"Raise boys did anyone know there was a man hunting a field and Jacob sits over tents"
"Les enfants grandirent, Essav devint un homme connaissant la chasse, un homme des champs, et Yaacov, homme intègre, vécut sous les tentes. " (25,27)
Pourquoi le verset utilise-t-il deux fois le mot "ISH" - Homme - au sujet de Essav, alors qu'au About Yaacov, the term is used once? Also, how is it that the verse speaks of "man", while Esau and Yaakov were teenagers?
The Zohar reveals that the word "ish" evokes the concept of personality. It speaks of Ya'akov, as "ish" because it has developed very quickly a remarkable personality. However, Esau, who wandered about, has wasted its capabilities: the verse again employs the word "ish" to signify that he has tempered his personality, and he was a "ISH Sade" - a man fields.
It also explains that the integrity Yaacov was complete: wherever he went, he kept the same sanctity that when he studied at the Bet Midrash (house of study). It was thus a "ICH" unique. Esau when he has had two faces: it rusait with his father, to appear Tzaddik has its eyes away from him but he was committing the worst actions, as we reveal the Talmud (Baba Batra 16b). The verse uses twice the word "ish" to testify to this dual face.
"ויעקב נתן לעשיו לחם ונזיד עדשים ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך ויבז עשו את הבכרה "
" And Ya'akov has served Esau "bread" and a dish of lentils .......( 25,30) "
Why
he gave bread to Esau as the latter had not been asked as lenses?
We are tempted to say it's because the lenses that can not eat without bread, or perhaps they too were reported and the need to reduce the taste of spice. These responses may be common sense certainly, but we believe that the Torah wants teach us something deeper. Rabbi Diskin Yeochoua lev זצ"ל offers us a very interesting answer:
Someone would have made an oath in a situation of danger and to save his life would not be obliged to keep his promise once the danger has passed, since vowed that would save his life. As we saw earlier, when Esau returned from hunting, he is literally starving. If he does not eat, his life may be endangered.
Therefore, if
Yaacov had given the mess of pottage against the birthright (בכרה) in this context, once satiated Esau and out of the woods could renounce his oath by claiming he had vowed not only to save his life. That is why Ya'akov gave him first of bread (as we see in verse), and then, when he was satiated and danger of death was dismissed, he gave him the dish of lentils cons his birthright. Thus Esau had no argument to cancel their pact.
"ויגש יעקב אל יצחק וימשהו ויאמר הקל קול יעקב והידים ידי עשו "
" Yitzhak Ya'akov approached his father, aunt and who said: "The voice was the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are the hands of Esau (27.22)"
The Midrash teaches us:
There was not a wise man among the nations of the world as "Balaam Harache" (the wicked).
When the people of Israel out of Egypt, all the people came to take advice from it. They asked him - "can we compete with such people?" he replied: "Go see it in their Knessiot Bate (Synagogue) and Bate Midrachot (House of Study), if you hear children studying, you have no chance against them. For thus promised their father: "The voice is the voice of Yaakov (Bnei Israel), but the hands are the hands of Esau" (27.22)
That is to say that as the voice of Yaacov is heard in the synagogues and houses of study (ie to the Jewish people pray and study the Torah), the hand of Esau is powerless against him or he has a chance to win.
0 comments:
Post a Comment