Bamidbar - Cosmic Conversions

B"H

Full text here

Oops - this was partially written before Shavuot. Unfortunately due to work commitments I wasn't able to get it finalised until now...also, thanks once again to D.S. for late-night grammatical assistance ;-)

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Bamidbar, Chapter 3 (extract)

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, אלו היו יודעין אומות העולם מה בית המקדש יפה להם, קסטוריות היו מקיפין אותו כדי לשמרו, שהיה יפה להם יותר ממה שהיה יפה לישראל. שכך שלמה סידר בתפלתו, וגם אל הנכרי אשר לא מעמך ישראל הוא, (ו) אתה תשמע השמים וגו' ועשית ככל אשר יקרא אליך הנכרי (מ"א ח מא-מג). אבל כשבא אצל ישראל, מה כתיב, ונתת לאיש ככל דרכיו אשר תדע את לבבו (דה"ב ו ל). אמר שלמה, רבון העולמים, אם הוא ראוי, תן לו. ואם אינו ראוי, אל תתן לו. ולא תאמר בית המקדש בלבד היה יפה להם, אלא אלולי ישראל, לא היה מטר יורד לעולם, ולא השמש זורחת, שבזכותן המטר יורד, והקדוש ברוך הוא מזריח בעולם הזה, ולעתיד, אומות העולם רואין היאך הקדוש ברוך הוא מתדבק עם ישראל. והם באים להדבק בהם, שנאמר, נלכה עמכם כי שמענו אלהים עמכם (זכריה ח כג):

2) Midrash Tanchuma Bechukotai, Chapter 2 (extract)

. אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, אלו היו יודעין האומות שבשביל עונות ישראל הם לוקין, היו מעמידין להם שני איסטרטיוטין לכל אחד ואחד מישראל, כדי שישמרו את התורה ושלא יחטאו. ולא דיין שאין האומות משמרין את ישראל, אלא עוד הן מבטלין אותן מן המצות. שאם יחטאו, כל העולם לוקה, שנאמר, על כן עליכם כלאו שמים מטל. ואם אינם חוטאין, כל העולם מתברך בשבילם, שנאמר, והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ (ברא' כו ד).

3) Zechariah 8:23

כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת בַּיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה אֲשֶׁר יַחֲזִיקוּ עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִכֹּל לְשֹׁנוֹת הַגּוֹיִם וְהֶחֱזִיקוּ בִּכְנַף אִישׁ יְהוּדִי לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה עִמָּכֶם כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ אֱלֹהִים עִמָּכֶם.

4) Ruth 1:14

וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ

5) Ruth 3:9

וַיֹּאמֶר מִי-אָתְּ וַתֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי רוּת אֲמָתֶךָ וּפָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ עַל-אֲמָתְךָ כִּי גֹאֵל אָתָּה

6) Shemot 18:1

וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ  כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם.

Who are we? What does it mean to be Jewish, to be 'chosen' by G-d as a 'goy kadosh' seperate from other peoples, and how should this affect how we live our lives? These are the hardest questions facing us as a people today - but sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the fact that our own inner uncertainty also has implications for how the non-Jewish world views our role in the world. As one anonymous commentator remarked (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) after watching Israel's latest Eurovision offering last week, 'is this really what G-d chose His people for?'

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, one of the Amoraim and an important figure in aggadic (homiletical) literature is cited two weeks running by the Midrash Tanchuma with a fascinating insight into our role in the world. He first appears in a midrash on parshat Bechukotai (source 2) above) observing that if the non-Jewish nations were fully aware that they suffer when the Jews sin, they would assign every Jew two soldiers to make sure they observe the Torah and prevent them from sinning - however, not only do the surrounding nations not do this, but they even seek to prevent us from doing mitzvot!

A similar midrash featuring Rabbi Yehoshua appears for parshat Bamidbar (source 1) above) - here, the focus is on the nations failure to realise the positive influence of both the Beit HaMikdash and the Jewish people upon the wider world. In the case of the Beit HaMikdash, the benefit comes from the fact that in accordance with Shlomo ha-melech (King Solomon)'s prayer that 'v'gam el hanachri asher me'amecha Israel hu...u'va v'hitpalel el habayit hazeh, atah tishma hashamayim...v'asita k'chol asher yikra elecha hanachri' - 'and even the stranger who is not from your people Israel...who comes and prays at [the Beit HaMikdash], may You listen from the heavens...and act in accordance with everything that the stranger calls out to you'. In other words, the non-Jew's prayer is guaranteed a favourable response - unlike the prayer of the Jew, which Shlomo ha-melech asks G-d to respond to depending on whether or not the Jew praying is 'ra'u' (worthy) of having his prayers fulfilled.

However, Rabbi Yehoshua is at pains to point out here that it is not only the Beit HaMikdash but the Jewish people who is of benefit to the wider world. While he only justifies this with proof-texts in the earlier midrash from Bechukotai, in both cases this benefit is expressed in terms of fertility and G-d controlling the right weather conditions of rain/dew/sun according to the 'z'chut' (merit) of the Jewish people (source 1) and whether or not they sin (source 2). Rabbi Yehoshua therefore sees the Jewish people as having a cosmic significance whereby the wellbeing of the entire world is dependent upon both our mere existence and whether or not we live up to our purpose of observing the Torah. Quite a role to fill!

And if this wasn't enough, the midrash for parshat Bamidbar goes even further to say that:

v'le'atid, umot ha'olam ro'im heyach HaKadosh Baruch Hu mitdabek im Yisrael v'hem ba'im l'hidavek ba'hem, she'ne'emar 'nelchah imachem ki shama'anu elokim imachem' - 'in the future, the peoples of the world will see how the Holy One, Blessed be He attaches Himself together with Israel and they will come to attach themselves to them, as it is said 'We will go with you for we have heard that G-d is with you' (Zecharya 8:23)

In the spirit of Shavuot, I would argue that this midrash implies that the non-Jewish nations will ultimately convert and become part of the Jewish people in the future. How so? Well, in both its choice of language to describe both G-d and the nations as mitdabkim (attaching themselves) to the Jews and its use of the proof-text from Zecharya, the midrash alludes to two famous gerim who play a role at Shavuot - Ruth and Yitro.* Sefer Ruth describes how Ruth 'davka' (clung) to her mother-in-law Naomi at the crucial moment when she refuses to leave and declares her commitment to Naomi and the Jewish people (see source 4)), while in an echo of the nations statement that they have 'heard that G-d is with you' Yitro comes to visit Moshe (and, according to many commentators, to convert) after 'hearing' how G-d has taken the Jews out of Egypt (see source 6). Even more intriguingly, a parallel could perhaps be drawn between the two occasions on which Ruth is mentioned as coming under G-d's/Boaz's 'kanfei/kanaf' wings/cloak respectively), and the full p'sak from which our midrash's proof-text is taken (see source 3) in which ten men from each nation will take hold of the 'kanaf' of a Jew before saying 'nelchah imachem...'

While the idea of the whole world becoming Jewish may seem rather far-fetched, today we can see people from across the world expressing an interest in gerut with some being prepared to move countries and even continents in pursuit of their goal. However, at the same time gerim and the process of gerut has become one of the most political and hotly contested issues in the Jewish community, mostly because it goes to the heart of Jewish identity and our opening questions of what it means to be Jewish.

Unfortunately most of the problems surrounding gerut today can be traced back to the fact that being Torah-observant - or at the very least acknowledging the centrality of the Torah and our status as G-d's 'chosen people' - are no longer synonymous with being Jewish. While Rabbi Yehoshua laments the fact that the non-Jewish nations fail to recognise how their well-being is dependent upon the Jews, today it is we ourselves as a people who have lost sight of our purpose in this world. Perhaps it is only when we rediscover this that all gerim will be able to join our ranks as 'gerei tzeddek' (righteous/sincere converts) and the rest of the world will no longer need to question what G-d has 'chosen' us for.


Very belated chag sameach/shavua tov/early shabbat shalom!

RPT


* as far as I know this is a bit of a chiddush on my part, but if any commentators have picked up on this before please let me know!

Behar-Bechukotai - Brit of Brotherhood

B"H

See here and here for full source texts for both parshiyot.

Apologies for the lateness/shortness etc. - the week hasn't quite gone as planned and I also didn't have much in terms of material to work with. Thankfully next week we move on to sefer Bamidbar, which should have more in terms of narrative etc. for the midrash to work with!

Midrash Tanchuma Behar, Chapter 4

 
וכי ימוך אחיך, אלו ישראל, שנאמר, וימכו בעונם (תהל' קו מג). ומכר מאחוזתו, שנמכרו במדי בימי המן, שלקחן אותו רשע מאחשורוש. ובא גואלו, זה מרדכי. וגאל את ממכר אחיו, שכסה את עונותיהם, שכולם היו ראוים להריגה. למה. שאכלו מתבשילי המלך. מניין. שכך כתיב, ובמלאת הימים האלה וגו' (אסתר א ה). ונתגרה בהן המן, שנאמר, הפיל פור הוא הגורל (שם ג ז). ובזכות מרדכי נצולו, ונהפוך הוא אשר ישלטו היהודים המה בשנאיהם (שם ט א). הוי, וגאל את ממכר אחיו. דבר אחר, ובא גואלו, זה הקדוש ברוך הוא, שנאמר, גואלם חזק ה' צבאות שמו (ירמ' נ לד). הקרוב אליו, זה הקדוש ברוך הוא, שכתוב בו, וירם קרן לעמו תהלה לכל חסידיו לבני ישראל עם קרובו (תהלים קמח יד):

 

The Midrash Tanchuma has relatively little to say about parshat Behar, and the few midrashim it does contain mostly focuses on the following verse introducing the halacha regarding sale of one's ancestral land due to poverty:

 'Ki yamuch achicha u'mchar me'achuzato u'va go'alo hakarov elaiv v'ga'al et mimkar achiv' (Vayikra 25:25)

'If your brother is impoverished and has to sell part of his ancestral holding, his redeemer who is closest to him shall come and redeem what his brother has sold'

The midrash from Midrash Tanchuma shown above takes this source-text and applies it to the story of Purim as told in Megillat Esther. As the midrash explains, the 'impoverished' brother represents Israel/the Jews in Persia, the 'sale' refers to the sale of the Jews' fate to Haman by King Achashverosh, and the 'redeemer' is represented by either Mordecai or G-d Himself.

What is interesting here is how the source-text, which is rooted in our presence in Eretz Yisrael itself and the land portions granted to each Jew as an eternal 'freeholding' which can never be fully sold away, is transmogrified to represent the quintessentially 'Diaspora narrative' of Megillat Esther. Instead of describing apparently mundane property transactions, the halacha of the 'redeemer' therefore comes to describe the relationship between Israel and G-d/His agents e.g. Mordecai in terms of unprecedented intimacy, whereby all parties are connected as if through a family bond through the term 'achicha/achaiv' (your/his brother).  

If we bear in mind that this midrash most likely arose following at least the first exile from Eretz Yisrael, we can perhaps understand why this shift was made. As made abundantly clear throughout the Torah - including in the preceding passage of parshat Behar dealing with the shemitta cycle - it is G-d rather than the Jews who ultimately retains possession of Eretz Yisrael, and the Jews are only given the right to live on it by G-d on condition that they in turn keep the mitzvot (including observance of the shemitta years). As living in Eretz Yisrael is both central to the brit between Israel and G-d as envisioned in the Torah and conditional upon observance of the mitzvot, following the first Churban (destruction of the Temple) and exile from Eretz Yisrael the Jews may have been forgiven for assuming the brit and G-d's 'special relationship' with them as a people was at an end.

By interpreting the events of Megillat Esther in terms of the halacha of the 'redeemer', this midrash therefore counters such feelings by showing that - despite exile from Eretz Yisrael - G-d has still maintained His brit with the Jewish people, so much so that He can still be considered a 'redeemer' to them and to have the closeness of relationship to allow us to be considered like G-d's 'brothers' who have fallen on hard times. Through its re-interpretation of the original source-text, this midrash becomes a sign of hope running through the centuries of exile we have endured before seeing the beginnings of redemption in our own days in our return to Eretz Yisrael.

Shavua tov 

RPT

Emor - the Missing Midrash

B"H

Full text of the Midrash Tanchuma is here. This week, as a special treat you also get the text for Vayikra Rabbah here.

 

l'zecher ul'ilui nishmat Ya'akov ben Israel Simons

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Emor, Chapter 17

ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון.[....] פרי עץ הדר, כפות תמרים וענף עץ עבות וערבי נחל. מה טיבן של ארבעת המינים הללו. מהן שעושין פירות, ומהן שאינן עושין פירות. פרי עץ הדר כפות תמרים, אלו צדיקים, שיש להם מעשים טובים. וענף עץ עבות וערבי נחל, אלו בינונים שיש בישראל. אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, כלכם כאחד תעשו אגודה אחת, כדי שלא יהיה בבני פסולת. אם עשיתם כן, אני מתעלה עליכם. וכן הנביא אומר, הבונה בשמים מעלותיו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה. ואימתי הוא מתעלה, כשהן עושין אגודה אחת, שנאמר, ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה:

2) Midrash Tanchuma Emor, Chapter 19

ולקחתם לכם. זה שאמר הכתוב, כל עצמותי תאמרנה ה' מי כמוך (שם לה י). יפה אמר דוד שאמר הפסוק הזה. תדע לך, שהלולב הזה דומה לשדרה של אדם, וההדס הזה דומה לעינים, והערבה דומה לשפתים, והאתרוג דומה ללב. אמר דוד, אין לך אבר אחר גדול מאלו. שקולין הן כנגד הגוף. הוי, כל עצמותי: 

3) Vayikra Rabbah 30:12

 דבר אחר:
פרי עץ הדר, אלו ישראל. מה אתרוג זה, יש בו טעם ויש בו ריח.
כך ישראל, יש בהם בני אדם, שיש בהם תורה, ויש בהם מעשים טובים.

כפות תמרים, אלו ישראל.
מה התמרה הזו, יש בו טעם ואין בו ריח.
כך הם ישראל, יש בהם שיש בהם תורה ואין בהם מעשים טובים.

וענף עץ עבות, אלו ישראל. מה הדס, יש בו ריח ואין בו טעם.
כך ישראל, יש בהם שיש בהם מעשים טובים ואין בהם תורה.

וערבי נחל, אלו ישראל.
מה ערבה זו, אין בה טעם ואין בה ריח.
כך הם ישראל, יש בהם בני אדם שאין בהם לא תורה ולא מעשים טובים.
ומה הקב"ה עושה להם?
לאבדן אי אפשר, אלא אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יוקשרו כולם אגודה אחת, והן מכפרין אלו על אלו, ואם עשיתם כך אותה שעה אני מתעלה, הדא הוא דכתיב (עמוס ט): הבונה בשמים מעלותיו.
ואימתי הוא מתעלה?
כשהן עשויין אגודה אחת, שנאמר (שם): ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה.
לפיכך משה מזהיר לישראל: ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון:

This was going to be a short little vort after the angst of previous weeks. However, as usual I seem to have thrown up a textual oddity which may or may not be controversial...;-)

Those of you who know me in real life/through social networking may have seen me link to this article over the weekend which, as one friend noted, is a longwinded way of pointing out that the 'standard' printed text of the Talmud which we have today is not in fact the same text(s) as were circulating in manuscript form up until the first printed Talmud Bavli 'Bomberg' edition of 1523, and indeed includes small but crucial changes/omissions from the manuscript texts.* What we sometimes fail to recognise (and what interests me about midrashim in particular) is how the particular wording captured in these 'standard' versions of the Talmud can sometimes be brought down as the definitive text - despite the presence of alternative wordings in older manuscript texts - thereby shaping both our interpretation of the text and our worldview (for example, towards the value of Jewish and non-Jewish lives as explored in the linked article).

Another example of how a midrash that 'everyone knows' can in fact have lesser-known variant texts crops up in this week's Midrash Tanchuma Emor. Readers with a Jewish education are probably familiar with the two midrashic traditions on the symbolism of the arba minim (four species, commonly referred to as 'lulav and etrog') described in parshat Emor - firstly, that each species represents a different part of our bodies which must all come together to praise G-d (see source 2 above), and secondly, that each of the species represents a different type of Jew who may or may not have the qualities of Torah-learning and good deeds, but all of which are necessary to serve G-d (see source 3 above, which is taken from a different set of midrashim). 

Both traditions emphasise the unifying nature of the arba minim and the lesson this has for us - whether as individuals using our bodies to serve G-d, or as a people including everyone from the tzadik (righteous) to the rasha (sinner) to the average Jew. However, there is also a lesser-known midrash at the end of Midrash Tanchuma Emor 17 (see source 1 above) which, while based on the same prooftext from Amos of G-d being exalted by the Jews being 'agudah achat' (one group), explains the symbolism of the arba minim with some crucial differences. 

The more familiar midrash from source 3 represents the arba minim as follows:

The pri etz hadar (etrog/citron) both tastes good and has a nice scent, therefore representing those who have both Torah and ma'asim tovim (good deeds).

The kapot t'marim (lulav/palm tree) produces a good taste through its fruit but has no aroma represents those who only have Torah but no ma'asim tovim.

The anaf etz avot (hadasim/myrtle) has a nice scent but no tasty fruit, therefore representing those with ma'asim tovim only and no Torah.

Finally, the arvei nahal (aravot/willows) has neither scent nor taste, thereby representing those with neither Torah nor ma'asim tovim.

Instead of the above, the midrash at source 1 explains the arba minim as follows:

'Mehen she'osin perot, u'mehen she'enan osin perot. Pri etz hadar kapot t'marim, elu tzadikim she'yesh lahem ma'asim tovim. V'anaf etz avot v'arvei nahal, elu benonim she'yesh b'Yisrael'-

'From some of them [the arba minim] fruit is produced and from some of them there is no fruit. The [etrog] and [lulav], these are the righteous to which are ascribed good deeds. And the [hadasim] and [aravot], these are the average [lit. 'inbetweeners'] which are there in Israel.'**

Here, instead of being split into four groups the arba minim are split into pairs, which are distinguished from each other solely on the basis of whether or not they produce fruit - no mention of their scent, as with the version from Vayikra Rabbah. Even more interestingly, and as opposed to the version from Vayikra Rabbah in which fruit = Torah), here the fruit are correlated to the ma'asim tovim of the righteous. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever of 'Torah' - the sole definition of the tzadik which elevates them above the 'average' Jew is their attribute of ma'asim tovim.

While the midrash from Vayikra Rabbah places Torah and ma'asim tovim as equivalent attributes of which a tzadik must have both, this 'alternative' midrash seems to favour ma'asim tovim over even Torah as the defining characteristic of the tzadik. For those who disproportionately elevate the mere act of learning Torah above all other aspects of life as a Jew, perhaps this neglected midrash serves as a reminder that there are other ways - particularly in terms of mitzvot ben adam l'chavero (i.e. how we interact with others) - of being an above-average Jew.

Shavua tov

RPT

* Another famous example of this phenomenon is the omission in modern printed Talmuds of Rabbi Tarfon's 'fifth cup' from Pesachim 118a, which was well known and discussed by commentators such as the Rambam and which seems to have evolved into/influenced the 'Elijah's Cup' of the modern-day Seder table. 

 **This is almost entirely my own translation. In fact, someone reading only the Metsudah edition's English translation of this midrash without referring to the Hebrew would have missed all of the above, as the Metsudah translation runs: 

'Some of them produce fruit and some of them do not. "The fruit of the beautiful tree," refers to the righteous who have acquired Torah and good deeds. "And a branch of palm trees and boughs of thick-leaved trees," refers to the average people among Yisroel. "And willows of the brook," refers to the wicked among Yisroel.'

As you can see, this does not accurately translate the Hebrew text and owes more to the more well-known midrash from Vayikra Rabbah - in fact, a footnote actually goes on to paraphrase the said midrash from Vayikra Rabbah itself as a purported explanation of the Midrash Tanchuma, despite this not actually being what the Hebrew text says. I have no idea why the translator and/or editor of the Metsudah edition did this (and may even try contacting them to find out why)***, but it's an interesting example of the power that the 'establishment' version of midrashim can have on our reading of texts...

***There is a rather mysterious footnote saying that 'the translation is according to the emendation of the text by Eitz Yosef', which could explain matters - although it doesn't explain why the Hebrew text itself has been left unchanged. I'd therefore be interested to know how and why the Eitz Yosef emended the text...

Tazria-Metzora Part II - Torat Imecha

B"H

2021 note - while I'm still bothered by these texts, 2021 me would word the last couple of paras differently. Although it would still be rather ranty. In any case, I've left this up as a reminder of 2012 me.

2022 - exciting update to footnote 3!

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

Apologies for the delay in getting this out, hopefully you'll understand why...

1) Due to the content of parshat Tazria, this post will touch on niddah, menstruation and childbirth. While I will keep any explicit discussions to a minimum, if you are uncomfortable reading about this I suggest you look away now.

2) This also comes with a 'controversy warning' - while I have brought sources etc. as usual, this is not so much a dvar Torah as my personal attempt to confront certain misogynist comments in the Talmud. Therefore, if you are the sort of person who considers feminism to be treif , I would also suggest that you look away now and content yourself with Tazria-Metora Part I as posted last week.

Consider yourself warned!

N.B. For what it's worth, full texts for Tazria are here and for Metzora see here.

Sources:

1) Vayikra 12:1-8

א וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.  ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּו‍ֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא.  ג וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ.  ד וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָה בְּכָל-קֹדֶשׁ לֹא-תִגָּע וְאֶל-הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא תָבֹא עַד-מְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ.  ה וְאִם-נְקֵבָה תֵלֵד וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם כְּנִדָּתָהּ וְשִׁשִּׁים יוֹם וְשֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּשֵׁב עַל-דְּמֵי טָהֳרָה.  ו וּבִמְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן-שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה וּבֶן-יוֹנָה אוֹ-תֹר לְחַטָּאת אֶל-פֶּתַח אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.  ז וְהִקְרִיבוֹ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ וְטָהֲרָה מִמְּקֹר דָּמֶיהָ  זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת לַזָּכָר אוֹ לַנְּקֵבָה.  ח וְאִם-לֹא תִמְצָא יָדָהּ דֵּי שֶׂה וְלָקְחָה שְׁתֵּי-תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְאֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלֶיהָ הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵרָה

2) Midrash Tanchuma Tazria, Chapter 4

ובמלאת ימי טהרה וגו'. למה היא מביאה קרבן. אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה, מאה פעיות האשה פועה, שנאמר, הן אתם מאין ופעלכם מאפע (ישע' מא כד). מהו מאפע. מאה פועות היא פועה כשהיא יושבת על המשבר, תשעים ותשע למיתה, ואחת לחיים. וכיון שהצרות מקיפות אותה, היא נודרת שלא תזקק עוד לאישה. לפיכך מביאה קרבן, שנאמר, תביא כבש בן שנתו:

3) Midrash Tanchuma Tazria, Chapter 1 (extract)

אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר. זה שאמר הכתוב, מי יתנני כירחי קדם וגו' (איוב כט ב). הפסוק הזה איוב אמר. אימתי. בשעה שבאו עליו היסורין. אמר, מי יתנני כירחי קדם ולואי שהייתי כאותן הימים שהייתי במעי אמי. כימי אלוה ישמרני (שם), מלמד שהולד משתמר במעי אמו. בהלו נרו עלי ראשי, לאורו אלך חשך (שם שם ג). מכאן את למד, שהאורה לתינוק כשהוא במעי אמו. כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, בסוד אלוה עלי אהלי (שם שם ד). כשם שהגשם מוחה בקרקע ומלכלך אותה, כך התינוק מלוכלך במעי אמו, ד"א בסוד אלוה עלי אהלי מדבר בתינוק וכשם שהתינוק מלוכלך כך אדם מלוכלך מעונות והצרות באות עליו. באותה שעה הוא אומר, מי יתנני כירחי קדם, ולואי היו לי אותן הירחים והימים שהייתי במעי אמי. מה אומר באחרונה, כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, אמר רבי אבהו, התינוק יוצא ממעי אמו מלא רירין ומלא דם, והם מחבבין אותו. וכן מנהג כל אשה שתלד, מחבבין אותו הולד. וכל שכן אם הוא זכר. הוי אומר, אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר

4) Talmud Bavli, Niddah 31b (extract)

שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן אמר להן בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן מתקיף לה רב יוסף והא מזידה היא ובחרטה תליא מילתא ועוד קרבן שבועה בעי איתויי ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר זכר שהכל שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר ומפני מה אמרה תורה מילה לשמונה שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים

As Torah-observant Jews living in the modern world, sometimes we are confronted by texts and ideas that are so incompatible with modern sensibilities that they shake us out of our comfort zone, forcing us to reassess our Jewish identity and how we approach Torah. A couple of weeks ago, I was faced with such a challenge while reviewing the Midrash Tanchuma on parshat Tazria in preparation for writing this blog.

Dealing as they do with various forms of impurity resulting from bodily discharges, the double portion of Tazria-Metzora was never going to be an easy one to write about. The opening section of parshat Tazria dealing with the korban to be offered by a woman after childbirth (classed as a yoledet) is a particularly difficult text which has challenged for many commentators for two main reasons. Firstly, for what 'sin' is a mother required to bring a chatat ('sin-offering) following childbirth - after all, what on earth could be 'sinful' about bringing a new life into this world? Secondly, why should the two periods of purification  - the initial period in which relations with one's husband are prohibited in the same way as for a niddah (menstruating woman), and the second period in which one can have relations but still has a measure of ritual 'impurity' in terms of korbanot and the Beit HaMikdash - both be doubled following the birth of a daughter rather than of a son? While both commentators and midrashim provide various explanations for the first question (the need for a chatat to be brought by the new mother), they usually struggle with a viable reason for the second question.

 Usually, when choosing a midrash to write about, I try to at least skim-read all of the Midrash Tanchuma for a particular parsha at least once before settling on one (or more) midrashim to explore. Several midrashim of interest may therefore catch my eye on a first review, even if I choose not to explore them in more detail due to time constraints/complexity etc. For parshat Tazria, these included in particular perek 4 (source 2 above), which has a rather down-to-earth explanation the requirement for the mother to bring a chatat: namely that, during childbirth, the sheer pain of labour causes women to swear they will never have relations with their husbands again.*

On reading this I couldn't help but smile - while the compilers of the Midrash Tanchuma were almost certainly male, this particular midrash sounded so much like something women might say amongst themselves that I could almost hear a matriarchal chorus in my head agreeing vociferously with the midrash. (In case you accuse me of making this up, I have been present when older women have spoken quite frankly about the pain of childbirth, leaving yours truly wide-eyed and wincing...). As the midrash in question was quite short, I marked it as a 'possible' only and moved on.

However, it was on a second review of another 'possible' midrash (source 3 above) that my eye was caught by a less-than-favourable footnote. The midrash comments at this point that a mother always loves her newborn child despite its being covered in the blood and mucus of childbirth, adding 'especially if it is a male'. Not to be outdone, quoting the Eitz Yosef the footnote to the Metsudah edition of the Midrash Tanchuma explains this as follows:

"The Gemoro says in [Talmud Bavli, Niddah 31b]: Why does the Torah command that a woman remain impure for seven days after the birth of a male child, but fourteen days after the birth of a female child? The answer is that since everyone is happy with the birth of a male child, the woman has remorse (for declaring she never wants to give birth again) after seven days. But in the case of a girl, since everyone is saddened by her birth, her mother feels remose only after fourteen days. So this is what the Midrash means when it says "especially if it is a male". And this is why, "when a woman conceives and gives birth to a male child," she is impure for seven days and when she bears a female child she is impure for fourteen days. From this we learn that there is more joy at the birth of a boy than at the birth of a girl."

Hang on. 'In the case of a girl...everyone is saddened by her birth'???!!
 
As you can imagine, this footnote was not greeted with a smile on my part. However, as a believer in always checking original sources, I decided to look at the 'offending' section of Talmud itself to see what it had to say. While the original text can be found at 4) above, copied below is the Soncino translation of the relevant passage:

 "R. Simeon b. Yohai was asked by his disciples: Why did the Torah ordain that a woman after
childbirth should bring a sacrifice? He replied: When she kneels in bearing she swears impetuously
that she will have no intercourse with her husband. The Torah, therefore, ordained that she should
bring a sacrifice. (R. Joseph demurred: Does she not act presumptuously in which case the
absolution of the oath depends on her regretting it? Furthermore, she should have brought a
sacrifice prescribed for an oath!)And why did the Torah ordain that in the case of a male [the
woman is clean] after seven days and in that of a female after fourteen days? [On the birth of a] male
with whom all rejoice she regrets her oath after seven days, [but on the birth of a female] about
whom everybody is upset she regrets her oath after fourteen days. And why did the Torah ordain
circumcision on the eighth day? In order that the guests shall not enjoy themselves while his
father and mother are not in the mood for it." (Translation taken from here at the bottom of p147/top of p148)

So it seems that R' Shimon bar Yochai's teaching is in fact is a potential source-text for both of the above midrashim. The first part sounds exactly in line with women's experience of childbirth, and yet the second part regarding everyone 'being upset'** over the birth of a girl is an example of blatant misogyny which (as my own mother exclaimed on hearing this) would never be stated by any woman.

I should point out here that I have no axe to grind regarding the Torah itself on the yoledet. True, the double-length period of purification after the birth of a daughter, without any explanation, is troubling and has perplexed many. While the explanation I am most comfortable with (and which may in fact have a basis in the physiology of a newborn girl)*** is that the double-period reflects the fact that the newborn girl will one day go through her own cycle of niddah/childbearing, at the end of the day this is a chok of the Torah which is beyond human rationalisation. What troubles me is therefore not the law of the yoledet, but rather R' Shimon bar Yochai's explanation for it rooted in a clear preference for males over females.

Of course R' Shimon bar Yochai may merely have been stating the reality in his day and society that sons were prized more highly than daughters. After all, this is hardly an attitude that is restricted to the Talmudic world - a preference for sons over daughters, to the point of infanticide of female babies, can be found in many societies right up until the present day. However, as modern Jews in Western society one would hope that we no longer hold such negative attitudes towards our daughters. It is therefore very difficult - especially as a woman - to read such statements in texts which are integral to our Jewish tradition (and which in some quarters of the Orthodox world may still in fact be taught to young bochurim with little 'real' contact with women to counteract such texts).

How, then, do I respond to such texts? Well, it is possible to skirt the issue by engaging in apologetics, trying as best as one can to engage with the text on its own terms, or - as I have in fact done on previous occasions with the Midrash Tanchuma - avoiding problematic texts entirely and choosing to focus on other texts. Yet there are times when, confronted with statements such as that of R' Shimon bar Yochai above, it is impossible to avoid facing up to the fact that these texts simply do not square with a Judaism which values both men and women as created equally b'tzelem Elokim (in the 'image' of G-d).

A better solution may therefore be to develop the 'alternative' voice of women reading and interpreting traditional Jewish texts, bringing a feminine insight almost entirely missing from Jewish discourse until the 20th century and the educational and social changes which it has brought for Jewish women. Given the particular relevance to women of texts such as those dealing with the yoledet, perhaps by developing this voice we can bring new and more relevant meanings to such areas of Torah - and in doing so, relegate misogynist comments such as those of R'Shimon bar Yochai and the Midrash Tanchuma to no more than a footnote in Jewish history.

Shavua tov

RPT

*This midrash also contains a more haunting statement that a woman in childbirth cries 100 cries - 99 'for death' and one 'for life'. I may well have explored this more fully, had it not been for the upset of coming across Niddah 31b etc...

**To make matters worse, the actual term used by the Gemara here is one which the Midrash Tanchuma only the week before had identified as specifically meaning an act of mourning - see my earlier post from parshat Shemini. Obviously, to say that everyone 'mourns' the new life of a baby girl is even stronger than the translation above...

***Briefly speaking - menstruation is stimulated by a sharp drop in certain hormones at a particular point in the menstrual cycle. When a baby of either gender is born, the hormones it had previously been exposed to in its mother's womb are now withdrawn. In some newborn girls, this drop in hormones results in bleeding from the baby's uterus in what is essentially a mini 'period'. This article therefore posits that the doubled period following the birth of a daughter may be because by bleeding herself the baby girl may briefly become ritually impure as a zavah (a female experiencing bleeding outside of the usual menstrual cycle), and this status will inevitably be passed on to the mother through nursing her baby. While I have yet to find an Orthodox source backing this up, so far it is the best reason behind the doubled period that I can find, and also ties in well with those who explain the doubled period as relating to the fact that the newborn girl will herself one day experience niddah etc.

2022 update - rather excitingly, I found some references to baby girls 'menstruating' and going to the mikveh in Niddah 31b-32a (in a discussion about Samaritan girls being considered niddah from birth). See in particular here re: the baraitot by Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Proof of the 'baby zavah' theory?
 

Acharei Mot-Kedoshim - A Time to Plant and a Time to Reap

B"H

Full source text for Acharei Mot here, and for Kedoshim here

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Kedoshim, Chapter 8

[ו] כי תבואו אל הארץ ונטעתם. אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל, אף על פי שתמצאו אותה מליאה כל טוב, לא תאמרו נשב ולא נטע, אלא הוו זהירין בנטיעות, שנאמר, ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל. כשם שנכנסתם ומצאתם נטיעות שנטעו אחרים, אף אתם היו נוטעים לבניכם. שלא יאמר אדם, אני זקן, כמה שנים אני חי, מה אני עומד מתיגע לאחרים, למחר אני מת.[...] מעשה באדריאנוס המלך שהיה עובר למלחמה והולך עם הגייסות שלו להלחם על מדינה אחת שמרדה עליו. מצא זקן אחד בדרך שהיה נוטע נטיעות תאנים. אמר לו אדריאנוס, אתה זקן ועומד וטורח ומתיגע לאחרים. אמר לו, אדוני המלך, הריני נוטע. אם אזכה, אוכל מפירות נטיעותי. ואם לאו, יאכלו בני. עשה שלש שנים במלחמה וחזר. לאחר שלש שנים מצא לאותו זקן באותו מקום. מה עשה אותו זקן, נטל סלסלה ומלא אותה בכורי תאנים יפות וקרב לפני אדריאנוס. אמר לפניו, אדני המלך, קבל מן עבדך. אני הוא אותו הזקן שמצאת אותי בהליכתך, ואמרת לי, אתה זקן מה אתה מצטער עומד ומתיגע לאחרים, הרי כבר זכני המקום לאכול מפירות נטיעותי, ואלה שבתוך הסלסלה מהן מנתך. מיד אמר אדריאנוס לעבדיו, טלו אותה ממנו ומלאו אותה זהובים, ועשו כך. נטל הזקן הסלסלה מלאה זהובים, והתחיל הולך ומשתבח בביתו לאשתו ולבניו. סח להם את המעשה. היתה שכנתו עומדת שם, שמעה מה אמר הזקן. אמרה לבעלה, כל בני אדם הולכין והקדוש ברוך הוא נותן להם ומזמן להם טובה, ואתה יושב בבית חשוך באופל. הרי שכן שלנו כבד את המלך בסלסלה של תאנים ומלא אותה לו זהובים. ועתה עמוד וטול סל גדול ומלא אותו כל מיני מגדים מן תפוחים ותאנים ושאר פירות יפות שהוא אוהב אותן הרבה, לך וכבדו בהן, שמא ימלא לך זהובים, כמו שעשה לשכננו הזקן. הלך ושמע לאשתו, ונטל סל גדול ומלא אותו כל מיני מגדים תאנים ותפוחים וטען על כתפו וקרב לפני המלך בקופנדר. ועמד ואמר, אדוני המלך, שמעתי שאתה אוהב את הפירות, ובאתי לכבדך בתאנים ותפוחים. אמר המלך לסרדיוטין שלו, טלו אותו ממנו וטפחו אותן על פניו. עמדו והפשיטוהו ערום והתחילו טופחין אותו על פניו עד שנפחו פניו, סימו את עיניו ועשאוהו דוגמא, והלך לביתו בפחי נפש כשהוא עשוי דוגמא, בוכה. והיתה אשתו סבורה שהוא בא בסל מלא זהובים. וראתה אותו עשוי דוגמא ועיניו נפוחות וגופו משובר ומוכה. אמרה לו, מה לך. אמר לה, ששמעתי לך והלכתי לכבד את המלך באותו הסל, וטפחו אותו על פני. אלולי ששמעתי לך והטלתי אותו הסל אתרוגין, כבר היו מרגימין אותי את כל גופי בהן. כל כך למה. ללמדך, שהנשים הרעות מפילות את בעליהן ברעה. לפיכך לא יבטל אדם מן הנטיעות. אלא כשם שמצא, עוד יוסיף ויטע, אפילו יהיה זקן. אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל, למדו ממני, כביכול אני צריך, שנאמר, ויטע ה' אלהים גן בעדן מקדם (בראשית ב ח): 

N.B. for anyone who has difficulty reading the original text, due to the length of this midrash rather than doing both transliterations and translations of the whole text, I will summarise/quote translations from it below as best as I can, while transliterating key words/phrases. Hope this helps...

'V'ki tavo el ha'aretz u'n'tatem kol etz ma'achal...' - When you come to the land and you shall plant any tree from which to eat...(Vayikra 19:23)

Basing itself upon the wording of the above pasuk from parshat Kedoshim, the Midrash Tanchuma at source 1) comes to teach us that 'Even though you will find the Land full with all that is good, you should not say 'We will sit and not plant' [i.e. passively rely on G-d's promise of sustenance]. Rather, be careful to plant...Just as when you entered and found saplings that others had planted, so too you should plant for your children.'

The midrash further goes on to explain that we should not use our own mortality as a justification for apathy by arguing that, as we may not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of our labours, there is no point in working only to benefit others. Initially, the midrash brings a proof-text from sefer Kohelet to show that G-d hides from us the knowledge of when we will die precisely to avoid this attitude, so that we can be motivated to build and plant in the hope that we ourselves will benefit from the results (and, if not, that others will).

While this may seem like a nice little vort, the midrash does not stop here - instead, we are treated to an extensive mashal (parable) telling of two gifts of fruit brought to the 'melech Adriyonus' i.e. the Roman Caesar Hadrian*, with drastically different results as paraphrased below:

Part One

On his way to quash a rebellion, Hadrian finds an old man planting fig trees by the side of a road. Hadrian asks him why he is tiring himself out over these for the benefit of others (as there is little chance of his living long enough to eat the fruits himself). The old man responds to the effect that if he merits it so, he will eat the fruits himself - but if not, his children will eat the fruit that he has planted.

Three years later, Hadrian returns from war and meets the old man again. The old man fills a basket with the bikurim (first fruits) of his fig trees and brings them to Hadrian, reminding him of their previous encounter and explaining that G-d has granted him the merit of eating from the trees he has planted - therefore, he has brought some of the fruit as a present for Hadrian. Hadrian immediately orders the old man's basket to be filled with gold coins instead of the figs and the old man returns home in triumph to his family.

Part Two

Hearing the old man's story, his neighbour suggests to her husband that he takes a big basket, fill it with sweets, apples, figs and other beautiful fruits and take them to Hadrian in the hope that he will also be rewarded with a basketful of golden coins. The husband follows his wife's suggestions and brings his basket before Hadrian with the explanation that he had heard that Hadrian loved fruit. Hadrian's response is to order the hapless husband to be stripped and pelted on his face with his own fruits until he is battered and bruised. Despondent, he returns home to show his wife the result of his listening to her suggestions. 

The conclusion of the above mashal is two-fold: 'evil women persuade their husbands to evil' (!), and (as before) one should not refrain from planting even in old age. However, lest this seem a little harsh to those of the female persuasion, let's take a closer look at where the husband and wife of Part 2 go wrong. 

The first thing to notice is who the characters are. While in most mashalim the melech figure is representing G-d, here things are rather more complex as the melech is explicitly named as Hadrian, at once one of the Jews' greatest enemies (responsible for crushing the Bar-Kochba revolt and trying to eradicate Torah observance) and someone who is often seen in Talmudic literature questioning Jewish practice with the result that he (and the reader) has a point proven to him - as is the case in Part 1 of this mashal.** While Hadrian could be said to represent G-d in his role of dishing out rewards and punishments, G-d therefore also appears as a third party in the mashal.

Secondly, there are the differences between the gifts of fruit and the purpose behind them. In Part 1, the old man is specifically bringing Hadrian the bikkurim from his fig trees to show both that the old man's labor on the road-side all those years before have not been in vain, and that the old man's hope in the face of his own mortality has been rewarded by G-d. Hadrian's reward of gold coins therefore appears to be in recognition of the important lesson which the old man has taught him.

So, what goes wrong in Part 2? After all, looking at the wife's words to her husband we can see that she actually makes a valid complaint: 'kol b'nei adam holchin v'HaKadosh Baruch Hu noten lahem u'm'zamen lahem tova, v'atah yoshev b'bayit hoshech ba'ofel' (All people go about and the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives to them and provides them with good, but you sit here in a dark and dim house). In other words, the husband has failed to take heed of the midrash's overall message and is passively sitting around on his tuches instead of going out to plant trees - whether for his own benefit or for future generations.

Unfortunately both husband and wife fail to recognise the spiritual depth of the old man's gift to Hadrian and the fact that his reward results from his earlier labours and trust in G-d, not simply from his bringing a gift to the powerful Caesar. Instead, the wife's suggestion shows a presumption that the gift of beautiful fruits in itself was the source of the old man's reward of gold - hence her encouragement to her husband to bring an even larger gift in the hope of getting a quick and easy reward without any effort of tree-planting etc. Furthermore, when bringing his gift the man makes no mention of G-d and instead panders to Hadrian's presumed love of fruit - oblivious to the fact that Hadrian's earlier reward of gold had been in appreciation not of the old man's figs but of its spiritual significance. Middah k'neged middah, he is therefore punished by Hadrian (here named simply as 'melech', and therefore possibly representing G-d Himself) with the very fruit which he has brought.

This, it seems, is where the 'evil' of the old man's neighbour and her husband lie. For the old man, while one may certainly hope to be rewarded one's work, the most important thing is to make the effort even if one is not rewarded for it. His neighbours, however, exemplify the 'get rich quick' approach by assuming that one will immediately be rewarded through making superficial 'gifts' to G-d/those in power, thereby bypassing the need to put in any effort to provide for oneself.

While we no longer live in the agricultural society of the midrash, we can certainly still apply its message to many areas of our lives. Praying/doing mitzvot etc. should not be carried out in the simplistic expectation that by going through the motions of Torah observance our wishes will automatically be fulfilled. However, we should also be careful not to fall into the same trap as the wife of our mashal and assume that we know the full reasons behind others' apparent reward or punishment. Just as the significance of the old man's gift to Hadrian lay in a conversation three years' earlier which was not known to outsiders, so too we cannot expect to fully see or understand another person's relationship with G-d.

Shavua tov!

RPT

*At least, I am assuming this is Hadrian...if I have gone horribly wrong on this assumption, please tell me!

** In particular, Hadrian is shown in dialogue with R' Yehoshua ben Chananya, one of the Tana'aim who seems to have enjoyed somewhat friendly relations with Hadrian. In terms of this midrash, it is therefore also highly poignant that instead of bringing his bikkurim as a korban (offering) in the Beit HaMikdash - as, presumably, he would have done had it been standing - the bikkurim are 'kerav lifney' (brought/offered before) Hadrian, symbol of Rome and of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash.