Reuven, you are my first born, my strength and the first of my vigor, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in might: Rash like water, may you not be preeminent. When you mounted your father's bed, then you defiled; my couch he mounted!
The Ohr Hachaim asks multiple questions:
- Why does Yaakov tell us that Reuven was his firstborn son? Do we not know that already from the previous Parshiyos?
- Yaakov said that Reuven wasֶכֹחִ וְרֵאשִית אוֹנִי – my strength and the first of my vigor. What was the purpose of this announcement? How is this part of the Berachos?
- Additionally, what is the significance of the double expression – strength and first of vigor? Are they not the same thing?
- Why did Yaakov say that he was יֶתֶר שְאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָּז - preeminent in dignity and preeminent in might? What is the purpose of this? Chazal say that this is referring to the double positions of royalty and priesthood. Reuven was to inherit the royal mantle, serving as king to his siblings and as the Cohanim for Klal Yisroel. The Targum writes that he would receive three portions, including royalty, priesthood, as well as the double portion that every firstborn receives. Why did the Torah not mention the three items, seeing as it discussed the details of Reuven’s extra portion?
- What did the Torah mean when it said פַחַז כַמַיִם - Rash like water? What is the significance of it? Rashi writes that Reuven was not to receive his extra portion because he was rash like water. This rashness was expressed with his mounting his father’s bed. But this is insufficient to explain the Torah’s mention of his rashnes. Why did the Torah not merely tell us that he would be punished for mounting his father’s bed? Why did it have to add the psychological reasoning behind the aveira?
The Ohr Hachaim answers all of his questions with a discussion of Yaakov Avinu’s behavior. The Torah forbids a person to choose a younger son and prioritize him for a double portion. A person must recognize his oldest as his oldest, even if he favors his younger child, and he must ensure that the double portion be given to the oldest son. How could Yaakov grant the firstborn rights to another son, leaving Reuven with nothing? Even if he prefers the mother of his younger child, he must choose the child of the less-loved wife.
The Ohr Hachaim discusses the Avos’ fulfillment of the Torah before they were commanded to do so. We find that the Torah commends our forefathers for keeping Torah, yet Yaakov married two sisters and Avraham did not circumcize himself until he was explicitly commanded to do so. What is the meaning of this dichotomy? Perhaps this prohibition against choosing a younger son against an older one is in the same category as marrying two sisters and circumcision.
The Ramban writes that our forefathers fulfilled the entire Torah before being commanded to do so, but only in Eretz Yisroel. The Ohr Hachaim rejects this answer, as the Mitzvos that the Ramban is referring to are obligatory all over the world, not just in Eretz Yisroel.
The Ohr Hachaim explains that our forefathers studied Torah from Shem the son of Noach. He learned from Chanoch who learned Torah straight from Hashem, as the Zohar teaches us. However, he was only commanded in seven Mitzvos, and if he would transgress any of them, he would be killed. The rest of the Torah was told to him on a voluntary basis. If he fulfilled them, he would be rewarded. But transgression would not cause him any problems.
The Avos loved Hashem with all of their might and they were always looking for ways to serve Him. The Torah says רֹמְש יִלֹקְב םָּהָּרְבַא עַמָּש רֶשֲא בֶקֵע מִשְמַרְ תִי מִצְוֹתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָּי - because Avraham has listened to my voice and has kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My teachings. Avraham is commended for keeping these Mitzvos, and Chazal tell us that he kept all Mitzvos, including Eruv Tavshilin. He also taught his children to continue in this path. They all kept the Torah as they were taught, but were not commanded. However, if they saw a cosmic benefit in transgressing the Torah, they were permitted to do so, because in their lives, they only kept Mitzvos as extra credit and would not be punished for their transgressions. If a person were to see a benefit in transgressing a prohibition nowadays, he would not be permitted to do so, because of the obligatory nature of the Torah after we were commanded to do so. Yaakov saw that his predestined wives were the two sisters, and both were worthy of being married to him. That is why he could transgress the prohibition against marrying two sisters.
This is similar to the Halacha that the Rambam writes that a Navi who tells us to transgress a commandment on a temporary basis, is not considered a lying prophet and we must listen to him. It is possible that our forefathers were themselves prophets who only did what they did based on an explicit command from Hashem. A person may transgress a commandment if instructed temporarily to do so. Maybe Yaakov was explicitly instructed to marry two sisters. Yehuda was instructed by an angel to take Tamar, as the Medrash tells us.
When Yaakov had to punish Reuven for what he had done, he was allowed to remove the firstborn right from him because of the benefit of punishing his son. Alternatively, he may have been instructed to do so by Hashem.
Why was Yosef chosen to take Reuven’s place? Why not Yehuda? Or another one of the older brothers?
The Zohar says that when Yaakov went to Leah on his wedding night, his mind and thoughts were on Rachel, thinking she was Rachel. Essentially, Reuven’s conception was supposed that of Yosef, as Yaakov’s first marital experience was supposed to be with Rachel. Therefore, transferring the firstborn right to Yosef makes sense.
If it indeed made sense for Yaakov to transfer the firstborn right to Reuven, why does the Torah tell us that it was a punishment for what Reuven did?
The Ohr Hachaim explains this with a general rule. Everything spiritual can consist of one of three things – holy, mundane, or evil. The holy produces branches of positive energy, everlasting good fortune and the wish to increase understanding. The mundane portion is that which persuades a person to seek out pleasures of this world, build edifices in this world, and other such enjoyment. The evil part is that which drives a person to commit evil, steal, lie, cheat, eat forbidden foods, and commit adultery.
Every action in the world can be one of those three, and a person must be careful to do all of his actions with holiness and not with impurity. When a person does something impure by transgressing an aveira, he introduces an impurity to his soul, and he is then a mixture of holiness and impurity. He then desires this impurity more and more. He cannot uproot this desire any more, he must fight it. If he fights his first desire for evil immediately, that desire would never become a part of his soul.
This penchant for evil is based on a person’s inner personality, as he was born. If the parents act with full holiness and purity, the child will have no connection to evil at all.
When Yaakov conceived Reuven, one could think that his thoughts were impure, he was thinking of Rachel, not Leah. Someone may make the mistake of thinking that Reuven’s conception was damaged, and that is why Reuven ended up doing what he did by mixing his father’s bed. Yaakov’s original thoughts led to Yosef receiving the firstborn rights, as the Zohar said.
This answers all of the questions. Yaakov explained that Reuven was his firstborn son, and he turned to an illicit relationship. This can cause three things. Either an illicit relationship can lead to an illicit child, or that they do not actually conceive, or that they do not actually copulate, but his thoughts are on her.
Yaakov said בְכֹרִ י אַתָּה – you are my firstborn. He had never produced a child before. Yaakov was also כֹחִי – Yaakov’s first power. He had never copulated with a woman in the past. He was also רֵאשִית אוֹנִי – the first of his vigor. Yaakov had never even thought about another person before. Yaakov was not to blame for what Reuven had done, because if he would be, his own soul would also be damaged.
Reuven should have had a greater portion, a double portion of the money and a more elevated position in the world. The word בְכֹרִ י alluded to the double portion and the יֶתֶר שְאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָּז referred to priesthood and royalty.
Reuven misbehaved, and he had nobody to blame but himself. He was rash like water, he did not fight his first inclination to evil as he should, and that is why he was punished.
