קרח

Datan and Aviram's Punishment

The opening of the ground to swallow Datan and Aviram is a strange punishment even by biblical standards. This is not the first or last time the Jewish people sinned and were punished. Generally speaking, however, the form of punishment (fire, plague etc) was a means to an end and not a particular point of focus. In the case of Datan and Aviram, on the other hand, the punishment appears to be integral to the story:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי־ה’ שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כָּל־הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה כִּי־לֹא מִלִּבִּי׃ אִם־כְּמוֹת כָּל־הָאָדָם יְמֻתוּן אֵלֶּה וּפְקֻדַּת כָּל־הָאָדָם יִפָּקֵד עֲלֵיהֶם לֹא ה’ שְׁלָחָנִי׃ וְאִם־בְּרִיאָה יִבְרָא ה’ וּפָצְתָה הָאֲדָמָה אֶת־פִּיהָ וּבָלְעָה אֹתָם וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם וְיָרְדוּ חַיִּים שְׁאֹלָה וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי נִאֲצוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֶת־ה’׃ וַיְהִי כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּר אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַתִּבָּקַע הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר תַּחְתֵּיהֶם׃ וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת־פִּיהָ וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּיהֶם וְאֵת כָּל־הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר לְקֹרַח וְאֵת כָּל־הָרֲכוּשׁ׃ וַיֵּרְדוּ הֵם וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם חַיִּים שְׁאֹלָה וַתְּכַס עֲלֵיהֶם הָאָרֶץ וַיֹּאבְדוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל׃ וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיהֶם נָסוּ לְקֹלָם כִּי אָמְרוּ פֶּן־תִּבְלָעֵנוּ הָאָרֶץ׃ (במדבר טז:כח-לד)

וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵאֵת ה’ וַתֹּאכַל אֵת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ מַקְרִיבֵי הַקְּטֹרֶת׃ (במדבר טז:לה)

Even before any specific analysis it is worth noting that the Torah devotes 7 verses to the punishment of Datan and Aviram compared to just a single verse for the punishment of the 250 followers. Within the lengthy description are several unusual details such as Moshe's prediction of the punishment, the reaction of the bystanders, and the personification of the earth which is described as opening its 'mouth’ and ‘swallowing’ Datan and Aviram.

ירידה vs עלייה

The point noted by Rashi is the emphasis on the 'descent' into the earth. After Moshe invites Datan and Aviram to engage in dialogue, they respond 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׃ אַף לֹא אֶל־אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ וַתִּתֶּן־לָנוּ נַחֲלַת שָׂדֶה וָכָרֶם הַעֵינֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם תְּנַקֵּר לֹא נַעֲלֶה׃ )במדבר טז:יב-יד)

Rashi explains that the descent is a punishment for their refusal to 'ascend' to Moshe:

לא נעלה. פִּיהֶם הִכְשִׁילָם, שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא יְרִידָה

The refusal to ascend is central to understanding the cause of their ‘downfall’ and contains multiple layers of meanings.

Its immediate meaning is literal and personal – refusal to ascend to Moshe’s location to engage in dialogue. The refusal to even meet Moshe directly undermines his authority and frames Datan and Aviram as rebels against Moshe’s leadership.

Beyond the literal, the refusal to ascend expresses their disinterest in the national enterprise (of which Moshe was representative). Their declaration of לא נעלה coupled with a cynical recollection of Egypt as the ‘land flowing with milk and honey’ stands as an utter rejection of Kalev’s עלה נעלה call to ascend to the promised land. Entrenched within their slave mentality, Datan and Aviram had little interest in grand ideals of national independence and the responsibility which comes with being part of a free and civilised society.[1] In the words of Chazal: עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה.

Finally, on a spiritual level, Datan and Aviram's rejection of authority logically ends in a rejection of God as well. Recognition of the Creator requires a basic contemplation outside of oneself in the quest for an ultimate source. This mental freedom to see past one's immediate physical experience does not naturally reside in a slave, trained not to think beyond the specific task at hand. From this perspective, the refusal to ascend alludes to a form of materialism and spiritual disconnect. (This was discussed in more detail in a previous post when exploring the connection between the demand for meat and the sin of spies.)

Datan and Aviram vs the 250 followers

The last point in particular, places Datan and Aviram in direct opposition to the 250 followers. The 250 followers who participated in the incense burning demanded that everyone be able to take part in the sanctuary service and the Mishkan should be accessible to all. In contrast, Datan and Aviram make no reference to God and seem to have no interest in ‘ascending’ at all. The former represents spiritual anarchy whilst the latter is a form of political anarchy, but this is where the connection ends. Crucially, whilst both may be sourced in self-interest and even facilitate a superficial alliance, the purported objective of the 250 followers is spiritual growth whilst the position of Datan and Aviram lacks any spiritual component. 

The 250 followers are consumed by fire reminiscent of the punishment of Nadav and Avihu who also broke rank to offer a ‘strange fire’ of their own. The fire descends from God and consumes them. In the case of Nadav and Avihu the punishment was a natural consequence of their actions. They drew too close, so the heavenly fire which consumed the sacrifices also consumed them:

וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה’ וַתֹּאכַל עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶת־הָעֹלָה וְאֶת־הַחֲלָבִים וַיַּרְא כָּל־הָעָם וַיָּרֹנּוּ וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶם (ויקרא ט:כד)

וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה’ וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי ה’ (ויקרא י:ב)

The same was true with the 250 followers:

וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵאֵת ה’ וַתֹּאכַל אֵת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ מַקְרִיבֵי הַקְּטֹרֶת (במדבר טז:לה)

Datan and Aviram, on the other hand, were also ‘consumed’ – not by a fire from above, but from the earth below. The swallowing up and descent into the earth, carries the symbol of their being consumed by their own materialism.[2]

Link to the splitting of the sea

Until now we have discussed the symbolism of the 'descent' in general. However, I think there could be an additional layer of symbolism in the particular form of the punishment. This symbolism derives from certain parallels between the splitting of the earth to swallow up Datan and Aviram, and the splitting of the sea to swallow up the Egyptians:

Punishment of the Egyptians	Punishment of Datan and Aviram
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָעָם אַל־תִּירָאוּ הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה’... וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה’ בְּמִצְרַיִם וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה’ וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה’ וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ	וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי־ה’ שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כָּל־הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה כִּי־לֹא מִלִּבִּי	Introductory speech by Moshe. Moshe authenticated as messenger of God.
וַיּוֹלֶךְ ה’ אֶת־הַיָּם בְּרוּחַ קָדִים עַזָּה כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת־הַיָּם לֶחָרָבָה וַיִּבָּקְעוּ הַמָּיִם	וַתִּבָּקַע הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר תַּחְתֵּיהֶם	Splitting of the earth/water
וַיֹּאמֶר מִצְרַיִם אָנוּסָה מִפְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי ה’ נִלְחָם לָהֶם בְּמִצְרָיִם	וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיהֶם נָסוּ לְקֹלָם	Reaction and fleeing of the onlookers
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם וַיְכַסּוּ	וַתְּכַס עֲלֵיהֶם הָאָרֶץ	Covering over of the sinners
אֶת־הָרֶכֶב וְאֶת־הַפָּרָשִׁים לְכֹל חֵיל פַּרְעֹה... לֹא־נִשְׁאַר בָּהֶם עַד־אֶחָד  וַיְאַבְּדֵם ה' (דברים יא:ד)	וְאֶת־בָּתֵּיהֶם וְאֵת כָּל־הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר לְקֹרַח וְאֵת כָּל־הָרֲכוּשׁ וַיֹּאבְדוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל	Emphasis on complete obliteration
תְּהֹמֹת יְכַסְיֻמוּ יָרְדוּ בִמְצוֹלֹת כְּמוֹ־אָבֶן	וַיֵּרְדוּ הֵם וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם חַיִּים שְׁאֹלָה	Descent of the sinners
נָטִיתָ יְמִינְךָ תִּבְלָעֵמוֹ אָרֶץ	וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת־פִּיהָ וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם	Swallowing up of the sinners by the ‘earth’

Moreover, in his long speech in Devarim, Moshe singles out these two specific episodes when recalling the demonstrations of God's 'mighty hand' witnessed by the nation:

וְאֶת־אֹתֹתָיו וְאֶת־מַעֲשָׂיו אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם לְפַרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ־מִצְרַיִם וּלְכׇל־אַרְצוֹ׃ וַאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְחֵיל מִצְרַיִם לְסוּסָיו וּלְרִכְבּוֹ אֲשֶׁר הֵצִיף אֶת־מֵי יַם־סוּף עַל־פְּנֵיהֶם בְּרׇדְפָם אַחֲרֵיכֶם וַיְאַבְּדֵם יְהֹוָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃ וַאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לָכֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר עַד־בֹּאֲכֶם עַד־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה׃ וַאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב בֶּן־רְאוּבֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּצְתָה הָאָרֶץ אֶת־פִּיהָ וַתִּבְלָעֵם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּיהֶם וְאֶת־אׇהֳלֵיהֶם וְאֵת כׇּל־הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר בְּרַגְלֵיהֶם בְּקֶרֶב כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ כִּי עֵינֵיכֶם הָרֹאֹת אֶת־כׇּל־מַעֲשֵׂה יְהֹוָה הַגָּדֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה (דברים יא:ג-ז)

What is the meaning of this connection?

At its most basic level it appears that this is yet another aspect of the מידה כנגד מידה in the punishment of Datan and Aviram. The most inflammatory aspect of Datan and Aviram’s response was in referring to the exodus from Egypt as being taken out of a land of milk and honey, the classic metaphor for the land of Israel. Having expressed such longing for Egypt it was only fitting that they shared a similar fate to that of the Egyptians.

However, the deeper meaning may lie in the one major difference between the two episodes. With the splitting of the sea, the miraculous element lay in the exposing of the earth beneath, thereby enabling the Jews to cross on dry land. As such, the drowning of the Egyptians was a consequence of the sea returning to its natural state. The Egyptians died from their own foolishness in assuming that the waters which held firm to allow the Jews to cross would remain similarly suspended for them. It is indeed ironic that despite the ten plagues, what destroyed them once and for all, was in fact no miracle at all, but the return to nature of the waters.

The cognitive dissonance of the Egyptians seems connected to their polytheistic worldview, whereby various forces can act independently and be manipulated to the extent that the uniformity of nature is lost and chaos reigns. In such a world, even great miracles such as the splitting of the sea can go undetected as acts of God.

In the case of the downfall Datan and Aviram, the opening up of the earth was the nature-defying act itself. It is of note that this is the only reference we have to something explicitly referred to as a new ‘creation’ outside of the process of creation itself (though the impression is more of an anti-creation). As discussed earlier, the self-centred outlook of Datan and Aviram prevented them from acknowledging any source or authority beyond themselves. Moshe's outburst - 'not one donkey have I taken, nor have I wronged any one of them' - highlights their ingratitude as the core issue. The social chaos which derives from this attitude is the counterpart to the cosmic chaos of Egyptian theology. Datan and Aviram were guilty of blindness to any outside force whereas the Egyptians worshipped every force around them.

This adds yet another dimension to the punishment of Datan and Aviram. The swallowing up of Datan and Aviram suggests that nothing in the world, even the basic support structure of the earth itself, can be taken for granted. Their worldview did not provide space for recognition of a creator, so creation did not provide space for them. The complete indifference towards anything outside of their own sphere of existence was the other side of the irrational assumption of the Egyptians that the suspended waters would not come crashing down.

 

 

 

---

[1] The Talmud (Bavli Nedarim 64b) equates Datan and Aviram with the two quarrelling Jews in Egypt: 

וַיֹּאמֶר מִי שָׂמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט עָלֵינוּ הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר הָרַגְתָּ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִי וַיִּירָא מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר אָכֵן נוֹדַע הַדָּבָר

The impression is that these Jews would have preferred to fight it out to the death than subject themselves to any outside authority or system of government. This strongly resonates with the words of Datan and Aviram which is presumably the basis of the Midrashic commentary:

הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי־תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם־הִשְׂתָּרֵר

[2] As a point of contrast, consider Eliyahu who ascends to ‘heaven’ in a chariot of fire as if consumed by his own spiritual intensity.

 

מסעי / ט"ו באב

Tu BeAv: Celebrating a New Interpretation

The book of Bamidbar ends with the sequel to the episode of the appeal of the daughters of Tzelofchad, which triggered the new legislation enabling daughters to inherit where there are no sons. The representatives of Menashe protest to Moshe that this law will infringe on their territorial rights. If an inheriting daughter ends up marrying someone from outside their own tribe, then the ownership of the land so inherited may transfer to the husband’s tribe upon her death. God recognises the legitimacy of their claims and the solution provided is that the inheriting daughters should marry someone within their own tribe to prevent the loss of tribal territory.

The Talmud reports that Chazal inferred from the verse, that the prohibition of intertribal marriage for the inheriting daughters was only relevant for the first generation. The day intertribal marriage became permissible was institutionalised as a day of national celebration:

א"ר שמעון ב"ג לא היו ימים טובים לישראל כחמשה עשר באב וכיוה"כ: בשלמא יום הכפורים משום דאית ביה סליחה ומחילה יום שניתנו בו לוחות האחרונות אלא ט"ו באב מאי היא? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל יום שהותרו שבטים לבוא זה בזה. מאי דרוש? זה הדבר (במדבר לו, ו) דבר זה לא יהא נוהג אלא בדור זה .(תענית ל:)

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as happy for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur. Granted, Yom Kippur is a day of joy because it has the elements of pardon and forgiveness, and the day on which the second pair of tablets were given. However, what is the special joy of the fifteenth of Av? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This was the day on which the members of different tribes were permitted to enter one another’s tribe, by intermarriage. What did they expound? The verse states: “This is the matter", meaning this matter shall be practiced only in this generation,

The rationale for the distinction between first and second generation is not entirely clear. Why was this issue only relevant to the first generation? The Ramban suggests that once the first-generation males had inherited their respective territory and become entrenched therein, intertribal marriage was less problematic as the borders were well defined.[1] In other words, even if title were to be privately transferred to another tribe in a subsequent generation, this would not adversely affect the established tribal boundaries. However, there appears to be little proof for this assumption. The plain sense is that the representatives of Menashe were fundamentally opposed to the idea of members of another tribe obtaining private ownership within their allocated territory.

The Ramban himself offers an alternative approach in which he derives an independent prohibition to safeguard against intertribal land transfers even beyond the first generation:

וְכָל־בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה מִמַּטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֶחָד מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אָבִיהָ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה לְמַעַן יִירְשׁוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתָיו׃ וְלֹא־תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר כִּי־אִישׁ בְּנַחֲלָתוֹ יִדְבְּקוּ מַטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃

This is what God has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelofchad: They may marry anyone they wish, provided they marry into a clan of their father’s tribe. No inheritance of the Israelites may pass over from one tribe to another, but the Israelites must remain bound each to the ancestral portion of his tribe.

Ramban suggests that the prohibition of transferring territory to another tribe stands as an independent prohibition which, unlike the preceding verse, was not limited to the first generation. This means that if a daughter inherited land from the father, and either was married to, or subsequently married, a member of another tribe, then the usual rules of inheritance would be superseded. Instead of the husband or sons inheriting the daughter, the father's family (i.e. her own tribe) would inherit her. This would guarantee that land title would be retained within the tribe. This view has also been attributed to the Geonim who count the prohibition against transferring tribal land amongst the negative commandments, thus implying it was not merely a transient law.[2] There is much to discuss about this view, but the crucial problem is that it removes the rationale for the marriage prohibition altogether. According to this approach, the tribal territory was already protected by the redirection of inheritance in case of intertribal marriage, thereby rendering such a prohibition largely redundant.

In view of the issues presented above, I would like to suggest an alternative explanation which interprets the Talmudic passage above at face value.

At the time of and immediately following the settlement of the land, the dominant form of social and political affiliation was the tribe, or more specifically, the clan (בית אב) within the tribe. Even after entering the land, the national identity did not replace the tribal affiliations overnight. In the early years of the settlement, these tribal and kinship structures presented significant obstacles to the development of the national identity. Over time, however, the tribal divisions began to breakdown in favour of national consolidation.

Even a cursory reading of the books of Yehoshua/Shoftim compared with Shmuel/Melachim, demonstrates that the tribal divisions were dominant in the former but less relevant in the latter. In the earlier books of Yehoshua/Shoftim we find tribes waging battles without support from neighbouring tribes. On several occasions, this even led to civil war.[3] The major turning point came with the establishment of the monarchy, which created a strong (perhaps too strong) centralised government. At the same time, and as a consequence of the process of centralisation, there was a weakening of the tribal affiliations. Whilst it is true that there remained an underlying tension between Yosef and Yehuda at the heart of the north/south divide, far from being an ideal, this was the Achilles heel in the process of tribal unification.

Based on the above, we may suggest that the newly derived interpretation of זה הדבר which was cause for the establishment of a holiday (15^th of Av), was motivated by the realisation that national unity should prevail over tribal loyalties. This contrasts with commentators who considered the 15^th of Av to have been the intended expiry date of the initial law. According to the Rashbam the 15^th of Av represented the cut-off point between the first and second generation. Tosfot Rid suggests that the law was already known but was concealed until this date to protect the integrity of the initial restriction. The alternative view, however, that the holiday was fixed on the day the new exegesis was accepted into law following its discovery. This may well have been many generations after the one it was first relevant to (i.e. the second generation).[4]

I subsequently found this stated explicitly by R. Aryeh Leib Ginsburg, famed author of the Sha’agat Aryeh, in his commentary to tractate Ta'anit:

Rather, it appears to me that it was on the fifteenth of Av that they initially inferred that the prohibition only applies to the first generation. This is similar to the idea found in the Midrash in which Boaz tells Ruth that if she would have come earlier she would not have been accepted (i.e. they would not have been able to marry) because the specific exegesis limiting the marriage prohibition to a Moabite man but not a Moabite woman, had not yet been derived. From here we see that not all the interpretations of Torah were received from Moshe.[5]

According to this approach, the temporary nature of the law was embedded into the Torah which limited the restriction on intertribal marriage to the first generation, but it required time until such a position could be accepted or even contemplated. It should be recalled that the restriction itself was a reaction to the appeals from the representatives of Menashe and did not necessarily express an ideal. Had they not objected the issue may never have arisen. It seems, therefore, that it was the newly obtained perspective regarding the priority of nationhood over tribe which led to the new exegesis.[6]

The advantage of this explanation is that it explains the reason the Torah regarded the prohibition to be only of temporary necessity. At the same time, it provides a reason for the ambiguity in the verse. If the prohibition would have been explicitly limited to the first generation, it is reasonable to assume that the tribal leaders would have objected to the inclusion of this sunset provision. This explanation also ties the inspiration behind the new inference to the nature of the joy of the day, which celebrates the national unity achieved through the change. Finally, as will be immediately discussed, it is consistent with the wider attempt of the Torah to transition from the tribal based system to nationhood upon entry into the land.[7]   

Nationhood to displace tribalism

The shift referred to above emerges as a key theme in the book of Devarim. This is reflected in the calls for centralisation in the major areas of political, social and religious life.

With respect to religious worship, the Torah mandates that each individual male visit the temple in Jerusalem at each of the three pilgrimage festivals. Furthermore, sacrificial worship outside the temple grounds becomes prohibited. In terms of the judiciary, the Torah calls for the establishment of a supreme court - the Sanhedrin HaGadol - which is to preside over all matters which cannot be solved by the local courts.[8] Within the political arena, the Torah calls for the appointment of a king. Even if the Torah intends to convey ambivalence towards the establishment of a monarchy, the idea of a central governing body appears to be implicitly endorsed.[9] Most significantly, no prominent role is allocated to any of the tribal leaders.

In view of the centrality of the tribe in the earlier books, the diminished status of the tribe in Devarim is somewhat surprising. Perhaps the idea is that as a preliminary step to nationhood, it was necessary to first reinforce individual, familial, and tribal identities. This is readily understood in a general sense, but even more so in view of the crushing and dehumanising effects of slavery. Only once the people had obtained a sense of self-worth and individual identity, could the national agenda be fully prioritised.

The book of Bamidbar therefore concentrates on the individual and the tribal affiliations comprising the building blocks of the nation. It starts with the individual counting reflecting the value of the individual within the whole and concludes with a series of stories relating to individual and independent initiatives.[10] Devarim on the other hand, which presents the vision of life in the land, focuses on the national perspective. It represents the ideal where the tribes consolidate under the umbrella of nationhood.[11]

From matteh to shevet

This may explain an interesting variance between Devarim and the earlier books. Devarim exclusively employs the word shevet (17 times) when referring to the tribes, whereas the favoured word in the first four books is matteh (over 100 times compared to 11 for shevet). Both words carry a dual meaning of staff/tribe, though the distinction between them is not entirely clear.[12] Whatever the precise etymology, it seems that matteh is the more primitive form, whereas shevet is a richer, more powerful term. The various usages of the word shevet to describe a staff, include: a royal sceptre (Bereshit 49:10); a cane with the power to kill (Shemot 21:20); and a rod which has the power to sanctify the animal tithe (Vayikra 27:32).[13] The word shevet is also used in the poetic sections of Parashat Balak where richer vocabulary is favoured.

If we consider the exceptional references to shevet in the earlier books, it is clear that its use is limited to instances where the tribes are referred to as part of a collective i.e. the national dimension:

כָּל־אֵלֶּה שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר וְזֹאת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם וַיְבָרֶךְ אוֹתָם אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר כְּבִרְכָתוֹ בֵּרַךְ אֹתָם׃ (בראשית מט:כח)

וְהָאֲבָנִים עַל־שְׁמֹת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵנָּה שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה עַל־שְׁמֹתָם פִּתּוּחֵי חֹתָם אִישׁ עַל־שְׁמוֹ לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שָׁבֶט׃ (שמות כח:כא)

וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל־דִּבְרֵי ה’ וַיַּשְׁכֵּם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ תַּחַת הָהָר וּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מַצֵּבָה לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (שמות כד:ד)

Conversely, matteh is used where the focus is on the tribes as separate identities rather than as part of the collective. In Devarim, where the focus of the book as a whole is on the national dimension, the word matteh is entirely absent.

Returning to the final chapter of Bamidbar, the single use of the word shevet stands out amongst 14 references to matteh.

וְהָיוּ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי שִׁבְטֵי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָשִׁים וְנִגְרְעָה נַחֲלָתָן מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבֹתֵינוּ וְנוֹסַף עַל נַחֲלַת הַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶינָה לָהֶם וּמִגֹּרַל נַחֲלָתֵנוּ יִגָּרֵעַ׃ (במדבר לו:ג)

Now, if they marry persons from another Israelite tribe, their share will be cut off from our ancestral portion and be added to the portion of the tribe into which they marry; thus our allotted portion will be diminished.

The reason is perhaps related to our earlier discussion. The chapter presents the claims of the tribal leaders wishing to maintain control of their territory, therefore the word matteh emerges as the key recurring word. In describing the problem as they see it, the representatives of Menashe voice their concern over the case of intertribal marriage and consequential land transfer. This scenario, although regarded as problematic by the representatives of Menashe, is the one which anticipates integration of the tribes. Accordingly, the word shevet is employed here, and only here.

This may explain another anomaly. Various commentators have questioned why the section dealing with the petition of the daughters is separated by eight chapters from the counter claims of the tribal leaders. It is fair to assume that the two sides made their respective appeals at around the same time so the separation of the two halves of the story requires explanation.

This difficulty is best resolved by examining the reason the closing story containing the compromise forms a fitting conclusion to the book as a whole. According to what we have discussed, given the difference in perspective between Bamidbar and Devarim, it seems appropriate for the tension between the tribal and national system as expressed in this story, to present itself at the transition point between the two books. The tribal hegemony, which is accentuated in this final chapter, forms the gateway to Devarim which attempts to downgrade these tribal structures.[14] The interesting twist is that even within this closing chapter of Bamidbar, though on the surface God appears to endorse the contention of the tribal leaders, their position is subtly undermined by limiting the prohibition to the first generation only.[15]

A concluding thought - Tisha BeAv and Tu BeAv

As it turns out, the vision of tribal unification was never fully materialised as even following the establishment of the Davidic dynasty, the nation became split along the Yehudah-Yoseph fault line. This division was a critical factor leading to the destruction for which we mourn on Tisha BeAv. It does not seem coincidental, therefore, that the week after Tisha BeAv we have the festival of Tu BeAv which celebrates a major milestone in the integration of the tribes and the eradication of tribal divisions.

The prophetic hope for national unity transcending tribal divisions was powerfully laid out by Yechezkel and remains relevant to this day:

דַּבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי ה’ הִנֵּה אֲנִי לֹקֵחַ אֶת־עֵץ יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר בְּיַד־אֶפְרַיִם וְשִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חברו [חֲבֵרָיו] וְנָתַתִּי אוֹתָם עָלָיו אֶת־עֵץ יְהוּדָה וַעֲשִׂיתִם לְעֵץ אֶחָד וְהָיוּ אֶחָד בְּיָדִי (יחזקאל לז:יט-כב)

Thus said the Lord God: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in the hand of Ephraim—and of the tribes of Israel associated with him, and I will place the stick of Judah upon it and make them into one stick; they shall be joined in My hand.

 

---

[1] Ramban, Bamidbar 30:7

[2] R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow (1846-1934) discusses this opinion at great length in his commentary to Sefer HaMitzvot of Sa'adia Gaon (see here). Notwithstanding his extensive analysis and defence of the Geonic position, the downgrading of the original concern as a חששא בעלמא (in case the inherited property was illegitimately transferred to the husband or sons) is clearly difficult to square with the plain sense of the text.

[3] See, for example, Shoftim 12. 

[4] The positive perspective on dissolution of the tribal boundaries needs to be reconciled with the Tannaitic view that the laws of Yovel may only apply when the people are residing within their tribal territories (Arachin 32b, Sifra Behar 2:3). It is worth briefly noting that there appears to be a material difference between the way this law is described in the Sifra and Yerushalmi, as opposed to the Bavli. At least in the Sifra and Yerushalmi, it is clear that this change of status is synonymous with the exile of the first tribes from the land and perhaps should not be conceived independently.

[5] Gevurat Ari, Ta'anit, 30b. It may or may not be coincidental that both cases (permitting intertribal marriage and permitting a Moabite woman to marry a Jew) deal with freeing a woman from an onerous restriction on marriage.

The point that not all interpretations were handed down from Moshe is subject of dispute between the Rambam and the Geonim – see Rambam's introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 2, and Hilchot Mamrim 2:1.

[6] If correct, this is quite remarkable, as it implies that an acquired value facilitated the revision of an existing law via discovery of a new insight in the text. I would stress that I do not think Chazal invented the exegesis to 'force' the law to conform with their changing values. At least in this case, the exegesis is based on a robust comparison with the other contexts in which the phrase זה הדבר appears (which almost exclusively relate to one-off commands). Incidentally, R. Kook wrote in several places how new perspectives could potentially lead to legitimate halachic innovation in the Messianic age through the discovery of new derashot (see, for example, Iggerot HaReiyah vol.1, p.103). In fact, the legal exegesis of the Ramban referred to above (second interpretation) has no prior source in the Talmudic or pre-Talmudic literature. The Tashbatz notes in a responsum (vol III, 322) that he and the Rivash were troubled by the fact that the Ramban derived a law from a derashah without precedent in the Talmud. However, in his analysis of the Ramban’s position, R. Perlow (ibid) writes that he fails to understand the problem: ואם לא נמצא כן בגמרא הלא נמצא כן בתורה. (There is an interesting article by R. Haim Sabato which catalogues new derashot derived after the close of the Talmud (published in Teshurah LeAmos, Herzog (2006), p.499-519), however he does not mention this example.)

[7] This is consistent with the well-established view that the Torah's approach to change was gradual and accepted the need for transitional measures (see Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:32); R. Jonathan Sacks discusses the principle with characteristic eloquence here.

[8] It is interesting to note that whereas Yitro proposed a similar model consisting of local judges with an overarching supreme authority (i.e. Moshe), directionally it was the opposite. Yitro worked on the decentralisation (i.e. appointing lower tier judges) whereas the focus of Devarim is on the concentration of judicial authority.

[9] See Abarbanel, Devarim, 17; Shmuel I, 8.

[10] Notably the stories of Pinchas and the daughters of Tzelofchad centre around individual initiative (and share some textual similarities). Jonathan Grossman (see here) argues that various other passages surprisingly grouped together at the end of Bamidbar relate to this same central theme.

[11] Joshua A. Berman makes a similar argument:

"Speaking in the terms of the narrated world of Deutronomy, the collective strategy could take hold only if there were an attendant weakening of the tribal hierarchy that figured so prominently during the trek in the wilderness. In biblical scholarship, the amalgamation of the tribes into a federated whole is usually addressed with reference to the formation of the monarchy under Saul and David and consolidation of the tribes into a national collective. I claim, however, that this dynamic is equally at play in the political theory that animates the sermons and laws of Deutronomy." (Created Equal, p.73)

Berman marshals support for the idea that the book of Devarim aims to relegate the tribal hierarchy by noting the absence of other tribal terms which are prominent in Bamidbar, such as Nesi'im and Zekenim. He also notes that the word 'fathers' is used throughout Bamidbar in reference to the tribal patriarchy, whereas in Devarim the terms are used exclusively in order to refer to the forefathers so as to highlight the common ancestry of the nation.    

[12] See Mitchell First - שׁבט and מטה: The Words for “Stick” in Tanach – (here)

[13] The Matteh which Moshe uses to perform the miracles in Egypt should be seen as consistent with this principle as there was, on the surface, nothing unique or exceptional about Moshe’s staff (see Shemot 4:2).

[14] Jacob Milgrom's claim that the inclusion of this section as an appendix is the result of the input of a later Deuteronomic author does not sit well with the objective of Devarim to promote national consolidation at the expense of the tribal structures. See also R. Elchanan Samet (here) who deals with the issue of the placement from a different angle. We have discussed these considerations in a separate post. 

[15] This is not the only way the position of the tribal leaders is undermined. Whereas the leaders refer to the women being passively taken (וְהָיוּ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי שִׁבְטֵי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָשִׁים), in God’s response, the emphasis is switched so that it is the women who will actively choose whom to marry (לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים). The use of the masculine instead of the feminine – לטוב בעיניהם - may similarly be intended to strengthen the position of the women.