Parshat Hayyei Sarah: Is there a "Jewish" Destiny?

By AJ BERKOVITZ

The question of destiny is always of interest. Luckily for me, I am not here to answer it. It is a very complex issue that tomes, sometimes unnecessarily, have been written on. Perhaps one of the most classic questions of destiny is: do we have the ability to create our own destiny or is it predetermined. As a people living in Western democracy and perhaps also connoisseurs of popular culture, we like to believe that we are in control and the center of our existence, present and future. We are very anthropocentric beings. On this note, it is very interesting how the protagonist of a book or movie chooses a destiny very similar, if not the same one, as the one predetermined by the ‘prophecy’. For a nice example see the now not so recent Alice in Wonderland.

But because this is a parsha blog, let us see what God, or what scholars may call JE +R think about destiny. As a methodological note, I will actively veer from what is known as pshat. Please do not come brandishing swords and flaming arrows. If, however, you do wish to seek a target, my institution, well… never mind.

The primary focus of our parsha is the dialogue between Abraham and his servant and then the servant with the various family members of Rebecca. During this discourse, Abraham makes his servant swear not to bring home a Canaanite shiksa. The servant, politely unoffended, retorts: what if the woman does not consent to follow me to this land, shall I then take your son back to the land from which you came?” (Gen. 24:5). So this is, of course, the biblical source that all good bachurs need to be set up via shadchan. It also shows the failure of the system. If you cannot get someone be proactive. Go the extra, well in this case, many hundred miles.

But seriously, if a projected rejection is anticipated why not just take Isaac along ab initio? Equally startling is Abraham’s response: On no account must you take my son back there!” (6) Like every good Jewish parent, Abraham is worried. Traveling is wearisome and dangerous. Abraham’s fear, however, is peculiar. It not is just a by command that Abraham requests his son remain but also though oath: And if the woman does not consent to follow you, you shall be clear of your oath to me; but do not take my son back there” (8). The placement of this verse is extremely peculiar. It comes AFTER Abraham says that his servant will be absolved of his oath if he fails to get a nice frum meidelah. In light of its position, there must be some anathema of returning Isaac to Mesopotamia.

Many commentators claim this oversensitivity stems from Isaac’s near death as a sacrificial lamb. In fact, Ḥazal pick up on this oddity, combine it with Isaac’s sojourn in Gerar, and develop the opinion that Isaac truly had sacrificial status and was not able to leave Israel. While this is brilliant exegesis, I would like to present an alternative explanation: Isaac as a symbol of Jewish identity and destiny.

God’s first command to Abram is the famous call of “go forth!” Abram is told to leave: “your native land, and from your father’s house, to the land I will show you.” (Gen. 12:1). While this verse is a fantastic mini-depiction of Jewish history, it stands in slight contrast to a few verses before. We are told in 11:31: “Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, … and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan, but when they came as far as Haran they settled there.” Abram has already been uprooted, what exactly is God’s command?


This is where the darshani aspect enters: perhaps the command of Lekh Lekha is not merely a positive commanded to get to Israel but also contains the inverse: DON’T COME BACK! Once God has charted a national destiny it is utter blasphemy and potentially life-threatening to attempt to completely uproot it. You may just end up dead, or worse, in the belly of a fish. “Hermione you need to get your priorities straight.” Wait, wrong book. Regardless, this may yet be Abraham’s tension in letting Isaac return to Mesopotamia. Isaac is now the symbol of Jewish destiny. Going back would set Jewish history in inverse. We can now understand the primary placing of “land whence you came” in this Abrahamic discourse.


The anathema of resetting Jewish history by undoing the will of God is ever-present in Tanakh. A more famous example is the prohibition of returning to Egypt. Although the Egypt of today is no longer the Egypt of magic, Pharaohs, and frogs, we are still prohibited to return. Maimonides in chapter 5 section 7 in Laws of Kings mentions three sources of torah prohibitions from returning to Egypt. One of the more famous sources for this negative commandment is in the laws of kings in Deut. 17. A king is not allowed to have too many horses lest he send people to Egypt to get more, and this is wrong “Since the Lord has warned you, you must not go back that way again” (17:17). Crossing God by intervening and undermining a completed historical process is dangerous.

This, in fact, does happen! After most of the land is exiled during 586 BCE, Yohanan ben Quareah begins to lead the remnant Jewish populace towards Egypt. Jeremiah, in a brilliant and harrowing prophecy (chapters 43-45) delineates the destruction awaiting the populace who returns to Egypt. Stay in the land, Jeremiah claims, and God will provide your needs.

Attempting to go back to the past is impossible and undesirable. Jewish destiny on a mass spectrum is not to be tampered with lest it fall into total ruin. Abraham sensed this in not allowing his son, Isaac, to return to Abram’s birthplace. God explicitly commands us not to return the place where he actively removed us from. God delineates a forward moving destiny for the Jewish nation. We are in constant progress and we are to strive to advance to the next historical landmark. The non-existence of a Jewish homeland, according to this reading, is not a valid option. Returning, dwelling, and wallowing in the past is not only ineffective, but destructives. So while we may be the heralds of our own destiny we are prevented one option: return to past existence.