Nida (70b) What must a man do that he may become rich? He replied: Let him engage much in business and deal honestly. Did not many, they said to him, do so but it was of no avail to them? — Rather, let him pray for mercy from Him to whom are the riches, for it is said, Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold. What then does he teach us? — That one without the other does not suffice.
Akeidas Yitzchok (26:3) Human achievement may me due to G-d’s personal intervention on our behalf known as hashgachah pertatit; it can also be due to favorable horoscopic constellations or environmental factors, commonly called hashgachah klallit; finally, it can be due to personal endurance, intelligence, energy, and skill. It is reasonable to assume that none of the factors listed account exclusively for the success or failure of our endeavors. Allowing that the Almighty's omnipotence allows Him to determine the outcome of all our endeavors, human intelligence and willpower would be utterly meaningless were they not to play a significant part in determining the success or failure of our endeavors. This statement is not, of course, intended to minimize the value of G-d’s contribution to the result of such endeavors.
Although theologians claim that the Almighty can mislead the wise and impair their judgment to the point that they will act contrary to their original intentions, the same theologians do not deny that man possesses freedom of choice, without which the whole concept of reward or punishment for compliance or non compliance with G-d’s wishes would be meaningless. There are numerous instances when the Torah legislates an action designed to protect the life or property of a third party. Consider the example of the law to erect a protective fence around one's roof. The reason stated is that unless such a fence is erected, a fatal fall from such a roof would be considered as an act of bloodshed committed by the owner of the house in question. Obviously, mentioning the latter possibility assumes that there is a free choice of whether to comply with the legislation or not. If there were no choice, how could there be negative results for the owner or the victim if the owner had failed to erect the fence? But not every one walking around an unfenced roof will fall off it with fatal consequences. The ultimate result of the fate of such an individual then is the result of more than one of the factors we have listed (Deut. 22,8). Consider also that the Talmud when discussing the digging of a hole that an animal might fall into, does not hold the digger responsible if a human being had come to harm by reason of that hole. The reason is that human beings are expected to have their wits about them, are meant to use the intelligence they have been granted. We see clearly that human behavior is at least one of the criterion determining his ultimate fate. The nature of the legislation to erect a fence, then, is more of the "good advice" variety that the Talmud often refers to when citing Rabbinic strictures. On the other hand, we know from experience that even the most diligent endeavors of man to attain certain objectives, are often doomed to failure. The attempt by Joseph's brothers to thwart realization of his dreams by selling him to a caravan of Midianites travelling to Egypt, is just one such example. The Talmud (Niddah 60) elaborates on our theme, explaining that even if one follows all the advice concerning the acquisition of wisdom meticulously, the desired result may not be achieved unless such efforts are accompanied by an appeal to the One who grants wisdom, and by G-d’s positive response to such an appeal.
Nevertheless, history is full of examples of brilliant men who were successful without turning to G-d for help; also, what point would there be in the selection of brilliant advisors to heads of states, if their advice would not have positive results? In Proverbs 22,29, Solomon tells us, "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand in front of kings! (10,4) he will become poor who deals with a sick hand, but the hand of the diligent makes rich." We must conclude then that success of human efforts is assured if the individual in question is also favored by astrological influences, mazzal and if due to his own merit he receives Divine guidance at the personal level.
Philosophers agree that one must not base one's lifestyle on hope for success due to fortuitous circumstances. Lucky breaks cannot be depended on. The interplay of the four causes for success in worldly matters may be understood in the following manner. A person born under favorable conditions who also lives the life of the righteous, qualifies for hashgachah peratit and will therefore require relatively little personal exertion to achieve his objectives. "Man's steps are guided by the Lord, when the latter approves of his path" (Psalms 37,23). Conversely, should such a person lead the wrong kind of life, even the favorable conditions he was born under, will not altogether protect him, as G-d’s hand will prove more powerful than his natural good fortune and will thwart him despite his best efforts. See the example of Achitofel (Samuel II Chapter 7). To quote Isaiah 44,25, "He turns wise men backwards and makes their knowledge foolish." The same holds true, of course, if one's natural mazzal is only average or worse. If, however, one is endowed with average skills and intelligence, and one's actions are the outgrowth of one's own free will, such a person does not qualify for Divine intervention in his affairs. His successes in wordly matters are due in overwhelming measure to his own efforts or lack thereof. Any slackening of his efforts is apt to put his success in jeopardy. If such a person had been born under unfavorable conditions, his chances to succeed would be minimal indeed. If a person born under negative environmental, hereditary, and horoscopic influences lives a life of piety, then his efforts combined with the merit he has accumulated will qualify him for Divine intervention on his behalf, and enable him to neutralize the negative factors under which he had been born. Abraham overcame the negative mazzal of sterility (Psalm 33,18). "The eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him and wait patiently for His kindness to save them from death and to keep them alive during times of famine." In all these instances, personal effort and perseverance contribute the major part to eventual success. In fact, any negligence or laziness is rated as sinful when circumstances seem to have called for exertion of self (Deuteronomy 16,10, promising success in return for kind and generous behaviour towards the poor, does so on the assumption that one's efforts will be crowned with success). The Torah does not promise windfalls. Since the majority of people are of average or below average endowments, the need for them to exert themselves on their own behalf is beyond question, since their merit or natural mazzal cannot be depended upon. The advice given by the Torah is addressed precisely to this large group of people, who by following it can hope to battle adverse conditions successfully. Man's lack of success is called nefilah when it occurs independent of G-d’s intervention; it is called happalah when due to G-d’s active intervention in the affairs of that individual. Psalm 37,24 tells us, "Even though a man may fall, he shall not be cast down, for the Lord upholds his hand." When someone walks on a roof protected by a railing, this railing will prove a protection if the Lord had not intended for that person to fall off that roof. However, if the Lord had intended for that person to fall off that roof, the best railing in the world cannot save him. Sometimes, two people born under identical circumstances can have a widely different range of success due to their different merits (The Talmud Moed Katan 28 discusses this problem in connection with Rav Chisdah and Rabbah). Many fine distinctions apply in ascertaining the relative success of individuals in apparently similar circumstances. Suffice it to say that it behooves a person to view himself at all times as average in deeds (merits) and as below average in natural endowments. This will give him the incentive to acquire merits and to strive to overcome handicaps. In all matters of "worldly affairs," we have to make the first move, and the Lord has to assist us to assure us of success in carrying out our designs. Our prayers must be directed towards obtaining His help to overcome our respective handicaps. Should one fail to succeed in spite of having complied with all the above, the cause may be heavenly judgment acting as punishment. It could be trials to test our faith in Him. It could also be an affliction designed to enhance the ultimate achievement of our aims in our own eyes when it does finally occur. If one gives up prematurely in the face of obstacles, and does not strive mightily to overcome such impediments, the chances are that one is the architect of one's own misfortune and that such failure had not been decreed by G-d at all. Suppose we had been given the choice between immediate execution or life imprisonment, without time off for good behavior, we would certainly refuse to acquiesce in either alternative. We would make strenuous efforts to escape either of these two calamities. We would leave no stone unturned as long as the efforts to improve our own situation would not be at the expense of some innocent third party. Similarly, our own efforts to escape misfortune must be pursued up to the point where continued insistence would constitute rebellion against G-d. If pestilence rages in a city, one does not stay around, but one isolates oneself (Baba Kama 60). One employs every known medication to ward off infection. Should all efforts have failed and one appears doomed, one must declare one's faith in the justice of the Lord, reconcile oneself to His superior wisdom, and prepare to meet one's judgment. Although Ramban disagrees with the approach we have outlined in the case of the need to call a doctor, he would not disagree with the approach outlined in other areas of life (Ramban holds that whereas a doctor may treat the sick, the sick must not ask to be treated, as this would indicate lack of faith in G-d as the ultimate Healer).
When G-d sent Samuel to anoint David, who had a price on his head, Samuel had to expose himself to danger, in order to perform this mission. G-d did not expect Samuel to rely on miracles, but told him to use subterfuge in the shape of a calf, so that if intercepted, he could claim to be on the way to Bethlehem to offer the calf as a sacrifice. G-d instructs, "During the meal, you will proceed according to My instructions" (Samuel I 15,1 -6). King Assa's reliance on a doctor is criticized only because it had not been preceded by prayer, not because the patient had no right to consult doctors (Chronicles II 16,12). One of the best examples of the extent to which one has to go to ensure one's survival, is found in Samuel I 21,14, when David, while at the court of Achish, deliberately acts like a demented halfwit to mollify those of Achish's advisors who did not trust his loyalty. When David recalls that episode in Psalm 34, he credits G-d with helping him, though when reading the account of this event it seems wholly due to David's own initiative. His problem had been that he had to choose between actively fighting against his own people to prove his loyalty to the Philistines and to qualify for refuge from Saul in Cat, or to forfeit his life by refusing to join an attack against his own people. In this unusual situation, a course of inaction coupled with an appeal to G-d seemed the only way out.
The classic example for proper conduct is found in the account of the encounter between Jacob and Esau. Since Jacob's delegation to Esau had been prompted by fear, and some of our sages even castigate Jacob for having "taken hold of the dog's ear" (Bereshit Rabbah 75), we must ask why G-d did not take Jacob aside and say to him "do not be afraid, I will be your shield," as He had done for Abraham after the latter had returned from defeating Kedorleomer and liberating Lot (Genesis Chapter 15). Similarly, G-d had told Isaac not to go to Egypt, to rely on Him. Even Jacob himself, before setting out on his last journey to Egypt, had been personally reassured by G-d. No doubt, the impending encounter with Esau called for more reassurance than any of the other examples mentioned. So why was this reassurance not forthcoming?
Akeidas Yitzchok (26:4) Some difficulties in the text of our Parshah: 1) Why did Jacob salute Esau with such excessive humility? Why the repeated obsequious references to "to find favor in your eyes?" 2) Why is the Torah silent about the manner in which Jacob's messengers carried out their mission? Why do the sages disagree as to the identity of those messengers? 3) What was the point of dividing the camps when Jacob's own family was part of the first camp? 4) If Jacob believed that the promises made to him by G-d on previous occasions were valid now, why did he fear the encounter? 5) When Jacob listed G-d’s promises, why did he not mention the promise in the dream with the ladder? 6) Why did Jacob instruct each of the gift-bearers to Esau separately? 7) Why did the angel that wrestled with Jacob insist on being released? 8) If the sun "shone for him," why would Jacob's limp be mentioned at this juncture? 9) What is the difference between "I have everything" (Jacob), and "I have a great deal" (Esau)? What is Esau's offer to accompany Jacob, and Jacob's polite refusal, all about?
Akeidas Yitzchok (26:5) Since Jacob's return to Eretz Yisrael was initiated at the request of G-d, and G-d had not yet given any hint of His assistance in the forthcoming confrontation with Esau, we can understand why some commentators look for something in Jacob's conduct which caused G-d’s displeasure. These conflicting views are even reflected in the Midrash Rabbah. According to the opinion that the messengers sent by Jacob were angels, one cannot fault Jacob's conduct, else angels would not have been placed at his disposal.
Akeidas Yitzchok (26:6) According to Rabbi Yehudah, who states that the messengers were of the flesh and blood variety, Jacob may have displeaesd G-d in some manner. The fact that no help was forthcoming from G-d until the night following the return of the messengers supports our view that until Jacob had exhausetd all means at his disposal to ensure that the encounter would be successful, Providence would not manifest itself. Only after the successful struggle with the "man," concluding Jacob's preparations for the fateful encounter, would G-d offer His reassurance. From this we learn the importance of doing all one can to ensure one's success. (1) Jacob instructed the servants in a manner that would show that he was treating Esau with the courtesy due an older brother. (6) Calling all the giftbearers together would have revealed inner fear both to them and to members of his family. He told Esau that he had stayed with Laban all these years, in order to show Esau that he had not felt the need to run away from Laban. He indicated that he could understand Esau's reluctance to welcome a brother who had hired himself out for wages; since by now, however, he had acquired a fortune, Esau need not be ashamed of his poor brother. (2) The fact that the messengers returned without actually having met Esau proves they must have been angels; who else would have arrogated to himself the right to return "mission unaccomplished?" Moreover, who else would have offered gratuitous advice to Jacob? They did so in order to give Jacob time enough to arrange the gifts and to send them ahead. When Joseph encountered the "man" while he is searching for his brothers, he is also given gratuitous advice. In that case also, we assume it was an angel who proffered that advice (Genesis 37,16-18).
Akeidas Yitzchok (26:7) So far then Jacob's efforts provided him with useful information about how to approach Esau when he would meet him. Jacob's fear did not concern his own death at the hands of Esau, but he was concerned about the possible death of members of his family, concerning whom no promise from G-d had been received. The wording of the promise at Bet El in the dream of the ladder, had been directed only at Jacob alone. (3) Jacob divided the camp so that he could not be faulted for having neglected a chance to ensure partial survival. No doubt, the camp mentioned last, was positioned in such a way that Esau would encounter it first. Should Esau want to vent his rage by destroying Jacob's camp, and his anger could be assuaged by such a pogrom, Jacob's stratagem would have worked since that camp contained no one especially dear to him. If there had been only one camp and that had been attacked, all might have been lost. Jacob's prayer at that point acknowledged both the assistance received thus far and the promises made; it made the point however that all G-d’s promises made to Abraham and Isaac would come to nought if he and his family were not saved at this time. Jacob indicated that he did not think that he personally had any merit to entitle him to ask for favors for himself, seeing that when he had first set out on his quest he had only had a walking staff to call his own, and he had received so many favors from G-d that he was a wealthy man by now. He appealed for help, since, though assured of victory, in a battle involving so many, even victory might involve heavy casualties. G-d had not yet promised that no harm would come to any of them. Jacob was certainly entitled to feel alarmed at that point in his life. At the conclusion of his prayer, he looked for a sign that his prayer had received a favorable hearing. This is why he chose to spend the night at the site where he had offered his prayer. Since Jacob's efforts to save himself had not yet included a financial sacrifice, G-d withheld reassurance until he had done his share in that respect. It was the absence of a response from G-d then that galvanized Jacob into rising early on the following morning to arrange for the gifts to be sent to Esau. There are times when preoccupation with worldly matters-- which are after all only our second most important concerns-- exceeds what is reasonable and is apt to be misinterpreted. Jacob's encounter with the spiritual counterpart of Esau is an example of this. Since Jacob had risen during the night in order to carry insignificant belongings across the river Yabbok, this had been misinterpreted by Esau's guardian angel as evidence that Jacob was excessively concerned with worldly goods. This provided said angel with the opportunity to challenge Jaob's moral superiority over Esau (Chullin 91). Jacob recovered quickly enough from this momentary lapse, and the angel had to acknowledge Jacob's claim to morally high standards, by revealing to him that he would henceforth be known as "Israel." Nonetheless, the momentary weakness displayed and referred to by the Torah euphemistically as "dislocation of the hip joint," is frequently found among Jacob's descendants, and gives Esau/Amalek opportunities to attack the Jewish people's claim to moral leadership. Already Isaac had warned against this weakness in his blessing to Esau, when he told the latter, that he, Esau, would be able to shake off the yoke of his younger brother whenever the latter would fail to live up to his standards (Genesis 27,41). (7) The angel's request to let him go, is simply another way of saying to Jacob, "Why do you waste your time detaining me, when you should be busy preparing gifts for Esau."
Akeidas Yitzchok (26:8) Jacob's request to know the angel's name means that he wants to know who has the power to inflict this damage on his hip joint. The angel tells him that it is not the name that matters, since the ability to inflict damage was not rooted in the personality (name) of the angel, but rather it is an angel's mission that is of importance. Just as to many people the names of individual kings such as Saul or Hezzekiah or even David become blurred, and all they remember is that all these were Kings of Israel, so the individuality of an angel pales into insignificance when compared to his respective function. It had been Jacob's name (the crooked one) which had misled the angel into thinking that he was possessed of a fatal character flaw, and this is why he rectified his error by admitting that Jacob was indeed an Israel, a fighter for spiritual values. In consonance with the Rabbis' maxim that a hint to the wise is sufficient, the angel did not elaborate on the theme. Now that Jacob had done everything humanly possible on his own and his family's behalf, the first signs of Divine assistance become evident, commencing with the sun "shining for him," i.e. healing the physical affliction to the point where he could at least limp. (8) Apparently, up to that point he had been unable to move at all, and the dislocation of his hip joint had left him rooted to the spot of the nocturnal encounter. Since Esau's spiritual counterpart had not been able to find any other weakness in Jacob, the Jewish people, ever mindful of this weakness and convinced that this part of the body was more prone to sinfulness than any other part, abstained from eating that part of an animal, and even extended the prohibition to include use of the sinew for any purpose other than eating. Isaiah 48,4 uses the hyperbole of the sinew to describe sinful obstinacy per se. So does the prophet Micha in Chapter 4 verse 6. When Jacob experienced Divine assistance, he felt so reassured that he proceeded to face Esau without bothering to actually divide the camps. He was certain that now everyone could face Esau.
Akeidas Yitzchok (26:9) It is interesting that the temple in later years was to be erected in the territory of Benjamin, the only one of the brothers who had not bowed down to Esau. (he had not been born yet) The defeats inflicted in times to come on the descendants of Esau were likewise administered by descendants of Benjamin, i.e. Saul, and Mordechai. Even Haman's wife realised that if Mordechai was descended from the tribe that had defeated Amalek once, there was little hope of Haman being able to overcome him. Esau, believing that anyone trying to atone for a capital offense would at least offer all his worldly goods, thought that in coming face to face with the gifts, he had actually seen all of Jacob's wealth. (9) Therefore, he said, "I have lots, keep what is yours." In this manner he wanted to show that he was in a generous mood. Jacob then had to correct Esau's mistaken impression by announcing that what Esau had just seen was merely a gift as is befitting when one meets a superior person. Jacob himself, however, had retained so much of his own wealth that he was able to say, "I have all that a person could wish for." Esau's offer to travel with Jacob, demonstrates his error in believing that the time had already come when no more basic differences in their respective outlooks on life existed between them. Jacob is at pains to explain that the Jewish attitude to material values is such that the slightest overemphasis leads to negative spiritual results. In alluding to this, he says that if one pushes the sheep too much even for a single day, the flock will die (Genesis 33,13). In conclusion, it is clear that Divine help had been forthcoming only after every effort had been made to exhaust natural means.
