Difference between revisions of "Reuven and Bilhah/1/he"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Introduction"> | <page type="Introduction"> | ||
<h1>מעשה ראובן ובלהה</h1> | <h1>מעשה ראובן ובלהה</h1> | ||
| − | <h2> | + | <h2>פרטים חסרים</h2> |
<p>The Torah discusses Reuven's actions with Bilhah in but half a verse (<a href="Bereshit35-16-26" data-aht="source">בראשית ל״ה:כ״ב</a>):</p> | <p>The Torah discusses Reuven's actions with Bilhah in but half a verse (<a href="Bereshit35-16-26" data-aht="source">בראשית ל״ה:כ״ב</a>):</p> | ||
<q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> | <q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<p>These words reveal almost nothing of the incident, sharing only the bare minimum: that Reuven had relations with his father's concubine.  They discuss neither Reuven's motives nor what Yaakov did after hearing of the fact.  What prompted Reuven, ostensibly a righteous figure, to commit such a deed?  How is Yaakov's reaction to be interpreted? Finally, why does the Torah decide to end the episode with the statement, "וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר"?  Is this fact somehow relevant to Reuven's actions, or should it be viewed as an independent unit, disconnected from our story?<fn>The Masoretic tradition disagrees as to whether the phrase ends פסוק כ"ב, and hence our story, or if it begins a new unit.</fn></p> | <p>These words reveal almost nothing of the incident, sharing only the bare minimum: that Reuven had relations with his father's concubine.  They discuss neither Reuven's motives nor what Yaakov did after hearing of the fact.  What prompted Reuven, ostensibly a righteous figure, to commit such a deed?  How is Yaakov's reaction to be interpreted? Finally, why does the Torah decide to end the episode with the statement, "וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר"?  Is this fact somehow relevant to Reuven's actions, or should it be viewed as an independent unit, disconnected from our story?<fn>The Masoretic tradition disagrees as to whether the phrase ends פסוק כ"ב, and hence our story, or if it begins a new unit.</fn></p> | ||
| − | <h2> | + | <h2>תוכחה</h2> |
<p>In contrast to Yaakov's silence here, on his deathbed he does chastise Reuven, saying (<a href="Bereshit49-3-4" data-aht="source">בראשית מ״ט:ג׳-ד׳</a>):</p> | <p>In contrast to Yaakov's silence here, on his deathbed he does chastise Reuven, saying (<a href="Bereshit49-3-4" data-aht="source">בראשית מ״ט:ג׳-ד׳</a>):</p> | ||
<q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> | <q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<p>The phrase, "כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ" would seem to be  a clear reference to Reuven's actions with Bilhah.  The rest of Yaakov's words, though, are more ambiguous.  What does "יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז" mean?  Who is the referent of the verb "עָלָה" in the phrase, "אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה"?  What light can this whole passage shed on the initial affair?</p> | <p>The phrase, "כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ" would seem to be  a clear reference to Reuven's actions with Bilhah.  The rest of Yaakov's words, though, are more ambiguous.  What does "יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז" mean?  Who is the referent of the verb "עָלָה" in the phrase, "אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה"?  What light can this whole passage shed on the initial affair?</p> | ||
| − | <h2> | + | <h2>עונש</h2> |
| − | Elsewhere, too, there is an allusion to the episode. <a href="DivreiHaYamimI5-1" data-aht="source">דברי הימים א׳ ה׳:א׳</a> | + | Elsewhere, too, there is an allusion to the episode. <a href="DivreiHaYamimI5-1" data-aht="source">דברי הימים א׳ ה׳:א׳</a> מספר: |
<q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> | <q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> | ||
<p>(א) וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר וּבְחַלְּלוֹ יְצוּעֵי אָבִיו נִתְּנָה בְּכֹרָתוֹ לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא לְהִתְיַחֵשׂ לַבְּכֹרָה. (ב) כִּי יְהוּדָה גָּבַר בְּאֶחָיו וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּנּוּ וְהַבְּכֹרָה לְיוֹסֵף.</p> | <p>(א) וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר וּבְחַלְּלוֹ יְצוּעֵי אָבִיו נִתְּנָה בְּכֹרָתוֹ לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא לְהִתְיַחֵשׂ לַבְּכֹרָה. (ב) כִּי יְהוּדָה גָּבַר בְּאֶחָיו וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּנּוּ וְהַבְּכֹרָה לְיוֹסֵף.</p> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
<h2 name=""כל האומר ראובן חטא"">"כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה"</h2> | <h2 name=""כל האומר ראובן חטא"">"כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה"</h2> | ||
| − | In <multilink><a href="BavliShabbat55b" data-aht="source">בבלי שבת</a><a href="BavliShabbat55b" data-aht="source">שבת נ״ה:</a><a href="Bavli Shabbat" data-aht="parshan">About Bavli Shabbat</a></multilink>, R. Yonatan declares Reuven's innocence with the well known words: "כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה" ("All who say that Reuven sinned must be mistaken"). Can this statement be reconciled with the simple sense of the verses? Is it motivated simply by a desire to exonerate Reuven or are there any textual reasons to take such a position? Finally, if Reuven was in fact innocent, why don't the verses reflect this?<fn>See the similar discussion regarding David's actions with | + | In <multilink><a href="BavliShabbat55b" data-aht="source">בבלי שבת</a><a href="BavliShabbat55b" data-aht="source">שבת נ״ה:</a><a href="Bavli Shabbat" data-aht="parshan">About Bavli Shabbat</a></multilink>, R. Yonatan declares Reuven's innocence with the well known words: "כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה" ("All who say that Reuven sinned must be mistaken"). Can this statement be reconciled with the simple sense of the verses? Is it motivated simply by a desire to exonerate Reuven or are there any textual reasons to take such a position? Finally, if Reuven was in fact innocent, why don't the verses reflect this?<fn>See the similar discussion regarding David's actions with בת-שבע ואוריה ב<a href="David and Batsheva" data-aht="page">דוד ובת-שבע</a>.</fn> |
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> | ||
Version as of 07:34, 18 July 2019
מעשה ראובן ובלהה
הקדמה
פרטים חסרים
The Torah discusses Reuven's actions with Bilhah in but half a verse (בראשית ל״ה:כ״ב):
וַיְהִי בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר.
These words reveal almost nothing of the incident, sharing only the bare minimum: that Reuven had relations with his father's concubine. They discuss neither Reuven's motives nor what Yaakov did after hearing of the fact. What prompted Reuven, ostensibly a righteous figure, to commit such a deed? How is Yaakov's reaction to be interpreted? Finally, why does the Torah decide to end the episode with the statement, "וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר"? Is this fact somehow relevant to Reuven's actions, or should it be viewed as an independent unit, disconnected from our story?1
תוכחה
In contrast to Yaakov's silence here, on his deathbed he does chastise Reuven, saying (בראשית מ״ט:ג׳-ד׳):
(ג) רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹרִי אַתָּה כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז. (ד) פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם אַל תּוֹתַר כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה.
The phrase, "כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ" would seem to be a clear reference to Reuven's actions with Bilhah. The rest of Yaakov's words, though, are more ambiguous. What does "יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז" mean? Who is the referent of the verb "עָלָה" in the phrase, "אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה"? What light can this whole passage shed on the initial affair?
עונש
Elsewhere, too, there is an allusion to the episode. דברי הימים א׳ ה׳:א׳ מספר:
(א) וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר וּבְחַלְּלוֹ יְצוּעֵי אָבִיו נִתְּנָה בְּכֹרָתוֹ לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא לְהִתְיַחֵשׂ לַבְּכֹרָה. (ב) כִּי יְהוּדָה גָּבַר בְּאֶחָיו וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּנּוּ וְהַבְּכֹרָה לְיוֹסֵף.
According to this passage, Reuven did actually get punished for his sin, losing his birthright to Yosef and kingship to Yehuda. Why is this specific punishment chosen? Why is it not mentioned in בראשית ל״ה?
"כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה"
In בבלי שבת, R. Yonatan declares Reuven's innocence with the well known words: "כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה" ("All who say that Reuven sinned must be mistaken"). Can this statement be reconciled with the simple sense of the verses? Is it motivated simply by a desire to exonerate Reuven or are there any textual reasons to take such a position? Finally, if Reuven was in fact innocent, why don't the verses reflect this?2
