Beha'alotcha - the Accidental Prophet

B"H

 Full source text here.

Sorry about going AWOL - I returned to student-dom by sitting an exam earlier today, which has held things up a little. Hoping to catch up this weekend...

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Beha'alotcha, Chapter 12

אספה לי שבעים איש. בשעה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה, אספה לי שבעים איש, אמר משה, היאך אני עושה להביא אותן מכל השבטים. אם נביא חמשה מכל שבט ושבט, אין עולין למנין שבעים, נמצאו ששים. ואם נביא ששה מכל שבט ושבט, עולין למנין שנים ושבעים. ואם נביא ששה משבט זה וחמשה משבט אחר, הריני מטיל קנאה בין השבטים. מה עשה. נטל שבעים פתקין וכתב בהן זקן, ונטל שבעים פתקין חלקין וטרפן ונתנן בקלפי, ואמר להם, בואו וטלו פתקיכם. כל מי שהיה עולה בידו פתק כתוב בו זקן, היה יודע שנתמנה זקן, דברי רבי יהודה. אמר ליה רבי נחמיה, עדיין היא מחלוקת בדבר. שיכול לומר לו, אין כאן פתק אחד כתוב בו זקן. שאלו היה שם, מיד היה עולה בידי. והיאך עשה. אמר רבי נחמיה, כך עשה משה, נטל שבעים ושנים פתקין וכתב על שבעים מהן זקן, ושנים פתקין חלקים, וטרפן ונתנן בקלפי, ואמר להם, בואו וטלו פתקיכם. אם עלה בידו פתק כתוב בו זקן, היה יודע שנתמנה זקן. ואם עלה בידו פתק חלק, היה יודע שלא נתמנה. והממונה אמר ליה, הרי שם פתק אחד כתוב בו זקן, אלו היית ראוי להתמנות, היה עולה בידך. כיון שעשה להם כך, נתמנו הזקנים. אלדד ומידד היו שם ומעטו את עצמם. אמרו, אין אנו כדאי להיות במנוי הזקנים. ועל שמעטו את עצמם, נמצאו יתרין על הזקנים בחמשה דברים. הזקנים לא נתנבאו אלא למחר, שנאמר, ואל העם תאמר התקדשו למחר. אבל אלו נתנבאו מה שעתיד להיות בסוף ארבעים שנה, שנאמר, וישארו שני אנשים וגו'. ומה היו מתנבאין. יש אומרין, על מפלתו של גוג היו מתנבאין. ויש אומרין, היו מתנבאין ואומרים, משה ימות במדבר, ויהושע מכניס את ישראל לארץ. תדע לך, שכך היו מתנבאין. שכך יהושע אמר למשה, ויען יהושע בן נון משרת משה. וכתיב, וירץ הנער ויגד למשה. מי היה זה, גרשם בן משה. הזקנים לא נכנסו לארץ, אבל אלדד ומידד נכנסו. אלדד, הוא אלידד בן כסלון. ומידד, זה קמואל בן שפטן. הזקנים לא נתפרשו שמותם, ואלו נתפרשו שמותם. והזקנים נפסקה נבואתן, שהיתה משל משה, שכן הקדוש ברוך הוא אומר למשה, ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך ושמתי עליהם.אבל אלו היתה נבואתן מן הקדוש ברוך הוא, שנאמר, ותנח עליהם הרוח.

2) Bamidbar 11:26-30

וַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים בַּמַּחֲנֶה שֵׁם הָאֶחָד אֶלְדָּד וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי מֵידָד וַתָּנַח עֲלֵהֶם הָרוּחַ וְהֵמָּה בַּכְּתֻבִים וְלֹא יָצְאוּ הָאֹהֱלָה וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה.  כז וַיָּרָץ הַנַּעַר וַיַּגֵּד לְמֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר  אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה.  כח וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו וַיֹּאמַר  אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם.  כט וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה הַמְקַנֵּא אַתָּה לִי וּמִי יִתֵּן כָּל-עַם יְהוָה נְבִיאִים כִּי-יִתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת-רוּחוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם.  ל וַיֵּאָסֵף מֹשֶׁה אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה הוּא וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.  

Parshat Beha'alotcha is a tale of dramatic reversals. From seeing the triumphant vision of B'nei Israel marching tribe by tribe from Sinai towards Eretz Yisrael united around the Mishkan, we are suddenly plunged straight back into the sort of rebellion and complaint against Moshe and G-d one might have thought had been left behind in sefer Shemot before the revelation at Sinai. Even more shockingly, when confronted with the people's demand for meat Moshe suffers a complete collapse in morale, praying to G-d to kill him because the burden of leading the B'nei Israel has become too much.

The demand for meat is met by G-d bringing first a surfeit of quails and then a plague upon B'nei Israel, punishing those who 'craved' for meat. However, in the middle of this is the puzzling response to Moshe's 'crisis of confidence', whereby his prophetic power is briefly shared with seventy elders in a public display outside the Mishkan. While this is occuring, two further men (Eldad and Meidad) spontaneously begin to prophesy in the middle of the camp itself, to the consternation of some such as Moshe's assistant Yehoshua - but not to Moshe himself, who simply responds by wishing that 'mi yiten kol am HaShem nevi'im ki yiten HaShem et rucho aleheim' (would that all of G-d's people were prophets, that G-d put His spirit upon them!' (see source 2) above for the episode). Following this, Moshe returns to the camp with the seventy elders - which, according to some commentators, is the first time he has come into the camp itself since the Chet HaEgel and the subsequent distancing from the camp of both the Shekhina (G-d's Presence) and Moshe himself.

Who are Eldad and Meidad, and why does Moshe respond in this way to their prophesying despite the apparent threat to his authority? The Midrash Tanchuma at source 1) above seeks to explain this not, as in most cases, by building upon a related 'proof-text' from elsewhere in Tanakh, but purely by engaging in close reading of the text at source 2) itself while taking into account the surrounding context.

The midrash opens with the traditions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya on how Moshe went about 'gathering' the seventy elders as commanded by G-d while faced with both the impossiblity of having an equal number of elders from each of the twelve tribes and the very real need - given the tensions already being exhibited - of avoiding jealousy between the tribes. Rabbi Nechemya's explanation is that Moshe put seventy-two p'takin (notes) into a container, seventy of which had 'zaken' (elder) written on them and two of which were blank. The elders were then selected lottery-style with each potential candidate drawing a p'tak which was either blank or had 'zaken' written on it - furthermore, anyone drawing a 'blank' was informed that there was another p'tak in the container marked 'zaken' which they would have drawn had they been worthy of the role. The purpose of this was to avoid arguments by anyone questioning the selection process by arguing that there were only blank p'takin to select - however, this also indicates that the prevalent feeling amongst the candidates for zaken was one of entitlement to the role, to the point that they would feel hard done by if their expectations were not met.

Eldad and Meidad's reaction, by contrast, is to say of themselves that they did not merit being appointed elders - the implication being that they were the two who drew the 'blanks'. The midrash may be deriving this from their description in the parsha as being 'bak'tuvim' despite not going out to the Mishkan - in other words, they were 'listed' or 'recorded' in some manner, but did not form part of the seventy elders who did go with Moshe to the Mishkan. However, the midrash then goes on to explain that in saying they were unworthy they merited five rewards - most importantly, experiencing neviut (prophecy) in a way that was qualitatively very different from the seventy elders because it was not merely derived from Moshe's own prophetic spirit but was received independently and directly from G-d Himself.

Why should Eldad and Meidad's prophecy be so different to that of the others? And to return to our earlier question, what can we learn from Moshe's response to them - especially bearing in mind not only that they were experiencing a 'direct' form of neviut but also that their prophecies were considered subversive in some way (the midrash reasons that the prophecy concerned Moshe's death and Yehoshua becoming the leader of B'nei Israel into Eretz Yisrael)?

The answer may be in the fact that, in going against the wider culture of 'entitlement' displayed by B'nei Israel, the midrash cites Eldad and Meidad as having 'mi'atu et atzmam' (humbled themselves). Humility is the defining quality of Moshe himself - indeed, later on in parshat Beha'alotcha he is described as being 'anaiv me'od mikol ha'adam asher al p'nei ha'adama' (more humble than any man on the face of the earth) - and is traditionally seen as being one of the prerequisites for neviut. Therefore, not only are Eldad and Meidad rewarded for their self-effacement and acceptance of not being selected as a zaken by being granted a greater level of neviut, but Moshe is able to recognise in order for them to achieve this they must have the requisite quality of humility and are therefore not a threat to him, despite the apparent subversiveness of their prophecy.

Moshe's wish for all of B'nei Israel to be nevi'im therefore takes on new meaning - essentially, what he is wishing for is for all of the people to have the same prerequisites for neviut of humility and self-effacement displayed by Eldad and Meidad, rather than the prevailing attitude of self-entitlement which appears to be behind the people's demand for meat. However, the fact that Eldad and Meidad do exist within the camp of B'nei Israel does offer the hope that this attitude is not as all-encompassing as we or Moshe may first have assumed - and may even be the reason why it is at this point that Moshe finally returns to the camp in recognition of the potential for spiritual growth amongst B'nei Israel.

An early shabbat shalom

RPT

Naso - Heart and Soul

B"H

As usual, full text hyah.

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Naso, Chapter 13

ויהי ביום כלות משה. זה שאמר הכתוב, נוצר תאנה יאכל פריה, ושומר אדוניו יכובד (משלי כז יח). אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מקפח שכר כל בריה, אלא בכל מה שאדם יגע ונותן נפשו על הדבר, אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מקפח שכרו. לכך נאמר, נוצר תאנה יאכל פריה. תדע לך, שהרי שלמה בונה בית המקדש, שנאמר, ויבן שלמה את בית ה' (מ"א ו יד). ובשביל שנתן דוד נפשו על בנין בית המקדש, שנאמר, זכור ה' לדוד את כל ענותו, אשר נשבע לה' וגו', אם אבא באהל ביתי וגו'. עד אמצא מקום וגו' (תהל' קלב א-ה), לא קפח הקדוש ברוך הוא את שכרו, אלא הכתיבו על שמו, שנאמר, מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד (שם ל א). וכי דוד חנכו, והרי שלמה חנכו. אלא לפי שנתן דוד נפשו עליו, נקרא על שמו. הוי, יפה אמר שלמה, נוצר תאנה יאכל פריה ושומר אדוניו יכובד. וכן אתה מוצא במשכן, שאף על פי שכל ישראל עשו אותו, ונתנו נפשם ועשו את המשכן, כל ישראל נתנדבו, כל הנשים טוו את העזים, וכן כתיב, ויעשו כל חכם לב בעושי המלאכה (שמו' לו ח), וכן ויעש בצלאל ואהליאב (שם שם א), ובשביל שנתן משה נפשו עליו, נקרא על שמו, שנאמר, וראה ועשה כתבניתם (שם כה מ). והלך משה ונתן נפשו על כל דבר ודבר, שיעשה כשם שהראה לו הקדוש ברוך הוא בהר, כדי שלא יטעו בו. לכך כתיב על כל דבר ודבר, כאשר צוה ה' את משה (שם לט א). וכן הוא אומר, וירא משה את כל המלאכה והנה עשו אותה וגו' (שם שם מג). ומה ברכה ברכן. אמר להם, תשרה השכינה במעשה ידיכם. אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, הואיל ומשה נתן נפשו על המשכן, איני כותבו אלא על שמו, שנאמר, ויהי ביום כלות משה. הוי, נוצר תאנה יאכל פריה:

2) Midrash Tanchuma Naso, Chapter 21

ויהי ביום כלות משה. זה שאמר הכתוב, יש אדם שעמלו בחכמה ובדעת (קהל' ב כא), זה בצלאל שעשה את המשכן, שכתוב בו, ואמלא אותו רוח אלהים בחכמה ובתבונה ובדעת. ולאדם שלא עמל בו יתננו חלקו (קהלת ב כא), זה משה, שלא עמל בו ונקרא על שמו, שנאמר, ויהי ביום כלות משה. ביום כלות בצלאל אין כתיב כאן, אלא ביום כלות משה. הוי, ולאדם שלא עמל בו יתננו חלקו: 

3) Kohelet 2:21

כִּי-יֵשׁ אָדָם שֶׁעֲמָלוֹ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְדַעַת וּבְכִשְׁרוֹן וּלְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא עָמַל-בּוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ חֶלְקוֹ גַּם-זֶה הֶבֶל וְרָעָה רַבָּה.

One of the central events in parshat Naso is the korbanot brought by each of the heads of the twelve tribes following the completion of the Mishkan. However, several midrashim in the Midrash Tanchuma pick up on the rather odd 'jump' back in time at the opening of this section - 'va'yehi b'yom kalot Moshe l'hakim et ha'Mishkan' (And it was on the day that Moshe completed setting up the Mishkan) - to comment on Moshe and/or the Mishkan itself. Two in particular focus on the reason for Moshe's being credited with the completion of the Mishkan despite most of the actual construction work etc. having been carried out by Betzalel and the B'nei Israel rather than by Moshe himself.

The first midrash (source 1) above, views Moshe's accreditation in a positive light by drawing on a proof-text from Mishlei regarding the 'notzer/shomer' (guardian) of something precious being rewarded. The midrash then goes on to posit that one is rewarded by G-d according to the degree to which he 'yagea v'noten nafsho al ha'davar' (labours and gives his soul to something) using both Moshe and David Ha-Melech (credited with the inauguration of the Beit HaMikdash despite the fact that it was his son Shlomo who oversaw the building and inauguration itself).* 

The second midrash (source 2) above) is a little more problematic. On the surface, it uses a proof-text from Kohelet to contrasts Betzalel as the one who labours 'b'chochma u'v'da'at' (in wisdom and knowledge) to build the Mishkan to Moshe, who is characterised in this midrash as 'shelo amal bo' (not having done any toil on it). Given the role Moshe undoubtedly did play in the Mishkan's construction and the fact that the first midrash does credit him with making some effort (hence his reward), this is a little strange. Furthermore, if we look at the full proof-text from Kohelet (source 3) above), we can see that the pasuk concludes 'zeh hevel v'ra'ah rabah' (this is futility and a great evil) - certainly not what we would associate with either Moshe or the Mishkan's construction!

Of course, it could be that the midrash simply took a convenient proof-text without intending this final part of the pasuk to be applicable. However, even with this explanation the midrash still appears to contradict the message of the first midrash, which is based on the premis that 'elah b'chal mah she'adam ya'gea v'noten nafsho al ha'davar' (according to all that a person labours and gives his soul to a matter, the Holy One Blessed be He does not withold his reward).

Taking into account the overall difficulties of interpreting sefer Kohelet, perhaps we can resolve these contrasting midrashim through attention to the language used in each case to describe the 'efforts' made by Betzalel, Moshe and David. If we bear in mind the double meaning of 'amal' - the word used throughout the proof-text of source 3) and surrounding pasukim - as meaning both 'achievement/gain' and 'toil/trouble', arguably the idea that one man taking the credit for anothers' hard work is a 'ra'ah raba' results from the perspective that one's gain is inextricably bound up with one's physical toil alone. However, the first midrash focuses on G-d rewarding those who both 'labour' and 'give their soul' to a project - hence Moshe and David being used as examples of this concept, as even though they didn't put in the manual labour they both dedicated themselves entirely on both a physical and spiritual level to ensuring that the Mishkan/Beit HaMikdash respectively were built. 

It is impossible to tell whether the second midrash intended to imply that Betzalel only focused on the physical labour he was putting into the construction of the Mishkan. However, even if this is the case we can hopefully see that the nihilist perspective shown in sefer Kohelet is a trap one might fall into despite having the benefit of 'chochma' or 'daat'. If we truly want to benefit from our work on something worthwhile, we should therefore strive to emulate Moshe and David by not only making the physical effort but also putting our nefesh into such work. 

'Yovel' shel Malka sameach ;-)

RPT

*It is worth noting that sifrei Kohelet and Mishlei are both traditionally ascribed to Shlomo ha-Melech.