Myśl Żydowska do Wyjścia 18:4

The Midrash on Psalms 55,16, describes Doag and Achitofel as examples of such apparent Torah scholars whose true colours did not come to light till later, though their hearts had always harboured their wickedness. When one observes the sudden death of such people,- David says,- it reveals that the evil essence had not lost its mastery over the characteristics acquired due to Torah study and absorption of its values. These people are punished by sudden death, since they did not use Torah to refine their characters, but abused Torah to advance their egotistical goals. Korach's argument was that since everybody was holy, no one should be a leader. On the contrary, if holiness is a way of emulating G'd in Heaven, everyone in Heaven is certainly not equal, there are certainly leaders there. Why then did Korach use such a patently specious argument? His argument makes no sense at all. If everybody had been granted a degree of prophetic vision at the time of the revelation, part of the reason had been to demonstrate Moses' superiority. It demonstrated how superior Moses' relationship with G'd had been. The people had even asked him to be their go between. Arguing in favour of a leaderless society was absurd then. Therefore, it is better to understand the line "for the entire congregation is holy" as a sarcastic reference to what is supposed to have taken place at Sinai. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 1,1, "and has not sat amongst the scoffers," considers that statement as referring to the sarcastic comments Korach had made about the Jewish people. His comment then would read like this: "Enough already! have you peddled the idea of prophecy to the extent where you have convinced everyone that he is holy? Does everyone think that just because he heard the opening lines of the Decalogue from G'ds own mouth that they are prophets already? If this is indeed the message you have peddled, then why are you arrogating to yourselves superior status? The arbitrary appointment of a High Priest then is completely unjustified!" Korach's mockery is directed at three pillars of our faith then. 1) Rav lachem, enough already, questions the concept of prophecy altogether. 2) U-vetocham hashem, questions the Divine Presence, the concept of hashgachah peratit.) Madua titnassu? questions the authenticity of Torat Moshe, the specific commandments recorded in the Torah. Moses' reply, after he had been "floored," i.e. vayipol al panav, he "fell" on his face, by this challenge, is perfectly appropriate. Concerning denial of G'ds special Providence, Moses said "tomorrow morning you will see an example of that very Providence." boker ve-yauda hashem etc. (16,5) (2) Concerning the challenge to his own standing as a prophet, he says "whomsoever He will choose, He will bring close to Himself." (3) Concerning mockery of the institution of prophecy, Moses said "whosoever is holy, He will bring close." (referring to his older brother Aaron whose status as a prophet had preceded his own chronologically.) In his second statement, Moses addressed himself to the underlying motive of Korach's complaint in a more subtle manner. Ha-me-at mikem kee hivdil, are you not sufficiently aggrieved that the elevated position the Torah has granted you as Levites, prevents you from effective land ownership in the land of Canaan, that you want to assume the even heavier burden of the priesthood?" Besides, since you challenge the validity of priestly functions per se, your specific complaint against Aaron surely must hide a personal motive? Why else bother with this detail? Therefore, Moses continued, "I am convinced that you are in effect rebelling against G'd," i.e. ha-noadim al hashem, (16,11) not against us. Though you pretend to challenge our authority, you are challenging G'ds authority. The above is in keeping with what our sages taught in Avot, that any feud which is not designed to advance the cause of Heaven will not endure. However, when the objective of the argument is to further the cause of Heaven, both parties to the argument will endure. (Avot,5, 17) Since it is a fact that in either argument one side must be wrong, the statement of our sages is puzzling. Aristotele teaches that we use the terms "true" and "false" when referring to concepts of the mind. When we refer to physical phenomena or their absence, however, we use the terms "good" and "bad" respectively. Thus a statement that a triangle has three corners would be described as "true," whereas the statement that a particular triangle has four corners would be described as "false." The terms "good" or "evil" cannot be applied to such statements. We feel however, that when a concept lacks a basis in fact, it can be said to be bad. The three categories (a) true or false, (b) good or bad, and (c) extant or non-existent, are all closely intertwined. Mentioning Moses as a party to Korach's quarrel is inconceivable, since Korach had based his whole philosophy on the denial of G'ds authority, as we have explained. Since Shammai and Hillel based their respective disagreements on common ground, their respective opinions will endure, eyloo ve-eyloo divrey elokim chayim, the words of either party have been inspired by the Living G'd. Korach, whose argument was based on sheker, a lie, will, of course, not endure. The importance of the eyloo ve-eyloo concept just mentioned, is best demonstrated in Bamidbar Rabba 19, when G'd is portrayed studying the laws of the red heifer, and quotes a halachic interpretation by Rabbi Eliezer. The fact is that that opinion never became halachically accepted by the sages. Nonetheless, G'd Himself is shown as quoting it. This proves the dictum that any argument that is designed to further the cause of Heaven will endure, i.e. that even the opinion that had been rejected will merit being considered at all times. Korach's attack on the institution of prophecy proceeded as follows. He dressed the elders of the Supreme Court in garments dyed completely in techeylet azure blue, and asked Moses if these garments required tzitzit, "fringes." To Moses' reply that they did indeed require these "fringes," he scoffed, saying "how can a single blue thread accomplish something that an entire garment fails to accomplish?" What Korach was alluding to is this. Since man, nature's choicest creature, having been created in G'ds image, is equipped with the ability to know good from evil, to know what is beneficial and what is harmful, surely whatever any so-called prophetic insight could add to this knowledge would be so trivial as to be of no consequence. Moses' reply pointed out that logic, as characterised by Aristotele's concept of the golden mean, was not an infallible method to arrive at objective truths. Judaism is based on a Heavenly assist, which is symbolized by the single blue thread of tzitzit acting as the reminder that our inspiration derives from heaven. Korach's second question dealt with that of a house full of sacred texts. He wanted to know if such a house required a mezuzah, the traditional scroll containing part of the keriyat shma. Moses explained that in order for such a house to be considered sanctified, a mezuzah would still be needed. Only two passages out of a total of two hundred and seventy five passages had the power to sanctify the house. Korach challenged the authenticity of this statement, thereby challenging the principle of G'ds special Providence for the Jewish people, the second principle of Jewish faith. Korach and his sympathizers had known in advance the answer they would receive. They felt that when a group of highly placed men presented a challenge, such a challenge would be more formidable, and would be more likely to attract G'ds attention. This underlined the fact that they spurned the notion that G'd would concern himself with the wants or needs of any individual. Jewish philosophy does not hold that the whole is superior to its constituent parts, but rather that the whole is upheld by the merit of each constituent part. The story of Noach, for whose sake the earth was saved, is ample proof of the value of the individual part vis a vis the whole. Proverbs 10,25 puts it thus: "and the righteous is the foundation of the universe." The two passages contained in the mezuzah make the point that when we listen to Divine instructions, we will benefit by the special Personal Providence, and particular attention will be paid to our needs, superseding the normal bounty provided by nature. (Deut. 11, 13-21) The land of Israel will receive such special attention on a year round basis. (verse 11) There are many other such promises. The third argument presented by Korach and company, was intended to inflame the people's sense of outrage against Moses and Aaron. The subject matter was the method used to purify the Levites. Numbers 8,7, states that removal of body hair is a prerequisite for such purification. When Moses, personally, had performed this rite on Korach, he being the senior ranking Levite, the people had no longer recognised Korach minus beard etc. When asked who had done this to him, Korach accused Moses of having abused him personally in this fashion, whereas at the same time Moses had adorned his brother Aaron in the finery of the High Priest's garments. By portraying Moses as high handed, Korach hoped to convince the people that Moses had acted of his own accord. The survival of Korach's sons who did not share in their father's rebellion, demonstrated better than anything that Divine Providence acted selectively by picking only the guilty for the meting out of punishment. By demonstrating that even the most plausible sounding argument had been discredited, since those who presented it had been killed by Divine and supernatural action, the "father knows best" quality of Torah legislation was vindicated. The third point that was to be made, was to show that whereas Korach had intended to downgrade Moses and Aaron in the eyes of the people, their action had boomeranged, producing the opposite result. The greater the stature of the challenger, the more enduring the esteem in which the intended victim is held, after he has succeeded in defeating the challenge. We see therefore, that the reason the Torah first listed all the fine attributes of Korach and his assembly was to alert us to the fact that once this challenge had been disposed of, the "establishment" as it were, had emerged greatly strengthened. The twenty four types of gifts that priests are entitled to, are legislated immediately after this affair, since the prestige of the priests was now at a high, and no one would object when the latter were also rewarded for the duties they performed on behalf of the entire nation.

From all this it seems clear, that if the red heifer contaminates all that it comes in contact with, surely the heifer itself must be the source of the contamination! The whole matter seems to defy our normal way of reasoning. Therefore, the use of the words "this is the statute of the Torah", at the beginning of this paragraph is to remind us that logic cannot be employed if we want to comprehend the meaning of this commandment. This is why our sages quote the wisest of men, Solomon, as admitting that comprehension of this mitzvah, or rather its mechanics, its halachic rulings, escapes him. People who try to philosophise about Torah, fall into two categories. Group one believes that everything written in the Torah needs to be understood at face value, literally. For instance, if the Torah refers to G'd "smelling the sweet fragrance of a sacrifice," they perceive G'd literally employing His sense of smell. Or, if the Torah reports G'd as descending on Mount Sinai, they understand this to have been a physical descent. The second group is aware that statements in the Torah are subject to interpretation. Some members of this group will interpret on the basis that the Torah employs human idiom in order to facilitate our understanding of certain concepts. This group will not interpret in a manner that conflicts with known Torah principles. A sub group of category number two, arrogates to itself the right to make its interpretations primary and Torah principles only secondary. This is done by most Christian and a few Jewish philosophers. Making one's own intellect supreme in the matter of exegesis is heretical, of course. Solomon refers to all three groups in Proverbs 14, 14-16. (1) The fool will believe anything. (2) The crafty one will understand in line with his principles. (3) The haughty fool will come to grief through exaggerated self confidence. The manner in which the Torah portrays the laws of the red heifer is a clear hint not to try and unravel that which is conceptually beyond the human intellect. The contradictions have been built into this legislation to warn us off trying to comprehend it.

(1) All the Jews in Egypt at that time were descended from only twelve ancestors; at the time they arrived in Egypt they numbered seventy. Now that Joseph and his brothers had died, they started multiplying at such a rate that they posed a physical problem for the Egyptians due to their prowess. (2) To prevent the Jews from also outnumbering the Egyptians, called for the combined wisdom and talents of the whole nation. They hoped to compensate for their numerical inferiority, or at least for their physical inferiority at that stage, by superior intelligence. The original intent of the Egyptians may have been to enslave the Jews permanently and sell them on the slave markets to foreign countries. It seems that Egypt was exporting horses in this manner (at least female horses). (3) They were afraid that if war broke out, the additional burden of keeping a hostile population under control inside the country would prove to be too much for them. To fight invaders at the same time might be more than they could handle. As a result, the Jews might take advantage of that situation to escape their owners by emigrating. They might even join the enemy by acting as a fifth column inside the country and revolt. Therefore, they planned to assign demeaning work to the Jews, and to aquire them as physical slaves only gradually. The cities to be built by Jewish labor were well fortified border towns positioned at opposite ends of the country to ward off invaders. However, the Jews, loyal by nature, far from feeling humiliated, reinforced their efforts to procreate and provide manpower against possible enemies of Egypt. The Egyptians now felt so frustrated that the Jews appeared a thorn in their sides wherever they turned, i.e. vayakutzu (1,12). They proceeded to re-evaluate their policy and employed the Jews both for building and for work in the fields. They made sure that all work performed was under constantly tense conditions. After that they decided to reduce the male Jewish population by "accidentally" killing boys, but at the same time making sure that a good supply of female slaves would be raised from them. They did not fear that female slaves would revolt or join potential enemies. (5) They were again frustrated in their efforts when the midwives turned out to be G-d-fearing, shunning participation in child murder. These midwives, though G-d-fearing, did not want to contravene the king's order either, a perfectly legitimate desire, as demonstrated by the prophet Samuel when the latter questioned G-d’s orders which endangered his life (Samuel I 16,2). The midwives ignored the part of the orders dealing with murder, but concentrated on giving post natal care, something that did not contradict the instructions they hade received. The Torah therefore first describes what the midwives did not do, and subsequently tells us what they did do. The king, unaware of the technical innocence of the midwives, accused them of helping the babies to be born alive. The widwives in their defence made the point that the Jewish women usually had already given birth by the time a midwife arrived on the scene, and that therefore they had not had a chance to carry out the king's instructions. As a result, the only thing left for them to do once they had arrived at the home of a Jewish mother without arousing suspicion, was to administer post-natal care. Of course, this was something the king did not want. "G-d was good to the midwives," i.e. Pharaoh accepted their defense, and the people kept on increasing, again thwarting the plans of the Egyptians. Even normal baby mortality or deformity did not occur, in order that it could not be blamed on the activities of the midwives. "He made houses for them," may well refer to Pharaoh. (1,21.) He made sure the midwives would live in places whence their coming and going could be observed, so that if a newborn baby boy was found by those trailing the midwives, it could be drowned. In other words, instead of unobtrusive killing at birth, things had now reached a stage where open murder was the Egyptians' only recourse. (6) The anonymity implied in the formation of the decree "every son," was to create the fiction that not only Jewish babies were to be drowned but all baby boys. This would keep the Jews from thinking that the law was discriminatory. By this stratagem, Jews would not be encouraged to practice continence and thereby deprive the Egyptians of a supply of female slaves. (7) It is normal for any man who wants to get married to choose a partner who is socially his equal or his inferior. In this case, a distant descendant of Levi married a direct descendant of Levi, i.e. the husband's social position would be inferior to that of his wife. The unusual nature of this match deserved mentioning. Since Amram had not attained the position of leadership until his children had reached the status of being prophets, he is not yet mentioned by name. This view is supported by the fact that when his wife was engaged by the daughter of Pharaoh to nurse the baby Moses, she is also treated as an anonymous lady, her status not yet having become public knowledge amongst the Egyptians. (8) The fact that the Torah states that Yocheved described Moses as "good," proves that he was born prematurely. Other Jewish mothers giving birth to babies after full pregnancies would consider such babies as "doomed" rather than as "good." It is the very fact that Moses seemed perfectly normal and healthy, in spite of being premature, that gave rise to the plan to hide him, something that could be done with relative safety until the end of the ninth month of Yocheved's pregnancy. During those three months, Yocheved dressed as if she were still pregnant, thus allaying any suspicions. After that, either because of suspicious neighbors or the increasingly loud voice of the baby, such stratagems could no longer be applied successfully. Yocheved hid Moses in exactly the place where Egyptian child murderers would normally cast out the babies they had murdered. Perhaps Yocheved felt that if a special fate was in store for her baby, this exposure might trigger the events leading to such a special fate. This is the reason Moses’ss sister stood nearby waiting to see what would happen. The Midrash suggests that placing the potential savior of Israel in the Nile, would mislead Egyptian astrologers into concluding that the dreaded danger to Egypt had already passed, and that therefore the decree concerning indiscriminate child murder could be revoked (Midrash Rabbah). (9) The fact that the princess's attendants walked elsewhere along the river, explains why the princess herself who was accompanied only by a single attendant sworn to loyalty, did not need to fear that her act of mercy would be reported. It was this fact that enabled Moses’ss sister to approach and suggest that the princess might wish to employ a Jewish nurse to tend the baby. Because of the decree, and the probable search if she would be seen bringing home a baby, the princess agreed to have the baby raised amongst his own people, initially. (4) When the child was eventually brought to Pharaoh's palace, the decree against baby boys had already been lifted. Moreover, we see the marvellous ways of the Lord, who arranges for the arch enemy of the Jewish people to raise their savior in his very own palace. (10) The Egyptian whom Moses slew was one who used to strike his Jewish victim habitually, and Moses had awaited an opportunity to find him when no other witnesses were present. That is why he looked in all directions. The fact that unbeknown to him someone did see his deed, was what caused his surprise on the following day. Moses’s deed was one of the qualifications that fitted him for a role of leadership amongst his people. The second such qualification was his urge to see that social justice should prevail. This is why he involved himself in the quarrel between Jews on the morrow of his having slain the Egyptian thug. (11) Permission to kill a pursuer in self defense is contingent upon such pursuer not having killed his intended victim as yet. Once an act of murder had already been committed, the regular procedure involving a trial of the murderer has to be followed. The rasha, wicked person, believed that Moses’s use of the words "Why are you going to kill your fellowman?" was designed to give Moses the pretext to kill him as a rodeph, pursuer. He therefore said, "Are you saying this in order to establish a right to kill me?" (2,14). The reason for Moses’s fear was either that he had been unaware that the killing of the Egyptian had been witnessed, or that his real identity of being a Jew rather than an Egyptian prince had become known. Either way the "so the matter has indeed become known," does not need aggadic interpretation. (12) The daughters of Yitro may have been in the habit of watering their flocks before the arrival of the male shepherds for reasons of modesty, so as not to have to spend long hours in the company of the male shepherds. The latter misinterpreted the motivation of those girls, thinking they wanted to demonstrate their superior social position as daughters of the presiding priest and claim special privileges. Therefore, on that particular day, the male shepherds decided not to acknowledge such privileged status of Yitro's daughters. They did this by using water drawn by the girls to water their own flocks, rather than the flock of Yitro. Moses assisted the girls on that day, and explained to the male shepherds the true motivation of the girls, thus restoring a harmonious relationship. This was evidence of a third qualification of Moses as a leader. He stepped into the breach when he observed injustice being perpetrated on the weak and downtrodden. (13) The first son was not called "Eliezer," signifying that G-d had saved him from his pursuers, since at the time his pursuers were still very much alive and had not abandoned their efforts to apprehend Moses. On the contrary, Moses wanted to indicate that the fact that he lived in a country other than his birthplace was quite involuntary. The letters in the name "Gershom" when re-arranged spell megurash, expelled. Before Moses’s return to Egypt, when G-d had told him that all those who had wanted to kill him had died (4,19), he called his second son, born around that time, Eliezer, to acknowledge gratefully that events had taken such a favorable turn.