Shabbat Shalom: Parshat Toldot Genesis 25:19-28:9

By Shlomo Riskin

Efrat, Israel - “And Jacob said to his father, ‘I am Esau your first born…’” (Genesis 27:18).

How can we properly understand Jacob’s act of deceiving his father and his mother Rebecca’s encouragement of this deception? The Bible itself certainly believes that this act was wrong and deserved punishment. After all, uncle Laban goes on to deceive his nephew Jacob by giving him the elder in place of the younger daughter as his wife, and Jacob’s own sons cruelly deceive their father by telling him that Joseph has been torn apart by wild beasts. Between the lines of the Bible, Jacob is certainly being punished “measure for measure”.

Rebecca too suffers grievously for her part in the treachery. She “loses” her beloved son Jacob when he is forced to leave his parent’s home lest Esau kill him. Esau himself can hardly be a loving son to a mother who has conspired to take away his birthright. There is even a hint in the Bible that even Jacob resents the parent who initiated his act of deception. How else can we understand the biblical account informing us of the death of Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse, but never actually mentioning the death of Rebecca herself (Genesis 25:8). Perhaps it was easier for Jacob to mourn the death of his nanny, the woman who gave him much love but did not implicate him in the most treacherous deed of his life. It seems to me that it is this very tragic solitude of Rebecca, bereft of both her sons, which causes the Bible to say, “And Isaac sent away Jacob; and he went to Padan-Aram to Laban…the brother of Rebecca, Jacob and Esau’s mother” (Genesis 28:5). This last description, which seems superfluous at first reading, may very well have been written dripping with irony.

Despite the obvious nature of their transgression against Isaac, Jacob still received the birthright and there is no word of remorse neither from the mouth of Jacob nor from the mouth of Rebecca. If the sin was so great, how can the Bible allow the sinner to benefit?

We have already suggested that Isaac initially chose Esau for the birthright because of his disappointment with himself, with his lack of aggressiveness vis-a-vis Avimelech’s total disregard of their peace treaty, Avimelech’s stopping up of Abrahams’ wells and his banishing Isaac from the area of Gaza. Isaac understands that the torch carrier of the Abrahamic mission must be able to defend the family rights, even if it means using the hands of Esau in order to protect the message of ethical monotheism. In a world which is not yet perfect, one must often employ less than perfect means to achieve the deserved and desirable end. The ends never justify the means; but the achievement of some specific ends may often necessitate certain difficult and questionable means.Let us review the prior history (prior to the deception) of Esau, Jacob and Rebecca. Rebecca stood by as her eldest son Esau married Hittite wives, a blatant act of intermarriage in Biblical terms. Indeed the Bible itself records that “this was a bitterness of spirit to Isaac and to Rebecca” (Genesis 26:35) Jacob must have been filled with dismay when his elder brother agreed to actually “sell” his birthright for a bowl of lentil soup. He certainly understood that this impetuous and undisciplined hunter was hardly a fitting heir for the legacy of Abraham and Isaac. Isaac was making a tragic mistake by bestowing the mantle of the birthright on the shoulders of the son who would not properly wear it. Jewish history could not be allowed to end before it really began. The vision of Abraham and the “covenant between the pieces” had to be realized. Rebecca and Jacob must certainly have felt an awesome responsibility to forestall an imminent tragic choice.

In subsequent generations our sages will rule that armaments are not an adornment (which may be worn on the Sabbath with impunity) but are rather a burden which may not be carried on the Sabbath unless a human life is at stake. After all, teaches the Mishnah at the conclusion of the tractate Shabbat, our prophets exhort; “And they must beat their swords into plowshares, their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift swords against nation and humanity ought not learn war any more” (Isaiah 2, Micah). But nevertheless the Bible and the Talmud call for obligatory warfare whenever the Jewish people are threatened by an attacking enemy; such war is termed a mitzvah! Fascinatingly enough a Priest-Kohen who kills a human being even in such a war may not rise to bless the congregation “with love”. Nevertheless, the Priest-Kohen must go out and do battle in times of such a war (B.T. Kiddushin 20).

Yes, the ends do not justify the means, but they often do necessitate unpleasant means. The choices that we make in life are not always between black and white; they are often between shades of gray, when each decision is both right and wrong. There are times when the situation demands that we commit sinful acts in order to prevent even greater tragedy. When this happens, we must take punishment for our actions- but we must commit them nonetheless. Rebecca and Jacob did what they had to do to prevent Esau’s ascension to the leadership of Israel. At the same time they had to bear the bitter consequence of their act. Perhaps this is the price leadership must pay in a yet imperfect world.

Shabbat Shalom.