Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Kejadian 27:36

‘All,’ includes the messianic era: It is hard to understand how ben Zoma bested the sages in this discussion since they were able to offer their own explanation of the word kol, ‘all,’ thus throwing into question his explanation as referring to the evenings. In the Mekhilta, this discussion continues between ben Zoma and the sages: Ben Zoma retorted to the sages: Will it be necessary to mention the Exodus in Messianic era? Do we not learn, “Assuredly, a time is coming” says the Lord “when it shall no more be said, ‘as the Lord lives who brought the Israelites out of Egypt,’ but rather, ‘as the Lord lives who brought the Israelites out of the Northland and out of the land to which He has banished them,⁷⁹Jeremiah 16:14-15; also 23:8-9’” Rabbi Natan said, the words, ‘that brought us up and that led’ prove that even in the future they will mention the Exodus from Egypt .⁸⁰In Jeremiah 23 the same verse contains a double expression “Who brought us up and who led us” Rabbi Natan understands one term referring to the Exodus and the other to the future redemption. The passage in the Mekhilta goes on to offer proof texts for the opening blessing of the Amida (that we say, ‘the God of Abraham…Isaac…and Jacob…’) and the Grace after the Meal. ⁸¹See Mekhilta Parshat Bo, 16
How then are we to understand Ben Zoma’s point of view? Elsewhere we learn that Ben Zoma held that in fact, the exodus will be mentioned in messianic time but the new redemption will be more essential and the Exodus will become secondary. Similarly, we learn regarding Jacob that even though he was given a new name, Israel, his old name was still used afterwards. Israel, however became his essential name and Jacob secondary. Yet if that is so then why do we say the God of Jacob in the opening blessing of the Amida – we should say the God of Israel since that is our forefather’s essential name! That is why the Mekhilta offers a proof text for the Amida in which the name of Jacob is used. Without a biblical citation we would have assumed that the opening blessing of the Amida should have said, ‘the God of Israel.’ It would seem then that Ben Zoma is in agreement with Rabbi Natan not only regarding the mentioning of the Exodus but in these other cases as well.
The continuation of the discussion in the Mekhilta is relevant to Ben Zoma’s point of view. We learn that while it is a transgression to refer to Abraham by his previous name, Abram, the same is not true for Jacob/Israel.⁸²BT Berachot 13a The reason for this is that the name Jacob has a negative and a positive connotation in the Torah. He is called Jacob because he tricked (vaya’akveini) Esau and he is called Jacob because in the future he is destined to supplant Edom/Esau and rule over him, as was prophesized to Rebecca.⁸³See Genesis 25:26 and 27:36 In the future when Jacob supplants his older brother then he will truly be Israel and not Jacob any more. It would seem that both names have a good connotation while the name Abram has no purpose at all. Similarly, we learn that by mentioning the exodus in the Birkat Hamazon that mentioning the Exodus is relevant at all times, night and day and that Ben Zoma’s explanation is correct.

Because Heb. עַל-כֵּן. Like עַל אֲשֶׁר, because of that which. Comp. (Gen. 33:10) “Because (כִּי עַל-כֵּן) I saw your face”; (ibid. 27:36) “because (כִּי עַל-כֵּן) I did not give her to Shelah my son.”

who lurk to shed blood Heb. עֲקֻבָּה. Full of people who lurk to murder. Comp. (Jos. 8:13) “and their lyers in wait (עֲקֵבוֹ)”; (Gen. 27:36) “and he deceived me (וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי).”

And their ambush party their ambushers this word עַקֵבוֹ is similar to וַיעֲקְבֵנִי.⁵Bereishis 27:36. Eisov said regarding Yaakov, וַיַעְקְבֵנִי זֶה פַּעֲמַיִם “He has deceived me twice.” An ambush implies cunning and trickery.