Q&A: Stealing the Blessings and Isaac’s Love
Stealing the Blessings and Isaac’s Love
Question
1. What does the Rabbi think about the stealing of the blessings in our Torah portion? Was it moral or not? 2. Also, can something like this really be evaluated, or is it too speculative — that is, what exactly did Isaac know about Esau, what was Esau really like, the relationship between Rebekah and Isaac, etc.? 3. After all the pilpul and explanations, how can one understand that Isaac loved Esau on the grounds that “game was in his mouth”? Thank you.
Answer
On the face of it, the stealing of the blessings was clearly immoral. Moreover, the blessings should not even take effect in such a case, since this was a blessing given in error — unless you maintain that their effect is automatic, regardless of the intention of the one giving the blessing, which seems strange to me.
The commentators address this and explain that there was a divine instruction through prophecy to Rebekah. That is hard to judge morally. All the more so if Jacob knew something about Esau that Isaac did not know — then perhaps there was room for such an action in order to prevent the harm that could result from a situation in which Esau became too powerful, and the like.
I didn’t understand the question about Isaac. He loved Esau because Esau honored him and brought him tasty food to eat. Are you asking how that fits with Esau’s character? It seems Isaac was not aware of that.
Discussion on Answer
1. The sale of the birthright is also problematic.
2. Beyond that, he took the law into his own hands through deception. He should have told his father that he bought the birthright and that the blessings belonged to him, and dealt with it honestly instead of stealing and lying.
3. Beyond that, you assume that the blessings were intended for the firstborn no matter what, but in the plain meaning of the text that does not seem to be the case. The blessings were intended for the son whom Isaac loved because “game was in his mouth,” and that was Esau. Therefore the purchase of the birthright is irrelevant here.
Why is it not moral? He sold him the birthright and everything that comes with it…