Pemikiran Yahudi Yesaya 63:5: Akeidat Yitzchak

When looking at the proof quoted for the statement that the true hero is he who controls his passions, Ben Zoma quotes "better the long patience than a hero, and someone who is in control of his spirit, than the conqueror of a city." (Proverbs 16,32) We must approach this with a similar yardstick. Aristotele defines bravery in his book of ethics, as a person who is prepared to be a martyr and brave death for the sake of what he believes to be ethically good and noble. In fact, if we examine David's heroism, such as when he volunteered to do battle with Goliath, he fits the bill exactly. His motivation, as has been stated, was that someone who blasphemes the Lord G'd of Israel must not be allowed to get away with it. Pinchas, who killed Zimri, (Numbers 25,8) displayed similar emotions. Aristotele's definition appears quite appropriate then. Also Isaiah 63,5, seems to bear out this definition. Ben Zoma's quotation does not seem to prove much, stating only that conquests alone do not constitute bravery. Even a weak king can conquer cities, when he has armies at his command. What Ben Zoma wishes to tell us, however, is that to describe someone as brave merely because he conquers, is foolish. If a king cannot control his own passions, how can he expect to control his soldiers? Only after he has learned to be in charge of himself, can he be trusted to be in charge of others. Concerning David and Pinchas, it is true that had they not done what they did, they would not have been known for the heroes that they undoubtedly were. It is the normal reaction of a person who observes violence being perpetrated on an innocent human being, to rationalise that his own life is more precious than that of his fellow human being. Therefore, he refrains from a rescue operation that would put his own life at grave risk. This is especially so, when the prospect of success of the rescue operation is only marginal. In order to do what one has at first glance perceived as one's moral duty, one needs to conquer the voices that tell one not to risk one's life and become a dead hero. Both David and Pinchas became heroes when they had successfully conquered those voices. They conquered the urge that had prompted their peers to refrain from becoming involved. Engaging in dangerous action was not something impetuous then, but on the contrary, it resulted from deliberation, having one's passions under control. Had the undertaking been unsuccessful, the potential hero risked derision rather than admiration, even though he might have given his life for the cause. Relying on one's strength, as mentioned in Isaiah 63,5, is not the antithesis of our concept of bravery, provided such reliance is not the result of bravado, showmanship and quest for personal glory. The hero feels that his life is not worth living, if the only way he can live it is by permitting great evils to go unchecked, and thus allow the name of G'd to continue to be desecrated. Ben Zoma's definition of true heroism then includes two important elements: A) Preparedness for martyrdom in order to achieve an ideal, or wipe out an evil; B) an awareness that the risks involved are undertaken deliberately, not impulsively. The hero faces up to unpopularity or even scorn that his action may arouse.

(1) When calling in his sons concerning the events in the distant future, Jacob had in mind what happens to the souls after death. The second call concerned happenings during Messianic times, on this earth. Concerning Reuben, the statement yeter se-eyt refers to additional responsibilities which Reuben should have shouldered being a firstborn, instead of assuming an additional portion of negative virtues. Since the nature of his error was such that it could not be undone, like water which, if it has once hit the ground, cannot be retrieved, Reuben's sin of entering his father's bedroom constituted an irreversible desecration. This deprived him of the birthright, which was transferred to Joseph. Possibly, the hastiness and lack of mature judgment criticized here in Reuben's character may account for the equally hasty decision of the tribe of Reuben later in claiming their part of the ancestral inheritance in the territory formerly belonging to Sichon. It was the tribe of Reuben who was the first to experience exile and dispersion in later years. (2) Shimon and Levi are bracketed together because of the similarity of their actions. Their error was the opposite of that of Reuben. Reuben had acted hastily, without mature judgment. Shimon and Levi's action against Shechem was reprehensible precisely because it was preceded by careful planning. Aristo in Ethics 7, Section 9, already discusses the relative merit of impetuosity versus the person who is in perfect control of his actions who, though carrying out carefully planned deeds, has given no thought to the possibility that he may be wrong. At Shechem, Shimon and Levi sinned because they had planned. When it came to the violence done to Joseph, they could not even claim that their action had been thoroughly thought out. Concerning the first action, Jacob condemns an anger of the aph variety, something that would not evaporate until they had taken collective revenge. In the case of their treatment of Joseph, their action was the result of ratzon, free will, impetuous behavior. When both of these characteristics are found side by side, they spell too much danger for society. Jacob did not want to be associated with this. Therefore, the two have to be separated to reduce their potential for causing harm. Although anger is a negative virtue, it can on occasion be most helpful, since it awakens people to their duty who would otherwise have remained inactive, on the sidelines. Having Levi scattered throughout Israel would ensure that when the occasion would demand it, there would be people that would galvanize the rest of the population into taking action. When Isaiah (63,5) says, "My arm brought me salvation, and my fury upheld me," he refers to exactly such instances of the usefulness of fury. Similarly, the Talmud in Ketuvot 103 reports how Rabbi Yehudah taught his son Rabbi Gamliel how to conduct himself in the office of the President. He told him, "Conduct your office among the exalted and strike fear into the students." (3) Yehudah is the first of the sons whose heroic deeds did not manifest themselves in turning against his own flesh and blood when angered; rather, "Your hand was against the neck of your enemy." Therefore, it is fitting that his brothers pay homage to him. "A young lion;" subsequently he is described as a fully grown lion (both in verse 9). This suggests that Yehudah's personality development proceeded according to accepted norms. He develops from strength to strength, unlike other crowned heads, many of whom experience their greatest moment of glory at the moment they are crowned and ascend the throne. Miteref beni aleeta, you overcame, surmounted the confused thinking of my other sons. Even though you were young in years, you showed mature judgment at the moment it was called for ("What profit is there in killing our brother" 37,26). Jacob proceeds to assure Yehudah that royalty will be hereditary in his descendants throughout the ages. However, just as the lion may crouch ready to pounce, but lacks the power, so the royal descendants of Yehudah will similarly be found lacking in strength on occasion. Such weakness will reflect Yehudah's lack of religious observance during such periods. The Talmud (in Sanhedrin 5) tells us that the term "king" is not used here for Yehudah to convey the idea that in the long years of exile when there will be no Jewish king, leadership functions will still devolve upon the descendants of Yehudah; "The sceptre will not depart," "the lawgiver," refer to such men as the Exilarch, i.e. the leader of the Jews in the Babylonian exile who were members of the tribe of Yehudah, often in a direct line from David. Once the era of Shilo commences, the condition of Yehudah being merely kore-a, crouching, will be over, and the whole world will pay homage to him. The reference then is to Yehudah's restricted leadership role in the interval, not the cessation of such status. The reason that Zevulun in this blessing is mentioned ahead of Issachar is that since the former provides the funding for the latter's sacred vocation, that of devoting himself to Torah, the former is the prime mover, and deserves to be recognized first. Issachar who is like a beast of burden weighed down under its load, represents the qualities without which Torah study devoid of ulterior motives cannot be undertaken successfully. A donkey accepts ever greater burdens without protest, is undemanding in manner, and modest in upkeep. (4) The reason that both sons of Zilpah are mentioned in between the sons of Bilhah, is to prove that Zilpah really was supposed to have become pregnant before Bilhah. Only Laban's trickery had prevented this at the time he tricked Jacob into marrying the wrong girl. (5) Issachar realized the kind of menuchah, rest, that is "good." The reference is to the serenity attainable only through the diligent study of Torah, which ensures that one will reap the ultimate "good" at the end of one's endeavours. (6) After having mentioned the sons of Leah in the order of their birth, Jacob addresses himself to the oldest son of the maids. Samson, descendant of Dan would achieve the position of leader amongst his people, and become the first one to begin and shake off the yoke of the Philistines. Samson's activities were not accompanied by the glory and pomp of a royal Court, but like a snake, a loner, were simply acts of revenge perpetrated as acts of terror from ambush. This is just like the action of a snake which always seems unconcerned about its own fate. Samson died at the site of his greatest triumph, just as a snake presumably gets killed when the horse and rider it has bitten fatally kills the snake near the site of their own death. Since a victory in which the pursuer dies himself is hardly a true victory, the victor not surviving to enjoy the fruits of his deed, Jacob adds the words, "In Your help I trust," expressing the hope that the defender of his people will be spared by Divine intervention. "Gad will form units of troops," even though Gad will be the first of the tribes to be led into captivity (Kings II 10,33), he will eventually re-emerge at the time of redemption. Asher is blessed by being promised material blessings that are rarely found side by side, namely both grain and fruit. Perhaps during the reign of Solomon, he was called upon to supply the royal palace. "He will supply the delicacies for the king." The comparison of Naftali to "a hind let loose," i.e. fleet-footedness, may hint at the climatic conditions in his territory giving rise to earlier harvests than elsewhere in Israel. Possibly, Naftali had silver-tongued men, bearers of good tidings who would lead Israel in thanksgiving to the Lord. (7) Because Joseph was like a beautiful fruit, flourishing by a fountain, attracting admiration from all sides, he also attracted jealousy and envy. As a result, he was quarrelled with and persecuted. He himself, however, kept his ammunition in check instead of fighting back. Thus, he proved himself stronger than his adversaries. His hands were strengthened by the same G-d who had proven His might when aiding Jacob. Therefore, he possessed the merit to become the provider (ro-eh) for his family, his clan. "May you receive your reward from the G-d of your father, may it be stored with the G-d Shadday, and may you receive the bountiful blessings from the heavens above and the depths that lie below, which are typified by the blessings of the breasts and the womb. The blessings of your father (Jacob) are greater than those of my parents (Isaac) in that I may select one of my sons for a special blessing, though all of them deserve blessings.” Each one of the sons of Jacob had a morally justifiable claim to givaut olam, high positions in the world; Joseph, however, had proven outstanding. Therefore, "on his skull more than on that of his brothers," the special blessing. Since the tribe of Levi had not yet been given its special designation replacing the firstborn, and the number of tribes was not to exceed twelve, the blessings for Menashe and Ephrayim are here incorporated in the blessings pronounced on their father Joseph. At the time when Moses blessed the nation, singling out Levi for its share of recognition, Ephrayim and Menashe are once again not mentioned separately, to avoid exceeding the number twelve. Moses therefore only alludes to them by stating that bechor shoro, the firstborn, his ox, are the tens of thousands of Ephrayim and the thousands of Menashe. The importance of Benjamin is alluded to by the fact that he rates the opening of a new paragraph (the paragraph could easily have ended at verse twenty-nine). Just as the word "Yehudah" is usually found at the beginning of a "page," so both of the brothers in whose territory the holy temple was to stand later, share the distinctive treatment in the manner in which their blessings are recorded in the Torah. Since the Priests and Levites will constantly be found in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to expect the members of those tribes to pursue the wisdom obtainable by keeping company with the priests, like wolves that rob in the morning and share the booty at night. Benjaminites will share in the knowledge obtained through close association with the tribe of Levi, and will teach others. Since in this manner they will both learn and teach, they are privy to the essence of all blessings. After all, success in any endeavor is based on study and dissemination of knowledge. The verse "the tribes of Israel are twelve," means that "although Joseph was divided into two tribes, the total still does not exceed twelve tribes, rather Levi is to be regarded as in a class by himself." This is what is meant by the words (verse 28), "Which their father said to them" (perhaps for this reason the scattering of Levi's cities was of quite a different nature than the dispersal of Shimon who had contiguous tribal territory, though it was an enclave within Yehudah). Since seventeen years had elapsed since Jacob and his family had left Canaan, Jacob was concerned lest any claim against the burial place of Abraham should have been registered during the family's absence from the country. Therefore, Jacob repeated all the details of his justified claim to the lands in question. Should any claim originate with the Canaanites, the fact that Ephron had sold to Abraham was essential; should the descendants of Ishmael claim the cave as theirs, the fact that Isaac had been buried there would prove that they had no valid claim thereto. To forestall any claim of Esau to be buried there, the fact that Leah had already been buried there, would attest to its ownership by the family of Jacob. Should the argument be used that the sale by an individual such as Ephron was invalid, since he was merely an individual and it was not in the national interest to sell off land to outsiders, the fact that the beney chet, a national group had approved the sale to Abraham, would invalidate any such claim in the future. (4) We have explained when Abraham died, that geviyah is the failure of one's faculties to function (clinical death), whereas meetah is the destruction and decay of the body's whole structure. Assiphah refers to the return of the soul to its hidden origin. Meetah is not mentioned in connection with Jacob. The reason our Rabbis may not have quoted this passage when they made the statement that "Jacob did not die," is so as not to allow the misconception that the elaborate measures taken to embalm Jacob's body were what is meant by the absence of the term meetah. The impression could easily have been formed that preventing decay of the body is equivalent to preventing meetah, i.e. death. Joseph appears to have had his own royal embalmers, and instead of the standard thirty-day procedure, Jacob was given the royal treatment, i.e. seventy days. This made the removal of the intestines and brain unnecessary (possibly). It appears that during the mourning Joseph observed for his father for seventy days, he did not permit himself to communicate with anyone at the royal court, and spoke to Pharaoh only through intermediaries (50,4). (5) It seems that as soon as Jacob had passed on, his sons were ready to return to the land of Canaan with their families and livestock, but were prevented by the Egyptians who were already planning to eventually enslave Jacob's entire offspring (Midrash Rabbah Tzav). We are told therefore, that the reason the Parshah dealing with Jacob's "death" is closed, i.e. is not separated from the preceding Parshah by a paragraph or line, is to indicate that true independence was lost as soon as Jacob closed his eyes for the last time. The Jews already felt that their freedom of movement had become subject to restrictions, and that is why even a Joseph on his deathbed had to invoke the time when G-d would lead the Jews out of Egypt as the time when his own remains should be transferred to the holy land (50,24). (6) The words va-ya-al immo in 50,9 may refer to the Shechinah leaving Egypt, having accompanied Jacob on his journey to Egypt seventeen years earlier (compare "I will go up with you," 46,4). The Canaanites saw a bad omen in all of this; they emphasized to their deities that this was an Egyptian affair, no business of theirs, and that any harmful fallout should befall Egypt. From then on, the brothers carried Jacob on their shoulders, just as their father had instructed. (7) The brothers had convinced themselves by and by that Joseph's rise to greatness was due entirely to their own action against him, and that because of that he owed them good treatment (as compensation). Their reasoning ran thus: "If only Joseph would hate us and pay us back for the kind of harm (may it happen so to all Jewish children) we have done him." They hoped to receive good in return for evil as a matter of right, not as a gesture of generosity. (8) When speaking in the name of Jacob then, they referred to their treatment of Joseph as evil (50,17), but they referred to themselves as "servants of the G-d of your father," who had acted presumably in consonance with G-d’s will, hence such eminently successful outcome of their actions. (9) Joseph realized that all this convoluted reasoning was the result of his brothers' fear, and he wept at their fear and discomfort. However, Joseph, answering his brothers along the line of their own argument, said, "I am not in place of G-d, so you need no forgiveness from me since your intention was indeed wicked. However, it was G-d who arranged for the outcome to be good not just for me alone but for everyone concerned. Despite your moral guilt however, do not worry, I will look after your needs.” (10) Joseph's raising Ephrayim's grandchildren on his knees is reported to show that Jacob's blessing concerning such grandchildren had been fulfilled. Since Joseph died at a younger age than his brothers, his reassuring remarks on his deathbed concerning the Providence of the Lord are of prime importance. Since his embalming was different from the method employed for his father, his physical death is mentioned. Since his remains were going to be interred in Egypt immediately, the treatment described would be quite adequate.

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.