Difference between revisions of "Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage/2"
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage</h1> | <h1>Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage</h1> | ||
− | |||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
<p>There is a spectrum of approaches to understanding the actions and motivations of Miryam and Aharon. Nearly all classical and medieval exegetes (and many modern ones as well), attempt to minimize the infraction and its implications by viewing it as simply idle chatter or poor judgment. The Sifre and related Midrashim are perhaps the most extreme manifestation of this position, as they view Miryam as simply trying to encourage the resumption of normal marital life between Moshe and Zipporah and having no spiteful intent whatsoever.</p> | <p>There is a spectrum of approaches to understanding the actions and motivations of Miryam and Aharon. Nearly all classical and medieval exegetes (and many modern ones as well), attempt to minimize the infraction and its implications by viewing it as simply idle chatter or poor judgment. The Sifre and related Midrashim are perhaps the most extreme manifestation of this position, as they view Miryam as simply trying to encourage the resumption of normal marital life between Moshe and Zipporah and having no spiteful intent whatsoever.</p> | ||
− | + | <p>A middle ground staked out by R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ibn Kaspi view Moshe's siblings' critique of him as stemming from their objection to his taking either a foreign or second wife, but they also view the story as a private familial spat with mistaken (and even understandable) errors of judgment. Finally, several modern exegetes view Miryam and Aharon's statements as a questioning of Moshe's worthiness to lead. According to them, the book of Bemidbar tells the tale of a Moshe besieged by serious challenges to his authority from both within his own family and without.</p> | |
<!-- | <!-- | ||
<p>There are two major approaches to understanding the actions of Miryam and Aharon. The first, adopted by nearly all classical and medieval exegetes (and many modern ones as well), attempts to minimize the infraction and its implications by viewing it as simply idle chatter or poor judgment. The Sifre and related Midrashim are perhaps the most extreme manifestation of this position, as they view Miryam as simply trying to encourage the resumption of normal marital life between Moshe and Zipporah and having no spiteful intent whatsoever. Others, such as R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ibn Kaspi view Moshe's siblings' critique of him as stemming from their objection to his taking either a foreign or second wife, but they also view the story as a private familial spat with mistaken (and even understandable) errors of judgment. A second approach, however, presented by several modern exegetes, views Miryam and Aharon's statements as reflecting the beginnings of a serious challenge to Moshe's authority and a questioning of his worthiness to lead. According to them, the book of Bemidbar tells the tale of a Moshe besieged by challengers from within his own family and without.</p> | <p>There are two major approaches to understanding the actions of Miryam and Aharon. The first, adopted by nearly all classical and medieval exegetes (and many modern ones as well), attempts to minimize the infraction and its implications by viewing it as simply idle chatter or poor judgment. The Sifre and related Midrashim are perhaps the most extreme manifestation of this position, as they view Miryam as simply trying to encourage the resumption of normal marital life between Moshe and Zipporah and having no spiteful intent whatsoever. Others, such as R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ibn Kaspi view Moshe's siblings' critique of him as stemming from their objection to his taking either a foreign or second wife, but they also view the story as a private familial spat with mistaken (and even understandable) errors of judgment. A second approach, however, presented by several modern exegetes, views Miryam and Aharon's statements as reflecting the beginnings of a serious challenge to Moshe's authority and a questioning of his worthiness to lead. According to them, the book of Bemidbar tells the tale of a Moshe besieged by challengers from within his own family and without.</p> | ||
--></div> | --></div> | ||
− | |||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
<point><b>Doubling of "כִּי אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח"</b> – This approach views this as a parenthetical statement of the narrator, needed to tell the reader that Moshe had indeed married a Cushite woman, since this fact had not been previously mentioned.</point> | <point><b>Doubling of "כִּי אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח"</b> – This approach views this as a parenthetical statement of the narrator, needed to tell the reader that Moshe had indeed married a Cushite woman, since this fact had not been previously mentioned.</point> | ||
<point><b>When did the marriage take place, and why is the issue raised now?</b><ul> | <point><b>When did the marriage take place, and why is the issue raised now?</b><ul> | ||
− | + | <li><b>In Moshe's youth, before he married Zipporah</b> – Rashbam, basing himself on an obscure Midrashic work, Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbenu,<fn>On Rashbam's view regarding the reliability of this work, see <a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About Rashbam</a>. See also <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong2-22" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong2-22" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 2:22</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> who challenges the authority of the midrash, stating "ואל תסמוך אל דברי הימים של משה, כי הבל כל הכתוב בו".</fn> claims that after Moshe fled from Egypt, he became the king of Cush for forty years,<fn>For other ancient traditions related to this colorful legend, see <multilink><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="source">Artapanus</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="source">Cited by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9:27</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="parshan">About Artapanus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Josephus2-10" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="Josephus2-10" data-aht="source">Antiquities 2:10:1-2</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, and Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) below. For analysis of and literature discussing the relationship between these traditions, see A. Shinan, "Moses and the Ethiopian Woman", Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (1978): 66-78.</fn> and it was during this period that he married the queen of Cush.<fn>Moshe's kingship and marriage are mentioned also by Josephus (and Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)), but not by Artapanus.</fn> For Rashbam, it is difficult to understand why Moshe's siblings are suddenly dredging up an event which occurred many decades before.</li> | |
− | + | <li><b>During the Israelite's trek through the wilderness</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor<fn>In his comments on 12:3, R"Y Bekhor Shor also references the Midrash in Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbenu, but in his explanation to 12:1-2 he seems to prefer the possibility that the marriage took place later.</fn> and Shadal, on the other hand, assume that the marriage took place after Moshe was already the leader of the nation,<fn>Shadal is most explicit about this, and he raises the possibility that Zipporah had already died and thus Moshe was getting remarried.</fn> and they attribute no royal status to the Cushite woman. According to them, Miryam and Aharon's complaint logically follows this recent event.</li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>What bothered Miryam and Aharon?</b><ul> | <point><b>What bothered Miryam and Aharon?</b><ul> | ||
− | + | <li><b>Intermarriage itself</b> – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor maintains that the siblings are bothered by the fact that Moshe married a foreign woman of an uncircumcised nation. The Cushites, in particular, were descendants of Cham, which might be viewed as even more problematic.<fn>Rashbam notes the relation to Cham, but merely presents this as a fact without explicitly saying that this was the reason why the marriage troubled Moshe's siblings.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Hubris</b> – Both R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Shadal suggest that Miryam and Aharon criticized Moshe for being vain and thinking that the women of Israel were not good enough for him.<fn>Shimshon's parents make a similar argument in Shofetim 14:3 when their son opts to take a Philistine wife, and R"Y Bekhor Shor references this story.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Jealousy</b> – In his HaMishtadel, Shadal raises the possibility that the siblings were hoping that Moshe would marry one of their children,<fn>This would also work well with Rabbinic sources which recommend marrying one's niece.</fn> and were thus upset when he opted instead for a foreigner.</li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Relationship between the complaints</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that the claim of Moshe's hubris is the common thread between the two statements of Miryam and Aharon. They assume that Moshe's prophetic powers were at the root of his feelings of his superiority and this, in turn, caused him to marry a foreigner. Thus, they point out that despite the fact that they themselves also possessed prophetic status, they still married within the nation. In contrast, according to Rashbam and Shadal, there is no direct connection between the two gripes of Miryam and Aharon regarding Moshe.<fn>Shadal writes: "...ובתוך דבריהם אמרו גם כן". Cf. the Hoil Moshe who explains that it is the natural course of לשון הרע, that one begins with one issue and then moves on to unrelated topics.</fn></point> | <point><b>Relationship between the complaints</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that the claim of Moshe's hubris is the common thread between the two statements of Miryam and Aharon. They assume that Moshe's prophetic powers were at the root of his feelings of his superiority and this, in turn, caused him to marry a foreigner. Thus, they point out that despite the fact that they themselves also possessed prophetic status, they still married within the nation. In contrast, according to Rashbam and Shadal, there is no direct connection between the two gripes of Miryam and Aharon regarding Moshe.<fn>Shadal writes: "...ובתוך דבריהם אמרו גם כן". Cf. the Hoil Moshe who explains that it is the natural course of לשון הרע, that one begins with one issue and then moves on to unrelated topics.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Was intermarriage permitted after the giving of the Torah?</b><ul> | <point><b>Was intermarriage permitted after the giving of the Torah?</b><ul> | ||
Line 52: | Line 50: | ||
<p>Miryam and Aharon criticize Moshe for abstaining from marital relations with his wife.</p> | <p>Miryam and Aharon criticize Moshe for abstaining from marital relations with his wife.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | <multilink><a href="SifreBemidbar99" data-aht="source">Sifre Bemidbar</a><a href="SifreBemidbar99" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 99</a><a href="Sifre Bemidbar" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Bemidbar</a></multilink>, | + | <multilink><a href="SifreBemidbar99" data-aht="source">Sifre Bemidbar</a><a href="SifreBemidbar99" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 99</a><a href="Sifre Bemidbar" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Bemidbar</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SifreZutaBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Sifre Zuta</a><a href="SifreZutaBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1</a><a href="Sifre Zuta" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Zuta</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="PsJBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a><a href="PsJBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1-8</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TargumYerushalmiBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Targum Yerushalmi (Fragmentary)</a><a href="TargumYerushalmiBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Fragmentary)" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Yerushalmi (Fragmentary)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TanchumaTzav13" data-aht="source">Tanchuma</a><a href="TanchumaTzav13" data-aht="source">Tzav 13</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About the Tanchuma</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AvotDRN1-9" data-aht="source">Avot DeRabbi Natan</a><a href="AvotDRN1-9" data-aht="source">Version 1, Chapter 9</a><a href="Avot DeRabbi Natan" data-aht="parshan">About Avot DeRabbi Natan</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1-2,4</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1-2</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1-5</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar12-6" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:6-8</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar12T14" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12 Toelet 14</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="Ran8" data-aht="source">Ran</a><a href="Ran8" data-aht="source">Derashot HaRan 8</a><a href="R. Nissim Gerondi (Ran)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Nissim Gerondi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar12Q" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar12Q" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12 Questions</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1-3</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar12-4" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:4</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar12-6" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:6</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RHirschBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">R. S"R Hirsch</a><a href="RHirschBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:1-2</a><a href="RHirschBemidbar12-3" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:3</a><a href="RHirschBemidbar12-8" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 12:8</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. S"R Hirsch</a></multilink> |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Identifying the "אִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית"</b><ul> | <point><b>Identifying the "אִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית"</b><ul> | ||
− | + | <li><b>Zipporah</b> – Almost all of these commentators identify the Cushite with Moshe's known wife, Zipporah. However, as the Torah clearly states that Zipporah came from Midyan,<fn>See <a href="Shemot2-16" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:16-21</a>.</fn> and not Cush, these commentators are forced<fn>For a particularly forced interpretation, see R. S"R Hirsch who suggests that "לקיחת אשה כושית" refers not to a specific person but rather to a marriage which is devoid of marital relations. He asserts that throughout Tanakh the term Cush has a negative connotation, connoting a lowly nation or individual, and so marriage to a "Cushite" was considered unfathomable and thus unnatural. As a result any celibate marriage was so coined.</fn> to render the "Cushite" appellation as a figurative term:<fn>Since this does not appear to be the simple sense of the verse, it is possible that this position is motivated by a desire to avoid having Moshe marry a descendant of Cham specifically, or perhaps any non-Jew (especially if one assumes that the marriage took place after the revelation at Sinai). Another motivation might be the general Midrashic tendency to identify anonymous characters with more well-known figures. Yitzchak Heinemann termed this "the Law of Conservation of Characters" in his דרכי האגדה‎ (Jerusalem, 1954), Chapter 4. See <a href="Commentators:Midrash/Identifications" data-aht="page">Midrash</a> for additional examples.</fn> | |
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li><b>Beautiful</b> – Most of the sources maintain that the designation is an attestation to Zipporah's beauty.<fn>The Midrashic sources suggest that just as the blackness of a Cushite is known to all, so too Zipporah's beauty could not be doubted by anyone, or, just as a Cushite is unique and stands out in his coloring, so too Zipporah stood out in her beauty. Tanchuma and Rashi also use גימטריא (letter and numerical equivalence) to equate the term with beauty. Alternatively, Rashi and Ralbag propose that referring to someone as a Cushite, (who, in their medieval world, was considered unattractive) is a euphemistic way of speaking about beauty so as to ward off the evil eye. Compare to the opposite custom of referring to a blind person as a "סגי נהור" (full of light).</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Dark</b> – Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel assert that Zipporah was called a "Cushite" due to her dark complexion.<fn>Ibn Ezra claims that that the Midianites dwelled in tents and were in constant exposure to the sun, making their skin dark. As a prooftext he points to Chavakuk 3:7, "תַּחַת אָוֶן רָאִיתִי אָהֳלֵי כוּשָׁן יִרְגְּזוּן יְרִיעוֹת אֶרֶץ מִדְיָן". Though Ibn Ezra does not say so explicitly, he might also be pointing to the parallel in the verse between Midyan and Cushan. See also Demetrius the Chronographer, who suggests that Zipporah was a descendant of Avraham's concubines but is referred to as a Cushite since she originally hailed from the region of Cush in the East (where Avraham had sent his concubines' children).</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul> | |
− | + | </li> | |
− | + | <li><b>A woman from Cush</b> – Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) asserts that the verse is referring to the Queen of Cush.<fn>Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)'s position synthesizes the Midrashic motif of the Cushite queen found in Josephus and other sources cited in the notes above with the theme of the Sifre that Moshe was criticized for not fulfilling his marital obligations.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Meaning of "לָקָח"</b> – The word "לָקָח" (took) is difficult for this approach as the verse seems to record Moshe's siblings' objection to his <i>taking</i> of a Cushite woman, rather than his separation from her.<fn>See Ibn Kaspi below who voices a harsh critique of this approach, for this very reason. He questions how one can take the words of Torah and present them as meaning the precise opposite of what they say. He objects vehemently to what he sees as a gross manipulation of the text and the setting of a dangerous exegetical precedent.</fn> Thus, most of these commentators<fn>See the note above regarding the idiosyncratic reading of R. Hirsch.</fn> read the verse as if it is abbreviated, with an understood ending: "the Cushite woman whom he married [and then separated from]".<fn>This reading might stem from the description of Moshe's reunion with Zipporah in Shemot 18 which speaks of her returning "אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ". For a full discussion of the phrase and what it is referring to, see <a href="אחר שלוחיה – Who Sent What to Whom" data-aht="page">אחר שלוחיה – Who Sent What to Whom</a>.</fn></point> | <point><b>Meaning of "לָקָח"</b> – The word "לָקָח" (took) is difficult for this approach as the verse seems to record Moshe's siblings' objection to his <i>taking</i> of a Cushite woman, rather than his separation from her.<fn>See Ibn Kaspi below who voices a harsh critique of this approach, for this very reason. He questions how one can take the words of Torah and present them as meaning the precise opposite of what they say. He objects vehemently to what he sees as a gross manipulation of the text and the setting of a dangerous exegetical precedent.</fn> Thus, most of these commentators<fn>See the note above regarding the idiosyncratic reading of R. Hirsch.</fn> read the verse as if it is abbreviated, with an understood ending: "the Cushite woman whom he married [and then separated from]".<fn>This reading might stem from the description of Moshe's reunion with Zipporah in Shemot 18 which speaks of her returning "אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ". For a full discussion of the phrase and what it is referring to, see <a href="אחר שלוחיה – Who Sent What to Whom" data-aht="page">אחר שלוחיה – Who Sent What to Whom</a>.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Relationship between the complaints</b> – According to this approach, the statements of Miryam and Aharon in verses 1-2 are integrally connected. The siblings assert their prophetic status to prove that such a role does not require abstinence,<fn>Although both of them had received prophecy, neither saw the need to refrain from sexual relations. Their words should in effect read: "God has spoken to us as well [but we did not abstain from our spouses.]"</fn> and thus, that Moshe's prophesying cannot justify his treatment of his wife.</point> | <point><b>Relationship between the complaints</b> – According to this approach, the statements of Miryam and Aharon in verses 1-2 are integrally connected. The siblings assert their prophetic status to prove that such a role does not require abstinence,<fn>Although both of them had received prophecy, neither saw the need to refrain from sexual relations. Their words should in effect read: "God has spoken to us as well [but we did not abstain from our spouses.]"</fn> and thus, that Moshe's prophesying cannot justify his treatment of his wife.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Why now?</b> This position relates this episode to the immediately preceding one regarding the appointment of the seventy elders to aid Moshe. | + | <point><b>Why now?</b> This position relates this episode to the immediately preceding one regarding the appointment of the seventy elders to aid Moshe. |
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li>According to most of these commentators,<fn>See R. Natan in the Sifre and Tanchuma, Sifre Zuta, Rashi, and R. Hirsch.</fn> it was only after the appointment of the elders that the details of Moshe's married life became known to Miryam. When Zipporah lamented the fate of the spouses of the new prophets, she inadvertently revealed her own situation to her sister-in-law.</li> | |
− | + | <li>Ran, instead, asserts that until this point the siblings had justified Moshe's neglect of his wife, thinking that his all consuming leadership responsibilities left no time for family life. With the appointment of assistants, this excuse was no longer valid.</li> | |
− | + | <li>Alternatively, it was only recently that Yitro had returned Zipporah to Moshe.<fn>See <a href="Chronology – Shemot 18" data-aht="page">Chronology of Shemot 18</a> for the various positions on when Yitro arrived at the Israelite camp.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>"וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד"</b> – These exegetes offer several explanations as to why the Torah chose to emphasize Moshe's modesty at this juncture: | <point><b>"וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד"</b> – These exegetes offer several explanations as to why the Torah chose to emphasize Moshe's modesty at this juncture: | ||
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li><b>Explaining God's intervention</b> – According to Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) and R. Hirsch the statement is clarifying that Moshe himself was not bothered by his siblings' criticism. Since he would never defend himself, Hashem intervened on his behalf.</li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Clarifying the complaint</b> – Abarbanel asserts that this statement is not a parenthetical statement made by the text, but is rather a rhetorical question posed by Miryam and Aharon.<fn>According to Abarbanel, the siblings' speech does not end in the middle of verse 2 but continues until the end of verse 3. Thus, both this verse and the phrase "‏וַיִּשְׁמַע ה'‏" are the words of the siblings, not the narrator. Cf. his understanding of "כִּי אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח" below.</fn> They raise, and reject, the possibility that it is Moshe's extreme humility that led him to abstain from relations.</li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Defense of Moshe</b> – R. Hirsch suggests that this statement proves that Moshe's actions could not have been motivated by any feelings of pride or gloating.<fn>See Ralbag similarly, but he suggests that this proves that the siblings were not complaining due to Moshe's vanity or status, since his humility gave them no reason to be jealous on that front. Avot DeRabbi Natan, in contrast, has the siblings attributing this very flaw to Moshe, saying, "אבל הוא מפני שדעתו גסה עליו פירש לו מאשתו".</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Defense of Miryam and Aharon</b> – R. Hirsch further proposes that Moshe's extreme modesty is what led the siblings to their error. Due to Moshe's humility, they never knew that there was a difference in the level of Moshe's prophetic status and that he, thus, had a good reason for his separation from Zipporah.</li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Hashem's response and understanding His verdict</b> – Hashem's words revolve around Moshe's unique prophetic status, as this is the source of his siblings' error in their evaluation of his actions. Hashem explains that Moshe is indeed on a different level,<fn>Rashi, Ran and Abarbanel emphasize that the manner of Hashem's rebuke was meant to emphasize this. God purposely appears to Miryam and Aharon "suddenly" and the two find that, unlike Moshe who was already ready to receive prophecy, they were not in a pure state. Similarly, God calls all three siblings to the Tent of Meeting, only to then separate Miryam and Aharon to teach them that they are not all equals.</fn> and therefore his abstinence is necessary.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="BavliShabbat87a" data-aht="source">Bavli Shabbat</a><a href="BavliShabbat87a" data-aht="source">Shabbat 87a</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> which explains that, at Mt. Sinai, upon hearing Hashem command the nation to separate from their wives before revelation, Moshe resolved to permanently abstain from relations. The Gemara claims that Hashem affirmed the decision when He told the rest of the nation to "return to their tents" (interpreted figuratively as permission to return to their wives), while telling Moshe to remain with Him ("וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי").</fn> However, according to this approach, the harshness of Hashem's reaction is difficult to comprehend, as Miryam and Aharon were well-intentioned.</point> | <point><b>Hashem's response and understanding His verdict</b> – Hashem's words revolve around Moshe's unique prophetic status, as this is the source of his siblings' error in their evaluation of his actions. Hashem explains that Moshe is indeed on a different level,<fn>Rashi, Ran and Abarbanel emphasize that the manner of Hashem's rebuke was meant to emphasize this. God purposely appears to Miryam and Aharon "suddenly" and the two find that, unlike Moshe who was already ready to receive prophecy, they were not in a pure state. Similarly, God calls all three siblings to the Tent of Meeting, only to then separate Miryam and Aharon to teach them that they are not all equals.</fn> and therefore his abstinence is necessary.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="BavliShabbat87a" data-aht="source">Bavli Shabbat</a><a href="BavliShabbat87a" data-aht="source">Shabbat 87a</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> which explains that, at Mt. Sinai, upon hearing Hashem command the nation to separate from their wives before revelation, Moshe resolved to permanently abstain from relations. The Gemara claims that Hashem affirmed the decision when He told the rest of the nation to "return to their tents" (interpreted figuratively as permission to return to their wives), while telling Moshe to remain with Him ("וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי").</fn> However, according to this approach, the harshness of Hashem's reaction is difficult to comprehend, as Miryam and Aharon were well-intentioned.</point> | ||
<point><b>Punishment of leprosy</b> – These sources view leprosy as the standard punishment for slander or gossip.<fn>This notion is amplified in Bavli Arakhin 15b-16a and Tanchuma Metzora 1. See also Ramban Devarim 24:9 that the command to remember what happened to Miryam is really an admonition against speaking slander.</fn></point> | <point><b>Punishment of leprosy</b> – These sources view leprosy as the standard punishment for slander or gossip.<fn>This notion is amplified in Bavli Arakhin 15b-16a and Tanchuma Metzora 1. See also Ramban Devarim 24:9 that the command to remember what happened to Miryam is really an admonition against speaking slander.</fn></point> |
Version as of 15:52, 4 July 2019
Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
There is a spectrum of approaches to understanding the actions and motivations of Miryam and Aharon. Nearly all classical and medieval exegetes (and many modern ones as well), attempt to minimize the infraction and its implications by viewing it as simply idle chatter or poor judgment. The Sifre and related Midrashim are perhaps the most extreme manifestation of this position, as they view Miryam as simply trying to encourage the resumption of normal marital life between Moshe and Zipporah and having no spiteful intent whatsoever.
A middle ground staked out by R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ibn Kaspi view Moshe's siblings' critique of him as stemming from their objection to his taking either a foreign or second wife, but they also view the story as a private familial spat with mistaken (and even understandable) errors of judgment. Finally, several modern exegetes view Miryam and Aharon's statements as a questioning of Moshe's worthiness to lead. According to them, the book of Bemidbar tells the tale of a Moshe besieged by serious challenges to his authority from both within his own family and without.
Defamatory Gossip (לשון הרע)
Miryam and Aharon sinned in speaking negatively about Moshe and criticizing his behavior. The commentators who adopt this approach differ in their understandings of both the specifics of the slander and why it was unjustified:
Intermarriage
Miryam and Aharon disparage Moshe for marrying someone who was not an Israelite.
- In Moshe's youth, before he married Zipporah – Rashbam, basing himself on an obscure Midrashic work, Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbenu,2 claims that after Moshe fled from Egypt, he became the king of Cush for forty years,3 and it was during this period that he married the queen of Cush.4 For Rashbam, it is difficult to understand why Moshe's siblings are suddenly dredging up an event which occurred many decades before.
- During the Israelite's trek through the wilderness – R"Y Bekhor Shor5 and Shadal, on the other hand, assume that the marriage took place after Moshe was already the leader of the nation,6 and they attribute no royal status to the Cushite woman. According to them, Miryam and Aharon's complaint logically follows this recent event.
- Intermarriage itself – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor maintains that the siblings are bothered by the fact that Moshe married a foreign woman of an uncircumcised nation. The Cushites, in particular, were descendants of Cham, which might be viewed as even more problematic.7
- Hubris – Both R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Shadal suggest that Miryam and Aharon criticized Moshe for being vain and thinking that the women of Israel were not good enough for him.8
- Jealousy – In his HaMishtadel, Shadal raises the possibility that the siblings were hoping that Moshe would marry one of their children,9 and were thus upset when he opted instead for a foreigner.
- Yes – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and Shadal, there appears to be no Biblical prohibition. Even according to them, though, it would not seem to be a recommended course of action, and no justification is provided for Moshe's taking of a foreign wife given he had the opportunity to marry within his own nation. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor leaves this question unanswered, saying merely: "ואעפ"י שלא נודע למה היתה סיבה זאת של משה, אין גלויין לנו כל הסודות".11
- No – This appears to motivate Rashbam's position (following the Midrash) that Moshe's marriage to the Cushite woman took place long before the Exodus, and that, in addition, Moshe never consummated the marriage.
- No alternative – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Shadal explain that the siblings were not bothered by Moshe's marriage to Zipporah, even though she was also a foreigner, since while he was in Midyan, fleeing from Egypt, there were no Israelites to marry.12
- Descendant of Avraham – Rashbam distinguishes between Zipporah, a descendant of Keturah and Avraham, and the Cushite woman who was a descendant of the accursed Cham.
Abstinence
Miryam and Aharon criticize Moshe for abstaining from marital relations with his wife.
- Zipporah – Almost all of these commentators identify the Cushite with Moshe's known wife, Zipporah. However, as the Torah clearly states that Zipporah came from Midyan,14 and not Cush, these commentators are forced15 to render the "Cushite" appellation as a figurative term:16
- A woman from Cush – Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) asserts that the verse is referring to the Queen of Cush.19
- According to most of these commentators,24 it was only after the appointment of the elders that the details of Moshe's married life became known to Miryam. When Zipporah lamented the fate of the spouses of the new prophets, she inadvertently revealed her own situation to her sister-in-law.
- Ran, instead, asserts that until this point the siblings had justified Moshe's neglect of his wife, thinking that his all consuming leadership responsibilities left no time for family life. With the appointment of assistants, this excuse was no longer valid.
- Alternatively, it was only recently that Yitro had returned Zipporah to Moshe.25
- Explaining God's intervention – According to Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) and R. Hirsch the statement is clarifying that Moshe himself was not bothered by his siblings' criticism. Since he would never defend himself, Hashem intervened on his behalf.
- Clarifying the complaint – Abarbanel asserts that this statement is not a parenthetical statement made by the text, but is rather a rhetorical question posed by Miryam and Aharon.26 They raise, and reject, the possibility that it is Moshe's extreme humility that led him to abstain from relations.
- Defense of Moshe – R. Hirsch suggests that this statement proves that Moshe's actions could not have been motivated by any feelings of pride or gloating.27
- Defense of Miryam and Aharon – R. Hirsch further proposes that Moshe's extreme modesty is what led the siblings to their error. Due to Moshe's humility, they never knew that there was a difference in the level of Moshe's prophetic status and that he, thus, had a good reason for his separation from Zipporah.
- Double beauty – Sifre and Rashi suggest that the doubling comes to teach that Zipporah was beautiful (their understanding of "Cushite") both inside and out.
- Miryam's speech – Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel propose that this is not the narrator's words, but rather the content of Miryam's speech.32
Polygamy
Moshe's siblings are upset that he veered from the monogamous ideal by taking an additional wife.
Challenge to Moshe's Authority
Miryam and Aharon's fault lies in their contesting of Moshe's leadership and viewing themselves as his equals.
- Pretext to challenge leadership – It is possible that the main issue is stated in verse 2, where the siblings question Moshe's unique status and suggest that they should be his equal in leadership. The complaint about his wife is merely a pretext to find fault with Moshe's character.
- A question of succession – Alternatively, the two remarks are part of the same issue. The siblings question not Moshe's leadership per se, but the potential succession of his children.40 They highlight his marriage to a foreigner to show that his children are tainted and not suitable to be leaders.