many of his works, that it is wrong to say God is the friend of man, from the immense disproportion between one and the other; but here he was mistaken, and spoke like a heathen; for as Philo Judæus 17 says, all who are gifted with understanding and wisdom deserve the appellation of" friend of God." Plato 18 also says, in various places, that nothing resembles God more than the upright man; and, consequently, nothing is more amiable or worthy of friendship : and Plutarch 19 affirms, that God holds no friendship towards animals, but only towards virtuous men and Aristotle himself acknowledges, in his Ethics, 20 that similarity causes love; for that very reason, from the resemblance man bears to God, he might bestow the name of "friend" upon him; but Aristotle not being enlightened by the Holy Scripture, it is no wonder he was ignorant of this.

QUESTION 52.

Gen. 25:23. The elder (Esau) shall serve the younger.

27:40. And thou shalt serve thy bro

ther (Jacob).

Gen. 33:3. (Jacob) bowed himself to the ground seven times . . . . . to his brother (Esau).

RECONCILIATION.

Any one well versed in the Hebrew language will clearly perceive that the answer given to Rebecca is so ambiguous as to admit of two opposite interpretations, for the revelation to her was, "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels"—' ', translated

thus, “And the elder shall serve the younger;" but to have said so correctly, according to the Hebrew idiom, it should have had the adverb ns, which would have made it say 71, which literally would be interpreted by “And the greater would serve the lesser :" for as R. David Kimchi says, in his Grammar, the expression, for example, of an 1187 (Reuben slew Simon) is ambiguous, for it may be understood either was the homicide (from the transposition of the nominative case), and here it is the same, the ambiguity being used to shew that there would be a time when the elder would serve the younger, and a period when the younger would serve the elder; the text admitting this double interpretation, which is to be understood that according as the works of Jacob and his posterity should be good, Esau would be his tributary and subject; but if the contrary, the reverse would be the case.

Onkelos observes, the same are the words of Isaac to Esau, "When thou shalt have the dominion thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.” 1 As Achior also gave Holofernes to understand. The Scripture makes use of this ambiguity elsewhere, as on bringing the first fruit for an offering the prayer says, ' ' (a Syrian to destroy my father). If it had intended to say a Syrian (Laban) sought to destroy my father, the adverb лs should have been inserted before 's, but it is expressed in this way to imply what has been stated.

3

Supposing the above, the doubt solves itself; for the revelation being, that Jacob should sometimes serve, and at other periods, Esau, it was proper

17 Philo de his Verbis resipuit Noe. 18 Plato in Minoe and Theeteto. 19 In Numa. Gen. 27:40. 2 Judith, c. 5. 3 Deut. 26:5.

20 Ethics, 3.

that Jacob should first bow and humble himself; the dominion of Esau commencing first, but at its termination that of Jacob will be everlasting and imperishable; as Balaam said, “Amalek was the first of nations, but his latter end shall be total perdition." Which nations are those of Esau and Jacob, as the text says "Two nations are in thy womb," and of these two he says The first was and shall be Amalek, as proceeding from the stock of Esau, but it would be totally destroyed in the end. As the dominion of Jacob was immediately to follow that of Esau, the former came out attached to his brother's heel, and was named py', Jacob, from the word apy "heel," but which also means to supplant; thereby signifying that Jacob should have Esau under his feet and subject to his empire, as the Lord has given it to be understood by the prophet Hosea, "He took his brother by the heel in the womb."5 For this reason, when a matron asked R. Joshua ben Levy, who would take away the empire? he answered with this verse, "And his hand seized Esau's heel." So that the revelation being ambiguous, it may be reasonably accounted for why Jacob first humbled himself and served Esau, from the latter being invested with the first dominion and rule; but the other meaning warrants the hope that the remaining portion of the revelation will be fulfilled hereafter in happier ages.

QUESTION 53.

Gen. 25:27. Jacob was a perfect man.

Gen. 25:31.

And Jacob said, Sell me this

day thy birthright.

(Note.-Thereby taking advantage of his brother).

The word on, which we translate "plain," means, according to Rashi, goodness, or a sincerity free from ideas of pride, or a single-mindedness: if so, how is it that we find the contrary in this account of his deceiving his brother, by giving him so paltry a thing as lentiles for his birthright, which seems to be taking an undue advantage, and therefore an improper exchange.

RECONCILIATION.

If Jacob had aspired to the dignity of the primogeniture in order to be entitled to two shares in the division of his father's property (as the Mosaic law afterwards ordained 1), or to gain any honour or popularity from it, he would then most certainly have been highly culpable in the transaction; but Jacob was not actuated by any of these motives, his only object was to obtain those spiritual benefits which the first-born are most eligible to receive, but the most worthy only capable of possessing. This is well illustrated by R. Isaac Arama supposing there is a state (like Poland formerly) the sovereignty of which is not hereditary, but elective, and the election falling on one who proved himself so benevolent, upright, just, and pious, and so brave a defender of his country, that, in recompense for the advantages and benefits the people had derived under his good government, they rendered it hereditary in his family, and swore to observe the compact thus entered into. On his death his son succeeds him; he has two sons-the eldest despicable

4 Numbers, 24:20. 5 Hosea, 12:3. 1 Deut. 21:17.

9

in figure, and contemptible in conduct-the younger, on the contrary, of prepossessing appearance and manners, and so amiable as to acquire the general good will; so that the state deemed him the worthiest to reign at his father's decease. But having sworn to the grandfather that the rightful heir should succeed to the throne, it consequently belonged to the eldest, they assembled at a banquet at which the latter was present, who indulging in wine beyond the dictates of prudence and sobriety, they persuaded him, by what appeared to him sound arguments, to resign his right to the government, which was full of cares and very burdensome, urging that a quiet and tranquil life was what he should most desire. Wine having overcome his judgment, he yielded to their reasonings, and released them from their oath as respected himself, when they elected with acclamations his worthy younger brother to be their future king.

The example is sufficiently clear: for from the beginning of the world felicity was not inherent in primogeniture, because it is not subject to the power of man, but falls to the lot of him who most deserves it; as exemplified in Seth, Shem, &c. This continued until the resplendent sun of Abraham arose, who performed such heroic actions and proclaimed the knowledge of the First Cause in such a manner that God (who ever rewards good actions) placed human felicity within his reach, and decreed the land of promise to him and his descendants, granting His divine assistance (including a special and particular providence) in his and their favour. As Scripture says, "I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy peregrinations, &c.-and I will be their God."2 And God also said, "I will bless thee,"3 and that he should" be a blessing."

On Abraham's death, Isaac, from being good, enjoyed this privilege and blessing, in pursuance of the promise; but as Isaac had two sons of such opposite characters, it was neither right, nor permitted by heaven, that Esau, the eldest, being iniquitous and depraved, should enjoy the blessings of Abraham because he was the first-born, and as merit did not entitle him, he was deprived of them in favour of his worthier brother Jacob, notwithstanding he was the youngest, as from their contrary dispositions it was impossible that both could enjoy them in common; and accordingly, as Don Isaac Abarbanel rightly observes, Jacob, by the advice of his mother, endeavoured to obtain that priority for himself, by preparing for Esau his brother the food he liked best, and coveting which, he easily persuaded himself that the cares and duties of primogeniture were very arduous and Jacob did no wrong in the proposal he made, because in the first place, he only received the transfer of what the other esteemed very lightly, as the Scripture immediately after says, "Thus Esau despised his birthright," of which, from his impiety and depravity, he was unworthy. In the second place, because every one ought to use all possible diligence to acquire the real and imperishable benefit of spirituality, although opposing a carnal-minded brother, as Jacob did in the matter of the blessing (after the birthright was sold to him); and on this account Isaac does not give the name of "deceit" to the action, but " subtilty," for he said 'ns 82, "Thy brother came with subtilty," which word

Onkelos translates in "with wisdom," and Rashi draws the same interpretation and although Isaac's first intention was to bless Esau, failing therein, he confirmed the blessing to Jacob, to preclude the idea of its having been given accidentally and unintentionally, being satisfied that the whole matter was guided by Divine will, in order that the most worthy should enjoy

2 Gen. 17:8.

3 Gen. 12:2.

4 Gen. 25:34.

5 Gen. 27:35.

the blessings of Abraham; and notwithstanning that the temporal blessings conferred on Jacob were designed for Esau, he was convinced that the former merited them, as R. Joshua ben Soeb mentions in his sermons: so that by means similar to those of the banquet alluded to, Jacob, although the younger, obtained the birthright as the lawful heir of the kingdom given to Abraham, which was the land of promise, and spiritual welfare for which he shewed himself both zealous and solicitous.

In Rabot (whence Jerome derived his information) it is said, that before the construction of the Tabernacle, altars for sacrifice were permitted, and that the service of Divine Worship appertained to the first-born, but subsequently transferred to the priesthood. Jacob judged that Esau was deficient in the necessary qualifications for such an office from being deficient in virtue, and impious in his actions; thus Plato enjoined in his Sixth Book of Laws, that no one should be a priest who had committed any irregularity. It was on this account that Jacob solicited Esau to sell him his birthright, which, the latter, already despising, readily did. R. Semtob ben Semtob, in his Sermons, also holds this to have been the case.

R. Abraham Salom says, reason dictates that the highest place and the greatest honour should be given to the first-born, for, being the eldest of the brothers, he is the representative and bears the similitude in station of God, who is the Beginning and Superior of all Beings. The ancient sages say, on this account, the First of all Causes selected the first of the human race specially to serve him, and therefore primogeniture was respected. Jacob, seeing that it was his duty to reverence Esau as being the elder, yet, repudiating the idea since his vices rendered him unworthy of it, made use of subtlety to ascertain if he knew the value of the dignity he held; reflecting that, if Esau properly appreciated the primogeniture, he was entitled to respect on that account alone; but if, on the contrary, he should evince an ignorance of its advantages, or should despise them, it would then be lawful to hold him in no esteem, and, consequently, to aspire to what the other rejected. And thus, as if he was trying him, Scripture says, Sell me, as, this day thy birth-right." 998 On the day Esau came from the field, saying, "I am going to die; and what profit shall this birth-right do to me?" denying thereby the immortality of souls and Providence. And thus Jacob was justified in purchasing that dignity without acting sinfully.

66

R. Nissim follows the same idea, adding, as stated in Guemara Batra, c. 1, that on that day Abraham had died; and on this account, Jacob prepared lentiles which were used as food by mourners, from being round, symbolical of the instability and vicissitudes of mundane events, and of the world which is ever revolving. That Esau coming from the field at the time, found his grandfather was dead, but without the least respect or feeling for a death he should have deplored, he asked his brother for the victuals he had prepared; but Jacob noticing his want of sentiment, and how lightly he held the dignity of being a branch from such a root, observed to him, "I venerate such a grandfather so highly, and so greatly esteem the root you depreciate, that I do not deem it right, being the younger, that I should have the care and government of the family while you are diverting yourself in hunting and pastimes of the field: but if you persist that it should be so, sell me your birth-right and I will undertake the charge;" which proposition Easu agreed to, as he considered Jacob's complaint to be well founded. Thus, by any of these modes of reasoning, might the patriarch Jacob, without being charged

Bereshit Raba, c. 63.

7 Nevé Salom, b. 1, c. 15.

8 Genesis 25:31.

with duplicity, conscientiously purchase the primogeniture from Esau, and take the blessing in his stead. Nor can he be taxed with such in respect of his conduct to Laban in the invention of the rods, which he only made use of to pay himself for his services, and which payment Laban endeavoured to defraud him of.

Here we see a clear contradiction; for, in the two places the names of Esau's wives are different, how is this to be understood?

RECONCILIATION.

As the latter text says that "Esau took his wives," &c. all authors agree that they were the only wives he had, and are the same mentioned in the first text, although different names are given to them; Adah, the daughter of Elon, is the same as Bashemath, the daughter of Elon; Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, is Judith, the daughter of Beeri; and Bashemath, the daughter of Ishmael, is Mahalath of the same parentage; so that they are the identical women with different names: which is not surprizing; for, as Aben Ezra says, there are hundreds of similar instances in Scripture, and he quotes a very appropriate one, similar to that of Judith, the daughter of Beeri, who is called also Aholibamah, daughter of Anah. It is in the case of Abijah, king of Judah, in 1 Kings, xv. 2; where he is said to be the son of Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom, and in 2 Chronicles, xiii. 2, his mother's name is stated to be Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel; here, as in this text, the woman's name as well as her father's is different, shewing that it was not unusual to have two names.

Gen. 28:5.

QUESTION 55.

And Isaac sent away Jacob; and he went to Padan-aram, unto Laban, son of Bethuel.

Gen. 29:5. And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor?

Bethuel was the son of Nahor, as stated in Genesis xxii. 22, and Laban was the son of Bethuel, according to the first verse, how then in the second place is he called the son of Nahor?

G