Relooking, Relearning: Nachash v. Tannin

Parshat Va'era            

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It is time to set the record straight. 

The undertaking of this weekly dvar torah is often driven by a desire to find new approaches to oft-repeated ideas in our understanding of the Torah.

            

By "new" I mean "not the way you've been learning it since second grade."

Rashbam (Rashi's grandson who disagreed with him on a number of interpretations) writes at the beginning of Parshat Vayeshev (37:2) (shortly before he explains how Yosef's brothers did not sell him!), that he was talking with his grandfather Rashi who told him that if he only had the time "haya tzarich" - he would "have needed" - to rewrite his commentary on account of the novel ideas which come to him on a daily basis.

            

So if Rashi would argue with Rashi, we must get out of the box that says there is only way to learn. "Shivim Panim La'Torah" (there are 70 faces to the Torah) is how we are to learn – it is not meant to be a buzzword or phrase.

            

To bring some examples in narrative: Identifying ages of people – Avraham when (if) he was thrown into a fire, and when he discovered God; Yitzchak at the Akedah; Rivkah at her marriage; Shimon and Levi (and Dinah!) in Shechem; Moshe when he kills the Egyptian; the age of every Pharaoh we meet.

            

Some narrative tales: Og and the Ark, Noach being attacked by a lion, that Yishmael tried to kill baby Yitzchak, Yitzchak becoming blind because of the angel's tears at the Akedah, every image of "malachim"/messengers of God our minds have concocted, that Eliezer's camels flew across the desert, that Rachel gave Leah signs (maybe Lavan got Yaakov drunk), that Yosef knew a language Pharaoh didn't know, that the brothers sold Yosef, that Eisav was killed at Yaakov's funeral, that Moshe had a speech impediment (because he put coal on his mouth as a baby in Pharaoh's palace!), that Moshe did not strike the water to turn it into blood, and our identification of plagues involving animals (tzfardea, kinim, arov, arbeh).  

           

Much of our knowledge is embedded in us because school teachers love to teach Midrash stories. But the "Drash" part is meant to teach lessons. A story without a lesson is a fluffing of the Torah. Raise your hand if you have been extremely disappointed when you discovered as an adult that some of the things you had been taught as gospel truth are not even in the Torah. I thought so. Time to move past it, my friend. You are no longer in 2nd grade.

            

So let us dispel a rumor here and now.

            

I dutifully accept that the "signs and wonders" that are described in the Torah happened. I marvel that in a number of instances the Egyptian necromancers "did it as well" (7:11-12; 7:22; 8:3) until 8:14 (the plague of kinim/lice) when they were unable to mirror the act, and declared the plague to be coming from the Finger of God (8:15). If they were able to do it as well (even if they were using trickery and not "real" magic) that is some incredible feat! If I were Pharaoh, I wouldn't believe Moshe and Aharon either when they morph a staff, and bring forth blood and frogs.

            

But the one thing that is unexplainable to me is how the words "Nachash" and "Tannin" became interchangeable. At the burning bush, Moshe was given a sign to convince the Israelites he was sent by God, through his staff turning into a Nachash – which we understand as a snake. He performed this for the people in 4:30, and they believed him.

            

In our parsha, the instruction is given to Aharon to throw his own staff, so that it may turn into a "Tannin" before Pharaoh. Rashi immediately explains Tannin with one word: "Nachash." (snake/serpent) Why does he do that? Or, a better question, how could he do that?

            

The first time the word Tannin appears in the Torah is in Bereshit 1:21. There, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan translates what God created on the fifth day (Hataninim hagdolim) to mean, 

"Sea Monsters or 'whales,' or 'dragons.' Taninim in Hebrew; see Exodus 7:9. The Midrash states that it alludes to a pair of particularly great sea creatures, the Leviathan and its mate. See Isaiah 27:1, Psalms 74:14, 104:26, Job 3:8, 40:25."

It is not claimed to be a large snake - neither an anaconda or a python.

On 7:9, after translating "Tanin" as a viper, Rabbi Kaplan explains the term, 

"Tanin in Hebrew. Some say that this is the same snake (nachash) that it became at the Burning Bush (Exodus 4:3), see Exodus 7:15 (Rashi; Lekach Tov; Radak, Sherashim, s.v. tanan). Others say that by the Burning Bush, God gave Moses a sign for the Israelites, but before Pharaoh, the staff turned into a crocodile (Ibn Ezra; K'li Yekar), and that this was Aaron's staff and not Moses' (K'li Yekar, Zohar)."

The Shmot 7:15 reference is not a good proof, because Moshe is clearly being told to strike the water with his own staff there, the one which had turned to a snake (nachash).

            

Who really cares if it was a snake or a crocodile? Does it matter? Isn't it miraculous either way? Yes. But the Torah records two different animals because there were two different animals. And because each animal, in its own way, was important and significant.

            

The snake may have been to teach Moshe not to speak Lashon Hara about the Israelites over their not believing him. But the Midrash says it was also a symbol for Israel, against Pharaoh - who is compared to a snake, either as a deity, or as one who "bites" Israel - that Pharaoh, the snake, will be defeated by the staff, and he will ultimately become wood. Just as the stick does not bite, Pharaoh will no longer be able to bite. This is also symbolized in the grabbing of its tail – something no snake handler would do – you completely "own" it.

            

As for the Tannin, that was a message for Pharaoh alone. The Midrash Rabba (9:4) quoted by Chizkuni, Baal Haturim and others points to the fact that Pharaoh referred to himself as a Tannin (based on Yechezkel 29:3 – where Rabbi Kaplan translated it, "I against you Pharaoh, the great crocodile, who lurks within his rivers"), and the message was, "Just as this Matteh (staff) turns into a crocodile, consumes the other mattot (staffs), and will return to be wood again, you consume the 12 mattot (tribes) now, but you too will turn to dry wood and die."

            

So, in essence, there was a deeper message to be sent through the staff turning to a crocodile before Pharaoh, than that this is just a cool magic trick. We ought not to take the easy party line that "nachash = tannin, the staff always turns to a snake."

            

There are different staffs and different messages being sent to those who see God's wonders, each group according to their needs and their specific relationship with God. Moshe heard one message, the Israelites heard a different message, and there was one message assigned special for Pharaoh.

            

This lesson is not limited to our understanding of Torah narrative, but reflects the reality of our existence. Every event that unfolds is meant to teach something unique those who experience it, each person or group according to their needs in their lives under God's watchful eye.

How Moshe Became a "Man" - איש

Parshat Shmot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It was the great sage Hillel who said (Avot 2:5), "In a place where there are no men, try to be a man."
במקום שאין אנשים השתדל להיות איש
The sentiment of the phrase doesn't lend itself to be reformulated to gender-neutral terminology, so I apologize in advance to those who find it offensive.

Nonetheless, I think an understated message from this phrase can help us understand the first real episode in the life of Moshe, when he controls his own destiny.

Rashi notes that in the verse when he is returned to the daughter of Pharaoh, and in the verse which follows (2:10-11) he is described as growing twice (ויגדל). First, "The boy grew," then "Moshe grew." Rashi quotes Rabbi Yehuda who explained that the first "growth stage" was to achieve his physical stature in height, while the second "growth stage" was for greatness, because Pharaoh had appointed him over his house.

         
A closer look at the text may help us understand in what way Moshe truly comes of age in his first venture outside the palace.

         
Moshe grew and went out to his brothers to see their labors. He saw an Egyptian man hitting a Hebrew man from his brethren. He looked here and there and saw there was no man. So he struck the Egyptian and hid him in sand.

         
He went out on the second day and behold two men were squabbling and he said to the wicked one, "Why do you strike your neighbor?"

         
And he (the wicked one) said, "Who made you the Man, the officer and judge over us? Will you kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" (2:11-14)

         
The Egyptian (in 2:12) is no longer a "man" and the Hebrew (according to those who say it was the same person Moshe had saved the day before) is now wicked – also not a man. (Or HaChaim points to the fact that they (in 2:13) are not even called "from his brothers" as the victim in 2:11 had been called). The Alshich rightly notes this phenomenon as he expresses Moshe's confusion: just as the Egyptian is not a man and may be worthy to lose his life, the Hebrew is not a man and will tattle. Moshe takes the risk and kills the Egyptian, and of course the other non-man does the unmanly deed of informing on Moshe.

         
If we follow the storyline of Moshe's life, we will see him soon being called a man (according to one interpretation) by the daughter's of Yitro (2:19), and by their father when he inquires as to "the man's" whereabouts. (2:20) [Incidentally, Moshe chooses to stay with "the man" – Yitro – who by every account was principled and therefore a suitable father in law.]

Towards the end of the plagues all of Egypt will see him as "the man Moshe." (11:3) The entire Israelite nation will call him a man when he does not return from Sinai (32:1,23) and of course God calls him a man when He describes him as being the humblest of men. (Bamidbar 12:3) At the end of his life not only is he a man, but he is an Ish HaElokim – a Man of God. (Devarim 33:1)

     
Even his protégé's storyline has similar hints. At first Yehoshua is a lad (Shmot 33:11). And when he is anointed to be the next leader he is a "man who has spirit in him." (Bamidbar 27:18)

         
Ramban describes his initial growth as Moshe here as "His becoming a man of knowledge" (Ish Da'at). Upon learning of his Hebrew identity, he wanted to know more about it.

         
As Malbim put it, "Moshe's righteousness began in his youth – he had all the requisite qualities to be a leader. Even though he was raised in the palace of the king, raised to view the Isrealites as lowly slaves, he still viewed their circumstance as unjust. They were his brothers. This is the exact opposite of human nature, that when individuals rise to prominence they tend to ignore their brothers – the poor and destitute."

The Ktav V'Hakaballah asks how could Moshe be a vigilante in such a way? Was the Egyptian deserving of death just for beating the Hebrew? It seems that if the Egyptian was not letting up, and might have killed the Hebrew, he'd be in the category of Rodef, a pursuer, who is attempting to kill someone. In halakha, a Rodef is classified as "ain lo damim" – he has no blood. In other words, he is already considered dead because he is no longer a man. (Midrash Aggadah)

At the same time, Malbim expresses that we should not assume Moshe did this as an act of passion and without a thought process. He did look here and there to see if there was any person – and he saw there was no man, which lowered his own risk in taking action.

       
However one looks at the story, it seems clear that a major difference lies in who is considered to be a man in the story. Some people are assumed to be men until they prove otherwise, and Moshe grows to be a man – to fulfill the dictum of Hillel with which we started.

         
Of course, this isn't really surprising, considering that Moshe's existence was brought about by a "Man from the house of Levi" who defied the immoral law of the king that condemned all boys to a rivery grave in order to father the boy who would become the deliverer.

         
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch looked at Moshe's hesitation – the need to see there was no man around to witness his deed – and taught, "He [was] deeply imbued with a sense of duty to rush to the aid of an innocent person who is oppressed… but hotheaded reckless risking of one's life is foreign to him; he [was] far from the fiery daring that is required to lead a great multitude [ ] to freedom from the tyrant's yoke… It would not even occur to him to become the savior and leader of his people. The element of desire to become a historical hero was entirely lacking in him."

         
And yet, he managed it so finely, and became the greatest model of teacher and leader of all time. How? Because "In a place where there are no men, try to be a man." He tried very hard. It was duly noted every step of the way. And he achieved the greatest levels of "being a Man" that anyone could achieve – where first God noticed it in the form of Moshe's humility, and in the end God called him "A Man of God."

The Son and the Grandsons

Parshat Vaychi

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The opening of our parsha contains narrative that seems inconsistent.

           
"Yaakov" lives in Egypt. But the days of "Yisrael" are getting closer to his death.

           
After asking Yosef to swear that the burial will not take place in Egypt and will take place in his family burial plot, "Yisrael" bows at the head of the bed.

           
Time passes, and Yosef is told (by…?), "Your father is sick." So he takes "his two sons with him, Ephraim and Menashe."

           
Someone (who…?) tells "Yaakov," "Your son Yosef is here." So "Yisrael" strengthens himself and sits on the bed.

Then "Yaakov" speaks to Yosef – and through what he tells Yosef it almost seems as if Menashe and Ephraim are not present. In short, Yosef is informed that his two sons will be viewed as if they are the told oldest of the 12 tribes, and that through them Yosef is receiving the double portion of the first born's rights. After saying this, "Yisrael" sees Yosef's sons and puzzlingly asks, "Who are these [people]?" before he is reminded they are his grandsons and he asks to bless them. (47:29-48:9)

There are numerous theories for the switch between Yaakov and Yisrael, what each name represents, and why each might be used in the context in which it appears. Many are interesting but most have an inconsistency or a flaw (or a stretch) that makes it not worth belaboring the point.

The problems we will zero in on surround who is telling Yosef about his father, who is telling his father about his arrival, why are we told that he took "his sons" and then it specifies "Ephraim and Menashe" (talk about stating the obvious!), and what is the role of Ephraim and Menashe until Yaakov notices their presence?

The Torah tells us Yosef took them "with him" indicating their presence should have been noted from the moment Yosef showed up, not after Yaakov has already given Yosef a blessing and instructions!

           
Many commentaries (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Pesikta, Alshich) suggest that the one who told Yosef about his father's illness, and the one who informed his father that "Yosef is here" was the same person – The "Magid." The announcer. Rashi even suggests that his identity is unimportant because sometimes the Torah leaves out unimportant details.

           
However, Rashi also raises the possibility that the announcer is Ephraim, who spent a lot of time with Saba Yaakov (see Daat Zekenim's fascinating "proof" for the Ephraim identification). And the Midrash Sechel Tov uses a similar argument to suggest that it was Menashe who made the respective announcements to Yosef and to Yaakov.

           
In this latter approach, whether it was Ephraim or Menashe seems to be irrelevant (in the big picture), because all it means is that Yosef hears the news and takes his informer along with his other son to visit Yaakov, and the informer subsequently announces Yosef's arrival – or, as Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch notes the terms "Vayaged (and he told)" and "Vayomer (and he said)" – in order not to shock the older man, Yaakov was first told Yosef was coming, and then informed when Yosef actually arrived.

           
The Shach suggests that when "Yisrael" bowed at the head of the bed in 47:31, he was bowing before God's Divine Presence, which stayed nearby and informed him in 48:2 that Yosef was there. Netziv puts a slight twist on this idea as he suggests Yosef had sent a message that he was not coming alone – he was to bring his sons anticipating their receiving a blessing – suggesting that his father should prepare to receive the Divine Presence.

           
The Alshich focuses on the terminology of "Acharei Hadvarim Ha'Eileh" – after these things – noting how the use of the word "Acharei" instead of "Achar" indicates that the promise to bury Yaakov in Canaan distinguished Yosef and opened the door for his sons to be blessed. Much time passed between the end of chapter 47 and the beginning of chapter 48, and the promise did not directly merit the double portion gifted through Ephraim and Menashe, but it was all related.  

           
Alshich raises the possibility that it was the same Divine Presence that accompanied Yisrael's bow in 47:31 that informed Yosef that his father was sick – in other words, Yosef intuited it through Ruach HaKodesh (a divine spirit).

           
According to the Daat Zekenim, Yosef did not regularly visit his father, to avoid having the conversation about what actually transpired that wound him up in Egypt.

           
The suggestion made by Or HaChaim can help us satisfy our conundrum. He says that on the one hand "Yosef's sons" should merit a blessing on Yosef's merit, but on the other hand, Ephraim specifically and Menashe specifically each merit a blessing on his own right.

           
While it seems that Yaakov is not paying attention to the presence of the individuals Ephraim and Menashe when they show up with their father, he is aware that "Yosef's sons" (as a unit) are present. He continues to avoid the painful conversation of the fateful day when Yosef descended to Egypt, because they are not alone, and he speaks glowingly of "Yosef's sons" as if they are in absentia – because speaking of them as "Yosef's sons" is Yosef's blessing. They are only indirectly relevant to Yosef's blessing – which goes all the way to 48:16.

           
When Yaakov looks at them and calls them over, though he blesses them together (in 48:20), he is blessing Ephraim the individual and Menashe the individual.

           
We see differences in the relationships Yaakov/Yisrael had with his son versus with his grandsons. The roles of the players here indicate the truth of the statement of Mishlei 17:6, "Children's children are the crown of the aged, and the glory of the children is their fathers."

The Beer Shava Stopover

Parshat Vayigash

by Rabbi Avi BIllet

In the Torah, the city Beer Sheva appears thus named only one time (26:33). Otherwise it is always called Beer Shava. Seforno notes the difference between the vowelization of the two names of the city, while Ibn Ezra offers that when it is called Beer Sheva it might be for two reasons (based on a swear and the number seven), or, perhaps, it is a different (though similarly named) city.

When Yaakov visits Beer Shava in our parsha, he is presented as Yisrael as he offers sacrifices to the God of his father Yitzchak. God speaks "to Yisrael" in a nighttime vision, calling him "Yaakov Yaakov" saying, "I am the God of your father. Do not fear going down to Egypt, for I will turn you into a great nation there. I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will come up with you as well, and Yosef will place his hands on your eyes."

Then "Yaakov" gets up from Beer Shava, as "Bnei Yisrael" lift Yaakov their father – along with their children on wives – onto the carriages Pharaoh had sent for them.

A few questions come to mind: What is the significance of stopping in Beer Shava? Why is Yitzchak mentioned and not Avraham? Why the switch from Yaakov to Yisrael, and back again? What are we to take from the "nighttime vision"? Who will be accompanied by God in the descent to and in the ascent from Egypt? Why the promise of Yosef putting his hand over Yaakov's eyes.

Yitzchak had two prophetic experiences in Chapter 26: in the first he is told not to descend to Egypt during a famine, as his father had done before him, and the second was in Beer Shava when God told him "I am the God of your father Avraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you. I will bless you and make your children numerous in the merit of my servant Avraham." (26:24)

In all likelihood Yaakov went to Beer Shava on account of this latter encounter (Rashbam), hoping to be the recipient of a similar blessing, and also hoping to be told not to descend to Egypt. Nonetheless, he was encouraged to complete this trip (Sechel Tov). Alternativley, Toldos Yitzchak suggests Yaakov very much wanted to go, but feared God would tell him he could not. The promise to become a great nation in Egypt, unlike the promise his father received, was so helpful in freeing him to go.

Sacrficing to the God of Yitzchak alone may be because: a person is more obligated to honor his father than his grandfather (Rashi, Midrash); since Yitzchak suffered as well over the sale of Yosef (the crying father in 37:35 refers to Yitzchak), his suffering could serve as a merit for Yaakov's own wishes to suffer no longer (Pesikta); a lament over not honoring Yitzchak for 22 years, Yaakov did not want similar treatment when being reunited with Yosef (Meshech Chokhmah).

There are many theories as to why "Yaakov" or "Yisrael" is used. As they are going down to Egypt and need strength (Yisrael) to survive, the name Yaakov is still applicable as with that name he is sometimes defeated. They come as "Bnei Yisrael" because they will multiply in numbers and eventually be redeemed. But Yaakov the man is the one who is going descending to slavery. (Ramban)

The nighttime vision is unique to Yaakov and takes place when he is on the cusp of leaving the land (see 28:11-16). The message is that even in nighttime, in the darkness of exile, God's Shechinah dwells amongst Israel. (Meshech Chokhmah)

God promised that He'd go down with and take Yaakov out of Egypt. Yaakov did not want to become a slave. So he was told he personally wouldn't be there that long. (Or HaChaim). He received the promise that his children would not be enslaved during his lifetime either. (Sechel Tov)

Of course, Yaakov knew from the moment he purchased the birthright that exile was the price for getting the blessing promised to Avraham. Never having anticipated that the strange land was going to be Egypt, he feared for the moral decay of his family to the point they'd never be able to get out. God promised him that if necessary, He would take them out early, before it is too late. (Beis HaLevi)

The promise of going down to Egypt included different features.

The language is "I will go with you" as opposed to "I am bringing you down." (Rabbenu Bachaye) He is literally counted as the 70^th soul because the family actually totals 69. (Daat Zekenim) This is what the Kli Yakar calls a "Yeridas HaShechinah," a descent of the divine presence.

A double language is utilized to promise the ascent from Egypt: I will bring you up (your sons will bury you) and I will bring your children up (eventually) (Sechel Tov, Radak); not only will you be brought up, but all of your sons will merit burial outside of Egypt too (R Chaim Paltiel); the double language of ascent refers to to Eretz Yisrael and to the World to Come. One is a physical ascent, and one is an ascent of the soul (Rabbenu Bachaye).

The promise that Yosef would place his hands on Yaakov's eyes has different meanings.

We know from the death of Rachel (and elsewhere) that a throwaway comment in the Torah sometimes turns out to be a prophesy. Perhaps Yaakov was being promised that the comment he made when he thought Yosef was dead "that he would go down to the grave mourning for his son" (37:35) would not be fulfilled. As the Baal Haturim notes, God was showing Yaakov that Yosef would not die in Yaakov's lifetime. As Rashbam hints to (Baba Batra 108a) Yaakov was receiving a two-part blessing here: that he would outlive Yosef, and that Yosef has children who count as part of Yaakov's family of 70.

Other possibilities include: Yosef will close your eyes when you die; Yosef will take care of those upon whom you have your eye – your children and grandchildren… long after you die (Radak); "Einekha" (your eyes) means "Inyanekha" – he'll take charge of your affairs (Chizkuni); or, most practically, you won't have to keep your eye on all of your belongings when you get to Egypt, because Yosef will make sure everything gets to you (nothing will be stolen) (Seforno)

The stop in Beer Shava, therefore, is highly significant. It is meant to serve as a reflection of a spiritual encounter his father had, and it is meant to sway or counter many fears Yaakov has over being the "one" who is beginning the actual descent to the strange land promised to Avraham. Avraham's experience is not noted because Yaakov serves as his spiritual heir – and perhaps Yaakov even latches on to whatever merits his father had, as a man who suffered in his life, and as a man who never left Eretz Yisrael – a place to which Yaakov desperately wishes to one day return, whether in life or in death or through his descendants.

The promises he receives from God set a stage for the promises the people will one day remember: that we may become slaves, but there is a promise for redemption. We may fall into moral depravity, but God will not let us disappear into a murky existence from which redemption is impossible.

For us, we look to the words of the Midrash that the Final Redemption will mimic the first redemption (from Egypt) in all ways, except that the Final Redemption will not be preempted by slavery. We therefore hope that all the promises made to Yaakov in Beer Shava will one day be fulfilled again, as we experience an end to the (long) night in which Yaakov received his vision - a promise for a bright future when God will once again accompany us all up to the land He promised to our forefathers.