Matot-Masei - Of Flocks and Men

B"H

Final one for today, again it's a short one...full text here

Sources

1) Midrash Tanchuma Mattot, Chapter 7

ומקנה רב. זה שאמר הכתוב, לב חכם לימינו וגו' (קהל' י ב). לב חכם לימינו, זה משה. ולב כסיל לשמאלו, אלו בני ראובן ובני גד, שעשו את העיקר טפל, והטפל עיקר. למה. שחבבו נכסיהם יותר מגופן, שאמרו למשה, גדרות צאן נבנה למקנינו פה, פה תחלה, ואחר כך, וערים לטפנו. אמר להם משה, לא תעשו כך. עשו את העיקר תחלה. בנו ערים לטפכם. ואחר כך גדרות לצאנכם. הוי, לב חכם לימינו, זה משה. ולב כסיל לשמאלו, אלו בני ראובן ובני גד. אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא, אתם חבבתם ממונכם יותר מנפשותיכם. חייכם, אין בו ברכה, שנאמר, נחלה מבוהלת בראשונה ואחריתה לא תבורך (משלי כ כא). אל תיגע להעשיר, מבינתך חדל (משלי כג ד). ואיזו עשיר. השמח בחלקו, שנאמר, יגיע כפיך כי תאכל, אשריך וטוב לך (תהלים קכח ב): 

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

 

Again, many readers may be aware of the commentaries on Reuven and Gad, the two tribes who approached Moshe in parshat Mattot asking to remain on the east bank of the Yarden (current day Jordan-Syria) rather than take up land in Eretz Yisrael, as the land on the 'east bank' offered better grazing for their sheep and cattle. In doing so, Moshe implicitly rebukes them for appearing to prioritise their cattle - i.e. their material goods - ahead of their children, a rebuke which they appear to accept through their changed use of language. However, as can be seen from this and other midrashim the Rabbis take a pretty dim view of Reuven and Gad's desire for wealth despite their apparent acceptance of Moshe's rebuke, given us further insight into the tension between materialism and spirituality/commitment to life in Eretz Yisrael.

As noted both by this midrash and by commentators such as Rashi, in promising to Moshe that they will commit manpower to conquering Eretz Yisrael and securing it for the rest of B'nei Israel, the tribes of Reuven and Gad make a 'Freudian slip' in noting that they will 'build enclosures for our sheep and...cities for our children' (Bamidbar 32:16) - thereby putting more importance on securing their cattle and sheep than on making sure their children and families will be safe while their men are away at war in Eretz Yisrael. In responding to them, Moshe reverses the order by mentioning the defences for their children before those of their flocks (Bamidbar 32:24) - a message which they appear to take on board by echoing Moshe's word ordering when publicly confirming their intentions (Bamidbar 32:26)

The midrash uses this to exemplify the quote from sefer Kohelet at source 2 above: 'Lev hacham l'yimino, v'lev k'sil l'smolo' (the heart/understanding of the wise man is to his right, [but] the heart/understanding of the fool is to his left). Moshe here is compared to the hacham against the k'sil of the tribes of Reuven and Gad, who made 'haikar tafel v'hatafel ikar' (what was of primary importance secondary, and of secondary importance primary) by elevating the safety of their flocks over that of their children, who are here described as 'gufan' (themselves). The message here is clear - it is children, and not material possessions, which ensure one's survival and continuity, and it is therefore the safety and welfare of one's children which should be prioritised above personal wealth. 

Fair enough - this is a message which most of us would see as self-evident (although it is worth noting that the tribes of Reuven and Gad were apparently blinded to this by their own wealth until Moshe pointed it out to them). However, the midrash then goes on to give G-d's perspective, which does not appear to be so forgiving of Reuven and Gad's error of judgment. In the midrash, G-d comments that because Reuven and Gad had prioritised their material wealth over their children (here referred to as 'nafshotechem', their souls), 'ein bo bracha' (there would be no blessing) from their wealth. Citing other texts such as sefer Mishlei and Pirkei Avot, the midrash ultimately concludes with the message that it is better to be satisfied with one's portion rather than seek to gain wealth over all other considerations. 

In today's world, there remain those within all sections of the Orthodox community who put material assets and wealth over other considerations, including both their children's spiritual welfare and living in Eretz Yisrael. While there is nothing wrong in seeking a relatively comfortable existence for one and one's family, we should not let this blind us - as Reuven and Gad were apparently blinded - to the true importance of children and family over material wealth. And again, while there is nothing wrong with choosing to make aliyah at a time when one has enough money or earning potential to live in Eretz Yisrael, as a community we should perhaps be more aware that a materially comfortable existence in the Diaspora is not the ideal Jewish life. 

Shavua tov

RPT. 

Pinchas - Ladies' Guild

B"H

(slightly flippant title, but I couldn't think of anything better...)

Full text here. This one is genuinely shorter, I promise ;-)

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Pinchas, Chapter 7

ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד. אותו הדור הנשים היו גודרות מה שאנשים פורצין. שכן את מוצא שאמר להם אהרן, פרקו נזמי הזהב (שמ' לב ב), ולא רצו הנשים ומיחו בבעליהן, שנאמר, ויתפרקו כל העם וגו' (שם שם ג), והנשים לא נשתתפו במעשה העגל. וכן במרגלים שהוציאו דבה, וישובו וילינו עליו (במ' יד לו). ועליהם נגזרה גזרה, שאמרו, לא נוכל לעלות אל העם (שם יג לא). אבל הנשים לא היו עמהם בעצה, שהרי כתיב למעלה מן הענין, כי אמר ה' להם מות ימותו במדבר ולא נותר מהם איש וגו' (שם כו סה), איש ולא אשה, על מה שלא רצו להכנס לארץ. אבל הנשים, קרבו עצמן לבקש נחלה. ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד. ולכך נכתבה פרשה זו סמוך [למיתת מרים], שמשם פרצו האנשים וגדרו הנשים. דבר אחר, ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד וגו', גדולה להם וגדולה לאביהם, גדולה למכיר וגדולה למנשה, וגדולה ליוסף, שכך יצאו ממנו נשים חכמות צדקניות. ומה חכמתן, שלפי שעה דברו, שהיה משה עוסק בפרשת נחלות, שנאמר, לאלה תחלק הארץ. אמרו לו, אם כבן אנו, נירש כבן. ואם לאו, תתיבם אמנו. מיד, ויקרב משה את משפטן. צדקניות היו, שלא נשאו אלא להגון להם. ולמה זמנו למשה באחרונה. שלא יראה משה עצמו שפירש מן האשה ארבעים שנה, הודיעו הקדוש ברוך הוא באלו לומר, הרי הנשים שלא נצטוו, ישבו ארבעים שנה עד שנשאו להגון להם:

One of the most contentious issues facing Orthodox Judaism today is the status of women within the Jewish community. Those outside Orthodoxy in the secular/non-Orthodox world often use examples from Torah itself to argue that Judaism is inherently sexist against women. Those within Orthodoxy, particularly in the more 'chareidi' camp, counteract this by pointing to other examples from both the written Torah itself and the oral Torah and commentaries that go together with it showing that Biblical women were seen in a more positive light, at times even more positively than their male contemporaries. While I am not going into this in more depth here, it is worth reading this post's midrash bearing these considerations in mind.

The midrash at source 1 above contains several ideas which are commonly used to counteract accusations of   women having an inferior status in Torah. Based on the request made by the daughters of Tzelofchad for their father's portion of land in Eretz Israel to be realised through them, the midrash uses this to praise both the daughters and the women of that generation in general. 

The first part of the midrash comes to prove the opening statement that 'in that generation, the women upheld what the men had breached' (underlined above). Examples of this include the women not wishing to take part in the Chet Ha'Egel (Sin of the Golden Calf - it is not clear whether the women successfully withheld their golden jewellry or were forced into giving these up, but either way their resistance is noted by the midrash); the women not being pessimistic over their chances of conquering Eretz Yisrael and therefore not being subject to the decree of dying in the midbar; and the women's positive desire to not only live in but also have ownership rights in Eretz Yisrael, as exemplified by the daughters of Tzelofchad.

The second part of the midrash focuses on the said daughters, praising both them and their ancestors for meriting to have such 'nashim hachamot v'tzidkaniyot' (wise and righteous women) as their descendants. From the midrash's perspective, the 'wisdom' of the daughters of Tzelofchad lie not only their making their request to Moshe but in their timing (when Moshe was apportioning the land) and the way in which they ask, by presenting Moshe with the dilemma that if he does not treat them as sons he would then have to agree to their mother being subject to a 'levirate' marriage (i.e. marrying her husband's brother in the hope of having a son who could have his father's portion in Eretz Yisrael) even though the mother's first marriage had clearly produced children. Meanwhile, the daughters' 'righteousness' lies in their self-sacrifice* in not marrying until they could find appropriate husbands - 'appropriate' in this case (bearing in mind the subsequent ruling issued to them to marry within their tribe) meaning husbands whose status would not be in conflict with the halachic ruling to be issued to them regarding their ability to take their father's portion in Eretz Yisrael. 

What are the common themes to be found here? Well, the women of that generation as a whole are shown as having a greater sense of commitment and loyalty to both G-d and Eretz Yisrael than the men, while the qualities for which the daughters of Tzelofchad are singled out are the persuasive way in which they present their argument and their self-sacrifice in essentially putting their lives 'on hold' in order to do so by not marrying until they present and receive an answer to their question. While it is all very well to use these as examples to those outside of/returning to Jewish observance as Orthodox Judaism's view of women, it is not enough to leave these as external messages. We should also seriously consider internally as a community how these Biblical role models and qualities may be relevant to Orthodox Jewish women's practices and role in the community. 

Shavua tov,

RPT

*Interestingly, the midrash makes a particular point that they were also to act as a sign to Moshe that he should not pride himself on his own forty years' abstinence from sexual relations with his own wife.

Balak - The King's Daughter

B"H

Wow...it's been a while. I know I keep saying this, but sorry...

Given that we're now into Ellul and there's a lot to catch up on, my posts may be a bit briefer than before. Instead, I will try and throw out enough interesting ideas/'loose ends' for anyone interested to delve into further, using of course the handy links to the (untranslated) text to be found here.

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Balak, Chapter 20 (abridged)

והנה איש מבני ישראל בא. מה ראה לעשות כן. ללמדך, שלא חלק כבוד לשמים ולא לבריות. ועליו נאמר, זד יהיר לץ שמו (משלי כא כד). אמרה לו, איני נשמעת אלא למשה או לאלעזר, שאני בת מלך. אמר לה, אף אני גדול כמותו, ולעיניהם אני מביאך. תפשה בבלוריתה והביאה אצל משה. אמר לו, בן עמרם, זו מותרת או אסורה. ואם תאמר שהיא אסורה, זו מדינית, ואותה שתחתיך מדינית מי התירה לך. נתעלמה ממנו הלכה. געו כלם בבכיה. והינו דכתיב, והמה בוכים פתח אהל מועד. ולמה בוכים. שנתרפו ידיהם באותה שעה. משל למה הדבר דומה, לבת מלך שנתקשטה ליכנס לחופה לישב באפריון, נמצאת מקלקלת עם אחר, נתרפו ידי אביה וקרוביה. וכך ישראל בסוף ארבעים שנה חנו על הירדן לעבור לארץ ישראל, שנאמר, ויחנו על הירדן מבית הישימות עד אבל השטים (במ' לג מט). ושם נפרצו בזנות, ורפו ידי משה וידי צדיקים שעמו, והמה בוכים.

2) Bamidbar 25:1-6 and 25:14-16

וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּשִּׁטִּים וַיָּחֶל הָעָם לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב.  ב וַתִּקְרֶאןָ לָעָם לְזִבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן וַיֹּאכַל הָעָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶן.  ג וַיִּצָּמֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.  ד וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה קַח אֶת-כָּל-רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַיהוָה נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף-יְהוָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.  ה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל  הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר.  ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. 

[....]

וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית זִמְרִי בֶּן-סָלוּא  נְשִׂיא בֵית-אָב לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי.  טו וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית כָּזְבִּי בַת-צוּר  רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית-אָב בְּמִדְיָן הוּא.  {פ}

טז וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.  יז צָרוֹר אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִים וְהִכִּיתֶם אוֹתָם.  יח כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר-נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר וְעַל-דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת-נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן אֲחֹתָם הַמֻּכָּה בְיוֹם-הַמַּגֵּפָה עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר.

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

'V'hineh ish mi'B'nei Israel ba va'yakrev el achaiv et hamidyanit l'einei Moshe u'l'einei kol adat B'nei Israel v'heima bochim petach Ohel Mo'ed'

Just then, a man came from among the Israelites and brought a Midianite woman over to his brothers in the sight of Moshe and the whole Israelite congregation, and they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting (Bamidbar 25:6)

The 'incident of Ba'al-peor', with Pinchas's summary execution of his fellow Jew Zimri and the Midianite Kozbi, is both morally problematic for the average reader and - supposedly - one of better known events in the Torah. However, there are a few nuances to this incident picked up on by the midrash at source 1 above which cast a new light on the context in which Pinchas's actions took place.

The average reader will probably 'recall' the chain of events as follows - after the high point of Bala'am's prophecy concerning them, the B'nei Israel immediately sin by allowing themselves to be seduced by Midianite women (and thereby worshipping their idols) in a plot set up by Balak and Ba'alam once it is clear that Ba'alam is unable to curse the B'nei Israel directly. This reaches a climax when Zimri, chief of the tribe of Shimon, deliberately and publicly has sexual relations with the Midianite princess Kozbi in front of the entire people, at which point the pair are killed by Pinchas with a single spear blow of his spear.

Sounds familiar? Well, a close reading of the text itself (source 2 above) shows some details which are generally overlooked:

• The B'nei Israel are originally described as 'whoring' (both sexually and spiritually) with 'banot Moav' - i.e. not Midianite but Moabite women. It is only with Kozbi that the Midianites enter the scene.*
• Kozbi and Zimri commit their public act only after Moshe has commanded the 'shoftei Israel' (judges/officials of the B'nei Israel) to execute those of their men who had turned to the idol Ba'al-peor.
• It is Zimri who brings Kozbi into public view - i.e. it appears to be Zimri who takes the active role and not Kozbi the Midianite. 

The Midrash Tanchuma picks up on the last two points above and uses the above p'sak from parshat Balak (Bamidbar 25:6) to explore all three issues - in doing so, turning this event from merely being a sordid incident of 'sex 'n' idols to Zimri's expression of rebellion against Moshe's authority as leader and the transmitter of G-d's will.

The midrash opens by declaring that Zimri is an example of the 'zed yachir, letz shmo' (the boastful, haughty man - scoffer is his name (Mishlei 21:24)) because by his actions he is showing lack of honour to both G-d and man. In typical midrashic style, it goes on to explain the above discrepancies in the timing of Zimri's actions and his dominant role by expanding the interactions between Zimri, Moshe, and Kozbi/the 'B'nei Israel (first section underlined at source 1 above):

'She said to him 'I will only listen to Moshe and Elazar, for I am a King's daughter ('bat melech'). He [presumably Zimri] said to her 'But I am as great as they are, and I will bring you before their eyes.' He took her by her hair and brought her before Moshe, saying to him 'Son of Amram, is she permitted or forbidden [to me]? And if you say she is forbidden because she is a Midianite - you who have married a Midianite, who permitted you to do so?'. The halacha was concealed from him [Moshe], so they all burst out crying'.

(It is worth noting that in the midrash itself none of the speakers are identified by name. I am deliberately not identifying the female protagonist here as Kozbi, for reasons which will become clear...) 

Here, we can see the midrash ascribing both physical violence to Zimri (dragging the woman by her hair!) and insolence - first in seeking to place himself on the same level as the divinely-appointed leaders Moshe and  Elazar, and then in directly challenging Moshe's authority to judge and punish others for having relations with non-Jewish women when Moshe himself had married a Midianite. If we bear in mind that this follows G-d's command to Moshe to have all the ringleaders in this affair publicly executed and Moshe's command to the judges/officers to execute those who have been involved in worshipping Ba'al-peor, Zimri's actions as a tribal leader shows his lack of respect for both G-d and Moshe in deliberately calling into question Moshe's  own integrity and worthiness to regulate the behaviour of B'nei Israel in this regard. Putting it bluntly, Zimri is trying to call Moshe out as a hypocrite and no better than anyone else.  

But what of the female protagonist, the anonymous 'bat melech'? Given Zimri's interaction with her, it is reasonable to assume that the midrash does at least partially identify her with Kozbi, the Midianite princess. However, the midrash continues with a masha'al (parable) of a bat melech who is discovered on her wedding day to have already had sexual relations with another man, so distressing her father and family that they became weakened and unable to take any action - just as Moshe and the community members with him were apparently unable to do anything other than weep in the face of Zimri's public sin. Here, the bat melech on the verge of entering under the chuppah on her wedding day is identified with B'nei Israel camped on the banks of the Yarden and about to enter Eretz Yisrael and a new relationship with G-d following their forty years wandering in the midbar. 

Through this masha'al, the midrash may actually be conflating Kozbi with the B'nei Israel in the female protagonist's earlier dialogue with Zimri, in which she proclaims loyalty to Moshe and Elazar as a 'bat melech'. Given this and the midrash's description of Zimri violently coercing Kozbi/the B'nei Israel into coming with him before Moshe, it is worth questioning what exactly Kozbi and the Midianite's role was in this whole incident. Who was more to blame here - the tempting women of Moav and/or Midian or the rebellious souls within B'nei Israel itself? 

Shavua tov,

RPT

PS For time reasons, I have not considered the end of the midrash - however, you may find this interesting to explore yourselves :-)

*It is worth considering why, if this is the case, it is the Midianites who are singled out for revenge concerning this incident... (see Bamidbar 25:16-18).

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 

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.

 

Bamidbar - Cosmic Conversions

B"H

Full text here

Oops - this was partially written before Shavuot. Unfortunately due to work commitments I wasn't able to get it finalised until now...also, thanks once again to D.S. for late-night grammatical assistance ;-)

Sources:

1) Midrash Tanchuma Bamidbar, Chapter 3 (extract)

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, אלו היו יודעין אומות העולם מה בית המקדש יפה להם, קסטוריות היו מקיפין אותו כדי לשמרו, שהיה יפה להם יותר ממה שהיה יפה לישראל. שכך שלמה סידר בתפלתו, וגם אל הנכרי אשר לא מעמך ישראל הוא, (ו) אתה תשמע השמים וגו' ועשית ככל אשר יקרא אליך הנכרי (מ"א ח מא-מג). אבל כשבא אצל ישראל, מה כתיב, ונתת לאיש ככל דרכיו אשר תדע את לבבו (דה"ב ו ל). אמר שלמה, רבון העולמים, אם הוא ראוי, תן לו. ואם אינו ראוי, אל תתן לו. ולא תאמר בית המקדש בלבד היה יפה להם, אלא אלולי ישראל, לא היה מטר יורד לעולם, ולא השמש זורחת, שבזכותן המטר יורד, והקדוש ברוך הוא מזריח בעולם הזה, ולעתיד, אומות העולם רואין היאך הקדוש ברוך הוא מתדבק עם ישראל. והם באים להדבק בהם, שנאמר, נלכה עמכם כי שמענו אלהים עמכם (זכריה ח כג):

2) Midrash Tanchuma Bechukotai, Chapter 2 (extract)

. אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, אלו היו יודעין האומות שבשביל עונות ישראל הם לוקין, היו מעמידין להם שני איסטרטיוטין לכל אחד ואחד מישראל, כדי שישמרו את התורה ושלא יחטאו. ולא דיין שאין האומות משמרין את ישראל, אלא עוד הן מבטלין אותן מן המצות. שאם יחטאו, כל העולם לוקה, שנאמר, על כן עליכם כלאו שמים מטל. ואם אינם חוטאין, כל העולם מתברך בשבילם, שנאמר, והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ (ברא' כו ד).

3) Zechariah 8:23

כֹּה-אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת בַּיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה אֲשֶׁר יַחֲזִיקוּ עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִכֹּל לְשֹׁנוֹת הַגּוֹיִם וְהֶחֱזִיקוּ בִּכְנַף אִישׁ יְהוּדִי לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה עִמָּכֶם כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ אֱלֹהִים עִמָּכֶם.

4) Ruth 1:14

וַתִּשֶּׂנָה קוֹלָן וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹד וַתִּשַּׁק עָרְפָּה לַחֲמוֹתָהּ וְרוּת דָּבְקָה בָּהּ

5) Ruth 3:9

וַיֹּאמֶר מִי-אָתְּ וַתֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי רוּת אֲמָתֶךָ וּפָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ עַל-אֲמָתְךָ כִּי גֹאֵל אָתָּה

6) Shemot 18:1

וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ  כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם.

Who are we? What does it mean to be Jewish, to be 'chosen' by G-d as a 'goy kadosh' seperate from other peoples, and how should this affect how we live our lives? These are the hardest questions facing us as a people today - but sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the fact that our own inner uncertainty also has implications for how the non-Jewish world views our role in the world. As one anonymous commentator remarked (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) after watching Israel's latest Eurovision offering last week, 'is this really what G-d chose His people for?'

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, one of the Amoraim and an important figure in aggadic (homiletical) literature is cited two weeks running by the Midrash Tanchuma with a fascinating insight into our role in the world. He first appears in a midrash on parshat Bechukotai (source 2) above) observing that if the non-Jewish nations were fully aware that they suffer when the Jews sin, they would assign every Jew two soldiers to make sure they observe the Torah and prevent them from sinning - however, not only do the surrounding nations not do this, but they even seek to prevent us from doing mitzvot!

A similar midrash featuring Rabbi Yehoshua appears for parshat Bamidbar (source 1) above) - here, the focus is on the nations failure to realise the positive influence of both the Beit HaMikdash and the Jewish people upon the wider world. In the case of the Beit HaMikdash, the benefit comes from the fact that in accordance with Shlomo ha-melech (King Solomon)'s prayer that 'v'gam el hanachri asher me'amecha Israel hu...u'va v'hitpalel el habayit hazeh, atah tishma hashamayim...v'asita k'chol asher yikra elecha hanachri' - 'and even the stranger who is not from your people Israel...who comes and prays at [the Beit HaMikdash], may You listen from the heavens...and act in accordance with everything that the stranger calls out to you'. In other words, the non-Jew's prayer is guaranteed a favourable response - unlike the prayer of the Jew, which Shlomo ha-melech asks G-d to respond to depending on whether or not the Jew praying is 'ra'u' (worthy) of having his prayers fulfilled.

However, Rabbi Yehoshua is at pains to point out here that it is not only the Beit HaMikdash but the Jewish people who is of benefit to the wider world. While he only justifies this with proof-texts in the earlier midrash from Bechukotai, in both cases this benefit is expressed in terms of fertility and G-d controlling the right weather conditions of rain/dew/sun according to the 'z'chut' (merit) of the Jewish people (source 1) and whether or not they sin (source 2). Rabbi Yehoshua therefore sees the Jewish people as having a cosmic significance whereby the wellbeing of the entire world is dependent upon both our mere existence and whether or not we live up to our purpose of observing the Torah. Quite a role to fill!

And if this wasn't enough, the midrash for parshat Bamidbar goes even further to say that:

v'le'atid, umot ha'olam ro'im heyach HaKadosh Baruch Hu mitdabek im Yisrael v'hem ba'im l'hidavek ba'hem, she'ne'emar 'nelchah imachem ki shama'anu elokim imachem' - 'in the future, the peoples of the world will see how the Holy One, Blessed be He attaches Himself together with Israel and they will come to attach themselves to them, as it is said 'We will go with you for we have heard that G-d is with you' (Zecharya 8:23)

In the spirit of Shavuot, I would argue that this midrash implies that the non-Jewish nations will ultimately convert and become part of the Jewish people in the future. How so? Well, in both its choice of language to describe both G-d and the nations as mitdabkim (attaching themselves) to the Jews and its use of the proof-text from Zecharya, the midrash alludes to two famous gerim who play a role at Shavuot - Ruth and Yitro.* Sefer Ruth describes how Ruth 'davka' (clung) to her mother-in-law Naomi at the crucial moment when she refuses to leave and declares her commitment to Naomi and the Jewish people (see source 4)), while in an echo of the nations statement that they have 'heard that G-d is with you' Yitro comes to visit Moshe (and, according to many commentators, to convert) after 'hearing' how G-d has taken the Jews out of Egypt (see source 6). Even more intriguingly, a parallel could perhaps be drawn between the two occasions on which Ruth is mentioned as coming under G-d's/Boaz's 'kanfei/kanaf' wings/cloak respectively), and the full p'sak from which our midrash's proof-text is taken (see source 3) in which ten men from each nation will take hold of the 'kanaf' of a Jew before saying 'nelchah imachem...'

While the idea of the whole world becoming Jewish may seem rather far-fetched, today we can see people from across the world expressing an interest in gerut with some being prepared to move countries and even continents in pursuit of their goal. However, at the same time gerim and the process of gerut has become one of the most political and hotly contested issues in the Jewish community, mostly because it goes to the heart of Jewish identity and our opening questions of what it means to be Jewish.

Unfortunately most of the problems surrounding gerut today can be traced back to the fact that being Torah-observant - or at the very least acknowledging the centrality of the Torah and our status as G-d's 'chosen people' - are no longer synonymous with being Jewish. While Rabbi Yehoshua laments the fact that the non-Jewish nations fail to recognise how their well-being is dependent upon the Jews, today it is we ourselves as a people who have lost sight of our purpose in this world. Perhaps it is only when we rediscover this that all gerim will be able to join our ranks as 'gerei tzeddek' (righteous/sincere converts) and the rest of the world will no longer need to question what G-d has 'chosen' us for.


Very belated chag sameach/shavua tov/early shabbat shalom!

RPT


* as far as I know this is a bit of a chiddush on my part, but if any commentators have picked up on this before please let me know!