Fwd: Parshas Toldos & Success Videos & Fresh Job Leads tzvika77@hotmail -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Parshas Toldos & Success Videos & Fresh Job Leads Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:58:06 -0500 From: BregmanLaw@aol To: bregmanlaw@aol Jewish Executive Learning Network23 Maplewood Terrace · Lakewood, NJ 08701 · 646-761-8927 · JELN.org Pre-Shabbos greetings from Lakewood! The link below leads to a previous years class on the Parsha (mp3), and the printed materials below are excerpts from the entry on this weeks Parsha in my forthcoming Sefer, Short & Sweet. Baruch Hashem, in only 3 months of activity, the JELNs new YouTube Channel has reached the milestone of about 13,000 views ... with over 1,000 clicks on our new, exclusive motivational content in just the past two weeks. Please find below the links to access our newest video in our Success series: Success Is More Important Than You Realize The Lies We Tell Ourselves Hey, Watch How You Speak To ... Yourself! How Much Effort Does It Take To Be Successful? Are You a Play-Maker or Play-Creator? How To Handle Fear and Create Success Take Ownership Of Your Life The #1 Trick To Landing Any Job You Want Work Ethic and The Message We Tell Ourselves All of these videos, and 50 others, can be accessed at the new JELN Channel on YouTube: ift.tt/1pvFu8r And while youre there, remember to click on the Subscribe button on our YouTube Channel -- so youll receive the latest content directly and immediately. Many of you have noticed that the JELN has continued to boost its presence on Facebook, beginning with an enhanced JELN Facebook Page (Jewish Executive Learning Network). Did you see the 30+ available job leads we posted in just the past three days? You dont even need a Facebook account to access this information. Check out our Page, Like us, and Share it with all your friends. You wont want to miss out on any of the exciting opportunities! Have a great Shabbos and learn well! ~R. Shlomo Zalman Bregman Founder, JELN Like the JELN on FacebookRabbi Bregman & JELN on TwitterRabbi Bregmans videos on TorahAnytime Parshas Toldos: Where Inspiration Begins ift.tt/1sUL8if Jewish Executive Learning Network Parshas Toldos A FRESH START And these are the offspring of Yitzchak son of Avraham â Avraham begot Yitzchak. (25:19) In our pasuk it says that âAvraham begot Yitzchak,â but when it comes to Yishmael (Bereishis 25:12), the Torah uses the term âYishmael son of Avrahamâ as the exclusive manner to describe their relationship. What is the difference between the two modes of expression? *R. Mordechai Gifter, ZTL (Pirkei Torah) says this variation hints to the idea that Yitzchak represents a fresh start. He had no connection to the generations that preceded Avraham, nor did he bring to the table any of their evil or idolatrous traits. Instead, it was solely Avraham that begot Yitzchak, and all of this was possible by virtue of the fact that Yitzchak was born from miraculous circumstances. On the other hand, Yishmael did not share in these characteristics. He was born solely from Avrahamâs inherent ability to reproduce and bear children, and there was nothing remarkable about his origins. As such, he was spiritually connected to his fatherâs polluted ancestors. This is why his name is described in the typical manner, âYishmael ben Avraham.â OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY Yitzchak entreated Hashem opposite his wife, because she was barren. (25:21) We are accustomed to living in a world in which circumstances beget reactions. As such, we might have imagined that our pasuk would first tell us the problem (ie. Rivkah was barren) and only then inform us of the action taken (ie. Yitzchak and Rivkah davened to Hashem). Why does the pasuk seem to have it backwards, first noting the action taken and only afterwards informing us of the motivating cause? Rabbeinu Bachya, Torah Temimah, and many other commentaries note this discrepancy and answer in a similar fashion: There is a general rule that Hashem craves the prayers of the righteous (Yevamos 64a). In that vein, Rivkah was barren simply because Hashem wanted to hear the prayers of this righteous couple! As such, what was causative was not that she was barren, but that Hashem wanted their Tefillos. Therefore, we see that the pasuk does describe things in the right order. First it tells us the problem and the cause (Hashem wanted their Tefillos) and then it tells us the effect (He had made Rivkah temporarily barren). R. Yerucham Levovitz, ZTL (Daas Chochmah UMussar: 1:4, 2:72) speaks about this idea in eloquent fashion. He says that itâs a grave error to believe that we have trouble and therefore we pray. No! The reason Hashem gives us the problem in the first place is to trigger the Tefillah, at which point HaKadosh Baruch Hu will certainly help us. Shemos Rabbah 21:5 makes the identical point. The Midrash here says that once Hashem took us out of Egypt, we stopped crying out to Him. But He wanted to hear from us again! So this is why He sent Pharaoh after us at the Yam Suf ⦠to make us cry out to Him yet again. WHY WE DAVEN Yitzchak entreated Hashem opposite his wife, because she was barren. (25:21) Mabit (Beis Elokim, Shaar HaTefillah, Ch. 2) says that the reason we turn to Hashem in Tefillah is not so we can see if we can get Hashem to answer our list of requests. Rather, it is to teach us and remind ourselves that there is no other being or force worth praying to other than Him, and that there is no being with any power to help us other than HaKadosh Baruch Hu. NOT HIM, NOT HER Yitzchak entreated Hashem opposite his wife, because she was barren. (25:21) While virtually everyone knows that Rivkah had been unable to bear children from birth, many people are unaware of the comment of the Baal HaTurim âbased on Maharam MiRutenberg â that Yitzchak himself was sterile, and that he too wasnât born with a natural ability to bring children into the world! HE HAD A GOOD REASON Yitzchak entreated (Vaâyeâtar) Hashem opposite his wifeâ¦Hashem allowed Himself to be entreated by him, and his wife Rivkah conceived. (25:21) Rashi explains that the word âVaâyeâtarâ carries the connotation that Yitzchak pleaded with Hashem through much prayer, and that ultimately Hashem was prevailed upon, conciliated, and persuaded. Why was Hashem initially so reluctant to answer Yitzchakâs prayers in the affirmative? Why did Hashem have to be persuaded so thoroughly? It seems as though Hashemâs starting point was that He didnât wish for Yitzchak and Rivkah to have a child. R. Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld provides an excellent answer that clarifies matters. Rashi (Bereishis 15:15 and 25:30) says that Avraham had originally been destined to live 180 years, but Hashem caused him to pass away five years earlier so as to ensure he wouldnât live to see the years in which his grandson (Eisav) would go off the derech. Now, Koheles 1:5 states, âThe sun rises and the sun sets,â and Kiddushin 72b explains this to mean that a righteous person does not depart from the world until another righteous person like him is created. Therefore, if Avraham Aveinu was going to die, it could only happen when another Tzaddik was in this world and already in place â namely, Yaakov. But, Hashem knew that Rivkah was destined to give birth to twins, so the earlier in time Yaakov would be born, the sooner Eisav would be born as well. While Yaakovâs birth would be welcomed, it would also mean that the sooner Rivkah would become pregnant, then the sooner Avraham would have to leave this world, for the reason articulated by Rashi! Therefore, R. Yosef Chaim explains that Hashem was very reluctant to hasten this event, and therefore he had to be âprevailed upon, conciliated, and persuadedâ by Yitzchakâs Tefillah until he ultimately agreed to let Rivkah conceive. KEEPING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT The children agitated within her⦠(25:22) Why were the children agitating within Rivkahâs womb? Rashi cites Yalkut Shemoni (110) that they were struggling with one another and fighting over the inheritance of this world and also Olam Haba. Now, most people assume this Midrash to mean that Yaakov wanted Olam Haba (the Next World), while Eisav wanted Olam Hazeh (this world). This is a mistake and common misconception. As Shem MâShmuel explains, in truth, each of them wanted both worlds, and the only difference between them was one of emphasis. Specifically, Yaakov felt that his pursuit of Olam Haba should be primary, while Eisav felt that his pursuit of the pleasures of the physical, temporal world should be his foremost concern. We see a proof to this from Bereishis Rabbah 63:10. Chazal tell us that Eisav used to ask his father how one tithes salt and straw. Beyond Eisavâs effort to mislead Yitzchak and create the impression that he was meticulous in his observance of mitzvos, there is a deeper point to be gained. Shem MâShmuel points out that in accordance with his nature, Eisav was again taking something of secondary value and converting it to something of primary importance! Straw is secondary in value to the wheat it protects, and salt is always secondary to the food it enhances or preserves. STATUS OF A FETUS The children (Haâbanim) agitated within her⦠(25:22) A famous, long-standing question is whether a fetus has the status of a child or not. The parameters of this subject are hotly debated in the works of Halacha, and interestingly, our Parsha has what to say on the topic. This pasuk refers to the fetuses of Yaakov and Eisav with the term âBanimâ (children). As such, Yam Shel Shlomo (Yevamos) and others offer this as a proof that Halacha does indeed regard a fetus as having the status of a child. However, there are arguments and proofs to the contrary, all of which can be found in the works of the early and later Poskim. A JEWâS INNER COMPASS The children agitated within her⦠(25:22) Rashi cites the famous Chazal that when Rivkah passed the entrance to a place of Torah study, Yaakov would run and toss about inside her, as though he desired to leave her womb. The question is: since Yaakov was inside of his mother, how was he aware when she was passing a Beis Midrash? R. Yerucham Levovitz, ZTL explains by drawing an analogy to a compass. Just a compass always point Northward, Yaakov Aveinuâs soul was always pointed in the direction of holiness and Torah. His neshamah was attracted to these things. As such, he naturally knew when his mother was in the vicinity of a Beis Midrash! This explanation of R. Yerucham reminds me of a famous Midrash. Itâs well-known that Klal Yisroel are compared to fish in water, and just as fish cannot survive outside of their habitat, so too a Jew is unable to spiritually survive without Torah (see Berachos 61b and Avodah Zarah 3b). But thereâs another Chazal that is far-less quoted. Bereishis Rabbah 97:3 points out that fish behave in a way that seems curious: when it rains, they have a tendency to rise to the surface and they jump up with excitement, as though theyâre interested in being around this new water. The question is: Why? They may already be surrounded by billions or trillions of gallons of water. What is to be gained by coming in proximity to the new drops of rain? Nonetheless, this is their behavior. We can respond by saying that Klal Yisroel behaves in a similar fashion. Just as the fish are drawn towards any new drop of water, a Yid is naturally drawn towards any new drop of Torah he can acquire. Even if heâs surrounded by hundreds or thousands of Sefarim in his living room, he will still be very curious as to what new Torah works have been recently published as he enters the Judaica store. Likewise, even if heâs completely immersed in his own Torah study in a Beis Midrash, a Ben Torah will forever be drawn to overhear the Halachic discussion of two scholars who enter the room ⦠careful to make sure he isnât missing any knowledge of which heâs currently unaware. Indeed, it is precisely as R. Yerucham explained. Yaakov Aveinuâs neshamah was always pointed towards Torah and holiness, and he bequeathed that legacy to each and every Jew. Indeed, as Zohar (3:173a) tells us, this behavior is nothing less than immitative of the angels and celestial beings, who despite dwelling in a realm of complete spirituality, descend to this world to hear the innovative insights and Chiddushei Torah that the Jewish people innovate and reveal. WHERE TO SEEK ADVICE She said, âIf so, why am I thus?â And she went to inquire of Hashem.â (25:22) Rashi cites Bereishis Rabbah 63:6 which says that Rivkah took her question to the Beis Midrash of Shem and Ever to try and understand the nature of her pregnancy. Concerning this, several commentaries ask this question: Why didnât she go ask Avraham? After all, he was still alive, he was her father-in-law, and he was a much greater Prophet than either Shem or Ever. *Sifsei Chachamim answers with an important rule that weâd all do well to follow: So long as there is someone else with whom you can consult, as a general rule, you should not be bringing your personal and marital problems to your immediate family! Why is this so? This is because intimate awareness of your problems will likely cause your family needless pain, and their closeness to you often renders their input and advice well-meaning but biased and inherently flawed. It was these considerations that led Rivkah to seek the opinions of Shem and Ever versus approaching her father-in-law. A PRECISE GEMATRIA Two nations (Shnei Geyyim) are in your womb⦠(25:23) Simply put, this pasuk conveys that there were âtwo Geyyimâ in Rivkahâs womb. The word is spelled âGeyyimâ but is actually pronounced âGoyimâ when the Torah is read. Normally the word âGoyimâ would be spelled Gimmel-Vav-Yud-Mem, but in a Sefer Torah or Chumash the Vav is omitted and the word is instead spelled with an extra Yud. Whatâs this about? Baal HaTurim points out that the Gematria of âGeyyimâ is 63. As such, we can ask: Whatâs the significance of there being âtwo 63âsâ in Rivkahâs womb? One of the two âGeyyimâ refers to Yaakov, who was blessed at the age of 63. The other âGeyyimâ refers to Eisav, who was the head of the 63 nations that came to destroy the Second Temple! Although there are really 70 root nations in the world, the other seven were those that originally inhabited the Land of Israel, but had been destroyed. And so, we see â there really were âShnei Geyyimâ â two 63âs â in Rivkahâs womb! Had the Torah spelled the word âGoyimâ in its traditional spelling, the Gematria of the word would have been 59 and thus forestalled the possibility of this exposition. YOU AINâT SEEN NOTHING! So they named him Eisav. (25:25) The Gematria of the name âEisavâ is 376, which is also the numerical equivalent of the word âShalomâ (peace). Why? *Baal HaTurim says that were it not for the fact that Eisavâs name is identified with the concept of peace, heâd have destroyed the entire world. In other words, if you think that Eisav and his progeny have been bad, well thatâs nothing compared to what he and they would have been like had peace not been part of his name! This Baal HaTurim always reminds me of Megillah 6b, which discusses âGermanyaâ â one of the royal provinces of Edom. This Gemara says that âGermanyaâ has the potential to go forth and attempt to destroy the entire world. Now, who is âEdomâ and where is âGermanyaâ on the map? Bereishis 36:8 tells us clearly who inhabits the provinces of Edom: âEisav, he is Edom.â In terms of the identity of âGermanya,â R. Yaakov Emden and many others explain that âGermanyaâ refers to the area of modern-day Germany. Suffice it to say that the striking nature of this Gemara, its predictive power, and the fact that even thousands of years ago âGermanyaâ was already populated by the descendents of Eisav â mortal enemy of Klal Yisroel â is a cruel irony that has been lost upon no one. This Gemara also aligns perfectly with the Baal HaTurim cited above, as both contend that Eisav carries the potential to destroy the entire world. YOU AINâT SEEN NOTHING! II So they named him Eisav. (25:25) Avnei Nezer notes the Baal HaTurimâs remark- that the Gematria of âEisavâ and âShalomâ both equal 376, but draws a different conclusion. He says that Eisav lived a life of peace and tranquility, in as much as he never took up battle against his Yetzer Hara; indeed, the Evil Inclination lived peacefully inside of him. To the contrary, when a person regularly does valiant battle against the Yetzer Hara, he will experience inner turmoil until he gains the upper hand. This is the meaning of Tehillim 38:4, âThere is ⦠no peace in my bones because of my sin.â ARE YOU DONE GROWING? The first one emerged red, entirely like a hairy mantle, so they named him Eisav. After that his brother emerged with his hand grasping on to the heel of Eisav, so he called his name Yaakov. (25:25-26) Eisavâs name comes from the word âAsui,â which means done, complete, or finished. This name is certainly apropos as it aptly describes his advanced state of physical development at birth. Yaakovâs name comes from the word âEikevâ which means âheel,â the bottom-most part of the human body, which Yaakov grasped as he emerged from his motherâs womb. Beyond the physical facts they describe, what deeper lessons are contained within these names? Shem MâShmuel and many others explain that Eisav had absolutely no desire to grow in ruchnius. He was perfectly happy with how he was. In his mind, he was done, completed, finished ⦠just as his name indicated. In fact, this is one of the many reasons why the Gematria of âEisavâ is the same as âShalomâ (see Baal HaTurim, above). The word âShalomâ comes from the word âShalem,â which means complete, done, and whole. Sadly, this term embodies Eisavâs whole outlook on life. By contrast, irrespective of the lofty level of ruchnius he attained, Yaakov considered his accomplishments to be small and lowly â similar to the heel at the bottom of oneâs body â and strove to climb even higher. This explanation of the meaning of Yaakovâs name, along with its derivation from the word âheel,â accords well with a comment of Limudei Nison. Our Parsha tells us (25:27) that âYaakov was a wholesome man (Ish Tam), dwelling (Yoshev) in tents.â Rashi explains that the word âtentsâ refers to the Batei Midrash of Shem and Ever where Yaakov toiled in Torah. It is curious to note that the word âYoshevâ is spelled here without the Vav that customarily appears in the spelling of this word. Now, Netziv (Haamek Davar) points out that when a word is written Chaser (missing at least one letter), it is always to teach you that something is missing from the concept that the word represents. The application of this idea to our pasuk is initially perplexing. âYoshevâ means âsitting,â in reference to Yaakovâs sitting and learning. What could be missing or incomplete in that? In fact, toiling in Torah was Yaakovâs specialty! Moreover, this same pasuk calls him âIsh Tam,â which connotes his perfection and Temimus. What lesson is the Torah is trying to convey here through these anomalies? Limudei Nison explains that Yaakovâs perfection came about through his attitude that when he sat and learned, he always felt that his knowledge was incomplete. There was always more to learn. More room for growth. Deeper understanding to be attained. More shteiging to do! This attitude was the source of Yaakovâs perfection, and why the Vav can be missing from the word âYoshevâ while at the same time he can rightfully be described as an âIsh Tam.â By contrast, Eisav was âAsui.â He was done. In his mind, no more growth was possible, and especially in Torah. There was nothing left to be learned. As the same verse (ibid.) testifies, Eisav was someone who was âYodeâah,â someone who felt that he already âknows!â RAM IT DOWN MY THROAT Eisav said to Yaakov, âPour into me (Haliteini), now, some of that very red stuffâ¦â (25:30) The word âHaliteiniâ (pour into me) has a connotation of pouring by force (see Mishnah on Shabbos 155b). But why? Why would Eisav want this food to be poured down his throat, forcefully? One might have imagined that he was perfectly capable of picking up a spoon and eating on his own. Taam VâDaas cites the well-known Rashi that the âred stuffâ was a dish of lentils. Lentils were the food of choice at the moment because Avraham had just passed away, and lentils are customarily a food of mourners. Bava Basra 16b explains that the roundness of a lentil resembles a wheel; this symbolism is apropos in this context because the necessity to mourn is something that eventually befalls everyone and typifies the way Hashem runs the world. Now, the Gemara (ibid.) says that on this particular day, Eisav committed five horrendous acts: (i) he seduced a betrothed woman, (ii) he murdered, (iii) he denied Hashemâs existence, (iv) he had been Kofer in the concept of Techias Hameysim, and (v) he spurned his birthright. As the Gemara relates, Eisav had denied Hashemâs existence and providence on this very day, and so, since this is what the lentils represent, it was hard for him to swallow them â literally and figuratively! Therefore, Eisav used the word âHaliteiniâ â pour into me â because since he was repulsed by the symbolism of the lentils, Yaakov would have to pour them down his throat by force! INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT When Eisav was forty years old, he took as a wife Yehudis bas Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite. And they were a source of spiritual rebellion to Yitzchak and Rivkah. (26:34-35) Rashi quotes Midrash Tanchuma (8) that Eisavâs wives were irksome to Yitzchak and Rivkah because these women worshiped idols. There is a famous idea mentioned in conjunction with the pasuk â namely, that Yitzchakâs name is mentioned before Rivkahâs in this verse to teach us that he was more troubled by this idolatry than she was. Why would this be so? It is said that since she had grown up in an environment of idolatry, she wasnât as outraged and provoked as her husband. The truly amazing thing worth noting here is how a negative environment can continue to impact someone sixty years later! How do we compute this figure? Rivkah married Yitzchak when she was three years old. They were married for twenty years before the twins were born. Our pasuk (above) tells us Eisav got married at the age of forty. Thus, sixty years had passed since Rivkah had been exposed to the tumah and idolatry of her childhood home. We see from here that by being exposed to immorality and tumah â even for only a short while, and even then when one is a tiny child, and then following it up with sixty years of Kedusha and tahara- the impression of that negative experience can still linger and remain! Any person possessed of intelligence will indeed take this lesson to heart. This concept elucidates much in our Parsha. For example, it helps us understand the comment of Sefer Chasidim (833 or 1137, depending upon edition) who remarks that Hashem caused Yaakov and Eisav to fight in the womb so they would hate each other from the very beginning â so much so that Yaakov would never be susceptible to learning from Eisavâs influence, and theyâd have a natural tendency to keep apart in the future. This notion also helps us understand why Yaakov would kick when heâd pass a Beis Midrash. We might wonder: if he was already learning Torah with a Malach in his motherâs womb (see Niddah 30b), he certainly wouldnât find better learning outside there! So why was he so excited? Chasam Sofer and R. Yissachar Dov Rokeach of Belz answer that, yes â the learning was better in the womb, but Yaakov still wanted to keep away from the evil influence of Eisav ... even if it came at the cost of lower-quality learning! Lastly, the importance of keeping away from evil helps us comprehend the words of Ksav Sofer who asks why Yaakov did not remain with his illustrious father and learn from him for a lengthy period of time, and he instead favored the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever. He explains that his parents sent him away to Yeshivas Shem VâEver because they did not want him around so as to not pick up any bad habits from Eisav! ADDRESSING YOUR PARENTS Yaakov said to his father⦠âRise up, pleaseâ¦â (27:19) We see from this pasuk that Yaakov spoke directly to his father and in first-person terms. By contrast, Eisav spoke to his father in third-person language, as we see when he says (27:31), âLet my father rise and eat of his sonâs gameâ¦â Is there an important difference between the two? Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe) brings from R. Nosson Adler that we see from here that the normative and proper way for Yiddin to address their parents is in first person. This even extends to Hashem, our Father in Heaven â our true Parent â whom we address in the same fashion, âBaruch Atah (You) Hashem.â However, as we see down through the ages and even in modern times, it is the way of the Gentiles to address to their parents in third-person, ie. âLet my father rise.â SPIRITUAL CAUSE AND EFFECT When Eisav heard his fatherâs words, he cried out an exceedingly great and bitter cry⦠(27:34) Esther Rabbah (8:1) says on this pasuk that because Yaakov caused Eisav Tzaar (pain), it came about in the future that the Yiddin and Mordechai had to âcry outâ in Shushan in the time of Purim. But how can this be? After all, Yaakov did nothing wrong in procuring the birthright. Why should his descendents have to suffer for Eisavâs reaction? R. Chaim Shmulevitz, ZTL (Sichos Mussar) addresses the dynamics behind the question in a famous piece: This type of question only stands if a person fails to appreciate the spiritual laws at play behind hurting another personâs feelings. Just as a person who sticks his hand in a fire will be burned even if he did so by accident or innocently, so too one who has hurt another personâs feelings will be harmed ⦠irrespective of the reason! When we cause anguish to others, the natural effect will be retribution. It is as simple as a cause-and-effect relationship. With this understanding, R. Chaim explains what appears to be a befuddling Gemara. In Kesuvos 62b, we read the story of Rav Rechumi. It was his practice to come home to his wife from Yeshiva every Erev Yom Kippur. One time he became completely engrossed in his studies and forgot to return home. His wife was looking out for him saying, âNow heâs coming! Now heâs coming!â When he didnât come, she felt extremely sad and a tear fell from her eye. At that moment, her husband was sitting somewhere in an attic. The attic collapsed beneath him and he died. Why did this happen to him? How is this proportionate? R. Chaim explains that Rav Rechumi didnât die as a punishment for hurting his wifeâs feelings, because if his being late had made her sad, how much more so his death! No. This transpired because he had hurt her feelings. Hurting another Yidâs feeling brings about the cause and effect. R. Chaim adds that this underlying dynamic helps explain why Peninah was punished for provoking and angering Channah regarding her having no children (see I Shmuel 1:1-7). Although Peninahâs sole intention was to encourage the righteous Channah to pray for Hashemâs deliverance, she badly hurt her feelings and thus was later punished with the death of her own children. Indeed, to hurt a fellow Jewâs feelings always results in punishment. This is the spiritual rule, and it applies even when the person has ostensibly done nothing wrong or sinful, as we see in the case of Yaakov and Eisav, and the crying out in Shushan. SELLING YOUR YIDDISHKEIT FOR BEANS When Eisav heard his fatherâs words, he cried out an exceedingly great and bitter cry⦠(27:34) In 25:31-34, we see that Eisav sold his birthright for beans. However, in the end, when he realized his colossal mistake, âhe cried out an exceedingly great and bitter cry.â There is a strong message of Mussar contained here, and it applies to all of us. We have a tendency to laugh at Eisav when we recount his poor judgment and spiritual acumen, but most of us do the same thing in one way or another! How often do we trade in our birthright â Torah and Avodah â for what also amounts to âbeans?â Whether itâs missing minyan to watch a game on TV ⦠or whether itâs trading in our holiness on a Saturday night for a few fleeting hours of âfunâ ⦠Oh yes, many people act in precisely the same fashion as Eisav. The pasuk above begins with the words, âWhen Eisav heard his fatherâs words.â I believe we can interpret the word âfatherâ here to refer to Aveinu SheâBashamayim, ie. to Hashem. This verse is a warning to us about how weâll regret in the Olam HaEmes about the time and life we wasted. When our Father in Heaven will show us what we could have accomplished with our extra time had we spent it wisely, we too will cry out with âan exceedingly great and bitter cry!â THE STORY HAPPENED ON PESACH Your brother came with trickiness (Bâmirâmah) and took your blessing. (27:35) Yitzchak tells Eisav that Yaakov came with trickiness and took the blessing. In a famous comment, Targum Onkelos translates âBâmirâmahâ as âBâchachâmâsah,â which means, âwith wisdom.â Why does Onkelos diverge from the plain meaning of the word in his Aramaic translation? Ninety-nine out of a hundred times, the word âBâmirâmahâ should be translated as âwith trickiness.â And what was the great wisdom shown here by Yaakov Aveinu? Thereâs a beautiful answer from Shelah HaKadosh and R. Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld. The events in this story took place Erev Pesach (see Rashi to 27:9). It is for this reason that Zohar and Targum Yonasan ben Uziel explain that the two goats Rivkah requested Yaakov to fetch in 27:9 as a Korban Pesach / Afikoman and a Korban Chagigah. Now, one of the Halachos of the Afikoman is that no other food may be eaten after it (see Pesachim 119b). So, when Eisav arrived with the animals he had hunted, Yitzchak was unable to partake of them, and thus he wouldnât be able to reach the level of Ruach HaKodesh (Divine Inspiration) he needed to bless him. So by feeding Yitzchak the Afikoman, Yaakov had ensured that Eisavâs food would not be eaten. This was a very smart plan, and precisely why Targum Onkelos translates âwith trickinessâ as âwith wisdom!â This explanation is also hinted to in the Pesach Haggadah, where the question of the Chacham (âwiseâ son) receives the reply that one may not eat dessert after the final taste of the Pesach offering. And as one other addendum, R. Yosef Chaim buttresses his Chiddush by pointing out that the Gematria of the word âBâmirâmahâ is the same as âAfikoman,â ie. 287! Beis HaLevi suggests a different explanation as to why Onkelos translates âBâmirâmahâ as âBâchachâmâsah.â He says that Eisav believed that Yaakov might try and procure the blessings for himself, so what he did was tell Yitzchak that he (Eisav) would be speaking like Yaakov when he would come to him. However, Yaakov became wise to this idea, so when he came to his father, he spoke like himself! Of course, this made Yitzchak believe that it was really Eisav standing there. And then, when Yitzchak pronounced (27:22), âThe voice is the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are the hands of Eisavâ¦â according to Beis HaLevi, this was Yitzchakâs way of announcing that he had two proofs that it was really Eisav standing before him. After all, the voice was Yaakovâs, as Eisav had predicted ⦠and the hands felt like Eisavâs as well! All of this serves to explain how Yaakovâs âtrickinessâ was nothing less than a manifestation of deep âwisdom!â WHAT EISAV REALLY MEANT May the days of mourning for my father draw near, then I will kill my brother Yaakov. (27:41) What precisely did Eisav mean by this phrase? There are many different explanations to be found in the words of the commentators. *Rashi and many others proceed with the most basic explanation. Eisav specialized in the mitzvah of honoring his father (see Devarim Rabbah 1:15), and thus didnt want to distress Yitzchak by killing his son in his lifetime. Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, Kli Yakar, and Pri Eitz Chaim explain that Eisav was waiting for Yitzchak to die, because then Yaakov would be unable to learn Torah during the week of Shivah and hed thus be vulnerable to an attack without the merit of Torah to protect him! Targum Yonasan ben Uziel also suggests a different reason: Eisav wanted to wait, because he figured that if heâd murder Yaakov too soon, Yitzchak might then try and have another child to replace him. If this would transpire, Eisav would then have to share the inheritance with this new child! Therefore, Eisav thought it would be better to wait to commit murder. WHAT EISAV REALLY MEANT II May the days of mourning for my father draw near, then I will kill my brother Yaakov. (27:41) What precisely did Eisav mean by this phrase? *Bechor Shor understands the words âMay the days of mourning for my father draw nearâ as referring not to the aftermath of Yitzchaks death, but rather Yaakovâs! In other words, it is his contention Eisav had no intention to wait for his fathers death before exacting revenge on his brother. Instead, Eisav intended to kill Yaakov right now, and thus his father would soon be sitting Shiva. Perhaps most astonishingly, Yalkut Shemoni (14) explains that âthe days of mourning for my fatherâ refers to Eisavâs plan to have his father Yitzchak killed! This was the three-part scheme he thought of bringing to fruition: (i) first get Yishmael to kill his father, because after all, it seemed improper for Eisav to have to do it himself; (ii) then Eisav would kill Yishmael, to cover up what had happened to Yitzchak; (iii) with Yitzchak out of the way, Eisav would have little obstacles to murdering his brother, Yaakov. Jewish Executive Learning Network23 Maplewood Terrace · Lakewood, NJ 08701 · 646-761-8927 · JELN.org
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 06:46:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015