“And Abraham proceeded to take another wife, and her name was Keturah.” He went back and married Hagar and called her Keturah because her deeds were as pleasant as incense [ketoret]. This is implied by the language and he proceeded, indicating that he married her a second time. We must explain why he called her Keturah now, based on her deeds, especially since this seems to contradict Rashi’s explanation in Parashat Vayeira (21:14) on she went and wandered that she had returned to her father’s house’s idolatry. What seems correct to me is that initially he divorced her at Sarah’s request, as Abraham was secondary to Sarah in prophecy. Sarah knew prophetically that she [Hagar] would eventually return to her father’s house’s idolatry, and she also saw that her son Ishmael was mocking, which carries the connotation of idol worship, as it says they rose to make merry (Exodus 32:6). Therefore she said, Drive out this maidservant and her son, for their deeds were alike, for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac, meaning he would not inherit Abraham’s ways. The matter distressed Abraham because he did not know through divine inspiration about the idolatrous beliefs in their hearts, therefore he was told Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice, from which they learned that Abraham was secondary to Sarah in prophecy. He immediately sent her away with divorce, and she went and wandered as Sarah had said. If so, since he divorced her because of the impropriety of idolatry, it is difficult to understand how he could take her back. Therefore, the text comes to explain that she had repented, just as her son Ishmael had also repented. To publicize this, Abraham called her name Keturah, referring to the incense [ketoret], thus making public that she had repented. For every penitent, their intentional sins become like merits, and these sins rise as a pleasant aroma like merits. Therefore he compared her to incense, where galbanum, which has a bad smell, rises as a pleasant aroma like all other spices. This is an apt comparison to the sins of penitents that rise as a pleasant aroma, as it is written for her iniquity is pardoned (Isaiah 40:2). For after repentance, even the sin is accepted and favorable, therefore she was called Keturah.

And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. He transferred inheritance from all his sons because this is what Sarah wanted when she said the son of the handmaid shall not inherit, etc., and the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with her and said Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice, for through Isaac your seed will be called. And the reason it specifically says all that he had refers to everything that Abraham had worked for through his effort and labor, that which came to him through his sweat and the work of his hands — this thing that was specifically his own, for who would eat and who would feel [the effort] except for him — all of this he gave to Isaac. However, to the sons of the concubines, meaning the sons of Hagar [for pilagshim (concubines) is written without the letter ‘vav’ (indicating it refers to one concubine)], he gave those gifts that he had received from the Egyptians through Sarah when he said she is my sister. At that time they gave him gifts, and those gifts he gave to the sons of Hagar the Egyptian, for it is proper that they return to the place from where they came, returning to their planting.

**Another interpretation: He gave Isaac his portion in the World to Come,**which is referred to as all that he had, because what Abraham chose as his portion - namely the reward of the World to Come - was what he was promised in the verse “your reward shall be very great” (Genesis 15:1). This is called all that he had absolutely, and strangers have no part in it. This is in contrast to what a person has in hand, something given from hand to hand, which is not absolutely his because strangers might plunder his efforts. Similarly, Monbaz said (Bava Batra 11a), “My fathers stored treasure in a place where human hands could reach; I stored treasure in a place where human hands cannot reach” - meaning his treasure is stored for the World to Come, a place where human hands have no control. Furthermore, it’s possible that in the middle of one’s life, one might abandon to others the wealth and walls that they built and planted. Therefore, the reward of this world is not absolutely his, except for the reward of the World to Come which is his alone. This portion he gave to Isaac, that he too would receive his share in the World to Come, for there is no reward for mitzvot in this world for the righteous. But to the sons of the concubines he gave gifts - things given from hand to hand - meaning they would receive their portion in this world, as it is said (Deuteronomy 7:10), He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. If a wicked person performs some mitzvah, the Holy One Blessed be He gives them their complete reward in this world. It’s possible that this is what Sarah prophetically meant when she said “the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son Isaac (Genesis 21:10). For at first glance, it seems she should have simply said ”the son of this maidservant shall not inherit from you.“ Rather, she meant to say that while the son of the maidservant deserved to inherit, he would not inherit equally with her son, as the inheritances are not equal - the son of the maidservant would inherit his portion in this world, as it is written (Genesis 21:13) I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation, meaning his portion in this world. But Isaac would receive his portion in the eternal world, after Ishmael had already received his portion. This is what is meant by he sent them away from Isaac his son eastward [kedmah, which can also mean, beforehand] - that they were given precedence in receiving their reward, similar to what is said about Jacob (Genesis 25:26) his hand grasping Esau’s heel, meaning his hand of dominion would grasp the end of Esau’s boundary, symbolized by the heel which is the end of the foot. This suggests that after Esau’s foot of pride is removed from the marketplace in this world, then Jacob’s dominion will begin. Thus Esau receives his reward first, and similarly, Abraham sent the sons of the concubines eastward to give them precedence in receiving their reward in this world - something given from hand to hand. This excludes the reward of the World to Come, enjoying the radiance of the Divine Presence, to which the language of ”giving“ does not apply.

And Abraham expired and died at a good old age, elderly and satisfied. Ramban and similarly Rabbeinu Bachya explained that he was satisfied [having fulfilled] all worldly desires. This is not the case with the wicked, who depart from the world with half their desires unfulfilled, but he was satisfied with everything. However, regarding Isaac, where it states elderly and satisfied with days, the language doesn’t carry the same meaning, because the word “satisfied” relates to “days” — meaning he was satisfied with his days, not with worldly desires. Also here [regarding Abraham], why does it connect this matter to his old age, since even in his earlier days he lacked nothing? Furthermore, why does it mention good old age [seivah] first and then elderly [zaken]? Isn’t the state of being elderly [zaken] chronologically before the state of having good old age [seivah]?

Therefore, it seems more correct to say that this also refers to Abraham being “satisfied” with his days. And even though “days” are not explicitly mentioned here, since it mentions old age [which implies days], it is alluded that “elderliness [ziknah]” also refers to his days, as will be explained shortly. However, regarding Isaac, where “old age” is not mentioned, it needed to explicitly state “days.” This is because the main reward of the righteous is in the World to Come, therefore they grow weary of and reject the life of this world. All their desire and longing is to bask in the light of eternal life and to enjoy the radiance of the Divine Presence, for in this world “man cannot see Me and live.” Therefore, the wicked, who remain in darkness regarding the World to Come and whose primary contentment is in this world, are never satisfied with their days, for they know they have no portion there, and all their desire is for the days of this world. But the righteous are satisfied with their days and have no desire for them, as David said: O Lord, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am (Psalms 39:5). This means, let me know how long I will be deprived of the true good of the World to Come. Therefore, it says of the righteous that they are “satisfied with days,” for satisfaction refers to something that a person no longer desires. This is why it mentions the days of old age first, to tell you that not only in the days of old age was he satisfied with his days, but even in the days of his elderliness he was satisfied with them. For he had such a great desire to enjoy the radiance of the Divine Presence, and he rejected the life of this world throughout all his days, as he deeply yearned for his Father’s house in heaven.

“And he was gathered to his people.” Our Sages said (Bava Batra 16b) that the terms “expiration” [geviah] and “gathering” [asifah] are only used in reference to the righteous. The concept of this “gathering” appears to me to be related to what our Sages taught (Rosh Hashanah 17a) that the wicked are judged in Gehenna for 12 months, where their body is consumed and their soul is burned, and the wind scatters them and they become ash, etc. The term “gathering” is the opposite of scattering — that the wind does not scatter them. We find the language of “gathering” used in reference to bringing into a house, as in and you shall gather him into your house (Deuteronomy 22:2) and but no man gathered them into his house (Judges 19:15). This indicates that God’s glory gathers them to Himself, in contrast to the wicked who are pushed away from the Divine Presence. The reason why the term “gathering” is used with Ishmael is because he repented, as evidenced by the verse Isaac and Ishmael buried him, where Ishmael led Isaac before him. If the Sages’ tradition [here] is an [actual] tradition, we shall accept it, but if there is room for argument, one could interpret the verse differently — that he was so wicked that he didn’t care about his father’s honor and didn’t involve himself in the burial until Isaac first began to handle it, and only then, out of shame, did he also participate in the burial. However, we should not deviate from the Sages’ tradition, and there is proof for their words: After all, Abraham sent away all the sons of the concubines from Isaac while he was still alive, and surely he did not send away Ishmael, for if so, how was he present at the burial? Rather, it must be that he repented and joined with Isaac, and led him before himself.

“And God blessed Isaac his son.” He [God] did not want to bless him during Abraham’s lifetime because the Holy One, Blessed be He, had already said to Abraham and you shall be a blessing — meaning the blessings were entrusted to your hands. So how could the Holy One, Blessed be He, take back from Abraham’s hands what He had already given him? And Abraham did not want to bless Isaac because he feared that Esau might also be included in the blessing. And since Scripture does not specify how He blessed him, and furthermore the word his son appears superfluous [for don’t we already know that Isaac was his son?], we can say that He blessed him that he alone would be considered his son in every respect, and not the sons of the concubines, for they are as if they are not his sons. Only Isaac alone would be called his son and to him belongs the right of inheritance.

“He fell before all his brothers.” Later it states he shall dwell (Genesis 16:12). Rashi explains that before Abraham died, he shall dwell, but after Abraham died, he fell. However, if we accept that Ishmael repented after Abraham’s death — since we don’t find that he repented except in the instance where he led Isaac before him — then logically it should have been the opposite: during Abraham’s life he should have fallen, not after his death, since he later repented, so why should he fall? Look to the right and observe:“fell [nafal]” refers to the past, while “shall dwell [yishkon]” refers to the future. Therefore, its true interpretation must be that fell refers to the past — before he repented, and shall dwell refers to the future — indicating that he would dwell after his repentance. We can also interpret “fell” as an expression of submission, as it is the way of all who submit to fall before others. Just as he began to fall before Isaac — even though Isaac was younger than him, he nevertheless led him and submitted to him — so too he submitted before all his brothers, which is the meaning of “falling.” This also resolves Rashi’s difficulty: before he repented, he shall dwell because he had not yet submitted, but after he repented, he fell — meaning he submitted before all his brothers, and this falling was his rectification.

And these are the generations of Isaac, son of Abraham. Even though it already stated that he was the son of Abraham, nevertheless it needed to say “Abraham begot Isaac,” because regarding Ishmael it says son of Abraham, whom Hagar the Egyptian bore (Genesis 25:12). There we see that while the term “son” is used in relation to Abraham, the actual birth is attributed to Hagar. Therefore, here it needed to specify that both the status of sonship and the actual birth are attributed to Abraham. For in the Hebrew language, there is a distinction between the term “son” [ben] and “generations/offspring” [toldot]. The term “son” is sometimes used even without actual birth, as students are called “sons” even though they weren’t actually born to their teacher. This is similar to how concerning Moses [it states], he became like a son to [the daughter of Pharaoh], and Esther became like a daughter to Mordechai, and Abraham is called father of many nations even though he didn’t actually bear them. Similarly, there is a difference between one’s teacher and one’s actual parent. What a person receives in terms of nature from their teacher is accidental [non-essential] rather than inherent, and this accidental nature can change based on the receiver. However, what a person receives from their biological parent is inherent and won’t change if left to its natural state — unless, through great effort, determination and practice, one can develop a second nature. But the nature received from a teacher can change easily. This is why Moses said (Numbers 11:12), Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them? He was saying that even though they were his students and students are called sons, nevertheless he didn’t actually give birth to them. So what could he do if their actions changed from good to bad? For they devised their own plans, not from him, and the matter didn’t originate from him. Therefore, why should this burden be placed upon him as if their guilt was dependent on him? And regarding what is written (Numbers 3:1) These are the generations of Aaron and Moses and then it lists Nadab and Abihu — the term “generations” needed to be used there because of the mention of Aaron.

Therefore, regarding Ishmael, he was only called “the son of Abraham” because he received nothing of his nature except what Abraham taught him through his good deeds, and this was merely circumstantial and changeable for him, as eventually he turned to evil ways. Therefore, the text attributes his lineage to Hagar because he received the nature of Hagar the Egyptian, and the Egyptians were steeped in immorality. Thus, he too engaged in immoral behavior and did not change because he inherently received her nature. Therefore, the circumstantial aspect is attributed to Abraham while the essential nature is attributed to Hagar. However, Isaac received Abraham’s nature and also learned from his deeds, therefore everything is attributed to Abraham — both the term “son” and the term “generations.” Thus, he was not like Ishmael who engaged in sexual immorality even while he was still young, as the scripture refers to him at that time (Genesis 21:12). The scripture tells us about Isaac that he completely received his father’s nature and was so carefully guarded against sexual impropriety that he suppressed his desires and did not marry until he was 40 years old. He waited until he found Rebecca, his destined match, and did not want to marry among the Canaanites who had inherited lewdness from their father Ham, who had sexually abused his father Noah. Therefore, he needed to wait 40 years, as undoubtedly, being an only son of his stature, he had many potential matches. How else could he have remained without a wife for such a long time, if not for the reason we mentioned?

And in order to prevent any critic from finding room to dispute and say: “If Isaac was born with such holiness and purity, then why did Esau come from him — who would seduce married women? Surely Sarah must have become pregnant from Abimelech, which is why one son followed Sarah’s nature, and the second followed Abimelech’s nature.” For this reason, our Sages said (Bava Metzia 87) that [God] formed Isaac’s facial features to resemble Abraham’s. Now, according to our approach, in order to remove this doubt, the verse states when he took Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean. Since most children take after their mother’s brother, therefore one of the sons received the nature of Laban, the deceitful hunter. At first glance, it appears that the verse mentioned these three [relatives] to explain the three negative traits we find in Esau, which reflected their source: His seduction of married women was inherited from Bethuel, his mother’s father, who would take advantage of all virgins first, as is found (in Yalkut Shimoni Chayei Sarah 109) and similarly brought in Chizkuni citing this midrash. And what is said about Pour me some of that red stuff etc., that he was among those who eat, drink, and act wildly — this trait was inherited from his mother’s family from Paddan-aram, as is concluded in Genesis Rabbah Parshat Lech Lecha (39:8): “When Abraham was traveling in Aram-Naharaim and Aram-Nachor, he saw them eating, drinking, and acting wildly, and said Let my portion not be in this land.” And the fact that Esau was a deceiver who deceived his father — this he inherited from Laban the Aramean, who was known to be a scoundrel and deceiver.

“Abraham begot Isaac.” The word “holid” [begot] is in the causative form, and although this language is grammatically precise since the male begets through the female, we nevertheless find the word “yalad” [gave birth] used also for males, as in and Canaan begot and many similar instances in the Noah portion. So why does it specifically write holid here? It suggests that Abraham caused Isaac to have children and offspring, as it is written And Isaac entreated God, and it is written And God was entreated by him, implying by him and not “by her,” because the prayer of a righteous person who is the son of a righteous person [is more powerful]… According to this, because Isaac was the son of this righteous person Abraham, Abraham’s merit stood for him, and God heard his prayer. Therefore, it appropriately states Abraham begot Isaac — Abraham caused Isaac to beget offspring. And it had not yet explained how Abraham was the cause, therefore it explains this by saying And Isaac entreated God regarding his wife, for from this we derive proof for the statement Abraham begot Isaac.

“And the children struggled within her, etc.” This struggling occurred when she would pass by the entrance of the study hall of Shem and Ever — Jacob would struggle to emerge while Esau would hold him back. And when she would pass by the entrance of a place of idol worship, Esau would struggle to emerge while Jacob would hold him back. She thought that this couldn’t be the case, rather that there was only one child in her womb who wanted to emerge both at the entrances of study halls and at the entrance of places of idol worship. If so, Heaven forbid, perhaps there are two [divine] authorities. Therefore, she said Why is this happening to me? — meaning, I am like other women who worship idols, so what advantage do I have over them if, Heaven forbid, there are two authorities? Therefore, she went to inquire of the Lord — meaning, to inquire about the true existence of God, what it really is.

And God said to her: “Two nations are in your womb.” [This comes to tell her] the opposite of what you thought — there isn’t [more than] one authority. Rather, there are two children in your womb — one will be a servant of God and one will serve idols, but in fact there is only one God and none other. Some say: It is written And Isaac pleaded to God opposite his wife. This is because he was a righteous person, son of a righteous person, and therefore was confident that from his side would come worthy offspring. However, he was concerned about his wife’s side, since she was the daughter of Bethuel and sister of Laban, that some unfit offspring might come from her, since behold she was barren. The barrenness stemmed from her, and therefore he worried that unworthy offspring might come from her, just as Ishmael came from Hagar, and perhaps this was the reason for her barrenness. And when the children struggled within her — one moving to exit toward the study hall and one moving to exit toward [the house of] idolatry — through this she sensed that surely one would be righteous and one wicked. Therefore she said Why am I thus? — meaning, “I am like Hagar, and how am I any better than her? Why did I pray for this?” And she went to seek out God [asking] what benefit was there to her prayer. And God said to her “Two nations are in your womb” — this refers to Rabbi [Judah HaNasi] and Antoninus. Her prayer was beneficial in that even from Esau would come worthy offspring like Antoninus and other righteous converts, which was not the case with Ishmael, and in this way she was better than Hagar.

“And the first one came out red, entirely…” This was a sign that he would be a deceptive hunter who would deceive his father, like the hypocrites who present themselves as modest people. This relates to what is said about the future: And they shall not wear a hairy mantle to deceive (Zechariah 13:4). For such was the custom in those times that modest people would wear hairy mantles. Perhaps this custom also existed in Isaac’s time; therefore he was born with a hairy mantle [of hair], suggesting that he would [appear to] be one consecrated to God from the womb but would actually be among the group of hypocrites. This is also a sign that he would be a keeper of harlots, for the sign of this is that his hair is long, as Maimonides writes in Laws of Personal Development (Chapter 4, Law 19).

“And they called his name Esau.” He was made and completed with his hair — this was a sign that this world would be his portion and lot, and he would have no further portion in the eternal world. For the difference between acquiring these two types of perfection is this: Immediately when a person is born, they make use of all physical faculties and all five senses perform their function, and they immediately have desire and will towards all the physical desires that the material being craves and desires — eating, drinking, and other necessary bodily functions. However, regarding the intellectual faculties such as the brain, heart, and the intellect itself, a person does not use these at all on the day of their birth, for man is born a wild donkey’s colt (Job 11:12). Only as they advance in days do they open their intellectual eye and acquire this superior perfection gradually, as we explained in Genesis on the verse and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7). According to this, the fact that Esau was born completed with his hair is proof that all his primary functions would be with the material tools that are made and completed at the time of birth and do not add any increase in their essence.

“And afterward his brother came out, and his hand was grasping Esau’s heel.” This indicates that his dominion would not be immediate from the day of his birth, but rather at the end when he would come of age. This is indicated by the word “heel” [ekev] which denotes the end, just as spiritual perfection is primarily acquired towards the end of a person’s earthly days. For the end of matter, all is heard and elderly Torah scholars continue to increase in wisdom. However, on the day of one’s birth, there is no trace whatsoever of that spiritual perfection. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude that there is no reward for the righteous in this world. For the main period of acquiring perfection is in the days of old age, when one is close to the gates of death, as that is when one’s intellect continues to strengthen. So when would one receive his reward? The days of old age are not suited for receiving reward, as all desires have already ceased and the caper berry shall fail (Ecclesiastes 12:5). Thus, you must necessarily say that the hand of the perfect ones grasps the heel of Esau — meaning the end of Esau’s dominion.

And his hand was grasping Esau’s heel. This was a sign that in the future, Esau would treat the birthright with contempt, like something that a person tramples with his heel and disregards. And it was specifically that heel that Jacob would grasp — meaning, that which Esau trampled with his heel, Jacob would grasp onto. Similarly, all the “light” commandments that people trample with their heels, and which Satan counts against them, Jacob would grasp onto and fulfill them. The word “ekev” [heel] also carries the connotation of trickery and deception, suggesting that Jacob seized upon Esau’s nature of being a deceiver and hunter, whose actions were all done with trickery and deception. Therefore, Esau was not worthy of being the firstborn, since the service of God was performed by the firstborns. For this reason, Jacob grasped his heel to prevent him from emerging first, as Rashi explains that Jacob came to prevent him from being first in birth, etc. And it was for this reason that he specifically grabbed his heel, for cursed is he who performs God’s work deceitfully, and this is an appropriate allusion.

And he called his name Jacob. Regarding Esau it says they called his name Esau because many called him Esau, since evil paths are many while the good path is only one. Therefore, many agreed upon Esau’s name, but regarding Jacob, only the distinguished individuals of the generation and people of virtue would agree [on his name], and those who rise above [spiritually] are few. And you already know that the name Esau indicates worldly possessions that were made and completed immediately at his birth, as explained above. And the name Jacob indicates spiritual perfection that is acquired at the end, therefore regarding Esau it says they called [plural] and regarding Jacob it says he called [singular], and this is easily understood.

“And Esau was a man who knew hunting, a man of the field.” He would “hunt” [seduce] women from their husbands for 40 years, and according to our Sages’ interpretation (Bava Batra 16b), he would violate betrothed maidens. Therefore, he was called “one who knows hunting” — meaning he would “hunt” women from under their husbands, that is to say, women who were living under their husbands’ authority. But he would always go to hunt them in the fields, as it is said regarding a betrothed maiden for he found her in the field (Deuteronomy 22:27). Therefore, Scripture calls Esau a man of the field, for he would go to seek them there so that their voice would not be heard when they screamed. The word tzayid [hunting] here can be understood either literally as hunting/trapping, or as “hunting with his mouth” through seduction, as is the way of all seducers.

“And Jacob was a wholesome man.” According to our Sages’ interpretation (Avot DeRabbi Natan 2:5), he was born circumcised, therefore he was safeguarded from sexual immorality and was a “dweller of tents,” cleaving only to his wife and not to others. This is as it is written Return to your tents (Deuteronomy 5:27), which our Sages (Shabbat 87a) interpreted as referring to the permissibility of marital relations.

“And Isaac loved Esau because game was in his mouth.” [This was] because when his father would ask him “What do you do in the field all day?” he would defend himself saying that [he was there] to hunt game to bring sustenance for his father’s mouth. And because he was not frequently found near his mother, therefore Rebecca did not love him, and she loved Jacob who was frequently found near his mother and all her longings were for him. And it’s possible to interpret that [the word] “because” indicates timing — telling you that only at the time when he would bring game to his mouth, at that time alone did he love him. But after he had already eaten from his game, when the thing ceased, the love ceased. But Rebecca loved Jacob for no [specific] thing, and such love does not cease.

Therefore his name was called Edom. The reason he wasn’t called Edom immediately when he was born, despite being born “ruddy” [red], is because this wasn’t anything new under the sun, as many children are born with a reddish complexion because their blood hasn’t yet been fully absorbed, as in the case mentioned by Rabbi Natan (Shabbat 134). Eventually, this changes and returns to their natural appearance. Therefore, his parents thought that perhaps this red appearance was coincidental and not his natural state. However, when he said “Let me swallow some of this red, red stuff,” it’s questionable why he didn’t call the lentils by their proper name. Rather, this surely revealed his mindset — that he didn’t desire them for what they were, but rather for their red appearance. This indicated that his natural temperament was extremely inclined toward redness due to the dominance of the red bile within him. Therefore, he loved anything that corresponded to his temperament, which was anything red. This is why he was called Edom, because then it became truly known that his nature was red and he was under the influence of the planet Mars, named so because he was a man who sheds blood. This is also why it says for I am weary. Rashi explains “weary from murder,” as in for my soul is weary before murderers (Jeremiah 4:31). What was Esau revealing by saying he was weary from murder? Rather, he was certainly giving a reason for why he called the lentils “red” — because he was engaged at that time in his craft of murder, according to his nature, therefore he requested to be fed food that suited his temperament. The Akeidat Yitzchak gives two reasons for why therefore his name was called Edom, but what I have written aligns better with the plain meaning of the text.

Sell me your birthright as [this] day. In the tractate (Sanhedrin 110b), Rabbi Akiva says that the ten tribes will not return in the future, as it is said (Deuteronomy 29:27) And He cast them into another land as this day — just as the day goes and does not return, so too the ten tribes [will not return]. Similarly, Jacob said sell [it] as this day meaning that you should not retract [from the sale] just as this day which goes and does not return, so too you shall not retract, and thus “swear to me as this day.” And some say that he said sell as this day referring to the value of the birthright on that specific day, because at that time the main advantage of the birthright was that the firstborn performed the priestly service, and the service was of little value in Esau’s eyes to keep under his control. Therefore he said as this day like one who buys something that is relevant even on that day, namely the priestly service, excluding the inheritance which had not yet come into existence, for who can tell what will be?

And in Toldot Yitzchak and also in the Sefer Olat Shabbat I found that [they explain that] he said “sell it ‘like this day,’” meaning as much as the birthright is worth today. For the time of receiving the double portion of the father’s assets only comes after the father’s death, and perhaps Isaac will not have any possessions at that time. Therefore, it is legally proper to sell the birthright for a small amount, like one who purchases something uncertain — for perhaps Isaac will have possessions or perhaps not. Thus the sale should not be like buying for tomorrow, but rather like buying today. However, for all these interpretations, it is difficult [to understand] why it says kayom [like (this) day] — it should have said “kahayom” [like today]. What I have written [earlier] is the main interpretation. Another explanation: Since a person cannot transfer ownership of something that has not yet come into existence, therefore he said sell it kayom [like this day] — meaning from today and after death. Swear to me kayom [like this day] [means] that you will not retract based on the fact that the thing did not exist in the world, but rather it is like selling from today as if it exists visibly on this day. And according to the commentators we mentioned, the phrase swear to me kayom cannot be explained at all.

“Behold, I am going to die.” [Esau] agreed with Jacob’s words, as it appears that Jacob intentionally, not by chance, cooked the stew, for he knew that Esau would come from the field. His desire was to purchase the birthright from him, arguing: “Behold, you go every day among bands of wild animals, and your life hangs in balance before you, so what use is the birthright to you? For in my eyes, you are considered as dead each day.” Therefore, he made a lentil stew, which is prepared to comfort mourners, as Rashi explains on the verse (27:42) consoling himself [to kill you] — he has already drunk the cup of consolation over you. Thus did Jacob make a mourner’s meal for Esau, saying to him, “Behold, in my eyes you are as if already dead, so what use is the birthright to you?” And Esau agreed with his words and said, “Behold, I am going to die,” meaning “I am closer to death than to life, so what use is the birthright to me?” In the phrase this to me, he is as if pointing with his finger at the thing to which the birthright pertained even on that day, which was the [priestly] service that was performed by the firstborn.

“And he ate and drank, and rose up and went away, and despised.” These five words hint at the words of our Sages (Bava Batra 16b) who said that this wicked one [Esau] committed five sins on that day. “And he ate” refers to sexual immorality, as it is written call him that he may eat bread (Exodus 2:20), and except for the bread that he eats (Genesis 39:6). “And drank” refers to bloodshed, as it is written and drinks the blood of the slain (Numbers 23:24). “And rose up” indicates that he denied the fundamental principle [of faith in God], as it is written And this people will rise up and stray after the foreign gods of the land (Deuteronomy 31:16). The term “rose up” is particularly relevant here because one who walks with an upright posture is as if pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence (Berakhot 43b). “And went away” suggests that he denied the resurrection of the dead, as he said Behold, I am going to die, and similarly Job said As the cloud vanishes and goes away, so he who goes down to the grave does not come up (Job 7:9). “And despised” means that he scorned the birthright and despised the service of God. Some say that “rose up and went away” indicates that he walked here and there, to show that he was healthy, so that his sale [of the birthright] would not be considered like the sale of a deathly ill person.