A.
With this week’s parasha begins the story of Yosef, which will occupy us for most of the rest of Genesis. The Torah puts its finger on the source of most of the trouble between Yosef and his brothers already in the third verse: וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקנים הוא לו ועשה לו כתנת פסים (“And Yisra’el loved Yosef [more] than his [other] sons, for he was a son of elders [ben zqunim] to him; and he made him a coat of stripes [kthoneth passim]”).
Chazal tell us in several places (cf. e.g. Brachoth 7b) that Yisrael expressed his love by declaring Yosef his bechor, his “first-born.” As Rashi points out in a comment on XXV, 31, in this time before Mattan Torah and the incident of the Golden Calf, it was the case שהעבודה בבכורות כו' שיקריב להקב"ה (“that the [Divine] service was the province of the first-born... that he offer sacrifice to the Holy One, Blessed is He”).
It is therefore also not surprising that Chazal tell us that the striped coat was a priestly garment (עיי' תורה שלימה בשם מדרשים שכתונת יוסף הי' בגד עשו, שכבר אמרינן בירושלמי מגילה פ"א הלי"ב שבגדיו בגדי כהונה היו וע"ע ערכין ט"ז. שדרשו מכתונת יוסף שכתונת כהונה מכפרת), which suggests that the dispute between Yosef and his brothers was on a rather elevated plane; no mere squabble over the affections of their father, the dispute concerned who was fittest to offer Divine sacrifice.
With this in mind, we examine this matter of bechora, of primogeniture, a bit more closely.
B.
A bechor is often called in the Torah peter rechem, the one who “opens,” as it were, his mother’s womb (cf. e.g. Exodus XIII, 2, 12-15; XXXIV, 19-20; Numbers XIII, 15).
By this standard, Ya’aqov had four bechorim to choose from: Re’uven (Le’a’s bechor), Dan (Bilha’s bechor), Gad (Zilpa’s bechor), and Yosef (Rachel’s bechor). That said, it is noteworthy that the Talmud teaches us: "והכהן הגדול מאחיו" שיהא גדול מאחיו בכח בנוי בחכמה ובעושר (“'And the kohén who is greater than his brothers’ [Leviticus XXI, 10] [means] that he should be greater than his brothers in strength, in appearance, in wisdom, and in wealth;” יומא י"ח.).
Now consider that the Torah specifically calls Yosef a ben zqunim, which Onqelos translates bar chakkim (“wise son”), and that a bit later in our parasha we read: ויהי יוסף יפה תאר ויפה מראה (“And Yosef was beautiful of description and beautiful of appearance;” XXXIX, 7). If there is any doubt concerning Yosef’s strength, elsewhere the Torah attests of him: בכור שורו הדר לו וקרני ראם קרניו בהם עמים ינגח (“First-born, his ox is splendour for him and the horns of a re’ém [a huge beast, now extinct] are his horns, by which he will gore nations;” Deuteronomy XXXIII, 17, Rashi ad loc.); and presumably possession of the coat made him wealthier than his brothers.
It would seem, then, that Yosef possessed all of the attributes necessary to be a kohén gadol. His brothers were not unlearned; why did they resist? Why did they not consider Yosef fit for the post?
C.
If we turn elsewhere in the Talmud, we encounter this difference of opinion: יוצא דופן והבא אחריו, שניהן אינן בכור, לא לנחלה ולא לכהן. ר"ש אומר, הראשון לנחלה והשני לחמש סלעים (“A child born of a Cæsarian section [yotzé dofen] and the one who comes after him, neither of them is a bechor, neither for inheritance nor to [be redeemed by] a kohén. Rabbi Shim’on says, the first is [a bechor] for inheritance and the second for five sla’îm [the amount necessary to redeem him from the kohén];” בכורות מ"ז:). Please note that the literal meaning of the phrase conventionally translated (because it is the most usual case) “born by Cæsarian section,” yotzé dofen, is “exiting the [uterine] wall.”
With this in mind, we now turn back to Genesis XXX, 21 and examine the Targum Yonathan, which reads: ומן בתר כדין ילידת ברת וקרת ית שמה דינה ארום אמרת דין הוא מן קדם ד' דיהון מני פלגות שבטיא ברם מן רחל אחתי יפקון תרין שבטין הכמא דנפקו מן חדא מן אמהתא ושמיע מן קדם צלותא דלאה ואיתחלפו עובריא במעיהון והוה יהיב יוסף במעהא דרחל ודינה במעהא דלאה (“And afterward [Le’a] gave birth to a daughter and called her name Dina, for she said, 'This is from Ha-Shem that there should be a distribution of the tribes; however, from Rachel my sister there should come two tribes, just as came forth from the servants;' and Le’a’s prayer was heard, and the fetuses were switched in their wombs, and Yosef was placed in the womb of Rachel and Dina in the womb of Le’a;” ע"ע רש"י עה"פ ע"פ בכורות ס.).
The implication of the Targum is startling. Rachel had actually conceived Dina and Le’a had con-ceived Yosef. In response to Le’a’s heartfelt plea that her sister not be humiliated by having fewer sons than the servants had had, Dina was literally yotzéth dofen, exited her mother’s womb, and entered the womb of her aunt, trading places with Yosef, who was therefore “the one who comes after” in exiting Rachel’s womb.
D.
Now, the fact is that in the dispute cited supra the halacha is decided in favour of the tanna qama, the first opinion cited, and not that of Rabbi Shim’on (עיי' רמב"ם הל' בכורות פי"א הלט"ז וש"ע יו"ד סי' ש"ה סעיף כ"ג ). Yet, there is a tradition that in future, with the advent of our Anointed King, all the disputes to which Rabbi Shim’on is a party will be decided in his favor (עיי' סדר הדורות, סוך ערך רבי שמעון).
It has been noted that the numerical value of Yosef, 156, is the same as that of the word Tziyyon (I have heard this in the name of the Midrash Tanchuma, but have been unable to locate the actual source), a connection to which we find an allusion in Psalms CXXVI, 1: בשוב ד' את שיבת ציון היינו כחולמים (“At Ha-Shem’s returning of [those who] are returning to Tziyyon, we are like dreamers”), remembering that Yosef is called in our parasha בעל החלומות הלזה (“that master of dreams;” XXXVII, 19). A further hint connecting Yosef with Israel’s ultimate redemption can be found by comparing Yosef’s description of his first dream, והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלמים בתוך השדה (“And behold, we were binding sheaves in the field;” ibid., 7) with the last verse in the same chapter of Psalms: בא יבוא ברנה נשא אלמותיו (“he will surely come in joy bearing his sheaves;” ועיי' פי' הצמח צדק על תהלים שם באריכות).
Viewed in this light, both sides of the famous fraternal quarrel now make sense. Yosef, oriented, as was his father, to ultimate things, to the world’s end-game with the advent of ha-Melech ha-Mashiach, naturally considered the halacha to be in accord with Rabbi Shim’on; hence, he had the status of a bechor, and was therefore eligible in every way (as we have seen) for the kehunna gdola. His brothers, however, oriented to the realities of living in this world and still very far (as we ourselves know so well) from that ultimate date with destiny, not yet here, begged to disagree. Threy considered the halacha according to the tanna qama, under which Yosef was arguably not a bechor (having been preceded out of Rachel’s womb by Dina), with all that implies.
And therein, I believe, is what underlay the quarrel.
No comments:
Post a Comment