פּירוש אויף בראשית 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.

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.]