Difference between revisions of "Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage/1/he"
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<h1>ביקורת מרים על משה והכושית</h1> | <h1>ביקורת מרים על משה והכושית</h1> | ||
<h2>Dual Grievance</h2> | <h2>Dual Grievance</h2> | ||
− | <p><a href="Bemidbar12-1" data-aht="source"> | + | <p><a href="Bemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">במדבר י"ב</a> opens with Miryam and Aharon voicing a double complaint regarding Moshe:</p> |
− | < | + | <q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> |
− | + | <p>(א) וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח.<br/>(ב) וַיֹּאמְרוּ הֲרַק אַךְ בְּמֹשֶׁה דִּבֶּר ה' הֲלֹא גַּם בָּנוּ דִבֵּר וַיִּשְׁמַע ה'.</p> | |
− | + | </q> | |
− | |||
<p>These verses raise several questions:</p> | <p>These verses raise several questions:</p> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li> | + | <li>מיהי "הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית" שלקח משה,<fn>שאלות אלו מניחות את הקריאה הרגילה שהאישה הכושית הייתה נשואה למשה. ראו מ' בן-ישר ("<a href="https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/behaalot/ben.html">תלונת מרים ואהרן</a>", דף שבועי, אוניברסיטת בר אילן, תשס"ו) לקריאה חלופית, לפיה אהרן, לא משה, הוא זה שנישא לאישה הכושית, ואשתו הכושית של אהרן היא זו שהניעה אותו להתלונן על מעמדו של משה. פרשנות זו מחייבת לתרגם את הביטוי בפסוק "עַל אֹדוֹת" כ"עקב", ולא "לגבי". בעוד שיש לגישה חדשנית זו מספר קשיים, היתרון שלה הוא בכך שאהרן (ומרים) מגישים תלונה אחת בלבד, ולא שתי תלונות שלכאורה לא קשורות.</fn> and when did he do so? Why would Moshe have taken a second wife in addition to his aforementioned wife, Zipporah, and why a woman from Cush rather than one from his own nation?</li> |
<li>On what grounds did Miryam and Aharon object to Moshe's marriage?</li> | <li>On what grounds did Miryam and Aharon object to Moshe's marriage?</li> | ||
− | <li>How did Miryam and Aharon's initial critique about the Cushite woman ( | + | <li>How did Miryam and Aharon's initial critique about the Cushite woman (י"ב:א') relate to their second utterance questioning the uniqueness of Moshe's relationship with Hashem (י"ב:ב')?</li> |
<li>Was all of this merely idle gossip or did their conversation have a more sinister intent?</li> | <li>Was all of this merely idle gossip or did their conversation have a more sinister intent?</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
<h2>Viewed in Context</h2> | <h2>Viewed in Context</h2> | ||
− | <p>This episode fits well within the | + | <p>This episode fits well within the בהקשר הרחב יותר של במדבר י"א–י"ז which presents a series of incidents in which either the entire Israelite nation or selected individuals from it defy Moshe's authority. This could indicate that Miryam and Aharon's actions were part of a larger behavioral pattern plaguing the nation as a whole.</p> |
<p>However, there are also a number of elements in our story which distinguish it from the surrounding narratives. Significantly, Miryam and Aharon's criticism relates to Moshe's personal conduct rather than his public leadership role. Additionally, the Divine punishment meted out to them is much less severe than in the other cases. Finally, all three individuals involved here are generally viewed as paragons of virtue and leaders of our people. Thus, in attempting to comprehend our story, many exegetes attempt to present both sides of the conflict as reasonable and to portray the actions of all of the characters in as positive a light as possible.</p> | <p>However, there are also a number of elements in our story which distinguish it from the surrounding narratives. Significantly, Miryam and Aharon's criticism relates to Moshe's personal conduct rather than his public leadership role. Additionally, the Divine punishment meted out to them is much less severe than in the other cases. Finally, all three individuals involved here are generally viewed as paragons of virtue and leaders of our people. Thus, in attempting to comprehend our story, many exegetes attempt to present both sides of the conflict as reasonable and to portray the actions of all of the characters in as positive a light as possible.</p> | ||
− | <h2> | + | <h2>תגובת ה'</h2> |
<p>Hashem's defense of Moshe is immediate and forceful:</p> | <p>Hashem's defense of Moshe is immediate and forceful:</p> | ||
− | < | + | <q class="" dir="rtl" lang="he"> |
− | + | <p>(ד) וַיֹּאמֶר ה' פִּתְאֹם אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל מִרְיָם צְאוּ שְׁלָשְׁתְּכֶם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּצְאוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּם. (ה) וַיֵּרֶד ה' בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן וַיַּעֲמֹד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם וַיֵּצְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. (ו) וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְעוּ נָא דְבָרָי אִם יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֲכֶם ה' בַּמַּרְאָה אֵלָיו אֶתְוַדָּע בַּחֲלוֹם אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ. (ז) לֹא כֵן עַבְדִּי מֹשֶׁה בְּכָל בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא. (ח) פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת וּתְמֻנַת ה' יַבִּיט וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא יְרֵאתֶם לְדַבֵּר בְּעַבְדִּי בְמֹשֶׁה. (ט) וַיִּחַר אַף ה' בָּם וַיֵּלַךְ. (י) וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת.</p> | |
− | + | </q> | |
− | |||
<p>Yet, while Hashem's words directly address the issue of Moshe having no equals in the level of his communication with the Divine, they do not make explicit mention of the Cushite woman. Why was this matter omitted, or was it somehow subsumed in Hashem's response? Is it possible that Miryam and Aharon's concerns were justified on this point? Furthermore, if all Miryam and Aharon did was engage in inappropriate prattle between themselves, why did this warrant such a public humiliation for Miryam and the Torah's indelible recording of their actions for posterity?</p> | <p>Yet, while Hashem's words directly address the issue of Moshe having no equals in the level of his communication with the Divine, they do not make explicit mention of the Cushite woman. Why was this matter omitted, or was it somehow subsumed in Hashem's response? Is it possible that Miryam and Aharon's concerns were justified on this point? Furthermore, if all Miryam and Aharon did was engage in inappropriate prattle between themselves, why did this warrant such a public humiliation for Miryam and the Torah's indelible recording of their actions for posterity?</p> | ||
− | <p> | + | <p>ב<a href="2" data-aht="subpage">גישות פרשניות</a>, we will examine how exegetes throughout the ages have grappled with this enigmatic text and attempted to weave together a coherent narrative. While doing so, they present a fascinating array of views regarding Moshe's marital status and family life, the nature of his siblings' criticism, and the significance of the punishment of leprosy.<fn>ראו גם <a href="Tzara'at" data-aht="page">צרעת</a>.</fn></p> |
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> |
Version as of 05:57, 20 August 2019
ביקורת מרים על משה והכושית
הקדמה
Dual Grievance
במדבר י"ב opens with Miryam and Aharon voicing a double complaint regarding Moshe:
(א) וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח.
(ב) וַיֹּאמְרוּ הֲרַק אַךְ בְּמֹשֶׁה דִּבֶּר ה' הֲלֹא גַּם בָּנוּ דִבֵּר וַיִּשְׁמַע ה'.
These verses raise several questions:
- מיהי "הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית" שלקח משה,1 and when did he do so? Why would Moshe have taken a second wife in addition to his aforementioned wife, Zipporah, and why a woman from Cush rather than one from his own nation?
- On what grounds did Miryam and Aharon object to Moshe's marriage?
- How did Miryam and Aharon's initial critique about the Cushite woman (י"ב:א') relate to their second utterance questioning the uniqueness of Moshe's relationship with Hashem (י"ב:ב')?
- Was all of this merely idle gossip or did their conversation have a more sinister intent?
Viewed in Context
This episode fits well within the בהקשר הרחב יותר של במדבר י"א–י"ז which presents a series of incidents in which either the entire Israelite nation or selected individuals from it defy Moshe's authority. This could indicate that Miryam and Aharon's actions were part of a larger behavioral pattern plaguing the nation as a whole.
However, there are also a number of elements in our story which distinguish it from the surrounding narratives. Significantly, Miryam and Aharon's criticism relates to Moshe's personal conduct rather than his public leadership role. Additionally, the Divine punishment meted out to them is much less severe than in the other cases. Finally, all three individuals involved here are generally viewed as paragons of virtue and leaders of our people. Thus, in attempting to comprehend our story, many exegetes attempt to present both sides of the conflict as reasonable and to portray the actions of all of the characters in as positive a light as possible.
תגובת ה'
Hashem's defense of Moshe is immediate and forceful:
(ד) וַיֹּאמֶר ה' פִּתְאֹם אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל מִרְיָם צְאוּ שְׁלָשְׁתְּכֶם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּצְאוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּם. (ה) וַיֵּרֶד ה' בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן וַיַּעֲמֹד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם וַיֵּצְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. (ו) וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְעוּ נָא דְבָרָי אִם יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֲכֶם ה' בַּמַּרְאָה אֵלָיו אֶתְוַדָּע בַּחֲלוֹם אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ. (ז) לֹא כֵן עַבְדִּי מֹשֶׁה בְּכָל בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא. (ח) פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת וּתְמֻנַת ה' יַבִּיט וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא יְרֵאתֶם לְדַבֵּר בְּעַבְדִּי בְמֹשֶׁה. (ט) וַיִּחַר אַף ה' בָּם וַיֵּלַךְ. (י) וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת.
Yet, while Hashem's words directly address the issue of Moshe having no equals in the level of his communication with the Divine, they do not make explicit mention of the Cushite woman. Why was this matter omitted, or was it somehow subsumed in Hashem's response? Is it possible that Miryam and Aharon's concerns were justified on this point? Furthermore, if all Miryam and Aharon did was engage in inappropriate prattle between themselves, why did this warrant such a public humiliation for Miryam and the Torah's indelible recording of their actions for posterity?
בגישות פרשניות, we will examine how exegetes throughout the ages have grappled with this enigmatic text and attempted to weave together a coherent narrative. While doing so, they present a fascinating array of views regarding Moshe's marital status and family life, the nature of his siblings' criticism, and the significance of the punishment of leprosy.2