Binah le-‘itim (Understanding of the Times)

First, we will explain the reason for the custom of all Israel to read from Tractate Avot on these Sabbaths. We would like to analyze the meaning of the name of the tractate, why it is called Avot [Fathers]. For names are indicative of the essence and true nature of matters. This was the wisdom of Adam, the first man, who was praised for naming all the animals, as the verse states about him: And the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air out of the ground; and He brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man would call every living creature, that was to be its name. And the man gave names, etc. (Genesis 2:19–20). It has been said regarding the phrase and whatever the man would call, etc., that this has no meaning.¹ However, in my opinion, the message that the verse is seeking to convey is the great wisdom and discernment of this man. For his wisdom encompassed the knowledge of the essence of each individual creature, to such an extent that he could give each of them its unique name that would distinguish it from the others. He did not give the animals a general, common name, which would not express their differences. For it seems from the verse that whatever the man would not call by a personal name, but would simply call a “living creature”²—that was also the term [“name”] for the man himself. For he is like them in this regard, as they are all “living creatures.” This term does not serve to differentiate him from all the other creatures, as regarding him as well it is stated and the man became a living creature (Genesis 2:7). If so, this term would not be indicative of any wisdom, as it would merely denote a sentient being. It is true that man differs from the animals in his rational faculty, but this term does not distinguish him from the creatures who cannot speak. However, he did not do so, but gave many names to all the animals, beasts, and fowl—each of them received a name that suited their nature, and the man thereby displayed his wisdom.

Similarly, our forefather Jacob, may he rest in peace, when he wanted to know the nature of the angel who wrestled with him, he asked him, please tell me your name (Genesis 32:30), as I explained in my commentary on that passage. The same applies to the wicked Esau’s statement to his father, may he rest in peace: “And he said, ‘Is not he rightly named Jacob [Ya‘akov]? For he has supplanted me [va-ya‘ekveni] these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he has taken away my blessing [“And he said, have you not reserved a blessing for me?”; Genesis 27:36].’” Now, what new insight into this name has Esau just gained? What is meant by the word “these,” and why does the verse state “and he said” twice? Furthermore, since he was speaking to his father, why didn’t he say, “did you not rightly name him Jacob,” just as he later said have you not reserved?³ For it is undoubtedly the case that when the verse says: and he called his name Jacob [at his birth; Genesis 25:26.] it is referring back to his father. As for the interpretation of the sages that it was the Holy One who named Jacob, this is a homiletical exposition of theirs, which is certainly not what Esau had in mind.

In my opinion, since Esau would trap his father with his mouth,⁴ by displaying to him his signs of purity⁵ and presenting himself as a God-fearing person—since he wanted his father to think of him as a fine individual who performed good deeds—this was unquestionably the reason why he took every pain to conceal from him the episode of the sale of the birthright. For there is nothing more shameful than this, the exchange of a lasting privilege for momentary pleasure, swapping a worthy title for contemptable enjoyment. By conducting that sale, Esau had clearly demonstrated that he was a highly immoral fellow who had no faith in the eternity of the soul, heaven forbid. Accordingly, if his father had any inkling of this transaction, he would have considered Esau a wholly wicked person. It was therefore in Esau’s interest that Isaac should never know anything at all about the birthright, so that his father would give him all these earthly blessings, that he should lord over everyone, and that all others should serve him and bow down to him.⁶ For these are the kinds of things he desired. However, now that the opposite had occurred, as it was Jacob who was made lord over him, even though he was the younger twin, and his father had informed him that his brother had come with guile and taken his blessing (Genesis 27:35), Esau said to himself, “Now I understand the meaning of the name, why my father called him Jacob. He must have had a flash of prophecy and foreseen what my brother would do.”

This name is not merely a general indication of deception, that Jacob would be a deceiver. For if so, he would have been called Deceiver, as in the statement your brother came with guile. Rather, the name Jacob [Ya‘akov] refers to a specific type and category of trickery and deceit, which is related to the heel [‘ekev], i.e., the act of taking something in an underhand manner, from a position of servitude, just as the heel is underneath, at the lower edge of the body. This is the meaning of va-ya‘ekveni, that he made me like a heel, lowly, while he became the head, above me. Esau further states that this happened two times, that is, this very outcome, him turning me into the heel, was equivalent on both occasions, for in both instances the aim was the same—to lower my status and raise his level. First he took my birthright, the fact that I was the firstborn and he was the younger brother. This overturned everything, as I became the heel and he the head and the firstborn. Now too, he has taken my blessing, which I cherished the most, as I wanted to lord over and rule everything, and he has seized this dominion for himself, leaving me as the heel, subordinate and subjugated to him.

Esau did not actually state all this to his father, for if he had said to him, “he took my birthright,” his father would have asked him what he meant by that, and then Esau would have had to reveal to him his hidden flaws and corrupt character. Rather, he was speaking to himself, astonished at how Jacob’s very name represented his true nature. That is why he said is he not named [etc.].⁷ Immediately afterwards, he went back to speaking to his father as before, and therefore the verse repeats: and he said, have you not reserved a blessing for me, etc.

In sum, a name represents the essential nature of an object. Accordingly, it is appropriate to inquire into the meaning of this name Avot: why was it chosen as the name for this tractate? I have seen three suggested answers from the commentaries. The first is the most famous and accepted explanation, that it is because the tractate lists the chain of generations of the Oral Torah, how it was handed down from father to son, from one man to another, from our teacher Moses all the way down to the holy Rabbi Judah the Prince. This is indeed a correct and honorable intention of the editor of this tractate, which consists entirely of words of admonition and reproof and ethical sayings. With this name of Avot, the editor informs us that these are not merely philosophical ideas, which the sages came up with simply through their own contemplations and ruminations. Rather, these teachings are based on the true tradition, which comes from our holy ancestors, handed down from father to son. One should therefore be very careful about their observance, in keeping with the lofty virtue of those who formulated them.