Jealousy Incarnate

“All of the assembly in its entirety are holy and Ha-Shem is among them!” shouted Korach, poised at the head of the mob of rebels who had gathered to challenge Moshe and Aharon. “Why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of Ha-Shem!” (B’Midbar 16:3).

The Talmud records that Korach’s attacks against Moshe were not merely political, but far sharper and more personal. According the Talmudic account, among other criticisms, Korach actually accused Moshe of the crime of adultery!

While attacking Moshe on the basis of his position of authority seems understandable, to malign a man of Moshe’s inimitable character and reputation with intimations that he had committed adultery enters the realm of the ridiculous! What is the meaning of this strange Talmudic teaching?

The answer to this mystery, as with many mysteries of the Torah, lies at the core of the history of Man.

“Let Us make Man…” (B’Reshis 1:26). Ha-Shem consulted with his council of spiritual ministers before creating Mankind. Our tradition teaches that these heavenly ministers objected to the Almighty’s plan, explaining that Man, as a being with physical elements, may succumb to material temptation, polluting the universe with sin. Man, therefore, deserves not any place in the kingdom of the Almighty. Ha-Shem overrides the opinion of his ministers and proceeds with the creation of Adam. Thenceforth, throughout history, as mankind failed to live up to the course of holiness prescribed for them by the Almighty, the angels would continually remind the Lord of their initial objection and His failure to heed their counsel.

Subsequent to Adam’s fall from grace, the Torah describes how Adam’s sons Kayin (Cain) and Hevel (Abel) vie for the Almighty’s favor. While Hevel brings an offering from the fattest of his flock, Kayin offers only the cheapest of his crop. The Almighty favors Hevel’s offering, and in a fit of jealousy, Kayin murders his brother Hevel.

“Ha-Shem said to Kayin, ‘Where is Hevel, your brother?’ [Kayin] said, ‘I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?’ [Ha-Shem] said, ‘What have you done! The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the earth! And now you are accursed from the earth that opened its mouth to take your brother’s blood from your hand!’” (ibid 4:9-11).

Our tradition further teaches that Kayin’s jealousy of Hevel stemmed not only from Ha-Shem’s reaction to their offerings, but from a number of other factors as well. Among them, Kayin was born together with a twin sister who would become his wife, while Hevel was born with two twin sisters who would become his wives. Kayin thought, “Should the younger have two while the elder has but one?”

Subsequent to Hevel’s murder, the Almighty’s heavenly ministers seize the opportunity to brag that they were right once again about mankind. “Look how this one murdered because of jealousy over such material desires!” Ha-Shem replies to them that so long as they, as spiritual beings, cannot be tempted by physical desire, they have no right to criticize those who suffer from such temptation. The Lord’s ministers, disgusted at the suggestion that something so lowly as the material could offer any allure to beings so pure as themselves, urge Ha-Shem to offer them the opportunity to prove themselves. Ha-Shem obliges, sending two of these spiritual beings to earth in physical form.

What follows? “The Sons of Eloh-im saw that the daughters of Man were good, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose” (ibid 6:2). According to Rashi, these “Sons of Eloh-im” were, “the ministers who act in the agency of the Lord,” i.e. Ha-Shem’s spiritual ministers who had been sent to the earthly realm. According to mystical tradition, the “daughters of Man,” here mean not merely women of the human persuasion, but the actual daughters of Adam, i.e. the two sisters of Hevel. Ha-Shem tests those spiritual ministers who criticized Kayin’s actions with the exact same stimulus that led Kayin himself to commit his jealous murder. These spiritual beings too, now susceptible to material temptation, succumb to their newfound urge to take these woman as wives.

The visitors from the spiritual realm solicit the daughters of Adam for marriage. These holy women, not wanting to enter such an ill-conceived relationship, but knowing these beings hold the power to force the issue, concede, but on condition. The daughters of Adam stipulate that as these spiritual visitors hold the option to return to the heavenly realm at any time, they must teach these women the Name of G-d that would allow them to do the same in such an eventuality. The spiritual beings comply, teach them the Name, and immediately the daughters of Adam use the Name to ascend to the heavenly realm before any union can be realized. While the spiritual ministers remain below, wreaking the havoc that the Almighty predicted, these holy women remain above, seeking asylum from these destructive creatures.

According to mystical tradition, many generations later, during the ascendance of the Pharaohs of Egypt, these two women are brought back into the earthly realm, one as Bisyah, daughter of Pharoah, the other as Tziporah, daughter of Yisro. At that time as well, the souls of Kayin and Hevel are brought back into the world as Korach and Moshe, respectively. The daughter of Pharoah, one of Hevel’s former wives, rescues Hevel, now Moshe, from the Nile River and raises him as a son. Moshe later marries Tziporah, also his wife during his previous incarnation.

As Moshe achieves ascendency over Israel, the soul of Kayin, now Korach, undergoes the same trial of spirit to overcome his jealousy that he failed during his first incarnation. Ha-Shem has granted Korach the opportunity to achieve rectification for his tainted soul, yet Korach tragically allows his millennia-old jealousy to overwhelm him, mounting a rebellion against the man that Ha-Shem has favored once again.

But how does this help us understand Korach’s shocking accusation against the humblest of all men?

According to Torah law, if a man dies childless, his brother should marry the widow in order to grant continuity to the deceased brother’s legacy. In the case of Kayin and Hevel, since Hevel died childless, the rights to marry Hevel’s wives belonged to Kayin. This was the substance of Korach’s accusation. As the reincarnation of Kayin, these rights now belonged to him! Tziporah, then, formerly the wife of Hevel, should be the rightful wife of Korach, not Moshe. Ergo, Moshe’s marriage to Tziporah constituted an adulterous relationship!

Korach erred in his calculation, however, his raging jealousy blinding him to the elementary precept that, “one cannot fulfill a commandment through transgression of another commandment.” Since Kayin’s obligation to marry Hevel’s wives only came about through the murder of Hevel, no such obligation actually took effect! In this case, Kayin had no legitimate claim to Hevel’s wives, nor did Korach have any legitimate right to marry Tziporah. Moshe escapes any calumny laid upon him by Korach, while Korach must face the consequences of his missteps once again.

We can now gain a deeper appreciation of Korach’s bizarre demise. “The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them” (B’Midbar 16:32). Why was this the form of Korach’s destruction? Remember the words of the Almighty to Kayin after the murder of Hevel: “The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the earth! And now you are accursed from the earth that opened its mouth to take your brother’s blood from your hand!” Just as the earth opened its mouth to absorb Kayin’s original sin, so would the earth open its mouth again to claim the perpetrator of that sin. And indeed, according to mystical tradition, the place where the earth “opened its mouth” to swallow Korach was the same exact spot where Kayin had murdered Hevel millennia earlier.

The Torah instructs us not to be like Korach and his assembly. Korach’s character flaws plagued him not only through two lifetimes, but for all eternity. Our Sages teach us that Korach remains forever suspended in the endless chasm born of his reticence to accept reproof for his recalcitrance, eternally declaring his regret. Learning not from his errors, he doomed himself to repeat them. Let us not be like Korach. Let us assert ourselves in a genuine effort to perfect our character, and instead of the legacy of strife left behind by Korach, may we merit to bring a legacy of everlasting peace to our world, to our posterity, and to all Israel.

Shavuoth: Be Counted with the Kollel

The army platoon marched over the hilly terrain. At the foot of one hill sat an old Jewish man. Before the platoon could continue past him, he called out to the officer in command. “I vouldn’t go dat vay if I vas you!”

“Why not?” asked the commander.

“Because dere’s a bacon tree just over dat hill!”

“A what?”

“A bacon tree! A bacon tree!”

“What are you talking about? There’s no such thing as a bacon tree!”

“I’m telling you, dere’s a bacon tree over dere!”

“You senile old man, you don’t know what you’re talking about!” And with that, the commander waved his men onward, and the platoon marched over the hill.

A short while later, the soldiers came screaming back over the hill, broken, bloodied and far fewer in number than when they had first passed. When the commanding officer saw the old man still sitting there he yelled, “Why didn’t you warn us there was an ambush waiting for us?”

“I did varn you!”

“You told us there was a bacon tree, not an ambush!”

“Bacon tree, ham-bush, vat’s de difference?”[1]

Many are familiar with the traditional albeit much misunderstood method of Hebrew textual analysis known as “gimatriya.” In its most basic application, the numerical values of Hebrew letters, words or phrases are calculated in order to reveal hidden layers of meaning. Likewise, if different Hebrew words or phrases have equal numerical values, this equation indicates a conceptual connection.[2]

Some examples of basic gimatriya: Yaakov (Jacob) commands his sons to descend (“redu”) to Egypt.[3] The word redu consists of the letters resh (200), daleth (4) and vav (6), equaling 210. This word thereby alludes to the ultimate sojourn of Yaakov and his descendants in Egypt until the Exodus, which equaled 210 years.[4] Another example: the word “ha-teva,” meaning “nature,” equals 86, the same numerical value as the word “Elo-him” (G-d). This alludes to the truth that although there appears to be a force that we call Nature that allows the world to proceed automatically, this appearance of Nature is in fact none other than the Divine Providence of the One Who guides all affairs from the most cosmic to the most infinitesimal.[5]

Another less common and even less understood application of gimatriya is known as “counting with the kolel.” (No, this does not mean that one need consult with a local gathering of Torah scholars to help one tally up the numbers.) The Hebrew word “kolel” means “inclusive.” Counting with the kolel means that sometimes, when two words or phrases have similar numerical values, but differ by a value of 1, one can “include” into the value of the lesser word or phrase a value of 1 that does not appear in the tally of letters, bringing the value of that word or phrase to equal the other, thus facilitating the resultant cross-reference of conceptual content.

A famous example of this is Yaakov’s promise to Yoseph (Joseph) that his children will each inherit a portion equal to the other sons of Yaakov: “Menasheh and Ephrayim shall be to me as Reuven (Reuben) and Shimon (Simon).”[6] The Baal ha-Turim comments that this equality between Yaakov’s sons and Yosef’s sons is reflected in the gimatriya of their names, as “Menasheh” plus “Ephrayim” together equal “Reuven” plus “Shimon.” However, when one does the math, one finds that the names “Menasheh” and “Efrayim” together tally 726, while “Reuven” and “Shimon” equal only 725. Only with the addition of the kolel are these numbers reconciled.[7]

But any intelligent person, upon encountering this bizarre methodology of adding an imaginary 1 to make things add up, must ask, “What’s going on here? What kind of cheap trick is this?” 725 and 726, although certainly close in value, are completely different figures! Any student of elementary mathematics who writes as an answer on his math test a number that is off by 1 from the true solution will receive no credit for such an answer as it is absolutely wrong! An error of but 1 can make all the difference between the successful re-entry of a NASA space-shuttle into the earth’s atmosphere or its catastrophic and fiery destruction along with the lives of all astronauts on board. The difference between a bacon tree and a ham-bush can turn the tides of war, as demonstrated above. There is no such thing as “close enough” or “just about” when determining an absolute figure in mathematics, and the Torah, the hallmark of Truth, can be no less demanding in its standards of exactness! What then is the meaning of “counting with the kolel” and how can it function as a legitimate tool of Torah-study?

I heard the following explanation from Rav Yaakov Hillel, shlita, one of contemporary Jewry’s most eminent Torah scholars.[8] If one visits a shipyard, one finds the facility brimming with materials of varying type and size – wood and metal beams, nuts and bolts, nails and screws, rope, material for sails, etc. Ask one of the workers to describe the present items and he replies that they are building materials, perhaps even specifying the identity of each component. “This is the rigging, here are the sails, there is the rudder, and there, the steering wheel.” Some weeks later a visit to the dock reveals there the same materials, now in a new configuration. Ask any passerby to describe the present structure and he undoubtedly replies, “Why, it is a ship of course!” Why does the worker at the shipyard identify the individual parts while at the dock the same pieces, merely rearranged, project the title of “ship”?

The answer, of course, is obvious. Although these are the exact same pieces, down to the very last nail, that lay at the shipyard just weeks earlier, as separate components each projected its own identity, but once combined, no one can deny that something “new” has been created, even though no new material has been introduced. The same material, rearranged, contains new properties not before present, e.g. it can float on water, sail in the wind, house a crew and transport passengers and cargo. In a more contemporary example, water (H₂O), a liquid, demonstrates properties not present in either hydrogen (H) or oxygen (O), its composite gases, even though its atomic weight and number indicate that nothing other than hydrogen and oxygen are present. In other words, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

So too in gimatriya. Counting with the kolel means to view the word or phrase not as its distinct components but as an inclusive whole that contains properties not present in the original letters alone. This “enhancement” or new property is assigned a minimum value (1) and calculated together with the rest of the letters.

Rav Hillel further explained that the concept of the “kolel” is not limited to gimatriya or inanimate objects, but is true of the Jewish nation as well. The Mishnah in Avoth (3:6) teaches, with Scriptural support, that when a group of Jews join together in a sacred endeavor such as learning Torah, the Shechinah (Divine Presence) manifests with them. The Mishnah proceeds to demonstrate that this is true not only for large groups of Jews (10), but is true for smaller numbers of Jews as well, bringing a Scriptural verse to demonstrate each example, down to a partnership of two, and ultimately even a lone Jew.

This teaching is curious. If Scripture indicates that the Shechinah manifests for even one Jew engaged in Torah study, certainly then it manifests for two! And all the more so for 10! What need is there for further Scriptural sources, or even for any teaching regarding the manifestation of Shechinah for a group? Let the Mishnah demonstrate that the Shechinah manifests for a single Jew engaged in Torah study and be further silent!

The answer is that the Mishnah speaks not of a quantitative increase in Shechinah with the addition of Jews, but of a qualitative increase! There is a new quality of Shechinah that manifests with the “inclusion” of Jews, as more Jews unite in a sacred undertaking. A partnership of Jews is greater than one plus one, as is a quorum of ten Jews more than five and five, the whole becoming more than the sum of its parts. As Jews increase in quantity, the manifestation of Shechinah increases in quality.

This is the secret of the Revelation at Sinai. The Torah tells us that, “Israel encamped (vayichan) there opposite the mount.”[9] The word “vayichan” literally means “he encamped,” even though it refers here to a nation of millions of individuals. Rightly, the verse should have utilized the word “vayachanu” meaning “they encamped.” Rashi explains that this means that the nation encamped “like one man with one heart.” The entire nation of millions of Israelites united in the firmest of unities for the purpose of receiving the Torah. In keeping with the above principle, this massive, unprecedented and all-inclusive unity of the entire nation of Israel generated an explosive manifestation of the Shechinah so powerful as to facilitate the Divine Revelation at Mount Sinai! In other words, the unity of the Nation of Israel at Sinai was not merely incidental and quaint – it was a necessary catalyst!

It is from this concept that the phenomenon known as a “kollel” – a society of men gathered to study Torah – gets its name, as Jews unite to explore the Divine wisdom of the Torah and bask in the “inclusion” of Shechinah thereby generated. For this reason Jews of all walks of life will gather, on Shavuoth night, in synagogues and Houses of Study around the world to engage in Torah learning, forming a global kollel, recreating in miniature the Sinai experience and reliving the Shavuoth of yore.

In the wake of Shavuoth, may we all unite in the service of the Almighty and the study of His Torah, “like one man with one heart,” and thereby merit a revelation of the Divine in fulfillment of the verse,[10] “And the Almighty shall be King over all the Earth; on that day the Almighty shall be One and His Name [shall be] One.”

---

[1] Special thanks to the David Weiss, CPA humor factory.

[2] It is important to note that the usage of gimatriya is far less arbitrary than popularly believed. Knowing how and when to invoke gimatriya requires a sensitivity and nuance not available to just any layman or enthusiastic neophyte with a calculator, but possessed only by a minority of great Torah scholars with a tradition from previous generations of like scholars as to the implementation of this delicate technique. In other words, it may make for a cute sheva brachos speech, but leave the real thing to the experts.

[3] B’Reshith (Genesis) 42:2

[4] Rashi ad loc.

[5] Heard from Rabbi Akiva Tatz, shlita.

[6] B’Reshith 48:5

[7] The Beney Yisaschar (Maamarey Chodesh Kislev-Teves, Maamar 2:2) takes this one step further and says that this verse is in fact the source for this method of gimatriya. The Torah, by explicitly stating that “Menasheh and Efrayim (726) shall be for me as Reuven and Shimon (725),” stamps its approval on equating two figures despite their difference of 1.

[8] Rav Hillel cited the work Meor ha-Shemesh as the source for this explanation.

[9] Shemoth (Exodus) 19:2

[10] Zecharyah 14:9

E-Z come, E-Z GoaT

Shemoth (Exodus) 23:19: "Bring the choicest of the first fruits of your land to the House of HaShem your G-d; do not cook a gedi in the milk of its mother."

This verse is one of three in the Torah prohibiting the mixture of milk and meat. The others are Shemoth 34:26 and Devarim (Deuteronomy) 14:21. Rashi here explains, according to Talmudic teaching (Chulin 113B, 115B), that each of the three mentions of the prohibition reveals another layer of the depth of the prohibition. In all, the Torah hereby prohibits (1) cooking a mixture of milk and meat, (2) eating cooked mixtures of milk and meat, and (3) deriving any additional benefit from cooked mixtures of milk and meat.

Most translations of this verse have the word "kid," meaning young goat, for gedi. Therefore, people often ask from whence the law derived that other animals, such as cows, are included in this prohibition. While true that both the English words "kid" and "goat" clearly relate to the Hebrew "gedi," a sensitive examination of the meaning of this Hebrew word indicates a much broader application. Rashi here explains:

"'do not cook a gedi' - Even a calf and a lamb are included by the term gedi, for gedi simply means 'tender offspring,' as we find in several places in the Torah that the term gedi is used and it was nevertheless necessary for the Torah to specify that it refers to goats. Some examples: 'I will send a gedi of goats (izim)' (B'Reshith 38:17); '[Yehudah sent] a gedi of goats' (ibid v. 20); '[Take for me from there] two gediyim (pl.) of goats' (ibid 27:9). This teaches that any place that gedi is mentioned alone, even a calf or a lamb can be implied."

"Gedi," then, meaning "tender offspring," as Rashi points out, is most similar to the English "kid," which can mean not only a young goat, but essentially means the young of any species, as "kid" in English is used to refer to anyone who is youthful. Hence, since this verse mentions gedi plainly, without specification of a goat, it can be taken to refer to any domesticated animal, thereby including cows etc. in the prohibition against meat/milk mixtures.

As a side note, even the word used to mean goat in Rashi's examples, "ez" (sing. of izim) can also be seen as the source for the English words "goat" and "kid." The "e" sound here is a vowelized "ayin," a gutteral Hebrew letter that is properly pronounced so deep in the throat that its sound is similar to that of an English "g." For that reason, in most English translations of the Bible, the cities Sedom and Amorah are transliterated as Sodom and Gomorrah (see B'Reshith 14:2 for example). Here again the Hebrew letter ayin is transliterated as having a "g" sound. The "z" sound of the word "ez" can also be seen as the root for the "d" in "kid" as the "z" and "d" sounds interchange in Semitic languages. In Hebrew, the word for gold is "zahav." In Aramaic, the same word is "dahava." Even in Hebrew, the letter "daleth," which produces a "d" sound also has a softer form. Properly pronounced, the soft daleth is pronounced like the English "th" as in the words "this" or "that" (as opposed to the English "th" in the words "thanks" or "thought"). Even in English, these words are frequently mispronounced as "dis" or "dat." This soft "d" or "th" sound is easily replaced with a "z" sound, as frequently occurs when an accented European attempts to pronounce these English words. Think of a Frenchman trying to speak English. My high school French teacher taught us that the French have shy tongues, so no French letters require the tongue to protrude beyond the teeth as the English "th" sound requires. Therefore, a Frenchman would pronounce "this" and "that" as "zis" and "zat." The same is true for a German, as would be true in the interchange of many languages. Hence, the Hebrew "EZ" becomes "GD." The "G" sound easily interchanges with a "K" sound, as in "aqua" (pronounced AH-kwah), the Latin word for water, and its Spanish counterpart, "agua" (pronounced AH-gwah). (See also this post.) Likewise, the D and T sounds easily interchange (I don't think this requires demostration). What results is both English words "goat" and "kid" deriving from the Hebrew "ez."

The Sabbath: Kiss Your Sins Goodbye

The following question was submitted by a reader:

"Someone (Jewish faith) told the following to a friend of mine.... 'the person who observes the Sabbath each week will have all his or her sins forgiven', according to Jewish tradition. I never heard this. Have you?"

Our answer:

The Talmud in Shabath (118B) states:

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל המשמר שבת כהלכתו אפי' עובד ע"ז [כדור] אנוש מוחלין לו שנאמר (ישעיהו נו) אשרי אנוש יעשה זאת וגו' מחללו אל תקרי מחללו אלא מחול לו

"R' Chiyah bar Aba said: R' Yochanan said: Anyone who observes the Sabbath according to its laws, even if he worships idols as did the generation of Enosh, he is absolved, as it states (Isaiah 56:2): 'Fortunate is the person ('enosh') who does this, and the man ('ben adam') who holds onto it, guarding the Sabbath from desecrating it ( מֵחַלְּלוֹ - 'mechalelo'), and guarding his hand from doing any evil.' Read not 'from desecrating it' (מֵחַלְּלוֹ - 'mechalelo'), rather [read] 'it is forgiven him' (מָחוּל לוֹ - 'machul lo')."

The verse in Isaiah is here interpreted using a method known as 'derush,' revealing a layer of meaning concealed beneath the literal translation of the words that is also considered a valid reading of the verse. The exact methodology of deriving meaning in this way has not come down to us through the generations, and therefore we generally have difficulty understanding quite how this meaning is extracted from the verse, although many continue to try to work backwards to explain these types of expositions. For example, it appears that the Sages focused on two details of this verse. Firstly, there are two terms used to refer to a man: 'enosh' and 'ben adam.' 'Ben adam' would seem the more common term, and the superfluous 'enosh' is taken then as a reference to the personage Enosh who lived between the time of Adam and Noach and in whose time idol worship began (see Genesis 4:26 and Rashi ad loc). Additionally, the word 'mechalelo' meaning 'from desecrating it' shares the same letters (sans vowelization) with the words 'machul lo' meaning 'it is forgiven him.' Words of similar spellings are also considered related in Lashon haKodesh and therefore this meaning is considered here. Therefore the verse can be interpreted as saying that even 'Enosh,' i.e. one guilty of the sin associated with Enosh, can rejoice if he 'does this,' if he observes the Sabbath properly, for then his sin 'is forgiven him.'

However, after all is said and done, doesn't such an idea run counter to simple intuition? How can one guilty of what seems the greatest defection from G-d be forgiven by virtue of his observance of another precept? What does one have to do with the other? Does this mean one can abrogate whatever laws one pleases and then simply observe the Sabbath and be absolved of sin? What about teshuvah (repentance)? This is a very difficult concept to accept.

At this time I do not have an answer to these powerful objections, although I plan to look into it, so stay tuned.

PART II

Son-of-a-Father

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:9: "HaShem (G-d) said to me (Mosheh/Moses), 'Do not distress [the nation of ] Moav (Moab) nor provoke them to war, for I will not give you an inheritance from their land, for I have given [the land of] Ar to the children of Lot as an inheritance." (See previous post.)

[NOTE: See B'Reshith (Genesis) 19:29-38. The nations of Moav and Amon were descended from the two sons of Lot, Moav and Ben-Ami, respectively, whom he conceived with his two daughters.]

Rashi (Devarim 2:9): "'do not provoke them to war' - Israel was only prohibited from [provoking] Moav to war, but [Israel] did cause Moav to fear and would appear to them while armed... [Israel] would loot and despoil them. However, regarding the children of Amon, it states (v. 19): 'Do not provoke them' - [implying the prohibition of] any provocation whatsoever. [This immunity of Amon was granted them] in reward for the modesty (tzeniuth) of their matriarch (the younger of Lot's daughters), who did not disclose her father's act as did the elder daughter who called her son 'Moav' (like the Hebrew 'me-av,' meaning 'from father')." [NOTE: See previous note. Lot's younger daughter named her son "Ben-Ami," meaning "son of my nation," obscuring her child's incestuous origin.]

Seven Outta Ten Ain't Bad

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:2-5: "HaShem (G-d) said to me (Mosheh/Moses), saying, '...Command the people, saying, 'You are passing the boundary of your brothers, the Children of Esav (Esau) who dwell in Seir... Do not provoke them, for I will not give you from their land even [the measure of] a footfall, for I have given Mount Seir as an inheritance for Esav.''"

Rashi (ad loc): "'an inheritance for Esav' - from Avraham (Abraham). [NOTE: Esav and Israel were twin sons of Yitzchak (Isaac) son of Avraham.] I gave [Avraham] [the land of] ten nations (B'Reshith/Genesis 15:18-21). Seven [are given] to you [Israel], and [of the nations of] the Keni (Kenite) and Kenizi (Kenizzite) and Kadmoni (Kadmonite), which are [the lands of]Amon and Moav (Moab) and Seir, one of them is given to Esav, and the [other] two [are given] to the sons of Lot (Avraham's nephew). In reward for having gone with [Avraham] to Egypt and being silent about that which [Avraham] said regarding his wife (Sarah), 'She is my sister' (See B'Reshith 12:10-16), I considered [Lot] like Avraham's own son (granting each of Lot's two sons, Moav and Ben-Ami, progenitors of the nations of Moav and Amon, respectively, as an inheritance, one of the lands of the ten nations given to Avraham)."

Justifying the Just -- Introduction, p. II

A famous example of a misunderstood biblical passage is B'Reshith (Genesis) 35:22:

"When Israel (i.e. Yaakov/Jacob) dwelt in that land, Reuven (Reuben) went any lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel heard. The sons of Yaakov were twelve."

This verse is remarkable for a number of reasons. Firstly and most obviously, it is shocking that Reuven, the first-born son of Yaakov, the third of the triad of righteous forefathers Avraham (Abraham), Yitzchak (Isaac) and Yaakov, could and would commit such an unprecedented act. We find no prior mention of any such misconduct on the part of Reuven, sexual or otherwise. All the moreso is such conduct shocking when it involves his own righteous father's consort! Additionally, this most severe act receives but minor mention in the greater context of the text, namely, half a verse, with no prelude beforehand nor any details thereafter. The second half of this verse already begins the next section of text, the enumeration of Yaakov's progeny. The only other mention of this event is in Yaakov's final words to his sons before his death (B'Reshith 49:3-4):

"Reuven, you are my first-born, my might and the first of my strength, excellent in elevation, excellent in power. [Because of your] haste like water you will not excel (i.e. certain priveledges of the first-born have been taken away from you -Rashi), for you ascended your father's couch, then you defiled the One who ascended my bed (i.e. the Divine Presence was manifest upon Yaakov's bed -Rashi)."

Even this passage raises difficulties. What haste is this verse referring to? No details were given in the above account as to the context of the episode. Information is clearly missing.

Additionally peculiar about the former passage regarding this act of Reuven is that, as mentioned, the narrative seems to completely switch gears within the very same verse, beginning what appears to be a completely unrelated topic. "Reuven (Reuben) went any lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel heard. The sons of Yaakov were twelve." Indeed, if one examines the Hebrew text, one finds that there is a gap in the text in the middle of the verse before the words, "The sons of Yaakov were twelve." This sort of gap is common in Scripture, generally denoting the end of one section and the beginning of another. For this sort of gap to appear in the middle of a verse is extremely rare and therefore highly significant.

Let us examine the commentary of Rashi on this verse:

"'Reuven went and lay with Bilhah' - Since [Reuven] rearranged [Yaakov]'s couch, Scripture charges him as though he lay with her. Why did he rearrange and [thereby] desecrate [Yaakov]'s bed? Because when Rachel died, Yaakov took his bed, which was regularly placed in Rachel's tent and no other tent, and placed it in Bilhah (Rachel's handmaiden)'s tent. Reuven came to lay claim against this affront to his mother (Leah). He said: '[Even] if my mother's sister (Rachel) was a rival wife to my mother, should my mother's sister's maid be a rival wife to my mother?' Therefore he rearranged [Yaakov's bed]."

A little background to understand this comment of Rashi. As related in B'Reshith 29:1-30:24, Yaakov, during his sojourn in Padan Aram with his swindling uncle Lavan, encountered Lavan's two daughters, Rachel and Leah. Yaakov quickly fell in love with Rachel, the younger sister, and asked Lavan for his daughter's hand in marriage. Lavan agreed, but tricked Yaakov into marrying Leah, the older daughter, first. Yaakov ultimately wed both sisters, who competed with one another to bear him more children, each one hoping that this would cause Yaakov to prefer her over her sister. Rachel was unable to bear Yaakov children, while the fertile Leah bore him six sons and a daughter, Reuven the first-born of these. Rachel gave her handmaiden, Bilhah, to Yaakov as a concubine, hoping that she would bear children to him that Yaakov would consider like Rachel's own. Bilhah bore Yaakov two sons. Leah likewise gave her handmaiden, Zilpah, to Yaakov for the same purpose, and she bore him another two sons. Eventually, Rachel, too, bore a son to Yaakov. All this is clear from the text.

Our sages have further taught us in the Talmud, Tractate Shabath 55B, that despite the vast superiority of Leah over Rachel in this child-bearing contest, Yaakov's initial and fierce love for Rachel was never dulled, and he always preferred her over her sister and rival Leah. Therefore, while each wife had her own tent, Yaakov's bed held its most constant place in Rachel's tent. This unbalanced favoritism against Leah aroused Reuven's ire, although he never acted upon it. When Rachel died, Reuven's hope was that his mother's proper honor would finally be realized, with Yaakov fixing his bed in Leah's tent, but this never materialized. Instead, Yaakov, because of his love for Rachel, moved his bed to Rachel's handmaiden Bilhah's tent because Yaakov's close association of Bilhah with her mistress Rachel. In Reuven's eyes, this was an affront to his mother that he could not bear. He therefore took the initiative to move his father's bed from the handmaiden's tent to that of his own mother Leah.

According to Rashi, this disruption of Yaakov's relationship with Bilhah is described as though Reuven himself actually lay with Bilhah, although this certainly did not literally take place. The verse merely uses figurative language, or if you will, exaggerated terminology, in describing this act.

It must be pointed out, that Rashi's comments here are all based on a discussion recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Shabath) as mentioned earlier. Rashi is not inventing details or conjecturing. The Talmudic source predates Rashi by several centuries. While this is not the forum for the complex discussion of just what the Talmud is, suffice it to say that while the Talmud was put into its final written form in the 5th and 6th centuries CE, the teachings within it are far older as the Talmud is mainly a collection of oral traditions. Therefore the Talmudic tradition of the proper understanding of these verses that Rashi cites here claims authenticity as the ancient and accurate meaning of the original Biblical verse.

Let us examine Rashi's comments on the latter part of the verse:

"'Yaakov's sons were twelve' - ...Our Sages (Shabath ibid.) expounded: [These words] come to teach that all were equal and all righteous, for Reuven did not sin."

In other words, this anamoly of the new section discussing the progeny of Yaakov beginning at the end of this verse describing Reuven's act is to indicate the Reuven did not distinguish himself from his brothers in so doing. He remained of comparable stature to all his brothers. If so, since the other brothers were all righteous, so was Reuven. Scripture here mitigates its own harsh statement in the earlier part of the verse. A criticism is certainly aimed at Reuven, but it is immediately modified.

So far we have explained how the Torah could indicate that Reuven committed such an act (he didn't), we have explained why the verse ends with the statement, "The sons of Yaakov were twelve," and now we can also explain the verse in Devarim quoted above that refers to Reuven's haste. Reuven was angered by what he saw as a slight to his mother's honor and he acted hastily to right this wrong. However, it was inappropriate for him to interfere in the marital affairs of his father and for that he is reprimanded.

The main point to be taken from this study, however, is that it is irresponsible to superficially read Biblical verse without taking into account the larger context of the verse as well as the traditions surrounding it. We have concluded that Reuven was indeed a great and righteous individual on par with his brothers and in keeping with what we would expect from the first-born son of a great man such as Yaakov and from one whom HaShem chose to sire an entire tribe of the people of Israel.

The fact that the Torah uses such strong terms to describe Reuven's act, which was actually a much more minor act, is indeed the most puzzling detail of this explanation. I intend to address this point in my next post (G-d willing). Stay tuned.

Location! Location! Location!

SUMMARY: In an earlier post we began an investigation of the following problem in Scripture (If you have been following the investigation, you may skip the summary.):

In B'reshith (Genesis) 23:2, Scripture records that Sarah (wife of Avraham/Abraham) died in Chevron (Hebron). This implies that Avraham and Sarah were living in Chevron at this time. Furthermore, it is an accepted Jewish tradition, although not explicit in Scripture, that Sarah died at the time of the Akeydah (the "binding") of Yitzchok (Isaac) described in 22:1-19. If so, why does Avraham's journey to perform the Akeydah at Mt. Moriyah, synonymous with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, take 3 days (22:4)? Chevron and Jerusalem are not so far apart! Furthermore, verse 19 there states that Avraham went to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah. Why did Avraham not go home to Chevron? And if he lived in B'er Sheva, why was Sarah in Chevron?

We explained in the last post that according to Rashi, Avraham and Sarah most definitely were living in Chevron at the time of the Akeydah, leaving us with 2 questions:

1. Why did Avraham's journey from Chevron to Mt. Moriyah take 3 days?
2. Why did Avraham go to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah and not back home to Chevron?

For the answer to the first question, see this post.

As for the 2nd question, we left off with the Ramban's suggestion that Avraham went to B'er Sheva to give thanks to G-d for the miracle of the Akeydah. But we asked why it was necessary for Avraham to travel three days in the opposite direction for this purpose when he was already on the Temple Mount itself! What was so special about B'er Sheva?

END OF SUMMARY

(And now, the exciting continuation . . .)

Let us explore the answer. Perhaps we can garner a clue from the fact that the Ramban mentions that Avraham went "to B'er Sheva, the place of his eshel, to give thanks for his miracle," whereas the Ramban could have as easily said that Avraham went "to B'er Sheva to give thanks for his miracle." The Ramban specifically mentions the eshel, as though to give us a clue as to the reason the place was special.

And indeed this makes perfect sense when we understand what the eshel was and who Avraham was. Let us examine 21:33 and Rashi's comments there:

"[Avraham] planted an eshel in B'er Sheva. There he called in the name of HaShem, G-d of the World."

Rashi:

"Eshel" - Rav and Sh'mu'el (ed. -- two Talmudic figures) [disputed the identity of the eshel.] One said [it was] an orchard, from which to bring fruits to [his] guests during the meal, and one said [it was] an inn for lodging containing all types of fruit.

"There he called . . ." - By way of this eshel, the name of the Holy One Blessed is He was called Deity of All the World. After they would eat and drink, [Avraham] would say to them, "Give blessing to the One from Whom you ate! You think you ate of mine? You ate of the One Who spoke and [thereby] the world came to be!"

Avraham exemplified the attribute of chesed, or loving kindness, as is demonstrated by his actions in many places (e.g. his hospitality to the wayfarers in 18:2-8, his prayers on behalf of the wicked men of S'dom/Sodom in 18:23-32). It was via this personal strength of his that Avraham directed his service to G-d. (And that is precisely why the Akeydah was his greatest test -- for the one who personifies loving-kindness on earth to be commanded by G-d Himself to sacrifice the only son of his union with his beloved Sarah, born to them in their old age! But I digress.)

Avraham's chief career of kindness, and simultaneously, his chief service to G-d, it seems, was during his extended sojourn in B'er Sheva, where he lived "many days." He was not merely living there, he was running a business of bringing the world to the recognition of G-d through his acts of loving-kindness and giving. Through Avraham, G-d was revealed, recognized as the true giver, the true provider, the true Creator, Ruler and Sustainer. B'er Sheva, therefore, the place of the eshel, became Avraham's unique place of service and connection to G-d. It is reasonable, then, to suggest that even though Avraham and Sarah did ultimately return to Chevron, Avraham maintained a special emotional and spiritual connection to B'er Sheva as a place of his personal connection with G-d. As such, it follows that at the time of his greatest test, and his greatest success, when he had the greatest level of gratitude to G-d, the place he would choose to channel that outpouring to G-d would be that place where his connection with G-d was deepest and most pronounced -- B'er Sheva.

Indeed, we find the concept of setting a particular spot for communion with G-d expressed in a Jew's daily living. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 90:19) rules:

One should set a place for one's prayer that one should not change without necessity. And it is not enough that one set for oneself a synagogue in which to pray, rather, even in the synagogue in which one [prays] regularly, one must have a set place.

When I looked up the source for this halachah (law) in the Talmud (B'rachoth 6B), I was astonished to find the following:

Rabbi Chelbo said: Rav Huna said: Anyone who sets a place for his prayer -- the G-d of Avraham is at his assistance, and when he dies they say to him . . ., "[You are] of the disciples of Avraham our father!"

From where [is it known] to us that [Avraham] set a place?

As it is written: "Avraham [went] early in the morning to the place where he had stood [before HaShem (G-d)]" (B'reshith 19:27). (ed. -- i.e. We find that Avraham returned to the same place where he had previously communed with G-d.)

Amazing! Avraham is in fact considered to be the archetype for the concept of setting a place for prayer! This is entirely consistent with our characterization of Avraham above, and thus is explained his detour to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah.

Case closed? I leave it to you to decide.

The Plot Thickens

In my last post, we began an investigation of the following question:

In B'reshith (Genesis) 23:2, Scripture records that Sarah (wife of Avraham/Abraham) died in Chevron (Hebron). This implies that Avraham and Sarah were living in Chevron at this time. Furthermore, it is an accepted Jewish tradition, although not explicit in Scripture, that Sarah died at the time of the Akeydah (the "binding") of Yitzchok (Isaac) described in 22:1-19. If so, why does Avraham's journey to perform the Akeydah at Mt. Moriyah, synonymous with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, take 3 days (22:4)? Chevron and Jerusalem are not so far apart! Furthermore, verse 19 there states that Avraham went to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah. Why did Avraham not go home to Chevron? And if he lived in B'er Sheva, why was Sarah in Chevron?

We presented an excerpt from Sepher haYasher suggesting that they lived in B'er Sheva but that Sarah had reached Chevron and died there on her search for Avraham and Yitzchak.

In a comment to that post, Andrew challenged this answer with a citation from Rashi's classic commentary on the Torah, as follows:

22:19
Avraham returned to his attendants, and they rose and went together to Beer Sheva. Avraham dwelt in Beer Sheva.

Rashi
"Avraham dwelt in Beer Sheva."

his does not refer to a permanent dwelling for he lived in Chevron. Twelve years before Yitzchok's akeidah he left Beer Sheva and moved to Chevron, as it is said: "Avraham lived in the land of the Philistines for many days," more than the first years in Chevron which totaled 26 years as we explained above.


Now... I'm not sure exactly what math Rashi is doing at the end of that but he seems to disagree with you. Avraham was living in Hebron, not Beer Sheva, at the time of the akeidah.

So the question still remains. Why did he go to Beer Sheva afterwards?

First off, good snoop work, Andrew!

As for the math Rashi does at the end, Rashi is referring back to his comments on 21:24:

"Avraham lived in the land of the P'lishtim (Phillistines) many days."

B'er Sheva is understood by Rashi to be within the land of P'lishtim, and therefore we understand that the verse refers to his sojourn there. Rashi on this verse, based on Seder Olam (an ancient Jewish chronology), calculates, according to the Scriptural narrative, how Avraham spent 25 years in Chevron, 26 years in B'er Sheva, and then another 12 years in Chevron until the death of Sarah, as follows (this is complicated; if you don't care about the calculation, skip the next paragraph):

The phrase "many days" in this verse implies that Avraham lived there longer than anywhere else until that point. Avraham left Charan (Haran) for the land of K'na'an (Canaan) at the age of 75. At that age he arrived and settled in the Plains of Mamre that are in Chevron (13:18). At the age of 99 he was circumcised, and on the 3rd day after his circumcision he was visited by angels predicting the birth of Yitzchak one year later and proceeding to overturn S'dom (Sodom). Avraham was still living in the Plains of Mamre at this time (18:1). Immediately after the destruction of S'dom, (20:1) in Avraham's 99th year, Avraham relocates to G'rar, in the land of P'lishtim, where the incident with Avimelech, king of P'lishtim, occurs (see there), after which Avimelech tells Avraham (20:15), "Behold, my land is before you; dwell wherever it is good in your eyes." Scripture is not explicit at this point about where in the land of P'lishtim Avraham chooses to dwell, although it is implicit later on, as when Avraham sends Hagar and Yishma'el (Ishmael) away (21:14) the verse tells us: "She went and wandered in the wilderness of B'er Sheva," and when Avraham meets Avimelech again (21:22-34) Scripture tells us that the place was named B'er Sheva after the oath (sh'vu'ah) taken between Avraham and Avimelech there. So Avraham was in Chevron from the age of 75 until 99, which, including the 75th year, totals 25 years in Chevron. Now, if he dwelt in B'er Sheva from the age of 99, and lived there more years than in Chevron, as implied by 21:34, he must have lived there for at least 26 years. If Avraham would have lived in B'er Sheva more than one year longer than in Chevron, Scripture would have been explicit about it, therefore we can assume that Avraham's years in B'er Sheva totalled no more than 26. That would make Avraham 125 when he left B'er Sheva. Accordingly, Sarah would have been 115 at the time. Since Sarah died in Chevron at the age of 127, this implies that Chevron was their destination after leaving B'er Sheva. So, Sarah's last 12 years were lived in Chevron. Since she died at the time of the Akeydah, they were certainly living in Chevron at this time. Thus is Rashi's calculation. And thus we fall right back into our initial questions:

Why did Avraham's journey from Chevron to Mt. Moriyah take 3 days?
Why did Avraham go to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah and not back home to Chevron?

As for the first question, Rashi, in his comments to 22:4, explains, according to the Midrash Tanchuma (VaYera 22), that G-d did not show Avraham the place right away, because if Avraham would have carried out G-d's directive to slaughter his son immediately, it would appear that Avraham lost his mind, abducted his son and killed him. However, since the journey took a number of days, it would have been enough time for a crazed Avraham to come to his senses. This delay, then, made it clear that Avraham acted with sound mind and body under the influence of nothing other than a divine directive.

As for the second question, the Ramban, in his comments to 23:2, suggests that Avraham went back to the place of his eshel, the orchard/inn he had established in B'er Sheva in 21:33, in order to give thanks to G-d for the miracle of the Akeydah. The Ramban does not, however, elaborate as to why it was necessary for Avraham to go all the way to B'er Sheva to do so.

In the meantime, then, this detail remains shrouded in mystery and subject to speculation. I invite the reader to submit his/her own thoughts as to the mystical B'er Sheva connection. For my part, I do intend to dig deeper and hope to requite the readership in due time with my conclusions.

Get to work, gumshoes!

Elementary, My Dear Satan

A question was posed to the author of this blog regarding an interesting puzzle in the Biblical narrative:

In B'reshith (Genesis) 23:2, Scripture records that Sarah (wife of Avraham/Abraham) died in Chevron (Hebron). This implies that Avraham and Sarah were living in Chevron at this time. Furthermore, it is an accepted Jewish tradition, although not explicit in Scripture, that Sarah died at the time of the Akeydah (the "binding") of Yitzchok (Isaac) described in 22:1-19. If so, why does Avraham's journey to perform the Akeydah at Mt. Moriyah, synonymous with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, take 3 days (22:4)? Chevron and Jerusalem are not so far apart! Furthermore, verse 19 there states that Avraham went to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah. Why did Avraham not go home to Chevron? And if he lived in B'er Sheva, why was Sarah in Chevron?

After a bit of searching, I found a piece from the Sepher haYashar that seems to clarify the issue:

The Satan came to Sarah and appeared to her as an old man, very lowly and humble. He said to her, "Did you not know all the things that Avraham did to Yitzchak your son today? For he took Yitzchak and built an altar and slaughtered him and offered him on the altar! Yitzchak was screaming and crying before his father but [Avraham] did not regard [him] nor did he have mercy upon him!" Such did he speak to her a number of times.

Sarah thought he was an old man, a human being, who had been near her son and told her. Sarah raised her voice and cried and screamed greatly and bitterly. She cast herself to the ground and threw dirt upon her head and said, "My son Yitzchok! If only I could die in your place! I am pained over you! I raised you, I cared for you, and my jubilation over you has been turned into mourning! Yet I am comforted over you for you have performed the commandment of HaShem, for who can transgress the word of our G-d? Righteous are You HaShem, for all Your deeds are good and upright, for I too have rejoiced in Your words. Indeed, my eye cries bitterly, but my heart rejoices."

Sarah placed her head into the bosom of one of her maids and was still as a rock. Afterwards, she arose and went searching until Chevron, and she asked all the travellers she encountered on the way what happened to her son. She and her servants and maids reached Kiryath Arba which is Chevron. She sent [them] out from there to discover where Avraham and Yitzchok went. They went to the house of Shem and Ever but did not find them, and they searched in all the land. And behold, the Satan came to Sarah in the form of a man and said to her, "I lied to you, for [Yitzchok] was not slaughtered and is not dead." When she heard this thing she rejoiced greatly over her son and her soul departed in her joy and she died.

And Avraham, when he completed his service [to G-d on Mt. Moriah], returned with Yitzchak to his servants and they went to B'er Sheva to their home. [Avraham] asked, "Where is Sarah?" They said, "She went to Chevron to search for you, for such-and-such they told her." Avraham and Yitzchok went to her to Chevron and found that she had died. Yitzchok fell upon the face of Sarah his mother and cried. He said, "Mother, Mother! How have you left me, going here and there? How have you left me?" and he cried exceedingly.

According to the Sepher haYaShar, then, Avraham and Sarah lived in B'er Sheva, not Chevron. Sarah died in Chevron only on account of having arrived there on her search for her son. This fits very well with the Biblical narrative since B'er Sheva is the last city named where Avraham was before the Akeydah (21:33). Furthermore, it explains why the journey to Mt. Moriah took three days, as B'er Sheva is much more distant from Jerusalem than Chevron. In addition, it explains why Avraham returned to B'er Sheva after the Akeydah, as well as why Sarah died in Chevron despite the fact that Avraham and Sarah did not live there.

So . . . mystery solved, right? Or is it? Stay tuned for (G-d willing) more installments into the investigation of Avraham and Sarah's home town.