Commento su Genesi 27:9

וקח לי AND TAKE FOR ME — (The words may mean “Take that which belongs to me”) — these are mine and not the proceeds of theft. Isaac had made provision in her marriage contract that she should receive daily two kids of the goats (Genesis Rabbah 65:14).

לך נא אל הצאן, take time out from your usual pursuits [in the tents] and go to the pens where the sheep and goats are kept.

שני גדיי עזים טובים, “two choice kids.” Rivkah specifically commanded Yaakov to bring her two choice kids. The question that is almost forced upon one is: “did Yitzchak consume two whole young kids every day?” According to Bereshit Rabbah 65,14 the marriage contract between Rivkah and Yitzchak made her a daily allowance of two young kids (so that she was not encroaching on her husband’s property when slaughtering these animals and selecting the most tasty parts thereof to prepare for him). Rabbi Chelbo, in the same Midrash, concentrates on the word טובים which appears superfluous seeing that Yaakov had no reason to select mediocre or undernourished kids. He says that the word is an allusion to what was going to prove “good,” i.e. beneficial for Yaakov and his descendants. Seeing that these kids would be the instrument of securing the blessings for Yaakov they would prove to be “good” for him. In addition, they would prove to be good for Yaakov’s children as they would be the principal sin-offerings offered on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16,5) securing forgiveness for the Jewish people, Yaakov’s descendants. “They are good for you,” i.e. Yaakov’s ascendancy over Esau who is described as an איש שעיר, “a demonic individual,” was due to the scapegoats one of which was offered to the azzazel, the spiritual equivalent of Satan-Esau by the Jewish people as something like a bribe. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 14 that the words ונשא השעיר עליו את כל-עונותם, “he (the scapegoat) will carry (figuratively speaking) upon himself all their sins,” refer to the sins committed when no warning had been received by the perpetrators. The sinners were תם, not rebellious. Seeing that Yaakov has been described as איש תם, it was appropriate that such an animal should serve as the instrument of atonement for his descendants.
The delicacies which Rivkah instructed her son Yaakov to enable her to prepare for Yitzchak were not of the type of free-roaming beasts to be found in the field, but they were domesticated animals. This is why she emphasised: “please go to the flocks.” Yaakov, after all, was not a hunter; he was a homebody, a dweller of tents who despised the sword as an instrument to gain one’s livelihood. The Israelites never offered sacrifices from categories of animals which are free-roaming, not domesticated. The prophet Jeremiah characterised the distinction between the Jewish people and the Gentiles when he said (Jeremiah 10,16) “not like these is the portion of Yaakov.” The word חלק means either “portion,” or it can mean “smooth” (with different vowels). The prophet referred to Yaakov as being a smooth-skinned man (according to 27,11). As a result of these considerations, Yaakov’s descendants were never told to offer sacrifices from the free-roaming beasts but only from the domesticated beasts as the Torah said (Leviticus 1,2) אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' מן הבהמה, “anyone of you who wishes to offer a sacrifice to G’d, from the domesticated beasts, etc.”