3. Ya’aqov and Esav’s Youth and the buying of the Seniority from
Esav.
4. Yitzhaq’s Avoidance of Going Down to Egypt
5. Yitzhak and Rivqah’s Adventures of in the Land of the Philistines
6. Digging Wells, Conflict and Reconciliation with the Philistines,
and (re)building Be’er Sheva.
8. Esav’s First Wives, Yehudit and Bosmat.
9. Ya’aqov’s masquerading for Esav and
receiving the Blessing
10. Ya’aqov Leaving and Esav’s marriage
with Mahalat, Yishma’el’s Daughter
11. The Exiles of Ya’aqov and Esav –
The Edomite and Ishmaelite Exiles.
12. Ya’aqov, Esav and the 3rd Temple
– Jewish-Christian (& Moslem) Cooperation.
1.
Parashat Toldot as a new Cycle of Genesis
The whole book
of Genesis, parashah after parashah, repeats the Acts of creation
(Ma’asei Bereshit): the molding of Man, the Garden of Eden, and the Tree
of Life. Such themes also recur in all the ancient cultures[1].
Parashat Toldot starts a new cycle of Genesis: not the start of all
of humankind, but the beginning of an idea of restitution-Tikkun,
which is realized through one ethnic branch from the whole of humankind, upon
whom would be put the burden of the restitution of the world – Tikkun
Olam – and through which would come blessings to the world.
The full
course of the book of Genesis-Bereshit has twelve parashot.
The first cycle – the Atzilut cycle (of the first creation story)
and the Beri’ah cycle (from the formation of Adam until the death
of Abraham) was of five parashot, whereas the next cycle – which has
seven parashot – is the cycle of Yetsirah and of assi’yah,
which are symbolized through the figures of Jacob-Ya’aqov and of Esau-Esav,
the story of whose birth and youthful relationship are brought in this parashah.
The Bereshit-cycle
– the cycle of the formation of Adam-humankind – starts with the words “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created, in the day that the Lord (YHWH) God (Elohim)
made the earth and the heavens” (Gen. 2:4). We have brought there the midrash; ‘be’hibar’am – be’abraham”
(and may note here the reversal of the order – first ‘heavens and earth…
created’, and then “made the earth and the heavens’). This finds its parallel
in parashat toldot, which starts with “And
these are the generations of Yitzhaq-Isaac, Abraham's son;
Abraham fathered Yitzhaq” (Gen. 25:19).
On the face of
it, there is a repetition here, even if it comes in reversed order (first Yitzhaq
is the subject, and immediately after that – Abraham). Interpretations of
Kabbalah and Hassidut treat this sentence intensively. The gist
of it there is, that the forefathers stand as two different beginnings, like to
legs of a ladder, and each leg stands by its own, and is essential for erecting
the ladder. But Rashi’s exegesis brings an interesting: “that the clowns of
that generation were saying that Sarah became pregnant from Avimelekh”, and
therefore there was a need for a miracle, that Yitzhaq looked
exactly like Abraham and everyone could see that it was Abraham who begot Yitzhaq.
This is an interesting clue that comes as an introduction to the account of the
wanderings of Yitzhaq to the Philistine city of Gerar,
where he would repeat his father’s mistake, and would again present his wife as
his sister. The relations between the children of abraham, Yitzhaq
and Ya’aqov on one hand and the philistines-Palestinians on the other
hand, are, needless to say, still problematic to this very day.
If we return
to the image that “The Fathers are the Merkavah”[2],
and recall that the navigation components of the Merkavah were
supplied by Abraham, who was wandering and searching the center-point, we may
view Yitzhaq as the one who added the propulsion
elements to that Merkavah. The Merkavah is a
shuttle for transferring humankind from a beastly state to a divine state; it
is the cultural-genetic complex that would determine the family relationships
among the twelve brothers of the future Israel. From the perspective we
introduced – that the Book of Genesis is meant to be understood only in our
generation, Yitzhaq has a great significance: the middle
generation of the State of Israel, the one also called “the Generation of
1948”, the one that governed the state until recently, was called, also by
itself “The Yitzhaq Generation”. Many of the leaders of
that generation, who had a fateful influence on the development of the State of
Israel, were called Yitzhak. It is enough to recall the
two prime ministers who held office in succession, Yitzhak Shamir and
Yitzhak Rabin.
The Sages had
stipulated about the fathers at the time of redemption: “though Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel does not
acknowledge us” (Isaiah 63:16),
and only about Yitzhaq it would be said “you
are our father” (Talmud Bavli, tractate Shabat 89b). The next national task is the formation of the
twelve tribes, and in this, we shall deal in the next parashot.
“And Yitzhaq-Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife,
because she was barren; and the Lord granted his prayer”. In the
original Hebrew text, he entreated lenokhah Ishto – in
front of, or facing, his wife. Rashi, who lived in a culture of separate prayer
for men and for women, explained: “he was standing praying in one corner and
she was standing at the other corner praying”, that is, separate prayer. We
deem this means that they stood facing each other (much like the two cherubs
atop the Ark of covenant at the Tabernacle) and prayed for the Divine presence,
the Shekhinah to come between them (a man (Ish) and
a woman (Ishah) who merited, the Shekhinah is
between them; if they did not merit, fire (Esh) consumes them” (Bavli,
tractate Sota 17a). once again, birth in the
family of Abraham is not a simple and natural matter that comes unconsciously,
but demands the strife of the fathers and the blessing of God.
The rivalry
between the two brothers and their struggle for attaining the seniority rights
and the blessing of their father is the main motif of the parashah. This
is a next round in the struggle between the brothers, which started with Qayin-Cain
and Hevel-Abel, continued between Noah’s sons and returned to
Abraham’s story, with Yishma’el-Ishmael and Yitzhaq-Isaac. But
with the children of Abraham, the struggles become more focused, and the entail
matters of inheritance. It is easy to understand the background, when we deal
with Yitzhaq and Yishma’el, sons to two different mothers,
one the lady and one a bondwoman, where it was the firstborn, with many years
seniority, the natural heir, was the son of the bondwoman, for whom his rival’s
mother made clear her intentions against him: “the
son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, with Yitzhaq”
(Gen. 21:10).
But Esau and
Jacob-Ya’aqov were twin brothers, sons of one woman, with a difference of
age of but a few minutes, the one born holding the heal of his brother. Yet the
importance of the seniority and certain genetic differences (reddish and hairy
versus smooth), were enough to fix one as the “eldest/big” (gadol) and
the other as “younger/small” (katan), and the struggle between them as
the struggle between the big and the small. The distinctions between them grow
to become big differences, which are eventually perceived as opposites – but
are also perceivable as complementary.
The Bible, characteristically,
does not seek to beautify its heroes. In the Biblical story, Ya’aqov-Jacob
is the little intriguer, who gains his blessing by cheating. But in order to
appreciate the changing interpretations of the Torah in the course of the
generations, we need to observe how these figures were perceived over the
years: in the books of the prophets it is already the figure of Esau who is
considered the more negative of the two. This is excelled by the prophet
`Ovadiah, that the one chapter of his book deals with a prophecy of doom
towards Edom – that is, Esau. He calls Edom “small
and despised” (Ovadiah 1:2).
In the course
of the generations, the figure of Esau gathered demonization among the Jews,
becoming identified with the wicked Roman Empire, and eventually with the whole
Christian world. Medieval commentators who lived in exile among the Christians,
especially those who experienced the persecutions of the Crusades, went out of
their way to defame Esav-Esau, whom they perceived as the father and spiritual
leader of their Christian neighbors. Rashi, the most accepted and known
traditional commentator – is an example to this mode of perception. He is
greatly responsible to the figure of Esav, as Judaism perceives him to
this day. Rashi does not refrain from slander: “behold,
there were twins in her womb” the Hebrew word te’omim is
there spelled only as tomim, without the letter Aleph, “whereas
in the case of Tamar (having twins, Gen. 38:27), it is spelled fully (te’omim), because they were both
righteous, but here one is righteous and one wicked”. “And
the first came out red – a sign that he would become a spiller of
blood”. “A cunning hunter – to hunt and
cheat his father”. “And Esav came from the field
and he was faint – from so much murdering”. In other words, Rashi
actually turns the tables around. The Bible shows Ya’aqov as a cheat and
fake, and Esav as his father’s beloved son and the cheated one.
In the
following, we shall see additional interpretations, which ostensibly point at
seclusion and opposition, but in essence, they also hint at a potential for
greater complementarity. Rashi also interprets “Two
nations – Goyim – in thy womb” (25:23), which is spelled there irregularly as Geyim)
“Geyim like Ge’im (proud), which are Antoninus and
Rabbi”. This is a most interesting comparison, of the continuum of opposites
that are actually complementary, because Antoninus was the Emperor of Rome, and
Rabbi was Rabbi Yehudah ha’Nassi, and it is the tradition of the sages
that the two were close friends, and that the Roman Emperor frequently
consulted the Jewish sage and asked him about the Torah. The Midrash source for
that comparison is even more far-reaching: the Mesoratic text, as noted, writes
not “two Goyim in thy womb” but “two Geyim in thy
womb” and the sages claimed that Geyim=Ge’im (proud). The two
brothers, and the nations Judea and Rome, are proud. Even though the proud are
likely to enter into conflict, in this Midrash they are congenial to each
other: “this one proud of his kingdom, and that one proud of his kingdom – “two
Ge’ey Goyim – proud nations – in thy womb” – Adrianus-Hadrian
among the nations and Shlomoh-Solomon in Israel” (Bereshit Raba
63, 7).
What is so
interesting in this special comparison is that the two “proud brothers” were
the two great Temple builders – King Solomon and Emperor Hadrian. It was
Hadrian who built the temples of Jupiter and his wives over the ruins of the
Jewish Second Temple, in the city of Ilya Capitolina built over the ruins of
Jerusalem, and in this saying of the sages, this Temple of Jupiter is seen as
equal in status to the Temple of Solomon, the First Temple!
When the two
were born, the first one emerged “red, all over
like a hairy garment; and they called his name `Esav” (25:25). Rashi explains that Esav came out Asuy
– made up, ready and prepared. In any case, his name harks to the root of E.S.H.
– making – and indeed, in the following we learn that Esav excels
in the doing – Assiyah – of his hands, whereas Ya’aqov-Jacob’s
strength is in his mouth. Esav’s orientation is extrovert, to the surface of
things, and thus his growth is expressed externally, and he grows outwards –
through his outer hairs, which pierce to the space around him. Ya’aqov-Jacob,
on the other hand, seems to prefer to grow inwards, through his “interior
hairs”, namely his brain neurons, and develop ever more complex and intertwined
connections in his brain. When the dramatic moment of the blessing arrived, Yitzhak
identified the complementarity between his seemingly-opposite sons: “The voice
is Ya’aqov’s voice, and the hands are the hands of `Esav” (27:22), and this forms a hidden blessing for the union of
the abilities in the far future.
The inborn
distinction between the twin brothers is that the hairy – Sa’ir –
Esav would inherit “Mount Se’ir”, whereas the smooth – halaq
– Ya’aqov would inherit “apportioned inheritance” – heleq
ve’Nahalah (31:14; Deut. 10:9, 12:12), and as is written “For
the Lord's portion – Heleq - is
his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance” (Deut. 32:14). Ya’aqov is “a smooth character”, like the
snack that sheds his skin. Only that in his case, in his move of masquerading,
he does not shed but puts on a skin and a hairy garment. It is possible to see
a parallel between Ya’aqov and the cunning serpent of parashat
Bereshit. Ya’aqov is destined to become “Yisra’el” as
a redemptive-messianic entity, one name for which in the Kabbalah is “Nahash-Serpent
of holiness” (and recalling that the gematria of NaHaSh
equals that of MaShI’aH-Messiah).
The ARI’zl
explains Ya’aqov’s being smooth-Halaq in a different way:
“because he was divided-nehelaq to two parts: until the
chest – Le’ah, and from the chest down – Rahel-Rachel” (Hayim
Vital, Liqute Torah for Toldot). Le’ah - who was hidden from him – represents the hidden
world – Olam ha’Nistar – which is identified in the Kabbalah with
the higher Sefirot (from the chest up in the anthropomorphic
configuration of the Sefirot) and especially the Sefirah Binah,
from which are “born” six other Sefirot (that parallel the six sons that
Le’ah bore). Rachel – on the other hand – who was exposed to the eyes of Ya’aqov,
who thus fell in love with her, is likened to the lower, more manifest, Sefirot
and especially the Sefirah Malkhut, which has nothing of her own
and nothing is thus born or issues from her. So, the birth of her sons is a
miracle that does not come naturally.
There is an
interesting parallel between the standing of our Father Ya’aqov and of
the King Shelomoh-Solomon. Solomon was not the firstborn son of King David,
and he did not seem at first likely to inherit the kingdom. His father David,
recalled as being “red haired – Admoni
– with beautiful eyes” (I Samuel 16:12), especially loved his handsome son Avshalom-Abshalom who
had long hair locks, which recalls Esav who “came
out red – Admoni – all over like a hairy garment, and they called
his name Esav” (Gen. 25:25).
Even though Avshalom, contrary to his name, was a person of war and came to
declare war on his father to dispossess him of his kingdom, still David loved
him to the bitter end. Shelomoh gained the kingdom only after his mother
schemed and tricked the aging monarch; much like Rebbeca-Rivqah did in
order to bestow the father’s blessing to her beloved son.
During
Solomon-Shelomoh’s reign and the building of the First Temple by him,
Edom was subjugated to Israel. It is possible to surmise that Shelomoh’s grand
political plan was to assimilate all the nations of his kingdom into one
people. With regard to relation of Ya’aqov-Israel to Edom, there was fulfilled
the blessing that Yitzhak gave to Ya’aqov: “Let people serve you, and
nations bow down to you; be lord over your brothers, and let your mother's sons
bow down to you” (Gen. 27:29). But the
intentions of King Solomon have not been fulfilled, and his kingdom did not
endure. It was divided after him into two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel “”the
Ten Tribes”) and the Kingdom of Judah (with Benjamin and Shim’on and an
admixture of Levites), and eventually “Edom
revolted from under the hand of Judah, and set up a king over themselves”
(II Kings 8:20). With this the
blessing/prophecy of Ya’aqov to Esav “And by your
sword shall you live, and shall serve your brother; and it shall come to pass
when you shall have the dominion, that you shall break his yoke from off your
neck” (Gen. 27:40).
3. Ya’aqov and Esav’s Youth and the buying of the Seniority from Esav.
When the
brothers grew, their relations became structured, and their differences became
apparent. Esav became “a cunning hunter, a man of the field”, and Ya’aqov-Jacob
“a plain man, dwelling in tents” (Gen. 25:27). The differences between them echo the differences between Yitzhaq
and Rivqah and lead to the differential preferences of the parents.
The roots of
the distinction between “The Field” and “The Tent” derive from the earlier
cycle, the Cycle of Bei’ah. Yitzhaq met Rivqah, who fell
in love with him when he went out to stroll (or meditate) in the field, and he
brought her then “brought her into his mother
Sarah’s tent” (24:67). He - like his
favorite son - was a man of the field; she - like her favorite son – was a tent
dweller. Only after they revealed to each other their true character – Yitzhaq
“took Rivqah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; and Yitzhaq was
comforted after his mother’s death”. Yitzhaq loved Esav, the ma of the
field, the “man of the field”.. “for he relished
his venison”; but the field is not only where the hunt is available, not
necessarily only the place of falling in love out of the bounds of the
settlement “Come my beloved, let us go forth into the field..” (Canticles
7:13) – but also the place of the confrontation:
“and it came to pass, when they were in the field,
that Qayin rose up against Hevel his brother, and slew him” (Gen.
4:8).
The Midrash,
which is hostile to Esav, explains the expression “a cunning hunter” (Ish
yode’a Tsayid) in that Esav “used to hunt people”, and especially his
father, with “smooth words”. According to these Midrashim, also Esav masqueraded
as a plain man, to his brother. The motif of masquerading is thus, according to
these Midrashim, mutual. The two twin, yet different, brothers, each
requires the figure of the other, and their identity tends to alternate, as we
shall see in the sequel. Each one of the two brothers is likely – Assuy
– to appear as the other: Ya’aqov as Esav, but also
Esav as Ya’aqov.
The struggling
together (25:22) between the twins
brother is a symbol for the struggling between the religions. Christianity,
which the Judaism identifies with Esav, first abandoned the
practical commands – mitzvoth ma’asiyot (a word association with Esav)
– and concentrated, ostensibly, only on “spirituality”. Judaism, on the other
hand, was regarded as the practical and materialistic religion. In the sequel
we shall also review the changing roles between the older and younger religion.
The Bible does
not dwell on the type of relationship between the brothers, until there came
the day that Ya’aqov prepared a pottage in the tent camp and Esav
came from the field to the camp and he was faint. So tired was he, that he
thought that he was at the point of death (25:32). Ya’aqov took advantage of Eav’s weakness, and suddenly
revealed something of his feelings: something was troubling him; he envied
Esav’s firstborn status. So when Esav and asked some of the pottage, Ya’aqov
took advantage of his poor state to extract promises. He sold the pottage
for Esav’s swearing to give up his birthright to Ya’aqov. “And Ya’aqov gave Esav bread and pottage of
lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way; thus Esau
despised his birthright” (25:34).
What was that
birthright, that was so important for Ya’aqov, and which Esav
despised? Or perhaps he did not despise it? For when he came to his father to receive
the blessing that was already taken from him, Esav did mention Ya’aqov’s
misdeed: “Is not he rightly named Ya’aqov?
for he has supplanted me - vaYa’aqveni - these two times; he took away my
birthright; and, behold, now he has taken away my blessing” (Gen.
27:36). Rashi emphasizes in his commentary that
the struggle was not over inheritance of land and estate, but the inheritance
of the priesthood, of conducting ritual sacrifices, the inheritance that
Abraham received from Malkitsedek. In this, the struggle between Ya’aqov
and Esav repeats exactly the struggle between Qayin-Cain and Hevel-Abel.
According to this commentary, only when it became evident that the blessing of
the father to his firstborn son is a blessing for tangible material things, and
the birthright includes also “be lord over your
brothers, and let your mother's sons bow down to you” then did Esav
regret the transaction he made years before. Because the blessing of priesthood
– the blessing of Malkitsedek to Abram: “Blessed be
Abram of the Most High God” must have been intended, and also fitted,
for the tent dweller. But the material blessing, as Esav sensed
rightfully, was aimed for the man of action.
Ya’aqov-Jacob, the tender man of the tents, was required to
do his own restitution-Tikkun and realize the material through hard work
at the field, which he “gained” only at Laban’s household: “Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the
frost by night; and my sleep departed from my eyes. Thus have I been twenty
years in thy house” (31:40-41). Only after
that did Ya’aqov become able to fight and contend “with God and men” and
to receive the name of “Yisra’el” that for whom the blessings
were intended.
Yitzhaq loved Esav who fed him with venison. The
hunter, the man of the field, is more rigorous than the simple son who dwells
in tents. Yitzhaq, who according to what we saw at parashat va’Yera
was capable of perceiving and envisioning the future, knew how much
rigor will his sons require in order to survive, and of his two sons, it was
really Esav who had of the qualities of rigor and resolve. It is
possible thus that Yitzhaq also envisioned the struggles between
the twins, in their embodiments as Judaism and Christianity, and how they
continue in fact up to our present day.
4. Yitzhaq’s
Avoidance of Going Down to Egypt
The descent of
Yitzhaq to Gerar resembles so much the deeds of his father that it seems
like a literary repetition or, at least, some trailing behind and compulsive repetition of the father’s follies. Yet there
are important differences between the two stories: When there was again a
famine in the land – recalling the famine during Abraham’s days – Yitzhak
apparently intended to “descend” to Egypt, just as his father did before him.
But the Lord-YHWH appeared to him, and commanded him “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I
shall tell you; Sojourn – gur
-in this land” (26:2-3). In this way did
the Land of Kena’an-Canaan – for Ya’aqov – to “the land in which his father had sojourned – Eretz megure
Aviv” (37:1), a place to
dwell – gur – in, even in days of danger – magor –
and fear.
Yet in a
certain manner, also Yitzhak lived in exile, even though he dwelled in
the Land of Israel. The count of the four hundred years, about which Abraham
was told “Know surely that thy seed shall be a
stranger - Ger - in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve
them; and they shall afflict them four hundred year” (Genesis
15:13) continued from the time these words were
uttered, at the covenant, namely: before Yitzhak was born, and that is
why Yitzhaq had to experience the life of the sojourner - Ger
– who dwells - gar - in the land. That is perhaps the reason that
the name of the place that he arrived to – as well as the trial he was facing –
Gerar. On the other hand, he was saved the contention with the
kingdom of Egypt. Only the selling of Joseph by his brothers would bring the
exile into full realization. It seems as if there was a need for some crime
that needed atonement, in order for the prophesied exile would be fully
realized. What is clear is that the total prohibition put on Yitzhaq, to
conduct his life only in the land, was not made over his sons. On the contrary,
the two parents would encourage Ya’aqov-Jacob to leave the Land of Kena’an
for a “root journey” in Haran.
5. Yitzhak
and Rivqah’s Adventures of in the Land of the Philistines
Let us return then to
the differences between the journey of Abraham to Gerar (and to Egypt) and Yitzhaq’s
journey.
Yitzhak
experienced it once, and not twice. 2) Rivqah was already a mother saddled with
twins when she went to the Land of the Philistines (and it is harder to hide
the motherhood than to hide the marriage). 3) A difference that was apparently
very meaningful is given in the sentence “that
Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out a window, and saw, and, behold,
Isaac-Yitzhak was sporting - metzaheq
-with Rebekah-Rivqah his wife” (26:8). This was
not just making love, but sporting in it, doing that special action of Yitzhaq,
which gives him his true name.
In Gerar,
in the Land of the Philistines, Yitzhaq was hiding again,
just as his father had done, his wife’s identity and presenting her as his
sister. But this time, the story is more tenderized – me’udan.
The woman was not taken into the king’s house (or harem), but otherwise: it
seems as if Abimelekh King of the Plishtim (Philistines -
Palestinians), whether this was the very king who got already burnt by his
affair with Abraham and Sarah or this was his successor, must have already
known the dire affair, which almost decimated a Gerarian royal house, and he
acted as a man of experience. He did peep into his guests’ boudoir, but did not
initiate anything. Even when he invited Yitzhak for a reprimand, he did not even raise a possibility that he – the
King - would have desired Rivqah, but “one of the people” - any Philistine.
The outcome: It was in the very land that he went down to in the
time of hunger, that Yitzhaq enjoyed a mighty economic
bounty: “Then Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped
in the same year an hundredfold; and the Lord blessed him. And the man grew great, and went forward
and grew, until he became very great” (Gen
26:12-13).
This
productivity is, in fact, a recurring motive: after the return of the Wife to
her husband’s bosom – then comes a spell of immense fertility. Yishma’el was
born after Abraham’s visit to Egypt, Sarah conceived after the visit to
Avimelekh, whereas Yitzhaq became after his visit to Gerar “And the man grew great, and went forward and grew, until
he became very great. For he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and
great store of servants; and the Philistines envied him”
“And Avimelech said to Yitzhaq, Go from us; for you
are mightier than we” (26:16).
This is an ecological edict, which is typical of the wandering life of the
shepherds, to separate when the land could no longer carry them all. When this
happened to Abraham, he separated from his brother Lot, but gave the latter the
choice to find a preferred place. Abimelekh, on the other hand, sent to find a
preferred place. Abimelekh, on the other hand, sent Yitzhaq out to a
marginal place, the Gerar River basin. But also there there abounded the
struggles between the shepherds over the wells.
This was, in
fact, the start of the struggle over this Land, between the Philistines (or
Palestinians) and the Father of Israel, a struggle that persisted to our very
days and is eschalating now. The contending sides have been interchanged
several times in the course of history, just as the twins, Esav-Esau and
Ya’aqov-Jacob. The two stories get interlaced in this saga, into the entire
Philastin-Israeli Complex, and nowadays also of the relationship of
Islam-Isma’il and Judaism-Yitzhaq, and of the relationship of Christianity-Esau
versus Judaism-Israel.
6.
Digging Wells, Conflict and Reconciliation with the Philistines, and (re)building Be’er Sheva.
It was here
that Yitzhak discovered his basic and deep nature, as a “Well Digger”. One who
has the ability to draw through them water from the depth of the Earth. Abraham
also digged wells, but Abraham’s well did not endure. Abraham, who was born at
the land of the Great Rivers, trusted not the blessings of heaven, and went
down to Egypt during the draught, Egypt that also survives off a river. Yitzhaq
was a part of the local culture. He understood the character of the land. His
wells survived. Yitzhaq returned and restored his father’s wells, in thereby
renewed the connection to the earth. He also dug up anew Be’er Sheva – “The
Well of Seven” – and retuned to her her former name.
The Be’er
Sheva Episodes of Abraham and of his son Yitzhak are so similar, that it is
hard to avoid the feeling, that there must have occurred a scribe’s mistake:
Abimelekh and Pikol the captain of his host came to Abraham, and Abimelekh and
Pikol the captain of his host came to Yitzhaq. The excuse for the visit of the
1st Abimelekh (of Abraham’s time) is “God is with
thee in all that thou doest” (21:22).
The excuse for the visit of the 2nd Abimelekh (to Yitzhaq’s) was: “We saw indeed that the Lord-YHWH was with thee” (26:28). In the two cases the host reproved Abimelekh.
Abraham: “reproved Abimelekh because of the well of water, which Abimelekh’s
servants had violently taken away” (21:25).
Yitzhaq: “Why do you come to me, seeing you hate
me, and have sent me away from you?” (26:27). Yet there are essential differences between the two
visits: When Abimelekh came to Abraham, he immediately revealed his intention
to draw a covenant. Abraham agreed to the covenant, and only after it he reproved
Abimelekh. Yitzhaq was the one to start the exchange, he was attacking
his guest, and almost drove him away: “Why did you come… ?”. Only then did
Abimelekh offer his covenant. Abraham’s anger was focused on a localized
action, the blocking of the wells; whereas Yitzhaq, the one who had been
sent away, saw no reason for a connection with the king. Whereas Abimelekh came
to Abraham at Be’er Sheva when the well was already dug, and all the ritual of
oath was held over it, including the seven ewe lambs that Abraham gave as
witness; Yitzhaq received the news about the finding of water only after
the coming of Abimelekh, albeit “it came to pass the same day”, as if the
finding of water was a consequence of the covenant, an agreement and
confirmation from on high. Abraham called the well Be’er Sheva because of the
aoth – Shevu’ah – and Yitzhak called the well Shiv’ah – seven – because it was
found at Be’er Sheva.
Abraham made a covenant, and swore to be
faithful to Abimelekh and to his progeny, as well as to “the land in which thou hast sojourned” (21:23). Yitzhaq made a direct covenant with Abimelekh
alone: “Let there be now an oath between us,
between us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee” (26:28). That is: Abraham swore for all generations, Yitzhaq
swore for one generation only.
7. Yitzhak’s Wells as
confirmation of the Triune structure of Bereshit and a sign for the Future Temples.
The
relationship of Yitzhak with the Philistines is the key to the question
of the wells. “And Yitzhak dug again the
wells of water, which they had dug in the days of Abraham his father; for the Plishtim
(Philistines) had stopped them up after the death of Abraham; and he called
their names after the names which his father had called them”
(26:18). This is already the second mention of
the wells and their stoppage by the Philistines, and their names are mentioned,
but not given. But then the wells are mentioned for the third time and in
greater detail, and their names are not former names, but new names that
reflect the events associated with them. We learn that the servants of Yitzhaq
dug wells. The first two instigated a struggle between the shepherds of Yitzhaq
and the shepherds of Gerar and Yitzhaq was forced to give them up,
therefore he called them `Eseq (contention) for they hit’asqu (strove)
with him, and Sitnah (hatred, the quality of Satan
– the Adversary). After these two struggles Yitzhaq did not give up, but
“And he removed from there, and dug another well;
and for that they strove not; and he called the name of it Rehovot,
and he said, For now the Lord has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in
the land. And he went up from there to Be’er-Sheva” (26:22-23). At Be’er Sheva the Lord was revealed to Yitzhaq
and there he dug a further well – that was the well where water was found right
after the new covenant he made with the Philistines.
We find here
the characteristic Biblical structure of “three and four” (e.g. Amos
1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6; Proverbs 30:18, 21, 29). The story repeats three times but each time there are details added
and the role of action increases. In the third account three wells are
mentioned, and the third well is a restitution for the former two attempts that
failed – much like that after the first two attempts to construct humankind,
with Adam and with No’ah, there was made a third attempts through
Abraham and his progeny.
In his
commentary to the Book Genesis, the Ramban (Nachmanides, one of the greatest
Torah interpreters an a Mekubal, from the 13th century) draws
parallels between the wells that Yitzhaq dug and the three Temples of
Jerusalem:
“And he called the name of
the well `Eseq” – the text gives a very lengthy account about the wells,
and there is nothing in the literal story that gives benefit and no glory to
Yitzhaq, as he and his father did this equally. But there is a hidden
thing in it, because it came to give a future message, because ‘a well of
living water’ is a hint to the House of God that the children of Yitzhaq
would make, and that is why there was mentioned a well of living water, as is
written “they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain
of living waters” (Jer. 17:13). And the first one was called `Eseq, this is a hint
to the First Temple where they strove with us and made several confrontations
and several wars until they destroyed it. And the second was called Sitnah-hatred,
a more difficult name than the first, and this (parallels) the Second Temple
that was called as it is written, “And in the rein
of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote to him an
accusation – Sitnah – against the inhabitants of Yehudah and
Yerushalayim (Jerusalem)” (Ezra
4:6), and during all its history they
were of hatred – Sitnah – until they destroyed it and there was a
bad exile. And the third was called Rehovot, and this is
the future House that may be built soon in our days, and it will be made
without quarrel and strife, and the Lord will enlarge - yarhiv
- our borders, as it is written “And if the Lord
thy God enlarge - yarhiv - thy border, as He has sworn….”
(Deut. 19:8) which pertains to the future, and it is written about the Third Temple
“And the side chambers were broader as one circled higher and higher” (Ezekiel 41:7),
and we shall multiply in the land, all nations will call upon the name of the
Lord, to serve him with one accord (following
Zephaniah 3:9).
The two first
temples were damaged because of the envy of the nations and their hatred, whereas
the Third Temple, according to the Ramban, is likely to be a desire and a
blessing for all the nations, who would encourage Israel to build it.
The third well
signaled the end of the struggle with “the Philistines”, and when we
contemplate the message enfolded in the Torah with regard to our times and to
the building of the Third Temple in our times, it seems that the possibility of
building the temple would be when there comes reconciliation with the
Philistines-Palestinians of our time.
8.
Esav’s First Wives, Yehudit and Bosmat.
The continuity
of the story is suddenly disturbed, with a little story about Esav and his
wives. Only two short sentences are given, but they contain further hints. The
wives of Esav were from the people of the land (“Am ha’Aretz”),
daughters of the Hittites, “and they were grief of
mind to Yitzhaq and Rivqah” (26:35). This served as added inducement for Jews, through the generations, to
berate Esav and his deeds. Yet the name “Yehudit” (Judith, and literally
“Jewess”), as the name of his first wife, hints that one needs to meditate
further on understanding Esav’s deeds and wives.
We shall
relate to the complex of the meanings of Esav’s wives when we get to the
description of his third wife.
9.
Ya’aqov’s masquerading for Esav and receiving the Blessing
The passage of
Ya’aqov’s impersonating Esav is one of the stranger and of the psychologically
deepest. This is perhaps the Biblical root for the festival of Purim, an
important holiday that is integral to the Jewish holidays cycle, which on the
face of it is not mentioned at all in the Torah.
Psychologically,
it is evident that the impersonator unconsciously covets the qualities of the
person he impersonates, which are lacking for - or suppressed by – himself. It
is not only Yitzhak who preferred Esav to Ya’aqov. Also, Ya’aqov is
envious of his brother and desires to be like him. In the wider cultural
perspective, the characters in the Biblical narrative kind of resurrect and
turn up again and again, and are but different aspects of the Universal Man.
According to this understanding, Ya’aqov is Shem and Esav is Yefet in another
incarnation. The sons of Shem – who is Israel – envy the practical skill - Ma’asy
- of Esav, and in the beauty - Yofi –
of Yefet. Esav is also hairy, and the hair is considered in the
Bible as especially attractive, a motive that would return in the figures of Shimshon-Samson
and of David’s beloved son Avshalom.
The idea of
impersonation did not come from Ya’aqov. The mother, who must have known well
her son’s qualities and shortcomings, is the one who conceived the idea. Rivqah
took upon herself the role of Esav, the practical person, which her favorite
son – the plain man dweller of tents – was not capable of performing. She
planned the deception, took the whole responsibility upon herself, and cooked
the savory food.
Here returns
the motive of food, as condition for temptation, which echoes the story of the
Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Ya’aqov extracted the seniority
birthrights from Esav through the temptation of the lentil pottage; Yitzhaq
was capable of bestowing a blessing on his son only after he would eat the
savory food that he loved. Rivqah promised Ya’aqov to obtain him the father’s
blessing, through her preparing for Yitzhaq the dainty foods that he
loved, and so she did and gave in her son’s hands. When Ya’aqov went to the
fateful meeting with his father in which he could gain the blessing – but also
might receive a terrible curse if the ploy would be discovered – he went there
holding the food and the bread in his hand, like the pilgrim who comes to the
temple and the offerings with him.
Yitzhaq
suspected that something is not right. He wondered how his son returned so soon
from the exhausting hunt. He asked to touch the approaching son. In the
extroverted culture, the sense of sight s the dominant sense, but like other
blind people, the blind Yitzhaq developed the other senses: hearing,
touch and smell. He easily recognized that “the
voice is Ya’aqov’s voice”, and his suspicion increased. He had to feel
by touch. “But the hands are the hands of `Esav”,
yes, but Yitzhaq’s wondering continued. There were two false elements
(too short a time, Ya’aqov’s voice), against the – true – furry feeling of his
body. Yitzhaq needed a further sense examination, and he therefore asked
the son to come and kiss him. Only the smell convinced him, and the smell
became the root of the blessing: “See, the smell of
my son is like the smell of a field which the Lord has blessed” (27:27). Yitzhaq, who had walked in the field, and
fell in love in the field, and loved his son, the man of the field – he drew
near, through the savory food and the smell, to “the field which the Lord has
blessed”, the Garden of Eden (“The Orchard of the Holy Apples” in the language
of the Mekubalim), and from there he could draw the blessings[3].
The blessing
was a twin one: blessing for fertility of the land and a blessing of rulership:
Rule over nations and states and rule over brothers from the womb, like Esav,
and brothers only from a father, like Ishmael and the sons of the bondwomen.
This was the blessing that eventually Yoseph-Joseph would covet,
and with that would get entangled with his brothers; and this was the blessing
that Ya’aqov would give his son Yehudah-Judah. (There is a
difference that must derive from the particularites of the story: Ya’aqov, who
was one of a pair of twins, is blessed: “and let
thy mother’s sons bow down to thee” (27:29); Judah, that six of his brothers were not brothers
from his mother, is blessed: “thy father’s children
shall bow down before thee” (Gen. 48:8).)
The blessing
for fertility and yield of the land is not contested. It is a straight
blessing. But the blessing that gives a rule over brothers, is blessing mixed
with a curse. He who is granted this blessing is simultaneously cursed with the
hatred of the rest of his brothers. Ya’aqov would be contending with the
consequences of this problematic blessing for his whole life, and only on his
deathbed – in his blessing for Judah – would he solve the conflict.
But would Yitzhaq
also suffer because of that blessing? Was Yitzhaq really cheated, or did
he perhaps give his hand to the continuation of the masquerade, as commanded by
his demanding name?
We have
already argued (“What did Yitzhaq laugh about?” in our chapter on
Parashat va’yera) that Yitzhaq,
as he laid bound to the altar on Mount Moriah, was observing the ironic
turnabouts of future history, and thus he must have also been observing his
sons, who are turning into each other. Perhaps he had already forgotten, but
when the swindled Esav came to him, Yitzhaq could understand the irony
of history, and confirmed, post-facto the outcome, saying to Esav about
Ya’aqov: “moreover, he shall be blessed” (27:33).
Yet it is also
possible that the turn-about fitted something deeper in him. Esav was for
Ya’aqov what Yishma’el was for Yitzhaq: a sort of “Alter Ego”. Yitzhaq
might have felt guilt about Yishma’el, who was sent away from his father’s
house and his estate for Yitzhaq’s sake, and this guilt affected his
favoring of Esav. The swindle of Rivqah and Ya’aqov enabled Yitzhaq to
bless Ya’aqov without guilt feelings, where Rivqah was taking the
responsibility of that act upo herself.
10.
Ya’aqov’s Leaving and Esav’s marriage with Yishma’el’s Daughter
In this Parashah,
the conflict and competition among the brothers reaches its summit. Esav was
scheming to kill his brother. The disentangling of this not – even if a partial
– was postponed for the time being, until the return of Ya’aqov to the land, at
Parashat va’Yishlah.
At that
juncture, while the conflict between Esav and Ya’aqov was at its peak – Esav
was doing something that would endear him to his parents: due to the sending
out of Ya’aqov to Haran to get married, the wives of Esav come again
under scrutiny, being of the native Hittites. Esav tried to redress the
problem by marrying the daughter of his uncle Yishma’el, much as Ya’aqov was
sent to take him a wife from the house of his uncle Lavan.
This incident
brings again the problem of the settlement of the sons of Abraham in the land.
This was already the second generation to prefer marrying inside the family and
not to mix with the native people of the land. We have not seen any such
command from God, so we must assume that the root of this pattern is the fears
of the family of Abraham. Are there echoes to the perennial struggle between
the wanderer and the fix dweller? Or was it a matter of economic standing? Or
perhaps, much as we are today warned not to marry within our families from fear
of degeneration, perhaps the assumption at those times was that one aught to
intermarry in the family and thereby conserve the family genes? (see Abraham’s
argument: “she is the daughter of my father, but
not the daughter of my mother”; 20:12).
In any case, Esav acted as “the good boy”, who wants to please his parents, by
marrying his cousin over his two Canaanite wives.
The Bible
continues, also in the next Parashot to describe Esav as the positive –
albeit marginal – character in the plot.
When we read
the Torah in a search for the whole (instead the common tendency to select and
narrow down, and to use the Torah as a Tree of Knowledge, instead of as a Tree
of Life), we can realize a pattern. It is the combination of the attributes of
the sons, in each of the families that take part in the struggles the Book of
Genesis describes (Kayin-Cain and Hevel-Abel; Yishma’el
and Yitzhaq; Esav and Ya’aqov),
that carries in it a complete solution for the problems of humankind at their
times. In the story of Ya’aqov ans Esav, this possibility is brought almost
explicitly. Yitzhaq, about to bless his son and feeling befuddled, said
“the voice is Ya’aqov’s, and the hands are the
hands of Esav”. This is the combination that is worthy of blessing: the
voice of the scholarly Ya’aqov, a plain man dweller of tents, unified in action
with the good hands of Esav, who knows hunting and smells like the field. This
is apparently also the figure of “Yisra’el” whom the Lord chooses
to bless. “Yisra’el” should have contained these two complementing sides, and
Ya’aqov gained the title of “Yisrael” “because thou
hast cntended with God and with men, and hast prevailed” (32:29). It was the ability for action and withstanding in
strife - for a whole night struggle – which trqansformed Ya’aqov into
“Yisra’el”. (The sages, who identify the mysterious Ish (man,
person) with whom Ya’aqov contended with “the Lord of Esav” are also hinting
this, that only through encounter with the complementing, but estranged, part
in oneself, may Ya’aqov (or any person) to a complete human being (Ben-Adam).
11. The Exiles of Ya’aqov and Esav – The Edomite and Ishmaelite Exiles.
The long
history of the scions of the Biblical Fathers, created a whole line of
interactions between those identified as “Children of Abraham”: Ishmaelite,
Israelites and Edomites; especially over the land which in the original story
they fought to inherit:
Before the
realization of the promises of God to Abraham, about the great inheritance that
his progeny – the inheritance of the land – they still had a “promissory note”.
As God told Abraham: “Know surely that thy seed
shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and
they shall afflict them for four hundred years…and afterwards shall they come
out with a great substance” (15:13-14).
Assuming that
the inheriting son was – as promised – Yitzhaq, rather than Yishma’el,
one of the sons of Yitzhaq was supposed to leave for a long exile. The
long tradition of the sons of Ya’aqov regards Ya’aqov as the exiled son.
In order to
resolve the confusion over the calculation that the exile in Egypt lasted for
just 210 years, the commentators bring up all sorts of calculations: Thus Rashi
computes the exile since already the birth day of Yitzhaq. It is evident
that the voluntary exile at Padan-Aram, at the house of the uncle Lavan, is
considered as a part of the period of exile. The Passover Haggadah comes to
show that that exile, and the evil intentions of Lavan, were much worse than
the Egyptians’. (In the sequell we shall treat the assertion of the researcher
Y.Y. Yovel, that the text of the Haggadah is an apologetic debate with Edom).
But there is
also a different possibility - that the exile fell to the other son, the
firstborn, namely Esav. Rashi considers this possibility, and explains the
evacuation by Esav of the land West of the Jordan valley “away from his brother Ya’aqov” (36:6),
as if Esav left it for his brother, Ya’aqov, to pay the outstanding bill:
“because of the bill of the decree that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land
that is not theirs… he said, I shall go away from here. I have neither part in
the present… nor in paying for the bill…” (Rashi’s commentary for Genesis 36:6).
If in giving
up on inheritance in the land there was a will of Esav to avoid exile, as Rashi
presumes, then on the other hand this giving up meant leaving on exile in
practice. It is even possible to claim that the exile of Edom continued until
there came the pre-Islamite Ishmaelites, the Nabatian Arabs (“Benei
Nevayot”), and pushed Edom back to the South of Judea, the historic
estate of the Tribe of Shim’on, which has meanwhile been totally assimilated in
Judah.
Concerning
Yishma’el’s inheritance rights, the expulsion of the Edomites from the eastern
side of the Jordan was fully justified: for the Children of Yishma’el should
have received - according to the promise of God to Abraham – the whole land
east of the Jordan, from the River of Egypt to the river Euphrates: at the
covenant to Abraham, he was promised “To thy seed
have I given this land, from the river of Mitsrayim (Egypt) to
the great river, the river Perat (Euphrates)” (Gen.
15:18). Whereas after the birth of Yishma’el,
when God first announced to Abraham about the future birth of Yitzhaq-Isaac,
and promised “I will establish my covenant with him
for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him” (Gen. 17:19), then the estate that his seed is destined to inherit has already been
reduced to “the land in which thou hast sojourn,
all the Land of Kena’an (Canaan)” (17:8).
It is possible
that here is rooted one of the great historical mistakes. The Hashmonean Jewish
kings/presidents of the 2nd Temple period had conquered the native
Edomites, forced them to assimilate in Judea, and did not allow them to chose
their own Israeli-tribal identity. But both Edom and Ishmael were founded as
twelve-tribe federation (as the ancient Israel), ruled by presidents-Nesi’im
(of Yishma’el) or commanders-Alufim (of Edom). That was a missed
opportunity to return to the glory of the Kingdom of the Whole Israel, the
Kingdom of David and Shelomoh-Solomon.
About two
generations after the transfer of the Edomites to the region of Judea and
Shim’on, west of the Jordan rift valley, these new Edomean estates were
conquered by Yohanan Hurkanos, the Hashmonean High Priest
and Nasi-president, who forced the Edomites to convert to the
covenant of Abraham, if they wanted to live in the land. This way, the children
of Ishmael and of Israel have, together, annihilated the original sons of Esav,
who became assimilated in Judea-Judah. There were among those Jewish
scions-of-Esav those who excelled in their practical skills. Thus Antipater the
Edomite was a marked warrior, and his son, Herod, became the King of Judea and
built the Second Temple of Jerusalem, which competed in its glory with the
Temple of Solomon-Shelomoh.
But King Herod
reigned under the protection of Rome, and the sages – who detested Herod –
turned to perform sort of a “resurrection of the dead”, evoked the memory of
Edom who disappeared by becoming assimilated in Judah, and named by it their
enemy and foreign ruler – Rome. This way, the Roman Empire became “The Evil
Kingdom of Edom”.
Within not so
many years, that “Edom” conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the city and the
Temple. In its practical manner, Rome wanted to obliterate also the name of the
Kingdom of Judea, and therefore (in the time of the Emperor Hadrian) turned to
a similar type of “resurrection of the dead” and resurrected the “Philistines”.
The Land of Judea was turned into “Palestina” – the Land of the Philistines –
and the people who were left there became Palestinians.
In the course
of history, the Jews of Judea were dispersed in “The Exile of Edom”, an exile
not announced by the prophets, and in which the Jews were not merely exiled
among the foreign gentiles but, in a certain sense, exiled in the land of their
kindred sons of Edom-Esav – precisely because the Jews persisted in viewing the
gentiles not just a foreign enemy but precisely the hated family member. The
paradox grew even more, when in the process almost all the people of the
ancient world came to identify themselves as “The Children of Abraham”
(according to prevailing Christian belief since saint Paul), and Judah (who
regard themselves as “Israel-Yisra’el”, but call themselves just
“Judah” or “Jew”) lived as sojourners among them, without rights, on a status
of “small and despised” whose sole role (according to the Christian theologian
Augustine) to serve for derision for not having recognized the new God.
In his book
“Two nations in your womb – perceptions of Jews and Christians”, researcher
Yisra’el Ya’aqov Yovel shows that the images in the Book of Isaiah about God’s
revenge on Edom: “Who is this that comes from Edom,
with crimsoned garments from Botsra? … Why is thy apparel red, and thy garments
like his that treads in the winepress? (And God answers) I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the peoples
there was none with me: for I have trodden them in my anger, and trampled them
in my fury; and their blood was sprinkled upon my garments” (63:1-6),
became among the Jews of the Christian lands (Ashkenaz) the chief
image of the End of Days, when God would avenge the Christians: “in the
Ashkenazi poetry and chronicles the revenge was transformed from a juridical
event to a universal drama, which is in the heart of the Messianic process. The
essence of the redemption was not the Return to Zion…. Or a vision of peace in
the world…. Their place was taken by the vision of the revenge upon the
gentiles, which became the central idea. From the strength of this revenge
would come the messianic world transformations, in which the Kingdom of Edom
would be removed from the face of the earth”. Compared with the Ashkenazi
Jewry, the Spanish Jewry, who lived under the Moslems and first did not suffer
that much under the Christians, to regard the redemption not as a revenge but
as a healing and conversion of the nations. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (of Spain)
declared in his commentaries to the Bible that the Edom mentioned in the
messianic prophecies of revenge is the Biblical Edom and not Rome.
Such Jewish
interpretations of the scriptures came apparently as response, or re-adopted
with vengeance as response, to the opposite Christian interpretation – which
regarded Judaism as Esau and Christianity as Jacob.
In the epistle
of Paul to the Galatians (4:22-31) in the
New Testament, is written:
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by
the bondwoman, and one by the free woman. But the son of the bondwoman was born
according to the flesh, and the son of the free woman through the promise… And
you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who
was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the
Spirit, so it is now also… So then, brethren, we are not children of a
bondwoman, but of the free woman.
Paul managed
to found a new world religion that was based on his interpretations of the
scriptures. At one of the church fathers, Ireneus, (against the heretics
4:21) there is already a clear typological
identification of Esav with the Jews and of Jacob with the
Christian Church. The verse “two nations in thy womb” is, according to
him, a hint for the two nations destined to rise from the common father: the
Jews and the Christians. Just as Jacob gained the birthright and Esau despised
it, so the young nation (= the Christians) received Jesus, whereas the older
nation (= the Jews) rejected him. Ireneus compared the life of Jacob-Ya’aqov
to the life of Jesus, where the strongest parallel between them were the
persecution and suffering experienced by both.
It is not
self-evident which of the twin-religions - Judaism and Christianity - is the
older (or senior). Ostensibly, Judaism is the older religion, and this is also
how Christianity regarded it. But the truth of the mater is that the Judaism
that we know, Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism was formed at the very same period
that Christianity formed, and the canonical book of Rabbinical Judaism - the Talmud,
“the Oral Torah” – is actually younger than the books of the Christian canon
“the New Testament”, much as the (written) Jewish Midrash is younger
than the Christian Midrash.
It should be
noted that the Jewish interpretation that identifies Esav with Rome was born at
the beginning of the 2nd century, before the Bar-Kokhbah revolt and
is mentioned by Rabbi Akivah, who lived three generations after Paul. The
researchers deduce that the Jewish interpretation came as response to the
Christian interpretation, which tried to own the figure of Jacob-Ya’aqov.
These two
contradictory interpretations illustrate what was said by the sages about the
Second Temple “Second Temple… why was it destroyed? Because there was in it
vain hatred (sin’at hinam) (Bavli, Yoma 9b). At the time of the destruction of Jerusalem there
amplified the discord between the Christian Jerusalem Church (which was still a
Jewish sect) and the Rabbinic-Pharisee Judaism, and the discord amplified yet
more after the destruction, when Christianity was no longer Jewish at all. It
is hard to understand why was Esav so hated and rejected at that very period –
when the Edomites were part and parcel of the Jews, it was Herod the Edomite
who built the Temple, and among the most zealot of the defenders of Jerusalem
against Rome were the offspings of the Edomites.
12. Ya’aqov, Esav and the 3rd Temple – Jewish-Christian (& Moslem) Cooperation.
From the
parallels brought earlier, we may learn that the Third Temple, the future one,
will be built when there will be peace and reconciliation among Israel and the
nations, and especially among the sons of Ya’aqov and of Esav, and between the
sons of the Philistines and of Judah. But while the Bible des not mention the
Philistines again until the exodus from Egypt (and even at the Exodus, the
emphasis is on separation from the Philistines “God
led them not through the way of the land of the Plishtim-Philistines,
although that was near, for God said, Lest the people repent when they see war,
and they return to Mitzrayim-Egypt”. Exodus 13:17) – the development of the relationship of Ya’aqov and
Esav will continue to be an important topic also in Parashat va’Yishlah,
in which Ya’aqov and Esav reconciliate, and by the end of the Parashah,
they both participate in the burial of their father Yitzhaq (Gen.
35:29). The relationship between Ya’aqov and
Esav, the twin brothers, are much closer than the relationship between Yehudah-Judea
and Pleshet-Palestine. It is thus likely that the process of
reconciliation that can lead to the building of the Third Temple may start with
reconciliations between Jews and Christians as members of the future Universal
Israel. Yet both sides will have to recognize that their aim, the building of
the Temple of Yoru-Shalem (teaching Wholeness), would not be
actualized until there will be made a place also for the
Philistines-Palestinians within the whole alignment of their covenant.
© Tirtsah Arzi and Yitzhak Hayut-Ma’n.
[1] Mircea Eliade: “The Myth of Eternal Return”, Princeton U. Press/ Bollingen 1954, 1997. (Also by Harper Torchbook Paperbacks as “Cosmos and History”).
[2] This word is often written Merkabah (or Mer-Ka-Ba) and means in Hebrew “Chariot”, or “Assembly work” (from harkev – to assemble). “Ma’ase Merkavah” was the chief form of Jewish mysticism for many centuries, and its practitioners were Yorde Merkavah – “Descenders of the Chariot”.
[3] In Isaiah 11:3 there is a description of the Messiah’s manner of Judgment. This is generally translated as: “And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord; and he shall not judge by what his eyes see, nor decide by what his ears hear”. The original Hebrew, however, starts with va’hariho be’Yir’at YHWH – “He will smell (or be made to smell) according to the awe of the Lord”. So this has been understood by many Jewish commentators to mean that the messiah will judge not by sight or hearing, but by smelling (e.g. could “smell a rat”). This is the most instinctive, intimate and intuitive sensing, and that was Yitzhaq’s judgment concerning his sons.