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 [He] had already promised, and I will establish the oath that I swore to 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 Abraham; Abraham begot Isaac. And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebecca the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Padan Aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to        himself for a wife. And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren, and the Lord accepted his prayer, and Rebecca his wife conceived. And the children struggled within her, and she said, "If [it be] so, why am I [like] this?" And she went to inquire 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: like the dawn whose going forth is sure, and He will come to us like rain, like 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 [translator's note: both "eye" and "water spring"] of the 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 Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Padan aram, to take himself a wife from there, and that when he blessed him, he commanded him, saying, "You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan." And Jacob listened to his father and his mother, and he went to Padan aram. And Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan were displeasing in the eyes 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 and to the arrival at conclusions; seeing can also lead - God forbid - to 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 [my] father who did not teach me Torah, so-and-so learned Torah, see how 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.