The Last Jedi's Luke Skywalker as an Educator: A תנ"ך Perspective

(14) Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder, together with the child, and sent her away. And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. (15) When the water was gone from the skin, she left the child under one of the bushes, (16) and went and sat down at a distance, a bowshot away; for she thought, “Let me not look on as the child dies.” And sitting thus afar, she burst into tears. (17) God heard the cry of the boy, and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heeded the cry of the boy where he is. (18) Come, lift up the boy and hold him by the hand, for I will make a great nation of him.”

Where he is. In his own merit, because the prayer of the sick person himself is the most effective of all. Where he is. Rabbi Simon said: The ministering angels gathered to accuse him [Ishmael]. They said before him, "God of the universe, a man who will in future kill your children (the Israelites) with thirst - you will quench his thirst via a well?!" God said to them: "What is he now- righteous or wicked?" The angels replied, "Righteous." God said to them, "I do not judge a man except based on where he is spiritually at that specific point in time."

(translation via Chabad)

it is customary to bring water, but you, the inhabitants of the land of Tema, did not do so, but with his bread they came before the wanderer; they brought them sorts of salty foods and blown up flasks full of air, and he would eat and ask to drink, and he would put the opening of the flask into his mouth, and the air would go into his innards, and he would die. Another explanation of “Toward the thirsty they bring water,” is as follows: I did not do so to your forefather, Ishmael; when he was thirsty, I revealed to him a well of water."

(22) Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, “O Lord, why did You bring harm upon this people? Why did You send me? (23) Ever since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has dealt worse with this people; and still You have not delivered Your people.”

What is the meaning of "and still You have not delivered Your people?" Rabbi Yishmael says: You have not delivered Your people overall. Rabbi Akiva says: "I [Moses] know that in future you will save them, but what do you care about those [infants] that are actually being placed between the bricks?

[From here we learn that when the Israelites were unsuccessful in meeting their quota of bricks, the Egyptian overseers would take the Israelite little ones and crush them within the building structure in place of those bricks.]

At that moment the attribute of judgment wanted to go against Moses, but when God saw that Moses was making this argument because of his great love/ empathy for Bnei Yisrael, He did not allow the attribute of judgment to impact him.

It is taught in a baraita: Based on a homiletic interpretation of their names, these three biblical figures are deemed to be the same person. He is called Nebat, he is called Micah, and he is called Sheba, son of Bichri. Nebat, who looked [nibat] but did not see, believed that he was destined for greatness, and that was achieved only by his son. Micah, who was crushed [nitmakhmekh] in the building of the storage cities of Pithom and Raamses, was miraculously saved. And what is his actual name? His name is Sheba, son of Bichri.

He was crushed in the building- Of the Egyptians who crushed them in their buildings. It's explained in the Agadah that Moshe said to God, "You are harming the nation because now if they do not have sufficient bricks, they (the Egyptian overseers) place their sons into the building structures." God replied, "These individuals [the children that are being built into the walls] are thorns among the Israelites- it is revealed to Me that if they were to live they would be completely wicked. If you wish, however, you may devise a test- save one from the bricks [and see what will become of him]." So Moshe did so and he saved Micha.

(2) עגל מסכה A MOLTEN CALF — As soon as he (Aaron) had thrown it (the gold) into the fire in a melting pot the magicians amongst the mixed multitude who had come up with them from Egypt came and made it (the golden calf) by their magic art. There are some who say that Micah the idolator mentioned in Judges ch. 17, was there, who had been drawn forth from the foundations of a building in Egypt where he was nearly crushed. He had in his possession a “supernatural name” (שם) and a plate upon which Moses had written: “Come up, ox, come up, ox!” in order to raise the coffin of Joseph who is compared to an ox (cf. Deuteronomy 33:17) out of the Nile, and he cast it (the plate) into the melting pot and the calf (the young ox) came out (ויצא העגל הזה) (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 19).

(1) There was a man in the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Micah. (2) He said to his mother, “The eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from you, so that you uttered an imprecation which you repeated in my hearing—I have that silver; I took it.” “Blessed of the LORD be my son,” said his mother. (3) He returned the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother; but his mother said, “I herewith consecrate the silver to the LORD, transferring it to my son to make a sculptured image and a molten image. I now return it to you.” (4) So when he gave the silver back to his mother, his mother took two hundred shekels of silver and gave it to a smith. He made of it a sculptured image and a molten image, which were kept in the house of Micah. (5) Now the man Micah had a house of God; he had made an ephod and teraphim and he had inducted one of his sons to be his priest. (6) In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did as he pleased. (7) There was a young man from Bethlehem of Judah, from the clan seat of Judah; he was a Levite and had resided there as a sojourner. (8) This man had left the town of Bethlehem of Judah to take up residence wherever he could find a place. On his way, he came to the house of Micah in the hill country of Ephraim. (9) “Where do you come from?” Micah asked him. He replied, “I am a Levite from Bethlehem of Judah, and I am traveling to take up residence wherever I can find a place.” (10) “Stay with me,” Micah said to him, “and be a father and a priest to me, and I will pay you ten shekels of silver a year, an allowance of clothing, and your food.” The Levite went. (11) The Levite agreed to stay with the man, and the youth became like one of his own sons. (12) Micah inducted the Levite, and the young man became his priest and remained in Micah’s shrine. (13) “Now I know,” Micah told himself, “that the LORD will prosper me, since the Levite has become my priest.”

Hezekiah said to him: What is all of this? For what transgression am I being punished?
Isaiah said to him: Because you did not marry and engage in procreation.
Hezekiah apologized and said: I had no children because I envisaged through divine inspiration that the children that emerge from me will not be virtuous. Hezekiah meant that he had seen that his children were destined to be evil. In fact, his son Menashe sinned extensively, and he thought it preferable to have no children at all. Isaiah said to him: Why do you involve yourself with the secrets of the Holy One, Blessed be He? That which you have been commanded, the mitzva of procreation, you are required to perform, and that which is acceptable in the eyes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, let Him perform, as He has so decided. Hezekiah said to Isaiah: Now give me your daughter as my wife; perhaps my merit and your merit will cause virtuous children to emerge from me.
Isaiah said to him: The decree has already been decreed against you and this judgment cannot be changed.
Hezekiah said to him: Son of Amoz, cease your prophecy and leave. As long as the prophet spoke as God’s emissary, Hezekiah was obligated to listen to him. He was not, however, obligated to accept Isaiah’s personal opinion that there was no possibility for mercy and healing. Hezekiah continued: I have received a tradition from the house of my father’s father, from King David, the founding father of the dynasty of kings of Judea: Even if a sharp sword rests upon a person’s neck, he should not prevent himself from praying for mercy. One may still hold out hope that his prayers will be answered, as was David himself when he saw the Angel of Destruction, but nonetheless prayed for mercy and his prayers were answered.

(1) Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem; his mother’s name was Hephzibah. (2) He did what was displeasing to the LORD, following the abhorrent practices of the nations that the LORD had dispossessed before the Israelites. (3) He rebuilt the shrines that his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he erected altars for Baal and made a sacred post, as King Ahab of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the host of heaven and worshiped them, (4) and he built altars for them in the House of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “I will establish My name in Jerusalem.” (5) He built altars for all the hosts of heaven in the two courts of the House of the LORD. (6) He consigned his son to the fire; he practiced soothsaying and divination, and consulted ghosts and familiar spirits; he did much that was displeasing to the LORD, to vex Him. (7) The sculptured image of Asherah that he made he placed in the House concerning which the LORD had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this House and in Jerusalem, which I chose out of all the tribes of Israel, I will establish My name forever. (8) And I will not again cause the feet of Israel to wander from the land that I gave to their fathers, if they will but faithfully observe all that I have commanded them—all the Teachings with which My servant Moses charged them.” (9) But they did not obey, and Manasseh led them astray to do greater evil than the nations that the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites. (10) Therefore the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets: (11) “Because King Manasseh of Judah has done these abhorrent things—he has outdone in wickedness all that the Amorites did before his time—and because he led Judah to sin with his fetishes, (12) assuredly, thus said the LORD, the God of Israel: I am going to bring such a disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that both ears of everyone who hears about it will tingle. (13) I will apply to Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria and the weights of the House of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem clean as one wipes a dish and turns it upside down. (14) And I will cast off the remnant of My own people and deliver them into the hands of their enemies. They shall be plunder and prey to all their enemies (15) because they have done what is displeasing to Me and have been vexing Me from the day that their fathers came out of Egypt to this day.” (16) Moreover, Manasseh put so many innocent persons to death that he filled Jerusalem [with blood] from end to end—besides the sin he committed in causing Judah to do what was displeasing to the LORD.

(10) The LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not pay heed, (11) so the LORD brought against them the officers of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh captive in manacles, bound him in fetters, and led him off to Babylon. (12) In his distress, he entreated the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. (13) He prayed to Him, and He granted his prayer, heard his plea, and returned him to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD alone was God. (14) Afterward he built the outer wall of the City of David west of Gihon in the wadi on the way to the Fish Gate, and it encircled Ophel; he raised it very high. He also placed army officers in all the fortified towns of Judah. (15) He removed the foreign gods and the image from the House of the LORD, as well as all the altars that he had built on the Mount of the House of the LORD and in Jerusalem, and dumped them outside the city.

“These too are the proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judea, copied” (Proverbs 25:1), indicating that Hezekiah taught Torah and disseminated it to the multitudes. And is it conceivable that Hezekiah, king of Judea, taught Torah to the entire world and to Manasseh his son he did not teach Torah? Rather, Hezekiah certainly taught Manasseh much Torah; nevertheless, from all his exertion to teach him and from all his toil to teach him, it was only afflictions that elevated him to the path of good, as it is stated: “And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people but they would not heed. And the Lord brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, and bound him with chains, and carried him to Babylonia” (II Chronicles 33:10–11). And it is written thereafter: “And when he was in distress, he sought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and he prayed to Him and He was entreated of him, and He heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom; then Manasseh knew that the Lord He was God” (II Chronicles 33:12–13). You learned from this that afflictions are cherished.

(18) If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, (19) his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. (20) They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” (21) Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid.

§ The mishna teaches that the boy does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine. The Sages taught in a baraita: If he ate any other food but did not eat meat, or if he drank any other beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine, as it is stated: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” And although there is no explicit proof to the matter, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Proverbs 23:20). And the verse states: “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. Rabbi Zeira expounds the same verse and says: With regard to anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: “And drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.” MISHNA: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother. GEMARA: The Gemara explains the reasons for the various halakhot taught in the mishna: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, even though this is accessible to him and it is easy for him to steal, he is afraid that his father will see him eating what he had stolen, and therefore he will not be drawn after his action to further evil. If he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, even though he is not afraid of them, as they neither know him nor watch over him, this theft is not easily accessible to him, as it is performed on someone else’s property, and therefore he will not be drawn to additional sin. And all the more so if he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, in which case it is not accessible to him, and he is also afraid of his father. Therefore, he is not liable unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others, in which case it is easily accessible to him, and he is not afraid, and there is concern that he will be drawn after his action to additional sin. The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother. The Gemara asks: With regard to his mother, from where does she have independently owned property that her son can steal? The basis for this question is the halakha that anything that a woman acquires is acquired by her husband. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says in answer to this question: The mishna is referring to a case where the boy stole food from a meal that had been prepared for his father and for his mother. In such a case the husband grants his wife ownership of the food that she will eat over the course of her meal. The Gemara raises a difficulty. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanan bar Molada say that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive meat and eats it, and he purchases inexpensive wine and drinks it, which indicates that he becomes liable only if he steals money, not if he steals the actual meat and wine? Rather, say that the boy stole from money set aside for a meal that was to be prepared for his father and for his mother. The Gemara presents another answer to the question posed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If you wish, say instead that another person gave property to the mother and said to her: This shall be yours on the condition that your husband shall have no right to it. In such a case, the woman acquires the property for herself and her husband does not acquire it. Therefore, it is possible for the son to steal from his mother’s property. MISHNA: If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being not suited for the father? If we say that due to their union they are among those who are liable to receive karet, in which case the marriage does not take effect, and certainly if the union puts them in the category of those who are liable to receive one of the types of court-imposed death penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? Ultimately, his father is still his father and his mother is still his mother, and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy’s mother must be identical to his father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices [kolenu]” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the halakha. If you wish, say instead that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat on his grave after he was executed. The Gemara raises a similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be one in the future, as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to an idolatrous city written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city that has even one mezuza or any other sacred scroll cannot become an idolatrous city. It is difficult to imagine an entire city without even one mezuza.