Vayishlach 2017: Sexual Misconduct Then and Now
by devadmin | November 30, 2017 5:42 pm
Raboyseyee and Ladies:
Sexual Misconduct Then and Now
Long before charges of sexual impropriety hit Hollywood, Washington and the Media, we read about such zachin in the heylige Toirah. We did? Say it’s not so please, but it is. Back in Bereishis we learned that the cunning snake sidled up to Chava and convinced her to partake of some forbidden fruit. The medrish told us that the snake seduced Chava and partook from her fruits, if you chap, and say it’s not so. Nu, the RBSO certainly punished him by permanently chopping his legs off. Lesson learned! A week later, over in parshas Noiach, the RBSO decided to destroy the world; its inhabitants were seemingly all guilty of various sexual infractions; shoin. Let’s not forget Noiach who was either raped, or sodomized, or both, by his own son and grandson: Oy vey! They too were punished and cursed. A week later in Lech Lecha, after her husband suggested she fib and tell the king she was Avrom’s sister (she was in fact his beloved eishes chayil), Soro was taken to the King’s boudoir. The king was severely punished by the RBSO: Avrohom became a wealthy man without having to rely on Gloria Allred and Lisa Bloom to bring charges.
In Vayero, Soro was once again taken to another King’s palace, ober that was nothing compared to what took place between Loit and his two daughters, later in the same parsha. Talk about sexual abuse. Then we learned how Eisav arrived to Avrohom’s funeral after having raped, pillaged, following sexual relations with a married woman, and who knows what else; all in one day. Also in Chaya Soro we learned that a Malach (angel) came down and killed Bisuale, Rivka’s father because he, as a VIP, would enjoy all the town virgins before they went home to their husbands, and efsher had designs on his own daughter, say it’s not so, dirty chazir that he was. In Vayetzei we learned that Yaakov kissed Rochel at first sight. Last week we learned that Yaakov thought he married Rochel but when he woke up in the morning, it was Leah he found in his bed: Yikes. What to do? Yell and scream? No: Keep them both, and that’s what he did. As a bonus he got two more for a total of four wives. Nu, given the need to service the brood, Yaakov was seemingly more than satisfied; no reason whatsoever to look elsewhere. Is that what it takes to keep men at home? Shoin! Welcome to parshas Vayishlach where Reuvain will be accused of having illicit sexual relations with Bila, one of Yaakov’s wives and his own stepmother, and where Dena gets raped and perhaps also sodomized by that chazir (slime bucket) Shechem.
Ober did all these things really happen? Some surely did, ober was Reuvain really guilty of the alarming charges? Are all who stand accused, if you chap, guilty? Let’s find ober ershtens…
The world is taka abuzz with sexual impropriety: it epes appear that kimat daily, another important person is being accused of some form of improper talk, sexting, and some illegal touching. According to one email the Oisvorfer received, as many as 25% of Congressman and Senators might have dirty hands, so to speak. Shoin, there is avada some good news for those seeking careers in Hollywood, the media and or Washington: at this pace, they will surely be running out of lead actors, politicians and media folks. Soon enough, ordinary Joe’s will have the opportunity to snag leading roles, and or run for political office. Ober what has all this to do with our heylige Toirah and specifically this week’s parsha? Nu, believe it or not, the answer is everything mamish! Shoin, let’s see what happened to Reuvain.
Vayishlach features: war games, kidnapping, rape, murder and efsher a shtikel incest, oy vey. What it doesn’t feature is nachas from the kinder, none at all, nebech. In previous postings of this parsha, we avada covered what happened to Dina and kimat all of the dizzying storylines. If you want to read them, you are avada invited to click into the archives over at www.oisvorfer.com. Lommer ober unfangin (let’s instead begin with another shocking story that takes place towards the end of this week’s dizzying parsha.) This one involves Reuvain, Yaakov’s bechoir (first born) and some meyseh (affair) that he either had or didn’t with stepmother Bilha. Says the heylige Toirah azoy:
| 22. And it came to pass when Israel sojourned in that land, that Reuvain went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Israel heard [of it], and so, the sons of Yaakov were twelve. | כב. וַיְהִי בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל פ וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר: |
Reuvain did what? He lay or slept with Bilha, one of Yaakov’s wives? Could this be? Say it’s not so please! Are we talking about Reuvain, one of the holy shevotim (tribes)? Is there any good news in this? Avada there is: Suddenly your chazerish behavior doesn’t seem all that giferlich, oy vey!
Ober, says Rashi that Reuvain did not have sexual relations with his father’s concubine. Shoin! Zicher not the last time someone of importance made such a statement. Did the RBSO chas v’sholom (heaven forbid) have an issue with language or expression? Are the words of the heylige Toirah not meant as written? Does the word “vayishkav” maybe mean that he took her to the movies? Does it have any other meaning in the entire Toirah kulah (anywhere else in Tanach)? Zicher nisht ober Rashi and avada others couldn’t chap (fathom) that Reuvain would chap his own step mother and instead dissected the words, and thought about every other possibility until they cleverly came up with a plausible explanation. And though the heylige Toirah says he lay with her, avada Rashi knew better and says that he only lay with her in his heart: he lusted for her. Lusting is avada not lying, and which one of you chazerim hasn’t lusted? Many of you lust daily. Shoin: Ober since he lusted, the Toirah considers the nasty thoughts he had as if he mamish did the act but in reality, he didn’t. Givaldig mamish. Avada this pshat was more pleasing to Rashi and a few others, and avada a much more pleasing image to conjure up vs. that of Reuvain bedding his own stepmother. Nu, did he or didn’t he lay with his stepmother? Lommer lernin (let’s learn) or try to without letting your imaginations run wild, chazerim that you are.
Nu, in order to get some better color on what went down here, besides possibly Reuvain if you chap, we need to skip ahead a few weeks to the last Parsha of Sefer Bereishis (Vayichi) where Yaakov, near death, though some say he never died, gathered his kids for a final round of brochos (blessings) or so they thought. First up was Reuvain and this is what we will read.
“Reuvain, you are my firstborn, my strength and my initial vigor, foremost in rank and foremost in power” (Bereishis 49:3). As the first born you were worthy of receiving a greater share than your brothers – the kehuna (priesthood) and the kingdom, but because of your “water-like impetuosity, you cannot be foremost” (ibid. 4). Your acting in haste was responsible for that additional share being taken from you and granted to others (the kehuna to Levi and the kingdom to Yehuda). Where do we find your impetuosity? “Because you mounted your father’s bed” (ibid.), referring to the incident related in Parshas Vayishlach: “Reuvain went and lay with Bilha, his father’s concubine” (Bereishis 35:22). Seemingly, according to Yaakov’s words, not just did Reuvain lay with her, he also did some mounting. Nu, efsher he considered her a diamond, ver veyst.
On the other hand…. says the heylige Gemora (Shabbis 55b) and in other places (Midrash Rabba on Vayichi), that whoever says that Reuvain sinned is only making a mistake. Is mounting efsher a mitzvah instead? Was it Friday night? In other words: Reuvain was totally innocent. At most he was guilty of re-arranging some furniture, namely his father’s bed. Shoin and settled.
And as proof, says the heylige Gemora azoy: R. Shmuel b. Nachman said in R. Yoinoson’s name: Whoever maintains that Reuvain sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, Now the sons of Yaakov were twelve, teaching that they were all equal. In other words: since Yaakov did not disinherit Reuvain, he must have been innocent of the charges. Then how do I interpret, “and he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine?” This teaches that he transposed his father’s couch, and the Toirah imputes [blame] to him as though he had lain with her. Was Reuvain not punished for his actions in the incident involving Bilha? Did he not lose the kehuna and the kingdom? Did Yaakov not rebuke him? How can Chazal say he did not sin?
And does everyone agree that Reuvain, years before Moishe’s Movers, was merely the first Yid in the furniture moving business? Seemingly not and others in the heylige Gemora conclude that farkert (quite the opposite): Reuvain did indeed chap (sleep) with Bilha, one of his father’s four wives. Such Yiddishe nachas.
Nu, it would appear that Yaakov does not agree with Rashi. On the other hand, could it be that Reuvain broke all the furniture while moving it and that Yaakov was upset about not having insurance and being reimbursed by Reuvain, ver veyst?
Nu, vus-iz-di-intershte-shira (what’s the bottom line) with this Reuvain incident? Did he or didn’t he? Ver veyst but there are different approaches and avada different views, depending avada if it was just laying or mounting, if you chap, and let’s taka see what some had to say about Reuvain, Bilha and Yaakov.
One approach: Reuvain did sin ober not to the level of bedding Bilha. In other words: though the heylige Toirah says he did, really he didn’t and we cannot read the words literally. Say Chazal (our wise ones): whoever accuses Reuvain of having relations of a sexual nature as described by a literal interpretation of the words in the verse, is mistaken. How could one be guilty and innocent at the same time?
Ober says the Medrish Rabba (Vayichi) something quite shocking. Raboyseyee, this is mamish a quote, check it out. Yaakov, now on his deathbed and still smarting from Reuvain’s chapping of what belonged to the tata, said this to his son Reuvain:
“Reuvain, you are my firstborn — you are a bechoir and I am a bechoir (of course after the famous purchase). I was 84 years old and I never saw an accidental seminal emission. And you, ‘and he went and slept with Bilhah’.” It’s epes quite clear that Yaakov was still not over the mounting incident and viewed Reuvain’s offense as an explicit sexual sin. Yikes! Was Reuvain’s ill advised bedroom adventure covered up and swept under the bed? Efsher.
Say some that he entertained the notion of performing such a terrible act but never in fact carried it out. It was lust only. Says another pshat: he never even considered such an action, he was mamish totally innocent and pure. He never had his eyes and zicher not other parts on Bilha and didn’t even lust for her. Instead pshat is like Rashi who tells us that “he disturbed his father’s bed, and Scripture regards him as if he lay with her” (ibid.). What did he taka do? Reuvain prevented his father Yaakov from moving into Bilha’s tent. What’s pshat? Seemingly, following the passing of Rochel, the one he mamish loved, Yaakov moved his bed into Bilha’s tent, she being the handmaiden of Rochel. Reuvain wasn’t happy that Yaakov selected Bilha over his mother Leah and took matters into his own hands (possibly causing the accidental emission, if you chap) by moving Yaakov’s bed into his mother Leah’s tent. All good.
Why would Reuvain move the bed? Said Reuvain to himself: if my mother’s sister was a rival to my mother, shall the maidservant of my mother’s sister be a rival to my mother?” (ibid.). Bottom line according to this pshat: Reuvain was driven by a desire to defend the honor of his saintly mother ober, Yaakov, as we mentioned earlier, still carried a grudge. Ober taka why? Seemingly he was upset that Reuvain was only consumed with Leah and her feelings and never considered his father’s feelings. Efsher Bilha had epes special talents and was able to better console him on his loss, ver veyst. In other words: Reuvain was guilty of being a mechutzif (wisenheimer) to his father and maybe that’s why Yaakov dealt with him harshly on his death bed. Could be, no?
Nu efsher you’re wondering how Chazal can tell us that he was innocent mamish and that “whoever says Reuvain sinned is simply mistaken”, so were others? And says the heylige Gemora (Shabbis 63a) that in principle, “a verse never departs from its simple meaning”. Seemingly, though this is mamish a real principle, it seemingly doesn’t always apply, or at least not to everyone equally. That’s another principle. Shoin.
What taka happened, ver veyst. One thing is zicher: the good people who wrote the heylige Gemora were the forerunners of defense lawyers and they went through great pains to vindicate Reuvain. And so effective was their defense of Reuvain, they were hired to handle another famous scandal -namely the case of Dovid Hamelech and Batsheva- with a similar result. Chazal tell us “whoever claims that Dovid sinned is simply mistaken” (Shabbis 56a). One cannot be guilty of the acts that Dovid is accused of, and still be referred to as “the anointed one of the G-d of Yaakov, and the pleasing composer of the songs of Israel” (Shmuel II 23:1), ancestor of the moshiach whose arrival we eagerly await to come and redeem us in fulfillment of the Almighty’s promises to Dovid.
Wouldn’t it have been easier for the Gemora to conclude that both were guilty but that both did Tshuva? Avada we all know that the RBSO loves people who do tshuva (become penitents). Moreover, another Gemora (Brachois 34b) tells us that “in the place where baalei tshuva stand, the completely righteous do not stand” Even if Reuvain did in fact sin, he repented. Does this not restore him to the righteous level he was on? Can one lay with his stepmother and still be referred to as one of the holy shevotim (Shivtay Ko)? Yes, if he repents!
Says the Mishna: when the Toirah was translated into Aramaic during public Toirah reading, the pasuk (verse) describing Reuvain’s deed or misdeed was not translated. It was read, but left without TIRGUM so as not to mislead and confuse the people. Grada, the Oisvorfer has been reading this posik for over 50 years and not once was he confused: it states what Reuvain did and that’s exactly what was understood. On the other hand, others suggest that it’s pisukim (verses) such as this one, that are glaring examples of the need to study the Oral tradition along with the written word; they must go together to chap pshat and to make sense of sometimes shocking and confusing text.
And says the Yalkut Shimoni: Reuvain was not only Yaakov’s bechoir (firstborn), he was also the “Bechoir LeTshuva,” the first baal Tshuva (first to repent). And since he made amends with the RBSO, though nowhere are we told how, what, where or when, we protect his honor by not translating the one verse in the heylige Toirah that really casts a poor reflection on his activities in the bedroom. Taka a good enough reason to consider tshuva.
Was he the first real baal tshuva, ver veyst, and certainly others argue that he wasn’t at all the first. Ober says the Kotzker Rebbe: although Reuvain was not the first to do tshuva, he pioneered a new form of tshuva. Reuvain was the first to do tshuva for what, in his mind, was instead a great mitzvah. He was attempting to defend his mother’s honor, but, in actuality, was committing an aveirah (sin). Even so, when Reuvain was told that what he had done was wrong, he accepted his guilt and did tshuva. This type of tshuva takes a lot more strength because the person originally acted with the best of intentions. This is why Reuvain is singled out as the first to do tshuva and why Chazal wanted to protect Reuvain’s reputation. Gishmak mamish.
Efsher you’re also wondering why Yaakov taka opted for Bilha, Reuvain’s stepmother instead of Leah his real mother, me too. Was she efsher mamish ugly and so repugnant? She was after all the mother of a bunch of holy shevotim and Dina and did a good job as mother and wife. What did this Bilha have over her? Nu, let’s take a look under the covers.
Rochel nebech passed away during childbirth to Binyomin at the age of 36, Yaakov lost the love of his life. He chose to make Bilha his new primary wife ober why her? Who were Bilha and Zilpah? What was their uniqueness that made them worthy of being Mothers in Israel?
Though the heylige Toirah tells us that Lovon was a bad guy, seemingly he still had good kids and so much for yichus (pedigree). The Oisvorfer has told you on more than one occasion: when it comes to yichus, best to make your own! Born from Lovon but from different mothers, Rochel and Leah were raised as primary daughters while Bilha and Zilpah were relegated to lesser positions. Why, ver veyst? Seemingly their uniqueness was their acceptance of their destiny as reflections of their older sisters. Bilha modeled herself after Rochel and Zilpah modeled herself after Leah. What Soroh had hoped to accomplish when she introduced Hogor into her marriage with Avrohom besides efsher a threesome, Rochel and Leah did without aggravation. Hogor refused to subjugate herself to Soroh while Bilha and Zilpah willingly subjugated themselves to Rochel and Leah. They were true “maidservants to Rochel and Leah.” Had they been asked what was their greatest honor in life they would have answered, to be known as the mirror images of their older sisters and mentors.
Says the Zoihar and who knew more, azoy: “While Leah and Rochel were alive the Shechina (The RBSO’s presence) rested upon them. Following their passing, the Shechina did not depart from the household of Yaakov; instead, it rested within the home of Bilha.”
Ober Reuvain was young and impetuous and decided to correct what he considered to be an insult to his mother. Rather than consult with his mother; rather than respectfully question his father; Reuvain acted on his own well-intended conclusion. In doing so, Reuvain revealed a fundamental flaw that was not unique to him. Reuvain revealed the tendency of every human to follow the dictates of his own heart and mind. On his deathbed, Yaakov turned to Reuvain and said, “Your impetuousness in deciding on your own to move my bed from Bilha’s tent to your mother’s tent was a big no-no. Had you only asked either myself or your mother why I had placed my bed in the tent of Bilha rather than the more obvious choice of Leah’s tent, you would have understood that Bilha and Rochel were one and the same and in Rochel’s absence the Shechina had chosen Bilha.
It appears that our forefathers, foremothers and their kinderlach had their challenges, none got by life unscathed. The RBSO loved them all despite whatever personal failings they overcame or didn’t. Reuvain’s name, was still carried by the Koihain Godol (High Priest) on one of his garments despite the Bilha incident and his complicity in throwing his brother into a pit full of snakes (next week). Seemingly, he and many others got second and even third chances. There seems to be hope for many of you as well.
Nu, after reading how the heylige Gemora and others concluded that Loit’s daughters were innocent of rape, and that Reuvain too had clean hands, those in trouble today, should consider full immersion into our holy books; the heylige Gemora knows everything and can spin circles around any charges. Hec, even Dovid Hamelech was exonerated.
We close where we opened: not every case of sexual misconduct is what you read about in the media. In certain cases, it’s zicher worse! And in others, we need to, or they need to consult our holy books to see if they can avail themselves to any of the defenses afforded to a few of our most famous Toirah personalities. In any event, guilty or not, the RBSO readily accepts – with open arms- all penitents.
A gittin Shabbis-
The Heylige Oisvorfer Ruv
Yitz Grossman
Source URL: https://oisvorfer.com/vayishlach-2017-sexual-misconduct-then-and-now/