Pensée juive sur Isaïe 48:4

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.

The opening parable in the Sifri that we quoted at the beginning of this chapter poses the problem we have been discussing. By granting man freedom of will, G'd, fatherlike, hands over the prince to the pedagogue. The pedagogue can be viewed as the "wings" i.e. the forces subservient to the Lord acting as His administrators in the universe. The son, i.e. Israel enjoying his freedom, felt, that by giving the administrator what he wanted, he could be completely undisturbed by him and free to pursue his own designs without interference. In the end, when found corrupt, Israel tried to blame G'd for its own corruption accusing Him of having turned it over to a pedagogue who appeared to possess independent powers. If the pedagogue did not have independent powers Israel argued, what had been the point of being entrusted to him? If as a result of being placed in the care of a pedagogue, G'ds attitude vis a vis Israel underwent a change, it was not Israel that was to blame! To forestall such reasoning on the part of Israel, Moses calls on Heaven and Earth as witnesses to the constancy of G'ds purpose, and both Psalms and the prophet Maleachi tell us that He has never changed. When Moses predicts the behaviour of the Jewish people after his death, he does so on the basis of his psychological insight of the character of his people, not on the basis of prophetic knowledge. Just as this psychological insight does not commit the people to act in a certain way, so G'ds psychological insight into the nature of the people in no way encroaches on their exercising their free will. The fact that even Moses, a mere human being, could foretell with such uncanny accuracy future behaviour of the Jewish people, is the most vivid testimony of G'd the master psychologist's foreknowledge of the actions of Israel, or anybody else's actions for that matter.

I have also a reason and cause for calling our language the holy language—do not think it is exaggeration or error on my part, it is perfectly correct—the Hebrew language has no special name for the organ of generation in females or in males, nor for the act of generation itself, nor for semen, nor for secretion. The Hebrew has no original expressions for these things, and only describes them in figurative language and by way of hints, as if to indicate thereby that these things should not be mentioned, and should therefore have no names; we ought to be silent about them, and when we are compelled to mention them, we must manage to employ for that purpose some suitable expressions, although these are generally used in a different sense. Thus the organ of generation in males is called in Hebrew gid, which is a figurative term, reminding of the words, “And thy neck is an iron sinew” (gid) (Isa. 48:4). It is also called shupka, “pouring out” (Deut. 23:2), on account of its function. The female organ is called kobah (Num. 25:8), from kobah (Deut. 18:3), which denotes “stomach”; reḥem, “womb,” is the inner organ in which the fœtus develops; ẓoah (Isa. 28:8), “refuse,” is derived from the verb yaẓa, “he went out”; for “urine” the phrase meme raglayim, “the water of the feet” (2 Kings. 18:17), is used; semen is expressed by shikbat zera‘, “a layer of seed.” For the act of generation there is no expression whatever in Hebrew: it is described by the following words only: ba‘al, “he was master”; shakab, “he lay”; laḳah, “he took”; gillah ‘ervah, “he uncovered the nakedness.” Be not misled by the word yishgalennah (Deut. 28:30), to take it as denoting that act: this is not the case, for shegal denotes a female ready for cohabitation. Comp. “Upon thy right hand did stand the maiden” (shegal) “in gold of Ophir” (Ps. 45:10). Yishgalennah, according to the Kethib, denotes therefore “he will take the female for the purpose of cohabitation.”