Sukkos

וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ־עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי־נָחַל

פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר, זוֹ שָׂרָה...כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, זוֹ רִבְקָה...וַעֲנַף עֵץ עָבֹת , זוֹ לֵאָה...וְעַרְבֵי נָחַל, זוֹ רָחֵל,

In Parshas Emor, among the Pessukim that discuss the various Moadim , the Torah tells us about the Mitzvah of Daled Minim. The actual Passuk does not use the words that we do to describe the Minim, speaking instead about פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ־עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי־נָחַל , but Chazal establish the species that are to be used to do the Mitzvah. Perhaps because the selection of Minim seem disconnected not only from one another, but from the Yom Tov itself, the Medrash brings a number of Memros explaining the character of each of the Daled Mininim . In each Memra a link is established between the Minim and something familiar, allowing us an insight into their significance.

Among these Drashos , we find one that connects the each of the Minim to one of the Avos : the Lulav, Esrog and Haddasim to Avrohom, Yitzchok and Yaakov, respectively, and the Aravos to Yosef HaTzaddik . Then, the Medrash offers an alternative, yet related, approach: פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר, זוֹ שָׂרָה...כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, זוֹ רִבְקָה...וַעֲנַף עֵץ עָבֹת , זוֹ לֵאָה...וְעַרְבֵי נָחַל, זוֹ רָחֵל. In this Memrah , each of the Daled Minim is related to one of the Imahos .

As part of the , explaining how each of the Imhaos is related to that Min. For example, the Medrash tells us that the Esrog, a particularly beautiful fruit referred to in the Passuk as the פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר, is related to Sara Immenu , שֶׁהִדְּרָהּ הַקַּב׳׳ה בְּשֵׂיבָה טוֹבָה, for HKBH made her beautiful in her older years.

When it comes to Rivka Immenu , the Medrash teaches: כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, זוֹ רִבְקָה, מַה תְּמָרָה זוֹ יֵשׁ בָּהּ אֹכֶל וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֳקָצִין, כָּךְ הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע. Rivka is compared to the Lulav, because the tree from which the Lulav comes bears both fruits and thorns, and Rivha had two sons, a Tzaddik and Rasha.

How can we understand this Medrash ? Of course, it is true that Yaakov was a Tzaddik and Esav a Rasha, but what of it? Why does the Medrash focus on this aspect of Rivka’s life, which would seem to be less than complementary, in comparing her to the Lulav? In a sense, the Medrash is relating the Lulav to Esav himself—why?

We must also, understand what the fact that הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע has to do with the Lulav and the Yom Tov of Sukkos ? There are so many ways to explain the significance of the Daled Minim—what does this add? How can this Drasha , מַה תְּמָרָה זוֹ יֵשׁ בָּהּ אֹכֶל וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֳקָצִין, כָּךְ הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע, impact our understanding of the Yom Tov in general and the Lulav in particular?

When considering this Medrash , it is important to note that there is a similar idea found in the Medrash Rabba on Parshas Chayei Sarah.

As we know, Eliezer travelled to Ararm Naharayim to find a wife for Yitzchok Avinu , and encountered Rivka almost immediately. After a short negotiation with Besuel and Lavan, it was agreed that Rivka would travel back with Eliezer, and the set out for Be’er L’Chai Ro’i : וַתָּקׇם רִבְקָה וְנַעֲרֹתֶיה ָ וַתִּרְכַּבְנָה עַל־הַגְּמַלִּים וַתֵּלַכְנָה אַחֲרֵי הָאִישׁ.

The Medrash on these words discusses Rivka’s mode of transportation: רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי מַה גָּמָל זֶה יֵשׁ בּוֹ סִימָן טֻמְאָה וְסִימָן טָהֳרָה, כָּךְ הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע.The Gamal has split hooves, but does not chew its cud—it therefore has one Siman of Tahara and one of Tumah . The Medrash compares this to Rivka, who bore a Tzaddik and a Rasha.

This Medrash mirrors the one found in Parshas Emor and therefore raises similar questions, but in this case they are perhaps more existential. The Medrash seems to be saying that the reason Rivka rode upon a Gammal was that she was destined to bear two sons, one a Taddik and the other a Rasha. How can we understand this? Why was the split nature of Rivka’s eventual progeny alluded to from the very start?

It should be noted that the Gemalim are a major feature of the entire story: they are mentioned again and again, and appear in no less than fifteen Pessukim in this one Perek. This Medrash , which establishes a connection between Rivka Immenu and the Gemalim would seem to explain this anomaly but also serves to highlight the deep nature of this connection.

How can we understand this Medrash ? Why was the eventual birth of Yaakov and Esav, and their incongruent paths, hinted at so heavily before Rivka even met Yaakov?

Adding to these questions is the fact that if we look a little further in the Medrash there, it seems that not only was the eventually of הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע predetermined, but a detail about their birth was as well.

As Rivka and Elizer approached Yitzchok Avinu , who had come outside לָשׂוּח ַ בַּשָּׂדֶה, Rivka asked Eliezer מִי־הָאִיש ׁ הַלָּזֶה הַהֹלֵךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה לִקְרָאתֵנוּ and when she found out that it was Yitzchok, the Passuk tells us: וַתִּקַּח הַצָּעִיף וַתִּתְכָּס , she covered herself with a veil.

The Medrash Rabba in Parshas Vayeshev , in the story of Yehudah and Tamar, mentions these words as part of a Drasha : שְׁתַּיִם הֵן שֶׁנִּתְכַּסּו ּ בְּצָעִיף, תָּמָר וְרִבְקָה, וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן יָלְדוּ תְּאוֹמִים. There are two individuals that are described in the Pessukim as having covered themselves with a veil, Rivka and Tamar, and both gave birth to twins.

While this Medrash is difficult to understand as well—the connection between the צָּעִיף and twins certainly requires explanation—it is important for the purposes of our discussion. According to this Medrash , not only was it clear from the moment that Rivka arrived in Be’er L’Chai Ro’I that she was to have one son who was a Tzaddik and one that was a Rasha, but even the fact that they were twins was preordained.

How can we understand this? Why, in fact, was it always meant to be the case that הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע, and that they would be twins, and how is this related to the Lulav?

To answer these questions, we must understand the relationship between Yaakov and Esav on a deeper level.

The Passuk in Malachai speaks about the love that Hashem has for Klal Yisroel, noting that one may have a question: בַּמָּה אֲהַבְתָּנוּ הֲלוֹא־אָח עֵשָׂו לְיַעֲקֹב, why does HKBH love us, is not Esav the brother of Yaakov? The Passuk dispels this notion, explaining that HKBH has a special love for Yaakov and his children: וָאֹהַב אֶת־יַעֲקֹב .

Ramchal , in a Sefer called Kinas Hashem Tzivakos , speaks about the connection between Rivka’s two sons, explaining their innate bond based on this Passuk . The Shoresh of Yaakov and Esav, he explains, were actually one and the same. Originally, they were on the same

Madreigah

and this is the meaning of the words הֲלוֹא־אָח עֵשָׂו לְיַעֲקֹב.

Although the words of the Ramchal are based in concepts from Kaballah that are beyond our comprehension, we can perhaps explain this bond, and its ramifications, in a way that is more familiar.

The Mishna in Nedarim teaches: if someone makes a Neder שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְזֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, that he will not have any Hana’ah from a child of Avrohom, אָסוּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמוּתָּר בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, he may not have Hana’ah from a Yid, but he may have from any non-Jew. The Gemara there asks why the descendants of Yishmael are not included among זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, which would include them in the Neder, and answers based on a Passuk in Parshas Vayera : כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע, showing that only Yitzchok and not Yishmael are in this category. The Gemara then asks about the children of Esav, who are after all Bnei Yitzchok, and answers with a Drasha : בְּיִצְחָק, וְלֹא כׇּל יִצְחָק. Only some children of Yitzchok—those who come from Yaakov—are called זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם and not all the descendants of Yitzchok.

Based on this Gemara , it seems that standing of Yishmael and Esav, in relation to Bnei Yisroel, are the same, as both are learned from the words כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע. In. a Ma’amar in Pachad Yitzchok on Sukkos , Rav Hutner explains that this is not the case, and they is a significant difference between the two. His explanation is based on a Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva.

The Rambam asks a question: why were the Mitzriyim punished for oppressing the Yidden ? The Passuk in Parshas Lech Lecha says וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם, and as the Rambam writes, הֲרֵי גָּזַר עַל הַמִּצְרִיִּים לַעֲשׂוֹת רַע, the Mitzriyim were meant to commit evil acts against the children of Avrohom. The Rambam answers this question as follows: כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵאוֹתָן הַמְּצֵרִים וְהַמֵּרֵעִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אִלּוּ לֹא רָצָה לְהָרַע לָהֶם הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא גָּזַר עַל אִישׁ יָדוּעַ. No one specific Mitzri was required to be the one to carry out the fulfilment of the words וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם, it was their each of their individual choice to act against the Yidden , and they were therefore punished.

This, explains Rav Hutner, was the difference between Yishmael and Esav. The words כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע were said to Avrohom specifically to exclude Yishmael from זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם. It was not his choice—HKBH was Gozer that Yishmael would not be called זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם. Esav, however, was in a different situation: the words כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע only tell us that one of Yitzchok’s sons would be excluded from זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, but not which one.

Rather, Rav Hutner explains, Esav made a choice: he could have been the brother counted among זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, the subject of the words כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע, but he made an active decision to choose a different path. Once he made the choice to live his life apart from the Derech Hashem, and not in concert with the Mesorah of his Avos , he became the one excluded by the word בְיִצְחָק and his offspring are not counted among the זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם.

The words of the Ramchal become much less abstract based on this idea. Indeed the Shoresh of Yaakov and Esav were one and the same: both began on the same Madreigah and had equal potential. They were brothers in every sense of the word and either one could have become the forebearer of the זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, but Esav made a fateful decision. Instead of claiming the mantel of כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע for himself, he chose to stray and leave that title for his brother.

We can now understand that the Passuk in Malachai is making an important point: originally, Esav and Yaakov were on equal footing, הֲלוֹא־אָח עֵשָׂו לְיַעֲקֹב, but Yaakov chose Kedusha and Esav chose Gashmius . It was for this reason that Yaakov became the beloved, וָאֹהַב אֶת־יַעֲקֹב .

With this in mind, we can explain the Medrashim concerning Rivka.

It was indeed predestined that הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע, as indicated by the Gemmalim spoken about in the Pessukim , but it was not determined which son would be which. Indeed, the צָּעִיף that Rivka wore indicated that her sons would be twins, from a singular Shoresh, and that only later would their paths diverge.

These Medrashim teach us the importance and value of Bechira : Yaakov and Esav were equally suited to serve as the heirs of Avrohom and Yitzchok, and each was empowered to make a choice that had an effect for the rest of time. Yaakov chose the path of the Avos , engendering a deep love from HKBH, וָאֹהַב אֶת־יַעֲקֹב . Esav, however, made the opposite choice, opting for Olam Hazeh , and removing him and all his offspring from the definition of זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם.

Perhaps this is why the Medrash establishes a connection between Rivka Immenu and the Lulav in this way.

The Tamar is defined by a duality: יֵשׁ בָּהּ אֹכֶל וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֳקָצִין, it bears both the sweetest of fruits and hazardous thorns, making it similar to the duality of Rivka’s sons. When we look at the Lulav, we are meant to remember that הֶעֱמִידָה רִבְקָה צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע, Rivka had two children, both of whom were equally poised to be a Tzaddik or a Rasha. It was their Bechira , their choices in life that established their path, one drawing closer to Hashem and the other fleeing from Kedusha.

At the beginning of Hilchos Rosh Chodesh, the Tur teaches that each of the Shalosh Regalim is related to one of the Avos : פֶּסַח כְּנֶגֶד אַבְרָהָם...שָׁבוּעוֹת כְּנֶגֶד יִצְחָק ...סוּכּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד יַעֲקֹב . Sukkos is the Yom Tov of Yaakov Avinu , the Regel on which the choice he made, the decision to cling to his Mesorah and be counted as the זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, is most prominent. Basking in the shade of the Sukka , and still glowing in the aura of the Yomim Noraim , we can take this message to heart: we can each make the decisions that bring us closer to HKBH, bearing proudly the title of זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם, fulfilling the mandate of כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע.