There are so many pesukim to point to, but I might as well point to the one Ibn Ezra brings. In parshas Toldos, by the sale of the birthright:
Ibn Ezra writes:
[כה, לב]וטעם הנה אנכי הולך למות –שבכל יום ויום הוא מסתכן בעצמו, כאשר יצא לצוד שמא יהרגוהו החיות.ויתכן שימות קודם אביו.
such that his argument was that he would likely not survive to get the inheritance anyway. And Ibn Ezra further writes:
כה, לד]ויבז עשו -גם זאת הבכורה בעבור שראה שאין לאביו עושר.ורבים יתמהו כי עזב לו אברהם ממון רב וכאילו לא ראו בימיהם עשיר גדול בנעוריו ובא לידי עוני בזקוניו?!והעד שהיה יצחק אביו אוהב את עשו בעבור צרכו. ואילו היה הלחם רב בבית אביו והוא נכבד בעיניו, לא מכר בכורתו בעבור נזיד!ואם היה אביו אוכל בכל יום מטעמים, מה טעם אמר: הביאה לי ציד?!ולמה לא היה ליעקב בגדים חמודות?!ולמה לא נתנה לו אמו כסף וזהב בדרך שהוא אומר: ונתן לי לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש?!ולמה לא שלחה אליו הון והיא אוהבת אותו, כי הוצרך לשמור הצאן?!והפסוק שאמר: ויגדל האיש קודם זקנותו.ועורי לב יחשבו, כי העושר מעלה לצדיקים והנה אליהו יוכיח.ועוד ישאלו: למה חסר השם ממון ליצחק?אולי יודיעונו למה חסר מאור עיניו?ואל ידחונו בקנה של דרש. כי יש לו סוד!ואין לנו לחפש, כי עמקו מחשבות השם ואין כח בדעת האדם להבינם.וכן אחרים אמרו:הנה צאן יש לו, כי רבקה אמרה לו: לך נא אל הצאן.ויתכן שנשאר לו מקנה מעט, גם נכון הוא להיות פירוש: לך נא אל הצאן אל מקום הצאן שהן נמכרות.
That is, Ibn Ezra makes the following points. Esav scorned the birthright because he saw that his father wasn't wealthy. Now, many are confounded by this, for Avraham left Yitzchak a lot of money. And it is as if they never saw in their lives someone who was wealthy in his youth and came to poverty in his old age. And the evidence is that Yitzchak loved Esav because of his need. And if bread {/food} was plentiful in Esav's father's house and he was honored in his eyes, he would not have sold his birthright for a stew. And if his father ate delicacies every day, why did Yitzchak say "bring me game?" And why didn't Yaakov have choice garments {such that Rivkah gave him those of Esav, or such that we see he lacked them in the next parsha}? And why {in parshat Vayeitzei, in response to the dream about the ladder} did his mother not give him silver and gold on the road, such that he said "And {if Hashem should} give me bread to eat and clothing to wear?" And how come she did not sent to him great wealth, if she loved him, such that he was compelled to watch the sheep. And the pasuk that said "And the man {Yitzchak} became great" was before his old age. And the blind of heart believe that wealth is a positive aspect for tzadikim, and behold, Eliyahu will disprove this {for he did not possess anything}. And they further ask, why should Hashem cause Yitzchak to lack money? Perhaps they can inform us why he lacked clarity of sight. And do not push us off with the weak reed of derash! {See Karnei Or for examples of such derash, such as that it was caused by Avimelech's reference to kesus einayim, or because he looked at Esav's face, or as a cause for Yaakov to be able to take the blessings, or because he was matzdik an evildoer, or seeing the shechina at the Akeida.} For there is a sod {deep secret} to it {either to why he lost his sight / wealth, or else to these midrashim, but that one should not take them literally; Karnei says, approximately, that the deficiency in sight was because of a deficiency in the genetic material, since Avraham was old, but I don't see this idea in Ibn Ezra. Rather, it is as he says, that there is a sod, and it is not for us to investigate}. And it is not for us to investigate, for the thoughts of Hashem are so deep, and there is not strength in a person's intellect to understand them.
And so do others say that behold, he had sheep, for Rivkah said to Yaakov "go now to the sheep." And it is possible that there were a few sheep left to him. It would also be correct for the interpretation of "go now to the sheep" to be to the place that sheep are sold.
So Ibn Ezra. This is, of course, at odds with the midrashic idea that of course they were wealthy, but Elifaz waylaid Yaakov and stole all his possessions.
And Ramban has a lengthy response:
ש(לד): ויבז עשו את הבכורה -שבז לדבר יחבל לו (משלי יג יג). אבל כבר אמר הטעם שבעבורו נאות למכירה מפני שהיה הולך למות בצודו החיות, וקרוב הוא שימות בחיי אביו, ואין לבכורה שום מעלה רק אחרי האב ומה תועיל לו הבכורה. ואמר ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך ויבז - כי אחר שאכל ושתה חזר השדה אל צידו, וזו סיבת בזוי הבכורה, כי אין חפץ בכסילים רק שיאכלו וישתו ויעשו חפצם בעתם, ולא יחושו ליום מחר:ורבי אברהם משתבש בכאן מאד, שאמר כי בזה הבכורה בעבור שראה שאין ממון לאביו. ורבים יתמהו כי עזב לו אברהם ממון רב, וכאלו לא ראו בימיהם עשיר גדול בנעוריו, בא לידי עוני בזקוניו. והעד, שהיה יצחק אוהב את עשו בעבור צידו, ואלו היה לחם רב בבית אביו, והוא נכבד בעיניו, לא מכר את בכורתו בעבור נזיד. ואם היה אביו בכל יום אוכל מטעמים מה טעם יאמר אליו הביאה לי ציד. ולמה לא היו ליעקב בגדים חמודות, ולא נתנה לו אמו כסף וזהב לדרך, שאמר (להלן כח כ): ונתן לי לחם לאכול ובגד ללבוש. למה לא שלחה לו הון, והיא אוהבת אותו, כי הוצרך לשמור הצאן. והפסוק שאמר (להלן כו יג): ויגדל האיש, קודם זקנתו. ועורי לב יחשבו כי העושר מעלה גדולה לצדיקים, והנה אליהו יוכיח. ועוד ישאלו, למה חסר השם ממון ליצחק. אולי יודיעונו למה חסר מאור עיניו, ואל ידחונו בקנה של דרש, כי יש לו סוד, ואין לנו לחפש כי עמקו מחשבות השם ואין כח באדם להבינם. כל אלו דבריו:ואני תמה מי עור עיני שכלו בזה, כי הנה אברהם הניח לו הון רב, ואבד העושר ההוא מיד קודם הענין הזה, ומפני זה בזה את הבכורה, כי הדבר הזה היה בנעוריהם קודם היות לעשו נשים כאשר יספר הכתוב, ואחרי כן חזר והעשיר בארץ פלשתים עד כי גדל מאד ויקנאו בו שרי פלשתים, ואחרי כן חזר לעניו והתאוה לציד בנו והמטעמים, ואין אלו רק דברי שחוק. ועוד, כי הכתוב אמר (לעיל כה יא): ויהי אחרי מות אברהם ויברך אלוהים את יצחק בנו, והברכה תוספת בעושר ובנכסים וכבוד, ואיה ברכתו שאבד הון אביו והעני, ואחרי כן (להלן כו ג): ואהיה עמך ואברכך, העשיר והעני אחרי כן. ואם יש צדיקים שמגיע אליהם כמעשה הרשעים בענין העושר אין זה באותם שנתברכו מפי הקב"ה, כי ברכת ה' היא תעשיר ולא יוסיף עצב עמה (משלי י כב):אבל היו האבות כלם כמלכים, ומלכי גויים באים לפניהם וכורתים עמהם ברית, וכתוב (להלן כו לא): וישבעו איש לאחיו, ואם היה יצחק רע המזל מאבד נכסי אביו, איכה אמרו ראו ראינו כי היה ה' עמך (שם כח), וכבר היה בעוכריו. אבל בזוי הבכורה לעשו לאכזריות לבו:ויתכן כי פי השנים בבכורה ממשפטי התורה לא היה כן לפנים, רק לנחול מעלת האב ושררתו, שיהיה לו כבוד ומעלה על צעירו. ולכן היה אומר ליצחק אני בנך בכורך (להלן כז לב), לומר כי הוא הבכור הראוי להתברך, וכן כי זה הבכור שים ימינך על ראשו (להלן מח יח), להקדימו בברכה, ואולי היה נוטל גם בנחלה יותר מעט כי דין פי שנים מחדוש משפט התורה:והציד אשר היה בפיו, כן יעשו השרים והמלכים, בוחרים בציד מכל מאכל, וכל העמים יובילו מהם שי למורא. והיה עשו מחניף את אביו להביא כל צידו אל פיו לאכול ממנו כרצונו תמיד. ואהבת האב לבנו הבכור קלה להביא:ומה שאמר לברך אותו אחר עשות לו המטעמים איננו שכר האכילה ושחד בהם, אבל רצה ליהנות ממנו שתהיה נפשו קשורה בנפשו בעת ההנאה, ויברך אותו בחפץ מלא ורצון שלם. או שהיה יודע בנפשו כי אחר האכילה הייתה מתענגת ושמחה ויחול עליה רוח הקודש, כענין ועתה קחו לי מנגן והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו יד ה' (מ"ב ג טו):ולא נתנו ביד יעקב הון כי בורח היה, ובלא ידיעת אחיו יצא מן הארץ לבדו, ואלו נתנו לו הון ועבדים וגמלים היו מוסיפים בו קנאה לארוב לו ולהרגו.ורבותינו אמרו (ב"ר סח ב):שגזלוהו ממנו:ומי אמר לו שלא היו ליעקב בגדים חמודות שש ומשי ורקמה, אבל הכתוב אמר כי עשו בלכתו השדה לצוד היה מחליפם בבגדי הציד, ומפני שיצחק ממשש תמיד בבנו ובבגדיו הלבישה אותם את יעקב פן יכירנו בהם, והלא אתה רואה שעשה כן וירח את ריח בגדיו (להלן כז כז), כי היה משים אותם בתוך נרד וכרכום, כענין שכתוב (תהלים מה ט): מור ואהלות קציעות כל בגדותיך, והיו הבשמים צומחים בארץ ישראל. ועל כן אמר "כריח שדה", כי בעבור היותו איש שדה הריחו בגדיו מהם. או ריח ציצי האילנות, כמו שאמרו רבותינו (תענית כט ב): כריח השדה של תפוחים:והשאלה על מאור עיניו שאלת עורי לב, כי אם הייתה סבה מאת השם, הנה היא כדי שיברך את יעקב, והוא ספור הכתוב (להלן כז א): ותכהין עיניו מראות ויקרא את עשו. ועל דרך הפשט איננו רק ענין הזקנה, וטעמו ויהי כי זקן יצחק ותכהינה עיניו בזקנתו קרא את עשו, והנה ביעקב (להלן מח י): ועיני ישראל כבדו מזוקן לא יוכל לראות, וכתוב באחיה השילוני (מ"א יד ד): כי קמו עיניו משיבו, ויספר במשה רבנו פלא (דברים לד ז): לא כהתה עינו.
He points out that the reason for this "scorning" of the firstborn, such that he was so willing to sell, was already mentioned explicitly in the earlier verse -- that he was going towards death in his hunting wild animals, and that it was quit likely that he would die in his father's lifetime, while there would be no benefit until after his father passed on, such that what gain would he have from the firstborn right. And it states "and he ate, drank, arose, went off, and scorned" because after he ate and drank, he went to the field to his hunt, and this was the cause of his scorning the firstborn right, for there is no desire in fools except that the eat, drink, do their desire at its time, and not think about the later day.
{J: I agree with the first point, but not necessarily the latter. In other words, I would say that we should make vayivez in a summary statement, rather than some extra action, despite the vav hahipuch apparently advancing the narrative here. Thus, as the JPS translation above: So Esau despised his birthright. And the reason could well be for the reason Esav explicitly gave above. But I am not convinced that his getting up, going off, and despising, somehow refers to the action of going out to hunt. Esav just came from the field, presumably from the hunt. Who says that he was necessarily going out again, and that this was what the pasuk was stating? And despite this, I think that Ibn Ezra can still be right. Consider game theory. It is not just the chances of receiving the reward, but also the value of the expected payout which work together. So vayivez might also connote that Esav didn't think much of it. And even without the pasuk explicitly telling us this, we might deduce this from all the other narrative and textual cues Ibn Ezra notes.}
And Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra makes extreme mistakes her, for he said that Esav despised the firstborn right because he saw that his father did not have money, etc. {And Ramban cites the entirety of Ibn Ezra's commentary, as above.}
And I {=Ramban} is confounded about who blinded the eyes of his intellect in this. For behold it would have to be that Avraham left Yitzchak great wealth, he lost this wealth immediately before this matter, such that because of this Esav despised the bechorah. For this matter was in their youth, before Esav had wives, as Scriptures relates. and after this he once again became wealthy in the land of the Pelishtim, such that he became very great, and the princes of the Philistines envied him. And after this he returned to his poverty, and desired the game of his son, and the delicacies. And these are just silly words!
And furthermore, the Scriptures stated (earlier, 25:11), "and it was after the death of Avraham that Hashem blessed Yitzchak his son," and the blessing is increased wealth, assets, and honor. And where is the blessing in that he lost the wealth of his father and became poor? And afterwards (26:3) "And I will be with you and bless you," yet he became wealthy and then poor after that. And {even} if there are tzadikim who are affected just as the wicked in the matter of wealth, this is not so among those who were blessed from the mouth of Hashem, for {Mishlei 10:22}:
| כב בִּרְכַּת ה, הִיא תַעֲשִׁיר; וְלֹא-יוֹסִף עֶצֶב עִמָּהּ. | 22 The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and toil addeth nothing thereto. |
{J: This just means, on a peshat level, that the cause of wealth is Hashem's blessing, rather than toil, not that every time one is blessed by Hashem, it must be in material wealth.
Also, in terms of becoming wealthy and poor in cycles, this ignores the principle of ain mukdam umeuchar baTorah. For example, if they had two kids in tow, would Avimelech and the people in general really believe that Yitzchak and Rivkah were brother and sister?! So place the events in an order in which it can work out, as some indeed do!
}
But the forefathers were all like kings, and the kings of the nations come before them and established covenants with them, and it is written (later, 26:31) "and each man swore to his fellow"; and if Yitzchak had poor luck, in losing the wealth of his father, how can they say that "we see that Hashem is with you (there, pasuk 28), when he was already in his low stature? Rather, the despising of the firstborn right was due to the cruelty of his heart.
And it is possible that the double portion of the laws of the Torah were not so aforetimes {J: actually, in turns out that they were; see here; still, who says that these particular laws were being followed in this particular case?}, but it was only to inherit the stature of the father and his dominion, such that he would have honor and stature over his younger siblings. And therefore he {=Yaakov} says to Yitzchak "I am Esav your firstborn", to say that he is the bechor who it is fitting to be blessed. And so too, "for this is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head (later, 48:18), to give him precedence in blessing. And perhaps he took as well in inheritance a little bit more, for the law of double portion was an innovation of the laws of the Torah.
And the animal game which was in Yitzchak's mouth, so do the princes and kings do, to choose animal game over any other food. And all the nations give them such tribute. And Esav was flattering his father by bringing all his game to his mouth in order to eat from it at all times. And the love of a father for his firstborn son is easy to bring about.
And this that he would bless him after bringing him delicacies, this is not reward for the eating, and a bribe in them, but rather that he wished to benefit from him, such that his soul would be tied to his soul at the time of the benefit, and such that he would bless him with full desire and will. Or that he knew about his own soul that after eating, it would be joyful, such that ruach hakodesh would fall upon him. Just as in II Melachim 3:15, "take for me a musician, and it was that when the musician played, the hand of Hashem was upon him."
And Yaakov was not given wealth because he was fleeing, and without his brother's knowledge he went alone from the land. And if he had been given wealth, slaves, and camels, this would have increased in Esav jealousy to ambush him and kill him.
And our Rabbis said (in Bereishit Rabba) that he stole it from him.
And who told Ibn Ezra that Yaakov did not have nice weaved garments. But the Scriptures states that Esav, when he went to the field to hunt game, would switch into his hunting clothing. And because Yitzchak would always feel his son, and in Esav's clothing did she cloth Yaakov, lest he recognize him in them. And do you not see that Yitzchak indeed did this, and smelled the smell of his clothing (later, 27:27), for he placed them amongst spikenard and saffron, just as it states in Tehillim 45:9:
| ט מֹר-וַאֲהָלוֹת קְצִיעוֹת, כָּל-בִּגְדֹתֶיךָ; מִן-הֵיכְלֵי שֵׁן, מִנִּי שִׂמְּחוּךָ. | 9 Myrrh, and aloes, and cassia are all thy garments; out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad. |
And these spices grew in Eretz Yisrael. And therefore he states "like the scent of the field", for since Esav was a man of the field, his garments developed the odor of them. Or it was the scent of tree buds, just like our Rabbis say (in Taanit 29:5) "like a field of tapuchim."
And the question about his eyesight is the question of one whose heart is blinded. For if this was a cause from Hashem, behold it was in order that he bless Yaakov, and this was was Scripture states (later 27:1), "and his eyes dimmed from seeing, and he called to Esav." And on the path of peshat it is only a matter of old age, and its intent was that when Yitzchak was old and his eyes dimmed in his old age, he called to Esav. And behold by Yaakov (later, 48:10), "and the eyes of Israel were heavy from old age, such that he was not able to see." And it is written by Achiya Hashiloni (I Melachim 14:1) "for his eyes were set by reason of his old age." And it is stated a wondrous thing by Moshe that his eyes were not dimmed.
This ends my rough translation of Ramban's response to Ibn Ezra. My own thoughts are inserted in place, in curly brackets and in blue.
I would add here that Ibn Ezra wouldn't necessarily disagree that Yitzchak's blindness was so that the blessing of Yaakov could happen. That would be the perhaps unfathomable reason behind the Divine action. But similarly, perhaps Yitzchak's poverty could be so that Esav would despise and sell the firstborn right! And regardless, if one could have cause, so could the other. It would be interesting to have seen precisely what Ibn Ezra would have responded on each of Ramban's points, but I get the sense that he could have responded quite strongly to many of them.
At the end of the day, I see much merit to both Ramban and Ibn Ezra's positions. For Ibn Ezra, it is not just one particular point, but the aggregate of several plot details. And it may well be, as Ramban says, that each individually is explainable in its own way. And so it does not make much sense for me to side with one of them over the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment