“And Yitzchak answered and said unto Esav: Behold, I
have made him your lord, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants;
and with corn and wine have I sustained him; and what then shall I do for you,
my son?”
(Beresheit 27:37)
Our parasha discusses the birth of Yaakov and Esav
and the relationship that developed between these two brothers. The parasha focuses on two incidents
involving the brothers.
The first incident is described in the beginning of
the parasha. Esav is the
firstborn. However, Esav thoughtlessly
trades to Yaakov his rights as firstborn for a bowl of porridge. Towards the
close of the parasha, the second interaction is described. Yitzchak summons Esav to him to receive a
blessing. Rivka discovers Yitzchak’s
intention to bless Esav and intervenes.
She instructs Yaakov to disguise himself as Esav and stand in his
place. Yitzchak is indeed deceived by
this subterfuge, and erroneously bestows the blessing upon Yaakov – believing
the entire time that he is blessing Esav.
Esav discovers the deception and asks his father, Yitzchak, to bless him
as well. Yitzchak responds that he
cannot provide Esav with the blessing he seeks. He has already blessed Yaakov.
He has assigned to Yaakov supremacy over his brothers and he has blessed
Yaakov with the material well-being.
Esav continues to appeal to Yitzchak and eventually he does secure a
blessing, of sorts.
Our passage describes Yitzchak’s initial response to
Esav. He tells Esav that he has made
Yaakov a master over his brothers. The
commentaries are bothered by a simple problem with this passage. The passage implies that Yaakov has a number
of brothers. Yitzchak tells Esav that
all of Yaakov’s brothers have been given to him as servants. Yitzchak uses the plural – brothers. But, Yaakov and Esav were Yitzchak’s only
children. Who are these brothers to
whom Yitzchak refers? The commentaries
offer two basic responses to this question.
Before we can consider these two answers, it is
important to review two previous incidents.
Yitzchak was not Avraham’s only son.
Before Yitzchak was born, Avraham had another son. Sara gave her servant – Hagar – to
Avraham. Through Hagar, Avraham father
Yishmael. In addition, the Torah tells
us that after the death of Sara, Avraham took another wife – Keturah. Through Keturah, Avraham had additional
sons.
Now, let us consider the first answer to our
question. Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra
explains that Yitzchak used the plural – brothers – to include the children of
Avraham’s concubines. Although the
children of Avraham’s concubines were actually Yaakov’s uncles, and not his
brothers, Ibn Ezra contends that they were the “brothers” that Yitzchak
included in his use of the plural.[1]
Nachmanides rejects this interpretation. He insists that although Yitzchak used the
plural – brothers – the reference was to Esav alone. Of course, this raises the question: why did Yitzchak use the
plural – brothers – if he only intended to refer to Esav? Nachmanides responds that the use of the
plural was intended to allude to the ongoing nature of Yaakov’s supremacy. He would enjoy supremacy over his brother,
Esav, and Yaakov’s children would experience the same relationship with Esav
descendants.[2] In other words, the plural is used to allude
to Esav’s many descendants.
This is a fascinating dispute. Nachmanides does not explicitly state his
objection to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the passage. However, it is not difficult to anticipate
his reservation. Yitzchak had two
children. We can understand his desire
to clarify – through this blessing – the relationship between his sons. He wished one son to assume dominance over
the other. However, why would Yitzchak
be concerned with granting one of his sons supremacy over Avraham’s other
children? Why did Yitzchak feel that it
was necessary to establish a relationship between his son and the children of
Avraham’s concubines?
There is another problem with Ibn Ezra’s
interpretation of our passage. As Ibn
Ezra explains, Yitzchak granted Yaakov primacy over Avraham’s children from his
concubines. Who were these
concubines? Conceivably, both Hagar and
Keturah can be described as Avraham’s concubines. However, Ibn Ezra seems to be referring to Keturah alone.[3] In other words, it seems that according to
Ibn Ezra, Yitzchak’s intention was to grant his son dominance over the sons of
Keturah. But, he was not concerned with
addressing the relationship between his son and Yishmael. If Yitzchak felt that it was important to
grant his son primacy over the sons of Keturah, why did he not feel compelled
to establish a relationship between his son and Yishmael?
It is possible that these questions can be answered
through analyzing an interesting dispute in halacha. Hashem gave the mitzvah of milah – circumcision – to
Avraham. Hashem told Avraham that this
commandment applies to him and to his descendants. Bnai Yisrael – the children of Yaakov – is not the only nation
that can claim descent from Avraham.
The descendants of Esav, Yishmael, and the sons of Keturah can also
trace their lineage back to our forefather, Avraham. Does the commandment of milah apply to these people, or does it
only apply to Bnai Yisrael?
The Talmud concludes that the mitzvah of milah does
not extend to the descendants of Esav and Yishmael.[4] However the Talmud’s position regarding the
status of the descendants of the sons of Keturah is not clear. Nachmanides contends that the commandment
does not extend to the descendants of the sons of Keturah.[5] In other words, the commandment exclusively
applies to Bnai Yisrael – the descendants of Yaakov. Maimonides disagrees. He
argues that the commandment does extend to the descendants of the sons of Keturah.[6]
It is easy to understand Nachmanides’ position. The mitzvah of milah was given to Avraham
and his descendants. Although it is
true that Yaakov and his descendants are not the only people that can trace
their lineage to Avraham, certainly Bnai Yisrael have a unique and exclusive
status as Avraham’s fundamental progeny.
Therefore, it is reasonable to contend that this commandment should only
extend to Bnai Yisrael.
Maimonides’ position is more difficult to
understand. Maimonides agrees with the
Talmud’s ruling that the commandment of milah does not extend to the
descendants of Yishmael and Esav. Yet,
he contends that the mitzvah does apply to the descendants of the sons of
Keturah. Apparently, Maimonides does
not regard the commandment as exclusive to Bnai Yisrael. Yet, he argues that it applies to some of
Avraham’s descendants – in addition to Bnai Yisrael – but not to all of these
other descendants. In other words, if
Maimonides maintains that the commandment is not exclusive to Bnai Yisrael, why
does it apply to the descendants of the sons of Keturah, but not to the descendants
of Avraham’s other children?
Maimonides offers a fascinating explanation for his
position. He explains that the
commandment of milah was given to Avraham and his descendants. When Yitzchak was born, Hashem told Avraham
that this son would be regarded as his primary progeny.[7] Maimonides explains – based on the
discussion in the Talmud – that there are two elements in this message. First, Yitzchak will be Avraham’s primary
progeny. Second, Yishmael is excluded
from the status of zera Avraham – the progeny of Avraham. Why does this exclusion not extend to the
sons of Keturah? At the time that
Hashem made this declaration, Avraham only had two sons – Yitzchak and Yishmael. The declaration was only intended to address
the relative status of these two sons.
Yitzchak would be Avraham’s primary progeny and Yishmael was excluded
from the status of zera Avraham. The
sons of Keturah were not yet born. The
exclusion was not intended to make reference to them.
Similarly, at the end of our parasha, Yitzchak
addresses Yaakov and tells him that he alone is the recipient of Avraham’s
spiritual legacy.[8] Yitzchak’s intention was to distinguish
between his two sons. Yaakov would be
regarded as Avraham’s primary progeny.
Esav was excluded from the status of zera Avraham.[9]
In short, the descendants of Yishmael and Esav are
explicitly excluded from the status of zera Avraham. Therefore, the mitzvah of milah does not extend to their
descendants. However, the sons of
Keturah and their descendants are not excluded from the status of zera
Avraham. Although they lack the
positive quality of being Avraham’s primary progeny, they are not excluded from
the status of zera Avraham. Accordingly,
the mitzvah of milah does extend to the descendants of the sons of Keturah.
We can now understand the dispute between Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides. Apparently, both agree on one issue. In granting one of his sons primacy, Yitzchak intended to preempt any contention regarding the primacy of this son. According to Nachmanides, the only contentious issue that required resolution was the relative status of his two sons – Yaakov and Esav. There was no need to address the status to descendants of the sons of Keturah. Nachmanides maintains that the status of these descendants of Avraham is unequivocal. The exclusion of the descendants of the sons of Keturah from the mitzvah of milah signifies that they are not regarded as zera Avraham. Yitzchak had no reason to establish the dominance of his son over these people.
However, according to Ibn Ezra, Yitzchak felt compelled to also address the status of his son relative to the descendants of the sons of Keturah. This is consistent with Maimonides’ ruling that these descendants – unlike the descendants of Yishmael and Esav – are included in the mitzvah of milah. This inclusion signifies their status as somewhat equivocal. They are not excluded from the status of zera Avraham. Therefore, according to Ibn Ezra, Yitzchak felt compelled to declare his son’s dominance also over the descendants of the sons of Keturah.
[1] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 27:29.
[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 27:37.
[3] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 25:6.
[4] Meseshet Sanhedrin 59b.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on the Talmud Mesechet Yevamot 46a.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Melachim 10:8.
[7] Sefer Beresheit 21:12.
[8] Sefer Beresheit 28:4.
[9] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Melachim 10:7-8.