The Daughters of Tzelophchad and Harkenings to Other Stories

(The story of the daughters of Tzelophchad is a favorite for some friends of mine, because it deals with the concept of human intervention in Jewish law - a concern for the feelings and rights of others (even women!), and God's approval. This friend made a nice contrast between the request of the daughters of Tzelophchad and the request of Korach and his group, and it's something I'd like to flesh out here.)

The short story of the daughters of Tzalophchad harkens back to several important stories in the Torah, sometimes in terms of their similarity, sometimes in terms of their extreme contrast. In the text itself, we can detect at least two: the Korach story and the Pesach Sheni story, the former much more explicit than the latter. In Rabbinic literature, another story is brought to the fore: the unnamed man who was put to death for collecting wood on the Sabbath. Let's look at them and perhaps learn a thing or two in their resonance to each other.

A reminder of what happens, Numbers 27:1-8:

א וַתִּקְרַבְנָה בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד, בֶּן-חֵפֶר בֶּן-גִּלְעָד בֶּן-מָכִיר בֶּן-מְנַשֶּׁה, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת, מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן-יוֹסֵף; וְאֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֹתָיו--מַחְלָה נֹעָה, וְחָגְלָה וּמִלְכָּה וְתִרְצָה.  ב וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה, וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן, וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂיאִם, וְכָל-הָעֵדָה--פֶּתַח אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד, לֵאמֹר.  ג אָבִינוּ, מֵת בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְהוּא לֹא-הָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַנּוֹעָדִים עַל-יְהוָה, בַּעֲדַת-קֹרַח:  כִּי-בְחֶטְאוֹ מֵת, וּבָנִים לֹא-הָיוּ לוֹ.  ד לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם-אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן; תְּנָה-לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינוּ.  ה וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מִשְׁפָּטָן, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה.
ו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.  ז כֵּן, בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת--נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶם; וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ אֶת-נַחֲלַת אֲבִיהֶן, לָהֶן.  ח וְאֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר:  אִישׁ כִּי-יָמוּת, וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ--וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ, לְבִתּוֹ.

 And see Aryeh Kaplan's translation:

Tzelafchad's Daughters
27:1	A petition was presented by the daughters of Tzelafchad, son of Chefer, son of Gilead, son of Makhir, son of Manasseh, of the family of Joseph's son Manasseh. The names of these daughters were Machlah, No'ah, Chaglah, Milkah and Tirtzah.
27:2	They now stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the princes, and the entire community at the Communion Tent entrance with the following petition:
27:3	'Our father died in the desert. He was not among the members of Korach's party who protested against God, but he died because of his own sin without leaving any sons.
27:4	Why should our father's name be disadvantaged in his family merely because he did not have a son? Give us a portion of land along with our father's brothers.'
27:5	Moses brought their case before God.
	Inheritance for Daughters
27:6	God spoke to Moses, saying:
27:7	The daughters of Tzelafchad have a just claim. Give them a hereditary portion of land alongside their father's brothers. Let their father's hereditary property thus pass over to them.
27:8	Speak to the Israelites and tell them that if a man dies and has no son, his hereditary property shall pass over to his daughter.

Let's just remind ourselves what happens in the Pesach Sheni story:

ו וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ טְמֵאִים לְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם, וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ לַעֲשֹׂת-הַפֶּסַח, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא; וַיִּקְרְבוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה, וְלִפְנֵי אַהֲרֹן--בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא.  ז וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵמָּה, אֵלָיו, אֲנַחְנוּ טְמֵאִים, לְנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם; לָמָּה נִגָּרַע, לְבִלְתִּי הַקְרִיב אֶת-קָרְבַּן יְהוָה בְּמֹעֲדוֹ, בְּתוֹךְ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.  ח וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, מֹשֶׁה:  עִמְדוּ וְאֶשְׁמְעָה, מַה-יְצַוֶּה יְהוָה לָכֶם.
ט וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.  י דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר:  אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-יִהְיֶה-טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ אוֹ בְדֶרֶךְ רְחֹקָה לָכֶם, אוֹ לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם, וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח, לַיהוָה.

Aryeh Kaplan:

9:6	There were, however, some men who had come in contact with the dead, and were therefore ritually unclean, so that they could not prepare the Passover offering on that day. During the course of that day, they approached Moses and Aaron.
9:7	'We are ritually unclean as a result of contact with the dead,' the men said to [Moses]. 'But why should we lose out and not be able to present God's offering at the right time, along with the other Israelites?'
9:8	'Wait here,' replied Moses. 'I will hear what orders God gives regarding your case.'
	Making Up the Passover Offering
9:9	God spoke to Moses, telling him to
9:10	speak to the Israelites, saying: If any person is ritually unclean from contact with the dead, or is on a distant journey, whether among you [now] or in future generations, he shall still have the opportunity to prepare God's Passover offering.

There are three obvious parallels here to me.

First, the recurring themes. That is, there were people who were impure wanted to be able to eat meat and do stuff with the community (or, if you go with a more religious interpretation of their motives, they wanted the opportunity to perform a mitzva). This is very similar to the daughters of Tzelophchad story - they wanted to have land (and if you go for a more religious interpretation, they loved the land of Israel and they wanted to be able to own land in it). In addition, it marks a type of human intervention into the law which God approves of, which doesn't usually occur in the laws of the Torah.

Second, several recurring words. We find a very similar phrase in both places, and one can't help but understand that this must be deliberate. For the impure people, they ask, (Numbers 9:7) "לָמָּה נִגָּרַע לְבִלְתִּי הַקְרִיב אֶת-קָרְבַּן יְהוָה בְּמֹעֲדוֹ", and for the daughters of Tzelophchad, they ask, (Numbers 27:4) "לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם-אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ". "Why should [we] miss out?" repeats itself in both stories, although it is used in slightly different ways, the first as why they should miss out on the sacrifice, and the other is why should their father's name be lost forever, because if the land is lost, the name is lost as well. Another recurring phrase is the approach to Moses to ask their requests, using the word for "coming close", "וַתִּקְרַבְנָה" vs "וַיִּקְרְבוּ".

Third, there are recurring structures between both stories (although with some differences).

1. Such and such a people exist
2. They come close to Moses and Aaron (or his replacement after he dies, Elazar, and others who have been added after Numbers 11:16)
3. They voice their complaint
4. Moses turns to God for help
5. God tells Moses to proclaim to all of Israel an addendum to the law in response to the complaint

As I noted, there are some differences, and I think they're there for very specific reasons, which is not the point of this post. I will hopefully address them at some point.

But the important thing to see here is that there are definite similarities, and intentional ones at that. So, why?

Let's look at another story that is explicitly referred to in this story, the rebellion of Korach. This story is similar to the daughters of Tzelophchad story and the Pesach Sheni story in that there is a request for change. For some reason, though, Moses immediately falls on his face, and a huge rebellion is sparked. Admittedly, this request was much larger in scope than the other requests, and Korach seemed to have been asking for a change in the law, not just an addendum to it. But we find several other contrasts here. Let's remind ourselves of how it all started, Numbers 16:1-5:

א וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.  ב וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה, וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד, אַנְשֵׁי-שֵׁם.  ג וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב-לָכֶם--כִּי כָל-הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים, וּבְתוֹכָם יְהוָה; וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ, עַל-קְהַל יְהוָה.  ד וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, וַיִּפֹּל עַל-פָּנָיו.  ה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-קֹרַח וְאֶל-כָּל-עֲדָתוֹ, לֵאמֹר, בֹּקֶר וְיֹדַע יְהוָה אֶת-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ וְאֶת-הַקָּדוֹשׁ, וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו; וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר-בּוֹ, יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו

Korach's Rebellion
16:1	Korach son of Yitz'har (a grandson of Kehoth and great-grandson of Levi) began a rebellion along with Dathan and Aviram (sons of Eliav) and On son of Peleth, descendants of Reuben.
16:2	They had a confrontation with Moses along with 250 Israelites who were men of rank in the community, representatives at the assembly, and famous.
16:3	They demonstrated against Moses and Aaron, and declared to them, 'You have gone too far! All the people in the community are holy, and God is with them. Why are you setting yourselves above God's congregation?'
16:4	When Moses heard this, he threw himself on his face.
16:5	Then he spoke to Korach and his whole party. '[Tomorrow] morning,' he said, 'God [will show that He] knows who is His and who is holy, and He will bring them close to Him. He shall choose those who shall [be allowed to] present [offerings] to Him.

We find some parallels, and some contrasts here to the daughters of Tzelophchad story. The fact that we have contrasts is something we are told by the daughters of Tzelophchad themselves, "Our father died in the desert. He was not part of Korach's rebellion." Some commentators ask why Moses would have believed them. It could have been a lie so that they can get their father's land, which would have been lost and reapportioned if their father was in fact part of the rebellion. I believe the answer is that they approached Moses so completely differently than how Korach approached Moses, and they were trying to impress on Moses that they were in fact their father's daughters. Just as the daughters approach Moses this way, so their father would have approached Moses this way, and not like Korach. Let's demonstarte some of this.

The themes are very similar, people with a complaint about missing out on something they want to do, whether for power or for religious reasons.

But let's look at the structure. Some similarities are here. The people are identified, then they approach Moses in their varying ways, and then voice their complaint. But instead of saying "lama yigara", it says, "וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ" "Why have you set yourselves..." It would seem the concern was not about why they couldn't perform the mitzva, but why the sons of Aaron get to and they don't. The difference being, they focused only on what others were doing, and not why they couldn't perform the mitzva. This is an indication of what their intentions were, and how lishma (or lack thereof) their wishes were. Another difference is that instead of turning to God like he did with the daughters of Tzelophchad, Moses falls to the floor, and says to wait for tomorrow where God will show what's what. He evidently saw what their motivations were, and knew it would not stand.

Let's look at the contrast in wording. The daughters of Tzelophchad approach Moses by getting closer, as noted above. Korach approached Moses by "taking" "וַיִּקַּח", "standing up" "וַיָּקֻמוּ", and "confronting" "וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ". This was not an attempt to question and understand, but a fight.

All of this comes together to show how people should approach change to a system. The daughters of Tzelophchad were obviously motivated by what they were missing out on. They didn't want to lose their father's land. Not once do they say, "Why should the men get to have land, but we don't?" That wasn't their argument, although it could have been. The fundamentally unfair concept of women not being able to own property was a pernicious one, especially in paternalistic societies, and even existed in America until the late 1800's. Undoubtedly, the daughters of Tzelophchad accepted their fate, and chose not to focus on what was unfair about the situation. Instead, they argued based on what made them different than Korach - all they want was what should rightfully belong to their father. Korach, on the other hand, just wanted what others had. He couldn't understand why they should be able to serve God with the sacrifices and he couldn't. The focus was on others, and that made his request doomed to fail.

This may help us understand why Tzelophchad is identified by some rabbis of the Talmud as the unknown person who collected sticks on the Sabbath and was put to death. Besides the obvious - we don't know who Tzelophchad is and we have a story of someone we don't know, so its easy to stick him on that face, as well as that "he died for his own sins" which sounds like this guy - is there anything from this description that we've been talking about that would point to the mekoshesh eitzim? Numbers 15:32-36:

לב וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.  לג וַיַּקְרִיבוּ אֹתוֹ, הַמֹּצְאִים אֹתוֹ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, וְאֶל, כָּל-הָעֵדָה.  לד וַיַּנִּיחוּ אֹתוֹ, בַּמִּשְׁמָר:  כִּי לֹא פֹרַשׁ, מַה-יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ.  {ס}  לה וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, מוֹת יוּמַת הָאִישׁ; רָגוֹם אֹתוֹ בָאֲבָנִים כָּל-הָעֵדָה, מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה.  לו וַיֹּצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ כָּל-הָעֵדָה, אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיִּרְגְּמוּ אֹתוֹ בָּאֲבָנִים, וַיָּמֹת:  כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, אֶת-מֹשֶׁה

The Man Gathering Sticks on the Sabbath
15:32	While the Israelites were in the desert, they discovered a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
15:33	The ones who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron and the entire community.
15:34	Since it was not specified what must be done to him, they placed him under guard.
	The Penalty for Sabbath Violation
15:35	God said to Moses, 'That man must die. Let the entire community pelt him with stones outside the camp.'
15:36	The entire community took him outside the camp, and they pelted him to death with stones. It was done as God had commanded Moses.

 We have the same structure here. A person exists. He is brought close to Moses and Aaron "וַיַּקְרִיבוּ אֹתוֹ". The law is unclear. God tells Moses what to do.

Instead of coming close on his own volition to ask if he could gather sticks on the Sabbath, he is forced to appear after he already sinned. As they say, it is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission, and God was not forgiving. But why did he do this? All we know is what he did, but we don't know his motivation. It could be that he gathered sticks to help out the camp - he wanted to be part of the service of God. But he didn't ask, and made a fateful mistake. Korach didn't ask, he justr ebelled, and these two stories are situated right next to each other. His daughters, though, went before any controversy, or any sin, and asked, by their own volition, if they could fulfill their father's dream of being able to be part of the people. And this, they were granted.

Rav Kook's Call For Leaders To Deal With Modernity

There are a few ways people may react to an attack on their beliefs.

One reaction is that they can isolate themselves so that they don't have to deal with it at all. In this way, they protect themselves from any doubts of their beliefs, like a child sticking his fingers in his ears so that he doesn't have to hear what he doesn't want to hear. There are people in Orthodoxy like that, and the problem for them is what to do about when someone decides to take their fingers out of their ears; after all, it is very difficult to keep their fingers in there for their whole lives.

One reaction is to look into the beliefs, understand them, think about why your beliefs don't conflict, and be merry. That way, you don't have to put your fingers in your ears. There are people in Orthodoxy who are like this as well, and there is a fear that if they don't put their fingers in their ears at some point, they'll stop believing at all in what they started with and accept the other side.

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag calls the first approach isolation, and the second one inoculation, and he goes for inoculation as a pedagogical philosophy.

Rav Kook had a similar point of view. He believed that yes, we must understand new beliefs and new understandings of science in the world. But his difference is that he believed we must use them to create the edifice of Torah for our generation. Use archeology, use evolution, use moral systems, to build Torah on, and people will accept it, and thus we can save Judaism, halachic Judaism. Taking a cue from huge rabbis such as Rabbi Saadia Gaon, the Kuzari, and Maimonides before him, he believed that one must use the science and prevailing beliefs of our day to understand the Torah as a tool for the people.

And he lays that responsibility at the the feet of the Torah giants, the leaders of every generation, to show how this is possible. He says this in L'Nevuchei HaDor 2:

החכמים הראשונים ז״ל כר״ס גאון והרמב״ם, כשראו שנתרבו ספרי מינים בעולם, והוטלו בלבבות סערות ודעות משובשות בשרשי התורה, השתדלו הרבה להוציא את הנבוכים ממבוכתם והישירו את הדרך לפני בני הדור, להורותם שאין המושכלות האמתיות יכולות לסתור שרשי התורה חלילה, ולא דבר אחד מדבריה, כי אם לפעמים נתחכם על ידי דרכי הדרישות לעמוד על עמקה של תורה, ותחשב זאת לנו לצדקה שנזכה לעמוד על נקודת האמת בהבנת התורה

When the medieval sages such as Rabbi Saadia Gaon and Maimonides saw an increase of heretical books in the world, and that intellectual storms and mistaken ideas about the roots of Torah were being placed in people's hearts, they made great efforts to take the perplexed out of their perplexity. Thus, they straightened out the path for the people of their generation. They taught people that it is impossible for rational truths to contradict the Torah, God forbid. Instead, sometimes we become smarter through the ways of research, to stand upon the depth of the Torah. It should be counted for us for righteousness that we merit to stand upon the point of truth in the understanding of the Torah.

.
והנה מזמן הראשונים ז״ל עד דורינו זה נתרבו הדעות, והידיעות החדשות שנתרחבו נגעו לפעמים גם כן בנחלת האמונה, עד שלהבלתי מעמיקים ימצאו עוד מקום לנבוכים חדשים, מה שלא יספיקו להם ההישרות הראשונות, כי בזמן ההוא עוד לא נודעו הסיבות המביאות לידי דרכי הנביכה החדשות.

Behold, from the time of the medieval sages until our generation, ideas have proliferated, and these new ideas that have proliferated sometimes touched upon the territory of our faith. For people who are unwilling to go into the depth of the Torah, there is now more room for newly perplexed people. The original “straightenings” [of the medieval sages] are insufficient for them, because in those days they did not yet know all the new issues that bring about ways for new perplexities.

על כן זאת היא חובת חכמי דורינו האמיתיים, לצאת בעקבות רבותינו הראשונים לדאוג בעד הנבוכים, ולהרחיב ידיעתם במצב החכמות כפי ארחות הדרישות החדשות, ולהראות איך שצריכות כל האמתיות להיות מושקפות על פי התורה. ובאין ספק כי כל העובדים בזה בלב טהור ושום שכל יצליחו במפעלם. ורוח ד׳ הבוחר בתורה להיות לאור עולם תלמדם להשכיל לכל דבר, להעמידו על מכונו ואמתתו.

Therefore, it is the obligation of the true sages of our generation to follow in the footsteps of our medieval rabbis to look after our perplexed people and to broaden their knowledge, in the intellectual situation, according to the new research. They must show them how any truths are supposed to be viewed according to the Torah. Without a doubt, everyone involved in this with a pure heart and a clear mind, will be successful. The spirit of God that chose the Torah to be a light unto the world, teaching them that they must understand everything, they must be brought upon its foundation and veracity.

והעבודה בזה רבה, כי לבד מה שצריך להשכיל ענינים חדשים איך להשפיע לבני דורינו ביחוד להצעירים שפנו אל המדעים שלא ישארו נבוכים, על ידי מה שנודיעם עמקי שרשי התורה בטהרתם, שהיא נעלה מכל דבר שיוכל לגרום לה סתירה ופחיתת ערך, עוד צריך גם כן עבודה גדולה איך להכנים בלב ולהזכיר כל דברי החכמה, ביחש להתישבות אמתת האמונה בלבבות, שנאמרו עד כה מפי רבותינו הראשונים ז״ל כהרס״ג והרמב״ם והכוזרי וכיוצא בזה. ומפני שלפעמים נמצאו בדבריהם ענינים שלא יוכלו להאמר לפי מצב דרישת החכמות בימינו, יבא הבלתי מעמיק לחשוב שבביטול איזה פרטים בלתי עקרים מדבריהם, אין לםמוך עוד גם על הדברים העקרים, שהם נטועים בשרשי האמתיות וקיימים לעד לעולם.

This work is very great. Not only does one need to understand all the new things for how to influence the people of our generation, specifically the young people who have turned to the sciences so that they do not remain perplexed, by informing them of the depths of the roots of the Torah in their purity, which is above anything that could be cause to contradict it or lower its value. More than that, a lot of work is needed to figure out how to place faith into people’s hearts, and mention the words of wisdom that are connected to this which were said up to now, like the words of Rabbi Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, the Kuzari, etc. Since, sometimes there are things in their words that cannot be said according to the status of modern scholarly research, a shallow individual may come to think that because one specific thing is no longer true, we can no longer rely on any of it, on these roots of everlasting truth.

על כן צריך להביא כל דרכי ההוראה של זיכוך הדעות, והסכמתם עם הדרישות שהתבררו על פי דרכי המחקר שבדורותינו במערכה חדשה, למען ידע דורינו איך לצאת מידי כל נבוכה ולהיות שלם באמונת תורת ד׳ התמימה עם נתינת היד לכל ארחות המדעים החדשים לפרטיהם.

 Therefore, we must bring all the ways of teaching of the refining of minds, and make them consistent with things that have been made clear through the ways of research in our times, in a new campaign, so that our generation will understand how to get out of any perplexity. And then, they can be whole in their trust with the “perfect Torah of God” with a “life preserver” to all the ways of new science and all of their details.

But it isn't only through science and technology that we should use to help the people. We must use the belief system of our day. People no longer care about theological issues of God and how He works, but morality, and what is the best way for man to live. If we focus on that, people will listen, as he says in L'Nevuchei HaDor 3:

בדורינו שהדעות נסתבכו עד מאד והפילוסופיא בכלל ירדה ממעלתה אצל רבים, אין דרך רפואת הלבבות הנבוכים בא רק מבירורים של מופתים מופשטים ועניני חכמה נעלים לבדם, כי אם צריך לעשות עיקר דבר שהוא קיים לעד ולא יתכן לשום אדם בעל תכונה אנושית להכחישו, והוא היושר והצדק.

Our generation is one in which ideas have become exceedingly entangled, and philosophy in general has gone down in esteem for many people. The way of healing the hearts of the perplexed does not come only from explaining abstract axioms and very lofty matters of wisdom alone. Rather, we need to make as fundamentals things which are eternal and of which no person who has any human traits can deny; those are the ideas of morality and justice. 

היושר והצדק הוא עומק החכמה ויסודה, ורק על פיהם נוכל לבא בדין עם כל אדם, שאין לך אדם שאינו מחוייב לתן אל היושר והצדק את חוקם. על כן בתור שער להכנס לשמירת התורה ויראת די, עלינו לבאר את חיובי התורה כולם בין חובות האיברים ובין חובות הלבבות שבה, על פי חק דרישת הצדק והיושר. ולביאור זה יעזור הרבה התבוננות בטעמי תורה וביחוד הצד הלאומי שבהם.

Morality and justice are the depth of wisdom and its foundation. Only through them can we enter in a conversation with all people, for you won't find a person who doesn't [feel] obligated to give morality and justice their due. Therefore, as a gateway into following the Torah and fear of God, it is upon us to explain all obligations of the Torah in their entirety, whether they are obligations of the limbs or obligations of the heart, according to the axioms of morality and justice. And towards this explanation, it would be very helpful to contemplate the reasons of commandments, and, specifically, the nationalistic aspect of them.

כשישתלם האדם בשמירת התורה על פי ההכרה של דרישת היושר הטבעי יעלה בזה ממעלה למעלה עד שישכיל גם כן טהרת יראת די ואהבתו.

When humanity is perfected in keeping the Torah according to the recognition of the demands of natural morality, then a person will go higher and higher, until he also understands the purity of God's love and of fearing Him.

אבל כדי להניח מקום אל דרישת הצדק והיושר שנוכל לזכות על ידה את כל בני עמנו לשוב בתשובה שלמה לתורת השם ית׳ ושלימות שמירת ברית די אשר עמנו, עלינו לסקל את דרך הדרישה הטבעית מכל אבני הנגף שיכולות להמצא באופן הציורים של היושר הטבעי עם הסכמת דרכי התורה. והוא על ידי מה שנבאר יפה את המושגים שנראים כסותרים את חקי המוסר הטבעיים מפני הבנה בלתי שלמה בתורה, כמו שהשתדלו הראשונים ז״ל להתאים דרישת הפילוסופיא אל התורה בכל האפשר, כעניני ההגשמה וההתפעליות בחק השם יתעלה. על כן הרחבת טעמי תורה ומצות וההשויה וההרחבה של ארחות המוסר הטבעיות על פי דרכה של תורה, המה עקרי העבודה שעלינו לעבוד בדורינו בכתיבת ספרים המביאים לתיקון הדור.

 However, to leave room for justice and morality to motivate all the members of our people to repent with complete repentance to the Torah and God and to the perfection of their adherence to our covenant with God, we need to remove the “stones from the road”, to clear out the path of natural inquiry. We need to remove all the obstacles found in the portrayal of the co-existence of natural morality and the agreed-upon ways of the Torah. This [will be done] by that which clarifies well the concepts in the Torah which seemingly contradict natural morality because of an understanding of Torah that is imperfect, just like when our medieval sages strove to make the philosophy of the time consistent with Torah, in any way possible, just like [how they dealt with] the issues of corporeality [of God] and how God is “active”. The expansion of the reasons for Torah and the commandments, and the broadening and creating parallels between natural ethics and Torah, is the essential service we need to do for our generation; we must write books to bring about the repair of the generation.

It is all in the world of ideas. If all the leaders of Orthodox Jewry could agree to take on a project like that, to write books like that, which talk about moral system, what Judaism wants to do with the world, how we all must live lives of brotherhood, people would look at the Jews differently. I think Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has gone a long way in doing that, and others must join that bandwagon.

Rav Kook also makes a statement like this in Ain Ayah, his very first piece on Hannukah, Shabbat 21b. I will paraphrase/mostly-translate it here:

Gemara: "The wicks and oils mentioned in the Mishna - for Hannukah, Rav says you can light with them. Why? Because he holds they don't need to be relit if they go out, and their light can't be made use of."

Pure oil, that's the oil of Torah. The pure wicks which soak up the oil, that is the true nation of Israel. But God's hand still stretches over his nation so that we are not abandoned, even in our submission, He dwells within us even in our impurity.

How can a nation, even in its days of contamination in this vicious, seemingly endless exile, have the strength to keep going? This is of ultimate importance especially when we dwell among the nations, and their ideas, their wisdom, seeps in. How can we prevent our forgetting of the light of Torah that we have? After all, it is only natural that without our national homeland, we would follow after the places we live, the ideas that are popular around us. They may even be just suppositions, not exactly proven, but popular; they may just be assumptions, what people are inclined to believe.

But God's hand stretches over us, and in every generation wise Jewish leaders rise up to strengthen the Torah, with the very ideas that are foreign to it!

In reality, those ideas have no bearing on us, they are incomparable to the light of the truth of the Torah, they are unlike that eternal light of truth. Those ideas, innovative concepts borne through the minds of man, people of other nations, they are likened to a fading candle's light, which only illuminates for a short time before going out. For ideas and their assumptions change through the course of time, they are forgotten by the next generation.

But while their flame still burns, the people are drawn to them. If we don't include them into the light of our Torah, even just to give them the possibility of acceptance, people will abandon our light of Torah for the vain light of others.

God's hand will always prepare us by guaranteeing all foreign ideas have some degree of possibility within our Torah to accept them, to let the Zeitgeist be compatible within the Jewish people.

Understand, this is only a reluctant concession, a forced union between concepts whose source is foreign , and the whole of Torah, the practical commandments, the minutiae of religious life. Those concepts aren't truly drawn through the wick of Torah; though they are being used, it is a forced absorption. This is a good way to defend ourselves against the flow of time.

We must remember that these foreign ideas are not eternal, we are merely making use of them in this temporary period. "They don't need to be relit when their light goes out," for our Torah stands above the sands of time. God forbid, that we should ever want to change our Torah according to the hour, like those intellectuals want to do. For "its light cannot be made use of"! It is only as a temporary reaction to the time where we allow these popular ideas and assumptions to be matched with the Torah; it is only to prevent the storms of controversy, to strengthen the weakened hearts see these ideas which conflict with the foundations of Torah. They should not be applied to the practical aspect of Torah, the laws we live by.

That is what the Hannukah candle represents, what the victory of the Hasmoneans over the Greeks represents, their Hellenistic ideas now can be overpowered by Jewish light.

(Isaiah 28:29) "All this also comes from the Lord Almighty, whose plan is wonderful, whose wisdom is magnificent,"  to provide us a shield for the ravages of time. When the Hasmoneans were in power, the nationalistic aspect of Judaism was not of an eternal type, for God had sealed the covenant of monarchy to the house David. Although time was not yet ready for David's house, God assisted them towards the bolstering of the "the fallen Tabernacle of David" (Amos 9:11), until that wonderful time when "the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame" (Isaiah 10:17), and the throne of David will rise up, which "in Your Holy name You swore that his flame will never be extinguished..."

Rav Kook goes on about the importance of the kingdom of David, how it is intertwined with the fate of Torah, and how national self-determination will tranform the nation and let the Torah stand tall, and how this further is related to the symbolism of light and oil.

Focusing on his call for leader's to address and utilize modern research and ideas, we see here a very interesting point. Rav Kook dismisses all ideas that are not from the Torah as necessarily temporary. They are like a passing phase in the mind of humanity. Yet, knowing this fact, the leaders of each generation are still meant to use them in earnest, even if just to keep the people on track. Truth is not an issue, because the Torah can encompass any truth. It is about guiding the people.

Another thing, that perhaps Rav Kook had in mind, perhaps he didn't, is that ideas in medieval times and even in Talmudic times would also follow this pattern. What should we do with their influences and zeitgeists, for example Hippocratic medicine that was obviously made use of in the Talmud, or Aristotelian ethics that was obviously made use of in Maimonides' writing? Should we dismiss them, out with the old, in with the new? Perhaps.

But Rav Kook is very careful with this. He limits the metaphor of using oil and wicks that are not the optimal to specifically the theoretical or philosophical aspect of Judaism, but to never allow the practical commandmnets to be changed. In this, he is being a bit polemical against the Reformers and Maskilim. Just because new interpretation and innovation in philosophical outlook has been a Jewish tradition for a very long time, it can only be viewed as a temprary fix. But when you change Jewish law, it becomes permanent, and that is very damaging to the Jewish people, who rely on an unchanging Torah.

I will end off with two questions on Rav Kook: How do we distinguish what is a Torah idea, and what is an idea that is foreign to it? Secondly, what prevents us from looking to the past, and where they were willing to change Jewish law because of what they believe, and doing the same? For example, I believe Maimonides felt so strongly about rationalist philosophy that he took out many laws involving superstition. See Talmud Gittin 66a about "damaging spirirts", and how Maimonides deals with that in Hilchot Gerushin, 2:13. That was based in his "temporary" conception of Jewish law. Why can we not do the same?

Did Beit Shammai Really Kill Beit Hillel To Get The Majority Vote?

Something FailedMessiah harps on a lot, by his own admission, is the aggadata in the Yerushalmi, Shabbat 1:4, where he says there is a description of Beit Hillel getting murdered by Beit Shammai so that Beit Shammai will be the majority in the voting. At first, I didn't believe that it was true. However, there it was, black as day:

מתני': ואלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעלית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גריון כשעלו לבקרו. נמנו ורבו בית שמאי על בית הלל, ושמונה עשר דברים גזרו בו ביום:

גמ': אותו היום היה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל... תנא ר' יהושע אונייא תלמידי ב"ש עמדו להן מלמטה והיו הורגין בתלמידי ב"ה. תני ששה מהן עלו והשאר עמדו עליהן בחרבות וברמחים. תני שמונה עשרה דבר גזרו ובשמונה עשרה רבו

Mishna: These are the laws they said in the attic of Hanania ben Hizkiya ben Gurion, when they went in to visit him. They voted and Beit Shammai was the majority over Beit Hillel, and they decreed eighteen things in that day.

Gemara: That day was as hard for Israel as the day the golden calf was made... Rabbi Joshua Onaya taught: The students of Beit Shammai stood at the bottom [of the stairs], and they killed the students of Beit Hillel. It was taught: Six of them went up [to the attic], and the rest of them attacked them with spears and swords. It was taught: For eighteen things they decreed, and in eighteen they were the majority.

It's a shocking story. But one that is difficult to take literally. Why would a vote done under duress count? If this story was believed to be literally true, why does the Mishna count it as authoritative? Why does the Talmud accept these 18 laws all as valid votes for Beit Shammai, even long after that event took place? Why is Beit Shammai ever considered a valid school of Judaism if they were murderers? Why particularly for these 18, and never again (as some have pointed out, most are minutae cases regarding purity and impurity)? And we have traditions throughout the Talmud of the members of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel actually getting along well, see the end of the first chapter of Yevamot that they would marry off to each other, and there was much friendship there! And what does the comparison to the golden calf have anything to do with this?

Let's start with the common commentaries to the Jerusalem Talmud, found on the side of the page. The Korban HaEda writes:

והיו הורגין בתלמידי הלל - אילו היו רוצין לעלות אבל ח"ו לא הרגו אותן נ"ל: ששה - מתלמידי הלל עלו לביה"מ: והשאר עמדו - תלמידי ב"ש מלמט' בחרבות וברמחים ולא הניחו לעלות כדי שהם יהיו הרוב.

 They killed the students of Beit Hillel - [Only] if they wanted to go up [to the attic], but God forbid that they actually killed them. Six - Of the students of Beit Hillel went to the study room [in the attic]. And the rest of them stood - Of the students of Beit Shammai, they stood at the bottom with spears and swords, and they didn't let them go up so that they would be the majority.

God forbid that Beit Shammai were murderers, rather they were just mafia types which fixed the voting. The Korban HaEda is actually picking up on an extra word, "והיו", and interpreting that to mean that they would have if they had to. But this does not help Beit Shammai all that much, and doesn't answer any of the questions above.

The Amudei Yerushalayim, a commentary in the back of my edition of the Jerusalem Talmud, quotes Rav Saadya Gaon as being attacked by Karaites (I've read supposedly Salmon ben Yeruham, as can be seen in Likueti Kadmaniot) because of this story in the Talmud, and Rav Saadya denies its existence:

ונ"ל סעד לדבריו מדברי רס"ג שכתב ע"ד הקראים שכתבו שהיה הריגה בין בית שמאי ובית הלל, ורב סעדיה כתב שלא נמצא כן בתלמוד, וע"ז השיבו הקראים דמבואר כן בירושלמי, אולם לפי פירוש הק"ע א"ש דברי ר' סעדיה.

 It seems to me a support for [the Korban HaEda] from what Rav Saadya Gaon wrote against the opinion of the Karaites who wrote about the murders of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and Rav Saadia wrote that that does not exist in the Talmud. On this the Karaites responded that it is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud. But according to the Korban HaEda's interpretation, Rav Saadya is correct.

It is clear that some took the story quite literally. The Meiri on Avodah Zara 35b seems to have no qualms taking the story as having literally happened. This is in the context of quoting the Talmud later on there that says that these 18 laws will never be repealed because lives were lost over them (although interestingly, his version is that both had losses in that described violence). Indeed, Rabbi Saul Lieberman states in Yerushalmi Kepshuto (page 38) that it is impossible to explain away this story as not being literal, since that concept in the Talmud that these enactments will never be repealed relies on that.

But are there any parallels elsewhere for such a strange story? If this was true, a real murder story, surely it should have been discussed in other places? One such place might have been in Bavli Shabbat 17a:

 הבוצר לגת. שמאי אומר, הוכשר. הלל אומר, לא הוכשר. א''ל הלל לשמאי, מפני מה בוצרין בטהרה ואין מוסקין בטהרה? א''ל, אם תקניטני, גוזרני טומאה אף על המסיקה. נעצו חרב בבית המדרש אמרו הנכנס יכנס והיוצא אל יצא ואותו היום היה הלל כפוף ויושב לפני שמאי כאחד מן התלמידים והיה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל וגזור שמאי והלל ולא קבלו מינייהו ואתו תלמידייהו גזור וקבלו מינייהו

When one vintages [grapes] for the vat [to manufacture wine], Shammai maintains: It is made fit (to become unclean]; while Hillel ruled, It is not made fit.  Said Hillel to Shammai: Why must one vintage [grapes] in purity, yet not gather [olives] in purity?  If you provoke me, he replied, I will decree uncleanness in the case of olive gathering too. A sword was planted in the Beth Hamidrash and it was proclaimed, 'He who would enter, let him enter, but he who would depart, let him not depart!'  And on that day Hillel sat submissive before Shammai, like one of the disciples. And it was as grievous to Israel as the day when the [golden] calf was made. Now, Shammai and Hillel enacted [this measure], but they would not accept it from them; but their disciples came and enacted it, and it was accepted from them.

 Some interesting similarities, some interesting differences. An argument breaks about between Shammai and Hillel themselves, at what point are grapes able to become considered impure? They argue back and forth, and a sword is planted in the study house, and all are warned not to leave. The "or else" is left unstated. So there was some threatening with a sword, but it had nothing to do with fixing the vote, in fact it was to make the vote more fair by making sure everyone voted, it seems. Another similarity is the appearance again of, "It was as bad for Israel as the day they made the golden calf." There was some later debate of whether to accept that vote, but eventually both sides made peace with it.

A very different story, however! What are we to make of all of this?

A Fast Day In Commemoration?

There is evidence that we make a halachicly mandated fast day out of this event. Something must have happened, huh? See the Tur O"C 580:

כתב בה"ג: אלו הימים שמתענין בהם מן התורה והמתענה לא יאכל בהם ולא ישתה עד הערב:באחד בניסן מתו בני אהרן. בי' בו מתה מרים, ונסתלק הבאר. בכ"ו בו מת יהושע בן נון. בי' באייר מת עלי הכהן ושני בניו, ונשבה ארון הברית... בז' באדר מת משה רבינו עליו השלום. בט' בו גזרו תענית על שנחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל זה על זה. אלו ימי תעניות קבלו ישראל מן התורה. ועוד גזרו רז"ל שיהו מתענין מפני שלשה דברים שני וחמישי: על חורבן הבית, ועל התורה שנשרפה, ועל חרפת השם. ולעתיד לבא, הקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד להפכם לששון ולשמחה, דכתיב (ירמיהו לא יב): "והפכתי אבלם לששון ונחמתים, ושמחתים מיגונם" וכן יהי רצון במהרה בימינו, אמן

See also the Shulchan Aruch, 580:7:

...בז' באדר מת משה רבינו עליו השלום. בט' נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל:

They both have a list of fast days, which are set to commemorate singular bad events in Jewish history, such as when Moses died, or when the destruction of the Temple took place. One funny one in all of that is that on the 9th of Adar, we are suppose to fast because of the arguments between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. What's so bad about that? And why the 9th? Didn't they have about 316 arguments in all of the Talmud? Why the 9th in particular? The Aruch Hashulchan 580 adds a few words to the mix:

...בתשעה בו נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל, והיה הדבר קשה לישראל, וגזרו תענית על זה.

On the 9th, the houses of Shammai and Hillel argued, and it was a difficult thing for Israel, and they decreed a fast on that event.

For the Aruch Hashulchan, there is a direct even that happened on that day, and he explicitly invokes our familiar line about the day being difficult for Israel, but without mentioning the golden calf.

So there was some specific day for this event, the 9th of Adar. The Levush fleshes this out a bit more:

בט' בו נחלקו ב״ש וב״ה זה על זה והואיל ונפלה מחלוקת בין חכמי ישראל אע״פ שמחלוקתם לש״ש הוא מ״מ נעשית התורה ח"ו כשתי תורות שזה אוסר וזה מתיר וזה מטמא וזה מטהר ואין יודעין שום דין על בוריו הרי הוא כיום צרה ומתענין בו

On the 9th of Adar, the houses of Shammai and Hillel argued against each other, and since an argument took place between the sages of Israel, even though their argument was for the sake of heaven [Avot 5:20), nevertheless, it was as if the Torah was made into two Torahs, God forbid, with this one saying, "Permitted," and this one saying, "Prohibited"; this one saying, "Pure", and this one saying, "Impure". And they could not decide the law, that day was a day of pain and we fast on it.

According to the Levush, then, the problem was not that they argued, but that they wouldn't decide one side or another, and the rabbis said, we must fast over this travesty.

Finally, the earliest source seems to be Megillat Taanit, toward the end, which described the event as happening seeming on a literal level, and therefore there is the aforementioned fast.

I wonder if these sources can help us towards an answer. If not, it is interesting to see how important the debate really was in the history of the Talmud, that it was recorded by early rishonim as a fast day.

Towards An Understanding

Rav Moshe in Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 5:20 discusses our issue:

וראיתי בקה"ע לפי פירושו בירושלמי (שבת פרק א' ה"ד), ששישה מתלמידי ב"ה עלו לבית המדרש, והשאר - עמדו תלמידי ב"ש מלמטה בחרבות וברמחים, ולא הניחום לעלות, כדי שב"ש יהיו הרוב. והיו הורגין בתלמידי בית הלל אילו היו רוצין לעלות, אבל ח"ו לא הרגו. משמע מדבריו שרק מחמת שב"ה שמעו לאלו מב"ש שאמרו להם שלא יעלו, לכן לא הרגו. אבל אם לא היו רוצים אנשי ב"ה לשמוע להם, היו הורגין אותן. שזה וודאי הא אסור, וחייבין מיתה אם היו הורגין בהם, אף אם היו רשאין אנשי ב"ש לעשות כן, כגון כהא דגמ' דידן שהיו אומרין לאנשי ב"ה שיעלו ויתברר ההלכה כדין,וכ"ש שהיה אסור לאנשי ב"ש מלמנוע לאנשי ב"ה מלעלות ולומר דעתן, ולהכריע שיהיה הרוב כב"ה. אבל אף למאי דתנינן בגמ' דידן, שהחרב נעצו כדי שיעלו ויתברר הדין לאמתו, וכדאיתא בפי' הרמב"ם שנתקבץ שם קיבוץ גדול מתלמידי ב"ש וב"ה, ולא נשאר באותו הדור מי שהיה ראוי להוראה שלא היו באותו מעמד, נמי תמוה, איך שייך שיהרגו, שאין ע"ז חיוב מיתה. ולכן דברי הירושלמי צע״ג. ולשון גמ׳ דידן צריך לפרש שהנעיצת חרב היה רק להודיע חומר הדבר לברר הלכה, אף של דברי חכמים בגזירוהיהן ותקנותיהן, וכ״ש דברים שהן מדאורייתא, שכל אחד צריד לידע שהוא חמור כחייבי מיתות, אך שהתורה חסה ופטרה מחיוב מיתה. ועי״ז נתעוררו כל החכמים שהיו שם, לעלוה ולהישאר שם, עד שיעיינו כולן, ולהחליט כל אחד לפי דעתו וחכמתו...

In a lengthy piece of which I only copied a part of, Rav Moshe can't make heads or tails of these gemaras, except to say that the Bavli Shabbat only means to say that by sticking a sword in the ground, they were saying, "This is important, as important as death!", which aroused the people to vote instead of arguing, and everyone had their voices heard.

I think the solution is to look at the golden calf story, and to determine why the Talmud in both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi both relate that story to the argument of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and perhaps we can see what they are talking about. I have no illusions about answering the questions, but I can try to make sense of all this. Exodus 32:

The Golden Calf
32:1	Meanwhile, the people began to realize that Moses was taking a long time to come down from the mountain. They gathered around Aaron and said to him, 'Make us an oracle to lead us. We have no idea what happened to Moses, the man who brought us out of Egypt.'
32:2	'Take the rings off the ears of your wives and children,' replied Aaron. 'Bring them to me.'
32:3	All the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron.
32:4	He took [the rings] from the people, and had someone form [the gold] in a mold, casting it into a calf. [Some of the people began to] say, 'This, Israel, is your god, who brought you out of Egypt.'
32:5	When Aaron saw [this], he built an altar before [the calf]. Aaron made an announcement and said, 'Tomorrow, there will be a festival to God.'
32:6	Getting up early the next morning, [the people] sacrificed burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. The people sat down to eat and drink, and then got up to enjoy themselves.
	...

Moses Descends
32:15	Moses turned around, and began going down the mountain with the two Tablets of Testimony in his hand. They were tablets written on both sides, with the writing visible from either side.
32:16	The Tablets were made by God and written with God's script engraved on the Tablets.
32:17	Joshua heard the sound of the people rejoicing, and he said to Moses, 'It sounds as though there is a battle going on in the camp!'
32:18	'It is not the song of victory,' replied [Moses], 'nor the dirge of the defeated. What I hear is just a call of distress'.
32:19	As he approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses displayed anger, and threw down the tablets that were in his hand, shattering them at the foot of the mountain.
32:20	He took the calf that the [people] had made, and burned it in fire, grinding it into fine powder. He then scattered it on the water, and made the Israelites drink it.
32:21	Moses said to Aaron, 'What did the people do to you, that you allowed them to commit such a great sin?'
32:22	'Do not be angry, my lord,' replied Aaron, 'but you must realize that the people have bad tendencies.
32:23	They said to me, 'Make an oracle to lead us, since we do not know what happened to Moses, the man who took us out of Egypt.'
32:24	When I responded to them, 'Who has gold?' they took it off and gave it to me. I threw the gold into the fire and the result was this calf.'
32:25	Moses realized that the people had actually been restrained. Aaron had restrained them, doing only a small part of what the outspoken ones [had demanded].
32:26	Moses stood up at the camp's entrance and announced, 'Whoever is for God, join me!' All the Levites gathered around him.
32:27	He said to them, 'This is what God, Lord of Israel, says: Let each man put on his sword, and go from one gate to the other in the camp. Let each one kill [all those involved in the idolatory], even his own brother, close friend, or relative.'
32:28	The Levites did as Moses had ordered, and approximately 3000 people were killed that day.
32:29	Moses said, 'Today you can be ordained [as a tribe dedicated] to God with a special blessing. Men have [been willing to kill even] their own sons and brothers [at God's command].'
32:30	The next day, Moses said to the people, 'You have committed a terrible sin. Now I will go back up to God and try to gain atonement for your crime.'
32:31	Moses went back up to God, and he said, 'The people have committed a terrible sin by making a golden idol.
32:32	Now, if You would, please forgive their sin. If not, You can blot me out from the book that You have written.'
32:33	God replied to Moses, 'I will blot out from My book those who have sinned against Me.
32:34	Now go; you still have to lead the people to [the place] that I described to you. I will send My angel before you. Still, when I grant special providence to the people, I will take this sin of theirs into account.'
32:35	God then struck the people with a plague because of the calf that Aaron had made.

I think it's possible that Aaron is representative of Beit Hillel. He is attacked by the people, representative of Beit Shammai, at the foot of the mountain, like at the foot of the stairs.

How do I know Aaron and Beit Hillel match up? Hillel uses Aaron as an example of someone to emulate, Avot 1:12:

הלל ושמאי קבלו מהם. הלל אומר, הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן, אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה:

 Hillel and Shammai received the tradition from them. Hillel would say, "Be like the students of Aaron, love peace and pursue peace, love all people and bring them close to Torah."

What this indicates to me is that Hillel, and his followers, had a philosophy to always take the road less divisive, and they saw that in Aaron, their ideological ancestor. Where does Aaron display such an ideology. I say here, in the calf story. The people surround Aaron, and demand that he make them a god. He acquiesces. Why does he do that? Because he thought all the people, or even most people, wanted him to do this for them. If the majority of people wanted it, how could he say no? Then there would be war, bloodshed, disunity. What Aaron had to do to delay them was to get them all doing the same thing, feasting and giving gold, and then he could keep them unified. After all, the medrash tells us based on the Tower of Babel story that if the people are unified, God can't hurt them, such is the greatness of peace. Genesis Rabbah, 38:7:

 רבי אומר גדול השלום שאפילו ישראל עובדים עבודה זרה, אבל שלום ביניהם, אומר הקב"ה איני יכול לפגוע בהם

 Rabbi says, "Great is peace, for even if Israel bows down to idols, but there is peace amongst them, God says, as if, "I cannot touch them."

 So Aaron agreed to help him, and all went well. The people were seemingly content, and Aaron had staved off a civil war against the leaders.

But he was mistaken. The people who wanted the idol were few and far between, only 3000, according to the number that was killed in the end. It just seemed that way to Aaron. He was too quick to assess the situation, too quick to decided what the people wanted. Not only that, but it caused more fighting than it resolved! Moses comes down the mountain and has a strange conversation with Joshua. Joshua hears fighting, a civil war between the people loyal to Moses and God, and the people who were loyal to Aaron and the calf. Moses says they aren't fighting. Fighting requires a winner and a loser, he says. All he hears is disunity, unrest.

Moses then has a strange conversation with Aaron, who, if my interpretation is correct, said that he thought the whole people wanted it. When Moses saw what he had been trying to do, he was unhappy, but he understood.

But the people were divided. How does one fix that? Only by deciding, once and for all, "Who is with God?" Levi made that decision, and killed the traitors in their midst. A cruel fate, to be sure, but a necessary one at a time where greater war could have happened.

This is what happened with Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. There were some things they just couldn't get a vote on. Nobody would decide, nobody would stay in the beit midrash, until Beit Hillel, Aaron's progenitors, decided to allow Beit Shammai their day. It was as if they had gone to war and died.

The turn of phrase which sounds like an all-out war occurred where Beit Hillel was lost mightily, is parallel to the Golden Calf story. And the Talmud often uses those terms for when Beit Hillel "gives in" to Beit Shammai. See Beitza 20a, where Hillel lies for the sake of peace to followers of Shammai. He pretends he was not bringing a sacrifice they felt was forbidden, so as not to fight. And by doing this, the Talmud states:

ואותו היום גברה ידם של בית שמאי על בית הלל ובקשו לקבוע הלכה כמותן

And on that day, Beit Shammai overpowered Beit Hillel and sought to establish the law like them [and not like Beit Hillel]. 

In context, this is clearly in terms of Hillel's acquiescence above. And the resolution to this story is a vote.

History repeats itself. Aaron's problem was that he decided too fast, this will keep the people together, and he was wrong. Beit Hillel made the same mistake. We'll just give up, they said, you can have these laws for yourselves. It was as if they were forced to do it, as if there were swords against their necks, but they agreed to let Beit Shammai have the majority on that day. But it divided the people even more. Their immediate students didn't accept it, according to the Bavli, and it was only much later that the law was agreed.

The leaders of the generation have to decide very carefully, with much caution, where and when should we fight for what we believe in. The answer is not "Always", but it is also not, "Never". We need leaders who can see what might happen in the future from a compromise now, and what would happen if they don't.

I hope to see a day where the Jews are truly unified, b'mheira biyameinu,

ולעתיד לבא, הקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד להפכם לששון ולשמחה, דכתיב (ירמיהו לא יב): "והפכתי אבלם לששון ונחמתים, ושמחתים מיגונם" וכן יהי רצון במהרה בימינו, אמן

A Contradiction In Rashi On Joshua 2?

There are a great many stories in Tanach where people do bad things. A lot of the time, it is the good guy doing the bad thing, and that's what makes the story so compelling and interesting. Reading the stories, one is often struck by how complex the motivations are, where the character is coming from, and reading it like that makes for a larger-than-life tale of the hero-antihero, a story of (literally) biblical proportions.

I love reading the stories like that. Was Jacob right for stealing his brother Esau's blessings from his father? Just reading the story compels you to see Esau as the rightful heir who was taken advantage of. Why, then, do the sages of old in Midrash Rabbah feel obligated to defend Jacob? For example, it turns out Jacob never lied. When he said, "I am Esau your firstborn son," he meant "I am. Esau, (though), is your firstborn son." And on and on. The other nitpicking interpretations are set to do one thing: vilify Esau, and defend Jacob.

Why? It seems obvious on the surface - the sages viewed themselves as heirs to Jacob, not Esau, and sought to defend their ancestor from disgrace in the Torah. It couldn't mean he did anything wrong, because he was a complete tzaddik, and according to one literal interpretation of an aggadic statement, he never even really died (Taanit 5b). How could he have done something wrong, if Esau is so evil, and Jacob is so good?

This assumes that the rabbis saw the stories as simply as when we were children - black and white, good and bad, hero and villain. As adults, we realize that people aren't like that - life isn't like that. Should we assume that the rabbis viewed it in the same way as when we were children? Why didn't they grow up in their interpretation? And why is it that at other times, we find that the rabbis were well in touch with complexities of character? Were they influenced by their historical surroundings, did they see the attack on Jacob as the attack on the Jew, and thus resorted to defend Jacob at all costs of pshat?

What about Rashi? Why did he take many of these interpretations and run with them? Did he feel the need to defend Jacob the Jew's honor against Esau the Christian? Was it only historical? Doesn't Rashi set out as his programmatic statement that he is looking to solve just pshat and context? Was he being intellectually dishonest with himself?

Although I wrote in an earlier post about the possibility that the rabbis of the Talmud felt that judging others favorably is such an important trait, that we should strive to apply it to biblical characters as well, I think other things might be at play here, specifically in the world of pshat. I don't think Rashi was moving away from his programmatic statement, and I don't think the rabbis were interpreting the story like children. While I could spend this post talking about Jacob and Esau and the problems of pshat there, I want to focus on a few Rashis in Joshua to make the point.

Joshua 2:1 says the following:

1. And Joshua the son of Nun sent two men out of Shittim to spy secretly, saying, Go see the land and Jericho. And they went, and came to the house of a woman zonah, and her name was Rahab, and they lay there.		א. וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן מִן הַשִּׁטִּים שְׁנַיִם אֲנָשִׁים מְרַגְּלִים חֶרֶשׁ לֵאמֹר לְכוּ רְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת יְרִיחוֹ וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵּית אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה וּשְׁמָהּ רָחָב וַיִּשְׁכְּבוּ שָׁמָּה:
Inkeeper: זונה. Targum Jon. renders: Innkeeper, one who sells various foodstuffs (מזונות).

So we see that once again, Rashi seems to be defending the honor of the two spies by quoting a forced interpretation of zonah, which always means harlot, into a word from the root of zan, meaning sustenance. Josephus, who lived way before Rashi, seems to be doing a similar thing, by saying she was an innkeeper. Why?

To add to the question, Rashi, in the very same chapter, says that Rahab was indeed a harlot. And not just a harlot, but that she started when she was 10 and continued for 40 years while the Israelites were in the desert, and that she had high officials come to her all the time. See it for yourself:

11. And as soon as we heard, our hearts melted, nor did there remain anymore spirit in any man because of you, for the Lord your God He is God in heaven above and on the earth below.		יא. וַנִּשְׁמַע וַיִּמַּס לְבָבֵנוּ וְלֹא קָמָה עוֹד רוּחַ בְּאִישׁ מִפְּנֵיכֶם כִּי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת:
nor did there remain (or arise) anymore spirit: And there did not remain anymore spirit, even to lie with a woman. [This was evident to Rahab] because, as the Rabbis said: There was neither prince or ruler who had no relations with Rahab the harlot. She was ten years old when the Israelites departed from Egypt, and she practiced harlotry for forty years.

So, Rahab was a harlot? Why, when the word actually means harlot, Rashi backs away, but when he doesn't need to, he says she was indeed a harlot, and a hardcore one at that?

I asked one of my rebbeim, Rabbi Yisrael Isserv Zvi Herczeg, who is the author of the famous Artscroll Rashi set, as well as the author of other Rashi books on Tanach, and he suggested an answer that I think is a very important one in methodology of Rashi, as well as a warning not to read into the sages of old our natural feeling that the past was more simple-minded.

He suggested that the solution might need to assume she was both, and we should be looking at problems of pshat in the first verse that led Rashi to say she was a seller of food (one that he suggests is below), and the problems in pshat in verse 11 to say she slept with many men. I have taken these ideas and added to them.

We must ask ourselves why, when the Torah describes where the spies went, it says they went to "the house of the woman zonah, and Rahab was her name." This is an altogether strange way of saying what it meant, that "they went to Rahab the zonah's house." Instead, there is an indication that her profession is important, that it introduces her as a woman zonah, and then introduces her name. This is akin to saying, "He is a carpenter, his name is John." This seems to place the fact he is a carpenter as central to why I am telling you who he is.

In addition, the context is funny. Joshua sends spies to Jericho, and they end up at a zonah's house? Why? For what purpose? If it was indeed for prostitution purposes, why keep the detail in at all, if it doesn't add to the story?

But if it's a inn, and she is the innkeeper, it makes good sense. They went to Jericho, and found an inn, and a woman who sells food. They need provisions, after all, if they were to spy a land. Not only that, but innkeepers might have information about the details of a city, as people talk when they are staying in someone's house. In this way, the spies chose a place to spend the night that makes sense in the context and description of the story.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that the word used was zonah. Why does the verse use the word if it doesn't really mean it? Why use a word for which the regular meaning is eschewed, and an obscure meaning is meant instead?

I believe Rashi felt that she was a harlot as well, and the verse was hinting to it. Later, when she professes to know what all men were thinking when the people of Israel drew close, Rashi understood her as drawing on the knowledge of her profession as a harlot, and a good one at that.

I have friends who refuse to even discuss Rashis like these when talking about pshat, because they believe that Rashi did not see complexity there. I think Rashi saw Rahab as much more complex than meets the eye, and we should strive to see what Rashi was doing before making rash decisions about his motivations.

The Waters of Meriva - Déjà Vu?

I saw an interesting commentary on the Mei Meriva story by Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor over Shabbat. Rabbi Joseph ben Isaac Bechor Shor was an early Tosafist who lived in France, a student of the famous Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam. He was a very interesting guy. Here's how Wikipedia describes him (with no footnotes, so no idea on accuracy):

Even more than Rashi, to whose exegetical school he belonged, he confined himself to literal interpretations (peshat). Anticipating later Biblical criticism, he assumed the presence of duplicate narratives in the Bible, and he strove to give rational explanations to the miraculous stories. Thus he interprets "tree of life" (Genesis ii. 9) as "tree of healing", explaining that the fruit of the tree possessed the virtue of healing the sick, without, however, bestowing eternal life. In regard to the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt (Gen. xix. 26) he explains that, disbelieving in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, she lingered on the road, and was overtaken by the rain of brimstone and fire, which are usually mixed with salt.

Well acquainted with the Vulgate and Christian Biblical exegesis, Joseph, in commenting on Psalm ii., cites Jerome, whose explanation of the word he criticizes.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, Bechor Shor suggests that the story of the people complaining about lack of water, and Moses hitting the rock, is one and the same with another story with very similar details - in the book of Exodus. Let's see our story, in the full. Translation from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah:

Miriam's Death; Lack of Water
20:1	In the first month, the entire Israelite community came to the Tzin Desert, and the people stopped in Kadesh. It was there that Miriam died and was buried.
20:2	The people did not have any water, so they began demonstrating against Moses and Aaron.
20:3	The people disputed with Moses. 'We wish that we had died together with our brothers before God!' they declared.
20:4	'Why did you bring God's congregation to this desert? So that we and our livestock should die?
20:5	Why did you take us out of Egypt and bring us to this terrible place? It is an area where there are no plants, figs, grapes or pomegranates. [Now] there is not even any water to drink!'
20:6	Moses and Aaron moved away from the demonstration to the Communion Tent entrance, and fell on their faces. God's glory was revealed to them.
	Water from the Rock
20:7	God spoke to Moses, saying,
20:8	'Take the staff, and you and Aaron assemble the community. Speak to the cliff in their presence, and it will give forth its water. You will thus bring forth water from the cliff, and allow the community and their livestock to drink.'
20:9	Moses took the staff from before God as he had been instructed.
20:10	Moses and Aaron then assembled the congregation before the cliff. 'Listen now, you rebels!' shouted Moses. 'Shall we produce water for you from this cliff?'
20:11	With that, Moses raised his hand, and struck the cliff twice with his staff. A huge amount of water gushed out, and the community and their animals were able to drink.
	Punishment of Moses and Aaron
20:12	God said to Moses and Aaron, 'You did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in the presence of the Israelites! Therefore, you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given you.'
20:13	These are the Waters of Dispute (Mey Meribhah) where the Israelites disputed with God, and where He was [nevertheless] sanctified.

Review: The people are at the Tzin Desert. The people complain about water, that they need to water their livestock, and they question why they were brought out of Egypt to die of thirst. God says to Moses to take a staff, and speak to the "cliff" (or bedrock) in front of the people, and the cliff will give off water. He hits the cliff, and it fed the people. God says that Moses and Aaron failed, and they would never go into the land of Israel. They called the place "Mei Mariva".

Let's see the place in Exodus where something interestingly similar happens:

Water from the Rock
17:1	The entire Israelite community moved on from the Sin desert, traveling according to God's instructions until they camped in Rephidim. There was no water for the people to drink.
17:2	The people began to quarrel with Moses. 'Give us water to drink!' they exclaimed. 'Why are you quarreling with me?' asked Moses. 'Are you trying to test God?'
17:3	The people began to suffer thirst because [of the lack] of water, and they began demonstrating against Moses. 'Why did you bring us out of Egypt?' demanded [the leader]. 'Do you want to make me, my children and my livestock die of thirst?'
17:4	Moses cried out to God. 'What shall I do for this people?' he said. 'Before long they will stone me!'
17:5	God said to Moses, 'March in front of the people along with the elders of Israel. Take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go.
17:6	I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb. You must strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.' Moses did this in the presence of the elders of Israel.
17:7	[Moses] named the place Testing-and-Argument (Massa u'Meriba) because the people had argued and had tested God. They had asked, 'Is God with us or not?'

The stories are almost the same. They are in the Sin Desert (similar to Tzin Desert), they complain to Moses about no water to drink, that they need to water their livestock, and they question why they were brought out of Egypt to die of thirst. God tells Moses to take his staff and hit the rock in front of everyone. He does, and everyone's happy. This place is not named Mei Meriva, but rather Massa u'Meriva.

A couple of extra details are different, and they're pretty obvious even from the English, but all in all, pretty much the same. Bechor Shor writes that at the end of the Torah, in Deuteronomy, the two names are combined into one name because it is one story in reality:

33:8: You tested him at Massah, contended with him at the Waters of Dispute.

A few questions bother me about this.

First, a lot of hoopla is made by Rashi about the fact that in our story in Chukat, Moses is told to speak to the rock instead of hit it, and Rashi even identifies that as the sin of Moses. Even if that's not the sin, God does indeed tell him to take the staff, speak to the rock, and Moses hits it instead. Why, in the earlier story in Exodus, is there no confusion about what Moses was to do or what he did instead? The Daat Zekenim, a compendium of the comments of the Tosafists, quotes Bechor Shor approvingly, and answers for him that all it says in our story is that he should speak "el" the rock. "El" can mean "in front of", meaning speak to the people of Israel in front of the rock that they should watch what will happen because God is awesome.

Second,  Moses' response to the people is different. In our story, he shouts, "Can we take water from a rock?" and in the Exodus story, he asks why they are fighting with him, are they trying to test God? This, too, is answered by the Daat Zekenim. When he asked "Can we take water from a rock?" he was really saying, "Why are you asking me to get water? Ask God! Are you testing God, as if you don't believe He can do this for you?" In this way (although a little forced), the responses match up.

The question I really want to get to is: Why have the same story in two places? Bechor Shor contends that the Torah wanted to describe the times that the people of Israel asked for food, such as the manna story, and the fish story, and then put the story again in its appropriate place in the timeline of events that happened to the people of Israel. The fact that we learn some new details doesn't bother him, for this happens in other contexts as well, such as the sending of the spies, which is repeated somewhat and more details are added in Deuteronomy 1:22, where we find that the people had actually asked to send spies, and it didn't come straight from God out of the blue like Shlach would have you believe.

I find this to be a difficult answer, mostly because there are so many discrepancies, such as which desert they were in, or what they named the place after.

I think we should look at the stories as telling alternate-universe stories of the same event. In Exodus, things were still on track. The people left the land of Egypt and were on their way to Israel. They could do no wrong, and even when they did, Moses would fix it. But when you get to mid-Numbers, things have taken a turn for the worse. God promises that their debacle with the spies means they will die in the desert, and only their children will see the land of Israel. They would spend their days in the desert for nothing. A huge shift has happened, and we read with our dismay the difference between what could have been, and what happened. As one of my rebbeim, Rabbi Pesach Wolicki explained, this was the purpose of the backward "nuns" that interrupt the storyline by saying, (Numbers 10:35) "When the Ark went forth, Moses said, 'Arise, O God, and scatter your enemies! Let your foes flee before You!' This is what could have been! they would have went straight into Israel and their enemies would have scattered before the glory of God! In fact, one opinion in the gemara is that that verse represents its own book of the Torah! But that idealistic state didn't happen. And so we now enter the lacrymose history of a people who made one too many mistakes. Looks different, doesn't it?

So think about what would happen if the people were thirsty. How would the people ask for it, and how would Moses react? It completely changes! In the Exodus story, the people simply demand water, for their kids and livestock. Moses pushes them away at first, but when he sees they're getting really agitated, he acquiesces to their request and making a sanctification of God's name. In the Numbers story, the people begin by saying they should have died in Egypt! This is a "terrible place" to them! Egypt was better, they say. Moses responds by getting angry at them, a sure sign of someone whose nerves are frayed, having had to deal with this rebellious people for quite a long time. None of this is in the Exodus story.

This is what I thought of when I saw that Bechor Shor. Unfortunately for me and my desire to be mechadesh, I see now that Rabbi Nethaniel Helfgot has written basically this understanding and more, based on the Netziv, in his book, Mikra And Meaning, page 113. Ayin Sham.