Bemidbar 20:1-5 records that the people came to the desert of Tzyn, Miryam died, there was no water and the people complained. Moshe supplied the people with water by hitting a rock, 20:11, but again in 21:5 the people complained that there was no water. Afterwards, 21:16-18 records that the people came to some well, and this was such a momentous event that they composed a song about the well. It is obvious that in a desert, the water supply will be a crucial issue, but the complaints here for water are surprising. Why at this point did the people complain for water?
The people complained about water when they left Egypt, Shemot 15:22, and 17:1, but presumably the water supply problem had been solved since we do read of any complains about water from then until Bemidbar 20.. Furthermore, it is generally assumed that chapters 20 and 21 in the book of Bemidbar are recording events at the end of the people's 40th year in the desert, and if so, why in the 40th year did the water supply problem reemerge? If the people had water for 39 years, what happened in the 40th year?
Bekhor Shor notes that the water crisis in chapter 20 is very similar to the water crisis in Shemot 17:1-7 since in both cases the people asked for water and they got water by Moshe hitting a rock. This similarity led Bekhor Shor (on 20:8) to claim that these narratives are describing the same incident, just like the sending of the spies is recorded twice, Bemidbar 13 and Devarim 1. In one place some of the details of the incident are recorded, and the remaining details are recorded in the second instance.
Bekhor Shor quotes two proofs for his position. One, Shemot 17:7 records that the place where the incident occurred is called Massa and Meriva and Bemidbar 20:13 also refers to the Waters of Meriva. Furthermore, Devarim 33:8 records “whom you tested at Massa, who you quarreled with by the Waters of Meriva.” This is a poetic text using parallelism and Bekhor Shor argues that the place names Massa and the Waters of Meriva are referring to the same incident. A second proof is that Bemidbar 20:1 records that the people came to the desert of Tzyn while Shemot 17:1 refers to the desert Syn, whose similarity also leads Bekhor Shor to argue that the both chapters refers to the same incident.
Milgrom (1990, p. 449) adds another proof for the Bekhor Shor's approach. Devarim 9:22 records three places where the people sinned, Tav’era, Massa, and Kivrot ha-Taava. The 1st and 3rd places are from Bemidbar 11, so Milgrom argues that Massa, which is only mentioned in Shemot 17, must also be from Bemidbar.
If this approach is correct, then we must determine when the actual incident occurred. Was it when the people left Egypt or in the 40th year? If the complaint was when the people left Egypt, then we have an answer to our question since then there was no new complaint about water in chapter 20, as the Torah is only recording the incident that occurred when the people left Egypt.
I doubt that Shemot 17 and Bemidbar 20 describe the same event. First, the names of the desert while close are not identical. Secondly, the parallelism in Devarim 33:8 could be because the incidents were similar without them being the same incident. It could be that the names Meriva and the Waters of Meriva are almost identical since the complaints were similar, and not that the names are referring to the same incident. Third, Milgrom’s proof is not convincing since according to his argument, Massa should have been listed last because it occurred after Kivrot ha-Taava. In fact, one could argue that Devarim 9:22 proves that there were two separate incidents. In Devarim 9:22, Moshe was warning the people not to sin by recounting their errors in the past but he would not mention the Waters of Meriva since that was his sin. If Massa was the same story as the Waters of Meriva, then Moshe would not have referred to Massa.
Finally, if really there was only one complaint for water, why should it be recorded twice? The second telling of the story is not presented as a reference to the past but as a new episode, and there are small differences between the episodes. If the incident happened when the people left Egypt, then Moshe would have been punished even before the people had been told they would not enter the land of Israel. On the other hand, if one argues that the incident only happened after 40 years, why should the complaint have been recorded when the people left Egypt?
The traditional answer (Ta’anit 9a and Rashi on 20:2) for the sudden water crises in chapter 20 is that it was due to the death of Miryam, which was recorded in 20:1. The idea is that for all the years in the desert the people had water from a traveling well which was due to the merit of Miryam and when Miryam died the well disappeared. This answers the question why the sudden complaint for water, and explains the conjunction between the record of Miryam’s death in 20:1 with the lack of water in 20:2.
Yet, there is no mention at all in the Torah of this traveling well. When did it begin? In Shemot 17, Moshe had to hit a rock to supply water to the people, so it must have begun afterwards, but when (see Ramban on 20:8)? Also, if the well disappeared in the 40th year, what did the people do for water for the rest of the year? The Ramban (on 20:8) explains the rabbinic position that after the death of Miryam, the people got water from Moshe hitting the rock for the remaining period in the desert. Why then did they complain for water in 21:5? Netziv (on 20:8 and 21:5) explains that the people complained since the water from the rocks in the 40th year was of a lower quality than what they had received from the well. This seems ad hoc, how would we know that the water from the rock was a lower quality? Furthermore, the text never indicates that Moshe continued to hit the rock to supply water, as 20:11 seems to record a temporary measure. Finally, if the well disappeared, then the people would have had a legitimate need for water so why was Moshe angry with the people, 20:10, and considered their request a quarrel with G-d, 20:13? As for the mentioning of the death of Miryam in 20:1, Ibn Ezra (on 20:2) explains that this was in conjunction with the ensuing punishments of Moshe and Aharon that they also would die in the desert.
Moskovitz (1988, p. 229) offers a different answer to the water crises in chapters 20 and 21. He suggests that these two complaints for water were symptomatic of the perennial water problem the people had in the desert. According to this the people really complained on numerous occasions in the 40 years for water, but only these incidents were recorded. This seems unlikely. Why should the Torah have recorded the two cases here (plus the two cases in Shemot 15 and 17) and left out the other cases? Also, as the food problem was solved permanently by the mahn, why should the water problem be left without a permanent solution requiring periodic stopgap measure? Furthermore, how was the water problem solved on these other occasions? By the well? By Moshe hitting the rocks? Finally, if it was solved on other occasions, then again why now was there a shortage of water?
I believe that the mahn provided all the liquid requirements of the people. One proof of this idea is that 21:5 records that the people complained, “For there is no food and no water. And our throats loathe the despicable food.” The people are not satisfied with the mahn and request both food and water. Yet they only complain about the mahn, there is no complaint about their water source. It must be that the mahn was the source both for food and water providing them with their solid and liquid nutritional needs. Furthermore, by this complaint Moshe did not provide them with water because they did not need water since they had the mahn. A second possible proof that the mahn also provided their liquid needs can be seen in Bemidbar 11:8, which records that if one made a cake from the mahn then it tasted as a cake baked with oil. This means that cake would have a moist taste, which implies some amount of liquids within the solids.
This idea can explain why the people complained for water in Shemot 17:1. In Shemot 16, the people had just received the mahn, but they wanted regular water in addition to the mahn. This complaint was unjustified, and that is why Moshe was angry with them in Shemot 17:2. They got water that one time but then they had to adjust to getting their liquid needs from the mahn.
One could also maintain that even if there was a well that traveled with the people, then still the mahn was an additional source of water. The well would have provided tasty water, while the mahn supplied the liquid nourishment that was necessary. Also, if not everybody could get water from the well, then still the people would be able to get water from the mahn.
Yet, if the mahn provided all the liquid needs of the people, why did the people complain in Bemidbar 20:2-5 for water? The answer is due to the travels in the desert after the sin of the spies. From Bemidbar 33:34-36, we see that before the people came to the desert of Tzyn in 20:1, they had camped in Etzyon Gever, which is assumed to be Eilat and two stops before that they camped at Yotvata. While we cannot identify exactly where Yotvata is today, Devarim 10:7 describes it as a “land of streams of water.” This means that in these places, the people had additional sources of water besides the mahn. (Devarim 8:15 “that they went in a desert without water” means the first stage of their travels in the desert, before they reached these areas.)
Thus, after the sin of the spies, the people had settled down for almost 38 years and had become comfortable. Now, in the 40th year of the people's stay in the desert, the people marched north to the desert of Tzyn, which is probably the Arava desert. The phrases “this wilderness” and “this evil place” in 20:4,5 are in reference to the Arava desert, which is a harsh desert.
We can know postulate that there were two problems that caused the complaints of 20:3-5. One, the simplest, is that in the desert of Tzyn the people had no natural water, as they said in the end of 20:5, "there is no water to drink." However, before coming to the desert of Tzyn, they had become accustomed to natural water, and hence they thought they might die if they only had the mahn. Two, 20:3 refers to "our brothers" who died many years earlier, which suggests that the people complaining, at a minimum in this verse, was the generation who left Egypt. This generation knew that they were not going to make into the land of Israel, and hence they were upset since they saw no reason why they had to leave a place they had been for 38 years just to end up dying in a harsh desert. From their point of view, they could have died, and then the new generation would start to march towards the land of Israel.
In response to the complaints, G-d temporarily gave the people regular water, 20:11, possibly because this was the first complaint of the new generation or a recognition that the people had become used to regular water.
From the desert of Tzyn the people could have traveled through Edom, but Edom refused to let them pass so they have to detour around Edom, 20:14. This detour meant marching south back to the Red Sea, 21:4, (area near Eilat, see also Devarim 2:8) which returned the people to their additional water sources. However, the people had to continue marching turning east and north to go around Edom to the desert of Moav (21:11, Devarim 2:8,9) which meant leaving any sources of water, and they complained again. It is true that Devarim 2:29 records that Moshe said that Edom sold the people water, but this was for money, probably not in great quantities and most likely after the complaints in Bemidbar 21:4,5. Edom initially met the people with force (20:20,21), and only after the Jewish people passed by would Edom have sold them water. The fact that the people bought water from Edom indicates that they were not happy with getting their liquid needs from the mahn. Shortly after passing around Edom and Moav, the people reached the well referred to in 21:16, and they sang a song because they were very happy since they again had water in great quantities without having to purchase it. Possibly from that point on, the people always had access to water supplies, and then the song signals the end of the water problem in the desert, but even if not, they still had the mahn to give them their liquid needs.
Bibliography
Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Moskovitz, Yehiel Tzvi, 1988, Commentary on the book of Bemidbar, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Hello. The goal of this blog is to enhance our understanding of the Torah and the practice of Judaism. The discussions in the blog are a portion of a more extensive commentary on the Torah, which I will be happy to send to you. You can contact me at ajayschein@gmail.com. Please feel free to send comments. Also, if you want to receive an email with a link to the new posts, send me a request, and I will add you to the email group. Best wishes, Andrew Schein
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Bemidabr 16:2 (Korah) - Who were the 250 men who were part of Korah’s rebellion?
Bemidbar 16:2 records that part of Korah's coalition consisted of 250 men of great renown. Who were they? Many suggestions have been offered.
Rashi (on 16:1) writes that most of the group of 250 men was from the tribe of Reuven since both the tribe of Reuven and Kehat, from whom Korah descended, camped on the south of the mishkan. Yet, other than 16:1 there is no mention in the Torah that the tribe of Reuven played any particular role in the rebellion. It would seem that Datan, Aviram and On were a bunch of malcontents (see Shemot Rabbah 1:29) who used this opportunity to join Korah’s rebellion. The mention of their tribal status is not unusual and it is natural for a small group of three people to have family ties. I doubt that one can extrapolate from them that the 250 men were also from the tribe of Reuven. Also, as we discussed above on chapter 16, "Korah’s rebellion: The great rebellion by an unholy coalition," Datan, Aviram and On were distinct from the 250 men within Korah's coalition.
Ibn Ezra (on 16:1) suggest that the 250 men were firstborn sons. He argues that they were the priests prior to the building of the mishkan, Shemot 19:22, and maybe they were the ones who offered sacrifices at Mount Sinai, Shemot 24:5. With this approach, the rebellion involved people from all the tribes since the firstborn sons could have been from any tribe. Ibn Ezra notes that in 16:3 Korah questioned Moshe “that were not all the people kadosh?” and we know that the firstborn sons were kadosh from Shemot 13:2. According to this approach, the grievance of the 250 men was not simply with the switching of the firstborn sons for the Levites but with the designation of Aharon to be the high priest instead of a firstborn son, Korah or anybody else, being the high priest. This approach can also accord with the idea that the tribe of Reuven was involved in the rebellion since Reuven was the firstborn of Yaakov.
The problem with this approach is that the Torah does not record that the rebellion centered around the rights of the firstborn sons, and it is not recorded that the firstborn sons were the people who offered sacrifices prior to the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, (see Ramban on 16:1). The firstborn sons did have a special status due the 10th plague but that was not translated into any work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, but rather that they had to be redeemed, 3:40-51. When Korah stated that “all the people are kadosh" the simple understanding is that he was referring to the entire nation, and not just to the firstborn sons.
A third possibility of the identity of the 250 men is the opinion of Rabbenu Hananel (quoted in the Ramban on 16:5) that they were Levites. Moshe twice refers to them as Levites, 16:7,8. Also, 16:1 recorded that Korah was from the tribe of Levi. The idea would be that they were upset that Aharon was chosen to do the main work in the mishkan/ ohel moed instead of them.
Ramban (on 16:5) rejects this approach since he could not accept that this great tribe would have joined in a rebellion against Moshe. This argument is not convincing. Even though the tribe had remained steadfast during the time of the golden calf, this was all the more reason that they should have been upset that Aharon was chosen to be the high priest since he had participated in the sin of the golden calf.
The Ramban raises three questions regarding this approach. One, in 17:6 the people complain that Moshe and Aharon killed the people of G-d, but according to Rabbenu Hananel only people from the tribe of Levi died and not the general population. Two, in chapter 17, as part of the aftermath of the rebellion, the staffs of all of the tribes were tested to see who really was supposed to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed and the staff representing the tribe of Levi was successful. Yet, if Rabbenu Hananel was correct, then the other tribes were not upset with Aharon working in the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the test should have been within the tribe of Levi. Three, 16:2 records that the 250 men were from the children of Israel, which implies that they were from all the tribes. Another reason to think that not all the 250 men were Levites is that 27:3 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad stated that their father was not part of the 250 men (note the exact phrase, ha-noadim al G-d, in 16:11 and 27:3) and Tzelofhad was from the tribe of Menashe, 27:1. If all of the 250 men were Levites, then of course Tzelofhad had not been part of this group, but if this group consisted of people from all tribes, then it was possible that he had been with the group, which would be why Tzelofhad's daughters had to state that he had not been part of the 250 men.
The Ramban believes that the 250 men were from all of the tribes, yet why did Moshe refer to the tribe of Levi twice? The Ramban (on 16:5) explains that in 16:7, Moshe said, “too much is yours, sons of Levi” to convince the rest of the population that Korah was not really on their side. Korah had told the people that he was fighting for all of their rights, but Moshe was pointing out to the people that Korah was not concerned about that issue since he was already a Levi, and instead he wanted to be the high priest. With regard to 16:8, Ramban (on 16:5,11) explains that when Moshe said, “Hear me, sons of Levi,” he was talking primarily to Korah.
My guess is that, as noted by the Ramban, it seems unlikely that all 250 people were Levites, but naturally as Korah was from the tribe of Levi so too many of the followers, but not all, would have been from that tribe. They would have been friends of Korah, which would have given then great influence within the rebellion, and it was to these people that Moshe was speaking to in 16:7,8 to get them to quit. If these people would have quit the rebellion, then maybe the whole rebellion might have collapsed.
Rashi (on 16:1) writes that most of the group of 250 men was from the tribe of Reuven since both the tribe of Reuven and Kehat, from whom Korah descended, camped on the south of the mishkan. Yet, other than 16:1 there is no mention in the Torah that the tribe of Reuven played any particular role in the rebellion. It would seem that Datan, Aviram and On were a bunch of malcontents (see Shemot Rabbah 1:29) who used this opportunity to join Korah’s rebellion. The mention of their tribal status is not unusual and it is natural for a small group of three people to have family ties. I doubt that one can extrapolate from them that the 250 men were also from the tribe of Reuven. Also, as we discussed above on chapter 16, "Korah’s rebellion: The great rebellion by an unholy coalition," Datan, Aviram and On were distinct from the 250 men within Korah's coalition.
Ibn Ezra (on 16:1) suggest that the 250 men were firstborn sons. He argues that they were the priests prior to the building of the mishkan, Shemot 19:22, and maybe they were the ones who offered sacrifices at Mount Sinai, Shemot 24:5. With this approach, the rebellion involved people from all the tribes since the firstborn sons could have been from any tribe. Ibn Ezra notes that in 16:3 Korah questioned Moshe “that were not all the people kadosh?” and we know that the firstborn sons were kadosh from Shemot 13:2. According to this approach, the grievance of the 250 men was not simply with the switching of the firstborn sons for the Levites but with the designation of Aharon to be the high priest instead of a firstborn son, Korah or anybody else, being the high priest. This approach can also accord with the idea that the tribe of Reuven was involved in the rebellion since Reuven was the firstborn of Yaakov.
The problem with this approach is that the Torah does not record that the rebellion centered around the rights of the firstborn sons, and it is not recorded that the firstborn sons were the people who offered sacrifices prior to the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, (see Ramban on 16:1). The firstborn sons did have a special status due the 10th plague but that was not translated into any work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, but rather that they had to be redeemed, 3:40-51. When Korah stated that “all the people are kadosh" the simple understanding is that he was referring to the entire nation, and not just to the firstborn sons.
A third possibility of the identity of the 250 men is the opinion of Rabbenu Hananel (quoted in the Ramban on 16:5) that they were Levites. Moshe twice refers to them as Levites, 16:7,8. Also, 16:1 recorded that Korah was from the tribe of Levi. The idea would be that they were upset that Aharon was chosen to do the main work in the mishkan/ ohel moed instead of them.
Ramban (on 16:5) rejects this approach since he could not accept that this great tribe would have joined in a rebellion against Moshe. This argument is not convincing. Even though the tribe had remained steadfast during the time of the golden calf, this was all the more reason that they should have been upset that Aharon was chosen to be the high priest since he had participated in the sin of the golden calf.
The Ramban raises three questions regarding this approach. One, in 17:6 the people complain that Moshe and Aharon killed the people of G-d, but according to Rabbenu Hananel only people from the tribe of Levi died and not the general population. Two, in chapter 17, as part of the aftermath of the rebellion, the staffs of all of the tribes were tested to see who really was supposed to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed and the staff representing the tribe of Levi was successful. Yet, if Rabbenu Hananel was correct, then the other tribes were not upset with Aharon working in the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the test should have been within the tribe of Levi. Three, 16:2 records that the 250 men were from the children of Israel, which implies that they were from all the tribes. Another reason to think that not all the 250 men were Levites is that 27:3 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad stated that their father was not part of the 250 men (note the exact phrase, ha-noadim al G-d, in 16:11 and 27:3) and Tzelofhad was from the tribe of Menashe, 27:1. If all of the 250 men were Levites, then of course Tzelofhad had not been part of this group, but if this group consisted of people from all tribes, then it was possible that he had been with the group, which would be why Tzelofhad's daughters had to state that he had not been part of the 250 men.
The Ramban believes that the 250 men were from all of the tribes, yet why did Moshe refer to the tribe of Levi twice? The Ramban (on 16:5) explains that in 16:7, Moshe said, “too much is yours, sons of Levi” to convince the rest of the population that Korah was not really on their side. Korah had told the people that he was fighting for all of their rights, but Moshe was pointing out to the people that Korah was not concerned about that issue since he was already a Levi, and instead he wanted to be the high priest. With regard to 16:8, Ramban (on 16:5,11) explains that when Moshe said, “Hear me, sons of Levi,” he was talking primarily to Korah.
My guess is that, as noted by the Ramban, it seems unlikely that all 250 people were Levites, but naturally as Korah was from the tribe of Levi so too many of the followers, but not all, would have been from that tribe. They would have been friends of Korah, which would have given then great influence within the rebellion, and it was to these people that Moshe was speaking to in 16:7,8 to get them to quit. If these people would have quit the rebellion, then maybe the whole rebellion might have collapsed.
Bemidbar Chapter 16 (Korah) - How did Korah die?
One confusing point of chapter 16 is how did Korah die? The 250 people died from a fire from the heavens when they attempted to offer the incense, 16:35, while Datan and Aviram (On?) died when the earth swallowed them up, 16:32. Presumably, Korah as the ringleader of the whole rebellion died, but was it by the fire or by the swallowing of the earth?
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 110a) presents two more possibilities. Rabbi Yochanon says that he did not die in either manner, and Rashi explains that according to this opinion, he died in the plague that occurred after the rebellion, 17:14. This seems unlikely. He was the ringleader, and hence he should died with at least one of the groups of rebels. An anonymous opinion in the Talmud (also in Numbers Rabbah 18:19) argues that Korah died both through the swallowing of the earth and through the fire. Rashi explains that first the fire burned his soul and then his body rolled to where the earth had split and fell into the crevice. This is unlikely to be understood literally.
Ibn Ezra (on 16:35, see also Luzzato on 16:21) argues that only Datan and Aviram were swallowed by the ground since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned, also see Devarim 11:6. Korah would have been with the group of 250 men, and died by the fire with them. Why was he not mentioned as being with the 250 men? Ibn Ezra explains that once the text recorded that the group was burnt there was no need to mention Korah. Also he brings a proof from 17:5, which records that the fire-pans used by people would serve as a reminder that the people should not become like Korah and his group. He explains that this not becoming like Korah means not to suffer his fate to die as he did by the fire-pans. Also, he interprets that the words of Bemidbar 26:10 “and Korah” join with the word “community”, which would mean that Korah died with the group of 250.
Not with standing these strong arguments, I always thought that the ground swallowed up Korah. (See comments of Rambam on Pirkei Avot 5:5 that mentions Korah by the miracle of the land being swallowed.) The crucial question is where was Korah at the time of the deaths, with Datan and Aviram or with the 250 people? Ibn Ezra believes Korah was with the 250 because he was going to offer up the incense with them. 16:17 records that Korah had a fire-pan (the reference to the word you), and 16:18 records that all the people who were take the fire-pans, which includes Korah, were waiting to offer their incense to G-d by the ohel moed. Also, 16:19 records that Korah was by the ohel moed. However, afterwards, 16:25 records that Moshe left the ohel moed to go the tents of Datan and Aviram, which were not near the ohel moed.
My guess is that Korah would have followed Moshe to be where the “action” was since he was he ringleader and even the elders accompanied Moshe. Korah would have joined Datan and Aviram in their stand against Moshe and immediately afterwards the land swallowed them up. Thus, when 16:32 records that the earth swallowed up everything that appertained to Korah, this would include Korah himself. There would have been no time for him to have returned to the test of fire-pans. Accordingly, 16:35 which records the death of the 250 men by fire makes no mention of Korah, and Rashi, (in Sanhedrin when explaining Rabbi Yochanon's opinion) notes that if Korah died with the 250 people then the Torah should have recorded that 251 people died.
According to this approach, Bemidbar 26:10 means that the earth swallowed them (Datan and Aviram) and Korah when the group of 250 died by the fire. Also, 17:5 means that one should learn from the fire-pans incident not to act like Korah and then 17:5 would then not be referring to his death.
Devarim 11:6 which only mentioned Datan and Aviram as dying from the earth does not exclude Korah from also having died from the swallowing of the earth. Hoffmann (commentary on Devarim, p.140) argues that Moshe did not want to mention the sins of Korah out of consideration for his children who were still alive, while the deaths of Datan and Aviram could be mentioned since all of their relatives were dead. Hoffmann points out that Korah’s name is also omitted for the same reason in Psalm 106:17 since the Psalm was sung by the sons of Korah.
Netziv notes that Moshe also did not mention the deaths of the 250 people in Devarim 11:6. This suggests that Moshe mentioned Datan and Aviram since they had spoke against going to the land of Israel, and Moshe was emphasizing their deaths so the new generation would not follow in their example of not wanting to go to the land of Israel. However, Korah never made any statement against going to the land of Israel so there was no need to mention his death.
Also, it is possible that Moshe purposefully omitted Korah’s name since in chapter 10 in Devarim, Moshe had just mentioned the sin of the golden calf. This incident was one of the strongest claims that Korah had against Aharon since Aharon had participated in the sin of the golden calf. Thus, Moshe did not want to mention Korah immediately after discussing the sin of the golden calf because this could renew all the questions about the choice of Aharon to be high priest. Datan and Aviram were mentioned since their complaint was not about the mishkan but about the march in the desert.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 110a) presents two more possibilities. Rabbi Yochanon says that he did not die in either manner, and Rashi explains that according to this opinion, he died in the plague that occurred after the rebellion, 17:14. This seems unlikely. He was the ringleader, and hence he should died with at least one of the groups of rebels. An anonymous opinion in the Talmud (also in Numbers Rabbah 18:19) argues that Korah died both through the swallowing of the earth and through the fire. Rashi explains that first the fire burned his soul and then his body rolled to where the earth had split and fell into the crevice. This is unlikely to be understood literally.
Ibn Ezra (on 16:35, see also Luzzato on 16:21) argues that only Datan and Aviram were swallowed by the ground since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned, also see Devarim 11:6. Korah would have been with the group of 250 men, and died by the fire with them. Why was he not mentioned as being with the 250 men? Ibn Ezra explains that once the text recorded that the group was burnt there was no need to mention Korah. Also he brings a proof from 17:5, which records that the fire-pans used by people would serve as a reminder that the people should not become like Korah and his group. He explains that this not becoming like Korah means not to suffer his fate to die as he did by the fire-pans. Also, he interprets that the words of Bemidbar 26:10 “and Korah” join with the word “community”, which would mean that Korah died with the group of 250.
Not with standing these strong arguments, I always thought that the ground swallowed up Korah. (See comments of Rambam on Pirkei Avot 5:5 that mentions Korah by the miracle of the land being swallowed.) The crucial question is where was Korah at the time of the deaths, with Datan and Aviram or with the 250 people? Ibn Ezra believes Korah was with the 250 because he was going to offer up the incense with them. 16:17 records that Korah had a fire-pan (the reference to the word you), and 16:18 records that all the people who were take the fire-pans, which includes Korah, were waiting to offer their incense to G-d by the ohel moed. Also, 16:19 records that Korah was by the ohel moed. However, afterwards, 16:25 records that Moshe left the ohel moed to go the tents of Datan and Aviram, which were not near the ohel moed.
My guess is that Korah would have followed Moshe to be where the “action” was since he was he ringleader and even the elders accompanied Moshe. Korah would have joined Datan and Aviram in their stand against Moshe and immediately afterwards the land swallowed them up. Thus, when 16:32 records that the earth swallowed up everything that appertained to Korah, this would include Korah himself. There would have been no time for him to have returned to the test of fire-pans. Accordingly, 16:35 which records the death of the 250 men by fire makes no mention of Korah, and Rashi, (in Sanhedrin when explaining Rabbi Yochanon's opinion) notes that if Korah died with the 250 people then the Torah should have recorded that 251 people died.
According to this approach, Bemidbar 26:10 means that the earth swallowed them (Datan and Aviram) and Korah when the group of 250 died by the fire. Also, 17:5 means that one should learn from the fire-pans incident not to act like Korah and then 17:5 would then not be referring to his death.
Devarim 11:6 which only mentioned Datan and Aviram as dying from the earth does not exclude Korah from also having died from the swallowing of the earth. Hoffmann (commentary on Devarim, p.140) argues that Moshe did not want to mention the sins of Korah out of consideration for his children who were still alive, while the deaths of Datan and Aviram could be mentioned since all of their relatives were dead. Hoffmann points out that Korah’s name is also omitted for the same reason in Psalm 106:17 since the Psalm was sung by the sons of Korah.
Netziv notes that Moshe also did not mention the deaths of the 250 people in Devarim 11:6. This suggests that Moshe mentioned Datan and Aviram since they had spoke against going to the land of Israel, and Moshe was emphasizing their deaths so the new generation would not follow in their example of not wanting to go to the land of Israel. However, Korah never made any statement against going to the land of Israel so there was no need to mention his death.
Also, it is possible that Moshe purposefully omitted Korah’s name since in chapter 10 in Devarim, Moshe had just mentioned the sin of the golden calf. This incident was one of the strongest claims that Korah had against Aharon since Aharon had participated in the sin of the golden calf. Thus, Moshe did not want to mention Korah immediately after discussing the sin of the golden calf because this could renew all the questions about the choice of Aharon to be high priest. Datan and Aviram were mentioned since their complaint was not about the mishkan but about the march in the desert.
Bemidabr 16:1 (Korah) - A few unworthy men
Bemidbar 16:1 records that Korah took Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav, and On the son of Pelet, the sons of Reuven. This verse records the names of the main figures in the rebellion against Moshe in the desert, but who was On? He is never mentioned again in the Torah. Why is On mentioned in 16:1?
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 109b, also in Bemidbar Rabbah 18:20) quotes Rav that On backed out of the rebellion, and this would explain why he is not mentioned again. Rav explains that it was On’s wife who convinced him to back out since she pointed out that he was not going to benefit from the rebellion because even if Korah succeeded, On would have to follow Korah. She then got him drunk, and he slept in the tent, while she sat on the front of the tent all disheveled, which caused people to turn away from the tent. Thus, On slept through the whole rebellion, and the Talmud (Sanhedrin 110a) praises On’s wife for her wisdom. While this could have happened, one wonders why the Torah did not mention that On backed out? This would have showed that somebody listened to Moshe’s exhortation for people to desist from the rebellion, 16:26. Also, if On backed out, why did he have to be mentioned in the first place?
Bechor Shor (12th century, France, on 16:1) quotes the Midrash that On backed out, but he writes that the simple explanation is that On was one of the 250 people, who are referred to 16:2. Thus, On did not have to be mentioned again, as whatever happened to the 250 people (they died by fire) also happened to On. This also seems difficult since if On was part of the 250 people, then why was he singled out just once? In addition, 16:1 records On in conjunction with Datan and Aviram, and Datan and Aviram’s part of the rebellion was separate from the 250 men, as Datan and Aviram were fighting with Moshe while the 250 men were upset that Aharon was chosen as the high priest. Thus, if On was with Datan and Aviram he would not have been with the 250 men.
My guess is that On was mentioned to belittle the 250 men. 16:2 described the 250 men as leaders of the people and men of great renown, but we do not know their names! However, we do know of On and his father Pelet, though On had apparently a very minor role in the rebellion. Thus by mentioning On the Torah is telling us that these 250 men were not really men of great renown, even though that was how the people at that time perceived them and how they thought of themselves. Thus, it could be that On backed out of the rebellion or that he remained a rebel to the end though he clearly was not as strident as Datan and Aviram, but his importance was to show that the 250 people were not really men of great repute.
Bechor Shor (12th century, France, on 16:1) quotes the Midrash that On backed out, but he writes that the simple explanation is that On was one of the 250 people, who are referred to 16:2. Thus, On did not have to be mentioned again, as whatever happened to the 250 people (they died by fire) also happened to On. This also seems difficult since if On was part of the 250 people, then why was he singled out just once? In addition, 16:1 records On in conjunction with Datan and Aviram, and Datan and Aviram’s part of the rebellion was separate from the 250 men, as Datan and Aviram were fighting with Moshe while the 250 men were upset that Aharon was chosen as the high priest. Thus, if On was with Datan and Aviram he would not have been with the 250 men.
My guess is that On was mentioned to belittle the 250 men. 16:2 described the 250 men as leaders of the people and men of great renown, but we do not know their names! However, we do know of On and his father Pelet, though On had apparently a very minor role in the rebellion. Thus by mentioning On the Torah is telling us that these 250 men were not really men of great renown, even though that was how the people at that time perceived them and how they thought of themselves. Thus, it could be that On backed out of the rebellion or that he remained a rebel to the end though he clearly was not as strident as Datan and Aviram, but his importance was to show that the 250 people were not really men of great repute.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Bemidbar 13:1-20 (Shelah) - A test
13:1,2 records that G-d told Moshe “send for yourself men to scout out the land.” What was the need for spies if G-d was going to help the people capture the land? Why did G-d tell Moshe to send spies?
Rashi (on 13:1) records the opinion of Resh Lakish (Sotah 34B) that G-d did not command or want the people to send spies. Instead, the people requested the spies, as recorded in Devarim 1:22, and G-d agreed to the wishes of the people. Thus, according to Rashi, the spies should never have been sent.
Ramban (on 13:2) disagrees with Rashi. He notes that according to Rashi, Moshe should have also been unhappy about the sending of the spies since it could only have led to trouble but Devarim 1:23 records that the sending of the spies pleased Moshe. Rashi (on Devarim 1:23) explains that Moshe only said he was pleased because he thought if he would agree to the mission, then the people would not want to send the spies. However, even according to Rashi, Moshe was taking a very risky chance, (which failed) for no apparent reason. Furthermore, even with Rashi’s explanation, Moshe could still have just agreed to the sending of the spies, he did not have to say he was pleased. Ramban also asks why did Moshe tell the spies to check if the land was good or bad, if he already knew the land was good? Furthermore, why did Moshe send the spies altogether, since even if the land was bad, would he have wanted to return to Egypt?
Ramban follows the same chronology as Rashi that first the people asked for the spies, but according to the Ramban this was a reasonable request. Ramban explains that the sending of the spies is the normal action of all people who go to fight, especially on new terrain. (The sending would obtain information for the people, and this would still be called “for yourself” 13:1.) The spies would be able to lead the army in their march into the land of Israel. In fact, Moshe sent spies 39 years later as part of the fight with Amorites, 21:32, as did Yehoshua, and this explains why Moshe thought the sending of the spies was a good idea. (It cannot be a sin per se to send spies if Moshe sent spies 39 years later.) Ramban argues (see his comments on Bereshit 6:19, Vayikra 21:17, Bemidbar 1:45, and Devarim 20:9) that one is not to rely on miracles, and this why G-d agreed to the request of the people to send the spies.
With this idea, Ramban (see also Rashbam) explains the instructions of Moshe. The spies were to start in the south, because these inhabitants were situated close to where the Jewish people were camped and the people had to know were to go on their march into the land. The spies were to discover if the cities were fortified because then the Jewish people could make the necessary preparations to fight in those places, as for instance from what angle to attack and what supplies to take. The spies were to find out the good and bad places since the Jewish people would first attempt to capture the good places. Furthermore, since Moshe knew the land was good, he told the spies to bring back the fruits of the land to make the people more excited about entering the land of Israel. Ramban notes that even though the people had lived in Egypt close to Israel, they might not have known about the quality of the land of Israel since they had been slaves.
However, according to this military approach, why did Moshe need to send 12 spies instead of 2? It seems the spies were representatives of the tribes, as each tribe except Levi had one spy. (Levi did not send a spy as either they had already demonstrated their faith in G-d or because (Daat Zekeinim) they were not going to receive land.) Why did each tribe need to be represented?
My thought is that the mission of the spies was a test to see if the people were ready to enter the land of Israel. The people had been free from slavery for just one year and a few months. Was this enough time for them to lose their slave mentality? Were the people ready to enter the land? The test was whether the people would be willing to go to the land of Israel after hearing how difficult it would be to conquer the land. The people had to hear the military information about the inhabitants of the land, especially about the strength of the inhabitants of the land. If they said they were willing to go, then their acceptance indicated that they had lost their slave mentality. However, if they said no, then that meant that they needed more time in the desert. The people would have to live by natural means in the land of Israel and their faith in G-d would have to be strong enough to survive outside influences.
As we discussed in chapter 11, after the people cried for meat Moshe had great doubts whether the people were ready to enter the land of Israel, and hence the spies also had to bring back information about the quality of the land and food to show how good the land was. If the people would fail the test they would remain in the desert for many years. The initial positive reports about the land and the fruit that the spies brought back would give the people a desire for the land of Israel during their stay in the desert. The leaders of the people were chosen to be spies and each tribe was represented since then the people would accept their leader’s report that the land of Israel was an excellent land.
This idea explains why the spies initially gave their reports not just to Moshe, Aharon but also to the people, 13:26, since the mission was a test of the people. Moshe was hoping that the people would succeed in the mission but if they failed, then they were just not ready to enter the land of Israel, this could not be forced. The people’s failure showed that their faith in G-d was not at a sufficient level, and this is why G-d was upset with the people. The punishment of staying in the desert was to increase the faith of the people in G-d, see Devarim 29:3.
Also, Ramban (on 14:17) notes that when Moshe prayed for the people, he prayed for them to be spared but not that their sins would be completely forgiven. This was because the people needed to stay in the desert to increase their faith in G-d.
Finally, this idea explains why the people were not allowed to repent for their sins. After hearing their punishment, they tried to go to the land of Israel but G-d let them be defeated, 14:45. They had just demonstrated that they were not ready to live in the land of Israel, and a sudden change of faith would not suffice for living permanently in the desert. The faith in G-d had to become ingrained in the people and for this they had to stay in the desert for 40 years. Thus, Moshe 40 years later (Devarim 9:1,2) could tell the people about the strength of the inhabitants of the land and the people would still be willing to enter the land of Israel since by then they had sufficient faith in G-d.
Two literary “proofs” for the idea that the spy mission was a test can be found in the essay by James Ackerman (1987, p.83). He points out that the spies were asked to determine “whether rather than how the land could best be conquered.” This question of whether the land could be conquered is a test of the people, are they willing to enter the land of Israel? Also, the language of shelah lekha (13:2) is similar to the language of lekh lekha by Avraham in Bereshit 12:1, 22:2. Just as by Bereshit 22:2, the story of the binding of Yitzhak was a test of Avraham, Bereshit 22:1, so too the sending of the spies was a test of the Jewish people.
Rashi (on 13:1) records the opinion of Resh Lakish (Sotah 34B) that G-d did not command or want the people to send spies. Instead, the people requested the spies, as recorded in Devarim 1:22, and G-d agreed to the wishes of the people. Thus, according to Rashi, the spies should never have been sent.
Ramban (on 13:2) disagrees with Rashi. He notes that according to Rashi, Moshe should have also been unhappy about the sending of the spies since it could only have led to trouble but Devarim 1:23 records that the sending of the spies pleased Moshe. Rashi (on Devarim 1:23) explains that Moshe only said he was pleased because he thought if he would agree to the mission, then the people would not want to send the spies. However, even according to Rashi, Moshe was taking a very risky chance, (which failed) for no apparent reason. Furthermore, even with Rashi’s explanation, Moshe could still have just agreed to the sending of the spies, he did not have to say he was pleased. Ramban also asks why did Moshe tell the spies to check if the land was good or bad, if he already knew the land was good? Furthermore, why did Moshe send the spies altogether, since even if the land was bad, would he have wanted to return to Egypt?
Ramban follows the same chronology as Rashi that first the people asked for the spies, but according to the Ramban this was a reasonable request. Ramban explains that the sending of the spies is the normal action of all people who go to fight, especially on new terrain. (The sending would obtain information for the people, and this would still be called “for yourself” 13:1.) The spies would be able to lead the army in their march into the land of Israel. In fact, Moshe sent spies 39 years later as part of the fight with Amorites, 21:32, as did Yehoshua, and this explains why Moshe thought the sending of the spies was a good idea. (It cannot be a sin per se to send spies if Moshe sent spies 39 years later.) Ramban argues (see his comments on Bereshit 6:19, Vayikra 21:17, Bemidbar 1:45, and Devarim 20:9) that one is not to rely on miracles, and this why G-d agreed to the request of the people to send the spies.
With this idea, Ramban (see also Rashbam) explains the instructions of Moshe. The spies were to start in the south, because these inhabitants were situated close to where the Jewish people were camped and the people had to know were to go on their march into the land. The spies were to discover if the cities were fortified because then the Jewish people could make the necessary preparations to fight in those places, as for instance from what angle to attack and what supplies to take. The spies were to find out the good and bad places since the Jewish people would first attempt to capture the good places. Furthermore, since Moshe knew the land was good, he told the spies to bring back the fruits of the land to make the people more excited about entering the land of Israel. Ramban notes that even though the people had lived in Egypt close to Israel, they might not have known about the quality of the land of Israel since they had been slaves.
However, according to this military approach, why did Moshe need to send 12 spies instead of 2? It seems the spies were representatives of the tribes, as each tribe except Levi had one spy. (Levi did not send a spy as either they had already demonstrated their faith in G-d or because (Daat Zekeinim) they were not going to receive land.) Why did each tribe need to be represented?
My thought is that the mission of the spies was a test to see if the people were ready to enter the land of Israel. The people had been free from slavery for just one year and a few months. Was this enough time for them to lose their slave mentality? Were the people ready to enter the land? The test was whether the people would be willing to go to the land of Israel after hearing how difficult it would be to conquer the land. The people had to hear the military information about the inhabitants of the land, especially about the strength of the inhabitants of the land. If they said they were willing to go, then their acceptance indicated that they had lost their slave mentality. However, if they said no, then that meant that they needed more time in the desert. The people would have to live by natural means in the land of Israel and their faith in G-d would have to be strong enough to survive outside influences.
As we discussed in chapter 11, after the people cried for meat Moshe had great doubts whether the people were ready to enter the land of Israel, and hence the spies also had to bring back information about the quality of the land and food to show how good the land was. If the people would fail the test they would remain in the desert for many years. The initial positive reports about the land and the fruit that the spies brought back would give the people a desire for the land of Israel during their stay in the desert. The leaders of the people were chosen to be spies and each tribe was represented since then the people would accept their leader’s report that the land of Israel was an excellent land.
This idea explains why the spies initially gave their reports not just to Moshe, Aharon but also to the people, 13:26, since the mission was a test of the people. Moshe was hoping that the people would succeed in the mission but if they failed, then they were just not ready to enter the land of Israel, this could not be forced. The people’s failure showed that their faith in G-d was not at a sufficient level, and this is why G-d was upset with the people. The punishment of staying in the desert was to increase the faith of the people in G-d, see Devarim 29:3.
Also, Ramban (on 14:17) notes that when Moshe prayed for the people, he prayed for them to be spared but not that their sins would be completely forgiven. This was because the people needed to stay in the desert to increase their faith in G-d.
Finally, this idea explains why the people were not allowed to repent for their sins. After hearing their punishment, they tried to go to the land of Israel but G-d let them be defeated, 14:45. They had just demonstrated that they were not ready to live in the land of Israel, and a sudden change of faith would not suffice for living permanently in the desert. The faith in G-d had to become ingrained in the people and for this they had to stay in the desert for 40 years. Thus, Moshe 40 years later (Devarim 9:1,2) could tell the people about the strength of the inhabitants of the land and the people would still be willing to enter the land of Israel since by then they had sufficient faith in G-d.
Two literary “proofs” for the idea that the spy mission was a test can be found in the essay by James Ackerman (1987, p.83). He points out that the spies were asked to determine “whether rather than how the land could best be conquered.” This question of whether the land could be conquered is a test of the people, are they willing to enter the land of Israel? Also, the language of shelah lekha (13:2) is similar to the language of lekh lekha by Avraham in Bereshit 12:1, 22:2. Just as by Bereshit 22:2, the story of the binding of Yitzhak was a test of Avraham, Bereshit 22:1, so too the sending of the spies was a test of the Jewish people.
Bemidbar 13:26 (Shelah) - Why did the spies not have faith in G-d?
13:26 records that apparently immediately upon the return of the 12 spies, they gave their report to Moshe, Aharon and the entire nation. In this report, the spies showed the fruit of the land of Israel and testified that the land was flowing with milk and honey, the inhabitants of the land were strong, and the cities were fortified, 13:26-29. This report seems to have agitated the people, since 13:30 records that Calev (one of the spies) had to quiet the people down, and he urged the people to go to Israel. The other spies, excluding Yehoshua, then stated that the people would not be able to conquer the land, 13:31, and then they defamed the land by stating that it “eats its inhabitants,” 13:32. The spies concluded that the land was filled with giants, 13:33. The people responded by crying, and complaining to Moshe that they wanted to return to Egypt since they thought they would die if they went to the land of Israel, 14:1-4.
Ramban (on 14:3) notes that the people did not mention the defamatory report on the land only that they were afraid of dying. Ramban suggests that this was because the people knew that Moshe could easily have disproved this claim. While this is possible, the question of the quality of the land was irrelevant once the people had become convinced that they were going to die if they attempted to enter the land. G-d then punished the people by decreeing that they would have to stay in the desert for 40 years and the ten bad spies were killed immediately.
Ramban (on 13:2) asks what was the sin of the spies, as they reported what they saw? Were the spies sent to lie? Furthermore, Moshe 40 years later, prior to the entrance of the people to the land, told the people that the inhabitants of the land of Israel were very strong. Moshe even mentioned, that it was said of the inhabitants “who could stand before them?” Devarim 9:1,2. If Moshe could mention the strength of the inhabitants of the land, why could the spies not do the same?
Ramban claims that the ten spies committed two sins. One, (on 13:27) in the first report of the spies, 13:27-29, they gave a truthful report but they also added the word, efes, nevertheless, after describing the fruits of the land and before their description of the strengths of the people living the land. This word implied that it would be difficult for the people to enjoy the fruits of the land. The people understood this and started grumbling and this is why Calev had to quiet them down. To counter Calev’s advice, the other spies presented their advice, 13:31, where they stated explicitly what they had hinted to beforehand that they did not think that the land of Israel could be conquered. This was the first sin of the spies, as they task was to report information and not to advise the people to desist from going to the land of Israel. However, the spies did not stop with their bad advice, and they defamed the land of Israel. This was their second sin and Ramban (on 13:32) explains that this second sin was why they were killed immediately, as the Torah uses the same word, debat, both in 13:32 and in 14:37 when referring to their punishment.
I am not sure if the people understood from the spies’ first report that the spies were implying that the people should not go to Israel. However, maybe the report itself was a shock to the people. The people might have assumed that conquering Israel was going to be a trivial event, and once they were told that the inhabitants of the land were so strong, they realized their assumption was not necessarily correct, and this caused their agitation.
Why would the 10 spies commit these two sins? The second sin, of defaming the land, seems understandable once they had committed the first sin, as the defamation of the land was to bolster their initial claim that the people should not attempt to conquer the land. Yet, how could the spies think the people could not succeed in conquering the land? The spies had witnessed the 10 plagues, the splitting of Yam Suf, the cloud of G-d and they had heard G-d’s promise to give the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Even if they really believed that the inhabitants of the land of Israel were giants, how could they doubt G-d’s ability or desire to give the people the land of Israel?
There seems to be two possibilities, either they really doubted or they did not. If they did not doubt, then we have to postulate some conspiracy theory that the ten spies lied in order for the people to stay in the desert. Nachshoni (1987) quotes from Hasidic sources, that the ten spies really had pious intentions, as they thought it was more proper for a religious person to stay in the sheltered life of the desert than to enter the real life in the land of Israel. A slightly less apologetic approach could be that they thought the people were not ready for the real life, so they wanted the people to remain with the miraculous existence of the desert. Or, one could impart sinister reasons to the conspiracy theory. Yissakhar Teichtal (2000, p.259) quotes from the Zohar that the spies feared that they would only be princes in the desert, but they would lose their power if the people entered the land of Israel. Or one could claim the spies were just evil people who wanted to harm the people, but then it is hard to understand why Moshe chose them. Yet, notwithstanding the current popularity with conspiracy theories, they are hard to prove, and I doubt the case here involves a conspiracy. Thus one has to explain the spies doubting of G-d’s power.
It seems to me there are two possibilities why the spies doubted G-d's power. One, maybe the spies thought that G-d meant for the people to capture the land through normal means as otherwise why bother sending spies? Thus, their advice that the people could not conquer the land of Israel was made without any assumption of divine help. Clearly there is some truth to the idea that the people would have to live normal lives without daily miracles once they reached the land of Israel, but still as G-d had promised the people the land, the spies should have calculated G-d’s assistance into their analysis.
Thus, the more likely rationale for their advice is that when they had spent the time traveling in the land of Israel, they had forgotten the miracles of G-d. According to this idea, even when the spies returned to the camp and would have seen the divine cloud, they had become so fixated on their thoughts in the 40 days that they were gone, that they were unable to change their mind. Thus, they gave their report immediately upon their return. Their actions would then show a lack of perspective that they could not discern or critique information, which, in retrospect, made then unfit to be spies.
Ramban (on 14:3) notes that the people did not mention the defamatory report on the land only that they were afraid of dying. Ramban suggests that this was because the people knew that Moshe could easily have disproved this claim. While this is possible, the question of the quality of the land was irrelevant once the people had become convinced that they were going to die if they attempted to enter the land. G-d then punished the people by decreeing that they would have to stay in the desert for 40 years and the ten bad spies were killed immediately.
Ramban (on 13:2) asks what was the sin of the spies, as they reported what they saw? Were the spies sent to lie? Furthermore, Moshe 40 years later, prior to the entrance of the people to the land, told the people that the inhabitants of the land of Israel were very strong. Moshe even mentioned, that it was said of the inhabitants “who could stand before them?” Devarim 9:1,2. If Moshe could mention the strength of the inhabitants of the land, why could the spies not do the same?
Ramban claims that the ten spies committed two sins. One, (on 13:27) in the first report of the spies, 13:27-29, they gave a truthful report but they also added the word, efes, nevertheless, after describing the fruits of the land and before their description of the strengths of the people living the land. This word implied that it would be difficult for the people to enjoy the fruits of the land. The people understood this and started grumbling and this is why Calev had to quiet them down. To counter Calev’s advice, the other spies presented their advice, 13:31, where they stated explicitly what they had hinted to beforehand that they did not think that the land of Israel could be conquered. This was the first sin of the spies, as they task was to report information and not to advise the people to desist from going to the land of Israel. However, the spies did not stop with their bad advice, and they defamed the land of Israel. This was their second sin and Ramban (on 13:32) explains that this second sin was why they were killed immediately, as the Torah uses the same word, debat, both in 13:32 and in 14:37 when referring to their punishment.
I am not sure if the people understood from the spies’ first report that the spies were implying that the people should not go to Israel. However, maybe the report itself was a shock to the people. The people might have assumed that conquering Israel was going to be a trivial event, and once they were told that the inhabitants of the land were so strong, they realized their assumption was not necessarily correct, and this caused their agitation.
Why would the 10 spies commit these two sins? The second sin, of defaming the land, seems understandable once they had committed the first sin, as the defamation of the land was to bolster their initial claim that the people should not attempt to conquer the land. Yet, how could the spies think the people could not succeed in conquering the land? The spies had witnessed the 10 plagues, the splitting of Yam Suf, the cloud of G-d and they had heard G-d’s promise to give the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Even if they really believed that the inhabitants of the land of Israel were giants, how could they doubt G-d’s ability or desire to give the people the land of Israel?
There seems to be two possibilities, either they really doubted or they did not. If they did not doubt, then we have to postulate some conspiracy theory that the ten spies lied in order for the people to stay in the desert. Nachshoni (1987) quotes from Hasidic sources, that the ten spies really had pious intentions, as they thought it was more proper for a religious person to stay in the sheltered life of the desert than to enter the real life in the land of Israel. A slightly less apologetic approach could be that they thought the people were not ready for the real life, so they wanted the people to remain with the miraculous existence of the desert. Or, one could impart sinister reasons to the conspiracy theory. Yissakhar Teichtal (2000, p.259) quotes from the Zohar that the spies feared that they would only be princes in the desert, but they would lose their power if the people entered the land of Israel. Or one could claim the spies were just evil people who wanted to harm the people, but then it is hard to understand why Moshe chose them. Yet, notwithstanding the current popularity with conspiracy theories, they are hard to prove, and I doubt the case here involves a conspiracy. Thus one has to explain the spies doubting of G-d’s power.
It seems to me there are two possibilities why the spies doubted G-d's power. One, maybe the spies thought that G-d meant for the people to capture the land through normal means as otherwise why bother sending spies? Thus, their advice that the people could not conquer the land of Israel was made without any assumption of divine help. Clearly there is some truth to the idea that the people would have to live normal lives without daily miracles once they reached the land of Israel, but still as G-d had promised the people the land, the spies should have calculated G-d’s assistance into their analysis.
Thus, the more likely rationale for their advice is that when they had spent the time traveling in the land of Israel, they had forgotten the miracles of G-d. According to this idea, even when the spies returned to the camp and would have seen the divine cloud, they had become so fixated on their thoughts in the 40 days that they were gone, that they were unable to change their mind. Thus, they gave their report immediately upon their return. Their actions would then show a lack of perspective that they could not discern or critique information, which, in retrospect, made then unfit to be spies.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Bemidbar 11:10-29 (Behaalothekha) – The beginning of the great depression
Bemidbar 11:10-15 records that Moshe was very upset by the people's complaint for meat. He complained to G-d that why did G-d put him in charge of the people since he was not their mother nor was he a nurse who carries babies. He ends by asking G-d to kill him! Moshe's use of maternal metaphors is a little surprising but maybe it was because the people had cried and stated "who will feed us," 11:4. This crying and demanding to be fed is acting like young children who cannot get what they want, and hence maybe this prompted Moshe to use maternal metaphors when speaking to G-d.
Even more surprising than Moshe's language is that he does not pray for the people and instead he asked to be killed! N. Leibowitz (1980, pp. 103,104,107,108, apparently quoting R. Isaac Caro, R. Yosef Caro's grandfather) offers two answers for Moshe's response. One, the “previous grumblings were motivated by valid causes, but here there was no excuse.” And, two, their demand for meat was really doubting G-d’s power.
Rav Soloveitchik (lecture on June 10, 1974, partially recorded in Besdin, 1979, pp. 150-159) suggests that Moshe was so upset here because he realized that he was not the type of leader that the people needed. Moshe was an intellectual leader, a teacher, but he realized that he also had to give emotional support to the people, and he felt that he was unqualified for this role.
Another possible reason for Moshe's despondency was the crying of the people, 11:4,10,13. This crying was something new, as the people had not cried when they had complained in the past. They would get meat in a few weeks/ months when they would enter the land of Israel, but they could not wait. They had the mahn and they were not starving, so why were they crying for meat? People might want to eat meat and be upset that they had no meat, but was that a sufficient cause for them to cry? The crying showed that the people were not capable of dealing with the slightest adversity. The significance of this crying was that it demonstrated that the people were not ready to enter the land of Israel,and the people would cry again when they heard the report of the spies, 14:1.
The people had been slaves in Egypt, and at this point they had been free for a little more than year. Was this enough time for them to lose their slave mentality? We see from their crying that the slave mentality remained since they could not cope with problems on their own. Thus, Moshe became depressed because he realized that he was going to fail in his mission to take the people into the land of Israel. This depression overwhelmed Moshe and hence he did not pray for the people.
G-d responded to Moshe's complaint not by killing him, but by telling him that He would provide seventy more prophets and meat for the people, 11:16-20. Moshe responded by questioning G-d's ability to provide so much meat and G-d responded by telling Moshe not to doubt G-d's abilities, 11:21-23. Why would Moshe doubt G-d and why was he not punished for this doubt?
Many of the commentators (see Rashi on 11:22, Ibn Ezra on 11:21, Ramban on 11:22 and Luzzatto on 11:21) offer answers to explain why Moshe doubted G-d's ability to feed the entire population meat, but my guess is Moshe's doubt was because he was so despondent after hearing the people crying, 11:10,13. This state of mind might also explain why G-d only rebuked Moshe. G-d was aware that when people are despondent, they sometimes say things they do not mean.
After G-d rebuked Moshe, Moshe gathered the seventy people around his private tent, which was located outside the camp, and these people became prophets. However, two people, Eldad and Meidad, who were either in addition to the seventy (Rashi on 11:26) or part of the seventy (Luzzatto on 11:26), started to prophesize within the camp, 11:23-26. A messenger told Moshe about their prophesying and Yehoshua who was with Moshe told Moshe to stop them, 11:27,28. Yehoshua was worried that their prophesying was a type of insurrection since the prophets were supposed to be with Moshe outside of the camp, 11:16,17, and not independent of Moshe. However, Moshe responded that their prophesying was good as everybody should become prophets, 11:29. N. Leibowitz (1980, p. 127) quotes R. Yitzhak Arama how "Moshe withstood the test of jealousy and this was a remarkable example of humility." Yet, Yehoshua was correct, and hence maybe Moshe's response was again due to his depression that he did not care if the people rebelled.
Even more surprising than Moshe's language is that he does not pray for the people and instead he asked to be killed! N. Leibowitz (1980, pp. 103,104,107,108, apparently quoting R. Isaac Caro, R. Yosef Caro's grandfather) offers two answers for Moshe's response. One, the “previous grumblings were motivated by valid causes, but here there was no excuse.” And, two, their demand for meat was really doubting G-d’s power.
Rav Soloveitchik (lecture on June 10, 1974, partially recorded in Besdin, 1979, pp. 150-159) suggests that Moshe was so upset here because he realized that he was not the type of leader that the people needed. Moshe was an intellectual leader, a teacher, but he realized that he also had to give emotional support to the people, and he felt that he was unqualified for this role.
Another possible reason for Moshe's despondency was the crying of the people, 11:4,10,13. This crying was something new, as the people had not cried when they had complained in the past. They would get meat in a few weeks/ months when they would enter the land of Israel, but they could not wait. They had the mahn and they were not starving, so why were they crying for meat? People might want to eat meat and be upset that they had no meat, but was that a sufficient cause for them to cry? The crying showed that the people were not capable of dealing with the slightest adversity. The significance of this crying was that it demonstrated that the people were not ready to enter the land of Israel,and the people would cry again when they heard the report of the spies, 14:1.
The people had been slaves in Egypt, and at this point they had been free for a little more than year. Was this enough time for them to lose their slave mentality? We see from their crying that the slave mentality remained since they could not cope with problems on their own. Thus, Moshe became depressed because he realized that he was going to fail in his mission to take the people into the land of Israel. This depression overwhelmed Moshe and hence he did not pray for the people.
G-d responded to Moshe's complaint not by killing him, but by telling him that He would provide seventy more prophets and meat for the people, 11:16-20. Moshe responded by questioning G-d's ability to provide so much meat and G-d responded by telling Moshe not to doubt G-d's abilities, 11:21-23. Why would Moshe doubt G-d and why was he not punished for this doubt?
Many of the commentators (see Rashi on 11:22, Ibn Ezra on 11:21, Ramban on 11:22 and Luzzatto on 11:21) offer answers to explain why Moshe doubted G-d's ability to feed the entire population meat, but my guess is Moshe's doubt was because he was so despondent after hearing the people crying, 11:10,13. This state of mind might also explain why G-d only rebuked Moshe. G-d was aware that when people are despondent, they sometimes say things they do not mean.
After G-d rebuked Moshe, Moshe gathered the seventy people around his private tent, which was located outside the camp, and these people became prophets. However, two people, Eldad and Meidad, who were either in addition to the seventy (Rashi on 11:26) or part of the seventy (Luzzatto on 11:26), started to prophesize within the camp, 11:23-26. A messenger told Moshe about their prophesying and Yehoshua who was with Moshe told Moshe to stop them, 11:27,28. Yehoshua was worried that their prophesying was a type of insurrection since the prophets were supposed to be with Moshe outside of the camp, 11:16,17, and not independent of Moshe. However, Moshe responded that their prophesying was good as everybody should become prophets, 11:29. N. Leibowitz (1980, p. 127) quotes R. Yitzhak Arama how "Moshe withstood the test of jealousy and this was a remarkable example of humility." Yet, Yehoshua was correct, and hence maybe Moshe's response was again due to his depression that he did not care if the people rebelled.
Bemidbar chapter 12 (Behaalothekha)– The end of the great depression
Bemidbar 12:1,2 record that apparently out of the blue, Miryam and Aharon spoke about Moshe's Cushite wife, and they noted that G-d also spoke to them. These verses are surprising. Did Moshe have another wife? Why should this fact be mentioned at this point? Why are Miryam and Aharon attacking Moshe? Was it sibling rivalry? Why now? What does the issue of Moshe's second wife have to do with their statement that G-d also spoke to them?
Rashi (on 12:1,2), follows the approach that the reference to the Cushite wife is to Tzippora, and explains that during the events recorded in chapter 11, Miryam and Aharon learned that Moshe had separated from Tzippora. With this idea, Miryam and Aharon were not trying to attack Moshe but to help Tzippora. In 12:2, they were pointing out that Moshe did not have to separate from Tzippora since they were prophets and had not separated from their spouses. G-d’s response could then be understood that since Moshe was such a greater prophet, he had to separate from his wife, but lesser prophets, such as Miryam and Aharon, could remain with their spouses.
This explanation is troubling since nowhere in the text is it mentioned that Moshe separated from Tzippora and even if he did, the text also does not mention that Miryam and Aharon criticized him for this, only that they said that Moshe took a Cushite wife.
More likely, it seems that Moshe had another wife, apparently from the period when he ran away from Egypt, see Rashbam on 12:1, and comments by Joseph Ibn Kaspi, quoted by Nehama Leibowitz, 1980, pp. 130-132. It could be that this marriage ended before Moshe married Tzippora.
Bekhor Shor (on 12:1, see also Luzzatto on 12:1) explains that Miryam and Aharon referred to the Cushite wife to make the point that Moshe did not marry from among the Jewish people, while they married amongst the people. They were saying that Moshe was too proud, while they were not disdainful of the people. This was an attempt to denigrate the leadership of Moshe since it brought to the attention of the people the possibility that Moshe was separate in some ways from the people due to his foreign wife. Thus in 12:2, they were claiming that they were fit to be leaders because they were also prophets while Moshe was not fit to be either the leader or the only leader since he had married a foreigner. Accordingly, they were staking a claim for the leadership of the people.
Why did they make this claim now? Maybe they felt threatened by the 70 people who became prophets in the previous chapter 11:24-26, since this could have lowered their status. Previously, they were the only prophets besides Moshe in the camp, but now they had to share that role with 70 people. Accordingly, to raise their status they tried to make themselves equal or greater to Moshe. Or, maybe they were making a play for the leadership of the people since they saw that Eldad and Medad had rebelled and nothing had happened to them, 11:26-29. Or, maybe their comments were in response to Moshe's depression that began in chapter11, see our discussion above on 11:10-29, "The beginning of the great depression" http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/bemidbar-chapter-11behaalothekha.html. Miryam and Aharon realized that Moshe was depressed, and they thought that this made him unable to continue functioning as the leader of the people. Thus, they were attempting to become the leaders, and they noted that G-d also spoke to them. How did this claim relate to Moshe's Cushite wife? It could be, as the Bekhor Shor explained that they were trying to show that they were more qualified to be leaders than Moshe since Moshe had some foreign connections. Or, maybe Moshe in his depression spoke about this long lost wife, and they mentioned it to indicate that Moshe was unable to function as the leader of the people. Even if one follows the idea that 12:1 refers to Moshe separating from Tzippora, then this could also accord with Moshe being depressed since maybe he separated due to his depression.
Moshe did not respond to Miryam and Aharon's accusations. 12:3 records that he was humble which might be the reason for his non-response. Yet, we know that he responded very angrily to Datan and Aviram's accusation, 16:15. Maybe he did not respond since he was in shock that his sister and brother were attacking him, or maybe again this was another sign of his despondency.
Instead, G-d responded by calling Moshe, Aharon and Miryam to the ohel moed, and then telling Aharon and Miryam to step outside the tent, 12:4,5. Why did G-d have to call for Moshe to go to the ohel moed, if afterwards, G-d spoke only to Miryam and Aharon? Why did Moshe have to be around when G-d was speaking to Miryam and Aharon? In 12:4-8, G-d rebuked Miryam and Aharon and stated the greatest praises of Moshe in the Torah, which further establishes Moshe as the foremost prophet who ever lived. Why did G-d announce Moshe's greatness at this time?
My guess is that the discussion was also for Moshe's benefit that he could hear it from inside the ohel moed. Why could he not go outside? The answer is that G-d was angry at Miryam and Aharon, and speaking harshly to them. G-d wanted Moshe to hear what he said, but G-d did not want to speak harshly in front of Moshe. Why not? Again, Moshe was depressed and G-d was trying to end the depression by having Moshe hear how unique and important he was. It is not clear if G-d's effort succeeded.
After G-d's conversation with Miryam and Aharon ended, Miryam was afflicted with tsara'at, 12:10. Aharon confessed to their sins and urged Moshe to pray for Miryam, 12:11,12. 12:12 is usually understood (see Rashi on 12:12) that Aharon was telling Moshe that if he did not pray, then their sister would be dead since a person with leprosy is like a dead person. However, this reference to the Miryam is not in the verse, and has to be added to the text. Instead, the Rashbam (on 12:12) understands the verse simply that Aharon was telling Moshe not be dead to his sister's suffering, and the reference to being dead is to Moshe and not Miryam. (Milgrom, 1990, p. 97, writes that according to the Rashbam, Aharon was rebuking Moshe, but really Aharon was pleading with Moshe to pray for Miryam, as Aharon stated in 12:11, "my lord.") Yet, why did Moshe not initially pray for his sister? Was he so angry at her for her attacks on him? Or, was it again because he was still depressed?
In any event, Aharon's plea or Miryam's condition stirred Moshe to pray and G-d healed her, 12:13-15. This prayer and the answering of the prayer ended Moshe's depression. A similar case occurred by Avraham after the destruction of Sedom and Amora, and he too had to pray for Avimelekh to end his depression, see our discussion on Bereshit chapters 19 and 20 "The survivors."
If one has accepted this approach concerning Moshe's depression, we see the intrinsic connection between chapters 11 and 12. In addition, we understand why the two chapters were recorded in the Torah. Chapter 11 was recorded to prepare the reader for the failure of the spies that not everything was going well beforehand. This also signaled to Moshe the coming failure of the people, which caused him to be depressed, and then chapter 12 is recorded to explain how his depression ended.
Rashi (on 12:1,2), follows the approach that the reference to the Cushite wife is to Tzippora, and explains that during the events recorded in chapter 11, Miryam and Aharon learned that Moshe had separated from Tzippora. With this idea, Miryam and Aharon were not trying to attack Moshe but to help Tzippora. In 12:2, they were pointing out that Moshe did not have to separate from Tzippora since they were prophets and had not separated from their spouses. G-d’s response could then be understood that since Moshe was such a greater prophet, he had to separate from his wife, but lesser prophets, such as Miryam and Aharon, could remain with their spouses.
This explanation is troubling since nowhere in the text is it mentioned that Moshe separated from Tzippora and even if he did, the text also does not mention that Miryam and Aharon criticized him for this, only that they said that Moshe took a Cushite wife.
More likely, it seems that Moshe had another wife, apparently from the period when he ran away from Egypt, see Rashbam on 12:1, and comments by Joseph Ibn Kaspi, quoted by Nehama Leibowitz, 1980, pp. 130-132. It could be that this marriage ended before Moshe married Tzippora.
Bekhor Shor (on 12:1, see also Luzzatto on 12:1) explains that Miryam and Aharon referred to the Cushite wife to make the point that Moshe did not marry from among the Jewish people, while they married amongst the people. They were saying that Moshe was too proud, while they were not disdainful of the people. This was an attempt to denigrate the leadership of Moshe since it brought to the attention of the people the possibility that Moshe was separate in some ways from the people due to his foreign wife. Thus in 12:2, they were claiming that they were fit to be leaders because they were also prophets while Moshe was not fit to be either the leader or the only leader since he had married a foreigner. Accordingly, they were staking a claim for the leadership of the people.
Why did they make this claim now? Maybe they felt threatened by the 70 people who became prophets in the previous chapter 11:24-26, since this could have lowered their status. Previously, they were the only prophets besides Moshe in the camp, but now they had to share that role with 70 people. Accordingly, to raise their status they tried to make themselves equal or greater to Moshe. Or, maybe they were making a play for the leadership of the people since they saw that Eldad and Medad had rebelled and nothing had happened to them, 11:26-29. Or, maybe their comments were in response to Moshe's depression that began in chapter11, see our discussion above on 11:10-29, "The beginning of the great depression" http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/bemidbar-chapter-11behaalothekha.html. Miryam and Aharon realized that Moshe was depressed, and they thought that this made him unable to continue functioning as the leader of the people. Thus, they were attempting to become the leaders, and they noted that G-d also spoke to them. How did this claim relate to Moshe's Cushite wife? It could be, as the Bekhor Shor explained that they were trying to show that they were more qualified to be leaders than Moshe since Moshe had some foreign connections. Or, maybe Moshe in his depression spoke about this long lost wife, and they mentioned it to indicate that Moshe was unable to function as the leader of the people. Even if one follows the idea that 12:1 refers to Moshe separating from Tzippora, then this could also accord with Moshe being depressed since maybe he separated due to his depression.
Moshe did not respond to Miryam and Aharon's accusations. 12:3 records that he was humble which might be the reason for his non-response. Yet, we know that he responded very angrily to Datan and Aviram's accusation, 16:15. Maybe he did not respond since he was in shock that his sister and brother were attacking him, or maybe again this was another sign of his despondency.
Instead, G-d responded by calling Moshe, Aharon and Miryam to the ohel moed, and then telling Aharon and Miryam to step outside the tent, 12:4,5. Why did G-d have to call for Moshe to go to the ohel moed, if afterwards, G-d spoke only to Miryam and Aharon? Why did Moshe have to be around when G-d was speaking to Miryam and Aharon? In 12:4-8, G-d rebuked Miryam and Aharon and stated the greatest praises of Moshe in the Torah, which further establishes Moshe as the foremost prophet who ever lived. Why did G-d announce Moshe's greatness at this time?
My guess is that the discussion was also for Moshe's benefit that he could hear it from inside the ohel moed. Why could he not go outside? The answer is that G-d was angry at Miryam and Aharon, and speaking harshly to them. G-d wanted Moshe to hear what he said, but G-d did not want to speak harshly in front of Moshe. Why not? Again, Moshe was depressed and G-d was trying to end the depression by having Moshe hear how unique and important he was. It is not clear if G-d's effort succeeded.
After G-d's conversation with Miryam and Aharon ended, Miryam was afflicted with tsara'at, 12:10. Aharon confessed to their sins and urged Moshe to pray for Miryam, 12:11,12. 12:12 is usually understood (see Rashi on 12:12) that Aharon was telling Moshe that if he did not pray, then their sister would be dead since a person with leprosy is like a dead person. However, this reference to the Miryam is not in the verse, and has to be added to the text. Instead, the Rashbam (on 12:12) understands the verse simply that Aharon was telling Moshe not be dead to his sister's suffering, and the reference to being dead is to Moshe and not Miryam. (Milgrom, 1990, p. 97, writes that according to the Rashbam, Aharon was rebuking Moshe, but really Aharon was pleading with Moshe to pray for Miryam, as Aharon stated in 12:11, "my lord.") Yet, why did Moshe not initially pray for his sister? Was he so angry at her for her attacks on him? Or, was it again because he was still depressed?
In any event, Aharon's plea or Miryam's condition stirred Moshe to pray and G-d healed her, 12:13-15. This prayer and the answering of the prayer ended Moshe's depression. A similar case occurred by Avraham after the destruction of Sedom and Amora, and he too had to pray for Avimelekh to end his depression, see our discussion on Bereshit chapters 19 and 20 "The survivors."
If one has accepted this approach concerning Moshe's depression, we see the intrinsic connection between chapters 11 and 12. In addition, we understand why the two chapters were recorded in the Torah. Chapter 11 was recorded to prepare the reader for the failure of the spies that not everything was going well beforehand. This also signaled to Moshe the coming failure of the people, which caused him to be depressed, and then chapter 12 is recorded to explain how his depression ended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)