27 November 2015

Pareshath Vayishlaḥ

I have been traveling this week, and I haven't a full drash on the paresha prepared. However, in talmudh Torah, often a good question is better than a good answer. So, I will relate the question I hoped to investigate and answer, again working off the Yalkut Shim'oni; perhaps the explanation will be clear to the reader. If so, please share your thoughts.

Typically, midrashim are extremely terse commentaries on particular verses. Although these verses are often discussed at length, this usually takes the form of alternative opinions. In this week's paresha, however, there are two exceptions to this structure, with far too many parallels for coincidence. Each jumps off from a point of tense, but peaceful, relations between Ya'akobh's family and their neighbors. In both cases, the midrash posits that there was a later war that goes unmentioned in the text, and goes on to at great length to describe the war in a vivid narrative that would be far more at home in the Illiad than in the rabbinic corpus. At least Sepher Yehoshu'a or Sophrim. In both cases, Yehudha plays the heroic protagonist leading the fight, which is not so surprising, but also in both, Naphtali is one of the most prominent supporting characters, which is more surprising.

Specifically, the first is in the aftermath of the destruction of Shekhem, when the surrounding nations dare not take vengeance for the city, for the terror of God was upon them. The midrash claims that this was only at that time. Later, Ya'akobh and family return to settle in Shekhem, and the inhabitants of the land are outraged; what chutzpah, to live in the very site of their crime, in the very houses of their victims! They make war, but contra Ya'akobh's dire prediction to his sons, they are decisively defeated. One by one, over several days, their armies are driven from the field and their fortified cities stormed. In the end, the Amorites make peace, and Benei Yisrael return to the survivors all the loot and pillage they have accumulated.

The latter midrash comes as 'Eisav departs the land on account of his brother, building a kingdom to the south with his Kana'ani in-laws. The midrash again claims, this was only at that time. Later, just after Leia dies, the family of Ya'akobh is in mourning, and 'Eisav comes with four thousand men to wipe them out. Ya'akobh speaks words of peace and reconciliation, which are met with arrows and rocks until Yehudha takes charge and leads a counterattack. Yehudha heads south, leading Naphtali and Gadh, Reuvein goes north accompanied by Yissokhar and Zebhulun, Levi goes east accompanied by Dan and Asher, and Shim'on goes west accompanied by Binyamin and Ḥanokh ben Reuvein (Yoseph had already been sold at this point). For comparison, in the wilderness the order of camp was Yehudha in the east accompanied by Yissokhar and Zebhulun, Reuvein in the south accompanied by Shim'on and Gadh, Ephraim (Levi is removed from this count, and so Yoseph is split into two) in the west accompanied by Menashe and Binyamin, and Dan in the north accompanied by Asher and Naphtali. Completely different, but the same fourfold division with one leader and two subordinates in each cardinal direction. The forces of Edom are fought off and almost entirely killed, including some of 'Eisav's sons and, according to one opinion, 'Eisav himself. The remnant flee back to their southern kingdom and thenceforth live in peace.

What are we to make of these? Fantasies of a muscular and victorious Judaism in the aftermath of the disastrous wars with Rome? Mystical allegories of spiritual struggle and the messianic age? I don't know. Why here, twice in this paresha, so different in style, methodology, and content from what we have come to expect? This paresha was studied by the rabbis before they would undertake diplomatic missions to Rome, seeing the exemplar of Jewish relation to the goyishe world in Ya'akobh's approach to his estranged brother and re-entry into his estranged land. In this paresha, Ya'akobh doubly becomes Yisrael. First, from his mysterious adversary in the dark, connected with his encounter with 'Eisav. Second, from the word of God in the immediate aftermath of the incident at Shekhem. Are those answers? No, but they might become answers. Again, I welcome your thoughts.

Shabbath Shalom uMebhorakh!

3 comments:

  1. I'm sure you have already thought of this, but the historical-analytical interpretation would probably be justification for David's kingship (coming from the line of Judah as he does). Judah's leadership in both cases presages David's leadership in his time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, but this sort of narrative does not show up all over the place. Why here and now, twice together?

      Delete
  2. Not sure how Naftali's role plays into it.

    ReplyDelete