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).