Va'etchanan - End of an Era

B"H

Link to the full Midrash Tanchuma text is here

Source 1) Midrash Tanchuma Va'etchanan, Chap 6 (extract)

. עד עכשיו היה חלקך לשרת לפני, ועכשיו אבד חלקך והגיע שעה של יהושע תלמידך לשרת. אמר לפניו, רבוני, אם מפני יהושע אני מת, אלך ואהיה לו תלמיד. אמר לו, אם אתה רוצה לעשות כך, לך עש] ה. עמד משה והשכים לפתחו של יהושע. היה יהושע יושב ודורש, ועמד משה וכפף קומתו והניח ידו על פיו, ונתעלמו עיניו של יהושע ולא ראה אותו, כדי שיצטער וישלים עצמו למיתה. והלכו ישראל אצל משה לפתחו ללמוד תורה, ושאלו ואמרו, משה רבינו היכן הוא. אמרו להם, השכים והלך לפתחו של יהושע. הלכו ומצאוהו בפתחו של יהושע, והיה יהושע יושב ומשה עומד. אמרו לו ליהושע, מה עלתה על לבך שמשה רבינו עומד ואתה יושב. כיון שתלה עיניו וראהו, מיד קרע בגדיו וצעק ובכה ואמר, רבי רבי, אבי אבי ואדוני. אמרו ישראל למשה, משה רבינו, למדנו תורה. אמר להם, אין לי רשות. אמרו לו, אין אנו מניחין אותך. יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם, למדו מיהושע, וקבלו עליכם לישב וללמוד מיהושע. ישב יהושע בראש, ומשה בימינו, ובני אהרן משמאלו, והיה יהושע יושב ודורש בפני משה. אומר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, בשעה שאמר יהושע, ברוך אשר בחר בצדיקים, נטלו מסורות חכמה ממשה ונתנו ליהושע, ולא היה יודע משה מה היה יהושע דורש. אחר שעמדו ישראל מישיבה, אמרו למשה, סתם לנו את התורה. אמר להם, איני יודע מה אשיב לכם. והיה משה רבינו נכשל ונפל. באותה שעה אמר משה, רבון העולמים, עד עכשיו בקשתי חיים, ועכשיו הרי נפשי נתונה לך

[G-d said] "...Until now it was your portion to minister before Me, but now your portion is finished, and it is the time for your disciple, Yehoshua, to minister". He [Moshe] said before Him "My Master, if it is on account of Yehoshua that I have to die, I will go and become his disciple." He said to him "If you wish to do so, go and do it." So Moshe got up early and stood at the entrance of Yehoshua's tent. Yehoshua was sitting and expounding Torah [doresh], and Moshe got up and bent over and placed his hand on his moth, but Yehoshua's eyes were hidden from him and he did not notice him, on order that He should feel pain and resign himself to death. The B'nei Israel went to Moshe, to his entranceway, in order to learn Torah and asked "Where is Moshe Rabbeinu?" They were told "He woke up early and went to the entrance of [the tent of]  Yehoshua." So they went and found him at the entranceway of Yehoshua, where Yehoshua was sitting and Moshe was standing. They said to him, "Yehoshua, what do you mean by this that Moshe Rabbeinu is standing and you are sitting?!". When [Yehoshua] lifted his eyes and noticed [Moshe], he immediately tore his clothes and cired out loud, saying "My teacher, my teacher! My father, my father and my master! The B'nei Yisrael said to Moshe "Moshe Rabbeinu, teach us Torah." He said to them "I have no authority to do so". A heavenly voice emanated and declared to them, "Learn from Yehoshua, and accept upon yourselves to sit down and learn from Yehoshua". So Yehoshua sat at the head, Moshe on his right and the sons of Aharon on his left, and Yehosua sat and expounded Torah [doresh] before Moshe. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan: When Yehoshua said "Blessed [is He] who chooses the righteous" the principles of wisdom [masorot chochma] were taken from Moshe and given over to Yehoshua, and Moshe no longer understood what Yehoshua was expounding [doresh]. After all the B'nei Isreal had got up, they said to Moshe "He [Yehoshua] has obfuscated the Torah for us". He said to them "I do not know what to answer you" - and Moshe Rabbeinu was stumbling and falling. At that moment Moshe said "Matser of the Worlds! Until now I asked for life, but now my soul is given over to you". (adapted from the Metsudah translation)

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

Parshat Va'etchanan opens with the end of Moshe's overview of the past forty years, which takes up the first three chapters of parshat Devarim. Having summarised both the previous generations' shortcomings and the current generation's recent victories on their way to Eretz Yisrael, Moshe poignantly recalls how he has pleaded with G-d to be allowed to cross the Jordan into Eretz Yisrael with the rest of the people who he has led for forty years, only to be told 'al tosef daber elai od b'dvar hazeh' - 'Never speak to Me of this matter again!'. Harsh words, it seems, for the great Moshe Rabbeinu who has sacrificed so much to fulfil G-d's word and lead His people for so long. 

The midrashim of the Midrash Tanchuma focuses almost entirely on this opening exchange, with several narrative expansions of the text detailing the exchange between G-d and Moshe as Moshe pleads to delay his death until he has reached Eretz Yisrael. The midrash I want to explore (Source 1) above) is only an extract from one of these lengthy expansions - however, it does shed some light on Moshe, his role at the end of the journry to Eretz Yisrael, and how he (and we) could eventually be reconciled with his forthcoming death.

The midrash at Source 1) focuses on the transfer of leadership from Moshe to his pupil Yehoshua, as reflected in the text of Va'etchanan itself where Moshe is told to instruct and encourage Yehoshua as the one who will lead the B'nei Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael. In the midrash, upon being told that Yehoshua's new status as leader is the reason why Moshe must die outside Eretz Yisrael, Moshe (apparently with G-d's consent) goes to hear Yehoshua teaching Torah. Initially he does so incognito - only to be revealed by the people's scandalised cries at seeing their beloved 'Moshe Rabbeinu' standing (as a student would) before the seated Yehoshua. The people try to persuade Moshe to teach them Torah as he was accustomed to, only for Moshe to demur and for a 'Bat Kol' (heavenly voice) to decree that from now on the people must learn Torah from Yehoshua.

It is at this point that something strange occurs. As Yehoshua begins to teach, the principles on which the Torah is to be understood and interpreted (masorot chochma) are taken away from Moshe and given to Yehoshua, following which Moshe is no longer able to follow Yehoshua's teaching (see underlined section of Source 1). Furthermore, when the people - who have been unable to follow Yehoshua's teaching as clearly - turn to Moshe, he is at a loss as to what to say to them. It is at this point that - after an extensive dialogue with G-d in which Moshe has been begging for his life - Moshe now reconciles himself to his fate and admits to G-d that 'my soul is given over to you'.

What is happening here? Why should this incident be the trigger for Moshe to give up his fight against death outside of Eretz Yisrael? And why are the people complaining that Yehoshua's teaching has made the Torah less clear for them?

There are a few key words/phrases in this midrash which can answer these points. The first is Moshe's title as 'Moshe Rabbeinu', literally 'Moshe our teacher'. Throughout this midrash, this is the name by which the people refer to Moshe, while Yehoshua's initial cry of sorrow when he realises he has unwittingly shown disrespect to Moshe (by remaining seated and teaching in Moshe's presence) includes the words 'my Teacher, my Teacher!'. This is in keeping with the respect we accord to Moshe - while Moshe played many roles during his tenure - priest, military leader, prophet - it is his role as teacher of Torah which has come to define him as 'Moshe Rabbeinu' throughout the generations.

It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the people are so drawn to Moshe as their teacher that it takes both Moshe's refusal and a direct command from Heaven for them to be persuaded to turn to Yehoshua as their leader and teacher of Torah. However, after Moshe finds himself unable to either understand Yehoshua's teachings or explain them to the people, the midrash tells us 'v'hayah Moshe Rabbeinu nichsal v'nofel' - 'and Moshe Rabbeinu was stumbling and falling'. Suddenly, the man whose defining feature has been his direct reception and transmission of the Torah - whose essence can be summed up in the title of 'Rabbeinu' or 'Teacher' - is struggling at being unable to either understand or teach the Torah to which he has been so close. Tellingly, when Moshe turns to G-d at this point he uses the phrase 'ad achshaiv bikashti chaim' - while this refers to Moshe's requesting that his life be spared, given the traditional identification of Torah as an 'etz chaim' or 'tree of life' Moshe could also be referring to his constant 'searching' for and connection with Torah which he has now lost. 

But what of Yehoshua and the people's apparent inability to understand him? Surely this cannot be a good development, given that the goal of a teacher is to improve his students' understanding of the matter at hand? Here, we can also find an answer in the word - derash, or searching/enquiring/investigating - which is used throughout the midrash to describe Yehoshua's mode of teaching. The word 'derash' is traditionally used to refer to a deeper level of interpretation of the text than that which can be found simply through the 'surface' or 'p'shat' meaning (and indeed shares a root with 'midrash') . 

Yehoshua, the midrash implies is using this method to teach Torah - presumably making a change from Moshe Rabbeinu, who as a direct conduit for transmission of the Torah is usually described as 'speaking' many of the commandments and here in this midrash is being asked to simply 'teach' or 'lamed' Torah to the people. The people's confusion therefore seems to lie in the fact that Yehoshua is not teaching the Torah with the same level of clarity as Moshe had done - however, the midrash suggests that this is inevitable as only Moshe has had the direct connection with G-d to be able to teach and transmit Torah without needing to resort to 'derash'. Yehoshua, on the other hand, is not on the same level as Moshe even having been granted the 'masora' needed to interpret the Torah - nor can anyone else hope to reach the same level as Moshe. Therefore, the midrash implies, Moshe's loss of the 'masora'  means the loss of a direct and clear revelation of Torah, and instead our turning to other methods such as 'derash' to try and understand the depths of meaning within the Torah. 

Having seen this development and understood that he is no longer connected to the 'etz chaim' of Torah, Moshe realises that his time is up and he has no further purpose as 'Moshe Rabbeinu' - hence his declaring to G-d that his soul is now given over to Him just as the 'masora' of Torah interpretation has been given over to his successor.

While we can never hope to be on the same level as Moshe Rabbeinu himself, perhaps we can learn from here the importance of both learning and teaching Torah to our life's purpose.

(Early) shabbat shalom!

RPT

Devarim - Love and the Land

B"H

Here is the link to the full text of the Midrash Tanchuma, although I will mostly be relying on other sources this week.

Sources

1) Talmud Bavli, Ketubot 111a

  ורב יהודה כתיב קרא אחרינא (שיר השירים ב) השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים בצבאות או באילות השדה וגו' ורבי זירא ההוא שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה ורב יהודה השבעתי אחרינא כתיב ורבי זירא ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר ג' שבועות הללו למה אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את <העובדי כוכבים> {אומות העולם} שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי ורב יהודה (שיר השירים ב) אם תעירו ואם תעוררו כתיב ורבי זירא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי לוי דאמר שש שבועות הללו למה תלתא הני דאמרן אינך שלא יגלו את הקץ ושלא ירחקו את הקץ ושלא יגלו הסוד <לעובדי כוכבים> {לאומות העולם} (שיר השירים ב) בצבאות או באילות השדה אמר רבי אלעזר אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אם אתם מקיימין את השבועה מוטב ואם לאו אני מתיר את בשרכם כצבאות וכאילות השדה

 

And Rav Yehuda? — Another text also is available: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, [that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please]'. And R. Ze'era? — That implies that Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall. And Rav Yehuda? — Another 'I adjure you'  is written in Scripture. And R. Ze'era? — That text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Jose son of R. Hanina who said: 'What was the purpose of those three adjurations?  — One, that Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall; the second, that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel that they shall not rebel against the nations of the world; and the third is that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured the idolaters that they shall not oppress Israel too much'. And Rav Yehuda? — It is written in Scripture, That ye awaken not, nor stir up.  And R. Ze'era? — That text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Levi who stated: 'What was the purpose of those six adjurations? — Three for the purposes just mentioned and the others, that [the prophets] shall not make known the end, that [the people] shall not delay the end, and that they shall not reveal the secret to the idolaters'.

By the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field. R. Eleazar explained: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, 'If you will keep the adjuration, well and good; but if not, I will permit your flesh [to be a prey] like [that of] the gazelles and the hinds of the field'. (based on Soncino Translation)

2a) & b) Shir HaShirim (2:7 & 3:5)

הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם בִּצְבָאוֹת אוֹ בְּאַיְלוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה  אִם-תָּעִירוּ וְאִם-תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ

I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, by gazelles or by hinds of the field: do not awake or rouse love until it please! (JPS Translation)

c) Shir HaShirim (8:4)

הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם  מַה-תָּעִירוּ וּמַה-תְּעֹרְרוּ אֶת-הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ

I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem: do not wake or rouse love until it please! (JPS Translation)

d) Shir HaShirim (5:8)

הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם  אִם-תִּמְצְאוּ אֶת-דּוֹדִי מַה-תַּגִּידוּ לוֹ שֶׁחוֹלַת אַהֲבָה אָנִי

I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem! If you meet my beloved, tell him this: that I am faint with love 
(JPS Translation)

3) Devarim (1:34-35; 1:41-45; 2:2-5)

לד וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָה אֶת-קוֹל דִּבְרֵיכֶם וַיִּקְצֹף וַיִּשָּׁבַע לֵאמֹר.  לה אִם-יִרְאֶה אִישׁ בָּאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה הַדּוֹר הָרָע הַזֶּה אֵת הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לָתֵת לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם.

מא וַתַּעֲנוּ וַתֹּאמְרוּ אֵלַי חָטָאנוּ לַיהוָה אֲנַחְנוּ נַעֲלֶה וְנִלְחַמְנוּ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּנוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַתַּחְגְּרוּ אִישׁ אֶת-כְּלֵי מִלְחַמְתּוֹ וַתָּהִינוּ לַעֲלֹת הָהָרָה.  מב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי אֱמֹר לָהֶם לֹא תַעֲלוּ וְלֹא-תִלָּחֲמוּ כִּי אֵינֶנִּי בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְלֹא תִּנָּגְפוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיכֶם.  מג וָאֲדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת-פִּי יְהוָה וַתָּזִדוּ וַתַּעֲלוּ הָהָרָה.  מד וַיֵּצֵא הָאֱמֹרִי הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּהָר הַהוּא לִקְרַאתְכֶם וַיִּרְדְּפוּ אֶתְכֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂינָה הַדְּבֹרִים וַיַּכְּתוּ אֶתְכֶם בְּשֵׂעִיר עַד-חָרְמָה.  מה וַתָּשֻׁבוּ וַתִּבְכּוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְלֹא-שָׁמַע יְהוָה בְּקֹלְכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱזִין אֲלֵיכֶם

ב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר.  ג רַב-לָכֶם סֹב אֶת-הָהָר הַזֶּה פְּנוּ לָכֶם צָפֹנָה.  ד וְאֶת-הָעָם צַו לֵאמֹר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים בִּגְבוּל אֲחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי-עֵשָׂו הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּשֵׂעִיר וְיִירְאוּ מִכֶּם וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם מְאֹד.  ה אַל-תִּתְגָּרוּ בָם כִּי לֹא-אֶתֵּן לָכֶם מֵאַרְצָם עַד מִדְרַךְ כַּף-רָגֶל  כִּי-יְרֻשָּׁה לְעֵשָׂו נָתַתִּי אֶת-הַר שֵׂעִיר.

'When the Lord heard your loud complaint, He was angry. He vowed: "Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers..." [....] You replied to me, saying, "We stand guilty before the Lord. We will go up now and fight, just as the Lord our God commanded us." And you all girded yourselves with war gear and recklessly started for the hill country. But the Lord said to me, "Warn them: Do not go up and do not fight, since I am not in your midst; else you will be routed by your enemies". I spoke to you, but you would not listen; you flouted the Lord's command and willfully marched into the hill country. Then the Amorites who lived in those hills came out against you like so many bees and chased you, and they crushed you at Hormah in Seir. Again you wept before the Lord; but the lord would not heed your cry or give ear to you...Then the Lord said to me: "You have been skirting this hill country long enough; now turn north. And charge the people as follows: You will be passing through the territory of your kinsmen, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. Though the will be afraid of you, be very careful not to provoke them. For I will not give you of their land so much as a foot can tread on; I have given the hill country of Seir as a possession to Esau'. (JPS Translation)

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

This week, I am taking a different approach and focusing mostly on the Talmudic version of a midrash found in the Midrash Tanchuma - the (in)famous midrash of the 'Three Oaths'. While the Talmudic version is not directly linked to parshat Devarim, the Midrash Tanchuma does bring a truncated version of this in relation to the parsha (more later on the link!) - however, we are better off starting with the more detailed/authoritative midrash from the Talmud.

The Talmudic midrash of the 'Three Oaths' (see Source 1) above) arises out of an ongoing debate between the Babylonian sages Rav Yehuda and his pupil Rabbi Ze'era. Rabbi Ze'era strongly wanted to leave Babylon for Eretz Yisrael, but faced disapproval from Rav Yehuda who held on theological grounds that the Jews in Babylon should not seek to return to Eretz Yisrael before the appropriate time i.e. G-d's redemption of the Jews from exile.  This argument mirrors aspects of the debate between Zionist and anti-Zionist movements preceding the establishment of the State of Israel - and, to a certain extent, by some anti-Zionist movements even after 1948. Indeed, the midrash of the 'Three Oaths' itself has played an important part in the latter debate, and while this is beyond the subject of this post it is worth bearing in mind that some anti-Zionist groups (e.g. Satmar) will still draw upon it today.

The midrash is based on a recurring refrain in ShirHaShirim (see Sources 2a)-c) above), which reads 'I adjure you, O maidens/daughters of Jerusalem, by gazelles or by hinds of the field: do not awake or rouse love until it please!'. The midrash from Ketubot 111a at source 1) above uses this refrain as a source-text for first one, then three, then finally six oaths summarised below:

1) The Jews may not to go up to Eretz Yisrael 'like a wall'
2) The Jews may not to rebel against the nations [reflected in Midrash Tanchuma as 'not to rebel against the rulers']
3) The non-Jewish nations are not to oppress the Jews too much 
4) The Jews may not to reveal the 'end of days' [reflected in Midrash Tanchuma]
5) The Jews may not to delay the 'end of days'
[reflected in Midrash Tanchuma as 'not to push back the end of days']
6) The Jews may not to reveal 'secrets' to the nations.

The midrash appears to base these oaths on the part of the refrain that one should not 'awake or rouse love until it please', which in the case of most of these oaths becomes the Jews holding back from doing/revealing something until the appropriate time i.e. until the 'end of days' or G-d's expression of His love in allowing the Jews back into the land. While some oaths do not exactly fit this pattern, they can still be reconciled with it - for example, oath 3) can be seen as the non-Jews not awakening G-d's 'love' by oppressing the Jews too harshly, while oath 6) could be taken as the Jews not arousing some form of 'love' by revealing the 'secrets' only known to them at this time.

However, the one oath which does not fit neatly into this pattern is oath 5) - that the Jews are not to delay the 'end of days'. While many of the other oaths are concerned with the Jews trying to re-establish a presence in Eretz Yisrael before the right time, this one addresses the opposite concern - that the Jews may in fact delay the redemption/their return to Eretz Yisrael from its appointed time.  How can we reconcile this with the source-text of Shir HaShirim, in which it seems clear that the warning against arousing 'love' before the proper time rather than against delaying that 'love'?

In fact, if we look at Shir HaShirim we can find that there are four expressions of 'Hish'bati' or 'I adjure you'. The fourth, which is not included in our midrash, reads rather differently from the others: 'I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem! If you meet my beloved, tell him this: that I am faint with love' (see Source 2d) above). 

This fourth expression comes just after the episode in Chapter 5 where the female lover (traditionally representing Israel) initially refuses to answer the door to the pleading of her male lover (traditionally representing G-d), then relents and opens the door only to find that he has gone. She then roams the streets searching for him and is attacked by the watchmen of the city - following which she cries out to the 'maidens of Jerusalem', this time not to advise restraint of love/desire but to express her desire for the lover having missed the opportunity of being with him.  

And so to parshat Devarim. Chapter 4 of the Midrash Tanchuma on this parsha starts with a version of the above midrash, supposedly based on the verse "You have been skirting this hill country long enough..." (Devarim 2:2 - see Source 3) above). While the Midrash Tanchuma does not make it clear why it connects this verse to its version of the 'Three Oaths' midrash, we can perhaps see a link in its placement between two warnings/episodes relating to Eretz Yisrael and the surrounding nations. The first warning/episode (most of Devarim Chapter 1) is Moshe's reminding the current generation of the incident of the Spies, where their fathers' refused to believe they can conquer Eretz Yisrael despite G-d's promise to be with them, then subsequently trying and failing to make an armed invasion into Eretz Yisrael despite G-d's decree that they will not enter but will die in the wilderness (Devarim 1:41-45). The second warning (Devarim 2:3 onwards) is that the people are not to attach or provoke Esau's descendants living in Mt. Seir - bearing in mind not only the Torah's warning itself that Mt. Seir has been reserved by G-d for Esau's descendants but also the fact that they (in the form of the Romans) were later used by G-d as His instrument for punishing the Jews through the destruction of the Second Beit HaMikdash and the subsequent period of exile/oppression. 

We can see that both warnings are reflected in the 'oaths' of our midrash. In the first case, we are warned not to try to conquer Eretz Yisrael/bring about the 'end of days' before the time appointed by G-d. In the second, we are warned not to rebel against the non-Jewish nations who are carrying out their Divinely-appointed role (as represented in parshat Devarim by Esau's descendants on Mt. Seir).  In both cases, the midrash sees these as warnings against 'arousing' love - either G-d's love for us or our love for Eretz Yisrael/G-d as expressed through trying to return to our proper place in Eretz Yisrael.

However, we should also bear in mind the fourth adjuration in Shir HaShirim in response to a missed opportunity. Here, the female lover perhaps parallels the first generation of B'nei Israel who, realising too late their mistake in the Incident of the Spies, try to make up for this and express their 'love' by going to invade Eretz Yisrael only to be beaten and repelled from its borders.Perhaps this is also a warning of the consequences of breaking the fifth 'oath' - that if we delay the 'end of days' or final redemption and miss this opportunity, we will also suffer the consequences of being abandoned by G-d like the gazelles/hinds of the field.

Overall, we can see a tension between holding back from showing or acting on love for G-d/Eretz Yisrael until the proper time, and not delaying this beyond the right 'window of opportunity' - in both cases, whether we act too soon or too late the consequences are potentially disastrous. However, it is notable that our opening protagonist Rabbi Ze'era did in fact fulfil his desire of emigrating to Eretz Yisrael. Regardless of the wider politics surrounding Zionism and the nature of the Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael today, perhaps we can take Rabbi Ze'era as an example and focus on identifying the 'right time' for us as individuals to act on our love for G-d and the Land.

Shabbat shalom

RPT

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