The Birth of the Messiah
By OJ | December 31, 2007
I will not be the first or last to comment on the spotty origins of the line of David, the lineage of the Messiah ben David.
Genesis 38:2 וַיַּרְא-שָׁם יְהוּדָה בַּת-אִישׁ כְּנַעֲנִי, וּשְׁמוֹ שׁוּעַ
“And Judah saw the daughter of a Canaanite man, and his name was Shua”
This line occurs immediately after Joseph is sold into slavery. Though I would posit the two stories were once separate, here they have been joined. There are, in face, two Messiah’s in Jewish tradition. Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David. Perhaps as we learn of the dishonor done to Joseph, we are then to learn of the origins of Judah’s progeny.
Few women are named in the Bible, but enough are mentioned by name, sometimes without even more details than that, that it can be assumed they were well known people.
The Torah details the drunken incest in the fathering of Moab, the line of Ruth who married (against a literal reading of the Torah), Boaz, a descendant of the line in discussion. Why is it, then, that the daughter of Shua who births the sons in the story, Er, Onan, and Sheila is not named, but Tamar, who marries the sons, is named? Moreover, was not Esau recently rebuked by Isaac (Gen. 26:34–35.) for taking Canaanites as wives? Why is it not questioned here for Judah?
It is hard to say since the Torah doesn’t address the issue. On the one hand, Judah’s children bring him shame. On the other hand, they are ancestors of Messiah ben David. No more interpretation is given.
My thought is that the name of Judah’s wife isn’t given so as not to embarrass Judah’s lineage with the name of his Canaanite wife, as they are named in Toledot (Judith! and Basemath). How different things are today that this would pose no issue other than under which Rabbi she should convert.
In Judah’s time, a married woman simply took the status of her husband in all matters (whereas her default status is to belong to her father * This is why I think my wife should get a Levi alyiah as an אשת לוי, the wife of a Levite. She’s taken my last name and my status, just as the wife of of a cohen/priest can eat trumah but the daughter of a cohen who married a Yisrael can no longer eat trumah)
Getting back to my main point– what does this story teach on its own and what does it teach in juxtaposition to the Joseph story? It seems that the Torah, by focusing on how Tamar came to give birth, is comparing two stories where things went badly, in the end brought about a greater good. Joseph’s being sold to Egypt resulted in his rise to power both in Egypt and as a tribal house in Israel. He is the only of Jacob’s sons with two (half) tribes. Similarly, it is because of the sins of Joseph’s sons of his Canaanite wife that he sired the Messianic/Davidic line.
We can learn from this that even good can come of bad things, that misfortune and bad deeds can be redeemed. Of course, this is all בדיעבד (ex post facto); the ends do not justify the means. Nonetheless, one must take action that good can come of even the worst situation.
Topics: 5768, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Was Jacob Happy?
By OJ | November 27, 2007
This parasha opens 37:1וַיֵּשֶׁב יַעֲקֹב, בְּאֶרֶץ מְגוּרֵי אָבִיו–בְּאֶרֶץ, כְּנָעַן which the Izbitzer Rebbe (Mei haShiloah) says not to read literally as “and Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan” but as “and Jacob was Happy (meshivat nefesh) in his father’s attributes, in the land of humility (from כנע)”. Why does he read it this way especially when so many things go wrong in the parasha?
Perhaps the secret (sod) is that since Jacob left Canaan in trickery and fear for his life with nothing but the shirt on his back, he returned to inherit his father’s blessings with a full family and wealth of possessions. But this did not make him haughty. His prayer at Beth El (Luz) that he return in safety was fulfilled.
It is taught that he was so modest, that when he was giving his brother Esau gifts, Esau at first rejected him “I have much / יש לי רב” but Jacob insisted countering “I have all / יש לי הכל” being as Jacob was satisfied with himself.
The lesson to be learned here is that happiness can be best achieved in humility, as in Pirke Avot “Who is Rich? He who is happy with his portion”.
Topics: 5768, vaYeshev | No Comments »
Thanksgiving, Language, and the Northwest Passage
By RB | November 26, 2007
Last week, I had a brief conversation with some Smith students about a confluence of words in Hebrew and English related to the (then) upcoming holiday of Thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving Hodu (Hebrew for thanks and the Land/Country India). Turkey (The Land/Country, but also the bird we eat on Thanksgiving). There is a series of linguistic connections between India and Turkey and the bird we call Thanksgiving. I am not the first to note this connection. In 2002, someone asked a question about this topic on Google Answers. The reply on Google Answers offers more information on this linguistic issue than I could hope to assemble.
What makes this linguistic issue worth mentioning is the early questions around the Kashrut status of Turkey (I first learned of this issue from a classmate. His mother, a Lapidus, is a descendant of Yom Tov Lipman Heller–often referred to as the Tosofot Yom Tov after the name of his commentary to the Mishnah. While they acknowledge that Turkey is Kosher, they retain a family tradition not to eat it. For more information on this and similar family traditions to not eat Turkey, see note 67 in the Kashrut.com article).
The linguistic connections came up twice during Thanksgiving break–first during Thanksgiving dinner with my mother’s family and again over Shabbat during a conversation with my father-in-law, Efrem Bromberg. He reminded me that the Americas were discovered while trying to find a Western route to India and the other countries in the East. He then said, “they never found what they were looking for but that may change if we don’t get our act together.” It is always difficult to map conversations, but this came after a discussion about global warming.
After talking with Efrem, I associate the linguistic confusion/connections with the Northwest Passage and through a jump–global warming. This morning, I read a brief passage in the Smithsonian Magazine that mentioned that this summer marked the first time in history that the Northwest Passage was passable by ships! An article in National Geographic on this topic makes a lesser claim (that it is not necessarily the first time in history that the Northwest Passage existed but the first time since satellite photos have been tracking the changes of ice in the area starting in 1978).
While my family and I have a lot to be thankful for this past weekend, it is this somber note that I expect to carry with me next time I discuss Thanksgiving and Turkey in Hebrew.
I welcome your comments and look forward to seeing this web-community develop,
Rabbi Bruce (Ravbruce)
Note that the article on Kashrut.com assigns some of the questions about Kashrut status to the linguistic confusion that prompted this posting:
As the turkey’s acceptance spread through Europe, somehow, Jews also started eating it, and eventually the question of its kosher status was posed to various rabbis, who usually permitted it. 50
A major problem in analyzing the responsa is the confusion surrounding the turkey’s name, which relates to the confusion of where Columbus had landed and where this new bird came from. About 1530 when this new dish started appearing on English tables, it had been brought to England by merchants trading in the eastern Mediterranean. These merchants were called
“Turkey merchants” because the whole area was then part of the Turkish empire and the bird as called “Turkey bird” or “Turkey cock”. It became so popular so rapidly that only sixty years later Shakespeare (Twelfth Night, Act 4, Scene 5) was able to refer to it and assume his audience knew what it was.
The English are among the few who related this bird to Turkey. Nearly everyone else thought it came from India, whereas in reality it came from Mexico, which was then known as The Spanish Indies or the New Indies. Thus, in most European languages, Arabic, and Hebrew it is called something like the “bird of India”. Even in Turkey they call it hindi, as though it came from hindistan, which is Turkish for India. The modern Hebrew (tarnagol hodu) and Yiddish (hendika hen) names both mean “Indian chicken”.
Many Rabbis believed that turkey came from India, and as will be seen, included this as part of their discussion of its kosher status. The confusion of the name has led to there being responsa that talk about perlahener, indika hen, anglisher hen, or even tavas. Many of these deal with the turkey, but some discuss pheasant, guinea fowl or peacock.
Topics: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
Find Original Torah Here
By OJ | October 31, 2007
Here it is, Barukh haShem
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
