Hartman

 

One of the famous stories of Channukah is that of Channah, who instructed her seven sons to be killed rather than bow down to Antiochus. Jews, even now, have a very strong aversion to bowing, and are often perturbed when visiting countries in the Far East, or participating in martial arts, where bowing is used as a formal greeting.

When the ten brothers go down to Egypt and meet Pharaoh’s vizier (Yosef) to buy food, however, they all bow down to him. Where was the brothers’ Jewish pride? Was it even an aveirah for them to have bowed down? What’s more, Rashi’s explanation makes things worse. He explains here that it was a complete, full-body bow, with arms and legs spread out. (Ber. 42:6).

To see if Rashi had any consistent thoughts on Jews bowing down to other people, I checked his commentary on a number other instances where similar situations occur: Yaakov bowing down to Eisav, Avraham bowing down to the Children of Heth, and Moshe bowing down to Yisro.

Where Yaakov and his entire family bow down to Eisav upon their return to Canaan (Ber. 33:3, 33:6-7), Rashi says nothing.

When Avraham bows down to the Children of Heth (Ber. 23:7, 23:12), Rashi also says nothing, despite the fact that there is a Midrash Rabbah which comes to explain that he bowed to thank Hashem for the good news (that a burial ground for Sarah could be purchased), and was not, in fact, bowing to the Children of Heth. This is particularly striking, since Rashi clearly demonstrated his awareness of this very Midrash by quoting it to explain why Eliezer bowed down to Hashem after Lavan and Bethuel allowed Rivka to go with him (Ber. 24:52).

When Yisro comes to meet Moshe, the pasuk is not completely clear who bows to whom.

“וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ לְשָׁלוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֹהֱלָה ” (Ex. 18:7)

Even though Rashi could have easily opted to have Yisro bow down to Moshe, Rashi admits that he doesn’t know who bowed to whom, and then volunteers his suggestion that it was Moshe who bowed down to Yisro!

Despite my initial surprise, Rashi appears to express no concern about Jews in the Chumash bowing to others in greeting.

If bowing to people per se is not a problem, what was the reason behind Channah’s refusal to bow down to Antiochus? The difference was that Antiochus forced the Jews to bow down to him as part of a policy of establishing idolatry and eradicating the Jewish religion. He set himself up as a god to be worshipped instead of G-d.

In answering the question of why Mordechai refused to bow down to Haman, Rashi explains that Mordechai’s refusal was justified because Haman had set himself up as a god to be worshipped. Given the analogous situation with Antiochus, Rashi could very well have agreed with Channah’s decision in the terrible choice she faced.

 

In the story of Eliezer’s Journey to Aram Naharaim to search for a bride for Yitzchak, his master Avraham’s son, there is an interesting feature in the narrative.  In the first part of the story, Eliezer is consistently referred to by the narrative voice as הָעֶבֶד – the servant, right up to the point where he runs to speak with Rivka at the well ” וַיָּרָץ הָעֶבֶד לִקְרָאתָהּ”  (Ber.24:17).  However, from that point onwards, he is referred to by the narrative voice as הָאִישׁ – the man (Ber. 24:21, 24:26, 24:29, 24:32), through most of the encounter with Rivka and her family.  However, after Eliezer gives his speech explaining his mission to her family, and Lavan and Bethuel agrees to give Yitzchak their daughter’s hand in marriage, the Torah reverts to calling Eliezer הָעֶבֶד.  

A simple pshat-level explanation is that the Torah is using the narrative voice to reflect how Eliezer is viewed by the characters around him at the various points in the story.  When Eliezer is with Avraham, and traveling with his men, Eliezer’s primary role is that of a servant.  However, how Eliezer is perceived changes dramatically once Rivka and her family encounters him.  Now, Eliezer is no mere servant.  He is the leader of an entire entourage of Avraham’s men, traveling in a convoy of camels, most likely impressively dressed, and presents Rivka with jewelry soon after they meet.  Indeed, Rivka herself tells Lavan about how she met “the man” (Ber. 24:30).  However, once Eliezer officially introduces himself, saying עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם אָנֹכִי “I am Avraham’s servant”, and finishes explaining to Rivka’s family his mission on behalf of his master, the Torah reverts to having Eliezer be הָעֶבֶד – the servant.

R’ Bachya, however, has a novel reading of this change of Eliezer’s status.  He notes that back in the beginning of the story (Ber. 24:7), Avraham promises Eliezer that his mission will be successful and tells him הוּא יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ – “He (G-d) will send His angel before you”.  He further notes that the term הָאִישׁ is used at other times to refer an angel.  The Book of Daniel refers to the angel Gavriel as הָאִישׁ, and the man (הָאִישׁ) that guides Joseph to his brothers (Ber. 36) is understood to have been an angel.  Therefore, R’ Bachya writes,  “Once it is clear to him (Eliezer) that the angel is with him, his status is changed to a man (from a servant), and he is henceforth called אִישׁ, according to the name of the angel that is with him, who is called אִישׁ” (R’ Bachya, on Ber. 24:15).  Then, once Lavan and Bethuel say הִנֵּה רִבְקָה לְפָנֶיךָ קַח וָלֵךְ וּתְהִי אִשָּׁה לְבֶן אֲדֹנֶיךָ – “Behold Rebecca is before you, take [her] and go, and let her be a wife for your master’s son,” the mission is basically completed with success, Eliezer is back to being called “the servant”.  The angel is no longer involved, because Avrahams’ prayer that invoked angelic assistance has now been answered.

This commentary presents a beautiful idea about the interaction of angels with man. The usual image of angelic assistance is that of a winged being hovering around a person, helping him avoid danger and guiding him to success by pushing things this way and that.  The image that R’ Bachya presents is different.  Eliezer, at the crucial moments of his mission, is filled up with a divine emanation that changes his whole being, to the point that he is acting on behalf of the angel, and the angel is acting through him.

 

The episode of the tower of Babel is a curious one.  It’s one of the 4 major stories preceding Abraham, together with Adam and Chava’s sin, Kayin’s murder of Hevel and the Flood.  Nevertheless, the entire story is very short – only 9 pasukim recount the entire sequence of events from beginning to end – and  although it’s clear that the builders of the tower sinned, it’s not clear exactly what their sin was.

Indeed, the Midrash (Bereshis Rabbah) elaborates on Ber. 11:1 “Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words”, and explains that “uniform words”,  (וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים) should be instead understood as “words which are kept isolated (i.e., made inaccessible)”.  Whereas the Torah revealed the sin of the generation of the deluge, it did not spell out the sin of the generation of the tower.

To fill that gap, mepharshim bring many explanations and suggestions of what the sin was.  A particularly interesting set of explanations is given by Rabbeinu Bachya.  He posits that the builders were very advanced in matters of philosophy and technology, but decided to use their great abilities in a sinful manner.  They constructed the tower in order to protect themselves against a deluge of fire (since G-d has already promised not to bring a deluge of water).  Towards this end, they tried to isolate and tame the power of fire in order to neutralize it so that if could not engulf their city.  This is the reason they made the tower with bricks which are made through baking in a kiln (See Ber. 11:3) and is fire-resistant.  In addition, although they were very powerful (See Ber 11:6), they knew that they were destined to die.  Therefore, they planned to scale heaven while alive in order to overcome the impediment of mortality that was imposed upon them.  Their aim was to overcome the decree issued against Adam.  In order to prevent this from happening, G-d confused their language and scattered them.

At a more spiritual level, Rabbeinu Bachya explains that in building the tower, man had tried to separate the role of the attribute of Judgment, as exemplified by the divine name of El-kim from the role of the attribute of Mercy, as exemplified by יְ־הֹוָ־ה  , and they wanted only “nature”, as represented by the attribute of Judgment (El-kim).

What does it mean that the generation of the tower wanted only “nature”, divorced from the attribute of Mercy?  Perhaps it means that the builders of the tower did not want a personal relationship with G-d, and did not want their destiny dependent on whether or not their attitudes and actions met with divine approval.  Being in a relationship is difficult – one always has to think about what the other party wants, whether that other party is a human being or G-d.  The attribute of Mercy is what makes a relationship possible.  On the other hand, the attribute of Justice, divorced from Mercy, is totally mechanical and no relationship can be formed with it.  The builders wanted to divorce themselves from a relationship with God because they had such success with their achievements in wielding the predictable system of nature, which is inert and has no personality for man to form a relationship with.

This attitude is exemplified by the particular sins R’ Bachya identifies.  By making the fireproof tower, the builders sought to themselves impervious to another flood or any other divine punishment that might come their way.  Attempting to cut off oneself from the possibility of divine punishment could be imagined to be liberating, but in reality, that same attempt severs the possibility of having a relationship with G-d.  After all, divine punishment is but one conduit of divine communication.  In addition, the builders of the tower wanted to achieve immortality by entering heaven directly, through their own power and technological prowess.  However, this is not what G-d wanted of man.  G-d wanted the people to achieve immortality through attaching themselves to Him.

It appears that R’ Bachya, even in his day, was aware that technological prowess and philosophical sophistication can go hand-in-hand with an attempt to diminish the idea of a personal G-d, and he leads the reader through the story of the tower as a warning and a guide for man’s proper moral development.

© 2012 myDvar.com Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site