וישלח

Yaakov and the Angel: Who Won the Fight?[1]

Discerning Esav’s game plan

The Rashbam makes a fascinating suggestion related to this week’s Parashah. He argues, contra Rashi, that according to the ‘Ikkar Peshat’, Esav never intended to harm Yaakov. According to Rashbam’s reading, Yaakov misreads the situation and his fears about Esav were unfounded. We are accustomed to thinking that Yaakov’s multi-pronged strategy for facing off with Esav paid dividends and was successful in subduing Esav. But according to the Rashbam it all seems somewhat pointless as Esav had no intention to attack him.[2] Read in this way, instead of appearing shrewd, Yaakov comes across as insecure and paranoid. I will look to modify this approach but it is a useful framework to start with.

As interesting as the suggestion itself, is the Rashbam’s prooftext. The messengers sent by Yaakov to (greet?) Esav say very little when they return to Yaakov:

וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּלְאָכִים אֶל־יַעֲקֹב לֵאמֹר בָּאנוּ אֶל־אָחִיךָ אֶל־עֵשָׂו וְגַם הֹלֵךְ לִקְרָאתְךָ וְאַרְבַּע־מֵאוֹת אִישׁ עִמּוֹ  (בראשית ל"ב:ז)

The interpretive challenge is to determine whether the connotation of הלך לקראתך is conciliatory or aggressive. To address this point, Rashbam references a similar phrase, used to described Aaron’s joy upon Moshe’s return, where the friendly nature is not in doubt:

באנו אל אחיך אל עשו - ומצאת חן בעיניו כאשר אמרת וגם הנה הוא מתוך ששמח בביאתך ובאהבתו אותך הולך לקראתך וארבע מאות איש עמו לכבודך. זהו עיקר פשוטו. וכן: גם הנה הוא יוצא לקראתך וראך ושמח בלבו (שמות ד:י"ד).[3]

Though the Rashbam’s words are short and concise, the analogy runs much deeper than perhaps even the Rashbam imagined.[4] Both cases describe a reunion (and kiss) between two brothers after the younger brother’s prolonged absence in a foreign country. In both cases, the absence is caused by the younger brother needing to flee due the threat to his life. In both cases the younger brother develops roots abroad, gets married and has children and needs to be instructed by God to return ‘home’. Both have a mysterious struggle with a Divine being on the return journey, narrowly survive, and are renamed following the event. Both encounters are associated with the performance of a mitzvah being Gid HaNasheh and Brit Milah. These two mitzvot relate to proximate organs which are both associated with fertility.[5] Finally, in both cases the younger brother is apprehensive about the older brother’s reaction to the usurping of his position. The significance of the analogy requires separate study, but overall it lends strong support to the Rashbam’s position. In the same way that Moshe had nothing to fear of his older brother and wrongly suspected him of resenting Moshe, so to Yaakov had nothing to fear.

The night crossing

Where the Rashbam’s approach comes under pressure is the attack by the angel (=man). If we assume that the angel was a mystical representation of Esav,[6] then it would seemingly suggest that there was an aggressive aspect to Esav’s approach. To address this point, we need to consider another masterful stroke of the Rashbam. As we read the story, the sequence of events is extremely difficult to understand. Following Yaakov’s detailed preparations for the upcoming encounter with Esav, we are told (twice to be exact) that he lies down to sleep. Next, we are told that Yaakov arises in the middle of the night to traverse the Yabok river (32:23). But what is Yaakov doing crossing a river in the middle of the night? Apart from the danger of navigating a river at night, why is he so keen to cross towards Esav removing the only natural barrier between them?

Given these challenges, the Rashbam makes the bold suggestion that Yaakov was not crossing towards Esav but away from Esav to make an escape, presumably in a northward direction.[7] But this was not part of the original plan. Yaakov cannot sleep the night before the encounter and in desperation tries to give Esav the slip. Why did he get cold feet? Perhaps he was simply scared of being physically overpowered. Perhaps after running away from his brother 22 years ago having stolen his father’s blessing, he is scared to look him in the eye. It seems to be fear mixed with guilt.[8]

According to this suggestion, the purpose of the interception of the angel is clear. It is designed to prevent Yaakov from fleeing and force him to reconcile with Esav. The message God is communicating to Yaakov is that he cannot keep running away and must confront his past actions head on. This means addressing his deception in procuring the blessing of his father. Only by taking responsibility can he go from the name Yaakov to Yisrael; from crooked (עקב) to straight (ישר).

The above assumes that Yaakov made a fateful error to obtain the blessing through deceptive means. This is not the place to show how the theft of the blessing and its consequences are woven into the narrative at every turn.[9] I will simply refer to the climax of the story. As Yaakov approaches Esav, he repeatedly bows down to him multiple times symbolically reversing the effects of the blessing ‘and your brother will bow to you’ (27:29). When Yaakov eventually reaches Esav he says ‘take my blessing’ (33:11) which is a not-so veiled reference to the original blessing received from Yitzchak. There is no reason to assume Yaakov is being disingenuous here and an objective reading surely leads to the straightforward conclusion that Yaakov was righting a historical wrong.[10]

Wrestling the angel

With this backdrop in mind we can now turn to the actual struggle with the angel. We are accustomed to reading the story that the angel started the fight but then Yaakov managed to wrestle the angel into submission. When dawn breaks he has the angel pinned and manages to extract a blessing from him. Jonathan Grossman points to a number of problems with this version of events:

1) The upper hand in the battle seems to flip too quickly. The verse states the angel struck (or touched) Yaakov’s thigh, an injury which turns out to be debilitating. Yet the next thing we hear is that the angel is asking to be released without any prior mention of the fact that Yaakov seized the initiative.

2) If Yaakov was acting in self-defence why does he waste time holding on to the attacker (at this point Yaakov still does not know he is fighting an angel)? He has his family to attend to on the other side of the river with day breaking and Esav fast approaching. Why is the only sense of urgency coming from the angel and why should the angel care that it is dawn?

3) If Yaakov truly has the upper hand in the battle how can the angel refuse to provide him his name?

Based on these challenges and others, Grossman proposes a simple solution. It is not Yaakov holding on to the angel but the angel holding on to Yaakov. It is therefore Yaakov that is pleading to be released at the end of the battle.[11] This does away with the questions above and read in the immediate context makes perfect sense. Yaakov is anxious to get away from the attacker to rejoin his family as they try to slip away from Esav under the cover of darkness. However, his plan is thwarted as he is held up in the struggle with the mysterious man. As dawn breaks, he senses time is running out and desperately begs to be released:

וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב לְבַדּוֹ וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר׃ וַיַּרְא כִּי לֹא יָכֹל לוֹ וַיִּגַּע בְּכַף־יְרֵכוֹ וַתֵּקַע כַּף־יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר... (ל"ב:כ"ז)

If we pause at this point in the text, this is certainly the simplest reading. The reason no one thinks to read the verse in this way is because of the subsequent text:

...וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ כִּי אִם־בֵּרַכְתָּנִי

Why would an angel demand a blessing from Yaakov? What does that even mean?

Before considering the nature of this blessing, I would like to suggest how this part of the verse can be used as further proof for the proposed reading. As mentioned before, there are a host of parallels between the reunion of Esav and Yaakov and that of Aaron and Moshe. One of those parallels is the struggle with a Divine character prior to the reunion. In the case of Moshe it is of course clear that it was God (via a snake according to Rashi) which was holding on to Moshe. It was then the requisite action of Tzipporah (i.e. Brit Milah) which caused God ‘to release’ Moshe (Ex. 4:26). If we map that sequence on to the episode of Yaakov’s struggle with the angel then we must conclude that it was the angel holding on to Yaakov demanding something (i.e. a blessing) in order to be released.[12]

If this reading is indeed correct, we must establish the significance of the blessing. For this we return to the fact that the motif of the blessing is central to the subsequent episode of the Yaakov’s encounter with Esav. With this point in mind, the request of the angel for a blessing from Yaakov becomes all important. Grossman suggests that it was crucial for the angel to convey to Yaakov that he already has the power of blessing because he is blessed by God. He therefore has no need to steal Esav’s blessing. The content of the blessing is not important here; what’s important is that Yaakov appreciates he himself is a source of blessing due to his direct relationship with God.

But perhaps we can go a little further. When Yaakov desperately pleas with his attacker to be released he is presumably shocked to hear that all his attacker wanted all along was a blessing. If we align with the well-established idea that the angel was acting as a representative of Esav, then what emerges is that the angel was communicating that Yaakov’s fear was self-inflicted and largely imaginary. Esav simply wanted the blessing rightly due to him. As mentioned before, Yaakov expresses his regret at stealing the blessing when he says to Esav ‘take my blessing’, but it is already alluded to in the build-up. Once Yaakov has symbolically returned the blessing, Esav’s affection is genuine. This is a mirror of the battle with the angel. The angel came to attack Yaakov, but once Yaakov agreed to bless the angel they parted in peace. To disarm Esav, all Yaakov needs to do is give him the blessing he is owed. The strategy Yaakov learnt in the struggle with the angel is deployed precisely in the real-life encounter. The end result is that the angel no longer needs to hold to Yaakov and Yaakov no longer needs to hold on to the heel of Esav. The circle is closed.

We can now return to the Rashbam we started with who claimed that Esav’s intention from the outset was peaceful. As strong as the Rashbam’s proof is, it cannot be denied that a contradictory impression is created by the approach of 400 men which is suggestive of a small militia. If the messengers intended to convey with their words that Esav had positive intention then Yaakov seemed to have missed the memo. What this means is that the ambiguity of the messengers is experienced by the reader who, like Yaakov, is left in the dark as to what Esav’s true intentions are. However, it seems that the ambiguity goes to the heart of the story. At the end of the day, whether Esav comes in peace or not is dependent on Yaakov’s own action to rectify the relationship and reconcile with his brother.

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Notwithstanding a few points of divergence, this post is largely based on J. Grossman, Yaakov: Sippurah Shel Mishpachah (Tel Aviv: Yediot Ahronoth, 2019), 347-391.

[2] I should caveat that the Rashbam is interpreting what the messengers conveyed to Yaakov. Arguably this is not intended to reflect the objective reality.

[3] See also Ex. 4:27 in relation to the same event which is arguably even closer.

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־אַהֲרֹן לֵךְ לִקְרַאת מֹשֶׁה הַמִּדְבָּרָה וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ בְּהַר הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּשַּׁק־לוֹ (שמות ד:כ"ז)

[4] Rashbam may well have chosen this passage due to the wider parallels. Otherwise, he could have equally turned to an alternative verse for an example of an aggressive association of the same phrase (note this passage relates to Edom blocking the Israelites from entering Israel, reminiscent of the present episode):

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֱדוֹם לֹא תַעֲבֹר בִּי פֶּן־בַּחֶרֶב אֵצֵא לִקְרָאתֶךָ (במדבר כ:י"ח)

[5] Within Tanach, children are sometimes referred to as יוצאי יריכו (see for example Gen. 46:26)

[6] Supported, inter alia, by Yaakov’s association of Esav with the mysterious man he fought:

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אַל־נָא אִם־נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ מִנְחָתִי מִיָּדִי כִּי עַל־כֵּן רָאִיתִי פָנֶיךָ כִּרְאֹת פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים וַתִּרְצֵנִי (בראשית ל"ג:י)

[7] Rashbam’s prooftext here is also very strong. He refers to the episode of David fleeing from Avshalom where the text says that David crossed the river in the middle of the night (to arrive at Machanaim) (Sam. II, 17:22)

[8] It is worth noting that God does not overtly respond to Yaakov’s prayer as one might expect. In more ways than one Yaakov finds himself alone.

[9] Discussed here

[10] Compare to Rashi on the verse

[11] The verse in Hoshe’a is equally ambiguous. Who is beseeching who in the following verse? (See TB Chullin 92a which asks this very question)

וָיָּשַׂר אֶל־מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל בָּכָה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן־לוֹ בֵּית־אֵל יִמְצָאֶנּוּ וְשָׁם יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ (הושע י"ב:ה)

[12] Although the next verse opens with the angel speaking, this does not necessarily prove that the speaker in the prior verse was Yaakov. There are numerous attestations of double speech openings implying lack of response from the other side (due to hesitancy, shock etc). In this case it is readily understandable that Yaakov was shocked to find out that his attacker wished to procure a blessing from him.

סוכות

Leaves of Faith

A common technique of the Midrash is to bridge gaps in certain biblical stories by integrating and reworking other biblical stories. Rather than a lack of imagination on the part of Chazal, the purpose is to allude to commonalities in the stories and invite comparison. Recognition of the ‘background’ story to the Midrash therefore contributes to a deeper understanding of the message of the Midrash.

A few well known examples will suffice to illustrate the general point. The story of Avraham breaking into Terach’s workshop to smash the idols clearly bases itself on the story of Gidon’s expedition to demolish his father’s idol. The follow up story where Avraham is cast into the fiery furnace by Nimrod alludes to the story of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. The latter group shares the same fate as Avraham (also at the hands of the Babylonian king) in response to a similar ‘crime’. Like Avraham, they emerge unscathed from the furnace. This is sophisticated commentary on Avraham’s character which seeks to explain the basis for Avraham’s selection, a matter the Torah is virtually silent on. Many other examples abound.   

I would like to suggest that a similar phenomenon is at play in the following remarkable Midrash relating to Sukkot:

מלמד שהחזיר הקב"ה על כל אומות העולם ולא קבלוה, אומרים לפניו רבש"ע תנה לנו מראש ונעשנה, א"ל מצוה קלה אני נותן לכם, אם אתם משמרין אותה אתן [לכם שכר] כישראל, א"ל לכו ועשו סוכה, מיד כל אחד ואחד הולך ועשה לו סוכה, והקב"ה מוציא חמה מנרתיקה וכל אחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא (תנחומא בובר, שופטים ט׳(

…This teaches that the Holy One caused [the light of Torah to shine] over all the peoples of the world, but they did not accept it. They say to him: Sovereign of the World, give it to us in advance, and we will carry it out. He says to them: I am giving you an easy commandment. If you observe it, I will give [you a reward] like that of Israel. He says to them: Go and build a sukkah. Immediately each and every one goes and builds a sukkah for himself. But when the Holy One brings out the sun from its case, each one tramples down his sukkah and goes away

The aggadic episode is characteristically enigmatic. Why of all Mitzvot is Sukkah chosen to test the nations of the world? Why is Sukkah described as an ‘easy’ Mitzvah? Most importantly, how is it a fair test to trap the nations by taking the ‘sun out its case’ and making it unbearably hot in the Sukkah? (The later Amoraic additions found in the corresponding episode in TB Avodah Zara 3a, are further aggadic glosses and do little to address the above questions.[1])  

Yonah and his Sukkah

The background story inspiring this Midrash seems to be the story of Yonah which we read on Yom Kippur at Minchah, just a few days before Sukkot.[2] Yonah’s warning to the inhabitants of Nineveh of impending destruction triggers an immediate response. Every man, woman and child in the city (and even the animals!) don sackcloth and cry out to God. God is apparently impressed by the mass repentance and relents from destroying the city. Meanwhile Yonah builds for himself a Sukkah outside the city whilst he waits to see what happens next. What exactly Yonah anticipates is left unsaid. What is clear, however, is that he is bothered by the fact that God has been so quick to retreat. 

Many people read the book of Yonah in a historical context and therefore see Yonah’s reluctance to engage with Nineveh as stemming from his desire to protect the Jewish nation. If Nineveh repent whilst the Jews do not, then the Jews are spiritually exposed to their enemies (the Assyrian empire) and destruction lurks. Yet there is no mention or hint to this dimension in the text. What Yonah takes issue with is a theological point and herein lies the message of the story (and the reason we read it on Yom Kippur):

וַיֵּרַע אֶל־יוֹנָה רָעָה גְדוֹלָה וַיִּחַר לוֹ׃ וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֶל־ה’ וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּה ה’ הֲלוֹא־זֶה דְבָרִי עַד־הֱיוֹתִי עַל־אַדְמָתִי עַל־כֵּן קִדַּמְתִּי לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה כִּי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה אֵל־חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב־חֶסֶד וְנִחָם עַל־הָרָעָה׃ (יונה ד:ב)

Yonah is afraid of the success of his mission as he perceives it to be a corruption of the attribute of justice. No sooner has he announced the destruction that the whole city is in sackcloth. The inclusion of the animals in the motions of Teshuvah, alludes to the superficial and immature nature of the repentance process undertaken by Nineveh, a point which may well resonate with our own experiences on Yom Kippur. If God accepts this type of repentance, especially by an essentially evil nation (and here lies the importance of Nineveh), can he really be called a God of truth? He therefore stops short of the word Emet when referencing the 13 attributes in the above-mentioned verse. Where is the power of deterrent if repentance is so simple? Yonah sits outside the city in his Sukkah as he is waiting to see how long it is till they regress to their old ways.

In the meantime, God has caused a Kikayon to grow over Yonah’s Sukkah to provide him with (additional) shade. However, the next morning a worm is sent which destroys the plant. If this were not enough, God causes the sun to beat down on Yonah’s head resulting in Yonah wishing death upon himself. 

Part of the message of the Kikayon is about the fickleness of man. Yonah who engages God in theological debate accusing God of changing his mind too quickly, is forced down from the ivory tower to reckon with his own creature comforts (using the identical language he used in the challenge to God - ‘death would be better than my life’). This experience is essentially God’s answer why he accepts this form of repentance. As short lived and shallow as it may seem, God accepts it as an inevitability of the human condition.

Between the Jews and the nations of the world

Much more can be written and expanded on the above point, however I would like to focus on how this relates to the strange story in the Midrash. The same elements are present in the Midrash and the story of Yonah. Someone builds a Sukkah, after which God makes it artificially hot, to inflict suffering on the person inside the Sukkah. This in turn leads to resentment and despair on the side of the person/people who made the Sukkah. Both stories relate to the interaction between God and the nations of the world and revolves around a threat of punishment to those nations. So far the similarities. Now for the inversion. In the story of Yonah, God accepts the hyperbolic repentance of the nations (Nineveh) and Yonah is the one to succumb in the heat of the sun beating down on his Sukkah. In the Midrash, it is the other way round. God defends the credentials of the Jewish nation, whilst the flimsy attempt of the nations to quickly ‘repent’ by adhering to the simple Mitzvah of Sukkah is mocked (by way of the Sukkah-in-the-sun model). The opposite reactions requires explanation.

I think the contrast can be explained by appreciating the difference between the cycle of rise and fall which the facility of Teshuvah presupposes, and the idea of long term loyalty represented by the Mitzvah of Sukkot. If Pesach commemorates the momentous exodus from Egypt, and Shavuot recalls the one-off revelation at Mt Sinai, it is the Sukkah which recalls the day to day care and maintenance of the wilderness sojourn: ‘...in order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt’ (Lev.23:43). As Rashbam explains at length, the purpose of the Mitzvah is to help foster a life of faith in the land:

...כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל במדבר ארבעים שנה - בלא יישוב ובלא נחלה ומתוך כך תתנו הודאה למי שנתן לכם נחלה ובתים מלאים כל טוב ואל תאמרו בלבבכם כחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל הזה...

There is no grand miracle or single event which the Sukkah commemorates, and this is exactly the point. Over the prolonged period in the wilderness, God’s providence protected His people. But that is only half the story. The other side is about how we faithfully followed God into the unknown: ‘I recalled to your favour the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride— how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown’ (Jer. 2:2). Yes, there was still divine intervention in the wilderness, but it was more subtle and designed to transition them to life in the land where God’s modus operandi would be to act within nature.

In short, the Sukkah symbolises the translation of those formative experiences into a life of faith and loyalty. It recalls the wilderness period, but with an eye to providing an educational message about life in the land. The ambiguity of whether the Sukkot referred to in the Torah are ‘actual booths’ or represent the ‘clouds of glory’ is inherent to the nature of Sukkah which is ultimately intended to project an experience where the clouds of glory are integrated yet discerned within the physical world.

Sukkah as a reflection of the Mishkan

In light of the above, it is both remarkable and paradoxical that the Mitzvah of Sukkah is presented as a reflection of the inauguration of the Mishkan. Both the Sukkah and the Mishkan aim to create a space for the divine presence but in very different ways. The latter by way of the priestly service within the sanctuary perpetuating the Sinai experience, and the former by way of the integration of faith within the home. For seven days and seven nights (the ‘Miluim’), the Kohanim were instructed to ‘dwell’ in the vicinity of the Mishkan as preparation for their new role. During this period, Moshe officiates whilst the Kohanim are largely passive. On the eighth day, the initiation reaches its climax as the Kohanim led by Aaron, officiate for the first time and the fire of God descends on to the Mizbe'ach. This a typical seven-eight model where the seven is preparatory for what takes place on the eighth. Sukkot follows the same model and parallels the ceremony of the seven-day Miluim. Every individual is instructed to ‘dwell’ in their personal Sukkah for seven days at outside their home just as the Kohanim dwelt at the entrance to the Mishkan.

This interaction between Sukkah and the seven-day inauguration of Mishkan was already recognized in the Midrash Halakha (see TB Sukkah 43a) which derived a Gezerah Shavah based on the identical word (and presumably the wider context) of ‘Teishvu’ prominent in both.[3] No other command (aside from living in Israel which relates to this discussion), revolves around the concept of 'dwelling' thus strengthening the connection. During this non-priestly ‘inauguration’ of Sukkot, one is exposed to the elements of one’s immediate environment recalling the period in the wilderness where dependency on God was in full force. This prepares one to re-enter their permanent home on the eighth day – Shemini Atzeret - with a renewed sense of divine consciousness integrated into one’s daily life.

As with the other festivals, the national dimension mirrors the agricultural element. The Torah specifically refers to Sukkot as a time of ingathering of the harvest, thus highlighting the agricultural aspect. But it is also a time of ‘ingathering’ on the spiritual plain through the assimilation of the divine presence into the individual home. This follows the Mishkan paradigm as set out above. On the national level, this finds full expression as the Jewish nation are gathered into the homeland with the divine presence enmeshed within the national experience.

Returning to the Midrash about the nations kicking down their Sukkah and the contrast to Yonah. This Midrash is a remarkable commentary on the endurance of the Jewish people. Teshuvah is a universal need as everyone succumbs and fails and needs an opportunity to reset. Faced with God’s revelation or judgement, it is easy to be inspired to repent like the people of Nineveh. But the Sukkah presents the other side which has been a unique quality of the Jewish people. Loyalty through uncertainty.

The projected timeframe of the Midrash is the messianic era when God’s hand will be revealed to all. The idea of sitting in a Sukkah in this climate is absurd and undercuts what the Sukkah is all about. The Midrash is brought in the context of a discussion how all the nations will challenge the uniqueness of the Jewish people at this time. They will argue that had they received the Torah they too would have observed it. The symbolism of Sukkah is the perfect response.[4] There is on the face of it nothing particularly difficult about living in a Sukkah and it may indeed be regarded as an ‘easy’ mitzvah, much as everything seems straight forward and compelling, when embarking on any new relationship. But it is the ease which is deceptive. The challenge being alluded to by the Midrash is what happens when the sun is out and the heat is on. Will the relationship withstand the pressure and the test of time? This is what the Midrash is vaunting as the unique characteristic of the Jews. The quality of loyalty they have demonstrated through sweat and tears across generations of exile and suffering. This is undeniably unique to the Jews. In the words of Winston Churchill, ‘Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are beyond question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.’ Add the leaves of faith as the key to the survival and that is the parable of the Sukkah.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] ...מיד כל אחד [ואחד] נוטל והולך ועושה סוכה בראש גגו והקדוש ברוך הוא מקדיר עליהם חמה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד ואחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא שנאמר (תהלים ב, ג) ננתקה את מוסרותימו ונשליכה ממנו עבותימו מקדיר והא אמרת אין הקדוש ברוך הוא בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו משום דישראל נמי זימני דמשכא להו תקופת תמוז עד חגא והוי להו צערא והאמר רבא מצטער פטור מן הסוכה נהי דפטור בעוטי מי מבעטי

[2] The more obvious contact point is the final chapter of Zechariah which speaks of a future time where the nations will ascend to Jerusalem specifically to celebrate Sukkot and those that do not ascend will face retribution:

וְהָיָה כׇּל־הַנּוֹתָר מִכׇּל־הַגּוֹיִם הַבָּאִים עַל־יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם וְעָלוּ מִדֵּי שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לְמֶלֶךְ ה' צְבָאוֹת וְלָחֹג אֶת־חַג הַסֻּכּוֹת׃ וְהָיָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַעֲלֶה מֵאֵת מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאָרֶץ אֶל־יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לְמֶלֶךְ ה' צְבָאוֹת וְלֹא עֲלֵיהֶם יִהְיֶה הַגָּשֶׁם׃ (זכריה יד:טז-יז)

[3] It is noteworthy that the dedication of the first temple took place on Sukkot (I Kgs 8:2). Incidentally, as relevant to this article, it is also worth noting the tension between the universalism and particularism within Shlomo’s lengthy prayer (compare 8:41-43 v 8:53).

[4] Compare also Vayikrah Rabba (30:3) which links the taking of the Lulav to the victory of the Jews against the nations. 

בהעלותך

Substituting the Elders

The story of the appointment of the 70 elders in Bamidbar 11 is interwoven with the story of the complaint for meat. The mixed narrative has raised many eyebrows leading to characteristic attempts by bible critics to deconstruct the text across apparent fault lines.[1] We previously discussed how the two stories are in fact well integrated. The back and forth between the passages is by way of literary design and mirrors the underlying struggle between the Ru’ach (spirit) and the Basar (meat - representing physicality) in the camp.  

As part of a wider discussion on the topic, R. Elchanan Samet notes that the word Ru’ach appears six times within the text which deals with the transfer of Ruach from Moshe to the elders. The word Basar, on the other hand, appears eight times within the section dealing with the complaints for meat and is symptomatic of the Israelites’ materialistic temperament. The repetition of these contrasting key words (leitworts) is all the more significant in light of the fact that the clash between the Basar and Ru’ach is a well attested feature throughout Tanakh (see, for example, Gen. 6:3, 17 and many more).[2]

The combined total of 14 references is a multiple of seven, which is typical for a leitwort.[3] However, if the purpose is to demonstrate a balance between the two forces – the Ru’ach on the one hand and the Basar on the other - one would expect a symmetrical 7 v 7 pattern. The 8 v 6 pattern requires explanation.

Samet considers the ‘imbalance’ to allude to the upper hand which the Basar had over the Ru’ach at this stage. This raises an important point. Despite the ceremonious appointment of the elders, and even God’s reassurance that Moshe will no longer carry the burden on his own (11:17), very little seems to have been achieved. In the short term, the elders return to the camp and precisely at this point the quails land providing the desperately needed meat supplies. Further along, the episode of the spies takes place, whose failure can be sourced in this episode of the complaints for meat.[4]

The sixth and final reference to the Ru’ach in the chapter (11:30) stands in contrast to the earlier references. The earlier references refer to the spirit of Moshe which was to transfer to the elders. The objective was that this spirit would spread out to the rest of the Israelites and subdue their materialistic temperament. When they return to the camp, we do in fact hear of a Ru’ach emanating from God, but in a disappointing twist it turns out to be a physical wind carrying meat. Yonatan Grossman notes that this device serves to create an anti-climax in the story.[5] Moses expected the spirit of prophecy to proliferate but instead of mass prophecy there was a mass meat-fest.

Which Ohel Mo’ed?

Another related observation is that this episode seems to take place in the Ohel Mo’ed outside the camp. This is strange as the term Ohel Mo’ed usually refers to the Mishkan located at the centre of the camp. Indeed, the positioning of the Mishkan at the centre of the camp is a primary focus of the prior chapters discussing the encampment and journeying arrangements, representing the continued divine presence within the camp. The only prior reference to the Ohel Mo’ed outside the camp was the tent Moshe pitched following the sin of the golden calf:

וּמֹשֶׁה יִקַּח אֶת־הָאֹהֶל וְנָטָה־לוֹ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה הַרְחֵק מִן־הַמַּחֲנֶה וְקָרָא לוֹ אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד… וְהָיָה כְּבֹא מֹשֶׁה הָאֹהֱלָה יֵרֵד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן וְעָמַד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְדִבֶּר עִם־מֹשֶׁה׃ וְרָאָה כׇל־הָעָם אֶת־עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן עֹמֵד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְקָם כׇּל־הָעָם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אׇהֳלוֹ׃ (שמות לג:ז-י)

This tent was symbolic of the gulf between Moshe and the people at this stage. During this period, the divine presence resided in Moshe’s personal tent but outside the main camp.

Most people assume this tent was a temporary structure erected following the sin of the golden calf until the return of the divine presence via the Mishkan.[6] Yet it seems to resurface in our story of the appointment of the elders as well as the following story where Miriam speaks out against Moshe (and possibly the appointment of Yehoshua). This has led some to conclude that this ‘other’ Ohel Mo’ed continued to act alongside the main Mishkan even as the latter went live.[7] This may explain why non-Kohanim (Miriam, the elders) apparently enter this tent whereas the Mishkan was the exclusive domain of the Kohanim. The two passages in our parashah where this tent reappears deal with similar tensions around the gap between Moshe and the people, and the exclusivity of Moshe’s prophecy. Even if, after all is said, the Ohel Mo'ed in our passage refers to the Mishkan (as I feel inclined to argue), the literary association with Moshe’s Ohel Mo’ed outside the camp takes us back to a time when the divine presence could not be maintained within the camp. During this period, Moshe stands on the side of the divine presence separate to the rest of the nation.

In our passage, the divine presence (along with Moshe) is repelled by the Basar which has become the central focus. The displacement of the divine presence by the Basar, may also be suggested by the ironic description of the presence of the Basar in the camp. The constant presence of the Basar is described using a similar formula to the prior description of the cloud hovering on the Mishkan (representing the divine presence):

וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן מֵעֶרֶב עַד־בֹּקֶר וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן בַּבֹּקֶר וְנָסָעוּ אוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן וְנָסָעוּ׃ אוֹ־יֹמַיִם אוֹ־חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ־יָמִים בְּהַאֲרִיךְ הֶעָנָן עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן לִשְׁכֹּן עָלָיו יַחֲנוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יִסָּעוּ וּבְהֵעָלֹתוֹ יִסָּעוּ: (במדבר ט:כא-כב)

לֹא יוֹם אֶחָד תֹּאכְלוּן וְלֹא יוֹמָיִם וְלֹא  חֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים וְלֹא עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים וְלֹא עֶשְׂרִים יוֹם׃ עַד  חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים... (במדבר יא:יט-כ)

In the case of the Basar especially, this formula seems out of place and difficult to reconcile with the fact that the verse says that God struck them whilst ‘the meat was still between their teeth’ (10:33). This latter verse seems to imply the retribution was immediate. Whatever the solution, from a literary standpoint, it serves to draw a contrast between the Basar and the Mishkan, pitching one against the other.[8]

Part II

Eldad and Meidad

It is in this context that I would like to revisit the Eldad and Meidad story. It is not entirely clear why Eldad and Meidad decided to stay in the camp when they were called to go to the tent of meeting as part of, or in addition to, the 70 elders. Perhaps it was humility (Rashi; TB. Sanhedrin 17a). Perhaps they did not feel comfortable with the exclusivity of the affair, preferring to remain with everyone else inside the camp.[9] What matters is the contrast between Eldad and Meidad who remained inside the camp and the elders outside the camp.

Whilst the elders prophesy on a one-off (וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ וְלֹא יָסָפוּ),[10] the prophetic spirit which rests on Eldad and Meidad does not contain this limitation. In the words of Chazal:

כל הנביאים כולן נתנבאו ופסקו והן נתנבאו ולא פסקו (בבלי סנהדרין יז.)

I believe that the difference is explained by the way the spiritual position of the elders was acquired as compared to Eldad and Meidad. The elders are granted their prophetic encounter via an artificial transfer from Moshe, whereas Eldad and Meidad attain their prophecy organically within the camp. It should be noted that in contrast to the selection of the judges in parashat Yitro, no individual qualities are specified here in the selection of the elders, other than that they are elders and officers ‘known’ to Moshe.

The experience of the 70 elders recalls the short-lived prophecy of Sha’ul following his designation as future king. (The establishment of new strata of leadership is one of many parallels between the lives of Moshe and Shmuel.) One of the omens Shmuel provides Sha’ul is that a prophetic spirit will enter him after which he ‘will turn into another person’. Like our passage, however, the experience fizzles out as quickly as it comes as the verse immediately emphasizes that he ‘ceased prophesizing’:

וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ אֱלוקים וַיִּתְנַבֵּא בְּתוֹכָם׃ וַיְהִי כׇּל־יוֹדְעוֹ מֵאִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה עִם־נְבִאִים נִבָּא וַיֹּאמֶר הָעָם אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵהוּ מַה־זֶּה הָיָה לְבֶן־קִישׁ הֲגַם שָׁאוּל בַּנְּבִיאִים׃ וַיַּעַן אִישׁ מִשָּׁם וַיֹּאמֶר וּמִי אֲבִיהֶם עַל־כֵּן הָיְתָה לְמָשָׁל הֲגַם שָׁאוּל בַּנְּבִאִים׃ וַיְכַל מֵהִתְנַבּוֹת וַיָּבֹא הַבָּמָה׃ (שמואל א', י:י-יג)

Throughout Sha’ul’s life he will search in vein to regain this experience driving himself to the point of insanity. By the end of his life the aphorism expressing astonishment around his prophetic standing (‘is Sha’ul amongst the prophets’) has become a source of mockery:

וַיִּפְשַׁט גַּם־הוּא בְּגָדָיו וַיִּתְנַבֵּא גַם־הוּא לִפְנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל וַיִּפֹּל עָרֹם כָּל־הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וְכָל־הַלָּיְלָה עַל־כֵּן יֹאמְרוּ הֲגַם שָׁאוּל בַּנְּבִיאִם׃ (שמואל א' יט:כד)

Though the expression is identical to the earlier one, the sense now is: ‘is Sh’aul amongst the crazy people doing obscene acts in the name of prophetic aspiration?’. It would seem fair to suggest that this should be read as a critical commentary on Sha’ul’s meteoric rise to power at the outset.[11]

I would suggest that in our passage too, the Torah is ambivalent towards the experience of the elders and expresses its preference for the Eldad and Meidad route. This may also be reflected in the etymologies of their names. The term dad (דד) means breast (see Ezek. 23:8 and 21) which aligns with Moshe’s description of himself as nursing the nation:

הֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי אֵת כׇּל־הָעָם הַזֶּה אִם־אָנֹכִי יְלִדְתִּיהוּ כִּי־תֹאמַר אֵלַי שָׂאֵהוּ בְחֵיקֶךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת־הַיֹּנֵק עַל הָאֲדָמָה (במדבר יא:יב)

In other words, Eldad and Meidad may be seen as filling the role of the nurse to the infantile nation which Moshe so forcefully rejected. 

By shunning the exclusive selection process, Eldad and Meidad should be considered alongside the other actors in Sefer Bamidbar who challenge the norm and are judged favourably by the Torah (e.g. those unable to offer the Pesach, daughters of Tzelofchad, Pinchas etc.).[12]  

The 70 elders at Mt Sinai

As support for the above theory, it is interesting to compare this story of the 70 elders to the one involving the (same?) 70 elders at Mt Sinai:

וְאֶל־מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל־ה' אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם מֵרָחֹק׃ וְנִגַּשׁ מֹשֶׁה לְבַדּוֹ אֶל־ה' וְהֵם לֹא יִגָּשׁוּ וְהָעָם לֹא יַעֲלוּ עִמּוֹ... וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת־נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַה' פָּרִים... וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלוֹקי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר׃ וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת־הָאֱלוקים וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ׃

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה עֲלֵה אֵלַי הָהָרָה וֶהְיֵה־שָׁם וְאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת־לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי לְהוֹרֹתָם׃ וַיָּקׇם מֹשֶׁה וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ מְשָׁרְתוֹ וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הַר הָאֱלוקים׃ וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם מִי־בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם׃ (שמות כד:א-יד)

Again, we have 70 elders tapping into a revelatory experience led by Moshe. This passage also contains the rare root א-צ-ל and here we also have the reference to the youth (נערי בני ישראל) and to Yehoshua. In both passages the uniqueness of Moshe’s standing is at the forefront. 

This is not the place for detailed analysis of this passage. For our purposes, I would like to draw attention to the way the elders are suddenly replaced with Yehoshua. Yehoshua appears seemingly out of nowhere and effectively replaces the elders who are told to head back to the camp. The context and language undoubtedly recalls the way Avraham and Yitzchak leave the two lads prior to heading out on their own towards the mountain they had seen from afar:[13]

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

The comparison between the 70 elders and the anonymous lads is unflattering and lends support to the contention that the Torah seeks to replace the institution of the elders with something closer to a meritocracy. It is Yehoshua who showcases this perhaps more than anyone else. He is one of the only people in the Torah (Chur, Eldad and Meidad being the others) introduced simply by his first name with no additional background or lineage (see previous discussion here). In the battle against Amalek where he first appears, Moshe takes up a position on top of the mountain, whilst Yehoshua fights alongside the people down below. He is content with being in the shadow of Moshe and does not seek the limelight himself. Thus, when it comes to Mt Sinai, the positions are switched round; Aaron and Chur are down below with the elders, whilst Yehoshua is invited to ascend.

With this background, it is hardly surprising that when the leadership transfer to Yehoshua takes place, the basis for the selection focuses on the Ru'ach:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קַח־לְךָ אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־רוּחַ בּוֹ וְסָמַכְתָּ אֶת־יָדְךָ עָלָיו׃ (במדבר כז:יח)

Crucially, this is a Ru'ach Yehoshua has already acquired rather than one which will be transferred to him as part of the handover.

Hence, in both passages dealing with the 70 elders, the elders have a privileged status but are subtly replaced (in literary terms at least) by the self-made individuals. (For further possible example of the elders ‘disappearing’ see Rashi to Ex. 4:1)

A third perspective

Remarkably we find a third passage dealing with the elders which seems to engage a dialogue with both earlier passages:

וַיְהִי כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם אֶת־הַקּוֹל מִתּוֹךְ הַחֹשֶׁךְ וְהָהָר בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כָּל־רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם וְזִקְנֵיכֶם׃ וַתֹּאמְרוּ הֵן הֶרְאָנוּ ה' אֱלוקינוּ אֶת־כְּבֹדוֹ וְאֶת־גָּדְלוֹ וְאֶת־קֹלוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה רָאִינוּ כִּי־יְדַבֵּר אֱלוקים אֶת־הָאָדָם וָחָי׃ וְעַתָּה לָמָּה נָמוּת כִּי תֹאכְלֵנוּ הָאֵשׁ הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת אִם־יֹסְפִים אֲנַחְנוּ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת־קוֹל ה' אֱלוקינוּ עוֹד וָמָתְנוּ...

וַיִּשְׁמַע ה' אֶת־קוֹל דִּבְרֵיכֶם בְּדַבֶּרְכֶם אֵלָי וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֵלַי... לֵךְ אֱמֹר לָהֶם שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם׃ וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי (דברים ה:כח)

At first glance this has nothing to do with the 70 elders appointed by Moshe in Bamidbar 11. However, the fact that both involve the elders, both highlight a discontinued revelatory experience (אם יספים אנחנו / לא יספו), and both passages feature a ‘consuming fire’, [14] does not seem coincidental.

On the other hand, the Mt Sinai context and, specifically, the concluding verse where Gods tells them to 'return to their tents' which encompasses an instruction for everyone (except Moshe) to return to their ordinary physical lives,[15] corresponds to the earlier passage about the 70 elders at Mt Sinai:

לֵךְ אֱמֹר לָהֶם שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם׃

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם

As usual it is difficult to match the events as described in Sefer Devarim precisely with any of the original narratives, as Devarim seems to merge and reframe different events. From the Sefer Shemot perspective, it is the decision of Moshe to drop the elders. In the Sefer Bamidbar narrative, it is God's decision to discontinue the prophecy of the elders. Finally, in Sefer Devarim it is the elders’ own realization of their limited spiritual capacity. Reconstructing the actual events is not the point. In the complexity that is real life, events are not isolated and different forces interact with each other over a prolonged period.

This all requires a much wider analysis and my point here – tangents aside - is to argue that there is a consistent negation of any special standing of the elders (as a ruling institution associated with clan hierarchies). This is consistent with a wider reordering which takes further shape in Sefer Devarim, whereby the tribal structures are downgraded in favour of empowerment of the individual and the collective.[16] One of the messages of our passage is that, for the Ru’ach to penetrate the nation in a sustainable way, it must be nurtured from within and not imposed or contributed from without.[17]

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Summary and critique in B. D. Sommer, "Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 118(4), pp. 601–624

[2] See E. Samet, here 

[3] U. Cassuto, Bereishit (Magnes, 1978), pp. 5-6. Cassuto was particularly attached to the seven repetition. Shamah demonstrates that patterns of eight are also prevalent; M. Shamah, Recalling the Covenant (KTAV, 2011), pp. 1057-1066.

[4] See previous discussion here

[5] J. Grossman, Text and Subtext: On Exploring Biblical Narrative Design (Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2015; Hebrew), pp. 81-83 

[6] See Ramban 33:7. Ibn Ezra and Rashi have different chronology, but all seem to assume it was temporary.

[7] See discussion here. As further explained, I think the association with Moshe’s Ohel Mo’ed serves a literary purpose.

[8] The opening story about the Mitonenim in which a fire ‘engulfs the edge of the camp’ also helps to establish the boundaries of the camp as a key motif in this chapter.

[9] The process described in the Midrash (Sifre 95; TB San. 17a) whereby 2 out of the 72 would draw a blank indicating ‘God does not desire you’ reinforces the sense of exclusivity.

[10] See Rashi’s first explanation. This is in line with most classic and modern commentators.

[11] Based on R. Amnon Bazak, here 

[12] There are of course other examples where the challenge receives a negative reaction (Korach, Zimri/Kosbi, the separatist tribes etc). Indeed, the tension between organization/conformity and revolution is a key theme across Sefer Bamidbar.

[13] This is just one of many parallels with between this passage and the Akedah. See, for example, discussion here by Grossman. 

[14] I am referring to the events reported in Num. 11:1-3. See Kli Yakar to Num. 11:1 who argues the Mitonenim should not be separately identified from the Mitavim. See also Chizkuni Deut. 9:22.

[15] See discussion TB Beitzah 5b

[16] See J. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke With Ancient Political Thought (Oxford, 2008), pp.73-78

[17] If we count the word רחים (mill) in Numbers 11:7 as the first reference, then there are in fact seven (and not six) references in Numbers 11. This makes the reference in the spies episode about the Ru’ach of Caleb the eighth reference:

וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ וַיְמַלֵּא אַחֲרָי וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בָּא שָׁמָּה וְזַרְעוֹ יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה (במדבר יד:כד)

This would fit another common pattern whereby a seven unit is transformed to eight signifying a new milestone. This would provide added significance to Caleb’s Ru’ach which he marshals to counter the spies.