ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף דברים 21:18

Man's deeds can serve as ends in themselves, or be a means towards an end. The former are different from the latter in three ways. A) Their essence. B) The degree and dedication involved in executing the deeds in question. C) The name given to the deeds in question. If someone engages in an adulterous relationship for the sake of financial gain, he is not a true adulterer. When such a relationship is pursued because of the physical and mental gratification it affords the parties indulging in them, this is true adultery. The ben sorer umoreh, stubborn and rebellious gluttonous son described in Deuteronomy 21,18-21, though a thief by halachic definition, since he has stolen a small amount of meat and wine from his father, is punished as a glutton, not as a thief. His thievery had merely been a means to achieve his objective that of gratifying his appetites. When Rabbi Meir says in Avot 6, that "he who preoccupies himself with Torah for its own sake, will merit many things, he means that even his incidental activities will be considered "preoccupation with Torah," since those incidental activities serve to further the achievement of the ultimate goal i.e. Torah, (compare chapter 72) Another aspect of this matter is that anyone who employs certain means only as a method to attain a certain objective, will not be too fussy about the quality or legitimacy of the means employed. If someone is concerned with keeping the rain out of his house, his prime concern will be to use boards that are waterproof. The colour, dimensions, thickness and general appearance of such boards will not concern him greatly. It is similar with the fulfilment of a mitzvah. If fulfilment of the mitzvah is merely meant to escape punishment at the hands of G-d, the person performing such a mitzvah will not be concerned with performing it in the most beautiful manner possible. Sukkah 51, describes the participants of the mitzvahoi simchat beyt ha-sho- eyvah, the joyful occasion of drawing water for the sacrifices on the altar, as "anshey ma-asseh,” men of true deeds. Berachot 8, teaches that "he who enjoys the fruit of his own labour is greater than the one who fears heaven." The Talmud supports this statement with verses from scripture. The point is that he who labours to serve G-d out of a feeling of love, as demonstrated by the labour of his hands, is superior to the person who serves Him out of fear of punishment. A third distinction between deeds that serve as an end in themselves and those that are not, is the fact that unsavoury, offensive means towards achieving such objectives are employed only when absolutely unavoidable. Example: if sexual gratification can be obtained only by means of paying for the services of a prostitute, stealing the funds in order to pay the prostitute ceases as soon as gratification is obtained, or as soon as the person concerned has found legal means to pay the price for his gratification. Alternately, if performance of mitzvot is due to fear of impending punishment, say a wife who is terminally ill, and the giving of charity is seen as a way of saving her life,- then either her death or her recovery will lead to cessation of such charitable activity by her husband. In this vein Hoseah describes the reaction of the sinful Jewish people. (Hoseah 13,13-15) They believe that because the danger of giving birth has passed, all is well and the danger of death has been banished forever. Israel as a nation had achieved a closeness to G-d which involved performance of His commandments as due to one's innermost desires. This is what G-d said in Deuteronomy 5,26, "would that they should always be of a mind to revere Me and observe My commandments for all times!" Satan's argument against Job was that he claimed that Job's piety was based on self interest. Since his prestigious lifestyle had been provided by G-d, what could have been more natural than that Job should abide by G-d’s rules? Only when man's most cherished possessions are about to be taken from him, can he prove his love for G-d, and his obediences are sincere, not means to an end. This is why G-d said to Abraham after the binding of Isaac "now I know that you are indeed G-d fearing," (in the sense that "your reverence for Me is sincere.") There are then three aspects to what is called "fear" of G-d. A) Fear of the consequences if he transgresses G-d’s will. B) Reverence expressed by the performance of positive commandments which are not subject to punishments if not performed. C) Performing all of these commandments on a regular basis, not only when on a temporary emotional "high." When we look at the behaviour of Amalek as described in Parshat Ki Teytze, Deut 25, it is clear that Amalek was dedicated, fanatical in what he undertook. He attacked the Jewish people lishmah, for its own sake, not because of any ulterior designs. It was wickedness of the utmost dedication. Normally, nations go to war in order to gain territory, prisoners, loot, or for their generals to make a name for themselves and for the country to gain glory. None of these motivations applied to Amalek when it attacked Israel. "He chanced on you on the way," i.e. he had no chance to rob you of territory since you yourself were wandering nomads. He did not attack frontally, only the stragglers that had trailed behind the main body (25,18) There was no glory to be gained from that! It was an act of cowardice, since Israel was tired as the Torah testifies. "He did not fear the Lord." The only motivation was to attack something precious to G-d. People who behave in this fashion are never candidates for rehabilitation, teshuvah Therefore, the Torah stipulates that when the time and the circumstances will be right, the people of Amalek must be totally eliminated, otherwise the kingdom of G-d on this earth will never come to pass. The words "and he did not fear the Lord," may apply equally well to the conduct of Israel on the occasion of massah u-merivah, when Israel had accused Moses of leading them out of Egypt in order to let them perish by thirst in the desert. This would explain why it was that G-d permitted the attack and the very sequence of these events. Since Israel had asked the frivolous question "is then the Lord in our midst?" they had to be shown what their fate would be if the Lord were not in their midst. Amalek's conduct was even worse than that of Ammon and Moab who are banned forever from joining the Jewish nation because they had failed to extend a helping hand to Israel when that had been called for. If Mordechai and Esther in their time refused to loot the belongings of their enemies though they had express permission to do so, as has been pointed out no less than three times in the book of Esther, it was to show that their only interest was to fulfil belatedly the commandment to wipe out Amalek, something which their ancestor King Saul had been instructed to do. King Saul's error in not completely destroying Amalek, produced tragic consequences not only for himself and his family, but for Jews throughout the ages. Saul's error -which deserves to be discussed at length,- stemmed from an attitude that performs the word of G-d only to the extent that it appears to one's limited human wisdom to be beneficial. This error is quite similar to the one discussed at the outset. When Samuel said to Saul on that occasion "obedience is better than good sacrificial offerings," he only explained that the sacrifice per se is neither of benefit to G-d nor to man. It is only a means by which man can demonstrate his obedience to G-d. rayach nichau-ach, the "sweet smell," satisfaction that G-d derives from such an offering, is because it expresses the preparedness of the person who offers it to execute G-d’s will. The prophet asked the pointed question "does the Lord need total offerings or meal offerings?" The letter mem in the word mi-zevach needs to be understood not as a comparative, but as "from." What does G-d get from it? Therefore, Samuel meant tov, i.e. the good to be derived from the sacrifice is the shamo-a, the obedience expressed by having listened to G-d’s instructions. The same construction is to be placed on the other half of that verse, le-hakshiv mi-chelev eylim, the careful attention that is expressed by offering the fat of rams, (compare Samuel I chapter 15 for the whole episode) Since Samuel criticised Saul on two counts, he added the third dimension discussed at the beginning of this chapter. 1) Saul had picked from G-d’s commandment to totally destroy Amalek, only the parts that suited him. He did not act as he did because he hated the nation that G-d hated, but because he was interested in the loot. 2) He had arrogated to himself the right to decide how to act, as if he had been the prophet, claiming he had carried out G-d’s wishes. 3) He had "failed" to carry out orders, not as he claimed. G-d retaliated by despising him, taking away his kingdom and terminating what would have been his dynasty. In the end, Saul acknowledged his error. The manner in which he acknowledged his error showed that he believed that not carrying out G-d’s word or not carrying out the prophet's precise instructions, were not the same thing at all. When Saul claimed first that he had indeed fulfilled G-d’s command, Samuel calls this the chatat kessem, which is in fact mered, rebellion. What is except kessem the illusion that one can manipulate the deity, impose one's own desire on G-d, in fact rebellion. When Saul finally realised his error, Samuel already tells him that he will be replaced. In fact, David, who selflessly risked his life on G-d’s behalf against Goliath, is superior to Saul in exactly the three areas that we have outlined.

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.

IT is also the object of the perfect Law to make man reject, despise, and reduce his desires as much as is in his power. He should only give way to them when absolutely necessary. It is well known that it is intemperance in eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse that people mostly rave and indulge in; and these very things counteract the ulterior perfection of man, impede at the same time the development of his first perfection, and generally disturb the social order of the country and the economy of the family. For by following entirely the guidance of lust, in the manner of fools, man loses his intellectual energy, injures his body, and perishes before his natural time; sighs and cares multiply; there is an increase of envy, hatred, and warfare for the purpose of taking what another possesses. The cause of all this is the circumstance that the ignorant considers physical enjoyment as an object to be sought for its own sake. God in His wisdom has therefore given us such commandments as would counteract that object, and prevent us altogether from directing our attention to it, and has debarred us from everything that leads only to excessive desire and lust. This is an important thing included in the objects of our Law. See how the Law commanded to slay a person from whose conduct it is evident that he will go too far in seeking the enjoyment of eating and drinking. I mean “the rebellious and stubborn son”; he is described as “a glutton and a drunkard” (Deut. 21:20). The Law commands to stone him and to remove him from society lest he grow up in this character, and kill many, and injure the condition of good men by his great lust.