`
Parshas Toldos
1. On the verse[1] "And it came to pass, when Yitzchak was old and his eyes were too dim to see," Rashi gives three explanations of the cause that led to "his eyes were dim": "From the smoke of these (for they would burn incense to idols). Another explanation: when he was bound on the altar and his father wanted to slaughter him, at that moment the heavens opened and the ministering angels saw and wept, and their tears came down and fell upon his eyes; therefore his eyes dimmed. Another explanation: so that Yaakov would take the blessings."
This is not understood:
a) Plainly, the verse itself gives the reason, in the words it says earlier: "when Yitzchak was old," and as a result of this "his eyes were too dim to see" [similar to what is written[2] of Yaakov our father: "And Yisrael's eyes were heavy with age"], and as we see from experience that in old age the power of sight weakens. Since the verse itself states the cause of "his eyes were dim," why does Rashi need to look for other reasons?[3]
b) Wherever Rashi brings two or more explanations, it is always because each one has some difficulty that is not present in the other. The order of the explanations too is exact: the difficulty in the second explanation is greater than in the first, and likewise the third compared with the second.
We must therefore understand: what difficulties exist in the three explanations of this Rashi, and in what way is the second more difficult than the first, and the third more than the two before it?
c) As discussed several times,[4] where Rashi writes three explanations there is (besides the separate question in each single explanation, removed by the two others) also a difficulty in every two (of the three) explanations together, because of which the third explanation is needed, in which this question does not arise (for if it could be said that two explanations remove all the questions, Rashi would not need to come to a third explanation).
In Rashi's commentary here, then, we must also find the question common to every two explanations together, and how it is answered by the third explanation.
2. The reason Rashi does not want to learn (as one might plainly accept) that "his eyes were dim" came about because "Yitzchak was old": in the previous sedra[5] it says "And G‑d blessed Yitzchak," and Rashi explains there: "(Avraham) was afraid to bless Yitzchak… He said, 'Let the Master of blessings come and bless…' And the Holy One, blessed be He, came and blessed him."
So the question arises:[6] how is it that, after the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself blessed Yitzchak our father, he should later be in a state of "his eyes were dim," which causes a person pain and suffering, to the point that — as Rashi writes further on[7] — because of it he was like a dead man?[8] It is a simple matter that since the Holy One, blessed be He, the Master of blessings, Himself blessed Yitzchak, old age should not have harmed him so (especially since in those years 123 was not such a very advanced age[9]), that he should be "like a dead man" for all of 57 years!
(Especially since we do not find this in any[10] of all the people mentioned up to now,[11] although many of them were much older than 123.)
That is why Rashi gives other reasons for "his eyes were dim." This means that (in general and in particular) because of the blessing with which the Holy One, blessed be He, blessed Yitzchak, had no outside matters intervened, there would indeed have been in him (as with Moshe our teacher) "his eye had not dimmed."[12] Here, however, outside causes intervened, and they brought about "his eyes were dim."
3. Since on studying the verse "his eyes were too dim to see" the difficulty arises immediately — how is it that Yitzchak, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself blessed, should suffer from dim eyes, as above — it stands to reason that the answer to the question is hinted in the verses themselves. And since the verse "his eyes were too dim to see" follows the previous verse, which relates how Esav's wives were "a bitterness of spirit to Yitzchak and to Rivkah" (because they worshipped idols[13]), it is reasonable[14] that the juxtaposition of the verses hints at the cause of "his eyes were dim."[15]
That is why Rashi places the explanation that "his eyes were dim" came "from the smoke of these"[16] right at the beginning, as the main explanation, for it is hinted by the verses themselves. According to the two other explanations, however, the cause of "his eyes were dim" is not hinted in the plain sense of the verses.
4. But in the first explanation there are two difficulties:
a) It is understood that Esav's wives did not live together with Yitzchak but had a separate dwelling (or dwellings) for themselves.[17] It is also understood that their worshipping idols and burning incense they did in their own dwelling. If so, it does not sit well to say that "the smoke of these" in their dwelling harmed Yitzchak in his house.
b) Why did the "smoke" harm only Yitzchak and not Rivkah?[18]
Because of these two questions on the first explanation, Rashi must come to the other explanations.[19]
5. The separate difficulty in each of the other two explanations — a) "when he was bound on the altar… and their tears came down and fell upon his eyes"; b) "so that Yaakov would take the blessings" — [besides their shared difficulty, having no hint in the verse, as above]:
In the second explanation the difficulty is that its content ("the heavens opened and the ministering angels saw and wept, and their tears came down… therefore his eyes dimmed") is a matter of homiletic exposition,[20] not at all according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the way of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah.
On the third explanation there is an even greater wonder: how could the Holy One, blessed be He, darken Yitzchak's sight (and for so many years) so that someone else, Yaakov, should thereby receive the blessings? Especially since "the Omnipresent has many ways," and the Holy One, blessed be He, certainly had another way by which Yaakov could obtain the blessings.
And since this is a far greater difficulty (than the difficulty on the second explanation) — for causing one person suffering and harm for the benefit of another seems contrary to fairness, a thing that absolutely cannot be said, G‑d forbid, in relation to the Holy One, blessed be He — Rashi therefore places this explanation after the second.[21]
6. As said earlier, each of the three explanations has an advantage over the other two. In other words: every two explanations have the same difficulty or lack of smoothness, which is not present in the third.
The main advantage of the first explanation over the other two consists, as said earlier, in that it alone is hinted in the verse.
The advantage of the second explanation over the first and third: according to all the explanations, "his eyes were dim" was the cause that brought it about that Yitzchak passed the blessings to Yaakov. But according to the first and third explanations, "his eyes were dim" came about through something of disgrace and deficiency (according to the first explanation, because of the smoke of idolatry, and according to the third, because Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav). It would follow that something of disgrace and deficiency led to… the blessings!
According to the second explanation, on the contrary: "his eyes were dim" came about through Yitzchak's greatness — through the Akeidah.[22]
The third explanation too has an advantage over the first two:
According to the first two explanations it follows that "his eyes were too dim to see" took place long before the time of "Yitzchak was old." For when Esav took the Hittite wives (when he was "forty years" old[23]), Yitzchak was then a hundred years old (for when Esav was born, Yitzchak was sixty[24]). And according to the second explanation, that it came through the tears of the angels, it happened even earlier — when Yitzchak was 37.[25]
So the question arises: why does the verse first say "when Yitzchak was old" and then "his eyes were dim"? According to the first two explanations[26] it should have been written in the reverse order, in the order of events?
Therefore Rashi offers a third explanation, "so that Yaakov would take the blessings," according to which the order of the verse is smooth: "when Yitzchak was old," and because of this he wanted to give the blessings to Esav,[27] therefore "his eyes were dim," so that Yaakov would take the blessings.
7. Among the directives from the third explanation in Rashi: how careful one must be about speaking lashon hara:
Seemingly, for Yaakov to take the blessings, the Holy One, blessed be He, had a simple solution: to reveal to Yitzchak[28] that Esav is wicked, and consequently he would give the blessings to Yaakov!
Especially since regarding Esav's wives, Yitzchak already knew that they worshipped idols[29] (but Yitzchak thought Esav was not to blame for this; he could not influence them). And regarding Esav himself too he knew that "something" with him was not entirely in order — "it is not Esav's way to have the name of Heaven fluent in his mouth."[30]
Now, since Yitzchak in any case already had some suspicion about Esav, the Holy One, blessed be He, could have revealed the whole matter to him, that Esav is wicked, and there would have been no need to come to Yitzchak's "his eyes were dim."
From this we see how far one must[31] guard against speaking lashon hara: Yitzchak was for 57 years "confined to the house" and "like a dead man," so long as lashon hara should not be spoken about a Jew (even about an apostate Jew[32])!
And if this is so in connection with Esav, then regarding Jews after the Giving of the Torah — after the Holy One, blessed be He, said to every Jew[33] "I am the L‑rd your G‑d," so that for every Jew "I am the L‑rd" became "your G‑d," his power and vitality[34] — how much more so.
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Toldos and Shabbos Parshas Vayishlach, 5728)
Key Lesson
The Holy One, blessed be He, could simply have told Yitzchak that Esav was wicked. Instead Yitzchak's eyes were dimmed and he lived 57 years confined to the house, like a dead man, so that lashon hara should not be spoken even about an apostate Jew. Weigh your words accordingly: if this was the price for Esav, how much more must we guard our speech about any Jew, whose very life and power is "I am the L‑rd your G‑d."