Ten Minutes of Torah

with

Rabbi Chaim Weiner

 

 

Toldot – 5767

 

 

בראשית כז:א

 

וַיְהִי כִּי זָקֵן יִצְחָק וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת וַיִּקְרָא אֶת עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ הַגָּדֹל וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בְּנִי וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּנִי:

 

Genesis 27: 1

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 65:1

 

His eyes were dim (lit. blinded from seeing).

 

From seeing evil – from seeing the evil of that wicked man. The Holy One said: When Isaac goes out to the market, everyone will say – here is the father of that wicked man [Esau]. I will cause him to go blind, and he will sit at home.

 

Another interpretation:

 

From seeing. From the power of the ‘sight’ [of the Akeida (the binding of Isaac)]. When Abraham bound his son on the Altar to slaughter him the ministering angels where crying. Some of their tears fell into Isaac’s eyes. When he grew older, [the tears] caused his eyes to go dim.

 

 

 

QUESTIONS

 

  1. Why does the Midrash (and Rashi who follows the Midrash] offer alternative explanations for why Isaac goes blind, rather than the simple interpretation - the cause of his blindness was old age.
  2. What is the meaning of ‘seeing’ in each these interpretations?
  3. Explain the idea conveyed by the second interpretation?

 

 

 


 

1. What difficulty in the verse are the commentators addressing?

 

The verse contains a series of actions that seem to be done by the same person. But the beginning of the verse obviously refers to Eliezer, for he is called ‘the man’ throughout the chapter. The end of the verse is obviously talking about Laban, for it is a host who offers refreshment to his guest, and not the other way around. So at what point does the verse stop talking about Eliezer and start talking about Laban?

 

2. Divide them into groups.

 

The part of the verse that is most ambiguous is ‘unloading the camels’.

 

According to Rashi and Shadal, Eliezer unloaded the camels. According to Ramban – Laban unloaded the camels.

 

3. What reasons do they give for their opinions?

 

Rashi interprets the word ‘vayifatach’, which we have translated as ‘unloaded’ as meaning ‘unmuzzled’. He says that Eliezer had muzzled his camels to prevent them from grazing in private fields, and was a sign of his righteousness.

 

Ramban says that Laban unloaded the camels. He says so because of the context –unloading the camels is one of many things that Laban did to honour his guest.

 

Shadal says that Eliezer unleaded the camels. He says so because it is improper to allow a stranger to handle one’s property.

 

4. [*] Why does Shadal mention the musical notes? How do they support his opinion?

 

The musical notes give us an indication of punctuation. The notes indicate a break between ‘unloading the camels’ and ‘giving the camels food’, which would indicate that this is the point where the verse stops talking about Eliezer and starts talking about Laban.

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Ten Minutes of Torah was prepared by Rabbi Chaim Weiner, based on the methods of Prof. Nechama Leibowitz. Rabbi Weiner studied and corresponded with Prof. Leibowitz for several years.

 

 

·         I endeavour to reply to everyone who sends their answers to me.

·         Please feel free to forward this study sheet to anyone who you think might be interested, including all headers and footers.

·         This study sheet, and archives of previous study sheets are available at www.tenminutesoftorah.supanet.com .

·         Please send any comments or questions (including technical questions, or problems you have accessing the material) to tenminutesoftorah@supanet.com.