Bava Metzia 89
Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the biblically mandated dispensation given to field laborers to eat from the produce they harvest while they work (Devarim 23:25-26). This job benefit only accrues in regard to produce that grows from the ground, excluding milking and making butter and cheese, as these forms of produce do not come from the soil.
Tosafos here raises a contradiction between this Gemara’s parameters for produce of the ground versus the Gemara in Eruvin (27b) which considers livestock to be produce of the ground for the redemption of maaser sheini. Tosafos answers that the parameters depend on context; livestock are products of land because they are sustained from the earth, but they are do not sprout and grow from the earth. Thus, in regard to the harvesting of field laborers, the criterion is products that germinate from the soil, while for maaser sheini, which has to do with general agricultural production, livestock are products of the land.
The Midrash reads various innuendos regarding Yaakov’s peacemaking entreaty to Esav (Bereishis 32:5) which bear on the above categorizations: “I lived (as a stranger) with Lavan…and I acquired oxen and donkeys.” Rashi there elaborates that Yaakov was trying to placate Esav by telling him that the blessings of the first born were not fulfilled, so he need not be angry with him for having stolen them. How so? He tells him, I lived as a stranger with Lavan and did not achieve any prominence. Furthermore, while I did amass some possessions, oxen and donkeys, these were not the blessings of our father. Our father promised me, “[G-d will give thee] of the dew of heaven and of the fat places of the earth” (Bereishis 27:28); oxen and donkeys are neither of the heaven nor of the earth.
Mizrachi points out that Rashi (and Yaakov) were following our Gemara in not considering livestock as a product of the land, thereby indicating that Yaakov’s material success did not come from the stolen blessings. Using Tosafos’ contextual distinction, we can legitimately argue that Yitzchak’s blessing consisted of that which literally grows from the soil (“the dew from heaven and the fat of the land”), and was referring to high-yielding crops. Animals, as such, are not included, and so Yaakov could claim that the blessing was not fulfilled.
Even considering Yaakov’s efforts to mollify a homicidal Esav, it seems odd that he would discredit his father’s ability to grant blessings. Additionally, Rashi quotes another midrash that uses an anagram of the Hebrew word for “I lived as a stranger” – “garti” – to allude that “I lived with Lavan and nonetheless observed the 613 [Taryag] commandments.” How would that last comment add to Esav’s interest in making peace? The Maharal (Gur Aryeh) combined both statements to communicate a multi-valent idea: “The material benefits that you thought were the main point of the blessings were not fulfilled, as I did not receive from the produce of the soil. The blessings are about spiritual sustenance, and this came as I observed the 613 commandments. As that is not your interest, you should not feel bad that you lost out on something.”
To fit these d’rashos back into a simple, unified peshat, Yaakov was saying, “I lived a non-materialistic existence. The blessings, in terms of actual wealth, did not accomplish or mean anything. I amassed transitory possessions but neither prestige nor significant assets.”
However, this raises another question. If that was the intent of the blessings, why was Esav fighting for them, and in such a state of bloodlust? If only Yitzchak had said to Esav, “Don’t worry, those blessings that Yaakov stole were not really what you wanted anyway.” We might say, since Esav fooled his father into thinking he was righteous (see Rashi on Bereishis 25:28 and Bereishis Rabbah 63:10), Yitzchak did not think to give him such reassurance. Still, this answer does not satisfy. If these blessings were merely spiritual, would it really be necessary to resort to all this deception? Surely, spiritual matters can be sorted out by G-d.
It’s one thing to argue that material benefits, though also divinely ordained, require human efforts, and vying for the blessing of the first born could be part of this effort. But is it necessary to chase after spiritual blessings via physical means? To paraphrase the Gemara (Rosh Hashana 6a), “Everything is in G-d’s treasure vault,” and thus G-d can give these spiritual benefits to he who is most deserving.
I believe the answer is subtle. Yitzchak’s blessings were a prophetic channeling of G-d’s will as it interacts with the person. No two people are alike, and therefore each person has a different purpose in life and a different blessing. Our Sages teach (Makkos 10b), “G-d leads and assists a person along the path he wishes to follow.” If so, Yaakov’s presentation to Esav is more nuanced.
Perhaps at the time Yaakov was trying to obtain the blessings, his character and mission in life had not yet been fully formed. Indeed those blessings might have been physical too. After his exile and resultant spiritual development, the blessings he sought were no longer even slightly material. After all these years, Yaakov was declaring to Esav, “The blessings I sought and received have taken a spiritual form. You need not worry that I will be in competition with you over territory or wealth. Those blessings are still available for you.”
Support the Efforts Despite the Inconsistencies
Bava Metzia 92
Our Gemara on amud aleph refers to an adage that the nazir is expected to heed, but also is a general ethical direction to be cautious in not getting too close to temptations:
“Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go round, go round; do not approach a vineyard. It is prohibited for a nazirite to eat any of the products of the vine. To keep a nazirite away from temptation, the Sages attempt to deter him from accepting work in a vineyard.”
One of the most famous nazirs was Shimshon. The Malbim used this Gemara to explain an incident from Shimshon’s life (Judges, chapter 14):
“So Samson and his father and mother went down to Timnah. When he came to the vineyards of Timnah [for the first time], a full-grown lion came roaring at him. The spirit of G-d gripped him, and he tore him asunder with his bare hands as one might tear a kid asunder; but he did not tell his father and mother what he had done.”
Various commentaries ask: If Shimshon was traveling with his parents, how could they not have seen this event? It’s hard not to notice a lion attacking someone and then being torn apart. What does the verse mean when it says, “He did not tell his father and mother what he had done”? The Malbim answers that since the verse tells us that they were passing the vineyards of Timnah, Shimshon parted company with his parents. They walked through the vineyard, and Shimshon took the long route to circumvent temptation. It was then that the lion attacked, and so his parents did not see any of the miracles transpire.
I must ask: Why did his parents not accompany Shimshon on that route? It is dangerous to let someone travel alone, especially when we have a teaching that a lion does not pounce on two people (Shabbos 151a). I suppose the answer is that his parents were elderly and could not easily follow his path.
A more creative answer occurs to me as well. Where was Shimshon’s family going and why? The verses tell us that he had requested to marry a Philistine woman, to the dismay of his parents (ibid. 2-3): “On his return, he told his father and mother, ‘I noticed one of the Philistine women in Timnah; please get her for me as a wife.’ His father and mother said to him, ‘Is there no one among the daughters of your own kindred and among all our people, that you must go and take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?’ But Samson answered his father, ‘Get me that one, for she is the one that pleases me.’”
But as the verse (ibid. 4) also tells us: “His father and mother did not realize that his request was from G-d, who was seeking a pretext against the Philistines, for the Philistines were ruling over Israel at that time.”
Can you imagine the scene? Shimshon is demanding to intermarry, but all of the sudden he’s too frum to walk in the vineyard because he might be tempted? It is possible that his parents found his motives and behavior so inconsistent that they did not feel compelled to accompany him on a fool’s quest. As it says in Avos (2:5): “A brute is not sin-fearing, nor is an ignorant person pious.”
If so, this is an important lesson. Sometimes our loved one’s quest to perform a mitzvah or enact piety may seem incongruent or hypocritical. We should be careful to not judge quickly and consider supporting the efforts within reason, despite apparent inconsistencies.
