Michael Frayn’s 1998 play, Copenhagen, concerns a meeting between two great physicists, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, in 1941 in Copenhagen. In this play, the spirits of Heisenberg, Bohr, and Bohr’s wife, Margrethe, come together in the afterlife to answer Margrethe’s question, “Why did Heisenberg come to Copenhagen?”
Bohr and Heisenberg worked closely together in Copenhagen in the 1920s while developing atomic physics, resulting in the formulation of quantum mechanics. Bohr was already an accomplished scientist when the young German Heisenberg joined his group, and Bohr began mentoring him. Heisenberg became one of the leading figures in formulating the new quantum mechanics. Later, Heisenberg joined the group of German physicists developing nuclear weapons for Nazi Germany. Why did Heisenberg return to Copenhagen in 1941? Denmark was at that time already occupied by Germany. Did he intend to express to his former mentor, Niels Bohr, his moral objections to physicists working on nuclear weapons? Or perhaps to pick Bohr’s brain about whether such weapons could, in principle, be developed? Or maybe to hint to Bohr that he knew that nuclear weapons could be and were being developed? In the play, after their deaths, the two men have different recollections and interpretations of that meeting. Every time they disagree on what happened, they scrap that version of events and write another draft of what had happened. The historical question of whether Werner Heisenberg intentionally sabotaged Hitler’s efforts to develop an atomic bomb or actively participated in these efforts is still debated by historians of science.
Quantum mechanics, which Heisenberg helped to develop, is ruled by uncertainty. The theory cannot predict the outcome of an experiment. It can only predict the probability of each outcome. In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, all possible outcomes are realized, but in different universes. Whatever could have happened does happen somewhere, in one of the universes. Although critics maintain that the play Copenhagen occurs outside space and time, more likely Frayn structured it according to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, with various versions of the conversation between Heisenberg and Bohr playing out in different branches of the universe. At the end, the question posed by Margrethe, “Why did Heisenberg come to Copenhagen?” is never answered and remains uncertain—very fitting when writing about the discoverer of the uncertainty principle.
Let us imagine that we are in Copenhagen and Margrethe asks her husband, Niels Bohr, another question, “Did Abraham sacrifice his son, Isaac?”
In one universe (our universe), Abraham did not kill Isaac, because the angel stopped him. Abraham offered a ram instead. How do we know that? The Torah tells us so—this is the plain meaning of the text. This version requires no further proof.
In another universe, Isaac dies. At least for a moment. How do we know that? Kabbalah teaches that, just as every magnet has two poles, north and south, every soul has two aspects, male and female, as it is written, “male and female created He them” (Gen. 1:27). When it is time for the soul to descend into this world, the male half of the soul is usually born in a boy, and the female part of the soul is usually born in a girl. The two parts of the souls seek each other to reunite, which happens when a boy marries the girl who is his soulmate. However, for various reasons, “mistakes” happen and the male half of the soul can be incarnated in a girl, and the female half of the soul in a boy.
According to Kabbala, this is what happened in the case of Isaac. When Isaac was born, he received the feminine aspect of his soul.[1] According to the Zohar, this is why he could not get married. His future wife, Rebecca, could not be born, because her soul was the feminine aspect of Isaac’s soul, which was trapped in Isaac’s body. According to Kabbalists, G‑d had to orchestrate the Akeida—the Binding of Isaac—just to swap Isaac’s soul with its male counterpart. Just as with an organ transplant, the surgeon must put the patient to sleep while transplanting the organ that saves the patient’s life, and so too G‑d had put Isaac to “sleep,” as it were, to perform a soul transplant. Kabbalists tell us that it was a double transplant—when Isaac expired for a moment and released his soul, G‑d replaced it with the male aspect of his soul. At the same time, the female aspect of Isaac’s soul that was released from him got incarnated in his future wife, Rebecca, who was born at that time, as the Torah informs us immediately after the story of Akeida, “And Bethuel begot Rebekah” (Genesis 22:23). The standard interpretation is that Abraham did not ultimately slaughter Isaac, but Isaac did not know this and accepted his fate, and his soul left him before Abraham had a chance to slaughter him.[2] Be that as it may, in that universe, Isaac died, even if for a moment, and was revived again. At the very least, Isaac went through a near-death experience.
In yet another universe, Abraham went through with sacrificing Isaac. Not only was Isaac indeed slaughtered, but he was also burned as a burnt offering. How do we know that? Mishna states that on public fast days, it was customary to place some ashes in the Ark as a reminder of the “ashes of Isaac.” The classical biblical commentator Ibn Ezra,[3] in his commentary on Genesis 22:19, cites the opinion that Abraham did slaughter Isaac, who was later resurrected from the dead. The midrash says that Isaac’s ashes lay in front of G‑d. Even Ezra rejects this opinion as contrary to the plain text of the Bible. Indeed, the Talmud interprets this opinion allegorically. Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat teaches that even though Isaac didn’t die, scripture treats him as if he died, and as if his ashes were piled onto the altar (Midrash HaGadol Genesis 22:19). The Talmud notes that the Jews who returned from Babylon to build the second temple knew where to place the altar because they saw the ashes of Isaac piled up just in the right spot. A metaphor? Perhaps. Or it may have happened in another universe.
Back to Margrethe’s (hypothetical) question, “Did Abraham sacrifice his son, Isaac?” As in the play Copenhagen, it remains uncertain. When you have many worlds and many parallel universes, everything is possible.[4] But the story of the Binding of Isaac is a dramatic metaphor for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
————————-
Endnotes:
[1] According to the Zohar, Isaac received the soul from “the feminine world,” that is, he received the feminine aspect of his soul. According to Shem MiShmuel, this is hinted in the angel who delivered the good tiding to Abrham. The angel said, “Sarah will have a son,” and not, “Abraham will have a son.” From this, it is understood that Sarah’s son would have a feminine soul. Moreover, according to the Ari, the feminin aspect of Isaac’s souls was the reincarnation of the soul of Eve. The male aspect of Isaac’s soul was reincarnation of the soul of Abel, Eve’s son killed by Cain. (See, for example, Rabbi Yistzchak Ginsburg, “Isaac: Laughter and Metamorphosis,” Yeshivat Netzach Yisrael, Jerusalem, May 7, 2017, www.inner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Isaac-Laughter-and-Metamorphosis.pdf (retrieved 11/8/20).
[2] According to the Ari, the soul of Abel (Hevel) began to enter Isaac even earlier, on the way to the Akeida. When Isaac questioned his father, Where was the lamb of the sacrifice, Abraham answered, “And Abraham said: ‘G‑d will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.’ So they went both of them together.” The words “the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son,” when written in the original Hebrew—haseh leolah bni—spell out the name Havel (Abel) as the acronym of this phrase (the first letters are heh-lamed-bet, whereas Hevel is speeled heh-bet-lamed—the same letters but in a different order). The conclusion of this verse is, “So they went both of them together.” As Rashi and other biblical commentators point out, the word “together” indicates that Isaac understood and accepted his fate.
[3] Abraham Ibn Ezra (or Even Ezra) (1089 [or 1092]–1164 [or 1167]) was one of the most important biblical commentators.
[4] We need to remember, however, that in Torah, there is only on physical reality. All other many worlds and parallel universes exist in the spiritual domain.
Thank you for a very interesting interpretation that connects quantum mechanics and Kabbalah! My understanding of Kabbalah is that Chesed (Avraham) is a male aspect of the human Soul and Gevura (Sarah) is a feminine aspect. However, as claimed by modern psychologists, every human being has both aspects – male and female, just in different proportions. So your pointing out that the angel said, “Sarah will have a son,” and not, “Abraham will have a son” confirms that Yitchak’s Soul was (mostly) Gevura. But Yitchak remained epitome of Gevura even after the Akeida as can be vividly seen in the fact that he was willing to sacrifice his will in the story of his unintentional blessing of Yakov instead of Eisav (and for some people sacrificing their will to G-d may be harder than sacrificing their life). So during the Akeida Yitzchak’s soul was probably not “switched” to male, but had the proportions sufficiently modified for him to get married. BTW, I once was in a lecture of a practicing psychologist who studies and teaches Judaism, and she said that families where husband is Chesed (Avraham) and wife is Gevura (Sarah) are much stronger families than families where it’s vice versa (Yitzchak and Rivka).
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You are correct, Sefira of Chesed (personified in Abraham) is the male sefirah. However, the relationship between Abraham and Sarah can be characterized in many different ways. For example, the Zohar says that Abraham is a soul, whereas Sarah is a body. In another place, the Zohar says that Sarah is Malchut and that Sarah rectified all of the sub-sefirot of Malchut. The female aspect is generally gevurah, so one can certainly say that Abraham pesonified Chesed, whereas Sarah personified gevurah–it all depends on what level you are considering this relationship.
Indeed, every human being has both aspects–-male and female. Each of us acts at different times in different capacities. When we speak (man or woman) we act in a male capacity. When we listen, we act in a female capacity. Etc. The point that when the angel said, “Sarah will have a son,” and not, “Abraham will have a son” confirms that Yitchak’s Soul was a feminine soul is not my point–it’s from the Zohar. The Zohar also says that that the Akeida was necessary to exchange Yitzchak’s would from feminine to masculine. The Arizal elaborates on it in Shaar HaGilgulim. There is no contradiction between Yitzchak acquiring his masculine soul and yet remaining the personification of gevurah. While generally, male souls are associated with chesed, a specific soul can be rooted in gevurah–one does not contradict the other. Remember that all sefirot are inter-included. There is gevurah shebe-chesed and there is chesed shebe-gevurah. I can’t argue whether Yitzchak’s soul was or was not switched at the time of the akeida–we cannot know such things and cannot say one way or the other on our own authority–we have to rely on those who see souls (I certainly don’t). The Zohar and the Arizal say that the soul of Yitzchak was switched during the Akeida from feminine to masculine–these are the authorities I rely on.
Again, thank you for reading my blog and for your comments–keep them coming. Stay safe! Kol tuv!
Very nice. I once wrote a parallels paper showing the many parallels or matches between the 2 episodes (The Chet of the tree of knowledge and the later deception of Isaac by Jacob to get the bechor status and the bracha. It showed many parallels that support: that the event when the snake deceived Eve who in turn ‘deceived’ Adam to eat the fruit, was later rectified by Essauv (the gilgul of the snake) being tricked by Rivkah (the gilgul of Eve) who helped Jacob (the gilgul of Adam) to get the bracha from Isaac instead of letting Essauv get it. This rectified the snake’s action that led to curses for Adam and so later resulted in Jacob getting blessed and Essauv (the snake) remaining not blessed, and thus remaining in his cursed state. Rivkah rectified her error that she committed in Gan Eden when she was Eve and gave the fruit to Adam, by now (when she was Rivkah) again using food in a deceptive way but now in a productive manner to get Jacob the blessing back that he lost (partly due to her) when Jacob was Adam.
In addition, we could see a double tikkun. That is, we know that Abel’s soul was partly reincarnated into Jacob and that Cain’s also partly went into Essauv. Cain Killed Abel to take away his bechora (G-d loved Abel’s korban and not Cain’s making him the defacto bechor regarding who brings korbanot.) So Isaac was deceived to not only get the bracha as explained but also to have Jacob get back the bechora that he lost when Cain killed him when he was Abel. But it had to occur in a deceptive manner to repair the deception of Gan Eden by the snake. Thus a double tikkun.
But, I had a question, where does Isaac fit into this. But thanks to your mentioning the Arizal’s teaching of gilgulim as follows:
“Moreover, according to the Ari, the feminin aspect of Isaac’s souls was the reincarnation of the soul of Eve. The male aspect of Isaac’s soul was reincarnation of the soul of Abel, Eve’s son killed by Cain”
From this we see that Isaac (with the soul of Eve) had to be deceived to rectify the time that he was Eve who deceived Adam with food. And that Isaac had to have the soul of Abel when he gave the bracha/bechora status to Jacob and not to Essauv to rectify personally his death at the hand of Cain that took away his bechora status. Thus Abel himself as Isaac gives it to himself (Jacob with soul of Abel).
The actual chapter I wrote actually has many parallels between the two above episodes and maybe I will post some in a future comment.
Stay well and keep up the great writing.
Very interesting! Thanks for your comment–keep them coming!
I hereby partly edit the third to last paragraph above that I posted because I don’t think Isaac had the soul of Eve when he gave the bracha to Jacob as he had already lost it at the Akeidah as it then went to Rivkah. In addition, we can add the teaching that the Ari says that Isaac received the ruach of the soul of Adam. So I would say more accurately, the below is possible, as follows, in my opinion even though more research is needed:
From this we see that Isaac (with the soul of Adam) had to personally give the bracha and bechora to Jacob and leave Essauv with no blessing (leaving him in his cursed state as when he was the nahash) to rectify for the time that the nahash caused Adam to be cursed.
And that Isaac had to have the soul of Abel when he gave the bracha/bechora status to Jacob and not to Essauv to rectify personally his death at the hand of Cain that took away his bechora status. Thus Abel himself as Isaac gives it to himself (Jacob with soul of Abel). This assume Adam still had the soul of Abel at this time and did not lose it at the Akeidah. (I need to check this).
Lastly, as mentioned, Rivkah as the gilgul of Eve will use food to get Jacob the blessing to rectify the time that she used food when she was Eve that led to Adam getting cursed. So now, Jacob the gilgul of Adam will get blessed.
kol tov
Avraham
Below are many scriptural parallels that strongly support the teachings regarding the gilgulim and rectifications that occurred due to the snakes deception in Gan Eden as well as Cain’s killing of Abel. In addition one will see many parallels between Adam and Isaac. Enjoy!
The Garden of Eden, Cain & Abel, Essauv & Jacob
Deception and Repairation
Q Is there any evidence in the Torah connecting the Cain & Heivel episode to the Essauv & Yaacov episode?
Yes, as seen by the following matches and parallels between both sets of episodes:
1) Both Adam and Yitshak have a SEARCH for their future spouse:
a) As per the plain meaning of the text Adam searched through but could not find a spouse among all the animals that Hashem brought to Adam to name as per “….but as for man he did not find a helper opposite him.” (Ber 2-20)
b) While Eliezer, the servant of Avraham is commanded by Avraham “…to my land and to my kindred shall you go and take a wife for my son, for Yitshak.” Ber 24-4. As we know Eliezer then went on a search for the wife.
2)Both Chava and Rivka are BROUGHT to Adam and Yitshak:
a)Hashem brought Chava to Adam as per: “ … And He (Hashem) brought (vaya vi ee ha) her (Chava) to the man.” (Ber 2-22)
b)While Eliezer brought Rivka to Yitshak as per: “ … the slave took Rivkah and went.” (Ber 24-61). Also the same word of coming/brought is found as per “ … he (Isaac) raised his eyes and saw, and behold! Camels were coming (Ba eem).” (Ber 22-63)
3) Both Adam and Yitzhak were SUPPOSED TO DIE but didn’t:
a) That is Adam ate of the fruit which Hashem said he would die on that day- instead he lived albeit got cursed,
b) While Yitzhak was ‘supposed’ to die as a korban in the Akeidah Yitzhak but Hashem said to Avraham not to.
The above almost death was the causation for having relations/marriage:
That is, according to one opinion, Adam’s eating of the fruit caused him to get lust when he saw Chava and so had relations, While Isaac’s near death at the Akeidah caused Avraham to decide to get Yitzhak married.
4)Getting married is described in relation to the man ‘leaving’ his mother (IMO):
a) For Adam it says “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother (IMO) and cling to his wife (Be ishto)… “ Ber 2-24. Here man is described as physically departing one’s mother when he gets married.
b) While for Isaac it says “…she became his wife (Le Isha), and he loved her, and thus was Isaac consoled after his mother ( IM0).” Ber 24-66 Here Yitzhak is described as psychologically ‘leaving’ his mother through his attachment to Rivkah. Both Physical and psychological space from one’s mother is necessary for a stable marriage.
5) Similar language of conception of Chava and Rivkah:
a) “ The man knew his wife (ISHTO) Chava and she conceived ( VA TAHAR) and she gave birth…” (Ber 4-1)
b)While “ …and his wife (ISHTO) became conceived (VATAHAR). “ (Ber 25-2)
6)Difficult pregnancy consistent with curse to Chava.
Hashem told Chava “ …I will greatly increase your suffering and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children (BANEEM).” (Ber 3-16). Rashi explains “pregnancy” that “ this is the pain of pregnancy”.
While Rivkah had a difficult pregnancy as per “ And the children (BANEEM) crushed within her…” (Ber25-22). Rashi explains later that “the pain of pregnancy is great”
Note that the same word BANEEM (children) is used in both episodes.
7) Both sets of children were born as TWINS.
a) According to one opinion Cain and Heivel were twins. In any case they were born the same day.
b) While, Essauv and Yaacov were twins.
8) The ‘nicer’ sons were born second in both episodes.
9) The different OCCUPATIONS of the sons are described using similar language of contrast:
a) “…Abel became (VA YE CHEE) a herder of flocks, while Cain was a tiller of the ground.” (Ber 4-2)
b) While: “ The lad grew up and Esauv became (VA YE CHEE) a man who knows trapping, a man of the field; but Yaacov was a wholesome man, abiding in tents.” (Ber 25-27)
You can note that the first person (Heivel/Essauv) BECOME something while the second person (Cain/Yaacov) WERE ALREADY something.
(This potentially reflects inborn personalities traits for the good and the bad)
10) Next there is a DISPUTE over the RIGHTS OF THE FIRSTBORN:
a) Midrash Beresheit Rabbah 22 (brought down by Meam Loez) describes the argument between Cain and Heivel over the rights to the firstborn. Cain said that since he is the firstborn he should get the rights of the firstborn. He said he deserved: a double portion; the altar where they brought offerings should belong to him; the place of the future beit Hamikdash(that’s where Adam brought a korban); the extra twin sister of Heivel.
In addition they argued over splitting the world (Cain gets the land while Heivel the movables).
b) Essauv, like Cain, also believes that he is the son that deserves the rights to the firstborn.
Yaacov believes Essauv should not have the rights to the bechor as he is a Rasha, and thus not fit to bring korbanot to Hashem. He then enters into a discussion with Essauv and buys the rights to the firstborn in exchange for giving Essauv the lentil soup. We see that Essauv regretted the sale of the rights when he goes with the food to Isaac to get the bracha and he still presents himself as “I am your son, your firstborn, Essauv” (Ber 27-33). In addition you see he regretted the sale when he says “ ..he outwitted me these two times? He took away my birthright and see, now he took away my blessing.” (Ber 27-36)
Similarly Essauv and Yaacov also argue about splitting the world (Essauv gets this world while Yaacov gets the next word (Olam Haba)(midrash).
11) Both Adam and Yitshak ask their sons to bring a korban/food for eating on the 14 th of Nissan!
a) That is the Midrash explains that on the 14 th of Nissan Adam asked his sons to bring a korban as in the future a korban Pessach will be brought on that date. Thus Cain and Heivel then bring korbanot on that day.(pirkei de R. Eliezer Meam loez Yalkut P 286).
b) Pirkei de R.Eliezer also mentions that on the 14 th of Nissan Yitshak called Essauv and told him to trap him some game.
12) Next, Both Cain and Heivels ‘offerings/gifts’ rejected:
a) Cain offering of flax was rejected by Hashem,
b) While Isaac rejected Essauv’s ‘offering/gift’ of food to his father was rejected as he got tricked by Yaacov.
13) Both Cain’s and Essauv’s offering not valid/low quality:
a) Cain offered cheap flax while his brother brother sheep,
b) While Essauv couldn’t find an animal so he killed a dog (Midrash) and brought that and Yaacov brought a nice tasty kosher feast.
14) Both Cain and Essauv became mad because of this rejection of their apparent rights as the bechor:
a) Cain was angry because his offering was rejected, in essence rejecting his right to bechor which entails the right to bring offerings: “Cain was deeply fired with indignation”,
b) Essauv was upset that he did not get the bracha due to the bechor thus in essence officially losing his rights to the bechora which he already sold And …” Essauv harbored hatred toward Jacob because of the blessing which his father had blessed him…”.
15) We see that both Cain and Essauv did not really deserve the right to bring offerings:
a) Cain brought cheap flax and Essauv sold his rights for a bowl of lentil soup.
16) Next both Cain and Essauv planned to kill their brother at a later date at the ‘RIGHT TIME’:
a) You see from: “ Cain spoke with his brother Heivel and it happened when they were in the field that Cain….killed him.” Rashi explains that Cain was looking for an argument as an excuse to kill Heivel. So we see that he was planning to kill him, just biding his time to the right time.
b) While Essauv plans the timing of his murder according to “…the days of mourning for my father are approachng. I will then kill Yaacov” (Ber 27-41)
And the Midrash actually connects them when it teaches that Essauv said that he will not be stupid like Cain who killed Heivel before Adam passed away. Because Adam then got another son (Seth). Essauv decided that he will kill him after Yitshak’s death so that he would be the only son , the bechor, and inherit everything.
17) Cain then kills Heivel while Yaacov runs aways from the person who wants to murder him.
18) Both Cain and Yaacov leave (VAYETSE) after the murder/intention to murder and settle in an eastern place:
a) After killing Heivel, Hashem banishes Cain as per “ Vayetse Cayin….settled in the land of wandering east of Edem” (Ber 4-15)
b) While Yaacov runs away: “ Vayetse Yaacov…went to Haran” (Ber 28-10). Later it says that he “went toward the land of the easterners (bnei Kedem)” (Ber 29-10)
MEANING OF PARALLELS:
From the parallels above and the opposite events, it seems a tikkun (rectification) is taking place. That is Cain did a bad thing that had to be rectified; he killed Heivel in order to get the rights of the bechor and the right to bring korbanot ( which it seems he lost to Heivel when Heivels’s korban was accepted instead of his).
Thus to repair this the opposite scenario had to unfold where Jacob had to now take back the bechor from Essauv. Thus he bought the bechor from Essauv and tricked him in order to get the blessing due the bechor from Isaac.
So can it be Jacob is a gilgul of Heivel and Essauv a gilgul of Cain? That is Jacob the gilgul of Heivel who was killed and robbed of the bechor will now exact justice and retrieve through trickery the bechor from Essauv the gilgul of Cain who originally killed him and took the bechor.
At a later date I asked this question to Rabbi Cohen the kabbalist and indeed he said that the Zohar says that indeed Essauv is the gilgul of Cain and Yaacov is the gilgul of Heivel!
I then learned that the Zohar says the following gilgulim:
Essauv is a gilgul of the Nahash (snake)
Yaacov is a gilgul of Adam
Rivkah is a gilgul of Chava
And it seems that (I need to look further at what is actually written) since the Nahash tricked Chava into eating the fruit then this is rectified in the future when Essauv(gilgul of Nahash) is himself tricked by Yaacov (gilgul of Adam who was also indirectly tricked) and by Rivkah (gilgul of Chava).
Taking this Zohar and putting it together with the above written paper where we proposed a rectification where :
Yaacov is gilgul of Heivel
Essauv is Gilgul of Cain
We can now note that:
Yaacov is the is gilgul of Adam and Heivel
Essauv is gilgul of Nahash and Cain
Rivkah is gilgul of Chava
We see that a double set of reparations seems to be taking place in order to repair both the snake’s deception of Chava and Adam which led to them being cursed and Cain’s later murder of Heivel for the bechor rights as follows:
Essauv (gilgul of Nahash and Cain) is deceived by Yaacov out of the bechor in order to repair :
The time the Nahash deceived Chava into eating the fruit
The time Cain killed Heivel for the bechor
Thus 2 reparations happened – he gets deceived and he loses the bechor rights. Thus one event took place where both reparations could be effected.
The nahash was responsible directly for tricking Chava into eating the fruit causing her to be cursed and Adam to be cursed.
The rectification for this was that the opposite would occur and Heivel (Gilgul of snake) would be tricked out of his blessing from Yitshak. Instead Yaacov would be blessed to repair the curse that he got when he was Adam.
Rivkah had to repair the damage she caused by giving the fruit to Adam to eat bringing a curse upon him thus she did the opposite and gave food to Yaacov to deceive Essaav (nahash) and now make sure Yaacov gets the blessing which repairs his curse when he was Adam.
In addition we see that Rivkah’s deception of Essav repairs her getting deceived and cursed because of the Nahash(Essauv). Her son Jacob getting blessed rectifies her getting cursed.
And we see that in the same way that the snake used food to bring a curse thought deception – food again was used to trick him and make him lose a blessing (equivalent to a curse as the blessing to Essauv was in the long term a curse – Essauv’s descendents will one day be ruled by Yaacov’s descendants ). So the snake caused a curse and in response he lost his blessing (as Essauv).
We can also add what I just learned that the Ari teaches that the ruach of Adam went to Isaac. This fits in well and explains all the above matches between Adam’s life and Isaac life (searching for a wife, types of children, etc). It also seems that Isaac as the gilgul of Adam was involved in the above rectifications in a personal way to rectify the time he was tricked by the snake and thus cursed. To rectify this he was reincarnated as Isaac and gave the blessing to Jacob (also gilgul of Adam) and left Essauv with no blessing and kept him in his cursed state as when he was the snake.
In addition, we can also add that the Ari says that the soul of Abel went to Isaac before the Akeidah. So, if he kept the soul after the Akeidah (have to check), then we can add that Isaac was again personally involved in a rectification. Isaac as the gilgul of Abel gave the bechora to Jacob (also has soul of Abel) and not to Essauv (had souls of nahash and Cain ) to rectify the time that Cain killed Abel for the bechora.
There is a continuation of the next set of deceptions where Jacob in turn gets deceived. This deception continues until Joseph deceiving his brothers.
THUS FAR WITH THE HELP OF HASHEM!
HI! I am writing an essay on all the physics themes in Bereshit. I have so many questions. But one question in particular is regarding black holes. I am not a physicist, I am a student of Torah, but I grew up secular and know enough to draw parallels. I have been studying a bit about black holes. To say it simply, what enters a blackhole becomes dissembled and then resembled. This made me think of the process of the soul after death and the cleaning process it goes through. If the soul enters a sort of blackhole, resembled and then it is reborn into another form on an infinite loop. This makes the most sense to me to validate reincarnation to someone who never even heard the word “science” before.
Interesting thought, but I don’t think this parallel works. Black holes are places where matter comes to die. Black holes destroy anything that falls into them (due to infinite gravitational forces inside the black hole). Souls after death, on the other hand, do not die–they are immortal. According to the Kabbalah, not every soul reincarnates after death–it depends on a number of factors. But, regardless of that, souls continue to exist in Paradise, which can hardly be compared to a black hole.