It's a wild ride of interpretations, isn’t it?

The passage opens with Jacob's words: "Reuben, you are my firstborn." Now, Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi], the compiler of the Mishnah, offers a double-edged interpretation. On one hand, it's praise. Reuben is the firstborn, unlike Esau, who, according to the text, would resort to theft if his hunting failed ("Esau went to the field to hunt game...if he found, fine; if not, 'to bring' from what he stole or took by force," Genesis 27:5). Reuben, however, "took mandrakes that were ownerless and not from what belonged to others" (Genesis 30:14). As Bereshit Rabbah 72:2 points out, he was honest!

Furthermore, the verse continues, "My strength, and the first of my potency" – representing the vanguard in battle, brave warriors "whose faces were like the faces of lions" (I Chronicles 12:9), as applied to both the Gadites and Reubenites, as Matnot Kehuna clarifies. So far, so good, right? Reuben's looking pretty heroic!

But then… the other shoe drops. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also sees criticism. “Reuben, you are my firstborn… you are firstborn and I am firstborn." See, Jacob is saying that he, at 84 years old, had never experienced a seminal emission until Reuben was conceived. The Midrash is assuming Reuben was conceived the first time Jacob had relations with Leah. But Reuben… Reuben "went and lay with Bilha" (Genesis 35:22). This is where things get complicated.

Now, suddenly, "My strength, and the first of my potency" becomes the "first of my toil and the first of my travail," as he was the first child Jacob had to raise. And the honor? The power? Gone. The birthright, the priesthood, the kingship – all forfeited due to his sin. The birthright went to Joseph, the priesthood to Levi, and the kingship to Judah.

And then Rabbi Aḥa throws another wrench into the works. Was the birthright even really Reuben's to begin with? After all, Jacob only went to Laban for Rachel! Shouldn't the firstborn have come from her? Ouch. That’s gotta sting. As Nezer HaKodesh points out, Reuben was conceived the first time Jacob had relations with Leah, when he thought she was Rachel, and therefore by right the firstborn should have been from Rachel.

The passage then quotes Jacob's deathbed prophecy: "Impetuous as water, you shall not excel; because you mounted your father's bed; then you desecrated, he who ascended my couch" (Genesis 49:4). The Hebrew word for impetuous, paḥaz, is dissected by Rabbi Eliezer, who sees it as an acronym for paḥazta, ḥatata, zanita – you were impetuous, you sinned, you engaged in harlotry! Rabbi Yehoshua offers a slightly different take: you rebelled, you desecrated my couch, your evil inclination stirred within you.

Even then, the interpretations keep coming, with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the mysterious Moda’i offering their own perspectives on Reuben's actions. It's a whirlwind of accusations and justifications!

But here's where it gets really interesting. Rabbi Pinḥas compares Reuben to those who "break their shins in the water" – those who leap before they look. And then, a glimmer of hope! "You sinned through water," the Rabbis say, "let the one who was drawn from water [Moses] come and draw you near: 'May Reuben live and not die'" (Deuteronomy 33:6).

Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i offers a powerful image: Reuben made himself a ritual bath of water, purifying himself through repentance. He suggests that Reuben only sinned in thought, and his sincere remorse restored him to purity.

But the debate rages on. Did Reuben truly repent and find atonement? Or did he forever forfeit his birthright and blessing? The Rabbis are divided.

Then comes a defense. Rabbi Ḥiyya Rabba and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, suggest that Reuben wasn't driven by lust, but by a desire to protect his mother's honor! He rearranged the beds after Rachel's death, feeling it was wrong for Bilha to take Rachel's place. Is this a noble act of filial piety, or a further transgression?

In the end, the Rabbis leave Reuben in "loose abeyance," neither fully condemning nor fully forgiving him, until Moses comes along and offers a blessing. It's a story full of ambiguity, isn’t it?

What are we to make of all this? Perhaps the point isn't to definitively label Reuben as good or bad, but to recognize the complexities of human nature. We are all capable of both great deeds and terrible mistakes. The story of Reuben reminds us that even in our failings, there is always the potential for repentance, for purification, and perhaps, even for redemption. It's a powerful reminder that our stories are never truly finished, and that even after missteps, there's always the possibility of a new chapter.