אַֽל־תִּ֭תְהַלֵּל בְּי֣וֹם מָחָ֑ר כִּ֤י לֹא־תֵ֝דַ֗ע מַה־יֵּ֥לֶד יֽוֹם׃
Nie przechwalaj się dniem jutrzejszym, nie wiesz bowiem co może zrodzić dzień dzisiejszy.
Akeidat Yitzchak
Since the effort expended on creating anything that is known not to endure is wasteful, (compare chapter 58) and since we cannot ascribe activities to G'd that are wasteful or vain, we are faced with the problem why G'd extended Himself to take the Jewish people out of Egypt, lead them to the holy land, had them build a Temple by Solomon and achieve unheard of glory, only to let it all collapse four hundred years later. Philosophers offer two explanations. One is that G'ds prescience, foreknowledge, was inadequate, and that G'd involved Himself in all these efforts because He had not foreseen the end. The second explanation is that G'd lacked the power to forestall certain events. Since either of these explanations assumes a lack of perfection on G'ds part, they are inadmissible. Some Jewish philosophers including Gersonides, wish to describe G'ds foreknowledge of events as limited to the type of events which are not subject to decisions made by humans. They claim that G'd knows human decisions before they have been made, only when the latter correspond to the laws of nature as formulated at the time of creation. In other words, those human decisions that are only apparently free, such as the food intake necessary for survival, sleep necessary in order to function normally, wearing of protective clothing against the rigours of the weather, are things G'd knows all about in advance. Decisions of man which are truly free however, G'd does not know about until such a decision is actually made. In this way Gersonides explains why Moses wanted to refuse the appointment to lead the Jewish people out of Egypt, since he felt that the ultimate success could not be known beforehand. He thought that this had been the reason G'd had had to bring the deluge or to destroy Sodom. Following this line of reasoning, we could understand why G'd is described as vayinachem, He reconsidered. This kind of philosophy however, is opposed to our traditional concept of G'ds perfection. Maimonides teaches that G'd has full knowledge of the Past and the Future, being fully aware of any combination of events that will or might occur. Any other view would conceive of G'ds perfection being flawed somehow. If a deluge became necessary at a certain moment in human history, this was not due to inadequate foreknowledge by G'd, nor to inadequate planning by Him, but was inherent in the character of man himself. G'd had constructed man in a way that makes attainment of his ideal state an extremely difficult task. It is only through the passage of time and the lessons learned from history that man will ultimately achieve the ideal state that is his purpose. The Zohar Parshat Lech Lecha, 125, states that the reason the tzaddik, righteous person is compared to the date palm (Psalms 92,13) is, that once it is cut down it may take seventy years for another palm tree to replace it. Similarly, the righteous are not easily replaced. Also, since both a male and a female palm tree are needed in order for that tree to produce fruit, a tzaddik unless matched with a tzaddeket, i.e. a suitable wife is not really a tzaddik at all. Abraham and Sarah are classic examples of such a well matched pair, of course. What this means concerning our problem is that only in the fullness of time will man and woman reach the goal the Creator has set for them. Setbacks in their progress toward that goal are not due to any shortcomings by their Creator. If we conceive of mankind as a pool of raw material from which the best is to be selected and nurtured, then we get an idea of early mankind. The generations until Noach were predominantly earthy in their orientation, and only a very few were capable of that refinement of mind and spirit that enabled them to become the strain through which all mankind would ascend towards its goal. G'd had been aware of course, at the very outset of that situation. The word vayinachem means to rue something one knew beforehand would happen if the premise on which one had based one's thinking changes. It does not imply a change of thinking on the part of the subject, rather it reflects a change of circumstances on the part of the object of one's thinking. Since it was man that had changed, G'ds decision to prune mankind radically in order to refine the best strain was not a change of heart on G'ds part. Again, from Noach to Abraham no one was found from whom this strain could be refined still further. When Isaiah 51,2, proclaims "look upon Abraham your progenitor, and upon Sarah who suffered your birthpangs," the prophet wants us to know that our origins do not go back any further than to that pair of human beings. Inasmuch as creation itself had served little purpose until the advent of Adam, the first human being, the early generations of man found their real justification of existence only in the fact that they somehow produced a Noach and an Abraham. Abraham is told by G'd "I will make you a great nation," not "I will appoint you, or I will place you etc." In order to become a Jewish nation further changes have to take place before they can qualify for that task. Even when the Jewish people are described as "hail you Israel, a nation saved by the Lord," they are still not yet in their final mould and will have to undergo further refinements with the help of forty eight prophets, sufferings and tragedies. In the fullness of time the ultimate fully refined product will emerge which will represent the objective towards which G'd had striven all along. Israel as a nation, and mankind as a species, are being subjected to a program G'd Himself has set up, although the freedom of the individual is not being impaired thereby in the slightest. Midrash Rabbah Ruth section five on Ruth chapter 4,12, "may the Lord repay your labour and may your wages be complete from the Lord your G'd under whose wings you have come to find protection," says in the name of Rabbi Bunim, that we know the earth has "wings", that the sun has "wings", that shachar, morning has "wings", that cherubs have "wings" and that seraphim, angels have "wings". See how great is the power of the righteous, since they do not rely on the "wings" of any of the above mentioned, but on the "shade" of the One who has said "let there be a universe," as is written in Psalms 36,8, "how precious is Your favour o Lord, human beings can find protection under Your wings." (The Midrash lists scriptural proof for the five "wings" described) Our sages have listed five domains to which men turn for help in securing their needs when they feel the Lord has turned away from them. The "wings" of the earth represent nature and our knowledge of natural law, described by our sages also as "Prince of the earth." When king Assa consulted doctors instead of praying to G'd, he committed a grievous error. (Chronicles II 16,12) Already previously, when engaged in fighting Basha, king Assa had relied on a gentile ally rather than ask G'd for help. This is why he was punished. The "wings" of the sun, refers to the knowledge of astrology. Those who rely on such knowledge to plan their lives, are equally contemptuous of G'd. Solomon who describes people as "under the sun," refers to the kind of people who put stock in their knowledge of astrology. The "wings" of the cherubs refers to those who feel they receive guidance from invisible spirits who control the orbits of the planets. The "wings" of the seraphim would refer to the disembodied power that controls all movement, in short to "time" as a determinant in the universe. The "wings" of the morning, (Psalms 139,9) would refer to the domain which our sages call "the prince of the day."
Akeidat Yitzchak
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.
Akeidat Yitzchak
The four statements are therefore not to be understood as "sins," but rather as faults which made their sin possible. Outstanding individuals such as these two sons of Aaron, could not fall prey to a cardinal sin such as bringing "strange fire" into the sanctuary, unless there had previously been something wrong in their attitudes. Drunkenness disturbs the mind. Only when in a confused state of mind, could they have committed such a serious error. Not having washed their hands and feet is symbolic of not preparing one's body to perform a sacred task. Garments, especially outer garments, are meant as a shield against the temptation of the yetzer hara. Failing to wear such garments shows that one at least underestimates the power of temptation, while at the same time overestimating one's own character strength The purpose of all Torah study is execution of its teachings. Another way of expressing this, is "the producing of fruit." Having children is bearing fruit. Being able to bear fruit is a privilege. He who has something worthwhile to bequeath to posterity, leaves children behind who, perpetuate their parents, contribute to civilisation. He who studies Torah for ulterior motives, such as to achieve honour, a title etc has nothing to bequeath. These two sons of Aaron not having children, is not to be conceived as a cause for their being unfit. Rather, it is the result of their having been unfit. To sum up, one could accuse these two sons of three deficiencies. (1) intellectual; (2) emotional; (3) moral. It is also possible to view the fact that these sons did not marry as proof of a certain amount of arrogance. They did not marry because they did not consider anyone as good enough to become their respective wives. Again, the wearing of garments can be understood as representing acquired character traits. Not wearing outer garments would mean that they lacked certain character traits which are essential in a priest, without which he is not fit to represent the people before G'd.