A Thought On Parshas VaYeshev
A Thought On Parshas VaYeshev
"...henei shalachti ha'gedi ha'zeh..."
"...look, I have sent this goat..." (38:23)
The incident at the crossroads involving Yehuda and Tamar has been interpreted at many levels. Our sages have taught that the encounter between these two figures, both of whom served significant roles in the evolution of Klal Yisroel, was motivated by lofty and pure intentions.
Nonetheless, one sits back and wonders what the lesson is. With all of the clarification of who intended what in that liaison, we still can inquire what the Torah wishes us to derive from this saga. A case of mistaken identity resulted in a union which fostered our monarchy. We understand this at the level of historical significance but what else does it teach us?
The Rambam (Moreh HaNevuchim III:49) writes that Yehuda emulated the quality of integrity which he had learned from his father Yakov and his grandfather Yitzchak. In ancient times, the relationship between a man and woman, such as that depicted in the parsha, was a forerunner of the marriage instructed by the Torah. In halachic marriage, the money which belongs to the wife is to be safeguarded for her and in the event of divorce, it must be given back to her. "There is no difference between withholding a worker's wages or a wife's rights to her property", says the Rambam. "There is no difference between oppressing a worker until he foregoes his right to be paid, slandering an employee as a ruse for refusing to pay him, or abusing a wife or maligning her as a means of getting her to leave a marriage and relinquish what is rightfully hers."
In the centuries before the giving of the Torah, whereas a consensual encounter between a man and an unknown woman was permitted, the man could not "send her away" in an uncaring or demeaning manner. Rather, the "payment" delivered her was tantamount to the dowry returned at a halachic divorce. This was why Yehuda was insistent on locating the mysterious woman from the crossroads and assuring that she be sent away with the payment. Moreover, the verse enunciates "ha'gedi ha'zeh" - this specific goat. Not only did Yehuda seek to honor his pledge but the specificity implies that the goat was a costly one.
To the person of halacha, it matters not why we are paying someone or how we came to owe money. A debt must be paid and it must be paid in a dignified and honorable manner. This is the halachic lesson of our verse, says the Rambam, along with its ethical overtone.
* * * * *
The Rosh offers a creative insight from this passage. He notes that Chazal declared, "(fortunate is one who) is suspected of a misdeed which he did not commit" (Shabbos 118b). How did our sages derive this? The Torah says that Yehuda "suspected" that Tamar had been unfaithful. It also says that Eli the Kohen "suspected" that Channa was drunk (Shmuel I, 1:13). The same word va'yachshaveha surfaces in reference to Avraham (Bereishis 15:6) but takes on the meaning "and it was considered just."
We see from our parsha that Tamar was cleared of suspicion and became the progenitor of royalty and prophets. Channa was cleared of suspicion and became the mother of a leader and prophet. In both places, the word va'yachshaveha signifies "suspicion" and in the third place it means "to be considered just." From these three sources we derive that being held under misplaced suspicion will merit a just and positive outcome.
The Rambam sees man's imperative to be just in Yehuda's deeds. The Rosh sees Divine justice in the blessing bestowed upon Tamar. Good Shabbos. D Fox
"...henei shalachti ha'gedi ha'zeh..."
"...look, I have sent this goat..." (38:23)
The incident at the crossroads involving Yehuda and Tamar has been interpreted at many levels. Our sages have taught that the encounter between these two figures, both of whom served significant roles in the evolution of Klal Yisroel, was motivated by lofty and pure intentions.
Nonetheless, one sits back and wonders what the lesson is. With all of the clarification of who intended what in that liaison, we still can inquire what the Torah wishes us to derive from this saga. A case of mistaken identity resulted in a union which fostered our monarchy. We understand this at the level of historical significance but what else does it teach us?
The Rambam (Moreh HaNevuchim III:49) writes that Yehuda emulated the quality of integrity which he had learned from his father Yakov and his grandfather Yitzchak. In ancient times, the relationship between a man and woman, such as that depicted in the parsha, was a forerunner of the marriage instructed by the Torah. In halachic marriage, the money which belongs to the wife is to be safeguarded for her and in the event of divorce, it must be given back to her. "There is no difference between withholding a worker's wages or a wife's rights to her property", says the Rambam. "There is no difference between oppressing a worker until he foregoes his right to be paid, slandering an employee as a ruse for refusing to pay him, or abusing a wife or maligning her as a means of getting her to leave a marriage and relinquish what is rightfully hers."
In the centuries before the giving of the Torah, whereas a consensual encounter between a man and an unknown woman was permitted, the man could not "send her away" in an uncaring or demeaning manner. Rather, the "payment" delivered her was tantamount to the dowry returned at a halachic divorce. This was why Yehuda was insistent on locating the mysterious woman from the crossroads and assuring that she be sent away with the payment. Moreover, the verse enunciates "ha'gedi ha'zeh" - this specific goat. Not only did Yehuda seek to honor his pledge but the specificity implies that the goat was a costly one.
To the person of halacha, it matters not why we are paying someone or how we came to owe money. A debt must be paid and it must be paid in a dignified and honorable manner. This is the halachic lesson of our verse, says the Rambam, along with its ethical overtone.
* * * * *
The Rosh offers a creative insight from this passage. He notes that Chazal declared, "(fortunate is one who) is suspected of a misdeed which he did not commit" (Shabbos 118b). How did our sages derive this? The Torah says that Yehuda "suspected" that Tamar had been unfaithful. It also says that Eli the Kohen "suspected" that Channa was drunk (Shmuel I, 1:13). The same word va'yachshaveha surfaces in reference to Avraham (Bereishis 15:6) but takes on the meaning "and it was considered just."
We see from our parsha that Tamar was cleared of suspicion and became the progenitor of royalty and prophets. Channa was cleared of suspicion and became the mother of a leader and prophet. In both places, the word va'yachshaveha signifies "suspicion" and in the third place it means "to be considered just." From these three sources we derive that being held under misplaced suspicion will merit a just and positive outcome.
The Rambam sees man's imperative to be just in Yehuda's deeds. The Rosh sees Divine justice in the blessing bestowed upon Tamar. Good Shabbos. D Fox
posted by Rabbi Dr. Fox at 5:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home