A.
On returning to the Holy Land, Ya‘aqov is warned of the approach of his evil brother, ‘Ésav. Ya‘aqov prepares to meet ‘Ésav, and brings his family across the River Yabboq.
ויותר יעקב לבדו ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר: וירא כי לא יכל לו וכו' ויאמר שלחני כי עלה השחר ויאמר לא אשלחך כי אם ברכתני: ויאמר אליו מה שמך ויאמר יעקב: ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך כי אם ישראל כי שרית עם אלקים ועם אנשים ותוכל: (“And Ya’aqov was left [va-yivvathér] alone, and a man [ish] struggled with him until the crack of dawn. And [the ish] saw that he could not [best Ya‘aqov].... And [the ish] said, 'Release me, for the dawn has arisen'; and [Ya‘aqov] said, 'I will not release you unless you bless me.' And [the ish] said to him, 'What is your name?' And he said, 'Ya‘aqov.' And [the ish] said, 'Not Ya‘aqov will your name be said any more, but Yisra’él, for you have been exalted [saritha] with G-d and with men and you are able'”; XXXII, 25-29).
The term ish is often used in the Torah to refer to mal’achim (cf. e.g. XVIII, 2). In this particular case, the mal’ach was saro shel ‘Ésav the “guardian” or “guiding” angel of the nation which would arise from ‘Ésav.
A standard rule of Torah exegesis is מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, that from a negative statement its positive counterpart can be discerned. Hence, from the statement that the mal’ach was unable to defeat Ya‘aqov we deduce that he had expected to do so. This leads us to ask what the point of this struggle was; what was the nature of the mal’ach’s expectation, and what changed his perception?
And then we come to the question of Ya‘aqov’s name. Despite the mal’ach’s pronouncement, both names, Ya‘aqov and Yisra’él, continued to be used, and have remained in use amongst the Jewish people, unlike Avraham, who was told: לא יקרא שמך אברם והי' שמך אברהם וגו' (“Your name will not be called Avram, and your name will be Avraham....”; Genesis XVII, 5), and Hazal tell us הקורא לאברהם אברם עובר בעשה (“Who calls Avraham ‘Avram’ violates a positive commandment”; ברכות י"ג.). If so, why do we not apply the same rule here, and continue to use the name Ya‘aqov?
B.
The nation destined to arise from ‘Ésav, Edom, was ancestral to the Romans, Hazal tell us (cf. e.g. Genesis XXV,23, עבודה זרה י"א. ומגלה ו.); our relationship with ‘Ésav’s descendants, and with those others who came under their sway as the purveyors of what we know as Western civilisation, has been a wild and rocky one, in which they would at times oppose us with fire and sword (as in the two Jewish wars fought by the Romans, the Crusades, and the Holocaust, to name a few), and at others would appeal with sympa-thy and brotherhood to tear great rents in the fabric of Israel through assimilation and conversion, as a study especially of the last two centuries of our history plainly reveals.
Viewed with this in mind, the entire account of Ya‘aqov’s fateful final encounter with ‘Ésav and his sar assumes the dimensions of a cosmic battle, waged both in the physical, temporal realm, and in the metaphysical, atemporal realm.
Thus, as ‘Ésav’s forces drew near, Ya‘aqov split his camp in anticipation of trouble, say-ing: אם יבוא עשו אל המחנה האחת ןהכהו והי' המחנה הנשאר לפליטה (“If ‘Ésav comes to the one camp and strikes it, the remaining camp [ha-mahane ha-nish’ar] will become a refuge”; XXXII, 9). Ramban sees this as a paradigm for Israel’s survival amongst ‘Ésav’s physical and spiritual descendants, that as we are driven from one country, some haven always opens up elsewhere for the survivors. For instance, the Jews driven from Spain in 1492 found succor in the Ottoman Empire and, in much smaller numbers, in the Netherlands. The shë’arith ha-pëleita, the surviving remnant of the great Jewish centers of Central and Eastern Europe at the end of the last war, found safe havens primarily in Eretz Yisra’él and the Americas, as well as other places.
This sort of long view of the encounter informs Ya‘aqov’s struggle with ‘Ésav’s sar as well. The great rosh yëshiva Rabbi Elhanan Bunim Wasserman הי"ד, in his work ‘Iqvëtha di-Mshiha, states in the Gr”a’s name that Ya‘aqov’s placing of השפיות ואת ילדיהן ראשונה ואת לאה ואת ילדי' אחרונים ואת רחל ואת יוסף אחרונים (“the servants [i.e., Bilha and Zilpa] and their children first, and Lé’a and her children last, and Rahél and Yoséf last”; XXXIII, 2) as he confronted ‘Ésav, reflects the time immediately before the arrival of Israel’s Anointed King: The Jewish leadership of that day will be descendants of the ‘erev rav, the “mixed multitude” who accompanied the bënei Yisra’él on the Exodus from Egypt (cf. Exodus XII, 38), which finds allusion in the servants and their sons; the bulk of the Jews (Lé’a and her children) of the time will run after them; and last in rank or importance in that day will be the talmidei hachamim, the Torah scholars (Rahél and Yoséf).
As I have noted several times before, there are two words in the Holy Language translatable as “remaining,” nish’ar and nothar. The difference between them can be discerned from their usage. For example, we read concerning the qorban minha, the grain offering, that a portion was burnt up up on the altar, והנותרת מן המנחה לאהרן ולבניו קדש קדשים מאשי ד' (“and what remains [vëha-nothereth] of the minha is for Aharon and his sons, a holy of holies of Ha-Shem’s burnt offerings”; Leviticus II, 3), whence we discern that nothar refers to the remnant of a previous whole which yet possesses the quality (in this case, sanctity) of the original. On the other hand, the Torah tells us concerning ‘édim zomëmim, false witnesses who perjure themselves to convict an innocent man, that they should receive the sentence they would have inflicted on their victim, והנשארים ישמעו ויראו ולא יוסיפו לעשות עוד כדבר הרע הזה (“and the rest [vëha-nish’arim] will hear and be afraid and will not continue to act according to this evil thing”; Deuteronomy XIX, 20), where plainly those left behind who have witnessed the fate of the ‘édim zomëmim do not share their guilt, but are separate and apart from them. Where notharim partake of the quality of the antecedent, nish’arim are totally divorced from it.
So when Ya‘aqov split his camp, calling the two halves ha-mahane ha-ahath and ha-mahane ha-nish’ar, implying their complete separation one from the other, saro shel ‘Ésav perceived that the Jewish people would be hopelessly divided in the generation preceding the advent of the Anointed King, and that most of them, profoundly alienated from their forebears’ Torah tradition, embodied in the talmidei hachamim, would thus follow the ‘erev rav; hence, he had every expectation of ultimate victory.
C.
Va-yivvathér Ya‘aqov lëvaddo.... Ya‘aqov realized what was afoot; the verb va-yivva-thér is from the root of nothar. Ya‘aqov strove that the spiritual DNA of his descendants should be rooted in the strength and determination of the Patriarchs who stood “alone” against the world around them; hence, Bil‘am’s prophetic observation of Israel: הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב (“Behold, a people dwells alone [lë-vadad], and among the nations is not counted”; Numbers XXIII, 9), apart from the nations and from the ‘erev rav, who are vulnerable to the nations’ blandishments, so that even though matters would deteriorate greatly by that time, וחכמת סופרים תסרח ויראי חטא ימאסו (“and the wisdom of the Scribes will become malodorous, and those who fear sin will be despised”; סוטה מ"ט: במשנה), still each individual of Israel would yet possess the power to remain connected to the golden chain of the Torah tradition, to see himself as a nothar, rather than a nish’ar, if he would but will it.
D.
Which brings us to Ya‘aqov’s name-change. When the mal’ach realised that he could not best Ya‘aqov, he demanded to be released; Ya‘aqov refused, unless the mal’ach would bless him. The mal’ach responded by pronouncing his name to be Yisra’él. This in itself requires explication since, as Rashi comments on XVIII, 2, following the mid-rash, אין מלאך אחד עושה שתי שליחות, no one mal’ach performs two missions. If the purpose of saro shel ‘Ésav was to defeat Ya‘aqov and secure ultimate victory for his protégé, what bëracha could Ya‘aqov expect from him?
The Zohar makes plain (עיי' למשל ח"א ק"ע.), saro shel ‘Ésav is the yétzer ha-ra‘, the inclination toward destructive behavior present in us all. His job is, as it were, to proctor an exam, and he performs the task well and with great zeal. He fights to win, knowing full well that we possess the capacity to defeat him and, like the proctor of any other exam, is delighted when we pass. Thus, the mal’ach’s bëracha was that, through his koah of hiv-vathruth, his ability to stand apart whilst remaining connected to the sacred chain which stretched through his father to his grandfather Avraham, he would be exalted, yisra, endeared to G-d, respected by men, for he, and his descendants, would be able.
G-d Himself provides testimony that, this name-change was not intended to eclipse Ya’a-qov’s former name, as happened with Avraham and Sara, but rather to complement it: ויאמר אלקים לישראל במראת הלילה ויאמר יעקב יעקב ויאמר הנני (“And G-d spoke to Yisra’él in the night-visions and said, Ya‘aqov, Ya‘aqov! And he said: Here I am”; Genesis XLVI, 2).
Bearing this in mind, we note that the Torah Tëmima, commenting on XXXV, 10, cites the Talmud Yërushalmi (סנהדרין פ"ב ה"ו) to explain the difference between Avraham and Sara, and Ya‘aqov/Yisra’él: שהיו"ד מן שם שרי צירף הקב"ה לשם יהושע בן נון ןלפי"ז באברהם לא נעקר כל אות בשנוי שמו אלא אדרבה עוד נוסף לו אות ובשרי נתפס היו"ד בשם אחר ולכן אין קפידא אם בטלו השמות הקודמים משא"כ יעקב אם יבטלו ישתקע כולו וגו' (“For the yud of the name Sarai the Holy One, Blessed is He added to the name Yëhoshua‘ bin Nun [cf. Numbers XIII, 16]; and according to this, no letter was uprooted in changing Avraham’s name, but on the contrary, a letter was added to it, and with Sarai, the yud was attached to a different name, and therefore there is no concern about abolishing the previous names [since no letters were lost], which would not be the case with Ya‘aqov, had it been abolished, it would have been entirely lost....”).
Maharal mi-Prag remarks that the two names mark of a dual level of qëdusha, the one of pure Torah, and the other of its execution in this world, the mitzvoth (עיי' תפארת ישראל פל"ז ), through which we exercise power over it. As with everything else in Creation, these twin sanctities find intrinsic expression in the letters composing both names.
We need the qëdushoth inherent in both names to wage and win our struggle with ‘Ésav, internally and externally, to ensure that notharim of faithful Israel will yet greet ha-melech ha-mashiah.
No comments:
Post a Comment