Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)
After Dusun and Avirum refuse Moshe’s request that they meet with him face-to-face (Bamidbar 16:12), they verbally attack him (16:13-14). Their refusal is then punctuated with these enigmatic words (pardon my opening translation): “Will you gouge out the eyes of those men? We will not go up (i.e. appear before you)!” What do these words mean? Did they really think that Moshe might gouge out anyone’s eyes?
Rashi understands these words as one statement; “even if you send someone to gouge out our eyes if we do not go up to you, we will not go up.” Even though the eyes being gouged out belonged to “them,” they really meant themselves, but they didn’t want to talk about themselves being harmed. The commentators explain why Rashi uses this approach, including how what seems to be a question can be a statement (see Gur Aryeh), Nevertheless, unless they thought that Moshe might actually physically blind them, the choice of the perceived threat, and the graphic means used to describe how he would blind them, seems a bit peculiar. The Or Hachayim says that they were using an example of the kind of pain and suffering they would prefer to endure rather than having to appear before Moshe. Still, there must be a reason why they chose this specific example.
Rashbam is among the numerous commentators (e.g. Midrash Agada and Chizkuni) that explain these words metaphorically; “Do you think that these men complaining against you have no eyes to see?” They aren’t blind, and can see what you have done to them (and haven’t done for them), bringing them out of a very good land (Egypt), promising them a better one but only bringing them into the desert to die. Rabbeinu Bachye quotes a similar approach (likely referring to the Tur), but instead of “them” referring to those complaining, it refers to those that came out of Egypt (even those that aren’t actually complaining). Other variations on this include the approach of the Tzaidah LaDerech, where the blindness they are accusing Moshe of trying to cause would be brought about by bribing them; “will you cause them to turn a blind eye by giving them prominent leadership positions?” In order to address the issue of it being “them” that will be blinded (and not “us,” i.e. Dusun and Avirum), the Tzaidah LaDerech suggests that they are saying “even if you bribed us, causing us to disregard what you have done, will you be able to blind all the others” that are part of the rebellion? Ibn Ezra suggests that the “them” are the elders that had remained on Moshe’s side (see 16:25), with Dusun and Avirum telling Moshe that eventually he will lose all of his support. Tzror Hamor understands the “them” to be the Levi’im, i.e. even if you could blind them, convincing your own Tribe that they “have plenty” and shouldn’t want the Priesthood too, we (Dusun and Avirum) cannot be blinded, and will not “go up” (see Alshich). Similarly, the Malbim says that Dusun and Avirum were saying that even if you could fool everyone else, you can’t fool us.
The Kesav Sofer suggests that Dusun and Avirum’s response to Moshe was a long accusation that he craved leadership and did things in order to attain and maintain it; he took them out of Egypt so that he could be their leader, and, knowing that he wouldn’t be their leader once they reached the Promised Land, conspired to delay them for decades in the wilderness. Doing so prevented the next leaders, the “eyes” of the nation, from taking over, so they were accusing Moshe of “gouging out” (keeping down) the “eyes” (leaders) of “those men” (the rest of the nation).
After giving two ways of understanding the words of Dusun and Avirum metaphorically (either they are stating that even a blind person can tell that Moshe has little substance to back him up or they are asking if Moshe plans to blind them so that they won’t understand the wrong being done to them), the Pa’anayach Raza (one of the later Tosafists) suggests that the “them” refers to the nations living in Canaan, i.e. “even if you blind those in Canaan (such as with the poison of the hornets, see Rashi on Shemos 23:28) we will not be able to go up and conquer them because they are so strong.” (HaKesav VeHaKabbala understands Targum Yonasan to be saying this as well.) This is also the second approach suggested by R’ Chaim Paltiel; his first is that until Moshe is able to blind the nations in Canaan (i.e. conquers them), they will not answer his summons. Targum Yonasan also understands the “them” as being the nations in Canaan, but takes a slightly different approach with some understanding the suggestion to be that Dusun and Avirum were saying that Moshe won’t be able to blind those living in Canaan, and therefore will be unable to conquer it. The Rokayach gives a fourth variation on this theme, suggesting that the Amori’im (one of the primary nations living in Canaan) will blind the eyes of the Children of Israel, i.e. they will prevent them from “going up” and conquering the land.
The Rokayach’s second approach is also interesting; Dusun and Avirum will not meet with Moshe, in essence gouging out the eyes of Moshe and Aharon by refusing to answer his summons. The Ran (Moed Katan 16a), Midrash Hacheifetz, and Midrash Lekach Tov also explain the “them” to be referring to Moshe and Aharon, with Yalkut M’or Afeila suggesting that Dusun and Avirum didn’t use the word “them” (but said “your eyes,” i.e. Moshe’s); the Torah itself changed it to “them” in deference to Moshe.
The term for “gouging out eyes” (“nikur einayim”) is used elsewhere in Tanach, and, as Rav Elchanan Samet (www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/38korach.htm) points out, it is meant literally (not metaphorically). Shimshon’s eyes were literally gouged out by the Pelishtim (Shoftom 16:21). When Nachash the Amoni threatened the city of Yavesh Gilad (Shemuel I 11:1), he would only agree not to attack them if everyone gouged out their right eye (11:2; see Rashi who explains it both literally and metaphorically). In Mishlay (30:17), Shelomo HaMelech speaks of the eyes of a disobedient son being gouged out by a raven. Quoting Shemuel Rubinstein’s “Kadmonius HaHalacha,” Rav Samet suggests that having a gouged out eye was a symbol of slavery, as evidenced by what was done to Shimshon, what Nachash wanted to do to the people of Yavesh Gilad, and Nevuchadnetzar blinding Tzidkiyahu HaMelech before locking him up in chains and bringing him to Bavel (Melachim II 25:7). [This gives added perspective to the Torah setting a slave free if his eye is knocked out by his master (Shemos 21:26); whereas other cultures maimed their slaves in order to brand them, the Torah not only forbids maiming slaves, but makes it have the exact opposite affect, as the slave attains freedom instead.] Based on this, Rav Samet says that Dusun and Avirum were paralleling their earlier statement against Moshe’s leadership (Bamidbar 16:13) by asking (rhetorically) whether Moshe planned on gouging out their eyes, i.e. treating them as slaves.
Another approach suggested by Rav Samet is based on Professor Moshe Weinfeld writing (in “Olam HaTanach”) that gouging out the eyes “was a common punishment for rebellion in the ancient east (and especially in the areas of the Hittites). Indeed, one Hittite document contains a threat of putting out eyes for failure to appear before the ruler: ‘When you receive the letter, present yourself immediately; if not – your eyes will be put out.’” Although Rav Samet does not suggest that Dusun or Avirum really feared that Moshe would do this to them (or they would have obliged), he does say that it is part of their attack on Moshe’s leadership, as they were asking (rhetorically) if Moshe was going to treat them as others rulers treat those that disobey them.
Based on these suggestions, I would like to take it a step further. If gouging out an eye was the norm for branding someone as a slave, it makes sense that the punishment for disobeying the ruler was to be treated as less than a peasant, to be maimed the way a slave was, to show that this “rebel” is really the ruler’s subject. Dusun and Avirum knew that Moshe wouldn’t do this, but were continuing their verbal attack by comparing Moshe’s edicts with those of the native (primitive?) cultures. “You (Moshe) claim that your teachings, your laws and edicts (such as Aharon being the Kohain Gadol, the first born being replaced by the Levi’im, and Yosef getting Reuvein’s double-portion in the Promised Land), come directly from the Creator, and are therefore superior (intellectually and morally) to every other system of law, but we deny that. We think you are no different than any other ruler, making laws as you see fit (including giving family members better positions).” And, to drive the point home, they added “will you treat us in the same barbaric way as other rulers, gouging out our eyes for refusing to present ourselves before you? Your edicts are no different (or better) than theirs anyway, so why should the way you treat those that disagree with you be any different?” Although they knew that Moshe would never do such a thing, the point they were making was evident. “You do not have the divine authority to order us around, so we will not go up (before you).
After Dusun and Avirum refuse Moshe’s request that they meet with him face-to-face (Bamidbar 16:12), they verbally attack him (16:13-14). Their refusal is then punctuated with these enigmatic words (pardon my opening translation): “Will you gouge out the eyes of those men? We will not go up (i.e. appear before you)!” What do these words mean? Did they really think that Moshe might gouge out anyone’s eyes?
Rashi understands these words as one statement; “even if you send someone to gouge out our eyes if we do not go up to you, we will not go up.” Even though the eyes being gouged out belonged to “them,” they really meant themselves, but they didn’t want to talk about themselves being harmed. The commentators explain why Rashi uses this approach, including how what seems to be a question can be a statement (see Gur Aryeh), Nevertheless, unless they thought that Moshe might actually physically blind them, the choice of the perceived threat, and the graphic means used to describe how he would blind them, seems a bit peculiar. The Or Hachayim says that they were using an example of the kind of pain and suffering they would prefer to endure rather than having to appear before Moshe. Still, there must be a reason why they chose this specific example.
Rashbam is among the numerous commentators (e.g. Midrash Agada and Chizkuni) that explain these words metaphorically; “Do you think that these men complaining against you have no eyes to see?” They aren’t blind, and can see what you have done to them (and haven’t done for them), bringing them out of a very good land (Egypt), promising them a better one but only bringing them into the desert to die. Rabbeinu Bachye quotes a similar approach (likely referring to the Tur), but instead of “them” referring to those complaining, it refers to those that came out of Egypt (even those that aren’t actually complaining). Other variations on this include the approach of the Tzaidah LaDerech, where the blindness they are accusing Moshe of trying to cause would be brought about by bribing them; “will you cause them to turn a blind eye by giving them prominent leadership positions?” In order to address the issue of it being “them” that will be blinded (and not “us,” i.e. Dusun and Avirum), the Tzaidah LaDerech suggests that they are saying “even if you bribed us, causing us to disregard what you have done, will you be able to blind all the others” that are part of the rebellion? Ibn Ezra suggests that the “them” are the elders that had remained on Moshe’s side (see 16:25), with Dusun and Avirum telling Moshe that eventually he will lose all of his support. Tzror Hamor understands the “them” to be the Levi’im, i.e. even if you could blind them, convincing your own Tribe that they “have plenty” and shouldn’t want the Priesthood too, we (Dusun and Avirum) cannot be blinded, and will not “go up” (see Alshich). Similarly, the Malbim says that Dusun and Avirum were saying that even if you could fool everyone else, you can’t fool us.
The Kesav Sofer suggests that Dusun and Avirum’s response to Moshe was a long accusation that he craved leadership and did things in order to attain and maintain it; he took them out of Egypt so that he could be their leader, and, knowing that he wouldn’t be their leader once they reached the Promised Land, conspired to delay them for decades in the wilderness. Doing so prevented the next leaders, the “eyes” of the nation, from taking over, so they were accusing Moshe of “gouging out” (keeping down) the “eyes” (leaders) of “those men” (the rest of the nation).
After giving two ways of understanding the words of Dusun and Avirum metaphorically (either they are stating that even a blind person can tell that Moshe has little substance to back him up or they are asking if Moshe plans to blind them so that they won’t understand the wrong being done to them), the Pa’anayach Raza (one of the later Tosafists) suggests that the “them” refers to the nations living in Canaan, i.e. “even if you blind those in Canaan (such as with the poison of the hornets, see Rashi on Shemos 23:28) we will not be able to go up and conquer them because they are so strong.” (HaKesav VeHaKabbala understands Targum Yonasan to be saying this as well.) This is also the second approach suggested by R’ Chaim Paltiel; his first is that until Moshe is able to blind the nations in Canaan (i.e. conquers them), they will not answer his summons. Targum Yonasan also understands the “them” as being the nations in Canaan, but takes a slightly different approach with some understanding the suggestion to be that Dusun and Avirum were saying that Moshe won’t be able to blind those living in Canaan, and therefore will be unable to conquer it. The Rokayach gives a fourth variation on this theme, suggesting that the Amori’im (one of the primary nations living in Canaan) will blind the eyes of the Children of Israel, i.e. they will prevent them from “going up” and conquering the land.
The Rokayach’s second approach is also interesting; Dusun and Avirum will not meet with Moshe, in essence gouging out the eyes of Moshe and Aharon by refusing to answer his summons. The Ran (Moed Katan 16a), Midrash Hacheifetz, and Midrash Lekach Tov also explain the “them” to be referring to Moshe and Aharon, with Yalkut M’or Afeila suggesting that Dusun and Avirum didn’t use the word “them” (but said “your eyes,” i.e. Moshe’s); the Torah itself changed it to “them” in deference to Moshe.
The term for “gouging out eyes” (“nikur einayim”) is used elsewhere in Tanach, and, as Rav Elchanan Samet (www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/38korach.htm) points out, it is meant literally (not metaphorically). Shimshon’s eyes were literally gouged out by the Pelishtim (Shoftom 16:21). When Nachash the Amoni threatened the city of Yavesh Gilad (Shemuel I 11:1), he would only agree not to attack them if everyone gouged out their right eye (11:2; see Rashi who explains it both literally and metaphorically). In Mishlay (30:17), Shelomo HaMelech speaks of the eyes of a disobedient son being gouged out by a raven. Quoting Shemuel Rubinstein’s “Kadmonius HaHalacha,” Rav Samet suggests that having a gouged out eye was a symbol of slavery, as evidenced by what was done to Shimshon, what Nachash wanted to do to the people of Yavesh Gilad, and Nevuchadnetzar blinding Tzidkiyahu HaMelech before locking him up in chains and bringing him to Bavel (Melachim II 25:7). [This gives added perspective to the Torah setting a slave free if his eye is knocked out by his master (Shemos 21:26); whereas other cultures maimed their slaves in order to brand them, the Torah not only forbids maiming slaves, but makes it have the exact opposite affect, as the slave attains freedom instead.] Based on this, Rav Samet says that Dusun and Avirum were paralleling their earlier statement against Moshe’s leadership (Bamidbar 16:13) by asking (rhetorically) whether Moshe planned on gouging out their eyes, i.e. treating them as slaves.
Another approach suggested by Rav Samet is based on Professor Moshe Weinfeld writing (in “Olam HaTanach”) that gouging out the eyes “was a common punishment for rebellion in the ancient east (and especially in the areas of the Hittites). Indeed, one Hittite document contains a threat of putting out eyes for failure to appear before the ruler: ‘When you receive the letter, present yourself immediately; if not – your eyes will be put out.’” Although Rav Samet does not suggest that Dusun or Avirum really feared that Moshe would do this to them (or they would have obliged), he does say that it is part of their attack on Moshe’s leadership, as they were asking (rhetorically) if Moshe was going to treat them as others rulers treat those that disobey them.
Based on these suggestions, I would like to take it a step further. If gouging out an eye was the norm for branding someone as a slave, it makes sense that the punishment for disobeying the ruler was to be treated as less than a peasant, to be maimed the way a slave was, to show that this “rebel” is really the ruler’s subject. Dusun and Avirum knew that Moshe wouldn’t do this, but were continuing their verbal attack by comparing Moshe’s edicts with those of the native (primitive?) cultures. “You (Moshe) claim that your teachings, your laws and edicts (such as Aharon being the Kohain Gadol, the first born being replaced by the Levi’im, and Yosef getting Reuvein’s double-portion in the Promised Land), come directly from the Creator, and are therefore superior (intellectually and morally) to every other system of law, but we deny that. We think you are no different than any other ruler, making laws as you see fit (including giving family members better positions).” And, to drive the point home, they added “will you treat us in the same barbaric way as other rulers, gouging out our eyes for refusing to present ourselves before you? Your edicts are no different (or better) than theirs anyway, so why should the way you treat those that disagree with you be any different?” Although they knew that Moshe would never do such a thing, the point they were making was evident. “You do not have the divine authority to order us around, so we will not go up (before you).
No comments:
Post a Comment