Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
THE BLESSING OF YA'AKOV
As with the Adam story previously, this should be presented as a play-script - a kind of Hamlet-like conglomeration of various texts and versions, but a play-script for all that. Something in the manner of a Purimspiel.
The first two verses, separated by samechim, seem to be an interpolation.
26:34: VA YEHI ESAV BEN ARBA'IM SHANAH VA YIKACH ISHAH ET YEHUDIT BAT BE'ERI HA CHITI VE ET BASMAT BAT EYLON HA CHITI
וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה אֶת יְהוּדִית בַּת בְּאֵרִי הַחִתִּי וְאֶת בָּשְׂמַת בַּת אֵילֹן הַחִתִּי
KJ (King James translation): And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
BN (BibleNet translation): Now when Esav was forty years old he married Yehudit, the daughter of Be'eri of the Beney Chet, and Basmat the daughter of Eylon of the Beney Chet.
YEHUDIT BAT BE'ERI HA CHITI (יהודית בת בארי החתי): YEHUDIT (יהודית) from the root HADAH (הדה) = "to stretch out the hand" (where does such a name come from? a priestess stretching out her hand to pour water? To heal? To bless? It is hard to know).
This is the first time a name has come up that related to the Jews (the tribe of Yehudah after the exile when no other tribes were left) as opposed to the pre-exilic Beney Yisra-El, and it comes up as Yehudit, which should mean a daughter of the tribe of Yehudah, or later "a Jewess", but here is the name of the daughter of a Beney Chet (Hittite). Was the tribe of Yehudah then originally Beney Chet? Certainly Ephron, from whom Av-Raham bought Machpelah, was a Beney Chet, and Yehudah's tribal region will have Chevron as its capital (Jerusalem is in Bin-Yamin). It is also significant that Esav, who will be regarded as an Edomite, indeed as the progenitor of the Edomites (Genesis 36:1), should have married Banot Chet, in the same way that Kayin married Banot Kena'an, but that he is not therefore regarded as himself a Hittite - the answer also lies in Genesis 36, where Esav has several wives from several tribes, but later moves with all of them to Mount Se'ir (Genesis 36:8), which is in Edom.
Probably we are talking king-priestess marriages, Basmat clearly a priestess name; interesting to discover that Yehudit was too.
As a name YEHUDIT never recurs until the apocryphal book bearing her name; but it will recur as the name of the language, which we wrongly call Hebrew - click here.
BAT BE'ERI (בת בארי): strange coincidence in this lengthy story about wells that the father's name should be associated with wells and water. Again endorsing the suggestion of something liturgical behind all this.
BASMAT BAT EYLON (בשמת בת אילן): meaning "sweet smelling daughter of the oak tree" which obviously has cultic inferences; according to Genesis 36:3, 4 & 13 she was Yishma-El's daughter, not Eylon's; unless Esav had two wives of the same name. Genesis 36:2 gives Esav a different set of wives, so this is possible; there "Esav took his wives of the daughters of Kena'an; Adah the daughter of Eylon the Chiti, and Ahali-Vamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Tsivon the Chivi; also Basmat, the daughter of Yishma-El, the sister of Nevayot." No Yehudit in that list.
The son list given through that chapter parallels the Ya'akov lineage, with odd extras to go beyond the twelve, as Dinah and the sons of Yoseph do in the Ya'akov lineage: six to Adah as to Le'ah, five to Basmat, two to Timna paralleling Bilhah, and three to Ahali-Vamah paralleling Zilpah. The son-names and grandson-names Kenaz, Nachat, Zerach, Shamah, Ye'ush and Korach also occur in the tribes of Yehudah, Bin-Yamin and Levi (i.e. three of the non-Yisra-Eli tribes that became amalgamated later on!). Yehudit is the feminine form of Yehudah.
Ahali-Vamah may be connected to Ahalah and Ahali-Vah (אָהֳלָה הַגְּדוֹלָה וְאָהֳלִיבָה אֲחוֹתָהּ), Yechezke-El's symbolic names for Yisra-El and Yehudah in Ezekiel 23:4. The name is used to attack Yeru-Shala'im for idolatry.
The sons of Eli-Phaz, according to Genesis 36:10/12, were the grandsons of Esav and Adah, but 36:16 has them as her sons. Similarly with the grandsons of Basmat; it may be a matter of "adoption" - a custom we know well from the Romans - as practiced by Ya'akov with his Yosephite grandsons in Genesis 48:5/6, thereby eliminating Yoseph from the list of tribes, although Ephrayim had already won his position by assimilating the tribe of Dinah. The almond rods stored by Mosheh in the Sanctuary, of which only Aharon's put forth buds, represent thirteen tribes: the Levites being the landless and priestly and holy thirteenth (Numbers 17:16/24).
26:35: VA TIHEYEYNA MORAT RU'ACH LE YITSCHAK U LE RIVKAH
KJ: Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.
וַתִּהְיֶיןָ מֹרַת רוּחַ לְיִצְחָק וּלְרִבְקָה
KJ: Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.
BN: And this was a cause of much upset to Yitschak and Rivkah.
The Beney Chet marriages should surely have pleased not displeased the family, as it reinforced the alliance with the Beney Chet established in the acquisition of Mamre-Chevron-Machpelah. But of course, bearing in mind the sending of Eli-Ezer to get Yitschak a wife, matters of tribal purity and endogamy mattered rather more. And indeed, it is quite surprising that Esav was still allowed in the family home after these marriages, still counted as meriting the blessing that Ya'akov will later usurp - in many Jewish homes, to this day, a son or daughter who "marries out" is mourned as though dead.
These two verses between the Samechim seem to have been tagged on for want of anywhere better to place them; they clearly belong to the book of Edom and not that of Yisra-El.
Samech break; end of chapter 26.
✡
The blessing of Ya'akov now begins...and note that his story as Ya'akov ends with his receipt of a blessing, and his story as Yisra-El after that likewise ends with his giving of his blessing, augmented many times, as the covenant promised.
What now follows is one of the world's earliest examples of a psychological drama, with remarkable insights into family relationships etc…
Chapter 27, v1: VA YEHI KI ZAKEN YITSCHAK VA TICH'HEYNA EYNAV ME RE'OT VA YIKRA ET ESAV BENO HA GADOL VA YOMER ELAV BENI VA YOMER ELAV HINENI
KJ: And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I.
BN: And it came to pass, when Yitschak was old, and his sight was fading, so that he could barely see, that he summoned Esav his elder son, and said to him, "My son", and he replied, "Here I am".
How many times does this formula of "HINENI" appear in the Tanach?
Why does the text call him BENO HA GADOL and not BENO HA BECHOR, which would be more usual? Both infer "elder son", but the regular BECHOR is specifically "first-born". Is it because he has sold his birthright and therefore isn't BECHOR any longer, but only HA GADOL? Note in verse 29 that Ya'akov, pretending to be Esav, will call himself BECHOR and not GADOL.
Which also provides one of two possible responses to the question: given the number of variations of the same tale that we have already encountered (No'ach, Avi-Melech, etc), is this simply a "second" version of the stealing of the birthright? We have almost entirely the same ingredients, and not just in the pottage. The two possible responses being: yes it is, and: no it isn't.
27:2: VA YOMER HINEH NA ZAKANTI LO YADA'TI YOM MOTI
KJ: And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:
BN: And he said, "Look at me - an old man who doesn't know which day will be his last.
LO YADATI YOM MOTI: Of course he doesn't; no one does. But this is not what the idiom means. "And who can say how much longer I shall be alive?"
27:3: VE ATAH SA NA CHELEYCHA TELYECHA VE KASHTECHA VE TSE HA SADEH VE TSUDAH LI TSIYDAH
KJ: Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison;
BN: "Do this for me now. Take your hunting gear, your quiver and your bow, and go out into the field, and bring me venison.
TELYECHA VE KASHTECHA: Why does it require a bow and arrow, if the beast is in the field? Or maybe deer are harder to catch than I appreciate (I lived with wild deer in my back-garden in Baltimore; you could have walked out and stroked their fur, and fed them carrots from your hand, and they were tame enough... the only reason you didn't was the lyme disease carried by the ticks that also liked to stroke the deer's fur). See verse 5 below.
The answer lies in the source and origin and the tale, and that of Esav himself, who (see my notes to Genesis 25:25) was almost certainly Usöus, the hunter-god of Tsur (Tyre).
Is this a case of being hungry, and fancying a nice piece of meat; or is the meat specific to the blessing? Two answers to that: first, deer is not normally sacrificed for a blessing. Of the "beasts of the earth", which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents, the Mosaic laws permit the eating of any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud; so yes, deer is kosher (except in England, where the law requires deer to be shot in the open field and not brought into an abattoir, so they can't be ritually slaughtered) - cf Leviticus 11:3; Deuteronomy 14:6. Any land mammal that does not have both of these qualities is forbidden. The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications. Cattle, sheep, goats, bison and deer are kosher. As to the second answer...
TSIYDAH: Why is this word unpointed? The English cannot translate the word-play: I could manage "venison me some venison", which would convey TSUDAH and TSIDAH, but the whole point of the jest is that the land of Usöus was Tsur, but the capital city of Tsur was Tsidon (Sidon). So, for Esav, it had to be venison.
27:4: VA ASEH LI MAT'AMIM KA ASHER AHAVTI VE HAVIY'AH LI VE OCHELAH BA AVUR TEVARECHECHA NAPHSHI BE TEREM AMUT
KJ: And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.
BN: "And make me one of those savoury stews that you know how much I love, and bring it to me, that I can have one last feast, and then my soul can bless you one more time before I die."
At the time of the sale of the birthright we wondered why Esav couldn't just cook his own meal; clearly from this his father reckoned him a good cook; and not just the macho hunter who does the barbecue; savoury food requires a kitchen.
Why is the meal a means of blessing him? Does this compare with Kayin's refused offering? Clearly the blessing is considered of great importance by all: a guarantee of property rights. But it is quite specifically a sacrificial meal that is being prepared, with the blessing in the role of Birkat ha-Mazon afterwards. If Yitschak were originally a god, this would actually make more sense; still it makes sense as a priest or king-ritual as well, or as the tribal chief carrying out those functions. What is strange is that Yitschak seems to have no idea that Esav has already sold his birthright, and Esav does not tell him.
The following and other "sins" of Ya'akov are said to be the root cause of the Babylonian exile (Isaiah 43:27/8). One interesting question for religious Jews: Judaism holds that the Sinaic Codes were created in the beginning, and that they applied even before Mosheh wrote them down. How then, does Ya'akov deal with Leviticus 19:11?
We are told that Kayin and Havel brought offerings and Kayin's was refused. Can we imagine that the words in this verse were precisely the ones used then?
TEVARECHECHA NAPHSHI: This phrase may alter our entire reading. A blessing is given with the mouth and the hand, a physical act; but Yitschak is saying "my soul will bless you"; almost as if he just wants to be pleased with Esav one last time, to have one last father-son moment with him, and the blessing is simply what you do, saying grace before and after a meal. A clear distinction then, if this is correct, between the blessing here and the birthright previously.
27:5: VE RIVKAH SHOMA'AT BE DABER YITSCHAK EL ESAV BENO VA YELECH ESAV HA SADEH LATSUD TSAYID LEHAVI
KJ: And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt forvenison, and to bring it.
BN: And Rivkah heard Yitschak speaking to Esav his son. And Esav went out to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.
Clearly the word "field" is the problem. This is not rural England, nor semi-urban Baltimore, where the countryside is neatly divided by stone-fences and spools of barbed-wire; this is miles and miles of open countryside, leading to desert in one direction and wilderness in the other. Going out into the fields to fetch venison is more likely to be a hunting expedition than a trip to the barn.
BENO (בנו): "his son". Why not BENAH (בנה) - "her son"? Does she not regard him as her son? In the next verse Ya'akov will be referred to as BENAH.
27:6: VE RIVKAH AMRAH EL YA'AKOV BENAH LEMOR HINEH SHAMA'TI ET AVIYCHA MEDABER EL ESAV ACHIYCHA LEMOR
KJ: And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying,
BN: And Rivkah spoke to Ya'akov her son, saying, "Listen, I heard your father speak to Esav your brother, saying...
BENAH (בנה) Confirms that the question in the preceding verse is not answered by saying "textual anomaly" or "misunderstanding of grammar". It is quite definitely BENO for Esav and BENAH for Ya'akov. Genesis 25:28 already prepared us for this: "Now Yitschak loved Esav, because he ate of his venison; and Rivkah loved Ya'akov." Which also just happens to be the verse that introduced the sale of the birthright; so we have every reason to think that the event only happened once, but that there are two versions of it, and the Redactor found this way to include both. We can also state with certainty that Yitschak is not calling for the meal just to enjoy venison one last time; if that were so, Rivkah would not react the way she does.
27:7: HAVIY'AH LI TSAYID VA ASEH LI MATAMIM VE OCHELAH VA AVARECHECHA LIPHNEY YHVH LIPHNEY MOTI
KJ: Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death.
BN: "'Bring me venison, and make me a savoury stew, that I may have one last feast, and bless you in the name of YHVH before my death'...
She doesn't quite quote him correctly. Are the differences significant? She mentions YHVH, where Yitschak did not.
27:8: VA ATAH VENI SHEMA BE KOLI LA ASHER ANI METSAVAH OTACH
KJ: Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.
BN: "Pay close attention now, my son, and do exactly what I tell you...
27:9: LECH NA EL HA TSON VE KACH LI MI SHAM SHENEY GEDAYEY IZIM TOVIM VE E'ESEH OTAM MAT'AMIM LE AVIYCHA KA ASHER AHEV
KJ: Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth:
BN: "Go out to the flock, and fetch me two good kids from among the goats. I am going to make a savoury stew for your father, exactly the way he likes it.
She is going to do the cooking, where the previous assumed Esav would cook as well as hunt. Yet we know that Ya'akov can cook from the potage story. And we are still surprised to find any of them in the kitchen, given their wealth and the number of their servants. And does she really believe that Yitschak won't be able to tell goat from venison? We have to presume yes. Cooked with lots of spices and herbs, can anyone really distinguish chicken from turkey, lamb from beef?
And this is where Ya'akov learns his cheating skills, which he will practice on his uncle Lavan (his mother Rivkah's brother) later.
27:10: VE HEV'E'TA LE AVIYCHA VE ACHAL BA AVUR ASHER YEVARECHECHA LIPHNEY MOTO
KJ: And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.
BN: "And you shall take it to your father, so that he can feast, and so that he can bless you before his death."
Does Ya'akov understand that this is dishonest? Does he care? What we tend to forget in telling Ya'akov's story is that Rivkah is the leader in this conspiracy. Has she had a bad life with Yitschak and this is why? No evidence. Does she hate Esav? She must have some reason for favouring one son against the other and seeking to steal the inheritance for him. Psychologically it is not unprecedented for a mother to favour a son, though isn't it usually the first-born? One suggestion: if, as appears from the Avi-Melech story, the Yitschak tribes became Beney Yisra-El by marrying-in, then this may again be "precedent" for ultimo v primo-geniture debate; the Beney Yisra-El were probably unusual in favouring ultimo, and it may be that Yitschak was preferring Esav and Rivkah Ya'akov for this reason; remember from the details of her marriage that she came from a matrilocal but Yitschak a patrilocal family; and we learned in the last chapter how upset both parents were when Esav took Hittite wives (Genesis 26:35, at the top of this page). If ultimo were always the case, Esav would not have had a birthright to sell.
And remember, when Yoseph brings his sons to Ya'akov later on to receive their blessing (Genesis 48), Ya'akov will bless the younger first, and not the elder, mirroring what is happening here.
Can we in part excuse Ya'akov for his many sins, on the grounds that he had a bad role-model for a mother?
27:11: VA YOMER YA'AKOV EL RIVKAH IMO HEN ESAV ACHI ISH SA'IR VE ANOCHI ISH CHALAK
KJ: And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man:
BN: And Ya'akov said to Rivkah his mother, "But Esav my brother is all hair, and I am smooth-skinned...
Where Ya'akov stole the birthright himself the first time, now it's a scheming Rivkah who prompts him. But why a second time? Is the birthright meaningless without the blessing? In which case why doesn't Ya'akov himself scheme to get the blessing?
Again the reference to Esav as hairy (איש שער) which links him to Mount Se'ir (שער) in Edom.
At no point does Ya'akov suggest to his mother that what they are doing is wrong; merely, he recognises a difficulty in the method of their scheming.
27:12: ULAY YEMUSHENI AVI VE HAYIYTI VE EYNAV KI META'TE'A VE HEV'E'TI ALAI KELALAH VE LO VERACHA
KJ: My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.
BN: "Maybe dad will touch me, and it will seem in his eyes like I'm mocking him; and that will bring a curse on me, not a blessing."
Sin is not a Beney Yisra-Eli concept; but the curse most certainly is.
27:13: VA TOMER LO IMO ALAI KILELAT'CHA BENI ACH SHEMA BE KOLI VE LECH KACH LI
KJ: And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.
BN: And his mother said to him, "Let that curse fall on me, my son; just hear what I'm telling you, and go fetch me them."
She is very impatient with him; but can she take the curse upon herself? Is the Redactor being very morally subtle here, introducing this weakness in Rivkah's mothering skills, to show parents (who must be honoured on pain of a short life according to the 5th commandment) the moral obligations incumbent on them.
We have just been told Esav was 40 when he got married, and the boys are twins; so Ya'akov is old enough to take responsibility himself. And will be surprised, later on, when his sons behave so badly towards Yoseph, given their father, and their grandmother.
27:14: VA YELECH VA YIKACH VA YAV'E LE IMO VA TA'AS IMO MAT'AMIM KA ASHER AHEV AVIV
KJ: And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved.
BN: And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother; and his mother made a savoury stew, just the way his father liked it.
VA YELECH...VA TA'AS (ותעש...וילך): wonderful sentence, and pure Beney Yisra-El! Everything is about action, not person or time as in western cultures; literally the poetry of action: and he went and he took and he brought and she made.
27:15: VA TIKACH RIVKAH ET BIGDEY ESAV BENAH HA GADOL HA CHAMUDOT ASHER ITAH BA BAYIT VA TALBESH ET YA'AKOV BENAH HA KATAN
KJ: And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son:
BN: And Rivkah took the choicest garments of Esav her elder son, which were with her in the house, and dressed Ya'akov her younger son in them.
No, they are both her sons, the BENAH (בנה) confirms that. This is all about favouritism, where the Yishma-El/Yitschak conflict was about who the parents were biologically. It has to be that Esav having married and left home changed his relation to her - the Oedipal mother syndrome? But the favouritism was already established long before that, as per Genesis 25:28.
To what does CHAMUDOT (חמדת) apply: the clothes? "Which were with her in the house" reads like an afterthought; if he has married and left home (we are assuming that, having married Benot Chet, he will have followed their matrilocal custom and gone to live with his first wife's family - later text will confirm this), why would any of his clothes be there for her to use in this manner? The extra phrase deals with the matter.
One has to ask, with this and all the other Ya'akov stories, what kind of sense of humour makes a holy book out of such patently immoral tales? Or is that part of the reason for its success: that it paints human beings as they are, with all their flaws as well as their virtues, and not as fantasy patriarchs of implausible perfection?
27:16: VE ET OROT GEDAYEY HA IZIM HILBIYSHAH AL YADAV VE AL CHELKAT TSAVA'RAV
KJ: And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck.
BN: And she put the skins of the goat-kids on his hands, and on the smooth parts of his neck.
Almost like some kind of religious ritual in which YA'AKOV is literally being dressed to play the part of the goat-deity; c.f. the drawings in the Cave des Trois Frères and elsewhere, in which this ritual is done to propitiate the god before the hunt.
27:17: VA TITEN ET HA MAT'AMIM VE ET HA LECHEM ASHER ASATAH BE YAD YA'AKOV BENAH
KJ: And she gave the savoury meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.
BN: And she put the savoury stew, and the bread which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Ya'akov.
No prior mention of the bread, but why did there need to be? And besides, bread in later times served as a substitute for flesh, as wine did for blood; probably we are witnessing here the ritual coronation of the goat-god and his receipt of the blessing of the divinity, accompanied by the death, here the outcasting, of the eldest son; i.e. the ritual regicide once more, with Rivkah as ritual priestess, wife and sister to the god, mother to YA'AKOV, and thus having all three aspects of the triple goddess. Not in this version, obviously, but in the original that was reduced to this by the Redactor.
ASATAH (עשתה): why is it not ASITAH?
27:18: VA YAVO EL AVIV VA YOMER AVI VA YOMER HINENI MI ATAH BENI
KJ: And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son.
BN: And he came to his father, and said, "My father", and he said, "Here am I; who are you, my son?"
A strange answer; "who are you?" makes sense for a blind man, but "who are you, my son?" sounds dense; "Is that you, my son?" is better. Unless this is "my son" in the priestly sense. Being identical twins their voices are highly likely to have been indistinguishable to a blind man - though in fact not so; see v22 below.
27:19: VA YOMER YA'AKOV EL AVIV ANOCHI ESAV BECHORECHA ASIYTI KA ASHER DIBARTA ELAI KUM NA SHEVAH VE ACHLAH MI TSEYDI BA AVUR TEVARACHANI NAPHSHECHA
KJ: And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy firstborn; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.
BN: And Ya'akov said to his father, "I am Esav your first-born; I have done as you bade me. Please, get up, come and sit and eat my venison, so that you can bless me in your soul."
BECHORECHA: see my note to verse 1.
27:20: VA YOMER YITSCHAK EL BENO MAH ZEH MIHARTA LIMTSO BENI VA YOMER KI HIKRAH YHVH ELOHEYCHA LEPHANAY
KJ: And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the LORD thy God brought it to me.
BN: And Yitschak said to his son, "Why were you in such a hurry to bring it, my son?" And he said, "Because YHVH your god sent me good speed."
MAH ZEH MIHARTA: I'm not convinced the traditional translation is correct here. LEMAHER means "to hurry", and MAH ZEH is a different sort of interrogative from EYCH (אֵיך) = "how". I think what Yitschak is asking is "why did you feel the need to do this in such a hurry?" with the insinuation that Esav can't wait to see his dad dead so that he can have the inheritance and become the sheikh. And if this reading is correct, then maybe, when he recognises Ya'akov's voice, and with Esav having already married out ...
YHVH, "your" god - not his god. Is Ya'akov not a worshipper of the same god then? Or rather is Ya'akov, pretending to be Esav, showing us in this way that Esav worshipped a different god? Which would go with the marrying-out - joining the wife's tribe would need to include adopting their culture. And of course, if this is the case, then we have another and better reason for Rivkah siding with Ya'akov in the matter of the inheritance, and another reason for Yitschak, if, as per my note above...
27:21: VA YOMER YITSCHAK EL YA'AKOV GESHAH NA VA AMUSHCHA BENI HA ATAH ZEH BENI ESAV IM LO
KJ: And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not.
BN: And Yitschak said to Ya'akov, "Please, come closer, so that I can touch you, my son, to see if you are really my son Esav or not."
Reasonable doubt! We have to try to imagine the audience at the ritual, struggling not to laugh at the dramatic irony of all this scene - it certainly would make for a great play. Not too much winking and nodding please behind the arras.
On the other hand, would they not have told him about the swap of birthright for potage?
And on yet another hand, what kind of a trusting father is it who suspects one of his sons of impersonating the other in order to steal his blessing!
The phrasing is a very strong hint, perhaps more than that, that Yitschak knows. And if he knows, why does he go along with it? See my note to the previous verse. And just how blind is he?
Much more significant to this – and in the Ya'akov epic, every incident eventually comes full circle and finds its altered parallel – is the fact that, at the end of his life, Ya'akov will again be involved in a mix-up in a blessing (Genesis 48): when Yoseph brings his sons, Ya'akov will deliberately cross his hands, to give the younger the blessing meant for the older, exactly as he is receiving it now. Which again poses the question: did Yitschak know?
27:22: VA YIGASH YA'AKOV EL YITSCHAK AVIV VA YEMUSH'EHU VA YOMER HA KOL KOL YA'AKOV VE HA YADAYIM YEDEY ESAV
KJ: And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
BN: Then Ya'akov moved close to Yitschak his father; and he touched him, and he said, "The voice is the voice of Ya'akov, but the hands are the hands of Esav."
Like Shakespeare's Viola and Sebastian, this could only work in the theatre.
27:23: VE LO HIKIYRO KI HAYU YADAV KI YEDEY ESAV ACHIV SE'IROT VA YEVARCHE'HU
KJ: And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.
BN: And he did not recognise him, because his hands were hairy, like his brother Esav's hands; and he blessed him.
VA YEVARCHE'HU: I really want to translate this as "and yet he blessed him", and with a tone of astonishment in the voice as well.
27:24: VA YOMER ATAH ZEH BENI ESAV VA YOMER ANI
KJ: And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am.
BN: And he said, "Are you truly my son Esav?" And he said, "I am".
Second expression of doubt. But strange that he asks this after he has given the blessing, and not before.
Rivkah has said she will carry all the guilt, but the fact is that Ya'akov is telling straightforward porkie-pies, and porkie-pies are not kosher.
27:25: VA YOMER HAGISHAH LI VE OCHLAH MI TSEYD BENI LEMA'AN TEVARECHECHA NAPHSHI VA YAGESH LO VA YO'CHAL VA YAV'E LO YAYIN VA YESHT
KJ: And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank.
BN: And he said, "Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless you." And he brought it near to him, and he ate. and he brought him wine, and he drank.
Just like the bread before, the previously unmentioned wine now makes its inevitable appearance in the rite. Or was the drinking of wine a normal accompaniment to a meal? (The answer is no; wine was a very rare commodity in the desert; if they drank anything alcoholic, it was more likely to be honey-mead). And if so, did they water it down, as King David described it? (To which the answer is again no, if, as we must presume, this was Biblical Palwins or Manischewitz rather than Chablis or Zinfadel, a wine for the purpose of the blessing, rather than for the pleasure of the palate).
Of course, it may well be that the family se'udah with its ritual blessings gave the cue to the Temple sacrifices, rather than the other way around. Trying to decide how best to propitiate a Jewish deity, an appeal to the stomach does seem to make the greatest sense. Would Kayin have been more successful if he had offered fried gefilte fish? But that is today; back then, as we are told repeatedly, what the deity really likes is the smell of the meat while it's cooking, that pleasing aroma which deflates the nostrils. In that regard, venison and lamb are pretty much equals.
And note that Yitschak is unable to tell (or has made the decision to ignore the fact) that this is lamb goulash, not venison stew (the same lamb goulash that Ya'akov served Esav last time?).
27:26: VA YOMER ELAV YITSCHAK AVIV GESHAH NA U SHAKAH LI BENI
KJ: And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son.
BN: And his father Yitschak said to him, "Come near now, and kiss me, my son."
27:27: VA YIGASH VA YISHAK LO VA YARACH ET REYACH BEGADAV VA YEVARACH'EHU VA YOMER RE'EH REYACH BENI KE REYACH SADEH ASHER BERACHO YHVH
KJ: And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed:
BN: And he came close, and kissed him. And he smelled the smell of his clothing, and blessed him, and said, "See, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field which YHVH has blessed.
KE REYACH: In which case Esav already has his blessing, direct from YHVH, and hasn't been cheated at all!
How naïve actually is Yitschak? There is a sense, in this last verse especially, that he knows he is being hoodwinked, but recognises that he can't do anything about it, may even welcome it. So he invites the kiss, and out loud - like a Shakespearian aside - he effectively exonerates himself. "See, he does smell like Esav!" And he even adds that Esav smells, not just like a field, but like a field that the god has blessed. So that definitely makes it alright.
And if he has been duped , then in a sense so has YHVH; yet the deity doesn't seem too bothered about it, whether now or later.
End of fifth fragment; no break indicated by pey or samech.
The setting of the next two verses suggests an ancient song, perhaps an ancient blessing. Some versions of the Chumash, the book-version of Torah used in synagogue, even lay out the two verses in the form of verse. Did it come originally from this story, or is it simply the traditional form, and therefore used by Yitschak here? Either way, it adds a liturgical feel to the religious drama.
However - note that the deity until now has been YHVH, but in the blessing it switches, and not just to Elohim but to the even more polytheistic Ha Elohim.
27:28: VE YITEN LECHA HA ELOHIM MI TAL HA SHAMAYIM U MI SHEMANEY HA ARETS VE ROV DAGAN VE TIYROSH
KJ: Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:
BN: "May Ha Elohim give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fat places of the Earth, and plenty of corn and wine...
Amen to that!
However (o, why are there are so many "howevers"!). TIYROSH is an interesting word. Before I develop that statement, let me point out that the customary word for "wine" is YAYIN (יין), from a root that suggests things "bubbling up" (as in a geyser, or a kettle coming to the boil), and therefore yields the idea of "fermenting", which is necessary if grape juice is to become fine wine. TIYROSH, by contrast, comes from the root YARASH (ירש), which means "to take possession", usually by force (Deuteronomy 1:8, 1 Kings 21:16 - which is about taking possession of a vineyard - Psalm 44:4 and countless other examples). Each of those relates to the means by which the Beney Yisra-El came into "possession" of their "inheritance" of the land, both of which words I have placed in inverted commas because these are the derived meanings from the root in later Yehudit - in Numbers 27:11 it means, quite specifically "to receive an inheritance", which is precisely what Ya'akov is doing now. See also Genesis 15:3-4, Genesis 21:10, and in Jeremiah 49:1 the word for an "heir" is now YORESH (יוֹרֵ֖שׁ).
Which leaves only one outstanding question: we can see how TIYROSH is a word-play on Ya'akov's trickery, and clearly infers that the blessing is over the bestowing of the inheritance and not just grace after the meal; but how does it get to be wine as well?
Remove the pointing and ask: might TIYROSH (תִירֹשׁ) actually be a mis-reading of TIRAS (תירש), which is a synonym for the DAGAN = corn that it accompanies in the blessing? Nice try! Unfortunately (I tricked you, like Ya'akov did his father, by putting on a false disguise), unfortunately TIRAS is in fact spelled תִירָס, with a final Samech not a final Seen.
The honest answer is: we really don't know, but there is no question that it does. and the significance here lies in its being Beaujolais, which is to say new wine "taken" at its earliest point of fermentation, "possessed" by the drinker at the earliest opportunity, and therefore, also, much less likely to "take possession" of the brain than, say, a forty-year old St Emilion! The alcohol percentage in Kiddush wine is negligible, and in some cases so sweet it might as well be grape juice.
Verse 27 stated YHVH, but this is a blessing in the name of Elohim. The blessing continues to v29. Is this the verse Steinbeck was thinking of in those lovely dream-scenes in "Of Mice And Men"?
The terms of the blessing are reflected in the second paragraph of the Shema, which is taken from Deuteronomy 11:13-21:
Note "Tiyroshcha" in the second line of the first verse, again translated here as "wine".
KJ: And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.
In a sense this is the first example of a true Beney Yisra-El tragedy - in the theatrical sense of that word! Aeschylus could have done wonders with it. And yet he had already sold his birthright with scarcely a murmur of protest, so what right has he left to complain? Unless the stories are not connected. Unless these are two versions of how he lost his birthright, told as if they were two parts of the same story; yet Esav himself notes that he had already lost his birthright. And besides, he has also married out, so Nechem-Yah would say that he got what he deserved by consequence, and then require him to divorce them and fetch a bride from Padan Aram, as Ya'akov is about to do.
KJ: And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.
YISTOM: But it doesn't say he hated him (though he probably did), which would require YISNA (ישנא) - and indeed, later he forgives him. Yet this is the completion of the Kayin parallel. The verb here is LISTOM, for which see Genesis 50:15 and Job 16:9, both of which likewise appear to use it to mean "hate". The root, SATAM, is really about setting traps - as hunters like Esav are accustomed to doing - whence the subsidiary notion of tracking someone with your eyes in a hostile manner.
Chapter 27, v1: VA YEHI KI ZAKEN YITSCHAK VA TICH'HEYNA EYNAV ME RE'OT VA YIKRA ET ESAV BENO HA GADOL VA YOMER ELAV BENI VA YOMER ELAV HINENI
וַיְהִי כִּי זָקֵן יִצְחָק וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת וַיִּקְרָא אֶת עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ הַגָּדֹל וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בְּנִי וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּנִי
KJ: And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I.
BN: And it came to pass, when Yitschak was old, and his sight was fading, so that he could barely see, that he summoned Esav his elder son, and said to him, "My son", and he replied, "Here I am".
How many times does this formula of "HINENI" appear in the Tanach?
Why does the text call him BENO HA GADOL and not BENO HA BECHOR, which would be more usual? Both infer "elder son", but the regular BECHOR is specifically "first-born". Is it because he has sold his birthright and therefore isn't BECHOR any longer, but only HA GADOL? Note in verse 29 that Ya'akov, pretending to be Esav, will call himself BECHOR and not GADOL.
Which also provides one of two possible responses to the question: given the number of variations of the same tale that we have already encountered (No'ach, Avi-Melech, etc), is this simply a "second" version of the stealing of the birthright? We have almost entirely the same ingredients, and not just in the pottage. The two possible responses being: yes it is, and: no it isn't.
27:2: VA YOMER HINEH NA ZAKANTI LO YADA'TI YOM MOTI
וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה נָא זָקַנְתִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי יוֹם מוֹתִי
KJ: And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:
BN: And he said, "Look at me - an old man who doesn't know which day will be his last.
LO YADATI YOM MOTI: Of course he doesn't; no one does. But this is not what the idiom means. "And who can say how much longer I shall be alive?"
27:3: VE ATAH SA NA CHELEYCHA TELYECHA VE KASHTECHA VE TSE HA SADEH VE TSUDAH LI TSIYDAH
וְעַתָּה שָׂא נָא כֵלֶיךָ תֶּלְיְךָ וְקַשְׁתֶּךָ וְצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה וְצוּדָה לִּי צידה
KJ: Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison;
BN: "Do this for me now. Take your hunting gear, your quiver and your bow, and go out into the field, and bring me venison.
TELYECHA VE KASHTECHA: Why does it require a bow and arrow, if the beast is in the field? Or maybe deer are harder to catch than I appreciate (I lived with wild deer in my back-garden in Baltimore; you could have walked out and stroked their fur, and fed them carrots from your hand, and they were tame enough... the only reason you didn't was the lyme disease carried by the ticks that also liked to stroke the deer's fur). See verse 5 below.
The answer lies in the source and origin and the tale, and that of Esav himself, who (see my notes to Genesis 25:25) was almost certainly Usöus, the hunter-god of Tsur (Tyre).
Is this a case of being hungry, and fancying a nice piece of meat; or is the meat specific to the blessing? Two answers to that: first, deer is not normally sacrificed for a blessing. Of the "beasts of the earth", which basically refers to land mammals with the exception of swarming rodents, the Mosaic laws permit the eating of any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud; so yes, deer is kosher (except in England, where the law requires deer to be shot in the open field and not brought into an abattoir, so they can't be ritually slaughtered) - cf Leviticus 11:3; Deuteronomy 14:6. Any land mammal that does not have both of these qualities is forbidden. The Torah specifies that the camel, the rock badger, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two qualifications. Cattle, sheep, goats, bison and deer are kosher. As to the second answer...
TSIYDAH: Why is this word unpointed? The English cannot translate the word-play: I could manage "venison me some venison", which would convey TSUDAH and TSIDAH, but the whole point of the jest is that the land of Usöus was Tsur, but the capital city of Tsur was Tsidon (Sidon). So, for Esav, it had to be venison.
27:4: VA ASEH LI MAT'AMIM KA ASHER AHAVTI VE HAVIY'AH LI VE OCHELAH BA AVUR TEVARECHECHA NAPHSHI BE TEREM AMUT
וַעֲשֵׂה לִי מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתִּי וְהָבִיאָה לִּי וְאֹכֵלָה בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֶכְךָ נַפְשִׁי בְּטֶרֶם אָמוּת
KJ: And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.
BN: "And make me one of those savoury stews that you know how much I love, and bring it to me, that I can have one last feast, and then my soul can bless you one more time before I die."
At the time of the sale of the birthright we wondered why Esav couldn't just cook his own meal; clearly from this his father reckoned him a good cook; and not just the macho hunter who does the barbecue; savoury food requires a kitchen.
Why is the meal a means of blessing him? Does this compare with Kayin's refused offering? Clearly the blessing is considered of great importance by all: a guarantee of property rights. But it is quite specifically a sacrificial meal that is being prepared, with the blessing in the role of Birkat ha-Mazon afterwards. If Yitschak were originally a god, this would actually make more sense; still it makes sense as a priest or king-ritual as well, or as the tribal chief carrying out those functions. What is strange is that Yitschak seems to have no idea that Esav has already sold his birthright, and Esav does not tell him.
The following and other "sins" of Ya'akov are said to be the root cause of the Babylonian exile (Isaiah 43:27/8). One interesting question for religious Jews: Judaism holds that the Sinaic Codes were created in the beginning, and that they applied even before Mosheh wrote them down. How then, does Ya'akov deal with Leviticus 19:11?
We are told that Kayin and Havel brought offerings and Kayin's was refused. Can we imagine that the words in this verse were precisely the ones used then?
TEVARECHECHA NAPHSHI: This phrase may alter our entire reading. A blessing is given with the mouth and the hand, a physical act; but Yitschak is saying "my soul will bless you"; almost as if he just wants to be pleased with Esav one last time, to have one last father-son moment with him, and the blessing is simply what you do, saying grace before and after a meal. A clear distinction then, if this is correct, between the blessing here and the birthright previously.
27:5: VE RIVKAH SHOMA'AT BE DABER YITSCHAK EL ESAV BENO VA YELECH ESAV HA SADEH LATSUD TSAYID LEHAVI
וְרִבְקָה שֹׁמַעַת בְּדַבֵּר יִצְחָק אֶל עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ וַיֵּלֶךְ עֵשָׂו הַשָּׂדֶה לָצוּד צַיִד לְהָבִיא
KJ: And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt forvenison, and to bring it.
BN: And Rivkah heard Yitschak speaking to Esav his son. And Esav went out to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.
Clearly the word "field" is the problem. This is not rural England, nor semi-urban Baltimore, where the countryside is neatly divided by stone-fences and spools of barbed-wire; this is miles and miles of open countryside, leading to desert in one direction and wilderness in the other. Going out into the fields to fetch venison is more likely to be a hunting expedition than a trip to the barn.
BENO (בנו): "his son". Why not BENAH (בנה) - "her son"? Does she not regard him as her son? In the next verse Ya'akov will be referred to as BENAH.
27:6: VE RIVKAH AMRAH EL YA'AKOV BENAH LEMOR HINEH SHAMA'TI ET AVIYCHA MEDABER EL ESAV ACHIYCHA LEMOR
וְרִבְקָה אָמְרָה אֶל יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶת אָבִיךָ מְדַבֵּר אֶל עֵשָׂו אָחִיךָ לֵאמֹר
KJ: And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying,
BN: And Rivkah spoke to Ya'akov her son, saying, "Listen, I heard your father speak to Esav your brother, saying...
BENAH (בנה) Confirms that the question in the preceding verse is not answered by saying "textual anomaly" or "misunderstanding of grammar". It is quite definitely BENO for Esav and BENAH for Ya'akov. Genesis 25:28 already prepared us for this: "Now Yitschak loved Esav, because he ate of his venison; and Rivkah loved Ya'akov." Which also just happens to be the verse that introduced the sale of the birthright; so we have every reason to think that the event only happened once, but that there are two versions of it, and the Redactor found this way to include both. We can also state with certainty that Yitschak is not calling for the meal just to enjoy venison one last time; if that were so, Rivkah would not react the way she does.
27:7: HAVIY'AH LI TSAYID VA ASEH LI MATAMIM VE OCHELAH VA AVARECHECHA LIPHNEY YHVH LIPHNEY MOTI
הָבִיאָה לִּי צַיִד וַעֲשֵׂה לִי מַטְעַמִּים וְאֹכֵלָה וַאֲבָרֶכְכָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לִפְנֵי מוֹתִי
KJ: Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death.
BN: "'Bring me venison, and make me a savoury stew, that I may have one last feast, and bless you in the name of YHVH before my death'...
She doesn't quite quote him correctly. Are the differences significant? She mentions YHVH, where Yitschak did not.
27:8: VA ATAH VENI SHEMA BE KOLI LA ASHER ANI METSAVAH OTACH
וְעַתָּה בְנִי שְׁמַע בְּקֹלִי לַאֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מְצַוָּה אֹתָךְ
KJ: Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.
BN: "Pay close attention now, my son, and do exactly what I tell you...
27:9: LECH NA EL HA TSON VE KACH LI MI SHAM SHENEY GEDAYEY IZIM TOVIM VE E'ESEH OTAM MAT'AMIM LE AVIYCHA KA ASHER AHEV
לֶךְ נָא אֶל הַצֹּאן וְקַח לִי מִשָּׁם שְׁנֵי גְּדָיֵי עִזִּים טֹבִים וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אֹתָם מַטְעַמִּים לְאָבִיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב
KJ: Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth:
BN: "Go out to the flock, and fetch me two good kids from among the goats. I am going to make a savoury stew for your father, exactly the way he likes it.
She is going to do the cooking, where the previous assumed Esav would cook as well as hunt. Yet we know that Ya'akov can cook from the potage story. And we are still surprised to find any of them in the kitchen, given their wealth and the number of their servants. And does she really believe that Yitschak won't be able to tell goat from venison? We have to presume yes. Cooked with lots of spices and herbs, can anyone really distinguish chicken from turkey, lamb from beef?
And this is where Ya'akov learns his cheating skills, which he will practice on his uncle Lavan (his mother Rivkah's brother) later.
27:10: VE HEV'E'TA LE AVIYCHA VE ACHAL BA AVUR ASHER YEVARECHECHA LIPHNEY MOTO
וְהֵבֵאתָ לְאָבִיךָ וְאָכָל בַּעֲבֻר אֲשֶׁר יְבָרֶכְךָ לִפְנֵי מוֹתוֹ
KJ: And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.
BN: "And you shall take it to your father, so that he can feast, and so that he can bless you before his death."
Does Ya'akov understand that this is dishonest? Does he care? What we tend to forget in telling Ya'akov's story is that Rivkah is the leader in this conspiracy. Has she had a bad life with Yitschak and this is why? No evidence. Does she hate Esav? She must have some reason for favouring one son against the other and seeking to steal the inheritance for him. Psychologically it is not unprecedented for a mother to favour a son, though isn't it usually the first-born? One suggestion: if, as appears from the Avi-Melech story, the Yitschak tribes became Beney Yisra-El by marrying-in, then this may again be "precedent" for ultimo v primo-geniture debate; the Beney Yisra-El were probably unusual in favouring ultimo, and it may be that Yitschak was preferring Esav and Rivkah Ya'akov for this reason; remember from the details of her marriage that she came from a matrilocal but Yitschak a patrilocal family; and we learned in the last chapter how upset both parents were when Esav took Hittite wives (Genesis 26:35, at the top of this page). If ultimo were always the case, Esav would not have had a birthright to sell.
And remember, when Yoseph brings his sons to Ya'akov later on to receive their blessing (Genesis 48), Ya'akov will bless the younger first, and not the elder, mirroring what is happening here.
Can we in part excuse Ya'akov for his many sins, on the grounds that he had a bad role-model for a mother?
27:11: VA YOMER YA'AKOV EL RIVKAH IMO HEN ESAV ACHI ISH SA'IR VE ANOCHI ISH CHALAK
וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל רִבְקָה אִמּוֹ הֵן עֵשָׂו אָחִי אִישׁ שָׂעִר וְאָנֹכִי אִישׁ חָלָק
KJ: And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man:
BN: And Ya'akov said to Rivkah his mother, "But Esav my brother is all hair, and I am smooth-skinned...
Where Ya'akov stole the birthright himself the first time, now it's a scheming Rivkah who prompts him. But why a second time? Is the birthright meaningless without the blessing? In which case why doesn't Ya'akov himself scheme to get the blessing?
Again the reference to Esav as hairy (איש שער) which links him to Mount Se'ir (שער) in Edom.
At no point does Ya'akov suggest to his mother that what they are doing is wrong; merely, he recognises a difficulty in the method of their scheming.
27:12: ULAY YEMUSHENI AVI VE HAYIYTI VE EYNAV KI META'TE'A VE HEV'E'TI ALAI KELALAH VE LO VERACHA
אוּלַי יְמֻשֵּׁנִי אָבִי וְהָיִיתִי בְעֵינָיו כִּמְתַעְתֵּעַ וְהֵבֵאתִי עָלַי קְלָלָה וְלֹא בְרָכָה
KJ: My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.
BN: "Maybe dad will touch me, and it will seem in his eyes like I'm mocking him; and that will bring a curse on me, not a blessing."
Sin is not a Beney Yisra-Eli concept; but the curse most certainly is.
27:13: VA TOMER LO IMO ALAI KILELAT'CHA BENI ACH SHEMA BE KOLI VE LECH KACH LI
וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִמּוֹ עָלַי קִלְלָתְךָ בְּנִי אַךְ שְׁמַע בְּקֹלִי וְלֵךְ קַח לִי
KJ: And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.
BN: And his mother said to him, "Let that curse fall on me, my son; just hear what I'm telling you, and go fetch me them."
She is very impatient with him; but can she take the curse upon herself? Is the Redactor being very morally subtle here, introducing this weakness in Rivkah's mothering skills, to show parents (who must be honoured on pain of a short life according to the 5th commandment) the moral obligations incumbent on them.
We have just been told Esav was 40 when he got married, and the boys are twins; so Ya'akov is old enough to take responsibility himself. And will be surprised, later on, when his sons behave so badly towards Yoseph, given their father, and their grandmother.
27:14: VA YELECH VA YIKACH VA YAV'E LE IMO VA TA'AS IMO MAT'AMIM KA ASHER AHEV AVIV
וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיִּקַּח וַיָּבֵא לְאִמּוֹ וַתַּעַשׂ אִמּוֹ מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב אָבִיו
KJ: And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved.
BN: And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother; and his mother made a savoury stew, just the way his father liked it.
VA YELECH...VA TA'AS (ותעש...וילך): wonderful sentence, and pure Beney Yisra-El! Everything is about action, not person or time as in western cultures; literally the poetry of action: and he went and he took and he brought and she made.
27:15: VA TIKACH RIVKAH ET BIGDEY ESAV BENAH HA GADOL HA CHAMUDOT ASHER ITAH BA BAYIT VA TALBESH ET YA'AKOV BENAH HA KATAN
וַתִּקַּח רִבְקָה אֶת בִּגְדֵי עֵשָׂו בְּנָהּ הַגָּדֹל הַחֲמֻדֹת אֲשֶׁר אִתָּהּ בַּבָּיִת וַתַּלְבֵּשׁ אֶת יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ הַקָּטָן
KJ: And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son:
BN: And Rivkah took the choicest garments of Esav her elder son, which were with her in the house, and dressed Ya'akov her younger son in them.
No, they are both her sons, the BENAH (בנה) confirms that. This is all about favouritism, where the Yishma-El/Yitschak conflict was about who the parents were biologically. It has to be that Esav having married and left home changed his relation to her - the Oedipal mother syndrome? But the favouritism was already established long before that, as per Genesis 25:28.
To what does CHAMUDOT (חמדת) apply: the clothes? "Which were with her in the house" reads like an afterthought; if he has married and left home (we are assuming that, having married Benot Chet, he will have followed their matrilocal custom and gone to live with his first wife's family - later text will confirm this), why would any of his clothes be there for her to use in this manner? The extra phrase deals with the matter.
One has to ask, with this and all the other Ya'akov stories, what kind of sense of humour makes a holy book out of such patently immoral tales? Or is that part of the reason for its success: that it paints human beings as they are, with all their flaws as well as their virtues, and not as fantasy patriarchs of implausible perfection?
27:16: VE ET OROT GEDAYEY HA IZIM HILBIYSHAH AL YADAV VE AL CHELKAT TSAVA'RAV
וְאֵת עֹרֹת גְּדָיֵי הָעִזִּים הִלְבִּישָׁה עַל יָדָיו וְעַל חֶלְקַת צַוָּארָיו
KJ: And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck.
BN: And she put the skins of the goat-kids on his hands, and on the smooth parts of his neck.
Almost like some kind of religious ritual in which YA'AKOV is literally being dressed to play the part of the goat-deity; c.f. the drawings in the Cave des Trois Frères and elsewhere, in which this ritual is done to propitiate the god before the hunt.
27:17: VA TITEN ET HA MAT'AMIM VE ET HA LECHEM ASHER ASATAH BE YAD YA'AKOV BENAH
וַתִּתֵּן אֶת הַמַּטְעַמִּים וְאֶת הַלֶּחֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂתָה בְּיַד יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ
KJ: And she gave the savoury meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.
BN: And she put the savoury stew, and the bread which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Ya'akov.
No prior mention of the bread, but why did there need to be? And besides, bread in later times served as a substitute for flesh, as wine did for blood; probably we are witnessing here the ritual coronation of the goat-god and his receipt of the blessing of the divinity, accompanied by the death, here the outcasting, of the eldest son; i.e. the ritual regicide once more, with Rivkah as ritual priestess, wife and sister to the god, mother to YA'AKOV, and thus having all three aspects of the triple goddess. Not in this version, obviously, but in the original that was reduced to this by the Redactor.
ASATAH (עשתה): why is it not ASITAH?
27:18: VA YAVO EL AVIV VA YOMER AVI VA YOMER HINENI MI ATAH BENI
וַיָּבֹא אֶל אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֶּנִּי מִי אַתָּה בְּנִי
KJ: And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son.
BN: And he came to his father, and said, "My father", and he said, "Here am I; who are you, my son?"
A strange answer; "who are you?" makes sense for a blind man, but "who are you, my son?" sounds dense; "Is that you, my son?" is better. Unless this is "my son" in the priestly sense. Being identical twins their voices are highly likely to have been indistinguishable to a blind man - though in fact not so; see v22 below.
27:19: VA YOMER YA'AKOV EL AVIV ANOCHI ESAV BECHORECHA ASIYTI KA ASHER DIBARTA ELAI KUM NA SHEVAH VE ACHLAH MI TSEYDI BA AVUR TEVARACHANI NAPHSHECHA
וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אָבִיו אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ
KJ: And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy firstborn; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.
BN: And Ya'akov said to his father, "I am Esav your first-born; I have done as you bade me. Please, get up, come and sit and eat my venison, so that you can bless me in your soul."
BECHORECHA: see my note to verse 1.
27:20: VA YOMER YITSCHAK EL BENO MAH ZEH MIHARTA LIMTSO BENI VA YOMER KI HIKRAH YHVH ELOHEYCHA LEPHANAY
וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל בְּנוֹ מַה זֶּה מִהַרְתָּ לִמְצֹא בְּנִי וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי הִקְרָה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנָי
KJ: And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the LORD thy God brought it to me.
BN: And Yitschak said to his son, "Why were you in such a hurry to bring it, my son?" And he said, "Because YHVH your god sent me good speed."
MAH ZEH MIHARTA: I'm not convinced the traditional translation is correct here. LEMAHER means "to hurry", and MAH ZEH is a different sort of interrogative from EYCH (אֵיך) = "how". I think what Yitschak is asking is "why did you feel the need to do this in such a hurry?" with the insinuation that Esav can't wait to see his dad dead so that he can have the inheritance and become the sheikh. And if this reading is correct, then maybe, when he recognises Ya'akov's voice, and with Esav having already married out ...
YHVH, "your" god - not his god. Is Ya'akov not a worshipper of the same god then? Or rather is Ya'akov, pretending to be Esav, showing us in this way that Esav worshipped a different god? Which would go with the marrying-out - joining the wife's tribe would need to include adopting their culture. And of course, if this is the case, then we have another and better reason for Rivkah siding with Ya'akov in the matter of the inheritance, and another reason for Yitschak, if, as per my note above...
27:21: VA YOMER YITSCHAK EL YA'AKOV GESHAH NA VA AMUSHCHA BENI HA ATAH ZEH BENI ESAV IM LO
וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל יַעֲקֹב גְּשָׁה נָּא וַאֲמֻשְׁךָ בְּנִי הַאַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו אִם לֹא
KJ: And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not.
BN: And Yitschak said to Ya'akov, "Please, come closer, so that I can touch you, my son, to see if you are really my son Esav or not."
Reasonable doubt! We have to try to imagine the audience at the ritual, struggling not to laugh at the dramatic irony of all this scene - it certainly would make for a great play. Not too much winking and nodding please behind the arras.
On the other hand, would they not have told him about the swap of birthright for potage?
And on yet another hand, what kind of a trusting father is it who suspects one of his sons of impersonating the other in order to steal his blessing!
The phrasing is a very strong hint, perhaps more than that, that Yitschak knows. And if he knows, why does he go along with it? See my note to the previous verse. And just how blind is he?
Much more significant to this – and in the Ya'akov epic, every incident eventually comes full circle and finds its altered parallel – is the fact that, at the end of his life, Ya'akov will again be involved in a mix-up in a blessing (Genesis 48): when Yoseph brings his sons, Ya'akov will deliberately cross his hands, to give the younger the blessing meant for the older, exactly as he is receiving it now. Which again poses the question: did Yitschak know?
27:22: VA YIGASH YA'AKOV EL YITSCHAK AVIV VA YEMUSH'EHU VA YOMER HA KOL KOL YA'AKOV VE HA YADAYIM YEDEY ESAV
וַיִּגַּשׁ יַעֲקֹב אֶל יִצְחָק אָבִיו וַיְמֻשֵּׁהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו
KJ: And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
BN: Then Ya'akov moved close to Yitschak his father; and he touched him, and he said, "The voice is the voice of Ya'akov, but the hands are the hands of Esav."
Like Shakespeare's Viola and Sebastian, this could only work in the theatre.
27:23: VE LO HIKIYRO KI HAYU YADAV KI YEDEY ESAV ACHIV SE'IROT VA YEVARCHE'HU
וְלֹא הִכִּירוֹ כִּי הָיוּ יָדָיו כִּידֵי עֵשָׂו אָחִיו שְׂעִרֹת וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ
KJ: And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.
BN: And he did not recognise him, because his hands were hairy, like his brother Esav's hands; and he blessed him.
VA YEVARCHE'HU: I really want to translate this as "and yet he blessed him", and with a tone of astonishment in the voice as well.
27:24: VA YOMER ATAH ZEH BENI ESAV VA YOMER ANI
וַיֹּאמֶר אַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו וַיֹּאמֶר אָנִי
KJ: And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am.
BN: And he said, "Are you truly my son Esav?" And he said, "I am".
Second expression of doubt. But strange that he asks this after he has given the blessing, and not before.
Rivkah has said she will carry all the guilt, but the fact is that Ya'akov is telling straightforward porkie-pies, and porkie-pies are not kosher.
27:25: VA YOMER HAGISHAH LI VE OCHLAH MI TSEYD BENI LEMA'AN TEVARECHECHA NAPHSHI VA YAGESH LO VA YO'CHAL VA YAV'E LO YAYIN VA YESHT
וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּשָׁה לִּי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ נַפְשִׁי וַיַּגֶּשׁ לוֹ וַיֹּאכַל וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן וַיֵּשְׁתְּ
KJ: And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank.
BN: And he said, "Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless you." And he brought it near to him, and he ate. and he brought him wine, and he drank.
Just like the bread before, the previously unmentioned wine now makes its inevitable appearance in the rite. Or was the drinking of wine a normal accompaniment to a meal? (The answer is no; wine was a very rare commodity in the desert; if they drank anything alcoholic, it was more likely to be honey-mead). And if so, did they water it down, as King David described it? (To which the answer is again no, if, as we must presume, this was Biblical Palwins or Manischewitz rather than Chablis or Zinfadel, a wine for the purpose of the blessing, rather than for the pleasure of the palate).
Of course, it may well be that the family se'udah with its ritual blessings gave the cue to the Temple sacrifices, rather than the other way around. Trying to decide how best to propitiate a Jewish deity, an appeal to the stomach does seem to make the greatest sense. Would Kayin have been more successful if he had offered fried gefilte fish? But that is today; back then, as we are told repeatedly, what the deity really likes is the smell of the meat while it's cooking, that pleasing aroma which deflates the nostrils. In that regard, venison and lamb are pretty much equals.
And note that Yitschak is unable to tell (or has made the decision to ignore the fact) that this is lamb goulash, not venison stew (the same lamb goulash that Ya'akov served Esav last time?).
27:26: VA YOMER ELAV YITSCHAK AVIV GESHAH NA U SHAKAH LI BENI
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יִצְחָק אָבִיו גְּשָׁה נָּא וּשְׁקָה לִּי בְּנִי
KJ: And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son.
BN: And his father Yitschak said to him, "Come near now, and kiss me, my son."
27:27: VA YIGASH VA YISHAK LO VA YARACH ET REYACH BEGADAV VA YEVARACH'EHU VA YOMER RE'EH REYACH BENI KE REYACH SADEH ASHER BERACHO YHVH
וַיִּגַּשׁ וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ וַיָּרַח אֶת רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו וַיְבָרֲכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר רְאֵה רֵיחַ בְּנִי כְּרֵיחַ שָׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרֲכוֹ יְהוָה
KJ: And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed:
BN: And he came close, and kissed him. And he smelled the smell of his clothing, and blessed him, and said, "See, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field which YHVH has blessed.
KE REYACH: In which case Esav already has his blessing, direct from YHVH, and hasn't been cheated at all!
How naïve actually is Yitschak? There is a sense, in this last verse especially, that he knows he is being hoodwinked, but recognises that he can't do anything about it, may even welcome it. So he invites the kiss, and out loud - like a Shakespearian aside - he effectively exonerates himself. "See, he does smell like Esav!" And he even adds that Esav smells, not just like a field, but like a field that the god has blessed. So that definitely makes it alright.
And if he has been duped , then in a sense so has YHVH; yet the deity doesn't seem too bothered about it, whether now or later.
End of fifth fragment; no break indicated by pey or samech.
The setting of the next two verses suggests an ancient song, perhaps an ancient blessing. Some versions of the Chumash, the book-version of Torah used in synagogue, even lay out the two verses in the form of verse. Did it come originally from this story, or is it simply the traditional form, and therefore used by Yitschak here? Either way, it adds a liturgical feel to the religious drama.
However - note that the deity until now has been YHVH, but in the blessing it switches, and not just to Elohim but to the even more polytheistic Ha Elohim.
27:28: VE YITEN LECHA HA ELOHIM MI TAL HA SHAMAYIM U MI SHEMANEY HA ARETS VE ROV DAGAN VE TIYROSH
וְיִתֶּן לְךָ הָאֱלֹהִים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְרֹב דָּגָן וְתִירֹשׁ
KJ: Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:
BN: "May Ha Elohim give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fat places of the Earth, and plenty of corn and wine...
Amen to that!
However (o, why are there are so many "howevers"!). TIYROSH is an interesting word. Before I develop that statement, let me point out that the customary word for "wine" is YAYIN (יין), from a root that suggests things "bubbling up" (as in a geyser, or a kettle coming to the boil), and therefore yields the idea of "fermenting", which is necessary if grape juice is to become fine wine. TIYROSH, by contrast, comes from the root YARASH (ירש), which means "to take possession", usually by force (Deuteronomy 1:8, 1 Kings 21:16 - which is about taking possession of a vineyard - Psalm 44:4 and countless other examples). Each of those relates to the means by which the Beney Yisra-El came into "possession" of their "inheritance" of the land, both of which words I have placed in inverted commas because these are the derived meanings from the root in later Yehudit - in Numbers 27:11 it means, quite specifically "to receive an inheritance", which is precisely what Ya'akov is doing now. See also Genesis 15:3-4, Genesis 21:10, and in Jeremiah 49:1 the word for an "heir" is now YORESH (יוֹרֵ֖שׁ).
Which leaves only one outstanding question: we can see how TIYROSH is a word-play on Ya'akov's trickery, and clearly infers that the blessing is over the bestowing of the inheritance and not just grace after the meal; but how does it get to be wine as well?
Remove the pointing and ask: might TIYROSH (תִירֹשׁ) actually be a mis-reading of TIRAS (תירש), which is a synonym for the DAGAN = corn that it accompanies in the blessing? Nice try! Unfortunately (I tricked you, like Ya'akov did his father, by putting on a false disguise), unfortunately TIRAS is in fact spelled תִירָס, with a final Samech not a final Seen.
The honest answer is: we really don't know, but there is no question that it does. and the significance here lies in its being Beaujolais, which is to say new wine "taken" at its earliest point of fermentation, "possessed" by the drinker at the earliest opportunity, and therefore, also, much less likely to "take possession" of the brain than, say, a forty-year old St Emilion! The alcohol percentage in Kiddush wine is negligible, and in some cases so sweet it might as well be grape juice.
Verse 27 stated YHVH, but this is a blessing in the name of Elohim. The blessing continues to v29. Is this the verse Steinbeck was thinking of in those lovely dream-scenes in "Of Mice And Men"?
The terms of the blessing are reflected in the second paragraph of the Shema, which is taken from Deuteronomy 11:13-21:
 V'natati m'tar ar'tz'khem b'ito yoreh umal'kosh v'asaf'ta d'ganekha v'tirosh'kha v'yitz'harekha. That I will give rain to your land, the early and the late rains, that you may gather in your grain, your wine and your oil. |
 V'natati eisev b'sad'kha liv'hem'tekha v'akhal'ta v'sava'ta. And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle and you will eat and you will be satisfied. |
Note "Tiyroshcha" in the second line of the first verse, again translated here as "wine".
The reference to rain is also reflected in the prayers for Shemini Atseret, the last ritual of the twenty-three days of Tishrey that begin with Rosh ha-Shanah, and end with Sukot, and then continued as an additional line in the daily Amidah until Pesach: "משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם - Mashiv ha ru'ach u morid ha gashem - who causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall" in the Ashkenazi liturgy, "Morid ha tal - מוריד הטל - who brings the dew" in the Sephardi.
27:29: YA'AVUD'CHA AMIM VE YISHTACHU LECHA LE'UMIM HEVEH GEVIR LE ACHEYCHA VE YISHTACHAVU LECHA BENEY IMECHA OREREYCHA ARUR U MEVARACHEYCHA BARUCH
יַעַבְדוּךָ עַמִּים וישׁתחו לְךָ לְאֻמִּים הֱוֵה גְבִיר לְאַחֶיךָ וְיִשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ לְךָ בְּנֵי אִמֶּךָ אֹרְרֶיךָ אָרוּר וּמְבָרֲכֶיךָ בָּרוּךְ
KJ: Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
BN: "May people serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brethren, and let your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be every one who curses you, and blessed be every one who blesses you."
At last, after hearing so much about blessings, we are actually given an idea of what the Beney Yisra-El meant by one - and it turns out to be wealth and power, in the most materialistic sense - to be blessed means to be doing very nicely thank you!
But wait a moment - this is surely Yoseph's blessing, not Ya'akov's! "Brethren" is difficult, because Ya'akov had only one, where Yoseph theoretically had eleven. "Your mother's sons bow down to you" likewise suggests Yoseph (Genesis 36:7 ff), especially as Rivkah is complicitous in the deception of Yitschak now. More and more this appears to be a coronation liturgy (which is to say, the sacred element in the receiving of the inheritance); and particularly for "may people serve you, and nations bow down to you". Whatever we may wish for our children, it isn't usually this: but for a king being blessed as he ascends the throne – precisely this. And if not a full kingship, then certainly the sheikhdom of a Bedou tribe.
How would it be a coronation ritual? Even in private, a tribal sheikh may hand over power and authority to his son. And remember, through his exogamous marriage, Esav has left the tribe, and therefore in theory forfeited his inheritance. Ya'akov didn't actually need the trickery, so the mummer's play or pageant may not be quite what it seems. Look at the opening of J.G. Frazer's "Golden Bough" again.
To what extent did the ancients believe that a person’s blessing defined their destiny? And if so, did Ya'akov's destiny then change by getting Esav's blessing, and vice-versa. There is no way of knowing the answer to this, but still interesting to ask.
27:30: VA YEHI KA ASHER KILAH YITSCHAK LEVARECH ET YA'AKOV VA YEHI ACH YATSO YATSA YA'AKOV ME ET PENEY YITSCHAK AVIV VE ESAV ACHIV BA MI TSEYDO
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלָּה יִצְחָק לְבָרֵךְ אֶת יַעֲקֹב וַיְהִי אַךְ יָצֹא יָצָא יַעֲקֹב מֵאֵת פְּנֵי יִצְחָק אָבִיו וְעֵשָׂו אָחִיו בָּא מִצֵּידוֹ
KJ: And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting.
BN: And it came to pass, as soon as Yitschak had finished blessing Ya'akov, and Ya'akov had scarcely left the presence of his father Yitschak, that Esav his brother came in from his hunting.
Yet again theatrical instinct suggests this must be a play-script. It works so well on stage, and far less well as storytelling or read on paper. (And it also allows a time-lapse, which is necessary, because Esav will have needed to skin and butcher the deer, remove a portion and season it, and then go through the cooking process, a couple of hours, even if he was doing barbecue, several more if it is going to be a stew. See next verse).
27:31: VA YA'AS GAM HU MAT'AMIM VA YAV'E LE AVIV VA YOMER LE AVIV YAKUM AVI VE YOCHAL MI TSEYD BENO BA AVUR TEVARACHANI NAPHSHECHA
וַיַּעַשׂ גַּם הוּא מַטְעַמִּים וַיָּבֵא לְאָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר לְאָבִיו יָקֻם אָבִי וְיֹאכַל מִצֵּיד בְּנוֹ בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ
KJ: And he also had made savoury meat, and brought it unto his father, and said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son's venison, that thy soul may bless me.
BN: And he also had made a savoury stew, and brought it to his father; and he said to his father, "Let my father sit up, and eat of his son's venison, that you may bless me in your soul."
But if Esav comes in from his hunting in verse 30, and manages to cook it by verse 31, maybe he was in the kitchen all the while that Ya'akov was serving his meal to Yitschak; that too could make for some fun staging in the pantomime version.
Logically, Esav should know that, having sold his birthright, and married out, he no longer has the right to receive the blessing anyway - so who was kidding who? Did the same thing happen to Kayin and is that why he killed Havel?
Odd change in mid-sentence from "his" to "your", though perhaps this is just a reflection of that rather patronising way we tend to talk to old people as though they were children. The opening phrase could be an instruction to the servants to assist him in sitting up; the second could still be talking to them; but the third is definitely addressed to dad - treat these as my stage directions.
My mind works this way. I can't help but wonder: where did the cooking get done? Did they have two kitchens, two altars of sacrifice? If Esav had just come home with the meat and went in to cook it, either the servant would tell him "your dad just ate", or he would smell the roast and the gravy and see the pots from the roast potatoes and the saucepans for the two veg, because I can't imagine that Ya'akov did the washing-up before he got the blessing. No? Incongruities as always if we bother to think through these stories.
27:32: VA YOMER LO YITSCHAK AVI MI ATAH VA YOMER ANI BINCHA BECHORCHA ESAV
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יִצְחָק אָבִיו מִי אָתָּה וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי בִּנְךָ בְכֹרְךָ עֵשָׂו
KJ: And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau.
BN: And Yitschak his father said to him, "Who are you?" And he said, "I am your son, your first-born Esav."
Note that he uses BECHORCHA for first-born; see my earlier notes, but also verse 37, where Esav states quite clearly that Ya'akov had taken his "birthright", for which the text gives 'BECHORATI".
27:33: VA YECHERAD YITSCHAK CHARADAH GEDOLAH AD ME'OD VA YOMER MI EPHO HU HA TSAD TSAYID VA YAV'E LI VA OCHAL MI KOL BE TEREM TAVO VA AVARACH'EHU GAM BARUCH YIHEYEH
וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק חֲרָדָה גְּדֹלָה עַד מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֵפוֹא הוּא הַצָּד צַיִד וַיָּבֵא לִי וָאֹכַל מִכֹּל בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא וָאֲבָרֲכֵהוּ גַּם בָּרוּךְ יִהְיֶה
KJ: And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed.
BN: And Yitschak was seized with a fit of trembling, and said, "Who then is he who has taken venison, and brought it to me, and I have eaten it all before you came, and have blessed him? Yes, and he shall be blessed."
This is all once again a YHVH story, though for a brief moment it switched to Ha Elohim. Is he pretending to Esav or genuine?
GAM BARUCH YIHEYEH: Apparently you cannot take back a blessing once it has been given.
But what we have here is Kayin bringing his sacrifice to his father, and having it rejected; while younger brother Havel already brought his, and had it accepted. And Ya'akov on the run, because he fears the fate of Havel will befall him too. We are definitely in the realm of Frazer's "Golden Bough" once more, however much the academics may wish to discredit him. But are we also in the realm of Arthur, and of Cinderella - the process of reducing a god or goddess tale to the field of chivalry or the domestic hearth in order to strip it of its mythological value? Sadly, I believe we are.
27:34: KI SHEMO'A ESAV ET DIVREY AVIV VA YITS'AK TSE'AKAH GEDOLAH U MARAH AD ME'OD VA YOMER LE AVIV BARACHEYNI GAM ANI AVI
כִּשְׁמֹעַ עֵשָׂו אֶת דִּבְרֵי אָבִיו וַיִּצְעַק צְעָקָה גְּדֹלָה וּמָרָה עַד מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר לְאָבִיו בָּרֲכֵנִי גַם אָנִי אָבִי
KJ: And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father.
BN: Now, when Esav heard his father's words, he let out a truly enormous, a truly bitter cry, and he said to his father, "Bless me too father."
The echoes of Kayin and Havel continue; yet Esav not only does not kill Ya'akov, he doesn't even try, and later they will be fully reconciled. Perhaps this is the later, humanised version of a more ancient cult, in the same way that the Akeda transformed child sacrifice. And remember, from the Frazer, that the supplanter of the guardian of the bough was originally killed (the notion of supplanter is present in every one of the sibling tales, as is the fact of the elder being red-headed and dispossessed).
27:35: VA YOMER BA ACHIYCHA BE MIRMAH VA YIKACH BIRCHATECHA
וַיֹּאמֶר בָּא אָחִיךָ בְּמִרְמָה וַיִּקַּח בִּרְכָתֶךָ
KJ: And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.
BN: And he said, "Your brother came here with guile, and has taken away your blessing."
How does he suddenly know it was Ya'akov? Because of course it is obvious by now. And anyway we worked out previously that he had worked it out previously.
The significance here lies in the fact that "he has taken away your blessing". Any father can give any son any number of blessings he may please; so this is not an ordinary blessing. Once taken, or once given, this blessing is as binding as an oath – so what can it be? Again we have to read it as the hand-over of the sheikhdom.
27:36: VA YOMER HA CHI KARA SHEMO YA'AKOV VA YA'EKVENI ZEH PA'AMAYIM ET BECHORATI LAKACH VE HINEH ATAH LAKACH BIRCHATI VA YOMER HA LO ATSALTA LI BERACHAH
וַיֹּאמֶר הֲכִי קָרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי זֶה פַעֲמַיִם אֶת בְּכֹרָתִי לָקָח וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה לָקַח בִּרְכָתִי וַיֹּאמַר הֲלֹא אָצַלְתָּ לִּי בְּרָכָה
KJ: And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?
BN: And he said, "Is he not rightly named Ya'akov? For he has supplanted me twice now. He took away my birthright, and here he is now, taking away my blessing." And he said, "Do you not have you any other blessing you could give me?"
Then is this the correct meaning of Ya'akov? That he is "the supplanter". Or are several meanings being given at different times: "the heel" at birth; now this; other references to the word EKEV. The Ethiopian/Nubian god "Yah Akaf" (see Joseph Campbell) cannot be ignored, especially with so many Egyptian connections in the latter parts of the story; and that also was a "heel-god", in the Oedipal mode (and Ya'akov is decidedly Oedipal!), and a supplanter.
ET BECHORATI LAKACH VE HINEH ATAH LAKACH BIRCHATI: The beauty of this line simply cannot be rendered in English. He took my birthright and now he takes my blessing: first BECHORATI (בכרתי), now BIRCHATI (ברכתי), the selfsame letters but in a different permutation: classic Yehudit poetry. The word for "first-born", which this story is after all about, is BACHUR (בכר), whence BECHORAT (בכרת) = "birthright" but properly "first-bornness". And also the link to LIVCHOR = "to choose". We now can state for certain that the birthright and the blessing were two parts of the same, and that, in fact, having sold his "first-born" status to Ya'akov, rendering Ya'akov the first-born, then Esav has indeed been cheated; but if he had never sold the status, Ya'akov would have obtained the blessing anyway...
27:37: VA YA'AN YITSCHAK VA YOMER LE ESAV HEN GEVIR SAMTIV LACH VE ET KOL ECHAV NATATI LO LA AVADIM VE DAGAN VE TIYROSH SEMACHTIV U LECHA EPHO MAH E'ESEH BENI
וַיַּעַן יִצְחָק וַיֹּאמֶר לְעֵשָׂו הֵן גְּבִיר שַׂמְתִּיו לָךְ וְאֶת כָּל אֶחָיו נָתַתִּי לוֹ לַעֲבָדִים וְדָגָן וְתִירֹשׁ סְמַכְתִּיו וּלְכָה אֵפוֹא מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה בְּנִי
KJ: And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?
BN: And Yitschak answered and said to Esav, "The fact is, I have made him your lord, and all his kinsmen I have given to him for servants; and with corn and wine I have sustained him. What then shall I do for you my son?"
And is there then such force in a mere blessing, especially as it was entirely unwitnessed? (Was it unwitnessed? We thought we saw servants in the room when Esav came in. And I'll bet mum was hiding behind the curtain to make sure itall went off smoothly.) It seems to have the power of a legally binding will. Ya'akov inherits all on the strength of the meal and the attached blessing; there is nothing left for Esav. Thus does a tribal sheikh hand over all his worldly goods. The notion that this was all some tribal ceremony, of which ultimogeniture is the key, seems reinforced. This is particularly so because of the repeated reference to "his brethren", of which Esav is the only one he has, in terms of immediate family; but if this is the inheritance of the sheikdom, then he does indeed have many brethren.
27:38: VA YOMER ESAV EL AVIV HA VERACHA ACHAT HI LECHA AVI BARACHENI GAM ANI AVI VA YISA ESAV KOLO VA YEVCH
וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אֶל אָבִיו הַבְרָכָה אַחַת הִוא לְךָ אָבִי בָּרֲכֵנִי גַם אָנִי אָבִי וַיִּשָּׂא עֵשָׂו קֹלוֹ וַיֵּבְךְּ
KJ: And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.
BN: And Esav said to his father, "Do you not even have one blessing, my father? Bless me, me too, please, dad.” And Esav lifted up his voice and wept.
And as to a forty year old man blubbering in this way. Whatever happened to his machismo? This is Esav the hunter, the hairy man, not some mommy's-boy of a Ya'akov.
27:39: VA YA'AN YITSCHAK AVIV VA YOMER ELAV HINEH MI SHEMANEY HA ARETS YIHEYEH MOSHAVECHA U MI TAL HA SHAMAYIM ME AL
וַיַּעַן יִצְחָק אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ יִהְיֶה מוֹשָׁבֶךָ וּמִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם מֵעָל
KJ: And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;
BN: And Yitschak his father answered and said to him, "Behold, of the fat places of the Earth shall your dwelling be, and of the dew of heaven from above...
But this is precisely the blessing that he just gave Ya'akov in verse 28, isn't it? Minus only the corn and the wine, and surely they were the least important part. What then is the difference? It can only be that one is given in the name of the sheikh to the now prince regent, while the other is merely a dad giving a blessing to his son. Or, we might say, that YHVH does not also bless the blessing, and that he gets nothing in the will, so the bequest is more a hope than a material reality, a "may you be blessed" rather than a "this is what I am giving you; count yourself as blessed". The key is the absence of the word BARUCH.
Again the verse indicates an ancient song. Its meaning is strange though, if this is really meant as a blessing - even though the words are identical, they change their meaning because we know of the circumstances that led to the blessing, and the consequences (Derrida in the Biblical age!). It sounds, now, very similar to the curse put upon Kayin: to go and wander in the Land of Nod, and make what fortune you can as someone who has no inheritance.
27:40: VE AL CHARBECHA TIHEYEH VE ET ACHICHA TA'AVOD VE HAYAH KA ASHER TARID U PHARAKTA ULO ME AL TSAVA'RECHA
וְעַל חַרְבְּךָ תִחְיֶה וְאֶת אָחִיךָ תַּעֲבֹד וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תָּרִיד וּפָרַקְתָּ עֻלּוֹ מֵעַל צַוָּארֶךָ
KJ: And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.
BN: "And by your sword shall you live, and you shall serve your brother; and it shall come to pass when you shall break loose, that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck."
The final humiliation, not just of Esav, but of the entire tribe of Yishma-El, who are now made subservient to the Beney Yisra-El for all time. How much of this was added by Ezra for political purposes at the time, as was done with the subjugation of Edom?
Like Kayin he will serve his brother. But what does it mean about shaking loose the yoke? Is this a foreshadowing of the way Esav will deal with his brother, when the latter comes back from Padan Aram - Esav has so far got over it, he can actually welcome his brother back. The Kayin story reflected a bull-cult. Now this does too, if only in this one phrase.
The revolts of the Edomite kings are told in 1 Kings 11:41 ff and 2 Kings 8:20 ff.
27:41: VA YISTOM ESAV ET YA'AKOV AL HA BERACHAH ASHER BERACHO AVIV VA YOMER ESAV BE LIBO YIKREVU YEMEY EVEL AVI VE AHARGAH ET YA'AKOV ACHI
וַיִּשְׂטֹם עֵשָׂו אֶת יַעֲקֹב עַל הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרֲכוֹ אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו בְּלִבּוֹ יִקְרְבוּ יְמֵי אֵבֶל אָבִי וְאַהַרְגָה אֶת יַעֲקֹב אָחִי
KJ: And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.
BN: And Esav acted hostilely towards Ya'akov because of the blessing with which his father blessed him. And Esav said in his heart, "Let the days of mourning for my father be at hand; and then I shall kill my brother Ya'akov."
27:42: VA YUGAD LE RIVKAH ET DIVREY ESAV BENAH HA GADOL VA TISHLACH, VA TIKRA LE YA'AKOV BENAH HA KATAN, VA TOMER ELAV, "HINEH ESAV ACHICHA MITNACHEM LECHA LEHARGECHA
וַיֻּגַּד לְרִבְקָה אֶת דִּבְרֵי עֵשָׂו בְּנָהּ הַגָּדֹל וַתִּשְׁלַח וַתִּקְרָא לְיַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ הַקָּטָן וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה עֵשָׂו אָחִיךָ מִתְנַחֵם לְךָ לְהָרְגֶךָ
KJ: And these words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah: and she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee.
BN: And the words of Esav her elder son were told to Rivkah; and she sent and called Ya'akov her younger son, and said to him, "Be aware, your brother Esav is taking comfort from plotting to murder you.
VA YUGAD: Who told her? The line is incongruous. Esau spoke "in his heart", so how could he have been overheard (maybe he was muttering out loud to himself?)? And did neither Rivkah nor Ya'akov anticipate this?
BENAH HA GADOL: Once again "GADOL" and not "BECHOR".
MITNACHEM (מתנחם) does of course mean "comfort himself", but it also links to MITNAKEM (מתנקם) which means "to take revenge" (Nakam, aka Dam Yisra-El Noter, was the name of the Jewish Resistance Movement in Poland). This doesn't work perfectly on paper, but remember these stories were originally recited, not recorded, so the word play is almost always aural-audial. And see the next verse for confirmation.
27:43: VE ATAH VENI SHEMA BE KOLI VE KUM BERACH LECHA EL LAVAN ACHI CHARANAH
וְעַתָּה בְנִי שְׁמַע בְּקֹלִי וְקוּם בְּרַח לְךָ אֶל לָבָן אָחִי חָרָנָה
KJ: Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother to Haran;
BN: "Now therefore my son, listen to me; get up, and flee to Lavan my brother, in Charan.
The puns abound. She tells him KUM (קום) - "arise", the root verb of MITNAKEM = "to take revenge". She tells him to flee - BERACH/ברח- again permuting those same three letters that have given us the BECHOR and the BERACHAH, the "first-born" or "chosen one" and the "blessing"; the Chet (ח) now replacing the Chaf (כ). The verb Kum is actually redundant in the sentence; its presence can only be explained by the wish to make the pun.
CHARANAH (חרנה): Padan Aram is the region, Charan the town.
27:44: VA YASHAVTA IMO YAMIM ACHADIM AD ASHER TASHUV CHAMAT ACHICHA
וְיָשַׁבְתָּ עִמּוֹ יָמִים אֲחָדִים עַד אֲשֶׁר תָּשׁוּב חֲמַת אָחִיךָ
KJ: And tarry with him a few days, until thy brother's fury turn away;
BN: "And stay with him for a few days, until your brother's fury has blown out...
A few days - he stayed 20 years! The sentence is rendered somewhat peculiar by the use of the Vav Consecutive; it feels as if the storyteller is interrupting to say that he did stay with him for a few days; but no, it is still Rivkah. Are there other instances in the Tanach where the Vav Con is used within speech? I can't recall any. The next verse also uses it, with VE SHALACHTI and LEKACHTIYCHA.
27:45: AD SHUV APH ACHIYCHA MIM'CHA VE SHACHACH ET ASHER ASIYTA LO VE SHALACHTI U LEKACHTIYCHA MI SHAM LAMAH ESHKAL GAM SHENEYHEM YOM ECHAD?"
עַד שׁוּב אַף אָחִיךָ מִמְּךָ וְשָׁכַח אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ וְשָׁלַחְתִּי וּלְקַחְתִּיךָ מִשָּׁם לָמָה אֶשְׁכַּל גַּם שְׁנֵיכֶם יוֹם אֶחָד
KJ: Until thy brother's anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which thou hast done to him: then I will send, and fetch thee from thence: why should I be deprived also of you both in one day?
BN: "Until your brother's anger turns away from you, and he forgets what you have done to him; then I will send, and fetch you from there; why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?"
Note the phrase SHUV APH ACHIYCHA (שוב אף-אחיך); again the bull connection, the snarling nostrils as a metaphor for anger. Used of the god primarily, but in his case soothable with the incense from the gravy of sacrifices - meat stews especially.
ET ASHER ASIYTAH LO: This is disingenuous, to put it mildly: "what you have done to him". How about "what we have done to him"? In verse 13 she was quite clear, having told him to do it as a "command": "And his mother said to him, "Upon me be your curse, my son; only hearken to my voice, and go fetch me them." But now, not liking the consequences, and despite having said that she will take the responsibility, she abrogates it entirely. A truly exemplary human story!
LAMAH ESHKAL: A misjudgement this by Rivkah? First of the consequences of her action, then of the time his anger would take to abate, lastly of the impact on Esav. She should have thought before she acted if she didn't want to lose Esav, let alone Ya'akov - from what we can read later, she will never see her beloved Ya'akov again. Which is to say that Ya'akov, on his return from Padan Aram, will go to Mamre-Chevron-Kiryat Arba (all three names are given) in Genesis 35:27, Yitschak now being a hundred and eight years old [need to check back on those numbers; I'm not sure they work; especially as Yitschak was blind, bed-ridden and dying twenty-five years earlier; and this would also make Ya'akov a hundred and twenty at the time of his return], and about to die, which he does in verse 29. We will hear of the death of Rivkah's nurse Devorah in chapter 33, but no mention of Rivkah herself on either of these occasions.
There is more to this than meets the eye. Or was she angry with Esav for taking foreign wives, and this is why? The next verses suggest this may be the case. But did he take foreign wives because he knew he had no birthright, and therefore exogamy didn't matter? It might also be interesting to ask, precisely because of this: was primogeniture more about inheritance than endogamy per se? Which is to say, that perhaps it didn't matter who the elder sons married, provided that the youngest married in, and thereby kept the land within the tribe. But no, that doesn't work in the case of Yitschak - if it were so, there would have been no need to send Eli-Ezer to Charan to bring back Rivkah.
We also need to reconsider our view of her view of her two sons; being bereaved of two in a day suggests there is more love for Esav than we had previously recognised.
27:46: VA TOMER RIVKAH EL YITSCHAK KATSTI VE CHAYAI MIPNEY BENOT CHET IM LOK'E'ACH YA'AKOV ISHAH MI BENOT CHET KA ELEH MI BENOT HA ARETS LAMAH LI CHAYIM
וַתֹּאמֶר רִבְקָה אֶל יִצְחָק קַצְתִּי בְחַיַּי מִפְּנֵי בְּנוֹת חֵת אִם לֹקֵחַ יַעֲקֹב אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה מִבְּנוֹת הָאָרֶץ לָמָּה לִּי חַיִּים
KJ: And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?
BN: And Rivkah said to Yitschak, "I am weary of my life because of the Benot Chet. if Ya'akov takes a wife from the Benot Chet, any of them, women of the land, what point will there be in my going on living?"
Is this simply a good pretext, or is she remembering, and reminding him, of their own marriage, and its careful endogamy? Since her religion was matrilocal, and his patrilocal, it would have upset her more than him to see Esav take foreign wives. Note they are Benot Chet and not Benot Kena'an; Sarah was worried about Benot Kena'an.
But this verse does reveal why she is so angry with Esav and supports Ya'akov. Esav has let her down badly by taking these two wives, and so now we can see why those two apparently stray verses were there at the beginning of this tale. They are, in fact, its pretext - literally. Esav has taken Hittite wives, so Rivkah feels she has lost Esav as a son already - this is what she actually means by losing two sons in a day in the previous verse. If Esav having married out also gets the inheritance and the blessing, because sons joined their wives' tribe all the Beney Yisra-El blood would be ended and the tribe run out. Esav is dead anyway, in that sense, so Ya'akov first inheriting and then marrying in becomes essential. Indeed, we can now ask if she had this in mind all along. She could have simply sent him like Eli-Ezer to Charan, but that would have left Esav with the inheritance. She needs to steal the inheritance first and then send Ya'akov to find a wife in the tribe. But it does also remind us, as all the Av-Raham and Yitschak stories have done until now, that the Beney Yisra-El are foreigners with no rights in Kena'an, their real home is in Padan Aram. It does rather undermine the Biblical claim, at this stage anyway, to the land.
End of chapter 27.
Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment