Еврейская мысль к Берешит 28:15

Bereshit Rabbah 76 (summary) relates that we find two outstanding people, each of whom had received specific assurances from G-d, display fear of the outcome of encounters concerning which G-d had promised His guidance. The two are Moses, when he confronted Og, and Jacob, when he confronted Esau. Moses had to be reminded by G-d concerning Og "do not be afraid of him;" Jacob, though promised G-d’s help against Esau, still displays fear immediately before the encounter is to take place. This teaches us that G-d’s promises to individuals are not to be considered as ironclad guarantees, as valid under all circumstances.

If we interpret the above to mean that Israel will be physically unable to break the covenant of its forefathers, the fact that throughout the ages large segments of our people have always defied the rules of the Torah, is mystifying. Also, if we cannot contravene the laws of the Torah physically, what about the concept of free will upon which the entire system of reward and punishment is built? Again, if G'd feels compelled to threaten retaliation for nonobservance of His laws, there evidently cannot be a question of physical inability to transgress these laws! Furthermore, if G'd had the power to make us live up to the covenant, threats of chastisement seem pointless. From all the above, we feel that it is clear that the matter of the oath needs to be understood somewhat differently from the manner most commentators have presented it. We must also subscribe to the notion that the eternal existence of the Jewish people as well as their special status amongst the nations is not tied to the observance or non observance of the covenant, but rather that it is anchored in the very nature of this people, which will not change even when defying the covenant. Although the impulse for self-destruction is abnormal, unnatural, G'd has seen fit to legislate against the commission of suicide, assuming that such legislation might dissuade a few people bent on self-destruction. The rare phenomenon of wilful self-destruction does not undermine the will of the vast majority to remain alive. Similarly, the estrangement of the nation from its G'd cannot be brought about by the desertion of a few, since the bond tying it to its G'd is far too deeply rooted in history. The following parable will illustrate the whole subject more clearly. A certain highly intelligent and courageous young man who successfully confronted his less highly principled peers, became the object of his peers' hatred. They did everything to make the young man's life unbearable until the young man sought refuge at the King's Court. There he was placed under Royal protection. The young man thereupon concentrated his abilities and energies on performing a series of duties for the king, until the latter decided to grant him a special status in recognition of his selfless devotion. The king entered into an agreement with the young man whereby his special status would also extend to his descendants, on the understanding that such descendants would keep faith with the king, and would continue to perform the duties assigned to them. The young man was overjoyed by this generous offer, and accepted with alacrity. For several generations the descendants of the young man prospered and kept their part of their ancestor's bargain. The fifth generation, having become extremely wealthy, decided that the services rendered to the king had become too onerous, and refused to carry out the terms of the agreement their forefather had entered into. Their complaint was directed at their forefather, whom they accused of having committed them to a life of servitude to the king. They therefore claimed the right of self determination, and the freedom to decide for themselves whom they would recognise as their Master. The king was quite agreeable, pointing out however, that since the family's obligations were being terminated, so was his own undertaking to grant this family special protection against its natural enemies, and to ensure its continued affluence. As soon as all the former enemies heard about the changed relationship of that family and the king, they resumed harassing the family with devastating results. No one in their right mind would accuse the king of having punished that family. Everyone understands that whatever evil befell that family from that time on had been their own doing, that they had only themselves to blame. Applied to the Jewish people, the comparison is quite simple. Jacob, choicest of our ancestors, had incurred the wrath of Esau, the jealousy of Laban, the enmity of the Canaanites around Shechem, and had led a life of frequent upheavals, daily skirmishes until he took refuge under the wings of the shechinah. (Genesis 35,8) "The Lord who has answered me on the day of my distress." Because his way of life had found favour in the eyes of G'd, He assured Jacob of protection against his enemies, and this support continued throughout the generations, (see beginning of Parshat Vayetze) The promise was spelled out in detail at Mount Sinai, (Exodus 19,5) when the condition "now you must hearken to My voice and observe My covenant etc" was made a prerequisite for this continued protection and special status of the Jewish people. These conditions were further emphasized in Deuteronomy 26,15-19, when the reciprocal relationship between Israel and G'd is repeated in clear and unmistakable language. If subsequent generations would repudiate the deal made by their ancestors by worshipping idols and other acts of disloyalty to their erstwhile king, then the ill fate that would befall them could not be described as punishment by that king. On the contrary, they would be considered the architects of their own misfortune, especially, since G'd is on record as withdrawing the special status this people had enjoyed heretofore. The crucial aspect of the eternal nature of the covenant is, that just as mass suicide committed by a whole people simultaneously is unthinkable, so the alienation of the entire Jewish people from its Torah and its G'd simultaneously, is equally beyond the realm of possibility. When the Talmud in Shabbat 88, discusses the coercion used by G'd in order to get the Jewish people to accept the Torah at Sinai on pain of immediate burial under the Mountain, Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov raises the issue of the validity of acceptance under duress. This issue is raised concerning the people standing at the foot of the mountain. How much more would this question apply to later generations who had not even been present on that occasion! Those later generation who had not experienced liberation from bondage in Egypt, had far less reason to accept the Torah out of a sense of gratitude for their deliverance! The argument in the Talmud is turned aside by a reference to the Jewish people accepting Torah completely voluntarily at the time of their deliverance from the threat of extinction by Haman. That acceptance is deemed binding for all future generations. That so-called voluntary acceptance was induced by the realisation that if G'd were to forsake them, their very existence would come to an end, as had been demonstrated by their experience with Haman. The latter had almost succeeded in wiping out a nation that had considered itself both secure and emancipated. When the wording of the covenant in Parshat Nitzavim stresses that the covenant did not only apply to the generation of the Exodus, but to all subsequent generations, the reference to the generation of the Exodus teaches that even that generation did not have to accept Torah out of a sense of gratitude, but rather because Torah had become a natural habitat for the Jewish people, just as water is for fish or blood for the body. "She is a tree of life to those who support her." (Proverbs 3,18) Just as G'd had promised never to bring another deluge, since conditions would not be allowed to recur which would call for such mass extinction, so conditions allowing a total rupture between Israel and its G'd would also not be allowed to recur. This is what the oath in our Parshah wishes to convey. Jeremiah 31,16, quoted earlier, describes a situation which is possible in theory, since all physical phenomena have measurable finite dimensions. Since the effort in actually taking those measurements is mind boggling, so is the idea of G'd despising the entire Jewish people. Isaiah 54, 9-10, may be understood in a similar vein.

So far then Jacob's efforts provided him with useful information about how to approach Esau when he would meet him. Jacob's fear did not concern his own death at the hands of Esau, but he was concerned about the possible death of members of his family, concerning whom no promise from G-d had been received. The wording of the promise at Bet El in the dream of the ladder, had been directed only at Jacob alone. (3) Jacob divided the camp so that he could not be faulted for having neglected a chance to ensure partial survival. No doubt, the camp mentioned last, was positioned in such a way that Esau would encounter it first. Should Esau want to vent his rage by destroying Jacob's camp, and his anger could be assuaged by such a pogrom, Jacob's stratagem would have worked since that camp contained no one especially dear to him. If there had been only one camp and that had been attacked, all might have been lost. Jacob's prayer at that point acknowledged both the assistance received thus far and the promises made; it made the point however that all G-d’s promises made to Abraham and Isaac would come to nought if he and his family were not saved at this time. Jacob indicated that he did not think that he personally had any merit to entitle him to ask for favors for himself, seeing that when he had first set out on his quest he had only had a walking staff to call his own, and he had received so many favors from G-d that he was a wealthy man by now. He appealed for help, since, though assured of victory, in a battle involving so many, even victory might involve heavy casualties. G-d had not yet promised that no harm would come to any of them. Jacob was certainly entitled to feel alarmed at that point in his life. At the conclusion of his prayer, he looked for a sign that his prayer had received a favorable hearing. This is why he chose to spend the night at the site where he had offered his prayer. Since Jacob's efforts to save himself had not yet included a financial sacrifice, G-d withheld reassurance until he had done his share in that respect. It was the absence of a response from G-d then that galvanized Jacob into rising early on the following morning to arrange for the gifts to be sent to Esau. There are times when preoccupation with worldly matters-- which are after all only our second most important concerns-- exceeds what is reasonable and is apt to be misinterpreted. Jacob's encounter with the spiritual counterpart of Esau is an example of this. Since Jacob had risen during the night in order to carry insignificant belongings across the river Yabbok, this had been misinterpreted by Esau's guardian angel as evidence that Jacob was excessively concerned with worldly goods. This provided said angel with the opportunity to challenge Jaob's moral superiority over Esau (Chullin 91). Jacob recovered quickly enough from this momentary lapse, and the angel had to acknowledge Jacob's claim to morally high standards, by revealing to him that he would henceforth be known as "Israel." Nonetheless, the momentary weakness displayed and referred to by the Torah euphemistically as "dislocation of the hip joint," is frequently found among Jacob's descendants, and gives Esau/Amalek opportunities to attack the Jewish people's claim to moral leadership. Already Isaac had warned against this weakness in his blessing to Esau, when he told the latter, that he, Esau, would be able to shake off the yoke of his younger brother whenever the latter would fail to live up to his standards (Genesis 27,41). (7) The angel's request to let him go, is simply another way of saying to Jacob, "Why do you waste your time detaining me, when you should be busy preparing gifts for Esau."