This Land is NOT your Land, This Land is MY Land

Parshat Toldot 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 There are a number of three-word verses in the Torah. Some of them would seem to require no commentary, as only names are mentioned. See, for example, 25:14, when three of Yishmael’s children are listed, “Mishma, Duma, Masa.” 35:24 – “Rachel’s children: Yosef and Binyamin” (four Hebrew words). See also Shmot 1:2-4, when the 11 tribes who descended to Egypt are simply listed.

 Fascinatingly, some of the commentaries go off on lengthy expositions of either what to take from the verse or how to understand the three-word verse.

 Bereshit 46:23 is a great example: “And the children of Dan: Chushim.”

 Another classic is in Yaakov’s blessing to his sons, when he cries out, “I pray that God will help you” – “lishu’atkha kiviti Hashem” (49:18).

 In our parsha, we have a seemingly inconsequential verse alerting us to Yitzchak’s settling in the city of Gerar – “Vayeshev Yitzchak B’Gerar.” (26:6) The background to the verse is that Yitzchak seemed to follow his father’s footsteps in settling in Gerar on account of a famine. God affirmed for Yitzchak that the blessing bestowed upon Avraham would be transferred to Yitzchak in his father’s merit. And now he is settling in Gerar, about to use the same rouse that his parents used, declaring himself and his wife to be siblings in order to avoid being killed in anticipation of his wife being taken to King Avimelekh’s harem.

"Stolen" Blessings

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

            

My best teachers taught that when a question bothers you, seek from everywhere you can until you find a satisfactory answer. This is one of the reasons why I have found real Chumash questions to be much better answered when learning what all the commentaries say, versus through just reading Rashi or Ramban. One of my rebbeim used to mock the idea that there could be a class on "Ramban Al HaTorah." As if to suggest that one commentary is the end-all in studying Chumash.

            

Please don't misunderstand. Every commentary has an approach, and every commentary can only write so much. This is more of a reminder to look beyond a small circle of learning and try to glean the full picture. And perhaps even come up with a novel interpretation – a chiddush!

            

An objective observer can't help feeling sorry for Eisav, standing and then perhaps falling to his knees before his father after being informed that his brother Yaakov has already come and taken the coveted blessings of the firstborn.

            

It's a sad, almost pathetic scene, in which a grown man, age 63, is weeping before his 123 year old father, screaming, crying, throwing the biggest fit, before resorting to threats to kill his brother when the old man dies.

            

Was Yaakov a thief and therefore in the wrong? Was Eisav wronged? Or, perhaps, are we going about this the wrong way? (Disclaimer: Ramban disagrees with most of what follows!)

            

The Hadar Zekeinim anthology notes that the way the Torah is transcribed makes the events seem consecutive, as opposed to simultaneous. In fact, at the same time that Yitzchak was lamenting his own flaws, trying to figure out how he could be duped into blessing his younger son, Eisav was thinking aloud, saying, "He took my birthright."

"Who took your birthright?" Yitzchak asked. Eisav answered, telling the story. Yitzchak now understood, and admitted that things panned out the way they were supposed to on account of that transaction from the beginning of the parsha, which until that moment had been unknown to him. And so he confirmed it, saying, "He too should be blessed."

That added line serves to support the notion that even without "tricking" his father, Yaakov was destined to receive those blessings (Rashi quoting Midrash), which Yitzchak upholds for a few reasons: because he's my son; because I said that whoever curses him is cursed and whoever blesses him is blessed; because he still had the taste of the food in his mouth, (or perhaps a piece of meat loosened from between his teeth). How inappropriate is it to curse someone while you are still enjoying the food they gave you? (Rabbi Chaim Paltiel)

[Perhaps that is a hint to Eisav not to curse Yaakov… a hint which goes right over his head.]

Taking Toldot Yitzchak's explanation of Eisav's complaint one could suggest Yitzchak felt vindicated on account of his unknowingly (or knowingly?) naming his younger son Yaakov instead of "Akev" (for holding Eisav's heel at birth). The name "Yaakov" was essentially given prophetically, because it is a future tense word, indicating he will one day pull a roundabout move on his brother.

Rashbam suggests Yitzchak realized the whole affair was Rivkah's idea, on account of her knowing that Yaakov was the son more worthy to receive the blessings.

            

Yitzchak even explains to Eisav, "I gave him the blessing before you arrived" indicating that it was heaven's decree that you should be delayed just long enough. Remember – it was just as Yaakov was leaving that Eisav walked in – really split second timing. (Midrash Sechel Tov and Radak))

            

Radak even paints Yitzchak as an accessory to the plot when he explains Yitzchak's trembling not as a fearful regret, but as a “show” for Eisav, an indication that he was upset, so Eisav would not perceive that his father was really in on the plot.

            

Kli Yakar examines the whole story noting that it is only Eisav who accuses Yaakov of stealing. (Yitzchak calls it "cunning.") However, did he not sell the birthright willingly? How is Eisav's moment of weakness - from almost 50 years earlier denigration-of-the-birthright Yaakov's fault?

            

Eisav was suggesting that the taking of the birthright was connected directly to this. When Yaakov was asked "Who are you?" He never could have "I am Eisav your firstborn" had he not made the purchase. He must have really said, "I am in the place of your firstborn Eisav, for I purchased the birthright from him," and without that purchase, he never would have tried to take the blessings.

            

Eisav further thought, "Maybe when Yaakov bought the birthright his intent was to steal the blessings." (Almost sounds like a ‘Zionist plot!’)

            

Eisav is therefore blaming Yaakov, suggesting that the birthright sale was a "Mekach Taus" a transaction made with faulty information. Eisav had originally thought it was purely a financial windfall – getting the double portion. Eisav thought at the time that his father might die penniless, so he sold the birthright for little money, thinking it was better to cash in at that time, not realizing that the birthright also included blessings!

            

Yaakov said "I am Eisav your firstborn" instead of just, "I am Eisav" because it is only on account of the birthright that these blessings were coming to him – and that is why he was able to take them.

            

In Eisav’s mind, the trickery is that “he took the birthright in the first place, because I had no idea that these blessings were for the birthright holder, and not for the natural first born.”

            

Ktav V'Hakabalah blames Eisav for accusing Yaakov of "taking" the birthright, when the truth was that they had a legitimate transaction. It was his own fault for denigrating and essentially making the birthright worthless, leaving it open for Yaakov to claim as his own.

            

Some view this as rewriting history, and some say, "Look at the whole picture." Far be it from us to lay the blame squarely on Yaakov, or even Rivkah, who sets him up, when Eisav was as much to blame for all that transpired the moment he indicated the birthright meant nothing to him.

In Defense of Noach

Parshat Noach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Of all the Biblical heroes, those we might call the "good guys," Noach gets the worst rap. When we are first introduced to him, we are told he was a tzaddik (righteous man) "in his generation." Rashi famously pounces on the added term, suggesting that he was a good guy in his generation alone, but had he lived in the generation of Avraham, he would not have been a person of significance.

Some further note that Noach never prayed for, or interceded on behalf of the people of his generation, in any manner similar to Avraham's protests on behalf of the doomed inhabitants of Sodom (see Rabbenu Bachaye on 6:14, for example). He may have taken his time building the ark, but as Bill Cosby noted in his popular "Noah" routine, if people asked him why he was building the ark, his response did not exactly inspire repentance (as is indicated by Rashi's "'Perhaps' they'd repent" in 6:14).

The Midrash Rabba compares the Torah's depiction of Noach to how it depicts Moshe. Noach starts as an "Ish Tzaddik" - a righteous man (6:9), but is last depicted as an "Ish Ha'Adamah" - a man of the earth (9:20). While being a man of the earth is not particularly a bad thing, it seems to be a step down from his original status. And once one considers that the epithet comes even after he has offered sacrifices to his God, the evidence is reproving in his disfavor.

Moshe, on the other hand, is depicted in his early days as an "Ish Mitzri" - an Egyptian man (Shmot 2:19), while at the end of his life he is called an "Ish Ha'Elokim" - a man of God (Devarim 33:1). His life seems to be a progression to greater holiness.

These critiques may reflect personality traits of Noach. He listened to God's instructions, but did not have the wherewithal to confront or inspire people, or to teach them to be more Godly. He may have been a tzaddik when others were around, but maybe the same personality trait did not hold water when Noach is the "only" human being around (aside from his immediate family) after the flood.

While I can not defend Noach against these accusations, I would like to share a defense pointed out by the Kli Yakar, which adds to Noach's esteem even beyond the Torah's "And Noach found favor in God's eyes." (6:8)  

Towards the end of Chapter 6, God tells Noach, "And you will take for yourself of all kinds of edible foods. You will gather it to you. And it will be food for you and for [the animals]." (6:21)

Says the Kli Yakar: "Taking for yourself implies 'from your own and not from the [food] of others.' This was to remind Noach not to think that just because everyone else will die soon and will have no need for their money or property, that everything in the world was available to him for the taking." The miracle, he explains, is that Noach's personal rations – from what he personally owned – sufficed for all those on the ark, man and beast, for one year.

This is quite significant. Noach is living in a time in which "Chamas" – robbery – is rampant. The fact that this does not even register as a possibility for him, he being the only one who understands that God will be destroying the world, and how truly "you can't take it with you" applied to the people of his generation, is a remarkable trait for a person living in that time period.

Think about it. Adam and Chava "stole" from the tree from which they were forbidden to eat. The Slonimer Rebbe (Nesivos Shalom) points out a remarkable difference between the offerings of Kayin and Hevel, that Kayin brought from "the fruit of the earth" (4:3) while Hevel brought from "the best of his sheep" (4:4). The source of Hevel's offering was his own property! Kayin's offering may not have been "his!" It may have been stolen!

Noach did not descend from Kayin. Nonetheless it is noteworthy how the concept of taking "that which does not belong to you" is a flaw which afflicted even the first humans on earth. But Noach overcame, and did not have that temptation. This allowed him to even hold back from taking from those who would never miss it.

The message is simple. Noach is a tzaddik in the first part of the parsha because he never let money, or the pursuit of money, get in the way of his relationship with God and other human beings. Any food ultimately brought aboard the ark was either grown by him or purchased honestly.

It takes a big man to go against the grain. Particularly in a society when everyone is stealing because "everyone else does," it is the truly righteous who steps back and says, "I don't. Because stealing is wrong."

By the end of the account of Noach in the Torah, he does not enjoy the same status as he did at the beginning of his tale. But his moral stance should continue to inspire all of us. Unlike many who choose to do the wrong thing following the bad example of others (like, say, double parking on a busy street that has one lane in each direction), who justify their behavior because "everyone does it," Noach set a standard that if it's wrong you don't do it, even if everyone else says otherwise.