The Chosenness of Israel and their Universal Mission

We continue our discussion of Avraham, his challenges, and his identity, with the aim of understanding the concept of the chosenness of Israel. In order to discern Manitou’s emphases in his commentary on Avraham’s tests, we will first examine the simple, conventional view.
 

We tend to view Avraham as perfect from the moment that God commands him, in Parashat Lekh-lekha, to head for Eretz Yisrael. We read the events and tests that he encounters from the moment he is commanded and continuing when he arrives in the land as a series of scenes that prove over and over again that he was perfectly suited from the outset for his mission and for being chosen by God. Outwardly, there is a test, but in terms of his own inner reality, it is obvious that Avraham will pass all these tests because he is perfect to start off with.
 

In contrast to this understanding, the preceding shiurim have discussed the development of his identity from Avram to Avraham, as well as the process that he undergoes over the course of his life, gradually molding the core identity that will become the foundation of Am Yisrael. As we have seen, Avraham might be compared to a seed in the ground, which has the potential to grow into a huge tree, but a long process must take place before that final result will be fully realized. However, this image is not a complete reflection of Manitou’s teachings on the subject. We need to address another element of his philosophy that we have already encountered but which has not yet been addressed in this context: the principle of free choice.
 

A plant has no choice. All of its characteristics are already inherent in it, and with time, patience, and the presence of the appropriate physical conditions, its potential will be realized. Avraham has free choice, and we cannot ignore the possibility of Avraham choosing differently, instead of realizing his potential and the mission expected of him.
 

Recall the central place that Manitou awards to free choice. He emphasizes that there is no fatalism in the Torah; man, through his free choice, is a full partner in molding reality. At first this seems self-evident, but as we shall see, this assertion has far-reaching implications. We will first look at the foundations of this principle. Thereafter, we will look at its ramifications for an understanding of Avraham’s life story.
 

For Manitou, free choice is profoundly bound up with the reason for all of Creation –making room for the other, for creation, so that it can exist in its own right. Through his moral choices, man earns his right to exist. God, Who is perfect, deliberately created a world that is deficient so that man might be a partner with God in leading the world to perfection – thus realizing his purpose and acquiring his right to exist. Man’s fundamental test takes place on the moral axis: Will he make room for others, as God made room for the world at the time of Creation? The growth and development of the world from deficiency to perfection takes place over the course of history, and its course it molded by man’s free choice. Man’s choices determine not only what reward or punishment he will receive, but also which direction history will take. God and man are partners in shaping events and history.
 

This principle affects more than just the conceptual dimension. It molds the way in which we understand the biblical text and interpret its events. The narratives recorded in the Torah are not determined in advance. Nothing about them are fatalistic. At every stage of the narrative, there are different alternatives, and man chooses for himself. The plot will develop in a direction that is derived from the specific alternative that man chooses. Hence, as we study the Torah, we must identify at each junction what the alternatives are, which is chosen and why, and what would have happened if a more perfect choice had been made. There is always a possible choice that would have changed the continuation of the story. This explains the importance of the “fresh reading” and the “alternatives theory” that Manitou proposes, as discussed in our earlier shiurim.
 

In light of this principle, we must understand the significance of the process that Avraham undergoes. In fact, we may extend our inquiry to include the lives of all three forefathers: Was the appearance, growth, and development of Am Yisrael determined in advance? Or is everything the result of the choices made by Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, such that the origin of the nation could have come about in an entirely different way?
 

A Different "Am Yisrael"

Manitou states explicitly that things could have been different. A different Avraham could have passed on the Israelite identity to a different Yitzchak, who in turn would have handed it down to a different Yaakov. Had Avram not decided to become Avraham, and had Yaakov not chosen to be Yisrael, God would have had to choose other forefathers in their stead. Perhaps there were possible candidates before Avraham, but we know nothing of them because they did not succeed in developing the Israelite identity. Perhaps there were other figures prior to Moshe who passed by the burning bush but failed to notice anything out of the ordinary. Who knows how long the “Owner of the palace,” as per the famous metaphor, waited for someone to realize that “the palace must have an owner,” before revealing Himself to him?
 

The impression arising from the way Manitou writes all of the above is that there is still some dimension of necessity in our reality. The forefathers, it seems, had to cover a certain path – meaning that there is a specific, defined Divine plan. Indeed, Manitou argues that the possibilities for the creation of the Israelite nation are not endless and infinite; there is a logical path, and there are certain foundations that have to be built in order to establish a complete, moral way of life. The question is who will cover that path. Who will succeed in making his way through all the necessary stations in order to found a nation? There will be an Avraham, who is charged with being the father of a multitude of nations, and there will be someone who bears the name Yisrael. The question is, who will God give these names to? There is no certainty that the Avram who is born in Ur Kasdim will come to bear the name Avraham, and it is not inevitable that Yaakov, his grandson, will merit to become Yisrael. Each of them has free choice, and the question that hovers over all of Sefer Bereishit is whether Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov will make the right choices. In other words, there is no way of knowing in advance that Am Yisrael will indeed become Am Yisrael. 
 

Three stages are necessary to build the Israelite identity: the building of the element of chesed, the building of the element of din, and the building of the element of rachamim, which merges the former two. Only with hindsight does it turn out that Avraham is in fact Yisrael. This happens at the moment when Yaakov receives the name Yisrael. Up to that point, Avraham and Yitzchak belong to the world of the sons of Noach. Had Yaakov not merited to receive the name Yisrael, the Torah would have told a different history, in which a different “Avraham” produced a different “Yitzchak,” who in turn begot a Yaakov who would indeed have received the name Yisrael. Only after the fact, when God tells Moshe, “Yisrael is My firstborn son,” can we know that the choice of Am Yisrael as God’s “firstborn” is irreversible and sealed by God Himself.
 

It is important to clarify that “free choice” does not mean a tabula rasa. Manitou doesn’t mean that a person (even biblical figures) have no “starting point,” no inborn traits and life circumstances, such that one becomes that which he is solely by exercising free choice. Humanity was divided among the three main branches represented by the three sons of Noach, and each son has his own significance and character. The Israelite identity would be built by a descendant of Shem – but there was no way of knowing in advance who it would be.
 

The fact that human choice decides which way things will develop is the reason that the Torah recounts all that happens from Adam to Yaakov, and later on also what happens in Egypt. This is recorded for a reason; there are ramifications for the rest of history, although these become increasingly restricted.
 

The principle of the Torah is that at every stage, in every generation, from Adam until the End of Days, everything is open… Over the course of history, there is less and less choice, because certain things have already happened, and they are irreversible. Still, however, on both the individual and the collective level, we have the right to choose between the different alternatives. (Sod Midrash Ha-Toladot II, p. 158)
 

However, “When the time of the reunion [between Am Yisrael and God, at the end of history] approaches, God runs the world differently, and – at least on the collective level – it is no longer dependent on the question of (this) right.”

 

Manitou vs. Maharal and R. Zvi Yehuda

 

In this respect, Manitou takes a different approach from two major philosophers who influenced him greatly – Maharal and R. Zvi Yehuda Ha-Kohen Kook. R. Zvi Yehuda, continuing the teaching of Maharal (Netzach Yisrael 11), emphasizes that the choice of Avraham appears in the Torah with no explanation, and it precedes the story of his life’s journey, meaning that the choice of Avraham is apparently not grounded in his own free choice and actions. The centrality of God’s choice of Avraham arises here from the fact that it is a nation – a collective entity – that is to be built, and the essence and significance of the collective is more than just the actions of each individual. As we say in our prayers, “… Who chose us from among all the nations, and gave us His Torah” – Am Yisrael was created from the outset with the characteristics necessary for the nation to receive Torah. The Divine choice preceded all else.
 

This leads us to the well-known teaching of the Maharal in his Netzach Yisrael, chapter 11: There is no mention in the Torah that Avraham is a tzaddik prior to God’s command to him – “And God said to Avram: Go forth…” – in contrast to Noach, concerning whom we are told that he was a tzaddik. We must learn not only from what is written in the Torah, but also from its style. Maharal comments that the Torah deliberately omits and conceals Avraham’s righteousness because the essence of Avraham Avinu does not begin with his own personal righteousness. Among the righteous of the nations, their greatness is an individual matter, from bottom up, by virtue of their human effort and sanctification. But this is not so concerning Avraham. His greatness appears from top down. His essence has its origins in the heavens, by virtue of the Divine formation of his special soul. He is chosen by God, as it is written, “You… chose Avram….” And this is drawn down since then to ourselves. Our essence, too, has its origin in heaven: “You have chosen us…” The foundation of our existence is You, “Who called the generations from the outset” (Yeshayahu 41:4). Our worth is divinely decreed, a Divine order. (Sichot Ha-Rav Zvi Yehuda Ha-Kohen Kook, Sefer Bereishit, p. 151) 

With regard to this point, as noted, Manitou adopts a view that differs from that of the teachers who molded his worldview. The importance of free choice in the Torah is so central to Manitou’s thought that he parts ways on this point with Maharal and R. Zvi Yehuda, arguing that the choice of Am Yisrael was not necessarily dictated in advance.
 

Translated by Kaeren Fish