Question #1:
Who was Amalek’s mother?
Question #2:
Why was she not accepted into the Jewish people?
Answers
This article will be discussing several observations germane to motherhood based on ideas that surface in the parshiyos of Tolados, Vayeitzei and Vayishlach. This will be combined with the concept of Amalek, even though it sounds strange to mix such seemingly dissimilar themes.
We will begin at the end of parshas Tolados: Yaakov has received the berachos, Yitzchak recognizes that he had mistakenly intended to give the berachos to the wrong person, Eisav begged for berachos and receives a generous beracha. As Yaakov is about to leave, Yitzchak gives him another beracha — the birkas Avraham.
Eisav is planning to murder his brother, Yaakov. We can legitimately ask why Eisav is so enraged about Yaakov receiving the berachos. He had already sold Yaakov the rights of the firstborn, and, anyway, does not appear very interested in fulfilling anything to do with the family business. Although it is true that Yaakov got the berachos instead of him, but what would Eisav have done with those berachos? However, as we all know, anger and hate are irrational.
Rivkah knows about Eisav’s plans, but does not tell them to Yitzchak – whether because she is afraid of the damage it will do to his health or some other reason, we are never told. She considers knowledge of Eisav’s plans to be information placed on a need-to-know basis, and Yitzchak does not need to know Eisav’s murderous intent. Instead, she tells Yitzchak that Yaakov should not marry a local girl, but one of her nieces – notwithstanding that this means making a shidduch with Lavan, far from an exemplary mechutan. Yitzchak, having seen what Eisav’s two wives are like, heartily approves of the idea.
Yitzchak sends Yaakov on his way, and that is where parshas Tolados ends. “Yitzchak sends Yaakov to Padan Aram.” Padan Aram, also known as Aram Naharayim, is in Mesopotamia. The word Mesopotamia means “between the rivers,” just as the word naharayim means “the pair of rivers.” (There is another Aram, Aram Tzova, in Syria, identified with the northern and northwestern parts of Syria, Aleppo and its environs. These two areas, Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova, together are the origins of the Aramite area and of the “Aramaic” language. Aramaic later becomes the lingua franca of the Middle East for several hundred years, when it replaces Greek, and before Arabic replaces it. By the way, it is still a spoken language among some populations in this region.)
Let us return to the pasuk. “Yitzchak sent Yaakov to Padan Aram — to Lavan the son of Besuel the Aramean, the brother of Rivkah, the mother of Yaakov and Eisav.”
In reference to these words, “The mother of Yaakov and Eisav,” Rashi leaves a four-word Hebrew comment: Eini yodei’a mah melamdeinu, “I do not know what this is teaching us.”
This itself is not a strange comment by Rashi. Dozens of times, throughout the Chumash and the Gemara, Rashi informs us that he is unaware of the answer to a question. Rashi has no ego to protect. He is the ultimate, exceptional pedagogue; without question, he is the greatest pedagogue of all history.
However, here it seems that there are very satisfying answer to his question. Several of the commentaries — Ohr Hachayim, Seforno, Ramban and others — provide very nice answers to explain these three extra words in the pasuk, “the mother of Yaakov and Eisav,” and so could have Rashi. Why does Rashi not suggest one of their approaches?
I believe that Rashi is bothered by a different issue: When we have an expression like this — a few words that seem to be extra — it makes it appear as if Tanach is literature in which words are added only to smooth out the writing style. However, Rashi tells us each time (see, for example, his comments to Bereishis 3:8), that his goal is to explain the pshat of the pasuk, and/or he will examine the various midrashei Chazal and pick from them one or two statements that he feels the pasuk is emphasizing.
What is bothering Rashi here? The words, “the mother of Yaakov and Eisav” are not needed for the pshat, since we know who Rivkah is. A simple explanation of what these words are adding is also not difficult. We know that she is the mother of both Yaakov and Eisav and that she loves Yaakov, her younger son, more than Eisav, the elder. The reason she loves Yaakov more than Eisav is also not difficult; Yaakov will be her spiritual heir, and Eisav, be a source of grief. Throughout the story of the berachos, she goes out of her way to care for Yaakov. However, she still loves Eisav as her son. As a wayward son, perhaps, but she still loves him. No matter how far he distances himself from everything she cherishes, she still loves him. As, in fact, she told Yaakov: “Go to Aram; why should I lose both of you?” That is her big concern. She doesn’t want to lose both, or either, of them.
Thus, making the words, “the mother of Yaakov and Eisav,” read nicely in the pasuk is not difficult; that is not what is bothering Rashi. What Rashi is saying is that there should be a midrashic interpretation that would satisfy his audience on a deeper level. As Rashi himself describes the process of his commentary, he explains a pasuk according to its simplest pshat, or according to a midrash aggadah that fits the pasuk smoothly. However, here there are few midrashim, and none which Rashi feels fits the pshat of the pasuk.
Yaakov leaves empty-handed
Below, we will discuss Timna, the mother of Amalek. Eisav has a son named Elifaz, and Elifaz has a son named Amalek. We learn a lot about Elifaz from a comment of Rashi in parshas Vayeitzei.
As an introduction to understand Elifaz, we will begin with a puzzling fact at the beginning of parshas Vayeitzei. Why is Yaakov empty-handed when he heads toward Charan? To make Yitzchak’s shidduch, Eliezer took ten camels laden with the most valuable items of the time. Sure, Yaakov was in a rush because Eisav wanted to kill him, but Yitzchak is very wealthy and Yaakov could have taken some precious stones, which are light. Take a bag of them, or sew them into your clothes. It is very doable. It seems deliberate that he has no valuables with him. Why?
Midrashei Chazal provide two approaches to answer this question.
One: Indeed, Yitzchak sent him away empty handed. This approach sounds pretty strange to me, but this is the opinion of a midrash. Rav Hirsch provides an approach that is similar to this midrash, which I can understand a bit better. Yaakov chose not to take anything with him, hoping that this would mitigate Eisav’s anger. He wanted to show Eisav that the latter had lost nothing when the berachos went to Yaakov instead. What has Yaakov earned by winning the berachos or by purchasing the right of the firstborn from Eisav? Absolutely nothing of value to Eisav. Yaakov has left Eisav all the property from the household — far more than Eisav could ever have imagined he would receive in inheritance if he divided it with Yaakov. So, why should Eisav be upset at him?
Two: The better known approach, quoted by Rashi (to 29:10). Yaakov indeed left with much wealth. Eisav sent his eldest son Elifaz to kill Yaakov. (Incidentally, why didn’t Eisav go himself? Maybe because if he disappeared for a bit and then Yaakov was found murdered, it would be clear that Eisav had killed Yaakov; this would anger Yitzchak. So he sent Elifaz. Perhaps…) Now, the midrash tells us that Elifaz approached Yaakov and told him of his predicament. His father had commanded him to kill Yaakov, but he did not want to. Yaakov told Elifaz: “Take all of my possessions.” As we know from the Gemara, a poor person is considered as dead. And now Yaakov is empty handed.
Elifaz
I would like to point out that the name Elifaz appears in Tanach in only two contexts. Elifaz is the name of Eisav’s son, who takes a woman named Timna as a pilegesh, and there is an Elifaz who shows up as one of Iyov’s friends.
Is that a coincidence? Are there two men named Elifaz? Or is it the same Elifaz?
This is a discussion in midrashei Chazal. There are many midrashei Chazal that assume that they are the same Elifaz, that Iyov’s buddy Elifaz is Eisav’s son. This will tell us much about the proper placement of Iyov in history. There is a large discussion in the Gemara regarding when Iyov lived, whether he was Jewish or not, whether he even lived or was simply a mashal, a fable, if you pardon the expression. Iyov is one of the most difficult books in Tanach for many reasons, but regardless, Iyov’s friend Elifaz is a respected individual.
Timna
Now, let us discuss Elifaz’s pilegesh, Timna. Pilegesh is usually translated as concubine; it can also be translated as mistress. In parshas Vayishlach, we have a discussion about the chieftains of Eisav, of Edom. There, we see the name Timna appearing twice. She became a pilegesh to Elifaz and bore him Amalek. Amalek appears to be the only issue from their relationship.
Later on, it discusses the royalty of Edom, using the word “aluf,” which in Modern Hebrew has come to mean “general” or “champion.” Chazal tell us that aluf is someone who is right below a king, a member of the royal family who does not wear the crown and does not have primary power. We usually call such a person a prince. One of those princes or princesses, is Timna; the verses refer to “Aluf Timna” and to “Aluf Elifaz.” Timna was from a royal family. She had a brother, Lotan, who is described as an aluf, and that she too was called aluf, a princess.
We need to examine a very baffling passage of Gemara: Timna wanted to convert and join the Jewish people. While this was before the giving of the Torah, we know that Avraham had a significant following of people who were attracted by his ethics, morals, sense of purpose, sense of G-d and his monotheism.
Timna wanted to join. The midrash says that she came to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, requesting to join the Jewish people, but they refused to accept her. Why not? That’s a good question, to which we do not know the definitive answer.
Since Timna was refused entry to the people of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, she said: “OK. Eisav is a grandson of Avraham, and Elifaz is a great-grandson of Avraham. I know that Elifaz is a good guy; he was Iyov’s friend and he did not obey Eisav’s bad commandments. If I cannot join Avraham’s group, I will join Elifaz. She goes to Elifaz, who tells her that he already has a wife. So, she says, “OK, I’ll be a pilegesh, a concubine.” Concubine has a connotation of a second-class citizen. The origin of the Hebrew word pilegesh means “half a wife.” Timna said: “I would rather be a pilegesh to this nation than a princess among my own.”
The pasuk teaches that the union of Elifaz and Timna produced Amalek, and the Gemara notes that he was the founder of the nation that gives the Jews non-stop difficulty. Why, asks the Gemara, was that the result? The Gemara answers that they should not have pushed Timna away from joining the Jewish people. At this point, the Gemara closes its discussion on this topic, leaving us without any explanation as to what it means.
This sounds like we are blaming the victim – that is, we are blaming the Jewish people for anti-Semitic atrocities!
I was troubled by this question: why are we blaming Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov for not accepting Timna? I went looking, and I found several approaches that did not speak to me. I finally found an approach in the Maharal of Prague.
The Maharal explains that accepting Timna to join the Jewish people would not have worked. She was from a royal family. She wanted to marry into the family of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, but her nature was still royalty. Even if she became a concubine to Elifaz, she still viewed herself as royalty, whereas Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov were not royalty. She would not have gained what she needed to grow from them, because she still viewed herself as superior. Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov all saw this and said that they could not take her, because she would not have become a proper student or disciple of theirs.
If so, what did Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov do wrong?
The Maharal explains that although they had a reason not to accept her, it still wasn’t the correct thing to do. She sincerely wanted to join. We do not find the fact of someone’s royalty among the reasons mentioned to refuse people from joining the Jewish people. We reject conversion to the Jewish people if the candidate is insincere in his reason to join the Jews – such as, he is joining for the sake of marriage, or to obtain citizenship or benefits in the State of Israel. In an era like those of King David and Shelomoh, or after Mordechai and Esther’s victory over Haman, we decline conversions out of concern that its motivation is that it is beneficial to be a Jew. Those are reasons to reject someone, but not because someone comes from royalty and may not be able to fully accept our teachings. For this reason, notwithstanding that Timna and Elifaz were both sincere, the result of their union was Amalek!
But what about Hagar? According to the midrash, she was a daughter of the Egyptian pharaoh, the greatest power on the face of the earth at the time. And she was accepted to join Avraham’s people. Why did they not reject Hagar for the same reason that they rejected Timna?
The answer is that Hagar was accepted as a slave. She and her father knew that she was only going to be a slave in Avraham’s household. She was to be Sarah’s personal maidservant. Once they accepted this, she could absorb as much of Avraham’s and Sarah’s teaching as she was capable. And, when Sarah chose her from all the other female slaves of the household to become Avraham’s concubine, it was a tremendous vote of confidence that Hagar had largely succeeded in accepting their leadership and instruction. So much so, that when Hagar was apprised of the suggestion, she demurred, not feeling herself appropriate to the task.
These discussions leave us with a lot of food for thought…
