CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS TOLDOS 5770 - BS"D

2) Ch. 25, v. 28: "VA'YE'EHAV... ki tzayid b'fiv, v'Rivkoh OHEV'ES" - We find Yitzchok's love for Eisov expressed in the past tense and Rivkoh's love for Yaakov expressed in the present tense.

3) Ch. 25, v. 28: "Ki tzayid b'fiv" - Besides the obvious intent of these words that Yitzchok loved Eisov because Eisov brought captures game for Yitzchok to consume, what other insights do you have?

4) Ch. 27, v. 9: "Shnei g'doyei izim tovim" - The Medrash 65:14 says that in the merit of these two goats which Rivkoh requested Yaakov to serve his father Yitzchok, he would receive the blessings, and the b'nei Yisroel would in the future benefit from the forgiveness brought about through the sacrifice of two goats on Yom Kippur (Vayikra 16:5). What is the connection?

5) Ch. 27, v. 27: "K'rei'ach so'deh asher beiracho Hashem" - The gemara Taanis 29b says that this is a field of "tapuchim," usually translated as apples. (This was mentioned in the Rosh Hashonoh issue. According to the opinion that the blessings were given on Rosh Hashonoh, contrary to the Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer which is quoted in Rashi that they were given on Pesach, this would be a source for the custom of dipping an APPLE into honey for the omen of initiating a New Year that is sweet.) However, the Tosfos on the above gemara d.h. "shel tapuchim" says that tapuchim here means ESROGIM. He brings no proof, nor even an indication for this interpretation. What brought Tosfos to this interpretation?

ANSWERS:

#1

The Holy Chozeh of Lublin says that our Rashi is actually forewarning this difficulty. We know that even negative traits have their appropriate place and application. The Medrash Koheles ch. 7 goes so far as to say that it is sometimes the greatest cruelty to be merciful in given circumstances. If one is a "tam" then he can never respond with cunning, even when it is called for. Yaakov was not a "tam" but rather an "ISH tam." "Ish" means one who has mastery, as in Rus 1:3, "Elimelech ISH Noami," Elimelech the master of Noami, who forced her to leave Eretz Yisroel against her will during the famine. Yaakov had mastery over his simplicity. When called for, he rose to the occasion, even against the great swindler Lovon. One who can't do this, says Rashi, is a "tam," but Yaakov was an "ISH tam."

#2

The Kli Yokor explains that the word "ki" should be translated as WHEN, since Yitzchok's love was based on an object, it only existed at the time that he received the benefit. The Shaloh Hakodosh adds that Rivkoh, however, had a steady, unwavering love for Yaakov that was not dependent on an outside factor, hence the present term "o'hev'es" is used, as per the dictum of Pirkei Ovos 5:17, "Any love that is dependent on a matter, when the matter ceases to exist so does the love. Unconditional love lasts."

#3

1) There was once a great Chassidic Rebbe whose son unfortunately did not follow the proper path of the Torah. Eventually his manner of behaviour, speech, and dress all reflected his downward spiritual spiral. He did, however, make a point of attending all public functions at which his holy father officiated. The chasidim were very displeased with this and felt it was an affront to the Rebbe to have his son in attendance, considering the very visible spiritual deviation of the son. They did not have the courage to approach the Rebbe with this matter. They held a meeting and decided that an elderly, scholarly chosid should approach the Rebbe as a representative of all his followers to suggest that the Rebbe's son not be allowed to attend tishen, etc.

With trepidation the chosid came to the door of the Rebbe's study and was about to knock when he heard a cry emanate from the room. He heard the Rebbe say, "Hashem, You know how much I suffer from my son's deviating from the proper path, and how much more I suffer when I see him on a constant basis, not looking or acting as a proper Torah-true Jew should. Yet I, a mere human being, don't banish him from my presence. You, Hashem, have endless patience. Why do You exile Your children from Your presence in the Holy Land?" Needless to say, the chosid never brought up the matter with the Rebbe.

In a similar vein, Rebbi Meir of Premishlan explains a gemara Shabbos 89b that explains the verse in Yeshayohu 63:16, "Ki atoh ovinu" with the following story. Hashem approached Avrohom and told him that his children have sinned. Avrohom responded that they should be destroyed and this would create a sanctification of Hashem as everyone would see that transgressors are strongly punished. Hashem then raised this same point to Yaakov and received the same response. He then approached Yitzchok who responded that they are Hashem's children and responsibility as well, and should be forgiven. Yitzchok even took upon himself responsibility for their sins.

It is ironic that Yitzchok who represented "pachad Yitzchok," stringent judgment, was the only one who responded favourably. Why wasn't Avrohom, who was the pillar of mercy, or Yaakov, able to respond as Yitzchok did? Rebbi Meir of Premishlan answers that only Yitzchok was capable of responding favourably in the face of sin, because only Yitzchok kept his wayward son in his presence, in spite of suffering immensely from him, even to the point that he was blinded by the smoke of the incense offered to idol worship in his home by his daughters-in-law.

Our verse is saying that Yitzchok loved Eisov, "ki tzayid b'fiv," so that Yitzchok would have this strategy to allow later generations of sinners to be exonerated.

2) The Ruach Eliyohu (Rabbi Eliyohu Avron) explains this with the interpretation of the Holy Alshich on the verse in Mishlei 9:8 that says, "Do not rebuke a scoffer lest he hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you." There are two ways a person can be told that he has not behaved properly. Either he can be told, "You behaved as a fool, totally improperly," or, "For a person of your stature, what you did was improper." Do not reprimand a person by calling him a scoffer, a fool. It will be ineffective, as he will hate you. If you admonish him through saying that you consider him wise, but that he acted in a manner unbefitting for his stature, then he will love you and accept your words. The Ruach Eliyohu applies this idea to our verse and explains that Yitzchok saw through Eisov's ruse, but ACTED as if he loved him, to trap him with his, Yitzchok's, mouth.

I believe we find a similar explanation in Rashi on Yehoshua 9:14 d.h. "va'yikchu."

#4

The Beis Halevi answers that there was a strong disagreement between Rivkoh and Yaakov whether to even attempt to wrest the blessings from Eisov by tricking Yitzchok (see Medrash 65:15). Yaakov felt that since the blessings were for material success (there are opposing views on this point), he should not pursue them. The future generations would be better off with limited material opportunities, while wealth might otherwise distract them from their goal of pursuit of spirituality, as explained in the gemara Chagigoh 9a on the verse in Yeshayohu 48:10, "I have chosen you for the crucible of poverty." Rivkoh felt that although Yaakov was basically right, there are two important benefits that could be realized with having material success. One is that many mitzvos can only be fulfilled if one has the funding for them. The other advantage is that if one has been granted the blessing of material success, if deprived of it, it is to be considered a punishment, and would be atonement for some sins (gemara Bovo Basro 9a). The Beis Halevi compares ownership of material wealth, which should not be a goal unto itself, to possessions from which one may not derive benefit, by virtue of a vow. Yet, two benefits may be derived. One is that the object may be used for a mitzvah (see gemara Rosh Hashono 28a). The second benefit is that the object may be used to pay a debt (see gemara N'dorim 33a). With this approach, Rivkoh persuaded Yaakov to attempt to receive his father's blessings.

We know that long-term success in any matter requires a source of sanctity to support it. What is the source for the material success of the 70 nations? (There are medroshim which say that the 70 oxen of the mussof sacrifice of the 7 days of Succos, Bmidbar 29:14-32, are the source.) The Beis Halevi says that its source is the scapegoat of Yom Kippur which is sent down a precipice. Its laws seem contrary to all laws of sacrificing at the Beis Hamikdosh. It is not slaughtered in the normal ritual manner that even animals for chulin, non-sacrificial animals, are slaughtered, nor are any other normal blood offering procedures followed, i.e. its procedure is done outside the Mikdosh compound, no receiving of blood in a holy vessel, no placing of blood on the altar. This is because it is a quasi-sacrifice, its benefit being for the nations of the world, which doesn't allow it to be processed at the Beis Hamikdosh in the normal fashion. Why is this sacrifice brought on Yom Kippur?

He answers that since the dominant theme of Yom Kippur is to receive atonement for our sins, we specifically bring a sacrifice which brings success for the nations to have material goods. Since we are entitled to material blessings, our willingness to relinquish them, and even bring a sacrifice to that end, creates atonement. This would not be so if Yaakov had not received the blessings, and had not had a claim of ownership of the material world. This is the connection in the Medrash, that the goats which would facilitate Yaakov's receiving the blessings would bring about atonement through the scapegoat of Yom Kippur.

We find that Eisov comes at the moment of completion of Yaakov's receiving the blessings and that he bitterly screams for a blessing from his father. His father gives him what is seemingly a blessing that is very similar to that of Yaakov. If so, why did Eisov harbour a burning hatred for Yaakov for so many years? The Beis Halevi says that we actually find that the Holy Zohar addresses this question (vol. 1, page 143b). He answers that there is a critical difference between the two. Yaakov's blessing is worded "v'yitein, and Hashem will GIVE you" (27:28), while Eisov's is worded "yi'h'yeh, IT WILL BE" (27:39). The Beis Haleivi explains that Yaakov actually was the RECIPIENT and OWNER of the blessings. Eisov was told by Yitzchok, who saw through prophecy that the b'nei Yisroel would not be worthy in later generations, and would have to relinquish some of their material possessions to the b'nei Eisov, that he would end up receiving Yaakov's blessings, thus the fulfillment of "yi'h'yeh." Eisov wanted actual rights to this, and was not satisfied with it only being passed on to him. He therefore hated Yaakov.

#5

1) Horav Avrohom of Broyde says that this can be proven from the Medrash (5:9) which Rashi brings in parshas Breishis (1:11) on the words "eitz pri," that this was a command that the fruit trees should have the flavour of their wood similar to the flavour of its fruit. The trees did not comply and were later cursed (3:18). If all the trees were cursed, how could Yitzchok liken the fragrance of his son to the fragrance of a field of trees BLESSED by Hashem, as they were all cursed? The gemara Succoh 35a says that the esrog tree's wood and fruit have the same flavour. We see that this is the one exception to the above non-compliance with Hashem's will. Now we understand how Tosfos knew that "tapuch" had to mean esrog, since our verse says that it was BLESSED by Hashem.

Possibly this can also be answered with a gemara Shabbos 88a that brings a verse in Shir Hashirim (2:3) where the Jewish nation is likened to a "tapuach." The gemara explains that just as a "tapuach" produces its fruit before its leaves develop, unlike all other trees, so also at the time of the giving of the Torah, the Jewish nation first said "naa'seh," we will do, before saying "nishma," we will hear, also unlike the response of the other nations. The Tosfos d.h. "piryo" ask that this is contrary to the facts. An apple tree produces leaves before its fruits develop. They answer that "tapuach" means an esrog. The gemara Succoh 35a, when attempting to identify the elusive "pri eitz hodor" (Vayikra 23:40), interprets "hodor" to mean "HADOR b'ilono mishonoh l'shonoh", a fruit which resides on its tree from year to year. This means that an esrog has the capability of staying connected to the tree from one year to the next if not harvested. Last year's esrog is indeed produced before the leaves of the coming year develop. This, say the Tosfos, is what is meant by the fruit preceding its leaves, specifically applying only to an esrog tree.

We see from here that the gemara uses the word tapuach for esrog. This might be why Tosfos in Taanis also assumed that tapuach means esrog.

It is most interesting to note that if we take the numerical value of "b'ni k'rayach sodeh a"(sher), - beis, nun, yud, kof, reish, yud, ches, sin, dalet, hei, and the alef of "asher," we have 2+50+10+20+200 +10+ 8+300+4+5+1 = 610, the same value as ESROG, alef, tof, reish, vov, gimmel, 1+400+200+6+3 = 610. The alef of "asher" can be left out and only complete words used if you add the "kollel" of 1.

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights