I
“Yaakov was a wholesome (“Tam”) man, dwelling in tents” (Breishis 25:27). Ibn Ezra renders “tents” as in, “dwells in a tent with livestock” (4:20), a shepherd (Rashbam). Rashi, citing Breishis Rabbah (63:10), states that this refers to the tent of Shem and the tent of Ever, to learn Torah, as Onkelos translates, “a house of study”. This accounts for the plural form, “ohalim”, i.e. one of Shem and one of Ever.
Seforno explains the plural differently, to refer to two types of tents. One, a shepherd’s tent, (Yeshaya 38:12), which is not permanent and is moved from place to place when the pasture is exhausted (Rashi, see Rashi 4:20). The second, a tent that will not be displaced (Yeshaya 33:20), a permanent tent. There, Yaakov learned to recognize his Creator, to be sanctified by His glory (Shemos 29:43).
As opposed to Rashi and Onkelos, who refer only to tents of learning Torah, and Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, who refer only to shepherd’s tents, Seforno includes both types of tents. The Torah tent is permanent, while the shepherd’s tent is not, as it moves from place to place. This parallels the respective position of Torah and worldly pursuits in one’s life. The Gemara (Berachos 35b) relates that those for whom Torah is fixed (keva) and work (melacha) is temporary (ara’i) succeeded in both. Those with the opposite orientation succeeded in neither.
Primacy is not measured quantitatively. Rather, the relative value ascribed to Torah and melacha determines one’s priority. The Gemara (Shabbos 10a, 33b) calls Torah study eternal life (chayei olam), and worldly pursuits temporal life (chayei sha’a). This axiological prioritization is the key to success in both Torah and worldly affairs.
II
Yitzchak Avinu’s decision to give the blessings to Esav (27:1-4) is difficult to comprehend. Did he not see that Yakov was a tzaddik and Eisav was a rasha? The Medrash (65:7) understands, “His eye dimmed from seeing (27:1) as “a bribe will blind those who see” (Shemos 23:8). Yitzchok loved Esav, because he would eat of his trapping (Onkelos 25:28). This affected his judgement. But how could he ignore the righteous and wholesome Yakov, Rivka’s favorite?
The answer is that just as there were two tents, there were two blessings. Yitzchak blessed Esav (27:39), and Yakov when he thought that he was Esav (27:28), with physical success – “the dew of the heavens and the fatness of the earth, and abundant grain and wine”. The spiritual blessing of Avraham, the one that would endure for generations (28:4), was always intended to be given to Yakov (Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch 27:1, end). In other words, Yitzchak wished that Yakov remain in the tent of Torah, and Esav would occupy the physical tent. Yitzchak did not want Yakov to be involved in rulership and the futility of the ephemeral (serara vehavlei hanifsadim), so he could devote himself exclusively to Torah study (Seforno 27:29). Perhaps he hoped that Esav would support Yakov, as, a generation later, Zevulun, who went out and prospered, supported Yissachar, who remained in the tents of Torah (Rashi, Devarim 33:18).
Rivka disagreed. She understood that Yaakov’s role in this world was to succeed in both tents, as the Seforno explained. Yakov was to sublimate the physical aspects of life. This could only be achieved by having both blessings, corresponding to both tents.
Rivka told Yakov to fetch two goats (27:9). Rashi explains: one for the Pesach offering, and one to make delicacies for Yitzchok. Pesach is the one offering in which eating plays the central role (Pesachim 76b). The very idea of eating before Hashem (see Devarim 14:23) is the unique ability and responsibility of Yakov’s descendants. Gentiles can only bring burnt offerings (Menachos 73b). The juxtaposition of the two goats represented the very essence of Rivka’s insistence that Yaakov receive both blessings (Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht).
III
The aforementioned Gemara (Berachos 35b) records a dispute which echoes the disagreement between Yitzchak and Rivka. Rav Shimon bar Yochai aspires to a world in which Torah is our only occupation. Work (melacha) is done for us by others. If one is busy plowing, planting, reaping, threshing, and winnowing, what will become of Torah study? This is precisely what concerned Yitzchak Avinu (Malbim 27:1). R’ Yishmael disagrees. One must adjoin Torah study with gathering grain, wine and oil (Devarim 11:14). The Gemara concludes that, “many followed R’ Yishmael and succeeded; many followed R’ Shimon bar Yochai did not succeed”. Just as those whose melacha was their primary preoccupation did not succeed, so, too, those who did no melacha did not succeed.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 156:1) codifies this idea as follows: All Torah without melacha will cease in the end (Avos 2:2). One must make Torah primary (keva) and melacha temporary (ara’i), so that he will succeed in both. The Be’ur Halacha adds: while the many must follow R’ Yishmael, in every generation some individuals can follow R’ Shimon bar Yochai. The paradigm is Shevet Levi, which the Rambam (Shemita V’yovel 13:12-13) extends to others who subsist on a minimum and avoid the worldly efforts of nearly all people.
Yitzchak Avinu wanted all of Yakov’s progeny to be like Shevet Levi, supported by Esav (Malbim). Rivka knew that this arrangement was impossible and would fail. Moreover, the material could only blossom into blessing through the blessing of Avraham, intended for Yakov (Rav Hirsch).
In the felicitous phrase of Rav Soloveitchik zt”l, the Hashgacha (Divine Providence) paskened (ruled) like Rivka. Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch ruled like R’ Yishmael. With few exceptions, Am Yisrael must engage in melacha, while acknowledging the primacy of Torah. By inhabiting both tents, we receive both blessings.
More divrei Torah, audio and video shiurim from Rabbi Willig