Commentaire sur La Genèse 25:31

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.

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).