מסעי

The Conclusion to Bamidbar - A Story of Two Parts

The final passage of Sefer Bamidbar ends with the protest of the tribal leaders of Menashe to Moshe, that the ability for the daughters of Tzelofchad to inherit where there are no sons infringes on their territorial rights. If the daughters end up marrying someone from outside the tribe then the land will transfer to that other tribe.  

Like the petition of the daughters back in parashat Pinchas, God recognises the merits of their claim:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶם וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ אֶת־נַחֲלַת אֲבִיהֶן לָהֶן׃ (במדבר כז:ו-ז)

וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־פִּי ה’ לֵאמֹר כֵּן מַטֵּה בְנֵי־יוֹסֵף דֹּבְרִים (במדבר לו:ה)

The solution provided is that the daughters will need to marry within the tribe. This represents a compromise seeking to balance the competing claims of the individuals and the tribe. Notwithstanding their distance in the text, one would assume that the two sides made their cases to Moshe around or at the same time. The similarity in structure and wording only strengthens the sense that we are dealing with a single story broken in two. The question therefore arises why the two claims are separated by eight chapters, to the extent that the sequel only appears as a conclusion or appendix to the book.

On a basic level, there appears to be a powerful literary value in separating the stories so that the counter claims of the tribal heads do not diminish the achievements of the daughters. If the two stories would have been presented together as a single unit, the feat of the daughters would have been obfuscated by the ensuing disappointment that their marriage prospects had become restricted as a result. It would thus have felt like a sour victory. Moreover, the reader's sympathy for the women would have been restrained by the presence of the opposing side. It seems that the Torah wanted to shine a light on the plight of the daughters and enlist the reader's support for their position and not have them overshadowed by the competing claims of the tribal heads. By separating the two parts, both claims are given validation without one marginalising the other.

Beyond the point of separation for the sake of separation, their respective locations are particularly suited to their context. The petition of the daughters of Tzelofchad follows the command to distribute the land. The focus of that command is that each individual (male over the age of 20) who was included in the national census just undertaken should receive a portion in the land:

אֵלֶּה פְּקוּדֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁשׁ־מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וָאָלֶף שְׁבַע מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים׃ וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ לָאֵלֶּה תֵּחָלֵק הָאָרֶץ בְּנַחֲלָה בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת׃ לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ וְלַמְעַט תַּמְעִיט נַחֲלָתוֹ אִישׁ לְפִי פְקֻדָיו יֻתַּן נַחֲלָתוֹ׃ (במדבר כו:נא-נד)

It is upon hearing that the land will be distributed only to the males who were included in the count, that the daughters take up their case with Moshe. The petition of the daughters is located here as it relates to the issue of individual rights in the land which is the subject matter of the distribution laws appearing immediately beforehand. To be sure, the tribal allocations are referenced, but only as a means by which the individuals and families will receive their respective portions.   

This stands in contrast to the inheritance section at the end of the book which regards the inheritance of the tribes as independent rights of the tribe:

וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּתְנַחֲלוּ אֹתָהּ בְּגוֹרָל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ לָתֵת לְתִשְׁעַת הַמַּטּוֹת וַחֲצִי הַמַּטֶּה (במדבר לד:יג)

In this later section, the representatives of each of the tribes are listed by name and it is they who will inherit on behalf of their respective tribes. Moreover, there is no reference to the clans and individuals which were dominant in the earlier inheritance section. Since the appeal of the leaders of Menashe relates to the potential loss of tribal territory, it makes sense to report it only once the rights of each tribe as a collective, have been specified. Only once the rights of each side have become apparent, can the conflict between the tribe and the individual be addressed.[1]

Fitting ending to Bamidbar

The above brings us to the next point, namely that the resolution of the conflicting interests between individual and community forms an appropriate close to the book as a whole. As can be seen in the table below, individual initiative emerges as a core theme in almost all the closing narratives:[2]

Pinchas acts without instruction to execute Zimri and Kosbi	וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל־אֶחָיו אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִית לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃ וַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ׃ וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הַקֻּבָּה וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־קֳבָתָהּ וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (במדבר כה:ו-ח)
Daughters of Zelofchad challenge Moshe regarding the inheritance laws	וַתִּקְרַבְנָה בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד בֶּן־חֵפֶר בֶּן־גִּלְעָד בֶּן־מָכִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן־יוֹסֵף וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֹתָיו מַחְלָה נֹעָה וְחָגְלָה וּמִלְכָּה וְתִרְצָה׃ וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂיאִם וְכָל־הָעֵדָה פֶּתַח אֹהֶל־מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר׃ (במדבר כז:א)
The appointment of a successor to Moshe is presented as an initiative driven by Moshe	וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־ה’ לֵאמֹר׃ יִפְקֹד ה’ אלקי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל־בָּשָׂר אִישׁ עַל־הָעֵדָה׃ אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עֲדַת ה’ כַּצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לָהֶם רֹעֶה׃ (במדבר כז:טו-יז)
Inclusion of freewill offerings in the context of the sacrifices, and the subsequent laws of nedarim introduce human initiative as an integral part of Divine service	אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה’ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם לְבַד מִנִּדְרֵיכֶם וְנִדְבֹתֵיכֶם לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם וּלְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם וּלְנִסְכֵּיכֶם וּלְשַׁלְמֵיכֶם׃ (במדבר כט:לט) אִישׁ כִּי־יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה’ אוֹ־הִשָּׁבַע שְׁבֻעָה לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל־נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ כְּכָל־הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה׃ (במדבר ל:ג)
Following the battle with Midian, the officers step forward to propose additional gifts as a token of gratitude to the fact that all the soldiers survived	וַיִּקְרְבוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר לְאַלְפֵי הַצָּבָא שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת׃ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה עֲבָדֶיךָ נָשְׂאוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדֵנוּ וְלֹא־נִפְקַד מִמֶּנּוּ אִישׁ׃ וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת־קָרְבַּן ה’ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר מָצָא כְלִי־זָהָב אֶצְעָדָה וְצָמִיד טַבַּעַת עָגִיל וְכוּמָז לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵינוּ לִפְנֵי ה’׃ (במדבר מח:נ)
B'nei Reuven and Gad request to settle the east side of the Jordan	וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי־גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל־אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶל־נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר׃ (במדבר לב:ב) וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֵלָיו וַיֹּאמְרוּ גִּדְרֹת צֹאן נִבְנֶה לְמִקְנֵנוּ פֹּה וְעָרִים לְטַפֵּנוּ׃ וַאֲנַחְנוּ נֵחָלֵץ חֻשִׁים לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם־הֲבִיאֹנֻם אֶל־מְקוֹמָם וְיָשַׁב טַפֵּנוּ בְּעָרֵי הַמִּבְצָר מִפְּנֵי יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ׃ לֹא נָשׁוּב אֶל־בָּתֵּינוּ עַד הִתְנַחֵל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ נַחֲלָתוֹ׃ (במדבר לב:טז-יח)
Representatives of Menashe engage in individual acts of conquest	וַיֵּלְכוּ בְּנֵי מָכִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה גִּלְעָדָה וַיִּלְכְּדֻהָ וַיּוֹרֶשׁ אֶת־הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר־בָּהּ׃ וַיִּתֵּן מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הַגִּלְעָד לְמָכִיר   בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהּ׃ וְיָאִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה הָלַךְ וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת־חַוֺּתֵיהֶם וַיִּקְרָא אֶתְהֶן חַוֺּת יָאִיר׃ וְנֹבַח הָלַךְ וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת־קְנָת וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֶיהָ וַיִּקְרָא לָה נֹבַח בִּשְׁמוֹ׃ (במדבר לב:לט-מב)

In this context, the 'initiative' in the last chapter inverts the trend described above. The tribal leaders step forward as they are unhappy with the new law on the basis that it infringes on their territorial rights. This dynamic reflects a wider challenge associated with individual initiatives, and progressive changes more generally. Left unchecked, they have the potential to harm existing communal structures resulting in social (and religious) tension. As Rambam emphasizes, change must be gradual to gain acceptance and take root.[3] Accordingly, it was necessary for the Torah to act within the constraints of prevailing cultural norms to effect a change in the long run.

It is with respect to this challenge that the final chapter provides a moderating force. Perhaps in an ideal world the daughters should inherit pari passu with the sons, as suggested by the Midrash (see below), in which case the problem would not have arisen. At the very least, it seems fair that the daughters should be able to marry as they please and not be tied down for the sake of preserving the hegemony of the tribe. The concession to the tribal leaders therefore appears to be such an instance of necessary compromise between individual initiative and idealism on the one hand, and communal acceptance on the other. Indeed, a number of textual considerations support this reading.

1. Differences in the response to the two petitions

Though both sides receive a positive response from God, there is an important difference between them. With respect to the petition of the daughters, the details of God's response are reported first-hand:

וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה’׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶם וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ אֶת־נַחֲלַת אֲבִיהֶן לָהֶן׃ (במדבר כז:ה-ז)

Not only are we privy to the direct words of God but the verse employs the term ויאמר instead of the standard וידבר. This precise format occurs only four times in the Torah, each one being a particularly momentous, even celebratory, occasion. When it comes to the petition of the heads of Menashe, on the other hand, God's response is reported only through Moshe:

וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־פִּי ה’ לֵאמֹר כֵּן מַטֵּה בְנֵי־יוֹסֵף דֹּבְרִים׃ זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה ה’ לִבְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד לֵאמֹר... (במדבר לו:ה-ו)

One may counter that this is for the sake of conciseness, however it is extremely rare for the Torah to report God's word indirectly. Furthermore, the brevity could have been preserved by only reporting the direct speech of God to Moshe. The difference in presentation seems to highlight a more favourable disposition to the claims of the former.

2. Underlying sympathy for the daughters

A careful study shows that the sympathy for the daughters permeates throughout. The lamed preposition in the word לִבְנוֹת  takes the meaning of 'concerning…' instead of the more common 'to…'. Nevertheless, the literary impression is that God is communicating directly to the daughters. It is as if God takes responsibility to inform them directly of the compromise which had the potential give rise to personal hardship. This sensitivity is also reflected in the directive itself:

...לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים אַךְ לְמִשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אֲבִיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים׃ (במדבר לו:ה-ו)

The first clause is redundant as it doesn't appear to change the status quo. The new restriction is entirely embedded in the second clause which would have been sufficient on its own.[5] It therefore seems that the function of the first clause is to display compassion towards the daughters by consoling them that they will still enjoy a wide selection despite the new restriction. Consistent with this sensitivity, it is poignant that the book of Bamidbar ends only once it is reported that each of the daughters have successfully found life partners within the tribe.

3. Gender appropriation and equality

The use of the term לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם in connection with a female is surprising as it was traditionally thought to be the role of the male to actively choose a partner, whereas the female was passive (consent being somewhat of a novelty).[6] It seems that part of the consolation is that God assures them that their independence will ensure that they are indeed able to choose a fitting partner. This seems to also be reflected in the masculine (בעיניהם) use instead of the feminine (בעיניהן).

Though a simple reading suggests that the daughters were protecting the legacy of their deceased father, at least one view expressed in the Midrash considers gender equality as a key theme:

ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד – כיון ששמעו בנות צלפחד שהארץ מתחלקת לשבטים ולא לנקבות, נתקבצו כולן זו על זו ליטול עצה. אמרו: לא כרחמי בשר ודם רחמי המקום! בשר ודם רחמיו על הזכרים יותר מן הנקבות, אבל מי שאמר והיה העולם אינו כן, אלא על הזכרים ועל הנקבות, רחמיו על הכל, שנאמר (תהלים קמה) טוב ה' לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו: (ספרי במדבר קלג)

According to this interpretation, it would seem that the ideal system should have provided for equal inheritance to sons and daughters, but the constraints of a patriarchal society made such a claim impossible.[7] Their petition was therefore limited to the case at hand where there were no brothers and even then, expressed in terms of the father's legacy rather than their own fundamental rights.

If this last point is correct, then the entire story from beginning to end represents a concession to prevailing social laws. Even if we do not ascribe to this approach in full, the status of women appears to be an important undercurrent throughout the narratives.[8]

In summary, in this final chapter, we see the initiatives of the new generation set on collision course with the traditional order. At this critical juncture, the Divine instruction emerges to resolve the tensions. Indeed, part of the greatness of the daughters appears to be that their initial boldness was subsequently matched with an unreserved willingness to act in accordance with the word of God, thus ensuring the changes did not result in communal discord:

כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת־מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד׃ (במדבר לו:י)

 

---

[1] R Elchanan Samet, פרשת מסעי - היחיד והשבט בנחלת הארץ, here

[2] Jonathan Grossman sees #1-4 in particular as linked and forming part of a wider pattern justifying the separation of the command to wage battle against Midyanim (ch. 26) and the battle itself (ch. 31). See article פרשת מטות - מדוע דין נדרי נשים פותח את פרשת מטות - here

[3] See for example Guide for the Perplexed, 3:32

[4] See Rashi Shemot 35:4. Compare to Vayikra 8:5

[5] The Talmud (Bava Batra 120a) quotes the view of Rav Yehuda that the second clause represents good counsel (עצה טובה) and the daughters (of Tzelofchad at least) were in fact permitted to marry the other tribes. For obvious reasons it is difficult to accept this as the pshat and little wonder that Rashi does not quote this view in his commentary. 

[6] See Kiddushin 2b; Rashi, Bereishit 24:57. Compare to Bereishit 18:8:

הִנֵּה־נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר כִּי־עַל־כֵּן בָּאוּ בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי׃

[7] The Netziv in Ha'amek Davar reinterprets the Midrash to reconcile with the text, however his explanation seems forced.

[8] I find it difficult to accept that these stories have nothing whatsoever to do with gender status as argued by R. Elchanan Samet (here) in his article האם היו בנות צלפחד פמיניסטיות ישראליות קדומות 

פנחס

Yehoshua - Primus inter pares

When Moshe requests (or demands[1]) of God to appoint a new leader prior to his impending death, there is a wide discrepancy between the description of the new leader as described by Moshe, and God's own presentation of Yehoshua's future role.

Moshe describes the future leader as follows:

אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עֲדַת ה' כַּצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לָהֶם רֹעֶה (במדבר כז:יז)

Whereas God describes Yehoshua's role as follows:

וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן יַעֲמֹד וְשָׁאַל לוֹ בְּמִשְׁפַּט הָאוּרִים לִפְנֵי ה' עַל־פִּיו יֵצְאוּ וְעַל־פִּיו יָבֹאוּ הוּא וְכָל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתּוֹ וְכָל־הָעֵדָה (במדבר כז: כא)

God's words are modelled on Moshe's words but with a significant change. Under Moshe's vision the leader goes out before the people, whereas under God's plan, the leader goes with the people under the guidance of the Urim veTumim.  

The replacement of Yehoshua with the Urim veTumim may be understood as emphasising God as the true leader, and Yehoshua as subordinate.[2] However, this seems to be only part of the story. In Moshe's version, the future leader is a shepherd who leads his flock whereas in God's version the leader walks with the people as a first among equals. According to this approach, the real focus is on the change of status of the people.[3] In their early years, just freed from slavery, the nation was indeed in need of a shepherd-like leader to nurture them and guide their every move. However, this was but a reflection of their immaturity. With the rise of the new generation, Moshe the iconoclast is to be replaced with a new leader 'who dwells amongst his people'.

With this introduction, we can now examine why Yehoshua was the ideal fit.

Yehoshua ben who?

The different circumstances of the Torah's introduction of Moshe and Yehoshua is important in this context. Moshe is introduced as special from birth:

וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי־טוֹב הוּא וַתִּצְפְּנֵהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יְרָחִים (שמות ב:ב)

As Rashi (Shemot 2:2) already alludes to, this expression recalls the refrain in the first chapter of Bereishit: 'and God saw that it was good' (וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב). The irony is that this expression is applied to all acts of creation except man whose defining status (as good or bad) is the subject of his free will. The use of this expression with respect to Moshe's birth, therefore, appears to highlight an innate and unique quality which enabled him to fulfil his destiny to lead the Jews out of Egypt. The whole story around his birth is elaborate and filled with a sense of purpose and providence to the extent that it challenges, if not negates, the notion of freewill with respect to Moshe.

The introduction of Yehoshua could not be more different. The first time he is mentioned is when Moshe calls on him to fight Amalek in Shemot:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר־לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל־רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה וּמַטֵּה הָאֱלֹקים בְּיָדִי (שמות יז:ט)

He is one of the only people in the Torah introduced simply by his first name with no additional background or lineage. There is no mystique around his introduction as there is for Moshe – he is simply introduced as 'Yehoshua'.[4]

In that initial battle, the different roles of Moshe and Yehoshua delineate the difference in leadership which God was alluding to. Moshe takes up a position on top of the mountain, with his hands (or staff) dictating the course of the battle. He acts as the shepherd leading his flock with the motions of his hands/staff, whereas Yehoshua fights the physical battle alongside the people on the battlefield. Notably, we have no biblical references to the 'staff' of Yehoshua despite it being the weapon of choice for Moshe.[5]

In midrashic terms, Yehoshua is the one who arranges the benches of Moshe's Beit Midrash.[6] Like the moon he is happy to reflect the sun (i.e. the light of Moshe) and does not seek the limelight himself. It is of course because Yehoshua does not need to be leader that God deems him a suitable candidate.[7]  He starts as one of the people and remains so even as he leads them.

Did Yehoshua ascend the mountain?

The next time we come across Yehoshua, it is at Mt. Sinai. Here too Yehoshua appears to jump into the scene unexpectedly and without fanfare.

Originally God had commanded that Moshe, Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and the 70 elders ascend:

וְאֶל־מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל־ה' אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם מֵרָחֹק׃ (שמות כד:א)

After performing a covenantal ceremony, Moshe is instructed (apparently alone this time) to ascend once more to receive the tablets. Moshe commences his ascent, however much to our surprise and apparently without any specific command, he is joined by Yehoshua.

וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ מְשָׁרְתוֹ וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הַר הָאֱלֹקים׃ (שמות כד:יג)

Moshe and Yehoshua then part ways with the elders: [8]

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם מִי־בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם׃ (שמות כד:יד)

This scene is very much reminiscent of the scene of the Akeida in which Avraham and Yitzchak are travelling with the two servants. As they approach and 'see the place from a distance', Avraham says to the servants to stay and await their return:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶם פֹּה עִם־הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד־כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם (בראשית כב:ה)

Commenting on this verse, Rashi explains that Avraham and Yitzchak took leave of the two servants upon realising that only they were able to perceive the divine presence resting on the mountain. At this point, they intuited that they were to continue their fateful journey on their own. A similar point (albeit couched in different terms) is made by R. Yonatan Grossman who considers that the entire literary function of the servants is to 'disappear' from the story. This device serves to create a spiritual island for Avraham and Yitzchak, detached from the mundane world (represented by the servants and the donkey), on which the transcendental event which follows can take place.[9]

In any event, the joint ascent of Yehoshua and Moshe up Mt. Sinai as a parallel to Avraham and Yitzchak's ascent up Mt. Moriah is a powerful statement on the position of Yehoshua as the successor to Moshe.[10] However, it is the difference between the two events which is of particular interest. Yitzchak, as the 'only' son was the born successor to Avraham and it is he who is the subject of the story:

קַח־נָא אֶת־בִּנְךָ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר־אָהַבְתָּ אֶת־יִצְחָק (בראשית כב:ב)

At Sinai on the other hand, God does not tell Moshe to 'take' Yehoshua. Rather, the impression from the text is that Yehoshua ascends with Moshe of his own accord and of his own initiative. The message seems to be that Yehoshua obtains his status by virtue of his own actions. He wasn't part of any elite and wasn't born with any special rank or privilege. For this reason, he is perfectly suited to lead the people at this new juncture. Only at this point, does God instruct Moshe to 'take' Yehoshua (קַח־לְךָ אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן) to designate him as the future leader.   

Anti-monarchy?

On the face of it, the appointment of Yehoshua appears to be a concession to Moshe's plea. A simple (perhaps too simple) reading suggests the original plan was for Moshe to ascend the mountain and die without naming a formal successor.[11] This would align with the anti-monarchy sentiment expressed in Sefer Shmuel:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁמַע בְּקוֹל הָעָם לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶיךָ כִּי לֹא אֹתְךָ מָאָסוּ כִּי־אֹתִי מָאֲסוּ מִמְּלֹךְ עֲלֵיהֶם (שמואל א ח:ז)

The ideal would be for a leader chosen by the people rather than imposed from above (possibly akin to a democracy or republic[12]).

As in the case of Shmuel, God ultimately accepts the request. To advance the ideal, however, God restates the job description in terms which limit the power of the leader. Furthermore, in contrast to a monarchy based on patrilineal descent, God selects a self-made person of non-distinguished origin. A leader who walks alongside the people and still knows how to clean up the benches.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] (וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־ה' לֵאמֹר (במדבר כז:טו

This is the only place in the Torah where this phrase appears - a clear inversion of the standard formula.

[2] This would be similar to Moshe's own reaction to the tribes who requested to settle on the East side of the Jordan. Moshe consents but restates the terms with God at the centre (לפני ה').

[3] See A. Bazak, Nekudat Petichah, p.361

[4] We are told nothing about Nun, Yehoshua's father. I wonder whether the name is etymologically connected to the English words none or nun suggestive of anonymity. It should be noted that many of the spies' names are infused with meaning following a similar theme (גמליאל בן סודי, סתור בן מיכאל) as specifically relevant to their task at hand.

[5] See discussion on parashat Chukat regarding the episode of Moshe's 'hitting' the rock instead of 'speaking' which is closely related to this topic

[6] Bamidbar Rabbah, 21:14

[7] We see this also in his reaction to Eldad and Meidad. Yehoshua views the proliferation of prophecy into the Israelite camp as a challenge to the authority of Moshe. He is concerned for Moshe's leadership rather than his own standing. This is the exact opposite to Korach who seeks to overthrow Moshe's leadership on the basis that everyone is holy (realising Yehoshua's concerns regarding Eldad and Meidad).

[8] In an ironic twist, Aaron and Chur who previously escorted Moshe to the top of the mountain in the battle with Amalek, seem to have switched places with Yehoshua who was then at the bottom. For the time being, this is simply an observation as I'm not sure what (if anything) to make of it.

[9] See J. Grossman, Avraham - Sippuro Shel Massa, p. 313.

[10] It is unclear from the text exactly where Yehoshua stood. The initial impression is that Yehoshua arose to ascend to the top of the mountain with Moshe. However, Yehoshua seems absent from the text until Moshe's descent in Shemot 25:17 suggesting that only Moshe ascended. To confuse matters further, when Yehoshua does reemerge it seems like he has been at Moshe's side all along which would explain why he was completely unaware of what was going on in the camp regarding the golden calf. Even if he wasn't physically at the top of the mountain, the deliberate ambiguity seems to allude to Yehoshua's complex status as belonging both at the top with Moshe and at the bottom with the people (the 'moon' role in the language of the midrash). Interestingly, and perhaps supporting the inverse relationship, Yitzchak mysteriously disappears at the end of the Akeidah story leaving an impression that at some level he was left on top of the mountain.

[11] One need not go as far as saying this was the actual plan prior to Moshe's intervention. The fact that the Torah records the developments in this way, however, seems sufficient to pose it as an ideal even if God never intended to implement it (...עלה במחשבה). This is strongly supported by the subsequent moderation of Moshe's proposal to arrive at the compromise.

[12] Abarbanel, Shmuel I, Ch.8 (see also commentary to Devarim 17)

בלק

The Chutzpah of Pinchas

The final section of the parasha deals with the incident of the daughters of Mo'av and the apostasy of Ba’al Pe’or. After describing the sinful breakout, God calls on Moshe to take action:

וַיֹּאמֶר הי אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קַח אֶת־כָּל־רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַהי נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף־הי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל (במדבר כה:ד)

The plain sense is that Moshe was required to publicly impale the leaders. However, it seems to have been self-evident, to Moshe at least, that this was not to be taken literally. We see no evidence of Moshe having undertaken such drastic action nor any direct criticism of him for not having done so. Moshe's reasoning to not carry out this command was obvious. Though the leaders may have been indirectly responsible by virtue of inaction, this hardly makes them deserving of a barbaric public execution.

Rashi adopts the position of Rav Nechemia in the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:23) that God was instructing Moshe to direct (‘take’) the leaders to identify the sinners through a judicial process i.e. the pronoun 'them' in the phrase והוקע אותם is a reference to the idolaters, not the leaders. The difficulty with this explanation is clear.[1] The idolaters are not mentioned in the verse and even in the previous verse there is no reference to the individual sinners, only Israel in the collective.

The Midrash is perhaps compelled by this reading in light of the action Moshe takes to implement the command just given, which is indeed to direct the judges to execute the idolaters:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר (במדבר כה:ה)

However, one senses a vast gap between the decisive action alluded to in the verse and the slow judicial process instigated by Moshe. If Moshe considered this to be the fulfilment of the word of God, then it seems to have failed to make any impact. Indeed, the 'receding of God's anger' does not materialise and it failed to deter the sinners as the Zimri episode demonstrates.

Impalement of the leaders – literal or figurative?

When we read the next episode, we do come across very decisive action, not from Moshe but on the part of Pinchas. The actions of Pinchas involve 'impalement' of a 'leader' who was involved in the transgression. Furthermore, Pinchas seems to have succeeded in stopping the plague and retracting God's anger exactly as promised to Moshe:

פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת־חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא־כִלִּיתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי (במדבר כה:א)

The implication is that Pinchas was the one to fully implement the word of God whereas Moshe fell short. This is a little ironic, as Pinchas was not privy to the word of God yet was the one to implement them in the most literal sense. Remarkably, the ambiguity in the verse reflects the different reactions of Moshe and Pinchas. Moshe’s interpretation was presumably informed by the general requirements for due process and indicting a party only after they had transgressed (which was not the case with Zimri). Nevertheless, it was the actions of Pinchas which received God’s endorsement and brought an end to the plague. This represented the true fulfilment of the word of God as hinted to Moses. At this exceptional time, it was the zealotry of Pinchas that was necessary to restore order in the camp.

Interestingly, we hear in retrospect of a plague which had spread through the camp which had now ceased as a result of the action of Pinchas.

וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הַקֻּבָּה וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־קֳבָתָהּ וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים אָלֶף׃ (במדבר כה:ח-ט)

The fact that no physical plague is previously mentioned creates an impression that the plague was a natural reflection of the equally contagious spiritual malady which had swept through the camp. Such is its nature that no one realises at the time how deep it has penetrated. Only after Pinchas executes Zimri in mid-act do the people snap out of their trance and, consequently, the plague (both physical and spiritual) suddenly ends.

Pinchas's source of inspiration 

The discrepancy in reactions of Moshe and Pinchas are brought into sharp focus in the following Midrash:

וירא פנחס בן אלעזר מה ראה אמר רב ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה אמר לו אחי אבי אבא לא כך לימדתני ברדתך מהר סיני הבועל את כותית קנאין פוגעין בו אמר לו קריינא דאיגרתא איהו ליהוי פרוונקא (סנהדרין פב:א)

This seems to be more than a recollection about when Moshe taught the technical law of קנאין פוגעין בו. Rather, it is a comment on Moshe’s inaction now as compared to forty years previously. When Moshe came down the mountain and saw the golden calf he didn’t hesitate. Without consulting God, he smashed the tablets and executed the perpetrators, very much akin to the decisive action later taken by Pinchas against Zimri. It is this lesson taught by personal example rather than in the study hall which the Midrash is referring to.

The comparison to the golden calf episode is supported by several textual commonalities:

1.        Revelation followed by sudden downfall involving mixture of idolatry and immorality
2.         God's anger flaring up and the outbreak of a plague
3.        Moshe calling for action against the sinners with the same words (הירגו איש...)
4.        Representatives of the tribe of Levi taking up arms to execute the sinners / idolaters
5.        Reward of sanctuary service / priesthood (see Shemot 32:29 and Bamidbar 22:13)

These similarities also highlight the key differences. In the golden calf episode, Moshe takes the decisive action whereas here he needs to be instructed by God. In the golden calf episode, Moshe's act has immediate impact whereas here it is weak and ineffective. In the golden calf episode, the transgression is committed as a consequence of Moshe's absence on top of the mountain, whereas here it takes place right ‘in front of his eyes'. In the golden calf episode, the tribe of Levi acts under the orders of Moshe whereas here Pinchas acts without instruction from Moses.

In summary, forty years previously Moshe was the dynamic and incontrovertible leader. There was a point where no one could even look at him in the face (see Shemot 26:30-35). Forty years on, the people are the main actors in the story; they carry out their actions in front of Moshe (both good and bad), and Moshe is by and large, a mere spectator.

Criticism of Moshe's leadership?

Over the course of forty years it is indeed natural that Moshe's leadership should have lost some of its original fire and power. At the grand age of 120, Moshe acknowledges this himself:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן־מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא־אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא (דברים לא:ב)

That said, to suggest that the main issue here is leadership fatigue would be to miss the wood for the trees. The focus should instead be on the change which had occurred on the part of the people being that, over a forty-year maturing process the people had successfully freed themselves from their slave mentality and gained independence of spirit. This was a prerequisite for entering the land and establishing a sovereign nation. As discussed last week, in both their personal and national lives they would be required to stand on their own feet. This is true in both physical and spiritual terms. No longer would they all be camped around the Mishkan under the glory of God, subject to daily providence. Such independence comes with positive and negative effects both of which are on display here through the respective actions of Zimri and Pinchas.

Though this episode reflects Moshe’s inability to continue to lead the new generation, contained within it is also his crowning achievement. Pinchas derives precedent for his action from Moshe’s personal example at the golden calf episode forty years earlier. If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery then Moshe’s success as a leader is evidenced through Pinchas’ actions. From this perspective, the Midrash presents a tragic image of Moshe’s ineffective action, but at the same time, provides testimony of his lasting legacy to the new generation and beyond.

בעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגיא

The above discussion lends a fascinating insight to Chazal's statement (Sotah 9:15) - בעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגיא. This is typically thought of in a negative vein, but there are indications that this attribute of chutzpah can be seen in a positive light:

אָמַר רַב יָקִים שְׁלשָׁה חֲצוּפִים הֵם: חָצוּף בַּחַיָּה כֶּלֶב בָּעוֹף תַּרְנְגוֹל וּבָאֻמּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר רַדִּיפָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַמֵּי אַתָּה סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא לִגְנַאי וְאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְשִׁבְחָן, אוֹ יְהוּדִי אוֹ צָלוּב (שמות רבה מב:ט)

This Midrash observes how chutzpah is the driving force of Jewish identity and lies behind the historic phenomena of Jewish martyrdom. This is equally applicable on the national level. Integral to national redemption is the restoration of independence which demands no small measure of chutzpah. When one looks to the current era too, it is clear that the State of Israel was established by virtue of such chutzpah; Jews who were not necessarily 'religious' but refused to discard their Jewish identity and fought with their life for independence. No doubt this attribute of chutzpah has been critical to Israel’s formation, survival, and success. It is true in today's age as it was when the nation first entered the land. Personal autonomy is a prerequisite to national autonomy. The actions of Pinchas represented the best evidence possible that the Jewish people were now ready to enter the land to complete the process of national redemption.[2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] In the Midrash there is in fact a view (Rav Yudan) that the leaders were executed for not protesting:

 וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל משֶׁה קַח אֶת כָּל רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אֹתָם, רַבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר רָאשֵׁי הָעָם תָּלָה עַל שֶׁלֹא מִיחוּ בִּבְנֵי אָדָם. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר לֹא תָּלָה רָאשֵׁי הָעָם, אֶלָּא אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה הוֹשֵׁב לָהֶן רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת וְיִהְיוּ דָּנִים כָּל מִי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִפְעוֹר.

[2] R. Tzadok HaKohen made a similar point in relation to the Ma'apilim:

ולא לחנם כתבה תורה עניין המעפילים, שכבר האמינו בדברי משה, ולמה לא שמעו בזה שאמר: אל תעלו? אלא שהם חשבו שזה בכלל "חוץ מצא". ועל זה העפילו לעלות אף נגד רצון השם יתברך, כמו שאמרו רז"ל: "החוצפה - מלכות בלי כתר". ואף על פי כן לא הצליחו בזה, מפני שאכלוה פגה בטרם זמנה, כמו שאמרו רז"ל: "בעקבתא דמשיחא חוצפא יסגי", שרק אז תהיה העת לכך, ובכך אמר להם משה: "והיא לא תצלח", נראה שעצה היא זו, אלא שלא תצלח. ודייק "והיא", שבכל מקום דרשו רז"ל: היא, ולא אחרת. שיש זמן אחר שמצליח, והוא זמננו זה שהוא עקבתא דמשיחא (צדקת הצדיק מו')