Kaisipang Hudyo sa Genesis 27:22: Akeidat Yitzchak & Derashot HaRan

From the above it follows that the most advanced of nations, i.e. Israel, were it to perish G'd forbid, would disintegrate more than any other nation; less would be left of it than of any other more primitive society that ceases to occupy center stage in history. This is so because of the sophisticated nature of the body of the Jewish nation, which by implication implies fragility. When the prophet Ezekiel in chapter fifteen, describes the wood of the vines as utterly useless,- not even fit to be used in building,- he tries to tell us that unless it functions as the bearer of grapes, it is utterly without purpose. Similarly, the Jewish people. Unless the Jewish people fulfils its mission, it is utterly useless in the scheme of nature. The lumber of other trees, even if the tree itself is no longer bearing fruit, can serve builders; not so the wood of the grapevine. Gentiles, whose primary function is not the fruit of the intellect, mind or soul, may remain useful in some other capacity, not so Jews. They would only be good for firewood, serve by the very act of their own destruction. The whole purpose of the Jewish nation, allegorically speaking, is to produce the fruit of the vine. This fruit is available in three distinct qualities. 1) Unripe grapes. 2) grapes. 3) wine. Halachah reflects this view by assigning three different benedictions to the three stages of that fruit when one consumes it. For unripe grapes the benediction is borey pree ha-adamah, He who creates the fruit of the earth. Ripe grapes qualify for the benediction borey pree ha-etz, He who creates the fruit of the tree. Finally, wine qualifies for the benediction borey pree hagafen, He who creates the fruit of the vine. The type of benediction recited, corresponds to the degree of excellence of the product it is recited over. Man's function in the scheme of things is similar to the Jewish nation's function in the scheme of civilization, the scheme of nations. Our function embraces three stages of nature; the inert as represented by stone, the vegetative as represented by plants, and the animalistic, human, as represented by the fruits of various plants. G'd calls a human being "Adam when he fulfils his purpose on all three levels. (compare chapter forty four section one based on Talmud Baba Metzia 114) Justification of one's existence stems from one's having fulfilled one's purpose, one's destiny. When one fails deliberately to fulfil one's purpose, one forfeits one's right to exist. When the vine does not yield fruit, the wood supporting its leaves etc. deserves to be burned. When man does not contribute to yishuv ha-olam, civilization, he loses the right to exist. When Israel fails to make its specific contribution to the betterment of mankind, it loses its raison d'etre. This is what Rabbi Yochanan expressed in the paragraph from the Talmud Ketuvot quoted at the outset of this chapter. In the chapter dealing with the red heifer, we explained that impurity and its relative intensity, exists in direct relationship to the belovedness of the creature in the eyes of G'd. The less beloved, the less capable of becoming impure, the more beloved, the more subject to becoming defiled. Similarly, the higher the expectations that have gone unfulfilled, the more the fragility of the vessel becomes evident, the more total its collapse if and when it occurs. Only its continued proper use keeps it in good condition. The same lesson is conveyed to the prophet Jeremiah in chapter thirteen, about the belt buried near the river Euphratus that had been in disuse for many years, only to disintegrate by the time Jeremiah was to use it again. A belt has four functions which can be viewed as paralleling the tasks of the Jewish people. Garments to man are like character traits, as explained in connection with the special garmens of the High Priest and the priest at large. The belt assures the proper functioning of such garments. Leaving the belt buried somewhere, nullifies the value of the garments it was supposed to complement. The point of the parable is, that even a human being, equipped as he is with all the potential G'd has given him, goes to waste, unless he harnesses his potential in the proper manner. Girding oneself with the ezaur, belt, is like hashem oz hitazor, G'd girded Himself with strength. Man in emulating G'd, does likewise. Possibly, this is why Elijah is portrayed as wearing the belt around his loins when we see him function publicly as a prophet. Basically, linen is a durable material, much more so than wool. It is interesting that while wearing the belt, the prophet is not to wash it, though it undoubtedly would become soiled with perspiration. In the parable then, usage does not contribute to disintegration; on the contrary, careful preservation during disuse causes disintegration. When the Messiah is described in Isaiah 11, the belt appears as the well known symbol. The Messiah will wear a belt of righteousness and loyalty. The generation of Jews who had left Egypt had proven inadequate to their lofty mission. They had demonstrated unwillingness to be mosser nefesh, display acts of supreme dedication for Eretz Yisrael. Only the next generation deserved to inherit the land. Quite possibly, the esteem for Eretz Yisrael expressed by the daughters of Tzelofchod is the key to our understanding why that generation was granted entry, and why the sequence of events related in the Torah is such as it is.

The thrust of Moses' argument in each case was that only if the angels considered themselves fools would the above mentioned instructions of the Torah apply to them. From all the above it follows that just as Torah can only be of significance and meaning to creatures possessed of both good and evil inclinations, so human beings who are unable to achieve mastery over their desires because they are not free agents, are not subject to the laws of the Torah. Slaves, women and children are each subject only to limited sections of the Torah, since their self determination is restricted and they are not truly free in that sense. Those who are physically free, but have sold themselves to their senses, will not derive much benefit from Torah, since they opted to forego mastery of mind over body. Only Israel, trained through many years of deprivations, had achieved the level of freedom that enabled it to benefit from receiving the Torah. This is the argument embodied in the famous Midrash (Avodah Zarah 2) which depicts G'd as offering the Torah first to different nations, all of whom in turn rejected it for one reason or another. The common denominator behind the rejection in each case was that they did not wish to re-examine their basic lifestyles based on enslavement to one or another of their senses. ("I have to steal" or "I have to murder") All of this is justification for not giving the Torah to those nations, just as Torah was not given to the angels. The former are beyond reach of the Torah, the latter beyond need for Torah. There was therefore no favoritism involved when the Torah was given only to Israel.

It is my understanding, furthermore, that when Isaac blessed Jacob, he did so not being entirely sure whether it was Jacob or Esau he was blessing. We find several expressions of reservation in this regard: first, (Genesis 27:20): "How come you have found it so quickly, my son?" Again (Ibid 21): "Come close, and let me feel you, my son." And yet a third time (Ibid 22): "The voice is the voice of Jacob but the hands are those of Esau." Now there is no doubt that a voice is a more trustworthy sign than hands. From all of this it is apparent that it was not clear to Isaac for a certainty that this was Esau standing before him — in spite of which doubt he blessed him, acquiescing in either possibility [that it be Esau or Jacob]. For there is no doubt that Isaac loved Jacob and desired any blessing for him which would not result in harm to Esau. Accordingly, he resolved that this blessing be for the one standing between his knees. And even if it were Jacob this would cause no harm to Esau, for it would be impossible for Jacob to receive by virtue of his blessing something that was objectionable to Isaac and contrary to his intent. For this reason he assumed that if it were Jacob, the Blessed One would not place in his mouth anything injurious to Esau; and if Jacob would be blessed in something which would not result in harm to Esau, this would be perfectly agreeable to him, for Jacob, too, had issued from his loins. In sum, all that he desired was that his blessing be productive of good, even if Jacob were its object. And being inclined to believe that it was, in fact, Esau (though this had not been conclusively established), he did not hesitate to bless him. And the Blessed One, loving Jacob, placed in Isaac's mouth when he blessed him, all the good destined for Jacob, whether by virtue of Isaac's blessing itself or by virtue of what had already been ordained for him in respect to dominion (and Isaac would never have presumed to request dominion for Esau).