כַּאֲשֶׁר֩ תִּדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לֵֽאלֹהִ֗ים אַל־תְּאַחֵר֙ לְשַׁלְּמ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין חֵ֖פֶץ בַּכְּסִילִ֑ים אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־תִּדֹּ֖ר שַׁלֵּֽם׃
אַז דו ביסט מנדר אַ נדר צו גאָט, זאָלסטו זיך ניט שפּעטיקן אים צו באַצאָלן, װאָרום ער האָט ניט ליב נאַרן; װאָס דו ביסט מנדר, באַצאָל.
Bartenura
ולרגלים – This is how it should be understood: The Festival that it is, which is Passover, is the New Year for Festivals concerning those who make vows, for if three festivals passed upon him from the time that he made a vow and he didn’t fulfill it, he violates the prohibition of being late to fulfill it (see Deuteronomy 23:22,24: “When you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not put off fulfilling it, for the LORD your God will requite it of you, and you will have incurred guilt…You must fulfill what has crossed your lips and perform what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, having made the promise with your own mouth.” See also Ecclesiastes 5:3: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay fulfilling it. For He has no pleasure in fool; what you vow, fulfill.”). But Rabbi Shimon says that he does not trespass it on delaying [fulfillment of the vow] until three festivals have passed in order, and the Festival of Matzot (i.e., Passover) is first, as they are arranged in Scripture (Deuteronomy 16:16): “[Three times a year –] on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Booths – [all your males shall appear before the LORD your God in the place that He will choose…]”; and the legal decision is that when only one festival passes, and if he didn’t bring his vow, he transgresses a positive commandment, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:5-6): “…There you are to go. And there you are to bring your burnt offerings [and other sacrifices, your tithes and contributions…].” The first festival that you come to, you must bring, and when three festivals have passed, you have transgressed on not being late. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon who requires three festivals in their order.
Ramban
BUT IF THOU SHALT FORBEAR TO VOW, IT SHALL BE NO SIN IN THEE. Because those who bring a burnt-offering and sacrifices for G-d326Exodus 18:12. receive a good reward for it, as it is written, I will offer unto Thee burnt-offerings of fatlings, with the sweet smoke of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats. Selah;327Psalms 66:15. I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings.328Ibid., Verse 13. He also said concerning freewill offerings, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him,329Leviticus 1:4. and again He said, of a sweet savor unto the Eternal.330Ibid., Verse 9, etc. And if so, vows serve as encouragement [to the observance] of a commandment, and it is written, I will pay my vows unto the Eternal, yea, in the presence of all His people.331Psalms 116:18. Therefore Scripture states here: “Beware of your vows, for although they serve as encouragement in bringing offerings to G-d which will be accepted favorably on your behalf, yet you may come to sin if you vow and do not fulfill, or you delay fulfilling it. But if you do not vow, no sin can attach to you in the matter, for even if never in your lifetime do you bring a [vow-] offering, it will be no sin in thee. If so, observe that which is gone out of your lips, according to the word which proceeded out of your mouth, and do afterwards as you have spoken, to fulfill all that your spirit caused you to willingly bring forth from your mouth.” Solomon said it in the same way: When thou vowest a vow unto G-d, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools; pay that which thou vowest. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.332Ecclesiastes 5:3-4. Solomon states that G-d has no pleasure in fools who think that they do a good deed when they utter many vows to serve as encouragement to fulfill a commandment which they plan to do and they do not consider in their hearts, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say,333Isaiah 44:19. “Perhaps I will not be able to fulfill all these vows.” Instead he thinks that the desire he had at the time of his vow will be accounted to him for good. Therefore Solomon warned again, Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt, neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error;334Ecclesiastes 5:5. that is to say, do not make many vows, [for if you make them and you do not have the means to fulfill them] you will have to say before the cruel angel sent against you, “It was an error, I meant to bring them.” You pledged them with a perfect heart and now you are unable to do so, but G-d will be angry at thy voice and — the aforementioned angel — will destroy the work of thy hands.334Ecclesiastes 5:5.
Ramban
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, 27:36.) 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.
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.