Tag Archives: Moshe

Korach – Not Even a Donkey

PDF for printing – 2 pages A4

In Parshat Korach, Moshe is confronted by Korach and his mob:

וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל מֹשֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב לָכֶם כִּי כָל הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים וּבְתוֹכָם ה’ וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ עַל קְהַל ה’:
They congregated upon Moshe and Aharon, and said to them, “Enough! The entire assembly is holy, and Hashem is in their midst! So why do you lord yourselves over the congregation of Hashem?!” (Bamidbar 16:3)

By suggesting that Moshe and Aharon “lord over” the Jewish People, Korach accused them of acting out of self-interest, desire for power, and personal benefit. Similartly, when Moshe tried to settle the conflict and called for a meeting with Korach’s partners, Datan and Aviram, they responded as follows:

וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא נַעֲלֶה: הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר:
Moshe sent to call Datan and Aviram, sons of Eliav; they said, “We will not come up! Is it not enough that he took us from the land of milk and honey to kill us in the desert, that he should also rule over us? ” (Bamidbar 16:13)

Having called Egypt, “a land of milk and honey”, they accuse Moshe of being power-hungry, just for asking them to come to meet with him.
In response, Moshe turned to G-d with an unusual prayer:

וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל ה’ אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶם:
Moshe got very angry. He said to Hashem, “Do not accept their offering! I never took a donkey from them, I never did harm to any one of them!”(Bamidbar 16:15)

Moshe is very upset by their accusations, and defends himself by saying that he never took anything from them, in particular, not a single donkey.

In the Haftarah, we find the prophet Shmuel in a similar situation. After having dedicated his entire life to the Jewish People, literally from the cradle, and having served as arguably their most successful leader in centuries, he is told by the Jewish People that they would like to try a new political structure, “like all the other nations”. When handing over the reins to King Shaul, he asks the Jewish People:

הִנְנִי עֲנוּ בִי נֶגֶד ה’ וְנֶגֶד מְשִׁיחוֹ אֶת שׁוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וַחֲמוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וְאֶת מִי עָשַׁקְתִּי אֶת מִי רַצּוֹתִי וּמִיַּד מִי לָקַחְתִּי כֹפֶר וְאַעְלִים עֵינַי בּוֹ
Now answer me before Hashem and before His anointed, whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom did I oppress? Whom did I favor? From whom did I take a bribe, so that I would overlook him?” (Shmuel I 12:3)

Like Moshe, Shmuel also asserts that he never took a donkey from them. Why, of all things that they did not take from the Jewish People, did both Moshe and Shmuel mention donkeys? What made them get so upset?

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי מה שהיה דרכי ליטול לא נטלתי מהם בנוהג שבעולם אדם שהוא עושה בהקדש נוטל שכרו מן ההקדש ואני בשעה שהייתי יורד מן מדין למצרים היה דרכי ליטול מהן חמור שבשביל צרכיהם ירדתי ולא נטלתי וכן שמואל הצדיק אמר (שמואל א יב) הנני ענו בי נגד ה’ ונגד משיחו את שור מי לקחתי וחמור מי לקחתי … וכשהייתי חוזר ועושה דיניהם וצרכיהם והולך וסובב כל עיירות ישראל שנא’ (שם /שמואל א’/ ז) והלך מדי שנה בשנה וסבב בית אל דרך העולם בעלי דינין הולכין אצל הדיין ואני הייתי הולך וסובב מעיר לעיר וממקום למקום וחמור שלי

“I did not take a donkey from them”: Moshe said, “What should have been mine to take, I did not take from them. It is customary that a person who works for a charity can be paid by that charity, and I, when I left Midian to go to Egypt, I should have taken a donkey because I traveled for their benefit.”

Likewise, Shmuel said, “Whose donkey have I taken?” When he used to judge all their cases and see to all their needs, and he would travel around all the towns of Israel. He said, “It is the way of the world for the parties in a court case to go to the judge, and I used to go around from town to town and place to place, on my own donkey.” (Bamidbar Rabba 18:10)

Both Shmuel and Moshe dedicated their lives to serving the Jewish People. Neither one gained anything by it; not only did they not collect taxes, not only did they not accept gifts and offerings, but they did not even ask to be compensated for their expenses[1].
It was not only money that they dedicated to the Jewish People. The donkey that Moshe did not get compensated for was the donkey which he used to leave his home in Midian, upon which he placed his wife and sons to send them back while he was busy taking the Jews of out Egypt. The donkey that Shmuel never got compensated for was the donkey that he used to leave his home and family to travel on behalf of the Jewish People so they would have ready access to a judge and to spiritual leadership. They sacrificed not only their fortune, but also their homes and their family lives [2].

How ironic that the Jewish People would seek to supplant each of them with a political system that was the opposite of their attitude of self-sacrifice. Moshe was challenged by Korach, whose cry of equality was a thinly veiled bid for power and money. Shmuel was replaced by a monarchy, which would be sustained by taxes that are taken by force.

The Torah tells us that even prophets like Moshe and Shmuel are hurt by rejection. Those who dedicate their entire lives to the Jewish People without expecting anything in return, nevertheless need a modicum of appreciation.

Copyright © Kira Sirote
In memory of my father, Peter Rozenberg, z”l
לעילוי נשמת אבי מורי פנחס בן נתן נטע ז”ל

 

[1] The Midrash explains that they were independently wealthy, and even lists wealth among the ideal qualifications for being a prophet.
[2] It is not coincidental that both Moshe and Shmuel had sons who were not fit to take over from them.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Connections, Korach, Sefer Bamidbar

Ki Tisa – Who’s to blame?

The Haftarah of Ki Tisa is the story of Eliyahu at Har HaCarmel, where he proves to the Jewish People that Hashem is G-d and the idol Ba’al is imaginary.  At first glance, this Haftarah appears to be the natural choice for the Parsha of Ki Tisa, which recounts the Sin of the Golden Calf:  Moshe had to deal with idolatry, and Eliyahu had to deal with idolatry. However, the situations are not parallel, they are inverse. The Parsha starts with the Jewish People serving G-d whole-heartedly and follows with them devolving into worshipping a golden statue. Conversely, the Haftarah starts with the Jewish People serving a pagan god, and follows with them saying “Hashem is G-d,” and serving G-d whole-heartedly.

If one wanted to match the Sin of the Golden Calf with a chapter of Prophets on the topic of idolatry, there is a plethora of chapters to choose from[1];  all of the prophets dealt with idolatry in one way or another. So why was this chapter chosen?

What the Parsha and the Haftarah have in common is not the idolatry, and not Moshe’s or Eliyahu’s ways of dealing with it, but rather how each of them defended their people before G-d. According to the Midrash (Talmud Bavli Berachot 32-33), both Moshe and Eliyahu put the blame for what happened on G-d Himself.

Eliyahu said,

לז) עֲנֵנִי ה’ עֲנֵנִי וְיֵדְעוּ הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי אַתָּה ה’ הָאֱ-לֹהִים וְאַתָּה הֲסִבֹּתָ אֶת לִבָּם אֲחֹרַנִּית:

“Answer me, Hashem, answer me!   So that these people shall know that You, Hashem, are G-d, for You have turned their hearts backwards.” (Melachim I 18:37)

Eliyahu accuses G-d of having turned the hearts of the Jewish People away from Him. They cannot bear the entire blame for their actions if G-d set up a situation that they were not able to handle. The Jewish People had never had an aristocracy; Achav is only the second generation in his dynasty, and the concept of a royal family was relatively new. When Jezebel, the royal princess of the House of Tzidon, became the queen, she saw it as her mission to show the Jews how things ought to be done; to introduce the rituals of the wealthiest, most cosmopolitan, most admired culture in the region into their society, by force if necessary. How could they be expected to match wills with someone like her,  to withstand that level of pressure?

We all know that G-d is the ultimate matchmaker. If He had caused this match to fail, or caused Achav to marry someone more suitable, none of this would have happened. Eliyahu holds G-d responsible.

Similarly, according to the same Midrash, when Moshe said,

יא) … וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָה ה’ יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדוֹל וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה:

“Why, Hashem, should You be angry at Your people, whom You have taken out of the land of Egypt, with great might and a strong hand?” (Shemot 32:11)

… what he really meant was, “You have no right to be angry after leaving them for generations in the most pagan culture in the world!”

Here is a Midrash that puts it all into a metaphor that only Chazal could permit themselves to use:

א”ר הונא בשם ר’ יוחנן משל לחכם שפתח לבנו חנות של בשמים בשוק של זונות. המבוי עשה שלו והאומנות עשתה שלה והנער כבחור עשה שלו יצא לתרבות רעה. בא אביו ותפסו עם הזונות התחיל האב צועק ואומר הורגך אני. היה שם אוהבו אמר לו אתה איבדת את הנער ואתה צועק כנגדו. הנחת כל האומניות ולא למדתו אלא בשם והנחת כל המובאות ולא פתחת לו חנות אלא בשוק של זונות.כך אמר משה רבון העולם הנחת כל העולם ולא שעבדת בניך אלא במצרים שהיו עובדין טלאים ולמדו מהם בניך. ואף הם עשו העגל לפיכך אמר אשר הוצאת מארץ מצרים דע מהיכן הוצאת אותם.

R’ Huna said from R’ Yohanan:  It’s analogous to a scholar who opened for his son a perfume shop in a red-light district full of prostitutes. The location did what it does, the profession did what it does, and the guy did what a guy does.

His father came and caught him with the prostitutes, and started screaming, “I’m going to kill you!” The father’s friend was there, and said to him, “You destroyed the boy, and now you’re screaming at him? Of all possible professions you taught him perfumery; of all possible locations, you opened him a shop in a red-light district?!”

So, too, Moshe said, “Master of the Universe! Of all the nations in the world in which to enslave Your children, You picked Egypt, who worship calves? Your children learned from them and also made a calf!”  This is why Moshe said, “whom You have taken out of Egypt”. You should realize where You took them out of!  (Midrash Shemot Rabba 43)

Like Eliyahu, Moshe blames G-d for the failure of the Jewish People. It is G-d who is responsible for their pagan mindset. If He didn’t want them to have that influence, He should not have put them in that situation in the first place[2].

This attitude is more than a little bit chutzpadik. If it weren’t Chazal that said it, we certainly would not have dared to interpret Moshe’s or Eliyahu’s words in this manner. But was it wrong of them to blame G-d? Were they punished for it? We know that neither prophet was perfect; Moshe was punished for hitting the rock in his anger rather than speaking to it, and Eliyahu, as we will read in the Haftarah of Pinchas, was censured for some of the things he said. Here, however, there is no hint of censure; not in the text and not in the Midrash. On the contrary, G-d listens to both Moshe and Eliyahu, implying is that the argument is valid and He accepts His share of the blame.

Or maybe He is just really happy that the Jewish People have leaders who are willing to go to such lengths to defend them.

Copyright © Kira Sirote  
In memory of my father, Peter Rozenberg, z”l
לעילוי נשמת אבי מורי פנחס בן נתן נטע ז”ל



[1] For instance, Melachim I 12, where King Yeravam makes golden calves and says: “These are your gods, Israel that took you out of Egypt”.

[2] This Midrash directly contradicts the popular saying, “G-d does not put people in situations they cannot handle.”

1 Comment

Filed under Ki Tisa, Sefer Shemot

Shemot – The mouth that will speak with G-d

The Haftarah of Shemot describes a society drunk on its own wealth and power, arrogant, self-centered and haughty. Yeshayahu attempts to warn them of the approaching disaster, but their cynicism deafens them to the prophet’s message. He expresses his frustration at his inability to connect with them:

כִּי בְּלַעֲגֵי שָׂפָה וּבְלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת יְדַבֵּר אֶל הָעָם הַזֶּה
Only with a twisted tongue, and in a different language,
should one talk to these people?! (Yeshayahu 28:11)

Yeshayahu wonders if there is anyone out there that can still be reached:

אֶת מִי יוֹרֶה דֵעָה וְאֶת מִי יָבִין שְׁמוּעָה גְּמוּלֵי מֵחָלָב עַתִּיקֵי מִשָּׁדָיִם
Whom can one teach knowledge? Who can understand what he hears?
Just-weaned babes, who left the breast (Yeshayahu 28:9)

It is possible that his answer is actually a rhetorical question, and should be read thus: “Who can I talk to? Nursery-school children?!” It is also possible that this is not sarcasm, but rather a genuine answer. The prophet might be saying that even though society as a whole is twisted by its cynicism and arrogance, there is still hope for their children. They might retain enough innocence and purity to hear his message, to accept the Torah that he has to teach them.

In order to highlight the innocence and trust of the children, Yeshayahu uses the imagery of nursing. This is not incidental; the nursing relationship is a symbol of full dependence and full trust. Here is how David HaMelech references it in Tehillim:

(א) שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת לְדָוִד ה’ לֹא גָבַהּ לִבִּי וְלֹא רָמוּ עֵינַי וְלֹא הִלַּכְתִּי בִּגְדֹלוֹת וּבְנִפְלָאוֹת מִמֶּנִּי:
(ב) אִם לֹא שִׁוִּיתִי וְדוֹמַמְתִּי נַפְשִׁי כְּגָמֻל עֲלֵי אִמּוֹ כַּגָּמֻל עָלַי נַפְשִׁי:
1) A song of ascent for David-
Hashem! My heart did not become conceited, and my eyes did not become haughty,
and I did not walk in ways too great or too mighty for me.
2) If I did not liken and compare my soul,
to a nursing infant with his mother,
as a nursing infant was my soul.

In order to have a relationship of pure trust with G-d, David visualizes himself as a nursing infant looking up at his mother. By nature, a baby has complete trust in his mother to provide him with what he needs. Our relationship with G-d should be similarly unencumbered by our own conceits and by the self-delusion that we know better than He does.

By using this image, Yeshayahu expresses his hope that children who were only recently weaned retain their ability to trust others to provide them with what they need. If so, they will be able to listen to the Torah that he has to teach them. If not, if they are already cynical, then it will fall on deaf ears.

The Midrash takes the Haftarah’s point about the nursing being a prerequisite for being able to absorb the Torah, and applies it to Moshe Rabbeinu.

ותאמר אחותו אל בת פרעה האלך וקראתי לך אשה מינקת מן העבריות : ומאי שנא מעבריות? מלמד, שהחזירוהו למשה על כל המצריות כולן ולא ינק, אמר: פה שעתיד לדבר עם השכינה יינק דבר טמא? והיינו דכתיב: +ישעיהו כח+ את מי יורה דעה וגו’, למי יורה דעה ולמי יבין שמועה? לגמולי מחלב ולעתיקי משדים.
“His sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call a nursemaid from the Hebrews?”: Why the Hebrews? It teaches us that Pharaoh’s daughter took Moshe to all the Egyptian women, and he would not nurse. He said, “The mouth that will speak with the Presence will nurse from something impure?!” As it says (Yeshayahu 28): “Whom can you teach knowledge, etc? Just-weaned toddlers, who left the breast” That is, to whom should He teach knowledge, and who will understand what he hears? The one who drew away from the breast. (Talmud Bavli Sotah 12b)

This Midrash points out a gap in Moshe’s story: we know that Moshe’s sister got his mother to be hired as his nurse, but why would Pharaoh’s daughter go out of her way to look for a Hebrew nursemaid in the first place?

Let’s look at the verses in the Parsha, right after Pharaoh’s daughter draws him out of the Nile:

ז) וַתֹּאמֶר אֲחֹתוֹ אֶל בַּת פַּרְעֹה הַאֵלֵךְ וְקָרָאתִי לָךְ אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת מִן הָעִבְרִיֹּת וְתֵינִק לָךְ אֶת הַיָּלֶד:
ח) וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ בַּת פַּרְעֹה לֵכִי וַתֵּלֶךְ הָעַלְמָה וַתִּקְרָא אֶת אֵם הַיָּלֶד:
ט) וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ בַּת פַּרְעֹה הֵילִיכִי אֶת הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה וְהֵינִקִהוּ לִי וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן אֶת שְׂכָרֵךְ וַתִּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה הַיֶּלֶד וַתְּנִיקֵהוּ:

7) His sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call you a nursemaid from the Hebrews, so she could nurse the child for you?”
8) Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go”. The girl went, and called the mother of the child.
9) Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take care of this child and nurse him for me, and I will pay you.” The woman took the child and nursed him. (Shemot 2)

This is a lot of detail for a story that is otherwise very sketchy. It might have just said:

His sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call you a nursemaid?”
Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go”. The girl went, and called the mother of the child.
Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take care of this child and I will pay you.”

If all we had was the shorter version, we would have missed the focus on nursing, and the insistence that the nursemaid be “from the Hebrews”. But what difference did it make to Moshe’s life that he was nursed – not just raised, but specifically nursed – by his mother, and not by some Egyptian woman serving in the palace?

The Midrash takes the verse from the Haftarah and reads it thus: “Who can G-d teach Torah to? One who rejected the breast.” It asserts that if Moshe had not rejected Egyptian nursemaids, G-d would not have been able to use him as a conduit for the Torah. He would not have been able to absorb it.

The nourishment that one gets from nursing is not only physical. The baby receives not only the calories and vitamins of the milk, but also the connection with the human being who nurses him. This is why there is an expression that a person absorbs his values “with his mother’s milk.” And the values and mores of Egypt were not something that Moshe Rabbeinu could absorb and still be able to hear G-d. “The mouth that will speak with the Presence will nurse from something impure?!” It is inconceivable that the person whose mission was to learn and then teach all of the Torah would have nursed from an Egyptian.

The Haftarah teaches us that learning Torah has a prerequisite: our relationship with G-d. If we are able to trust Him like a nursing child trusts his mother, than we can be open to learning Torah. If we turn cynical and derisive, like Yeshayahu’s generation, than our minds will reject His words the way they rejected Yeshayahu’s.

The Midrash takes it one step further. If the values that we are fed with our mother’s milk are “Egyptian” and incompatible with Torah – such as treating human beings as objects, cynicism and haughtiness – then it will be impossible for us to have a relationship of trust with G-d, and impossible to receive the Torah.

This is why it was important for the Torah to emphasize to us that Moshe Rabbeinu, the conduit of the Torah, refused Egyptian women, and was nursed by his own mother.


PDF for printing 3 pages A4
Copyright © Kira Sirote

In memory of my father, Peter Rozenberg, z”l
לעילוי נשמת אבי מורי פנחס בן נתן נטע ז”ל

Leave a Comment

Filed under Connections, Sefer Shemot, Shemot