A Sure Sign of Hatred and a Challenge (for some) to Overcome

Parshat Shlach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 Rashi quotes a Midrash that when Kalev was trying to rally the Bnei Yisrael to his perspective on the chances the nation had to conquer the land under Moshe’s leadership, he started by saying, “Is this the only thing the ‘son of Amram’ did to us?” Referring to Moshe in this way, indicating that grievances would follow, he hoped to get the masses to listen. It was a ploy of denigration to people who were looking to be critical, so he could sneak in his counter-approach which continued with “He split the sea for us! He brought us the manna! He caused the quail to be brought to us!” 

This deliberate effort to refer to Moshe not by name, but by his “son of Amram” identity, was meant to grab their attention so he could challenge the negative report of the spies. 

 Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein uses a comment of Rashi on Tehilim 4:3 where David is addressing his enemies wondering how long they will continue to refer to him as “the son of Yishai,” as if he doesn’t have his own name. David is essentially arguing that those who refer to someone only utilizing the person’s father’s name is denigrating the individual, as if the individual has no personal identity. '

This certainly happened when Shaul had his own issues with David, when he asked his son Yonatan [in the Haftorah of Erev Rosh Chodesh] “Why didn’t the son of Yishai come to the meal?” (Shmuel I 20:27), while Yonatan, David’s close friend, responds by referring to his friend by name “David was called away to Beit Lechem.” 

Ironically, Shaul was also a victim of this when he prophesied around the time he was first appointed king – those who knew him were unimpressed when they said “See what’s going on with the son of Kish?!” (Shmuel I 10:11)

The Talmud gives us two examples of this kind of conduct. Brachos 10a describes how King Chizkiyahu called the prophet Yeshayahu “ben Amotz” when he was upset with Yeshayahu’s prophesies, thereby leaving out his first name. In Sanhedrin 82a we are told of how Zimri challenged Moshe by referring to him as “ben Amram.” Moshe is similarly referred to this way in several places in the Midrash, when people are being critical of him as a leader, or suspecting him of gaining financially from skimming off the top of the Mishkan donations.

Seeing this presentation I was reminded of this dvar Torah I had seen in the book “Maayana Shel Torah” in the name of “one of the Gedolei Yisrael” (image below), that when someone hates someone else, he does not refer to the person by his name. The Shaul example – when he referred to David as “ben Yishai” is given as the first example. The ‘vort’ is presented in the context of Parshat Vayeshev, when Yosef’s brothers present his torn coat to their father saying, “Is this your son’s coat?” rather than saying, “Is this Yosef’s coat?” Yaakov was able to discern the depth of their hatred for their brother, as he noted that an animal had consumed him (for a number of the brothers are compared to animals), and when Yaakov said “Yosef has been torn apart” he was saying “the name Yosef has been torn from their mouths [as they are unable to articulate it with their mouths].”

Rabbi Epstein argues that Kalev knew full-well that referring to Moshe as “ben Amram” would get the people’s attention because that was the way they referred to him when they wanted to speak negatively of him.

Of course, his goal in getting their attention was to recall all the positive things the people had experienced under Moshe’s leadership, and to suggest that a person who had done all of that would surely be steering us correctly, under God’s watchful eye, to bring us to the Promised Land. 

 Hatred consumes. We live in a society in which people are often triggered by talking point ideas, and sometimes don’t even know why they hold the opinion they hold. When challenged, those who have not thought through their positions may find themselves stuck without an answer, or may simply prefer to walk away from a conversation. In some areas of society, the end of the conversation is accompanied by a name-calling or even a slur, in order to indicate that “your humanity is meaningless to me so I will not even indulge you through engaging in this conversation any further.” At least Moshe, David and Yeshayahu were referred to as “son of (their father’s name)” – which leaves out their own identity, but isn’t a name-calling insult! 

It’s the “ben Amram” syndrome of knocking a person down in order to put oneself up, rather than having respectful dialogue, from which hopefully both parties can grow, or at the very least come to a mutual understanding of one another.

Once parties can engage in such a respectful conversation, both sides must be able to see through the worldview of the other to find the human being that is deserving of respect and a place at the table. If there is any litmus test that prevents an otherwise decent person from being present at the table, we are missing the point of what it means to be a human being in God’s world.

Let us always see the humanity of the other first, even when we disagree. And may we erase any barriers to entry that prevent any of our fellow Jews from having a seat at the table and a role in any dialogue.