Echoes of Eden
Rabbi Ari Kahn
Parashat Pinchas 5776
Like a Princess
Last week’s parashah ended in chaos: Promiscuity, idolatry, and death had somehow overrun the Israelite camp. To be sure, throughout the forty years in the desert
there had been episodes of
spiritual backsliding, but this
episode was different, both in character and in scope: Twenty-four thousand people lost
their lives as a result of this disaster.
It
began with trysts with the women of Moav, and soon escalated into idolatry. A
plague sweeps through the camp, wreaking havoc and death. In the midst of this anarchy, a leader of the tribe of Shimon
named Zimri, who ostensibly
should have been a part of the solution, takes a Midianite woman and joins the sinful revelry. Pinchas heroically confronts the sinners and stops them in their tracks.
God
then commands that revenge be taken against Midian. We are left somewhat perplexed by this verdict: The main
culprits were daughters of Moav, who seduced thousands of Israelite men into sin. Kozbi, Zimri’s partner in crime,
appears to have been the only Midianite involved in the entire episode. Why,
then, are her people, the entire
Midianite nation, singled out for retribution?
Balak, the King
of Moav, was the primary
instigator of the original
plan to foil the Israelites’ advance: It was he, the
King of Moav, who commissioned a seer of some repute, Bilam son of Beor, to curse the Jews - a plot foiled by God Himself, who turned the curses into blessings. The Moavite king reached out to his erstwhile adversaries, the Midianites, and invited them to join the fray. (B’midbar
22:2-4) Once again, Balak and his people, the Moavites, were the instigators of both strategies; it is they, and
not the Midianites, who
should have been the most harshly punished.
The
verses themselves, as well as some of the commentaries on the parashah, lead us to several conclusions: Moav was situated in the direct path of the Israelites’ advance, and the Moavites were scared. They wished to preserve their way of life and to retain possession of their
lands, and they saw the Israelites as a direct
existential threat. Their behavior, though
preemptive, was defensive. Not so the Midianites: When summoned to join forces against
the Jews, they did so with enthusiasm, despite the fact that they themselves were not threatened: Their
land was not under threat of siege, their way of life was secure. Had they not sought out contact with the Israelites, the conquest Canaan would have
remained for them a news item from abroad and nothing more. Their involvement was ideologically
motivated: They joined the Moavite attack not out of
love for their homeland, not
as a response to an imminent threat, but out of pure hatred for the Jews.
There
are additional elements that point to a vast difference between the motivations
of the Moavites and the Midianites: The Torah is not
clear as to who initiated the contact between the Moavite women and the Israelite men; was it the daughters
of Moav, perhaps as per Bilam’s advice, or was it the Israelite men who first approached these young women? Either way, the sin of adultery soon ballooned into idolatry as well. Be that as it may, the identity of Zimri’s
Midianite partner, Kozbi the daughter of Zur, a prince or king of Midian, indicates the Midianites’ ideological bent: This was no “simple” affair. A member of the royal family of Midian was sent to conduct a demonstrative act of defiance
against the religious, social and political mores of Israelite society.
There
are those who would characterize the decree to destroy Midian as a
“disproportionate response;” God does not agree. The Midianites,
and not the Moavites, are
to be eradicated. The
battle against Midian is ideological. It is a battle against those whose war
against us was born of religious zeal and hatred, hence the extreme response. Perhaps the lesson is that when a
battle is based on conflicting
claims to land, property, or resources, an arrangement and understanding can eventually be reached, but when the strife is based on ideology and religious
hatred, achieving an understanding is much more difficult.
Careful
consideration of the Torah’s attitude toward Moav supports
this insight: Moav is held accountable for hiring
Bilam to curse the Israelites. (D’varim 23:5) Somewhat
surprisingly, the entire issue of the adultery and the resultant idolatry into
which the Moavite women led the Israelite men is not mentioned. We may
therefore surmise that the interaction between Moav
and Israel began with an absence of malice on belligerence. Perhaps Moav abandoned their plans of confounding the
Israelite conquest and
sought instead to take the road of cooptation or cooperation. The Israelite men, and not the Moavite women, initiated the illicit
contact between them; for this reason, no mention of
any sexual or idolatrous cabal is mentioned in the final account of the events.
Yet
this scenario seems at odds with a different aspect of the Torah’s attitude toward Moav: Moav is one of the tribes with
whom the Torah forbids intermarriage even
after conversion
to Judaism. The Talmud (perhaps motivated
by the precedent of a famous Moavite named Ruth, who
converted and married into the Jewish community) clarifies that the
limitation applies only to Moavite men, but not women; the latter may
convert and marry into the Jewish people.
The Talmudic understanding
of this law arises from a Torah verse:
An Ammonite or Moavite may not enter the
congregation of God.
… This is because they did not greet you with bread and water
when you were on the way out of Egypt, and also because they hired Bilam son of Beor from
Petor in Aram Naharaim to curse you. (Dvarim 23:4-5)
The Moavites
are held accountable only for their attempt to curse the Israelite nation; they were not guilty of
seducing the Israelites, either to adultery or to idolatry. They were, however,
guilty of an additional sin,
a sin of omission: They failed to greet the Israelites
with bread and water. This seems a strange accusation indeed: Is it realistic to have expected this nation to greet the Jews with open arms and open
hearts, to share valuable resources with them and assist them on their journey to the Promised
Land? In fact, this is precisely what the Torah
expects of them: The Moavites are the descendants of Lot, our forefather Avraham’s
nephew. Lot grew up in Avraham’s tent, where he
learned the virtue of
hospitality. This sensibility should have been passed
on to his descendants. Instead, they behaved selfishly, even brutally, toward a
tribe with whom they shared a common patriarch; they extended them no aid in
their time of need, and hired a powerful spiritual force to curse them.
This being so, we might ask why the
prohibition against intermarriage with Moavites makes a distinction between men
and women. Surely, they all failed to extend a helping hand to the
Israelites. The Talmud cites a verse in Tehilim
to explain why the law forbids marriage only with the men of Moav: Only the men
were expected to meet the Israelites with food and drink, because “The dignity
of a daughter of the king is within” (Tehilim 45:14)
While this verse might be understood as
referring to modesty or regal bearing, the Talmud understands the verse in
terms of geography: The daughters of the King of Moav remained inside their
homes. We might contrast their behavior with that of Kozbi, the princess of
Midian who seduced Zimri into a public display of sexuality that was, for all
intents and purposes, a revolt. Although the common girls of Moav became
involved with Israelite men, it was the daughter of the prince of Midian who
used her body as a weapon in the war against the Jews.
The women of Moav were not judged harshly
for failing to offer bread and water; they were friendly – if anything, they
were too friendly. For this reason, they are permitted to marry into the
Jewish people. On the other hand, Kozbi, the daughter of Midianite nobility who
behaved in a most ignoble manner, brought shame and death upon her people.
For more in depth study see:
Echoes of Eden
