PDA

View Full Version : Genesis 26: Anti-Semitism, the first expulsion of Jews, and 3 Temples


stillsmallvoice
November 27th 2003, 10:55 AM
Hi all!

This (coming) Saturday's Torah reading is Genesis 25:29-28:9. 26:12-16 says:

And Isaac sowed in that land, and found in the same year a hundred-fold; and the Lord blessed him. And the man waxed great, and grew more and more until he became very great. And he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and a great household; and the Philistines envied him. Now all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth. And Abimelech said unto Isaac: 'Go from us; for you are much mightier than we.

Through a combination of his own industry and Divine blessing, Isaac becomes very wealthy. We can assume that his Philistine neighbors also benefited from Isaac's success (from trading with him). Yet the text tells us that, "and the Philistines envied him." There was no rational basis for their envy which eventually prompted their king, Abimelech, to tell Isaac:

'Go from us; for you are much mightier than we.

The Hebrew for the above phrase is lech meh-imanu ki atzamta mimennu maod. The last three Hebrew words are ambiguous and the phrase could be read as:

'Go from us; for you have grown strong from us

It is a principle of Judaism and of Jewish Biblical exegesis that (to quote our Sages): "The actions of the fathers are a sign to the children," i.e. that the actions of our Patriarchs and ancestors in the scriptures are a paradigm and a model for subsequent Jewish history. Here, in these verses from Genesis, we see one of the models of anti-Semitism throughout Jewish history: The Jew as leech, as an economic bloodsucker. The Philistines envied Isaac's material success and, if we accept the variant reading, accused him, leech-like, of taking from them and getting wealthy from them, even though the text testifies that Isaac did no such thing & that Isaac owed his wealth to God and to his own industry. Their irrational hatred of him (see Genesis 26:27) was such that even though Isaac's presence in their midst was to their material benefit (via the wells of his father & through trading with him), they still expelled him, the first of many such expulsions that would follow in later eras.

In Genesis 26:18-22, we read about the episode of the wells (of "living water") that Isaac dug. Isaac dug two wells which the Philistines fought over and which Isaac subsequently abandoned. He dug a third well which was not fought over. Our Sages say that the three wells are the three Temples: the First, built by King Solomon and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar; the Second, built by the returnees from Babylon and destroyed by the Romans, and the Third, which will be built (please God, soon, in our days) and which will never be destroyed.

Comments?

Be well!

ssv :wave:

Fideist345
November 29th 2003, 12:09 PM
stillsmallvoice:

Hi all!

This (coming) Saturday's Torah reading is Genesis 25:29-28:9. 26:12-16 says:



Through a combination of his own industry and Divine blessing, Isaac becomes very wealthy. We can assume that his Philistine neighbors also benefited from Isaac's success (from trading with him). Yet the text tells us that, "and the Philistines envied him." There was no rational basis for their envy which eventually prompted their king, Abimelech, to tell Isaac:



The Hebrew for the above phrase is lech meh-imanu ki atzamta mimennu maod. The last three Hebrew words are ambiguous and the phrase could be read as:



It is a principle of Judaism and of Jewish Biblical exegesis that (to quote our Sages): "The actions of the fathers are a sign to the children," i.e. that the actions of our Patriarchs and ancestors in the scriptures are a paradigm and a model for subsequent Jewish history. Here, in these verses from Genesis, we see one of the models of anti-Semitism throughout Jewish history: The Jew as leech, as an economic bloodsucker. The Philistines envied Isaac's material success and, if we accept the variant reading, accused him, leech-like, of taking from them and getting wealthy from them, even though the text testifies that Isaac did no such thing & that Isaac owed his wealth to God and to his own industry. Their irrational hatred of him (see Genesis 26:27) was such that even though Isaac's presence in their midst was to their material benefit (via the wells of his father & through trading with him), they still expelled him, the first of many such expulsions that would follow in later eras.

In Genesis 26:18-22, we read about the episode of the wells (of "living water") that Isaac dug. Isaac dug two wells which the Philistines fought over and which Isaac subsequently abandoned. He dug a third well which was not fought over. Our Sages say that the three wells are the three Temples: the First, built by King Solomon and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar; the Second, built by the returnees from Babylon and destroyed by the Romans, and the Third, which will be built (please God, soon, in our days) and which will never be destroyed.

Comments?

Be well!

ssv :wave:

Hi SSV!

Yeah, I have a couple of questions! In reading this, I see more of a story of “mixed blessing”, if you will. Jacob outsmarts his brother and tricks Esau into selling Jacob his birthright. So, are you sure that the Philistine request for Jacob to go out from them is anti-Semitism and not just something to do with the rewards of birthrights and the rewards of cheating your brother to get it?

And the part on the wells: I’ve always thought that part intruded a little bit. Do you think those passages are there in part to explain the existence of ancient wells?

stillsmallvoice
December 1st 2003, 07:20 AM
Hi Fideist!

You posted:

In reading this, I see more of a story of “mixed blessing”, if you will. Jacob outsmarts his brother and tricks Esau into selling Jacob his birthright. So, are you sure that the Philistine request for Jacob to go out from them is anti-Semitism and not just something to do with the rewards of birthrights and the rewards of cheating your brother to get it?

I think that you've got Isaac & Jacob confused. The Philistines booted Isaac, not Jacob.

And the part on the wells: I’ve always thought that part intruded a little bit. Do you think those passages are there in part to explain the existence of ancient wells?

Why would Genesis have to explain the existence of ancient wells? That ancient wells exist is/was self-evident. Have i musunderstood you?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

Fideist345
December 1st 2003, 08:46 AM
Today @ 06:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321652#post321652)
stillsmallvoice:

Hello SSV, you wrote:

[quote]I think that you've got Isaac & Jacob confused. The Philistines booted Isaac, not Jacob.

I think you're right! I still don't see anti-Semitism though. I see a literary device to get Isaac to travel to Beer-sheeba. :)

“ And the part on the wells: I’ve always thought that part intruded a little bit. Do you think those passages are there in part to explain the existence of ancient wells? ”



Why would Genesis have to explain the existence of ancient wells? That ancient wells exist is/was self-evident. Have i musunderstood you?

To make a claim on them? To give the story of the naming of Beer-sheba? Did not wells in that region carry great value? Was there not some dispute as to who dug or owned the wells? Didn't naming something have great significance?

Jason Clark
December 18th 2003, 05:55 PM
I'm not sure if it was intended as anti-semitism or just the result of seeing a foreigner become wealthy. Jealousy, some call it the tall-poppy syndrome.

However I think you could see it as a prototype of Jewish expulsions too.

It would be interesting if the wells were prototypes of the Temples, however to borrow a phrase from Freud "sometimes a well is just a well."

yxboom
December 18th 2003, 05:57 PM
I am moving this to the judaism forum.

Paul
December 19th 2003, 03:50 AM
/ot Good to see a Judaism forum here. I was going to suggest one actually but I didn't know enough to really know whether the suggestion would have been a good one. btw, I started composing a reply to you in the thread in Theology 201 but I need to think about it some more. I've saved it.