ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף קהלת 2:13

Man's actions can be the result of three distinct causes. They can be the result of free choice made intellectually; they can be the result of man liking the activity he performs, or they can be the result of the immediate benefit he expects to derive fom his action. A further cause prompting man to act, is an inner urge, which does not bother to rationalise the purpose and sense of one's actions, as long as the action serves to gratify the urge that has prompted it. When a sailor, whose ship is about to founder, throws the cargo overboard in order to lighten the weight of the ship, and in order to avoid sinking the whole ship, he acts from a choice made intellectually, despite the fact that he resents either of the two options that had been open to him. This is similar to the halachic dilemma faced by people who need to violate a commandment in order to survive. Some such decisions must be based on the principle of yehareg ve-al ya-avor, rather be killed than become guilty of that violation; others will be based on the principle ya-avor ve-al yehareg, better to sin and survive than forego the chance of performing other mitzvot through having permitted himself to be killed. These options are discussed in Sanhedrin 76. If Isaac loved Esau because the latter would bring him venison, then an activity which would result in Isaac receiving such venison can be said to have originated in a feeling of love. Such an activity involves more of one's desire plus planning, than the one described previously. When a person is in the grip of lust or similar emotion however, he becomes so irrational that he will pay any price to satisfy his lust or greed. Chamor and Shechem are examples of people who made unreasonable concessions on behalf of their townspeople in order to satisfy the lust to possess Dinah, Jacob's daughter. (Genesis 34,11-19) In order to better comprehend the last example, picture a driver, a carriage and horses. Although the driver is in charge of the carriage, should the horses become unmanageable, the carriage will be drawn in the direction the horses want, and the driver will be powerless to prevent this, as long as carriage and horses are coupled together. In this parable, the horse represents the will, the lust, the urge; the carriage represents the person; the driver represents the choice made intellectually, the ability to discriminate, the gift man has been equipped with. The relationship of G'd to Zion is not based only on bechirah, choice between relative evils, but as the Psalmist 132, 13, terms it "for G'd has chosen Zion because He wanted it as His residence." The choice of the Jewish people as the chosen people, was dictated by intellectual considerations, but it was re-inforced by the Divine equivalent of ta-avah, an almost overpowering urge. This is underlined in the verse that follows "This is My rest forever, here I will dwell for I have desired it." In Deut. 10,15, Moses describes it as follows: "G'd took a strong liking to your forefathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, more than all other nations, as of this day." This shows that the love sprang from a strong liking G'd had developed towards them, based on their conduct. However, the love for the descendants is due to His choosing them (bachar) in comparison with other nations who were on a lower level, morally. That this is so, is confirmed in Song of Songs, where we read that Israel is "like a lily among thorns, so is My partner among the daughters." (Song of Songs 2,2) The terms chashak, love, choice, are used in descending order of preference. The first one is natural, unreasoning; the second one is deliberate, planned, but based on sound reason for the attraction. The third one is something forced upon one, in which one makes the best of a given situation. Of the many expressions of G'ds love for the Jewish people which are recorded in the Torah, some stem from relatively mild forms of love. None express a stronger bond of love than the setting aside of the mo-adim, the holydays that enable us to commune with G'd, and be in the presence of the shechinah, like children in the company of their father in joy and happiness.

In order to make use of one's eyesight, light is indispensable. Even possession of perfect eyesight is useless, since one is unable to translate one's potential into the actual, unless the objects to be seen are bathed in light. None of our other senses requires external phenomena to enable them to function. One can smell in the dark, touch in the dark, etc. Because the sense of vision requires light in order to function, light is also called "wisdom," seeing that wisdom is also an external agent assisting all our senses to improve the quality of their respective perceptions. G-d the great "Seer" is different inasmuch as He does not require light to enable Him to see and perceive all that exists. Whereas photography cannot function when outside light penetrates the viewer, the Almighty, the seat of light who is surrounded by light, is not handicapped by that fact. Daniel 2,22 says, "He knows what is in darkness, though surrounded by light." Isaiah 60,1-2 says, "Though the earth will be surrounded and covered by darkness, the Lord will light you up. His glory will be visisble to you." This "glory" will not be visible to other nations. The fact that the account of the story of Creation commences with the creation of light, illustrates the point that in order to build successfully, one must be able to see what one is doing. Though night is no darker than daylight for the Almighty, the point was to describe the inescapable need for daylight for man to be able to live on earth successfully. For this reason, we read at the end of the story of creation, "G-d saw all that He had made and it was very good" (Genesis 1,31). Until He had viewed it, it could not have been described as "very good." Solomon also describes the relationship of light to darkness as like the relationship of wisdom to foolishness, explaining that the fool, though he sees, walks in darkness, whereas the wise, even though blind, carries the source of light in his head (Kohelet 2,13-14). Since Torah more than anything else has been designed to provide wisdom, the verse "for each mitzvah is like a candle, but Torah is light itself" (Proverbs 6,23) is self-explanatory. When Moses says to Yitro "You will become our eyes" (Numbers 10,31), he had this kind of vision in mind, i.e. one which provides spiritual light, wisdom. The fact that the members of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin are called "the eyes of the community" (Horiot 5) is to be understood in the same vein. Basing ourselves on this comparison between eyesight and wisdom, the Torah's statement that Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream was "good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants" is clear. It means that people who had up to now walked in darkness, suddenly were greatly enlightened (Genesis 41,37). In the final analysis, providing spiritual enlightenment to those walking in spiritual darkness is what the interpretation of dreams is all about. The ability to relate apparently unconnected phenomena to one another, is what foretelling of the future amounts to. When Joseph had said to Pharaoh's ministers who were in jail with him, "Ks not the interpretation of dreams G-d’s business?" (Genesis 40,8), or when he said to Pharaoh, "May the Lord put Pharaoh's mind at ease" (41,17), this underscores that only someone possessed of qualities especially conferred upon him by G-d could succeed in interpreting dreams. Our sages in Berachot 25 appear to contradict this theory when they state that "All dreams follow the mouth." At first glance this seems to mean that the interpreter of a dream determines its meaning and significance although logic dictates otherwise. When the Torah says that Joseph explained each man's dream according to its dreamer, surely this means that each dream allowed for only one explanation. How then can our sages allow latitude to the interpreter to impose his own meaning? Strangely enough the Talmud reports two identical dreams that permitted widely divergent interpretations. Still stranger is the statement of Rabbi Neriyah (Berachot 56) that the twenty-four interpreters in Jerusalem offered twenty-four different interpretations for the same dream, all of which turned out to be true.

(1) "It happened when Isaac had become old, and his eyesight weakened from seeing," describes a process not only related to physical eyesight. Achievement of a person's maximal spiritual power is closely related to his physical state, and the proper functioning of all his senses. Of all senses, eyesight is so important that the Bible frequently equates the ability to know and comprehend with the ability to see (I saw them in my heart,” Kohelet 2; "Man cannot see Me, " Exodus 33; “I saw the Lord," Isaiah 6). In a lesser degree we find this applied to the sense of hearing, i.e. "Hear O Israel" (Deut 6). In a still lesser degree the sense of smell serves as a medium for comprehension and perceptions of the mind. "From afar he can smell war." (Job 39,25) "He lets him smell the fear of the Lord." (Isaiah 11) The foregoing leads our sages to state in Sanhedrin 93 that there is substance to smell (though it is not tangible). The sense of taste is ranked still lower among the list of our senses (see commentary on the tree of knowledge in Chapters Seven and Nine), but even it can confer on people perceptions of the true state of affairs. At the lowest rung of the ladder of our senses, re their usefulness as a means of perception, is the sense of touch. The knowledge conveyed by it, is the most unreliable of all our five senses. For that reason, we find that he who relies on it is considered a fool, "You will be groping in the dark at noon as the blind gropes in the dark" (Deut 28,29). Even Aristotle points out that reliance on one's senses cannot be considered sinful except reliance on one's sense of touch. When man's sense of sight functions at optimal efficiency, it hardly ever deceives him, even while his other senses do not function at their respective best. G-d presumably withdrew good eyesight from Isaac at this time to enable him to make the error necessary to prevent Esau from receiving this blessing. The story illustrates the length to which Isaac went to compensate for his failing eyesight by employing all his other senses. Jacob, on the other hand, made every effort to neutralize the powers of perception of these senses of Isaac. Despite Isaac's failing eyesight, he was not altogether blind to Esau's behavior and his unworthiness of the blessing that he as the elder brother should be the recipient of. Therefore, Isaac instructed Esau to perform a mitzvah as a result of which he would qualify for the blessings Isaac had in mind. The reason Isaac lists several activities related to hunting, is to make the performance of each activity the fulfilment of a separate mitzvah of "honor your father." Even the hunted animal itself will be considered like a sacrifice, seeing it had been killed as an act of obedience to a father's command. The reason Isaac added, "so that my soul can bless you," was to explain that only this would give him the right to bestow his blessing on Esau. (2) The addition of the words "before I die," was to let Esau know that unlike Isaac himself who had received the blessing of Abraham by G-d after the death of his father, Esau would not receive it unless it was given to him by his father. For that reason, Isaac did not add the words "before G-d" when he offered the blessing. After all, Esau would receive the blessing only by reason of the power to bless which had been bestowed on his father Isaac, not because he had inherent merit entitling him to the blessing. That, too, is the reason he introduced the blessing with the words, "May the Lord grant you." Isaac knew full well that, so far, he did not have heaven's approval for what he was about to do. When Jacob appeared on the scene, and Isaac smelled him, he could not understand that the odor seemed to be the one associated with people blessed by G-d. (4) The exclamation "Behold the odor of my son" must be understood as an expression of wonderment. This then prompted the "May the Lord grant you" as a prayer which Isaac hoped would lead to a confirmation of his assessment of the situation. Because he had felt uncomfortable about what he was going to do, he had not confided in either Rebecca or Jacob; he was not aware that he had been overheard. The mention of delicacies "which I have loved" is in fact a reference to his son Esau "whom I have loved." The fact that Rebecca "overheard" as distinct from "heard" must be mentioned. Had Isaac thought that she had "heard" him, he would never have given Jacob the benefit of the doubt, since he would have concluded that Rebecca had conspired with Jacob in the duplicity. The Torah stating that "Esau went into the field to hunt," is to alert the reader to Esau's total insensitivity to all the considerations which had motivated Isaac. Else, the Torah would have merely written "he did so," to indicate that Esau had tuned in to his father's wavelength. When Rebecca told Jacob what she had overheard, she was at pains not to let Jacob know that the blessing would be contingent on the one who would bring the food, otherwise Jacob would have considered the whole charade as completely futile. When she added that Isaac had said "I will bless before the Lord," she implied that the blessing was connected to the recipient's merit. Thus she encouraged Jacob to feel that his lifestyle up to that point gave him an advantage in his efforts to obtain the blessing. (3) Though aware that his voice was different from that of his brother, Jacob thought that he could imitate it sufficiently well to pass his father's inspection. However, he was far from certain that he could escape detection if the touch test would be applied. Isaac's sense of taste was neutralized by the food being prepared in the manner he was known to like. The goatskins neutralized his sense of touch.