Did Jacob Really Wrestle With God?

March 25, 2021 - Nisan 12, 5781

Who Was That Man?

Genesis 32 tells us that Jacob encountered and wrestled with "a man" on the return home from Lavan. What was the identity of this man?

Genesis 32:25: And Jacob was left alone, and a man (אִישׁ֙ - ish) wrestled with him until the break of dawn.

Rashi explains that "this was the prince (guardian angel) of Esau." (Genesis Rabbah 77:3, 78:3).

However, Christians maintain that this being was actually God Himself having taken the physical form of a man, known as a "theophany."

Genesis 32:29-31 says:

And he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed." And Jacob asked and said, "Now tell me your name," and he said, "Why is it that you ask for my name?" And he blessed him there. And Jacob named the place Peniel, for [he said,] "I saw an angel (אֱלֹהִים֙) face to face, and my soul was saved."

Notice that the words marked in orange above are the Hebrew words used in the Torah, which in English are translated as "angel," but which in fact say "elohim." Christians who are aware of this translation, typically Messianic Jews, often use it to claim that the Jews are nervously trying to conceal the fact that God can and did materialize in human form in the Tanakh. They claim that the rabbis have tried to hide this fact, because if the Torah says that God takes physical form then more Jews will believe that Jesus was God.

A Hint in Hosea

However, the book of Hosea gives us a clear proof that the being with whom Jacob wrestled was indeed an angel beyond any reasonable doubt.

Hosea 12:3-5 says:

Now the Lord has a contention with Judah, and to visit upon Jacob according to his ways; according to his deeds He shall recompense him.

In the womb, he seized his brother's heel, and with his strength he strove with an angel (אֱלֹהִֽים - elohim).

He strove with an angel (מַלְאָךְ֙ - malach) and prevailed; he wept and beseeched him; In Bethel he shall find Him, and there He shall speak with us.

.רִ֥יב לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה עִם־יְהוּדָ֑ה וְלִפְקֹ֚ד עַל־יַֽעֲקֹב֙ כִּדְרָכָ֔יו כְּמַֽעֲלָלָ֖יו יָשִׁ֥יב לֽוֹ

.בַּבֶּ֖טֶן עָקַ֣ב אֶת־אָחִ֑יו וּבְאוֹנ֖וֹ שָׂרָ֥ה אֶת־אֱלֹהִֽים

.וַיָּ֚שַׂר אֶל־מַלְאָךְ֙ וַיֻּכָ֔ל בָּכָ֖ה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן־ל֑וֹ בֵּֽית־אֵל֙ יִמְצָאֶ֔נּוּ וְשָׁ֖ם יְדַבֵּ֥ר עִמָּֽנוּ

In verse 4 above, the word elohim is once against used to describe the identity of this being that wrestled with Jacob. However, verse 5 explicitly refers to this same being as a malach, an angel. Now come, let us reason; in its generic context as a spiritual being, the word elohim can be used to refer to an angel, but the word "angel" (malach) cannot be used to refer to God (Elokim).

To conclude, the ambiguity present in Genesis 32:29 is not present in Hosea 12:5, and we can be sure that Jacob indeed wrestled with an actual angel and not with anything else.

Jacob, Commander over Angels

There is, however, another proof that Jacob wrestled with an angel and did not encounter a theophany. Genesis 32:4 tells us: Jacob sent angels (מַלְאָכִים֙ - malachim) ahead of him to his brother Esau, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom.

Did he send angels ahead of him, or did he send theophanies ahead of him? Rashi says that Jacob sent literal angels, i.e., that he had commanding power over angels. This is confirmed by what "the man" tells Jacob: "...because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed."

What seems relatively clear is that Jacob's angels went to Esav, and Esav's angel went to Jacob, i.e., they encountered each other's angels. This culminates in Jacob's defeat of Esav's angel, indicating that he finally gained the upper-hand over him in the spiritual realm.

To contrast, what purpose would have there been in Jacob wrestling with God? And if Jacob did wrestle with God, how is it possible for him to have beat Him? Did God let him win like a father lets his son beat him at arm-wrestling? 

Exodus 20:3-5 - Prohibition Against Idolatry

Exodus 20:3-5

1) You shall not have 2) the gods of others 3) in My presence.

You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth.

You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me..

לֹ֣א יִֽהְיֶ֣ה־לְךָ֩ אֱלֹהִ֨ים אֲחֵרִ֜ים עַל־פָּנַ֗י

לֹ֣א תַֽעֲשֶׂה־לְּךָ֣ פֶ֣סֶל | וְכָל־תְּמוּנָ֡ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׁמַ֣יִם | מִמַּ֡עַל וַֽאֲשֶׁר֩ בָּאָ֨רֶץ מִתַּ֜חַת וַֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמַּ֣יִם | מִתַּ֣חַת לָאָ֗רֶץ

הלֹֽא־תִשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֣ה לָהֶם֘ וְלֹ֣א תָֽעָבְדֵם֒ כִּ֣י אָֽנֹכִ֞י יְ-הֹוָ֤ה אֱ-לֹהֶ֨יךָ֙ אֵ֣ל קַנָּ֔א פֹּ֠קֵ֠ד עֲוֹ֨ן אָבֹ֧ת עַל־בָּנִ֛ים עַל־שִׁלֵּשִׁ֥ים וְעַל־רִבֵּעִ֖ים לְשֽׂנְאָ֑י

---

Rashi

You shall not have: Why was this said? Since it says, “You shall not make for yourself, etc.” I know only that one may not make [graven idols, etc.] How do I know that one may not keep what was already made? Therefore, Scripture states: “You shall not have.” -[Mechilta]

...the gods of others: Heb. אֱלֹהִים אִחֵרִים, which are not gods, but that others have made them for gods over themselves. It is impossible to interpret this passage to mean: gods other than I, since it is a disgrace for Heaven to call them gods along with Him. Alternatively: strange gods, for they are strange to their worshippers. They cry out to them, but they do not answer them, and it appears as if it [the god] were a stranger, who never knew him [the worshipper]. — [from Mechilta]

...in My presence: Heb. עַל-פָּנָּי [This means] as long as I exist [signifying forever. God states this so] that you should not say that only that generation was commanded [prohibited] concerning idolatry. — [from Mechilta]

Ramban

You shall not have the gods of others in My presence: Rashi wrote, "Why was this said? Since it says, “You shall not make for yourself, etc." I know only that one may not make [graven idols, etc.] How do I know that one may not keep what was already made? Therefore, Scripture states: "You shall not have."

This Beraisa is indeed taught in the Mechilta. If so, this prohibition only means that a person is not allowed to have idols in his presence, for which he is not liable for the death penalty (because he did not actually make the idols). Therefore why did the Torah precede with the passive prohibition against having idols instead of the prohibition against bowing and worshiping them, which requires spiritual excision and the death penalty (i.e, the latter is more severe than the former. It would have made sense for the Torah to state the more severe sin before the lesser severe sin.)?

According to my understanding, this is not the intended halacha of this Beraisa, because it (20:3) is speaking about an individual's injunction, as is taught in Sifra (the beginning of Kedoshim), "...nor shall you make molten deities for yourselves," (Leviticus 19:4) implying that they can be made for him by others, and therefore the verse says, "nor... for yourselves" (to also prohibit you from having them made for you by others).

However, the verse says only "nor... for yourselves," which implies that you can make them for others, therefore the Torah uses the words "you (shall not make (plural)," to include both for yourselves or for others.

This is the basis of the principle that one who makes an idol for himself transgresses two prohibitions: 1) "you shall not make," and 2) "for yourselves." Rabbi Yosei's view is that making an idol transgresses three prohibitions: 1) "you shall not make" (for others) 2) "for yourselves," and 3) "you shall not have" (in your possession idols made by others). Therefore when Rabbi Yosei is among others, he is the one who says that "you shall not have" refers to the prohibition of owning idols, which is not the case according to the first opinion.

And this is also true according to the plain understanding from the wording (of the verse) "and the Lord will be my God..." (Genesis 28:21), and "...to be your God" (Leviticus 11:45). I.e, these are the positive injunctions opposite to the negative injunction discussed so far. That is to say that we shall not have aside from God any other gods from among any of the supernal angels or from among the hosts of the Heaven, which are called elohim (powers, forces). As it is said, "He who slaughters [a sacrifice] to the gods shall be destroyed, except to the Lord alone." (Exodus 22:19) The purpose of this is to prevent him from believing in any of them, to not accept any of them as his god, or to say "you are my god." This comports with the view of Onkelos, "Elah acherah bar mini."

Devarim (Deuteronomy 1:1–3:22)

July 22, 2020 - 30 Tammuz 5780

The following are my notes and observations of Devarim.

A Judge of Stature

לֹֽא־תַכִּ֨ירוּ פָנִ֜ים בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט כַּקָּטֹ֤ן כַּגָּדֹל֙ תִּשְׁמָע֔וּן לֹ֤א תָג֨וּרוּ֙ מִפְּנֵי־אִ֔ישׁ כִּ֥י הַמִּשְׁפָּ֖ט לֵֽאלֹהִ֣ים ה֑וּא וְהַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִקְשֶׁ֣ה מִכֶּ֔ם תַּקְרִב֥וּן אֵלַ֖י וּשְׁמַעְתִּֽיו

You shall not favor persons in judgment; [rather] you shall hear the small just as the great; you shall not fear any man, for the judgment is upon the Lord, and the case that is too difficult for you, bring to me, and I will hear it." (Deuteronomy 1:17)

Rashi explains this verse as follows:

לא תכירו פנים במשפט: זה הממונה להושיב הדיינין, שלא יאמר איש פלוני נאה או גבור, אושיבנו דיין, איש פלוני קרובי, אושיבנו דיין בעיר, והוא אינו בקי בדינין נמצא מחייב את הזכאי ומזכה את החייב. מעלה אני על מי שמנהו כאילו הכיר פנים בדין:

You shall not favor persons in judgment: This refers to the person who appoints judges, that he should not say, “So-and-so is handsome or strong; I will appoint him as a judge” [or] “So-and-so is my relative; I will appoint him as a judge in the city,” even if he is not expert in the laws, and consequently he condemns the innocent and acquits the guilty. [God says:] I will hold it against the one who appointed him [this judge] as though he [himself] had shown partiality in judgment (Sifrei).

The following is a short story called Appearance and Worth from the book Touching Heaven Touching Earth; Hassidic Humor and Wit published by Sadan Publishing House Ltd. in 1976.

The members of a certain town came to the Rabbi of Wischnitz and asked him to recommend one of his best students so that they could appoint him as the rabbi of their community. He did so, recommending to them a student who was an outstanding scholar and a person of exemplary character. However, when they were shown the candidate, they turned him down because he was very short and frail. In their opinion, they informed the Rabbi, the spiritual leader of their community should be a man of impressive appearance, tall in stature, and broadly built.

The rabbi of Wischnitz listened quietly to their complaint, and then said: "I have another candidate who I feel sure is just suited to your requirements," and he gave them the name and address of a man who lived in an adjoining town.

The men at once left for that town, but when they traced the address, it transpired that the Rabbi had sent them - to the local butcher.

Present Your Case

The same verse gives us insight into the way God, Who is a Judge, "hears cases:"

לֹֽא־תַכִּ֨ירוּ פָנִ֜ים בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט כַּקָּטֹ֤ן כַּגָּדֹל֙ תִּשְׁמָע֔וּן לֹ֤א תָג֨וּרוּ֙ מִפְּנֵי־אִ֔ישׁ כִּ֥י הַמִּשְׁפָּ֖ט לֵֽאלֹהִ֣ים ה֑וּא וְהַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִקְשֶׁ֣ה מִכֶּ֔ם תַּקְרִב֥וּן אֵלַ֖י וּשְׁמַעְתִּֽיו

You shall not favor persons in judgment; [rather] you shall hear the small just as the great; you shall not fear any man, for the judgment is upon the Lord, and the case that is too difficult for you, bring to Me, and I will hear it."

If something is too difficult, either a commandment or an experience, "bring [it] to Me, and I will hear it." This approach is referenced in Psalms 145:18 (Ashrei):

.קָרוֹב יהוה לְכָל קֹרְאָיו, לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָאֻהוּ בֶאֱמֶת

The Lord is near to all who call Him, to all who call Him with sincerity.

Exaggerations Along the Way

Deuteronomy 1:19 says the following:

וַנִּסַּ֣ע מֵֽחֹרֵ֗ב וַנֵּ֡לֶךְ אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַמִּדְבָּ֣ר הַגָּדוֹל֩ וְהַנּוֹרָ֨א הַה֜וּא אֲשֶׁ֣ר רְאִיתֶ֗ם דֶּ֚רֶךְ הַ֣ר הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּ֛ה יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ אֹתָ֑נוּ וַנָּבֹ֕א עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ:

And we journeyed from Horeb and went through all that great and fearful desert, which you saw, by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the Lord, our God, commanded us; and we came up to Kadesh barnea.

Rashi explains this verse as follows:

המדבר הגדול והנורא: שהיו בו נחשים כקורות, ועקרבים כקשתות

...[that] great and fearful desert: [It is termed fearful] because in it were serpents as [thick as] beams and scorpions as [big as] bows (Sifrei).

Rashi explains verse 1:28 as follows:

ערים גדולות ובצורות בשמים: דברו הכתובים לשון הבאי:

The cities are great and fortified up to the heavens: The Scriptural text here is talking in exaggerated terms (Sifrei; Chullin 90b).

This may be related to the general manner in which the spies exaggerated about the size of the people they observed in Israel during their reconnaissance mission:

וְשָׁ֣ם רָאִ֗ינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִ֛ים בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָ֖ק מִן־הַנְּפִלִ֑ים וַנְּהִ֤י בְעֵינֵ֨ינוּ֙ כַּֽחֲגָבִ֔ים וְכֵ֥ן הָיִ֖ינוּ בְּעֵֽינֵיהֶֽ

There we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, descended from the giants. In our eyes, we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes. (Numbers 13:33)

The difference between these verses is that the Jews considered themselves small, and everything else to be big. These are not contradictory because if you think that you are small, everything else seems big.

Yehoshua's Inheritance Not Mentioned

אִזֽוּלָתִ֞י כָּלֵ֤ב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּה֙ ה֣וּא יִרְאֶ֔נָּה וְלֽוֹ־אֶתֵּ֧ן אֶת־הָאָ֛רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר דָּֽרַךְ־בָּ֖הּ וּלְבָנָ֑יו יַ֕עַן אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִלֵּ֖א אַֽחֲרֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:

...except Caleb the son of Jephunneh he will see it, and I will give him the land he trod upon, and to his children, because he has completely followed the Lord."

Why does this verse omit Jehoshua bin Nun, who along with Caleb spoke positively about Eretz Israel? Could it be that because Yehoshua was Moshe Rabbeinu's successor, and that his teacher was prohibited from entering Eretz Israel, that God showed him respect by not mentioning Yehoshua's inheritance?

Shortness of Breath

וָֽאֲדַבֵּ֥ר אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֣א שְׁמַעְתֶּ֑ם וַתַּמְרוּ֙ אֶת־פִּ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וַתָּזִ֖דוּ וַתַּֽעֲל֥וּ הָהָֽרָה

So I spoke to you, but you did not listen, and you rebelled against the command of the Lord, and you acted wickedly and went up to the mountain.

This verse seems similar to the following:

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר משֶׁ֛ה כֵּ֖ן אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹ֤א שָֽׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵֽעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה

Moses spoke thus to the children of Israel, but they did not hearken to Moses because of [their] shortness of breath and because of [their] hard labor.

Could it be that they were in the same state of mind as they were while in Egypt due to shortness of breath - קֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ) in both of these times? My father once suggested that the complaints of the Jews in the desert were actually a good sign. Even though it would have been better for them to accept their struggles without complaining, it was nevertheless an indication that they, perhaps for the first time, had reached the stage that they were able to focus on their future instead of their past. They complained given their uncertainties about the future, which although not perfect, was a sign that their minds had become uprooted from their slave mentality.

Rashi explains "shortness of breath" as follows (Exodus 6:9):

מקצר רוח: כל מי שהוא מיצר, רוחו ונשימתו קצרה ואינו יכול להאריך בנשימתו

...because of [their] shortness of breath: Whoever is under stress, his wind and his breath are short, and he cannot take a deep breath.

Genesis 2 - What Really Happened on the Third Day?

July 19 2020 - Tammuz 27 5780

The Summary

1. Contradiction between Genesis 2:1 and Genesis 2:5
2. Rashi's resolution of the contradiction
3. The Rabman's refutation of Rashi's resolution
4. The Ramban's resolution
5. Practical application

The Contradiction

Genesis 2 seems to start off with a good old fashioned contradiction between two verses:

---

Now the heavens and the earth were completed and all their host. And God completed on the seventh day His work that He did, and He abstained on the seventh day from all His work that He did. (Genesis 2:1-2)

.וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ הַשָּׁמַ֥יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ וְכָל־צְבָאָֽם. וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹהִים֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה

---

Now no tree of the field was yet on the earth, neither did any herb of the field yet grow, because the Lord God had not brought rain upon the earth, and there was no man to work the soil. (Genesis 2:5)

וְכֹ֣ל | שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכָל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר יְהֹוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה:

---

The former verse says that God completed creating everything by the seventh day (including the trees, which were created on the third day), but the latter verse says that the trees had not yet been created.

Back to the the topics

Rashi's Resolution

Rashi resolves the contradiction as follows:

... neither did any herb of the field yet grow: [I.e.,] had not yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written: “Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted. — [from Chul. 60b]

וכל עשב השדה טרם יצמח - עדיין לא צמח, ובשלישי שכתוב ותוצא הארץ, על פתח הקרקע עמדו עד יום ששי: - כי לא המטיר: ומה טעם לא המטיר, לפי שאדם אין לעבוד את האדמה ואין מכיר בטובתם של גשמים, וכשבא אדם וידע שהם צורך לעולם התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים:

Back to the the topics

The Ramban's Refutation

The Ramban notes that Rashi seems to have overlooked the literal reading of the verse:

Neither did any herb of the field grow (Bereishit Rabbah), ibid Chulin 60 says "they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day" after it had rained. In my opinion this verse should be understood according to its literal meaning; on the third day the earth brought forth herbage and fruit-bearing tree in their places and to their types as they were commanded, and now the Torah says that there was nobody to till and sow and that they did not sprout until the mist rose from the ground to water it, and until Man was created to work the land and till and sow and guard it.

וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה על דעת רבותינו (בבראשית רבה) עיין חולין ס בשלישי עמדו על פתח קרקע הארץ ובששי צמחו לאחר שהמטיר עליהם ועל דעתי כפי הפשט כי בשלישי הוציאה הארץ העשב ועץ הפרי בקומותם וצביונם כאשר צותה בהם ועכשיו יספר הכתוב כי אין נוטע וזורע מהם והיא לא תצמח עד אשר עלה אד ממנה והשקה אותה ונוצר .האדם העובד אותה לזרוע ולנטוע ולשמור

Back to the the topics

The Ramban's Resolution

The Ramban settles the contradiction with the following:

The explanation is as follows: the reason that the verse said "neither did any herb of the field yet grow" instead of "herb of the earth" is that the word field refers to the domain of Man's work. See Exodus 23:16 (... which you will sow in the field...), and Numbers 20:17 (... we will not pass through fields or vineyards...). This is the purpose of the world made after the six days of creation onward forever due to the mist the rain fell from the skies, which caused the earth to sprout forth its seeds.

וזהו טעם "שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח" שלא אמר "שיח האדמה" כי המקום הנעבד יקרא שדה אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע בַּשָּׂדֶה (שמות כג טז) לֹא נַעֲבֹר בְּשָׂדֶה וּבְכֶרֶם (במדבר כ יז) וזהו תשמישו של עולם שנהיה מאחרי ששת ימי בראשית והלאה כל ימי עולם כי בסיבת האד ימטירו השמים ובסבתם הארץ זירועיה תצמיח:

In other words, both verses are true (Genesis 1 and Genesis 5). The word "earth" and "field" are two different domains. Earth is occupied by plants and animals, who do not need to pray for rain to receive it - it is a free gift. "Field" is a separate domain occupied by Man and is a sub-set of "earth." It connotes labor and indicates his need to pray for sustenance and can be understood by modern man as "the workplace." Genesis 1 tells us that the rain that fell on the third day was limited to the domain of the earth. God withheld the rain from the field until the 6th day when He created Man, who prayed for it.

Back to the the topics

The Application

The word "field" corresponds to our modern workplace, the way we make our livings. Note that Isaac went to pray in the field, indicating that our livelihood is associated with, and dependent on, our prayers. This may serve to argue against the idea that these two domains (work and spirituality) need to be mutually exclusive.

And Isaac went forth to pray in the field towards evening, and he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were approaching. (Genesis 24:63)

(בראשית כב:סג) וַיֵּצֵ֥א יִצְחָ֛ק לָשׂ֥וּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶ֖ה לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּ֥ה גְמַלִּ֖ים בָּאִֽים

Note that the word שִׂ֣יחַ means both "tree/herb" and "discussion," translated as "prayer" in Jewish sources.

Back to the the topics

Please, Sir, Can I Have Some More?

July 9, 2020 - 17 Tammuz 5780

Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the Kohen (Numbers 25:11)... It shall be for him and for his descendants after him [as] an eternal covenant of kehunah… (Numbers 25:13).

Rashi: Although the kehunah had already been given to Aaron’s descendants, it had been given only to Aaron and his sons who were anointed with him, and to their children whom they would beget after their anointment. Phinehas, however, who was born before that and had never been anointed, had not been included in the kehunah until now. And so, we learn in [Tractate] Zevachim [101b],“Phinehas was not made a kohen until he killed Zimri.”

This may teach us the value of patience and/or humility when we think that we may deserve something. The Torah clearly tells us that Pinchas was in fact a descendant of Aharon through Elazar, yet he was not an active Cohen (i.e., he did not have an active post in any of the related services). Consider the disappointment Pinchas might have felt when he realized that he born just one generation too early. Regardless, he made no request of Moshe to institute him as a Cohen, nor did he show any desire to become one. Contrast this to Korach, who although he was a Levi, and so had no association with or claim to the Kehuna, nevertheless forcibly sought to agitate for something that wasn't his and died in the process. Ouch!

To summarize, Pinchas was made a Kohen even though he did not seek to be one, and Korach lost what he already had by seeking greatness and honor, and ended up, well, lower than where he started.

The Pirkei Avos (chapter 1:13) confirms the issue with honor-seeking:

He (Hillel) would also say: One who advances his name, destroys his name…

Chapter 6:16 does as well:

Torah is greater than the priesthood or sovereignty, for sovereignty is acquired with thirty virtues, the priesthood with twenty-four, and Torah is acquired with forty-eight qualities.

One of those qualities is “fleeing from honor.”

Consider the following short story from Touching Heaven, Touching Earth:

R. Hayyim of Zans used to say that man rushes up and down, round about, searching for happiness and pursuing wealth, and is surprised when he does not find them. Perhaps it would be better to stand a little in the same place, so that good fortune can find him.

On one occasion R. Hayyim met one of his disciples as the latter was hurrying through the market. He stopped him and asked where he was going. “In search of my livelihood,” the Hassid replied. The Rebbe looked at him sternly and said: “Who told you that your livelihood lies in the direction that you were rushing? Perhaps it lies behind you and the faster you run, the further you are away from it.”

Yeridas Hadoros

July 5, 2020 - 13 Tammuz 5780

Introduction

In Judaism there is a concept, or doctrine, known as yeridas hadoros, which roughly translates to “generational decline.” The concept of yeridas hadoros refers to the decline in humanity’s spiritual level over the passing of time. More specifically, it states that this decline began from the moment that the Torah was given and has continued, and will, until the Mashiach comes. The outcome of this process is the intensification of everything negative that you can think of attributed to human behavior and thought; the onset of idolatry, loss of moral direction, increased violence, and self-aggrandizement, etc. This decline occurs on both the social and personal level, affecting communities and individuals, and ultimately the entire human population. Moreover, there is no way to fully inoculate yourself against it, although steps can be taken to protect yourself against the effects in some capacity.

The Contradiction

The weekly portion of Noach starts with the verse:

These are the generations of Noah, Noah was a righteous man, he was perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God (Genesis 6:9).

.אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ (בראשית ו:ט)

The commentator, Rashi, focuses on the verse’s usage of the words “in this generations” to mean the following:

Some of our Sages interpret it [the words “in this generations”] favorably: How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous. Others interpret it derogatorily: In comparison with his generation he was righteous, but if he had been in Abraham’s generation, he would not have been considered of any importance. [Sanhedrin 108a, Genesis Rabbah 30:9, Tanchuma Noach 5]

Rashi’s second opinion above (in which it is understood derogatorily) seems to violate the concept of yeridas hadoros in action. The verse states that Noach was a righteous man, righteous enough, for the record, to warrant preserving him and his family and the entirety of the world along with him. However, in a comparison between himself and Noach, this opinion states that he would not have amounted to anything. And yet, according to yeridas hadoros, Abraham, who lived a full ten generations after Noach, would have been a product of the negative influence of his day. It therefore seems impossible that Avraham could have been more righteous than Noach, which is a violation of our current understanding of yeridas hadoros.

To better understand this I have put together the following visual model of yeridas hadoros:

---

---

The descending rectangles represent generations, with the top and bottom of each representing the possible range of movement within a given generation. Notice that although Avraham may have been spiritually greater than Noach in an absolute sense, that the ceiling in Noach's generation was higher than in Avraham's. This means that technically speaking Noach could have become a greater tzaddik than Avraham.

The Resolution

It seems likely that this is what Rashi means when says, "How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous [than Abraham]." The influence of the righteous people in his generation would have pulled him to greater heights than he was able to reach on his own, and he would have surpassed Avraham.

This model also explains the converse opinion, namely how a person living in a later generation can become more righteous than a person who lived in a previous one. Notice that even though Noach was the most righteous person in his generation, that as long as he has not reached the ceiling of his generation it is possible for him to be less righteous than someone in a later generation, namely Abraham. This must be the correct way to understand Rashi’s second statement in light of the concept of yeridas hadoros. Further, because Rashi says that had they both lived in the same generation that Noach “would not have been considered of any importance,” Noach would probably appear much lower in his generation than the model above shows.

Summary

To summarize, this model seems to fully explain both of Rashi's views while complying with the demands of yeridas hadoros. The spiritual ceiling in Noach's generation was higher than in Avraham's, and the presence of other tzaddikim in Noach's generation could have led him to surpass Avraham. However, because Noach's generation was void of tzaddikim other than Noach, he was pulled down to a level lower than the greatest tzaddik of a later generation.

The phenomenon of negative influence is a recurring theme in the Torah.