Pensée juive sur La Genèse 25:28

Man's actions can be the result of three distinct causes. They can be the result of free choice made intellectually; they can be the result of man liking the activity he performs, or they can be the result of the immediate benefit he expects to derive fom his action. A further cause prompting man to act, is an inner urge, which does not bother to rationalise the purpose and sense of one's actions, as long as the action serves to gratify the urge that has prompted it. When a sailor, whose ship is about to founder, throws the cargo overboard in order to lighten the weight of the ship, and in order to avoid sinking the whole ship, he acts from a choice made intellectually, despite the fact that he resents either of the two options that had been open to him. This is similar to the halachic dilemma faced by people who need to violate a commandment in order to survive. Some such decisions must be based on the principle of yehareg ve-al ya-avor, rather be killed than become guilty of that violation; others will be based on the principle ya-avor ve-al yehareg, better to sin and survive than forego the chance of performing other mitzvot through having permitted himself to be killed. These options are discussed in Sanhedrin 76. If Isaac loved Esau because the latter would bring him venison, then an activity which would result in Isaac receiving such venison can be said to have originated in a feeling of love. Such an activity involves more of one's desire plus planning, than the one described previously. When a person is in the grip of lust or similar emotion however, he becomes so irrational that he will pay any price to satisfy his lust or greed. Chamor and Shechem are examples of people who made unreasonable concessions on behalf of their townspeople in order to satisfy the lust to possess Dinah, Jacob's daughter. (Genesis 34,11-19) In order to better comprehend the last example, picture a driver, a carriage and horses. Although the driver is in charge of the carriage, should the horses become unmanageable, the carriage will be drawn in the direction the horses want, and the driver will be powerless to prevent this, as long as carriage and horses are coupled together. In this parable, the horse represents the will, the lust, the urge; the carriage represents the person; the driver represents the choice made intellectually, the ability to discriminate, the gift man has been equipped with. The relationship of G'd to Zion is not based only on bechirah, choice between relative evils, but as the Psalmist 132, 13, terms it "for G'd has chosen Zion because He wanted it as His residence." The choice of the Jewish people as the chosen people, was dictated by intellectual considerations, but it was re-inforced by the Divine equivalent of ta-avah, an almost overpowering urge. This is underlined in the verse that follows "This is My rest forever, here I will dwell for I have desired it." In Deut. 10,15, Moses describes it as follows: "G'd took a strong liking to your forefathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, more than all other nations, as of this day." This shows that the love sprang from a strong liking G'd had developed towards them, based on their conduct. However, the love for the descendants is due to His choosing them (bachar) in comparison with other nations who were on a lower level, morally. That this is so, is confirmed in Song of Songs, where we read that Israel is "like a lily among thorns, so is My partner among the daughters." (Song of Songs 2,2) The terms chashak, love, choice, are used in descending order of preference. The first one is natural, unreasoning; the second one is deliberate, planned, but based on sound reason for the attraction. The third one is something forced upon one, in which one makes the best of a given situation. Of the many expressions of G'ds love for the Jewish people which are recorded in the Torah, some stem from relatively mild forms of love. None express a stronger bond of love than the setting aside of the mo-adim, the holydays that enable us to commune with G'd, and be in the presence of the shechinah, like children in the company of their father in joy and happiness.

Some philosophers thought that true love can exist only between opposites. Dry earth requires and longs for water, moisture. Water laden skies, clouds, need to empty themselves on earth. On the other hand, all craftsmen are jealous of one another. Aristotle on the other hand holds that likes are attracted to each other. Starlings keep company with ravens as they are of a kind (Chullin 65). Since G-d is neither similar to man nor totally his opposite, some hold that a love relationship with G-d is impossible. But the prophet Maleachi 1,2 says, "G-d says I have loved you Israel, and I have hated Esau... How can you question this?" (based on the premise that I am neither like you nor your exact opposite. More about this in chapter 90). The fact that two brothers (Jacob and Esau), who by nature should be similar, are treated so differently, proves that character traits rather than genetic affinity, i.e. outwardly similar human beings, determine between whom love occurs. Love has positive and negative aspects. Inasmuch as even trees have been compared to humans, especially fruit-bearing trees, their destruction has been prohibited (Deut. 20,19). Animals which share even more with human beings than trees, seeing that they are living creatures, must not be destroyed needlessly and must not be made to suffer even when their destruction is in order and serves a higher purpose (Baba Metzia 32). Examples are consumption by humans, which is restricted in the case of the mother animal and its young, which are not to be slaughtered on the same day. Mother birds must be dispatched before the newly hatched chicks may be taken. An animal needs to be at least eight days old before it may be slaughtered as a sacrifice to G-d, etc. Such considerations apply in even greater measure when dealing with fellow human beings, regardless of any formal agreements to that effect. Torah legislation, when dealing with the status of gentile slaves, is most specific in detailing the degree of concern that must be shown for the physical well being of such a slave. This mutual love for fellow human beings is observed in increasing measure when these humans are part of the same race or environment. The Torah emphasizes the positive aspects of love by commanding "Love your fellowman like yourself," i.e. when that fellowman is similar to yourself (Leviticus 19, 18). Love is not demanded for those utterly unlike you, such as animals etc. In fact, the feelings which we reserve for things or creatures unlike us is not love, but goodwill, pity etc. (see Psalms 102). We relate to the stones of Zion as something that we "want," not as something that we "love." The latter term would be a complete misnomer for phenomena not on our level. When Isaac asks Esau for "delicious dishes the way I "love" them" (Genesis 27,4), the term "love" does not describe the dishes, but the people whom he loves. He is saying to Esau, "When you do what I like....l will love you." Proof of this is found in the verse (Genesis 25,28) "Isaac loved Esau because he carried venison in his mouth." The term "love" cannot rightfully be applied even to parts of the body. Such parts become "nirtzah," appreciated, and may become the instrument through which their owner becomes "beloved." The term " ratzon," goodwill, appreciation, refers also to the parts of whole things which qualify for "love." For instance, Psalms 19, 15, "May the words of your mouth engender goodwill." The term "love" is reserved for the whole person. "Love the Lord your G-d;" "Love your fellowman like yourself,” i.e. identification with the other party is love. Such an identification is based on a complete appreciation of the other's qualities. This is what G-d describes when He said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only one, the one whom you love." (Genesis 22,2) Love cannot survive when one of the parties undergoes a drastic change either in moral or physical stature. Jonathan volunteered to become David's deputy, to enable his love for David to survive (Samuel I 23,17). For the appreciation of the foregoing, G-d required a covenant from the Jewish people, in order to maintain the love relationship that existed and to warn Israel that unless a mutuality of interests and the deeds arising from that mutuality of interests was maintained, the love relationship would disintegrate. The factors which were mutual, i.e. the common denominator between G-d and Israel, were Torah, Sanctuary (temple), and Priesthood. These factors were needed to ensure that by concentrating on them, both G-d and Israel would maintain their identity of purpose. When people try to upset this love relationship others have with G-d, it is like craftsmen who are jealous in their hearts of fellow craftsmen, seeing that we are all children of one father.

The answer: Scripture makes it clear that Isaac loved Esau, undoubtedly not knowing of his evil deeds, as our sages have apprised us (Tanchuma, Toldoth 8). And if there had come to him a prophecy that he put aside his eldest son, whom he loved, and bless Jacob instead, there is no doubt that this would have saddened him; and this sadness would have prevented the spirit of the L-rd from coming to rest upon him in perfection. For this reason the Blessed One desired him to think that he was blessing his beloved son, Esau, so that his heart expand in joy and he attain the godly spirit to the full extent of his powers. And this is, likewise, the reason for Isaac's saying to Esau (Genesis 27:4): "And make me savory food, as I love, and bring it to me and I will eat it, so that my soul bless you." That is, so that his soul expand and rejoice and the spirit of prophecy come to rest upon it. And it is because of this factor that the Blessed One desired that Jacob think he was blessing Esau when he was, in reality, blessing Jacob.