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...