tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post78394966088759535..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Esav the Deceiver, pt ijoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-12552199356832299762010-11-10T12:43:48.408-05:002010-11-10T12:43:48.408-05:00R' Waxman,
Agree that Eisav was lacking in che...R' Waxman,<br />Agree that Eisav was lacking in chesed, as the verse indicates in various places (e.g., sale of bechora), and makes clear here. The verse here also makes clear that Yitzchack was well aware of this. On a p'shat level, I don't see any basis for thinking Eisav 'fooled' Yaakov in any way. When Yitzchak chose to give Eisav a b'racha, he knew exactly what he was doing - and, considering the character of Yaakov, the b'racha given makes perfect sense. Indded, there's no reason to believe Rivkah would have intervened absent instructions for God!<br />KT,<br />HillelHillelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-73211872997142027542010-11-10T12:35:52.162-05:002010-11-10T12:35:52.162-05:00Well, I have an explanation on the basis of peshat...Well, I have an explanation on the basis of peshat. that is, the function of the vav hachibbur (in וְרִבְקָה) is "while". Usually, the past tense is designated by the vav hahippuch of the imperfect form -- that va- of וַיֶּאֱהַב. To provide contrast as opposed to continuance, the second clause was introduced by ve-, in וְרִבְקָה. Once we have a clause introduced by ve-, there is no longer this vav hahippuch way of designating the past tense, and so another mechanism was sought, and arrived at.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90148946643242945442010-11-10T12:22:38.111-05:002010-11-10T12:22:38.111-05:00Thanks, Josh. That's interesting (but unfortun...Thanks, Josh. That's interesting (but unfortunately i cannot read the link as my knowledge of hebrew is not on that level yet).<br />Still, there must be some significance - or the text would have simply used the same tense twice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-74328983453782127622010-11-10T11:56:16.731-05:002010-11-10T11:56:16.731-05:00Anonymous:
Ibn Ezra has an important piece, that t...Anonymous:<br />Ibn Ezra has an important piece, that there is no such thing as the present-tense verb in Biblical Hebrew. Instead, there is a neutral-tense verb which is simply grabbed from the noun. (Ani Shomeir = I am a watchman / I am watching.) This neutral-tense verb assumes its tense on the basis of context, and so would also become the 'perfect'.<br /><br />related to this, see <a href="http://daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=17&perek=7&mefaresh=ezra" rel="nofollow">Ibn Ezra</a> on Amos 7:14, where he takes the neutral-tense verbs and declares them to be past-tense verbs.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-47325040973434677132010-11-10T11:51:59.676-05:002010-11-10T11:51:59.676-05:00in terms of (1), yes and no. from the perspective ...in terms of (1), yes and no. from the perspective of the midrashim, yes. from a peshat level, that he was not a person of good caliber. that, i'll have to expand upon in the second planned post. midrash takes shades of grey and makes it into black and white.<br /><br />but why shouldn't Yitzchak know these midrashim? didn't he learn in the yeshiva of Shem and Ever?<br /><br />;)<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34015159232442060672010-11-10T11:51:22.338-05:002010-11-10T11:51:22.338-05:00It says that 'Isaac loveD Esau' and 'R...It says that 'Isaac loveD Esau' and 'Rebecca loveS Jacob'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79641471473194084632010-11-10T11:47:06.767-05:002010-11-10T11:47:06.767-05:00R' Waxman,
2 points:
1) When you talk about w...R' Waxman,<br /><br />2 points:<br />1) When you talk about whether or not Yitzchak was "in the know" - in the know about what? (Not in the know about Eisav being a murderer/rapist/pagan - there's nothing in the text indicating any of these things to be the case. It's not a surprise Yitzchak didn't know about the medrashim about Eisav, surely?)<br /><br />2) I'm not sure there are two strands here, it seems to me there are three. In addition to the two you mentioned, we should remember that for the avot, having one wife and sticking by her is a pretty big deal. This is a supreme act of chesed in a world where a barren woman was, to put it mildly, not generally looked well upon. Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel, etc. - all barren, all are still embraced by their husbands. (Avraham takes a concubine only after Sarah demands it, and Yaakov takes Leah by an act of fraud.)<br /><br />Saying Eisav took 2 wives simultaneously and this embittered the spirits of Yitzchak and Rivkah would seem to have more to do with the number rather than the heritage. The Torah also mentions nothing about them in a positive light (in terms of their acts or even their appearance) further indicating righteousness was not a consideration for Eisav.<br /><br />In that light, Rivkah seems to be saying in 27:46 that she hates the local women because they are like the wives of Eisav (i.e., lacking in kindness and grace) - thus the focus on "b'not Chei ka-eleh" - presumably a reference to Eisav's wives.<br /><br />Just a thought.<br />KT,<br />HillelHillelnoreply@blogger.com