## Tur HaArokh, Genesis

###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:1:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:1:1)

**ושמה קטורה.**פירש"י זו הגר ונקראת קטורה שמעשיה נאים כקטורת. ומה שפי' לעיל ותלך ותתע שהלכה וחזרה לגילולי בית אביה צריך לומר שחזרה בתשובה. ואע"ג דמצרית היתה בשלמא תחלה נשאה ע"פ הדבור אבל עכשיו איך נשאה וצ"ל כיון שנשאה בהיתר הותרה לו גם עתה. וראיתי בב"ר שגם עתה נשאה ע"פ הדבור והכי איתא התם רבא אמר זו הגר א"ל ר' נחמיה והכתיב ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה א"ל ע"פ הדבור כמ"ד ויוסף אלי דבר עוד:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ושמה קטורה, “whose name was Keturah.” *Rashi* claims that Keturah was identical with Hagar, who appears in a new guise. Her new name reflected her new and improved attitudes, comparable to the incense offered on the altar, the most beloved of Israel’s sacrificial offerings. In order to reconcile this comment with what *Rashi* had written on Genesis 21,14 where Hagar is described as ותלך ותתע, as returning to the idolatrous practices she had absorbed in her home as a child, we would have to postulate that in the interval she had become a penitent. Although she was of Egyptian origin [and therefore no better than a Canaanite from the point of view of Avraham’s criteria for intermarriage Ed.] she was not only of perfectly good character, but seeing that the first time Avraham had married he had done so with Divine approval, she was now also permissible to him as a wife.
 I have seen a comment in *Bereshit Rabbah* 61,4 that even at this stage Avraham married her at G’d’s instructions This is why the Torah wrote ויוסף אברהם ויקח, “he again married, etc.” The word ויוסף is to tell us that just as it had been with G’d’s approval that he had married Hagar the first time, he still enjoyed G’d’s approval when he took her back. The *Midrash* describes an argument between two scholars of the Talmud who debated this subject.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:2:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:2:1)

**ותלד לו את זמרן.**והא דאמר אשר פדה את אברהם שפדאו מצער גדול בנים וחזינא הכא שהוליד בנים הרבה על בני קטורה ועוד שמחה לאיש הרבות בנים וי"ל שפדאו מצער של יוסף ודינה ובני יעקב:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ותלד לו את זמרן,”she bore Zimron for him.” Concerning Isaiah 29,22 אשר פדה אברהם, “who redeemed Avraham,” which according to our sages means that Avraham was freed from the burden of raising children, and which seems incompatible with the fact that he had to raise 6 children by Keturah, apart from the fact that most fathers enjoy having many children to raise, we must assume that what the author of that comment had in mind was that Avraham dd not have to experience the problems his grandson Yaakov faced when his son Joseph went missing, when his daughter Dinah was raped, and when various of his sons at different times behaved in a manner unacceptable to him.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:3:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:3:1)

**אשורים ולטושים ולאומים.**פרש"י שם אומות. ותרגום אונקלוס למשריין ולשכונין ולנגוון אין לי ליישבו עם לשון המקרא. וכתב הרמב"ן ולי נראה שסובר אונקלוס באשורים שהם מחנות ושיירות הולכי דרך מעיר לעיר כמו שאומר ארחת ישמעאלי' מלשון באשורו אחזה רגלי לא תמעד אשוריו וסבר בלטושים שוכני אוהלים הנטושים על פני השדה והלמ"ד והנו"ן מתחלפים כמו נשכה לשכה ותרגום ולאומים ולנגוון בלשון איים ומלת היו עוררה אותו שהיה ראוי שיאמר כמו ומצרים ילד את לודים ואת ענמים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אשורים ולטושים ולאומים. According to *Rashi* these are all names of the eventual nations they developed into. Personally, I fail to reconcile what Onkelos says on these name with the wording of the text.
 Nachmanides writes that he understands Onkelos as saying that אשורים are camps and caravans which move from city to city, similar tote caravans of Ishmaelite traders described in the story of the sale of Joseph. The word is related to Job 23,11 באשורו אחזה רגלי, “I have followed in his tracks.” The word לטושים he understands as referring to Bedouins, dwellers in tents, instead of people housed in permanent structures. These are apt to be abandoned in time of need. The letter ל and נ are often used interchangeably as in נשכה instead of לשכה.”office.” (Nechemyah 13,7) Onkelos translates לאומים as נגון, i.e. a word meaning “islands.” (island dwellers) Probably Onkelos was alerted to the change in the text from יקשן ילד, “Yakshon sired,” to בני דן היו instead of בני דן ילדו, to see in the three wordsאשורים, ולטושים, and ולאומים something other than additional offspring. We would have expected a formulation parallel to Genesis 10,13 ומצרים ילד.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:5:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:5:1)

**ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק.**יש מקשים מהא דאמרינן לא תיהוי בעבורי אחסנתא אפי' מברא בישא לברא טבא ומתרצי' דגר את הגר אינו יורש לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים ומיהו תינח ישמעאל אבל מבני קטורה אכתי קשה ונראה לי שאינו קשה כלל משום שנאמר כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע לא היה חושב האחרים כזרע אף לענין הירושה. במדרש יש שם טומאה מסר להם פי' לפי שהיו קוראים לעצביהם בשם הגדול לכך למדם לקרות לע"ז שלהם. א"נ הכי פירושו משר להם השם שאפילו בטומאתם יתעסקו בו ומה שלמדם השם והיה יודע שישתמשו בו מפני שראה אותם עוסקים בתרפים ומשתחוי' להם כדי שיגידו להם העתידות אמר להם הניחו אלו מלעובדם ואני אמסור לכם שם שאפילו בטומאה תוכלו להזכירו ותדעו בו העתידות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק, “Avraham deeded all that was his to Yitzchok. Some people question this procedure, basing themselves on *Ketuvot* 53 where the Talmud rules that a father must not re-allocate part of his estate from a son who is morally unfit to one who has developed morally and ethically to his liking, seeing he does not know how the grandson from either son will turn out. It is stated there that a convert the son of Hagar, i.e. a slave woman, cannot inherit at any rate, as whatever is his belongs to his master. Whereas this is a good answer concerning the status of Yishmael, it leaves unanswered the question how Avraham could disinherit the sons of Keturah. I believe that there is no difficulty at all, seeing the Torah had told Avraham specifically that his seed will only be known through Yitzchok, i.e. that Yitzchok will be his only heir. It does not mean that the other sons were intrinsically unfit because of their character or some other impediment,
 According to *Rashi,* quoting *Sanhedrin 91,* Avraham handed to these sons שם טומאה, i.e. seeing they referred to their idols by the sacred name of the Creator, he taught them to refer to these idols by some other name.
 It is also possible that the meaning of this strange sounding comment by the Talmud is that he informed them of a name for G’d which it is permissible to use even in their state of ritual impurity. All this, because he observed that these sons of Keturah were practicing different forms of idolatry and worshipping those idols. The reason that these sons of Avraham also practiced this form of idolatry was their being so anxious to obtain information about their impending fate, something which the religion of their time promised to have for those who practiced their cults. By informing them of this name for the true G’d, he told them that by invoking it they would become privy to knowledge of the future. [According to the Maharal from Prague the reason Avraham taught his sons the “names” of these idolatries, i.e. the essence of their teachings, was to enable them to counter the damaging influence the power of these demons exercised upon them. According to the author of the כתב והקבלה, Rabbi Mecklenburg, the מתנות, “gifts” Avraham gave to his sons was the know how to protect themselves against the insidious influence of the various religious cults prevalent in their neighborhood.. Ed.]


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:6:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:6:1)

**ולבני הפילגשים.**ודאי הגר פלגש היתה אבל קטורה אשתו גמורה היתה שאלו היתה שפחתו בביתו ולקחה לו לפלגש לא היה אומר ויקח אשה ומה שקורא אותה פלגש לפי שנאמר לו כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע ולא בזרע אחר לפיכך היו כל נשיו נחשבות אצלו כפילגשים שאין זרעם יורשים. והנה אברהם לקח לו מבנות כנען ואם תאמר שהיתה מצרית או מבנות פלשתים הנה לא שלח אל ארצו ואל מולדתו כאשר עשה בבנו כי איננו שומר רק זרע יצחק כי עליו נכרת הברית:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ולבני הפילגשים, “and to the sons of the concubines, etc” No doubt Hagar’s status in the household of Avraham had been that of a concubine, whereas Keturah was his wife in the full sense of that term. If she had been a servant maid in his household and he had raised her to the status of concubine the Torah would not have described this as ויקח אשה ושמה קטורה, “He married a woman named Keturah.” If the Torah here describes Keturah as a concubine, this was only since G’d had decreed that Yitzchok would be Avraham’s sole heir, so that sons from any other woman would have to content themselves with gifts handed to them during their father’s lifetime. Avraham had taken these women from the Caaanite women, for if Keturah had been an Egyptian or Philistine by birth the Torah could not have said that Avraham dispatched these sons somewhere to the Far East, but he would have sent them back to Egypt or the land of the Philistines when their mother had come. The prohibition of marrying Canaanite women applied only to Avraham’s heirs, not to children who would not inherit his estate, and thus represent his outlook on life.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:8:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:8:1)

**זקן ושבע.**שרא' כל משאלות לבו ושבע כל טובה והוא ספור חסדי המקום בצדיקים ומדה טובה שבהם שאינם מתאוים למותרות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
זקן ושבע ימים, “in a ripe old age.” He had seen all his aspirations fulfilled. The Torah here describes an attitude to life by the pious who do not demand more than has been granted to them by G’d’s grace without their pleading for this.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:11:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:11:1)

**וישב יצחק עם באר לחי רואי.**קרוב למקום ההוא. א"נ בעבור שאינו עיר אמר כן שנטה אהלו אצל המקום ההוא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
וישב יצחק עם באר לחי רואי, “Yitzchok settled near the well which had been named א-לוהי רואי (by the angel who had foretold Ishmael’s birth and rise to greatness. Perhaps the cumbersome description of Yitzchok’s home is due to the fact that it was not an urban location.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:17:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:17:1)

**ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל.**כתב הרמב"ן לרבותינו בסיפור ישמעאל טעמים רבים. ובדרך הפשט כי הכתוב מספר בבני הצדיקים ותולדותיהם ומספר חייהם להודיע זרע הצדיקים ולא סיפר ימי עשו כי חיה יותר מיעקב וכבר נשלם הספור במות יעקב ולא רצה לחזור אל חיי עשו שכבר הזכיר תולדותיו במקום הראוי להם. והנכון בעיני כי בעל תשובה היה וסיפר בו כמיתת הצדיקים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל, “these are the years that Ishmael lived, etc.” According to Nachmanides our sages offer a variety of reasons why the Torah bothered to go into such detail about the years of Ishmael, as well as his offspring.
 According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah details much about the lives of the righteous, their offspring, etc.; whereas it is sparse with information about the wicked, so that he have no data about how old Esau was when he died, although it is clear that he survived his twin Yaakov. The story of the patriarchs is considered closed with the death of Yaakov, so that no further reference is made to his brother.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:17:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:17:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:17:2)

**ויגוע.**אמרינן דלא נאמרה גויעה ואסיפ' אלא בצדיקים אבל גויעה לחוד נאמרה אפי' במי שאינו צדיק. ופי' הרמב"ן הטעם כי גויעה פי' מיתה בלא חולי וכשמזכי' עמה מלת מיתה כמו וימת או ויאסף רומז לצדיקים כלומר שמת פתאום בלא חולי אבל כשאינו אומר אלא גויעה לבד הוא רומז לרשעים כלומר שנהפכו כמו רגע ולא חלו בו ידים כאנשי דור המבול דכתי' ויגוע כל בשר וכאנשי דור המדבר דכתי' בגוע אחינו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויגוע, “he died.” Our sages have said that the formula combining ויגוע ויאסף is used only in connection with the righteous. When the term ויגוע is used without the word ויאסף אל עמיו following, this is an indication that the person concerned did not die as a righteous person.
 Nachmanides writes that the reason why the word גויעה means “death” is that it describes death not preceded b terminal sickness. When the word is accompanied further by the word וימת or ויאסף, it means that the individual thus described was a righteous person and that he died suddenly. When death is described as גויעה alone, it means the person concerned was a wicked person. Examples are the death of the people during the generation of the flood, and the death of the Jews in the desert as a result of the sin with the spies.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:17:3
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:17:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:17:3)

**ויאסף אל עמיו.**כתב ר' אברהם יש אומרי' כי על כבוד הנפש הוא אומר כי בהיותו מתעסק עם הגוף הוא כחלק נפרד ובהפרד מן הגוף יאסף הכבוד אל עמיו. וי"א כי הוא משפט הלשון והטעם על לכתו על דרך אבותיו כאלו יתחבר אליהם כמו ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויאסף אל עמיו, “he was gathered in to his people.” Ibn Ezra writes that (according to some) this is a description of the honour being paid to the soul of the deceased. While the relatives are busy with interring the physical remains of the deceased, his soul meanwhile rises to the celestial regions, this being the first time that body and soul are each going their separate ways. Others claim that there is no ulterior meaning to this formulation but that it described the deceased now starting the journey to join his forebears, having already followed in their footsteps while still here on earth. This is what G’d promised Avraham when He said to him: “ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום, “but you will join your fathers in peace.”(prior to the commencement of the 400 years of being strangers or enslaved, Genesis 15,15)


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:19:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:19:1)

**ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם אברהם הוליד את יצחק.**פירש"י שצר קלסתר פניו של יצחק כשל אברהם שהכל מעידים שאברהם הוליד את יצחק. וי"מ שלכך חזר אברהם הוליד את יצחק דלא תימא לא הולידו אלא גדלו לכך נקרא על שמו כמו אלה בני מיכל אשר ילדה מירב. ור' אברהם פי' הוליד גדל ורבה כמו יולדו על ברכי יוסף כדכתיב וישלחם מעל יצחק בנו. והרמב"ן כתב כי הנכון כי חזר והתחיל באב היחס כי המנהג בכתוב לחזור באנשי המעלה אל ראש היחס ועשה כן בשביל שאמר ואלה תולדות ישמעאל בן אברהם ואם לא אמר אלא אלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם בלבד א"כ השוה שניהם ביחוס ובמעלה ואף כי הקדים הבכור ועוד שהי' ראוי שיתחיל באברהם ויאמר אלה תולדות אברהם אלא שלא רצה לעשות כן שהי' צריך למנות ישמעאל ובני קטורה לכך חזר והתחיל אברהם הוליד את יצחק לומר כי הוא לבדו תולדותיו וכאלו לא הוליד לאחר שיחשבנו לכלום כי ביצחק יקרא לו זרע וע"כ אמר למעלה אשר ילדה הגר המצרית שפחת שרה לאברהם לכבוד יצחק לומר שאין תולדות היחס לאברהם רק הם בני אמה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק. “These are the generations of Yitzchok the son of Avraham, Avraham sired Yitzchok.” *Rashi* explained that the new element the Torah informs us of here, is that Yitzchok’s facial features were almost identical to that of his father Avraham. This was important because it made it impossible for people to claim that Sarah had been impregnated by Avimelech while being kept a prisoner there. Others believe that the reason that the Torah here repeated information we have long been familiar with, is to tell us that Avraham did not only produce Yitzchok physically, but he raised him in his image so that he represented a true continuation of Avraham’s teachings and their impact on his surroundings. This is why people would refer to him primarily as בן אברהם, although he had been named יצחק. Ibn Ezra explains that that the very word הוליד, does not only mean to provide the semen for such a child, but to raise it, educate it, etc. This was also what the Torah had in mind in Genesis 50,23 when the children of Machir, son of Menashe, are described as יולדו על ברכי יוסף, normally translated as “were born on the knees of Joseph.” Surely, what the Torah meant was that Joseph, their grandfather, was still able to become an influence in shaping these children’s character. Nachmanides writes that it is appropriate when speaking of someone’s descendants, to first list his own genealogy. *Yichuss*, never starts in a vacuum, except with the first man, of course. It is the Torah’s custom, when dealing with people who are of the elite, to list their founding father. The Torah was compelled to do this here in light of having written in 25,12 ואלה תולדות ישמעאל בן אברהם אשר ילדה לו הגר, “these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Avraham, whom Hagar had born for him.” If the Torah had only written:ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, without adding אברהם הוליד את יצחק, we would have equated Yitzchok to Ishmael. As it is, the Torah made plain that we would understand that the only תולדה of Avraham which counts is Yitzchok, and no other biological offspring of Avraham. This is again to remind us that G’d had told Avraham כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, “you will forever be exclusively identified with Yitzchok as your true seed.” 25.20 בקחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” *Rashi* claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud *Ketuvot* 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child. In the *Sifri,* a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a *Midrash* are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:20:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:20:1)

**בקחתו את רבקה.**פירש"י בת ג' שנים היתה כשנשאה. וקשה א"כ אמאי קרי לה נערה ועוד דבפ' הבא על יבמתו על הא דאמר מי ששהה עשר שנים עם אשתו ולא ילדה שיגרשנה פריך ונילף מיצחק שלא יגרשנה עד שישהא עמה ך' שנה קודם שיתפלל ומאי קושיא דלמא שאני יצחק שלא היתה ראוי' להריון עד ששהה לה י"ג שנים. בספרי יש שהיתה בת י"ד שנים כשנשאה ולפעמים המדרשים חלוקים ומיהו תימא לפי הספרי למה המתין לה ך' שנה להתפלל עליה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
קחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” *Rashi* claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud *Ketuvot* 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child. In the *Sifri,* a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a *Midrash* are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:20:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:20:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:20:2)

**אחות לבן הארמי.**כך דרך הכתוב לייחס על שם אח הגדול כמו אחות נביות אחות אהרן אחות נחשון:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
אחות לבן הארמי, “sister of Lavan from Aram.” It is customary for the Torah to provide the name of the elder brother of a girl as part of her genealogy.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:21:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:21:1)

**ויעתר לו.**ולא לה שאין חבוש מתיר עצמו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויעתר לו, “G’d responded to his prayer.” The emphasis on the word לו is meant to tell us that G’d did not respond to her prayer. The reason is that we have a principle that a prisoner is unable to free himself (without external help) [In this instance it was Rivkah who could not have children, hence she is comparable to someone who is handicapped, like a prisoner in a cell. Compare *Sifssey Chachamim* on Genesis Ed.]


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:22:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:22:1)

**ויתרוצצו.**פירש"י שהיו מריבין על שני עולמות. ולפי הפשט לפי שהי' עשו איש שעיר ויעקב חלק ושערות עוקצים ליעקב ולכך ברח מפניו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויתרוצצו, “They quarreled.” According to *Rashi* the wrangle inside Rivkah’s womb concerned two worlds. According to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that Esau developed a lot of body hair whereas Yaakov was smooth skinned, Esau’s hair kept rubbing Yaakov’s skin, resulting in violent movement inside her womb, Yaakov trying to escape being scratched.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:22:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:22:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:22:2)

**ותאמר א"כ.**פירש"י אם כן גדול צער ההריון למה זה אנכי נתאוה להריון להעמיד י"ב שבטים שהיו עתידין לצאת ממנה אלא שעשו עקר השליא והאם שלה כדאיתא במדרש. וי"מ לפי שנתרוצצו בקרבה כי היתה קרובה שתפיל ותאמר אם כן שאני מפלת למה אני הרה לשוא. ור' אברהם פי' ששאלה לנשים אם אירע להם ככה ואמרו לה לא ותאמר א"כ למה אני משונה בהריון משאר הנשים. וי"מ לאחר ששאלה לנשים ואמרו לה לא אמרה א"כ למה זה אנכי מתאחרת לדרוש את ה' ותלך לדרוש את ה'. והרמב"ן פי' אם כן למה אני בעולם הלואי אינני שאמות:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ותאמר: אם כן וגו', “she said: ”if so, etc.” according to *Rashi* she said that “if my desire to found a nation of twelve tribes involves so much pain as part of the pregnancies, why did I ever aspire to become the founding mother of such a nation?” According to a *Midrash,* Rivkah’s complaint of למה זה אנכי was the reason that it was not she who became the founding mother of the twelve tribes. In practice, it was Esau who inadvertently damaged Rivkah’s uterus to the extent that she could not again become pregnant.
 Other commentators interpret Rivkah’s complaint not as directed against future pregnancies, but as her immediate fear of her embryos seeing the light of the world too soon due to their conduct within her womb. She was afraid of giving birth to premature babies, babies that would die at birth or shortly thereafter. Her complaint was that if she had to undergo all these pains only in order to abort at the end, what was the point in her becoming pregnant in the first place? Why would she have been singled out for such a difficult pregnancy?
 Yet other scholars see Rivkah’s question as not addressed to G’d, but to other women who had born children successfully. After these women told her that they had not experienced any of the symptoms Rivkah had been plagued by during her pregnancy, she then addressed the question of why she had been singled out to G’d, (using the head of the academy of Shem and Ever as her intermediary)
 Nachmanides understands Rivkah’s question as wanting to know if her children were already quarrelling before they were born, her own life would not be worth living and she would be better off dead.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:22:3
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:22:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:22:3)

**ותלך לדרוש את ה'.**פירש"י מה יהא בסופה והלכה למדרשו של שם ואולי לא רצתה לילך לאברהם אע"פ שעדיין הי' חי שלא רצתה להודיע לו צערה. והרמ"בן פי' לדרוש את ה' להתפלל על צערה כמו דרשתי את ה':

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ותלך לדרוש את ה', “she went in order to enquire from G’d.” *Rashi* understands her question as pertaining to the future of these children. Perhaps the reason she preferred to address her enquiry to the head of the Academy of Shem instead of to her father-in-law Avraham, who was still alive at the time, was that she did not want to let him know that she was so beset by mental and physical anguish.
 Nachmanides understands the words ותלך לדרוש את ה', to mean that Rivkah appealed directly to G’d in prayer seeing that she felt so much anguish.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:23:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:23:1)

**שני גיים בבטנך.**הודיע אותה שלא תפחד כי בשביל שהיא מעוברת תאומים הוא הריצוץ כי כן דרך הנשים המעוברות תאומים. א"נ הודיעה שלא הי' זה אלא לסימן שעשו מריבה בתחלת יצירתם לרמוז מה שיהי' בסוף ומעתה לא יעשו עוד זה ויפסק צערה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
שני גויים בבטמנך, “there are two nations within your womb.” G’d informed her not to worry, that her condition was due to the fact that she would give birth to twins. All the commotion going on within her was due to that fact; women who are pregnant with twins usually experience these violent upheavals within their wombs.
 Alternately, it is possible that G’d informed her that the convulsions she had experienced foreshadowed that these twins would not live harmoniously together, especially at the time preceding the redemption of mankind. In the meantime, these convulsions would cease forthwith.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:23:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:23:2)

**ורב יעבד צעיר.**נדרש להכי ולהכי כפשטי' שרב יעבוד צעיר וכן נמי ורב יעבדנו הצעיר וזהו אמלאה החרבה לא נתמלאה צור אלא מחורבנה של ירושלי'. וי"מ ורב לשון רבוי כמו ורב מהיות קולות אלקים פי' הרבה יעבוד צעיר:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the senior one would serve the junior one.” This can be interpreted in various directions. Either, literally, the older one will serve the younger one, or as in Ezekiel 26,2 אמלאה החרבה, where the prophet describes the city Tzor (Tyre) as discontent as long as Jerusalem has not been destroyed. The philosophies of Esau and Yaakov are mutually exclusive, and as long as both are alive and vibrant the other can not be content.
 Another approach to the word רב sees in it a reference to “abundance, surfeit,” as in ’ורב מקולות וגו, “enough, too much of the thunder, etc.” (Exodus 9,28) Translated into our verse here, the meaning of the prophecy would be that the many would serve the few. (Yaakov’s descendants being “the few.”)


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:26:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:26:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:26:1)

**וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו.**לעכבו שיצא הוא תחלה. א"נ לעכבו כדי שיצא עמו ולא תצטער אמו פעם אחרת בשבילו בפתיחת הרחם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו, “and his hand was holding on to the heel of Esau.” He tried to keep Esau from becoming the firstborn. Possibly, Yaakov only wanted to emerge from his mother’s womb simultaneously with his brother. He did not want his mother to experience separate birth pangs on his account.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:26:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:26:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:26:2)

**ויקרא שמו יעקב.**פירש"י הקב"ה והכי איתא במדרש והא דאיתא בירושלמי אברהם ויעקב שאביהם קראו להם שם נשתנו יצחק שהקב"ה קראו לו שם לא נשתנה צריך לומר לפי שיצחק קרא לו הקב"ה קודם יצירתו לכך לא נשתנה אבל יעקב לא קרא לו שם עד אחר שנולד:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויקרא שמו יעקב, “his father called him ‘Yaakov.’” Seeing that Yitzchok’s name is not mentioned here as such, *Rashi* considers G’d Himself as the subject of the word ויקרא. His view has been confirmed by the *Midrash.* When the Jerusalem Talmud states that whereas both Yaakov and Avraham whose names had been given by their respective fathers, underwent changes of name, Yitzchok who had been named by G’d in the first place, never underwent such a change of name, this may not be a contradiction to the *Midrash,* but may mean that the reason Yitzchok’s name was never changed was that he was so named before Sarah had even conceived him. Seeing that Yaakov was not named by G’d until after he had been born, his name could be subject to change, [or in his case to an addition, seeing that the name Yaakov was never abolished. Ed.]


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:27:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:27:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:27:1)

**ויגדלו הנערים.**פירש"י עד י"ג שנה לא נודע מעשיהם אע"פ דכתיב ממעיך יפרדו מ"מ לא ניכר צדקותו של זה ורשעותו של זה עד אחר י"ג שנה. ומיהו קשה על מה שפי' שהיו בני י"ג שנה שהרי בו ביום מת אברהם ושנותיו קע"ה וכשנולדו הי' בן ק"ס ק' קודם שנולד יצחק וס' שנה אחר שנולד נמצא שהיו בני ט"ו שנה י"מ שאותן ב' שנים הי' עשו עושה עבירות בסתר ולא נודע רשעותו ואע"פ שהי' אברהם אבינו חי מקרי שפיר שיבה טובה. ובמדרש יש שהיה יצחק בגן עדן ב' שנים אחר העקידה ואינו מונה אותם בחשבון שנותיו ונמצא שהי' לאברהם קס"ב כשנולדו יעקב ועשו. ואם תחשוב שנים מקטעות להיות יום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה משכחת לה כגון שיהי' ליצחק ס"א שנים פחות יום אחד והיה לאברהם קס"א פחות יום אחד וכשמת אברהם היה לעשו י"ג שנה וב' ימים נמצא שנכנס אברהם יום אחד בשנת קע"ה וחשב ליה שנה אלא שקשה לומר שמת יום אחד בשנה משום דכתיב את מספר ימיך אמלא ועוד הכא חשיב יום א' בשנה וגבי יצחק שנולדו לו בשנת ס"א פחות יום אחד לא חשיב לי' שנה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up, etc.” According to *Rashi* it was not evident until they reached the age of 13 that their actions were noticeably different, one from the other. This was so in spite of the prediction that they would be distinctly different from one another already from birth, i.e.ממעיך יפרדו. To the outsider it was impossible to tell which of the two was the righteous son and which was the sinner. *Rashi’s* commentary is difficult in that it describes the age of 13 as the one at which it became plain that Esau was the son disloyal to his father’s teachings, as according to our *Midrashim* the reason that Avraham died at 175 instead of living to the age of 180, was to spare him the anguish of seeing one of his grandchildren rejecting his teachings. If Esau became delinquent at 13, Avraham would only have been 178 years old at that time. There is a *Midrash* according to which Yitzchok spent 2 years in *Gan Eden* immediately after the *Akeydah,* years which are not included when we combine the various periods of his life. According to such a count, Avraham would have been 162 years old at the birth of Yaakov and Esau, and when these boys reached the age of 13, Avraham would have been 175 years old, so that he would have died before becoming aware of Esau, his grandson, rejecting his spiritual heritage
 If we consider that on occasion, a single day in a year can be equivalent to an entire year, -such as when a King ascends the throne on the last day of the month of Adar, so that the following day is considered as part of the second year of his reign, since in Jewish law the calendar year for kings commences on the first day of *Nissan*, then by allowing for such an occurrence at the beginning of Yitzchok’s life, and something similar at the beginning of Avraham’s life, we would not have to resort to the *Midrash* which describes Yitzchok as spending 2 years in *Gan Eden* in a state of suspended animation from the point of view of calendar calculations.- Even this calculation involves contradictions, seeing that G’d promised the righteous את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will make the days of your life’s year full,” i. e. no year of the life of a person such as Yitzchok or Avraham could possibly contain only a single day.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:28:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:28:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:28:1)

**כי ציד בפיו.**ות"א שמצידו היה אוכל והמקר' חסר הנתינ' ופי' כי ציד יתן בפיו. א"נ כי ציד בפיו של יצחק שהיה רגיל לאכול ציד ולכך היה אוהב לעשו שהיה יודע ציד. והרמב"ן פי' שהוא מליצה כלו' עשו ציד בפיו של יצחק שמכנה האיש למעשיו לתדירותו וכמוהו רבים:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
כי ציד בפיו, “for he would provide venison to eat.” Onkelos explains that Yitzchok would eat from the proceeds of Esau’s hunting expeditions. Accordingly, our verse is slightly abbreviated and should have read: כי יתן ציד בפיו, “for he would feed him venison.” Alternately, the expression בפיו refers to Yitzchok’s mouth, and informs us that Yitzchok was in the habit of dining on venison. He loved Esau, seeing Esau was an expert in providing choice venison.
 Nachmanides holds that the statement is a euphemism describing Esau as deceiving his father into thinking he was loyal to his teachings by flattering him. The use of euphemisms by the Torah is nothing unusual.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:29:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:29:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:29:1)

**ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף.**שאחזו בולמוס וזהו שאמר הנה אנכי הולך למות שאם לא יאכילהו מיד ימות ולמה לו אז בכורה. ובמדרש יש שטעה בשדה כדרך צדי חיות שהולכים ביערים לצוד וכלתה נפשם למות ומצא את יעקב בשדה רועה בצאן אביו ועל כן אמר הנה אנכי הולך למות שאין כאן מי שישיב נפשי אלא הוא וניחא נמי שאמר הלעיטני שעיפה נפשו מעינוי הדרך עד שלא יכול להשיב ידו אל פיו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף, “Esau came home from the field, very tired;” he was so tired that he was overcome by a dizzy spell, fainting, so that he concluded that he was about to die soon. He meant that unless he would get something to eat immediately, his condition would deteriorate and result in his death. This being so, what good would the birthright be to him?
 One of the allegorical explanations of the *Midrash* claims that his condition was due to his having lost his bearings in the field and the forest, areas that do not abound with markers showing the way; instead of finding deer to kill, he exhausted himself finding the way home. When he found his brother Yaakov tending his father’s flocks in the field, he remarked that he would die soon as there was no one who had the power to restore him except his saintly father. [in the *ספר הישר,* Esau’s exhaustion is even described as fatigue after having successfully battled two of Nimrod’s soldiers, and his fearing for his life as a result. Ed.] 
 The expression הלעיטני נא, “spoon-feed me,” indicates that this commentary may be close to the truth, as otherwise Esau would have said something like “תן לי,” “give to me!” He was so weak that he could not even lift his hand to his mouth.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:30:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:30:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:30:1)

**מן האדום האדום הזה.**י"מ שהאדום האחרון חוזר אל עשו הלעיטני נא מן האדום שאני האדום הזה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
מן האדום האדום הזה, “from this reddish looking dish.” Some commentators understand the second word אדום as a reference to Esau himself who was known as אדום, “the red one.” It was a play on words, the “red one” saying that the reddish looking dish is fit for the reddish looking man, meaning himself.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:31:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:31:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:31:1)

**מכרה כיום.**פירש"י כיום ההוא ברור כן מכור לי מכירה ברורה. ופשוטו של מקרא כיום כעת הזאת כמו קטר יקטירון כיום את החלב. ואונקלוס תרגם כיום דילהן בעבור היות המכירה אחרי מות אביו אמר מכור לאיזה יום שתי' שתחול אז המכירה. ופי' כיום כמו ביו' פי' באיזה יום שתבא בו הבכורה שתהיה שלי. וי"מ כיום פי' המכר אינו אלא ליום שאתה קרוב למות וטוב שתטול בה מעט שבלאו הכי לאחר שתמות הכל שלי והוא הודה לדבריו ואמר הנה אנכי הולך למות. תימה מה מכר שייך בבכורה שאינו דבר שנתפס בקנין ואי משום ירושת פי שנים הא קיימא לן מה שאירש מאבא מכור לך לא אמר כלום ויש מתרצים משום שיעקב היה ראוי להיות בכור שנולד מטפה ראשונה אלא שעשו יצא ראשון משל למי שנתן שני טיפין בשפופרת הנכנס אחרון יצא ראשון ולא נהירא דבכור בפטר רחם תליא מלתא ועשו פטר הרחם תחלה. וי"מ שיעקב חשב שיצחק יתן לו כל אשר לו בחייו כאשר עשה אברהם ליצחק וקנה הבכורה כדי שלא יהיה לעשו פתחון פה כל כך לערער. וי"מ בכורתך פי' גדולתך שצריך הקטן לנהוג גדולה ושררה לאחיו הגדול לקום מפניו ולכבדו וז"ש שימכור לו. וי"א שלא קנה ממנו אלא מה שאירש מאבא היום ולכך חל הקנין וזהו מה שאמר מכרה כיום ועשו בבזותו הבכורה אמר אתה שואל מה שאירש מאבא היום הנה אנכי מוכרה לך לעולם ואע"פ שמשם ואילך לא היה מקום לחול הקנין בכולו מ"מ כיון שעל מה שאמר כיום חל הקנין נתפס הקנין בכולו וזהו שאמר ויעקבני שלא שאל אלא כיום כדי שיחול הקנין: **וא"א הרא"ש ז"ל** מדקדק מכאן מי שמוכר לחבירו דבר שאין הקנין חל עליו כגון מה שאירש מאבא או מי שמוכר מלוה על פה שיש לו על אחרים שאינה נמכרת ונשבע עליו שהמכר חל מכח השבועה לא מיבעי' שכופין אותו לקיימו בשביל שבועתו אלא אפי' שם מכר עליו כדחזינא הכא דקרי ליה מכר בשביל השבועה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
מכרה כיום, “sell me as of this day!” *Rashi* understands the word כיום as describing the transaction about to take place to be as clear and beyond misunderstanding as daylight, which illuminates everything clearly. The plain meaning of the word is: “immediately,” as, for instance in Samuel I 2,16 קטר יקטירון כיום את החלה, “let me first burn the fat presently, etc.” Onkelos, taking into account that the sale under discussion will become effective only after Yitzchok’s death, understands the word כיום to mean “as and when, with retroactive closing date as of today.” Some commentators understand Yaakov as saying that the sale, trade, will be effective only today when you are close to death. It is appropriate that you receive some of this dish now for once you have died the entire inheritance of our father will automatically come to me. Esau admitted that Yaakov was right and proceeded to gulp down the red dish. The major problem with the whole transaction is that a birthright has never been understood as something that can be acquired or disposed of by selling and buying. What kind of procedure represents the transfer of the object being sold to the buyer, i.e. what מעשה קנין is there possible? If the object of the sale was the double share of the father’s inheritance decreed by the Torah for the firstborn, we have learned that if someone says “I sell you what I will inherit from my father,” that such a declaration is legally quite meaningless. (*Baba Metzia 16)* Some resolve this problem by saying that seeing Yaakov should by rights have been the firstborn as he was formed out of Yitzchok’s first drop of semen, and that Esau was born first only because he pushed himself ahead at the time of the delivery, he did not even need to make a קנין, act of acquisition, for something which rightfully was his in the first place. We do not think that this argument is tenable, as the Torah specifically calls the “first born” the one that emerges first from the mother’s womb. (Exodus 13,2) Others hold that Yaakov was convinced that his father was going to deed him all his belongings during his lifetime, just as Avraham had deeded all his belongings to Yitzchok during his lifetime. He would do so in order to forestall any legal protest by Esau when the time came. Still other Rabbis claim that the word בכורתך did not refer to inherited wealth at all, but to the dignity, the standing among his peers that the senior brother usually commands. Yaakov wanted to trade the dish of lentils he was about to give to Esau for that intangible symbol of dignity. Still other sages say that all Yaakov was about to buy from Esau was anything that he might inherit from his father on this very day, (if his father were to die on that day). If so, such a sale would be legally valid. Yaakov used the words מכרה כיום to clarify that legal point. When hearing this, Esau said: ”what good is the birthright to me that you want to buy from me only what might accrue to me this day, seeing that I am not going to outlive my father anyway, you might as will buy my future share in any birthright also.” This is why the Torah testifies in a line later on that Esau displayed his disdain for the birthright. (verse 34) In any event, seeing that the part of the transaction described by Yaakov with the words מכרה כיום was legally valid, any codicil, such as proposed by Esau, would be valid also. Esau seized upon that point later on when he accused Yaakov of ויעקבני זה פעמים (27,36) referring to the fact that Yaakov had tricked him into this codicil, something that would not have had legal standing but for his having first agreed to the sale of limited duration, i.e. מכרה כיום. My late father, the רא'ש of blessed memory, seized on this detail to rule that when someone sells something to one’s neighbour which is not subject to regular methods of acquisition, such as “what I am going to inherit from my father,” or “a loan which I have outstanding for repayment with X and secured only by an oral promise to repay,” both objects not subject to sale in the accepted sense of the word, and the seller adds an oath to his verbal sale, such a sale has become valid, and the court can enforce the terms of the sale from the seller due to the seller having obligated himself by oath. This is all derived from the pains Yaakov took to legalise the sale for the day on which it was concluded by adding the words “swear it to me,“ to Esau.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:34:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:34:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:34:1)

**ויעקב נתן לעשו לחם.**י"מ שזה שנתן לו לאכול לא היה חליפי הבכורה אלא כדרך בני אדם שגומרין שאוכלין ושותין אבל מה שנתן לו חליפי הבכורה לא פי' הכתוב:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויעקב נתן לעשו, “meanwhile Yaakov had already given to Esau, etc.” Some commentators believe that the food Yaakov had given to Esau had not been in exchange for the birthright, but had been an ordinary human gesture, something everybody does when faced with an extremely hungry person whom he is able to help. The type and amount of payment Yaakov gave Esau in exchange for the birthright has not been recorded in the Torah.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:34:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 25:34:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/25:34:2)

**ויבז עשו את הבכורה.**כתב ר' אברהם שבזה אותה בשביל שלא היה ליצחק ממון והביא ראיה לדבריו שיצחק אהב את עשו בשביל צידו ואלו היה לחם בבית לא היה מוכר בכורתו בשביל נזיד וגם אלו היה אוכל בכל יום מטעמים מהו שהתאוה לציד ואיך שלחה רבקה ליעקב בידים ריקניות שאמר ונתן לי לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש. והרמב"ן אמר עליו שנשתבש שהרי אביו הניח לו עושר גדול ואיך אבד את העושר ההוא מיד כי זה היה מיד אחר מיתת אביו ועוד כי כתיב אחרי מיתת אברהם ויברך אלקים את יצחק וברכת השם היא תעשיר ומה שלא שלחה רבקה את יעקב בכסף וזהב כי בורח היה ואלו נתנה לו כסף וזהב היתה מוספת בו קנאה לארוב לו ולהורגו ויצחק אהב הציד כדרך המלכים ואמר לברכו אחר עשות לו המטעמי' שרצה ליהנות ממנו שתהא נפשו קשור' בנפשו בעת ההנאה ויברך אותו בחפץ מלא ורצון שלם אלא הכתוב מעיד על פחזותו שבזה הבכורה על פת לחם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “Esau displayed disdain for the birthright.” According to Ibn Ezra, Esau’s disdain for the birthright was rooted in the fact that his father Yitzchok, though initially heir to an immense fortune, had become poor, so that he even depended on his food supply on his son Esau who supplied his meat diet. If bread had been plentiful in Yitzchok’s home at that time, Esau would not have sold his birthright for a mere dish of lentils. Even assuming that Yitzchok had been eating delicacies on a daily basis, how are we to account for the fact that Rivkah sent her son Yaakov empty-handed to find a match in the house of Lavan who was known to cherish money above all else? Yaakov even had to pray to G’d that He should provide him with bread to eat and clothes to wear! (Genesis 28,20) Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the state of affairs in Yitzchok’s household. The Torah testifies that Yitzchok had inherited great wealth. If he had been poor, why would Avimelech have been afraid of the influence which his great wealth bestowed on Yitzchok so that he described him as being more powerful than he, the king of the Philistines? (26,26) It is unreasonable to suppose that in the short interval between Avraham’s death (or even his “retirement,”) and the sale of the birthright he had lost all his wealth. Moreover, the Torah testifies after the death of Avraham that G’d blessed Yitzchok (seeing that Avraham had neglected to do this, so as not to offend Ishmael) If Yitzchok had become a pauper, how would G’d’s blessing have manifested itself as such? The fact that Rivkah did not send a dowry with Yitzchok was not because they were poor, but because she was afraid that this would give Esau additional reason to ambush him and kill him. As to the venison Esau supplied for his father, his father happened to be fond of venison, and he used this supply of venison brought to him by his son Esau in order to strengthen the mutual bond of love between father and firstborn son. [Yitzchok was keenly aware that additional external prompts were needed to firm that relationship. Ed.] The Torah sees the example of Esau’s selling the birthright for a dish of lentils as an illustration of his general lack of moral stature.