Daf Ditty Yoma 50: Timnah As Typology

Daf Ditty Yoma 50: Timnah as Typology

Hadar Zekenim, Exodus 17:8 (12th cen.France)

Esau made his son Eliphaz take an oath that he would kill Jacob and thus regain the birthright which Jacob had acquired through guile. Timna, the wife of Eliphaz, however, dissuaded him from attempting to take Jacob’s life, pointing out to him the danger involved in measuring his strength against that of a hero like Jacob. Eliphaz followed his wife’s advice and had to content himself with taking away Jacob’s possessions without attempting his life.

§ Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raised an objection to Rabbi Ami:

even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without 12 בי איִצוֹהְו תֶא - לָכּ - רָפַּה לֶא - ץוּחִמ הֶנֲחַמַּל הֶנֲחַמַּל ץוּחִמ the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are לֶא - םוֹקָמ ,רוֹהָט ֶאל- ֶפֶשׁ דַּה ,ןֶשֶׁ רָשְׂ ו ףַ ףַ רָשְׂ ו ,ןֶשֶׁ דַּה ֶפֶשׁ poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the וֹתֹא לַﬠ - ,םיִצֵﬠ ;שֵׁאָבּ לַﬠ - ֶפֶשׁ ַה ,ןֶשֶׁדּ ,ןֶשֶׁדּ .ashes are poured out shall it be burnt .ףֵרָשִּׂי }פ{ Lev 4:12

“And he shall remove the entire bull outside the camp” This verse speaks of a bull that has been slaughtered and its fats and sacrificial parts have been burned, which proves that even after it has been slaughtered, it is still called a bull. Rabbi Ami replied: The animal itself is not called a bull at this stage; rather, it means that he should remove the entire carcass, all that remains of the bull.

The Gemara raises another difficulty by citing a verse:

-And the bullock of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin 27 זכ תֵאְו רַפּ תאָטַּחַה תֵאְו ריִﬠְשׂ ריִﬠְשׂ תֵאְו תאָטַּחַה רַפּ תֵאְו offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in ,תאָטַּחַה רֶשֲׁא אָבוּה תֶא - םָמָדּ רֵפַּכְל רֵפַּכְל םָמָדּ the holy place, shall be carried forth without the camp; and שֶׁדֹקַּבּ -- צוֹי ,איִ לֶא - ץוּחִמ ;הֶנֲחַמַּל ;הֶנֲחַמַּל ץוּחִמ they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their וּפְרָשְׂו ,שֵׁאָב תֶא - םָתֹרֹע תֶאְו - םָרָשְׂבּ םָרָשְׂבּ .dung תֶאְו - .םָשְׁרִפּ Lev 16:27

“And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp”

Once again, the verse proves that even after it has been slaughtered and its blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, the animal is still called a bull. Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that when it is intact, with its hide, its flesh, and its excrement, it is called a bull. When they disagree is with regard to the blood. One Sage holds that its blood is called a bull, and one Sage holds that blood alone is not called a bull.

Rav Ashi said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the one who said that blood is called part of the bull, as it is written:

Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a 3 ג תאֹזְבּ אֹבָי ,ןֹרֲהַא לֶא - -young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt ַה :שֶׁדֹקּ רַפְבּ ןֶבּ - רָקָבּ ,תאָטַּחְל לִיַאְו לִיַאְו ,תאָטַּחְל רָקָבּ .offering .הָלֹעְל

3 Lev 16:3

“With this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bull”

Is that to say that he brings it in, to the Holy of Holies, with its horns? Rather, he enters with its blood, and yet the Torah calls that “a bull.” This proves that the blood itself is called a bull.

The Gemara asks: And the other one, who maintains that blood is not called a bull, how does he interpret this verse? The Gemara answers that he can explain the verse as follows: With what did Aaron become qualified to enter the sacred place? With his bringing of a young bull for a sin- offering. However, the blood itself, which he brings inside, is not called a bull.

§ Abaye raised an objection to Rava: Is the bull of the High Priest an individual offering? But we learned in a baraita: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and he separated others in their stead, and the first animals were subsequently found, all of the second set shall be left to die. And likewise, goats for a sin of idolatry that were lost and he separated others in their stead, all of them shall be left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall be left to graze until they become unfit, whereupon they are sold and their proceeds go for a free-will offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die. This proves that the Yom Kippur bull is called a communal sin- offering.

Rava said to Abaye: What bull is referred to here? A bull for an unwitting communal sin. Abaye retorted: But the baraita taught: Of Yom Kippur, which clearly indicates that it is referring to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rava answered: When the tanna of this baraita taught: Of

4 Yom Kippur, he was referring only to the goat. That is, the baraita should be read as follows: The communal bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which is also a communal offering.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Is a dead bull called a bull?

Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha challenges Rabbi Ami, who says that the word “bull” doesn't include a dead one, from the verse which says that “he must remove the whole bull [brought on a kohen gadol's error] outside of the camp,” even though the bull is dead at that point. The Gemora answers

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Yoma_50.pdf

5 that the verse is only teaching that everything left from the bull (i.e., the whole body) must be taken out.

The Gemora challenges Rabbi Ami from the verse about the Yom Kippur sacrifices, which states that he must remove the chatas bull and the chatas goat, even though they are slaughtered at that point. Rav Pappa says that all agree that the carcass of an animal (body, skin, and innards) are still referred to as “the animal,” but they differ about whether the animal's blood is included. Rav Ashi supports the position that the blood is included, from the verse which states that Aaron will enter the kodesh kadashim (on Yom Kippur) with a bull, which means the blood of the bull, and not literally a bull. Even though the bull is slaughtered when he enters, its blood is still called “the bull.”

The Gemora explains the verse to mean that in order to enter, he must bring a live bull as a sacrifice. (50a1) Is the bull communal or individual? The Gemora asks: Why don't we resolve the question regarding what to do if the kohen gadol died after he slaughtered the bull by considering it a case of a chatas whose owner (the kohen gadol) died, which must be put to death? Ravin bar Rav Ada told Rava that his students quoted Rav Amram saying that the bull is considered a communal sacrifice, which is not put to death.

He proved this statement by citing a Mishna in which Rabbi Meir says that the kohen gadol's bull on Yom Kippur, his chavitin mincha offering each day, and a Pesach sacrifice, are individual's sacrifices, and yet override Shabbos, implying that the other opinion in the Mishna says that these are communal sacrifices. Rava deflected this proof, since the Mishna continues with Rabbi Yaakov's statement that the bull offered for a communal error, a goat offered for a mistaken communal idolatry, and the chagigah offering, are communal sacrifices, and yet do not override Shabbos, which would imply that the other opinion considers these individual sacrifices.

Partners without a Shavah Perutah

,it has to be yours - ל םכ The Minchas Chinuch (325) quotes Rashi that whenever a mitzva mandates He asks that according to that, how will. םכל it is also lacking, רפ ו הט וש ה if one owns less than a ( רפ ו הט וש ה on Sukkos when each stem is valued as less than a הברע people fulfill the mitzva of ?Tell that to our Esrog dealers!!!!) It is answered that Rashi did not intend to say that something . רפ ו הט וש ה can't be yours if you own in it less than a

This is . רפ ו הט Rashi holds that to be considered a partner with others, you must possess at least a evident from a Ritva in Avoda Zara and in Sefer Tal Torah. A question is asked on this Ritva from חספ a Gemora in Kidushin which states that all of Klal Yisroel were considered partners in one he answers based on a Tosfos on, שיא בל Sefer מ ? רפ ו הט וש ה even though they did not have a ברק ן ר of the kohen is not deemed a korban of partners, for the רפ our daf. The Gemora states that the atonement from this korban only hovers over the other kohanim and therefore it is judged to be a .(from it מת ו הר korban of an individual (and one can make

Tosfos asks from a Gemora in Zevachim that rules on a korban from two sons who inherited it only receives atonement in שרוי even though a, פתוש י ן ברק ן from their father, that it is considered a hovering over them? Tosfos answers that when everyone has an equal share - קמ ו פ י א the form of

6 of the רפ even if it's only a minor one, they are considered partners, however by the, הרפכ in the and therefore the בקב י ע ו את kohen gadol, he is considered the full owner for he receives atonement other kohanim are not regarded as partners.

This is why all of Klal Yisroel can be considered partners, for they all have an equal share.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

When is a sacrifice brought on Shabbat, and when do we need to wait until after Shabbat to bring it?

2 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_4450/

7 One suggestion raised by the Gemara is that the distinction is whether the sacrifice is a communal one or if it is the sacrifice of an individual. According to this suggestion, a sacrifice brought by the community is docheh Shabbat (“pushes aside” Shabbat), while a personal sacrifice will wait until after Shabbat to be brought.

Rabbi Meir points out that the par (=bull) brought by the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur is a personal sacrifice, yet it is docheh Shabbat.

Rabbi Yaakov points out that a par he’elem davar shel tzibbur (the bull brought on behalf of the community when a mistaken ruling was given) is a communal sacrifice, yet it cannot be brought on Shabbat.

These questions force the Gemara to reconsider the principle. The conclusion is that a sacrifice which needs to be brought at a specific, set time can be brought on Shabbat, while a sacrifice that does not have a set time cannot be brought on Shabbat.

The case of par he’elem davar shel tzibbur is presented by the Torah in Vayikra 4:13-21. There the Torah teaches that in the event that the court rules erroneously on a given case, and the majority of the community sins due to that ruling, the court will be obligated to bring a sacrifice on behalf of the community. This communal sacrifice replaces the individual sacrifices that would have been brought by every person who sinned, had they done so without the official sanction of the court.

The Mishnayot and Gemara in Masechet Horayot discuss this sacrifice, and a variety of opinions are offered there on how the community is defined. According to some opinions this rule applies not only when the bet din ha-gadol – the Great Sanhedrin – rules incorrectly, but also when the bet din of a given shevet rules and the majority of that tribe inadvertently sins based on that ruling. An open question remains regarding the status of kohanim and levi’im – are they considered to be independent communities, given that each of them had their own judicial system, or have they lost their status as communities since neither of them are a full shevet? Furthermore, they do not have a specific share in the Land of Israel.

Rebbe Elazar presented a question regarding the ability of the Kohen Gadol to declare the bull of can only be declared upon an offering of an מת ו הר the condition of מת ו הר Yom Kippur as a individual, and the Gemara views this bull brought by Aharon as being owned by an individual (the Kohen Gadol).3

Nevertheless, the question is how to view the involvement and participation of the other kohanim, for the Kohen Gadol atones not only for himself with this bull, for also for them. As the Gemara

3 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20050.pdf

8 or is ( בק י ע ו את ) states: Do the other kohanim attain atonement through a formal stake in the bull ? היפוק their atonement by means of

.( הפקה This term is translated by Aruch and Rabeinu Chananel as “encircling” (from the root of This means that the kohanim do not own any part of the bull, but they achieve atonement by crowding around the Kohen Gadol and listening to his confession. This would mean that the Kohen because the animal remains exclusively his, and other מת ו הר Gadol could theoretically declare kohanim are not actual owners at all. We could even understand that the other kohanim might become owners, but only at the moment of the confession when the Kohen Gadol includes them in his remarks. But, until the moment the kohanim gather to listen to him the bull is owned only by the Kohen Gadol.

to mean “floating.” The Gemara is suggesting that the atonement איפוק Rashi understands the term of the other kohanim is not a function of their being owners at all. The only one who attains a direct atonement from this offering is the Kohen Gadol himself, and everyone else’s role in atonement merely floating and ancillary to that of the Kohen Gadol.

along these same lines. The atonement איפוק Ritva and Rabeinu Elyakim explain the meaning of of the other kohanim is “weak and secondary.” Their involvement is not important, and it does not as מת ו הר indicate any element of ownership. The Kohen Gadol can therefore declare the bull as בק י ע ו ת opposed to the opinion that considers the kohanim involved as a

The residents of the town of Adiatz, Russia were in need of a new mikveh and the only place they found that met their needs was the women’s section of the old shul in town. They were concerned, however, about transforming a Beis HaKnesses into a mikveh. Although the building had not been used for years as a Shul, nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch rules (1) that a Beis HaKnesses may not be . עה י ר ט ו ב י ’ ז – sold for use as a bathhouse unless the sale is approved by the seven city trustees

It was not possible to execute the sale under these conditions so they turned to Rav Moshe Feinstein to inquire about what to do. Rav Moshe (2) began his analysis by establishing that the precedent which allows the sale of a Beis HaKnesses is the law of animals sanctified as korbonos.

Just as an animal designated as a chatas loses its sanctity if the owner dies, so too any object of sanctity, including a Beis HaKnesses, that is no longer usable for its purpose loses its sanctity. The reason, explains Rav Moshe, that only the sale executed by the seven city trustees allows for the Beis HaKnesses to be used for a bathhouse is because only when it is sold by the appointed representatives of the city can we be certain that it will never be used as a Beis HaKnesses again (3). Even if a Beis HaKnesses has not been used for a long period of time, as long as there is a chance that it may be used again it does not lose its sanctity. Therefore, in this particular town,

9 since there was no way they would ever use the building as a Beis HaKnesses, the sanctity has already left and it is permitted to be made into a mikveh (4).

Rav Hirsch zt”l explains that the Kohen Gadol must come to perform the service on Yom Kippur “with this,” referring to an awareness of the significance of his exalted office. He must know and .a young ox toiling in the field of Torah , רפ feel that he is like a

the child of that first morning of רקב ב ן And even though he is harnessed to his duty, he is still a his appointment, eternally young and fresh, full of devotion and enthusiasm and devoid of any deadening arrogance or force of habit. He brings this as a sin offering because the true fulfillment of his office is a great responsibility, and he feels certain that he has fallen short of reaching this lofty goal of constant renewal. “It is forbidden to be old!” exclaimed the author of the Sefer HaMiddos, zt”l. “Even an old chossid or an old tzaddik is no good.

The goal is to always be fresh and to start anew each and every day.” The mentor of the Kotzker Rebbe was known as the Yehudi HaKadosh. One chossid noticed that the name seemed a bit unusual and asked his own Rebbe the meaning of this unusual title. “We all know that every Jew is a Yehudi, so why call only one particular tzaddik the Yehudi HaKadosh?” The Rebbe answered, “The Yehudi HaKadosh was given the name because each and every day he lived as if he had just at that instant been made a Jew!”

10 Rabbi Ethan Linden writes:4

Virtually the entirety of today’s daf is taken up with a discussion about the animals offered by the high priest on Yom Kippur. According to the rabbis, the high priest is meant to slaughter a bull and bring its blood with him into the Holy of Holies. On yesterday’s daf the question was asked: What happens if the high priest slaughters the bull and then dies before he can enter the Holy of Holies? Is a new sacrifice needed or can the high priest who takes his place bring the blood of the animal slaughtered by his now-deceased predecessor?

At first blush, this is a fairly picayune argument of the type we have seen many times already. But folded into this argument is a fascinating discussion about the exact nature of the bull offering, a discussion that in some ways gets to the heart of the meaning of these rituals of atonement.

In one of many attempts to resolve the question, the Gemara posits the following solution:

And let him derive the answer to this problem from the fact that it is a sin-offering whose owners have died. After all, the bull of the first high priest is a sin-offering and its owner has died. Since there is a principle that a sin-offering whose owners have died is left to die, this should resolve the dilemma.

The Talmud suggests that the bull offering is a type of offering we know about: the individual sin- offering. That type of offering has a known rule: If a person designates an animal as a sin-offering and then dies, the animal is not slaughtered. If the bull offering is indeed a type of sin-offering, the analogy should be clear: The high priest cannot take the blood of a bull slaughtered by a different high priest into the Holy of Holies since individual sin-offerings, once designated or slaughtered, cannot be used by anyone else.

But what if the bull offering of the high priest is not, in fact, an individual sin-offering at all?

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your students say that Rav Amram said that the sin- offering bull of the high priest is a communal sin-offering, as the high priest brings it both on his own behalf and for his fellow priests, and a communal sin-offering is not left to die.

According to this opinion, the Yom Kippur offering is not an individual sin-offering, but a communal sin-offering. As Rashi explains, such offerings are brought “for him [the high priest], and for his brothers the priests.” As such, it would seem that another high priest could in fact bring the blood of the slaughtered bull into the Holy of Holies, since the bull was slaughtered not for the first high priest alone, but for the entire community.

From here, there are many talmudic twists and turns as the rabbis debate the exact nature of this offering. Arguments are offered that the bull is, in fact, an individual offering, and arguments are offered that it’s communal. The Talmud does not definitively decide the issue, but the kernel of the disagreement is still profoundly important to understanding the meaning of the ritual itself. At its core, is the high priest atoning for himself or for others as well?

4 Myjewishlearning.com

11 Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

A curious statement is found in our daf (Yoma 50a), which can also be found elsewhere in the Gemara (Moed Katan 24a, Zevachim 93b, Menachot 7b & 26b), and which requires some background, and some explanation.

In terms of our daf, the topic of discussion between the 3rd century Amoraim Ravin Bar Rav Ada and Rava was the bull offered by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, and specifically, whether this offering was a personal, or a communal offering.

As is clear from this opening discussion, as well as much of the discussion throughout the rest of our daf, Rava was of the opinion that the bull was a personal offering. However, in an attempt to challenge Rava’s position, Ravin Bar Rav Ada notes that Rava’s own students had previously quoted the opinion and sevara (rationale) of Rav Amram that the bull was a communal offering. And why is this so curious? Because if Rava’s students knew this teaching of Rav Amram, it suggests that they had heard it from Rava himself and that Rava – at least on a theoretical basis – may actually hold the alternative opinion that the bull offered by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur was a communal offering.

Interestingly, though Rava continues to argue his position, he does not respond to the specific reference by Ravin Bar Rav Ada to his students - which itself is even more curious. And this leads us to a number of possible conclusions in terms of Rava’s silence.

Firstly, Rava may have been offended by Ravin Bar Rav Ada for invoking his students in a debate between them, and thus he did not respond.

Alternatively, Rava may have felt that by referencing his students - who likely heard Rav Amram’s statement from him - that Ravin Bar Rav Ada was criticizing Rava’s teaching methods. Here too, Rava may have felt that this remark did not deserve a response.

Perhaps Rava did teach his students about Rav Amram’s position as part of a theoretical discussion, but was then surprised to hear that his students seemed to favour Rav Amram’s position, and thus Rava’s silence reflects his confusion.

Or perhaps Rava felt that there was nothing to comment about, because students are allowed to think differently to their teachers, and so he was proud to know that his students had done so in this case.

Overall, though it is not clear which of these responses, if any, best reflect the feelings of Rava, the fact that Rava’s students did quote the opinion of Rav Amram suggests that Rava, one way or another, taught the opinion of Rav Amram. And to my mind, this is itself one of the most important lessons we can learn from this episode - that a teacher should be prepared to teach positions that

5 www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

12 they themselves do not agree with, and trust their students to evaluate each opinion in order to reach their own decision.

Our conception of Yom Kippur today rests somewhat uneasily on this tension as well. Yom Kippur is meant to be a time of cheshbon hanefesh, a true accounting of one’s faults and shortcomings. This is by definition an act of individual soul-searching whereby we admit our faults and seek to improve upon them.

But the prayers we say on Yom Kippur -- most prominently the Viddui, the alphabetized confession that we repeat several times over the course of the day -- are expressed in the plural: We have sinned, we have betrayed, and so on. We join our individual guilt to collective failings, almost as if to say, if I atone while my community continues to sin, what good is my individual salvation?

So are our prayer offerings on Yom Kippur individual or communal? The answer, as our page today makes clear, is yes.

The rabbis on today’s daf do not resolve this dilemma. Nor do we when we stand before God each Yom Kippur. We offer our own efforts at redemption, and we join those efforts with those around us. The individual and communal are inexorably linked, and as we see our daf today, it can be hard, perhaps even impossible, to tell the one from the other.

The Sister of Lotan was Timna

Rav Aryeh Stern6 writes:7

Parshat Vayishlach concludes with a long chapter that delineates all of the descendents of Esav. Amongst the rest, the Torah tells of Timna: "Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz, the son of Esav, and she bore Amalek for Eliphaz." (Bereishit 36:12) Later on, the Torah adds yet another fact about Timna, "The sister of Lotan was Timna." (36:22)

When reading this we stand astonished – is this our holy Torah? Is the genealogy of Timna so important to eternalize it in the Torah of truth? Is it necessary to read in the Torah publicly on the holy Shabbat about things to trivial and unimportant such as these?

We need to be very careful when raising such questions, as the Gemara in Masechet Sanhedrin (99b) states:

The Rabbis taught: "The person who acts with rebellion" – this is Menashe, son of Chizkiya, who would sit and expound sermons of folly. Did Moshe have nothing to write other than, "the sister of Lotan was Timna. Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz." A heavenly voice rang

6 Translated by Rav Meir Orlian

7 https://www.kby.org/english/torat-yavneh/view.asp?id=3614

13 out and said to him: "You sit and talk against your brother; to your mother's son you attribute folly. You have done this and think, 'I will be like you.' I will rebuke and show to your eyes." About him it says in the Prophets: "Woe to those who pull sin with ropes of falsehood."

The Rambam writes about this in his introduction to Chapter Chelek about the thirteen principles of faith. The eighth principle is to believe that the entire Torah is what was given to Moshe Rabbeinu, and that it all came to him from Hashem. Therefore, there is no difference between the verse, "Shema Yisrael," or "I am Hashem," and the verse, "The sons of Cham were Cush," or "His wife's name was Mehetavel." All of it is G-d's Torah – perfect, pure, holy and truthful. Menashe was not considered by them as a heretic and sinner more than any other heretic, only because of his thought that the Torah has a heart and a skin, and that these things are stories that have no purpose. In truth, every word in the Torah has wisdom and wonders to one that G-d gave understanding. A person has only to go in the footsteps of David, G-d's Messiah, who prayed, "Reveal My eyes and I will see wonders of your Torah."

Indeed, the Gemara explains what lesson flows from these verses:

Timna was a princess, as it says, "The aluph of Lotan, the aluph of Timan." Every mention of aluph is a king without a crown. She wanted to convert. She came to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov and they did not accept her. She went and was a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esav. She said: It is better to be a maidservant to this nation than to be a noblewoman to another nation. Amalek descended from her, who caused Israel suffering. What was the reason? Because they should not have pushed her away.

In the sefer, Moadei Hareiyah, it is told of Purim festivities in the house of Rav Kook zt"l during the period that he was Rabbi of Yafo. Between each melody and each dance, Rav Kook spoke before the audience about issues of Purim, would stop to drink l'chayim, and continue.

One of the community leaders, R. Moshe Betzalel, entered, and since he would partly drunk, he turned to Rav Kook that he should say divrei Torah on a pasuk that seemingly has nothing to say about it, the pasuk of "The sister of Lotan was Timna." Rav Kook lifted his eyes and said with a broad smile: This pasuk is entirely relevant to Purim, since Amalek, the ancestor of Haman was born from this! Amalek was born because his mother was distanced when they should have converted her, and the correction for this ancient sin was during the days of Mordechai and Esther, as it says, "Many of the people of the land became Jewish," that many converted.

From this Rav Kook began to speak at length about kiruv and distancing, about Avraham Avinu and Sara, about whom it says, "the souls that they made in Charan," that they converted the men and the women. On the other hand R. Yochanan says in Masechet Nedarim (32a) that Avraham Avinu sinned in that he forewent the people of the King of Sodom.

We further find in the Midrash Rabbah (Bereishit Rabba 8:14):

14 R. Yuda says: There was anger against Avraham when he Lot, his nephew, separated from him. G-d said: Everyone he draws close to, and to Lot his brother he does not draw close? R. Nechemia said: G-d was angry when Lot was going with Avraham Avinu. G-d said, I said: To your descendants I will give this land, and he draws close Lot his nephew! This is what it says, "Chase away the fool, and strife will go away." Chase away the fool – this is Lot.

The question of kiruv is not simple. Sometimes, the same person and the same issue has aspects this way and that, and things have to be done with great carefulness, and with deep consideration. Our prayer is that that we should be of those who draw close and not of those who distance, and that all should be for His Name with love.

The Rabbis assert that Timna’s willingness to exchange her status of noblewoman for that of concubine attests to her pure intent to convert.

Sanhedrin 99b

What is the significance of the phrase in the verse “And Lotan’s sister was Timna”? The Gemara explains: Timna was the daughter of kings, as it is written: “The chief of Lotan” (Genesis 36:29), and: “The chief of Timna” (Genesis 36:40), and each chief is a member of a monarchy, albeit without a crown. That is why they are called chief and not king.

Timna sought to convert. She came before Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they did not accept her. She went and became a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and said, referring to herself: It is preferable that she will be a maidservant for this nation, and she will not be a noblewoman for another nation. Ultimately, Amalek, son of Eliphaz, emerged from her, and that tribe afflicted the Jewish people. What is the reason that the Jewish people were punished by suffering at the hand of Amalek? It is due to the fact that they should not have rejected her when she sought to convert.

Tamar Kadari writes:8

Timna was the sister of Lotan, one of Esau’s chiefs, and therefore the daughter of royalty. The Rabbis relate that she sought to convert and join Abraham’s household. She went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but since they would not accept her, she went and became the concubine of Eliphaz. She declared: “Better for me to be a handmaiden to this nation [Israel], and not a noblewoman of that nation [the chiefs of Esau]” (Midrash Tannaim on Deut., 32:47).

The Rabbis assert that Timna’s willingness to exchange her status of noblewoman for that of concubine attests to her pure intent to convert. The Patriarchs did not understand her true aim; instead of rejecting her, they should have drawn her to the bosom of Judaism. They were accordingly punished, for her union with Eliphaz produced Amalek, who would cause Israel to suffer (BT Sanhedrin 99b).

According to another tradition (Tanhuma, Vayeshev 1), the description of Eliphaz’s “marriage” to Timna teaches of corruption and degeneration among the descendants of Seir. This midrash is based on the inconsistency concerning Timna’s lineage between Gen. 36:20–22, in which she is presented as the sister of Lotan (the son of Seir), and I Chron. 1:36, that mentions her as the daughter of Eliphaz.

8 https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/timna-concubine-of-eliphaz-midrash-and-aggadah

16 The Rabbis reconcile this discrepancy by explaining that Timna was indeed Eliphaz’s daughter, as a result of his adulterous relations with Seir’s wife; to compound his sin, Eliphaz took his own daughter as his concubine. The Torah charts the lineage of Esau’s descendants at length, in order to show that this lineage was founded in adultery.

‘JOSHUA FIGHTING Amalek,’ print from the Phillip Medhurst Collection of Bible illustrations at St. George’s Court.

Timna – The price of rejection

SHMUEL RABINOWITZ writes:9

Vayishlah, tells us about the life of our patriarch Jacob, during the 17 years between the birth of Joseph to the time he was sold into slavery by his brothers. We read about the journey Jacob took with his wives and extended family from Haran to Canaan; about Jacob’s mysterious struggle with the angel that culminated in getting another name – Israel; about the complicated encounter between the brothers-adversaries, Jacob and Esau, that surprisingly ended in peace; about the sad

9 https://www.jpost.com/magazine/parashat-vayishlah-timna-the-price-of-rejection-572575

17 story of Jacob’s daughter Dinah who was kidnapped and raped by the people of Shechem, and about the rescue mission conducted by her brothers, Simeon and Levi; about Jacob’s journey from Shechem to Hebron, and the death of his beloved wife Rachel during Benjamin’s birth and her burial along the side of the road.

At the end of the portion, there is a chapter titled “the chronicles of Esau” which details his descendants and the kings who ruled in Edom, the land where Esau and his family resided.

Why should the chronicles of Esau interest someone learning the Bible? Commentators have suggested a variety of reasons. We will suffice with saying that the Torah positions the chronicles of Esau in contrast to the chronicles of Jacob, with Esau’s history being summarized in one chapter, and Jacob’s spreading out over at least 10 chapters. We can surmise from this regarding the relative impact of Jacob’s chain of generations versus Esau’s.

In the list of Esau’s chronicles, the name of one unknown woman stands out: Timna. This woman’s name appears twice in this chapter. At first, it says: “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz, son of Esau, and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek” (Genesis 36:12).

And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and 12 בי עַנְמִתְו הָתְיָה ,שֶׁגֶליִפ זַפיִלֱאֶל ןֶבּ - ,וָשֵׂﬠ ,וָשֵׂﬠ she bore to Eliphaz Amalek. These are the sons of Adah דֶלֵתַּו ,זַפיִלֱאֶל תֶא - ;קֵלָמֲﬠ ,הֶלֵּא נְבּ ֵ י דָﬠ הָ הָ דָﬠ י .Esau's wife תֶשֵׁא .וָשֵׂﬠ תֶשֵׁא Gen 36:12

From this we understand that Timna was a semi-legal wife married to Esau’s son. Their son, Amalek, would later represent a highly negative character when the nation named for him would wage battle with the Jewish nation leaving Egypt. This earned it a severe rebuke leading up to our commandment to erase it from the earth.

The second mention of Timna includes an important biographical detail. The Torah talks of the kings who ruled in Edom before Esau conquered the land: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan... and the sister of Lotan was Timna” (Genesis 36:20-22).

These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the 20 כ הֶלֵּא יֵנְב - ריִﬠֵשׂ רֹחַה ,יִ יֵבְשֹׁי יֵבְשֹׁי ,יִ רֹחַה ריִﬠֵשׂ ,land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah :ץֶרָאָה טוֹל ןָ בוֹשְׁ ו ,לָ צְ ו בִ ןוֹעְ ֲﬠַ ו .הָנֲַוןע ִצ ל וְֹון וֹ

and Dishon and Ezer and Dishan. These are the chiefs that 21 אכ ןוֹשִׁדְו ,רֶצֵאְו ;ןָשׁיִדְו הֶלֵּא יֵפוּלַּא יֵפוּלַּא הֶלֵּא ;ןָשׁיִדְו .came of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom יִרֹחַה יֵנְבּ ,ריִﬠֵשׂ ץֶרֶאְבּ .םוֹדֱא ץֶרֶאְבּ ,ריִﬠֵשׂ יֵנְבּ יִרֹחַה

בכ יַּו ִ וּיְה יֵנְב - טוֹל ,ןָ רֹח יִ הְ ו ֵ מי ;םָ ;םָ מי ֵ הְ ו יִ רֹח ,ןָ טוֹל תוֹחֲאַו ,ןָטוֹל .עָנְמִתּ Gen 36:20-22

18 It turns out that Eliphaz’s mistress and the mother of Amalek was not so unknown. Actually, she was the daughter of the local ruler in Edom. At this point, our radars go up. What is the story behind this woman and why is it important for us to know it?

The Babylonian Talmud provides further detail to this story, revealing Timna’s life story and even learning an important lesson from it: Timna was the daughter of kings and sought to convert. She came before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and they did not accept her. She went and became a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and said, referring to herself: It is preferable to be a maidservant for this nation and not be a noblewoman for another nation.

Ultimately, Amalek emerged from her and that tribe afflicted the Jewish people. What is the reason that the Jewish people were punished by suffering at the hand of Amalek? It is due to the fact that they should not have rejected her when she sought to convert.10

This sheds a new light on Timna and turns her into a symbol of devotion for the sake of faith. This woman was royalty and could have herself become a ruler.

She was fascinated by the faith and lifestyle of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and chose to follow them. But the patriarchs rejected her. She did not despair and instead chose to live the difficult life of a concubine to Eliphaz, the son of Esau, just to be able to somehow join the family of Abraham.

The patriarchs’ rejection of Timna came with a steep price. Centuries later, following the Exodus from Egypt, the descendants of her son, Amalek, made the lives of the Jewish people miserable. To this day, “Amalek” represents hatred of Jews and the persecutions we have suffered for generations.

So, what is the lesson we are meant to learn from this painful story? The rejection of any person, particularly if the rejection is of spiritual significance, should never be done haphazardly. We must carefully examine the good and pure intentions of the person before us, check if he or she is indeed honestly and courageously seeking to devote himself to a life of profound faith, as Timna was willing to surrender her social status in order to join the faith of Abraham; and if so, we must help him move forward and transcend.

The Darker Mystical Side of Timnah

Peirush Hafla'ah on Pesach Haggadah, Magid, First Fruits Declaration 7

10 Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, page 99.

Similarly, the name, Timnah hints to the divine sparks and the demonic which are mixed together in the world.

The first letters of Timnah, tauf-mem, can be transmuted into el by moving back one letter in the alphabet. And the last two letters of this name, nun-eyin, can be transmuted into Sam67Sam means poison. This is a form of decoding in which the practitioner moves back or forward one letter in the aleph bet to create a hidden word. Note that in moving ‘back’ one letter, the tauf which is the final letter in the alphabet becomes an aleph, the first letter in the alphabet., which is part of the name, Samael.68Samael is the name of the power of evil. This transmutation of letters works by moving back from the letter taf to the letter aleph.

This is an allusion to a deep mystery in the cosmic unfolding of the world.

Timnah sought out Jacob in the hope of being repaired, but Jacob was only able to repair the first two letters of her name – they became el. Timnah then went to Eliphaz. She brought the sparks of the divine wisdom and, as a result, Amalek was born from this relationship,6969 See the continuation of discussion in Sanhedrin99b

- What is the purpose of [writing], And Lotan's sister was Timna? — Timna was a royal princess, as it is written, “Alluf *duke+ Lotan, alluf *duke+ Timna;” and by 'alluf' an uncrowned ruler is meant. Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her. So, she went and became a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying, 'I would rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another nation.' From her, Amalek was descended, who afflicted Israel. Why so? —Because they should not have repulsed her. and as a result, the second part of her name was transformed into sam, poison.

The divine sparks, then, have the power to give birth to either holiness or impurity. Thus, the verse in Genesis alludes, “Wisdom (Lotan) is the sister of Samael (Timnah).” Timnah is referred to a concubine, in Genesis 36, because she used subterfuge to be transformed through the wisdom. Because Jacob was unable to transform and repair the nun-ayin of the name Timnah, Eliphaz was able to pursue and damage Jacob.70

According to a Midrash, Eliphaz was sent by Esau to kill Jacob. He thought better of this plan when he caught up to his uncle and acted on his uncle’s suggestion – by stealing all of his possessions, he could say he left him like a dead man. Poverty, according to the rabbis is as bad as death! 11

Nun-ayin, when reversed spell Ani, impoverish! The reason he did not kill Jacob was that he did not have the power to do so since Jacob had repaired the first letters of Timnah’s name: the tuaf mem, when reversed spell mayt, dead. Thus, Jacob could not be killed!

The use of Timnah as a typology for the Midrashic attitudes to King Manasseh

Matthias Henze writes:12

11 See Ginsburg, Legends of the Jews, Book 1, page 346 12 Henze, Matthias 1965-. "King Manasseh of Judah in Early Judaism and Christianity." On Prophets, Warriors, and Kings 2016, pp. [183]-228.

24 King Manasseh and the Halakhah of the Sadducees

Aharon Shemesh writes:13

13 journal of jewish studies, vol. lii, no. 1, spring 2001

I would like to consider the following tradition, cited in Sifri to Numbers (112, ed. Horowitz, p. 120), which describes the Judahite king Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, as : 17

According to this homily, as usually explained, Manasseh ridiculed the biblical text, saying that Moses wrote the two verses mentioned unnecessarily; this constitutes deprecation of the Torah, ‘disclosing faces’ in the sense of insolence, contempt. This interpretation agrees with the continuation of the passage. Describing Manasseh as offering ‘contemptuous expositions’ (the Hebrew here perhaps is a play on words, alluding to the verb in Num. 15:30), the Midrash cites the only verse in the Bible containing the word :

plains the next verse, ‘If I failed to act when you did these things, you would fancy that I was like you’, as follows: ‘you might think that Divine ways are like the ways of flesh and blood, “so I censure you and confront you with charges”.’ This probably intends to say that, while mortals may sometimes say superfluous things, not so God: every word in the Torah is indispensable.18

A similar interpretation is found in Sifri Deuteronomy (336, ed. Finkelstein, pp. 385–386). Expounding the verse, ‘For this is not a trifling thing for you’, the Midrash teaches: ‘There is nothing trifling in the Torah which, if properly expounded, will not earn a person a reward in this world, while the stock remains to his credit in the world to come. Know that such is the case, for they say, why is it written that “Lotan’s sister was Timna” (Gen. 35:22) and “Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Esau” (Gen. 35:12)? That is because she said, “I am not worthy of being his wife, I shall be his concubine.” And why was that?—to inform you of the favour in which [God held] our Father Abraham’, etc.19 The association created by the homilist between the verse ‘Lotan’s sister was Timna’ and the interpretation of the verse ‘This is not a trifling thing for you’ indicates that the former verse was frequently cited by the tannaim as a classical case of an apparently superfluous verse in the Torah. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 99b; translation based on Soncino ed.), too, renders a similar explanation of the information that Timna sister of Lotan was a concubine of Esau’s son Eliphaz, also adding an explanation of the need for the other verse cited previously, ‘And Reuben went . . . ’: ‘À propos, what is the purpose of [writing] “Lotan’s sister was Timna”? Timna was a royal princess, as is written, alluf [duke] Lotan, alluf [duke] Timna, and by alluf an uncrowned ruler is meant. Desiring to become a proselyte, she went to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they did not accept her.

So, she went and became a concubine of Eliphaz the son of Esau, saying: “I had rather be a servant to this people than a mistress of another people.” From her Amalek was descended, who afflicted Israel. Why so?—Because they should not have repulsed her. “And Reuben went at the time of the wheat harvest.” Raba b. Isaac said in Rab’s name: This shows that righteous men do not take what is not theirs.’20 To my mind, this interpretation still merits further thought.

The baraita describes Manasseh’s offence as ‘he sits and offers contemptuous interpretations . . . ’ If Manasseh merely argued that these verses are superfluous, why does the text refer to this as , ‘expound, interpret’? In addition, one might ask why Manasseh concerned himself with these particular verses, as there are surely other verses in the Torah that arouse the same question. In what follows, I would like to offer a new explanation of Manasseh’s ‘interpretation’, based on the alternative explication of the expression ‘to discloses face [or: faces] in the Torah, namely, to devise a new, improper, exposition of the Torah. This explanation is in good agreement with another talmudic tradition relating to Manasseh. A barayta in Sanh. 113b states: ‘Our Rabbis taught: Manasseh interpreted the Priestly Law [=Leviticus] in fiftyfive different ways corresponding to the years of his reign.’ Here Manasseh (like other wicked people) is described as a scholar, capable of expounding the Torah, who could teach ‘interpret the Priestly Code in fifty-five different ways’.

Accordingly, Manasseh’s comments ‘Did He have nothing to write in the Torah but “And Reuben went”?! and did He have nothing to write in the Torah but “and Lotan’s sister was Timna”?!’ were not merely deprecatory remarks concerning seemingly superfluous verses, but the beginnings of midrashic expositions—actual expositions of the text that the Sages suppressed as being , ‘improper’. We propose, in addition, that the Sages made special efforts to demonstrate the lessons to be learned from these verses—precisely because they rejected Manasseh’s ‘contemptuous expositions’.

28 References

‘Three Rabbis of Jerusalem’ (Isaac Snowman, 1873-1947)

Timna and Purim

The following description of Purim in Rav Kook’s house when he served as chief rabbi of Jaffa was related by Rabbi Yeshaya Greenberg, headmaster of the Sha’arei Torah school in Jaffa:

Chanan Morrison writes:14

The joy overflowed in the Rav’s house during the Purim holiday. Breslov hassidim, who throughout the year were warmly received by Rav Kook, on Purim became the head merry-makers. Reb Meir Anshin and his friends would dance on the table, and the sounds of song and laughter drew many people to the Rav’s house. Between songs and dances, Rav Kook spoke about the holiday, making frequent interruptions to drink a lechaim. Any question or comment received an immediate rejoinder, with the Rav finding a direct connection to the holiday.

Reb Moshe’s Question At one point, Reb Moshe Betzalel Todrosovich, a wealthy Jaffa merchant and philanthropist who was instrumental in bringing Rav Kook to Jaffa, entered the Rav’s house. Reb Moshe had already finished his Purim meal at home, and being somewhat inebriated, requested that the Rav expound upon a verse that had no obvious connection to the holiday. “Rebbe, please explain to us the verse, ‘And Lotan’s sister was Timna’ (Gen. 36:22).” Rav Kook looked up and fixed his gaze on the questioner. “Why, Reb Moshe, that verse is integrally connected to Purim,“ he replied with a wide smile. “In fact, the whole story of Purim begins from there!” Reb Moshe was astounded. “Really? What does Lotan’s sister have to do with Purim?”

The Reason for Amalek’s Hatred Rav Kook then quoted the Talmudic statement in Sanhedrin 99b that Timna wanted to marry into the family of Abraham but was not accepted. In the end, she became the concubine of Esau’s eldest son. “Better to be a maidservant to this people,” Timna reasoned, “than a princess of another people.” As punishment for rejecting Timna, the Jewish people were cursed with the eternal enmity of Timna’s son — Amalek. This of course is the connection to the story of Purim, for Haman, the enemy of the Jews, was a descendant of Amalek. Haman’s hatred of the Jews and his decree to destroy them in fact originated in the failure to convert his great-grandmother Timna. But this error was redressed in the time of Mordechai and Esther, when “Many of the peoples of the land became Jews” (Esther 8:17). Rav Kook continued to expound on this topic for two hours, drawing from both Halachic and Aggadic sources, quoting the Zohar and Maimonides, his words shining with brilliance and

14 http://www.ravkooktorah.org/PURIM61.htm

31 erudition. When he finally concluded, Reb Moshe jumped up, grabbed the Rav and hugged him, crying, “Rebbe, I love you!”15

15 Silver from the Land of Israel, pp, 143-144. Adapted from Mo'adei HaRe’iyah , pp. 248-249.