Pregnancy Test
The hope that the compulsion to constantly test our matriarchs and patriarchs may have abated after Abraham (Isaac’s and Sarah’s) tenth and final test, appears to have been circumvented in the opening of this week’s portion. Last week we discussed the audacious Midrash that elucidates the exchange between Abraham and The Angel and or God, following the attempted binding and sacrificing of Isaac. The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from the heavens” (Genesis 22:15). – What was there for this second oath? He [Abraham] said to Him: ‘Take an oath to me that you will not test me again from now on, nor Isaac my son.
Isaac and Rebecca have no “generations” – Toldot in the aptly albeit cruelly titled portion. They plead to God for children. Yet in an excruciating manner even when the test appears to be over and Rebecca and Isaac are joyfully expecting, the trials only intensify, 25:22;
וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי וַתֵּ֖לֶךְ לִדְרֹ֥שׁ אֶת־יְהֹוָֽה׃
But the children struggled in her womb, and she said, “If so, why do I exist?” She went to inquire of God.
When Moshe famously implores God to find someone more qualified and worthy for the task he is asked to take on, he exclaims Shemot 3:11
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃
[But Moses said to God,] “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and free the Israelites from Egypt?”
The Sfat Emet on the use of the term Anochi rather than Ani, offers a staggering insight. It is not about me, Moshe is asking why are YOU, (evoking many other references to God being depicted through Anochi,) God, not fulfilling Your assurances, YOU promised to bring the children of Israel out of Egypt, Moses is asking where is Anochi, it is surely not me who must perform this task!
In a similar vein, we might understand the entreaty of Rebecca, – why my God (Anochi) are you doing this?
The response whilst meant to be comforting is actually rather disquieting.
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה לָ֗הּ שְׁנֵ֤י (גיים) [גוֹיִם֙] בְּבִטְנֵ֔ךְ וּשְׁנֵ֣י לְאֻמִּ֔ים מִמֵּעַ֖יִךְ יִפָּרֵ֑דוּ וּלְאֹם֙ מִלְאֹ֣ם יֶֽאֱמָ֔ץ וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר׃
and God answered her, “Two nations are in your womb, Two separate peoples shall issue from your body;
One people shall be mightier than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.”
The Or Hachaim brings the daunting and distressing understanding elaborated in Tractate Megila.
ולאום מלאום יאמץ, “and one nation will be stronger than the other, etc.” This means that there is an additional factor preventing these two peoples from dwelling together in harmony; each one will derive its strength from the other (the defeat of the other).
The Rabbis in the Tractate Megila 6a, develop this symbolism to reflect their reality; “The Sages said that the fortunes of Caesarea, which represents Rome, and Jerusalem are diametric opposites. If, therefore, someone says to you that both cities are destroyed, do not believe him. Similarly, if he says to you that they are both settled in tranquility, do not believe him. If, however, he says to you that Caesarea is destroyed and Jerusalem is settled, or that Jerusalem is destroyed and Caesarea is settled, believe him.
Their interdependence is disconcertingly destructive. The survival of one is reliant on the downfall of the other. A sinister seesaw that, as opposed to providing innocent play (for the twins), sets the uneasy reality expressed in Bialik’s famous poem Seesaw (Hebrew: נדנדה, Nadneda) , “…what or who is up and who is down…” A happy balance can never be achieved almost by design. The determinism takes this beyond the bounds of a test where there may be a chance and opportunity to overcome this dictum.
Perhaps this postulation is reinforcing an insight shared a few weeks ago on the verse relating to the inability of Avram and Lot to live together.;
וְלֹא־נָשָׂ֥א אֹתָ֛ם הָאָ֖רֶץ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו
AND THE LAND WAS NOT ABLE TO BEAR THEM being together.
The Emek Hadavar, Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, offers the following staggering and almost prophetic elucidation.
דלא משום שלא הספיקה מרעה הארץ לצאנם כמו דכתיב להלן ל״ו ז׳ ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם לשאת אותם מפני מקניהם. אלא משום שהיו הטבעים רחוקים
The Land of Israel could not bear the idea of Avram and Lot living together not because there was insufficient pasture for their cattle rather because they were so ideologically and ethically incompatible.
Here too the Torah is being unequivocal, a moral ethical life cannot prevail in the clutches of a villainous ideology and policy. That evil cannot be rationalized, or explained, such an approach is delusional and dangerous. One cannot live with the other! That stark intimation is developed in the Talmud and by many of the commentators throughout history in real time, as such it is as palpable as it is aspirational.
