Vayigash - Avinu Malkeinu

B"H

The full Midrash Tanchuma text can be found here

1) Midrash Tanchuma Vayigash, Chapter 2

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

2) Midrash Tanchuma Vayigash, Chapter 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shavua tov!

RPT

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

Mikketz - The First Chanukah?

B"H

As always, full text here

 Midrash Tanchuma on Mikketz; Chapter 3


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Chanukah Sameach and Shabbat Shalom!


RPT

Vayeshev - Like Father, Like Son?

B"H

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

Click here for the full text of the Midrash Tanchuma.


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

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev, Chapter 1

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

2) Midrash Tanchuma Vayeshev, Chapter 2

סימן ב

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

3) Midrash Tanchuma Toldot, Chapter 1

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

Shavua Tov and Chanukah Sameach

RPT

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

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

 

Interlude - Courtesy of Rabbi Francis Nataf

B"H

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

Shabbat Shalom!

RPT

Vayishlach - more sinned against than sinning?

 B"H

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

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

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

Sources:

1) Bereishit 36:11-12

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

2) Bereishit 36:22

וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-לוֹטָן חֹרִי וְהֵימָם וַאֲחוֹת לוֹטָן תִּמְנָע.

3) Sanhedrin 99b

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

4) Midrash Tanchuma on Vayeshev, Chapter 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shabbat shalom

RPT


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

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

Vayeitze - A Question of Faith

B"H

As always, full text here

 1) Midrash Tanchuma Vayeitze, Chapter 2

סימן ב

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shabbat shalom!

RPT

Toldot - Beware of the Blind Spot

B"H

As always, full text here

1) Bereishit 27:1

וַיְהִי כִּי-זָקֵן יִצְחָק, וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת; וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-עֵשָׂו בְּנוֹ הַגָּדֹל, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בְּנִי, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, הִנֵּנִי.

2) Midrash Tanchuma on Toldot, Chapter 8

 סימן ח
ויהי כי זקן יצחק, זשה"כ (משלי יז) אבן חן השוחד בעיני בעליו אל כל אשר יפנה ישכיל השוחד למה"ד לאבן בכ"מ שנופלת שוברת, מדבר ביצחק שנא' ויאהב יצחק את עשו כי ציד בפיו מהו כי ציד בפיו היה צד את יצחק הצדיק בפיו אתה מוצא כל עבירות שהקב"ה שונא כלן היו בעשו (שם ו) שש הנה שנא ה' ושבע תועבת נפשו עינים רמות ל' שקר ידים שופכות דם נקי לב חורש מחשבות און רגלים ממהרות לרוץ לרעה וגו' כשהיה בא עשו מן החוץ היה אומר לאביו אבא המלח מהו שתהא חייבת במעשר, והיה תמה יצחק ואומר ראה בני זה כמה דקדק במצות, והיה אומר לו אביו בני היכן היית היום הזה והוא אומר לו בבית התלמוד לא כך הוא הלכה מן כך וכך, לא כך איסורו לא כך התירו, ומתוך דברים אלו הוה צדו בפיו, על כן אהבו, ורוח הקודש צווחת (שם כו) כי יחנן קולו אל תאמן בו כי שבע תועבות בלבו ולמה כהו עיניו של יצחק מפני שנסתכל בדמות עשו הרשע, ועוד על שהיה מביא ציד ומאכלו וכתיב (דברים יז) כי השוחד יעור פקחים ותכהין עיניו מה כתיב למעלה ותהיין מרת רוח ליצחק ואח"כ ותכהין עיניו, מפני הכעס שהיה מכעיסו לפי שהשכינה היתה שרויה בביתו של יצחק עמד עשו ונטל מבנות כנען והיו נשיו מעשנות ומקטרות לעבודה זרה שלהם ונסתלקה הימנו שכינה מיצחק והיה רואה יצחק ומיצר, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא הריני מכהה את עיניו שלא יראה ויוסיף צער לפיכך ותכהין עיניו,... ותכהין עיניו למה כהו עיניו, לפי שהיה צפוי לפני הקב"ה שיצחק יברך לעשו, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יכהו עיניו ויבא יעקב ויטול את הברכות ולא יהא יודע יצחק למי הוא מברך... ויקרא את עשו בנו הגדול ולמה קורא לו בנו הגדול אלא למדנו שמחניפין לרשעים בשעתן לפי שראה שהעולם הזה בידו קרא לו בנו הגדול, אמר הקב"ה לישראל בעולם הזה לפי שהשעה ביד עשו אתם מחניפים לו וכביכול אף מלכותי אינה מתבוססת, אבל לעתיד לבא אני פורע ממנו ומלכותי מתבוססת, שנאמר (עובדיה א) ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו אותה שעה והיתה לה' המלוכה

3) Midrash Tanchuma on Toldot, Chapter 9 

סימן ט
ויהי כי זקן יצחק, זשה"כ (תהלים מה) תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך תשיתמו לשרים בכל הארץ, ...שנאמר תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך, מדבר ביצחק אבינו ובאברהם אבינו ... אברהם הוליד צדיק ורשע יצחק וישמעאל, יצחק הוליד צדיק ורשע יעקב ועשו, ... אתה מוצא כל מה שהגיע לאברהם הגיע ליצחק, אברהם כתיב בו זקנה שנאמר (שם כד) ואברהם זקן, וביצחק כתיב בו ויהי כי זקן יצחק

I'm aware it's been a little Avraham-heavy recently - while he will still crop up, let's use this week's Midrash to briefly look at Yitzhak instead.

About half of the Midrash Tanchuma this week takes as its starting point the verse in Source 1) above, particularly the first half concerning Yitzhak's becoming old and his eyesight deteriorating. Chapter 8 (source 2) above) gives three main explanations for Yitzhak's blindness:

a) He was blinded by accepting the shoched /'bribery' of the meat Esav caught for him and/or Esav's deceitful words (here, the Midrash interprets the earlier phrase va'ye'ehav Yitzhak et Esav ki tzayid b'phaiv as meaning that Yitzhak was himself 'trapped' by Esav's mouth);

b) G-d made him blind so that he would not see that the Shekhina had departed from him due to the idolatry of Esav's wives;

c) G-d knew Yitzhak wanted to bless Esav, and therefore made him blind so that Ya'akov would be able to take the blessing without Yitzhak's knowledge. 

The factor linking all of these explanations is the relationship between Yitzhak and Esav. Somehow, Esav ends up being the source of his father's blindness despite - or, perhaps, because of? - being the favoured son. By contrast, there is no real interaction between Yitzhak and Ya'akov (undisguised) until the very end of the parsha when the latter is leaving home with the excuse of seeking a wife.  

Things become stranger when we look at the next very midrash (source 3) above), which states that kol mah shehagia l'Avraham hagia l'Yitzhak (all that happened to Avraham happened to Yitzhak). The midrash then goes on to compare father and son in several ways - for example e.g. both holid tzadik v'rasha (had a righteous son and a wicked son) and both are described as being zaken (old). However, the midrash does not point out the differences between them: Avraham (reluctantly) banishes Ishmael from his home, yet Yitzhak seemingly does nothing to curb Esav with the result that it is Ya'akov who leaves the family home instead; Avraham is adamant that Yitzhak doesn't marry a Canaanite, yet Yitzhak does not appear to make any effort to prevent Esau marrying Canaanite women despite this distressing him and Rivka; Avraham is described as being both zaken and blessed, but when Yitzhak is zaken he is also blind.

This contrast is especially confusing when we consider that Yitzhak is traditionally seen as symbolising gevurah (usually translated as 'strength' or 'self-control') in contrast to Avraham's chesed. Given the failure of Yitzhak to raise Esav in the same way that Avraham raised him, where exactly is Yitzhak's gevurah in his relationship with his son? 

An answer may be hinted at at the end of the midrash in source 2) above, which discusses why Yitzhak refers to Esav as his bno hagadol' when he has already called him by name? The midrash learns from here that one may flatter a wicked person during a period when they are successful (uncomfortable as this may feel...) and that Yitzhak therefore called Esav 'hagadol' becuase he recognised that ha'olam hazeh b'yado (the world is in [Esav]'s hand i.e. power).

However, the opening of the very same midrash states that haya tzad et Yitzhak hatzadik b'phaiv - Yitzhak, even as a righteous man, was 'trapped' by Esav's words. Yitzhak's blindness and its roots in his relationship with Esav therefore show us that there is a very fine line between speaking favourably of someone bad - even if we don't mean necessarily mean it - because of their position of power, and letting ourselves become blinded to their faults altogether.

Shabbat shalom!

RPT

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

It occurred to me over Shabbat that - while the midrash doesn't explicitly state this - in Rabbinic literature Esav/Edom is often seen as symbolising Rome, who was the dominant power at the time of the destruction of the Second Beit HaMikdash and for several centuries afterwards. This could explain both why Yitzhak saw Esav as being powerful over the world and why the midrash portrays Yitzhak himself as apparently taken in by Esav's bribery. Just a thought, but I thought I'd share it as it adds extra depth to the conclusion of this week's post.

Chayei Sara - the Missing Voice

B"H

Usual story - full text of Midrash Tanchuma is here 

1) Bereishit 24:1

 וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן, בָּא בַּיָּמִים; וַיהוָה בֵּרַךְ אֶת-אַבְרָהָם בַּכֹּל

2) Bereishit 25:1

וַיֹּסֶף אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה

3) Bereishit 18:11-12

 

  וְאַבְרָהָם וְשָׂרָה זְקֵנִים, בָּאִים בַּיָּמִים; חָדַל לִהְיוֹת לְשָׂרָה, אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁיוַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר:  אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה-לִּי עֶדְנָה, וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן

4) Midrash Tanchuma, Chayei Sarah, Chapter 2

סימן ב

ואברהם זקן, א"ר יהושע בר נחמני מפני ארבעה דברים הזקנה קופצת על אדם מפני היראה, ומפני כעס בנים, ומפני אשה רעה, ומפני המלחמות.... אבל אברהם אשתו מכבדתו וקוראתו אדני שנא' ואדני זקן, ועליה נאמר אשת חיל עטרת בעלה (משלי יב) לפיכך כתיב ביה וה' ברך את אברהם בכל:

5) Midrash Tanchuma, Chayei Sarah, Chapter 4

 סימן ד

זש"ה אשת חיל עטרת בעלה (משלי יב) זה אברהם שהיה מקונן על שרה...וכתיב ואברהם זקן בא בימים וגו', כשמתה שרה כתב עליו שברכו למה שלא יהיו באי עולם אומרים לא נתברך אברהם אלא מחמת שרה, אלא הריני מברכו אחר מיתתה, לכך נאמר וה' ברך את אברהם

6) Midrash Tanchuma, Chayei Sarah, Chapter 5

סימן ח

ויוסף אברהם, מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין ויביאה יצחק האהלה מכאן אתה למד שאם מתה אשתו של אדם ויש לו בנים שלא ישא אשה עד שישיא את בניו ואחר כך ישא אשה לעצמו שכך עשה אברהם אחר מיתת שרה השיא את יצחק ואח"כ נשא אשה לעצמו מנין ממ"ש ויביאה יצחק ואחר כך ויוסף אברהם

First of all, please don't worry about the number of sources above, as in most cases these will only be used as reference points! Full translations are therefore not crucial, but if these would be useful please ask :-)

Sometimes, it's instructive to take a step back for a change and ask why the Midrash focuses on certain verses of the parsha. This is especially so for Chayei Sara as the Midrash Tanchuma only focuses on two verses from the whole parsha - both concerning Avraham! What is even odder about this is that the major event of the parsha itself after Sara's death is Eliezer's mission to bring back Rivka as Yitzhak's wife - yet, at least in this collection of midrashim, this is only mentioned in passing.

The two verses focused on by the Midrash are v'Avraham zaken, ba ba'yamim -  'Avraham grew old, advanced in years' and  va'yosef Avraham vayikach isha - 'and Avraham [increased]* and took a wife' (see sources 1) and 2) above). Both of these verses occur as 'punctuation marks' in the parsha - the first, between Sara's death/burial and Avraham's commissioning Eliezer to fetch a wife for Yitzhak. However, why does the Midrash consider these to be so important?

If we look at source 3) above - v'Avraham v'Sara zaknim, ba'im bayamim - we can see an interesting link between these verses. Source 3) uses exactly the same phrase as source 1), but in the plural for both Avraham and Sara as a couple to whom the visitors announce Yitzhak's birth. However, in source 1) this phrase is used to describe Avraham alone as he is about to embark on another stage of parenting - finding Yitzhak a wife. This repetition emphasises Avraham's changed status following Sara's death as someone is no longer part of a couple - at least, until he takes another wife as in source 3), thereby repairing some of what he has lost.

So, after taking our step back to see this link, does the Midrash itself have anything to say about it? Perhaps. Chapter 2 of Midrash Tanchuma cites Sara as being an eishet chayil and therefore the source of G-d's blessing to Avraham after her death (see sources 4) and 2) above), while Chapter 4 (source 5) expands on this to interpret the famous 'Eishet Chayil' passage sung on Friday nights and other occasions through Sara's attributes and events in the life of both Sara and Avraham**. Intriguingly, this passage appears to contradict Chapter 2) above by stating that G-d only blesses Avraham after Sara's death because otherwise one may have thought that Avraham was being blessed in her merit rather than in his own, showing us both Sara's high reputation and the perceived unity of Avraham and Sara as a couple.

 But what of Avraham's remarriage? While the midrash doesn't say this explicitly, we could perhaps also read G-d's blessing Avraham after Sara's death as a form both of comfort and of reassurance to Avraham that he still retains some identity as an individual beyond the former union of Avraham v'Sara. However Yitzhak, he product of that union, is not 'comforted' for Sara's death until he marries Rivka and brings her into Sara's tent - and, as pointed out by Chapter 5 of the Midrash Tanchuma (source 6 above), it is only after this that Avraham remarries.

While Yitzhak's marriage to Rivka may not appear as the main focus of the Midrash Tanchuma, in fact it serves to close off the narrative that began with the announcement of Yitzhak's birth to Sara and Avraham when they were united by being zaknim ba'im bayamim. Now that Yitzhak has been comforted and his future made more secure by marriage to Rivka, Avraham can finally move on and rectify the loss sustained through Sara's death by entering into another union - with, according to the midrash - Hagar/Keturah who was the mother of Avraham's firstborn son Ishmael and who therefore closes another circle by going on to bear Avraham further children.

Shavua tov!

RPT

*My translation - JPS and Midrash Tanchuma translate this verse as 'Avraham took another wife' and 'Avraham again took a wife', but I'm not sure how they get here from va'yosef Avraham va'yikach etc... can anyone explain?
** While the whole midrash is too long to go into in-depth here, it is well worth reading if you have the time.

Interlude - courtesy of BA

B"H

 Yes, I know. It's Thursday evening and I should have posted something by now, right? I do have a post on Chayei Sarah written up in draft form, but unfortunately due to massive workload/dealing with broken washing machine/acting as counsellor for Mum/being a little too perfectionist haven't managed to finalise it into something I'm happy to post.

Pg the post will go up motsei Shabbat instead, so please check back over the weekend. In the meantime, I thought I'd share with you Bnei Akiva's latest journal in memory of Marc Weinberg z"l, which I am in the middle of and thoroughly enjoying. Chazak u'Baruch to all involved :-)

Shabbat shalom!

RPT

Vayera - the Audacity of Avraham

 B"H

Short (but hopefully deep) this week - however, it's worth reading the full Midrash Tanchuma text as there's a LOT of material here which crosses over with Rashi etc. Full text is here

1)

מיד פתח הקדוש ברוך הוא את הרקיע ואת הערפל ויאמר בי נשבעתי נאם ה', א"ל אתה נשבעת ואני נשבעתי שלא ארד מן המזבח עד שאומר כל מה שאני צריך, א"ל אמור לא כך אמרת לי ספור הכוכבים אם תוכל לספור אותם כה יהיה זרעך א"ל הן, א"ל ממי, א"ל מיצחק, א"ל כשם שהיה בלבי מה להשיבך ולומר לך אתמול אמרת לי כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, עכשיו אתה אומר לי העלהו שם לעולה, וכבשתי את יצרי ולא השבתיך כך כשיהיו בניו של יצחק חוטאין ונכנסין לצרה תהא נזכר להן עקדתו של יצחק ותחשב לפניך כאלו אפרו צבור על גבי המזבח ותסלח להן ותפדם מצרתן, א"ל הקב"ה אתה אמרת את שלך ואומר אני את שלי עתידין בניו של יצחק לחטוא לפני ואני דן אותם בר"ה אלא אם מבקשין שאחפש להן זכות ואזכור להן עקידת יצחק יהיו תוקעין לפני בשופר של זה, א"ל ומה הוא השופר, א"ל חזור לאחוריך, מיד וישא אברהם את עיניו וירא והנה איל אחר נאחז בסבך בקרניו

2)

סימן יט

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, זשה"כ באשר דבר מלך שלטון ומי יאמר לו מה תעשה וגו', שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע (קהלת ח) מהו כל מה שהקב"ה חפץ לעשות, שלטון הוא ואין מי שימחה בידו, אלא מי יאמר לו מה תעשה, שומר מצוה אלו הצדיקים שמשמרים מצותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא והקב"ה מקיים גזירתן, וכה"א ותגזר אומר ויקם לך וגו' (איוב כב) תדע לך שכשעשו אותו מעשה בקש הקדוש ברוך הוא לכלותן, עמד משה כביכול תפש להקדוש ב"ה כאדם שתופש בחבירו שכן הוא אומר ועתה הניחה לי, ויש לך ללמד מפסוק אחר הרף ממני ואשמידם (דברים ט) הוי מי יאמר לו מה תעשה:

I have a confession to make. Until now I never really understood why, on Rosh Hashana, the Akeida plays such a central role. In particular, while the text itself forms the Torah reading for all Jews the Sephardic liturgy also includes the piyut 'Et Sha'arei Ratzon'* which - based on several midrashic accounts of the Akeida including those of the Midrash Tanchuma - is not only one of the highlights of the Rosh Hashana davening but is also repeated on Yom Kippur itself.

But why? Yes, the Akeida in itself is an important event in our spiritual history. Yes, there are several symbolic connections with Rosh Hashana: through the shofar, Yitzhak (who is said to have been born/conceived on Rosh Hashana), and the timing of the Akeida itself as falling out on Rosh Hashana. However, for me none of this directly explains exactly how - when we are standing before G-d in judgment each year - remembering the Akeida is supposed to help us. After all, how many of us can hope to be on Avraham's level?

Well, I think I may have found the answer now. Or, at least, an answer...

Near the end of a long midrashic retelling of the Akeida itself (Chapter 23 of the Midrash Tanchuma on Vayera) lies a moment of high drama and even audacity on the part of Avraham. Having been assured by G-d that he has passed the test set of him and that he will be blessed with many descendants, Avraham enters into the following extraordinary exchange with G-d (see also Source 1 above):

א"ל: אתה נשבעת ואני נשבעתי, שלא ארד מן המזבח עד שאומר כל מה שאני צריך.
א"ל: אמור. לא כך אמרת לי, ספור הכוכבים אם תוכל לספור אותם, כה יהיה זרע!
א"ל: הן.
א"ל: ממי?
א"ל: מיצחק.
א"ל: כשם שהיה בלבי מה להשיבך ולומר לך, אתמול אמרת לי כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, עכשיו אתה אומר לי העלהו שם לעולה, וכבשתי את יצרי ולא השבתיך, כך כשיהיו בניו של יצחק חוטאין ונכנסין לצרה תהא נזכר להן עקדתו של יצחק ותחשב לפניך כאלו אפרו צבור על גבי המזבח ותסלח להן ותפדם מצרתן.
א"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא: אתה אמרת את שלך, ואומר אני את שלי.
עתידין בניו של יצחק לחטוא לפני ואני דן אותם בר"ה, אלא אם מבקשין שאחפש להן זכות ואזכור להן עקידת יצחק יהיו תוקעין לפני בשופר של זה.

Why does Avraham use his own example to make this demand of G-d? Furthermore, how on earth does Avraham think he can even get away with talking to G-d like this? 

If we consider the earlier midrash in source 2) above (also from the Midrash Tanchuma on Vayera), perhaps we can better understand both Avraham's passing G-d's test and what he is now trying to achieve. Source 2) explains how, although the general rule is that 'dvar melech shilton' - i.e. whatever G-d wills is the law - a shomer mitzvah is nevertheless able to challenge G-d and even cause G-d to fulfill their decrees. Although the midrash itself only cites Moshe as an example of this, due both to its being linked to the opening of the Akeida account and Avraham's earlier challenging of G-d over the destruction of S'dom earlier in the parsha the reference is clearly also to Avraham. (Interestingly, in the proof-text cited even Moshe only appears to succeed in saving the Jews from G-d's destructiveness after the Golden Calf once he has reminded G-d of the promise made to Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'akov regarding their descendants being like kochavei hashamayim).

What the midrash may be trying to point out is this - Avraham, as a shomer mitzvah, has the ability to challenge G-d as seen at S'dom. Surely, therefore, he could have pointed out to G-d the fact that G-d's command to sacrifice Yitzhak contradicted all the promises G-d had previously made Avraham of having descendants like the kochavim through Yitzhak. Who knows - had Avraham argued this, there may well have been no Akeida!

Avraham's point to G-d therefore appears to be this - "I know my descendants through Yitzhak will sin. You are perfectly entitled to point out that their sinning and thereby breaking their side of the brit with you appears to contradict any right they have to redemption and forgiveness. However, just as I didn't challenge you when you appeared to be going back on your promise to me, don't refuse to forgive Yitzhak's descendants by holding their sins against them." 

And what is G-d's response? Yes, Yitzhak's descendants will sin. Yes, G-d will judge us on Rosh Hashana. However, if we want the Akeida to be remembered on their behalf - and, by implication, Avraham's request of G-d - then we should blow the shofar. This, more than anything else I have heard, explains why both the shofar and the Akeida are central to our davening on Rosh Hashana. 

Of course it probably isn't as simple as this. After all, I don't recall ever coming across this midrash before, either in Et Sha'arei Ratzon or any other part of the Rosh Hashana davening - and one would think that a midrash of this importance would appear somewhere...And of course, the Akeida is still a tremendously complex event with many other questions raised both by the p'shat text and the midrash (not least of which is what happens to Sarah). But for now this is good enough for me, and hopefully will be of interest to anyone else who may have wondered more about the Akeida's links to Rosh Hashana.

Shabbat shalom!

* For the lyrics in Hebrew, see here. Unfortunately I couldn't find an English translation anywhere online - on the plus side, this is also a great site for Jewish music geeks :-)


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

As requested, for those struggling with the Hebrew here is a translation of the sources below (taken pretty much directly from the Metsudah Midrash Tanchuma):

Source 1:

…Thereupon the Holy One, Blessed Is He opened heaven and the thick cloud, “and He said ‘I have sworn by Myself, declared Hashem [that because you did this…I will greatly bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars…] Avraham said to Him “You have sworn. And I also have sworn that I am not coming down from the altar until I say everything that I have to.” He said to him “Say…”. [Avraham said to Him] “Did You not say to me ‘Count the stars, if you are able to count them…so numerous will your descendants be.’” G-d said to him, “Yes”. Avraham said to Him “From whom?” He said to him “From Yitzhak” Avraham said to Him “ Just as I had in my heart to argue and say to You ‘Yesterday you said to me: For only through Yitzhak will offspring be consider yours, and now you are telling me: Sacrifice him for a burnt-offering; yet I suppressed my urge and did not present this argument to you. So too, should You act when the children of Yitzhak sin, and are in trouble; be mindful on their behalf of the binding of Yitzhak, and let it be considered in your Presence as though his ashes were heaped on the altar, and forgive them and redeem them from their troubles”. The Holy One, Blessed Is He, said to him “You have had your say; I will now have Mine. The descendants of Yitzhak are going to be sinful before Me, and I will judge them on Rosh Hashanah. However, if they ask Me to find some merit for them, and to remember on their behalf the binding of Yitzhak, let them blow a shofar such as this.”

Source 2:

This is the meaning of the verse “Since a king’s word is law, who would [dare] say to him ‘What are you doing?’ He who obeys the commandment will know no harm.’ What is the meaning [of this?] Anything the Holy One, Blessed Is He, wants to do becomes the rule, and there is no one to protest. However, who can say ‘What are you doing?’ ‘He who obeys the mitzvah’ the righteous ones who observe the mitzvoth of the Holy One, Blessed Is He. And the Holy One, Blessed Is He, fulfils their decree, as it states, ‘You would entreat him and he would listen to you, etc.’ You should know that when Yisrael committed that act; the Holy One, Blessed Is He, wanted to destroy them. Moshe stood up, and held onto the Holy One, Blessed Is He, as it were, as a man holds onto his friend, for it states “And now leave Me.” This can also be learned from another verse “Release Me, and I shall destroy them”. This is the meaning of “Who would say to Him ‘What are you doing?’”

Lech Lecha - a tale of two Brits

B"H

Trying a slightly different format this week following feedback. As before, the full(ish)* text of the Midrash Tanchuma is here.


However, this week I've also copied the sources I'll be using below in Hebrew, source-sheet style. Underlined sections are those I'm focusing on in particular, while translations in the body of the text are mostly based on the Metsudah translation I'm using.  Lmk what you think.


1) Midrash Tanchuma on Lech Lecha, from Chapter 3

ויתאו המלך יפיך זה ממ"ה והוא חפץ לייפותו בעוה"ז ולעוה"ב, כי הוא אדוניך והשתחוי לו א"ר אבין משל לצלוחית של פלייטון הנתונה בבית הקברות ולא היה אדם יודע ריחה, מה עשה נטלוה וטלטלוה ממקום למקום והודיעה ריחה בעולם, כך היה אברהם דר בתוך עובדי כו"ם א"ל הקב"ה לך לך מארצך ואני אודיע טבעך בעולם

2) Midrash Tanchuma on Noach, from Chapter 5

בדורותיו ולא בדורות אחרים, רבי יהודה ורבי נחמיה חד אמר תמים היה בדור המבול ובדור הפלגה, שאלו היה בדורו של אברהם אבינו לא מצא ידיו ורגליו, משל לחבית של אפרסמון שהיתה מונחת במקום המטונף במקומה ריחה נודף, שלא במקומה אין ריחה נודף, וחד אמר תמים היה בדורותיו כ"ש בדורות אחרים, משל לצלוחית של פלייטון שהיתה מונחת במקום הטנופת כ"ש אם היתה מונחת במקום הבושם

3) Midrash Tanchuma on Lech Lecha, from Chapter 6

ויהי בימי אמרפל. ילמדנו רבינו גר שנתגייר ערב פסח כיצד אוכל פסחו, כך שנו רבותינו ב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל פסחו לערב,ובית הלל אומרים הפורש מן העורלה כפורש מן הקבר, א"ל ר"ש בן לקיש חביב הגר לפני הקב"ה מן אותן אוכלוסין שעמדו על הר סיני, למה שכל אותן אוכלוסין אלולי שראו הקולות והלפידים וברקים וההרים רועשים וקול שופרות לא קבלו עליהם מלכות שמים, וזה לא ראה אחד מכולם ובא ומשלים עצמו להקדוש ברוך הוא וקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים יש חביב מזה.... אמר הקב"ה אני מחבב את הגרים והרשעים הללו באים להזדווג לאברהם אבי הגרים או להם שסופם ליפול לפניו הה"ד ויהי בימי אמרפל, ומי היה זה נמרוד ולמה נקרא שמו אמרפל על שאמר לאברהם פול לתוך כבשן האש:

This week, I want to focus on two midrashim about Avraham which shed further light on both the differences between Noach and Avraham (touched on last week), and the impact of Avraham's relationship with G-d as the first ger for all of us today.

Let's start off with source 1) above, which explores the famous line lekh lekha  itself. Here, the Midrash compares Avraham to a tzlochit shel palyaton [a bowl of perfume/rose oil, depending on your translation], which is taken from the beit hak'varot [graveyard] where nobody could smell it and deliberately moved around so that the whole world can smell its fragrance. Interesting metaphor - but wait, haven't we heard this somewhere before?

As mentioned last week, in the Midrash Tanchuma's commentary on Noach the Rabbis famously discuss whether or not Noach would still have been considered tam [pure] had he lived at the same time as Avraham, or whether he was only tam compared to the others in his own era. Source 2) above shows the full discussion, which includes two mashals comparing Noach to a container of fragrant oil. Interestingly, the mashal giving the more 'complementary' view - that Noach would still have been considered tam even in Avraham's era -  compares Noach to a tzlochit shel palyaton just as Avraham is in source 1).

However, if we look at how the Midrash uses this mashal we can see two important distinctions:

a) In the mashal of source 2), Noach's influence is still passive and very much affected by his environment - how far his influence reaches is purely dependent upon whether he is bim'kom hatinofet [a place with a bad odour i.e the generation of the Flood], or bim'kom haboshem [a place with a fragrant odour  i.e. Avraham's era]. Furthermore, any influence or 'odour' of Noach which is able to spread seems to do so purely by itself, without any active intervention to affect its range.

On the other hand, the mashal brought in source 1) sees Avraham's influence as being actively spread to others once it has been brought out of the beit hak'varot, as it says: n'taluah v'tilt'luah mimakom l'makom v'hodiu reicha ba'olam [they took it and moved it about from place to place so that its aroma was known throughout the world]. While the mashal places responsibility for this intervention purely in G-d's hands (unlike the p'shat text where Avraham does at least make a conscious decision to obey G-d and leave Haran), this still suggests that for some reason Avraham's influence is such that it is worth making the effort to spread it as far as possible - rather than, as seems to be the case for Noach, simply leaving matters to take their course depending on the surrounding environment. 

b) The environment in which Noach lives is compared to m'kom hatinofet. However, that which Avraham leaves/is brought out of is described as a beit hak'varot. If (as I believe), the Midrash is deliberately using the same phrase of tzlochit shel palyaton to link Noach and Avraham, why the sudden change in metaphor? 

Perhaps the answer can be found in a later part of the Midrash Tanchuma (source 3 above), which discusses two ideas concerning gerut which are linked to the verse 'vay'hi bimei Amrofel'. The midrash opens with a halachic discussion on whether a ger who converts on erev Pesach can eat the korban Pesach, before expanding on the special status of gerim as being 'beloved' by G-d. This opening discussion - at least, in some versions of the Midrash (see * below) - includes a machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel where the latter suggests that a ger in this case cannot eat the korban because 'haporesh min ha'orlah k'phoresh hakever' [a non-Jew who converts (lit. one who separates from his foreskin) is like one who has separated from the grave].

So. We have the act of becoming Jewish through brit milah being linked to coming out of contact with death in a halachic context, and a mashal which compares Avraham's leaving Haran to being taken out beit hak'varot so as to influence world. Given that Avraham is explicitly named in source 3) as avi hagerim and later on in this week's Parsha himself undergoes brit milah, somehow I don't think this is a coincidence...

 If we bear in mind the Talmudic principle of ger shenitgayer k'katan shenolad dami (Yevamot 22a/97b). [a convert is like a newborn], the Midrash is telling us something profound here about what it means to follow in Avraham's footsteps and be Jewish. Here, the convert isn't just 'reborn', but in becoming Jewish has also left behind a state of 'death' in order to draw closer to G-d and Torah.

In Avraham's case, he appears to have left this deathlike state both through leaving his homeland at G-d's command and undergoing brit milah. Furthermore, unlike Noach Avraham appears to have made more of an effort to enter into a special relationship with G-d, as seen from the story - referred to obliquely in this Midrash but expanded upon elsewhere - of how Avraham came to reject idolatry and worship G-d and his persecution by Nimrod for doing so. Avraham, it appears, has an inner strength and drive which is missing from Noach's own brit with G-d - perhaps explaining why in the mashal of the tzlochit shel palyaton it is Avraham's influence which is to be spread more widely through G-d's command to him to travel to Eretz Yisrael. 

We can see this difference between the brit of Noach and the brit of Avraham even today. While observance of the seven Noahide laws is (generally) seen as the ideal for non-Jews rather than full conversion to Judaism, Noahidism as an actual movement has little popularity - mostly, I get the impression, because compared both with Judaism itself and with other organised religions it has very little to offer in terms of either halachic structure*** or a strong inner life. By contrast, there are people today from across all nations and cultures who are driven to follow Avraham's example and take the full step of becoming Jewish - and, while for me this only meant moving from NE Scotland to London, for those living in far-flung places such as South America and the Philippines this can often mean having to emigrate altogether to countries with a large enough organised Jewish presence for them to undergo gerut.

May we all find that inner drive to live up to Avraham's merit and be someone who can spread G-d and Torah throughout the world.

Shabbat Shalom!

* For some reason, the one line from Beit Hillel which is critical to my analysis only appears in some versions of the Midrash Tanchuma, and unfortunately is omitted from the full version linked to at the top of the page. The relevant line is highlighted in blue in my sources above.

**Why are these ideas linked to the verse on Amrofel? Well, according to the Midrash the four Kings sought to destroy Avraham, and as above Avraham is avi hagerim...

*** Although see Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's work 'The Seven Laws of Noah', which follows a long tradition to divide the basic Noachide laws into over 60 commandments, including (if I remember correctly) quite a few of the 613 mitzvot. Nevertheless, it's hard to know how much these have actually caught on and I have a feeling these won't include so many of the positive mitzvot.

Noach - from Mabul to Mitzrayim

B"H

N.B This week's midrash source can be found here. Please let me know if this is any easier to read than Bereishit's source.

נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדֹרֹתָיו

Out of all the figures in Torah, Noach is perhaps the ultimate blank slate.  Although he is described as 'righteous and perfect', this mostly appears to consist of Noach passively carrying out G-d's command without challenge or comment. The first time we see him take the initiative is in offering a korban to G-d on finally leaving the ark - and soon afterwards he degenerates into a drunken target of mockery who is the only person in Torah to end his life cursing some of his offspring.

The Midrash Tanchuma spends much of its commentary comparing Noach to other biblical figures, with some famously sharp comments from the Rabbis contrasting Noach - described as righteous 'in his generations' - with Avraham. While some are more sympathetic to Noach, others remark that had he lived in Avraham's time 'he would have been unable to find his hands or feet'!

However, perhaps more unexpectedly the Midrash also compares Noach with Yosef - twice directly, and once as part of a larger group of figures whom according to the Midrash were  תָּמִים (in this context, born circumcised). If we look at the parallels drawn by the Midrash, we can see that just as Avraham is generally considered more favourably than Noach, so too perhaps Yosef could be considered in a better light. However, Yosef's status has even greater implications due to the role he plays in the transition between the internecine struggles of Bereishit and the emergence of Israel as a nation in Shemot.  

 The Midrash first directly compares Noach and Yosef as being 'righteous' in Chapter 5, thanks to their providing food for G-d's creation during times of hardship, whether in flood or in famine. However, the Midrash also brings a second comparison in Chapter 11, explaining that both Noach and Yosef abstained from relations with their wives during the period of the flood/famine. 'Why?' asks the Midrash. 'For at a time when the world is in a state of sorrow and destruction, it is forbidden for a person to engage in procreation, so that it should not appear as if [G-d] is occupied in destroying the world while he [the person] is building it.'

Linking these two ideas is the relationship between man and G-d. At times when G-d has willed there should be trouble in the world through drought/famine/flood etc., it is almost as if He delegates responsibility for sustaining those who are to survive to people like Noach and Yosef. However, at the same time as taking on some of G-d's attributes to keep creation in a safe state of 'suspended animation', Noach and Yosef are warned not to go too far by actively creating new life and therefore undermining G-d's decree of destruction.

Interestingly, the commentary on this Midrash cites a discussion between the Tosafot and the Maharsha that explains that the above prohibition is suspended on 'mikvah night' - however, Yosef was so pious that he did not have relations with his wife even on this night. This actually points to a fundamental difference between Noach and Yosef. As mentioned at the start, Noach passively follows G-d's direct instructions, and - unlike Avraham arguing with G-d over Sdom - apparently makes no extra effort to save anyone outside his immediate family and the animals. However (at least, according to a p'shat reading of the text), Yosef is never told directly by G-d to save Mitzrayim from famine. Instead, we see him being told indirectly through his interpretation of Pharoah's dream before taking the initiative to suggest the steps needed to stockpile enough food for the famine years.

Just as according to the Rabbis Yosef is more stringent than necessary about not undermining G-d's will during the famine, so too he goes beyond what is required of him to save Mitzrayim and the surrounding nations from hunger. In doing so, Yosef balances both Noach's obedience to G-d with Avraham's concern for his fellows to create an important example for the emerging Jewish people.


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


BTW, when I mentioned controversial posts, this was originally going to be one of those...I'd wanted to do something about the 'curse of Cham/Canaan' and perceptions of black people, but it turned out to be far too complicated and difficult to deal with right now. However I'd love to know how (if at all) those of you who went to Jewish schools were taught about the whole Cham incident - comments welcome!

Bereishit - the end is in the beginning

 B"H

N.B A big thank goes to both Michelle S. for alerting me to a cornucopia of online sources, and to Joe W. whose shiur on Gan Eden got me thinking about this theme in Torah. And of course to all of you who've said you're interested in reading, thereby pushing me to actually meet my own deadline while trying to not to be distracted by Diwali fireworks...

 בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים

 And so we begin. Except not quite as expected...

Most of us think of Bereishit as containing two central narratives - creation itself, and the expulsion of Adam and Chava from Gan Eden. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Midrash Tanchuma therefore begins its commentary by focusing on the central role of Torah to the creation. 

What is more surprising - to me at least - is how much attention the Midrash Tanchuma gives to the opening words of the Torah and how little by comparison to Gan Eden. While the Midrash does not move on from the opening words until Chapter 6, Gan Eden is dealt with in a mere 3 chapters which on the surface do very little to expand the source text itself. However, if we study Chapter 6 more closely, we find that the Midrash makes a series of connections showing the significance of the expulsion and future return to Gan Eden throughout both the Torah and history.

[For Hebrew readers who want to follow, a full text of the Midrash in question can be found here about halfway down].

(Bereishit 2:4)  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם

 The Midrash notes that everywhere in the Torah (in this case, the whole of Tanakh) the word תוֹלְדת is missing a second vav except in the above verse and the verse 'These are the generations (תוֹלְדוֹת) of Peretz' at the end of Sefer Ruth, which lies almost at the opposite end of Tanakh from Bereishit. It then goes on to explain that the vav represents 6 attributes which G-d took away from Adam after he sinned, but which will ultimately be restored in the future: the 'radiance' of Adam's face; his height; his immortality; the 'fruits of the lands'; his residence in Gan Eden; and the full power of the sun and the moon, which were diminished as a result. Since the relevant verses from Ruth describe the ancestry of David ha-Melech and therefore the Moshiach, the Midrash is implying here that the restoration it refers to is to come in the Messianic age.


This Messianic link is heightened when we consider the proof-texts used by the Midrash. Many of the proofs for the restoration of what G-d removed from Adam are drawn from the Nevi'im, usually from the prophecies relating to G-d returning us to Eretz Yisrael and the Temple after its destruction and our exile. In particular, the verse כי כימי העץ ימי עמי (Yeshayahu 65:22) - brought as a proof-text for G-d's restoration of eternal life - is taken from a chapter where the prophet specifically talks about G-d 'creating a new heaven and a new earth', telling us that 'the former things shall not be remembered'. Here, it seems that not only Adam's sin will be fully forgiven but the whole of creation as described in Bereishit will be 'rebooted'*.


However, this doesn't fully explain the significance of the 'full' תוֹלְדוֹת's second appearance at the end of Ruth. Peretz, Ruth and David himself all lived well before even the first period of destruction and exile for Israel. From a strictly historical point of view, while it makes sense for the full תוֹלְדוֹת to appear in Bereishit before Adam's sin and expulsion from Gan Eden, there is therefore little reason for it to appear in Ruth at a time when the Messianic age is only hinted at through the generations from Peretz to David.

On the other hand, the other proof-texts used by the Midrash suggest something more complex than history merely being bookended by Gan Eden and the Moshiach. Although most of the 'restoration' proof-texts are from the Nevi'im, the exception is that for restoring Adam's lost height, which is taken not from prophecies about a future redemption but from a reminder in Vayikra 26:13 of a redemption which has already taken place - G-d leading Israel out of slavery in Mitzrayim. Meanwhile, the proof-text for the sun and the moon diminishing in light through Adam's sin is taken not from Bereishit but from another of Yeshayahu's prophecies - this time, concerning a destruction and exile which are to occur well after the original exile of Adam from Gan Eden.

If we consider the Midrash's earlier focus on the Torah as pre-existing creation, this can help us understand the Midrash's perspective. As humans we can only experience time as a linear progression from one event to the other - however, if the Torah is truly outside time and space, this means that events spanning the course of history can nevertheless be part of the same act of sin and/or redemption.

The Midrash therefore teaches us that - while at first the reappearance of a 'full' תוֹלְדוֹת at the end of Ruth may appear to be jumping the gun when it comes to redemption for Adam's sin - we should see this both as a reminder that history is an ongoing process of sin and redemption, and as a sign of hope for a future return to both Eretz Yisrael and Gan Eden.

*with thanks/apologies to Steven Moffat for the metaphor ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay tuned for Noach and Yosef, and laila tov!