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.