Do We Create Our Own Enemies?

Photo Credit: Natalie Sopinsky

In this shiur I would like to focus on the last part of the parsha, the listing of the descendants of Eisav and specifically on the pasuk “And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz the son of Eisav (Bereishit 36:12).”

Timna was the daughter of a king. The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 82:14) tells us that Timna wanted to convert and become part of Am Yisrael. She first approached Avraham, but he rejected her. She then approached Yitzchak and he too rejected her. She approached Yaakov and Yaakov also refused to accept her as a convert. She then said, “Better to be the mistress of the son of Eisav (Eliphaz), than to be a queen of my own nation.” As we know, from the union of Timna and Eliphaz, a son was born – Amalek!

Why did all three of the Avot reject her? Chazal say that Timna had an agenda. She did not simply want to convert because she believed in and wanted to serve G-d, but because she wanted to become the wife of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov – in turn – and be one of the Matriarchs that gave birth to Am Yisrael. She wanted to be in place of Sarah, Rivka, Leah/Rachel. So why is that so terrible? Sarah, Rivka, Leah and Rachel were also converts? Chazal say that a true convert can have no other agenda than wanting to believe in G-d. Since Timna made marriage a condition of her converting, she was not a true convert.

Repeated rejection did something to Timna. It sowed the seed of frustration followed by hate and the result was Amalek, who caused Am Yisrael untold grief over the millennia.

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 99b) says that the Avot were mistaken in rejecting her. They should have accepted her and then Amalek would never have come into being.

There is a principle – that later generations are forbidden to criticize early generations. In the Gemara (Shabbat 112b), it says – “If the ‘Early Ones’ were like angels, then we are like people. If they were like people, then we are like donkeys.” If so, how can an Amorah criticize the Avot?

Let us assume for a moment that the Avot knew for certain what the repercussions of rejecting Timna would be and that they were faced with a dilemma. If they accept her as a convert, it would conflict with the halacha, because she had an agenda. On the other hand, if they rejected her, they could be the instrument that creates Amalek. What does one do in this situation? We know they decided to follow the halacha and reject her. But the Gemara criticizes them for that.

HaRav Ouri Cherky says that both were right, the Avot were right in their generation and the Amorah was right in his. He explains that the halachot of conversion are not absolute. They differ according to the circumstances of the generation.

The Amorah in the Gemara above lived at time when accepting a convert of the class of Timna, who was a convert with other additional motives, would have been accepted. But in the time of the Avot, Am Yisrael had not yet become consolidated and only 100% pure converts were accepted. Therefore, both the Avot and the Amorah were right – each for their own generation and therefore it does not constitute criticism of the Avot, as explained above.

Even if the decision of the Avot was based on the relevant halacha in that generation, was it the right decision? We know the end result – Amalek!

The Gemara (Gittin 55b) brings another case of someone who followed the halacha to the letter and was criticized for it – Zecharia ben Avkulas. In the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, the gadol hador Zecharia ben Avkulas, refused to budge an inch on the halacha and the Gemara criticizes him, saying that his actions caused the destruction of the Second Temple.

In a case like this, when you know the possible catastrophic repercussions of such a decision (perhaps even know for certain that those will be the repercussions), how do you rule? Do you rule according to the halacha, or do you compromise on the halacha to save catastrophe?

The Avot went with the halacha. Zechariah ben Avkulas went with the halacha. But the Gemara on the other hand, in hindsight – criticizes them. So, who is right?

Even if the Avot had not rejected Timna and accepted her as a convert, Amalek would probably still have been born – because he was necessary to give rise to essential figures in the Jewish nation, like Rebbi Akiva! (Chinuch, with commentary of the Minchat Chinuch, mitzvah 425, comment 3).

If Zecharia ben Avkulas had allowed Bar Kamtza’s korban to be brought, he may have temporarily averted disaster, but the Second Temple would still have been destroyed – because Am Yisrael deserved for it to be destroyed due to sinat chinam. The mefarshim say it was not Zecharia ben Avkula’s decision to not bring Bar Kamtza’s korban that caused the destruction, it was his silence at the banquet, that he should have prevented the shaming of Bar Kamtza.

When faced with a dilemma of this nature, we must go with the halacha and leave the calculations up to G-d, not try foresee the future and do our own limited, human calculations.

Parshat HaShavua Trivia Question: Why did Yaakov backtrack to retrieve “small pots” (Bereishit 32:25)?

Answer to Last Week’s Trivia Question: How is it that Yaakov arrived at the house of Lavan penniless? Surely Yitzchak sent him to the house of his future bride with a lavish dowry, like Avraham sent Eliezer? As Yaakov was leaving for Charan he was confronted by Eliphaz, son of Eisav who was ordered by Eisav to kill him. Yaakov managed to convince Eliphaz to steal all his possessions, as a poor man is considered “dead.”

Source link