The Torah does not really offer much detail concerning the life of Yitzchak. He seems quite passive in his younger years, a mostly silent participant in such events as the Akeidah. The beginning of the weekly portion of Toldot recounts briefly his sojourn to Avimelech’s environs, as well as the conflict concerning the wells. While the Torah does note the clear favoring Yitzchak has of Esav, not much depth is on display.
The Torah then skips ahead to an elderly Yitzchak, slowing the narrative down and relaying the episode of the blessings to Yaakov and Esav. The Sages pick up a lot of the slack, so to speak, and attempt to tease out aspects of Yitzchak’s personality not obvious in the Torah. One such instance points to a trait that played a pivotal role in much of the unfolding of the story.
The Talmud (Megillah 28a) offers the following warning:
“For so R. Johanan said: It is forbidden to a man to gaze at the form of the countenance of a wicked man, as it says, ‘'Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee nor see thee.’”
Why is it forbidden to stare at an evil person? The common precedent in Jewish law involving staring centers around areas of sexuality. In such instances, the concern is that staring will lead to inappropriate thoughts, which would be a violation. What is the address of the prohibition in the above instance?
The Talmud continues:
“R. Eleazar said: His eyes become dim, as it says, And it came to pass that when Isaac was old that his eyes were dim, so that he could not see; because he used to gaze at the wicked Esau.”
The Talmud thus assumes that Yitzchak’s eventual blindness was caused by staring at Esav. It is hard to imagine Rabbi Elazar proposing a direct causal relationship between gazing and blindness. Putting that aside, was Yitzchak violating the Talmud’s dictum? The Turei Even senses this problem and suggests that Yitzchak thought that Esav was righteous; he was not aware he was staring at someone evil. With such an explanation, it becomes even more challenging to understand how gazing at an individual, when not even knowing about the person’s character, can lead to loss of vision.
The Talmud is not done:
“But was that the cause? Has not R. Isaac said: Let not the curse of an ordinary person ever seem of small account to thee, for Abimelech cursed Sarah, and it was fulfilled in her seed, as it says, ‘Behold he is for thee a covering [kesuth] of the eyes’. Read not ‘kesuth’ but ‘kesiyath’ [blinding]? — Both caused the affliction.”
The above referenced incident concerns Avraham, Sarah and Avimelech. Avraham sensed a level of moral decay in Avimelech’s society and felt it would be necessary to hide Sarah’s identity. Avimelech, assuming Sarah was Avraham’s sister, takes her. God intervenes, Avimelech protests to Avraham, and eventually sends both Avraham and Sarah away with praises and gifts. The Talmud, though, reads the blessings as actually a curse of sorts, the “covering” of the eyes, and its later manifestation in Yitzchak. The conclusion, then, is that Yitzchak’s blindness was the result of both a hereditary defect and a considerable amount of time staring at his son.
The idea of gazing at someone, in the context of an evil individual, seems benign. While it might be odd to gaze intently at the visage of a genocidal dictator, the harm does not seem obvious. The Sages, though, are always sensitive to that which lies under the surface. People have natural inclinations and desires attached to actions that are anywhere from prohibited to abhorrent. For example, there is an enjoyment by many of watching violent sports, where the pain on display brings about a sort of guilty pleasure.
In a sense, the opportunity to identify ever so slightly with the carnage taking place is an indulgence in a deeper desire. Similarly, the Talmud exhorts us to avoid staring at someone evil. Why would someone stare at an evil person? When gazing at such an individual, one identifies the individual by their deeds and traits, which are heinous. It is an opportunity to identify ever so slightly with what the individual accomplished, a way to indulge in the fantasy without any actual participation. While it is true gazing itself is not an act of sin, the indulging that takes place opens a door to the potential of acting out what has been kept repressed till then.
Following the insight offered by the Turei Even, Yitzchak could not have been guilty of the above. Furthermore, it is challenging to accept that there was a direct causal chain between the effects of staring at Esav and losing his vision. What idea is being conveyed here?
Let’s first turn to the story involving Sarah. It is interesting to note that this is the second time Sarah, in following Avraham’s lead, engages in deception. When Avraham went to Egypt, Sarah plays along as his sister. The same duplicity takes place with Avimelech. In fact, deception is a tool wielded by many of our great ancestors. Yaakov pretends he is Esav. Yosef keeps his identity from his brothers. Esther hides her Jewish faith from her husband.
Reasonable explanations are offered, ranging from lying for the sake of life to deceiving to ensure the success of the Divine plan. However, lying is certainly not an idealized trait for anyone, and many evil individuals and societies deploy deception as a weapon of choice.
Prior to Sarah’s departure, Avimelech offers her what on the surface appears to be a blessing. Yet Sarah senses something deeper, and the Sages may be offering us a glimpse into her mindset. Sarah had now lied twice, and while the dishonesty was attached to an overall good, there was still a distortion of truth. It is possible she was very bothered and saw a potential flaw in her character. The line between lying for an overall good, and deception to bring about an evil end, might be tenuous. Sarah thus imparts to Yitzchak the importance of never deceiving at all costs, valuing honesty above all. While this seems like a noble virtue, it also could lead to a certain naiveite. Yitzchak’s eyes were “covered” – he saw the world through a very innocent lens.
Yitzchak, imbued with this trait, could not see the evil in Esav. Yitzchak had to see the good and dreamed of a future where Esav and Yaakov could work together and bring about the destiny of the Jewish people. His wife, raised in a home where deceit was an objective value, understood the true Esav. Sadly, Yitzchak was unable to view this reality. In a sense, then, his physical blindness was merely the natural extension of the overall “covering” he had always had.
Being fooled by Yaakov should not be read as a shocking development. Yitzchak never actually could “see” in the sense that someone like Rivka could. His abhorrence of deception, part of his character, meant that his hope for Esav being righteous was always present. Yitzchak, in a sense, was no more blind at his old age then he was when he was younger.
One should not see the above as a criticism of Yitzchak. Yitzchak’s aversion of deception is something that is deserving of praise. When seeing an ideal trait result in an error, one should not discard the value of said trait. Rather, the Sages are attempting to educate us in avoiding the temptation to create binaries and absolutes when dealing with the human psyche. The insight into Yitzchak is an excellent opportunity to internalize this truth and see Yitzchak for the human being that he was.
Rabbi Dvir Ginsberg is the Dean of Yeshivat Migdal HaTorah, a unique post high school yeshiva program located in Modiin