ותכהין עיניו מראות, ”his eyes weakened due to seeing.” According to the plain meaning of the text, a decline in the quality of vision is a normal phenomenon in people who reach a certain age, We find such a phenomenon as occurring to the prophet Achiyah Hashiloni (Kings I 14,4). When the Torah testified that Moses at 120 had not lost any part of his vision or any other bodily functions, (Deut. 34,7) this is reported precisely because it was a miracle.

A Midrashic approach: Bereshit Rabbah 65,7 attributes Yitzchak’s failing eyesight to his being bribed with venison by his son Esau. The Torah had taught in Exodus 23,8 that one must not accept bribes and that accepting bribes “blinds the eyes of the seeing.” At that point, the Torah addresses judges and warns them not to accept bribes. Continuing with that subject, Rabbi Yitzchak said: “if someone who accept bribes from someone (such as his son who is obligated to feed him in his old age) is punished for accepting such favours, how much more is this true of someone who accepts such favours from a person who does not owe him anything!” Another approach of an homiletical nature is this: Yitzchak’s eyesight was impaired in order to enable Yaakov to obtain the blessing (Tanchuma Toldot 8). Still another approach: Yitzchak’s failing eyesight was due to the smoke from the incense his daughters-in-law offered to idols. [This leaves open why Rivkah’s eyes were not similarly affected. Maybe because she was so much younger. Ed.] Yet another reason offered in the Midrash: It was to prevent Yitzchak from leaving his house so that when people saw him they should not point to him as the father of the wicked Esau (compare Bereshit Rabbah 65,10). G’d hit on a stratagem to keep him indoors by blinding him. This would be reflected in the verse (Proverbs 28,28) “when the wicked rise up, other men go into hiding;” this prompted our sages to say that if someone raises a son who turns out to be wicked his eyes will become dimmed. They quote what happened to Yitzchak as proof for their contention. The reason that Achiyah Hashiloni lost his eyesight was that Jerobam ben Nevat, the King who placed golden calves on the road to Jerusalem to prevent his subjects from travelling to the Temple, was his star pupil. A totally different approach (Bereshit Rabbah 65,10) ascribes Yitzchak’s failing eyesight not to his age but to the fact that while he was bound on the altar he had beheld a forbidden vision of G’d, something which G’d did not want to punish him for at that stage. However, G’d decreed at that very hour that He would deprive Yitzchak of his eyesight at some time in the future. If G’d had punished Yitzchak immediately, He would have subjected not only Avraham to a test but also Yitzchak; this was not His intention at the time. This is based on the Torah writing מראות, “as a result of seeing something.” Had the Torah simply wanted to inform us that Yitzchak’s failing eyesight was a normal phenomenon it would have written מלראות, i.e. “his eyes became too weak to see.” Bereshit Rabbah 65,10 illustrates this with a parable. A King went for a private stroll behind the gate of his palace. When he raised his eyes he noticed that the son of a dearly beloved friend espied him from his window. Thereupon the King reasoned as follows: “if I kill that son, I will cause anguish to my friend. I will instead decree that the windows all be closed so that the son in question can no longer use it to spy on me.” A similar thing happened during the binding of Yitzchak. If G’d had punished Yitzchak for not closing his eyes and watching something he was not supposed to watch, He would be causing anguish to Avraham at the very moment when He was testing him. This is the meaning of Isaiah 5,23 מצדיקי רשע עקב שוחד וצדקת צדיקים יסירו ממנו, “who vindicate him who is in the wrong in return for a bribe, and withhold vindication from him who is in the right.” The prophet alludes to Yitzchak who, because of the venison he used to provide for his father, enjoyed his father’s favour. The second half of the verse refers to Moses and the fact that his eyesight was not withheld from him even at the age of 120 as he had never accepted any bribe.

ויקרא את עשו בנו הגדול, “he called in Esau his elder son.” Both his father and his mother referred to Esau as גדול, “senior.” Rivkah is on record as doing so in verse 15 when the Torah tells us where Esau kept his valuable clothes. G’d, on the other hand, referred to Esau as קטן, “junior.” We know this from Ovadiah 2 הנה קטן נתתיך בגוים, “here I have made you junior amongst the nations.” The meaning of the word גדול is justified according to the popular proverb לקבל תורא טבחא, “one hands over the fully grown ox for slaughter.” Compare Isaiah 34,6: “For the Lord holds a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom.” The prophet speaks of retribution being meted out to the descendants of Esau. Ed.] On the other hand, the reason the description “junior” when applied to Yaakov may be appropriate on occasions is that in verse 30 where he is so described by his mother, G’d retaliated in due cause by referring to Israel as ומי גוי גדול בארץ, “who is a great nation on earth such as Israel” (Deut. 4,5).

ועתה שא נא כליך, “and now, please make ready your gear, etc.” Yitzchak referred to Esau’s sword and to his bow. It is customary for the hunter to gird both his sword and to take his quiver and bow with which to hunt fowl. This, at any rate, is the plain meaning of these words. Yitzchak also hinted that the weapons Esau’s offspring would depend on were precisely these lethal instruments.

According To Bereshit Rabbah 65,13 the words שא נא כליך are a reference to the Kingdom of Babylon as we read in Daniel 1,2 ואת הכלים הביא בבלה, “and the vessels (Temple utensils) he (Nebuchadnezzar) brought to Babylon.” The word תליך, “your quiver,” refers to the Medes as we read in Esther 7,10 ויתלו את המן, “they hung Haman.” The word וקשתך, “and your bow,” is a reference to the Greek Empire as we read in Zechariah 9,13: כי דרכתי לי יהודה קשת, “for I have drawn Yehudah taut as a bow, etc.;” finally, the words וצא השדה are a reference to the Roman Empire as we read in Genesis 32,2: ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, “to the land of Seir, which will become the field of Edom, Rome.”

ועשה לי מטעמים ...בעבור תברכך נפשי, “and prepare them for me as a tasty dish,...in order that my soul may bless you.” When Yitzchak appeared to emphasize the taste of the food he asked Esau to prepare for him he did not allude to the physical enjoyment he would derive from this as an objective in itself. He meant that the pleasant frame of mind he would be in after eating such a meal would result in his enjoying a degree of holy spirit so that his blessing of his son would become effective. Our sages in Shabbat 30 are on record that the שכינה, the benevolent presence of G’d, does not rest on a person when he is inert, lazy, nor when he is sad, but only when he is in a joyous frame of mind. They base this on Kings II 3,15 (where Elisha could not muster the spirit of prophecy and he instructed that music be played) “as the musician played, the hand of the Lord came upon him, etc.” This is the reason Yitzchak was careful to speak of his נפש, “his soul” enjoying the food; he did not want Esau to think that he wanted his body to enjoy this food. You will notice this repeated emphasis on נפשי, נפשך during this entire episode. The Torah wanted us to know the real reason Yitzchak ordered מטעמים, “delicious food,” to be prepared for him. If you were to ask why he did not simply order music to be played as did the prophets, or for that matter as did King Saul when he wanted to rid himself of a melancholy state of mind, the reason is that the blessing he was about to bestow was not of a spiritual kind but of a mundane nature, commanding earthly, bodily blessings to be granted to Esau by G’d. We see that in verse 19 Yitzchak called down “dew from the sky,” assured Esau (whom he thought he was addressing) the fat parts of the earth, corn and wine to be plentiful, etc.” It is quite understandable then that the frame of mind he was trying to achieve in order to pronounce these blessings with full concentration had to be based on his having enjoyed these very benefits himself recently.

Here is an interesting excerpt of how our sages viewed the detail provided by the Torah in this whole paragraph. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 16 asks: “why did the Torah command the libations of water which had to accompany the Mussaph offerings on the festival of Tabernacles?” Answer: “In order for G’d to bestow on us the blessings of an adequate water supply, Tabernacles being the season when we pray for this, i.e. for the rains to be rains of blessing.” Why did the Torah command the Jewish people to offer the “Omer” offering, (a measure of the first ripe barley of the season)?” Answer: “In order for G’d to extend His blessing for the grain harvest which begins around this time of year.” Why did G’d command the Jewish people to offer two loaves of the new wheat harvest in the Temple on the festival of Shavuot?” Answer: “In order for G’d to bless the fruit of the trees which begin to ripen at that time of year.” These blessings, if and when they materialise, would constitute a reward for the public offerings which the Torah commanded to be brought on those festivals. The Talmud is at pains to demonstrate the מדה כנגד מדה principle, i.e. that G’d always responds to us in the manner in which we have related to Him. We must not think that a good harvest constitutes the true reward for Torah observance, G’d forbid! After all, our sages have told us explicitly in Kidushin 39 that the real reward for Torah observance is not dispensed in this life at all. Whatever blessings we experience in this life are only in the nature of a “dividend” compared to the capital reward which we will receive in the hereafter. Our sages illustrated this with the following example: when someone is especially meticulous about observing the commandment involving ציצית, fringes, he will find that in due course he will have prestigious looking garments. When someone is especially meticulous in the manner he observes the commandment involving מזוזות, (attaching a parchment containing the words of this commandment on his door posts), he will find that in due course he will become the owner of an imposing residence., etc. etc. The idea the sages conveyed is that the “dividend” will correspond in a recognisable manner to the type of commandment observed meticulously; however, the sages only spoke about the “dividend,” not about the real reward which has not been revealed as it is reserved for the hereafter.

שני גדיי עזים טובים, “two choice kids.” Rivkah specifically commanded Yaakov to bring her two choice kids. The question that is almost forced upon one is: “did Yitzchak consume two whole young kids every day?” According to Bereshit Rabbah 65,14 the marriage contract between Rivkah and Yitzchak made her a daily allowance of two young kids (so that she was not encroaching on her husband’s property when slaughtering these animals and selecting the most tasty parts thereof to prepare for him). Rabbi Chelbo, in the same Midrash, concentrates on the word טובים which appears superfluous seeing that Yaakov had no reason to select mediocre or undernourished kids. He says that the word is an allusion to what was going to prove “good,” i.e. beneficial for Yaakov and his descendants. Seeing that these kids would be the instrument of securing the blessings for Yaakov they would prove to be “good” for him. In addition, they would prove to be good for Yaakov’s children as they would be the principal sin-offerings offered on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16,5) securing forgiveness for the Jewish people, Yaakov’s descendants. “They are good for you,” i.e. Yaakov’s ascendancy over Esau who is described as an איש שעיר, “a demonic individual,” was due to the scapegoats one of which was offered to the azzazel, the spiritual equivalent of Satan-Esau by the Jewish people as something like a bribe. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 14 that the words ונשא השעיר עליו את כל-עונותם, “he (the scapegoat) will carry (figuratively speaking) upon himself all their sins,” refer to the sins committed when no warning had been received by the perpetrators. The sinners were תם, not rebellious. Seeing that Yaakov has been described as איש תם, it was appropriate that such an animal should serve as the instrument of atonement for his descendants. The delicacies which Rivkah instructed her son Yaakov to enable her to prepare for Yitzchak were not of the type of free-roaming beasts to be found in the field, but they were domesticated animals. This is why she emphasised: “please go to the flocks.” Yaakov, after all, was not a hunter; he was a homebody, a dweller of tents who despised the sword as an instrument to gain one’s livelihood. The Israelites never offered sacrifices from categories of animals which are free-roaming, not domesticated. The prophet Jeremiah characterised the distinction between the Jewish people and the Gentiles when he said (Jeremiah 10,16) “not like these is the portion of Yaakov.” The word חלק means either “portion,” or it can mean “smooth” (with different vowels). The prophet referred to Yaakov as being a smooth-skinned man (according to 27,11). As a result of these considerations, Yaakov’s descendants were never told to offer sacrifices from the free-roaming beasts but only from the domesticated beasts as the Torah said (Leviticus 1,2) אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' מן הבהמה, “anyone of you who wishes to offer a sacrifice to G’d, from the domesticated beasts, etc.”

אנכי עשו בכורך, “it is I Esau, your firstborn.” When Yitzchak asked again: אתה זה בני עשו, “are you this son of mine Esau?” and Yaakov answers אני, “that is me,” we also have to understand the words in the same manner as here. There is no question that Yaakov spoke the truth on every occasion. This is what the prophet (Michah 7,20) emphasized when he said תתן אמת ליעקב, “You gave truth to Yaakov.” A further example of Yaakov speaking the truth when it does not appear this way at first glance, is when he said: “of all that You will give me, I will give a tenth to You as a tithe” (Genesis 28,22). He had twelve sons. When you add Ephrayim and Menashe who were Joseph’s sons of whom Yaakov said: “they shall be for me just like Reuven and Shimon,” (Genesis 48,5) this makes a total of fourteen. When you exclude from these the four firstborns (1 from each of his wives) that left ten sons who were Yaakov’s as opposed to being G’d’s. We have a rule that קדש, something already holy from birth or inception, is not subject to tithing. As a result of all this one of the ten sons had to become G’d’s, i.e. reserved for sacred rather than mundane tasks. This tribe was Levi. You observe that Yaakov’s words turned out to be true (though not recognised as true at the time they were uttered). Something similar is evident in our verse. When Yaakov said אנכי עשו, בכורך, he referred to the fact that he had acquired the birthright from Esau; he meant: “I am the one who replaces your firstborn Esau.” He knew that the only reason his father wanted to bestow the blessing on Esau was that Esau was the firstborn. He therefore hinted to his father Yitzchak that Esau had long ago ceased to be the firstborn (48 years ago) when he had sold his birthright to him. Yaakov was therefore entitled to receive the blessing his father wanted to bestow at this time. He considered himself Esau’s representative in the matter, and we know that legally speaking anyone who is the representative of the principal may act on behalf of that principal. If we needed proof of this, the best proof is that angels who are acting on behalf of G’d are accorded G’d’s name even, such as the angel in Exodus 3,1 who referred to himself as אני ה', “I am the Lord.” There are numerous such examples. One of the most pronounced such examples is found in Genesis 31,13 where the angel says to Yaakov: “I am the G’d of Beit El for whom you have anointed a monument (as an altar) where you have vowed to me, etc.” Clearly, the angel was speaking in the name of his Sender. [Surely, he did not mean to imply that Yaakov had built an altar in honour of an angel. Ed.] When Yaakov said אנכי עשו, בכורך, this was equivalent to his saying: “I am Esau,-to the extent that I am your firstborn.” Had he merely said: “I am Esau,” without adding the words “your firstborn,” this would have been a lie. The reason he added the words “your firstborn” was to draw attention to the fact that the blessing about to be dispensed was meant for the firstborn. When in response to Yitzchak’s question: אתה זה בני עשו, “are you indeed my son Esau, meaning “the one I am supposed to bless,” Yaakov answered: אני, this means: “I am the one.” Had he added the word Esau, he would have lied. By saying אני he merely meant that he was the one entitled to the blessing. As to Yaakov saying immediately afterwards עשיתי כאשר דברת אלי, “I have done as you instructed me,” how could this be truthful seeing that Yitzchak had not instructed him to do anything? We need to understand the word אלי as not meaning “to me,” but as “for my benefit.” Had Yitzchak not instructed Esau to bring him venison, Rivkah would not have overheard this and would not have ordered Yaakov to obtain the blessing (albeit by subterfuge). As to Yaakov’s asking his father: (verse 19) ואכלה מצידי, “in order to eat from my venison,” seeing he had not been hunting at all, how do we explain this without making a liar out of Yaakov? The word מצידי, means “from my food, i.e. from the food I have prepared for you.” We have a parallel example in Scripture of the word ציד meaning simply “food,” in Joshua 9,14 (where the Gibeonites tricking the Israelites are described) Samuel reports ויקחו האנשים מצידם, “the men (the leaders of the Israelites) took from their (the Gibeonites’) food supply,” (in order to check if indeed these people had come from afar) etc.

קום נא שבה, “rise up please and sit.” Esau by contrast ordered his father to rise by saying: “may my father rise” (verse 32). He did not ask him to be seated. Bereshit Rabbah 65,18, addressing this difference between how the two sons spoke to their father, writes as follows: “seeing that Yaakov had addressed his father with sensitivity and respect G’d returned the compliment in a similar manner when Moses, Yaakov’s descendant used similar language when addressing G’d in Numbers 10,35 and 10,36 with the words קומה ה’ ויפוצו אויביך..... שובה ה’ רבבות אלפי ישראל, “Arise Hashem and let Your foes be scattered;....Reside tranquilly, Hashem, among the myriad thousands of Israel.” Esau, on the other hand, who had spoken in a gross and haughty manner to his father will be paid back (to his descendants) as we know from Psalms 68,2 יקום אלוקים יפוצו אויביו, “when Elokim arises, His enemies scatter.” [The meaning of this strange sounding comparison seems to be that whereas when G’d deals with the descendants of Esau He employs the attribute of Justice, when He does so at the behest of the Jewish people there will not be a negative fallout for those who implored Him to take vengeance on His enemies, seeing not only the expression קומה is used by Moses, but he referred only to the attribute of Mercy, Hashem, being involved. Ed.]

הקול קול יעקב, “the voice is the voice of Yaakov.” We are taught in Bereshit Rabbah 65,21 that “Yaakov (the Jewish people) controls (employs as his weapon) only his voice (his weapon is prayer).” The Midrash bases this on our verse here. The Midrash continues that by the same token Esau’s control extends only over his hands (he relies only on the sword), as Yitzchak had added: “and the hands are the hands of Esau.” Similarly, we have a verse in Psalms 20,8 אלה ברכב ואלה בסוסים ואנחנו בשם אלוקינו נזכיר, “They (call) on chariots, they (call) on horses, but we call on the name of the Lord our G’d.” Moses referred to this in Numbers 20,16 when he reminded the king of Edom of the experiences of the Jewish people in Egypt. He said: “We cried out to the Lord and He heard our voice.” Rabbi Abba bar Kahane said that the most prominent Gentile philosophers such as Bileam son of Beor and Avnimus the Ardi were asked how one could overcome the power of the Jewish people. They were told to go to the synagogues and check on whether the young children were busily engaged studying Torah and praising the Lord. If so, they were told, there was no chance in the world to overcome these people, as their principal weapon was their voice appealing to G’d to come to their support.

גם ברוך יהיה “he shall also remain blessed.” Yitzchak meant that Yaakov should remain blessed by all the emanations. He said these words to teach us that if someone received a blessing from the patriarchs [who had been specifically endowed by G’d with the power to bestow blessings, Ed.] he is as if he had been blessed by G’d directly. The expression chosen by our author is מפי אלוקי אמן. [This is an expression borrowed from Isaiah 65,16 meaning that the blessing —even though its fulfillment may have been delayed — stems from the G’d who can be trusted to fulfill His promises Ed.]

Tanchuma Toldot 13 concentrates on the word ויחרד יצחק חרדה גדולה, “Yitzchak experienced a great trembling,” explaining that the Torah repeats the word חרד to show that this was already the second time Yitzchak had trembled. The first time was on the altar on Mount Moriah. The reason why the Torah added the words עד מאד in this instance was to tell us that this trembling was of a more far reaching nature than the one he experienced when he thought he was going to be a sacrifice.

Bereshit Rabbah 67,2 asks why a man whose one son left the room to make room for his other son should be seized by such violent tremors. The answer given is that when Esau entered Gehinom entered with him. Rabbi Nathan, quoting Rabbi Acha said that the walls of his house started shaking. This is alluded to by the words מי אפוא in our verse and meant: “who in the future was going to ‘be baked?’” [Yitzchak had a vision of someone being burned by the fires of Gehinom and considered that it might be himself for having misjudged the character of his children so tragically. Ed.] G’d answered him that neither he nor Yaakov was going to be burned by those fires but the one הצד ציד, who had constantly been “hunting,” i.e. misleading him, Esau.

ולכה אפוא מה אעשה בני, “and as to you, where, what can I do my son? This verse teaches that Yaakov had been blessed with the blessing ויתן לך אלוקים, an all encompassing blessing, a blessing which extended both to his body and to his soul. Although, from a strictly textural point of view, such things as “corn, wine, dew, and fatness of the earth appear to be something totally physical, material, these words also contained allusions to the soul. The words ולכה אפוא מה אעשה, cannot mean that Yitzchak did not bless Esau that he should enjoy the dew of the heaven, etc. Surely he had no reason to deny him such a blessing. By assigning the dew of heaven to one person surely that does not exclude another person from enjoying a similar blessing! We must look for some exclusive factor in the blessing Yitzchak had bestowed on Yaakov while he thought that Esau stood before him! The answer therefore must be that Yitzchak bestowed a double blessing aimed at both body and soul. This being so, it left no room for Esau to receive a blessing also.

The letter ה at the end of the word ולכה, which really should have been ולך, was an allusion to the five sons Esau would father, i.e. Eliphaz, Reuel, Yeush, Yaalem and Korach. Yitzchak referred to these when he said: “what can I do for you?” He meant that they had already been made servants to Yaakov. This part of the blessing did not allow him to second-guess himself.

הנה משמני הארץ, “here from the fat part of the earth, etc.” You do not find mention of the name of G’d in the blessing Esau received, whereas the name of G’d has been mentioned in the blessings given to Yaakov when Yitzchak had said: “and may the Lord give you from the dew of the heaven, etc.” This teaches that Yitzchak did not invoke a direct bounty from G’d when he promised Esau that he would enjoy the bounty of nature, i.e.משמני הארץ יהיה מושבך , “you will reside in a part of the earth which is of the best, the most fertile.” Yitzchak left Esau’s fortunes to the vagaries of the stars, to astrological influences only. This is what he meant by מטל השמים מעל, “from the dew originating in the sky above.” The words ומשמני הארץ יהיה מושבך, are a thinly veiled hint that Yitzchak was concerned only with Esau’s life on earth; he did not foresee an afterlife for him. We have a parallel expression in Numbers 24,21 when Bileam prophesied about the future of the various nations surrounding the people of Moav and Israel and said of the Kenite איתן מושבך, “your dwelling is strong.” There too the implication is that all this will come to an end with the physical death of the person who receives the blessing. The mention of the word הנה is equivalent to an invitation, i.e. Yitzchak inviting these blessings of nature to be available to his son Esau. We find G’d Himself using the same expression when He answered Avraham’s prayer concerning the well-being of his son Ishmael in Genesis 17,2 when he said הנה ברכתי אותו, “I have prepared a blessing for a him.” Blessings introduced with the word הנה are applicable only in this terrestrial world, and in the case of Esau only at times when the Jewish people fail to carry out G’d’s will. These blessings were all subject to certain conditions. When a blessing commenced with the letter ו, i.e. ו-יתן לך האלוקים, “and the Lord may give you, etc.,” this implied “if you have met the prerequisites for this blessing to become effective.” It is clear from verse 40 in our chapter that when the prerequisites of Yitzchak’s blessing have not been met the blessing was not to materialise. This is the meaning of the words והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עולו מעל צוארך, “and whenever you are aggrieved you will cast off his yoke from your neck.” In other words, the blessings for Esau even in this world are applicable only when Israel is not deserving of its own blessings.

ועל חרבך תחיה, “and you will live (survive) by means of your sword.” This blessing was an acceptance by Yitzchak of Esau’s vocation as a hunter, a person who spends most of his time in wildernesses, uncivilised countries where danger always lurks. It was appropriate then that Yitzchak assured his son of protection against these dangers, blessing his sword as an instrument of his survival, so to speak. Esau’s patron was the planet Mars, the planet associated with warfare, bloodshed, with the sword. This is why the descendants of Esau also excelled in military conquest. Basically, Esau’s patron in the celestial spheres indulges in killing and represents the power of the sword in this world. In order to contrast Yaakov’s (Jewish) philosophy with that of Esau, the Torah legislated that the altar or Sanctuary of the Jewish people must be built without any metal instruments being used as these instruments symbolise war and bloodshed. In connection with the construction of the Tabernacle, the Torah writes in Exodus 25,3 where the materials to be donated for that structure are listed, that gold, silver and copper are to be contributed. Iron was not solicited as a contribution at all. In Kings I 6,7 we are told ומקבות והגרזן כל כלי ברזל לא נשמע בבית בהבנותו, “and hammers and axes and any other iron instruments were not heard in connection with the Temple’s being built.” The reason was that iron symbolised war and the sword which brings destruction to the world. The function of the Temple, on the other hand, is to ensure hat the world endures.

ואת אחיך תעבוד, “and you will serve your brother.” Provided Yaakov deserves his blessing. והיה כאשר תריד, “and when you are aggrieved, etc.,” when Yaakov is not in a state when he deserves his blessing. ופרקת עולו מעל צוארך, “you will cast off his yoke from your neck.” This is in line with the opinion of Onkelos who translates this verse as: “when they violate the commandments of the Torah.”

ויאמר עשו בלבו, “Esau said to himself, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 67,8 used this phrase to remind us that the wicked are always “prisoners” of the dictates of their hearts, whereas the righteous are in full control of their hearts. We have a number of verses speaking of wicked people in which the Bible uses the same expression. Examples are: Psalms 14,1: “Naval said in his heart,” (to himself), Jerobam said to himself (Kings I 12,26) et al. The word בלבו must be contrasted with the expression אל לבו, “to his heart,” as distinct from “in his heart.” When you speak “to your heart,” you are the boss. When a voice speaks “in your heart,” the heart is the boss. This why we find in Samuel I 1,13 where Chanah is praying that the wording used to describe this is וחנה היא מדברת אל לבה, “and Chanah, she was speaking to her heart.” When G’d is reported as speaking to Himself in Genesis 5,21 the wording used is also ויאמר ה’ אל לבו.

יקרבו ימי אבל אבי, “may the days of mourning for my father approach, etc.” He did not want to kill Yaakov while Yitzchak was alive as he was afraid of being cursed by his father and that the blessing he had received would turn into a curse. Seeing that Yaakov had gone into hiding and left town, Rivkah had to send a message to him [ותשלח in verse 42] to warn him of Esau’s plan.

עד אשר תשוב חמת אחיך, “until the anger of your brother abates.” This was the anger at having sold the birthright.

עד שוב אף אחיך, “until your brother’s wrath subsides.” This was a reference to the blessing Yaakov had stolen from him. This is the reason the Torah speaks of two different types of anger Esau was filled with.

קצתי בחיי מפני בנות חת, “I am fed up with my life on account of the Hittite women” (Esau’s wives). You notice that the letter ק at the beginning of the word קצתי is written is smaller script. The reason was that Rivkah foresaw with her holy spirit that the Holy Temple which measured 100 (ק) cubits in length would one day be destroyed due to he sin of intermarriage between the Israelites with local Gentile women. We find a similar occurrence of the letter ק being written in larger than usual script in Psalms 84, 4 (גם צפור מצאה בית ודרור קן לה, “even a sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself”). The Psalmist in this instance refers to the silver and gold David had amassed in preparation for the building of the Holy Temple which his son Solomon would complete. In other words, when you look forward to establishing a Temple 100 cubits long, the letter ק is written larger, whereas when one envisages the destruction of this Temple the same latter ק is written in smaller script. David had complete details of the precise measurements of the Temple which would be built by Solomon as we know from Chronicles I 28,19 “All this that the Lord made me understand by His hand on me, I give you in writing—the plan of all the works.”