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.