familiars i textbook for midterm test

8/8/2019 Familiars I TEXTBOOK for Midterm Test

1/24

"

FAMILIARS IThe Genesis of the non-genetic Parent,

of non-natural Rights, and of the ability to sayAmen

-


2/24

LBS Jewish Learning Program2nd Edition 5770 (2009)

: Rabbi Yitzhak said: It was not necessary to begin theTorah before This month is to you (Exodus 12:2), that beingthe first commandment with which the Israelites were

commanded. For what reason did He commence with ? Because the power of His acts He relatedto His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations (Psalms 111:6). [Tanhuma Yashan, Genesis11] For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, You are bandits, for you conquered by force thelands of the seven nations, they will reply, The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; Hecreated it, and gave it to whomever He deemed proper. By His will, He gave it to them, and by His will,He took it away from them and gave it to us.

But is this the law, that one who gives a gift to someone in goodwill can he later take it away from him? Even though it was histo begin with, after he gave it, a gift is a gift! It is also necessary

to analyse [Rashis apparently] redundant expressionIt was not necessary to begin the Torah ... andFor what reason did He commence with ? And we have to analyse the citation the power of Hisacts etc.: how do we interpret this? [...]

The matter is as follows. The verse In the beginning Gd created wishes to inform us thatCreation took place from absolute zero, contrary to the belief of the philosophers who, even when theyadmit the creation of the world, nevertheless make a proviso and claim that there was a primordialmaterial, called hul, and that from this material the world emerged. We for our part, however, trust that

there was absolute nothingness and that in the beginning He created something ex nihilo, and that thehul was precisely this something. As the Ramban explains, the word created refers to creatio exnihilo, and this is the meaning of the verse In the beginning [He] created, namely that even theBeginning, which is the hul, was created by Gd. And within this hulthe whole world was createdtheheavens and the earth and all their multitudesby way of sheer power, i.e. in potentia, and onlyafterwards did the Holy One, blessed be He, draw them out of this potentiality into actuality. This is theway to read the verse, In the beginning Gd created the heavens and the earth, namely: In, or with, theBeginningmeaning, the hulthat Gd created ex nihilo, He drew out the heavens and the earth. [...] Asit says: ... and the land was : first it was nothingness [], namely hul, and afterwards it

became invested with whatness [].Now, once this verse informs us that the world was absolute nothingness, and that even the pure

potential that is hulwas created, it can be proven that it was true and fitting justice for the Holy One,blessed be He, to given the land to Israel, and to take it away in order to give it to someone else. This is

in accordance with the law that says: if one gives a gift that has no real substance to it, then the gift is nota gift. For instance, if one gives or sells someone the right-to-dwell, dwelling per se, this means nothing.For dwelling as such is without substance. One needs to sell him a house in which to dwellin that thereis something. Therefore, since He created the world from absolute nothingness, seeing that even hulwascreated, it can be said that from the perspective of the Holy One, blessed be He, the world has nosubstance to it. For it was brought into beingfrom absolute nothingness, and therefore it isnot a gift in any decisive [or absolute] sense.And this is why Rashi chooses his wordscarefully when he says, He created it, andgave it to whomever He deemed proper, as ifto say, since He created it from absolutenothingnessas the word created indicates

RaSHI, Genesis 1:1

SHLaH, Breisheet 7

RaMBaM , Hilkhot Mekhirah 22

13. A person cannot bestow something, either byselling it or by giving it as a gift, unless it hassubstance to it. Something that has no substance to itcannot be bestowed.14. How so? A person cannot bestow the fragranceof an apple, the taste of honey, the color of a crystal,or the like. Therefore when a person would bestow ofthe eating of the fruits of this date palm, or ofdwelling in this home, nothing has been acquirednot until he has bestowed the house itself for the sakeof dwelling in it, or the tree itself for the purpose ofeating its fruit

2


3/24

this is why He can give it and take it away. And this is why he says, because the power of His actsHe related to His people, to give them ..., as if to say, even the power, or potential, which is the hulisthe work of His hands, and susequently He, may He be blessed, drew everything out of the potential

power orhulinto actuality. This is why He commences with , because is the hul, and He,

be He blessed, informs us that He created it from absolute nothingness. In this, moreover, we find theresponse to those who accuse Israel of being robbers. For the acquisition of the land of Israel, which wasin their hands, is not an acquisition.

[...] This also explains why the Torah does not commence with , namely because such a locution would not have conveyed the teaching that He creates the world by means of apower that must appearbut Heaven forbid that it actually be soas if He created the world contrary tojustice. This appears only from the force of the locution . He created which is the hul,as I explained, and therefore His name suits Him, be He blessed, and He is called , for The Rock!

His deeds are perfect and all His ways are true justice (Deuteronomy 32:4). This is not the case with aking of flesh and blood whose name does not suit his actions and automatically demonstrate that that hisname is right; wherefore his name precedes his actions, for his name is not bound up with the actions.This is the teaching of Rabbi Yodan.

Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said: A sign was given by the HolyOne, Blessed is He, to Avraham, that everything that happened tohim would happen to his children. How? He chose Avraham

from all those in his fathers household, as it is stated: You are the LORD Gd, Who chose Avram andtook him out from Ur of the Chaldeans, and changed his name to Avraham. (Nehemiah 9:7) Then hechose his children from among the seventy nations, as it is stated, For you are a holy people to the LORD,your Gd, and the LORD has chosen you for Himself to be a treasured people, from among all the peoplesthat are on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 14:2) Regarding Avraham it is stated, Go for yourself.And to his children it is stated, I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt to the land of theCanaanite, the Hittite, the Emorite, the Perizite, the Hivite, the Yevusite, to a land flowing with milk and

honey. (Exodus 3:17) To Avraham it is stated, And I will bless you and make your name great, and youwill be a blessing, and I will bless those who bless you. To his sons it is stated, May the L ORD blessyou. (Numbers 6:24) To Avraham it is stated, and I will make you into a great people. And to his sonsit is stated, And who is a great people? (Deuteronomy 4:8) Concerning Avraham it is written,Avraham was unique (Ezekiel 33:24), and concerning Israel, Who is like your nation, Israel, etc. (IChronicles 17:21) Regarding Avraham it is stated, There was a famine in the land; Avram went down toEgypt to live there temporarily, for the famine was severe in the land. (Genesis 12:10) And his children,

because they returned to Egypt on account of the famine, it is says, The famine was severe in the land.(Ibid. 43:1) Avraham, because of the famine, went down to Egypt, and likewise his children went downto Egypt because of the famine, as it is stated, Yosefs ten brothers went down to acquire grain fromEgypt. (Ibid. 42:3) When Avraham went down the Egyptians harassed him: The Egyptians saw that thewoman was very beautiful. (Ibid. 12:14) So too his children: Come, let us deal wisely with it, lest itmultiply, and it may be that if a war will occur, it too, will join our enemies, fight against us, and go up

from the land. (Exodus 1:3) Concerning Avraham, four kings joined forces against him. Likewise, Israelis destined in the future to be accosted by all the kings, as it is stated, Why do the nations gather, [andwhy do] peoples think of worthless plans? (Psalms 2:1) And it states, the kings of the earth gather, andthe nobles conspire secretly against the LORD and against His anointed one. (Ibid. v. 2) And just as in thecase of Avraham, the Holy One, Blessed is He, went forth and fought against his antagonists, as it isstated, Who inspired the one from the east, whose footstep was accompanied by righteousness. Hedelivered nations to him, and subdued kings [before him]. He gave over [his enemies] like dust before hissword, like straw blown about before his bow (Isaiah 41:2), so too, in the future the Holy One, Blessedis He, will do the same for his children, as it is stated, the L ORD will go out and wage war with thosenations, as He waged war on the day of battle. (Zechariah 14:3)

TANHUMA, Lekh Lekha 9

3


4/24

And he dealt well with Avram ... (Genesis 12:16). It is written,And Pharaoh gave the men charge concerning him ... (v. 20).Rabbi Phinhas commented in Rabbi Hoshayas name: The Holy

One, blessed be He, said to our father Avraham, Go forth and tread out a path for thy children. 1Foryou find that everything written in connection with Abraham is written in connection with his children.In connection with Avraham it is written, And there was a famine in the land (v. 10); while inconnection with Israel it is written, For these two years hath the famine been in the land (45:6). [...]

Avram passed through the land I will tell you a principle,and you should comprehend it in the matter of Avraham,Yitzhak, and Yaakov in all the upcoming passages. It is indeed a

great matter which our Rabbis mentioned tersely, saying: Everything that happened to the patriarchs is asign to the children. It is for this reason that the verses narrate at great length the account of the journeysof the patriarchs, the digging of the wells, and other events. One might have thought such things to besuperfluous and purposeless. However, they all come to teach something for the future. When an event

happens to a prophet among the three patriarchs, it can be understood from this that the same thing hasbeen decreed for his children.

You should know that any decree of the angels [Daniel 4:14], when it emerges from apotential decree to a symbolic act, will be fulfilled under any circumstance. It is for this reason that theprophets often perform some act in conjunction with the prophecies, just as Jeremiah commanded Baruchhis disciple: And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind astone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates, and thou shalt say: Thus shall Babylon sink.(Jeremiah 51:63-64) Likewise is the matter of Elisha when he put his arm on the bow [held by KingYoash]: And Elisha said, Shoot. And he shot. And he said, The Eternals arrow of victory, even thearrow of victory against Aram. (II Kings 13:17) And it is further stated there, And the man of Gd wasangry with him, and said: You should have struck five or six times; then had you struck Aram until youhad consumed it whereas now thou shalt smite Aram but thrice. (Ibid. v. 19) This is why the Holy One,

blessed be He, caused Avraham to take possession of the Land and symbolically did to him all that was

destined to happen in the future to his children. Understand this principle. Now, with the help of Gd, Iwill begin to explain in detail the subject matter of the verses.

And Avram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem. This is the city of Shechemfor such was the name of this place, and Shechem the son of Hamor (Genesis 34:2) was called by thename of city. Now Rashi wrote, He entered it unto the place of Shechem in order to pray on behalf ofYaakovs sons when they would come from the field aggrieved. This is correct. And I add that Avrahamtook possession of this place at the very beginning, even before the land was given to him. It was thushinted to him that his children would first conquer this place before they would merit it and before theguilt of the dwellers of the land was full to warrant their exile therefrom. It is for this reason that theverse here states, And the Canaanite was then in the land. []

It has been taught (Niddah, end ch. 3 [30b]): An oath is

administered to him [the fetus]: Be righteous and be notwicked; and even if the whole world tells you that you arerighteous, regard yourself as if you were wicked. Thisrequires to be understood, for it contradicts the Mishnaic

dictum (Avot, ch. 2 [v. 13]), And be not wicked in your ownestimation. Furthermore, if a man considers himself to bewicked he will be grieved at heart and depressed, and will not

be able to serve Gd joyfully and with a contented heart; while ifhe is not worried about this [guilt feeling], it may lead him toirreverence, Gd forbid. [...]

1The deeds of the fathers are a sign and an empowerment, a walking down the path, before their children. RabbiM. M. Schneerson,Likutei Sihot, Part 3, p. 757; Part 5, p. 298.

GENESIS RABBA 40:6

RaMBaN re Genesis 12:6

RABBI SHNEUR ZALMANOF LIADI,Tanya, Chapters 1-2

Cf. Appendix 1: S. FREUD,Of Civilization in its

Discontents

4


5/24


6/24

GE N E S I S 9- -

18

The sons of Noah who came out of theark were Shem, Ham, and YafetHambeing the father of Canaan.

- -

19

These three were the sons of Noah, andfrom these the whole world branchedout.

20

Noah, a man of the earth, began byplanting a vineyard.

-

21

He drank of the wine and becamedrunk, and he uncovered himself within

the tent.

Noah, man of the earth, began [ ] He was degraded[nithalel] and debased [hulin]. Why? Because he planted a vine-yard. Should he have not planted something of use, such as a

young fig-shoot or a young olive-shoot? Instead he planted a vineyard. And planted a vineyard As hewas going to plant the vineyard the demon Destruction (Shimadon) met him and proposed, Come into

partnership with me, but take care not to enter into my portion, for if you do I will injure you.

Our Rabbis of blessed memory said that when Noah came toplant a vineyard, the Satan came and stood before him and saidto him, What are you planting? He replied, A vineyard. He

said to him, What is its feature? He said to him, Sweet fruits, whether moist or dry, and one produceswine from them to gladden the hearts, as it is written, and wine gladdens the heart of man. (Psalms104:15.) The Satan said to him, Let us become partners in this vineyard. He said to him, Yes indeed.What did the Satan do? He brought a lamb and slaughtered it under the vine. Than he brought a lion andkilled it there, and then he brought a pig and killed it. Then he brought a monkey and killed it under thevine and their blood flowed into the vineyard and nourished it from their blood. He hinted to him that

before man drinks wine he is as innocent as a lamb, which knows nothing, or a ewe that is silent beforeits shearers. (Isaiah 53:7.) Once he has drunk an adequate amount he becomes mighty like a lion anddeclares that there is no one like him in the world. If he drinks too much, he becomes like a pig, soilinghimself with his urine and whatever else. When he becomes inebriated, he is like a monkey, and standsup and dances around and laughs, and he publicly utters profanities, and he has no idea what he is doing.All this happened to Noah the righteous man. And if it could happen to Noah, for whom the Holy One,Blessed be He, expressed his praise, all the more so could it happen to any other person.

Within his tent Written ,, which can be read as her tenthis wifes tent. Rabbi Huna said in Rabbi Eliezers name: When

Noah was leaving the Ark a lion struck and mutilated [hisgenitalia]. Now, [inebriated,] he went to cohabit, but his semen was scattered and he was humiliated.

-

22

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw hisfathers nakedness and told his twobrothers outside.

- -

23

But Shem and Yafet took a cloak, laid iton both their shoulders and, walking

GENESIS RABBA 36:3

TANHUMA, Noah 13

GENESIS RABBA 36:4

6


7/24

backwards, they covered their fathersnakedness; their faces were turned theother way, so that they did not see

their fathers nakedness.

-

24

Noah woke up from his wine, and herealized what his smallest son had doneto him.

Noah woke up from his wine, and he realized what his youngest son had done to him. Rav and Shmueldisagreed. One said, he castrated him. The other said, he sodomized him. The one who said castrated

infers: from the fact that he jeopardized a fourth son, he cursedhis fourth son [cf. Genesis Rabba 36:7 below]. The one who saidsodomized compares saw with saw: here it is written, Ham,father of Canaan, saw his fathers nakedness (v. 22), and there

(in Genesis 9:22) it is written, Shechem, son of Hamor, saw [Dinah] Now, granted, the one whosays castrated draws his inference this from the cursing of the fourth son. How does the one who sayssodomized explain the distinction of the fourth son such that he was cursed? Both this and that occurred.

Hams sin was to look at the nakedness of his father and to treathim witout respect. Where he should have covered his fathersnakedness and concealed his shame by not telling even his

brothers, he related the matter to his two brothers in the presence of many people in order to deride Noah.This is the meaning of the word outside (v. 22). Onkelos translates it as in the marketplace. Theverse, And [Noah] knew what he had done to him (v. 24) means that he knew that Ham had publicizedhis disgrace to many, and he was ashamed of the matter.

Shem and Yafet took a cloak Rabbi Yonathan said: Shem

initiated the good deed, then Yafet came and followed his lead.Therefore Shem was granted a tallitand Yafet a noble pallium.

And laid it upon both their shoulders Now since it is said, and went backwards, do we not alreadyknow that they did not see their fathers nakedness? This teaches that they hid their faces with theirhands and walked backward, giving him the respect due from a son to a father.

25

And he said, Cursed be Canaan! Aslave of slaves shall he be to hisbrothers.

2

6

And he said, Blessed be the LORD, TheGod of Shem; Let Canaan be a slave to

them.

-

27

May God enlarge Yafet, and let himdwell in the tents of Shem; and letCanaan be a slave to them.

-

28

Noah lived for 350 years after theFlood.

- -

29

All the days of Noah came to 950 years;then he died.

SANHEDRIN 70a

RaMBaN re 9:18

GENESIS RABBA 36:6

7


8/24

And he said: Cursed be Canaan Rabbi Berekiah said: Noahgrieved very much in the Ark that he had no young son to wait onhim, and declared, When I go out I will beget a young son to do

this for me. But when Ham acted thus to him, he exclaimed, You have prevented me from begetting ayoung son to serve me, therefore that man [your son] will be a servant to his brethren! Rabbi Huna saidin Rabbi Josephs name: [Noah declared], You have prevented me from begetting a fourth son, thereforeI curse your fourth son. (10:6) [8.] And he said: Blessed be the LORD, the Gd of Shem . . . Gd enlargeYafet (9:26 f.). This alludes to Cyrus who ordered the Temple to be rebuilt. Moreover, And he shalldwell in the tents of Shem means: the Shechinah dwells only in the tents of Shem. Bar Kapparaexplained it: Let the words of the Torah be uttered in the language of Yafet [i.e. Greek] in the tents ofShem. (Megilla 9b) Rabbi Yudan said: From this we learn that a translation [of the Torah is permitted].Thus it is written, And they read in the book, in the Law of Gd (Nehemiah 7:8): this refers to Scripture;distinctly (ibid.): to a translation

E X O D U S 20 - -

-

11

Honour your father and your mother,that your days on the land that the LORDyour Gd gives you may be lengthened.

Honour your father: Having finished all that we owe to theCreator, the Decalogue turns to deal with His creatures. It beginswith ones father, who is like a co-creator with God in forming

his descendants. For Gd is our first father, and the one who sired us is only our immediate father. That iswhy Deuteronomy 5:16 adds as the LORD your Gd has commanded you to this commandmentjust as Icommanded you about My own honour, so I command you about the honour of the one who participatedwith Me in your creation.

To honour ones father and mother, as it is stated, Honour yourfather and your mother ... (Exodus 20:12). The explanation isgiven in our Talmud: What constitutes this honour?to provide

food and drink, clothing and shelter, and to take them in and lead them out. At the root of this mitzvahlies the idea that it is fitting for a man to acknowledge and treat with loving-kindness the person whotreated him with goodness, and he should not be a scoundrel, an ingrate who turns a cold shoulder to him

for this is an evil quality, utterly vile before Gd and mankind. It is for a person to realize that his fatherand mother are the cause of his being in the world; hence in very truth it is proper for him to give them

every honour and every benefit that he can, since they brought him into the world and then, too, laboredthrough many troubles over him in his early years.When he sets this quality firmly in his character, a person will rise from this to recognize the

goodness of Gd, blessed is He, who is the primary Cause of his existence and the existence of all hisforebears, back to Adam, the first man. And he will realize that He brought him forth into the air of theworld, provided for his needs all his days, brought him to his proper estate with all his limbs whole, andgave him a cognitive and intelligent spiritand if not for this spirit with which Gd endowed him, hewould be like a horse, like a mule, without understanding(Psalms 32:9). Then let him reckon in his mindhow very, very right it is for him to take care about serving and worshipping Him, be He blessed.

The laws of the mitzvah stipulate, for example, out of whose estate this honouring to be done, onesfathers or ones own, the law being: at the fathers expense if the father has property, and if he has none,then the son is to go so far as make the rounds of doors [begging for charity, if necessary] in order tosupport his father. Then there is the question of whose honour takes precedence, ones fathers or ones

GENESIS RABBA 36:7-8

RaMBaN

SEFERHAHINUKH, Mitzvah 33

8


9/24

mothers. To what limits honouring the father and mother extend? If a parent is willing to forego hishonour, is this permitted? If someone sees his father transgressing the words of the Torah, in what terms hemay speak to deter him? (Bava Metziah 32a). If his father should order him to transgress the words of theTorah, he should not heed him about this. How is one obliged to honour him both in life and in death, and

how is a parent honoured in death? These and further details are explained in the tractateKiddushin (31-32), and some of them elsewhere in the Talmud.

It is written: Honour your father and mother, sinceit is known that the king who built the country doesnot appear to its populace every day. The men of thatgeneration remember him, having witnessed the

arrival of the king to the country and the acceptance of the yoke of his kingdom, and that the king builtthe country and emancipated them from slavery to freedom. The ones who are born afterwards, however,never having experienced slavery or witnessed the arrival of the king to the country, will come to rebeland think that the country was always there from the start and that they have no ruler upon them. There isno way to escape this folly besides their being subservient to their fathers and accepting discipline fromthem, for they will notify their sons how they were slaves and that one master emancipated them and heis the one who built the country and settled them there. This is necessary in order that the authority of theking not be forgotten in the entire country, as well as the favour that he did for them by bringing them outfrom slavery to freedom, that the children of every generation should be subservient to their parents andtake heed to their rebuke. This is the reason for the Fifth Commandment, Honour your father andmother: to promote awareness of the heritage, meaning to say that man should be drawn to the traditionof the fathers since this is the main essence that encompasses all religions, that their existence can not bemaintained if man does not accept the tradition of the fathers and Sages.

Yetziat Mitzrayim and Matan Torah are the two basic facts in thehistory of the Jewish people that form the foundation of ourallegiance to Gd as the Master of our fate and the Guide of our

lives. These two facts are historical truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition,and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to children, and on its willingacceptance by children from the hands of their parents.

Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism rests entirely on the theoretical andpractical obedience of children to parents. Accordingly,Kibud Av veEm is the basic condition for theeternity of the Jewish nation.

Through the father and the mother, Gd gives the child more than just his physical existence. Parentsare also the link that connects the child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man orwoman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the Jewish mission, which is shaped byknowledge, a code of conduct, and upbringing. []

The only limitation placed on this duty is that their will should not be contradictory to Gds Will. Forthe parents are meant to be the heralds of Gds Will. This is their mission; this is what gives them their

great importance. It is this mission of the parentsnot the amount of kindness, large or small, they haveshown their childrenthat lies at the root of the mitzvah ofKibud Av veEm, a mitzvah that increaseswith the age and maturity of the children and extends even beyond the death of the parents. Theunconditional and imposing demands of this mitzvah transcend by far any moral obligation that ordinarymoralitythe so-called morality of reasoncould deduce from considerations of gratitude (seeKiddushin 30b, 31, 32).

L E V I T I C U S 19

-

3 A man shall revere his mother and hisfather, and my shabbatot you shall

R YOSEF ALBO, Book of Roots, III, 26

R SHIMSHON RAFAEL HIRSCH

9


10/24

observe. I am the LORD your Gd.- -

4Do not turn to idols, and do makemolten gods for yourselves. I am the

LORD your Gd.

It could happen that, were his father or mother to tell him totransgress one of the commandments written in the Torah, he mightlisten to them. The verse comes to teach: My shabbatot you shall

observe. I am the LORD: all of you are obliged with regard to My honour.

Whence is it derived that if [a Kohens] father told him Becometamei [in order to retrieve a lost object from a cemetary], or if afather said Dont return [a lost object], that he should not listen? Itis stated: You shall revere your mother and your father, and my

shabbatot you shall observe. I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:3). All of you are obligated with regard to Myhonour. This is the reason behind the Merciful Ones writing My shabbatot you shall observe. Had thisnot been written, I would have said, the son should pay heed. But why? After all, that is a positivecommandment, whereas this is a negative commandment [You shall return them; Deuteronomy 22:1]and a positive commandment [You are not able to hide ; Deuteronomy 22:3]; and a positivecommandment cannot push aside a negative commandment and a positive commandment?! Nevertheless,it was necessary [to write My shabbatot you shall observe], for you might have thought to say that,since honouring ones father and mother is compared by the Torah to honouring the Omnipresentfor itis stated here, Honour your father and your mother and it is stated later, Honour Gd with your

property (Proverbs 3:9)one should therefore listen [to ones father at all costs]. [The Torah] thereforeinforms us that one should not pay heed to him.

GE N E S I S 11

- -

10

This is the family line of Shem.Shem was 100 years old when hefathered Arpachshad, two yearsafter the Flood.

- -

11

After fathering Arpachshad, Shem livedfor 500 years and fathered sons anddaughters.

-

1

2

When Arpachshad lived to be 35 years

old, he fathered Shelah. -

13

After fathering Shelah, Arpachshad livedfor 403 years and fathered sons anddaughters.

- 14

When Shelah lived to be 30 years old,he fathered Eber.

- -

15

After the birth of Eber, Shelah lived for403 years and fathered sons anddaughters.

- -

16

When Eber lived to be 34 years old, hefathered Peleg.

-

-

1 After the birth of Peleg, Eber lived for

SIFRA, Kedoshim 5

BAVA METZIAH 32a

10


11/24

7430 years and fathered sons anddaughters.

- -18

When Peleg lived to be 30 years old, hefathered Reu.

- -

19

After the birth of Reu, Peleg lived for209 years and fathered sons anddaughters.

-

20

When Reu lived to be 32 years old, hefathered Serug.

-

21

After the birth of Serug, Reu lived for207 years and fathered sons anddaughters.

-22

When Serug lived to be 30 years old, hefathered Nahor.

-

23

After the birth of Nahor, Serug lived for200 years and fathered sons and

daughters. -

24

When Nahor lived to be 29 years old, hefathered Terah.

- -

25

After the birth of Terah, Nahor lived for119 years and fathered sons anddaughters.

- - - -

26

When Terah lived to be 70 yearsold, he fathered Avram, Nahor,and Haran.

- - -

-

2

7

And this is the family line ofTerah: Terah fathered Avram,

Nahor, and Haran; and Haranfathered Lot.

-

28

Haran died in the presence hisfather Terah, in the land wherehe was born, Ur of theChaldeans.

in the presence of his father Terah Rabbi Hiyya, grandson of RabbiAda of Yaffo, said: Terah was a maker of images. He once went awaysomeplace and left Avraham in his place in charge of sales. A man

came to buy one. How old are you? Avraham asked him. The man said he was about fifty or sixty. Hesaid, Woe to the man who is sixty who comes to worship what is one day old! The man grew

embarrassed and left. On another occasion a woman came carrying a dish of fine flour requesting, Takethis and offer it before them. He stood up, took a stick in hand, smashed all the idols, and put the stick inthe hand of the biggest one among them. When his father returned he asked, What have you done tothem? He said, How can I hide anything from you? A woman came in with a dish of fine flour andrequested that I offer it before them. While offering it, one said, Let me eat first, another said, Let meeat first. Then the biggest one of them got up, took the stick, and smashed them. Are you making funof me? he asked, Do these things have minds?! He answered: Dont your ears hear what your mouthsays? So Terah seized him and delivered him to Nimrod. The latter proposed: Lets worship fire!Avraham said: Well then, lets worship water which extinguishes fire. So Nimrod said: Lets worshipwater! He said: If so, then lets worship the clouds that carry the water. He said: Lets worship theclouds! He said: If so, then lets worship the wind that disperses the clouds. He said: Then letsworship the wind! He said: Then lets worship human beings who are able to withstand the wind. Heexclaimed: Youre playing with words! I will bow down to nothing but fire! Look, I will throw you into

GENESIS RABBA38:13

11


12/24

it, and the god to whom you bow down will come and save you. Now Haran was standing thereundecided. He said to himself: Either-or: if Avram is victorious, I will say I am Avrams kin. And if

Nimrod is victorious I will say that I am with him. When Avraham descended into the fiery furnace andwas saved, Nimrod asked him, On whose side are you? I am with Avram, he replied. Nimrod seized

him and cast him into the fire. And his inwards were scorched, and he came out and he died in hisfathers presence. Hence it is written: Haran died in the presence [ - on his face, on accountof] his father Terah.

-

- - -

29

Avram and Nahor took to themselveswives, the name of Avrams wife beingSarai and that of Nahors wife Milcah,the daughter of Haran, the father ofMilcah and Iscah.

30

Now Sarai was barren, she had nochild.

- - - -

-

31

Terah took his son Avram, hisgrandson Lot the son of Haran, and hisdaughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of hisson Avram, and they set out togetherfrom Ur of the Chaldeans for the landof Canaan; but when they had come asfar as Haran, they settled there.

-

32

The days of Terah came to 205 years;and Terah died in Haran.

and Terah died in Haran after Avram had left Haran and had come to the land ofCanaan, and had been there for over 60 years, for it is written (below 12:4), And

Avram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and Terah was 70 years old when Avram was born,making Terah 145 years old when Avram left Haran. Accordingly, many of Terahs years were left. Whythen did Scripture relate Terahs death before Avrams departure? So that the matter should not be

publicized to all, whereby they would say: Avram did not fulfill the commandment of honouring hisfather, for he left him in his old age and went away. Therefore, Scripture calls him dead, for the wicked,even in their lifetime are called dead, whereas the righteous, even in their death, are called living. As it issaid (II Samuel 23:20): And Benayahu the son of Yehoiada, the son of a living man. [Genesis Rabbah39:7,Berakhot18b] []

and Terah died In Haran. [] Regarding what the Rabbis said in Genesis Rabbah(39:7) First you interpret that the wicked, even while alive, are called dead I

find this surprising, for the Sages (Genesis Rabbah 34:4; 38:18) have already deduced from the verse,And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace (Genesis 15:15), that He announced to Avraham that hisfather would have a portion in the World to Come. Perhaps the intent of the Rabbis was that Terahrepented at the time of death, but he lived all his days in wickedness and therefore was called dead. Inthe words of Rashi (to Genesis 15:15): Scripture teaches you that Terah did repentance at the time ofdeath. Perhaps it may be that our Sages, of blessed memory, say (Sanhedrin 104a) that Terah has a

portion in the World to Come by virtue of his son. And that was the announcement, for Avraham didnot know it until he was informed of it at the time Gd told him, And you shall come to your fathers in

peace (Genesis 15:15). And so I found in a Midrash: All kinds of wood were valid for use in the altar

RaSHI

RaMBaN

12


13/24

fire save only the wood of the olive and the vine, for since oil and wine were offered upon the altar, thefruits save the trees. And so we find in the case of Avraham that he saved Terah, as it is said, And youshall come to your fathers in peace.

[...] Abraham was afraid, saying, Shall I go out and bring dishonourupon the Divine Name, as people will say, He left his father in his oldage and departed? Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, reassured

him: I exempt you alone [ ] from the duty of honouring thyparents, though I exempt no one else from this duty. Moreover, I will record his death before thydeparture. Hence, And Terah died in Haran is stated first, and then, Now the L ORD said unto Abram,etc.

GENESIS 12

- - -

1

The LORD said to Avram, Go forthfrom your country, from yourbirthplace, and from your fathershouse to the land that I will show you.

Go forth for your benefit and for your good, and there I will make you into a greatnation, but here, you will not merit to have children. Moreover, I will make your

character known in the world. [Rosh Hashanah 16b, Tanhumah] from your country Now had he notalready gone out of there with his father and come as far as Haran? Rather, thus did He say to him,Distance yourself more from there and leave your fathers house.

[] The reason for mentioning from your native land, and from thy birthplace, andfrom thy fathers house is that it is difficult for a person to leave the country wherein

he dwells, where he has his friends and companions. This is true all the more if this be his native land,and all the more if his whole family is there. Hence it became necessary to say to Avraham that he leaveall for the sake of his love of the Holy One, blessed be He.

[]Now this portion of Scripture is not completely elucidated. Why did theHoly One, blessed be He, say to Avraham, Leave your country, and I will doyou good in a completely unprecedented measure, without first stating that

Avraham worshipped Gd or that he was a righteous man, perfect? Or it should state that the motivation

for his leaving the country and journeying to another land was an act of seeking the nearness of Gd(Psalms 73:28). The norm of Scripture is to state, Walk before Me (Genesis 17:1) and Hearken to Myvoice, and I will do good unto you, as is the case with David and Solomon as well as throughout theTorah: If you walk in My statute (Leviticus 26:3); And it shall come to pass, if you shall hearkendiligently unto the voice of the LORD your Gd (Deuteronomy 28:1). And in the case of Yitzhak, it says,For My servant Avrahams sake. (Genesis 26:24). But there is no reason for Gd to promise [Avraham areward merely] for his leaving the country.

The reason for this, then, must be as follows. The people of Ur of the Chaldees did him muchevil on account of his belief in the Holy One, blessed be He, and he fled from them to go to the land ofCanaan, tarrying for a time at Haran, whereupon the LORD told him to leave these places as well and tofulfill his original intention that his worship be dedicated to Him alone and that he enjoin the people tothe Name of the LORD in the Chosen Land. There He would make his name great, and these nationswould bless themselves by him, not as they treated him in Ur of the Chaldees, where they abused and

GENESIS RABBA39:7

RaSHI

RaMBaN

RaMBaN re v. 2

13


14/24

cursed him, put him in prison or in the fiery furnace. He further told Avraham that He will bless thosewho bless him, and if some individual will curse him, he will be cursed in turn.

2

I will make of you a great nation, and Iwill bless you; I will make your namegreat, and you shall be a blessing.

3

I will bless those who bless you andcurse him that curses you; and all thefamilies of the earth shall blessthemselves by you.

and you shall be a blessing The blessings are entrusted into your hand. Until now,they were in My hand; I blessed Adam and Noah. From now on, you may bless

whomever you wish. [Genesis Rabbah, 39:11].

Rabbi Berekiah commenced: Your perfumes have a lovelyfragrance (Song of Songs 1: 3). Said Rabbi Berekiah: What didAvraham resemble? A phial of myrrh closed with a tight-fitting lid

and lying in a corner, so that its fragrance was not disseminated; as soon as it was taken up, however, itsfragrance was disseminated. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Avraham: Travel from

place to place, and your name will become great in the world.

-

4

Avram went forth as the Lord hadcommanded him, and Lot went with him.Avram was seventy-five years old whenhe left Haran

- - -

-- - -

5

Avram took his wife Sarai and hisbrother's son Lot, and all the wealth thatthey had amassed, and the souls thatthey had acquired in Haran; and they setout for the land of Canaan. When they

arrived in the land of Canaan,

And Avram took Sarai his wife, and Lot their brothers son, and alltheir substance which they had gathered, and the souls that they hadmade in Haran (12:5). Rabbi Leazar observed in the name of Rabbi

Jose ben Zimra: If all the nations assembled to create one insect they could not endow it with life, yet yousay, And the souls that they had made! It refers, rather, to the proselytes [they had made]. In that case,then let it say, That they had converted!; why that they had made? It teaches you that he who bringsa Gentile near [to Gd] is as though he created him. In that case, let it say, that he had made; why thatthey had made? Said Rabbi Hunia: Abraham converted the men and Sarah the women.

RaSHI

GENESIS RABBA39:2

GENESIS RABBA39:14

14


15/24

and the persons that they had acquired in Haran whom he had brought under thewings of the Shechinah. Avraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convertthe women, and Scripture ascribes to them [a merit] as if they had made them

[Genesis Rabbah 39:14]. The simple meaning of the verse is: the slaves and maidservants that they hadacquired for themselves, as in [below 31:1]: He acquired ( ) all this wealth; and Israel acquires(Numbers 24:18), an expression of acquiring and gathering.

6

Avram passed through the land as far asthe site of Shechem, at the terebinth ofMoreh. The Canaanites were then in theland.

- -

7

The LORD appeared to Avram and said, Iwill assign this land to your heirs. And

he built an altar there to the LORD whohad appeared to him.

- -

-

8

From there he moved on to the hillcountry east of Bethel and pitched histent, with Bethel on the west and Ai onthe east; and he built there an altar tothe LORD and invoked the LORD by name.

and he built an altar there [in thanksgiving] for the good tidings concerning hisdescendants and the good tidings concerning the Land of Israel. [Genesis Rabbah39:15-16] his tent According to the masoretic text, it is written , which can be read ., her tentFirst he pitched his wifes tent and afterwards his own (Genesis Rabbah 39:15).

9Then Avram journeyed by stagestoward the Negev.

-

10

There was a famine in the land, andAvram went down to Egypt to sojournthere, for the famine was severe in theland.

- -

-

11

As he was about to enter Egypt, hesaid to his wife Sarai, I know what abeautiful woman you are.

-

12

If the Egyptians see you, and think,She is his wife, they will kill me andlet you live.

- -

13

Please say that you are my sister, thatit may go well with me because of you,and that I may remain alive thanks to

RaSHI

RaSHI

15


16/24

you.

a famine in the landin that land alone, to test him, whether he would think ill of thewords of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who ordered him to go to the Land of

Canaan, and now He was forcing him to leave it. [Pirkei dRabbi Eliezer, ch. 26] I know The MidrashAggadah (Tanhumah, Lech Lecha 5) [states that] until now, he did not recognize her beauty because ofthe modesty of both of them, but now he recognized her beauty through an incident. Another explanation:It is customary that through the hardship of travel, a person becomes unattractive, but she remained withher beauty. The simple meaning of the verse is: Behold, now the time has arrived when we must beconcerned about your beauty. I have known already for a long time that you are of fair appearance, butnow we are coming among dark-skinned and ugly people, the brothers of the Cushites, and they are notaccustomed to a beautiful woman. Similar to this (below 19:2): Behold now, my lords, please turn.[Genesis Rabbah 40:4]

I know ... Please say that you are my sister [] It is possible that Avraham andSarah had no fear until they came into a royal city for it was their custom to bring theking a very beautiful woman and to slay her husband through some charge they

would contrive against him. It appears to me correct that such was their procedure from the time they leftHaran. At every place he would say, She is my sister, for so Avraham said, And it came to pass, whenGd caused me to wander from my fathers house, etc. Scripture, however, mentions it only concerningthose places where something happened to them on account of it. Thus Avraham now alerted Sarah as hehad charged her from the beginning.

- -

1

4

When Avram entered Egypt, the Egyptians

saw how very beautiful the woman was.

-

15

Pharaohs courtiers saw her and praisedher to Pharaoh, and the woman was takeninto Pharaohs palace.

- -

16

And because of her, it went well withAvram; he acquired sheep, oxen, donkeys,male and female slaves, female donkeys,and camels.

-- -

17

But the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and hishouse with mighty plagues on account ofSarai, the wife of Avram.

Pharaohs courtiers saw her. The purport thereof is that when the Egyptians saw herthey said, This one is worthy of the great princes, and so they brought her before

them. But they were also afraid of touching her for due to her great beauty, they knew that the kingwould desire her exceedingly. And they praised heramong themselves saying, This one is worthy of

RaSHI

RaMBaN

RaMBaN

16


17/24

the king. Thus the language of Rashi. This is in accordance with the opinion of Onkelos who says,And they praised herforPharaoh. Or it may be that they praised her to the king himself, and he sent forher and took her.

But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh [with] great plagues He was stricken with the plagueofraathan, making intercourse harmful to him.

And his household Rabbi Aha said: Even the beams of his housewere smitten, and all exclaimed, it is on account of Sarai, the wife of

Avram [ - ]. Rabbi Berekiah said: Onaccount of his daring to approach the shoe of that lady. The whole of that night Sarah lay prostrate on herface, crying, Sovereign of the Universe! Avraham went forth on Your assurance, and I went forth withtrust. Abraham is outside this prison while I am inside it! Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to her:Whatever I do, I do for your sake, and all will say, on account of Sarai, the wife of Avram. RabbiLevi said: The whole of that night an angel stood with a whip in his hand; when she ordered, Strike! hestruck, and when she ordered, Desist!, he desisted. Why such severity? Because she told Pharaoh, Iam a married woman, yet he would not leave her. Rabbi Leazar said (the same was also taught in thename of Rabbi Liezer ben Yaakov): We know that Pharaoh was smitten with leprosy and Abimelech withthe closing up [of the orifices; cf. Genesis 20:18]: how do we know that what is said here is to be appliedthere, and vice versa? Because on account of occurs in both places, that an analogy may be drawn.

-

-

18

Pharaoh sent for Avram and said,What is this you have done to me!Why did you not tell me that she wasyour wife?

19

Why did you say, She is my sister, sothat I took her as my wife? Now, here isyour wife; take her and begone!

-

- --

20

And Pharaoh put men in charge of him,and they sent him off with his wife andall that he possessed.

There was a famine in the land [] Know that Avraham our fatherunintentionally committed a great sin by bringing his righteous wife to astumbling-block of sin on account of his fear for his life. He should have

trusted that Gd would save him and his wife and all his belongings for Gd surely has the power to helpand to save. His leaving the Land, concerning which he had been commanded from the beginning, onaccount of the famine, was also a sin he committed, for in famine Gd would redeem him from death. Itwas because of this deed that the exile in the land of Egypt at the hand of Pharaoh was decreed for hischildren. In the place of justice, there is wickedness and sin.

What means does civilization employ in order to inhibit

the aggression it faces, to render it harmless and possibly

eliminate it? We have already become acquainted with

RaSHI

GENESIS RABBA41:2

RaMBaN re v. 10

APPENDIX 1 : SIGMUND FREUD,Civilization in its Discontents,

Ch. 7

17


18/24

some of the methods, but not with the one that seems most important. We can study this in the

development of the individual. What happens to him to render his aggressivity harmless? Something very

curious, which we would not have suspected, but which is plain to see. The aggression is introjected,

internalized, actually sent back to where it came from; in other words, it is directed against theindividuals own ego. There it is taken over by a portion of the ego that sets itself up as the super-ego, in

opposition to the rest, and is now prepared, as conscience, to exercise the same severe aggression

against the ego that the latter would have liked to direct towards other individuals. The tension between

the stern super-ego and the ego that is subject to it is what we call a sense of guilt; this manifests itself

as a need for punishment. In this way civilization overcomes the dangerous aggressivity of the individual,

by weakening him, disarming him and setting up an internal authority to watch over him, like a garrison

in a conquered town.

Regarding the origin of the sense of guilt, the analysts view differs from that of other psychologists,

and he too finds it difficult to account for. In the first place, if we ask how a person comes to have a sense

of guilt, the answer we receive cannot be gainsaid: one feels guilty (pious people would say sinful) if

one has done something one recognizes as evil. Then we realize how little this tells us. After some

hesitation we may add that even a person who has done no wrong, but merely recognizes in himself an

intention to do wrong, may consider himself guilty - which raises the question of why in this case the

intention is equated with the deed. Both cases presuppose that we have already recognized evil as rep-

rehensible, as something that should not be carried out. How do we arrive at this judgment? We may

reject the notion of an originalas it were, naturalcapacity to distinguish between good and evil. Evil

is often far from harmful or dangerous to the ego; it may even be something it welcomes and takes

pleasure in. Here, then, is a pointer to an outside influence, which determines what is to be called good or

evil. As a persons own feelings would not have led him in this direction, he must have a motive for

submitting to this outside influence. This is easily discovered in his helplessness and dependency on

others; it can best be described as a fear of loss of love. If he loses the love of a person he depends on, he

is no longer protected against various dangers; above all, he is exposed to the risk that this more powerful

person will demonstrate his superiority by punishing him. At first, then, evil is something for which one

is threatened with loss of love; it must therefore be avoided. Hence, it hardly matters whether one has

already done something wrong or merely intends to; in either case the danger arises only if the

supervising authority finds out, and in either case the authority would behave in the same way.

This state of mind we call a bad conscience, but it really does not merit the name, for at this stage

consciousness of guilt is clearly no more than a fear of loss of love, a social anxiety. In a small child it

can never be anything else, but for many adults too the only change is that the place once occupied by the

father, or by both parents, has been taken over by the wider human community. Hence, adults regularly

allow themselves to commit wrongful acts that hold out the promise of enjoyment, so long as they are

sure that the authority will not learn of it or cannot hold it against them; their only fear is of being found

out. This is the state of affairs that todays society generally has to reckon with.

Nothing much changes until the authority is internalized through the establishment of the super-ego.The phenomena of conscience are thereby raised to a new level; only now can one properly speak of

conscience and a sense of guilt. The fear of discovery is no longer an issue, nor is the difference between

wronGdoing and the intention to do wrong, for nothing, not even ones thoughts, can be hidden from the

super-ego. Of course, the real gravity of the situation has passed, for to the best of our belief the new

authority, the super-ego, has no reason to ill-treat the ego, with which it is intimately linked. But the way

it came into existence is still influential in ensuring the survival of what is past and has been surmounted,

so that things remain essentially as they were at the beginning. The super-ego torments the sinful ego

with the same anxieties and is on the look-out for opportunities to expose it to punishment by the external

world.

18


19/24

At this second stage of development, the conscience exhibits a peculiarity that was absent at the first

and is not easy to explain. The more virtuous a person is, the sterner and more distrustful is his

conscience, so that the very people who have attained the highest degree of saintliness are in the end the

ones who accuse themselves of being most sinful. Virtue thus forfeits part of its promised reward; thecompliant and abstinent ego does not enjoy the trust of its mentor and seemingly strives in vain to earn it.

Now, it will at once be objected that these are artificially contrived difficulties, that a stricter and more

vigilant conscience is the hallmark of a moral nature, and that if saints call themselves sinners, this is not

without justification, in view of the temptations they are under to satisfy their drives, temptations to

which they are particularly exposed, as it is well known that temptations are only increased by constant

frustration, but diminished, at least for a time, by the occasional satisfaction. Another fact in the highly

problematic field of ethics is that ill luckthat is to say, external frustrationgreatly enhances the force

of conscience in the superego. So long as things go well for a person, his conscience is lenient and

indulges the ego in all kinds of ways. When a misfortune has befallen him he searches his soul,

recognizes his sinfulness, pitches the demands of his conscience higher, imposes privations on himself,

and punishes himself by acts of penance. Whole peoples have behaved like this and still do. However,

this is easily explained by reference to the original infantile phase of the conscience, which is not

abandoned after the introjection into the super-ego, but persists beside and behind it. Fate is seen as

replacing parental authority; if one suffers misfortune, this is because one is no longer loved by this

supreme power, and under the threat of such loss of love, one again bows to the virtual parental authority

of the super-ego, which one was happy to ignore while ones luck held. This becomes especially clear if

one takes a strictly religious view and sees fate only as the expression of the divine will. The people of

Israel had thought of itself as Gods favourite child, and when the great Father let one misfortune after

another rain down upon His people, it never doubted this relationship with God or questioned His power

and justice, but brought forth the prophets, who reproached it for its sinfulness, and created, from its

consciousness of guilt, the exceedingly stern precepts of its priestly religion. It is curious how differently

primitive man behaves. Having met with misfortune, he puts the blame not on himself, but on the fetish,

which has clearly not done its duty, and whips it instead of punishing himself.

We thus know of two origins of the sense of guilt: one is fear of authority; the other, which came

later, is fear of the super-ego. The former forces us to forgo the satisfaction of our drives; in addition to

this, the latter insists on punishment, for the continuance of our forbidden desires cannot be hidden from

the super-ego. We have also learnt how the severity of the super-egothe requirements of conscience

can be understood. This severity simply perpetuates that of the external authority, which it supersedes

and partly replaces. We now see how renunciation of the drives relates to consciousness of guilt. Initially

this renunciation results from fear of the external authority; one renounces certain satisfactions in order to

avoid losing its love. After renouncing them, one is, as it were, quits with the authority, and no sense of

guilt should remain. Things are different, however, when it comes to fear of the super-ego. To renounce

the drives is no longer enough, for the desire persists and cannot be concealed from the super-ego.

Despite ones renunciation, then, a sense of guilt will arise, and this is a great economic disadvantage inthe institution of the super-ego, or, one might say, in the formation of conscience. Renunciation of the

drives no longer has a fully liberating effect; virtuous abstention is no longer rewarded by the assurance

of love; the threat of external unhappinessloss of love, and punishment at the hands of the external

authorityhas been exchanged for an enduring inner unhappiness, the tension generated by the

consciousness of guilt.

These interrelations are at once so complicated and so important that, at the risk of repeating myself, I

should like to tackle them from a different angle. The chronological sequence, then, would be as follows:

first, renunciation of the drives, resulting from fear of aggression from the external authority (for this is

what fear of the loss of love amounts to, love being a protection against this punitive aggression), then

the setting up of the internal authority and the renunciation of the drives, resulting from fear of this

19


20/24

authority, fear of conscience. In this second situation an evil deed is on a par with an evil intention; hence

the consciousness of guilt and the need for punishment. The aggression of the conscience continues the

aggression of the external authority. This much is probably already clear, but what room is left for the

influence of misfortunerenunciation imposed from withoutwhich reinforces the conscience, for theextraordinary severity of conscience that is found in the best and most tractable persons? We have

already explained both these peculiarities of conscience, but we probably still have the impression that

our explanations fail to go to the heart of the matter and leave some things unexplained. And here at last

an idea comes in that belongs entirely to psychoanalysis and is foreign to our ordinary way of thinking.

This idea is such as to enable us to understand why the subject was bound to strike us as so confused and

lacking in transparency. For it tells us that although it is at first the conscience (or, rather, the fear that

later becomes the conscience) that causes us to renounce the drives, this causal relation is later reversed.

Every renunciation of the drives now becomes a dynamic source of conscience; every fresh renunciation

reinforces its severity and intolerance; and if we could only bring it more into harmony with what we

know about the emergence of conscience, we should be tempted to endorse the paradoxical statement that

conscience results from the renunciation of the drives, or that this renunciation (imposed on us from

without) creates the conscience, which then demands further renunciation.

The contradiction between this statement and what we have said about the genesis of the conscience is

not so very great, and we can see a way of reducing it further. For greater ease of presentation let us take

the example of the aggressive drive, and let us assume that we are dealing in every case with the

renunciation of aggression. This is naturally to be taken only as a provisional assumption. The effect that

the renunciation of the drives has on the conscience is such that any aggression whose satisfaction we

forgo is taken over by the super-ego and increases the latter's aggression (towards the ego). This is not

consistent with the view that the original aggression of the conscience continues the severity of the

external authority and has therefore nothing to do with renunciation. The inconsistency is removed,

however, if we assume a different origin for the super-egos initial stock of aggression. A considerable

measure of aggressivity must have developed in the child against the authority that deprives him of his

first (and most significant) satisfactions, no matter what kind of deprivations were required. The child is

obliged to forgo the satisfaction of this vengeful aggression. He helps himself out of this difficult

economic situation by recourse to familiar mechanisms. By means of identification he incorporates this

unassailable authority into himself; it now becomes the super-ego and takes over all the aggression that,

as a child, one would have liked to exercise against it. The child's ego has to content itself with the sad

role of the authoritythe fatherwhich has been so degraded. As so often happens, the original

situation is reversed. If I were the father and you the child, I should treat you badly. The relation

between the super-ego and the ego amounts to the return, distorted by the subject's desire, of the real

relations between the once undivided ego and an external object. This is typical too. The essential

difference, however, is that the original severity of the super-ego is notor not to such a great extent

the severity that one has experienced from him [the father] or attributes to him; it represents rather one's

own aggression towards him. If this is correct, one can actually maintain that conscience initially arosethrough the suppression of an aggressive impulse and continues to be reinforced by similar suppressions.

Which of these two views is correctthe earlier one, which we found genetically incontestable, or the

newer one, which rounds off the theory in such a welcome fashion? Clearly both are justified, as is

shown by the evidence of direct observation. They do not contradict each other; they even coincide at one

point, for the vengeful aggression of the child will be determined partly by the amount of punitive

aggression he expects from his father. Experience teaches us, however, that the severity of the super-ego

that is developed by a child in no way replicates the severity of the treatment he has himself experienced.

It appears to be independent of this: even with a very lenient upbringing, a child may develop a very stern

conscience. Yet it would also be wrong to exaggerate this independence; it is not difficult to convince

oneself that a strict upbringing also has a strong influence on the formation of the child's super-ego. This

20


21/24

amounts to saying that, in the formation of the super-ego and the emergence of conscience, innate

constitutional factors act in concert with influences from the real environment. This is not at all

surprising; indeed, it is the universal aetiological condition for all such processes. 2 One can also say that

if a child reacts to the first great frustrations of the drives with excessive aggression and a correspondingseverity of the super-ego, it is following a phylogenetic model and going beyond the reaction that would

be justified today; for the primeval father was certainly terrible and could be credited with the utmost

aggression. The differences between the two views of the genesis of conscience are thus reduced still

further if one shifts one's attention from individual to phylogenetic development. On the other hand, we

become aware of a new and significant difference between these two developmental processes. We

cannot get away from the assumption that the sense of guilt stems from the Oedipus complex and was

acquired when the brothers banded together and killed the father. On that occasion aggression was not

suppressed, but acted out - the same aggression whose suppression in the child is supposed to be the

source of his sense of guilt. At this point I should not be surprised if the exasperated reader were to

exclaim, So its immaterial whether one kills ones father or notone acquires a sense of guilt in any

case! Here one may take leave to voice a few doubts. Either it is not true that the sense of guilt derivesfrom suppressed aggression, or else the whole story of the killing of the father is a fiction, and primeval

children did not kill their fathers any more often than children do today. Besides, if it is not a fiction, but

a plausible piece of history, it would be a case of something happening that everybody expects to happen

of someone feeling guilty because he really has done something that cannot be justified. And for such

cases, which after all occur every day, psychoanalysis still owes us an explanation.

This is true, and the matter must be remedied. Nor is there any great mystery about it. If one has a

sense of guilt after committing a misdeed, and because one has committed it, this feeling ought rather to

be called remorse. It relates only to a deed, although of course it presupposes that before the deed there

was already a conscience, a readiness to feel guilty. Such remorse can therefore never help us to discover

the origin of conscience and of the sense of guilt generally. What usually happens in these everyday cases

is that a need generated by a drive acquires sufficient strength to prevail over a relatively weak

conscience and achieve satisfaction; once satisfied, the need is naturally reduced, and the previous

balance of forces is restored. Psychoanalysis is therefore right to exclude from the present discussion the

case of a sense of guilt that stems from remorse, however common it is and however great its practical

importance. But if man's sense of guilt goes back to the killing of the primeval father, this too was a case

of remorse. So should we suppose that conscience and a sense of guilt did not exist before the deed was

done? Where did the remorse come from in this case? Undoubtedly this case should clear up the mystery

of the sense of guilt and put an end to our embarrassments. And I believe it does. This remorse was the

result of the primordial emotional ambivalence towards the father: his sons hated him, but they also loved

him. Once their hate was satisfied by this act of aggression, their love manifested itself in the remorse

they felt for the deed. Through identification with the father, this love established the super-ego, endowed

it with the power of the fatheras though to punish the act of aggression committed against him -and

invented restrictions that would prevent its repetition. And since aggressivity towards the father recurredin succeeding generations, the sense of guilt remained too, and was reinforced whenever aggression was

suppressed and transferred to the super-ego. Now, I think, we can at last grasp two things quite clearly:

the part played by love in the emergence of conscience and the fateful inevitability of the sense of guilt.

2 In Psychoanalyse der Gesamtpersonlichkeit (1927) Franz Alexander has accurately assessed the two main types of pathogenic methods of upbringing, over-strictness and over-indulgence, in connection with Aichhorn's study ofdelinquency. The 'excessively soft and indulgent' father will cause a child to form an excessively severe super-ego, becausethe child, influenced by the love it receives, has no other way of dealing with its aggression than by turning it inwards. Inthe delinquent who has been brought up without love there is no tension between the ego and the super-ego: all hisaggression can be directed outwards. Hence, if one disregards any constitutional factor that may be presumed to exist, onecan say that a strict conscience arises from the interplay of two influences on a person's life: the frustration of the drives,which unleashes aggression, and the experience of being loved, which turns this aggression inwards and transfers it to thesuper-ego.

21


22/24

Whether one has killed one's father or refrained from doing so is not really decisive; in either case one is

bound to feel guilty, for the sense of guilt is the expression of the conflict of ambivalence, the unending

struggle between Eros and the destructive drive, the death drive. This conflict is fanned as soon as people

are faced with the task of living together. So long as the family is the only form of communal life, theconflict is bound to express itself in the Oedipus complex, to establish the conscience and to create the

primordial sense of guilt. When an attempt is made to extend the community, the conflict is continued in

forms that depend on the past; it is reinforced, and leads to an increased sense of guilt. Because

civilization obeys an internal erotic impulse that requires it to unite human beings in a tightly knit mass,

it can achieve this goal only by constantly reinforcing the sense of guilt. What began in relation to the

father is brought to fruition in relation to the mass. If civilization is the necessary trend of development

that leads from the family to humanity as a whole, it follows that the intensification of the sense of guilt,

perhaps to a degree that the individual finds hard to endure, is indissolubly linked with it, as a

consequence of the innate conflict of ambivalence, of the perpetual contention between love and the

death-wish. One is reminded of the poet's poignant indictment of the heavenly powers:

Ihr fhrt ins Leben uns hinein,

Ihr lasst den Armen schuldig werden,

Dann berlasst ihr ihn der Pein,

Denn jede Schuld rcht sich auf Erden.

[You lead us into life, you let the poor man become guilty, then you deliver him to punishment, for all

guilt is avenged on earth.]

JOCASTA

An oracle

Once came to Laius (I will not say

'Twas from the Delphic god himself, but from

His ministers) declaring he was doomed

To perish by the hand of his own son,

A child that should be born to him by me.

Now Laiusso at least report affirmed

Was murdered on a day by highwaymen,

No natives, at a spot where three roads meet.

As for the child, it was but three days old,When Laius, its ankles pierced and pinned

Together, gave it to be cast away

By others on the trackless mountain side.

So then Apollo brought it not to pass

The child should be his father's murderer,

Or the dread terror find accomplishment,

And Laius be slain by his own son.

Such was the prophet's horoscope.

OEDIPUS

My sire was Polybus of Corinth, and

My mother Merope, a Dorian;

And I was held the foremost citizen,

Till a strange thing befell me, strange indeed,

Yet scarce deserving all the heat it stirred.

A roisterer at some banquet, flown with wine,

Shouted "Thou art not true son of thy sire."

It irked me, but I stomached for the nonce

The insult; on the morrow I sought out

My mother and my sire and questioned them.

They were indignant at the random slurCast on my parentage and did their best

To comfort me, but still the venomed barb

Rankled, for still the scandal spread and grew.

So privily without their leave I went

To Delphi, and Apollo sent me back

Baulked of the knowledge that I came to seek.

But other grievous things he prophesied,

Woes, lamentations, mourning, portents dire;

To wit I should defile my mother's bed

And raise up seed too loathsome to behold,

And slay the father from whose loins I sprang.

Then, lady,thou shalt hear the very truth

APPENDIX 2SOPHOCLES, Oedipus Rex

22


23/24

As I drew near the triple-branching roads,

A herald met me and a man who sat

In a car drawn by coltsas in thy tale

The man in front and the old man himself

Threatened to thrust me rudely from the path,

Then jostled by the charioteer in wrath

I struck him, and the old man, seeing this,

Watched till I passed and from his car brought

down

Full on my head the double-pointed goad.

Yet was I quits with him and more; one stroke

Of my good staff sufficed to fling him clean

Out of the chariot seat and laid him prone.

And so I slew them every one. But if

Betwixt this stranger there was aught in common

With Laius, who more miserable than I,

What mortal could you find more god-abhorred?Wretch whom no sojourner, no citizen

May harbor or address, whom all are bound

To harry from their homes. And this same curse

Was laid on me, and laid by none but me.

Yea with these hands all gory I pollute

The bed of him I slew. Say, am I vile?

Am I not utterly unclean, a wretch

Doomed to be banished, and in banishment

Forgo the sight of all my dearest ones,

And never tread again my native earth;

Or else to wed my mother and slay my sire,

Polybus, who begat me and upreared?

If one should say, this is the handiwork

Of some inhuman power, who could blame

His judgment? But, ye pure and awful gods,

Forbid, forbid that I should see that day!

May I be blotted out from living men

Ere such a plague spot set on me its brand!

...

CHORUS

O heavy hand of fate!

Who now more desolate,

Whose tale more sad than thine, whose lot more dire?O Oedipus, discrowned head,

Thy cradle was thy marriage bed;

One harborage sufficed for son and sire.

How could the soil thy father eared so long

Endure to bear in silence such a wrong?

(Ant. 2)

All-seeing Time hath caught

Guilt, and to justice brought

The son and sire commingled in one bed.

O child of Laius' ill-starred race

Would I had ne'er beheld thy face;

OEDIPUS

Then had I never come to shed

My father's blood nor climbed my mother's bed;

The monstrous offspring of a womb defiled,

Co-mate of him who gendered me, and child.

Was ever man before afflicted thus,

Like Oedipus.

OEDIPUS

O fatal wedlock, thou didst give me birth,

And, having borne me, sowed again my seed,

Mingling the blood of fathers, brothers, children,

Brides, wives and mothers, an incestuous brood,

All horrors that are wrought beneath the sun,

Horrors so foul to name them were unmeet.

OEDIPUS

God speed thee! and as meed for bringing them

May Providence deal with thee kindlier

Than it has dealt with me! O children mine,

Where are ye? Let me clasp you with these hands,

A brother's hands, a father's; hands that made

Lack-luster sockets of his once bright eyes;

Hands of a man who blindly, recklessly,

Became your sire by her from whom he sprang.

Though I cannot behold you, I must weep

In thinking of the evil days to come,

The slights and wrongs that men will put upon you.

Where'er ye go to feast or festival,

No merrymaking will it prove for you,But oft abashed in tears ye will return.

And when ye come to marriageable years,

Where's the bold wooers who will jeopardize

To take unto himself such disrepute

As to my children's children still must cling,

For what of infamy is lacking here?

"Their father slew his father, sowed the seed

Where he himself was gendered, and begat

These maidens at the source wherefrom he

sprang."

23


24/24

We must return once again to the so-called crimes of the son of Laius. The act of regicide is the exactequivalent, vis-a-vis the polis, of the act of patricide vis-a-vis the family. In both cases the criminal strikes

at the most fundamental, essential, and inviolabledistinction within the group. He becomes, literally, theslayer of distinctions.

Patricide represents the establishment of violentreciprocity between father and son, the reduction of the

paternal relationship to fraternal revenge. This reciprocity is explicitly indicated in the tragedy; as wehave noted, Laius displays violence towards Oedipus even before his son actually attacks him.

When it has succeeded in abolishing even the traditional father-son relationship, violentreciprocity is left in sole command of the battlefield. Its victory could hardly be more complete, for in

pitting father against son it has chosen as the basis of their rivalry an object solemnly consecrated asbelonging to the father and formally forbidden the son: that is, the fathers wife and sons mother. Incestis also a form or violence, an extreme form, and it plays in consequence an extreme role in the destructionof differences. It destroys that other crucial family distinction, that between the mother and her children.Between patricide and incest, the violent abolition of all family differences is achieved. The process thatlinks violence to the loss of distinctions will naturally perceive incest and patricide as its ultimate goals.

No possibility of difference then remains; no aspect of life is immune from the onslaught of violence.[In an essay entitled Ambigut et renversement. Sur la structure nigmatique d'dipe-Roi,

Jean-Pierre Vernant has aptly defined this loss of cultural difference. Patricide and incest, he writes,constitute ... a direct violation of the game of draughts in which each piece stands, in relation to theothers, at a specified place on the draught board of the city. In effect, the results of the two crimes arealways expressed in terms of lost distinctions: The equalization of Oedipus and his sons is expressed ina series of brutal images: the father has sown his children in the same place where he himself was sown;Jocasta is a wife: not wife but mother, whose furrows have yielded a double harvest of father andchildren; she has been sown, and from these same furrows, these equal furrows, he has obtained hischildren. But it is left to Tiresias to endow this talk of equality with its true tragic weight when he

addressed Oedipus in the following terms: Evils will befall you which will establish an equality betweenyourself and your children.][...] Sophocles attributes Oedipuss incest to the influence of the god Hymen, who after all is

directly implicated in the affair as the god of matrimonial laws and the regulator of family distinctions.

Hymen, O Hymen, to whom I owe my birth, and who, having engendered me,employed the same seed in the same place to cast upon the outraged world a monstrouscommingling of fathers, brothers, sons; of brides, wives, and mothers!

APPENDIX 3 : REN GIRARDViolence and the Sacred, Ch. 3

familiars i textbook for midterm test

Documents