Dear Chevrei,
Rivkah is the ancestor in Bereishit who most powerfully resonates in my bones-I'm so excited to write! Please forgive my lack of synthesis; the most I can offer, I've put down-my notes, reflections and questions, on some amazing commentary. Perhaps despite first appearance, the sections I've collected together are intimately related. May you and we, each and all, embody Torah.
Shabbat Shalom!
Simchah Meir
Notes on Zohar on Parashat Tol'doth (134a-135a)
R. Hiyya once discoursed on the text: 'Who can express the mighty acts of the L-rd, or make all His praise be heard?' (Tehillim 106:2). 'When G-d', he said, 'resolved to create the world, He used the Torah as the plan both of the whole and the parts. Hence Scripture says: "Then I was by Him as a nursling, and I was daily all delight" (Mishlei 8:30), where the word 'amon (nursling) may also be read 'oman (architect, designer).'
If the Torah is the plan of both the whole and the parts, then processes found on small scales may reiterate themselves on larger scales, and conversely the gestalt of the great may reflect in the detail.
'When G-d was about to create man, the Torah remonstrated, saying: "Should man be created and then sin and be brought to trial before Thee, the work of Thy hand will be in vain, for he will not be able to endure Thy judgment." Whereto G-d replied: "I had already fashioned repentance before creating the world." When G-d created the world, He said to it: "O world, world! Thou and thy order are founded only upon the Torah, and therefore I have created man in thee that he may apply himself to its study; otherwise I will turn thee into chaos again." […] whoever labors in the Torah upholds the world and enables each part to perform its function. For there is not a member of the human body but has its counterpart in the world as a whole. For as man's body consists of members and parts of various ranks all acting and reacting upon each other so as to form one organism, so does the world at large consist of a hierarchy of created things, which when they properly act and react upon each other together form literally one organic body. Thus the whole is organized on the scheme of the Torah […]'
Since the parts are incorporated organically within their whole, what is a conflict in each case is an inner-conflict; the wars of humanity are constituents within inner processes, just like the anxieties of the mind.
'The Torah contains all the deepest and most recondite mysteries; all sublime doctrines, both disclosed and undisclosed; all essences both of the higher and the lower grades, of this world and of the world to come are to be found there, but there Is no one to fathom its teachings. Hence it is written: "Who can express the mighty acts of the L-rd, or make all His praise be heard?"'
A person's mind is capable of seeing inner order on only certain levels of the complexion, and yet we guess, intuit, and induce that there are more comprehensive realms of consciousness. The ultimate we call, HaSh-m. Understanding human consciousness as one among many kinds and levels of comprehension, more clear to me becomes the position of the medieval, Jewish philosophers that G-d has three attributes-life, power, and wisdom-and, though they seem separate to us, in truth they are one.
'Shlomo ha-Melekh thought to penetrate to the innermost meanings of the Torah, but it baffled him [...] We read of Shlomo ha-Melekh that he "spoke three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five" (Malakhim I 5:12), and tradition explains this to mean that each of his proverbs admitted of a thousand and five interpretations. Now if this could be said of the words of mere flesh and blood like Shlomo, must we not perforce believe that each of the words of the Torah spoken by the Holy One, blessed be He, contains proverbs, songs, and hymns innumerable, sublime mysteries, and truths of Divine wisdom? Hence: "Who can express the mighty acts of the L-rd [or make all His praise be heard]?"'
To its counterpart in the Primordial Torah, each interpretation of each verse is as one moment in The Creator's cosmic drama.
'[…] "Who can express the mighty acts of the L-rd?", the term "might acts" [is] an allusion to Yitzchak. For Yitzchak begat Ya'akov, […] who begat twelve tribes, through whom all both above and below were firmly established. […]'
Notes on Bereishit 25:22-23
[22] 'And the children [Ya'akov and Esau] struggled together within her [Rivkah]; and she said "Im kain, lama ze Anochi?"; and she went to question (to seek a message from) HaSh-m.'
Rashi explains 'Im kain, lama ze Anochi?' in this way: 'If the pain of pregnancy is so great, lama ze Anochi (why did I) pray for and aspire to pregnancy?'. -- But, if this is correct that Rivkah asked 'why did I?', then why does Rivkah go to HaSh-m, why does she not rather introspect? And, if this explanation of the pasuk is accurate, why does she say that she herself prayed and aspired when in the Torah we are told only of Yitzchak praying and aspiring to children? It is written: 'And Yitzchak entreated HaSh-m for his wife, because she was barren; and HaSh-m allowed Himself to be entreated, and Rivkah his wife conceived' (Bereishit 25:21). The pasuk says 'entreated for his wife'; this seems to imply that she herself did not, as Rashi explains, entreat. And, if we understand according to Rashi, why would pain require an explanation from HaSh-m? That is, if she asks about pain, why does she ask for an explanation and not for an Advil?
[23] 'And HaSh-m said to her, Two nations are in thy womb, two nations will be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.'
Ramban explains: 'The intent of this is that He inform her that she should not fear, for the reason of the struggle in her womb is that she is pregnant with twins.' -- But if this is so, why does the verse continue with more information, 'two nations will be separated from thy bowels'? Perhaps this may be understood, not in conflict with the Ramban: HaSh-m tells her this to assure her, not only are you pregnant with twins, furthermore both babies will be born and will grow up in fair health. But when the pasuk continues even further, 'the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger', can it still be construed as comforting Rivkah from her fear? Surely, the last half of the pasuk portends even more strife!
Interpreting Rivkah's question 'Im kain, lama ze Anochi?' to merely ask how the pregnancy can be so painful leads to incoherency (cf., Ramban's critique of ibn Ezra, in his Chumash perush). The Ramban (despite his commentary on [23]) offers a deeper understanding of her question: it bears not on her pregnancy but on her very existence. 'If so, why [is] this me?' Now, what does she mean 'this'? And what does she mean 'so'?
When Rivkah Imanu says 'ze' (this), she gestures to herself. 'Why is this thing here me? Why am I this way?' She imagines that she could be otherwise, that she might have been created differently. Rivkah 'Anochi' points and calls 'ze', as to an object. Thus 'I' (Anochi) and 'this' (ze) are separated. The rift is further clarified in the gender of the nouns; 'Anochi' refers to Rivkah, who is feminine, while 'this' is stated in its masculine form, 'ze' (as opposed to 'zhot', the feminine equivalent). In this question, 'lama ze Anochi', Rivkah disassociates her identity (Anochi) from her entity (ze).
What are we to make of the disassociation? Perhaps, one could assign some psychological label and cast her as unhealthy; but taking into account Rivkah's full case history, she seems far from illness. In the preceding parashah, Chayya Sarah, Rivkah was repeatedly marked for the total and enthusiastic alignment of her will with the will of HaSh-m. She went to the well at precisely the right time. She acted such that Avraham's servant could not doubt that she must be Yitzchak's zivug. She departed from her family to join Yitzchak and restore the Shekhina to Sarah's tent at the very first opportunity. She descended from her camel, apparently still a considerable distance from the tents, to immediately meet Yitzchak. This is what is 'kain' (so). Rivkah understands that she is a kli (vessel) for the chesed of HaSh-m. Even beyond understanding, in her actions and especially in carrying Israel and Esau, she embodies this reality, she is totally receptive to HaSh-m's light.
However, as appropriate for the origin[ator] of our nation, Rivkah is not content merely to know that she is a kli, she demands explanation for why HaSh-m is filling her in this particular way. 'If so, why [is] this me?' means 'If I'm Your kli, why is my portion this pain?' (Apparent contradiction between being a willing servant of HaSh-m and receiving pain from HaSh-m rests on false presumption that righteousness is entitlement to reward, or-less strongly stated-that goodness (or godliness) is pleasantness. Rivkah Imanu had no such misconception; she might have similarly asked upon her marriage to Yitzchak, 'If I'm Your kli, why do You give me this loving husband and this wealthy home?'.) When Rivkah goes to HaSh-m, she does not seek respite from her physical pain, rather she demands satisfaction for her spiritual-existential questions; she wants to know what the pain means, she wants to know what is the purpose of the struggle she carries.
A tangential note: it's interesting (at least to me) that our existential wonderings are generally provoked by the unfamiliar, or by defamiliarization; only when our station is brought into question, some element of our circumstances shifting in relevance, severity, or direction, do we reassess why we hold where we hold. We do not generally ask about "normal" things-'If I'm Your kli, why have You woken me this morning? why have you made me a Jew, why have you provided sustenance for my body?…'
On a further tangent: much of modern secular wisdom seems to mistake these shifts-the messengers bearing to us our questions of meaning and purpose-for answers to these same questions. 'Doctor, I've become so depressed-what am I supposed to do?' 'Have you been eating well?' 'No, I haven't had time lately...' 'Then, try planning your meals more effectively, so you have the time to eat healthy.' But this answer doesn't help understand what is supposed to be done, it only instructs on how to avoid asking the real questions. Unfortunately, we've learned to accept these answers. Why don't we ask 'If I'm Your kli, for what purpose do I need to eat well, for what purpose need I be healthy, for what purpose am I depressed, …'?
Notes and Quotes from "Jews and Traitors" in Frameworks by R' Matis Weinberg
In the essay "Jews and Traitors", R' Matis Weinberg examines "the complex interplay of factors involved in defining Jewish identity" through analysis of the selection of Ya'akov over Esau.
[From Sanhedrin 37a, Bereishit Rabba 65:22, as translated in "Jews and Traitors"]
'He smelled the odor of his clothes and he blessed him.' (Bereishit 27:27) But what could smell worse than goat hides? Read it then not as 'clothes' (begadav), but as 'traitors' (bogedav). Thus he sensed the future presence of Ya'akov's renegades and then he blessed him. 'Traitors' such as Yosef Meshitha. When the Romans wanted to enter the Temple Mount, they said, 'Let a Jew go in first, and whatever he takes out he can keep.' Yosef went in and walked out with the gold menorah. The scandalized Romans said, 'This is something that no commoner ought to use-go in against and anything you take will be yours.' He refused. They threw in a three year tax break, but he still refused, saying 'It is bad enough to have angered my Creator once-should I do it again?' So they trussed him up on a carpenter's bench and started sawing off pieces of his body, and he just kept sobbing, 'Oh, how I upset my Creator! Oh!'
[Notes:] The teshuva (repentence) and reverence of traitors such as Yosef Meshitha distinguish B'nai Israel; for the traitors he will birth, Ya'akov is selected over Esau. But why are such traitors valued in the selection of Yitzchak?
[Writes R' Weinberg:] 'I believe that [this trait of traitors is critical in the selection of Ya'akov] because Creation can be served by nothing less. No philosophy, religion, culture, or achievement can embrace the wholeness of Creation; it is an ongoing saga subsuming all the dynamic change and interplay of factors held within the wholeness of existence itself.'
[Notes:] The process of redemption, of tikkun Olam, of making whole the world, is a process of transgression and teshuva; the safe boundaries must be penetrated and the estranged must be integrated into Yisrael, into the ways of Torah, and into our relationships with HaSh-m. The traitors of Yisrael and their baal teshuva progeny are the hardly willing heroes of the Redemption.
[R' Weinberg:] 'The one who won the toleda [progeny] contest was the whole man (25:27), Ya'akov. […] More than any individual factor, it is the openness to the full dialectical interrelationship of biology, pedigree, tradition, cathexis, history, character, vision, culture, religion, family, past, and future that define Creation and must come to define Yisrael, Creation's First. Ya'akov bequeathed Yisrael a psyche tortured by anything less than full integration of the elements of toleda-of-Creation. […] Anything less than full recognition, full identity, cannot satisfy the firstborn of a full Creation. It is the "whole, simple" Ya'akov, Ya'akov 'ish tam, who thus assures the underlying Jewishness of his most alienated descendents.'