Ishmael's mother was the Egyptian Hagar, while Isaac was born to the righteous Sarah. But Jacob and Esau were twins; what explain their divergent characters?
17 Comments Posted
It is odd that Hashem viewed Jacob as the twin who was righteous and who viewed the material world as a means to an end. Jacob felt entirely comfortable to lie to his father (more so that he was encouraged by his mother and that he capitulated to her encouragement) and this type of behaviour is viewed as righteous. Yes it was a means to an end, but what enc? he stole his brother's birthright by bribing him with a bowl of soup while he was hungry. ( or is this simple offering of food regarded as Esau's weakness in his desire for the 'material' side of life.)
The whole twist in the tale does not wash well with me. Furthermore Jacob did not prove to be a great father - rather one who chose to have a favourite.
Howcome he was given the awesome honour of being one of the "3 fathers of Israel"? I do not feel this is deserving.
And how did Rebekah sleep at night, knowing that she had favoured one child over another and by doing so, forced natures natural course to take a differentdirection
|
A really insightful commentary. I am very interested to hear the response to the questions posted by Lynne
|
Response to Lynne:
Lynne, it might be helpfu for you to read various commentaries on this parsha. Yitzhak and Rivka are exceptionally righteuos individuals with "ruach hakodesh" the spirit of holiness that enables them to see beyond the physical present moment, anc act accordingly. you are taking a "modern" lens and evaluating these people based on your perspective of the written narrative. there are two torahs: the written and oral. the oral enables the jewish people to see more deeply and clearly what is being taught in the torah.
It is so very unfortunate that people read these passages, (they are not "tales") and come to inaccurate conclusions based on their very limited perspectives. the rabbis have been commenting on this parasha for thousands of years!! the meanings are deep, profound, multifaceted and essential to our understanding of humanity. the rebbe's comments are brilliant.
May I suggest "torah on the line" where you can listen to commentaries: 310-453-4774
|
Perhaps Rebekah's favoring of one child just goes to show that humans have an influence over the natural course of life.
|
The rebbe explains, the reason why Isaac Liked* Esau, was because of his potential. isaac saw that Esau's potential was even greater than Jacob, therefore he wanted to give Esau the blessings, hoping that Esau would use it in the right way. But Jacob and Rivkah knew, that if Esau would have recieved the blessings he would have used it in the wrong way.
*in better words worked on
|
i always wondered how could esav be considered evil even before birth. that idea seems contradictory to free will. i'm not sure this article quite answers the question.
because if esav was "predestined" to be evil, doesn't that take away his choice to do the right thing, to do mitzvos.
|
The Rebbe explains in this article that Esav was not born "evil" but rather was born with the mission to overcome evil.
He always had the choice to do the right thing.
Each of us is born with imperfect character traits. For example: anger, laziness, greed, desire for material thing etc We can't just sit back and say I'm not going to work on my trait because I was born this way.
Our mission in life is to overcome these traits and even more so to use these traits to serve Hashem.
Not an easy task. But well worth the effort.
|
If Jacob is righteous because he sees the natural or material world as simply a means to an end, I would assume that end would be a righteous cause. What was the righteous cause for Jacob? What was his reason for stealing Esau's birthright?
And why did righteous Issac not perceive this deeper purpose? It seems hard for me to understand that G-d would resort to a philosophy of the "ends justifying the means" and somehow praising deceitful behavior as righteous and rewarding one who steals with "the blessing" But, if this is true, please clearly explain the rightous cause of Jacob's actions. I can not wrap my head around this. I really need help.
|
First, Jacob makes sure to prepare Esau's favorite dish and tempts him after working all day. What was Jacob doing cooking in the middle of nowhere? He already has this planned out. Esau should have been more committed to his birthright, but you know, just because I leave the front door of my house open, it doesn't give any one the right to come into my house and rob me. Jacob's actions are completely immoral and it doesn't matter what higher mission he feels he needs to fulfill. Second, the whole deception with covering his body to fool his father. I'm sorry, but Rebbeca's actions are so monumentally immoral and Jacob goes along with this charade? And what was so evil about Esau? Just because he marries outside his clan? If I remember clearly, he marries Ishmael's daughter, granddaughter of Abraham. That can't be so far outside the clan. To me Rebbeca fits the old saying; "The worst of us is better than the best of them". Sorry I can't agree.
|
Dear Michelle of Baltimore, Dec. 21, 07. The part about Yaakov stealing/buying his birthright from his brother who was weak from 'hunger' or 'needy' in some other way, also puzzles me. [I think I can understand Rivka's role etc.]. I have found the 'Text of Parsha with Rashi' link useful Ch25:27-34; but I am still continuing my search.
I am also reminded of the need for a transaction to legitimise any transfer eg Abraham's insistance on paying for the Cave of Machpelah even though it was offered as a gift. Hence the need to have a transaction ie the lentils as a 'kinyan' tevidence of transaction to make the transfer binding for the future.
Have you found anything helpful in the year since you posted your plea for help? Would like some pointers, please, on this particular aspect only, for now. shalom&love Pnina
|
I do not believe that the intent of the article is that Jacob believes in any way that the end justifies the means. Rather, that Jacob saw the innermost spiritual core within the physical and the fact that that was what things are really about. He saw how everything pointed toward G-d and spirituality.
|
I seem to remember an explanation along the following lines:
The birthright was a spiritual heritage, the bearer of which was passed on the traditions of the service of G-d. After all, until the sin of the Golden Calf, the firstborns were going to serve in the Holy Temple—and not the Aaronic priests who took their place. Obviously, only a spiritually sensitive person would be fitting to hold this position.
When Esau told Jacob that he preferred beans over his birthright, he was showing that he was truly not the right one for the job. Jacob was not buying the birthright for a plate of beans. He was showing the fact that Esau was not fit for the job by offering him a plate of beans in exchange.
|
I think that the answer to the questions about Rivka's as well as Jacob's actions is explained in parshah Toldot itself:
25:23 "And HASHEM said unto Rivka: Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger".
Rivka and Jacob simply wanted to fulfill HASHEM's command that "the elder shall serve the younger".
Parshah Toldot has been fascinating me for many years mainly because of trying to understand how the free will of a human interacts with HASHEM's will.
After studying and researching this issue I came to the following conclusions:
I believe that free will of a human being can be expressed only in 3 ways:
1). Love HASHEM, your G-d;
2). Love your neighbor;
3). Sincere pray.
The rest is in G-d's hands, blessed be He.
There is an old saying in Yiddish: "Azoi G-d firt, azoi daf zun". The translation: "The way HASHEM does it, it should be".
Any comments?
|
Finally I have peace with the text. Upon reading the article again today, I find that I am able to understand the principle of two types of souls in the world. I find that if I don't perceive the text as a true "story" of Jacob and Esau, and see it as more of a parable, it makes more sense. I can even see the two souls working out their roles in my life and the lives of others I know. My question is should I percieve the text as a parable, or is this text a telling of an actual occurence. If so, should I understand that G-d looks beyond the technicalities of the issues- even if they are apparently filled with sin - if the goal is in line with the person's assignment to either perpetuate good or overcome evil?
|
A contract made under duress is not a valid contract. It reflects poorly on 'righteous' Jacob to take advantage of his brothjer's disadvantage and Esau is justified in his anger. The 'reasoning' about freewill and congenital good and evil is circular, self-serving, unconvincing and contradictory.
There is no homelitic merit in this story at face value and the 'good and evil' drivel is just a self-defeating diversion to make a bad thing look good. This attitude only softens the mind to endure ever greater cultist contortions.
|
Take a look at verse 34:
"And Jacob gave Esau bread and a pottage of lentils, and he ate and drank and arose and left, and Esau despised the birthright."
We see from here that even after he ate, drank, and left he still despised the birthright. Various commentators learn from here that Eisav reaffirmed the rejection of the birthright after he had eaten, i.e. when he was no longer under duress.
|
That is hardly the point. When a statutory crime is committed do we ask the victim for validation of the statute? A comment after the fact is a point of psychological self comfort or bluff for enduring a loss. If the birthright was such a bother why was it not traded before this point?
When someone is cheated today in this manner will it rest on such principles as these? The victim comes to court and says 'Your honour I was dying of thirst and traded some of my land for a drink (from my brother no less!) but even though the trade is manifestly unfair I didn't want this land anyway???
I can see the opportunities for abuse will be endless if this behaviour was deemed legally and morally acceptable!! Who would ever choose to live under these social conditions and their obvious consequences??
|
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
