meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Beit HaLevi on Torah/English/merged.txt"}
text: Beit HaLevi on Torah
  בית הלוי על התורה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Beit HaLevi on Torah
  
  Introduction
  
  
  
  Bereshit
  
  
  
  Noach
  
  
  
  Lech Lecha
  
  
  
  Vayera
  
  
  
  Chayei Sara
  
  
  
  Toldot
  
  
  THE FIRST ONE EMERGED RED [...]; THEN HIS BROTHER EMERGED. The Midrash states that the reason that Esau emerged first is so that his afterbirth (refuse) would emerge with him. R’ Abahu said, like the bathing master who first scours the bath and then afterwards the king’s son bathes. One can understand the intent of this statement and the allegory that R’ Abahu gave and what additional information he conveyed with the allegory. In all circumstances, the first is the most important and the foundation of what comes after, The first is also greater in stature than the second. This is the significance of the firstborn. However, when one considers BT Pesachim (5a) where a distinction is made in the gemara between where “first” is written by itself and where “first” is written with a “heh ha’yedi’a” (the first.)  “First” without the “heh” means literally first and what comes after is subordinate to it. (The gemara is talking about a case) where the first day of the holiday is the most important day and the days that follow are subordinate to it, but where “first” is written with the “heh” (“the first”) it means earlier (but not necessarily most important.) See the verse (Exodus 12:15) which states “on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” that the gemara establishes is referring to the day before Passover and not the first day of Passover, because “the first” implies ordering (and not importance) as in Job (15:7) – “Were you the first man born?”  It makes no sense to says that the day before Passover is the most important and the first day of Passover is secondary to it; what is meant is merely that it is before Passover and after it comes the first day of Passover.  For example, when a king travels, he is the first in the procession and his minister comes behind him; the king is called “first”. It is known, however, that the king’s servants travel before the king’s procession to clear the way and to announce his arrival; it makes no sense to say that they go first and the king goes after them and is subordinate to them; they are not called “first,” they merely travel earlier and are called “the first” with a “heh.”  Afterwards, the king travels in the front of the procession. It makes no sense to say the king is in procession after them; he is only traveling behind them so that they can do their job to clear the way or to give honor to the king (by announcing his arrival.)  This is why the verse is exact with regard to Esau since the word “first” is not written, just “the first emerged” (with a “heh”, implying order and not importance.) Esau is not called “first” to imply that Jacob was subordinate to him, he is just called “the first” to imply birth order. Similarly, the verse does not say “after him his brother emerged” because this would imply that he was subordinate to Esau. The verse instead say “afterwards his bother emerged”, that is, after Esau emerged and performed his function by emerging first (to remove the afterbirth and refuse) Jacob emerged. This is the question being answered by the Midrash as to what purpose was served by Esau emerging first; the Midrash answers to clean the way so that Jacob would be clean when he emerged because Esau had emerged and brought the afterbirth and refuse with him.  R’ Abahu then gives the allegory “like the bathing master who first scours the bath and then afterwards the king’s son bathes” to say that after to work that the bathing master did to clean the bath, (it is fit for the king’s son to bathe.) I saw some a similar idea in the book “Beit David”, see there.  At the outset of their birth, the prophecy of Shem and Ever was fulfilled; they had said to Rivka that the older (“rav”) would perform serve the younger (“tzair”). At the outset of their emerging, Esau did a service for Jacob. This is why they did not say “the firstborn” (bekhor) will serve the younger. Similar to the language of scripture in a number of other places where firstborn (“bekhor”) is used in comparison to younger “tzair”, (for example  Exodus 43:33.) In truth, Esau was not the firstborn, Jacob was, since he was conceived first. A similar allegory is brought in the midrash:; two pearls are placed in a vial – the pearl that was placed in the vial second comes out first. Esau is called older “rav” since he was born first, and he will serve the younger brother who is the firstborn (“bekhor”).  
  
  
  
  
  
  SELL ME YOUR BIRTHRIGHT TODAY – (Our sages) have already inquired how it is proper (for Jacob) to entice his brother to sell the birthright, in particular, for lentils.  It is certainly not the case that he intended to gain the right to the (firstborn’s double share of) the estate; also, who even knows whether prior to the giving of the Torah it was customary that the firstborn received a double share of the inheritance.  The benefit of the birthright at that time was apparently a sign of virtue and the right to carry on the family name (literally, “to rise to his father’s name”.) The scripture already stated, “through Isaac your heirs will be named” (with regards to Abraham, Bereishit 21:12) and our sages learned “in Isaac” and not “all of Isaac,” meaning that the one who holds on to Isaac’s (righteous) ways has the pedigree to carry on the family name. After (the sale) Esau went out to a bad culture that very day, and therefore to Esau there was no difference whether he had the birthright or not, since how could he rightly be called “firstborn” if he couldn’t be called (Isaac’s) “son” (as a result of his decision to engage in bad behavior.) The only benefit to Esau in having the birthright was to deprive Jacob of it so that he did not have the birthright; Esau so no positive benefit for himself in it. That is the reason Jacob asked Esau to sell it, since Esau did not lose anything in the sale and Jacob had benefit from the sale. This is also why Esau said, “why do I need the birthright” – he stated that it made no difference at all to him whether he had the birthright, since he had no desire at all to be (Isaac’s) son (i.e., to live up to the family name.) This is the reason the scripture states among the attributes of Israel, “Israel, my son, my firstborn.” (Shemot 4:22) Apparently, the word “firstborn” already implies “son” (so why the redundant language?) This language is coming only to repudiate Esau – that Israel has two positive attributes, “son” and also “firstborn,” whereas Esau was not content to spurn the birthright, he also spurned being Isaac’s son. 
  
  Fetch me two choice kids. The Midrash Rabba (Ber. 65:14) states, “good for you and good for your descendants: Good for you, because you will receive the blessings through them; good for your descendants, because they will pardoned through them on the Day of Atonement, one for God and one for Azazel [cf. Lev. 16:8] One ought to inquire as to the intent of the Midrash in stating this and for what purpose the Midrash points out that this alludes to the two kids that are part of the service on the Day of Atonement. One also ought to inquire as the the root cause of Rebeccah’s concern that the blessings be given to Jacob and she made several interventions with food and hides to ensure this. Also, Jacob received significant heavenly intervention. One ought to understand, first, that one main point is that all blessings pertain only to this world – “the fat of the earth, abundance of new grain and wine. (Gen. 27:28)” We do not generally find that the righteous make such an effort to engage in the materialism of this world. The second point is more difficult in that we see that even though Jacob is now blessed, most of the blessings of material benefits of this world accrue to Esau and the lesser portion accrued to the children of Jacob for only a few years. Therefore, it appears that all of this effort was for nothing, and Jacob suffered tremendously as a result of this because he needed to run away and be afraid of Esau.
  
  Vayetzei
  
  
  
  Vayishlach
  
  
  
  Vayeshev
  
  
  
  Miketz
  
  
  
  Vayigash
  
  
  
  Chanukah
  
  
  
  Shemot
  
  
  
  Bo
  
  
  
  Beshalach
  
  
  
  Yitro
  
  
  
  Mishpatim
  
  
  
  Terumah
  
  
  
  Ki Tisa
  
  
  
  Addenda
  
  