ר"ע תיתד תונויצל ינויערה גוחה ,םולשו זוע
… G-d rebuked both Moses and Aaron in the most severe manner ( in Deut. 32:51): "You were unfaithful to Me," "You did not uphold My sanctity" - and that was why G-d decreed that they would die outside Canaan. We ask, How did Moses break faith with G-d? What was his sin? How did he not uphold G-d's sanctity?
These matters are not explained in the Torah. Those who studied and delved into the Torah raised many and varied hypotheses in attempting to find the meaning from the text itself, and could not find any. … It is possible that this event has a most profound explanation. In any event, a Midrashic source states it – and I would like to relate to this. In order for us to understand the significance of the interpretation, we must realize one fact that is possibly decisive in every attempt to understand the affair: the fact that Moses himself is not aware that he sinned. On every occasion – and this is repeated three times in the Torah – when Moses pleads to G-d to annul His decree and to allow him to achieve the goal for which he worked for forty years – he never asks G-d for forgiveness for his sin, but merely asks for the decree to be annulled … Did Moses sin or did he not sin? If Moses, the most humble of all men, was not cognizant of having sinned, who are we to seek for sins in Moses? And why this decree against him?
And yet in the same Midrash, we are told that G-d told Moses in regard to his prayers for the decree to be annulled: "Moses, with what do you wish to enter the land?" The Midrash wishes to say, and explains it this way later: the generation that you led was not granted the privilege of entering the land - and you, the leader of that generation, wish to enter? This is analogous to a shepherd whose flock was torn to shreds by wild animals – can he then say: "I'm going home now"? In other words , the leader has a share in the sins of his generation, for the sins which were committed under his leadership, even if he himself is not – either legally or morally or by any other human criterion – responsible for the sins, the omissions, or the errors of those under him. Yet he has a share in their sins. … And in modern day concepts, in the social and political spheres, we refer to this as the assumption of ministerial responsibility.
(From "Notes and Remarks on the Weekly Parashah" by Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Chemed Books, tr. S. Himelstein, pp. 146-49.)
The subject of water is a motif which appears several times in parashat Hukkat: in the beginning of the parasha in the preparation of the nidda water, and subsequently in the episode of Mei Meribah [lit. the waters of strife]. Further on we have the promises of Moses and the Israelites to the kings of Edom and Moab that the Israelites will not drink the latter's well water if the Israelites are allowed the right of passage through foreign land. The episode of the fiery serpents later in the parasha also involves water, and the parasha closes with a song of praise about the well , which sprang up for the Israelites in the desert.
We often find water used as a metaphor and symbol for life and purity, especially in the words of the prophets. The meaning can be spiritual, but in our parasha the need for water is a real, physical need. Water is a basic and urgent necessity for life in the desert. The feeling of thirst and the fear of death, which are consequences of a water shortage, are understandable and real. These fears accompanied the Israelites from the start of their journey, witness the earlier episodes of the bitter waters of Marah and the case of Rephidim, as well as the Mei Meribah in our parasha.
Thus it is clear to us why the Israelites resort to the mode of complaining when it comes to the problem of water. In the episode of Mei Marah (Ex. 15) we have the verb "vayilonu" [they murmured] , while the episodes at Rephidim and Mei Meribah are introduced by the phrase "And the people strove [vayarev] with Moses." A thirsty person whose life is threatened because of lack of water does not have the wherewithal for the niceties of polite entreaties; all his efforts are focused on saving himself and he doesn't have time to choose his words carefully. The Israelites want water now! Of course, there are those who see these complaints as reflecting the general lack of faith which characterized many of the people who did not rely on G-d to supply their needs. There are other commentators who say this was not a physical thirst for water at all. Nevertheless we see that in all these cases, when the Israelites are agitated because of the shortage of water G-d responds immediately and supplies them with water, and each time in a different, miraculous manner. In Midrash Tanhuma on parashat Beshalah 22 (about Rephidim) there is a hint of G-d's rebuking Moses: "How many times do I have to tell you not to be so strict with them, but treat them as a shepherd would…" The L-rd, it seems, is surprised that Moses does not listen in sufficiently sympathetic a manner to the needs of the people in the desert. Similarly, Rambam attempts to understand what Moses' sin was at Mei Meribah, a sin for which he was denied entrance to the Land of Israel. "G-d, Blessed be He, did not tolerate a man like Moses getting angry at the people of Israel, when it was inappropriate to do so…" and Rambam continues " If he [Moses] had known that the G-d had become angry at us [the Israelites] because of the request for water, and that we angered Him, Blessed be He, he would not have gotten angry at us." Moses' sin, according to this interpretation, is what helped the Israelites understand that his becoming angry with them implies that also the L-rd is angry with them because of their demand for water. Both Midrash Tanhuma and Rambam support the view that the Israelites' request for water was natural, legitimate, and justified in the eyes of G-d. (We should mention that many commentators disagree with the explanation of Rambam as it concerns the essence of Moses' sin; this is detailed in Studies in Bamidbar of Nehama Leibowitz.)
The question arises in studying our parasha: how could it be that in the episode of the fiery serpents G-d does not respond to the Israelites' demand for water. The opposite occurs: As a punishment He lets loose among the people fiery serpents. Let us examine carefully what was the complaint this time, and how this complaint was different from the previous complaints about the water shortage. "And the people spoke against G-d and against Moses: 'Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? For there is no bread, and there is no water, and our souls loathe this miserable bread..'" (Num.51:5) Why does the Torah detail this list of complaints? Why doesn't the Torah give a general description of the complaints, but instead "quotes" the people ? Does their complaint reflect real thirst and hunger? Are we not witnessing a repeat performance of "Kibrot Hataavah"? Could it be that the hunger and thirst are not the real reasons for the complaints, but rather a feeling of general dissatisfaction is at the root of the complaints? Thus it seems that this time the situation is different. They are not in mortal danger, but rather they are unhappy about the taste of the manna, and they want variety in their diet. They are, perhaps, too spoiled and pampered; they desire luxuries that are not necessary for their daily existence in the desert. They are not driven by fear of death from starvation or dehydration. Maybe the punishment itself can shed some light on the essence of their sin. The punishment is "educational." The vehicle for the punishment is the serpent, which symbolizes the desert and all its dangers. G-d sends forth into their midst fiery serpents in order to remind them of the true situation they are in, the reality of the desert where there is no room for luxuries.
Listening carefully to the needs of the weak who are calling for help is, in my humble opinion, the key to understanding the similarities and differences between the two sets of circumstances. A good listener will ignore the manner, style, and mode of expression of complaints, even if they are not to his liking. Society should not disqualify those groups which lodge complaints based on real hardship (even if those complaints are made in angry, impolite, or vulgar language) simply because "they aren't nice." Society has the responsibility to turn a sympathetic ear to the weak; one of the weaknesses of the latter is their inability to articulate in an appropriate manner their distress. By the same token, good listening demands from us the ability to filter. Sincerely caring about the needs of the weak requires us to reject exaggerated demands for things which are unnecessary. In such cases, society should criticize and explain to those making the demands that their requests are not justified, even if they are originating from weakness.
Daphna Ben-Yosef has returned from serving in an educational capacity abroad. She works in developing educational programs in the area of public speaking, debating and discussion techniques.
… And this was the mistake that Jeftah made with his daughter. For he thought that just as a cheirem ["doomed" object] of the chief of Israel is valid and takes effect to put [certain] people to death, and [also] anyone who transgresses it is liable to the death penalty, so [Jeftah thought] that if he uttered a vow at a time of war, to make an offering of a certain person or persons, the vow is valid; but he did not know that a cheirem declared by the king and Sanhedrin is valid [only] regarding the destruction of rebels, or against one who transgresses their decrees and ordinances. But that a vow should take effect to make a burnt-offering of something not appropriate for G-d [as Jeftah thought] – Heaven forbid! Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bereshit Rabbah that [Jeftah] was not even obliged to pay the price of [an amount equivalent to his daughter's] value to the Temple treasury [as his vow was totally invalid], and he was punished for her [innocent] blood! [Ramban on Lev.27:29, tr.Chavel].
Jeftah is not to be regarded as a national hero. His deed is not to be admired as one of self-sacrifice and greatness prompted by patriotic feeling. It was a cruel and unwarranted deed. We may rely on our Sages who saw him as a an ignorant and unlettered person, a boor, empty, and rash. Enthusiasm by itself is no guarantee of the desirability of a cause. Enthusiasm that is not backed by conscience and the self-discipline of Torah is liable to bring disaster. 'What caused Jeftah to take the life of his own daughter? His failure to read and understand Torah.' [From Studies in Bamidbar by Nehama Leibowitz, tr. A. Newman, p.279.]
[Translator's note: To understand this passage from Sifri, it is helpful to compare two verses in Hebrew: Num.19:14 Zot hatorah adam ki yamut baohel… and 2 Sam 7:19 vzot torat ha-adam…]
"You shall die on the mountain you are about to ascend" (Deut.32:50) Moses said: Master of the Universe, why do I have to die and untimely death? They will say Moses took us out of Egypt and split the sea and gave us the Torah, and the manna, and brought the quail, and performed miracles and wonders… but I still have much left to do. G-d responded: Moses, every man (adam) must die, as it is said, "This is the law [zot hatorah] :When a man [Heb. adam] dies in a tent" ; and it says, (2 Sam.7:19) "This is the law, after the manner of a great man, O L-rd G-d" [Heb. v'zot torat ha-adam] The accompanying angels said to the Holy One Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, why did the first man, Adam, die? He answered: He did not follow My instructions. They responded: And did Moses follow Your instructions? G-d said to them: every man (adam) must die, as it says in Numbers 19:14, "This is the law: When a man [adam] dies [in a tent]…" [Sifri, Haazinu, section 339].
It says that "If someone puts his life in danger, we should not cite him as a halakhic authority". This seems to contradict the midrash based on the verse from Num.19 "When a man dies in a tent…". That midrash says, "Torah can exist only when one dies for it " and is based on the concept, "To die in the tent of Torah" [lahamit et atzmkha b-ohala shel Torah]. In the latter expression, the meaning is that Torah can exist in situations of extreme deprivation [dohak] where people exert themselves to the utmost to acquire Torah (which is the meaning of 'to die in the tent of Torah'). This does not mean one should endanger one's life because that is forbidden. Thus we do not cite as an authority or consider as a role model someone who does put his life in danger. One who endangers his life for Torah runs the risk of losing his life, while the Torah is a Torah of life, of vitality. Therefore such a foolhardy person is not worthy of our learning from him. [Maharal of Prague, Hidushei aggadot part 3, p. 12]
It says about Moses: "We cried to the L-rd and he heard out voice" (Num/20:16). [Edom] said to [the Israelites]: You are proud that your father bequeathed to you "the voice is the voice of Jacob" "and He heard our voice." While we are proud of what our father bequeathed to us, "By your sword you shall live" as it says (Num.20:18), "And Edom said to him, you shall not pass through our territory, lest I come out with a sword against you" [Yalkut Shimoni Yeshayahu 41]
It is written in Numbers (21:21)"And Israel sent messengers to Sihon". It is written elsewhere, in parashat Devarim (2:26) "And I sent messengers… to Sihon". Based on these two verses, our sages said that two messages were written: one by Moses for peace, and one by Israel for war. [Hizkuni Bamidbar 21:21].
Translated by Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, except where indicated otherwise
|
|
|
| |
| Home |
The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help! |
What's New Activities and Current Events |
Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel |
|
|
|
|
Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English) |
Search Our Site | Links To Peace Movements |
Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
©
Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.