Parshat Chukat
by Rabbi Avi Billet
It’s incredible what time can do to a person’s maturation process, in how a person deals with adversity. O – and how having a strategy can also help a person cope with the curveballs of life.
Of course, not having a strategy is what separates the proverbial “men from the boys” in seeing how people deal with life-challenges “in the moment," when a plan can’t be put into effect because no plan exists.
In Bamidbar 20, we see a situation that we’ve seen before: the people complain because they have no water to drink. In the past, we’ve seen Moshe’s response to this kind of complaining has spanned from crying out to God (Shmot 15:25) to getting into a fight with the people (Shmot 17:2) to thinking he was going to be killed (Shmot 17:4). And after the infamous rock incident in this chapter (20), we’ll see Moshe ignore the people completely in 21:5-6 when they complain about lack of water again.
So what is the strategy that is so helpful to Moshe in Bamidbar 20? The strategy is what we saw in two places in last week’s Torah portion. The first was in 17:3-5 when Elazar was instructed to hammer out the copper fire pans and attach them to the altar “as a sign and remembrance” to people who are not Kohanim not to encroach into places they do not belong. The second was Aharon’s blossomed staff that was "to be placed near the Ark to serve as a testimony to those who rebel." (17:25-26)
We do not see challenges to Aharon’s role in the Torah, nor do we see challenges to Moshe’s role, on par with Korach’s rebellion. But we do see similar affronts to Moshe’s leadership when there is no water. And here, unlike at the last episode in Shmot 17, we watch as the water dispute does not lead to a fight between Moshe and the people.
Instead of taking the complaint personally, as he did in the past, Moshe knows all he needs to do is produce Aharon’s blossomed staff, the symbol that is meant to put down insurrection and stop rebellion, and the people will remember what happened with Korach, and they will back down.
And that’s exactly what happened. God tells Moshe to take out the staff, which turns out to be the one that was “before God as God had commanded him” (20:9)
And the strategy would have worked, had Moshe not felt the need to say what he said in 20:10. Because all that was needed was the sign/symbol and the people would have looked, seen the staff, and remembered to back down. This should have been the result of Moshe's having grown on the job, having had the experience of time lead him in the direction of non-confrontation, as well as God's plan to rule the day.
So what went wrong here?
Moshe followed God’s instruction, but he let his emotions get the better of him. Even the best-laid strategies can’t cover for every contingency plan.
One major difference here is that while the people fought with Moshe in Shmot, it is clear here that they are fighting with God (20:13) (this may help us understand why the complaint in Chapter 21 goes in the direction it goes, with the snakes unleashing God’s wrath against complainers).
There is no question that had Moshe followed the plan of bringing the staff out and showing it, waiting for the people to process what they were to glean from seeing it, this story would have panned out differently. But when Moshe chastised the people as well, with all the implications his words included, his fate was somehow sealed.
We need to have plans for the challenges life will present, hopefully with the ability to anticipate the twists of any circumstance. People who have aging parents, or parents with declining health need to have a plan. While it is not easy to decide where a person wants to be buried, making such decisions (and paying for them in advance) eases a tremendous burden off of loved ones. What happens in the case of an unanticipated accident – where do the children go? How are they to be raised? Who will take responsibility?
Can each spouse manage alone – because inevitably one person will be widowed? Is there a plan for how to cope, how to deal with the loneliness? Will children be involved in keeping the widowed parent occupied and looked after when that time comes?
Part of the problem Moshe and Aharon faced in this story is that they seemed unprepared for the death of their sister. Remember that she died immediately before this story, and Alshikh notes the devastation they were dealing with at the time that the people came to complain about lack of water.
Even the most exceptional human beings have weak spots. Moshe’s planning did not anticipate his weak points – the loneliness that came from the loss of his sister, the inability to let God’s strategy of showing the staff work itself out, and the inability to restrain himself from giving a rebuke at the same time as he was giving water to the people.
May our lot be to create strategies for challenging times and to implement them in the most effective ways.
Showing posts with label Miriam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miriam. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Amram and Yocheved - A Forbidden Relationship?
Parshat Va'era
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov.
But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.
"And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)
Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)?
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov.
But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.
"And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)
Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)?
Thursday, January 29, 2015
מרים - Bitterness, Rebellion, and Miriam
Parshat Beshalach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
A heteronym in the Torah appears in three contexts which have too many parallels to be ignored. The prophetess Miriam (M-R-Y-M) appears on the scene to sing a song about the splitting of the sea, and then we are immediately told that the people arrived in Marah to find that “Marim Hem” - the water (or, according to some, the people) were bitter. The Hebrew for bitter appears here as M-R-Y-M, spelled the same as “Miriam.”
If it was people who were bitter, one wonders if the water was really bitter, or if it was only perceived as bitter until Moshe put the stick/tree in it.
Elsewhere in the Torah, in the chapter on Sotah, the accused adulteress, the water-solution she is given to drink is called “Mei HaMarim (M-R-Y-M) Ha’Meor’r’im," sometimes called the “bitter waters.” (Bamidbar 5:18)
Finally, shortly after the death of Miriam (Bamidbar 20:1), when the people complain about lack of water, Moshe chastises them saying, “Shimu na HaMaurim (M-R-Y-M)” – listen you rebels!
Miriam dances in celebration over a miracle with water, there is bitterness over water (twice), and people are rebels over lack of water. All these episodes present the M-R-Y-M heteronym in different forms.
Why? Is Miriam meant to be a representative of bitterness? Is there a tinge of rebelliousness in her? What is Miriam’s connection to water? Why is the Sotah water called bitter – when perhaps the second adjective for the water – Meor’r’im (revealing) is more important? Why do the people seem – at least in Moshe’s eyes – to be rebels when asking for water in Bamidbar 20, when they are clearly not rebels when they arrive in Marah and find nothing to drink? Is there a connection between bitterness, rebelliousness, water and Miriam, perhaps a latent commonality they all share?
Miriam is referred to as “Achot Aharon” – the sister of Aharon – when she leads the women in dancing after the splitting of the sea. (15:20) Rashi et al suggests she was “Miriam the prophetess” when she was only Aharon’s sister, because she prophesied about the birth of her brother who would become the Deliverer. On the other hand, the Midrash Aggadah (15:20) says she was a prophetess until Moshe was born, at which point the power of prophesy was taken from her and bestowed upon Moshe. Was she jealous over his success?
Perhaps here is the source of our connection. What does losing prophesy do to one’s personality? It could certainly make Miriam bitter. And, for all the women who joined Miriam in her dance, not seeing her as the leader Moshe is may have also made them bitter! And legitimately so! Did Miriam’s bitterness towards Moshe ever come through?
The Midrash is very critical of Miriam’s speaking of Moshe’s marital relations when she spoke ill of him in Bamidbar 12.
The Sotah is accused of being rebellious. She may have bitterness because she feels squelched by her husband, she feels no sense of self, no sense of freedom, no sense of trust. Her husband is so jealous of her, and so doesn’t trust her, that he does not let go of the strings that allow her personality to shine, that give her the chance to become herself. Certainly she too is bitter.
And even if she is innocent we ought to consider how does the commitment of marriage – the public declaration that I am dedicated to one person, and not available to others – change how one relates to members of the other gender? One’s personality must always shine through!
Of course it must – but it must in different ways. Those who think that marriage suppresses them (though marriage isn’t the culprit – abusive spouses are) have not figured out how to balance marriage responsibilities with appropriate social engagement with others.
Bitterness only brings people down and prevents them from moving on with life. Did a collective bitterness prevent people from seeing sweet water in Marah? Did the death of the 40-year female leader, leaving no female heir to her position, cause bitterness and a rebellion over the loss of the symbol Miriam represented? (See Taanit 9a for Miriam’s connection to the well).
There have been a number of articles written over the last few years – in blogs and more famous media outlets – by women who are “freeing themselves” from the “shackles” of Orthodoxy. A famous singer embraced Reform Judaism, a woman chose to cover her hair when she married and then uncovered it to not lose her personality, a woman felt silenced by husband and faith and found her voice through singing on a reality tv show in Israel (and subsequently divorced to complete her personality), or the regular bloggers who find every fault and flaw in the system of Judaism most people who buy into accept completely. [an exhausting search through timesofisrael blogs]
Is it perfect? Nothing is. But instead of being bitter about rabbis and halakha and beit din and tefillin and mikveh and “get”s and singing, perhaps we can tap into the amazing creativity and innovation that has broadened the playing field. There are Orthodox women who serve as halakhic advisors, the mikveh in many communities is comprised of an incredible sisterhood, the pre-nuptial agreement (see doc here) and the post-nuptial agreement have saved many a heartache over the deliverance of gittin, and there are a good number of talented women who perform in public as actors, dancers, musicians and singers, without compromising their faith and commitment to our Halakhic system.
See the power of an incredible woman in the film “Brave Miss World” in which a former Miss Israel, who became Miss World, and who has subsequently embraced the Orthodox lifestyle, takes on a most important subject and has inspired perhaps millions of people through her personal experience and her advocacy.
Miriam is an incredible heroine in the Torah. Her concern for her people when she was only a child, for her brother when he was a baby, for the women she led at the Sea, and in whatever else she did makes her a model for all time. But she was also human.
Whether it’s the subtlety of being called “Aharon’s sister,” or her lashon hara episode about Moshe, there was something lying beneath the surface. Did she ever move past it? I think she did. I think her getting tzaraat taught her an important lesson. And the fact that both her brothers prayed for her indicates a filial relationship that never waned through thick and thin.
Miriam the prophetess proves that there can be a very prominent place for women in Judaism – and the women I have encountered who put their hearts into the system and become the most educated about it (flaws it has and all!) have found the life to be overwhelmingly a good one.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
A heteronym in the Torah appears in three contexts which have too many parallels to be ignored. The prophetess Miriam (M-R-Y-M) appears on the scene to sing a song about the splitting of the sea, and then we are immediately told that the people arrived in Marah to find that “Marim Hem” - the water (or, according to some, the people) were bitter. The Hebrew for bitter appears here as M-R-Y-M, spelled the same as “Miriam.”
If it was people who were bitter, one wonders if the water was really bitter, or if it was only perceived as bitter until Moshe put the stick/tree in it.
Elsewhere in the Torah, in the chapter on Sotah, the accused adulteress, the water-solution she is given to drink is called “Mei HaMarim (M-R-Y-M) Ha’Meor’r’im," sometimes called the “bitter waters.” (Bamidbar 5:18)
Finally, shortly after the death of Miriam (Bamidbar 20:1), when the people complain about lack of water, Moshe chastises them saying, “Shimu na HaMaurim (M-R-Y-M)” – listen you rebels!
Miriam dances in celebration over a miracle with water, there is bitterness over water (twice), and people are rebels over lack of water. All these episodes present the M-R-Y-M heteronym in different forms.
Why? Is Miriam meant to be a representative of bitterness? Is there a tinge of rebelliousness in her? What is Miriam’s connection to water? Why is the Sotah water called bitter – when perhaps the second adjective for the water – Meor’r’im (revealing) is more important? Why do the people seem – at least in Moshe’s eyes – to be rebels when asking for water in Bamidbar 20, when they are clearly not rebels when they arrive in Marah and find nothing to drink? Is there a connection between bitterness, rebelliousness, water and Miriam, perhaps a latent commonality they all share?
Miriam is referred to as “Achot Aharon” – the sister of Aharon – when she leads the women in dancing after the splitting of the sea. (15:20) Rashi et al suggests she was “Miriam the prophetess” when she was only Aharon’s sister, because she prophesied about the birth of her brother who would become the Deliverer. On the other hand, the Midrash Aggadah (15:20) says she was a prophetess until Moshe was born, at which point the power of prophesy was taken from her and bestowed upon Moshe. Was she jealous over his success?
Perhaps here is the source of our connection. What does losing prophesy do to one’s personality? It could certainly make Miriam bitter. And, for all the women who joined Miriam in her dance, not seeing her as the leader Moshe is may have also made them bitter! And legitimately so! Did Miriam’s bitterness towards Moshe ever come through?
The Midrash is very critical of Miriam’s speaking of Moshe’s marital relations when she spoke ill of him in Bamidbar 12.
The Sotah is accused of being rebellious. She may have bitterness because she feels squelched by her husband, she feels no sense of self, no sense of freedom, no sense of trust. Her husband is so jealous of her, and so doesn’t trust her, that he does not let go of the strings that allow her personality to shine, that give her the chance to become herself. Certainly she too is bitter.
And even if she is innocent we ought to consider how does the commitment of marriage – the public declaration that I am dedicated to one person, and not available to others – change how one relates to members of the other gender? One’s personality must always shine through!
Of course it must – but it must in different ways. Those who think that marriage suppresses them (though marriage isn’t the culprit – abusive spouses are) have not figured out how to balance marriage responsibilities with appropriate social engagement with others.
Bitterness only brings people down and prevents them from moving on with life. Did a collective bitterness prevent people from seeing sweet water in Marah? Did the death of the 40-year female leader, leaving no female heir to her position, cause bitterness and a rebellion over the loss of the symbol Miriam represented? (See Taanit 9a for Miriam’s connection to the well).
There have been a number of articles written over the last few years – in blogs and more famous media outlets – by women who are “freeing themselves” from the “shackles” of Orthodoxy. A famous singer embraced Reform Judaism, a woman chose to cover her hair when she married and then uncovered it to not lose her personality, a woman felt silenced by husband and faith and found her voice through singing on a reality tv show in Israel (and subsequently divorced to complete her personality), or the regular bloggers who find every fault and flaw in the system of Judaism most people who buy into accept completely. [an exhausting search through timesofisrael blogs]
Is it perfect? Nothing is. But instead of being bitter about rabbis and halakha and beit din and tefillin and mikveh and “get”s and singing, perhaps we can tap into the amazing creativity and innovation that has broadened the playing field. There are Orthodox women who serve as halakhic advisors, the mikveh in many communities is comprised of an incredible sisterhood, the pre-nuptial agreement (see doc here) and the post-nuptial agreement have saved many a heartache over the deliverance of gittin, and there are a good number of talented women who perform in public as actors, dancers, musicians and singers, without compromising their faith and commitment to our Halakhic system.
See the power of an incredible woman in the film “Brave Miss World” in which a former Miss Israel, who became Miss World, and who has subsequently embraced the Orthodox lifestyle, takes on a most important subject and has inspired perhaps millions of people through her personal experience and her advocacy.
Miriam is an incredible heroine in the Torah. Her concern for her people when she was only a child, for her brother when he was a baby, for the women she led at the Sea, and in whatever else she did makes her a model for all time. But she was also human.
Whether it’s the subtlety of being called “Aharon’s sister,” or her lashon hara episode about Moshe, there was something lying beneath the surface. Did she ever move past it? I think she did. I think her getting tzaraat taught her an important lesson. And the fact that both her brothers prayed for her indicates a filial relationship that never waned through thick and thin.
Miriam the prophetess proves that there can be a very prominent place for women in Judaism – and the women I have encountered who put their hearts into the system and become the most educated about it (flaws it has and all!) have found the life to be overwhelmingly a good one.
Friday, June 14, 2013
When Death Brings Atonement
Parshat Chukat
by Rabbi Avi Billet
"…They came to the Tzin Desert, and the people stopped in Kadesh. It was there that Miriam died and she was buried there." (20:1)
Menachem Recanati asks, "This is all the Torah has to say about Miriam here, though her death was comparable to Moshe's (Baba Batra 17a), and Aharon's, and even Avraham's, on account of all them utilizing the word "Sham" ("there"), which even appears twice here?"
The Talmud (Moed Katan 28a) tells us Miriam's death is juxtaposed to the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) of Chapter 19 because just as the Parah Adumah brought atonement, so does the death of the righteous bring atonement.
Toldot Yitzchak notes the problem with this passage; since the Parah Adumah is not classified as a Korban (sacrifice) it does not bring atonement! It brings about taharah (purity)!
This may explain why Rashi here misquotes the Talmud, saying "Just as Korbanot bring atonement, so does the death of the righteous." [Tosafot claim the atonement brought by Parah Adumah is for the Sin of the Golden Calf. See also Rashi19:22]
Other commentaries address the "death of righteous bringing atonement" idea. Torah Temimah focuses not on the death, but on observed mourning and honor given to the deceased, which translates to Honor of God, suggesting this is what brings atonement.
The Toldot Yitzchak surmises that "the Rabbis' intent was that the atonement was not available for a person who does not feel a real spiritual void, a loss for all of Israel, when the righteous die. Such a loss should humble a person, and make a person feel like the dust of the earth, an idea connected to the Parah Adumah which is burned to dust."
The deaths of Nadav and Avihu are mentioned in Yom Kippur's Torah reading to help us think, on the Day of Atonement, of what can be achieved for the people through the death of the righteous (see possibility #1 here) . [On what to say after such tragedies, see here]
Ricanati says after the Baal Peor incident in Bamidbar 25, Moshe was instructed to gather the leaders of the people in order to get God's wrath to subside from Israel (25:4) because through the leaders either judging the people or themselves dying, God's attribute of Judgment is appeased. (See Medrash Shir HaShirim 1:6) This helps explain why the wrongs perpetrated against the Givonim were only righted through the deaths of seven descendants of Shaul (see Shmuel II:21)
Recanati furthers this idea in his commentary on Eglah Arufah – the unsolved murder (Devarim 21) – quoting Bereishit Raba 44:5. When God told Avraham "I will [make a] shield [of] you" He was saying, "I will make righteous people descend from you, the kind who protect others from Judgment through their deaths." [i.e. Nadav and Avihu (Vayikra 10:3) and what Talmud Shabbat 55a learns from Yechezkel 9:6]
There is a more blatant connection between Miriam's death and Eglah Arufah. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 29b) learns from a "gezeirah shavah" (a parallel word in two Torah cases) on the word "Sham" ("there") that just as one is forbidden from deriving benefit from the slaughtered cow (eglah arufah), it is forbidden to derive benefit from a corpse (such as Miriam was).
Baal Haturim connects Parah Adumah, Miriam's death and Eglah Arufah through equating the numerical values of "Issur B'hanaah" (prohibition of benefit) (340), the word "Sham" (340), "Mechaper" (brings atonement) (340), and "Parah Adumah" (341: gematria has a +/-1 factor).
Further, the Kli Yakar (19:2) connects the young cow (Eglah) slaughtered to achieve atonement and the Eigel (Golden Calf) in their giving or needing to achieve atonement for murder – shortly before the Golden Calf was formed, Chur was murdered.
With Miriam's death, the people missed an opportunity to achieve the atonement they so needed. This lost chance was the cause (if not the blessing!) that absolved Moshe and Aharon once and for all from leading the people from whom they had grown apart.
The Alshich describes Moshe's and Aharon's intent to deal with burying their sister. When they saw a large crowd coming, Aharon praised the people for wanting to do kindness, but Moshe questioned their intent as they weren't following the proper social order. And when they heard Moshe describing their visit negatively, they fought with him.
Rabbi Yosef Karo explained their confronting Moshe, "See! Miriam died a natural death! If we could only die a natural death! But who wants to die from thirst? Why did you bring us to the desert…?" They erred! Many commentaries point out that they should have responded properly over the loss of this righteous women, a prophetess, sister of Moshe and Aharon, and they should have expressed their gratitude for having water in her merit.
The well was taken away so the people would realize it had been there in her merit. Had they treated her death with proper reverence, as the Torah Temimah described, treating Moshe and Aharon with kindness, the water would return. They didn't – and they suffered on account of it.
Every generation has truly great leaders, who are revered, honored and respected in their lifetimes. It is our responsibility to make the most of their time on earth in enhancing our lives. When their time on this earth is over, we must feel the loss in the deepest depths of our being. We need the atonement that comes with such a loss.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
"…They came to the Tzin Desert, and the people stopped in Kadesh. It was there that Miriam died and she was buried there." (20:1)
Menachem Recanati asks, "This is all the Torah has to say about Miriam here, though her death was comparable to Moshe's (Baba Batra 17a), and Aharon's, and even Avraham's, on account of all them utilizing the word "Sham" ("there"), which even appears twice here?"
The Talmud (Moed Katan 28a) tells us Miriam's death is juxtaposed to the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) of Chapter 19 because just as the Parah Adumah brought atonement, so does the death of the righteous bring atonement.
Toldot Yitzchak notes the problem with this passage; since the Parah Adumah is not classified as a Korban (sacrifice) it does not bring atonement! It brings about taharah (purity)!
This may explain why Rashi here misquotes the Talmud, saying "Just as Korbanot bring atonement, so does the death of the righteous." [Tosafot claim the atonement brought by Parah Adumah is for the Sin of the Golden Calf. See also Rashi19:22]
Other commentaries address the "death of righteous bringing atonement" idea. Torah Temimah focuses not on the death, but on observed mourning and honor given to the deceased, which translates to Honor of God, suggesting this is what brings atonement.
The Toldot Yitzchak surmises that "the Rabbis' intent was that the atonement was not available for a person who does not feel a real spiritual void, a loss for all of Israel, when the righteous die. Such a loss should humble a person, and make a person feel like the dust of the earth, an idea connected to the Parah Adumah which is burned to dust."
The deaths of Nadav and Avihu are mentioned in Yom Kippur's Torah reading to help us think, on the Day of Atonement, of what can be achieved for the people through the death of the righteous (see possibility #1 here) . [On what to say after such tragedies, see here]
Ricanati says after the Baal Peor incident in Bamidbar 25, Moshe was instructed to gather the leaders of the people in order to get God's wrath to subside from Israel (25:4) because through the leaders either judging the people or themselves dying, God's attribute of Judgment is appeased. (See Medrash Shir HaShirim 1:6) This helps explain why the wrongs perpetrated against the Givonim were only righted through the deaths of seven descendants of Shaul (see Shmuel II:21)
Recanati furthers this idea in his commentary on Eglah Arufah – the unsolved murder (Devarim 21) – quoting Bereishit Raba 44:5. When God told Avraham "I will [make a] shield [of] you" He was saying, "I will make righteous people descend from you, the kind who protect others from Judgment through their deaths." [i.e. Nadav and Avihu (Vayikra 10:3) and what Talmud Shabbat 55a learns from Yechezkel 9:6]
There is a more blatant connection between Miriam's death and Eglah Arufah. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 29b) learns from a "gezeirah shavah" (a parallel word in two Torah cases) on the word "Sham" ("there") that just as one is forbidden from deriving benefit from the slaughtered cow (eglah arufah), it is forbidden to derive benefit from a corpse (such as Miriam was).
Baal Haturim connects Parah Adumah, Miriam's death and Eglah Arufah through equating the numerical values of "Issur B'hanaah" (prohibition of benefit) (340), the word "Sham" (340), "Mechaper" (brings atonement) (340), and "Parah Adumah" (341: gematria has a +/-1 factor).
Further, the Kli Yakar (19:2) connects the young cow (Eglah) slaughtered to achieve atonement and the Eigel (Golden Calf) in their giving or needing to achieve atonement for murder – shortly before the Golden Calf was formed, Chur was murdered.
With Miriam's death, the people missed an opportunity to achieve the atonement they so needed. This lost chance was the cause (if not the blessing!) that absolved Moshe and Aharon once and for all from leading the people from whom they had grown apart.
The Alshich describes Moshe's and Aharon's intent to deal with burying their sister. When they saw a large crowd coming, Aharon praised the people for wanting to do kindness, but Moshe questioned their intent as they weren't following the proper social order. And when they heard Moshe describing their visit negatively, they fought with him.
Rabbi Yosef Karo explained their confronting Moshe, "See! Miriam died a natural death! If we could only die a natural death! But who wants to die from thirst? Why did you bring us to the desert…?" They erred! Many commentaries point out that they should have responded properly over the loss of this righteous women, a prophetess, sister of Moshe and Aharon, and they should have expressed their gratitude for having water in her merit.
The well was taken away so the people would realize it had been there in her merit. Had they treated her death with proper reverence, as the Torah Temimah described, treating Moshe and Aharon with kindness, the water would return. They didn't – and they suffered on account of it.
Every generation has truly great leaders, who are revered, honored and respected in their lifetimes. It is our responsibility to make the most of their time on earth in enhancing our lives. When their time on this earth is over, we must feel the loss in the deepest depths of our being. We need the atonement that comes with such a loss.
Friday, April 5, 2013
The Uncle of Aharon
Parshat Shmini
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Tragedy has struck. Aharon's two older sons are dead,
victims of their own efforts in bringing a 'strange fire' into the Mishkan. Now
their corpses must be removed from a room only their father and brothers may
enter, yet these very people are the ones who are prevented from entering
because they have a job to do, and responsibilities which can not fall by the
wayside – the inevitable outcome of their becoming "tameh" through
contact with the deceased.
And so Mishael and
Eltzafan are called in. They are described to us as "The sons of Uziel,
uncle of Aharon."
Being students of the
Torah, we know the relationship of all these people from Shmot 6:18 and 6:22 .
So why does the Torah
add the unnecessary words, "Uncle of Aharon?"
Rashi tells us nothing
new when he explains that "Uziel was the brother of Amram." Rabbenu
Bachaye even wonders why Rashi bothered to tell us this – we know it from Shmot
6. Rabbenu Bachaye explains what he believes was Rashi's line of thinking based
in a Midrashic idea (Midrash Agadah, Yalkut Shimoni, etc) that the Torah is
coming to teach us how Aharon had inherited his qualities of being a
"lover and pursuer of peace" from his Uncle Uziel. Malbim similarly
explains that he was his beloved uncle who had similar qualities in general,
and that there is a unique kind of filial attachment that relatives who are
very similar have for one another.
I find this difficult
to accept as an answer – because it doesn't explain Rashi very well. If the
meaning was to suggest that Aharon was more like his uncle than his father, why
didn't Rashi just say that? Perhaps Rashi was simply noting that this verse
supports information we had been given earlier.
Rabbi Ovadiah MiBartenura suggests that one might
mistakenly think that Aharon's Uncle Uziel was a different Uziel married to a
sister of Amram. In this manner, it is being made clear that Mishael and
Eltzafan, sons of the brother of Amram, are Levites. The rule is made clear
that if no Kohanim are available to remove the corpses, Levites could enter the
Mishkan, but not regular Israelites.
Furthermore, the
Sha"kh explains, their connection to Aharon through their father is
significant for other reasons. "There is no one other than you two who can
get them; they were sgan-kohanim and you are sgan-levites (sgan = Vice). You
were both at the same level in your field. Eltzafan was to be the prince of the
Levites (Bamidbar 3:30 ). Just as
Aharon and Uziel were equated, so were their respective sons equated (even
though Mishael and Eltzafan were Aharon's first cousins and of his generation,
it is the father-son equation which parallels them with Nadav and Avihu)."
The Netziv adds that
Mishael and Eltzafan were modest and humble in their own way. The special
kinship between Aharon and Uziel allowed for this branch of the family to take
care of the tragic unfoldings on Aharon's behalf. There were, after all, some
members of the family who were jealous of Aharon (think Korach), and might have
viewed his tragedy as their opportunity to one-up him, to gloat in his loss.
But this was not the way, nor the concern of the family of Uziel, who were
family-people through and through.
It is important to note
that Aharon is often used in the Torah as a family connection. When Miriam
dances after the splitting of the sea, she is described as "the sister of
Aharon." Pinchas is described a number of times as "Pinchas son of
Elazar, son of Aharon."
There are three
approaches as to why Miriam is described as "the sister of Aharon":
either because she prophesied first of all her siblings – even before Aharon
(Otzar Midrashim), she prophesied when
she was only the sister of Aharon – about the birth of Moshe (Talmud Megillah
14a), or because he gave his life for her (Midrash Sechel Tov Beshalach 15).
Being connected to
Aharon, whose reputation is so outstanding, is a tribute to Miriam, a tribute
to Pinchas, a tribute to Elazar (when he is Kohen Gadol), and continues to be a
tribute to all the Kohanim, whom we continue to call Bnei Aharon.
In short, Uziel's being called Aharon's uncle is a
tremendous credit to a man about whom we otherwise know very little. The role
his sons play, and the fact of their being chosen to take the deceased out of
the Mishkan speaks volumes of who each of them was on a personal level, not to
mention (or specifically to mention) the stock from which they came.
May all parents,
grandparents, uncles and aunts merit to have children, grandchildren or nieces
and nephews about whom we are proud to say, "I am the parent/ grandparent/
aunt/ uncle of So-and-so. And I am proud of it." Especially if you see a
little bit of yourself in the next generation.
Because this kind of
pride, unencumbered by jealousy, is what makes a family unit strongest, as it demonstrates who among us models the behavior we most proudly affirm.
Friday, June 8, 2012
The Eldad and Meidad Story
Parshat B'haalotkha
by Rabbi Avi Billet
While Chapter 11 in the book of Bamidbar bears little resemblance to the famous reorganization process of the Bankruptcy Code, it does have a series of setbacks that seem to put the people in a negative light: disobedience, complaining, people getting punished by fire, or their bodies suffer the effects of too much quail.
Towards the end of the chapter there is a tale concerning two men, Eldad and Meidad, and their prophesying in the camp. Were they good or bad? Is this a positive story,or does it follow the theme of the rest of the chapter – which is largely negative?
The Gemara Sanhedrin (17a) describes a dilemma Moshe faced. He had to gather 70 elders from 12 tribes. Were he to take 5 elders from each tribe, he'd only have 60 elders. 6 elders from each tribe would result in having two extra elders. To resolve the dilemma – because he did not want to favor any specific tribe or to make such unfair decisions – he created a lottery of sorts, in which he prepared 72 pieces of paper for the 6 representatives per tribe. Each picked one – 70 had the word "Zaken" indicating that its recipient was chosen, and 2 of them were blank – freeing their recipients of any responsibility. Eldad and Meidad (E&M) received the blank sheets.
The gemara goes on to describe their humility. While others were clamoring to be the elders, E&M saw themselves as unworthy to be the elders. As a result, God rewarded them with greatness. While other prophets prophesied and their careers ended, E&M's prophesies did not end.
The Medrash Tanchuma (22) lists four additional differences: The elders could only prophesy about the coming day, while E&M prophesied about what would take place in 40 years. The elders did not enter the land, while E&M merited to enter the land (following the opinion that Eldad was Elidad ben Kislon of 34:21, while Meidad was K'muel ben Shiftan of 34:24). The elders were not named, and we have no record of their identities, while E&M are obviously named. The elders had their prophesy come from Moshe, while the prophesy of E&M came directly from God.
There are three opinions in the Talmud as what they prophesied: that Moshe will die and Yehoshua will lead the people into the land, regarding the quail, or regarding the end of days with Gog U'Magog.
All of this information seems positive. Moshe seems not only unperturbed, but, as the Daat Mikra chumash explains it, he is welcoming of any higher stature any Israelite might achieve. So why is the incident included in this seemingly negative chapter and paragraph? Because there are major downsides to the story.
The Midrash (Tanchuma and others) paints a picture of how happy people were when E&M were prophesying, going so far to say "Praised are their children and wives, that they have become prophets!" Miriam overheard Moshe's former wife, Tzipporah, say, "Praised are their sons but woe is to their wives because they will never see their husbands again. They will leave their wives just as my husband left me."
Misunderstanding Moshe's unique status – including the instruction God gave him when the nation were told to return to their spouses after Revelation (Devarim 5:26) while Moshe was told to remain with God (5:27) – Miriam proceeded to speak ill of Moshe to Aharon (the final story in our parsha). The E&M story thus became a source for lashon hara.
While there are two approaches to understanding if Eldad and Meidad were part of the 70 elders or were the two extras as described above, there are also two approaches to why they remained in the camp and did not go out to the Ohel Moed. One approach suggests they were quite humble. The other approach – as forwarded by the Or haChaim – suggests they were ashamed and disgraced on account of being the only two people "rejected" from becoming elders. God rewarded them with prophesy so they would nevertheless become men of stature.
According to the Sifrei, Yehoshua's response to their prophesying can either mean "Destroy them" or "Imprison them" – either interpretation likely follows the approach that they were prophesying about Moshe's death and Yehoshua's succession. And while the Midrash tells us Yehoshua's defense of his teacher is a lesson in how one should revere one's teacher as one reveres heaven, the Talmud (Eruvin 63a) is of the opinion that Yehoshua's zealousness in this regard – speaking out of turn in the presence of Moshe, who was not offended by E&M – caused him to be punished. He never had children.
Lashon Hara, embarrassment, and overzealousness are certainly negative outcomes of this story.
The lesson I take from this tale is from the response of Moshe. Go with the flow, be happy for others in their success, and don't pay any attention to hoi polloi who comment without seeing the full picture. Know who you are and respect others, and you will only be the better person because of it.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
While Chapter 11 in the book of Bamidbar bears little resemblance to the famous reorganization process of the Bankruptcy Code, it does have a series of setbacks that seem to put the people in a negative light: disobedience, complaining, people getting punished by fire, or their bodies suffer the effects of too much quail.
Towards the end of the chapter there is a tale concerning two men, Eldad and Meidad, and their prophesying in the camp. Were they good or bad? Is this a positive story,or does it follow the theme of the rest of the chapter – which is largely negative?
The Gemara Sanhedrin (17a) describes a dilemma Moshe faced. He had to gather 70 elders from 12 tribes. Were he to take 5 elders from each tribe, he'd only have 60 elders. 6 elders from each tribe would result in having two extra elders. To resolve the dilemma – because he did not want to favor any specific tribe or to make such unfair decisions – he created a lottery of sorts, in which he prepared 72 pieces of paper for the 6 representatives per tribe. Each picked one – 70 had the word "Zaken" indicating that its recipient was chosen, and 2 of them were blank – freeing their recipients of any responsibility. Eldad and Meidad (E&M) received the blank sheets.
The gemara goes on to describe their humility. While others were clamoring to be the elders, E&M saw themselves as unworthy to be the elders. As a result, God rewarded them with greatness. While other prophets prophesied and their careers ended, E&M's prophesies did not end.
The Medrash Tanchuma (22) lists four additional differences: The elders could only prophesy about the coming day, while E&M prophesied about what would take place in 40 years. The elders did not enter the land, while E&M merited to enter the land (following the opinion that Eldad was Elidad ben Kislon of 34:21, while Meidad was K'muel ben Shiftan of 34:24). The elders were not named, and we have no record of their identities, while E&M are obviously named. The elders had their prophesy come from Moshe, while the prophesy of E&M came directly from God.
There are three opinions in the Talmud as what they prophesied: that Moshe will die and Yehoshua will lead the people into the land, regarding the quail, or regarding the end of days with Gog U'Magog.
All of this information seems positive. Moshe seems not only unperturbed, but, as the Daat Mikra chumash explains it, he is welcoming of any higher stature any Israelite might achieve. So why is the incident included in this seemingly negative chapter and paragraph? Because there are major downsides to the story.
The Midrash (Tanchuma and others) paints a picture of how happy people were when E&M were prophesying, going so far to say "Praised are their children and wives, that they have become prophets!" Miriam overheard Moshe's former wife, Tzipporah, say, "Praised are their sons but woe is to their wives because they will never see their husbands again. They will leave their wives just as my husband left me."
Misunderstanding Moshe's unique status – including the instruction God gave him when the nation were told to return to their spouses after Revelation (Devarim 5:26) while Moshe was told to remain with God (5:27) – Miriam proceeded to speak ill of Moshe to Aharon (the final story in our parsha). The E&M story thus became a source for lashon hara.
While there are two approaches to understanding if Eldad and Meidad were part of the 70 elders or were the two extras as described above, there are also two approaches to why they remained in the camp and did not go out to the Ohel Moed. One approach suggests they were quite humble. The other approach – as forwarded by the Or haChaim – suggests they were ashamed and disgraced on account of being the only two people "rejected" from becoming elders. God rewarded them with prophesy so they would nevertheless become men of stature.
According to the Sifrei, Yehoshua's response to their prophesying can either mean "Destroy them" or "Imprison them" – either interpretation likely follows the approach that they were prophesying about Moshe's death and Yehoshua's succession. And while the Midrash tells us Yehoshua's defense of his teacher is a lesson in how one should revere one's teacher as one reveres heaven, the Talmud (Eruvin 63a) is of the opinion that Yehoshua's zealousness in this regard – speaking out of turn in the presence of Moshe, who was not offended by E&M – caused him to be punished. He never had children.
Lashon Hara, embarrassment, and overzealousness are certainly negative outcomes of this story.
The lesson I take from this tale is from the response of Moshe. Go with the flow, be happy for others in their success, and don't pay any attention to hoi polloi who comment without seeing the full picture. Know who you are and respect others, and you will only be the better person because of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)