Sincere Apologies Only, Please

This can also be read in the Jewish Star

Parshat Balak

One of the most difficult things for people to say is “I was wrong.” It is even harder to say, and really mean, “I have sinned.” Our religion is not one with anonymous confessions to a voice behind a wall. Generally, our confessions are to G-d, though there are times when we might admit to humans either that we have wronged them or have sinned to G-d.

There is something cleansing about owning up to human beings and to admitting our errors. Suffering embarrassment or humiliation under the judgmental eyes of our peers helps us come to grips with what we’ve done and it helps us take real steps to improve our behavior and not return to our sinning ways.

Perhaps it is admirable that Bilaam admits to an angel “I have sinned” (22:34), if his intentions were honorable. An overview of Biblical examples of people admitting sins may help us understand Bilaam’s likely motivation.

During both the Barad (hail) and Arbeh (locusts) plagues, Pharoh admits he sinned through not letting the Israelites out of bondage (Shmot 9:27, 10:16). After a decimating loss on the battlefield, Achan admits to Yehoshua that he stole from the consecrated booty (Yehoshua 7:20). After much back and forth with his teacher and mentor the prophet Shmuel, King Saul admits he sinned before the battle with Amalek by listening to the people instead of Shmuel (Shmuel I 15:24, 25, 30). The last time they encounter one another, Saul also admits to David that he sinned by accusing David of treason (Shmuel I 26:21). After the prophet Natan accuses David of sinning with Batsheva and having her husband killed, David quickly admits his sin, without excuses (Shmuel II 12:13). Fearful that he will be executed by David, Shimi ben Gera admits to having wronged the king (Shmuel II 19:21).

On a collective front, sometimes a large group of people sin and admit to their wrongdoings.

In Bamidbar 14:40, after the decree that the Israelites will spend the next 40 years in the desert and not live to see the Promised Land, the nation admits to Moshe that they had sinned when listening to the spies. The Israelites also made a similar admission in last week’s parsha (21:7) when the snakes wreaked havoc and killed a part of the population.

We see similar admission in Shoftim 10:10 and Shmuel I 7:6, 12:10 when the people are confronted with evidence of their errors.

In discussing our protagonist, Bilaam, we can see the positive sides of admitting, “I have sinned.” On the other hand, we can also bring much criticism to the table in assessing Bilaam’s admission of guilt.

We don’t even know why he said he sinned other than his telling the angel, “I didn’t know you were there.” Was his sin that he went to curse the Israelites? That he hit his donkey? That he didn’t stop when the angel appeared (unbeknownst to him) in the path?

There is a running theme in these admissions of guilt. In just about every case, the individual admits to a fault because he has a virtual gun to his head. Pharoh is feeling the pain of plagues, the nation (in the aftermath of the spies) see themselves dying off in the desert or see snakes killing people; Shimi ben Gera fears for his life.

Others admit when the evidence is stacked against them: Achan’s theft is uncovered through a divine lottery. Kings Saul and David are confronted by prophets. King Saul’s admissions are a topic of a larger discussion of his personality, but the biggest critique is that even he did not admit immediately (as King David did when confronted with evidence) that he had erred and sinned against God.

Bilaam clearly fits into the former category — he only admits to a sin (though he does not specify what the sin is) when he notices an angel wielding a sword over his head. It is therefore fitting that he embarrasses himself in telling the donkey “Had I a sword in my hand I’d kill you,” for unlike sincere individuals who admit to sins, Bilaam only apologized when he felt himself in mortal danger.

The really smart and the truly devout can recognize their sins on their own, admit them, correct their behavior, and move on with their lives.

Others say things like “I deeply regret my comments…They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East…” and expect people to buy their half non-apology. Pharoh was not believed and neither was Bilaam. It did not take long for both of them to die in battles against the Jews (Midrash about Pharoh being saved notwithstanding), when their true beliefs led them headfirst into violent confrontation.

While nearly 90-year-old anti-Semites are not likely to take up arms in battle, we pray that they and their ilk be viewed in the world the same way Pharoh and Bilaam were to the Jewish people: insincere non-apologists who have no future because everyone sees through their false apologetic front.

Repeating a faux pas

Parshat Chukat 

by Rabbi Avi Billlet

I don't know how you operate, but I'll make a confession here. As a father of young children, I have learned that when they do something really bad, I need only make them feel really guilty to have them learn never to repeat the offense. 

 Perhaps we operate the same way. As long as the bad things we do remain secrets, we're in the clear. Once we get caught, and suffer the embarrassment or slap on the wrist (or worse) that comes with the guilt, do we finally vow never to do those things again. 

 So it comes as a surprise when we read this week that Moshe chose to repeat what was arguably the biggest "fashla" (Hebrew slang for “oops moment") of his life. In 21:32, in a verse that is largely overlooked, Moshe does the unthinkable: "Moses sent out men to reconnoiter Ya'azer, and they captured its surrounding villages, driving out the Amorites who lived there." Reconnoiter is the term used in The Living Torah, and it means "to spy." So Moshe sent spies... again? Wouldn't that be the ultimate no-no? 

According to some commentaries, indeed even according to Moshe himself (Devarim 1:37), the incident of the spies in Parshat Shlach is what ultimately led to Moshe’s death in the desert. How could he be so foolish to send spies again? 

Because there is nothing foolish about sending spies, if it is done correctly. 

 In Shlach, there was pomp and ceremony and everyone knew who was going, when they were going, what their assignment was, and when they returned. Instead of reporting only to Moshe, they reported to everyone. And this time the spies themselves were different: according to Targum Yonatan, Moshe sent only two spies this time, Kalev and Pinchas, whose trustworthiness was beyond question. 

 Additionally, the spying fell in between battles, when the nation was pumped for war and knew they could win. 

 Finally, this was the next generation, a generation that complained about dying of natural causes, but not about having to face the enemy on the battlefield. 

 Still, all this being true, how could Moshe repeat his faux-pas? Because Moshe "Rabbenu," our teacher, is teaching us a lesson for all time. The Peter Principle posits that people rise to the level of their incompetence; then no further promotions are available. The concept of "teshuva," however, is that you may make a mistake along the road, but to know if your repentance has been accepted, you need to be faced with the same circumstances once again, and either you don't succumb to temptation or you rise to the occasion. 

 In Moshe's case, he needed another reason to send spies, to show that while he may have shared the blame the first time around, the ten bad spies had much to do with how things went wrong. Given the correct strategy and approach, the spying could serve the purpose for which it was intended, vindicating Moshe, and clearing him before his death of the reputation of (shudder) a failed commander-in-chief. 

Rashi says the spies went in saying "We don't want be like the first ones. We have faith in the power of Moshe's prayer to help us win the battle." He says the spies themselves were the ones who conquered Ya'azer. And the Rashi supercommentary Maskil L'David says the reason for the need to send spies was because they needed a "tikkun" (correction) through the same activity in which they sinned. These spies not only went in with the right attitude, but also were ready to sacrifice their lives in battle to give the entire nation the fix they needed to move beyond the wilderness experience. 

 These are amazingly powerful ideas. Moshe revisits his mistake to prove he can do things the right way. The spies are so selfless, they are willing, for the sake of the people, to make the ultimate sacrifice so that the generation waiting on the border of the land can let bygones be bygones and move on. 

 It almost sounds like a movie that opens with a training scene for the most far-fetched situation that could possibly happen. The far-fetched situation becomes the climax of the film (for real this time), and the teacher gives his life so the student can show he or she has surpassed the teacher. 

 The difference is that this is our history, our heritage, and what our lives are all about: second chances, the ability to try again, to make amends, to do it right, and the selfless dedication of those who believe in G-d and His most devoted ones, to carry out His will for the sake of heaven and the future of the Children of Israel.

Moshe's Cushite Wife

 Because of my fear that this will dissappear from the Internet, I post here an article posted by R Chaim HaQoton

Moses' Black Wife 

 In a cryptic episode in the Torah, Miriam talked to Aaron about Moses "concerning the 'Cushite[1] wife' whom he married, for he married a 'Cushite wife'.[2]" Many Rabbinic commentaries follow the understanding of the Midrash that Moses' "Cushite wife" was Zipporah. However, this assumption is not easily justifiable because Zipporah was the daughter of Jethro, a Midianite[3], not a Cushite. In addition to understanding whom exactly Moses' "Cushite wife" was, one must also understand why this passage in the Torah is written immediately after the telling of the prophecies of Eldad and Meidad. Furthermore, the exact complaint, which Miriam presented to Moses concerning this "Cushite wife", also requires explanation. Moreover, the repetition of the phrase "Cushite wife" in Miriam's complaint necessitates explication, as well. 

 Rashbam asks[4], according to the explanations that hold that the Cushite was Zipporah, why Zipporah was called a Cushite if she was actually a Midianite. He explains that Cushites are a Hamatic nation descending from Ham the son of Noah[5], while Midianites are a Semitic nation descending from Abraham, who was a descendant of Shem, son of Noah[6]. Rabbi Dovid Pardo (1719-1792) adds[7] that even if one says that Jethro, Zipporah's father, was an Egyptian, for the Talmud says he was the Pharaoh's advisor[8], and thus was a Hamite; he was still not a Cushite. Because of this question, the Rashbam argues and understands that the Cushite woman referred to in the verse was not Zipporah; however, according to the explanations that learn that she was Zipporah, various methodologies of answering the question are given. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda Rokeach of Worms (1176-1238) explains[9] that although Zipporah's father, Jethro, was Midianite, her mother was a Cushite[10]. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (1092-1167) and Rabbi Don Yitzchok Abarbanel (1437-1508) both explain[11] that even though genealogically Zipporah might not have been a Cushite, the Torah still considered her as such because in appearance the Midianites and Ishmaelites (Arabs) resemble Cushites. They explain that since Cushites, Midianites, and Ishmaelites all live in sunny areas, the power and heat of the sun cause their skin to darken[12]. They cite Habakkuk 3:7 as the source for this similarity between Cushites and Midianites. 

 Rashi[13], in assuming that the "Cushite wife" was Zipporah, offers three opposing rationalizations, based on the Midrash[14], to his stance. In his first rationalization, Rashi explains that Zipporah was called a "Cushite wife" because just as everyone agrees to the darkness in the skin color of a Cushite, everyone agreed to the fact that Zipporah was beautiful[15]. Thus, Rashi understands that the comparison between Zipporah and a "Cushite wife" is merely to say that just as the blackness of an African is an established fact[16], so was the beauty of Zipporah. In his second rationalization, Rashi understands that Cushite wife means "beautiful wife" and proves[17] this point by explaining[18] that the numerical value of the Hebrew for Cushite equals the numerical value for the Hebrew phrase "beautiful in appearance", Yefas Mareh[19]. According to this explanation, Rashi understands that the phrase "Cushite wife" refers to the beauty of Zipporah and that the phrase is repeated doubly to show that not only was Zipporah beautiful in her appearance, but she was beautiful in her actions as well. In his third rationalization, Rashi explains that Zipporah was called a "Cushite wife" because she was beautiful in appearance and just as one sarcastically calls his beautiful son "ugly" in order to ward off an Evil Eye, so too did Moses call Zipporah a "Cushite" in order to ward off the Evil Eye[20]. Accordingly, in his second explanation, Rashi assumes that "Cushite" is synonymous with beauty, while in his third explanation Rashi assumes that a Cushite is the antithesis to beauty and the phrase "Cushite" is used sarcastically[21]. 

 In explaining what exactly, the complaint that Miriam lodged against Moses to her brother Aaron was Rashi offers two explanations; Rashi explains that either Moses separated from marital relations with his wife Zipporah, or that he divorced her[22]. The first explanation begs the question as to how Miriam knew that Moses abstained from relations with his wife, for it is not the nature of modest women to go about publicize such a matter[23]. Rashi quotes the Midrash that explains[24] that when Eldad and Meidad were prophesying, Zipporah said, "Woe unto their wives, for if they are bound to the prophecy, they will separate from their wives in the fashion that Moses has separated from me." Not only does this explain how Miriam knew that Moses separated from his wife, but it also explains the juxtaposition of the passages concerning Moses' separation from Zipporah with Miriam's ensuing objections and the prophecies of Eldad and Meidad. However, this Midrash begs the same question, because it is still unlikely that Zipporah would explicitly talk about matters of the bedroom with anyone else, even her own sister-in-law. A similar Midrash[25] tells that Zipporah stopped adorning herself with cosmetics and when questioned by Miriam about this behavior she replied that her husband Moses was not longer concerned with such matters as the physical appearance of his wife. From that reply, Miriam inferred that Moses had separated from Zipporah. Rabbi Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (1817-1893) writes[26] that this occurred specifically after the revealing of the prophecies of Eldad and Meidad because only then did Miriam and Zipporah meet each other, for Miriam lived in the encampment of the Tribe of Judah, while Zipporah lived far away in the encampment of the Tribe of Levi. Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinmen writes[27] that according to these two ways of understanding how Miriam knew that Moses separated from Zipporah, Moses must have continued to live in the same tent as his wife, but he merely refrained from relations with her. This is because if he moved out of their joint tent, it would have been clearly apparent that they separated and Miriam did not need to hear so from Zipporah. 

 According to Rashi's first explanation, the complaint against Moses was that he separated from his wife, Zipporah. Rashi explains that Miriam was complaining that Moses separated from his wife because he was a prophet, but both she and Aaron were prophets and did not have to separate from their spouses. Why did Miriam specifically decide to complain at this point if Moses had already separated from his wife from the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai[28]? One can answer that according to the above, Miriam only knew about Moses' separation from his wife after the prophecies of Eldad and Meidad, but not before then, so she could not complain before then. Abarbanel answers[29] in the name of the Ran: from the time of the Sinaitic Revelation, Moses was busy judging and leading the nation, so he could have easily justified separating from his wife because of his duties as the sole leader of the Jewish Nation. However, after the prophecies of Eldad and Meidad, when seventy extra judges were added to the appellate, Moses was no longer the sole leader of the Jewish Nation, and should have been able to afford spending time with his wife. From the fact that even after the seventy judges were appointed Moses still did not live with his wife, Miriam understood that Moses had separated from her because he was a prophet. Based on this understanding, Miriam complained to Aaron that both she and Aaron were prophets and did not have to refrain from relations, so why did Moses. To this complaint, HaShem answered that Moses' prophecy was on a higher level than any other prophet's was so he required a higher level of purity. 

 Rabbi Chizkiyah ben Manoach explains[30] that Miriam assumed that Moses separated from Zipporah because she was a Cushite[31]; accordingly, Miriam complained why Moses decided to separate from her at that time, he should have not married her in the first place. Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (1270-1340) understands[32] that Miriam complained that Moses separated from his wife because as a Cushite she was not beautiful. He further explains, that in reality, Moses was so humble and unassuming that a physical blemish such as a lack of beauty would not matter to him. Abarbanel writes[33] that one cannot say that Moses separated from Zipporah because he was, by character, a shy and unassuming person, so engaging in marital relations was something that he was embarrassed to do, because the nature of the world is for people to procreate. In fact, the prophet Isaiah said that the world was created for the purpose of population[34]. Instead, Abarbanel explains that Moses separated from marital relations because when he ascended Mount Sinai, his spiritual intellect separated from his physical body, and when he returned, he no longer desired the physical gratification which men desire. 

 Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid (1150-1217) explains[35] that Miriam complained about Moses that he should not have merely separated from Zipporah, rather he should have divorced her because she was a Cushite and was thus from tainted lineage. Similarly, Rabbi Elazar Rokeach also explains[36] that Miriam was complaining about the fact that Moses merely separated from his wife, but he did not divorce her. He explains that since Moses was the King of the Jewish Nation[37], he should have taken a wife from within the Jewish people, not from a foreign nation. Furthermore, in addition to the fact that Moses married Zipporah before the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, he remarried her after the Sinaitic Revelation, while instead he should have not remarried her[38]; this accounts for the double usage of the expression "the Cushite wife whom he married" and "for he married a Cushite wife". The Rokeach explains that Moses was justified in not divorcing Zipporah and merely separating from her because Moses owed a debt of gratitude to Jethro, who took Moses into his family and sustained him while Moses was poor after he fled Egypt. Because of this debt of gratitude to Jethro, Moses chose to remain married to his daughter, Zipporah. Rabbi Yitzchok Zilberstein proves[39] from these words of the Rokeach that showing appreciation is even more important that maintaining a pure lineage. Rabbeinu Efraim explains[40] that Moses was justified in not divorcing Zipporah because since Moses had the status of a king, his divorcee would have been prohibited from marrying anyone else anyways[41], so divorcing Zipporah would not have accomplished anything[42]. 

 Rashi writes on the words "about the Cushite wife whom he married" that Miriam spoke "about her divorce". Later, Rashi writes on the words "for he married a Cushite wife" that Moses divorced her. The first passage in Rashi refers to the fact that Moses merely separated from Zipporah[43] but did not divorce her (like the Rokeach), while the second passage in Rashi is another explanation. In that second explanation, Rashi is saying that Moses did divorce Zipporah and that was precisely about what Miriam was complaining. Tosafos[44] write three explanations in explaining the Talmudic episode in which Moses decided to separate from his wife Zipporah. In the first explanation, Tosafos say that Moses pitched a tent for himself, which was separate from his wife's tent. This is consistent with the first explanation of Rashi that Moses separated from marital relations with his wife, but did not divorce her. In the second explanation, Tosafos say that Moses actually served Zipporah a get, a halachik divorce document. This explanation is consistent with the second understanding of Rashi that Moses actually divorced his wife. In the third explanation, Tosafos say that Zipporah realized on her own that she should refrain from marital relations with Moses, so she exiled herself from her own house. According to this explanation, Miriam must have not been complaining about Moses' estranged relationship with his wife Zipporah, but rather must have been referring to an entirely different episode. 

As mentioned above, the Rashbam rejected the notion that the "Cushite wife" refers to Zipporah because Zipporah was actually a Midianite, not a Cushite. Additionally, Rabbi Chizkiyah ben Manoach points out[45] that if the Cushite wife refers to Zipporah, then the Torah need not have stated that Moses married Zipporah because that was a fact already established in the Book of Exodus which did not need to be repeated in this episode in the Book of Numbers. Furthermore, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi (1279-1340) rejects[46] Rashi's proofs that "Cushite" refers to the beauty of Zipporah because he explains that Cushite and beauty are as different as black and white[47]. Rather, Rabbi Yosef Kaspi explains that Moses married a Cushite wife in addition to his pre-existing wife, Zipporah. Miriam complained about this because she felt that it was natural for a man to have only one wife, not two and thus she felt that Moses was wrong in marrying a second wife. He explains that in reality, Moses had some reason, unbeknownst to us, for why he took a second wife[48]. The Tosafists, Rabbeinu Yitzchok ben Yehuda HaLevi[49] and Rabbeinu Yaakov of Vienna[50], explain differently that after the death of Zipporah (who is not mentioned in the Torah after Exodus 18:2), the widowered Moses married a Cushite wife. Immediately upon this marriage, Miriam began complaining that Moses should not have married her because, as a Cushite, she was subject to the Hamite curse[51] and should have been a slave[52], not the wife of the monarch of the Israelite Nation. 

Rashbam[53], Targum Yonason ben Uziel[54], Rabbi Moshe Alshich (1508-1593)[55], understand that Miriam's complaint was about an entirely different issue. They both quote a Midrash[56] from the Chronicles of Moses that Moses was king in Cush for forty years. According to this legend, after Balaam and his two sons fled Egypt, they tricked the Cushite king[57] into allowing them to take over his capital city while the king was away on a military campaign against the Kedemites (Easterners). When the Cushite king returned victorious to his city, he found himself and his army were not welcomed back home, as Balaam had instructed the inhabitants to betray their former ruler. Then the Cushite king besieged his capital city to recapture it from Balaam, but due to Balaam sly tactics, the king could not succeed. The besiegement lasted seven years until the Cushite king died, during this time, Moses, a refugee from Egypt, found his way to the military camp of the Cushite king. Moses joined the Cushite king in his struggle and soon rose amongst the ranks to become the Cushite king's second-in-command. Upon the death of the king, Moses was chosen to lead the army in their struggle to retake their old capital. Moses led the Cushite army to victory and after they chased away Balaam, they appointed him as the king of Cush, giving him the wife of the former king as his queen[58]. Moses reigned over the Cushite kingdom for forty years until his queen complained to the kingship's elders that throughout their forty-year marriage Moses did not even touch her. In deference to the honor of both their old king and their new king, the elders decided to force Moses to abdicate the throne and they banned him from their kingdom, while showering him with gifts. The Midrash explains that Moses did not treat the Cushite queen as his wife because he remembered the oaths which Abraham[59] and Issac[60] made their children swear not to marry any women from the family of Canaan who was cursed[61]. According to the Rashbam, Miriam had complained that Moses married the queen of Cush while he served as their king; for she did not know that Moses did not really live with her. 

Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinmen asks[62] according to the explanation of the Rashbam why Miriam decided to lodge her complaint specifically then after the incident with Eldad and Meidad, if Moses had married the Cushite queen long before the exodus. Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz (1730-1805) explains[63] that when Moses divorced Zipporah, Miriam immediately knew that Zipporah must have been Moses' second wife, not his first. This is because the Talmud says[64] that tears fall from the altar when one divorces his first wife, so Miriam reasoned that Moses would not commit an act which cause tears to flow from the altar, rather in divorcing Zipporah, he must have been divorcing his second wife, not his first. Then Miriam reasoned that if Zipporah was his second wife, then his first wife must have been the queen of Cush whom he married while he was the king of Cush. Thus, Miriam's complaint against Moses was that he married the Cushite queen and she knew this from the fact that Moses divorced Zipporah. The reason why Miriam specifically lodged this complaint against Moses after the prophecy of Eldad and Meidad was that their prophecy foretold that Joshua would lead the Jewish people into the land of Israel, despite the fact that Moses' sons were capable of the job because those sons were not attributed to Moses because he had divorced his wife. This explains why the Torah refers to Gershom and Eliezer as "her [Zipporah's] sons"[65], not Moses' sons. 

Rabbi Yaakov Reischer (1670-1733) offers a similar explanation[66]. He explains that Miriam reasoned that HaShem told Moses to separate from Zipporah as a punishment. This is because the Talmud says[67] that one who sets his eye on that which is not his even that which is rightfully his shall be taken away from him. Therefore, Miriam assumed that the reason why Moses was commanded to separate from Zipporah was that he committed adultery with the wife of the Cushitic king. However, in reality, Moses was not divinely commanded to separate from his wife, he did so of his own accord, and Moses did not even touch the queen of Cush during his forty-year reign. 

 [1] "Cush" is commonly translated as Ethiopia, and "Cushites" are commonly understood to have been Ethiopians. However, most scholars agree that the Biblical geographical area referred to as Cush/Ethiopia was not only in the location of present-day Ethiopia, rather it spanned Northwest of present-day Ethiopia, including parts of the areas of present-day Ethiopia, Egypt, Somalia, Nubia, Eritrea, and the Sudan. The Midrash says (Exodus Rabbah, §10) that the plague of the frogs settled a border dispute between Egypt and Cush because the frogs did not pass the border, which showed where exactly the boundaries of each country lied. Indeed, it will be evident later that Cush was near Egypt. Nonetheless, Rashi (to Yoma 81b) translates "Land of Hindu" as the land of Kush. From here one sees that the terms "Kush" used does not necessarily always mean Ethiopia. In the beginning of the book of Esther (1:1), Scripture establishes that Ahasuerus was king from Hodu to Kush. The Talmud records (Megillah 11a) that Rav and Shmuel disputed whether Hodu and Kush are close to each other (Shmuel) or far from each other (Rav). The accepted translation of Hodu is India. If one is to assume that Kush refers to Ethiopia, how then could Shmuel say that Kush was close in geographical proximity to India? Rabbi Yaakov Emden (1697-1776) answers (see Hagahos Ya'avetz to Megillah 11a) that there are two places known as Kush. One "Kush" is in Africa and was Ethiopia, while the other "Kush" is in Asia was close to India. The dispute between Rav and Shmuel was which "Kush" the Torah referring to in describing the boundaries of Ahasuerus' rule. Indeed, an Asiatic mountain range known as "Hindu Kush" runs along the Pakistani-Afghan border. 

 [2] Numbers 12:1 

 [3] See Exodus 2:16 

 [4] To Numbers 12:1 

 [5] See Genesis 10:6 

 [6] See Genesis 25:1-6 

 [7] Maskil LeDavid to Numbers 12:1 

 [8] See Sotah 11a 

 [9] Pirush Rokeach to Numbers 12:1 

 [10] Indeed we find in Halacha that the nationality of one's mother determines one's own nationality. 

 [11] In their respective commentaries to Numbers 12:1 

 [12] The Midrash says (Genesis Rabbah 36:7) that since Ham castrated his father Noah, and caused him not to be able to perform actions done in the dark (i.e. marital relations) he was cursed so that his skin became dark. Rashi explains that the descendants of Ham, such as Cush and Mitzrayim (the patriarchs of the Cushite and Egyptian peoples, respectively), were born dark-skinned. However, Rabbi Chanoch Zundel of Bialystock argues (see Anaf Yosef ad loc.) and says that the skin of Ham himself darkened, but not necessarily did that of Ham's descendants darken because of this curse. Rabbi Jacob Culi (1685-1732) writes (Me'Am Loez to Genesis 9:20) that there were five punishments which Ham received for his actions toward his naked father: First, since he looked at his naked father, "his eyes became red, always appearing bloodshot". Second, because he verbally told his brothers about their naked father, "his lips were made thick and gross like that of a Negro." Third, since he turned his head to see his father, "the hair of his head and beard became kinky." Fourth, because he did not cover his father, it was decreed that he always go naked. Fifth, his descendants would become slaves to the descendants of Shem and Ham because he eliminated the possibility of Noah fathering another child from whom the slaves of the world were destined to descend. Rabbeinu Bachaya explains (to Genesis 9:24) that although Noah seemingly pronounced the curse on Canaan, not Ham, the curse applied to all descendants of Ham, not merely Canaan. Rabbi Zev Wolf Einhorn writes (Maharzu to Genesis Rabbah §60:2) that curse was applied doubly to Canaan, meaning all descendants of Ham were cursed so that they should be slaves, but Canaan was cursed that his descendants should be slaves to slaves (i.e. the other families of Ham). According to all of this, the reasoning for the dark-colored skinned of blacks is because of the curse applied to Ham and his descendants, not because they lived in sunny areas. In present-times, we do not see the fulfillment of this curse in its entirety Africans anymore (although some parts of the curse are still true). Perhaps this is because the curse only applied to people whom purely descend from Ham, but once the blood of the other brothers was mixed into the families, the cursed ceased to be effective. If this is true one is left with only the reasoning of the Abarbanel and Ibn Ezra in explaining why there are dark skinned people nowadays. 

It is largely believed that from the three sons of Noah, descended three types of humanoids, namely Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids (from Japheth), or Negroes, Caucasians, and Orientals. The Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna (1720-1797) writes (Eliyahu Rabbah to Negaim 2:1) that Shem's family moved to the east (i.e. Mesopotamia), Ham's family moved to the west (e.g. Egypt, Africa), and Japheth's family moved to the north (i.e. Greece, Europe). He explains that the descendants of Ham lived in areas where the sun was very powerful so they had darker skin, while the descendants of Japheth lived in areas where the sun was less powerful, so they had much lighter skin pigmentation. With this, the Vilna Gaon explains the meaning of the term "German" when used in the context of the colors of a spot of tzara'as. He explains that the Japhetic family that lived the northernmost lived in Germany. (They were the ancestors of the Germanic tribes there, see Yoma 10a which says that Gomer, the son of Japheth was the forefather of the Germanic peoples. This is not a contradiction to Megillah 6b, which refers to the potential destruction that could be caused by an Edomite Germany, which implies descent from Esau, a Semite, not Japheth, because that passage is referring to a Romanized Europe afterwhich the Germanic princes were actually descendants of Romans, who descended from Esau. See Rashi to Genesis 36:43.) These people were so fair-skinned that their skin color was regarded by the Mishnah as a shade of white. According to the Vilna Gaon, skin color was not related to the curse of Noah's son, rather it was relative to one's geographical location and the power of the sun there. 

 [13] To Numbers 12:1 

 [14] Sifri to Numbers 12:1 

 [15] The Midrash and Talmud (Moed Katan 16b) continue to explain that when the Psalmist refers to the Kush the Benjaminite (Psalms 7:1), the reference is to King Saul. The Midrash explains that just as a Cushite is different from all other creations in terms of their skin color, so too was King Saul different from all other people in terms of his deeds. See Yoma 22b which says that at the time of his coronation, King Saul was like a one year old baby in terms of his lack of sin. The Midrash (Genesis Rabbah §37:4) refers to Esau as a Cushite, despite the fact he had red skin (see Genesis 25:25), not dark skin. Rabbi Chanoch Zundel of Bialystock explains that Esau was called a Cushite because he acted in the way of Nimrod, who was the son of Kush. 

 [16] This is similar to the explanation of the Targum Yerushalmi who explained that just as Cushites are different from all other peoples in terms of their pigmentation, so too Zipporah was different from all other women in terms of her beauty. See HaKoseiv to Ein Yaakov to Moed Katan 16b who writes that Zipporah was the most beautiful from all women. 

 [17] Although, Rabbi Yehuda Low (1525-1609) in Gur Aryeh to Numbers 12:1 understands that Rashi records the discussion about the numerical value as a proof to his first explanation. Rabbi Dovid HaLevi Segal (1586-1667) explains (Divrei Dovid to Numbers 12:1) the proof is that one might think to say that just as everyone agrees that a Cushite is black, so too everyone agrees that Zipporah was black. Therefore, Rashi had to explain that one cannot say such an analogy because it is a postulate that Zipporah was beautiful and therefore she could not have been black. [This understanding assumes that being black and being beautiful is an oxymoron.] 

However, other commentaries (including Rashi himself at one point) seem to understand that "Cushite" means beautiful in this context. This is seen in the simple understanding of the Targum Onkelos (to Numbers 12:1) and Rabbi Saadiah Gaon (892-942) in his commentary (see Pirush Rasag printed in the Toras Chaim Chumash by Mossad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem) to Numbers 12:1. However, see below. 

 [18] This gematria is also found in the Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Tzav §13 (see also Ba'al HaTurim.). 

 [19] Rabbi Chanoch Zundel ben Yosef of Bialystock asks (Eitz Yosef to Midrash Tanchuma ad loc.) that the word Chushis is spelled without a vav in the context of Numbers 12:1 and thus its numerical value does not actually equal Yefas Mareh. Rabbi Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky (1899-1985) writes (Birkas Peretz, Gematrias, Parshas Behaaloscha) that "Cushite wife" equals "This is the daughter of Jethro" in numerical value. According to this, one need not discuss anything about beauty, rather the phrase "Cushite wife" itself can directly refer to Zipporah. 

 [20] Targum Onkelos and Rabbi Saadiah Gaon translate "Cushite" as "beautiful". According to the simple understanding of their explanation, this means that "Cushite" means "beautiful", as mentioned above. However, Ibn Ezra (to Numbers 12:1) and Rabbeinu Bachaya (to Numbers 12:1) understand that Onkelos meant beautiful in a sarcastic way. He explains that just as Arabs call tar "white" (even though tar is black) and the Talmud (Pesachim 2a) calls blind people "full of light", so too the Targum translates Cushi as "beautiful" even though he maintains that a Cushite is the direct opposite of beauty. Ibn Ezra questions this understanding because he asks that if it were true that according to Onkelos the Torah was using a euphemism by calling Zipporah a Cushite even thought she was beautiful, then the Torah would have been degrading the honor of Zipporah by referring to her by something of which she is the complete opposite. Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (1270-1340) makes the same assumption in the words of the Targum and asks the same question (see Pirush HaTur HaAruch to Numbers 12:1). To answer this question, one can say like Rashi that Moses nicknamed his wife Cushite in an effort to ward off the Evil Eye, even though she was actually the opposite of a Cushite, for she was beautiful. This explains why he called her a name that is the opposite from an accurate description of her. [This too assumes that Cushite and beauty are contradictory.] 

 [21] Rashi (to Genesis 12:11) quotes a Midrash (Genesis Rabbah §40:4) that explains that when Abraham traveled to Egypt, he was scared that the Egyptians might abduct his wife because she was beautiful and the Egyptians, being the brothers of the Cushites, were swarthy and ugly. In this third explanation of Rashi, Rashi seemingly accepts the view of this Midrash that the Cushites were dark and considered ugly. (Although, Rashi never equates the swarthiness and ugliness, he merely said that the Cushites possessed both attributes.) Ibn Ezra (to Genesis 12:11) writes that Sarah was so overly beautiful that no one in Egypt or any of the other southern lands (Africa?) matched her beauty because the air in those places changed the forms of the people to make the lands less conducive to producing beautiful people. (See Rashi to Numbers 13:18 who says that the type of land can have an effect on the population of the land.) 

Nachmanides (Genesis 12:11) asks according to Rashi that Abraham hid Sarah from the Egyptians because she was beautiful and the Egyptians, being relatives of the Cushites, were black and ugly why did Abraham do so only on his sojourn to Egypt, but refrained from doing so (like his son Issac) on his visit to the Phillistinian city of Grar. In asking such a question, Nachmanides assumes that the Philistines (Plishtim) were also of a dark complexion just like the Egyptians. This assumption is based on the fact that, according to the genealogical tables established by the Torah (Genesis 10:13-14), the Phillistinian Nation descended from the Egyptians who in turn descended from Ham. Thus, since the dark-skinned trait is hereditary, the inhabitants of Philistia were dark just as the Egyptians were. However, one can reason (in order to explain the view of Rashi) that only the Egyptians were dark-skinned because they were in the geographical area of Africa, but the Philistines were not in that geographical region, and thus were not dark-skinned. This explanation assumes that the dark-skinned trait is not hereditary but rather is the product of one’s locale. According to this explanation, when Rashi points out that the Egyptians are “the brothers to the Cushites”, his intent is that they are the geographical “brothers” (i.e. neighbors) to the Cushites who made up the bulk of human settlement in Africa. Essentially, one can reduce this dispute between Rashi and Nachmanides to whether “being black” is dependent on one’s geographical location over the span of several generations or on one’s ancestral lineage (with the family of Ham possessing this characteristic). 

 [22] See Da'as Zekanim by the Tosafists to Exodus 18:2 who write that even after Moses sent away Zipporah (whether he divorced her or merely separated from her), she is still referred to as his wife. 

 [23] Gur Aryeh to Numbers 12:1 

 [24] Tanchuma Parshas Tzav §13 

 [25] Sifri to Numbers 12:1 

 [26] Emek HaNetziv to Sifri to Numbers 12:1 

 [27] Ayeles HaShachar to Numbers 12:1 

 [28] See Yevamos 62a 

 [29] See Abarbanel to Numbers 12:1 

 [30] Chizkuni to Numbers 12:1 

 [31] [It is unclear whether he learned that being a Cushite was a flaw in the beauty of Zipporah or it was a flaw in her lineage.] 

 [32] Pirush HaTur HaAruch to Numbers 12:1 

 [33] To Numbers 12:1 

 [34] See Isaiah 45:18 

 [35] Pirush Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid to Numbers 12:1 

 [36] Pirush Rokeach to Numbers 12:1 (This explanation is also found in Pirush Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor.) 

 [37] See Zevachim 102a 

 [38] See Introduction to Shuv Shmaytsa that says that all Jews became converts at Mount Sinai, but even though usually a newly converted convert is like a newly born baby (Yevamos 22a) and loses all halachik familial relationships including marriage, since the Jews at Mount Sinai were forced to accept the Torah, they retained their familial relationships. According to this, Moses did not have to remarry his wife, for he remained married to her from before. However, see Pardes Yosef HaChadash to Numbers 12:1 who writes that Moses was not amongst the rest of the nation in being coerced to accept the Torah, see he actually lost his familial relationships, so he had to marry his wife again after the Sinaitic Revelation. 

 [39] Aleinu L'Shabaech to Numbers 12:1 

 [40] Pirush Rabbeinu Efrayim (based on the Cambridge manuscript) to Numbers 12:1 

 [41] See Maimonides, Laws of Kings 

 [42] In explaining the complaint that Miriam had against Moses, the Netziv (Emek HaNetziv to Sifri to Numbers 12:1) explains that she said that Moses should not have just separated from relations with Zipporah, he should have divorced her so that she could marry someone else. The Netziv then says that one cannot say that Moses had the status of a king and thus his divorcee could never remarry because Moses only had the title of King, but did not necessarily have the halachik rules, which apply to a king. However, Rabbeinu Efraim seems to say the exact opposite. Due to the controversy over whether Moses had the halachik rules of a King, the Chasam Sofer (as quoted in Pardes Yosef HaChadash) proposes that Miriam's protest was double-edged. If Moses had the status of a king, then he should have divorced Zipporah and married a Jewish woman of pure lineage, and if Moses did not have the status of a king, then there is no justification in Moses having separated from his wife, so he should have continued to live with her. 

 [43] Rabbi Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky (Birkas Peretz to Numbers 12:1) points out that the numerical value of "Cushite whom he married" equals the numerical value of "married and [later] abstained from her". 

 [44] Yevamos 62a 

 [45] Chizkuni to Numbers 12:1 

 [46] See Pirush Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi to Numbers 12:1 

 [47] [Presumably, he intended to make a pun.] 

 [48] Rabbi Yosef Kaspi himself offers three possible reasons: First, he says that perhaps Zipporah contracted some disease which caused Moses to have marry someone else. Second, he says that perhaps Zipporah "rebelled" against Moses' ruling authority. Third, he says that perhaps since Moses was so great, his Yetzer harah was more powerful than that of the average man (see Sukkah 22a) which necessitated him be wedding a second wife.

 [49] Paneach Raza to Numbers 12:1 

 [50] R' Yaakov MiVayna to Numbers 12:1 

 [51] See Genesis 9:25-27 

 [52] Ibn Ezra (to Genesis 9:25) writes that some people use the curse on Canaan to justify using blacks as slaves, however, these people do not realize that the first king in the post-deluge world was Nimrod, the son of Cush. Indeed, we find the contrary, that not only were Cushites not slaves, but they themselves owned slaves, for the Midrash relates (Genesis Rabbah §60:2) that Eliezer specifically wanted to be a slave to Abraham, because he did not want to be a slave to the Cushites or Barbarians (whom the Maharzu explains were also Hamitic peoples). 

 [53] To Numbers 12:1 

 [54] To Numbers 12:1 

 [55] Toras Moshe to Numbers 12:1 

 [56] Yalkut Shimoni, Torah, §168 

 [57] According to the varying sources for this tale, the name of the Cushite king was Kikianus, Kikanos, or Nikanos. See the translation of Me'Am Loez (to Exodus 2:15) by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983), printed by Moznaim Publishing Company. 

 [58] According to Sefer HaYashar, her name was Adoniah. (Josephus records a corrupted version of this story (Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 10) in which Moses, serving as an Egyptian general, leads the Egyptian army to victory against the invading Cushites. After the battle, the daughter of the Cushite king, Tharbis, was so enamored over Moses' strength and abilities that she offered herself to Moses as a wife, whereupon Moses accepted the offer and consummated his marriage to the Cushite princess.) 

 [59] Genesis 24:3 [60] Genesis 28:1 

 [61] The Midrash assumes that the term "Canaan" used included all descendants of Ham. 

 [62] Ayeles HaShachar to Numbers 12:1 

 [63] Panim Yafos to Numbers 12:1 

 [64] Gittin 90b 

 [65] Exodus 18:3 

 [66] Iyun Yaakov to Ein Yaakov to Moed Katan 16b 

 [67] Sotah 9a

Dangers of Cult of Personality

This can be seen in the Jewish Star

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In general, the Torah portion gets its name from the first, second or third word of the parsha, unless the opening is an introductory verse of God talking to someone — in which case its name comes from the first, second or third word following the introduction. In most cases, the name of the parsha is largely unrelated to its contents.

When it comes to a Torah equivalent of naming a chapter after someone, would it not be fitting that those whom the Torah chooses be models of fine standing?

Six parshas in the Torah include a specific person in their names: Noach, Chayei Sarah, Yitro, Korach, Balak and Pinchas.

The Torah tells us Noach was the greatest person of his generation. He alone merited to have his family saved, to preserve humanity after the Deluge.

Sarah is the original matriarch, whose untimely death taught lessons to her husband, son and all of us.
Yitro joined the Jewish people after the exodus, partly because of his familial connection to Moshe, but also out of personal conviction.

Pinchas is the model zealot who defended God, His Torah, and morality, earning for himself priesthood, from which he had been excluded, and a midrashic connection to Eliyahu and Messiah-hood.

While Balak is by no means a model character, he is the topic of most of the parsha bearing his name (along with Bilaam) — the only parsha in the Torah not told from the perspective of the people of Israel.

Which leaves us with Korach.

Why does Korach merit the infamy and notoriety the Torah gives him? The hero of the parsha, every step of the way, is Aharon. He wards off criticism that he benefited from nepotism, he rises strong to stop a plague with k’toret (incense), and his stick blossoms to become a model for nipping rebellion in the bud. The parsha concludes with instructions for priestly and levitical gifts — given to Aharon and sons, of course. The sedrah should be called “Parshat Aharon!”

As his name does not appear in the first verse, the suggestion is speculative. Yet compelling!

We are left to understand who Korach was, and why the Torah divisions leave him with the fame he carries to this day.

Prior to his tale of demonstration and rebellion, the rabbis tell us Korach was a model Jew. He was a scholar, a Levite, with good family ties — first cousin to Moshe and Aharon. And he taught his sons to think for themselves.

Korach had a problem, however, in that he was not happy with his portion. He wanted kavod (honor) and power. And most importantly, he wanted to be more of a “somebody.” So he preyed on the weak minds of those who became his followers, and on lightweight arguments that said “current leadership is no good. Things will be much different when I am in charge.”

It is always easy to paint an image of bleak hope and absolute despair when you are not in a position to do anything except point out weaknesses in a system that otherwise works pretty well. But what makes you think that when you get the power, you will be an efficient leader? (the image of Scar from “The Lion King” comes to mind)


Narcissists see the world in terms of how they can become more powerful, more famous, more “in charge” of as many things as can fit under their umbrella. They seek to make themselves look good by describing their opponents in the most abject of terms, sometimes saying things like Korach said, “Everyone is holy! Are you, incumbent, going to deny that every person is a holy human being?”

It is true that every human being has the power and the potential to accomplish great things. But not everyone is fit to lead — a leader is one who can take charge, take command, and who can bring about a solution that causes the least amount of damage to his constituents. Most importantly, when wrong, he admits to his mistakes and incompetence. Even the greatest of leaders is still a human being.

Whining and blaming others are not character traits of a leader.

Neither Aharon, Moshe or the forefathers have Torah portions named for them. The actions of these great men spoke much louder than their words.

In a time of crisis and a time of upheaval, it is actions that speak loudest. Words, after all, are just words. And they are as empty as the person who speaks them if they are not backed by actions that are sustainable, that do not tear society apart.

Perhaps Korach has a parsha named after him because he embodies an important lesson we can learn from — the unfit leader who relies more on his personality, charm and empty promises than any real-world experience has no place leading the Jewish people.

A Lone Voice - Shlach Sermon 2010

See ">this video

It is amazing to watch how a young man, who does nothing other than wear an IDF t-shirt and carry two flags, can incite a crowd to lose their reason (if they had any). Most normal people would ignore a single "counterprotestor." And he wasn't even loud, and didn't say anything until the news people asked him questions.

I don't like to talk politics - there are people smarter, more knowledgeable and worldly than I who can discuss these things. In the context of a sermon (or even this blog), politics, to my mind, has no place.

But sometimes, something happens. Sometimes a few people, sent by a greater force, are instructed to find out information. To find out if their target is safe or not, good to go or not, peaceable or not, serving man honorably or not, looking to destroy outsiders or not, looking to bring people under their umbrella of peace or not.

And the result of their actions, their report, can have upheavals that impact the coming decades. After this particular action, no one knows what the future holds. We may not even see the complete unfolding of these events in our lifetimes.

It’s a frightening thought to consider. But as you may have imagined, the events of this week, with the so called Flotilla, are not new events. Kohelet rightly said there is nothing new under the sun. And in what way do the events of Sunday and Monday differ from the story of the spies that we read this morning?

The description I mentioned a moment ago can fit for both stories.

The differences between then and now are in how small our world is, how quickly mass media and the information superhighway get news around the world, and in that Moshe’s connection with God allowed the people to learn, right away, what the outcome of the spies incident would be. In their case, forty years in the wilderness for the forty days they spent spying, and then reporting critically of the land.

Do not misunderstand and think I am judging Israel, and the IDF, for the events that transpired. Piloting an uncleared boat into the military zone of a nation with major security concerns surrounding its borders, which is essentially in a never-ending war against their enemies, is at least a violation of international law, and at most an act of war.

Hanging a banner of “Peace activists” is meaningless when you carry a weapon in your back pocket that you will use in an instant. Gandhi was a peace activist. Martin Luther King Jr said brotherhood comes about when people are willing to “work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” (towards the end, two paragraphs before "my Country Tis of Thee") His form of going to jail was as a result of civil disobedience. Love them or hate them, they caused change through not physically attacking their adversaries.

Standing up for freedom is a completely different outlook than bashing investigating coast guard officers over the head with a metal bar.

In his address in Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln said, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” We know, of course, that he was wrong, but I use the same line about what I say and about what most rabbis say as well on Shabbos morning. Which is why I don’t like to talk about politics.

Politics gets some people riled up, especially when they disagree with someone who they think is so blind to the reality and unaware of the facts. Everyone picks the facts that they want, and spins the “facts” the way they want to see them or present them.

What makes my opinion any better than your opinion?

The only thing that I’ll say is this – and these words are inspired by one of the most clearheaded and brilliant journalists on our side of the aisle, Caroline Glick.

We are living in a frightening time. Between a President who gives every indication that Iran is more his friend than is Israel, and a “United Nations” who claims to be the majority of the opinion of the world when the only time they seem to be united is for one kind of decision, the kind that bashes Israel, the Jewish people have much to be concerned about.

If we aren’t writing to or calling our politicians to express our fear that Israel has lost the support of its greatest ally, the United States, and that the United States continues to estrange itself from its greatest ally, Israel, we must change our attitudes.

The Talmud records in many places שתיקה כהודאה (Yevamos 87b-88a, Baba Metzia 37b), that when one is silent, one gives and indication that one agrees with what is going on and what has been said.

While I will never say that “x happens or happened because of y” I do think it is safe to say that if we do not take action, do not make a loud noise, do not express our disappointment in the current administration’s view of Israel, do not vote out of office people who do not subscribe to the interests that best suit our needs as a people, Israel as we know it will, in the perhaps not-so-distant future, cease to exist. The freedoms we enjoy in this country will come under attack.

It won’t be the fault of a flotilla incident. Much like the spies, spying was not the problem. The problem was the aftermath – the bad reporting – Israel has the worst notion of public relations. They do more harm than good to themselves every time they “explain” themselves. For example, if instead of talking about humanitarian aid they could say “Who sent this ship in the first place? Who is the provocateur? Who defied international law? Who is responsible for our needing to protect our borders and our citizens?” their PR appeal would come across very differently.

No, it was not about what took place on the boat. The problem will continue to be in how Jews and nations react to the story. If all people can see is critique, and no one can see Israel’s side, how they were provoked, how they had no chance to look good because the “suicidal activists” didn’t care if they lived or died, it would be understood that the fight is not a simple one. In addition to whatever else people scream about, the longest hatred, what we call anti-Semitism, is what is behind all of the protests, resolutions, and articles slamming the Jewish State.

In their eyes, the world would be a better place were all Jews, particularly those in Israel, no longer on this earth.

The Jews in the time of Moshe followed the masses who criticized the land of Israel. As a result, they never got to see the land that had been promised.

Only two people, two lone voices, said “This is not right. It is a good land.”

And those two individuals, Yehoshua and Kalev, entered the Promised Land. They got to see what life would be like after those 40 years. They outlived their peers and saw the conclusion of the first redemption. And lived to see what the Promised Land not only looked like, but what it felt like to live in it.

Was there ever true peace in their days? During the tenure of certain leaders there was, before more upheaval, more unrest and more fighting.

What goes around comes around. The land of Israel has never been, in all its history, a land that was forgotten and not fought over. Perhaps now, only because the Jews control it, is it the center of the political hotbed of a climate that exists in the region. But the story is not yet over.

We do not have the luxury of knowing when the redemption will come. Perhaps we don’t know what it will look like.

But if we do nothing to stop those who will say Israel does not deserve to live in peace or to experience the ultimate redemption, what makes us think we will ever see that peace or that final redemption?

Don't Listen To Them - Know Who You Are!

This article appears in the Jewish Star

Parshat Shlach

In the last verse of their statement the spies say, "And there we saw the Nefilim, the sons of the [original] giant of the Nefilim. In our own eyes we felt like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes [as well]." (13:33)

How did they know how the Nefilim viewed them?

Rashi says they heard the Nefilim saying to one another, "There are ants (N'malim) in the vineyards that look like men."

Siftei Chachamim asks, if they were like grasshoppers, why would Rashi say they were like ants?

There are a few answers to this question.

Some super-commentaries on Rashi suggest that there are always two perspectives. The smaller person always thinks he is bigger than how the bigger person perceives him, while the bigger person always views the smaller person as even smaller than the smaller person perceives himself. Think of how you view houses when you are flying over them in a plane. The house might be huge, but from the plane it is tiny.

In some Chumashim, the text of Rashi includes the word they heard the Nefilim use to describe them in the Torah, Chagavim, in parentheses next to "N'malim" (ants). As such, there are differences of opinion as to what Rashi wrote, even though the standard text has Rashi using the word for ants.

Rashi is actually quoting a passage in Sotah 35a that says the spies were looking around, and when the locals spotted them, they hid in trees. At that point they heard the Nefilim say, "We've seen men that look like 'Kamtzei' hiding in the trees." According to the Jastrow dictionary, Kamtzei might be locusts, ants or snails.

Either way, Chizkuni says when the Torah uses the word "Chagavim" (grasshoppers) it is not a direct quote of what they said, because the term "Chagavim" is used elsewhere as well to refer to small critters. (Isaiah 40:22)

Does it matter how they were perceived? Grasshoppers, ants, locusts, snails? Who cares?

No matter how we translate the term, they were quoting others who said they looked like tiny creatures. The Kotsker Rebbe calls this statement one of the spies’ greatest flaws. It is one thing to come back with a negative report. It is another thing to say you view yourself as a lowly person in comparison to others. But what gives you the right, the Kotsker asks, to give any kind of consideration to how others view you? Why do you care what they think?

This is not just a lesson in avoiding being like the Joneses.

And this is more than just a lesson in being comfortable in your own skin.

In 1971, Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman z"l wrote the following thought in an article in a Zionist publication: "I am a Jew and a Zionist. For me the two commitments are one. Furthermore, I hold this to be the position of historic Judaism...I must firmly ask [non-Jews] to respect my religious convictions as I see them and not as they see them."

In this vein, Rabbi Rackman showed complete understanding of the message the Kotsker Rebbe extracted from this tale, which is a powerful lesson in personal and Jewish identity.

On a personal level, if we are to judge ourselves by the way others see us, particularly when those others are unhappy or negative people, it will be difficult to remove ourselves from the rut we are placed in. Some people experience this when dating, some when being fired from a job - or even while in an unpleasant work environment, some in their interactions with relatives, some in not standing up for themselves when they are insulted.

Others have an attitude that says, "Nobody talks to me that way." More than that sticks and stones and names won't hurt me, we don't have to accept the negativity that comes from others. Criticism and rebuke is one thing, when offered constructively, appropriately, and in a manner that is meant to be helpful. But when it is hurtful, we need not accept it.

As far as Jewish identity, it is high time we look internally not only for those who are not Jewish not to tell us what we stand for, but even in our own ranks to be able to distinguish between what is the letter of the law and what falls into the category of "v'hamachmir tavo alav bracha" (that the personally stringent should be blessed).

There is a distinction between black, white, and gray. Halakha has a range of activities and rulings that are mainstream and acceptable. It is time for all of us to grow more tolerant, and not to impose our personal stringencies on others when they are not in violation of the law. Halakha and observance can be a beautiful lifestyle. But it was never meant to be stifling or to paint people into corners.

And acting or feeling negatively towards other Jews who subscribe to your lifestyle is completely out of place. What gives you the right?

*********************************************
p.s. Everyone is talking about the flotilla sent to Gaza by the Turkish government. There are many parallels between the story of this flotilla, all the bad PR that resulted from it, and even the lesson developed above (which was actually written before the events transpired earlier this week). My sermon this shabbos talks more about this subject.