Parashath Tolëdoth (Genesis XXV,18-XXVIII,9) 11/25/11

A.

Our parasha relates that, just as had happened when Avraham arrived in the Holy Land, a famine broke out and Yitzhaq considered seeking relief in Egypt, as his father had done. Instructed by G-d not to leave, Yitzhaq obeyed and settled in the nahal (dry river bed) near the Pëlishti city of Gërar. There, as we discussed last week, Yitzhaq undertook to redig the wells which his late father had dug, and which the Pëlishtim had subsequently filled in with earth and blocked up.

ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל וימצאו שם באר מים חיים: ויריבו רעי גרר עם רעי יצחק לאמר לנו המים ויקרא שם הבאר עשק כי התעשקו עמו: ויחפרו באר אחרת ויריבו גם עלי' ויקרא שמה שטנה: ויעתק משם ויחפר באר אחרת ולא רבו עלי' ויקרא שמה רחבת ויאמר כי עתה הרחיב ד' לנו ופרינו בארץ: (“And Yitzhaq’s servants dug in the nahal and found there a well of living water. And the shepherds of Gërar quarreled with Yitzhaq’s shepherds over it, to say, 'The water is ours'; and he called the well’s name ‘Ésheq [Strife], for they had striven with him. And they dug another well, and they also quarreled over it, and he called its name Sitna [Opposition]. And he moved from there and dug another well, and they did not quarrel over it; and he called its name Rëhovoth, and said, 'For now Ha-Shem has made room [hirhiv] for us, and we have been fruitful in the land'”; XXVI, 19-22).

Ramban comments on our passage, noting that it could be excised in its entirely without adversely affecting the flow of the narrative; hence, he discerns ענין נסתר בתוכו כי בא להודיע דבר עתיד כי באר מים חיים ירמוז לבית אלקים אשר יעשו בניו של יצחק וגו' (“a matter hidden within it, for it comes to inform of the future, for the well of living water alludes to the house of G-d which Yitzhaq’s descendants would build...”); each of the three wells represents, in turn, the First Temple of Shëlomo, the Second Temple after the Return to Tziyyon, and the Third Temple which yet remains to be built.

For this reason, says Ramban, הזכיר באר מים חיים שאמר מקור מים חיים את ד' (“[Our passage] mentions a ‘well of living water’, for a ‘source of living water’ is said of Ha-Shem” [cf. e.g. Jeremiah II, 13; XVII, 13; Zechariah XIV, 8).

There are many ramifications to this metaphor worthy of exploration.

B.

The Talmud: tells us א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה כתוב ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ף דל"ת אבל לעולם הבא כולו אחד נקרא ביו"ד ה"י ונכתב ביו"ד ה"י (“Said Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhaq, 'This world is not like the world which is coming; in this world, what is written with a yud and a hé is read with an alef and dalet; in the world which is coming, it is all one, read with a yud and a hé and written with a yud and a hé'”; פסחים נ.).

As every synagogue-goer knows, when we read the Torah or pray, we pronounce the Tetragrammaton (which begins with the letters yud and hé) as though it were written Ad-nai. The Tetragrammaton, the ineffable four-letter name of G-d, generates the root which signifies “be, exist, become” in the Holy Language, and is the factitive expression underlying all existence, constituting the complete mastery of physical reality and the greater, metaphysical reality which surrounds, encompasses, contains, and generates the physical realm. It is thus quite literally supernatural, above and beyond nature.

Ad-nai is more limited in scope, expressive of our attempted perception of that ultimate reality, which perception is through the lens of physical reality. The word adon is formed from the primal root dalet-vav-nun, connoting “judgment,” with the addition of the radical prefix alef which indicates the ideal exemplar of that primal root. As the Birkath Tov puts it, Ad-nai is expressive of הנהגה הטבעית כדרך אדון שמנהיג עבדיו, “the conduct [hanhaga] of nature in the manner of a lord [adon] who directs his servants.”

This dilution or diminution of our perception of ultimate reality is what G-d is referring to when He tells Moshe, on the eve of the mighty and wholly miraculous, supernatural events which preceded and accompanied the Exodus from Egypt: וארא לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב בא-ל שד-י ושמי ד' לא נודעתי להם (“And I appeared to Avraham, Yitzhaq, and Ya‘aqov by means of [the name] É-l Shad-dai, and [by] My name Ha-Shem I was not known [lo’ noda‘ti] to them”; Exodus VI, 3. As Rashi explains, לא הודעתי אין כתיב כאן אלא לא נודעתי לא נכרתי להם במדה אמיתית שלי שעלי' נקרא שמי ד' וגו' (“‘I did not make known’ [lo’ hoda‘ti] is not written here, but lo’ noda‘ti; I was not recognizable to them in My true measure because of which My name is called Ha-Shem [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]”). The Divine name É-l Shad-dai is also indicative of G-d’s ownership and control of nature, signifying that it was He who “said to His world, 'Enough! [Dai!]' and brought its expansion to an end" (חגיגה י"ב.).

This state of diminution was about to change for the benei Yisra’él, who witnessed unadulterated, unfiltered, ultimate reality throughout the events of the Exodus. It was to perpetuate and make permanent the presence of the ultimate reality exemplified by the shém Ha-Shem that first the Mishkan, later the Béyth ha-Miqdash, were built, to precise specifications intended to constitute a model of the cosmos (עיי' העמק דבר המפרט את הפרטים ריש פרשת תצוה). As G-d instructed Moshe: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם (“And [the bënei Yisra’él] will make for Me a Sanctuary [miqdash] and I will dwell [vë-shachanti] in their midst”; Exodus XXV, 8), in the Mishkan until it would transplanted permanently to המקום אשר יבחר ד' לשכן שמו שם, “the place where Ha-Shem would chose to establish [lë-shakkén] His name”; Deuteronomy XVI, 2). As the root whose qal and pi‘él (simple and factitive forms) are used in the above verses indicates, this ultimate Divine Presence is the Shëchina. The Béyth ha-Miqdash provides a venue for the Shëchina, and the precise nature of what that means can be gleaned from the fact that it was only in the Béyth ha-Miqdash on the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, that the kohén gadol could read out the Tetragrammaton exactly as it was written (כדמצלינן בתפלת מוסף ליוה"כ).

C.

Bearing all of the above in mind, we turn back to Ramban. He explains the names Yitzhaq calls the wells in the course of a capsule history of the Battei Miqdash: עשק ירמוז לבית הראשון אשר התעשקו עמנו ועשו אותנו כמה מחלוקות וכמה מלחמות עד שהחריבוהו (“‘Ésheq alludes to the First Temple, since they strove with us and caused us numerous disputes and numerous wars until the destroyed it”). The surrounding nations had allowed Shëlomo to build the Béyth ha-Miqdash in peace, but as its fame spread, the resistance to its influence mounted, until they finally succeeded in corrupting Israel, bringing it down, and sending the survivors into exile.

The Jews returned from the Babylonian Exile with full and even enthusiastic support of the Medio-Persian King Koresh, and began to rebuild; however, ולשני קרא שמה שטנה שם קשה מן הראשון והוא הבית השני כו' ובמלכות אחשורוש בתחלת מלכותו כתבו שטנה על יושבי יהודה וירושלם וכל ימיו הי' לנו לשטן עד שהחריבוהו וגלו ממנו גלות רעה (“And he called the name of the second one Sitna, a harsher name than the first; this is the Second Temple... And during the reign of Ahashvérosh, at the beginning of his reign, [the nations] wrote in opposition about those settling Yëhuda and Jerusalem; and all its days they were opposed to us until they destroyed it, and [the Jews] went into a bitter exile from it....”).

The specific opponents to whom Ramban alludes were the Kuthim or “Samaritans,” who had been resettled on the territory of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians some two centuries before the Jews’ return, and who had adopted some of the practices of Judaism (though they never abandoned completely their ‘avoda zara; עיי' חולין ה.), and decided that they were now the owners of the place, much like the Pëlishti invaders of Avraham and Yitzhaq’s day.

And the Shëchina went into exile, too, just as the Holy Nation had done (עיי' למשל תענית ג.). The ready access to the transcendent, supernal light which the Béyth ha-Miqdash had afforded was now suspended.

But even now it is not completely so: כעת אשר לא נתגלה האור של המלך המשיח לא יוכל להיות ההנהגה תמיד באופן זה למעלה מהטבע ורק לעתים לצורך טובת ישראל הוכרח להיות ההנהגה שהוא למעלה מהטבע הנהגה נסית וכו' אך באמת הצדיקים לצורך הזמן ממשיכין מאותו ההנהגה שתהי' לעתיד להמתיק הדינים והגבורות הרוצים לשלוט ח"ו להתגבר ממשיכין מאור הגנוז לעתיד לבא כדי שיוכל להמתיק כל ההנהגות (“At present, when the light of the Anointed King is not [yet] revealed, the hanhaga cannot always be in this fashion, supernatural; and only at intervals, for the necessary benefit of Israel, is the hanhaga required to be supernatural, miraculous hanhaga... For in truth the tzaddiqim, for the need of the hour, draw down from that hanhaga which is destined for the future to ameliorate the dinim and gëvuroth which seek to rule and overwhelm. G-d forbid, drawing from the light stored away for the future, so that all the hanhagoth may be ameliorated”; ברכת טוב פרשתנו סי' י"ד).

Indeed, King David warned that the path of the Torah-nation in he world would not be an easy or smooth one: כי פי רשע ופי מרמה עלי פתחו דברו אתי לשון שקר: ודברי שנאה סבבוני וילחמוני חנם: תחת אהבתי ישטנוני ואני תפלה: (“For the mouth of the rasha‘ and the mouth of fraud have opened against me; they have spoken with me a language of lies. And words of hatred have surrounded me, and they have fought me for nothing. In exchange for my love they oppose me; and I am [yet at] prayer....”; Psalms CIX, 2-4).

This has been our constant condition since we entered this Exile, a condition into which the nations of the world have pushed us, because they know who and what we are, and they do not wish to come to terms with it. As the Talmud reminds us: סיני הר שירדה בו שנאה לעכו"ם (“Sinai is the mountain through which hatred [sin’a] came down to the non-Jews”; שבת פ"ט.).

D.

But, notes the Rebbe, the transcendent, supernal light is in storage for the future; the Anointed King will proclaim himself, and ultimate reality will again be apparent when the Shëchina returns with Israel from exile. So, says Ramban, והשלישי קרא רחובות הוא הבית העתיד שיבנה במהרה בימינו והוא יעשה בלא ריב והא-ל ירחיב את גבולנו כמו שנאמר "ואם ירחיב ד' אלקיך את גבולך כאשר דבר" וגו' שהוא לעתיד וכתב בבית השלישי "ןרחבה ונסבה למעלה למעלה" ופרינו בארץ שכל העמים יעבדוהו שכם אחד (‘And the third he called Rëhovoth; this is the Third Temple of the future, which should be built speedily in our days and it will be made with-out quarrel; and G-d will widen our border as it is said, ‘And if Ha-Shem your G-d should [yarhiv] widen your border as He has sworn....’ [Deuteronomy XIX, 8]. And this is for the future, and He has written concerning the Third Temple, ‘And it broadened [vë-rahava] and wound ever higher’ [Ezekiel XLI, 7]. ‘And we have been fruitful in the land’, for all of the nations will serve Him together”).

Parshath Tolëdoth (Genesis XXV,19-XXVIII,9) 11/5/10

A.

ויהי רעב בארץ מלבד הרעב הראשון אשר הי' בימי אברהם וילך יצחק אל אבימלך מלך פלשתים גררה: (“And there was a famine the Land, aside from the famine which had been in Avraham’s days; and Yitzhaq went to Avimelech, king of Pëlishtim, to Gërar”; XXVI, 1). Of two minds about dealing with the famine, Yitzhaq contemplated following his father’s example and seeking refuge in Egypt. וירא אליו ד' ויאמר אל תרד מצרימה שכן בארץ אשר אמר אליך: גור בארץ הזאת ואהי' עמך ואברכך כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצת האל וגו' (“And Ha-Shem appeared to him and said, 'Do not go down to Egypt; reside in the Land which I say to you. Dwell in this land and I shall be with you and I shall bless you, for to you and your descendants I shall give all these lands....”; ibid., 2-3).


But shortly after accepting this order, Yitzhaq began to have trouble with the locals: ויחפרו עבדי יצחק בנחל וימצאו שם באר מים חיים: ויריבו רעי גרר עם רעי יצחק לאמר לנו המים וגו' (“And Yitzhaq’s servants dug in the dry river bed and found there a well of gushing water. And the shepherds of Gërar fought with Yitzhaq’s shepherds to say, The water is ours....”; ibid., 19-20). Nor did digging a second well help: ויחפרו באר אחרת ויריבו גם עלי' וגו' (“And they dug another well, and also fought over it...”; ibid., 21). It was only by leaving the area and digging yet a third well that Yitzhaq and his adherents found any peace.

But why should this be? Yitzhaq had obeyed an explicit Divine commandment to remain in the vicinity of Gërar where he was, with the specific Divine promise that G-d would be with him, bless him, and give him “these lands”, yet obeying that commandment led to nothing but trouble. The incident fairly cries out, "Dorshéni (Interpret me)!"

B.

So let us answer the call, by turning to Hazal.

The Torah records that when Moshe embarked on his Divinely-appointed mission to liberate the bënei Yisra’él from Egypt, it did not go well at first; Pharaoh refused to heed his call, and issued decrees more oppressive than before, leading Moshe to complain: ומאז באתי אל פרעה לדבר בשמך הרע לעם הזה והצל לא הצלת את עמך: (“And since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has made it worse for this people, and You have certainly not rescued Your people”; Exodus V, 23). The Talmud records the immediate Divine response: אמר לו הקב"ה חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין הרי כמה פעמים נגליתי על אברהם יצחק ויעקב בא-ל שד-י ולא הרהרו על מדותי וגו' (“Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, to him, 'How sad it is about those who are lost and not found; several times I was revealed to Avraham, Yitzhaq and Ya‘aqov... and they did not have doubts about My measures [middothai]'”; סנהדרין קי"א. ומובא גם בבבא בתרא ט"ו: לענין אחר). Rashi elucidates: הפסד גדול יש על גדולים שאבדו ואיני יכול למצוא חסידים אחרים כמותם שאין אתה כאברהם ויצחק ויעקב שלא הרהרו אחרי מדותי (“It is a great loss because great men are lost and I am unable to find other hasidim like them, for you are not like Avraham and Yitzhaq and Ya‘aqov who did not have doubts about My middoth”).

The Talmud cites as examples the fact that Avraham had been presented with a Divine promise that G-d was giving the Holy Land to him and his descendants, yet when it came time to find a burial plot for Sara, Avraham had to pay in full for Më‘orath ha-Machpéla, and did so without complaint; that Yitzhaq likewise had such a promise, yet encountered trouble with the Pëlishtim, who certainly had no respect for his property rights, as we have seen; and that Ya‘aqov similarly received such a promise, and likewise had problems, yet none of them questioned Divine Providence as Moshe did.

This suggests that the Patriarchs had a very deep and abiding faith in that Divine Providence, as indeed they must have had. Yet, it seems fair to ask why it should be, in the face of such explicit Divine promises, the sort of difficulties described in each of the cases cited should have arisen. More importantly, is it possible for us to use the knowledge of these conditions in our own attempts to square the Torah’s insistence on such Providence with the realities of our historic and present circumstances?

C.

To find an answer, we first turn elsewhere in the Talmud "והי' ד' למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהי' ד' אחד ושמו אחד" כו' אטו האידנא לאו שמו אחד הוא?! א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה נכתב ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ך דל"ת אבל לעולם הבא כולו אחד נקרא ביו"ד ה"י ונכתב ביו"ד ה"י (“‘And Ha-Shem will be king over the whole Earth; on that day Ha-Shem will be one and His name one’ [Zechariah XIV, 9, speaking of the coming days of Israel’s anointed king].... Concerning today, His name is not one?! Said Rabbi Nahman bar Yitz-haq, 'Not like this world is the coming world; [in] this world, [the Tetragrammaton] is written with a yud and a hé and pronounced Ad-nai, but for the coming world, it is read with a yud and a hé and written with a yud and a hé”; פסחים נ'.).

Now to translate the translation:

The Tetragrammaton, the shém Ha-Shem, is so called because it consists of four consonants, the first two of which are yud and hé, to which the Name is often reduced, either as a theophoric suffix in proper names or occasionally as a stand-alone form (cf., e.g., Exodus XV, 3; XVII, 16), for reasons beyond the scope of this essay.

The Jewish practice has always been to respect the Tetragrammaton’s sanctity by not reading it as it is written, but rather substituting Ad-nai, “my L-rd,” for it. (The Name is pronounced as written in the Holy Temple by the Kohén Gadol during the Yom Kippur service, however, since the Temple’s destruction and until it is rebuilt, even that is not done). The prophet is referring to the age when the Temple will be restored, and there will no longer be a dichotomy between the way in which the Tetragrammaton is written and how it is read.

Over the last two weeks, the point has been made that we perceive the uniquely unitary Creator of all in terms of middoth, “measures,” such as din and rahamim, middoth which are associated with the Name Eloqim and the shém Ha-Shem. The latter, the Creator’s actual Name, is associated with hesed both pure and applied, for hesed when amalgamted with din generates rahamim. Hence, the shém Ha-Shem contains and encompasses both middoth, din as well as hesed, in its amalgamted form (עיי' זוה"ק ח"א קי"ט: ניצוצי אורות שם אות א'). These, then, are the middoth mentioned in G-d’s rejoinder to Moshe supra.

If we now reëxamine the promises made to the Patriarchs, an interesting pattern emerges: Avraham: וד' אמר אל אברם כו' את כל הארץ אשר אתה ראה לך אתננה ולזרעך עד עולם (“And Ha-Shem said to Avram... 'All the land which you see, to you shall I give it and to your seed forever'”; XIII, 14-15); Yitzhaq: וירא אליו ד' ויאמר כו' שכן בארץ אשר אמר אליך: גור בארץ הזאת ואהי' עמך ואברכך כי לך ולזרעך אתן את כל הארצת האל וגו' (“And Ha-Shem appeared to him and said... 'Reside in the land which I shall tell you. Dwell in this land and I shall be with you and bless you, for to you and your seed shall I give all these lands....'”; XXVI, 2-3); and Ya‘aqov: והנה ד' נצב עליו ויאמר אני ד' כו' הארץ אשר אתה שכב עלי' לך אתננה ולזרעך: (“And behold, Ha-Shem was positioned on it and said, 'I am Ha-Shem... The land upon which you are lying, to you shall I give it and to your seed”; XXVIII, 13). Note that in every case the Divine promise is made through the shém Ha-Shem, the midda of hesed or rahamim.

With this in mind, consider what G-d told Moshe about the Patriarchs: וארא אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב בא-ל שד-י ושמי ד' לא נודעתי להם (“And I appeared to Avraham, Yitzhaq, and Ya‘aqov as É-l Shad-dai, and [by] My name, Ha-Shem, I was not known to them”; Exodus VI, 3], prompting Rashi’s comment: לא הודעתי אין כתיב כאן אלא לא נודעתי לא נכרתי להם במדה אמיתי שלי שעלי' נקרא שמי ד' נאמן לאמת דברי שהרי הבטחתי ולא קיימתי (“‘I did not make known’ [lo’ hoda‘ti] is not written here, but ‘I was not known’ [lo’ noda‘ti]’ I was not recognised by them in My true measure for which My name is called Ha-Shem, faithful to actualize My words, for I promised and did not fulfill [it]”). But this appears to contradict the verses quoted above. How could He make such an assertion?

The Birkath Tov remarks on this: דבחינת הוי-ה מרמז על הנהגה אשר הוא למעלה מהטבה כו' לכן נכתב בהוי-ה ונקרא באדנ-י שהוא הנהגה טבעית כדרך האדון שמנהיג עבדיו ואך באמת נכתב הוי-ה וגו' (“that the category of the Tetragrammaton alludes to conduct of affairs [hanhaga] which is supernatural.... Therefore, it is written as the Tetragrammaton but read as Ad-nai, i.e., natural hanhaga, in the manner of a lord [adon] who directs his servants, though in truth it is the Tetragrammaton which is written”; פרשתנו אות י"ד).

This is what G-d means by “appearing as É-l Shad-dai”, literally, “G-d Who established sufficiency,” or as Hazal put it, מי שאמר לעולמו די, “He Who told His world, Enough! [dai]”; וה"ק ח"ג רנ"א: ועוד), i.e., set physical limits, sha- being the Biblical form of the more familiar Mishnaic and modern relative prefix she- (cf., e.g., Genesis VI, 3 and Judges V, 3 for similar usage). It is these limitations, the boundaries of physical existence, which cause us most of the time to perceive Ha-Shem’s supernatural, non-linear, atemporal, non-causal conduct of the universe in terms of our own time-bound, linear causality.

There are a few exceptions, as the Birkath Tov goes on to note, of hanhaga nissith, “miraculous hanhaga”; such an exception, of course, was the Exodus from Egypt, with which G-d was contrasting His conduct with the Patriarchs. Moshe and the bënei Yisra’él would see open, incontrovertible examples of supernatural hanhaga in the blows rained on Egypt before they left, at Yam Suf, at Mt. Sinai, and, indeed, throughout their desert sojourn. Every member of Israel saw these as acts of hesed, in the case of the Exodus itself, rahamim, hesed amalgamated with and ameliorating the earlier din.

The promise reiterated to each of the Patriarchs was equally a matter of hesed, of hanhaga ‘elyona, in each case almost immediately beset by opposition and difficulties, which could only have been perceived as the middath ha-din; yet the Patriarchs did not doubt that Ha-Shem ran the world with the hanhaga ‘elyona associated with the Tetragrammaton, regardless of how it was perceived here below. They did not doubt, did not question, His middoth.

D.

We, too, are generally unable to see the reality of Ha-Shem’s hanhaga nissith, and think instead in linear, natural terms, in terms of din. The prophet comes to assure us that it will not always be thus; one day, our perception of Ha-Shem’s hanhaga ‘elyona will be as it in truth is, and the Tetragrammaton will in that day be pronounced as written.

It is, in part, our mission to bring this day about, whence the custom common to many of us of preceding each qiddush, each establishment of sanctity in this world, with the pronouncement לשם יחוד קב"ה ושכינתי' בדחילו ורחימו וגו' (“For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, Blessed and His Presence [in this world], with awe and love...”).

Parshath Toldoth (Genesis XXV,19-XVIII,9) 11/8/07

A.

After Yitzchaq and Rivqa had spent a long period in intense, anguished prayer, she finally became pregnant. In short order, however, her joyous expectation turned to alarm: ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה ותאמר אם כן למה זה אנכי ותלך לדרש את ד' (“And the children struggled to and fro within her, and she said, 'If so, why am I? And she went to seek Ha-Shem;'” XXV, 22).

Rivqa’s words are ambiguous and puzzling, and our classic commentators have striven to elucidate them. Rashi, for instance, says that her words were directed to G-d, beseeching Him: Why am I having such a strange pregnancy? The Even Êzra suggests that she went to seek the counsel of other, more experienced women: Had they ever heard of such a thing? The Sforno, for his part, offers the idea that the disturbance was so intense that she thought one of the twins might die within her, and her own life would then be endangered by carrying a dead fetus to term.

But the starkest suggestion of all comes from Ramban: והנכון בעיני כי אמרה אם כן למה לי, למה זה אנכי בעולם, הלואי אינני, שאמות וגו' (“And what seem correct in my eyes is that she said, 'If so, why do I have this? Why am I in the world? Better that I should die...'”).

The mind reels at the thought of the suffering that would have brought the holy, righteous prophetess, our mother Rivqa, to utter such despairing words! What could have motivated her to say such a thing?

B.

The Talmud discusses the legal status of a new-born baby, telling us, amongst other things, that he is נוחל ומנחיל, capable of inheriting and bqueathing. The gmara proceeds to examine the ramifications of this, and begins with the assertion that he can inherit his father’s property, and bequeath it to his paternal brothers. The gmara goes on to note that this is hardly exceptional: It is the normal case of inheritance; why, then, bother to state it here?

אמר רב ששת, נוחל בנכסי האם להנחיל לאחיו מן האב; Rav Shesheth suggests that the passage tells us that the new-born can inherit his mother’s property, and pass it on to his paternal brothers; as Rashi ad loc. explains: אם מתה אמו ביום שנולד הרי הוא יורשה, וכשמת הוא באין אחיו מאביו ויורשין הימנו וגו' (“If his mother dies on the day he is born, he inherits her; and if he dies, his paternal brothers come to inherit from him....”).

The gmara then elaborates on Rav Shesheth’s statement: ודוקא בן יום אחד, אבל עובר לא, מ"ט? דהוא מיית ברישא, ואין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר (“And [this is] specifically [in the case] of a day-old child, and not a fetus; why? For the fetus would have died first, and a son does not inherit from his mother in the grave;” נדה מ"ד.).

The Ba’âlei Tosafoth delve into the possible ramifications of the gmara’s statement, and in the course of their discussion note another Talmudic statement (ערכין ז. במשנה) that should a woman die in labor before any part of the infant’s body has been exposed to the air, מחטכין אותה בשבת ומוציאין הולד (“one may cut her open [even] on the Sabbath and extract the fetus”), in other words, the fetus is considered viable and has a דין פיקוח נפש, a life which can be saved at the expense of Shabbath, משום דכמונח בקופסא דמי (“because it is like [a child] trapped in a box;” שם, דה"מ איהו מיית ברישא).

Thus, we can deduce from the Tosafoth that a fetus rescued in this manner from the womb of his mother becomes a בן יום אחד, equivalent to a day-old infant born in the normal fashion.

C.

We now turn elsewhere in the Talmud, where we learn: רחל שלא ביכרה וילדה שני זכרים, ויצאו שני ראשיהן כאחד, רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, שניהן לכהן, שנאמר "הזכרים לד'", וחכ"א אי אפשר לצמצם, אלא אחד לו ואחד לכהן (“A ewe who has not yet given birth to a lamb, which now gives birth to two males, and both their heads came out simultaneously, Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili says, 'Both belong to the kohén, as it is said, "the males are Ha-Shem’s'" [Exodus XIII,12]; and the Chachamim say, 'It is impossible to contract them; rather, one is [the owner’s] and one is the kohén’s;'” בכורות י"ז. במשנה).

As Rashi elucidates, Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili sees in the plural form of the word ha-zcharim (“the males”) an indication that both twins in this highly unusual situation are to be considered bechorim, “first-born,” and hence dedicated to holy, sacrificial purpose, whilst his colleagues take the view that such an occurrence is impossible -- that in any natural birth, one of the twins must have poked its head out a fraction of a second before the other, just that no-one noticed which it was; hence, they hold that one of the lambs should be designated the bechor, and the other, “second-born,” belongs to the owner of the ewe.

The halacha in this case follows the opinion of the Chachamim (עיי' רמב"ם הל' בכורות פ"ה ה"א ושו"ע יו"ד סי' שי"ח סעיף א'), and therein lies a possible explanation of the noble motivation underlying Rivqa’s words.

Rashi tells us that the twins in Rivqa’s womb were מתרוצצים זה בזה ומריבים בנחלת שני עולמות (“struggling and fighting one against the other over the inheritance of two worlds”), this world and the next one. In other words, they were jockeying for position, each one trying to secure primogeniture, as our parasha clearly suggests (cf. e.g. XXV, 26). Doubtless the prophetess realised this, and was sorely distressed: If things were already like this before they were born, what would be the case afterwards?

As the war in her womb dragged on, Rivqa cast about desperately for some way to make peace between them: Was there not some way that both could be bechorim, and share equally in “the inheritance of two worlds?”

She could not pray that both would exit her birth canal simultaneously, as the assumption would be that one or the other had actually come out first, and primogeniture would be assigned arbitrarily to one or the other, leaving the state of hostilites in place. But if she were to die in childbirth, before either of them had made an appearance, and by means of a radical Caesarian both could be exposed at once...

She was prepared to sacrifice herslf for peace; and so she went to seek Ha-Shem’s counsel.

D.

מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, Ramban famously tells us: an act of the patriarchs is a sign for their descendants. This, surely, applies equally to the matriarchs.

The overriding, fundamentally inestimable value of shalom, of peace and well-being, in Torah thought is well known. The Michlol Pithgamim u-Ma’amarim, the encyclopædic catalogue of aphorisms in the Oral Torah, lists no less than thirty-one entries which begin with the words גדול השלום, “Great is peace,” many of which occur multiple times in the sources.

Perhaps the most striking of these occurs in two widely separated places in the Midrash Tanchuma: גדול השלום שאפילו ישראל עובדים עבודה זרה ועושין חבורה אחת אין מדת הדין נוגעת בהם (Great is peace, such that even if Israel are serving idols but make a single harmonious society, the measure of Divine judgment cannot touch them;” צו ז' ושופטים י"ח). The Al-Mighty is prepared to efface Himself for the sake of shalom.

As was our matriarch Rivqa.