Еврейская мысль к Бамидбар 9:8

(1) We have to understand this whole story as a continuation of the previously reported incident, in which G'd had criticised Moses openly for having appeared to doubt His ability to supply the people with large quantities of meat. Under the circumstances, Miriam and Aaron also found reason to criticise Moses. They believed that Moses, having married a woman belonging to another nation, had now become ashamed of this, and that this was the reason he had separated from her. They were convinced that his status as a prophet had nothing to do with this separation, since they too were prophets, and this did not interfere with their family life. If Moses were to use the argument of his being a prophet, they considered that this would be showing off his piety. This was their second sin, in fact. G'd heard all this, and decided to reprimand them more severely than He would have done, had their criticism been more factual, and if they had not chosen a point in time when they believed Moses to be out of favour with G'd. First of all, by testifying to Moses' humility, the Torah squelches the thought that he could have been showing off his piety. Secondly, it states that the separation had nothing to do with Moses having developed a dislike for his wife. Matters which would be considered private by other couples who conduct their sex life in the confines of their bedrooms, would assume a quasi public character in the case of Moses, since he had to be available for communication from G'd on a seven day, twenty four hour basis. He could therefore not afford to be found tamey, ritually impure due to the emission of seminal fluid at any moment. Even the brief space of time it would require to immerse himself in a ritual bath, would mean that he would keep G'd waiting, on occasion. Because Miriam and Aaron did not appreciate the different level of Moses' prophetic powers and stature, they had arrived at an opposite conclusion regarding Moses' motivation. By addressing them suddenly, G'd wanted to demonstrate to Miriam and Aaron that whereas they had not been tuned in to this communication and had been totally unprepared for it, their brother was perfectly at ease, comfortable with this "sudden" communication. Miriam and Aaron were forced to remain outside the tabernacle, whereas Moses was inside it. Only through Moses being in the presence of the shechinah, did they receive any communication at all. (2) G'd then proceeded to outline the qualitative difference between Moses' prophetic powers, and those of Miriam and Aaron respectively. Im yihye nevi-achem, "if he were a prophet according to your definition of the term," G'd would speak to him in a dream or through a reflection. (verses 6-8) Other prophets receive their communications in one of four ways. A) In a dream. B) Through a reflected image, while remaining awake but in a state of trembling. C) In a parable, through a riddle, by means of an angel. D) After having prepared themselves spiritually to a state necessary to receive a communication. In chapter seven of his sefer hamada, Maimonides has elaborated on the Talmudic statement in Yevamot 49, explaining that the prophecy of Moses was in the nature of a "clear vision," whereas all other prophets received only "clouded visions." Our Parshah explains some of the aspects of prophecy discussed by Maimonides, as well as others not dealt with in his sefer hamada. Mar-ah, is the mirror which is the means by which the prophet receives his message while awake or asleep. There are four basic deficiencies when one receives a communication by means of a mirror. They leave the recipient unable to comprehend the message in its entirety. 1) The viewer sees only what is immediately opposite him, anything behind a curtain, for instance, would not be seen, since only the curtain itself is reflected by the mirror. In this way, prophets receive an external view of things, without comprehending its substance. Abraham's belief that Isaac was to be sacrificed is an example of this. Although it appeared as if G'd had changed His mind, lack of comprehension of the true nature of G'ds command, only affected the viewer. Similarly, Samuel erred thinking G'd had wanted him to appoint Yishai's eldest son, until G'd told him not to be guided by the "exterior." i.e. mar-eyhoo. Even at the beginning of his career, he had mistaken the call of Eli, the High Priest, his mentor, no less than three times. (Samuel I chapter 3) This kind of communication is described by Solomon in his Song of Songs as "behold, He was standing behind our wall, observing through the windows, peering through the lattices." (chapter 2,9) Concerning all this, G'd says "not so My servant Moses; he is at home in any part of My house." The second deficiciency when perceiving by means of a mirror, is that all communication is only visual; the viewer cannot hear anything that may be spoken by the figure appearing in the mirror. Consequently, understanding is liable to be fragmentary, the whole picture is not communicated. Gestures may be observed, but no sound is audible. Zacharyah 4, and Daniel 10, are examples of the inadequacy to the prophet of this kind of revelation, unless there is further assistance. Concerning this flaw which other prophets have to put up with when they receive G'ds communications, G'd says about Moses "I speak to him mouth to mouth." His ears, not only his eyes are part of his prophetic visions. The third disadvantage in perceiving by means of a mirror, is that one does not behold the actual form or shape of the object shown, but only its two dimensional reproduction, i.e. reflection. This is like making the recipient of the vision guess at the real essence of something. It is as if asking him to piece together parts of a puzzle, chidot. Mar-eh, spelled with the vowel segal, means a true image, not the reflected one. Moses receives mar-eh, not mar-ah. The fourth disadvantage of viewing by means of a mirror is that whoever wants to view things in a mirror, must first assume a position opposite, directly in front of the mirror. Whatever is seen however, appears inverted. What is right in reality and parallel to the viewer, appears as on the left of the viewer. The viewer must employ his brain to compensate for the distortion inherent in viewing things in a mirror. Moses, on the other hand, sees temunat hashem, the true image, not something distorted in a mirror. After G'd had outlined to Miriam and Aaron how different Moses' level of prophetic perceptions was from theirs, He challenges them "why have you not had enough reverence for him to talk about My servant etc." i.e. "about ME?" Here G'd makes the point that Moses is indeed the spiritual father of all prophets, and as such, a special reverence is required in our attitude towards him. When the Mishnah Avot 4, 15, says "may the reverence for your teacher equal the reverence for Heaven," our Parshah is its source. The sin of Miriam and Aaron was twofold, since in making derogatory remarks about Moses, they had actually criticised G'd by implication. Moses was G'ds chosen instrument, after all. Secondly, Moses' character was so perfect, that they had no right to impute base motives to any of his actions. When G'd had finished explaining to Miriam and Aaron how they had erred, He withdrew, and Miriam was struck by the skin disease, since it had only been she who had actually done the talking. Aaron had been included in the accusation, since by remaining a silent listener, he had become an accessory to the travesty committed. Proof that Aaron had kept silent, is the fact that the Torah does not say "Miriam and Aaron spoke," using the plural form, or the masculine form, which would have included Aaron. (3) The plea "do not lay sin upon us," means "since we have already admitted our guilt, do not reprimand us any further for this sin, but pray for us." In answer to Moses' prayer to heal Miriam of her affliction, G'd says "since even Aaron had not suggested that she go completely free, only that she should not die, her punishment would be temporary banishment. Her sin being also against her father in Heaven, said father would ban her from His presence temporarily." (4) The fact that the people did not continue their journey during Miriam's quarantine, was not an unmixed blessing for her. Though it reflected the fact that they held Miriam in high esteem, it was also the surest way of publicising what had happened to her, since the delay in travelling would lead to questions concerning the reason for the delay. All of this would result in increased respect for Moses and his prophetic powers. The Parshah teaches the lesson that one must be exceedingly careful when criticising one's leaders. Solomon, in Proverbs 18,12-14, summarizes the lesson to be learned from this Parshah. Moses, who enjoyed tremendous prestige and honour was exemplified by his humility, whereas Miriam the greatest prophetess, had let her pride cause her to slander her brother. The principal error to be avoided when criticising one's leaders, is not to apply one's own low standards of conduct to those of one's leaders.

In addition to the problems listed, there are also a number of difficulties in the manner in which the whole episode is related. a) The account could have been abbreviated considerably by omitting the conversation between Saul and the witch, b) Why did Saul say to the witch "enchant for me?" Why not simply "consult for me?" The Torah seems to distinguish between three different terms, i.e. kessem, kessamim, me-onen and menachesh. c) Saul should have said immediately "raise Samuel!" Why did he say "raise whomever I shall tell you?" d) When Saul reassured the witch on oath that she would not be guilty of a crime doing what he asked her to do, he appears to have spoken carelessly. He could indeed have guaranteed her impunity, but how could he have guaranteed her innocence? Who knew better than he, since he had gotten rid of all the witches? e) According to the text, the witch did not do anything at all, since Samuel appeared immediately Saul requested his appearance by name. Moreover, Samuel's remonstrating with Saul, shows that he did not materialise in response to her machinations, f) The expression va-ekra-ehoo with the letter heh at the end, is extremely strange, and the vowel pattern in the word even more so g) Why is Saul scored in the account of the episode in Chronicles both for "asking," and for "seeking" illumination via an ov?

The answer: Change and impressionableness obtain only in the presence of opposites, a thing changing neither relative to itself nor relative to what is similar to it, but only relative to its opposite. Therefore, the separate intelligences, being free of opposites are free of change and are always active intellects, not being assertive at one time and dormant at others. We, however, embodying opposites, are subject to change, being sometimes wise and sometimes fools, knowing after ignorance and being ignorant after knowledge, being all wise in potential, but always having to convert the potential to the actual. And even after bringing some of our faculties from potentiality to actuality and gaining knowledge, dullness and darkness reassert themselves so that we must again restore to actuality what had once emerged but retreated back to dullness. All men are on this plane; it is not within the province of nature to rise above it. Moses our teacher, however, being on a supernatural plane, as has been explained, was exalted above this. He was an active intellect, possessing no faculty which had not been brought to actuality. And, furthermore, his intellect, after having become active, did not assimilate weariness and defect so as to revert to potentiality. For his intellect remained completely unveiled and insusceptible of opposition, Moses having become a separate intelligence. This is borne out in his saying (Numbers 9:8): "Stand and I will hear what the L rd will command concerning you," the implication being that he was ready for prophecy whenever he wished. And it is well known that the separation periods referred to by our sages served the purpose of providing isolation during these periods for reflection upon the ways of the L rd and upon the Divine service to be performed. In this way one would divest himself of the material imaginings interfering with his perfection and thus convert his potentiality to actuality. This is a necessity, however, only for those whose intellects are susceptible of both potentiality and actuality [in effect, all men except Moses]. But Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, being an active intellect — why should he require separation! Was there any veil or troubling imagination that he had to rid himself of? If there were, how could he prophesy at all times? For this reason it is asked "Why six days?" That is, there is no doubt that this separation is not required for Moses, for he had no need of it. The verse, then, must be the archetype for the six-day separation requirement for all who would enter the encampment of the Shechinah, the requirement to be derived for all men a fortiori from the case of Moses, who was in no need of separation at all, all times being alike to him because of his transcendent nature.