Voice Lessons

≈

After the Torah describes the birth of Yaakov and Esav, the Pesuskim describe how each developed: וַיִּגְדְּלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו אִישׁ יֹדֵעַ צַיִד אִישׁ שָׂדֶה וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים. Their differences didn’t end with their variant personalities, however. In addition, they had different standings in the eyes of their Parents: וַיֶּאֱהַב יִצְחָק אֶת־עֵשָׂו כִּי־צַיִד בְּפִיו וְרִבְקָה אֹהֶבֶת אֶת־יַעֲקֹב. While Yitzchok had an appreciation for Esav, Rivka loved Yaakov.

There is a difference in the way the Passuk is written, as well. When it comes to Yitzchok, the Torah says וַיֶּאֱהַב יִצְחָק, using the past-tense, as is common. When speaking about the love that Rivka had for Yaakov, however, the Passuk says וְרִבְקָה אֹהֶבֶת אֶת־יַעֲקֹב, which is in the present-tense.

The Medrash explains the anomaly as follows: כָּל שֶׁהָיְתָה שׁוֹמַעַת קוֹלוֹ הָיְתָה מוֹסֶפֶת לוֹ אַהֲבָה עַל אַהֲבָתוֹ. Each time Rivka heard the voice of Yaakov Avinu raised in Torah and Teffilah, it increased her love for him. Rivka’s love for Yaakov was therefore not static, it was ever-growing, and therefore the Torah speaks about it in the present-tense, וְרִבְקָה אֹהֶבֶת אֶת־יַעֲקֹב.

What does this mean? Why did Rivka love Yaakov Avinue specifically because of his Kol, or voice? And, why does the Passuk hint to us that this love constantly increased, מוֹסֶפֶת לוֹ אַהֲבָה עַל אַהֲבָתוֹ? What was it about the sound of Yaakov’s voice that engendered such love on the part of his mother, Rivka?

One can also ask why this was not true of Yitzchok Avinu as well. The Passuk seems to tell us that Rivka loved Yaakov to the exclusion of Yitzchok who appreciated Esav, כִּי־צַיִד בְּפִיו. If Rivka’s love for Yaakov was rooted in his Kol, why didn’t Yitzchok have the same reaction? Why didn’t the sound of Yaakov’s voice cause Yitzchok to love him in this way as well?

In contemplating this Medrash, however, it is important to note that this is not the only time in the Parsha that Yaakov’s voice is mentioned.

Later, when Yaakov enters his father’s room to receive the Brachos, Yitzchok notices that something is amiss, and says הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו. Rashi, there, explains what Yitzchok noticed about the Kol Yaakov: מְדַבֵּר בִּלְשׁוֹן תַּחֲנוּנִים. Yaakov spoke politely to his father, saying קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאׇכְלָה, whereas Esav spoke harshly, even to Yitzchok Avinu.

While the words הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב don’t seem immediately connected to the קוֹל יַעֲקֹב mentioned in the Medrah earlier in the Parsha, there is an important consideration that comes to light based on a comment of the Ramban.

Earlier in the Parsha, when Rivka instructs her son to undertake this apparent deception, and disguise himself as Esav, Yaakov protests: אוּלַי יְמֻשֵּׁנִי אָבִי וְהָיִיתִי בְעֵינָיו כִּמְתַעְתֵּעַ. If Yitchok touched Yaakov, it would be obvious that he was not Esav, who was covered in hair. If that were to happen, the truth would be clear, and this might result in disaster: אוּלַי יְמֻשֵּׁנִי אָבִי וְהָיִיתִי בְעֵינָיו כִּמְתַעְתֵּעַ.

The Ramban, there, asks: why was Yaakov was only concerned about Yitzchok feeling his skin and not recognizing his voice? The Gemara in Gittin bases specific Halachos on the fact that no two people’s voices are exactly the same. If so, asks the Ramban, should it not have been obvious to Yaakov that his father would in fact notice that his voice was different?

Taking the simplest approach, the Ramban answers that the voices of Yaakov and Esav must have been very similar, and therefore not immediately distinguishable. This, he notes, can help us understand the way Rashi explains the words הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב. Since the voices of Esav and Yaakov were indeed not that distinguishable from one another, Yitzchok referred not to the sound of Yaakov’s voice, but to his manner of speech.

If this was the case, however, why did Yaakov’s voice specifically bring Rivka to a sense of מוֹסֶפֶת לוֹ אַהֲבָה עַל אַהֲבָתוֹ? It is of course possible that Rivka was able to discern the subtle differences between her sons’ voices, and Yitzchok was not, but we must be able to explain that as well. How were the voices of Yaakov and Esav so alike and yet so distinct?

As we consider the defining characteristics of the קוֹל יַעֲקֹב, we must also note its importance.

The Medrash Rabba brings a number of Drashos related to the words הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו, including the following: אֵין יַעֲקֹב שׁוֹלֵט אֶלָּא בְּקוֹלוֹ…אֵין עֵשָׂו שׁוֹלֵט אֶלָּא בַּיָּדָיִם. The power of Yaakov, and his children, is found in his Kol, while the Koach of Esav and his offspring, is in their Yadayim. These are not independent Kochos, however, as the next Drasha makes clear: קוֹלוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב מַכְנִיס, וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו, מְרַמֵּז לֵיהּ וְהוּא אָתֵי. If the Kol of Yaakov is not used correctly, the Yadayim of Esav have the opportunity to prevail.

Clearly, the קוֹל יַעֲקֹב is an integral part of our existence—it is the Koach that counteracts our greatest enemies, preventing them from ruling over us and allowing us to survive—but it is not defined by the Medrash. The simplest approach is to assume that this refers to Torah and Teffilah, which are accomplished using our voices, especially as Yaakov Avinu, the אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים, was the Amud HaTorah. If this is the case, however, we must understand why the Pessukim use the term Kol specifically to refer to Limud HaTorah.

There seems to be another connection between the Torah and the term Kol, as seen in the Gemara in Brachos which tells us: כָּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִסְּעוּדַת חָתָן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׂמְּחוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה קוֹלוֹת...וְאִם מְשַׂמְּחוֹ...זוֹכֶה לַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנִּתְּנָה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה קוֹלוֹת. One who participates appropriately in the Simcha of a Chasuna is Zoche to Torah, which was given with בַּחֲמִשָּׁה קוֹלוֹת. This refers to the five times that the Kolos are mentioned at Matan Torah.

This Gemara highlights an integral connection between Torah and the concept of Kol, which aligns with the implication of the words הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב, as explained in the Medrash. We still must understand what this means exactly: why indeed was the Torah נִּתְּנָה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה קוֹלוֹת? What is the essence of the relationship between Torah and Kol?

The Marahal, in Tiferes Yisroel points out that there were many Nissim surrounding Mattan Torah, including Berakim and an Anan Kaved, the only Nes that was represented multiple times was the Kolos. This too highlights the connection between Torah and Kolos, a link that requires explanation.

Maharal continues, explaining that an object that has no practical role and sits idle is called a דּוֹמֵם, which means "silent." This is because a Kol denotes Metzius, or actuality. When something fulfils a purpose in the world, it has a Kol, and when it does not, it is דּוֹמֵם.

This is why Matan Torah was marked by חֲמִשָּׁה קוֹלוֹת: the Torah represents the very purpose of the world and so before Mattan Torah the world existed without true Metzius. Becuase Torah added purpose and actuality into the world at a level that had not existed beforehand, it was accompanied by an abundance of קוֹלוֹת.

This idea allows us to understand the integral connection between Torah and Kolol, but the concept of הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב requires further explanation. As is often the case, however, Maharal discusses this concept not only in Tiferes Yisroel, but in a variety of places. In fact, here he tells us: וּבַחֲבוּר בְּאֵר הַגּוֹלָה נִתְבָּאֵר בְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת, עַד שֶׁהַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֵין צָרִיךְ רְאָיָה. Looking at the way this idea is indeed presented in Be’er HaGolah can allow us a deeper insight.

There, Maharal expounds on a Gemarah in Avodah Zara that refers to the קוֹל גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה. As part of the discussion, Maharal explains that not only does Kol represent Metzius, but it denotes a transition מִן הַכֹּחַ אֶל הַפֹּעַל. When something exists only in theory or in the abstract, but then becomes actualized, it is accompanied by a Kol. As such, a Kol does not only herald Metzius, but the process of turning latent abilities into action.

With this in mind, we can perhaps understand the true essence of the קוֹל יַעֲקֹב.

Rashi, at the beginning of the Parsha, notes that Yaakov and Esav were essentially equal until they turned thirteen. It was only then that they went on their own ways: זֶה פֵּרֵשׁ לְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת וְזֶה פֵּרֵשׁ לַעֲ"זָ. If so, they each had the same abilities and Koach, but they did not use them the same way. Yaakov became the אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים, using his Kochos for Avodas Hashem, while Esav went in the opposite direction.

This was the source of Rivka’s love for Yaakov, as the Medrash tells us: כָּל שֶׁהָיְתָה שׁוֹמַעַת קוֹלוֹ הָיְתָה מוֹסֶפֶת לוֹ אַהֲבָה עַל אַהֲבָתוֹ. This does not refer to the sound of his physical voice, which indeed resembled his brother’s, but to his Kol. When Rivka heard his Kol, she realized he had latent abilities that were now being realized. Yaakov was living a life of מִן הַכֹּחַ אֶל הַפֹּעַל, the sweetest Kol emanating from his every action. It was Yaakov’s determination to actualize his Kochos that allowed him to form such a close connection to the Torah, which is the very representation of Metzius in this world, transforming him into the Amud HaTorah, the embodiment of that which was נִּתְּנָה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה קוֹלוֹת.

Rivka had a unique understanding of this, as she had grown up in the house of Besuel and Lavan, and understood what happens when potential is wasted. She therefore had a greater appreciation for the Avodah of מִן הַכֹּחַ אֶל הַפֹּעַל that Yaakov undertook, leading to her endless love for him, כָּל שֶׁהָיְתָה שׁוֹמַעַת קוֹלוֹ הָיְתָה מוֹסֶפֶת לוֹ אַהֲבָה עַל אַהֲבָתוֹ.

Yitzchok, who represents Din, was not as concerned with Kochos, but with action and the sound of the Kol Yaakov was less distinctive to him. It was for this reason that Yaakov was not as concerned that his father would identify his voice, as Ramban points out. Only once Yitzchok Avinu discerned the difference between his sons, based on Yaakov’s actions and the way he spoke, did he mention their distinctive Kochos: הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו.

Based on this idea, we can understand the Medrash on these words slightly differently: אֵין יַעֲקֹב שׁוֹלֵט אֶלָּא בְּקוֹלוֹ...אֵין עֵשָׂו שׁוֹלֵט אֶלָּא בַּיָּדָיִם. Our advantage over Esav comes in our ability to create a Kol, to take the abilities that HKBH gives us and use them for Avodas Hashem. When we emulate the existence of Yaakov Avinu, and engage in the Avodah of מִן הַכֹּחַ אֶל הַפֹּעַל, we create a Kol that cannot be silenced. The יְדֵי עֵשָׂו are rendered useless by our actions, and we are then Zoche to the Brachos of our Avos HaKedoshim.