← Library

Akeidat Yitzchak

Sefaria · Jewish Thought > Rishonim · 1,212 sections

1. _.19.1.29

   12) Why did Abraham apologize each time after he had lowered the initial number to forty-five?

2. _.19.1.30

   13) Since the result of Abraham's pleas was zero and therefore would not show Abraham as a successful interlocutor, why was all this reported in so much detail?

3. _.19.1.31

   (1) Since fulfilment of the commandment to circumcise himself and all the male members of his household simultaneously could put his whole household in jeopardy in the event of a hostile attack, Abraham might have decided to temporarily move close to his allies Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, in order to discourage any attack. Therefore, it is reported where G-d spoke to Abraham. Even though Abraham was only in temporary quarters, he qualified for the vision. That Abraham had greatly risen in stature is clear from the fact that he did not have to move from his seat when G-d spoke to him, as he had on previous occasions. Our sages say that G-d came to visit Abraham on the third day of his being sick due to the effects of the circumcision (Baba Metzia 86). Since Abraham and Sarah hosted what looked like very ordinary individuals in such a generous fashion, it was fitting that the reward for such hospitality should be announced by one of the guests himself. (2) This is the reason why all the details of this act of hospitality are worth recording. Abraham could have skipped having dinner guests this once, in view of his state of health; he could have withdrawn into his tent long before the travellers had a chance to reach him. Instead, he ran forward, imploring them, as if they were doing him a favor by dining with him, instead of his doing them a favor by inviting them. (3) He begged one of them to interrupt his journey, so as not to be guilty of detaining all three of them. However, the hospitality offer was extended to all three of them, so that they would not misinterpret his first statement as "Please do not pass by." The dot on the word "my lord", indicates that what these men were going to say to Abraham later, would be a message from the Shechinah, the Divine Presence. Abraham offered little, to prove that he did not mean to delay his guests unduly, knowing that had they really been interested in food, they would not have chosen to take a route that bypassed population centers with ample food supplies. However, he emphasized the quality of the bread which, since it refreshes the heart as proven in many other places in the Bible, restores one's spirits also. By rushing about personally and attending to all the details, he caused his guests a minimum of delay. The angels followed the talmudic dictum, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" (Bereshit Rabbah 48). When Moses went to heaven, he did not eat or drink; when the angels came to earth, they ate and drank. The fact that their eating is especially mentioned teaches that one is to conform with local customs. Their purpose in eating, of course, was to derive the spiritual nourishment contained in the food. Just as abstinence from certain types of food is prescribed because of the negative influence of such food on our spiritual equipment, so consumption of the right kind of food at the right time and in the correct amount is of benefit to our spiritual equipment (compare Chapter 32). Further details about this can be found in Numbers Chapter 28, in connection with the daily offerings. (4) The fact that Abraham is described as standing in a position enabling him to wait on the travelers and to observe them in detail, is to show that they really did eat the food served to them. (7) After all these efforts on Abraham's part, the angels enquire after Sarah. They want Abraham present for the message, so that from the criticism they will voice about Sarah's attitude, Abraham will realize that he himself should have been subject to similar criticism from G-d at the time G-d had made the promise to him, although at that time G-d had not voiced such criticism. When the prophet Elisha asked the woman what he could do for her (Kings II Chapter 4), he had been inspired by the tidings Abraham and Sarah had received in our Parshah in return for their hospitality. He assumed that the woman and her husband would qualify for a similar reward, just as later proved to be the case. (5) We must assume that Abraham had indeed not told Sarah about her becoming a mother, in order for G-d to tell her directly. Perhaps he felt that if she heard such a promise only second hand, she would be even more incredulous than he himself had been when G-d had told him directly. G-d had reserved this moment to criticize Abraham, and that is the reason he was asked, "Why did Sarah laugh?" Her denial may be understood as follows. When one's conduct is questioned by someone superior to oneself, it is seemly to appear bashful and to ask rhetorically and deprecatingly "Could I really have been guilty of such a misdemeanor?" Sarah's "denial" then and the "fear" mentioned is the reverence Sarah felt for the words of the angels. Or, as Maimonides says, the fact that she had no idea that these men were angels made her discount their words. Only after she realized that these men had been able to read her mind did she become afraid. She denied only having laughed at the fact that the prediction had been made in the name of G-d. When the angels departed, Abraham accompanied them, unaware that he was in fact impeding their task in Sodom. The angels on their part refrained from discussing their mission until G-d said, "Shall I hide from Abraham etc." Thereupon they began to discuss it, no longer concerned if Abraham was listening. (8) Two preconditions are needed to allow one to be present when the judge makes his judgment. 1) An intimate relationship with the accused, such as being father, mother, master, servant etc. 2) An individual who is truly searching for justice. In the first case, the father is allowed to be present since he could assist in the defense of his son; in the second case, such a third party would learn moral lessons from the judgments imposed and instil those lessons in his own environment. In Abraham's case, he qualified on both counts. He was destined to become the father of a multitude of nations, and thus had a paternal interest in other human beings; also as a truth-seeking individual, he would instruct his household and environment in ways to apply the judgments he had observed in the making. G-d decided to view Abraham in this role, because having made all the promises to Abraham, his involvement in the decision-making process about the punishment for the people of Sodom etc., would ensure further that all G-d’s promises concerning Abraham's seed would be fulfilled. The expression yadativ, for I know him, instead of hikartiv, is not accidental. The latter expression is used when one knows someone intellectually, understands how his mind works; the former refers to knowing how someone's heart, someone senses work. It is clear that when G-d speaks, He always uses yadati, since He has such intimate knowledge of all of us. The difference between G-d’s "knowledge” and our "knowledge" is that man arrives at an understanding of a whole only after having comprehended the parts and then combining knowledge of the parts to obtain an overview of things. The reverse applies to G-d. He has a knowledge of man's whole personality. Only on special occasions does He examine the constituent parts of man. In this instance, G-d was well aware of the character and actions of the Sodomites. (9) This knowledge was reinforced by the complaints of the victims of the Sodomites. G-d still had to check if these complaints constituted exceptions to the general behavior of the Sodomites within their city. If so, i.e. "as its outcry that has come to Me," if indeed all the Sodomites participated in that kind of behavior, that would mark their end, their destruction. If not, other kinds of retribution might be in order. The test then would be the way the Sodomites would treat the angels that had come to Lot (strangers to the townsfolk). Contrary to the view held by some, that nissayon, test, is designed to make the meritorious person emerge victoriously from such test, and that those unable to prove themselves, G-d does not bother to test at all. I do not believe that that is the function of tests. When G-d gave the Israelites the man, heavenly bread, the Torah writes, "In order to test them if they will walk in My teachings or not" (Exodus 16,4). We observe in that instance that some people failed the test. Similarly, the case of the false prophet, the appearance of which is described by the Torah as a test of the people's true faith (Deut. 13,4). We know that numerous people failed such tests when confronted by false prophets at various times in our history. Here, too, the arrival of these strangers at Lot's house is made the final test of the population's attitude. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. (10) When Abraham overheard the conversation between the angels, and they had departed from him, he decided to remain standing before G-d to approach Him on behalf of the people who appeared doomed. Since the angels had obviously had permission to discuss their mission in Abraham's presence, Abraham felt obliged to engage G-d in conversation about it. His opening remarks were as follows, "Since You obviously will not destroy the righteous together with the wicked, if by chance there are fifty righteous people, will You really rather destroy than save the place on account of the fifty righteous people within it?" The few innocents left to themselves, especially if minors, would ultimately suffer the same fate as the adults that had been killed, and thus G-d’s justice would appear as not having distinguished between the guilty and the innocent (the example of Nineveh being saved on account of the innocent children who needed parents to look after them is discussed in Chapter 13 in a slightly different context). Abraham referred to two possibilities: a) chalilah, unthinkable, to kill both the guilty and the innocent simultaneously; b) It would not appear just even if the innocent would die merely because their environment had been destroyed and they had been left to fend for themselves in impossible circumstances. (11) Abraham chose the number fifty as an opening gambit, because on the one hand, forced migration by such a group of people is a major hardship, whereas a larger number of people form a self-contained unit and can easily form a new community. Fifty are not yet enough to survive comfortably on their own strength and resources. (12) When Abraham saw that G-d concurred readily, he surmised that there simply were not fifty good people in Sodom; therefore, he lowered the target figure gradually. The justification "since I have started to speak already," signifies that he is aware he has already overstepped the bounds of propriety, that he is asking lifnim mishurat hadin, something beyond the demands of justice. As the numbers get smaller, and removal of so few people from the city is less of an upheaval, Abraham each time justifies his continued pleading on behalf of the innocent. Once it had become clear that there was only Lot that could be saved, saving him rather than saving the city became the easier solution. The mention of G-d departing from Abraham indicates that, for the moment, Abraham's prophetic powers had ceased to be operational. False prophets, however, never experience the difference between the time G-d is in contact with them and when they have been tuned out.

4. _.19.1.32

   The contrast of the hospitality of an Abraham with that of Lot is demonstrated by the manner of the invitation. Abraham rushes to welcome strangers; Lot, though he sees distinguished strangers like angels, waits until the last possible moment to invite them in. It is evening, the men have nowhere to go; they look distinguished, a time when it is natural to offer hospitality. Abraham, on the other hand, had been busy talking to G-d, was in physical discomfort. It certainly was not the time of day when one expected visitors to drop in. Despite all this, and the nondescript appearance of the strangers, Abraham invites them in a manner that makes them feel they are honoring him by accepting the invitation. Lot invites the strangers in a manner that makes them keenly aware that they are a burden for him. He asks them to detour, to be gone first thing in the morning; he does not even mention food. Only after the men make it clear that they have no other place to go but to spend the night in the street, does Lot become persuasive in a belated effort to make up for the ungracious manner in which he had tendered the invitation originally. (13) Again, G-d had engineered things in a way that would afford Him an opportunity not to let Abraham's prayer go completely unanswered.

5. _.20.1.2

   "The men of the city"

6. _.20.1.3

   The Mishnah in Avot 5,13 refers to four categories of people. One category lives according to the slogan, "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours." This is described as an average type of attitude. Some say that this is the attitude of Sodom. The second category of people live according to the slogan, "You are welcome to what is mine, and I expect to be welcome to what is yours." This is the attitude of ignorant people. The third category lives by the principle "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine also." This is a wicked attitude. The fourth category lives by the principle, "What is mine is at your disposal, and what is yours is yours." This is a pious attitude.

7. _.20.1.4

   Money can be used in four different ways. There are those who will employ their own funds, but will not use other people's money even as a loan. There are those who will employ other people's funds both willingly and reluctantly, if forced by circumstances. When such people use other people's money willingly, this can involve gifts, exchanges by means of barter, and other services. The first method is called shurat hadin, strict law. This is so, since such person will automatically impose on others restraints he has imposed upon himself. For this reason, he will not make his money available to others for whatever purpose. Such people fit the description of the first category mentioned in our Mishnah. The first method (in the Mishnah), being by far the most common, is called that of the am ha-aretz, the common people, the average person. The third method, involving complete disregard for other people's property, is labelled "wicked," and the last method stemming from a generous heart is described as the way of the pious, the devout. All commentators agree that the reason the first method is called "average" is because it represents a point midway between the two extremes possible. On the one hand, by not fulfilling the commandment to be helpful to our fellow man, people practicing this approach to life deny themselves the uplifting experience that fulfilment of such mitzvot entails. On the other hand, the fact that they scrupulously avoid infringing on other people's property, is insurance against their ever becoming guilty of theft, robbery, a whole register of transgressions. The minority opinion, viewing the lifestyle of the first category as like that of the Sodomites, bases itself on the verse in Ezekiel 16,49, "This then was the sin of Sodom your sister; surfeit of bread, undisturbed peace were hers and her daughters, but the hand of the poor and the needy they did not support." According to this, one may be puzzled at the fate of Sodom, seeing that they acted in a manner described as "average." Rabbi Nathan, who is normally the author of sayings in a Mishnah which contains such a statement as "there are some who say," tells us that "the golden mean," normally the path in life to be chosen, in this instance led to the destruction of those who were content to follow it. Aristotle in Ethics Book four, classifies as "the liberal man," i.e. as the average type, the one who shares his wealth with others who deserve it at the proper time and at the proper place and for the proper purpose. Such a person would also not be averse to accept help under similar conditions. This is no doubt acceptable behavior, and makes the problem of understanding the author of our Mishnah, who describes the "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" principle as an average attitude, even harder to understand. Furthermore, even though on rare occasions the desire not to touch other people's money may be motivated by the fear of violating someone else's property rights, in the vast majority of cases, the reason is simply that one does not want to be called upon to reciprocate on future occasions. Although in some cases the desire not to become a burden to others may be the reason one does not want to share, in the majority of cases it is simply an inability to give, to share with others, to extend help. How then can two combinations of negative attitudes be called "average?" It also seems hard to understand why a person who freely gives but refuses to receive help from others when the need arises, can be described as pious. Anyone who pursues such a course persistently will become insolvent and, at one stage or another, a burden on the community. The person who practices the principle of "he who hates gifts will live" (Proverbs 15,27), raises the suspicion that his attitude is really anti social, negative. After all, how can there be “giving" unless there are people willing to "receive?" In fact, however, this method is not one of refusing to accept anything, rather the pious person is generous both in heart and in spirit. He does not view his property as really his to dispose of. On the other hand, he does not view what is generally called "his generosity" as a basis entitling him to use someone else's property in return or exchange. In that respect he differs greatly from the am ha-aretz, the ignorant, whose willingness to share is based only on the realization that he will be likely to benefit from such behavior sooner or later in at least equal measure. To understand the meaning of "average" or "median," we must not assume that it is necessarily a halfway mark between two extremes. Let us assume that a very greedy individual aims to amass ten million dollars. On the other extreme of the scale, let us assume that a modest individual is content with amassing one hundred dollars. The "average" or "median" then is not an amount approximating five million dollars, which would be equivalent to the "golden mean.” Everyone realizes that such a definition of the "golden rule" would be quite erroneous. From this it follows that in matters of giving and taking, the median can only mean "not to take" (i.e. accept) while at the same time "not to to give." This is the halfway mark between greedy possessiveness and generous largesse. Still, this does not yet explain why on the frequent occasions when Israel seemed guilty of far greater sins than the ones quoted from Ezekiel above (as compared to those of Sodom), it was not punished, despite constant warnings by its prophets. Lamentations 4,6 makes it clear that Israel's sins were far greater than Sodom's. Moreover, why did Ezekiel ignore the behavior of the Sodomites described in our Parshah, surely a far more serious crime than merely refusing to share one's wealth? It is also puzzling that the Israelites who went to avenge the crime of Givah and made war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judges Chapter 19), suffered repeated setbacks at the hands of the people of Benjamin. As a matter of fact, the Benjaminites had perpetrated their crime on a fellow Jewess, not on aliens like the men of Sodom in our Parshah. Also, whereas the men of Sodom never had a chance to carry out their evil designs, the men of Givah had executed their heinous deed. Clearly then, Israel had sinned more grievously than the men of Sodom. Concerning the opinions offered that the other tribes retaliated against Benjamin illegally, there are only two possibilities. If indeed the tribes acted illegally, why did the tribe of Benjamin not emerge victorious? If, on the other hand, the attack by the tribes was legal, why did Benjamin succeed in inflicting such tremendous losses on the other tribes on two separate occasions? We may find the answer in Aristotele's Ethics Chapter 7 Section 10. We know from Abraham's prayer that G-d does not punish the innocent together with the guilty. His ways are always perfect. The difference then lies in the distinction between someone called rasha, evil, and someone called chote, someone committing an isolated sin. The latter merely lacks self-control, his body having become somewhat corrupt, whereas his mind and spirit have not been perverted. The rasha, however, is corrupt both in body and in mind. From this there follow two other distinctions. 1) The rasha is not subject to having remorse, since his corrupt mentality does not allow him to be reminded of the error of his ways. The chote, however, once his passions have cooled, will be reminded by his mind of the wrong he has done and is afforded an opportunity to repent and mend his ways. 2) The chote, because of his unimpaired mind is curable, whereas the rasha due to his perverted mind, is already incurable, since there is nothing left to start the process of the cure, the healing of mind and body. The problem of Sodom was that theirs was not just a crime of unbridled passion which ignored existing laws that should have restrained the people. These people had legislated the kind of laws which would prevent those laws from acting as a restraint against their evil inclinations. They legislated penalties against those who would breach the principle of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours." If someone were to step out of line and extend help to outsiders, he would be in defiance of the local laws and face death, even if his crime had only involved offering benefits to a third party at no cost or inconvenience to the donor. This is what really put them at the wrong end of the two extremes of greedy possessiveness and kind hearted generosity (Baba Batra 12). Our Torah has bent over backwards to include a host of legislation regulating our conduct in matters of extending help to others, both of a financial or physical nature. Tzedakah, loving kindness, interest-free loans, redeeming the property of an impoverished relative that has been sold to satisfy debts, are all part of this legislation. Even assisting an enemy when loading or unloading his donkey or taking into one's yard livestock lost by some neighbor at one's own expense to safeguard it on behalf of the absentee owner, are all examples of how not to emulate the behavior practiced by the Sodomites. Sodomite legislation prohibiting hospitality was designed to frighten off would be visitors and to ensure undisturbed life for its inhabitants.

8. _.20.1.5

   Bereshit Rabbah 50 discusses that the decision of the Sodomites to rob and rape every stranger was designed to establish a reputation that would keep strangers away. Their main concern was only their unwillingness to share their wealth. Their chet, criminal act, as distinct from their wickedness ra, namely the raping of strangers, was only incidental, not basic to their character. We can now understand Ezekiel who pronounced that the sin of Sodom was that they would not help the poor or destitute. When Jeremiah proclaims, "The iniquity of my people was greater than the chet of Sodom,” he refers to that failing of the Sodomites that was merely incidental, namely their immorality (Lamentations 4,6). Ezekiel does not bother to mention that sin, since it was not endemic to their character, could have been atoned for. The Talmud Sanhedrin 109 lists numerous examples of the Sodomites' misdeeds, all of which reflect the perverted monetary judgments that were the vogue there. On the evening when the angels arrived, the Sodomites merely behaved in a time honored fashion, not aware that the measure of their guilt had reached a state which called for Divine retribution. The men of Givah however, were quite different. Their laws were perfectly good, they only failed occasionally to live up to the standards of these laws and gave vent to their passions. For that reason, they did not deserve a rain of sulphur and brimstone. The leaders of the city should have punished the perpetrators of the crime. Since they neither interfered nor brought the rapists to justice for publicly committed crimes of the most vulgar kind, it became the duty of the other tribes to discipline the tribe of Benjamin (At this point the author criticizes leaders of his own generation for failing to deal with prostitutes and on occasion even harboring them and providing them with food and shelter, under the pretext that their plying their trade diminished the incidence of adultery). Any relatively insignificant sin, when committed in public and condoned by silent tolerance, becomes a big sin and threatens to assume the dimension of the sins committed by the people of Sodom who had hallowed their practices by enshrining them in law. Concerning the tribes who attacked Benjamin and initially suffered heavy defeats, our sages in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 38 tell us that these same tribes had been guilty of allowing the idolatrous image of Michah to flourish, without troubling themselves over G-d’s honor which was constantly being insulted thereby. They therefore had to pay the price when they showed that they considered the honor of the slain concubine and that of her husband as more deserving to be upheld than the honor of G-d. Altogether, before attacking their brother tribe, they should have undertaken to purge themselves of any wrongdoing, in order to be in a position to carry out a punitive expedition with a minimum of casualties. Our sages in Sotah 40 tell us that even when proceeding against pagans the verse, "He who is afraid must withdraw from battle” (Deut 20,8), refers to someone who feels he is guilty of some sin. If one goes to war against fellow Jews, one must most certainly purify oneself from sin before engaging in such an undertaking. Also, it would have been proper to obtain permission from G-d first to wage such a campaign. Even after their initial failure, when the tribes asked G-d if they should continue the war with "my brother Benjamin" (Judges 20,23), their philosophical concern was with the permissibility of engaging in civil war, not with their worthiness to conduct a punitive campaign without being free from guilt themselves. Only after having suffered the second defeat, having lost another eighteen thousand dead and a session of fasting, contrition sacrifice, and prayer, did the tribes receive the assurance of success of their efforts on the third attempt. Having seen how the attitude of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" can reduce people to the level which borders on "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine also," i.e. an attitude which once brought about the destruction of mankind at the time of the deluge, it is obvious that this must not be an attitude to be adopted. In his dealings with Avimelech, Abraham demonstrated that it is perfectly all right to share one's possessions, and when the need arises to accept help from one's fellow human being.

9. _.20.1.6

   Some problems in the text: 1) Since it was the purpose of the Sodomites to teach strangers not to come to Sodom, how could Lot's offer of his two daughters' virtue be expected to satisfy the townspeople? What is the meaning of Lot's answer, "This is why the men have come into my house?" Was this not exactly what the Sodomites objected to? How could Lot's argument help to assuage their outrage? 2) Why would the Sodomites get angry at Lot trying to "judge" them, when in fact, far from judging them, he was pleading with them? 3) What was all the urgency the angels subjected Lot to, and what was the reason of his hesitancy? Why could the angels not lead Lot gently and slowly, instead of jeopardizing part of their mission by their haste and their allowing Tzoar to survive? 4) What is the meaning of the line, "G-d remembered Abraham and sent away Lot?" Did the angels not say to Lot, "I forgive you also for this?" 5) What possessed Lot's daughters to commit incest with their father? The argument that their father was the only male left in the world was surely spurious, since they knew that the whole town of Tzoar had been spared! 6) Why did Abraham move away to a different part of the country where he was practically unknown now that he knew Sarah was about to conceive? 7) Why did G-d not appear to Avimelech before the latter appropriated Sarah, and save Sarah all the anguish? 8) When Avimelech justified his conduct to G-d, he referred only to statements made to him by Abraham and Sarah, not to the fact that intimacy with Sarah had not even taken place. Why? The Torah's comment that he had not touched Sarah also seems out of place at that juncture! 9) After Avimelech had been told by G-d that he would die, why did G-d tell him to give Sarah back to Abraham? Would that not be the natural thing for him to do anyways? 10) Why did Abraham stress in his reply to Avimelech that he had thought "there is no fear of the Lord in Palestine?" He had not made such a comment to Pharaoh at the time! Who required Abraham to reveal that Sarah was indeed the daughter of a brother, and therefore a sister of his? 11) Why did G-d announce that Abraham would pray for Avimelech? The report in the following paragraph already mentions Abraham's prayer and its having been successful. 12) Sarah's question, "Who has told Abraham that Sarah would nurse children?" is very strange! Since she had herself heard the prophecy of her becoming the mother of a son before she had become pregnant, they had both known about this for some time. 13) Why did Sarah try to banish Ishmael, seeing that she was aware that Abraham loved him? Why did G-d side with her? 14) Why did the angel attribute the miracle of saving Hagar and her son to Ishmael, when the latter had not even raised his voice in prayer? How could the Torah state "G-d listened to the voice of the lad?" 15) When Abraham and Avimelech concluded a treaty, the seven sheep are first described as testimony to Abraham having dug the well, yet in the same sentence they are given as the reason the site was named "Beer Sheva." How is this to be understood?

10. _.20.1.7

    (1) When Lot faced the people of Sodom, he had shut the door so that the angels would not overhear the negotiations and the indecencies that the Sodomites planned to perpetrate on them. Their objective was to reinforce their image as being anti-strangers, so that this kind of news would make others shun their city. Lot's argument was that the townspeople's quarrel was only with him, not with them, since it had been he who had breached the town's regulations. His guests could not have known about these regulations. He offered his daughters as expiation for his own disloyal conduct, not as substitute for the strangers. The reference "that is why the men came to my house for shelter" means they did not know that the laws of Sodom forbade visitors; they are not guilty therefore. (2) In their reply gesh hal-ah, "out of our way," the townspeople refused to accept this argument, and threatened to deal more harshly with Lot than with the strangers, since he, Lot, had dared put his own interpretation on the rights and wrongs of the case. Lot had classified the strangers as not subject to the town's jurisdiction. Therein lay his sin, in the eyes of the townspeople. The old man in Givah however, had not used his daughter and the concubine to atone for his mistakes as Lot did, thereby acknowledging the town's laws as proper and just. He had done so simply to relieve the pressure and the threat of death to himself and his guest. (3) When the angels saw that the whole town was of one mind, and that even Lot's sons-in-law considered the idea of heavenly retribution as absurd-- believing that no such retribution was called for-- they realized that G-d’s criteria, "if I see that what is happening is as bad as what I have heard, that is the end," had been met. Destruction was called for. The pressure on Lot was designed to make him pray for the survival of Tzoar, since there were an insufficient number of good people there who could have insured the town's survival. The arrival of Lot in Tzoar would augment that meager number of good people there. All this was to show Abraham that G-d had not only met the conditions Abraham's prayer had called for, but that G-d had done His best to engineer things in such a way that the right conditions would be created. (4) Because He remembered Abraham and his prayer, He sent Lot away in such a manner. For a similar reason, on the morrow, when Abraham would return to that spot, Sodom would be gone. (5) Lot's daughters thought that Tzoar had been spared only for the sake of their family, and that upon their departure, it too would be destroyed, as in fact they thought that the whole earth would be laid waste like at the time of the deluge. The entire story is told to put misdeeds perpetrated against Israel by nations who owed their entire existence to the prayer of Israel's first ancestor Abraham into perspective. At the same time, it also explains how two "pearls" in Jewish history, Ruth and Naamah, respectively, came out of those two nations and made their magnificent contribution to Jewish history by becoming ancestors of the ultimate redeemer, the Messiah, so that David as well as Rechavam both had blood from those nations flowing in their veins. (6) Concerning Abraham's migration to the South after this catastrophe, the sages in the Midrash offer a variety of insights. Some say that Abraham was afraid that the neighborhood would henceforth be shunned by travellers, thus limiting his opportunities to proselytize. Others believe that Abraham wanted to put some physical distance between himself and the bastards born to Lot by his daughters. I believe the reason is to be found in Abraham's new destiny, acquired simultaneously with his name having been changed. To become the founder of a variety of nations requires physical exposure to different societies. He had to move to areas where he was not yet well known, in order to be able to continue his life's work. Abraham's again asking Sarah to claim that she was his sister, despite his experiences in Egypt, proves that she had indeed regained a youthful appearance as a result of the angel's blessing. Her desirability once again posed a problem to both herself and Abraham, as proved by the prompt action of Avimelech seizing her. (7) If G-d did not immediately restrain Avimelech, it may have been in order to help Abraham's economic progress while in the land of the Philistines, and to demonstrate that a G-d-fearing man could enjoy great material prosperity. G-d had to communicate with Avimelech for two reasons: 1) His own personal standard of morality was superior to that of Pharaoh. 2) In the years that had elapsed since his stay in Egypt, Abraham had attained a much higher spiritual level, and as a result he qualified for more prompt Divine assistance. While in Egypt, Abraham had not yet been able to appreciate the personal intervention in his affairs that G-d would demonstrate; now however, he was well aware of that. For that reason, Pharaoh was alerted to his wrongdoing only through the plagues inflicted upon him and his household. In the case of Avimelech, however, G-d communicated with Avimelech by spelling out his complaint to him in a dream. (8) Since beney Noach, i.e. ordinary non Jews, are automatically guilty of the death penalty if they transgress those laws that apply to them-- of which adultery is one-- the Torah has to mention the fact that an adulterous relationship had not yet taken place. Therefore, G-d could confirm to Avimelech that indeed he was not yet guilty of death. Avimelech countered that since whatever he had been about to do had been the result of being misled by both Abraham and Sarah, such an act should not have been considered a crime even if he had committed it, and that therefore no question of guilt could arise. G-d replied to Avimelech that it was true that vis a vis his countrymen he had not sinned, but that He, G-d, knew that vis a vis Him a sin had been committed, since it had only been due to G-d’s interference, i.e. making him impotent, that he had not yet committed adultery. (9) He should not think, however, that since he had begun in innocence, he could now keep the lady and consider himself free from guilt as a result of Abraham and Sarah having tricked him. He would have to restore Sarah to Abraham, who, being a prophet, was aware that Sarah had not been touched due to G-d’s intervention. Abraham would pray for the king, allowing for the fact that he had not intended to commit adultery. Avimelech was warned not to become an intentional sinner at this stage. (10) Avimelech now wanted to know from Abraham why he had felt the need to go to such lengths of deception to protect himself. Abraham replied that since the fear of G-d would not act as a restraining influence on Avimelech's subjects, he had had to look for other deterrents. Being afraid that Avimelech would say now-- just as Pharaoh had done-- "You could at least have told me that she is your wife," Abraham could not very well tell him that such a revelation might not have been deterrent enough. Therefore, he mentioned that Sarah was indeed kind of a sister to him. Since it had been legal at that time to marry blood relations of such a category as Abraham and Sarah, i.e. a niece, a lie had in fact never been uttered. Avimelech had simply failed to ascertain whether there was an additional relationship that existed between Abraham and Sarah beyond their being brother and sister. Hence he had only himself to blame for the complications that had arisen. Abraham explained that it had long been his practice to describe Sarah as his sister, ever since they had started to wander and had not yet reached the site of a permanent settlement. The expression hittu, is used on numerous ocasions in the same sense as hiflig, i.e. to cause to depart (compare Genesis 21,14;37,15; Psalms 107,4). In presenting gifts to Abraham, Avimelech behaved in an appropriate manner. Inasmuch as he had contravened the principle of "What is yours is yours" by appropriating Sarah without asking Abraham whether she also happened to be his wife, he atoned now by using the "What is mine is yours" principle. (11) Also, of course, he was interested in Abraham praying for his impotence to be cured. To Sarah, he remarked reprovingly that the thousand pieces of silver he had given to Abraham as her dowry had served as an eye cover to let everyone think that she had been free to marry, and that though G-d knew well enough that she had not had marital relations, no one else would know about this. He told her to mend her ways and not again practice this kind of deception. The Torah merely reports that Sarah accepted the rebuke gracefully, and indicated her being prepared to avoid creating such a misleading impression in the future. Another meaning could be that Avimelech meant "although I have paid a thousand pieces of silver to your brother, you should not have accepted this and caused suspicion about your status amongst all the people around you." Abraham's prayer, recorded at this juncture, was the first prayer that Abraham offered that had not been triggered or prompted by someone else, but was offered completely of his own initiative. It seems, according to Bereshit Rabbah 52 that "something that had kept him tied up, had now been released." This refers to another step forward in Abraham's development toward the complete and perfect personality. By announcing beforehand that Abraham would pray, the Torah further underlined this landmark in Abraham's development. "G-d remembered Sarah as He had said," by making her pregnant. "He did for Sarah as He had said," He timed the event as promised. Sarah's exclamation means, "Let anyone who wants to mock do so, I am willing to bear it, even if G-d has made people mock me; the important thing is "He made a laughter, a joy for me." (12) The words mi millel, who would have foretold, seem an added expression of thanksgiving, such as "how wonderful he who foretold Abraham that Sarah would nurse children,” for I have indeed born a son in his old age. There are numerous examples of the use of the word mi in this sense. Compare Isaiah 49,21 "Who has born me these?" (masculine usage of the verb yalad, gave birth), or Isaiah 63,1 "Who is this that comes from Edom"? (13) The display of excessive joy at the meal celebrating the weaning of Isaac, may have caused Ishmael to become concerned lest he lose part of his heritage, and he may have mocked Sarah and her having given birth in her old age. This may have angered Sarah sufficiently to ask that both Hagar and Ishmael be expelled from the household. Associating Ishmael's behavior with his mother was meant to convey Sarah's opinion that Ishmael had acted as he did only because he was Hagar's son, not because Abraham was his father. Abraham was naturally disturbed for his son's sake, but G-d intervened by telling him to give Sarah carte blanche in the matter.

11. _.20.1.8

    (14) Shmot Rabbah 1 tells us that Abraham was inferior to Sarah in prophetic insights. This may have been because she realized the fact that her son was Abraham's major issue. She was not beclouded in her judgment by the love for another son, begotten while he had not yet been circumcised. Abraham scrupulously carried out Sarah's instructions re the expulsion, and did not provide Hagar and Ishmael with money or luxuries beyond their immediate needs for survival. The "voice" of the lad that G-d heard needs to be understood in the same sense as "The voice of your brother's blood calls to Me" (Genesis 4,10), meaning G-d became aware of the great pain and discomfort suffered by Ishmael. That is why the angel said to Hagar, "Why are you afraid and raise your voice?" The Lord has already heard the suffering of the lad, even though the latter did not raise his voice. "As he is there", i.e. the situation he finds himself in is enough to warrant My intervention. The angel's appearance and instructions confirm the worthiness of Hagar that we have discussed in previous chapters when she had encounters with angels. The whole problem of her seed had been that Ishmael had been conceived while his father had still been uncircumcised. (15) Avimelech and his commander-in-chief had convinced themselves that G-d was with Abraham through three outstanding events. 1) His victory over Kedorlomer; 2) The safe return of Sarah to him after two royal kidnappings, including his own; 3) The birth of Isaac at an unbelievably old age of the parents, the other having barren up to then. For these reasons they wanted to conclude a peace treaty with Abraham. Abraham was willing and capable of swearing an oath. He said "I can certainly swear," since my honesty is not in doubt. Avimelech's honesty, however, had been cast in doubt by the actions of his servants who had been hounding Abraham's well diggers. There was reason to suspect that Avimelech had connived with, or at least condoned, the actions of his servants. Abraham wanted to study Avimelech's reaction to his complaints before entering into a treaty with someone who might be untruthful, making Abraham guilty of loving the enemies of G-d. Avimelech accepted the rebuke and replied in a proper manner, namely that justice would be done in all three areas: 1) The perpetrator of the crime would be removed from his post and be disciplined. 2) The wrong itself would be corrected. 3) Someone would be appointed to supervise that the judgment would be executed. Avimelech personally excused himself in three ways: 1) He did not know who the guilty party was, therefore he had not been able to punish that person. 2) Since Abraham had not even lodged a complaint until just then, he, Avimelech, could not possibly have redressed the wrong already. 3) He himself had only heard about the complaint just then, hence he could not have appointed a royal commission of enquiry already. When Abraham realized from the explanations offered that Avimelech had no intention of disputing the ownership of the wells, he took the sheep to proceed with the oath which had been suggested, and made a covenant. The seven extra sheep are roughly the equivalent of the field on which the well was situated, and would serve as testimony that Abraham had dug the well, not merely found it and used it. Since in dealing with royalty, he did not want to insult the king by appearing to place too much emphasis on what was after all a minor transaction, he gave Avimelech generous gifts before setting aside the seven sheep. Therefore, Avimelech asked, "What are the seven sheep that you put aside?" Abraham then answered him that those were to be the symbolic evidence that he had dug the well, and that the only thing that belonged to Avimelech was the ground the well was situated on. It was common practice at that time that anyone who found water on publicly owned land could claim the water as belonging to him. The name Beer Sheva first and foremost recalls the transaction connected with the well. However, beyond that, the site should be remembered as the spot at which the fateful covenant between Abraham and Avimelech had been concluded. The name therefore had a dual significance. By planting an orchard and staying there at least another thirty-eight years, Abraham introduced G-dliness into the land of the Philistines.

12. _.21.1.2

    "AFTER THESE EVENTS, G-D TESTED"

13. _.21.1.3

    Bereshit Rabbah 55, in explaining the verse, "You have given a banner to those that fear You, to raise themselves to its heights before the might of wisdom" (Psalms 60,6), states, "Mast after mast, in order to raise them high in the world, like the mast of a ship. All of this for what purpose? In order to provide visible justification for G-d’s quality of din, justice. Should someone say to you that G-d acts arbitrarily, enriching whomsoever He wishes to enrich, crowning whomsoever He wishes to appoint king, you can answer him, ‘Do what Abraham did!’ When that someone will say, ‘What did he do?’ You will say, ‘When he was ninety-nine years old, he circumcised himself, and after all the pain etc. G-d said to him to take his son and to sacrifice him.’"

14. _.21.1.4

    Physical life, by definition, presupposes the ability to feel, to react to, and perceive physical phenomen a. Life is on the wane in proportion to the inabצצility of the living person to continue to feel, react to, or perceive said phenomena outside his body. Spiritual life, similarly, presupposes an awareness and responsiveness to spiritual stimuli and spiritual phenomena. Should a wise man cease to react to such spiritual stimuli, he simply ceases to be a wise man. Since G-d is the personification of wisdom, the most alive Being, He must therefore be the most receptive to and most aware of spiritual stimuli and thought waves in the universe. In other words, G-d’s awareness of what goes on in the spiritual part of human beings (their minds) is beyond doubt, since it is part of the very definition of "G-d." There are a variety of opinions concerning the exact nature of this knowledge G-d possesses about how and what every person thinks and feels. There are those who argue that if G-d were to be aware of all the constantly changing nuances of feelings humans undergo, such knowledge would detract from the grandeur of G-d, making Him party to all the trivia which are ultimately of no consequence. These people are described by David in the words, "They say the Lord does not see, and the G-d of Jacob does not comprehend" (Psalms 94,7). They believe that G-d is aware only of the ultimate result of everything, not of the progress towards that outcome. They thereby limit G-d’s absolute knowledge of Himself, seeing that He is not subject to change and development. Another view holds that G-d is the ultimate Cause of all existence and must therefore have an awareness of all creatures, but that this awareness diminishes in direct ratio to its proximity to the Creator. An example would be this. G-d created the land mass. In instructing earth to produce vegetation trees etc, this was a step further removed from the ultimate Cause, therefore G-d’s awareness of vegetation, trees etc. is of a lower order. Others argue that G-d cannot acquire comprehension of creatures which undergo a change in their development due to the passage of time. Man's insights, quality of perception, etc. develop with the passage of time. G-d being eternal, not subject to change due to the passage of time, therefore is not supposed to be privy to the changes occurring within different personalities.

15. _.21.1.5

    Reviewing the various philosophic concepts about G-d’s omniscience, they all share one common denominator. They endeavor to establish the rationale for human behaviour contrary to the will of G-d.

16. _.21.1.6

    Job in chapter 10 uses the argument that the fact that he has been afflicted is proof that G-d is unaware of his righteousness, and similarly unaware of the wickedness of others who deserve punishment. By asking G-d if He needs to see like humans, i.e. develop an image gradually by absorbing a number of partial images, Job indicates that he had thought that G-d’s knowledge was of a different caliber, namely an awareness of the total picture, not just the parts which combine to make up that total.

17. _.21.1.7

    At any rate, we believe in the complete and detailed awareness by G-d of man's deeds, thoughts, hopes etc. Granted that we are unable to fully comprehend the nature of this knowledge of G-d, its existence has been spelled out in the Torah and holy writ so many times that it cannot be doubted. The very attempt to try and understand His mind by using our limited powers of perception is not only foolish, but shows a lack of faith on our part. Abraham was taught this lesson both at his circumcision and on the occasion G-d asked him to offer his son Isaac as a total offering. Both commandments completely defy our way of reasoning. They prove, therefore, that we cannot arrogate to ourselves the right to presume what His will would be. All attempts to define the nature of His knowledge, therefore, are childish. Suppose man decided to sacrifice his dearest possession out of love for G-d, what good is it to G-d, what need does He have for it? Besides, if that person has that much love for G-d, why not present G-d with his own life, surely his dearest possession?! The fact that G-d has gone out of His way to tell us about His awareness of our individual psyches as well as our deeds is to avoid His appearing deficient in any way in our eyes. If G-d says to Abraham after the akeydah, "Now I know that you are G-d-fearing," this shows that Abraham's motives are well known to G-d. If Sarah is accused of harboring certain unworthy thoughts (Genesis 18,13), this clearly shows G-d’s awareness of all that goes on in any individual's mind. The question arises why we need to know of this process of G-d’s knowledge altogether, seeing we do not understand it? There are two answers. Someone ignorant of the state of world affairs is considered both an ignoramus and a fool. G-d says, "How can information be withheld from Me?" The idea is "How can I be considered ignorant?" Ignorance would result in reduced stature. Man, too, by being given certain information is raised in stature, though he may not comprehend how this information is arrived at. We all know that spectacles are apt to improve one's failing vision. Glasses, though an aid to seeing, do not have independent vision themselves. How can any person who needs spectacles in order to improve his vision judge the quality of the eyesight of someone who does not require spectacles? Our study of optics teaches that the image is recorded by our eye upside down, distorted. Only with the aid of our mind are we able to compensate for that distortion. Surely there is a lesson here for us. We must not compare the quality of our "seeing" to His "seeing". In Psalm 94,9, David already mocks those who belittle G-d’s knowledge of the minutia and trivia, by exclaiming ,"Shall the Creator of the eye be unable to see?" When our sages tell us that the Torah uses the idiom of human language to convey concepts that are beyond our imagination, it is this kind of thing they have in mind. This is why Maimonides explains in Moreh 1 Section 52, that all anthropomorphic expressions relating to G-d are to be understood as describing G-d’s activities, not His essential attributes. At the end of the akeydah, when G-d is reported as having gained a new insight, i.e."Now I know that you are G-d-fearing," this creates an erroneous impression. What is meant is that G-d was as aware of the changed state of mind and degree of piety of Abraham after the event as He had been aware of Abraham's previous state of mind and piety.

18. _.21.1.8

    Purpose of subjecting man to tests and trials:

19. _.21.1.9

    Trials may have three purposes: 1) The examiner wants to establish beyond doubt the truth of a theory, such as the medicinal qualities of a herb he has discovered. For that truth to be established, the herb must be given to a patient. This is what Gideon did in the threshing ground (see Judges Chapter 6). 2) The person undergoing the test wants to prove to himself that he is capable of passing. In this latter event, the examiner may have been perfectly aware of the examinee's abilities, but he is willing to allow the demonstration of the student's prowess. An action is called shalem, whole, when it has been proven in practice. Though G-d knew very well that Abraham would pass this test, it was important to demonstrate to Abraham that he had indeed displayed obedience at a time it counted most, when it conflicted with all he had learned about G-d’s ways in the past. This category of test is the most common we encounter in the Bible. 3) The examiner wishes to prove to outsiders the quality of the person who passes the test. At first glance, the akeydah seems to fit only the second category of the tests listed. Even a large audience watching Abraham preparing to slaughter Isaac and withdrawing the knife at the last moment, would not credit Abraham with having passed a tremendous test; even were a prophet to inform that audience of the reason Abraham had behaved as he did, their reaction might be that the whole spectacle had been a deliberately staged stunt. Obviously, the akeydah could not fit Category One, since He is omniscient and did not require proof for Himself. It would appear then that this test only served the purpose of convincing Abraham of his own ability to display obedience. The even greater achievement would be to divorce Abraham from any formerly held philosophical convictions. Only by commanding an act that represented the height of foolishness when viewed from a philosopher's point of view could the total loyalty of Abraham to his G-d be demonstrated beyond question. The inner turmoil that might have been caused in a person of lesser stature might have been replaced in Abraham's case by the thought that he might have done something to forfeit the promise of future generations based on Isaac, and that only by sacrificing Isaac could he, Abraham, atone for whatever wrong he had committed. Abraham's act then could no longer be construed as self-seeking or motivated by the hope to increase the merit of his descendants, since by his very act he destroyed those descendants. Imagine a king who had promised one of his noblemen that the king's daughter would marry the nobleman's son, and that said nobleman's son would succeed the king to the throne. Sometime later, the king orders both the nobleman and his son into battle against an enemy country. When the nobleman went into battle, knowing that if the king's son is killed in battle all the king's promises would prove worthless, he had demonstrated an act of supreme loyalty. The nobleman's conduct proved to all and sundry his unselfishness and sincere loyalty to the king. Abraham demonstrated at the akeydah that he placed spiritual values and accomplishments beyond any material successes. Were this not so, even the threat of suffering physical punishment at the hands of G-d would not suffice to make Abraham kill his son with his own hands. But even concerning Category One of the purpose of tests listed above, this too may apply. Having designed a test that resulted in the refinement of Abraham's faith, loyalty and obedience, G-d does create a new knowledge, and therefore a new person, one that had not existed before. So the "now I know" that the Torah reports G-d as having said refers to a person not previously at the height of his spiritual powers. Concerning the third category, that of convincing outsiders of the mettle of the person undergoing the test, this too might apply. Ever since the act of the akeydah has been recorded in the Torah, it is as if it had been witnessed by millions. Interestingly, the story of the binding of Isaac has never been challenged as a historical fact. Just as we are told that the miracle Moses performed at the sea of reeds instilled faith in Moses forever, there are other events which leave their indelible mark. The akeydah fulfilled also the third purpose that may sometimes be the objective in arranging trials and tests.

20. _.21.1.11

    When we want to test the ultimate skill of an engineer, we are not so much concerned with his diploma, his knowledge of theory, but we apply stress tests to the structure built by him. We evaluate the product in light of the performance which has been promised according to the design. These criteria are not applicable when assessing moral virtues. Hence we must examine the intent rather than the content when viewing commission of a deed. The Talmud in Kiddushin 40 tells us that good intentions are equated with good deeds, because once having embarked on a morally correct path, even if the intent has never been consummated, if non consummation was due to circumstances beyond the control of the person in question, such a person is assured of his reward. The temple was called "the house of David" (Kings I Chapter 8) though David never built it. We recite Psalm 30 "A hymn on the occasion of the dedication of David's house." This relates to an event which took place eight years after David had died. On the other hand, evil acts are punishable even when not due to evil intent, since such acts are effective and result in evil. The statement (Yoma 29) that criminal thoughts are worse than criminal acts, applies only when such criminal thoughts have been translated into criminal acts. Immoral intent by itself is not punishable. The only exception to this rule is the contemplation of idol worship. The reason is that a major part of idol worship is an attitude of mind. In view of this, we can appreciate that no useful purpose would have been served in Abraham completing the act of sacrifice, seeing that the moral intention had been clearly demonstrated at the moment the angel was instructed to stay Abraham's hand.

21. _.21.1.12

    Some problems in the text: 1) Why was Isaac called Abraham's "only" son, when in fact he was an "only" son only of Sarah? 2) Why did G-d not spell out which mountain Abraham was to go to? How can our sages in Taanit 4 claim that the akeydah was not a commandment to Abraham? 3) Why are all the preparatory steps Abraham took reported? 4) How could G-d say, "Now I know," when in fact Abraham had been stopped short of carrying out the original request? 5) Why is the request to sacrifice Isaac reported as coming from G-d directly, whereas the order to desist is reported as having been conveyed merely by an angel? 6) Why did the angel have to call Abraham twice? 7) Why is all the credit for this supreme act of obedience given to Abraham, whereas we do not hear a word of praise for Isaac? 8) Why do our sages say that the ram Abraham found and sacrificed, had been created after sunset on the sixth day of creation (Avot chapter 5)? What does Rabbi Eleazar mean when he says that the donkey on which Abraham rode on that occasion, Moses later rode on his mission to Egypt, and the Messiah will ride on in the future?

22. _.21.1.13

    (2) G-d employed "soft" language in requesting Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, since Abraham, who had asked for the life of the sinners in Sodom could be expected to ask G-d to spare the life of his son. On the other hand, G-d did not repeat Abraham's name when addressing him, usually a sign of endearment, so that the request would be perceived as being quite definitive in spite of it having been preceded by the word "please." (1) The reason Isaac is described as an "only" son is that one cannot love several people with exactly the same intensity. The reference to Isaac as Abraham's only son simply means "the one who enjoys your special love." You love him because he has something that his brother does not have.

23. _.21.1.14

    (2) The vagueness in describing the site of the sacrifice, as well as the distance to be traversed till arriving at that site, were all meant to give Abraham a chance to reflect on what he was about to do. Speedy decisions are liable to produce second thoughts; a resolve of this nature which has had three days to mature, however, is not likely to be revoked at the last moment. The problem that G-d appears to have reversed His original intention, and that this is not compatible with His own statement "G-d is not like man in that he deceives, when He says something, will He not carry it out?" (Numbers 23,19), can be resolved. The letter lamed in Hebrew has several functions. It can mean tachat, instead of, such as in Genesis 11,3, when the invention of kiln dried bricks is described. There it means "the bricks served them instead of stones." Similarly, the line "offer him there le-olah,” is to be understood "if you elevate him (ha-alehu), he will henceforth serve the same purpose as an olah, total offering. In this way, Abraham's understanding of what he had been commanded differed from the true meaning of the command. There had in fact never been a cancellation of the command.

24. _.21.1.15

    A different solution may be the very vagueness of the command. Not only was the exact location of the place where the sacrifice was to be offered not spelled out at the outset, but we do not find G-d becoming more specific as time went on. No particular mountain is ever mentioned. Therefore, by the failure to specify the mountain, the command had never actually been completed. Abraham had simply jumped the gun in his eagerness to obey what he thought he had been commanded. The words "He arrived at the place" or "He saw the place from a distance" simply refer to the general area, not the exact site, since none had been specified. (3) Psychology teaches that decisions to perform extremely unpleasant tasks are often split-second decisions, motivated by the desire to get the inevitable over with as soon as possible. When a man prepares carefully for the fulfilment of a mitzvah, Divine commandment, saddling his donkey, splitting kindling, getting his servants to accompany him, such actions cannot be ascribed to a sudden impulse, but are the result of mature deliberation. To make sure that we understand this, the Torah lists all the steps that Abraham took in preparing to carry out the commandment. Inasmuch as chamor, a donkey is symbolic of chomer, matter, and inasmuch as vayachavosh, he saddled, is an expression of kevishah, conquest, subjugation, Abraham's saddling and riding the donkey is symbolic of the victory of mind over matter. Abraham had conquered material considerations that could have impeded him in carrying out the mitzvah. He had mobilized all his spiritual resources. Man, being composed of both the physical and the spiritual, achieves his perfection when he succeeds to put the former in the service of the latter. (8) After the completion of the physical world at the end of six days, the period immediately preceding the Sabbath, the spiritual seal that was the crowning glory of creation, a number of things emerged that indicated that the physical and spiritual were capable of being fused together. What was accomplished by Abraham when he took Isaac to be slaughtered was paralleled by Moses when he took his family from the safety of the house of Yitro and proceeded towards Egypt where persecution awaited him and his family.

25. _.21.1.16

    In the case of Bileam riding the she-ass, the matter is reversed. A female animal is normally mounted by the male. He who rides the she-ass is saying then that the physical is in charge. Since the physical can be either active or passive, the picture drawn of Bileam is merely that of the interaction of active and passive physical forces. When Abraham is reported as taking the two lads with him, we can picture him thinking that these two strangers were allowed to live, whereas his own son was to die. By including this statement in the narrative, the Torah testifies that this consideration too did not sway Abraham or arouse his parental compassion causing him to question G-d’s command. He split the firewood, so that in the event none could be found at the site of the sacrifice, he would not use that non availability as an excuse to put off carrying out the mitzvah. The answer Abraham gave to Isaac's question "Where is the lamb for the offering?" is a classic. On the one hand, Abraham is able to suppress his compassion, on the other hand, he manages to avoid frightening his son at that moment. All the subsequent steps described, such as building of the altar, arranging the wood pile, binding Isaac, are part of the picture of unfaltering devotion of Abraham to the performance of the mitzvah at hand. Had it not been for the angel who had to call him twice, he would not have stayed his hand. This is why G-d could proclaim, "I know (already) that you are G-d fearing," since the objective of the trial had not been the slaughter of Isaac but the degree of obedience Abraham could demonstrate. (4) The meaning of "now I know" is not the acquisition of a new dimension of knowledge that G-d had not possessed before, but that He was able to demonstrate knowledge of a deed without the deed actually having been performed.

26. _.21.1.17

    (5) At the very moment this occurred, the angel could proclaim "Now!" The order to desist was conveyed through an angel, since during waking hours only Moses has been granted direct communication from G-d without his having previously prepared for such communication (Moreh Nevuchim Section 2 Chapter 45). (7) Isaac, having accompanied his father, completely unaware of the nature of the journey until he asked about the whereabouts of the lamb, had very little time to consider the implications of what was involved; therefore, the major merit is attributed to Abraham, whose deed was after all something he would have to live with for the rest of his life. Isaac's contribution was limited to suffering the binding on the altar without raising an objection. When looking around, Abraham saw a ram. Later on he realized that this ram had been caught by its horns in the thicket. He realized then that this was not accidental, but that that ram must have been intended as the sacrifice instead of Isaac. His original words to Isaac that "G-d will look for the lamb my son," had come back to him. This prompted him to name the spot "G-d will see." (The tone sign zakef katan followed by the zakef gadol supports our interpretation of the word achar). (8) Of the things reportedly created after sunset on the sixth day, but before the onset of the Sabbath (Avot 5,6), the ram sacrificed by Abraham at that time was one. Anything created after the creation of man was created only after all the forces of nature had been assigned their respective tasks and had thus been placed at man's disposal. Beings created later signify then that they belong to the physical world only marginally, that they are as yet incomplete, waiting to be assigned their eventual function, seeing that the Sabbath arrived before they could be assigned their proper place in the scheme of things. Having been created before the Sabbath makes these beings part of the yesh me-ayin process, part of the Creation ex nihilo; on the other hand, their ultimate function is left to a free willed decision by whoever will put such beings to use.

27. _.21.1.18

    When Abraham sacrificed the ram, he was not yet certain if that act had been accepted as a substitute for Isaac and would be considered equivalent to his having actually sacrificed Isaac physically. He called the place "the mountain where it is proper to demonstrate obedience (fear) of the Lord," to indicate what he had come to accomplish there. Beyond this, he expressed the hope that also in the future this site would be looked up to as the place where his act of obedience had been duly noted. The second call of the angel confirmed to him that his intention had in fact been considered by G-d as if he had already carried out the deed, and this would benefit the whole of mankind through his descendants, and that the world at large would know all about it. Something else created after sunset on the sixth day of Creation, and being activated when a suitable opportunity presented itself, is the "mouth of the earth" which swallowed Korach and his followers. Moses suggested that if a gehinam had not yet been created, this would be a good time to create it and to consign Korach and his followers to it. The use of the earth's "mouth" then had not yet been decreed, and awaited an opportunity for man to trigger it (compare Bamidbar Rabbah 18). The same consideration can be applied to the other examples listed in that Mishnah in Avot. Abraham returned to Beer Sheva to lead a life of spreading blessings for his fellow men (he planted the Eshel). As pointed out in the opening Midrash, the ultimate justification for subjecting the righteous to trials lies in the fact that such tzaddikim emerge spiritually elevated. When such righteous people also enjoy material success, the midat hadin, G-d’s attribute of justice, can point out that such material wealth had not been bestowed arbitrarily, but had been earned the hard way by its recipients. In Michah 6,8, we are taught that the trial of the akeydah in its applied sense had become the claim G-d has on all of us. The moral imperative which the call to the akeydah represented, and which Abraham had demonstrated to be within man's capacity to respond to, has since become the call addressed to each one of Abraham's descendants, even if no first born is needed as an actual sacrifice on the altar. The commandment to blow the shofar, the ram's horn, on New Year's day, is to remind the midat hadin, attribute of justice, of the successful trial of Abraham, and of the fact that the hachna-ah, submissive feelings, evoked in us at the sound of the shofar, are the symbolic akeydah of each one of us.

28. _.22.1.2

    "ABRAHAM HAD BECOME OLD"

29. _.22.1.3

    In Niddah 16, Rabbi Chaninah ben Papa explained that the angel in charge of pregnancy is called "Laylah," night, since we read in Job 3,3, "And laylah said a man has been conceived." The angel takes a drop of semen, presents it in front of the Almighty and asks in His Presence, "What shall become of this drop? A wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man, a strong one or a physically weak one?" He does not ask whether the person will be righteous or wicked. This is in accordance with the dictum taught by Rabbi Chaninah that "All is in the hands of heaven except fear of heaven," since the Torah has said, "Now O Israel, what does the Lord ask of you except to fear Him etc." (Deut. 10,12-13).

30. _.22.1.4

    Since we have proof from all parts of the Bible that it is the nature of man to follow "woman" whose ways are crooked and perverted, how can man escape that trap? He has after all two "women" to contend with. One is the "woman" that accompanies him from birth, concerning which the Torah has stated "male and female He created them" (Genesis 1,27), as well as "this one shall be called ‘woman’" (Genesis 2,23). See the parable which explains all this a little further on. The second woman is the one he acquires from the outside, the world at large, through marriage. These two kinds of matings have been discussed briefly in Chapter eight. Since the male is inclined to seek physical comforts and enjoyment, he is apt to follow the demands made upon him by these two women, to do their bidding, since they are the ones who provide him with these comforts. Since the first woman already turned out to be a trap for man, the situation becomes aggravated when he freely chooses another woman, i.e. a wife. A look at the life story of Samson illustrates how someone who starts out pure, a heroic figure at that, can become ensnared by women until he cannot escape their clutches (Judges Chapter 14). Even the wisest of men, Solomon, was led astray by women (Kings I 11,4), "His wives turned his heart aside." Or, consider Achav the king of Israel, who was led astray by his wife Izzebel (Kings I 16,31). Solomon, in Kohelet 7,26, states, "I have found something worse than death-- woman." It is clear from all this that in order to escape the enticements represented by "woman," one requires tremendous assistance. If man's attaining his perfection depends on the quality of the two women in his life, and both their characters would be determined in heaven, like the first one that accompanies him from birth, and who was not subject to his free choice, then everything in his life (including his character) would depend on mazzal, i.e. the horoscopic constellations plus environmental factors prevailing when he is born, (compare Aristotle Ethics Chapter 10, Essay 3) This also appears to coincide with the statement in Sotah 2 that forty days before the fetus assumes final form, a heavenly voice proclaims who would be this fetus's life partner in the future. From all the above it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that our path in life is predetermined by forces beyond our control. We also find our sages saying that birth under certain signs of the zodiac influences a person's character traits. In Shabbat 156, we are told that Israel is subject to mazzal, i.e. environmental and hereditary factors. Also, Rabbi Chaninah states that such factors contribute to whether a person will be rich or poor. On the other hand, we have Rava in Moed Katan 28 stating that whereas mazzal determines a person's economic status etc., it does not affect his personal merits. These discussions in the Talmud are not merely of a hypothetical nature, but examples from real life are cited of scholars experiencing totally different experiences in their lives though their merits were deemed similar. The life story of two outstanding scholars are meant to illustrate the point made by Rava. Rabbah, pious to the point where a prayer offered by him for rain would be answered immediately, died at the age of forty, had buried sixty next of kin during his short life, and had hardly enough money to live on bread made of barley flour. His contemporary Rav Chisdah, on the other hand, married off sixty next of kin, lived to be ninety years old and was so wealthy that even his dogs enjoyed luxuries. This example is cited in support of the claim that mazzal is of overriding influence in matters of one's success in life on this planet. These quotes all represent difficult questions vis a vis our belief in personal providence, hashgachah peratit, as opposed to mazzal, when it comes to the fate of Jews both nationally and individually. Our opening Midrash moreover seems self contradictory. If G-d decrees concerning wealth as well as concerning physical prowess of a person, all of which are necessary for a person to function at their optimal ability, how can such people attain their potential if they are handicapped from birth? We have a tradition that a person cannot attain the status of prophecy unless he is endowed with certain physical and material attributes. If these factors are subject to the caprice of mazzal, how can a person be blamed for not attaining that moral level? The fact that righteousness and wickedness respectively are not predetermined by the angel Laylah becomes relatively meaningless, since the attributes which help man to become righteous may be denied him by the very same angel. The Mishnah in Avot 2,6 states that an uncivilized person, bor, cannot be G-d fearing. So what chance do people who are genetically underequipped at birth have to reach ideals set for man, and to share in the reward in store for achieving such ideals? G-d then would have decreed the outcome by default, by denying the attributes that help man achieve his shleymut, perfection! Where is the concept of freedom of will and choice, then, and what sense would reward and punishment make if all our deeds are more or less preconditioned? The answer is, of course, that both physical and mental equipment which man receives prior to birth provides him with tendencies to act in a certain way. His will is not involved in any way. He remains free to follow these tendencies or fight them using his intellect, willpower, and heart. Isaiah 66,3 states clearly that responsibility for the sinners' actions is their own because "they chose their respective paths."

31. _.22.1.5

    When Rav Ashi, in Shabbat 156, advises the person born under the zodiac sign of Mars (symbolising bloodshed) to engage in vocations involving blood, such as becoming a ritual slaughterer or a mohel, someone who circumcises babies, this is meant to help such a person counteract his natural tendencies, sublimate them, channeling them into constructive activities. If Rav Ashi had been of the opinion that such a person's actions were predetermined, his advice would be totally gratuitous. Claiming that mazzal influences our lives, and claiming that mazzal governs our lives are two totally different propositions. Why would the Torah make rainfall dependent on our conduct (Leviticus 26,1-5) if our behavior were not free? The idea of receiving a reward for decisions made under duress would be difficult to swallow. Rabbah and Rav Chisdah, though sharing character traits and accomplishments, were born under different mazzalot. Each achieved what it was possible for him to achieve considering his respective mazzal. Perhaps Rav Chisdah having been born under the influence of a favourable mazzal, needed ninety-two years to achieve on this earth what Rabbah who had been born under an unfavourable mazzal had been able to achieve in forty years, seeing that he had to overcome so many obstacles? Consider the following parable. A king had two ministers. They both enjoyed equal status at Court. One was appointed commander of the king's land based forces, the other was made commander-in-chief of his navy. The commander of the navy obviously had the more challenging task. His task necessitated that he be away from home and family a great deal of the time, would be deprived of the comforts of home. He would also be deprived of the counsel and proximity of the king. The situation of Rav Chisdah and Rabbah may be viewed in a similar light. The Rabbis said in Taanit 2 that G-d reserved three keys for Himself which He did not entrust to messengers (nature). They are: 1) the key to life; 2) children, i.e. the key to being able to have them. 3) rainfall, i.e. the key to livelihood. The Talmud supplies scriptural proof for the fact that G-d retained these keys personally. In view of this, how is it possible to argue that three keys are not subject to one's merit, i.e. that one's behavior does not influence one's access to what these keys stood for? Why would G-d keep these three keys to Himself, except to use them in accordance with people's individual merits? Surely G-d did not keep them to Himself in order to use them capriciously! The answer is that although to begin with, these keys and their availability are subject to mazzal, man's merit does affect their availability. Abraham, according to his mazzal, would not have had children. Due to his merit however, G-d intervened and superimposed His will on that of natural law (compare Shabbat 156). Isaac found himself in a similar situation. Vaye-atar lo, G-d allowed Himself to be entreated by him (Genesis 25,21). G-d allowed Isaac's prayer to activate the key to "children." Compare also Taanit 25, the story involving Rabbi Eliezer ben Pedot. Because we have clear proof concerning these three matters from the lives of our historical giants, these instances were singled out for mention. When Rabbi Akiva, in Yevamot 50, says that those who deserve it have their lifespan completed rather than increased, this is based on his conviction that G-d has decreed the maximum good for each person at the beginning of such person's life. However, this maximum good is subject to review, i.e. reduction, if man does not live up to his respective potential.

32. _.22.1.6

    Our opening Midrash confirms our view. Rabbi Chaninah says that in spite of the fact that many aspects of a person's life are predetermined (provisionally), G-d did not predetermine man's moral development. This is entirely up to his own volition. The original determination of man's physical and material attributes is due to the leeway given to the angel, i.e. to the intermediary otherwise known as "nature." However, since G-d has reserved to Himself the keys to life, livelihood, and the ability to have children, those three matters are subject to G-d’s override if man's merit suffices. This is in line with the statement by Rabbi Akiva in Avot 3,15, "While everything is foreseen, freedom of choice has been granted." The name laylah, mentioned by Rabbi Chaninah as the name of the angel in charge of presenting the embryo before G-d, symbolizes two concepts. 1) Night is a time when positive elements such as light are absent. 2) It is the time when one hopes for improvement, rebirth, renewal (see Psalms 130,6 “Shomrim laboker,” one yearns for morning and what it is expected to herald). Man cannot tolerate the idea that things are decreed irrevocably, that only negative forces exist. He feels that he aught to be the master of his own fate. It is quite in line with these expectations of man, then, that G-d says, "All I am asking of you is that you revere Me etc." (Deut 10,12).

33. _.22.1.7

    The Talmud Sotah 2 also says that marriage partners are provided for man only in accordance with his deeds, his moral accomplishments. This statement does not contradict the statement about the angel predetermining who should marry whom. The idea portrayed is that the partner that comes with a person at birth is the genetic and environmental equipment which we commonly term mazzal. When man chooses a wife, however, he does so on the basis of the merit he has acquired since his birth. The original mazzal can be augmented or neutralized in one of two ways. 1) Man remains free to overcome natural handicaps by willpower, determination, perseverance etc. 2) G-d extends active help, hashgachah peratit, based on that individual's merit. It is customary for mazzal and merit to complement each other. This was so in the case of Abraham who was born with many positive endowments, i.e. mazzal tov. By meriting G-d’s help, he was able to neutralize the one area in which he had been disadvantaged at birth, his sterility. This accomplishment on the part of Abraham and Sarah resulted in their son Isaac being born with excellent environmental and hereditary factors, mazzal tov. By the time Jacob was born, the mazzal had improved even further due to environmental and hereditary input of two generations. Life in an environment of an Abraham and an Isaac does create certain tendencies which then become part of one's mazzal. In this connection we observe Abraham telling his servant Eliezer, who was concerned about his chances of finding the right wife for Isaac, that the G-d who had seen fit to promise the land of Canaan to his descendants and who had protected them thus far, would intervene to facilitate the finding of the proper wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,40). All this underscores the importance of choosing a suitable life partner, one that can help one achieve one's maximum potential. The original "woman," i.e. the equipment man receives at birth, is meant to help man work towards his olam haba, eternity, by employing his intellect etc. The second "woman," his wife, is meant to smooth his path in this world, help him cope with the problems of a mundane existence, and in that process to free him for pursuits of a spiritual nature. It is for this reason that throughout the Bible both “man” and "woman" appear side by side. "Male and female He created them-- the side He had taken from man into a woman" (Genesis 2).

34. _.22.1.8

    The author elaborates on this theme by appending a complete commentary on the chapter "the woman of valour" at the end of Proverbs (chapter 31).

35. _.22.1.26

    The Talmud Sanhedrin 22 states that anyone whose "first wife dies, is as if the temple had been destroyed in his lifetime." Rabbi Alexander compares such a tragedy to someone having lost his eyesight, the world becoming dark for him. Rabbi Abahu says that a person experiencing such a trauma loses his ability to make sound judgments. It is clear that neither of the three Rabbis quoted, refers to the natural physical wife, i.e. what we have termed "the second mating." It must refer to someone who has lost his mazzal, i.e. who has corrupted it. What the Rabbis are talking about is that just as we have a tradition that the wicked are called "dead" already during their lifetimes (Berachot 18), so in this example they are referring to those who have abused their G-d given endowments to the point that they have forfeited them. Our Parshah, though obviously dealing with the "second zivvug,” mating, may nonetheless contain some allegorical comments about the first zivvug. When the "lives" of Sarah are described, this may be a reference to the fact that Sarah had converted her original mazzal into the kind of personality that "lived" on, beyond physical death, inspired her husband for the rest of his natural life, not to mention her son. The fact that man is able to overcome the mazzal, i.e. zivvug rishon, may be hinted at in the verse "and to the woman He said, ‘Towards your man (husband) will be your inclination, and he can be in charge of you.’" (Genesis 3,16). If we view "woman" in this verse as the "first zivvug,” the meaning is "although it is your tendency to exert influence over your partner, he in turn can exercise control over you" (if he tries).

36. _.22.1.27

    "And the life of Sarah was"

37. _.22.1.29

    When noting this allegorical meaning, one can also understand the Zohar who comments that the words “bekiryat arba" do not refer to the location of Sarah's death, but refer to the cause of her death. The four basic materials that form the human body are to separate by Divine decree when the time has arrived for the body to separate from the soul. Sarah did not die as a result of the nachash, the serpent, i.e. personal sin. The words hee Chevron added to bekiryat arba hint at the chibbur, the remains of Sarah's soul which was joined to the tzror hachayim, eternal life in store for the righteous.

38. _.22.1.32

    Some problems in the text:

39. _.22.1.33

    1) Why does the Torah tell us about Abraham mourning Sarah? He appears to have done no more than the customary thing. What are we to learn from this episode? 2) Why did Abraham introduce the request to be given a burial ground by referring to his status as either a citizen or a guest, when all the time he had in mind to make full payment for the burial ground? 3) Why do we have the constant references to "hearing," "listen to me," "listen to us," "please listen?" Were these people hard of hearing? 4) Why does the Torah have to emphasize that Ephron answered "in the earshot of all assembled?" We have already been informed that Ephron sat "among all those present?" 5) Why is there a constant repetition of the word "burial" in the discussion? 6) Why was the purchase concluded so publicly, "within the sight of all the Hittites present and assembled?" Surely the financial transaction alone would have sufficed?

40. _.22.1.34

    Bereshit Rabbah 58 explains the statement in Kohelet 1,5, "And the sun rises and the sun sets," which appears too commonplace a truth to be worth mentioning, as meaning that G-d insures that before the setting of one sun, another sunrise has already been arranged. Thus Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi was born before the death (sunset) of Rabbi Akiva. So also, was Rivkah born before the death of Sarah.

41. _.22.1.35

    Our physical universe is arranged in such a way that the sun shines somewhere all the time, due to the earth revolving on its own axis once in twenty-four hours. Our spiritual universe has been arranged similarly by G-d, so that spiritual light is always available somewhere. Abraham thought that due to the fact that he appealed in public and used such language as "give me," the bystanders would ask for clarification of the conditions he had in mind. Abraham would then have been able to explain that though he was prepared to pay handsomely, he would still consider the townspeople's approval as a gesture of kindness and friendship. (1,2,5) Since from a halachic point of view, i.e. Jewish law, a mourner preoccupied with arranging the funeral of his next of kin must preoccupy himself exclusively with the needs of the dead about to be buried, Abraham is reported as having only that purpose in mind when negotiating the purchase of the cave of Machpelah. His emphasis on his status as a resident implies his preparedness and ability to pay, whereas his reference to his status as a stranger implies that he depends on the goodwill of his immediate neighbors. Abraham understood the nuance of "no one will deny you his grave since you are a prince," as meaning that though your request will be granted, it will be granted only grudgingly. (3) "No one will deny," is not equivalent to "we will each one of us volunteer." Their emphasis on "to bury your dead," further emphasizes that only due to the immediate need would they concur in this transfer of land to Abraham. Abraham understood very well what was in their minds, though he addressed himself only to their spoken thoughts. He explained that he did not want any burial ground, but that the reason he was asking in public was to enlist everyone's support to persuade Ephron to sell the cave of Machpelah. He did not want to appropriate the cave in the hope that he would not be denied after the event, but he wanted to pay full value, and still consider the acquisition as if it had been a present to him. (4) Ephron, as one of the Hittites present, had said previously, "No Sir, I did offer my grave willingly, and if you want the cave, I will not retract. Neither did I expect money, since you had not mentioned that previously. Concerning your wish that my fellow citizens entreat me, there is no call for this. I have given it to you in their presence, go ahead and bury your dead in the meantime." By this he hinted, that at a later stage one could negotiate compensation. Abraham acknowledged his words, bowing, however insisting that he too had originally planned payment, and could not in good conscience profit now by accepting Ephron's generous gift. Only under such terms, i.e. full payment, could he proceed to bury his dead. After all these subtleties, Ephron finally spelled out the price, emphasizing that considering Abraham's immediate need, the price was ridiculously low, purely nominal. Since he had found a willing listener in Abraham, the latter had the amount weighed at the most respected money merchant, whereupon the land became Abraham's for all time. The public character of the sale was intended by Abraham from the outset, to forestall any subsequent complaints either by groups or individuals. This was to become his permanent home, here he and Sarah were to have their last resting places. Just as a man's body was not divided up to be buried in several places, so man and wife who had shared a happy marriage were never to be parted in death either. Abraham had delayed the purchase to await an opportunity such as the need for a burial ground, which would make it impossible for his request to be denied. (6) "After he buried his wife." He was not willing to proceed until the transaction had been completed. When a tzaddik is careful in all the minutiae of a transaction, this is called mishpat, justice. When a rasha, wicked person plans deviously, it is called mirmah, deceit (Proverbs 12,5). Thus we find by the end of the transaction, that the spelling of Ephron's name shows a letter missing, to show us that he had been too greedy. Abraham, however, had a letter added to his name indicating that his approach to life was the opposite of Ephron's. He appeared to offer little, but in fact gave a great deal. Compare Proverbs 28,22, "In the haste of the greedy to acquire more wealth, he overlooks the fact that he stands to lose that which he already owns."

42. _.22.1.37

    Since the Torah approves of the following order in life: 1) building a house, 2) a vineyard (livelihood), 3) taking a wife, we read about the betrothal of Isaac at the end of this Parshah, just as at the story of man's creation his betrothal was the culmination of the process of his creation (compare laws about exclusion from military service Deut. 20,5-7 and Talmud Sotah 44). Apart from the fact that it is foolish to assume responsibilities such as marriage without due preparation, it also results in the husband having no time to achieve his earthly tachlit, purpose, since he will not have leisure to study Torah (Kiddushin 29). The fact that Isaac waited till the age of forty, i.e. the age at which one reaches binah understanding, insight, indicates that such maturity is needed. Even an Esau made a point of getting married at the age of forty, to demonstrate his own maturity to one and all (Bereshit Rabbah 65). Under such circumstances, what the Talmud calls zivvug sheyni, the second mating can take place, and G-d matches partners so that they complement each other suitably.

43. _.22.1.38

    More problems in the text: 1) Since we had been told previously that Abraham was old, why did the Torah not at least word this statement differently now (forty years later)? It could have been described as "very old" or words to that effect. The answer of our sages about the meaning being the departure of youth's hormones seems inadequate in view of the fact that Abraham fathered six more children after this. The Ramban's comment about the different grammatical meaning of the words ba and ba-im, respectively, is simply not sustainable. 2) In what way is the statement "And the Lord had blessed Abraham in everything" more appropriate as an introduction to this paragraph than, say, "Isaac was forty years old and still unmarried?" Besides, as long as Isaac had not found a suitable wife, how could Abraham's blessings be described as "complete?" 3) Why does Abraham send his servant? Isaac, at forty, surely was mature enough to select his own bride. Besides, why did Abraham make his servant Eliezer swear that he would not bring back Isaac to the land Abraham had emigrated from? Surely Abraham himself could have put a stop to this if the question had arisen! If Abraham feared sudden death, why did he not let Isaac swear this oath? Why did he give authority to a slave which overrode that of a well turned-out son? 4) Why does Eliezer immediately envisage a negative turn of events, i.e. "maybe the girl will not want to follow me here?" Why does he not let events take their course and look for new instructions in the event complications arise? 5) How could Abraham nonchalantly agree to let Isaac take a Canaanite wife should the prospective bride insist on remaining in her native land? Altogether, the repetition of "do not bring my son back there" seems redundant, since this eventuality had already been covered by the oath. Why did Eliezer never mention this condition of Isaac not being allowed to return to his father's native land when he was in the house of Bethuel? 6) If Eliezer thought that Abraham qualified for Divine assistance and this is the reason he prayed for the success of his mission, why did he phrase it as hakreh, cause a coincidence? 7) If one accepts the premise that Eliezer did not consult soothsayers or employ nichush, magic techniques (Chullin 95), what is the meaning of the Talmudic statement "any nichush which is not like the nichush of Eliezer or Jonathan is not nichush? 8) The type of test the girls carrying water had to submit to, seems strange. Most girls would oblige in order to have a chance to have a chat with a stranger; also, Rivkah did not offer to water the camels until Eliezer had finished drinking. All of this showed that Eliezer did not rely on nichush, since he was still not sure who the girl was. 9) Why did Rivkah, in explaining who she was, describe the relationship between her father to his mother? Even if there had been a second Bethuel in that town, the word "son of Nachor" should have sufficed to establish her father's identity! Why "whom Milkah had born for Nachor?" 10) Why did Eliezer recount Abraham's life story, when surely all these things were quite well known in Aram Naharayim? Why mention that a groom had been born on the day that groom was to be betrothed? One hardly gets betrothed to someone not born as yet! 11) Why did Eliezer misrepresent the conditions of his mission, saying that he had been asked to seek out Abraham's family etc, when in fact Abraham had never made this a condition at all. Also in other details of what had occurred at the well, Eliezer changed the facts around. Why does not the Torah state right away that Eliezer put the jewelry on Rivkah, just as it is related in the lengthy report of the whole conversation, a conversation so long that our sages say that the Torah gives preference to the casual conversation of an Eliezer over some of the Torah insights of Abraham's children's children (Bereshit Rabbah 60)? 12) Why did Bethuel say, "We cannot say good or bad, since the matter originated with G-d?" Since when has heavenly intervention prevented repentance or robbed anyone of his free choice? 13) When the Torah reports Isaac as seeing the camels approaching on which Eliezer and Rivkah were riding, why is not a single word mentioned about Isaac's reaction? No word of welcome to either Eliezer or Rivkah?

44. _.22.1.39

    (1+2) In fact, Abraham's old age began when Isaac was about to be born. Since he never expected to live to see Isaac grow up to manhood, Abraham made the servant take an oath concerning whom Isaac could marry once the time arrived for him to be married. The blessing he received from G-d had been the birth of Isaac at such an old age. When Eliezer related this mission, he therefore referred to events which lay forty years in the past, when Isaac had only just been born, and he, Eliezer had become responsible for arranging a suitable match. This is why he had been sworn by his master. He wanted to convince Bethuel that it had been Abraham's intention already at that time to seek out his family for a suitable match for Isaac. Therefore, on the day he arrived at the well, he was still under the obligation to seek out Bethuel's family for a suitable bride for Isaac. This is why he had prayed to the G-d of Abraham for assistance in the matter. (3) Abraham had requested an oath from Eliezer for two reasons. His concern had been twofold as always when the two aspects of zivvugim, pairing of individuals for the purpose of marriage, are concerned: 1) concern to remove harmful influences that abound; 2) allying oneself with beneficial influences. The only foreseeable flaw was the possible reluctance of the beneficial influence (Rivkah) to leave her native land in order to join Isaac in Canaan. (4) Psychology suggests that if the woman who was prepared to marry Isaac would be made to feel that her husband-to-be would not mind where he made his residence, she in turn would not make an issue of the matter either, and would be prepared to move to her husband's present home. If, however, the bride-to-be would be aware that her future husband would make a big issue of this question, she too might insist that they live in her native land. Eliezer wanted guidance immediately in order to know how to handle such a situation. Abraham therefore released him from the oath to the extent of not making this condition part of the opening gambit of the negotiations. He did not release him from the oath not to take Isaac out of the land of Canaan in actual fact. This is the reason for the apparent repetition. The essential part of the oath was "only do not bring my son back there!" Diplomacy however, would permit the servant not to state that this too was part of the oath he had sworn to his master. Therefore, when the servant related the discussion with Abraham about the possible hesitancy of a prospective bride to move to Canaan, he reported Abraham's reply that he was confident G-d would make the mission prosper. Some forty years later, when the time was ripe, Abraham renewed the oath he had made Eliezer swear and sent him on the mission. Eliezer knew that finding a suitable wife for Isaac would not be accomplished without Divine guidance, not without insuring that the girl's character traits revealed two basic good characteristics—namely, to know what to do and when to do it, and secondly, to do whatever needed doing without delay. (6+7) Since it is part of human nature to look for reasons not to exert oneself, even if such exertion is minor and such considerations color our view of what we consider our duties, Eliezer decided to test a prospective bride in this manner. He had positioned himself at a place (fountain) where he could have drunk his fill without the slightest assistance, a fact any girl would have to be aware of. He could have borrowed her jug and drunk from it without bothering her to bend down and practically spoonfeed him. He acted somewhat arrogantly to find out if she would use this arrogance of his as an excuse not to comply with his request She could have given him the benefit of the doubt of course, figuring that he suffered from some concealed kind of ailment which prevented him from bowing down and helping himself. Her prompt compliance with his request plus her offer to look after the needs of his camels-- a request that had not even been voiced yet-- all this would demonstrate to Eliezer that here indeed was a girl that was fit to step into the shoes of Sarah etc. The words "and through her I shall know" are to indicate that he prayed that all the other qualities necessary for a suitable wife for Isaac would also be present in such a girl. Of course, it is implied that Eliezer's servants were not present during this encounter, or that they acted as if they did not belong to his entourage during all this time. Since Eliezer had his camels parked some distance away, he had to run to get them, so that by the time Rivkah came up from the well she could fulfil also the remainder of Eliezer's prayer-test, by offering to draw water for them also. All of this transpired so rapidly that Eliezer had not had time to complete his prayer before Rivkah already approached again. This accounts for the haste with which Eliezer had to act. "Hag-me-ini" means "bring water to my lips." We have explained the reason for this previously. (8) Rivkah's immediate reaction was "Drink, my lord!" On the way down to draw the water, she must have reflected that anyone who could not help himself could not help his animals either. That is when she decided to volunteer the latter chore, emphasizing that she was prepared to do the whole job, i.e. "until they have finished to drink." In this fashion she offered and did even more than Eliezer had prayed for ("I will also give water for your camels"). When he related this series of events at Bethuel's table, he changed it slightly, so that it would appear that the answer to his prayer had corresponded exactly to his request. He did this so that the local people who believed in the effectiveness of charms, soothsayers etc., would not challenge the fact that there had been minor deviations; they could use this as a pretext to deny Divine intervention, pointing out these little inconsistencies. A very similar test is related in Kings I Chapter 17, when Elijah tested the widow of Tzorfat. Since Elijah was in doubt whether the lady whom he saw gather firewood was the lady he had been commanded to be provided by, he tested her in a similar fashion. First, he requested water to be served in his own container, since as a priest he could not be sure that her containers were ritually pure. When the woman was about to do this for him, he asked her right away to give him some bread (second test). He knew that if she were to give it to him with her own hands, she would have to be ritually pure, since he had previously demonstrated his concern for ritual purity. Thus the first test was completed, i.e. to find out if the woman knew what the situation demanded. She then told him that the little she had in the way of flour was only enough for her and her son to eat and then die from hunger. In this, she referred to the halachic rule in Baba Metzia 62 as to who enjoys priority of the chance to survive when the available supplies allow only one of several people in need of it to survive (the Talmud records a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi ben Betura in the order of priorities). When Elijah saw her attitude, he realized that surely this must have been the woman whom G-d had had in mind; by agreeing with her but insisting that he would get the first share of the little there was, he proceeded to work the miracle of assuring her of an unending supply of flour and oil as long as the drought that he himself had decreed would last. It would appear however, that the woman ate first, and when her son subsequently died, she realized that her sin had been that she had not given Elijah to eat first. In Chapter 17 verse 24, she seems to acknowledge her former error. Meanwhile, Eliezer, who had seen part of his prayer answered, wondered if success could be achieved; i.e. if G-d would fulfil the other conditions which had to be met, such as Rivkah's antecedents, which were after all central to the whole zivvug, match. Meanwhile he took out the jewelry to which Rivkah had become entitled either as a bride or simply in acknowledgment of her selfless kindness towards Eliezer. Since the Torah at this point avoids reporting that Eliezer put the bracelets on her hands, we may accept Eliezer's own subsequent version that he did so only after finding out who she was. (9) Her response to Eliezer's question, "Whose daughter are you?” in which she emphasized that Milkah had born her father to Nachor, precluded the possibility of any similarly called son she might have born to a former husband. Possibly, these words were not hers at all, but were added by the Torah to inform us of the relationship in question. Thereupon, Eliezer bowed to G-d, having realized that he had indeed met a suitable girl, and that the only remaining problem was securing her and her family's consent. When Eliezer entered Rivkah's home and saw the position of the family, he voiced full praise to G-d and blessed Him who had guided him to that place. Still, he had to wait for their approval. This is why he gave thanks once again, in an increasingly devout manner. "He bowed the face to G-d" meaning he prostrated himself on the earth in thanksgiving to G-d. Previously it had only said, "He bowed to G-d." (6+8) Our sages did not actually say that Eliezer asked in an appropriate manner. Since it would have been possible for an ancestrally totally unfit girl to have responded to Eliezer's request in an identical manner, such girl possessing yichus atzmah, sufficient personal virtue, they could not approve of Eliezer's kind of test. This in spite of the fact that according to the principle of "the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the righteous" (Psalms 125,3) and that therefore such a match would not have become a reality. Nevertheless, it would have left a bad taste in the mouth of someone like Eliezer, had he had to revise his first impression. What the Talmud in Chullin 95 says refers to people who rely exclusively on this method in determining their path in life, people who disregard prayer and basic principles. Since neither Eliezer nor Jonathan depended exclusively on nichush, divination, by means of predetermined signals, there was nothing heretical in the manner in which they acted (compare Samuel I 14,9-14). Laban explained, "Since you are looking for lodging overnight, come without delay, since we have always room for important guests and have room for the camels." Eliezer refused to eat as he first wanted to accomplish his mission while everyone was still under the impression of what had occurred. He did not want to give them a chance to cool off and reconsider the facts in a different light. In the event, his strategy proved sound, since after eating and drinking and having accepted gifts, on the morrow they already started stalling for time, trying to delay Rivkah's departure. This in spite of the fact that only the previous evening they themselves had said, "Here is Rivkah, take her and go." Eliezer had to remind them not to delay in view of G-d’s obvious pleasure at this union. With all that, they balked, making the final decision depend on Rivkah's own expressed wish. (11) Eliezer's whole gambit was to emphasize that Abraham had made the selection of a family member as a bride only a first choice. Should difficulties arise, he was free to look further afield. Therefore, Eliezer had to downplay Abraham's fear of Isaac associating with the Canaanites through marriage. This form of misleading Bethuel was permissible, since it was done in order to promote the will of G-d with minimal super natural intervention on G-d’s part. Only by repeating all these events, could the Torah demonstrate the wisdom and acumen of Eliezer trying to accomplish his master's purpose. The discrepancies in the story would otherwise never have been noted, and their purpose could not have been comprehended except through their repetition. This whole story contrasts with the many instances when the Torah contents itself with barely hinting at certain halachot, such as the husband's right to inherit his wife's estate (ve-yarash otah, Numbers 27,11) or the reference to silver as an acceptable means of legitimizing a betrothal (eyn kesseph, see Kiddushin 3). Then, only hints are needed in order to anchor the halachah in the written Torah, since we have learned all about this already in the oral Torah. Here, where there is no oral Torah to fall back on, the written Torah cannot restrict itself to a description of events in telegram style. Our story is a classic example of showing how G-d deals with the tzaddikim who deserve His guidance. (12) Laban and Bethuel answered, "That matter came from G-d, and we cannot speak to you good or bad." We have explained in Parshat Bereshit (‘It is not good for man to be alone”) that the term good and evil in relation to man are only used when equal opportunities in either direction exist. Thus, Laban is right when he said, "We cannot express refusal or willingness; the matter originated with G-d, Rivkah is present, proceed!" This is why Eliezer had stated, “If you will do the kindness to my master, tell me.” He refers to chessed and emet as distinct from tov and ra. Whenever the opportunities which confront one are not equal, the use of the term emet, truth, for doing what is right is more appropriate than the word tov, doing good. Laban, being the cleverer of the two, does the talking rather than his father Bethuel. We will, after all, have occasion to hear much more about Laban's adroitness in capitalizing on any opportunity that life presents to him. We find heavenly influences usually referred to as po-aley emet, not as po-aley tov, since they are not the result of truly free choices. Laban and Bethuel being intelligent, they referred to what Eliezer would do instead of referring to what they could do. The attempt at delay which took place the following morning, expressed what they considered as Rivkah's reluctance to leave her family so suddenly. Bethuel's part is omitted here, since he would not attempt to renege on what he had promised the previous night. This is why departure from mother and brother is mentioned, whereas, as far as the father was concerned, the matter had already been finalized on the previous evening. The wording of the blessing they gave Rivkah reflects ruach hakodesh, holy spirit, as it parallels the blessing bestowed on Abraham after the akeydah, the binding of Isaac. Their prayer was that Rivkah should become the instrument through which that blessing would be fulfilled, not other wives of either Abraham or his sons. (13) Rivkah's conduct when she first set eyes on Isaac and asked Eliezer about him reflects her high moral standards as described in Solomon's poem about the woman of valor at the end of Proverbs. Isaac is described as strolling in the field towards evening, a time when vision is restricted; presumably, he was facing east where it was already darker. He could not make out more than camels, therefore no mention of any welcome is made. As soon as he heard Eliezer's report and observed the girl's conduct, he installed her in the tent of his mother Sarah, the finest tribute he could pay her.

45. _.23.1.1

    Why did Jacob risk his life for the birthright?

46. _.23.1.2

    Bereshit Rabbah 63 asks, "Why did Jacob risk his life for the birthright? Did we not learn in a Tosephta that private altars were permitted only until the time the tabernacle was erected in the desert, and only until then was sacrificial service performed by the firstborn? Later, only priests could perform that function. They answer that Jacob was so upset about the prospect that unworthy Esau should perform sacrificial rites that he risked his life to prevent this.”

47. _.23.1.3

    We read in Leviticus 19,18, "Love your fellow man like yourself." This teaches that all love is measured against the yardstick of self love. Time is measured in terms of the revolution of the earth around its own axis. A complete revolution equals a day. All other measurements of time are fractions of a day. Similarly, love for one's fellow man is measured by how nearly it equals the love one feels for oneself. Perfect love, i.e. love which does not require an object or a person to requite it, is the love which existed between Jonathan and David. We have numerous examples proving that their love exceeded the love of self, and that they were prepared to lose their lives rather than to have the quality of their relationship questioned (Samuel I Chapter 18). Their kind of love, as explained in Chapter 21, cannot exist between more than two people at a time. Just as it is more difficult to deny assistance to members of one's family, and just as it is more difficult to hit one's father than to hit a stranger due to the bonds of love that exist between father and son, so injustice at the hands of members of one's family is harder to accept gracefully than injustice suffered at the hands of a complete stranger. The Torah, in dealing with the enticer (Deut. 13,7-13), adds the admonition not to have pity on him nor to help him cover up his sin, since it was in the nature of his crime that it be committed by a close family member. The Torah describes such family member as being "like your own soul." It is difficult to betray such love by informing against the beloved to the authorities. When David executed the murderers of Ish Boshet with what appears to be excessive cruelty, he did so because the hideous nature of their crime was heightened by the fact that the murderers were members of the same tribe as their victim, and they thus violated the natural bonds that should have existed between them (Samuel II Chapter 4). When the prophet Nathan told David a parable to show him that his conduct with Bat Sheva had been improper, David reacted violently, emphasizing that the characters in Nathan's story denied natural bonds of love, thus making their crime much worse. The fact that the rich man had exploited his position to take advantage of the poor man, drew David's greatest ire (Samuel II Chapter 12).

48. _.23.1.4

    In view of all this, Jacob's conduct seems hard to understand. He who was to become the fountainhead of the Jewish nation, appears guilty of the vilest accusation. How could he take advantage of a tired and thirsty brother, haggle over a bowl of soup until Esau would sell him his birthright, instead of performing an act of brotherly love and feeding him? Later on, he repeats the performance prior to the blessing, using subterfuge, lies, and deceit to secure his father's blessing, a blessing which had been intended for Esau. Is this the "uprightness" that the Torah has in mind when it describes Jacob as "an upright man?"

49. _.23.1.5

    Moreover, if it had been his objective to secure for himself two thirds of his father's estate instead of the one third he was entitled to legally, could he not foresee that he would be forced to flee his home and to renounce any claims he might have been entitled to? Should he not have kept silent, have waited for his father to die, if he was really prepared to risk his life for the inheritance? If, on the other hand, he was concerned merely with obtaining blessings of a spiritual nature for himself and the future Jewish people, what need was there for the status of the birthright? Surely, Isaac had plenty of blessings at his disposal for both young and old, as we read in Exodus 20,20, "Wherever I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come and bless you."

50. _.23.1.6

    We must also ask: Why did Isaac want to bestow a blessing? Abraham had not seen fit to bless Isaac. And, if he did want to bestow a blessing, why did he not prepare a blessing also for Jacob after he had eaten the delicacies, making the entire charade unnecessary? Did not Jacob himself bless all his sons when on his death-bed, each one according to his respective personality?

51. _.23.1.7

    We must therefore accept two premises: 1) Jacob did not really aim at the birthright. 2) Neither of the two brothers was concerned with inheriting Isaac's material wealth. Even the honor connected with the birthright was of no real concern to either Esau or Jacob. Both were deeply desirous of acquiring things of genuine value, goodness, things which can only be secured by means of heavenly blessing. In this respect we must view the birthright as profoundly related to the Divine blessings and Isaac's power to direct such blessings. Isaac was not reconciled to the fact that Jacob had obtained the blessing by deceit until Esau cried out, "He took my birthright, and now he has taken my blessing" (Genesis 27,36). Only then did Isaac say to Esau, "I have made him an overlord over you." When Esau questioned his father saying, "Have you only one blessing, Father?" Isaac quite calmly allowed the blessing to remain with Jacob, and bestowed upon him in addition the blessing of Abraham to make him the principal heir of the Abrahamitic tradition (Genesis 28, 1-5). What had been in Isaac's mind originally, and what transpired to make him change his mind? The greatest difficulty in all this is the fact that heaven obviously went along with all the changes made by the human participants in these events. Evidence of this is the fact that G-d calls Israel "My firstborn son" (Exodus 4,22-23) when Moses first confronts Pharaoh. Since one cannot deny then that heaven stamped Jacob's performance with its seal of approval, we must find answers to the questions raised. The following parable may help explain. In one of the islands, there lived a nation whose king had traditionally always been chosen by the people for his qualities of leadership. Though the nation always chose a descendant of the former king, the people managed through this device to invariably secure a suitable ruler. This was because there was no automatic succession to the throne. It happened that one particular king was so outstanding, and his accomplishments on behalf of his nation so great, that the council of state voted that henceforth the firstborn son of that king and the firstborn son of the son after him should automatically succeed their respective fathers. This law was not made subject to periodic review and therefore became unchallengeable. In due course, one of the later kings had two sons, the elder being boorish, selfcentred, i.e. totally unfit to rule. His younger brother however, possessed all the qualities needed to make him a suitable ruler. The law makers' hands were tied, however, since they were bound by the act of gratitude to an earlier king which had been enshrined in law. After much debate, the elders decided that their only course of action lay in persuading the older of the two brothers to renounce his claim to the succession voluntarily. For that purpose, they prepared a great banquet of the type the older son enjoyed; they used the occasion to point out to the king's older son that the burdens of office would interfere greatly with his present lifestyle etc. In this fashion, they succeeded in getting the older son to renounce his claim to the throne. The application of this parable to our story is self evident. Compare five points of similarity between the parable and our story: 1) The original law to establish leadership position based on merit. 2) The change in the law, establishing precedence based on birth. 3) The incidence of some prospective rulers being obviously unfit. 4) Advice on how to neutralize the harmful effects of the law to base the succession on claims supported by birthright. 5) Return to the original manner of selecting a ruler.

52. _.23.1.8

    At the creation, we find no evidence that birthright was part of the rules guiding the affairs of man. Proof lies in the random order the names of Noach's sons are referred to on different occasions. This was changed when Abraham appeared on the stage of history. His descendants were to play a leading role due to their being descendants of Abraham. In effect G-d had said, "Until now I have bestowed blessings, henceforth I grant Abraham the authority to bestow and direct blessings" (Genesis 12,3). Abraham debated with himself if he were to bestow this power to bless on others. Since he was not certain that he might help weeds to sprout (promote the power of wicked people), if he took it upon himself to transfer this power to bless, he decided to leave well enough alone (Bereshit Rabbah 61). He waited for G-d to make His will known in the matter. G-d did bless his son Isaac (gave him the power to bestow blessings). Since Abraham had two first born sons, he would have had to bestow the blessing (power to bless) on both of them. He was afraid to err; on the other hand, the trait of "chessed," kindness, for which he was famed would not allow him to deprive Ishmael of a share in favor of Isaac. This in spite of the fact that he knew that his descendants would be known primarily through Isaac. Therefore, considering himself as the manager of the Almighty's orchard, he decided to leave this decision to the owner of the orchard. After Abraham's death, the owner chose Isaac, and thus we come to point two in our parable. When twins were born to Isaac, the older of whom exhibited signs of unfitness, problem three in our parable, this had to be dealt with. Isaac, true to his characteristic of pachad, din, i.e. justice, which our sages have credited him with, did not dare deviate from the principle of transferring power in accordance with birthright. When Jacob says some time later that "the One whom Isaac feared was on my side" (Genesis 31,42), this grants us an insight into the matter. An examination of all the instances in which a direct relationship or communication between G-d and Isaac is described reveals that the term used for "G-d" is invariably elokim, i.e. the attribute of justice. The only exception is the instance when G-d tells Abraham that Isaac is not to be slaughtered after all. This latter instance which taught Abraham that rachamim, mercy is one of G-d’s attributes, is the only time when this factor emerges as playing a role in the relationship between G-d and Isaac. It is understandable then that Isaac of all people would not deviate from the pattern of nobility of birth decreed from above. Isaac's own position as Abraham's heir was due to this very system. Add to this that Isaac personally had not observed any misconduct in Esau, and it becomes clear why he chose Esau to bestow the blessing on. Jacob himself had been very careful never to tell his father of the sale of the birthright, since he had kept hoping that he would secure his father's blessing by virtue of his superior moral conduct, plus the influence of his mother. He did not want to benefit by exposing his brother's unworthiness. This trait of Jacob was very laudable. Leviticus 25,36 tells us, "Your brother shall live alongside you." Our sages explain that this wording teaches that one's own life takes precedence over that of one's fellow man in a situation where only one of the two lives can be saved. If the object of one's quest for Divine help is personality growth rather than the acquisition of worldly goods, then competing for the attainment of that goal is permissible. Aristotle also states in his Ethics that self-love, when its objective is perfection of self, is virtuous. Our sages, when describing jealousy as a negative trait, do approve of jealousy when it involves envying scholars who know more (Baba Batra 25). The same idea is reflected in Bereshit Rabbah 71 in connection with Rachel's jealousy of her sister Leah (Genesis 30,1). She envied Leah her good deeds. This is why our sages can consider that kind of jealousy a positive quality. On the other hand, "good" character traits employed for a base purpose are viewed as a negative quality (compare Chapter 27 on Dinah). Our problem is to determine whether jealousy under the circumstances described is permitted even when the attainment of one's own purpose involves something detrimental to one's competitor. Consider the definition by our sages of the commandment "Love your fellow man like yourself." The Talmud Shabbat 31 explains this to mean " do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself." Aristotle defines it in a similar vein. In other words, we should want for our fellow man what we want for ourselves. We certainly do not need to want for our fellow man what he wants for himself. This is especially so, when our fellow man is wicked or a criminal. In Psalms 139,21, David expresses it in these words: "Must I not hate those who hate You O Lord, and quarrel with those who rise up against You?" Clearly the word "fellow man" referred to in the Torah means someone sharing the same objectives in life that we ourselves believe in. Since Jacob's motivations corresponded to the ones stipulated by our sages, the verse we quoted from Psalms may be applied to him. Having established this point, we return to item four in our parable. The problem is how to restore the position of leadership to those qualified for it. It does not suffice to deny G-d’s special blessings to the undeserving, rather action is needed to channel those blessings to those who deserve them. When Jacob blessed his grandsons prior to his death, he reversed his hands to ensure that Ephrayim would be the recipient of the greater blessing. Er, the firstborn son of Yehudah, is described as unfit, unworthy. Peretz and Zerach respectively, are not treated according to what the order of their birth would call for. Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, is not accorded the privileges his birthright calls for. David was not Yishai's firstborn, neither was Solomon the senior of the surviving sons of David when he was assured that he would be his father's successor. To prove that birthright as an automatic claim to the succession was not practiced at the time of the Exodus, see Numbers 3,3. G-d says, "The day I smote all the firstborn of Egypt, I established an exclusive claim on all the firstborn of Israel." Obviously, if succession by birthright had been the norm at that time, there would have been no need for G-d to underline that only from that day on would G-d claim the firstborn of Israel as especially beholden to Him. We see then that the practice of succession by birthright had been discontinued at some time, only to be re-introduced at the time of the Exodus. Later, after the episode of the golden calf, when this method of succession had again been found unreliable, the privileges of that group were transferred to the tribe of Levi which had proved its worthiness. This then is the fifth rule that we learned from our parable. Now we understand what the Midrash quoted at the beginning of our chapter had in mind. Since Jacob may well have been aware that the privileges of the firstborn would be abolished once the tabernacle was to be erected, why did he risk his life merely in order to hasten that event? The question is even more justified when we consider that Jacob derived no practical advantage from all his machinations. There is no mention of Jacob ever having offered sacrifices in his capacity as firstborn, and if he had done so, the fact would no doubt have come to the attention of his father. His father could not then have been surprised when he heard from Esau some forty-eight years later, that the latter had traded away his birthright. The Midrash wishes us to know that if Jacob's actions had been motivated by materialistic considerations, this would have been most dishonorable; since he was guided by the desire to secure for himself a higher spiritual level, however, such purpose was laudable. Jacob was aware that the heter bamot, permission to erect altars for G-d wherever one wanted, in order to draw down G-d’s blessing, could lead to grievous abuse if the excercise of the priestly functions was left in the hands of the unworthy. Such abuse would lead to G-d’s blessings being channelled to those who were undeserving, something that could not be pleasing in the eyes of G-d. Therefore, he hastened to restore the source of blessing to those who were fit for it for as long as the condition "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come and grant My blessing," existed (Exodus 20,24). He realized that at a later stage a central site for the residence of the shechinah, Divine Presence, would be established, and that then the function of priesthood would be performed only in that central place (tabernacle or temple) and only by priests who had to meet exacting criteria of physical and moral fitness.

53. _.23.1.9

    Some problems in the text: 1) The statement that Abraham begat Isaac seems uncalled for; the Torah had reported this previously in detail. 2) The review of Isaac and Rebecca's marriage and Rebecca's ancestry also seems repeated needlessly. 3) Since both Isaac and Rebecca prayed for children, why was only Isaac's prayer reported as evoking a favorable response? 4) How can we understand the statement that Isaac loved Esau because of the venison? Could Isaac really be bribed to love someone who was displeasing in the eyes of G-d? 5) Why did the Torah have to tell us that Jacob was holding on to the heel of Esau during their birth? 6) Since Esau appeared so nonchalant about selling his birthright, why did Jacob ask him to confirm it by an oath? 7) Why does the Torah bother to tell us "Esau got up and moved etc.?" We surely would not have assumed that he remained rooted to the spot indefinitely! 8) In reporting the famine in Canaan, the Torah states that this was not the same famine as had occurred during the days of Abraham. Since the event occurred more than one hundred years later, surely we could not have misunderstood. 9) Why did G-d tell Isaac twice to remain in Canaan? 10) Why does G-d reassure Isaac about the land being given to him and his descendants? 11) Why would Avimelech's "peeping Tom" escapade be due to the length of time Isaac stayed in his country? Surely, Isaac would not indulge in marital relations with his wife in full view of Avimelech? 12) When Isaac redug the wells his father had dug in that country, why did he name the wells with the same names? What is the special significance of the names eyssek and sitnah? 13) Why did Isaac say to Avimelech and Phichol his commander-in-chief when confronting them, "You hate me?" 14) Since the name "Beer Sheva" had already been explained when Abraham lived, why does Isaac employ the same name to commemorate a different event?

54. _.23.1.10

    (1) Since only Isaac and his descendants are called Abraham's seed par excellence, the Torah sees fit to restate Isaac's ancestry, stressing that it did not go back further than to Abraham. Anyone prior to Abraham could not claim a share in Isaac as his descendant. In Jewish law, we have the principle that upon conversion to Judaism, a proselyte's family ties are severed, he ceases to have legal family ties, and is considered like a totally new creature. Abraham having become the first Jew, his children's ancestry was rooted in him and in him only. (2) Isaac married at forty, having attained the mental maturity to found a family, as discussed in Chapter 22. Bethuel was called an Arami since he was deceitful, as implied by that word. For that reason, the two have to be mentioned separately. (3) Rebecca had no hope to have children until Isaac's prayer had been answered, otherwise we might have attributed her pregnancy to the blessing that had been given her by her brother Laban prior to her departure from home (Bereshit Rabbah 63). The meaning of the verse "the Arami was about to cause my father's destruction" (Deut.26,5) could be "the latent traits of deceit and treachery inherited from Laban almost led to my destruction." Isaac's prayer was solely for the benefit of Rebecca, since he as an olah temimah, a flawless offering, and could not have served as such if he had been physically blemished. The word lenochach used to describe Isaac's stance during prayer, means that he concentrated on a single objective. A similar use of that word occurs in Proverbs 4,25-27. (4) Perhaps the reason that we are told that Isaac loved Esau who brought venison to him is to point out that Rebecca possessed enough independence of spirit to love Jacob, whose behavior warranted this, and in whose character she could see the promise of the prophecy that had been revealed to her prior to the birth of the twins that in time the older one would become subservient to the younger one (Genesis 25,23). (5) Jacob's holding on to the heel of Esau may symbolize that values which Esau would stamp his foot on would be the very ones Jacob would cherish.

55. _.23.1.11

    (6) Esau's concept of the birthright and its values may not have differed much from the way many Jews perceive the "feast of Leviathan." Some are willing to sell their claim cheaply, whereas others treasure it and would spend their life savings to assure themselves of their share in it. Since Jacob realized that although he treasured the value of the birthright, Esau considered it of trifling importance, he felt morally justified in swapping it for a nominal amount. The apparent urgency to complete the transaction (sell it to me this day!) may have been prompted by the realization that the next time Esau would be exhausted he might well be at the point of death, and the opportunity for this transaction might have disappeared forever. Since Esau had made it clear that he had many close encounters with death (Genesis 25,32), Jacob made it plain that under such circumstances, when no documents were at hand to record transfer of ownership, the least he required was an oral declaration of a binding nature. The sale was to become effective "as of now!" The Torah gives evidence that Esau had an opportunity to reconsider this rash decision when he was fully restored to his senses, i.e. after having eaten. Therefore, we are told, "He ate, he drank, he got up and he went about his business; he despised his birthright."

56. _.23.1.12

    (7) This proves to all that what might have been construed as a sale under duress, could not now be viewed in that light. After all, Esau had had plenty of time to give second thoughts to the importance of the transaction that had been completed. (8) Isaac was a wealthy man, and presumably there had been famines in the land of Canaan since the days of Abraham. None of those however, had approached in severity the one described in Abraham's days until now. When G-d instructs Isaac "reside in the land," He refers to Canaan as Isaac's permanent place of residence. (9) The reason given is that this land constitutes his and his descendants' inheritance. (10) Regarding Isaac's grandchildren, however, they who would one day inherit the greater land of Israel as a fulfilment of G-d’s promise to their ancestor Abraham, they would be permitted to leave the land of Canaan, since G-d’s Providence would protect them even when away from the holy land. This is the difference in the wording "this land" and "these lands" (26,3). Isaac and Rebecca living together under one roof for any length of time, if not as husband and wife, was most unusual. Avimelech, therefore, became curious concerning their true relationship. Presumably, he made structural changes in the house opposite that of Isaac, to enable him to keep those two under observation. (11) When confronted by Avimelech, Isaac immediately admitted the facts and his fears concerning his own safety, should such facts become known. Now that Rebecca's real status had been revealed, the danger of her being raped and her husband being murdered became real, and Avimelech had to issue special decrees to discourage anyone from molesting either of the two. In this manner, Isaac's status was raised considerably. (12) In re-opening the old wells dug by his father, Isaac displayed great courage. He found additional deep water. The Philistines claimed the water as theirs, stating that they owned all the mineral rights in the country. 13) Isaac's claim was based on having made improvements in undeveloped lands. The wells were retained by Isaac's shepherds. The names eysek and sitnah reflect both the strife and the victory won by Isaac in these arguments. In all this, there is clear evidence of the Divine assistance received by Isaac. This led to recognition on the part of the Philistines that it was better to have Isaac as a friend than to have him as an adversary. At least, they thought it was important that Isaac guarantee his neutrality in any difficulties they might become involved in. At that point, Avimelech paid a visit to Isaac, explaining that he now realized that Isaac's wealth had not been acquired at the expense of the Philistines, as they had suspected until now, but that it was the result of the Providence of the G-d of Isaac. In view of this, and considering that they had imposed export restrictions on Isaac when he left Gerrar at their insistence, Isaac agreed. Possibly, the news of another well discovery was received while these talks were in progress. (14) Isaac called this new well Beer sheva as a reminder of the oath of friendship that had coincided with this discovery. This too became the name of the town for the very same reason.

57. _.24.1.2

    "And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old"

58. _.24.1.3

    Bereshit Rabbah 65 quotes Rabbi Chaninah son of Papa explaining the verse in Psalms 40,6, "Great and diverse things have You done, O my Lord, Your wondrous works and thoughts for us." The wondrous thoughts and deeds have as their purpose only our welfare. Why was Isaac's eyesight dimmed? In order that Jacob could come and take the blessing.

59. _.24.1.4

    All material wealth available to man can endure only if its very possession rests on durable foundations.

60. _.24.1.5

    G-d says, "Do not be afraid for I am with you" (Isaiah 41,10). The implication is that without Me, you will not prevail since you have no enduring foundations. In Isaiah 31,3, we read, "As soon as G-d withdraws His hand, the helper will fail, the recipient of help will collapse." Here the prophet describes that relying on human help is useless, since human power endures only as long as He does not withdraw His power. For that reason, our sages describe all material wealth as kinyanim medumim, as apparent possessions. On occasion, failure to own such possessions may be preferable to owning them. Our sages teach that whereas virtues fulfill their functions only when we acquire them, material goods may only fulfill their purpose when we spend them. If these material possessions then are useful only as a means to an end, they themselves cannot be of enduring value. Since material possessions evoke in man the desire to amass forever more of them, they cannot be true possessions, since they do not satisfy the owner, but act as a reminder of all the things the owner has not yet acquired. Proverbs 23, 1-4 warns us not to wear ourselves out in the pursuit of riches, but to excercise restraint when a guest at the lavish banquet tendered by the king, since whatever is offered is based on deceit. His advice, if translated into the jargon of Mussar teachers, is, “Do not let the goodies dangled before your eyes by the yetzer hara, evil urge, bedazzle you, since what is being dangled before your eyes is merely a mirage. Sanhedrin 107 describes a small organ, which if fed, becomes insatiable, but which if starved, i.e. kept to strict rations, will find its satisfaction. The organs are the eye and the heart; both have enormous appetites as attested in Numbers 16,39, "Do not follow the dictates of your hearts or your eyes which are apt to lead you astray." The Talmud relates the lesson learned by Alexander the great, who tried to weigh a human eye handed to him from beyond the borders of Paradise; he found that all his silver and gold did not equal the weight of that eye (Tamid 32). When frustrated at this discovery, he was advised to sprinkle some dust on the eye. He was then able to determine the weight of the eye immediately. The lesson conveyed is that while alive, the eye is insatiable in its greed, and all the gold in the world does not suffice to still its appetite. As soon as it is dead however, all these appetites evaporate.

61. _.24.1.6

    Many more parables along these lines are scattered throughout the Talmud.

62. _.24.1.7

    Considering all the foregoing, it is amazing that Isaac should have made so many preparations prior to giving away material blessings, such as the ones introduced by the words "may the Lord give you of the dew of the heavens etc." Also, how could Isaac give Esau a blessing so similar and on the same day? Surely this was bound to lead to competition between the brothers for the acquisition of similar goods?

63. _.24.1.8

    Bereshit Rabbah 66, apparently aware of this difficulty, attempts to view the material possessions mentioned in these blessings as merely paraphrasing spiritual blessings; for instance, "dew of the heavens" is understood to refer to the manna the Jews would eat in the desert. All this is really not necessary, as the material blessings should be viewed merely as auxiliary to the main blessing, which was spiritual in nature. The Torah states, "He blessed him," meaning he bestowed a spiritual blessing. Only afterwards do we read "He smelled the odor of his clothing...and may the Lord give you from the dew of heaven etc." When material wealth is in the hands of persons amply endowed with spiritual qualities, such material wealth may enhance the spiritual qualities, enabling the owner to employ his wealth in the service of G-d. When the material wealth is given to persons lacking in virtues however, this wealth tends to corrupt the owner even further. The fact that Isaac blessed Jacob twice before touching on material aspects (compare verses 23, 27) may indicate that our language is inadequate to express the exact nature of these spiritual blessings. Material goods are promised only afterwards. Chapter 133 in Psalms, referring as it does to "dews of Mount Hermon descending on the mountains of Zion, outpourings of the Lord's blessing for eternal life," probably reflects the same approach we have suggested.

64. _.24.1.9

    To come back to the Midrash quoted at the beginning, when man's eyesight is perfect, he makes few errors in perception. Denial of physical health does not originate in heaven. On the contrary, heaven helps in the attainment of perfect health. Therefore, since failing health is usually the result of some moral failure, the deterioration in Isaac's eyesight seems doubly baffling. When someone looks into the king's bedchamber accidentally, observing the most intimate aspects of the king's private life, such a person may become a source of major embarassment to the king. If the person in question happens to be an average citizen, the king might have him executed to save himself future embarassment. If he is the king's son, however, the king may prefer to shutter the son's windows rather than to execute him. At the time of the akeydah, Isaac had become privy to some of G-d’s secrets while he was lying bound on the altar. Afraid that what Isaac had seen might become a source of future embarassment, and to help Isaac avoid making fatal mistakes in the use of his eyes, G-d decided to shutter his "windows," as it were. When Moses complained about his speech defect, using it as an excuse to decline the role of leader of the Jewish people, G-d countered by saying, "Who gave man a mouth?" (Exodus 4,11). This means that imperfections in man's physical attributes do not occur through oversight on the part of G-d, but on the contrary; since they are the results of G-d’s actions, they serve a constructive purpose, even though that purpose may not yet have been recognized by the person suffering the handicap.

65. _.24.1.10

    Some difficulties in the text: 1) What kind of weak eyesight prevents a father from recognizing his son? Why would not Isaac's other senses such as hearing, touching etc compensate for his failing eyesight, and enable Isaac to recognize his sons? Why did Isaac issue instructions regarding the hunting of venison prior to his issuing the blessing? 2) Why did Rebecca change what Isaac had said? He had said, "I want to bless you before I die," whereas Rebecca related to Jacob that Isaac had said, "I will bless you before the Lord?" (compare Genesis 27,2 and 27,6). 3) Did it not occur to Jacob that his voice would give him away? 4) What is the relevance of "the odor of my son is like the odor of the field that the Lord has blessed?" 5) When Isaac discovered his error, he refers only to Jacob's deceit, not a word about his own error. Why? Why did Esau employ three arguments to secure a blessing, and why did he say that the days of mourning for his father would come "quickly?" Why not just "they will come?" Rebecca's fear she might be bereft of both sons in a single day seems to be somewhat ill founded. If Esau were to kill Jacob, who would kill Esau? 6) Why did Rebecca not reveal her true motives for sending Jacob away even at this late stage?

66. _.24.1.11

    The author deals polemically with the Ralbag's answer before giving the following explanation. The blessings were not to be given to the wrong party, neither could they be split, divided between two parties. They required the one who bestowed them to know whom he was blessing. Those blessings that could comfortably be shared by both sons, had been bestowed previously. Isaac's terror at having made a mistake extended only to the blessing that required a specific recipient.

67. _.24.1.12

    (1) "It happened when Isaac had become old, and his eyesight weakened from seeing," describes a process not only related to physical eyesight. Achievement of a person's maximal spiritual power is closely related to his physical state, and the proper functioning of all his senses. Of all senses, eyesight is so important that the Bible frequently equates the ability to know and comprehend with the ability to see (I saw them in my heart,” Kohelet 2; "Man cannot see Me, " Exodus 33; “I saw the Lord," Isaiah 6). In a lesser degree we find this applied to the sense of hearing, i.e. "Hear O Israel" (Deut 6). In a still lesser degree the sense of smell serves as a medium for comprehension and perceptions of the mind. "From afar he can smell war." (Job 39,25) "He lets him smell the fear of the Lord." (Isaiah 11) The foregoing leads our sages to state in Sanhedrin 93 that there is substance to smell (though it is not tangible). The sense of taste is ranked still lower among the list of our senses (see commentary on the tree of knowledge in Chapters Seven and Nine), but even it can confer on people perceptions of the true state of affairs. At the lowest rung of the ladder of our senses, re their usefulness as a means of perception, is the sense of touch. The knowledge conveyed by it, is the most unreliable of all our five senses. For that reason, we find that he who relies on it is considered a fool, "You will be groping in the dark at noon as the blind gropes in the dark" (Deut 28,29). Even Aristotle points out that reliance on one's senses cannot be considered sinful except reliance on one's sense of touch. When man's sense of sight functions at optimal efficiency, it hardly ever deceives him, even while his other senses do not function at their respective best. G-d presumably withdrew good eyesight from Isaac at this time to enable him to make the error necessary to prevent Esau from receiving this blessing. The story illustrates the length to which Isaac went to compensate for his failing eyesight by employing all his other senses. Jacob, on the other hand, made every effort to neutralize the powers of perception of these senses of Isaac. Despite Isaac's failing eyesight, he was not altogether blind to Esau's behavior and his unworthiness of the blessing that he as the elder brother should be the recipient of. Therefore, Isaac instructed Esau to perform a mitzvah as a result of which he would qualify for the blessings Isaac had in mind. The reason Isaac lists several activities related to hunting, is to make the performance of each activity the fulfilment of a separate mitzvah of "honor your father." Even the hunted animal itself will be considered like a sacrifice, seeing it had been killed as an act of obedience to a father's command. The reason Isaac added, "so that my soul can bless you," was to explain that only this would give him the right to bestow his blessing on Esau. (2) The addition of the words "before I die," was to let Esau know that unlike Isaac himself who had received the blessing of Abraham by G-d after the death of his father, Esau would not receive it unless it was given to him by his father. For that reason, Isaac did not add the words "before G-d" when he offered the blessing. After all, Esau would receive the blessing only by reason of the power to bless which had been bestowed on his father Isaac, not because he had inherent merit entitling him to the blessing. That, too, is the reason he introduced the blessing with the words, "May the Lord grant you." Isaac knew full well that, so far, he did not have heaven's approval for what he was about to do. When Jacob appeared on the scene, and Isaac smelled him, he could not understand that the odor seemed to be the one associated with people blessed by G-d. (4) The exclamation "Behold the odor of my son" must be understood as an expression of wonderment. This then prompted the "May the Lord grant you" as a prayer which Isaac hoped would lead to a confirmation of his assessment of the situation. Because he had felt uncomfortable about what he was going to do, he had not confided in either Rebecca or Jacob; he was not aware that he had been overheard. The mention of delicacies "which I have loved" is in fact a reference to his son Esau "whom I have loved." The fact that Rebecca "overheard" as distinct from "heard" must be mentioned. Had Isaac thought that she had "heard" him, he would never have given Jacob the benefit of the doubt, since he would have concluded that Rebecca had conspired with Jacob in the duplicity. The Torah stating that "Esau went into the field to hunt," is to alert the reader to Esau's total insensitivity to all the considerations which had motivated Isaac. Else, the Torah would have merely written "he did so," to indicate that Esau had tuned in to his father's wavelength. When Rebecca told Jacob what she had overheard, she was at pains not to let Jacob know that the blessing would be contingent on the one who would bring the food, otherwise Jacob would have considered the whole charade as completely futile. When she added that Isaac had said "I will bless before the Lord," she implied that the blessing was connected to the recipient's merit. Thus she encouraged Jacob to feel that his lifestyle up to that point gave him an advantage in his efforts to obtain the blessing. (3) Though aware that his voice was different from that of his brother, Jacob thought that he could imitate it sufficiently well to pass his father's inspection. However, he was far from certain that he could escape detection if the touch test would be applied. Isaac's sense of taste was neutralized by the food being prepared in the manner he was known to like. The goatskins neutralized his sense of touch.

68. _.24.1.13

    Isaac became suspicious on several counts. The speedy return of the one whom he thought to be Esau was puzzling. He detected a change in Esau's voice. Jacob's reply that G-d had assisted him made Isaac even more suspicious, since he was not used to Esau employing that mode of expression. Therefore, Isaac insisted on feeling Jacob, to reassure himself that his senses had not deceived him, and that his suspicions were in fact unfounded. When relying on his sense of touch, noting that the arms he touched were hairy like those of Esau, Isaac trusted the wrong one of his senses. When Isaac asked a third time, "Are you indeed my son Esau?” Jacob, realizing what bothered his father, kept his reply brief, saying merely, "It is I." In this way he did not give his father's sense of hearing additional leverage. Isaac proceeded to eat the food by means of which he hoped to secure additional evidence as to who stood before him, using his sense of taste. Rebecca who knew Isaac's preferences, had been able to prepare the food in a manner that would not arouse Isaac's suspicions. Isaac asked Jacob to come closer, so that he could employ his sense of smell better, a usually reliable guide. Having obtained evidence by three of his senses (taste, touch and smell) that the correct son stood before him, Isaac considered this sufficiently conclusive and proceeded with the blessing. "He blessed" summarizes the essence, i.e. the spiritual blessing. The words, "May the Lord grant you etc." the material wealth promised, was designed primarily to protect the recipient against the dangers lurking around us at all times. Material wealth is a tool to help our personality development. Using the word "G-d" underlines that these gifts are to be employed only in the service of G-d, not as an end in themselves. When Solomon offered a prayer on the occasion of the dedication of the temple, in which he asked G-d that prayers offered in the temple be answered by G-d, he also qualified his remarks. Concerning prayers offered by Jews, he stipulated that such Jews be deserving; concerning prayers offered by gentiles, he made no such stipulation (Kings I Chapter 8). (5) Since Isaac was convinced that whoever stood before him was meant to receive the blessing, he added the words, "Those that curse you shall be cursed and those that bless you shall be blessed." When Esau arrived, literally seconds after Isaac had concluded blessing Jacob, Isaac became frightened, realizing that the very timing might be evidence of Divine interference. Moreover, having just said "Whosoever will curse you shall be cursed," he realized that he was in no position to retract without the danger of bringing a curse upon himself. By saying about Jacob "he shall also remain blessed," Isaac may have had two reasons: 1) to confirm what he had just done unwittingly, after absorbing the lesson of the sequence of events; 2) to counteract the impression that his agitation had been directed against Jacob, in favor of Esau. As long as Esau thought that only material blessings were involved, he felt confident that he could obtain his share of those blessings also; only after observing the great agitation of his father, did it dawn on him that something more fundamental was at stake. Being Esau, however, he was unable to comprehend that the kind of blessing that Isaac had just given away could not be bestowed on more than one person. For this reason, Isaac said to Esau "your brother came with deceit and took your blessing," referring to that part of the blessing which had not been spelled out in detail, but had merely been referred to by the Torah as "he blessed him." Esau, realizing that his father sided with Jacob since he had not retracted the blessing, exclaimed, "Did he not call him crooked?" meaning that Isaac already at birth, when he named his brother Jacob, had foreseen that he would act deceitfully later on in life, and would thus live up to his name. In stating that this was already the second time that he, Esau, had been victimized by Jacob, Esau's outcry was directed at his father. He asked a third time, "Have you not saved a blessing for me?" He is aware that no living person divests himself of all his possessions. This is in order not to become a charge on public or private charity. (Baba Batra 146). Isaac is forced to explain the nature of the blessing he had given Jacob before he can bless Esau with material blessings. He therefore reviews the terms of the blessing, emphasizing that Jacob has been made the most important human being, the carrier of the destiny of mankind, compared to whom all other people are of secondary importance. The blessing is not one of physical dominion over the rest of mankind; rather it is similar to the blessing Noach received after the deluge. At that time man had been made primary, relative to the animal kingdom, and making the animals sense this had been expressed in the words "and the fear of you shall be on all the beasts of the earth etc." (Genesis 9,2; see our commentary in chapter 15). When Esau still does not understand why he should go out empty-handed, seeing he had served his father far more delicacies than had his younger brother Jacob, Isaac responds to Esau's appeal by predicting that Esau's future would be financially secure. In fact, Esau does not receive a blessing. Isaac repeats that all the material blessings are based only on continued worthiness of the recipient. Esau's anger was not directed at the blessings themselves, concerning which his father had managed to assuage his feelings, but his anger was directed at the machinations by which those blessings had been obtained. He decided that though the act of murdering Jacob would precipitate his father's death, he would not let that bother him. Rebecca, hearing about Esau's plans, and aware now of the sale of the birthright being a second reason for Esau's anger at Jacob, realized that Esau's hatred would not abate. When she tells Jacob to flee because of "what you did to him," she refers to the sale of the birthright. She is sure that the matter of the blessing might have unpleasant results for herself but not for Jacob, since she had volunteered previously to suffer any consequences. She had not, however, assumed the consequences arising out of the sale of the birthright, something she had not even been aware of for the last forty-eight years. Even if Jacob were to kill Esau in self-defense, Esau's family would try and avenge their father's death. Rebecca therefore uses the argument of fearing to lose both her children to make the need for Jacob to flee absolute and beyond arguing. (6) Telling Isaac to send Jacob away to get himself a wife, while not influencing Esau who would see Jacob's departure as flight, would provide the shaliach mitzvah element for his journey. As such, it would act as additional protection for Jacob when he was on a mission of fulfilling the commandment of his father to take a wife and found a family. Esau's reaction is proof that Rebecca's plan worked. "Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him to Padan Aram to get himself a wife." Esau then proceeded to look for another wife, someone more pleasing to his parents. This shows that the matter of the blessing was no longer uppermost in his mind. The explicit instructions to go to Laban "who was such and such" all served to underline the purposeful, constructive nature of this journey. Laban, after all, was the uncle of Esau as well as of Jacob, and could hardly be expected to side with Jacob in the latter's dispute with his brother. When, many years later, Jacob says to Esau, "I have remained a stranger with Laban throughout all these years," he may well have referred to the fact that Laban could never have been viewed as a haven from Esau's anger, as a place of refuge.

69. _.25.1.2

    Bereshit Rabbah 68 relates a strange parable. Jacob is asleep, angels ascending and descending the ladder. He is compared to a baby sleeping in its crib. The crib is surrounded by flies. When the baby's nursemaid arrives the flies scatter. Similarly, the angels scatter as soon as G-d appears on top of the ladder.

70. _.25.1.3

    Just as there are times when our imagination has to discount or even ignore its own figments, such as when the latter cannot be reconciled with reality, so our mind and our logic sometimes have to ignore their own conclusions when confronted with the more absolute truths that G-d reveals to His chosen from time to time, and such as the entire Jewish people experienced at Mount Sinai. Were it not a demonstrable fact, we could never imagine that the antipodes do not fall off the face of the earth, since our imagination is limited to matters our senses have experienced. This is so in spite of the fact that we can combine in our imagination things that could never be combined in real life. We can draw a horse with wings, because we know what a horse is and we know what wings are. We cannot, however, imagine the power of gravity, it being something that cannot be demonstrated in our world in a manner recognizable by our senses.

71. _.25.1.4

    Similarly, the criteria employed even by the most understanding minds may prove faulty when coming face to face with the superior logic of the Almighty. The prophets Samuel and Nathan are good examples of great minds being deceived. Samuel would have chosen Eliav as Saul's successor, since he belonged to the right family and possessed the physical attributes that distinguished Saul, whose physical attributes had been a factor in his selection as king. Samuel had to be reminded that whereas he looked only at the exterior, it was reserved for G-d to look into the heart of a person. At that particular time, physical attributes no longer mattered in the choice (Samuel I Chapters 10 and 16). Our so called logic is capable of rendering a distorted view of reality just as the eye that beholds an object partially submerged in water observes distortions in the shape of such object, though in reality such distortions have not occurred. The prophet Nathan's first reaction to David when the latter expressed the wish to build a temple, was affirmative. He had to be told by G-d that David was not the one who would be permitted to do this, but that his son Solomon would be chosen for that task. Here too, Nathan's mind without G-d’s revelation to him was inadequate to its task. In fact, G-d describes the very idea that it could have been David who would build the temple as quite inconceivable, seeing he had been a man of bloodshed (Chronicles I Chapter 22). Since the words that David was a man of bloodshed are put in his own mouth, i.e. are not reported as the reason given to Nathan by G-d, we can infer that Nathan's entire thought process was considered as faulty. David's request was perfectly reasonable; it was the prophet's reaction based on reasoning of a purely human nature that was faulty (compare version in Samuel II Chapter 7). In Kings I Chapter 22, we find another example of a prophet being misled by his own mind.

72. _.25.1.5

    It is clear then that the conclusions arrived at by a human mind need confirmation of its findings by G-d before they can be considered reliable. Our sages tell us that when Yitro advised his son-in-law Moses about the kind of judiciary system Moses was to introduce, he told him to consult with G-d in order to obtain confirmation. "If the Lord will so command you, you will be able to endure" (Exodus 18,23). If the unreliability of our mind is a fact concerning matters that the mind has been specifically equipped to deal with, how much more is this true when the mind is confronted by heavenly visions, to understand which it even lacks basic yardsticks? Moses asked G-d to provide him with such yardsticks, but was told that the human intellect must subordinate itself to heavenly instructions to the point where we apply the words of Isaiah 55,8, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways." Quite frequently this may result in objective truth being the very reverse of what we think it is. Sometimes, the very willingness to subordinate one's mind makes that mind receptive to matters undreamed of. Jacob is an example of such an attitude. After his dream, he was able to exclaim, "Indeed the Lord is in this place, although such a thought had been furthest from my mind" (Genesis 28,16 approx). This newfound insight had been contradicted by Jacob's thought processes on several accounts. A) The assumption that G-d is subject to physical dimensions as we humans use the term had been quite alien to Jacob. He was amazed to learn that G-d has a permanent residence on earth. B) The idea that G-d moves from place to place accompanying people, would never have occurred to him, had this fact not been revealed to him. C) The thought that G-d’s movements, as it were, could be brought about by outside influences, i.e. were not completely self-induced, had likewise been beyond Jacob's wildest imagination. In theology, the points just mentioned were thought completely impossible; Jacob would not have dared think of the Creator in those terms. G-d did not mean to demolish the theories Jacob had believed in; He wanted merely to broaden Jacob's spiritual horizons. The concept of hashgachah peratit, personal Providence by G-d, was the idea conveyed to Jacob in his dream. Philosophy, though it succeeds in arriving at many valid conclusions about G-d, about His uniqueness, His existence etc., nevertheless misses a great deal, as discussed in Chapter seven and forty-eight. Isaiah Chapter 66 verse 1 summarizes the lesson Jacob was taught in his dream in the following words, "Thus says the Lord; the heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool." On the one hand, the infinite dimensions of G-d are described in a manner that precludes us from imagining G-d as bound by space, since anyone who can consider the whole earth as His footstool can hardly be contained by man-made structures such as the temple. On the other hand, if such a Being exceeds the whole earth in size, how can such a Being move from place to place since it already occupies more than all the space available? Also, how could such a Being be in need of anything, seeing it has proclaimed, "Mine is the universe and all that is therein" (Psalms 50,12)? Therefore, G-d asks, "What kind of house can you possibly build for Me?" G-d asks rhetorically, "Why did I command building a temple to dwell therein? Surely not for My need, but for your sake!" Man's logic would not have dared presume all this, had it not been revealed to him. When a king moves his residence away from the capital to one of the country's rural centers, he does so for the benefit of his subjects in that region who will reap economic and cultural advantages by harboring royalty in their midst. However, it is important that his subjects realize what is being done for them, and that they be made aware of their former inferior status. This is the reason G-d says, "I will look towards the poor and low-spirited who relate to My word with a feeling of awe," (Isaiah 66,3) "the ones who are aware of their limitations and wish to uplift themselves, deserve My special attention." Only when we realize the limitations of our powers of perception, grieve over it, and long to expand our spiritual horizons, will G-d grant us greater insights. How does all this relate to Jacob's dream? Over a period of time, Jacob had acquired concepts of the grandeur of G-d, His uniqueness, His power, His being the prime mover of history, to the extent that an unassisted human intellect is able to perceive all this. At the end of Parshat Toldot, we have already read that Jacob went to Padan Aram. We hear now that he first went to Beer Sheva, to inform us, as our sages relate, that he spent fourteen years studying, preparing himself to the extent that such preparation is possible without Divine inspiration.

73. _.25.1.6

    Then he came to a place where the world was simply boarded up (Bereshit Rabbah 68). Our sages explain that this simply means that further cognitive progress came to an abrupt end. Therefore, again following a Midrash, Jacob prayed to be granted further insights. He then experienced a contraction of the earth-- according to a Midrash in Chullin— i.e. he was now granted a new perspective. These three Midrashim then describe the phenomena Jacob experienced when he lay down. He had been forced to lie down because "the sun had set," i.e. the source of his natural enlightenment had exhausted itself. "He took from the stones of the place" (Genesis 28,11), i.e. he used all the bricks that made up his philosophy so far to use them as a foundation for further enlightenment. When our sages describe the stones as fighting amongst themselves to become Jacob's cushion, they allude to the various pillars of his philosophy, each of which wanted to serve as the stepping stone to higher insights. The stones discussed are representative of three disciplines; theology (the metaphysical), science (the physical), and mathematics, the theoretical abstract aspect of physics. When after awaking, Jacob combined the stones, anointing them as a single unit, he demonstrated thereby that all these disciplines represented an integral unit without which new insights would not have been possible. As he lay there, he began to dream; in his dream the ladder was firmly rooted to the ground but extended all the way to heaven. Jacob realized that the three worlds, i.e. disciplines he had studied, were capable of such close inter-relation that in fact they could be joined. He observed that malachey elokim, i.e. human beings who had attained perfection in matters of the spirit by means of their studies and efforts, could climb the ladder. They would reach the threshold of heaven, i.e. the gateway to understanding. Their ascent could be described as like the progress from known phenomena=effects, towards the unknown, i.e. the cause of all known effects. This cause is represented by G-d standing on top of the ladder. Conversely, once the ultimate cause had been perceived as purely abstract and spiritual, this insight descends downwards to become more and more part of our physical world. The path man travels in acquiring understanding then is as follows: 1) Observed physical phenomena for which we seek causes. 2) Arrival at the ultimate cause of all human comprehension. 3) Re-evaluation of what had been observed previously in light of the newly gained insights. The "angels" descending the ladder, then, are the minds of the enlightened, returning to earth to add the new found dimension, and to incorporate it in their philosophy. Our sages conveyed this concept by pointing out that the numerical value of the words sulam, ladder, and the word sinai are identical.

74. _.25.1.7

    Moses also first climbed the mountain, then descended, paralleling Jacob's dream. The revelations each received were similar, if not in degree, at least in their respective nature. Our sages teach that until the revelation at Mount Sinai, the sphere of the tachtonim, the lower mortal beings were kept separate from the elyonim, the upper immortal beings.

75. _.25.1.8

    That concept was taught to Jacob in the dream via the vision of the ladder. Another way of expressing the lesson is this: Only after mastery of the lessons of ma-aseh bereshit, the workings of the physical universe, can one hope to gain insights into ma-asseh merkavah, the workings of celestial relationships.

76. _.25.1.9

    The fact that Jacob's dream represented only the beginning of Divine revelations at its lowest level, is attested to by the following: 1) After G-d’s promise to Jacob in the dream, Jacob's statements and vow prefaced by the words "if G-d will be with me," shows that, to Jacob, the message had not been so clear. 2) Jacob is portrayed as being like the servant who serves his master for the sake of the reward. He promises to give tithes if things go well, hardly the stature prophets are made of. 3) Jacob constantly seems fearful during the coming years. 4) Even when Jacob prays to G-d immediately prior to his encounter with Esau, he does not even once refer to the promise made to him by G-d in this dream. 5) Jacob's unaccountable delay in fulfilling his vow, even after G-d said to him, "I am the G-d to whom you have vowed at Bet El, go and keep your vow." Jacob, not yet having returned home safely, seems in no hurry to fulfil this vow. In view of all this, and in view of the statements of our sages that the gift of prophecy is bestowed only on persons who are possessed of certain qualifications, one of which is personal wealth, we must reject the view of those commentators who see in this dream revelations going beyond anything experienced by either Abraham or Isaac. It is significant that Jacob is described as dreaming, and that even after awakening from his "sleep,” the ladder is not called "a vision." Other people who had visions during their sleep, are usually described as waking from a "dream," not from "sleep." Compare Pharaoh in Genesis 41,8 or Solomon in Kings I 3,15. Based on Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim Part two, Chapter forty-five, we are entitled to assume that in our case we do not deal with a prophetic vision. On the other hand, Jacob's own statement that "G-d is in this place," seems to indicate that Jacob at least considered the possibility that what he had dreamed was a vision. Perhaps Jacob's doubt about the significance of what he had dreamed stemmed from the fact that he had been inadequately prepared to become the recipient of prophetic insights. Abraham, who had gone to sacrifice Isaac, an irreversible act should he have misunderstood what he believed to be Divine instructions, was obviously certain that the source of that command was not a figment of his imagination. We can understand the conditional nature of Jacob's vow then as stemming from this very uncertainty about whether in fact he had been granted prophetic insight. The monument that he erects is built on the premise that he may have been granted a vision. He vows that if all the conditions in that message will be fulfilled, he will view this as confirmation that he had indeed been the recipient of a communication from heaven. Only after the events in Shechem (Genesis Chapter 34), when G-d tells him to go up to Bet El, does Jacob become convinced that the dream of the ladder had indeed been a revelation. In retrospect then, that dream looms larger than ever. During all the years when he had difficulties with Laban and Esau, he had been far from certain that he had been granted a revelation at that time already. When finally, in Chapter thirty-five, Jacob refers to G-d as elokim, instead of as hereafter eyl shaddai, this indicates that he had now come to the resolution of his former doubts about the matter.

77. _.25.1.10

    The flies mentioned in the parable quoted at the outset, may be viewed as the spontaneous outgrowth of a churning mind; such a mind, while unassisted by Divine inspiration of revealed teachings such as Torah, is, however, like a dead-end street, its products like the products of a cadaver. Only when guidance is provided from above, can the outgrowth of our mind's activities assume valid and enduring dimensions. The Yalkut Shimoni in Isaiah 2 describes the different ways Abraham, Isaac and Jacob understood the mikdash, temple concept. Abraham referred to the temple as "mountain," Isaac referred to it as "field," whereas Jacob referred to it as "house." These three terms reflect the respective perceptions each one of the avot had of the way G-d works on earth. Abraham, having worked out by his power of reasoning that there must be One G-d, considered this G-d as manifesting His Presence from time to time; these episodes he referred to as "mountain," i.e. highlights. Visible evidence of the presence of the shechinah occurs only at rare intervals. Isaac, having experienced hashgachah peratit, Personal Providence, on more frequent occasions than his father, sees this shechinah presence like a "field," something more commonplace. Jacob, who witnessed G-d’s Presence almost daily during the long years he spent at the house of Laban, calls it "house," i.e. he considers its presence on earth as something permanent. Therefore, he chooses the name Bet El. According to the Midrash, this is the reason the prophet Isaiah in Chapter 2,3 refers to the eventual temple as "the house of the G-d of Jacob,"since until the revelation granted Jacob, the true dimension of the hashgachah peratit concept had not even been appreciated by the other ancestors.

78. _.25.2.1

    Part Two

79. _.25.2.2

    Jacob's service for Rachel etc. teaches the lesson that the effort made to secure an objective indicates the value of the objective in the eyes of the person who makes such an effort.

80. _.25.2.3

    "And Jacob served seven years for Rachel"

81. _.25.2.4

    In Proverbs 6, King Solomon teaches that by observing the behavior of the ant, which though not subject to external pressure makes provisions for the oncoming winter by laying in a food supply during the summer, we can learn the value of diligence. It is a sad commentary on the behavior of man, the most intelligent creature, that he must be reminded to learn such lessons from the lowly ant. It is even more saddening to observe man spend most of his life amassing values which will not accompany him beyond the grave, and neglecting to lay in a store of provisions that will stand him in good stead once he leaves this material world. In the chapter just mentioned, Solomon condemns laziness. The fact that most people fail to make provisions in time for the amassing of eternal values, reflects their mistaken concepts about which things in our life deserve priority and exertion on our part.

82. _.25.2.5

    Midrash Rabbah Deuteronomy 25, describes seven kinds of indolence, laziness. The worst of the seven categories described is called that "of Moses." The meaning is that nothing is worse than failure to study the Torah, seeing that it is written concerning Torah, "for she is close to your heart and mouth to do" (Deut 30,14). If the Torah were in heaven or otherwise difficult of access, excuses for not studying it might be acceptable. But the very accessibility of Torah is such that it is practically being spoonfed to us and yet we are too lazy to swallow it.

83. _.25.2.6

    It is true, as stated in Berachot 5, that the three gifts G-d gave to Israel are acquired only through trials and afflictions. They are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and Olam Haba, the world to come. It is in the nature of lofty ideals that they cannot be attained without exceptional effort. Only three vessels in the tabernacle were constructed of hammered gold and silver respectively. They are the candelabra, the trumpets, and the cherubs on the lid of the holy ark. They symbolize Torah, Eretz Yisrael and Olam Haba respectively. The fact that these three vessels were made of hammered materials, indicates that the three objectives which they represent are not easily attained.

84. _.25.2.7

    When contemplating the tremendous expenditure of energy and the suffering of untold hardship that Jacob underwent during the twenty years he stayed at Laban (see his own testimony in Genesis 31,38-42), we must ask what prompted him to spend that much effort on the acquisition of what appear to be merely material goods. In view of the many complimentary comments about Jacob throughout the Bible, it is clear that Jacob's motivation lay in his endeavor to found the house of Israel with its twelve tribes (compare Bereshit Rabbah on "Laban had two daughters").

85. _.25.2.8

    This leads to another interpretation of the parable quoted at the beginning of our chapter. The flies surrounding the baby's crib represent the motives that could have been imputed to Jacob by onlookers who judged his activities superficially. Such onlookers see the malachey elokim olim veyordim, the actions of Jacob alternately being motivated by lofty (olim) or material (yordim) reasons, until the midwife arrives, i.e. until G-d suddenly assumes His position on top of the ladder. There is suddenly no more room for speculation as to the motives that fuelled Jacob's lifestyle.

86. _.25.2.9

    Some problems in the text: 1) How can seven years of service appear "like a few days," when experience teaches that waiting for a loved one makes seven days appear like seven years, or at least like a long period of time? The psychology underlying our question is confirmed by our sages' commentary on Exodus 2,23. 2) Why does Jacob use coarse sounding language when asking for his wife at the end of the seven-year period? How could Leah have spent an entire night with Jacob without the latter realizing who he was with? Since Laban's answer seems wholly unsatisfactory, why does Jacob accept it? 3) When Rachel called Bilha's son "Dan," meaning G-d has judged me, did she mean she had been found guilty or did she mean that G-d had exonerated her in that judgment? 4) Why did Leah use her maidservants after she stopped having children? Why did she call "Issachar" by a name which indicated that he was G-d’s reward for what she had done? What had she done to deserve a reward? 5) Why the play on words when Joseph is named? What shame was there that had to be removed? 6) Why did Jacob want to go home afer Joseph had been born? Why did he not wait till Benjamin would be born? 7) After Laban said to Jacob, "Determine your wages for me!" Jacob responded by asking, "When can I do something for my own household?" Surely after Laban had offered to negotiate a deal, this question had become redundant? 8) Why did Jacob impose such conditions upon himself that a single speckled sheep found amongst his flock would stamp him as a thief? 9) Jacob's tactics in firing the sheep's imagination prior to their mounting the females seem strange. Surely Laban must have been aware of such practices, and for Jacob to describe these maneuvers as Divinely inspired borders on the ridiculous. 10) Why does the Torah call the mere failure to convey one's intention geneyvat daat as a kind of deceit? 11) Why did G-d forbid Laban to speak to Jacob either harshly or in a friendly manner? Surely, He could have protected Jacob against anything Laban had to say. Besides, why did Laban ignore G-d’s warning about not speaking to Jacob harshly? 12) Why did Laban boast about his power to harm Jacob when he had been warned by G-d that he had no such power and had even revealed to Jacob that he had received such a warning? 13) When Jacob justified his conduct he seems to go into more detail than necessary. Why?

87. _.25.2.10

    (1) Jacob served the full seven years meticulously, as if he had contracted for a period of a few days' service, a contract which is easy to fulfill meticulously. Because Jacob felt that seven years’ service for a girl like Rachel was a real bargain, he was able to serve out the whole period, fulfilling every little detail of the contract. (2) Jacob had requested a home of his own prior to his getting married, so that he would be able to come home to his wife instead of to a bachelor's quarters. After the wedding, having fulfilled the act of consummation, he presumably separated from his bride in accordance with the laws of ritual purity. When he observed Rachel next morning in her father's house, acting like an unmarried girl, and he found Leah and Zilpah in his own house, he realized that he had been tricked. He had been misled, partly because the younger servant maid, i.e. Rachel's, had been assigned by Laban to Leah instead of to Rachel. Laban's answer clarified that he had never agreed that Rachel should be married first, all he had agreed to had been to give Rachel to Jacob rather than to a stranger. It had never occurred to Laban that the younger Rachel should get married before her older sister. Now, if Jacob were agreeable, after a week's wait, he could also marry Rachel-- on credit as it were-- in return for another seven years of service to be performed henceforth. All this had been ordained by G-d, so that Jacob would in fact marry these four women and the promise to expand in four directions would be fulfilled. The barrenness of the matriarchs had been pre-ordained in order to demonstrate G-d’s love for their eventual children, none of whom would ever have seen the light of day except for G-d’s personal intervention, enabling their respective mothers to conceive and give birth to them. Jacob committed two errors that contributed to the delay in Rachel becoming pregnant. When Sarah and Rebecca had found themselves barren, they had either offered their servants to their husbands in the hope of vicarious motherhood, or they had prayed, in the case of Rebecca. Rachel, having reacted to her misfortune by becoming angry, compounded her own problem. When G-d saw that Leah was hated by her husband, He steppd in to enhance Leah in Jacob's eyes by having her bear him sons. Thus Rachel's pregnancy had to be delayed, pending Leah gaining the consideration from her husband that was her due. Rachel's jealousy of her sister was a further impediment, since instead of being jealous, she should have prayed for children. We do not observe Hannah being jealous of Peninah; rather we observe her praying to G-d for a male child (Samuel I 1,9). After Jacob had made it plain to Rachel that instead of her angry outburst directed at him, she should have addressed herself to the source of her misfortune, i.e.to G-d, Rachel began to copy Sarah who had given Hagar to Abraham. (3) Rachel acknowledged the heavenly judgment. As soon as she realized that acting like Sarah produced results, she also admitted that she had been judged fairly. (4) When Leah, who had attributed all her fortunes and misfortunes to G-d, realized that despite her robust health she appeared to have become sterile, she saw in this some kind of punishment by G-d, and proceeded to give her maidservant Zilpah to her husband. The name "Gad," as "Bagad" (betrayed), indicates she had become aware she had committed a betrayal of her sister when she had gone along with Laban's trick of palming her off on Jacob instead of Rachel. The name Asher reflects that she was happy that Zilpah had born children from Jacob, that she was not jealous of that fact. When, she resumed bearing children herself after a while, she viewed this as proof that her atonement had been completed and expressed this by naming the child Issachar. The Torah describes Rachel's physiological problems by describing her as having a narrow womb. Medical science teaches that women with narrow wombs experience difficulties in giving birth. Rachel was aware of her problems; when Joseph was born she experienced no special discomfort due to G-d having expanded her womb on that occasion. No such special intervention by G-d occurred when she gave birth to Benjamin. (5) Once Joseph had been born, Rachel felt justified concerning her previous marital relations with her husband up to that time. As long as she had considered herself as unable to give birth to a live child and herself survive the birth, she had entertained doubts about the morality of having sexual relations with her husband, since the sole justification for that was the attempt to have children. Her "shame" had been removed therefore. Referring to future marital relations with her husband, she exclaimed "may G-d give me another son" (Maimonides, More Nevuchim, Section three Chapter 49). (6) Bereshit Rabbah 63 quotes an ancient tradition according to which the descendants of Esau will be defeated only by the offspring of Rachel. Now that Rachel had offspring, Jacob felt that the ground had been prepared for the eventual defeat of Esau. He therefore felt encouraged to go home and face Esau. Laban was interested in giving Jacob a fixed amount of wages. In this manner, should Jacob be found in possession of total wealth exceeding his wages less his expenses, his honesty could justifiably become suspect. (7) Jacob emphasized from the beginning that it had been his intention to take his wife and children back to Canaan with him. He had foreseen that six years later Laban might accuse him of stealing his daughters and grandchildren. Jacob said to Laban in effect, "You are aware that during the years I have served you, you have become far wealthier than you could have anticipated. This was due to the help of my G-d, who has enriched you for my sake. The time has now come to make myself a little richer." Laban wants Jacob to stay, in order to prove to himself if his new riches were due to the G-d of Jacob, or if this was part of his own mazzal. Jacob responds that such a request is phony, since Laban knew full well what his newfound wealth was due to. Secondly, Jacob, knowing that blessings do not descend on numbered items, rejects the idea of fixed wages. He also does not want Laban to be in a position to suspect him of amassing wealth in a fraudulent manner, as outlined. (8) The statement that Laban is to remove all speckled sheep etc. from the flock at this point, is to give him a chance to point to his own unassailable honesty. If he started out without even a single sheep of the skin-pattern discussed, Laban would never be able to claim that Jacob's new wealth was due to a nucleus Laban had provided. Jacob especially did not want an assist from Laban, since the latter did not even acknowledge that his own wealth was due to assistance from Jacob's G-d. (9) Jacob never used the peeled sticks to fire the sheep's imagination except to start a new flock. Since G-d’s blessings are applicable only to items which already exist (as we know from the impoverished widow whose minute supply of oil was dramatically increased by Elisha, Kings II Chapter 4), there had not been any reason for Jacob to apply that strategy either for Laban's flocks or for his own flock, once such a flock existed. Jacob himself explains to his wives that his success was in exactly the reverse ratio to Laban's attempts to cheat him (compare the Jewish population increase in Egypt resulting from the Egyptians' efforts to curtail Jewish population growth, Exodus 1,12). Although Jacob had used the rods due to his own initiative, he gave credit to G-d for His assistance without which all his efforts would have come to nought. The dream in which he saw the sheep (Genesis 31,11-13) confirmed his feeling that he had enjoyed heavenly assistance. Rachel had stolen her father's terafim already well prior to Jacob's departure as can be seen from the sequence in the story. This she did in order to prevent Laban from having an inkling of Jacob's intention to depart. (10) Jacob taught his family to ride. All these preparations qualified for the description geneyvat da-at, deception. G-d’s stricture to Laban not to speak to Jacob even "good" refers to the kind of "good" Laban would employ, i.e. something that sounded good but was designed to harm Jacob. (11) In other words, Laban was warned not to harm Jacob either directly or indirectly. Laban, in typical fashion, attempts to tell Jacob that he had acted foolishly by giving Laban an excuse to harm him. He quotes G-d’s message to him, meaning that he had only been forbidden to talk, not to act against Jacob. (12) Therefore, he stresses his ability to harm Jacob. Jacob answered that all the subterfuge employed had only one purpose, namely to prevent Laban from stealing back his daughters. Concerning the terafim, since Jacob had been unaware that Rachel had taken them, he agreed that whoever had taken them ought to die. Had Jacob been aware of the true motive for this theft, he would not have condemned the thief to die for this deed.

88. _.25.2.16

    (13) The main reason that Jacob goes into details when defending his conduct is to contrast it with Laban's behavior; he says in effect, that whereas he might have been remiss in good manners when he departed from Laban's town, his lack of manners compared favorably with the behavior Laban had just displayed. Laban had invaded both his own and his family's privacy by physically searching all their respective quarters, all of this despite the fact that in twenty years of devoted service, Jacob had not once given the slightest reason for being accused of dishonesty. He lists the many temptations that existed to make use of Laban's property to enhance his personal comfort, be it to warm himself by night or to cool himself by day etc. He had never been guilty of neglect which resulted in any loss to Laban. In view of all this, he felt outraged at the mere suspicion that he would have stolen something held dear by Laban. Jacob does agree to a reconciliation to be confirmed by the building of a monument and stone heaps.

89. _.25.2.17

    We observe at the end of the Parshah that as soon as Jacob was no longer within the immediate vicinity of the idol worshipping Laban, he is once more surrounded by angels.

90. _.26.1.1

    ON THE NEED TO EXHAUST ALL MEANS OF SELF-HELP BEFORE LEAVING THINGS TO DIVINE INTERVENTION.

91. _.26.1.2

    Bereshit Rabbah 76 (summary) relates that we find two outstanding people, each of whom had received specific assurances from G-d, display fear of the outcome of encounters concerning which G-d had promised His guidance. The two are Moses, when he confronted Og, and Jacob, when he confronted Esau. Moses had to be reminded by G-d concerning Og "do not be afraid of him;" Jacob, though promised G-d’s help against Esau, still displays fear immediately before the encounter is to take place. This teaches us that G-d’s promises to individuals are not to be considered as ironclad guarantees, as valid under all circumstances.

92. _.26.1.3

    Human achievement may me due to G-d’s personal intervention on our behalf known as hashgachah pertatit; it can also be due to favorable horoscopic constellations or environmental factors, commonly called hashgachah klallit; finally, it can be due to personal endurance, intelligence, energy, and skill. It is reasonable to assume that none of the factors listed account exclusively for the success or failure of our endeavors. Allowing that the Almighty's omnipotence allows Him to determine the outcome of all our endeavors, human intelligence and willpower would be utterly meaningless were they not to play a significant part in determining the success or failure of our endeavors. This statement is not, of course, intended to minimize the value of G-d’s contribution to the result of such endeavors. Although theologians claim that the Almighty can mislead the wise and impair their judgment to the point that they will act contrary to their original intentions, the same theologians do not deny that man possesses freedom of choice, without which the whole concept of reward or punishment for compliance or non compliance with G-d’s wishes would be meaningless. There are numerous instances when the Torah legislates an action designed to protect the life or property of a third party. Consider the example of the law to erect a protective fence around one's roof. The reason stated is that unless such a fence is erected, a fatal fall from such a roof would be considered as an act of bloodshed committed by the owner of the house in question. Obviously, mentioning the latter possibility assumes that there is a free choice of whether to comply with the legislation or not. If there were no choice, how could there be negative results for the owner or the victim if the owner had failed to erect the fence? But not every one walking around an unfenced roof will fall off it with fatal consequences. The ultimate result of the fate of such an individual then is the result of more than one of the factors we have listed (Deut. 22,8). Consider also that the Talmud when discussing the digging of a hole that an animal might fall into, does not hold the digger responsible if a human being had come to harm by reason of that hole. The reason is that human beings are expected to have their wits about them, are meant to use the intelligence they have been granted. We see clearly that human behavior is at least one of the criterion determining his ultimate fate. The nature of the legislation to erect a fence, then, is more of the "good advice" variety that the Talmud often refers to when citing Rabbinic strictures. On the other hand, we know from experience that even the most diligent endeavors of man to attain certain objectives, are often doomed to failure. The attempt by Joseph's brothers to thwart realization of his dreams by selling him to a caravan of Midianites travelling to Egypt, is just one such example. The Talmud (Niddah 60) elaborates on our theme, explaining that even if one follows all the advice concerning the acquisition of wisdom meticulously, the desired result may not be achieved unless such efforts are accompanied by an appeal to the One who grants wisdom, and by G-d’s positive response to such an appeal. Nevertheless, history is full of examples of brilliant men who were successful without turning to G-d for help; also, what point would there be in the selection of brilliant advisors to heads of states, if their advice would not have positive results? In Proverbs 22,29, Solomon tells us, "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand in front of kings! (10,4) he will become poor who deals with a sick hand, but the hand of the diligent makes rich." We must conclude then that success of human efforts is assured if the individual in question is also favored by astrological influences, mazzal and if due to his own merit he receives Divine guidance at the personal level. Philosophers agree that one must not base one's lifestyle on hope for success due to fortuitous circumstances. Lucky breaks cannot be depended on. The interplay of the four causes for success in worldly matters may be understood in the following manner. A person born under favorable conditions who also lives the life of the righteous, qualifies for hashgachah peratit and will therefore require relatively little personal exertion to achieve his objectives. "Man's steps are guided by the Lord, when the latter approves of his path" (Psalms 37,23). Conversely, should such a person lead the wrong kind of life, even the favorable conditions he was born under, will not altogether protect him, as G-d’s hand will prove more powerful than his natural good fortune and will thwart him despite his best efforts. See the example of Achitofel (Samuel II Chapter 7). To quote Isaiah 44,25, "He turns wise men backwards and makes their knowledge foolish." The same holds true, of course, if one's natural mazzal is only average or worse. If, however, one is endowed with average skills and intelligence, and one's actions are the outgrowth of one's own free will, such a person does not qualify for Divine intervention in his affairs. His successes in wordly matters are due in overwhelming measure to his own efforts or lack thereof. Any slackening of his efforts is apt to put his success in jeopardy. If such a person had been born under unfavorable conditions, his chances to succeed would be minimal indeed. If a person born under negative environmental, hereditary, and horoscopic influences lives a life of piety, then his efforts combined with the merit he has accumulated will qualify him for Divine intervention on his behalf, and enable him to neutralize the negative factors under which he had been born. Abraham overcame the negative mazzal of sterility (Psalm 33,18). "The eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him and wait patiently for His kindness to save them from death and to keep them alive during times of famine." In all these instances, personal effort and perseverance contribute the major part to eventual success. In fact, any negligence or laziness is rated as sinful when circumstances seem to have called for exertion of self (Deuteronomy 16,10, promising success in return for kind and generous behaviour towards the poor, does so on the assumption that one's efforts will be crowned with success). The Torah does not promise windfalls. Since the majority of people are of average or below average endowments, the need for them to exert themselves on their own behalf is beyond question, since their merit or natural mazzal cannot be depended upon. The advice given by the Torah is addressed precisely to this large group of people, who by following it can hope to battle adverse conditions successfully. Man's lack of success is called nefilah when it occurs independent of G-d’s intervention; it is called happalah when due to G-d’s active intervention in the affairs of that individual. Psalm 37,24 tells us, "Even though a man may fall, he shall not be cast down, for the Lord upholds his hand." When someone walks on a roof protected by a railing, this railing will prove a protection if the Lord had not intended for that person to fall off that roof. However, if the Lord had intended for that person to fall off that roof, the best railing in the world cannot save him. Sometimes, two people born under identical circumstances can have a widely different range of success due to their different merits (The Talmud Moed Katan 28 discusses this problem in connection with Rav Chisdah and Rabbah). Many fine distinctions apply in ascertaining the relative success of individuals in apparently similar circumstances. Suffice it to say that it behooves a person to view himself at all times as average in deeds (merits) and as below average in natural endowments. This will give him the incentive to acquire merits and to strive to overcome handicaps. In all matters of "worldly affairs," we have to make the first move, and the Lord has to assist us to assure us of success in carrying out our designs. Our prayers must be directed towards obtaining His help to overcome our respective handicaps. Should one fail to succeed in spite of having complied with all the above, the cause may be heavenly judgment acting as punishment. It could be trials to test our faith in Him. It could also be an affliction designed to enhance the ultimate achievement of our aims in our own eyes when it does finally occur. If one gives up prematurely in the face of obstacles, and does not strive mightily to overcome such impediments, the chances are that one is the architect of one's own misfortune and that such failure had not been decreed by G-d at all. Suppose we had been given the choice between immediate execution or life imprisonment, without time off for good behavior, we would certainly refuse to acquiesce in either alternative. We would make strenuous efforts to escape either of these two calamities. We would leave no stone unturned as long as the efforts to improve our own situation would not be at the expense of some innocent third party. Similarly, our own efforts to escape misfortune must be pursued up to the point where continued insistence would constitute rebellion against G-d. If pestilence rages in a city, one does not stay around, but one isolates oneself (Baba Kama 60). One employs every known medication to ward off infection. Should all efforts have failed and one appears doomed, one must declare one's faith in the justice of the Lord, reconcile oneself to His superior wisdom, and prepare to meet one's judgment. Although Ramban disagrees with the approach we have outlined in the case of the need to call a doctor, he would not disagree with the approach outlined in other areas of life (Ramban holds that whereas a doctor may treat the sick, the sick must not ask to be treated, as this would indicate lack of faith in G-d as the ultimate Healer). When G-d sent Samuel to anoint David, who had a price on his head, Samuel had to expose himself to danger, in order to perform this mission. G-d did not expect Samuel to rely on miracles, but told him to use subterfuge in the shape of a calf, so that if intercepted, he could claim to be on the way to Bethlehem to offer the calf as a sacrifice. G-d instructs, "During the meal, you will proceed according to My instructions" (Samuel I 15,1 -6). King Assa's reliance on a doctor is criticized only because it had not been preceded by prayer, not because the patient had no right to consult doctors (Chronicles II 16,12). One of the best examples of the extent to which one has to go to ensure one's survival, is found in Samuel I 21,14, when David, while at the court of Achish, deliberately acts like a demented halfwit to mollify those of Achish's advisors who did not trust his loyalty. When David recalls that episode in Psalm 34, he credits G-d with helping him, though when reading the account of this event it seems wholly due to David's own initiative. His problem had been that he had to choose between actively fighting against his own people to prove his loyalty to the Philistines and to qualify for refuge from Saul in Cat, or to forfeit his life by refusing to join an attack against his own people. In this unusual situation, a course of inaction coupled with an appeal to G-d seemed the only way out. The classic example for proper conduct is found in the account of the encounter between Jacob and Esau. Since Jacob's delegation to Esau had been prompted by fear, and some of our sages even castigate Jacob for having "taken hold of the dog's ear" (Bereshit Rabbah 75), we must ask why G-d did not take Jacob aside and say to him "do not be afraid, I will be your shield," as He had done for Abraham after the latter had returned from defeating Kedorleomer and liberating Lot (Genesis Chapter 15). Similarly, G-d had told Isaac not to go to Egypt, to rely on Him. Even Jacob himself, before setting out on his last journey to Egypt, had been personally reassured by G-d. No doubt, the impending encounter with Esau called for more reassurance than any of the other examples mentioned. So why was this reassurance not forthcoming?

93. _.26.1.4

    Some difficulties in the text of our Parshah: 1) Why did Jacob salute Esau with such excessive humility? Why the repeated obsequious references to "to find favor in your eyes?" 2) Why is the Torah silent about the manner in which Jacob's messengers carried out their mission? Why do the sages disagree as to the identity of those messengers? 3) What was the point of dividing the camps when Jacob's own family was part of the first camp? 4) If Jacob believed that the promises made to him by G-d on previous occasions were valid now, why did he fear the encounter? 5) When Jacob listed G-d’s promises, why did he not mention the promise in the dream with the ladder? 6) Why did Jacob instruct each of the gift-bearers to Esau separately? 7) Why did the angel that wrestled with Jacob insist on being released? 8) If the sun "shone for him," why would Jacob's limp be mentioned at this juncture? 9) What is the difference between "I have everything" (Jacob), and "I have a great deal" (Esau)? What is Esau's offer to accompany Jacob, and Jacob's polite refusal, all about?

94. _.26.1.5

    Since Jacob's return to Eretz Yisrael was initiated at the request of G-d, and G-d had not yet given any hint of His assistance in the forthcoming confrontation with Esau, we can understand why some commentators look for something in Jacob's conduct which caused G-d’s displeasure. These conflicting views are even reflected in the Midrash Rabbah. According to the opinion that the messengers sent by Jacob were angels, one cannot fault Jacob's conduct, else angels would not have been placed at his disposal.

95. _.26.1.6

    According to Rabbi Yehudah, who states that the messengers were of the flesh and blood variety, Jacob may have displeaesd G-d in some manner. The fact that no help was forthcoming from G-d until the night following the return of the messengers supports our view that until Jacob had exhausetd all means at his disposal to ensure that the encounter would be successful, Providence would not manifest itself. Only after the successful struggle with the "man," concluding Jacob's preparations for the fateful encounter, would G-d offer His reassurance. From this we learn the importance of doing all one can to ensure one's success. (1) Jacob instructed the servants in a manner that would show that he was treating Esau with the courtesy due an older brother. (6) Calling all the giftbearers together would have revealed inner fear both to them and to members of his family. He told Esau that he had stayed with Laban all these years, in order to show Esau that he had not felt the need to run away from Laban. He indicated that he could understand Esau's reluctance to welcome a brother who had hired himself out for wages; since by now, however, he had acquired a fortune, Esau need not be ashamed of his poor brother. (2) The fact that the messengers returned without actually having met Esau proves they must have been angels; who else would have arrogated to himself the right to return "mission unaccomplished?" Moreover, who else would have offered gratuitous advice to Jacob? They did so in order to give Jacob time enough to arrange the gifts and to send them ahead. When Joseph encountered the "man" while he is searching for his brothers, he is also given gratuitous advice. In that case also, we assume it was an angel who proffered that advice (Genesis 37,16-18).

96. _.26.1.7

    So far then Jacob's efforts provided him with useful information about how to approach Esau when he would meet him. Jacob's fear did not concern his own death at the hands of Esau, but he was concerned about the possible death of members of his family, concerning whom no promise from G-d had been received. The wording of the promise at Bet El in the dream of the ladder, had been directed only at Jacob alone. (3) Jacob divided the camp so that he could not be faulted for having neglected a chance to ensure partial survival. No doubt, the camp mentioned last, was positioned in such a way that Esau would encounter it first. Should Esau want to vent his rage by destroying Jacob's camp, and his anger could be assuaged by such a pogrom, Jacob's stratagem would have worked since that camp contained no one especially dear to him. If there had been only one camp and that had been attacked, all might have been lost. Jacob's prayer at that point acknowledged both the assistance received thus far and the promises made; it made the point however that all G-d’s promises made to Abraham and Isaac would come to nought if he and his family were not saved at this time. Jacob indicated that he did not think that he personally had any merit to entitle him to ask for favors for himself, seeing that when he had first set out on his quest he had only had a walking staff to call his own, and he had received so many favors from G-d that he was a wealthy man by now. He appealed for help, since, though assured of victory, in a battle involving so many, even victory might involve heavy casualties. G-d had not yet promised that no harm would come to any of them. Jacob was certainly entitled to feel alarmed at that point in his life. At the conclusion of his prayer, he looked for a sign that his prayer had received a favorable hearing. This is why he chose to spend the night at the site where he had offered his prayer. Since Jacob's efforts to save himself had not yet included a financial sacrifice, G-d withheld reassurance until he had done his share in that respect. It was the absence of a response from G-d then that galvanized Jacob into rising early on the following morning to arrange for the gifts to be sent to Esau. There are times when preoccupation with worldly matters-- which are after all only our second most important concerns-- exceeds what is reasonable and is apt to be misinterpreted. Jacob's encounter with the spiritual counterpart of Esau is an example of this. Since Jacob had risen during the night in order to carry insignificant belongings across the river Yabbok, this had been misinterpreted by Esau's guardian angel as evidence that Jacob was excessively concerned with worldly goods. This provided said angel with the opportunity to challenge Jaob's moral superiority over Esau (Chullin 91). Jacob recovered quickly enough from this momentary lapse, and the angel had to acknowledge Jacob's claim to morally high standards, by revealing to him that he would henceforth be known as "Israel." Nonetheless, the momentary weakness displayed and referred to by the Torah euphemistically as "dislocation of the hip joint," is frequently found among Jacob's descendants, and gives Esau/Amalek opportunities to attack the Jewish people's claim to moral leadership. Already Isaac had warned against this weakness in his blessing to Esau, when he told the latter, that he, Esau, would be able to shake off the yoke of his younger brother whenever the latter would fail to live up to his standards (Genesis 27,41). (7) The angel's request to let him go, is simply another way of saying to Jacob, "Why do you waste your time detaining me, when you should be busy preparing gifts for Esau."

97. _.26.1.8

    Jacob's request to know the angel's name means that he wants to know who has the power to inflict this damage on his hip joint. The angel tells him that it is not the name that matters, since the ability to inflict damage was not rooted in the personality (name) of the angel, but rather it is an angel's mission that is of importance. Just as to many people the names of individual kings such as Saul or Hezzekiah or even David become blurred, and all they remember is that all these were Kings of Israel, so the individuality of an angel pales into insignificance when compared to his respective function. It had been Jacob's name (the crooked one) which had misled the angel into thinking that he was possessed of a fatal character flaw, and this is why he rectified his error by admitting that Jacob was indeed an Israel, a fighter for spiritual values. In consonance with the Rabbis' maxim that a hint to the wise is sufficient, the angel did not elaborate on the theme. Now that Jacob had done everything humanly possible on his own and his family's behalf, the first signs of Divine assistance become evident, commencing with the sun "shining for him," i.e. healing the physical affliction to the point where he could at least limp. (8) Apparently, up to that point he had been unable to move at all, and the dislocation of his hip joint had left him rooted to the spot of the nocturnal encounter. Since Esau's spiritual counterpart had not been able to find any other weakness in Jacob, the Jewish people, ever mindful of this weakness and convinced that this part of the body was more prone to sinfulness than any other part, abstained from eating that part of an animal, and even extended the prohibition to include use of the sinew for any purpose other than eating. Isaiah 48,4 uses the hyperbole of the sinew to describe sinful obstinacy per se. So does the prophet Micha in Chapter 4 verse 6. When Jacob experienced Divine assistance, he felt so reassured that he proceeded to face Esau without bothering to actually divide the camps. He was certain that now everyone could face Esau.

98. _.26.1.9

    It is interesting that the temple in later years was to be erected in the territory of Benjamin, the only one of the brothers who had not bowed down to Esau. (he had not been born yet) The defeats inflicted in times to come on the descendants of Esau were likewise administered by descendants of Benjamin, i.e. Saul, and Mordechai. Even Haman's wife realised that if Mordechai was descended from the tribe that had defeated Amalek once, there was little hope of Haman being able to overcome him. Esau, believing that anyone trying to atone for a capital offense would at least offer all his worldly goods, thought that in coming face to face with the gifts, he had actually seen all of Jacob's wealth. (9) Therefore, he said, "I have lots, keep what is yours." In this manner he wanted to show that he was in a generous mood. Jacob then had to correct Esau's mistaken impression by announcing that what Esau had just seen was merely a gift as is befitting when one meets a superior person. Jacob himself, however, had retained so much of his own wealth that he was able to say, "I have all that a person could wish for." Esau's offer to travel with Jacob, demonstrates his error in believing that the time had already come when no more basic differences in their respective outlooks on life existed between them. Jacob is at pains to explain that the Jewish attitude to material values is such that the slightest overemphasis leads to negative spiritual results. In alluding to this, he says that if one pushes the sheep too much even for a single day, the flock will die (Genesis 33,13). In conclusion, it is clear that Divine help had been forthcoming only after every effort had been made to exhaust natural means.

99. _.27.1.2

    "And Jacob came in peace"

100. _.27.1.3

     The Mishnah in Avot Chapter three states that anyone whose theoretical knowledge is greater than the action he takes based on such knowledge is comparable to a tree whose foliage is abundant but whose roots are few. When a wind blows, it will uproot such a tree and turn it upside down as we know from Jeremiah 17,6, "He shall be like a lonely tree in the wasteland, and shall not see when good comes.” On the other hand, he whose practical deeds are greater than his theoretical knowledge is comparable to a tree of little foliage but many roots which cannot be uprooted by all the winds in the world, as is described in the verse of Jeremiah quoted.

← Previous · Next → — showing 301–400 of 1,212

Akeydat Yitzchak by Eliyahu Munk. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://www.urimpublications.com Licence: CC-BY. Source.