Parashat MiKeitz

At first glance, Parashat MiKeitz’s opening seems an aside to Yoseif HaTzadik’s travails. We first detail the two dreams Paroh dreamt, and then ten pasukim later connect the dreams to Yoseif. This is the transition we expect, for Yoseif had already set up the means by which he would be redeemed in last week’s parasha. Hashem sent him the Sar HaMishkim and the Sar Ha’Ofim, gave each a dream, and filled Yoseif with the Ruach necessary to interpret each dream. Therefore, when Paroh can’t explain his own nightmares, the Sar HaMashkim naturally comes to his rescue – and Yoseif’s rescue for that matter – with timely advice.

But if we look at the very first words of the parasha, we see that these two stories’ connection is much more explicitly foreshadowed. VaYihee MiKeitz Shnasayim Yamim, and it was after two years. The pasuk makes clear reference to Yoseif’s additional time in jail. But why? Perhaps the Torah wants to show us that Paroh’s dreams did not occur immediately after he let the Sar HaMashkim free:

“ViLo Zachar Sar HaHashkim Es Yoseif VaYIshkacheihu” Beraishis 40:23

(why does the pasuk need to state both that the Sar HaMashkim didn’t mention Yoseif [to Paroh] and also that he forgot him? The language is redundant!)

ViLo Zachar: On that day.

VaYishkacheihu: Afterwards. Since Yoseif relied on [the Sar HaMashkim] to mention him [to Paroh], he had to remain improsioned for another two years, for it says in the pasuk “Ashrei HaGever Asher Sam Hashem Mivtacho ViLo Panah El Rehavim,” praiseworthy is the man who places his trust in Hashem and does not turn to the Mitzrim, who are called Rehav (arrogant) [for assistance].

Rashi, Beraishis 40:23

But this doesn’t explain why the Torah should mention Yoseif’s punishment in Parashat MiKeitz. If it were so important for the Torah to tell us that Yoseif remained in jail two years after the Sar HaMashkim was freed, we would expect to find out in the last pasuk of Parashat VaYeishev! Instead, the Torah uses this fact to build chronological context to a story that has plenty of context already. As soon as the Sar HaMashkim introduces the Na’ar Ivri Eved, it becomes crystal clear how our parasha ties into last week’s story. Perhaps most to the point, in a parasha that details Yoseif’s successes and ascension to power, there is simply no need to know about the punishments he has already overcome.

Perhaps by immediately connecting the story of Paroh’s nightmares to the story of Yoseif’s stay in prison, the Torah hopes to bring other similarities to light. If we look closely at the two dreams of Paroh, we find an interesting similarity to the pair of dreams shared by the butler and baker. After his first dream, Paroh simply awoke and thought nothing much of his nightmare. But after the second dream, the pasuk states “ViHinei Chalom.” The mifarshim explain that Paroh understood the significance of having the same dream repeat in a single night; like one would only ask for advice after having a recurring nightmare, Paroh only asks his magicians for interpretations after having dreamt both dreams.

In similar vein, the dreams of the butler and baker come in a pair, yet they are also referred to as a single Chalom. VaYachalmu Chalom Shneihem, VaYomeru Eilav Chalom Chalmnu, they said to [Yoseif] we have dreamt a dream. Just like by Paroh, the two officers recognize the unity of their dreams because they coincidentally dreamt similar things on the same night. Therefore they continue, U’Fosair Ein Oso, we know these dreams mean something, but we do not know what they mean.

This concept is brought out most explicitly in our parasha, not by the Sar HaMashkim or Sar HaOfim or even Paroh, though they all do refer to the concept, but rather by Yoseif himself. VaYomeir Yoseif El Paroh, Chalom Paroh Echad Hu.

Paroh knows very well he had one dream, and his magicians each give him a single interpretation for a single dream as well. They predict he will have seven daughters and bury seven daughters, conquer seven nations and lose seven nations. When Yoseif steps before Paroh, Paroh even prefaces, “Chalom Asher Chalamti,” it’s a single dream for sure. And Yoseif thinks he’s genius by getting up and saying, “Before I can interpret your dream, I must explain that it’s really one dream. The sevens stand for seven years each and add up to only 14 years, not 28. It’s a single dream.” Apparantly, Paroh is astounded by Yoseif’s ingenuity and appoints him viceroy, but Yoseif is quite clearly just faking his way to power! Shouldn’t Paroh just have realized that Yoseif was simply making the obvious sound more prophetic or emphatic?

Maybe even more bizarre is Paroh’s immediate rejection of his magicians’ explanations. Rashi says that Paroh did not find ease of mind with their interpretations. He seems to assume that there are correct interpretations of the dream and incorrect interpretations of the dream. But when a Navi interprets his Nevua or his dream, doesn’t the interpretation stick, whether it is positive or negative? This was exactly why Chulda HaNiviah was favored over Yirmiyhu as an interpreter towards the end of Bayis Rishon! So how can Paroh pick and choose whichever interpretation he likes?

When Yoseif offers his interpretation, he concludes with a lengthy description of how to avoid suffering in the seven years of blight. What purpose does Yoseif’s solution in his effort to interpret the dream, why should Yoseif bother himself to deal with Paroh’s problems? The answer to this question, the mifarshim bring down, is that every dream has its respective purpose. If Yoseif had simply offered an interpretation, much like the other magicians had, his predictions of food and famine would have been purposeless and useless. What separated Yoseif’s description from the rest was not that he looked at it as one dream instead of two, but rather that he looked at the dream as practical advice.

With this understanding, everything fits into place. When Yosef declares “your dream is really one dream,” Yosef isn’t suggesting that every other magician really thought Paroh dreamt two separate dreams. Yoseif means something totally different. Because Paroh’s dream is one dream, it also bears a single purpose, a single direction. To tell Paroh he would have seven daughters and his seven daughters would die, one would have to reason that Paroh dreamt two dreams! The first dream would have to move Paroh from point A, status quo, to point B, having seven daughters, and the second dream would return him to point A. This is why Paroh was so certain that his magicians could not be correct, and this is why Paroh did not find ease of mind in their interpretations, for their interpretations were certainly amusing and interesting, but there was absolutely nothing Paroh could act upon. However, Yoseif followed his dream with detailed instructions, with directions Paroh could follow to take advantage of the upcoming events, and for that Paroh recognized Yoeif’s genius and considered his interpretation correct.

Let’s stop for a moment and account for what we now know. Yoseif interprets Paroh’s dream correctly because he recognizes that the meaningful information within a dream is only meaningful if it can be acted upon to move the dreamer from status quo to a new status. In Paroh’s case, the awareness of the upcoming years of plenty and famine helped Paroh store enough food in the good years to provide the world with sustenance over the poor years. Furthermore, Paroh was soon not only the ruler of Mitzrayim but rather the entire world. And that’s much grander than conquering a mere seven countries.

But there’s something else Yoseif realizes about the significance of dreams. He says to Paroh, “ViAta, Yaireh Paroh Eesh Navon ViChacham ViShesahu Al Eretz Mitzrayim,” in order to deal with the famine, appoint the wisest man you know over Mitzrayim, and Yoseif continues with his plan to collect and store grain. Perhaps Yoseif wasn’t implicitly referring to himself, but regardless, Paroh immediately appoints Yoseif to the job, claiming, “Acharei Hodi’ah Elokim Osichah Es Kol Zos Ein Navon ViChacham KaMochah.” Whether Paroh is correct or not, it certainly seems as if Yosief is taking unfair advantage of the current situation, playing off of Paroh’s fears to earn himself a spot next to the throne. And his suggestion could have certainly backfired. How was Yoseif so sure that his interpretably selfish proposal wouldn’t royally insult Paroh?

Certainly, Yoseif was not trying to act innocent while appointing himself to the throne. Paroh wasn’t that foolish and probably would have been insulted if he thought Yoseif was manipulating the dreams for his own benefit. Instead, Yoseif reasoned to Paroh “You need me here to interpret your dream, so there must also be some reason why I need to be here to hear the dream, why Hashem has granted these talents and abilities specifically to me. Perhaps what the dream suggests is that someone with my particular skills is the perfect man to act upon your dream and help earn you power over the entire world.” This Paroh thought was a brilliant read into the dream.

Unfortunately, this new notion that the interpreter of the dream should try to relate himself to the dream itself creates new problems with our read of last week’s story. We saw how Rashi chastises Yoseif for putting his trust into a Rehav instead of into Hashem, but is that really what Yoseif did?

“In three more days, Paroh will take stock of you and return you to your perch, and you shall place Paroh’s goblet in his hand as was once decreed that you be his butler, so that you will then mention me to yourself once you have benefited [from my interpretation], and you will do kindness for me and mention me to Paroh and he will take me from this house…”

Beraishis, 40:13-14

Of course Yosief puts his trust into the Sar HaMashkim! Hashem sent him the Sar HaMashkim to get his name mentioned to Paroh. Hashem gave him this interpretation to the dream, and so Yoseif knows this is what Hashem wants him to do. Yosief knows this is Hashem’s master plan to get him out of the jail. If this is considered trusting Rehavim, then why was serving as Paroh’s viceroy any better? He was relying on the power and decrees of Paroh to establish his own name around the world!

But remember, the Sar HaMashkim wasn’t the only one whose dream Yoseif had to interpret. Having already contrived his way out of prison, Yoseif hastily turned the Sar Ha’Ofim’s dream aside, foretelling his imminent execution. If dreams are not only meant to be known but also to be acted upon, there is a serious flaw with Yoseif’s interpretation of the Sar HaOfim’s dream. Sure, Yoseif accurately predicted that the baker would be hanged, but he failed to look for the significance of this fact, the role this knowledge could potentially play in the context of all three men’s predicaments.

Rashi comments on the redundancy of Parashat VaYeishev’s final pasuk, ViLo Zachar Sar HaMashkim Es Yoseif VaYishkacheihu, that one term refers to the immediate forgetting, and the other term refers to the long term memory lapse. However, Rashi uses an interesting word; instead of saying ViLo Zachar LiAlter, that the Sar MaMashkim didn’t mention Yoseif to Paroh immediately, Rashi says he forgot Bo Bayom, on that day. What significance did that particular day carry?

For starters, Bo BaYom refers directly to the day the Sar HaMashkim was released, Paroh’s birthday. But more than that, Bo BaYom was also the day the Sar Ha’Ofim was hanged. Of course, the Sar HaOfim’s inevitable death doesn’t have much of an effect on either Yoseif or the Sar HaMashkim. But what if the Sar Ha’Ofim’s dream was not to be interpreted that he would be executed, but rather that he would be sentenced for execution? That would change everything! All of a sudden, Yoseif would give the Sar Ha’Ofim a chance at life, the Sar HaMashkim could walk into Paroh’s chamber and plead on behalf for his good friend the baker. But if the Sar HaMashkim were going to save his friend, he would have to act fast, he would have to act Bo BaYom. He would also have to mention Yoseif, mention how he know about the Sar Ha’Ofim’s sentencing, and that would surely involve the mentioning of Yoseif to Paroh. Hence, ViLo Zachar Bo BaYom. Amazingly, look what happens when the Sar HaMashkim finally does mention Yoseif to Paroh:

And the Sar HaMashkim spoke to Paroh saying, “Today, I recall my sin. Paroh got angry at his servants, and placed me in jail with the cheil executioner, along with the Sar Ha’Ofim. And we dreamt a dream one night, he and I…”

Beraishis, 41:9-11

The baker has been dead now for two years! What relevance does he have to the Sar HaMashkim’s recollection of Yoseif? Perhaps we see here how fond the Sar HaMashkim truly was of his friend the Sar Ha’Ofim, and how difficult it was to mention Yoseif the Jew, the Na’ar Ivri Eved. Perhaps Yoseif overlooked the ungraciousness of the Sar HaMashkim. Maybe Yoseif thought the least the Sar HaMashkim could do in return was mention him to Paroh. But a Rehav, an arrogant Mitzri like the Sar HaMashkim, had no trouble putting his own personal conveniences in front of Yoseif’s. The only person the Sar HaMashkim would save from Paroh’s hand was a person he personally cared about, namely the Sar Ha’Ofim.

We can now recognize a tremendous maturation in Yoseif over those two years. When he encountered the dreams of the butler and baker, he understood very well that the dreams had significance, but he was too busy tending to his own personal needs to consider the needs of the Sar Ha’Ofim. Yoseif’s description of how and why the Sar MaHashkim should get him out of jail is as long as the two dreams’ interpretations combined! Had he tried to save the Sar Ha’Ofim too, had he considered why Hashem brought him two distressed people with two dreams, then maybe he would have been saved a lot earlier.

Yoseif was therefore punished with two additional years in prison, and it was those years when Yoseif internalized these most valuable lessons. What happened over those two unaccounted years? Yoseif’s maturation. And without attaining that higher level of maturity, what would Paroh’s dreams have looked like to Yoseif? He probably would have succumbed to the same mistakes he made in prison. Instead of foretelling a potential famine that could be prepared for, the predicted blight would have been imminently destructive – just as the baker’s death sentence was – and all of Mitzrayim would have died out. Instead of asking for a position as viceroy to help save the nation, Yoseif probably would have asked for some trifling reward in return for his accurate interpretation. All of a sudden, the fact that Paroh’s dream occurred two years after the Sar HaMashkim was released from prison doesn’t just put chronological context on our story; it helps us define Yoseif’s present character and maturity.

Fortunately, Yoseif learned his lesson quickly enough, in time to save Mitzrayim and in time to reach the level of power he was destined to achieve. But most importantly, in time to teach the same lesson to his brothers. Years back when he first dreamt his own pair of dreams, both he and his brothers made this very mistake. Not once did Yoseif consider how his brothers would react to the dreams, nor did his brothers consider whether there could be some positive outcome to Yoseif’s rise to power, like his ability to provide them with food in a time of severe famine. Neither looked past his own personal needs; Yoseif wanted to rule and the brothers did not want to be slaves. Through the charades Yoseif plays with his brothers, ultimately kidnapping Binyamin, testing whether any of the brothers would risk his life for his half-brother’s sake, Yoseif tries to teach us that when approaching the troubles in the world, it is far more important to consider the needs of others.

Parashat VaYeishev

After it writes for you Eisav’s settlings and offspring in a concise manner – for it is not worth the space to detail how they settled or chronicle their battles and their victory of the Choree – it details Yaakov’s settlings and his offspring in a lengthy manner, with all the happenings which caused them, for they are indeed important to Hashem to expand on them.

Rashi, Beraishis 37:1

For the next four parashiot, the Torah turns its full focus to the tale of Yoseif and his brothers, and Rashi seems to explain to us why so much space is needed to chronicle this story. Rashi alludes to “Gilgulei Sibasam,” the continuous turns of events that bring our story to its unlikely and unpredictable climax; there is a focus on not only the outcome of these parashiot, but also on the particular methods by which we arrive at their conclusion. In contrast, Rashi observes, the story of Eisav carries no further importance than its conclusion, and so we skip the gory details of how Eisav won so many battles and conquered so many lands; we merely list the future rulers of Edom, as late as “Aloof Magdiel,” which the Midrash comments is Rome.

What Rashi fails to answer, however, is why the lineage and history of Edom is mentioned first. We emphasize the Chashivus of Yaakov’s story and the need to dwell on every detail, and yet it seems to take a backseat to the “trivial” affairs of Beit Eisav. If Yaakov’s story was so precious to Hashem, why shouldn’t the listing of Eisav’s lineage wait until the end of Sefer Beraishis?

Similarly we find by the generations from Adam to Noach “He begot him” and so and so, and then it dwells on Noach. And from Noach to Avraham the same.

Rashi’s continuation does not answer our question. We chronicle the generations according to chronology; once we reach the appropriate place in the timeline, the Torah slows down the story to include every crucial detail. But do we ever break from the historical order? Strangely enough, we do by Eisav. Aloof Magdiel, among many of the other listed chieftains, wasn’t even born before Moshe’s death, let alone before Yoseif’s dreams. Why then is the Torah so eager to run through Eisav’s lineage?

Rashi certainly cannot be focusing on the chronology of the stories; after all, if Yoseif is only seventeen years old at the beginning of our parasha, Yitzchak must still be alive, yet Yitzchak’s burial is clearly detailed before the Torah discusses a word about Eisav’s progeny! Chronology is clearly not the Torah’s concern, but what then determines our parashiot’s organization of Yitzchak’s family tree?

This is comparable to a pearl that falls in the sand. A man feels around for it and sifts with a sifter until he finds the pearl. Once he finds it, then he throws away all the pebbles from his hand and takes the pearl.

Clearly, Eisav is compared to the pebbles and Yaakov is compared to the pearl. The man is either Hashem or the Torah. If Rashi wasn’t clear before, he explicitly states here that the purpose of running through Eisav’s lineage is so that we can cast him aside.

But why does Rashi tell us that the pebbles are in this man’s hand to begin with? Why not just write, “Once he finds the pearl, he takes it”? Perhaps Rashi is emphasizing the value of these pebbles. Had the man not found a pearl, he would have been willing to hold on to the few pebbles he discovered; only after he uncovers treasure do the pebbles become relatively worthless. Likewise, the Torah first addresses Eisav’s story to teach us that Eisav bears worth, but once Yaakov enters the spotlight, Eisav is permanently cast aside.

The Gemara in Avodah Zara teaches us that before Hashem awarded the Torah to the B’nei Yisrael, He first gave every other nation a chance to accept His offer. The Sifri recounts Hashem’s conversation with the B’nei Eisav:

He proposed the Torah to the B’nei Eisav, and they responded, “What does the Torah say?” Hashem replied, “Lo Tirtzach, you may not kill.” Upon hearing this, the Bnei Eisav replied “How can we be expected to keep the Torah?! We are the children of Eisav, whose nature was to kill, like the pasuk says “ViHaYadayim Yidei Eisav,” and who was promised by his father, Yitzchak, “Al Charbichah Tichyeh, you shall live by your sword.” We cannot accept the Torah and abandon our lifestyle.”

Sifri, Devarim 33:2

This Midrash suggests that Eisav was in fact capable of accepting the Torah. The only thing that stopped him and his descendants was their unwillingness to detach themselves from their exhilarating lives of battle and murder. As Rashi states in Parashat ViZos HaBracha, “Lo Ratzu,” the B’nei Eisav were simply uninterested.

Perhaps Eisav is not hastily counted so as to be immediately disposed of. Perhaps we don’t really recognize how wantonly we rush through Eisav’s lineage until we contrast his story, or lack thereof, against Ya’akov’s. Like the man with the pebbles, we can only measure Eisav’s worth on a relative scale, and so we recount each king’s and capital’s name, but the description ultimately bears no comparison to the parashiot of VaYeishev through VaYechi. Just as Hashem first proposes the Torah to the Bnei Eisav, we too first consider his spiritual worth. But we soon come to recognize how little worth he and his descendants truly bear.

Parashat Toldos

Upon discovery that Ya’akov has stolen his blessings, Eisav blurts out a fascinating accusation: “Is this perhaps why his name is Ya’akov? He has now tricked me twice! First he took my birthright and now he takes my blessings!” But how many tricks does Yaakov really pull? Rashi, quoting the Medrash Tanchuma, details the dialogue between Yitzchak and his favorite son:

Hachee Kara Shemo Ya’akov VaYa’akveini Zeh Pa’amayim (Beraishis 27:36)

Why did Yitzchak tremble? He said [to himself] “Perhaps I have sinned, for I have blessed the younger son before the older and deviated from the order of lineage!” Then Eisav began to yell, “He tricked me twice!” so his father said to him, “when else has he tricked you?” and Eisav replied, “he took my birthright.” [At that moment,] Yitzchak said “Over this I was troubled and trembling, for perhaps I had acted unjustly, but now I see I have blessed the Bechor, Gam Baruch Yiheyeh.”

Rashi, Beraishis 27:36

When Yitzchak discovers that Ya’akov is the true Bechor, he stops trembling because he realizes that the Brachos went to the Bechor just as intended. So didn’t Ya’akov only trick Eisav once with a pot of lentils, and then as a result of the first trick earn the Brachos later on? Yet if Ya’akov truly had already earned the Bechor’s blessings, then why couldn’t he simply inform Yitzchak of their sale and avoid all this confusion and trickery? But before we investigate Ya’akov’s plan, let’s analyze Eisav’s accusation.

Eisav’s query is doubly perplexing when we consider that the pasukim tell us quite explicitly the reason for Ya’akov’s mame. ViAcharei Kain Yatzah Achiv ViYado Ochezes Ba’Akeiv Eisav, Ya’akov was named for holding onto Eisav’s heel; nothing to do with trickery! Perhaps Eisav’s argument is that Ya’akov’s name bears more than one meaning. Indeed, Rashi makes such a suggestion. Rashi notes that most children are named by their mothers, and so when each of Ya’akov’s children is born, the pasuk states VaTikra, she named him;” however, our pasuk reads VaYikra Shemo Ya’akov. Rashi answers that each Yitzchak and Hashem named Ya’akov, and the Sifsei Chachamim suggest that each awarded Ya’akov his name for a different reason. Yitzchak presently saw Ya’akov hold onto Eisav’s heel, and Hasem knew Ya’akov would trick his brother twice in the future. So “Ya’akov” doesn’t solely refer to holding on to Eisav’s ankle, and it would seem that Eisav’s accusation was actually Hashem’s original intention behind Ya’akov’s name!

But where do we see two separate tricks? The Ayin-Kuf-Vet shoresh doesn’t only mean to “trick,” according to Rashi; it could also mean to ambush, to lay low and then unexpectedly attack, like in Devarim 19:11. Though Ya’akov took the Bechorah from his brother in the beginning of the parasha, it was quite likely that Yitzchak would have given the Brachos to Eisav regardless of firstborn rights. Whether Ya’akov was a Bechor or not would only have altered which set of Brachos were to be transmitted first. A similar idea is expressed in Cham’s construction of cities for his sons. Just like Cham build Tzo’an, an inferior city, for his second son Mitzrayim before he built the superior city Chevron for his youngest son Cana’an, the order of the Brachos’ transmission isn’t necessarily related to their value. Ya’akov therefore laid low until the appropriate time, and he received the Brachos intended for Eisav by ambush, by sneakily approaching his father as the Bechor.

Within an orderly lawful system, the Bechor goes first. Had Yaakov not been the firstborn, Ya’akov’s Bracha would have been the product of theft and usurpation since it was done in an anarchical manner. But when Yitzchak discovered that Ya’akov truly was the Bechor and that there was no technical error, that the Bechor did indeed receive his Brachos first, Yitzchak understood that his younger son’s actions did not create injustice, but rather kept the proper justice in place, namely that the Bechor received his Brachos first.

Rashi explains that Yitzchak stopped trembling when he discovered Ya’akov was the Bechor. At first glance, one would not expect Yitzchak to find any ease in this information, for he should realize that his own son has been plotting behind his back for decades now. But a closer look shows that the peace of mind did not come from knowing that Ya’akov received the Brachos he deserved, but rather from knowing that the son with the firstborn rights received his Brachos first. From there, Yitzchak drew the rest of his conclusions. He came to understand the true meaning behind his younger son’s name. He came to understand his son’s silence – as compared to Eisav’s aggressiveness – and its useful purposes; ambush was Ya’akov’s only way of acquiring that which was destined to be his. And the two – now separate – tricks played on Eisav were each essential steps. First he acquired the Bechorah, and then he stole the Brachos.

Shmuel said: There is another festival in Rome. Once every seventy years, they take a healthy man [corresponding to Eisav] and ride him upon [signifying dominance over] a lame man [corresponding to Ya’akov, who was lamed in his battle against Eisav’s malach]… and they say “Achua DiMarana Ziifana,” the brother [Achua] of our master [DiMarana, referring to Eisav HaRashah] is a fraud [Ziifana, meaning that Ya’akov fraudulently prophesied the eventual coming of Moshiach, but now that Yisrael has permanently been defeated by Edom, Moshiach will surely not come].

Rav Ashi said: They have tripped over their own mouths, for had they said Ziifana Achua DiMarana, it would mean what they intended to say, “A fraud is the brother of our master.” But now that they have said Achua DiMarana Ziifana, it is the Marana who is the Ziifana [for the phrase can be reinterpreted to mean “The brother of our fraudulent master”]!

Mesechet Avoda Zara, 11b

Rav Ashi makes a seemingly irrelevant comment in this gemara. Who cares whether the Romans said the word Ziifana before the phrase Achua DiMarana? Either way, they meant that Ya’akov, not Eisav, was the fraud! The GR”A answers that Rav Ashi here is offering a profound insight into the nature of Edim’s claims. On the surface, reality suggests that they are the victiorious nation. Yisrael is enslaved and cannot sink any lower. Yet within the syntax of their very statement, and within the fabric of their very ideology, comes the source of Yisrael’s salvation. Many phrases have double meanings, and the Bnei Yisrael’s survival is not only hinted by these nuances, but rather defined by them. Within every generation, the Jews are oppressed and suppressed, but ultimately all the suffering will be converted into salvation. Hashem calls us His “Bni Bechori,” and now all that’s left is for us to lie in ambush.

It is this same approach that we can take to explain Ya’akov’s most troubling claim in the parasha. When Yitzchak asks him “are you my son Eisav,” Ya’akov insidiously replies “Anochi Eisav Bechorechah.” Ya’akov blatantly lies in order to force the Brachos out of his father; how can he do such a thing!? Rashi tries to justify Ya’akov’s righteousness: “I am the one bringing you food, and Eisav is your Bechor.” What a weak unsatisfying explanation. Is this really what Ya’akov meant to say?! And even if he intended this, Yitzchak was certainly deceived! So how does is this form of deception any better?

However, if we understand that the success of Ya’akov is defined within the very ambiguity of words, as the GR”A noted on the gemara in Avoda Zara, then Rashi’s approach is quite satisfying after all. The Gur Aryeh compares Ya’akov’s reply to Eisav’s. When Eisav walks in, he says Ani Bincha Bechorcha Eisav, but Ya’akov uses the word Anochi. The Gur Aryeh points out that the word Ani cannot stand on its own unless it id a complete sentence. Ani Eisav Bechorach would have been a lie. And Ya’akov could have said this, but he didn’t. When Ya’akov says Anochi Eisav Bechorechah, his words can be interpreted in multiple ways, and Ya’akov bears no responsibility for his father’s assumptions. Ultimately, Yitzchak discovers what Ya’akov’s words meant, and at that point, he stops trembling.

It seems like a weird coincidence that Hashem would choose to name Ya’akov exactly as Yitzchak did, but we now see that part of the meaning behind Ya’akov’s name is its very ambiguity. What makes Yaakov’s name and its dual meaning so incredible is its ability to conceal the truth as long as necessary. We only discover what Ya’akov is destined to do after he does it! But until then, we can only read between the lines, noting the nuances that help us embrace the coming of Moshiach, just as Rav Ashi did.

Good Shabbos.