Reuven: Cover-Up or Peshat?
Introduction to Parashat Hashavua
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT
VAYISHLACH
Reuven: Cover-Up
or Peshat?
By Rav Alex Israel
This week we shall turn our attention to a few midrashim
that relate to the Parasha. The way
I seek to study Midrash departs from the populist The Midrash Says method
of understanding the words of our sages.
I do not perceive the midrashim simply as fables, legends or stories that
give us extra historical or biographical information in connection to our Bible
narratives. Midrash, to my mind, is
a sophisticated textual technique, a method of serious commentary that picks up
on some of the deepest currents within the text, and allows us to focus upon the
true depth of the verses at hand.
In this path, I follow the approach proposed by the
Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishna. In speaking about the more difficult
midrashic statements of Chazal, he comments:
Their words have both an
outer and an inner meaning, and in all that they say which seems to be
impossible, their comments are in the form of riddle and parable... The theme of the speech of learned men
consists entirely of matters of the highest import, but these matters are put in
the form of puzzles and similes.
How can we criticize that their literary productions take the form of
proverbs or similes which are of a lowly and popular kind, seeing that the
wisest of men did the same by holy inspiration, i.e. Shelomo in the Book of
Proverbs, the Song of Songs and part of Kohelet.
When a midrash puzzles us, we would do well to remember
this statement of the Rambam, that our Sages sometimes express themselves in a
manner that needs decoding. We must
interpret Midrash and not always read it simply at face value: it is our task
and our duty to seek the "inner meaning" behind the midrashic words of
Chazal. In my experience we will
reveal a world of subtlety and sophistication, expressions of poetry and
allusion, readings of innuendo and irony.
The world of Midrash is complex and rich; those who see only the surface
miss its beauty and wisdom.
This week we shall present a famous midrash about
Reuven, and a "solution" to the midrash in an attempt to reveal the peshat behind the derash.
REUVEN'S SIN:
The pasuk (Bereishit 35:22) tells us: "When
Yisrael dwelled in that land, Reuven went and slept with Bilha, his father's
concubine, and Yisrael heard."
Rashi cites the midrash brought on Shabbat
55b:
Because he switched around his [father's] bed, the Torah
treats him as if he slept with her.
Now, why did he switch and desecrate his bed? When Rachel died, Yaakov took his bed,
which was placed most frequently in Rachel's tent rather than the other tents,
and Yaakov put his bed in Bilha's tent.
Reuven came to protest his mother's insult. He said: "If my mother's sister was a
rival-wife to my mother, should the maidservant of my mother's sister now become
a rival-wife to my mother?"
Therefore, he made the switch.
According to the Torah text, Reuven slept with
Bilha. According to the midrash, he
simply adjusted his father's sleeping arrangements, obviously an unwelcome
intrusion into his father's personal life, but not quite the same degree of
sin! What is the truth here? Is the midrash not making an attempt to
whitewash Reuven's severe crime? Why does the midrash feel a need to
distort the facts of the matter?
Perhaps to emphasize our question, the "headline" for
this midrash as it appears on Shabbat 55b is: "If you think that Reuven sinned,
you are mistaken." How are we to
understand this rabbinic statement? Clearly Reuven sinned—it is explicitly
written in the Torah text! How can
Chazal utterly disregard the peshat?
PESHAT: SONS,
FATHERS AND CONCUBINES.
If Reuven actually did sleep with Bilha, then
what was his motive? Ostensibly, we
may be talking about a love affair between Reuven and Bilha. However, I believe that from a
perspective which views all of Tanakh, a second possibility comes into
focus.
There are many instances in Tanakh in which a son
attempts to engage in sexual relations with his father's concubine. The two cases that stand out are the
stories of Avshalom and of Adoniya, two rebellious sons of King David. In both of these narratives, there is a
political rather than a sexual motive.
In both episodes, the son's act with his father's concubine represents
his taking his father's status as king.
By taking the king's wives and engaging in sexual relations with them,
the son is assuming his father's position, with all of its political
significance.
Avshalom stages a rebellion against his father, King
David, and temporarily deposes him from the throne, exiling him from
Jerusalem. Avshalom, interested in
making a firm statement about his new status as king, asks his advisor Achitofel
how he might publicize his new role as monarch. Achitofel replies (II Shemuel
16:21):
"Lie with your father's concubines, whom he left to mind
the palace; and when all Israel hears that you have dared the wrath of your
father, all who support you will be encouraged."
Similarly, in the beginning of I Melakhim, Adoniya
stages a coup against David and his promised heir, Shelomo. David foils this attempt, but after his
death, in a rather devious move, Adoniya asks Bat Sheva, the Queen Mother, to
approach her son Shelomo and petition him for the right to marry King David's
concubine Avishag. Shelomo responds
in horror (I Melakhim 2:22-24):
"'Why request Avishag the Shunammit for Adoniya? Request
the kingship for him!"
Thereupon King Solomon swore by Lord: "So may God do to
me and even more, if broaching this matter does not cost Adoniya his life …
Adoniya shall be put to death this very day!"
These proofs are not the only ones. One might also talk about Avner (II
Shemuel 3:7) and even the case of David's wife Mikhal (ibid., vv. 13-16.) So
where does this lead us? What might
we conclude from these episodes? We
can summarize it in a single sentence: in Tanakh, a son sleeping with his
father's concubine is not an expression of romance; it is a quintessential act
of politics, in which the son is usurping his father's
position.
THE CASE OF
REUVEN.
On the basis of that which we have gleaned from other
references in Tanakh, we do understand that what takes place between Reuven and
Bilha is not some sordid love affair.
The issue at stake is the family leadership and who will succeed Yaakov
as patriarch of the family.
Rachel has died.
Everyone is fully aware of Rachel's special status in Yaakov's eyes: they
all know that she was his first love, his true love. However, now Rachel is
dead.
This is not the only important occurrence that takes
place at this time; concurrent with Rachel's death is the birth of Yaakov's
twelfth and final son. We do not
quite know whether Yaakov and his wives know that they are aiming for a family
of twelve sons (though this is Rashi's assumption, and we do indeed find twelve
princes of Yishmael in 17:20 and 25:13-16, as well as twelve sons of Nachor in
22:21-24), but we do know in retrospect that the clan is now complete.
Naturally, with the family unit whole, the question that
must be raised pertains to the leadership of the next generation. While Rachel is alive, Leah's children
feel suppressed and marginalized; with Rachel's death, it is time for Leah's
clan to claim their rightful place in the family. Reuven, firstborn of Leah, expresses in
the most explicit way, by sleeping with Bilha, that he intends to succeed his
father as the family leader. His
goal is to proclaim that the children of Leah are the natural continuation of
Yaakov, not Rachel's children.
BACK TO THE
MIDRASH.
Our midrash discusses the question of switching the
beds. Where does the text allude to
this? In 49:4 and I Divrei Ha-yamim
5:2, Reuven's crime is described as a desecration of his father's
yetzu'im. How is that phrase
correctly translated? Rashi brings
references that connect this phrase with the notion of a bed or bedding. If Reuven had committed a sexual crime,
the Torah has very explicit terminology to describe such an act; it is not shy
about these things. Instead, Reuven
is described as "defiling his father's bed." Why the stress upon the bed itself if the
sin is so much more grievous?
MOTIVATION
Even without this particular point, let us look back at
the midrash. Reuven moves Yaakov's
bed to Leah's tent, removing it from Bilha's tent. Why does he do thus? What is his motivation in interfering
with Yaakov's sleeping arrangements? The midrash talks about the affront to
his mother, but it is not solely his mother who suffers insult. After all, Rachel and Leah are the
original wives, united by their sisterly bond; the other two "wives" are of a
lower stature. If Yaakov prefers
Bilha, Rachel's maid, to Leah, then Yaakov is stating absolutely and
unequivocally that he allies himself exclusively with Rachel's side of the
family. This has an impact not only
upon Leah, but upon her sons as well.
Are they going to ignore their being sidelined? Is Reuven, the firstborn, going to forego
his leading role in the family and simply allow Rachel's children to lead the
family?
If Reuven moves Jacob's bed into Leah's tent, then he is
sending Yaakov a message that he wishes to be taken seriously, that Yaakov must
take his mother seriously: Leah's children demand to be given their rightful
share. Reuven, as firstborn, is
demanding his position as the family leader. Thus, moving the bed away from Rachel
towards Leah is a political act.
At this point, do the peshat and derash stand so far apart? Are they so opposed to one another? I think not.
Have a shabbat
shalom!