Parashat Toldot: Gen. 25:19 - 28:9

The sixth portion of the week introduces us to the third and most influential Father of our nation, Jacob (later to be called Israel). Unlike Abraham and Isaac before him, the biblical text tells us much about Jacob -- from the day he was born (and even before that) until the day he dies. Thus, we receive a full and very comprehensive picture of this multifaceted twin, who grew up from being a “mother’s boy” and “tent dweller” to become one of the most influential leaders of all times.

Today I would like to make two related comments about Jacob’s nature which derive from two of the portion’s most prominent stories: The selling of the Birthright, and the act of receiving the Paternal Blessings. As I have indicated, the two are related, but reading the first more accurately may shed new light on the second.

The Selling of the Birthright

Rivkah, Isaac’s wife who was brought to him by his slave in the wonderful story told in the last portion, is barren. This is a pattern among our Mothers. Isaac “petitions” God (and that exact word – va’ya’a’tor – is used until today in Hebrew to describe a request to the Israeli Supreme Court), and God provides him and Rivkah with twins: The first-ever known red-head (Esau), and his twin brother, holding his heel (A’kev in Hebrew) – Ya’akov, roughly “he who followed his brother (out of the womb).”

While the text does not write much about the Right of the First Born (Birthright), we already know plenty of it. We have enough indications to believe it was of great importance, and carried social and economic consequences. Indeed, whenever the book of Genesis stops the story to tell us about lineage (see Chapters 5-6), the text focuses only on the first-born male, while all the other offspring are simply related to as “other boys and girls who were born to X.” Thus, only the first born is mentioned by his name, and only he is mentioned as having his own wife, with whom he had another first born who is mentioned by name, and so on and so forth. That goes to show that only the first born was considered the family safe-keeper, the one who continued the legacy, the one who received all the fame, fortune, and glory.

Now we deal, for the first time, with twins. Though very different in nature – one is an outdoors person, a hunter, while his twin is a “tent-dweller” and a “mother’s boy”– they are both of the same age. Yet only one of them would enjoy the very substantial right of being the first born. Although the text does not mention it, I am sure that Jacob, while sitting for hours and hours in his tent with his beloved mom, used to dwell on the injustice that was caused to him: Why would he (Esau) receive all the glory? We’re of the exact same age!

And so Jacob begins to plot his revolutionary – no less – idea. He would buy back his Birthright. The readers must understand how subversive, original, and brilliant – all attributes we meet again later with Jacob – this idea is. Birthright is acquired through biology. Just like Royalty in England, this was the Law of the Land for years, and there was nothing that could be done to challenge it. While today we mock and reject such arrangements explicitly (see the U.S. Const. Art. I § 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States”), it is still worthy to consider the simplicity and economy of such a rule for ancient societies: “The first-born (male) gets it all. No argument.” While arbitrary in nature, this rule is fair in that it applies equally to all families; it prevents many intra-family feuds as to who deserve to receive most of the inheritance; and it simplifies the otherwise very complex laws of inheritance.

But what is the law of twins? Jacob, who lives at a time when the Supreme Court is not yet functioning (notice his complete disregard of God as a source of restoring justice in this case), decides to take matters into his own hands.

While Esau returns from one of his many days-long (and perhaps weeks) journeys, possibly without any game – as many hunters would tell you – tired, frustrated, and very hungry (recall that McDonalds and other fast-food joints were not in existence then), Jacob makes sure he would smell his delicious stew. Now note that it is Esau who asks Jacob – and not the other way – to taste from this heavenly gourmet dish: “Fill me up with this red, oh so red thing, as I am tired now.” (Gen. 26:30; note that red in Hebrew is Adom, and the text explains that the Adomites, an important people who are descendants of Esau, are called that way because of this Adom.) Jacob agrees, but not before he asks Esau for something huge in return: “Sell me today your Birthright.” Esau, exhausted, hungry, and frustrated, agrees: “Here I am, about to die – why would I need my Birthright any longer? And Esau swore to him, and he sold his Birthright to Jacob. And Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew.” (Gen. 26: 32-34)

What’s shocking to me is not the act of the sale itself, but the audacity and originality of its originator. Before that, the sale of intangible rights in not even mentioned anywhere in the text – Jacob had to come up with the idea all by himself. There were no institutions (like courts) that could enforce such a sale, and – as far as we know – the act had no witnesses. Still, Jacob decides to correct what he sees as prolonged injustice and to get his Birthright though sale. (When we look at the current crisis in the banking system, and can’t believe what these people bought and sold – fractions of insolvent mortgages – we may look back to Genesis and see where it all began. This comment is dedicated with love to the reader Lalo).

The Blessing from Father Isaac

The story of Jacob cheating his father to receive the blessing of the first born is well known in Halacha. In fact, the text itself tells us – from Isaac’s mouth – that “[Jacob] came to me with trickery and took your blessing.” (Gen. 27:35). Until today, when well-read Israelis want to say that something doesn’t feel right, they quote Father Isaac’s suspicious call: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau.” (Gen. 27:22; I highly recommend you read the entire text, there.)

But did Jacob really trick his Father? Wasn’t there something much deeper going on? To me, all that happened here is the Jacob, many years after buying the Birthright – an declaratory gesture, without much meaning during the father’s lifetime – comes now to cash the check and receive the actual blessings (and all of its consequences). He feels he deserves that. He feels that the blessing directly derives from his purchase act of many years earlier. Therefore, the “big and loud cry, bitter and wild” that Esau made when he realized the trick, complaining that Jacob tricked him twice: “he took my Birthright and now my blessings” (it’s much better in Hebrew) – is not convincing. The two are one – you get the blessing because you have the Birthright, and vice-versa. Now that Jacob earned his birthright fair and square, in a purchase, he can enjoy all the accompanied rights.

Note that Isaac, the father, who learns about the trick, doesn’t even consider to “un-do” his blessing, to cancel it due to the fact it was made by fraud. Today this is probably what a court of law would do. But back then, what’s done is done, and there’s no turning back. That was the case with the sale of the Birthright, and that was the case with the blessing – both belong now to Jacob.

Shabat Shalom,

Doron