Interlude - Learning as a Segula?

 BS"D

A woman walks into a sefarim store...

No, this isn't the start of a joke. Bookshops - Jewish or otherwise - are my happy place. Alas, I don't often get to visit one these days. However, for various reasons I had to kill some time outside the house last week - so of course I wound up (not for the first time) browsing in my local sefarim store. 

These days I try to 'browse with purpose'. One of those purposes being to find useful translated commentaries for this blog - so, focusing on Sefer Bereishit for now - that aren't available online. So when I saw several shiny new Artscroll volumes of something called the Zera Shimshon on the Chumash, I decided to check it out. 

A brief history lesson for those not already in the know (I wasn't). The Zera Shimshon, or Rabbi Shimshon Chaim Nachmani, was a late-18th century Italian rabbi and kabbalist who lived around the same time as the better known Ramchal (Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto) and the Or HaChaim (Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar). His only son/child, lo aleinu, passed away in his lifetime leaving him childless. Realising he would have no descendants, he turned to books as his legacy, penning the Zera Shimshon - a series of essays commenting on Chumash and the five Megillot - and the Toldot Shimshon, a commentary on Pirkei Avot. 

On a skim read, he does bring some interesting ideas. There's an essay or two on Eliezer learning Torah as a slave and wanting to marry his own daughter to Yitzchak (so trying to sabotage his mission as matchmaker). There's an interesting take on Avraham as the father of all gerim and the 'souls that Avraham and Sara made in Charan'*. And there's an ongoing theme about Yosef arguing with his brothers over whether they were Noachides or Jews. Worth revisiting. 

However, what triggered this post was something else. In the middle of my reading, the shop owner wanders over and starts talking about how it is a segula to learn this sefer; many wonderful things have happened to people who learnt this sefer; look at this other book by R' Nachman Seltzer with stories about people who learnt this sefer (together with extracts from the sefer itself). And so on. 

I nod politely with my 'That's nice, dear' face on. But inside, I'm a bit upset. Why on earth should learning a Torah commentary have a segula attached to it? Why not just learn it for its own sake?!

It bothered me enough that I tried to find out more online. Some news articles shed more light - see, for example:

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/1402235/segulah-zera-shimshon-inside-story.html 

and 

https://www.chevrahlomdeimishnah.org/zera-shimshon-revisited/ (an extract from another R' Seltzer book). 

Now, learning Torah is generally considered to be a Good Thing. So is healing from sickness, infertility, or any other suffering. But card-carrying rationalist Jew that I am, I see a problem here. 

The Zera Shimshon wanted to leave a legacy through his sefarim. But books, alone, are no guarantee of a legacy. Even in the days of the printing press, they are physically vulnerable to fire, mould, decay, or just getting lost. Furthermore, if your audience is limited to a small pool of scholars with the time and expertise to read your book, then the greater the risk that it gets forgotten and lost in obscurity. 

The Zera Shimshon would have been aware of this danger - by all accounts, this is what actually happened to his work until recently. I'm 99.9% sure that the blessing in his Introduction for those who study his sefer is just that - a pious plea to actually learn and engage with his work to safeguard his legacy and memory. The 'promise' of seeing 'your children's children' 'like olive shoots around your table' is a clear homage to Tehillim 128 - and there are no doubt other references to Tanakh which a learned reader would recognise. All of which sounds and feels completely normal as the dedication for a work of Torah commentary. 

However, Camp Segula are apparently reading this 'promise' literally. In a classic act of magical thinking, the reasoning seems to be - if you learn this sefer, or are even just involved in distributing this sefer to others, wonderful things will happen to you and all your suffering will go away! It feels like the earlier fad for 'brachot parties' within some Sephardi circles**. And not a million miles away, l'havdil, from the Catholic culture of saints or wider superstitions around demons, fairies and other Unworldly Things. 

And this approach seems to be tacitly encouraged by those responsible for spreading the Zera Shimshon's work. R' Nachman Seltzer himself gives contradictory views. On the one hand, in the very last paragraph of the Yeshiva World article above (after a lot of breathless segula excitement), he is quoted as saying the main point should be to learn the sefer for its own sake, with any segula or yeshua being treated as a happy side effect. On the other hand, in the extract from his own work (see second link above) he states: 

"Zera Shimshon is a gift. A special present from Hashem. Obviously, this is not meant to replace our davening. On the contrary, R’ Nachmani has provided us with a completely unique channel of tefillah. He was grateful to any person who learned his Torah and was willing to go to great lengths to help that person. And he did. And he does. Learning Zera Shimshon is like having a truly influential friend intercede for you in the corridors of power, just when you need it most. It’s like being able to hire and afford the best, most expensive lawyer in the world. This gift is truly something to take advantage of." 

I've bolded part of the above as it waves a bunch of red flags. Again, the spirit of a long-dead rabbi actively helping people and 'interceding' for them with Hashem doesn't sound too distant from a Catholic saint. To my mind, it also treads dangerously close to the halachic minefield of whether we can pray for the dead or angels to do exactly this. 

"But what's the harm?" I hear you cry. "It's just a different derech! If the end result is that more people are learning Torah with the Zera Shimshon, isn't that a good thing?"

Well, other than the halachic concerns above, it puts me in mind of this powerful post from R' Slifkin after Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt"l passed away earlier this year. To apply the same logic - plenty of people today claim to be upholding the legacy of the Zera Shimshon, but which one? The learned talmid chacham with rich and novel insights into the Torah? Or the magical saint with supernatural powers to cure all ills from beyond the grave?

RPT

PS Reader, I didn't buy the sefer. However, it is on my 'want to buy' list, along with Artscroll's Bereishit Rabba translation and an as-yet-unknown translation of the Abarbanel (if you know of one, please shout). So if you see the Zera Shimshon cropping up in later posts, you'll know why...

*As seems to crop up in kabbalistic commentaries, this is a bit X-rated - so I'm not sure it'll make it onto the blog!

**Basically, a group of women get together with different foods, and take it in turns to say a bracha over some food out loud as a segula for healing someone, helping someone find a shidduch etc. etc. This turns the bracha from an act of thanksgiving to G-d (the original intent) to a magic formula for making something good happen. To my mind this is a problem. But hey, it's only wimmin doing it...

Terach - Life in Limbo

 B"H

Some confessions. 

When I first started thinking about Terach, I'd linked the death of his son Haran to Terach's settling, and eventually dying, in Haran on the basis that the person and the place were the same. Unfortunately, I'd made the schoolboy (girl?!) error of not looking properly at the original Hebrew. When I did, I realised that Haran the person and Haran - or rather, Charan - the place are spelt with a hey and a chet respectively. Oops.

After this, I read carefully through the text again. I also Googled around a bit to see what others had written about Terach. Amazingly - or frustratingly - I found that most of the interesting textual details I'd picked up on in my own rereading had 'Already Been Written About By Someone Else'. In this case, this excellent article by Dr Yoshi Fargeon delves into far more detail than I ever could on the 'p'shat' text about Terach and the questions this raises. The only place where I diverge significantly from him is his answer as to why Terach ended up staying in Charan.

So, I'll give my own thoughts a shot - but instead of reinventing the wheel too much I'll pass you over to Dr Fargeon's article when relevant (so worth keeping open alongside). Enjoy. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

בראשית י״א:כ״ד-ל״ב

(כד) וַיְחִ֣י נָח֔וֹר תֵּ֥שַׁע וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־תָּֽרַח׃ (כה) וַיְחִ֣י נָח֗וֹר אַחֲרֵי֙ הוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־תֶּ֔רַח תְּשַֽׁע־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה וּמְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ {ס} (כו) וַֽיְחִי־תֶ֖רַח שִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֙וֹלֶד֙ אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָֽן׃ (כז) וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח תֶּ֚רַח הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָ֑ן וְהָרָ֖ן הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־לֽוֹט׃ (כח) וַיָּ֣מׇת הָרָ֔ן עַל־פְּנֵ֖י תֶּ֣רַח אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מוֹלַדְתּ֖וֹ בְּא֥וּר כַּשְׂדִּֽים׃ (כט) וַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָ֧ם וְנָח֛וֹר לָהֶ֖ם נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־אַבְרָם֙ שָׂרָ֔י וְשֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־נָחוֹר֙ מִלְכָּ֔ה בַּת־הָרָ֥ן אֲבִֽי־מִלְכָּ֖ה וַֽאֲבִ֥י יִסְכָּֽה׃ (ל) וַתְּהִ֥י שָׂרַ֖י עֲקָרָ֑ה אֵ֥ין לָ֖הּ וָלָֽד׃ (לא) וַיִּקַּ֨ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת־ל֤וֹט בֶּן־הָרָן֙ בֶּן־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֨וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃ (לב) וַיִּהְי֣וּ יְמֵי־תֶ֔רַח חָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים וּמָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּ֥מׇת תֶּ֖רַח בְּחָרָֽן׃ {פ}

Genesis 11:24-32

(24) When Nahor had lived 29 years, he begot Terah. (25) After the birth of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and begot sons and daughters. 

(26) When Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. (27) Now this is the line of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. (28) Haran died in the lifetime of his father Terah, in his native land, Ur of the Chaldeans. (29) Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves, the name of Abram’s wife being Sarai and that of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah. (30) Now Sarai was barren, she had no child. (31) Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there. (32) The days of Terah came to 205 years; and Terah died in Haran.

Imagine that you are reading - or hearing - the Torah for the first time. You know nothing about Avraham and his importance as the first of the Avot. You know none of the midrashim about Avraham smashing his father Terach's idols. All you have is the text above, with no knowledge of what is to come after. 

This passage comes at the end of a genealogical list - the line of descent from Shem to Terach. We've already seen an earlier example of this - the line from Adam to Noach. That, too, ended with the names of Noach's three sons (not just his first-born), before a new section reiterating 'the generations of Noach' and his three sons then expanding into the tale of the Flood. So, too, here we see a new section repeating 'the generations of Terach' and his three sons before expanding into more details about them. From this perspective, Terach is clearly supposed to be an important figure - at least as important as Noach.  

The real challenge for us in trying to understand Terach's story is that this is precisely not the way we normally approach it. We already know the 'spoilers'. Abram and Sarai will become Avraham and Sarah, the founders of the Jewish nation - and that's even without the famous idol-smashing midrash which everyone apparently learns at school. So the usual approach as far back as Chazal is to treat Avraham, not Terach, as the central figure here.*

So, what happens if we follow the Torah's lead and actually centre Terach in his own story?

Noach's history includes G-d's decision to bring the Flood, His instructions to Noach to build the Ark to save his family and the animals etc., and an account of the Flood itself. All of humanity other than Noach's immediate family is destroyed. This is clearly a traumatic event - but throughout it all, Noach's own legacy is never put in danger. He and his sons enter the Ark with their wives (even if they remain separated). On exit, they are blessed and told to multiply. The 'whole world' branches out from Noach's three sons, with no apparent difficulties in bearing children or carrying on the line to future generations. 

Terach's history is markedly different. We are told of his three sons and a grandson, Lot. In the next breath, Haran - Lot's father - dies 'before the face' of his father Terach. Terach's surviving sons marry their dead brother's daughters**, and we immediately hear that Abram's wife Sarai is 'barren', without a child. In stark contrast to Noach, Terach's succession and the continuity of his family hangs by a thread. While the Torah doesn't state it outright, his only hope of further grandchildren at this point seems to be via his third son Nahor. 

And it is precisely the part of his family whose continuity is most at stake that Terach takes with him when he sets out for Canaan in the next verse - his childless son and daughter-in-law Abram and Sarai, and Lot, the only heir from his dead son Haran. Nahor, Terach's only viable 'insurance option', does not appear in this journey.*** Perhaps based on this, the Abarbanel suggests that Terach left for Canaan because he thought his residence in Ur Kasdim was the source of his family's woes and living in Canaan would improve matters****. 

However, Terach never makes it to Canaan - he settles in Charan, and dies there. Why?

Dr Fargeon contrasts the start of Terach's journey with that of Avram to suggest that Terach, having left with nothing beyond his family, was turned aside by the wealth and comforts of Charan (which was likely a trading centre at the time). I want to offer another suggestion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Becoming Jewish is not an overnight process. The halachic steps to transform a non-Jew into a Jew are quick enough - immersion in a mikveh before a Beth Din, preceded by circumcision (for males only). However, nowadays this usually comes after months if not years of formal study under the supervision of a rabbi or Beth Din, and even longer periods of exploration and soul-searching before approaching a Beth Din in the first place. 

Being a 'wannabe Jew' during this transitional time is an odd experience. If you don't live near an active Jewish community, you end up relying on books or the internet for guidance, cobbling together a semblance of Jewish practice without fully knowing what the real thing looks like.  If you do hang out around an active community, you must deal with the constant reminders that you are an outsider looking in. Not being able to take part in a minyan or rituals where Jewish status matters. For singletons, not being able to date or move on with your life while your Jewish friends are getting married and having children. The awkward dance around Seder night and other Yom Tov invites, or avoiding non-mevushal wine. And all the while, the confusion over how to define yourself to the outside world when explaining why you keep kosher or Shabbat. Do you just say you are Jewish without going into details? Do you explain your conversion process? Or find an entirely different label for yourself - such as ethical monotheist or Noachide?*****

I started young, so spent over a decade in this limbo land. I was lucky enough to complete my transition into Jewishness fairly smoothly once I hit the right age. But not everyone makes it. Sometimes poverty, lack of job opportunities or health issues prevent them from moving to a suitable Jewish community. Sometimes family holds them back - a spouse or children who refuse to cooperate or even actively interfere with their attempts to live a Jewish life. And sometimes, they wrestle with their own psychological demons or barriers - or simply do what humans do all too easily, which is adapt to the situation we find ourselves in then struggle to leave it behind. 

For whatever reason, people can get stuck in transition. And sadly, some never make it out before passing away.

Terach reminds me of this. The Torah doesn't mention G-d speaking to Terach - so while the Abarbanel's explanation above sits best with the p'shat of the text, we never know exactly why he sets out on his journey. Clearly something drove him to start the journey - but once he reached Charan and settled there, something also prevented him from moving on before his death. 

Interestingly, an academic source gives the etymology of Charan as being a 'road' or a 'crossroads' (see here). This makes practical sense if Charan was a trading centre. But perhaps we can also read Terach's sitting and dying in Charan metaphorically. Driven by the trauma of family loss and uncertainty, he recognises a change is needed, starts down a new path but gets 'stuck' both physically and psychologically, unable to raise himself up and move forwards towards his intended destination. And there he remains for the rest of his life, in the 'neither here nor there' of the crossroads. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what of Avraham? Once the Torah concludes Terach's life, we see G-d speaking to Avraham for the first time with the famous command 'lech lecha' - to go forth to an unknown land, with G-d's blessing. 

As we all know, Avraham obeys - but constantly struggles with G-d's promise of a legacy and a great nation to come from him.  The immediate cause of Avraham's angst is obvious - Sarah's infertility. But Avraham would also have been keenly aware of the defining features of his father Terach's life, as told by the Torah - the loss of a child, a precarious family line of succession, and death without ever reaching the finishing line. Remembering this background gives greater poignancy to Avraham's doubts and pleadings for reassurance from G-d about His promises. 

But there is also room for hope here. As Dr Fargeon points out, despite the uncertainties of succession in his own life Terach ends up as our ultimate 'Av' - the ancestor not just of our Avot, but also of our Imahot and, via Lot and Moab, the Davidic line that will lead to Moshiach. 

"He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; [...] And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come." (Pirke Avot 2:16)

Shana tova!

RPT

* You can see this approach in Part I of Dr Fargeon's article. As he and others point out, even the famous teaching from Pirke Avot (5:2) that there were ten generations from Adam to Noach and ten generations from Noach to Avraham is not actually true - if you start the count at Noach himself (rather than his son Shem), the tenth generation is Terach!

** Sarah is traditionally identified as Yiskah, the second daughter of Haran mentioned in our text - although the Shadal does speculate that they are two different people and Yiskah was the second wife of Nahor!

*** Given subsequent events with Nahor's descendants Rivka and Laban in Charan, there is a debate over whether Nahor had already settled in Charan or moved there at a later stage. The Shadal (who pops up with a lot of interesting commentary here) also posits that Nahor and his wife/wives were in fact part of the family group who left with Terach. 

**** Based on a footnote in Dr Fargeon's article - I haven't yet found an English translation of the Abarbanel. If you know of one, please shout. 

***** Yes, this is a thing. There are real life individuals and even communities of Noachides nowadays, possibly aided by the internet. While I cannot vouch for them, here is an example - https://www.netivonline.org/ 

Enoch - Beyond Human

 BS"D

בראשית ה׳:כ״א-כ״ד

(כא) וַֽיְחִ֣י חֲנ֔וֹךְ חָמֵ֥שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־מְתוּשָֽׁלַח׃ (כב) וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנ֜וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹקִ֗ים אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ (כג) וַיְהִ֖י כׇּל־יְמֵ֣י חֲנ֑וֹךְ חָמֵ֤שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ (כד) וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ חֲנ֖וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹקִ֑ים וְאֵינֶ֕נּוּ כִּֽי־לָקַ֥ח אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹקִֽים׃ {ס}

Genesis 5:21-24

"(21) When Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah. (22) After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with G-d 300 years; and he begot sons and daughters. (23) All the days of Enoch came to 365 years. (24) Enoch walked with G-d; then he was no more, for G-d took him."

Chapter 5 of Bereshit traces Adam's descendants through his third son Seth, for the ten generations from Adam himself to Noach. Most of the chapter follows a set format - in English: 'when A had lived for X years, he begot B. After the birth of B, A lived for Y years and begot sons and daughters. All the days of A came to Z years, then he died.' Rinse and repeat for B, C, D and so on. 

With one glaring exception*. Enoch/Chanoch. 

Enoch's life is captured in a mere four verses, but these break the established rhythm in two key places. After his first son is born, Enoch didn't just live for Y years - he 'walked with G-d' . And at the end of his mere 365 years he didn't just 'die' - he 'walked with G-d; then he was no more, for G-d took him'. 

What's happening here? What does it mean to 'walk with G-d'? What is so different about Enoch's death? And why - given our tradition that a reward for being righteous is a long life - does it happen at such a relatively young age compared to everyone else in this chapter? 

The traditional 'go-to' commentary on this is Rashi. Here, Rashi comments:

רש"י על בראשית ה׳:כ״ד:א׳

ויתהלך חנוך. צַדִּיק הָיָה וְקַל בְּדַעְתּוֹ לָשׁוּב לְהַרְשִׁיעַ, לְפִיכָךְ מִהֵר הַקָּבָּ"ה וְסִלְּקוֹ וֶהֱמִיתוֹ קֹדֶם זְמַנּוֹ, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁשִּׁנָּה הַכָּתוּב בְּמִיתָתוֹ לִכְתֹּב וְאֵינֶנּוּ בָּעוֹלָם – לְמַלְּאוֹת שְׁנוֹתָיו ‏(בראשית רבה):

Rashi on Genesis 5:24:1

"ויתהלך חנוך AND ENOCH WALKED [WITH G-D] — He was a righteous man, but his mind was easily induced to turn from his righteous ways and to become wicked. The Holy One, blessed be He, therefore took him away quickly and made him die before his full time. This is why Scripture uses a different expression when referring to his death by writing ואיננו “and he was not”, meaning, he was not in the world to complete the number of his years."

In short - according to Rashi, Enoch died young because, despite being a tzadik, he was too weak-minded to avoid 'falling off the derech'. Personally, I'd call this damning with faint praise.

However, this doesn't feel like the whole story. Enoch's unique trait here seems to be that he 'walked with G-d', a phrase which the Torah sees fit to repeat within the space of three verses. This feels like overkill for someone who is simply a 'good man who is prone to go astray'. And indeed, when we dig into other commentaries and midrashim, a fuller picture of Enoch emerges. 

Enoch was an expert in calculating the calendar - intercalation - a tradition received from Adam and passed on to Noah (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 8:2). The number of years he lived - 365 - closely matches the number of days in a solar year. Enoch's appreciation of the solar cycle and astronomy is closely tied to his tzadik status and his relationship with G-d (Rabbeinu Bahya here and here).   

Things get stranger the deeper we move into mystical territory. Targum Jonathan explains the odd wording around Enoch's 'death' as meaning that he didn't actually die - instead, he was 'withdrawn', ascended to Heaven, and renamed Metatron (who pops up elsewhere in aggada as an angel). The Sefer HaYashar gives us a potted history of Enoch - after an initial period of separation from human society, he 'returns to the world' at G-d's command to become a religious leader over many kings and nations. Following Adam's death, Enoch starts gradually withdrawing from society again. Eventually, an angel summons him to Heaven to rule over 'b'nei haElokim' (the 'sons of G-d'). Enoch rides for six days on a heavenly horse, with some followers insisting on accompanying him, then ascends into Heaven on the seventh day in a fiery chariot leaving behind a trail of snow and ice blocks (were these what was left of the followers? I'm not sure). Methusaleh continues his father Enoch's reign until people start turning away from G-d again, resulting in the Flood. 

Set against Rashi, this seems odd. How could a saintly religious leader who merits ruling over heavenly beings be too weak to resist sin on Earth? On the other hand, the whole idea of a human who goes up to Heaven alive and becomes some sort of angel or divine being sounds, well, not very Jewish.**

 Can we reconcile both traditions? Let's try.

To me, there are a couple of ways of reading Rashi. The first - and simplest - is to take his comment that Enoch was 'kal beda’ato lashuv l'harshia' at face value. Enoch didn't necessarily start out as a tzadik (as implied by lashuv, to return) - even if he did, he was fickle, volatile, and at risk of falling into evil. In other words, he was in danger of burnout. 

We all know people like this. The classic stereotype is of BTs - ba'alei teshuva - who embrace their newfound religiosity with zeal, only to crash and give up when faced with a crisis or on discovering that they cannot maintain their high level of devotion amidst the banality of everyday life. But the same personality type can be found across our community, whether as BTs, converts or 'frum from birth' Jews.

The second reading takes into account the mystical traditions surrounding Enoch. The Sefer HaYashar describes Enoch withdrawing from human society for prayer and contemplation twice during his life. The first time, he only returns at G-d's command. The second time ends with his 'ascent to Heaven'. Either way, despite fathering children and his role as a religious leader and teacher, Enoch is clearly drawn to solitude and separation from his fellow man. 

This character trait also ties with the traditions making Enoch an expert in astronomy. While our understanding of space changes over time, the actual behaviour of the Sun, stars and planets is fixed, determined by forces beyond our control. Crucially, it is also predictable once you have the right knowledge (hence calendars).  By contrast, humans and human behaviour are messy, illogical, at times deceptive, and not always predictable. 

This points to Enoch's problem. 'No man is an island' - therefore, it is not enough for us to be an exemplary person in isolation. From childhood, we also need to learn how to behave around others and how to avoid, not just mistreating others, but also mistakenly doing wrong under the influence of others.  

Enoch, the hermit stargazer, might therefore have risked falling into wickedness - not because he knew it was wrong but was too weak to resist, but because he was so disconnected from humanity that he could no longer recognise being in danger of doing wrong. Others could have taken advantage of him through deception - equally, he could have sinned by simply failing to understand other people's behaviour. 

So, should we be taking Enoch as a role model? The mystical traditions treat Enoch's 'disconnection' from the human world as a sign of holiness, which may even have led to him morphing into an angel. Rashi, and the other commentators noted below, seem more ambivalent.

 
In any case, we can draw our own conclusions from the Torah itself. Despite the midrashic accounts of Enoch drawing many nations to worshipping G-d, it's clear that this religious movement didn't survive. At most, it only lasted until the death of Enoch's own long-lived son Methusaleh. By that point, things were so bad that the only 'solution' was the Flood – and a fresh start with Enoch's great-grandson and fellow ‘walker with G-d’, Noach.

RPT

*OK, it's not the only exception - but the only other times this format is broken is for Adam and Noach, i.e. the start and the end of the chain. From a literary perspective, this is easily explained as Adam and Noach are clearly important figures in the narrative. There is no obvious reason why Enoch should have the same treatment - so the Torah must have a reason for drawing our attention to him.      

**There is an apocryphal Book of Enoch which was apparently associated with non-Rabbinic groups such as the Essenes, and included concepts which later made their way into Christianity. Given this, I wouldn't be surprised if Rashi's comment is an attempt to push back against this legacy. Several other commentators (Ibn Ezra; Chizkuni; possibly Radak) also try to downplay the mystical 'ascending to Heaven alive' tradition by emphasising that Enoch simply died young. But I really don't know enough about this to comment further...

Hadran Alach

 B"SD

On completing a tractate of Gemara, it's traditional to recite the text Hadran Alach. Ideally this should be at a siyum (I've never actually managed this). 

I've no idea whether this applies to midrash, or to completing a 'study cycle' in blog form.  However, in the spirit of a siyum I want to pause and take stock before the next stage - of which, more later! 

If you're new, it's worth visiting my first post in 2011 for more about myself and why I started this blog. Basically, I had just finalised my conversion after over a decade of being a 'wannabe Jew' and went "Now what?" Blogging about midrash was part of the answer. 

I originally aimed to cover a chapter from the Midrash Tanchuma about each weekly parsha i.e. one post a week. As you can see from the post dates that quickly fell by the wayside because, well, life happened. More specifically: getting engaged then married to the ever-patient DS, a couple of flat moves, dealing with a crazy job/commute, doing professional qualifications, trying to do Daf Yomi and getting talked into LSJS's Bradfield programme*. Something had to give, and alas it was this blog.** 

Cue 2021 and mat leave for kid #2. I needed some projects to keep me sane while looking after a baby. Thanks to one of our local shuls***, I'd already got back into regular learning and started editing (and sometimes writing) the parsha section for the shul newsletter - both of which were making me itch to restart the blog. I got an idea for a new direction, but felt it was important to finish what I'd started first. So one of my 'mat leave projects' became finishing off the Midrash Tanchuma cycle from Ki Tetze up until V'zot HaBeracha (which was actually completed nearly two months after returning to work...)****. 

Things I've learnt:

• Some people can come up with a drasha at the drop of a hat. I can't. When I write a drasha, it usually takes a few weeks of reading and mulling over in my head before I actually set fingers to keyboard. Even back in 2011, trying to read, absorb, and write about complex midrashic texts in under a week proved a challenge - hence all the apologies for delayed posts. 

Nowadays, being a working mum of two under-5s makes weekly posts impossible. Even this one has taken most of the Omer to get out. So going forwards, I'm not setting myself any particular deadline for a post but will just write and update when I can.  

• Sources are still an issue. On the one hand, if I'm not writing about an easily available text like the parsha, I need to provide these somehow - especially as the whole point is usually close reading of the text. On the other hand, a blog is not a live class where you can simultaneously read a source sheet and listen to the teacher. In a blog, you are only using your eyes - and I worry that dumping a chunk of source text at the start of a post isn't great for readers. I've mostly kept to that format for the Midrash Tanchuma posts, but for Part II will try and play around with this a bit. 

• Sefaria was still in its infancy during 2012-2013. Back then, writing a post meant a convoluted process of reading through the midrash in my printed book, finding an online source which (hopefully) had the same version, then painstakingly identifying and copying over the relevant Hebrew sources and the translation. In some cases, I remember having to type out the translation myself from the book. I probably spent at least as long on this as actually writing the post itself, and some of the links I used may no longer work (sorry!). 

Nowadays, the entire Midrash Tanchuma - with translation - is easily accessible on Sefaria, which makes putting together sources a breeze. It's also extremely helpful for looking up linked commentaries and texts, even if not everything is translated (yet). I'll hopefully use it much more in Part II - in the meantime, if you don't already donate to Sefaria please consider becoming a donor...

• Writing style. Again, I'm still playing around with this. I've found it depends on whether I end up with a traditional 'and here is the lesson we can take from the midrash' drasha or a 'hey, look at this really cool thing I found in the midrash!!' post. Personally, I enjoy writing the latter more. Hopefully, they're also more interesting to read.

Timing is an issue here is well. I usually write by plopping loads of words onto a page then whittling them down into something readable. This only works if you give yourself the breathing space to revisit, revise and proofread before going 'live'.  When I was trying to keep to a weekly schedule, this wasn't always possible - so some earlier posts ended up as a rambling mess. Oops. 

So...Part II. 

Looking back, it feels like some early posts were my way of working out my identity as a 'freshly minted' Jew. 11 years on, I'm still upfront about my giyoret status and still very much aware of the 'insider/outsider' place this gives me in the community. 

Delving into midrash also made me aware of many examples of gerim beyond the typical triad of Avraham, Sarah and Ruth - as well as other figures who fall into the grey zone between Jew and non-Jew (or, in some cases, proto-Jew). 

For my next project, I want to write some mini-portraits of these figures and their relevance for us today. Names on my list include - Enoch, Terach, Timna, Batya, Orpah, Yitro/Tzipora and Talmudic figures such as Shemaya and Avtalyon, Queen Helene and Valeria. Avraham, Sarah and Ruth will make it in as well, don't worry!

In between, I'll add my own musings about gerut and how gerim fit into the wider Jewish community today. Plus, anything else parsha or midrash-related that might be interesting - I don't want to typecast myself, and one earlier post is probably due a rewrite by now. 

As above, I'm not setting myself any deadlines so can't guarantee how often I'll be posting. If you're interested, watch this space. Hopefully it'll be worth it!

And finally, please do comment so that I know I'm not just posting into the ether...

Shabbat shalom, chag sameach and hadran alach. 

RPT

*I'm not naming names as I'm trying to keep the blog semi-anonymous. If you're reading this and were involved, then thank you ;-)

**And later, Daf Yomi, which had already turned into 'Sheva Dapim shel Shabbat' even though I was only studying in translation. I did pick up Masechet Niddah at the end of the last cycle because I really really wanted to learn that one. But it'll be a while before I attempt this again...

*** See * above :-)

****It helped that I had some semi-written posts in draft from 2013, but the last 3-4 posts were pretty much done from scratch. Also, if you used to read the blog then the 2021 posts are a good place to jump back in. 

V'zot HaBeracha - Blessing upon Blessing

 B"H

Source 1 - Midrash Tanchuma, V'zot HaBerachah, Chapter 1 (abridged)

וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה. זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת עָשׂוּ חַיִל וְגוֹ' (משלי לא, כט). זוֹ בִּרְכָתוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָאָבוֹת רִאשׁוֹנִים בֵּרְכוּ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד אֶת דּוֹרוֹ, וְלֹא הָיְתָה בָּהֶן כְּבִרְכָתוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה.

(Deut. 33:1:) “And this is the blessing.” This text is related (to Prov. 31:29), “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all.” This is the blessing of Moses, in respect to which you should note that in the case of the earlier generations each and every one blessed his generation, but there was none was like the blessing of Moses.

 שֶׁהֲרֵי נֹחַ בֵּרֵךְ אֶת בָּנָיו וְהָיָה בָּהּ מַחֲלֹקֶת, שֶׁבֵּרֵךְ אֶחָד וְקִלֵּל אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן עֶבֶד לָמוֹ (בראשית ט, כז). יִצְחָק בֵּרֵךְ אֶת יַעֲקֹב וְהָיְתָה בְּבִרְכָתוֹ קְטָטָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִתֶּן לְךָ אֶת בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם (שם כח, ד). וְאָמַר לְעֵשָׂו, בָּא אָחִיךָ בְּמִרְמָה (שם כז, לו), דִּכְתִיב: וַיִּשְׂטֹם עֵשָׂו (שם פסוק מא). יַעֲקֹב בֵּרֵךְ אֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים וְהָיְתָה בָּהֶם קְטָטָה, שֶׁהוֹכִיחַ רְאוּבֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם (שם מט, ד). וְכֵן שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי.

Noah blessed his children, but it contained a divergence, as he blessed one and cursed another, as stated (Gen. 9:27,) “May God enlarge (ypt) Japheth (ypt) [...]; and let Canaan be a slave to them.” Isaac blessed Jacob, but there was strife in it. It is so stated (in Gen. 28:4), “May He give you the blessing of Abraham, but he said to Esau (in Gen. 27:35), “Your brother came with deceit”; and it is stated (in vs. 41), “Then Esau hated Jacob […, and Esau said in his heart, ‘Let the days of mourning for my father come, and I will kill my brother Jacob’].” Jacob blessed the tribes, but there was strife among them, in that he rebuked Reuben, as stated (in Gen. 49:4), “Unstable as water”; and similarly (in vs. 5), “Simeon and Levi [are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords].” 

 וּמִנַּיִן לָמְדוּ הָאָבוֹת לְבָרֵךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְדוֹרוֹ. מִן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, בֵּרְכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה וְגוֹ' וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָם (בראשית א, כז-כח). וְהָיָה מִתְנַהֵג בַּבְּרָכָה עַד שֶׁבָּא דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּבִטְּלוּהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי וְגוֹ' (שם ו, ז). כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא נֹחַ מִן הַתֵּבָה, רָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁבָּטְלָה מֵהֶם מִדַּת בְּרָכָה, חָזַר וּבֵרֵךְ אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיְבָרֵךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וְגוֹ' (שם ט, א). וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם מִתְנַהֵג בְּאוֹתָהּ בְּרָכָה עַד שֶׁבָּא אַבְרָהָם וְהוֹסִיף בְּרָכָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל (שם יב, ב). 

And from where did each and every one of the patriarchs learn to bless his generation? [They learned it] from the Holy One, blessed be He. When he created Adam, He blessed him, as stated (in Gen. 1:27-28), “male and female. Then [God] blessed them.” And the world was maintained by that blessing, until the generation of the flood came, and they cancelled it out, as stated (in Gen. 6:7), “And the Lord said, “I will blot out the humanity which I created.” When Noah left the ark, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that this blessing had passed from them. He blessed Noah and his children anew, as stated (in Gen. 9:1), “Then God blessed Noah and his children.” The world was maintained by this blessing, until Abraham came into the world, and He added blessing, as stated (in Gen. 12:2), “For I will make you into a great nation.” 

כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא אַבְרָהָם, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אֵינוֹ דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁאֶהְיֶה אֲנִי זָקוּק לְבָרֵךְ אֶת בְּרִיּוֹתַי, אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי מוֹסֵר אֶת הַבְּרָכוֹת לְאַבְרָהָם וּלְזַרְעוֹ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁקּוֹבְעִין בּוֹ בְּרָכָה, אֲנִי חוֹתֵם עַל יְדֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה, וַאֲבָרְכָה מְבָרְכֶיךָ וְגוֹ' (שם פסוק ב-ג). וּמַהוּ וַאֲבָרְכָה. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, הֲרֵינִי מוֹסֵר אֶת הַבְּרָכוֹת לְכָל מִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְבָרֵךְ, וַאֲנִי חוֹתֵם עַל יָדֶיךָ. 

Once Abraham came, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “It is not honorable for Me, that I should be obliged to bless My creatures. Rather take note! I am handing over the blessings to Abraham and to his seed, so that for all who they issue a blessing, I am placing my seal upon [those blessings], as stated (in vs. 2, cont.), ‘[I will bless you and magnify your name] and so become a blessing.’” (Vs. 3:) “I will bless those who bless you….” What is the meaning of “I will bless?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Take note. I am handing over the blessings to all whom you bless, and I am sealing [them] through you.” 

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ הַבְּרָכוֹת לְאַבְרָהָם, לָמָּה לֹא בֵּרֵךְ אֶת יִצְחָק. לְפִי שֶׁרָאָה אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁעֵשָׂו יֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר, אִם אֲנִי מְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִצְחָק, הֲרֵי עֵשָׂו מִתְבָּרֵךְ, וְנִמְצָא יַעֲקֹב חָסֵר. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה. לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ כֶּרֶם, נְתָנוֹ לְאָרִיס, וְהָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ הַכֶּרֶם אִילָן שֶׁל חַיִּים מוּדְלֶה עַל גַּב אִילָן שֶׁל סַם הַמָּוֶת, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מַה לַּעֲשׂוֹת. אָמַר, אִם אֶעֱדֹר אוֹתוֹ כֶּרֶם, הֲרֵי אִילָן שֶׁל סַם הַמָּוֶת מִתְגַּדֵּל. וְאִם אֵינִי עוֹדֵר אוֹתוֹ כֶּרֶם, הֲרֵי אִילָן שֶׁל חַיִּים מֵת. אֶלָּא מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה. אֲגַלְגֵּל בַּכֶּרֶם הַזֶּה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם וְיַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַרְמוֹ מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. וְאַף כָּךְ אָמַר אַבְרָהָם, אִם אֲבָרֵךְ אֶת יִצְחָק, נִמְצָא עֵשָׂו מִתְבָּרֵךְ, וְיַעֲקֹב מַפְסִיד. אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי מַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיַעֲשֶׂה אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ.

But if from then on the blessings were [handed over] to Abraham, why did he not bless Isaac? It was because Abraham saw that Esau would issue from him. He said, “If I bless Isaac, then Esau will be blessed, and Isaac will be found lacking.” A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To the head of a household that had a vineyard,[and] gave it to a tenant. And in that vineyard was a tree of life, but it had overgrown a tree having a deadly poison. Now he did not know what to do. He said, “If I cultivate that vineyard, then the tree having a deadly poison will flourish; but if I do not cultivate that vineyard, then the tree of life will die. So what shall I do? I will bear with that vineyard until the owner of the vineyard comes. Then he may do what he wants with his vineyard.” And so also did Abraham say, “If I bless Isaac, Esau will end up being blessed and Jacob will lose out. Rather look here. I will leave him alone until the Holy One, blessed be He, comes, when He will deal with what belongs to Him.” 

 בָּא יַעֲקֹב וְקִבֵּל חֲמִשָּׁה בְּרָכוֹת, שְׁנַיִם מֵאָבִיו, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מַלְאָךְ, וְאַחַת שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. מֵאָבִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק (שם כז, לג). לָמָּה וַיֶּחֱרַד. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּדָת, שֶׁרָאָה גֵּיהִנָּם פָּתוּחַ לְפָנָיו. בִּקֵּשׁ לוֹמַר, אָרוּר יִהְיֶה. חָזַר וְהוֹסִיף בְּרָכָה, וְאָמַר, גַּם בָּרוּךְ יִהְיֶה (בראשית כז, לב), הֲרֵי אַחַת. שְׁנִיָּה, וַיִּקְרָא יִצְחָק אֶל יַעֲקֹב וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתוֹ (שם כח, א). בִּרְכָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֵּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶל יַעֲקֹב וְגוֹ' (שם לה, ט). בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם, וְיִּתֶּן לְךָ אֶת בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם (שם כז, כח). וְשֶׁל מַלְאָךְ, וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתוֹ שָׁם (שם לב, ל).

Jacob came and received five blessings: two from his father, one from Abraham, one from the angel, and one from the Holy One, blessed be He. From his father, as stated (in Gen. 27:33), “Then Isaac trembled (when he realized he had blessed Jacob instead of Esau). Why “trembled?” R. Eliezer ben Pedat said, “[He did so] because he saw Gehinnom open in front of him. He wanted to say, ‘Cursed will be [Jacob.’ Instead,] he went back [on it], and added blessing [to it], when he said (ibid., end), ‘he also shall be blessed.’” Here is one [blessing]. A second (is in Gen. 28:1), “So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him.” The blessing of the Holy One, blessed be He, (is in Gen. 35:9), “Now God appeared unto Jacob [… and blessed him].” The blessing of Abraham (is in Gen. 28:4), “And may He grant you the blessing of Abraham.” And the blessing of an angel is (in Gen. 32:30), “and he (the angel) blessed him there.”

 בָּא יַעֲקֹב לְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים, בֵּרְכָן חָמֵשׁ בְּרָכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בְּיָדוֹ, וְהוֹסִיף לָהֶם בְּרָכָה אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כָּל אֵלֶּה שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' (שם מט, כח).

 When Jacob came to bless the tribes, he blessed them with the five blessings that he had in hand and added one blessing to them, as stated (in Gen. 49:28), “All these are the tribes of Israel, [twelve in number, and this is what their father spoke to them when he blessed them, each one with his own blessing is how he blessed them].”⁴The midrash notes that the words, HE BLESSED THEM, occur twice and interprets the verse to mean that one blessing, the fivefold blessing he had received, was for the tribes as a group while the other blessing was a specific blessing for each tribe. 

 בָּא מֹשֶׁה לְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהוֹסִיף לָהֶם בְּרָכָה שְׁבִיעִית, וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה, תּוֹסֶפֶת עַל הַבְּרָכוֹת שֶׁבֵּרֵךְ בִּלְעָם אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁהָיָה רָאוּי לְבָרְכָן שֶׁבַע בְּרָכוֹת כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחוֹת וְלֹא בֵּרְכָן אֶלָּא שָׁלֹש, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְהִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתָּ בָּרֵךְ זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים (במדבר כד, י). אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רָשָׁע, אַתָּה עֵינֶיךָ צָרָה לְבָרְכָן, אַף אֲנִי מַסְפִּיק עַל יָדְךָ שֶׁתַּשְׁלִים בִּרְכָתְךָ עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל. יָבֹא מֹשֶׁה שֶׁעֵינָיו יָפוֹת לְבָרְכָן, הוּא יְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְעָלָיו אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה, טוֹב עַיִן הוּא יְבֹרָךְ (משלי כב, ט).

When Moses came to bless Israel, he added a seventh blessing to them. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 33:1), “And this is the blessing.” [According to another interpretation, Moses made] an addition to the blessings with which Balaam had blessed Israel, since it was fitting for him to bless them with seven blessings corresponding to the seven altars [he had built]; but [Balaam] only blessed them with three, as stated (in Numb. 24:10), “but here you have even blessed them these three times.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O wicked one, your eye is too jaundiced for you to bless them. Moreover, I am not putting the power in your hand to finish your blessing over Israel. Moses will come, whose eye is fair; then he will bless Israel.” And it is about him that Solomon has said (in Prov. 22:9), “He that has a benevolent eye shall be blessed (ybrk).”

 אֶל תְּהִי קוֹרֵא יְבֹרָךְ, אֶלָּא יְבָרֵךְ. טוֹב עַיִן, זֶה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, שֶׁעֵינָיו יָפוֹת לְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁבֵּרְכָן אַרְבַּע בְּרָכוֹת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת כָּל הַמְּלָאכָה וְהֵנָּה עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' כֵּן עָשׂוּ וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָם מֹשֶׁה (שמות לט, מג). וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה, וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּצְאוּ וַיְבָרְכוּ אֶת הָעָם (ויקרא ט, כ). הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, ה' אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם יוֹסֵף וְגוֹ' (דברים א, יא). הָרְבִיעִית, וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת עָשׂוּ חַיִל וְגוֹ' (משלי לא, כט).

Do not read “ybrk [with vowels meaning] shall be blessed,” but [with vowels meaning] “shall bless.” This refers to Moses our master whose eyes were fair when he blessed Israel, such that he blessed them with [the other] four blessings: The first is (in Exod. 39:43), “When Moses saw all the work […] he blessed them.” The second is (in Lev. 9:23), “Then Moses and Aaron came unto the tent of meeting; and when they came out, they blessed the people….” The third is (in Deut. 1:11), “May the Lord God of your ancestors add [to your numbers a thousand times more than you are and bless you].” The fourth is (here in Deut. 33:1), “And this is the blessing.” It is therefore stated (in Prov. 31:29), “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all.”(Deut. 33:1:) And this is the blessing.” 

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

Apologies, first. This is the last Midrash Tanchuma post before I move on to another project (more of which later). It's also the largest chunk of midrash I've tackled in one go for a while - so much so that I definitely won't be doing it the justice it deserves. The text above is not even the entire MT chapter (albeit most of it) - I've had to break it down into smaller chunks just to make sense of it. Still, having got this far I may as well go out with a challenge...*

So...what do we have here?

If you strip away the multiple layers and threads, the basic idea underpinning this midrash is that Moshe's blessing at the end of his life is as significant as the famous Aishet Chayil - as we sing each Friday night, "Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all". Our midrash then goes on to prove this through a dizzying tour of various blessings throughout the Torah. 

On reading this through, however, a basic question of arithmetic comes up. For most of the way, the midrash seems to build towards Moshe giving seven blessings - hence outdoing everyone else who has blessed us. However, once Bilaam's blessings are brought into the equation, we suddenly end up with Moshe only giving four blessings - yet this is still seen as surpassing all others.  So, how many blessings is Moshe actually credited with - seven, or four?

The first part of the extended midrash (see second para above) shows the potential for blessings to create strife. Noah blessed two of his sons and cursed the third. Yitzhak blessed Yaakov, but this famously led to brotherly hatred as Yaakov 'stole' Esau's blessing as well. Yaakov blessed his sons, but included words of rebuke for Reuven, Shimon and Levi. These are all classic examples of blessings - and the favour, reward and 'chosenness' that goes with these - becoming a 'zero sum game' where one person's blessing is another one's loss.**

The mashal of the 'tree of life' and the poisonous tree interwined with each other in the vineyard - used to explain Avraham's hesitation over blessing Yitzhak - also shows a related concern around blessings in Sefer Bereishit, with the possibility of these having unintended consequences for the future if the 'wrong' person is given strength from a blessing.  

The midrash states that Yaakov received five blessings: "two from his father, one from Abraham, one from the angel, and one from the Holy One, blessed be He." The two blessings from his father Yitzhak were arguably both associated with strife - one being the blessing Yaakov received while pretending to be Esau, and the other being the one he received in his true guise before fleeing Esau's anger. If you disregard these, three untainted blessings remain. Bilaam also only gave three blessings (interestingly, again this is a reduction from the full seven he was supposed to give). Bilaam's three blessings can either be set against or compared to Yaakov's three - I'm not entirely sure how the midrash wants us to see these. However, Moshe gave four blessings over the course of his lifetime - so according to this way of counting, Moshe wins out.

What made the difference with Moshe? It's worth remembering that at a simple level, the context in which he gave his blessings was very different from the current of sibling rivalry running throughout Sefer Bereishit. By the time Moshe comes to lead B'nei Yisrael they are - more or less - united as a nation rather than fighting for covenantal status within a family. 

The midrash, however, takes a different approach by focusing on Moshe's own qualities, specifically, his 'good eye' and the way he used this in his blessings. Moshe made his first two blessings at the time of the successful building and dedication of the Mishkan - in itself a tikkun for the sin of the Golden Calf and a means of unifying B'nei Yisrael around closeness and obedience to G-d - as a way of giving thanks and encouraging the people for their efforts. The third blessing was Moshe putting a positive spin on the people's growth to be like the 'stars' of Avraham's earlier blessing (lest they think he was resentful about the burden this put on him as leader). 

Meanwhile - especially in the light of Yaakov's earlier deathbed blessings - Moshe's final blessings of the tribes could have been seen as divisive for omitting Shimon. However, the Ramban's commentary on the parsha itself explains that Moshe chooses to include both Levi and the 'double tribes' of Ephraim and Menashe precisely to avoid the harm that may have occurred if he had chosen to miss out an important tribe***. Shimon, therefore, was left out not for negative but rather for positive reasons of promoting peace and avoiding strife. 

We can learn from this that it is important to have only positive intentions - namely, a 'good eye' - when giving a blessing, and to ensure that our blessings are meant to be inclusive and promote peace over division and quarrels. 

RPT

* This post was also written in chunks in a rush before going away for Pesach, so may not be as coherent as I'd like!

**Rabbi Sacks zt"l explores this idea extensively in 'Not in my Name' - it's too complex to pull out any specific quote here, but definitely worth a read. 

***See the Ramban on Devarim 33:6 (in which he also extensively argues with the Ibn Ezra's approach to Shimon being missed out of the blessings). 

Basically - the Torah always refers to only 12 tribes and apparently this is important for various symbolic reasons e.g. the 12 signs of the Zodiac, 12 months of the year etc. 

Because Yaakov blessed Yosef with a double portion by counting both his sons as tribes, we end up with a slightly odd situation where you can either count 12 tribes to include Levi and combine both Ephraim and Menashe into a single tribe under Yosef, or count Ephraim and Menashe as separate tribes and miss out Levi (the Ramban brings examples of both cases). In other words, somebody has to be left out to reach the magic number of  '12', otherwise you end up with 13. 

Moshe's challenge here is that he wants to include Levi in the count because, as this tribe is dedicated to serving G-d on behalf of the rest of B'nei Israel, blessing them will cause all the people to be blessed. However, he is also conscious that his successor Joshua is from Ephraim, so he a) wants to make sure Joshua's tribe is blessed and b) doesn't want to offend Menashe (as the elder tribe) by not also mentioning them with their own blessing (the Ramban brings another reason, but this seems more pertinent to the midrash). 

Moshe's solution is count all of Levi, Ephraim and Menashe, and to instead leave Shimon out of the blessings on the basis that they will be scattered amongst the other tribes in Eretz Yisrael and benefit from their blessings. 

Ha'azinu - Once Upon a Time

  B"H

 

The entire midrash text can be found here - it's Siman 8. It is wayyyy too long to paste below, but please do read before diving in (otherwise none of this will make sense). 

You'll also need to refer to Berachot 31b here. 

All translations below courtesy of Sefaria.

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

Part 1

For as long as I can remember, I've loved the world of folktales, myths and legends. An avid bookworm, I grew up with Greek myths, assorted Scottish/British and international fairytales, and general fantasy literature (I think I was 12 when I tackled Lord of the Rings - this was before the films!). Later, I became a Terry Pratchett fan* and spent most of university diving headlong into folk and folk-rock music - to the extent that the work which inspired this blog in the first place (see here) was basically my way of wangling Pratchett and Fairport Convention into an Oxbridge dissertation**. 

So when I first read this midrash, my inner folkie was dancing a jig. After all, if this were a secular fairytale, there's a bucket-load of tropes to get stuck into. We've got:

• Our heroine, the beautiful, virtuous daughter of a rich man (of course), who is apparently cursed with her grooms always dying on their wedding night***;
  
• A poor, struggling woodcutter relative who happens to have exactly ten sons;
• Our hero, the eldest of the said ten sons, who goes to seek his/his family's fortune, is taken in by his uncle, and takes just one week to fall in love with his rich-but-cursed cousin;
  
• Someone being tricked into swearing to something he never ever would have agreed to otherwise (i.e. the rich man into marrying off his daughter again);
• A mysterious elder (Eliyahu) showing up to advise our hero about the Test (see below);
• A poor beggar dressed in black showing up at the wedding feast, with the Test apparently being for our hero to feed him and show him great honour etc. The beggar turns out to be the Angel of Death, obviously;
  
• Multiple bouts of bargaining with said Angel to try and cheat death.

And after all that - the Angel of Death is defeated, the curse is broken, and they all lived happily ever after. Hooray!

But, but, but - the problem is, this isn't just any old fairytale. This is midrash. And while it may not have precisely the same level of holiness as the Torah itself, it still belongs to the sphere of kodesh, on a different plain from secular literature.**** So while an academic could easily gloss over the difference and treat this midrash as 'Jewish exhibit A' for whichever tropes they want to discuss, I cannot in all conscience go down that route. 

So, what to do?

At this point, I turn to the late Rabbi Sacks zt"l and two ideas of his. The first is his famous saying 'aval zeh shelanu' (but this is ours), from an anecdote about an Israeli fisherman comparing the green hills of England with the landscape of the Kinneret. As fascinating as I may find the folk literature of other peoples or cultures, when it comes to midrash - zeh shelanu. Which, to my mind, also means that to do midrash justice it has to be read in the way it was originally intended - within the framework of the Torah and wider Jewish scriptures. 

But that doesn't mean discounting the wider context of myths and fairytales. In his Haggadah and elsewhere, Rabbi Sacks also advanced a theory - challenging Freud's 'Moses and Monotheism' - that Moshe's 'origin story' is in fact an anti-myth, upturning a classical mythic motif about the birth of heroes to teach us a moral lesson about heroism and royalty. Clearly, for this to work we have to be familiar with the motifs challenged by the Torah in the first place. 

Maybe, just maybe, Rabbi Sacks' approach above could also be applied to our midrash? Let's see. 

Part 2

The midrash opens and closes with the ideas that 'the Holy One, blessed be He, guards those tested by Him, like a man guards the pupil of his eye', (hence the link to Ha'azinu) and that 'the Holy One, blessed be He, guards those that have faith in Him' (notably, the 'faith' here is bitachon - active trust - rather than emunah). Presumably the point of the intervening tale is to prove these points. 

The question is - who exactly is being tested here? And who is shown to trust G-d? After all, we have three possibilities - the bride's father, the bride herself, and the groom. 

 The bride's father can be ruled out fairly easily. Despite appearing at the beginning and end, his actual involvement is minimal - he is tricked into marrying off his daughter to his nephew, throws a big party, then (unsurprisingly) gets up the next morning expecting the worst only to discover a happy ending. Is he tested? Possibly, by risking losing his nephew to his daughter's curse. Does he show trust in G-d? Not really, if he still expects to bury his nephew in the morning.

Then we have our hero, the groom. Is he tested? Yes - first by his own poverty, then by being asked to honour a poor beggar at his wedding feast. Does he show bitachon? Yes - he obeys the advice of our 'mysterious stranger' Eliyahu about how to treat the beggar aka Angel of Death, which can be read as a form of trust. 

But there's a problem. I'm 99.9% sure that if you look up this scenario in the Bumper Book of Mythical Motifs*****, honouring a poor beggar at your wedding feast is going to earn you some serious brownie points. Especially if done on the say so of a mysterious adviser who promises as much. But this doesn't actually change the Angel of Death's mind about bumping off the groom. At the most, it buys him enough time to go and tell his bride what's happening. Which, yes, is what saves him, but it's not the immediate reward we might expect. Could this be an anti-fairytale in the making?

And so we come to our heroine, the bride. Is she tested? Most certainly. Does she show bitachon? Yes - but it's the way she shows this which is key to unlocking our midrash. 

The bride speaks out three times. First, in declaring herself a metaphorical agunah (i.e. not to be married to anyone) until G-d shows her mercy. Second, in praying directly to G-d to bring an end to the curse of her grooms dying. Lastly - and most importantly - in challenging the Angel of Death with the following passage:

"She said to him, "He shall not die now - it is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 24:5), 'When a man takes a woman for a wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for his household, to rejoice his wife that he has married.' And the Holy One, blessed be He, is true and His Torah is true, but if you take his soul, you will make the Torah a fraud [te'aseh haTorah pelaster]. [So,] if you accept my words, good; but if not, come with me to the great court."

Note the bold italics. 

Within the world of aggadah, there are several examples of Biblical women arguing with G-d to change what appears to be destiny. Rachel and Leah spring to mind, but the most obvious is Hannah. Famously, there is an aggadah (Berachot 31b) where Hannah threatens to turn herself into a sotah - a woman accused of adultery - to force G-d into giving her a child as the stated reward for a sotah who is found innocent. And what do we find Hannah saying here?

"Since I secluded myself, they will force me to drink the sota water to determine whether or not I have committed adultery. I will be found innocent, and since You will not make Your Torah false [v'i atah oseh Toratekha pelaster], I will bear children."

The bold italics here being almost exactly the phrase which the bride uses in our midrash. Which is unlikely to be a coincidence. 

Hannah's prayer is the point at which she changes from passively accepting her fate as a barren wife to actively pleading with G-d on her own behalf, to the point - at least, according to the above aggadah - of blackmailing G-d by holding Him to account against His own Torah. Similarly, our bride's shift from passivity to action in arguing with the Angel of Death is the real turning point in breaking the apparent curse on her - again, by demanding that G-d act in line with the (implied) promise made to grooms in the Torah.

The bride, then, seems to be the one who demonstrates the moral of this midrash through her bitachon and passing G-d's tests. However, the bitachon shown here is not simply following orders (as per her groom, and the expected fairy tale trope the midrash may be alluding to). Rather, the bride puts her trust in the truth of the Torah itself, and in G-d's readiness to bear out that truth when challenged rather than make the Torah appear false. 

Which is a pretty Jewish approach in its sheer level of chutzpah. Aval, zeh shelanu.

RPT

* Hence the footnotes. Of which there are admittedly a lot this time. Sorry.

** No, this is not the most obvious of links to a blog about midrash. I could try and set out the full thought process some other time, but for now let's just say it works in my head. 

***There's a whole essay begging to be written here from a feminist and/or psychoanalytic perspective. But let's not go there...

****This is absolutely not to do down secular literature. There is a trend in more, ahem, 'black hat' circles to dismiss secular literature as trivial and not worth our time - possibly as an easy way to differentiate between kodesh and chol. Needless to say, I don't agree with this approach - especially when it comes to folk tales and song, which I feel are a timeless way of exploring the human condition. Hence my dilemma. 

***** Folklorists are basically a subset of geeks, so this must exist somewhere! 

Vayelech - Blessed are the Flax Workers?

 B"H

 

Source 1 - Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeilech Chapter 2 (abridged)

 [...]וְעַל כֵּן יָבִין וְיַשְׂכִּיל כָּל אָדָם בְּדַעְתּוֹ וְשִׂכְלוֹ לַהֲגוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה ,שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה (יהושע א, ח). וּבְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים.[...] וְאִם לֹא לָמַד כָּל צָרְכּוֹ, יַעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשָׂיו בֶּאֱמוּנָה. אָמַר אֵלִיָּהוּ זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּמָצָאתִי אָדָם אֶחָד, וְהָיָה מַלְעִיג לִי וּמִתְלוֹצֵץ בִּי. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב לְיוֹם הַדִּין אַחַר שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְתָּ תּוֹרָה. אָמַר, יֵשׁ לִי לְהָשִׁיב, בִּינָה וָדַעַת וָלֵב שֶׁלֹּא נִתְּנוּ לִי מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מַה מְּלַאכְתֶּךָ. אָמַר לִי, צַיַּד עוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים אֲנִי. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מִי נָתַן לְךָ דַּעַת וָלֵב לִיקַּח פִּשְׁתָּן וְלִטְווֹתוֹ וְלֶאֶרְגוֹ וְלַעֲשׂוֹת הַמְּצוּדוֹת וְלָקַחַת בָּהֶן דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת וּלְמָכְרָם. אָמַר לִי, בִּינָה וָדַעַת שֶׁנִּתְּנוּ לִי מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, לִיקַּח אֶת הַפִּשְׁתָּן לֶאֱרֹג וְלִטְווֹת וְלָקַחַת הַדָּגִים וְהָעוֹפוֹת, נָתְנוּ לְךָ בִּינָה וָדַעַת. אֲבָל לִקְנוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹרָה לֹא נָתְנוּ לְךָ בִּינָה. וּכְתִיב: כִּי קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ (דברים ל, יד). מִיָּד הִרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְהֵרִים קוֹלוֹ בִּבְכִי. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, בְּנִי, אַל יֵרַע לְךָ, שֶׁכָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּאִין וְנִמְשָׁכִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה, מוֹכִיחִין עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּבֹשׁוּ עוֹבְדֵי פִשְׁתִּים שְׁרִיקוֹת וְאֹרְגִים חוֹרַי (ישעיה יט, ט), וְעָלָיו וְעַל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְעַל הַדּוֹמִין לוֹ וְעַל הָעוֹשִׂין כְּמַעֲשָׂיו. וְאַחֲרִית דָּבָר, יִרְאַת ה'. וְעוֹשִׂין בֶּאֱמוּנָה, בּוֹ מוֹנֶה מְלַאכְתּוֹ וְרָאוּי לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

"[...] And so every man [should] understand and fathom with his mind [b'da'ato] and his intelligence to contemplate the Torah day and night - as it is written (Joshua 1:8), "and you shall contemplate about it day and night" - and good deeds. [...] And if he has not learned as is fitting him, let him do his actions with faithfulness [emunah]. Elihayu, may his memory be blessed, said, "I was once walking on the way and I found a man, and he was mocking me and taunting me. I said to him, 'What [can] you answer on the day of judgement, since you have not studied Torah.' He said, 'I have what to answer - it is [because of] the understanding [bina] and intelligence [da'at] and heart [lev] that were not given to me from the Heavens.' I said to him, 'What is your craft?' He said to me, 'I am a trapper of birds and fish.' I said to him, 'Who gave you knowledge [da'at] and heart [lev] to take flax and spin it and weave it to make traps, and to catch fish and birds with them and to sell them?' He said to me, 'It is the understanding [bina] and the knowledge [da'at] that were given to me from the Heavens.' I said to him, 'To take flax and to weave and spin and catch fish and birds you were given understanding [bina] and intelligence [da'at]; but to acquire the Torah, they were not given to you? Behold, it is written (Deuteronomy 30:14), "But the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it."' [So] he immediately thought in his heart [lev] and raised his voice in crying. I said to him, 'My son, Let it not be bad to you, as all those that come to the world are rebuked once they come and are pulled away from Torah, as it is stated (Isaiah 19:9), "And embarrassed will be the workers of flax, the combers and weavers of holes."' And it is about him and those similar to him, and those that do like his deeds. And the last word is the fear of the Lord; and those that do it with faithfulness [emunah] - his craft will be counted and he is fitting for life in the world to come.'"

Source 2 - Devarim 30:14

כִּי־קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ׃         

"No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it."

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

Sometimes, it's hard to find anything interesting to write about a midrash. Either the midrash in question can be really esoteric, filled with snippety textual references or gematria, or its message can seem so straightforward that there is nothing much to add. 

This week's midrash covers both extremes. The full version starts with a lot of gematria - the abridged version at Source 1, with our tale of Eliyahu and the trapper, only covers the final section. The basic moral of this story seems clear: the trapper initially blames G-d for his lack of Torah learning, is rebuked by Eliyahu, and then on realising his mistake is comforted by the idea that he still merits a place in the World to Come if he acts with emunah. Sounds clear, right?

If we dig into the Hebrew text, something a little more interesting is going on. To paraphrase the central conversation of our midrash:

Trapper - G-d hasn't given me the bina, da'at and lev needed to study Torah, so what have I got to feel guilty about?

Eliyahu - who gave you the da'at and lev to make traps out of raw flax, use them for trapping and sell the catch i.e. all the steps needed to earn a living?

Trapper - it's the bina and da'at that G-d gave me.

Eliyahu - G-d gave you bina and da'at to do all the steps needed to earn your living, but not to study Torah? It's written in the Torah - "the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart [b'ficha u'v'levavcha], to observe it." (see Source 2). 

Immediately, the trapper hirhur b'libo and raises his voice etc.

Three key words are threaded throughout this conversation - bina, da'at and lev. Lev appears to be easy to understand - the 'heart', or possibly inner desire or emotional feeling, to do something. 

Bina and da'at are a bit more complicated. They each refer to different aspects of knowledge or intelligence. Unfortunately, this is where not being able to read Hebrew-only texts easily lets me down - however, as far as I can make out, possible definitions include:

• Malbim (on Proverbs 24:3) - bina is the ability to understand something based on what one has already learnt from an external source; da'at is clear understanding through intuition and insight.
• Rashi (on Exodus 31:3) - bina/tvunah is deducing something from what one has already learnt (i.e. like the Malbim above); da'at is heavenly inspiration (ruach hakodesh). 
• Rabbeinu Yonah (on Pirke Avot 3:17:5-6) - bina is when one derives one thing from another by comparison; da'at is that which one grasps on one's own. Here, Rabbeinu Yonah argues that da'at must precede bina because one cannot derive Y by comparison with X without being able to grasp X on his own in the first place (my paraphrasing).

What's interesting is that there appear to be two opposing views as to which type of knowledge precedes which. According to Malbim and Rashi, da'at follows bina as it involves some level of inspiration/insight beyond mere deduction from prior knowledge. According to Rabbeinu Yonah, it is the opposite - da'at is required for bina, so presumably bina is a higher level of knowledge as it requires da'at to be in place first.*

So, how does this help us? Well, the trapper starts off by mocking Eliyahu (presumably for appearing to be a Torah scholar), and blaming G-d for not granting him the bina, da'at or lev needed for Torah study instead of taking responsibility for this. He feels no shame for his lack of scholarship, and in fact appears to despise learners and learning. 

Eliyahu responds by asking the trapper where he got the da'at and lev from for his trade - without mentioning bina. Going by the above, by 'da'at' Eliyahu is either asking about the trapper's highest insight/inspiration for his work (as per Rashi/Malbim) or for the basic ability to grasp what he needs to know for this on his own (as per Rabbeinu Yonah). Either way, da'at, intellectual ability (of whatever type) is coupled with lev i.e. the desire or emotion to do a trade - and Eliyahu's question presumes that both come from an external source. 

The trapper responds by only mentioning bina and da'at - no mention of lev here. The trapper only thinks about G-d granting him the intellectual abilities needed to do his work. This could mean he has no emotional connection to his trade - alternatively, he thinks he already had the lev for this coming from within, and only requires the additional bina and da'at from G-d. Conversely, for Torah study the trapper thinks he needs to have lev granted externally by G-d alongside bina or da'at (instead of this coming from within) - so if he doesn't have any lev for study, this isn't his problem or fault. 

Eliyahu picks up on this change of language, pointing out that if G-d gave the trapper bina and da'at for his trade, surely this is enough for Torah study as well. For lev, by quoting the passage at Source 2, Eliyahu points out that the desire to learn and observe Torah comes from within ourselves - not externally from G-d, as originally stated by the trapper. 

This, then, was the trapper's mistake. Only once he realises this, with his heart and voice, does Eliyahu comfort him with the knowledge that he is not alone - unfortunately, it is all too normal for workers and craftsmen to be pulled away from Torah study, with the 'backup' then being their emunah. 

What, then, can we take from this? At the outset, we should all aim to study Torah even alongside our work. How much, and how deeply, will depend on the intellectual ability granted to us by G-d. However, regardless of our intellect, we must also remember that the potential for emotional connection to Torah is in all of us. It is up to us to listen to this inner voice and channel this towards Torah study, rather than just expect to be inspired to study from above.  

RPT

* incidentally, this tension can be seen in the different versions of the blessing 'honen ha'da'at' in the weekday Amidah. Ashkenazim and some Sephardim (myself included) ask for 'de'ah, bina v'heskel' - the remaining Sephardim/Mizrachim ask for 'chochma, bina v'da'at'. Note the different orders of bina and da'at. 

Netzavim - the Power of One

B"H

Sources (courtesy Sefaria):

1) Chapter 2, Midrash Tanchuma Nitzavim (abridged)

רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּנִּיתִי לָכֶם רָאשִׁים זְקֵנִים וְשׁוֹטְרִים, כֻּלְּכֶם שָׁוִין לְפָנַי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְכָל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כֻּלְּכֶם עֲרֵבִים זֶה בָּזֶה. אֲפִלּוּ צַדִּיק אֶחָד בֵּינֵיכֶם, כֻּלְּכֶם עוֹמְדִים בִּזְכוּתוֹ. וְלֹא אַתֶּם בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ צַדִּיק אֶחָד בֵּינֵיכֶם, כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ בִּזְכוּתוֹ עוֹמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְצַדִּיק יְסוֹד עוֹלָם (משלי ו, כה). וּכְשֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם חוֹטֵא, כָּל הַדּוֹר לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בְּעָכָן, הֲלֹא עָכָן בֶּן זֶרַח מָעַל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם וְגוֹ' (יהושע כב, כ). מִדַּת פֻּרְעָנִיּוּת מוּעֶטֶת, וְהַדּוֹר נִתְפַּס בָּהּ. מִדָּה טוֹבָה מְרֻבָּה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁבָּכֶם בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ טַפְּכֶם נְשֵׁיכֶם וְגֵרְךָ. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִי שֶׁבָּשָׂר וָדָם מְרַחֵם עַל הַזְּכָרִים יוֹתֵר מֵהַנְּקֵבוֹת. וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵן, כִּי רַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו, עַל הַזְּכָרִים וְעַל הַנְּקֵבוֹת, וְעַל הַצַּדִּיקִים וְעַל הָרְשָׁעִים[...]

"(Deut. 29:9:) “Your tribal leaders, [your elders, and your law officers].” Although I have appointed for you heads, judges, elders, and law officers, you shall all be equal before me, since it is stated (ibid., cont.), “every person in Israel.” Another interpretation (of Deut. 29:9): All of you are responsible for each other. Even though there is [only] one righteous person among you, you all shall survive (literally, stand) through his merit; and not only you, but the whole world in toto, as stated (in Prov. 10:25), “but a righteous person is the foundation for the world.” However, when one sins, the whole generation is stricken, and so you find in the case of Achan (in Josh. 22:20), “Was it not Achan ben Zerah who committed [embezzlement] in the proscription (i.e., the herem of Jericho)?” If with the measure of punishment which is small, the [whole] generation was seized, how much the more [will the generation prosper], with the measure of [divine] favor which is great! It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:9), “every person in Israel”; and not only the great ones who are among us, but (according to vs. 10) “Your infants, your wives, and your alien.” It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:9), “every person.” Now flesh and blood shows more mercy over males than over females, but the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that. Rather (according to Ps. 145:9), “His mercy is upon all his works,” upon males and upon females, upon the righteous and upon the wicked [...]"

2) Chapter 1, Midrash Tanchuma Nitzavim (abridged)

 דָּבָר אַחֵר, אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם, מָה הַיּוֹם מֵאִיר פְּעָמִים וּמַאֲפִיל פְּעָמִים, אַף אַתֶּם כְּשֶׁאֲפֵלָה לָכֶם, עָתִיד לְהָאִיר לָכֶם אוֹר עוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְהָיָה לְךָ ה' לְאוֹר עוֹלָם (ישעיה ס, יט). אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁתִּהְיוּ כֻּלְּכֶם אֲגֻדָּה אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם הַיּוֹם (דברים ד, ד). בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, אִם נוֹטֵל אָדָם אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל קָנִים, שֶׁמָּא יָכֹל לְשָׁבְרָם בְּבַת אַחַת. וְאִלּוּ נוֹטֵל אַחַת אַחַת, אֲפִלּוּ תִּינוֹק מְשַׁבְּרָן. וְכֵן אַתְּ מוֹצֵא שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל נִגְאֲלִין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻּלָּן אֲגֻדָּה אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: בַּיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה וּבָעֵת הַהִיא נְאֻם ה' יָבֹאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנֵי יְהוּדָה יַחְדָּו וְגוֹ' (ירמיה נ, ד). כְּשֶׁהֵן אֲגוּדִים, מְקַבְּלִין פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה.

"Another interpretation (of Deut. 29:9), “You are standing today”: Just as today (literally: the day) sometimes darkens and sometimes lightens, so it is with you. Although you have darkness, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to shine on you with light eternal, as stated (in Is. 60:19), “for the Lord shall be your everlasting light.” When? When you all become one group, as stated (in Deut. 4:4), “are all alive today.” According to universal custom, if one takes a group of reeds, will he be able to break them at one stroke! But if he takes them one by one, even an infant can break them. So also you find that Israel was not redeemed until they became one group, as stated (in Jer. 50:4), “’In those days and at that time,’ says the Lord,’ the children of Israel, they and the children of Judah, shall come together.’” When they are united, they shall welcome the face of the Divine Presence."

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

Parshat Nitzavim usually falls out just before the Yamim Noraim. It's therefore oddly appropriate that both the parsha and its related midrashim emphasise certain common themes: the importance of both studying and living by the Torah; the covenant (brit) between Israel and G-d; our unity as a nation and our shared responsibility for compliance (or lack of) with said brit. I've therefore picked out two midrashim which reflect on some of these themes - namely, our unity and each person's individual responsibility for upholding the brit.

Source 1 takes as its source text a verse describing the heads of the tribes. A little counterintuitively, it uses this to emphasise that - although we may be divided by tribes and have leaders over us - every member of B'nei Israel is equal before G-d. If that wasn't enough, having drawn this conclusion from the phrase 'kol ish Israel' (every man of Israel), the midrash goes even further to emphasise that this equality applies to women, children and gerim (either converts or observant Noachides). How? Because, while ordinary humans may be partial and favour men over women, G-d is impartial and 'has mercy on all His creations, on both males and females, and on both righteous (tzadikim) and wicked (rashaim).'

Sounds great, right? But before we exclaim over this apparent show of egalitarianism within the Jewish community, let's stop and think about the midrash's message here. Yes, on the one hand we are all equal before G-d in terms of relating to Him and receiving His mercy - which is especially important for those classed as rashaim, who would normally not have any hope of such mercy. However, the midrash also gives an alternative interpretation of 'equality', which is that everyone is responsible for each other - kulachem areivim zeh la zeh. What does this mean?

The midrash explains - even if there is only one tzadik or righteous person in the community, not only the entire community but the entire world 'stands' in his/her merit. But - and this is a big 'but' - the opposite is also true! If one person sins, the entire generation suffers - see the case of Achan described in Sefer Yehoshua, as cited by the midrash. 

However, even here there is hope - as the midrash points out through a 'kal v'chomer' device, if an entire generation can be punished for the sin of one person i.e. Akhan, then how much greater is the impact of a good action or something which draws upon G-d's 'midah tova'!

Source 2 looks at these themes of redemption and mutual responsibility from a different perspective. Basing itself on a different part of the same source text as Source 1, it acknowledges that we can live through times of both light and darkness - however, the ultimate reward will be light once we all become 'one group'. The midrash explains this through the example of a bunch of reeds, which can be easily broken when separated into individual stalks but become much harder to break when bundled together. Similarly, redemption will only take place when we are united as one. 

What is notable here is that the source from Sefer Yirmiyahu used by the midrash refers to the people of kingdoms of Israel and Judah coming together as one for this redemption to take place. While that may have made sense when Yirmiyahu was alive, nowadays it is not at all obvious how this is possible given that the descendants of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) cannot be easily traced. Given the amount of infighting amongst today's Jews, maybe we need to reframe this need for unity as referring to the various factions within the modern Jewish community - while bearing in mind the hopeful message from our first midrash about the impact of a single good action upon us all.

Shabbat shalom

RPT