The
notion of a garment, made by God for the first humans, passed down, generation
through generation has had an academic treatment, but I find Rubin & Kosman’s work deeply
flawed. While some sources are gathered many are missed, and then the article
ends with such a slew of unsubstantiated assumptions that one has to wonder for
its conclusion. The authors plot the course of a magical garment that makes its
way from Adam to Jacob and then speculate that it was passed from the heroes of
Genesis to the Priests and from the Priests to the Messiah, but they offer
nothing approximating textual support for these later claims. There is some
exegetic evidence (un-cited by Nissan and Kosmin) that supports the notion that
the garments of skin were secreted away until the end of time,
but since it does not connect the intermediary steps – bringing together the
heroes of Genesis, the Priests and the Messiah – perhaps it does not add to the
validity of their case.
Gary
Anderson has done a huge amount of work unpacking the development of the notion
of כתנות
עור as garments of mortality. In
seventy pages of academic articles and another
twenty pages of more popular, but still rigorous, discussion in The Genesis
of Perfection
he moves dexterously from Church Fathers to Ancient and Mediaeval Rabbinic
commentary marshalling a huge range of primary and secondary source material. I
feel the work he has done requires discussion in this paper, but, for reasons I
will detail, there are some problems with his central argument.
Nonetheless
the notion of an almost magical garment that survives through Biblical time
does have a rich tradition history well worth uncovering. The textual provocation
that drives this Midrashic journey is Genesis 3:21.
ויעש ידוד
אלקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבשם:
And the LORD God made garments of skin for
Adam.
It
is a confusing verse. The term כתנות עור - garments of skin could be understood either as a skin
garment, or a garment FOR the skin. Moreover relationship of the כתנות עור to
the other post-‘fall’ garment – the fig leaves referred to in Genesis 3:7 – needs to
be established. Are they one and the same, or do they have no relationship one
to the other. And what is the purpose of this clothing? Through time Jewish and
Christian exegesis has understood the term in different ways.
We
are told that the first humans were naked in the Garden, but maybe their
nakedness exceeded mere lack of clothing, maybe their souls were so apparent
that the first humans did without skin. In that case the garments of skin would
be the mortal covering of flesh we all now wear – garments of mortality.
Or
maybe God gives the first humans garments of protection from the outside
world. God is expelling Adam and wife from the Garden, but they are not to make
their way into the primordial wilderness without any of God’s kindness
enveloping them. Rather they are given a skin garment to shelter them from the wild-life
beyond the Garden
of Pleasure.
Our
third (and conceivably linked) possibility is that the garments are primordial
echoes of other garments which so concern the Torah – namely Priestly garments;
thus understanding the garments of skin as garments of ritual service.
Garments of Mortality
While the notion
that our skin is a לבוש - a form of clothing -
might sound strange to the modern ear, it is certainly an attested Biblical
idiom. Job 10:11 reads
“You clothed me in skin and flesh.”
Anderson’s understanding of כתנות עור is driven by the sense that, before consuming
the fruit, the primordial humans were clothed in glory only to stumble and pay the
cost of mortality. This is well attested, certainly in the apocrypha, and
possibly even in the Bible itself. The Masoretic
text of Psalms 8:6, almost certainly a reference to the first human, reads;
ותחסרהו מעט מאלקים וכבוד והדר תעטרהו:
You have made him a little less than Divine and crowned
him in glory and majesty.
On this verse Anderson offers the observation
that;
The Hebrew is normally translated “to crown,” this
presumes a denominative meaning that derives from the noun ‘atarah,
“crown”. Yet there is a nondenominative verbal root that occurs in the G-stem
that means “to surround, envelop” (see Ps. 5:13, I Sam 23:26).
It is this meaning that was singled out by the translator of the Peshitta, who
rendered the verse, “you clothed him with glory and honor.”
Brock claims that the notion that
Adam, previous to the fall was clothed in light and subsequently doomed to be
clothed in mortal skin is ‘very popular with early Syriac poets, Ephrem, Jacob
of Serugh, Narasai and others.’ But connecting
this to our problematic phrase - כתנות עור - remains a challenge. I have struggled
to find mention of both garments of glory and כתנות עור in the same
piece of commentary. Certainly it is less obvious, in the Patristic sources collated
by Anderson and
Brock, than these authors would lead us to expect.
Gregory of Nazianuzus certainly links
the fall to mortal flesh…
This one
[Adam] forgot the command that was given and came to defeat through that bitter
taste, at one and at the same time [he] was both expelled from the tree of life
… and put on garments of skin. The garments of skin probably mean mortal
flesh since it is firm and pliable.
… but he does not connect this to the loss
of clothes of glory. And where
there is a mention of the loss of glory …
With
radiance and glory was Adam clothed at the beginning, before he sinned … [he
sinned] … and was ejected from Paradise, he
was then covered by fig leaves in place of the glory which he had been clothed.
… there is no
exegesis of כתנות
עור, rather the clothes made to
replace the loss are the human-made fig-leaves (the כתנות עור, of course, are made by God).
The Genesis narrative,
at this point, is confusing and one is tempted by Ephrem’s suggestion that ‘it
seems likely to me that while their hands were on the fig leaves, they found
themselves dressed in the garments of skin.’ But I
can’t help but feel that in the absence of any convincing evidence we would do
best keeping the different garments (the primordial garments of glory, the
post-fall human-made fig-leaves and the post-fall divinely created כתנות עור) distinct lest, by conflating them too quickly, we establish a
tradition history that might not really exist.
Anderson also marshals Rabbinic sources in an attempt to conflate
garments of glory with the כתנות עור. His primary source (certainly in
Garments) is Bereishit Rabbah 20:12.
Garments of skin - כתנות עור
In the Torah of Rabbi Meir, it is written ‘Garments of
Light’ - כתנות
אור
But I am
unconvinced. The ‘Torah of Rabbi Meir’ makes two other appearances in Bereishit
Rabbah (9:1 and 94:26) in each case we are offered words to replace original
words from the masoretic text. The new words are similar in sound to the
originals, but radically different in meaning. The question is how should we
read these new words? It seems most unlikely that we are looking at an accepted
‘manuscript variant’ in the text of the Bible itself, but is it a record of an
accepted exegesis or a reference to a (in the eyes of the Rabbis) paraprax type
acknowledged exegetical error? Theodor suggests that we are looking at references
to Rabbi Meir’s personal marginalia, a collection of moments ‘where language
collides.’
Lieberman suggests that Rabbi Meir, as a professional copyist is, would copy ‘vulgate’
texts, based on versions of the Bible to which the public were accustomed,
but which we no longer recognise as canonical. My sense
is that we should understand the ‘Torah of Rabbi Meir’ as offering witty word
plays, not considered exegesis. But even if we do consider Rabbi Meir’s Torah offers
exegesis we are not able to claim that this particular comment provides
evidence of a tradition that connects the loss of glory with its replacement
with mortal skin in the Ancient Period. In the complete version of this far
longer Midrash, Rabbi Meir’s reading is followed by a slew of other possible
understandings of interpretations of garments of skin, (fine flax,
goat-skin, camel wool etc.), but no suggestion of any loss of pre-fall garment.
This seems to suggest that the editors of Bereishit Rabbah did not consider
the first humans lost any garment of glory as they received the garment of skin.
Indeed this is the sense of all four of the targumim we have on this post-fall
verse;
Onkelos: The Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of glory
over the skin of their flesh.
Neophyti: The Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of glory
for the skin of their flesh.
Fragmentary T The word of the Lord God
created for Adam and his wife garments of glory from/because of the skin of
their flesh.
(sic.)
Pseudo Y. The Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of glory
… upon the skin of their flesh. He clothed them in place of the fingernail skin of which
they were stripped.
In no case does the
term כתנות
עור evoke a sense of removal of
glory, rather quite the reverse. One could, on the strength of these targumim,
make the claim that כתנות עור actually mark the onset of the
garments of glory, and not its loss. We even
have ‘evidence’ that the Rabbis considered that the glory of Adam continued
long past the fall and even long past his death. Rabbi Bana’h goes looking for the
grave of Adam and peers in ‘to gaze upon the heels of [the dead Adam] and they
were like two solar orbs.’ No loss
of light or glory here.
Once we arrive at
the Geonic period we can find a Midrash that claims the first humans do lose
glory during the fall narrative, but it does not connect this loss to the כתנות עור.
And when Adam ate from the fruit of the tree, his skin
and his exoskeleton was sloughed from him, and the cloud of glory disappeared
from him and he saw himself naked.
We will return to
discuss this Midrash later, I cite it now only to reject the notion that the
connection between loss of the Garments of Glory and the donning of mortal skin
finds clear attestation even up to the Geonic period.
It is only in the
late thirteenth century that we find the sort of clear connection that Anderson claims exists in
Antiquity, our source is the critically maligned Zohar.
Zohar I:36b
At first they wore kotonet
or, garments of light and he was waited upon by the highest beings, for the
angels on high came to bask in that light, as it is written You made him
little les than God, adorned him with glory and majesty (Ps. 8:6). Now that
they sinned kotonet or, garments of skin, soothing the skin [but] not
the soul.
At last we have the
clear attestation we seek, but it is late. Note also the presence in this
passage of the verse from Psalms 8:6. I wonder if the baal hazohar, like
the baal peshitta understood תעטרהו as ‘clothed’ and that the grist for this piece of exegesis is
in fact Psalms, and not כתנות עור.
A possible reason
for Anderson’s interest in showing that the Garments of Glory were replaced by כתנות עור, understood as mortal skin, can be found in his more popular
work - Perfection. At the end of his discussion of Patristic and
Rabbinic sources Anderson
connects the Garment of Glory of the first humans to the ‘clothes of Christ’
which envelop the (naked) catechumen as he or she rises from the baptismal
font. Citing Romans (6:3-4) and First Corinthians (15:53), he connects the descent into the font as
a death, and the rising therefrom as a rebirth – a ‘putting on of immortality.’
Arising anew into life the catechumen is again naked and without shame, just as
Adam and Eve in their pre-Fall state. The claim
is made that all this functions as exegesis of כתנות עור, but I am
unconvinced. There is a case to be made for a traditions history which traces
the understanding of כתנות עור as mortal skin, but its
connection to the notion of the loss of any Garments of Glory is neither strong
nor ancient – at least in Rabbinics. I wonder if, were it not for the
fore-grounding this understanding offers to those also interested in tracing Church
ritual, it would be thought in the least attractive.
Fortunately there
are other strands to the traditional understanding of this term, strands better
attested, certainly in Rabbinic literature, and it is to these understandings
that we now must turn.
Garments
of
Protection
Life
outside God’s pleasure garden sounds harsh. Death, murder, hard graft awaits.
But, lest you should think that God is overly harsh in sending the humans out
of the garden to a certain death, they are at least clothed in כתנות עור.
TB Sotah 14a
Rabbi Simlai explained, ‘The beginning of Torah is loving
kindness, and the end of Torah is loving kindness. The beginning is loving
kindness, as it says And LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his
wife and dressed them. (Gen 3:21). And the end is loving kindness as it
says And He [God] buried him [Moses] in the Valley. (Deut 34:6)
I argue that the
primary lens through which the Rabbis saw the כתנות עור is that of a
comfort and a kindness, not as a loss and the actualization of the curse of
mortality. It is almost pshat. Sarna writing on verse Gen 3:21 states the
verse offers ‘rapprochement;’ a ‘measure of reconciliation.’ The necessity
of explaining Adam’s survival, both physical and spiritual, outside of the
Garden, is certainly a Rabbinic concern, the editor of Pirkei Rebbi Eliezer collects
the following;
PRE
Chapter 20
Rabbi
Yehuda said, ‘It was the [keeping] of Shabbat that kept [Adam] from all evil
and comforted him from all the disquiet of his heart.
Rabbi
Yehoshua Ben Karcha said, ‘From [the leaves of] the tree under which they hid,
they took leaves and sewed them.’
Rabbi
Ilai said, ‘The Blessed One took the skin which the snake sloughed off and
made garments of skin and clothed them.’
The sense is that
the humans are protected, either by their own actions (taking the leaves), by
their, more than a little anachronistic, keeping of God’s command to keep the
Shabbat, or by God’s act of grace (the snake skin as כתנות עור).
The notion that
the כתנות
עור are made from the skin of the
snake is an appealing
insight noticeably lacking
from Bereishit Rabbah’s long list
of potential materials, including fine linen from Bet-Shean,
goats’ skin, hares’ skin, skin with its wool, Circassian wool, camel wool and
hare fur. (20:12) It provides an excellent solution to
the problem that the slaughter of animals (the more conventional way of
acquiring leathers in antiquity) is only sanctioned post-deluge (Gen 9:1-7).
I have already
noted that Ephrem, the fourth century Church Father, saw the possibility of
re-cycling the skin of the snake, but in PRE the idea is developed further. In
PRE the sloughing of the snake’s skin is connected to the expulsion narrative
in a tidy like-begets-like piece of exegesis. We have already seen the first
part of this Midrash in our discussion of the garments of mortality above, but
now it can be more fully appreciated.
PRE 14
And when Adam ate from the fruit of the tree, his skin
and his exoskeleton was sloughed from him, and the cloud of glory disappeared
from him and he saw himself naked.
[Shortly thereafter God curses the snake and among other
punishments] ordains that [the serpent] should slough its skin.
Pre-fall, it
seems, Man and snake had much in common. Both had an exoskeleton, and both
walked on legs. When the humans ate from the fruit they lost their exoskeleton
forevermore. When the snake is punished for leading them astray, it loses its legs
forevermore and its exoskeleton on a regular, and painful, basis, but
we digress. Our subject is the relationship of the כתנות עור to the protection
that Adam and wife need in the wilderness. Later Midrashim make explicit the
protective magical qualities of these garments in the post-expulsion period.
Rabbi Yishmael said that this was due to the same garment
of Adam and Eve. All beasts and birds would see them and bow down before them,
because the Holy Blessed One set fear into them, as it says And the fear and
dread of you shall … (Gen 9:2)
How did the first humans survive the
wilderness? They had a magic garment that offered protection from all beasts. It
seems that the loving kindness of God is even greater than we might have
suspected from our initial reading of TB Sotah 14a. Not only do Adam and Eve receive
clothes to protect them from the elements, they are dressed in magic garments
which protect them from more beastly threats.
Once the כתנות עור are clearly established as a miraculous garment of protection we can begin
our journey through the book of Genesis. The fullest telling of the tale is found
in Pirkei Rebbi Eliezer.
PRE –
Chapter 24
Rabbi
Hachinai said, ‘Nimrod was heroically mighty, as it says and Cush
begot Nimrod [who was the first man of might on the earth] (Gen 10:8).’
Rabbi
Yehuda said, ‘the garment which the Blessed One made for Adam and his wife was
with Noah and his sons in the ark. And when they came out from the ark, Ham,
the son of Noah, took it from him and
gave it as an inheritance to Nimrod [his grandson].
And when
he wore them, all cattle, beast and wild animal would come and fall down before
him. And it was that people thought it was from the might of his heroism,
therefore they crowned him King upon them, as it says [hence the saying]
‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter, by the grace of God’ (Gen 10:9) …
Rabbi
Meir said, ‘Esau – his brother – saw Nimrod’s garment and coveted it in his
heart, and he killed him and took it from him.
And how
do we know that [the garment] was desirous in his eyes? As it says, Rebekhah
took the coveted clothes of Esau her oldest son (Gen 27:15). Anyone
who wore them also became mighty, as it says ‘Esau became a skillful hunter’
(Gen 25:27). And when Jacob went out from before Isaac his father she said,
“This wicked Esau is not worthy of wearing these garments.” What did she do?
She dug up some earth and hid them as it says hidden in the earth are his
threads (Job 18:10).
The Midrash seems to end abruptly. The ‘end’ almost begs to
be included, we can finish it ourselves – while Esau is out hunting, Rebekhah
gives these clothes to Jacob and he wears the garments as he seeks the blessing
from his father. Why therefore is the story only part told in this text? Perhaps
the abrupt end suggests this retelling is not, for the editor of PRE, new
material. Rather he is drawing on extant Midrashim (since lost) that contain
the ‘whole’ story, but since, in the context of this Chapter of this work the
tale is a divergence,
he feels the need to cut it short. Perhaps he cannot help himself, and feels
the need to include the bulk of the story, but once he has the opportunity to
demonstrate the Job proof text, he is done; the rest – the easy part – we are
left to do for ourselves.
In a different place, but not so much later,
Rashi (1040-1105), demonstrates an awareness of the same tradition.
BT Pesachim 54a-b
Ten things were created in the twilight of the eve of
Shabbat and these are they …. And some include the garment of the First Human.
Rashi ad. loc
The garment of the First Human
That held power over all kinds of beasts
and cattle, and it was passed on to Nimrod, therefore it is said of Nimrod like Nimrod a mighty hunter (Gen 10) and
Esau killed him and took it, therefore he
was a man of the hunt. And this [the garment] is that which was coveted in his house (Gen 27). And me? I
have heard that the garments of the first human, these are the garments of
skin that he had.
The author/editor
of the early thirteenth century Yemenite collection of Midrashim Hemdat Yamim
has more detail. Shalom Ben Yosef Alshabazi is concerned not with the
possibility of Adam’s survival in the wilds outside of the Garden, but of
Noah’s ability to tend to all those lions and tigers and bears in the ark. He cites
the PRE narrative and at the point PRE is discussing Noah’s tenure over the garment
he adds;
The garment was from the snake and by virtue of this [Noah] was able
to stand between the wild animals in the ark, for the great gift (segulah)
of the snake is that strikes fear into the lion.
While both PRE and Rashi on Pesachim suggest the garment
was passed to Nimrod and taken from him by Esau, BR 63:32 has the story the
other way around. In this telling Esau arrives at Jacob’s ‘kitchen’ and
pronounces that he is to die;
Since Nimrod wanted to kill him because of
that garment that the First Adam had. When Esau wore it and went out into the
field, all the animals and birds in the world would come and be gathered to
him.
This text suggests Nimrod never had the garment, but rather
it was Nimrod who coveted it and as he (Nimrod) was the archetypal mighty
hunter (גבור ציד – Gen 10:9) he needed to take care of the upstart Esau (יודע ציד – Gen
25:27). This
runs counter to the narrative in PRE 24. In another place BR itself
also contains the story the other way round (with Esau taking the skins from
Nimrod) and this (derekh Nimrod version) is also the way the story is
told in the Zohar.
Maybe we should consider that BR 63:32 records the ‘garments of protection’
narrative overlapping with the ‘garments of service’ narrative (which, as we
will see later, does not include Nimrod).
Alternatively we could consider this section a later addition into the BR
corpus. Theodor in his
commentary notes that this whole section is missing from MS ו ‘and written in, in the margin, in another hand.’
Even though we do not have complete agreement that the
garment is taken from Nimrod by Esau,
the ‘derekh Nimrod’ version is a better Midrash; it offers insights into
Ham’s uncovering of his father, as well as explaining the ‘coveted clothes’ of
Esau. It also seems a useful understanding to apply to the attested notion (certainly
in Yemenite Midrashim) that Esau’s tiredness – when he comes to Jacob – is due
to his struggle with Nimrod.
And they said that
Esau encountered Nimrod and wrestled with him in the field and they agreed on
that day that whoever triumphed over their fellow would kill him. And Nimrod
triumphed over Esau and Esau asked for delay until the next day.
[Esau uses his reprieve
to seek advice from his brother, Jacob,] and when he said Behold I am going
to die, Jacob said to him, ‘When Nimrod comes to [kill] you, say to him, “take
off your garment so it won’t get mucky with blood.”’ And at that time you will
prevail over him,
and kill him and don’t let him go until the next day. And [Esau] did that and
killed Nimrod and Hiver [Nimrod’s] son and took the garment, and this became
the Esau’s coveted clothes (Gen 27:15)
A
similar Midrash in Hadar Zekainim suggests
that by the time Esau comes to see Jacob he has already killed Nimrod in order
to win the garments of skin. While
it is perhaps no offence to the language of the Bible to suggest that Esau uses
exaggeration when returns from a ‘normal’ days hunting, claiming he is about to
die from tiredness (Gen 25:30), the notion that he fears for his life – on
being chased by Nimrod the master hunter is at the very least an attractive drash
which sits well with the language of the text.
Three other details need to be
included before we can turn our attention to the כתנות עורכתנות עור as garments of service.
Midrash Tanhuma (Buber) offers the
following observation;
Toledot:16
What
is like the smell of the field? – These are the clothes of The First
Adam which have the scent of the Garden of Eden.
Immediately
[Isaac] said, ‘May God give you of the dew of the heaven’ (Gen 27:28)
The blind patriarch is connected to Eden through the clothes.
Finally the Yeminite collection Or
Ha-Afela offers this comment on the gift that the newest inheritor the כתנות עור gives to his favoured son Joseph;
The garment of many
colours: (Gen 37:3) This is the garment the Holy Blessed One made for Adam and his
helpmate.
Garments of Service
This understanding finds textual
support in two mediaeval compilations, Bemidbar Rabbah and Midrash
Tanhuma (Buber). The similarity of these two retellings, both to each other
and to the texts discussed above in the section on Garments of Protection, are
many. To facilitate comparison between the texts I have presented them in parallel.
|
Midrash
Tanhuma (Buber) Toledot:12
A
person must honour the Shabbat in their clothing, and it says And call the
Shabbat – ‘delight’ (Is. 58:13), and with what should Israel honour the Shabbat? With
food and drink and clean clothes. For from the beginning God did just this as
it says, And GOD, God, make garments of skins for Adam and his wife and
clothed them (Gen 3:21).
And
what are the garments of skin? They are the clothes of the High Priest
who was dressed by the Holy Blessed One for the honour of the world.
|
Bemidbar
Rabbah 4:8
Take
the Levites [in place of the first-born] (Num 3:45)
|
|
Moreover
the Rabbis taught that before the construction of the Sanctuary, private
altars were permitted and the firstborn did the service.
|
Said
our Rabbis, ‘why did the Holy Blessed One command the redeeming of the
firstborn of Israel
by the Levites? For initially the firstborn did the service, until the tribe
of Levi stood up [in the aftermath of the Golden Calf debacle and won the
right of bringing the offerings for their clan].
|
|
Therefore
the Holy Blessed One dressed the First Adam in the clothes of the High Priest
since he was the firstborn of the world.
|
This
began with the Creation of the world.
The
First Adam was the firstborn of the world and when he brought a
sacrifice - as it says, [what
could] please GOD more than oxen, than bull with horns and hooves (Ps.
69:32)
– he would wear the clothes of the High Priest as it says And GOD, God,
make garments of skins for Adam and his wife and clothed them (Gen 3:21).
They were garments of praise,
and the first born would do the service in them.
|
|
|
And
when Adam died, he passed them on to Seth.
Seth
passed them on to Methusaleh [his grandson].
When
Methusaleh died he passed them on to Noah.
|
|
Noah
came and passed them to Abraham.
|
And
Noah stood and brought a sacrifice as it says, [And Noah took] of every
clean animal[he offered burnt offerings.] (Gen 8:20)
Noah
died and passed the, to Shem – but was Shem a firstborn, wasn’t Yephet the
firstborn as it says the big brother, Japheth (Gen 10:21)?
Rather Noah foresaw the chain of descent of the ancestors [Abraham, Isaac
& Jacob] came from [Shem].
Shem
died and passed it to Abraham [his ninth generation descendant] – but was
Abraham a firstborn? Rather because he was righteous he passed to him the
birthright…
|
|
And
Abraham passed them to Isaac.
And
Issac passed them to Esau – who was the first born, and Esau saw his wives
were worshipping strange gods, so he (Esau) hid
[the garment] in his mother’s house.
When
Jacob stood and took the birthright from Esau, Rebekhah said, ‘since Jacob
has taken the birthright from Esau, by rights he [Jacob] should wear these
clothes, as it says Rebekhah took the coveted clothes of Esau her oldest
son (Gen 27:15). Jacob entered before his father and he smelled them, as
it says And he smelled his clothes and he blessed him (Gen 27:27).
|
Abraham
died and passed it to Isaac.
Isaac
stood and passed it to Jacob – but was Jacob a firstborn? Rather you will
find that Jacob took it from Esau with cunning, he said to him ‘First sell
me your birthright’ (Gen 26:31). You might think that Jacob had no reason
for saying to Esau that he should sell him the birthright, rather Jacob
wanted to bring sacrifices and could not because he wasn’t a firstborn.
|
The Bemidar Rabbah narrative,
for most of its content, seems more concerned than Tanhuma (Buber) with
legal details and the precise unfolding of the chain of the firstborn, but then
at its end it too turns to the notion of the desire to bring the ritual service,
almost as if this is counts more than biological primogeniture. Both these
narratives however centre on the linear descents of those who carry the
blessing of the ancestors, as opposed to invincibility in the face of wild
animals, accordingly the chain of ownership of the כתנות עור
by-passes Nimrod, as noted in the discussion of BR 63:32 above.
Conclusion?
The traditions
history of these garments functions as a thread weaving together the entire
book of Genesis. If we were to combine all our sources into one contiguous
narrative we would have a tale that connected the snake, Adam, Seth,
Methusaleh, Noah, Ham, Nimrod, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Rebekhah and Jacob
(as well as begging mention of Joseph).
This generation by generation unfolding of mythic article, known as translatio,
is a vitally important Rabbinic motif.
Connecting of quasi-anonymous objects
between narratives and over Biblical time – rather than pointing to a ‘cataclysmic
shift in ontological status’ (as Anderson
suggests), symbolizes instead a ragged continuity of Divinely
proffered protection, even in the aftermath of expulsion. In some way this
tradition (and other multi-generational Midrashim
weaved through Torah) serve as a
kind of ur-Midrash. They do the very thing they describe – protecting
and strengthening the meta-structure of Torah, both written and oral, through
history both Biblical and Rabbinic, even as they atomize the narrative
structure of the written text, willfully disregarding the sober value of pshat.
The tradition of
the כתנות
עור, at least as relayed in those
texts that see Nimrod and Esau as one-time inheritors of the garment, is not
the simple path of darkness to light that is surely an oversimplification of
our national history, but rather a tale in which the promise and provision of protection
oftentimes goes astray. The reassurance we seek as we encounter the wilds of a post-Edenic
existence sometimes vests (so to speak) our enemies. But even when we cannot
feel the cloak of invincibility in our own lives, the story continues to unfold
– the destiny of protection remains throughout time, even as the reality of
protection proves distant.
In this paper I have struggled to
understand why the classic tellers of this tradition failed to ‘finish their
story’ – what caused them to abstain from completing the seemingly obvious narrative
chain that leads from the כתנות עור of Eden to the כתנת פסים of Joseph’s techni-coloured coat? Maybe we have something to
learn from the stories of a much later Rabbinic tale-teller, Rebbe Nachman of
Breslav, who found it impossible to conclude his cosmic fairytales.
Perhaps the story of the כתנות עור is incomplete because The Story remains incomplete; as a
people we are still winding our way in and out of text and history still
searching for the scent of paradise that Isaac detected in the scales of
Esau/Jacob’s garb. Perhaps the deep desire to see once again the כתנות עור, to feel once again the Divine Protection afforded our
ancestors, is what led Nissim and Kosman to assert – in the absence of any
textual proof – that the clothing of the Primordial Adam continues to vest the
inheritors of the religious and literary heritage of PRE and Rashi through time
and even unto to the eschaton. Perhaps, but we cannot know, instead we are left
with the hope of protection, literary fragments and an unfinished narrative.
Anderson, G. “The Punishment of Adam and Eve in the
Life of Adam and Eve” in Literature on Adam and Eve, ed. Anderson,
Stone, Tromp, (2000, Leiden, Brill) pp. 57-81 (referred to as “Punishment”)
and "Garments of Skin, Garments of Glory,” in Studies in Ancient
Midrash ed J. Kugel (2001, Cambridge, Harvard University Center for Jewish
Studies) pp. 101-145 (referred to as “Garments”).
The notion that the primordial human was enveloped in
some kind of exoskeleton can also be found in PRE 14, considered below. See
also Zohar 2:208b ‘The first garments in
which Adam was clothed in the Garden of Eden were like those which surround the
legions, they are called “hind-parts” (ohhrujt), and bear the name of “nail” (trpuy).’ (trans. as
understood by Soncino).
Trans Matt, D., see also Zohar 2:229b, 3:261. This
passage clearly draws on ‘Rabbi Meir’s Torah’ (BR 20:12), but I argue that the
Zohar is making hiddush when it uses Rabbi Meir’s cryptic emendation to
make the clear articulation that Anderson claims exists far earlier.
PRE 33, ‘Six cries echo from one
end of the world to the other, but their cry is not heard; at the time one
prunes a fruit tree while it is bearing fruit … at the time the snake sloughs
…’
As well as BR 63:32 (which has Nimrod seeking the garment) Targum Yerushalmi to Gen 48:22 suggests that Abraham
took the garment from Nimrod and gave it to Isaac who gave it to Esau, Jacob,
in, the words of this baal targum claims, ‘I took it from the hand of
Esau my brother, not by my sword and bow, but by right and good deeds.’
Esau’s tiredness is connected to the verse my soul
is tired, from killing (Jer 4:31
trans. to facilitate comprehension.)
Posts
