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
[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.
