Terumah - The Knowledge Economy?

B"H

Full text hyah ;-)

Sources

1) Midrash Tanchuma Terumah, Chapter 2 part I

ויקחו לי תרומה. זה שאמר הכתוב, כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם (משלי ד ב). אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, שני פרקמטוטין עומדין זה עם זה, אחד בידו מטכסא ואחד בידו פלפלין. אמרו זה לזה, בוא ונחליף ביני ובינך. נטל זה את הפלפלין, וזה המטכסא. מה שביד זה אין ביד זה, ומה שביד זה אין ביד זה. אבל התורה אינה כן, זה שונה סדר זרעים וזה שונה סדר מועד, השנו זה לזה, נמצא ביד זה שנים וביד זה שנים, יש פרקמטיא יפה מזו. הוי, כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם

2) Midrash Tanchuma Terumah, Chapter 2 part II

מעשה בחבר אחד שהיה בספינה עם פרקמטוטין הרבה, היו אומרים לאותו חבר היכן פרקמטיא שלך. היה אומר להם, פרקמטיא שלי גדולה משלכם. בדקו בספינה לא מצאו לו כלום, התחילו שוחקים עליו. נפלו עליהם לסטים שללו ונטלו כל מה שנמצא בספינה. יצאו ליבשה ונכנסו למדינה, לא היה להם לא לחם לאכול ולא כסות ללבוש. מה עשה אותו חבר, נכנס לבית המדרש ישב ודרש. עמדו בני המדינה כשראו שהוא בן תורה מרובה, נהגו בו כבוד גדול ועשו לו פסיקתו כהוגן וכראוי בגדולה ובכבוד. התחילו גדולי הקהל לילך מימינו ומשמאלו וללוות אותו. כשראו הפרקמטוטין כך, באו אצלו ופייסו ממנו ואמרו לו, בבקשה ממך, עשה עמנו טובה ולמד עלינו זכות לפני בני העיר, שאתה יודע מה היינו ומה אבדנו בספינה. בבקשה ממך עשה עמנו חסד, דבר להם אפילו על הפרוסה שינתן לתוך פינו ונחיה ולא נמות ברעב. אמר להם, הלא אמרתי אליכם, שפרקמטיא שלי גדולה משלכם, שלכם אבד ושלי קיימת. הוי, כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם

At first glance, the above midrashim from the Midrash Tanchuma on parshat Terumah do not seem to be at all relevant to the parsha itself, which is basically a design specification and list of materials for the Mishkan as instructed to Moshe. While the midrashim are cited as following from the opening words of the parsha vayikach li terumah (you shall take for me a portion/terumah offering), the real 'hook' is the line ki lekach tov natati lachem (For I have given you a good portion/lesson) from Mishlei (4:2), from a larger passage concerned with the importance of seeking wisdom and not rejecting the teachings which one has received - appropriately enough, both midrashim go on to compare the value of Torah learning with physical goods before concluding (for different reasons) that Torah is better and more valuable than the most expensive goods for trade. All very well - but while there are some links through both the sounds of 'vayikach'/'lekach' and the concept of a gift or 'portion' being given, it is still a little puzzling as to why a set of midrashim about the value of knowledge and specifically Torah education should be linked to the construciton of the Mishkan.

To try and understand this, let's take a look at the midrashim themselves...

The first midrash (source 1) compares two traders exchanging their wares with each other to two Torah scholars exchanging their knowledge of the different Gemara tractates which they have learnt. The traders come out of the exchange no better off than before, as they have merely swopped one consigment of valuable goods for another. However, the scholars each retain what they have learnt while gaining knowledge of another seder of Gemara, with the result that they both get what in investment terms would be a 100% return on their learning - not bad in the average market!

The second midrash (source 2) tells of a Torah scholar and several traders travelling on a boat carrying valuable goods when they were attacked and plundered by pirates (!!), leaving them penniless. The Torah scholar, having previously been mocked by the trader for having no tangible goods to show despite stating that his goods are more valuable than theirs, is nevertheless able to gain respect, food and shelter upon reaching shore simply by going to the Beit HaMidrash of the nearest town and beginning to teach the townspeople. Meanwhile the merchants, having been reduced to paupers after losing all of their goods, are forced to apologise to the scholar and ask him to use his influence with the townspeople to give them a morsel of food to eat.  The lesson? Torah learning is more valuable than physical goods because it is not subject to loss or destruction.

Both midrashim provide powerful lessons about the value of education which are particularly important to bear in mind in today's world. While we claim to live in a 'knowledge economy' where some of these lessons are recognised - for example, value being attached to people's skills and knowledge as well as to physical goods - in recent years there has been an increased attitude (at least in the UK) towards education as being of vocational value only rather than being valuable in its own right. However, the midrashim above do use the language of the market and of tradeable goods to describe Torah learning, it is clear that there is qualitative difference between the 'value' of Torah and the value of, say, silks or spices, What is more, in what is perhaps a uniquely Jewish approach this value can only be appreciated by sharing the knowledge which one has acquired with others - in the first midrash, the unique value of Torah learning is seen by how it is increased through sharing, while in the second midrash the scholar reveals the value of his learning by teaching in the Beit HaMidrash. When it comes to Torah, there are no 'ivory towers' of learning. 

However (other than the linguistic similarities above), what links these ideas with parshat Terumah? Well, the 'historical' approach would probably explain these midrashim as showing the shift in Rabbinic emphasis from the Beit HaMikdash/Mishkan and korbanot to Torah-learning after the Churban (destruction) and exile from Eretz Yisrael. While I feel it is important not to lose sight of this shift, we can also learn from the more ahistorical approach which focuses on the uniqueness of the Torah's value as being something which is increased rather than decreased as being shared (as in source 1) above. Similarly, it could be said that through contributing the materials to build the Mishkan from the treasures they had brought out with them from Egypt, the Bnei Israel were were not losing out but rather gaining spiritually through their 'sacrifices' being used for the Mishkan, thereby bringing G-d's presence closer to them.

Shavua tov!

RPT 

Mishpatim - the Ethics of Separation

B"H

While I'm doing a short midrash this week, there's lots of other interesting ones in the full collection here, including a very cool story about Onkelos and his uncle which I may get around to dealing with another time...;-)

1) Midrash Tanchuma on Mishpatim, Chapter 2

ואלה המשפטים. זה שאמר הכתוב, מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ, ואיש תרומות יהרסנה (משלי כט ד). מלכה של תורה, במשפט שהוא עושה, מעמיד את הארץ. ואיש תרומות יהרסנה. אם משים אדם עצמו כתרומה הזו שמושלכת בזויות הבית ואומר מה לי בטורח הצבור, מה לי בדיניהם, מה לי לשמוע קולם, שלום עליך נפשי, הרי זה מחריב את העולם. הוי, ואיש תרומות יהרסנה. מעשה ברבי אסי, כשהיה מסתלק מן העולם, נכנס בן אחותו אצלו, מצאו בוכה. אמר לו, רבי, מפני מה אתה בוכה. יש תורה שלא למדת ולימדת, הרי תלמידיך יושבים לפניך. יש גמילות חסדים שלא עשית. ועל כל מדות שהיו בך, היית מתרחק מן הדינין, ולא נתת רשות על עצמך להתמנות על צרכי צבור. אמר לו, בני, עליה אני בוכה, שמא אתן דין וחשבון על שהייתי יכול לעשות דיניהם של ישראל. הוי, ואיש תרומות יהרסנה:

Skeleton

Surprisingly (given the predominance of halachic content in parshat Mishpatim), there are many midrashim to pick from this week. However, I'm keeping it short and simple due to other commitments...

The second chapter of this week's Midrash Tanchuma is based on a pasuk from Mishlei (29:4) 'melech b'mishpat ya'amid aretz, v'ish trumot yehersenah' (JPS translation: 'By justice a King sustains the land, but a fraudulent man tears it down'). However, in contrast to this translation the midrash itself makes connection between 'ish trumot' and 'terumah' - the tithe separated from one's crops which belongs to the Kohahim - to interpret 'ish trumot' as  a person who separates himself/herself from the community, its laws and judgments.

Initially the midrash's interpretation appears simple - the ish trumot is described as someone who, when confronted with conflicts and the resulting dinim within the community, asks 'mah li?' (what is it to me?) 'shalom alayich nafshi' (there is peace upon my soul) - implying that as long one is personally content there is no need to concern oneself with anyone else's problems or with communal rules/judgments. But this is a dangerous attitude -  linking back to the original source text from Mishlei, the midrash condemns just such a person as 'destroying the world'.

So far this sounds familiar - after all, throughout Jewish ethics runs the core principle that we are all responsible for each other, that 'kol yisrael averim zeh ba'zeh'. Given this, it makes sense that someone who separates himself/herself from communal affairs in the way described above is seen as a destructive force - after all, if everyone only acted out of self-interest without any sense of communal responsibility, we would quickly become a highly unjust society.

However, the midrash then goes on to tell the story of Rabbi Asi who, facing death, is found weeping by his nephew. We are told through this nephew that Rabbi Asi has been a great Torah scholar and teacher with many students, and that he has done many acts of chesed (lovingkindness) - all highly respected attributes which also show an engagement with the community around him. He certainly does not appear to be the ish trumot initially described above who is only concerned for his own welfare and not for the wider community. So why the tears?

Rabbi Asi's nephew also poses this question - but in doing so, reveals the answer itself. He points out that Rabbi Asi, despite all his middot/attributes, has distanced himself from judging cases and refused to be appointed over matters concerning the tzibur or community. It turns out that it is precisely this that Rabbi Asi is grieved over on his deathbed, as he anticipates that after death he may have justify himself for not making judgments within the Jewish community.

How might Rabbi Asi's example affect our understanding of the ish trumot? Well, we can see that the way one is involved in the community through e.g. education or chesed is very different from one's involvement through sitting in judgment. If someone is a great teacher or does a lot of charitable work, who is going to say a bad word about them? By contrast, to make a judgment between two disputing parties means that there is inherently a risk that one party (usually the losing one) may come to think negatively of the judge in the case. In some cases, it is also very hard to judge fairly between the two sides and the judge can end up having to make difficult decisions which may not be universally seen as 'just', even if they are in accordance with the letter of the law.

To be a judge and involve oneself in communal disputes is therefore a demanding role which does not always result in either inner peace or praise from others - and yet, according to this understanding of the midrash one who refuses to play this role when he/she is suited to it and therefore distances himself from the community is seen as ultimately destroying any chance of a just society. While we should certainly avoid being like the first ish trumot who is only concerned for his own happiness, we can also see that being truly involved in society means that we should not merely seek the 'quiet life' and separate ourselves from conflict if we are able to bring justice to our community.

Shavua tov!

RPT

Yitro - For the Love of Torah

B"H

As per usual, full text here. 

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Yitro, Chapter 4 (part 1)

 

וישמע יתרו. שבעה שמות יש לו. יתר, שיתר פרשה בתורה פרשת הדיינין. חובב, שחבב את התורה., כשבא לארץ, נתנו לו דושנה של יריחו, ואמר, כל עצמי לא באתי והנחתי כל מה שהיה לי אלא ללמוד תורה. ועכשיו אני זורע וקוצר, אימתי אני לומד תורה. אמרו לו, יש אדם לומד תורה בעיר, וזה המקום ציה הוא, מדבר הוא ואין שם חטים. כיון ששמעו כך, הלכו להן, שנאמר, ובני קני חותן משה עלו מעיר התמרים את בני יהודה מדבר יהודה אשר בנגב ערד וילך וישב את העם

2) Midrash Tanchuma Yitro, Chapter 4 (part 2)

הלכו ומצאו שם את יעבץ יושב בבית המדרש והכהנים והלוים והמלכים יושבים עמו וכל ישראל יושבין שם. אמרו לו, אנו גרים היאך נשב שם עם אלו. ישבו להן על שערי בית המדרש ושומעין ולומדים, שנאמר, ומשפחות סופרים יושבי יעבץ תרעתים שמעתים שוכתים המה הקינים (דה"א ב נה). מהו תרעתים, שהיו יושבין על השער. שמעתים, שהיו שומעין ולומדים. שוכתין, שהיו ישראל מסכין להם. דבר אחר, מהו תרעתים, בשעה שישראל נכנסין לצרה, מתריעין והן נשמעין

3) Midrash Tanchuma Yitro, Chapter 4 (parts 3 and 4)

ומי הם הקינים. הבאים מבני בניו של יתרו, ובני קיני חתן משה. עליהם נאמר, שלח לחמך על פני המים כי ברוב הימים תמצאנו (קהל' יא א). בשכר קראן לו ויאכל לחם ונאמר במשה כי מן המים משיתיהו, זכו בני בניו של יתרו לישב בלשכת הגזית.

אמר שלמה ושבח אני את המתים שכבר מתו (שם ד ב), וחזר ואמר כי לכלב חי הוא טוב מן האריה המת (שם ט ד). אמרו לו, שלמה, אתה חולם ואתה פותר. אמש אמרת ושבח אני את המתים, ועכשיו אתה אומר כי לכלב חי הוא טוב. אמר, אני אומר לכם, הנביא צוח העצמות היבשות שמעו דבר ה' (יחז' לז ד). והן שומעין, והנביא צווח לחיים שמעו דבר ה' בית יעקב (ירמ' ב ד), ולא שמעו ולא הטו את אזנם, ואומר, כי עם מרי המה בנים כחשים בנים לא אבו שמוע תורת ה' (ישעיה ל ט):

A strong thread seen throughout the Midrash Tanchuma for Parshat Yitro is the Rabbinic tradition that, when Yitro comes to Moshe at the start of the parsha, he in fact came to convert to Judaism. This tradition seems to be based on a few textual 'hooks' from Parshat Yitro, the main one which the Midrash Tanchuma uses being the opening phrase 'Va'yishma Yitro' which is interpreted as Yitro actively listening to and accepting the Torah upon himself , just as the B'nei Israel say 'na'aseh v'nishma' when accepting the Torah at Sinai .

One midrash on this theme which caught my eye is the fourth Chapter of this week's Midrash Tanchuma, in particular the first two parts (the whole midrash can be divided into roughly four sections, hence sources 1-3 above, which have all been taken from the same Chapter but subdivided for ease of reference). Let's take a closer look.

In source 1), after stating that Yitro had seven names the midrash focuses on one of these names - 'Chovav' - which it interprets as Yitro and his descendants showing love for the Torah. The midrash then uses a verse from Shoftim (1:16) relating how the descendants of Yitro, here known as 'Keini', went from Jericho to settle in the Negev as a 'proof-text' for the following extraordinary dialogue.

Yitro/his descendants, having been given a 'dunsha' (fertile area) of Jericho to settle in, protest that 'kol atzmi lo bati, v'hinachti kol mah she'hayah li, eleh lil'mod torah. Achshav ani zorea v'kotzer, eimatai ani lomed torah?' (My whole purpose in coming and leaving all that I had was to study Torah - now that I am planting and reaping, when will I have time to study Torah?). Their listeners respond: 'yesh adam lomed torah ba'ir' (is there one who learns Torah in the City?); 'v'zeh hamakom tziah hu, midbar hu v'ein sham chitim' (There is an arid place, a wilderness [where] there is no wheat/sin')* Following this,Yitro's descendants leave both the city and their allotted portion of fertile farmland to settle in the said midbar of the Negev, presumably to devote themselves to a life of Torah study.

It is noteworthy that the ideal environment for learning Torah appears to be neither the city nor the fertile fields, but instead the barren desert environment in which matan Torah first occurred. While providing material prosperity, the agricultural lifestyle is seen as being detrimental not only due to its reducing the time available for studying Torah, but also containing some inherent sinfulness through the double meaning of 'chitim' as both 'wheat' and 'sin' - making the infertile midbar's lack of 'chitim' a blessing in disguise. 

 

However, reading this as a giyoret I am also struck by the fact that this self-sacrificing love for the Torah - to the point of giving up material comforts to devote one's time to Torah study in the 'purity' of the midbar - is attributed not to any of the B'nei Israel but to Yitro's descendants as gerim. What is particularly interesting is that this desire to return to the simplicity of the midbar is dealt with rather more positively here than when the people later have doubts over entering Eretz Yisrael at the time of the Spies, which some commentators link to an unwillingness to leave the special Torah-focused experience of the midbar for the realities of life in the cities or farming the land. We can see this more positive attitude in the last part of the midrash (see source 3) above, which rebukes the people for being 'banim lo avu shmo'a torat Hashem' (people who are not willing to listen to Hashem's Torah/teaching - Yeshayahu 30:9). By using this at the end of the midrash, the Rabbis seem to be making a marked contrast with Yitro's descendants who were willing to 'listen' and devote their wholehearted attention to the Torah, implicitly singling out the latter's attitude for approval.

 

Let's hold onto that thought for a moment as we turn to the second part of the midrash...

In source 2), the midrash goes on to describe how the Kinim, Yitro's descendants, come and find 'Yabetz'** siting in the Beit Medrash surrounded by the Kohanim, Levi'im, kings, and all of Israel. Confronted by this scene, the Kinim say 'anu gerim - heyach neshev sham im eilu?' (we are converts/strangers***, how can we sit there with them?). So instead, the Kinim humbly seat themselves at the doors of the Beit Midrash to 'listen and learn' - which the midrash uses as their identifying features in interpreting the proof-text (Divrei Hayamim 2:55) naming the families of Kinim. 

Here, the status of Yitro's descendants and their position in society is much more ambivalent. Once again, the midrash emphasises their overriding desire to hear and learn Torah above any comforts or consideration of social status, to the point that the names of their tribal families are derived from their willingness as gerim to sit and learn Torah at the door of  the study-house. The fact that the prooftext used by the midrash describes these families as soferim - which today we would consider to be an important and spiritually elevated role - adds to this favourable view of Yitro's descendants.

Yet at the same time this family of Torah-loving gerim appear to remain permanently at the fringes of Jewish society. In this part of the midrash, the Kinim consider themselves as outsiders who are not worthy of sitting with even the ordinary B'nei Israel, instead volunatarily taking up a marginal position at the doors of the studyhouse when learning Torah. To a certain extent, the very fact that the midrash itself distinguishes the Kinim as a people while still identifying them as gerim also shows this ambivalence over whether gerim are truly part of the Jewish people in the same way as those who are Jewish by virtue of birth.

Part of this is of course down to the different understanding of personal identity in the Biblical era, where people were much more likely to be identified by their tribal or national origin regardless of their own acceptance or otherwise of the Torah (e.g. Ruth, even after the point at which she is said to have 'converted', continues to be described in Sefer Ruth as a Moabite rather than being from the nation of Israel). However even today, while for the most part a ger is to be treated in exactly the same way as any born Jew there remain certain differences both in halacha and in how gerim fit into and are accepted by wider Jewish society. This may even be inherent in the term itself used to describe converts - after all, while the word 'ger' has come to mean a convert to Judaism its literal translation is a 'stranger', making the ger a perpetual 'other' at the very same time as being part of the Jewish people through volunatary acceptance of the Torah.

So, what is the role of the ger in Jewish society? As you may have guessed, for me this is not simply an academic question. The desire of Yitro's descendants to give up material prosperity for the love of Torah is one I identify with strongly - even though it may sound surprising to born Jews, who can forget that I behave as I do not simply to 'jump through the hoops' of the Beit Din which converted me, but rather because of a deep inner drive to learn and live by the Torah. 

On the other hand, having spent years as a 'frum non-Jew' before even going to the mikveh, there have been times when I have also felt as if I should be sitting at the gates of the study-house, hearing my internal voice saying 'who are you to be teaching/asking/challenging/criticising this?'.  In fact, one of the hardest challenges I have faced has been learning how to cope with born Jews who are either indifferent or completely opposed to Torah learning and observance - their attitude is totally foreign to my way of thinking, yet at the same time I have felt (especially pre-mikveh) unworthy of criticising or judging them for this attitude given my own status. 

This feels like more of a musing than usual...however, perhaps we can all find some resolution in the midrash's alternative explanation for the name of one of the families of Kinim, the 'Tirasim'. The midrash posits that 'b'sha'ah she'Yisrael nichnasin l'tza'arah, matri'in v'hen nishma'in' (when Israel was experiencing troubles, they would sound the teruah [i.e. the shofar] and [the Kinim] would listen). While the link between the sounding of the shofar and the Jewish people being in trouble due to their sinning is established as far back as Akeidat Yitzhak (see my earlier post on Vayera), the shofar also accompanies matan Torah at Sinai. 

Given the Kinim's reputation for placing learning Torah as their highest priority, could it be that their role in 'hearing' the shofar blown by the B'nei Israel in times of crisis is to bring them back to the 'ideal' of matan Torah in the midbar - just as their ancestor Yitro 'heard' and voluntarily came to join the Jewish people out of his love for the Torah? If so, perhaps this is the role best filled by those of us who are gerim today - acting as the 'internal conscience' of the Jewish people, and guarding our connection to the Torah given in the harsh yet pure environment of the midbar.

Shavua tov

RPT

* N.B. This is my own translation as the 'official' translation from my edition of Midrash Tanchuma does not appear to fully reflect the original Hebrew. In particular, it translates the phrase 'v'ein sham chitim' as 'there is nothing growing there', which completely fails to bring out the double meaning of 'chitim'. Any mistranslations or inaccuracies are therefore my own. 

** According to my edition, 'Yabeitz' is identified by Rashi as Otniel ben Kenaz, Calev's son-in-law and one of the early shoftim post-Yehoshua, which would explain why the midrash is structured in this way as in the text of Shoftim Otniel ben Kenaz first comes to prominence just before the proof-text used for Source 1) above. However, if we start looking at all the proof-texts brought by the midrash, they do become rather confusing in terms of translations/places/chronology. The best way of approaching this particular midrash is therefore to take it on its own terms and not worry about any obvious anachronisms etc...

***again, this is a double-meaning which I have translated myself, as it is not reflected in the 'official' transation I am using!

Beshallach - the Heart of the Matter

B"H

Full text here as usual.

1) Midrash Tanchuma Beshallach, Chapter 17

הים לא היה לו לב וניתן לו לב. האלה לא היה לה לב וניתן לה לב, שנאמר, עודנו חי בלב האלה (ש"ב יח יד). השמים לא היה להן לב וניתן להן לב, שנאמר, וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים (דברי' ד יא). יבא הים שלא היה לו לב ונתן לו לב, ויפרע מן המצרים שהיה להם לב ושעבדו ישראל בכל מיני פורעניות. תבא האלה שלא היה לה לב ונתן לה לב, ויפרע מאבשלום שהיה לו לב, וגנב שלש לבבות, לב אביו ולב בית דין ולבב אנשי ישראל, ויבואו השמים שלא היה להן לב ונתן להם לב, ויורידו המן לישראל שיש להן לב וקבלו את התורה בכל לב ואהבו את קונם בכל לב

 

2) Rashi on Shemot 15:8

בלב ים: בחוזק הים, ודרך המקראות לדבר כן (דברים ד יא) עד לב השמים, (שמואל ב' יח יד) בלב האלה, לשון עקרו ותקפו של דבר:

3) Shmuel 18:14

וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹאָב לֹא-כֵן אֹחִילָה לְפָנֶיךָ וַיִּקַּח שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁבָטִים בְּכַפּוֹ וַיִּתְקָעֵם בְּלֵב אַבְשָׁלוֹם עוֹדֶנּוּ חַי בְּלֵב הָאֵלָה

4) Devarim 4:11

וַתִּקְרְבוּן וַתַּעַמְדוּן תַּחַת הָהָר וְהָהָר בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ עַד-לֵב הַשָּׁמַיִם חֹשֶׁךְ עָנָן וַעֲרָפֶל.

Apologies for the delay...this week's offering is still a bit more 'discursive' than before. I might stick to this style from now on, partially because from Shemot onwards the Torah itself (and therefore the midrashim) seem to be much less character-driven than in Bereishit, which means a different way of interpreting and writing about the midrashim is required. We'll see how it settles down...

Chapter 17 of this week's Midrash Tanchuma focuses on one pasuk from the Song forming the central part of Beshallach - 'kapu tochomot b'lev yam' (the depths froze/congealed in the heart of the sea - Shemot 15:8). The midrash mainly expands on the rather mysterious statement that three natural entities- the Sea of Beshallach, the terebinth/oak tree in which Avshalom dies a rather nasty death dangling by his hair (source 3)*, and the Heavens at the time of matan Torah on Sinai (source 4) - did not originally have a lev (heart) but were given these (presumably by G-d, although this is not specified!). 

Having made this statement, the midrash then goes on to expand upon the reasons why these three entities were given a lev. In the cases of the Sea and the terebinth, this was done in order to punish the Egyptians and Avshalom respectively - the Egyptians drown in the Sea because they had a lev and they enslaved Bnei Yisrael, while Avshalom is speared alive because he deceived his father, the Beth Din (Sanhedrin) and the people of Israel into giving him adherents as part of an attempted coup against his father. However the purpose of the Heavens being given a lev is not to punish, but to reward the Bnei Israel for their acceptance of the Torah and love of G-d 'b'chal lev' by sending down the manna to feed them. 

There are a few odd things here, especially for an English reader. To start with, while we know the Rabbis don't need much of an excuse to hook a nice little homily onto a pasuk, if we are reading in translation one could easily just take the phrase 'b'lev yam' on which the midrash is based as a metaphor for 'in the middle/centre of the sea' without having to explain any further what 'lev' means. So the fact that the midrash feels the need to expand on this suggests that in Hebrew there is a deeper meaning to 'lev' than may be immediately obvious(even for someone reading the text in the original Hebrew rather than in translation). Secondly, the word 'lev' in this midrash is used in the singular throughout, even when being attributed to plural entities e.g. the Heavens, the Egyptians, the Beit Din, the people of Israel. 

Rashi's comments on this pasuk (source 2), which are obviously made with this midrash in mind, explain that the phrase' b'lev...' is a common Biblical idiom referring to the 'root/essence/strength' of something (again, I am relying on translation here!). This interpretation could explain both the deeper meaning of 'lev' and why it might appear in our midrash in the singular - if it is describing the 'essence' of the Egyptians etc. as an entity it would be more appropriate to use the singular than the plural. 

However (thirdly ;-), in explaining why the Sea/terebinth/Heavens were each given a 'lev' the midrash seems to differentiate between simply having a 'lev' and the actions carried out by the person/people having the 'lev' which justified their being rewarded or punished. For example, the Egyptians are punished 'she'hayah lahem lev v'shibdu Yisrael...[my emphasis]'. Rashi's definition of 'lev' does not seem to fit this usage, unless we read the midrash as saying that the essence of the Egyptians/Avshalom/B'nei Israel is in fact their respectively enslaving B'nei Yisrael/deceiving people who trust him/accepting the Torah.**

The other problem is that this way of reading 'lev' as meaning the 'essence' of things means that we are still left with a problem in reading this midrash - howe can it claim that the natural entities of the Sea/terebinth/Heavens started out without a lev but were given these for the purpose of rewarding or punishing people? The fact that these entities do not have a lev to begin with suggests that there is something about having a lev which is intrinsic to human beings and not to natural entities, which instead have to be given it for a reason. 

In order to appreciate the midrash, in addition to Rashi's comments we therefore also have to take into account an ethical facet to lev as being the peculiarly human attribute of free will and the source of choosing between right and wrong. This perhaps also explains the wording of the midrash above - the Egyptians and Avshalom are punished precisely because they have a lev but choose to oppress and deceive others, while the Bnei Israel are rewarded because at Sinai they choose to wholeheartedly (!) accept the Torah and love G-d. The natural entities mentioned in the midrash are therefore given an ethical dimension or lev because of the role they play in punishing or rewarding others - the Sea brings death to the oppressing Egyptians, the Heavens provide life and sustenance to the B'nei Israel. In the most complex example of this, the terebinth in Shmuel Beth practices a form of 'deception' on Avshalom first by trapping him, then by being connected with his staying alive after what should have been a fatal blow through his own lev - not in order to save him, but rather to prolong his suffering before death at the hands of Yoav's soldiers.

The message? Well, the midrash's point is basically homilectical - behave in a certain and G-d will use nature to give you what you deserve. But perhaps just as importantly, this is another example of how a metaphor in Torah is never as simple as it seems...

Shavua tov from snowy London!

RPT

*Basically Avshalom, having been caught in the terebinth by his hair while his mount rides out from underneath him, gets skewered through the heart by Yoav before being set upon by the other soldiers while somehow still remaining alive 'in the heart of the terebinth' after Yoav's blow. Not a nice way to go.

**Fourthly, there is also the oddity of the wording 'v'yipara min ha mitzrim/me'Avshalom' regarding the Egyptians/Avshalom being punished which sounds as if it should be translated as 'from the Egyptians/Avshalom' in some way...however, I don't have a answer for this. Any ideas?