Rachel and the Idols

We learned in class that there could be two possiblities why Rachel took the Idols from her father Lavan after Yaakov decided to leave Lavan.

The first possibility is because she was goodhearted, and did not want her father to worship idols, therefore taking them away from him.

The second possibility was that she was still attached to those idols and wanted to take a piece of home to the new place they were going to.

I personally agree with the second posiibility to more for several reasons: Firstly, why would Rachel take the idols with her, why didnt she simply smash the idols Avraham style, since taking them would seem like such a drag and also a danger. She must have also known that Yaakov would have not been happy to see the idols so she hid them under the sattle of the camel. Rachel and Yaakov seemed to have a good relationship, therefore I think that she knew that Yaakov was true to God and not any other idols. I think Rachel simply wanted to take the idols for her own reasons and attachements. It seems to make more sense since we see from the beginning that she was attached to her father, Lavan and must have learned a lot from him. ( When she encounters Yaakov and says that she needs to go tell her father.)

Hello my dear fellow classmates,
I am very sad since this may be ,y last post since the end of the year is nearing quickly!
Therefore, i decided to discuss a topic that includes characters from the beginning of the semester in Sefer Bereshit. Since we are all women. i decided to focus on Sarah, Rivkah and Rachel. We learned a tremendous amount about these individuals and their relationships to their husbands. However, i would like to focus on a topic that has always troubled me ever since i was a child. We learned in elementary school that god made these three women barren. when youre a child you dont realize what an incredible ache it is for a woman who craves to have a child so much to be denied of such a wish. When youre little you just always assume that it turned out fine in the end anyway since they prayed to god and got what they wanted(we seem to forget that Sarah had to wait like eighty years for her wish to come true.) In Sarah and Rachel's case it gets even worse. They are forced to allow their husbands to be with other women( Hagar, Leah Bilha, Puah,) since they were unable to have children of their own. That must have been one of the most terrible and heartbreaking experiences to have to share your husband with another woman who could do what you cant. Although many people may say it was a challenge taht these women had to overcome, i would like to know why that challenge was necessary? Why did all three of them get that same challenge? If it wasnt a challenge was it a punishment? If so, why wrere they being punished? Why did again all three reaceive the same terrible fate?

Lavan

When we were younger, we learn about all the villains in the Torah. Everything is very black and white; here is the good guy and here is the bad guy. Then as we get older we begin to learn that not everything is so black and white, like we discussed with Esav. From the text it seems like he really did not do anything wrong; he really was just not as spiritual as Yaakov and would rather spend his days frolicking in the fields and hunting. But Lavan seems to be a different story. Although we have not really delved into this part of Yaakov's story yet, from reading over it in our Chavruta work, it seems like Lavan really is portrayed as a villain in the straight text. He tricks Yaakov, which may be Midah Kineged Midah for Yaakov, who tricked his own father and took advantage of his brother. So Lavan tricks his new (double) son-in-law then spends quite a bit of time chasing after him and trying to take his animals and his family. What is Lavan's motive? Is he presented as a villain which in itself is an obstacle or a challenge for Yaakov? Or does he have a bigger motive and purpose in this entire story?

The Ladder as a Metaphor

"He had a dream; a ladder was set on the ground and its top reached the sky, and angels of God were going up and down on it. And the Lord was standing beside him [or 'upon it']" (Gen. 28:12-13). As we all know, Yaakov's dream leaves us with a lot of questions and confusion. As I was reading these pessukim, I found it weird that the Torah seemed to emphasize that the ladder was set in the ground and reached the sky. Now, I could be reading way too much into this and perhaps this isn't even a legitimate question, but I came up with an interesting answer!

As we all know Yaakov was naturally a spiritual person. He connected with G-d and, according to the midrash, was very learned. My thought is that maybe the ladder was trying to show him his place in the world. He is living on earth, not in the heavens. Maybe this is a message for Yaakov to 'stick to the ground' and become a more worldly person, like a leader. This is why Yaakov builds the Beit Elokim because, as Aviva's blog says, he was becoming a leader and spreading the word of G-d. No matter how spiritual Yaakov may be, he needs to remember that he is still living on the earth not in the heavens. If this interpretation makes any sense, than I think the ladder serves as an important symbol for Yaakov and also is tied to Yaakov's turning point where he starts to become a leader. 

P.S.- I'm not sure why this has a weird background. I can't figure out how to fix it!

Yaakov the Leader

Hello everyone,
Yesterday and today in class we briefly discussed Yaakov's dream and his conversation with Hashem. We see that Hashem hands over the promise of Zerah and Aretz, just like Yitzchak said he should be blessed with in his bracha to Yaakov previously. Also, this shows that Yaakov is the Nivchar and is going to receive parts of the promise that Avraham received. However, at first we do not see him receiving the second part of the bracha, which is the leadership part. Until now, we have doubted Yaakov's leadership abilities because he was the calm and reserved brother. BUT suddenly, we see that Yaakov builds a monument just like Avraham and Yitzchak when they build a mizbeach for Hashem. This shows that Yaakov really does have leadership qualities afterall! He wants to build a "Beit Elokim" so he can "rendezvous" with God and pass on what he knows to others. This shows his true qualities that resemble Avraham that we never really saw in Yitzchak.

Bracha without leadership

This week we learned that when Yaakov received Avrahams bracha from God, he did not yet receive the bracha of leadership: that he will be the King of other nations.

The simple reason given for this fact is because Yaakov was spiritual and not yet ready to be a leader to others, therefore the Bracha was not given to Yaakov.

I was wondering whether it was really possible for Yaakov to grow to be a leader for others if he was not born having this forte. Although we have not yet learned when Yaakov will receive this bracha, I cannot imagine that he should receive this bracha if he is not fit for it.

This comes back to the question, why couldnt Esav and Yaakov shared the bracha, and Esav would have gotten the bracha of leadership while Yaakov would have gotten the bracha for spirituality. This would seem to have been the most sensible solution.

Maybe the reason why  this bracha is pushed off is in order to show Yaakov that he needs to work towards this goal and grow to become a leader so that he will be worthy and fit to receive that God.

Hello my dear fellow classmates,
So this week we learned about Yaakov’s little dream and Neder with god. Of course there was automatic shock upon reading the part in which Yaakov dares to bargain with god. How dare he bargain that he will only follow Hashem if he is provided with food, clothes and protection? This instant reminded me of something else that we learned earlier this year. Remember when Avraham bargained with Hashem when discussing the people of Sdom and Amorah. He kept bargaining with god and saying that if a certain amount of Zadikim were found in the city he shouldnt destroy the city. God never punished Yaakov ar Avraham for bargaining with him. why do you think that is? Is it because they were on such a high spiritual level that they were allowed to speak to god in that manner? Do you think its wrong that God allowed this behavior. I know that we learned an explanation that Yaakov didnt mean to bargain with god, rather that he was so certain that God would take care of him that he made this promise to attest to that fact and that he’ll be able to return and build Hashem where the monument is. But lets ignore that for a moment..

Is Avraham the Best of them All?

So far, we have extensively learned about two out of our three forefathers. After finishing our discussion on Yitzchak, most of us were enraged about how passive and naive Yitzchak was. As I think back to our many discussions about Avraham, all I can remember is all of us thinking how perfect Avraham seemed to be. Even though we have not learned Yaakov's full story yet, we do know that he was very weak willed and desperately needed to break out of his shell. We also know that he had a very hard life because of this and the trickery he committed. Besides for Rabbi Amnon's idea that Avraham did wrong by going to Egypt because of the famine, we don't really see (from the text) any bad attributes or actions of Avraham. As we have said, he was a political/ military leader who was very worldly. Not only this but he was very spiritual and had the utmost trust in G-d and devoted his life to spreading G-d words. So what do ya'll think? Was Avraham the one that we should look up to the most? If you had to choose the 'best' of the forefathers, who would it be? Who do you look up/want to exemplify to the most? Now, you might say Yitzchak seems more relatable and humanely. He did have some negative sides, but he did grow and he didn't hesitate to admit he made a mistake. Even at the end of his life, he found room to grow and improve on himself. In conclusion, maybe the point of having such different characters is important to us because we get to see all different aspects of how to make ourselves better people. Each person had a special attribute, and we should look up to that instead of looking down on the person for all the 'bad' he did.

The Switcharoo and It's Aftermath

We all know the story of Yaakov dressing up as his brother (as his mother told him to) and 'stealing' the bracha from Yitzchak. When Esav comes to get his bracha, he finds out that it's already been given to Yaakov. In פסוק לג it says, "וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק חֲרָדָה, גְּדֹלָה עַד-מְאֹד." (in big, bold letters; just like Mrs. Perl said!). Obviously when reading this and understanding it on a פשט level we think of how angry Yitzchak must be that his son has deceived him, and that he has given the bracha to the wrong person. However, we learned pretty much the complete opposite. Yitzchak thought that Esav deserved the bracha because he could carry out the leadership role that needed to be filled. He thought that Esav's personality (his physicality and manipulation) would allow him to do this job with much success. However now, by being deceived by his son, he was seeing a whole new side to Yaakov - almost like it was a completely different person - that would be capable of filling the leadership role. It was almost as if he had an epiphany that Yaakov would be able to do his job, and that maybe giving him the bracha wasn't such a mistake after all. This is why he ends off by saying that the Bracha will stand, because he sees a potential in Yaakov he didn't see before. Now Yitzchak's put in a tough position because he couldn't give Esav a bracha that would make him the religious leader (like Yitzchak was) because that doesn't match with his personality. So he has to shift the bracha a bit. He also give him agricultural success, but he says that they'll have a seesaw relation, when Esav is up Yaakov will be down, and vice versa. Contrary to his original thought (that they would both be nivchar), Yitzchak is now realizing that one of them will be nivchar and one will be nidche. When Yitzchak knows that Yaakov is Yaakov, he grants him a bracha that Hashem will give him the bracha of being nivchar. 

Trust, Trickery, and Fore-people

Trust, Trickery, and Fore-people

We were always raised to think that all of our fore parents were the most marvelous people ever who could need do anything wrong. Unfortunately, when reading the Torah in the text, we see that this is not the case, that there are so many faults in even the best of our fore figures. I think this comes to show us that everyone is human. We shouldn't look up to somebody that isn't human, who doesn't have any faults- that's not practical. The best role model for us is a good person who is religious and moral and (and this is the kicker)- relatable. Now, with that in mind, is there any possible way we can justify these people's actions? Because lately, in class, we have all been hating on all of these people, which is pretty sad, I think. I mean, sure, they did some bad things, but they are still some of the most important figures in our history and are very holy people.


Is there anyone who can offer up some comments about Yitzchak, Rivkah, or Yaakov that are positive? When doing chavrutah work earlier this week, after reviewing the incident of the bracha, my partner Carmit and I came up with these descriptions:
Yitzchak- He's out of it, easily deceived/swayed, suspicious, bad parent, bad husband
Rivkah- tricker, deceitful, bad role model to Yaakov, bad wife
Yaakov- trickster, Rivkah's pawn, liar, cares more that dad would think he's a trickster than if what he is doing is good. 


These descriptions are obviously judgmental. But this is all we know. This is basically what the peshat tells us. Is the peshat going to tell us something good about them later on? Take Esav, for instance. Previously, when things were being done for Esav, we were all like 'poor Esav..' And it's true, it was sad. However, at the end of this perek, we see that Esav gets very violent and vengeful. Although he surely has reason to be mad at his younger brother, that's never an excuse to deal with violence. It can be understood where people get the idea that Esav was a bad person. I hope soon we'll get up to the part that makes everyone seem like heroes! 

Predestination- Part II

Racheli's Investigative Series: Part II-

Signs of Predestination 

_____________________________________________

Question To Ponder: Predestination or Prophecy?

Before I begin onto the next section, I would like to ask you all a question. What does prophecy mean to you? Do you believe that prophecies pose as an obstacle to our free-will or are they merely a statement by God of what will happen in the future? If someone is given a fate before they are even born, is that fair? Even if it would be that way with free-will, why does anyone have the right to know what will happen beforehand? The fact that they know makes a difference! It causes the people who receive the prophecy to see things differently. While some prophecies are harmless (Angel to Sarah: You're having a baby), others could be potentially life-changing 

Predestination in Blessings:

What is a blessing? Feel free to answer, anyone. A blessing from God to a person (through angel or whatever other mechanism) obviously has more hold than a blessing from a person to a person. But is a blessing the same thing as a promise, or is it just good words? What do you think? 

____________________________________________________

Let me think of the things that have bothered me:


-I think it all really started with this passuk: 
Bereshit 25:23 And the LORD said unto her: Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
What bothers me about this is that they weren't even born yet and Rivkah is already getting information on what they're going to be like when they're older- major information. Who is to say that all of this was going to happen? This really bothers me. 
What do you guys think of this passuk?


-Additionally, when we were reading a commentary discussing the personality of Yaakov, he discussed how Yaakov is at fault for all of his questionable actions (dealing with his brother, tricking with his father) but that the reason that he is chosen is that he was supposed to be chosen but that he suffered the rest of his life for what he did. The thing is, I liked what he said about Yaakov being in the wrong, but I don't get why he would be chosen if he was the person who was at fault? 


-Something else that has been bothering me recently is these brachot. What is the meaning to them? What right does Yitzchak have to say what will happen to his sons in the future? How can he say that it will be a see-saw relationship. 


Am I the only one who is pretty frazzled with all of this stuff?

Yitzchak Trembles!

After the entire process of Yaakov dressing up to please his mother and get the bracha from Yitzchak, Esav returns to find out that his bracha was given away to Yaakov. At this point, Yitzchak trembles. It seems that Yitzchak would be furious and upset because his son just tricked him, but instead, we found that it was a lot different. For the first time, Yitzchak finally realized that maybe Yaakov was meant to have the Bechora and the bracha of carrying on the leadership role that Avraham possessed. He was finally gaining some insight into the ways of his son who he had never gotten the chance to really know. All along, Yitzchak thought that maybe both of his sons could become the Nivchar because Rivkah never communicated the knowledge that one son would rule over the other from the time she became pregnant until now. Yitzchak always saw Yaakov as the one to be like him, calm and simple, but the act of dressing up like his brother and tricking his father in order to receive the bracha led Yitzchak to think otherwise and have faith in him. Aside from the whole issue of Yitzchak and Rivkah's bad relationship, it would seem that Yiztchak would be truly furious with the situation. His son just tricked him in order to get the bracha that he was saving for his other son, and he could not take it back!
When Mrs. Perl first said that the pasuk about Yitzchak trembling should be in bold and all caps, I immediately thought that Yitzchak was so furious that he did not know what to do. However, I think that here were can learn a good trait about Yitzchak. Because he was so calm, he was able to read into Yaakov's personality and realize that maybe he deserved the Bechora and the bracha all along, despite what Yitzchak thought about Esav this entire time.

Who is really the bad guy?

Good evening my fellow classmates,
As we have discussed numerous times in class, Esav did not turn out to be the "bad" son that we were always taught to think. In fact, he could have fulfilled his potential and become someone great. When Esav came in from a long day at work, and was starving for food, he ended up giving up the Bechora to Yaakov. At first glance, Yaakov seemed to almost trick Esav into giving him the Bechora, but after looking into it a little bit deeper, we find that Yaakov was not really at fault here. We see from the pasuk that Esav used the word "haliteni" when asking for soup, which is a word that would typically be used when referring to feeding camels. This shows Esav's animalistic behavior. Because of Esav's aggressive words, Yaakov realized that Esav would not be capable of being a spiritual leader, and maybe this would be an important aspect of the Bechora, aside from actually being the first born. Furthermore, when Yaakov asks for the Bechora, Esav practically hands it over without giving it a second thought. He doesn't seem to care about it at all. He says that he know he will die anyway if he doesn't eat, and the Bechora will cause him to die because of the many responsibilities involved in it. So, even though Yaakov wanted to make a trade, it is important to realize that he had a greater intention that was not entirely selfish. Before Esav left, Yaakov even asked again if it was okay that he take the Bechora, and Esav said it was fine. In this case, Esav still does not seem like a bad guy to me. I do not think he was bad. His animalistic and materialistic outlook on life just proved that maybe he was not worthy of the Bechora. But, in the end, Yaakov does not seem like he is the bad guy either.

Opposites Attract?

We spent some time discussing the "attraction" between Yaakov and Rivka and between Esev and Yitzchak. The Torah seems to suggest that each parent has a favorite child, and we said that the parents were attracted to the child most unlike them. Since Yitzchak was perhaps more passive and inward as a person, he liked that Esev was a man of the field or a more physical manly man. Rivka on the other hand seems to share some characteristics with Avraham and her family influenced her to be more worldly. Therefore she liked Yaakov who as an "ish tam" was more spiritual. So do opposites really attract? Other couples in the Torah do not always have this element of opposites attracting. Avraham and Sarah seemed more like partners than Rivka and Yitzchak (who had some serious communication problems) and they do not seem so different. Both Avraham and Sarah were active leaders who together gathered many followers and influenced the world in a brand new way. Although we have not delved into the relationships between Yaakov and his wives, specifically Rachel and Leah, it does not seem like they had the same amount of opposites attract as Rivka and Yitzchak and with their kids. So was this really just picking favorites or do opposites really attract? What do yall think?

Predestination- Part I

Racheli's Investigative Series: Predestination Part I: Introduction

It Seems Like Many Things in the Torah Hint to Predestination 

Over the past few weeks, I keep on noticing that there's this sense of 'predestination' that is prevalent in much of the text.
When did this start? (Look, Zahava! I asked a question in my writing!) Things like Hashem promising the land to Avraham and his descendants, to me, isn't so bad. I mean, one could technically say "what if they don't deserve it, but it was promised to them.." but that's not exactly what we're dealing with here. When Yishmael got kicked out, that really bothered me, but I hadn't really thought about this being a case of predestination. However, now that I think about it, and as I will discuss, it seems like this whole nivchar nidcheh thing has less to do with the merits of the person and more to do with what was already decided before they were born.The more I have thought about it, I think it would be interesting to do a full-on investigation about predestination in Judaism and hopefully come to a comforting conclusion in the end. Note that all of this is speculation and I would love feedback!
The First Signs of Predestination? 
Where better to start than at the beginning of the Torah: in Bereshit with the two first people that were created: Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. They were possibly created at first to be almost angel-like, but after they gave into temptation and went against God's commandment, they were punished. Not only were they punished, but the punishment stood for all of their descendants. One may wonder how this is justifiable because the next generation didn't have a chance; maybe they would be better. However, a simple answer to these worries is that Adam and Eve's sin represented that man and women have temptations and are curious. Despite God's original plan and expectations, God realized that man isn't an angel and shouldn't be held up to the same standard.  Therefore, despite some opinions, I think it is safe to say that Adam and Eve's punishment does not show the first sign of predestination in the Torah. 
Perhaps someone somewhere would argue that the case of the flood was also impeding people's free will because they didn't have the chance to repent, it is as if this fate was being placed on them. To that I respond that the case of the flood is similar to that of Adam and Eve. God realized that the world was not working out according to His original plan and made the wise decision of starting over and laying out the ground-rules this time. 
So where does that leave us? 


Predestination and The Nidcheh 
In my opinion, the best way to begin discussing this controversy is with the introduction of nivchar and nidcheh. The Torah has a concept of nivchar, or chosen, generations and nidcheh, non-chosen generations. To make a long story short, the Torah uses Toldot to distinguish between the chosen and non-chosen generations of people, starting with the generation after Adam. There are those who are chosen and those who are not. What determines one's chosen-potential is unclear but perhaps it is understandable. After all, if someone did something righteous, why shouldn't they be chosen. However, problem strikes when one realizes that it is not just that person who is chosen, it is also their descendants. Who is to say how their descendants would behave? What entails them the right to be 'chosen'? Why is it so important to stay in the bloodline? With this, we can begin to analyze predestination as it pertains to Avraham's children and onward. 

Rivka oh Rivka

Rivka plays a big role in the story we learned about Yizchaks blessing because she is the one that encouraged and commanded Yaakov to trick his father. In this we see some of Rivkas characteristics coming out aswell. Although we do not know if she is punished for her actions or even if her actions were actually something that had to happen, we can see how Rivka still has some influence from her family.
Since she came from a non zadikim family, Rivka has probably learned from Lavan the act of trickery (since he tricked Yaakov later aswell with the daughers).

Rivka has also always been portrayed as this wonderful Ima of the 4 Imahot who left her family and changed her ways for a moral and good life, but in this story we see another side of her.

Maybe the torah here came to teach us that sometimes there is still "spontaneous recovery," where people tend to go back to the way they were used to, and therefore so did Rivka.

It is also possible that God came to her, telling her that she has to do this in order for Yaakov to get the bracha and for things to play out a certain way.

We shall never know, but we can always think about it, what do you think?

One is better than two

We have learned that families were branching off to Nivchar and Nidchar.
Through this, and the bracha that Yizchack gave Yaakov , that he will always rule over his brother, nations were indirectly born that end up fighting with eachother.

What I do not understand is why such a thing as a nation has to be in this world?
The Jews had to come, to be the leaders of the world and show everyone  how to be ethical and moral, but is it really healthy to put people against eachother telling one that he is better than the other.
I see this as an ingredience for disaster.
I think that having nations,and telling one is better than the other, just makes them want to show that they are better and end up fighting. Many world wars (yes both the second and first) were also started because of countries who wanted to show the world how great they are and let everyone share that greatness with them by spreading it.

Telling Yaakov that he will rule over Esav might have simply meant that he will be the political leader, but it could have also been forshadowing to all the fighting and sorrow of today. People branch off because they are different and that opitomizes Yaakov and Esav who were like day and night. I think though that some of the fighting could have been prevented, if only Esav and Yaakov worked together, joining their forces and strenghts rather than putting eachother down so that no one gains anything.

Forefathers

All of our life (as far as I can remember) we have been taught about our great forefathers: Avraham, Yizchack and Yaakov. Now that we have analyized and looke more closely at the psukim and actions of our forefathers, my life has shattered. My idea of these amazing has been partially crushed and we are finally faced with reality.

What i simply wonder is why we have been taught all these great things about them (yes they were great and had many positive sides), but I feel like they were made to seem on a higher and better level than they actually are.

The same thing happened with the "bad, not zadikim" in the bible.
If you were asked who a bad, unchosen person in the bible was, many would think of Esav.

Why would many think that? Maybe because he ends up contrasting Yaakov, since Yaakov is all reighteous while he goes around trying to kill him. Well, I think this is very unfair, to judge someone as having internal factors even though it is actually external factors that drive them to act a certain way. What I mean is that Yaakov pushed him to do these things, and in some way he also had a "right" to get revenge. From the beginning he was not the spiritual one, who had it less in him to be moral and wonderful, but when Yaakov (and Rivka) took his bracha, what else were they expecting?

 I think we need to be more careful in the future about judging people in the torah, and this will certainly make me look more closley before I start analyzing a character from the torah, because as I have learned, I have been deceited in some way!

Thank you Mrs Perl for enlightening me.

אברהם vs. יצחק

We often think of Yitzchak as being exactly like Avraham. They went through very many similar experiences: they both had to leave, the identity of their wives were questioned, the Plishtim were jealous of both of them, they both eventually had a son after thinking their wives were barren, they both had a righteous and wicked son, and they both lived in times of famine. However, despite alll of these similarities, they both respond to these situations in very different ways. This difference in response shows that Yitzchak came and repaired and completed Avraham's actions, which is why he got certain things that Avraham himself never got.

We read an article by Rav Amnon Bazak that explained in detail some of these differences:

Barrenness: although they were both faced with the challenge of their wives being barren, they react differently. Avraham doesn't pray for a child, and when he states that Hashem hasn't given him a son, we don't see a mention of Sarah. However, it is very clear that Yitzchak prayed and included Rivkah in his prayer.

Famine: They both endure a time of famine. However, unlike Avraham, who decided to leave Eretz Yisrael, Yitzchak stays within the boundaries. The meforshim have various opinions on Avraham leaving the land - some see it as a transgression which caused the Galut to Mitzrayim, and some think it's him passing a test. However, it is agreed that Yitzchak remaining in the land is definitely praiseworthy. Because of this, Yitzchak receives a command that was never given to Avraham: to remain always in the land. Since Yitzchak was so devoted to the land, he gets an eternal connection to the land and the promise that Hashem will "always be with him."

I think that it's interesting that once you look deeper and deeper in to their personalities and reactions, you see how very different they are from one another, which is something you don't see at first glance. It's yet another one of those things that show us that we must look underneath the surface for a real explanation.

רבקה and יצחק

אליעזר comes to בתואל and לבן to take רבקה as a wife for יצחק. However, בתואל and לבן were idol worshippers. So after אליעזר gives them all of these gifts and stuff, and he asks if she is ready to go, they ask if she can stay. When they go to רבקה to ask her, thinking she'd say no and they'd have all the gifts, she actually says yes and goes with them. 

She's on the camel going there and she comes up to the place, she has no idea who יצחק is yet and she sees him praying and just falls off her camel. Because she's from an idol worshipping people, so she's overwhelmed at the site of him contemplating G-d. She takes a scarf and hides herself - showing that she felt a little inferior to him.

When they get married, it says that יצחק is in love with her and he's comforted by her, but it never mentions רבקה. We don't see any interaction between them. This is weird to us because it's like the polar opposite of אברהם and שרה. 

I find it really interesting how רבקה is so overwhelmed by יצחק praying/contemplating G-d. Often times, when learning תורה we don't think of there being other people other than the Jewish people. And especially when thinking רבקה we don't think that. So it's interesting to actually think that she was so used to idol worshipping that she wasn't used to contemplating G-d and was so overwhelmed by it. 

Challenges from the עקידה:

As we know, ה' put אברהם through a series of tests. These tests were meant to show אברהם's אמונה and ביטחון in ה'. The ultimate test that ה' presents to אברהם is the עקידה - when ה' asks אברהם to sacrifice his one and only son, or זרע, something אברהם's been wishing for for a long time now. Obviously, it's clear as to why there'd be many challenging aspects in this test, but to name a few... 1. Promise of זרע: Now ה' is telling אברהם to kill his one and only זרע, and if he kills him, then he will no longer have a זרע, someone to carry on his legacy and carry out and continue his mission. 2. צדק ומשפט/Ethical Monotheism: He's being asked to kill, which is completely immoral (phrased as יראת אלוקים in פרק ח). Everything that he has worked so hard for up to this point is potentially being challenged in this נסיון - he's been the paradigm of ethical monotheism and now all of the sudden he's going to go against all of this? 3. Leadership: He's been a leader, and someone for people to look up to and emulate, but now if he goes against everything that he's been preaching how will it reflect on him as a leader? Basically, in a nut shell, the last final test (the עקידה) potentially challenged everything that אברהם stands for. This is frightening because in an instant, all the hard work and dedication he's put into his mission could all be meaningless.

Who is at Fault

Yes, I know- we only went over the story today and tomorrow we will begin to answer the various questions. However, I had this question come up while we were sitting and learning and so I thought I would ask now, as it will hopefully make an interesting blog post.

Recall that Yaakov had dressed up as Esau so that he could receive the blessing that Yitzchak had intended to give to Esau. The blessing that he received, the one intended for Esau, was as follows: "May the lords give you the dews of the heaven, and nations shall serve you, you shall be a master over your brothers, and your mother's sons shall bow down to you."

When Esau shows up for his blessing, Yitzchak tells him that Yaakov tricked him and received it, and that Esau would have to serve his brother. Esau, of course, we angry.

My question is this: Why was it part of the blessing that one brother should serve another? How could that be part of the blessing- having your brother serve you. Why would Yitzchak tell "Esau" that Yaakov would serve him- how is that something good to promise anyone? It seems more like a curse than a blessing, dooming the two brothers to fight with each other. If all had gone as planned, Esau would have received that blessing and Yaakov would have been the one serving his brother. Would Yaakov not have been as enraged? Why would this be part of the blessing. It seems like Yitzchak was setting them up conflicts between Yaakov and Esau.

This whole story strikes me as sad. Do you not feel bad for Esau, the poor brother who cried because he wanted a blessing and his younger brother stole it from him. Do you not pity him?