה, before they were born, the onlookers already realised that there were twins in her womb. Therefore, when the first one emerged being completely covered with hair, this was a birth which was presumed to be more difficult than the passage of Yaakov whose skin was smooth and did not cause friction with the lining of the womb, they called the first one עשו, attributing his easy passage to his twin brother who had helped push him out of the womb of his mother. [I believe that the author understands the plural ending in עשו, as equivalent to assu, i.e. the result of a combined effort by both him and his brother.]

וימלאו ימיה, the days of her pregnancy.

והנה תומם בבטנה , “and here there were twins in her womb.” The word תומם, “twins,” is spelled defectively, with the letters י and א missing. The reason for the defective spelling is that one of Rivkah’s children was going to be a wicked person. The next time the birth of twins is mentioned in the Torah, i.e. the sons of Tamar and Yehudah, Peretz and Zerach, the word is spelled properly, i.e. תאומים, seeing that both of the sons Peretz and Zerach were going to be righteous.

והנה .והנה תומם וגו׳ leitet immer etwas Unerwartetes ein. Da nun Rebekka bereits völlig darauf vorbereitet war, dass sie zwei Knaben in ihrem Schoße trug, so kann ja dieser nun auch sich also erweisende Umstand nichts Unerwartetes gewesen sein und sich hierauf das והנה nicht beziehen. Es scheint daher das Gegenteil. Nach dem ihr gewordenen Aufschluss von dem völligen Gegensatz der zu erwartenden Kinder hatte man nichts anderes erwartet, als dass die beiden Kinder einander durchaus nicht ähnlich sein würden, wie dies ja selbst bei Zwillingen vorkommt. Das Überraschende war daher, dass sie sich wirklich wie Zwillinge völlig ähnlich waren. Nur in der Konstitution waren sie verschieden, der eine war —, wie dies gleich erzählt wird — körperlich ausgebildeter, kräftiger als der andere. Vielleicht weist auch die mangelhafte Schreibweise תומם :חסר דחסר für לתאומים (wie ויחדו יהי7׳ תמים על ראשו. zw. B. M.8 26, 24) auf die äußerlich völlige Gleichheit und scheinbare Einheit hin. Diese äußerliche völlige Ähnlichkeit, zusammen gehalten mit der verkündeten völlig verschiedenen einst entwickelten Zukunft, hätte geeignet sein dürfen, darauf aufmerksam zu machen, dass der Keim zu dieser einstigen Verschiedenheit tief innerlicher liege, und zu veranlassen, diese tiefverschiedene Innerlichkeit der beiden Knaben früh zu studieren. — תאומים, wenn תהום von המס kommt, so würde analog תאום von אמם, der Wurzel von אֵם und אִם, abzuleiten sein und dann zwei Wesen bezeichnen, die sich gegenseitig bedingen, die gleichzeitig aus einer Wurzel ihre Existenz gefunden, und so sich in dem vorhandenen Erhaltungsfonds zu teilen haben. Dann wäre allerdings die Verbalform תואמים (zweit. B. M.9 26, 24) ungewöhnlich aus der Substantivform gebildet.

והנה תומם, “and behold there were twins.” The word for “twins,” i.e. תומים, has been spelled defectively, the letter י being missing. The reason is to draw our attention to the fact that although, generally speaking, twins resemble each other greatly, in this instance the one was covered with body hair, while the other was smoothskinned. Also, Esau was born with a foreskin, whereas Yaakov was born without. One, Esau, had reddish skin not resembling human skin, whereas Yaakov’s skin was goodlooking. According to Psalms 80,14, the conquerors of Jerusalem are viewed as resembling wild boars, whereas in Jeremiah 50,17 Israel, i.e. Yaakov is described as a lamb. If they were all that different the question arises: “why were they born as twins?” After all, as the proverb says: “where there is straw there must also have been a harvest first.” To quote Ovadiah 1,18, ובית עשו לקש, “the house of Esau will be turned to straw.” We also have a verse: קדש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתו, “Israel is sacred for G-d, the first of His harvest;” (Jeremiah 2,3). The reference to Yaakov in Rivkah’s womb [the Torah describes him as the only one of the two twins who is worthwhile]; hence the word is in the singular mode.

והנה תומם BEHOLD, THERE WERE TWINS — The word for twins is written defective (without א and י) whilst in the case of Tamar it is written תאומים (with א and י); because in the latter case both children proved righteous whilst here one was righteous and the other wicked (Genesis Rabbah 63:8).

והנה תומים בבטנה, the twins in her womb emerged. The word תומים is spelled defective with the letter א of the root, i.e. the middle letter missing. According to an aggadic interpretation the missing letter hints at the fact that only one of these twins would become a righteous Individual (quoted by Rashi).

אדמוני RED — a sign that he would always be shedding blood (Genesis Rabbah 63:8).

(1) ADMONI. Roux in O.F.

ויצא הראשון אדמוני, even though most newborn babies are reddish in colour, this was one was exceptionally so.

ויצא הראשון אדמוני, “the first one emerged all reddish looking.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,8 the performance of the commandment to take the Lulav and Etrog on the first day of Sukkot (Leviticus 23,40) and to give thanks to G’d for His bounty is the reason that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first, demands payment (for their sins) “from the first one,” “builds for them first,” “brings them (to the Holy Land) first”. The fact that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first is derived from Isaiah 44,6 אני ראשון ואני אחרון; the fact that G’d enacts payment from the first one, i.e. Esau first, is derived from our verse i.e. ויצא .הראשון אדמוני“He builds for them first,” is a reference to the Holy Temple as we know from Jeremiah 17,12 כסא כבוד מרום מראשון, “O Throne of Glory exalted from the first.” The fact that G’d brings the redeemer to the Jewish people first, is attested to by Isaiah 41,27 ,ראשון לציון הנה הנם ולירושלים מבשר אתן, “the things predicted to Zion originally, behold they are here! And again I send a herald to Jerusalem.” [I am not sure why our author brings this Midrash unless it is to demonstrate that the word ראשון, “first,” does not necessarily imply an advantage, such as when G’d demands an accounting for his sins from Esau first because he emerged first from Rivkah’s womb. Ed.]

A sign that he will be a murderer. [Rashi knows that] this was written here to be a sign, because otherwise, why would Scripture tell us he was reddish? Whereas it is understandable that it says he was hairy — this explains why his name is “Eisov.” Although it is written also about Dovid that “He was reddish” (Shmuel I 16:12), the earlier sages have explained in Bereishis Rabbah 63:8 that concerning Dovid it is written (ibid), “With beautiful eyes” — teaching that David shed blood according to the directives of the Sanhedrin, who are called “Eyes of the congregation” (Bamidbar 15:24).

אדמוני, auch von David Sam. I. 16, 12, rotwangig, Zeichen von Lebens- frische. Er war auch haaricht. Haar bei neugeborenen Kindern ist ein Zeichen, dass so viel Überfluß an Kräften und Säften borhanden, dass davon sogar bereits auf die Bildung des Haares — dieses sonst viel später sich bildenden Körperteils — verwendet werden konnte. Und nun hier gar noch ein solcher Überfluss, dass der ganze Körper bereits Flaum hatte. Deshalb nannten sie, d. h. alle, die bei seiner Geburt gegenwärtig waren, ihn עשו (von עשה), einen schon fertigen, gemachten Mann. Der hat das "Leben" und die "abwehrende Kraft" schon in Fülle mitgebracht.

ויצא הראשון אדמוני, “the first baby emerged, reddish looking;” according to a Midrash, when his father saw that, he concluded that the blood of the infant had not yet matured to the stage when he could be circumcised without that operation endangering his life, and that is why he delayed the date for the circumcision. Something similar is related in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat, folio 134, where Rabbi Nathan relates that he once met a lady who had lost two of her children as a result of circumcision. She asked him if she had to circumcise her third son also and risk losing him too. When Rabbi Nathan looked at the infant, he noted that his skin looked extremely red. He therefore told his mother to wait with circumcising him until this red skin would become normal looking. She did so, and circumcised him in due course and he survived without further problem. When Yitzchok waited a year or two for the skin colour of Esau to change and it did not happen, he assumed that this son was going to remain in that condition, but he still did not circumcise him. When he turned 13, he still restrained himself from circumcising him. He had waited all this time thinking that seeing he had not been circumcised at the age of eight days he would circumcise him at the age Yishmael had been circumcised. This is what was meant in the Book of Ezekiel chapter 35,6: אם לא דם שנאת ודם ירדפך, “surely though you have hated blood, blood shall pursue you.”

ויצא הראשון “the first one emerged;” why was he born first? In order that he together with any afterbirth, i.e. something dispensable and at the same time despicable content of the womb, would be discarded with the emergence of Esau. Rabbi Abahu illustrated this by means of a parable in Pessikta Zutrata: when entering a bathtub or public bath, the servant always precedes his master in order to clear away any offensive residue left behind by the previous user. An alternate exegesis: the reason why Esau was born first is that he would inherit the material physical parts of the earth, which had been created before the world to come. Another version: he was born first as he was the product of the last drop of Yitzchok’s seminal ejaculation. We owe this insight to Rabbi Yossi, recorded from a conversation he had with a well educated lady, quoted in the above mentioned midrash. He explained to her that if someone puts two pearls inside a tube sealed at one end, and he wants to access the first one he inserted, he first has to remove the ones he inserted at a later stage. In our story also, in order for the world to be able to enjoy the benefits Yaakov contributed to Judaism and thereby to mankind, Esau had to be born first, as he had blocked Yaakov’s way. Yaakov was conceived from Yitzchok’s first drop of semen so that he was innermost in Rivkah’s womb.

כלו כאדרת שער means full of hair like a woolen garment that is full of hair old French floche; English flock).

אדמוני כאדרת שער, like the garments worn by the clergy.

כלו כאדרת שער, as hairy as a fur coat. He had tufts of hair all over him. In both of these regards he was different from other newly born babies.

כלו כאדרת שער, “all of him looking like a fur coat.” The meaning is as if the Torah had written כלו שער, כאדרת, “his entire body covered with hair, just like a mantle.” Seeing he was born with this much hair, people called him איש שעיר, “a hairy man” (27,11). The word שעיר is an all encompassing expression which includes the demonic qualities which are attributed to the deities called שעירים, which the Torah enjoins us from offering sacrifices to (Leviticus 17,7.) The author quotes an unidentifiable Midrash according to which the strength of that demonic power is concentrated in the hair which covers its heart. At the time of the redemption, (arrival of the Messiah), G’d will make the demonic power collapse when He blows the Shofar heralding the redemption, as we know from וה' אלוקים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערת תימן, “and My Lord G’d will sound the ram’s horn, and advance in a stormy tempest” (Zechariah 9,14). [The author appears to substitute the letter ש for the letter ס in the word סערת, something quite common. Ed.]

Full of hair like a woolen garment. Rashi is answering the question: How can it say כאדרת שער, implying that a robe has hair? A robe is made of wool! Thus Rashi explains: “Full of hair like a woolen garment.” Rashi is saying that שער does not refer to אדרת. Rather, it conveys that Eisov was full of hair like a robe is full of wool. (Re’m) But Nachalas Yaakov writes: Re’m forgot about the verse in Zechariah 13:4 which clearly states, “They will not wear a hairy robe (אדרת שער).” Thus, שער indeed refers to אדרת! Rather, our verse means that Eisov was completely full of hair like a robe that is full of hair. The verse should have said כולו שער כאדרת שער, but [did not because in the word כאדרת,] the כ conveys this point, since כ means “like.” And so explains Radak in his entry on the word שער: “A robe has hair.” See there.

אדמוני, from the word אדם, a complete human being. He is also described as hairy like a fur coat. Some commentators view the verse as reflecting abbreviations, the word אדרת not being understood as in a construct mode to the word שער, hair. The meaning that results would be: “he was covered with hair as if wearing a mantle.” (Ibn Ezra)

ויקרא שמו עשו AND THEY CALLED HIS NAME ESAU — every one called him thus because he was made (עשה means to make) and fully developed with hair as a lad several years old.

ויקראו, they all called him

ויקראו שמו עשו, those who saw him spontaneously called him עשו, giving expression to something that was strange, unusual about this baby. [the name would somehow reflect the word מעשה זר. Ed.] It is also possible that Yitzchok and Rivkah are the ones naming this baby as Esau.

עשו, fully matured, complete due to the fact that he was covered with hair.

ואחרי כן יצא אחיו וגו AND AFTERWARDS HIS BROTHER CAME OUT, ETC. — I have heard a homiletical midrash that expounds it according to its simple meaning: It was with justice that he was grabbing him to hold him back. Jacob was conceived from the first drop and Esau from the second. Go and learn from a tube with a narrow opening - put in it two stones, one after the other. The one that goes in first will come out last, and the one that goes in last will come out first. It comes out that Esau, who was conceived last, came out first, and Jacob, who was conceived first, came out last. And [so] Jacob came to hold him back, so that the first for birth would be the same as the first for conception; and he would open [his mother's] womb and take the first-born status with justice (see Genesis Rabbah 63:8).

ויקרא שמו יעקב. The word means he will remain at the heel, and the tail-end. This is based on the future mode of the word יעקב. Our sages (quoted by Rashi) say that the subject in our verse is G’d Who named Esau’s brother Yaakov, the reason for the unusual formulation being that after the destruction of the Kingdom of Edom and other nations, successor of Esau, only Yaakov and his descendants will remain. Our sages base all this on Jeremiah 46,28 אעשה כלה בכל הגויים...ואותך לא אעשה כלה, “I will make an end of all nations…but I will not make an end of you.”

ויקרא שמו יעקב. He called his name Jacob. The Torah refers to G'd, not to Isaac. Proof is that had Isaac been the subject in our verse, the Torah would not have continued : "and Isaac was sixty years, etc," but would have written: "and he was sixty years, etc."

ואחרי כן...וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו, this too, was an allusion that at the end of time he would dominate Esau, as a human being dominates something matters which he grabs with his hand. The heel is the lower end of the body. It was clearly a hint from G’d concerning the future, as a normal baby does not manage to extend his hand outside the placenta and make contact with its twin.

וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו, “and his hand was holding on to the heel of Esau.” He tried to keep Esau from becoming the firstborn. Possibly, Yaakov only wanted to emerge from his mother’s womb simultaneously with his brother. He did not want his mother to experience separate birth pangs on his account.

I heard an Aggadaic exposition that interprets it according to its plain meaning... Rashi is answering the question: If it is written, “The first one came out,” why then is it not written, “The second one came out”? Rashi answers: I heard an Aggadah that explains why it does not say, “The second one.” Yaakov rightfully should have come out first, just as he was conceived first!

ויקרא, da nannte er, Jizchak. Auf diesen Umstand hatte die Umgebung nicht geachtet, wohl aber Jizchak. Er sah dem Esau fast ähnlich; das bei ihrer Geburt erscheinende Besondere war aber ein Gegensatz. Esaus Besonderheit lag in seiner Persönlichkeit; Jakobs in dem, was er tat, oder in der Stellung, die er einnahm. Er nannte ihn יעקב: der wird hinterdrein kommen, lässt Esau den Vortritt, kommt aber nach, ist eben der צעיר, der Geringere, Schwächere, der unerwartet zuletzt als der erste dastehen wird. (עקב heißt unerwartet nachkommen. Daher עֵקֶב die nicht erwartete Folge, der nicht angestrebte Lohn. Daher auch עקב: jemanden unerwartet Leides tun, ihn überlisten). (Siehe zu Kap.22, 18).

ויקרא שמו יעקב, “he called his name Yaakov.” The name Yaakov has four letters, symbolising the four crowns with which his descendants would “crown” the Almighty. The letter י symbolises the Ten Commandments. The letter ע symbolises the seventy elders. The letter ק symbolises the length of hundred cubits of the Sanctuary built by King Solomon. (Kings I chapter 7) The letter ב symbolises the two Tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. The Israelites were redeemed from slavery in Egypt due to the merit of Yaakov. We know this from Psalms 105,10: ויעמידה ליעקב לחק, לישראל ברית עולם, “He confirmed it as a decree for Yaakov, as an eternal covenant for Israel.” If it had not been for the fact that G–d wanted Yaakov to be born, He would not have saved Avraham from Nimrod’s furnace. (B’reshit Rabbah 63,2).This is what the prophet Isaiah 29,22, had in mind when he wrote: כה אמר ה' אל בית יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם, “thus said the Lord to the house of Yaakov which had redeemed Avraham. A different interpretation of that verse in Isaiah [which begs the question, Ed.] by Yalkut Shimoni: Yaakov released Avraham from the heartache associated with trying to raise children. [He did so by successfully raising all his children in his spirit, something neither Avraham nor Yitzchok had been able to do. Ed.]

וידו אוחזת, “with his hand grabbing;” the younger baby’s had is portrayed as holding on to the older twin’s heel already while still inside Rivkah’s womb. The author cites as proof for this Hoseah 12,4: בבטן עקב את אחיו, “in the womb he tried to overtake his brother.” The word עקב is understood to mean: “heel, hoof.” Yaakov is presumed to have tried to prevent Esau from becoming the firstborn. He wanted to become the firstborn as he had developed from his father’s first drop of semen as quoted by Rabbi Yossi’s response to the lady’s question in Pessikta Zutrata. This would enable Yaakov to claim the status of being the legal firstborn. His failure to prevent Esau from emerging from Rivkah’s womb first, prompted him years later to acquire that status through buying the birthright from his brother.

בעקב עשו ESAU’S HEEL — a sign that this one (Esau) will hardly have time to complete his period of domination before the other would rise and take it (his power) from him

ויקרא שמו יעקב, Yitzchok named him thus.

ויקרא שמו יעקב, “his father called him ‘Yaakov.’” Seeing that Yitzchok’s name is not mentioned here as such, Rashi considers G’d Himself as the subject of the word ויקרא. His view has been confirmed by the Midrash. When the Jerusalem Talmud states that whereas both Yaakov and Avraham whose names had been given by their respective fathers, underwent changes of name, Yitzchok who had been named by G’d in the first place, never underwent such a change of name, this may not be a contradiction to the Midrash, but may mean that the reason Yitzchok’s name was never changed was that he was so named before Sarah had even conceived him. Seeing that Yaakov was not named by G’d until after he had been born, his name could be subject to change, [or in his case to an addition, seeing that the name Yaakov was never abolished. Ed.]

A sign that this one will not yet have completed his dominion... Otherwise the verse should have [omitted all mention of “the heel of Eisov,” and] just said, “His hand grasping him.”

בן ששים שנה, “sixty years old.” Rashi comments on this that during the first ten years of their marriage Rivkah had not been old enough to conceive, and that during the ten years following he had waited before praying to have children as had his father Avraham during the first ten years in the land of Canaan. When she had failed to conceive during these years, he realised that she was barren and prayed on her behalf. He did not want to sleep with a Canaanite concubine, as his status of having been a burnt offering on the altar on Mount Moriah made this inappropriate. All Canaanites are viewed as “slaves,” both males and females. [The author’s quoting this Rashi at this point is interesting as he had previously gone to some length to prove that Rivkah could not have been so young when she got married. Ed.]

ויקרא שמו יעקב AND HE CALLED HIS NAME JACOB — The Holy One, blessed be He, thus named him (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 4). [Some versions add: He said to them (to those who gave Esau that name cf. Genesis 5:25): You have given your first-born a name, I, too, will give my son, my firstborn, (cf. Exodus 4:23) a name. That is what is written, “And He called his name, Jacob” (Genesis 26:26). Another explanation is: his father called him Jacob because he was grasping Esau’s heel

ויצחק בן ששים שנה, this is mentioned to let us know that Rivkah had been unable to bear a child during 20 years.

God called him... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written who named him? Furthermore, since it says [right afterward], “Yitzchok was sixty years old,” it is implied that until now the verse was not speaking of Yitzchok. Thus Rashi explains that Hashem named him.

בן ששים שנה THREESCORE YEARS OLD — Ten years passed from the time when he married her until she became thirteen years old and capable of child-bearing, and a further ten years he hopefully waited as his father did in regard to Sarah. When even then she did not become with child he realised that she was barren and he prayed for her. But He did not wish to take a maidservant as a second wife because he had been sanctified on Mount Moriah to be a burnt-offering without blemish.

Another explanation: his father called him... [Question: If so,] why is Yitzchok not written? [The answer is:] So the gentiles will not say that Yaakov’s father called him so because he knew Yaakov would deceive Eisov twice.

On account of his holding the heel. When Rashi said before that [holding the heel of Eisov is] “a sign that this one will not yet have completed his dominion,” this is according to the first explanation, that Hashem named him Yaakov. For if Hashem named him, we ask: “Why does it need to mention Eisov’s heel?” [And we answer:] “Perforce, it is a sign that...” But according to the alternate explanation, that his father named him, it means that Eisov’s heel is not mentioned superfluously at all. It is needed to explain why his father named him Yaakov, [so it is not a sign].

And the following ten years he hoped and waited for her... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Yitzchok wait until he was sixty before praying? Avraham waited only ten years, as Rashi explained in Parshas Lech Lecha (16:3), while Yitzchok waited twenty years. This is why Rashi explains as he does. And lest we say that from here we can learn that a husband who waits ten years [without children] should pray, not take another wife, Rashi explains: “He refused to marry a hand-maid because he was sanctified....” It was not just a hand-maid [that Yitzchok did not take; it was any other wife].

ויגדלו… ויהי עשו AND THEY GREW … AND ESAU WAS — So long as they were young they could not be distinguished by what they did and no one paid much attention to their characters, but when they reached the age of thirteen, one went his way to the houses of learning and the other went his way to the idolatrous temples (Genesis Rabbah 63:10).

יודע ציד, hunting venison and retrieving the animal to serve as food.

ויגדלו הנערים, as soon as they grew up their activities diverged completely from one another, one concentrating on mundane activities, activities which showed immediate profitable results, the other concentrating on the acquisition of knowledge, wisdom, i.e. abstract matters. One was an extrovert, at home in the fields, mountains, etc, whereas the other was an introvert as reflected in the term יושב אהלים.

איש שדה, an expert farmer.

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up, etc.” According to Rashi it was not evident until they reached the age of 13 that their actions were noticeably different, one from the other. This was so in spite of the prediction that they would be distinctly different from one another already from birth, i.e.ממעיך יפרדו. To the outsider it was impossible to tell which of the two was the righteous son and which was the sinner. Rashi’s commentary is difficult in that it describes the age of 13 as the one at which it became plain that Esau was the son disloyal to his father’s teachings, as according to our Midrashim the reason that Avraham died at 175 instead of living to the age of 180, was to spare him the anguish of seeing one of his grandchildren rejecting his teachings. If Esau became delinquent at 13, Avraham would only have been 178 years old at that time. There is a Midrash according to which Yitzchok spent 2 years in Gan Eden immediately after the Akeydah, years which are not included when we combine the various periods of his life. According to such a count, Avraham would have been 162 years old at the birth of Yaakov and Esau, and when these boys reached the age of 13, Avraham would have been 175 years old, so that he would have died before becoming aware of Esau, his grandson, rejecting his spiritual heritage If we consider that on occasion, a single day in a year can be equivalent to an entire year, -such as when a King ascends the throne on the last day of the month of Adar, so that the following day is considered as part of the second year of his reign, since in Jewish law the calendar year for kings commences on the first day of Nissan, then by allowing for such an occurrence at the beginning of Yitzchok’s life, and something similar at the beginning of Avraham’s life, we would not have to resort to the Midrash which describes Yitzchok as spending 2 years in Gan Eden in a state of suspended animation from the point of view of calendar calculations.- Even this calculation involves contradictions, seeing that G’d promised the righteous את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will make the days of your life’s year full,” i. e. no year of the life of a person such as Yitzchok or Avraham could possibly contain only a single day.

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,10 after Esau attained the age of 13 he frequented houses of idolatry while Yaakov frequented Torah academies. Our sages in the same Midrash also said that Rivkah had experienced similar experiences during her pregnancy. Whenever she passed either one of the aforementioned institutions one of the fetuses within her seemed anxious to emerge. There is a verse in Jeremiah 1,5 בטרם אצרך בבטן ידעתיך, “even before I formed you in the womb I already appointed you (as a prophet).” From this verse we see that distinct prenatal tendencies are not mere figments of our sages’ imagination. Psalms 58,4 זרו רשעים מרחם, “the wicked are defiant even while in the womb,” confirms this piece of psychological insight.

As long as they were little... Rashi is answering the question: [Did not v. 23 teach us] that they were separated already from the womb, one to his wickedness and the other to his wholesomeness? Thus Rashi explains, “As long as they were little...” I.e., even though Eisov was doing evil, people assumed it was due to childishness and did not recognize who he was until he turned thirteen. You might object: Eisov did not fall into bad ways until he was fifteen, which is why Avraham’s life was shortened by five years, as Rashi explains on v. 30. The answer is: During those two years [between thirteen and fifteen], Eisov was secretly wicked. Later, he did so publicly.

ויגדלו וגו׳. Unsere Weisen, die nirgends Anstand nehmen, auf die kleinen und großen Irrtümer und Schwächen in der Geschichte unserer großen Väter aufmerksam und sie dadurch erst recht lehrreich für uns zu machen (siehe das zu Kap.12, 10 Bemerkte], geben auch hier durch eine Bemerkung einen Fingerzeig, wie der schneidende Gegensatz unter den Enkeln Abrahams nicht sowohl in der Anlage, als in der fehlerhaften Erziehung seinen eigentlichen Ursprung genommen haben dürfte. So lange sie klein waren, achtete man nicht auf die in ihnen schlummernde Verschiedenheit (siehe Raw Hirsch on Genesis 25: 24), ließ beiden eine ganz gleiche lehrende und erziehende Behandlung angedeihen und vergaß die große, große Erziehungslehre: חנוך לנער על פי דרכו וגוי, jedes Kind nach der in ihm schlummernden Anlage und der daraus sich für die Zukunft entwickelnden Eigentümlichkeit für das eine reine Menschliche und Jüdische zu erziehen! Die große jüdische Aufgabe ist eins und einfach nach ihrer Grundbedeutung, aber in ihrer Verwirklichung so reich und mannigfach wie die Verschiedenheit der Menschenanlagen und die dadurch bedingte Mannigfaltigkeit des Lebens.

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up;” according to Rashi and the Midrash, as long as the twins had not attained the age of 13 one could not tell their characters apart. As soon as they reached that age it became evident that they pursued totally different objectives in life. The matter can be compared to thorn bushes growing up next to myrtles. Until they have developed, they look alike and neither emits any fragrance. After a while, the fragrance emitted from the myrtle distinguishes it drastically from the thorns of the thorn bushes. You might question that according to Rashi, Esau was only thirteen years old when he already chose to worship idols, while the same Rashi claims that when Esau sold his birthright he was `15 years old on the day of Avraham’s burial, and he claims that Avraham died five years earlier than originally decreed by G–d to spare him watching his grandson become an idolater; how can these two statements be reconciled, if Esau became an idolater already at the age of thirteen? This question has actually been raised in the Jerusalem Talmud! The answer given there is that Esau hid his idolatry for two years so that during the last two years of his life, Avraham had not become aware and grieved by it. As soon as Avraham died, Esau no longer hid the fact that he had become a heretic.

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up;” Rashi comments on this statement that they had attained the age of 13 at this point. During the years prior to this they did not show signs of developing radically different from one another. Until that age they had both been tutored by their father and been trained in how to become wholesome personalities, as pointed out in B’reshit Rabbah 63,10. It is pointed out there that as of that age the father may thank the Lord that he has been relieved of the burden of raising his children. [Every father nowadays recites this blessing at his son’s bar mitzvah. Ed.] The deeper meaning of this is that from that day on a father is no longer held accountable for sins committed by his children. You might object by arguing that at the time of the sale of the birthright the children must have been at least 15 years old, seeing that our sages interpret the dish of lentils that Yaakov had cooked as having been the meal offered on the occasion of their grandfather Avraham being buried at the age of one hundred and seventy five, and they added that the reason that Avraham did not live to be one hundred and eighty, was to spare him the anguish of seeing his grandson Esau going astray spiritually. We know from the Torah that Avraham had been one hundred years of age when Yitzchok was born, so that at his death the children of Yitzchok must have been 15 years of age. The answer given by the midrash to this argument is that Esau had succeeded in keeping his wicked deeds secret or misrepresenting them as good deeds for two years.

יודע ציד A CUNNING HUNTER literally, understanding hunting — understanding how to entrap and deceive his father with his mouth. He would ask him, “Father how should salt and straw be tithed”? (Genesis Rabbah 63:10) (although he knew full well that these are not subject to the law of tithe). Consequently his father believed him to be very punctilious in observing the divine ordinances.

יושב אהלים, tending his father’s flocks as we explained already in connection with 4,20 יושב אהל ומקנה.

אהלים, the reason why the Torah wrote this word in the plural mode is because Yaakov studied with any wise man he came across. He was indiscriminating in this regard, being totally devoid of deceit or evil, wanting only to amass knowledge.

יושב אהלים, the plural mode indicates that the Torah speaks of two distinctly different kinds of tents; one is the tent used by shepherds, the other the tent described as בל-יצען described in Isaiah 33,20, (a reference to Jerusalem or the Temple). The function of that “tent” is to help people come closer to G’d and to gain insight into His ways and as a result to become holy, inspired by His glory.

Entrap and deceive his father with his mouth... [Rashi knows this] because it says יודע ציד, implying that it requires wisdom. Otherwise it would mean the same as, “A man of the field.” Furthermore, [Rashi knows this] because איש ציד is the opposite of איש תם, just as איש שדה is the opposite of יושב אוהלים. And if איש ציד meant trapping animals, it would not be the opposite of איש תם. A wholesome man could also trap animals!

Als Vater Jakob die Stämme unseres künftigen Volkes in seinen Söhnen um sein Lager erblickte, da umstanden ihn nicht nur künftige Priester und Lehrer, da stand der Levitenstamm, der Königsstamm, der Kaufmannsstamm, der Bauernstamm, der Kriegerstamm, da stand das Volk in allen seinen mannigfaltigsten Eigentümlichkeiten und Lebensentwickelungen vor seinem Geistesblick, und alle segnete er sie, und איש כברכתו ברך אותם, und jeden nach seiner Eigentümlichkeit, mit und in seiner Eigentümlichkeit segnete er sie. Denn der mit Abraham gestiftete Gottesbund will ein ganzes, frisches, volles Volksleben für Gott gewinnen, ein ganzes Volksleben mit allen seinen mannigfaltigen Lebensgestaltungen für die eine große Aufgabe gewinnen: לשמר דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט. Da soll die Kraft und der Mut nicht minder wie der Gedanke und das Gefühl ihre für Gott arbeitenden Träger haben, und alle in den verschiedensten Wegen des Berufs sollen die eine große Gesamtaufgabe lösen.

איש יודע ציד, “his vocation was to use trickery to achieve his ends.” Trapping and hunting wild beasts cannot be done successfully without first deceiving those beasts[, as man is physically weaker than they are]. The expression is also used by the Torah as Yitzchok, in due course, would ask Esau: הביאה לי ציד, “bring me some venison.” The Torah therefore had to tell us first that Esau had become a hunter of venison by profession.

איש שדה A MAN OF THE FIELD — Explain it literally (i.e., not in a Midrashic manner): a man without regular occupation, hunting beasts and birds with his bow.

How is salt tithed... Since these things need not be tithed even Rabbinically, [Eisov’s question implied that] he observed mitzvos meticulously. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi say that Eisov deceived Yitzckok [specifically] in the mitzvah of tithes? The answer is: Since it is written expressly that Avraham observed this mitzvah, as it says (14:20), “[Avram] gave him a tenth of everything,” it is certain that his descendants continued to keep this mitzvah. For it says so about Yitzchok (26:12): “A hundred-fold,” [which was for the purpose of tithing; see Rashi there]. And it says so about Yaakov (28:22): “I will surely give a tenth to You.” (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Eben darum aber muß jeder "על פי דרכו" nach der aus seiner Anlage voraussichtlichen Lebenszukunft auf verschiedenem Wege für das eine große Ziel erzogen werden. Einen Jakob und Esau auf derselben Schulbank, unter denselben Lebensgewöhnungen, in gleicher Weise etwa für ein studierendes, denkendes Leben unterrichten und erziehen zu wollen, hieße: mit Sicherheit den einen verderben. Ein Jakob wird mit immer steigender Lust aus der Quelle der Weisheit und Wahrheit schöpfen lernen, ein Esau aber kaum die Zeit erwarten können, wo er die alten Bücher, zugleich aber auch eine ganze Lebensbestimmung hinter den Rücken wirft, die er nur einseitig und in einer Weise kennen gelernt, für welche er in seinem ganzen Naturell keine Anlage findet.

יושב אהלים, “according to the plain meaning this means that Yaakov tended sheep i.e. slept in tents as the sheep graze where they find meadows. Compare Genesis 4,20, אבי יושב אוהל ומקנה, “the founder of nomads tending sheep and cattle.” Another reason for describing Yaakov in such terms is that he was going to make his livelihood as a shepherd while at Lavan for 20 years.

תם A PLAIN MAN — not expert in all these things: as his heart was his mouth (his thoughts and his words tallied). One who is not ingenious in deceiving people is called תם plain, simple.

Who uses his bow to hunt animals and birds. It does not mean he worked in the fields, for then it should say: “Man of the soil,” as it did for Noach (9:20). Or it should say: “Worker of the soil,” as it did for Kayin (4:2).

Hätten Isaak und Rebekka in Esau hineingeschaut und sich früh gefragt, wie kann selbst ein Esau, wie kann die Kraft und der Mut und die Gewandtheit, die in ihm schlummert, zur Betätigung im Dienste Gottes gewonnen, und der künftige גבור nicht ein גבור ציד, sondern in Wahrheit ein ׳גבור לפני ד werden: es hätten Jakob und Esau mit ihren ganz verschiedenen Anlagen doch im Geiste und im Leben Zwillingsbrüder bleiben, es hätte früh schon Esaus Schwert mit Jakobs Geist sich vermählen können, und wer weiß, welch eine andere Gestaltung dann die Gänge der Zeiten genommen hätten. So aber: ויגדלו הנערים, erst als die Knaben Männer wurden, war man überrascht, aus einem Mutterschoße, aus derselben Pflege, Erziehung und Schule so völlige Gegensätze hervorgehen zu sehen. Vergl. Jeschurun Vlll, S. 153 u. ff.

יושב אהלים DWELLING IN TENTS — the tent of Shem and the tent of Eber (Genesis Rabbah 63:10).

Sowie bei Jakob das אש תם die Gemütsart, und יושב אהלים die Berufsart bedeutet, so ist auch wohl bei Esau das איש יודע ציד: die Bezeichnung der Gemüts- art, und איש שדה: der Beruf.

Wir haben schon bei Nimrod, als dessen geistiger Erbe Esau erscheint, den Begriff צוד in seiner Verwandtschaft mit סור betrachtet. Wie סור das in sich Tragen eines verschwiegenen Planes bis zur Zeit der Ausführung bedeutet, so erhält צוד nur noch die Nuance der Schwierigkeiten überwindenden Ausführung. Der צַיָד muß es verstehen, äußerlich ganz unschuldig zu erscheinen und den Gedanken des Verderbens still im Herzen zu tragen. Es ist die vollendete Übung der Tücke, in einem anderen Gebiete: der Diplomatie. Esau verstand die Jagd, die Kunst der Selbstbeherrschung im lauernden Selbstinteresse. Die ganze oben angedeutete, seinem Naturell so widerstrebende Erziehungsweise, die ihm geworden, die sein eigentliches Naturell nur zur Zeit abwartenden Geduld zurückdrängte, konnte einer solchen Richtung nur Nahrung gewähren. Diese Sinnesart führte ihn dazu, איש שדה zu werden. Gerade dadurch, dass man ihn früher an die "Schulbank" geschmiedet hatte, war er nun jetzt aus Widerwillen ganz draußen. Dem gegenüber war Jakob אש תם, ein Mensch, der nur eine Richtung kennt und dieser sich ganz hingibt, in seinem ganzen Wesen nur eins. Er ging auf in das Streben, als Abrahams Enkel, Isaaks Sohn, seine Aufgabe zu erfüllen, und deshalb wurde er ein יושב אהלים, ein Mensch, der die höchste Aufgabe in Lösung der in Menschenkreisen zur Übung und Entfaltung kommenden Erkenntnis und Erfüllung — sowie er als Mann zuerst dort, im Menschenkreise, die höchste Offenbarung des göttlichen Waltens erkannte und lehrte — יעקב קראו בית.

בפיו [THERE WAS HUNTING] IN HIS MOUTH — Understand this as the Targum renders it: in Isaac’s mouth (i. e. Isaac ate the venison he brought home). But its Midrashic explanation is: there was hunting in Esau’s mouth, meaning that he used to entrap and deceive him by his words (Genesis Rabbah 63:10).

BECAUSE THERE WAS VENISON IN HIS MOUTH. The commentators³⁰Ibn Ezra and R’dak. explained it as meaning either that he [Esau] gave venison into Isaac’s mouth, or that he brought Isaac venison. The act of giving or bringing is thus missing from the verse. Similarly: The set time which Samuel;³¹I Samuel 13:5. Here the word “appointed” is missing, the meaning of the verse being “at the set time which Samuel had appointed.” But the Lord — presented or made — me as a mighty warrior.³²Jeremiah 20:11.
It is possible to explain that Isaac loved Esau because there was always venison in the mouth of Isaac. All day he would desire to eat the venison, and it was always in his mouth. He would not eat anything else, and Esau was the one who brought it to him, as Scripture said, A cunning hunter.³³Above, Verse 27.
In my opinion the correct interpretation is that it is a metaphor which tells us that Esau, in the mouth of his father, was a hunter,³⁴Instead of calling him by his name, Isaac would call him “hunter.” as a person is surnamed by his constant occupation. Similarly, Thy habitation is in the midst of deceit;³⁵Jeremiah 9:5. Meaning “in the midst of people of deceit.” But the verse refers to the people by their constant practice. likewise, But I am all prayer.³⁶Psalms 109:40. Meaning, “But I am a man of constant prayer.” And so they said in Bereshith Rabbah,³⁷Bereshith Rabbah 63:15. “Good meat for his mouth, good drink for his mouth.”³⁸If he would find good meat or drink, he would bring it to his father. This Midrash thus indicates that Esau was constantly engaged in bringing food and drink to his father. Hence Isaac came to call him “hunter” because of his steady preoccupation with bringing him food.

כי ציד בפיו, the plain meaning corresponds to Onkelos, i.e. because he brought him venison to eat.

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, And Isaac loved Esau. According to the Midrash Tanchuma Esau snared the love of his father by misrepresenting his true character such as enquiring about the correct manner of tithing salt. He did not bother to engage in such trickery except when dealing with his father. This was because he was not concerned about the performance of good deeds but only wanted to ensure his father would have no reason to curse him. He also hoped to obtain blessings. His mother could not dispense either, therefore he made no effort to camouflage his true self when in his mother's presence. This is why we find later on (27,41) that Esau waited for the death of his father before killing Jacob, whereas he did not wait for his mother to die before committing murder. The reason Rebeccah did not inform Isaac of Esau's wickedness may have been that Esau was careful never to put on such a charade in her presence so as not to give his mother an excuse to challenge Isaac's love for him. According to Onkelos who renders the words כי ציד בפיו as ארי מצידה הוי אכיל, "that Isaac ate from the game Esau hunted," we must ask why this reason did not also cause Rebeccah to love Esau, for surely they took most of their meals together or at least Esau did not discriminate against her? Perhaps the reason is that in accordance with the commentary of the Maharik on Even Ha-ezer 70,1 Isaac was under an obligation to feed his wife a meat diet. When a wife comes from a family who is used to such a diet the husband must keep her in the style she was accustomed to. Bethuel was a wealthy and influential man in his town, and no doubt Rebeccah had been used to a high standard of living prior to her marriage. She would not therefore be particularly grateful for the venison, considering it merely as her due.

ויאהב, there was no need to mention that Yitzchok loved Yaakov; clearly his love for Yaakov was constantly on the increase seeing that Yaakov was righteous, etc. Esau’s claim to his father’s love was due only to the venison he brought his father from his hunting expeditions.

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, also Esau, not only Yaakov, even though he must have been aware that Esau was far less perfect than Yaakov.

כי ציד בפיו, “for he would provide venison to eat.” Onkelos explains that Yitzchok would eat from the proceeds of Esau’s hunting expeditions. Accordingly, our verse is slightly abbreviated and should have read: כי יתן ציד בפיו, “for he would feed him venison.” Alternately, the expression בפיו refers to Yitzchok’s mouth, and informs us that Yitzchok was in the habit of dining on venison. He loved Esau, seeing Esau was an expert in providing choice venison. Nachmanides holds that the statement is a euphemism describing Esau as deceiving his father into thinking he was loyal to his teachings by flattering him. The use of euphemisms by the Torah is nothing unusual.

Ein zweites Moment, das nur verderblich wirken konnte, war die Ge- teiltheit der Gefühle der Eltern hinsichtlich ihrer Kinder. Einheit der Eltern in der Erziehung und gleiche Gesinnung und Liebe zu allen ihren Kindern, — selbst zu dem weniger gut gearteten, das ja, mehr noch als das körperlich kranke, am meisten der liebenden Hingebung bedarf — das ist die erste Grundbedingung und der Eckstein einer jeden Erziehung. — Dass Isaaks Sympathien sich dem Esau und Rebekkas dem Jakob zuwendeten, lässt sich übrigens aus der Anziehungskraft der Kontraste leicht erklären. Isaak, den vom Opfertode wieder auferstandenen, sehen wir dem Geräusche der Welt gerne entzogen, lieber in der Nähe stiller Ode, am Brunnen des "mich- schauendenLebendige", als in der Nähe des bewegten Menschenverkehrs wohnen. Dass ihm Esaus kräftiges, tatkeckes Wesen gefiel und er in ihm vielleicht eine Kraft zur Stütze des Hauses erblickte, die ihm abging, wäre nicht unmöglich; Rebekka hingegen sah in Jakobs ganzem Wesen ein Lebensbild aufblühen, von dem sie im Hause ihres Vaters keine Ahnung hatte — die Sympathien sind erklärlich, allein Eltern sollten sich nicht von solchen dunklen Gefühlen in Beziehung zu ihren Kindern leiten und bestimmen lassen.—

ויאהב יצחק את עשו, “Yitzchok loved Esau;” in connection with Esau the Torah uses the past tense, i.e. ויאהב, to show that Yitzchok did not love Esau all the time, butonly at times when he provided him with venison. When describing Rivkah’s feelings for Yaakov, the Torah uses the present tense, אוהבת, as her feelings for him were constant. Furthermore, it is the nature of women to love those who look after her domestic animals.

אוהבת את יעקב, for she was aware of his perfection, also because the prediction to her of the prophet had been that the senior son would be subservient to the junior one. The Torah had to mention first that Yitzchok loved Esau in order for us to understand what had motivated to bless Esau, and what had motivated Rivkah to deceive him into blessing Yaakov.

בפיו. This meat was especially tasty. Moreover Yitzchok was already aged, being more than seventy years old, Clearly, unless Esau had been at least 12 years old at the time he would not have known how to hunt with bow and arrow.

ורבקה אוהבת את יעקב, she only loved Yaakov, recognising the wickedness of Esau.

ציד בפיו. Entweder: er führte die Jagd im Munde, wusste den Vater durch Erzählung seiner Jagdabenteuer und Heldenthaten zu fesseln, oder, was wahrscheinlicher: es war auch Jagd in seinem Munde, er übte auch Jagd, war auch ein Jäger mit dem Munde. Dieselbe berechnende und fangende Kunst wusste er auch gegen das Gemüt des Vaters zu üben. Rebekkas Liebe zu Jakob kam aber von selbst, war von ihm nicht "erjagt"; sein Wesen gewann ihre Liebe: אהבת את יעקב.

ורבקה אוהבת את יעקב, exclusively; the reason was that Yaakov pursued a lifestyle that would lead to eternal life, whereas Esau did the opposite. Not only did he not lead a life leading to eternal life after death, but he actively forfeited even life on earth, exposing himself to needless dangers. Seeing that Yitzchok was aging and sitting at home most of the time, he was not aware of Esau’s doings and was easily led to believe that Esau led a virtuous life, basing his belief on the daily supply of venison his son provided for him. The story unfolds at a time when Yitzchok was already incapable of seeing well with his physical eyes. The story of the sale of the birthright is told primarily to illustrate the disdain with which Esau looked upon spiritual values as a valuable acquisition, something guaranteeing a person life beyond death.

ויזד means boiling, as the Targum renders it.

ויזד יעקב נזיד. Jacob cooked food. Perhaps the reason Jacob did this was that he had observed how effective Esau's providing his father with delicious meals had been in cementing Isaac's love for him. He therefore tried to emulate his brother.

ויזד, the formulation of vayazed which normally should have been vayizad with a dagesh in the letter ז, the middle letter of the root, is not as unusual as it appears, [the author discussing this in detail in his grammar known as shoroshim. Ed] The meaning of the expression is that “he cooked a dish ויבשל נזיד;” the Torah reports that on a certain day when Yaakov had cooked a dish Esau returned from the hunt tired and found the dish Yaakov had cooked ready for eating. He requested to be given some of it so that he could eat it. The purpose of this story being recorded in the Torah is in order to contrast Yaakov’s virtues with Esau’s irresponsible way of looking at life. Not only that, but Esau considered the gobbling up of food as an end in itself, he was what our sages call a גרגרן, glutton. Yaakov, on the other hand, was so little concerned with the physical gratifications available on earth that when cooking for himself, he cooked a dish of lentils, the simplest undistinguished vegetable. If, in spite of his general outlook, Yaakov refused to share this dish with Esau unless the latter sold him his birthright, even though Essau was his brother, this demonstrates Yaakov’s intelligence and his moral principles which made it difficult for him to give something for which he had toiled to someone who was self-centered and who did not make any contribution to civilisation at all, assuming that whenever he felt ravenous he could demand to be gratified by what belonged to others. It is concerning people like Esau that Solomon said in Proverbs 22,16:נותן לעשיר אך למחסור, “(He who oppresses the poor) is like giving gifts to the rich. The end result is loss.”

ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף, “Esau came home from the field, very tired;” he was so tired that he was overcome by a dizzy spell, fainting, so that he concluded that he was about to die soon. He meant that unless he would get something to eat immediately, his condition would deteriorate and result in his death. This being so, what good would the birthright be to him? One of the allegorical explanations of the Midrash claims that his condition was due to his having lost his bearings in the field and the forest, areas that do not abound with markers showing the way; instead of finding deer to kill, he exhausted himself finding the way home. When he found his brother Yaakov tending his father’s flocks in the field, he remarked that he would die soon as there was no one who had the power to restore him except his saintly father. [in the ספר הישר, Esau’s exhaustion is even described as fatigue after having successfully battled two of Nimrod’s soldiers, and his fearing for his life as a result. Ed.] The expression הלעיטני נא, “spoon-feed me,” indicates that this commentary may be close to the truth, as otherwise Esau would have said something like “תן לי,” “give to me!” He was so weak that he could not even lift his hand to his mouth.

ויזד יעקב נזיד, “Yaakov cooked a dish.” We would have expected the Torah to write that Yitzchak cooked such a dish seeing it was on account of mourning for his father Avraham. Seeing that the mourner must not eat what he has cooked himself, this dish had to be prepared by a third party, i.e. Yaakov. It was a dish of lentils as it was the custom to eat such a dish in the house of mourners. The lentil is round and closed like a wheel, and it thereby symbolizes the recurring nature of physical life on earth which ends where it began, i.e. “dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return.” As the lentil has no “mouth,” opening, so the mourner is not to open conversations (or speak at all).
Avraham had died on this day. He had been fortunate to have been spared seeing one of his grandchildren despise the birthright and to forsake his teachings. According to Baba Batra 16 Esau committed five different sins on that very day. 1) He slept with a girl who was betrothed to another man. 2) He killed a human being. 3) He scoffed at the idea of resurrection. 4) He denied the existence of G’d, and reward and punishment. 5) He despised the birthright.
The Talmud finds allusions in Scripture to support all these allegations: The Torah describes Esau here as ויבא עשו מן השדה, and in connection with the prohibition of sleeping with a girl who is betrothed to another, the Torah worded this in Deut. 22,27 כי בשדה מצאה “for he found her in the field.” The choice of the words: “in the field” is not arbitrary but an allusion to what happened here. The allusion to Esau committing murder is based on the words here כי עיף אנכי, “for I am exhausted,” and the verse in Jeremiah 4,31 כי עיפה נפשי להורגים, “for my soul is exhausted from killing.” The allusion to Esau denying resurrection of the dead is based on Esau saying here הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am going towards death,” and Job 7,9 כלה ענן וילך כן יורד שאול לא יעלה, “as a cloud fades away, so whoever goes down to Sheol does not come up.” As to Esau denying the existence of G’d and the system of reward and punishment, the sages point at the expression in our paragraph where Esau said למה זה לי, “what good is all this for me,” and the words זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will glorify him;” this was the affirmation of G’d sung by the Jewish people after they had emerged from the sea and the Egyptians had been drowned in it (Exodus 15,2). The fact that Esau despised the birthright needs no allusion as it is spelled out right here.

As a result of committing murder... Otherwise, it should say he was hungry.

וַיָזֶד Hiphil von זוד (der Grundwurzel von סוד und צוד): etwas lange zubereiten und ganz reif werden lassen. Daher ja auch Ausdruck der absichtlichen vorbedachten Tat im Gegensatz zu der unvorsätzlichen. Dem Hiphil nach hat er es nicht selbst bereitet, sondern durch andere. נזיד: wie מול und זול ,נמל und זור ,נזל und נזר, scheint auch זוד und נוד zusammen zu hängen, und נזיר das Weichgesottene zu bedeuten.

והוא עיף, “and he was worn out;” it is usual for hunters to be worn out after chasing their prey. Moreover, sometimes they lose sight of their prey in the forest and get lost and it takes them a long time to find their way home. They may remain lost for a day or two, and when they finally get home they are totally worn out, hungry and thirsty.

והוא עיף AND HE WAS FAINT through murdering people, just as you mention faintness in connection with murder, (Jeremiah 4:31) ‘‘For my soul fainteth before the murderers” (Genesis Rabbah 63:12).

הלעיטני LET ME SWALLOW — I will open my mouth and you pour a lot in. The word is really used of feeding animals as we find the word in the Mishna, (Shabbat 155b) “One may not fatten up a camel on the Sabbath but one may put food (מלעיטין) into its mouth. ”

OF THIS RED, RED POTTAGE. The dish was either reddened by the lentils which were red, or it had been compounded with some red substance, and Esau, not knowing what it was, called it edom (red). Therefore was his name called Edom since they mocked at him for having sold an honorable birthright for a small dish. For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty.³⁹Proverbs 23:21. Esau was thus mocked that because of his gluttony he would be reduced to poverty.

מן האדום האדום הזה, it is common for a person who is in a hurry and who demands something from his fellow to repeat his request. In this instance, seeing that Esau was both tired and hungry, his choice of words is equivalent to asking to get something to eat in a hurry.

על כן קרא שמו אדום. When he saw that Esau was so totally absorbed in his futile occupation, an occupation which does not represent the task of man on earth, that he could not even identify the lentils by their name but referred to them only by their colour, he called him by that name himself, i.e. אדום, in the imperative, meaning “paint yourself red by swallowing the red dish!”

על כן קרא שמו אדום, this is why he named him Edom (the red one). Esau called the dish "Edom" not because he called something that was already of a reddish colour "red," but inasmuch as his lifestyle flirted with death and this food was bound to give him an additional lease on life, he called it by his own name. Esau was quite well versed in the significance of names as he himself said in 27,36: "has he (Jacob) not rightly been called יעקב, i.e. "crooked?"

ויאמר...הלעיטני נא, the word הלעיטני is equivalent to האכילני, “feed me!” Our sages in Shabbat 155 in dealing with methods permissible to feed one’s livestock on the Sabbath, say אין ממארים את העגלים אבל מלעיטים אותן, “whereas it is forbidden to use mechanical devices to feed one’s animals one may do so by hand.” In other words, הלעטה describes the crudest form of introducing food into one’s mouth.

מן האדום האדום הזה, “from this reddish looking dish.” Some commentators understand the second word אדום as a reference to Esau himself who was known as אדום, “the red one.” It was a play on words, the “red one” saying that the reddish looking dish is fit for the reddish looking man, meaning himself.

הלעיטני נא, “please let me gulp down, etc.” he spoke foolishly by using such an expression which is normally applied to the manner in which camels eat their food (compare Shabbat 155). This prompted our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 13 to say that “the righteous eat their food in order to sate their biological needs, i.e. לשובע, whereas the belly of the wicked always feels unfulfilled.” You may contrast the conduct of an Eliezer, Avraham’s servant, with that of Esau. The former said הגמיאיני נא מעט מים, “please let me sip a little water(24,17),” whereas Esau said: “let me gulp down!” When the sages spoke of the righteous they referred to Eliezer, whereas when they spoke about the belly of the wicked, they referred to Esau.

Red lentils... [Rashi knows this] because it is written here ויזד יעקב נזיד, and in v. 34 it is written נזיד עדשים. Just as there it is lentils, so too here it is lentils. And just as here they are red, as it is written, “Please give me a swallow of this red,” so too there they are red.

לעט ,הלעיטני (verwandt mit להט , glühen) gierig hinunterschlucken. Es ist nicht sowohl das Gericht, als die Farbe, die ihn reizt. Sie vergegenwärtigt ihm das Blut des röchelnden Tieres, die Augenweide, nach welcher er im Felde jagt. "Gib mir rasch von dem so prächtig Roten!" Und er rühmte sich noch später dieses charakter istischen Ausdrucks und nannte sich: Edom (das Rot-Sein).

הלעיטני נא....על כן קרא שמו אדום, “please let me swallow some of this red stuff.... this is why henceforth he is called Edom.” According to the plain meaning of the verse,-i.e. when read superficially,- his name now became associated with his having referred to the stew Yaakov was cooking as “red stuff.” He was referring to a few lentils. We are told this, as from now on Esau called himself “the red one,” whereas at birth only other people called him thus on account of the colour of his skin.

מן האדום האדום “from this reddish looking stuff.” Every time we encounter the adjective “red,” it always appears to be repeated. The author quotes as examples: אדמדם, ירקרק in Leviticus 13,19 and 49 .(Rash’bam). When someone requests something urgently, he is always in the habit of repeating the key words in such a request. Esau, on that occasion, was extremely in need of food and drink.

מן האדם האדם הזה FROM THIS RED, EVEN THIS RED THING —red lentils. On that day Abraham had died in order that he might not see his grandson Esau falling into degenerate ways. This would not have been the “good old age” (cf. 25:8) which God had promised him; therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, cut his life short by five years — for Isaac lived 180 years and he only one hundred and seventy five. Jacob was boiling lentils to provide the customary first meal for the immediate mourners. Why should lentils be the mourner’s food? Because they are round like a wheel and mourning (sorrow) is a wheel that revolves in the world (it touches everyone sooner or later as a revolving wheel touches every spot in turn) (Bava Batra 16b). And a further reason is: just as lentils have no mouth — (the word mouth פה is used in Hebrew of a serrated edge) — so, too, mourners have no mouth (appear dumb), for speech (greeting others) is forbidden to them. For this reason, also, it is customary to give eggs to a mourner as his first meal, because they are round and have no mouth (serrated edge) and similarly a mourner has no mouth (may not greet others), just as we say in Moed Katan 21b. “A mourner during the first three days (of the week of mourning) may not respond to the greeting of any person — it follows, of course, that he may not be the first to greet anyone — and from the third to the seventh day he may respond to a greeting but may not be the first to offer a greeting etc.” From “And a further reason” is to be found in an old Rashi text.

על כן קרא שמו אדום, a reference to his reddish appearance at birth, described in verse 25. It foreshadowed that he had a craving for red-looking food. He sold his birthright in order to gratify his carving for something red to eat. The nickname אדום is an insulting, derogatory term.

מן האדם האדם הזה, a reference to the lentils, which when peeled, look reddish. The reason why he repeated the word האדם unnecessarily was that it reflects his intense desire for them. This is why he called his name Edom, to reflect the fact that he was always attracted, nay, fascinated by anything red.

For this reason God shortened his life by five years... You might ask: Perhaps his time to die had arrived? The answer is: About Avraham it is written זקן ושבע (25:8), omitting the word ימים. Whereas about Yitzchok it says (35:29): זקן ושבע ימים, [connoting fullness of days,] and so is it said about other righteous men.

כי עיף אנכי, “for I am tired, worn out;” according to tradition, on that day Esau had killed Nimrod the foremost hunter in the world up to that time, and its ruler. Nimrod had challenged him to a duel as he had not asked him for permission to use his hunting grounds. He had consulted with his brother what to do about this. Yaakov had told him that as long as Nimrod was wearing the garments which had once belonged to Adam he was invincible. As soon as he would take off those garments he could easily be overcome. Esau engineered to find him without those garments and killed him. On that day he was exhausted from that effort. Our author quotes Jeremiah 4,31: כי עיפה נפשי, “for my soul is worn out,” as an allusion to that incident.

מכרה כיום SELL ME THIS DAY (literally, like the day) — Explain it as the Targum renders it “as this day”: just as this day is certain, so make me a sure sale.

SELL ME THIS DAY (‘KAYOM’) THY BIRTHRIGHT. “I.e., as this day.⁴⁰“As this day.” Our text of Rashi reads: “Ketargumo (Explain it as the Targum rendered it), ‘as this day.’” Rashi now proceeds to interpret the Targum to mean, “just as this day is certain, etc.” Just as this day is certain, so make me a binding sale.” This is Rashi’s language.
The literal meaning of the word kayom is “at this time,” just as: But stand thou still at this time (‘kayom’), that I may cause thee to hear the word of G-d;⁴¹I Samuel 9:27. At this time (‘kayom’) you shall find him;⁴²Ibid., Verse 13. Let the fat be made to smoke at this time (‘kayom’);⁴³Ibid., 2:16. But unto us belongeth confusion of face, as at this day (‘kayom’).⁴⁴Daniel 9:7.
It would appear from the opinion of Onkelos⁴⁵Since Onkelos, the author of the Targum, added the word dilhein, it would appear from this, etc. that because the sale of the birthright was to take effect after the death of his father Isaac, he [Jacob] said, “Sell me the birthright, with the sale to take effect on whatever day [our father’s death] may occur.”⁴⁶Ramban’s intent is as follows: Since Esau would not possess the birthright until after Isaac’s death —(see Ramban further, Verse 34, that the birthright carried with it no distinction except after the passing of the father)— if he were to attempt to sell it effective immediately, the sale would not be valid. But in this way, having stipulated “whenever that may be,” even though the death of Isaac and the subsequent acquisition of the birthright by Esau have not yet occurred, the sale by Esau is nevertheless valid since Jacob stipulated “whenever that may be.” See my Hebrew commentary, p. 145. This is a typical usage of lahein in the Aramaic language: “Wherever (lahein) are you going?”⁴⁷Yerushalmi Berachoth II, 8: lahein yeizil lei. This means, “To what place are you going?” This is derived from the expression, “Whatever (hein) you let me know.”⁴⁸Yalkut Shimoni Ezra 10:3. Similarly in Bereshith Rabbah, Parshath Vayishlach,⁴⁹Bereshith Rabbah 78:1. “Wherever (velahein) are they going?”⁵⁰Our Bereshith Rabbah reads: ule’an atun azlin. See, however, Theodore’s edition of this Midrash, p. 906, where he quotes from manuscript, velahein, as Ramban has it. is derived from the expression, “Whatever (hein) is broken.”⁴⁹Bereshith Rabbah 78:1. This is their⁵¹Those conversing or writing in the Aramaic language. customary usage of language in many places. And in the book of Daniel this form appears with a patach⁵²That is our kametz. under the letter lamed, similar in meaning to the word ilahin (which): Which ‘lohin’ the angels whose dwelling is not with flesh;⁵³Daniel 2:11. whatever⁵⁴“Whatever, you do, O king….” (‘lohin’), O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.⁵⁵Ibid., 4:24. Now Onkelos translated the Hebrew word zulathi as ilahin⁵⁶Deuteronomy 1:36. Zulathi Caleb (excepting Caleb) is translated by Onkelos as elahin Caleb. To the Aramaic root lahin which appears in the book of Daniel — (see my Hebrew text, p. 145 line 2 from bottom, covering Notes 53 and 55 here) — Onkelos added the letters aleph and yod, thus making it elahin. The intent of Ramban is to indicate that it should not surprise us that Onkelos added a dalet in the text before us, thus making it dilhein, for just as the original word hen was augmented to become lahein so he further expanded it to read dilhein. (Aboab.) its meaning being as the two words, ila hin.
Now in carefully edited texts of Onkelos I found the reading, kayom dilhei. This conforms with my interpretation, for hei in their language⁵⁷Aramaic. means “which,” as it is said in the Talmud: “Which (hei) Rabbi Meir?”⁵⁸Baba Kamma 99b. “Which (hei) Rabbi Yehudah?”⁵⁹Baba Bathra 141a. and others.
It is possible that Onkelos understood the word kayom (as the day) as if it were bayom (on the day). The verse would then be stating, “Sell the birthright to me on the day it will come into your possession.” We find such usage of the letter kaf elsewhere: As (‘Ka’asher’) they go, I will spread My net upon them,⁶⁰Hosea 7:12. meaning ba’asher (wherever they go) rather than “whenever they go.” Similarly, And for the blood (‘kidmei’) of thy children that thou didst give unto them;⁶¹Ezekiel 16:36. Ve’kidmei is to be interpreted as ubidmei (and in the blood). For I have spread you abroad as the four (‘ke’arba’) winds of the heavens.⁶²Zechariah 2:10. Ke’arba is here to be interpreted as be’arba (in the four).
And some scholars say⁶³Quoted by R’dak in his commentary in the name of his father. It is mentioned in Pesikta Zutrata, and a reference to it is also found in Bamidbar Rabbah 6:2. that the price for the birthright was not the pottage at all. Rather, Scripture tells that when Esau, being faint, desired to eat, Jacob said to him, “Sell me your birthright for money and then eat,” and Esau, in his haste for food, answered him, “What is this birthright to me? It is sold to you.” He then swore to him upon it, and they sat down to eat and drink. Scripture however did not reveal the price. I do not agree with this interpretation.

מכרה כיום, meaning: “immediately!” Sell me your share of the birthright which you are entitled to from our father’s estate which I will give you. After that I will give you to eat as proof of the sale and as confirmation. We find a similar transaction in Genesis 31,46 where Yaakov and Lavan ate in order to confirm their non-aggression pact.

מכרה כיום, seeing that as of now all your interests are focused on your work so that you are so tired that you cannot even recognise a dish of lentils for what it is, there is no question that you would not have the time or energy to perform the duties involved in the obligations associated with being a firstborn

ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום, Jacob said: "Sell as of this day, etc." The word "as of today," needs amplification. There are aspects to the birthright which do not become effective until after the death of the father, and as such they are legally considered as דבר שלא בא לעולם, something the eventual existence of which is still subject to doubt. The claim to such things cannot legally be established on an "if and when" basis. Jacob added the words "as of this day" in order to make the sale legal at this time. This is in accordance with Baba Metzia 16 and Choshen Mishpat 211,2. When someone who is poor and does not have what to eat goes hunting and offers the proceeds of his hunt for sale adding that such sale be effective "today," the sale is valid. The reason for this is that the poor man desperately needs the proceeds from such a sale. The Geonim write that the word "today" is not critical to the effectiveness of such a sale. Even if the sale was to be effective the day after it would still be valid. The decisive criterion is the critical need for the proceeds of the sale. The only reason the Talmud mentions the word "today" is to exclude dates such as "after thirty days or longer." As long as the time stipulated for the sale to take effect is within one day so that the seller can assure his survival during this space of time he has met the important criterion. When Jacob said "כיום," he did not mean "today" but "in accordance with the rule applying to sales that take effect within a day. He saw Esau was very tired and weak and providing this food for him at that time was a matter of survival. Had Esau not been in a temporarily desperate situation the sale would not have been legal.

ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום, the letter כ in the word כיום is known as the כ האמתי, a formulation we also encounter in Samuel I 9,13 כי אותו כהיום תמצאון אותו, “for truly today you will find him.” Other examples of this prefixכ being used to emphasise the truth of something are found in Numbers 11,1 and Proverbs 10,20, as well as in Hoseah 5,10. In our verse the letter כ means that Yaakov did not want Esau to sell him the birthright symbolically, but that he meant for a fully fledged legal transaction to be completed, his making a proper kinyan acquisition. [I believe this supports the view of our sages that what was at stake was not Esau’s share as a firstborn in an extra third of his father’s estate, something that at this point was only a potential claim as opposed to an actual claim, and therefore could not have been transferred legally in a binding manner. What was at stake were obligations a firstborn is duty bound to fulfill from the time he is physically and mentally capable of doing so. Yaakov felt that Esau was spiritually not equipped to perform such duties, hence he wanted to relieve him of them. Yaakov could not acquire the spiritual aspects of the birthright merely by pointing out to Esau that it was a burden for him anyway, as the position of the firstborn was something firmly entrenched in the culture of his time. Seeing that the world at that time was concerned with material wealth primarily, Yaakov had to compensate Esau according to the terms other people would understand as being appropriate. Ed.] In spite of Yaakov compensating his brother Esau in “real” terms for something to which his claim was thus far only potential, he was punished for initiating such a sale because he had upset the norms of civilised society by doing so. The fact that Esau rose to great prominence and distinction and hardly seems to have suffered any disadvantage for the deal Yaakov offered him, did not exonerate Yaakov from trying to upset the norms of society. [this view, i.e. that Yaakov paid Esau with money, not with a dish of lentils, is supported at least in part by Ibn Ezra. Ed.]

מכרה כיום, “sell me as of this day!” Rashi understands the word כיום as describing the transaction about to take place to be as clear and beyond misunderstanding as daylight, which illuminates everything clearly. The plain meaning of the word is: “immediately,” as, for instance in Samuel I 2,16 קטר יקטירון כיום את החלה, “let me first burn the fat presently, etc.” Onkelos, taking into account that the sale under discussion will become effective only after Yitzchok’s death, understands the word כיום to mean “as and when, with retroactive closing date as of today.” Some commentators understand Yaakov as saying that the sale, trade, will be effective only today when you are close to death. It is appropriate that you receive some of this dish now for once you have died the entire inheritance of our father will automatically come to me. Esau admitted that Yaakov was right and proceeded to gulp down the red dish. The major problem with the whole transaction is that a birthright has never been understood as something that can be acquired or disposed of by selling and buying. What kind of procedure represents the transfer of the object being sold to the buyer, i.e. what מעשה קנין is there possible? If the object of the sale was the double share of the father’s inheritance decreed by the Torah for the firstborn, we have learned that if someone says “I sell you what I will inherit from my father,” that such a declaration is legally quite meaningless. (Baba Metzia 16) Some resolve this problem by saying that seeing Yaakov should by rights have been the firstborn as he was formed out of Yitzchok’s first drop of semen, and that Esau was born first only because he pushed himself ahead at the time of the delivery, he did not even need to make a קנין, act of acquisition, for something which rightfully was his in the first place. We do not think that this argument is tenable, as the Torah specifically calls the “first born” the one that emerges first from the mother’s womb. (Exodus 13,2) Others hold that Yaakov was convinced that his father was going to deed him all his belongings during his lifetime, just as Avraham had deeded all his belongings to Yitzchok during his lifetime. He would do so in order to forestall any legal protest by Esau when the time came. Still other Rabbis claim that the word בכורתך did not refer to inherited wealth at all, but to the dignity, the standing among his peers that the senior brother usually commands. Yaakov wanted to trade the dish of lentils he was about to give to Esau for that intangible symbol of dignity. Still other sages say that all Yaakov was about to buy from Esau was anything that he might inherit from his father on this very day, (if his father were to die on that day). If so, such a sale would be legally valid. Yaakov used the words מכרה כיום to clarify that legal point. When hearing this, Esau said: ”what good is the birthright to me that you want to buy from me only what might accrue to me this day, seeing that I am not going to outlive my father anyway, you might as will buy my future share in any birthright also.” This is why the Torah testifies in a line later on that Esau displayed his disdain for the birthright. (verse 34) In any event, seeing that the part of the transaction described by Yaakov with the words מכרה כיום was legally valid, any codicil, such as proposed by Esau, would be valid also. Esau seized upon that point later on when he accused Yaakov of ויעקבני זה פעמים (27,36) referring to the fact that Yaakov had tricked him into this codicil, something that would not have had legal standing but for his having first agreed to the sale of limited duration, i.e. מכרה כיום. My late father, the רא'ש of blessed memory, seized on this detail to rule that when someone sells something to one’s neighbour which is not subject to regular methods of acquisition, such as “what I am going to inherit from my father,” or “a loan which I have outstanding for repayment with X and secured only by an oral promise to repay,” both objects not subject to sale in the accepted sense of the word, and the seller adds an oath to his verbal sale, such a sale has become valid, and the court can enforce the terms of the sale from the seller due to the seller having obligated himself by oath. This is all derived from the pains Yaakov took to legalise the sale for the day on which it was concluded by adding the words “swear it to me,“ to Esau.

מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי, “sell me your birthright effective today!” At that time, the privileges connected with the birthright did not include a double portion in the father’s inheritance as was legislated in the Torah later on. The principal value of the birthright consisted in filling the father’s position of head of the family once the father passed away. It was more a position of honour than of immediate financial advantage. It also was accompanied by a certain amount of authority within the family, of course. According to Nachmanides, once the father had died, the firstborn would be in charge of the family’s estate. This is what Esau referred to when he said: “what good is the birthright to me as my pursuits will lead to my death,” i.e. I will never outlive my father to reap the benefits of my potential privileges. This then is the meaning of the sequence: “he ate, he drank, he went (on his way), i.e. Esau despised the birthright.” He demonstrated his lifestyle by the manner in which he negated the value of the birthright for him.

כיום siehe zu 21, 23.

מכרה כיום, “sell to me as of today!” Yaakov refers to the value of Esau’s birthright as of that day, and offers to pay that price. Seeing that the value is completely potential, Esau not knowing if Yaakov will outlive him or will outlive his father, the price must surely be minimal. In either of those two events the birthright would be completely without any value.

מכרה כיום, “Sell me effective immediately!” when the Talmud in B’rachot 32 states that a priest who has killed a person must not perform the priestly service in the Temple, the same applied during Avraham’s time when the priestly services were performed by the respective firstborn males of each family. The priests from the tribe of Levi were appointed only after the sin of the golden calf. An alternate exegesis: while it is true that a person is obligated to give honour to his older brother, the firstborn, no such rule exists when that firstborn is a wicked person. Yaakov no longer considered his brother Esau as worthy of being honoured. כיום, effective as of today;” Yaakov referred to the extent that the rules for the privileges of the firstborns exist now. He knew that in the future the “birthright” would not be subject to being “sold” by the one who had been born to it. An alternate exegesis: the word כיום refers to the monetary value of such a birthright at that time. Clearly it had very little value as so much could happen before the present owner of it could ever make use of it. [Esau’s reference to his impending death in a hunting accident being a distinct possibility makes sense then. Ed.]

בכרתך THY BIRTHRIGHT — Because the sacrificial service was then carried out by the first-born sons, Jacob said, “This wicked man is unworthy to sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He” (Genesis Rabbah 63:13).

הנה אנכי הולך למות BEHOLD I AM IN PERIL TO DIE — The birthright is something unstable, for not always will the sacrificial duties be performed by the first-born, for the tribe of Levi will assume this. Further Esau said: What is the nature of this Service? Jacob replied, “Many prohibitions and punishments and many acts involving even the punishment of death are associated with it — just as we read in the Mishna, (Sanhedrin 22b): The following priests are liable to death: those who carry out their duties after having drunk too much wine and those who officiate long-haired. He said: If I am going to die through it, why should I desire it.

הנה אנכי הולך למות, I am going into the forest day after day to hunt in an area full of bears, lions and other ferocious beasts, and I am risking my life on a daily basis. What point would there be in my waiting until our father dies and I get my share of the birthright? This is the way my father Rabbi Meir interpreted Esau’s words in this verse. This is the meaning of “Esau despised the birthright.” (verse 34).

הולך למות, through the excessive fatigue and exertion associated with my vocation.

ויאמר עשו, it is not clear whether the Torah records Esau’s reflections on Yaakov’s demand, something Esau did not articulate, or whether Esau told Yaakov in so many words that the birthright was of no value to him as he did not expect to live long enough to benefit from it

Said Eisov: “What is the nature of this Service?” If he said it due to hunger, he should have said, “I am dying,” [rather than, “I am going to die”].

ויאמר עשו הנה אנכי הולך למות, Esau said: “seeing that I am likely to die young (due to my lifestyle), I am willing to sell my birthright for a mess of pottage, seeing it is only an intangible asset. In light of these considerations, I might as well sell it to you.”

הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am going to die;” (prematurely) the inheritance of the land of Israel promised by G-d to Avraham is linked to the birthright. Seeing that it will not be realised until after 400 years as G-d had told Avraham, (15,13) and seeing that Esau did not expect to live that long, of what benefit was the status of being the firstborn to him personally? What could he possibly lose by trading that status for a hot meal at this time? ולמה זה לי הבכורה, “what good is this birthright for me?” Esau means that if he could be assured that he would live that long he would not entertain the thought of selling his birthright, but since G-d Himself had told his grandfather that this would come true only in the fourth generation [and Avraham had therefore been able to make a pact of non aggression with Avimelech covering the next three generations, Ed.] he could sell such an entitlement for next to nothing. His own life was in danger daily due to his vocation as a hunter. In the very best set of circumstances his claim to the Land of Israel could only become of interest after their father Yitzchok had died. [Yitzchok was only 175 years old when this conversation took place. Ed.]

SWEAR TO ME THIS DAY. When Esau said, “What is this birthright to me? I do not desire it,” Jacob said to him, “Swear to me that you will not desire it, nor will you inherit it forever.” Thereupon he swore to him, and following that he sold it to him, and Jacob gave him the purchase price⁶⁴That is, the money. This is in accordance with the opinion stated above. Although Ramban does not agree with it, he nevertheless mentions it as an alternate interpretation of the verse. or the pottage he desired.
It is possible that Esau said, “What is this birthright to me? It is sold to you,” and Jacob said, “Swear to me that you will never complain about the sale.” And when Scripture says that first he swore to him and then he sold it to him, its intent is as if it said that he sold it to him first and then swore to him.

השבעה לי, seeing that the purchase under discussion was something abstract, the oath would replace the act of physically taking possession of the object purchased and moving it.

ויאמר השעבה לי. He said: "swear it to me on an oath." The reason that Jacob requested an oath from Esau was because the whole institution of the birthright contains many intangibles, such as the honour and dignity conferred on the firstborn. Jacob was particularly interested in the privilege of performing duties in the Temple, something which was the duty of the firstborn at that time. We are conversant with the rule that a person cannot transfer the right to intangibles either by sale or by gift (Maimonides Hilchot Mechirah chapter 22). This is why Jacob insisted on making such acquisition by means of an oath. Yoreh Deah 239 rules that both tangibles and intangibles may be acquired by means of an oath.

ויאמר השבעה לי, he was afraid that Esau would have second thoughts after having eaten.

וימכור את בכורתו, in exchange for money. After this Yaakov gave Esau the reddish looking dish of lentils he had cooked, as is customary among people sealing a bargain.

השבעה לי כיום “swear it to me as of this day. Yaakov requested an oath that Esau would not change his mind about this deal at some time in the future. This was the only way that the sale would have meaning for him. He did so because the Talmud teaches that if someone announces: “I will sell you whatever I will inherit from my father,” such a statement is legally meaningless. (Baba Metzia 16).

וימכור את בכורתו, in accordance with the price they had mutually agreed upon. The Torah did not bother to spell out the exact sum.

Jacob used the words "swear it to me." Actually the oath is not sufficient to acquire an intangible which does not even exist yet such as becoming heir to one's father if the latter dies before the heir. The reason is that the purchaser cannot truly have convinced himself that he will ever obtain what he has purchased (Baba Metzia 16). If, however, the purchaser was absolutely certain in his mind, the object has indeed been acquired and the oath is quite irrelevant. This is why Jacob had to add the words כיום, as I have explained already. In the meantime I have found a book of the Rivash in which he writes as follows in the course of item number 328. "You have written that you have seen that the son of the Rosh wrote in the name of his father that if someone tried to acquire a "future" by means of an oath such an acquisition is legally valid. He proves the thesis from the sale of the birthright from Esau to Jacob and the fact that the latter insisted on an oath. Since we have neither the signature of the Rosh or his son Rabbi Yaakov to confirm such a theory, it is not admissible to place such theories in the mouths of great men [in order to lend them weight Ed.] seeing that the theory has absolutely no merit. The "so-called" proof from our story is no proof at all seeing that all this occurred before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. It is quite possible that in those days people did not distinguish between selling "futures" and selling "actuals." The oath then would merely have served to reinforce the sale, to protect oneself against the seller changing his mind at a later date. Esau was, after all, a man of violence." Thus far the Rivash. This is exactly in agreement with what we have written, the only difference being that the Rivash did not see fit to provide a reason why Jacob insisted on an oath.

The reason Jacob said: "swear an oath on it to me," instead of merely "swear an oath on it," is so that it would be understood that the sale was for the benefit of Jacob (not for someone else). The oath had to be acceptable to Jacob else Esau could have annulled it in his heart. The essential element of an oath is the heart, i.e. what a person has in mind at the time of the oath (compare Rabbi Akiva in Torat Kohanim 12). Rabbi Akiva insists that at the time an oath is sworn the person undertaking it must have no reservations about the declaration he makes on oath. When Jacob said "swear it to me," he meant: "make your oath correspond to my will."

Another reason Jacob was careful to add the word לי "to me," was that only he was able to acquire the birthright. Inasmuch as the benefits of the birthright include such intangibles as the duty to perform sacrificial service in the sanctuary, this was something that devolved from Isaac to his son. This privilege could not be sold to anyone who was not a son of Isaac. The dignity of the office of the priesthood (in those days equivalent to the birthright) could also not be transferred to an outsider.

וימכור את בכרתו, He sold his birthright, etc. The Torah here had to state the validity of the sale a) because of the reasons we have explained, b) because Esau acted under some kind of duress, c) that Esau sold something for a mere fraction of its real worth. In his commentary on Choshen Mishpat item 227, the Maharik writes as follows: "if someone sold something due to pressing need even at a price significantly below its accepted market value, he cannot retract because he was aware of what he was doing and forgave the difference in value to the purchaser." In view of this ruling the fact that Esau sold the valuable birthright for a single swallow of Jacob's potage did not invalidate the sale. Esau had described his state of exhaustion as: "here I am about to die;" there is no greater emergency than a person selling something in order to save his life. We know from Job 2,4 that a person will give up all that he has for his life. Had Esau not been in such a state, Jacob could not have acquired the birthright from him. When Solomon said in Proverbs 5,22 that the wicked will be entrapped by their iniquities, he had Esau in mind. According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,14 Esau had committed a number of sins on that fateful day and this was the reason that he forfeited the birthright which was transferred to someone more deserving than he.

ויבז עשו THUS ESAU DESPISED—Scripture testifies to his wickedness: that he despised the Service of the Omnipresent!

SO ESAU DESPISED HIS BIRTHRIGHT. Who so despiseth the word shall suffer thereby.⁶⁵Proverbs 13:13. Ramban’s intent in quoting this verse is to explain why it was necessary for the verse before us to say, So Esau ‘despised,’ since, as is clearly indicated in Scripture later on, Esau regretted his action and complained that he [Jacob] took my birthright. (Further, 28:36.) Scripture therefore justifies what befell Esau later on by saying here, So Esau ‘despised’ the birthright, and he who despises the word shall suffer thereby. But, indeed, Scripture has already explained the reason that Esau consented to the sale. This was because he was in mortal danger from his hunting animals, and it was likely that he would die while his father was alive, and the birthright carried with it no distinction except after the passing of the father. So of what benefit was the birthright to him? This then is what Scripture says: And he did eat and drink, and he rose and went, and he despised, for, after having eaten and drunk, he returned to his hunt in the field which was the cause of the despising of the birthright. For there is no desire in fools⁶⁶Ecclesiastes 5:3. except to eat and drink and to fulfill their momentary desire, not giving a care for tomorrow.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has erred here exceedingly by saying that Esau despised the birthright because he saw his father destitute of wealth. Now, [continues Ibn Ezra,] many wonder about Isaac’s poverty since Abraham left him with great wealth. But have they never seen a person who was wealthy in his younger years and became poor in his old age? An indication that Isaac was indeed poor is the fact that Isaac loved Esau because of his venison. Furthermore, had there been abundant food in his father’s house and he [Esau] “the honorable one in his sight,”⁶⁷See Isaiah 43:4. he would not have sold his birthright for pottage. Also, if his father ate savory meat every day, what reason was there for him to say to Esau, “Bring me some venison?”⁶⁸See further, 27:3-4. Why did Jacob not have costly garments as Esau had?⁶⁹See ibid., Verse 15. Why did his mother not give Jacob some silver and gold for his journey when he fled to Haran so that he had to say, And He will give me bread to eat, and a garment to put on?⁷⁰Ibid., 28:20. Why did she not send him some money — since she loved him — so that he was required to tend Laban’s flock?⁷¹All these questions indicate that Isaac was indeed poor. The verse which states, Thus the man grew⁷²Further, 26:13. [in wealth], must refer to the period before he became old. Now ignorant people think that wealth is a great distinction for the righteous. Let Elijah prove the contrary.⁷³See I Kings 17:6, where Elijah’s poverty is depicted. These ignorant people further ask, “Why did G-d cause Isaac to lack wealth?” Perhaps they could also inform us why He caused Isaac’s vision to be diminished? And let them not dismiss me with a reply based upon a d’rash⁷⁴The D’rash (Aggadic) answer is that Isaac’s eyes became dim as a result of Esau’s wives offering incense to the idols. See Rashi further, 27:1, where this is one of several reasons mentioned. for there is indeed a secret⁷⁵Interpreters of Ibn Ezra suggest that “the secret” referred to here is the fact that Isaac was a son of Abraham’s old age, and it was for this reason that his eyesight was weak. in the matter, and we must not probe since the thoughts of G-d are deep and no man has the power to understand them. All these are Abraham ibn Ezra’s words.
Now I wonder who has blinded Abraham ibn Ezra’s reasoning in this matter, causing him to say that Abraham left Isaac great wealth, and he lost it just prior to this event, [that is, the sale of the birthright], and for this reason, Esau despised the birthright, for this matter of the sale of the birthright took place when Jacob and Esau were still young, before Esau married, as Scripture tells,⁷⁶And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife. (26:34). and after the sale of the birthright, Isaac again became wealthy in the land of the Philistines until he became very great… and the Philistines were jealous of him.⁷⁷Further, 26:13-14. Following that, [according to Ibn Ezra, we must say that Isaac] again became poor, and he desired the venison of his son Esau and the savory meats. All this is laughable. Furthermore, the verse says, And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that G-d blessed his son Isaac.⁷⁸Above, 25:11. Now the blessing refers to increase of wealth, possessions and honor, but where was His blessing if he lost the wealth of his father and became impoverished? Afterwards it says, And I will be with Thee, and I will bless thee,⁷⁹Further, 26:3. [but according to Ibn Ezra you will have to say that Isaac] became rich and then poor! And if it be true that in matters of wealth, There are righteous men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked,⁸⁰Ecclesiastes 8:14. this does not apply to those righteous men who have been expressly blessed by the Holy One, blessed be He, since the blessing of the Eternal maketh rich, and no sorrow is added thereto.⁸¹Proverbs 10:22. Rather, the patriarchs all were as kings before whom kings of the nations came and with whom they made covenants. Now it is written concerning Isaac and Abimelech, And they swore one to another.⁸²Further, 26:31. But if Isaac had suffered bad fortune and lost his father’s wealth, how did [Abimelech, King of the Philistines, and Phichol, the head of his army], say, we saw plainly that the Eternal was with thee,⁸³Ibid., Verse 28. when he was already in financial difficulty? Rather, Esau’s disdain of the birthright was due to his brutal nature.
It is possible that the law of double portion to which the firstborn is entitled according to the statutes of the Torah⁸⁴Deuteronomy 21:17. was not in effect in ancient times.⁸⁵That is, in the time of the patriarchs. [At that time the birthright] was only a matter of inheriting the pre-eminence of the father and his authority so that he [the firstborn] would receive honor and distinction in relation to his younger brother. It is for this reason that Esau said to Isaac, I am thy son, thy firstborn,⁸⁶Further, 27:32. meaning to say that he is the firstborn who deserves to be blessed. Similarly, [Joseph said to his father, Jacob], For this is the firstborn; put thy hand upon his head,⁸⁷Ibid., 48:18. thereby meaning that Jacob should give him precedence in the blessing. Perhaps the firstborn also took slightly more of the inheritance since the law of double portion is an innovation of the statutes of the Torah.⁸⁸Thus even in ancient times it was customary that the firstborn inherit more than one share. However, the Torah established his portion to be two shares. This interpretation differs from Ramban’s original thesis that the firstborn originally had no preference whatever in inheritance, and that the Torah instituted this law. And as for the venison in his mouth which Isaac desired so strongly, this is in keeping with the custom of princes and kings. They prefer venison above all food, and out of fear, all nations bring them gifts of venison. Esau flattered his father by bringing him all the venison so that he may always eat of it to his heart’s content,⁸⁹Ramban thus explains Isaac’s desire for venison without postulating Isaac’s poverty as Ibn Ezra did. and the love of a father for his firstborn is easily understood.
As for Isaac’s saying that he would bless Esau after he had prepared the savory meats for him, that was not a reward or a recompense for the food. Instead, he wanted to derive some benefit from him so that his very soul would be bound up in his at the time that he brought him the food so that he would then bless him with a complete desire and a perfect will. Perhaps Isaac discerned in himself that following the meal his soul would be delighted and joyous, and then the Ruach Hakodesh⁹⁰“The holy spirit.” The expression refers to a degree of prophecy. See Moreh Nebuchim, II, 45 (2). would come upon him, [as was the case with Elisha the prophet, who said], ‘But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Eternal came upon him.⁹¹II Kings 3:15.
And as for not giving wealth to Jacob, that was [not due to Isaac’s poverty but rather] because Jacob was fleeing for his life. He left the country alone without his brother’s knowledge, and had he been given along wealth, servants and camels, they would have increased his enemies’ jealousy and resulted in their ambushing him and killing him. Our Rabbis do indeed say that Jacob was robbed [at the outset of his journey⁹²Bereshith Rabbah 68:2. Thus another difficulty tending to favor Ibn Ezra’s thesis that Isaac was poverty stricken is resolved. of whatever possessions he had].
And who has told Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra that Jacob had no costly garments, fine linen and silk and embroidered robes?⁹³Ezekiel 16:13. Rather, Scripture states that when going to the field to hunt, Esau would change his garments for his hunting clothes, and due to the fact that [because of his dim eyesight], Isaac always touched his son and his clothes with his hands, Rebekah clothed Jacob with them lest he recognize him by his clothes. You see that this is precisely what Isaac did: And he smelled the odor of his garments⁹⁴Further, 27:27. because he had put them among calamus and cinnamon, even as it is written, Myrrh and aloes, and cassia are all thy garments.⁹⁵Psalms 45:9. The spices grew in the Land of Israel, and it is for this reason that Isaac said, The odor of my son is as the odor of a field.⁹⁴Further, 27:27. Because he was a man of the field⁹⁶See above, Verse 27. his garments had the odor of the field or that of the blossoms of the trees, just as our Rabbis explained it: As the odor of a field⁹⁴Further, 27:27. of apples.⁹⁷Taanith 29b.
And as for the question raised above concerning the quality of Isaac’s lack of vision, it is a question raised by the ignorant, for if⁹⁸Further in the text Ramban suggests that Isaac’s dim vision was a natural result of his old age. Hence he writes here: “If it was brought about.” it was brought about especially by G-d, it was in order that Isaac bless Jacob, this being the purport of the verse, And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, he called Esau.⁹⁹Further, 27:1. And in line with the natural meaning of Scripture, this was but a manifestation of old age, the explanation of the verse being as follows: And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim in his old age, he called Esau. Now of Jacob himself it is said later on, Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see.¹⁰⁰Ibid., 48:10. Of Achiyah the Shilonite it is also written, Now Achiyah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age,¹⁰¹I Kings 14:4. and concerning Moses our teacher it is related with wonder that his eye was not dim.¹⁰²Deuteronomy 34:7.

ויבז עשו, seeing that eventually Esau regretted having sold his birthright, as we know from 27,36 the Torah goes on record here that he had despised the birthright and had no right to go back on the bargain he had made in full knowledge of what it entailed.

ויעקב נתן לעשו, he had used the lentils or the dish containing them as the קנין חליפין, a token used to serve as symbol of the transfer of ownership of the object constituting the one being sold. Compare Ruth 4,7 where a shoe is mentioned as serving as such a token.

ויקם וילך ויבז עשו את הבכורה, Esau arose, went on his way and despised the birthright. The Torah stresses that Esau's despising the birthright was a conscious act. Had the Torah written: "He arose, he went and he despised the birthright," we could have thought that he merely did so unconsciously. The Torah added the word "Esau" here once more to tell us that Esau deliberately showed disdain for the birthright. Even if Esau had not desperately needed to trade something to obtain some of Jacob's potage he would have sold the birthright cheaply at any time if Jacob had asked him to.

ויעקב נתן לעשו, as the price for the birthright. He is not reported as having given Esau wine, as the wine he drank was that belonging to the household of his father. However, fresh bread, which Yaakov had baked for himself, he did give him together with the dish of lentils. My father, of blessed memory, wrote that Yaakov positively compensated Esau with money, and that the dish of lentils and the bread he gave him and which they both ate together was only to seal the bargain between them, a custom to which we have already referred. [It is difficult to know whether our author adopted this interpretation, or whether he did not consider it as the plain meaning of the text as written. Personally, seeing that the author generally distinguishes between a past tense constructed with a letter ו when appearing as a prefix to a future mode, and the ordinary past tense, the word נתן instead of ויתן should have made him adopt his father’s interpretation as the plain meaning. Ed.]

ויעקב נתן לעשו, “meanwhile Yaakov had already given to Esau, etc.” Some commentators believe that the food Yaakov had given to Esau had not been in exchange for the birthright, but had been an ordinary human gesture, something everybody does when faced with an extremely hungry person whom he is able to help. The type and amount of payment Yaakov gave Esau in exchange for the birthright has not been recorded in the Torah.

ויעקב נתן לעשו לחם ונזיד עדשים, “and Yaakov had given to Esau bread and a dish of lentils, etc.” At this point in the story the Torah reveals the nature of the dish Yaakov had cooked when Esau arrived home when we read: “Yaakov was cooking a dish.” It would have been more appropriate to mention the kind of dish Yaakov had been cooking already at the beginning of the paragraph and to continue later that Yaakov had given Esau a dish of lentils. It is possible that the Torah chose this sequence in order to describe the haughtiness of Esau as well as his lack of etiquette and regard for others; this is why the Torah did not mention what precisely Yaakov had been cooking until it had told us Esau’s whole range of reactions to what he found at home on that day. As long as we did not know what kind of ordinary dish Yaakov had cooked, we could have credited Esau with demanding the exotic dish that his brother had been preparing and that this had been the reason that he was so willing to trade his birthright for it. When the Torah, finally tells us at the end of the paragraph the nature of the dish for which Esau traded his birthright, it wanted to show us how Esau had related to it in the first place.

Scripture testifies to his wickedness... Meaning: we know he did not desire his birthright since it is written that he sold it to Yaakov. If so, why does Scripture need to write, “Eisov scorned the birthright”? Perforce, Scripture is testifying to his wickedness. In other words, we would anyway know that he was wicked, but here Scripture is testifying to it. We similarly explained the verse, “The daughter of Besueil, the Aramite, of Padan Aram” (v. 20).

ויעקב נתן, nicht ויתן יעקב, hatte ihm bereits sofort gegeben, hatte nicht seinen Hunger benutzt, um ihn zum Verkaufe zu zwingen. מכר heißt auch nicht notwendig verkaufen im eigentlichen Sinne, sondern auch: überlassen, preisgeben, צורם מכרם (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 25: 32, 30) ימכר ד׳ את סיסרא (Richter 4, 9).

ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “Esau had already displayed disdain for the asset known as birthright.” This is why Yaakov bought it from him. We find that Rabbi Yehudah Hachassid, referring to this verse, claims that if one finds a confirmed sinner in the possession of holy texts such as a Torah scroll, it is permissible to use subterfuge to get him to sell it.

'ויעקב נתן לעשו וגו, meanwhile Yaakov had already given to Esau, etc.;” at the same time when Esau had paid him money for the birthright, Yaakov had already fed him bread and a dish of lentils as proof that the sale had taken place. This was a normal procedure when commercial transactions took place in those days. We find an additional example of this in Genesis 31,46, when Yaakov and Lavan conclude a peace treaty by the stone monument.

ויבז, the word is equivalent to Numbers 15,31 ויבזה from את דבר ה' בזה, the construction being parallel to ויקן as a form of the past tense קנה, “he bought, he acquired” (Genesis 33,19)

Eisov scorned the birthright. Even after the sale he did not consider the birthright to be worth the money he received for it. Therefore it is not correct to say that he was cheated.

וילך, he returned to the field to continue hunting.

ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “Esau displayed disdain for the birthright.” According to Ibn Ezra, Esau’s disdain for the birthright was rooted in the fact that his father Yitzchok, though initially heir to an immense fortune, had become poor, so that he even depended on his food supply on his son Esau who supplied his meat diet. If bread had been plentiful in Yitzchok’s home at that time, Esau would not have sold his birthright for a mere dish of lentils. Even assuming that Yitzchok had been eating delicacies on a daily basis, how are we to account for the fact that Rivkah sent her son Yaakov empty-handed to find a match in the house of Lavan who was known to cherish money above all else? Yaakov even had to pray to G’d that He should provide him with bread to eat and clothes to wear! (Genesis 28,20) Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the state of affairs in Yitzchok’s household. The Torah testifies that Yitzchok had inherited great wealth. If he had been poor, why would Avimelech have been afraid of the influence which his great wealth bestowed on Yitzchok so that he described him as being more powerful than he, the king of the Philistines? (26,26) It is unreasonable to suppose that in the short interval between Avraham’s death (or even his “retirement,”) and the sale of the birthright he had lost all his wealth. Moreover, the Torah testifies after the death of Avraham that G’d blessed Yitzchok (seeing that Avraham had neglected to do this, so as not to offend Ishmael) If Yitzchok had become a pauper, how would G’d’s blessing have manifested itself as such? The fact that Rivkah did not send a dowry with Yitzchok was not because they were poor, but because she was afraid that this would give Esau additional reason to ambush him and kill him. As to the venison Esau supplied for his father, his father happened to be fond of venison, and he used this supply of venison brought to him by his son Esau in order to strengthen the mutual bond of love between father and firstborn son. [Yitzchok was keenly aware that additional external prompts were needed to firm that relationship. Ed.] The Torah sees the example of Esau’s selling the birthright for a dish of lentils as an illustration of his general lack of moral stature.

Von diesem ganzen Kaufpakte, finden wir übrigens, bekam Jakob nicht den geringsten Vorzug oder Vorteil, vielmehr ward Esau groß wie ein Fürst, während Jakob sich bei den Schafen plagen musste, also, dass die בכורה gar keinen äußeren Vorteil gewährte; es konnte sich vielmehr nur darum gehandelt haben, wem die geistige Leitung des Hauses einst anvertraut werden sollte. Dazu kommt, dass beide noch Knaben — nach Baba Bathra 16, b. erst 15 Jahre alt — waren. Die בכורה war also nur in kindischem Spiele verkauft worden — so nennt sie auch בר קפרא in :ב"ר משחקים, also von einem Schacher, oder einem ernsten Geschäfte konnte gar nicht die Rede sein. Esau kommt abends hungrig nach Hause, Jakob kocht sich gerade ein Gericht: Gib mir rasch von diesem Roten, mich lechzt danach, spricht Esau. Jakob gibt ihm und spricht: Sowie du gierig nach diesem Roten bist, so fehlt mir die בכורה. Du treibst dich den ganzen Tag auf dem Felde herum und eben dachte ich mir, wie es werden würde, wenn der Vater einmal stürbe und das Abrabamszelt ein Jägerhaus werden sollte — deshalb lechze ich nach der בכורה, wie du nach dem Gerichte. Nehmen wir hinzu, was die oben zitierte Überlieferung sagt, dass an diesem Tage Abraham gestorben war und Jakob sich nun denken musste, wie es sein würde, wenn statt Jizchak, Ismael Abrahams Stelle vertreten sollte, sich denken durfte, der Großvater stirbt und der Enkel, der seine geistig sittliche Stelle einst ausfüllen soll, treibt sich auf dem Felde auf der Hetzjagd herum — so ist diese ganze Verhandlung der beiden Knaben so erklärlich wie charakteristisch. Und wie diese damals einander gegenüber standen, so standen Jakob und Esau Jahrhunderte lang zu einander. Jakob gibt gerne sein Materielles dem danach lechzenden Esau hin, wenn dieser ihm nur gestattet, seiner geistig sittlichen Lebensaufgabe zu warten. —

ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “at that point Esau had shown that he despised the birthright;” until Aaron was appointed priest, the Temple service used to be performed by the firstborns of each family, regardless of which tribe they belonged to. In practice what Esau had done was as if he had said: “why should I dirty my hands with the blood of sacrificial animals,” as per Ezekiel 35,6: as I live, declares G-d: “I will doom you with blood, blood shall pursue you;” the reference is to the blood of circumcision as well as to that of sacrificial animals. [Esau is presumed to have poked fun at the need of circumcision also.] An alternate explanation of the line: “Esau despised the birthright;” seeing that Esau did not want people to point at him as the fool who had sold his birthright, he made it plain that he despised the birthright and what it stood for. In the end, we know that he came to regret this as he accused Yaakov of having tricked him out of it. (27,36).

ויבז, even after he had eaten and drunk he did not feel that Yaakov had tricked him and taken advantage of him when he had felt hungry.

Eisov scorned the birthright. Even after the sale he did not consider the birthright to be worth the money he received for it. Therefore it is not correct to say that he was cheated.