"Lion cub of Yehuda"

Eve of Rosh Chodesh of Av

Rav M. Elon

Continuing our examination of the tribes, we will discuss the tribe who is the king of the tribes – Yehuda.

It is most appropriate to deal with Yehuda now, for we are at the beginning of the month of Av, a month whose star sign is the lion, as Ya’akov’s blessing to Yehuda:

"Yehuda is a lion cub"

(B’reshit 49:9)

A lion is generally perceived as an expression of leadership which holds within it power and stability. However a lion also represents more than this, as we will soon discover.

Let us begin our shi’ur with a discussion of the lion and the month of Av, the month of destruction and disaster, a month that more than any other holds within it the expression of pain, of the loss of spiritual and material strength, the loss of two Temples, and the loss of sovereignty over the Holy Land. Why, then, is this month represented by the lion, which specifically symbolizes the opposite?

We may explain that this month describes the hope of salvation, the hope and expectation that Tisha B’Av (The ninth of Av) will be transformed into ‘T’shu’a B’av’ (‘Salvation in Av,’) and this is the lion. While this is not untrue, in any event we must add the dimension of the deeper understanding – which will clarify the nature of the lion and the month of Av in general, as well as the characteristics of Yehuda and David his descendant’s leadership in particular. Let us begin bit by bit.

The similarity between Yehuda and a lion is established by Ya’akov in his blessings to the tribes:

"Yehuda, you – your brothers will acknowledge, your hand will be at your enemies’ nape. Your fathers sons will prostrate themselves before you. A lion cub is Yehuda, from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself. He crouches, lies down like a lion, and like an awesome lion who dares rouse him?"

(B’reshit 49:8,9)

The commentary of Rashi to these verse is well known, that when Yehuda heard the blessings that Ya’akov bestowed upon the first three sons he suspected that once again he would be rebuked for his part in the sale of Yosef and for his actions with Tamar. He retreated, almost willing to forego his father’s blessing. And that is why Ya’akov called him: "Yehuda, you – your brothers will acknowledge!" Thereby telling him that it was specifically through those incidents where Yehuda stumbled and erred that we see him overcome his errors, growing and deevloping into a powerful leadership personality.

Then Ya’akov terms Yehuda "a lion cub" and then finally at the close of his blessing "He crouches, lies down like a lion."

Rashi explains the difference between these two descriptions:

"‘A lion cub’ – he was prophesying about David, (who was) first a cub, when Sha’ul was king over us you would lead Yisra’el (in war,) and finally – (he was) a ‘lion’ when he was made king over them."

(Rashi ibid.)

A lion cub and a lion describe the process whereby David ha’Melech (King David,) who more than anyone else represents the tribe of Yehuda, acquires his strength and his leadership.

We will attempt to understand the need that the Torah felt in order to describe this process, (for what do we gain through this description? All kings, in general, even if not the majority of kings, certainly logic dictates that kings endure a process whereby they establish themselves and their rule. Why did Ya’akov choose to hint at this process in his blessing – which was divinely inspired - to Yehuda?)

Ya’akov continues:

"A lion cub is Yehuda, from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself."

(B’reshit ibid.)

Rashi comments:

"‘From the prey’ – from that which I suspected you regarding ‘A savage beast devoured him! Yosef has surely been torn to bits!’ (B’reshit 37:33,) and this is Yehuda who was compared to a lion.

‘My son, you have elevated yourself’ – you distanced yourself, saying ‘What gain will there be,’ (ibid. v. 26) and so too with the possibility of executing Tamar, when you said "She is more righteous than I,’ (B’reshit 38:26.)"

(Rashi ibid.)

The "wild animal" that Ya’akov thought had consumed his son Yosef, was Yehuda! Then Ya’akov praises Yehuda that he "elevated" himself "from the prey;" signifying that he did not treat Yosef as his prey, he did not kill him.

Now, we must consider the following question.

Indeed, Yehuda did not kill Yosef, nor did he allow the other brothers to kill Yosef. However it was Yehuda who in effect initiated Yosef’s sale, as the verse quotes Yehuda as saying:

"What gain will there be if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites – but let our hand not be upon him."

(B’reshit 37:26,27)

Indeed Yehuda did not murder Yosef, however what praiseworthy actions are to be observed in this incident?

The second example is simpler for us to understand. Yehuda reveals great strength of character when he possessed all the opportunities possible to conceal his ‘mistake’ with Tamar, thereby maintaining his honor and postion. Instead he chooses to admit his error, declaring:

"She is more righteous than I."

(B’reshit 38:26)

Thus, in the lion we find these two character traits – the trait of the "lion cub," which describes the process of not yet readiness, the unripe state that Ya’akov employs to describe the beginning of the Davidic dynasty; as well as the "He crouches, lies down like a lion" aspect which describes the Davidic monarchy once established and stable. [Or in the words of another explanation which Rashi quotes – this description applies to the days of King Sh’lomo which are described as "Each man under his grapevine and date (tree)" (M’lachim I 5:5)]

This beautiful pastoral tranquility that is described by the words "He crouches, lies down like a lion," is continued in the following verses:

"The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda, nor a lawgiver from between his legs, until Shilo arrives, and his will be an assemblage of nations. He will tie his donkey to the vine, to the vine branch his donkey’s foal; he will launder his garments in wine, and his robe in the blood of grapes. Red eyed from wine, and white toothed from milk."

(B’reshit 49:10-12)

We will closely analyze the process described by Ya’akov in his blessing to Yehuda, however we are already able to discern – and emphasize – that the progressive process is the foundation of Yehuda’s leadership.

Now we may begin our in-depth analysis of these issues.

As we have done thus far with the other tribes, we will examine the Tribe of Yehuda through the prism of its flag and color among the other tribes. However we will not solely study Yehuda, but we will recall those preceding tribes, as well as surveying those tribes that follow Yehuda. For Yehuda is a central junction in the building process that the House of Ya’akov undergoes. These are the words of the Midrash:

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

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.)"

(Bamidbar Rabba 2:7)

And then on to Yehuda:

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

(ibid.)

As we recall, after Yehuda’s birth Leah ceases from bearing children. After the incident of the mandrakes, which we have dealt with at length, [Cf. Shiur for Parashat Korach, "Bnei Re’uven,"] two more tribes are then born to Leah – Yissachar and Zevulun. These tribes are described as follows:

"Yissachar, his stone is a sapphire, and his flag is colored black similar to blue, and the image is of the sun and the moon, to reflect the verse, ‘Of the children of Yisssachar, men with understanding for the times,’ (Divrei ha’Yamim I 12:33.)

Zevulun, his stone is a beryl, and his flag is colored white, and it carries an image of a ship, reflecting the verse, ‘Zevulun will settle the seashores,’ (B’reshit 49:13.)"

Let us reconsider the process that the Ya’akov’s house undergoes: Re’uven, Shim’on, and Levi – whom we have discussed at length – are characterized by the fusion of the tremendous forces that constitute their characters. These are powerful forces that are indispensible for their existences. As for Shim’on and Levi, we recall that Ya’akov includes the following statement when blessing them:

"I will separate them within Ya’akov, and I will disperse them in Yisra’el."

(B’reshit 49:7)

The Netziv explains this as follows:

"A few of such individuals are necessary, yet many in one location – is problematic."

The Netziv thus explains that such forces when concentrated in one location make the normal course of existence impossible. Each of these three tribes then, are characterized by might and boldness.

Ya’akov says of Re’uven: "Foremost in rank, and foremost in might," (B’reshit 49:3,) and of Shim’on and Levi he says: "Cursed is their rage for it is intense, and their wrath for it is harsh," (ibid. v. 7)

These three tribes were also named by their mother reflecting an aspect deficient in her life: Re’uven – "God saw my affliction," (B’reshit 29:32;) Shim’on – "For God has heard that I am unloved," (ibid. v. 33;) and Levi – "This time my husband will become attached to me," (ibid. v. 34.)

In less brevity we saw that Re’uven, whose color is red, possesses the color of the B’chora – the firstborn birthright – which is also the color of Esav. Re’uven attempts with all his being to lead and command, yet he fails. (And it is specifically where Re’uven fails that Yehuda succeeds, as we will soon see.) [For more on Re’uven, Cf. the shi’ur for Parashat Korach, "Bnei Re’uven."]

Re’uven is willing to sacrifice himself in order to save Yosef, he desires to save him. And even towards Rachel’s second son, Binyamin, Re’uven is willing sacrifice of his most dear, committing "You may then kill my two sons," (ibid. 42:37,) yet despite this Ya’akov does not accept his proposal. Re’uven is the expression of tremendous might and strength of character that remain unrealized.

Shim’on, whose flag is green – green the color our Sages understand to represent "To’hu" – "Chaos," (Chagiga 12b, see also the shi’ur to Parashat Balak,) undergoes a double process which is expressed by his sovereignty over his portion of Eretz Yisra’el. In the days of Y’hoshu’a he inherits to the south of Eretz Yisra’el, yet he lacks all independent sovereignty being annexed to the portion of Bnei Yehuda. In the future however, in the end of days, he will gain his own independent portion. [Cf. shi’ur to Parashat Balak.]

Levi, too, does not inherit a portion of the land for he also contains within him the merging of tremendous forces.

Then, when Yehuda is born, Leah names him not for what she lacks in her life, but rather in thanksgiving for completion. Thus concludes the process of "To’hu" of the first three sons, and the rectification appears – the thanksgiving and praise.

Yehuda possesses all the powers of the children of Leah and Rachel. As we recall, the colour of Yehuda’s flag is t’chelet - turquoise - which is the combination of the deep blue of the heavens that is Yissachar’s color, which alludes to the heavenly nature of Yissachar, the Torah, together with the white of Zevulun, which represents involvement in the material matters of this world. These two form the color t’chelet which alludes to the revelation of God’s name in this world, the revelation of the sanctified in the earthly realm.

The harmony between these two tribes is the rectification, or the expression of Yitzchak’s desire for his two sons, Ya’akov and Esav, to manifest themselves in the world. Ya’akov causing the manifestation of spirit, while Esav bringing about the manifestation of the material realm. Together they were to rectify the world through the Monarchy of God – yet as we know, these two forces were to appear not in these two individuals, but later among Am Yisra’el.

Yehuda contains two more colors, colors that are hinted at in Ya’akov’s blessing to him:

"He will tie his donkey to the vine, to the vine branch his donkey’s foal; he will launder his garments in wine, and his robe in the blood of grapes. Red eyed from wine, and white toothed from milk."

(B’reshit 49:11,12)

We see the green of the grapevines, ("He will tie his donkey to the vine,") and the red of the wine, ("He will launder his garments in wine… Red eyed from wine,") as well as the white of milk, ("and white toothed from milk.") These are in fact the three central colors of Yehuda’s brothers, the red of Re’uven, the green of Shim’on, and the combination of the red, black, and white of Levi. There is an additional connection between the four older sons of Leah which is expressed through their relationship to Yosef.

In the sale of Yosef, Re’uven desires to save him:

"And Re’uven said: ‘Shed no blood! Throw him into this pit in the wilderness, but lay no hand on him!’"

(B’reshit 37:22)

The Torah testifies as to his intentions:

"(Re’uven thus) intending to rescue him from them to return him to his father."

(ibid.)

Re’uven is also distressed when he finds that Yosef is no longer in the pit:

"And Re’uven returned to the pit – and behold! – Yosef was not in the pit! So he rent his gaments. Returning to his brothers he said, ‘The boy is gone! And I – where can I go?’"

(ibid. v. 29,30)

Shim’on and Levi are the two brothers who desire Yosef’s death:

"And they said to one another: ‘Look! That dreamer is coming! So now, come and let us kill him, and throw him into one of the pits, and we will say, ‘A wild beast has devoured him.’ Then we will see what will become of his dreams.’"

(ibid. v. 19,20)

Only two of the tribes are termed "brothers" – Shim’on and Levi who desire to murder Yosef.

Finally Yehuda says:

"What gain will there be if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?"

(ibid. v. 26)

At first glance it seems that Re’uven is the one who is willing to sacrifice of himself for Yosef his brother. Why then is it Yehuda who is praised by Ya’akov – "From the prey, my son, you elevated yourself?"

Despite this there is a difference that may seem insignificant which lurks in the background, which is in fact so central that it demonstrates the difference between these two personalities of Re’uven and Yehuda.

Re’uven says: "The boy is gone! And I – where can I go?" Whereas Yehuda says: "What gain will there be if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?" Even at the most difficult of moments of inner crisis, Yehuda does not neglect the fact that Yosef is their brother, unlike Re’uven who speaks not as a brother but as a legal guardian, "The boy is gone." Yehuda understands their brotherhood, but he evaluates Yosef’s danger to all of Am Yisra’el incorrectly, and therefore decides to distance Yosef from them. (Whereas we see the "brothers" Shim’on and Levi expressing deep seated hatred for Yosef, "Look! That dreamer is coming.")

Yet Yehuda is also he who takes responsibility for the reality. Contrasting the shrugging off of responsibility at the dawn of existence, when immediately after his creation man sinned, and answers God’s question of "Where are you?" with the claim,

"The woman You gave to be with me give me from the (fruit of the) tree and thus I ate it."

(B’reshit 3:12)

Here man shows no gratitude for the woman that God granted him, denying the good that God gave him, and shrugging all responsibility for his actions. Yehuda, on the other hand, possesses all the opportunities to deny his responsibilty and part in the incident with Tamar, yet he chooses to publicly declare: "She is more righteous than I." It is this individual, Yehuda, who will begin to move the House of Ya’akov to its unified destiny, to the reality of:

"Unified, the tribes of Yisra’el."

(D’varim 33:5)

This, then, is the heroism and might of Yehuda in particular, and of heroism in general – the ability to admit and repress ones inner forces even when there is no other motive. This is the hero who conquers his personal inclination, as the Mishna in Pirkei Avot states:

"Ben Zoma says: …Who is a mighty? He who subdues his personal inclination, as the verse states: ‘He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty man, and a master of his passions is better than a conqueror of a city,’ (Mishlei 16:32.)"

(Avot 4:1)

Rabi Ovadya of Bartenura raises a question in his commentary to this Mishna, the answer to which is the basis of all that we have said thus far. His question is essentially as follows: The issue discussed in the Mishna is not comparable to the proof brought. The Mishna desires to illustrate that a mighty man is he who subdues his personal inclination, and the proof the Mishna quotes is that of one who is slow to anger being preferable to a mighty man, as the verse in Mishlei states, "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty man." He answers as follows: The verse in Mishlei is in fact entirely different to how we have understood it until now. The letter ‘mem’ in the verse "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty man ("mi’gibor,")" does not indicate preference, that he who is slow to anger is preferable to the mighty man, but rather indicates deduction - one aspect of the verse results from the other.

The verse therefore means as follows: He who is slow to anger is better when it results from might of character. This means that one is not slow to anger because he lacks the ability to respond to those who taunt him, but rather he is capable of responding, even in a manner that will crush his opponents, yet he controls himself. This is true "g’vura’ – might and heroism, g’vura that is independent and fundamental. This, then, is the greatness and strength of Yehuda, when he admits "She is more righteous than I" – despite the shame, despite his social status, and despite the ease with which he could have ‘withheld evidence’ or at the very least ‘invoked his right to remain silent.’ Despite all this he heroically stands up to his responsibility and confesses.

This might characterizes the processes through which the Tribe of Yehuda acts. At first it is a lion cub, and afterwards a lion. This is not the mere employment of descriptive language, for this is the specific essential nature of Yehuda, and of any leader in general – progressiveness. The progressive, forceful construction that is characterized by greatness of spirit.

The leader, then, contains a characteristic that is composed of contrasting factors. The leader leads, commands, and charters the course, yet he is also able to bow his head and admit his errors. He possesses might and power, but also restraint. He is gentle but also resilient. It is not for nought that the king of Yisra’el, King David, is termed "Adino ha’Atzni," (Sh’mu’el II 23:8,) which our Sages expound to signify that when David would study Torah he was gentle ("adin,") yet when he would go out to battle he was tough as wood, ("etz" – "atzni.") This is David, the Psalmist, the man of the great desire and love for his Father in Heaven, and this is also David who declares:

"I will pursue my enemies until I overtake them; and I will not return until they are destroyed."

(Tehillim 18:38)

When the concept of offering thanks first appears in the world, "This time I will thank God," (B’reshit 29:35,) we have the appearance of the leader, the king who will harness all the forces of To’hu that preceded him and will lead them to their rectification, to the harmonious tune of all the soul sounds of Am Yisra’el. All this, however, in a progressive process, in a persistent stubborn constructive process.

Yehuda’s monarchy is hinted at by the waters of the Shilo’ach that flow slowly

in a progressive process, the lion cub that grows and matures into a lion, like a person slowly ascending a mountain. [The prophet Y’shayahu rebukes the nation: "Because this people has rejected the gently flowing water of the Shilo’ach," (Y’sha’yahu 8:6.) Yonatan ben Uzi’el translated this saying that nation had despised and rejected the monarchy of the House of David which by nature progressed slowly, gently.]

This is also what Har ha’Moriya is about. Unlike Mount Sinai where the sanctity appeared at once, quickly, with the uprooting of the mountain over the nation like a vat. Then, after the Giving of the Torah, the sanctity was removed, and nothing remained. Har ha’Moriya, however, the Temple Mount, the mountain which reflects the obstacles that Am Yisra’el is destined to encounter, which are alluded to by the ram "caught by its horns in the brush," (B’reshit 22:13.) The sanctity does not move from this mountain – even when the Temple Mount has been defiled and destroyed.

It is to this mountain that the father and son, the two individuals who represent all of Am Yisra’el, journey for three days, and finally only they who are to bind and be bound on the altar then triumph the test, growing and advancing, influencing the mountain for generations.

In the words of the Paytan, (This is a piyut recited by the S’farad and S’faradi communities prior to the sounding of the shofar on Rosh ha’Shana. The name of the piyut is "Binder, the bound, and the altar.")

"… the Master of the Heavens said to Avraham,

Do not send your hand to one of the three lights, (Yitzchak, one of the three forefathers, the three ‘lights.’)

Step back, angels of Machanayim,

This day is a merit for the children of Jerusalem,

On this day I open the gates of mercy,

Binder, bound, and the altar."

This, then, is the power for generations of the process, the power of construction.

Yehuda knows that Yosef is their brother, yet he allows the process to advance. He sells Yosef and wants to know where the process will lead to, but he also accepts responsibility. He takes responsibility for Binyamin, acting as his guarantor, something which will remain for generations when their descendants encounter each other. Generations later when Shim’i ben Geira of the tribe of Binyamin affronts David, David will restrain himself from smiting him, due to that responsibility and guarantee that his ancestor Yehuda gave to Binyamin, Shim’i’s ancestor.

He who knows that all of reality is in fact one long process enacted by the prime Causer – stands up and offers thanks. While thanksgiving in general is the characteristic of every Jew, ("Y’hudi’ – "Jew," stems from the root of "mo’de," to thank.) It is this act which opens the day for every Jew:

"Mo’de ani l’fanecha – I offer thanks before You."

(Prayer upon rising)

Yehuda is the only of the tribes in whose name we find all of the letters of God’s ineffable name, the name yud, hey, vav, hey, referred to as "havaya." This name testifies to eternity – the past, (haya,) the present, (ho’ve,) and the future, (yi’h’ye.) For this dimension of eternity is an expression of the progressive process, the journey that leads from one achievement to another, as the grandson of the Ba’al Shem Tov writes:

"‘There was a Jewish ("Y’hudi") man in the capital, Shushan, and his name: Mordechai the son of Ya’ir, the son of Shim’i, the son of Kish, a man of Binyamin,’ (Esther 2:5.)

It is well known that the term ‘Y’hudi’ refers to Yehuda, and within the letters of ‘Yehuda’ we find the name of God, Havaya, which indicates He Who was, (‘haya,’) He Who is, (‘ho’ve,’) and He Who will be, (‘yih’ye.’) This is the allusion of ‘There was (‘haya’) a Jewish man’ – and he is in every generation, and will consistently exist, and this aspect of ‘Y’hudi’ will never depart the Jews."

(Degel Machane Efra’im for Purim, s.v. Ish Y’hudi)

This is significance of t’chelet, which hints at the reflection of sea to the heavens, and the heavens to the Divine throne of Glory, as the Gemara states, and as the Ramban quotes at the end of Parashat Sh’lach L’cha:

"However the rememberence is in the thread of t’chelet which alludes to the all encompassing concept which is in everything, and is the essence of everything. Hence the verse states: ‘And you shall remember all,’ (Bamidbar 15:39) – which is the commandment of God. And this is as they stated: For t’chelet is similar to the color of the sea, and the sea is similar (in color) to the heavens, and the heavens are similar (in color) to the Divine throne of Glory etc. And the similarity in names to the word ‘tachlit’ – ‘essence’ – indicates that from a distance they all seem the same shade, and therefore it is called t’chelet."

(Ramban, Bamidbar 15:39)

The month of Av has as its star sign the lion, for the lion hints at progressive processes, at the "lion cub of Yehuda," and at Yehuda as "He crouches, lies down like a lion." For he who does not understand what a process of growth is, does not understand how the very day when the Bet Mikdash was destroyed is that same day on which the Mashiach will be born.

This is the nature of a king, who is consulted by his people, and he in turn consults the Urim v’Tumim, in order to lead and command the world with the powers of To’hu, powers that materialize in a balanced, rectified manner.

This is also the g’vura, the heroism and might of a king who knows how to accept responsibility and declare publicly, "She is more righteous than I," who knows to turn to God with requests and prayers, who says: "I will pursue my enemies until I overtake them; and I will not return until they are destroyed."

True leadership, and leadership of truth is not leadership that never errs, but is rather responsible leadership, majestic, stately leadership that leads the world towards:

"God will be king over all the world – on that day God will be one and his name will be one."

(Z’charya 14:9)

 

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz

Copyright Keren Yishai/Rav M.Elon