The story of Yosef reaches its climax; Yosef reveals himself to his brothers, sending them home with wagon-loads of gifts and provisions, bringing the joyous news to Ya’aqov that his beloved son was alive and running the Egyptian administration: ולאביו שלח כזאת עשרה חמרים נשאים מטוב מצרים וגו' (“And to his father he sent similarly, ten donkeys bearing [samples] of the best of Egypt.... XLV, 23).
The Talmud asks what this “best of Egypt” might have been, and answers: אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר, שלח לו יין ישן שדעת זקנים נוחה הימנו (“Said Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefeth, said Rabbi El’azar, He sent him old wine with which the opinion of elders is comfortable;” מגילה י"ז:).
This statement is startling, in light of the well-known halacha סתם יינם של עממים עובדי כוכבים אסור בהנאה וה"ה למגעם ביין שלנו (“It is prohibited to have any benefit [hana’a] from the ordinary wine of idolatrous nations, and this is the case when they come into contact with our wine;” שו"ע יו"ד סי' קכ"ג סעיף א', מבוסס על ע"ז כ"ט.), and the oft-repeated statement that the Patriarchs observed the entire Torah voluntarily before it had been commanded to Israel.
So what sort of use could Yosef expect his father to make of wine from Egypt?
B.
We begin our search for an answer by asking another question: What, precisely is this “old wine” of which “elders” approve? Who are these elders?
A careful search of the written Torah reveals that there are three individuals designated by the term zaqén (“elder”): Avraham, concerning whom we read, ואברהם זקן בא בימים (“And Avraham was an elder, advanced in age;” Genesis XXIV, 1); Yitzchaq, concerning whom we read, ויהי כי זקן יצחק (“And it was that Yitzchaq was an elder;” ibid., XXVII, 1); and Lot, concerning whom we read, ותאמר הבכירה וכו' אבינו זקן (“And the elder daughter said... Our father is an elder;” ibid., XIX, 31).
A little more research reveals something else which each of these zqénim had in common:
After Avraham’s victory over the Five Kings, when he had routed the invaders from the environs of the city of Shalem, we read: ומלכי צדק מלך שלם הוציא לחם ויין (“And Malki Tzedeq, king of Shalem, brought forth [to Avraham] bread and wine;” ibid., XIV, 18), and the midrash tells us that this wine was a special vintage brought forth from Gan Êden, where it had been preserved by the Creator since the six days of Creation for tzaddiqim (ילקוט ראובני, פרשת תולדות, ד"ה אותו יין).
Concerning Yitzchaq, we find: ויבא לו יין וישת (“And [Ya’aqov] brought [Yitzchaq] wine and he drank”; ibid., XXVII,25), and the Targum Yonathan elaborates: ואזדמן לי' מלאכא ואייתי לי' חמרא דאצטנע בענבויי מן יומי שירוי עלמא ויהבי' ביד יעקב ויעקב אמטי לי' לאבוי ושתי (“And an angel was placed at his disposal and brought him wine which had been hidden away in grapes from the days of the world’s creation, and he gave it into Ya’aqov’s hand and Ya’aqov offered it to his father and he drank;” ע"ע דעת זקנים לבעלי תוסופות עה"פ).
Finally, concerning Lot, we read: ותשקין את אביהן יין (“And [the daughters] gave their father wine to drink”; ibid., XIX,33), and the midrash asks how it happened that wine was available in the cave where they had hidden, and answers: נעשה להם מעין דוגמא של העוה"ב (“A sort of sample of the world of to come was made for them [in the cave”]; ב"ר פנ"א סי' י'), whence we can infer that the wine was again of that unique, select vintage, reserved by the Al-Mighty for such special occasions.
In other words, it appears that “old wine with which the opinion of elders is comfortable” refers to this unique wine; if so, then, this is the very special wine which Ya’aqov sent his father.
But, as we have already seen, the Shulchan Âruch quite clearly states וה"ה במגעם ביין שלנו, “and this is the case [even] when they touch our wine,” i.e., being handled by the Egyptians, and should have rendered it unfit for kosher consumption. So again, how could Yosef send such wine to his father?
C.
The written Torah tells us, concerning Canaanite idolatrous installations involving shade trees on prominent hills (ashéroth), ואשריהם תשרפון באש (“And their ashéroth shall you burn with fire;” Deuteronomy XXII, 3), and in the Talmud Rabbi El’azar protests: מכדי ירושה היא להם מאבותיהם ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו (“But [Eretz Yisra’él and its products] are an inheritance to [Israel] from their forefathers, and one cannot render prohibited something which is not his!”). Hence, Israel should not have to destroy the trees.
The gmara concurs that this objection would be valid, אלא מדפלחו ישראל לעגל גלו אדעתייהו דניחא להו עבודת כוכבים וכי אתו עובדי כוכבים שליחותא דידהו עבדי (“but ever since Israel had worshipped the calf, they revealed that they were comfortable with idolatry, and when idolators came [to worship] they acted on [Israel’s] behalf;” עבודה זרה נ"ג:).
Rabbi Refa’el Yom Tov Lippmann Heilprin, late 19th century rav of Białystok, devoted an extensive study to the ramifications of this principle that one cannot prohibit a thing which one does not own, in which he examines Rabbi El’azar’s objection: Why, he asks, does Rabbi El’azar raise this objection, when it is clear that (for instance, wine) may indeed be rendered forbidden even though the idolator who touches it does not own it. He answers that the two cases are different: In the case of the bottle of kosher wine, the touch of the idolator prohibits any hana’a from the wine; hence, one cannot sell it or otherwise get any use of it, and so the Jew’s ownership of the wine in question simply evaporates.
Eretz Yisra’él, however (as we see in the very first Rashi in Chumash) was specifically given to Israel as an inheritance by its original, true owner, the Al-Mighty, וכיון דרחמנא בטל קנינים באפקעתא דמלכא לא מהני להו קנין למקני למהוי דידהו, להכי פריך הא א"א אוסר דשא"ש (“and since the Merciful One terminates possession by royal fiat, no method of taking possession avails [the Canaanites] to take possession and make [the Land] theirs; for this reason [Rabbi El’azar] asked on the basis of one may not prohibit a thing which one does not own;” שו"ת עונג יום טוב סי' נ"ט בהגה"ה השני').
So Rabbi El’azar is internally consistent: Property awarded by G-d, under G-d’s direct supervision, cannot be alienated. Eretz Yisra’él was granted to Âm Yisra’él by Divine fiat, and hence Israel’s ownership should not be abrogated by any of the usual devices which transfer ownership. Similarly, the unique, select vintage preserved by the Creator in Gan Êden for tzaddiqim cannot be alienated, and so the Egyptians’ impure touch cannot affect it.
But the halacha does not side with Rabbi El’azar’s spirited objection. The Canaanites were able to alienate trees planted in holy soil through their actions, such that those trees could only be destroyed; Israel could have no hana’a from them. Yet, if we return to our original Talmudic statement concerning the wine which Yosef sent his father, we find no objection, no alternate opinion to Rabbi El’azar’s; the gmara simply accepts his verdict and moves on. Why?
D.
The reason, it seems to me, is expressly stated in the first midrash quoted: The wine was set aside only for tzaddiqim, and it is certainly, unquestionably true that tzaddiqim have never been “comfortable” with idolatry. It would therefore seem to be the case that this very special wine, reserved only for tzaddiqim, was not subject to such a gilluy da’âth, a revelation of opinion, as Israel’s worship of an idol revealed concerning the Holy Land.
Was Lot, then, really a tzaddiq, fit for the company of Avraham and Yitzchaq?
The Divine calculus which is applied to the judgment of groups in general, and nations in particular, it seems to me, is revealed in the second paragraph of the Shma (Deuteronomy XI, 13-21) as a matter of statistics and trend analysis: So long as the majority are tzaddiqim, and the general trend is in a positive direction, the group is judged favorably. In a group consisting of Avraham, Yitzchaq, and Lot, the majority certainly qualified as tzaddiqim, and their is no question but that the trend in their circle was upward. Hence, Lot was carried along with them.
This, it seems to me, could also be the case with our Holy Land. Whilst it is true that the general run of Israel had worshipped the calf, there certainly were tzaddiqim (largely from the tribe of Levi) who resisted, and never made such a revelation.
Some of our people today, sadly, think little of the Temple Mount and other Holy sites, and are willing to leave them in the impure hands of others. Faithful, observant Israel know better, and do not renounce our ownership of the sacred soil.
A remarkable revival has been in process, both in the Holy Land and in the Diaspora, in recent decades. The trend toward secularization is being reversed, now, in our days. When faithful Israel come to be once again the majority of the Jewish people, and the trend continues to be upward, our “deed” to the Holy Land will be truly incontestable.
May it happen soon, and may we see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment