Chukkat - Statute or Sorcery?

B"H

Full Midrash Tanchuma text can be found here. 

Most of this post comes out of a recent Bradfield workship, in which by happy coincidence I was able to study the Midrash Rabbah version of this midrash in chevruta. Thanks must therefore go to my chevruta partners M and J (particularly for getting the midrash's conclusion about the parah/egel to link up with the preceding episode with Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai), and to Dr EM for his teaching and support throughout.

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Chukkat, Chapter 8 (abridged)

ויקחו אליך. רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר, אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה, אני מגלה לך טעם פרה. אבל לאחרים, חקה. [...]. רבי אחא בשם רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר, בשעה שעלה משה למרום, שמע קולו של הקדוש ברוך הוא יושב ועוסק בפרשת פרה אדומה, הלכה בשם אומרה, (רבי) אליעזר בני אומר, עגלה בת שנתה, ופרה בת שתים. אמר משה לפניו, רבונו של עולם, העליונים ותחתונים שלך הן ואתה אומר הלכה בשמו של בשר ודם. אמר לו, צדיק אחד עתיד לעמוד בעולמי, ועתיד לפתוח בפרשת פרה אדומה תחלה, רבי אליעזר אומר, עגלה בת שנתה, ופרה בת שתים. אמר לפניו, רבון העולמים, יהי רצון שיהא מחלצי. אמר לו, חייך, שהוא מחלציך, הדא הוא דכתיב, ושם האחד אליעזר (שמו' יח ד). ושם אותו המיוחד, אליעזר. מעשה בגר אחד ששאל את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי, אילין מילייא דאתון עבדין נראין כמין כשפין. אתם מביאין פרה ושורפין אותה וכותשין אותה ונוטלין את אפרה. ואם אחד מכם מטמא מת, מזין עליו שנים ושלש טיפין, ואתם אומרים לו, טהרת. אמר לו, נכנסה בך רוח חזזית מימיך. אמר לו, לאו. אמר לו, שמא ראית אדם שנכנסה בו רוח חזזית. אמר לו, הן. אמר לו, ומה אתם עושים לו. אמר לו, מביאין עיקרין מעשנין תחתיו ומרביצין עליה מים, והיא בורחת. אמר לו, ישמעו אזניך מה שאתה מוציא מפיך. כך הרוח הזו היא רוח הטומאה, דכתיב, וגם את הנביאים ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ (זכר' יג ב), מזין עליו מי נדה, והוא בורח. לאחר שיצא הגוי, אמרו לו תלמידיו, רבינו, לזה דחית בקנה. לנו מה אתה אומר. אמר להן, חייכם, לא המת מטמא, (ולא פרה מטהרה), ולא המים מטהרין. אלא אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, חקה חקקתי, גזרה גזרתי, אין אתה רשאי לעבור על גזרתי, דכתיב, זאת חקת התורה. ומפני מה כל הקרבנות זכרים ונקבות, וזו נקבה. אמר רבי איבו, משל למה הדבר דומה. לבן שפחה שטנף פלטרין של מלך. אמר המלך, תבוא אמו ותקנח את הצואה. כך אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, תבא פרה ותכפר על מעשה העגל:

2) Midrash Rabbah Chukkat, Chapter 8 (full)

ח שאל עובד כוכבים אחד את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אילין עובדייא דאתון עבדין נראין כמין כשפים אתם מביאים פרה ושורפין אותה וכותשין אותה ונוטלין את אפרה ואחד מכם מטמא למת מזין עליו ב' וג' טיפין ואתם אומרים לו טהרת אמר לו לא נכנסה בך רוח תזזית מימיך אמר לו לאו ראית אדם שנכנסה בו רוח תזזית אמר לו הן א"ל ומה אתם עושין לו אמר לו מביאין עיקרין ומעשנין תחתיו ומרביצים עליה מים והיא בורחת א"ל ישמעו אזניך מה שאתה מוצא מפיך כך הרוח הזו רוח טומאה דכתיב (זכריה יג) וגם את הנביאים ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ מזין עליו מי נדה והוא בורח לאחר שיצא אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו לזה דחית בקנה לנו מה אתה אומר אמר להם חייכם לא המת מטמא ולא המים מטהרין אלא אמר הקב"ה חקה חקקתי גזירה גזרתי אי אתה רשאי לעבור על גזרתי דכתיב זאת חוקת התורה ומפני מה כל הקרבנות זכרים וזו נקבה א"ר איבו משל לבן שפחה שטינף פלטין של מלך אמר המלך תבא אמו ותקנח את הצואה כך אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא תבא פרה ותכפר על מעשה העגל:

3) Bamidbar 19:1-6

וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר.  ב זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה יְהוָה לֵאמֹר  דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל.  ג וּנְתַתֶּם אֹתָהּ אֶל-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְהוֹצִיא אֹתָהּ אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו.  ד וְלָקַח אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן מִדָּמָהּ בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְהִזָּה אֶל-נֹכַח פְּנֵי אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד מִדָּמָהּ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים.  ה וְשָׂרַף אֶת-הַפָּרָה לְעֵינָיו  אֶת-עֹרָהּ וְאֶת-בְּשָׂרָהּ וְאֶת-דָּמָהּ עַל-פִּרְשָׁהּ יִשְׂרֹף.  ו וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן עֵץ אֶרֶז וְאֵזוֹב וּשְׁנִי תוֹלָעַת וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶל-תּוֹךְ שְׂרֵפַת הַפָּרָה.

4) Zecharya 13:2

וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אַכְרִית אֶת-שְׁמוֹת הָעֲצַבִּים מִן-הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא יִזָּכְרוּ עוֹד וְגַם אֶת-הַנְּבִיאִים וְאֶת-רוּחַ הַטֻּמְאָה אַעֲבִיר מִן-הָאָרֶץ

*************************************************************

Parshat Chukkat contains one of the most puzzling mitzvot, that of the parah adumah (red heifer) whose ashes are used to purify those who have become tamei (ritually impure) through contact with the dead while at the same time causing all who are involved in its preparation to themselves become tamei. For this and other reasons - not least its seeming uncomfortably like voodoo or witchcraft - the parah adumah has often been portrayed as the ultimate chok i.e a mitzvah without any rational explanation whatsoever. However, this status as a chok has not prevented commentators and midrashim down the ages from attempting some sort of rationalisation. 

One particularly mysterious midrash which addresses both the parah adumah's inexplicability and apparent affinity with sorcery can be found in both the Midrash Tanchuma (source 1) and the Midrash Rabbah (source 2). While the version found in Midrash Tanchuma forms part of a larger midrash than its Midrash Rabbah cousin (which also proves important for its interpretation), let us start by focusing on the segment common to both.

The midrash tells of an encounter between the famous Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai* and a non-Jew who articulates the concern that the ritual preparation and use of the parah adumah's ashes resembles witchcraft. Surprisingly, Rabbi Yochanan's response appears to tell the non-Jew that he is right by likening the parah adumah to an exorcism ritual (presumably practised by the pagans of that time) for removing 'evil spirits' from people. After the non-Jew has gone on his way, Rabbi Yochanan's students protest at his lame excuse and demand a better explanation of the parah adumah. Rabbi Yochanan's response to them - seemingly contradicting the p'shat or plain sense not only of the mitzva of the parah adumah but many of the laws of ritual impurity laid down in the Torah  - by stating that:

'Lo hamet m'tamei (v'lo parah m'taharah), v'lo hamayim m'taharin. Ela amar HaKadosh Baruch Hu, chukah chakakti, g'zerah gazarti, ein atah rashai la'avor al g'zerati, dik'tiv 'zot chukat haTorah''

(It is not the dead which makes [one] impure, and it is neither the heifer which purifies nor the water [in which the ashes are mixed] which purifies. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, says 'I have instituted a statute and decreed a decree and you are not allowed to violate my decree, as it is written 'This is a statute of the Torah' (Bamidbar 19:1)). 

Both of Rabbi Yochanan's responses are rather odd. While his answer to his own students makes a bold statement about the dead and the parah adumah not really making people tamei or tahor (ritually pure), it does teach an important lesson about keeping the mitzvot purely out of obedience to G-d. Given this, why did he not also educate the non-Jew rather than leaving him with his current worldview regarding witchcraft and idolatry intact? 

If we look more closely at the language Rabbi Yochanan uses to 'teach' the non-Jew, we can in fact see a strong thread of irony which it is likely that only a Jewish audience would notice (or, at least, someone sensitive to Jewish texts and concepts). The supposed 'prooftext' from sefer Zecharya, which Rabbi Yochanan cites to the non-Jew in support of the idea that the parah adumah rids one of 'evil spirits', in fact comes from a pasuk looking forward to the day when G-d will remove the 'names of the idols' from the land (see source 4), while his exhortation to the non-Jew of 'yishm'u aznekha mah she'ata motzi mipikha' (Let your ears hear what your mouth speaks) is a subversive parody of the famous 'idol-smashing' midrash in which Avraham encourages his father Terach to acknowledge the fallacy of idol worship.

It seems as if Rabbi Yochanan's response to the non-Jew are intended more for the benefit of his listening students than for the non-Jew himself, showing both how to field awkward questions by non-Jews and (rather problematically) undermining the non-Jew behind his back by using texts about the fallacy of idol worship before going on to teach his students the 'real' message behind the parah adumah - that we are to follow it simply because 'G-d says so'.

However, this is not the end of the story. While Rabbi Yochanan's teaching in itself is a nice little vort, it is complicated by the fact that in both versions of the midrash it is immediately followed by an apparent explanation for the so-called 'inexplicable' parah adumah - namely, that this is an atonement for the earlier chet ha-egel (Sin of the Golden Calf). Moreover, in the Midrash Tanchuma version the wider midrash opens by positing that the essence or 'ta'am' of the mitzva of parah adumah was in fact revealed exclusively to Moshe, but that to everyone else it remains a chok without explanation.**

This wider midrash lends an additional depth to Rabbi Yochanan's message that we are to observe the mitzva of parah adumah simply because it was decreed by G-d. Rather than being a source of concern, according to this 'explanation' for the parah adumah its' status as a 'chok' teaches us that its true spiritual value lies not in the ritual itself but in the fact that it comes from G-d. This then corrects the people's mistake during the chet ha-egel, which was to substitute the egel idol for G-d and say that it had been the idol that had led them out of Egypt rather than G-d Himself.*** 

According to the midrash's own opening - that the 'essence' of the parah adumah was only ever revealed to Moshe himself -  it is doubtful that this is a full and complete explanation of the parah adumah. However, at the very least the midrash does show an additional depth to this puzzling chok by connecting it to the earlier chet ha-egel - in the process teaching us the importance of not confusing messenger with message, and reminding us that the value of any rituals we do ultimately stems from their having been commanded by G-d and not just from the rituals themselves.****

Shabbat shalom, and (just in case) well over the fast.

RPT

* Rabbi Yochanan is best known for persuading the Romans to let him restore the Sanhedrin and a centre of learning in the town of Yavneh following the destruction of the second Beit HaMikdash in Jerusalem, a move which proved crucial for Jewish survival.  

**The Midrash Tanchuma bases this on the wording of the source text in Bamidbar 19:2 (see underlined at source 3 and at the opening to source 1), in which the command is for Israel to bring a parah adumah to 'elekha' - i.e. 'you' in the singular - despite this pasuk opening with G-d addressing both Moshe and Aharon and the rest of G-d's instructions concerning the parah adumah being given in the plural form. In this midrash, Rabbi Yose ben Chanina therefore concludes that G-d addressed part of this communication to Moshe alone.

***The Midrash Tanchuma version also ties this link between the parah adumah and the chet ha-egel to the opening of the midrash (strongly suggesting that this is at least part of the reason revealed to Moshe alone) by explaining that Moshe witnessed G-d citing a similar link between parah and egel in the name of a Rabbi Eliezer, resulting in Moshe successfully praying that the said Rabbi be counted amongst Moshe's descendants and thereby linking Moshe to the parah adumah. The commentary of the Kli Yakar/Etz Yosef in my translation of the Midrash Tanchuma notes that this is because Moshe is most strongly identified with the aftermath of the chet ha-egel (as opposed to Aharon) because he put his very existence on the line when pleading with G-d not to destroy Israel. As a result, Moshe is also identified within the midrash as actively seeking to be identified with the parah adumah, given the revelation to him that this is somehow connected to atonement for the chet ha-egel.

**** on a (perhaps controversial) note, when we first learned this during Bradfield the current fashion for 'brachot parties' within certain segments of the Sephardi world sprang to mind, as an example of how the very act of doing a ritual (in this case, making blessings on different types of food) takes on such an intrinsic significance that the reason why we do the ritual (i.e. because it is a mitzva) becomes forgotten...

  

Korach - The On Who Got Away

B"H

Full text here

Sources:

1) Bamidbar 16:1

וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.

2) Midrash Tanchuma Korach, Chapter 10

ואון בן פלת. למה נקרא שמו און. שכל ימיו באנינות היה. בן פלת, שנעשו לו נפלאות. אמר רב, און בן פלת, אשתו הצילתו. אמרה לו, מה ליך בהדין פלוגתא, אי אהרן כהנא רבא, את תלמידא. אי קרח יהי כהנא רבא, את תלמידא. אמר לה, ידענא דכולא כנישתא קדישא, דכתיב, כי כל העדה כלם קדושים. מה עבדת. אשקיתיה חמרא וארויתיה ואגניתיה בערסיתיה, והוה יתבא אבבא דביתא וסתרתיה למזייה. כל מאן דאתא בשביל און בעלה, חזייה והדר. אדהכי והכי איבלעינהו ארעא. היינו דכתיב, חכמות נשים בנתה ביתה ;משלי יד א

3) Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 109b-110a

דתן שעבר על דת אל אבירם שאיבר עצמו מעשות תשובה ואון שישב באנינות פלת שנעשו לו פלאות בן ראובן בן שראה והבין אמר רב און בן פלת אשתו הצילתו אמרה ליה מאי נפקא לך מינה אי מר רבה אנת תלמידא ואי מר רבה אנת תלמידא אמר לה מאי אעביד הואי בעצה ואשתבעי לי בהדייהו אמרה ליה ידענא דכולה כנישתא קדישתא נינהו דכתיב (במדבר טז) כי כל העדה כולם קדושים אמרה ליה תוב דאנא מצילנא לך אשקיתיה חמרא וארויתיה ואגניתיה גואי אותבה על בבא

  וסתרתה למזיה כל דאתא חזיה הדר אדהכי והכי אבלעו להו איתתיה דקרח אמרה ליה חזי מאי קעביד משה איהו הוה מלכא לאחוה שוויה כהנא רבא לבני אחוהי שוינהו סגני דכהנא אי אתיא תרומה אמר תיהוי לכהן אי אתו מעשר דשקילתו אתון אמר הבו חד מי' לכהן ועוד דגייז ליה למזייכו ומיטלל לכו כי כופתא עינא יהב במזייכו אמר לה הא איהו נמי קא עביד אמרה ליה כיון דכולהו רבותא דידיה אמר איהו נמי (שופטים טז) תמות נפשי עם פלשתים ועוד דקאמר לכו עבדיתו תכלתא אי ס"ד תכלתא חשיבא [מצוה] אפיק גלימי דתכלתא וכסינהו לכולהו מתיבתך היינו דכתיב (משלי יד) חכמות נשים בנתה ביתה זו אשתו של און בן פלת ואולת בידה תהרסנה זו אשתו של קרח

Frequently characters with only a fleeting appearance in the Torah* itself take on a much fuller role in midrashic exegesis of the text - so much so that their stories may become so closely associated to a particular text through shiurim/divreit Torah that it is a surprise to discover their apparent insiginificance in the Torah. A classic example of this occurs in parshat Korach with the tale of On ben Pelet and his (nameless) wife. 

During the entire rebellion of Korach and his followers, On ben Pelet is mentioned only once at the beginning of events (see underlined at source 1 above) before disappearing from sight, while his cousins Dathan and Aviram lead the Reuvenite 'angle' of the rebellion. Even more surprisingly for some readers, On's wife - the heroine of our midrash - is not mentioned in the text of parshat Korach at all. However, it is precisely On's 'disappearance' from the text that midrashim pick up on in order explain On's role in the rebellion - shedding light not only on the true motivations of the rebels, but also on the sometimes unpalatable ways of extracting oneself from a cause in which one no longer wants to be involved.

The Midrash Tanchuma version of this midrash (see source 2 above) opens with the line:

'Lama nikra sh'mo on? Shekol yamaiv ba'aninut hayah. Ben pelet, shena'asu lo niflaot' (Why was he called 'On'? Becuase all his days were in a state of mourning. Son of Pelet? Because wonders happened to him).

The rest of the midrash focuses more on On's wife and her actions. After having remonstrated with her husband and shown him the futility of his joining the rebels (on the grounds that, regardless of the outcome, he will be a 'student' of either Aharon or Korach as the Kohen Gadol), she twists the rebel's own argument that 'kol ha'edah kulam k'doshim' (all the assembly are holy) to her advantage by getting her husband drunk, hiding him in his bed, and sitting outside with her hair loose to discourage the other members of said 'edah k'doshim' from approaching the tent to involve her husband any further in the rebellion. While On is unconscious, his relatives Dathan and Aviram are punished together with Korach by being swallowed up by the earth - a fate which On, who had originally stood alongside them, is saved from. The midrash concludes by applying a proof-text from sefer Mishlei (Proverbs) to On's wife praising her as a 'hachmot nashim' (a wise one amongst women), in contrast to Korach's wife who is an 'ivelet' (foolish one) for having incited her husband to rebellion.**

The contrast between On's virtuous wife and Korach's sinning wife is consistent with the Rabbinic idea that, for better or worse, wives shape their husbands.** However, if we look an alternative version of this midrash found in the Babylonian Talmud in Sanhedrin 109b-110a ( see source 3) above), we can find a little more about On's own reaction to events which explains the Rabbi's reasoning for his name.

In terms of the 'On ben Pelet' part of this midrash, the most significant differences in the Sanhedrin version are that On responds to his wife asking how he can get himself out of the rebellion having already committed himself to it (unlike in the Midrash Tanchuma, where On remains silent even when not in a drunken stupor); and that the Rabbis see fit to add an additional explanation for the phrase 'bnei Reuven' after On's appearance in parshat Korach*** showing that this meant On 'saw' (re'eh) and 'understood' (hevin) the folly of the rebellion. If we link this explanation with the earlier interpretations of 'On ben Pelet' combining both mourning (at On's having sided even briefly with teh rebels) and 'wonders' (which could refer both to the extraordinary punishment meted out to Dathan and Aviram and to the fact that On was saved from these), we can see that the midrash interprets On's name to sum up both why he 'disappeared' after the earlier stages of the rebellion and his state of mind during and following the events of parshat Korach.

Despite his slightly stronger presence in the Sanhedrin version of this midrash (in that he actually gets to say something), On ultimately remains a much more passive figure than his anonymous wife. Even when he realises the futility of continuing to side with the rebels, he feels unable to withdraw from his earlier commitment and is ultimately only able to be saved by being entirely removed from events through wine-induced unconsciousness. The fact that his wife uses this as a strategm in addition to discouraging passers-by points shows that she is perfectly aware that - despite knowing intellectually that the mass movement of Korach's rebellion was wrong - On does not have the strength of character to consciously show his change of heart and refuse to participate in this.

We live in a time of 'causes' and movements - and while some may be worthwhile, others may be ill-thought through or merely turn into a fashionable bandwagon for people to jump onto. Ideally, one would avoid placing oneself in On ben Pelet's situation by making an informed and considered decision before joining a 'cause'; however, sometimes through no fault of our own we can find ourselves in a situation or group in which we no longer want to participate due to a change of heart/new information/changed circumstances etc. In this case, if we lack the strength of character to resist the surrounding peer pressure and publicly retract our earlier views, at the least we should have the wisdom of On ben Pelet's wife to realise our own weakness and - if this is the only way 'out' - to quietly walk away from the situation completely.

Shavua tov

RPT

*When using 'Torah', I am referring to the Torah Sheb'k'tav (Written Torah) only.

**The Midrash Tanchuma does not give any details as to what exactly Korach's wife does to deserve this label - for a fuller version of her 'incitement' of Korach, including proposing the idea of the all-techeilet garments, see the version in Sanhedrin at source 3.

***It appears that the Rabbis may link this phrase to On in particular due to its juxtaposed to On's name in the text of parshat Korach as Dathan and Aviram were also bnei Reuven, they could just as easily have been described as such before On was named

Shelach Lecha - The Eternal Gift

B"H

Full text of Midrash Tanchuma here.

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Shelach Lecha, Chapter 3

 שלח לך אנשים. רבי אחא הגדול פתח, יבש חציר נבל ציץ, ודבר אלהינו יקום לעולם (ישע' מ ח). משל למה הדבר דומה. למלך שהיה לו אוהב, והתנה עמו ואומר לו, בא ולך עמי ואני נותן לך מתנה. הלך עמו ומת. אמר המלך לבנו של אוהבו, אף על פי שמת אביך, איני חוזר בי במתנה שאמרתי ליתן לו, בוא וטול אותה. המלך, זה מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא. אוהב, זה אברהם, שנאמר, זרע אברהם אוהבי (שם מא ח). אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא, בוא לך עמי, שנאמר, לך לך מארצך וגו' (ברא' יב א). התנה עמו שהוא נותן לו במתנה את ארץ כנען, שנאמר, קום התהלך בארץ וגו' (שםיג יז). וכן הוא אומר, כי את כל הארץ וגו' (שם שם טו). מת אברהם ויצחק ויעקב. אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה, אף על פי שמתו האבות, התניתי עמהן ליתן להם את הארץ, איני חוזר בי, אלא שלח לך אנשים. הוי, ודבר אלהינו יקום לעולם:

 

2) Yeshayahu 40:1 - 2, 40:6-8

נַחֲמוּ נַחֲמוּ עַמִּי יֹאמַר אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.  ב דַּבְּרוּ עַל-לֵב יְרוּשָׁלִַם וְקִרְאוּ אֵלֶיהָ כִּי מָלְאָה צְבָאָהּ כִּי נִרְצָה עֲו‍ֹנָהּ  כִּי לָקְחָה מִיַּד יְהוָה כִּפְלַיִם בְּכָל-חַטֹּאתֶיהָ.

[...]

קוֹל אֹמֵר קְרָא וְאָמַר מָה אֶקְרָא כָּל-הַבָּשָׂר חָצִיר וְכָל-חַסְדּוֹ כְּצִיץ הַשָּׂדֶה.  ז יָבֵשׁ חָצִיר נָבֵל צִיץ כִּי רוּחַ יְהוָה נָשְׁבָה בּוֹ אָכֵן חָצִיר הָעָם.  ח יָבֵשׁ חָצִיר נָבֵל צִיץ וּדְבַר-אֱלֹהֵינוּ יָקוּם לְעוֹלָם. 

3) Bamidbar 13:1-2

א וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.  ב שְׁלַח-לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר-אֲנִי נֹתֵן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל  אִישׁ אֶחָד אִישׁ אֶחָד לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו תִּשְׁלָחוּ כֹּל נָשִׂיא בָהֶם.

 "Yavesh hatzir navel tzik, u'd'var Elokeinu yakum l'olam - Grass withers, blossoms fade, but the word of our G-d shall stand forever (Yeshayahu 40:8)"

Parshat Shelach Lecha charts a trajectory from great hope - with the B'nei Israel being close enough to entering the long-awaited Eretz Yisrael that they are able to send spies to scout out the land from where they are encamped - to despair, when the adult (male) generation of B'nei Israel loses the opportunity to enter this land due to the negativity of most of the spies and the people's hysterical response. While many perushim (commentators) and midrashim focus on the mistakes made by both the spies and the people, it is sometimes easy to lose sight of the underlying message regarding G-d's continued promise of Eretz Yisrael and the fact that this was eventually fulfilled, albeit for the next generation.

Chapter 3 of the Midrash Tanchuma on Shelach Lecha (source 1) above) consists of a mashal (parable)  attributed to Rabbi Acha Hagadol based upon the proof-text from Yeshayahu cited above, and draws upon the parallels between G-d's earlier commandment of 'lech lecha' (go for yourself) to Avraham to the command in Shelach Lecha of 'shelach lecha anashim...' (send for yourself people...). In the mashal, a king (G-d) promised an 'ohev' (i.e. Avraham - translated in my edition as 'friend' but perhaps better translated as 'beloved') that if he walks with the king the king will reward him with a present (i.e. Eretz Yisrael). The ohev did indeed walk with the king but died - whereupon the king said to the ohev's son (Moshe/B'nei Israel) that, even though his father had died, the king would not go back on his earlier promise of a present and was instead inviting the son to take it in his father's place. 

This midrash essentially restates G-d's pronouncements elsewhere in the Torah (particularly in sefer Shemot) that Eretz Yisrael is being given to B'nei Israel as promised by G-d to their ancestors Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya'akov. However, what is unique about this midrash is that in doing so it explicitly draws upon the parallel of 'lech lecha' and Avraham's instruction to 'walk about the Land through its length and breadth, for to you I will give it' (Bereishit 13:17)  with G-d's later instruction of 'shelach lecha' to send spies to search out the land which G-d is giving to them.

Despite the tragic ending of this chapter in Jewish history and fact that we are currently in galut (exile), there is still a message of hope to be seen from the eternity of G-d's original promise to Avraham despite continual backsliding on our part - not only in the Midbar, but also throughout later Jewish history. As we enter the three-week period of mourning the Churban (destruction of the Beit HaMikdash), it is worth bearing in mind that the proof-text for this midrash is taken from one of Yeshayahu's messages of 'comfort' to Israel following the first Churban, promising a return from galut and an end to the suffering meted out by G-d. Indeed, this has been proven true in our own times with the establishment of the State of Israel - which, while very much a 'work in progress', still offers a sign of hope for our full 'return' to Eretz Yisrael in accordance with G-d's promise all those millenia ago.

Shavua tov

RPT

 

Oops

B"H

Apologies - unfortunately I didn't live up to my earlier promise, with the result that some of you must have been wondering where on earth I'd disappeared to. While there continues to be lots of busyness in my life (including Week 1 of the Bradfield Summer School which resulted in my having daily shiurim for a whole week), this is mostly down to my supply of Midrash Tanchuma in translation for the latter part of Bamidbar being cut off due to my usual source sending the wrong volume out.

Midrash Tanchuma Bamidbar Vol II now having arrived, I am hoping to start catching up again this weekend. While I do have a draft post on Shelach Lecha nearly ready to post, it is going to take quite a few weeks before I'm caught up again with the parsha cycle - please be patient!

Kol tuv

RPT