Pareshath Vayera

I find the character of Yishma'el fascinating. He is often paired with 'Eisav, the two rejected sons of the avoth (the patriarchs) (benei Ketura notwithstanding), but his relationship with Yisrael is far less straightforward. 'Eisav is associated with Rome, that greatest oppressor of the Jews, combing the humiliation of Bavel (Babylon), the bald slaughter of Paras (Persia), and the assimilationist pressure of Yavan (Greece), managing to far outdo each of its predecessors in their own area of expertise; and he is further distinguished as the progenitor of 'Amalek, the ideological negation of Yisrael. Yishma'el, on the other hand, is one of those rare figures that the rabbinic tradition leaves as neither hero nor villain. Sometimes he is accused of great sin: Rashi connects the "mitzaḥek" that motivates Sarah to have him exiled to the three cardinal sins of 'abhodha zara (idolatry), giluy 'arayoth (illicit sexual relations), and retziḥa (murder). But then again, Ramban responds that it is outrageous to suppose someone raised in the house of Abhraham would act thusly, and even Rashi agrees that he repented later in life. He is the only person in the Torah called "adham" save for the progenitor himself, literally a mensch. We have a number of great rabbis who bear his name, despite the tradition to avoid the names of the wicked. Yet, despite all in his favor, he is not considered fit to remain a part of the trunk of the nation. Sarah says that he must go, and God supports her.

So, what does this ambivalent character represent? The three avoth are often connected to midhath haḥesedh, the outpouring of emotion that breaks down all barriers and flows toward oneness (Abhraham); midhath hagebhura, the analytic precision that puts everything in its proper place and orders creation (Yitzḥak); and midhath hatiphereth, the harmonious balance between the former and the latter (Ya'akobh). Interesting digression: Rav Matis Weinberg understands this whole paresha as providing a gradual transition for the spiritual life of the people from ḥesedh to din -- every time Abhraham runs, hurries, or wakes up to do something (almost everything he does this week), he finds himself a little closer to din, culminating in 'akeidhath Yitzḥak where Yitzḥak really becomes the dominant force, although the narrative transition waits until the next paresha.
By this understanding, both Yishma'el and 'Eisav are far more their fathers' sons than their younger brothers who are chosen to inherit. They represent the dangers of imbalance. They may also represent these midhoth to the nations; the Vilna Gaon has an interesting comment to God's promise to make a nation of Yishma'el, that there are traditionally seventy nations, and seventy already accounted for, but seventy often really means seventy-two, with two set apart and above, as is the case in the Sanhedrin, with seventy elders, one Abh haBeith Din (head of the court), and one Nasi (prince or president). Thus, there is room for Yishma'el and 'Eisav to father nations, and indeed a special place of leadership for them. This idea works nicely with the traditional identification of 'Eisav with Christianity and Yishma'el with Islam.
The dangers of excess gebhura seem clear enough, as stated in the first paragraph regarding 'Eisav. Every sort of tyranny and oppression. Yishma'el, the opposite figure, is described as the freest of men by Rav Hirsch, and full heir to those most typical gifts of Abhraham's ḥesedh: generous hospitality and a powerfully monotheistic intuition. Not so bad. But also dangerous. It means that "his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren." The generous spirit, untempered by din, is incompatible with society, order, and ultimately peace. Vehameibhin yabhin.

Shabbath Shalom uMebhorakh!

Pareshat VeZot HaBrakha

Turns out it is a little harder to learn in the sukkah amidst snacks and games than in the beit midrash, so this week will be on the short and simple side.

One thing that has always bothered me about this week's paresha is the absence of Shim'on. Surely, the Jewish people are not complete without every tribe, every sort of Jew. 

The Abarbanel notes that Moshe's brakha differs from Ya'akov's in its focus on the land. Ya'akov addresses each of his sons according to their characters, and the way in which that will affect their places in the nation. Moshe addresses the tribes according to their portions in the inheritance, which impacts their role in a different way. Ya'akov deems two of his sons, in their character, unworthy of such a portion, cursing them that they should be divided and dispersed. Those sons are Shim'on and Levi. And yet, despite sharing equally in Ya'akov's condemnation, Levi merits praise and blessing from Moshe. So really, the question is reversed; not, "Why is Shim'on excluded?", but "Why is Levi included?". Note that a significant portion of Levi's blessing consists of praise for the behavior of the Levites during the journey through the wilderness. The only other tribe whose actions are similarly mentioned is Gad, in an enigmatic verse extolling the tribe for being first to claim their portion, a decision that Moshe was far from thrilled by initially. The mepharshim explain that that verse was not so much a blessing as a personal expression of gratitude, for without that act, whether or not it was praiseworthy in itself, Moshe could not have died and been buried in the land. By their request to settle on the east bank, they extended the land to include Moshe's grave. So, Levi's accolades remain unique. I think that they can be read not as praises so much as conditions, or explanations. Levi's portion is to be Hashem, and their support the tithes, but not because they are denied a share of land, Devarim 10:8-9 notwithstanding. They were not to receive land in any case. They receive a portion because they acted properly when the people were tested. Shim'on, by contrast, are most noted through the time in the wilderness for being the main sinners in the matter of ba'al peor.

This brings out an interesting tension that plays out in many ways through Tanakh. To what degree are we shaped by our ancestors, and to what extent free to make our own decisions? We see that through righteousness Levi is able to transcend the limitations of their curse and transform it into blessing. We have the freedom to set our own courses. However, there is no blank slate. Shim'on and Levi are both, ultimately, scattered and divided through the nation. Shim'on may have sinned in the wilderness, but so did many others who were not subject to the same punishment, because their starting points were not the same. The actions of their forefathers echo down through the generations, affecting every generation to come. Interesting to muse on as a ba'al teshuva.

Mo'adim leSimḥa!

Shabbat Shalom uMevorakh!