A.
Ya‘aqov on the advice of both his parents, makes his way to Haran, and has an encounter at a place named Luz (XXVIII, 19) where he spends the night and dreams: והנה סלם מצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה והנה מלאכי אלקים עלים וירדים בו: כו' ויקץ יעקב משנתו ויאמר אכן יש ד' במקום הזה ואנכי לא ידעתי: ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה אין זה כי אם בית אלקים וזה שער השמים: (“And behold a ladder was positioned down to the earth, its head reaching to the heavens; and behold angels of G-d ascending and descending on it.... And Ya‘aqov awoke from his sleep and said, Surely, there is Ha-Shem in this place, and I did not know. And he was afraid and said, How awesome is this place! It is none other than the house of G-d and this is the gate of heaven”; ibid., 11-17), whereupon he marks the site with a stele and changes its name to Béyth É-l (“House of G-d”).
Rashi comments on Ya‘aqov’s vision: א"ר אלעזר בשם ר' יוסי בן זמרא הסולם הזה עומד בבאר שבע ואמצע שיפועו מגיע כנגד בית המקדש שבאר שבע עומד בדרומה של יהודה וירושלים בצפונה בגבול שבין יהודה ובנימין ובית א-ל הי' בצפון של נחלת בנימין בגבול שבין בנימין לבין בני יוסף נמצא סולם שרגליו בבאר שבע וראשו בבית א-ל מגיע אמצע שיפועו נגד ירושלים (“Said R’ El‘azar in the name of R’ Yossi ben Zimra, This ladder is standing in Bë’ér Sheva‘ and its midpoint reaches opposite the Beyth ha-Miqdash, for Bë’ér Sheva‘ stands in the south of Yëhuda and Yërushalayim is in its north, on the border between Yëhuda and Binyamin, and Béyth É-l was in the north of the territory of Binyamin, on the border between Binyamin and the bënei Yoséf; it comes out that a ladder whose feet are in Bë’ér Sheva‘ and its head in Béyth É-l reaches its mid-point opposite Yërushalayim”).
Rashi’s comment is puzzling, not least because the Talmud records: ואמר ר' אלעזר מאי דכתיב "והלכו עמים רבים ואמרו לכו ונעלה אל הר ד' אל בית אלקי יעקב וגו'" אלקי יעקב ולא אלקי אברהם ויצחק אלא לא כאברהם שכתוב בו "הר" שנאמר "אשר יאמר היום בהר ד' יראה" ולא כיצחק שכתוב בו שדה שנאמר "ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה" אלא כיעקב שקראו בית שנאמר "ויקרא את שם המקום ההוא בית א-ל" (“And R’ El‘azar said, 'What is written. "And many nations will go and say, 'Go and we shall ascend to Ha-Shem’s mountain, to the house of the G-d of Ya‘aqov....’" [Isaiah II,3]; G-d of Ya‘aqov and not G-d of Avraham and Yitzhaq?! It is not like Avraham, in connection with whom [the Temple is called a] "mountain," as it is said, "as it is said today, 'On the mountain Ha-Shem is seen’" [Genesis XXII, 14]; and it is not like Yitzhaq in connection with whom "field" is written, as it is said, "And Yitzhaq went out to converse in the field" [ibid., XXIV, 63], but like Ya‘aqov who called it "house," as it is said, "And he called the name of that place Béyth É-l...." [ibid., XXVIII, 19]'”; פסחים פ"ח.), i.e., the very same R’ El‘azar asserts that Ya‘aqov’s Béyth É-l is the site of his father’s ‘aqeida, where the Béyth ha-Miqdash would one day be built; in other words, that the head of the ladder was over Yërushalayim, and not the middle.
So how do we reconcile Rabbi El‘azar with himself?
B.
Rashi offers his solution: אמרו יעקב קראו לירושלים בית א-ל וזה לוז ולא ירושלים ומהיכן למדו לומר כן אני אומר שנעקר הר המורי' ובא לכאן וזו היא קפיצת הארץ כו' שבא בית המקדש לקראתו עד בית א-ל וזהו "ויפגע במקום" ואם תאמר כשעבר יעקב אבינו על בית המקדש מדוע לא עכבוהו שם איהו לא יהב לבי' להתפלל במקום שהתפללו אבותיו ומן השמים עכבוהו איהו עד חרן אזל כדאמרינן כו' וקרא מסייע לן "וילך חרנה" כי מטא לחרן אמר אפשר עברתי על מקום שהתפללו אבותי ולא התפללתי יהב דעתי' למהדר וחזר עד בית א-ל קפצה לי' ארעא עד בית א-ל (“[Hazal] said, ‘Ya‘aqov called it Béyth É-l, but this is Luz and not Yërushalayim; so where did they learn to say this? I say that Mt Moriya was uprooted and came hither, and this is the "jumping of the earth" [qëfitzath ha-aretz] said [in the Talmud], that the [site of] the Temple came toward him to Béyth É-l, and this is "And he encountered the place" [XXVIII, 11]; and if you say, When Ya‘aqov our father passed the [site of] the Temple, why was he not detained there? Did he not set his heart to pray in the place his fathers had prayed? And from Heaven he was detained; he went to Haran, as we say [in the Talmud], and Scripture supports us, "And he went to Haran" [ibid., 10], that he reached Haran, and said, "Did I possibly pass by a place where my fathers prayed and I did not pray?" He set his mind to return and returned to Béyth É-l, and the earth jumped for him as far as Béyth É-l'”).
Ramban begs to differ: כל אלה דברי הרב ולא נראו לי כלל (“All of these are [Rashi’s] words, and they are not at all right to me”). He first takes issue with Rashi’s characterization of qëfitzath ha-aretz, which is never described elsewhere as uprooting some geographical feature from its location and bringing it to a person, but rather as shortening one’s journey from one place to another; thus, the Talmud understands that when our parasha asserts וילך יעקב חרנה (“And Ya‘aqov went to Haran”), followed immediately by ןיפגע במקום (“and he encountered the place”), implying that he had not yet reached Haran, it means that Ya‘aqov was miraculously transported back to Har ha-Moriya, the site of the ‘aqeida and future site of the Béyth ha-Miqdash.
Ramban can also find no source for Rashi’s quotation of R’ El‘azar. The closest to it is the following midrash: ר' אלעזר בשם ר' יוסי בן זמרא אמר הסולם הזה עומד בבאר שבע ושפועו מגיע עד ביה"מ מ"ט ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע ויחלום והנה סולם ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה (“R’ El‘azar said in the name of R’ Yossi ben Zimra, 'This ladder is standing in Bë’ér Sheva‘ and its slope reaches to the Béyth ha-Miqdash; what is the justification? “And Ya‘aqov went from Bë’ér Sheva‘...and dreamt, and behold a ladder... And he was afraid, and said, 'How awesome is this place'”'"; בראשית רבה פס"ט סי' ה'); as the Mattënath Këhunna clarifies, the verse is משמע שהי' מכוון עד ב"ה שהוא בית אלקים וזה שער השמים מכוון כנגדו(“making known that [the ladder] was directed toward the Béyth ha-Miqdash which is the ‘house of G-d’, ‘and this is the gate of heaven’ is [also] directed toward it”). Thus, the midrash as it has come down to Ramban and us is consistent with R’ El‘azar’s view in the Talmudic passage cited supra.
However, our midrash continues: א"ר יהודה ב"ר סימון הסולם הזה עומד בביה"מ ושפועו מגיע עד בית א-ל. מ"ט ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה ויקרא שם המקום ההוא בית א-ל (“Said R’ Yëhuda ben R’ Simon, 'This ladder is standing in the Béyth ha-Miqdash and its slope reaches until Béyth É-l. What is the justification? "And he was afraid and he said, 'How awesome is this place and called the name of that place Béyth É-l’”),'" and the Mattënath Këhunna likewise continues that R’ Yëhuda: סבר מדקרא למקום לוז בית א-ל שמע מןנה ששער השמים ששם ראש הסולם מכוון כנגדו ומדייחד המורא למקום ב"ה ששם הי' שוכב ש"מ שלפחות רגלי הסולם הי' שמה וגו' (“reasoned from that he called the place Luz Béyth É-l, it meant that the slope of the ladder is directed to ‘the gate of heaven’ which is there, and since [Ya‘aqov’s] fear is centered on the site of the Beyth ha-Miqdash where he was lying, it is clear that at least the feet of the ladder were there...”; וע"ע פי' הרא"מ שם ברש"י). So, what was Rashi thinking?
C.
Maharal mi-Prag begins his explanation of Rashi’s reasoning by asking a question: What measure of sanctity inheres in the middle of the ladder, such that the Béyth ha-Miqdash should be situated immediately below it? It is not hard to see the sanctity inher-ent in the head, which is in the heavens, or even in the foot, which puts the lower realm into contact with the upper, supernal one; but why the midpoint?
He answers כי דעת רש"י ז"ל שהוא סובר כי ראוי להיות בית המקדש תחת אמצע הסולם נגד בית המקדש שלמעלה כי בזה האופן הי' הסולם נתון בשוה בין בית המקדש שלמעלה ובין בית המקדש שלמטה (“that Rashi’s opinion is that he reasons that it fitting for the Temple to be under the ladder’s mid-point apposite the Temple Above, for in this fashion the ladder is placed equally be-ween the Supernal Beyth ha-Miqdash and the Béyth ha-Miqdash here below”). Were the celestial Temple at one end and the earthly one at the other, it would emphasize not the equivalence and balance between the two, but rather the vast gulf between them.
The head of the ladder is in the heavens, he continues, לומר כי העולם התחתון קשור בעליונים ועולים השמימה כסולם הזה שיש מדריגות בה (“to say that the lower world is bound to supernal things, and ascend heavenward like this ladder on which there are rungs”). There are degrees of sanctity leading ever upward, like the rungs of the ladder. The existence of these levels or degrees of sanctity is the reason why the ladder is angled upward.
אמנם בית המקדש במה שהוא בית וועד השכינה ושם יבא האדם לעבוד את ד' יש בו שני הצדדים מתיחס לעליונים ותחתונים והכל שוים בו כו' ולכך ראוי שיהי' בית המקדש עומד תחת אמצע שפוע הסולם שהסולם הוא התחלפות בין עליונים לתחתונים הולך מצד אל צד ובית המקדש כלול משניהם תחת אמצע הסולם (“However the Temple, insofar as it is the Shëchina’s meeting place, where a man comes to serve Ha-Shem, has both sides, relates to supernal and lower things, and all are equal in it... and therefore it is fitting that the Temple stand beneath the midpoint of the ladder’s slope, for the ladder is the exchange between supernal and lower things, going from side to side, and the béyth ha-Miqdash contains both of them under the ladder’s midpoint”).
Maharal finds support for this thesis in the Talmud: גדולים מעשה צדיקים יותר ממעשה שמים וארץ דאלו במעשה שמים וארץ כתיב "אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים" ואילו במעשה ידיהם של צדיקים כתיב "מכון לשבתך פעלת ד' מקדש אד-ני כוננו ידיך" (“Greater are the deeds of tzaddiqim than the creation of heaven and earth, for concerning heaven and earth it is written, ‘My hand founded earth, and My right hand cultivated heaven’ [Isaiah XLVIII, 13], whilst concerning the handiwork of tzaddiqim it is written ‘An establishment for Your dwelling have you effected, Ha-Shem, a sanctuary, Ad-nai, Your hands have prepared’ [Exodus XV, 17]”; כתובות ה.); thus, since G-d’s left hand created the earth and His right the heavens, they are separate and distinct, and require the ladder to bridge the gap; only the Béyth ha-Miqdash in the middle, made with both hands, unites both worlds.
The foot of the ladder is in Bë’ér Sheva‘ is because it is uniquely positioned to channel blessings into this world (cf. Genesis XXVI, 22-33), and Béyth É-l’s special status is indicated by its name, because הי' בו ענין אלקי כו' כמו שאמרו על בית א-ל שלא שלט שם מלאך המות שמלאך הוא בתחתונים (“it partook of the Divine... as [Hazal] said about Béyth É-l that the angel of death did not reign there, for angels are manifest in the lower realms”).
D.
So does Maharal outline for us Rashi’s rationale, the only problem being that דברי ב"ר לא יסבלו זה (“the words of [the midrash] will not support this”). The midrash offers us Rabbi Yossi, who places the foot of the ladder in Bë’ēr Sheva‘ and its head in Yërushalayim, or Rabbi Yëhuda, who places the foot in the Temple and the head in Béyth É-l; neither appears to be Rashi’s girsa.
The key to this misunderstanding, in my humble opinion, lies in Maharal’s reference to the angel of death having no power in Béyth É-l. The Talmud relates of the original Luz: ר"מ אומר כופין את הלוי' ששכר הלוי' אין לה שיעור שנאמר "ויראו השומרים איש יוצא מן העיר ויאמרו לו הראנו נא את מבוא העיר ועשינו עמך חסד" וכתיב "ויראם את מבוא העיר" ומה חסד עשו עמו שכל אותה העיר הרגו לפי חרב ואותו האיש ומשפחתו שלחו "וילך האיש ארץ החתים ויבן עיר ויקרא שמה לוז וגו" כו' ואף מלאך המות אין לו רשות לעבור בה וגו' (“R’ Mé’ir says, 'One enforces accompaniment [lëvaya], for the reward for lëvaya has no limit, as it is said, "And the sentries saw a man coming out of the city, and said to him, 'Please show us the approach to the city and we shall do kindness with you.’" And it is written, "And he showed them the approach to the city" and what kindness did they do with him? That city was wiped out by the sword, and that man and his family they let go. "And he went to the land of the Hittim and built a city and called its name Luz..." [cf. Judges I, 23-27] and even the angel of death does not have permission to pass through it....'”; סוטה מ"ו:). The midrash (בראשית רבה פס"ט סי' ז') tells substantially the same story (adding the detail that it was called Luz (“almond tree”) because a luz obscured the entrance to a cave through which the approach to the city was gained), and attributes it to R’ El‘azar.
The city taken by the bënei Yoséf in the account supra is the Luz which Rashi describes, on their border with Binyamin. But this Luz surely had no sanctity at all; it was a Canaanite town no less depraved than the others, and it suffered the same fate. The city is noteworthy for the novel way in which it fell, and the spectacular reward given the citizen who betrayed it to Israel and his descendants. That man went elsewhere, to the south (“the land of the Hittim; cf. Genesis XXIII, 3 ff.) and there, presumably on the northern edge of their territory in proximity to Jerusalem, founded the city over which the angel of death held no sway.
The question, then, is where was the Luz whose name Ya‘aqov changed?
In light of this, it seems to me that Rashi saw a version of the midrash which did not survive into the era of Ramban, some 200 years later, and misinterpreted it to refer to the older Luz, later put to the sword by the bënei Yoséf; this is what led him to the conclusion that qëfitzath ha-aretz meant bringing the mountain to Luz/Béyth É-l.
But the Torah often refers to places by names which appear out of sequence, even anachronistic (thus, for instance, Bë’ér Sheva‘ is mentioned by name in Genesis XXI, 14, but its naming occurs only later in v. 31); and so it appears in this case; R’ El‘azar, as we have seen, clearly held that Béyth É-l (and therefore Luz) was in the vicinity of Yërushalayim; the girsa of the midrash used by Rashi, according to which the ladder stretches over the Béyth ha-Miqdash with its head above Béyth É-l, can thus be seen not to contradict any of the other statements of R’ El‘azar.
And Maharal’s sublime explanation of the midrashic rationale remains perfectly valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment