|
“…foremost in
rank and foremost in power. Water-like impetuosity – you cannot be
foremost, because you mounted your father’s bed…”(49:3,4)
Yaakov rebukes
Reuvein for acting in an impetuous manner when moving his father’s couch
to Leah’s tent. As a result of this action, Reuvein loses his right to
the monarchy and Priesthood for which he was destined.1 Why
does Yaakov condemn Reuvein’s impetuosity? Would the sin not have been
greater if Reuvein would have acted in a calculated manner? Does acting impetuously
not mitigate the transgression?
The Torah teaches
that it is prohibited to remind a penitent as to his past transgressions.2
Reuvein is the quintessential penitent; the Torah relates that Reuvein
was not present when the brothers sold Yosef, for he had returned to his
sackcloth and fasting to atone for his transgression concerning moving
his father’s couch.3 Why then does Yaakov rebuke Reuvein for a
transgression for which he had already been repenting for at least
thirty-nine years? Why is the quid-pro-quo for Reuvein’s transgression
the loss of his leadership position in Klal Yisroel?
When repenting for
a transgression which we have committed, we very often focus on the
transgression, rather than the character flaw which is at the root of the
transgression. Yaakov’s intention in rebuking Reuvein was not to condemn
him for the transgression for which Reuvein had already repented; Yaakov
was identifying for Reuvein the character flaw which caused him to commit
the transgression, impetuosity. Impetuous behavior is symptomatic of a
lack of self-control.
This is not the
first time we find Yaakov censuring Reuvein for behaving in a manner
which lacks forethought. When the brothers explain to Yaakov that Yosef
has incarcerated Shimon and is refusing to release him unless they bring
Binyamin before him, Reuvein offers his own two sons’ lives as a
guarantee that he will return Binyamin home safely. Here too, Yaakov
admonishes Reuvein for his foolish suggestion.4 Clearly, Yaakov is
sensitive to Reuvein’s character flaw, his impetuosity.
In addition to
effectively controlling his subjects, one of the primary functions of a
leader is to teach his subjects self-control. For this to be possible,
the leader must himself project and image which reflects the highest
standards of self-control. Therefore, Reuvein, who has displayed that he
behaves in an unrestrained manner, is denied the opportunity to have the
monarchy stem from his descendants. Similarly, the responsibility for the
sanctity of the Priesthood can only be placed in the hands of a person
who epitomizes self-control, for holiness manifests itself wherever
self-control is found.5
1. 49:4, See
Rashi and Ramban 2. Shemos 22:20..3. 37:29, See Rashi 4. 42:7, See Rashi
verse 38 and Ramban 5. Rashi Vayikra 19:2
The Lion’s Burden
“And white-toothed
from milk” (49:12)
Many commentaries
interpret this passage literally, as a description of Yehuda’s
suitability for royalty, i.e. that he was a man of regal appearance.1
The Talmud, however, offers the following homiletic interpretation: The
person who makes his teeth white by smiling affectionately to his fellow
man, has done more good than the person who offers his fellow man milk to
drink. Rather than interpreting the verse “u’leven shinayim maychalav” –
“teeth white from milk”, one should read “u’levone shinayim maychalav” –
“showing the whiteness of your teeth is more beneficial than milk”.2
What is the connection between the homiletic and literal interpretations?
Why should this message be relayed in the blessing of Yehuda?
The Talmud teaches
that were it not that Hashem provided for the animals, each animal would
be suited for a particular profession. The fox would be most competent as
a storekeeper and the lion as a porter.3 The Maharal explains
that the fox symbolizes shrewdness, a trait necessary for a storekeeper,
to convince his customers to purchase his wares. A lion symbolizes
strength, and therefore, is physically suited for the job of a porter.4
It is difficult to
understand why the lion, who is the symbol of sovereignty, the lion being
the symbol of Yehudah5, would be depicted as a porter, which
is from the least respectable of professions. Chazal must be teaching us
that the unique nature of Yehuda’s sovereignty is that he is the ultimate
servant of the people. Yehuda does not beat his subjects into submission
to fulfill his own agenda; rather, he serves and caters to the needs of
his people, submitting himself to their agenda. Therefore, the lion is
appropriately described as a porter, who is willing to carry the burden
of all those whom he serves.
Yehuda’s nature is
aptly depicted in last week’s parsha, when he is willing to become a
slave to Yosef so that Binyamin may go free.6 Yehuda sets
aside his own personal agenda for the well-being of another.
The notion of
greeting everyone with a genuine smile so that they will feel appreciated
and significant reflects the same quality portrayed by Yehuda. A person
is required to set aside all thoughts or worries which trouble him, and
relay a genuine sense of joy for the well-being of another.
1. Rav Saadya
Gaon, Bchor Shor, Akeida 2. Kesuvos 111b 3. Kiddushin 82b 4. Chiddushei
Agados ibid. 5. 49:9 6. 44:33
|
Comments
Post a Comment