HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From:          Yeshivat Har Etzion Office
To:            yhe-parsha@etzion.org.il
Subject:       PARSHA62 -06: Parashat Toldot
                     YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
        ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
  *********************************************************
                              
                              
                       PARASHAT TOLDOT
     And Now My Son Listen to My Voice (Bereishit 27:8)
                    By Rav Chanoch Waxman
                              I
We  tend  to  think  of Rivka as the hero  of  Parashat Toldot.  She saves not just the day, but the future as well.
In  the core action of the parasha, Yitzchak decides to pass on  the  precious family heritage, the blessings, to  Eisav.
He  loves  Eisav, the respect Eisav gives him and  the  food Eisav brings him (25:28).  He is the first born, a perfectly
good  son  and a worthy heir.  But Rivka knows better.   She recognizes Eisav for who he truly is.  She loves Ya'akov and
remembers  the  revelation  received  during  her  pregnancy (Rashbam  25:23, 27:13, Ramban 27:4,15).  She takes  action.
Without  hesitation, she orders Ya'akov to help her  prepare an  imitation "product of the hunt," to pose as Eisav and to
take  the  blessings (27:5-10).  Overriding  all  opposition from Ya'akov, she dresses Ya'akov in Eisav's clothing, gives
Ya'akov  the  food  and  sends him to  Yitzchak  (27:11-17). Despite  Yitzchak's suspicion, the plan succeeds  (27:18-29)
and  with  a  little bit of trickery, Ya'akov  receives  the blessings.   Tragedy is avoided and the covenant  is  saved.
The  nationhood,  land  and blessing promised  to  Avraham's descendants goes to a nation known as the Children of Israel
and not the Children of Eisav.  
 Reading Rivka as the heroine of the parasha places her at  a pivotal point in the development of a crucial theme in
Sefer  Bereishit.  Brotherhood, competition  and  preference constitute  one  of the key motifs of the book.   Throughout
Bereishit,  we are presented with a succession of  pairs  of brothers, an older and a younger.  In each case, despite the
normal  rule  of primogeniture, (the primacy  of  the  first born),  the  younger, the not-first born is preferred.   The
pattern begins with Kayin and Hevel (4:1-4) and continues on in  Yishma'el  vs.  Yitzchak (17:19-21), Eisav  vs.  Ya'akov
(28:1-4,13), Re'uven vs. Yosef-Yehuda (37:1-3, 48:22, 49:4,8-10)  and  Menashe vs. Ephraim (48:13-20).  This  pattern  of
switching, of going against the grain, connects with one  of the  key  themes  of  the Sefer.  It  is  a  sign  of  God's
providence.   Not  just  the  standard  social  pattern   of preferring the first matters.  God's will and the persona of
the people involved matter even more.
 As  such,  Rivka stands at a crucial juncture.   Until this point, the choice of the younger, the "switching,"  has
been  done  solely  by God.  It is God  and  God  alone  who accepts  the offering of Hevel as opposed to that  of  Kayin
(4:4-5).   It  is  God alone who decides  to  establish  his covenant  with  Yitzchak rather than with Yishma'el  (17:19-
21).   But  from this point on, in the latter  part  of  the book, the switch involves human initiative.  It is Rivka who
replaces  Eisav with Ya'akov, Ya'akov who prefers Yosef  and Yehuda  over  Re'uven and of course Ya'akov who crosses  his
hands  over the heads of Menashe and Ephraim.  All  of  this begins  with Rivka.  It is she who teaches her son  and  the
reader  that sometimes divine providence requires a  certain amount of human action in order to be realized.  It needs to
be worked for, steered, directed and dragged into the world. Rivka is not just the heroine of the story of Chapter Twenty-
seven,  the theft of the blessings.  She is also the teacher of a crucial lesson, the need for human vision, activism and
initiation  as a necessary condition for proper  realization of the divine plan.
                             II
The  marriage of Ya'akov and the marriage of  Yitzchak have  much  in  common.  Near the end  of  Parashat  Toldot,
Yitzchak  summons Ya'akov and forbids him to  take  a  bride from  among the local inhabitants, "the daughters of Canaan"
(28:1).   Rather he is to travel to (Padan) Aram to "take  a wife"   from   the  house  of  Betu'el  and  Lavan   (28:2).
Yitzchak's  command  clearly echoes  the  command  given  by Avraham  to his servant and the servant's accomplishment  of
the  command  in Chapter Twenty-four.  Avraham  forbade  the "daughters  of Canaan" (24:3) and commanded his  servant  to
"take  a  wife"  (24:4)  for  Yitzchak  from  his  land  and birthplace.  This turned out to be the house of Betu'el  and
Lavan in Aram (Naharaim) (24:10,23,24,50).
 Moreover, in both stories the future bride is found at a  source of water.  In what might be thought of as a groom,
bride  and  well  scene,  Ya'akov meets  Rachel  at  a  well (29:2,10).   This of course echoes the finding of  Rivka  at
the  well  (24:11-15).  Serving as a kind of  stand  in  for Yitzchak, the servant meets the bride at the water.
 In  addition, the ends of the stories, the parting  and return  sections, are eerily similar.  In  both  cases,  the
"groom"  asks  to be "freed" to return home (24:54,  30:25). In each case, despite wanting to prevent the trip, Lavan and
his  family  are  forced to accede to  God's  wish  and  are consequently unable to comment whether the matter is good or
bad  (24:50-51,55, 31:23,29).  Finally, each story ends with a  blessing  delivered by Lavan to his  departing  relatives
(24:55,60, 32:1).  
 The  parallels  between the bride search  trip  of  the servant  and  the bride search trip of Ya'akov should  focus
our  attention on a crucial aspect of Ya'akov's time in  the house of Lavan, - its duration.  While the servant succeeded
and parted from the relatives in the course of a single day, Yaakov's  trip  took him over twenty years.  Not  the  brief
trip of the servant, not the brief trip probably expected by Yitzchak,  nor the "few days" necessary for the  passing  of
Eisav's anger (27:44-45) predicted by Rivka.  Nor were these easy  years.  The very verse that gives us the number twenty
also describes the quality of those years.  
 For  twenty  years I have been in your house,  fourteen years I served you for your two daughters and six years
for  your  cattle, and you have switched my  wages  ten times.  (31:41)  
Years of hard work, treachery, trickery and switches.
                             III
Let us turn our attention to another blatant difference between  the  marriage  of  Yitzchak  and  the  marriage  of
Ya'akov.   Yitzchak  succeeded  in  marrying  Rivka   almost immediately.  For Ya'akov, marrying the girl from  the  well
was not so easy.  He first had to contend with the wiles  of Lavan.
 The  story is familiar.  Rather than have Ya'akov  work for him for free, Lavan generously offers his own "flesh and
bone"  a  salary (29:14-15).  Ya'akov and Lavan  agree  that Ya'akov will work for seven years.  As compensation he  will
receive  the  hand  of his beloved Rachel,  Lavan's  younger daughter  in marriage (29:18-19).  But all does  not  go  as
planned.   On the night of the wedding, Lavan switches  Leah for  Rachel, replacing his younger daughter with  his  older
daughter.  
 The  story  contains numerous echoes of the  events  of Parashat  Toldot and constitutes a reversal of many  of  its
key  themes.   Before  even getting to the  switch,  let  us consider  the  original deal.  Lavan  describes  himself  as
Ya'akov's  brother  and  immediately  puts  him   to   work, described  by  the  word for service, or slavery,  the  stem
ayin, bet, dalet (29:15).  In place of the prediction of the prophecy,  "ve-rav  YA'AVOD tzair", (and the  older  brother
shall serve the younger brother) (25:23), Rivka's motivation for  arranging  the  theft of the blessings,  Ya'akov  finds
himself  in the reverse situation.  He, the younger clansman -"brother"  -  now serves his older clansman -  "brother"  -
Lavan.  
Ironically, this situation has been arranged  by  Rivka herself.   In an attempt to save Ya'akov from the  wrath  of
Eisav,  his biological brother, Rivka suggests that  Ya'akov seek refuge in the house of Lavan, her brother and Ya'akov's
clan-brother, for a "few days" (27:43-45).  These "few days" turn  out  to be a lot longer than a few days.   In  another
example  of irony, the Torah uses this exact phrase,  "yamim achadim,"  in describing Ya'akov's perception of  the  seven
years of servitude that Ya'akov endured in exchange for  the hand  of Rachel (29:20).  They passed quickly for him as  he
labored  fora  desired end.  But did they pass  quickly  for Rivka?  In  fact, the Torah never depicts Rivka as reuniting
with  her  beloved son Ya'akov.  In sum, not her expectation for  the  future  of  her son, nor her expectation  for  his
refuge in the house of her brother, nor her expectation  for a  quick reunion with her son work out as planned.  They are
all contradicted, ironically reversed.  
 This brings us to Ya'akov, Lavan and Leah.  In Parashat Toldot,  in thieving the blessings, Ya'akov takes  advantage
of  Yitzchak's weak eyes, his darkness and eternal night, to replace  the  older  child, Eisav, with the  younger  child,
Ya'akov.  Here, in the marriage, Lavan utilizes the darkness of  night to pull a parallel, yet reverse switch on Ya'akov.
He replaces the younger child, Rachel, with the older child, Leah.   Not  just the switch is reversed but also  Ya'akov's
role.  While before, Ya'akov had been the beneficiary of the younger-older switch, here he is the victim.  
 A  quick  look at the ensuing dialogue between  Ya'akov and  Lavan  the next morning should further strengthen  this
line of thinking.  Needless to say, Ya'akov was upset.  
 And it was the morning, and behold, it was Leah: and he said to Lavan, What have you done to me? Didn't I serve
you  for  Rachel? Why have you tricked me ("rimitani")? And  Lavan  said to him, it can not be done so  in  OUR
place,  to put the younger ahead of the older.  (29:25-26)
Ya'akov describes Lavan's actions as "trickery," utilizing a word based on the stem "reish," "mem," "aleph."  This is the
exact  verb  stem and meaning used by Yitzchak in explaining the  situation and Ya'akov's action to a disappointed Eisav.
"Your  brother has come with trickery ("b'mirma") and  taken your  blessings"(27:35).  What Ya'akov did onto  others  has
now been done onto him.  In a certain sense, Ya'akov's naive outrage  serves  as  judge  and jury  on  his  own  previous
actions.
 Lavan's response takes all of this one step further.  A careful reading of Lavan's words reveals something like  the
following.   Perhaps  in your place you  switch  around  the younger  and the older, placing the youth before  the  first
born.   But  such is not the way in OUR place,  a  place  of civilized  norms.  To put the younger ahead  of  the  older?
Perish the thought!  
 Does  Lavan  know  what happened back  in  Canaan?  Did Ya'akov tell him when explaining his presence in Padan  Aram
(29:13)?  Has he heard it through the grapevine?  Or  is  it just  God  arranging Lavan's words for Ya'akov ears?  Either
way  Ya'akov is subject not only to the reversal of his very own  switch and a taste of his own trickery but also to  the
additional  humiliation of rebuke from  his  tormentor,  the moral paragon known as Lavan.  
 This entire complex of themes: ironic reversal, measure for  measure punishment and rebuke is captured perfectly  by
Midrash Tanchuma Yashan.  Reading against the grain  of  the text,   the  midrash  interprets  Ya'akov's  accusation   of
trickery as directed not against Lavan, but as against Leah. To  fill in the resulting gap, the lack of response by Leah,
it provides us with the conversation on the morning after.      
 All  night she conducted herself as Rachel.  When  they stood up in the morning and behold she was Leah he said
to  her:  "Daughter of a trickster, why did  you  trick me?"  She  replied: "And you, why did  you  trick  your
father when he said to you "Are you my son Eisav?"  and you  said  to him "I am Eisav your first born"  (27:19-
21).   And  now  you ask "Why did you  trick  me?"  And didn't  your  father say "your brother  has  come  with
trickery  and taken your blessings" (27:35).  (Tanchuma Yashan Vayeitzei 11)
The pot cannot call the kettle black.
                             IV
The   matrix  of  disappointed  expectations,  ironic reversals,   suffering,  switches,   measure   for   measure
occurrences  and rebuke outlined above should  force  us  to reconsider the classical interpretation of the theft of  the
blessings  outlined earlier.  If in fact, Rivka and  Ya'akov reap  a  bitter  harvest, if in fact  Ya'akov  receives  for
twenty  years what he did onto Eisav, can we really maintain the traditional interpretation? Can Rivka still be viewed as
the  heroine  of  the story? Can Ya'akov be  viewed  as  the simple and deserving man doing just as he must?
 It would seem that rather than linking to the theme of older-younger  switches  and  divine  providence  in   Sefer
Bereishit,  the  theft  of  the  blessings  connects  to  an altogether different pattern in Sefer Bereishit.
 In  commenting  on  the inclusion of the  first  eleven chapters  of Bereishit in the Torah, Ramban (1:1)  maintains
that much of the material serves the purpose of establishing a  crucial  pattern,  the model of  sin  and  exile.   After
sinning,   Adam  is  banished  from  the  Garden  of   Eden. Similarly, after killing his brother, Kayin is condemned  to
a life of wandering, referred to by Kayin as banishment from upon  the face of the earth (4:14).  Ramban argues that even
the destruction of the generation of the flood can be viewed as  part  of this pattern.  They are banished not just  from
the  Garden  of Eden, not just from grounded existence,  but from  the  world  itself.  Although, Ramban  does  not  make
explicit  reference to the covenant of the pieces,  one  can easily  add  the  exile in Egypt to the  list  of  sin-exile
occurrences  in  the  book  of  Bereishit.   Ramban  himself (12:10)  claims  that the exile constitutes retribution  for
Avraham's  abandonment  of the land  and  sojourn  in  Egypt during a time of famine.  
 For  Ramban,  this pattern serves as justification  for the  future  banishment of the Cananites from  the  Land  of
Israel  and as warning to the children of Israel as  to  the conditions  for remaining in the land.  Sin can always  lead
to banishment, exile and suffering.  
 If  so,  it  would  seem that the stories  of  Parashat Toldot  and  Vayeitze, the theft of the  blessings  and  the
banishment  and  exile of Ya'akov to Padan  Aram,  where  he suffers  at  the hands of Lavan, dovetail nicely  with  this
theme.  The story of the blessings is not so much part of an older-younger switching and providence theme but rather part
and  parcel of a sin and exile theme.  The story should  not be  read  as teaching the necessity of human initiative  and
the requirement of guiding divine providence but rather as a story of inappropriate activity, of error and sin.  
                              V
Before    considering   committing    to    this    new interpretation, we must deal with an apparent  logical  flaw
in  the error and sin approach.  As pointed out earlier,  we tend  to  think of Rivka as the heroine of the  story.   She
prevents Yitzchak from committing an irreversible and tragic error  - from giving the blessings to the undeserving Eisav,
whom the Torah has already informed us cares little for  the family  heritage.  He is a man who transgressed  the  family
tradition by marrying a Canaanite women, thereby creating  a source  of bitterness and aggravation to his parents (26:34-
35),  a  man who "scorned" the rights of the first born  and the family heritage, who sold it for a bowl of soup (25:34).
But if Rivka saves Yitzchak from a tragic error, how can  we view  the story as one of mistake and sin? She did the right
thing.  
 In  response, let us examine the assumption  underlying the  question.   Did  Yitzchak in fact intend  to  pass  the
family  heritage to Eisav? Let us take a look at the Torah's description   of  Yitzchak's  parting  words   to   Ya'akov.
Yitzchak "blesses" Ya'akov (28:1):   
 And  Yitzchak called Ya'akov, and blessed him.and  said to  him. And God Almighty should bless you and make you
fruitful,  and  multiply you, and you should  become  a multitude  of  peoples.  And he  should  give  you  the
blessing of Avraham, to you and your seed with you;  to inherit the land in which you dwell, which God gave  to
Avraham.  (28:1-4)
Yitzchak  explicitly blesses Ya'akov with God's granting  to Ya'akov  the  "blessing of Avraham."  The language  of  this
blessing  closely  parallels the language  of  the  blessing given  to  Avraham  in the covenant of circumcision.   There
too,  the name of God is "God Almighty" (Kel Shakai) (17:1). There  too  the blessing consists of being the father  of  a
"multitude of nations" (17:4-5), of being "fruitful" (17:6), and  of  those  children receiving "the land  in  which  you
dwell" (17:8).  But if Ya'akov has already stolen the family has  already  irreversibly thieved the blessings,  why  does
Yitzchak now wish that God give the blessings of Avraham, in both name and content, to Ya'akov?
 The  content of the blessings stolen by Ya'akov should help complete the picture. 
 See  the  smell of my son, it is like the  smell  of  a field which God has blessed: therefore God should  give
you  of  the dew of the heaven, and the fatness of  the earth, and plenty of corn and wine.  Let peoples  serve
you,  and  nations bow down to you: be lord  over  your brethren  and let your mother's sons bow down  to  you:
cursed  be  those that curse you and blessed  be  those that bless you  (27:27-29)
As Sforno points out (27:29), here there is no mention of  a multitude  of  descendents nor of  possessing  the  Land  of
Canaan.  While the last line, the reference to the power  of blessing and cursing does echo God's first words to  Avraham
(12:3),  every other standard marker of the covenant between God  and  Abraham  is absent (see 12:7, 13:15-16,  15:18-21,
17:1-8, 18:18-19, 22:17-18, 26:3-4).  The contrast with  the "blessings  of Avraham" given to Ya'akov upon his  departure
and  their  reference to the standard content of descendants and Canaan highlights this point.  The stolen blessings, the
"blessings  of  Eisav,"  seem  to  be  about  economic   and political  success,  the fat of the  land,  not  necessarily
Canaan,   and   political  power.    These   are   blessings appropriate  for  a  warrior-hunter  destined   for   future
nationhood.  They are in no way the blessings of Avraham nor necessarily connected to the blessings of Avraham.  They are
no  more  than  Yitzchak's personal wishes for  his  hunter-warrior  son  whom  he  loves.   The  parting  blessing   of
Yitzchak,  the  man  of the field, the  land  and  the  hunt (24:63, 25:28, 26:12) for his son, the man of the field, the
land  and  the  hunt  (25:27,  25:29,  27:3-4,27);  not  the blessings of Avraham.
 In addition to the considerations above, the bestowing of  the blessings of Avraham upon Ya'akov at the end of  the
parasha  and the non-covenantal content of the blessings  of Eisav,  I  have  always  thought  it  highly  unlikely  that
Yitzchak  ever imagined giving the blessings of  descendants and land to Eisav.  Not so much due to his certain knowledge
of  Eisav's  true  character, but more so  due  to  his  own psychological connection to the heritage of Avraham.  It  is
no  accident, that in parting from Ya'akov, Yitzchak  refers to  "the  blessings of Avraham" and wishes that  God  should
give them to Ya'akov.  This is after all how they were given to Yitzchak, by God (17:15-19, 26:2-5).  Moreover, each time
God  appeared  to  him to converse and  remind  him  of  the covenant,  God specifically mentions that Yitzchak's  status
is  due  to  the  action  of his father  Avraham  (26:5,24). Yitzchak  knows  his possession of the  blessings  to  be  a
consequence  of God's decision and knows his blessedness  to result from his father's relation with God.  Can such a  man
suddenly view himself as the owner of the blessings,  to  be passed  on  to whichever son he so decides? This seems  near
impossible.
 If so, the final piece of interpreting the theft of the blessings  as  part of a sin and exile pattern  clicks  into
place.  Yitzchak never imagined nor intended to pass on  the blessings  of  Avraham  to Eisav.   He  intends  a  personal
blessing, a father-son act.  Rivka's plan saves nothing, not the day nor the covenant.  Rather it constitutes an error, a
tragic  mistake, rebounding through the events and years  of her and her beloved son's lives.  The story of the theft  of
the  blessings  is  not the story of right  initiative,  but exactly  the opposite.  It is the story of wrong initiative.
Not  the  story  of the necessity of human  action  for  the realization  of  divine providence, but  the  story  of  the
necessity  of  human  withdrawal  and  passivity   for   the realization  of divine providence, the story of  trespassing
on the divine role and usurping the prerogative of God. 
                             VI
Before closing I would like to try to connect our  two readings  of the theft of the blessings with the  characters
of  Rivka and Yitzchak.  I have argued for the existence  of two distinct interpretations of the story.  On the one hand,
we have the traditional interpretation, which views Rivka as the  hero, as someone who rightly understands the  need  for
human initiative and active participation in the realization of  divine providence in our world.  Alternatively,  we  may
interpret the story as a story of sin and error, a story  in which  Rivka plays the role of anti-hero.  It is a story  of
the   tragedy  of  human  initiative,  of  the  tragedy   of interference  in  the  workings out of  God's  plan  and  of
consequent  punishment.  It is a story that  points  to  the wisdom of restraint rather than the wisdom of action.
 On  some  level  these  two readings  and  the  values highlighted  by each match up with the characters  of  Rivka
and Yitzchak.  Last week I claimed that God commands Avraham in  three  distinct  journeys,  the  journey  in  search  of
nationhood,  the  journey of religious and ethical  activism and  the  Akeida,  the journey of negation.   Throughout,  I
argued  for  identifying  Rivka  as  the  possessor  of  the character necessary for the first two journeys.  She is  the
successor  of  Avraham  in her vision,  orientation  to  the future,  conviction, activism and willingness to  go  beyond
the  conventional.  But it is Yitzchak who is the  successor of Avraham in his third journey.  He possesses the character
of  negation,  of  withdrawal and self-nullification.   What happens  when  these journeys are not lived in chronological
order  but in parallel, in real time? This is the  story  of Parashat  Toldot.   Who is the hero? Is  it  Rivka  and  her
activism, initiative, breaking of the norms and steering  of divine  providence?  Or  is it Yitzchak  and  his  negation,
withdrawal and acceptance of the divine will be what it may? This  is,  of  course, the choice between the  two  readings
outlined above.
 Which  reading is correct? I would like to  leave  the issue  open.   After  all,  the text  is  amenable  to  both
interpretations.  Perhaps more importantly,  taken  together the  two readings reflect the problem of being granted  free
will  on  the  one hand but yet living in the  shadow  of  a divine  plan  on  the other.  When taken  together  the  two
interpretations represent the problem of the balance between initiative and withdrawal, between activism and negation,  a
tension not amenable to simple resolution - not by Rivka and Yitzchak, nor by ourselves.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
Copyright (c) 2001 Yeshivat Har Etzion. 
All rights reserved.
*******************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.