Sponsored by Rabbi Shimon Markel in honor of the birthday of Rebbetzin Miriam Jacobs shetichye and the yortzeit of her beloved mother, Rebbetzin Pesya Gittel bas Eliezer Rosenfeld a”h.
In describing Esav’s and Yaakov’s distinct personalities, the Torah describes Esav as “one who knows hunting.” Rashi’s precisely worded commentary on these words brings a new appreciation to Esav’s character.
In Parshat Toldot the Torah describes the stark dissimilarity of Yitzchak’s two sons, Esav and Yaakov.
Text 1
The lads grew up and Esav became one who knows hunting, a man of the field; but Yaakov was a wholesome man, abiding in tents.
Bereishit 25:27
Rashi explains the words, “one who knows hunting,” as referring to Esav’s skill of deception with which he attempted to deceive his father Yitzchak.
Rashi states:
Text 2
[He knew how] to trap and to deceive his father with his mouth and ask him, “Father, how do we tithe salt and straw?” His father thereby thought that he was scrupulous in his observance of the commandments.
Rashi, Ibid
The commentators explain, that Esav specifically posed this question to Yitzchak, being that salt and straw are materials which are exempt from the obligation to take ma-aser, tithes.
Esav, therefore, used this question in his attempt to show just how great his piety was—demonstrating his wish to perform the mitzvah of ma-aser, even from those materials that are exempt from the mitzvah.
Esav’s question
Esav’s attempt to impress his father, though, seems counterintuitive. His queries regarding salt and straw, seemingly do more to show his ignorance than his piety.
Indeed, Esav did not actually separate a tithe from salt and straw—he merely inquired about it. Surely, displaying his ignorance is not the best way to illustrate scrupulousness.
Not only would Esav’s ruse be unsuccessful in convincing Yitzchak of his righteousness, it would instead portray Esav as an ignoramus, who wasn’t aware of Jewish law!
Furthermore, having grown up in the home of Yitzchak—were Esav to have truly been pious—he would have observed his father’s performance of mitzvot.
If he had done so, he would surely have known that ma-aser is not separated from salt and straw.
Therefore, this begs the question: how did Esav attempt to fool Yitzchak and demonstrate his piety through questions regarding salt and straw which have done more to show his ignorance than his devoutness?
Rashi’s version
Another question on Rashi’s explanation is the changes that he made in it from the actual language of the Medrash.
The idea of Esav questioning his father in regard to these laws is originally brought both by Medrash Tanchuma and Bereishit Rabba.
Tanchuma phrases Esav’s question with a slight variation from the way that Rashi and Bereishit Raba pose the question.
According to Tanchuma, he was not asking how to separate ma-aser from salt and straw, but whether one must give a tithe from these products to begin with.
There, Esav’s query is stated as follows:
Text 3
When Esav would come from an excursion he would say to his father, “Father, what is the law concerning salt whether or not one must give ma-aser from it?” Yitzchak would be astounded and say, “Look at this son of mine, how scrupulous is he in the mitzvot!” His father would ask him, “Where were you today?” Esav would answer, “I was in the study house...”
Medrash Tanchuma, Toldot 8
According to Tanchuma, Esav’s question was concerning the very obligation to separate salt and straw, not the manner in which it was to be separated.
In Bereishit Rabba though, this inquiry is formulated somewhat differently. There, the Medrash states that he asked how one makes these products fit for consumption. The Medrash explains that Esav would ask the following:
Text 4
How is salt rectified... how is straw rectified?
Bereishit Rabba 63:10
Rashi’s explanation?
The difference between the two ways in the Medrash is not merely stylistic, but they are each expressing a different question:
According to Tanchuma, Esav was not saying that one definitely gives ma-aser from salt and straw, rather, he was asking if one does.
In Bereishit Rabba though, the Medrash is sure that one does indeed need to rectify these produce, the only question is how.
Rashi, in his commentary, chose to formulate Esav’s question in a similar manner to Bereishit Rabba.
He writes, “Father, how do we tithe salt and straw?” This version enunciates the certitude that there is indeed an obligation of ma-aser for these products.
Rashi specifically opted to pose Esav’s query in a manner parallel to the Bereishit Rabba which amplifies:
A) Esav’s ignorance of the basic laws of ma-aser. As he was certain that one does indeed separate ma-aser from these materials which are exempt from ma-aser, and B) his obliviousness that his father Yitzchak did not separate ma-aser from these products.
What is perhaps most astounding about Rashi’s version of Esav’s question, is that according to Rashi, Esav asked, “how do we tithe salt and straw?” which is a question that doesn’t seem to make sense at all.
A tithe by its very definition is ten percent. What possibly could Esav have meant by asking such a ridiculous question, and how would asking it convince his father of his scrupulousness in mitzvot?
Rectifying vs. tithing
Additionally, it should be noted, that though Bereishit Rabba and Rashi use a similar language, there is an important difference in their choice of words.
While Rashi formulates the question as, “How do we tithe salt and straw,” Bereishit Rabba says “How is salt rectified... how is straw rectified?”
Instead of formulating the question that Esav asked how to tithe salt, it states that Esav asked how to rectify it.
According to the Medrash, Esav knew that salt and straw were exempt from the obligation of ma-aser. His question was rather how one could rectify them.
For, while he knew that one need not give a tenth of these products as ma-aser, he assumed that there should be some amount that one should give.
He reckoned that since the purpose of ma-aser is to demonstrate that the world and all that is in it belongs to G-d, one should exhibit in all products that in truth they belong to the Almighty.
So, while technically one is not responsible to give a tenth from these products; in an attempt to demonstrate his stringency with mitzvot, he asked how one could express G-d’s dominion over all that exists—even in the salt and straw.
Tehillim 24:1.
He therefore questioned, “How is salt rectified... how is straw rectified?”
Meaning to say: which act should I perform that would establish that salt and straw belong to the Almighty?
Rashi, though, changes Esav’s question from one that is intelligent, to one that is completely incomprehensible.
Rashi chose to express Esav’s question as, “how do we tithe salt and straw,” not how it could be rectified.
Why did Rashi change the words of the Medrash in a way that makes Esav’s question unintelligible, when he could have sufficed with the explanation of the Medrash which seems to be better understood?
Ma-aser from all
The above question can be answered through appreciating the mandate of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah: to explain the simple meaning of the verse—even when it runs contrary to the other branches Torah understanding.
In Rashi’s own words:
Text 5
I did not come except [to explain] the simple meaning of the verse.
Rashi, Bereishit 3:8
Rashi is not concerned if his explanation runs contrary to Medrash or even Halacha—as long as it is sound in the straightforward explanation of the Torah.
