WHAT DID REUVEN DO?
VAYISHLACH
Bereshis35:22 describes the following event, which occurred soon after Rachel’s deathand burial:
While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, hisfather’s concubine; and Israel found out. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number. *
Shabbos 55b presents two interpretations of the incident. The first is theopinion of R. Yonatan, who insists that we should not interpret this eventliterally, but instead, interpret it metaphorically. The second opinion,articulated by R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, interpret the event literally:
1. R. Sh’muel b. Nachman said in R. Yonatan'sname: Whoever maintains that Reuven sinned is simply mistaken [Hebrew: to’eh],for the verse concludes, “The sons of Jacob were twelve” [Bereshis 35:22] - teaching that they all remained equal [which presumably wouldnot have been the case had Reuven actually slept with his father’s concubine].
Torah Sh’laimah presents two alternative manuscript readings to the verb “to’eh”[“mistaken”] in the foregoing statement: 1. Cho’teh (which may meaneither “is sinning”, or “is missing the mark”) 2. Shoteh (which means, “isa fool”).
Thus,R. Yonatan asserts that the reader who concludes that Reuven actually sleptwith Bilhah is either sinning, missing the mark, or simply foolish.
Beforepresenting the other opinion, the sugya proceeds to question R. Yonatan’sopinion.
If so, how [according to R. Yonatan) shouldwe interpret the Torah’s explicit statement:
“…and he [Reuven]lay with Bilhah, hisfather's concubine”?!
Inresponse to this challenge, the Talmud presents R. Yonatan’s metaphoricalinterpretation:
This verse means that Reuventransposed his father's couch[from Bilhah’s tent to Leah’s tent], and the Torahimputes [blame] to him as if he had lain with [Bilhah]…
Inother words: Yaakov had considered Rachel to be his primary wife; for thatreason, he had kept his own bed in her tent. Following Rachel’s death, he movedhis bed into the tent of Bilhah, Rachel’s maidservant. Reuven viewed this actas a humiliating insult to Leah, his mother.
Said Reuven: “My mother'ssister was a rival to my mother [which hi=urt her deeply]. Now shall the maidservantof my mother's sister [Bilhah] be a rival to my mother as well?!” [Thereupon]he transposed Yaakov’s bed [from Bilhah’s tent to the tent of Leah].
Asa second challenge to R. Yonatan’s interpretation, the Talmud proceeds to quoteYaakov’s harsh deathbed criticism of Reuven:
Unstable [Hebrew: Pachaz] as water, you shall excel no longer.
For when you mounted your father’s bed,
You brought disgrace— he mounted my couch! [Bereshis 49:4].
Perhapsbecause of this second challenge, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua both insist that Reuven’ssin should be understood literally. Each Tanna interprets the word pachaz - translatedhere as “unstable” - as an acronym:
2. R.Eliezer interpreted the word pachaz as an acronym, as follows:
“You were hasty [Paztah]”;
“You were guilty [CHavtah]”;
“You disgraced [Zaltah].”
3. R. Yehoshua also interpreted the wordpachaz as an acronym, as follows:
“You overstepped [Pasa’tah]the law
“You sinned [CHatasa]”
“You fornicated [Zanisa].”
Theforegoing sugya makes clear that there is no definitive consensus regarding howwe are to understand Ma’aseh Reuven.
**********************************************************
Iwant to re-examine the statement of R. Yonatan to consider it somewhat differently.Here again is the statement:
Whoever maintains that Reuven sinned is simply mistaken [sinning,missing the mark, foolish].
Iunderlined “Reuven” to suggest that R. Yonatan’s point is that we have no rightto judge Reuven - the actual person - because it isimpossible of us to know what occurred historically. As the foregoing opinionsin the Talmudic discussion demonstrate, Reuven may have slept with Bilhah in aliteral sense, but perhaps he did not. We don’t know what Reuven did. Realistically,we are not capable of uncovering the actual event, nor are we mandated to evenattempt to discover the historical reality. To determine what occurredhistorically is the task of historians and archeologists; We may view our mandate,i.e., the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, as a three-fold obligation:
[1]to strive to understand each of the multiple possibilities inherent in the Torahtext, aided by the insights and traditions which appear in the midrash, theaggadah, and the classical post-talmudic commentators;
[2]to strive to understand what each interpretation teaches us regarding the humancondition;
[3]and, when appropriate, to apply to our lives the lessons derived from thevarious interpretations.
Theidea that Biblical historical narratives are open to multiple legitimateinterpretations is manifest implicitly throughout classical Rabbinicliterature. The Talmud (in Eruvin 13b and Gittin 61b) famously asserts,regarding mutually exclusive Rabbinic opinions, that both opinions (in acontroversy) represent the words of the Living God. The following statements, (from Sanhedrin 34a)reinforce the concept of multiple interpretations, all of which constitutelegitimate readings if the Divine message:
Abaye said: The verse states: “Godhas spoken once, [but] twice I have heard this; that strength belongs to God”(Psalms 62:12). One verse is stated by God and from it emerge several meanings…
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “Is notMy word like as fire, says the Lord; and like a hammer that breaks the rock inpieces” (Jeremiah 23:29)? Just as this hammer breaks a stone into severalfragments, so too, one verse is stated by God and from it emerge several meanings.**
Tosummarize: Biblical narrative is not reportage-journalism. The precisehistorical reality is not as relevant to the student of Torah as is the text’sinherent expressivity. As Torah, Hashem presents personalities and events forus to contemplate and analyze, often in numerous different ways.
*The root פחז appears in the Bible onlyonce again, in Yirmiyah 23:32
הִ֠נְנִ֠י עַֽל־נִבְּאֵ֞י חֲלֹמ֥וֹת שֶׁ֙קֶר֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔הוַֽיְסַפְּרוּם֙ וַיַּתְע֣וּ אֶת־עַמִּ֔י בְּשִׁקְרֵיהֶ֖ם וּבְפַחֲזוּתָ֑םוְאָנֹכִ֨י לֹֽא־שְׁלַחְתִּ֜ים וְלֹ֣א צִוִּיתִ֗ים וְהוֹעֵ֛יל לֹא־יוֹעִ֥ילוּלָעָם־הַזֶּ֖ה נְאֻם־יְהֹוָֽה׃
I am going todeal with those who prophesy lying dreams—declares the LORD—who relate them tolead My people astray with their reckless lies, when I did not send them orcommand them. They do this people no good—declares the LORD.
** The phrase, שבעים פנים לתורה [=The Torah has seventyfaces] does not appear in the Talmud; its origin is in BamidbarRabbah 13:15 and in the Zohar Chadash, Ruth 78a; Zohar II, 99a.