King David. Two Perspectives (Daf Yomi - Berakhot 3b-4a)

On the Israeli Religious Zionist scene, a storm has raged in recent weeks about the proper way to study Tanakh (Bible). Does one study the text itself, or does one approach Tanakh exclusively through the filter of Hazal (the early Rabbis)? Now this is a highly politicized debate, but at some level it has focused upon the appropriate manner in which to treat Biblical characters, in particular the heroic ones. Should they be viewed as real people, great people, but with human achievements and also failings, or, alternatively, should they be seen as exemplary, almost superhuman role-models, whose sins are not open to assessment on a regular human sale of measurement?

This question is regularly brought to the fore in my Tanakh classroom, when studying Jacob's trickery of his father, or David's sin with Batsheva and Uriah. How should we assess these figures?

Well, in today's Daf Yomi, we see a classic example of one Rabbinic way of viewing King David that seems at variance with the Tanakh text.

Berakhot 3b-4a views David as the most pious of men, who spends his nights studying Torah and praying to God.

R. Ashi says: Till midnight he (King David) studied the Torah, from thence on he recited songs and praises.

He is a posek, a Rabbinic expert who issues Halakhic rulings on laws of Nidda and the like:

Thus spoke David before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the world, am I not pious? All the kings of the East and the West sit with all their pomp among their company, whereas my hands are soiled with the blood [of menstruation], with the foetus and the placenta, in order to declare a woman clean for her husband

David's advisor Benaayah is the head of the Sanhedrin, and the Kreti and Pleti are the scholars themselves.
I have frequently pondered upon the difference between a Tanakh-based education in the regard, as opposed to a Talmud based education. Let me explain. My children, and the students in the Religious Zionist school system meet David first as a warrior through the pages of Sefer Shemuel. He is the man first described in I Samuel ch. 16 as a man who is:

"... skillful in playing (the harp), a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the LORD is with him."

Our students hear about how he kills the lion and bear, they watch him defeat Goliath and rise up the ranks in the army. They also know him as a principled man who will not kill the king, who wishes to build the Temple,  who understands his place "before God" as he dances in a sense of wild abandon before the Ark, who occasionally sins, but who lives his life with a palpable sense of God in all that he does. They may also know David's religious persona - his humility, passion, repentance, thankfulness, faith, God-awareness - from the Book of Tehillim. But the primary perspective of David is of a man involved in state affairs, a warrior, a deeply religious man, but a worldly person. This is the rpism through which they will view the trials and tribulations, the sins and triumphs that characterized his life.

But for the student who draws a perception of David from Massechet Berachot, David arises every night to sing God's praises, he is a man who debates technical Halakhic minutiae; he is first and foremost a man of prayer, a Talmud scholar. In a similar perception, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 49a) turns Joab's assassination of Avner into a complicated Halakhic debate about the laws of Halitza. David's warriors: Banayahu, Joab, Avner, are in fact, warriors of the Law.

My children see David in army uniform; the children of Meah Shearim see him in a long black coat sitting in the Beit Midrash. The difference is huge.

I am fully aware that at the foundation of this discussion is the genre of Talmudic aggada. Should aggada be understood as metaphor or read literally? When the Rabbis discussed biblical (and even Rabbinic) figures, were they discussing the past, or describing their contemporary reality? 

But I return to the fundamental point. What is my base line? When discussing characters in Tanakh, do I start with the Tanakh or the Talmud?

Shiurim on Melakhim Aleph

This year I wrote shiurim on Sefer Melakhim Aleph for Yeshivat Har Etzion's VBM.

I am excited to say that all 29 shiurim are archived are available here.

Enjoy!

Oh! Maybe I should add that the writing of a high level weekly shiur (over and above all my other work) has proved so overwhelming that it absolutely sapped any energy that I had for writing/blogging this year. (I hope that a few readers noticed that my blogging has basically lapsed this year!) I hope that over the summer, I will have some more time and head-space to devote to thinking and commenting on Torah, contemporary Israel, and the Jewish world.

Lehitraot!

Did we sit in Sukkot in the Wilderness?

“You shall live in Sukkot (booths) for seven days, all citizens in Israel shall
live in Sukkot (booths); in order that future generations may know that I made
the Israelite people live in booths, when I brought them out of the Land of
Egypt, I am the Lord your God.” (23:41-43)

The Torah informs us that the Sukkot, the huts or booths in which we reside for the week of Chag Hassukot correspond to a specific historical reality. God “made the Israelite people live in booths” during the Exodus from Egypt, and we imitate and simulate that collective experience on Chag Hassukot. Now, this familiar passuk has always raised a number of questions. What exactly does the Torah mean when it speaks about God housing us in "Sukkot" during the Egyptian Exodus? What booths is the verse referring to? Does the Torah record such an event?

Most readers are probably familiar with the Talmudic discussion in Sukka 11b:

‘I made the Israelite people live in booths.’
It refers to the “clouds of glory” said Rabbi Eliezer.
Rabbi Akiva says: God made real Sukkot for them.

For Rabbi Eliezer, the booths of the wilderness are the miraculous protective "Clouds of Glory." For Rabbi Akiva, God's booths are real huts in which the Israelites lived during their years of sojourning in the wilderness. Let us investigate this relationship between the past and the present. How do our Sukkot relate to the booths of the Exodus? We shall take our cue from Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva and investigate their respective opinions.

CLOUDS OF GLORY

Rabbi Eliezer talks about Ananei HaKavod – Clouds of Glory. What are these clouds? The Mekhilta offers us some clarity:

"There were seven clouds[1]: Four of them to each side/direction (of the Israelites), one was above them and another below their feet. A further cloud would pass in front of them leveling the valleys and flattening the mountains." (Mekhilta Beshalach 1)

We are dealing with a miraculous phenomenon whereby mysterious clouds with protective and other powers shielded and eased the path of B’nei Yisrael as they trekked through the wilderness. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the Sukkot that we inhabit mirror and reflect the cloud-experience of the wilderness. But how?

Obviously, this concept has its advantages and disadvantages. Advantages will include a straightforward reading of the passuk: I placed the Israelite people in sukkot. This is a Godly form of envelopment and protection, and hence God's protective clouds might fit the bill.

REAL BOOTHS?

But for adherents of the peshat approach to Chumash the Anannei Hakavod are a red flag. After all, the text of the Chumash never mentions clouds leveling mountains, or clouds under the feet of the Israelites! Those who adopt a more rational mode of thought and more text oriented approach are immediately attracted to the more realistic proposition by Rabbi Akiva, that the Israelites lived in huts, shelters. After all, if we are commanded to live in huts in commemoration of the booths of our ancestors in the wilderness, we should assume that B’nei Yisrael did indeed live in huts!

They are in good company. The Ibn Ezra also didn't favour the theory of Annanei Hakavod very much!

THE APPROACH OF THE IBN EZRA

"Some of the early scholars said that there were seven clouds, but to my mind, there were only two, and possibly only a single cloud." (Ibn Ezra)

The Ibn Ezra is commenting on the verse in Shemot that informs us that the Am Yisrael were lead by a cloud as we departed from Egypt:

"The Lord went before them in a pillar of cloud by day, to guide them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, that they may travel by day and night. " (Shemot 13:21)

The Ibn Ezra reads that verse in the following manner:

"A pillar of cloud by day, to guide them: to show them the route. It also protected them[2], and this is the meaning of the phrase (in Tehillim 105:39) 'He spread a cloud as a screen.'
A pillar of fire by night, to give them light – It might be that the pillar of fire was within the pillar of cloud at night, as its states (Shemot 40:38) 'fire will be within it at night.'
That they may travel by day and night: They traveled around the clock … These clouds, if there were two, remained with them until the crossed the Yam Suf (Reed Sea) but in my opinion, they then ceased to accompany them for there wasn't a need to travel at night after Pharaoh and his army had drowned in the Sea. (Shemot. Peirush Katzar 13:21)

But questions remain. And the most significant of them is the origins of Sukkot. If we have debunked the theory of the "Clouds of Glory," then what are the Sukkot that Bnei Yisrael lived in during the wilderness era?

The Ibn Ezra answers:

"…Near Mt. Sinai was a forest of Acacia trees. When they arrived there (Sinai) and were told that they would reside there for some time – and there was no (protective) cloud as I have already explained – each person constructed a hut … and they cut down the entire forest…." (Ibn Ezra . Peirush HaAroch Shemot 25:5)

the Ibn Ezra's theory helps explain what the Biblical Sukkot were, but it also goes some way to inform regarding the source of the wood that the people contributed to the construction of the Mishkan.

So this is a neat answer. But, is it correct?

OTHER EVIDENCE – WHAT DWELLINGS DID ISRAEL LIVE IN?

Let us check it out. Did the Israelites live in wood huts? Did they chop down a forest? Many places record the manner in which Bnei Yisrael dwelt in TENTS[3] , termed Mishkan or Ohel:

"And they (Moshe and Yitro) went into the tent." (Shemot 18:7)

"And the people bowed down, each person at the doorway of his tent" (Shemot 33:10)

"and Datan and Aviram emerged defiant at the portal of their tents." (Bamidbar 16:27)

"How comely are your tents O Jacob, your dwelling places (mishkenotecha) O Israel." (Bamidbar 24:5)

In each place they talk about tents, and the term "Sukkot/Sukka" are noticeably absent! In fact, other than the Festival of Sukkot, that word is NEVER used as a term for a home for Bnei Yisrael when they are in the Wilderness! Never![4]

So, we are stuck. Because the Israelites lived in OHALIm and not SUKKOT. And now we are raising serious doubts as to the identity of the living shelters that housed Bnei Yisrael during their forty years in the wilderness. if our Sukkot commemorate the huts of the Midbar, do they refer to the physical object of a Sukka! Where does this leave us?

S"CH"CH

So let us investigate the verb S"CH"CH which is the grammatical root of the sukka. What does that word tell us? (Look up the root in the concordance!)

If you examine virtually every instance of the verb S"CH"CH in the Tanach, it refers to God's protection in some way. More specifically, it frequently refers to Temple references[5], but that is far from exclusive. The overwhelming majority refer to God as directly shielding or protecting a person:

"You shielded my head on the day of war" (Tehillim 140:8)
"With his wing he shelters you" (Tehillim 91)

This is about basking in the divine presence, or being protected by Him.

Or, for example, the Ark of the Covenant has cherubs that are "shielding – sochechim - with their wings over the Kapporet" The Ark is the place where God's presence is manifest! "and I will speak to you … from between the Cherubs" (Shemot 25:18)

And now I am understanding that this verb is dealing with God's protection, or even more than that, with God's Presence itself!

And I recall the passuk in Shemot: "God's presence – Kevod Hashem – appeared in CLOUD" (Shemot 16:10) Are ANNANEI KAVOD in truth, a metaphor for God's presence, his manifest protection?

And here I find myself coming full-circle. We are back to the start. We began by hearing Chazal talk about seven protective divine clouds. It sounded bizarre, textually unfounded, too supernatural. So we explored Tanach for a rational physical booth within which to understand the phenomenon of the sukkot of the Wilderness. And now, with a linguistic analysis, we understand that in truth, the word "sukka" refers quite directly to God protecting man.

In other words, the word "Sukka" refers quite clearly to the notion that we thrust our trust into God's hands and we rely upon Him. Or even further, that God allows us to have relationship with Him. Maybe this is actually the inner meaning of the Midrashic concept of the 7 protective clouds.

When we sit in our sukka this week, we are expected to allow our "home" to be rather more fragile than it usually is. But that very understanding – that we are limited and not absolutely able to control our personal and physical environment , our destiny – this very understanding affords us more "room " to recognize God's caring hand, God's presence in our lives

Wishing you a Chag Sameach!



[1] Interesting that in the Mekhikta, other views are offered:
Rabbi Yehuda – 13 clouds
Rabbi Yoshiya – 4 clouds
Rebbi – 2 clouds.
So there is far from consensus amongst the Tannaim on this point.
[2] The Ibn Ezra may be referring to Shemot 14:19 where we read how the "the pillar of cloud shifted from in front of them and took up place behind them. It came between the army of the Egyptians and the army of Israel … and one could not come near the other throughout the night."

Might this episode be one of the primary sources for the concept of Annanei Kavod - protective clouds - in each direction?

At any rate, the Ibn Ezra seems to think (on the basis of the verse in Tehillim) that the pillar of cloud spread itself wide over them to shield them from the scorching desert sun.
[3] See also Devarim 1:27, 5:27, and possibly Bamidbar 19:14
[4] One could claim, even with the Ibn Ezra, that they used the wood to create some sort of frame, and that the walls were made of cloth, and that this sort of wood-frame/cloth structure is known as an Ohel, a tent. That would assist us with logistical issues, but it still leaves us bewildered as to the word "Sukkot."
As for the word "Sukkkot", there IS a PLACE named Sukkot (Shemot 12:37; Bamidbar 33:5) which was their FIRST stop in the Wilderness after leaving Egypt. Might the Torah be relating the booth-Sukkoth to the place called Sukkoth? That seems unlikely. (– more about this at the end of the shiur)
[5] See the work of Yaakov Nagen from Yeshivat Otniel, who elaborates upon the Sukka-Mikdash connection or symmetry.

Megillat Ruth and Sefer Shoftim

Chag HaShavuot
Megillat Ruth and the Shoftim Period


The reading of the Book of Ruth is one of the beautiful customs of Chag Hashavuot. It is a picturesque and emotive story, and each year we are swept up, yet again, in the familiar yet exciting drama. We tensely follow the destitute Naomi and Ruth as they walk through along the roads of Moav, through the harsh landscape deeply concerned for their fate. We watch excitedly as Ruth picks the gleanings from the field, hoping that someone will ensure that she brings home enough food at the day's end. We share the anticipation as we wonder whether Ruth will indeed marry Boaz and be able to set up a happy Jewish family, bringing the tragedy of the past to a brighter future, and indeed this is a story with a happy end.

However, I am not sure whether we realise quite how unusual and revolutionary the book of Ruth is. I think that if we examine this story in the light of its historical backdrop – the period of the Shoftim – and the book that parallels it – Sefer Shoftim – we shall understand how the message of Megillat Ruth is surprising and novel.

Megillat Ruth begins with the phrase: "And it came to pass, in the days of the Judges." Chazal suggest[1] that the both the Book of Judges AND the Book of Ruth were authored by the same individual – the prophet Shmuel. Two books describe the same period. And yet, I would suggest that the books differ radically.

THE SHOFTIM PERIOD.

The period of the Judges lasted for over three hundred years. This period was a very difficult one for the young Israelite nation. Throughout these years the country was repeatedly overrun by alien oppressors, neighbouring states looking to expand their borders and to take advantage of the weakness of the Israelite nation. But these were not bad times simply from a military or national perspective. We can delineate at least four areas in which the Shoftim period was a disaster.

1.The fragile national security situation
As we have mentioned, the book of Judges talks about an entire collection of adversaries: Assyria, Moab, the Canaanite king Yavin, Midyan, Amalek, Ammon, the Philistines. The enemy intruders destroy the crops and commerce of the country, oppress and tax, and generally squeeze the Israelites to a situation in which normal life was unbearable. This phenomena occurs nationally throughout the country; there is no region which does not suffer, at one time or another from the national weakness. When one enemy subsides, another arises.

2. The nature of the Judge-leader
Despite the existence of certain Judge-leaders, the primary characteristic of the time is the absence of a coherent NATIONAL leadership structure.

The "Judges" as they are known, were ad-hoc leaders, individuals who rose to greatness by responding to the need of the moment. Invariably, the leader for any particular crisis situation emerged from the tribe which found itself at the epicentre of the problem or crisis. All of the "judges" are connected to military success. They always fight in the name of the God of Israel. But they are very much the transient heroes of the moment. In the same way that they rise to leadership and fame out of nothing, they fade rapidly into oblivion as a leading force in their tribe, or the nation as a whole. After their passing, they leave no successor and no continued leadership structure.

It is not too difficult to realise that the problems of national security would not have been nearly as acute had there been a leader with a national agenda and vision. A national leader can have a standing army that will act as deterrent to potential invaders. A figurehead gives the nation a focus, an identity. Central government can plan, can coordinate the resources and actions of a state on a macro level. Maybe a useful way to demonstrate the difference between the power of a Judge and a national leader is to note that in the wars that the Judges fought, the army never exceeded 40,000 fighting men. In contrast, King Saul, the first national leader manages to summon 330,000 soldiers in his first campaign (I Samuel 11:8.)

3. Low Spiritual Level
This period is characterised by a powerful attraction to foreign deities. The most popular gods would have been the Ba'al and the Ashtoret, the gods of Canaan, but others were served as well. In the Tanach, it is this turning away from the God of Israel, their "straying" after pagan culture, which angers God leading Him to remind them of His presence by subjecting them to oppression and national failure.

4. Inter-tribal friction
The nation does not see itself as a single cohesive unit in the period of the Judges. Frequently, tribes of Israel would simply fail to come to the assistance of their beleaguered brethren. Sometimes there are outbursts of inter-tribal violence, or civil-war

The problems of this era, as we can see, were enormous, complex, and not easily solved.

THE PERSPECTIVE FROM SEFER SHOFTIM

On the one hand, Sefer Shoftim blames the ills of the era upon the sin of Avoda Zara – Idolatry. It describes a recurring cycle of events, as follows:

1. Israel sin, serving other gods, local deities like Ba'al and Ashtarot.
2. God delivers them to their enemies.
3. They cry out (moan -v.18) to God
4. He appoints a leader to save them and keep their allegiance to God.
5. The leader dies and they return to stage 1.

In other words, God punishes the people for abandoning His service. The lack of national security is a direct outgrowth of the lack of religious commitment of the nation.

But, on the other hand, Sefer Shoftim is also aware of another cause:

"In those days there was no king in Israel and every man did as he pleased." (Judges 17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25.)

In other words, there is a political cause and also a religious explanation for the abysmal state of the nation. Looking at Sefer Shoftim, one realizes that the solution lies in transforming both of these areas.

THE BOOK OF RUTH

Megillat Ruth describes the same reality but from a very different vantage point. Chazal suggest that Elimelech left the country due to the hardships faced during this period[2]. People abandon a country in times of famine and violence. Apparently this family had the means to live abroad and to survive there deciding to become refugees rather than face the frequent invasions and foreign occupation in Eretz Yisrael.

Megilat Ruth is the civilian side of the conflict, in which families become refugees, people are unwilling to assist their families because they are frightened for their own future. It is a time when Jewish life is far from certain or secure. Rather than taking the national vantage point, a grand sweeping vision of things, Megillat Ruth tells a personal story, a story of a single family that has to survive the torment that is swirling around them.

As we know, the move abroad did the family no good. Elimelech and his sons all die. And now Naomi is left alone and penniless. (Chazal once again attribute this to their leaving Eretz Yisrael)

But how is the problem solved? Through kindness and charity!
· Ruth's kindness to Naomi (2:1).
· Boaz's consideration of Ruth (2:19,21).
· Ruth's devotion to Boaz (3:10).
· Boaz's commitment to Elimelech (4:14, 9).
· Ruth's fulfillment of her commitment to her dead husband (4:10).

The way in which one reaches redemption in the story of Ruth is through Chessed, living up to life's responsibilities, caring for those around us, thinking beyond ourselves.

It is quite remarkable that Shmuel wrote two books about the period. In the first, he suggests that the nation will be saved through a religious transformation and through an organized central government. In this regard Shmuel acts as a true statesman, attempting to guide the course of national events.

But in his second book, he suggests a radically different direction, suggesting that through small but heroic acts of kindness, one may change a world, one may induce redemption. Moreover, one may lead the way to the birth of King David himself! Just through simple but heartfelt acts of Kindness and responsibility! Public policy is the arena of the nation, and yet, here we see actions on the personal and familial scale.

In this book, the verb "GA'AL" - meaning "Redemption" – appears 24 times! That is quite a high frequency for a short book. Ruth is a book of Redemption, and Redemption is the small kindnesses that people perform for one another.

IN CONCLUSION

Shavuot is strongly centred upon the Bein Adam Lamakom dimension of things. After all, it is on this "zman matan torateinu" that we celebrate the eternal covenant enacted at Mt. Sinai. At that historic moment in time we agreed to be a "Kingdom of priests and a holy nation" and God responded with revelation and Torah. When Chazal describe the Maamad Har Sinai (the assembly and revelation at Sinai) as a wedding, they encapsulate the essence of things. It is not the particular Torah that we received on this day that is our focus. Rather, on this day we mark the fact that we as a nation became eternally tied to the Almighty by means of Torah.

And so, our Torah reading discusses the account of the Revelation at Sinai. The Haftara discusses the Revelation of Yechezkel in which the prophet Yechezkel was given a revelation of God's "Merkava" witnessing the angels, fire and sounds that surround God's presence. This day then, is about God's revelation.

Against this backdrop, Megillat Ruth comes as something of a surprise. Ruth is not a story of revelation. It is a very human story with deep human yearnings, fear, insecurities, and kindness, consideration and responsibility. It is a Bein Adam Lechavero story. Once again; where is the thunder and lightening and angels and fear? How does Ruth fit into the landscape of Shavuot[3]?

And hence, might we suggest a very radical message for Megillat Ruth? That Judaism does not begin with impressive spectacles of Revelation, but in the small, sensitive acts of kindness that we can all do for each other.

That is how we can bring God into our society; that is how we bring redemption!

Chag Sameach!

--------------------------------------------------

[1] Bava Batra 14b – "שמואל כתב ספרו ושופטים ורות"


[2] רש"י רות פרק אRashi on Ruth 1:2 based upon Baba Batra 91b.
וילך איש - עשיר גדול היה ופרנס הדור ויצא מארץ ישראל לחוצה לארץ מפני צרות העין שהיתה עינו צרה בעניי' הבאים לדוחקו לכך נענש:
Chazal talk about him as a wealthy man in his early period in Yehuda. Maybe we can surmise this by the fact that people immediately recognize Naomi (1:19) but are shocked by her withered appearance. Moreover, it is clear that Elimelech left certain properties (4:3) that needed "Redemption" and hence we can suggest that he was a man of at least moderate wealth.

[3] It could be that Megillat Ruth is the MOST APPRPRIATE dimension of Shavuot! After all the Torah never specifies that Matan Torah happened on 6th Sivan. But it is EXPLICIT in Vayikra ch.23 that Shavuot is a time for caring for the poor. There is states:

"And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God" (23:22)

If there is ONE THING that we know about Chag Hashavuot, it is this description. When the Torah directs our attention to the Shavuot, it is focussed upon the harvest. And in thinking about the harvest, the Torah wishes to ensure that we are fully aware of the laws that apply at harvest time, laws that have the poor and disadvantaged at the forefront of their attention.