(link to original page)

“We recall the fish that we used to eat in Egypt for free” – Is it plausible that the Egyptians gave fish for free? It is written: “So now go – work; no straw will be given to you”? If straw was not given them free of charge, fish were given for free?! What, then, is the meaning “for free”? Free of the mitzvot. (Sifri, Behaalotcha, 87)

For this reason people hated the Land. Being hard-hearted and uncharitable, they had no desire to exchange a place where charity is optional for a place where it is obligatory. They sincerely declared “We recall the fish that we used to eat in Egypt for free” – and our sages explained homiletically “free of the mitzvot”. The meaning of this is that they would eat without giving terumot u’maaserot – heave-offerings and tithes – (for this reason they also enumerated the cucumbers and the watermelons, etc., for all these are exempt from maaser outside the Land – even as rabbinical obligations – and compulsory within the Land only as a rabbinical injunction). Their declaration “free of the mitzvot” indicated stinginess towards the priest of God; therefore, they disliked the Land with its obligation. The women of that generation, however, were righteous, and cherished charity – both the mitzvah of challah which is directed primarily at women and is obligatory in the Land, and all the other terumot and maasrot. This is what our Sages had in mind when they said, “In the merit of the righteous woman of that generation, our fathers were delivered from Egypt” – meaning that because of their merit they [our fathers] went from a place of permission – reshut – to a place of obligation for which their [the women’s’] hearts yearned, and thus our Sages described the daughters of Tzlafchad as ‘righteous women’ because they cherished charity, and therefore they asked “Give us a holding”. (Kli Yakar, Bemidbar 26, 64)

Dedicated to the speedy recovery of my cousin,

Eran, son of Rachel and Michael

Our parasha concludes with the story of Miriam’s and Aharon’s criticism of Moshe regarding his wife and of Miriam’s being afflicted by tzaraat. The pivotal point of the story is that singular, pointed and powerful prayer of Moshe, our teacher:

“O God, pray, heal her.”

Moshe’s brief entreaty is all the more striking against the background of his lengthy argument in the adjacent incident of Kivrot HaTaava (Burial-Places of the Craving): “Moshe said: Six hundred thousand on foot — are there flocks and herds that may be slain for them . . . are there all the fish of the sea to be caught for them?”

I should like to treat a few aspects of Moshe’s prayer.

1. Relating to “pray heal her”, Rashi quotes the midrash in the Sifri:

2. The Sifri emphasizes the supplicant’s external motivation – public opinion – which influenced Moshe in formulation of his short prayer (“lest Israel say…)

A completely different approach emerges from two incidents which occurred in Rabbi Eliezer’s bet midrash (Berachot 34a):

It is interesting to compare the positions presented by the midrashim in the Sifri and in Berachot.

Moshe’s prayer is the spontaneous prayer of an individual; in Rabbi Eliezer’s bet midrash, the prayer is established public prayer. A student leads the service, the other students are dissatisfied, once because of the length, once because of the brevity. Rabbi Eliezer sanctions both, even though we are dealing with organized prayer which has clear rules.

While the Sifri feels the need to rationalize the brevity of Moshe’s impromptu appeal — explaining it as a reaction to the pressure of public opinion — Rabbi Eliezer sees Moshe’s prayer as an ideal worthy of emulation, a paradigm with which he deflects the pressure of his community of students.

It seems that Rabbi Eliezer stresses the personal emotional experience of the supplicant, preferring it to the accepted customs practiced in public prayer.

The pshat – the plain reading – of our parasha seems to be closer to the position taken by the berayta in Berachot. Moshe’s brief prayer was accepted as a prayer of few words packed with personal emotional significance. The seemingly apologetic explanation offered by the Sifri may be seen as a homiletic exposition based upon the proximity of the prayer to the chapter on the Kivrot HaTaava. He relates the Israelite’s grumbling here to the grumbling there.

Moshe’s passionate outburst can also be understood in the light of the special circumstances before us. Moshe, the most humble of men, is simultaneously hurt and rebellious. He is hurt by his sister’s remarks, but he rushes to her assistance, upset at the sight of the terrible tzaraat which has afflicted her body.

It seems that the basis for Moshe’s short and wonderful prayer is not his anxiety for “what will the people say”, but the complete internal process which he is undergoing – both because of his sister’s words and because of her appearance. This results in Moshe’s poignant outcry:

[The Torah] returns to warn regarding purity, for the nature of the Holy Service is that it can elevate man’s heart in the ways of God, but one must be cautious lest he stumble on the obstacles of pride over others and desecration of the Holy Name, through even a minor infraction. So whoever is greater than his fellow, so is his inclination to commit transgressions uncommon to other men. Thus, proximity to holiness leads to tum’ah, as in the words of the prophet Haggai (2:13): “If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled? . . .” And, as actually happened to Korach and his Levite followers, whose greatness caused them to stumble; therefore, the warning to maintain their state of purity after their service in the Tent of Appointme. (Netziv, Haamek Davar, Bemidbar 8:15).

“Moshe approached the fog” – this resulted from his humility, as is said, “Moshe was a very humble man”. Scripture tells us that whoever is humble, will eventually spread Shekhina – the Divine Presence – among men on earth, as is written, “For thus said He who high aloft forever dwells, whose name is holy”, and it says, “The spirit of God is upon me.” And it says “All these were created by my hand,” and it says “True sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit”. Whoever is prideful causes the earth to become impure, and removes the Shekhina, as is said “I cannot endure the haughty and proud man.” All the prideful are termed ‘abomination’, as is written, “Every haughty person is a abomination before God.” Idolatry is called ‘abomination’ as is written, “You shall not bring abomination into your house.” Just as idolatry contaminates the Land and dispels the Shekhina. Moshe approached the fog which was within three partitions – darkness, cloud, and fog – darkness on the outside, cloud on the inside, fog yet further inside, as is written, “and Moshe approached the fog.”

This was the argument of the convert in the chapter of “Bameh Madlikin” and the reason for Shammai’s rejection of him. Shammai had reached the level of yir’ah — of awe — which is accompanied by gevura – courage, and by kapdanut – strictness — which was the level of our father Yitzhak, o”h, from whom Israel evolved. Therefore, he (Shammai) rebuffed converts, as related in the chapter Bameh Madlikin. . . . Hillel’s humility brought them near, like Moshe our teacher o”h, who was very humble, and therefore he brought close the airev rav – the non-Israelites who joined the Israelites in the Exodus . . . And so was our father Avraham o”h humble, as is written in Tractate Berachot “Woe [upon the passing of] this humble person, disciple of our father Avraham o”h”. Therefore he was the father of converts, as we learned in Bikkurim. Humility includes the appreciation of one’s deficiency as compared with the greatness of The Holy One, Blessed Be He, and therefore has no place for belittling the convert who has come with his staff and pouch, for He who told oil to burn can tell vinegar to burn and it will burn, and he can put fire into vinegar, as with “God, created within me a pure heart”, and creation is ex nihilo.

. . . The pride and arrogance of mortals derive from their lack of recognition of their standing before God, and therefore only the man Moshe merited the unique description “very humble” (and not simply “humble” ), a designation accorded no prophet other than Moshe.

We will be happy to have you actively participate in “Shabbat Shalom” by:

1. Letters to the editor


2. Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)


3. Membership in Oz V’Shalom – Netivot Shalom and payment of dues.

Tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund. Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto,Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom was founded in 1975 in order to present an alternative expression of religious Zionism. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been centrato Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom was established by a group of awho were alarmed by the growing militance which they saw in most of the religious Zionist community. They were aware that religious fundamentalism, gaining hold throughout the region, mounted the greatest threat to possible coexistence, and believed that the only effective counter arguments would also need to stem from religious tradition. They were convinced that the established religious Zionist camp had become distanced from the values which had originally been its cornerstones.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a powerful attachment to the land of Israel and nevertheless views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have a religious obligation no less than a national one to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs on a variety of topics are held for youth, students, educators and families, while protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance. We publish 9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading that is distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and is sent overseas via email.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums attract not only religious Israelis, but also secular people who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues. In many respects, therefore, Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills the ideological vacuum which has been created and counteracts the stridency which is emerging in the right-wing community.

Committed to Jewish tradition and law, while supporting peace, equality and co-existence, Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is in a unique position to enter into a dialogue with both the secular left and the religious right.