Dvar Torah-Toldot
This week's Torah portion has one of the more familiar Torah stories- Jacob (after being mercilessly egged on by his mother Rebecca) deceives his father Isaac to get a blessing, thus making his brother Esau extremely mad (and in fact a bit homicidal).

A few things leap out at me.

1. Why was Isaac's blessing (assuming it really was just a blessing of words and/or spiritual leadership rather than a tangible gift of
property)* worth deceiving Isaac and sundering a family over? To the extent anyone other than Jacob is responsible for Jacob's destiny, only God can really affect Jacob's destiny. His father's predictions are about as important as my predictions as to who's going to be elected President in three years - valid insofar as he knows his children, but not something that can actually affect their fate.

One possible (but not very traditional, I think) spin: Rebecca was just benighted and superstitious. If so, maybe the story is trying to tell us to trust God and to ignore superstition.

2. After Isaac learns that he has been deceived, he tells Esau that he has made Jacob "a lord . . . over you" (Gen. 27:37, Artscoll translation) and then he gives the following blessing: "Behold, of the fatness of the earth shall be your dewlling and of the dwe of the heavens from above. By your sword you shall live, but your brother you shall serve; yet it shall be that when you are aggrieved, you may cast your yoke from upon your neck." (Id., 28:39-40).

S.R. Hirsch points out that none of this really happens till Messianic times, when Esau's descendants serve the Jews.

So why couldn't Isaac have just been a bit more tactful, by substituting a personal prophecy for a national one? He could have just told Esau about what would happen during Esau's life (i.e. that Esau would be filthy rich, have lots of kids, and basically have a pretty good life)** and just let it go at that?***

*Which may not be the case. Shlomo Riskin suggest that the "blessing" was really a double portion of property traditionally given to the firstborn. If this is so, the story of course makes more sense.

**As far as I can tell from Gen. 36, which states that Esau's "wealth was too abundant for them [Jacob and Esau] to dwell together." (Gen. 36:7)

***Of course, he would have had to explain what made Jacob's blessing better. But anything he said would have been more tactful than Gen. 27:37- for example, that Jacob would be a great spiritual leader or something.