Individual and National Identity
STUDENT
SUMMARIES OF SICHOT OF THE ROSHEI YESHIVA
Parashat
Shemot
SICHA
OF HARAV
****************************************************************************
With
gratitude and in honor of the bar mitzvah,
this year b'ezrat Hashem, of our
twin sons,
Michael and Joshua - Steven Weiner and Lisa
Wise
****************************************************************************
This
week's shiur is dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. Harold N. Rosen
*********************************************************
This
week's shiurim are dedicated
in memory of Mrs. Cela Meisels, Tzerka Nechama
bat Shlomo,
whose yahrzeit falls on the 14th of
Tevet.
*********************************************************
Individual
and National Identity
Adapted
by Ari Schwab
Two
questions bothered the commentators about the opening verses of Sefer
Shemot. First, the sefer
begins with the letter “vav,” meaning “and” - “Ve-eileh shemot benei
Yisrael,” “And these are the names of the children of Yisrael.” Why does the
sefer begin with an apparent linkage to the preceding story? Second, what is the need for this list
of names in the first place? By
now, we have heard about “those who descended to Egypt.” As a matter of fact, we should know not
only the children but the grandchildren of Yaakov – we should remember something
from two weeks ago, when this list was first given!
Let
us focus on one midrash (Shemot Rabba 1:3) adapted by Rashi (1:1,
s.v. ve-eileh):
Although
the Torah enumerated them by name while they were living, it enumerates them
again when it tells us of their death, thus showing how dear they were [to God],
that they are compared to the stars, which God brings out and brings in by
number and by name, as the verse states, “He brings out their host by number; He
calls them all by name” (Yeshayahu 40:26).
Repeated
enumeration is an expression of fondness. This is true on a personal or
psychological plane, but it translates into a cosmic dimension as well.
This
idea is also mentioned at the beginning of Sefer Bamidbar, a book in
which Bnei Yisrael are counted twice – in Parashat Bamidbar and in
Parashat Pinchas. There, the
midrash notes that if someone possesses something he is concerned about,
he counts it again and again. I had
a stamp collection as a child, and I would count those stamps over and over,
even though I knew how many there were.
In the beginning, those objects are not only counted – they are mentioned
by name.
The
midrash (Shemot Rabba 1:2) also addresses our first question by
contrasting the use of the opening word “Ve-eileh” with that of
“eileh.” The latter, the midrash explains, refers to a break from
the past. At the beginning of
creation, the Torah states, “Eileh toledot ha-shamayim
ve-ha-aretz,” “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth”
(Bereshit 2:4). The term “eileh” is employed because creation
marked a break from what came before. Creation signified the introduction of
order as opposed to “tohu va-vahu,” “unformed and void” (1:2), a plan as
opposed to chaos. In our verse,
however, the term used is “ve-eileh,” indicating continuity; it lets us
know that the seventy souls mentioned earlier were righteous, as were those who
follow. Accordingly, there is
nothing substantive added to our understanding, evaluation or appreciation of
the twelve tribes simply by dint of relating to them, hovering over them as it
were, numbering and naming them. It
is simply an expression of affection.
Seforno (1:1, s.v. eileh) suggests a different answer. Each
tribe needed to be named to single out each one’s stature, status or virtue, as
opposed to subsequent generations, who assimilated or lingered in passive
spirituality. Rashbam (1:1, s.v.
ve-eileh) says that the word “ve-eileh” is used to contrast
the initial paucity of the group with the subsequent population
explosion.
The
Tribes of Bereishit and Shemot
What is the difference between Bereshit and Shemot? Broadly speaking, the first is a
sefer about individuals and families. The families are of two kinds. Some are
mentioned in lists of fathers and sons, such as the descendants of Noach, Esav
and Yishmael. There is a
paterfamilias and subsequently a family identity. The avot, however, are different.
They are promised large families, but they are also individuals, and this
individuality is emphasized by each one being mentioned separately, each with
his own brit (covenant) and his own mode of avodat Hashem (Divine
service). This is why we mention all three individually in the first berakha
of the shemoneh esrei.
In composing that tefilla, Chazal took their cue from our
parasha; at the burning bush, God identifies himself as both “God of your
forefathers” generally and as “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,”
individually (Shemot 3:6).
God did not wait for Moshe to ask, “And they shall say to me, ‘What is
His name,’ what shall I tell them?” (3:13). He offered His calling card, as it
were, already in their first encounter, mentioning all three patriarchs
separately. There is only one God
and only one genealogy of the Jewish People, but mention is made of the avot
on two planes; Hashem is God of each one separately as well as
collectively.
Bereishit,
then, focuses on familial events, with tragedy, struggles and strife. We get to know each of the characters,
certainly the primary ones, at one level or another.
Shemot,
as the Ramban says in his introduction, is about community, the forging of the
entity of the Jewish nation. The
promise of nationhood was given to the avot in Bereishit, but
Shemot is the story of how this was accomplished. Major components of this process are
narrative, with each episode adding elements to the composite. One element of the sefer is the
forging of national identity through the trials and tribulations in Egypt.
Chazal describe in numerous places (e.g., Zohar, Shir Ha-Shirim 25b) that “they went down to
Egypt for catharsis, and emerged from the purging furnace complete,” based on
the reference to Egypt as “kur ha-barzel,” a furnace
(Devarim 4:20). The exodus
from Egypt added another dimension to this identity, and a further tier came
with Matan Torah, when the Jewish People received the Torah. Then,
as the Ramban notes at the beginning of Teruma (25:2, s.v.
ka’asher), the building of the Mishkan, the Tabernacle,
brought the Presence of God into the collective.
Shemot
is a sefer concerned with the forging of a collective identity. That being the case, it will not do to
rely on the list of names from Parashat Vayigash. There, the children of Yaakov are listed
in terms of their personal identities, as individuals, as parts of a family unit
- but nothing more. They are not
the fountainheads of a community.
But that is precisely what the shevatim (the tribes) are! This is true not only in a practical or
historical sense, as they were the ancestors of the Jewish People, but in a
halakhic sense as well.
The
Torah describes Matan Torah as “yom ha-kahal,” “the day of the
community” (Devarim 9:10, 10:4, 18:16). In some contexts, “kahal” refers
to the whole of the Jewish People, embracing all the tribes. The entire nation
participated in the revelation at Har Sinai. Yet there is also a sense that each
tribe has a distinct identity, as is clear from halakhic
contexts.
The
Ramban notes at the beginning of Parashat Shoftim (Devarim 16:18,
s.v. ve-ta’am) that judges must be appointed “bi-she’arekha,” “in
your gates,” and “li-shevatekha,” “for your tribes.” Based on the
gemara, Ramban explains that in addition to the local court required in
every city, each tribe in the city must have its own court. This court has the same authority for
that tribe as the high court has for all of Israel; it can establish edicts and
decrees and the like. A tribe is a
mini-nation. This arrangement is
similar to the federal and state courts in the American judicial system.
The
Ramban connects this point to another discussion. The Torah states in
Parashat Vayikra (4:13-21) that if the court errs and most of the
nation follows the erroneous ruling, the burden of guilt is not upon the
individuals who listened, but on the court. The judges must therefore bring a
sin offering. Although this is
subject to a dispute between tannaim (Horiot 5a), we rule that
each tribe is considered a separate unit and must bring its own sin offering in
such a case. Families, subunits of
the tribes, are not considered separately – they are simply part of their
shevet.
By mentioning the tribes again at the beginning of Sefer Shemot,
the Torah grants them a new capacity.
Earlier, they were mentioned as individuals. Here, they are not individuals, the sons
of Yaakov, but rather fountainheads, founding fathers; they are the beginning of
what Sefer Shemot is all about.
This is a different role historically speaking; it is a different type of
life.
The midrash adds something that rounds out this point and
simultaneously, seemingly, undermines it.
Rashi quotes a verse in Yeshayahu (40:26) about stars: “He brings
out their host by number; He calls them all by name.” The midrash itself cites a more
familiar verse, which we recite daily in Shacharit: “Moneh mispar
la-kokhavim; le-kullam shemot yikra,” “He counts the number of the stars; He
calls them all by their names” (Tehillim 147:4). According to both
verses, the stars are first counted and then named.
We deal with stars as numbers, parts of a galaxy, supernovae, or whatever
contexts they are involved in. But
each star also has a personal identity.
The juxtaposition of these two elements means that we need to speak of
two identities – each person has a unique name, and each exists as a member of
the Jewish People. Collective
identity does not uproot personal identity, but adds to it. This is the meaning of the linking
“vav” of “ve-eileh;” being a founding father does not uproot or
substitute for the personal identity of the shevet, but adds on to
it.
Dual
Identity
This brings us back not only to the verses, but to ourselves. When are we
better off - when we are learning in Alon Shevut or somewhere out there in the
Diaspora? There are certain aspects
of spiritual identity that can be developed in the Diaspora. Some aspects of one’s personality can be
developed without regard to the Jewish past or future. These, in and of themselves, should not
be dismissed; we can obtain the status of a ben torah in Johannesburg or
New York, and this is important for the Jewish People and doubly important for
the individual Jew.
Nevertheless,
our fullness as Jews is obtained best, most richly and completely, in Eretz
Yisrael, which lets us live lives as rich and full as possible in terms of
avodat Hashem, our service of God.
The
concept of dual identity is not limited to Jews. The question of division of identity
concerns not only students of social history or philosophy, but those living in
countries at a certain times. In
the Greco-Roman world, as compared to the modern world, collective identity
occupied a very central place – are you a Greek or a barbarian, and if you are a
Greek – from where? But the modern
world - this is the heart of liberalism – does not like collective identity,
favoring instead individual predilection, orientation, self-fulfillment,
etc. The difference is partly that
of outlook, but it is also existential.
Broadly
speaking, there are two stages – “Sefer Bereishit,” before
national identity is formed, and post facto, when we can put the national facet
aside to focus on individual growth.
In between is “Sefer Shemot,” the time when we need to focus on
collective identity.
Recent
history in Eretz Yisrael demonstrates this process. Before the
yishuv was settled, each person was separate; there was little of
cohesiveness. What nation existed
here? Others, be they Ottoman or
British, were in charge. So we
could focus on individual development, as indeed those in Eastern Europe or
North Africa did. As things came to
a head, as we envisioned a collective community and state, collectivism became
very dominant. Kibbutzim were the
fullest expression of this trend, but it was also expressed in other elements,
such as education. As the country
increasingly became perceived to be, if not self-sufficient, at least solvent,
the focus on oneself at the expense of the country began its gradual
ascent.
This
issue faces us as benei Torah, as members of the nation, and, for
many, as citizens of Israel. The
important thing is to retain the linking “vav” – “ve-eileh.” A Jew
must recognize that the collective and the personal are intertwined, no matter
which he chooses to superimpose on the other. We do not have purely individual or
collective identities. This outlook is necessary to live as an oved
Hashem, as a servant of God; it is important not only for socio-political
but also for religious purposes.
The
Ba’al Ha-Tanya (Likkutuei Torah, Parashat Re’ei) notes that prayer must
contain two elements: we must address God as individuals and as a
community. Similarly, we speak of
teshuva (repentance) of the individual and teshuva of the
community. One little “vav”
makes all the difference.
Let
us be certain that in our lives, this “vav” is not diminished further; it
must be part of a context that, like the yeast in dough, helps forge and mold
our total identity.
[This
sicha was delivered to overseas students at