We have mentioned this parasha, as well as the dispute of Korach and his entourage in the previous parashi’ot. We have described how a negative mode of conduct begins to develop and set in from the sin of the “Mit’o’ne’nim” – “Complainers,” which lead the nation into a deteriorative downward spiral to the sin of the spies, and then the “Ma’apilim” – “Defiant” people who attempt to conquer Eretz Yisra’el against God’s will. These events then lead to the rumblings and clashes in our parasha.

We have spoken about the strange of the “coalition” between Korach, of the tribe of Levi, and the Bnei Reuven, the members of the tribe of Re’uven, who in fact make up the major part of Korach’s rebellion.

We have already mentioned that the seed of the bitterness which brought to further, and repeated errors, was the emotional difficulty with which Yisra’el had to deal with was the removal of the special status of the firstborn. From that point onwards, the nation moves from one extreme to another, incapable of attaining that balanced harmony that the firstborn had represented.

Despite the fact that we have already touched on aspects of Korach’s dispute, we will still examine this issue, focusing on the unhealthy connection between Korach and the Bnei Re’uven. In doing this, we will also study the distinctive qualities of this tribe, the Tribe of Re’uven.

At the opening of our discussion, let us not that in the coming weeks we will move from one tribe to the next, attempting to explain and clarify the nature and character of each tribe. For the recurring motif of Sefer Bamidbar, with Yisra’el traveling and sojourning in the desert, is the division into tribes. The division into tribes, as well as the unique order of traveling, “each man in his camp, each man according to his flag,” (Bamidbar 1:22.)

Their set order while traveling was characterized by the fact that each tribe had its unique place, its own banners and flags, while the flag had a specific imprint and color – all these being spiritual vessels for the appearance of inner character of each tribe.

We will begin our journey from one tribe to another, aiming to discover the nature and character of each tribe that lie hidden in each tribe’s flag – in the color of the flag, and in the form that appears upon it. Only in this manner, when the nature and inner voice of each tribe sounds forth individually, only when each tribe shines forth, unhampered by the other tribes, only then can we understand the value and nature of the unity created by all the tribes moving forward together.

As we well know, those very colors that were the flags of the various tribes characterized the different stones that we worn on the chest of the Kohen Gadol (High Priest.) These were the colors of the precious stones that were implanted in the Choshen ha’Efod, (The Breastplate adorning the Kohen Gadol’s outer robe.)

Our Sages expounded the following verse: “This is what you must do to them to consecrate them as priests to Me,” (Sh’mot 29:1,) saying that the merit with which the Kohen Gadol enters the Holy of Holies is with the merit of the twelve tribes inscribed by name on the Choshen (Breastplate.) It is with their strength, the power of the diversity but unity of all the tribes that allow the Kohen Gadol to enter the Holy of Holies.

As the Midrash states:

“Another explanation; ‘This is what’ – with what merit does Aharon enter the Holy of Holies?”

The Midrash then answers:

“Rabi Yitzchak says: ‘The merit of the tribes would enter with him, as it states: ‘This is what you must do to them’ – the value of ‘this’ (‘zeh’) is twelve, and these are the twelve stones that were placed on the heart of Aharon, and on them (the stones) were inscribed the names of the tribes.’”

(Midrash Rabba 35)

The Midrash continues, elaborating the order of the stones:

“And they were placed in this order: Re’uven – sh’dar’g’nin, Shim’on – shimpuzin, Levi – diknitin, Yehuda – bardinin, Yissachar – sanpirinon, Z’vulun – asm’rag’din, Dan – kuchalin, Naftali – avatis, Gad – himusin, Asher – krumtisin, Yosef – pralukin, Binyamin – marg’litus. What is the reason? In order that God should see them and the Kohen’s clothes when he enters on Yom Kippur, and be reminded of the merit of the tribes.”

(ibid.)

It is important to note something which illustrates the depth of this Midrash. The basis of the Midrash is the lengthy wording of the verse: “This is what you must do to them to consecrate them as priests to Me.” The verse goes to the extent of saying “This is what you must do to them,” when in fact it could simply have stated “Do this to them.” It is this verbosity which then allowed for Rabi Yitzchak’s commentary that the word “this” – “zeh” – has the value of twelve in G’matri’a, and hence the inference to the twelve tribes.

If we examine this closer, we will note that Rabi Yitzchak’s explanation is not simply a local exposition of one verse whereby he employs the use of G’matri’a, but rather a recurring motif regarding the twelve tribes. Let us explain this:

The word “this” – zeh” – has the value of twelve in G’matri’a. This word recurs a number of times throughout the Torah in the context of the twelve tribes, when they are united as one, and also when their unity begins to disintegrate. Thus we find Yosef ascending at the behest of his father to enquire after his brothers who are shepherding the sheep in Dotan. In his search for his brothers, he meets a man.

The man enquires:

“What are you looking for?”

(B’reshit 37:15)

And Yosef answers:

“I am looking for my brothers.”

(ibid. v. 16)

It is with this development that the long journey towards renewed unity begins; unity which did not yet exist, and thus the man replies:

“They already left this area, (“mi’zeh,”) for I heard them planning to go to Dotan.”

(ibid v. 17)

Rashi comments on the spot:

“They traveled away from unity and brotherhood.”

Thus we see that when there is no “zeh,” and when they leave “zeh” – this indicates that there is no unity, the twelve tribes lack unity at that point in time.

And thus, after the great journey towards unity begins with Yosef’s call of “I am looking for my brothers,” through the sale Yosef, with the difficulties and difficult period of mourning that Ya’akov must endure, until the brothers re-unite in a strong bond of brotherhood. Then, at the conclusion of Sefer B’reshit, when the twelve tribes complete the process of re-uniting, Yosef commands them as follows:

“Yosef said to his brothers: ‘I am dying. God is sure to grant you this special providence, you must bring my remains out of this land…”

(B’reshit 50:24)

Then he adds:

“Yosef then made Bnei Yisra’el swear, saying: ‘When God grants you this special providence, you must bring my remains out of this (“mi’zeh”) (land) with you.’”

(ibid. v. 25)

Thus the cycle of “this” – “zeh” – of unity closes with the conclusion of Sefer B’reshit.

However it does not conclude here, for also at the Splitting of the Sea of Reeds, it splits into twelve different paths for each tribe to cross in its own, specific path. The feeling of individuality and uniqueness is heightened, also intensifying the feeling of ‘together’ – then the individual finds his place and destiny within the unified framework, and it is then that the heaven-bound cry of

“This (“zeh”) is my God, I will glorify Him,”

(Sh’mot 15:2)

is heard. Everyone together for one unified purpose, while each is a unique conduit for the Heavenly manifestation. And in the end of days, our Sages tell us (Ta’anit 30a) that God will hold a dance for the righteous, while they will encircle God, and point to Him, saying: “This is our God, we have hoped for him,” (Y’sha’yahu 25:9.)

Then, when the glory of unity will shine with the height of its beauty, then the world will understand that beauty is not in uniformity, but rather in the unifying of contrasts.

Let us consider the beauty of these words of our Sages, for they seem to form a picture which may in fact be seen in a negative light. One may understand that in the end of days there will still be wars, disputes, and divisions. Re’uven says: “This is our God,” and Shim’on says: “This is our God,” but the disputes continue. There are many who have explained these words of our Sages in a manner which can be understood as follows: This dance is a circle which encircles God, Who, so to speak, stands in the center. Each point on the circumference is different and distinct, existing at a different location and angle. Thus the circle is comprised of aspects that are distinct and different. However, at the same time, all those points located in different locations and at separate positions are all positioned at the identical distance from the center. This center point indicates the common basis and pivotal spot of all the various points, (which are in fact distinct one from the other.)

The philosophical notion that arises from this is that the circle contains a combination of contrasts. On one hand, each point is different from one another, and on the other hand they have much in common. This awareness that will become manifest in the end of days will teach us that even though each tribe of the tribes of Yisra’el in general, and each and every Jew in particular, looks towards the center point. Thus all of them, despite their distinctiveness represent various pathways for God’s revelation in the world. No kingdom encroaches on the boundaries of its fellow kingdom, no man usurps that which is prepared for hi fellow, each has its own pathway in which it leads to the word of God: “These and these are the words of the living God.” Then it will be revealed to everyone that it is specifically the distinctiveness that creates the beauty, and then the righteous and saintly will break out in dance.

Thus the dance is the imaginary axis upon which the entire universe revolves, for this is the expression of the circle which defines each person – and which offers the ability to dance together. Let us conclude this introductory section with one extra point stemming from the world of Halacha. A recurring point that strongly emphasizes the greatness of the unity of Yisra’el despite the differences and distinctiveness, and in fact the unity owing to the differences and distinctiveness.

An interesting Halachic question brought in the Bet Yosef on the Laws of the Arba’at ha’Minim (Four Species) is also decided in a very interesting fashion. The Bet Yosef asks with regard to the shaking of the lulav – do the three species bound with the lulav (the hadas – myrtle, lulav – palm, arava – willow) need to be separated from the Etrog, and each species then shaken separately; or possibly all the four species must be held together, with two hands, and then shaken together?

The Bet Yosef’s answer is riveting. It is based on an incident that occurred to one of the Rishonim, Rabbenu ha’Recanti. In the incident, the Recanti tells of “One Ashkenazi Sage” who lodged with him, and slept together with him in his Succa.

On that very night, the Recanti dreamt a dream. In this dream, his guest, this “Ashkenazi Sage” wrote God’s ineffable name, yet in a rather strange fashion: he wrote the first three letters of God’s name, yud, hey, and vav, and then on the other side of the paper he wrote the final letter, the letter hey.

The Recanti is stunned and shocked by this dream, and wakes up from his slumber. He then realizes that he was only dreaming, and returns to his sleep. The next morning, the Recanti sees his guest taking the Arba’at ha’Minim, while in one hand he has the lulav, hadassim, and aravot, and in the other hand, the etrog. He takes the Arba’at ha’Minim in his two hands, holding them separate, not combining them together by bring his hand together. When the Recanti sees this, he runs to this Sage and tells him: “You are separating the name of God!”

Let us consider this incident. As we all know, the Four Species hint at all of Am Yisra’el in its various manifestations. Internal discord and separation within Am Yisra’el, (especially the Etrog, which hints at the Sages, as the Etrog has both taste and aroma,) is akin to separating God’s name. For God’s revelation and manifestation is dependant on His nation, Yisra’el, while each individual person’s qualities and nature are the pathways of the manifestations of sanctity in the world.

(It is important to note that based on this dream the Shulchan Aruch decides the Halacha! Such is the significance of a Rishon’s dream…)

After this lengthy introduction, let us return to the point with which we opened our words.

Each of the tribe’s flags had a different color, a color which characterized the inner nature of the tries soul.

The is the terminology of the Midrash:

“‘V’otot (with insignia,)’ (Bamidbar 2:2) – each prince had a sign, and each had a flag, and the color of each flag was the color of the precious stones that were on Aharon’s heart.”

(Bamidbar Rabba 2:7)

Our Sages then describe the overall influence that was innovated in the Camp of Yisra’el:

“From them the kingdom learned to institute a flag, and a (different) color to each flag, and a flag to each tribe, and the Prince‘s flag’s color was akin to the color of his stone.”

(ibid.)

We will deal with the Tribe of Re’uven in this shi’ur, whose flag is described as follows:

“Re’uven, his stone is a carnelian, and his flag is colored red, and the image is of mandrakes.”

(ibid.)

These mandrakes imprinted on his flag are rather surprising.

Why mandrakes? Indeed we recall the incident of Re’uven and the mandrakes, (B’reshit 30:14-16,) yet what exact quality is it that the image of the mandrakes wish to give expression to, flying at full mast on the tribal flags and banners of the tribe of Re’uven?

In order to amplify this question, let us consider the tribes of Shim’on, Levi, and Yehuda for instance. The Midrash describes their tribal symbols as follows:

“Shim’on, his stone is an emerald, and his flag is colored green, and the image is of Sh’chem.

Levi, his stone is a topaz, and his flag is colored a third white, a third black, and a third red, and the image is of the Urim v’Tumim, (the Kohen Gadol’s breast plate.)

Yehuda, his stone is a carbuncle, and his flag is colored as the heavens, and the image is of a lion.”

(ibid.)

The image on Shim’on’s flag is that of Sh’chem. This may certainly be understood as a defining characteristic, for Shim’on was willing to endanger his own life in order to save his sister, Dina, after she had been abducted by Sh’chem.

Levi’s flag is adorned with the Urim v’Tumim, which quite obviously characterizes Levi, as Levi is the tribe of the priesthood.

So too, Yehuda’s flag, which is adorned with the image of a lion is not surprising, for Ya’akov’s blessing to Yehuda is:

“Young lion, Yehuda.”

(B’reshit 49:9)

All these emphasize our question regarding the image of the mandrakes which were chosen to adorn – and thereby designate – the flag of the tribe of Re’uven. Indeed, even the significance of the mandrakes themselves is not fully clear. We may be able to explain the concept behind the mandrakes via their unique color, red. Red is also the color of the precious stone, a carnelian, which is the stone of Re’uven.

Even at first glance we see that a motif defining Re’even is the color red, the significance of this color is something that we must clarify. In truth, Re’uven’s red color does not appear explicitly in the verses, despite this, we find the color red with relation to the B’chor, the firstborn, mentioned in the Torah, in relation to Esav. (The relationship between these two B’chorot, Esav and Re’uven, will become clearer in the continuation of the shi’ur.)

As we will recall, when Esav returns from the field, and “he is tired,” he makes a request of Ya’akov in the following manner:

“Esav said to Ya’akov: ‘Please give me a swallow of that red stuff! For I am exhausted. Therefore he called his name ‘Edom.’”

(B’reshit 25:30)

What captures Esav’s attention regarding the stew is not its taste nor its aroma, but rather its bold red color. “That red stuff” arouses his appetite for the stew, ie. the “red.” This then characterizes Esav, as he is known as “Edom,” (“adom” – “red.”) And then as a result of this incident with the red stew, Esav sells his birthright to Ya’akov.

Let us return to Re’uven. Re’uven is involved, albeit indirectly, in an incident of a sale. This story revolves around mandrakes, and is as follows:

“Re’uven took a walk during the wheat harvest, and he found mandrakes in the field. He brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, ‘Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.’

(B’reshit 30:14)

Before continuing with the unraveling of the narrative, let us remember the state of Ya’akov’s home at that moment in time. Indeed, Ya’akov’s home had come to a plateau, a state of stagnation. Leah had given birth to four of the tribes, and had since ceased giving birth. Rachel had not yet mothered a child. All this created an atmosphere of stagnation, of something having become “stuck,” nothing was progressing. Something needed to be repaired.

We return to the unraveling of the events:

‘Isn’t it enough that you have taken away my husband?’ retorted Leah, ‘Now you even want to take my son’s mandrakes?’

(ibid v. 15)

Then a very bizarre exchange takes place:

‘All right,’ replied Rachel, ‘(Ya’akov) will sleep with you tonight in exchange for your son’s mandrakes.’

(ibid.)

The words of our Sages are truly astonishing, as they connect between this business exchange and a business exchange that Ya’akov had been involved in the past. The Sages say that Ya’akov had purchased the birthright from Esav, and now his wives are bartering the right to be with him. And thus:

“When Ya’akov came home from the field that evening, Leah went out to meet him. ‘You will come to me,’ she said. ‘I have paid for your services with my son’s mandrakes.’ He slept with her that night.”

(ibid. v. 16)

Here then, the revolution takes place, as the verse immediately tell us:

“God heard Leah’s (prayer), and she became pregnant, giving birth to a fifth son to Ya’akov. Leah said: ‘God has given me my reward because I have given my handmaid to my husband.’ She named the child Yissachar. Leah became pregnant again, and she bore Ya’akov a sixth son. ‘God has given me a wonderful gift,’ said Leah. ‘Now let my husband make his permanent home with me.’ She named the child Z’vulun.”

(ibid. v. 17 – 20)

Thus, two more tribes are born to Ya’akov and Leah, the cessation of births in the family has been broken, and furthermore:

“And after this she gave birth to a daughter, and she named her Dina.”

(ibid. v. 21)

Ya’akov also has a daughter.

Yet this is not the conclusion of this chapter in his life, for matters continue to ‘flow.’

“God remembered Rachel. He heard her (prayer) and opened her womb. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son. “God has gathered away my humiliation,” she said. She named the child Yosef, saying: ‘May God grant another son to me.’”

(ibid. v. 22-24)

Barren Rachel gives birth! The dry spell and delays have come to an end. When matter begin to develop it is only natural that the next step occurs:

“After Rachel had given birth to Yosef, Ya’akov said to Lavan, ‘Let me leave. I would like to go home to my own land.’”

(ibid. v. 25)

Thus now there are tribes, and after the stagnation has ended and there is a state of motion and growth, now is the time to express this renewed grown in Eretz Yisra’el. From the verses we have studied we see that the incident of the mandrakes, and the ensuing events was an important point in time when the stagnation holding Ya’akov’s household back was broken. This was the liberation of Ya’akov’s household, the liberation and freeing of his wives, Leah and Rachel.

Our Sages already noted this fact in the Midrash:

“Rabi Levi said: ‘Come and see the beauty of the business dealings of the mandrakes before He Who uttered and the world came into being, for it was owing to the mandrakes that two great tribes of Yisra’el came into being – Yissachar and Z’vulun. Yissachar sits and is involved in Torah, and Z’vulun goes out on the seas and returns and feeds Yissachar, and (thus) Torah us abundant in Yisra’el.’”

(B’reshit Rabba, 2:5)

We will soon see that it is coincidental that as a result of this bartering specifically the two tribes of Yissachar and Z’vulun are born. Yet we may ask – what exactly changed that caused this great motion in the House of Ya’akov? What was the major shift that occurred as a result of this business dealing that had such positive results. (We will deal with this issue shortly.)

In order to complete the picture, let us consider the words of our Sages from Masechet Sanhedrin, (Sanhderin 99b.) There the Gemara tells of Menashe, king of Yehuda, son of Chizkiyahu, who as we know was an evil king, despite the righteousness of his father. This Menashe would “expound homiletics unusually,” meaning that he would make cynical expositions that question and distort the verses. The Gemara lists two examples in order to explain this statement.

Firstly Menashe questioned the verses “And the sister of Lotan was Timna, (B’reshit 36:22,) and Timna was Elifaz’s concubine,” (B’reshit 36:12.) Why the need for such a lengthy description when the Torah could simply have stated: “And Timna was Elifaz’s concubine.”

An additional problematic exposition that Menashe made was on the verse: “Re’uven took a walk during the wheat harvest, and he found mandrakes in the field,” (ibid. 30:14.) Once again, Menashe asked, why the need for such a lengthy description when the Torah could simply have stated: “Re’uven went and found mandrakes?”

Regarding these strange expositions of the verses, a heavenly verse went out and said to Menashe:

“You sit and speak against your brother, you slander your own mother’s son.”

(Tehillim 50:20)

The significance of this being that Menashe’s attempts to study, and explain, various verses were in act destructive, leading to the appearance of the heavenly verse.

It is apt to note that Menashe did not leave one form of idolatry that he had not worshipped, he was simply a wicked, evil individual. Therefore the heavenly censure of his distorting a verse or two, as severe as this may be, seems to be nowhere as severe as service of every form of idolatry. What, then, is the significance of the heavenly voice specifically reprimanding him on this issue?

We will soon see that in the two questions that Menashe poses are in fact two fundamental concepts that Menashe refused to accept. In any event, after mentioning Menashe’s question about the verses, the Gemara brings the precise explanation of the verses, as well as the reason for their length.

Regarding the first verse, “And the sister of Lotan was Timna,” the Gemara recounts as follows:

Timna was a princess who came before Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’akov desiring to convert to Judaism, yet they did not accept her. She then became a concubine for Elifaz, the son of Esav.

“She said: ‘It is preferable for me to be a maidservant to this nation (referring to that of Avraham and Yitzchak) than to be a princess of another nation.”

However then the terrible consequence for Am Yisra’el occurs:

“Amalek was a descendant of her, who inflicted pain on Yisra’el.”

The Gemara then concludes on a disapproving note, that Amalek’s appearance on the global scene was as a result of this:

“And they (our forefathers) should not have rejected her.”

Thus Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’akov should not have prevented Timna from becoming associated with them.

The second distorted explanation of Menashe is explained by the Gemara as follows:

“‘Re’uven took a walk during the wheat harvest’ – Rava the son of Rabi Yitzchak said: ‘This is the source that Tzaddikim (the righteous) do not involve themselves in theft.’”

Thus the Torah’s emphasis that it was “the wheat harvest” was in order to emphasize that despite the fact that at that point in time the crops were readily available and whoever desired to steal could do so with ease, Re’uven refrained from doing so, and sought out mandrakes that were ownerless.

Between the lines of our Sages’ explanation we can sense a subliminal association between Re’uven (and “the wheat harvest” which Menashe did not understand as relating to him) and Esav (whose son is married to Timna.)

These two stories are not related in a vacuum. These two firstborn sons, Esav and Re’uven, are connected by a thread that is woven through these two contrasting examples of what the firstborn birthright – which stands at the center of their respective personalities – is.

As we know, Ya’akov is “a scholarly man who remained with the tents,” (B’reshit 25:27,) and Esav, his brother, was “a skilled trapper, a man of the field,” (ibid.)

Towards the end of his life, Yitzchak desires to bless Esav, yet prior to this blessing, which concerns “the dew of the heavens and the fat of the earth, (ibid. 27:28,) Yitzchak desires that his approach to Esav be correctly based on that materialism, that “field.” Therefore Yitzchak attempt to teach Esav how one may be a skilled trapper, and a man of the field, while at the same time, and possibly specifically due to this, one may attain great heights.

Thus, Yitzchak says to Esav:

“Now take your equipment, your sword and bow, and go out in the field to trap me some game.”

(B’reshit 27:3)

Yitzchak tells Esav – let me teach you how one may go out into the field and elevate the material reality. Go and bring me some game! The emphasis of “trap me some game” indicates trapping game in the wild, game that is ownerless.

However:

“Esav went out to the field to trap some game in order to bring it.”

(ibid. v. 5)

As Rashi emphasizes on this very verse, if Esav were to find ownerless, wild, game – he would trap it. If he wouldn’t find wild game, then “in order to bring it” – he would even steal. Esav is not concerned with the same concerns as Yitzchak. In his perspective the field is exactly that, the field, and there is no possibility of elevating the field or of achieving spiritual heights from the field.

Rivka recognizes Esav’s inner decay, and she understand that her second son, the man of the tents, is he who will carry on his shoulders the hefty responsibility that Yitzchak wishes to confer on his son. She brings him a goat kid, and then he approaches Yitzchak.

Then he, who will also be able to lend the field its meaning and spirit, comes before Yitzchak. Yitzchak senses the strength and power of the individual standing before him, and even though he doesn’t fully identify him, he says:

“See, my son’s fragrance is like the aroma of a field blessed by God.”

(ibid. v. 27)

This is the Garden of Eden – seeing God’s manifestation even in the field!

Then Yitzchak’s hopes of two brothers, one who dwells in the tents, and one who flourishes in the field, illuminating the world together, are buried. For at this point, the nature and aspects of the field are added to Ya’akov, the man of the tents.

According to our Sages, Leah was originally intended for Esav. This is not to be understood superficially, for in Leah we see that same characteristic of “going out,” as we stated in the verse we mentioned above:

“When Ya’akov came home from the field that evening, Leah went out to meet him…”

(ibid. 30:16)

We find a similar terminology referring to Leah’s daughter:

“Leah’s daughter Dina, whom she had borne to Ya’akov, went out to visit some of the local girls.”

(B’reshit 34:1)

Rashi comments on this verse: “As the daughter, so is the mother, and as the mother, so is the daughter” – that they both “go out.”

Naturally, Ya’akov is drawn to Rachel and loves her, for they both have the same nature and characteristic of introversion. They are both shepherds. The strength that exists in Leah is better suited to Esav, who indeed were he worthy, would have received it. However ultimately this strength was also to go to Ya’akov. Ya’akov’s initial, primal strength is the fact that he is “a man of tents,” as opposed to one who goes out to the field.

Let us consider this. Leah’s strength is that of the “b’chora” – “the birthright of the firstborn.” This is the powerful force that can leave its mark not only in the tent, but also in the field. If, however, this force is distorted, it is then expressed in the birthright of the firstborn of Egypt – which is characterized by tyranny and persecution. Therefore the firstborn in Egypt are smitten, in order to teach the world of the true “b’chora,” in order to demonstrate the concept of “My son, My firstborn, Yisra’el,” (Sh’mot 4:22.)

When Re’uven is born, Leah (as expounded by our Sages) says:

“‘And she called his name Re’uven,’ (B’reshit 29:32) – Our Sages explained: She said: ‘Behold the difference between my son and the son of my mother-in-law who sold his birthright to Ya’akov, and he (Re’uven) did not sell it to Yosef, nor did he argue against him, and not only did he not argue against him, but he requested that he be taken out of the pit.’”

(Rashi, B’reshit 29:32)

In other words, she compares him to Esav, who unlike Esav whose birthright was expressed in a vicious, violent intensity; Re’uven’s birthright was entirely different. Re’uven was the individual who would go during the days of the wheat harvest and actively search that produce that was ownerless, in order to have nothing to do with theft, unlike Esav.

However, then, when Re’uven returns with the mandrakes, Rachel understands something very deep. She understands that in her relationship with Ya’akov she lacks the power and intensity of Leah, the power of the field. And therefore she requests that Leah give her the mandrakes, which symbolize the power of the field, the field that has been “elevated,” the connection of the field with the healthy way of living.

Leah is willing to give Rachel the mandrakes, but she is concerned that the moment Rachel will posses both forces, her natural force as Rachel, together with this force from Leah, then she, Leah, will lose Ya’akov to her. Thus she relinquishes the mandrakes in return for the right to be with Ya’akov.

Then the stagnation, with no-one giving birth is broken, and two more tribes are born.

And that thought that was in the heart of Yitzchak, that the “tent” and the “field” will amalgamate through his two sons, Ya’akov and Esav, in fact materializes through Ya’akov’s sons. Yissachar and Z’vulun appear, about whom our Sages remarked:

“Rabi Levi said: ‘Come and see the beauty of the business dealings of the mandrakes before He Who uttered and the world came into being, for it was owing to the mandrakes that two great tribes of Yisra’el came into being – Yissachar and Z’vulun. Yissachar sits and is involved in Torah, and Z’vulun goes out on the seas and returns and feeds Yissachar, and (thus) Torah us abundant in Yisra’el.’”

(B’reshit Rabba, 2:5)

The expression the Midrash employs, “and (thus) Torah us abundant in Yisra’el,” does not refer to Yissachar who is involved in Torah study, but rather when Yissachar and Z’vulun act in unison, Yissachar being involved in Torah, and Z’vulun who “feeds” Yissachar. This appreciation was understood by Ya’akov when Esav said to him: “Please give me a swallow of that red stuff!” (B’reshit 25:30.) Already then Ya’akov understood that he had not only the power of the “tent” in his hands, but also the ability to develop a healthy strength of the “field,” which can feed others.

Let us pay attention to another wondrous idea.

The moment that the strength of Rachel and Leah unite, i.e. the forces of the field and of the tent, then we see the first time that the following is said of Ya’akov:

“Ya’akov came from the field.”

(B’reshit 30:16)

This is the first time that Ya’akov comes from the field.

Let us return to the tribal flags and the stone of the Choshen.

Re’uven’s stone is the carnelian. Re’uven possesses the characteristics of the b’chor, the firstborn, boldness, power, might.

His flag is adorned with a picture of mandrakes which symbolize the union of Leah and Rachel, between the tent and the field, which is in fact the concept underlying the b’chora in Yisra’el. This is the power to amalgamate the tent and the field in a healthy, constructive manner, (while the mandrakes which were ownerless and not obtained through theft illustrate this positive, constructive force.)

Re’uven tries with all his strength to act in reality, yet he does not always succeed in doing so. He desires to save Yosef, but is unsuccessful. He also attempts to take full responsibility for Binyamin, but also here is unsuccessful.

Re’uven is the one who fully senses the difficulty when Rachel dies and Bil’ha enters in to the picture, replacing Rachel, and not his mother! He thus moves his father’s beds around, in a hasty action that almost has him cast out, and therefore the verse emphasizes immediately after this:

“And the sons of Ya’akov were twelve.”

(B’reshit 35:22,23)

From all this it is clear that the Bnei Re’uven, the descendants of Re’uven were “headed for trouble.” When the incredible power of the b’chora appears in an unbalanced manner, as in fact occurs in our parasha in the explosive dispute of Korach – which in large part is dependent on the Bnei Re’uven. The Bnei Re’uven, with heads of Batei Din among them, expressed their bitterness at the removal of the b’chora from Yisra’el.

Now let us return to Menashe the King of Yehuda, who expounded many distorted expositions.

Menashe is the son of Chizkiyahu, the King of Yehuda – a king whose saintliness and great level in Torah we have discussed previously. However this is also a king whom the Sages criticized as “in his era the fields were full of thorns and weeds,” meaning that Chizkiyahu was completely spiritual and heavenly. During his reign the major pursuits were spiritual, and thus the earthly manifestations were lacking, or in other words, during his reign the aspect of the “field” was missing.

Such an intensive dwelling on heavenly, spiritual matters, at the expensive of the earthly, must cause a reaction in the next generation. Therefore his son, Menashe, rejected the Heavenly, and served various forms of idolatry. Menashe was so connected to the earthly, and detached from the heavens, that he questioned what the verse intended by stating “during the wheat harvest.” He did not understand how it was possible for one to be in the fields during the harvest, with produce strewn everywhere, and not to thieve. Re’uven ignored all the wheat, and rather brought home mandrakes.

Menashe also had difficulty in understanding the verse about Timna, for Timna represented the desire to connect to root of matters. Let us explain this.

Am Yisra’el is connected by a bond of generations to the revelation on Mount Sinai. (And even though all the souls were present at Mount Sinai, in any event the evident connection is through the familial ancestors stretching back through the generations.) However a convert, can only be connected to the Torah and sanctity through his own roots, for he has no ancestors who precede him and his connection to Mount Sinai. Therefore he has his own individual ability to fuse with all of Torah at their roots.

Timna desired to bond with Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’akov through her own soul’s ability to fuse at the root-level. Timna had no familial connection to our forefathers When she was rejected, he desire to connect at the root would not rest, but this powerful force drove her to cleave to the seed of Esav, giving birth to another root force, Amalek, which is the root of the hatred of Yisra’el in the world. For as we have mentioned on a number of occasions, Amalek attacks Yisra’el irrespective of territorial or any other ‘legitimate’ disputes. Amalek is motivated by a burning hatred for the nation of eternity.

And Menashe, who ends his father’s dynasty, despite the fact that his father was worthy of being the Messiah, chooses to detach himself rather than to elevate reality. He chooses to become a root force, yet detached from all else (unlike Timna who desired to fuse with another,) and therefore he cannot comprehend the verses about Timna.

And so too with regard Re’uven, Menashe chooses to be a field with no sanctity, and therefore he cannot accept the fact that Re’uven wanders about during the wheat harvest, yet brings specifically mandrakes home. Menashe detaches himself from every chain connected to any root, and therefore he cannot understand the powerful root force that is awakened in Timna.

This, then, is the manipulative bond that Korach exploits. Korach knows how to exploit the might of the tribe of Re’uven, directing them in such a manner so as to benefit his cause. Korach understands that the redness of Re’uven, which represents the amalgamation of the mighty forces and characteristics of that tribe, can be harnessed and channeled in such a manner so as to undermine and shatter Moshe and Aharon’s leadership. Yet at the end of the day, these forces sink to the core of the earth, swallowed up by the ground.

From this disaster we can glean an understanding of the great potential in these strengths. For the greater the potential – the greater the danger! With those strengths that were enveloped by the ground, with those very strengths and attributes, one may reach the heavens.

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz.

Copyright Keren Yishai/Rav M. Elon.