ולבני הפילגשים אשר לאברהם, “and to the sons of the concubines who were Abraham’s, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 61,4, the word פלגשם is spelled without the letter י which indicates a plural ending, suggesting that Avraham had only one concubine ever, Hagar, and that he had remarried her after Yitzchak was married. Keturah was none other than Hagar whom we know from both Lech Lecha and Vayera. The reason she is here called פלגש, “concubine,” is only because she was descended from slaves. In 16,3 she was called אשה, “wife,” because Avraham had given her a כתובה, a financial settlement, something not given to concubines. Sanhedrin 21 explains the verse in a similar fashion. [Our versions of the Torah have פילגשים with an extra letter י, not without any letter י. Ed.] The reason why the Torah did not tell us whose daughter Keturah was may have been that she was a Canaanite and therefore the Torah did not want to bother with her genealogy, (Nachmanides). Had she been Egyptian, or from any nation other than the Canaanites, the Torah would have given us more details about her background. We have proof of this when the Torah detailed the genealogy of the women whom Esau and Ishmael married (compare 28,9). Seeing that Keturah was a member of an accursed nation, the Torah preferred not to go into details (for the sake of Avraham?)

Do not question me how it was possible for Avraham to marry a local Canaanite woman after he had made such a point of making even his trusted servant Eliezer swear that he would not take a woman of Canaanite descent for his son Yitzchak. The prohibition never applied to anyone with the exception of Yitzchak who was predestined to carry on the line of Avraham and to be a further link in the formation of the Jewish people. Only concerning Yitzchak had G’d said: “for through Yitzchak your seed shall be known” (Genesis 21,12). Once Yitzchak was married and the stage had been set for fulfilment of the prophecy that Yitzchak would become the founding father of the Jewish people, Avraham had no reason not to marry any woman who was qualfied as suitable for him on the strength of her personal virtues.

Bereshit Rabbah 61,4 which held that Keturah was none other than Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, Avraham’s other son, claims that the name Keturah reflects the concept of קטורת, incense, because her personal deeds were as pleasing to G’d as incense is to Him as a sacrificial offering. The approach reflected by this Midrash would account for the fact that this paragraph has been introduced with the words ויסף אברהם ויקח, “Avraham continued and married (remarried), etc.” After all, she had already been his servant before he had expelled her at the command of G’d and Sarah. The expression ויוסף has been used also in that sense in Genesis 35,26 when the Torah reports that Yehudah did not again sleep with Tamar after he had become aware of her true identity.

זקן ושבע ימים, “old and content.” Seeing that the Torah had told us previously that Avraham had been blessed by G’d in all that mattered, and that he had been the recipient of material wealth and honour of every conceivable kind, the Torah tells us that because of this he died without any regrets, did not feel that there were things he had not been able to achieve. This was in pronounced contrast to the fate of the average person of whom we are told in Kohelet Rabbah 1,34 that “when a person dies, half his aspirations in life for acquisitions went unfulfilled.” If he had once made the acquisition of say 1 million his objective, he had raised this objective as soon as he had realised it, so that when he died he had felt cheated by life. The author of Kohelet called this syndrome אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, “he who loves silver will never get enough of it (Kohelet 5,9).”

ויאסף אל עמיו, “and he was gathered to his people.” Seeing that essentially, death is a separation of phenomena namely the different raw materials which combine to make up the body, which were previously integrated, the Torah informed us that the soul was gathered into his people, i.e. did not disintegrate. The soul returned to the distinguished environment around G’d’s throne of glory. The soul itself is also known as כבוד, “honour” or “distinction.” We find this term applied to the soul in Psalms 30,13 למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום, ”in order that [my] soul sing hymns to You endlessly;” as well as in Isaiah 58,8 כבוד ה' יאספך, “the place where the כבוד of G’d is gathered in.” The choice of the term עמיו, “his people,” is analogous to expressions used in the Bible for the soul such as Exodus 31,14 where the Torah decrees a form of death of the soul with the words ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מקרב עמיה, “and such a soul shall be cut off from amongst its people,” (its fellow-souls, obviously( Innocent souls are gathered together forming a family, a nation. The same thing applied here. The expression ויגוע to describe the death of the body here may be in order to illustrate that what happened to the body of Avraham was no different than what happened to all the bodies of the animals and the people who died during the deluge where the Torah described their death (Genesis 7,21) as ויגוע כל בשר הרומש על הארץ, “all flesh which moved on the earth died, etc.” Compare also Genesis 6,17 when the deluge had been predicted, and the Torah wrote כל אשר בארץ יגוע, “everything on earth will die.” The author refers to a statement by our sages that the term גויעה for death is used only in connection with the righteous and the obvious problem of the verses quoted from the Torah’s report of the deluge where the sinners died. He says that what was meant by that statement is to be understood as a combination of גויעה plus אסיפה.

ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו , “and his sons Yitzchak and Ishmael buried him.” Seeing that Ishmael was the senior of the brothers, the Torah should have mentioned his name first. The fact that the Torah did not do so shows that our sages were correct when they said (Baba Batra 16) that Ishmael had become a penitent while Avraham was still alive and that he had acknowledged Yitzchak’s status as Avraham’s major descendant. When Yitzchak died, the Torah writes: “Esau and Yaakov his sons buried him” (Genesis 35,29). Clearly, the contrast between what is written here and what is written there must tell us something, seeing Esau was a non-penitent firstborn born of the same mother as had given birth to Yaakov. Though he had “sold” his birthright, the Torah still lists Esau there as the elder brother.

Death is described in six different forms throughout the Bible, three of which are applicable to the wicked and three to the righteous. The three terms applied to a wicked person dying are: מחייה, אבדן, כרת. Death described as מחייה is the worst of the three deaths. It is applied to the deaths of the kind of wicked people who have neither Torah knowledge nor ordinary wisdom to their credit and remained unaware of the Creator and His wonderful deeds. Such people’s death is no different than the death of animals. Their souls perish as absolutely as do their bodies. Proverbs 13,9 ונר רשעים ידעך, “and the lamp of the wicked will be extinguished,” compares the soul of the wicked person to a lamp, explaining that this soul is dependent on the body it inhabits much as the light of a lamp is dependent on its oil supply. When that supply fails the light is extinguished. This group of wicked people has neither reward nor punishment to look forward to ever. [I suppose the reference is to the time of resurrection. Ed.] Examples of such people were the people of the generation who perished during the deluge of whom the sages have said that just as they have been wiped out on earth their life expectancy in the hereafter has also been wiped out (compare Sanhedrin 108). The sages there concentrated on the words וימח את כל היקום, “He erased all creatures” (Genesis 7,23). This line refers to their destruction in this life, whereas the subsequent words וימחו מן הארץ in verse 24 in the same chapter refer to their becoming extinct in any form of life in the future. The expression אבדן when applied to the death of the wicked refers to such Israelite sinners as died without benefit of having repented their sins prior to their deaths. They are being judged after their physical death in Gehinom; this is the meaning of Leviticus 23,30 והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא. Such a death is worse than the death described by the Torah as כרת. The people guilty of the penalty called כרת are judged and after they have completed whatever length of punishment has been decreed for them, their souls are admitted to the hereafter. The three types of deaths mentioned in connection with the righteous are:

1. גויעה, אסיפה, ביאה — All three of these types of death are mentioned in connection with Avraham. This means that these three are all of the same category [as Avraham certainly died only once. Ed.] We read in 25,8 ויגוע ויאסף; we also have the Torah telling Avraham about his death in the future where G’d said to him in Genesis 15,15 ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, “as far as you are concerned you will come to join your fathers in peace.” Expressions of death involving either of the three words mentioned in connection with Avraham apply to the kind of righteous people who transfer to Gan Eden immediately upon the death of their bodies, not having to face any punishment at all. Such a death was the lot of Ishmael, of whom the Torah writes ויגוע וימת ויאסף אל עמיו. Clearly, he had become a penitent.
2. The second type of death involving the righteous is described in the Torah by the word לקיחה, “being taken away.” Such an expression is applied to people who enter Gan Eden while physically alive such as Chanoch (Genesis 5, 24) of whom the Torah wrote: “he was no longer, as G’d had taken him.” The prophet Elijah experienced a similar “death,” as he had told his disciple Elisha (Kings II 2,10) אם תראה אותי לוקח מאתך, “if you will see me taken from you, etc.”
3. The third type of death applicable to the righteous is described as “rest.” This is an expression promising the righteous participation in the resurrection, a time which our sages have described with the words מנוחה or שבת. This promise was applied to Daniel who had been told (Daniel 12,13) ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין, “But you, go on to the end; you shall rest and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.”

עטרת זקנים בני בנים ותפארת בנים אבותם, “Grandchildren are the crown of their elders, the glory of children are their parents”(Proverbs 17,6).

According to the plain meaning of this verse, Solomon informed us that the true crown of parents are their children and grandchildren. We find that Terach, Avraham’s father was crowned with his son Avraham. [Had he not had such a son, his soul would have perished. As it is, Avraham’s outstanding life resulted in Terach’s soul deriving some reflected glory so that he did not forfeit his share in the hereafter; this is one way in which the verse (25,6) describing Avraham as “joining his people may be understood.” Ed.] The parents are truly the glory of their children only when they themselves are upright, G’d-fearing, and are setting the personal example upon which their children can model themselves. When such children point with pride at their parents, the parents can experience real glory. This is why Solomon used a different word to describe the parents’ feelings, not עטרת, “crown.” Viewed superficially, a crown is something of higher rank than תפארת, glory, worn on the inside. However, when children do not follow the path set for them by their parents, it would be foolish to describe such parents as wearing their children as a crown, as something they boast about for all to see. On the contrary, in such instances the children actually shame their parents by their conduct (compare Isaiah 30,5).

A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Toldot 4) to these verses. The words עטרת זקנים refer to grandchildren. The righteous are crowned by their grandchildren. This is a reference to Avraham who was crowned by the merit of his grandson Yaakov. When Nimrod threw Avraham into the furnace, G’d saved him because of the eventual merits of his grandson Yaakov. This is the meaning of the words in Isaiah 29,22 לכן כה אמר ה' אל בית יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם, “indeed, this is what G’d said to the house of Yaakov who had redeemed Avraham.” How did Yaakov “redeem” Avraham? He redeemed him from Nimrod’s furnace. This is an example of grandparents being crowned by their grandchildren. How do children “crown” themselves with their fathers? When Yaakov had departed from Lavan and Lavan was in hot pursuit, G’d appeared to him in a dream and warned him not to say anything threatening or complimentary to Yaakov. When, eventually, Lavan caught up with Yaakov he said to him: “had it not been for the fact hat the G’d of your father had addressed me last night, etc.” (Genesis 31,29). Clearly, on that occasion it was Avraham and Yitzchak’s merit which saved Yaakov. Yaakov personally acknowledged this when he said to Lavan during their argument: “if it had not been for the G’d of Avraham and the G’d whom Yitzchak fears who was with me, you would have now sent me away empty-handed” (Genesis 31,42). Lavan was unable to carry out his evil designs due to the interference of the merit of Yaakov’s father and grandfather. Similarly, the evil design of Pharaoh to drown all Jewish boy-babies (Exodus 1,22) boomeranged when G’d drowned Pharaoh and his chariots in the sea (Exodus 15,4). Many hundreds of years later when G’d thwarted the decree of Haman to wipe out all the Jews, it was again the merit of the patriarchs which helped reverse his plan (Esther 9,1). When Bileam wanted to curse the Jewish people and G’d turned his intended curses into blessings (Deut. 23,7), this too was due to the merit of the patriarchs. This is the meaning of Isaiah 54,17 כל כלי יוצר עליך לא יצלח, “No weapon formed against you shall succeed.” Our sages in the Tanchuma there quoted the Roman Emperor Hadrian as having said to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that the power of the sheep which stands (has managed to survive) amongst 70 wolves (the Gentile nations) is very great indeed. To this observation Rabbi Joshua replied that it is the power of the shepherd who wards off the attacks against this sheep and breaks the power of the attackers which is great. He quoted the verse from Isaiah 54,17 to support his words. The prophet there referred to the Gentiles who will perish from this world. This is also implied in Jeremiah 2,3 קדש ישראל לה' ראשית תבואתה כל אוכליו יאשמו רעה תבוא עליהם נאום ה'. “Israel was holy to the Lord, the first fruit of His harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty, disaster will befall them- declares the Lord.” Our history is full of proof that those who tried to eliminate us were eliminated instead. A few examples are: Pharaoh, Amalek, Siserah, Sancheriv, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, and many others like them. This is why the prophet compared Israel to something sacred, like an offering. When a non-priest consumes a portion of that which is sacred, the penalty for such people is death. This is why all the Gentile nations who at one time or another have “eaten” part of the Jewish people will pay for that with their very existence. The reason the Torah had to repeat here that Avraham had fathered Yitzchak was that there were a number of scoffers who attributed Sarah’s pregnancy to her stay at the palace of Avimelech. G’d arranged for Yitzchak to look extraordinarily like his father Avraham in order to discredit the rumours circulated by these scoffers.

ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק , “and these are the descendants of Yitzchak the son of Avraham; Avraham fathered Yitzchak.” Tanchuma Toldot 6 explains that we find an interesting parallel between Avraham and Yitzchak on one side and David and his son Kilav. When David’s messengers had gone to see Naval and asked for some material assistance, (Samuel I 25,11) the latter replied: “Who is David Who is the son of Yishai? There are many slaves today who run away from their masters....Should I take my water, my bread, and my meat, which I slaughtered for the benefit of my shearers and give it to people whom I do not know whence they have come?” When David heard this he made ready with his men to assault Naval and to take what they wanted. At that point, Avigayil, Naval’s wife, hastened to take 200 loaves of bread, two jars of wine, five dressed sheep, etc., and she told her servants to carry these ahead of her as a gift offering for David and his men. (Avigayil succeeded in persuading David not to act violently against her husband.) The Book of Samuel continues (verse 38) to describe that ten days after this event Naval took sick with a stroke and died. Upon hearing this, David proposed marriage to Avigayil his widow. After Avigayil accepted his proposal, David did not sleep with her for three months in order to avoid the suspicion that any child born to them would be suspected as having been fathered by Avigayil’s first husband. After the three months had passed, David had marital relations with Avigayil and she conceived and gave birth to a son named כלאב, meaning כולו אב “he looked entirely like his father (David),” to preclude anyone thinking that he had been fathered by Naval.

ויעתר יצחק לנכח אשתו כי עקרה היא, “Yitzchak prayed in the presence of his wife seeing she was barren.” Actually, the Torah should have commenced this verse with the statement ותהי רבקה עקרה וגו', “seeing that Rivkah was barren, Yitzchak prayed, etc.” The reason the Torah first mentioned the prayer was to tell us that this was Yitzchak’s main concern. If the prayer had been evoked only by Rivkah’s being barren, this would make the barrenness the major element in this verse. The Torah wanted to be certain that we appreciate that the major element of what the verse tells us is that Yitzchak prayed and that the prayer was effective. In other words, the only reason G’d had allowed Rivkah to be barren until that time was to get Yitzchak (and Rivkah) to pray. Her barrenness was merely a detail in bringing about Yitzchak’s prayer. A major reason why Rivkah had been barren in the first place is explained by our sages in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,32: “Why were the matriarchs barren? Because G’d longs for the prayers of the righteous.” This teaches the powerful effect prayer has. It is so powerful that it can bring about changes in the laws of nature. This is also the reason the Torah uses the unusual word עתר to describe Yitzchak’s prayer. We would have expected either ויתפלל, or ויצעק, or other expressions associated with the offering of a prayer. Why did the Torah write ויעתר?. Our sages explain this in the first chapter of Tractate Sukkah. The question is asked why the prayer of the righteous is compared to an Attar, “a shovel, a pitchfork?” The answer given is that just as a pitchfork turns the floor of a threshing ground upside down (after its use), so the prayers of the righteous succeed in changing the mind of G’d from an intention to employ the attribute of Justice (which implies sorrow for the person at whom it is directed) to the decision to use instead the attribute of Mercy. Technically speaking, the (use of) the pitchfork brings the grain which is on the floor to the top of the heap while placing the grain which was on the top to the bottom. In a similar manner the prayer of the righteous raises certain matters which had been at the bottom of G’d’s priorities to the fore, while submerging other considerations of G’d which had been in the forefront of His thinking until the righteous offered a prayer. As a result, G’d’s bounty which had been held back in an inaccessible region is moved to a region from which it is released for man’s benefit forthwith. The word ויעתר is also related to מחתרת, i.e. from the verb חתר, “dig under,” “subvert,” and is similar to עתר. This would be similar to Sanhedrin 103 where Chronicles II 33,13 dealing with G’d’s efforts to accept King Menashe’s repentance is described. We read in that verse ויתפלל אליו ויעתר לו וישמע תחנתו, “He (Menashe) prayed to Him, and He (G’d) allowed Himself to have His priorities changed, He listened to his prayer, etc.” The fact that before the words: “He listened to him,” we find the words ויעתר לו, indicates that some transformation had to occur in G’d’s thinking before He decided to listen to this prayer.

You should remember that three out of our four matriarchs were naturally barren. The Torah wrote concerning Sarai ותהי שרי עקרה, (Genesis 11,30); concerning Rivkah it says here כי עקרה היא, “for she was barren.” The Torah also used the term עקרה, “barren” in connection with Rachel in Genesis 29,31.

There is a simple reason for the barrenness of these three women. There were two reasons why Sarah was barren; I) in order that Ishmael should be fathered by Avraham. After all, she herself is on record as saying “G’d has prevented me from giving birth, etc., please sleep with my maid servant.” (Genesis 16,2). 2) This was in order for G’d to change her name and to demonstrate an important lesson. The name change was essential in order to teach her and all of us that just as G’d used the letter ה to create the physical part of the universe, so He uses this same letter to bring about changes in the laws of nature in that universe. The potency of the horoscopic influences on man’s (or woman’s) life was nullified by the substitution of the letter ה' in Sarai’s name (compare commentary on Genesis 2,4 בה-בראם). As to Rivkah’s barrenness, we know that Yitzchak was forty years old when he married her and that he was sixty when Esau and Yaakov were born. In other words, she lived with him for twenty years during which no mention is made of their praying to have children. G’d arranged her barrenness in order that Avraham should not experience the disappointment of seeing that one of his grandchildren became disloyal to his teachings. After all, G’d had assured Avraham (Genesis 15,15): “you will join your fathers in peace (of mind).” We have already pointed out that Ishmael became a complete penitent during Avraham’s lifetime. According to Baba Batra 16, Esau began his career as a wicked person on the very day Avraham died (and he sold his birthright). The reason Rachel remained barren for a few years was so that Bilhah and Zilpah could give birth to four of the twelve tribes (Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher) prior to her becoming pregnant with Joseph.

ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה, “the children quarreled inside her.” This particular pregnancy was totally different from all the pregnancies experienced by women up until that time. It was quite unknown for women who gave birth to twins to experience turbulence within their wombs during their pregnancies. The fact that these fetuses had begun to behave in such a manner already while inside the womb made Rivkah very distraught. She had her worst fears confirmed when G’d told her through His prophet Shem (Bereshit Rabbah 63,7) that she was going to give birth to founders of two nations whose outlook on life would be totally different from one another. He assured Rivkah that she, personally, had no cause to worry about the physical phenomenon of that tumult within her.

A Midrashic opinion (Avodah Zarah 11) draws attention to the unusual spelling of the words גיים in our verse. The correct spelling should have been גוים. This prompted Rabbi Yehudah to see a hint that there would be two individuals belonging to these two nations, i.e. Emperor Antoninus and Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, whose wealth would be such that all manner of vegetables which were not in season would nonetheless be served on their tables all year. At first glance such a statement is difficult to reconcile with the statement made by the same Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi on his deathbed (compare Ketuvot 104), that he had never permitted himself to use his wealth to indulge himself or to otherwise enjoy the pleasures of life on earth, but had made do with absolute necessities only. We need to understand the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah as describing what Rabbi Yehudah served his guests, not what he himself partook of. Antoninus was a descendant of Esau, of course. He had studied Torah secretly with Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi so that his servants and other members of his Empire would not become aware of this. According to tradition (also quoted in Avodah Zarah 10), Antoninus, (while governor of Palestine) had a subterranean room which was linked by a passage to the home of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. He would take two slaves with him every day. He would kill the first one at the entrance to the house of Rabbi Yehudah, and the second one at the entrance to his own palace so that there would not be any surviving witnesses to his visits at the home of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi. He requested of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi that at the pre-arranged times when he would visit, Rabbi Yehudah should not have anyone else present at the house. It happened that on one occasion Rabbi Chanina bar Chama happened to be at the house of Rabbi Yehudah when Antoninus arrived. He became very agitated and complained: “did I not tell you not to have anyone present when I come?” Rabbi Yehudah replied that the apparition in the guise of Rabbi Chanina was not a human being. Thereupon Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehudah: “tell this man to get me the slave who stands on guard at the entrance.” Rabbi Chanina, aware that this slave was going to be killed, deliberated what to do. When he came to the place from where he was supposed to get the slave he found that the slave was already dead. He meditated on what to do, saying to himself that if he told Antoninus that the slave was already dead, he would accuse him of having murdered him. At the same time there is a rule that one need not return to the sender in order to bring bad news. On the other hand, he reasoned, if he were simply to leave the dead man and not go back to the house of Rabbi Yehudah at all, this would be a disgrace, and an insult to the Roman Empire. So he decided to pray. As a result of his prayer the dead guard came to life again and he sent him to his master. Thereupon Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehudah: “I am aware that even relatively insignificant Jews possess the power to bring the dead back to life. Nonetheless, I wish that when I come here no other living soul shall be present.” Antoninus used to provide Rabbi Yehudah with a variety of personal services as well as feed him if necessary on a daily basis. He even expressed a wish to be able to serve Rabbi Yehudah in the hereafter as his mattress. One day he asked Rabbi Yehudah if he could expect to be granted life in the hereafter. Rabbi Yehudah answered in the affirmative. Antoninus questioned this, quoting Ovadiah 18 “there will not be anyone remaining of the house of Esau.” Rabbi Yehudah replied that this verse speaks only of people who live in accordance with the principles of Esau. Thereupon Antoninus quoted another verse, this time from Ezekiel 32,29: “There are Edom, her kings and her princes” [The entire passage deals with the descent to Gehinom of all these Gentile people. Ed.] Rabbi Yehudah replied that the verse referred to “her kings,” but not to “all her kings.” He added that Ezekiel had specifically excluded Antoninus as well as a certain Ketiah bar Shalom from his prediction.

והנה תומם בבטנה , “and here there were twins in her womb.” The word תומם, “twins,” is spelled defectively, with the letters י and א missing. The reason for the defective spelling is that one of Rivkah’s children was going to be a wicked person. The next time the birth of twins is mentioned in the Torah, i.e. the sons of Tamar and Yehudah, Peretz and Zerach, the word is spelled properly, i.e. תאומים, seeing that both of the sons Peretz and Zerach were going to be righteous.

ויצא הראשון אדמוני, “the first one emerged all reddish looking.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,8 the performance of the commandment to take the Lulav and Etrog on the first day of Sukkot (Leviticus 23,40) and to give thanks to G’d for His bounty is the reason that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first, demands payment (for their sins) “from the first one,” “builds for them first,” “brings them (to the Holy Land) first”. The fact that G’d appeared to the Jewish people first is derived from Isaiah 44,6 אני ראשון ואני אחרון; the fact that G’d enacts payment from the first one, i.e. Esau first, is derived from our verse i.e. ויצא .הראשון אדמוני“He builds for them first,” is a reference to the Holy Temple as we know from Jeremiah 17,12 כסא כבוד מרום מראשון, “O Throne of Glory exalted from the first.” The fact that G’d brings the redeemer to the Jewish people first, is attested to by Isaiah 41,27 ,ראשון לציון הנה הנם ולירושלים מבשר אתן, “the things predicted to Zion originally, behold they are here! And again I send a herald to Jerusalem.” [I am not sure why our author brings this Midrash unless it is to demonstrate that the word ראשון, “first,” does not necessarily imply an advantage, such as when G’d demands an accounting for his sins from Esau first because he emerged first from Rivkah’s womb. Ed.]

כלו כאדרת שער, “all of him looking like a fur coat.” The meaning is as if the Torah had written כלו שער, כאדרת, “his entire body covered with hair, just like a mantle.” Seeing he was born with this much hair, people called him איש שעיר, “a hairy man” (27,11). The word שעיר is an all encompassing expression which includes the demonic qualities which are attributed to the deities called שעירים, which the Torah enjoins us from offering sacrifices to (Leviticus 17,7.) The author quotes an unidentifiable Midrash according to which the strength of that demonic power is concentrated in the hair which covers its heart. At the time of the redemption, (arrival of the Messiah), G’d will make the demonic power collapse when He blows the Shofar heralding the redemption, as we know from וה' אלוקים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערת תימן, “and My Lord G’d will sound the ram’s horn, and advance in a stormy tempest” (Zechariah 9,14). [The author appears to substitute the letter ש for the letter ס in the word סערת, something quite common. Ed.]

ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,10 after Esau attained the age of 13 he frequented houses of idolatry while Yaakov frequented Torah academies. Our sages in the same Midrash also said that Rivkah had experienced similar experiences during her pregnancy. Whenever she passed either one of the aforementioned institutions one of the fetuses within her seemed anxious to emerge. There is a verse in Jeremiah 1,5 בטרם אצרך בבטן ידעתיך, “even before I formed you in the womb I already appointed you (as a prophet).” From this verse we see that distinct prenatal tendencies are not mere figments of our sages’ imagination. Psalms 58,4 זרו רשעים מרחם, “the wicked are defiant even while in the womb,” confirms this piece of psychological insight.

ויהי עשו יודע ציד איש שדה, ויעקב איש תם יושב אהלים, “Esau became a hunter, a man of the field, whereas Yaakov was a simple man a dweller in tents.” This verse conveys the fact that though the brothers were twins they had totally different interests in life. Esau pursued the material pleasures available in life whereas Yaakov was of a philosophical bent. This is why the Torah characterises the difference in the two phrases that Esau was a man of the field, i.e. a man dedicated to the earth, the physical. This is why later on he is called אדום, a word closely reminiscent of אדמה, earth.

It is a well known fact that if man dedicates himself to the pursuit of the pleasures which life has to offer, this estranges him to G’d and makes it difficult for him to serve the Lord at the same time as he is busy pursuing his major concerns. Making earthiness a priority must result in making godliness a secondary concern. We see this best reflected when Esau sold the birthright and the Torah (25,34) describes this in a few words: ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך, ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “he ate, he drank, he arose and went of his way; thus Esau demonstrated his disdain for the birthright.” Anyone who is characterised by this negative virtue will eventually find himself deceived. [I believe the author means that sooner or later such people will be disappointed in what they had expected out of life. Ed.] In the case of Esau we find him describing himself as deceived twice when he said to his father (27, 36) “and he (Yaakov) has tricked me twice, he took my birthright and now he has taken my blessing.” Whatever pleasures and satisfactions such people do experience are only temporary and the time will come when they rue their former lifestyle and they cry out bitterly when they realize that “life” has deceived them. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 5,3-4: “for the lips of an immoral woman drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil. But in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.” This is precisely the lifestyle of Esau and all those who support him. The philosophy and lifestyle of Yaakov are diametrically opposed to this, for someone characterized as איש תם and as יושב אהלים is the antithesis of someone described as יודע ציד, איש שדה. Not only this, whatever Esau was willing to give up, i.e. to sell, Yaakov was anxious to buy. When the Torah speaks about the dish of lentils, something round, always returning to its beginning, this merely illustrates the concept of the pursuit of the pleasures of this world. This physical universe and all the phenomena in it are constantly being recycled, as Solomon said already at the beginning of Kohelet: “there is nothing new under the sun.” What is perceived as progress, eventually is seen to be merely a retread of something old. Yaakov who had perceived this was therefore anxious to sell such “merchandise,” in return for something which promised enduring progress. The instrument of securing this spiritual progress is the birthright, as it represents the privilege of performing service for the Lord in sacred precincts.

Know that seeing the Torah had described both Esau and Yaakov already as איש, i.e. adult, mature in years, it is clear that they must have been at least 13 years of age at the time Yaakov bought the birthright from his twin brother. If, as the Midrash told us, Avraham died five years early in order not to experience how Esau displayed his disdain for spiritual values, this means that the brothers were 15 years old at the time the sale of the birthright took place. Avraham was 160 years old at the time Yaakov and Esau were born. He died at the age of 175, i.e. at a time when his grandchildren were 15 years of age.

There is also an allusion in our verse that people such as Esau are slated for Gehinom whereas people such as Yaakov are destined for Gan Eden. We read in Bereshit Rabbah 65,22 that when Yaakov entered Yitzchak’s room in order to receive the blessing, Gan Eden entered with him. On the other hand, when Esau entered the same room a little later, Gehinom entered with him. We have a Midrash Tanchuma Parshat Tzav, 2 which expresses a similar sentiment when the author writes that the words היא העולה, ”it is the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 6,2), are a reference to a nation which is totally אדומית, wrapped up in earthly concerns, and which elevates itself as is written in Ovadiah 4, “even if you rise as high as the eagle I will bring you down, על מוקדה, on the site of the altar where the fire is burning.” The word is a reference to the fires of Gehinom in the hereafter. The words of Daniel 7,11 apply to such people ויהבת ליקדת אשא, “and consigned to the fire’s burning.”

ויעקב איש תם, “and Yaakov was a straightforward man.” Actually, the Torah should have written: ויעקב היה איש תם. This would have corresponded to the line ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד, or ויהי הבל רועה צאן (Genesis 4,2). On the other hand, there too Kayin’s vocation is described in the terms וקין היה עובד אדמה, “Kayin had become a tiller of the soil.” Why these changes in describing the development of the respective people and their vocations? The expression היה, “he was,” or “he had become,” is used in connection with Esau as he had been called “Esau” already at birth and he remained Esau until the day he died. Just as Esau’s name did not change so his character did not undergo any change either. Not so Yaakov, who eventually qualified for the name Israel (Genesis 35,10). This is why the word היה, or ויהי would not have been appropriate in connection with describing his vocation. When G’d changed his name, He emphasised the permanence of that change by using the very word יהיה, (a form of הויה) which the Torah had avoided using earlier.

Furthermore, actually the Torah should have written: ויעקב איש אמת, “and Yaakov was a man of truth.” His principal characteristic was אמת, “truth.” This is what Michah was at pains to point out when he said (Michah 7,20) תתן אמת ליעקב, “Grant truth to Yaakov, kindness to Avraham, etc.” Instead the Torah added the word תם to describing Yaakov as a יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents,” a student of Torah, in order to already hint at that quality אמת by attributing to him two of the three letters in that word. The letters תם also allude to the quality of being מכריע, reconciling apparent contradictions and deciding on a certain path. The quality is known as תיומת. We encounter the word in connection with the adhesion between two leaves in the Lulav. The quality is one which reconciles opposites and pursues a middle of the way between the two extremes. In this instance Yaakov combined the major characteristics of his grandfather Avraham, i.e. חסד, love, and the major characteristic of his father i.e. פחד or גבורה, and he moulded them into a viable combination. This is why he succeeded in raising 13 children all of whom remained true to his heritage. You are aware that the numerical value of the letters in the name Yaakov (182) when combined with 4 letters of the Ineffable Name (each counted as 1) amount to 186. At the same time, the numerical value of the letters in that Ineffable Name when squared also amount to 186. This may be the reason why Rabbi Akivah said that קוף=the name of G’d.

יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents.” The plain meaning of the text is that Yaakov spent his time in the tents of Shem and Ever, i.e. in their academies.

A kabbalistic approach to the words: The reason the Torah speaks about the word “tents” in the plural, i.e. אהלים, seeing hat most people dwell in only one tent at a time, is that Yaakov demonstrated that one could live in the tent of the “higher” regions and in the tent of the “lower” regions of the universe simultaneously; We have been taught already (Bereshit Rabbah 68,12) that the countenance of Yaakov is engraved on the throne of G’d. In view of this, the expression יושב אהלים (404) is equivalent to the numerical value of the words יושב הכסא, “The One who sits on the Throne.”

ויאהב יצחק את עשו כי ציד בפיו, “Yitzchak loved Esau for he had a taste for game.” The Torah conveys to us here that the reason Yitzchak loved (preferred) Esau was not because he was the firstborn, but because he used to enjoy the venison Esau brought home from the field. This teaches us that the wicked Esau hunted on two tracks. He used to hunt the animals in the field and the desert, true to the Torah’s description of him as an איש שדה. At the same time, he also used to “hunt” his father’s mind, i.e. to mislead him as a hunter does his prey, making Yitzchak believe that he was pious. This is the double entendre of the words כי ציד בפיו, for “the art of hunting was with his mouth.”

Our sages in Tanchuma Toldot 8 have said that Esau used to ask his father such questions as “does salt have to be tithed?” This would impress Yitzchak favourably and he would wonder how careful Esau was with the performance of all the commandments. When he used to ask Esau: “my son where have you been today?” Esau would reply that he had been in the house of study. He would proceed to tell his father what he had learned on that day. The Holy Spirit, when hearing such lies, would proclaim: “When he speaks graciously, do not believe him; for there are seven abominations in his heart.“ (Proverbs 26,25) Furthermore, the sages in the same Midrash derived from this wording that the reason Esau went hunting and was feeding the venison he hunted to his father was only in order to secure the blessing for himself. This is the mystical dimension of the Torah writing in Deut. 16,19 “for the bribe blinds the eyes of the wise.” In connection with Yitzchak, the Torah had written “his eyes had become weak from seeing” (Genesis 27,1). Just as Esau was a man paying bribes, so his descendants were willing to receive bribes. The Torah (25,30) reports Esau as saying to Yaakov הלעיטני נא, “please feed me, etc.” Concerning this David said in Psalms 68,31 מתרפס ברצי כסף , “till they come cringing with pieces of silver.” They (Esau’s descendants) derive their power from their celestial counterpart (the scapegoat mentioned in Leviticus 16 offered to Azzazel) who accepts this offering as a bribe by the Jewish people on the Day of Atonement. (compare commentary on Leviticus 16,7). In a similar manner every single nation derives whatever power sustains it from its celestial representative at the court of the angels. It is the same source from which the original serpent had derived its power and ability to seduce Eve. Once it was able to seduce, it was capable of spilling the blood of its victims. Such seducers became the cause of all those who choose to eat blood. Such forces are diametrically opposed to the Israelites who are circumcised (i.e. had given up their blood for G’d instead of consuming it), and who therefore abstain from eating any kind of blood. When an accuser of the Jewish people wants to seduce us, one of the first laws he wants us to break is that of circumcising our male children. Once this law has been broken the consumption of blood is only a small step. [It appears that the author refers to philosophical attempts at converting Jews to Christianity seeing that the Moslems abide by circumcision. Ed.] Adhering to these two laws (circumcision and the prohibition to eat blood), is therefore cardinal in our effort to stave off conversion and this is why the prophet said of the descendants of Esau (Ezekiel 15,6) אם לא דם שנאת, ודם ירדפך, “surely you have hated blood (the prohibition of it) and blood will pursue you.” The prophet predicted Esau’s (Edom) eventual destruction because as descendants of Avraham they rejected the commandment of circumcision as they hated to lose blood (instead of consuming it) This is also the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 48,10 וארור מונע חרבו מדם,”cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood.” (The prophet speaks of the blood of circumcision).

ויזד יעקב נזיד, “Yaakov cooked a dish.” We would have expected the Torah to write that Yitzchak cooked such a dish seeing it was on account of mourning for his father Avraham. Seeing that the mourner must not eat what he has cooked himself, this dish had to be prepared by a third party, i.e. Yaakov. It was a dish of lentils as it was the custom to eat such a dish in the house of mourners. The lentil is round and closed like a wheel, and it thereby symbolizes the recurring nature of physical life on earth which ends where it began, i.e. “dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return.” As the lentil has no “mouth,” opening, so the mourner is not to open conversations (or speak at all). Avraham had died on this day. He had been fortunate to have been spared seeing one of his grandchildren despise the birthright and to forsake his teachings. According to Baba Batra 16 Esau committed five different sins on that very day. 1) He slept with a girl who was betrothed to another man. 2) He killed a human being. 3) He scoffed at the idea of resurrection. 4) He denied the existence of G’d, and reward and punishment. 5) He despised the birthright. The Talmud finds allusions in Scripture to support all these allegations: The Torah describes Esau here as ויבא עשו מן השדה, and in connection with the prohibition of sleeping with a girl who is betrothed to another, the Torah worded this in Deut. 22,27 כי בשדה מצאה “for he found her in the field.” The choice of the words: “in the field” is not arbitrary but an allusion to what happened here. The allusion to Esau committing murder is based on the words here כי עיף אנכי, “for I am exhausted,” and the verse in Jeremiah 4,31 כי עיפה נפשי להורגים, “for my soul is exhausted from killing.” The allusion to Esau denying resurrection of the dead is based on Esau saying here הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am going towards death,” and Job 7,9 כלה ענן וילך כן יורד שאול לא יעלה, “as a cloud fades away, so whoever goes down to Sheol does not come up.” As to Esau denying the existence of G’d and the system of reward and punishment, the sages point at the expression in our paragraph where Esau said למה זה לי, “what good is all this for me,” and the words זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will glorify him;” this was the affirmation of G’d sung by the Jewish people after they had emerged from the sea and the Egyptians had been drowned in it (Exodus 15,2). The fact that Esau despised the birthright needs no allusion as it is spelled out right here.

הלעיטני נא, “please let me gulp down, etc.” he spoke foolishly by using such an expression which is normally applied to the manner in which camels eat their food (compare Shabbat 155). This prompted our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 13 to say that “the righteous eat their food in order to sate their biological needs, i.e. לשובע, whereas the belly of the wicked always feels unfulfilled.” You may contrast the conduct of an Eliezer, Avraham’s servant, with that of Esau. The former said הגמיאיני נא מעט מים, “please let me sip a little water(24,17),” whereas Esau said: “let me gulp down!” When the sages spoke of the righteous they referred to Eliezer, whereas when they spoke about the belly of the wicked, they referred to Esau.

מן האדום האדום הזה, “from this reddish looking stuff;” the lentils were red, or they were spiced in red looking spice-dishes so that they reflected the colour of the container they were in. Seeing that Esau could not identify the exact nature of the dish he referred to it only by colour, calling it “this red stuff.” Subsequently people who heard about this called him אדום, “the red one,” making fun of his boorishness. They referred to someone who traded a valuable birthright for a mess of some reddish-looking stuff with sarcasm.

Another way of looking at our verse: the fact that Esau repeated the word אדום, red, had to do with the discipline of astrology. The planet Mars is (looks) red and as such is a symbol of war and bloodshed. According to the scientists the red-coloured fruit also derives some of its power from that planet. The same applies to certain red-coloured gemstones such as rubies. In other words, the planet Mars extends influence over some of all three categories of phenomena in our world, the living creatures, the plants, as well as the inert. This planet (horoscope) was Esau’s especially, and that is why later on Yitzchak blessed him with a power he already possessed, i.e. the power of the sword. When he asked Yaakov to give him from the “red” dish he meant that this dish more than any other was germane to his character. He expected to renew his flagging spirits from a red dish faster than from any dish of another colour. Esau came by his inclination to shed blood naturally as he had been born under that horoscope.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, in Bereshit Rabbah 63,12 expanding on that theme, said that just as Esau himself was red, so his food was red, his country was red, his clothing was red and when the time comes that he has to give an accounting for his crimes the payment demanded from him will be red, i.e. blood. Mount Seir, which was the land allocated to Esau was also known as ארץ אדום, “the red land” (Genesis 32,4). The Midrash quotes verses documenting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement.

מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי, “sell me your birthright effective today!” At that time, the privileges connected with the birthright did not include a double portion in the father’s inheritance as was legislated in the Torah later on. The principal value of the birthright consisted in filling the father’s position of head of the family once the father passed away. It was more a position of honour than of immediate financial advantage. It also was accompanied by a certain amount of authority within the family, of course. According to Nachmanides, once the father had died, the firstborn would be in charge of the family’s estate. This is what Esau referred to when he said: “what good is the birthright to me as my pursuits will lead to my death,” i.e. I will never outlive my father to reap the benefits of my potential privileges. This then is the meaning of the sequence: “he ate, he drank, he went (on his way), i.e. Esau despised the birthright.” He demonstrated his lifestyle by the manner in which he negated the value of the birthright for him.

ויעקב נתן לעשו לחם ונזיד עדשים, “and Yaakov had given to Esau bread and a dish of lentils, etc.” At this point in the story the Torah reveals the nature of the dish Yaakov had cooked when Esau arrived home when we read: “Yaakov was cooking a dish.” It would have been more appropriate to mention the kind of dish Yaakov had been cooking already at the beginning of the paragraph and to continue later that Yaakov had given Esau a dish of lentils. It is possible that the Torah chose this sequence in order to describe the haughtiness of Esau as well as his lack of etiquette and regard for others; this is why the Torah did not mention what precisely Yaakov had been cooking until it had told us Esau’s whole range of reactions to what he found at home on that day. As long as we did not know what kind of ordinary dish Yaakov had cooked, we could have credited Esau with demanding the exotic dish that his brother had been preparing and that this had been the reason that he was so willing to trade his birthright for it. When the Torah, finally tells us at the end of the paragraph the nature of the dish for which Esau traded his birthright, it wanted to show us how Esau had related to it in the first place.