1) Yitzchak blessed Eisav (27:39)
הִנֵּה מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ יִהְיֶה מוֹשָׁבֶךָ וּמִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם מֵעָל.
Rashi comments and explains: משמני הארץ וגו׳ – זו איטליא
Why does Rashi comment here but when those same words appear earlier in the parsha (27:28):
וְיִתֶּן לְךָ הָאֱלֹקים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְרֹב דָּגָן וְתִירֹשׁ
Rashi is silent and offers no explanation?
Taz in Divrei David explains that there are two types of land which we would call blessed: 1) land which is inherently fertile, has a good climate, and abundant resources; 2) land which inherently has none of the above, but through Hashem's hashgacha pratis becomes such a place.
Eisav's bracha, unlike Yaakov's, starts with the word הִנֵּה. Yitzchak was telling Eisav, "Here it is before you -- a land that has everything you could want, מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ." Since he is referring to a specific place that is inherently good, Rashi fills in for us that it is Italy, perhaps alluding to the Roman empire, that he was referring to.
Yaakov's bracha starts off very differently: וְיִתֶּן לְךָ הָאֱלֹקים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם. Yaakov is not being given a land which has abundance, a specific place that Rashi can point to that meets this criteria of משמני הארץ. Instead, he is being given the bracha of receiving from Shamayim. It's that which transforms Eretz Yisrael into מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ.
In parshas Braishis the snake is cursed to always eat the dust of the ground. The famous question is what kind of curse is this when dust can be found everywhere guaranteeing the snake easy sustenance forever? The mefoshim answer that by having everything he needs, the snake loses the opportunity for forge a relationship with Hashem.
Both Eisav and Yaakov receive the blessing of מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ, but only Yaakov's bracha is the product of having a relationship with Hashem.
I have always suspected that the shin in Yaakov's mishnamei has a dageish, following as it does mital, where the mem is min and the tes has a dageish.So by Yaakov, the shoresh is Shamein. By Eisav, where it is not preceded by Mital, it is reasonable to assume that the mem does not mean "from", but rather the word is Mishman, as the Minchas Shai says, so there would not be a dagesh in the shin. The Radak suggests this distinction, and the Minchas Shai harshly disagrees. Anyway, this would be consistent with the Taz.
ReplyDeleteI mean because by Yaakov, it means "from the richness of the land," and by Eisav it is flat out "the rich land."
ReplyDelete