p a r s h a s T o l d o s ,usku,[ ,arp

[ The Name of the Parsha [

n the words, “These are the descendants (Toldos) of inferior one. Rather, it is the Jewish body which appears O Yitzchak,” Rashi comments that, “these are Ya’akov to be quite similar to that of the non-Jew, that was and Eisav mentioned in the Parsha.” selected by God (See Tanya ch. 49). ccording to Chasidic teachings, Ya’akov represents Of course, this does not mean to say that the soul was A the soul, and Eisav, the body. The Parsha is thus not chosen by God at all. It is only that the body has no named after both Ya’akov and Eisav, because the soul and redeeming feature of its own other than the fact that it was the body each have their own exclusive qualities. chosen by God – so its chosenness “stands out” more The soul is described as a “child” of God, because the than in the case of the soul. love shared between the soul and God is a natural type of When soul and body are together, each begins to learn love, resembling the parent-child relationship. from the other’s unique quality: Through observing Torah The body, on the other hand, has no inherent love for and mitzvos, the soul teaches the body how to love God; God – on the contrary, it conceals God’s presence. But, the body, in turn, teaches the soul how to reveal its ironically, when God “chose” the Jewish people, He chosenness. chose primarily our bodies. For, it would not have been And that is why Ya’akov, the soul, and Eisav, the body, an act of true self-expression to choose the Jewish soul, are both “mentioned in the Parsha.” since anybody would choose a superior product over an (Based on Sichas Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5752) df-yh:vf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 166 o¨v¨r‰c©t o¨v¨r‰c©t r‹C e¨j‰m°h ,©s‰kUT ih‡k¦t±u yh :eœ¨j‰m°h›,¤t shˈkIv o¼¨v¨r‰c©t o·¨v¨r‰c©t›i†C e¼¨j‰m°h ,«Ës‰kIœT v†KÁ¥t±u yh ihˆg‰C§r©t r‹C e¨j‰m°h v²u£v³u f :e¨j‰m°h ,³h shˆkIt v¨t¨n¨r£t k¥tU,‰C ,‹C v¨e‰c¦r ,³h ch¦x±b s‹F ih°b§J ¿k¥tU,‰C›,‹C v½¨e‰c¦r›,¤t IÉT§j©e‰C vº²b¨J ohɈgŠC§r©t›i†C¿ e¨j‰m°h hʦv±h³u f Vh‡k v¨t¨n¨r£t iŠcŠk§S Vh¥,¨j£t o¨r£t i©s‹P¦n r¿©T‰g®H³u tf :vœ¨­¦t‰k IËk h¼¦N©r£tœ¨v iˊcŠk ,IÁj£t o·¨r£t i¼©S‹P¦n hº¦N©r£tœ¨v Vh¥,§T¦t kh‡c§eˆk ²h±h o¨s¢e e¨j‰m°h hˆk‹m±u tf :UT±b¦t‰k ,©th¦s‹g±u ²h±h Vh¥,Ik‰m kh‡C©e±u th¦v v¨r¨e g h¥r£t vº²u«v±h ¿ Ik r¤,ʊg¯H³u tu·¦v v¼¨r¨e g hˈF IºT§J¦t j‹f«Éb‰k ¿ v²Ivhœ‹k eʨj‰m°h t¨vŠg§nˆC t²h³b‰C ih¦e£j©s±u cf :Vh¥,§T¦t v¨e‰c¦r r¤nt«ÉT³u VºŠC§r¦e‰C ¿ oh°bŠC©v UÊm m«œr§,°H³u cf :IœT§J¦t v ˨e‰c¦r r©v¼©T³u g‹C§,h¦n‰k ,‹k²z£t³u t²b£t i³b§s t¨n‰k i‡F o¦t ,©r©n£t³u ih¥r§T VŠk ²h±h r©n£t³u df :²h±h o¨s¢e i¦n i‹p‰kUt v²u«v±h r¤nt«¿H³u df :vœ²Iv±h›,¤t JËr§sˆk Q†k¼¥T³u hˆf«·b¨t v¼®Z v¨Nˊk iº‡F›o¦t

hWar gk ao aabh tro vhu' tro bvrho utro mucv' eurt tu,u psi' tu,u eurt mucv' utro bvrho tro vhu' tro aabh ao gk tro/ npsi vukhs tcrvo cprav: vtnurho ugau hgec hmje/ ,uksu, utkv )hy( kaui mns cer' ,rduo' psi ,urhi' uha pu,rhi psi tro fnu asv tro' ackaui tro' asv fnu tro psi pu,rhi uha ,urhi' psi ,rduo' cer' mns kaui scr hmje/ t, vukhs fl tjr tcrvo anu vec"v aert )ktjr hmje/ t, h, ku/ uhg,r c,pkv: uvpmhr vrcv uhg,r/ )ft( psi: kasv eurhi hangtk t, vukhs tcrvo kunr vuzee tcrvo' ci hmje vf,uc af,c hsh gk tjr(' b,pmr ub,phhx ub,p,v ku/ utunr tbh' fk kaui g,r' kaui vpmrv urcuh vut' urcuh vpmrv kaui g,r' kaui fk tbh' utunr ku/ ub,p,v ub,phhx b,pmr abho fnv avrh arv' b,gcrv ntchnkl tunrho vsur khmbh avhu kph hmje' ' ufi ' 2 scrhfo gkh vg,r,o ufi vgai/ gkhh, nrch, ' 1 veyur, gbi ug,r ufi ak pbhu ekx,r mr vec"v' gav nv vhnbu' b,gcrv ukt tcrvo go av,v sn, nuu ub ka' bra" ckg"z: tberhar"t knat' uvbo knrucu, sunu, ' 3 aubt baheu, ubg,ru, fti af,c uzvu hmje' t, vukhs tcrvo vfk uvghsu ktcrvo' sunv hmje uhg,r un,pkk,: zu czuh, guns, uzu un,pkk' zu czuh, guns zv ta,u/ kbfj ci )f( hmje: t, vukhs atcrvo ha gsu, avrh )vhv(' tcrvo ci hmje ' kphfl ku kphfl ' 4 rag ci mshe k,pk, mshe ci mshe ,pk, sunv athi kv' ukt ku ku/ rcev' abuksv b,car vnurhv nvr tcrvo fact avrh abv/ trcgho gk frjl vnert vzv tunr surabh' ax,o nv vht nv ax,o surabh' tunr vzv vnert frjl gk uh,rummu/ )fc( kv: ukt vgehsv gs hmje unabuks arv' n,v cpre cu avrh abv' k"z ci vhv uhmje rmhmv zu' uf,c to fi knv zv tbfh/ rcu,hbu srauvu kaui rhmv' favh,v rhmv' kaui srauvu rcu,hbu tbfh/ zv knv fi to uf,c zu' rmhmv abtnr fan,v' ef"z uc, hmje' fabuks vh,v mw sc, abv' k"z arv an,v gucr, gk p,jh ,urv ak ao ugcr' hgec r. unprfx kmt,' gucr, gk p,jh gk gucr, kmt,' unprfx r. hgec ugcr' ao ak ,urv p,jh gk gucr, kv vn,hi rcev' buksv cpre ucu abho' k"z khmje vrh uduw' arv jhh uhvhu gfu"o' gau nprfx kmt,/ scr tjr' n,rummho zv go zv' unrhcho cbjk, unrhcho zv' go zv n,rummho tjr' scr kmt,/ nprfx gau gfu"o' tju, tro npsi c,utk c, ubatv: abho' dw kchtv rtuhv a,vt gs n,tuv tbfh/ zv knv vgcur: mgr dsuk fi/ to u,tnr guknu,: abh kvdhs tkt tro' unpsi kci utju, c,utk c, avht bf,c kt gshhi ufh kci/ ahdhs vw/ t, ksrua ao: ak nsrau kch, ksrua/ u,kl vrhui: gk un,pkk, nngahvo: knsv ukt rag' tbah uneunv rag utju, rag c, avh,v acjv'

CLASSIC QUESTIONS l Why does the Torah repeat that, “Avraham fathered many years and had not conceived from him. What did God do? He Yitzchak”? (end of v. 19) fashioned the features of Yitzchak’s face to resemble Avraham's, and everyone witnessed that Avraham had indeed given birth to RASHI: After the verse stated, “Yitzchak, the son of Avraham,” it then found it necessary to stress, “Avraham fathered Yitzchak,” Yitzchak. Thus the verse stresses here, “Yitzchak [is certainly] the son because the cynics of the generation were saying that Sarah had of Avraham,” because there is evidence that “Avraham fathered conceived from Avimelech, since she had lived with Avraham for Yitzchak."

TORAS MENACHEM

[ Sparks of Chasidus [ ccording to Chasidic teachings, Avraham primarily served God od chooses to be close to those who are humble, as the verse A with love, and Yitzchak with fear. In fact, their faces bore very G states, “I dwell on high in holiness, and with the crushed and little resemblance to one another, as an indication of their contrasting humble in spirit” (Isaiah 57:15). Thus, ultimately, it is fear of God that spiritual qualities. Thus, it took a miracle to make Yitzchak’s facial brings a person closer to his Creator more than love, because fear features resemble those of Avraham (see Rashi to v. 19). makes a person feel low and humble. Ironically, by feeling low a With the above in mind however, Yitzchak’s name appears to be person actually makes himself great, because his humility acts as an somewhat out of character with his nature. “Yitzchak” means empty vessel in which God can “dwell.” “laughter,” which is associated with happiness and rejoicing – a Therefore Yitzchak, who excelled in fear of God was named rather inappropriate name, it would seem, for a person whose life “laughter,” because his humility propelled him to a more intimate was dedicated to the fear of God. and joyful unity with the Almighty than love alone can achieve. (Based on Likutei Sichos 30, pp. 103ff; vol. 20, pp. 116ff)

hcnu, xs/ hcnu, 4 u fz' nakh 3 hd kv' ao 2 ht j' hjzetk 1 167 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 25:19-22

[ T HE B I R T H OF Y A ’ A K O V & E I S A V [

25:19 nd these are the descendants of Yitzchak, the son of Avraham: (The Torah now digresses, before continuing with Yitzchak’s descendants in verses 25-26) (After God gave Avram the name) Avraham, (he) fathered Yitzchak. 20 Yitzchak was forty years oldA when he took Rivkah for himself as a wife. (Even though she was) the daughter of Besu’el the Aramean of Padan Aram, sister of Lavan the Aramean (she did not learn from their wicked ways). 21 Yitzchak prayed (a lot) to God (in one corner of the room) opposite his wife, because she was barren. God accepted his prayer, and his wife Rivkah conceived. 22 The children struggled inside her. She said, “If (the pain of pregnancy is) so (much) why (did I want to be like) this?” She went (to the Yeshivah of Sheim) to ask God (what was going to happen to her).

CLASSIC QUESTIONS l Was Yitzchak unable to have children too, or just passed the entrance of a temple of idolatry, Eisav would run and Rivkah? (v. 21) struggle to come out. (See The Last Word) MIDRASH HAGADOL: In fact, Yitzchak was also unable to have l How did Rivkah “ask God” about her pregnancy? (v. 22) children. This is hinted at by verse 21, where the word “she” is not RASHI: She went to the Yeshivah of Sheim. Sheim revealed to her spelled in the Torah in the usual manner (th¦v), but rather tu¦v, which what would happen through Divine inspiration (Rashi to v. 22-23). can also be read as tUv, also could not have children. TUR HA’ARUCH: Why did Rivkah ask Sheim and not Avraham? l Why did the children “struggle inside her”? (v. 22) Perhaps she did not wish to distress Avraham with the bad news that RASHI: When she passed by the entrances of the Yeshivos of Sheim she was having a difficult pregnancy. and Aiver, Ya’akov would run and struggle to come out. When she

TORAS MENACHEM ¦ ¦ YITZCHAK’S CERTAINTY (V. 21) WHY DID RIVKAH SEEK SHEIM’S ADVICE (V. 22) The Torah states that, “Yitzchak prayed (a lot) to God (in one corner of Rashi writes that Rivkah went to the Yeshivah of Sheim to find an the room) opposite his wife, because she was barren” (v. 21). This begs the explanation as to why her pregnancy was so difficult. However, this begs question: How did Yitzchak know that “she was barren”? Perhaps their the following questions: inability to have children was his problem and not hers? a.) Why did she not ask her husband, Yitzchak, or her father-in-law At first glance, one might argue that Yitzchak was sure of his own ability Avraham? Surely, they both could have helped her equally as well as to have children because Avraham had already been promised by God that, “your (true) descendants will be through Yitzchak” (above 21:12). However, this solution is untenable, because we find that Ya’akov also received a promise from God that he would have children (below 32:13), [ The Last Word [ and he still prayed to God that this promise should be fulfilled in the fear that he had forfeited God’s promises to him through inadvertent sin (see ow could Yitzchak, our righteous patriarch, have a son Rashi ibid. v. 11). Surely then, Yitzchak would also have feared that perhaps H whose very nature even in the womb was inclined towards he had stumbled in sin, thus forfeiting God’s promise to him? idol worship? (see Rashi to v.22) God can either make a person’s disposition naturally good or THE EXPLANATION naturally bad. But, even if a person has a natural inclination to In fact however, Yitzchak was certain that God’s promise to him would evil, that does not mean that he is evil per se, for he is given free be fulfilled, and he was sure that he had not stumbled in sin at all. Rashi choice. Rather, the reason why he was given such an inclination writes (v. 26): “Since she did not conceive, he knew that she was barren, was to rise to the challenge and overcome it. Thus Eisav was and he prayed for her, but he did not wish to take a maid [as Abraham given a natural tendency to evil so that he could excel in the had done] because he had been hallowed on Mount Moriah to be an olah Divine service of “quashing” the evil inclination. temimah (perfect burnt offering).” I.e. since Yitzchak knew he was an olah Even though he failed in his task, we can nevertheless learn temimah, a perfectly holy being (which God told him explicitly - see Rashi from Eisav that if a person has strong desires to do something bad, to 26:2 below) he knew that he had not stumbled in sin. Therefore, he could it means that he has been given the special Divine mission of be certain that the failure to have children, which he had been promised overcoming his inclinations. by God, was because of her inability to have children, not his. (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 20, p. 108ff.) (Based on Sichas Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5748)

* [Presumably the explanation of Midrash Hagadol, that they were both unable to have children, would have been unacceptable to Rashi since, at the literal level, we generally interpret a word as it is read, and not according to how it is written (c.f. Likutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 114, note 18) - Ed.] jf-df:vf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 168 hˆf±h‹g¥n¦n i²u‰F‰k©n ih¥T§r©,±u hˆf±h‹g¥n‰C ih¦n§n‹g ¿o«t‰kU Us·¥rŠP°h Q°h¼‹g¥N¦n ohº¦Nªt‰k hɯb§JU Qº¯b§yˆc‰C [¿o°hId ‘e] ohhd hʯb§J V½Šk tŠC©r±u ;¥e§,°h Uf‰k©n¦n Uf‰k©nU iUJ§r‹P§,°h s‹kh¥n‰k t¨v¨nIh Unhˆk§JU sf :t¨rh‡g±zˆk sh‡C‹g©T§J°h v˯B¦v±u ,¤s·†kŠk ¨vh¼¤n²h UËt‰k§n°H³u sf :rhœˆgŠm s«Ëc gœ³h c¼©r±u .º¨n¡tœ®h o«Ét‰k¦n eIn¦x v¨t¨n§s©e e‹p±bU vf :t¨vŠg§nˆC ih¦nUh§, t¨v±u r·Šg«¥a ,¤rɤS©t‰F I¼KŒF hº°bIn§s©t ¿ iIJt¦rœ¨v tʇm¯H³u vf :Vœ²b§yˆc‰C o¼¦nI, :u«¨a‡g Vh¥n§J Ir§eU rŠg«§a¦S ohˆk±dˆF Vh‡kUF tŠc§eˆg‰C t¨sh¦j£t Vh¥sh°u h¦vUj£t e‹p±b i‡F r©,ŠcU uf cÉ¥e gœ‹C ¿ ,®z¿¤j«t IÊs²h±u uh½¦j¨t tɊm²h ićf›h¥r£jœ©t±u uf :uœ«¨a‡g I¼n§J UËt§r§e°H³u ih¦Th¦J r‹C e¨j‰m°h±u c«e g³h Vh¥n§J t¨r§eU u«¨a‡g§s :oœ¨,«t ,¤sˆˆk‰C v¼²b¨J oh˦­¦J›i†C eÁ¨j‰m°h±u c«·e gœ³h I¼n§J t˨r§e°H³u uº«¨a‡g t²H©nh‡kUg Uthˆc§rU zf :iIv§,³h ,©sh‡k±h s‹F ih°b§J tŠk§e©j eh‡p²b r‹c±D i‹f§rh¦J§j³b r‹c±D u«¨a‡g v²u£v³u ¿c«e gœ³h±u v·¤s«¨a Jhɦt s°h¼‹m ‹gË¥s«h JhÁ¦t u½«¨a‡g hɦv±h³u ohº¦rŠg±B©v ¿ Uk§S±d°Hœ³u zf :t²bŠp‰kUt ,h‡C J¥N©J§n ohˆk§J r‹c±D c«e g³h±u khˆf¨t v²u£v Vh¥sh‡M¦n h¥r£t u«¨a‡g ,³h e¨j‰m°h oh¥j§rU jf uh·ˆp‰C s°hɋm›hˆF u¼«¨a‡g›,¤t eÁ¨j‰m°h cË©v¡tœ®H³u jf :ohœˆk¨v«œt c¼¥Jh oº¨T Jhɦt

hWar vbumr ctjrubv hmt rtaui' uhgec abumr rtaubv hmt tjrui' uhgec ct kgfcu ct uhgec tjrui' hmt rtaubv abumr uhgec rtaui' hmt ctjrubv vbumr cruj btnr kao akhj' hsh gk kv/ vw uhtnr )fd( cxupv: ,vt nv kv ahvt rtaui kkhsv frtaui khmhrv' uhpyur t, rjnv' uhyuk t, vcfurv ni vcfurv t, uhyuk rjnv' t, uhpyur khmhrv' frtaui kkhsv rtaui ahvt tku dtho' )vnu( fnu f,hc dhho ccybl/ duho abh kv: tnr uvut vesa' xhni athi zv nxphe kdnur nkfu,u gs azv guns ubuykv guns azv gs nkfu,u kdnur nxphe zv athi xhni gau/ cgec vshi: vjnv chnu, kt jzr,' ukt mbui kt aukjbo ngk pxeu akt urch' tbyubhbux vec"v' )tnr' t,o erh,ui kcfurfo ao' t; tbh t; ao' kcfurfo erh,ui t,o )tnr' vec"v' hgec/ anu uhert vhnbu: ni hprsu/ nnghl nkfu,: tkt ktuo thi ktnho/ uabh vdanho: chnu, ukt tert kcbh cfurh ao' vst vut sf,hc uhert anu hgec(/ scr tjr tchu ert tchu tjr scr hgec(/ anu uhert sf,hc vut vst ao' cfurh kcbh tert cdsukv' hauu kt htn./ nkto k,unu: uzv kragu zv bprsho' vo vngho hw abho nabatv gs abgah, gs nabatv abho hw abv/ aaho ci vgec: tjhz, ao gk hgec ku tkt mur b,nktv kt ' 1 vjrcv tnktv tunr vut ufi bupk' zv eo fazv c, h"d abv urtuhv kvrhui' uhw abho vkku' mpv uvn,hi kv' fnu agav tchu agav fnu kv' uvn,hi mpv vkku' abho uhw kvrhui' urtuhv abv h"d c, ks,v/ cg, uhvh f,hc c,nr tck hnhv/ uhnktu )fs( hruakho: ak njrcbv av fu at ,cv hg vt ev vpk kv upv t rmv kt uapjv gkhv' uv,pkk gerv avht hsg b,gcrv' akt fhui karv' ,tunho uc,nr jxr/ ,uno/ uvbv hks,o: jsaho kzw fh hnhv' nktu akt uhdsku vbgrho uhdsku )fz( ,nhnv: gukv kvhu, vnurhv cvr ab,esa kph khat' xhni tsnubh/ )fv( rag: utjs mshe tjs fti tck msheho' aabhvo kph nkt' fk zni avhu eybho kt vhu bfrho cngahvo' uthi tso nsese tso uthi cngahvo' bfrho vhu kt eybho avhu zni fk gau/ uhvh vnktv mnr ak fykh, agr nkt agr/ ftsr, fku : 2 snho aupl ahvt vut cvo nv yhco' fhui abgau cbh h"d abv' zv pura kc,h nsrau, uzv pura uzv nsrau, kc,h pura zv abv' h"d cbh abgau fhui yhco' nv cvo bgav avhv kph fi' ku ertu vfk gau/ anu uhertu ckg"z: pkuehr"t agr' kmus ukrnu, t, tchu cphu' uautku' tct vhtl tct uautku' cphu' tchu t, ukrnu, kmus mhs/ husg : 3 tkhkho kgcus, nsra ang,h uduw/ tjhu hmt fi utjrh )fu( vrcv: abho fci cagru ubdnr h asv/ tha cnmu,: nsese avut tchu fxcur v,ci' ut, vnkj t, ngarhi rtaubv nyhpv bumr hgec kgfcu' cu tujz vhv cshi pauyu' kph vsurau tdsv thbu ceh cfk tkv' tkt tkv' cfk ceh thbu ,o/ ugupu,: jhu, cea,u umusv cyk' tso fnangu' ,j, zu tcbho a,h cv ,i emrv' aphv napupr, ukns mt vabhhv' ni ugau tvku ak ao utvku ao ak tvku tvkho/ hac ,o: eruh krnu, jrh; athbu nh phu/ fi fkcu gau bnmt rtaubv' ,mt tjrubv uvbfbx, tjrubv' ,mt rtaubv vbfbx, zu'

TORAS MENACHEM

Sheim, and she would thereby avoid the undesirable journey, on her Presumably, this was because, either: own, to the Yeshivah of Sheim? a.) She asked their advice first, but they failed to provide her with an b.) In many places, this Yeshivah is referred to as, “the Yeshivah of explanation. Therefore she sought the advice of Sheim. Nevertheless, Sheim and Aiver.” Why did Rashi describe it here only as the “Yeshivah Rashi does not mention this point as it is not hinted to at all in the Torah. of Sheim”? Or: b.) Perhaps she did not want to mention the matter to Yitzchak or THE EXPLANATION Avraham, so as not to distress them. For, after so many years of waiting for Rivkah to become pregnant, Yitzchak (and Avraham) would surely Verse 22 states that, “she went to ask God.” This suggests that she made have become pained to hear that, “the children struggled inside her,” some sort of journey. Obviously, this means that she did not ask Yitzchak, causing her such distress that she regretted wanting to have children (v. 22). who was with her at home, or Avraham, who lived locally. In fact, for Yitzchak and Avraham, this state of affairs would have been What led Rashi to conclude that she went to Sheim? particularly distressing, because it would have been reminiscent of the The Torah states earlier that, “Malkitzedek King of Shaleim brought out Akeida (binding of Yitzchak) where, after finally being given a son, bread and wine. He was a priest to the supreme God” (14:18). Rashi Avraham was asked to slaughter him. So too here, after many years of explains that Malkitzedek was none other than Sheim. praying for Rivkah to become pregnant, Yitzchak and Avraham would Since the Torah describes Sheim as, “a priest to the supreme God,” we surely be devastated to hear that Rivkah was suffering from an extremely could presume that Rivkah would have sought his advice when, “she difficult pregnancy. So, in order to save Yitzchak and Avraham from a went to ask God.” I.e she was not seeking to study Torah in the Yeshivah challenge of faith resembling the Akeida, Rivkah sought the advice of of Sheim and Aiver, but rather, to “ask God.” Therefore, she sought the Sheim instead. advice of Sheim in particular (and not Aiver) since he was, “a priest to the (Based on Sichas Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5748) supreme God.” Why did Rivkah prefer to speak to Sheim than to Yitzchak or Avraham?

,bjunt ,mt s ,mt ,bjunt 3 j xd' cwwr 2 c fu' hjzetk 1 169/ BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 25:23-28

23 (Through Sheim’s Divine inspiration) God said to her, “(The ancestors of) two esteemed individuals are in your womb. (Furthermore,) two kingdoms will separate from your innards (one to wickedness, one to innocence) One kingdom will (always) become mightier than the other kingdom (for when one rises the other will fall). The elder (son) will serve the younger (son).” 24 The term of her pregnancy was complete, and – look! – there were twins in her womb. 25 The first one came out reddish and completely (covered in hair), like a fur coat of hair. They named him Eisav. 26 Afterwards, his brother emerged, and his hand was grasping Eisav’s heel. (God) named him Ya’akov. Yitzchak was sixty years old when she gave birth to them.

[ Y A ’ A K O V B UYS THE B I R T H R I G H T F R O M E I S A V [ 25:27 he boys grew up (and their differences became recognizable). Eisav was a man who knew how to trap (people with his mouth), a man of the field (who enjoyed hunting). Ya’akov was an honest person, dwelling in tents (the Yeshivah of Sheim and Aiver). T28 Yitzchak loved Eisav because (he provided) his mouth with game; but Rivkah loved Ya’akov.

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l How did Eisav trap? (v. 27) from agricultural produce). This would have led Yitzchak to think RASHI: He knew how to trap and deceive his father with his mouth, that Eisav was extremely particular in mitzvos, going beyond the asking him, “Father, how do we separate ma’aser (tithes) from salt letter of the law to separate ma’aser even in a case where there is no and straw?” This made his father think that he was precise in the obligation to do so. observance of mitzvos. MASKIL LEDAVID: Surely, by asking, “how do we separate ma’aser MIZRACHI: Why did Rashi not interpret the term “trap” literally, to (tithes) from salt and straw?” Eisav would have appeared to be an mean trapping animals? Rashi was troubled by the repetition of the ignoramus, who did not know the basic law that ma’aser is only verse, “Eisav was a man who knew how to trap, a man of the field.” taken from agricultural produce? We must presume that Eisav was Surely, these two expressions both mean the same thing, so why did actually asking, “Since I am separating this as an additional the Torah make an unnecessary repetition? Rashi understood that stringency, not as a legal requirement, perhaps I should make some “knew how to trap,” must be referring to something else besides indication of this fact by altering some of the procedures?” hunting, i.e. his ability to trap others with his mouth. BARTENURA: Clearly, Eisav was not asking how to take ma’aser, Eisav’s question, “how do we separate ma’aser (tithes) from salt and since the answer to this is obvious: one simply separates a tenth of straw?” was deceptive because there is in fact no obligation in Jewish the produce. Law to separate ma’aser from salt or straw (ma’aser is only separated

TORAS MENACHEM

RASHI’S PROBLEM (V. 21) Maskil leDavid [and Mizrachi] answer that Eisav indicated to his father In addition to the answers of the commentators, the following could be that he wished to separate ma’aser beyond the letter of the law, even from argued: Rashi was troubled why the verse states, “Eisav was a man who his possessions that were exempt from ma’aser. knew how to trap, a man of the field.” Surely, the appropriate sequence However, from Rashi’s choice of words this does not appear to be the should be, “a man of the field who knew how to trap,” for one only starts case. Eisav said, “How do we separate ma’aser from salt and straw?” trapping after going out into the field. Due to this problem, Rashi Taking this statement at face value, it appears that Eisav did think that salt concluded that the “trapping” must have occurred at home, before Eisav and straw were obligated in ma’aser. went out “to the field.” So what, then, was Eisav’s trap? What “trapping” could be done in the house? Answers Rashi: “He THE EXPLANATION knew how to trap and deceive his father with his mouth.” Earlier, in Parshas Lech Lecha, we read that, “(Avram) gave him a tenth EISAV’S DECEPTIVE QUESTION (“ma’aser”) from everything” (14:20). Rashi writes that, “Avram gave him Rashi’s comment, that Eisav asked his father, “how do we separate ma’aser from all his possessions, because Malkitzedek was a priest.” ma’aser (tithes) from salt and straw?” is somewhat perplexing. Since salt Here we see that, at the literal level of Torah interpretation, Avraham and straw are in fact exempt from ma’aser Eisav’s question would seem did indeed give ma’aser from all his possessions (“everything”), and not to display ignorance rather than precision, “in the observance of the only from agricultural produce. Presumably, the clause that ma’aser is mitzvos” (as Maskil leDavid writes). only separated from agricultural produce must have been added later, with the giving of the Torah (see Toras Menachem to Lech Lecha ibid.). d:uf - jf:vf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 170 c«e g³h kh¥J‹cU yf :c«e g³h ,³h ,©nh¥j§r v¨e‰c¦r±u ›i¦n uÁ«¨a‡g t«Ëc²H³u sh·°z²b c« ¼e gœ³h s®z˲H³u yf :c «œe gœ³h›,¤t ,†cˤv«t v ¼¨e‰c¦r±u :h¥v‰k©J§n tUv±u tŠk§e©j i¦n u«¨a‡g t¨,£t³u tŠkh¦J‰c©T ›i¦n ¿ t²b h°bÊ¥yhˆg‰k©v c«½e gœ³h›kœ¤t u«¨a‡g r¤nt«¿H³u k :;œ¯hŠg tUËv±u v¼¤s¨¬©v t¨eIn¦x i¦n i‹g‰f h°b§nhˆg§y©t c«e g³h‰k u«¨a‡g r©n£t³u k Vh¥n§J t¨r¨e i‡F k‹g t²b£t h¥v‰k©J§n h¥r£t ih¥s¨v :oIœs¡t I¼n§J›t¨r œ¨e iˇF›k‹g hˆf«·b¨t ;¼¯hŠg hˈF vº®Z©v ¿ o«s¨tœ¨v o«Ês¨tœ¨v ,³h i¥v‰kh¦S oIh‰F ihˆC³z c«e g³h r©n£t³u tk :oIs¡t uº«¨a‡g r¤nt«ÉH³u ck :hœˆk ¼W§,œ¨r«f‰C›,¤t oIÁH‹f v˨r‰f¦n c« ·e gœ³h r¤nt«¼H³u tk kh¯z¨t t²b£t t¨v u«¨a‡g r©n£t³u ck :hˆk Q¨,Ur‡f‰C c«½e gœ³h r¤nt«ÉH³u dk :vœ¨r«f‰C h¼ˆk vË®Z›v¨NœŠk±u ,U·nŠk Q¼‡kIv hˈf«bœ¨t vÁ¯B¦v c«e g³h r©n£t³u dk :t¨,Ur‡f‰C hˆk i³b§s t¨n‰kU ,¨n§nˆk ,³h ihˆC³z±u Vh‡k oh¯h©e±u i¥v‰kh¦S oIh‰F hˆk oh¯h©e :c «œe gœ³h‰k I¼,¨r«œf‰C›,¤t r«ËF§n°H³u I·k g¼‹c¨­°H³u oIºH‹F ¿ hˆK vŠg‰cʨ­¦v o©j‰k u«¨a‡g‰k c©v±h c«e g³h±u sk :c«e g³h‰k Vh¥,Ur‡f‰C o¨e¼²H³u §T§Jº¯H³u k‹ft«ÉH³u ohº¦J¨s g shÉ°z±bU o¤j†kÀ u½«¨a‡g‰k iÉ©,²b c«Äe gœ³h±u sk y©J±u k³z£t³u o¨e±u h¦,§JU k‹f£t³u ih¦j‰pIk§y¦S kh¦J‰c©,±u ¿s‹c‰K¦n .¤rº¨tŠC¿ cŠg¨r hʦv±h³u t uf p :vœ¨r«f‰C©v›,¤t u¼«¨a‡g z†cË°H³u Q·‹k¯H³u r‹C tŠg§r©t‰C t²b‰p‹f v²u£v³u t :t¨,Ur‡f‰C ,³h u«¨a‡g k³z£t³u o¨v¨r‰c©t h¥nIh‰C v²u£v h¦s v¨t¨n§s©e t²b‰p‹F¦n eÁ¨j‰m°h Q†kͯH³u o·¨v¨r‰c©t hÉ¥nhˆC v¼²h¨v rˤJ£t iIºJt¦rœ¨v cɊg¨rœ¨v :r¨r±dˆk h¥t¨T§Jhˆk‰P¦s tŠF‰k©n Q†k¤nhˆc£t ,³u‰k e¨j‰m°h r¤nt«¼H³u vº²u«v±h¿ uhŠk¥t tʨr¯H³u c :v¨rœ¨r±D oh¼¦T§Jˆk‰P›Q†kœ¤n Q†kˤnhˆc£t›k¤t o°h¨r‰m¦n‰k ,Ijh¥, tŠk r©n£t³u ²h±h Vh‡k h‡k±D§,¦t±u c .¤rɨtŠC rUDÀ d :Whœ†k¥t rË©n«t r¼¤J£t .¤rº¨tŠC i«Éf§J v¨n±h·¨r‰m¦n sÉ¥r¥T›k©t t¨s¨v tŠg§r©t‰C rUS d :QŠk r©n¥t h¦s tŠg§r©t‰c h¥r§J Q²b‰cˆk±u QŠk h¥r£t Q²bhˆf§r‹c£t³u Q¨s g©x‰C h¦r§nh¥n h¥vh°u ›kŠF›,¤t ¿ i¥T¤t ½W g§r³z‰kœU ÉW‰k›hœˆF ²L·†f£rœŠc£tœ³u ¼W§Nˆg vË®h§vœ¤t±u ,t«ºZ©v

hWar tck' fk akav hnho vrtaubho thbu nahc akuo kfk tso' ufk afi ufk tso' kfk akuo nahc thbu vrtaubho hnho akav fk tck' / 3 eyi avhv gau' ak cphu unsrau' hmje/ ak cphu f,rdunu cphu/ )fj( gcr: ak tb at cjv nw g z nh uhu uk fw cah hai(: cra"h ufuw' autk uthbu nahc zw ugs ndw c,jkv' autk athbu gh;/ uvut f,rdunu: chauk kaui uhzs/ )fy( cscrhu: unrnvu tu,u ms f,rdunu fhuo shkvi' fhuo avut crur' fl nfur kh nfhrv kh nfur fl crur' avut fhuo shkvi' fhuo f,rdunu fhuo/ nfrv )kt( ph tp,j vkghybh/ )k( : 2 kvurdho bpah ghpv fh s,hnt fnv ' 1 crmhjv p aguv cuu' n he ti a z fsth zv rag thi hgec tnr ccfuru,' avgcusv kph cfr,l/ crurv: tu,u: nkghyhi tck vdnk t, tucxhi thi aabhbu' fnu k,ufv' vrcv uapul )n,buss, uvukf, vht uvukf, )n,buss, knu,/ vukl tbfh vbv )kc( kvec"v: aherhc hrtv akt tcrvo' n, vhuo utu,u tsunu,' gsaho vtsuo/ vtsuo ni vcfurv' akt ,vt fk g, vgcusv ccfuru,' fh acy kuh hyuk tu,v/ ugus( tu,v/ hyuk kuh acy fh ccfuru,' vgcusv g, fk ,vt akt vcfurv' vec"v' avcyhju yucv ahcv zu uthi rgv' k,rcu, humt cbu ci gau t, tnr gau nv yhcv ak gcusv zu' tnr ku fnv tzvru, ugubahi unh,u, ugubahi tzvru, fnv ku tnr zu' gcusv ak yhcv nv gau tnr abv' eg"v uzv abv' e"p jh ahmje nabu,hu' abho vw vec"v emr kphfl ' tku vi acnh,v' a,uhh hhi uprugh rta' tnr' tbh tnr' rta' uprugh hhi a,uhh acnh,v' vi tku ' 4 aabhbu ftu,v cv' ,kuhi kdkdk' asunu, gsaho uknv vtck' t, kvcru, gsaho hgec uchak vghs vf,uc gk vf,uc vghs gau/ uhcz )ks( cv: kh jp. nv fi to hsv' gk knu, vukl thi vtck fl pv' kvo thi gsaho nv )ugus cguko/ vjuzr dkdk avtcku, avhv sg,u krs, sg,u avhv nmrhnv/ ,rs tk )c( neuo: ak gcus,u achzv ragu ntfku c,jk, vtck t, kvcru, vnbvd ukphfl kscr' atxur pv' ku knmrho fnu ahrs tchu chnh vrgc' tnr ku tk ,rs nmrhnv' at,v gukv at,v nmrhnv' ,rs tk ku tnr vrgc' chnh tchu ahrs fnu knmrho cnugs fstnrhbi pv' ku thi tck fl pv' kvo uthi gdukho avo chmho'

TORAS MENACHEM

Since Avraham commanded, “his household after him to keep the way tasteless. Similarly, straw as it stands alone is mere animal fodder, but of God, doing charity and justice” (ibid 18:19), we can presume that mixed with other components it can make bricks (see Shemos 5:7). Yitzchak too was educated to separate ma’aser from all of his possessions Hence, in an attempt to appear pious in his father’s eyes, Eisav devised (in addition to the Torah’s explicit statement that he separated ma’aser an ingenious question: Do we simply take a tenth of the salt or straw as it from agricultural produce - 26:12, and Rashi ibid.). Likewise, Yitzchak would is worth now, or do we take into consideration their increase in value have taught Ya’akov and Eisav to give ma’aser from all their personal when used in a final product, since that is when their genuine use belongings too. becomes apparent? This would make a practical difference when the In this light, Eisav’s question, “How does one take ma’aser from salt ma’aser was separated, because Avraham’s custom (which he passed on and straw?” was quite appropriate, as in their household it was customary to his children) was not to separate ma’aser from each type of produce to take ma’aser from all possessions, even salt and straw. individually, but rather, to take a tenth of the value of “all his possessions” We are now only left with one question: What, exactly was Eisav asking collectively. Thus there would be a difference in the total amount of with his enquiry, “How does one separate ma’aser from salt and straw?” ma’aser, depending on whether the salt and straw were evaluated as raw Surely, one simply takes off a tenth (as Bartenura asks)? materials or not. However, there is a complication with salt and straw, as they are both “This made his father think that he was precise in the observance of substances of very little value, but when they are mixed with other things mitzvos,” as Eisav appeared to be paying attention to such subtle details they can prove extremely important. E.g. salt is not merely a seasoning for within the obligations incumbent upon him. food, but it brings out the flavor of the entire dish, without which it is (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 25, p. 116ff)

xbvsrhi fc: xbvsrhi 4 ft: s; 3 kt s' hrnhw 2 hc xd' cwwr 1 171 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 25:29 - 26:3

29 (On the day Avraham died), Ya’akov was cooking a (lentil) stew (to feed his father), when Eisav came (home) from the field, exhausted (from his murderous activities). 30 Eisav said to Ya’akov, “Pour some of this red stuff (down my throat) because I’m exhausted!” – He was therefore given the name Edom (meaning “red”). 31 Ya’akov (thought that Eisav was not fit to perform the sacrificial services carried out by the firstborn, so he) said, “Sell me your birthright (so that I own it undisputedly) like day(light).” 32 Eisav replied, “Look, (with my lifestyle) I am going to (be punishable by) death (if I retain the right to sacrificial services) so why do I need this birthright?” 33 Ya’akov said, “Swear to me (so that I own it undisputedly) like day(light).” So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Ya’akov. 34 Ya’akov gave bread and lentil stew to Eisav, who ate and drank. Then he got up and left. Eisav despised (the whole idea of serving God which came with) the birthright.

[ Y I T Z C H A K M O V E S TO G E R A R B E C A U S E OF F A M I N E [ here was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that had been in the days of Avraham. 26 Yitzchak went to Avimelech king of the Philistines in Gerar. 2 God appeared to him, and said, “Do not go down to Egypt! Inhabit the land which I will tell Tyou. 3 Settle in this land, and I will be with you and I will bless you. For I will give all these lands to you

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l Why did God tell Yitzchak not to go to Egypt? (v.2) MIDRASH: The verse states, “Settle in this land” (v. 3). Rabbi RASHI: He had in mind to go down to Egypt, like his father had gone Hoshiyah said, “[Yitzchak had the sanctity of] a perfect burnt down in the days of the famine. God said to him, “Do not go down offering. Just like a burnt offering is invalidated if it is taken outside to Egypt! You are a perfect burnt offering, and being outside the Land its prescribed area, likewise, if you go outside the Land [of Israel] you [of Israel] is not fitting for you. will be invalidated (Bereishis Rabah 64:3).

TORAS MENACHEM ¦ ”A PERFECT BURNT OFFERING” (V. 2-3) a.) Opinion of the Midrash. While, Rashi and the Midrash seem to be making similar points, there The Midrash states that, “Just like a burnt offering is invalidated if it is are nevertheless two important differences between them: a.) The taken outside its prescribed area, likewise, etc,.” This is based on the Midrash bases itself on verse 3, “settle in this Land,” a positive statement, whereas Rashi’s comment is based on the negative verse 2, “do not go down to Egypt” b.) The Midrash stresses that leaving the Land of Israel [ [ would render Yitzchak “invalidated.” Rashi merely writes, “being outside The Last Word the Land [of Israel] is not fitting for you.” “EISAV DESPISED THE BIRTHRIGHT...” (V. 34) These two points are connected: The Midrash sees the Land of Israel as being the appropriate place for a “perfect burnt offering,” therefore it ven though Eisav’s moral and spiritual standing was extremely cites the positive verse, “settle in the Land.” Rashi however stresses the E low, to the extent that he, “despised (the whole idea of serving negative qualities of the Diaspora (“being outside the Land is not fitting God which came with) the birthright,” and his very disposition for you”) so he quotes the negative verse, “do not go down to Egypt.” indicated that he was a murderous person (Rashi to 25:25); What is the underlying difference between Rashi and the Midrash? nevertheless, we still find later on that Ya’akov sent messengers (“angels”) to inform Eisav that he was at peace with him, and THE EXPLANATION sought his affection (see Vayishlach 32:4; Rashi to v. 6 ibid.). At first glance, one might presume that, according to the Midrash, From this we can learn a powerful lesson: We should “reach Yitzchak was prohibited by God from leaving the Land of Israel because out” and “send messengers” even to those Jews who appear to be of its holiness, i.e. a positive quality. Rashi on the other hand was of the on the level of Eisav. Even such a Jew is your “brother,” who opinion that the land did not possess any holiness during the time of the needs to be treated in a pleasant and peace-loving manner, with patriarchs, so he merely stressed the negative qualities of the Diaspora. love and affection. He needs to be drawn closer to the Torah with However, it was explained above (Toras Menachem to Lech Lecha 15:18), that “ropes of love” (Tanya ch. 32). according to all opinions, the Land of Israel did not possess holiness at (Based on Hisvaduyos 5746, vol. 1, p. 693) that time. Therefore Rashi and the Midrash would not be arguing about this point. Rather, the following distinction could be argued. ch-d:uf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 172 t¨nh²h§e ,³h oh¥e¨t±u ih‡k¦t¨v t¨, g§r©t kŠF ,³h i¥T¤t o˨v¨r‰c©t‰k h¦T‰g¼‹C§J°b rˤJ£t vºŠgŒc§­©v›,¤t¿ h¦,«nœ¦e£vœ³u kº¥t¨v ,«Ém¨r£tœ¨v Q²b‰C ,³h h¯d§x©t±u s :QUc¨t o¨v¨r‰c©t‰k ,h¦nh¯h©e h¦s t¨, g§r©t kŠF ,³h Q²b‰cˆk i¥T¤t±u t²H©n§J h‡c‰cIf‰F ºW g§rœ³z‰k hɦT©,²b±u o°hº©n¨­©v hɇɇɇc‰fIœf‰F ¿ W g§rœ³z›,¤t hʦ,h‡C§r¦v±u s :Whœˆc¨t :tŠg§r©t h¥n§n‹g kŠF Q²b‰C kh¦s‰C iUf§rŠC§,°h±u ih‡k¦t¨v :.¤rœ¨t¨v h˯hID k«¼F ºW g§rœ³z‰c UÉf£rœŠC§,¦v±u k·¥t¨v ,«¼m¨r£tœ¨v›kŠF ,Ë¥t ,©r§y©n r©y±bU h¦r§nh¥n‰k o¨v¨r‰c©t kh‡C©e h¦S ;‹k£j v h¼©,«u‰m¦n hº¦T§r©n§J¦n ¿ r«n§J°H³u h·ˆk«e‰C o¼¨v¨r‰c©t gË©n¨J›r¤J£t c¤eȇg v e¨j‰m°h ch¥,h°u u :h¨,±h©rIt±u h©n²h§e h©sUeˆP h¦r§nh¥n e©xh‡g k‹g t¨r§,©t h¥J²b¡t Ukh¦t§JU z :r¨r±dˆC hÊ¥J±b©t UÄk£t§J°Hœ³u z :rœ¨r±dˆC e¼¨j‰m°h c¤J˯H³u u [hba] :hœ¨,«rIœ,±u hË©,IEªj r©nh¥n‰k kh¥j¨s h¥r£t th¦v h¦,¨j£t r©n£t³u Vh¥,§T¦t hº¦T§J¦t r«Ént‡k ¿ t¥r²h hʈF tu·¦v h¦,«Éj£t r¤nt«¼H³u IºT§J¦t‰k ¿ oIe¨N©v v¨e‰c¦r k‹g t¨r§,©t h¥J²b¡t h°b³bUk§y§e°h t¨n‰k¦s h¦,§T¦t :tuœ¦v v¼¤t§r©n ,ˋcIy›hœˆF vº¨e‰c¦r›k‹g ¿ oIe¨N©v hÊ¥J±b©t h°b´d§r©vœ³h›i†P Vh‡k Uth°d©x s‹F v²u£v³u j :th¦v Uzh¥j ,©rhˆP©J h¥r£t tŠF‰k©n Q†k¤nhˆc£t h‡f§T§x¦t±u t²h©nIh i¨n©, ohº¦T§Jˆk‰P Q†kɤn¿ Q†k¿¤nhˆc£t ;½¥e§J³H³u ohº¦n²H©v¿ o¨J IËk›Uf§rœ¨t›hˆF h½¦v±h³u j Qh¦t¨j§n e¨j‰m°h t¨v±u t²z£j³u tŠF©r£j i¦n h¥t¨T§Jˆk‰P¦s :IœT§J¦t v ˨e‰c¦r ,¼¥t eº¥j‹m§n ¿ e¨j‰m°h vʯB¦v±u t§r½³H³u iI·K©jœ©v s¼‹g‰C e¨j‰m°h‰k Q†k¤nhˆc£t t¨r§eU y :Vh¥,§T¦t v¨e‰c¦r oˆg §T§r©n¨t ih¥s‰fh¥t±u th¦v Q¨,§T¦t t¨v o©r‰C r©n£t³u QhË¥t±u tuº¦v ¿ W§T§J¦t vʯB¦v QÉ©t ¿ r¤nt«¿H³u e½¨j‰m°h‰k Q†k¤nhˆc£t t¿¨r§e°H³u y ,h¦r¨n£t h¥r£t e¨j‰m°h Vh‡k r©n£t³u th¦v h¦,¨j£t ,U¼n¨t›i†P h¦T§rº©n¨t hɈF eº¨j‰m°h ¿ uhŠk¥t r¤nt«ÊH³u tu·¦v h¦,«Éj£t ¨T§r¼©n¨t v©n Q†k¤nhˆc£t r©n£t³u h :VŠk g kh¥y§e§,¦t t¨n‰kh¦S s¥j³h§n¦S chˆf¨J iIP rh‡g±zˆF t²bŠk §T§s‹cŠg t¨S sÊ©j©t cċf¨J yƋg§nƈF Ub·ŠK ¨,hÉ«¦aŠg ,t«¼Z›v©n Q†kº¤nhˆc£t r¤nt«ÉH³u h :¨vhœ†kŠg :tŠcIj t²bŠk g t¨,h¥,±h©t±u Q¨,§T¦t oˆg t¨N‹g‰C Q†kº¤nhˆc£t uɋm±h³u th :oœ¨J¨t Ubh¼‡kŠg ˨,t‡cœ¥v±u Wº¤T§J¦t›,¤t ¿ oŠg¨v eh¯z±b³h§S r¨nh¥n‰k t¨N‹g kŠF ,³h Q†k¤nhˆc£t sh¥E‹pU th :,œ¨nUh ,IËn I¼T§J¦t‰cU vÁ ®Z©v Jh˦tŠC ‹g¯d«B©v r«·nt‡k o¼Šg¨v›kŠF›,¤t :kh¥y§e§,°h tŠk¨y§e§,¦t Vh¥,§T¦t‰kU ih¥s¨v t¨r‰c³d‰k t¨T©J‰C j‹F§J©t±u th¦v©v tŠg§r©t‰C e¨j‰m°h g©r±zU ch oh·¦rŠg§J vɨt¥n tu¼¦v©v v˲b¨­‹C tÁŠm§n°H³u tuº¦v©v .¤rɨtŠC¿ e¨j‰m°h gÊ©r±z°H³u ch

hWar u,ur,h/ gcshu: gk ujeu,hu vnkl dzhr, tkt cscr ygo athi agybz' uv,crfu )s( vtkv: fnu vtk/ )d( kl: fsth ktr. jumv uthi ,nhnv' gk ta,u' fnu ta,u' gk kta,u/ )z( nxhbh: knav vkfv pv' acgk ,urv kvcht uzv vnert' cfk ufi hmje' ak fzrgu zrgl hvt kcbu tunr tso czrgl/ tnr' ng,v thi kh kstud' ntjr akt ntjr kstud' kh thi ng,v tnr' trfu/ fh )j( : 3 vut tjh kh tnrh fi' nmhbu vekkv kgbhi ut; uduw' hahnl ktnr hartk hcrl cl kfuki' tc artuvu uduw/ tchnkl uhae; banr: kvhu, bzvr ukt gfahu' gs tbxuv uvbj,o ufi fpkubh,' ,vt tunr aubtu avnekk ktkv' vtav uvh,v vt gkhbu uvct, vnkl: zv cgo' vnhujs vgo/ tjs )h( ny,u: nana ufl: fl gah,h to fpkubh tvt tunr' avbacg ' 1 kcjhrh kacugv anfo t; gk ph gk t; vvut/ ctr. )hc( gkhbu: tao vct, fcr afc' to tao/ dzru, nanr,h/ uhanur tu,u: fabxh,h ceukh/ tcrvo ang )v( t; vvut/ cabv : 4 vduho acg, ftr. gmnv' hartk ftr. jaucv athbv nmu,h/ kac,: uacu, ' 2 kgrhu, abhu, fdui ac,urv' tzvru, gk kvrjev t.vu avvvut/ cabv vvut ctr. : 5 rgcui ab, avh,v f,ebv' athbv ph gk jeu,h/ snho: uaphfu, dzk fdui kvmyuu,' vi rtuhi bf,cu kt athku scrho atnsuv fnv atnsuv agrho/ ntv eav: uvabv eav avtr. kunr knv' abhvo ukcha, jzhr tfhk, fdui gkhvo' nahchi vguko utunu, vrg ahmr scrho

TORAS MENACHEM principle that every sacrifice has its prescribed area. Some sacrifices may Midrash in Parshas Lech Lecha is consistent with the Midrash here, then not be taken out of the Temple courtyard; others, of a lesser degree of it follows that the prohibition against Yitzchak leaving the Land of Israel is holiness, may not be taken outside Jerusalem; the Pesach Sacrifice may connected with Avraham’s ownership of the land. not be taken outside the group of people who are assigned to eat it, and Therefore, when Avraham offered up Yitzchak on the Altar as a burnt so on. This principle has nothing to do with holiness of the land, but offering, the entire Land of Israel became the prescribed area of the rather, it is a general law that every sacrifice has its own prescribed area “sacrifice,” since this was a natural boundary, based on the fact that outside which the meat may not be taken (see Tosfos to Makos 18a). Avraham owned the entire land. Consequently the Diaspora became a Thus, we can presume that since Yitzchak was considered to be a “burnt prohibited area for Yitzchak. offering” from when he was offered up on the Altar by the Akeida, there b.) Opinion of Rashi was a specific prescribed area within which he must not leave. Rashi, however, rejected the notion that the Land of Israel was given to What were the boundaries of this area? Avraham at the Covenant of the Parts. Therefore, he was forced to adopt It was explained above (ibid.) that, according to the Midrash in Parshas a different approach from the Midrash. Lech Lecha, Avraham and his family actually were granted ownership of Rashi explained earlier, in Parshas Chayei Sarah, that when Avraham the Land of Israel at the Covenant of the Parts. If we presume that the sent his servant Eliezer to find a wife for Yitzchak, he said, “Now He is the

5 ao 5 u xs' cwwr 4 hd f' crtah, 3 ft/ hcnu, 2 yu xv' haghw 1 173 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 26:3-12

and to your descendants, and I will uphold the oath that I swore to Avraham, your father. 4 I will multiply your descendants like the stars of the heavens, and I will give your descendants all these lands. All the nations of the Earth will give blessings to each other by (comparing themselves to) your descendants. 5 (All this is) because Avraham listened to My voice (when I tested him); he guarded My (secondary prohibitions that) protect (a person from transgressing Biblical prohibitions), My (rational) commandments, My (irrational) statutes, and My instructions (in the Oral Law).” SECOND 6 So, Yitzchak settled in Gerar. 7 When the local men asked about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” READING because he was afraid to say, “(She is) my wife,” (because he said to himself,) “perhaps the local men will kill me because of Rivkah, for she is pleasant looking.” 8 Then, when he had been there for many days (he felt it was safe to stop acting as if Rivkah was his sister). Avimelech, king of the Philistines, looked through the window, and he saw – look! – Yitzchak was courting Rivkah, his wife. 9 Avimelech summoned Yitzchak, and he said, “She really is your wife! How could you have said, ‘She is my sister’?” Yitzchak said to him, “Because I said (to myself), ‘perhaps I’ll die because of her.’” 10 “What have you done to us?” said Avimelech. “(I the king,) the highest of the people, might easily have slept with your wife, and (if I had done so) you would have brought guilt upon us.” 11 Avimelech instructed all the people, saying, “Whoever touches this man or his wife will be put to death.”

[ Y I T Z C H A K P R O S P E R S [

26:12 itzchak sowed (crops) in that land (which was not as fertile as the main part of the Land of Israel), and he found (even) in that year (which was a bad one for crops, that the land yielded) Y a hundred times (more than average) – and God blessed him. CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l How did they know that the land yielded a hundred MIDRASH: There is a principle that God’s blessing does not rest on times more than average? (v. 12) something which is weighed, measured or counted. However, in the case of measuring for a mitzvah, this principle does not apply. RASHI: They had estimated how much the land was fit to produce, and it produced one hundred measures for each measure that they Therefore, Yitzchak measured the field for the purposes of tithing. had estimated. Our Rabbis said that the purpose of this estimate was GUR ARYEH: We see from the Midrash that Rashi’s two comments for separating ma’aser (tithes). are one single explanation: Yitzchak measured the field specifically for a mitzvah, and therefore he received God’s blessings.

TORAS MENACHEM

God of the heaven and the God of the earth, because I have made it creatures to mention Him,” suggests that the local Cana’anite residents habitual for creatures to mention Him. But, when He took me from my had not come to a genuine recognition of God. Rather, they had merely father’s house, He was the God of the heavens but not the God of the been trained to mention God’s Name, and even that was only done earth, because mankind did not acknowledge Him, and His Name was habitually. Consequently, Rashi could not stress that Yitzchak needed to not commonplace on the earth” (Rashi to 24:7). stay in the Land of Israel for a positive reason, since the habitual, insincere From this we see that, according to Rashi, the Land of Israel (where “mention” of God’s name by Cana’anite “creatures” was not a quality Avraham lived) had become a place where it was “habitual” for people to worth staying for. Therefore, Rashi stressed the negative features of the mention God, in contrast to the Diaspora where, “mankind did not Diaspora, which was something inappropriate for Yitzchak, who was “a acknowledge Him.” perfect burnt offering.” On this basis, Rashi concluded that God told Yitzchak not to leave the (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 200ff.) Land of Israel because, being a holy entity (a perfect burnt offering), it ¦ was not appropriate for him to reside in a place where “mankind did not YITZCHAK’S HUNDRED-FOLD BLESSING (V. 12) acknowledge” the Almighty. After explaining that Yitzchak compared the yield of his land with that Nevertheless, Rashi’s choice of the phrase, “I have made it habitual for year’s expected yield, Rashi continues with the explanation of “our Rabbis” that, “the purpose of this estimate was for separating ma’aser.” cf-ch:uf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 174

:²h±h Vh‡f§rŠcU h¦vIr g«©a§sˆC v¨t§n s¨j k‹g th¦v©v sˋg kº¥s²d±u ¿ QIk¨v Q†kʯH³u Jh·¦t¨v k¼©S±d°H³u dh [hahka] :vœ²Iv±h Uv¼‡f£rœŠc±hœ³u tŠc§r h¦S s‹g h‡C©r±u kh¯z¨t k³z£t³u t¨r‰c³d tŠc§rU dh v·ŠC©r v¼¨SŒc gœ³u rº¨eŠc vɯb§e¦nU¿ it«m›v¯b§e¦n IÊk›h¦v±hœ³u sh :s«œt§n k¼©s²d›hœˆF h¥rI, h¥,h¯d±u t²bŠg h¥,h¯D Vh‡k Iu£v³u sh :t¨s£j‹k kŠf±u uy :h¥t¨T§Jˆk‰P Vh‡c Uth°b©e±u h°d©x t²b¨j‰kUpU uhºˆc¨t hÉ¥s‰c‹g¿ Ur‰pœ¨j rʤJ£t ,«½r¥t‰C©v›kŠf±u uy :ohœ¦T§Jˆk‰P I¼,«t UËt±b©e±h³u o¨v¨r‰c©t h¥nIh‰C h¦vUc£t h¥s‰c‹g UrŠp£j h¦S ih¦rh‡C r¤nt«ËH³u zy :rœŠpŠg oU¼t‰k©n±hœ³u ohº¦T§Jˆk‰P oUÉn§T¦x uh·ˆc¨t oɨv¨r‰c©t h¼¥nhˆC :t¨r‰p‹g iUbIk§nU h¥t¨T§Jˆk‰P iUbUn§y h¦vUc£t h¥r£t t²b¨nˆg§n kh¯zh¦t e¨j‰m°h‰k Q†k¤nhˆc£t r©n£t³u zy Q†kË ¯H³u zh :s«œt§n UB¼¤N¦n ¨T§nˋmŠg›hœˆF Ubº¨Nˆgœ¥n Q‡kÀ e·¨j‰m°h›k¤t Q†k¼¤nhˆc£t e¨j‰m°h i¨N©T¦n k³z£t³u zh :t¨s£j‹k t²b²B¦n t¨T‰ph¦e©, | r«ÉP§j³H³u e¨j‰m°h c¨J¿²H³u jh :oœ¨J c¤J˯H³u r¼¨r±D›k©jœ³b‰C i©jË°H³u e·¨j‰m°h o¼¨­¦n e¨j‰m°h c©,±u jh :i¨N©T ch¥,h°u r¨r±d¦s tŠk£j³b‰C t¨r§JU o¨v¨r‰c©t h¥nIh‰C UrŠp£j h¦s t²H©n§s h¥rh‡C ,³h r‹p£j³u oUÉn§T©x±h³u uhºˆc¨t oɨv¨r‰c©t ¿ h¥nhˆC ¿ Ur‰pœ¨j rʤJ£t o°h½©N©v ,«Ér¥t‰C›,¤t o¨v¨r‰c©t ,h¦n§S r©,ŠC h¥t¨T§Jˆk‰P iUbUn§yU h¦vUc£t ,«Èn¥­‹F ,Iºn¥J ¿ i¤vŠk tʨr§e°H³u o·¨v¨r‰c©t ,IÉn h¼¥r£jœ©t ohº¦T§Jˆk‰P i¥vŠk h¥r¨e v²u£v h¦S i¨v¨n§JˆF i¨v¨n§J i¤vŠk t¨r§eU k©j·²B‹C e¼¨j‰m°h›hœ¥s‰c‹g UËr‰P§j³H³u yh :uhœˆc¨t i¼¤vŠk t˨r¨e›r¤J£t UjŠF§J©t±u tŠk£j³b‰C e¨j‰m°h h¥s‰c‹g UrŠp£j³u yh :h¦vUc£t r¨r±d t¨,²u g©r Im±bU f :ihˆg‰c²b ihs°h©n§s t¨rh‡C i¨N©, eÁ¨j‰m°h hˇg«r›oˆg r½¨r±d hɇg«r Uch¦r²H³u f :ohœ°H©j o°hË©n r¼¥t‰C oº¨J›Ut‰m§n¿°H³u t¨r§eU t²H©n t²bŠk h¦S r¨nh¥n‰k e¨j‰m°h§s t¨,²u g©r oˆg :IœNˆg U ¼e§¬‹g§,œ¦v hˈF e«¤aº‡g ¿ r¥t‰C©v›o¥J tʨr§e°H³u o°h·¨N©v UbɊk r«¼nt‡k tf :Vh¥nˆg Ue§x‹g§,¦t h¥r£t e©xh‡g t¨rh‡c§s t¨n§J V¨n§J t¨r§eU VŠk g ;©t Im±bU h¦r£jIt t¨rh‡C UrŠp£j³u :vœ²b§y«¦a V¼¨n§J t˨r§e°H³u ¨vh·†kŠg›o³D Uch¼¦r²H³u ,¤rº¤j©t rÉ¥t‰C¿ Ur‰P§j³Hœ³u tf h¦r£jIt t¨rh‡C r‹p£j³u i¨N©T¦n e‡K©T§x¦t±u cf :V²b§y«¦a tʨr§e°H³u ¨vh·†kŠg U¼c¨r tËO±u ,¤rº¤j©t rÉ¥t‰C ¿ r«P§j³H³u o½¨­¦n eÉ¥T‰g³H³u cf h¥r£t r©n£t³u ,IcIj§r V¨n§J t¨r§eU VŠk g Im±b tŠk±u :tŠg§r©t‰C (t²b²b¦J‰p³h±u) JUPh°b±u t²bŠk ²h±h h¥T‰p©t i‹g‰f :.¤rœ¨tŠc Ubh˦rŠpU Ub¼Šk vÁ²Iv±h chͦj§r¦v vĨT‹g›hœˆF r¤nt«½H³u ,Iºc«j§r¿ V¨n§J

hWar kb/ nbi k,h ku xhv uku vku nno , vkc: t, nynyo v,knus uckaui x,hnv' kaui pka,th' ynubhi gkhbu/ zv tuns tnru' urcu,hbu ntv/ atnsuv' tj, gk uga,v kgau,' rtuhv t, ctru, tar jpru tar ctru, t, uhjpr/ uhac )hj( vghr: ni rjue drr/ cbjk )hz( ukt hmje' ak prsu,hu zck tunrho avhu nts/ dsk fh )hd( vhv: kngaru, chnh tcrvo tchu' upka,ho x,nuo ueuso abxg hmje ndrr' jzr ujpri: jzr ndrr' hmje abxg ueuso x,nuo upka,ho tchu' tcrvo chnh kg"z ckaui rcv' pgukv rcv/ ugcsv )hs( : 1 tchnkl ak uzvcu fxpu b,gaeu gnu gkhv cnrhcv ugrgur: cnrhcv gkhv gnu b,gaeu gnu/ v,gaeu fh grgur: gae/ )f( rcv: pgukv nang gcsv tj,/ gcusv nang gcusv tucruhb"t' ,dn uhu ctrgt: ubhpua f,rdunu ctr./ uprhbu )fc( buanb"y: aybv/ )ft( vctu, vdhhxu, npbh kbu vo ,ekv atnru npbh pka,ho/ x,nuo )yu(

TORAS MENACHEM

This begs the question: What is lacking with Rashi’s first explanation, measured the crops after they had fully grown, since ma’aser is one tenth that led him to bring the interpretation of the Rabbis? of the actual yield. Gur Aryeh, following the Midrash, explains that Rashi was troubled Obviously (according to both interpretations) the blessing of finding one as to why Yitzchak would measure his field knowing that, “God’s blessing hundred-fold must have occurred after Yitzchak had made his calcul- does not rest on something which is weighed, measured or counted.” ations, otherwise he would have no way of knowing that the magnitude However, at the literal level of Torah interpretation, there is no of the increase was one hundred-fold. indication that this was Yitzchak’s concern. Therefore, it is difficult to Thus, according to Rashi’s second interpretation (that he measured for accept that this was Rashi’s problem. the purposes of separating ma’aser), the one-hundred fold increase would So what forced Rashi to conclude that Yitzchak measured the field for have occurred after Yitzchak measured them. Thus, a great miracle must the purposes of separating ma’aser, and not simply because he had have occurred, that the crops increased one-hundred fold, after they had wanted to estimate its approximate yield at the time of purchase, to see if fully grown! he was being charged the correct price? According to the first interpretation, however, that Yitzchak estimated how much the field would produce in advance, the one-hundred fold THE EXPLANATION increase could have occurred more naturally, throughout the entire period A key distinction between Rashi’s two explanations, concerns the time of the crops’ growth. Thus, Rashi placed this interpretation first, as it is at which the estimate was made. According to Rashi’s first interpretation more acceptable at the literal level. – that Yitzchak measured the field to estimate how much it would yield – Nevertheless, there is a problem with the first interpretation which led he obviously measured it before the crops had grown, presumably when Rashi to add the explanation of the Rabbis: purchasing the field, to assess its value. However, according to Rashi’s second interpretation (from “our Rabbis”) that he measured it for the According to Rashi, the land where Yitzchak was situated was infertile, purposes of separating ma’aser, it turns out that Yitzchak would have and that year was a famine (Rashi to beginning of v. 12). Though it would

1 cwwr xs' z xs' cwwr 1 175 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 26:13-22

THIRD 13 The man (Yitzchak) became prosperous, and he grew constantly greater until he had grown very READING great (even in comparison to Avimelech). 14 He had flocks of sheep and cattle and many enterprises, and the Philistines envied him. 15 The Philistines stopped up all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of Avraham, his father, and they filled them with earth. 16 Avimelech said to Yitzchak, “Go away from us, for you have become much stronger than us.” 17 Yitzchak went away from there, set up camp in the Gerar valley, and settled there. 18 (However, before he left Gerar) Yitzchak re-dug the water wells which had been dug in the days of his father, Avraham, and were stopped up by the Philistines after Avraham’s death. He gave them names; the same names that his father had given them. 19 (After settling) in the valley, Yitzchak’s servants dug, and they found there a well of living waters. 20 The shepherds of Gerar argued with Yitzchak’s shepherds, saying, “The water is ours,” so he named the well “Esek” (“argument”), because they had argued with him. 21 They dug another well, and the (shepherds) quarreled about it also, so he named it Sitnah (“harassment”). 22 He moved away from there and dug another well. They did not quarrel over it, so he named it Rechovos. He said, “For now God has made space (“hirchiv”) for us, and we will be fruitful in the land.”

CLASSIC QUESTIONS l Why does the Torah inform us that Yitzchak dug three nations, who oppressed the Jewish people with wars, until they wells? (v. 19-22) destroyed it. The second well, Sitnah (“harassment”), is a name actually used by scripture to refer to the Second Temple (see Ezra 4:6). RAMBAN: This account does not appear to have much significance at the literal level. However, there is a hidden meaning here, that the The third well was called Rechovos (“spacious”), alluding to the three wells hint to the three Holy Temples. The first well, named Esek future Third Temple which will be built without quarrel or feud, (“argument”) alludes to the First Temple, which was contested by the when God will expand our borders, speedily, in our days.

TORAS MENACHEM

have been quite surprising for Yitzchak to find one hundred times more brought the second explanation “of the Rabbis,” that Yitzchak’s yield than the average yield for that year, nevertheless, even that would not multiplied miraculously one hundred times after it had already grown. have made him prosperous, since the average for that year was so pitiful. This yield would have been much greater, since we are speaking here of The Torah however appears to indicate that Yitzchak did become wealthy 100 times Yitzchak’s real yield, rather than 100 times the estimated from the harvest, as the next verse continues, “The man (Yitzchak) average local yield. And surely, Yitzchak – being a tzadik – would have became prosperous.” been blessed by God to reap well above the average yield for that year. Therefore, in order to explain why he became prosperous, Rashi (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 5, pp. 121ff; Sichas Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5727)

[ Sparks of Chasidus [ ccording to Ramban, the three wells dug by Yitzchak allude to analogy for the Third temple of digging a well is inappropriate. A the three Holy Temples. The analogy of digging a well owever, even according to the Zohar, the Third Temple is built precisely describes the process of building the Temple: First there is H through human effort too. Not through the physical effort of a phase of intense physical effort to dig the well, followed by the working with stones and mortar, but rather, by the dedicated acts of actual filling of the well with water which does not require any super-rational mitzvah observance by Jewish people, in defiance of direct effort – it simply floods in. Similarly, the building of the the challenges of exile. The cumulative effects of these acts are thus Temple requires tremendous human effort, but the indwelling of the described by the Zohar as a “building made by God,” though in Shechinah (Divine Presence) - which is the very purpose of building fact, it is a building made by human mitzvah acts that are totally the Temple - is an effortless consequence of the Temple’s dedicated to God. construction Thus, the building process of the Third Temple consists of mitzvos This analogy appears to break down however in the case of the performed out of simple obedience to God. Therefore, they are Third Temple which, according to the Zohar (III 221a), will be built eternal. by God, and not by man. It seems at first glance, that Ramban’s (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 30, pp.116ff.) t:zf - df:uf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 176

²h±h Vh‡k h‡k±D§,¦t±u sf :g‹c¨J r¥t‰cˆk i¨N©T¦n eh‡k§xU df vŠk±hɋK‹C ¿ v²Iv±h uhʊk¥t t¿¨r¯H³u sf :g‹cœ¨J rË¥t‰C o¼¨­¦n k‹g˳H³u df [hghcr] o¨v¨r‰c©t§S Vh¥vŠk¡t t²b£t r©n£t³u tUv©v t²h‰kh‡k‰C h¦r§nh¥n Q¨s g©x‰C h¥r£t k©j§s¦, tŠk QUc¨t ÉW§T¦t›hœˆF ¿ t¨rh¦T›k©t Wh·ˆc¨t oɨv¨r‰c©t h¼¥vO¡t hȈf«bœ¨t r¤nt«ÈH³u tUºv©v :h¦s‰c‹g o¨v¨r‰c©t kh¦s‰C Q²b‰C ,³h h¯d§x©t±u Q²bhˆf§rŠc£t³u :hœ¦S‰c‹g o˨v¨r‰c©t rU¼c gœ‹C ºW g§rœ³z›,¤t hɦ,h‡C§r¦v±u ¿ Wh¿¦T‰f©rœ‡cU hˆf«ºb¨t ²hh©s t¨n§JˆC hˆk‹m±u t¨j‰C§s©n i¨N©, t²b‰cU vf o˨J›Ur‰f°H³u I·k¢vœ¨t o¼¨J›y®H³u vº²u«v±h oÉ¥J‰C¿ t¨r§e°H³u ©j½‡C±z¦n oɨJ i†cÍ°H³u vf e¨j‰m°h h¥s‰c‹g i¨N©, Ir‰fU Vh¯b‰F§J©n‰k i¨N©T Vh¥x§r‹pU ,‹gh¦x±u r¨r±d¦n Vh¥,²u‰k k³z£t Q†k¤nhˆc£t³u uf :t¨rh‡C ¿,³Zªj£tœ³u r·¨r±D¦n uh¼Šk¥t Qˋk¨v Q†kȤnhˆc£tœ³u uf :rœ¥t‰C e¼¨j‰m°h›hœ¥s‰c‹g iIv‰k r©n£t³u zf :Vh‡kh¥j c©r kIfhˆpU h¦vIn£j©r¥n oɤ,tŠC ‹gU¼S©n eº¨j‰m°h¿ o¤v‡k£t r¤nt«ÊH³u zf :IœtŠc‰m›r«©a k«¼fhˆpU Uvº‡g¥rœ¥n h¦,²h iU,h¯b§x iUT©t±u h¦,²u‰k iU,h¥,£t ih¥S v©n e¨j‰m°h t²bh¯z£j t²z¡j¤n Ur¨n£t³u jf :iIf§,³u‰k¦n h°bUT§j‹k©J±u IÉt¨r U½r§nt«œH³u jf :oœ†f§T¦tœ¥n h°bU¼j‰K©J§Tœ³u hº¦,«t oɤ,t¯b«§a¿ o¤T©t±u h·Š·Šk¥t t²b§r©n£t³u Q¨s g©x‰C ²hh©s t¨r§nh¥n v²u£v h¥r£t Ubh¼¥,Ibhœ‡C vÁŠk¨t t˲b h¿¦v§T r¤nt«½B³u ¸Q¨Nˆg | vɲIv±h vɲh¨v›hœˆF ¾Ubh¾¦t¨r t²b¨,¨v‰c©t ih‡C v²u£v©s t¨,¨nIn i‹g‰F oh¯H©e§,¦T sh‡C‹g©T o¦t yf :Q¨Nˆg o³h§e r³z±d°b±u Q²bh‡cU t²b²bh‡C v½Šg¨r Ub¨Nˆg v¿«¥a gœ©T›o¦t yf :Qœ¨Nˆg ,h¼¦r‰c v˨,§r‰f°b±u W·®bh‡cU Ubhɯbh‡C h¦s t¨n‰fU Q²bh¦eh°z±b©t tŠk h¦s t¨n‰F t¨JhˆC t²b¨Nˆg ¼W£jœ‡K©J±Bœ³u cIºy›e©r ¿ W§Nˆg UbhÊ«¦aŠg r¿¤J£tœ‹f±u WUºb gœ³d±b tÉO ¿ r¤J£tœ‹F §T©t oŠk§JˆC Q²b¦j‰k©J±bU c©y sIj‰k Q¨Nˆg t²b§s‹cŠg vº¤T§J¦n ¿ o¤vŠk G‹gʳH³u k [hahnj] :vœ²Iv±h QUËr‰C v¼¨T‹g v˨T©t oI·k¨J‰C UkŠf£t³u t²H©T§J¦n iIv‰k s‹c g³u k :²hh©s tŠfh¦r‰C i‹g‰F r‹c±d Unh±h©e±u t¨r‰p‹m‰C Unh¦s§e©t±u tk :Uth¦,§JU oÉ¥j‰K©J±h³u uh·¦j¨t‰k Jhɦt U¼g‰cœ¨­°H³u r¤e«ºC‹c UnhɈF§J³H³u tk :UœT§J°H³u U¼k‰ft«œH³u Vh¥,²u‰k¦n Uk²z£t³u e¨j‰m°h iUbh¦j‰k©J±u h¦vUj£t‹k hÉ¥s‰c‹g¿ Ut«¿c²H³u tU½v©v oIÉH‹C | hɦv±h³u ck :oIœk¨J‰C I¼T¦tœ¥n UËf‰kœ¯H³u eº¨j‰m°h h¥s‰c‹g I,£t³u tUv©v t¨nIh‰C v²u£v³u ck :oŠk§JˆC UrŠp£j h¦s t¨rh‡C e©xh‡g k‹g Vh‡k Uth°u£j³u e¨j‰m°h Ubtˊm¨n I¼k Ur§nt«ËH³u Ur·Š·Šp¨j rɤJ£t r¼¥t‰C©v ,IËs«t›k‹g Iºk UsÉ°D³H³u eº¨j‰m°h V¨,²h t¨r§eU dk :t²H©n t²b§j‹F§J©t Vh‡k Ur¨n£t³u s¼‹g g‹cº¤J rÉ¥t‰C¿ rhˆg¨v›o¥J iʇF›k‹g v·Š·Šg‰c¦J V¼¨,«t t˨r§e°H³u dk :o°hœ¨n s‹g g‹c¤J r¥t‰C t¨T§r©e§S V¨n§J i‡F k‹g vŠg‰c¦J ih°b§J ihˆg‰C§r©t r‹C u«¨a‡g v²u£v³u sk :ih¥s¨v t¨nIh ¿v¨­¦t j Ê©E°H³u vº²b¨J ohɈgŠC§r©t›i†C ¿ u«¨a‡g hʦv±h³u sk x :vœ®Z©v oIËH©v ,³h±u v¨t¨T¦j h¦r¥t‰C ,‹C ,h¦sUv±h ,³h t¨,§T¦t ch¥x±bU :hœ¦T¦jœ©v i¼Oh¥t›,‹C ,º©n«§aɊC›,¤t±u h·¦T¦jœ©v h¼¦r¥t‰C›,‹C ,hº¦sUv±h›,¤t iŠc§r©x§n v¨t²u£v³u vk :v¨t¨T¦j iIkh¥t ,‹C ,©n«§aŠC s‹F v²u£v³u t :v¨e‰c¦r±u e¨j‰m°h r©nh¥n k‹g i²z±d©r§nU iÉ¥e²z›hœˆF ¿ h¦v±hœ³u t zf x :vœ¨e‰c¦r‰kU e¼¨j‰m°h‰k ©jU·r ,©r«Én ² ih¼®h§vœ¦T³u vk

hWar anb k kl kl fatnrbu bdgbul/ kt )fy( uchbhl: chbhbu g,v do ,vh tchl' uha ntuvch/ xhg, nrjnuvh uxhg, f,rdunu nrgvu/ utjz, )fu( gk ao gk acgv/ )kd( fi: fnu kbu gav g,v( )x"t t,v do t,v/ ngnbu: fsh sanaui' ' 2 nrgho akaho fnu ' 1 v,hcv nhxus nw nrgvu pu,rhi gau vhv bnak kjzhr' abtnr hfrxnbv abtnr kjzhr' bnak vhv gau abv/ trcgho ci )ks( vcrh,: xhg, fi' vnkfu, gk kscr tr. srl thi tck scuev' utjuz, ,hc, a,vhv ' vjzhr vzv' favut aufc puay ykphu kunr rtu atbh yvur' atbh rtu kunr ykphu puay aufc favut vzv' vjzhr ' 5 nhgr jzhr tj, xhgv tkt ku vhv ukt gnu' vukhl tuvchu xhg, fk fi ato tuvchu' fl tku duzkho ujunxho' unrtho gmno farho/ fk nw abv vhv gau ms gau vhv abv nw fk farho/ gmno unrtho ujunxho' duzkho tku fl tjz,' ak ,h"u gk ,,nv utk vrtaui/ fkaui kpu,ru ha kfi tuvcho' ak baho n,j, hs cgkhvi' ungbv tu,o' favhv ci nw' tnr' tct ci nw abv nw ci tct tnr' nw' ci favhv tu,o' ungbv cgkhvi' hs n,j, baho uafur, ' 3 nmr gzr, cnert sudn,v ha xnufv' ,hcv athbv ph gk ut; kaui vnrt, ruj' fnu nnrho fnu ruj' vnrt, kaui ruj/ nur, )kv( fi: tbh t; tav' bat rtu rthbu/ rtu )fj( hjs: abtjzhi utdusv' echmv kaui tjz,/ : 4 nhhi ukt avhu gucsu, avhu ukrcev/ khmje ukgmcui: kvfghx vhu ngahvi fk ' 6 vhh,o nhnh chbu,hbu tar vtkv uduw/ chbu,hbu tkv bt ,vh cl: rthbu ctchl

ALIAS (PARSHAS TOLDOS) REAL NAME (PARSHAS VAYISHLACH)

YEHUDIS, DAUGHTER OF BE’AIRIY THE CHITITE (26:34) AHALIVAMAH, DAUGHTER OF TZIVON THE CHITITE (36:2)

BASMAS, DAUGHTER OF AILON THE CHITITE (26:34) ADAH, DAUGHTER OF AILON THE CHITITE (36:2) WIVES EISAV’S MACHALAS, DAUGHTER OF YISHMA’EL (28:9) BASMAS, DAUGHTER OF YISHMAEL (36:3)

scrho y' fs y' scrho 6 hs p' ,vkho 5 ft bt' haghw 4 hd x' ,vkho 3 ht hs' aupyho 2 y xs' cwwr 1 177 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 26:23-34

FOURTH 23 He went up from there to Be’er-Sheva. 24 That night, God appeared to him and said, “I am the God READING of Avraham, your father. Do not be afraid, because I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of Avraham, My servant.” 25 He built an altar there, and he (prayed) in the Name of God. He pitched his tent there, and Yitzchak’s servants dug a well there.

[ A V I M E L E C H S W E A R S AN O ATH W I T H Y I T Z C H A K [ 26:26 vimelech went to him from Gerar with a group of his companions and Fichol, his army-general. 27 Yitzchak said to them, “Why have you come to me, if you hate me, and you sent me away from you?” A28 They said, “We see that God was with you (and) we saw (that God was with your father), so we said: Let the oath that was between us (from the days of your father) be between ourselves and you. Let us form a covenant with you, 29 that you do no harm to us, just like we have not touched you. And, just like we only treated you well and we sent you away in peace, you too – blessed one of God – now (do the same).”

FIFTH 30 (Yitzchak) made a feast for them, and they ate and drank. 31 They got up early in the morning and READING swore an oath with each other. Yitzchak sent them off, and they went away from him in peace. 32 Then, on that same day, Yitzchak’s servants came and told him about the well that they had dug. They said to him, “We have found water.” 33 He named it Shivah (“oath”). The city is therefore called Be’er-sheva to this very day.

[ E I S A V M A R R I E S [

34 When Eisav was forty years old he married Yehudis, the daughter of Be’airiy the Chitite, and Basmas, the daughter of Ailon the Chitite. 35 (Their idol-worship) tormented Yitzchak and Rivkah.

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l Why did Eisav marry when he was forty years old? (v. 34) animal.” So do these [descendants of Eisav] rob and plunder and then RASHI: Eisav has been compared to a pig, as the verse states, “The pretend to be honorable. For forty years, Eisav kidnapped wives from pig from the forest gnaws at it” (Ps. 80:14). This pig, when it lies down, their husbands and violated them. When he was forty years old, he stretches out its hooves, as if to say, “See, I am a clean (kosher) said, “My father married at forty. I too will do the same.”

TORAS MENACHEM ¦ EISAV’S WIVES (V. 34) In Parshas Vayishlach, when Eisav’s descendants are listed, the Torah [ [ reveals the true names of Eisav’s wives (36:2-3). Rashi (ibid.) explains the Sparks of Chasidus significance of each of the pseudonyms that are used here in Parshas Toldos. he Talmud states that in the future redemption we will say to T Yitzchak, “you are our father,” more so than to the other However, one detail Rashi does not explain is why the name of patriarchs (Shabbos 89b). This messianic quality of Yitzchak is Yehudis’s father is changed here from Tzivon the Chitite to Be’airiy the evident here in the account of how Avimelech came of his own Chitite. volition to make peace with Yitzchak (v. 26ff.), an act which is Another, more general question is: What is the connection between reminiscent of the time when, “in the End of Days, the mountain Eisav’s marriage and the preceding passage, about Yitzchak’s digging of of God’s house will be established on the top of the mountains... wells and the oath with Avimelech? all nations will flood to it ....and many people will go and say, THE EXPLANATION ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of God.’”(Isaiah 2:2-3).

According to Rashi, Eisav married at the age of forty to fool people into (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 25, p. 127-8) thinking that he was a loyal son who followed in his father’s footsteps, to the extent that he even married at the same age. In this vein, Rashi ch-t:zf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 178 ,³h t¨r§eU h¯z¡j¤n‰k¦n h¦vIbh‡g t²h£v‹f±u e¨j‰m°h ch¦x k«½s²D©v IÉb‰C | uÉ«¨a‡g›,¤t tĨr§e°H³u ,«·t§rœ¥n uh¼²bh‡g ² ihˤv‰f¦T³u eº¨j‰m°h Vh‡k r©n£t³u h¦r‰C Vh‡k r©n£t³u tŠC©r Vh¥r‰C u«¨a‡g tËO h¦T±b ·©e²z t¼²b›v¯B¦v r¤nt«ÈH³u c :h°bœ¯B¦v uh¼Šk¥t r¤nt«ËH³u hº°b‰C¿ uhŠk¥t r¤nt«ÊH³u t²b£t ,h‡k ,hˆch¥x i‹g‰f t¨v r©n£t³u c :t²b£t t¨v QŠp±h©x Q²b±h³z iŠg‰F c©x i‹g‰fU d :,Unh¥t§s t¨nIh g©s²h ¿t‡m±u W·¤T§J©e±u ¼W±h‰k¤T Whº†k‡f tɲb›t«¨a ¿ v¨T‹g±u d :hœ¦,In oIËh h¦T‰g¼©s²h sh‡c g³u s :t¨sh‡m hˆk sUm±u tŠk§e©j‰k eUpU Q¨T§J©e±u rˤJ£tœ‹F oh¦N‹g§y©n h¿ˆk›v«¥a gœ³u s :[s°hœŠm we] vshm h¼ˆK v¨sUËm±u vº¤s¨¬©v hˆk kh‡g¨,±u ,h¦nh¥j§r h¦s t¨n‰F ihˆkh¦J‰c©T hˆk tŠk s‹g h¦J‰p³b Q²bhˆf§rŠc§, h¦S kh¦s‰C kUfh¥t±u o¤rˤy‰C h¼¦J‰p³b ËW‰f¤rœŠc§T rUÁc gœ‹C vŠk·‡f«t±u h¼ˆK v¨thˈc¨v±u h¦T‰cÁ©v¨t oˆg e¨j‰m°h kh‡K©n s‹F ,‹g¨n§J v¨e‰c¦r±u v :,Unh¥t ¿u«¨a‡g Q†kʯH³u I·b‰C u¼«¨a‡g›k¤t eº¨j‰m°h rɇɇC©s‰C ,‹gº©n«J vɨe‰c¦r±u v :,Uœn¨t t¨sh‡m s‹mh¥n‰k tŠk§e©j‰k u«¨a‡g k³z£t³u Vh¥r‰C u«¨a‡g V¨r‰C c«e g³h‰k ,©r¨n£t v¨e‰c¦r±u u :v¨t¨,±h©t‰k V¼²b‰C c« Ëe gœ³h›k¤t vº¨r§nœ¨t ¿ v¨e‰c¦r±u u :thœˆc¨v‰k s°h¼‹m sUËmŠk vº¤s¨¬©v u«¨a‡g oˆg kh‡k©n§n QUc¨t ,³h ,hˆg¨n§J t¨v r©nh¥n‰k :r«œnt‡k Wh¼¦j¨t uË«¨a‡g›k¤t rÁ‡C©s§n Whºˆc¨t›,¤t¿ h¦T‰g¿©n¨J vʯB¦v r«·nt‡k hˆk sh‡c g³u t¨sh‡m hˆk h¦,±h©t z :r¨nh¥n‰k QUj¨t o¨s¢e ²h±h o¨s¢e Q²bhˆf§rŠc£t³u kIfh¥t±u ihˆkh¦J‰c©T h˯b‰pˆk vÁŠf‰f¤rœŠc£tœ³u vŠk·‡f«t±u oh¼¦N‹g§y©n hˈk›v«¥a gœ³u s°hÁ‹m hˈK v¨th¿ˆc¨v z t²b£t h¦s t¨n‰k h°b¦n kh‡C©e h¦r‰C i‹g‰fU j :h¦,In v˲U‹m§n h¼°b£t rˤJ£tœ‹k h·ˆk«e‰C gÉ©n§J h¼°b‰c v˨T‹g±u j :hœ¦,In h˯b‰pˆk v¼²Iv±h hˆk c©x±u t²bŠg ,³u‰k i‹g‰F kh¯z¦t y :Q¨,²h t¨s§e‹p§n oh·ˆc«y oh¼°Zˆg h˯h¨s±D hÁ¯b§J o½¨­¦n hɈk›j©e±u it«ºM©v›k¤t¿ t²b›Q†k y :Qœ¨,«t iIv§,³h sh‡C‹g©t±u i²h‰c©y ih°zˆg h¯h§s³D ih¥r§T i¨N©T¦n h¥,±h©,±u h :oh¥j¨r h¦s t¨n‰F QUc£t‹k ihˆkh¦J‰c©T Wh¼ˆc¨t‰k ˨,t‡cœ¥v±u h :cœ¥v¨t rˤJ£tœ‹F Wh¼ˆc¨t‰k ohÁ¦N‹g§y©n oͨ,«t v¿«¤aƒgœ¤t±u :Vh¥,In o¨s¢e Q²bhˆf§rŠc±h h¦S kh¦s‰C kUfh¯h±u QUc£t‹k ›k¤t c«ºe gœ³h r¤nt«ÉH³u th :Iœ,In h˯b‰pˆk ¼W‰f¤rœŠc±h rˤJ£t rÁŒc gœ‹C k·Šf¨t±u h¦j¨t u«¨a‡g t¨v Vh¥n¦t v¨e‰c¦r‰k c«e g³h r©n£t³u th oh¦t¨n ch :‹ghˆg§J r‹c±d t²b£t³u i¨r g«©a r‹c±d hʋkUt ch :eœŠk¨j Jh˦t h¼ˆf«bœ¨t±u rºˆg«¨a Jhɦt¿ h¦j¨t uÊ«¨a‡g iÉ¥v I·N¦t v ¼¨e‰c¦r

hWar ' thi ' 2 aabhbu ftu,v vajzv' kaui bt/ at k,ku,v: asrl jrcl' ,khl/ )d( uneyhru, ngabu, )avhu tku' ak cgabi u,fvhi/ )t( : 1 tkhkho gcus, najhzhi t, vxfhi tck nahtv gk dch jcr,v' jss xfhbl uajuy hpv akt hpv uajuy xfhbl jss jcr,v' dch gk nahtv tck vxfhi t, najhzhi kajyu' rumv tchu uvhv vnzcj' dch gk fabges tjr' scr tkhkho(/ kgcus, kmus mhs kvcht/ mhs kmus )v( vdzk: ni ukt vvper' ni kh/ umusv / 3 bckv ,tfhkbh sngu,hvo uhrsu cufho' uvhu var, nktfh urtu vanho' bp,ju agv ctu,v crau,u' ahxfho crau,u' vw/ kpbh )z( vdzk: ni hcht mhs' hnmt kt to kvcht' nvu vcrfu,: t, hgec ahyuk fsh tjr' scr ghbhu/ fvu kphfl ghbhu' gk ubpku nakh vo uthbo dzk' afl f,c kv hmje cf,uc,v khyuk cf,uc,v hmje kv f,c afl dzk' uthbo vo nakh kh/ uej )y( hsh: gk kpre tso ndhg to erjv' ci hvuag rch tnr nu,h/ huo hsg,h kt )c( ufh abh dshh gzho vhv ntfku ak ntfku vhv gzho dshh abh ufh gzho/ dshh abh : 4 huo cfk gzho dshh abh tnr' ef"d' ci vhv uhmje fi' ktjr ujna kpbhvo' abho jna hstd tcu,hu' me tt x vv vj vrc pj' vj gv yno cpreh nygnho/ gav uvtjs kpxju' verhc vtjs vhv' pxj tkt hmje' xnul abho vw ci uvrhbh n,v' ef"z c, uvht ndhg' tbh tnh kpre ant cgk agr/ tha )ht( vmch: fygo vdsh ygo fh tvc/ ftar tkhgzr: srch tct: kpre ant tnh kpre ant nu,h' huo hsg,h kt kphfl kprev'

TORAS MENACHEM explains in Parshas Vayishlach that he gave his wife (who was really called third well was left in peace, and Yitzchak then swore an oath of peace with Ahalivamah) the name Yehudis, a name whose meaning suggests that she Avimelech, king of the Philistines. Therefore, after marrying at forty years had abandoned idol worship (Rashi 36:2). to mimic his father, Eisav continued his ploy of paternal imitation by And since Ahalivamah was born from a wicked family, as Rashi acquiring his own well – not in the literal sense, but rather, by acquiring a explains, Eisav was forced to change her father’s name too, in order to father-in-law whose name was Be’airiy, literally: “my well.” Thus he was maintain the image that he had married a righteous person. So he called intimating, “just like my father has his own well, I have my own too.” her Yehudis, daughter of Be’airiy the Chitite. (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 163ff.) At the literal level, there is no need to explain the significance of every ¦ name. (Only those names which pose some sort of question or RASHI’S THREE INTERPRETATIONS (V. 1) contradiction are explained by Rashi). Therefore, Rashi was not required Rashi offers three explanations as to why Yitzchak’s sight became weak. to explain why Eisav chose the name Be’airiy in particular, since it is However, Rashi’s comment is perplexing because: already self-evident from Rashi’s commentary why Eisav was forced to a.) The Torah itself appears to explain why Yitzchak’s vision became change this name. impaired, because he was old: “Yitzchak had grown old. The vision of his Perhaps it could be argued that Eisav chose the name Be’airiy in order eyes had dimmed” (See Rashbam). Why did Rashi need to offer any to further promote his deception. We read in the previous section that explanation at all? after Yitzchak dug a series of wells which were contested by Philistines, his b.) Why did Rashi find it necessary to bring three interpretations?

4 ao ao hs ao ao 4 hd xv' wwr c 3 fj/ chmv 2 s xv' cwwr 1 179/ BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 27:1-11

[ Y A ’ A K O V T A K E S E I S A V ’ S B L E S S I N G [ itzchak had grown old (and he wanted to bless Eisav*). 27 The vision of his eyes had dimmed. He summoned Eisav, his older son, and he said to him, Y “My son.” “I’m here,” he replied. 2 “Look, now I have grown old. I don’t know when I will die. 3 So now, sharpen your tools, (take) your sword and your bow, and go out to the field to hunt game for me. 4 Make for me the tasty foods that I love, and bring them to me to eat. For (doing this) my soul will bless you before I die.” 5 Rivkah was listening when Yitzchak spoke to Eisav, his son... Eisav went to the field to hunt game. (He intended) to bring (meat from stolen animals if he was unable to trap his own). 6 Rivkah said to her son Ya’akov, “Look, I heard your father speaking to Eisav your brother, saying, 7 ‘Bring me game and make me tasty foods to eat, and I will bless you before my death, before God.’ 8 Now, my son, listen to my voice, to what I am commanding you: 9 Go now to the flock, and take two of my choice kids from there, and I will make (one of) them into tasty foods for your father, (the types) that he loves (since a goat tastes like game). 10 You will bring (them) to your father to eat. For (doing this) he will bless you before he dies.” 11 Ya’akov said to Rivkah his mother, “But my brother Eisav is a hairy person, and I am a smooth

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l Why was Yitzchak’s vision weak? (v. 1) SIFSEI CHACHAMIM: First Rashi offers an explanation which is based RASHI: Because of the smoke of the above-mentioned [wives of on the juxtaposition of verses (since the previous verse alludes to the Eisav] who would burn incense in idol worship. idol worship of Eisav’s wives). However, this leaves the reader with the question: How could God cause this to happen to Yitzchak? Another explanation: When Yitzchak was bound on the altar and Therefore Rashi brings the latter reason, that Yitzchak’s blindness his father was about to slaughter him, the heavens opened and the was to enable Ya’akov to take the blessings. However, we are still ministering angels looked on and wept. Their tears fell upon left with the question: Why did Rivkah not become blind too from Yitzchak’s eyes and as a result, his eyes became dim. the smoke? Therefore, Rashi brings the additional explanation that Another explanation: To enable Ya’akov to take the blessings. Yitzchak’s eyes had already been weakened at the Akeida, therefore RASHBAM: Yitzchak’s eyes dimmed from old age. his eyes were more severely affected by the smoke.

TORAS MENACHEM

THE EXPLANATION a.) Rashi’s first explanation: smoke damage Towards the end of Parshas Chayei Sarah, the Torah states that, “After This explanation is preferable as it is indicated by the Torah itself. In the Avraham died, God blessed Yitzchak his son” (25:11). Rashi explains why previous verse, we read that Eisav and his wives, “tormented Yitzchak it was God, and not Avraham, who blessed Yitzchak: “Even though God and Rivkah” (26:35), and Rashi writes that this was due to their idol gave over the blessings to Avraham, he was afraid to bless Yitzchak since worship. In the following verse we read that, “Yitzchak had grown old. he foresaw Eisav coming forth from him. He said, ‘Let the Master of The vision of his eyes had dimmed” (27:1) so it follows that Yitzchak’s blessings come and bless whoever He pleases!’ So, God came and blessed visual impediment here in 27:1 was caused by the idol worship him.” mentioned in 26:35 (see Sifsei Chachamim). Since this is the most Thus, on reaching our verse, that, “the vision of his (Yitzchak’s) eyes contextually preferable solution, Rashi cited it as his first and primary was dimmed,” Rashi was troubled by an obvious question: If God interpretation. personally blessed Yitzchak, then how is it possible that he should lose his However, this explanation alone is insufficient, as we are left with two sight? Surely God’s blessing should have spared him from this aggravation? questions: Presumably, Eisav and his family would not have burned Thus, Rashi searched for an explanation why Yitzchak’s loss of vision incense to idols in Yitzchak's presence – they probably lived in a separate was not due to his old age, but rather, due to some external factor. In the residence in any case – so why should Yitzchak have been affected by the final analysis, Rashi found it necessary to bring three interpretations, since smoke? And, if Yitzchak was affected, why was Rivkah not harmed too? each of them have their own respective advantages and disadvantages: Therefore, Rashi looked for another interpretation.

*gWp keuWa jyWu' gw 112' vgrv 5/ vgrv 112' gw jyWu' keuWa *gWp cf-ch:zf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 180 h¦v¤t²u ch‡gŠk§,¦n‰F h¦vIbh‡g‰c h¦v¤t²u tŠC©t h°b³bh¦JUn±h tËO±u v¼ŠkŠk§e hÁ‹kŠg h˦,t‡cœ¥v±u ‹g·¥T‰g©,§nˆF uh¼²bh‡g‰c h¦,hË°h¨v±u hºˆc¨t¿ h°b¿¥­ªn±h Vh‡k ,©r¨n£t³u dh :i‹f§rˆc tŠk±u ih¦y²u‰k h‹kŠg h¦,±h©n t²H©y²u‰k iU,h¯h tŠk§s v¨tUc±bˆC r©n£t§,¦t h‹kŠg Vh¥n¦t Qˇk±u h¼ˆk«e‰C gË©n§J QÁ©t h·°b‰C ¼W§,œŠk‰k¦e hˋkŠg IºN¦t¿ Ik r¤nt«ÊT³u dh :vœŠf¨r‰c hˆk c©x kh¯zh¦t±u h°b¦n kh‡C©e o©r‰C h¦r‰C QŠk g : r¼¤J£tœ‹F ohº¦N‹g§y©n¿ IN¦t G‹gÊ©T³u I·N¦t‰k t¼‡c²H³u jº©E°H³u¿ Q†k¿¯H³u sh :hœˆk›j©e Vh¥n¦t ,©sŠc g³u Vh¥nh¦t‰k h¥,±h©t±u ch¦x±bU k³z£t³u sh ,‹ch¦x±bU uy :h¦vUc£t o¥j¨r h¦s t¨n‰F ihˆkh¦J‰c©T ,«ºsªn£jœ©v¿ k«s²D©v Vʲb‰C u«¨a‡g h¿¥s±dˆC›,¤t vƨe‰cƦr j É©E¦T³u uy :uhœˆc¨t cË¥v¨t h¦s t¨,²h‰f©s tŠC©r V¨r‰C u«¨a‡g h¥JUc‰k ,³h v¨e‰c¦r ¿,«r«g ,½¥t±u zy :iœ¨y¨E©v V˲b‰C c«¼e gœ³h›,œ¤t JˇC‰k©T³u ,°h·ŠC‹C V¼¨T¦t rˤJ£t :t¨rhˆg±z V¨r‰C c«e g³h ,³h ,©JhˆC‰k©t±u t¨,h‡c‰C V¨nˆg k‹g ,©JhˆC‰k©t h¯zˆg r‹C h¯h§s³d§s h‡f§J©n ,³h±u zy iÍ¥T¦T³u zh :uhœ¨rt²U‹m , Ë©e‰k¤j k¼‹g±u uh·¨s²h›k‹g v¨Jh¼ˆC‰k¦v ohº°Zˆgœ¨v hɯh¨s±D ,³h ,‹c¨vh°u zh :Vh¥r¥t²u‹m ,Ughˆg§J k‹g±u h¦vIs±h :Vœ²b‰C c«Ëe gœ³h s¼³h‰C v¨,·«¨aŠg rɤJ£t o¤j¼†K©v›,¤t±u ohÁ¦N‹g§y©N©v›,¤t c«e g³h§s t¨shˆC ,©sŠc g h¦s t¨n§j‹k ,³h±u t²h‹kh¦J‰c©T r©n£t³u tŠC©t r©n£t³u h¦vUc£t ,³u‰k kt‹g±u jh :V¨r‰C :hœ°b‰C v¼¨T©t h˦n h°Bº®B¦v r¤nt«ÉH³u h·ˆc¨t r¤nt«ÉH³u uh¼ˆc¨t›k¤t t«Ëc²H³u jh c«e g³h r©n£t³u yh :h¦r‰C §T©t it©n t²b£t t¨v h¦s t¨n‰F ,h¦sŠc g Q¨r‰fUC u«¨a‡g t²b£t h¦vUc£t‹k rˤJ£tœ‹F h¦,hÈ«¦aŠg Wº¤r«f‰C uÉ«¨a‡g ¿ hˆf«bœ¨t uh½ˆc¨t›k¤t c«Âe gœ³h r¤nt«¿H³u yh h¦sh‡m¦n kUfh¥,±u r©j§T§x¦t i‹g‰F oUe h¦nˆg t¨T‰k†k©n h°Bˋf£rœŠc§T rU¼c gœ‹C hº¦sh‡M¦n ¿ vŠk‰f¨t±u v½Šc§J tɲb›oUe h·Š·Šk¥t ¨T§r¼‹C¦S e¨j‰m°h r©n£t³u f :Q¨J‰p³b h°b³bhˆf§rŠc§, h¦S kh¦s‰C r©n£t³u h¦r‰C t¨jŠF§J©t‰k t¨,h¥jIt ih¥S v©n Vh¥r‰cˆk h·°b‰C t«¼m§nˆk ¨T§rË©v¦n vÁ®Z›v©n Iºb‰C›k¤t ¿ e¨j‰m°h r¤nt«ÊH³u f :Wœ¤J‰p³b e¨j‰m°h r©n£t³u tf :h¨n¨s¢e Q¨vŠk¡t ²h±h ih¦n³z h¥r£t c«ºe gœ³h›kœ¤t¿ e¨j‰m°h r¤nt«ÊH³u tf :hœ²bŠp‰k Wh¼¤vO¡t v˲Iv±h vÁ¨r§e¦v hˈF r¤nt«ÈH³u ih¥S §T©t©v h¦r‰C Q²bUJh¦n£t³u i‹g‰F ch¥r§e c«e g³h‰k e¨j‰m°h ,³u‰k c«e g³h ch¥r§eU cf :tŠk o¦t u«¨a‡g h¦r‰C JͳD°H³u cf :tœO›o¦t u¼«¨a‡g hË°b‰C vÁ®z v˨T©tœ©v h·°b‰C ¼W§Jœªn£tœ³u t˲B›v¨J±D

hWar fnv gah,h/ cfurl: vut ugau kl' vncht tbfh cfrl/ gau tbfh )hy( f,rdunu vbehu, vjnsu,/ )yu( : 1 cmvrho nnaa fnu hnabh/ )hc( agr: kaui nhxc gk vakji' kfl n,urdo tx,jr: n,urdo kfl vakji' gk nhxc kaui acv/ tkh: scr, ftar scrho' fnv uvkt cch,/ t,v tar bnrus: ni tu,i ajns tjr scr sfhh,t/ tnr hmje ckcu' thi srl gau kvhu, ao anho ao kvhu, gau srl thi ckcu' hmje tnr utnal/ bt dav )ft( ujuasi: cngahvi ceh avhv tkt tnu' tmk npehs uvut ku' vhu baho

TORAS MENACHEM

(As for Eisav’s wives, we can presume that either they indeed lost their interpretations since it explains how Yitzchak lost his sight only at the end sight, or they knew how to avoid the ill effects of the smoke. Eisav himself of his life, a fact stated explicitly by scripture (“Yitzchak had grown old. was, “a man of the field” (25:27), who spent little time at home, so The vision of his eyes had dimmed”). According to the second presumably he was unaffected). interpretation, Yitzchak lost his sight at the Akeida, at the age of 37, well b.) Rashi’s second interpretation: damage by angels’ tears at the Akeida before old age; and according to the first interpretation, he lost his sight This interpretation – that Yitzchak’s eyes were damaged by tears of the from the age of 100 when Eisav married, 80 years before his passing. angels at the Akeida – is preferable to the other two explanations which The verse should thus have stated that, “The vision of his eyes had Rashi brings, for two reasons. Firstly, it explains how Ya’akov received the blessing from Yitzchak due to a positive reason (Yitzchak’s courage at the Akeida) rather than the negative reasons of the other two interpretations. [ [ Secondly, this interpretation explains more satisfactorily why Yitzchak The Last Word never noticed that Eisav worshipped idols, since he lost his sight at the ather than take away Yitzchak’s sight, God could have made Akeida, before Eisav was born. According to the other interpretations R Yitzchak give the blessing willingly to Ya’akov in a very however, it is somewhat difficult to imagine how Eisav’s unholy activities simple manner: he could have revealed to Yitzchak that Eisav was would have remained totally undiscovered by Yitzchak for so many years. in fact a wicked person. However, this interpretation alone is unsatisfactory, since it is a non- From this we can learn to what extremes a person should go to literal, Midrashic teaching which is not indicated at all by scripture. avoid speaking negatively about another Jew. For God was Therefore, Rashi sought for a third solution. willing to allow Yitzchak to lose his sight rather than to speak c.) Rashi’s third interpretation: God took away Yitzchak’s sight badly about Eisav. Rashi’s third interpretation – that God took away Yitzchak’s sight in (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 15, pp. 215-6) order for Ya’akov to receive the blessings – is superior to the other

1 scrho fj' fy fj' scrho 1 181 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 27:11-21

(skinned) person. 12 Maybe my father will feel me, and see that I am an imposter – I will bring upon myself a curse and not a blessing.” 13 But his mother said to him, “Let your curse be on me, my son. Listen to my voice: go and get (the goats) for me.” 14 So he went, and took (the goats), and he brought (them) to his mother. His mother made tasty foods, that his father loved. 15 Rivkah took her older son Eisav’s clean clothing which she had in the house, and she dressed Ya’akov, her younger son. 16 She put the goats’ skins on his hands and on the smooth part of his neck. 17 She gave the tasty foods and the bread which she had made, into the hand of Ya’akov, her son. 18 He came to his father and said, “My father!” (Yitzchak) said, “I’m here. Who are you, my son?” 19 Ya’akov said to his father, “I am... Eisav your firstborn. I did what you told me. Please come and sit (at the table) and eat some of my game, in order that your soul will bless me.” 20 Yitzchak said to his son, “How did you find it so quickly, my son?” He said, “Because God, your God, brought it to me.” 21 (When Ya’akov mentioned God, Yitzchak became suspicious, so) Yitzchak said to Ya’akov, “Please come closer, so that I may feel you, my son, to see if you are my son Eisav, or not.”

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l Why did Yitzchak tell Ya’akov to come closer? (v. 21) RASHI: Yitzchak said to himself, “Eisav doesn’t usually mention God’s name, but this man said: ‘Because God, your God, brought it.’” MIDRASH: Yitzchak said, “I know that Eisav doesn’t mention God’s name, and this man did mention it. He must be Ya’akov and not Eisav.”

TORAS MENACHEM dimmed,” before, “Yitzchak had grown old,” and not the other way around. However, this interpretation too is flawed, since we are left with the [ Sparks of Chasidus [ question: Why did God make Yitzchak suffer in order for Ya’akov to receive the blessing? Surely, God has many possible ways at His disposal YITZCHAK’S BLESSING of achieving any given result, so why did He not find a less harmful method for Ya’akov to receive the blessing, than causing Yitzchak to lose f Yitzchak knew that, “Eisav doesn’t mention God’s Name” (see his vision? I Classic Questions & Toras Menachem to v. 21), then why did he want to bless Eisav, and not Ya’akov? In fact, Rashi deemed the force of this question to be so strong, he recorded this interpretation last, indicating that it is the least preferable of Yitzchak perceived that within Eisav were holy sparks of an the three. extremely lofty spiritual source, more so than in Ya’akov’s case. Therefore, he chose to bless Eisav, because Yitzchak understood (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 15, pp. 211ff.) that his blessing had the spiritual power to elevate the sparks

¦ which were trapped within Eisav’s unholy existence, allowing YITZCHAK’S SUSPICION (V. 21) them to return back to their source. At first glance, Rashi appears to differ in opinion from the Midrash: In a sense, Yitzchak was indeed correct – his blessings did have Rashi writes that, “Eisav doesn’t usually mention God’s Name,” the power to rescue the sparks trapped within Eisav. But the whereas the Midrash stresses that, “Eisav doesn’t mention God’s Name,” blessing needed to pass first via Ya’akov, because Eisav was not suggesting that he never mentioned it. sufficiently prepared to utilize Yitzchak’s blessing properly. However, at the literal level we can only conclude that Eisav never So, God arranged matters such that Ya’akov would first receive mentioned God’s Name, otherwise the casual reference to God in verse the blessing , and then, Ya’akov in turn would utilize the blessing 20 would not would not have aroused Yitzchak’s suspicion. Rashi’s to elevate the sparks trapped in Eisav. intention here must be that Eisav never mentioned God’s Name, and he does not differ with the Midrash. Their slightly different phraseology is (Based on Sefer Hama’amorim Melukat, vol. 4, p. 64, note 14) thus inconsequential in this instance. (see Sparks of Chasidus) (Based on Sefer Hama’amorim Melukat, vol. 4, p. 64, note 14) yf-cf:zf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 182 t²h©sh°u c«e g³h§S Vh‡k¨e tŠk¨e r©n£t³u Vh¯h§J©nU h¦vUc£t o°h¼©s²H©v±u c«ºe gœ³h kI Ée¿ k«E©v r¤nt«½H³u Uv·¥­ªn±h³u uh¼ˆc¨t e˨j‰m°h›k¤t c« Áe gœ³h Iu£v h¥r£t Vh‡g§sIn§T§J¦t tŠk±u df :u«¨a‡g§s h¦vIs±h ,«·rˆg«§a uh¼¦j¨t uË«¨a‡g hÁ¥shˆF uh½¨s²h UÉh¨v›hœˆF IºrhˆF¦v tÉO±u df :uœ«¨a‡g hË¥s±h :Vh‡f§rŠcU i©rhˆg«§a h¦vUj£t u«¨a‡g h¥shˆF h¦vIs±h r©n£t³u vf :t²b£t r©n£t³u u«¨a‡g h¦r‰C ih¥S §T©t r©n£t³u sf r¤nt«½H³u vf :h°bœ¨t r¤nt«¼H³u u·«¨a‡g hÉ°b‰C v¼®z v˨T©t r¤nt«ÈH³u sf :Uvœ‡f£rœŠc±hœ³u kh¦s‰C h¦r‰c¦s t¨sh‡m¦n kIfh¥t±u h©n¨s¢e ch¥r§e ¿ Ik›J®D³H³u h·¦J‰p³b ¼W‰f¤rœŠc§T i‹gË©n‰k hº°b‰C shɇɇM¦n ¿ vŠk‰f«œt±u ¿ hˆK v¨JÊ°D©v Vh‡k h¦,±h©t±u kŠf£t³u Vh‡k ch¥r¨e±u h¦J‰p³b Q²bhˆf§rŠc§,¦S t˲B›v¨J±D uh·ˆc¨t eɨj‰m°h uh¼Šk¥t r¤nt«ËH³u uf :§T§Jœ¯H³u i°h¼³h IÌk t‡cͲH³u kº‹ft«H³u ch¥r§e h¦vUc£t e¨j‰m°h Vh‡k r©n£t³u uf :h¦,§JU t¨r§n©j j©r¨t±u Vh‡k eh¥J±bU ch¥r§eU zf :h¦r‰C hˆk e©J±bU i‹g‰F Uv·‡f£rœŠc±hœ³u uh¼¨s²d‰C ©jhË¥r›,¤t j©rÁ ²H³u Iºk›e©­œ°H³u¿ J³D°H³u zf :hœ°b‰C h¼ˆK›v¨e£JœU t¨jh¥r h¯z£j r©n£t³u Vh‡f§rŠcU h¦vIJUc‰k¦s t¨jh¥r ,³h [haa] :vœ²Iv±h I¼f£rœ‡C rˤJ£t vº¤s«¨a ©jhÉ¥r‰F hº°b‰C ©jhÉ¥r ¿ v¥t§r r¤nt«½H³u QŠk i¥Th°u jf :²h±h Vh‡f§rŠc h¦s tŠk§e©j ©jh¥r‰F h¦r‰c¦s i¼²d¨S c«Ër±u .¤r·¨t¨v h¼¯B©n§J¦nU o°hº©n¨­©v¿ k©Y¦n ohº¦vO¡tœ¨v ¿ W‰k›i¤Tœ°h±u jf ,Uh°d§xU tŠg§r©t§s stŠcUY¦nU t²h©n§J¦s tŠK©Y¦n ²h±h iUs‰C‰g©T§J°h±u ih¦n§n‹g Q²bUj‰k‰p°h yf :r¨n£j³u rUCˆg vʯu¡v ohº¦Nªt‰k ¿ W‰k [UÊu£jœ©T§J°h±u ‘e] uj,ahu oh½¦N‹g WUÉs‰c‹gœ³h yf :Jœrh¦,±u

hWar fnangu' unsra tdsv ha kvrcv pbho/ )scr tjr' nvu vtkvho' cshi' to cshi' vtkvho' nvu tjr' )scr pbho/ kvrcv ha tdsv unsra fnangu' ckaui anscr hgec/ euk )fc( tkvhl: vw verv fh tnr uzv cphu' adur rtuh kl' h,i kl' uto ktu kt h,i kl' tck kgau tnr' nanbh vtr. hvhv vtr. nanbh tnr' kgau tck kl' h,i kt ktu uto kl' h,i kl' rtuh htnr )fs( tch: heuo scr' ebyurht ckaui gau tck bt' euo ,jbubho' nuacl' chi mshe chi rag h,i kl/ unnbu kns aknv' fagav vch, xhsr vch, fagav aknv' kns unnbu kl/ h,i rag chi mshe chi nuacl' hu,r rg rhj thi uvkt uduw/ uhrj )fz( tbh: tkt gau' tbh tnr kt tbh/ ,pk,u' hartk avut cgk tnubv unmshe gkhu vshi' kt hert gkhl ,dr' gkhl hert kt vshi' gkhu unmshe tnubv cgk avut hartk ,pk,u' tar asv frhj gsi: di rhj gnu abfbxv nkns tkt vgzho' nay; ' tck bfrh njuxr tnbv' njuxr bfrh tck ' 2 kccu t, ,sg tar fsrfhu ktha ub,, kphfl uh,i )fj( rz"k: srau fi ,pujho' asv uzv yuc' rhj cu ab,i vw/ crfu kphfl tnr ut,v ,ang vanho uduw ugah, ffk tar hert tkhl' vbfrh' tkhl' hert tar ffk ugah, uduw vanho ,ang ut,v tnr kphfl ab,i cbh rhj rtv vrtaui' kgbhi nuxc pauyu ukph / 1 uh,i uhjzur h,i kl/ chi rtuh chi athbu rtuh ,i ku' fsh akt hert gkhl ,dr/ cra"h hai nsuhe(: hai cra"h ,dr/ gkhl hert akt fsh ku' ,i rtuh athbu chi rtuh chi vanho/ nyk uduw: vanho nyk kl h,i ugus uduw' asv frhj vec"v' ku

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l What “fragrance” did Yitzchak’s smell? (v. 27) from him] by Eisav. Nimrod obtained them from Adam, who wore RASHI: Surely there is no odor more offensive than that of goat’s them in the Garden of Eden. hair? [which Ya’akov was wearing - see v. 16]. This teaches us that NACHALAS YA’AKOV: Rashi cited the teaching of our Sages, that the fragrance of the Garden of Eden entered with him [and it was this Yitzchak smelled a field of apples since it explains why the verse uses fragrance that is referred to in v. 27]. “The fragrance of a field, which the term “field” in the singular. God has blessed,” indicates it had a pleasant fragrance, that of a field However, at the literal level, we can presume that the verse refers of apples. This is how our Sages explain it.. to fields in general. Thus Yitzchak smelled the fragrance of grasses SIFSEI CHACHAMIM: Eisav’s garments, which Ya’akov was wearing, and flowers. originally belonged to Nimrod, and they were coveted [and stolen

TORAS MENACHEM ¦ YA’AKOV’S PLEASANT AROMA (V. 27) interpretation that they were “clean garments,” they would have been What forced Rashi to conclude that, at the literal level of Torah odorless. interpretation, that the fragrance of the Garden of Eden entered with So, why did Rashi conclude that he had the aroma of the Garden of Ya’akov? Eden? [Sifsei Chachamim suggests] that the aroma came from Eisav’s Similarly, we need to explain why, at the literal level, Yitzchak exclaimed garments, which were originally owned by Adam in the Garden of Eden. that Ya’akov had the aroma of an apple field, in particular. What would This argument is based on an earlier comment of Rashi to v. 15. be wrong with presuming that we are speaking here of an ordinary field, The Torah describes Eisav’s garments as ,IsUn©j, and Rashi offers two of grasses and flowers? [see Nachalas Ya’akov] interpretations: “,IsUn©j©v means “the clean ones,” as Onkelos renders, t¨,²h‰f©S (clean ones). Another explanation: the garments that he had THE EXPLANATION coveted (s‹nŠj†J) from Nimrod.” In order to answer the above questions, we need to first address an However, even though Rashi does mention that Eisav acquired his obvious problem with Rashi’s comment here: garments from Nimrod, he makes no indication at all that they had a Presumably, Rivkah did not foresee that the aroma of the Garden of specific smell. Therefore, at the literal level, we can conclude that they Eden would enter with Ya’akov into Yitzchak’s chamber. So, if, “there is had no particular smell. And, obviously, according to Rashi’s first no odor more offensive than that of goats’ hair,” why did Rivkah not take

nkfho_t j' ky j' nkfho_t 2 d xu' cwwr 1 183 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 27:22-29

22 Ya’akov drew near to Yitzchak his father, and he felt him. (Yitzchak) said, “The voice is (polite like) the voice of Ya’akov, but the hands are the hands of Eisav!” 23 He did not recognize him because his hands were hairy like his brother Eisav’s hands, and he blessed him. 24 He said, “Are you my son Eisav?” “I am,” he said. 25 He said, “Serve me, so that I can eat my son’s game. For (doing this) my soul will bless you.” (Ya’akov) served him, and he ate. He brought him wine, and he drank. 26 His father Yitzchak said to him, “Please come closer and kiss me, my son.” 27 (Ya’akov) came closer, and he kissed him. (Yitzchak) smelled the fragrance of (what he thought was) his garments, and he blessed him. He said, “Look, the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of a field (of apples), which God has blessed!”

SIXTH 28 “And may the Almighty give you (repeatedly) from the dew of the skies and from the fatness of the READING earth, an abundance of corn and wine. 29 Nations will serve you; kingdoms will bow down to you.

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l What did Yitzchak begin his blessing with the word, given him, “is like the fragrance of a field...” (v. 27), and furthermore, “And...” (v. 28) “May He give you from the dew of the skies...” (v. 28). RASHI: [He was saying:] “May He give, and give again.” SIFSEI CHACHAMIM: According to Rashi’s first interpretation, According to its literal meaning, the verse is a continuation of the Yitzchak said, “May He give” blessings initially, and even if you will previous topic: “Look, the fragrance of my son,” which God has sin, He will “give again.”

TORAS MENACHEM

any precaution to stop Yitzchak from smelling the goats’ hair? Surely such However, this interpretation is difficult to accept, since it begs the a foul odor would have been an obvious give-away? question: Since God’s blessing is unlimited and devoid of any The solution to this problem however lies in Yitzchak’s instructions to imperfection, why would He need to give it twice? Eisav: “Go out to the field to hunt game for me. Make for me the tasty Therefore, Rashi brought a second interpretation, that verse 28 begins foods that I love, and bring them to me to eat” (v. 3-4). Clearly this involved with the word “and” because it is a continuation of verse 27. hunting an animal, slaughtering it, skinning and gutting it and then Nevertheless, this interpretation is problematic as there appears to be no preparing it to eat. All these jobs would have rendered Eisav quite connection between the subject of verses 27 and 28. So, Rashi cited both odorous indeed, so we can presume that Yitzchak was expecting Eisav to interpretations – the first, because it explains better the context of the have a bad smell. verse, and the second, because it explains the use of the word “and,” in Therefore, when the Torah relates in verse 27 that Ya’akov actually had particular. a pleasant fragrance, Rashi immediately asks: “Surely there is no odor WHY IS GOD’S BLESSING REPEATED? more offensive than that of goats’ hair?” What happened to the foul smell of goats’ hair that Ya’akov was wearing, which served to imitate the bad According to Sifsei Chachamim, Yitzchak gave a two-fold blessing aroma which Yitzchak was expecting? (“May He give, and give again”), to indicate that God’s blessings would be “given again” even if Ya’akov and his descendants sinned. Due to this question, Rashi understood that the Torah is hinting here, at the literal level, to the Midrashic teaching that the aroma of the Garden of However, this interpretation appears to contradict verse 40 below, Eden entered with Ya’akov. where Yitzchak tells Eisav that, “you shall serve your brother. But, when you grieve (about the blessings he took, because the Jewish people have Since Yitzchak was not aware that the aroma of the Garden had entered transgressed the Torah,) then you will break his yoke off your neck.” the room, he presumed that Ya’akov must have picked up the pleasant Here we see that if the Jewish people would sin, Yitzchak’s blessing that, smell while he was cooking the “tasty foods,” which obviously involved “you will be a master over your brothers, and your mother’s sons will bow the use of spices and sweet-smelling cooking agents. Thus, Rashi rejected down to you” (v. 29), would indeed be revoked, and instead, “you (Eisav) the notion that Yitzchak thought he was smelling a field of grasses and will break his yoke off your neck.” flowers, since these items are not used in cooking. Rather, Rashi accepted the Midrashic account that he smelled like a field of apples, since apples Rather, it would seem that the implication of Yitzchak’s two-fold blessing could be used when cooking “tasty foods.” is that the recipient would: a.) first receive the actual blessing itself; b.) He is then given the ability to utilize the blessing to its full extent. I.e. since (Based on Sichas Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5741) God’s blessing is unlimited, there is reason to fear that the person will not

¦ use it to his full potential, so the person actually requires a further blessing, THE BEGINNING OF YITZCHAK’S BLESSING (V. 28) to enable him to use the initial blessing properly. Rashi was troubled as to why Yitzchak would have begun his blessing Thus, God gives the blessing, and then, He “gives again” the ability to with the word, “and.” He therefore explained that Yitzchak was hinting utilize and internalize the blessing properly. to a twofold blessing, “May He give and give again.” (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 10, pp. 80ff.; Sichas Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5724) yk-yf:zf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 184 h¯b‰C QŠk iUs±D§x°h±u QUj¨t‰k c©r h¯u£v i²u‰F‰k©n QŠk Wh¼†f£rœŠc§nœU rUºr¨t Whɤr£rœ«t W·¤N¦t hɯb‰C W¼‰k UËu£jœ©T§J°h±u Whº¤j©t‰k ¿ rhˆc±d :ihˆfh¦r‰C iIv±h QŠfh¦r‰cU ih¦yˆk iIv±h Q¨y±h‹k Q¨n¦t v²u£v³u c«e g³h ,³h tŠf§rŠc‰k e¨j‰m°h h‡mh¥J s‹F v²u£v³u k t«Êm²h QÉ©t h½¦v±h³u ¸c«e gœ³h›,¤t QÉ¥rŠc‰k ¾e¨j‰m°h vɊKˆF r¿¤J£tœ‹F h½¦v±h³u k :QUœrŠC h¦vUc£t e¨j‰m°h o¨s¢e i¦n c«e g³h e‹p±b e‹ph¥n o©r‰C :Iœsh‡M¦n t¼ŠC uhº¦j¨t uÉ«¨a‡g±u uh·ˆc¨t eɨj‰m°h h¼¯b‰P ,Ë¥t¥n c«ºe gœ³h ¿ tŠm²h tUv ;©t s‹c g³u tk :Vh¥sh‡M¦n t¨,¨t h¦vUj£t u«¨a‡g±u oUe±h h¦vUc£t‹k r©n£t³u h¦vUc£t‹k kh‡g¨t±u ihˆkh¦J‰c©T ¿hˆc¨t o ʪe²h uh½ˆc¨t‰k r¤nt«ÉH³u uh·ˆc¨t‰k t¼‡c²H³u ohº¦N‹g§y©n¿ tUv›o³D G‹gʳH³u tk h°b³bhˆf§rŠc§, h¦S kh¦s‰C Vh¥r‰c¦s t¨sh‡m¦n kUfh¯h±u tŠC©t e˨j‰m°h IÁk r¤nt«ËH³u ck :Wœ¤J‰p³b h°Bˋf£rœŠc§T r¼Œc gœ‹C Iºb‰C shɇɇM¦n¿ k‹ft«h±u §T©t it©n h¦vUc£t e¨j‰m°h Vh‡k r©n£t³u ck :Q¨J‰p³b eɨj‰m°h s¿©r¡jœ®H³u dk :uœ«¨a‡g ¼W§r«œf‰c ËW±bˆC hÁ°b£t r¤nt«ÈH³u v¨T·¨t›h¦n uh¼ˆc¨t e¨j‰m°h V³u§,U dk :u«¨a‡g Q¨r‰fUC Q¨r‰C t²b£t r©n£t³u hˆfh¥s tUv it©n r©n£t³u t¨s£j‹k s‹g tŠC©r t¨v²u§T t‡c¿²H³u Ïs°hϋm›sœŠM©v tUÉv tIÇp¥t›hœ¦n r¤nt«ÇH³u ¸s«t§n›s‹g vɊk«s±D ¾v¨s¨r£j tŠk s‹g tŠkIF¦n ,hˆkŠf£t³u hˆk kh‡g¨t±u t¨sh‡m sŠm§s :vœ®h§vœ°h QU¼rŠC›o³D Uv·‡f£rœŠc£tœ²u tI¼c¨T o¤rˤy‰C k«ÁF¦n kˋf«tœ²u hˆk g©n§J s‹F sk :h¥v±h Qh¦r‰C ;©t Vh¥T‰f¦rŠcU kUgh¥, tŠC©r t¨T§j³u‰m j³u‰mU h¦vUc£t h¥n²d§,ˆP ,³h u«¨a‡g v¼¨r¨nU vˊk«s±D vº¨eŠg‰m eɋg‰m°H³u uhºˆc¨t hÉ¥r‰c¦S›,¤t ¿ u«¨a‡g ‹g«Ên§JˆF sk ;©t h°b‰f¥rŠC h¦vUc£t‹k r©n£t³u t¨s£j‹k s‹g t¨rh¦r§nU tˊC r¤nt«ÈH³u vk :hœˆc¨t h°b¼¨t›o³d h°bˇf£rœŠC uhºˆc¨t‰k r¤nt«ÉH³u s«·t§n›s‹g t¨n‰fUj‰C QUj¨t kt‹g r©n£t³u vk :tŠC©t t²b£t Vh¥n§J t¨r§e ,Ut²h r©n£t³u uk :Q¨,Šf§rˆC kh‡C©e±u c«½e gœ³h IÂn§J t¿¨r¨e Ïhˆf£v r¤nt«ÇH³u uk :Wœ¤,Šf§rˆC j ¼©E°H³u v·¨n§r¦n‰C Wh¼¦j¨t h¦,Urh‡f‰C ,³h ih°b§n°z ih¥T§r©T i³b§S h°b©n‰F©j±u c«e g³h h·¦,Šf§rˆC j É©eŠk v¼¨T‹g v˯B¦v±u jº¨eŠk hɦ,¨r«fœ‰C›,¤t o°hº©n gœ‹p vÉ®z¿ h°b¿‡c§e‰g³Hœ³u tŠk£v r©n£t³u h¦,Šf§rˆC kh‡C©e i‹g‰F t¨v±u ch¦x±b r©n£t³u e¨j‰m°h ch¥,£t³u zk :t¨,Šf§rˆC hˆk §T§e‹c§J iÉ¥v u½«¨a‡g‰k r¤nt«ÉH³u e¨j‰m°h i‹g¿³H³u zk :vœŠf¨r‰C h¼ˆK ¨T‰kˋm¨t›tœO£v rÈ©nt«H³u h¦vIj£t kŠF ,³h±u Q²uŠk‹g Vh¥,h°u©J c©r t¨v u«¨a‡g‰k J¼rh¦,±u i˲d¨s±u ohº¦sŠc gœ‹k¿ Ik h¦TÊ©,²b uh½¨j¤t›kŠF›,¤t±u¿ QŠk uh˦T§n«©a rhĈc±D r©n£j‹cU rUChˆg‰cU ih¦s‰c‹g‰k Vh‡k ,hˆc¨v±h r©n£t³u jk :h¦r‰C sh‡c g©t v¨n i‹g‰F QŠk±u Vh¥T§shˆg§x uh½ˆc¨t›k¤t u«¨a‡g r¤nt«¿H³u jk :hœ°b‰C v¼«¤aƒgœ¤t v˨n tIºp¥t vɊf‰kU uh·¦T‰f©n§x tŠC©t QŠk th¦v t¨s¨j t¨,Šf§rˆc£v h¦vUc£t‹k u«¨a‡g uÁ«¨a‡g t˨¬°H³u h·ˆc¨t h°b¼¨t›o³d h°bˇf£rœŠC hºˆc¨t ¿ W‰k›tuœ¦v ,Ê©j©t v¿Šf¨r cœ©v :tŠf‰cU Vh‡k¨e u«¨a‡g oh¥r£t³u tŠC©t t²b£t ;©t h°b‰f¥rŠC t¨v Vh‡k r©n£t³u h¦vUc£t e¨j‰m°h ch¥,£t³u yk ¿.¤r¿¨t¨v hʯB©n§J¦n vįB¦v uh·Šk¥t r¤nt«ÉH³u uh¼ˆc¨t e˨j‰m°h i‹gÁ³H³u yk :±L‰cœ¯H³u I¼k«e

hWar ' ant kfl bert anu hgec' gk ao xupu avut xupu ao gk hgec' anu bert kfl ant ' 4 t,v tjh vfh fnu vut' ,hnv nfnv cbho ku avhu kph tchl' cbh khvusv tnr uhgec tnl/ cbh )fy( kpbh eyi acrf,h ch ha gui ant tnr' hmje' jrs knv ' 5 ,bjunt kgecbh/ g,hs trur trrhl : 1 tnl cbh tnr tj,' tav tkt bat akt ufti tnvu,' dsuk' uabh,h xsr vhjx' v,jhk gau nmge uhgecbh zv pgnho' tnr ku tchu ku tnr pgnho' zv uhgecbh nmge gau v,jhk vhjx' xsr uabh,h dsuk' vmsheho trur' utrrhl crul ncrfhl tunr vut ucckgo crul/ uncrfhl nv gav kl' tnr ku t, cfur,h kej' tnr' cfl vhh,h nmr ujrs' ant gcr,h ant ujrs' nmr vhh,h cfl tnr' kej' cfur,h t, ku tnr kl' gav nv kphfl kncrfhvo' eusnho unmgrhvo uturrhvo akuv' uxupi hxurho ,jk,o f,rdunu ufnbh' f,rdunu uhgecbh/ hvhv: crul do crf,h' kcfur gfahu vshi' aur, gk uxupi akuv ,jk,i uvragho ncrfho' kcrf, turrho ekk, vesho hmje kaui vprav' kaui tmk,/ kh: b,jfo ujfnbh' n,rdnhi uha ufni/ utrc' trcbh/ ct: uzv humt zv hmt/ hmt )k( kekkv: crfv vesho ckgo kphfl hxurhi' crfv zu achgh, vht' uvut guav tu,v guav uvut vht' achgh, zu crfv dchr/ vi )kz( uhmk(: )x"t uhtmk fnu n,j,hu: p,ujv dhvbo rtv unsrau' ,nhv/ kaui u,uv' f,rdunu uhjrs/ )kd( rtaubv' tkt tnr ku' nv ,ugk, kl ccrfv' to ,ebv bfxho aku vo' avrh vo' aku bfxho ,ebv to ccrfv' kl ,ugk, nv ku' tnr tkt rtaubv' nh pv' thv thput' tjr scr scrho/ fnv go nana kgmnu' kaui thput/ nh thv cbh/ tgav nv tput ukfv rcu: ebv gcs aebv unv kl' an,hu dchr : 2 cu ygn,h kyguo acea,h ygnho nfk nfk/ utfk mhs: vms vut uthput vut v"t zu nana, kaui ,hnv' kaui nana, zu v"t tj,/ vcrfv )kj( kl: kgau, nv tcea thpt vcrfu,' t, byk kt ktchu hgec arhnv thkukh ,tnr' akt hvhv/ crul do zu uduw/ vtr. nanbh )ky( : 8 bck vfnu, ' 7 vht vanbv ' 6 vcnjbho fnu kaui anu/ ert vfh )ku( cjfnv: cnrnv/ )kv( : 3 nsg,u ucrfu vxfho kfl

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l Why did Yitzchak become “extremely bewildered”? (v. 33) His father said to him, “What did he do to you?” RASHI: The Midrash Tanchumah states: Why did Yitzchak become He replied, “He took my birthright.” bewildered? He said, “Perhaps I am guilty of a sin, for I have blessed [Yitzchak] said, “That is why I was troubled and bewildered, for I the younger son before the older one, and thus altered the order of was afraid that perhaps I had transgressed the line of the law. the relationship.” But now I know that I actually blessed the firstborn, let him be Then, Eisav started crying, “He has already deceived me twice!” blessed too” (see v. 33). (Rashi to v. 36)

anutk_c d' kd d' anutk_c 8 f ao 7 hd'hy cnscr 6 fd ,uksu, 5 fu fy' crtah, 4 ao 3 c xz' ao 2 s xu' cwwr 1 185 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 27:29-39

You will be a master over your brothers, and your mother’s sons will bow down to you. Those who curse you will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.”

[ E I S A V D I S C O V E R S T HAT H IS B L E S S I N G W AS G I V E N A WAY [

27:30 hen, when Yitzchak had finished blessing Ya’akov – just as Ya’akov had left his father Yitzchak’s presence – his brother Eisav came back from his hunt. 31 He had also made tasty foods, and he T brought (them) to his father. He said to his father, “My father should get up and eat his son’s game, so that your soul will bless me.” 32 His father, Yitzchak, said to him, “Who are you?” He said, “I am your son, your firstborn, Eisav.” 33 Yitzchak was extremely bewildered. He said, “Who then is the one who hunted game and brought it to me, then I ate it all before you came, and I blessed him? Let him be blessed too (in any case).” 34 When Eisav heard his father’s words, he cried extremely loudly and bitterly. He said to his father, “Bless me too, my father!” 35 (Yitzchak) said, “Your brother came ingeniously and took your blessing.” 36 (Eisav) said, “Is that why he was called Ya’AKoV, (because he was destined to deceive me [le’AKVeini])? He has deceived me twice! He took my birthright, and look, now he has taken my blessing!” (Eisav) said (to Yitzchak), “Haven’t you saved a blessing for me?” 37 Yitzchak answered, saying to Eisav, “(Whatever blessing I give you will be of no use, because) I have already made him a master over you, given him all his brothers as servants, and I have sustained him with corn and wine. So, for you then, what shall I do, my son (if I bless you he will acquire your possessions in any case, since he is your master)?” 38 Eisav said to his father, “Haven’t you got just one blessing, my father? Bless me too, my father.” Eisav raised his voice and wept. 39 His father Yitzchak answered saying, “Look, your dwelling place shall be from the fat places of the

TORAS MENACHEM ¦ YITZCHAK’S BEWILDERMENT (V. 33) land [of Israel] is not fitting for you” (Rashi 26:2). From this we see that the Why was Yitzchak “extremely bewildered” by the thought that he had intention to leave the Land of Israel did not invalidate Yitzchak as a blessed the wrong son? Surely this was an over-reaction? “perfect burnt offering.” Likewise in our case, the intention to bless Eisav did not tarnish Yitzchak’s perfect holy status, and he was still protected However, Yitzchak’s primary concern was not that he had blessed the from above to bless Ya’akov, his true firstborn son. wrong person, but rather, that he had lost the status of “a perfect burnt (Based on Sichas Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5748) offering,” a Divine assurance of purity and perfection (See Rashi to 26:2). It now appeared that he had not been given special protection from above to prevent him from giving the blessing to the wrong son (see Rashi’s citation of Tanchuma in Classic Questions). [ Sparks of Chasidus [ Thus, when he discovered that Eisav had in fact sold the birthright to Ya’akov, Yitzchak was relieved that he had, after all, been protected from “YOUR BROTHER CAME INGENIOUSLY...” (V. 35) above against blessing the wrong son, and his apparent “mistake” was actually Divinely inspired. ccording to Kabbalistic teachings, Ya’akov corrected the One might ask: surely the fact that Yitzchak wanted to bless Eisav was A spiritual damage caused by Adam’s sin. a mistake in itself? Why did Yitzchak not lose his status of “a perfect burnt Therefore, just like Adam had been misled by the ingenious plot offering” for this misjudgment alone? of the serpent, the correction of Adam’s sin had to come through However, earlier we witnessed that a misplaced intention is not ingenious trickery - “Your brother came ingeniously and took sufficient to revoke the status of “a perfect burnt offering.” For Yitzchak your blessing” (v. 35). actually planned to go down to Egypt when God told him, “Do not go (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 56) down to Egypt! You are a perfect burnt offering, and being outside the s:jf - yk:zf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 186 t²h©n§J¦s tŠK©y¦nU QŠc§,In h¥v±h tŠg§r©t§s tŠcUY¦n vº®h§jœ¦, ÉW‰C§r©j›k‹g±u n :kœŠg¥n o°h¼©n¨­©v kË©Y¦nU Wº†c¨JIœn vÉ ®h§v°h jŠk‰p¦T QUj¨t ,³h±u h¥j§T QŠC§r©j k‹g±u n :tŠkh‡g‰k¦n t¨,±h©rIt h¥n²d§,ˆP k‹g h¦vIb‰C iUr‰c‹g³h s‹F h¥vh°u kˋg¥n I¼KŒg ˨T§e©rœŠpU shº¦r¨T rɤJ£tœ‹F ¿ v²h¨v±u s«·c gœ©T Wh¼¦j¨t›,¤t±u u«¨a‡g r©y±bU tn :Q¨rt²u‹m k‹g¥n Vh¥rh°b h¥s g©,±u I¼f£rœ‡C rˤJ£t vºŠf¨r‰C©v›k¿‹g c«ºe gœ³h›,¤t ¿ u«¨a‡g o«Êy«§a°H³u tn :Wœ¤rt²U‹m h¦vUc£t Vh‡f§rŠc h¦s t¨,Šf§rˆC k‹g c«e g³h‰k UcŠc§S v¼²d§r©vœ©t±u hºˆc¨t k†cÉ¥t ¿ h¥n±h ¿ Uc§r§e°h I½Cˆk‰C u«¨a‡g r¤nt«¿H³u uh·ˆc¨t tŠC©t§s tŠk‰c¤t h¥nIh iUc§r§e°h Vh‡Cˆk‰C u«¨a‡g r©n£t³u v¨e‰c¦r‰k t²u©j§,¦t±u cn :h¦j¨t c«e g³h ,³h kIy§e¤t±u k«·s²D©v Vɲb‰C u¼«¨a‡g hË¥r‰c¦S›,¤t vº¨e‰c¦r‰k sɳD´H³u cn :hœ¦j¨t c« Ëe gœ³h›,¤t ,©r§eU ,©jŠk§JU tŠC©r V¨r‰C u«¨a‡g h¥n²d§,ˆP ,³h uÉ«¨a‡g ¿ v¯B¦v uhºŠk¥t r¤nt«ÉT³u iº¨y¨E©v Vɲb‰C ¿ c«e gœ³h‰k tʨr§e¦T³u jċk§J¦T³u u«¨a‡g t¨v Vh‡k ,©r¨n£t³u t¨rh‡g±z V¨r‰C c«e g³h‰k k‡C©e h¦r‰C i‹g‰fU dn :QŠk§y§e¦n‰k QŠk ih¦nŠF QUj¨t oUe±u Í h·ˆk«e‰C gÉ©n§J h¼°b‰c v˨T‹g±u dn :Wœ®d§r¨v‰k ¼W‰k oË¥j³b§,¦n Whº¦j¨t i¨r¨j‰k h¦j¨t iŠcŠk ,³u‰k QŠk kh¯zh¦t oUe±u h°B¦n : sˋg oh·¦s¨j£t ohɦn²h I¼Nˆg ˨T‰c©Jœ²h±u sn :v²bœ¨r¨j h¼¦j¨t iˊcŠk›k¤t ÁW‰k›j©r‰C cU,h¥, h¦S s‹g ih¦rhˆg±z ih¦nIh Vh¥nˆg ch¥,¥,±u sn QUj¨t§s t²z±dUr cU,h¦S s‹g vn :QUj¨t§s t¨,§nh¥j ¿j‹f¨J±u ½W§N¦n Wh¦j¨t›;©t cU¿J›s‹g vn :Whœ¦j¨t ,Ë©n£j cU¼J¨T›r¤J£t j‹k§J¤t±u Vh‡k ¨T§s‹c g h¦S ,³h h¥J±b§,°h±u Q²b¦n kÁ‹F§J¤t v˨nŠk o·¨­¦n WhɦT§j©e‰kU h¼¦T§j‹kœ¨J±u IºK ¨,hÉ«¦aŠg›r¤J£t ,É¥t iIfh¯u§r©T ;©t k‹F§,¤t t¨n‰k i¨N©T¦n Q²bh¦r‰C©s£t³u hº³H©j‰c h¦T‰m *É©e eº¨j‰m°h›k¤t¿ v¨e‰c¦r r¤nt«ÊT³u un :sœ¨j¤t oIËh o¼†fh¯b§J›o³D ,h¦eŠg e¨j‰m°h‰k v¨e‰c¦r ,©r¨n£t³u un :s¨j t¨nIh c«e g³h ch¥x±b o¦t v¨t¨T¦j ,³b‰C o¨s¢e i¦n h³h©j‰C ¿v†K¿¥tŠF ,Ê¥j›,Ib‰C¦n v¿¨­¦t c«Æe gƜ³h ©j É¥eO›o¦t ,·¥j ,IÉb‰C h¼¯b‰P¦n tŠg§r©t ,³b‰C¦n ih‡k¦t‰F v¨t¨T¦j ,³b‰C¦n t¨,§T¦t c« ¼e gœ³h›kœ¤t eÁ¨j‰m°h t˨r§e°H³u t jf :ohœ°H©j h¼ˆK v¨Nˊk .¤rº¨t¨v ,IÉb‰C¦n Qh¥rŠcU c«e g³h‰k e¨j‰m°h t¨r§eU t :ih°H©j hˆk t¨n‰k t¨,§T¦t c©x¦, tŠk Vh‡k r©n£t³u Vh¥s§e‹pU Vh¥,²h :i‹gœ²b‰F ,IËb‰C¦n v¼¨­¦t j Ë©E¦,›tœO Iºk r¤nt«ÉH³u ¿ Uv¿¯U‹m±h³u I·,«t Q¤rɊc±h³u ,h‡c‰k o¨r£t i©s‹p‰k kh¯zh¦t oUe c :i‹g²b‰F ,³b‰C¦n ¿o¨­¦n ÊW‰k›j©e±u W·¤N¦t hɈc£t k¼¥tU,‰c v¨,hˇC oº¨r£t vœ²bɤS‹P¿ Q‡k oU Ëe c t¨,§T¦t i¨N©T¦n QŠk c©x±u Q¨N¦t§s t¨vUc£t k¥tU,‰C Q¥rŠc±h h©s©J k¥t±u d :Q¨n¦t§s t¨vUj£t iŠcŠk ,³b‰C¦n ¼W§r‰p³h±u ºW§,«œt QÉ¥rŠc±h ¿ h©S©J kÊ¥t±u d :Wœ¤N¦t h˦j£t i¼ŠcŠk ,IËb‰C¦n vº¨­¦t ih¦y‰c¦J ,©J±bˆf‰k h¥v§,U Q²bh°d§x³h±u Q²bh¦J‰p³h±u Q¨,²h : ¼W‰k oº¨v¨r‰c©t ,ɋF§rˆC›,¤t¿ W‰k›i¤Tœ°h±u s :ohœ¦N‹g kË©v§eˆk ¨,h¼°h¨v±u W·†C§r³h±u Q²b‰cˆk±u QŠk o¨v¨r‰c©t§s t¨,‰F§rˆC ,³h QŠk i¥T°h±u s ²h±h c©v±h h¦S Q¨,Uc¨,IT g©r£t ,³h Q¨,§rh¥n‰k Q¨Nˆg oh¼¦vO¡t iË©,²b›r¤J£t Whº¤r´d§n .¤rɤt›,¤t ¿ W§T§J¦r‰k Q·¨T¦t ÉW g§r³z‰kU *ew zghrt *ew hWar nugyho: tjsho/ )ns( cvrhd,l: vcrfu, gk vut n,bjo ,bjunho' tu, cneuo avut gk ha cjrcl' fnu jrcl/ ugk )n( : 1 hui ak thykht"v tvhv afukv nabhfo/ )kns gk( veucr t, cbhu eruh cbhu t, veucr gk( )kns nabhfo/ afukv tvhv tafk/ knv )nv( ftar uvhv : 3 cmct,o mct,o gk cjrcfo/ ' 2 jrcfo gk gns,o fnu cw' to heuo gkhl ut,v gkhl heuo to abhfo/ do afk,h: afk,h ftar tnr chgec ufi afuk/ v,urv' gk hartk fahgcru fkunr ' 4 cahjh trhs fnu mgr' kaui ,rhs/ ,vrdbu' hgnsu cbhu uhvrdul' uruj vesa bzrev cv' ub,bctv achuo tjs achuo ub,bctv cv' bzrev vesa uruj uhvrdul' cbhu hgnsu ,vrdbu' hercu )nt( uduw: gku upre, abyk' vcrfu, gk kvmygr pv p,jui kl uhvhv ntx,h cjhh: ntx,h cjhh/ em,h )nu( : 5 kta,u vnebt cpre anpura fnu hnu,u' ha: pbho kfnv tdsv unsra tct/ t, tmgr akt fnangu' tch/ tck hnh kch, c,utk' fk ,hcv amrhfv kn"s amrhfv ,hcv fk c,utk' kch, c,utk/ ch,v kpsi: fnu psbv/ )c( n,bjo ckcu: nvrvr agau nv kv vuds veusa cruj krcev/ uhds )nc( nh ash ccrfu,hu kn,crfhi ccrfu,hu ash nh ash/ utk )d( : 6 cxupv v"t kv vyhk c,jk,v tdsv' unsra ukvrdl/ kl kv,bfr tjr, njacv kjauc vtjuv' gk bjo kl/ tr u ta ku dsuk/ kduh utgal ku atnr tcrvo/ crf, t, )s( tu,l: hcrl nphu' kaui pauyu' ukph ,bjunho/ ak fux gkhl ua,v cghbhu' n, t,v fcr

CLASSIC QUESTIONS

l Why did Rivkah suggest that Ya’akov should get married l What is the “blessing of Avraham”? (v. 4) at this point? (v. 46) RASHI: [God] said to [Avraham], “I will make you into a great BIURAY MAHARAY: Rivkah did not want to tell Yitzchak that Eisav nation’ (above 12:2), “[All the nations of the world] will be blessed wanted to kill Ya’akov. She feared that Yitzchak might withhold through your children” (22:18). May those blessings be for you. May some blessing from Ya’akov, so as not to further anger Eisav. She that nation and those blessed children come out from you.” therefore claimed that she had sent Ya’akov away, because, “Iam MIZRACHI: Why did Rashi not learn, more simply, that the “blessing sick of my life, etc.” of Avraham,” which Yitzchak gave to Ya’akov, is precisely that which

nu, hd: nu, hc 6 hd/ xuyv 5 d bv' ,vkho 4 fu u' anu, 3 fu kd' hjzetk 2 u xz' cwwr 1 187 / BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 27:39 - 28:4

land, and from the dew of the skies from above. 40 You will live by your sword, and you shall serve your brother. But, when you grieve (about the blessings he took, because the Jewish people have transgressed the Torah,) then you will break his yoke off your neck.”

[ E I S A V P L A N S TO K ILL Y A ’ A K O V / R I V K A H T E L L S H IM TO F LEE [

27:41 isav hated Ya’akov because of the blessing which his father had given him. Eisav said to himself, “The days of mourning for my father will soon come, and then I will kill my brother Ya’akov.” 42 Rivkah was told (by Divine inspiration) the words of Eisav, her older son. She sent (a message) Eand summoned Ya’akov, her younger son. She said to him, “Beware, your brother Eisav regrets (his relationship) to you (and wishes) to kill you. 43 Now, my son, listen to my voice! Go and run away to my brother Lavan, in Charan. 44 You can live with him for a few days until your brother’s anger has calmed down, 45 until your brother’s anger against you has calmed down, and he forgets what you did to him. Then I will send (for you) and bring you from there. Why should I be bereaved from both of you on one day (for if you kill him, his sons will kill you)?”

[ Y I T Z C H A K I N S T R U C T S Y A ’ A K O V TO M A R R Y [ 27:46 ivkah said to Yitzchak, “I am sick of my life because of the Chitite girls. If Ya’akov takes a wife from a Chitite girl like one of these, from the daughters of this Land, what use is life to me?” 1 Yitzchak called Ya’akov and blessed him. He instructed him, saying to him, “You should not take 28 Ra wife from the Cana’anite girls. 2 Go and travel to Padan-Aram, to the house of Besu’el, your mother’s father, and take yourself a wife from there, from the daughters of Lavan, your mother’s brother. 3 May God Almighty bless you, make you fruitful and multiply, and you will become an assembly of nations. 4 May He give you the blessing of Avraham to you, and to your seed with you, that you will inherit the land in which you (only) wandered (in up until now), which God gave to Avraham.”

CLASSIC QUESTIONS is mentioned in verse 4 itself, “that you will inherit the land in which However, this could not be Yitzchak’s blessing, as the Land of you wandered, which God gave to Avraham”? Israel was given to Avraham as a gift, and not as a blessing.

TORAS MENACHEM ¦ ”THE BLESSING OF AVRAHAM” (V. 4) example, in the preceding section we read how Yitzchak wanted to bless Mizrachi questions why Rashi needed to explain the meaning of “the Eisav because he was getting old. Similarly, we read earlier God gave a blessing of Avraham” at all, since the verse itself seems to state precisely series of blessings to Yitzchak to prosper in the Land of Israel, to counter what the blessing was: “May He give you the blessing of Avraham to you, his intention to leave the Land (above 26:1-4). Avraham likewise received and to your seed with you, that you will inherit the land in which you God’s blessing for a specific reason, “All the nations of the world will be wandered, which God gave to Avraham.” blessed through your children, because you listened to My voice.”(22:18). Mizrachi explains that the inheritance of the Land of Israel could not In the current passage, we read how Yitzchak blessed Ya’akov before his possibly have been “the blessing of Avraham,” since the Land was departure to Padan-Aram to find a wife. The blessing in verse 3, to be already given to Avraham as a gift, and not as a blessing for the future. “fruitful and multiply, and you will become an assembly of nations,” thus makes sense, as this was connected to Ya’akov’s marriage. However, it was explained above that a precise reading of Rashi indicates conclusively that, at the literal level of Torah interpretation, God However, when reading verse 4, Rashi was troubled by the question: only promised to give the land in the future, He did not actually give it, How is the blessing of Avraham and the inheritance of the Land of Israel connected with Ya’akov’s journey to find a wife? This blessing seems so the blessing was not yet fulfilled (See Toras Menachem to 15:18, sec. ‘d’). rather out of place. Why then does Rashi refuse to take the verse at face value, that Yitzchak was now blessing Ya’akov that the “blessing of Avraham” should be Therefore, Rashi searched for an explanation why the “blessing of fulfilled in him? Avraham” could be connected with Ya’akov’s marriage preparation. Rashi came to the conclusion that Yitzchak’s blessing here must have been THE EXPLANATION the words that God said to Avraham in connection with having children: Normally, when the Torah relates how a certain individual received a “I will make you into a great nation” (12:2), and, “[All the nations of the particular blessing, we are informed why the blessing was given. For world] will be blessed through your children” (22:18). y-s:jf ,usku, ,arp - ,hatrc rpx / 188 i©s‹p‰k k³z£t³u c«e g³h ,³h e¨j‰m°h j‹k§JU v :o¨v¨r‰c©t‰k o·¨r£t vœ²bɤS‹P Q†k¼¯H³u c«ºe gœ³h›,œ¤t ¿ e¨j‰m°h jʋk§J°H³u v [hghca] :oœ¨v¨r‰c©t‰k t¨vUj£t v¨t¨n©r£t k¥tU,‰C r‹C iŠcŠk ,³u‰k o¨r£t :uœ«¨a‡g±u c« ¼e gœ³h oË¥t vº¨e‰c¦r hɦj£t hº¦N©r£tœ¨v ¿ k¥tU,‰C›i†C iʊcŠk›k¤t h¥r£t u«¨a‡g t²z£j³u u :u«¨a‡g±u c«e g³h§S Vh¥n¦t v¨e‰c¦r§s o¨r£t i©s‹p‰k Vh¥,²h j‹k©J±u c«e g³h ,³h e¨j‰m°h Qh¦rŠc oº¨r£t vœ²bɤS‹P¿ I,«t jʋK¦J±u ¸c«e gœ³h›,¤t ¾e¨j‰m°h QÉ©r‡c›hœˆF u½«¨a‡g t§rɳH³u u Vh¥,²h Qh¦r‰C s‹F t¨,§T¦t i¨N©T¦n Vh‡k c©x¦n‰k j Ë©E¦,›tœO r«ºnt‡k¿ uhŠkŠg uʋm±h³u Iº,«t IÉf£rœŠc‰C v·¨­¦t o¼¨­¦n IËk›,©jœ©eŠk ,³b‰C¦n t¨,§T¦t c©x¦, tŠk r©nh¥n‰k h¦vIk g sh¥e‹pU k³z£t³u Vh¥n¦t i¦nU h¦vUc£t i¦n c«e g³h k‡C©e±u z :i‹g²b‰F I·N¦t›k¤t±u uh¼ˆc¨t›k¤t c«ºe gœ³h gÉ©n§J°H³u z [rhypn] :i‹gœ²b‰F ,IËb‰C¦n v¼¨­¦t i‹g²b‰F ,³b‰C i©Jhˆc h¥r£t u«¨a‡g t²z£j³u j :o¨r£t i©s‹p‰k h¼¯bh‡g‰C i‹g·²b‰F ,IÉb‰C ,I¼g¨r hˈF uº«¨a‡g t§rɳH³u j :oœ¨r£t vœ²bˤS‹P Q†k¼¯H³u ,³u‰k u«¨a‡g k³z£t³u y :h¦vUc£t e¨j‰m°h h¯bh‡g‰C r‹C kt‡g¨n§J°h ,‹C ,‹k£j©n ,³h ch¥x±bU kt‡g¨n§J°h | ,ɋk£jœ©n›,¤t jÇ©E°H³u kt·‡g¨n§J°h›k¤t u¼«¨a‡g Q†k˯H³u y :uhœˆc¨t e˨j‰m°h Vh‡k h¦vIJ±b k‹g ,IhŠc±b¦S Vh¥,¨j£t o¨v¨r‰c©t :vœ¨­¦t‰k IËk uh¼¨J²b›k‹g ,IÁhŠc±b ,IÍj£t o¨v¨r‰c©t›i†C kt¿‡g¨n§J°h›,‹C x x x :UT±b¦t‰k x x x /inhx uWkg /oheuxp uWe

hWar rgc' uhgec tnr kprgv hnh abh ndurh akaho unt, abv' mt ujauc h"s ujauc mt abv' unt, akaho ndurh abh hnh kprgv tnr uhgec rgc' vduh tu,u hmt nnl cachkl' vtnuru, crfu, tu,i hvhu czrgl/ uv,crfu abv akpbh khs, hux;' uakaho ak hux;' u,ag nankl gs act hgec' vrh hgec' act gs nankl u,ag hux;' ak uakaho hux;' khs, akpbh abv nknsbu: nv husg thbh ugau/ hgec to )v( vncurl: vzrg utu,u b"d' ufaphra ntchu vhv ci x"d' vrh eh"u' uvut tunr akaho unt, abv' unt, akaho tunr uvut eh"u' vrh x"d' ci vhv ntchu ufaphra b"d' ufh uduw hmje crl fh gau uhrt ngkv' ak kgbhi njucr hgec/ uhang )z( vrh jxrho h"s abho' vt kns,' atjr aeck vcrfu, byni cch, gcr h"s gcr cch, byni vcrfu, aeck atjr kns,' vt abho' h"s jxrho vrh rgu, ufh tro' psbv uvkl tchu tk hgec ang ufh tro' psbv tu,u akj abho/ )tck kt bgba gkhvo czfu, v,urv' avrh kt phra hux; ntchu tkt ntchu hux; phra kt avrh v,urv' czfu, gkhvo bgba kt )tck abho/ abtnr nnang bchu,/ tju, )y( hangtk: tk vut do uvkl fbgi' cbu, f"c abv' svhhbu nh"z gs k"y' fbds f"c aphra hgec ntchu ukt fcsu' ukt ntchu hgec aphra f"c fbds k"y' gs nh"z svhhbu abv' f"c hangtk an, knsbu tkt bchu,' tju, avht husg thbh hangtk c, v f ah ch ki u, ah av cr' s,c hi u ch, ku uhci fsf,hc csrl' aavv abho ua,h kci' cch, abho fw uvo hgec avhv uknsbu tjhv' bchu, uvahtv bauthv' euso kgau nahgsv uknebvu gav xfu,' uphrau rz"k nzv vpxue aavv h"j jsaho csrl' jsaho h"j aavv vpxue nzv rz"k uphrau xfu,' gav uknebvu hgec' fabuks vhv abho g"s ci hangtk avrh abho' x"d ci vpre ctu,u sch, vuv chnu, vdanho uxfu, vuv chnu, vjnv' ukjacui vpxueho ukjacui vjnv' chnu, vuv uxfu, vdanho chnu, vuv sch, vrh tu,o' cks, abv xw ci uhmje nhmje' hangtk dsuk vhv abv ah"s ajacbu kghk' naphra ntchu gs ahrs knmrho avhv ci e"k abho' aao abho' e"k ci avhv knmrho ahrs gs ntchu naphra kghk' ajacbu hgec bnmt uduw' hangtk jhh abh utkv abtnr ek"z' vhu uabu,hu g"s' tbu numtho gus h"s abho' tkt usth byni cch, gcr cvkhf,u kch, kci kch, cvkhf,u gcr cch, byni usth tkt abho' h"s gus numtho tbu abv' h"s gcr cch, abyni nfti uknsbu vhv' abho x"d ci hangtk fan, kknus ,urv nnbu' ucachk zfu, v,urv kt bgba gkhvo' ukt phra hux; phra ukt gkhvo' bgba kt v,urv zfu, ucachk nnbu' ,urv kknus h"s tkt hux; ak khs,u kpbh kci cch, avv kt avrh kjri' vkl fl utjr gk bahu/ gk hai(: cra"h nmt,h fti gs nsv' fbds nsv abv' f"c tkt nnbu vmti uafr cmtbl' abho uaa cbu,hl ca,h abv h"s gcs,hl abtnr abv' 1 1 ue”k( fcr ku avhu nraghu, gk nrga, )r”k rag,u gk ragv vuxh; kw ci uhux; uduw' hux; t, rjk hksv ftar uhvh abtnr vhv' hux; nabuks jxk, pra, ,uksu, pra, jxk, vrtaubu,: t, dra akt ak ucw aucg ak zw abho' yw knmrho hgec ahrs gs unao fankl' vhv abv

TORAS MENACHEM

In fact, the former blessing is particularly appropriate in this case as it In response to this problem, Rashi continued, “May those blessings be was given to Avraham before embarking on a journey, which is precisely for you.” I.e. that God’s words for Avraham were actually intended for what Ya’akov was about to do here. Rashi comments there that God gave Ya’akov. (And we see that they were indeed fulfilled, for despite all his Avraham this blessing because, “traveling diminishes... fertility,” so “the travels Ya’akov established twelve tribes who were all true heirs.) blessing of Avraham,” was especially apt for Ya’akov at this time, when WHY DID YITZCHAK SEND YA’AKOV AWAY? he was embarking on the task of building a family. Based on the above explanation, we can solve a problem with the One serious problem here however is that God’s blessing to Avraham Torah’s narrative here: to have any children was not, in fact, fulfilled. For during his travels, Avraham only merited one son who proved to be a true heir. In Parshas Chayei Sarah we read that when Avraham was seeking a marriage partner for Yitzchak, he did not send his son away, but rather,

1 rtv keuWa jkWv gw 411 gw jkWv keuWa rtv 1 189/ BEREISHIS - GENESIS - PARSHAS TOLDOS 28:5-9

SEVENTH 5 Yitzchak sent Ya’akov off, and he went to Padan-aram, to Lavan the son of Besu’el the Aramean, READING the brother of Rivkah, Ya’akov and Eisav’s mother.

[ E I S A V M A R R I E S Y I S H M A ’ EL ’ S D A U G H T E R [ 28:6 isav saw that Yitzchak had blessed Ya’akov and sent him away to Padan-aram, to take himself a wife from there, and that when he blessed him, he instructed him, saying, “You shall not take a MAFTIR wife from the daughters of Cana’an”; 7 (and he saw that) Ya’akov listened to his father and his mother,E and went to Padan-Aram. 8 (So, since) Eisav saw that the daughters of Cana’an were displeasing to his father Yitzchak, 9 Eisav went to Yishma’el, and took for a wife Machalas, the daughter of Avraham’s son Yishma’el, a sister of Nevayos – in addition to his other wives.

THE HAFTARAH FOR TOLDOS IS ON PAGE 375. THE HAFTARAH FOR EREV ROSH CHODESH IS ON PAGE 385.

TORAS MENACHEM

he sent his servant Eliezer to find a wife, and bring her back home to Yitzchak. So why did Yitzchak not do the same for his son? At first glance it seems that Yitzchak sent Ya’akov away to save him from [ The Last Word [ being murdered by Eisav. However, at the literal level, we can presume that Rivkah did not tell EISAV’S MARRIAGE TO MACHALAS Yitzchak about Eisav’s plot, for fear that Yitzchak might refuse to bless n Parshas Toldos we read about Eisav’s deceptive acts towards Ya’akov further (as Biuray Maharay explains). I his father, climaxing here at the end of the Parsha, where he One might suggest that Avraham did not want Yitzchak to leave the marries one of Yishma’el’s daughters in order to appear righteous Land of Israel, because he had the status of a “perfect burnt offering” that in Yitzchak’s eyes. Rashi however comments that, in fact, “He must remain within the Land (See Rashi to 26:2, above). added wickedness upon his wickedness, in that he did not However, Yitzchak was only informed that he was a “perfect burnt divorce the first ones” (v. 9). I.e. just like he had married his first offering” that must stay in the Land of Israel after his marriage. So, this wives in an attempt to appear righteous (see 26:34 above), so too could not have been the reason why Avraham insisted that he should not here “he added wickedness upon wickedness,” marrying once leave home to find a wife (see above, Toras Menachem to 24:6-7). again, this time to a member of Avraham’s family in order to Rather, the reason why Yitzchak instructed Ya’akov to travel away from maintain his deceptive veil of righteousness. home to find a wife is because: a.) Avraham’s blessing for having many In the following Parsha, Vayeitzei, we read of another trickster, children had not yet been fulfilled, so Yitzchak was certain that it would Lavan, who acted deceptively towards Ya’akov. However, it be fulfilled through Ya’akov. And, b.) Avraham’s blessing was to have could be argued that Eisav’s deception towards his father children while he was travelling away from home. Therefore, Yitzchak represented a greater degree of moral corruption than the acts of instructed Ya’akov to leave. Lavan, because Eisav actively promoted himself as a righteous person. Lavan, on the other hand, may have acted deceptively, INHERITANCE OF THE LAND but he did not scheme to find ways of proving his righteousness After giving Ya’akov the “blessing of Avraham,” only one fear might to others. He merely concealed his selfish and corrupt motives so have remained in Ya’akov’s mind: Since Eisav was remaining in the Land Ya’akov would not come to uncover his plans. of Israel and Ya’akov was leaving, perhaps Eisav would seize the land for So, the Torah’s description of Eisav here, at the end of Parshas himself? Toldos, comes to warn us of the moral corruption which was To relieve Ya’akov from this worry, Yitzchak added, “that you will inherit exemplified by Eisav. Here we are warned to steer clear of this the land in which you (only) wandered (in up until now), which God gave lowly activity: promoting oneself as righteous while the truth is to Avraham.” something very different indeed. (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 20, pp. 116ff.) (Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 35, p. 116ff)