ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף בראשית 31:42

At the creation, we find no evidence that birthright was part of the rules guiding the affairs of man. Proof lies in the random order the names of Noach's sons are referred to on different occasions. This was changed when Abraham appeared on the stage of history. His descendants were to play a leading role due to their being descendants of Abraham. In effect G-d had said, "Until now I have bestowed blessings, henceforth I grant Abraham the authority to bestow and direct blessings" (Genesis 12,3). Abraham debated with himself if he were to bestow this power to bless on others. Since he was not certain that he might help weeds to sprout (promote the power of wicked people), if he took it upon himself to transfer this power to bless, he decided to leave well enough alone (Bereshit Rabbah 61). He waited for G-d to make His will known in the matter. G-d did bless his son Isaac (gave him the power to bestow blessings). Since Abraham had two first born sons, he would have had to bestow the blessing (power to bless) on both of them. He was afraid to err; on the other hand, the trait of "chessed," kindness, for which he was famed would not allow him to deprive Ishmael of a share in favor of Isaac. This in spite of the fact that he knew that his descendants would be known primarily through Isaac. Therefore, considering himself as the manager of the Almighty's orchard, he decided to leave this decision to the owner of the orchard. After Abraham's death, the owner chose Isaac, and thus we come to point two in our parable. When twins were born to Isaac, the older of whom exhibited signs of unfitness, problem three in our parable, this had to be dealt with. Isaac, true to his characteristic of pachad, din, i.e. justice, which our sages have credited him with, did not dare deviate from the principle of transferring power in accordance with birthright. When Jacob says some time later that "the One whom Isaac feared was on my side" (Genesis 31,42), this grants us an insight into the matter. An examination of all the instances in which a direct relationship or communication between G-d and Isaac is described reveals that the term used for "G-d" is invariably elokim, i.e. the attribute of justice. The only exception is the instance when G-d tells Abraham that Isaac is not to be slaughtered after all. This latter instance which taught Abraham that rachamim, mercy is one of G-d’s attributes, is the only time when this factor emerges as playing a role in the relationship between G-d and Isaac. It is understandable then that Isaac of all people would not deviate from the pattern of nobility of birth decreed from above. Isaac's own position as Abraham's heir was due to this very system. Add to this that Isaac personally had not observed any misconduct in Esau, and it becomes clear why he chose Esau to bestow the blessing on. Jacob himself had been very careful never to tell his father of the sale of the birthright, since he had kept hoping that he would secure his father's blessing by virtue of his superior moral conduct, plus the influence of his mother. He did not want to benefit by exposing his brother's unworthiness. This trait of Jacob was very laudable. Leviticus 25,36 tells us, "Your brother shall live alongside you." Our sages explain that this wording teaches that one's own life takes precedence over that of one's fellow man in a situation where only one of the two lives can be saved. If the object of one's quest for Divine help is personality growth rather than the acquisition of worldly goods, then competing for the attainment of that goal is permissible. Aristotle also states in his Ethics that self-love, when its objective is perfection of self, is virtuous. Our sages, when describing jealousy as a negative trait, do approve of jealousy when it involves envying scholars who know more (Baba Batra 25). The same idea is reflected in Bereshit Rabbah 71 in connection with Rachel's jealousy of her sister Leah (Genesis 30,1). She envied Leah her good deeds. This is why our sages can consider that kind of jealousy a positive quality. On the other hand, "good" character traits employed for a base purpose are viewed as a negative quality (compare Chapter 27 on Dinah). Our problem is to determine whether jealousy under the circumstances described is permitted even when the attainment of one's own purpose involves something detrimental to one's competitor. Consider the definition by our sages of the commandment "Love your fellow man like yourself." The Talmud Shabbat 31 explains this to mean " do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself." Aristotle defines it in a similar vein. In other words, we should want for our fellow man what we want for ourselves. We certainly do not need to want for our fellow man what he wants for himself. This is especially so, when our fellow man is wicked or a criminal. In Psalms 139,21, David expresses it in these words: "Must I not hate those who hate You O Lord, and quarrel with those who rise up against You?" Clearly the word "fellow man" referred to in the Torah means someone sharing the same objectives in life that we ourselves believe in. Since Jacob's motivations corresponded to the ones stipulated by our sages, the verse we quoted from Psalms may be applied to him. Having established this point, we return to item four in our parable. The problem is how to restore the position of leadership to those qualified for it. It does not suffice to deny G-d’s special blessings to the undeserving, rather action is needed to channel those blessings to those who deserve them. When Jacob blessed his grandsons prior to his death, he reversed his hands to ensure that Ephrayim would be the recipient of the greater blessing. Er, the firstborn son of Yehudah, is described as unfit, unworthy. Peretz and Zerach respectively, are not treated according to what the order of their birth would call for. Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, is not accorded the privileges his birthright calls for. David was not Yishai's firstborn, neither was Solomon the senior of the surviving sons of David when he was assured that he would be his father's successor. To prove that birthright as an automatic claim to the succession was not practiced at the time of the Exodus, see Numbers 3,3. G-d says, "The day I smote all the firstborn of Egypt, I established an exclusive claim on all the firstborn of Israel." Obviously, if succession by birthright had been the norm at that time, there would have been no need for G-d to underline that only from that day on would G-d claim the firstborn of Israel as especially beholden to Him. We see then that the practice of succession by birthright had been discontinued at some time, only to be re-introduced at the time of the Exodus. Later, after the episode of the golden calf, when this method of succession had again been found unreliable, the privileges of that group were transferred to the tribe of Levi which had proved its worthiness. This then is the fifth rule that we learned from our parable. Now we understand what the Midrash quoted at the beginning of our chapter had in mind. Since Jacob may well have been aware that the privileges of the firstborn would be abolished once the tabernacle was to be erected, why did he risk his life merely in order to hasten that event? The question is even more justified when we consider that Jacob derived no practical advantage from all his machinations. There is no mention of Jacob ever having offered sacrifices in his capacity as firstborn, and if he had done so, the fact would no doubt have come to the attention of his father. His father could not then have been surprised when he heard from Esau some forty-eight years later, that the latter had traded away his birthright. The Midrash wishes us to know that if Jacob's actions had been motivated by materialistic considerations, this would have been most dishonorable; since he was guided by the desire to secure for himself a higher spiritual level, however, such purpose was laudable. Jacob was aware that the heter bamot, permission to erect altars for G-d wherever one wanted, in order to draw down G-d’s blessing, could lead to grievous abuse if the excercise of the priestly functions was left in the hands of the unworthy. Such abuse would lead to G-d’s blessings being channelled to those who were undeserving, something that could not be pleasing in the eyes of G-d. Therefore, he hastened to restore the source of blessing to those who were fit for it for as long as the condition "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come and grant My blessing," existed (Exodus 20,24). He realized that at a later stage a central site for the residence of the shechinah, Divine Presence, would be established, and that then the function of priesthood would be performed only in that central place (tabernacle or temple) and only by priests who had to meet exacting criteria of physical and moral fitness.

Other women say: Atirah is being responsive to another. So don’t read “And Isaac beseeched on behalf of his wife,” but rather “he was beseeched.”Isaac was responsive to the reality [nochach] of his wife, to the rebuke [tochecha] she was expressing, for she wanted a child from him, and he was withholding giving it to her — for he was stuck in a perpetual fear, what they call ‘the Fear of Isaac’ (Gen 31:42). And when he stood in the presence of his wife, in her barrenness, he was able to overcome his fear and his shame and his isolation, and was beseeched of her to bring a child into the world.

“A tanna teaches like R. Yosi bar R. Chanina – Avraham established the morning prayer, as it says ‘Avraham rose early in the morning to the place where he had stood before G–d…’ (Bereshit 19:27) and there is no standing (amidah) other than prayer, as it says ‘ Pinchas stood up and prayed.’ (Tehillim 106:30) Yitzchak established the afternoon prayer, as it says ‘Yitzchak went out to converse (lasuach) in the field at evening time…’ (Bereshit 24:63) and there is no conversation (siach) other than prayer, as it says ‘A prayer of the afflicted, when he faints and pours out his complaint (sicho) before G–d.’ (Tehillim 102:1) Yaakov established the nighttime prayer, as it says ‘He encountered (va’yifgah) the place, and stayed the night there…’ (Bereshit 28:11) and there is no encounter other than prayer, as it says ‘Therefore pray you not for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, nor make intercession (tifgah) to me…’ (Yermiyahu 7:16)” [Berachot 26b]
These three expressions – standing, conversing and encounter, are aligned with three principle benefits that prayer brings to the service of G–d. The first act of prayer is to root firmly in the heart all the holy concepts and lofty images, the foundations of awe and morality which one has acquired in their soul, so that they will not falter under the storm winds which devastate morality and Divine service through desires of the heart and the passions of the time. The primary time for this rooting is the morning. That before one turn to the business of life and the inevitable feelings of bodily desire, they prepare a strong and well-founded moral posture for themselves which will standup under the oppositional trials of the waves of the times; therefore, the prayer which is oriented toward this activity is known as amidah, standing. To this end our father Avraham, first of the faithful, who withstood ten wondrous trials, and against all the multitude that opposed the path which rises in the light of G–d, who stormed in order to scatter and push him aside, was most fit; he fought to find a well-founded and enduring place to stand.
Prayer is called sichah⁵⁴See gemara Avodah Zarah 7b where siach is the language associated with personal prayer (conversation), sharing a name with the plants and trees which are called sichim⁵⁵See Bereshit 2:5 which in this light could be read as “before there was any conversation.” This fits the nature of the second story of creation, which in its opening verse (Bereshit 2:4) uses the form of the word creation הבראם (in their being created) in contrast to the form ברא (created) in the first verse of the Torah. In general one can explore these two story as the first representing a subject/object relationship between G–d and creation and the second a subject/subject relationship. Hence the appearance of conversation at the outset of the second story. See footnote 2., due to the blossoming of the soul with new powers, which branch out naturally through the excitation of the soul in the service of the heart. This is most fit to the time of the evening offering, (see Tehillim 141:2) when one is close to casting off their troubles. Then their soul can elevate her nature, and the natural holy emotions stored up in her, to join to the living G–d and overflow with His pure love and awe, increasing fertile fruit and sending out shoots and branches, taking the likeness of a mighty tree⁵⁶It is this aspect of prayer which ties the disparate pieces of creation together into a whole, a conversation. Note that the in the first story of creation there are individual plants (see Bereshit 1:11-12) but there is no field. It will take the type of prayer conversation which emerges in the second story, the siach hasadeh (see Rashi on Bereshit 2:5), to bind the blades of grass, the pieces of creation, into a whole that could be named a field. See Orach Chaim 61:3 and the Rama’s statement about how the gematria of two names of G–d, that which represents essence and that which represents expression, combine to equal 91, which is also the gematria of ilan, tree. The Maharal Be’er HaGolah, be’er chamishi says – know, that this world is similar to a single tree (ilan) which stretches from the root to the end of the tree, and it has many branches, drawn one after the other. So too it is with the world which is drawn from the First Cause that is the root, which is what we mean when we call heresy ‘to deny the root principle.’Its parts descend one after another until the final descent of the pieces of existence. - one of the sichim.⁵⁷One of the pieces of creation, or ‘in the conversation.’ This natural blossoming from within the rightness of the soul is the root of the judgment which is passed upon the one who turns aside from the straight path of life. The attribute of judgment, in so far that it has a natural law, is exacting with one who changes its ways and strays from its path; and this is the attribute of Yitzchak, as it is written “Were it not that the G–d of my father, the G–d of Avraham and the Fear of Yitzchak, had been with me…” (Bereshit 31:42), as our Sages taught with thorough explanation.
However, there is another great advantage to prayer, that she find her essential purpose in those of the highest level and value, the highest holy ones who draw near to G–d, who rise up in prayer and lift themselves to the level of prophecy, or near to it, as is written in Tur/Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 98; they encounter states well beyond the ways of nature, because they are lifted up far beyond the natural condition and cleave to the living G–d in purity of heart and soul. And the night is best suited for this, in its respite and solitude, as the chasid explained in The Duties of the Heart⁵⁸R Bachya ibn Pakudah wrote Duties of the Heart in Arabic in 1040 under the title "Al Hidayah ila Faraid al-Ḳulub" (Guide to the Duties of the Heart), it was translated into Hebrew by Judah ibn Tibbon under the title "Ḥobot ha-Lebabot. R’ Bachya was a court judge and philosopher in Saragossa Spain. This work is the first systematic presentation of Jewish ethics and drew heavily from contemporary Arab thinkers. It presents ethics and philosophical understandings as the duties of ‘the heart’ in opposition to those of ‘the limbs’ which are the outward observance of the Law (Gate of Love of G–d, ch. 6) on the advantage of nighttime prayer, which also facilitates visitation of sacred lofty visions and awesome intellectual fruits, that cannot be apprehended in the company of the physical senses. Things grasped from beyond the conceptual processes embedded in nature come not according to the natural gradual order of simple to profound, or through individual analytic pathways gathered together into a framework. Rather the great light of the sweetness of G–d is revealed suddenly, happy is the one who merits to it! Prayer is called encounter (pgiya), as when one happens upon something, as a result not only of the nature of the path which the traveler takes but also of the immanent nearness of the one encountered. And so it was for our father Yaakov, peace be upon him, for it is a certainty that his prayer prepared him for the lofty prophetic vision of the ladder and all its particulars (see Bereshit 28:10-17) , and that is why the name encounter is associated with his prayer, “and he encountered the place.” This is befitting the nighttime prayer.