Commento su Genesi 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.