Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Behaalotekha/0/en
Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Behaalotekha
Second Chances
In Bemidbar 9, several ritually impure people request from Moshe that they not be left out of participating in the Paschal rite.
- Nature of the request – Considering that it is prohibited for the impure to eat of sacrifices, on what basis do the people expect Moshe to allow them to participate? Is their request grounded in legal arguments, with the working assumption that the prohibition should not apply to them,1 or are they asking for a humanitarian measure, and that Moshe override the law?2 Alternatively, are they simply asking to bring the offering at a different time?3 Which possibility is best supported by the verses? Is it even possible for Moshe to overrule a Torah prohibition? See Pesach Sheni – The People's Petition.
- Second chances – Why does Hashem allow for "second chances" with regards to the Pesach and not other commandments? Should people always be given a second chance, or are there instances when doing so is not warranted? What does our story suggest about who deserves a second chance and who might not?
Miracles in the Wilderness: The Selav
After the nation complains about the tediousness of their diet of manna, Hashem provides them with שליו. They gluttonously devour it, and with the "meat still between their teeth" Hashem smites them.
- Though most identify the שליו as quail, a minority opinion asserts that it refers to fish. How might each identification illuminate the Biblical account? For elaboration, see שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl
- The nation's complaint of "אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ" would suggest that it was their sole source of nourishment. The Hoil Moshe disagrees, suggesting that the manna served only as a supplement and that there were often other food options. What might be prompting this position? What does it suggest about the miraculous (or not so miraculous) nature of the Israelite's wandering in the Wilderness? See Life in the Wilderness for more.
Idle Gossip or a Challenge to Authority?
How is Miryam and Aharon's critique of Moshe to be understood? Was this simply idle and misguided chatter, or did they have a more fundamental disagreement with his behavior leading them to question his authority as leader?
- The Sifre views Miryam and Aharon as intending no harm, and in fact trying to improve Moshe's family life by encouraging the resumption of normal relations between Moshe and Zipporah. Modern scholars,4 in contrast, cast Miryam and Aharon in a negative light, suggesting that they were contesting Moshe's leadership and claiming to be his equals. With whom do you agree? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each position?
- R"Y Bekhor Shor presents the siblings as being troubled by what they perceived as hubris in Moshe's decision to marry a non-Israelite. Was intermarriage prohibited at this point in history? Is it a Biblical prohibition at all? Even if not, was not marrying an Israelite the ideal, and Miryam and Aharon, thus, somewhat justified in their complaint?
- Is it always wrong to speak about another? What if your intentions are to help the individual? If you find another person's actions troubling, is it problematic to consult a third party about their behavior before approaching the person yourself?
- For elaboration,see Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage.
Who is Chovav?
Chovav is introduced to the reader as, "Chovav the son of Reuel the Midianite, the choten of Moshe." From the verse, it is unclear whether Reuel or Chovav was the choten of Moshe, though Shofetim 4:11 clearly identifies Chovav as such. At the same time, in Shemot 2, it is Reuel, not Chovav, who is described as Tzipporah's father To further confuse matters, in many places in Sefer Shemot, a third character, Yitro, is described as Moshe's choten. What is the relationship between the various individuals? How can they all be Moshe's choten?
- The question depends to a large degree on the meaning of the word choten. Does it refer only to one's father-in-law5 or might it refer also to one's brother-in-law, as he also played a role in contracting the marriage?6 For elaboration, see חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת.
- The Mekhilta posits that all three characters are in fact one individual with multiple names. This is consistent with the general tendency of Rabbinic Midrash to consolidate characters by identifying different names with the same person. See Identifications for many other examples and analysis. In our case, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach?7
- If Yitro and Chovav are the same person, why is he still in the Israelite camp? Does not Shemot 18 state that Yitro went home? Did he come back? Why? For discussion, see Yitro's Life After Shemot 18 and Yitro – Religious Identity.
- For elaboration and other approaches regarding the possible relationship between the three characters, see Yitro – Names.
