 |
| Artwork: DALL-E's response to the prompt, "impressionist painting of a man reading from a scroll and another man covering his ears" |
The Torah’s account of Reuven’s sin ends as abruptly as it begins: “When Yisrael was living in that land, Reuven went and slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Yisrael heard” (Bereishis 35:22). The verse then stops mid-sentence and a new paragraph begins with a non-sequitur: “And the sons of Yaakov were twelve” (ibid.). The pshat (straightforward meaning) of the text couldn’t be clearer: Reuven had intimate relations with Bilhah. However, the Sages of the Talmud (Shabbos 55b) emphatically declare that such a reading is erroneous:
Anyone who says that Reuven sinned [in the incident with Bilhah] is only making a mistake, as it is stated: “and the sons of Yaakov were twelve” – this teaches that all of them were equal [in righteousness]. How, then, do I establish [the meaning of:] “and he slept with Bilhah, the concubine of his father”? This teaches that [Reuven] rearranged his father’s bed, and the verse ascribes to him [liability] as if he had slept with her … [Reuven] protested the affront to his mother, saying: “If my mother’s sister [Rachel] was a rival to my mother, will my mother’s sister’s concubine be a rival to my mother?” He got up and rearranged her bed [so that Yaakov would enter his mother Leah’s tent instead of Bilhah’s].
Yet, despite this admonition against ascribing sinful behavior to Reuven, a number of commentators do just that:
Radak (ibid.) holds that Reuven had relations with Bilhah, mistakenly thinking that since she was “only” his father’s concubine, she was permitted to him. Radak doesn’t comment on his motive, but it doesn’t seem to be noble.
Ramban (ibid.) theorizes that Reuven sexually defiled Bilhah to prevent his father from having more offspring. As the firstborn who was entitled to a double-portion, Reuven wanted to “lock in” the value of his inheritance.
Ralbag is particularly harsh. After condemning Reuven’s sin as “a disgusting sex act … done in haste, without intelligence” (beur ha'milos to Bereishis 49:4), he then marshals evidence to support his claim that “Reuven was not wise … for a wise man’s heart would not be seduced [to commit] such base deeds” (beur ha’milos to Bereishis 42:37). Ralbag concludes: “the Torah makes it clear to us that Reuven, who was so depraved as to sleep with his father’s concubine, was mentally deficient” (toalos to Bereishis 42:37).
What are we to make of these views? Surely these commentators were familiar with the Sages who oppose reading the incident of Reuven literally! How could they defy the Talmud’s authoritatively worded injunction?
R’ Tzvi Hirsch Chajes (Mevo ha’Talmud 20) provides us with a key to an answer by differentiating between the drush (homiletical) style of the Sages and the pshat-oriented approach of the commentaries cited above. He writes:
It was a received tradition of the Sages that the more praise they were able to heap upon the actions of the righteous, to search for their merits, and to tip the scales of judgment in their favor, the more they would strive to do, as much as possible … Even in a case which is explicitly [presented] in Scripture as an evil, [the Sages] sought strategies through the methods of drush to vindicate the actions [of the righteous] and to minimize their guilt.
The answer is that the Sages were engaged in a different expository enterprise than Radak, Ramban, Ralbag, and their ilk. The pshat commentator’s objective is to understand what actually happened, based on the evidence in the text, and to derive insights, concepts, and lessons therefrom. In contrast, the objective of the darshan (homiletical orator) is to use Scripture as a rhetorical platform for promoting Torah values, regardless of what really transpired. R’ Chajes explains: “the smoothest way to teach the masses and to show them the path on which to walk is to only take principles from experience, from the events that happened in the earlier generations.” Instead of speaking in abstract terms, the Sages rendered these ideas accessible by painting vivid, romanticized, larger-than-life portraits of the Biblical figures, taking creative liberties with the text and painting its “heroes” and “villains” in broad strokes without being constrained by historical veracity. Thus, when the Sages oppose the literal interpretation of Reuven’s sin, they aren’t referring to pshat. Regardless of what Reuven did or didn’t do, it would be a mistake in the genre of drush to ascribe to him anything less than righteous motives.
If you’re interested in a full-length shiur I gave on this topic, entitled Midrashic Embellishment: Why Did Chazal Villainize “the Bad Guys” and Vindicate “the Good Guys” and What are the Educational Implications for Us?, click here for the YouTube version (featuring the PowerPoint presentation that accompanied the shiur) and click here for the podcast version.
No comments:
Post a Comment