Chasidut zu Bamidbar 12:1
וַתְּדַבֵּ֨ר מִרְיָ֤ם וְאַהֲרֹן֙ בְּמֹשֶׁ֔ה עַל־אֹד֛וֹת הָאִשָּׁ֥ה הַכֻּשִׁ֖ית אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָקָ֑ח כִּֽי־אִשָּׁ֥ה כֻשִׁ֖ית לָקָֽח׃
Miriam und Aaron redeten gegen Mose wegen des äthiopischen Weibes, das er genommen — denn eine Äthioperin hatte er zur Frau genommen.
Kedushat Levi
(Compare Shabbat 87) In the event, G’d agreed with Moses, i.e. approved of his initiative after the event. One of the three things was that he added an additional day for the people to prepare themselves mentally, (spiritually) for the Revelation and the receiving of the Torah. The second was that he smashed the first set of the Tablets containing the Ten Commandments. He applied logic when doing this, reasoning that if a Jew who has not been circumcised is forbidden to partake of the Passover due to his status, and this is only one commandment, how much less do they deserve the entire Torah, having just been guilty of idolatry? This logic is flawed, as in the case of the Passover, the Torah forbids participation in a ritual which provides the participant with pleasure, i.e. the eating of the lamb, something not applicable to most other commandments of the Torah. We have a general rule that the commandments of the Torah have not been given to us for whatever physical pleasure performance of it would yield.
Tossaphot on that folio query how the sages could describe this decision of Moses as being made by himself when he had used the Torah as the yardstick by which he had arrived at this decision? They answer that since Moses’ logic in that instance was flawed, the decision must be viewed as his and not as inspired by his study of the Torah. The third example of Moses making a high-handed decision without consulting G’d is his separation from his wife, the subject for which Miriam criticized him in Numbers 12,1-2. On that occasion also, according to the Talmud, he used logic, a valid tool of interpreting the Torah, saying that if the people who heard G’d speak for only a few minutes had to separate from their wives for three days prior to that, he, to whom G’d spoke almost on a daily basis, [prior to the sin of the spies, Ed.] surely had to separate from his wife permanently.
Concerning that logic the Talmud points out that seeing that G’d had told Moses to send the Israelites home to their wives, whereas at the same time He commanded him to remain at the site of the revelation, surely in light of this Moses’ decision could not be construed as being arrived at on his own? Here too, the Talmud says that whereas Moses considered his logic as unassailable and therefore based on the Torah, in fact his logic can be challenged.
Moses was in a category by himself, having stated that during 40 days in the celestial regions (on top of Mt. Sinai) he had neither eaten bread nor had drunk water. (Deut. 9,9) His nourishment had consisted of the זיו השכינה, “enjoying the splendour of the Divine Presence.” Due to his extreme humility, Moses presumed that the entire Jewish nation was entitled to a similar experience, i.e. the ability to satisfy the body’s requirements through infusions of spirituality from a celestial source. This is what he built his logic (קל וחומר) on when drawing conclusions from the three day period of the abstaining from marital intercourse during the preparations for the Revelation at Mount Sinai, as well as from the laws concerning who may partake of the Passover. He reasoned that the Torah most certainly did not address nitwits, but a people on the highest spiritual level, else how could they be able to hear G’d speak to them directly on that occasion. He considered it as certain that at that time everything the people did was only for the loftiest motives, i.e. לשם שמים, why else would they keep their distance from their spouses? He erred by comparing the whole people to himself, so that the logic which formed the premise of his decision was flawed. In other words, his decisions were not based on correct interpretations of precedents in the Torah, so that the sages in the Talmud were correct in describing his three decisions as “homegrown.”
Tossaphot on that folio query how the sages could describe this decision of Moses as being made by himself when he had used the Torah as the yardstick by which he had arrived at this decision? They answer that since Moses’ logic in that instance was flawed, the decision must be viewed as his and not as inspired by his study of the Torah. The third example of Moses making a high-handed decision without consulting G’d is his separation from his wife, the subject for which Miriam criticized him in Numbers 12,1-2. On that occasion also, according to the Talmud, he used logic, a valid tool of interpreting the Torah, saying that if the people who heard G’d speak for only a few minutes had to separate from their wives for three days prior to that, he, to whom G’d spoke almost on a daily basis, [prior to the sin of the spies, Ed.] surely had to separate from his wife permanently.
Concerning that logic the Talmud points out that seeing that G’d had told Moses to send the Israelites home to their wives, whereas at the same time He commanded him to remain at the site of the revelation, surely in light of this Moses’ decision could not be construed as being arrived at on his own? Here too, the Talmud says that whereas Moses considered his logic as unassailable and therefore based on the Torah, in fact his logic can be challenged.
Moses was in a category by himself, having stated that during 40 days in the celestial regions (on top of Mt. Sinai) he had neither eaten bread nor had drunk water. (Deut. 9,9) His nourishment had consisted of the זיו השכינה, “enjoying the splendour of the Divine Presence.” Due to his extreme humility, Moses presumed that the entire Jewish nation was entitled to a similar experience, i.e. the ability to satisfy the body’s requirements through infusions of spirituality from a celestial source. This is what he built his logic (קל וחומר) on when drawing conclusions from the three day period of the abstaining from marital intercourse during the preparations for the Revelation at Mount Sinai, as well as from the laws concerning who may partake of the Passover. He reasoned that the Torah most certainly did not address nitwits, but a people on the highest spiritual level, else how could they be able to hear G’d speak to them directly on that occasion. He considered it as certain that at that time everything the people did was only for the loftiest motives, i.e. לשם שמים, why else would they keep their distance from their spouses? He erred by comparing the whole people to himself, so that the logic which formed the premise of his decision was flawed. In other words, his decisions were not based on correct interpretations of precedents in the Torah, so that the sages in the Talmud were correct in describing his three decisions as “homegrown.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Deuteronomy 9,15. “I turned around and descended from the Mountain, etc.;……….. “I placed the tablets inside the ark which I had constructed as G’d had commanded me.” (Deteronomy 10,5)
Seeing that the entire Book of Deuteronomy consists of words of rebuke by Moses to the people or commandments he relays that G’d had told him to teach the people, why, all of a sudden, does Moses relate something that does not fit either of the other two criteria?
[The following, a concept that first occurs in the sefer yetzirah the oldest Kabbalistic text, is based on the need to define everything that G’d has created in terms known as עולם, שנה, נפש, loosely translated as “space, location,” “time, year,” “spiritual dimension.” Ed.]
The Torah prescribes that a number of occurrences must be “remembered” at regular intervals. This includes the Exodus from Egypt, an event notable for where it took place, i.e. Egypt. The Sabbath must be remembered (in the Kiddush) primarily as symbolizing the dimension of “Time.” The attack and eventual defeat of Amalek must be remembered primarily as symbolic of the struggle between opposing worlds of the Spirit. In order for the Book of Deuteronomy to represent all these three elements of G’d’s creation, the fact that the Essence of the written Torah, the Tablets with the Ten Commandments had to be hidden, instead of revealed, is symbolized by Moses having been commanded to “hide” this spiritual heritage in the Holy Ark. Had the Jewish people not been guilty of the sin of the golden calf, the Tablets with the Commandments would have remained on display. [I have taken the liberty to present this in an abbreviated version so as not to confuse the reader. Ed.]
Seeing that the entire Book of Deuteronomy consists of words of rebuke by Moses to the people or commandments he relays that G’d had told him to teach the people, why, all of a sudden, does Moses relate something that does not fit either of the other two criteria?
[The following, a concept that first occurs in the sefer yetzirah the oldest Kabbalistic text, is based on the need to define everything that G’d has created in terms known as עולם, שנה, נפש, loosely translated as “space, location,” “time, year,” “spiritual dimension.” Ed.]
The Torah prescribes that a number of occurrences must be “remembered” at regular intervals. This includes the Exodus from Egypt, an event notable for where it took place, i.e. Egypt. The Sabbath must be remembered (in the Kiddush) primarily as symbolizing the dimension of “Time.” The attack and eventual defeat of Amalek must be remembered primarily as symbolic of the struggle between opposing worlds of the Spirit. In order for the Book of Deuteronomy to represent all these three elements of G’d’s creation, the fact that the Essence of the written Torah, the Tablets with the Ten Commandments had to be hidden, instead of revealed, is symbolized by Moses having been commanded to “hide” this spiritual heritage in the Holy Ark. Had the Jewish people not been guilty of the sin of the golden calf, the Tablets with the Commandments would have remained on display. [I have taken the liberty to present this in an abbreviated version so as not to confuse the reader. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 12,1-9, “Miriam and Aaron spoke (critically) of Moses; etc.”, “when a prophet of Hashem arises amongst you, I make Myself known to him in a blurred vision, I speak to him in a dream;” I do not speak to Moses in riddles but in a vision as clear as a mirror.”
The wording is unclear, G’d could have been expected to say: אם יהיה נביאכם ה' בחידות אליו אתודע, i.e. that the difference between their degree of prophecy and that of Moses was that G’d makes Himself crystal clear when speaking to Moses.
In order to understand the wording of the Torah here it is pertinent to review a statement in the Mechilta on Parshat Bo, 1,1 where we have been taught that every time when the Torah commences a paragraph with the words: וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן “Hashem spoke to Moses and Aaron,” G’d addressed only Moses directly, whereas Moses immediately made Aaron privy to what G’d had told him. It is most likely that also when other prophets received prophetic insights they received those only after Moses had acted as G’d’s intermediary. In order to understand this we must substitute the words: “Moses’ Torah,” for “Moses,” as the prophets we referred to lived after Moses had died. This has all been alluded to in the Talmud Yevamot 49 where the Talmud describes Moses as having seen G’d’s instructions through a clearly transparent window pane, i.e. the source from which all prophets’ visions had emanated, whereas the other prophets received their visions through a blurred transparency. i.e. after having been filtered by Moses.
We find a similar allusion in our verse above, where G’d tells Miriam and Aaron that if indeed they are prophets this was only due to their visions having first been “filtered” through Moses.
The wording is unclear, G’d could have been expected to say: אם יהיה נביאכם ה' בחידות אליו אתודע, i.e. that the difference between their degree of prophecy and that of Moses was that G’d makes Himself crystal clear when speaking to Moses.
In order to understand the wording of the Torah here it is pertinent to review a statement in the Mechilta on Parshat Bo, 1,1 where we have been taught that every time when the Torah commences a paragraph with the words: וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן “Hashem spoke to Moses and Aaron,” G’d addressed only Moses directly, whereas Moses immediately made Aaron privy to what G’d had told him. It is most likely that also when other prophets received prophetic insights they received those only after Moses had acted as G’d’s intermediary. In order to understand this we must substitute the words: “Moses’ Torah,” for “Moses,” as the prophets we referred to lived after Moses had died. This has all been alluded to in the Talmud Yevamot 49 where the Talmud describes Moses as having seen G’d’s instructions through a clearly transparent window pane, i.e. the source from which all prophets’ visions had emanated, whereas the other prophets received their visions through a blurred transparency. i.e. after having been filtered by Moses.
We find a similar allusion in our verse above, where G’d tells Miriam and Aaron that if indeed they are prophets this was only due to their visions having first been “filtered” through Moses.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy