Bemidbar 15:32-36 record the case of the wood gatherer. An anonymous person was found collecting wood on Shabbat and he was temporarily incarcerated since it was not known what was to be done with him. G-d then informed Moshe that the person was to be killed, and he was stoned to death.
This case raises several questions. What did the person do wrong? What is problematic about gathering wood? Why did Moshe (and Aharon) not know what to do with him? Also, was his crime so grave that he deserved to die?
The
Talmud (Shabbat 96b) records three approaches to explain the person’s sin. Rav
Yehuda in the name of Shmuel suggests that the person carried the wood four
cubits in the public domain. An anonymous opinion (see Yerushalmi Sanhedrin
5:1) suggests that the person was found uprooting trees from the ground. And, three,
Rav Aha the son of R. Yaakov suggests that the person was binding the wood/
branches together. With any of these explanations, the person was violating the
Shabbat, and we understand why he was reported to Moshe. What then was Moshe’s
confusion? The Talmud (Sanhedrin 78b) explains that Moshe knew the person was
to die for his actions, but he did not how the person was to be killed. Thus,
G-d told Moshe that he was to be stoned.
In addition, the idea that Moshe was in doubt as to the method of execution seems forced. Why did G-d not inform Moshe of this fact when Moshe was told about the death penalty on Shabbat? Also, 15:35 records that first G-d told Moshe the person was to be killed, and afterwards the method of execution, which implies that initially Moshe did not know the person was to be killed.
Luzzatto’s
approach is that the person did not violate any law of Shabbat, but what then
did he do? Weingreen (1966) suggests that the case here is an example of making
a fence around the Torah, as “the gathering of the wood on the Sabbath could
have been construed as being a manifest prelude to the kindling of the fire.” (Kindling
a fire is prohibited based on Shemot 35:3.) Weingreen explains that Moshe’s
dilemma was whether this preparatory act was to be considered a violation of
Shabbat and if yes, should it punished as severely as violations of the
Shabbat? G-d’s answer to both questions was yes.
Gnana
Robinson (1978) rejects Weingreen’s approach. She questions how the person
could be punished so severely just for showing intent to violate a law, without
actually violating the law. She suggests that the person was attempting to
light a fire as part of idol worship and the gathering of the wood was part of
the cultic act. She claims the death
penalty was for idolatry and not for violating Shabbat. While this approach is possible, it leaves
unexplained what was Moshe’s doubt as to the person’s guilt.
Milgrom
(1990, p.37) claims the prohibition is the gathering itself, and this is derived
from the prohibition of gathering the mahn on Shabbat, Shemot 16:22-30. Yet,
the law by the mahn was unique since the mahn was a test of faith
(see our discussion on Shemot 16:2-4, "A double test"), and hence it is not
obvious that other cases can be extrapolated from the mahn, as maybe
only gathering mahn was forbidden.
Weingreen’s
approach is the most reasonable. Yet,
still the death penalty seems very severe if the person only violated “a fence
around the Torah.” My guess is that to
understand this case, one has to speculate as to the motive of the person in
gathering wood. Was this a hobby? Did the person want the wood to make a fire
to cook? Both possibilities are doubtful.
As noted by Ibn Ezra (on 15:2,32) and Luzzatto, it is more likely that the
person was acting brazenly since the preceding section, 15:30,31, refers to
brazen violations of the Torah, and cooking or just collecting wood would
appear to be too insignificant to be considered brazen. I think one needs to
combine Luzzatto’s comment with Weingreen’s approach.
Maybe
the case was that the person was gathering the wood to build a bonfire, and
this was evident by the quantity of wood that he gathered. Furthermore, the bonfire was to be a brazen
demonstration that the person rejected the law prohibiting kindling a fire on
Shabbat since the smoke would be seen and smelled by the entire nation. The gathering
of a large quantity of wood demonstrated his intention to violate the Shabbat,
and hence the people brought him to Moshe and Aharon. Most likely, this brazen act to desecrate the
Shabbat was a rebellion against the Torah after the people were punished due to
their initial refusal to enter the land of Israel (see Altar, 2004, p.759), and
hence the episode ends with the entire population repudiating the person when
they stoned him. (This could explain the
significance of the opening phrase, the people were in the desert, in 15:32,
see Ramban on 15:32.)
Following Weingreen,
Moshe’s dilemma was whether the preparatory act of gathering the wood for the bonfire
should be treated as a violation of an actual prohibition on Shabbat, and if
yes, what should be the punishment? Usually a violation of a preparatory action
would not entail death, but this was a unique case (see R. Yehuda, Sanhedrin
80b) due to the brazen nature of the bonfire.
Thus, G-d told Moshe that the person was to be killed by stoning.
Death by stoning is a
very common method of execution in the Torah (Vayikra 20:2,27, 24:14,23,
Devarim 13:11, 17:5 and 21:21), but to modern minds it is considered barbaric. Yet
in ancient times, it is likely that it was accepted as an appropriate method of
execution. Gregory Clark (2007, p.182)
writes, "Earlier societies – the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Incas – seem
remarkably similar to ours in many of their details of their daily life, except
for one thing: the apparently insatiable blood lust of the ancients. The Romans seem the most depraved. Criminals were executed for sport in the
Coliseum and smaller town amphitheaters, often after being burned, raped, gouged,
mangled or mutilated." Furthermore, he records an observation by Samuel
Pepys, from London on October 13, 1660, that a criminal was "hanged, drawn,
and quartered... And after he was cut down, his head and heart were shown to
the people who responded with great shouts of joy."
Why did the Torah not
abolish death by stoning? Again we turn to the Rambam's (Moreh, 3:32) argument by
sacrifices that G-d did/ does not really want sacrifices, but they had to be instituted
since the people in those days could not conceive of worship without sacrifices. (Is this need for sacrifices also due to the
lust for blood?) Maybe one could make
the same argument by stoning. If a person
had been killed by "just being" beheaded or hanged then the people
would have thought that the criminal got off easy, and hence they would not have
appreciated the seriousness of the person's action, as in this case, the brazen
act of desecrating the Shabbat by the wood gatherer.
No comments:
Post a Comment