Our parasha tells of Moshe’s farewell to his father-in-law. It will be remembered that Moshe had married Tzippora, the daughter of Yithro, during his sojourn in Midyan (cf. Exodus II, 21). When Yithro heard of the Exodus, he brought Tzippora and their two sons, Eli‘ezer and Gershom, to Israel’s encampment at the foot of Mt. Sinai. There, Yithro, decided to join Israel, and underwent conversion (géruth), whereupon he took the additional name Chovav (as he is called in our parasha) על שחבב את התורה (“because he held the Torah to be precious [chibbév]”; רש"י לי' כ"ט עפ"י הספרי).
As Yithro/Chovav prepared to take his leave and return to his native land, Moshe begged him to stay with them: אל נא תעזב אתנו כי על כן ידעת חנתנו במדבר והיית לנו לעינים (“Please don’t leave us, since for this reason you have full and complete knowledge of our circumstances camping in the desert, and you have been/will be like our eyes”; X, 31, with a little help from Rashi).
Rashi offers three possible interpretations of the last clause in the verse:
1) Following Onqelos, he reads the verb v’hayitha as perfective, and explains that Yithro saw the miraculous events surrounding Israel in the desert with his own eyes;
2) Reading the verb v’hayitha as imperfective, that Yithro from his own, unique and fresh perspective would perceive many things which the bnei Yisra’él might overlook, such that he would “enlighten their eyes”;
3) שתהא חביב עלינו כגלגל עינינו שנא' "ואהבתם את הגר" (“That you will be as precious as the ball of our eyes, as it is said, ‘And you will love the gér” [Deuteronomy X, 19]”).
The Sifthei Chachamim tells us that each of these explanations is somewhat unsatisfactory: The first is difficult grammatically, for it fails to account properly for the word lanu (“to/for us”); the second is difficult, he writes, שהשכינה ביניהם שמאיר עיניהם ע"י משה ומה להם ליתרו(“for the Divine Presence was amongst them, enlightening their eyes through Moshe, so what need had they of Yithro?”). Hence, he concludes, Rashi preferred the third explanation, as we deduce from the fact that it is last in the series, but this, too, is a bit difficult, as one would expect the last word to read k‘éynayim (“like eyes”) rather than l‘éynayim (“to/for eyes”), for which reason, he concludes, Rashi also decided to cite the first two explanations.
Why, then, does the word read l‘éynayim? And whilst we’re asking questions, why should it be that the eyeball is, apparently, more precious than any other organ or limb in the body?
B.
The fact that the Torah sees the necessity for a separate mitzva of ahavath ha-gér, as distinct from the general mitzva of ahavath Yisra’él, is itself interesting. A true gér tzedeq, after all, is someone who has accomplished a feat comparable to that of Avraham avinu. All by himself, he has come not only to the recognition of the Creator, and not only to understand that His existence implies that mankind, created in His “image,” has a purpose in that Creation, outlined in specific obligations imposed upon him by his Creator. That recognition could be amply satisfied by his consciously and conscientiously assuming the Seven Noachide Mitzvoth, whose observance marks him as a tzaddiq ummoth ha-‘olam, a “righteous member of the nations,” who thereby secures a part in the world to come (עיי' רמב"ם הל' מלכים פ"ט ופ"י).
The gér tzedeq goes beyond that, and entirely voluntarily takes on himself the 613 mitvoth commanded to Israel, thereby joining the world’s ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation”; Exodus XIX, 6), so called because they are responsible, by means of exemplary lives led in service to Ha-Shem through observance of His Torah, for showing the nations of the world what a human being truly can and should be.
No wonder Chazal are effusive in their praise of gérim, telling us, e.g.: בא וראה כמה חביבין הגרים לפני הקב"ה כיון שנתנה דעתה להתגייר השוה הכתוב אתה לנעמי (“Come and see how precious are gérim before the Holy One, Blessed is He; since [Ruth] made up her mind to be converted, Scripture has compared her to Naomi”; רות רבה פ"ג סי' ה'); or חביבין הגרים שבכל מקום שנקראו נקראו כישראל (“Precious are the gérim, for in every place that they are mentioned, they are mentioned like Israel; במדבר רבה פ"ח סי' ב'); or גרים שעוסקים בתורה שקולים הם ככהן גדול (“Gérim who are occupied in Torah are considered equal to a kohén gadol”; מדרש תנחומא פר' ויקהל סי' ח' ); or גר שנתגייר לשם שמים זוכה שיוצאים מבניו בנים שיהא הקדשים שלהם (“A gér who has been converted for the sake of heaven merits that from his sons will come forth sons who will have sacred donations [i.e., they will be kohanim]”; במדבר רבה פ"ח סי' י').
C.
But the path to true géruth is a very difficult one; the ties of habit and family are strong, and it is hard to overcome one’s upbringing and childhood. Witness, as a case in point, the account of the ‘erev rav, the “mixed multitude” who, overawed by the miraculous events surrounding Egypt’s downfall and Israel’s liberation and exodus, accompanied Israel to the foot of Mt. Sinai. When, through a misunderstanding, they miscalculated the day on which Moshe was to descend from the mountain-top, they panicked, forced Aharon to enable the making of the Golden Calf, and their panic infected some of the weaker members of the bnei Yisra’él (Exodus XXXI, cf. A”z Yashir, parshath Ki Thissa, 5769).
So, Chazal also tell us: קשים גרים לישראל כספחת (“Gérim are as hard on Israel as a sappachath” [one of the manifestations of tzora‘ath; cf. Leviticus XIII, 1ff.]; יבמות מ"ז:). Gérim may not only be guilty of backsliding themselves; they may take weaker members of the Holy Nation with them.
In short, géruth is a two-edged sword, and both edges are reflected in the Torah’s somewhat ambiguous attitude toward gérim.
Now, elsewhere in the Talmud we find: ארבעה חשובים כמתים, עני ומצורע וסומא ומי שאין לו בנים (“Four [categories of people] are considered as if they are dead: A destitute person and a m’tzora‘ and a blind person and one who has no children”; נדרים ס"ד:).
Each of these categories has a Biblical basis; for instance a poor man is derived from the passage כי מתו כל האנשים (For all of the men are dead,” said of Dathan and Aviram, even though both were very much alive, since they had become impoverished; Exodus IV, 19, Rashi ad loc. A m’tzora‘ is derived from the passage אל נא תהי כמת (“Please don’t let her be like a dead person,” said by Aharon of Miriam when she was afflicted with tzora‘ath; Numbers XII, 12). A blind person is derived from במחשכים הושבני כמתי עולם (He has seated me amongst those who are in the dark, like the dead of the world”; Lamentations III, 5), and childless person is derived from Rachel’s lament, הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי (“I must have children, and if not, I am dead”; Genesis XXX, 2).
Hence, we see that there is an equivalency between a m’tzora‘ and a blind man, both of which are considered living death, the former because his condition forces him to live outside of human habitation, alone and in exile, the latter because his condition prevents him from reading and hence learning Torah, the עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה ) "Tree of Life to those who cling to it”; cf. Proverbs III, 16-18). For this reason, it seems to me, functioning eyes, in the view of a society based upon Torah and steeped in Torah, are precious indeed, for they stave off a living death.
And so Chazal apply this equivalency to gérim, who can be as hard on Israel as the living death brought on by a sappachath, when they fail, but are as precious as one’s eyes, providing a sterling example through their entirely voluntary grasping of the Tree of Life, when they are successful.
D.
So why did Moshe say v’hayitha lanu l‘éynayim rather than k‘énayim?
I believe that, having so recently witnessed the sad object lesson provided by the ‘erev rav, he was very concerned for his father-in-law. Yithro had just finished undergoing géruth, and was about to return to the land and people whence he had come, with all their idolatrous ways. Would it not be better for him to remain amongst Israel, to grow with them as he learnt Torah together with them, to elevate himself in his level of ‘avoda?
The idiomatic usage of the verb haya followed by an object construed with the prefix l is “to become.” Yithro, Moshe promised, if he remained amongst Israel would become as precious through his example to the native bnei Yisra’él as their very eyes.
So that actual usage of the final clause in fact dovetails very nicely with Rashi’s preferred explanation, Q.E.D.]”; רש"י לי' כ"ט עפ"י הספרי).
No comments:
Post a Comment