Yaakov and the berachot – an honourable theft?
When Yaakov successfully obtains the berachot from Yitzchak we are
accustomed to thinking of this as a triumph of good over evil. Inspired by the
prophecy that the 'elder will serve the younger', Rivka acts decisively in
instructing Yaakov to deceive his blind father. Yitzchak, who was being duped
by his elder son, was thus prevented from blessing the 'wrong' son by the great
foresight of Rivka.[1]
Our sense that Yaakov and Rivka's double act was justified, is
reinforced by the fact that Esav is described as having 'despised' the
birthright as he casually barters it for the lentil soup (whatever the legal
implications of this transaction). Undoubtedly it is Yaakov who is better
suited to take on the mantle of leadership in the family. Moreover, the fact
that Yaakov's stunt succeeds against all odds is evidence that God was
on his side. By the skin of his teeth Yaakov remains undetected and manages to
exit just as Esav enters. Surely a plan riddled with so many holes can only succeed
if guided by the hand of providence?
Yet just as important as it is to read the story of the berachot in
light of what came before, it is equally important to re-examine it in the rearview
mirror. If providence is important in the evaluation of the actions of Yaakov,
then we must also reflect on the unmistakable providence in the stories which
follow.[2]
No punishment without sin
1)
Once in Charan, Yaakov strikes a deal with his future father-in-law
whereby after seven years of service he will marry Rachel the younger of the
two daughters.[3]
Despite the clarity of the agreement, Lavan (who is notably the brother of
Rivka who orchestrated Yaakov's deception) arranges for Leah, the older daughter,
to take Rachel's place. In the same way that Yitzchak failed to recognise the
switch of Yaakov for Esav, Yaakov now fails to detect the Leah-Rachel exchange.
Lavan's deception of Yaakov is thus a copy of Yaakov's deception of his father, only in reverse. Yaakov's protest to Lavan echoes Yitzchak's words
to Esav when conveying Yaakov's act of deception:
וַיֹּאמֶר בָּא אָחִיךָ בְּמִרְמָה וַיִּקַּח
בִּרְכָתֶךָ (בראשית כז:לה)
וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־לָבָן מַה־זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לִּי הֲלֹא
בְרָחֵל עָבַדְתִּי עִמָּךְ וְלָמָּה רִמִּיתָנִי (בראשית כט:כה)
The allusion to Yaakov's earlier deception continues to present itself in
Lavan's response:
וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בִּמְקוֹמֵנוּ
לָתֵת הַצְּעִירָה לִפְנֵי הַבְּכִירָה (בראשית כט:כו)
Lavan's reference to Leah as the 'firstborn' instead of the גדולה – the more expected term in this context and the
one used until this point - is highly significant, as it recalls the episode of
the berachot which centres around the notion of the firstborn. The Midrash
picks up on the general correspondence and similarly detects a veiled criticism
of Yaakov:
כל הלילה היתה עשה עצמה כרחל, כיון שעמד בבקר והנה
היא לאה, אמר לה בת הרמאי למה רמית אותי, אמרה לו ואתה למה רמית אביך, כשאמר לך
האתה זה בני עשו, ואמרת לו אנכי עשו בכורך, ואתה אומר למה רימיתני, ואביך לא אמר
בא אחיך במרמה (תנחומא בובר, ויצא יא)[4]
2) Rivka's hope that Yaakov would be away for ימים אחדים contrasts sharply with the way things panned out. The initial seven years
in which Yaakov laboured for Lavan is ironically referred to in the same terms as
used by Rivka - וַיִּהְיוּ בְעֵינָיו כְּיָמִים אֲחָדִים
בְּאַהֲבָתוֹ אֹתָהּ (כט:כ). We may assume that Rivka had in mind her
own experiences when she thought Yaakov would quickly return with his new wife.
Recall that when Eliezer requested that Rivka return with
him, Betuel and Lavan turned the question over to her and accepted her decision to leave
promptly. This is a far cry from the shenanigans of Lavan when it came to Yaakov
and his captive hold over his daughters.[5]
3) When Yaakov finally leaves Lavan's house over 20
years later there is another act of deception, this time by Rachel who steals
the terafim of Lavan. There is much to be said here, but for the
purposes of this discussion, I would simply like to draw attention to the fact that
the language used here also hints at a fallout connected to Yaakov's original deception:
|
גניבת התרפים (בראשית לא) |
גניבת הברכות (בראשית כז) |
|
עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת־אֱלֹקיךָ לֹא יִחְיֶה נֶגֶד אַחֵינוּ הַכֶּר־לְךָ מָה עִמָּדִי וְקַח־לָךְ
וְלֹא־יָדַע יַעֲקֹב כִּי רָחֵל גְּנָבָתַם |
וְלֹא הִכִּירוֹ כִּי־הָיוּ יָדָיו כִּידֵי עֵשָׂו אָחִיו שְׂעִרֹת
וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ |
|
וְרָחֵל לָקְחָה אֶת־הַתְּרָפִים וַתְּשִׂמֵם בְּכַר הַגָּמָל וַתֵּשֶׁב
עֲלֵיהֶם וַיְמַשֵּׁשׁ לָבָן אֶת־כָּל־הָאֹהֶל וְלֹא מָצָא |
אוּלַי יְמֻשֵּׁנִי אָבִי וְהָיִיתִי בְעֵינָיו כִּמְתַעְתֵּעַ וְהֵבֵאתִי עָלַי קְלָלָה וְלֹא בְרָכָה |
4) Immediately prior to the meeting with
Esav, Yaakov bows down seven times as he approaches Esav, symbolically
acknowledging that Esav is the rightful recipient of the beracha - which included the promise that 'the sons of your mother will bow to you'. In what is perhaps the most overt reference, Yaakov then tells Esav -
5) The reunion with Esav and the return of the
berachot draws a line under the aspect of the deception against his brother,
but the aspect of the deception against his father continues to cast a shadow.
When the brothers deceive Yaakov regarding Yosef's supposed death, they dip his
tunic in goat's blood and show it to Yaakov saying הכר נא.
This recalls the deception of Yitzchak which also involved goats and the
appropriation of Esav's special garment to enable Yaakov to go unrecognised – ולא הכירו.[6]
From all the above it is clear that Yaakov suffered
a very precise form of מידה כנגד מידה. It is unreasonable to suggest
that the consequences are not related to the Torah's fundamental evaluation of
Yaakov's act.[7]
Though he was acting under the precise instructions of his mother, Yaakov was
expected to apply his own moral judgement to oppose the plan – דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין.
The contrast to Avraham is instructive. Avraham heeds
the commands of God, whilst Yaakov submits to Rivka's 'command'. From the parallel
language (see below) one senses that the Torah is critical of the way Rivka has stepped
into God's role and Yaakov has not challenged her:
ה' לאברהם: עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֺתַי
חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי (בראשית כו:ה)
רבקה ליצחק: וְעַתָּה בְנִי שְׁמַע בְּקֹלִי לַאֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מְצַוָּה
אֹתָךְ (בראשית כז:ח)
Yaakov as the 'man of truth'
Yaakov's legacy is indeed that of the 'man of
truth', however this is a title he earns after a long educational journey. In the
end, Yaakov acquires the name ישראל – suggestive of the
new ability to confront challenges head on without evasion and trickery[8] -
The reason people generally assume that Yaakov's actions were justified
is seemingly because they
were initiated by Rivka who was privy to the prophecy which spoke of the
elder's submission to the younger. The taking of the berachot therefore appears
to align with the will of God. Moreover, the destiny contained within the
berachot points to Yaakov as the appropriate recipient since it accords with the
wider prophetic view that Esav will eventually submit to Yaakov. To arrive at
this conclusion, however, is to fall into the same trap as Rivka. The Torah
deliberately sets up this mode of thinking in order to negate it. Moral
judgements should never be based on grand ideas of destiny and prophecy
fulfilment (whether real or imagined). When it comes to normative behaviour, the salient principle is אין משגיחין לבת קול. Unfortunately, one need not look very far to see the
great abuse which takes place when leaders can justify dubious behaviours based
on otherworldly considerations.
As the trajectory of Israel is laden with destiny, it is crucial for the
Torah to emphasise that the nation must always adhere to the ideals of justice
and righteousness. Under no circumstances may it veer from that path. Once that
is understood destiny will take care of itself. More than anything, a beracha
obtained through deceit cannot provide any benefit or advance any spiritual goals.
This is a simple axiom in the Torah's outlook which stands in marked contrast to
pagan concepts where it is possible to manipulate the spiritual worlds through
charms and incantations.
As it turns out, God's plan as disclosed to Rivka was a long-term plan
which we do not see fulfilled in the period of the Torah and beyond. For the
time being it would be Yaakov bowing to Esav.[9] It is insightful that the
Torah goes on a long tangent to list the great material accomplishments of
Esav's progeny and remark that Edom's kings emerged before there were any kings
in Israel:
וְאֵלֶּה הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר מָלְכוּ בְּאֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם
לִפְנֵי מְלָךְ־מֶלֶךְ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (בראשית לו:לא)
This verse has troubled many as it suggests a reference point in which
there were already kings in Israel (thus implying later authorship). However,
as Ramban notes, this was never intended as a point of reference but as a point
of emphasis – Edom produced kings before Israel; Yaakov and Avraham were
both promised that kings would descend from him (see 17:6 an 35:11), however in
contrast to Edom's journey, Israel's journey would be much longer and more
complicated.
[1] The reference to the blindness of Yitzchak
immediately prior to him calling Esav to receive the blessings may indicate that the choice of Esav was a consequence of Yitzchak's blindness:
וַיְהִי כִּי־זָקֵן יִצְחָק וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ הַגָּדֹל... (בראשית כז:א)
[2] I have drawn here on R. Moshe Shamah, Recalling
the Covenant, p.135-149.
[3] Perceptively, in Israeli judicial parlance the term ברחל
בתך הקטנה is used to refer to
an agreement written 'in no uncertain terms'.
[4] The following Midrash also suggests a negative evaluation of Yaakov's
actions:
כשמע עשו את דברי אביו (בראשית כז, לד), אמר רבי חנינא כל מי שהוא אומר שהקדוש ברוך הוא ותרן הוא יתותרון בני מעוהי, אלא מאריך אפיה וגבי דיליה, זעקה אחת הזעיק יעקב לעשו, דכתיב: כשמע עשו את דברי אביו ויזעק זעקה, והיכן נפרע לו בשושן הבירה, שנאמר (אסתר ד, א): ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה עד מאד (בראשית רבה סז:א)
[5] The numerous textual correspondences between the meetings of Eliezer and
Rivka on the one hand, and Yaakov and Rachel on the other, highlight the
difficulties Yaakov faced compared to the smooth journey which Eliezer enjoyed.
[6] Yosef's prolonged absence from Yaakov for 22 years - a similar period to Yaakov's absence from Yitzchak – also suggests a מידה כנגד מידה response. Rashi (37:34) famously notes the correspondence:
כ"ב שָׁנָה, מִשֶּׁפֵּרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁיָּרַד יַעֲקֹב לְמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר יוֹסֵף בֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְגוֹ', וּבֶן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה הָיָה בְּעָמְדוֹ לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה, וְשֶׁבַע שְׁנֵי הַשָּׂבָע, וּשְׁנָתַיִם הָרָעָב כְּשֶׁבָּא יַעֲקֹב לְמִצְרַיִם, הֲרֵי כ"ב שָׁנָה, כְּנֶגֶד כ"ב שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא קִיֵּם יַעֲקֹב כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם
This comment is very difficult to understand unless we
assert that ultimate responsibility for the prolonged absence lay with Yaakov, as discussed.
[7] R. Jonathan Sacks זצ"ל writes as follows:
Nowhere are narrative and counter-narrative more
subtly interwoven than in the story of Jacob and Esau. It is a work of awesome
brilliance, so surprising in its effect that we cannot doubt, once we have
understood its hidden message, that it is intended as the refutation of sibling
rivalry in the Bible. Its significance, set at the very centre of Genesis, is
unmistakable. Once we have decoded the mystery of Jacob our understanding of
covenant and identity will be changed forever. (Not in God's Name, p.125)
[8] It is particularly noteworthy that the fight with the man/angel takes place
as Yaakov was apparently looking to flee from the imminent confrontation with
Esav under the cover of darkness (see Rashbam's illuminating commentary).
[9] I have assumed the traditional understanding of the oracle – that the older
will serve the younger – is the intended one. This being the case, the moral
message is that whilst destiny is God's domain, man must act in the present.
Yitzchak is blind whilst Rivka sees the future. Ironically, however, it is
Yitzchak that retains his moral clarity in the story. Sacks goes one step
further and endorses the view of the Radak that the oracle – especially in view
of its poetic structure - allows for the alternative reading: 'the older - shall
the younger serve'. He considers this to be a case of deliberate ambiguity
which is a feature of an oracle as oppose to a prophecy – an
important part of the thesis he develops (ibid p.139-143).
