פירוש על בראשית 25:34

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.