AND

THERE WAS A FAMINE IN THE LAND… AND ISAAC WENT TO ABIMELECH THE KING OF THE

PHILISTINES, TO GERAR. AND THE LORD APPEARED TO HIM, AND

SAID, "DO NOT GO DOWN TO EGYPT; DWELL IN THE LAND THAT I WILL TELL YOU. SOJOURN IN THIS LAND, AND I WILL BE WITH YOU…

AND I WILL MULTIPLY YOUR SEED LIKE THE STARS OF THE HEAVENS, AND I WILL GIVE

YOUR SEED ALL THESE LANDS, AND ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH WILL BLESS

THEMSELVES BY YOUR SEED."

(Bereishit 26:1-4)

Like the stars of the

heavens

…since

Abraham, your father, the Lord's blessing to Abraham that they shall be

like the stars of heaven had already been given earlier… rather, you must

agree that when He said, [and I will multiply your seed] like the stars of

the heavens [a second time], it must be referring to another promise. Even when

that promise was made to Abraham we explained that it was not a promise

concerning multiplication [of descendants], since he had already been made that

promise when he was promised that his seed would be like the dust of the

earth. Rather [the promise referring to the stars is saying] that they [Abraham's

descendants] shall be of high rank like the stars of heaven which give

illumination to the many, and that [mention of illumination] is intended to

allude to wisdom, as is explained in that discussion. Here He added an

additional promise to Isaac that his children would give illumination with

overflowing blessings and wealth like the stars of the heavens, i.e., the

conclusion of the blessing, and

I will give your seed all these lands, [that Isaac's children will enjoy] the power and overflowing abundance

of all the lands inasmuch as Israel's grain will be specially blessed.

and all the nations of

the earth will bless themselves by your seed – all the peoples in the land will be

blessed and succeed with their grain as will Israel. This explains why He also

blessed Isaac with overflowing abundance – that blessing was meant to serve as

a sign for his descendants.

(Ha'Amek

Davar 26:4)

On Seeing and Not Seeing – On the Duty to Explicate

Shlomo Fuchs

And these are the generations of Isaac the son of

of the Lord. (Bereishit 25:19-22)

The parasha opens with the generations of Isaac and then

immediately turns to describing the story of his sons. It does not bother to

come back later to tell us all about his past but rather assumes that the story

of the Akedah and the story of the choice of Isaac's wife are well-known. But

is the significance of these facts well known?

The Gemara (Ta'anit 4a) demands that we

read critically; it teaches that the events did in fact occur as written in

Scripture, but also that that does not mean we must accept those events as displaying

proper behavior. Rather, we must ask questions and clarify whether the manner

in which Rebecca was chosen and Abraham's behavior at the Akedah were in fact

ideal.

R. Shemuel bar Nahmani said in the name of R.

Yonatan: Three made improper requests, two received proper responses, and one

received a harsh response. They are: Eliezer, servant to Abraham; Saul son of Kish, and Yiftah the Gileadi.

Eliezer, servant to Abraham – for it is

written: and the maiden to whom I say ‘Lower your jar, etc." (Bereishit

24).

Even if she was crippled or blind? But He responded properly, and brought him

Rebecca.

Saul son of Kish… Yiftah the Gileadi… And it is

written: Which I did not command, and of which I did not speak, and which

did not enter my mind (Jeremiah 19). Which I did not command – that is the

son of Misha, King of Moav, for it is said, and he took his firstborn son who

was to rule after him, and offered him up as a burnt offering (II

Kings 3); and of which I did not speak – that was Yiftah; and

which did not enter my mind – that is Abraham's son Isaac.

R. Brekhia said: The Congregation of Israel also

made a improper request, but the Holy One blessed be He gave it a proper

response, for it is said: And let us know, let us strive to know the Lord:

the latter rain which satisfies the earth (Hosea 6:3). The Holy One

blessed be He said: My daughter, you ask for something which can sometimes be requested

and at other times cannot, but I will always be available to you, for it is

said, I shall be like dew for Israel       (Hosea

14: 6).

The discussion moves from questioning the actions of

Eliezer, Saul, and Yiftah to the request made by "The Congregation of

Israel" – Kenesset Yisrael. This move reflects the dictum,

"The deeds of the fathers are a sign for the sons" – the requests mentioned

are not necessarily proper!

The Talmudic discussion can be seen as offering the

basis for a reading of Isaac's story and for the clarification of its eternal

significance. The parasha describes the relationships between Isaac and

Rebecca, between them and the Philistine king and his servants, and between the

brothers Jacob and Esau. These various relationships seem to be characterized

by a lack of communication. There are things in them hidden from the eye. We

are uncomfortable with how Jacob treats both Esau and his father; we are

uncomfortable when Isaac repeats Abraham's ploy, claiming his wife to be his

sister; we are uncomfortable about how Rebecca treats her husband, how she

mobilizes their son to tell him lies – a kind of repetition of the way Isaac

was himself not told the truth before the Akedah!

We must ask ourselves: is this the way? Is there no

other? Were these deeds "proper"? What are we to learn from these

stories?

It seems that the motif of "seeing and

not seeing" is the salient thread running through the whole parasha.

God sees, He hears the couple's request and answers

Isaac. The pregnancy forces Rebecca to inquire of the Lord. Later,

famine forces Isaac to wander and God makes Himself seen to him and

promises him, "Dwell in the land…and I will bless you." Symbolically

speaking, we who study this parasha are also forced to seek the significance of

seeing things.

Each of the parents has a unique viewpoint on the

sons, each has a beloved son. We must ask whether Isaac's eyesight was already

failing him at the beginning of the parasha; after all, Isaac met Rebecca when

he arrived from Be'er le'hai roi, the well where

God revealed Himself to Hagar (Bereishit 16:14), and as the

midrash tells us, Isaac came from her home – from Hagar's well. That is to say:

Jacob was trying to decipher the significance of his past. Isaac, who had seen

the Akedah on the mountain of the Lord shall make seen – Hashem yera'eh

– cannot see now. His eyes have become so clouded that he cannot see – he cannot

perceive Esau's real character. Or, perhaps, his understanding was different from

that of Rebecca; he could see the strengths of Esau's path.

Abimelech, king of the Philistines saw the beautiful

Rebecca and afterwards looked and saw Isaac sporting with his wife Rebecca,

that is to say: Abimelech saw something that led him to understand that he was

watching a married couple rather than a brother and a sister.

The Philistines saw that Isaac possessed great herds

and they were jealous. Their jealousy led to the stopping up of wells and to

fighting over every newly dug well, a kind of battle over the ayin

land.

Abimelech's seeing led to separation and to Isaac's

expulsion – Abimelech told him, "Go away from us, for you have become

much stronger than we," but immediately afterwards Abimelech appears

and says, "For we have surely seen that the Lord was

with you" and wants to make a pact, reinterpreting the expulsion as and

we sent you away in peace, you are now blessed of the Lord.

Isaac sees a need to bless Esau, but Scripture

mentions that his eyes were too dim to see. Is it hinting that Isaac's

intentions were wrong headed, thus justifying Rebecca's actions?

Jacob listens to his mother's instructions but worries: perhaps

my father will feel me and I shall be as a deceiver in his eyes. Jacob expresses

no qualms about receiving something through deception. He does not fear that

his father will see, since Isaac's eyes have dimmed. He is afraid of the sense

of touch and expresses his worry with the phrase, I shall be as a deceiver

in his eyes; the eyes that cannot see will see by other means. Indeed, when

Jacob comes to take Esau's blessing, we hear Jacob's distress: The voice is

the voice of Jacob but the hands are the hands of Esau – illusions of sight

and hearing.

In the parasha's conclusion, it is Esau who sees:

And Esau saw that

of his father Isaac (Bereishit 28:6-8).

These

varied instances of seeing press us to appreciate the fact that sight also has

a symbolic dimension. There is literal seeing of the eyes but also seeing in

the sense of deep understanding, as in the phrase, "I see what you

are saying" or in prophets being referred to as "seers." Rabbi

S.R. Hirsch's comments on Isaac and Rebecca's educational methods are well

known:

When

the boys grew up – Our

sages, who never objected to draw attention to the small and great mistakes and

weaknesses in the history of our great forefathers, and thereby make them just

the more instructive for us, here, too, on When the boys grew up make a

remark which is indeed a "signpost" for all of us. They point out

that the striking contrast in the grandchildren of Abraham may have been due

not so much to a difference in their temperaments as to mistakes in the way

they were bought up. As long as they were little, no attention was paid to the

slumbering differences in their natures, both had exactly the same teaching and

educational treatment, and the great law of education, Bring up each child

in accordance with his own way (Proverbs 22:6) was forgotten: that each child must be treated differently, with an eye

to the slumbering tendencies of his nature, and out of them be educated to

develop his special characteristics for the one pure human and Jewish life. The

great Jewish task in life is basically simple, one and the same for all, but in

its realization is as complicated and varied as human natures and tendencies

are varied, and the manifold varieties of life that result from them…

But

just because of that, each one must be brought up according to the presumed

path of life to which his tendencies lead, each one differently to the one great

goal. To try to bring up a Jacob and an Esau in the same college, make them

have the same habits and hobbies, want to teach and educate them in the same

way for some studious, sedate, meditative life is the surest way to court

disaster. A Jacob will, with ever increasing zeal and zest, imbibe knowledge

from the well of wisdom and truth while an Esau can hardly wait for the time

when he can throw the old books, but at the same time, a whole purpose of life,

behind his back, a life which he has only learnt to know from one angle, and in

a manner for which he can find no disposition in his whole nature.

Had

Isaac and Rebecca studied Esau's nature and character early enough, and asked

themselves how can even an Esau, how can all the strength and energy, agility

and courage that lies slumbering in this child, be won over to be used in the

service of God, and the future man be trained to become not a hunting man,

but a man before the Lord…

When

the boys grew up – only

when the boys had grown into men, one was surprised to see that, out of one and

the selfsame womb, having had exactly the same care, training and schooling,

two such contrasting persons emerge. (Levi translation)

Rabbi Hirsch learns from the parasha how careful we

must be with our educational methods and their adaptation to the child's soul. Does

his interpretation merely come to explain the past or does it bear a message

for the future? It seems to force us to realize that things could have been

different. It may even ask whether the drive towards homogeneity in education

creates tensions within us.

From here springs the realization that we must clarify

whether the old phrase "so it was and so it shall be" still rings

true or whether today we can discover a path towards improvement and alleviate

the tension between us– the sons of Jacob – and ourselves as well as the

tension between us and the children of Esau.

It seems we must understand that the ways of God's

service are various – notice how Isaac loved Esau! We should not aspire to a

single path of service.

We must learn how to translate study into desirable

action, we must understand that we are seen, and seeing leads to understanding

mistakes. That is the message of the midrash (Seder Eliyahu Rabbah,

26):

Another thing: And you shall love the Lord Your

God (Devarim 6:5), that you make the Name of Heaven beloved to

people, that you act properly in your business dealings and in your manner in

the market and in your dealings with human beings, and when one acts properly

in his business dealings and in his manner in the market and in his dealings

with human beings, and he also reads and repeats [his Torah lessons], human

beings who see him say: "Happy is so-and-so who studied Torah, woe unto

pleasant his deeds are, how beautiful his ways! By the Temple service! We shall

study Torah and teach our children Torah!" And so he brings about the

sanctification of the Name of Heaven.

[However,] when a person acts improperly in his

business dealings and in his manner in the market and in his dealings with

human beings, and he also reads and repeats [his Torah lessons], human beings

who see him say: "Woe unto so-and-so who learned Torah, happy is father

who did not teach me Torah. So-and-so who studied Torah – see how bad his deeds

are, how spoiled his ways. By the Temple service! We shall not study Torah nor

teach our children Torah!" And so he causes a desecration of the Name of

Heaven. The Torah was given solely in order to sanctify His great name, for it

is said: And He said, "You are My servant, Israel, etc." (Isaiah

49:3).

From here they said: A person should keep himself clear from robbery of

Israelite or gentile, and even from anyone in the market, for one who steals

from a gentile will eventually steal from an Israelite; he takes an oath

regarding the gentile will eventually take an oath regarding the Israelite, one

who makes a denial regarding the gentile will eventually make a denial

regarding the Israelite; he who spills the gentile's blood will eventually

spill the Israelite's blood. The Torah was given solely in order to sanctify

His great Name, I will set a sign among them, and send from them survivors,

etc. (Isaiah 66:19). What does He say at the conclusion of the

matter? And they shall tell of My glory among the nations (ibid).

The observable actions of our contemporaries

can sanctify His great Name, but sometimes…

Seeing how people behave can point us towards the

correct path, but sometimes certain actions may confuse us if we think that

they are proper.

Study of the parasha and of Rabbi Hirsch's

commentary teaches us that the parasha does not retell the deeds of the

patriarchs only in order that we might adopt them as a model for emulation, but

also so that we can relate to them critically in order to choose the right

path.

Shlomo Fuchs teaches at the Hebrew Union College, Beit Shmuel, and Kolot.

Readers respond

In

his article marking the anniversary of the murder of Yitzhak Rabin z"l, my

friend Pinchas Leiser claimed that the assassination was an instance of "the

murder of a Prime Minister by a young Jew in the name of his Jewish

faith." I wish to come to the defense of the Torah's honor and insist that,

ideologically speaking, there was no special connection between the

despicable murder and the values of Torah and religion. The murder did not

involve considerations of holiness and profanity nor of ritual purity and

impurity. The murder was motivated by nothing more than a particular

political-strategic analysis.

Yigal Amir – in common with a large portion of Israel's citizenry,

including many secularists – was sure that the Oslo process would be

catastrophic for the State of Israel. That is why the leaders of the Left are

correct when they accuse Oslo's opponents of "talking just like Yigal

Amir." So it is in our country: the Left claims that the policies of the

Right will destroy the state, and the Right responds in kind. Such views are

legitimate; any attempt to silence them will require that Israel stop being a

democratic country. In common with many other worried citizens, the assassin

lost faith in the possibility of averting the expected "catastrophe"

through democratic processes. (Many figures and organizations of the Left have

also lost their faith in the democratic process – that is why they lobby

foreign governments and other external bodies to apply pressure on the Israeli

government.) The problem is that in light of these beliefs, Amir decided to

employ the most morally problematic of means, i.e., murder.

In the period following the assassination, the halakhic concept of din

rodef was frequently mentioned in connection with Amir's motives [the

"law of the pursuer" stipulates that, when no other means are

available to prevent a murder, a bystander is allowed to kill the person

attempting to commit murder]. Perhaps the expression din rodef sounds

exotic to secularists' ears, but anyone with a bit of Torah education knows

that it is a purely rational principle – a principle of natural justice that

would be accepted by any court in any civilized country. The problem was, of

course, that the murderer's application of this universal principle was

invalid, criminal, and destructive.

A few words about the "Rabin Legacy." In the period before the

murder, many citizens believed that "Mr. Security" (i.e., Yitzhak

Rabin) would stop the Oslo process if it became clear that it was endangering

the well-being of the state. It is very difficult to guess how Rabin's views

would have developed if he had remained alive. We do not know if he would have

continued to support Oslo; nor do we know whether he would have supported the "disengagement."

On such matters, the Torah has commanded us: There shall not be among you…

one who asks questions of the dead. We only know what Yitzhak Rabin said in

his speech to the Knesset on the fifth of October, 1995, a month before his

death. He called for Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem, Ma'alei

Adumim, Givat Ze'ev, Gush Etzion, Beitar, Efrat, and additional settlements. He

called for the establishment of new settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria,

emulating the model of Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. He said that he supported

the establishment of a Palestinian political entity which would be less than a

state. His speech can be read (apparently, only in English translation!) on the

Foreign Ministry website:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1995/10/PM%20Rabin%20in%20Knesset-%20Ratification%20of%20Interim%20Agree

Berel Lerner, Kibbutz

Sheluhot

Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, comments:

I

thank my friend Berel Lerner for his response.

Indeed,

besides committing an abhorrent murder, Yigal Amir desecrated the Name of God

and the honor of the Torah in that he was identified by the public as a

religious person. There is certainly no Torah value that justifies murder in

the name of political disagreement. The problem is that the murderer did not

act in a vacuum. Whether or not we assume that Yigal Amir received an explicit

"halakhic ruling" applying din rodef to Yitzhak Rabin

(something claimed by Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun, among others, and for which he

suffered persecution at that time), it is impossible to ignore the atmosphere

that was created in part of the National-Religious community which lent

legitimacy to the murder. It was not without reason that, following the murder,

Rabbi Lichtenstein taught the Talmudic discussion from tractate Yoma mentioned

in my article. It was not without reason that Rabbi Yehudah Amital traced a

direct connection between the massacre in Me'arat haMakhpela and the Rabin

assassination. It is not accidental that both Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir

were identified with the ideology of Meir Kahane.

There

exists within the religious community a group which continues in the path of

Meir Kahane. Unfortunately, this group has not disappeared and it is not so

marginal. It justifies extreme nationalism and racism in the name of the Torah

and it is a phenomenon lying beyond the bounds of legitimate political debate. This

group does not believe in democracy and therefore the matter has no connection

with Rabin's worldview while he was alive, nor with the decisions he might have

made if he had remained alive and in power.

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards

its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $

  100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc.

Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in

advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz

VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made

through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD,

Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite

607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as

donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of

a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of

tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to

Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of

Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes

that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the

pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a

fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an

option but an imperative.

5,000

copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are

written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is

www.netivot-shalom.org.il.