the "minhag" of adding a bit of water to the cup before putting in the oil for your chanukah menorah

I don't buy those pre-filled cups with oil for my menorah.  I do things the old fashioned way and pour in the oil myself.  Unlike the pre-filled cups, which to the best of my recollection, are completely filled with oil, I always add a little water to the bottom of the cup.  

I never thought of this as a minhag; I thought it's just common sense because I don't want the fire to burn down and char and blacken the cup.  Lo and behold, take a look at this Baal haTurim and the notes in the Oz v'Hadar Mikraos Gedolos:

Baal haTurim writes that the three wells which Yitzchak dug correspond to 1) the Babylonian exile; 2) the complaints of Haman against the Jews who were trying to rebuild the Mikdash; 3) the Greeks, who tried to prevent us from fulfilling the mitzvah of p'ru u'revu by banning the use of mikveh.  

The Greeks failed, says Baal haTurim, because a miracle happened and a spring emerged in every person's home so that each person had a personal mikveh to use.  This is why, says the Imrei Emes, the text of the bracha is "she'asah nisim," in the plural, not nes, in the singular.  The bracha commemorates not only the nes of the oil on Chanukah, but also the nes of the mikveh (but we say the bracha on Purim as well?  You got me.)  

And this is why there is a minhag to add a little water to the bottom of the cup before you fill it with oil.  It's not just to prevent the cup from being blackened, but ir's an allusion to this miracle of the mikveh.

Rebbi and Antoninus as the answer to Rivka's worries

Rivka was troubled by the pains she experienced in pregnancy, וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי, to the point of regretting the whole thing, as Rashi comments, למה זה אנכי – מתאוה ומתפללת על ההריון. The gemara in Brachos (10) tells us that Chizkiyahu did not want to have children because he saw that Menashe would come from his offspring. Yeshayahu haNavi came to him with the message בַּהֲדֵי כַּבְשֵׁי דְרַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לָךְ? You have no business getting involved in Hashem's plans. It's not your job to make cheshbonos based on what you think the better or worse outcome might be. Your job is to do the mitzvah you were commanded to do and then leave the rest up to Hashem. Yet here we see that Rivka made also made a cheshbon, like Chizkiyahu, and thought maybe it would have been better to not have children.

The Brisker Rav explained that there is a difference between Rivka and Chizkiyahu. Chizkiyahu was metzuveh in peru u'revu, so he had no choice. Rivka, as a woman, was not obligated in peru u'revu. Therefore, she argued that b'shlama Yitzchak Avinu who is metzuveh, he has to do what he has to do, but למה זה אנכי, I have no mitzvah, so why should I have to have anything to do with it.

(You can maybe sharpen this vort of the Brisker Rav a little bit in light of the chiddush of Meshech Chochma in parshas Noach that the reason women are exempt from peru u'revu is gufa because they have tzaar leida. "Derache'ha darkei noam" and the Torah would not command that which inevitably and unavoidably engenders pain.  Since Rivka was in such pain, it only served to underscore the fact that she had no obligation.)

Riva consulted a navi and was told that the explanation of her strange and difficult pregnancy pains is that "shnei goyim b'bitneich."

How did that answer allay Rivka's worries? The simplest explanation is that Rivka assumed she was carrying a single baby, and was concerned with the unusual pains she was experiencing. The navi (they didn't have an ultrasound) revealed that she was having twins, and that's why the pregnancy was more difficult. As Rashbam writes, שני גוים – אל תיראי, כי צער העיבור שלך בשביל ששני תאומים יש בבטנך, שמרובה צער העיבור של שנים מעיבור אחד.

This approach is not very satisfying. Was there no one else in the area who had carried twins or a midwife who had delivered twins who could have advised Rivka that her pains were normal for such a pregnancy? And if the fact that she is carrying twins alone is the answer to her fears, why does the Torah continue and tell us that the two babies will become different nations, etc.? What does that have to do with what Rivka wanted to know? Rashbam addresses the point: ומתוך שהנביא התחיל לומר לה, גמר ופירש לה כל העתידות.

If the answer to Rivka given in the pesukim seems perplexing enough, Chazal go a step further and tell us that "shnei goyim b'bitneich" refers to Antoninus and Rebbe, as the gemara (A"Z 11a) quoted by Rashi relates:

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״גּוֹיִם״ אֶלָּא ״גֵּיִים״, זֶה אַנְטוֹנִינוּס וְרַבִּי, שֶׁלֹּא פָּסְקוּ מֵעַל שׁוּלְחָנָם לֹא חֲזֶרֶת וְלֹא קִישּׁוּת וְלֹא צְנוֹן, לֹא בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וְלֹא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים,

Chazal apparently understood that to answer Rivka's concerns it was not only not enough to tell her that she was carrying twins, not only not enough to tell her that each will become a great nation in its own right, but she had to be given an almost prophetic vision of generations later Rebbi and Antoninus sharing great success and chashivus, as demonstrated by the table they were able to set (see Gur Aryeh).

Clearly Chazal must have understood that Rivka was worried about more than pregnancy aches and pains.

We have what Chazal understand to be the answer to her questions and concerns. It's up to us to play Jeapordy and figure out the question Rivka was asking. I want to explore two possibilities, both of which revolve around the idea of cooperation:

First, the explanation of Chida, who writes that what bothered Rivka was the fact that even if she were carrying twins, it makes no sense that two such completely different children should come from the same womb. When she passed a beis avodah zarah, one baby got excited; when she passed a beis medrash, the other got excited. This is not the pattern of the Avos' family. Yishmael came from a different mother than Yitzchak. Should not Eisav come from a different mother than Yaakov?

Hashem answered Rivka's worry by showing her Antoninus, who served Rebbi with respect and admiration. Eisav and Yaakov are not like Yishmael and Yitzchak. There *can* be cooperation between the two, albeit not in their lifetimes, and perhaps not for generations later, but the fact that there can be this relationship is not coincidence. It's because "shnei goyim b'bitneich," it's because both Yaakov and Eisav come from the same root, the same womb, that there exists the potential for harmony between them. Maharal writes that Chazal single out Rebbi and Anotinus because they were contemporaries, and thus parallel Yaakov and Eisav who were twins. Rivka is being shown the potential that exists in Yaakov and Eisav, even though the reality is, as we know from history, that harmony was more an exception than the rule.

A second approach appears in the Be'er Mayim Chaim from the Chernobeler. In order to get inside his worldview and the framework for his thinking, let me preface how he handles a side question on this gemara raised by Tos. Tos asks: The gemara (Kes 104) tells us that on his deathbed Rebbi said that he did not get one drop of enjoyment from anything in olam ha'zeh. Doesn't this conflict with the portrayal of Rebbi here as sharing a lavish table with Antoninus?

Tosfos answers that the table was set lavishly for the guests and others, but Rebbi himself did not partake. In a similar vein, Maharal in Gur Aryeh suggests that setting the table with the hard to get radishes and lettuce was all for show, but not for consumption:

והשתא נראה מה שאמר רבי בשעת פטירתו שלא נהנה מן העולם הזה אפילו באצבע קטנה, זה אין דומה לזה, דצנון וחזרת אין זה הנאה כלל, אלא שהיה בוחר בזה להחשיב את עצמו, והוא דרך החשובים כאשר ראוי לפי חשיבות הנפש שלהם, אבל שיהיה נוטה אחר הנאתו ותאותו – לא נטה

Here's the Be'er Mayim Chaim's answer:

ובזה אפשר לתרץ קושיות התוספות שם בעבודה זרה (י"א.) שכתבו על הא דאמרינן שלא פסקה מעל שולחנם לא צנון וכו' וזה לשונם: ואף על גב שרבי לא נהנה מן העולם אפילו באצבע קטנה מכל מקום אוכלי שולחנו היו רבים עד כאן. ולדברינו בלא זה ניחא כי יוכל להיות שיאכל האדם כל מעדנים ומטעמים שבעולם ולא יהנה מהם כל עיקר מרוב הפחד והאימה ושבירת התאוה בימים רבים כאמור.

Rebbi did in fact take part in consuming the delicacies that were put out. However, that does not mean he had hanaah. Let me give you a mashal. If you have ever had the experience of having to attend a dinner event for some organization where you have to sit through hours of speeches while eating your food, you know very well what it means to attend a banquet but have no hanaah from any of it : )

For Rebbi, eating was part and parcel of his avodas Hashem. Every piece of food was an opportunity to sanctify gashmiyus. Every piece of food was consumed l'shem Shamayim. If that's what you have on your mind with every bite that you eat, then eating is avodah -- it's not hanaah.

The Be'er Mayim Chaim is so enveloped in this mindset that he cannot fathom why Tos did not give this answer, a point I'll come back to:

ואנכי לא זכיתי להבין דברי קדשם כי האם אפשר שרבי לא אכל כל ימיו והיה מתענה או לא בא אל אשתו מעודו והרי היה לו בנים ומוכרחים אנו לומר שבודאי עסק בכל דברי העולם כבני אדם רק שלא נהנה מהם. והדמיון לזה הוא כמו שאמר רבי אליעזר (נדרים כ':) ודומה עלי כמי שכפאו שד. הרי שלא היה רצונו בשום אופן לתאוה ולא היה חומד ומתאוה אליה כלל כי היה מאוס אצלו בתכלית המיאוס כי הנה תאות אשה לחמת מלא צואה דימוה חז"ל (שבת קנ"ב.).

With this background, coming back to Rivka's worries and pains, he writes:

Yaakov and Eisav were in constant conflict, even in the womb. If one gave an inch, the other pounced on it and grabbed it. Why was Yaakov, wondered Rivka, so intent on capturing what Eisav had? As Chasam Sofer asks, it would seem that Yaakov and Eisav should be able to split things evenly, with one taking olam ha'zeh and the other olam ha'ba, and shalom for all involved.

The chiddush revealed to Rivka s that to be a Yaakov Avinu does not mean giving up olam ha'zeh, but rather utilizing it as a tool l'shem shamayim. "Shnei goyim b'bitneich" -- both Yaakov and Eisav share the same womb, live in the same world of olam ha'zeh. The difference between them is what they want to achieve. You can and will have in the future two people sitting at the same table, Rebbi and Antoninus, each with the same food in front of them, each partaking of the same meal, yet they will be world's apart. One has no personal hanaah from the experience at all; one revels in his enjoyment of the meal. One sees the world through the lens of avodas Hashem; one sees it through the lens of serving himself.

The Chernobeler also see the lesson of Yaakov and Eisav both being בְּבִטְנֵךְ as one of cooperation, but not cooperation between Eisav and Yaakov, like the Chida suggests, but cooperation between Yaakov's own holy neshoma and his guf, which is bound to olam ha'zeh, the same world as Eisav.

The Chernobeler's answer requires accepting an entire framework and view of how to relate to gashmiyus which does not sit very well with the world of Lithuanian mussar. R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar notes that despite the Chernobeler's bewilderment at Tos, as he writes לא זכיתי להבין דברי קדשם, the fact still remains that Tos does not offer the Chernobeler's answer. This indicates, says R' Shteinman, that they do not buy into this world view. It is impossible to enjoy all the luscious treats of olam ha'zeh and remain immune from getting any pleasure or enjoyment from the experience. It's a nice theory, but it does not comport with reality.

Lulei d'mistafina to stick my head between these mountains, I would point to the gemara of מתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה as a proof to R' Shteinman. A person cannot claim as an out that true, they ate cheilev, but had no enjoyment from the experience and therefore is patur. The enjoyment is inevitable, as we cannot escape our human nature.

inspiration comes from inside, not outside

The gemara (San 91b) quotes a debate that took place between Rebbi and Antoninus as to when the yetzer ha'ra enters a child -- at conception or at the moment of birth:

ואמר ליה אנטונינוס לרבי מאימתי יצה"ר שולט באדם משעת יצירה או משעת יציאה א"ל משעת יצירה א"ל א"כ בועט במעי אמו ויוצא אלא משעת יציאה אמר רבי דבר זה למדני אנטונינוס ומקרא מסייעו שנאמר (בראשית ד, ז) לפתח חטאת רובץ

Rebbi conceded that it was at the moment of birth and not earlier.

We read in our parsha that Rivka was disturbed by the kicking she felt in her womb:

וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם⁠־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי

Rashi quotes from the Midrash:

עוברת על פתחי תורה שם ועבר ויעקב רץ ומפרכס לצאת, עוברת על פתח עבודה זרה ועשו מפרכס לצאת.

If the yetzer ha'ra only enters the child just before birth, why was Eisav kicking when he passed a place of avodah zarah in utero?  How could he already have had a desire to worship avodah zarah when he had no yetzer ha'ra yet?  

I saw this question raised by R' Moshe Yechezkel Tzalach, a sefardic acharon, in his sefer Torat Moshe.  He collects a number of different answers, but I would like to suggest an approach that is not on his extensive list.  

Rashi comments on the opening pasuk of our parsha,  וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת יִצְחָק בֶּן⁠ אַבְרָהָם אַבְרָהָם הוֹלִיד אֶת⁠ יִצְחָק, that the Torah stresses that Yitzchak was born to Avraham because there were scoffers who tried to deny it:

לפי שהיו ליצני הדור אומרים: מאבימלך נתעברה שרה, שהרי כמה שנים שהתה עם אברהם ולא נתעברה הימנו.⁠ מה עשה הקב״ה, צר קלסתר פניו דומה לאברהם, כדי שיאמרו הכל: אברהם הוליד את יצחק. וזהו שכתוב כאן: יצחק בן אברהם היה, שהרי עדות יש שאברהם הוליד את יצחק

It seems incredible that anyone would take these scoffers seriously.  We know that it was Sarah, not Avraham, who was infertile.  Avraham had fathered Yishmael through Hagar.  Secondly, the fact that Sarah could conceive in such old age was a miracle.  Does it make sense that G-d would make a such miracle for a rasha like Avimelech and not Avraham?

On the one hand, maybe there is no rhyme or reason sense to the claims of the scoffers.  People make all kinds of  outlandish claims (if you don't believe me just spend 5 minutes on social media or listen to a Democrat or member of the MSM.)  On the other hand, the Torah sees fit to respond to those claims,  G-d made a miracle and transformed Yitzchak's visage (see Sifsei Chachamim) in order to refute then.  Why bother to refute mishugas if it's just nonsense?

Although the claim that Avimelech physically fathered Yitzchak is too incredible to take seriously, what the Torah might be responding to is the claim that Avimelech was the *spiritual* father behind Yitzchak's birth.

When Yaakov returns from Lavan's home, he sends a message to his brother Eisav telling him  עִם־לָבָ֣ן גַּ֔רְתִּי.  Rashi comments: בָר אַחֵר גַּרְתִּי בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תרי"ג, כְּלוֹמַר, עִם לָבָן גַּרְתִּי וְתַרְיַ"ג מִצְוֹת שָׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.  If Yaakov kept all 613 mitzvos, does it not go without saying that he did not learn from Lavan's ways?

Sometimes it is hard to get up for davening, especially in the winter when it is still dark and cold and you need to head out early before work.  When I walk down my street on those early mornings, I pass a gym at the end of the block.  Without fail, even if it is 20 degrees, pitch back and only 6-something in the morning, every parking spot on the block is taken up by women who want to get to their gym class before they start the day.  I've said to my wife many times that these women are my inspiration.  If they can get up for the gym, then I can get to minyan.  

Of course Yaakov did not follow Lavan's evil ways, but he still might still have learned from him and been inspired by him.  Like those attending the gym class, Lavan was out of bed first thing in the morning.  He was motivated! He was just motivated for all the wrong things.  He used his zerizus, his intensity, his chochma, to pursue kinah, taavah, and kavod.  Yaakov might have said, "If he can do it, I can do it," and Lavan's behavior might have been his model for good.

Sounds like a good strategy, but remember the end of Rashi: וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.  The talmidei haBesh"T taught the following yesod: if tzadik is inspired by the deeds of a rasha, that provides a fig leaf, so to speak, for the rasha.  Even if the rasha never intended it, since the rasha become an example for good, they earn some degree of redemption.  Now, I'm not a tzadik, and the gym goers are not really reshaim, so I take a lesson from them, but Yaakov Avinu was a tzadik, and so he did not want to take a lesson from Lavan.  He did not want to give Lavan's wickedness any cover, any positive quality.  Therefore, he said  וְלֹא לָמַדְתִּי מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים.

Rashi on our parsha writes (25:20) about Rivka: בת בתואל מפדן ארם אחות לבן – להגיד שבחה: שהיתה בת רשע, ואחות רשע, ומקומה אנשי רשע, ולא למדה ממעשיהם.  Of course Rivka did not learn to do evil from Besuel, Lavan, and her surroundings.  The chiddush is that she did not take her inspiration from them for good either.  Her motivation came from inside, independently from what she saw as their bad example, and so in no way can they take credit for serving as a positive, motivating force.

What the scoffers were saying about Sarah is is that the years of chessed with Avraham were not enough to earn Sarah the right to conceive.  It was only once she was in Avimelech's home, when she had the negative example of his behavior to inspire her avodah, that she was finally able to merit having a child.  (For those who are not happy with seeing this from the Besh"T, see my son's post for a similar vort from the Beis haLevi and other answers as well.)  This is what the Torah comes to refute and tell us that it all came from Avraham.

Getting back to our original question about Eisav --  עוברת על פתח עבודה זרה ועשו מפרכס לצאת -- where does it say that Eisav wanted to get out to **worship** avodah zarah?  I don't want to give Eisav too much credit, but maybe at this point in his life, in utero, pre-the entrance of the yetzer ha'ra, that was not Eisav's intention at all. The difference between Yaakov and Eisav was where to draw inspiration from.  Yaakov wanted to run out to the beis medrash and derive his inspiration from there.  Eisav wanted to see what was going on in the beis avodah zarah because the zerizus for evil is sometimes even stronger than that for good, and can therefore serve as a better example for what we should be doing in a positive sense.

Rivka, who knew not to draw any inspiration from Besuel and Lavan's actions, thought this a very dangerous road to go down and was therefore troubled by Eisav's behavior.  Inspiration needs to come from inside, not from what we see out in the world.  

so long as the other guy doesn't win

The Yalkut Shimoni writes that the news of Avraham Avinu's passing led Eisav to kerifa:

אָמַר לוֹ עֵשָׂו מַה טִּיבוֹ שֶׁל תַּבְשִׁיל זֶה, אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁמֵּת אוֹתוֹ זָקֵן. אָמַר לוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ זָקֵן נָגְעָה מִדַּת הַדִּין, אָמַר אִם כֵּן לֹא יֵשׁ מַתַּן שָׂכָר, וְלֹא תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים

If ruchniyus had no meaning for Eisav, why then did he value so much the blessing of a tzadik, his father Yitzchak?  How can you have emunas chachamim in the power of a blessing but not believe in schar v'onesh?  

R' Eliezer Kahan, the menahel of Yeshivas Gateshead, asks this question in his sichos in the sefer Nachalas Eliezer.  I'm not sure that this question is really a question, as plenty of people who are not shomer mitzvos lined up for a dollar and a bracha from the L. Rebbe.  People who don't believe in G-d still believe in a Rebbe : )  

R' Kahan answered that Eisav's belief or lack of belief was not a product of deep philosophical thought, but was motivated by his desires and appetites.  When a person is motivated by desire, then his belief is malleable depending on the whims and desires of the moment.  Serving in the mikdash was not something Eisav cared about, so he happily discarded his beliefs and gave up the bechora for a pot of soup.  When it came time to get the brachos, the promise of reward led Eisav to put his trust in the brachos of his father in order to reap that bounty.

I think one can perhaps draw another distinction.  The butcher of Brisk once came to R' Chaim to pasken a shayla on his cow and R' Chaim declared the animal a treifa.  This was a considerable loss for the butcher, but he took the news with equinimity.  When R' Chaim on another occassion paskened against this same butcher in a dinei mamonos dispute with his neighbor, the butcher raged against the psak and hurled invectives against R' Chaim.  This was a much smaller loss than that of the cow, so why was the butcher so upset?  The answer is that it is not the loss which bothered him -- it's the fact that someone else won.   

When it came to the sale of the bechora, Eisav weighed the gain of a pot of soup against what he thought was the meaningless value of bechora, service in the Mikdash, and he did not feel cheated in any way by the deal.  In fact, he though he got the better end of the deal, as R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffman comments:

ויאכל... ויבז – במלים ברורות מראה הכתוב שלא ידע עשו להעריך נכס רוחני, ושכל שאיפתו לאכילה ולשתיה היתה מכוונת, כך שאפילו אחר שאכל לשבעו, לא התחרט על המכירה הזאת. אדרבה, חשב שעשה כאן ״עסק טוב״, כי אכן מעיד הכתוב – ״ויקם וילך״

It was, in Eisav's eyes, a fair transaction.

The same cannot be said about the loss of the brachos.  Here, Eisav did not see the link between the bechora and the brachos and thought that Yaakov took what was rightfully his.  Even if the brachos meant little to Eisav, it's the fact that Yaakov won, the fact that he was bested, which drove him mad. 

We see similar behavior from the Plishtim elsewhere in our parsha (26:18):  

וַיָּ֨שׇׁב יִצְחָ֜ק וַיַּחְפֹּ֣ר׀ אֶת⁠־בְּאֵרֹ֣ת הַמַּ֗יִם אֲשֶׁ֤ר חָֽפְרוּ֙ בִּימֵי֙ אַבְרָהָ֣ם אָבִ֔יו וַיְסַתְּמ֣וּם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים אַחֲרֵ֖י מ֣וֹת אַבְרָהָ֑ם

Stealing the water of wells is understandable, but why stuff up the wells?!  Water is a valuable commodity in the hot climate of Israel.

I recently heard a shiur by the new chief Rabbi Kalman Ber in which he suggested that what motivated the Plishtim was ensuring that the other guy loses.  It didn't matter that they had no water -- so long as the other guy didn't get any either.  This is their attitude ad ha'yom ha'zeh.  It's not enough for them to have a state -- they could have negotiated for that many times.  What bothers them is that we have one.  Therefore, they can never be satisfied and will never achieve their goal.  

the relationship makes the gift

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.

Torah as our shield

וַיִּשְׂטֹם עֵשָׂו אֶת יַעֲקֹב עַל הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרְכוֹ אָבִיו (27:41) The simple pshat in the pasuk is that Eisav hated Yaakov and wanted to kill him because of the bracha that Yaakov stole from him.  Abarbanel (see Chizkuni as well) has a different twist:

אחשוב שחוזר לעשו וירצה על הברכ׳ אשר ברך אביו לעשו כי מפני שיצחק ברכו ועל חרבך תחיה והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עלו מעל צוארך חשב עשו כי בחרבו ינקום ממנו ויפרוק עלו מעל צוארו ולכן בעבור הברכ׳ אמר ברכו אביו ממנה נתיעץ וחשב מחשבו׳ להרוג את יעקב 

Eisav hated Yaakov and wanted to kill him, says Abarbanel, because of the bracha על חרבך תחיה that Eisav received from his father. Eisav felt emboldened, and thought that at the right moment he would have his revenge.  

For now, Eisav held himself in check: 

 וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו בְּלִבּוֹ יִקְרְבוּ יְמֵי אֵבֶל אָבִי וְאַהַרְגָה אֶת יַעֲקֹב אָחִי

I do not understand R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul's question of why Yaakov had to flee if Eisav was not going to harm him at this moment.  How did Yaakov know what Eisav was thinking and know that there was no immediate danger?  (Though see Ibn Ezra יאמר עשו בלבו – יתכן שגלה סודו לאחד מאוהביו)

Why did Eisav hold back?  Did he delay to avoid causing pain to Yitzchak, or was it a calculated strategy?  The meforshim are divided.  Ramban writes that Eisav wanted to avoid doing anything to cause suffering for his father, and therefore he figured he would wait for Yitzchak's death before killing Yaakov.  It's an amazing thing -- even as he was plotting the crime of murder, Eisav was meticulous about kibuv av!  We also see that Eisav did not understand kibuv av in the sense of accepting his father as a role model of proper behavior.  Whatever Eisav could get away with outside his father's knowledge was fair game.

Targum Yonasan sees Eisav's delay as a calculated move:

ונטר עשו שנא בליביה על יעקב אחוי על סדר בירכתא דיברכיה אבוי ואמר עשו בליביה לית אנא עביד היכמא דעבד קין דקטל ית הבל בחיי אבוי והדר אבוי ואוליד ית שת ברם מתעכב אנא עד זמן דימטון יומי אבלא דמיתת אבא ובכן אנא קטיל ית יעקב אחי ואנא משתכח קטול וירית.

I don't understand why the theoretical possibility of Yitzchak having more children bothered Eisav given that his beef was specifically with Yaakov for having stolen the brachos.  

Netziv and Kli Yakar also see Eisav here as calculating, but instead of reading יְמֵי אֵבֶל אָבִי as referring to the death of Yaakov, they understand it as referring specifically to the time of aveilus.  Netziv writes Eisav figured that Yaakov would avoid him, but when Yitzchak would die, they would come together, as all families do to bury their father and mourn.  That would provide an opportunity for him to pounce.  

Kli Yakar suggests that Eisav knew that Yaakov's Torah protected him from harm.  (Interesting that although Eisav was a rasha, he recognized this reality.)  Therefore, he figured since an aveil is prohibited from learning Torah, the period of aveilus would be his moment to strike.

R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShacher questions the assumption of this Kli Yakar.  An aveil is in fact allowed to learn Torah.  He may learn hil aveilus, he can learn other sad things, similar to what we do on 9 Av.  Yaakov wouldn't have been just sitting and doing nothing during shiva.

Many answer by distinguishing between the mitzvah of limud haTorah, which even an aveil can engage in, and the segulah of Torah affording protection, which is a din not in learning per se, but rather is a product of ameilus and deep immersion in Torah.  An aveil can learn, but cannot learn with the same amkus and the same intensity as a regular person.  

Earlier in Lech Lech the Torah describes Avraham going out to war (14:13)

 וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן

Netziv there comments:

 בנדרים (לב,א) איכא מ״ד שהוריקן בתורה. והוא פלא, מה זו שעה לדברי תורה? אבל הענין הוא כמו שכתבתי לעיל (יב,יז) דזכות התורה היא חרב של ישראל, ובזו הזכות הגין ה׳ ולחם בשביל אברם, על כן כל שהמלחמה כבדה יש להעמיק יותר בהלכה ולשנן את החרב.

וכך עשה אברם הוריק את חניכיו בהלכה עמוקה עד שהיה קשה להם להבין והוריקו פניהם.

He goes on in the Harchev Davar to cite the gemara (Meg 3):

״וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק״ (יהושע ח,יג), וא״ר יוחנן, מלמד שלן בעומקה של הלכה

Not just any learning, but specifically learning in depth, learning with intensity and effort, is what bring us victory against those who would seek to harm us.

2) R' Yisrael Najara was the chief Rabbi of Gaza in the 1500's and was the composer of K-h Ribon.  If you don't already say it, maybe at this time it would be a good idea to make sure not to skip his zemer at your table.  

Yitzchak's favorite food

Yitzchak asked Eisav to prepare his favorite food for him (27:6),  וַעֲשֵׂה לִי מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתִּי וְהָבִיאָה לִּי וְאֹכֵלָה.  R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar asks a question only someone like R' Shteinman could ask: Why would a tzadik have such a thing as a favorite food?  You have to be a tzadik yourself to be bothered by questions like this.

Later in the perek we are told that Rivka prepared the food Yitzchak liked in order for Yaakov to bring it to his father (27:14),  וַתַּעַשׂ אִמּוֹ מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב אָבִיו  I don't understand why Yitzchak was fooled by this.  If I were blindfolded and served something my wife cooked alongside the same dish prepared by someone else, I am pretty sure I could tell the difference between the two.  After so many years of marriage, how could Yitzchak not be able to tell the difference between some wild game prepared by Eisav and the cooking done by Rivka his wife!?  Was his completely oblivious to the sense of taste?

I usually don't like practical questions like this, but I'll make an exception for myself in this case because I found a Sefas Emes (5631, and see last year's post as well :

ובחי' המטעמים הוא ג"כ לקרב עניני עוה"ז להש"י ומה שהוא יותר מרוחק יותר נייחא לעלות להש"י. [כי במקום הנסתר לא יש רק הטעם שבחי' טעמים הוא למעלה מהכל וממילא נמצא ג"כ במה שלמטה יותר והבן מאוד]. ולכך ביעקב שלמעלה מהטבע לא הי' לו זה רק ע"י שרימה את יצחק בהברכות ע"פ רוה"ק של רבקה הי' עלי' כמטעמים שצוה לעשו כנ"ל. [ וז"ש הקול כו' והידים כו' וזה עליות הגשמיות לבחי' הקול כנ"ל]:

What made Eisav's food into מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתִּי for his father is not the way he seasoned it or the way he cooked it.  Like R' Shteinman says, things like that could not have mattered to Yitzchak.  What made the food Yitzchak's favorite is the fact that Eisav went out into the field, went out into olam ha'zeh, and took something out for the sake of ruchniyus.  To be a "yosheiv ohalim," plugged into spirituality 24x7, and remain a frum Jew, is not such a big kuntz.  But to go out into the world, where you don't see the yad Hashem, and not just to remain pure, but to even elevate that world and bring something positive out of it, that's a big deal.  That's the avodah that Yitzchak thought Eisav was engaged in.  

That's why, says the Sefas Emes, in this case, Yaakov's food as prepared by Rivka had that same flavor.  However you explain the details of why and how, Yaakov here seems to deceive his father and use the tools of our world of sheker to advance his cause.  It was this flavor of elevating our world of sheker and hester, the same flavor that Eisav was supposed to deliver,  that Yitzchak detected and savored.  

 הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו.  Sometimes we need to use the tools of Eisav and not just be a "yosheiv ohalim."  We sometimes need to get our hands dirty and take care of things in olam ha'zeh and it maybe doesn't look so nice.  So long as those hands are an extension of קוֹל יַעֲקֹב and are guided by the voice of morality and justice, they are elevated to something holy.  

the "seudas mitzvah" that Eisav prepared

Last week I mentioned R' Sadya Gaon's chiddush that Yitzchak sent Eisav out to hunt game for him because אבל הבאת דבר מיגיעו ועמלו {של בנו} היתה לו לנחת רוח.  Yitzchak was not really a connoisseur.  You see that he could not tell the difference between fresh game meat and the goats that Rivka had Yaakov prepare.  What made the food that Eisav served special is the effort that Eisav put into getting it.  It's like when your kid brings home a work of "art" from school that you post on the wall or the fridge.  It's not the beauty of the picture that makes it special -- it's the effort of the child to make it which does.

On Shabbos I said over this RS"G and added that R' Tzadok haKohen in Pri Tzadik writes that what made Eisav's food special to Yitzchak is that it was infused with the mitzvah of kibud av v'eim, the one mitzvah that Eisav excelled in.  It was a seudas mitzvah -- the mitzvah of kibud av!  That's why, explains R' Tzadok, Rivka had to COMMAND Yaakov to listen to her and prepare the goats,  וְעַתָּ֥ה בְנִ֖י שְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹלִ֑י לַאֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י מְצַוָּ֥ה אֹתָֽךְ (27:8)  Had she not done so, Yitzchak would have immediately known that it was not Eisav because the taam of kibud av would be missing.  By ordering Yaakov to listen to her, Rivka created an opportunity for Yaakov to fulfill kibud eim and infuse the goats with that same taam.  

2) Rashi explains that Yitzchak warned Eisav to go out to the forest to hunt and not bring him stolen food.  וצודה לי – ולא מן הגזל.  If Yitchak thought Eisav was a good guy, why would he need to warn him not to steal?

Maharal in Gur Aryeh answers:

מן ההפקר. ואף על גב שהיה עשו בחזקת כשרות, היה צריך להזהירו שלא יצוד חיות ועופות בסמוך לעיר, כההיא דתנן מרחיקין מן העיר, דלאו ודאי גזל הוא, והיה יצחק סבור שמא יעלה על דעתו שכבוד אב ואם דוחה אסור דרבנן, דהיינו ספק גזל - דדבריהם, ולפיכך הזהירו שגם זה לא יעשה, אלא ירחיק מן העיר.

I am not sure how to explain this hava amina (for whatever a hava amina is worth) that a mitzvah d'oraysa might be doche a safeik issur gezel derabbanan.  The safeik gezel is a dinei mamanos issue, so sfeika derabbanan l'kula does not come into play (and were it that simple you would not need dechiya).  

how to deal with an Eisav

Rashi comments on the pasuk  וַֽיִּגְדְּלוּ֙ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וַיְהִ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ צַ֖יִד אִ֣ישׁ שָׂדֶ֑ה וְיַעֲקֹב֙ אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם יֹשֵׁ֖ב אֹהָלִֽים that it was not until Yaakov and Eisav became gedolim, after bar mitzvah, that they went their seperate ways, one to the beis medrash, the other to avodah zarah:

 כל זמן שהיו קטנים לא היו נכרים במעשיהם. הגדילו,ב זה פרש לבתי מדרשות וזה לעבודה זרה

Yet a few pesukim later we read that Yaakov was cooking red lentil soup, and Rashi there explains that this was a seudas havraah, as Avraham had just died at the age of 175, 5 years before his expected lifetime, so that he should die in peace and not witness his grandson Eisav go off the derech:

שאותו היום מת אברהם, שלא יראה את עשו יוצא לתרבות רעה, ואין זו שיבה טובה שהבטיחו המקום, לפיכך קיצר חמש שנים משנותיו. שיצחק חי ק״פ, וזה מת בן קע״ה, ובישל יעקב עדשים להברות האבל. 

Simple math: Yitzchak was born when Avraham was 100, and 60 when Yaakov and Eisav were born.  That would make Yitzchak 75 and Yaakov and Eisav 15 when Avraham died.  If Eisav already went out to do עבודה זרה when he became a gadol, at bar mitzvah, as the previous Rashi tells us, where is the  שיבה טובה that was promised?  It was already 2 years too late!

Answers the Maharal in Gur Aryeh:

נראה דלא קשה, דאף על גב שהיה פורש לעבודה זרה - לא עבדה ולא עשה מעשה, אלא פורש אחריה ללמוד דרכה, דלא קאמר ד׳עבד עבודה זרה׳, אלא ׳פירש לעבודה זרה׳, ואין זה עדיין תרבות רעה:

We already saw this same idea a few parshiyos ago.  Rashi comments on וַיִּסַּ֥ע ל֖וֹט מִקֶּ֑דֶם (13:11) that הסיע עצמו מקדמונו של עולם, Lot turned away from G-d.  I once quoted the Alter m'Kelm who points out that we see that Lot risked his life to fulfill the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim even in Sdom; according to Rashi he baked matzah and celebrated Pesach there.  Does this sound like someone who has run away from G-d and religion?!  Answers the Alter of Kelm that we see from the pesukim that Lot cared more about pasture for his flocks than in being around Avraham Avinu.  You eat the most kosher matzah, do mitzvos, dress the dress and walk the walk, but if your value system is off, that's הסיע עצמו מקדמונו של עולם.

Eisav did not become a practicing pagan at age 13.  He still walked the walk and talked the talk of a frum Jew.  Avraham could have  שיבה טובה because he did not see his grandson engaging in any wrong behavior.  However, Eisav's value system was off.  His interests were elsewhere, not Torah and mitzvos.  

(R' Chaim Shmuelevitz (quoted in the Mir Yeshiva parsha sheet) asks: Chazal tell us that it was only that very day of Avraham's death that Eisav went out to do aveiros,  א״ר יוחנן, חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע ביום ההוא.  What then was Yaakov's hava amina to ask his brother to sell the bechorah?  R' Chaim answers that Yaakov understood Eisav's character from the way he spoke.   הַלְעִיטֵ֤נִי נָא֙ מִן־הָאָדֹ֤ם הָאָדֹם֙ הַזֶּ֔ה Rashi explains  אפתח פי ושפוך הרבה לתוכה, shovel the food down my throat.  Someone who speaks like that, who is so controlled by his appetite, is someone who will easily walk away from the bechora.  According to the Maharal, the question doesn't get off the ground.  Eisav was already a  פורש from the beis medrash from earlier.  He may not have actively engaged in aveiros yet, but his heart and mind were no longer engaged.) 

The question is how do you deal with an Eisav?  How do you keep him from drifting away?

When Yitzchak decided it was time to give the brachos, he called Eisav in and he told him וְעַתָּה֙ שָׂא־נָ֣א כֵלֶ֔יךָ תֶּלְיְךָ֖ וְקַשְׁתֶּ֑ךָ וְצֵא֙ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה וְצ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד , to take his bow, his knife, his tools of the trade, and go out to the field to hunt some game and prepare a meal.  

Why did Yitzchak need to send Eisav on this mission?  Yitzchak had flocks of sheep; surely there was some lamb chops or mutton in the freezer that Eisav could have cooked up a meal with.  It would have been a lot easier than hunting fresh game in the wild!

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehuda Shochet, answered that the value a person places on something is in direct proportion to the effort put in to acquire it.  Chazal tell us (B"M 38a)  רוצה בקב שלו מתשעה קבין של חבירו.  Rashi explains: חביבה עליו על ידי שעמל בהן .  Yitzchak wanted Eisav to value the brachos; therefore, he forced him to work for them, to put in a huge effort.  

I wanted to share with you a different answer given by the Alshich.  According to the Alshich, Yitzchak knew that Eisav was a man of the field.  Yitzchak knew that Eisav hunted not just animals, but he preyed on people as well, and he had a wild streak in him.  

Rather than try to turn Eisav into another Yaakov, into something he was not and could not be, Yitzchak took a different approach:

 ע"כ התחכם ויאמר לו עשה זאת איפה. והפך נא כל מעשה רשעתך לטובה כי הכלים אשר תעשה בם לסטאותך בהם תעשה מצותי זאת. וזהו שא נא כליך תליך וקשתך ובמקום אשר תעשה הרעות הוא השדה הידוע לך כד"א ויבא עשו מן השדה כי היה יודע ציד איש שדה שם עשה המצוה הזאת, וזהו וצא השדה ומעשה הרעה הוא הצידה אשר תצוד נפשות עתה צודה לי ציד כלומר מה שהיא ציד ולא מה שאינו ציד. באופן שתהפך כל הכנות רשעתך לטובה

Yitzchak's command of  וְצֵא֙ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה וְצ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד echoes the pesukim from earlier in the parsha.  You're an  אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ צַ֖יִד?  Great, so go צ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד and fulfill the mitzvah of kibud av.  Instead of וַיָּבֹ֥א עֵשָׂ֛ו מִן־הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה וְה֥וּא עָיֵֽף from doing who knows what wrongdoing, צֵא֙ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה and accomplish something positive there.  Take the same kelim that you use for robbery and who knows what else and use them to make a delicious meal.  Use your talents for good.  

The pasuk doesn't say צד; it says  וְצ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד.  The point is not to command Eisav to hunt -- that's who Eisav is, it's not something he has to be told to do.  The point Yitzchak was making is WHAT to hunt.  צ֥וּדָה לִּ֖י צָֽיִד, as opposed to preying on people or doing other wrong.

Coming back to my wife's grandfather's point about Yitzchak surely not lacking for food at home, R' Saadya Gaon comments : וצודה לי ציד – לא היה צריך שיביא לו עשו, כי צאנו ובקרו רבים היו, אבל הבאת דבר מיגיעו ועמלו {של בנו} היתה לו לנחת רוח.  By deliberately sending Eisav out to hunt instead of taking a ready made meal at home Yitzchak was validating who Eisav was and showing appreciation for his talents and efforts.  

That's the secret to dealing with Eisav.  Why didn't it work?  Why in the end did Eisav remain a rasha?  I don't have an answer.  But I don't think it means the approach is wrong or doomed to failure.  Not everyone can be an אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם יֹשֵׁ֖ב אֹהָלִֽים.  It's not one size fits all.  Everyone has their talents and abilities that can be channeled for good, valued, and appreciated.

seudas havraah; halacha k'divei ha'meikil b'aveilus vs safeik derabbanan l'kula

Rashi tells us, echoing the Midrash, that the lentil soup that Yaakov prepared was ובישל יעקב עדשים להברות האבל.  Chasal Sofer and others ask: the din is that seudas havraah must come from someone else; the aveil cannot use his own food.  אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אבל יום ראשון אסור לאכול לחם משלו (Moed Katan 27b).  Yaakov was a poor kollelnik who was someich al shulchan aviv -- he lived with his parents and did not have his own job or means of support.  How then was he able to make a seudas havraah for his father?  The meal he prepared was Yitzchak's own food!

Aruch haShulchan (Y.D. 378) writes that the chiyuv seudas havraah applies specifically to eating bread:

ונראה דהעיקר הוא הלחם, כלשון הכתוב. וכן לשון הגמרא שם: אסור לאכול לחם משלו, עיין שם. אבל תבשילין יכול לאכול משלו. וכן המנהג שמביאין להאבל לחם וביצים בלבד.

If so, it could be that Yaakov did serve Yitzchak's own food, and the real kiyum of seudas havraah was in eating bread from someone else.  (I would say it's still ktzas kashe to explain the words להברות האבל in Rashi.)

If this Ah"S is correct, it means aveilim have to be careful to make sure to wash before shekiya of that first day of aveilus to fulfill eating the seudas havraah (assuming the chiyuv is on them to eat, as opposed to the chiyuv being on others to offer them food.)  

I saw R' Shternbruch (Shu'T Teshuvos v'Hanhagos III:380) quoted as holding that even though the S"A paskens like most Rishonim that the chiyuv seudas havraah applies only to the first meal eaten, one should, if possible, be machmir like the minority view that holds all meals eaten in the first day (note the gemara's language: אבל יום ראשון) should come from someone else.  

He says a bit of lomdus and distinguishes between the din of safeik derabbanan l'kula and halacha k'divrei ha'meikil b'aveilus.  Sfeika derabbanan l'kula is an allowance to follow the more lenient view, but the issue remains unresolved; therefore, a person certainly deserves and gets credit for going the extra mile to be machmir.  Hilchisa k'divrei ha'meikil b'aveilus is because we do not want a person to engage in excessive mourning where there is no need to do so.  In these cases, you don't get extra credit for taking on more grief.

Halacha k'divrei ha'meikeil b'aveilus, R' Shternbruch argues, only applies to the nihugei aveilus like not washing, not wearing leather shoes, etc.  The din of seudas havraah is not a din in aveilus, but is done either 1) because we are afraid the aveil would be so consumed by grief that he would forget to eat, or 2) as an expression of nechama.  The reason we follow the lenient view and only require one meal is because of the din of safeik derabbanan l'kula.  Therefore, there is certainly something to be gained in this case by covering all bases.

self determination

Two quick thoughts:

1) The Ritva in his commentary on the Haggadah (on the section where we quote the pasuk ...v'eitein l'Yitzchak es Yaakov v'es Eisav) writes that Yaakov and Eisav had the same genes, they came from the same womb, they were raised in the same house, yet they turned out so differently.

We learn from here that it's not genes, it's not your birthday or mazal, it's not where or when you came from that matters.  Each person has the power to determine for him/herself what kind of person he/she will be.

2) וַיַּ֛עַן יִצְחָ֥ק אָבִ֖יו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו הִנֵּ֞ה מִשְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה מֽוֹשָׁבֶ֔ךָ וּמִטַּ֥ל הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם מֵעָֽל

Rashi comments that the words  מִשְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ refer to איטליא.  Why Italy and not some other place, I can't tell you, but the question I think we can address is why Rashi needed to name a specific place at all.  Just a few pesukim earlier, in the bracha given to Yaakov,  וְיִֽתֶּן־לְךָ֙ הָאֱלֹקים מִטַּל֙ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ וְרֹ֥ב דָּגָ֖ן וְתִירֹֽשׁ, we have the same words of שְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ and there Rashi offers no comment at all; he doesn't think he has to name some specific location.  If מִשְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ cries out for identification or explanation, why here and not there?

Secondly, if Yitzchak already gave מִשְׁמַנֵּ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ to Yaakov, how could he now give the same to Eisav?

The Taz in Divrei David writes that there are two types of lands that can be described as מִשְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙.  There is land which is inherently fertile, filled with natural resources, easy to cultivate and develop.  Eretz Yisrael is not like that.  That doesn't mean Eretz Yisrael cannot be all of the above, but when it comes to Eretz Yisrael, it's not natural -- it's only because of yad Hashem.  

By way of analogy, when Avraham approached Mitzrayim, he said to Sarah that until that day he did not know that she was beautiful.  How can that be?  My son recently posted the hesber of the GR"A.  There is beauty which is natural, yofi, and then there is beauty that comes because Hashem gives a person a bracha of chein.  Avraham knew Sarah was beautiful, but he thought that was chein, because of a special bracha.  Now that they drew close to Mitzrayim and that special bracha of chein beauty would have been a takalah, he realized that it was not because of the bracha that she looked beautiful, but rather this was her natural, innate appearance.

When Yitzchak blessed Eisav, he gave him just a piece of land.  The word הִנֵּ֞ה that Yitzchak used in presenting the bracha  הִנֵּ֞ה מִשְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה מֽוֹשָׁבֶ֔ךָ means here it is, the land just as it was created, with whatever maalos it has in it, no more and no less.  When he blessed Yaakov, it was וְיִֽתֶּן־לְךָ֙ הָאֱלֹקים.  It's  מִשְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ not because that's the teva of the specific place, but rather it's because hashgachas Hashem makes it so.  

Don't think for a minute that Eisav was happy, even though he received a land that was rich and fertile.  Kuzari writes (2:14)

ועל הארץ ההיא נפלה הקנאה בין יעקב ובין עשו בדבר הבכורה והברכה ולסוף נדחה עשו על אף גבורתו מפני יעקב עם כל חלשתו

The dispute between Yaakov and Eisav, which continues to this very day, was over Eretz Yisrael.  No mere piece of real estate מִשְׁמַנֵּ֤י הָאָ֙רֶץ֙, no matter how fertile, no matter how rich in resources, can substitute for a land that affords a relationship with Hashem.

Avraham's early demise

Rashi (25:30) writes that Avraham died 5 years before his expected time so that he should not witness Eisav going off the derech:

שאותו היום מת אברהם, שלא יראה את עשו יוצא לתרבות רעה, ואין זו שיבה טובה שהבטיחו המקום, לפיכך קיצר חמש שנים משנותיו.

I guess quality of life trumps quantity of life.

The Maharasha in Mes Shabbos (130) gives a different explanation why Avraham's life was shortened.  

The Mishna there records R' Eliezer's view that machshirei milah are doche shabbos, e.g. one can sharpen the milah knife on shabbos, even though it could have been done in advance.  We don't pasken like R' Eliezer, but the gemara says that there were places that held of his shita:

 א"ר יצחק עיר אחת היתה בא"י שהיו עושין כר"א והיו מתים בזמנן

There was one town that followed his view and as a reward, no one in that town died early.

Maharasha explains that since in that town they were so careful about doing the milah on time that they would even do machshirei milah on shabbos if needed, therefore Hashem rewarded them by seeing that they live out the full amount of time allotted to them.

Adds the Maharsha, Yitzchak was the first one to receive a milah in its proper time on day eight, and therefore he lived out a full life.  Avraham only was nimol late in life, and we see that his life was cut short.

(It's an interesting chidush because Avraham was not given the mitzvah of milah until late in life.  It's not like he delayed doing what he had been commanded, so why should he lose out?  It must be that it is a metziyus that having the milah in the proper time, b'zmano on day 8, grants one an extended life in a way that not having it then, whether by choice or not, does not.) 

the double blessing

  וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הַקֹּל֙ ק֣וֹל יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְהַיָּדַ֖יִם יְדֵ֥י עֵשָֽׂו

If the kol was kol Yaakov but the yadyim indicated that it was Eisav, then Yitzchak should have been perplexed.  Was it Yaakov or was it Eisav?  Why then did he proceed to give the brachos without first figuring out what was going on?

The Beis haLevi has a famous clever answer to this, but I wanted to share with you the approach of R' Reuvain Katz, the Degel Reuvain, in his sefer on chumash.  

He writes that in reality, the bracha of Yitzchak was two blessings in one.  Firstly, a bracha of success in olam ha'zeh:

 וְיִֽתֶּן־לְךָ֙ הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים מִטַּל֙ הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ וְרֹ֥ב דָּגָ֖ן וְתִירֹֽשׁ

And secondly, a bracha of ruchniyus

 הֱוֵ֤ה גְבִיר֙ לְאַחֶ֔יךָ וְיִשְׁתַּחֲו֥וּ לְךָ֖ בְּנֵ֣י אִמֶּ֑ךָ אֹרְרֶ֣יךָ אָר֔וּר וּֽמְבָרְכֶ֖יךָ בָּרֽוּךְ

Which in effect was the bracha of Avraham Avinu from back in Lech Lecha. 

Yitzchak may not have known the full extent of Eisav's wickedness, but even so, he never intended this second bracha of ruchniyus to be his.  He knew that Rivka had been told that  וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר, and therefore he could never have promised Eisav  הֱוֵ֤ה גְבִיר֙ לְאַחֶ֔יךָ ,contrary to the dvar Hashem.  What he intended was that Eisav should receive that first bracha, the bracha of success in olam ha'zeh, and Eisav would use that to help Yaakov, who would receive the second bracha and remain the yosheiv ohalim.  This would be the perfect Yisachar/Zevulun partnership.    

When Yitzchak heard Yaakov's voice but then felt the hairy skin of Eisav, הַקֹּל֙ ק֣וֹל יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְהַיָּדַ֖יִם יְדֵ֥י עֵשָֽׂו, he thought both brothers had come in together to serve him.  This was perfect -- now he could bless both brothers at once, each with the bracha appropriate for his needs.  

When Yitzchak realized that someone other than Eisav had taken the first bracha, he exclaimed

וַיֶּחֱרַ֨ד יִצְחָ֣ק חֲרָדָה֮ גְּדֹלָ֣ה עַד־מְאֹד֒ וַיֹּ֡אמֶר מִֽי־אֵפ֡וֹא ה֣וּא הַצָּֽד־צַ֩יִד֩ וַיָּ֨בֵא לִ֜י וָאֹכַ֥ל מִכֹּ֛ל בְּטֶ֥רֶם תָּב֖וֹא וָאֲבָרְכֵ֑הוּ גַּם־בָּר֖וּךְ יִהְיֶֽה׃

The Midrash comments on the words גַּם־בָּר֖וּךְ יִהְיֶֽה that we see that Yitzchak gave his stamp of approval to Yaakov's blessing irrespective of any trickery.  So how do you explain the first part of the pasuk?  R' Katz explains that the Midrash is speaking about the second bracha which was meant all along for Yaakov; on that, גַּם־בָּר֖וּךְ יִהְיֶֽה.  The first part of the pasuk is talking about the first bracha that had been meant for Eisav, and that bracha Yitzchak was worried had gone to the wrong person.

Look at how the possessive repeats itself in these pesukim:

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בָּ֥א אָחִ֖יךָ בְּמִרְמָ֑ה וַיִּקַּ֖ח בִּרְכָתֶֽךָ -- Yaakov took YOUR bracha 

 וַיֹּ֡אמֶר הֲכִי֩ קָרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַֽיַּעְקְבֵ֙נִי֙ זֶ֣ה פַעֲמַ֔יִם אֶת־בְּכֹרָתִ֣י לָקָ֔ח וְהִנֵּ֥ה עַתָּ֖ה לָקַ֣ח בִּרְכָתִ֑י -- he took MY bracha

Eisav is so upset not because Yaakov got a blessing -- why should he not? -- but because Yaakov got the blessing that was supposed to go to him.  What business does Yaakov, the yosehiv ohalim, have with a bracha for material success?  

This is why Yitzchak responded to Eisav's plea to give him a bracha as well that הֵ֣ן גְּבִ֞יר שַׂמְתִּ֥יו לָךְ֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־אֶחָ֗יו נָתַ֤תִּי לוֹ֙ לַעֲבָדִ֔ים וְדָגָ֥ן וְתִירֹ֖שׁ סְמַכְתִּ֑יו וּלְכָ֣ה אֵפ֔וֹא מָ֥ה אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֖ה בְּנִֽי.  Yitzchak was saying that he already gave Yaakov the blessing of olam ha'zeh as well, the bracha that had been meant for Eisav.  He could not give Eisav a bracha of ruchniyus, so what else was left to give?

two elements of limud Torah

Chazal tell us that Yaakov spent 14 years learning in yeshivas Shem v'Eiver before going to Lavan's house.  Rashi also writes that after the akeidah Avraham sent Yitzchak to learn in yeshiva.  The Midrash gives a mashal: it is like a women who worked spinning thread and became rich doing do -- even though she was so wealthy that she didn't need to work anymore, she still did not abandon her spinning and continued to work.  So too, Avraham said that all he achieved came through Torah, and therefore he wanted his descendants to immerse themselves in Torah.

Meshech Chochma explains that there are two aspects to learning Torah: 1) Torah protects from the yetzer ha'ra; it curbs one's desires and helps develop proper midos and behavior; 2) Torah brings to dveikus with Hashem.  A person like Yitzchak who is willing to put their neck on the line for an akeidah has no yetzer ha'ra to speak of.  What do they need Torah for?  What does the rich person need to continue spinning thread for?  The Midrash teaches us that it doesn't work that way.  The threadmaker does not abandon her work even after she has grown rich and doesn't need the money. Avraham sent Yitzchak to learn because even without a yetzer ha'ra a person needs Torah. 

The gemara has a machlokes whether  "mitzvos b'teilos l'asid la'vo" or not.  The machlokes may hinge on these two elements.  If the purpose of mitzvos was simply to correct our character flaws, then l'asid lavo when there will be no yetzer ha'ra, we shouldn't need Torah and mitzvos. The other side of the argument is that even l'asid la'vao -- or I should say, certainly l'asid lavo -- we will still need to grow in closeness to Hashem.  Torah u'mitzvos is the means to that end.

Chazal tell us that an aku"m who is oseik on Torah is like the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur.  The M"C explains that Y"K is a day of kaparah.  For an aku"m, learning Torah is about fixing sin and correcting the negative.  It's all about that first element, the sur mei'ra.  For Klal Yisrael, it's about more than that.  

This may be the lesson Chazal are trying to teach us with respect to Yitzchak, but what about Yaakov?  His whole life was being yosheiv ohalim -- why do Chazal make a point of telling us that he stopped off in Yeshivas Shem v'Eiver for another 14 years of learning?

R' Baruch Sorotzkin explains that there are events in life that shake a person to their core and make them realize just how valuable every moment is.  Yitzchak was spared from the akeidah -- a near death experience.  In our parsha, Yaakov was on the run, and according to the Midrash Elifaz was going to kill him but spared his life.  In both cases, the response was the same -- head to the yeshiva.  No matter how much Torah and mitzvos was done before, it's not the same as what a person feels inspired to do after a life shattering event.  

We see the inverse of this idea in the haftarah of Vayeira.  The Isha haShunamis miraculously had a child in her old age thanks to the bracha of Elisha. The child grows up, he goes out to the field to work with his father, and he passes out and dies.  The woman runs to the navi and complains.  She says, "I never asked for a child, but you promised and I had one, only to now have him snatched away -- why play games and trick me?"  The haftarah then continues with the story of the child being revived.

What's the answer to the Isha haShunamis' complaint?  Why was this child taken from her?  

The Isha haShunamis dreamed of having a child her whole life until she was so old that she never thought it would happen, Then, lo and behold, a miracle happens.  How do she and her husband respond?  By sending that child out to work the field with his father as soon as he is able.  For this you waited your whole life, for this you got an open miracle -- to have another farm hand?!  If that's how you respond, then maybe you don't deserve that child after all.  When something extraordinary happens, it should force a person's eyes open and bring about a different perspective.

the charade of deliberation

 וַיֹּ֣אכַל וַיֵּ֔שְׁתְּ וַיָּ֖קׇם וַיֵּלַ֑ךְ וַיִּ֥בֶז עֵשָׂ֖ו אֶת־הַבְּכֹרָֽה

Rashi comments: העיד הכתוב על רשעו, שבזה עבודתו של מקום  The Torah here testifies for us that Eisav despised avodas Hashem.

We just read that Eisav sold the bechora for a pot of soup.  The act speaks for itself-- why do we need additional testimony to confirm for what should be obvious to any bar bei rav!?  (see Sifsei Chachamim)  

Furthermore, why is it only after Eisav eats and drinks and marches off that the Torah now comes and testifies that he despised avodah -- don't we know that from the sale itself? 

In kids books on the parsha Yaakov is depicted as the super-righteous little tzadik while Eisav looks like the bummy kid who hangs out on a street corner.  Were that the case, then Yitzchak would have never made the mistake of wanting to give a bracha to Eisav.  Chassidishe seforim say that to our eyes Eisav would look like a rebbe who is ready to say torah at shalosh seudos.  Eisav had tremendous kochos, and when we dedicated himself to using them for mitzvos, like the mitzvah of kibud av, his deeds were unparalleled. 

Eisav understood that the bechora is a tremendous gift in ruchniyus, which is why Yaakov bugged him on more than one occassion to sell it. But Eisav also understood, as Yaakov told him again and again, that this gift carried with it a tremendous responsibility and was filled with tremendous danger.  A mistake in avodah can prove fatal.  So the question Eisav asked himself day in and day out, as Yaakov never ceased reminding him that his offer was on the table, was whether it was worth it -- i.e. in the grand scheme of things, was the risk worth the reward?  And finally, one day after he came in from a long day out in the field, faced with overwhelming hunger and a fresh pot of soup on the stove, Eisav made his decision.

R' Baruch Sorotzkin explains that had we not had the final pasuk in the story, we would not have necessarily faulted Eisav.  He made a cheshbon -- he weighed the risks vs the reward -- and although we may say his cheshbon was wrong and he miscalculated, and we may think he underestimated the incalculable value of bechorah and avodah, we can at least hear the sevara going through his head and understand where he was coming from.

What tells us otherwise is Eisav's reaction after the fact.  When a person faces a life changing decision, something that he agonizes over and thinks deeply about, even after he comes to a maskana, he doesn't get up and do a dance afterwards.  Hard decisions weigh on a person even after they are made.  וַיֹּ֣אכַל וַיֵּ֔שְׁתְּ וַיָּ֖קׇם וַיֵּלַ֑ךְ -- if after the fact you just quaff down a meal and march off without a second thought, then you may tell yourself that there was a cheshbon, you may create all kinds of rationalizations to justify the decision, but those just are just a cover story for what really is in the heart.  וַיִּ֥בֶז עֵשָׂ֖ו אֶת־הַבְּכֹרָֽה -- that was the real motivation, and all the rest was window dressing.

That's how it is with so many calculations that we make on the individual level and on a communal level.  We pretend to weigh this factor against that factor, we pretend there are all kinds of important cheshbonos going on, but at the end of the day, in our subconscious at least, we already know the answer we are going to get -- the answer we want to get -- before going through the whole charade of deliberation.  It takes tremendous amount self awareness to see through that.

continuity

Akeidas Yitzchak is introduced with the words "Hashem nisa es Avraham," calling it a test for Avraham, even though it was Yitzchak's neck that was on the line.  R' Shaul Yisraeli explains that you can't produce a son who will willingly go to an akeidah unless your own emunah is 110%.  The test of Avraham's commitment and mesirus nefesh was whether that same commitment and mesirus nefesh would pass down to Yitzchak.   

"Avraham holid es Yitzchak"  is not about who Yitzchak's biological father was.  We know that from earlier in the same pasuk where it tells us "eileh toldos Yitzchak BEN AVRAHAM."  Tzror haMor writes:

אמר אברהם הוליד את יצחק. ולא אמר יעקב ועשו. להורות כי תולדותיו לא היו אלא היות בן אברהם צדיק כאביו והולך בדרכי ה׳. בענין שהיה ניכר במעשיו שהיה בן אברהם וכל הרואה אותו אומר בודאי אברהם הוליד את יצחק. כי הוא דומה לאביו במעשיו. ולזה רמזו ז״ל באמרם אברהם הוליד את יצחק שהיה זיו איקונין שלו דומה לאביו. בענין שכל העולם יאמרו אברהם הוליד את יצחק. וכ״ז להורות על מעשיו שהיו מתוקנים כמו שהיו דרכי אביו. וכמו שהיה דומה במעשיו כך היה דומה בצורתו. ולזה צר איקונין שלו דומה לו.

You want to understand who Yitzchak was?  Look at who his father was.  It was the greatness and values of Avraham that were passed on that made Yitzchak into who he was.  

Yitzchak on his part had to be receptive to those values and he had to stick to them.  Later in the parsha we read about the wells of Avraham that the Plishtim filled with dirt.  Yitzchak cleaned them out and called them again by the names his father had given them.  Rashbam explains that naming the wells with the same names as his father had given served to reinforce Yitzchak's claim to the property, as if to say these are not new sources of water to be fought over, but these are on property that the family already had a stake in.  Very practical and utilitarian.  R' Bachyei, however, suggests that there is a deeper lesson here.  This episode shows us that Yitzchak followed closely in his father's footsteps even in matters so trivial as what to name a well, kal v'chomer when it came to important matters -- to mesores ha'avos.  Yitzchak was faithful to the example of his father and did not deviate from what had been done before.  

(R' Mordechai Eliyahu writes that if this is true when it comes to naming wells, it is surely true when it comes to naming children,  He doesn't go as far as R' Chaim Kaniekski, who holds that a name not mentioned in Tanach or Chazal as not a name, but he does advocate for keeping to using traditional names that are part of our mesorah.)

On a completely different note, I just want to note the historic visit of Secretary of State Pompeo to the Psagot winery and his declaration that products produced in Yehudah and Shomron can be labelled Made in Israel, contrary to UE policy.  This, together with the statement that BDS is antisemitic, should be applauded.  Our community owes a tremendous debt of hakaras ha'tov to the current administration.  

the smell of gan eden

When Yitzchak smelled the clothes of Yaakov, now dressed as Eisav, he called out , “R’ei reiach bni k’reich sadeh asher beiracho Hashem.” The simple pshat I think is, like Ibn Ezra writes, that Eisav’s clothes had absorbed the smell of the outdoors -– not outdoors like the smog of NY City, but outdoors like the fragrant smell of country fields.  But that’s not how Rashi explains the pasuk.  Rashi writes that there is no more repulsive odor than that of the hairy hides that Eisav wore.  The sweet fragrance that Yitzchak smelled was not Eisav’s clothes, but rather was the odor of gan Eden that entered with Yaakov.

Sefas Emes (5647) asks: but the pasuk says that it was Eisav’s smelly clothes -– “bigadav” --  which Yitzchak sniffed, not some holy smell of gan eden.  How can Rashi ignore what the text says and substitute something else in its place? 

The Sefas Emes suggests an approach that puts together two ideas we've learned in the past.  Lets start with a gemara in Shabbos 152 that we spoke about a few years ago:

The rabbis taught: "Return the soul to the Lord as clean as He gave it to thee." This is illustrated by a parable of a king who once gave to his attendants suits of clothes. The wise among them took care of them, kept them clean and folded, and used them on special occasions only. The fools put them on and performed their work in them. Naturally, the clothes became dirty. All at once, the king demanded the clothes back again. The wise men returned them clean and whole, but the fools returned them in a dirty and dilapidated condition. The king was well pleased with the wise men, and told them to depart in peace, and had their clothes stored; but the clothes of the fools he ordered to be sent to the washers, and the fools were sent to prison.

Chazal are not interested in when or how we do laundry.  What Chazal are speaking of is how we treat our neshoma.  Sefas Emes quotes from the Zohar that when a person learns Torah his neshoma is dressed in the garb of the ruach of gan eden; when a person does mitzvos he dresses his neshoma in the levush of the nefesh of gan eden; when a person has holy thoughts and aspirations, he merits a suit of the neshoma of gan eden.  A person can also dress the neshoma in the shmutz of olam ha’zeh and make it filthy.   What kind of levush will the neshoma have on it when it comes time for it to return it its maker?

We learn from  “v’kibadito…” that one’s dress on Shabbos has to be different than the way one dresses during the week.  (In certain locales that seems to mean that you wear a suit and tie to work during the week in order to look professional, but come to shul Shabbos morning in Dockers and a casual shirt because it’s the weekend. I don't think that's what Chazal meant...)  Chazal here too are speaking about the neshoma: if you want to absorb the me’ein olam ha’ba of Shabbos then the neshoma needs the appropriate levush. 

In contrast, Rav Ben Tzion Mutzafi writes in his derashos that it was only because Yaakov put on the garments of his brother Eisav that he  was able to utter the words “Anochi Eisav bechorecha.”  Even if, as Rashi explains, this was not a direct lie (Anochi = I am who am I, and “Eisav bichorecha” = Eisav is the bechor), Yaakov would still not have done it if not for his having slipped on the levushim of Eisav.

Anyone who has heard the Carlebach story “Shvartze Wolf” knows that a person’s neshoma can have an exalted levush in the next world, but in this world we don’t see it and don’t sense it.  Someone who is one of the 36 tzadikim can look like just a simple woodchopper or beggar.  It’s hard for a levush that is so holy to make an appearance down here in olam ha’zeh. 

To again borrow from an idea in an old post, when you walk in the door late Friday afternoon and you smell the cholent on the stove, you smell the fresh challah, the kugel, etc. it’s like it’s Shabbos already even though the candles have not been lit -– the whiff of what’s coming makes the Shabbos a reality.  When Shabbos departs we comfort ourselves with besamim –- we want to keep a whiff of Shabbos, of aliya, with us, even though the day itself is gone.  So too, even though the levush of a great person may not really visible in this world, we are still able to pick up a whiff that there is something special there. 

“Va’yarach es rei’ach begadav” –- Yitzchak did smell the scent of the hides, the smell of Eisav, a foul smelling odor, exactly as the words say.  This was the levush of a man of the fields, not a yosheiv ohalim.  This is the pshat, the surface meaning of what happened.  But along with that, Yitzchak got a whiff of something else, of gan eden.   Yitzchak detected that there was something more here, something below the surface, something that is beyond pshat, beyond the olam ha'zeh appearance of things.   Therefore, he gave his bracha. 

korban pesach and the bracha of the Avos

1) My wife pointed out that it's only natural that Yitzchak, about whom we read last week "Vayeitzei Yitzchak la'suach ba'sadeh," should have an affinity for Eisav, the "ish sadeh."  See her post here for (among other things) another interesting diyuk: Eisav is an "ish sadeh," but Yaakov is not called an "ish ohalim" -- he is an "ish tam," which also connects with Yitzchak, but you have to read her post for more on that.

2) Rashi writes that the two sheep which Rivka prepared for Yaakov to serve to Yitzchak  were the korban pesach and korban chagigah.  Malbi”m explains that Pesach is the time when we reach l’ma’alah min ha’teva.  There is no way barring supernatural intervention that Klal Yisrael could have escaped the bondage of Mitzrayim and there was no way based purely on merit that we deserved to escape.  “Halalu ovzei avodah zarah v’halalu ovdei avodah zarah.”  Pesach means destiny trumps zechuyus/chiyuvim.  The bracha of the Avos that Yitzchak was going to pass on was a bracha that transcended any and all obstacles. 

l'nochach ishto

"Va'ye'etar Yitzchak laHashem l'nochach ishto..."  Rashi paints a picture for us: Yitzchak was in one corner of the room, Rivka in the opposite corner, each one davening for a child.  The description is vivid, but what bothers me is why it is necessary at all.  Who cares if Yitzchak and Rivka were standing in opposite corners, in the same corner, in different rooms, in the same room?  Since when is the chumash concerned with painting a scene for us?  What matters is that they davened, period, full stop -- not where they stood in relation to each other.  I'm not sure what according to Rashi the point here is (assuming you understand Rashi literally -- see Maor vaShemesh for a kabbalistic derash).

I actually started thinking about this phrase "l'nochach ishto" two weeks ago when we read the haftarah of VaYeira.  The navi there describes how Elisha put his mouth on the mouth of the dead son of the Isha Shumanis, placed his eyes against his eyes, his hands on his hands, etc.  It sounds like he is doing CPR, but the child was brought back to life miraculously, not by medical intervention (according to most views).  So why did Elisha need to go through this whole act?  Radak answers that Elisha was doing it to arouse his kavanah.  He need the child in his proximity, he needed the physical closeness to atune himself to the situation and focus on it.  Continues Radak, this is just like Yitzchak daveing "l'nochach ishto."  Yitzchak needed Rivka's presence there to focus himself on her plight.  (Parenthetically, for those who pace during davening, I think you have a makor in that haftarah -- "vayashav va'yeilech babayis achas heina v'achas heina.."  See Radak there as well.)  Maybe this is why we place our hands on our children when we bless there before Shabbos or before Y"K.  The physical closeness is there to bring our kavanah to its maximum. 

The simplest pshat in "l'nochach ishto" is, I think, the Rashbam, who writes that it means simply "bishvil ishto," for Rivka's sake.  But this begs the question: doesn't that go without saying?  For whose sake other than Rivka's could he have been praying?  "Ishto" as opposed to who?  Seforno anticipates the question and writes that Yitzchak prayed that his children he would come from Rivka, the most suitable wife for him.  In other words, he wanted to avoid having to take another wife to have children. 

Maybe there is more to it, however, than that.  The Taz in Divrei David raises two (actually more - take a look) fundamental questions on the parsha.  1) Before telling us about Yitzchak's tefilah, the parsha reminds us that Rivka was "bas Besuel ha'Arami... achos Lavan."  Rashi comments that the Torah comes to praise Rivka.  She grew up in a home of idolaters, and nonetheless was a tzadekes. Yet, just one pasuk later the Torah tells us, with respect to Yitzchak's tefilah, "va'yei'aser LO Hashem," Hashem listened to HIS tefilah.  It was to Yitzchak that Hashem responded, not Rivka (according to Rashi, who assumes both were praying independently).  It seems incongruous.   On the one hand, the parsha opens with lavish praise of Rivka, only to set us up for her prayer being rejected due to a shortcoming in her background, at least in comparison to Yitzchak. 2)  We already know who Rivka is from last week's parsha.  We know she grew up in the home of Lavan and Besuel and rose above their bad influence.  Why inject a retelling of her background here?  

The Yismach Moshe suggests a radical pshat in "l'nochach ishto" that will resolve both problems.  Yitzchak viewed himself as continuing the legacy of his father -- there was nothing original or groundbreaking in what he was doing.  Rivka, on the other hand,  had forged her own path to avodah.  The opening of the parsha recounts Rivka's background perhaps to set up the tension between these two approaches.  On the one hand, "Yitzchak ben Avraham" and "Avraham holid es Yiztchak,"  the parsha emphasizes Yitzchak's connection with his father, with the past, with a path that was already forged, vs. "Rivka bas Besuel... achos Lavan," coming from nothing and forging a new path.  

Yitzchak believed, says the Yismach Moshe, that Rivka had the edge on him.  He davened, "l'nochach ishto," invoking her merit as the basis by which G-d should grant them children.  Originality trumps mere fidelity to the past.  "Ishto" here is not to the exclusion of some other potential wife, but rather to the exclusion of Yitzchak himself, to the exclusion of his own merits, which he thought insufficient.

How does G-d respond?  "Va'yei'aser LO," G-d responded to Yitzchak's own prayer.  Three possible ways to read this: 1) According to Rashi, G-d responded to Yitzchak, not Rivka.  The zechus of the tzadik ben tzadik in facts trumps the merit of the tzadik ben rasha.  Following in the footsteps of the past trumps those who must make their own way.  2) Given the Yismach Moshe's understand of the first half of the pasuk, perhaps the meaning here is that G-d responded to Yitzchak davka because he invoked his wife's merits.  3) Finally, and most radically, the Yismach Moshe's own reading is that G-d responded "lo," to Yitzchak as an individual, as opposed to Yitzchak the extension of his father Avraham.  G-d's message to Yitzchak was that his avodah was not merely a replay of his father's life, and therefore devoid of originality, but rather he too stood on his own merits, had his own path, he too had his own way to carve just as Rivka had carved her own (albeit in a more extreme set of circumstances.)

To take one more step, perhaps the tension here between the zechus of following in the foosteps of the past vs. carving a new path is davka highlighted in the context of Yitzchak and Rivka's tefilah for children because the Torah is asking us to consider what we expect from our children -- do we want them to merely walk in our foosteps, or are we davening for a new generation that will carve their own path and move off in a new direction of their own?  And perhaps the better question is not which approach we expect from our children, but which approach we aspire to ourselves.

which was the cause and which was the effect

The Netziv in last week's parsha says something very interesting.  The relationship between Rivka and Yitzchak was quite different than the relationship between Avraham and Sarah or even that of Ya'akov and his wives.  Sarah had no qualms about telling Avraham how she felt about Yishmael and demanding that he kick him out of the house.  Rivka doesn't communicate with Yitzchak.  She knows Ya'akov deserves the brachos, but instead of telling Yitzchak directly, she arranges this whole surreptitious way of making sure he gets them.  The Netziv says all this, but I think many a careful reader could figure it out too.  What makes the Netziv fascinating is that the average careful reader would conclude that it's the lack of communication between Rivka and Yitzchak which is the cause of Ya'akov having to steal the brachos.  The Netziv (24:65) says that it's the exact opposite.  G-d wanted Ya'akov to get the brachos by "stealing" them from Eisav (see Harchev Davar to 27:1 as to why).  To allow for the brachos to be gotten by "theft," Hashem caused there to be a different type of relationship between Yitzchak and Rivka.  You have to know which is the horse and which is the wagon, what's the cause and what's the effect.

This distance between Yitzchak and Rivka is not something which develops over time, but rather, writes the Netziv, is set from the moment the two meet.  When  Rivka first sees Yitzchak, she reacts with fear and trepidation, falling from her camel, while Yitzchak is completely focused on his tefilah, blind to Rivka's presence.  That meeting sets the tone for the rest of their marriage. All this so that 83 years later Ya'akov would be put in a position to use trickery to get the bracha meant for Eisav.  Can you imagine Hashem causing something to happen on your first date with your wife that will set the tone of your relationship in such a way so that 83 years later some other event will work out in your lives or your children's lives? 

Chazal darshen "Va'yar Elokim es kol asher asah v'hinei tov me'od" that "tov ME'OD" is the yetzer ha'ra, the malacha ha'maves.  In other words, it's Eisav.   "Va'yeilech haloch v'gadeil ad ki gadal ME'OD." (26:13)  Yitzchak Avinu was as great as that power of "me'od."  The yetzer ha'ra turns good to bad; Yitzchak thought he could inspire and turn bad to good.  Isn't doing that even greater than being good to begin with?  "B'chol levacha" = with both sides of your heart, so that even the Eisav side cooperates.  When Eisav entered the room as Ya'akov was departing after taking the brachos, and Yitzchak finally realized the truth of who Eisav was, it's not just "va'yecherad charadah gedolah," but it's "va'yecherad charadah gedolah ad ME'OD."  (see here)  His dreams of overcoming "tov ME'OD" = the malach ha'maves, the yetzer ha'ra, the evil of Eisav, had been dashed.  (See Sefas Emes 5631)