Odd twinship in the line to kingship

Overturning the firstborn

It is well known that the role of the firstborn in the ancient Near East was of great cultural, social, and legal significance. It carried responsibilities, privileges, and symbolic meaning. We can see this in the plague of the firstborn, with the Egyptians being hit where it hurt.

But in the Torah narratives, especially in Bereshit, this whole notion of the firstborn being the one to get the inheritance, and the priority in the lineage, is constantly being overturned.

Already in the Cain and Abel story, G-d favours Abel. Arriving at the beginnings of the Jewish nation, Abraham may be the firstborn – at least he appears so, according to the verse listing Terah’s sons. However Isaac is not, and neither is Jacob. The son of Jacob who receives the kingly line –

Judah – is not. Joseph is a kind of firstborn, of Rachel, but his sons Menashe and Ephraim have their birth order reversed by Jacob when he blesses them and crosses his hands to privilege Ephraim the younger.

This is the bloodline leading down to King David – who himself is very much the youngest son, so much so he is overlooked initially for the anointing by Samuel.

Odd twin behaviour at birth 

Going one step further, though: what is interesting within the ancestors of King David is that we find two sets of twins, both of which exhibit strange behaviours at birth. In Toldot we have Jacob coming out of the womb grabbing Esau’s heel. The symbolism of might vary but one reasonable possibility is that this seems to be an attempt to overtake him in birth order.

Jacob buys the birthright off Esau in a not particularly nice way. (G-d does not reverse this, but Jacob is punished by having Lavan deceive him later by giving him Leah the firstborn instead of Rachel the younger). What this means is that in the case of Jacob and Esau, unlike with Isaac or Judah, the legacy and privilege doesn’t cleanly and clearly pass to a younger sibling. Rather, the firstborn status is muddied. Here, we have a biological firstborn, but his younger brother has managed to grab that status off him, purchased by a bowl of soup. Perhaps had Jacob let things unfold naturally, he would have received the divine legacy as the younger son, in some obvious way. Instead we have a somewhat muddy and ambiguous thing going on in terms of who is the real firstborn, with a proactive coup.

Fast forward to the second set of twins: those Judah has with Tamar. Also a strange story, she is married off to his two sons and they both die, and he doesn’t give her to this third son as he ought to. So she dresses as a prostitute and becomes pregnant from him. She gives birth to twins but here too something ambiguous happens. At the birth, one baby puts his hand out, and the midwife immediately ties a piece of red string around it to mark that he is the firstborn. But then he puts his hand back in again and then the other comes out. So who is the firstborn here? Seemingly the other, Peretz, who actually came out first (his name means “breach” as he broke through). Yet Zerach has a red string around his little wrist, which normally indicates a firstborn. (His is the firstborn hand!) So once again, something indistinct and unclear has occurred.

Wave/Particle Theory

Something about this reminds me of wave/particle theory in physics. Both progenitors of David – Jacob and Peretz – are the firstborn and yet simultaneously in some aspect not the firstborn.

I feel as if this is a legacy passed down to King David, to be able to be contradictory things simultaneously: a dedicated servant to God who is also able to take another man’s wife and try to send him to his death. A warrior and a poet. Our most celebrated King is like the wave/particle. He is born of ambiguity and he reminds us that life is not clear cut, not always “either/or” but sometimes ‘also this and that”.

Job IS the Phoenix

Did you know that the phoenix appears in Jewish tradition?
There are a number of sources for it.

It is said to have been at the Garden of Eden, the only animal that did not accept Eve’s offer to eat of the forbidden fruit.“It lives a thousand years, and at the end of a thousand years, fire emerges from its nest and burns it. An egg-bulk remains of it and it then grows limbs, and lives again," the midrash tells us.

It is also said to have been in the ark, where, in an alternative explanation for its longevity, Noah blessed it with eternal life after it modestly did not want to trouble him to feed it.

But both interesting and odd is to find it referenced in Job (29:18).

And I said [to myself], I shall die in my nest;
and my days shall be numbered like the sand.

Rashi, drawing on the midrash, explains on the word “sand”:

This is referring to a bird known as חול (the Phoenix), and the punishment of death was not laid upon it, for it did not taste from the tree of Knowledge [at the sin of Adam and Eve]. After 1,000 years, it renews itself and returns to its youth.

In other words, Job had expected his days to be numbered like the sand bird, namely the phoenix. He had expected to live a long life.

Now what is intriguing about the phoenix is that it is not a creature that is simply immortal – that simply lives forever without death. Rather, the intriguing and unique aspect of the phoenix is that it dies and is reborn. Its old self dies in flames and its new self is reborn.

The verse in Job is meant to be a lament for what is lost.

That chapter (29) begins with the bereft and broken Job crying out “O that I were as in months past, as in the days when God preserved me.” Those were the days when he expected to die peacefully at home of old age.

And yet, the unusual connection made by the midrash between this verse and the phoenix made me think about it in greater depth. And I realised: Job indeed was like the phoenix. His old life went up in flames, he lost his children, his possessions, his health - everything. And yet, after going through an excruciating process of pain and questioning, Job is finally given a mysterious revelation and rests his quest, accepting that the divine plan cannot be known, it shall always remain beyond human grasp.

At that point, in the final verses of the book (chapter 40) we are told:

12. So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning; for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand female asses. 13. He also had seven sons and three daughters. 14. And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Keren-Happuch. 15. And in all the land no women were found so pretty as the daughters of Job; and their father gave them inheritance among their brothers. 16. And after this Job lived a hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his grandsons, four generations.
17. And Job died, old and full of days.

Phoenix-like he is reborn and has, if anything, even more vigor and vitality than before, like a young bird emerging from its egg.

The connection, through the word chol, sand, teaches us this – that after destruction, rebirth can (hopefully) ensue.

(With thanks to Shaatnez - a group dedicated to Judaism and speculative literature)

Is "Choose Life" Really A Choice?

Deut: 30:19: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live.”

It’s your birthday, and I’m giving you two presents. One of them is horrible; something no one would want. So I’m telling you to pick the other one! But why then did I put two down in the first place – why not just give the nice one? Isn’t that a kind of unpleasant mind game? And what if you want the horrible one, will I give it to you?

And seriously: what is the point of giving someone a choice and then commanding them to pick only one, thereby removing that choice?

But is it indeed a commandment, or just a strong recommendation? That’s the difficulty in the Torah, that some things that are worded so they sound like commands are not actually so, e.g. “six days you shall work and on the seventh day is for rest” (I did hear one opinion that this is in fact a mitzvah to work!).

I hear in our verse not a command, but a heartfelt request and strong encouragement. We are allowed to choose the path of life or the path of death, that is how the world is structured. The way I hear G-d’s voice is—so to speak—imploring us, saying:

I have put terrible things into the world I have created. Enough of them that you can choose to focus on them all day every day, and become suffused with feelings of anger, disgust, and despair. I will not take away your free will; you get to decide where to put your eyes. But please, for the sake of this grand experiment I have called Life, please make dozens of tiny choices every day and every week to look at the good. ‘For this thing is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it.’” (Deut: 30:14)

Something in human nature pulls us constantly into the negative. I find that the only way to remain in the positive place, the “choosing life” place, is to constantly make endless small good choices.
Rambam (Hilchot Teshuva 3:4) notes we should behold ourselves as evenly balanced between innocence and guilt, and see the entire world similarly…. “if he performs one good deed, behold, he will overbalance himself and the whole world to the side of virtue, and bring about his own and their salvation and escape..." Every time we choose the good, we tip the scales, we move into the realm of good, we face the right direction. And we will receive help to keep going there. As the Sages say, “The way in which a person wishes to go, they are led.”

Once a year, we read these words “Choose Life”. But we should really hear them every day, every hour and every moment.

The Nation is founded upon the Israelite Women

In the Talmud, Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi announces several times that women are obligated in a number of festival rituals because "they too were included in that miracle." He says this of the festivals of Purim. Chanuka and Pesach:

1)      "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in Megilla reading, for they, too, were included in that miracle" (Megilla 4a) 

2)      "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in Chanuka candles, for they, too, were included in that miracle" (Shabbat 23a) 

3)      "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in these four cups [of wine on Pesach eve], for they, too, were included in that miracle" (Pesachim 108a)

Rashi and the Tosafot disagree about what it means that they were included in that miracle.

Rashi: As it says (Sota 11b): “Through the merit of the righteous women of that generation they were redeemed.” This is also said regarding Megilla reading, for they were redeemed through Esther, and also regarding Chanuka candles." 

Tosafot: It seems to me that [it means] "even they were in that same uncertainty," implying in that danger.

Rashi's position is about agency - the women were central and instrumental in the redemption of Purim, Chanuka and Pesach. Tosafot's position is more passive, it is that the women were equally under threat.

After a recent Bibliodrama in which I asked participants to experience the events of the enslavement from the women's perspective, I got an insight that puts the women even more at the centre of things than even Rashi suggests. After all, during the years of the enslavement, we do not see the men acting in any fashion at all - there is no leadership, no attempt at resistance. 

The women, on the other hand, take vey active roles as mentioned in the midrashim. They make sure to keep their husbands attracted to them; they work to save the male children. As my bibliodrama participants indicated (and I particularly thank Joanne Yelenik Jackson), they did what women naturally do which is to band together and become as resourceful as possible, and this strengthened them considerably.

I remember when I attended a class called "Women in the Holocaust" with Professor Judy Baumel, the studies showed that women created small social cells with other women, for support, while men did not.

And it seems to me a possibility that this is not just some nice thing, and not even just the Talmud's "they were included in that miracle", but rather that this was precisely what G-d desired to happen as the nation was in formation. The nation would be founded upon women coming together to create strong bands of resourceful human beings who could resist external pressures.

This would later help to mitigate the damage at the Golden Calf [1], and also mean that the human beings who would enter the Promised Land were also, many of them, ones who had been the resourceful ones in Egypt - for an entire generation of men died out in the desert, but the women lived on.

We don't hear much in the Torah itself about these women's actions, but these women were right there, keeping the Israelite nation from falling apart time after time. They are the Jewish people's backbone.

-------------------------

[1] Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 45:4-5

…"And Aaron said to them, Break off the golden rings" (Ex. 32:2). The women heard (this), but they were unwilling to give their earrings to their husbands saying: “You desire to make a graven image and a molten image without any power in it to deliver.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, gave the women their reward in this world and in the world to come. What reward did He give them in this world? That they should observe the New Moons more stringently than the men, and what reward will He give them in the world to come? They are destined to be renewed like the New Moons, as it is said, "Who satisfieth thy years with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle" (Ps. 103:5).

The men saw that the women would not consent to give their earrings to their husbands. What did they do? Until that hour the earrings were (also) in their own ears, after the fashion of the Egyptians, and after the fashion of the Arabs. They broke off their earrings which were in their own ears, and they gave (them) to Aaron, as it is said, "And all the people brake off || the golden rings which were in their ears" (Ex. 32:3). "Which were in the ears of their wives" is not written here, but "which were in their ears.

Joseph and Haman Pass the Marshmallow Test

In 1972, psychologist  Walter Mischel of Standford ran his famous “marshmallow” experiment, a study on delayed gratification.

In this study, children were offered a choice between one small but immediate reward, or two small rewards if they waited. Each child was left alone in a room with a single marshmallow for about 15 minutes. If they could prevent themselves from eating it, they would receive an extra marshmallow (or pretzel stick). In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes overall, more successful careers etc.

This question, of being able to delay gratification, arises in the lives of two interrelated biblical characters. In Hebrew the verb להתאפק le-hitapek means to forcefully control oneself and to hold back from impulsive action. Its appearance in the Tanach is fairly rare.

The first time we find it is in the Joseph narrative. After so many years in Egypt, away from his family, Joseph is now faced with the situation that his brothers have come to find food. He is able to play his role as an Egyptian viceroy when his ten brothers first make their appearance, to put on a poker face and speak harshly to them; but when they come a second time bringing his brother Benjamin with them – his only brother from his mother Rachel, who he last saw when Benjamin was a child – we are told (Gen 43:30-31):

29. And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your younger brother, of whom you spoke to me? And he said, God be gracious to you, my son. 30. And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother; and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there.

31. And he washed his face, and went out, and controlled himself, and said, “Set on bread.”

Joseph holds back all that he is by feeling for another length of time, because he has to put in motion a plan to force the brothers into a place of repentance and growth. But finally, in Gen 45:1:

1. Then Joseph could not hold himself back before all those who stood by him; and he cried, Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known to his brothers. 2. And he wept aloud; and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard.

Who is the second figure? None other than Haman. We find in Esther 5:10 that Haman, full of ire against Mordechai who stubbornly refused to stand and bow to him, Haman “controlled himself” and only when he came home did he allow himself to give vent to his feelings before his wife and his advisors.

Haman is the enemy of all the Jews, but in particular, the line of Rachel’s sons, meaning Joseph and Benjamin, are in the frontline of the battle against Haman and his ancestor Amalek. We see this in the commandment of King Saul (from the tribe of Benajmin) to kill Agag, Haman’s ancestor. Then, in the scroll of Esther, Mordechai and Esther, likewise of the tribe of Benjamin, are given the opportunity to fix this mistake of their ancestor Saul, and to do away with the epitome of evil.

Joseph does not face an Amalekite, per se. But the book of Esther is strongly connected to the Joseph narrative, by means of various themes and textual phrases. This connection creates the bridge for us to place Joseph and Haman side by side. Thus we observe that both Joseph and Haman reign themselves in, and then, when the time is right, let their feelings out. But what different feelings! Joseph has had to hold back his love for his younger brother, his desire to know if his father is still alive, and the words of peace and forgiveness with which he wants to shower his brothers. Haman has had to hold back his rage, hatred, frustration and dissatisfaction.

Returning to the marshmallow test. We understand that both Joseph and Haman would have passed the test; and, just as the self-restraining children of 1972 did, they saw success in their careers – both rose to the position of second-in-command of a global superpower. But what the marshmallow test does not indicate is whether this ability to hold back will end up being used for uplifting and moral ends or for nefarious purposes. Both heroes and sociopaths can, it seems, bide their time.

------------------------

Postscript 1:

A third biblical character by whom the root להתאפק appears is none other than King Saul. This cannot be a coincidence (I Samuel 13): 

11. And Samuel said, What have you done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you came not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;

12. Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to the Lord; I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.

This error, of making an offering himself instead of waiting for Samuel, costs Saul his kingdom. The interesting thing is that though the word ויתאפק generally means holding back from action, here he does the opposite, he actually forces himself to take action at a time when he should have kept still. He does not delay gratification but rather the opposite, he forces himself into action. And this costs him his success.

It is so interesting to me that the very same word is used here, to mean practically the opposite thing, and that this story is about King Saul, who is connected to both Joseph and Mordechai/Haman. I feel as if there is more to explore here.

Postcript 2

Joseph’s holding back becomes even more admirable in light of the fact that the Joseph spiritual-psychological trait is also at times the opposite of delay –  they come first, before everyone else.

Sometimes this is for the good: Joseph is the first to go down to Egypt, setting in motion G-d’s plan; Messiah son of Joseph is the harbinger.

Other times, it is with dire consequences: see the midrash telling of the Ephraimites’ premature and fatal exit from Egypt, and the fact that the ma’apilim, the people pushing to go to the Promised Land, may have included Zelofchad of the tribe of Menashe… (and they were killed by Amalekites, by the way.)