Shem, Ever and Malki-Tzedek - Will the Real Shem Please Stand Up?

 

BS"D

This was a challenge to pull together. While Enoch and Terach each have their self-contained 'moments' within the Torah, Shem's story is less focused. Given this, plus the sheer weight of material from the Midrash, Gemara and commentaries, I've had to break things up into sections just to make sense of it all. Hopefully it's still readable. As ever, all translations courtesy of Sefaria unless otherwise specified. 

Let's go!

Shem in the Torah

While Shem first appears as one of Noach's sons near the end of Parshat Bereishit, it is only after the Flood that we see him taking an active role. There are three focal points for Shem here - perhaps significantly, all as part of a 'stop-start' set of genealogies leading us onwards to Terach and Avraham.* 

Bereishit 9:18-29 

וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי־נֹחַ הַיֹּצְאִים מִן־הַתֵּבָה שֵׁם וְחָם וָיָפֶת וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן׃

שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי־נֹחַ וּמֵאֵלֶּה נָפְצָה כׇל־הָאָרֶץ׃

וַיָּחֶל נֹחַ אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּטַּע כָּרֶם׃

וַיֵּשְׁתְּ מִן־הַיַּיִן וַיִּשְׁכָּר וַיִּתְגַּל בְּתוֹךְ אׇהֳלֹה׃

וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי־אֶחָיו בַּחוּץ׃

וַיִּקַּח שֵׁם וָיֶפֶת אֶת־הַשִּׂמְלָה וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל־שְׁכֶם שְׁנֵיהֶם וַיֵּלְכוּ אֲחֹרַנִּית וַיְכַסּוּ אֵת עֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם וּפְנֵיהֶם אֲחֹרַנִּית וְעֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם לֹא רָאוּ׃

וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ וַיֵּדַע אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה־לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן׃

וַיֹּאמֶר אָרוּר כְּנָעַן עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו׃

וַיֹּאמֶר בָּרוּךְ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן עֶבֶד לָמוֹ׃

יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאׇהֳלֵי־שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן עֶבֶד לָמוֹ׃

וַיְחִי־נֹחַ אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה׃

וַיִּהְיוּ כׇּל־יְמֵי־נֹחַ תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת׃ {פ}

"The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth—Ham being the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole world branched out. 

Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a cloth, placed it against both their backs and, walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned the other way, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. 

When Noah woke up from his wine and learned what his youngest son had done to him, he said,

“Cursed be Canaan;
The lowest of slaves
Shall he be to his brothers.”

And he said,
“Blessed be the LORD,
The God of Shem;
Let Canaan be a slave to them.

May God enlarge Japheth,
And let him dwell in the tents of Shem;
And let Canaan be a slave to them.”

Noah lived after the Flood 350 years. And all the days of Noah came to 950 years; then he died."

As several commentaries note, at the key moment when Shem and Japheth cover their father with a blanket (see in bold), the Hebrew used for 'take' is 'vayikach', in the singular. From this they infer that Shem, as the first brother named, took the lead in covering Noach and rescuing him from shame. 

While most commentary focuses on the fallout between Noach, Cham and the cursed Canaan, Shem emerges holding the moral high ground over his brothers. Noach doesn't directly bless Shem - instead, he blesses G-d through Shem, handing on the baton of divine connection before his death. Japheth's blessing, while more direct, is also coupled with Noach's famous wish that he 'dwell in the tents of Shem'. Just as Japheth followed Shem's lead in respecting his father, so too he should continue living under Shem's influence and guidance. 

Bereishit 10 (abridged)

וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת בְּנֵי־נֹחַ שֵׁם חָם וָיָפֶת וַיִּוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם בָּנִים אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל׃

בְּנֵי יֶפֶת גֹּמֶר וּמָגוֹג וּמָדַי וְיָוָן וְתֻבָל וּמֶשֶׁךְ וְתִירָס׃ 

[..]

מֵאֵלֶּה נִפְרְדוּ אִיֵּי הַגּוֹיִם בְּאַרְצֹתָם אִישׁ לִלְשֹׁנוֹ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם בְּגוֹיֵהֶם׃

וּבְנֵי חָם כּוּשׁ וּמִצְרַיִם וּפוּט וּכְנָעַן׃

[..]

אֵלֶּה בְנֵי־חָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לִלְשֹׁנֹתָם בְּאַרְצֹתָם בְּגוֹיֵהֶם׃ {ס}        

וּלְשֵׁם יֻלַּד גַּם־הוּא אֲבִי כׇּל־בְּנֵי־עֵבֶר אֲחִי יֶפֶת הַגָּדוֹל׃

בְּנֵי שֵׁם עֵילָם וְאַשּׁוּר וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד וְלוּד וַאֲרָם׃

[..]

אֵלֶּה בְנֵי־שֵׁם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לִלְשֹׁנֹתָם בְּאַרְצֹתָם לְגוֹיֵהֶם׃

אֵלֶּה מִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי־נֹחַ לְתוֹלְדֹתָם בְּגוֹיֵהֶם וּמֵאֵלֶּה נִפְרְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם בָּאָרֶץ אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל׃ {פ}

"These are the lines (toldot) of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah: sons were born to them after the Flood. 

The descendants of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras [..] From these the maritime nations branched out by their lands—each with its language—their clans and their nations.

The descendants of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. [..] These are the descendants of Ham, according to their clans and languages, by their lands and nations.

Sons were also born to Shem, ancestor of all the descendants of Ever and elder brother of Japheth/brother of Japheth the elder** (Bereishit 10:21). The descendants of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. [..] These are the descendants of Shem according to their clans and languages, by their lands, according to their nations.

These are the groupings of Noah’s descendants, according to their origins, by their nations; and from these the nations branched out over the earth after the Flood."

After Noach's death, the Torah here resumes the genealogy of his three sons and details the nations which come from them. This is not the last time we will see the line 'eileh toldot' in relation to Shem - that comes after the Tower of Bavel, in a focused line of descent from Shem to Terach and his three sons (see my last post on Terach for more!). At this point, the Torah instead sets Shem alongside his brothers and describes their families' geographical spread across the land. 

As should be expected by now, the Hebrew is formulaic - 'The sons of X: Y and Z... according to their clans and languages' etc. And, perhaps as expected, one line breaks the formula - 'Sons were also born to Shem' (see bold above) - before the formula resumes. 

This line is just plain odd. The syntax is odd - translated literally, it reads 'to Shem were also born [sons], he is the father of all the children of Ever, brother of Japheth the elder/great'. Furthermore, why do we even need this? We'll already be told in a few verses time that Ever is one of Shem's descendants - what is so important about the relationship between them that it needs to be raised at this point? 

In response, Sforno comments that a) Ever resembled Shem and b) both Shem and Ever taught and preached monotheism in their times. In his own words:

 כי אמנם המלמד ומורה יקרא אב כמו אבי כל תופש כנור ועוגב ומי אביהם. והתלמידים נקראו בנים כאמרו בני הנביאים:

"Anyone teaching and instructing others, especially in a way of life and philosophy, is called אבי, “father of.” We have come across this term as possessing such meaning already [in Bereishit 4:21] when Yuval was introduced as the inventor and teacher of how to play musical instruments featuring strings. Just as the teachers, mentors are called “fathers,” so the disciples are called “sons,” בנים..."

Ramban (and others), meanwhile, interpret this verse's reference to Ever as meaning all those nations living 'on the other side' of the River Euphrates from Eretz Yisrael, rather than Ever the individual. Shem, then, is the founding father of all these nations - presumably including his descendant Avraham, the 'Ivri'. 

Shem (and Ever) in Midrash

As we can see, Shem's appearances are scattered through several verses in Bereishit. However, this is nothing compared to how often he and Ever show up in Midrash and the commentaries. 

While I haven't listed everything, a few themes emerge:

• The Beit Midrash of Shem and Ever 

This apparently starts with Yitzhak - according to the Targum Jonathan, immediately after the Akeida Yitzhak is taken by angels to study at Shem's school for three years. The Kli Yakar has Rivka feeling Yaakov and Esav struggling in her womb while passing the Beit Midrash of Shem and Ever. A plethora of sources then place Yaakov as spending 14 years studying in Ever's school (or with Shem and Ever) as a 'stopover' on his way from Eretz Yisrael to Haran - see Megilla 16b/17a, Rashi here and here, and the Ramban (who has Yaakov teaching Yosef what he learnt). 

• The Beit Din of Shem

In Makkot 23b, we read that the 'Beit Din of Shem', at the trial of Tamar for prostitution, merited the Divine Presence attending via a heavenly voice (Avodah Zarah 36b also refers to Tamar being tried by this Beit Din).  Radak and Rabbeinu Bachya also pick up on this idea - Radak explains that this was a court to enforce the seven Noachide laws, founded by Shem but run at that time by his grandson Ever.  

• Shem the priest 

According to the Midrash Tanchuma, when Noach and his family left the Ark after the Flood it was Shem who actually offered the sacrifices attributed to Noach - the latter being disqualified after a lion bit him (!!). Another example of Shem 'saving the day' for his father. 

• Shem was rewarded with the merit of tzitzit for covering Noach

Elsewhere, the Midrash Tanchuma also harks back to Shem's covering Noach with a blanket by explaining that he was rewarded with the mitzvah of wearing tzitzit on a tallit (the blanket in question being a tallit). 

• Shem and Ever were generally involved in the lives of the Avot/Imahot 

Some examples:

• The Sefer HaYashar has a whole 'alternative history' where the young Avraham, taken from Bavel by Terach for his own safety, was first raised in a cave, then from age 10 lived with Noach and Shem for 39 years.  

• Ibn Ezra posits that Noach, Shem and Avraham all took part in building the Tower of Bavel (and that it wasn't necessarily a sin...). 

• Shem was the mohel for Avraham and Ishmael - see Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer here. 

• Shem and Ever were among the guests at Yitzhak's weaning feast - see Rashi here based on a midrash. 

• Rivka sought out Shem, rather than her father-in-law Avraham, for advice on the twins struggling in her womb - see Radak here.

• Tamar was a descendant of Shem (as Malki-Tzedek - spoilers!) - see Rabbeinu Bachya here.  

• Levi and Issachar married two great-granddaughters of Ever - see Sefer HaYashar again, which also names Levi's wife as Adina (in case you wondered).   

The Shem that emerges above is in many ways a proto-Jew - more so even than his father Noach. He founds a court system and a study house, serves as priest, and even gets the distinctively 'Jewish' mitzvah of tzitzit. He and his grandson also play an active role in the lives of Avraham and his family, while their female descendants marry into the emerging tribe of Israel. 

Shem as Malki-Tzedek 

Malki-Tzedek makes a brief, mysterious appearance just after Avraham (or Avram, as he was then) wins the Battle of the Kings and rescues his nephew Lot. The King of Sdom, one of the kings helped by Avraham, comes out to meet him and discuss how to divide the spoils of war. Stuck right in the middle of this, we read:

Bereishit 14:18-20

וּמַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן׃

וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ׃

וּבָרוּךְ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר־מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּל׃

"And Malki-Tzedek king of Shalem brought out bread and wine: and he was a priest of the most high G-d.

And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Avram of the most high G-d, Possessor of heaven and earth:

and blessed be the most high G-d, Who has delivered thy enemies into thy hand. And he gave him a tithe of everything."***

As far as the actual meeting goes - Malki-Tzedek is the first figure in the Torah to be described as a kohen, a priest. From the commentaries, we learn that the site on which Malki-Tzedek met Avraham would later become the Beit HaMikdash. Rashi explains that Malki-Tzedek's gift of bread and wine was a forerunner of the meal-offerings and wine libations which would be offered there in future. Nedarim 32b also explains that, during this encounter, the right to the priesthood passed from Malki-Tzedek to Avraham and his descendants due to Malki-Tzedek blessing Avraham before G-d****.

But here's where it gets interesting. Several commentaries explain here that Malki-Tzedek was none other than Shem. Confused? Radak's opinion might help - namely, that 'Malki Tzedek' was a title given to kings of Jerusalem (Shalem) rather than a personal name, just as Pharoah was a title for kings of Egypt. Therefore, here Shem is being referred to by his title as Jerusalem's ruler, rather than by name. 

Taking this view - that Shem and Malki-Tzedek are one and the same - we can see some common threads in this episode. 

Firstly, this ties in neatly with Shem's image in Midrash as a 'proto-Jew', a forerunner of Avraham. We have already seen that Shem's priestly vocation apparently started on leaving the Ark, when he stood in for Noach to make his sacrifices. However, the Ramban and Radak each draw close parallels to Avraham's own path. The Ramban suggests that Shem left his own assigned land and came to Jerusalem on pilgrimage, where he was accepted by the locals as a priest*****. Radak points out that Malki-Tzedek, like Avraham and his followers, worshipped G-d directly against the trend of that time for star-worship. 

Secondly, Shem's role as Malki-Tzedek in this encounter with Avraham is consistent with his earlier appearance in the Torah under his own name. One explanation for Shem's gift of bread and wine is that he was publicly forgiving Avraham for killing some of his (other) descendants during the Battle of the Kings (e.g. Kederlaomer, King of Eilam). Another is that the King of Sdom, aware that Avraham would not accept bread and wine from an idolator, arranged for Malki-Tzedek to present these to avoid an embarrassing situation. Either way Shem, as Malki-Tzedek, is once again the one who 'saves face', stepping in to rescue another from shame just as with his father Noach. 

Chizkuni points out that the language of Malki-Tzedek's blessing - specifically, the bolded phrase 'Possessor of heaven and earth' about G-d - also harks back to Shem's experience of G-d destroying and rebuilding the world during the Flood. 

As above, Shem's first significant appearance in the Torah is when Noach 'passes the baton' of G-d's blessing and special relationship to Shem. Perhaps Shem's final, hidden, appearance is his way of passing this on to Avraham?

Will the real Shem Avraham please stand up?

Not a typo.

Who, really, is Shem?

There's Shem the preacher of monotheism, the traveller who leaves his own land to settle in Eretz Yisrael and Jerusalem. There's Shem the first priest, the peacemaker and reconciler. There's Shem the founder of a justice system and a house of study based on G-d's laws. In one person, Shem foreshadows the defining traits of not just Avraham, but also future leaders Moshe and Aharon.

So again, we return to the question - what of Avraham? 

The popular view of Avraham is that he became a monotheist in isolation, striking out on his own away from family and wider society to follow G-d. However, Shem's presence in the background complicates this. It seems that Avraham and his family were not just successors to Shem, but also travelled their path alongside Shem and his wider family for several generations until they were exiled to Egypt. Avraham - and perhaps all of us - have been dwelling in the tents of Shem.

RPT

*It's hard to spot. The genealogies keep getting interrupted by narrative sections - Noach's drunk turn, the Tower of Bavel, and tangents for figures like Nimrod. But once you zoom out a bit, the structure is definitely there. 

** There's a real debate in the commentaries over how to translate the words 'achi Yefet HaGadol', as well as more generally about the birth order of Shem, Ham and Japheth. I've put two possibilities here to highlight the debate, but as it's not the main point of this post I won't dwell on it. 

*** Again, there's a debate about who gave the tithe to whom - Avram to Malki-Tzedek or Malki-Tzedek to Avram. Again, not going there. 

****It's worth noting that Ibn Ezra, and others, disagree that Malki-Tzedek did anything wrong here. 

*****Ramban argues with Rashi over whether or not Eretz Yisrael was assigned to Shem from the outset, or whether it was part of Canaan's territory at this point. 

Interlude - Learning as a Segula?

 BS"D

A woman walks into a sefarim store...

No, this isn't the start of a joke. Bookshops - Jewish or otherwise - are my happy place. Alas, I don't often get to visit one these days. However, for various reasons I had to kill some time outside the house last week - so of course I wound up (not for the first time) browsing in my local sefarim store. 

These days I try to 'browse with purpose'. One of those purposes being to find useful translated commentaries for this blog - so, focusing on Sefer Bereishit for now - that aren't available online. So when I saw several shiny new Artscroll volumes of something called the Zera Shimshon on the Chumash, I decided to check it out. 

A brief history lesson for those not already in the know (I wasn't). The Zera Shimshon, or Rabbi Shimshon Chaim Nachmani, was a late-18th century Italian rabbi and kabbalist who lived around the same time as the better known Ramchal (Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto) and the Or HaChaim (Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar). His only son/child, lo aleinu, passed away in his lifetime leaving him childless. Realising he would have no descendants, he turned to books as his legacy, penning the Zera Shimshon - a series of essays commenting on Chumash and the five Megillot - and the Toldot Shimshon, a commentary on Pirkei Avot. 

On a skim read, he does bring some interesting ideas. There's an essay or two on Eliezer learning Torah as a slave and wanting to marry his own daughter to Yitzchak (so trying to sabotage his mission as matchmaker). There's an interesting take on Avraham as the father of all gerim and the 'souls that Avraham and Sara made in Charan'*. And there's an ongoing theme about Yosef arguing with his brothers over whether they were Noachides or Jews. Worth revisiting. 

However, what triggered this post was something else. In the middle of my reading, the shop owner wanders over and starts talking about how it is a segula to learn this sefer; many wonderful things have happened to people who learnt this sefer; look at this other book by R' Nachman Seltzer with stories about people who learnt this sefer (together with extracts from the sefer itself). And so on. 

I nod politely with my 'That's nice, dear' face on. But inside, I'm a bit upset. Why on earth should learning a Torah commentary have a segula attached to it? Why not just learn it for its own sake?!

It bothered me enough that I tried to find out more online. Some news articles shed more light - see, for example:

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/1402235/segulah-zera-shimshon-inside-story.html 

and 

https://www.chevrahlomdeimishnah.org/zera-shimshon-revisited/ (an extract from another R' Seltzer book). 

Now, learning Torah is generally considered to be a Good Thing. So is healing from sickness, infertility, or any other suffering. But card-carrying rationalist Jew that I am, I see a problem here. 

The Zera Shimshon wanted to leave a legacy through his sefarim. But books, alone, are no guarantee of a legacy. Even in the days of the printing press, they are physically vulnerable to fire, mould, decay, or just getting lost. Furthermore, if your audience is limited to a small pool of scholars with the time and expertise to read your book, then the greater the risk that it gets forgotten and lost in obscurity. 

The Zera Shimshon would have been aware of this danger - by all accounts, this is what actually happened to his work until recently. I'm 99.9% sure that the blessing in his Introduction for those who study his sefer is just that - a pious plea to actually learn and engage with his work to safeguard his legacy and memory. The 'promise' of seeing 'your children's children' 'like olive shoots around your table' is a clear homage to Tehillim 128 - and there are no doubt other references to Tanakh which a learned reader would recognise. All of which sounds and feels completely normal as the dedication for a work of Torah commentary. 

However, Camp Segula are apparently reading this 'promise' literally. In a classic act of magical thinking, the reasoning seems to be - if you learn this sefer, or are even just involved in distributing this sefer to others, wonderful things will happen to you and all your suffering will go away! It feels like the earlier fad for 'brachot parties' within some Sephardi circles**. And not a million miles away, l'havdil, from the Catholic culture of saints or wider superstitions around demons, fairies and other Unworldly Things. 

And this approach seems to be tacitly encouraged by those responsible for spreading the Zera Shimshon's work. R' Nachman Seltzer himself gives contradictory views. On the one hand, in the very last paragraph of the Yeshiva World article above (after a lot of breathless segula excitement), he is quoted as saying the main point should be to learn the sefer for its own sake, with any segula or yeshua being treated as a happy side effect. On the other hand, in the extract from his own work (see second link above) he states: 

"Zera Shimshon is a gift. A special present from Hashem. Obviously, this is not meant to replace our davening. On the contrary, R’ Nachmani has provided us with a completely unique channel of tefillah. He was grateful to any person who learned his Torah and was willing to go to great lengths to help that person. And he did. And he does. Learning Zera Shimshon is like having a truly influential friend intercede for you in the corridors of power, just when you need it most. It’s like being able to hire and afford the best, most expensive lawyer in the world. This gift is truly something to take advantage of." 

I've bolded part of the above as it waves a bunch of red flags. Again, the spirit of a long-dead rabbi actively helping people and 'interceding' for them with Hashem doesn't sound too distant from a Catholic saint. To my mind, it also treads dangerously close to the halachic minefield of whether we can pray for the dead or angels to do exactly this. 

"But what's the harm?" I hear you cry. "It's just a different derech! If the end result is that more people are learning Torah with the Zera Shimshon, isn't that a good thing?"

Well, other than the halachic concerns above, it puts me in mind of this powerful post from R' Slifkin after Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt"l passed away earlier this year. To apply the same logic - plenty of people today claim to be upholding the legacy of the Zera Shimshon, but which one? The learned talmid chacham with rich and novel insights into the Torah? Or the magical saint with supernatural powers to cure all ills from beyond the grave?

RPT

PS Reader, I didn't buy the sefer. However, it is on my 'want to buy' list, along with Artscroll's Bereishit Rabba translation and an as-yet-unknown translation of the Abarbanel (if you know of one, please shout). So if you see the Zera Shimshon cropping up in later posts, you'll know why...

*As seems to crop up in kabbalistic commentaries, this is a bit X-rated - so I'm not sure it'll make it onto the blog!

**Basically, a group of women get together with different foods, and take it in turns to say a bracha over some food out loud as a segula for healing someone, helping someone find a shidduch etc. etc. This turns the bracha from an act of thanksgiving to G-d (the original intent) to a magic formula for making something good happen. To my mind this is a problem. But hey, it's only wimmin doing it...

Terach - Life in Limbo

 B"H

Some confessions. 

When I first started thinking about Terach, I'd linked the death of his son Haran to Terach's settling, and eventually dying, in Haran on the basis that the person and the place were the same. Unfortunately, I'd made the schoolboy (girl?!) error of not looking properly at the original Hebrew. When I did, I realised that Haran the person and Haran - or rather, Charan - the place are spelt with a hey and a chet respectively. Oops.

After this, I read carefully through the text again. I also Googled around a bit to see what others had written about Terach. Amazingly - or frustratingly - I found that most of the interesting textual details I'd picked up on in my own rereading had 'Already Been Written About By Someone Else'. In this case, this excellent article by Dr Yoshi Fargeon delves into far more detail than I ever could on the 'p'shat' text about Terach and the questions this raises. The only place where I diverge significantly from him is his answer as to why Terach ended up staying in Charan.

So, I'll give my own thoughts a shot - but instead of reinventing the wheel too much I'll pass you over to Dr Fargeon's article when relevant (so worth keeping open alongside). Enjoy. 

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

בראשית י״א:כ״ד-ל״ב

(כד) וַיְחִ֣י נָח֔וֹר תֵּ֥שַׁע וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־תָּֽרַח׃ (כה) וַיְחִ֣י נָח֗וֹר אַחֲרֵי֙ הוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־תֶּ֔רַח תְּשַֽׁע־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה וּמְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ {ס} (כו) וַֽיְחִי־תֶ֖רַח שִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֙וֹלֶד֙ אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָֽן׃ (כז) וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח תֶּ֚רַח הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָ֑ן וְהָרָ֖ן הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־לֽוֹט׃ (כח) וַיָּ֣מׇת הָרָ֔ן עַל־פְּנֵ֖י תֶּ֣רַח אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מוֹלַדְתּ֖וֹ בְּא֥וּר כַּשְׂדִּֽים׃ (כט) וַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָ֧ם וְנָח֛וֹר לָהֶ֖ם נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־אַבְרָם֙ שָׂרָ֔י וְשֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־נָחוֹר֙ מִלְכָּ֔ה בַּת־הָרָ֥ן אֲבִֽי־מִלְכָּ֖ה וַֽאֲבִ֥י יִסְכָּֽה׃ (ל) וַתְּהִ֥י שָׂרַ֖י עֲקָרָ֑ה אֵ֥ין לָ֖הּ וָלָֽד׃ (לא) וַיִּקַּ֨ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת־ל֤וֹט בֶּן־הָרָן֙ בֶּן־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֨וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃ (לב) וַיִּהְי֣וּ יְמֵי־תֶ֔רַח חָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים וּמָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּ֥מׇת תֶּ֖רַח בְּחָרָֽן׃ {פ}

Genesis 11:24-32

(24) When Nahor had lived 29 years, he begot Terah. (25) After the birth of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and begot sons and daughters. 

(26) When Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. (27) Now this is the line of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. (28) Haran died in the lifetime of his father Terah, in his native land, Ur of the Chaldeans. (29) Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves, the name of Abram’s wife being Sarai and that of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah. (30) Now Sarai was barren, she had no child. (31) Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there. (32) The days of Terah came to 205 years; and Terah died in Haran.

Imagine that you are reading - or hearing - the Torah for the first time. You know nothing about Avraham and his importance as the first of the Avot. You know none of the midrashim about Avraham smashing his father Terach's idols. All you have is the text above, with no knowledge of what is to come after. 

This passage comes at the end of a genealogical list - the line of descent from Shem to Terach. We've already seen an earlier example of this - the line from Adam to Noach. That, too, ended with the names of Noach's three sons (not just his first-born), before a new section reiterating 'the generations of Noach' and his three sons then expanding into the tale of the Flood. So, too, here we see a new section repeating 'the generations of Terach' and his three sons before expanding into more details about them. From this perspective, Terach is clearly supposed to be an important figure - at least as important as Noach.  

The real challenge for us in trying to understand Terach's story is that this is precisely not the way we normally approach it. We already know the 'spoilers'. Abram and Sarai will become Avraham and Sarah, the founders of the Jewish nation - and that's even without the famous idol-smashing midrash which everyone apparently learns at school. So the usual approach as far back as Chazal is to treat Avraham, not Terach, as the central figure here.*

So, what happens if we follow the Torah's lead and actually centre Terach in his own story?

Noach's history includes G-d's decision to bring the Flood, His instructions to Noach to build the Ark to save his family and the animals etc., and an account of the Flood itself. All of humanity other than Noach's immediate family is destroyed. This is clearly a traumatic event - but throughout it all, Noach's own legacy is never put in danger. He and his sons enter the Ark with their wives (even if they remain separated). On exit, they are blessed and told to multiply. The 'whole world' branches out from Noach's three sons, with no apparent difficulties in bearing children or carrying on the line to future generations. 

Terach's history is markedly different. We are told of his three sons and a grandson, Lot. In the next breath, Haran - Lot's father - dies 'before the face' of his father Terach. Terach's surviving sons marry their dead brother's daughters**, and we immediately hear that Abram's wife Sarai is 'barren', without a child. In stark contrast to Noach, Terach's succession and the continuity of his family hangs by a thread. While the Torah doesn't state it outright, his only hope of further grandchildren at this point seems to be via his third son Nahor. 

And it is precisely the part of his family whose continuity is most at stake that Terach takes with him when he sets out for Canaan in the next verse - his childless son and daughter-in-law Abram and Sarai, and Lot, the only heir from his dead son Haran. Nahor, Terach's only viable 'insurance option', does not appear in this journey.*** Perhaps based on this, the Abarbanel suggests that Terach left for Canaan because he thought his residence in Ur Kasdim was the source of his family's woes and living in Canaan would improve matters****. 

However, Terach never makes it to Canaan - he settles in Charan, and dies there. Why?

Dr Fargeon contrasts the start of Terach's journey with that of Avram to suggest that Terach, having left with nothing beyond his family, was turned aside by the wealth and comforts of Charan (which was likely a trading centre at the time). I want to offer another suggestion.

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

Becoming Jewish is not an overnight process. The halachic steps to transform a non-Jew into a Jew are quick enough - immersion in a mikveh before a Beth Din, preceded by circumcision (for males only). However, nowadays this usually comes after months if not years of formal study under the supervision of a rabbi or Beth Din, and even longer periods of exploration and soul-searching before approaching a Beth Din in the first place. 

Being a 'wannabe Jew' during this transitional time is an odd experience. If you don't live near an active Jewish community, you end up relying on books or the internet for guidance, cobbling together a semblance of Jewish practice without fully knowing what the real thing looks like.  If you do hang out around an active community, you must deal with the constant reminders that you are an outsider looking in. Not being able to take part in a minyan or rituals where Jewish status matters. For singletons, not being able to date or move on with your life while your Jewish friends are getting married and having children. The awkward dance around Seder night and other Yom Tov invites, or avoiding non-mevushal wine. And all the while, the confusion over how to define yourself to the outside world when explaining why you keep kosher or Shabbat. Do you just say you are Jewish without going into details? Do you explain your conversion process? Or find an entirely different label for yourself - such as ethical monotheist or Noachide?*****

I started young, so spent over a decade in this limbo land. I was lucky enough to complete my transition into Jewishness fairly smoothly once I hit the right age. But not everyone makes it. Sometimes poverty, lack of job opportunities or health issues prevent them from moving to a suitable Jewish community. Sometimes family holds them back - a spouse or children who refuse to cooperate or even actively interfere with their attempts to live a Jewish life. And sometimes, they wrestle with their own psychological demons or barriers - or simply do what humans do all too easily, which is adapt to the situation we find ourselves in then struggle to leave it behind. 

For whatever reason, people can get stuck in transition. And sadly, some never make it out before passing away.

Terach reminds me of this. The Torah doesn't mention G-d speaking to Terach - so while the Abarbanel's explanation above sits best with the p'shat of the text, we never know exactly why he sets out on his journey. Clearly something drove him to start the journey - but once he reached Charan and settled there, something also prevented him from moving on before his death. 

Interestingly, an academic source gives the etymology of Charan as being a 'road' or a 'crossroads' (see here). This makes practical sense if Charan was a trading centre. But perhaps we can also read Terach's sitting and dying in Charan metaphorically. Driven by the trauma of family loss and uncertainty, he recognises a change is needed, starts down a new path but gets 'stuck' both physically and psychologically, unable to raise himself up and move forwards towards his intended destination. And there he remains for the rest of his life, in the 'neither here nor there' of the crossroads. 

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

And what of Avraham? Once the Torah concludes Terach's life, we see G-d speaking to Avraham for the first time with the famous command 'lech lecha' - to go forth to an unknown land, with G-d's blessing. 

As we all know, Avraham obeys - but constantly struggles with G-d's promise of a legacy and a great nation to come from him.  The immediate cause of Avraham's angst is obvious - Sarah's infertility. But Avraham would also have been keenly aware of the defining features of his father Terach's life, as told by the Torah - the loss of a child, a precarious family line of succession, and death without ever reaching the finishing line. Remembering this background gives greater poignancy to Avraham's doubts and pleadings for reassurance from G-d about His promises. 

But there is also room for hope here. As Dr Fargeon points out, despite the uncertainties of succession in his own life Terach ends up as our ultimate 'Av' - the ancestor not just of our Avot, but also of our Imahot and, via Lot and Moab, the Davidic line that will lead to Moshiach. 

"He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; [...] And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come." (Pirke Avot 2:16)

Shana tova!

RPT

* You can see this approach in Part I of Dr Fargeon's article. As he and others point out, even the famous teaching from Pirke Avot (5:2) that there were ten generations from Adam to Noach and ten generations from Noach to Avraham is not actually true - if you start the count at Noach himself (rather than his son Shem), the tenth generation is Terach!

** Sarah is traditionally identified as Yiskah, the second daughter of Haran mentioned in our text - although the Shadal does speculate that they are two different people and Yiskah was the second wife of Nahor!

*** Given subsequent events with Nahor's descendants Rivka and Laban in Charan, there is a debate over whether Nahor had already settled in Charan or moved there at a later stage. The Shadal (who pops up with a lot of interesting commentary here) also posits that Nahor and his wife/wives were in fact part of the family group who left with Terach. 

**** Based on a footnote in Dr Fargeon's article - I haven't yet found an English translation of the Abarbanel. If you know of one, please shout. 

***** Yes, this is a thing. There are real life individuals and even communities of Noachides nowadays, possibly aided by the internet. While I cannot vouch for them, here is an example - https://www.netivonline.org/ 

Enoch - Beyond Human

 BS"D

בראשית ה׳:כ״א-כ״ד

(כא) וַֽיְחִ֣י חֲנ֔וֹךְ חָמֵ֥שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־מְתוּשָֽׁלַח׃ (כב) וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנ֜וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹקִ֗ים אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ (כג) וַיְהִ֖י כׇּל־יְמֵ֣י חֲנ֑וֹךְ חָמֵ֤שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ (כד) וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ חֲנ֖וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹקִ֑ים וְאֵינֶ֕נּוּ כִּֽי־לָקַ֥ח אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹקִֽים׃ {ס}

Genesis 5:21-24

"(21) When Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah. (22) After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with G-d 300 years; and he begot sons and daughters. (23) All the days of Enoch came to 365 years. (24) Enoch walked with G-d; then he was no more, for G-d took him."

Chapter 5 of Bereshit traces Adam's descendants through his third son Seth, for the ten generations from Adam himself to Noach. Most of the chapter follows a set format - in English: 'when A had lived for X years, he begot B. After the birth of B, A lived for Y years and begot sons and daughters. All the days of A came to Z years, then he died.' Rinse and repeat for B, C, D and so on. 

With one glaring exception*. Enoch/Chanoch. 

Enoch's life is captured in a mere four verses, but these break the established rhythm in two key places. After his first son is born, Enoch didn't just live for Y years - he 'walked with G-d' . And at the end of his mere 365 years he didn't just 'die' - he 'walked with G-d; then he was no more, for G-d took him'. 

What's happening here? What does it mean to 'walk with G-d'? What is so different about Enoch's death? And why - given our tradition that a reward for being righteous is a long life - does it happen at such a relatively young age compared to everyone else in this chapter? 

The traditional 'go-to' commentary on this is Rashi. Here, Rashi comments:

רש"י על בראשית ה׳:כ״ד:א׳

ויתהלך חנוך. צַדִּיק הָיָה וְקַל בְּדַעְתּוֹ לָשׁוּב לְהַרְשִׁיעַ, לְפִיכָךְ מִהֵר הַקָּבָּ"ה וְסִלְּקוֹ וֶהֱמִיתוֹ קֹדֶם זְמַנּוֹ, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁשִּׁנָּה הַכָּתוּב בְּמִיתָתוֹ לִכְתֹּב וְאֵינֶנּוּ בָּעוֹלָם – לְמַלְּאוֹת שְׁנוֹתָיו ‏(בראשית רבה):

Rashi on Genesis 5:24:1

"ויתהלך חנוך AND ENOCH WALKED [WITH G-D] — He was a righteous man, but his mind was easily induced to turn from his righteous ways and to become wicked. The Holy One, blessed be He, therefore took him away quickly and made him die before his full time. This is why Scripture uses a different expression when referring to his death by writing ואיננו “and he was not”, meaning, he was not in the world to complete the number of his years."

In short - according to Rashi, Enoch died young because, despite being a tzadik, he was too weak-minded to avoid 'falling off the derech'. Personally, I'd call this damning with faint praise.

However, this doesn't feel like the whole story. Enoch's unique trait here seems to be that he 'walked with G-d', a phrase which the Torah sees fit to repeat within the space of three verses. This feels like overkill for someone who is simply a 'good man who is prone to go astray'. And indeed, when we dig into other commentaries and midrashim, a fuller picture of Enoch emerges. 

Enoch was an expert in calculating the calendar - intercalation - a tradition received from Adam and passed on to Noah (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 8:2). The number of years he lived - 365 - closely matches the number of days in a solar year. Enoch's appreciation of the solar cycle and astronomy is closely tied to his tzadik status and his relationship with G-d (Rabbeinu Bahya here and here).   

Things get stranger the deeper we move into mystical territory. Targum Jonathan explains the odd wording around Enoch's 'death' as meaning that he didn't actually die - instead, he was 'withdrawn', ascended to Heaven, and renamed Metatron (who pops up elsewhere in aggada as an angel). The Sefer HaYashar gives us a potted history of Enoch - after an initial period of separation from human society, he 'returns to the world' at G-d's command to become a religious leader over many kings and nations. Following Adam's death, Enoch starts gradually withdrawing from society again. Eventually, an angel summons him to Heaven to rule over 'b'nei haElokim' (the 'sons of G-d'). Enoch rides for six days on a heavenly horse, with some followers insisting on accompanying him, then ascends into Heaven on the seventh day in a fiery chariot leaving behind a trail of snow and ice blocks (were these what was left of the followers? I'm not sure). Methusaleh continues his father Enoch's reign until people start turning away from G-d again, resulting in the Flood. 

Set against Rashi, this seems odd. How could a saintly religious leader who merits ruling over heavenly beings be too weak to resist sin on Earth? On the other hand, the whole idea of a human who goes up to Heaven alive and becomes some sort of angel or divine being sounds, well, not very Jewish.**

 Can we reconcile both traditions? Let's try.

To me, there are a couple of ways of reading Rashi. The first - and simplest - is to take his comment that Enoch was 'kal beda’ato lashuv l'harshia' at face value. Enoch didn't necessarily start out as a tzadik (as implied by lashuv, to return) - even if he did, he was fickle, volatile, and at risk of falling into evil. In other words, he was in danger of burnout. 

We all know people like this. The classic stereotype is of BTs - ba'alei teshuva - who embrace their newfound religiosity with zeal, only to crash and give up when faced with a crisis or on discovering that they cannot maintain their high level of devotion amidst the banality of everyday life. But the same personality type can be found across our community, whether as BTs, converts or 'frum from birth' Jews.

The second reading takes into account the mystical traditions surrounding Enoch. The Sefer HaYashar describes Enoch withdrawing from human society for prayer and contemplation twice during his life. The first time, he only returns at G-d's command. The second time ends with his 'ascent to Heaven'. Either way, despite fathering children and his role as a religious leader and teacher, Enoch is clearly drawn to solitude and separation from his fellow man. 

This character trait also ties with the traditions making Enoch an expert in astronomy. While our understanding of space changes over time, the actual behaviour of the Sun, stars and planets is fixed, determined by forces beyond our control. Crucially, it is also predictable once you have the right knowledge (hence calendars).  By contrast, humans and human behaviour are messy, illogical, at times deceptive, and not always predictable. 

This points to Enoch's problem. 'No man is an island' - therefore, it is not enough for us to be an exemplary person in isolation. From childhood, we also need to learn how to behave around others and how to avoid, not just mistreating others, but also mistakenly doing wrong under the influence of others.  

Enoch, the hermit stargazer, might therefore have risked falling into wickedness - not because he knew it was wrong but was too weak to resist, but because he was so disconnected from humanity that he could no longer recognise being in danger of doing wrong. Others could have taken advantage of him through deception - equally, he could have sinned by simply failing to understand other people's behaviour. 

So, should we be taking Enoch as a role model? The mystical traditions treat Enoch's 'disconnection' from the human world as a sign of holiness, which may even have led to him morphing into an angel. Rashi, and the other commentators noted below, seem more ambivalent.

 
In any case, we can draw our own conclusions from the Torah itself. Despite the midrashic accounts of Enoch drawing many nations to worshipping G-d, it's clear that this religious movement didn't survive. At most, it only lasted until the death of Enoch's own long-lived son Methusaleh. By that point, things were so bad that the only 'solution' was the Flood – and a fresh start with Enoch's great-grandson and fellow ‘walker with G-d’, Noach.

RPT

*OK, it's not the only exception - but the only other times this format is broken is for Adam and Noach, i.e. the start and the end of the chain. From a literary perspective, this is easily explained as Adam and Noach are clearly important figures in the narrative. There is no obvious reason why Enoch should have the same treatment - so the Torah must have a reason for drawing our attention to him.      

**There is an apocryphal Book of Enoch which was apparently associated with non-Rabbinic groups such as the Essenes, and included concepts which later made their way into Christianity. Given this, I wouldn't be surprised if Rashi's comment is an attempt to push back against this legacy. Several other commentators (Ibn Ezra; Chizkuni; possibly Radak) also try to downplay the mystical 'ascending to Heaven alive' tradition by emphasising that Enoch simply died young. But I really don't know enough about this to comment further...

Hadran Alach

 B"SD

On completing a tractate of Gemara, it's traditional to recite the text Hadran Alach. Ideally this should be at a siyum (I've never actually managed this). 

I've no idea whether this applies to midrash, or to completing a 'study cycle' in blog form.  However, in the spirit of a siyum I want to pause and take stock before the next stage - of which, more later! 

If you're new, it's worth visiting my first post in 2011 for more about myself and why I started this blog. Basically, I had just finalised my conversion after over a decade of being a 'wannabe Jew' and went "Now what?" Blogging about midrash was part of the answer. 

I originally aimed to cover a chapter from the Midrash Tanchuma about each weekly parsha i.e. one post a week. As you can see from the post dates that quickly fell by the wayside because, well, life happened. More specifically: getting engaged then married to the ever-patient DS, a couple of flat moves, dealing with a crazy job/commute, doing professional qualifications, trying to do Daf Yomi and getting talked into LSJS's Bradfield programme*. Something had to give, and alas it was this blog.** 

Cue 2021 and mat leave for kid #2. I needed some projects to keep me sane while looking after a baby. Thanks to one of our local shuls***, I'd already got back into regular learning and started editing (and sometimes writing) the parsha section for the shul newsletter - both of which were making me itch to restart the blog. I got an idea for a new direction, but felt it was important to finish what I'd started first. So one of my 'mat leave projects' became finishing off the Midrash Tanchuma cycle from Ki Tetze up until V'zot HaBeracha (which was actually completed nearly two months after returning to work...)****. 

Things I've learnt:

• Some people can come up with a drasha at the drop of a hat. I can't. When I write a drasha, it usually takes a few weeks of reading and mulling over in my head before I actually set fingers to keyboard. Even back in 2011, trying to read, absorb, and write about complex midrashic texts in under a week proved a challenge - hence all the apologies for delayed posts. 

Nowadays, being a working mum of two under-5s makes weekly posts impossible. Even this one has taken most of the Omer to get out. So going forwards, I'm not setting myself any particular deadline for a post but will just write and update when I can.  

• Sources are still an issue. On the one hand, if I'm not writing about an easily available text like the parsha, I need to provide these somehow - especially as the whole point is usually close reading of the text. On the other hand, a blog is not a live class where you can simultaneously read a source sheet and listen to the teacher. In a blog, you are only using your eyes - and I worry that dumping a chunk of source text at the start of a post isn't great for readers. I've mostly kept to that format for the Midrash Tanchuma posts, but for Part II will try and play around with this a bit. 

• Sefaria was still in its infancy during 2012-2013. Back then, writing a post meant a convoluted process of reading through the midrash in my printed book, finding an online source which (hopefully) had the same version, then painstakingly identifying and copying over the relevant Hebrew sources and the translation. In some cases, I remember having to type out the translation myself from the book. I probably spent at least as long on this as actually writing the post itself, and some of the links I used may no longer work (sorry!). 

Nowadays, the entire Midrash Tanchuma - with translation - is easily accessible on Sefaria, which makes putting together sources a breeze. It's also extremely helpful for looking up linked commentaries and texts, even if not everything is translated (yet). I'll hopefully use it much more in Part II - in the meantime, if you don't already donate to Sefaria please consider becoming a donor...

• Writing style. Again, I'm still playing around with this. I've found it depends on whether I end up with a traditional 'and here is the lesson we can take from the midrash' drasha or a 'hey, look at this really cool thing I found in the midrash!!' post. Personally, I enjoy writing the latter more. Hopefully, they're also more interesting to read.

Timing is an issue here is well. I usually write by plopping loads of words onto a page then whittling them down into something readable. This only works if you give yourself the breathing space to revisit, revise and proofread before going 'live'.  When I was trying to keep to a weekly schedule, this wasn't always possible - so some earlier posts ended up as a rambling mess. Oops. 

So...Part II. 

Looking back, it feels like some early posts were my way of working out my identity as a 'freshly minted' Jew. 11 years on, I'm still upfront about my giyoret status and still very much aware of the 'insider/outsider' place this gives me in the community. 

Delving into midrash also made me aware of many examples of gerim beyond the typical triad of Avraham, Sarah and Ruth - as well as other figures who fall into the grey zone between Jew and non-Jew (or, in some cases, proto-Jew). 

For my next project, I want to write some mini-portraits of these figures and their relevance for us today. Names on my list include - Enoch, Terach, Timna, Batya, Orpah, Yitro/Tzipora and Talmudic figures such as Shemaya and Avtalyon, Queen Helene and Valeria. Avraham, Sarah and Ruth will make it in as well, don't worry!

In between, I'll add my own musings about gerut and how gerim fit into the wider Jewish community today. Plus, anything else parsha or midrash-related that might be interesting - I don't want to typecast myself, and one earlier post is probably due a rewrite by now. 

As above, I'm not setting myself any deadlines so can't guarantee how often I'll be posting. If you're interested, watch this space. Hopefully it'll be worth it!

And finally, please do comment so that I know I'm not just posting into the ether...

Shabbat shalom, chag sameach and hadran alach. 

RPT

*I'm not naming names as I'm trying to keep the blog semi-anonymous. If you're reading this and were involved, then thank you ;-)

**And later, Daf Yomi, which had already turned into 'Sheva Dapim shel Shabbat' even though I was only studying in translation. I did pick up Masechet Niddah at the end of the last cycle because I really really wanted to learn that one. But it'll be a while before I attempt this again...

*** See * above :-)

****It helped that I had some semi-written posts in draft from 2013, but the last 3-4 posts were pretty much done from scratch. Also, if you used to read the blog then the 2021 posts are a good place to jump back in. 

V'zot HaBeracha - Blessing upon Blessing

 B"H

Source 1 - Midrash Tanchuma, V'zot HaBerachah, Chapter 1 (abridged)

וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה. זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת עָשׂוּ חַיִל וְגוֹ' (משלי לא, כט). זוֹ בִּרְכָתוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָאָבוֹת רִאשׁוֹנִים בֵּרְכוּ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד אֶת דּוֹרוֹ, וְלֹא הָיְתָה בָּהֶן כְּבִרְכָתוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה.

(Deut. 33:1:) “And this is the blessing.” This text is related (to Prov. 31:29), “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all.” This is the blessing of Moses, in respect to which you should note that in the case of the earlier generations each and every one blessed his generation, but there was none was like the blessing of Moses.

 שֶׁהֲרֵי נֹחַ בֵּרֵךְ אֶת בָּנָיו וְהָיָה בָּהּ מַחֲלֹקֶת, שֶׁבֵּרֵךְ אֶחָד וְקִלֵּל אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי שֵׁם וִיהִי כְנַעַן עֶבֶד לָמוֹ (בראשית ט, כז). יִצְחָק בֵּרֵךְ אֶת יַעֲקֹב וְהָיְתָה בְּבִרְכָתוֹ קְטָטָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִתֶּן לְךָ אֶת בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם (שם כח, ד). וְאָמַר לְעֵשָׂו, בָּא אָחִיךָ בְּמִרְמָה (שם כז, לו), דִּכְתִיב: וַיִּשְׂטֹם עֵשָׂו (שם פסוק מא). יַעֲקֹב בֵּרֵךְ אֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים וְהָיְתָה בָּהֶם קְטָטָה, שֶׁהוֹכִיחַ רְאוּבֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם (שם מט, ד). וְכֵן שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי.

Noah blessed his children, but it contained a divergence, as he blessed one and cursed another, as stated (Gen. 9:27,) “May God enlarge (ypt) Japheth (ypt) [...]; and let Canaan be a slave to them.” Isaac blessed Jacob, but there was strife in it. It is so stated (in Gen. 28:4), “May He give you the blessing of Abraham, but he said to Esau (in Gen. 27:35), “Your brother came with deceit”; and it is stated (in vs. 41), “Then Esau hated Jacob […, and Esau said in his heart, ‘Let the days of mourning for my father come, and I will kill my brother Jacob’].” Jacob blessed the tribes, but there was strife among them, in that he rebuked Reuben, as stated (in Gen. 49:4), “Unstable as water”; and similarly (in vs. 5), “Simeon and Levi [are brothers; weapons of violence are their swords].” 

 וּמִנַּיִן לָמְדוּ הָאָבוֹת לְבָרֵךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְדוֹרוֹ. מִן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, בֵּרְכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה וְגוֹ' וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָם (בראשית א, כז-כח). וְהָיָה מִתְנַהֵג בַּבְּרָכָה עַד שֶׁבָּא דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּבִטְּלוּהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי וְגוֹ' (שם ו, ז). כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא נֹחַ מִן הַתֵּבָה, רָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁבָּטְלָה מֵהֶם מִדַּת בְּרָכָה, חָזַר וּבֵרֵךְ אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיְבָרֵךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וְגוֹ' (שם ט, א). וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם מִתְנַהֵג בְּאוֹתָהּ בְּרָכָה עַד שֶׁבָּא אַבְרָהָם וְהוֹסִיף בְּרָכָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל (שם יב, ב). 

And from where did each and every one of the patriarchs learn to bless his generation? [They learned it] from the Holy One, blessed be He. When he created Adam, He blessed him, as stated (in Gen. 1:27-28), “male and female. Then [God] blessed them.” And the world was maintained by that blessing, until the generation of the flood came, and they cancelled it out, as stated (in Gen. 6:7), “And the Lord said, “I will blot out the humanity which I created.” When Noah left the ark, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that this blessing had passed from them. He blessed Noah and his children anew, as stated (in Gen. 9:1), “Then God blessed Noah and his children.” The world was maintained by this blessing, until Abraham came into the world, and He added blessing, as stated (in Gen. 12:2), “For I will make you into a great nation.” 

כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא אַבְרָהָם, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אֵינוֹ דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁאֶהְיֶה אֲנִי זָקוּק לְבָרֵךְ אֶת בְּרִיּוֹתַי, אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי מוֹסֵר אֶת הַבְּרָכוֹת לְאַבְרָהָם וּלְזַרְעוֹ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁקּוֹבְעִין בּוֹ בְּרָכָה, אֲנִי חוֹתֵם עַל יְדֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה, וַאֲבָרְכָה מְבָרְכֶיךָ וְגוֹ' (שם פסוק ב-ג). וּמַהוּ וַאֲבָרְכָה. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, הֲרֵינִי מוֹסֵר אֶת הַבְּרָכוֹת לְכָל מִי שֶׁאַתָּה מְבָרֵךְ, וַאֲנִי חוֹתֵם עַל יָדֶיךָ. 

Once Abraham came, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “It is not honorable for Me, that I should be obliged to bless My creatures. Rather take note! I am handing over the blessings to Abraham and to his seed, so that for all who they issue a blessing, I am placing my seal upon [those blessings], as stated (in vs. 2, cont.), ‘[I will bless you and magnify your name] and so become a blessing.’” (Vs. 3:) “I will bless those who bless you….” What is the meaning of “I will bless?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Take note. I am handing over the blessings to all whom you bless, and I am sealing [them] through you.” 

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ הַבְּרָכוֹת לְאַבְרָהָם, לָמָּה לֹא בֵּרֵךְ אֶת יִצְחָק. לְפִי שֶׁרָאָה אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁעֵשָׂו יֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר, אִם אֲנִי מְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִצְחָק, הֲרֵי עֵשָׂו מִתְבָּרֵךְ, וְנִמְצָא יַעֲקֹב חָסֵר. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה. לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ כֶּרֶם, נְתָנוֹ לְאָרִיס, וְהָיָה בְּאוֹתוֹ הַכֶּרֶם אִילָן שֶׁל חַיִּים מוּדְלֶה עַל גַּב אִילָן שֶׁל סַם הַמָּוֶת, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מַה לַּעֲשׂוֹת. אָמַר, אִם אֶעֱדֹר אוֹתוֹ כֶּרֶם, הֲרֵי אִילָן שֶׁל סַם הַמָּוֶת מִתְגַּדֵּל. וְאִם אֵינִי עוֹדֵר אוֹתוֹ כֶּרֶם, הֲרֵי אִילָן שֶׁל חַיִּים מֵת. אֶלָּא מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה. אֲגַלְגֵּל בַּכֶּרֶם הַזֶּה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם וְיַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַרְמוֹ מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. וְאַף כָּךְ אָמַר אַבְרָהָם, אִם אֲבָרֵךְ אֶת יִצְחָק, נִמְצָא עֵשָׂו מִתְבָּרֵךְ, וְיַעֲקֹב מַפְסִיד. אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי מַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיַעֲשֶׂה אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ.

But if from then on the blessings were [handed over] to Abraham, why did he not bless Isaac? It was because Abraham saw that Esau would issue from him. He said, “If I bless Isaac, then Esau will be blessed, and Isaac will be found lacking.” A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To the head of a household that had a vineyard,[and] gave it to a tenant. And in that vineyard was a tree of life, but it had overgrown a tree having a deadly poison. Now he did not know what to do. He said, “If I cultivate that vineyard, then the tree having a deadly poison will flourish; but if I do not cultivate that vineyard, then the tree of life will die. So what shall I do? I will bear with that vineyard until the owner of the vineyard comes. Then he may do what he wants with his vineyard.” And so also did Abraham say, “If I bless Isaac, Esau will end up being blessed and Jacob will lose out. Rather look here. I will leave him alone until the Holy One, blessed be He, comes, when He will deal with what belongs to Him.” 

 בָּא יַעֲקֹב וְקִבֵּל חֲמִשָּׁה בְּרָכוֹת, שְׁנַיִם מֵאָבִיו, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם, וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מַלְאָךְ, וְאַחַת שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. מֵאָבִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֶּחֱרַד יִצְחָק (שם כז, לג). לָמָּה וַיֶּחֱרַד. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּדָת, שֶׁרָאָה גֵּיהִנָּם פָּתוּחַ לְפָנָיו. בִּקֵּשׁ לוֹמַר, אָרוּר יִהְיֶה. חָזַר וְהוֹסִיף בְּרָכָה, וְאָמַר, גַּם בָּרוּךְ יִהְיֶה (בראשית כז, לב), הֲרֵי אַחַת. שְׁנִיָּה, וַיִּקְרָא יִצְחָק אֶל יַעֲקֹב וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתוֹ (שם כח, א). בִּרְכָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֵּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶל יַעֲקֹב וְגוֹ' (שם לה, ט). בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם, וְיִּתֶּן לְךָ אֶת בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם (שם כז, כח). וְשֶׁל מַלְאָךְ, וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתוֹ שָׁם (שם לב, ל).

Jacob came and received five blessings: two from his father, one from Abraham, one from the angel, and one from the Holy One, blessed be He. From his father, as stated (in Gen. 27:33), “Then Isaac trembled (when he realized he had blessed Jacob instead of Esau). Why “trembled?” R. Eliezer ben Pedat said, “[He did so] because he saw Gehinnom open in front of him. He wanted to say, ‘Cursed will be [Jacob.’ Instead,] he went back [on it], and added blessing [to it], when he said (ibid., end), ‘he also shall be blessed.’” Here is one [blessing]. A second (is in Gen. 28:1), “So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him.” The blessing of the Holy One, blessed be He, (is in Gen. 35:9), “Now God appeared unto Jacob [… and blessed him].” The blessing of Abraham (is in Gen. 28:4), “And may He grant you the blessing of Abraham.” And the blessing of an angel is (in Gen. 32:30), “and he (the angel) blessed him there.”

 בָּא יַעֲקֹב לְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים, בֵּרְכָן חָמֵשׁ בְּרָכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בְּיָדוֹ, וְהוֹסִיף לָהֶם בְּרָכָה אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כָּל אֵלֶּה שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' (שם מט, כח).

 When Jacob came to bless the tribes, he blessed them with the five blessings that he had in hand and added one blessing to them, as stated (in Gen. 49:28), “All these are the tribes of Israel, [twelve in number, and this is what their father spoke to them when he blessed them, each one with his own blessing is how he blessed them].”⁴The midrash notes that the words, HE BLESSED THEM, occur twice and interprets the verse to mean that one blessing, the fivefold blessing he had received, was for the tribes as a group while the other blessing was a specific blessing for each tribe. 

 בָּא מֹשֶׁה לְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהוֹסִיף לָהֶם בְּרָכָה שְׁבִיעִית, וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה, תּוֹסֶפֶת עַל הַבְּרָכוֹת שֶׁבֵּרֵךְ בִּלְעָם אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁהָיָה רָאוּי לְבָרְכָן שֶׁבַע בְּרָכוֹת כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחוֹת וְלֹא בֵּרְכָן אֶלָּא שָׁלֹש, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְהִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתָּ בָּרֵךְ זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים (במדבר כד, י). אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רָשָׁע, אַתָּה עֵינֶיךָ צָרָה לְבָרְכָן, אַף אֲנִי מַסְפִּיק עַל יָדְךָ שֶׁתַּשְׁלִים בִּרְכָתְךָ עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל. יָבֹא מֹשֶׁה שֶׁעֵינָיו יָפוֹת לְבָרְכָן, הוּא יְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְעָלָיו אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה, טוֹב עַיִן הוּא יְבֹרָךְ (משלי כב, ט).

When Moses came to bless Israel, he added a seventh blessing to them. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 33:1), “And this is the blessing.” [According to another interpretation, Moses made] an addition to the blessings with which Balaam had blessed Israel, since it was fitting for him to bless them with seven blessings corresponding to the seven altars [he had built]; but [Balaam] only blessed them with three, as stated (in Numb. 24:10), “but here you have even blessed them these three times.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “O wicked one, your eye is too jaundiced for you to bless them. Moreover, I am not putting the power in your hand to finish your blessing over Israel. Moses will come, whose eye is fair; then he will bless Israel.” And it is about him that Solomon has said (in Prov. 22:9), “He that has a benevolent eye shall be blessed (ybrk).”

 אֶל תְּהִי קוֹרֵא יְבֹרָךְ, אֶלָּא יְבָרֵךְ. טוֹב עַיִן, זֶה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, שֶׁעֵינָיו יָפוֹת לְבָרֵךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁבֵּרְכָן אַרְבַּע בְּרָכוֹת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת כָּל הַמְּלָאכָה וְהֵנָּה עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' כֵּן עָשׂוּ וַיְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָם מֹשֶׁה (שמות לט, מג). וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה, וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּצְאוּ וַיְבָרְכוּ אֶת הָעָם (ויקרא ט, כ). הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, ה' אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם יוֹסֵף וְגוֹ' (דברים א, יא). הָרְבִיעִית, וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת עָשׂוּ חַיִל וְגוֹ' (משלי לא, כט).

Do not read “ybrk [with vowels meaning] shall be blessed,” but [with vowels meaning] “shall bless.” This refers to Moses our master whose eyes were fair when he blessed Israel, such that he blessed them with [the other] four blessings: The first is (in Exod. 39:43), “When Moses saw all the work […] he blessed them.” The second is (in Lev. 9:23), “Then Moses and Aaron came unto the tent of meeting; and when they came out, they blessed the people….” The third is (in Deut. 1:11), “May the Lord God of your ancestors add [to your numbers a thousand times more than you are and bless you].” The fourth is (here in Deut. 33:1), “And this is the blessing.” It is therefore stated (in Prov. 31:29), “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all.”(Deut. 33:1:) And this is the blessing.” 

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

Apologies, first. This is the last Midrash Tanchuma post before I move on to another project (more of which later). It's also the largest chunk of midrash I've tackled in one go for a while - so much so that I definitely won't be doing it the justice it deserves. The text above is not even the entire MT chapter (albeit most of it) - I've had to break it down into smaller chunks just to make sense of it. Still, having got this far I may as well go out with a challenge...*

So...what do we have here?

If you strip away the multiple layers and threads, the basic idea underpinning this midrash is that Moshe's blessing at the end of his life is as significant as the famous Aishet Chayil - as we sing each Friday night, "Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all". Our midrash then goes on to prove this through a dizzying tour of various blessings throughout the Torah. 

On reading this through, however, a basic question of arithmetic comes up. For most of the way, the midrash seems to build towards Moshe giving seven blessings - hence outdoing everyone else who has blessed us. However, once Bilaam's blessings are brought into the equation, we suddenly end up with Moshe only giving four blessings - yet this is still seen as surpassing all others.  So, how many blessings is Moshe actually credited with - seven, or four?

The first part of the extended midrash (see second para above) shows the potential for blessings to create strife. Noah blessed two of his sons and cursed the third. Yitzhak blessed Yaakov, but this famously led to brotherly hatred as Yaakov 'stole' Esau's blessing as well. Yaakov blessed his sons, but included words of rebuke for Reuven, Shimon and Levi. These are all classic examples of blessings - and the favour, reward and 'chosenness' that goes with these - becoming a 'zero sum game' where one person's blessing is another one's loss.**

The mashal of the 'tree of life' and the poisonous tree interwined with each other in the vineyard - used to explain Avraham's hesitation over blessing Yitzhak - also shows a related concern around blessings in Sefer Bereishit, with the possibility of these having unintended consequences for the future if the 'wrong' person is given strength from a blessing.  

The midrash states that Yaakov received five blessings: "two from his father, one from Abraham, one from the angel, and one from the Holy One, blessed be He." The two blessings from his father Yitzhak were arguably both associated with strife - one being the blessing Yaakov received while pretending to be Esau, and the other being the one he received in his true guise before fleeing Esau's anger. If you disregard these, three untainted blessings remain. Bilaam also only gave three blessings (interestingly, again this is a reduction from the full seven he was supposed to give). Bilaam's three blessings can either be set against or compared to Yaakov's three - I'm not entirely sure how the midrash wants us to see these. However, Moshe gave four blessings over the course of his lifetime - so according to this way of counting, Moshe wins out.

What made the difference with Moshe? It's worth remembering that at a simple level, the context in which he gave his blessings was very different from the current of sibling rivalry running throughout Sefer Bereishit. By the time Moshe comes to lead B'nei Yisrael they are - more or less - united as a nation rather than fighting for covenantal status within a family. 

The midrash, however, takes a different approach by focusing on Moshe's own qualities, specifically, his 'good eye' and the way he used this in his blessings. Moshe made his first two blessings at the time of the successful building and dedication of the Mishkan - in itself a tikkun for the sin of the Golden Calf and a means of unifying B'nei Yisrael around closeness and obedience to G-d - as a way of giving thanks and encouraging the people for their efforts. The third blessing was Moshe putting a positive spin on the people's growth to be like the 'stars' of Avraham's earlier blessing (lest they think he was resentful about the burden this put on him as leader). 

Meanwhile - especially in the light of Yaakov's earlier deathbed blessings - Moshe's final blessings of the tribes could have been seen as divisive for omitting Shimon. However, the Ramban's commentary on the parsha itself explains that Moshe chooses to include both Levi and the 'double tribes' of Ephraim and Menashe precisely to avoid the harm that may have occurred if he had chosen to miss out an important tribe***. Shimon, therefore, was left out not for negative but rather for positive reasons of promoting peace and avoiding strife. 

We can learn from this that it is important to have only positive intentions - namely, a 'good eye' - when giving a blessing, and to ensure that our blessings are meant to be inclusive and promote peace over division and quarrels. 

RPT

* This post was also written in chunks in a rush before going away for Pesach, so may not be as coherent as I'd like!

**Rabbi Sacks zt"l explores this idea extensively in 'Not in my Name' - it's too complex to pull out any specific quote here, but definitely worth a read. 

***See the Ramban on Devarim 33:6 (in which he also extensively argues with the Ibn Ezra's approach to Shimon being missed out of the blessings). 

Basically - the Torah always refers to only 12 tribes and apparently this is important for various symbolic reasons e.g. the 12 signs of the Zodiac, 12 months of the year etc. 

Because Yaakov blessed Yosef with a double portion by counting both his sons as tribes, we end up with a slightly odd situation where you can either count 12 tribes to include Levi and combine both Ephraim and Menashe into a single tribe under Yosef, or count Ephraim and Menashe as separate tribes and miss out Levi (the Ramban brings examples of both cases). In other words, somebody has to be left out to reach the magic number of  '12', otherwise you end up with 13. 

Moshe's challenge here is that he wants to include Levi in the count because, as this tribe is dedicated to serving G-d on behalf of the rest of B'nei Israel, blessing them will cause all the people to be blessed. However, he is also conscious that his successor Joshua is from Ephraim, so he a) wants to make sure Joshua's tribe is blessed and b) doesn't want to offend Menashe (as the elder tribe) by not also mentioning them with their own blessing (the Ramban brings another reason, but this seems more pertinent to the midrash). 

Moshe's solution is count all of Levi, Ephraim and Menashe, and to instead leave Shimon out of the blessings on the basis that they will be scattered amongst the other tribes in Eretz Yisrael and benefit from their blessings.