Ha'azinu - Once Upon a Time

  B"H

 

The entire midrash text can be found here - it's Siman 8. It is wayyyy too long to paste below, but please do read before diving in (otherwise none of this will make sense). 

You'll also need to refer to Berachot 31b here. 

All translations below courtesy of Sefaria.

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

Part 1

For as long as I can remember, I've loved the world of folktales, myths and legends. An avid bookworm, I grew up with Greek myths, assorted Scottish/British and international fairytales, and general fantasy literature (I think I was 12 when I tackled Lord of the Rings - this was before the films!). Later, I became a Terry Pratchett fan* and spent most of university diving headlong into folk and folk-rock music - to the extent that the work which inspired this blog in the first place (see here) was basically my way of wangling Pratchett and Fairport Convention into an Oxbridge dissertation**. 

So when I first read this midrash, my inner folkie was dancing a jig. After all, if this were a secular fairytale, there's a bucket-load of tropes to get stuck into. We've got:

• Our heroine, the beautiful, virtuous daughter of a rich man (of course), who is apparently cursed with her grooms always dying on their wedding night***;
  
• A poor, struggling woodcutter relative who happens to have exactly ten sons;
• Our hero, the eldest of the said ten sons, who goes to seek his/his family's fortune, is taken in by his uncle, and takes just one week to fall in love with his rich-but-cursed cousin;
  
• Someone being tricked into swearing to something he never ever would have agreed to otherwise (i.e. the rich man into marrying off his daughter again);
• A mysterious elder (Eliyahu) showing up to advise our hero about the Test (see below);
• A poor beggar dressed in black showing up at the wedding feast, with the Test apparently being for our hero to feed him and show him great honour etc. The beggar turns out to be the Angel of Death, obviously;
  
• Multiple bouts of bargaining with said Angel to try and cheat death.

And after all that - the Angel of Death is defeated, the curse is broken, and they all lived happily ever after. Hooray!

But, but, but - the problem is, this isn't just any old fairytale. This is midrash. And while it may not have precisely the same level of holiness as the Torah itself, it still belongs to the sphere of kodesh, on a different plain from secular literature.**** So while an academic could easily gloss over the difference and treat this midrash as 'Jewish exhibit A' for whichever tropes they want to discuss, I cannot in all conscience go down that route. 

So, what to do?

At this point, I turn to the late Rabbi Sacks zt"l and two ideas of his. The first is his famous saying 'aval zeh shelanu' (but this is ours), from an anecdote about an Israeli fisherman comparing the green hills of England with the landscape of the Kinneret. As fascinating as I may find the folk literature of other peoples or cultures, when it comes to midrash - zeh shelanu. Which, to my mind, also means that to do midrash justice it has to be read in the way it was originally intended - within the framework of the Torah and wider Jewish scriptures. 

But that doesn't mean discounting the wider context of myths and fairytales. In his Haggadah and elsewhere, Rabbi Sacks also advanced a theory - challenging Freud's 'Moses and Monotheism' - that Moshe's 'origin story' is in fact an anti-myth, upturning a classical mythic motif about the birth of heroes to teach us a moral lesson about heroism and royalty. Clearly, for this to work we have to be familiar with the motifs challenged by the Torah in the first place. 

Maybe, just maybe, Rabbi Sacks' approach above could also be applied to our midrash? Let's see. 

Part 2

The midrash opens and closes with the ideas that 'the Holy One, blessed be He, guards those tested by Him, like a man guards the pupil of his eye', (hence the link to Ha'azinu) and that 'the Holy One, blessed be He, guards those that have faith in Him' (notably, the 'faith' here is bitachon - active trust - rather than emunah). Presumably the point of the intervening tale is to prove these points. 

The question is - who exactly is being tested here? And who is shown to trust G-d? After all, we have three possibilities - the bride's father, the bride herself, and the groom. 

 The bride's father can be ruled out fairly easily. Despite appearing at the beginning and end, his actual involvement is minimal - he is tricked into marrying off his daughter to his nephew, throws a big party, then (unsurprisingly) gets up the next morning expecting the worst only to discover a happy ending. Is he tested? Possibly, by risking losing his nephew to his daughter's curse. Does he show trust in G-d? Not really, if he still expects to bury his nephew in the morning.

Then we have our hero, the groom. Is he tested? Yes - first by his own poverty, then by being asked to honour a poor beggar at his wedding feast. Does he show bitachon? Yes - he obeys the advice of our 'mysterious stranger' Eliyahu about how to treat the beggar aka Angel of Death, which can be read as a form of trust. 

But there's a problem. I'm 99.9% sure that if you look up this scenario in the Bumper Book of Mythical Motifs*****, honouring a poor beggar at your wedding feast is going to earn you some serious brownie points. Especially if done on the say so of a mysterious adviser who promises as much. But this doesn't actually change the Angel of Death's mind about bumping off the groom. At the most, it buys him enough time to go and tell his bride what's happening. Which, yes, is what saves him, but it's not the immediate reward we might expect. Could this be an anti-fairytale in the making?

And so we come to our heroine, the bride. Is she tested? Most certainly. Does she show bitachon? Yes - but it's the way she shows this which is key to unlocking our midrash. 

The bride speaks out three times. First, in declaring herself a metaphorical agunah (i.e. not to be married to anyone) until G-d shows her mercy. Second, in praying directly to G-d to bring an end to the curse of her grooms dying. Lastly - and most importantly - in challenging the Angel of Death with the following passage:

"She said to him, "He shall not die now - it is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 24:5), 'When a man takes a woman for a wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for his household, to rejoice his wife that he has married.' And the Holy One, blessed be He, is true and His Torah is true, but if you take his soul, you will make the Torah a fraud [te'aseh haTorah pelaster]. [So,] if you accept my words, good; but if not, come with me to the great court."

Note the bold italics. 

Within the world of aggadah, there are several examples of Biblical women arguing with G-d to change what appears to be destiny. Rachel and Leah spring to mind, but the most obvious is Hannah. Famously, there is an aggadah (Berachot 31b) where Hannah threatens to turn herself into a sotah - a woman accused of adultery - to force G-d into giving her a child as the stated reward for a sotah who is found innocent. And what do we find Hannah saying here?

"Since I secluded myself, they will force me to drink the sota water to determine whether or not I have committed adultery. I will be found innocent, and since You will not make Your Torah false [v'i atah oseh Toratekha pelaster], I will bear children."

The bold italics here being almost exactly the phrase which the bride uses in our midrash. Which is unlikely to be a coincidence. 

Hannah's prayer is the point at which she changes from passively accepting her fate as a barren wife to actively pleading with G-d on her own behalf, to the point - at least, according to the above aggadah - of blackmailing G-d by holding Him to account against His own Torah. Similarly, our bride's shift from passivity to action in arguing with the Angel of Death is the real turning point in breaking the apparent curse on her - again, by demanding that G-d act in line with the (implied) promise made to grooms in the Torah.

The bride, then, seems to be the one who demonstrates the moral of this midrash through her bitachon and passing G-d's tests. However, the bitachon shown here is not simply following orders (as per her groom, and the expected fairy tale trope the midrash may be alluding to). Rather, the bride puts her trust in the truth of the Torah itself, and in G-d's readiness to bear out that truth when challenged rather than make the Torah appear false. 

Which is a pretty Jewish approach in its sheer level of chutzpah. Aval, zeh shelanu.

RPT

* Hence the footnotes. Of which there are admittedly a lot this time. Sorry.

** No, this is not the most obvious of links to a blog about midrash. I could try and set out the full thought process some other time, but for now let's just say it works in my head. 

***There's a whole essay begging to be written here from a feminist and/or psychoanalytic perspective. But let's not go there...

****This is absolutely not to do down secular literature. There is a trend in more, ahem, 'black hat' circles to dismiss secular literature as trivial and not worth our time - possibly as an easy way to differentiate between kodesh and chol. Needless to say, I don't agree with this approach - especially when it comes to folk tales and song, which I feel are a timeless way of exploring the human condition. Hence my dilemma. 

***** Folklorists are basically a subset of geeks, so this must exist somewhere! 

Vayelech - Blessed are the Flax Workers?

 B"H

 

Source 1 - Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeilech Chapter 2 (abridged)

 [...]וְעַל כֵּן יָבִין וְיַשְׂכִּיל כָּל אָדָם בְּדַעְתּוֹ וְשִׂכְלוֹ לַהֲגוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה ,שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה (יהושע א, ח). וּבְמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים.[...] וְאִם לֹא לָמַד כָּל צָרְכּוֹ, יַעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשָׂיו בֶּאֱמוּנָה. אָמַר אֵלִיָּהוּ זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה, פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּמָצָאתִי אָדָם אֶחָד, וְהָיָה מַלְעִיג לִי וּמִתְלוֹצֵץ בִּי. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב לְיוֹם הַדִּין אַחַר שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְתָּ תּוֹרָה. אָמַר, יֵשׁ לִי לְהָשִׁיב, בִּינָה וָדַעַת וָלֵב שֶׁלֹּא נִתְּנוּ לִי מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מַה מְּלַאכְתֶּךָ. אָמַר לִי, צַיַּד עוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים אֲנִי. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מִי נָתַן לְךָ דַּעַת וָלֵב לִיקַּח פִּשְׁתָּן וְלִטְווֹתוֹ וְלֶאֶרְגוֹ וְלַעֲשׂוֹת הַמְּצוּדוֹת וְלָקַחַת בָּהֶן דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת וּלְמָכְרָם. אָמַר לִי, בִּינָה וָדַעַת שֶׁנִּתְּנוּ לִי מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, לִיקַּח אֶת הַפִּשְׁתָּן לֶאֱרֹג וְלִטְווֹת וְלָקַחַת הַדָּגִים וְהָעוֹפוֹת, נָתְנוּ לְךָ בִּינָה וָדַעַת. אֲבָל לִקְנוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹרָה לֹא נָתְנוּ לְךָ בִּינָה. וּכְתִיב: כִּי קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ (דברים ל, יד). מִיָּד הִרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְהֵרִים קוֹלוֹ בִּבְכִי. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, בְּנִי, אַל יֵרַע לְךָ, שֶׁכָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּאִין וְנִמְשָׁכִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה, מוֹכִיחִין עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּבֹשׁוּ עוֹבְדֵי פִשְׁתִּים שְׁרִיקוֹת וְאֹרְגִים חוֹרַי (ישעיה יט, ט), וְעָלָיו וְעַל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ וְעַל הַדּוֹמִין לוֹ וְעַל הָעוֹשִׂין כְּמַעֲשָׂיו. וְאַחֲרִית דָּבָר, יִרְאַת ה'. וְעוֹשִׂין בֶּאֱמוּנָה, בּוֹ מוֹנֶה מְלַאכְתּוֹ וְרָאוּי לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

"[...] And so every man [should] understand and fathom with his mind [b'da'ato] and his intelligence to contemplate the Torah day and night - as it is written (Joshua 1:8), "and you shall contemplate about it day and night" - and good deeds. [...] And if he has not learned as is fitting him, let him do his actions with faithfulness [emunah]. Elihayu, may his memory be blessed, said, "I was once walking on the way and I found a man, and he was mocking me and taunting me. I said to him, 'What [can] you answer on the day of judgement, since you have not studied Torah.' He said, 'I have what to answer - it is [because of] the understanding [bina] and intelligence [da'at] and heart [lev] that were not given to me from the Heavens.' I said to him, 'What is your craft?' He said to me, 'I am a trapper of birds and fish.' I said to him, 'Who gave you knowledge [da'at] and heart [lev] to take flax and spin it and weave it to make traps, and to catch fish and birds with them and to sell them?' He said to me, 'It is the understanding [bina] and the knowledge [da'at] that were given to me from the Heavens.' I said to him, 'To take flax and to weave and spin and catch fish and birds you were given understanding [bina] and intelligence [da'at]; but to acquire the Torah, they were not given to you? Behold, it is written (Deuteronomy 30:14), "But the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it."' [So] he immediately thought in his heart [lev] and raised his voice in crying. I said to him, 'My son, Let it not be bad to you, as all those that come to the world are rebuked once they come and are pulled away from Torah, as it is stated (Isaiah 19:9), "And embarrassed will be the workers of flax, the combers and weavers of holes."' And it is about him and those similar to him, and those that do like his deeds. And the last word is the fear of the Lord; and those that do it with faithfulness [emunah] - his craft will be counted and he is fitting for life in the world to come.'"

Source 2 - Devarim 30:14

כִּי־קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ׃         

"No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it."

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

Sometimes, it's hard to find anything interesting to write about a midrash. Either the midrash in question can be really esoteric, filled with snippety textual references or gematria, or its message can seem so straightforward that there is nothing much to add. 

This week's midrash covers both extremes. The full version starts with a lot of gematria - the abridged version at Source 1, with our tale of Eliyahu and the trapper, only covers the final section. The basic moral of this story seems clear: the trapper initially blames G-d for his lack of Torah learning, is rebuked by Eliyahu, and then on realising his mistake is comforted by the idea that he still merits a place in the World to Come if he acts with emunah. Sounds clear, right?

If we dig into the Hebrew text, something a little more interesting is going on. To paraphrase the central conversation of our midrash:

Trapper - G-d hasn't given me the bina, da'at and lev needed to study Torah, so what have I got to feel guilty about?

Eliyahu - who gave you the da'at and lev to make traps out of raw flax, use them for trapping and sell the catch i.e. all the steps needed to earn a living?

Trapper - it's the bina and da'at that G-d gave me.

Eliyahu - G-d gave you bina and da'at to do all the steps needed to earn your living, but not to study Torah? It's written in the Torah - "the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart [b'ficha u'v'levavcha], to observe it." (see Source 2). 

Immediately, the trapper hirhur b'libo and raises his voice etc.

Three key words are threaded throughout this conversation - bina, da'at and lev. Lev appears to be easy to understand - the 'heart', or possibly inner desire or emotional feeling, to do something. 

Bina and da'at are a bit more complicated. They each refer to different aspects of knowledge or intelligence. Unfortunately, this is where not being able to read Hebrew-only texts easily lets me down - however, as far as I can make out, possible definitions include:

• Malbim (on Proverbs 24:3) - bina is the ability to understand something based on what one has already learnt from an external source; da'at is clear understanding through intuition and insight.
• Rashi (on Exodus 31:3) - bina/tvunah is deducing something from what one has already learnt (i.e. like the Malbim above); da'at is heavenly inspiration (ruach hakodesh). 
• Rabbeinu Yonah (on Pirke Avot 3:17:5-6) - bina is when one derives one thing from another by comparison; da'at is that which one grasps on one's own. Here, Rabbeinu Yonah argues that da'at must precede bina because one cannot derive Y by comparison with X without being able to grasp X on his own in the first place (my paraphrasing).

What's interesting is that there appear to be two opposing views as to which type of knowledge precedes which. According to Malbim and Rashi, da'at follows bina as it involves some level of inspiration/insight beyond mere deduction from prior knowledge. According to Rabbeinu Yonah, it is the opposite - da'at is required for bina, so presumably bina is a higher level of knowledge as it requires da'at to be in place first.*

So, how does this help us? Well, the trapper starts off by mocking Eliyahu (presumably for appearing to be a Torah scholar), and blaming G-d for not granting him the bina, da'at or lev needed for Torah study instead of taking responsibility for this. He feels no shame for his lack of scholarship, and in fact appears to despise learners and learning. 

Eliyahu responds by asking the trapper where he got the da'at and lev from for his trade - without mentioning bina. Going by the above, by 'da'at' Eliyahu is either asking about the trapper's highest insight/inspiration for his work (as per Rashi/Malbim) or for the basic ability to grasp what he needs to know for this on his own (as per Rabbeinu Yonah). Either way, da'at, intellectual ability (of whatever type) is coupled with lev i.e. the desire or emotion to do a trade - and Eliyahu's question presumes that both come from an external source. 

The trapper responds by only mentioning bina and da'at - no mention of lev here. The trapper only thinks about G-d granting him the intellectual abilities needed to do his work. This could mean he has no emotional connection to his trade - alternatively, he thinks he already had the lev for this coming from within, and only requires the additional bina and da'at from G-d. Conversely, for Torah study the trapper thinks he needs to have lev granted externally by G-d alongside bina or da'at (instead of this coming from within) - so if he doesn't have any lev for study, this isn't his problem or fault. 

Eliyahu picks up on this change of language, pointing out that if G-d gave the trapper bina and da'at for his trade, surely this is enough for Torah study as well. For lev, by quoting the passage at Source 2, Eliyahu points out that the desire to learn and observe Torah comes from within ourselves - not externally from G-d, as originally stated by the trapper. 

This, then, was the trapper's mistake. Only once he realises this, with his heart and voice, does Eliyahu comfort him with the knowledge that he is not alone - unfortunately, it is all too normal for workers and craftsmen to be pulled away from Torah study, with the 'backup' then being their emunah. 

What, then, can we take from this? At the outset, we should all aim to study Torah even alongside our work. How much, and how deeply, will depend on the intellectual ability granted to us by G-d. However, regardless of our intellect, we must also remember that the potential for emotional connection to Torah is in all of us. It is up to us to listen to this inner voice and channel this towards Torah study, rather than just expect to be inspired to study from above.  

RPT

* incidentally, this tension can be seen in the different versions of the blessing 'honen ha'da'at' in the weekday Amidah. Ashkenazim and some Sephardim (myself included) ask for 'de'ah, bina v'heskel' - the remaining Sephardim/Mizrachim ask for 'chochma, bina v'da'at'. Note the different orders of bina and da'at. 

Netzavim - the Power of One

B"H

Sources (courtesy Sefaria):

1) Chapter 2, Midrash Tanchuma Nitzavim (abridged)

רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּנִּיתִי לָכֶם רָאשִׁים זְקֵנִים וְשׁוֹטְרִים, כֻּלְּכֶם שָׁוִין לְפָנַי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְכָל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כֻּלְּכֶם עֲרֵבִים זֶה בָּזֶה. אֲפִלּוּ צַדִּיק אֶחָד בֵּינֵיכֶם, כֻּלְּכֶם עוֹמְדִים בִּזְכוּתוֹ. וְלֹא אַתֶּם בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ צַדִּיק אֶחָד בֵּינֵיכֶם, כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ בִּזְכוּתוֹ עוֹמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְצַדִּיק יְסוֹד עוֹלָם (משלי ו, כה). וּכְשֶׁאֶחָד מִכֶּם חוֹטֵא, כָּל הַדּוֹר לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בְּעָכָן, הֲלֹא עָכָן בֶּן זֶרַח מָעַל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם וְגוֹ' (יהושע כב, כ). מִדַּת פֻּרְעָנִיּוּת מוּעֶטֶת, וְהַדּוֹר נִתְפַּס בָּהּ. מִדָּה טוֹבָה מְרֻבָּה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים שֶׁבָּכֶם בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ טַפְּכֶם נְשֵׁיכֶם וְגֵרְךָ. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִי שֶׁבָּשָׂר וָדָם מְרַחֵם עַל הַזְּכָרִים יוֹתֵר מֵהַנְּקֵבוֹת. וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵן, כִּי רַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו, עַל הַזְּכָרִים וְעַל הַנְּקֵבוֹת, וְעַל הַצַּדִּיקִים וְעַל הָרְשָׁעִים[...]

"(Deut. 29:9:) “Your tribal leaders, [your elders, and your law officers].” Although I have appointed for you heads, judges, elders, and law officers, you shall all be equal before me, since it is stated (ibid., cont.), “every person in Israel.” Another interpretation (of Deut. 29:9): All of you are responsible for each other. Even though there is [only] one righteous person among you, you all shall survive (literally, stand) through his merit; and not only you, but the whole world in toto, as stated (in Prov. 10:25), “but a righteous person is the foundation for the world.” However, when one sins, the whole generation is stricken, and so you find in the case of Achan (in Josh. 22:20), “Was it not Achan ben Zerah who committed [embezzlement] in the proscription (i.e., the herem of Jericho)?” If with the measure of punishment which is small, the [whole] generation was seized, how much the more [will the generation prosper], with the measure of [divine] favor which is great! It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:9), “every person in Israel”; and not only the great ones who are among us, but (according to vs. 10) “Your infants, your wives, and your alien.” It is therefore stated (in Deut. 29:9), “every person.” Now flesh and blood shows more mercy over males than over females, but the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that. Rather (according to Ps. 145:9), “His mercy is upon all his works,” upon males and upon females, upon the righteous and upon the wicked [...]"

2) Chapter 1, Midrash Tanchuma Nitzavim (abridged)

 דָּבָר אַחֵר, אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם, מָה הַיּוֹם מֵאִיר פְּעָמִים וּמַאֲפִיל פְּעָמִים, אַף אַתֶּם כְּשֶׁאֲפֵלָה לָכֶם, עָתִיד לְהָאִיר לָכֶם אוֹר עוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְהָיָה לְךָ ה' לְאוֹר עוֹלָם (ישעיה ס, יט). אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁתִּהְיוּ כֻּלְּכֶם אֲגֻדָּה אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם הַיּוֹם (דברים ד, ד). בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, אִם נוֹטֵל אָדָם אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל קָנִים, שֶׁמָּא יָכֹל לְשָׁבְרָם בְּבַת אַחַת. וְאִלּוּ נוֹטֵל אַחַת אַחַת, אֲפִלּוּ תִּינוֹק מְשַׁבְּרָן. וְכֵן אַתְּ מוֹצֵא שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל נִגְאֲלִין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻּלָּן אֲגֻדָּה אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: בַּיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה וּבָעֵת הַהִיא נְאֻם ה' יָבֹאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנֵי יְהוּדָה יַחְדָּו וְגוֹ' (ירמיה נ, ד). כְּשֶׁהֵן אֲגוּדִים, מְקַבְּלִין פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה.

"Another interpretation (of Deut. 29:9), “You are standing today”: Just as today (literally: the day) sometimes darkens and sometimes lightens, so it is with you. Although you have darkness, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to shine on you with light eternal, as stated (in Is. 60:19), “for the Lord shall be your everlasting light.” When? When you all become one group, as stated (in Deut. 4:4), “are all alive today.” According to universal custom, if one takes a group of reeds, will he be able to break them at one stroke! But if he takes them one by one, even an infant can break them. So also you find that Israel was not redeemed until they became one group, as stated (in Jer. 50:4), “’In those days and at that time,’ says the Lord,’ the children of Israel, they and the children of Judah, shall come together.’” When they are united, they shall welcome the face of the Divine Presence."

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

Parshat Nitzavim usually falls out just before the Yamim Noraim. It's therefore oddly appropriate that both the parsha and its related midrashim emphasise certain common themes: the importance of both studying and living by the Torah; the covenant (brit) between Israel and G-d; our unity as a nation and our shared responsibility for compliance (or lack of) with said brit. I've therefore picked out two midrashim which reflect on some of these themes - namely, our unity and each person's individual responsibility for upholding the brit.

Source 1 takes as its source text a verse describing the heads of the tribes. A little counterintuitively, it uses this to emphasise that - although we may be divided by tribes and have leaders over us - every member of B'nei Israel is equal before G-d. If that wasn't enough, having drawn this conclusion from the phrase 'kol ish Israel' (every man of Israel), the midrash goes even further to emphasise that this equality applies to women, children and gerim (either converts or observant Noachides). How? Because, while ordinary humans may be partial and favour men over women, G-d is impartial and 'has mercy on all His creations, on both males and females, and on both righteous (tzadikim) and wicked (rashaim).'

Sounds great, right? But before we exclaim over this apparent show of egalitarianism within the Jewish community, let's stop and think about the midrash's message here. Yes, on the one hand we are all equal before G-d in terms of relating to Him and receiving His mercy - which is especially important for those classed as rashaim, who would normally not have any hope of such mercy. However, the midrash also gives an alternative interpretation of 'equality', which is that everyone is responsible for each other - kulachem areivim zeh la zeh. What does this mean?

The midrash explains - even if there is only one tzadik or righteous person in the community, not only the entire community but the entire world 'stands' in his/her merit. But - and this is a big 'but' - the opposite is also true! If one person sins, the entire generation suffers - see the case of Achan described in Sefer Yehoshua, as cited by the midrash. 

However, even here there is hope - as the midrash points out through a 'kal v'chomer' device, if an entire generation can be punished for the sin of one person i.e. Akhan, then how much greater is the impact of a good action or something which draws upon G-d's 'midah tova'!

Source 2 looks at these themes of redemption and mutual responsibility from a different perspective. Basing itself on a different part of the same source text as Source 1, it acknowledges that we can live through times of both light and darkness - however, the ultimate reward will be light once we all become 'one group'. The midrash explains this through the example of a bunch of reeds, which can be easily broken when separated into individual stalks but become much harder to break when bundled together. Similarly, redemption will only take place when we are united as one. 

What is notable here is that the source from Sefer Yirmiyahu used by the midrash refers to the people of kingdoms of Israel and Judah coming together as one for this redemption to take place. While that may have made sense when Yirmiyahu was alive, nowadays it is not at all obvious how this is possible given that the descendants of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) cannot be easily traced. Given the amount of infighting amongst today's Jews, maybe we need to reframe this need for unity as referring to the various factions within the modern Jewish community - while bearing in mind the hopeful message from our first midrash about the impact of a single good action upon us all.

Shabbat shalom

RPT

Ki Tavo - Like a Fish out of Water

B"H

N.B. The first draft of this from 2013 went in a completely different direction, due to my misreading the midrash. I kept the original title as I couldn't think of anything better...

I've also deliberately left Source 2 untranslated, as the 'translation' is best left to each midrash. All translations (including bold bits) are courtesy of Sefaria - I've italicised the sections of interest. Hope this isn't too confusing.

Sources:

1) Devarim 26:16

 

 הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְצַוְּךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְשָׁמַרְתָּ וְעָשִׂיתָ אוֹתָם בְּכׇל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכׇל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃

 

 

"The LORD your God commands you this day to observe these laws and rules; observe them faithfully with all your heart and soul."

 

2) Tehillim 17:14

מִ֥מְתִֽים יָדְךָ֨ ׀ יְהֹוָ֡ה מִֽמְתִ֬ים מֵחֶ֗לֶד חֶלְקָ֥ם בַּֽחַיִּים֮ (וצפינך) [וּֽצְפוּנְךָ֮] תְּמַלֵּ֢א בִ֫טְנָ֥ם יִשְׂבְּע֥וּ בָנִ֑ים וְהִנִּ֥יחוּ יִ֝תְרָ֗ם לְעוֹלְלֵיהֶֽם׃

 

 

3) Talmud Bavli, Berachot 61b (abridged)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״בְּכָל נַפְשְׁךָ״ אֲפִילּוּ נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ.[...] 

Rabbi Akiva says: “With all your soul” means: Even if God takes your soul.

 תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פַּעַם אַחַת גָּזְרָה מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה שֶׁלֹּא יַעַסְקוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּתּוֹרָה. בָּא פַּפּוּס בֶּן יְהוּדָה וּמְצָאוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁהָיָה מַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בָּרַבִּים וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה. אָמַר לוֹ: עֲקִיבָא אִי אַתָּה מִתְיָרֵא מִפְּנֵי מַלְכוּת? 

 The Gemara relates at length how Rabbi Akiva fulfilled these directives. The Sages taught: One time, after the bar Kokheva rebellion, the evil empire of Rome decreed that Israel may not engage in the study and practice of Torah. Pappos ben Yehuda came and found Rabbi Akiva, who was convening assemblies in public and engaging in Torah study. Pappos said to him: Akiva, are you not afraid of the empire?

אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה — לְשׁוּעָל שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ עַל גַּב הַנָּהָר, וְרָאָה דָּגִים שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְקַבְּצִים מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. אָמַר לָהֶם: מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתֶּם בּוֹרְחִים? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי רְשָׁתוֹת שֶׁמְּבִיאִין עָלֵינוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר לָהֶם: רְצוֹנְכֶם שֶׁתַּעֲלוּ לַיַּבָּשָׁה, וְנָדוּר אֲנִי וְאַתֶּם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדָּרוּ אֲבוֹתַי עִם אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אַתָּה הוּא שֶׁאוֹמְרִים עָלֶיךָ פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁבַּחַיּוֹת?! לֹא פִּקֵּחַ אַתָּה, אֶלָּא טִפֵּשׁ אַתָּה! וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם חִיּוּתֵנוּ, אָנוּ מִתְיָרְאִין, בִּמְקוֹם מִיתָתֵנוּ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אַף אֲנַחְנוּ עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאָנוּ יוֹשְׁבִים וְעוֹסְקִים בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ: ״כִּי הוּא חַיֶּיךָ וְאֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ״, כָּךְ, אִם אָנוּ הוֹלְכִים וּמְבַטְּלִים מִמֶּנָּה — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!  [...]

 Rabbi Akiva answered him: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared? It is like a fox walking along a riverbank when he sees fish gathering and fleeing from place to place.
The fox said to them: From what are you fleeing?
They said to him: We are fleeing from the nets that people cast upon us.
He said to them: Do you wish to come up onto dry land, and we will reside together just as my ancestors resided with your ancestors?
The fish said to him: You are the one of whom they say, he is the cleverest of animals? You are not clever; you are a fool. If we are afraid in the water, our natural habitat which gives us life, then in a habitat that causes our death, all the more so.
The moral is: So too, we Jews, now that we sit and engage in Torah study, about which it is written: “For that is your life, and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20), we fear the empire to this extent; if we proceed to sit idle from its study, as its abandonment is the habitat that causes our death, all the more so will we fear the empire.

בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לַהֲרִיגָה זְמַן קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע הָיָה, וְהָיוּ סוֹרְקִים אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמַסְרְקוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל, וְהָיָה מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עוֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבֵּינוּ, עַד כָּאן?! אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל יָמַי הָיִיתִי מִצְטַעֵר עַל פָּסוּק זֶה ״בְּכָל נַפְשְׁךָ״ אֲפִילּוּ נוֹטֵל אֶת נִשְׁמָתְךָ. אָמַרְתִּי: מָתַי יָבֹא לְיָדִי וַאֲקַיְּימֶנּוּ, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁבָּא לְיָדִי, לֹא אֲקַיְּימֶנּוּ? הָיָה מַאֲרִיךְ בְּ״אֶחָד״, עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ בְּ״אֶחָד״. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״אַשְׁרֶיךָ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁיָּצְאָה נִשְׁמָתְךָ בְּאֶחָד״.

 The Gemara relates: When they took Rabbi Akiva out to be executed, it was time for the recitation of Shema. And they were raking his flesh with iron combs, and he was reciting Shema, thereby accepting upon himself the yoke of Heaven. His students said to him: Our teacher, even now, as you suffer, you recite Shema? He said to them: All my days I have been troubled by the verse: With all your soul, meaning: Even if God takes your soul. I said to myself: When will the opportunity be afforded me to fulfill this verse? Now that it has been afforded me, shall I not fulfill it? He prolonged his uttering of the word: One, until his soul left his body as he uttered his final word: One. A voice descended from heaven and said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, that your soul left your body as you uttered: One.

אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: זוֹ תּוֹרָה וְזוֹ שְׂכָרָהּ? ״מִמְתִים יָדְךָ ה׳ מִמְתִים וְגוֹ׳״! אָמַר לָהֶם: ״חֶלְקָם בַּחַיִּים״. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״אַשְׁרֶיךָ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁאַתָּה מְזֻומָּן לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא״.

 The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: This is Torah and this its reward? As it is stated: “From death, by Your hand, O Lord, from death of the world” (Psalms 17:14); Your hand, God, kills and does not save. God said the end of the verse to the ministering angels: “Whose portion is in this life.” And then a Divine Voice emerged and said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, as you are destined for life in the World-to-Come, as your portion is already in eternal life. 

 

4) Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tavo, Chapter 2 (abridged) 

[...] וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁכֶם (שם), אֲפִלּוּ נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ. פַּעַם אֶחָד גָּזְרָה מַלְכוּת יָוָן שְׁמָד עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יַעַסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה. הָלַךְ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵרָיו וְעָסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה [...] וּכְשֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לַהֲרִיגָה, זְמַן קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע הָיָה, וְהָיוּ מְסָרְקִין אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמַּסְרְקוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל, וְהוּא קָרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. וְעָלָיו אָמַר דָּוִד, מִמְּתִים יָדְךָ ה' מִמְּתִים מֵחֶלֶד חֶלְקָם וְגוֹ' (תהלים יז, יד). אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפָּא, אַל תְּהִי קוֹרֵא מִמְּתִים, אֶלָּא קוֹרֵא מְמִיתִים, עַל תּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּתְנָה עַל יָדְךָ. בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁרוֹאִים אוֹתָן אָמַר, חֲלֻדָּה מְלֵאִין, חַטָּאִין יֵשׁ בְּיָדָן, לְפִיכָךְ הֵן נֶהֱרָגִין, וְכֵן הֵן מֵתִים מֵחֶלֶד. וְהֵן אֵינָן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁחֶלְקָן בְּחַיֵּי עוֹלָם וְכָל טוֹבָה צְפוּנָה לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּצְפוּנְךָ תְּמַלֵּא בִטְנָם (שם). וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁזּוֹכִין לְזַרְעָם אַחֲרֵיהֶם.[...]

 “And with all your soul (nafsheka) [Deut 26:16],” even though [someone] takes your life (nafshekha). On one occasion [the Romans] decreed a religious persecution against Israel, in which they were not to occupy themselves with the Torah. R. Aqiva and his colleagues proceeded to [ignore it and] occupy themselves with the Torah. [...] [Subsequently] when they brought out R. Aqiva for execution, it was time to recite the Shema'. While they combed his flesh with combs of iron, he was calling out the recitation of the Shema'. About him David has said (in Ps. 17:14), “Of those who die by your hand, O Lord […] from the world (heled), their portion [is life].” R. Hanina bar Pappa said, “Do not read, ‘of those who die,’ but, ‘those who kill,’ [because they kill themselves] for the sake of the Torah, which was given [by Your hand].” When people see them, they say, “They are full of rust (hulda), they have sins on their hand; that is the reason they were killed, and so they die from the world.” But they do not know that their portion is in eternal life and that everything good is being kept in store for them. It is so stated (ibid. cont.), “may You fill their belly with what You have kept in store for them.” And not only that, but they attain merit for their children after them. [...]

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

Funnily enough, I've ended up doing another 'compare and contrast' of the same basic midrash between the Midrash Tanchuma and the Gemara (see my earlier post on Shoftim).

 

This time around, we have Rabbi Akiva's famous mashal (parable) of the fox and the fish. In the mashal, the fox unsuccessfully tries to tempt the fish (i.e. the Jews) to leave the danger they face - by swimming in 'the water of Torah' - for certain death on dry land i.e. life without Torah study.  

 

As well known as this mashal is, in both versions it actually forms part of a longer teaching about R' Akiva's martyrdom and his commitment to G-d with 'all his soul', even at the point of death - the connection, presumably, being his insistence on continuing to teach Torah despite this resulting in his arrest and death. For me, the interesting part is actually how each version deals with what happens after the mashal, and the age-old question of 'why do bad things happen to good people?'

 

First, the basics. The Gemara version (source 3) flows from a discussion of the different elements of the Shema - in particular, what the difference is between loving G-d 'with all your soul' and 'with all your might [me'odecha]'*. R' Akiva emphasises that loving G-d 'with all your soul' means that we must do so even if G-d Himself takes our soul i.e. at death. From this starting point, the Gemara tells us about Rabbi Akiva's mashal and his recitation of the Shema on his deathbed in fulfilment of his teaching.

 

The Midrash Tanchuma (see source 4) instead 'hooks' this entire midrash to Ki Tavo via the phrase 'with all your heart and with all your soul' in Source 1. While this is not the exact text of the Shema (which comes earlier in Devarim), the midrash interprets 'with all your soul' as meaning 'even if someone takes your soul' (i.e. life) in line with R' Akiva's teaching, forming the link to his mashal and martyrdom.

The linchpin for both versions is their interpretation of a verse from Tehillim (see source 2) in light of R' Akiva's martyrdom. This is a difficult verse to understand in isolation (I certainly struggled), and each version interprets it in different ways. 

 

In the Midrash Tanchuma, R' Chanina bar Pappa uses source 2 to suggest that anyone observing R' Akiva's painful death** may assume that he was full of 'rust' (i.e. sin), hence meeting his end in this way. However, according to R' Chanina this approach is wrong because the end of the verse shows that R' Akiva was in fact destined for eternal life - just in Olam Haba'ah (the world to come), rather than this world.

 

This is odd. While it's not a philosophy I find easy to stomach, the assumption that someone deserved to die a horrible death because of their sins may well apply to an ordinary person***. But we are talking about the famous R' Akiva here - and if we needed a reminder about what sort of a person he was, the midrash itself has just shown us his own dedication to Torah through the mashal of the fox and the fish. So, why would anyone make such an assumption about R' Akiva?! It almost feels as if the midrash is making a 'straw man' argument to prove a point about R' Akiva's reward in the next world, rather than confronting the challenge of how he could meet such an end in this one.

The Gemara, by contrast, does take on this moral challenge. Here, two groups incredulously question aspects of R' Akiva's death. Firstly, his students ask him 'ad kan?!' - literally 'until here?!'. How can he still have the faith and presence of mind to recite Shema while being tortured by the Romans? A teacher to the end, R' Akiva explains that this is his chance to finally fulfil the command of loving G-d 'with all your soul' as if this means 'even as G-d is taking your soul', just as he himself has taught.

However, it is not humans but angels who raise the real dilemma with G-d Himself - 'this is your Torah and this the reward?' How can it be right that R' Akiva, who risked all for the Torah, be rewarded with such a brutal death? Here, the first part of the same verse that R' Chanina bar Pappa drew on is both reinterpreted (as meaning that G-d kills and does not save men from death), and used as a protest against this idea applying to R' Akiva. G-d responds that the verse's conclusion means that it only applies to those whose reward lies in this world - not to R' Akiva, whose reward is guaranteed in the next instead. 

Both groups of questioners are ultimately answered by a bat kol  (a voice from heaven) declaring 'Happy are you, R' Akiva [...]', telling us that despite appearances R' Akiva did meet a 'good' end. This is, more or less, the same as R' Chanina bar Pappa's conclusion in the Midrash Tanchuma. 

 

However, it is noticeable is that - even though the broad message is the same - the Gemara is more willing to directly confront the problem of 'why bad things happen to good people' posed by R' Akiva's martyrdom than the Midrash Tanchuma, giving voice to our cry of pain over his fate. A similar contrast - between idealism and messy reality - can be seen in my Shoftim post. Perhaps the answer lies in the different purpose of each text - the Midrash Tanchuma often wants to teach a particular lesson in black-and-white (a.k.a the Rabbi's Shabbat drasha), whereas the Gemara gives room for morally ambiguous 'shades of grey'.

 

RPT

 

* An aside - ages ago, I remember hearing the idea that 'me'odecha' really means 'your very veryness', or perhaps 'your essence', which makes sense from a Hebrew perspective. The person citing this happened to be from the Conservative movement, but I would love to know if there is actually a frum source saying this...

** It's easy on a casual read to miss how excruciating R' Akiva's torture and death would have been, both to experience and to watch. For me, when I think of 'combing' or 'combs' my first association is with combing hair, or at a pass wool - both nice, gentle actions. It's only when you pause to actually take in what is happening here - and the translation at source 3 makes this clearer - that you realise how horrific it was and why these midrashim/aggadot react in they way they do.

*** On a first reading I actually misread R' Chanina as referring to Pappas ben Yehuda, not R' Akiva - hence the original draft and blog title.

Ki Tetze - Cutting Off the Source

B'H

 

Parental Advisory warning on this one!

 

Also, these midrashim are super long - apologies if the translations seem disjointed, as I've tried to pull out the relevant bits. I'm fully aware that the sources are longer than the actual drasha.

Sources (all translations courtesy Sefaria.com, minor edits my own):

1) Devarim 25:17-19

 

זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם׃

אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים׃

וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ  לְךָ מִכׇּל־אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהֹוָה־אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח׃ 

 

"Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt—how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear.  Therefore, when the LORD your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"

2) Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tetze, Chapter 4 - Hebrew text (in full) here. Selections from English translation below:

"(Deut. 25:17:) “Remember what Amalek (Esau's grandson) did to you.” [...] 

 

[(Ps. 109:14:) “And let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.”] But how had he sinned against his mother? R. Judah, R. Nehemiah, and [our] masters [differ]. R. Judah says, “When he left his mother's belly, he severed her uterus, with the result that she would not bear [any more children]. This is what is written (in Amos 1:11), ‘because he (i.e., Edom, which is Esau) pursued his brother with the sword and repressed his pity (rachamiv),’ as it is written, ‘his uterus (rechemo).’” Moreover, R. Berekhyah says, “You should not say [this] in reference to when he had left [his mother's uterus].Rather, as he was leaving his mother's uterus, his zerta' [i.e., fist] was stretched out against him (i.e., against his brother Jacob).” What is the reasoning? (Ps. 58:4:) “The wicked go astray (zoru) from the womb.” 

 

R. Nehemiah says, “He was the cause of her not producing twelve tribes.” As Rav Huna has said, “Rebekah was worthy of producing twelve tribes, as stated (in Gen. 25:23), ‘And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are [in your womb].” Here are two. (Ibid., cont.:) “and two peoples.” Here are four. (Ibid., cont.:) “And one people shall be stronger than the other.” Here are six. (Ibid., cont.:) “And the elder shall serve the younger.”’ Here are eight. (Vs. 24:) ‘And behold there were twins in her womb.’ Here are ten. (Vs. 25:) ‘The first came out ruddy.’ That is eleven. (Vs. 26:) ‘And afterward his brother came out.’ Here are twelve.” And there are some who bring this [idea] from here (vs. 22); “and she said, ‘If so, why am I here (zh)?’” By gematria. z (=7) + h (=5) [for a total of] twelve. [...]"

 

3) Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tetze, Chapter 9 - Hebrew text (in full) here. Abridged English translation below:

"[...] R. Judan bar Gadya, R. Joshua ben Levi, and the masters [differ]. R. Judan bar Gadya said, “Remember what [our neighbor Amalek] did to us in the penis, which is attached to the lap (heq) [i.e., to the center] of a man.” And this agrees with what R. Hanina bar Shilqa, R. Joshua ben Levi and R. Jochanan said, “What did the House of Amalek do to Israel? They cut off their male organs and flung them heavenward, as they said, ‘This is what You have chosen, take for Yourself what You have chosen.’ This is related to the verse (in Ps. 9:6), ‘their taunt with which they have taunted You, O Lord.’” [...] When Samuel came, he repaid them, as stated (in I Sam. 15:33), “then Samuel hewed Agag.” What did he do to him?[...] Rabbi said, “He castrated him [...], as stated (in I Sam. 15:33), ‘But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women bereaved, so shall your mother be bereaved among women.”’” R. Levi said, “Moses also gave a hint to Israel in the Torah (about Agag's castration), since it is stated (in Deut. 25:11-12), ‘When two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one draws near [to save her husband from the hand of the one smiting him, if she puts out with her hand and grabs [the other man] by his male organs.] Then you shall cut off her hand….’ What is written after that (in vs. 17), ‘Remember what Amalek did to you. [...]’”

4) Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tetze, Chapter 10 - Hebrew text (in full) here. Abridged English translation below:

"(Deut. 25:18, cont.:) "And he cut off all who were lagging behind you". He smote them with a blow to the tail [alt. trans: 'male organ']. And this agrees with what R. Hanina bar Shilqa, said, “What did the House of Amalek do to Israel? They cut off their male organs and flung them heavenward, as they said, ‘This is what You have chosen, take for Yourself what You have chosen. [...]".

 

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

The infamous curse against Amalek at the end of parshat Ki Tetze is the subject of many midrashim, especially in seeking to explain exactly what it was that Amalek is supposed to have done to B'nei Israel. Some of these midrashic explanations share a common theme - that of Amalek destroying B'nei Israel's reproductive capacity, and therefore preventing future generations from even being born.

The selections brought at source 2 above form part of a longer midrash which discusses the sins that Esav, Amalek's ancestor, committed against his righteous forefathers - thereby justifying him being cursed in this way. The midrash tries to deal with the problem of how Esav could be so cursed despite sharing exactly the same ancestry as Yaakov. As part of this, we find a dispute over exactly what it is that Esav is supposed to have done to his mother, Rivka. 

 

One view is perhaps more well known - that Esav's evil reputation was such that when Rivka died, her funeral possession was conducted secretly at night to avoid any onlookers cursing her as Esav's mother. However, the conflicting views of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya both argue that Esav's sin was hampering Rivka from giving birth, even to the point of destroying the source of life that was in her womb. Rabbi Yehuda states explicitly his version of events - that, as Esav was being born, he somehow destroyed Rivka's fallopian tubes and womb in such a way as to prevent her ever conceiving again. Rabbi Nechemya, meantime, does not explicitly state how Esav prevents Rivka giving birth again but does say that, had it not been for his actions, Rivka would have merited to give birth to all twelve tribes of Israel herself rather than leaving this to Yaakov's wives in the next generation.

The midrashim at sources 3 and 4 above introduce a different idea directly related to our source text in parshat Ki Tetze - that the act of 'cutting off' referred to here ('vay'zanev bekha') was in fact Amalek castrating the men of B'nei Israel when they were travelling from Egypt. This interpretation is cited in the name of several Sages including Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Chama bar Shakla/Rabbi Chinena bar Shikla, but all are in agreement - after castration, Amalek threw up the severed male organs in the air as a taunt about circumcision and said 'This is what you have chosen? Go take what you have chosen!'. 

As we can see, in both sets of midrashim Esav/Amalek is striking directly at the reproductive parts of B'nei Israel/Rivka Imeinu, and therefore at the source of human life itself. Esav/Amalek's intent appears to be literally genocidal - to prevent the birth of future generations of B'nei Israel. 

 

Perhaps it is therefore appropriate that the mitzvah commanded here in parshat Ki Tetze is to wipe out 'zecher Amalek' from under the heavens. As 'zecher' means not only 'memory' but also 'seed', this therefore appears to be an act of retribution to remove Amalek's descendants from the earth - just as Amalek/Esav sought to do to us as the descendants of B'nei Israel. 

RPT

Shoftim - Justice for all?

B"H

Sources (all translations courtesy of Sefaria):

1) Devarim 16:19

לֹא־תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים [...]׃  

 

You shall not judge unfairly: you shall show no partiality[...].

 

2) Midrash Tanchuma Shoftim, Siman 7 - for full text, see here.

Extract below:

לֹא תַּטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַדַּיָּנִין רוֹאִין כְּאִלּוּ שְׁכִינָה בֵּינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט (שם פב, א), מִכָּאן לְבַעֲלֵי דִּינִין שֶׁיִּנְהֲגוּ אֵימָה לְעַצְמָן. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ דִּין עִם מֶלֶךְ מִמַּלְכֵי בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי, וְעָמַד לִפְנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח. אָמַר לֵיהּ: דִּין יֵשׁ לִי אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ. אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח לָהֶם לְאוֹתָן דַּיָּנִין שֶׁדָּנִין עִמּוֹ, אִם מְשַׁגֵּר אֲנִי בִּשְׁבִיל הַמֶּלֶךְ, אַתֶּם מוֹכִיחִים אוֹתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֵן. שִׁגֵּר בִּשְׁבִילוֹ. בָּא, וְנָתְנוּ אֶת כִּסְּאוֹ וְיָשַׁב בְּצַד שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח, עֲמֹד עַל רַגְלֶיךָ וְתֵן אֶת הַדִּין. אָמַר לוֹ: וְכִי דָּנִין אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ. פָּנָה לִימִינוֹ, כָּבְשׁוּ הַדַּיָּנִין אֶת פְּנֵיהֶם בַּקַּרְקַע. לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ, כָּבְשׁוּ פְּנֵיהֶם בַּקַּרְקַע. בָּא הַמַּלְאָךְ וַחֲבָטָן בַּקַּרְקַע עַד שֶׁיָּצְאָה נִשְׁמָתָן. מִיָּד נִזְדַּעְזֵעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ. מִיָּד אָמַר לֵיהּ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח, עֲמֹד עַל רַגְלֶיךָ וְתֵן אֶת הַדִּין, שֶׁלֹּא לְפָנַי אַתָּה עוֹמֵד, אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב לִפְנֵי ה' (דברים יט, יז). מִיָּד עָמַד עַל רַגְלָיו וְנָתַן אֶת הַדִּין. לְכָךְ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהוּ בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין נוֹהֲגִין אֵימָה בְּעַצְמָן, וְהַדַּיָּנִין יְהוּ נוֹהֲגִין אֵימָה בְּעַצְמָן, כִּבְיָכוֹל לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֵן דָּנִין. שֶׁכָּךְ אָמַר יְהוֹשָׁפָט לַדַּיָּנִין, כִּי לֹא לָאָדָם תִּשְׁפֹּטוּ כִּי לַה' (דה״‎ב יט, ו)

 

“You shall not turn aside justice.” Let the judges always feel as if the Divine Presence is among them, as stated (in Ps. 82:1), “[God stands in the divine congregation;] he pronounces judgment in the midst of powers.” From here it follows for litigants that they conduct themselves in awe. There is a story about a certain person who had a lawsuit with a king, one of the kings of the Hasmonean dynasty. He came and stood before Simeon ben Shetah. He said to him, “I have a lawsuit with the king.” Simeon ben Shetah said to those judges who were judging along with him, “If I send for the king, will you reprimand him?” They told him, “Yes.” He sent for him. He came and put his throne beside Simeon ben Shetah. Simeon ben Shetah said to him, “Stand on your feet and give satisfaction." He said to him, “Do we judge a king?” [Simeon ben Shetah] turned to the right, and the judges [on the right] pressed their faces on the ground (to hide them). He turned to the left, and [those on the left] pressed their faces on the ground. The angel came and beat them on the ground, until their souls left them. Immediately the king trembled. Simeon ben Shetah said to him, “Stand on your feet and give satisfaction, since you are not standing before me, but before the One who spoke and the world came into being, as stated (in Deut. 19:17), ‘The two parties to the dispute shall stand before the Lord.’” He immediately stood on his feet and gave satisfaction. Hence the litigants need to conduct themselves in awe and the judges need to conduct themselves in awe; as they are rendering judgment, as it were, for the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore Jehoshaphat said to the judges (in II Chron. 19:6), “[Consider what you are doing], since you are not rendering judgment for humans but for the Lord.”

3) Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 19a-b

אלא מלכי ישראל מ"ט לא משום מעשה שהיה דעבדיה דינאי מלכא קטל נפשא אמר להו שמעון בן שטח לחכמים תנו עיניכם בו ונדוננו שלחו ליה עבדך קטל נפשא שדריה להו שלחו לי' תא אנת נמי להכא (שמות כא, כט) והועד בבעליו אמרה תורה יבא בעל השור ויעמוד על שורו  

The Gemara asks: But what is the reason that others do not judge the kings of Israel? It is because of an incident that happened, as the slave of Yannai the king killed a person. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to the Sages: Put your eyes on him and let us judge him. They sent word to Yannai: Your slave killed a person. Yannai sent the slave to them. They sent word to Yannai: You also come here, as the verse states with regard to an ox that gored a person to death: “He should be testified against with his owner” (Exodus 21:29). The Torah stated: The owner of the ox should come and stand over his ox.

אתא ויתיב א"ל שמעון בן שטח ינאי המלך עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך ולא לפנינו אתה עומד אלא לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם אתה עומד שנאמר (דברים יט, יז) ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב וגו' אמר לו לא כשתאמר אתה אלא כמה שיאמרו חבריך  

The Gemara continues to narrate the incident: Yannai came and sat down. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: Yannai the king, stand on your feet and witnesses will testify against you. And it is not before us that you are standing, to give us honor, but it is before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that you are standing, as it is stated: “Then both the people, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 19:17). Yannai the king said to him: I will not stand when you alone say this to me, but according to what your colleagues say, and if the whole court tells me, I will stand.

נפנה לימינו כבשו פניהם בקרקע נפנה לשמאלו וכבשו פניהם בקרקע אמר להן שמעון בן שטח בעלי מחשבות אתם יבא בעל מחשבות ויפרע מכם מיד בא גבריאל וחבטן בקרקע ומתו באותה שעה אמרו מלך לא דן ולא דנין אותו לא מעיד ולא מעידין אותו:  

Shimon ben Shataḥ turned to his right. The judges forced their faces to the ground out of fear and said nothing. He turned to his left, and they forced their faces to the ground and said nothing. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to them: You are masters of thoughts, enjoying your private thoughts, and not speaking. May the Master of thoughts, God, come and punish you. Immediately, the angel Gabriel came and struck those judges to the ground, and they died. At that moment, when they saw that the Sanhedrin does not have power to force the king to heed its instructions, the Sages said: A king does not judge others and others do not judge him, and he does not testify and others do not testify concerning him, due to the danger of the matter.

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

Parshat Shoftim sets out the principles of the justice system which is to apply to the Jewish nation. Revolutionary for their time, these principles have resonated throughout Western history until today. One key aspect shown in Source 1) above is the idea that all are equal before the law, with no favouritism to be shown to any party - whether to the poor or to the king himself. In a world in which idolatry was widespread and rulers were often seen as having quasi-divine status - giving them ultimate authority over their subjects - this was radical indeed.

In Source 2) above*, the Midrash Tanchuma takes this idea further by showing that all involved in the justice process - both those who are judging and those who are to be judged - should conduct themselves with the awesome thought that they are standing before G-d Himself. Such a role requires respect and participation even from the king who - crucially - is not above the power of the court. However, as another version of this midrash at Source 3) shows, unfortunately human judges can fail to live up to this responsibility, with the tragic result that we (mostly) lost the jurisdiction to judge our monarchs.

Our 'hero' in both versions of this midrash is R' Shimon ben Shetach, brother-in-law of the Hasmonean King Alexander Yannai. R' Shimon appears many times in Rabbinic literature as someone who is unafraid of acting in line with a higher sense of 'justice', even when he stands to lose by doing so.

In both versions, R' Shimon ben Shetach summons his brother-in-law King Yannai to court to stand trial. In both cases, R' Shimon's fellow judges initially assure him that they will judge the king, only to hesitate and turn away out of fear when their authority is challenged by the king himself. This is their undoing - in both cases (and in Source 3, after R' Shimon calls on G-d to hold the judges to account), they are struck dead by a heavenly angel for their cowardice.

In Source 2, the midrash is bookended by opening and closing proof-texts from Tehillim and Divrei HaYamim which juxtapose the central message - that all parties should feel that they are in G-d's presence - with verses which echo the language of Source 1) regarding not showing favouritism in judgment (see here and here). This version of the midrash successfully links the two ideas - after the death of the judges, King Yannai 'trembles' as he recognises that he is in fact standing before G-d (as pointed out by R' Shimon ben Shetach) and thereafter accounts for himself as a defendant in the case. The principle of impartial justice seems to have been upheld, with the king's recognition that when it comes to the courtroom he must submit to the higher authority of G-d Himself. R' Shimon ben Shetach's stance - that even a king is not above the law - is vindicated.**

However, in Source 3 things do not end so happily. Here, the midrash is brought to justify an enactment that kings of Israel who are not of Davidic descent may no longer be judged by the Sanhedrin or Jewish courts. This enactment was a direct result of the incident related in the midrash - whereby the judges were struck dead for their reluctance to answer King Yannai's challenge and support R' Shimon ben Shetach - as it showed the inherent risks for human judges faced with the task of calling a king to account in court. Unfortunately, human fallibility means that the lofty ideal of 'justice for all' espoused by the Torah and R' Shimon ben Shetach is now restricted in its practical application - the king may no longer be judged by a human court, but only directly by G-d Himself. 

A lesson for us is that, while we may have very worthy principles, there is often a heavy burden of responsibility involved in putting these into practice - especially when this means challenging the prevailing powers of our times. Nevertheless, we should not be afraid to act in accordance with our principles, as otherwise their full power may be lost to future generations. 

RPT

 

* The full midrash is actually made up of three sections. I've chosen to focus on the middle section (the longest) to be able to compare-and-contrast with the version in Sanhedrin. However, the opening and closing sections are worthy of study in their own right as they bring in more intertextual ties with avoda zara and leave a few tantalising loose ends. One for another time...

 

** It's easy to be reminded of the English Civil Wars and the judgment - and execution - of Charles I which formed a turning point in British history. Like King Yannai, Charles challenged the courts' authority - unlike King Yannai, he refused point-blank to co-operate and instead of 'winning' had his head chopped off for his pains. For various reasons*** I was going to try and work this into the main post, but that would have ended up becoming a mini-dissertation well outside my comfort zone.

 

***Family legend is that John Bradshaw, the judge who presided over Charles I's trial, was an ancestor of mine, and that his body was 'rescued' and taken to Jamaica by his son to avoid the nasty business of being dug up and disembowelled after death. Given the official record (that John Bradshaw died without children), and the uncertainty over the Jamaica story, I'm taking this with a rather large pinch of salt. But it would be pretty cool if it was true ;-)