|
We are grateful to Barbara Kochberg for sponsoring this week's parasha
When we acknowledge the Divine presence in nature, our relationship with nature is healthy and balanced.
Lessons for Today
Once at the time of the wheat harvest, Reuben came upon some mandrakes [duda'im] in the field and brought them to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes." But she siad to her, "Was it not enough for you to take away my husband, that you would also take my son's mandrakes?" Rachel replied, "I promise, he shall lie with you tonight, in return for your son's mandrakes." (Gen. 30:14-15)
|
duda'im: "duda'im are violets. It is a plant. In Arabic it is called Jasmin" So I found in Rashi's commentary. But this is not so...
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: "Onkelos translated duda'im as 'mandrakes,' and so they are called in Arabic. They have a good odor. And so it is written: The mandrakes give forth fragrance (Song of Songs 7:14). They resemble the human form as they have the shape of the human head and hands. Now some say that they are an aid to pregnancy, but I do not know it since their effect is to produce the cold fluid in the body." These are ibn Ezra's words.
The correct interpretation is that Rachel wanted the duda'im for delight and pleasure, for Rachel was visited with children through prayer, not by medicinal methods. And Reuben brought the branches of duda'im or the fruit, which resemble apples and have a good odor. The root, however which is shaped in the form of the human head and hands, he did not bring, and it is the root which people say is an aid to pregnancy. And if the matter be true, it is by some peculiar effect, not by its natural quality. But I have not seen it thus in any of the medicinal books discussing mandrakes.
Ramban (Nachmanides)
|
|
Sforno: He found duda'im, a most fragrant plant which promotes fertility similar to garlic which our Sages suggested be eaten Friday nights by men.
|
" 'Mandrake, or Mandragora, is a powerful restorative,' said Hermione, sounding as usual as though she had swallowed the textbook. 'It is used to return people who have been transfigured or cursed to their original state.' " Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (pg. 72). Most of us don't think much about mandrakes, unless we've recently read or seen J.K. Rowling’s second installment of her wildly popular series of Harry Potter books, where mandrakes are in fact mentioned. Mandrakes appear only once in the Torah, in this week's parasha of VaYetze. (They're also mentioned in the Song of Songs 7:14. This is not surprising, as the plant was believed to be an aphrodisiac, and an aid to fertility.) Reuben, Leah's eldest son, finds them and brings them to his [birth] mother. In exchange for the 'magical plant' Rachel lets Leah sleep with Jacob (Yaacov), hoping that the possession of the mandrakes would be effective in helping her to conceive (note the familiar theme of a barren matriarch).
Mandrakes have been known as a medicinal ingredient since ancient times. Until recently they could even be found in modern pharmacies for their alleged aphrodisiac and fertility inducing qualities. Mandrakes are a stemless perennial which produce purple flowers and bear yellow, tomato-like fruit in late spring and early summer. Their heady, intoxicating spring fragrance is almost overpowering. The Ramban quotes Rashi and Ibn Ezra but disagrees with them. He notes that Ibn Ezra correctly points out that the mandrake’s split root bears a similarity to the human form, but he doubts their efficacy, and points out that the Reuben brought the fruit, not the root! It is the human shape of the mandrake root which is probably the source of the almost universal association of the mandrake with fertility. In contrast, the Italian commentator Sforno considers the mandrake more effective than garlic, (another substance thought to increase fertility). Many legends and superstitions surround the mandrake, including the ability to cause death or insanity, aid conception or bestow powers of prophecy and invulnerability. Mandrakes were placed under the bridal bed in Germany. The mandrake was believed to emit a bloodcurdling scream when uprooted. The Greeks associated it with Aphrodite, the godess of love.
The identification of duda'im with mandrakes is generally undisputed today (the Hebrew name may be connected to the Hebrew word 'dod' for beloved.) The Midrash, however, suggests possible alternate identification: cypress grass, or hackberry fruits. In the Talmud, R. Jonathan suggests mandrake flowers, and Levi's identification with violets is quoted by Rashi. The identification of duda'im with flowers implies that Rachel simply wanted to give her husband Yaacov fragrant flowers. How romantic. Luzzato, along with many other sages, are uncomfortable with the use of a plant with clearly ‘magical properties.’ But the Rabbis shouldn’t have worried. As the Ramban correctly points out, the biblical text is clear: the plant in fact fails Rachel, while Leah, who does not use the mandrakes, does become pregnant. Rachel does eventually conceive, but it is because 'God remembered her' (v. 22) and not because of any magical plants.
This discussion of mandrakes introduces the larger issues of the nature of magic and the magic of nature. By magic here- I don't mean conjurer's tricks like rabbits out of hats- nor even J.K. Rowling's wizarding world of Hogwarts and Diagon Alley. Magic, for the folklorist, is the attempt by humans to control or combat hostile, supernatural forces. There are many customs the folklorist would identify as having these kinds of magical roots- even though their origins may be no longer known to us and they are now safely Judaized. Breaking a glass at a wedding to scare away demons, or the Temple ceremony of pouring out water on Sukkot to invoke rainfall are perfect examples.
Our biblical story describes our ancestor's attempt to influence fertility through magical methods. Our biblical ancestors lived close to the land, and had a familiarity with the flora and fauna of Israel that we urbanized and diaspora Jews have long lost. (The difficulty even our Sages had identifying biblical flora demonstrates how divorced we are from the biblical landscape and the biblical text.) Yet our ancestors, while living much closer to nature than us, also felt that nature was a force outside them. They believed that charms and sympathetic magic could help control these forces. Today, many still believe that we can control nature. Evan Eisenberg in his amazing book, The Ecology of Eden, calls this position 'nature managers.' Nature 'managers' try to control nature, although we use modern science and much more sophisticated technology, instead of the biblical attempts that today we would call primitive superstitions and folk remedies.
According to Eisenberg, 'nature fetishers', on the other hand, want humans to leave nature undisturbed. Humans are part of nature but shouldn't disrupt the earth's natural ecological balance. But how natural must we be? Is cotton more natural than polyester? Is going around in the nude more natural than wearing clothes? Things are not necessarily better because they are natural: bread is better than raw grain. Nature is not synonymous with good. But when we talk about humans and nature (or humans versus nature!), we talk as if humanity and nature were two distinct entities. Yet everything is part of nature, including humans, even though it is clear that humans are distinct in some ways from nature’s other creatures.
Living with this tension is a critical issue: on the one hand, trying to return to living [more] harmoniously with nature, versus our ability and desire to manage our environment. Are we part of nature, or do we control/fight nature? But what is nature? What does it mean to go back to nature? And how far back should we go? Adin Steinsaltz in his volume, 'Simple Words' includes an excellent essay on the word: Nature. Nature is the totality of existence: from the largest star nebula to the smallest atomic particle. From whales to plankton. Nature (especially with a capital 'N') is often a convenient shorthand for many atheists and agnostics to refer to what many mean by God. Certainly, many of us feel God's presence when we are closer to nature. Steinsaltz asks whether we should correct nature, change nature or destroy nature. Humans are not the only animals who change the environment: bees convert pollen into honey; beavers make dams that create new lakes. Even wind and water change landscapes. We are changing the earth’s eco-systems faster and more globally than has ever been done before [this week's news flash: polar bears may become extinct because arctic ice is melting]. People are beginning to rethink their relationship to nature and the environment.
Lessons for Today
I believe our parasha gives us a clue to a possible Jewish response. Our parasha begins when Yaacov comes to a 'place.' It must not have been that remarkable- the place was unnamed and Yaacov decided it was OK to go to sleep there. Yet God's presence was in it. The rabbis point out that the unusual (threefold) repetition of makom- is in fact a reference to God. (The biblical word makom which normally means 'place' becomes one of the Rabbinic terms for God). So when the text says, "vayifga bamakom"- the simple meaning "And Yaacov came to a place" can be interpreted to mean as "Yaacov encountered God." (From here, the Rabbis suggest that Jacob instituted the evening prayer, just as Isaac instituted the afternoon prayer.) Ismar Schorch, chancellor of the JTS, writes: "The challenge of Hamakom is to recognize God in the ordinary and every day. Our inclination to be awed only by the extraordinary, dulls our senses to the miracles that surround us... All that exists flows from a single source."
God created nature and God is both present in nature, and yet is distinct from nature. Perhaps this is what is meant by us being created in God's image. When we acknowledge the Divine presence in nature, our relationship with nature is healthy and balanced. We will then also recognize that we too are fully part of nature, so what we do to nature we do to ourselves; yet we are apart from nature when we use magic or technology to attempt to control and manage nature. I think this is the message of magic and nature in this week's parasha. We must refuse the choice between nature fetisher (being fully part of nature), or nature manager (being distinct from nature). When we acknowledge that God is part of our makom, our 'place' and part of nature, and part of us, our places too, will be filled with God.
Shabbat Shalom.
|
