Vayekhel-Pekudei - A Messianic Mystery?

B"H

Full source text here

Post this week is l'refuah shleima Diana bat Ruby Geraldine v'Rochel bas Nomi

1) Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei, Chapter 1

אלה פקודי המשכן. זה שאמר הכתוב, כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו (ירמי' יז יב), שם מכוון מקדשנו. וכן הוא אומר, מכון לשבתך פעלת ה' מקדש ה' כוננו ידיך (שמ' טו יז). וכן אתה מוצא, שירושלים מכונון למעלה כמו ירושלים של מטה. מרוב אהבתה של מטה, עשה אחרת למעלה, שנאמר, הן על כפים חקותיך, חומתיך נגדי תמיד (ישע' מט טו). ועל מה חרבה. אלא כי מהרו בניך מהרסיך ומחריביך ממך יצאו (שם שם טז), על זה חרבה. וכן אמר דוד, ירושלים הבנויה כעיר שחברה לה יחדו (תהל' קכב ג). כלומר, כעיר שבנה יה. ותרגם ירושלמי, דמתבניא ברקיע בקרתא לאתחברתה כחדא בארעא. ונשבע ששכינתו לא יכנס בשל מעלה, עד שיבנה של מטה. כמה חביבין ישראל לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא. ומנין. שכן כתיב, בקרבך קדוש ולא אבוא בעיר (הושע יא ט). ואומר, ועתה מה לי פה נאם ה' כי לוקח עמי חנם (ישע' נב ה). רצונו לומר, ועתה מה לי פה נאם ה', מה אני מבקש פה בירושלים אחר שלוקח עמי ממנה. בחנם שאבוא בה, לא אבוא. יהי רצון שיבנה במהרה בימינו:

2) Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei, Chapter 2 (abridged)

[אלה פקודי המשכן. ... רבי לוי אמר, משכן העדות, זה שאמר הכתוב, כי יסכר פי דוברי שקר (תהל' סג יב), יסכר פיהם של אומות העולם שהיו אומרים לישראל שאין השכינה חוזרת אלינו לעולם, שנאמר, רבים אומרים לנפשי, אין ישועתה לו באלהים סלה (שם ג ג), אלו עד שלא עשו את העגל בא הקדוש ברוך הוא ושרה אצלם, משכעס עליהם היו אומרים אינו חוזר אליהם. מה עשה. אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא, ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם (שמו' כה ח), וידעו כל באי עולם שמחלתי לישראל. ולפיכך כתיב, משכן העדות כבר היה לעולמים

3) Midrash Tanchuma Pekudei, Chapter 3 (abridged)

וראוהו ונתיראו מלפניו. היו סוברים שהוא בראם, ובאו להשתחות לו. אמר להן, למה באתם להשתחות לי, נבוא כלנו נראה כל הבריות שברא הקדוש ברוך הוא. והיה תמה בלבו. התחיל משבח ומפאר ליוצרו, ואומר, מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך (תהלי' לא כ). ואומר, מה רבו מעשיך ה' (שם קד כד). קם על רגליו והוא כתואר וכדמות אלהים, והיה קומתו אחריו. והלבישו גאות ועוז והמליכו עליהם ליוצרו, ואמרו, ה' מלך גאות לבש (שם צג א). קנקן חדש מלא ישן

4) Kohelet 1:10

יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁיֹּאמַר רְאֵה-זֶה חָדָשׁ הוּא  כְּבָר הָיָה לְעֹלָמִים אֲשֶׁר הָיָה מִלְּפָנֵנוּ

5) Pirke Avot 4:26-27

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה איש כפר הבבלי אומר, הלמד מן הקטנים, למה הוא דומה--לאוכל ענבים קהות, ושותה יין מגיתו; והלמד מן הזקנים, למה הוא דומה--לאוכל ענבים בשלות, ושותה יין ישן.  רבי אומר, אל תסתכל בקנקן, אלא במה שיש בו:  יש קנקן חדש, מלא ישן; וישן, אפילו חדש אין בו.

Apologies both for the late publication and for any deficiencies in coherent analysis/dvar this week - unfortunately, things have been a little hectic...

The Midrash Tanchuma on Pekudei in particular contains a number of fascinating midrashim which one would not necessarily have expected given the relevant parshiyot (which basically comprise the design and building of the Mishkan components, a Biblical audit report, and the assembly of the Mishkan itself). Midrashim worthy of in-depth study include:

The comparison of the Mishkan to Bereishit (the act of Creation).
The process by which a foetus is formed, given a soul, taught Torah in utero and then made to forget everything upon birth (see here for more details of this midrash!)
The Shekhina departing seven levels from the earth due to humanity's sins in the generations between Adam and Amrofel, and returning to the earth due to the seven generations from Avraham to Moshe.
The 'copper mirrors' used by the women in Mitzrayim to arouse their husbands and conceive, and which were subsequently donated to the Mishkan.


Iy"H I would love to take a closer look at these sometime in the future, possibly outside of the context of the weekly parsha... 


This week's 'musing' was actually spurred by noting something a little odd at the end of the first three chapters of the Midrash Tanchuma on Pekudei, and for which (unlike the Kaputkaya question) I have very little in the way of an answer due to a lack of both time and resources. Al regel achat...

Several of the midrashim this week focus on the opening line of the parsha: 'eleh pekudei haMishkan Mishkan ha'edut...(These are the accounts/records of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony/the Pact...(Shemot 38:21)). The midrashim mostly base themselves upon both the repetition of the word Mishkan and the phrase 'Mishkan ha'edut' to derive several lessons concerning both the Mishkan itself and its successor, the Beit HaMikdash in Yerushalayim.


The opening midrash (source 1 above) uses a number of links from both earlier in sefer Shemot and throughout the Nevi'im to explore the concept of two Yerushalayims, one on earth and its counterpart in the heavens, which are lacking respectively the nation of Israel and some crucial aspect of G-d's presence since the Churban (destruction of the Beit HaMikdash). A powerful midrash in itself, it concludes with the heartfelt prayer 'yehi ratzon sheyibaneh bimhera b'yameinu' (may it be His will that [Yerushalayim/the Beit HaMikdash] be [re]built speedily in our days).


While this is a slightly unusual way for a midrash to conclude, given the context it is both unsurprising and understandable. However, while the next two chapters of midrashim also each conclude with a simple phrase (underlined in sources 2 and 3 above) which is not obviously 'closing off' the midrash itself, unlike the prayer 'yehi ratzon' above they do not appear to directly follow on from the subject of the preceding midrash.* Moreover, they have the air of being well-known phrases which the reader ought to be familiar with, but - unusually for the Midrash Tanchuma - are not attributed to any particular source.


What on earth is going on? Well, upon a quick google I managed to track down the sources for both phrases as follows:


Source 2's conclusion 'k'var hayah ha'olamim' is taken from the opening perek of sefer Kohelet (source 4 above). The entire phrase reads 'yesh d'var she'yomar re'eh zeh hadash hu, k'var hayah ha'olamim asher hayah mil'faneinu' (there is something of which they say 'look, this is new!' - it occurred long since in ages that went before us) and comes just after the famous phrase 'v'ein kol hadash tachat hashamesh' (there is nothing new under the sun)


Source 3's conclusion 'yesh kankan hadash male yashan' is taken from Pirke Avot 4:26-27 (source 5 above), in which Rabi argues against Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda's stance that it is better to learn from an elder than from a younger person by pointing out: 'Do not look at the vessel, but at what is in it; there is a new vessel filled with old wine, and an old vessel that does not even contain new wine'[my emphasis to translate the phrase quoted at Source 3].



OK...so both phrases are in fact from elsewhere in Tanakh/Rabbinic literature. So, why does the Midrash Tanchuma fail to attribute them as such? Well, let's consider the relevant midrashim which these phrases follow. Source 2 concludes with a midrash said by Rabbi Leivi arguing that G-d's command to build the Mishkan so that He can dwell 'amongst' Israel is a way of proving the nations of the world wrong about their assumption that G-d would never return to Israel after the Chet HaEgel (sin of Golden Calf) as proved by command to construct Mishkan. Meanwhile, Source 3's concluding midrash tells of how the newly created animals in Gan Eden mistake Adam - created b'tzelem Elokim - for G-d Himself and come to worship Adam. Adam corrects them by 'crowning' G-d as King and encouraging all the animals to follow suit. 


It is at this point that - lacking any basis whatsoever other than gut feeling - I veer into somewhat sensitive/controversial territory. While I have had neither the time or resources to develop this further pre-posting, my instinct is that the two concluding phrases 'k'var hayah ha'olamim' and 'yesh kankan hadash male yashan' are both some kind of coded response to Xian 'replacement theology' (by which Jesus's crucifixion and the New Testament is held to replace the 'Old Testament' covenant between  G-d and Israel) and the Xian Trinity by which Jesus is given a divine status antithetical to Jewish belief. The non-attribution of these phrases may therefore have been some means of avoiding censorship (although quite how the anti-Xian message works in the case of the Pirke Avot quote at source 4, I haven't fully been able to decipher...) 

If this is the case, then the use of these two phrases and the relevant midrashim following the opening midrash and 'yehi ratzon' regarding Yerushalayim (source 1) may be to counteract Xian beliefs and any other kind of misguided messianism** regarding the restoration of the Beit haMikdash and Yerushalayim, while at the same time giving a poignant voice to the Jewish longing for a return to a rebuilt Yerushalayim and Israel's complete fulfillment of its role as a 'goy kadosh'.  

Responses/thoughts/requests for further research all welcome :-)


Shavua tov, v'yehi ratzon sheyibaneh bimhera b'yameinu


RPT



*in the Metsudah edition, on both occasions the concluding phrase is printed separately from the rest of the preceding text, thereby drawing attention to themselves. Otherwise, these might have gone unnoticed by most readers...


**Apparently the Midrash Tanchuma text was first collated for publication in 16th century Istanbul/Constantinople, although the midrashim themselves date back many centuries earlier. It did occur to me that there may therefore also be a link with the infamous Shabtai Tzvi who spent some time in this region, but the theory is rather spoilt by the fact that he showed up at least a century later...

 

Ki Tissa - Confusing Message and Messenger

B"H

Full source text here

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tissa, Chapter 19 - Part 1 (The sorcerors/Michah)

וירא העם כי בושש משה, בא שש שעות. נתכנסו ארבעים אלף שעלו עם ישראל ושני חרטומי מצרים עמהם, ושמותם יונו"ס ויומברו"ס, שהיו עושין לפני פרעה כל אותם כשפים, כמו שכתוב, ויעשו גם הם חרטומי מצרים בלהטיהם (שמות ז יא). ונקהלו כלם על אהרן, שנאמר, ויקהל העם על אהרן ויאמר וגו', שמשה שוב אינו יורד כבר

[...]

השליך לאש ובאו החרטומים ועשו בחרטומיהם. ויש אומרים, שמיכה היה שנתמכמך בבנין, מה שהציל משה מן הלבנים. נטל הלוח שכתב עליו משה, עלה שור, כשהעלה ארונו של יוסף. השליכו לתוך הכור בין הנזמים, ויצא העגל גועה כשהוא מקרטע. התחילו אומרים, אלה אלהיך ישראל

2) Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tissa, Chapter 19 - Part 2 (The women)

. אמר להם אהרן, פרקו נזמי הזהב אשר באזני נשיכם. אמר אהרן להם דבר קשה, שהנשים מתעכבות בו, שהם ראו כל הנסים והגבורות שעשה הקדוש ברוך הוא במצרים ובים ובסיני. הלכו אצל הנשים. עמדו עליהם. ואמרו, חס ושלום שנכפור בהקדוש ברוך הוא שעשה לנו כל הנסים וגבורות האלו ונעשה עבודה זרה. כיון שלא שמעו להם, מה כתיב, ויתפרקו כל העם את נזמי הזהב. אשר באזני נשיהם לא נאמר, אלא אשר באזניהם

3) Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tissa, Chapter 19 - Part 3 ('Forgetting G-d') 

פתחו מלאכי השרת ואמרו, שכחו אל מושיעם עושה גדולות במצרים (שם קו כא). מה עשה אהרן. אמר ידחה הדבר עד למחר, שנאמר, ויקרא אהרן ויאמר חג לה' מחר. ורוח הקודש צוחת, מהרו שכחו מעשיו (שם שם יב). אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, בעולם הזה, על ידי יצר הרע חטאתם. לעתיד, אני עוקרו מכם, שנאמר, והסירותי את לב האבן מבשרכם (יחזקאל לו כו

4) Shemot 32:1-3

א וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי-בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן-הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל-אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה-לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי-זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה-הָיָה לוֹ.  ב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַהֲרֹן פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי.  ג וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל-הָעָם אֶת-נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל-אַהֲרֹן.

5) Shemot 32:7-8

  ז וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה  לֶךְ-רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.  ח סָרוּ מַהֵר מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם עָשׂוּ לָהֶם עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ-לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ-לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. 

There is a fundamental question underlying the episode of the Chet Ha-Egel (Sin of the Golden Calf) in parshat Ki Tissa - how could the Jews, having only just experienced G-d's presence at matan Torah in a way that nobody before or since has done, turn so quickly to avodah zarah? As you can imagine, out of the almost 40 (!) chapters of midrashim in this week's Midrash Tanchuma many explore this very question. Here, I have selected one particular set of midrashim in Chapter 19 which may already be familiar to a Jewish-educated audience -  the women refusing to give up their gold for the egel (idol in the form of a calf); Chur protesting against the people and being killed for it (after which Aharon concedes to their demands); and the involvement of sorcerors and sorcery in the formation of the egel itself.

However, while the individual midrashim in Chapter 19 (which I've broken down for ease of reference) may therefore seem familiar, by looking at them together we can also gain a new insight into what actually happened at this critical and tragic moment in Jewish history. Plus, there is a very long footnote for which I apologise! 

Here goes...

The midrash opens at Source 1) with an intriguing statement that amongst those who left Mitzrayim with the Jews were two Egyptian sorcerors who used to practice magic in Pharoah's court, and who had demonstrated their skills (and eventually, lack of them) when Moshe had first appeared before Pharoah to demand the Jews' freedom. While the midrash shifts its focus first to Chur (whose story I am not exploring here) and the women as dissenting voices, it then returns to these sorcerors to provide one explanation of how the egel was formed from the golden earrings thrown into the fire by Aharon.*

However, the midrash also goes on to provide an alternative explanation - Michah, whom Moshe had saved as a baby from being walled up into a building by the Egyptians, is somehow in possession of a tablet inscribed with the words 'olah shor' (rise up, ox) which Moshe had used when retrieving Yosef's coffin from the Nile. It is therefore as a result of Michah throwing this tablet into the fire that the egel is formed.**

Both explanations connect Mitzrayim and magical practices to the formation of the egel - however, what they also have in common is a link with Moshe as someone who is seen to carry out 'supernatural' acts. While the midrash only alludes to this in its choice of proof-text (Shemot 7:11), the two sorcerors would have been direct witnessess to the first three plagues of blood, frogs and lice inasmuch as they tried to reproduce all three before Pharoah. Indeed, when they were unsuccessful in reproducing the lice it was the sorcerors who declared 'etzba Elokim hi' (this is the finger of G-d) - which makes it highly ironic that they have a role in the Chet HaEgel at the very moment that G-d has given Moshe the luchot inscribed 'b'etzba Elokim' (with the finger of G-d). Much the same could be said of Michah, who is presumably aware of Moshe's original use of the inscribed tablet when he throws it into the fire - and who, in another irony, owes his very life to Moshe. 

Let's hold onto this thought while we turn to Source 2). This midrash draws on Shemot 32:2-3 to explain that one of Aharon's tactics in 'playing for time' was to tell the men to ask their wives for their gold earrings in order to make the egel, predicting that the women would not agree to this.***Just as Aharon had thought the women refused to comply, saying:

 'Chas v'shalom shenichpor b'HaKadosh Baruch Hu she'asah lanu kol hanisim u'gvurot ha'eilu v'na'aseh avodah zara' (G-d forbid that that we should deny the Holy One Blessed be He who did all of these miracles and mighty deeds for us, and that we should do idolatry!)

Unfortunately this does not prevent the egel as the men donate their own golden earrings rather than those of their wives. However, the message is clear - the women stand firm in refusing to take part in avodah zarah because they maintain their awareness of G-d and all that G-d has done for them in Mitzrayim, at the splitting of the Yam Suf (Reed Sea) and finally at Har Sinai itself. In which case, why on earth don't the men also recognise this having gone through the same experiences as the women?

Well, it seems that the men had not maintained this awareness of G-d in the same way as the women, hence their turning to avodah zarah. This can be seen in the concluding midrashim (underlined in Source 3 above) where the midrash twice quotes from Tehillim to point out that, in saying that the egel had brought them out of Mitzrayim, those participating in the Chet haEgel had 'forgotten' G-d and everything that G-d had done for them until now.

Perhaps now we can see the role of the sorcerors/Michah in this incident. While both the sorcerors and Michah may have been aware of G-d, their first knowledge of G-d would have been mediated through Moshe as G-d's messenger and 'miracle-worker' in Mitzrayim. Notwithstanding the direct revelation subsequently experienced by the entire people at matan Torah, they may therefore have assumed not only that Moshe was a necessary intermediary between G-d and the people, but that in Moshe's absence the only suitable substitute as an intermediary would be something linked with Moshe's role as a 'miracle-worker'. Given the sorcerors/Michah's particular experiences of Moshe, it would not have been a huge leap for them to assume that this apect of Moshe's role was down to his using the sort of sorcery commonly practiced in Mitzrayim at the time - hence their use of magic to raise the egel from the fire. 

This view of Moshe as a unique, quasi-magician intermediary with G-d may have been shared by those people clamouring for the creation of an egel as a substitute to 'lead' them in Moshe's absence. This was not an unknown danger - after all, one reason behind Moshe's burial in an unknown location was to avoid his grave becoming a shrine and potential location of avodah zarah, while Rambam famously traces avodah zarah to people's original attempts to engage with G-d through intermediary objects/nature before eventually ascribing divine powers to these intermediaries themselves.

This set of midrashim therefore appears to contrast the above attitude towards Moshe - as exemplified by the sorcerors/Michah - with the womens' clarity of vision and refusal to engage in avodah zarah. Despite the sorcerors appearing to recognise G-d in Mitzrayim through their exclamation of 'etzba Elokim hi!', by the time of the Chet HaEgel they have either forgotten that Moshe was only a 'messenger' for G-d's showing His power in Mitzrayim or shown that they had always been confused over Moshe's role in the plagues. By contrast, in their exclamation of 'chas v'shalom!' it is the women who avoid confusing the 'message' of G-d's redemption of the Jews from Mitzrayim and revelation of the Torah with Moshe as the 'messenger' who, as their leader, was only carrying out G-d's will. 

Shavua tov!

RPT

* For those interested, the midrash is probably basing this idea of the egel being formed by some kind of magic upon Aharon's explanation to Moshe of what happened, in which he makes it sound as if the egel emerged from the flames of its own accord - see Shemot 32:24

**If you're wondering about this, the stories of Michah/babies being used as bricks and Moshe raising Yosef's coffin from the Nile only appear in midrashic literature, much like Avraham smashing Terach's idols.

***As a female reader, one might expect me to be unreservedly happy about this midrash and its portrayal of women standing firm in their faith when the men were backsliding - indeed, this is one of the texts traditionally brought to prove womens' greater spiritual status in what is best described as Orthodox Judaism's version of 'radical feminism'.#  However, against this the midrash does raise other troubling questions centering around the implication throughout both the midrash and the Torah itself is that 'am' only encompasses male Jews - otherwise not only does this midrash not make sense, but in the text of Shemot Aharon would not be asking the 'am' to take the jewellry of their 'wife, sons and daughters' if these groups were included in 'am'. Yet, both texts go on to say that 'kol ha'am' took off their earrings for the Egel, just as earlier in the Torah 'kol ha'am' had twice indicated its acceptance of the Torah (parshat Yitro). I don't think this is coincidental - however, if we do read 'kol ha'am' on both occasions as encompassing just the men, then what does this say about women's inclusion in acceptance of the Torah??

I don't have an answer to this, but thought I'd throw this out there in case anyone has any ideas or way of resolving this....

# with thanks to Rabbanit Gilla Rosen of Yakar/Nishmat for articulating the parallels between chareidi and radical feminist views of gender difference at a recent conference in Oxford ;-)

Tetzaveh - the Holiest Song

B"H

Full sources here

Sorry for the delay in posting this - unfortunately our flat had a bit of a meningitis scare over the weekend. This week's blog is therefore for the refuah shleima of Rochel bas Naomi.

Sources: 

1) Midrash Tanchuma on Tetzaveh, Chapter 5

ואתה תצוה. זה שאמר הכתוב, הנך יפה רעיתי הנך יפה (שה"ש ד א). אמר רבי עקיבא, לא היה כל העולם כולו כדאי כיום שניתן בו שיר השירים לישראל, שכל הכתובים קדש ושיר השירים קדש קדשים. אמר רבי אליעזר בן עזריה, משל למה הדבר דומה. למלך שנטל סאה של חטים ונתנה לנחתום ואמר לו, הוצא ממנו כך וכך סולת, כך וכך סובין, כך וכך מורסן, וסלית לי מתוכה גלוסקה אחת יפה מנופה ומעולה. כך כל הכתובים קדש ושיר השירים קדש קדשים... עיניך יונים. אמר רבי יצחק, אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא, דוגמא שלך דומה ליונה, מי שמבקש ליקח חטים מחברו, הוא אומר לו הראני דוגמתן, אף אתה דוגמא שלך דומה ליונה. כיצד. כשהיה נח בתבה, מה כתיב שם, וישלח את העורב ויצא יצא (ברא' ח ז), ואחר כך שלח את היונה, ותבא אליו היונה וגו' (שם שם יא). אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, מה היונה הביאה אורה לעולם, אף אתם שנמשלתם כיונה, הביאו שמן זית והדליקו לפני את הנר, שנאמר, ואתה תצוה ויקחו אליך שמן:

2) Shir Hashirim 1:15-16

  הִנָּךְ יָפָה רַעְיָתִי הִנָּךְ יָפָה עֵינַיִךְ יוֹנִים ..

3) Shemot 30:10

י וְכִפֶּר אַהֲרֹן עַל-קַרְנֹתָיו אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה  מִדַּם חַטַּאת הַכִּפֻּרִים אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה יְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ-קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיהוָה.

Apology number two - due to the late hour, I am unable to do full justice to the above midrash so the intention was to make a couple of quick points al regel achat (although it seems to have grown...). It's therefore worth reading the whole midrash and not just the heavily abridged version above.

The Midrash Tanchuma often starts building a midrash on a verse from e.g. Nevi'im, Ketuvim which is may or may not be unrelated to the relevant parsha, meanders in interesting ways and then finally relates back to the 'hook' pasuk from the parsha on which the midrash is based. This midrash is a good example, whereby the opening statements regarding Shir HaShirim are in fact related to the closing words of parshat Tetzaveh, while the ending in turn links back to the start of the parsha. While this makes for an interesting circularity, it also allows the midrash to teach us several important aspects of our relationship with G-d and our role in the world. 

The midrash starts off with a verse from Shir HaShirim in which the male lover/G-d addresses the female lover/Israel: hinach yafah ra'yati, hinach yafah, einayich yonim (Indeed you are beautiful, my beloved, indeed you are beautiful, your eyes are like doves)* It then goes on to quote Rabbi Akiva's famous saying that while all of Tanakh is kodesh (holy), Shir HaShirim is kodesh kadashim or 'holy of holies', and repeats this statement after bringing another teaching (this time, of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah) as proof. 

Where else have we heard this phrase kodesh kadashim? Well, as above it in fact forms the closing words of parshat Tetzaveh in describing the special altar for burning incense placed just outside the parochet separating the aron from the rest of the Mishkan's interior. Of course, we are also more familiar with this phrase used to refer to the space enclosed by the parochet itself, which has an even greater level of sanctity than the rest of the Mishkan/Beit haMikdash and which was therefore entered only on Yom Kippur by the Kohen Gadol. 

By describing Shir HaShirim as kodesh kadashim, Rabbi Akiva is therefore making a bold statement about the importance of Shir HaShirim as a sefer, implicitly elevating it above even the 5 seforim of the Torah itself! However, if we bear in mind the traditional understanding that Shir HaShirim is essentially a love song between G-d and Israel, then not only is Rabbi Akiva's statement more understandable but it also lends a new level of meaning to the Mishkan's status. If Shir HaShirim is the sefer which is kodesh kadashim, then conversely we should also see that part of the Mishkan which is kodesh kadashim as an expression of the special bond between G-d and Israel.**

Let's hold onto that thought while we turn elsewhere...

After giving several different interpretations of the above pasuk from Shir HaShirim***, the midrash culminates with the interpretation of Rabbi Yitzhak who compares Israel to the dove dispatched by Noach following the Flood to test how far the waters had retreated from the earth. Rabbi Yitzhak uses this comparision to interpret the phrase einayich yonim from Shir HaShirim - however the midrash makes a further interpretative link by connecting the olive leaf brought back to Noach by the dove and the olive oil which G-d commands Israel (through the Kohanim) to light the Menorah with in the Mishkan. Crucially, it does so by declaring that, just as the dove 'brought light to the world', so too Israel is commanded to bring light through the Menorah. If we bear in mind the role that the dove plays in parshat Noach by providing a sign of hope and rebirth following the destruction of the previous wicked generations, this teaches us an important lesson about the role Israel is supposed to play in a world slowly progressing towards perfection.

This midrash therefore ties together the parsha and Shir HaShirim in a way which sheds a new light (;-)) on both texts. The status given to Shir HaShirim as the kodesh kadashim reminds us not only that the relationship between G-d and Israel is as close as that between lovers, but that - despite our difficulty in relating to this today - the intricate layout and rituals surrounding the Mishkan and the Kohanim is in fact a manifestation of this deep bond. Yet we are also reminded that this relationship is not just inwards-looking, but that as Jews we are also to follow the path of the dove be a source of 'light' and redemption to the wider world. 

Shavua tov and Purim sameach!

RPT

* A word about Shir HaShirim and allegory/translations. With any literary text (especially verse), there is always a fundamental problem in translation - how does one balance accurately translating the individual words while maintaining the style/verse structure etc. which is an integral part of the original text's literary value? 

Most translations end up compromising between these two opposing forces by not using a 100% literal translation. However, with Shir HaShirim there is a third aspect to this dilemma, which is that even in the original Hebrew the p'shat or 'plain' meaning of the text, while being incredibly beautiful in its own right, is also only a 'surface' beneath which one must dive to understand the deeper allegorical meanings. While a translator of Shir HaShirim has to balance content with form, both the translator and the reader must always be aware that there is more to the text than initially meets the eye. 

Reading Shir HaShirim (whether in Hebrew or English) is therefore inevitably an exercise in interpretation of the p'shat text (which is one reason why I have a massive problem with ArtScroll's 'translation' of Shir HaShirim, but will save that rant for another time....;-) As you can see here, I am reading Shir HaShirim according to the traditional interpretation that this sefer is describing the relationship between G-d and Israel. However, I am resolutely sticking to the Metsudah translation for now...

** It is also worth bearing in mind that, if all of Israel is a goy kadosh, then the Kohanim who have a special status within said goy kadosh could be said to be kodesh kadashim. The Kohanim and the incense service/the Kohen Gadol's special service on Yom Kippur can then be seen as a further manifestation of the G-d/Israel relationship as described in Shir HaShirim. Just a thought...

***which is another danger behind the ArtScroll 'allegorical translation' approach, as it ends up only providing one possible interpretation out of many. But I think you've got the message by now ;-).

**** This takes on even more significance if we bear in mind the opinions that the commandments concerning the Mishkan were given after the sin of the Golden Calf, even though they are recorded in the Torah beforehand.

Terumah - The Knowledge Economy?

B"H

Full text hyah ;-)

Sources

1) Midrash Tanchuma Terumah, Chapter 2 part I

ויקחו לי תרומה. זה שאמר הכתוב, כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם (משלי ד ב). אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש, שני פרקמטוטין עומדין זה עם זה, אחד בידו מטכסא ואחד בידו פלפלין. אמרו זה לזה, בוא ונחליף ביני ובינך. נטל זה את הפלפלין, וזה המטכסא. מה שביד זה אין ביד זה, ומה שביד זה אין ביד זה. אבל התורה אינה כן, זה שונה סדר זרעים וזה שונה סדר מועד, השנו זה לזה, נמצא ביד זה שנים וביד זה שנים, יש פרקמטיא יפה מזו. הוי, כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם

2) Midrash Tanchuma Terumah, Chapter 2 part II

מעשה בחבר אחד שהיה בספינה עם פרקמטוטין הרבה, היו אומרים לאותו חבר היכן פרקמטיא שלך. היה אומר להם, פרקמטיא שלי גדולה משלכם. בדקו בספינה לא מצאו לו כלום, התחילו שוחקים עליו. נפלו עליהם לסטים שללו ונטלו כל מה שנמצא בספינה. יצאו ליבשה ונכנסו למדינה, לא היה להם לא לחם לאכול ולא כסות ללבוש. מה עשה אותו חבר, נכנס לבית המדרש ישב ודרש. עמדו בני המדינה כשראו שהוא בן תורה מרובה, נהגו בו כבוד גדול ועשו לו פסיקתו כהוגן וכראוי בגדולה ובכבוד. התחילו גדולי הקהל לילך מימינו ומשמאלו וללוות אותו. כשראו הפרקמטוטין כך, באו אצלו ופייסו ממנו ואמרו לו, בבקשה ממך, עשה עמנו טובה ולמד עלינו זכות לפני בני העיר, שאתה יודע מה היינו ומה אבדנו בספינה. בבקשה ממך עשה עמנו חסד, דבר להם אפילו על הפרוסה שינתן לתוך פינו ונחיה ולא נמות ברעב. אמר להם, הלא אמרתי אליכם, שפרקמטיא שלי גדולה משלכם, שלכם אבד ושלי קיימת. הוי, כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם

At first glance, the above midrashim from the Midrash Tanchuma on parshat Terumah do not seem to be at all relevant to the parsha itself, which is basically a design specification and list of materials for the Mishkan as instructed to Moshe. While the midrashim are cited as following from the opening words of the parsha vayikach li terumah (you shall take for me a portion/terumah offering), the real 'hook' is the line ki lekach tov natati lachem (For I have given you a good portion/lesson) from Mishlei (4:2), from a larger passage concerned with the importance of seeking wisdom and not rejecting the teachings which one has received - appropriately enough, both midrashim go on to compare the value of Torah learning with physical goods before concluding (for different reasons) that Torah is better and more valuable than the most expensive goods for trade. All very well - but while there are some links through both the sounds of 'vayikach'/'lekach' and the concept of a gift or 'portion' being given, it is still a little puzzling as to why a set of midrashim about the value of knowledge and specifically Torah education should be linked to the construciton of the Mishkan.

To try and understand this, let's take a look at the midrashim themselves...

The first midrash (source 1) compares two traders exchanging their wares with each other to two Torah scholars exchanging their knowledge of the different Gemara tractates which they have learnt. The traders come out of the exchange no better off than before, as they have merely swopped one consigment of valuable goods for another. However, the scholars each retain what they have learnt while gaining knowledge of another seder of Gemara, with the result that they both get what in investment terms would be a 100% return on their learning - not bad in the average market!

The second midrash (source 2) tells of a Torah scholar and several traders travelling on a boat carrying valuable goods when they were attacked and plundered by pirates (!!), leaving them penniless. The Torah scholar, having previously been mocked by the trader for having no tangible goods to show despite stating that his goods are more valuable than theirs, is nevertheless able to gain respect, food and shelter upon reaching shore simply by going to the Beit HaMidrash of the nearest town and beginning to teach the townspeople. Meanwhile the merchants, having been reduced to paupers after losing all of their goods, are forced to apologise to the scholar and ask him to use his influence with the townspeople to give them a morsel of food to eat.  The lesson? Torah learning is more valuable than physical goods because it is not subject to loss or destruction.

Both midrashim provide powerful lessons about the value of education which are particularly important to bear in mind in today's world. While we claim to live in a 'knowledge economy' where some of these lessons are recognised - for example, value being attached to people's skills and knowledge as well as to physical goods - in recent years there has been an increased attitude (at least in the UK) towards education as being of vocational value only rather than being valuable in its own right. However, the midrashim above do use the language of the market and of tradeable goods to describe Torah learning, it is clear that there is qualitative difference between the 'value' of Torah and the value of, say, silks or spices, What is more, in what is perhaps a uniquely Jewish approach this value can only be appreciated by sharing the knowledge which one has acquired with others - in the first midrash, the unique value of Torah learning is seen by how it is increased through sharing, while in the second midrash the scholar reveals the value of his learning by teaching in the Beit HaMidrash. When it comes to Torah, there are no 'ivory towers' of learning. 

However (other than the linguistic similarities above), what links these ideas with parshat Terumah? Well, the 'historical' approach would probably explain these midrashim as showing the shift in Rabbinic emphasis from the Beit HaMikdash/Mishkan and korbanot to Torah-learning after the Churban (destruction) and exile from Eretz Yisrael. While I feel it is important not to lose sight of this shift, we can also learn from the more ahistorical approach which focuses on the uniqueness of the Torah's value as being something which is increased rather than decreased as being shared (as in source 1) above. Similarly, it could be said that through contributing the materials to build the Mishkan from the treasures they had brought out with them from Egypt, the Bnei Israel were were not losing out but rather gaining spiritually through their 'sacrifices' being used for the Mishkan, thereby bringing G-d's presence closer to them.

Shavua tov!

RPT 

Mishpatim - the Ethics of Separation

B"H

While I'm doing a short midrash this week, there's lots of other interesting ones in the full collection here, including a very cool story about Onkelos and his uncle which I may get around to dealing with another time...;-)

1) Midrash Tanchuma on Mishpatim, Chapter 2

ואלה המשפטים. זה שאמר הכתוב, מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ, ואיש תרומות יהרסנה (משלי כט ד). מלכה של תורה, במשפט שהוא עושה, מעמיד את הארץ. ואיש תרומות יהרסנה. אם משים אדם עצמו כתרומה הזו שמושלכת בזויות הבית ואומר מה לי בטורח הצבור, מה לי בדיניהם, מה לי לשמוע קולם, שלום עליך נפשי, הרי זה מחריב את העולם. הוי, ואיש תרומות יהרסנה. מעשה ברבי אסי, כשהיה מסתלק מן העולם, נכנס בן אחותו אצלו, מצאו בוכה. אמר לו, רבי, מפני מה אתה בוכה. יש תורה שלא למדת ולימדת, הרי תלמידיך יושבים לפניך. יש גמילות חסדים שלא עשית. ועל כל מדות שהיו בך, היית מתרחק מן הדינין, ולא נתת רשות על עצמך להתמנות על צרכי צבור. אמר לו, בני, עליה אני בוכה, שמא אתן דין וחשבון על שהייתי יכול לעשות דיניהם של ישראל. הוי, ואיש תרומות יהרסנה:

Skeleton

Surprisingly (given the predominance of halachic content in parshat Mishpatim), there are many midrashim to pick from this week. However, I'm keeping it short and simple due to other commitments...

The second chapter of this week's Midrash Tanchuma is based on a pasuk from Mishlei (29:4) 'melech b'mishpat ya'amid aretz, v'ish trumot yehersenah' (JPS translation: 'By justice a King sustains the land, but a fraudulent man tears it down'). However, in contrast to this translation the midrash itself makes connection between 'ish trumot' and 'terumah' - the tithe separated from one's crops which belongs to the Kohahim - to interpret 'ish trumot' as  a person who separates himself/herself from the community, its laws and judgments.

Initially the midrash's interpretation appears simple - the ish trumot is described as someone who, when confronted with conflicts and the resulting dinim within the community, asks 'mah li?' (what is it to me?) 'shalom alayich nafshi' (there is peace upon my soul) - implying that as long one is personally content there is no need to concern oneself with anyone else's problems or with communal rules/judgments. But this is a dangerous attitude -  linking back to the original source text from Mishlei, the midrash condemns just such a person as 'destroying the world'.

So far this sounds familiar - after all, throughout Jewish ethics runs the core principle that we are all responsible for each other, that 'kol yisrael averim zeh ba'zeh'. Given this, it makes sense that someone who separates himself/herself from communal affairs in the way described above is seen as a destructive force - after all, if everyone only acted out of self-interest without any sense of communal responsibility, we would quickly become a highly unjust society.

However, the midrash then goes on to tell the story of Rabbi Asi who, facing death, is found weeping by his nephew. We are told through this nephew that Rabbi Asi has been a great Torah scholar and teacher with many students, and that he has done many acts of chesed (lovingkindness) - all highly respected attributes which also show an engagement with the community around him. He certainly does not appear to be the ish trumot initially described above who is only concerned for his own welfare and not for the wider community. So why the tears?

Rabbi Asi's nephew also poses this question - but in doing so, reveals the answer itself. He points out that Rabbi Asi, despite all his middot/attributes, has distanced himself from judging cases and refused to be appointed over matters concerning the tzibur or community. It turns out that it is precisely this that Rabbi Asi is grieved over on his deathbed, as he anticipates that after death he may have justify himself for not making judgments within the Jewish community.

How might Rabbi Asi's example affect our understanding of the ish trumot? Well, we can see that the way one is involved in the community through e.g. education or chesed is very different from one's involvement through sitting in judgment. If someone is a great teacher or does a lot of charitable work, who is going to say a bad word about them? By contrast, to make a judgment between two disputing parties means that there is inherently a risk that one party (usually the losing one) may come to think negatively of the judge in the case. In some cases, it is also very hard to judge fairly between the two sides and the judge can end up having to make difficult decisions which may not be universally seen as 'just', even if they are in accordance with the letter of the law.

To be a judge and involve oneself in communal disputes is therefore a demanding role which does not always result in either inner peace or praise from others - and yet, according to this understanding of the midrash one who refuses to play this role when he/she is suited to it and therefore distances himself from the community is seen as ultimately destroying any chance of a just society. While we should certainly avoid being like the first ish trumot who is only concerned for his own happiness, we can also see that being truly involved in society means that we should not merely seek the 'quiet life' and separate ourselves from conflict if we are able to bring justice to our community.

Shavua tov!

RPT

Yitro - For the Love of Torah

B"H

As per usual, full text here. 

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Yitro, Chapter 4 (part 1)

 

וישמע יתרו. שבעה שמות יש לו. יתר, שיתר פרשה בתורה פרשת הדיינין. חובב, שחבב את התורה., כשבא לארץ, נתנו לו דושנה של יריחו, ואמר, כל עצמי לא באתי והנחתי כל מה שהיה לי אלא ללמוד תורה. ועכשיו אני זורע וקוצר, אימתי אני לומד תורה. אמרו לו, יש אדם לומד תורה בעיר, וזה המקום ציה הוא, מדבר הוא ואין שם חטים. כיון ששמעו כך, הלכו להן, שנאמר, ובני קני חותן משה עלו מעיר התמרים את בני יהודה מדבר יהודה אשר בנגב ערד וילך וישב את העם

2) Midrash Tanchuma Yitro, Chapter 4 (part 2)

הלכו ומצאו שם את יעבץ יושב בבית המדרש והכהנים והלוים והמלכים יושבים עמו וכל ישראל יושבין שם. אמרו לו, אנו גרים היאך נשב שם עם אלו. ישבו להן על שערי בית המדרש ושומעין ולומדים, שנאמר, ומשפחות סופרים יושבי יעבץ תרעתים שמעתים שוכתים המה הקינים (דה"א ב נה). מהו תרעתים, שהיו יושבין על השער. שמעתים, שהיו שומעין ולומדים. שוכתין, שהיו ישראל מסכין להם. דבר אחר, מהו תרעתים, בשעה שישראל נכנסין לצרה, מתריעין והן נשמעין

3) Midrash Tanchuma Yitro, Chapter 4 (parts 3 and 4)

ומי הם הקינים. הבאים מבני בניו של יתרו, ובני קיני חתן משה. עליהם נאמר, שלח לחמך על פני המים כי ברוב הימים תמצאנו (קהל' יא א). בשכר קראן לו ויאכל לחם ונאמר במשה כי מן המים משיתיהו, זכו בני בניו של יתרו לישב בלשכת הגזית.

אמר שלמה ושבח אני את המתים שכבר מתו (שם ד ב), וחזר ואמר כי לכלב חי הוא טוב מן האריה המת (שם ט ד). אמרו לו, שלמה, אתה חולם ואתה פותר. אמש אמרת ושבח אני את המתים, ועכשיו אתה אומר כי לכלב חי הוא טוב. אמר, אני אומר לכם, הנביא צוח העצמות היבשות שמעו דבר ה' (יחז' לז ד). והן שומעין, והנביא צווח לחיים שמעו דבר ה' בית יעקב (ירמ' ב ד), ולא שמעו ולא הטו את אזנם, ואומר, כי עם מרי המה בנים כחשים בנים לא אבו שמוע תורת ה' (ישעיה ל ט):

A strong thread seen throughout the Midrash Tanchuma for Parshat Yitro is the Rabbinic tradition that, when Yitro comes to Moshe at the start of the parsha, he in fact came to convert to Judaism. This tradition seems to be based on a few textual 'hooks' from Parshat Yitro, the main one which the Midrash Tanchuma uses being the opening phrase 'Va'yishma Yitro' which is interpreted as Yitro actively listening to and accepting the Torah upon himself , just as the B'nei Israel say 'na'aseh v'nishma' when accepting the Torah at Sinai .

One midrash on this theme which caught my eye is the fourth Chapter of this week's Midrash Tanchuma, in particular the first two parts (the whole midrash can be divided into roughly four sections, hence sources 1-3 above, which have all been taken from the same Chapter but subdivided for ease of reference). Let's take a closer look.

In source 1), after stating that Yitro had seven names the midrash focuses on one of these names - 'Chovav' - which it interprets as Yitro and his descendants showing love for the Torah. The midrash then uses a verse from Shoftim (1:16) relating how the descendants of Yitro, here known as 'Keini', went from Jericho to settle in the Negev as a 'proof-text' for the following extraordinary dialogue.

Yitro/his descendants, having been given a 'dunsha' (fertile area) of Jericho to settle in, protest that 'kol atzmi lo bati, v'hinachti kol mah she'hayah li, eleh lil'mod torah. Achshav ani zorea v'kotzer, eimatai ani lomed torah?' (My whole purpose in coming and leaving all that I had was to study Torah - now that I am planting and reaping, when will I have time to study Torah?). Their listeners respond: 'yesh adam lomed torah ba'ir' (is there one who learns Torah in the City?); 'v'zeh hamakom tziah hu, midbar hu v'ein sham chitim' (There is an arid place, a wilderness [where] there is no wheat/sin')* Following this,Yitro's descendants leave both the city and their allotted portion of fertile farmland to settle in the said midbar of the Negev, presumably to devote themselves to a life of Torah study.

It is noteworthy that the ideal environment for learning Torah appears to be neither the city nor the fertile fields, but instead the barren desert environment in which matan Torah first occurred. While providing material prosperity, the agricultural lifestyle is seen as being detrimental not only due to its reducing the time available for studying Torah, but also containing some inherent sinfulness through the double meaning of 'chitim' as both 'wheat' and 'sin' - making the infertile midbar's lack of 'chitim' a blessing in disguise. 

 

However, reading this as a giyoret I am also struck by the fact that this self-sacrificing love for the Torah - to the point of giving up material comforts to devote one's time to Torah study in the 'purity' of the midbar - is attributed not to any of the B'nei Israel but to Yitro's descendants as gerim. What is particularly interesting is that this desire to return to the simplicity of the midbar is dealt with rather more positively here than when the people later have doubts over entering Eretz Yisrael at the time of the Spies, which some commentators link to an unwillingness to leave the special Torah-focused experience of the midbar for the realities of life in the cities or farming the land. We can see this more positive attitude in the last part of the midrash (see source 3) above, which rebukes the people for being 'banim lo avu shmo'a torat Hashem' (people who are not willing to listen to Hashem's Torah/teaching - Yeshayahu 30:9). By using this at the end of the midrash, the Rabbis seem to be making a marked contrast with Yitro's descendants who were willing to 'listen' and devote their wholehearted attention to the Torah, implicitly singling out the latter's attitude for approval.

 

Let's hold onto that thought for a moment as we turn to the second part of the midrash...

In source 2), the midrash goes on to describe how the Kinim, Yitro's descendants, come and find 'Yabetz'** siting in the Beit Medrash surrounded by the Kohanim, Levi'im, kings, and all of Israel. Confronted by this scene, the Kinim say 'anu gerim - heyach neshev sham im eilu?' (we are converts/strangers***, how can we sit there with them?). So instead, the Kinim humbly seat themselves at the doors of the Beit Midrash to 'listen and learn' - which the midrash uses as their identifying features in interpreting the proof-text (Divrei Hayamim 2:55) naming the families of Kinim. 

Here, the status of Yitro's descendants and their position in society is much more ambivalent. Once again, the midrash emphasises their overriding desire to hear and learn Torah above any comforts or consideration of social status, to the point that the names of their tribal families are derived from their willingness as gerim to sit and learn Torah at the door of  the study-house. The fact that the prooftext used by the midrash describes these families as soferim - which today we would consider to be an important and spiritually elevated role - adds to this favourable view of Yitro's descendants.

Yet at the same time this family of Torah-loving gerim appear to remain permanently at the fringes of Jewish society. In this part of the midrash, the Kinim consider themselves as outsiders who are not worthy of sitting with even the ordinary B'nei Israel, instead volunatarily taking up a marginal position at the doors of the studyhouse when learning Torah. To a certain extent, the very fact that the midrash itself distinguishes the Kinim as a people while still identifying them as gerim also shows this ambivalence over whether gerim are truly part of the Jewish people in the same way as those who are Jewish by virtue of birth.

Part of this is of course down to the different understanding of personal identity in the Biblical era, where people were much more likely to be identified by their tribal or national origin regardless of their own acceptance or otherwise of the Torah (e.g. Ruth, even after the point at which she is said to have 'converted', continues to be described in Sefer Ruth as a Moabite rather than being from the nation of Israel). However even today, while for the most part a ger is to be treated in exactly the same way as any born Jew there remain certain differences both in halacha and in how gerim fit into and are accepted by wider Jewish society. This may even be inherent in the term itself used to describe converts - after all, while the word 'ger' has come to mean a convert to Judaism its literal translation is a 'stranger', making the ger a perpetual 'other' at the very same time as being part of the Jewish people through volunatary acceptance of the Torah.

So, what is the role of the ger in Jewish society? As you may have guessed, for me this is not simply an academic question. The desire of Yitro's descendants to give up material prosperity for the love of Torah is one I identify with strongly - even though it may sound surprising to born Jews, who can forget that I behave as I do not simply to 'jump through the hoops' of the Beit Din which converted me, but rather because of a deep inner drive to learn and live by the Torah. 

On the other hand, having spent years as a 'frum non-Jew' before even going to the mikveh, there have been times when I have also felt as if I should be sitting at the gates of the study-house, hearing my internal voice saying 'who are you to be teaching/asking/challenging/criticising this?'.  In fact, one of the hardest challenges I have faced has been learning how to cope with born Jews who are either indifferent or completely opposed to Torah learning and observance - their attitude is totally foreign to my way of thinking, yet at the same time I have felt (especially pre-mikveh) unworthy of criticising or judging them for this attitude given my own status. 

This feels like more of a musing than usual...however, perhaps we can all find some resolution in the midrash's alternative explanation for the name of one of the families of Kinim, the 'Tirasim'. The midrash posits that 'b'sha'ah she'Yisrael nichnasin l'tza'arah, matri'in v'hen nishma'in' (when Israel was experiencing troubles, they would sound the teruah [i.e. the shofar] and [the Kinim] would listen). While the link between the sounding of the shofar and the Jewish people being in trouble due to their sinning is established as far back as Akeidat Yitzhak (see my earlier post on Vayera), the shofar also accompanies matan Torah at Sinai. 

Given the Kinim's reputation for placing learning Torah as their highest priority, could it be that their role in 'hearing' the shofar blown by the B'nei Israel in times of crisis is to bring them back to the 'ideal' of matan Torah in the midbar - just as their ancestor Yitro 'heard' and voluntarily came to join the Jewish people out of his love for the Torah? If so, perhaps this is the role best filled by those of us who are gerim today - acting as the 'internal conscience' of the Jewish people, and guarding our connection to the Torah given in the harsh yet pure environment of the midbar.

Shavua tov

RPT

* N.B. This is my own translation as the 'official' translation from my edition of Midrash Tanchuma does not appear to fully reflect the original Hebrew. In particular, it translates the phrase 'v'ein sham chitim' as 'there is nothing growing there', which completely fails to bring out the double meaning of 'chitim'. Any mistranslations or inaccuracies are therefore my own. 

** According to my edition, 'Yabeitz' is identified by Rashi as Otniel ben Kenaz, Calev's son-in-law and one of the early shoftim post-Yehoshua, which would explain why the midrash is structured in this way as in the text of Shoftim Otniel ben Kenaz first comes to prominence just before the proof-text used for Source 1) above. However, if we start looking at all the proof-texts brought by the midrash, they do become rather confusing in terms of translations/places/chronology. The best way of approaching this particular midrash is therefore to take it on its own terms and not worry about any obvious anachronisms etc...

***again, this is a double-meaning which I have translated myself, as it is not reflected in the 'official' transation I am using!

Beshallach - the Heart of the Matter

B"H

Full text here as usual.

1) Midrash Tanchuma Beshallach, Chapter 17

הים לא היה לו לב וניתן לו לב. האלה לא היה לה לב וניתן לה לב, שנאמר, עודנו חי בלב האלה (ש"ב יח יד). השמים לא היה להן לב וניתן להן לב, שנאמר, וההר בוער באש עד לב השמים (דברי' ד יא). יבא הים שלא היה לו לב ונתן לו לב, ויפרע מן המצרים שהיה להם לב ושעבדו ישראל בכל מיני פורעניות. תבא האלה שלא היה לה לב ונתן לה לב, ויפרע מאבשלום שהיה לו לב, וגנב שלש לבבות, לב אביו ולב בית דין ולבב אנשי ישראל, ויבואו השמים שלא היה להן לב ונתן להם לב, ויורידו המן לישראל שיש להן לב וקבלו את התורה בכל לב ואהבו את קונם בכל לב

 

2) Rashi on Shemot 15:8

בלב ים: בחוזק הים, ודרך המקראות לדבר כן (דברים ד יא) עד לב השמים, (שמואל ב' יח יד) בלב האלה, לשון עקרו ותקפו של דבר:

3) Shmuel 18:14

וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹאָב לֹא-כֵן אֹחִילָה לְפָנֶיךָ וַיִּקַּח שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁבָטִים בְּכַפּוֹ וַיִּתְקָעֵם בְּלֵב אַבְשָׁלוֹם עוֹדֶנּוּ חַי בְּלֵב הָאֵלָה

4) Devarim 4:11

וַתִּקְרְבוּן וַתַּעַמְדוּן תַּחַת הָהָר וְהָהָר בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ עַד-לֵב הַשָּׁמַיִם חֹשֶׁךְ עָנָן וַעֲרָפֶל.

Apologies for the delay...this week's offering is still a bit more 'discursive' than before. I might stick to this style from now on, partially because from Shemot onwards the Torah itself (and therefore the midrashim) seem to be much less character-driven than in Bereishit, which means a different way of interpreting and writing about the midrashim is required. We'll see how it settles down...

Chapter 17 of this week's Midrash Tanchuma focuses on one pasuk from the Song forming the central part of Beshallach - 'kapu tochomot b'lev yam' (the depths froze/congealed in the heart of the sea - Shemot 15:8). The midrash mainly expands on the rather mysterious statement that three natural entities- the Sea of Beshallach, the terebinth/oak tree in which Avshalom dies a rather nasty death dangling by his hair (source 3)*, and the Heavens at the time of matan Torah on Sinai (source 4) - did not originally have a lev (heart) but were given these (presumably by G-d, although this is not specified!). 

Having made this statement, the midrash then goes on to expand upon the reasons why these three entities were given a lev. In the cases of the Sea and the terebinth, this was done in order to punish the Egyptians and Avshalom respectively - the Egyptians drown in the Sea because they had a lev and they enslaved Bnei Yisrael, while Avshalom is speared alive because he deceived his father, the Beth Din (Sanhedrin) and the people of Israel into giving him adherents as part of an attempted coup against his father. However the purpose of the Heavens being given a lev is not to punish, but to reward the Bnei Israel for their acceptance of the Torah and love of G-d 'b'chal lev' by sending down the manna to feed them. 

There are a few odd things here, especially for an English reader. To start with, while we know the Rabbis don't need much of an excuse to hook a nice little homily onto a pasuk, if we are reading in translation one could easily just take the phrase 'b'lev yam' on which the midrash is based as a metaphor for 'in the middle/centre of the sea' without having to explain any further what 'lev' means. So the fact that the midrash feels the need to expand on this suggests that in Hebrew there is a deeper meaning to 'lev' than may be immediately obvious(even for someone reading the text in the original Hebrew rather than in translation). Secondly, the word 'lev' in this midrash is used in the singular throughout, even when being attributed to plural entities e.g. the Heavens, the Egyptians, the Beit Din, the people of Israel. 

Rashi's comments on this pasuk (source 2), which are obviously made with this midrash in mind, explain that the phrase' b'lev...' is a common Biblical idiom referring to the 'root/essence/strength' of something (again, I am relying on translation here!). This interpretation could explain both the deeper meaning of 'lev' and why it might appear in our midrash in the singular - if it is describing the 'essence' of the Egyptians etc. as an entity it would be more appropriate to use the singular than the plural. 

However (thirdly ;-), in explaining why the Sea/terebinth/Heavens were each given a 'lev' the midrash seems to differentiate between simply having a 'lev' and the actions carried out by the person/people having the 'lev' which justified their being rewarded or punished. For example, the Egyptians are punished 'she'hayah lahem lev v'shibdu Yisrael...[my emphasis]'. Rashi's definition of 'lev' does not seem to fit this usage, unless we read the midrash as saying that the essence of the Egyptians/Avshalom/B'nei Israel is in fact their respectively enslaving B'nei Yisrael/deceiving people who trust him/accepting the Torah.**

The other problem is that this way of reading 'lev' as meaning the 'essence' of things means that we are still left with a problem in reading this midrash - howe can it claim that the natural entities of the Sea/terebinth/Heavens started out without a lev but were given these for the purpose of rewarding or punishing people? The fact that these entities do not have a lev to begin with suggests that there is something about having a lev which is intrinsic to human beings and not to natural entities, which instead have to be given it for a reason. 

In order to appreciate the midrash, in addition to Rashi's comments we therefore also have to take into account an ethical facet to lev as being the peculiarly human attribute of free will and the source of choosing between right and wrong. This perhaps also explains the wording of the midrash above - the Egyptians and Avshalom are punished precisely because they have a lev but choose to oppress and deceive others, while the Bnei Israel are rewarded because at Sinai they choose to wholeheartedly (!) accept the Torah and love G-d. The natural entities mentioned in the midrash are therefore given an ethical dimension or lev because of the role they play in punishing or rewarding others - the Sea brings death to the oppressing Egyptians, the Heavens provide life and sustenance to the B'nei Israel. In the most complex example of this, the terebinth in Shmuel Beth practices a form of 'deception' on Avshalom first by trapping him, then by being connected with his staying alive after what should have been a fatal blow through his own lev - not in order to save him, but rather to prolong his suffering before death at the hands of Yoav's soldiers.

The message? Well, the midrash's point is basically homilectical - behave in a certain and G-d will use nature to give you what you deserve. But perhaps just as importantly, this is another example of how a metaphor in Torah is never as simple as it seems...

Shavua tov from snowy London!

RPT

*Basically Avshalom, having been caught in the terebinth by his hair while his mount rides out from underneath him, gets skewered through the heart by Yoav before being set upon by the other soldiers while somehow still remaining alive 'in the heart of the terebinth' after Yoav's blow. Not a nice way to go.

**Fourthly, there is also the oddity of the wording 'v'yipara min ha mitzrim/me'Avshalom' regarding the Egyptians/Avshalom being punished which sounds as if it should be translated as 'from the Egyptians/Avshalom' in some way...however, I don't have a answer for this. Any ideas?