A defense attorney, cross-examining a pathologist, asked, "Before you signed the death certificate, had you taken the pulse?"There is a famous midrash, made famous by Rashi's citation of it, that our forefather Yaakov did not die.
"Pathologist: 'No.'
"Attorney: 'Did you listen to the heart?'
"Pathologist: 'No.'
"Attorney:'Did you check for breathing?'
"Pathologist:'No.'
"Attorney: 'So, when you signed the death certificate you weren't sure the man was dead, were you?'
"Pathologist: 'Well, let me put it this way: The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I guess it's possible he could be practicing law somewhere.'
If so, what Yosef did next was extremely cruel, and probably a violation of kubud av. Bereishit 50:2:
removing the brain through the nostrils and placing it in a jar, certainly not a pleasant experience for one who is alive. Is Yaakov Avinu practicing law somewhere?
Similarly, why should the Egyptians have mourned him?
Yaakov's sons also buried him, an unneccessary and possibly also unpleasant experience:
pasuk seems to say that Yaakov died:
Bereishit 49:33:
vayamat. In constrast, by Avraham, three expressions are used. Bereishit 25:7-8:
Bereishit 35:28-29:
midrash pays attention. Still, the actual derivation that Yaakov didn't die (or perhaps "isn't dead") is from a pasuk in Yirmiyahu, which we will treat later.
I would also note that a pasuk seems to explicitly say that Yaakov is dead. In Vayechi, in Bereishit 50:15:
The objection that Yaakov was mummified, mourned, and buried, is one that is brought up in the actual text describing the midrash:
(Taanit 5b):
רב נחמן ור' יצחק הוו יתבי בסעודתא א"ל רב נחמן לר' יצחק לימא מר מילתא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן אין מסיחין בסעודה שמא יקדים קנה לושט ויבא לידי סכנה בתר דסעוד א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת א"ל וכי בכדי ספדו ספדנייא וחנטו חנטייא וקברו קברייא א"ל מקרא אני דורש שנאמר (ירמיהו ל) ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ה' ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים
And a translation from a website called Beis Moshiach :)
Rav Nachman and Rav Yitzchok, two sages of the Talmud, sat together at a feast. Rav Nachman said to Rav Yitzchok, "Master, say a few words, if you would."Rav Yitzchok responded: "So says Rebbi Yochanan: ‘there should be no talk at meals, lest food enter the windpipe instead of the esophagus, leading to mortal danger.’"
At the end of the meal, Rav Yitzchok continued: "So says Rebbi Yochanan: ‘Yaakov Avinu did not die.’"
Rav Nachman objected, "was it then in vain that the eulogizers eulogized and the embalmers embalmed and the gravediggers buried?!" [as the Torah describes].
Rav Yitzchok answered: "I derive this from Scripture, as it is said: ‘And you, my servant Yaakov, do not fear,’ says the L-rd, ‘and do not be dismayed, Yisroel, for you I will save from afar, and your offspring [I will save] from the land of their captivity.’ This verse associates Yaakov to his progeny to teach us that just as his offspring are alive, so is he alive."
One think that should immediately be noted is that Rav Nachman protested. He did lay aside critical thinking and just accept it, for it seemed quite strange, and further seemed to contradict the plain text of the Chumash. Alas, nowadays people are ready to accept much stranger midrashim without thinking about them and considering them in light of the text and common sensibilities. He also did not dismiss it as being "silly midrash" anyway so we might as well let it go, which alas is another common reaction nowadays.
How exactly Rav Yitzchak's response is a valid response is another, non-trivial question, to which I may not have a satisfactory answer.
One possibility which should be immediately considered is that he was aiming for a spit-take, "a comedic technique in which someone spits a beverage out of his or her mouth when he or she reacts to a statement."
After all, we must not ignore context, and context here is that they were in the course of a meal when Rav Nachman requested a dvar Torah. Rav Yitzchak replied that talking during the meal might lead to choking. After the meal, he offered the type of dvar Torah which could easily have led to choking.
On the other hand, both statements were cited from Rabbi Yochanan, so we must also consider that Rabbi Yochanan most likely did not state this in this context.
Others take this midrash, like many midrashim, to be non-literal, but rather reflecting some homiletic, symbolic, spiritual, or religious truth. Which perhaps is the meaning of the clarification that he was hemeneutically deducing this midrashically, from a verse in Yirmiyahu.
I would add, perhaps this is a local derasha to Yirmiyahu, telling us something there. Perhaps as midrash we should not care that it contradicts verses elsewhere, since midrash sometimes gives significance to close local reading at the expense of less narrow context. Also, perhaps what is meant is that Yaakov Avinu is not dead, now, in the time of Yirmiyahu to the present, even though he did in fact die in the past. See how JPS translates כִּי-מֵת אֲבִיהֶם above, as "that their father was dead." Similarly, Yaakov Avinu Lo Meit can mean that he is not dead, but not that in the past he didn't die. Perhaps some sort of resurrection? (Indeed, the previous pasuk is understood by some in Chazal to refer to King David's ressurrection and future reign.) Indeed, the derasha is that מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים, and is thus about being alive, and not about not having died.
Or perhaps the fact that there is a derasha supercedes simple peshat.
Note also that to show Yaakov Avinu is not dead (or didn't die), Rav Yitzchak needs to bolster his case with a pasuk. In the absence of such a derasha, such a wild statement would not have been accepted. Therefore, it would be difficult to extrapolate from this one case of Yaakov to others who have died but whose followers claim that he did not (such as Shabbetai Tzevi and other messianic figures).
We should consider exactly what is being deduced from Yirmiyahu 30:10:
derasha be "just as his offspring are alive, so is he alive." Where was aliveness mentioned anywhere in the pasuk? This seems somewhat random. We could as easily have said: just as his descendants wear red suspenders, so too he wears red suspenders. Or: just as they wear a yarmulke, so too Yaakov wears a yarmulke (which we have independent proof from the derasha on (Vayeitzei Yaakov" :) ).
I believe the answer is to be found in the context in that perek. Earlier we have:
| ד וְאֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה אֶל-יִשְׂרָאֵל--וְאֶל-יְהוּדָה. | 4 And these are the words that the LORD spoke concerning Israel and concerning Judah. |
However, the address is to the singular Yaakov. Presumably the Biblical personality is being utilized, and addressed, as representative of his descendants.
On the peshat level, verse 10 is written in the style of other Biblical poetry, in that parallelism is used:
אַל-תִּירָא עַבְדִּי יַעֲקֹב
וְאַל-תֵּחַת יִשְׂרָאֵל
So אַל matches וְאַל
יַעֲקֹב matches יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The word עַבְדִּי only occurs in the first but distributes to the other. This is called a ballast variant.
Further,
כִּי הִנְנִי מוֹשִׁיעֲךָ מֵרָחוֹק
means I will save you from afar
וְאֶת-זַרְעֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ שִׁבְיָם
and while saving is not mentioned here, it distributes, and so I will save "your descendants" from the land of their captivity.
מֵרָחוֹק matches מֵאֶרֶץ שִׁבְיָם.
The end of the verse also displays Biblical parallelism. To this end, Yaakov is paired with, and matches, his descendants. On a peshat level, this is two ways of saying the same thing, the first using the Biblical figure of Yaakov symbolically, and the second unravelling the symbolism and making clear that this is addressed to the Benei Yisrael, Yaakov's descendants.
See what the midrash is noting. We would have thought that Yaakov is dead and is only being addressed symbolically. But on a midrashic level, poetic repetition is not an answer. Poetic repetition, or keifel inyan bemilim shonot, goes against the concept of omnisignificance, in which every word has meaning. Thus, there is a distiction to be made between Yaakov and his descendants. The first portion is addressed to Yaakov as an individual and the second portion to his descendants.
If this is truly being addressed to the Biblical person of Yaakov, then it is actually Yaakov, not the nation, who is to be saved from afar. That is, just as the descendants are live people to whom Yirmiyahu's words are being addressed, so too Yaakov is being used as an actual living person (and not a symbol) to whom Yirmiyahu is speaking.
This is the point of Rabbi Yochanan's derasha. I would even venture to say that he is not addressing parshat Vayechi at all, but rather just locally addressing Yirmiyahu perek 30. He probably would not say Yaakov Avinu Lo Met. This quote is attributed to him, but Rabbi Yochanan might have merely said "ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ה' ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים."
Rav Yitzchak then might have reformulated this to increase the shock-value of the statement, perhaps to demonstrate why one should not talk during a meal. His answer of mikra ani doresh, I am darshening Scripture, followed by the specific derash, is an answer of the true statement of Rabbi Yochanan.
2 comments:
That joke is taken from Anguished English.
This is an outstanding research that used to reply to an email distribution list authored by RabbiYossiLew@aol.com titled "LIFE WITHOUT DEATH". The Torah clearly states that Yaacov died.
The idea that Yaacov is still alive was a too beautiful metaphor and statement to be rejected. We believe in it now and who cares to read the sources...
Miha Ahornovitz
Post a Comment