(All scripture from the World English Bible, ebible.org, all rights reserved)
“The boys grew. Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field. Jacob was a quiet man, living in tents. Now Isaac loved Esau, because he ate his venison. Rebekah loved Jacob.”
(Genesis 25:27-28)
The boys were probably identical twins, other than Esau’s red hair (of which he had a lot). But they were different as people. Esau was outward oriented and Jacob had an inner life. Esau was about the world and wildness. Jacob was about learning and peaceful living. They were very different in every way.
Isaac preferred Esau because they shared the same kinds of appetites. However, Esau and Isaac were only alike in outward things. Isaac had always had a strong faith in the Lord, an interior life. Esau shows none of that in his life.
Rebekah preferred Jacob. Her world wasn’t the wilderness, wild game, fields, and adventures. Her life was the home and the farm. Jacob shared that nearness, and she adored him for it. He was her favourite. She didn’t dislike her other son, but she wanted the best for Jacob.
Husband and wife are shown here as separate. This is continuing the theme of them not quite meshing completely. Rebekah put a barrier between them when they met (Genesis 24:65). They’ve lived together for decades and shared struggles, but there is a separation that they never quite bridge. When Rebekah seeks God and gets an answer (Genesis 25:22-23), there is nothing to say she shared it with Isaac. He seems ignorant as events go forward. There was a lack of complete intimacy between them, and it is seen in their separate favouring of two different children.
The sage Sforno writes: ‘איש שדה, an expert farmer. יושב אהלים, the plural mode indicates that the Torah speaks of two distinctly different kinds of tents; one is the tent used by shepherds, the other the tent described as בל-יצען described in Isaiah 33,20, (a reference to Jerusalem or the Temple). The function of that “tent” is to help people come closer to G’d and to gain insight into His ways and as a result to become holy, inspired by His glory. ויאהב יצחק את עשו, also Esau, not only Yaakov, even though he must have been aware that Esau was far less perfect than Yaakov. ורבקה אוהבת את יעקב, she only loved Yaakov, recognising the wickedness of Esau.’
The sage Ramban writes: ‘BECAUSE THERE WAS VENISON IN HIS MOUTH. The commentators explained it as meaning either that he [Esau] gave venison into Isaac’s mouth, or that he brought Isaac venison. The act of giving or bringing is thus missing from the verse. Similarly: The set time which Samuel; But the Lord — presented or made — me as a mighty warrior. It is possible to explain that Isaac loved Esau because there was always venison in the mouth of Isaac. All day he would desire to eat the venison, and it was always in his mouth. He would not eat anything else, and Esau was the one who brought it to him, as Scripture said, A cunning hunter. In my opinion the correct interpretation is that it is a metaphor which tells us that Esau, in the mouth of his father, was a hunter, as a person is surnamed by his constant occupation. Similarly, Thy habitation is in the midst of deceit; likewise, But I am all prayer. And so they said in Bereshith Rabbah, “Good meat for his mouth, good drink for his mouth.”’
The sage Rav Hirsch writes: ‘V. 27. ויגדלו וגו׳. Our sages, who never objected to draw attention to the small and great mistakes and weaknesses in the history of our great forefathers, and thereby make them just the more instructive for us (see remarks on Ch. 12,10), here, too, on ויגדלו make a remark which is indeed a “signpost” for all of us. They point out that the striking contrast in the grandchildren of Abraham may have been due, not so much to a difference in their temperaments as to mistakes in the way they were brought up. As long as they were little, no attention was paid to the slumbering differences in their natures (see on V.24), both had exactly the same teaching and educational treatment, and the great law of education חנוך לנער על פי דרכו וגו׳ “bring up each child in accordance with its own way” was forgotten: — That each child must be treated differently, with an eye to the slumbering tendencies of his nature, and out of them, be educated to develop his special characteristics for the one pure human and Jewish life. The great Jewish task in life is basically simple, one and the same for all, but in its realisation is as complicated and varied as human natures and tendencies are varied, and the manifold varieties of life that result from them. Had Isaac and Rebecca studied Esau’s nature and character early enough, and asked themselves how can even an Esau, how can all the strength and energy, agility and courage that lies slumbering in this child, be won over to be used in the service of God, and the future גבר be trained to become, not a גבר ציד, but in truth a גבר לפני ה׳, then Jacob and Esau, with their totally different natures could still have remained twin-brothers in spirit and life; quite early in life Esau’s “sword” and Jacob’s “spirit” could have worked hand in hand, and who can say what a different aspect the whole history of the ages might have presented. But, as it was, ויגדלו הנערים, only when the boys had grown into men, one was surprised to see that, out of one and the selfsame womb, having had exactly the same care, training and schooling, two such contrasting persons emerge. V. 28. A second factor, which could only have a pernicious effect was the difference of the feelings of the parents towards the children Unity and complete agreement of parents in the education, and the same feelings and love to all their children — even to those who are not so good, yea, just those require most of all, even more than those who are physically weak or ill, loving care and consideration and sacrifice — that is the first fundamental condition and the corner stone of every education — That Isaac’s sympathies were more inclined toward’s Esau, Rebecca’s to Jacob can moreover easily be explained by the attraction of opposites. We see Isaac, risen up again from death on the altar, preferring to withdraw from the bustle of the world and to live quietly in the proximity of the desert, living at the well of the “Live-One-Who seeth me” away from the busy traffic of men. That Esau’s lusty active nature appealed to him, and that he perhaps saw in him a force which he had lost could be a support to the home, would be quite possible. Rebecca, on the other hand saw in Jacob’s whole being a picture of a life unfolding of which in her father’s house she had never had the remotest idea — the sympathies are explainable, but parents should not allow such hidden feelings to influence them in making any difference in their love towards their children. ציד בפיו. Either: “he went a-hunting with his mouth”, he knew how to enthral his father with tales of his adventures and deeds of derring-do at his hunting, or — which seems more probably — “he was also a hunter with his mouth”, he practiced his art of stalking, with his mouth too, was able to entrap his father by his speech. But Rebecca’s love for Jacob came by itself, was not “caught”, just he himself won her love, simply: אהבת את יעקב.’
Leave a comment