Vayigash - Avinu Malkeinu

B"H

The full Midrash Tanchuma text can be found here

1) Midrash Tanchuma Vayigash, Chapter 2

ויגש אליו יהודה, זש"ה בני אם ערבת לרעך תקעת לזר כפיך (משלי ו) בשעה שבקש הקב"ה ליתן את התורה לישראל אמר להן תקבלו תורתי, א"ל הן, א"ל תנו לי ערב שתקיימו אותה, א"ל אברהם יצחק ויעקב יהיו ערבים, אמר להן אבותיכם הן בעצמם צריכים ערבים, אברהם אמר במה אדע (בראשית טו) יצחק אהב את שונאי דכתיב ואת עשו שנאתי (מלאכי א) יעקב אמר נסתרה דרכי (ישעיה מ) אמרו לו בנינו יהיו ערבים שלנו, מיד קבלן הקדוש ברוך הוא ונתן את התורה לישראל שנאמר מפי עוללים ויונקים יסדת עוז (תהלים ח) לפיכך כשישראל מבטלין את התורה הקב"ה פורע מן הערבין שנאמר ותשכח תורת אלהיך אשכח בניך גם אני (הושע ד) מהו גם אני אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אף אני מצטער עליהם שאני מפסידן שהן אומרים בכל יום ברוך ה' המבורך לעולם ועד הוי אם ערבת לרעך, אף יהודה לפי שהיה ערב של בנימין לפיכך לא עמד מכל השבטים כנגד יוסף אלא יהודה שנאמר ויגש אליו יהודה:

2) Midrash Tanchuma Vayigash, Chapter 5

א"ל יוסף ... אני יוסף אחיכם, מיד פרחה נשמתן ולא יכלו לענו' אותו אר"י ווי לנו מיו' הדין ווי לנו מיום תוכחה ומה יוסף כשאמר לאחיו אני יוסף פרחה נשמתן כשעומד הקב"ה לדין דכתיב ביה (מלאכי ג) ומי מכלכל את יום בואו ומי העומד בהראותו שכתוב בו כי לא יראני האדם וחי (שמות לג) עאכ"ו, ומה זה נבהלו אחיו מפניו כשיבוא הקדוש ברוך הוא לתבוע עלבון המצות ופשעה של תורה עאכ"ו, עשה הקב"ה להם נס וחזרה נשמתן

We are all familiar with the prayer Avinu Malkeinu which plays a central role in the liturgy for Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. The two expressions used for G-d can often be seen as two different facets of our relationship with Him as Jews: through one, we approach G-d with the closeness of a child and his/her father; through the other, we are like deferential servants in the presence of a King.

As contradictory as these may appear, the prayer Avinu Malkeinu combines these to show us that both attitudes are needed in order to truly approach G-d at our time of teshuva. This dual approach to G-d can also be traced through two different midrashim in this week's Midrash Tanchuma, with each showing a different aspect of our relationship with G-d through both the encounter between Yosef and Yehuda and the experience of matan Torah at Sinai. 

The first (source 1 above) directly parallels Yehuda's acting as a guarantor for Binyamin (and therefore standing up for him against Yosef) with the Bnei Israel several generations later at Sinai who, according to the midrash, gave their children as 'guarantors' of their observance of the Torah. Here, a strong familial connection and bond can be seen through both the Bnei Israel linking their responsibility to keep the Torah with their relationship with their children, and with Yehuda's willingness to take on responsibility for his brother's safety to the point of standing up for him against Yosef. The midrash uses the language of guarantors rather than that of the father-son tie - however, if we bear in mind that Yehuda was acting as guarantor to his father Ya'akov, through the midrash's parallel we can perhaps see a twin relationship between future generations of Bnei Israel and G-d as father-child (the Avinu of Avinu Malkeinu) and between the members of Bnei Israel as being mutually responsible for one another just as Yehuda made himself responsible for his brother (repairing the previous family discord which resulted in Yosef being sold into slavery). 

Meanwhile, the second midrash (surprisingly enough source 2) above ;-) tells how the souls of Yosef's brothers 'flew away' when Yosef revealed his identity and were only restored through a miracle from G-d - while the midrash directly relates this to our situation before G-d on 'Yom haDin' (Rosh Hashanah), it also echoes another midrash relating how the experience of matan Torah itself was so powerful that with every word uttered by G-d the souls of Bnei Israel left their bodies (see Shir HaShirim Rabbah 6:3, although unfortunately I can only find English translations of this online...). If we bear in mind that Yosef is 'like Pharoah' at this point and therefore effectively a king, we can see the parallel the midrash is drawing between the brothers' response when Yosef's true identity (with all its implications) was revealed to them and our vulnerability before G-d as Malkeinu when we are judged on our observance of Torah.

These two ways of relating to G-d -  the intimacy and interconnectedness of Avinu or the awe and fear of Malkeinu - are modelled through these midrashim at two formative stages in Jewish history. In the first stage, the sons of Ya'akov/Israel are at the cusp of becoming a people, making the transition from family to tribal nation while repairing the rivalries and feuding of the past. In the second stage, this nation of B'nei Israel is finally formally accepting the Torah and entering into the covenant with G-d which defines us as the Jewish people. 

One final thought - perhaps it is significant that out of the twelve Tribes it is the name of Yehuda which has come to encompass us as a people today. While it is true that we need to approach G-d as both Avinu and Malkeinu, the interconnectedness and sense of responsibility for one another modelled by Yehuda in the first midrash also has a lesson for us today in an increasingly fractured community, where all too often our differences are emphasised over our common identity and purpose as Jews.

Shavua tov!

RPT

 * Of course, this midrash is much more complex than I make out. Unlike the children in this midrash, Yehuda volunteered himself as guarantor (although a version of this midrash exists elsewhere where the babies and unborn children do in fact consent to be guarantors - Rafi Zarum of LSJS has a great shiur on this.). There are also troubling questions raised by the passage in Mishlei on which the midrash is based, which portrays being a guarantor for someone as being a situation in which one has become 'trapped' rather like a hunted animal and which one should therefore strive to escape from - how does this relate to our relationship with G-d and our covenant to observe the Torah? In fact, this midrash deserves an entire shiur in itself to explore these issues, which I simply have not gone into here (partially due to time, and partially because I haven't found an effective response yet) and which is therefore one reason behind both the relative shortness and the lateness of this week's post... If you want, look up both the entire midrash as quoted above and the relevant passage in Mishlei. Then feel free to discuss :-)

Mikketz - The First Chanukah?

B"H

As always, full text here

 Midrash Tanchuma on Mikketz; Chapter 3


אריב"ל מתוך צרה רוחה מתוך אפילה אורה מתוך נבולן של צדיקים רוממותן, וכן הוא אומר (משלי ל') אם נבלת בהתנשא אם זמות יד לפה, חנניה מישאל ועזריה מתוך נבולן רוממותן שנא' (דניאל ג') באדין גבריא אלך כפיתו בסרבליהון פטשיהון וכרבלתהון ולבושיהון ורמיו לגוא אתון נורא יקידתא, ונתרוממו שנאמר (שם) באדין מלכא הצלח לשדרך מישך ועבד נגו במדינת בבל, ודניאל הושלך לגוב אריותא ונתרומם שנאמר (שם ו') ודניאל דנה הצלח במלכות דריוש ובמלכות כורש פרסאה, מרדכי כתיב וילבש שק ואפר (אסתר ב) ונתרומם דכתיב ומרדכי יצא מלפני המלך בלבוש מלכות, ויוסף ענו בכבל רגלו ברזל באה נפשו (תהלים קה) ונתרומם שנאמר ויוסף הוא השליט על הארץ, אמר ליה פרעה חלום חלמתי אמר יוסף בלעדי אלהים יענה וגו' תלה הגדולה בבעליה, אמר הקב"ה אתה לא רצית להתגדל בעצמך חייך שעל ידי כך תעלה לגדולה ולמלוכה

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said 'Out of distress [comes] relief; out of darkness [comes] light; out of the disgrace of the tzaddikim [comes] their acclamation'

Chanukah is unique in that it is the only holiday celebrated today which does not have any obvious sources or references in Tanakh. While Megillat Esther made it into the canon for Purim, the Book of Maccabees which documents the Hasmonean uprising failed to make the final cut and today can only be found as part of the Apocrypha. However, traditionally we understand that there are hidden links with Chanukah to be found in Tanakh - and here, for Parshat Mikketz (which usually falls on or around Chanukah itself), the Midrash Tanchuma appears to be drawing such links for us.

Following the saying of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi above, the Midrash brings four proof-texts from Tanakh (all underlined above):

1) Chananya, Mishael and Azarya surviving being thrown into the furnace for refusing to worship the idol set up by King Nebuchadnezzar. 


2) Daniel surviving being held in the lion's den after being caught 'illegally' worshipping G-d. 


3) Mordechai's transition from wearing sackcloth and ashes due to the decree of destruction made against the Jews to wearing 'royal clothes' upon leaving the King's presence. 


4) Yosef being raised from a prisoner to the effective ruler of Mitzrayim following his interpretation of Pharoah's dream. 


Several themes link these texts. In all four cases, the protagonists are suffering as a direct consequence of staying true to G-d despite external pressures to do otherwise- whether through the refusal of Chananya, Mishael, Azarya and Mordechai to bow to an idol/Haman, Daniel's continuing to pray to G-d as he has always done despite being fully aware of the royal decree against this, or Yosef's refraining from committing adultery with Potiphar's wife. Every time, the sufferers are miraculously saved, either openly or (as in the case of Mordechai) through 'hidden' means. Moreover, not only are they elevated to a higher status than before but in most cases G-d is also publicly affirmed in an act of Kiddush HaShem, including by the very King/people who had previously tried to hurt the protagonists.

Crucially, in the case of Yosef the midrash explains this pattern by pointing not to Yosef's loyalty in stopping himself from sinning with Potiphar's wife, but to his subsequent refusal to aggrandise himself before Pharoah by stating that only G-d, and not Yosef himself, has the power to reveal the meaning of Pharoah's dream. The midrash ends this section by explaining that it is for this humility - despite the opportunity for self-advancement available to Yosef had he acted otherwise - that G-d elevates Yosef to rule Mitzrayim. 

This link between humility and status in exile is emphasised by the preceding chapter of the Midrash Tanchuma, which is a potted summary of Daniel's successful interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel:2) following the failure of his usual astrologers and magicians to do so. Both Sefer Daniel and Yosef's time as Pharoah's right-hand man act as examples of how to be Jewish when in exile and ruled by foreign monarchs - and both make it clear that being saved and even raised to high positions under these circumstances is linked not only to staying true to G-d but also in publicly affirming G-d's greatness rather than one's own reputation.  

Perhaps then it is not a coincidence that Parsha Mikketz usually occurs around Chanukah. Most of the themes brought out by the midrash above: maintaining one's faith and identity in exile against the pressure of a dominant culture; trust in G-d saving us (to the point, in the case of Chananya/Mishael/Azaryah, of being willing to become martyrs if G-d decided not to save them); and public acts of Kiddush HaShem are all hallmarks of Chanukah. However, let us not forget the other point made by the midrash - that the miracle both of Chanukah and of today's State of Israel is dependant not only the above, but also on our humility in recognising G-d's control of history and our presence in Eretz Yisrael.

Chanukah Sameach and Shabbat Shalom!


RPT

Vayeshev - Like Father, Like Son?

B"H

Apologies for the delay - to make up for it, next week's dvar should be up earlier as it will also be cross-posted elsewhere. Thank you also to my rabbi Rabbi B., as some of the ideas brought from Rav Kotler zt"l in his Shabbat dvar Torah turned out to be very helpful for making sense of the Midrash, especially the potential for 'four Avot' and Yosef acting as a bridge between generations. As I don't have any direct access to Rav Kotler's teachings to check, any misunderstandings etc.of what he had to say on this are my own.

Click here for the full text of the Midrash Tanchuma.


Finally, this is dedicated l'refuah shleima Ilana bat Victoria.

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev, Chapter 1

דבר אחר אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף אתה מוצא שהיה יוסף דומה לאביו בכל דבר וכל מה שעבר על יעקב כך עבר על יוסף, יעקב קנא בו עשו אחיו ויוסף קנאו בו אחיו יעקב גלה לחרן יוסף גלה למצרים

2) Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev, Chapter 2

סימן ב

וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקונים, בן איקונים שהיה דומה לו

3) Midrash Tanchuma Toldot, Chapter 1

ממשמע שהוא אומר יצחק בן אברהם איני יודע שאברהם הוליד את יצחק ומה ת"ל אברהם הוליד את יצחק שכל הרואה אברהם היה אומר בודאי שאברהם הוליד את יצחק ממה שהיה קלסתר פניהם דומין זה לזה לכך נאמר אברהם הוליד את יצחק

We are all used to the familiar stages of Jewish history in Tanakh. The three Avot Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'akov lead to the twelve Tribes from the sons of Ya'akov, which then becomes the nation of Israel eventually united (temporarily) under the reign of David Ha-Melech before the disintegration of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, destruction and exile.When it comes to Parshat Vayeshev, we might also expect that - despite the Parsha's focus on the sale of Yosef and his servitude in Egypt - the relevant midrashim might also pay attention to some of Yosef's brothers, particularly Yehuda and the significance of the 'Tamar' interlude in the Parsha. 


However (at least, in Midrash Tanchuma) the focus is almost entirely on Yosef. In fact, if we were to read this in isolation to any other text, we would not be blamed for being surprised that Jewish tradition does not habitually refer to the 'four Avot' of Avraham, Yitzhak, Ya'akov and Yosef, such is the emphasis placed by the Midrash on Yosef to the exclusion of his brothers.

This impression is deepened by two remarks made in the opening chapters of this week's Midrash Tanchuma. The first (Source 1) culminates a series of explanations as to why the Parsha begins 'Eileh toldot Ya'akov, Yosef...' ('these are the generations of Ya'akov, Yosef etc.'; Bereishit, 37:2) before embarking, not into a genealogy of Ya'akov's family as one might expect from the phrase 'eileh toldot Ya'akov' but into the story of Yosef's relationship with his father and brothers. Source 1 resolves this by explaining that 'Yosef was like his father in every way - whatever befell Ya'akov, so too it befell Ya'akov'. It then justifies this by comparing Esav's jealousy of Ya'akov and Ya'akov's flight to Haran with the hatred of Yosef's brothers for him and Yosef's subsequent exile to Mitzrayim.*


The second remark (Source 2) above opens the chapter of Midrash Tanchuma immediately following the above Midrash. Here, the midrash takes the words 'ben zkunim' in the verse 'V'Israel ahav et Yosef mikol banaiv ki ben zkunim' (and Yisrael loved Yosef more than any of his sons, for he was a son of his old age; Bereishit 37:3), and rereads these as 'ben ikonim' - i.e. that Yosef had identical facial features to Ya'akov, hence Ya'akov's love for him. 


So, the Midrash tells us both that Yosef looks identical to Ya'akov and that the same things happened to both father and son. Where have we seen this pattern before? We don't have to go back many generations to find the answer - Avraham and Yitzhak. 


Yitzhak famously repeats the history of his father - he redigs the wells Avraham dug, left his home for Avimelech's land during a period of famine, and even pretended his wife was his sister for their protection while they were with Avimelech, just as Avraham and Sarah had done not long before. The Midrash also tells us on more than one occasion (see for example Source 3 above) above that Avraham and Yitzhak looked identical, save for the signs of old age given to Avraham to distinguish him from his son. 


Avraham and Yitzhak have something else in common - both have more than one son, but only one son is given the birthright and chosen to continue the brit or covenant with G-d while the other goes his own way. However, while in both cases it is the younger son who is is given this birthright, we see a difference in the way Avraham and Yitzhak treat their sons. Avraham banishes his eldest son Yishmael with regret, showing signs of love for both even though it is Yitzhak who - like Yosef - is both identical to him in appearance and described as the son of his 'old age'. However in Yitzhak's case it is Ya'akov who is forced into exile, and until Yitzhak blesses Ya'akov in his own right at the end of Parshat Toldot the father-son bond between Yitzhak and Ya'akov appears much less close than that between Yitzhak and Esav.**

Where does this leave us with Yosef and Ya'akov? Well, when it comes to fatherhood Ya'akov appears to be repeating the pattern of the past. One reason for Yosef being his favoured son may because he was born to the 'favoured wife' Rachel - just as for Avraham Yitzhak held a special status, partially because he Avraham's son by Sara rather than through Hagar. However, the special love shown by Ya'akov to Yosef appears to be more like the favouritism shown by Yitzhak and Rivka towards Esav and Ya'akov respectively, despite the consequences this had for Ya'akov. Sibling rivalry, meanwhile runs throughout the history of the Avot - indeed, as Source 1 points out, Esav's hatred for Ya'akov forces Ya'akov into exile just as the jealousy of Yosef's brothers towards him results in Yosef's exile.


Perhaps now we can understand better why the brothers were so jealous of Yosef - they saw him as a fourth 'Av' who had been chosen by their father to carry on the family heritage alone, while the other brothers would be cast aside and fade into history as just another group of tribes. What the brothers couldn't see from their standpoint is that Yosef shared certain characteristics with the Avot not because he was one of their number, but because the eventual reconciliation of Yosef and his brothers was to act as a tikun (i.e. repair) for all of the problems of sibling rivalry and dysfunctional families seen above and throughout Bereishit, thereby bridging the gap between the Abrahamic family of Bereishit and the nation of Israel which emerges through the twelve tribes in Shemot.


However, if Yosef is a tikun for the problems of his father's and earlier generations, the roles are reversed when it comes to the exile experienced by both father and son. Here, the fact that Yosef follows in Ya'akov's footsteps and that Ya'akov eventual returned from exile in Haran (as, indeed , all three Avot eventually returned from exile to Eretz Israel) acts as a sign of hope for the twelve tribes as they begin their exile in Mitzrayim.

Although it is important not to lose sight of our beginnings, we can see from the above midrashim that it is important to keep an eye on both the past and the future as the 'bridge' between generations - 'fixing' the problems of the past while using the lessons learned from here to look forwards to the next generation of Am Yisrael.  

Shavua Tov and Chanukah Sameach

RPT

*The idea that the same things happen to Ya'akov and Yosef is repeated elsewhere in midrash - see, for example, Midrash Tanchuma on Mikketz (Chapter 3).

**Interestingly, whereas Avraham and Ya'akov's old age is mentioned in relation to Yitzhak and Yosef respectively, Yitzhak's growing 'old' is mentioned in conjunction both with his blindness and his intention to bless Esav (which the Midrash links as a sign of Yitzhak somehow being blinded to Esav's true nature - see Toldot's post).

 

Interlude - Courtesy of Rabbi Francis Nataf

B"H

Apologies - once again, due to other events I am postponing publication of this week's dvar until Motsei Shabbat. In the meantime, and to make up for the lack of Yehuda v'Tamar in this week's Midrash Tanchuma,  here is an insightful take on the parsha itself from Rabbi Francis Nataf.

Shabbat Shalom!

RPT

Vayishlach - more sinned against than sinning?

 B"H

Remember when I said some posts might be controversial? You've been warned....

This week's post is based on what I wrote for the Facebook group 'Dvar Torah Database' this time last year. As such, it relies on midrashic texts from sources other than the Midrash Tanchuma for Vayishlach (confusingly, the Midrash Tanchuma text relevant here is from next week's section). However, if you really really want to you can still access the full Midrash Tanchuma text for Vayishlach itself here ;-)

Also, now that I feel a little freer to speak up about conversion politics post-mikveh, the post has been amended slightly. As I said, you've been warned.

Sources:

1) Bereishit 36:11-12

וַיִּהְיוּ בְּנֵי אֱלִיפָז תֵּימָן אוֹמָר צְפוֹ וְגַעְתָּם וּקְנַז.  יב וְתִמְנַע הָיְתָה פִילֶגֶשׁ לֶאֱלִיפַז בֶּן-עֵשָׂו וַתֵּלֶד לֶאֱלִיפַז אֶת-עֲמָלֵק אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי עָדָה אֵשֶׁת עֵשָׂו

2) Bereishit 36:22

וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-לוֹטָן חֹרִי וְהֵימָם וַאֲחוֹת לוֹטָן תִּמְנָע.

3) Sanhedrin 99b

אלוף לוטן אלוף תמנע וכל אלוף מלכותא בלא תאגא היא בעיא לאיגיורי באתה אצל אברהם יצחק ויעקב ולא קבלוה הלכה והיתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו אמרה מוטב תהא שפחה לאומה זו ולא תהא גבירה לאומה אחרת נפק מינה עמלק דצערינהו לישראל מאי טעמא דלא איבעי להו לרחקה

4) Midrash Tanchuma on Vayeshev, Chapter 1

וכן נתעסק בייחוס בני עשו ואלה תולדות עשו להודיע נוולן, שאת מוצא שהן בני זמה שכן הוא אומר בני אליפז תימן ואומר צפו וגעתם קנז ותמנע ועמלק (ד"ה א א) ותמנע היתה פלגש לאליפז (בראשית לו) מלמד שנשא את בתו, כיצד היה בא אל אשתו של שעיר ועברה וילדה ממנו תמנע ונשאה כנושא בתו של שעיר והיתה בתו, וכן הוא אומר אלה בני שעיר החורי יושבי הארץ לוטן וגו' ואחות לוטן תמנע, מן האם ולא מן האב שהיתה מן אליפז ותמנע היתה פלגש לאליפז בן עשו

We’re all familiar with the genealogies that weave their way throughout Sefer Bereishit. They form an almost comforting counterpoint to the dramas of individual figures – ‘X begat A, B and C; C begat D…’ Yet every so often the steady rhythm of successive generations is interrupted – and what seems like a minor aside in the text can gain much greater significance in the hands of the commentators.

One such ‘aside’ comes in this week’s parsha, during the Torah’s chronicling of Esav’s descendants (source 1 above):

‘The sons of Eliphaz were: Teiman, Omar, Tzepho, Gatam and Kenaz. And Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz; these are the children of Adah, Esau’s wife’

In one brief aside we are introduced to the tribe destined to become the eternal enemy of the Jewish people! Given Amalek’s later significance in Jewish history, and Timna’s status as the only mother mentioned in this genealogy other than Esav’s wives, it’s worth asking – who exactly was Timna?

Jewish tradition offers two different explanations, both startling in their implications. The most challenging one comes from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 99b, where the Rabbis directly blame the Avot for bringing Amalek upon the Jewish people (extracted from Source 3 above):

‘Timna wanted to convert, so she went to Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya’akov, but they did not accept her. So she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz, the son of Esau, saying: ‘I would rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another nation.’ From her Amalek was descended who afflicted Israel. Why so? Because they should not have rejected her.’

This midrash is extraordinary, especially when we consider Avraham’s fame as the convert par excellence and an enthusiastic recruiter of other converts. However, this is not the only place where the Rabbis rebuke the Avot for not being more open to outsiders to their spiritual tradition – in this same parsha, Dinah’s rape is explained by Rashi as Ya’akov’s punishment for refusing to give her in marriage to Esau, thereby denying his own brother the possibility of spiritual improvement under her influence.

Later commentators (e.g. the Alter of Slabodka - see here for example) have clearly felt uncomfortable with the Gemara’s viewpoint on Timna, and try to excuse the Avot by saying they could sense some flaw or defect in her which would have made it harmful for her to join the Jewish people - as proven by her being Amalek’s ancestress. However, the Gemara quite clearly suggests that Amalek’s enmity towards Israel is a direct consequence of Timna’s rejection by the Avot, rather than an innate trait.

These later comments about Timna’s ‘bad middot’ seem truer to a different tradition concerning Timna found in Chapter 1 of the Midrash Tanhuma, Vayeshev (see Source 4) above) This tradition picks up on an inconsistency between Timna’s lineage as presented here in Bereishit and elsewhere in Divrei Hayamim (which mentions a daughter of Eliphaz named Timna), and resolves this by explaining that Timna was the child of an adulterous relationship between Eliphaz and Seir’s wife, and went on to compound her sinful origins by becoming her own father’s concubine! The implication here is that, far from being a potential Jewess, the mamzeret Timna (and by extension, Amalek) is irredeemably corrupt and the opposite of everything that the Jewish people stands for.

These two very different views of Timna are crucial for how we as Jews today approach the ‘other’ – whether this is the non-Jew wishing to convert, the non-Jewish world at large, or even those Jews who are ‘off the derech’. One approach popular in some parts of the Orthodox world is to write off certain people or areas of experience as being inherently sinful and incapable of any good. ‘Let us follow the example of the Avot’ says this approach ‘and keep ourselves pure, untainted by the corrupting influence of X/Y/Z’.

However, as we can see from the Gemara in Source 3) there is a strong Rabbinic tradition which insists on seeing a person’s potential for spiritual improvement and doing our best to encourage this – to the point of blaming the suffering of the Jewish people throughout the ages on the Avot’s rejection of Timna and Esau! While the isolationist approach may have been more appropriate in previous generations, in today’s open society we cannot afford to ignore the Rabbis’ daring message about how we should relate to those who appear to be spiritually ‘other’ – drawing them closer, not pushing them away.

And we can go further. If (and it is by no means clear) the Rabbis of the Gemara were aware of the alternative tradition regarding Timna as a mamzeret and nevertheless criticised the Avot for rejecting her for giyur, this makes their rebuke even more daring. By contrast, in recent years we have seen a disturbing trend-  not necessarily towards rejection of candidates for gerut at the outset, but towards undermining their status through the spectre of 'retroactive annulment' of their conversions.

Both in Israel and elsewhere the phrase 'once a Jew, always a Jew' no longer appears to apply to gerim. Instead a veritable sword of Damocles hangs over our heads as both our Jewish status and (for women) that of our children is made contingent not only on our behaviour well after the mikveh itself, but also on whether or not the particular Rabbinic authority/Beth Din which oversaw our gerut is approved of by all parts of the Orthodox community - something which is beyond the control of most gerim and which, ultimately, is determined by political factors that have nothing to do with the individual gerim feeling threatened as a result. 

What would the Rabbis of the Gemara, who went as far as to criticise the Avot for rejecting Timna, have to say about the current situation? While I leave that to your imagination, the message they sought to teach is clear. Rejecting or otherwise ill-treating someone who wishes to join the Jewish people - whatever their origins might be - has the potential to create our own worst enemy in the form of Amalek. I can only hope it is a message that those who have trampled on the sensitivities and even the very Jewish status of gerim for their own political ends may one day take to heart.

Shabbat shalom

RPT


********************

PS A quick google on Timna brings up several interesting articles, including one here by Rabbi Cardozo which puts an interesting twist on the mitzvah of 'blotting out the memory of Amalek'.  Any others, feel free to share in the comments.

Vayeitze - A Question of Faith

B"H

As always, full text here

 1) Midrash Tanchuma Vayeitze, Chapter 2

סימן ב

ויחלום והנה סולם מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה והנה מלאכי אלהים עולים ויורדים בו, א"ר שמואל בר נחמן אלו שרי אומות העכו"ם דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן מלמד שהראה לו הקב"ה לאבינו יעקב שרה של בבל עולה שבעין עוקים ויורד, ושל מדי חמשים ושנים, ושל יון מאה ויורד, ושל אדום עלה ולא ידע כמה, באותה שעה נתירא יעקב אבינו ואמר שמא לזה אין לו ירידה, א"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא (ירמיה ל) ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב ואל תחת ישראל כביכול אפילו אתה רואהו עולה אצלי משם אני מורידו שנאמר (עובדיה א) אם תגביה כנשר ואם בין כוכבים שים קנך משם אורידך נאם ה'

2)  Midrash Tanchuma Vayeitze, Chapter 2 (continuation of the above)

 א"ר ברכיה בשם רבי חלבו ור"ש בן יוסינה מלמד שהראהו הקב"ה ליעקב אבינו שרה של בבל עולה ויורד, ושל מדי עולה ויורד, ושל יון עולה ויורד, ושל אדום עולה ויורד, א"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא ליעקב יעקב למה אין אתה עולה, באותה שעה נתירא אבינו יעקב ואמר כשם שיש לאלו ירידה, כך אני יש לי ירידה, א"ל הקב"ה אם אתה עולה אין לך ירידה, ולא האמין ולא עלה, ר"ש בן יוסינה היה דורש (תהלים עח) בכל זאת חטאו עוד ולא האמינו בנפלאותיו, א"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא אלו עלית והאמנת לא היתה לך ירידה לעולם, אלא הואיל ולא האמנת הרי בניך משתעבדין בהללו ד' מלכיות בעה"ז במסים ובארנוניות ובגולגליות, א"ל יעקב יכול לעולם א"ל אל תירא עבדי יעקב אל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים מארץ מגליא מאספניה ומחברותיה ושב יעקב מבבל ושקט ממדי ושאנן מיון ואין מחריד מאדום כי אעשה כלה בכל הגוים אשר הפיצותיך שם באומות העולם שהן מכלין את שדותיהן אבל ישראל שאין מכלין את שדותיהן ואותך לא אעשה כלה אלא מיסרך ביסורין בעולם הזה בשביל לנקותך מעונותיך לעתיד לבא, לכך נאמר ויחלום:

Most of you have probably heard of the midrash onYa'akov's dream from this week's parsha where each angel is the sar (usually translated as 'guardian angel') of the four empires under which the Jews suffer exile - the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans. Just as each angel climbs up and down the ladder, so too do these empires rise and fall - with their falling representing the end of a period of exile and/or persecution for the Jews.

Usually, when I have heard this midrash it is taught that Ya'akov becomes afraid at the sight of the sar of Edom (i.e. Rome, as noted in last week's footnote) ascending without seeming likely to come down. G-d comforts him by promising that this sar will eventually descend and the Roman exile end in its turn, even if this isn't obvious at the time.

As can be seen at source 1) above the Midrash Tanchuma includes this midrash. However, immediately afterwards it gives another version of the midrash with some intriguing differences (see source 2) above). This time, Edom's sar descends with the others - following which G-d asks Ya'akov why he does not also 'ascend'. Ya'akov, fearing that his descendants will ultimately also fall just as the other nations have done, refuses G-d's implied invitation even after G-d spells out that this would not happen. G-d then tells Ya'akov that his lack of faith has actually led to his descendants suffering exile under the four empires represented by the angels, only afterwards offering words of comfort and a promise that they will finally return from exile.

While this second midrash is more complex than the first, we need to read them together to understand fully what is going on. Both midrashim tell us of Ya'akov's fear with the phrase b'otah sha'ah nityare Ya'akov Avinu/avinu Ya'akov - at that moment, our father Ya'akov was afraid - while in both versions G-d comforts him with the words al tira avdi Ya'akov v'al techat Yisrael ('do not fear, my servant Ya'akov and do not be afraid Israel', Yirmeyahu 30:10).However, the point at which these phrases are used change between midrashim - while in source 1) we see Ya'akov being afraid at the moment that he saw the sar of Edom ascending and G-d's immediate reassurance, in source 2 Ya'akov watches all four angels rise and fall, but is only afraid at the point at which G-d invites him to ascend! While G-d does eventually promise Ya'akov that his descendants' exiles will not be permanent, this is only after Ya'akov's lack of faith and G-d's warning that this has itself led to these periods of exile.

Given that all this takes place as Ya'akov is himself about to go into exile to save his life, what do these midrashim mean? In the first version, Ya'akov is afraid that the power of the brother he is fleeing will never end - but this threat is only external to Ya'akov and, as promised by G-d, will eventually cease as Esav/Edom falls. By contrast, in the second version it is not the dominance of Esav/the four empires which Ya'akov fears but the possibility that his own descendants will follow exactly the same path as the others by rising and eventually falling in status. The crucial difference here is the role played by Ya'akov's emunah - although in the first version this is not even mentioned, in the second version Ya'akov's lack of emunah in the opportunity being offered to him by G-d is key to both his fear and his refusal to take up G-d's offer. Ironically, this lack of emunah turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy as it leads to the very downfall for Ya'akov's descendants that he feared!

But why should Ya'akov refuse to believe G-d? One explanation could be that the angels represent what we see as the 'natural' cycle of empires - they become powerful, reach a peak and then decline. In this context, when he is given the opportunity to 'rise' and become powerful like the other nations Ya'akov's worry that his descendants will also follow the usual pattern of 'falling' afterwards appears reasonable. Ya'akov's error, however, was in not overcoming this fear and fully trusting G-d when he was promised that his descendants would not be like the other nations and would instead always maintain their high status - provided he took that first 'leap of faith'.

We can learn from this that external threats such as that represented by Esav/Edom are not necessarily inescapable - but, if we don't maintain our emunah and our confidence in our own distinctive identity, we can end up succumbing to these threats. Ya'akov discovered this on the brink of exile from Eretz Yisrael; today, perhaps it can also be a lesson for the modern State of Israel as it tries to cope with the tension of facing various external threats while maintaining faith in the core values that - like it or not - sets it apart from other nations.

Shabbat shalom!

RPT