The “enslavement” of the Egyptian people.

                A cursory reading of these verses would lead us to conclude that Yosef exploits the famine to transform practically the entire Egyptian population, with the exception of the priestly class (47:22, 26), into slaves serving Pharoah. While a totalitarian government dealing with a slave population might be the most efficient means by which to deal with a national crisis like a famine, must we assume that no alternative systems that are less morally problematic were available for Yosef’s considerations? In effect, in this case, do the ends justify the means? The Egyptians’ desperation to obtain food causes them in turn to first agree to hand over their money (47:14-15), then their livestock (47:16-17), and finally their land and their very selves (47:18-26).[1] It is difficult to comprehend why, if the enslavement of the Jews by the Egyptians, as described in Shemot 1 ff., is considered so reprehensible, that Yosef, HaTzaddik (the righteous) no less, would be the instrument to enslave the Egyptian people.[2] The fact that Yosef’s actions predate those of the Egyptians vis-à-vis the Jews could lead one to think that the principle of Mida KeNeged Mida (a perpetrator of sin receives punishment in accordance with the type or effect of his/her sin) is being applied by the Egyptians—or at least the “new Pharoah” (Shemot 1:8) to the Jews long after the famine ended.

Yosef’s possible personal agenda for wanting the Egyptian population to become slaves.

                RaShI on Beraishit 47:21, commenting on Yosef’s assigning the Egyptians to relocate to cities stretching from one end of Egypt to the other, suggests that such practices, as unsavory as they may seem to be, are all designed, in addition to controlling the Egyptian population for maximum food storage and distribution, to assure that Yosef’s immigrant family would not be looked upon askance by the native population. How could there be discrimination against those who have only recently come to Egypt, when the entire Egyptian population has been turned into displaced persons enslaved to a ruler, and who no longer reside in the immediate area in which they were raised from childhood?[3]

Yosef’s utilizing his position to change Egyptian society might not have stopped with turning the Egyptians into slaves.

RaShI’s approach to Yosef’s demands in Beraishit 47 is consistent with the Midrashic interpretation that the commentator invokes on 41:55. In this earlier verse, Pharoah instructs the Egyptian people to do whatever Yosef asks of them. Rather than assuming that this was part of the general mandate that Pharoah had already given to Yosef in 41:44, the Midrash posits that Pharoah is reacting to a specific appeal by the Egyptian people as a result of what they considered an untenable demand made by Yosef. The Midrash attributes to Yosef the requirement that Egyptian males undergo circumcision before he will give them food.[4] While RaShI describes the discussion between the Egyptians and Pharoah, leading him to command them to follow any and all of Yosef’s orders, the rationale for Yosef making such a requirement is not discussed by the commentator. The Midrashic commentary Yefat To’ar[5] suggests that Yosef’s demand was a reaction to the disregard with which the Egyptians held peoples who were circumcised;[6] in order to win respect not only for his family, but even for himself, the newly promoted Egyptian leader engaged in social engineering designed to make circumcision the standard practice of the culture, rather than allow it to be a stigma that would separate immigrants from the native born.[7]   But in light of what takes place in the beginning of Shemot, it is questionable whether even if there was a short-term benefit in terms of the acceptance of the Jews coming to Egypt and living in Goshen, that resentment against what Yosef had orchestrated did not fester and ultimately resulted in a most hostile backlash against the Jews in the coming generations.

An alternative approach that rejects the assumption that the Egyptian populace were turned into slaves by Yosef.

                RaMBaN and Meshech Chachma believe that Yosef in fact did not maneuver the Egyptians into becoming slaves to Pharoah. They reach this conclusion by a particularly close reading and comparison of the verse in which the people offer themselves as opposed to the description of Yosef’s response to their offer. In 47:19, the Egyptians tell Yosef, “…Acquire us and our land in exchange for bread, and we and our land will be in servitude to Pharoah…”, but the text continues (47:20) “And Yosef acquired all of the land of Egypt for Pharoah, because each man of Egypt had sold his field…and the land became Pharoah’s.” And although Yosef subsequently states (47:23) “…And I have acquired you and your land for Pharoah this day…” his instruction (47:24) that 1/5 of what they grow on the land be given to Pharoah, while the people  are to keep 4/5 suggests that they are sharecroppers, rather than slaves. RaMBaN further explains that typically, the ratios would be reversed, with the sharecropper keeping the smaller share, and the bigger percentage turned over to the owner. However, Yosef was determined to deal kindly with them, not only in terms of refusing to allow them to become enslaved, but also with respect to the amount that they would be allowed to retain as a result of their agricultural efforts.

                Meshech Chachma is even more adamant regarding Yosef’s refusal to impinge upon the Egyptian people’s personal liberties, and suggests that while the land would belong to Pharoah, the people were being hired as “day workers”—(47:23) “…And I have acquired you and your land for Pharoah this day…”, i.e., only for a circumscribed period of time, as one would hire a laborer for a specific job and assure him a proper wage. Furthermore, the commentator asserts that such an arrangement accounts for Yosef’s transferring the Egyptians to cities, to prove to all that the only entity that permanently belonged to Pharoah was the land, but not the people. They would not be given the same legal status as had been attached to the land, i.e., Pharoah’s property.  

                According to RaMBaN and Meshech Chachma, rather than imposing draconian measures that could lead to resentment, Yosef’s policies could be understood as intended to win over the people. Furthermore no mention is made by these commentators of any intent to make the social environment more amenable to Yosef’s family. (One could argue that the assignment of a separate homeland for Yaakov and his extended clan, i.e., Goshen [45:10] made unnecessary any additional measures since the Jews would be geographically insulated from the Egyptians.)  This then leads to the conclusion regarding the beginning of Shemot, that, despite Yosef’s best efforts to both save the Egyptian people from famine and maintain their dignity and liberty,  at a later point, history was revised and not only Pharoah, but everyone throughout Egypt, deliberately “did not know Yosef” (Shemot 1:8).

Conclusion.

                The differing approaches to the question of Yosef’s far-reaching intent with regard to the manner in which he distributed food, over and above simply providing nourishment for starving people, revolves around the question of whether slavery is a practical means, however disagreeable, to a desired end, in this case both distributing food as well as trying to make the period of  Jewish exile as palatable as possible,  or is the institution of slavery to be viewed as so heinous, that alternate means must be found, regardless of the direct and indirect social and economic benefits that slavery may offer. And what sort of sensibility should be attributed to Yosef—was he a particularist, committed first and foremost to the interests of his family and tradition, or a universalist, taking seriously the needs of the entire country over whom he has been appointed as administrator? After all, he personally had been a slave, imprisoned, slandered, and generally treated badly. Therefore, he may have wished to spare both his family as well as his fellow countrymen from such difficulties. Precisely because he had personally undergone the unpleasant experience of being a slave, he did not want anyone else to be subjected to similar treatment, even Egyptians, in the spirit of the Tora’s oft-repeated adjuration intended to warn Jews against perpetrating an experience on others that they found so reprehensible, (Devarim 5:14; 6:12; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22) “Remember you were a slave in the land of Egypt.”  This intriguing  aspect of  Yosef’s tenure as Egyptian viceroy appears to pose more questions than it answers. 

[1]The circumstances under which the Egyptians sell themselves to Pharoah in exchange for food  is reminiscent of the manner in which Yaakov “purchases” the birthright from his brother Eisav (25:31-34). Aside from the question of whether a birthright can be bought and sold, taking advantage of someone else’s fears of imminent death due to starvation (25:32) in order to extract from him something that he values very much and otherwise would not be expected to willingly give up, would appear to be morally questionable. While the Talmud (Bava Batra 47b) concludes that if a person is made to sell something under duress (“Talyuhu VeZavin”), as long as he is properly compensated in the end, the sale is legal, this would appear to be in compliance with the letter rather than the spirit of the law.  

[2] A distinction could be made regarding whether the slavery engineered by Yosef entailed no more than belonging to Pharoah, or included the ability to assign “Avoda BeFarech” (lit. breaking work) (Shemot 1:13) as well. Pharoah clearly was threatened by the extreme growth of the Jewish people in Egypt (Ibid. 1:9-10) and imposed the severe labor as an attempt to limit the population growth. In contrast, Yosef appears to seek out the most efficient manner by which to grow and distribute food so that the Egyptian population would be able to best survive the famine with as few losses as possible. Nevertheless, the text gives no indication that once the threat was past, the Egyptians’ freedom was restored to them, suggesting that Pharoah remained in control of his constituency and its property.

[3]Administering a large nation meets with less resistance when the indigenous population is resettled in new areas. Yosef’s policy for Egypt calls to mind Sancherev’s approach to managing the Assyrian empire:  

Berachot 28a

Sennacherib king of Assyria long ago went up and mixed up all the nations, as it says, (Yeshayahu 10:13) “I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as one mighty their inhabitants.”

Shlomo is also described as applying an administrative reorganization of the land of Israel to create an equitable manner by which to tax the people with respect to supporting the royal entourage—see I Melachim 4:7 MaLBIM. In addition to trying to achieve fairness, this approach can be simultaneously understood as an attempt  to reorganize the country in a manner that would no longer focus upon tribal differentiations, which had proven in the past to be a barrier to creating a sense of national unity.

[4]A story to which this Midrashic interpretation harks back is the negotiation between Yaakov’s family and the  inhabitants of Shechem following the rape of Dina (Beraishit 34:15). However, whereas in the case of the Shechemites, it appears that the objective was for them to refuse and thereby supply a pretense for the recovery of Dina, the Midrash assumes that Yosef appears to successfully require the Egyptians to actually go through with this ritual.  

[5] The comment is made in connection with R. Aba bar Kahana’s view cited in Beraishit Rabba 90:6.

[6] This is in contrast to the approach of the Jews to the non-circumcised, particularly the Philistines—see Shoftim 14:3; I Shmuel 14:6; II Shmuel 1:20, etc.

[7] Midrash HaGadol speculates that Yosef made a different request: when people would come to obtain food, he would tell them that they must deny belief in their idolatrous gods, and instead give thanks to the true God who is responsible for the food with which they are being provided. Consequently, this Midrash sees Yosef as proselytizing rather than looking to narrow the gap between the indigenous population and the Jewish immigrants.  The precursor of such a story would appear to be the activities of Avraham that are described in association with the “Eishel” that he establishes in Be’er Sheva. Here too, food and hospitality is utilized as a means by which to secure a change from polytheistic to monotheistic belief. See RaShI on 21:33. Pharoah’s ratification of Yosef’s demand for the Egyptian people to become monotheistic, says the Midrash, earns for Pharoah length of days, until he becomes excessively arrogant (Shemot 1:8, with the assumption that this is the same Pharoah with new policies, rather than a successor to the throne—see the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel cited by RaShI on this verse) and eventually dies (2:23).

             Even though the simple meaning of the phrase in Micha 7:20 “Titain Emet LeYaakov” (give truth to Yaakov) is interpreted by commentators (e.g., Metzudat David, MaLBIM)  as a plea for God to fulfill, i.e., make come “true,”  the various Promises Declared to Yaakov and his offspring,[1] an alternative reading appears in the Midrash. In Beraishit Rabba 70:7, a Cutite[2] asks R. Meir a question concerning Yaakov’s apparently not fulfilling the vow that he made (Beraishit 28:20 ff.)[3] upon awakening from the dream in which he saw the vision of the angels ascending and descending the Heavenly ladder (28:12). “Don’t you (the Jews and the Jewish tradition) say, ‘Yaakov was an honest man, since it is written ‘Titain Emet LeYaakov’’, i.e., in accordance with the principle Mida KeNeged Mida (an individual should be treated in accordance with the manner by which he has conducted himself) can there really be an insistence that Yaakov merits “honest” treatment because of his personal adherence throughout his life to this attribute?[4] 

A key instance that would appear to bear out the general implications of the Cutite’s challenge. 

                A straightforward reading of the Biblical texts describing Yaakov’s life in general, and not only with respect to his failure to separate tithes upon his return to Canaan, would appear to support the Cutite’s query. How can one avoid coming to the conclusion that Yaakov was at least guilty of Geneivat Da’at (lit. “stealing someone’s mind”; misleading another person–), if not outright lying when he represented himself as Eisav to Yitzchak, in order to obtain the blessing meant for his brother (27:19 ff.)? Can the claim that he “purchased” Eisav’s birthright be extended to suggest that he also acquired his literal identity? While Rivka’s encouraging her son Yaakov to deceive Yitzchak (27:6 ff.), suggests that lying and misrepresentation were not qualities that Yaakov possessed innately but rather that he had to be encouraged and taught to do so, nevertheless in the end he carried out the deception completely.[5] 

This type of behavior is generally assumed to be more in keeping with the nature of Eisav than his twin brother Yaakov.  

                As opposed to Yaakov, who is originally described to us as “a simple man, sitting in tents” (25:27), it is Eisav who, from the time that the unique traits of his personality are discernable, is assumed to be the individual for whom subtle trickery is second nature. Commentators on 25:27-8, including the likes of RaShI, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and RaDaK, attribute to Eisav the cunning, nefariousness, and planning capability to track down and capture animals. They assume that just as animals can be entrapped by someone who has perfected these skills, the same hunter can apply his talents to entrap human beings as well and manipulate them to do as he chooses. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the vocation of Nimrod, the first king to rule over a significant portion of human civilization, is also described as (10:9) “a mighty hunter before HaShem.” His hunting skills were put to use to organize, order, and control a vast number of people. Consequently, such commentators suggest, Yitzchak’s love for Eisav was misplaced; his oldest son, by means of deliberate and elaborate stratagems, “trapped” his father and made him think of him as worthy of particularly special treatment and blessings, when in fact, he was not. 

Yaakov appears to modify his nature and basic instincts over time. 

                Yet, however alien misrepresenting and lying may have been to Yaakov at the outset, he seems over time to recognize that a dedication to unadulterated honesty may be a handicap rather than a virtue in certain circumstances. Consider the following incidents and behaviors, in addition to the manner in which he obtained his father’s blessing: 

a)  Instead of offering to share the food that he has just made, he tempted his tired, hungry brother and agrees to give him a portion only after extracting Eisav’s birthright in return (25:29 ff.);[6] 

b)  Yaakov allowed his father to think that the reason why he is leaving the family home is in accordance with Rivka’s pretense, i.e.,  to seek out a wife paralleling the manner by which Rivka and Yitzchak were brought together, rather than confiding to his father the true reason for his departure, i.e., Eisav’s threat against his life (see 27:42-6); 

c)  The Rabbinic interpretation of 29:12 in e.g., Megilla 13b, depicts Yaakov as plotting to outwit Lavan and marry Rachel instead of Leah;[7] 

d)  If it is assumed that Yaakov approached Lavan to return to Canaan (30:25 ff.) only after Rivka sent him a signal that Eisav’s murderous intent had dissipated  (see 27:44-45),  it would appear inappropriate for Yaakov to then have negotiated with Lavan to stay even longer so that he could enrich himself at the expense of honoring his parents’ wishes ;[8] 

e)  Yaakov’s methodology by which he  elicited the birth of more speckled and spotted sheep and goats than would have naturally been born (30:37 ff.) is not initially explained as the fulfillment of a Divine Directive. Only in 31:10, when Yaakov is trying to convince his wives that they have to leave Aram Naharaim, does he mention that the device of using peeled sticks to increase the number of animals that would be declared his, came to him in a prophetic dream. If Lavan had a certain expectation regarding the outcome of a business deal, would it have been Yaakov’s responsibility to disclose fully the means by which he was going to attempt to assure that things were not going to work out in the manner that Lavan expected? 

f)   The manner in which Yaakov and his family fled when Lavan had gone out to sheer his sheep was certainly devious—twice is the language of “Geneivat Da’at” (stealing someone’s mind, i.e., tricking another individual) mentioned, not only by Lavan himself in 31:26, where his claim could be easily brushed aside as yet another manifestation of Rivka’s father’s insincerity, but also by the Tora itself in 31:20. 

The pattern of Yaakov’s avoidance of the truth appears to continue in this week’s Tora reading.  

                The aforementioned pattern of Yaakov’s actions brings us to a relatively obscure, but nevertheless potentially significant detail of his interchange with Eisav when they finally stand  face to face in Chapter 33 after more than two decades of separation. Following hugs and kisses,[9] introductions, and a negotiation regarding the gifts that Yaakov was offering, Eisav proposed that the two groups, i.e., Yaakov, his family, and his herds on the one hand, and Eisav and the 400 men accompanying him (32:7) on the other, travel together. Yaakov declined the offer, under the pretext that the typical rates of speed of the two groups are so radically different that this plan would not only be impractical, but perhaps even physically harmful (33:13). As an alternative proposal, Yaakov told Eisav that they would be better off establishing a rendezvous point in Se’ir (33:14), and firmly declined Eisav’s final offer of assigning body guards for the rest of Yaakov’s family’s journey. 

                The problem that we encounter at this point in the Tora’s narrative is the fact that Yaakov never goes to Se’ir, despite his ostensible promise to Eisav.  This leads us to contemplate whether Yaakov has again engaged in yet another subterfuge to get out of potential harm’s way.  Will Eisav be entitled to intone, “This is now the third time that Yaakov has tricked me?”—See 27:36. 

Interpreting Yaakov’s failure to travel to Se’ir with his entourage. 

                  RaMBaN is obviously sensitive to the problem, but feels there is a relatively simple way to explain why Yaakov is not to be accused of dishonesty with regard to this matter. The commentator proposes that Se’ir is on the way to Canaan, and it is possible for Yaakov to take that route and pass through Eisav’s kingdom on his way home. All that he told Eisav was that if in the end his entourage chose to journey along those particular paths and trails, they would see one another again at that time. However this is not considered a vow or a promise because Eisav would not benefit by the fulfillment of the promise in any way, and therefore no misimpression was given by Yaakov to his brother. 

Another  interpretation that suggests that the virtue of integrity is at least to some degree relative rather than absolute.  

                An alternate interpretation maintains that when one is in danger, lying is not only not prohibited, but might even be the preferred path to follow. Midrash HaGadol[10]  first quotes an anonymous opinion to the effect that Yaakov’s exchange with Eisav with respect to meeting in Se’ir is direct evidence that in order to keep the peace/prevent violence and bloodshed, one has the option to alter the truth. R. Natan is then quoted as going even further, and stating that in such a situation, it is a Mitzva to change the truth, citing Shmuel I 16:2 as a paradigmatic proof text.  Talmud Yerushalmi Avoda Zora Chapt. 2, Halacha 1 applies to a practical situation the principle presented in the Midrash. “It was taught: If an idolater is accompanying a Jew on the road, the latter should allow him to walk on the right side.[11] And if he asks the Jew, ‘Where are you going?’ he should respond with an “exaggeration”, in the same manner that Yaakov answered Eisav’s question with an “exaggeration” (he never travelled as far as Se’ir.)” Therefore especially according to R. Natan’s approach, Yaakov not only did nothing wrong, but may even have fulfilled a Mitzva. 

                Consequently, not only in the realm of “Pikuach Nefesh” (preserving a life) might dishonesty ironically constitute a form of integrity, which can then serve to justify what Yaakov does with respect to fleeing Lavan as well as meeting up again with Eisav, but also with respect to the broader category of “Shalom Bayit” (peace in the home),[12] clearly the context of not revealing the true cause of Yaakov’s leaving home, and perhaps even his collusion in deceitfully obtaining his father’s blessing. Yet it remains unclear how to include under the rubric of truth and honesty some of the other cases cited above. 

A third interpretation that projects Yaakov’s fulfillment of his commitment to Eisav at some future point in time.  

                In Beraishit Rabba 78:14, R. Abahu assumes a parallel attitude to that of the Cutite when he poses the question which we have been exploring: “We have scoured all of the Biblical written text and we cannot find where our father Yaakov ever went to Mt. Se’ir at any time during his life. How is it possible for an honest man like Yaakov to have lied to Eisav?” But his answer indicates that he thinks that Yaakov’s promise does constitute a binding vow, to be fulfilled by either the forefather or any of his descendents now or at any future time. “When will he (Yaakov) come to him (Eisav)? In the distant future, as it is written, (Ovadia 1:21) ‘And the redeemers will go up on Mt. Zion in order to judge Mt. Eisav.” It would appear that such an approach could also remove the Cutite’s question, i.e., even if Yaakov does not personally separate tithes, that do not mean that when his descendants do so, they are not fulfilling their ancestor’s original commitment, perhaps a new twist on the principle of “Ma’asei Avot Siman LeBanim” (the actions of the forefathers are foreshadowings for their offspring.) 

Reflecting about personal integrity. 

                We all realize that truth telling is not always an easy thing to do. And we are in sore need of role models who stand for this type of principle, and whose personal examples can inspire us. With regard to Yaakov, at least at first glance, it is as if the association between him and truth is ironic and paradoxical rather than actual fact. While the case of not travelling to Se’ir according to the first approach has nothing to do with personal honesty, the two interpretations that follow suggest the outer limits of the debate over truth telling, i.e., that lying can even be a Mitzva in certain circumstances, as opposed to in order to assure that no one is guilty of an empty vow or a false oath, we are given an indefinite extension to make good on our commitments, either in person or vicariously through future members of our family. Ethics and morality, both in theory and practice, are complex rather than clear-cut. How we understand the actions of the Avot and Emahot as well as live our own lives should be informed by serious consideration of these perspectives. 

[1] See e.g., Beraishit 28:13-5; 46:3-4. 

[2] A Samaritan: a member of a people that the King of Assyria settled in Israel following the exile of the Jews from that area. They are called Cutim due to having originated in Cut, a locale in Africa. See II Melachim 17. They did not accept the Oral Tradition and therefore were not considered fully Jewish. Their exclusion from the Jewish people led to clashes with the Halachic authorities, and the debate with R. Meir is an example of their continual attempts to discredit traditional Judaism. 

[3]While in 28:22 Yaakov promises to dedicate to God one tenth of everything that he has, should he return  safely to Canaan, there is no textual record of his having done so, leading the Cutite to impugn Yaakov’s truthfulness.  Although as stated in fn. 2, Cutites regularly exhibited animosity to Jews and Jewish tradition, and therefore this question may not have been posed due to intellectual curiosity rather than general animosity, that does not mean that the issue being raised should not be treated seriously. 

[4] The Midrash records an answer that apparently satisfies the Cutite: 

He (R. Meir) said, “Yaakov tithed the tribe of Levi, one out of ten.” (Since this tribe, emanating from one of Yaakov’s ten sons, eventually is defined as the source of Kohanim and Levi’im [Shemot 28:1; BaMidbar 8:5 ff.] who would dedicate themselves to holiness and Divine Service, it could be said that they were “tithed,” much as Terumot and Ma’asrot, the tithes from agricultural produce and domesticated animals given to Kohanim and Levi’im were similarly separated and sanctified.) 

(The Cutite said:) “But why did he not separate a tenth of the two remaining tribes?” (In toto, Yaakov had twelve, not ten, sons: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda, Dan, Naftoli, Gad, Asher, Yissachar, Zevulun, Yosef and Binyamin.) 

(R. Meir said:) “Surely there were fourteen, for it says, (Beraishit 48:5) ‘Ephraim and Menashe (the sons of Yosef), even like Reuven and Shimon, will be mine (i.e., counted as full-fledged offspring/tribes.)’ … 

        “Will you not admit that there were four matriarchs?” (Leah, Rachel, Bilha and Zilpa)… 

        “Then deduct the four firstborn of the four matriarchs (Reuven, Yosef, Dan, Gad), since the firstborn ‘Bechor’—see e.g., Shemot 13:15) is holy, and what is holy does not exempt (via tithing) what is holy (i.e., tithing permits using that which is non-holy, ‘Chullin’; that which is itself intrinsically holy does not require tithing to make it permitted to those who are allowed to ‘use’ it.)” 

Since the discussion recorded in the Midrash ends at this point, with R. Meir having the last word, it is implied that the Cutite accepted the Rabbi’s explanation for Yaakov’s behavior. However, it would seem that this is an instance where an answer is being given to someone not deemed worthy of a serious response, an answer considered little more than a “reed” (see e.g., Yerushalmi Berachot 12:4), i.e., an inconsequential retort intended to end the discussion, rather than a serious attempt to resolve the difficulty that had been raised. The simple understanding of Beraishit 28:22 is that Yaakov himself would dedicate to God a portion of his possessions, rather than some of his descendents would be set aside by God for Divine Service. 

[5]Commentaries like Rabbeinu Bachaya on 27:19, op. cit. Kum Na Sheva; RaShI, RaMBaN, MaLBIM on 27:21 point out that Yitzchak’s suspicions were raised not only by the timbre of Yaakov’s voice, but also the manner in which he spoke, which was distinct from the vocabulary ordinarily used by Eisav. 

[6] Even if one contends that birthrights are not susceptible to sale, this is a strange game to play. At the very least, it suggests that Yaakov was unhappy with his status as second born and was considering means by which his birth order position could be reversed, whether or not this particular sale had any legal significance. 

[7] Although “Ein Mikra Yotzei Midai Peshuto” (no text should be interpreted without first considering its ungarnished, bare meaning), in this case, the redundancy of the phrase “VeChi Achi Aviha Huh” (and that he was the relative of her father) when the text also has him saying about himself that he is the son of Rivka, and therefore obviously the relative of her father, seems to be accounted for by the Rabbinic assumption that Yaakov felt that he could compete with Lavan in terms of cunning and trickiness. Of course, he was mistaken, since he ends up being manipulated into marrying both Leah and Rachel. Yet, if the Rabbinic contention in Megilla 13b that Rachel was the one that undermined the plan in order that Leah not be embarrassed, that would indicate that Yaakov’s plan in and of itself was a good one, and would have succeeded had it not been for unforeseen compassion on the part of Rachel. 

[8] An additional indication that Rivka indeed had summoned Yaakov as she had promised was the presence of Devora, Rivka’s original nursemaid, in Yaakov’s entourage (see RaShI on 35:8). RaShI also quotes the Rabbinic interpretation of the plural form of “crying” in the verse as indicating that not only was Devora mourned, but that word had come that Rivka died at the same time. By implication, had Yaakov returned at the time when Rivka sent for him, he would have had the opportunity to spend quality years with his mother, rather than return following her demise.  

[9] The dots in the Tora text over the word “VaYashkeihu” in 33:4 are subject to two extremely opposite interpretations, i.e., either Eisav was so moved to see his brother after all these years that this was the most sincere of kisses, or the kiss was a pretense for Eisav’s initially attempting, but failing, to do Yaakov in once he got physically close to his brother. See e.g., RaShI, and RaDaK. 

[10] Quoted in Tora Shleima, ed. R. Menachem Kasher, p. 1310, #48. 

[11] Since most people are right-handed, were the idolater to attack the Jew, his sword hand would be furthest from the Jew when he is standing to the Jew’s right. 

[12] The Biblical contexts that are cited to demonstrate how either telling partial truths or even fabricating falsehoods are legitimized by considerations of Shalom Bayit are a) the informing of Avraham of only half of Sara’s reservations regarding why she did not believe that she would be able to conceive (18:12-3) and b) Yosef’s siblings telling him of Yaakov’s alleged death-bed wish that he not avenge himself upon them once his father had died (50:15 ff.—see RaShI, as well as Bava Metzia 87a).

When reality is too painful, we have two roads to take, being overwhelmed by sadness or learning to distance ourselves enough to continue functioning.  Oncologists know this challenge well, since they run the risk of getting too caught up in the tragedy of each lost patient or, almost equally problematic, becoming cold to the sufferings with which their noble occupation confronts them.  Ideally, we find a middle road, where the tragedy penetrates our consciousness, but we can develop enough serenity to continue functioning.

This week’s haftarah shows us a similar balancing act we need to take on in our attitude towards those who refuse to accept the truth of our worldview.  Granted that we have always seen ourselves as chosen to carry the message of God’s rule, we have clearly failed to convince the rest of the world that that is, indeed, who we are— other monotheists (who differ with us in significant aspects of our worldviews) see themselves as bearers of a message from God as valid as ours, and non-monotheists (whether atheists or polytheists) dismiss us as irrelevant.  Our haftarah shows us consequences of those attitudes, which we should neither ignore nor celebrate

Casual readers might classify this as an example of triumphalist prophecy, where the prophet comforts us by predictions of how we’ll slam our enemies in the future.  That view ignores two important aspects of the text, first that the prophecy is addressed to Edom/Esav, not to Jews, and, second, that tradition saw Ovadiah as a convert from Edom itself.

Prophecies to Other Nations: Exercises in Futility?

The whole question of prophecies to other nations is one that has, in my reading, been insufficiently remarked in traditional circles.  Once we note that many if not most of the prophets recorded words addressed to non-Jewish nations, we should recognize that God and the prophets attached enough value to those nations’ reactions to spend their time and effort on them.  It would seem logical that God’s hope was that they also would heed the prophecies and improve their ways.  Otherwise, why speak to them—why not just speak to the Jews about them?

This is all the more the case when we see the Sages assuming that Ovadiah was an Edomite convert.  Even for those who claim that a prophet’s personal circumstances play no role in shaping the mission God gives him or her, God’s choice of a convert for this message– and the claim is all that much stronger for those who think a prophet tends to hear those of God’s ideas he or she is already primed to hear—suggests the hope that a fellow Edomite could deliver it in the most likely way to have them hear and accept what God wanted them to.

Reading the haftarah with that in mind reveals how sad it really is (an element I highlighted in my story “Final Regrets” in Cassandra Misreads the Book of Samuel).  On the surface, we read of Edom’s future sufferings, how they will become the lowest of nations, lose their power, language, continuity of kingship.  In many ways, Edom will lose its status as a nation.

Betraying Family: The Fault of Esav

We are not told right away why Esav is doomed to that fate, but it becomes clearer as we see that, instead of confronting his problems, the prophet envisions Esav as putting on a show, trying to portray himself as stronger than he really is.  Then, Esav supports nations who are destroying the Jewish people.  Instead of brotherly love, of sharing in our sorrow, Esav celebrates, an act that rebounds on him.

First, it is precisely the nations he supported who will turn on him.  Second, Ovadiah informs Esav that he will lose his leadership, so there will be no one with the wisdom to show him the way out of all his troubles.

Esav and Edom’s having disappeared from history can make these words seem distant, but the message applies in many ways to the non-Jewish nations of our times.  For the prophets, it is a simple truth of history that Jews have a special and particular role in the world, to announce God’s rule. Esav resists our exceptionalism, insists he is as great or as special, celebrates Jewish suffering as confirmation of his claim, which leads directly to his eventual destruction, an outcome no one wants.

Esav loses nationhood, leadership, and wisdom because he cannot accept that Jacob and his descendants play a role in history that is both important and is denied to him (or anyone).  The one possible way he might have rectified all that, agreeing and accepting the Jews’ special role in the world, was closed off by his refusal to even entertain it as a possibility.

What Is Old Is New

We face similar situations today.  Our feeling of shared humanity with those around us should not close off the worry of how the future will play itself out for those who consistently refuse to admit basic truths.  If God directs history (as I believe all Jews are required to recognize He does), and the Jews have a special role to play in that history (as Scripture repeatedly reminds us), those who deny it are setting themselves up for the kind of end Ovadiah predicts for Esav.

It is that dilemma that leads to the closing verse of the haftarah, one that was included numerous times in the traditional liturgy.  “ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את חר עשו, והיתה לה’ המלוכה, and redeemers will ascend Mount Zion to judge Mount Esav, and God will have true Kingship.”  Those who align themselves against the Jewish people become a barrier to achieving what we should all hope for, a world in which God’s rule is recognized by all.  In doing so, they make their punishment a necessary part of achieving that final goal.

All of which, let me stress, was and is avoidable, if only the nations involved—in this case Esav, but the principle applies to any nation that refuses to accept the world as God has structured it—would change their attitude.  Accepting only our special role and place, all who currently follow this path could instead become positive contributors towards bringing about God’s desired future. 

We can do it the easy way or the hard way; many read the prophets as if God and the Jews celebrate the hard way, but they are wrong.  This prediction, like all the negative predictions in Tanach, were given in the hope that it would spur change.  Ovadiah knows the odds against it, knows that most likely his dire predictions will come to pass.  But he hopes against it, as should we. Shabbat Shalom.

Names Relate to the State of Mind of the Parent, not the Future of the Child

            Once the correlation between a biblical name and the life of the individual carrying the name can be demonstrated, it is curious to reflect upon certain names that Biblical figures give their children, and the possible adverse effects that these names might have had on those who were fated to bear them. It is as if these particular parents, rather than concentrating on the hopes and dreams that they had for their new-born children, considered their offspring mere extensions of themselves, and therefore little more than platforms by which to commemorate past triumphs and/or painful experiences, regardless of what such names and the stories that underlie them might ultimately do to the psyches of their children.  

Trends from the Primordial Naming of Children

Sometimes a name, because it brims with the pride and arrogance of the parent, could be held accountable, at least in part, for the child’s subsequent indiscretions and improper behavior.  Chava’s contribution to Kayin’s excessive self-esteem, i.e., her giving him a name that means according to the Tora (4:1) “’Kaniti’ (I have brought into existence) a man together with God”, could have possibly contributed to Kayin’s subsequent intolerance of his younger brother’s major spiritual achievement, which in turn led to fratricide.[5] Within the same immediate context, the Bible does not even attempt to provide a rationale for the choice of the name “Hevel”—it is as if once she has her first child, any subsequent one is hardly of any consequence.[6] And as for what such a name might do to its bearer, the basic translation of the word, i.e., vapor, steam, nothingness (4:2), would logically have had the opposite effect of a “Kayin” type of name. On the one hand, carrying the name “Hevel” could inspire continual humility and a sense of sobering mortality on the part of the person answering to such a name. But at the same time, someone saddled with this type of name may be adversely affected by its implications of nothingness, worthlessness, and lack of substance, always feeling inadequate and defeated. What sort of parent would potentially handicap his/her child so perversely?

A Parent’s Pain is Memorialized in the Name of His/Her Child

Whereas the name Hevel does not have to call to mind negativity per se, but rather is problematic due to the vacuum of feeling and expectation that is implied, there are instances where the explanations provided by the Tora for certain names contain at least allusions to negative experiences, if not outright references to painful moments in the parent’s life.

 Yishmael (and God Heard) is an inspiring sentiment that anyone might wish would be affirmed continually as he confronts the challenges of life. Yet when the specific context of this name is read carefully (16:11), the angel says to Hagar that Yishmael shall be the name of her child because “Ki Shama HaShem El ANYECH” (because God Heard YOUR AFFLICTION). While it is certainly important to posit when one finds himself in dire straits, that prayers will then be Heard, will the fact that Yishmael’s mother found herself in such a situation, and the circumstances surrounding how this came to pass—she was driven to run away by the mean-spiritedness of her mistress (16:6)—have an adverse effect on her son, when he learns about the events that precipitated his naming?[7] I suppose that Hagar could have withheld such details from Yishmael. But did she? And as a result of learning about these matters, wouldn’t his resentment of Sara and her progeny thereby increase?[8] Could this in some way have even been the very intent of this process?

Should a Child’s Name Recall Their Dubious Origins?

The older of Lot’s two daughters names her child in a manner that makes it virtually impossible to cover up her father’s incestuous role in the child’s conception. (19:37) “…and she called him Moav, he is the progenitor of Moav until this day.”[9] Could this fact been lost upon the child? How would it affect him and his descendents? What could the mother have been thinking?

Parents in Exile & The Challenges of their Difficult Condition

Although Yosef’s fortunes turn around, and he finds himself as Egypt’s viceroy, married to royalty and the father of two children, the names that he gives these children indicate that he hasn’t forgotten the series of events that preceded this more positive stage of his life. While the name that he gives his second son, similar to the example of Yishmael, invokes the negative past in contrast to the more positive present, (41:52) “And the name of the second he called Efraim, for God had caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction,”[10] no such subtlety underlies the meaning of the name of his first son. (41:51) “And Yosef called the name of the firstborn Menashe, for God, said he, Has Made me Forget all my toil and all my father’s house.” Wouldn’t Menashe be expected to inquire why he was named “Forgetting”? And when he would learn about the sordid history of how his uncles had treated his father, what was he to think? What was Yosef’s motivation for doing this? If Yosef wanted to assure that he remembers what transpired as he was growing up, why does his son have to be made a party to this?

Moshe, when Tziporra bears a son, similarly incorporates within the son’s name his personal sense of exile and alienation: (Shemot 2:22) “And he called his name Gershom, because he said, ‘I was a sojourner in a foreign land.’”[11] Of course, this is an empirical fact rather than a sensibility; nevertheless, it would appear to not be the sort of name that will allow this boy to be inspired or feel positive about his identity. Did Moshe assume that his family would be remaining in Midyan, and he therefore wished for his son to always recall his origins, thereby never feeling too comfortable in his current surroundings?[12]

Leah and her Uncomfortable Domestic Situation

In this week’s Parasha, Leah gives several of her children names that directly emanate from her personal anguish.  Judging by her comments and actions in Beraishit 27:32 ff., Leah is extremely troubled by the nature of her relationship with her husband Yaakov. While Lavan, her father, justifies his misleading his son-in-law and exchanging Leah for her younger sister Rachel, by invoking local custom that insists that the older daughter marry before her younger sibling (29:26), one wonders whether or not Leah was a willing participant in this deception.             Furthermore, even if we assume that the prospect of marrying Yaakov appealed to her,[13]  would she have gone through with the plan had she known about the type of emotional coldness that lay in store for her?[14]  The Tora goes out of its way to first emphasize that Yaakov loved Rachel more than Leah (29:30), immediately followed by a verse delineating how God saw the situation, i.e., that Leah was for all intents and purposes hated by her husband (29:31). The names of the seven children that she bears serve as a chronicle of her hopes and frustrations regarding whether Yaakov will ever reciprocate the love that she feels for him: (29:32) “…and she called his name Reuven, for she said, ‘Surely the Lord Has Looked upon my affliction, and therefore my husband will love me.” (29:33) “…and she said, “Because the Lord Has Heard that I was hated, He Has therefore Given me this son also,’ and she called his name Shimon.” (20:34) “…and she said, ‘Now this time my husband will be joined to me because I have born him three sons,’ therefore was his name called Levi.”[15] (29:35) “…and she said, ‘Now I praise the Lord,’ therefore she called his name Yehuda…”[16]  (30:18) “And Leah said, ‘God Has Given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband,’ and she called his name Yissachar.” (30:20) “And Leah said, ‘And God Has Endowed me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me because I have born him six sons,’ and she called his name Zevulun.” (30:21) “…and called her name Dina.”[17]

The text clearly indicates that Leah’s children were exceedingly protective of their mother, and resentful of the children born to Rachel, particularly Yosef.[18] The question that arises in terms of the namings is to what degree was the rivalry and ultimate hatred further fueled by their mother’s overt disclosure of her resentment (of her sister, as well as her treatment at the hands of her husband) by explaining the meaning of their respective names?

“Insider” vs. “Outsider” Meanings for the Names of Leah’s children

Beraishit Rabba 71:3 records a Rabbinic approach to the problematic discussed above.

“…Those of whom could be said that their names are beautiful as are their actions, are the tribes (the sons of Yaakov). Reuven—see a son that stands out from among all of the sons; Shimon—he listens to the Voice of his Father in Heaven. R. Yose bar Chanina said: The names of the tribes are not ill-fitting for them, but rather are perfectly appropriate for them.”

It would appear that the Midrash assumes that what was offered for popular consumption as well as perhaps what was told to the sons themselves, were alternate interpretations for the names that would be inspirational and positive, in stark contrast to the bitter sentiments recorded in the Tora that originally inspired Leah to give these particular names to her children.

The Names of Leah’s children are Merely a Symptom

But even if we accept the Midrash’s premise that Leah never disclosed to her children her actual reasons for naming them as she did, the attitudes and emotions that she possessed regarding how she was being treated by Yaakov must have been conveyed either explicitly or implicitly to her progeny. Should we blame her for involving her children in a matter that was the exclusive domain of their parents? Is Yaakov to blame for making Leah feel this way? Then again it was never his intent to marry Leah in the first place. But still in all, once he accepted Lavan’s demand that he marry the older daughter, shouldn’t/couldn’t he have tried to make Leah feel accepted rather than an outcast? Why have children with Leah if Yaakov was so indifferent to her and her feelings? We even note how Yaakov’s preference for Rachel and her progeny does not cease with Rachel’s death![19]

An Intriguing Counterexample to the Biblical Trend

            Rachel tragically dies giving birth to her second son while the family is returning to Canaan (35:17). While she imparts a name to the child during her last moments—“Ben-Oni”, which according to at least RaShI means “the son of my travail”—Yaakov renames the boy “Binyamin” (the son of my right hand/might) (35:18). What was the father thinking when he substituted one name for the other? Was he concerned regarding the effect that Rachel’s name might have on her son? Was he worried that each time he would invoke Binyamin’s name, the recollection of the boy’s mother’s death would flood back to him? Whatever the reader might hypothesize with regard to this case, the father obviously did not wish the negative connotation of the boy’s original name to remain.

Concluding Question about Jewish Destiny

Do these seemingly irrational and insensitive namings further confirm the hypothesis presented in “Free Agents or Automatons?”  From the perspective of the overall direction of Jewish history – where the family will have to endure exile before they are redeemed, given the Tora and brought to Israel – it is necessary for the Yaakov’s children to feel hostilely towards one another, the names serving to sharpen their sibling rivalry, ultimately leading to Yosef’s being sold and all that follows that action? Or are these names simply reflections of interrelationships that are hurtful, and rather than offering them for emulation, the Tora is informing us by anecdotal example that these types of family dynamics should be avoided in every possible way. Or can both of these concepts simultaneously coexist? What do you think?

[2] “And he called his name Noah, saying: ‘This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh from the ground which the Lord hath Cursed’”—on the one hand, there is a Rabbinic tradition that Noach invented agricultural implements that made working the land much easier (see RaShI on 5:29.) Naturally, the longer term implication of the name was that Noach would allow God to be “Comforted”, as it were, from having to totally wipe out His Original Creation, and instead begin again via Noach and his family. “Noach” provides an interesting alternative interpretation to the verb in 6:6.

[3] “Neither shall thy name any more be called Avram, but thy name shall be Avraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I Made thee”—Avraham should view himself and be viewed as a role model for a multitude of nations. See the recent essay on Parashat Chaye Sara at http://text.rcarabbis.org/avraham-father-of-multitudes-by-yaakov-bieler/  

[4] “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: ‘Because I drew him out of the water.’”  (Shemot 2:10.)  See commentaries like Chizkuni—“Just as I drew him out, so he will draw out others, i.e., he will draw out Israel from Egypt.”

[5] See http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-breishit-the-challenge-of-free-will-from-one-firstborn-to-another-by-yaakov-bieler/

[6] Such a perspective is even more acutely remarkable according to MaLBIM’s interpretation, whereby he suggests that Kayin and Hevel were possibly twins. The disproportion between the two names, i.e., Kayin is an important, worthy individual in contrast to the unimportance of Hevel, appears then to parallel the names of the twins Eisav (he is “made”, hairy, mature) and Yaakov (the holder-on-to-the-heel of his brother.) Eisav’s name is obvious to and therefore given by all—(25:25 “VaYikru [pl.] Shemo Eisav”)—as opposed to Yaakov’s name that is bestowed by a single male, most likely Yitzchak—(25:26 “VaYikra [sing.] Shemo Yaakov”.) Besides the fact that Eisav brought venison to his father (25:28), could another factor in his preference for this child have been his being born before his brother?

[7] Naturally, it could be claimed that in many of these instances, the children are never told the exact reasons why the parent chose a particular name for them. Should we assume that these names were essentially double-entendre’s, i.e., holding one meaning for the parent, and an entirely different one for the child? From the fact that Leah’s children appear to recognize that all is not well between their father and mother, e.g., (30:14) Reuven’s bringing mandrakes to his mother; (33:1 ff.) the division of his wives and children prior to meeting Eisav, with Rachel and Yosef being placed all the way in the back in an effort to at least save them should the meeting prove hostile; (34:1) Dina’s leaving the encampment as a response to the tension  between Yaakov and Leah (the emphasis upon “Bat Leah” in the verse); (35:22) Reuven’s problematic interaction with Bilhah following Rachel’s death; (37) Yaakov’s preference for Yosef and the terrible events that this precipitated; etc., is it not likely that even if they were not explicitly told about the meanings of their names, they may have deduced what their mother had in mind each time she named one of them?

[8] See RaMBaN on 16:6.

[9] RaShI: This one who was immodest made clear that the child was her father’s…

[10] Did Yosef convey to Efraim not only the emphasis upon being fruitful, but also the fact that Egypt was at least initially, the land of his “affliction”? Would this precipitate questions about Yosef’s background and what led up to his living in Egypt? And if so, how detailed and accurate would Yosef be in his recounting of events? According to some commentators, Yosef never filled in his father Yaakov on what occurred; is the same true regarding his children, particularly in light of their names?

[11] The explanation of the name appears to be especially significant since it is repeated again when the son is mentioned within the context of Yitro reuniting the family in Shemot 18:3.

[12] In contrast to Yosef, whose first son Efraim’s name appears to be more positive than his second son’s Menashe, Moshe follows the opposite pattern, with Gershom preceding Eliezer (see Shemot 18:3-4.) It would be logical to assume in light of the circumcision incident (4:24-6) that Eliezer was born and received his name after God Appeared to Moshe at the burning bush, ordering him to take the Jews out of Egypt (3:2 ff.) The first-person nature of the name, (“the God of my father was my help and Saved me from the sword of Pharoah”) appears to allude to the reason why Moshe had to go into exile from Egypt to Midian (2:15), i.e., the threat of execution as a result of his killing the Egyptian taskmaster (2:11-2). But in light of the mission that Moshe has now been Given, “Eliezer” might also include a foreshadowing of Moshe’s future interventions on behalf of the Jewish people, in the sense that just as HaShem Saved me in the past from Pharoah, He will Do the same for my brethren.

[13] RaShI quotes the Midrash on 29:17 that Leah’s eyes were “soft”, i.e., teary-eyed, as a result of her crying over thinking that she would have to marry Eisav, Yaakov’s older brother. This could imply that she was likely to do everything in her power to marry Yaakov so that she could avoid becoming Eisav’s wife. However, there is nothing in the Biblical text itself that discloses her state of mind or the nature of her dreams and hopes at the actual time of her wedding.

[14]According to the Midrash, quoted by RaShI on Beraishit 35:22, the ultimate ignominy takes place upon the death of Rachel, when Yaakov moves into the tent of Rachel’s handmaiden, Bilhah, rather than placing his permanent bed in Leah’s abode. The Midrash is attempting to suggest a catalyst for the reference in the text to Reuven’s indiscretion in terms of actively interfering in some way with his father’s conjugal arrangements (35:22), and the consequent rebuke that Yaakov directs at Reuven, waiting to deliver it just before he dies (49:4). If Reuven felt so strongly that he had to protect his mother’s interests, this certainly indicates that Leah’s feelings had not been assuaged, even at this relatively late point in the story of Yaakov’s life.

[15] An alternate reading of this verse would contend that it wasn’t Leah who gave Levi his name, but rather that the name was proclaimed from Above, by an angel (see Tora Shleima, citations 109-110, pp. 1180-1.) This would be in keeping with Levi’s role as the progenitor of Kohanim and Levi’im who engage in representing both the Jewish people and God in the Divine Service—“Shluchai DiDan Oh Shluchai D’Shmaya”—see Nedarim 35b.

[16] While of all the names, Yehuda’s appears to be the most positive, the subtle implication of “HaPa’am” (Now) suggests a desperate plea for the future as well as significant upset over the past concerning how she has been treated. 

[17] Although for this last child, the Tora does not explain what Leah was thinking when she arrived at the name—RaShI suggests that there was an elaborate process by which the sex of the child was switched from a boy to a girl in order that Rachel would be able to contribute two boys, and thereby be no less of a contributor to the formation of the Jewish people than would be Bilhah and Zilpah, the two handmaidens—it is relatively straightforward to assume that God’s Judgement has something to do with Leah’s realization that she will never be truly reconciled with Yaakov. Dina’s naming then becomes a form of Tzidduk HaDin (declaring as righteous and just a difficult aspect of human existence.) It is possible that this is in recompense for her having agreed to trick her husband and cooperate with her father Lavan’s plan to substitute her for Rachel.

[18]While the biblical text does not reflect any specific hostility towards Binyamin, according to Beraishit Rabba 92:8, the brothers beat Binyamin when Yosef’s cup is discovered in his sack (44:12),  and scream at him, “Thief, son of a thief,” referring to Rachel’s having earlier stolen Lavan’s idols before Yaakov and the rest of the family flee from Padan Aram (31:19 ff.) While Yehuda eventually offers to become Yosef’s slave in place of Binyamin (44:33), this appears to be motivated more by the adverse affect that Binyamin’s absence would have on Yaakov (44:31) as well as the fact that Yehuda had personally guaranteed Binyamin’s safe return to Canaan (44:32), rather than a particularly warm feeling towards Rachel’s second son.  

[19] See 37:3 as well as footnote 14

Avot 5:19

Whoever possesses these three qualities is one of the students of Avraham Avinu…A generous eye, a humble spirit and a self-disciplined soul…[1]

In contrast to those who contend that an individual’s personality is primarily influenced by nature—inherent genetic influences—and nurture—upbringing, the Mishna implies that one can proactively and consciously make himself into a “student” of individuals possessing distinct characteristics and thereby develop such traits in addition to, or perhaps even in spite of, one’s DNA and formative experience with family and peers. 

Additional Abrahamic traits in Beraishit:  “Speaking Truth to Power”

            Although the Mishna above limits itself to three outstanding qualities associated with Avraham, reading the many stories in Beraishit   would allow an expansion of the list of the characteristics to which a “student of Avraham” might aspire.  One such additional characteristic is the type of mindset, whereby an individual fearlessly confronts those wielding immense political power and challenges their behavior and leadership qualities on ethical, moral and spiritual grounds.  Avraham’s unceasing willingness and increasing boldness to “speak truth to power”[2] appears to evolve from confrontation to confrontation, and perhaps this personal quality contributed significantly to his being chosen by God in the first place to serve as founder of the Jewish people.[3]

The First Encounter:  Under the Radar

            According to the Tora text,[4] Avraham does not immediately engage in direct confrontation with political leaders. The first time that he has to decide what to do in the presence of a powerful ruler, when a famine forces him and his family to leave Canaan, and relocate to Egypt (12:10 ff.), Avraham attempts to remain “under the radar.” He is afraid of what will happen to him were it to become known that Sara is his wife, and so the couple decides to pass themselves off as brother and sister. Even after Pharoah concludes as a result of God’s protecting Sara’s virtue by means of supernatural plagues (12:17) that they were in fact married, and proceeds to remonstrate Avraham for his deception, the latter is mute, keeps Pharoah’s considerable financial settlement initially given to him as Sara’s marriage price (12:16), and leaves the country as soon as he is able (13:1).

The Second Encounter:  Greater Assertiveness After Military Victory

A much more self-assured stance is assumed by Avraham when he confronts the next king, the ruler of Sodom (14:17 ff.) After having rescued his nephew Lot, and liberated the monarch as well as regaining the spoils that had been taken from his city, Sodom’s king gives Avraham an  opportunity to further increase the considerable wealth (14:21) that he had begun accumulating when he was in Egypt. Although Avraham accepts some of the property on behalf of his allies, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre (14:24), he refuses to take anything for himself (14:23). Avraham’s demeanor is ostensibly polite, but one can detect an implied criticism of the king of Sodom and his city state, when Avraham swears his determination not to enrich himself by invoking the Name of HaShem (14:22), particularly in light of the Tora’s earlier assessment of Sodom and its inhabitants—“And the people of Sodom were evil and exceedingly sinful against God” (13:13). A second critical note is  implied by Avraham’s stating that he wishes to avoid being associated with this king even in terms of  the most insignificant material possessions (14:23). The subtle insult to the Sodomite culture is further highlighted by the Tora’s insertion[5] of a stark contrast to Sodom’s ruler and everything he represents—Avraham’s  meeting with Malki Tzedek, king of Shalem  (14:18-20).  From the words of Malki Tzedek’s blessings to Avraham, one gains the impression that not only is he not a sinner against God, but actually a fellow traveler of Avraham’s in terms of monotheism and belief in a Creator of the Universe.[6]  

 The Third Monarch:  Confrontation

Another famine, similar to the one that resulted in the temporary stay in Egypt,  forces Avraham and Sara to  relocate for a time to Gerar (20:1 ff.), where once again prudence convinces them to reassume the brother-sister pretense. Yet this time Avraham speaks extremely forthrightly “to power” when challenged by Gerar’s ruler regarding his and Sara’s subterfuge. When Avimelech self-righteously accuses the couple of lying to him, Avraham responds by not only claiming that in fact he and his wife are blood relatives and therefore no technical lie had been told, but also with a condemnation of the culture of the kingdom in which he and Sara find themselves. (20:11) “…There is no fear of God in this place, and I could be killed concerning my wife.” [7] And the same Avimelech, when he proposes to Avraham that the two of them enter into a mutual non-aggression pact (21:23), obtains Avraham’s agreement, but not without first having to receive a rebuke on his people’s unethical behavior concerning the destruction of wells that Avraham and his servants had dug (21:25).  While the Tora records Avimelech’s protestations of innocence (21:26), the Tora’s account of the king’s response appears to make this a case of “the lady doth protest too much.”

 “Fear of God” and a Proper Social Structure

Avraham’s articulation of what he perceives as the absence of “Yirat Elokim” in Gerar as the basis for his and Sara’s misrepresentations, could actually serve as the informing principle for each of these cases, i.e., Egypt, Sodom and Gerar, as well as Avraham’s general approach to his role in life. The Tora remarks repeatedly how Avraham, in various places, proclaims the Name of HaShem: 12:8; 13:4; 21:33. While these phrases could be interpreted as Avraham attempting to spread monotheism, they could simultaneously be understood as the patriarch’s publicizing the need for ethical and moral behavior as well. In 17:1, when God instructs Avraham “…Hithalech Lifanei VeHeyeh Tamim” (Cause yourself to walk before Me and be whole), this could refer not only to beliefs regarding the existence of God and the symbolic striving for physical perfection via circumcision (the ensuing verses in Chapt. 17 present Avraham with this commandment for himself, his offspring, and the members of his household), but also the need to make the public case for ethical inter-personal behavior. It would appear from the instances cited above, that Avraham was not only concerned with others forsaking their belief in idolatry, but also their immoral behaviors resulting from their lack of belief in one overarching deity Who demanded from them honesty, respect for others and their property, justice, and a proper social order. Understanding Avraham from this perspective makes him into not only a religious revolutionary, but also a gadfly for social improvement and equity.[8]    

Transmission to Avraham’s Descendents

Furthermore, when HaShem says about Avraham that He recognizes that he will “command his children and his household after him and they will keep the Way of HaShem to do righteousness and justice” (18:19), it could be understood that the Divine expectation is not only that these principles will inform the internal workings of Avraham’s and his descendents’ households, but that members of Avraham’s extended family will advance these principles in whatever society they may find themselves.

Finally, it should be noted that Avraham even “speaks truth to the Ultimate Power,” when he responds critically to the Divine Plan concerning Sodom and Amora (18:17 ff.)  Particularly with respect to one of Avraham’s side comments, whereby he pleads with HaShem to spare the residents of these cities, however evil the majority of them may be, and says, “…Chalila Lach, HaShofet Kol HaAretz Lo Ya’aseh Mishpat?” (this would be a profanation for You. Can the Judge of the entire world fail to carry out justice?) (18:25). Avraham demonstrates that he was not ready to only confront this-worldly rulers, however powerful and threatening to him; his passion for justice and fair play carried over into his dealings with HaShem. If it was Avraham’s monotheism that informed this concern for social reform, then he could hardly tolerate what he perceived as inconsistency and insensitivity on the part of the very Source of his strongly held beliefs in this regard.

While Avraham is clearly associated with hospitality to strangers (18:1 ff.; 21:33) and he is designated in Pirkei Avot (5:19) as possessing the qualities of generosity, humility, and readiness to forgive, Avraham’s courage to advocate for justice and fairness even in the face of royalty, should be another quality that those of us who strive to become “students of Avraham” should keep very much in mind.

[2] “Speaking truth to power” was a specific charge given to the Quakers or “Society of Friends” in order to define one of the principles by which members of this movement were expected to conduct themselves. Over time, the phrase has been applied to many different contexts, even serving as the title of the autobiography of Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused the then nominee for the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, of sexual harassment.

[3] Strikingly, the Tora is silent with regard to why specifically Avraham was chosen for this profound task. Beraishit 11, the chapter that precedes the Divine Revelation ordering him and his family to travel to Canaan, does not tell us anything about Avraham’s qualifications. Even 18:19, in which God discloses that Avraham can be counted upon to pass on his traditions to his offspring, does not appear to identify a quality that is so profoundly unique that would single him out as an eminently qualified  nation builder. Perhaps, only by reflecting upon Avraham’s style as he goes through his life, can one infer the potential personal qualities that attracted God to choosing this man to be the father of the Jewish people, as well as a multitude of nations (17:5). His readiness to speak “truth to power” might have been one of those distinguishing qualities.

[4] The Rabbis in the Midrash posit confrontations between first Avraham and Terach, and then Avraham and Nimrod.

[5] Commentators note that the interchange between Avraham and Malki Tzedek (14:18-20) interrupts the incomplete story of his dealings with the king of Sodom (14:17, 21-4,) and speculate that this is deliberately done to force the reader to contrast the two kings.

[6] The contrast between how Avraham reacts to each of these kings is made even starker according to the interpretations of RaDaK and his father, R. Shmuel Kimchi, who contend that it was Malki Tzedek who gives the tithe to Avraham in 14:20, as opposed to the opinion of most commentators who claim that the reverse was the case. Such an approach demonstrates that from one type of ruler whom he respected spiritually, he is prepared to receive a gift, but not from a leader who he deems as corrupt. While political protocol may have required Avraham to politely accept both gifts, he apparently is not prepared to do so, and is indifferent how this snubbing of the King of Sodom might be perceived.

[7] ”Yirat Elokim” (the fear of God), if used by the Tora even in the context of Gerar, a Philistine city, is a universal religious and moral quality obviously not expected only of Jews. This point is reinforced in light of 42:18 and Shemot 1:17, the latter in accordance with the Midrash that the midwives were actual Egyptians rather than Yocheved and Miriam.

[8] The Midrashic account of Nimrod’s attempt to execute Avraham (Beraishit Rabba 38:13) as well as  Maimonides’ presentation (Mishneh Tora, Hilchot Avoda Zora 1:3 of Avraham’s youthful years leading him to be exiled from Ur Kasdim) could be understood as reflecting not only the concern of the ruler that a religious revolution would destabilize his kingdom, but also that religious ferment could lead to citizens challenging his authority as well as the laws that govern the kingdom.

Personal Blessings

                Yehuda Kihl[1] explains the contents of these blessings in the following manner:

                 (1) “VeE’escha LeGoi Gadol” (And I will make you into a great nation)

                                —Avraham’s descendents will be numerous;

                (2) “VeAvarechecha” (and I will bless you)

                                —the work of your hands will be exceedingly accomplished;

                (3) “VeAgadla Shemecha” (and I will make your name great)

                                —you will gain fame and renown;

                (4) “VeHeyeh Beracha” (and you will be a blessing)

                                —others who are associated with you will be blessed merely by your proximity to them;             

(5) “VeAvaracha Mevarchecha” (And I will bless those who bless you)

                                —those who will grant you the greatest blessing, i.e., live with you in peace and even   make a covenant with you to that effect, I will bless in turn;

                (6) “U’Mekallcha A’ohr” (and those who curse you , I will curse)

                                —those that treat you badly will be cursed by Me;

       and (7) “VeNivrechu Becha Kol Mishpachot HaAdama” (and they will bless through you all of the families of  the earth)

                                —and all of the families of the earth will cite you as a model of blessing and success, and will bless others by wishing that they resemble you.

Immediate vs. delayed gratification

                Six out of seven of these blessings, in one form or another, already begin to be fulfilled during Avraham’s lifetime:  

                 (1) Avraham has a number of progeny (Yishmael 16:15; Yitzchak 21:2-3);[2]

                (2) The Tora (13:2,6) as well as Eliezer attest to Avraham’s wealth and possessions (24:35);

                (3) Malki Tzedek (14:19-20) and the Hittites (23:6) speak as if Avraham has made a great name for himself;

(4+5) the incentive for Avimelech to wish to make a peace treaty with Avraham appears to be a recognition that his presence in the land has been materially beneficial for the entire area (21:22);

       and (6) both Pharoah (12:17) and Avimelech (20:3) precipitate  supernatural punishments when they attempt to take Sara as a wife. 

               However, the seventh Divine Promise, “VeNivrechu Becha Kol Mishpachot HaAdama”, a blessing that is reiterated by God in 18:18 (“…VeNivrechu Bo Kol Goyai HaAretz” [And  all of the nations of the world will bless by citing his, Avraham’s, example]) appears not to have manifested itself to the point where Avraham could perceive that it had even minimally come true. Pharoah, after recovering from the plague that God sent on Sara’s behalf, not only does not view Avraham and Sara as models of blessing, but summararily sends them out of Egypt. Malki Tzedek blesses Avraham in his presence (14:19-20) but we have no indications that he mentioned him in other contexts. While Avimelech does makes a non-aggression pact with Avraham (21:22 ff.), he might be doing so more out of self-interest than as a result of wishing to model himself and his subjects after Avraham’s example. The compliments uttered by the Hittites (23:3 ff.) in general and Ephron in particular could be viewed as little more than negotiating etiquette, rather than a sincere acknowledgement of Avraham’s special spiritual standing and how his example deserves emulation on the part of all.  If those who are meant to bless by means of Avraham’s example are not political and communal leaders whose self-absorption often prevents them from noticing, let alone acknowledging the virtues of others, we have no recorded evidence that the average individual  verbally cited Avraham as a reference for Divine Blessing either.

Popular Acknowledgement of an Exceptional Life:  When is it a Reasonable Expectation?

                It could be said that the expectation that the nations of the world will see in Avraham the paradigm of Divine Blessing is something that could not be reasonably expected to happen during Avraham’s actual lifespan. Only when people have the opportunity to reflect on the totality of another’s life, something that would most likely happen once that person was no longer alive, would they be in a position where they possibly would be moved to reach the conclusion that the individual had been truly blessed and therefore a proper reference when one wishes to bless others. Yaakov’s declaration (48:20) that Yosef’s sons, Ephraim and Menashe, would be templates for blessings probably did not actually begin to take effect until after they too had departed this world, when a full evaluation of how they had lived could finally be made.  A similar expectation might reasonably apply to the seventh aspect of the blessing that God extended to Avraham. So Avraham during his lifetime could only wonder about the impression that God promises that he will have made upon others.

Non-Verbal Fulfillment?  The Interpretation of Rabbi Moshe Shternbach

                However, according to R. Moshe Shternbach’s[3] interpretation of the seventh component of the blessing at the beginning of Lech Lecha,  Avraham was in fact  able to experience the beginning of its fulfillment during his own lifetime. R. Sternbach understands the implications of this aspect of Avraham’s blessing not so much an explicit verbal approbation of Avraham in particular, but rather the adoption of at least aspects of the overall lifestyle that he publicly leads. The commentator writes,

 “It appears that the purpose of Avraham’s leaving Charan (12:4-5) was to publicize the Existence of God, May His Name be Blessed, and to sanctify His Name in every place. And the meaning of ‘VeNivrechu BeCha’ (“And they will be blessed, i.e., will be positively affected, through you, i.e., your example) is that his (Avraham’s) travels should constitute a sanctification of the Divine Name, that all should see the ethical and moral purity of those who walk in the Way of HaShem. They (the inhabitants of Canaan, and the residents of wherever else Avraham and his entourage would travel, e.g., Egypt, Gerar) would come to bless themselves by striving to become like Avraham, (his household and his students.) And even though the essential fulfillment of the commandment to sanctify God’s Name is in the midst of the Jewish people (VaYikra 22:32), the ancient commentators have emphasized that we must strive to enhance the name of the Jewish people among the nations of the world as well.[4] And this is one of the rationales for the Exile (see R. Elazar’s view cited in Pesachim 87b), i.e., that the nations to which Jews have scattered, will come to recognize and understand the special qualities of a life of observance of Tora and Mitzvot.”

Consequently, instead of Avraham guessing whether people are citing him as an example of the blessed life, he could objectively determine the fulfillment of the blessing by observing the numbers of people who ostensibly have adopted his lifestyle and example, the extent of the influence that his life of “blessing” has had upon others.  The success that Avraham experienced with regard to those that he and Sara were able to educate concerning monotheism (see RaShI on 12:5; 14:14), as well as the results of their efforts connected to the “Eishel” (RaShI on 21:33), could have been understood by them to constitute a fulfillment of the prediction/promise that God made at the beginning of Lech Lecha.   Apparently, the many times that the Tora describes Avraham as “calling on the Name of HaShem” (12:8; 13:4; 21:33) should be assumed to include   a somewhat sympathetic audience that took seriously what he was teaching.

                Bruce Feiler[5] understands in a different sense the manner by which the nations of the world will engage in the act of blessing using Avraham as a model. Feiler strives to view Avraham as a universalistic figure that symbolically unites the three great Western religions, since the patriarch plays a role in each of their theological schemes. And indeed, the name change and the significance attributed to it by the Tora, (17:5) “And I have made you into a father of the multitude of nations”, would appear to lend credence to Feiler’s approach. He writes:

“After promising to fulfill Abraham’s individual need for biological fertility… God offers Abraham the opportunity to provide surrogate, spiritual fertility to the entire world…Abraham is no longer just an individual, with individual needs. He has become God’s proxy on earth. This symbolism is so profound that it reverberates down through the centuries, growing louder with each generation, until it echoes in billions of daily prayers to this day…”

 Therefore, each prayer offered by anyone in the world to a monotheistic deity, starting with Avraham’s own times, but continuing down to today, could be understood as a series of blessings based upon the example that Avraham set and the lessons that he taught throughout his life, culminating eventually with Zecharia’s vision: (14:9, 13) “On that day HaShem will be One and His Name One.” This view understands the act of blessing via Avraham as a lengthy process that constantly undergoes refinement and that will someday result in the universal acknowledgement of the monotheistic beliefs that Avraham began to promulgate during his lifetime.

                In the spirit of the principle “Ma’asei Avot Siman LaBanim” (the experiences/deeds of the forefathers constitute foreshadowing for what their offspring will experience and do),[6]  as well as the adjuration to strive to be considered a student of Avraham,[7] of all of the blessings that he received at the beginning of Lech Lecha, the seventh blessing is the one that we should be most interested in emulating and realizing in our own lifetimes.  The extent to which we can consciously make ourselves exemplary in the eyes of others to the extent that our more admirable traits are considered worthy of their emulation and internalization would constitute a powerful fulfillment of Avraham’s eternal legacy.         

[2] While Avraham also fathers children with Ketura (25:2-4), they do not figure in the transformation  of Avraham’s offspring into a “great nation.”

[3]Sefer Ta’am VaDa’at, Vol. 1, p. 45.

[4] On Yoma 86a, where examples of Kiddush and Chillul HaShem are linked to manifesting Devarim 6:5, i.e., causing God’s Name to be beloved by others, the term for the others is “Briyot”, entities that have been created, rather than specifically Jews, only one example of many that supports the contention that concepts such as Kiddush HaShem apply also to the general non-Jewish population.

[5] Abraham, A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths, William Morrow, New York, 2002, p. 43.

[6] See e.g., Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Lech Lecha, #9.

[7] See e.g., Avot 5:19.

“Idolatry: A Prohibition for our Time” by Herzl Hefter (42:1, 2009)

- Shlomo Brody

We recently read one of the most well-known verses that comprise Jewish liturgy.  Siddurim[1] and Machzorim instruct that when an individual enters the synagogue, the first of several verses to be recited is, (BaMidbar 24:5) “How goodly are your tents Yaakov, your dwelling places Yisrael.” While the simple meaning of Bilaam’s words is directed at the manner in which the Jews encamp, with families maintaining exceptional privacy and modesty, R. Yochanan in Sanhedrin 105b identifies synagogues and houses of study as the “tents” about which the prophet is speaking. Consequently, by invoking this verse, someone, coming to a place where others have congregated in order to pray as a community, demonstrates his appreciation for the creation of such institutions and their being part of a traditional Jewish lifestyle by invoking Bilaam’s blessing.

                Yet in the responsa of MaHaRShaL[2] #64, the decisor states that he deliberately omits this verse when coming to the synagogue because “Bilaam’s intention was for a curse.” In other words, whether Bilaam had in mind the domestic arrangements of Jewish families or their houses of worship and Tora study, what he really intended to say was that these practices and institutions should be cursed, and Jews should maintain neither their family standards nor their communal forms of prayer and study. MaHaRShaL is clearly taking one side in a dispute over the narrow,[3] literal meaning of BaMidbar 23:5, 16 “And He (God) Placed a thing in the mouth of Bilaam…”

Sanhedrin 105b

It is taught: R. Eliezer said: An angel.

                       R. Yochanan said: A hook he put into his mouth.

MaHaRShA[4] explains the two views as follows: R. Eliezer posits that an angel would transform Bilaam’s words from curses into blessings, while R. Yochanan proposes that a hook, evoking the image of a fish being forced to go where the fisherman on the other end of the line wishes it to go, is what was placed in Bilaam’s mouth evoking a blessing rather than a curse. Only according to R. Yochanan’s view would MaHaRShaL’s objection to reciting BaMidbar 24:5 make sense, i.e., these were the begrudging words of Bilaam, who obviously, at least during his first two attempts (BaMidbar 23:7-10 and 18-24),[5] tried with all his might and wile to satisfy Balak’s mandate. However, according to R. Eliezer, these were never Bilaam’s words, but rather those of an angel! If anything, since these words would make BaMidbar 24:5 even more holy and ethereal, since rather than being spoken by an enemy of the Jewish people, they emanate from such a pristine source representing God’s Words, MaHaRShaL’s objection does not make sense.[6]

A People That Dwells Alone

                Another element of Bilaam’s words, whose blessing status has been recently challenged by a well-known Jewish thinker, is BaMidbar 23:9 “It is a people that dwells alone, not reckoned among the nations.”  R. Jonathan Sacks recalls in his latest book, Future Tense,[7] a conversation where this verse was invoked by an observant Israeli diplomat as a means for positively justifying the isolation that the Jewish people and the State of Israel have experienced throughout history. In other words, if this was a blessing that God elicited from Bilaam, then we should, if not outright embrace such treatment, at least accept this state of affairs as part of a Divine Plan. R. Sacks writes that he immediately challenged this  assumption:

“What makes you so sure that Bilaam meant those words as a blessing?” I asked. “Might it not have been that he intended them as a curse?…

“Consider,” I said, “the incidence of the word ‘Badad’,[8] ‘alone’, in the Hebrew Bible. It is used about a leper: ‘He shall live alone (Badad),[9]  his dwelling place shall be outside the camp.’ (VaYikra 13:46). It was used by Yishayahu: ‘The fortified city stands desolate (Badad),[10] an abandoned settlement, forsaken like the desert’ (Yeshayahu 27:10). Most famously, it occurs in the first line of the book of Lamentations: ‘How solitary (Badad)[11] sits the city once full of people.’ Badad always has a negative connotation except when used of God, who in monotheism, is necessarily alone…

“It (the Talmud) also says that ‘all Bilaam’s blessings eventually turned into curses’ with one exception: ‘How goodly are your tents Yaakov, and your dwelling places Yisrael.’ The sages believed that though Bilaam had blessed the people, he had done so in deliberately ambiguous terms, so that the blessing would become a curse.”

While R. Sacks makes a strong case why Jews and Israel should seek to be accepted as part of the overall world community rather than think that being looked upon as illegitimate pariahs is somehow a type of badge of honor, whether his reading of the verse in question lines up with the simple meaning of the text and traditional interpretation invites analysis and discussion.  

From Blessings to Curses

                The assumption that Bilaam’s actual intended curses can be detected by reversing the blessings and that virtually all of the intended curses eventually “came home to roost” appears in the continuation of the Talmudic discussion cited earlier:

Sanhedrin 105b

R. Yochanan said: From the blessings of that wicked man you may learn his intentions. 1) He wished to curse them that they should possess no synagogues or houses of study—“How goodly are your tents, Yaakov…” 2) That the Divine Presence should not Rest upon them—“And your tabernacles, Yisrael.” 3) That their kingdom should not endure—“As the valleys they are spread forth.” 4) That they might not have olive trees or vineyards—“As gardens by the river’s side.” 5) And their reputation not be positive—“As the trees of aloes which the Lord has Planted.” 6) That their kings might not be tall—“As cedar trees beside the waters.” 7) That they might not have a king, the son of a king—“He shall pour the water out of his buckets.” 8) That their kingdoms may not rule over other nations—“And his seed will be in many waters.” 9) That their kingdom not be strong—“And his king shall be higher than Agag.” 10) That their kingdom will not be awe-inspiring—“And his kingdom shall be exalted.”

R. Abba bar Kahana said: All of them reverted to a curse, excepting the synagogues and schoolhouses, for it is written, (Devarim 23:6) “But the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God Loved you.” The curse, but not the curses.

Aside from the thought process of R. Abba bar Kahana, who deduces that if any one of these potential curses is not allowed to be fulfilled, it must be the existence of shuls and houses of study, he certainly  does not mention “It is a people that dwells alone…” as the exception to the rule.  This implies that this blessing which was intended by Bilaam to be a curse, like the vast majority of the others, is eventually fulfilled. It would be reasonable to assume that the reverse of this particular comment by Bilaam would result in the Jews being scattered and in turn assimilated into the majority cultures to which they were exiled, a phenomenon that indisputably has taken place and exacted a heavy toll on the fortunes of the Jewish people. Furthermore, the specific mention of the Jews dwelling alone (BaMidbar 23:9), as well as all the other things said by the evil prophet, is preceded immediately in verse 8 with the comment, “How can I curse, when God has not Cursed; How can I denounce when God has not Denounced?”, i.e., what Bilaam is about to say is by definition not a curse.

       As for R. Sacks’ contention that the manner in which these blessings were reversed was by Bilaam employing ambiguous language that could then easily be reinterpreted: that does not seem to be R. Yochanan’s point, since he does not point to language in any of the blessings that could serve as protean curses, but rather simply states that the opposite sentiment of each of the positive statements is what Bilaam really tried to say. Finally with regard to the Lord Chief Rabbi’s contention that “Badad” is always a negative term unless it is being used to describe God’s Uniqueness, such a view would appear to be countermanded by the penultimate statement of the blessing pronounced by Moshe just prior to his death:

Devarim 33:28

Yisrael shall then dwell in safety “Badad”; the fountain of Yaakov will dwell upon a fountain of corn and wine, also his heavens shall drop down dew.\

Rabbi Soloveitchik on Aloneness

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ZTzL, could be understood to support R. Sacks’ contention that Bilaam’s invocation of the Jews being alone was a curse, when he contrasts Bilaam’s invocation of “aloneness”,  a term  that the Rav feels has an essentially negative connotation, with Moshe’s more positive reference, which he translates as “solitude”:[12]

To be sure, there is an element of separation present even in the experience of a shared destiny;[13] however the separation entailed by destiny differs completely from that entailed by fate.[14] It is not the negative feeling described in the prophetic vision of Bilaam, “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone” (Numbers 23:9), but rather a  unique consciousness vouchsafed by Moshe, in the last hours before his death, to Keneset Yisrael, “And Israel dwells in security, alone the fountain of Yaakov” (Devarim 33:28). In truth the separation is naught but the solitude of a pure and holy, splendid and glorious existence. It is the solitude that finds its expression in a person’s uniqueness, in his divine image and in his existential “I” experience. It is the solitude of the soul that dwells in concealment, in the depths of being; it is the solitude that is to be identified with a person’s spirituality and individuality; it is the solitude that makes manifest man’s dignity and freedom; it is the solitude of Moshe, whose great spirit and exalted vision were beyond the people’s comprehension; it is the solitude of Eliyahu and the rest of the prophets; it is the solitude concerning which Avraham spoke when he told his young men, “Stay here with the donkey, and I and the youth will go there; and we will worship” (Beraishit 22:5). While isolation involves harmful inferiority feelings deriving from self-negation, a person’s solitude testifies to both his greatness and his sanctity, the greatness that is contained within his private domain and the sanctity that permeates the inner recesses of his unique consciousness. Loneliness robs man of his tranquility; solitude bestows upon his security, worth and dignity—“security, alone.”[15]

However, as I noted concerning R. Sacks’ argument, there seems to be nothing intrinsic within Bilaam’s actual words that would lead us to assume that he meant harm by what he said, other than the assumption that he was evil throughout[16] and therefore even when he said ostensibly positive things, they really weren’t what they appeared to be. Consequently, in my opinion, the Rav’s homiletical assumptions contrasting Bilaam’s “Badad” with that of Moshe, are not borne out by the simple meaning of the text.

              A Talmudic comment on the verse in Devarim at first glance might be viewed as a possible support to R. Sacks’ interpretation, but on further reflection, a different point seems to be at issue:

Makot 24a

Said R. Yose berav Chanina: Moshe Rabbeinu “Gazar Gezeira” (decreed a decree)[17] upon Israel and a prophet came and cancelled it. Moshe said, “Yisrael shall then dwell in safety ‘Badad’ the fountain of Yaakov”, and Amos came and cancelled it, as it is said, (Amos 7:5) “I beseech You. How will Yaakov stand and he is small?” And it is written, (Ibid. 6) “And the Lord Relented concerning this. And the Lord Said, ‘And also this shall not be.’”

Most commentators take the same approach to this text as exemplified by RaShI:

RaShI, op. cit. Chadal Na

The blessing that Moshe invoked “Yisrael shall then dwell in safety ‘Badad’ the fountain of Yaakov”, i.e., when will Israel dwell securely? When they are as righteous as Yaakov.

RaShI is not interpreting the “decree” as having to do with being alone, as much as the nature of the prerequisite for achieving the state of being “securely alone” as a result of Divine Protection, i.e., to have to live up to high standards with regard to religious observance and spirituality, to in effect emulate one of the founding fathers of the religion. It is this prerequisite, rather than the state of being alone, that the prophet is challenging as being too rigorous, inevitably resulting in just the opposite, with the Jews being exposed to attack and ultimately endangered.

              Even if the Written and Oral Traditions do not provide support for R. Sacks’ contention that Jewish isolation is a curse, a dichotomy offered by R. Soloveitchik in his essay “The Lonely Man of Faith” offers a means of conceptualizing how the state of “aloneness” can simultaneously be both a blessing and a curse, depending upon one’s perspective. The Rav distinguishes between the accounts of the Creation in the first two chapters of Beraishit, designating the human being described in each of these chapters as Adam I and Adam II respectively. While the existential solitude that he writes about in Kol Dodi Dofek is identifiable as the mindset and sensibility of Adam II who asks metaphysical questions and wonders about the nature of the universe and himself, Adam I experiences a different type of loneliness.

Adam the first is challenged by a hostile environment and hence summoned to perform many tasks which he alone cannot master…

Whenever Adam the first wants to work to produce and to succeed in his undertakings, he must unite with others…

Consequently, Adam I’s challenges are pragmatic and the community that he needs is a practical one whose members jointly try to deal with the vagaries of existence. However spiritual and unique the Jewish people might aspire to be, they still have to function within the parameters of human existence, and they cannot do this alone. It is in this sense that R. Sacks is eminently correct, and we cannot afford to be cut off from the rest of the world if we intend to participate in it and contribute to it. However, such a desire cannot come at the expense of our uniqueness and special destiny. If it does, then our aspiration to join with the rest of mankind to solve the world’s problems will at the same time constitute the loss of our special identities and value system.

            A reference from a third essay by the Rav provides a succinct, homiletical summary of this complex dialectic. In “Confrontation”,[18] an essay that also deals with the tension between universalism and particularism uniquely experienced by Jews, R. Soloveitchik cites the instructions given by Yaakov to the messengers that he sends to Eisav in anticipation of the meeting between the long-separated brothers. Yaakov tells them that they must be prepared to answer three questions: (Beraishit 32:18) “…To whom do you belong and where are you going and whose are these (the gifts that Yaakov is sending with them) before you.” While Yaakov provides them with specific answers concerning these questions within the context of the biblical account, the Rav sees the questions as having relevance down through the generations. He explains that only once a person knows who he is and the goals that he has set for his life, can he decide the extent to which he will make contributions of material, time and effort to those outside of himself. Paradoxically, the self-knowledge that comes with being pristinely alone in terms of being and knowing oneself, independent of the thoughts and expectations of others, allows you then to turn around and participate with those same others to make the world a better place for all. Aloneness then becomes both a prerequisite and an end-in-itself with respect to the spiritual and civil life of the Jew.

[2] MAHARSHAL: Rabbi Solomon ben Jechiel Luria (Maharshal) was born ca. 1510 in Poznan, Poland. He served as rabbi in various communities before he founded his own yeshivah in Lublin, Poland, in 1567. His approach to Talmud study differed from the pilpulistic approach then in vogue in Poland. Maharshal wrote important novellae on the Talmud, as well as responsa. He died in 1574. His most famous book is Yam Shel Shlomo (“the sea of Solomon”), a commentary on some tractates of the Talmud, first printed in 1616, and reprinted in Jerusalem, 1996, in a new edition.

[3] An approach that allows for figurative language would contend that HaShem “Told” Bilaam what to say, in accordance with Bilaam’s own words in BaMidBar 23:12, which he defines in 23:26; 24:13 as what God “Told” him rather than “Placed something” in Bilaam’s mouth. 

[4] MAHARSHA: R. Samuel Eliezer ben R. Judah HaLevi Edels – the Maharsha – was born in Cracow in 1555. His wife was from Posen, to where he moved and established a yeshiva. He and his yeshiva were supported by his mother-in-law Edel (thus the appellation Edel’s). After her death, he served as a rabbi in a number of cities in Poland, until he passed away in 1632. He is primarily known for Hiddushei Halakhot, his commentary encompassing the entire Talmud, in which he elaborated difficulties in the Talmud, Rashi, and Tosofot; and, for Hiddushei Aggadot, his commentary on the Aggadaic material in the Talmud. Hiddushei Halakhot was first published from 1612 and onwards; Hiddushei Aggadot was published in 1627. Both commentaries have for many years been published together with the standard Babylonian Talmud, alongside the commentaries of the R. Solomon Luria (MaHaRShaL and his Hokhmat Shlomo) and of R. Meir of Lublin (MahHaRaM).

[5] There is a dispute among the commentators whether Bilaam finally resigned himself to willingly articulate God’s blessings when he spoke for a third time. This third speech in  chapter 24 is preceded by 24:1,

                “And Bilaam saw that it was good in God’s Eyes to bless Israel, and he did not invoke as he had done               previously magical powers, and he turned his face to the desert.”

Some commentators, such as RaMBaN, understand this verse as demonstrating that Bilaam had finally given in to God’s manipulations of his words. However, in light of the passage from Sanhedrin 105b cited below which seeks to identify Bilaam’s true intentions, all of the examples are taken from Bilaam’s third speech, starkly indicating that R. Yochanan clearly thought that these were also examples of Bilaam’s reluctant blessings.

[6] According to Torah Temima on BaMidbar 23:5 #2, the angel would have permitted Bilaam himself to speak if he was ready to bless; but since he was not, the blessings are the words of the angel, the hook altered Bilaam’s words from the intended curses to make them sound like blessings.  

[7] Schocken Books, New York, 2009, pp. 114-5.

[8] “Am LeVadad Yishkon…”

[9] “…Tameh Huh Boded Yeshev…”

[10] “Ki Ihr BeTzura Badad…”

[11] “Eicha Yashva Badad…”

[12] The other extensive treatment of the condition of loneliness by the Rav is in his classical essay, “The Lonely Man of Faith” (Tradition, Summer 1965) to which I will return later in this article.

[13] The contrast between fate and destiny is the key theme of Kol Dodi Dofek. According to the Rav, Jews can either bemoan the things that are happening to them, without successfully comprehending why they have taken place, or they can decide on what to do given the situation in which they find themselves. He feels that looking upon what occurs as fate is passive and not very productive; it is looking forward to and actively fulfilling a collective destiny that should fuel our outlooks upon life.

[14] Both a sense of fate as well as one of destiny entails seeing oneself and one’s people as different from others. However, the Rav reflects upon a qualitative difference between the experience of aloneness that arises as a result of each of these sensibilities.

[15] Fate and Destiny (Kol Dodi Dofek), Ktav, Hoboken, NJ, 1992, pp. 72-3.

[16] The sense that Bilaam was evil is based upon the textual indication that he was responsible for the plot of Bnot Moav atttempting to seduce the Jews and get them to engage in idolatry (BaMidbar 25:1-3). Bilaam’s complicity in this sin is reflected not only by his death being recorded alongside the other leaders of Midian in BaMidbar 31:8, but particularly because he is identified as being behind the sin of Pe’or in 31:16. Yet even if he had bad intentions at the time of the blessings/curses, that does not necessarily mean that the words themselves were either overtly or even implicitly curses, since God Intervened and Did not Allow him to carry out his initial intentions.

[17] The language of “Gazar Gezeira” is reserved for punishments and afflictions. So does this mean that even when Moshe invokes “Badad”, it is something negative?

[18] Tradition, 6:2.

“ויקח קרח” – פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא.

“ויקח קרח” – לקח את עצמו לצד אחד להיות נחלק מתוך העדה לעורר על הכהונה,

וזהו שתרגם אונקלוס “ואתפלג” – נחלק משאר העדה להחזיק במחלוקת,

וכן (איוב טו, יב) “מה יקחך לבך” – לוקח אותך להפליגך משאר בני אדם.

דבר אחר:

“ויקח קרח” – משך ראשי סנהדראות שבהם בדברים,

כמו שנאמר (במדבר כ, כה) “קח את אהרן”, (הושע יד, ג) “קחו עמכם דברים”:

. . .

מה עשה? עמד וכנס מאתים חמישים ראשי סנהדראות, רובן משבט ראובן שכיניו, והם אליצור בן שדיאור וחביריו וכיוצא בו,

שנאמר “נשיאי עדה קריאי מועד”, ולהלן הוא אומר (במדבר א, טז) “אלה קרואי העדה”,

והלבישן טליתות שכולן תכלת. באו ועמדו לפני משה. אמרו לו: טלית שכולה של תכלת, חייבת בציצית או פטורה?

אמר להם: חייבת.

התחילו לשחק עליו: אפשר טלית של מין אחר חוט אחד של תכלת פוטרה, זו שכולה תכלת לא תפטור את עצמה?!

 ספר הזכרון

כלומר: כל ענין קרח, לפי שכל מה שכתב בה הרב ז”ל רובו בתנחומא

 גור אריה

מפני שקשה לו לשון “ויקח” שלא היה לו לכתוב כאן

ומתרץ: פרשה זו יפה נדרשת וכו’, ואגב דרשה דהתם נדרש לשון ויקח כמו שמפרש אחריו . . .

מזרחי

כלומר: שהוא קרוב לפשוטו של מקרא, ולא נצטרך לפרשו לפי פשוטו כמנהגו בשאר מקומות.

 לבוש האורה

נ”ל דה”פ: קשה לרש”י “ויקח קרח” ולא כתיב את מי לקח או מה לקח . . .

ומתרץ: על כרחך אין המקרא הזה אומר אלא דרשני, ועל זה אמר רש”י ויפה דרשהו במדרש ר’ תנחומא – בדרש שהוא קרוב לפשוטו. ואומר אח”כ: ומהו הדרש? . . .

 מהרש”א

ואיכא למידק: וכי לא ראה רש”י שום דרש יפה כי אם זה?

ובשפתי דעת תירץ דכך פרושו:

לפי שכל דרש צריך שיהיה לו שום רמז בפסוק בפי’ המלות, חוץ מדרש זה, לפי שסתם הפסוק לקיחתו,

כי אמר “ויקח קרח” ולא פירש מה לקח,

אם כן מסתמא דעת הפסוק לומר לך שכל הדברים השייכים אל המחלוקת, את כלם לקח לסעד,

וא”כ מעתה הרשות נתונה לכל דורש לומר את זה לקח או את זה – אע”פ שאין הדבר מפרש בקרא, מ”מ נקרא יפה נדרש, כי בזה רצה הכתוב.

ומטעם זה רבו הפירושים בלקיחה זו:

כי יש אומרם לקח את עצמו לצד אחר, ויש אומרים לקח ראשי סנהדראות, ויש אומרים לקח טליתות,

כמבואר כל זה במדרשות.  וק”ל.

Rashi

“And Korach took” – This parshah is darshened well in the midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.

“And Korach took” – he took himself to one side, to be separated out from the midst of the congregation so as to raise a challenge to the kehunah,

And this is the meaning of Onkelos’ translation “and he separated” – he separated from the rest of the congregation to be firm in dissension,

And similarly “why does your heart take you” – take you to separate from the rest of humanity.

Another interpretation:

“And Korach took” – he drew along the heads of Sanhedrins among them with words,

            as Scripture says: “Take Aharon”, and “Take words with you”.

. . .

What did Korach do?  He caused to enter 250 heads of Sanhedrin, mostly from his neighbors the Tribe of Reuven, namely Elitzur ben Shdeiur and and his peers and the like, as Scripture says here “nesiei eidah kri’ei moed”, and there “eileh kruei haeidah”, and dressed them in tallitot all of tchelet.  They came and stood before Mosheh.  They said to him:  A tallit all of tchelet, does it require tzitzit or not?

He said to them: It requires tzitzit.

They began mocking him: Is it possible that for a tallit of a different color, one thread of tchelet suffices, but this which is all of tchelet is not sufficient for itself?

 Sefer HaZikkaron

As if to say: the entire matter of Korach, since of all that Rashi wrote, most is in the Tanchuma

Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)

Because he was bothered by the word “and he took”, which it should not have written here,

and he responds: “This parshah was darshened well etc.”, and following the derashah there, the word “and he took” is darshened as he explains afterward

Mizrachi

As if to say: that is close to the peshat of Scripture, and we will not need to explain it in accordance with its peshat, as is Rashi’s custom in other places

Levush haOrah

It seems to me that it should be explained thus: Rashi finds “and Korach took” difficult, when it does not write who or what he took . . .

And he responds: You are compelled to concede that “this verse says nothing other than darshen me”, and it is in this context that Rashi says “and they darshened it well in the midrash of R. Tanchuma” – with a derash that is close to its peshat.  And he says afterward: And what is the derash? . . .

Maharsha (citing, with some omissions near the end, from Siftei Daat)

One might ask on close reading: Has Rashi seen no well-done derash other than this?

In Siftei Da’at he answered that it should be interpreted thus:

Since all derash needs to have some hint in the verse at the level of translation, other than this derash, since the verse made Korach’s taking unspecified,

Since it says “and Korach took” and did not specify what he took,

Therefore presumably the intent of the verse is to say to you that all things relevant to the dispute – he talk all of them for support,

Therefore now that permission has been granted to each doresh to say that he took this or took that – even though the matter is not explicit in the text, it is called well-done derash, because this is what Scripture wished.

For this reason interpretations of this taking have become numerous:

For some say that he took himself to one side, and others say that he took the heads of Sanhedrins, and others say that he took tallitot,

as is all explained in the midrashot, and this can be easily understood.

Anaylsis:

How should one parse a professed pashtan’s praise of a particular derash?  In the case of Rashi’s introduction to Parashat Korach, Mizrachi argues that one should understand it as a statement that this midrash reads the text more like pshat than usual, so much so that it makes a separate pshat-commentary unnecessary.  Levush HaOrah takes a somewhat different tack, suggesting that the verse invites derash, which here was done in the right way, i.e. a way close to peshat.  But I will focus this week on the relationship between peshat and derash in the interpretation cited by Maharsha from Siftei Da’at.

Siftei Da’at suggests that the verse, by saying that “Korach took” but leaving what he took unspecified, implies at the level of peshat that Korach took everything relevant.  This, he says, means that the derash, when supplying concrete details of what Korach took, is not bound by the constraint of evidence – anything that plausibly would have supported Koach’s aim is legitimately included, even if it is nowhere hinted in the text.

It’s not clear to me how radically Siftei Da’at intends this statement.  But it seems clear to me

a)       that he sees midrash as a creative act of exegesis rather than as the transmission of an oral tradition that exists independently of the text, and

b)       that he does not require midrashim to be historically true, or at the least that he understands at least some midrashim as speculations about the past based on purely textual, often slim, evidence.

I wonder to what extent he, and by extension Maharasha, would have been disturbed by anachronisms in Biblical interpretation.  Must Korach have taken with him only crowd-control items that were available in the Wilderness back then, or could a contemporary doresh include a megaphone on the list?  Did he carry his shtreimel with him, or his kippah srugah?

            Also – does Siftei Daat require a specific positive statement of broad inclusion to legitimate speculative derash about details, or is license granted to provide via derash any details not spelled out in the text?

            All this adds up to the question of whether, granting that chumash is historically accurate, it is important for us to experience it in that way, or whether we can even seek out ahistorical understandings, such as children’s editions in which the Patriarchs and Matriarchs wear clothes that mark them as members of particular contemporary Jewish circles. 

Modern Orthodoxy tends to insist

a)       that preserving historical context is crucial to properly understanding chumash;

b)       that peshat and derash use different modes of reading narrative, and

c)       that peshat is more congenial to Modern Orthodoxy. 

I suggest that we instead see peshat and derash as different expressions of the same mode of reading narrative, with derash concretizing its speculations into specific narrative claims; that historical context is often useful, but absolutely necessary only when making historical claims; and that a confident Modern Orthodoxy would be engaged in developing its own derash-interpretation.

            It is probably necessary to add that I sharply distinguish derash, a mode of close reading, from derush, which often involves forcing complicated texts into a limited set of preapproved slogans.  Derush has its place as well, and Modern Orthodoxy needs to develop its set of slogans and associated texts, so that, for example, everyone knows that the story of Moshe saving Yitro’s daughters teaches us that Jews must stand up against any injustice perpetrated against anyone anywhere.  There is also a mode of derush, such as that of R. Yitzchak Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak, which develops very complicated and sophisticated lessons by seeing the rabbinic corpus, halakhic and nonhalakhic, as a coherent whole within which abstract contradictions can be resolved casuistically.  My comments above relate only to derash. 

            In that context, I welcome suggestions as to what Korach took along with him.

He left a legacy of important and seminal essays as well as a number of outstanding disciples, themselves today leading Bible scholars including, Dr. Barry Eichler, Dr. Shnayer Leiman, Dr. Richard Steiner, and many more who continue to enrich our learning and understanding of the Bible and its interpretation.

Yehi Zihro Barukh