Saturday, 22 November 2025

Yaakov and the Birthright: Deception or Destiny?

 




"And the boys grew; and Esav was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Yaakov was a quiet man, dwelling in tents" Bresheet 25:27


Birthright (bechorah) in the Ancient Near East, the setting for our Parashah, was very important, socially, legally, economically, and religiously.  One of the privileges of the first born, as stated in legal texts and documents such as the Hammurabi Code (18th century BCE, laws 170-171) or the Nuzi Tablets (Hurrian culture, 15th century BCE), state that the firstborn son typically received a larger share of the inheritance, often a double portion. This was meant to maintain the family estate and ensure stability. Bechorah also meant assuming responsibility and family continuity. In some of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures, it meant a sacred status. Moreover, in most of these societies, the birthright was fixed by birth, and could not easily be sold, traded or taken away.

Understanding this background helps explain why the story of Esav and Yaakov in Toledot, in the context of Bechorah, is so dramatic.

A bird’s eye view of the bechorah episode, in the Parashah, shows that it is driven by acts of trickery, most notably Rivkah’s scheme to have Yaakov receive the patriarchal blessing meant for Esav, which Yitzchak grants due to his blindness. Several specific verses in Toledot clearly hint at, describe, or imply Yaakov’s deception of Yitzchak (and by extension Esav). 

The initiation of Rivkah’s plan of deception is evidenced in Bresheet 27: 6-10. There, Rivkah tells Yaakov, “I heard your father speaking to Esav… Now, my son, do as I command you.” 

Yaakov hesitates because Esav is hairy and he is smooth, “Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver.” The verse explicitly uses the word, מתעתע (metaatea, “a deceiver”), acknowledging the deceptive plan. Yaakov fears being caught. 

Rivkah takes responsibility for the guilt when she responds by saying, “Upon me be your curse, my son” (27:13). Naturally, Rivkah understands the morally dangerous nature of the scheme. She disguises Yaakov, “She put the garments of Esav… on Yaakov… and placed the goat skins on his hands" (Bresheet 27:15-16).

However the most explicit hint of deception and statement of impersonation can be found in the following exchanges:

Yitzchak : “Who are you, my son?”

Yaakov : “I am Esav, your firstborn” (Bresheet 27:18-19).

Despite his condition (old age and blindness), Yitzchak gets suspicious. “How did you find it [the prey] so quickly?” he asks. Yaakov invokes G-d: “because the Lord your G-d caused it to happen,” to which Yitzchak responds, “The voice is the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are the hands of Esav” (Bresheet 27:20-22).

While Yaakov’s actions are debatable and raise a theological and ethical problem, especially in light of his eventual emergence as the father of the twelve tribes of Am Yisrael, there seems to be a silver lining in this narrative, as Rabbi Joel Mosbacher suggests. “The Torah,” he asserts, “is full of complex characters. You would think that in a sacred text, the personages would be perfect and morally pure-but the people in the Torah are far from that…. We see ourselves in their strengths and foibles, flaws and humanness. If they were perfect," concludes Mosbacher, “we could hold them as paragons but not relate to them. A parent can relate to Yitzchak and Rivkah. A sibling can relate to Yaakov and Esav. They are very human characters.” Personally, I am happy to see that our forefather was human just like us. At the same time, though, I could not fathom them engaging in illicit deeds.

This tension and the need to reconcile Yaakov’s righteousness with his deception has been discussed for over 2000 years. Jewish sages did not see Yaakov as “stealing” the Bechorah in the simple moral sense. Instead, they offered several explanations, legal, moral and spiritual, that show why Yaakov’s actions were justified or at least not a sin in the conventional sense. Here are some of these approaches.

Ramba”n and Rash”i, for instance, suggest that the verse “The older shall serve the younger,” (Bresheet 25:23) implies a Divine prophecy which Rivkah received and thus know that Yakkov is the chosen heir. According to them, Rivkah’s plan ensures that G-d’s will was fulfilled. She is planning the consummation of G-d’s plan. 

Chaza”l offer another explanation to the move by Rivkah and Yaakov. They  emphasize that since “Esav despised the birthright,” (Bresheet 25:34), treated it lightly, sold it of his free will and was unworthy of it. Midrash Tanchuma and Bava Batra 16b (which lists Esav’s sins on the day he sold his Birthright) describe Esav as impulsive, spiritually uninterested and engaging in immoral behaviour. Thus, according to them, Yaakov did not steal. He simply valued what Esav scorned.

Rash”i takes his defense of Yaakov one step further. His assertion is that Esav misrepresents himself to Yitzchak. Rash”i bases it on his interpretation of Bresheet 25:28, specifically on the Hebrew phrase “tzayid befiv” which literally means “game in his mouth” (referring to Esav’s hunting, trapping skills). Rash”i construes it as Esav using speech to manipulate Yitzchak.

It seems that to justify Yaakov and protect the moral standing of a patriarch, most sages elevate Esav’s guilt. Their portrayal of Esav provides a moral framework in which Yaakov’s act is not a betrayal but a correction of a long-standing deception.

Unlike the above-mentioned Jewish scholars, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks does not focus on Esav’s demerits.  He takes a more psychological and ethical approach, showing how the story reflects deep truths about identity, destiny and family. Sacks asserts that Yaakov is not naturally deceptive. He notes that he is gentle, studious and responsible. His mother, Sacks believes, forces him to act like Esav to get a blessing that ironically was meant for his own true self, “This is the story," concludes Sacks, “of a young man forced to wear someone else’s clothes, hiding his true identity.” This is not theft. It is a crisis of identity.

Sacks, along with other commentators stress that the blessing Yaakov receives by deception is the material blessing. The Covenantal blessing, the Avrahamic promise, one that is meant for him is given openly, with full awareness, by Yitzchak later (Bresheet 28:3-4).

The blessing, as all sages agree, is not a personal prize. It is meant for the future of the Jewish People and the fulfillment of the covenant. Esav, as the text shows us, does not value it which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the blessing was rightfully Yaakov’s and what he does is rightfully reclaiming what is already his. In the words of Sacks, “A birthright cannot be stolen from someone who does not value it.”

Thursday, 13 November 2025

From Promise to Possession, The Birth of Jewish Title to Eretz Yisrael

 



Let him grant me the Cave of Machpelah, which belongs to him and is located at the edge of his field. Let him sell it to me for its full price, in your presence, so I can make it into a family burial ground.” - Bresheet 23:9


At the onset of this week’s Parashah, “Chayei Sarah,” (the life of Sarah), we are told about the death of Sarah, Avraham’s wife, in Hevron. Pursuent to her passing, Avraham purchases the Cave of Machpelah and the surrounding field in Hevron, from its owner, Ephron, the Hittite and buries her there.

One of the questions that is begging to be asked, upon reading these verses, is, if G-d has already promised the Land of Yisrael to Avraham and his descendents (“To your offspring I will give this land,” Bresheet 12:7), why must Avraham purchase a burial site, at Machpelah, for Sarah?

G-d’s promise to Avraham and his posterity gives the land spiritual legitimacy. Avraham’s purchase gives it political legitimacy. In order to establish sovereignty. Both are needed. The Divine Covenant establishes eternal rights. Avraham’s actions and deeds establish worldly recognition. Divine promises do not replace human action.

Furthermore, Avraham insists upon paying “full price” for the land, as the verse above points out, despite the offer to accept it as a gift. He wants an indisputable legal claim to ensure that no one could later challenge Jewish presence as illegitimate or dependent on any foreign entities. He knows that a Divine promise carries spiritual authority, but not necessarily a recognition in the human legal system. He understands that sovereignty is established through moral and lawful means. By paying “full price,” Avraham secures a deed that no one can contest. The negotiations with Ephron become the first legal translation of Jewish lawful ownership setting a precedent for the Jewish People’s historic and moral claim in the Promised Land.

Avraham’s insistence on  paying full price, refusing a gift, parallels other, later, key biblical passages. In 2 Samuel 24:24, king David explicitly purchases land with money, land that is connected to the legitimate ownership and future sanctity of the site he was about to procure. There, he says to Araunah, the Jebosite who offers it to him for free, " 'No, I will buy it from you for a price;I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my G-d that cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the Oxen for fifty shekels of silver.”  This site, as we later find out, becomes the future Temple Mount in Yerushalayim, “Then David said,’Here shall be the house of the Lord G-d and here the altar of burnt offering for Yisrael.’” 1Chronicles 22:1. Both these pieces of land, Sarah's burial sites and the Temple Mount were legally purchased for eternal possession, thus fulfilling the Divine promise to Avraham and his descendents. 

One of the most striking and meaningful features of Parashat Chayei Sarah, (the Life of Sarah), is its paradoxical title which opens with Sarah’s death yet gives us no further details about her life. What, on the surface, seems like a contradiction preoccupied our sages. Many of them, however, view it not as a contradiction but rather as a deep truth about life's legacy and continuity.

Midrash Rabbah expands on this idea. “Why is it written, ‘After the life of Sarah?’ To teach us that the righteous are called alive even after death.” (Bresheet Rabbah 58:1). Sarah’s legacy and her spiritual influence continue beyond her physical existence. 

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch reads the name Chayei Sarah as a theological statement. The life of Sarah, he believes, is the life that Sarah set in motion. Her death sets off Avraham’s first act of acquiring land in Canaan. Until that point Avraham is a resident alien, a ger vetoshav toshav, promised the land by G-d but not yet owning even a small piece of it. Sarah’s death gives birth to the first foothold of the Jewish nation in its promised land. Her burial place becomes a national symbol and a spiritual anchor linking future generations to the patriarchs and matriarchs buried there.

Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks builds on the same concept. In his essay Chayei Sarah (Covenant and Conversation) Sacks offers a beautiful and deeply philosophical insight into the paradoxical title of Parashat Chayei Sarah. His assertion is that in order to understand a death, one has to understand a life.  In the Torah, believes Sacks, life and death are not opposites. Those who live a life of faith, whose values and influence last beyond their days, never die. Sarah’s life, as Sacks sees it, continues through the continuity of the Covenant. Her legacy gives life to the Jewish People.

To praphrase the interpretations of our sage, Sarah’s death forces the promise of DivineInheritance, the guiding principle that dictated the journey of her life, to translate into human and legal reality.

Her death, in this sense, becomes the womb of Jewish rootedness, out of which arises Jewish life and permanence.



Thursday, 6 November 2025

The Composition of Bresheet (Genesis), Chapter 22

 






In 1976, I was attending the University of California San Diego. One of the courses that I took part in was, "The Composition of the Torah.” The instructor was Professor Richard Elliot Friedman, the author of the best-seller, "Who Wrote the Bible?" It was then that I was exposed to what I am about to share with you, dear readers, in this article. Let me just add that, by sharing the information, it is not my intention to trivialize or disrespect what I consider a very sacred and revered Book. The purpose of writing it is merely to shed light on other views when approaching the study of the titular chapter.

The Torah, as many of us are raised to believe, is traditionally viewed as the word of G-d revealed to Moshe. However, as some may already know, according to some modern scholars,  such as Karl Heinrich Graf (1815-1869) and Martin Noth (1902-1968), and Richard Elliott Friedman, to name a few, it is a composite work, made up of different sources, woven together that were later combined into one book. Each voice contributes its own perspective on G-d, humanity, and Covenant thus creating a text that is both diverse and unified, ancient, yet timeless.

The first of these distinct sources, as identified by researchers, is commonly referred to as J (Yahwist) that uses YHWH for G-d’s name (which, out of respect for my Jewish tradition and my belief in G-d, I will use ONLY for academic reasons). The second one is the E (Elohist) which refers to G-d as Elohim. The other two are P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist). Each source tells the story of Yisrael in its own way using different variations of the Divine name and emphasizing different ideas. They reflect distinct patterns, theological perspectives and historical settings. These researchers suggest that a later redactor is thought to have woven the J and E traditions together to create a unified theological message.

Understanding these suggestions helps explain why parallel versions of certain stories such as, Bresheet 12:10-20, J source and Bresheet 20:1-8, E source, to name one, occasionally appear more than once or with slight differences.

Whereas in the Yawhist source, G-d is portrayed as anthropomorphic, a personal G-d that walks, speaks and interacts with humans, as he appears to Moshe in Shemot (Exodus) 3:14-15, and introduces Himself, “This is my proper name, but its pronunciation is to be concealed.” In the J source, He also, often, displays emotions such as love and anger.

In the Elohist source, G-d is transcendent and reveals Himself indirectly through dreams and messengers. It emphasizes fear of G-d and focuses on moral and prophetic themes.

The story of the binding of Isaac (Akedat Yitzchak) in Bresheet 22, one of the themes in this week's Parashah, “Vayera,” offers a striking example of the complexity of this composition. It is one of the most discussed chapters in terms of source criticism which led scholars to suggest that the text may combine E and J strands.

The chapter tells of G-d testing Avraham by commanding him to sacrifice Isaac. It also shares with us Avraham’s last minute rescue of his son when an angel intervenes.

Within this one chapter, the Divine name shifts from Elohim (G-d) to YHWH (The Lord) and the tone of the narrative changes from severe testing to merciful intervention. These features suggest that the account may combine two traditions, one emphasizing obedience and fear of G-d (E), the other, J highlights divine mercy and covenant faithfulness.

Throughout this Chapter, two divine names appear. In verses 1-10, Elohim (G-d) tests Avraham. Avraham Obeys, builds an altar and binds Isaac. Verses 1-14 shift to the J source where YHWH stops Avraham, a ram is substituted and the place is named “YHWH Yireh.” In verses 15-18, the J source of J redactor, offers a second Divine message, the Covenant is reaffirmed and the promise that Avraham’s descendants will be blessed is delivered. Verse 19 which concludes with a remark that Avraham returns to Beersheva is neutral.

Other, more traditional Jewish sages such as Rash”i, Nachmandis, Ibn Ezra and of course, my favourite Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, have addressed the account of the binding of Isaac and, as always, I highly recommend that the readers take the time to read them. I was  fortunate enough to personally discuss this story with Sacks. Here is his approach and interpretation of  this rather interesting and meaningful chapter.


https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/vayera/binding-of-isaac-new/




Shabbat Shalom

Sunday, 2 November 2025

להט החרב המתהפכת

 





"וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן עֵדֶן אֶת הַכְּרֻבִים וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת לִשְׁמֹר אֶת 
דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים."                                                                                                        בראשית ג', כ"ד

 

לפני מספר שנים, הוזמנתי לארוחת ערב על ידי חברת ילדות שלא ראיתי שנים רבות. היא גרה עם בן זוגה, דוד (שם בדוי) שהיה טייס מסוקים במהלך שירותו הצבאי בצה"ל.

מכיוון שהיה זה ביקורי הראשון בביתם, עשיתי את מה שאני עושה בדרך כלל בכל פעם שאני מבקרת במקומות חדשים, בחנתי את הספרייה. אחד הספרים תפס את תשומת ליבי. זה היה ספר דק אשר נשא את שם המאמר הזה.

 של מי הספר הזה?" שאלתי. "שלי", ענה בן הזוג. "האם אני יכולה להסתכל בו?"  "כמובן," הגיעה התגובה המהירה. הורדתי אותו מהמדף. הכריכה הציגה את תמונת חברי טייסת המסוקים שלו, כולם צעירים גבוהים ונאים. הכרתי את הכותרת שהייתה הפסוק המוזכר לעיל  מסיפור גן העדן, אבל תהיתי מדוע הוא נבחר ככותרת. לאחר שדפדפתי בדפי הספר, פניתי אליו "ולמה הוא נקרא כך?" המשכתי לחטט. תשובתו הגיעה כהפתעה. "אני לא יודע", אמר בהבעת פנים ריקה. "זה שם חזק מאוד ,בעל משמעות עמוקה השולחת מסר חזק", התעקשתי, "והוא מגיע מספר בראשית". תשובתו הכתה בי כמו ברק ביום בהיר

. "אין פלא שאני לא יודע את זה", הודה בן הזוג, "לא לימדו אותנו תנ"ך בקיבוץ שלי". בניסיון להסתיר את אכזבתי, שהייתה מעורבבת במנת ייאוש מבורותו במורשתנו היהודית, הסברתי את משמעות השם ואת ההקשר שלו. "אה," הוא אמר בעיניים פקוחות לרווחה בעוד חיוך גדול מתפרש על פניו, "אתה מתכוון שזו הגרסה היהודית של חרב דמוקלס."

אלה מכם המכירים את המושג בוודאי מודעים לכך שהמונח "חרב דמוקלס" נגזר מהמיתולוגיה היוונית, שם דמוקלס קינא באורח חייו של דיוניסיוס, שהציע לו הזדמנות לחוות את תענוגות המלוכה והציב אותו על כס המלוכה. האחרון מצא את עצמו יושב מתחת לחרב חשופה התלויה על חוט  של שיער סוס. הביטוי מתייחס למצב מאיים המרמז על סכנה או אבדון קרובים, שלעתים קרובות חווים אנשים בעמדות כוח, ומסמל את החרדה והסכנה המתמידים הקשורים למעמדם.

                                                                                                   בכלל לא," עניתי ללא ניד עפעף"


        כיוון שזו לא הייתה הפעם הראשונה ששמעתי את ההשוואה הזו, ברצוני לנצל הזדמנות זו ולהצביע על ההבדלים בין הנרטיב המקראי לבין הפילוסופיה של קיקרו. למרות ששניהם כוללים חרב כסמל להרתעה ואזהרה, הם מייצגים שתי השקפות עולם שונות, אחת הלניסטית והשנייה יהודית. חרב דמוקלס, המצביעה כלפי מטה, מזהירה כי כוח ופריבילגיה ארציים מסוכנים. מאידך, החרב המתהפכת בכניסה לגן עדן, מצביעה כלפי מעלה ומרמזת כי כוח   אלוהי וחיי נצח הם מעבר להישג ידם של בני אדם.                                                                                          

       נזכרתי בסיפור הזה, כשקראתי את פרשת השבוע "בראשית", המספרת את סיפור הבריאה וגירוש אדם וחוה  מגן העדן לאחר שאי-צייתו לאלוהים ואכלו את פרי עץ הדעת טוב ורע. החרב, שאלוהים הציב מעל הכניסה המזרחית לגן העדן, שימשה כמחסום חי ובלתי עביר כדי למנוע מהאנושות להיכנס שוב לגן ולאכול מעץ החיים המעניק לבני האדם אלמוות.

     רש"י מסביר שאלוהים חשש שבני אדם יאכלו מעץ החיים,  "יחיו לנצח, וכך החוטא יהיה אלמוותי" והעולם יישאר לנצח מושחת על ידי חטא ולכוד בחוסר שלמות.

    גם הרב סאקס מתייחס לסמליות בהצבת "החרב המתהפכת". הוא טוען שהחרב, בנרטיב בראשית, אינה רק גדר פיזית אלא משמשת גם כסמל רוחני. היא מייצגת את הגבולות בין אלוהים לאדם, בין מה שמותר לאדם לעשות  לבין מה שנמצא מעבר להישג ידו. לאחר הגירוש, מציע סאקס, האנושות איבדה את תמימותה הראשונית ואת הסיכוי לחיות חיי נצח נטולי אחריות מוסרית. החרב, מציין זקס, אינה רק כלי הרס, היא גם כלי שמטרתו להביא צדק. החרב המתהפכת, הוא מסכם, מייצגת את המחיר שיש לשלם עבור חופש הבחירה.

  בכל דרך שרוצים לפרש את מושג "להט החרב המתהפכת", ברור שהיא פעלה גם ככוח אזהרה והרתעה וגם כתזכורת למגבלותיו של האדם.זה, אני מאמינה, היה העיקרון המנחה שהכתיב את ההחלטה לקרוא לספר על  טייסת המסוקים של דוד. בדיוק כמו "החרב המתהפכת", היא משמשת כתזכורת מתמדת לאוייבי ישראל ולסכנות האורבות להם ולאלה  שאינם מקפידים על קוד האתיקה האוניברסלי שניתן לעם ישראל בפרט ולאנושות בכלל, על ידי אלוהים.