Twitter

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Parshat Toldot 5770 Echoes of Eden

Parshat Toldot 5770

Rabbi Ari Kahn             

 

Echoes of Eden

 

At the end of Parshat Chaya Sara, Avraham's faithful servant completes his mission: He declines Lavan's extended hospitality and brings their "negotiation" to a successful conclusion. Rivka herself has no small part in this conclusion. She is unequivocal; her choice is clear:

 

בראשית כ"ד, נ"ח

ויקראו לרבקה ויאמרו אליה, 'התלכי עם האיש הזה?' ותאמר 'אלך.'

And they called for Rivka and said to her, 'Will you go with this man?' And she said, "I will go." (Bereishit 24, 58)

 

Rivka and her entourage set out, and Avraham's servant leads the way to his master's house. As they approach, they come upon Yitzchak, who is out in the field, immersed in prayer. When she sees him, Rivka's reaction is powerful:

 

בראשית פרק כד, ס"ג-ס"ד

 וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה לִפְנוֹת עָרֶב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה גְמַלִּים בָּאִים: וַתִּשָּׂא רִבְקָה אֶת עֵינֶיהָ וַתֵּרֶא אֶת יִצְחָק וַתִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַגָּמָל:

And Yitzchak went out to meditate (or converse) in the field at the evening time; and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, camels were coming. And Rivka lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Yitzchak, she fell (or, dismounted) off the camel. Bereishit 24:63,64

 

The scene is striking, dramatic – but Rivka's reaction is given to various interpretations. When she sees Yitzchak in the field, without even knowing who he is, she either falls off or dismounts[1] from her camel.[2] While some midrashim "blame" Yitzchak's physical beauty, others teach that Rivka reacted as she did because she alone was able to discern Yitzchak's other-worldly characteristics. The Alshech explains that she was in awe when she saw his holiness,[3] while other commentaries say that she was frightened when she saw him.[4] Other sources point to Rivka's own innocence and inexperience as the source of panic and confusion that caused her to fall[5]. These sources seem to fit into a larger theme found in the midrash which we may call "the preservation of Rivka’s innocence[6]": Rabbinic sources contain a wealth of comments and midrashim that stress the depravity of the home which Rivka left behind, the corrupt world of Betuel and Lavan that Rivka rejected without a moment's hesitation. In fact, as we shall see, the biographical details revealed – and concealed - in the text of the Torah may be part and parcel of this issue.

 

When Rivka throws her lot in with Avraham's household, she effectively divorces herself from an immoral pagan society at the earliest possible opportunity. The midrashic teachings regarding her home in Padan Aram leave no room for doubt: Rivka's father Betuel was at the apex of this corrupt society; he was the most immoral person in Padan Aram.

 

The midrashic description of the backdrop to Rivka's departure addresses what is perceived as a lacunae in the text: When the servant first arrives looking for a bride for his master’s son, Rivka is identified as the daughter of Betuel,[7] and when negotiations commence Betuel and Lavan respond[8]. Nonetheless the next morning when the marriage will be finalized the father is nowhere to be found and the servant discusses the pending marriage with her brother Lavan instead.[9] In explaining this unconventional betrothal, the midrash is clearly not oblivious to the significance of Rivka’s father's name: Betuel – which may be translated as “the god of virginity.” Betuel was surely not the first man in a position of power to invoke his "divine right" to spend the first night with every bride under his jurisdiction. The elders of Padan Aram, upon hearing of Rivka's upcoming marriage, insisted that if Betuel conducted himself thus with their daughters – they would demand no less for his daughter. They waited impatiently for the first sign of weakness, hoping to catch Betuel in his own evil net and sentence Betuel and Rivka to death.[10]  Rivka knew very well what she was leaving behind, and she willingly, purposefully aligned herself with Avraham and all he stood for.

 

And then, she sees Yitzchak. Was it love at first sight? Physical infatuation? Awe at the sight of this holy man? The midrash offers one more possible explanation for Rivka's reaction upon first laying eyes on her betrothed: When Rivka first saw Yitzchak, she saw prophetically that he would have an evil son, and she fell off of the camel.[11]

 

As Parshat Hayei Sarah draws to an end, Rivka and Yitzchak meet, are wed, and their life together begins. The relationship between Yitzchak and Rivka blossoms; he loves her and she brings him solace.[12] But as Parshat Toldot begins, we learn that their happiness is incomplete:

 

בראשית פרק כה

(כ) וַיְהִי יִצְחָק בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּקַחְתּוֹ אֶת רִבְקָה בַּת בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם אֲחוֹת לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה:

And Yitzchak was forty years old when he took Rivka, daughter of Betuel the Aramean of Padan-Aram, sister of Lavan the Aramean, for his wife. Bereishit 25:20

 

בראשית פרק כה:כו

וְיִצְחָק בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה בְּלֶדֶת אֹתָם:

… and Yitzchak was sixty years old when she bore them. Bereishit 25:26

 

Combining these two verses, we learn that the couple suffered through twenty years of infertility. At no point does the text tell us Rivka's age when they married, nor do we know her age when she gives birth. For that matter, the Torah never gives us any information about Rivka’s age, and we do not even know at what point in the biblical narrative she died[13] or how old she was at her passing. The Seder Olam Rabbah[14], a rabbinic book devoted to biblical chronology, offers two variant accounts: in the first, Rivka was a mere three years of age[15] at the time of her marriage[16] to Yitchak; in the second version, she was a more palatable fourteen when wed.[17] The first account seems far less compatible with the verse's statement that she was "barren"; it would only be possible to speak of twenty years of infertility if Rivka was, indeed, of childbearing age when they were wed, and the first twenty years of their marriage saw her prime childbearing years dwindle. Apparently, the opinion that Rivka was separated from the house of her father at the tender age of three is part and parcel of the "preservation of innocence" theme we have discussed, taken to extremes.

 

As her biological clock winds down, Rivka finds herself pregnant at last. The Torah tells us that Yitzchak’s prayers are answered.

 

בראשית פרק כה: כא

וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לה' לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ כִּי עֲקָרָה הִוא וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה' וַתַּהַר רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ:

And Yitzchak prayed to God regarding (literally, in the presence of) his wife, because she was barren; and God responded to his prayer, and Rivka, his wife, conceived. Bereishit 25:21

 

As her dream is about to come true,[18] Rivka experiences some sort of difficulty related to the pregnancy – and the source of this difficulty is reminiscent of Rivka's reaction when she first sees Yitzchak. She is frightened, confused, alarmed. What is the cause of her distress? Here, too, the midrashic material is diverse, and rabbinic commentaries offer widely divergent opinions. In a sort of parallel to the opinions on the earlier scene, some see her distress as the natural[19], commonplace fears of any expectant mother – especially one who has waited for twenty years[20], especially one living in an age when so many pregnancies ended in tragedy. Simply put, Rivka experienced the discomfort and worry that accompany every normal pregnancy, and she prayed to God[21] for the health of her unborn child and for her own survival.[22] Other commentaries learn about the cause of her distress from the way in which God responds to her: He calms her fears by explaining that her pregnancy is strange and unusual because she is carrying twins.

 

Still others regard Rivka's distress as having very little to do with the normal physical and emotional stress of pregnancy, noting that she sought a spiritual remedy for her fears. Rashi explains that her distress stemmed from a strange phenomenon: when she would pass a place of idolatry the baby would stir and try to "escape"; conversely when she would pass the tents of Shem and Ever, a place of spirituality and holiness, the same struggle would ensue.[23] As far as Rivka knew, she was carrying a single child with a "split personality". Rivka's concerns had to do with the spiritual conflict[24] she felt within her womb[25]; therefore the knowledge that she is, in fact, carrying two fetuses, two distinct personalities, explains what she is feeling.

 

But can this answer allay her fears? We are forced to consider Rivka's earlier prophetic experience: From the moment she saw Yitzchak, she knew that he would have an evil son. Now, the vision is being played out within her, causing her distress that she can address only to God.

 

Rivka had removed herself from the corrupt world of Betuel, making a life in the tent of Sarah, married to the most holy man she had ever seen, son of one of the greatest spiritual giants of all time. And at the first moment that she sees this great future unfold before her, when she sees Yitzchak in the field immersed in prayer, she knows that she has not fully escaped evil. There is a thread of evil even here, and she is unable to escape it. It is surely no coincidence that in the twenty years of infertility Rivka never availed herself of the solution adopted by Sarah, Rachel and Leah, a solution so common in the ancient world: Rivka had maidservants who accompanied her from Padan Aram, yet she never suggested that Yitzchak father children with anyone else. Did the knowledge of this evil son yet to be born plant within her some deep-seated ambivalence about having children? Is this the reason she refrained from seeking solutions for their infertility? Is this perhaps the reason that the text never records Rivka herself praying, asking, hoping for children?

 

We may say that Rivka's entire adult life was lived under a cloud, a shadow cast by the vision of Esav that she had on the day she saw Yitzchak. Our sages express this sense of foreboding in a variety of ways, at various junctures throughout Rivka's life. In fact, even before Rivka sees Yitzchak, midrashic sources point to clues of this problematic destiny:

 

בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשה ס, יד

ותקם רבקה ונערותיה וגו' א"ר לוי שכן דרך הגמלים גדלים במזרח, רבנן אמרי מה גמל זה יש בו סימן טומאה וסימן טהרה כך העמידה רבקה צדיק ורשע

"and Rivka and her maidservants arose, etc.": The Rabbis said: As a camel possesses one mark of uncleanness and one of cleanness, so did Rivka give birth to one righteous and one wicked son. Bereishit Rabbah 60:14

 

Rivka makes a clean break from the house of Betuel – or so she believes. She chooses the house of Avraham over the house of Betuel, the morality and holiness of Yitzchak over that of Lavan. But even as she turns her back on the corruption and depravity of Padan Aram, she rides away on a camel - symbol of a sort of moral bifurcation or schizophrenia: Whereas kosher animals chew their cud and have split hooves, the camel has only one of these indicators of kashrut. The midrash draws a parallel between this "half and half" purity of the camel, and Rivka's destiny as mother of one righteous and one wicked son. The dread of this schism, symbolized by the camel on which she rode into the future and expressing her inability to completely escape the evil of her past, was what caused Rivka to dismount or fall. She saw that evil would accompany her on her journey; the birth of Esav was inevitable.

 

As readers, we are left to ponder the inevitability of Esav's birth, the inescapability of evil. What is the source of this seed of evil that grows from the purest, holiest roots? How can it be that Esav is born of the union of Yitzchak and Rivka? In a seemingly cryptic comment on the verse describing Rivka's departure from Padan Aram, the Arizal transmits a teaching found in the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer[26]:

 

ספר לקוטי תורה - פרשת חיי שרה

ותרכבנה על הגמלים. דע כי רבקה רכבה על הגמלים רמז לאותו נחש שארז"ל שהי' כעין גמל ובא סמאל ורכב עליו לפתות את חוה והטיל בה זוהמ' עתה רכבה עליו ע"ד עני ורוכב על החמור לאכפיא לי' תחותי':

"And they rode on the camels." Know that Rivka riding on a camel is a hint to the serpent that our rabbis say was like a camel; and Sama'el (the Evil One, Satan) rode the camel, to seduce Eve… Liqutei Torah Chaya Sarah

                                                   

The Arizal connects our present subject with a much earlier, much larger moral battle: In the Garden of Eden, the Evil Inclination utilizes very specific tools to seduce Eve[27]. Satan searched and found the most devious creature for this insidious task - the Serpent who, before the punishment, resembled a camel - either physically, or, more likely, in terms of the misleading symbols of purity. The results of the Serpent's efforts are all too familiar to us: Adam and Eve sin, and each of the parties involved is punished in their own way. It is the punishment God metes out to Eve that many see echoed in Rivka's distress:

 

בראשית פרק ג פסוק טז

אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּךְ:

To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply the pain of your child bearing; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.' (Bereishit 3, 16)

 

While the physical challenges of pregnancy that Rivka experienced may be traced back to Eve, the connection seems to run much deeper. The Megaleh Amukot explains that Rivka was "the image of Eve" and Yitzchak was "the image of Adam": Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, ingested the moral bifurcation or confusion that this Tree of Death embodied. Rivka carried within her two children, two fruits, as it were - one good, the other evil. Her distress is far beyond the physical: She seeks advice because she does not understand why her pregnancy should be entangled in this confusion of good and evil, enmeshed in moral dualism. She is married to the son of Avraham, to the man who had been offered as an olah to God. The father of her children is Yitzchak, whom she first sees out in the field, deep in prayer – in the very place that cursed man must labor. According to the midrash, Yitzchak himself had just returned from Eden.[28]

 

 There should be no evil growing from such roots.[29]

 

Our sages deal with this problem by pointing out that Rivka's experience does not precisely replicate the sin of Eve and its aftermath: whereas good and evil are confused by sin, they are somehow distilled in the course of this miraculous pregnancy. The Be’er Mayim Chaim suggests that in utero, a clarification takes place, and good and evil are clearly divided (perhaps for the first time since before the sin).[30] This process alone would explain the turmoil Rivka felt, even justify her discomfort. But this seems to be an insufficient answer for Rivka; she questions why the evil should exist within her at all. God's answer is quite clear: Like the birth of Cain and Hevel after the sin, Rivka will give birth to two sons. The fate of these two sons, of these two distinct moral entities, is conflict. These two sons are part of a process that will reverse the sin committed in Eden, and bring an end to the confusion of good and evil. Yaakov's destiny is to confront evil, to persevere, and to vanquish it.  Even before his birth, he begins to fulfill that destiny – a destiny that we may find encoded within the punishment of the Serpent:

 

בראשית פרק ג, י"ד – ט"ו

וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֱלֹהִים אֶל הַנָּחָשׁ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת אָרוּר אַתָּה מִכָּל הַבְּהֵמָה וּמִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה עַל גְּחֹנְךָ תֵלֵךְ וְעָפָר תֹּאכַל כָּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ: וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב:

And the Almighty God said to the Serpent, 'Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel ('akev). Bereishit 3, 14-15

 

The name that this son of Rivka is given at birth is completely enveloped in his destiny. "Yaakov" reflects the struggle which Rivka sensed was going on inside her, in which good and evil were separated, distilled or refined into two distinct forms. It is a name which reflects an ongoing struggle between good and evil that began with the Serpent and remains unresolved.

 

Yaakov's role is not an easy one. He confronts evil in many ways, using all the tools he can muster. At one point, he follows Rivka's command and  goes so far as to put on Esav's clothes - garments of treachery which, according to tradition, were passed down from the nefarious Nimrod, and had once belonged to Cain, who had received them from Adam.[31] To confront evil, Yaakov dons these garments; he recreates a confusion of good and evil, fighting a wicked and devious enemy with his own sword, as it were.

 

No one is better equipped to fight evil than Yaakov, who was born to the task. Encapsulated within his name is an expression of his destiny; it is an expression of the identity which Yaakov maintains until the point that he struggles with evil and emerges victorious (though not unscathed). Only then does Yaakov, who attacked the heel of his nemesis and stood his ground in the face of evil, become Yisrael.

 

From the very beginning, Rivka's vision was perfect where Yitzchak's was clouded. Rivka had a clear vision of the future, a firm grasp of the roles each of her sons would play. She had no illusions about Esav, nor did she have any doubt that Yaakov would have to use any means at his disposal to face evil and defeat it.  God's message to her may not have given her comfort, but it gave her perspective and purpose: We cannot escape evil; since the sin in Eden, evil has become internalized in us all. What we can do is live up to the destiny to which Yaakov and his descendents were born: to face up to Esav, to persevere against evil, and with God's help, defeat it.

 

 



[1] The Rashbam says that she had not been riding side-saddle; therefore, out of considerations of modesty, upon meeting her husband she dismounted.

רשב"ם בראשית פרק כד פסוק סד

(סד) ותפול מעל הגמל - לצניעות, לפי שהיתה רוכבת כמו איש משום ביעותא דגמלא כדמפורש בפסחים:

[2] Rashi Bereishit 24:64, states that she was in shock when she saw Yitzchak.

רש"י בראשית פרק כד פסוק סד

ותרא את יצחק - ראתה אותו הדור ותוהא מפניו:

ותפל - השמיטה עצמה לארץ, כתרגומו ואתרכינת הטתה עצמה לארץ ולא הגיעה עד הקרקע, כמו (פסוק יד) הטי נא כדך, ארכיני, (ש"ב כב י) ויט שמים, וארכין, לשון מוטה לארץ, ודומה לו (תהלים לז כד) כי יפול לא יוטל, כלומר אם יטה לארץ לא יגיע עד הקרקע:

[3] Torat Moshe Bereishit 24:64

פירוש האלשיך ז"ל - ספר תורת משה על בראשית - פרק כד פסוק סד-סה

(סד) מה שהפילה עצמה מעל הגמל אפשר שנבעתה מזיו צלם אלהים שעל פניו, וחששה אולי הוא יצחק כי מי חוץ ממנו או אביו יהיו לו כן. ועל הזיו הלז ריבה האת באומרו את יצחק:

[4] The Hizkuni Bereishit 24:64 suggests that due to her tender age she was frightened, and when she saw him she thought he was a rapist or a thief. The Riva on  Bereishit 24:64 says Yitzchak looked like a zombie, and she thought he was some kind of thief.

חזקוני על בראשית פרק כד פסוק סד

(סד) ותרא את יצחק ותפל מעל הגמל - ראתה אותו הדור ובעל קומה ופרצוף מהלך לעבר השדות בלא דרך כי בושה והיא היתה קטנה בת שלש שנים כסבורה אנס או לסטים הוא ונתבהלה ונפלה.

פירוש הריב"א על בראשית פרק כד פסוק סד

ותפול מעל הגמל. לפי שראתה יצחק שהיה בא מגן עדן והיה בא כדרך שהמתים הולכים רגליהם למעלה, ורש"י פי' שראתה אותו הדור ותוהה מפניו עכ"ל, וי"מ שהיא ראתה אותו יפה תואר. וי"מ הדור לשון כי בעי למהדר שהיו רגליו למעלה כמו דפרי'. וי"מ שנתבהלה רבקה כשראהו הולך בדרך שאינו כבוש והיא היתה קטנה בת ג' שנים וכסבורה היא שתהיה גנב או לסטים:

 

[5] It is explained that when she fell she was wounded and bled; subsequently, when Yitzchak was intimate with Rivka, the signs of her virginity were absent, and immediately the suspicion was focused on the servant Eliezer who accompanied Rivka on her journey. Upon returning to the place where she fell, and finding the blood that corroborated their account of the injury, Rivka, and Eliezer were exonerated. See Midrash Aggada Bereishit chapter 24.

מדרש אגדה (בובר) בראשית פרק כד

[סד] ותפל מעל הגמל. נפילה ממש, ובאותה נפילה איבדה בתוליה. הרהרה שראתה בעלה ולפיכך נפלה:

מדרש אגדה (בובר) בראשית פרק כד ד"ה [סז] האהלה שרה

[סז] האהלה שרה אמו. שמצאה כשרה כאמו, ואמרו חז"ל כי על שרה שהיה ענן קשור על אוהלה, וכשהיתה מדלקת נירות בערב שבת, היו הנרות דולקות עד מוצאי שבת, וכן רבקה, וכסה הענן לאהל שרה, כשמתה שרה נסתלק הענן וכשבאתה רבקה חזר הענן, וכשם שהיתה שרה זהירה בשלשה מצות שהאשה חייבת בהם, נדה וחלה והדלקת הנר, כך היתה רבקה זהירה: וינחם יצחק אחרי אמו. כל זמן שאמו של אדם בחייה אהבתו הולכת עם אמו, מתה אמו אהבתו הולכת לאשתו. ויש אומרים שלא מצאה בתולה שחשד באילעזר /באליעזר/, אמרה רבקה חלילה שלא שכב עמי אליעזר, אבל מפני הנפילה שנפלתי אבדתי בתולתי, ונקום ונלך למקום ההוא שנפלתי, ואולי יעשה ה' נס ותמצא שם דם בתולים, וכן עשו, הלכו ומצאו הדם על עץ אחד, והיתה מוכת עץ, והדם היה גבריאל שומרו שלא יאכל ממנו לא עוף ולא חיה, ולפי שחשד לאליעזר על חנם, והוא עשה שליחות אברהם באמונה, זכה שיכנס לגן עדן חי

 

[6] Rivka’s innocence is attested to in the text of the Torah: Bereishit 24:16 “And the girl was very pretty to look upon, a virgin, and no man had known her;”. It seems strange, if she is a virgin – they why is it necessary to state that “no man had known her”? Rashi explains that women in those days would often “save” themselves for their husbands in terms of virginity, but they would nonetheless engage in other forms of sexual contact.

בראשית פרק כד

(טז) וְהַנַּעֲרָ טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד בְּתוּלָה וְאִישׁ לֹא יְדָעָהּ וַתֵּרֶד הָעַיְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּא כַדָּהּ וַתָּעַל:

רש"י בראשית פרק כד פסוק טז

(טז) בתולה - ממקום בתולים:

ואיש לא ידעה - שלא כדרכה, לפי שבנות הגוים היו משמרות מקום בתוליהן ומפקירות עצמן ממקום אחר, העיד על זו שנקיה מכל:

[7] See 24:15,24,27

[8] See 24:50

[9] See 24:55

[10] Yalqut Shimoni Chaya Sarah remez 109.

ילקוט שמעוני תורה פרשת חיי שרה רמז קט

כיון שראו את הצמידים נתקבצו להרוג לאליעזר וראו שהיה נוטל ב' גמלים בב' ידיו ומעבירן את הנחל כיון שראו כן אמרו אין אנו יכולין להרגו והניחו קערה לפניו וסם המות בתוכה ובזכות אברהם נתחלפה הקערה ואכל בתואל ממנה ומת, ואין ויושם אלא לשון סם, ומפני מה מת בתואל שהוא היה מלך בארם נהרים וכל בתולה שתנשא בועל אותה לילה ראשונה ואח"כ חוזרת לבעלה נתקבצו כל השרים ואמרו אם הוא עושה לבתו כשם שעשה לבנותינו מוטב ואם לאו אנו הורגים אותו ואת בתו לפיכך מת כדי שינצל אליעזר ורבקה.

[11] Ibid

בשתי שעות ביום יצאו מחרן וקפצה הארץ לפניהם, ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה מהיכן יצא מגן עדן, ותפול מעל הגמל לפי שראתה ברוח הקדש שעתיד לצאת ממנו עשו הרשע נזדעזעה ונעשית מוכת עץ ויצא ממנה דם בתולים מיד אמר הקב"ה לגבריאל רד ושמור את הדם שלא יסריח ולא יהיה בו מום בא יצחק עליה ולא מצא לה בתולים חשדה מאליעזר אמר לה בתולותיך היכן הן אמרה לו כשנפלתי מן הגמל נעשיתי מוכת עץ אמר לה שקר את מדברת אלא אליעזר פגע בך ונשבעה לו שלא נגע בה הלכו ומצאו העץ צבוע דם מיד ידע יצחק שהיא טהורה אמר הקב"ה מה אעשה לעבד הזה שהיה חשוד אמר למלאכי השרת הכניסוהו חי בגן עדן הוא אליעזר בן נמרוד והוא תמיה גדולה יצחק יצא מגן עדן חי ואליעזר נכנס לגן עדן חי:

 

[12] Bereishit 24:67

בראשית פרק כד

(סז) וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת רִבְקָה וַתְּהִי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק אַחֲרֵי אִמּוֹ:

[13] The Sifri says that Rivka was 133 at death, while according to Rashi it would seem that Rivkah was 122 years old, this 11 year discrepancy, is related to two readings in the Seder Olam, see below. For some of the calculations see Rabbi David Silverberg http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-bereishit/06-10toledot.htm, who seems to have missed the Seder Olam.

ספרי דברים פרשת וזאת הברכה פיסקא שנז

שש זוגות ששנותיהם שוות רבקה וקהת לוי ועמרם יוסף ויהושע שמואל ושלמה משה והלל הזקן ורבן יוחנן בן זכיי ורבי עקיבה.

[14] Sedder Olam Rabbah chapter 1.

סדר עולם רבה (ליינר) פרק א

אבינו יצחק היה כשנעקד על המזבח בן ל"ז שנה, ויגר אברהם בארץ פלשתים ימים רבים (שם /בראשית/ כא לד), הימים הללו מרובים על חברון שהיו עשרים וחמש שנה, והללו עשרים ושש שנה, בו בפרק נולדה רבקה, נמצא אבינו יצחק נשא את רבקה בת (י"ד) [ג'] שנה,

[15] This may be intended to parallel her life after that of Avraham, who according to some sources discovered God at the age of three. Rivka with her heroic acts of hesed, seems to follow the Avraham example.

[16] Rivka’s birth is reported after the akaida, according to some traditions Yitzchak was 37 at that time, therefore if he was 40 at the time of marriage she would have been three, marriages at extremely young ages were common, even though consummation of the marriage would have been delayed for a significant amount of time. There are those who assume that Yitzchak was significantly younger at the time of the akaida.

[17] See Daat Zekanim Baalie Tosfot Berishit 25:20.

דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות על בראשית פרק כה פסוק כ

(כ) ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה - פירש"י שנשא יצחק את רבקה כשהיתה בת שלש שנים וקשיא דבשלהי ספרי מסיק ג' שנותיהן שוין קהת ורבקה ובן עזאי. וא"כ חיתה רבקה קל"ג שנים כמו קהת ואם לא היתה כי אם בת שלש שנים כשנשאה יצחק תמצא שחסר משנותיהם י"א שנים כיצד בת ג' נשאה ובת כ"ג היתה כשילדה. וא"כ כשילדה את יעקב היתה בת כ"ג ויעקב בן ס"ג כשנתברך כדפירש"י בסוף הסדר הזה וי"ד שנה נטמן בבית עבר וכ' שנה שמש בבית לבן ושתי שנים נשתהה בדרך ובאותו פרק נתבשר על מיתת אמו כדפירש"י בפ' וישלח גבי אלון בכות. וא"כ לא היתה כי אם בת קכ"ב שנים. ל"נ שהיתה רבקה בת י"ד שנים כשנשאה יצחק והכי איתא בסדר עולם וכן א"ר יהודה ואז תמצא שהיתה קל"ג שנים מכוונים. ולפי זה צ"ל מה ששנינו בסדר עולם כשחזר אברהם מן העקדה נתבשר שנולדה רבקה שנולדה כבר עבר י"א שנים.

[18] We assume that Rivka and Yitzchak shared a desire to have children,  though the text does not record Rivka having prayed for children – as it does in the case of Yitzchak; see below.

 

[19] Rashbam says that indeed it was a normal pregnancy – for twins.

רשב"ם על בראשית פרק כה פסוק כב

(כב) ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה - לשון רץ לקראת רץ, שהיו רצים ומתנענעים בתוך גופה כדרך עוברים. וכן מן קם מתקוממים מן לן מתלוננים אבל מלשון רצץ עזב דלים הי' לומר וירצצו כמו בטרם יתנגפו רגליכם:

 

[20] Ohr Hachaim on Bereishit 25, 22.

אור החיים על בראשית פרק כה פסוק כב

 אכן פשט הכתוב הוא ויתרוצצו לשון ריצוץ, פירוש היו נדחקים ביותר כשיעור שיהיו מתרוצצים ולא יתקיימו במעיה וזה יורה כי הריונה אינו מתקיים, ותאמר א"כ למה זה אנכי, פירוש "זה" מורה באצבע חוזר אל ההריון, למה אנכי הרה לריק יגעתי, ותלך לדרוש את ה' פירוש לבקש רחמים על קיום הריונה, ולדעת דבר הסובב הפסדם כי מן השמים לא יעשה נס לשקר שתפקד בדבר שאינו מתקיים, ולעולם לא הקפידה על צער ההריון כי הצדיקים יסבלו צער גדול בעוה"ז לתכלית טוב הנצחי:

 

[21]Ramban 25:22

רמב"ן על בראשית פרק כה פסוק כב

 ותלך לדרוש את ה' - לשון רש"י, להגיד מה יהא בסופה ולא מצאתי דרישה אצל ה' רק להתפלל, כטעם דרשתי את ה' וענני (תהלים לד ה), דרשוני וחיו (עמוס ה ד), חי אני אם אדרש לכם (יחזקאל כ ג):

[22] See Seforno, she was afraid that she would lose one of the fetuses and her life would then be in danger as well.

ספורנו עה"ת ספר בראשית פרק כה פסוק כב

(כב) ותאמר אם כן. אחרי שהדבר כן שמתרוצצין ויש לחוש שימות אחד מהם ואסתכן אני בלידה כמנהג בלידת עובר מת. למה זה אנכי. למה זה התאוו קרובי שתהיה אני אם הזרע באמרם את היי לאלפי רבבה וכן בעלי שהתפלל עלי בזה:

 

 

[23] Rashi Bereishit 25:22

רש"י על בראשית פרק כה פסוק כב

ויתרוצצו - ע"כ המקרא הזה אומר דורשני שסתם מה היא רציצה זו וכתב אם כן למה זה אנכי. רבותינו דרשוהו לשון ריצה כשהיתה עוברת על פתחי תורה של שם ועבר יעקב רץ ומפרכס לצאת עוברת על פתחי ע"א עשו מפרכס לצאת. ד"א מתרוצצים זה עם זה ומריבים בנחלת שני עולמות:

 ותאמר אם כן - גדול צער העבור:

[24] See Kol Eliyahu Berishit 25:22

ספר קול אליהו על בראשית פרק כה פסוק כב

 ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה ותאמר א"כ למה זה אנכי ותלך לדרוש את ה'. יש לפרש עפ"י דרך רמז על פי מה דאיתא בגמרא בכמה דוכתי (פסחים כ"ב, ב"ק מא, קידושין נ"ז, בכורות ו.), שמעון העמסוני היה דורש כל אתין שבתורה כיון שהגיע לאת ה' אלקיך תירא פירש וכו' עד שבא ר' עקיבא ודרש את ה' אלקיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים, והנה רש"י ז"ל פירש כאן בשם המדרש על הפסוק ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה כשהיתה עוברת על פתחי ע"ז היה עשו מפרכס לצאת, וכשהיתה עוברת על פתחי שם ועבר היה יעקב רוצה לצאת. והנה רבקה לא היתה יודעת שהם שני עוברים והיתה סוברת שהוא עובר אחד א"כ היה מקום להרהר ח"ו שיש שתי רשויות כיון שהוא עובר אחד ויש שני הפכים בנושא אחד ועל כן הרהרה ותאמר א"כ למה זה אנכי, ר"ל מה שכתוב בעשרת הדברות אנכי ה' אלקיך שהוא נגד מה שאירע לה ברציצה זו לכן ותלך לדרוש את ה' ר"ל לדרוש הפסוק את ה' אלקיך תירא, ויאמר ה' לה שני גוים בבטנך אחד צדיק ואחד רשע, ואל יעלה על דעתך כלל שיש ח"ו שתי רשויות. (שם משמואל עה"ת):

[25] Rashi ibid

לדרוש את ה' - שיגיד לה מה תהא בסופה:

[26] Chapter 12

פרקי דרבי אליעזר (היגר) - "חורב" פרק יב

מה עשה סמאל לקח כת שלו וירד וראה כל הבריות שברא הב"ה בעולמו ולא מצא בהם חכם להרע כנחש, שנ' והנחש היה ערום, והיה דמותו כמין גמל ועלה ורכב עליו

[27] In Pirki Drebbe Eliezer chapter 21, it states that the rider of the serpent violated Eve, and she became pregnant with Cain.

פרקי דרבי אליעזר (היגר) - "חורב" פרק כא

בא אליה רוכב נחש ועברה את קין, ואחר כך בא אליה אדם ועברה את הבל, שנ' והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו, מה ידע ידע שהיתה מעוברת וראה את דמותו שלא מן התחתונים אלא מן העליונים,

[28] Yalqut Shimoni Chaya Sarah remez 109.

ילקוט שמעוני תורה פרשת חיי שרה רמז קט

ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה מהיכן יצא מגן עדן, ותפול מעל הגמל לפי שראתה ברוח הקדש שעתיד לצאת ממנו עשו הרשע נזדעזעה ונעשית מוכת עץ ויצא ממנה דם בתולים

[29] Megaleh Amukot parshat Toldot

ספר מגלה עמוקות על התורה - פרשת תולדות

ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה ידוע שהיא היתה דיוקנא של חוה לתקן רוחה כמו שיצחק בא לתקן רוח של אדם כן רבקה רוח של חוה וכמו שחוה היתה (בראשית ג) אם כל חי הולידה מעץ הדעת טוב ורע הבל מסטרא דטוב וקין מסטרא דרע כן רבקה ראתה שאותן שני בנים הראשונים חזרו ובאו לעולם אז אמרה א"כ למה שהרי רבקה נפלה מעל הגמל. אמרז"ל במדרש ותרכבנה על הגמלים רבנן אמרי גמל זה יש בו סימן טהרה וסימן טמא כן רבקה העמידה ליצחק א' בן צדיק וא' בן רשע כיון שראתה רבקה את יצחק שהי' אור ג"ע עמו ראתה סוף טומאה לצאת ממנה

[30] Toldot 25

ספר באר מים חיים פרשת תולדות - פרק כה (המשך)

וידע אשר יצא עוד מיצחק איזה בן לא טוב וסבר אברהם שיתקן זה כי הכל בידי שמים וכו' וביקש דוקא אחר רבקה הצדקת כי אולי על ידי זכות יצחק וזכות רבקה לא ימצא פסולת בזרעו כמאמר חז"ל (ברכות י'.) שאמר חזקיה לישעיהו הב לי ברתך אולי על ידי זכותא דידי ודידך הוין לי בנין דמעלי וכו', ואכן כל זה לא הועיל כי הן אמת אשר אפשר ביצחק לא היה עוד שום פסולת וזוהמא כי כבר יצא זוהמת אברהם בישמעאל, ומעת הגמל את יצחק אמרו חז"ל (בראשית רבה נ"ג, י') שנגמל מיצר הרע ואחר כך נתקדש בהר המוריה, ואך רבקה אמנו מצד שהיה אביה רשע ואחיה רשע וכל משפחתה רשעים, ונודע אומרם (בבא בתרא ק"י.) רוב בנים דומין וכו' וכמו שכתב הרב הקדוש בעל אור החיים זללה"ה ועל כן הוכרח לצאת ממנה עשו הרשע לשטף בטנה לשאוב כל הזוהמא והפסולת, שיצא יעקב נקי וזך מכל וכל ועל כן היה נמצא בעשו נשמות מתוקנים היטב כמו נשמות שמעיה ואבטליון ושאר גירי צדק הבאים מאתו כי זה היה מכח יצחק אבינו שהניח קדושתו בו:

 

[31] See Rabbenu Bachaya Bereishit 3:21, and the footnotes by Rabbi Chavel in the Mosad Harav Kook edition.

רבינו בחיי בראשית פרק ג

ויעש ה' אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור ודעת רז"ל שהיו לבושים הללו מצויירין שם כל מיני עופות שבעולם, ואדם הורישם לקין, וכשנהרג קין באו לידו של נמרוד, הוא שכתוב: (בראשית י, ט) הוא היה גבור ציד וגו'. וכשהרג עשו לנמרוד נטלן עשו ממנו, והוא שכתוב: (בראשית כז, טו) "את בגדי עשו בנה הגדול החמודות", מאי "החמודות", שחמדן מנמרוד.

כתר יונתן בראשית פרק כז פסוק טו

(טו) ותִקח רבקה את בגדי עשו בנה הגדול חמודות שהיו מאדם הראשון וביום ההוא לא לבשם עשו ונִשׁארו אצלה בביתה ותלבש את יעקב בנה הקטן:

 

Monday, August 3, 2020

Tangled Up in Crowns

People of The Book
The Jerusalem Report
August 17th, 2020


Ari Kahn


Tangled Up in Crowns


 



Mysterious magical characters; non-linear time; enchantment: To some readers, these concepts may seem to have been taken off the jacket of a new Bob Dylan album (back in the day when vinyl was ‘a thing’). For others, these hard-to-pin-down phrases describe the elements of midrash and aggadah that form a literary-philosophical world which, for me – and, I suspect, for many others - is a source of fascination, meaning, and holiness.

 

I have been exploring, teaching and attempting to illuminate the world of Talmudic narrative and allegory for some forty years, and recently committed to paper some of the core issues and concepts I have examined in that time. My most recently published book, “The Crowns on the Letters,” is a collection of essays on core issues of Jewish thought as they are expressed and distilled in the midrashic and aggadic sections of the Talmud. The process of translating my oral lectures into chapters of text has been enlightening, as the methods for engaging a live audience and explaining abstract concepts in the lecture hall, classroom or even the synagogue are only distantly related to the skills needed for clear and engaging writing.

 

Often, listeners get caught up in the improbability (or perhaps the impossibility) of the “stories” we study; they become sidetracked by the lack of feasibility that is inevitably the result of a purely literal reading, and risk missing the message our sages hoped to convey that lies just below the storyline.

 

A case in point is a delightful teaching, found in Talmud Bavli Menahot 29b, in which a confused Moses finds himself in the classroom of a later scholar named Akiva. The entire story is a non-starter for rational listeners and readers: Talmudic time travel is too much for them, and they dismiss the entire story, missing out on one of the most daring and fearless Talmudic passages I know. This “story” contends with some of the most serious philosophical questions and major tenets of Jewish thought: the authenticity of the Torah, and the question of theodicy. Sadly, the deeper message is often eclipsed by a simplistic, literal approach to the text, by failure to “suspend disbelief” and think symbolically, by focusing on the medium rather than the message. My goal, in the lecture hall and pulpit and as a writer, is to teach the language of midrashic and aggadic allegory that will enable others to access the deep ideas they convey.

 

This past year, in one particular lecture on the Moses-Akiva story, I encouraged my students to suspend their disbelief, and illustrated the concept by quoting Nobel Laureate in literature Shabsi Zisel a.k.a. Robert Zimmerman a.k.a. Bob Dylan. In an in-depth interview with the man known as “the poet of the sixties,” Dylan credited his art teacher, the acclaimed painter and sometimes-philosopher Norman Raeben, with helping Dylan break his writer’s block, which enabled him to create, among other works of art, his magnum opus “Blood on the Tracks.”

 

On the jacket notes to Biograph, Dylan alludes to the visual arts he learned from his teacher:

 

I was just trying to make it like a painting where you can see the different parts but then you also see the whole of it. With that particular song, that’s what I was trying to do... with the concept of time, and the way the characters change from the first person to the third person, and you’re never quite sure if the third person is talking or the first person is talking. But as you look at the whole thing, it really doesn’t matter.

 

On another occasion Dylan coyly tells of his teacher:

 

It has to do with an illusion of time. I mean, what the songs are necessarily about is the illusion of time. It was an old man who knew about that, and I picked up what I could...

 

 

Certain that most of the people in the room had never heard Raeben’s name before, I gave my students some biographical details on the man who had this tremendous impact on Bob Dylan: Norman Raeben grew up in a home where stories were told and written.  Raeben’s father’s name was Solomon Naumovich Rabinovich, better known by his nom de plume Sholem Aleichem – one of the great Jewish storytellers of modern times, creator of Tevya the Milkman, the protagonist of “Fiddler on the Roof,” and many other memorable characters and unforgettable stories that have transcended borders and cultures due to their allegorical power.

 

Who would ever have imagined that the spiritual grandfather of “Tangled up in Blue” was the famous milkman Tevya?

 

I then urged my students to approach the text before us, the story of Moses visiting the study hall of Rabbi Akiva, as we would a work of art: A canvas can tolerate different time zones, it can portray timelessness. It can easily show us a middle-aged man, depicted in one section of a painting in his youth and in another section, in old age.  By learning to look at art we learn to suspend judgement; that is what makes it art. The same, I explained, is true of aggadah and midrash.

 

Moses can travel from Sinai to the classroom of Akiva, back to Sinai, and then back to the future to see the death of Akiva; he can return to the Heavenly Throne and question God Himself about the justice of it all. Moses can receive the Torah at Sinai, but at the same moment be unable to understand Rabbi Akiva’s lecture – which, Akiva explains, is based upon the teachings Moshe received at Sinai. Time is of no meaning; literal sequence is aside from the point. The passage addresses the very heart of Jewish masoretic authority, of the continuity and validity of Jewish Law, the basic concepts that enliven and empower Rabbinic Judaism. Anyone who dismisses the “improbable story” will have missed the treasure that lies beneath it.

 

Once the reader ‘agrees’ to participate in the aggadic text – that is, to set aside literalism and address the allegory’s message - he or she is faced with the seemingly impossible paradox it presents: Moses does not understand Akiva’s halachic teaching, yet Akiva explains that its source is none other than the legal tradition passed down through the chain of masorah, beginning with Moses at Sinai. This paradox is far more challenging than the small issue of time travel – and the answer Moses is given is even more challenging. Nonetheless, I told my students, the “story” itself provides us with the key; the text contains all the tools we need to understand the message. As readers, we must mine the story– its symbolism, its language, its references -to retrieve these tools.

 

Moses was not sent to Rabbi Akiva’s classroom “accidentally;” every element of the story is carefully crafted. Moses climbs Mount Sinai at God’s command; he stands before the Almighty awaiting the completion of the Torah and sees God affixing “crowns” - the scribal ornaments that adorn Torah script to this very day - on the letters. In his eagerness to receive the Torah, Moses wonders whether this ornamentation justifies the delay; he questions the necessity of the crowns. Rather than an explanation, he is told that in the future, one man, named Akiva the son of Josef, would “expound upon each mark heaps and heaps of Torah (law).”

 

The language of this response may hold the key to unraveling its paradox. The Hebrew phrase translated as ‘heaps and heapstillei tillim - is derived from the word “tel” (a common place-marker in Israel). In “The Crowns on the Letters,” I explain this key word-concept:

 

The Torah that Moses hears in Rabbi Akiva’s beit midrash is neither “new” nor “different”; it has its core in the teachings Moses heard at Sinai. This was implied at the very outset ... The choice of words is far from arbitrary: The word tillim is the plural form of the word “tel,” a mound created as successive generations build upon what their predecessors leave behind, heaping layers of life upon the strata laid down by previous generations. Akiva’s methodology did not abandon the chain of transmission that began at Sinai; rather, Rabbi Akiva performed “intellectual archaeology,” mining the depths of what he had received from his own teachers, uncovering and revealing the sources of the mesorah he received, tracing them back to Moses and the principles he was given at Sinai.

“The Crowns on the Letters” Page 76

 

Were we to imagine a graphic representation of this aggadic text, we would see that the two scholars can be joined on one canvas, despite the millenia that separated them in life, and the paradox is resolved: Moses does not understand the modern iteration of the laws, although Akiva sees clearly that their core principles were handed down at Sinai to Moses, and then to those who formed the chain that led to his own study hall. Akiva sees his role as a link in this chain, as an interpreter of the law who digs through the strata to reveal the bedrock upon which halachah is based. This is what God explains to Moses; this understanding, this approach to Torah, will be the legacy of Akiva. “There will arise one man, at the end of many generations, Akiva ben Yosef is his name, who will expound upon each mark heaps and heaps of Torah.”

 

That same Akiva begins his career as one of our greatest teachers and heroes, when he sees water penetrating rock. The trajectory of Akiva’s life is set in motion by his own ability to identify and interpret symbolism and allegory; he remarks that if water can shape stone, Torah – the solid bedrock of our lives – can most certainly shape our hearts and our lives (Avot d’Rabbi Natan, Ch. 6). Ironically, Moses is stripped of his role as teacher and leader when he strikes a rock rather than using words to satisfy the people’s needs for water (Numbers 20).

 

The separate stories of Moshe and Akiva are brought together by the symbols associated with their lives and legacies; their stories intermingle. Perhaps on a canvas their stories might be told through water and rock, rock and water – paradox and resolution, heaps of Torah law built on the scholarship of previous generations, all standing on the bedrock of what was given to Moses at Sinai. Canvas could surely tolerate the elasticity of time, place and consciousness as Moses moves back and forth, up and down, from heaven to earth, as he impossible becomes clear and the enchantment becomes reality.

 

Ari Kahn is an author rabbi, and teacher. He is a senior lecturer at Bar Ilan University. His most recent book, “The Crowns on the Letters: Essays on Aggada and the Lives of the Sages,” published by OU Press/Ktav Publishing House, is available on Amazon.

Sunday, August 2, 2020

Explorations in French

Explorations

 in French


Berechit
https://www.librairiedutemple.fr/commentaires-sur-la-torah-et-le-nakh/6652-explorations---berechit.html
 Shmot
https://www.librairiedutemple.fr/commentaires-sur-la-torah-et-le-nakh/5079-explorations---chemot.html

 Vayikra
https://www.librairiedutemple.fr/commentaires-sur-la-torah-et-le-nakh/5080-explorations---vayiqra.html

https://www.librairiedutemple.fr/commentaires-sur-la-torah-et-le-nakh/5882-explorations---bamidbar-2147483647.html




 Dvarim
https://www.librairiedutemple.fr/commentaires-sur-la-torah-et-le-nakh/7691-explorations---devarim.html