The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

One of the major topics discussed in Parashat Naso is the sota ritual. When a husband has reason to suspect his wife of infidelity, he would bring her to the Mikdash where the kohen would conduct a special ritual outlined here in the Torah, concluding with her drinking of a special potion prepared by the kohen. The effects of this potion determined her guilt or innocence: if the husband's suspicions were correct, then the potion would kill her; an innocent woman would drink the waters and live peacefully.

The obvious question discussed by many concerning this institution of sota is why the Torah singles out adultery in this regard. Why does the Torah not prescribe a similar or corresponding ritual to determine the guilt or innocence of any suspected violator? Once we have such a concept of a "supernatural trial," what need do we have for a court system? Anyone suspected of committing a violation could be tested by some prescribed ritual that would reveal the truth. What more, why did the Torah not provide some miraculous method of resolving all legal disputes? Certainly God could have arranged for some means of "magically" ascertaining who owes whom and how much! Why did the Torah design such a method specifically when it comes to a suspected adulteress?

Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, as cited in the posthumous edition of his "Emet Le-Yaakov," finds an answer to this question in a well-known Gemara in Masekhet Chulin (141a): "Great is peace, for the Torah said that God's Name, written in sanctity, should be erased into the waters." The Gemara here refers to the fact that the Torah requires the kohen as part of the sota ritual to write a certain text which includes God's Name and then erase it into the waters ultimately drunk by the woman. The fact that the Torah allows for this otherwise disgraceful erasure in order to determine the wife's guilt or innocence reflects, in the eyes of Chazal, the immense value of peace and domestic harmony.

From this passage, Rav Yaakov claimed, we see that the intention behind the institution of sota is to achieve peace between husband and wife. How does this work? In what way does this ritual help bestow peace and harmony upon married life? Necessarily, Rav Yaakov explains, the purpose of the sota ritual is not to kill the guilty wife, but to the contrary, to grant an absolute acquittal to the innocent wife, to free the husband of any suspicion regarding his wife's fidelity. Unfortunately, human nature is such that a husband cannot easily dismiss this type of suspicion. The Torah therefore found a way by which he can ascertain his life's loyalty to him beyond a shadow of a doubt, and their marriage can therefore continue with true peace and mutual trust.

******

Parashat Naso begins with the command to count the Levite family of Gershon. Parashat Bemidbar had concluded with the census of the family of Kehat, and from here the Torah proceeds to count the family of Gershon. Many commentators have noted a peculiarity in the opening verse of God's command to count the Gershonites: "Count the heads of the Gershonites, them, too ['gam hem']." This expression - "them, too" – appears to emphasize a certain equation between Gershon and the previous family counted, Kehat, an equation that we would not have otherwise intuited. God apparently found it necessary to stress that Gershon, too, must be counted as part of their assignment to their jobs in the Mishkan, not only the family of Kehat. Why is such emphasis necessary?

Many commentators, including Rav Moshe Feinstein, in "Derash Moshe," answer this question based on the fact that Gershon was charged with the less sacred objects of the Mishkan. Kehat bore the responsibility of transporting the ark, the altars, the menora, etc., the holiest items in the Mishkan. The Gershonites, by contrast, carried the tapestries and curtains in and around the Mishkan. This seemingly less prominent role may have been misinterpreted as reflecting a less prominent stature. Some may have concluded that God viewed the Gershonites as less important than their cousins from Kehat, and they therefore were not deserving of the distinction of their own, independent census as part of their assignment. This honor was, one might have reasoned, reserved for the family of Kehat, who held the highest and most prestigious positions. The Almighty therefore emphasized, "gam hem," that they, too, are indeed important and worthy enough of a census.

Rav Moshe adds that this emphasis reflects the way in which we must look upon all our individual tasks and responsibilities. We often tend to categorize and label different pursuits in which we engage, affording some with more importance and others with less. These two words, "gam hem," teach us how to treat all mitzva activities in which we are involved, regardless of how "mundane" they may appear on the exterior. Even the simplest tasks, if performed with the right intentions and under the right circumstances, should be afforded meaning and importance. Many of our obligations in life may appear to have little meaning; but if we are doing what we believe is our duty and obligation, then even the smallest act is meaningful, and even the seemingly mundane pursuits are infused with sanctity and spiritual significance.

******

Parashat Naso presents the laws of the nazir, one who accepts upon himself the unique status of "nezirut." One who proclaims himself a nazir is bound by three special restrictions. First, he must refrain from all wine or other grape products. Secondly, he may not cut his hair or shave, and finally, he is forbidden from coming in contact with tum'at met – the ritual impurity of human corpses. He may not even tend to the burial needs of immediate family members.

Perhaps the most basic question when approaching the underlying concept of nezirut is the relationship between these three prohibitions. What does each have to do the others? Broadening the question just slightly, what is nezirut all about? What does one seek to accomplish by accepting upon himself these laws?

It is often believed that a nazir seeks a higher standard of "perishut," self-denial, withdrawal from the physical pleasures of life. But this approach is hardly satisfactory in explaining the meaning behind the Torah's prohibitions regarding a nazir. For one thing, only one of the three prohibitions, the consumption of grapes or wine, has anything to do with physical self-denial and limitation. Moreover, if, indeed, nezirut involved the withdrawal from physical indulgence, it clearly could have imposed far more significant restrictions on the nazir, such as limiting his sexual activity or consumption of meat and other delicacies.

What, then, is the common thread connecting the three prohibitions of a nazir?

It would seem that the institution of nezirut seeks to restrict not the individual's physical indulgence, but rather his social activity. Wine and other grape products have always stood at the center of social life (very much the way beer does nowadays in many western societies). As we know, Chazal forbade drinking the wine and grape products of gentiles as a means of limiting to one extent or another our social interaction with non-Jews, thereby helping to prevent intermarriage and assimilation. By forbidding himself from drinking wine, the nazir erects a social barrier of sorts between him and his friends and community.

Oddly enough, abstaining from tum'a also helps separate the nazir from social life. A nazir is enjoined to distance himself not only from his family and friends' festivities and celebrations, but from their funerals, as well. Social life involves not only festive gatherings, but solemn occasions, as well, and the Torah bars the nazir from involvement in both these areas of socialization.

The same theme perhaps underlies the prohibition againhaircutting. Wild, overgrown hair has always served as a symbol of rejection of social norms, cultural rebellion, and non-conformity. A person with unkempt hair makes a loud, clear statement of individuality and separateness. By requiring the nazir to let his hair grow, the institution of nezirut prevents the nazir from fully integrating into his society.

It turns out, then, that the nazir seeks to withdraw not from physical indulgence, but from people, from the community, from his society. He finds it difficult to adhere to the proper standards of spirituality demanded of the Torah while engaging in social life; involvement in society compels him to make sacrifices in his religious observance that he is not prepared to make.

Chazal express considerable ambivalence towards the nazir. While on the one hand he is perceived as genuinely seeking holiness and self-improvement, he is at the same time criticized for taking additional measures of stringency beyond the Torah's prohibitions. This ambivalence perhaps reflects the tension between personal growth and communal involvement. In many ways, solitude and isolation can be more conducive to spiritual development, allowing one freedom from the constraints of social protocols and conventions. Indeed, many great Chasidic masters – and even some non-Chasidic giants, such as the Vilna Gaon – devoted some period of their lives to "hitbodedut," solitary contemplation or meditation. But although the Torah recognizes the value of solitude and indeed prescribes the institution of nezirut for this purpose, our ultimate goal must be to remain "me'urav im ha-beriyot," involved in communal concerns and affairs, fully part of societal life, rather than isolated and confined within ourselves.

(Based on a sicha by Rav Menachem Schrader of Efrat)

******

Among the topics covered in Parashat Naso is "gezel ha-ger," the procedure for atonement for a thief who stole from a now deceased convert who left no inheritors to whom to return the stolen property. The Torah introduces this section as follows: "When a man or woman commits any sin of man, breaking faith with the Lord – that soul shall bear its guilt" (5:6). The final phrase of this verse, "ve-ashma ha-nefesh ha-hi" ("that soul shall bear its guilt"), requires explanation. It appears to emphasize that specifically that soul shall bear its guilt, as opposed to some other person. Why would such emphasis be necessary? Who would bear the guilt for a crime other than the criminal himself?

Rabbi Shelomo Neches, in his "Torato Shel Shem" (Los Angeles, 1930), suggests that the Torah here stresses the notion of personal accountability. People often find it convenient to attribute their misconduct to some external factor rather than accepting blame. In this context, Rabbi Neches introduces a novel interpretation of the verse in Sefer Devarim (24:16), "Fathers shall not be put to death on account of their sons, nor shall sons be put to death on account of their father; each person is put to death for his own sin." Beyond the simple meaning of the verse, that Bet-Din may not punish a person for a crime committed by another, the verse also means that God never allows one to shift the blame for his wrongdoing onto someone else. Children, for example, may not excuse themselves on the basis of their upbringing. Every individual bears personal responsibility for his actions.

Rabbi Neches adds that this might also explain another peculiar term in the verse, "mi-kol chatot ha-adam" – "any sin of man." Why does the Torah refer to sin as "sin of man"? (Some explain this to mean, "a sin against man," meaning, theft.) Perhaps the Torah stresses that a person's misdeed is his own doing; it is not the sin of the environment, the sin of nature, or the sin of predetermination – it is the sin of man. He cannot blame any external forces or even the circumstances surrounding the action; more often than not, it was he who brought about that circumstance to begin with. In the eyes of the Torah, a sin is "a sin of man," a sin committed by the person himself, rather by some other force.

We might add that according to this interpretation, this verse forms a suitable introduction to the following verse, "He shall confess the wrong that he has done," which the Rambam (Hilkhot Teshuva 1:1) cites as the source for the Biblical obligation of verbal confession. Viduy (confession) must be preceded by "ve-ashama ha-nefesh ha-hi" – an acknowledgment that the sinner, and no one or nothing else, bears responsibility for the act committed. One confesses not only committing the act, but also his guilt in so doing. Therefore, only after recognition of guilt can one proceed to the next stage of repentance, "He shall confess the wrong that he has done."

******

Parashat Beha'alotekha concludes with the famous story of Miriam and Aharon, whose inappropriate speech about their brother, Moshe, resulted in Miriam being stricken with tzara'at. Though this much is clear, the precise content of their conversation is subject to a good deal of debate and confusion. The most common explanation, adopted by Chazal and Rashi, interprets the verse (12:1) to mean that Aharon and Miriam criticized their brother for his having separated from his wife. They claim, "Has the Lord spoken only to Moshe? Has He not spoken to us, as well?" (12:2). They realized that Moshe separated from his wife because of the level of purity required for his communion with God. But they wrongly interpreted this decision as a display of arrogance on Moshe's part; after all, they thought, all of Benei Yisrael heard the word of God at Sinai, and yet they were permitted to resume marital life thereafter. God therefore appears to them and explains that Moshe stands head and shoulders above all other prophets, and his unique stature indeed warranted this drastic measure of separating from his wife.

A much different approach to the content of Miriam and Aharon's criticism of Moshe is offered by the Ri, arguably the most famous and influential of the Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot, as cited in the work "Moshav Zekeinim." The Ri explains that Miriam and Aharon actually wondered why Moshe did not divorce his wife. Is it proper, they claimed, that a pious, exalted person like Moshe should be married to a gentile woman? Moshe had married Tzippora when he fled Egypt to Midyan. He remained married to her ever since, even after all that has occurred since then, even after he became God's messenger to destroy Egypt, split the sea, and bring the Torah from the heavens to Benei Yisrael. Aharon and Miriam thought that now that Moshe has achieved such stature, he should abandon his Midyanite wife and marry a woman from a far more illustrious background, one commensurate with his prominent status.

In response to their accusation, God emphasizes the fundamental distinction between Moshe and other prophets: "… Not so, My servant Moshe; he is trusted throughout My household" (12:7). The Ri suggests a particularly novel interpretation to this description of Moshe as "ne'eman" – "trusted," explaining it as denoting faithfulness and loyalty. God here lauds Moshe's fidelity to his wife, who married him when he was but a fugitive, living as a foreigner in Midyan. Now that he has attained prominence and regal stature, he will not abandon her, but retains his loyalty to her and keeps her as his wife. Specifically a person of Moshe's stature must remain loyal to his wife rather than simply discard her now that she might be deemed "unworthy" of marriage to him. In Moshe's eyes, stature and nobility mean responsibility and high ethical standards, rather than a preoccupation with one's social status and the external appearance that we all too often associate with it. (Based on a dvar Torah by Rav Yissachar Frand)

We should, however, point out one difficulty with the Ri's approach to this incident. As mentioned earlier, Aharon and Miriam add a comment about the fact that God spoke to the entire nation, rather than to Moshe alone. According to the Ri, that Aharon and Miriam here criticize Moshe for keeping his wife, which they see as aninsult to his stature, what is their intention in making this comment? To the contrary, the "equality" they seek to establish between themselves and Moshe would appear to justify Moshe's decision in remaining married to a woman from a foreign background, in that he is, after all, not much different from them.

The Ri addresses this comment of Aharon and Miriam and briefly explains, "And if you will claim that he did this by divine command, did God not speak with us, as well?" It is very difficult, however, to understand what exactly the Ri has in mind in this interpretation. Why would the fact that God spoke to Aharon and Miriam, and not only to Moshe, preclude the possibility that at some point Moshe was commanded not to separate from his wife? It therefore remains unclear how the Ri would interpret this verse. (Suggestions from VBM students would be greatly appreciated!!)

******

Amidst the story of Miriam and Aharon's inappropriate speech about their brother, Moshe, as told towards the end of Parashat Beha'alotekha, the Torah interjects a brief remark about Moshe's extraordinary humility: "The man, Moshe, was exceedingly humble, from all men on the face of the earth" (12:3). As many commentators explain, the Torah introduces this comment in order to emphasize that the negative remarks about Moshe did not disturb him in any way; God punished Miriam not out of concern for Moshe's feelings, but rather for the sake of his honor.

The final phrase of this verse, however, appears superfluous: "… on the face of the earth." The verse could have simply stated that Moshe was more humble "than any other man." What did it seek to convey through the term "on the face of the earth"?

The Netziv, in his "Ha'amek Davar," suggests a particularly novel and insightful interpretation of this phrase, claiming that it comes to reveal the extent and nature of Moshe's humility. Namely, his humility extended beyond that of "all men on earth"; his attitude towards prestige and honor was that of someone who is no longer on earth. A deceased person has no reaction or response to an insult or infringement upon his honor; he neither sees nor hears the degradation, and he thus suffers no emotional harm and seeks no revenge. Moshe Rabbenu treated insults unlike all men on earth, but rather like those who have passed on from the earth. His siblings' murmuring about him simply had no effect whatsoever on his feelings or self-image, he disregarded it entirely.

In light of this interpretation, the Netziv explains a passage in Masekhet Tamid in which Chazal recommend that one "kill himself" as a means to life. Happiness and fulfillment in life are achieved by looking upon honor and prestige like a dead person, paying as little attention as possible to the respect shown by others. Such an attitude allows one to focus his attention on what he should be doing, rather than on what others think of him.

******

Parashat Beha'alotekha opens with the mitzva of menora lighting in the Mishkan. After God commands Moshe to instruct Aharon with regard to the lighting, we read, "Va-ya'as kein Aharon" ("And Aharon did so" – 8:3). The Sifrei, cited by Rashi, explains this verse as "telling the praise [of Aharon], that he did not deviate." The Torah wishes to emphasize Aharon's meticulous observance of the laws regarding the menora lighting, which did not deviate one iota from the instructions conveyed to him.

The obvious question arises as to why such praise was necessary, and, moreover, why this constitutes praise at all. Does a Jewish man earn applause for laying tefillin properly? Are we deserving of special praise for not deviating from the rules established by God in the Torah?

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginzburg, in his "Yalkut Yehuda," suggests that Chazal here refer specifically to the symbolic meaning and significance of the menora lighting, which represents the dissemination of the "light" of Torah. The kohen's lighting of the menora symbolizes his role as educator and spiritual guide, charged with the responsibility of kindling and sustaining the flame of Torah study and practice among the Jewish people. It is this task to which Chazal refer when they laud Aharon's obedience. This verse, according to the Sifrei, which reports that "Aharon did so," does not tell of Aharon's actual candle lighting, but rather of his involvement in the figurative lighting and spreading the flame of Torah throughout Am Yisrael.

A different explanation appears in Rav Shraga Pollack's "Tishbi." Generally, the prominent, aristocratic person assumes the administrative responsibilities of a given enterprise, leaving the "elbow-grease" to his employees. The kohen's role in the menora lighting involved not only the lighting itself, but also cleaning the oil-lamps and preparing them for lighting. Aharon did not hesitate to perform even the less-than-ennobling tasks associated with the lighting of the menora; understanding that all these jobs fulfilled the will of God, he paid no attention to his prestige and performed all the tasks charged upon him, even those normally reserved for the lower classes.

Yet another approach is cited in Rav Menachem Hakohen's "Torat Am." There is something degrading, especially for a distinguished person, in simply complying with the rules dictated by a higher authority, without introducing one's own, personal ideas and color into the task performed. People have a drive to initiate and innovate as a means of exercising their individuality and having something to proudly call their own. We often loathe the mere carrying out of the ideas of others, rather than creating our own ideas. Aharon's greatness, as expressed in this passage in the Sifrei, lay in the fact that he felt no such need for personal initiative. He felt perfectly content obeying God's laws and made no attempt to distinguish himself by introducing his own innovations.

While Judaism undoubtedly allows room for personal creativity and originality, our most basic, primary responsibility, and privilege, is the meticulous observance of all of God's laws.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il