(For the riddles, please see back page)
1) The Yalkut Reuveni writes that Yaakov also gave Eisav a נשר – an eagle. Some explain that since Eisav was a renowned hunter (25:27), the eagle was intended to assist him in his pursuit of prey, similar to hunting dogs that are used today.
However, Rav Yehuda HaChassid explains that נשר does not refer to a new species of animal that Ya’akov gave him, but to the total number of animals he sent, for the Torah records (32:15) that Yaakov sent 200 female goats and 20 male goats, 200 ewes and 20 rams, 30 nursing camels, 40 female cows and 10 bulls, and 20 female donkeys and 10 male donkeys. This totals 550 animals, which is the numerical value of the word נשר.
The Ichud B’Chidud suggests that the word נשר comes from the word נושרות – outcasts, for the Baal HaTurim points out that all eight words in the pasuk that records the gift of animals end with the letter ם, which teaches us that all the animals Yaakov sent to Eisav were בעלי מומין – blemished and disqualified from being offered as sacrifices. (Parsha Potpourri, R’ Ozer Alport)
2) The Madanay Asher brings a number of answers:
i) If the remembrance is only when eating, then we would only remember the miracle when eating the gid hanoshe. However, now that we remember the miracle by not eating, we are able to remember it all the time. (R’ Shamai Gross)
ii) If the mitzvah was to eat the gid hanoshe, it would be very difficult to fulfill. Gid hanoshe is only found in animals, and not in birds. Therefore, people would need to slaughter entire animals to get a kezayis of gid hanoshe, and with difficulty there may be enough for two people per animal. Therefore, only rich people who could afford animals would be able to fulfill the mitzvah, and the miracle won’t remembered so well. (R’ Shamai Gross)
iii) If there would be a mitzvah to eat the gid hanoshe, there would be a fixed time for the mitzvah, as it wouldn’t make sense that every single day there would be a mitzvah. If so, the mitzvah would be time bound, and women would be exempt. However, the Torah wanted that women would also be included in the mitzvah, therefore, the mitzvah was given as a lav, negative commandment, and not a positive commandment. (R’ Shamai Gross)
iv) If the mitzvah was a positive commandment to eat, it wouldn’t be recognizable as we would simply eat the entire animal and people wouldn’t notice any difference, therefore, the mitzvah was given as a lav, and this way it is recognizable. (R’ Ben Tzion Reich)
3) The Chida (Pnei Dovid, Vayishlach ois 5) answers: The Mishnah in Shabbos is referring to dying either before birth or whilst giving birth, if, however, a lady first gives birth and only then dies, then it shows her death is not because of sin. The three women mentioned by the Medrash, only died after giving birth. The above is implicit in the pasuk by Rochel when it says: ו תלד רחל ותקש בלדתה - “Rochel gave birth, and had difficulty in her childbirth” (35:16). First she gave birth, then she died.
4) The Maharal answers based on the Gemara’s teaching (Niddah 31a) that there are three partners in creating a child: Hashem, the father, and the mother. The mother provides the blood, flesh, and earthly components associated with the base parts of a person, whereas the contributions of Hashem and the father are more elevated. Accordingly, the wickedness of a child is primarily dependent on the components it receives from its mother, and for this reason people would hold Rivkah more responsible for Eisav's actions than Yitzchok.
Alternatively, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman suggests that because Yitzchok was old and blind and remained in his house, people stopped talking about him and there was no concern that they would curse him for Eisav's actions.
5) The Maharsham (R’ Sholam Mordechai Barzan) said the following explanation at his wife’s levayah:
The Gemara in Shabbos (152b) teaches: “If one suffers from jealousy then his bones will rot, and if one doesn’t suffer from jealousy, then his bones won’t rot. Like it says in the pasuk, “the rotting of bones is caused by jealousy”.”
If one’s bones rot and turn into dust, his/her matzavah can no longer be referred to as “so and so’s matzavah” as he is no longer there - his bones have rotted, and his body is no longer around. However, if one’s bones last forever, then the matzavah can be referred to as “so and so’s matzavah” as he/she is still there.
In Parshas Vayeitzei (30:1) we learn: ותקנא רחל באחותה – “Rochel was jealous of her sister”. And there is room to be concerned that the bones of Rochel rotted, as she suffered from jealously. However, it’s clear from Rashi that Rochel’s jealousy was a positive jealously, and she was jealous of her sister’s good attributes, and such a jealousy is allowed, like we find: קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה – “Jealously of scribes increases wisdom” (Bava Basra 21b).
This is what the pasuk is telling us, “It is the monument of Rochel until this day”, she never had the forbidden attribute of jealousy, therefore, her bones never rotted, and she is around until today, therefore, the matzavah can be named after her. (Cited in Hakdomah to Shu”t Maharsham Vol. 2, pg. 9).
