Otherworldly

Parshas Toldos begins by telling us of the struggles Yitzchok and Rivka faced as they tried to begin their family. The Torah tells us that the two Davened to be blessed with Zera Shel Kayama and they were answered, as Rivka became pregnant. The Passuk then tells us of a phenomenon that occurred during those months: “Vayisrotzitzu Habanim B’kirba”, the children struggled in their mother’s womb. The Torah then how Rivka reacted to the situation: “Vatomer Im Ken Lama Zeh Anochi VaTelech Lidrosh Es Hashem.”

Rashi points out that this is one of the Pessukim in the Torah that can only be explained through the Derech of Drush, for there is no approach of absolute Pshat—his preferred Mehalech—that fully explains the words. The word “Vayisrotzitzu”, he explains, come from the word Ratz: When Rivka passed a Makom Kadosh, Yaakov attempted to run out of her womb but when she passed a Bais Avodah Zarah it was Esav who tried to exit. This apparent confusion—one child who seemed attracted to both—was what bothered Rivka, and it was for this reason that she sought the advice of Shem.

This Rashi is perhaps one of the best known in Chumash and, because of its inclusion in the Parsha stories of our youth, has taken hold in our mind, in a sense merging Pshat and Drush. There is, however, a second Pshat brought by Rashi, which is perhaps less known, but seems to relate to an important lesson.

The word “Vayisrotzitzu” can also come from the term Retzitza, which means quarrel. While in their mother’s womb, Yaakov and Esav, says Rashi, were arguing about the “Nachlas Shnei Olamos.” There were two brothers, and they were fighting about how the two world, Olam Hazeh and Olam Habah, would be split between them.

This second Pshat is perhaps not as well known as the first, and it is less detailed in its explanation of the words, but it would appear to tell us something about the relationship between Yaakov and Esav, and may therefore be quite instructional. In order to begin examining this Pshat, however, we must see how it answers the question posed by Rashi, and how it fits into the context of the surrounding Pessukim.

As we noted, Rashi tells us that this Passuk is one that says “Darsheni”. There are two parts of the Passuk that cause him to say this: first, why is Retzitzah our of the ordinary—all fetuses move around in the womb? Second, Rashi seems to be bothered by Rivka’s reaction, “Im Ken Lama Zeh Anochi”, which would seem less than appropriate for common issues related to her condition.

It is understandable how the first Pshat in Rashi answers these questions: the Retzitza was abnormal because the baby seemed drawn to both Keduasha and its opposite and, accordingly, Rivka’s reaction was not to the actual movement but to the inconsistency it seemed to represent.

How, though, does the second Pshat answer the questions posed? Were Yaakov and Esav having a physical battle in the womb? Even if they were, was the activity so extraordinary that it could was obviously beyond what could be expected in any pregnancy? Why would Rivka react in this way, exclaiming “Im Ken Lama Zeh Anochi” and seeking the Dvar Hashem? What was she sensing that she could identify as an atypical experience?

The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh discusses Rivka’s reaction, the words “Lama Zeh Anochi”. He states that Rivka cannot have been complaining about the discomfort or pain associated with the Retzitah occurring in her womb—for this would have been beneath her lofty status. Rather, he suggests that the movements were so fierce that Rivka assumed that she was going to lose her pregnancy. Her question was: “Why did Hashem create a Nes, allowing me to become pregnant, if the baby is not to survive nothing would come of it.” Rivka did not question her own lot in life, but wished to understand the Darchei Hashem. This question was well answered by Shem when he explained that there were two babies fighting with each other—their viability was not at rish, and the Nes would bear fruit.

We must ask ourselves if the words of the Ohr Chaim Hakadosh can be applied to the second Pshat in Rashi. Did Yaakov and Esav engage in physical battle in their attempt to divide the two Olamos? How would an actual fight solve the problem in any case? If they did not come to actual blows, however, how can we answer the Ohr Hachaim’s question regarding the reaction of Rivka? It must be that Rivka felt the pregnancy was at risk—how though does this apply to this approach of Rashi, that they were fighting over the “Nachlas Shnei Olamos”?

The truth is that there is a Medrash in Tana Divei Eliyahu that discusses what happened in Rivka’s womb and seems to describe a rather rational discussion. The Medrash says that Yaakov told Esva that there are two worlds, Olam Hazeh and Olam Habbah, and described some of the activities specific to this world: eating and drinking, forming personal and commercial relationships, establishing a family—all the hallmarks of our physical existence. He then suggested that Esav take Olam Hazeh and he would take Olam Habbah, which was devoid of these types of pleasures. It seems from the Medrash that this was the agreement that was made at the time, and which was consummated at the time of the Mechirah of the Bechora, which takes place later on in this week’s Parsha.

What then was the conflict? There does not seem, from the words of the Medrash, to have been any sort of disagreement. Yaakov suggested that Esav would be better suited for the pleasures of Olam Hazeh, and he for the Taanug Ruchni of Olam Habah. Where is the conflict suggested by the words “Vayisrotzitzu Habanim B’kirba”, and specifically the kind that would cause Rivka to worry as explained by the Ohr Hachaim?

The Maharal, in Netzach Yisroel, has a lengthy discussion based on this Medrash, and suggests that this compromise was only the end of their dealings. In fact, he writes, both Yaakov and Esav would have preferred to have a share in both Olamos, to compromise so to speak, but that was impossible as they were such complete opposites. Therefore, they fought, in an actual battle that had physical ramifications until Yaakov suggested a Pshara—that they would each take one of the Olamos—that allowed them each to let the other survive.

Based on this, we can well understand the Retzitzah that was occurring, and the reaction of Rivka. Yaakov and Esav were engaged in a battle that would determine the outcome of their entire existence, and that of any of their offspring: whom would reign supreme in the Shtei Olamos. Would Yaakov hold power over Esav in both this world and the next, or would Esav have the right to rule over his brother. This conflict was so pitched that Rivka may have thought that she would lose her baby, leading to the question of “Lama Zeh Anochi” as explained by the Ohr Hachaim.

This would also help us understand the answer Rivka was given, and why it calmed here. “Shnei Goyim B’Bitnech”, there are two leaders of great nations within you, she was told, and they are fighting for their very futures. The battle is fierce, but there will be a victor: “V’Rav Yaavod Tzair.” Rivka was comforted by these words, reassured that, despite the difficulties she was experiencing, the Nes of her pregnancy would not be for naught.

We must ask ourselves, however, why this had to be the case. Why did Yaakov and Esav have to engage in such a fierce battle? Why couldn’t Yaakov and Esav in fact compromise to share the two Olomos? In fact, there is a Medrash which suggests that the movements Rivka felt were not the two brothers fighting with each other, but their attempts to escape the confines of her womb because they could not exist in the same space! Apparently their inability to compromise was so complete that it extended to their ability to share the same womb.

Why couldn’t Yaakov and Esav share the two worlds? Why was compromise impossible?

Perhaps we can understand that this was not a mere power struggle—whom would rule over whom—but rather that Yaakov and Esav differed in their conception of the Shnei Olamos to the point that it would be impossible for them to share them. Their approaches to Olam Hazeh and Olam Habbah are so different that coexistence was not an option.

How then can we understand their views of the two worlds, and specifically the one which we inhabit? Clearly we must strive to lead lives that reflect the values of Yaakov. What are they and how do they differ from his brothers?

Perhaps we can answer the question based on where their relative strengths and weaknesses lie. If we understand how one can be victorious, or where he finds defeat, we can perhaps identify their views of our world.

The scion of Esav, the one who most completely represents his heritage is Amalek, the nation that bears the name of his grandson. Chazal tell us that Amalek first encountered Bnei Yisroel in Refidim, where we suffered from a weakness in Limud Hatorah: “Al Sherafu Yedehem Min Hatorah”. There is a Yalkut Shiomi in Bamidbar that suggests that this was not happenstance.

Esav instructed his grandson, Amalek, to carry on his life’s mission: the destruction of Yaakov and his offspring. Amalek asked his grandfather how he could hope to be successful when Esav himself had so often failed. Esav replied: “Mesorah Zeh Yehi Bedecha KiShetirae SheNiskalu B’Devar Havai Kafotz Aleihem.” Esav instructed Amalek to maintain a Mesorah: anytime Bnei Yisroel are engaged in Devar Havai, worthless chatter, an opportunity exists to attack them. This Yalkut explains why Amalek approached specifically at a time of Rafu Yedehem Min Hatorah, as they were continuing the Mesorah of their forefather, but it also allows a insight into the Machlokes between the brothers.

Esav views the two Olamos as distinct entities: there is Olam Hazeh, devoted to Gashmi, and Olam Habah, devoted to Ruchni, and never the two shall meet. In the world of Esav there is no room for Ruchnias in Olam Hazeh, and any Gashmi must therefore be automatically opposed to Olam Habah.

For example, when Yaakov and Esav later meet, the Torah tells us that when he saw Yaakov’s camp Esav asked: “Mi Elah Lach?” The Tana Divei Eliyahu tells us that Esav was asking Yaakov how he, who claimed Olam Habaah, could have such a large family and so many possessions. Yaakov explained that these were all related to his pursuit of Olam Habaah, but this dispute highlights their differences. Esav never understood that Olam Hazeh and Olam Habah could merge—he felt that a person could be either of Olam Hazeh or of Olam Habah, but not both. Yaakov, on the other hand, understood that a physical existence is the key to the spiritual one we seek.

This was the message that Esav passed on to his grandson, Amalek, to keep as their Mesorah. He did not speak of mere Bitul Torah, but of an engagement in Divrei Havai, meaningless chatter. He was telling Amalek: when you see Klal Yisroel engaged in idle chatter, using their time on this world not in the pursuit of futher Olam Habah, but for their own enjoyment, that is the time to strike. It is then that they are not inhabiting the world of their foreather Yaakov, but our world, the Olam Hazeh that is devoid of Ruchnias. Esav finally understood that there may be times that we cannot be devoted to Ruchinias, because there is a Gashmi component to our Olam Hazeh, but when we are occupied only in Divrei Havai, there is room for Amalek to attack.

The battle between Yaakov and Esav began while they were developing in their mother’s womb, but it rages until today. Our entire lives are devoted to furthering the ideals of Yaakov Avinu while avoiding the influence of our least favorite uncle. Knowing whence their differences lie can be a significant help. We must remember that Esav tries to tell us that there can be a world of Gashmi devoid of Ruchani, and awaits our falter, for it is then that he is strongest. Our task resist the lure of his overtures, to retain the values of Yaakov Avinu, turning even our physical existence into one that further our persuit of Olam Habah. The more we can do so, the sooner we can bring this arduous battle to a close.