By Rabbi Joshua (intentionally known as The Hoffer) Hoffman z"l
When Yaakov, dressed in Eisav's clothing, comes in to see Yitzchak in order to receive the blessing that Yitzchak intended to give to Eisav, Yitzchak smells that clothing and says, " See, the sfragrance of my son is like the fragrance of a field which the Lord had blessed" (Bereishis, 27:27). The Talmud (Sanhedrin, 37a), through a play on words, says that the word for 'his clothing'- begadav- can also be read as bogdav-his betrayers, or sinners- and refers to the sinners of Israel who would arise in the future. Rav Moshe Tzvi Neriah, in his Ner LaMaor, cites this Talmudic passage, as well as a midrash (Aggadas Bereishis, 43) which says that the fragrance of the field referred to in the verse is really a reference to the fragrance of the fire of the akeidah, when Avraham bound Yitzchak to bring as an offering to God. Ostensibly, says Rav Neriah, these two expositions seem to be contradictory However, in truth, are complementary of each other. It is only at times such as that of he akeidah, when self-sacrifice for the name of God is called for, that the true inner essence of the Jew who seems to be estranged from his religion comes out. We have, in fact, encountered this phenomenon many times in Jewish history.
Eisav, too, was estranged form God only outwardly, but, in his essence, he had a desire to be close to Him. When he was servicing his father, he tried to follow the details of Jewish law. Rashi cites a midrash which says that Eisav would ask Yitzchak how one tithes straw and salt. In point of fact, only things which grow from the ground need to be tithed, and, so, Yitzchak was impressed by Eisav's scrupulousness in trying to fulfill the mitzvos. Although Rashi apparently understands the midrash to mean that Eisav deliberately fooled Yitzchak, the Beis Yisroel, among others, says that Eisav had good intentions in mind, wanting to bring a degree of holiness even to salt and straw. While Eisav was in his father's proximity, says the Beis Yisroel, he was influenced by him, and tried to act accordingly.
Following the approach of the Beis Yisroel, one may ask why Eisav was not, in fact, a better person than he actually was, in a general sense. I believe the answer lies in what Rav Nissan Alpert, in his Limudei Nissan, tells us about the difference between Yaakov and Eisav. Yaakov, says Rav Alpert, is described as a person who dwelled in tents, meaning, according to the midrash, that he studied Torah in various venues, including the school of Shem, the school of Eiver, the school of Avraham and the school of Yitzchak. Moreover, when the Torah says that Yaakov 'dwelled' in tents, it uses the word “yosheiv,' written defectively, without the letter 'vav,'' implying that each time Yaakov sat down to learn Torah, it was a new experience. In other words, Yaakov was continually growing in his study, developing himself as one who seeks out knowledge of Torah and the proper way to serve God. Eisav, on the other hand, did not spend time studying Torah, considering himself already sufficiently developed, as his name 'Eisav,' which can be interpreted as 'asui'-already made-implies. The Mishnah in Avos tells us that an ignorant person cannot be pious, and this, apparently, was the shortcoming of Eisav.
Why didn't Eisav, who sought holiness while in the presence of his father, understand that it is necessary to spend time studying Torah in order to properly develop that desire? According to Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, in his Torah commentary, Yitzchak and Rivkah erred in trying to provide, from the very beginning, the same kind of training and education for Eisav as they did for Yaakov. Had they understood from the outset that their natures were different and that they consequently required different methods of training, Jewish history, and, indeed, world history, may have been radically different.
Interestingly, Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook, in a sicha referred to in the work Peamim, mentions that Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger applied the Talmudic exposition concerning the inner purity of the 'bogdim' of Israel to the irreligious settlers of Eretz Yisroel in the late nineteenth century. Rav Schlesinger said that Yitzchak foresaw that there would be, in Israel's future, people who would contribute to the building up of the land but who would not follow the laws of the Torah, and, yet, Yitzchak blessed them. Rav Kook, shortly after he arrived in Eretz Yisroel in 1904, became acquainted with these settlers, and befriended them, trying to influence them to be more observant. In a groundbreaking essay, entitled HaDor - the generation - he wrote that although in former times, when Jews sinned, it was largely attributable to physical desires, the main failing of the new generation was in the mind. They were charged with the idealism that was in the atmosphere at the time, and were not observant of Torah because no one had ever presented Torah to them in a way that touched their sense of idealism. Rav Kook tried to teach these settlers, as well as a circle of non-observant Hebrew writers of the time, on their level, and, in many instances, was able to influence them. Following Rav Hirsch, had Yitzchak and Rivkah approached the education of Eisav in this way, his inner essence, that strove for holiness, would have been brought out more fully, and his relationship with Yaakov would have been quite different.
When Yaakov, dressed in Eisav's clothing, comes in to see Yitzchak in order to receive the blessing that Yitzchak intended to give to Eisav, Yitzchak smells that clothing and says, " See, the sfragrance of my son is like the fragrance of a field which the Lord had blessed" (Bereishis, 27:27). The Talmud (Sanhedrin, 37a), through a play on words, says that the word for 'his clothing'- begadav- can also be read as bogdav-his betrayers, or sinners- and refers to the sinners of Israel who would arise in the future. Rav Moshe Tzvi Neriah, in his Ner LaMaor, cites this Talmudic passage, as well as a midrash (Aggadas Bereishis, 43) which says that the fragrance of the field referred to in the verse is really a reference to the fragrance of the fire of the akeidah, when Avraham bound Yitzchak to bring as an offering to God. Ostensibly, says Rav Neriah, these two expositions seem to be contradictory However, in truth, are complementary of each other. It is only at times such as that of he akeidah, when self-sacrifice for the name of God is called for, that the true inner essence of the Jew who seems to be estranged from his religion comes out. We have, in fact, encountered this phenomenon many times in Jewish history.
Eisav, too, was estranged form God only outwardly, but, in his essence, he had a desire to be close to Him. When he was servicing his father, he tried to follow the details of Jewish law. Rashi cites a midrash which says that Eisav would ask Yitzchak how one tithes straw and salt. In point of fact, only things which grow from the ground need to be tithed, and, so, Yitzchak was impressed by Eisav's scrupulousness in trying to fulfill the mitzvos. Although Rashi apparently understands the midrash to mean that Eisav deliberately fooled Yitzchak, the Beis Yisroel, among others, says that Eisav had good intentions in mind, wanting to bring a degree of holiness even to salt and straw. While Eisav was in his father's proximity, says the Beis Yisroel, he was influenced by him, and tried to act accordingly.
Following the approach of the Beis Yisroel, one may ask why Eisav was not, in fact, a better person than he actually was, in a general sense. I believe the answer lies in what Rav Nissan Alpert, in his Limudei Nissan, tells us about the difference between Yaakov and Eisav. Yaakov, says Rav Alpert, is described as a person who dwelled in tents, meaning, according to the midrash, that he studied Torah in various venues, including the school of Shem, the school of Eiver, the school of Avraham and the school of Yitzchak. Moreover, when the Torah says that Yaakov 'dwelled' in tents, it uses the word “yosheiv,' written defectively, without the letter 'vav,'' implying that each time Yaakov sat down to learn Torah, it was a new experience. In other words, Yaakov was continually growing in his study, developing himself as one who seeks out knowledge of Torah and the proper way to serve God. Eisav, on the other hand, did not spend time studying Torah, considering himself already sufficiently developed, as his name 'Eisav,' which can be interpreted as 'asui'-already made-implies. The Mishnah in Avos tells us that an ignorant person cannot be pious, and this, apparently, was the shortcoming of Eisav.
Why didn't Eisav, who sought holiness while in the presence of his father, understand that it is necessary to spend time studying Torah in order to properly develop that desire? According to Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, in his Torah commentary, Yitzchak and Rivkah erred in trying to provide, from the very beginning, the same kind of training and education for Eisav as they did for Yaakov. Had they understood from the outset that their natures were different and that they consequently required different methods of training, Jewish history, and, indeed, world history, may have been radically different.
Interestingly, Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook, in a sicha referred to in the work Peamim, mentions that Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger applied the Talmudic exposition concerning the inner purity of the 'bogdim' of Israel to the irreligious settlers of Eretz Yisroel in the late nineteenth century. Rav Schlesinger said that Yitzchak foresaw that there would be, in Israel's future, people who would contribute to the building up of the land but who would not follow the laws of the Torah, and, yet, Yitzchak blessed them. Rav Kook, shortly after he arrived in Eretz Yisroel in 1904, became acquainted with these settlers, and befriended them, trying to influence them to be more observant. In a groundbreaking essay, entitled HaDor - the generation - he wrote that although in former times, when Jews sinned, it was largely attributable to physical desires, the main failing of the new generation was in the mind. They were charged with the idealism that was in the atmosphere at the time, and were not observant of Torah because no one had ever presented Torah to them in a way that touched their sense of idealism. Rav Kook tried to teach these settlers, as well as a circle of non-observant Hebrew writers of the time, on their level, and, in many instances, was able to influence them. Following Rav Hirsch, had Yitzchak and Rivkah approached the education of Eisav in this way, his inner essence, that strove for holiness, would have been brought out more fully, and his relationship with Yaakov would have been quite different.
