Out to Get Us

B'Reshith (Genesis) 6:17:

"And I, behold I am bringing the Deluge, water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh that has within it the spirit of life from underneath the heavens..."

Rashi: "And I, behold I am bringing" - "Behold I am ready to concur with those (the angels) that encouraged me and said before me, 'What is man that You should remember him?' (Tehilim/Psalms 8:5)"

[NOTE: According to the midrash, the angels opposed the creation of man, and consistently point out, throughout man's history, all of man's shortcomings to buttress their position having opposed man's creation and secure their own position as the most superior beings in G-d's created world. Here, with HaShem's (G-d's) double statement of "I," the Torah implies that HaShem finally "raised His hand" in consent to the opinion of the angels that man was not worthy of existence.]

Dynasty or Meritocracy?

Devarim 17:15-20: "You shall place over yourself a king whom HaShem shall choose . . . When he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah . . . It shall be with him and he will read it all the days of his life in order that he learn to fear HaShem his G-d . . . so that he not become haughty over his brothers . . . in order that he have a lengthy rule over his kingdom, he and his son, in the midst of Israel."

Rashi: "'he and his son' - This teaches that if he son is fit for kingship, he has precedence over any man."

[NOTE: Rashi implies that the son of a king is only the primary candidate for kingship if he is fit for such a position. However, would the son be unfit, another would be considered as successor to the king. The Hebrew word for "fit" here is "hagun," which generally denotes refinement of character. This is the criteria by which one is considered fit to be king of Israel.]

The Sabbath: Kiss Your Sins Goodbye - p. II

In our last post, a reader asked about a tradition that Sabbath observance causes one's sins, even idol worship, to be absolved. This would appear to be the straightforward reading of the Talmud in Tractate Shabath 118B (see previous post). This raised the following difficulties:

Doesn't such an idea run counter to simple intuition? How can one guilty of what seems the greatest defection from G-d be forgiven by virtue of his observance of another precept? What does one have to do with the other? Does this mean one can abrogate whatever laws one pleases and then simply observe the Sabbath and be absolved of sin? What about teshuvah (repentance)?

A reader, "Poppazoppa," wrote:

"Since observing the Shabbat is considered 'THE SIGN' which identifies a worshipper of Ha-Shem, perhaps sabbath observance completely negates idol-worship. Mathematically, (-1) plus (+1) = 0. So there is no sin. But again, intuitively, this seems wrong. Perhaps, also, the absolution applies only to idol-worship."

"Poppazoppa" refers to the reference in the Torah to the Sabbath as a "sign" between HaShem and his people, as in Shemoth 31:12-17:

"HaShem said to Mosheh, saying: 'Speak you to the Children of Israel, saying, 'Only shall you observe My Sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you, for all generations, to know that I am HaShem Who sanctifies you. You shall observe the Sabbath, for it is holy for you. Its desecrators shall be put to death, for any who perform labor on [the Sabbath], that soul shall be excised from the midst of its peoples. Six days shall you perform labor, and on the seventh day [shall be] a Sabbath of complete cessation, holy unto HaShem. Any who perform labor on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.' The Children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, making the Sabbath for all generations an eternal covenant. Between Me and the Children of Israel it is a sign forever that in six days HaShem made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he ceased and rested.'"

The Sabbath does indeed appear to be a sign, through its observance, that Israel recognizes HaShem as G-d and Creator. Is this recognition enough to counteract one's act of idolatry? Is the Sabbath a recognition of HaShem's exclusivity as G-d? And what about sins other than idolatry? Can one mitzvah act as an "antidote" for another transgression? While Poppazoppa's suggestion is certainly a good beginning, as Poppazoppa pointed out, many questions still remain.

With a bit of research, I have uncovered a number of fascinating approaches to this concept which I plan to share (G-d willing) in upcoming posts.

[NOTE: I haven't yet published PART III of this series of articles out of a suspicion that no one is reading it anyway. If there is a specific request for publication of the resolution, I will (G-d willing) oblige.]

The Sabbath: Kiss Your Sins Goodbye

The following question was submitted by a reader:

"Someone (Jewish faith) told the following to a friend of mine.... 'the person who observes the Sabbath each week will have all his or her sins forgiven', according to Jewish tradition. I never heard this. Have you?"

Our answer:

The Talmud in Shabath (118B) states:

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל המשמר שבת כהלכתו אפי' עובד ע"ז [כדור] אנוש מוחלין לו שנאמר (ישעיהו נו) אשרי אנוש יעשה זאת וגו' מחללו אל תקרי מחללו אלא מחול לו

"R' Chiyah bar Aba said: R' Yochanan said: Anyone who observes the Sabbath according to its laws, even if he worships idols as did the generation of Enosh, he is absolved, as it states (Isaiah 56:2): 'Fortunate is the person ('enosh') who does this, and the man ('ben adam') who holds onto it, guarding the Sabbath from desecrating it ( מֵחַלְּלוֹ - 'mechalelo'), and guarding his hand from doing any evil.' Read not 'from desecrating it' (מֵחַלְּלוֹ - 'mechalelo'), rather [read] 'it is forgiven him' (מָחוּל לוֹ - 'machul lo')."

The verse in Isaiah is here interpreted using a method known as 'derush,' revealing a layer of meaning concealed beneath the literal translation of the words that is also considered a valid reading of the verse. The exact methodology of deriving meaning in this way has not come down to us through the generations, and therefore we generally have difficulty understanding quite how this meaning is extracted from the verse, although many continue to try to work backwards to explain these types of expositions. For example, it appears that the Sages focused on two details of this verse. Firstly, there are two terms used to refer to a man: 'enosh' and 'ben adam.' 'Ben adam' would seem the more common term, and the superfluous 'enosh' is taken then as a reference to the personage Enosh who lived between the time of Adam and Noach and in whose time idol worship began (see Genesis 4:26 and Rashi ad loc). Additionally, the word 'mechalelo' meaning 'from desecrating it' shares the same letters (sans vowelization) with the words 'machul lo' meaning 'it is forgiven him.' Words of similar spellings are also considered related in Lashon haKodesh and therefore this meaning is considered here. Therefore the verse can be interpreted as saying that even 'Enosh,' i.e. one guilty of the sin associated with Enosh, can rejoice if he 'does this,' if he observes the Sabbath properly, for then his sin 'is forgiven him.'

However, after all is said and done, doesn't such an idea run counter to simple intuition? How can one guilty of what seems the greatest defection from G-d be forgiven by virtue of his observance of another precept? What does one have to do with the other? Does this mean one can abrogate whatever laws one pleases and then simply observe the Sabbath and be absolved of sin? What about teshuvah (repentance)? This is a very difficult concept to accept.

At this time I do not have an answer to these powerful objections, although I plan to look into it, so stay tuned.

PART II

Celestial beings, look out! Here comes Mosheh!

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:31: "HaShem said to me (Mosheh), 'See, I have begun to give over Sichon and his land..."

Q: What did Mosheh see? How could HaShem have begun to give over Sichon and his land before the war began?

Rashi (ad loc): "[HaShem] bound the celestial guardian angel of the Amorites (Emorim) at the feet of Mosheh and had [Mosheh] tread upon him."

See also this post.

The tally thus far:
Mosheh: 8
Celestial beings: 0

What do Sichon, Esav, Yishmael and Pharoah all have in common?

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:26: "I (Mosheh/Moses) sent emissaries from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sichon (Sihon), King of Cheshbon, [with] words of peace..."

NOTE: This occurred earlier in B'Midbar (Numbers) 21:21. However, based on the previous verse (ibid. v. 20), Israel's location was "the valley that is in the field of Moav," not the wilderness of Kedemoth. Additionally, in Devarim 2:24, Mosheh relates that HaShem had commanded him to make war with Sichon and take possession of his land. Why then would Mosheh send emissaries of peace? Rashi in v. 26 attempts to resolve this difficulty by interpreting our verse figuratively.

Rashi (ad loc): "'from the wilderness of Kedemoth' - Even though G-d did not command me to offer peace to Sichon, I learned this [behavior] from [G-d in] the wilderness of Sinay (Sinai), from [the manner of the giving of] the Torah which preceded (kidmah) [the creation of] the world. [NOTE: The Torah is a revelation of the Divine Will, which is eternal. Therefore the Torah is described as preceding the creation of the world.] When the Holy One came to give [the Torah] to Israel, he offered it to [the descendants of] Esav (Esau) and Yishmael (Ishmael), even though it was obvious to Him that they would not accept it. He nevertheless made them an offer of peace, [therefore] I too made an overture to Sichon with words of peace."

NOTE: Rashi has thus interpreted the phrase "the wilderness of Kedemoth" as a reference to the wilderness where the Torah was given. Sending emissaries from there means that as a result of something that occurred then, Mosheh sent emissaries at this point. Kedemoth, from the Hebrew root that denotes something that comes before, is a reference to the Torah which came before all. Rashi continues:

"Alternatively, `from the wilderness of Kedemoth,' - I learned from You Who preceded (kidamta) the world. You could have send one bolt of lightening and incinerated Egypt, but you patiently sent me from the wilderness to Pharoah to say, 'Let my people go!'"

NOTE: Here "Kedemoth" is understood as a reference to the Eternal One Himself. The Wilderness refers to that wilderness in which Mosheh sojourned when he fled from Egypt after killing the Egyptian until HaShem commanded him to return to Egypt and lead His people to freedom. (See Shemoth/Exodus 2:11-15 and ibid. ch. 3). Therefore, just as HaShem commanded Mosheh to approach Pharoah in a diplomatic fashion, Mosheh learned that he should do the same here.

Son-of-a-Father

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:9: "HaShem (G-d) said to me (Mosheh/Moses), 'Do not distress [the nation of ] Moav (Moab) nor provoke them to war, for I will not give you an inheritance from their land, for I have given [the land of] Ar to the children of Lot as an inheritance." (See previous post.)

[NOTE: See B'Reshith (Genesis) 19:29-38. The nations of Moav and Amon were descended from the two sons of Lot, Moav and Ben-Ami, respectively, whom he conceived with his two daughters.]

Rashi (Devarim 2:9): "'do not provoke them to war' - Israel was only prohibited from [provoking] Moav to war, but [Israel] did cause Moav to fear and would appear to them while armed... [Israel] would loot and despoil them. However, regarding the children of Amon, it states (v. 19): 'Do not provoke them' - [implying the prohibition of] any provocation whatsoever. [This immunity of Amon was granted them] in reward for the modesty (tzeniuth) of their matriarch (the younger of Lot's daughters), who did not disclose her father's act as did the elder daughter who called her son 'Moav' (like the Hebrew 'me-av,' meaning 'from father')." [NOTE: See previous note. Lot's younger daughter named her son "Ben-Ami," meaning "son of my nation," obscuring her child's incestuous origin.]

Seven Outta Ten Ain't Bad

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 2:2-5: "HaShem (G-d) said to me (Mosheh/Moses), saying, '...Command the people, saying, 'You are passing the boundary of your brothers, the Children of Esav (Esau) who dwell in Seir... Do not provoke them, for I will not give you from their land even [the measure of] a footfall, for I have given Mount Seir as an inheritance for Esav.''"

Rashi (ad loc): "'an inheritance for Esav' - from Avraham (Abraham). [NOTE: Esav and Israel were twin sons of Yitzchak (Isaac) son of Avraham.] I gave [Avraham] [the land of] ten nations (B'Reshith/Genesis 15:18-21). Seven [are given] to you [Israel], and [of the nations of] the Keni (Kenite) and Kenizi (Kenizzite) and Kadmoni (Kadmonite), which are [the lands of]Amon and Moav (Moab) and Seir, one of them is given to Esav, and the [other] two [are given] to the sons of Lot (Avraham's nephew). In reward for having gone with [Avraham] to Egypt and being silent about that which [Avraham] said regarding his wife (Sarah), 'She is my sister' (See B'Reshith 12:10-16), I considered [Lot] like Avraham's own son (granting each of Lot's two sons, Moav and Ben-Ami, progenitors of the nations of Moav and Amon, respectively, as an inheritance, one of the lands of the ten nations given to Avraham)."

Justifying the Just -- Introduction, p. II

A famous example of a misunderstood biblical passage is B'Reshith (Genesis) 35:22:

"When Israel (i.e. Yaakov/Jacob) dwelt in that land, Reuven (Reuben) went any lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel heard. The sons of Yaakov were twelve."

This verse is remarkable for a number of reasons. Firstly and most obviously, it is shocking that Reuven, the first-born son of Yaakov, the third of the triad of righteous forefathers Avraham (Abraham), Yitzchak (Isaac) and Yaakov, could and would commit such an unprecedented act. We find no prior mention of any such misconduct on the part of Reuven, sexual or otherwise. All the moreso is such conduct shocking when it involves his own righteous father's consort! Additionally, this most severe act receives but minor mention in the greater context of the text, namely, half a verse, with no prelude beforehand nor any details thereafter. The second half of this verse already begins the next section of text, the enumeration of Yaakov's progeny. The only other mention of this event is in Yaakov's final words to his sons before his death (B'Reshith 49:3-4):

"Reuven, you are my first-born, my might and the first of my strength, excellent in elevation, excellent in power. [Because of your] haste like water you will not excel (i.e. certain priveledges of the first-born have been taken away from you -Rashi), for you ascended your father's couch, then you defiled the One who ascended my bed (i.e. the Divine Presence was manifest upon Yaakov's bed -Rashi)."

Even this passage raises difficulties. What haste is this verse referring to? No details were given in the above account as to the context of the episode. Information is clearly missing.

Additionally peculiar about the former passage regarding this act of Reuven is that, as mentioned, the narrative seems to completely switch gears within the very same verse, beginning what appears to be a completely unrelated topic. "Reuven (Reuben) went any lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel heard. The sons of Yaakov were twelve." Indeed, if one examines the Hebrew text, one finds that there is a gap in the text in the middle of the verse before the words, "The sons of Yaakov were twelve." This sort of gap is common in Scripture, generally denoting the end of one section and the beginning of another. For this sort of gap to appear in the middle of a verse is extremely rare and therefore highly significant.

Let us examine the commentary of Rashi on this verse:

"'Reuven went and lay with Bilhah' - Since [Reuven] rearranged [Yaakov]'s couch, Scripture charges him as though he lay with her. Why did he rearrange and [thereby] desecrate [Yaakov]'s bed? Because when Rachel died, Yaakov took his bed, which was regularly placed in Rachel's tent and no other tent, and placed it in Bilhah (Rachel's handmaiden)'s tent. Reuven came to lay claim against this affront to his mother (Leah). He said: '[Even] if my mother's sister (Rachel) was a rival wife to my mother, should my mother's sister's maid be a rival wife to my mother?' Therefore he rearranged [Yaakov's bed]."

A little background to understand this comment of Rashi. As related in B'Reshith 29:1-30:24, Yaakov, during his sojourn in Padan Aram with his swindling uncle Lavan, encountered Lavan's two daughters, Rachel and Leah. Yaakov quickly fell in love with Rachel, the younger sister, and asked Lavan for his daughter's hand in marriage. Lavan agreed, but tricked Yaakov into marrying Leah, the older daughter, first. Yaakov ultimately wed both sisters, who competed with one another to bear him more children, each one hoping that this would cause Yaakov to prefer her over her sister. Rachel was unable to bear Yaakov children, while the fertile Leah bore him six sons and a daughter, Reuven the first-born of these. Rachel gave her handmaiden, Bilhah, to Yaakov as a concubine, hoping that she would bear children to him that Yaakov would consider like Rachel's own. Bilhah bore Yaakov two sons. Leah likewise gave her handmaiden, Zilpah, to Yaakov for the same purpose, and she bore him another two sons. Eventually, Rachel, too, bore a son to Yaakov. All this is clear from the text.

Our sages have further taught us in the Talmud, Tractate Shabath 55B, that despite the vast superiority of Leah over Rachel in this child-bearing contest, Yaakov's initial and fierce love for Rachel was never dulled, and he always preferred her over her sister and rival Leah. Therefore, while each wife had her own tent, Yaakov's bed held its most constant place in Rachel's tent. This unbalanced favoritism against Leah aroused Reuven's ire, although he never acted upon it. When Rachel died, Reuven's hope was that his mother's proper honor would finally be realized, with Yaakov fixing his bed in Leah's tent, but this never materialized. Instead, Yaakov, because of his love for Rachel, moved his bed to Rachel's handmaiden Bilhah's tent because Yaakov's close association of Bilhah with her mistress Rachel. In Reuven's eyes, this was an affront to his mother that he could not bear. He therefore took the initiative to move his father's bed from the handmaiden's tent to that of his own mother Leah.

According to Rashi, this disruption of Yaakov's relationship with Bilhah is described as though Reuven himself actually lay with Bilhah, although this certainly did not literally take place. The verse merely uses figurative language, or if you will, exaggerated terminology, in describing this act.

It must be pointed out, that Rashi's comments here are all based on a discussion recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Shabath) as mentioned earlier. Rashi is not inventing details or conjecturing. The Talmudic source predates Rashi by several centuries. While this is not the forum for the complex discussion of just what the Talmud is, suffice it to say that while the Talmud was put into its final written form in the 5th and 6th centuries CE, the teachings within it are far older as the Talmud is mainly a collection of oral traditions. Therefore the Talmudic tradition of the proper understanding of these verses that Rashi cites here claims authenticity as the ancient and accurate meaning of the original Biblical verse.

Let us examine Rashi's comments on the latter part of the verse:

"'Yaakov's sons were twelve' - ...Our Sages (Shabath ibid.) expounded: [These words] come to teach that all were equal and all righteous, for Reuven did not sin."

In other words, this anamoly of the new section discussing the progeny of Yaakov beginning at the end of this verse describing Reuven's act is to indicate the Reuven did not distinguish himself from his brothers in so doing. He remained of comparable stature to all his brothers. If so, since the other brothers were all righteous, so was Reuven. Scripture here mitigates its own harsh statement in the earlier part of the verse. A criticism is certainly aimed at Reuven, but it is immediately modified.

So far we have explained how the Torah could indicate that Reuven committed such an act (he didn't), we have explained why the verse ends with the statement, "The sons of Yaakov were twelve," and now we can also explain the verse in Devarim quoted above that refers to Reuven's haste. Reuven was angered by what he saw as a slight to his mother's honor and he acted hastily to right this wrong. However, it was inappropriate for him to interfere in the marital affairs of his father and for that he is reprimanded.

The main point to be taken from this study, however, is that it is irresponsible to superficially read Biblical verse without taking into account the larger context of the verse as well as the traditions surrounding it. We have concluded that Reuven was indeed a great and righteous individual on par with his brothers and in keeping with what we would expect from the first-born son of a great man such as Yaakov and from one whom HaShem chose to sire an entire tribe of the people of Israel.

The fact that the Torah uses such strong terms to describe Reuven's act, which was actually a much more minor act, is indeed the most puzzling detail of this explanation. I intend to address this point in my next post (G-d willing). Stay tuned.

Justifying the Just -- An Introduction

I have rediscovered of late (I say "rediscovered" because it is no new discovery) that there is a trend out there among certain people, even among the supposedly Torah-observant, to lay calumny upon our great forebearers based upon certain superficial observations of Biblical text. It cannot be stressed enough what a devastating error this is, although a very tempting and in fact instinctive one to make based on the predispositions with which we usually approach the text. These predispositions are based in turn on our experiences and personalities which have taken form under the influence of a society that is completely divorced in its nature from the world in which these texts were composed and in which lived those great men whose craft was their study and to whom were entrusted their transmission together with their genuine meaning. For this reason I feel it is more than a necessity to address this topic and attempt to enlighten both myself and others who may have fallen under this erroneous spell.

The first issue that must be introduced is that of text-study. One must always consider when one approaches any text, especially an ancient one, the context in which it was written, the intent for which it was written, and the readership for which it was written. One cannot approach an ancient text with the same eyes with which one approaches a contemporary journal article, novel, or newspaper item. Contemporary items are written by contemporary authors in a contemporary world for a contemporary readership. Therefore behind the writer's words are all the same assumed axioms of human living and understanding with which the reader approaches those words. Many more things are not written than are written that are relevant to the understanding of the work, but they are all presupposed and understood by the reader and therefore the writer need not write them.

The same is true for the writer of an ancient text at the time of the writing regarding his contemporaries. So much is left unsaid that a reader from another time or place reading the same words will be missing so much of the writer's underlying meaning. In order for those who understand the text to transmit the meaning thereof accurately to another generation, such transmission requires much unwritten explanation that must be maintained by the next generation for accurate transmission to the generation thereafter. For that latter generation to ignore the commentary of the preceding one in favor of interpreting the same words with their more modern connotations is dishonest and unfaithful to the original intent and such interpretation can only be unreliable. How much more so when dealing with a text that is thousands of years old! The only hope of reading such a text properly is through reliance on an accurate commentary that reaches back to the time and circumstances of the original author.

For example, if we go back just two centuries to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, we find the statement that "all men are created equal." How do we understand this statement versus the way its writers intended? The contemporary mindset is that this statement applies to all human beings of all races and genders. However, it is certain that in the mind of the writers the intent was toward males of the white race. Witness to this is the fact that Bill of Rights, composed be the very same men, allows for the treatment of blacks as property and severely limits the rights of women compared to men. We cannot impose upon the authors of this document current standards of equality -- it is dishonest, incorrect and makes for lousy scholarship.

Therefore, when our tradition regards certain Biblical figures as great men, even though elements of the text may imply otherwise to our contemporary ears, we must never put this so-called "literal" reading of the text before an established tradition. Rather, we must approach the text in the context of these traditions.

Judaism has a deep and rich tradition that has been transmitted to us through our sages from one generation to the next. These traditions cannot be ignored simply because the text seems to imply otherwise! Quite the contrary! We must reinterpret the text based on these traditions! Indeed, it may be said that our traditional teachings are the core of Judaism and the text merely a framework (albeit an indispensible one) upon which to lay these traditions in their proper place.

Put differently, the Jewish People has been studying the Torah since time immemorial. There was never a time in which these teachings were "new." Even the writing of the texts was generally the recording of known information. But at the very least it can certainly be said that since the recording of these texts there has never been a cessation of their study among our people. They were always learned and taught from master to disciple from generation to generation, ours no exception to that tradition. We are not greater scholars than our ancestors. We are not more familiar with these texts than they were. In a time when the Jewish people is more removed from its traditions than ever, we cannot be so conceited as to believe that we are more connected to the accurate meaning of these texts or are privy to the full gamut of insights into them than those who came before us. To attempt to "rediscover" the correct meaning of the text without deference to the understanding of our ancestors, to think we know better than they did, to think they were in error while we are not, is lunacy.

It is illegitemate to argue that we are more sophisticated than prior generations, for if we believe that the Torah is a divinely communicated document, and its contents the wisdom of a Divine Creator and Master of all things, its study must certainly enlighten those who study it, and again, our study thereof is not a more serious undertaking than the study thereof of prior generations, and the sincerity and gravity of that undertaking increases the further back in time one goes, as does the limitation of influence from without. With more serious study of the Torah comes forth sophistication, comes forth illumination, therefore our forebearers were certainly more sophisticated in all ways significant, especially Torah-study, and especially considering the degree to which our generation is bombarded with all sorts of influence foreign to our Torah and its wisdom.

A text is a very flexible thing. Different people will read it differently and draw different conclusions therefrom. The most reliable method of determining the meaning of a text is through a tradition of what that text meant to its author. No other method should be adopted in examining the Torah or any Biblical writings than the aforementioned approach.

This is what distinguishes Jewish scholarship from those of any other religion or belief system that relies on the Bible as its central text. While each one of these systems adopts its own unique and novel approach to the text, our tradition rejects those approaches in favor of its own. Only the people who have carried these books from the time they came into being can be trusted in their interpretation thereof against the countless counterfeits that have reared their head in the course of history and continue to do so in our own times.

I intend, with G-d's help, to use this forum to demonstrate some of the stark differences that arise through this approach to Torah-study in contradistinction to those of the falsifiers. Our tools are the text coupled with the timeless and indispensible traditions of our fathers before us. May the light of the Torah, written and oral, continue to enlighten us as it has done for our people since time immemorial.

Stay tuned for more.

By Appointment Only

Eychah (Lamentations) 2:2: "HaShem (G-d) swallowed up all the dwellings of Yaakov (Jacob, i.e. Israel), having no mercy upon [them]; He destroyed in His wrath the fortified places of the daughter of Yehudah (Judah, i.e. the Jews); it reached the ground (i.e. HaShem lowered them to the ground -Rashi). He desecrated the kingdom and its ministers."

Rashi: "'and its ministers' - According to a midrashic interpretation, [HaShem] rearranged the ministers of heaven (i.e. the ministering angels): [e.g.] the one appointed over light, He appointed over water, and He likewise rearranged all the appointed [angels], because there were among the wicked of Israel those with mastery over the Explicit [Divine] Name (with which one can manipulate nature) who were confident they could control the ministers of heaven to save them from fire or water or the sword. Now, however, when they would attempt to control the minister of fire by His Name, he [the minister of fire] would reply, 'I have no control over this,' and likewise [would occur] with all of them [the ministering angels]."

Casting Lots of Angels

B'Midbar (Numbers) 34:1-2:

"HaShem (G-d) spoke to Mosheh (Moses), saying, 'Command the Children of Israel and say to them, 'When you come to the Land of Kenaan (Canaan), this is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the Land of Kenaan according to its boundaries...''"

Rashi (ad loc):

"'shall fall to you' - 'Since [the land] was divided by lot, this division is refered to in terms of 'falling' [as lots are 'cast']. According to a midrashic interpretation, [the land is said to 'fall'] since the Holy One cast down the guardian angels of the seven [Kenaanite] nations from heaven and bound them before Mosheh. [HaShem] said to him: 'See, they have no more strength.''"

Cool.

Ancient Text or Today's Headlines?

B'Midbar (Numbers) 33:50-56: "HaShem (G-d) spoke to Mosheh (Moses) . . . saying, 'Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them, 'When you cross the Jordan [River] toward the land of Kenaan (Canaan), you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you . . . and you shall dwell therein, for I have given the land to you, to inherit it. But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, those of them that you allow to remain will be spikes in your eyes thorns in your sides, and they will persecute you upon the land in which you dwell. And that which I had intended to do to them I will do to you."

Anger Leads to Error

In the Torah portion of Matoth, Israel fights a war against the nation of Midyan (B'Midbar/Numbers 31:1-12), and upon vanquishing that nation, returns with a tremendous bounty of spoils, including food implements of all types. Thereupon, the people are commanded in the laws relating to purifying those vessels (ibid. v. 21-25) before they can be used for consumption by Israelites. We read (v. 21):

"Elazar the Kohen said to the men of the army that went to battle, 'This is the statute of the Torah that HaShem (G-d) commanded Mosheh (Moses)...'"

Peculiar is the fact that the one to command the people regarding these laws is Elazar the son of Aharon (Aaron) as opposed to Mosheh. Since the passing of Aharon shortly before this incident, Aharon's son Elazar took over his father's position of Kohen Gadol (High Priest), and was perhaps Mosheh's second-in-command at this time. Nevertheless, despite Elazar's high rank, it remains anomalous that he should instruct the people in these laws when throughout Israel's forty-year trek through the wilderness under Mosheh's command, it was consistently the custom of Mosheh himself to do so. Why the sudden change in procedure?

Rashi offers the following suggestion (ibid.):

"Because Moshe came to anger, he came to err, as the laws . . . became hidden from him."

In the previous section (v. 13-20), Mosheh becomes angry (v. 14) at the men of the army for having spared the females of Midyan. Prior to the war (ibid. 25:1-9), these women had seduced the Israelite men into idol worship and lewd sexual practice, bringing upon Israel a plague that decimated 24,000 Israelites. This spiritual attack against Israel instigated the war against Midyan from which Israel now returned. As a result of this anger, Mosheh seems to forget the relevant laws, necessitating Elazar to became a temporary substitute.

Rashi's suggestion that Mosheh's anger caused him to become unable to instruct the people is based on Rashi's observation, which he elucidates in his following comments, that we consistently find that the rare occasions that Mosheh appears to err occur in conjunction with Mosheh becoming angry (indeed a rare occurrence for the one that the Torah describes as "the most humble of all men upon the face of the earth" -ibid. 12:3).

Why should anger have such an effect? Why would anger cause forgetfulness?

In his classical ethical work, Mesilath Yesharim (The Path of the Just), Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzato (RaMChaL), writes (Ch. 11):

"We shall now discuss anger... [The furious man] . . . becomes so filled with wrath that his heart is no longer with him and his judgment vanishes. A man such as he would destroy the entire world if it were within his power to do so, for he is not in any way directed by reason and is as devoid of sensibility as any predatory beast... He can easily commit any conceivable sin to which his rage brings him, for he is bound by nothing but his anger and he will go where it leads him."

While this statement concerns the extreme case, "the furious man," even of lesser anger Ramchal writes:

"This form of anger, too, is unquestionably evil, for much that is very damaging may proceed from him during his fit of anger and he will not afterwards be able to straighten what he has made crooked."

Anyone who has ever gotten really mad (which includes most of us) can certainly attest to the accuracy of the Ramchal's description. Any manifestation of anger, however, on whatever scale, will contain traces of these elements in proportion to the degree of the emotion. Therefore even the smallest degree of anger will impact one's intellectual equilibrium.

Anger clouds one's judgment, allowing the emotional side of the person to supersede the intellectual. How many times have we regretted things that we've said or done under the influence of anger? For this reason, Mosheh was deemed unfit to instruct the people in the laws relevant to the spoils of war. Since he had just become angered, his intellect was in some way hampered by the effects of that most pernicious emotion. Even the slightest anger of the most humble of all men rendered Mosheh incapable of accurately tranmitting the Divine Law.

Clearly, anger leads to error. We see this principal demonstrated in the errors of Mosheh himself, the humblest of all men! How much more so any of us! Let us strive to distance ourselves from this damaging emotion, and may the ensuing peace be for us a true redemption.

I've got you covered, Sam ol' boy!

In the book of Shemuel I (I Samuel) (Ch. 15), after Israel's war against Amalek, and King Shaul's failure to carry out HaShem's (G-d's) directive to obliterate that nation, Shaul is informed by Shemuel that HaShem has rejected him as king over Israel and will choose another to lead Israel as king.  In Ch. 16, HaShem commands Shemuel to travel to Beth Lechem where he will find the man that HaShem intends to be His new anointed.  Shemuel responds (v. 2):

 

"How can I go (איך אלך)?  Shaul will hear (that I am anointing another) and will kill me!"

 

Hashem's reply (v. 2-3): "Take a calf in your hand and say, 'I have come to offer sacrifice to HaShem!'  Then you shall invite Yishay to the feast (וקראת לישי בזבח), and I will inform you of what to do, and you shall anoint for me the one whom I tell you."

 

 In other words, Shemuel is afraid to carry out HaShem's command, so HaShem offers him a strategy to avoid exposure.  He should go incognito, disguising his intent to anoint a king, pretending instead as though his intent is merely to bring a sacrifice.  Meanwhile, he would find the one whom HaShem intended him to anoint (David, son of Yishay).

 

This raises a number of questions:

 

1. Why was Shemuel afraid to carry out HaShem's command?  Where was his faith?

 

2. Why does HaShem need to offer Shemuel a strategy for survival?  Why doesn't HaShem just bolster Shemuel's faith by saying, "Don't worry, Sam ol' boy, I've got you covered!"  Can't HaShem protect Shemuel?  Why the need for subterfuge?

 

3. Doesn't this plan seem a bit dishonest?  Is HaShem instructing his prophet to engage in deceit in order to carry out His will?  Are we not commanded to distance ourselves from falsehood (Shemoth 23:7)?

 

Let us examine the commentary of Rav David Kimchi (RaDaK) on this passage:

 

"We find that even when the Holy One issues a guarantee to the prophet or tzadik, he is careful not to enter a dangerous situation, as we saw regarding our forefather Yaakov, whom HaShem promised, when he traveled to Aram Naharayim, 'I shall return you to this land' (B'Reshith 28:15), and to whom an angel also appeared there and promised him, 'Return to the land of your fathers and to your birthplace and I will be with you,' (ibid 31:3) yet when he heard that Esav (Esau) came toward him, 'Yaakov greatly feared and was troubled' (ibid 32:8).  David, too, who was anointed king by HaShem, fled from Shaul . . .  In matters of war as well, they would devise strategies, even after a Divine guarantee [of success], as did Gidon with the pitchers and torches (Shophetim 7).  Sometimes they would even design the strategies by Divine command as it is written in Yehoshua (Joshua), regarding the conquest of Yericho (Jericho), 'Encircle the city' (6:3).  So too did [HaShem] command Shemuel [to adopt this] strategy even though he proceeded by [Divine] command.

 

"The reason for this is that even though the Holy One enacts miracles and wonders for those who fear Him, these [miracles] are mostly according to the natural order.  Therefore, according to the natural order, Yaakov should have feared Esav, and Shemuel [should have feared] Shaul if he would anoint a king in [Shaul]'s lifetime.  It was therefore appropriate to seek a strategy with which to proceed.  This was Shaul's question, "How shall I proceed?" [NOTE: In Hebrew, the phrase, "איך אלך?" literally means, "How (איך) I go (אלך)?" and can be translated, "How can I go?" as above, or, "How shall I proceed?"  Our translation above implied a rhetorical question, "How can I go?" i.e. "It is impossible!"  The Radak's translation, however, is inquisitive, "How shall I proceed?"  Shemuel was not refusing HaShem's command; he was acknowledging it and requesting further instructions.]

 

"Our Sages learned from this verse that it is a mitzvah to lie for matters of peace. [NOTE: Although the typical understanding of this concept is that one may lie to avoid strife with another, this does not seem to be Radak's meaning here.  In context of Radak's next words, he seems to refer to peace here not as peaceful relations per se, but as well-being.  In other words, to preserve one's well-being, as here, when Shemuel's life was in danger, he was enjoined to lie.]  For the Holy One told Shemuel, 'Take a calf in your hand,' showing him that it is not fitting for a man to enter a dangerous situation and rely on a miracle, as it states, 'Do not test (לא תנסון) HaShem your G-d' (Devarim 6:16). [NOTE: The Hebrew for "Do not test," is "לא תנסו;" the Hebrew words "test" (נסיון) and "miracle" (נס) share the same root.  Therefore, the injunction, "Do not test HaShem your G-d," is understood as a prohibition against relying on a miracle, i.e. testing G-d to see if He will come through in a tight squeeze via some kind of open Divine intervention rather than making efforts through natural means to succeed.]"

 

Radak now offers an alternative explanation of this verse:

 

"There are those that explain that this is what HaShem answered [Shemuel, in response to his challenge of 'How can I go?']: 'I told you to go secretly [to anoint a new king], and you [of little faith] said, 'Shaul will hear and kill me!'  Now I am telling you to go openly!  Take a calf to sacrifice as a peace-offering on the day you anoint him king!  (I.e. Make a public spectacle of the event!)'  This is the meaning of that which He said, 'you shall call out to Yishay at the feast' [NOTE: The Hebrew, "וקראת לישי בזבח" can be translated as we did above, "you shall invite Yishay to the feast," but alternatively can be translated, "you shall call out to Yishay at the feast."  This second translation is consistent with this new explanation that Shemuel was commanded to make a spectacle of the choosing of the new king.]: 'Go openly, and let us see who will kill you!  (I.e. You will see that you have nothing to fear by obeying My command!)'"

 

Question to ponder: Is this second explanation a contradiction to the first?  I mean, certainly it is a different explanation of the verse itself, but what of the philosophy underlying Radak's original explanation?  Radak went to lengths to tell us that even in the fulfillment of HaShem's command, one is enjoined not to rely on miracles but to utilize natural means to achieve one's ends.  Why is Shemuel suddenly criticized for not wanting to rely on a miracle and instead is himself enjoined to orchestrate a situation in which he will be in danger?  According to this explanation, is one expected to rely on miracles in the fulfillment of HaShem's command?  How can we reconcile such a contradiction?

 

You may take your time pondering this question.  When you are satisfied, you may proceed to read my proposed solution and comment thereon.

 

Suggestion:

 

I believe there is no contradiction at all.  The alternative explanations of the give-and-take between HaShem and Shemuel are determined by the aforementioned alternative translations of the words "איך אלך."  If one translates the phrase as did the Radak, that Shemuel asked, "How shall I proceed?" then he showed no lack of faith in HaShem; he merely asked in what way HaShem wished that he would carry out His will.  However, if one translates, "How can I go?" Shemuel was suggesting that what HaShem had commanded was impossible to fulfill.  For this he is reprimanded, for nothing is beyond the abilities of HaShem!  In fact, this explanation stressed that HaShem never initially commanded anything that was impossible even by natural means, and that the command was for Shemuel to go secretly, in order not to bring Shaul's attention to what he was doing, but after Shemuel is reticent to carry out HaShem's will even in this way, because of a seeming lack of faith, he is reprimanded.  HaShem then tells Shemuel that he must carry out his mission in a way that will reverse his apparent lack of trust in HaShem.  His orders now are to be as conspicuous as possible, and nevertheless to witness HaShem's protective hand, driving home the lesson that nothing is beyond HaShem's abilities.  Even while this is generally not HaShem's way of doing things, here it was necessitated and justified in order to correct this shortcoming in Shemuel.

It's All About the Benjamins

Have you ever wondered why the first king of Israel was chosen from the tribe of Binyamin (Benjamin)?  Well, here's a clue.  In Shemuel I (I Samuel) 15:17 we read Shemuel's admonition of Shaul (Saul) for sparing the animals of Amalek.  Shaul defended himself, saying that it was the people who spared the animals, with intent to sacrifice them to HaShem.  Shemuel rejects Shaul's defense that the people, and not he, were responsible:

 

"ויאמר שמואל: 'הלא אם קטן אתה בעיניך, ראש שבטי ישראל אתה, וימשחך ה' למלך על ישראל!'"

 

"Shemuel said, '[Even] if you are small in your eyes, [yet] you are the head of the tribes of Israel, and HaShem has anointed you king over Israel!'"

 

This translation (my own) seems rather repetitive.  Why repeat that Shaul was king over Israel – "you are the head of the tribes of Israel, and HaShem has anointed you king over Israel!"

 

The Targum, however, has a much more enlightening translation of this verse:

 

"ואמר שמואל: 'הלא מן שריותך הויתא שיט וחלש בעיני נפשך, ברם זכות שבטא דבנימין אבוך גרמא לך, די בעו למעבר בימא קדם בני ישראל; בדיל כן רביך ה' למהוי מלכא על ישראל.'"

 

"Shemuel said, 'Behold, from the outset you were low and weak in your own eyes, however the merit of the tribe of Binyamin, your forefather, has brought this about for you, for [the tribe of Binyamin] wanted to cross the [Red] Sea in front of the Children of Israel; because of this HaShem has elevated you to be king over Israel!'"

 

According to the Targum, the tribe of Binyamin was the first to cross the Red Sea during the Exodus from Egypt, and on that merit was privileged to be chosen as the tribe from which the first king of Israel would be chosen.  What exactly happened at the Red Sea?  How was Binyamin the first the cross?  Why was this such an achievement?

 

Additionally, this week's parshah (Torah portion) tells of the dedication of the Mishkan, the Tabernacle that the Israelites built during their trek through the desert.  At this dedication, the nesiim, the leaders of each of the tribes, brought impressive offerings for the glorification of the occasion.  The first nasi to bring his offering was that of the tribe of Yehudah, Nachshon ben Aminadav.  The Midrash Rabah (B'Midbar Rabah 13:4) examines by what merit Nachshon became the first to bring his offering at this momentous event:

 

 "R' Yehudah bar R' Ilai said: 'When Israel stood by the sea, the tribes contended with each other.  One said: 'I will descend [to the sea] first!'  Another said: 'I will descend [to the sea] first!' Nachshon [ben Aminadav] jumped [first] into the waves of the sea . . .  Therefore HaShem elevated the name of Nachshon in Israel, for he merited to bring his offering first [at the dedication of the Mishkan], as it states: 'On the first day, Nachshon ben Aminadav of the tribe of Yehudah brought his offering' (B'Midbar 7:12).'"

 

We have here an apparent contradiction between the Targum and the Midrash Rabah as to the identity of the first to enter the sea.  What really happened?

 

The Talmud in Sotah 37A records the events at the scene of the Red Sea as a matter of dispute between two sages:

 

"היה ר' מאיר אומר: בשעה שהיו ישראל עומדים על שפת הים היו שבטים מנצחין זה עם זה. זה אומר: 'אני יורד תחלה לים!' וזה אומר: 'אני יורד תחלה לים!' קפץ שבטו של בנימין וירד תחלה לים, שנאמר (תהלים סח:כח):'שם בנימין צעיר רדם.' אל תקרי 'רדם' אלא 'רד ים.'  והיו שרי יהודה רוגמין אותם, שנאמר (שם): 'שרי יהודה רגמתם.' לפיכך זכה בנימן הצדיק ונעשה אושפיזכן לגבורה וכו'. אמר לו ר' יהודה: לא כך היה מעשה, אלא זה אומר: 'אין אני יורד תחלה לים!' וזה אומר: 'אין אני יורד תחלה לים!' קפץ נחשון בן עמינדב וירד לים תחלה, שנאמר (הושע יב:א): 'סבבוני בכחש אפרים ובמרמה בית ישראל ויהודה עוד רד עם א-ל ועם קדןשים נאמן.' וכו'. לפיכך זכה יהודה לעשות ממשלה בישראל וגו'"

 

"R' Meir said: 'When [the nation of] Israel stood on the shore of the sea, the tribes contended one with the other.  One said, 'I will descend to the sea first!' and the other said, 'I will descend to the sea first!'  The tribe of Binyamin took the initiative and descended first to the sea, as it states: 'There Binyamin the younger ruled over them (רדם)' (Tehilim 68:28).  Read not, 'ruled over them (רדם);' rather, read, 'descended to the sea (רד ים).'  Meanwhile, the officers of Yehudah (Judah) pelted them, as it states: 'The officers of Yehudah pelted them' (ibid).  Therefore the righteous Binyamin merited becoming the host for the Mighty One (i.e. the chamber of the Holy of Holies was built in the territory of Binyamin). . . .'  R' Yehudah said to him: 'That's not how it happened!  Rather, one said: 'I'm not descending to the sea first!' and the other said: 'I'm not descending to the sea first!'  Nachshon ben Aminadav (the leader of the tribe of Yehudah) took the initiative and descended to the sea first, as it states: 'Ephrayim has surrounded me with falsehood, and the House of Israel [has surrounded me] with deceit, but Yehudah yet rules (רד) with G-d and with the Holy One is loyal' (Hoshea 12:1) [NOTE: The Hebrew word רד in this verse meaning "ruled" is related to the word ירד meaning "descended" and is therefore understood as a reference to Yehudah's "descent" to the sea.]. . . . Therefore Yehudah merited to rule over Israel . . ."

 

The opinion of R' Meir appears to align with that of the Targum that Binyamin was first.   R' Yehudah in the Talmud is synonymous with R' Yehudah bar R' Ilai of the Midrash Rabah, and therefore we are not surprised that their opinions match that the tribe of Yehudah, not Binyamin, was first.  An interesting discrepancy, however, is that in the Midrash Rabah, the tribes vie for the privilege of entering the sea first, while in the Talmudic version of R' Yehudah, the tribes vie not to be the first into the sea.  Also puzzling is that the rewards for the respective tribes do not line up in any of these differing accounts.  According to the Targum, Binyamin merited kingship while R' Meir in the Talmud has Binyamin merit to host the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies that is built in his portion.  According to R' Yehudah in the Midrash Rabah, Yehudah's nasi merits to bring the first offering, while according to the same R' Yehudah in the Talmud, Yehudah merits dominion over Israel! [NOTE: This was fulfilled when David, from the tribe of Yehudah, a descendant of Nachshon ben Aminadav, succeeded Shaul as king over Israel.] Let us return to these discrepancies later.

 

Indeed, these are not the only variants of this event in history found in our literature.  There are actually several midrashim that recount this stage of the Exodus that seem to differ from one another.  Let us examine a few of them and try to discover the nature of the dispute.

 

We have already seen the Targum's translation of the verse in Shemuel.  The Targum of the Neviim (the books of the Prophets) was written by Yonathan ben Uziel, a sage of the late Second Temple Period (~1^st century C.E.) who was the "greatest" of the disciples of Hillel the Elder, the nasi ("prince"), religious leader of the Jews at that time.  The Talmud (Megilah 3A) says that Yonathan ben Uziel wrote his Targum based on a received tradition of the meaning of the verses that stemmed back to the prophets Chagay, Zecharyah and Malachi (~4^th century B.C.E.).  This translation, therefore, bears great authority.

 

The Talmudic version cited above expresses the opinions of R' Meir and R' Yehudah, sages of the post-Second Temple Mishnaic period (2^nd century C.E.), who were disciples of R' Akiva who was a disciple of R' Eliezer the Great (ben Hyrcanus) and R' Yehoshua (ben Chananyah) who were in turn disciples of Raban Yochanan ben Zakay, a contemporary of Yonathan ben Uziel and also a disciple of Hillel the Elder (although R' Yochanan ben Zakay is called the "least" of Hillel's disciples).  Raban Yochanan ben Zakay also served as nasi during the period immediately following the destruction of the Second Temple.  As noted earlier, R' Yehudah quoted in the Midrash Rabah is the same as that of the Talmud.

 

There are two additional accounts that we shall examine:

 

            Targum Tehilim – Like the Targum of Yonathan ben Uziel, this Aramaic interpretive translation of the book of Tehilim (Psalms) reveals hidden depth in the verses.  Unlike the books of the Neviim, however, this Targum was not written by Yonathan ben Uziel but by later sages.

 

            Pirkey d'Rabi Eliezer – A Midrash authored by R' Eliezer (the Great) ben Hyrcanus (whom we mentioned above was one of the principal disciples of Raban Yochanan ben Zakay and one of the masters of R' Akiva) along with his disciples.

 

In the Talmudic version of the events at the Red Sea, R' Meir identifies Binyamin as the first to enter the sea based on a verse in Tehilim.  Let us examine this verse in context and the Targum there. In Tehilim Ch. 68 we read:

 

V. 25: "They saw your steps, O G-d, your steps, my G-d, my King, in holiness."

 

Targum: "The House of Israel saw the steps of your Presence (Shechinah) upon the sea, O G-d.  They said: 'You have walked, O G-d, King of the entire world, in holiness.'"

 

V. 26: "The singers began after the players, amidst drumming maidens."

 

Targum: "They began to proclaim a song [of praise] after Mosheh and Aharon who played before them, amidst the righteous women who were with Miriam, drumming.

 

V. 27: "In gatherings they blessed G-d; HaShem, from the source of Israel."

 

Targum: "In gatherings they blessed G-d; embryos exalted HaShem in their mothers' wombs, the seed of Israel."

 

V. 28: "There Binyamin the younger ruled over them; the officers of Yehudah pelted them; the officers of Zevulun, the officers of Naphtali."

 

Targum: "There Binyamin, the youngest of the tribes, descended to the sea first.  Therefore he received kingship first.  After him the officers of Yehudah descended.  The [other] tribes pelted them with stones and they received leadership after them.  The officers of Zevulun became their merchants.  The officers of Naphtali became their warriors." 

 

[NOTE: Although I translated 'שרי יהודה רגמתם' as "the officers of Yehudah pelted them," the Targum splits this phrase into two and relates "the officers of Yehudah" to the tribe of Binyamin, hence having them follow Binyamin's action, leaving the act of pelting to be taken up by the other tribes.  The Targum's use of pronouns in the phrase, "The [other] tribes pelted them with stones and they received leadership after them," leaves the identity of "them," "they," and "them," ambiguous, however it makes sense that the first "them" could be both Binyamin and Yehudah, while "they" refers to Yehudah and the second "them" refers to Binyamin.  Hence the phrase means that the remaining tribes, jealous that they were not leading the charge into the sea, pelted those that did, while those that did merited leadership over Israel, first Binyamin who produced Shaul, the first king of Israel, and then Yehudah, from whom David descended.  The other tribes, however, merited lower positions in the kingdom.]

 

This Targum's version of the story, for the first time, appears to be something of a synthesis between some of the versions we have seen thus far, with some interesting differences of its own.  Binyamin, here too, is considered the first to jump into action at the Red Sea.  Yehudah is described as following Binyamin's action while both tribes are pelted by the others and both receive kingship as a reward.  The other tribes, not acting as quickly, receive positions of lower stature.

 

Let us examine one more version and see if we can tie up all the loose ends.  In Pirkey d'Rabi Eliezer, Ch. 42, we read the following:

 

"R' Akiva said: 'Israel was about to enter the Red Sea, but turned back, afraid lest the waters return upon them.  Binyamin, however, ran to enter, as it states: 'There Binyamin the younger ruled over them (רדם)' (Tehilim 68:28) – ]Read: 'There Binyamin the younger] 'descended to the sea'' (יורד ים).  The tribe of Yehudah began to pelt them, as it says: 'The officers of Yehudah pelted them' (ibid), and Nachshon [ben Aminadav] took the initiative and entered the sea first, sanctifying [HaShem]'s Great Name in the eyes of all.  Under the leadership of the people of Yehudah, all Israel followed them into the sea.'"

 

Astounding!  Here again we read that both entered the sea, one after the other, but with a very significant twist.  While Binyamin ran first to enter the sea, he was halted by the diversion of Yehudah.  Yehudah, then, it seems, under the leadership of Nachshon, gained the lead over Binyamin, entering the sea first with the rest of the nation following.  Can all of these versions be brought to terms with one another?

 

I believe that they can.  It would seem that at the Red Sea there were two groups of tribes.  One group, consisting of Binyamin and Yehudah, wanted to cross the sea first and vied with one another for the privilege, as in R' Meir's version of the story and R' Yehudah's version in the Midrash Rabah.  The second group, consisting of the remaining tribes, were afraid to cross, as Pirkey d'Rabi Eliezer tells us, and none wanted to go first, as R' Yehudah in the Talmud tells us.  Suddenly, Binyamin takes the initiative over Yehudah to be the first to cross, beginning his descent toward the sea first, as in the Targumim, R' Meir's version in the Talmud, and Pirkey d'Rabi Eliezer.  Yehudah, however, under the leadership of Nachshon, gets the jump on Binyamin, as it were, pelting them with stones to halt their advance, as in the Talmudic story and that of Pirkey d'Rabi Eliezer.  In fact, if one pays careful attention to the Targum of Shemuel, where this all began, it says that the tribe of Binyamin "wanted to cross the [Red] Sea in front of the Children of Israel," but not that they did cross in front. Indeed, although Binyamin begins the charge, Yehudah takes the lead in the race into the sea with Binyamin close behind.  The other tribes now, seeing the initiative and loyalty to G-d of Yehudah and Binyamin, are inspired to press into the sea as well, regretting not having taken the initiative themselves.  They too begin to pelt the leading tribes, as in the Targum of Tehilim, but by now fail to stop them.  The entire nation crosses, Yehudah in the lead, Binyamin a close second, followed by the remaining tribes, as Pirkey d'Rabi Eliezer concludes.

 

What then is the dispute between R' Meir and R' Yehudah in the Talmud?  If everyone agrees on what happened, why does R' Yehudah say to R' Meir, "That's not how it happened"?  If the tribe of Yehudah did indeed cross first, what is R' Meir saying?  It would seem that R' Yehudah and R' Meir argue as to which tribe is considered to have crossed first.  In other words, even though Yehudah ultimately led the nation through the sea, Binyamin did begin the charge.  Binyamin was the first to take the initiative.  For having initiated this momentous undertaking of the people of Israel, Binyamin is credited by R' Meir as being the leader in this national act.  R' Yehudah responds to him: "But that's not how it happened!"  In Hebrew this line is, "לא כך היה מעשה", which can be translated as, "the deed was not so."  R' Yehudah tells R' Meir that although Binyamin's heart was in the right place, the act, the deed of leading the people, was ultimately performed by Yehudah, and Yehudah is therefore the rightful holder of the title of leader.  Yehudah's physical effort was greater than that of Binyamin, so great as to have been able to completely overtake the more enthusiastic tribe of Binyamin.

 

That said, all the different rewards mentioned by the variant versions of the story fit beautifully.  Both Binyamin and Yehudah received two rewards, one physical and one spiritual.  Binyamin, although his physical accomplishment was less than Yehudah's as R' Yehudah pointed out, his spiritual accomplishment was greater, for he mustered up the greater faith in G-d to be the first to take the plunge into the sea despite the danger it presented.  For this great spiritual accomplishment, Binyamin merited a great spiritual portion, to have the Chamber of the Holy of Holies built in his territory in the Land of Israel.  His physical accomplishment, being the first to make a move, although not ultimately the first to achieve the goal of crossing the sea, was not ignored, for he received the physical reward of having the first king chosen from his tribe, although this kingship was but temporary, Shaul being the first and last king from Binyamin.  Yehudah, on the other hand, had the greatest physical achievement, overcoming his rival to become the leader in the march through the Red Sea.  For this great physical accomplishment, this tribe was given the greatest physical reward, having a permanent dynasty of kings over Israel emerge from his stock, beginning with David and ending with the ultimate rule of the Messiah, a descendant of David.  Yehudah's spiritual achievement, his faith in G-d and consequent will to cross the sea first, although it only followed Binyamin's will, was also not ignored.  Therefore Yehudah, too, received a great spiritual portion, albeit not as great as that of Binyamin, being the first tribe to be represented in the presentation of offerings at the inauguration of the Mishkan, the place where the Divine Presence rested during Israel's temporary sojourn in the wilderness.  Incidentally, even the permanent Beth HaMikdash, with the exception of the Chamber of the Holy of Holies, was built in the territory of Yehudah.

 

May it be HaShem's will that we too may achieve greatness of spirit and deed and merit the arrival of Mashiach, son of David, and the rebuilding of the Beth HaMikdash speedily in our days, and to see the Divine Presence rest once again in our midst.

"And Mother Nature begat Evolution, and Evolution was the most clever of all the creatures in the Garden..."

From How to Speak Dog by Dr. Stanley Coren (on Pets.ca):

 

“The dog's tail was originally designed to assist the dog in its balance.”

 

“Evolution again seized an opportunity and now adapted the tail for communication purposes.”

 

“Evolution has used a few additional tricks to make the tails even more visible.”

 

NOTE: Here evolution is personified and described as though it acted with intelligence, yet this is contrary to the entire doctrine of evolution!  Indeed, this type of attribution of intelligent qualities to evolution is standard fair in the description of evolutionary processes in the writings of even the most atheistic advocates of this so-called theory of random development.  By cleverly describing fantastically complex processes in these convenient terms, together with the omission of the Intelligence behind the process, like the above examples where the “designer” is not identified although design is acknowledged, and the one that “seized an opportunity” and “used a few tricks” is called “evolution,” while seizing opportunities and using tricks are the exclusive domain of intelligent beings and not random processes, is the spurious tool of these deniers of the obvious to fool themselves and others into blindly following their mad dogma.  How do evolutionists describe the ‘arbitrary’ process of evolution in these terms and yet deny intelligent design in the universe?