This perspective is problematic to me. God has given us understanding so that we can use it to discern the nature of the Universe.
The birthright — which *does* include the substantial wealth of Yitzchak's family — goes to Yaakov because Rivkah is smarter than Yitzchak, because she favors Yaakov, and because *she* sees who deserves it, who will tend it better.
This is perfectly understandable in human terms. A mother favors a particular child. Her husband, blind and senile, is going to make a mistake on his deathbed. She tricks the father into bestowing his wealth to the younger son who was clever enough to bargain for it from his brother.
There's no magic here. There's no mystery. There is human understanding of behavior that might not be ideal, but tastes to me like real life human behavior.
In Prov. 3, when Scripture tells us to "trust in G-d...and not on [our] own understanding", commentators like the Malbi"m contrast "trusting in G-d" with "relying on one's own understanding". i.e., submitting to the general concept of "G-d knows better than I do".
One could say Rivkah "put 2 and 2 together", she realized that when she walked past the house of idolatry that Esav would move (and Ya'akov when she would go by Torah study halls), so that when Shem told her "btw, you have two nations in your womb", that she deciphered that Esav was wicked -- but she would only learn this after going to Shem, the man of G-d. She would only learn this after she was stumped (i.e., after she had exhausted her level of understanding) and had asked everyone around her (the other people exhausted their levels of understanding).
If one's father is the Surgeon General, why would one consult WebMD?
Birthrights in the times of Scripture didn't necessarily confer any monetary gifts -- and even in this case, while yes, Avraham definitely had a lot of money (therefore Yitzchak had a lot of money), Ya'akov would eventually divest himself of all those assets, getting most of his adult wealth from that which he gained from Lavan.
Rivka's "favoring" Ya'akov was not based on some emotional "mom likes me best" scenario; on the contrary, acting on what she knew, on the knowledge she gained from the prophecy of Shem and from during her pregnancy, Rivkah saw into Ya'akov's identity as a righteous man, and thus fitting to continue the birthright.
She would only learn this after she was stumped (i.e., after she had exhausted her level of understanding) and had asked everyone around her (the other people exhausted their levels of understanding).
That's important! She exhausted her own understanding and those around her first!
If we rely on God to tell us what's right, it removes moral agency from our own hands. In fact, it makes us *incapable* of making good moral choices because we aren't making choices at all, at least not consciously. Rather, we run the risk of seeing God's direction in every poetically compelling happenstance, whether a sign from God or instead just what we wanted to hear.
Rivka's "favoring" Ya'akov was not based on some emotional "mom likes me best" scenario; on the contrary, acting on what she knew, on the knowledge she gained from the prophecy of Shem and from during her pregnancy, Rivkah saw into Ya'akov's identity as a righteous man, and thus fitting to continue the birthright.
He had also borne out her suspicions over his entire life. She had observed him, she knew him. The prophecy had been shown true for years, well into adulthood.
Furthermore, while Yitzchak loves Esav because he's a great hunter, Rivka loves Yaakov just because. That's a relevant part of the story, I think. She is acting on *how she feels things should be*. She has agency. God's word might confirm it for her, but she's acting as an interested mother, not merely throwing herself and her son to faith in God.
(Torah study over the Internet is fun! I have time to research suspicions and figure out if I'm about to say something stupid!)
3 Comments:
This perspective is problematic to me. God has given us understanding so that we can use it to discern the nature of the Universe.
The birthright — which *does* include the substantial wealth of Yitzchak's family — goes to Yaakov because Rivkah is smarter than Yitzchak, because she favors Yaakov, and because *she* sees who deserves it, who will tend it better.
This is perfectly understandable in human terms. A mother favors a particular child. Her husband, blind and senile, is going to make a mistake on his deathbed. She tricks the father into bestowing his wealth to the younger son who was clever enough to bargain for it from his brother.
There's no magic here. There's no mystery. There is human understanding of behavior that might not be ideal, but tastes to me like real life human behavior.
In Prov. 3, when Scripture tells us to "trust in G-d...and not on [our] own understanding", commentators like the Malbi"m contrast "trusting in G-d" with "relying on one's own understanding". i.e., submitting to the general concept of "G-d knows better than I do".
One could say Rivkah "put 2 and 2 together", she realized that when she walked past the house of idolatry that Esav would move (and Ya'akov when she would go by Torah study halls), so that when Shem told her "btw, you have two nations in your womb", that she deciphered that Esav was wicked -- but she would only learn this after going to Shem, the man of G-d. She would only learn this after she was stumped (i.e., after she had exhausted her level of understanding) and had asked everyone around her (the other people exhausted their levels of understanding).
If one's father is the Surgeon General, why would one consult WebMD?
Birthrights in the times of Scripture didn't necessarily confer any monetary gifts -- and even in this case, while yes, Avraham definitely had a lot of money (therefore Yitzchak had a lot of money), Ya'akov would eventually divest himself of all those assets, getting most of his adult wealth from that which he gained from Lavan.
Rivka's "favoring" Ya'akov was not based on some emotional "mom likes me best" scenario; on the contrary, acting on what she knew, on the knowledge she gained from the prophecy of Shem and from during her pregnancy, Rivkah saw into Ya'akov's identity as a righteous man, and thus fitting to continue the birthright.
She would only learn this after she was stumped (i.e., after she had exhausted her level of understanding) and had asked everyone around her (the other people exhausted their levels of understanding).
That's important! She exhausted her own understanding and those around her first!
If we rely on God to tell us what's right, it removes moral agency from our own hands. In fact, it makes us *incapable* of making good moral choices because we aren't making choices at all, at least not consciously. Rather, we run the risk of seeing God's direction in every poetically compelling happenstance, whether a sign from God or instead just what we wanted to hear.
Rivka's "favoring" Ya'akov was not based on some emotional "mom likes me best" scenario; on the contrary, acting on what she knew, on the knowledge she gained from the prophecy of Shem and from during her pregnancy, Rivkah saw into Ya'akov's identity as a righteous man, and thus fitting to continue the birthright.
He had also borne out her suspicions over his entire life. She had observed him, she knew him. The prophecy had been shown true for years, well into adulthood.
Furthermore, while Yitzchak loves Esav because he's a great hunter, Rivka loves Yaakov just because. That's a relevant part of the story, I think. She is acting on *how she feels things should be*. She has agency. God's word might confirm it for her, but she's acting as an interested mother, not merely throwing herself and her son to faith in God.
(Torah study over the Internet is fun! I have time to research suspicions and figure out if I'm about to say something stupid!)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home