Friday, March 24, 2017

Rabbit Hole #3: Moses’ Reasoning — BT Yebamot 62a — #74

[1] He separated from [his] wife.” How did [Moses] explain this? He said, “If [concerning] the people Israel, with whom the Shekhinah spoke only momentarily, and for whom [God] fixed a time [to speak to them], the Torah says, Do not draw near to a woman (Exodus 19:15), then I, who might hear the divine word at any moment and for whom [God] did not fix a time, how much more so [should I separate from my wife].” And [Moses’] reasoning agreed with that of the Omnipresent, as it says, Go, say to them, “Return to your tents.” But you [Moses] remain here with Me (Deuteronomy 5:27-28). 
 [2] “He broke the tablets.” How did [Moses] explain this? He said, “Just as concerning the pesach, which is one of the 613 mitzvot, Torah said, No foreigner (ben neichar) shall eat of it (Exodus 12:43), then when the entire Torah [is being given] and the Jews are apostates (mumarim) [through worship of the Golden Calf], how much the more so [are they unfit to receive the Torah].” And [Moses’] reasoning agreed with that of the Omnipresent, for it is written, that you shattered (Exodus 34:1). And Resh Lakish said: “The Holy Blessed One said to Moses, ‘May your strength be straight because you shattered [the tablets].’” 
[3] “He added one day” based on his own thinking. How did [Moses] explain this? “As it is written, [Adonai said to Moses: Go to the people and warn them to] stay pure today and tomorrow (Exodus 19:10). ‘Today’ is similar to tomorrow. Just as ‘tomorrow’ includes its night, so, too, ‘today’ includes its night. The night of today has passed. Learn from this that the two days are in addition to now [today].” And [Moses’] reasoning agreed with that of the Omnipresent, for the Shekhinah did not rest [on the mountain] until after shabbat.

INTRODUCTION
This is the third installment of a sugya in tractate Yebamot concerning the consequence of the Rabbis’ decision to read “Be fertile and increase” (Genesis 1:28) as a prescriptive (rather than descriptive) statement, thereby making procreation a mitzvah. In TMT 73, the Gemara explained that Bet Shammai established two male children as the minimum required to fulfill the mitzvah on the model of Moses, who fathered only two sons. According to Gemara, Bet Hillel rejected this argument because Moses decided to remain celibate after leaving Egypt, not because two sons is sufficient to fulfill the mitzvah. Further, this was one of three things Moses did based on his own thinking rather than in obedience to God’s commandments. The other two were “breaking the tablets” and “adding a day.” All three are explained in our passage above. 

This passage is an excursus from the main topic of the mitzvah of procreation. It provides two examples ([1] and [2]) of the Rabbis’ nimble manipulation of biblical texts through the rabbinic hermeneutic of kal va’chomer (קל וחומר, a fortiori), a form of logical argument most easily understood through an example: If a teacher’s policy is to lower a student’s grade by ten points for a late assignment, then a student who turns in an assignment that is late, incomplete, and partially plagiarized can expect to receive a grade lowered by more than ten points.

COMMENTARY
[1] The Gemara argues that Moses had only two sons because he separated from his wife, reasoning: “God told the Israelites to avoid sexual contact with their spouses in preparation to hear God’s word when they received the Torah. If God required the people, who would only hear God’s word momentarily and at a fixed time, to abstain from sex beforehand, then I must abstain all the time, because I might hear God’s word at any moment and without knowing ahead of time. Therefore, I should avoid all further sexual contact with my wife.” Gemara confirms God’s agreement by citing a verse from Deuteronomy in which God tells the Israelites to return to their tents (and hence to their sexual relationships with their spouses) but instructs Moses to remain with God, taken here to mean that should not resume a sexual relationship with Tzipporah.

[2] Gemara explains that Moses’ decision to throw down the tablets was similarly his own determination and that Moses reasoned: “Torah forbids foreigners from partaking in the pesach (paschal) sacrifice. If that is the case for just one of the 613 commandments in the Torah, then surely the Israelites who have been committing apostasy by worshiping the Golden Calf are unfit to receive the entire Torah.” There are several problems with this argument. First, the exclusion of foreigners is mentioned only in connection with eating the pesach, not all mitzvot. Further, Exodus 12:43 refers to a ben necihar (foreigner), but idolatry makes the Israelites mumarim (apostates)—the two are not equivalent. Hence the argument is very weak. Perhaps that is why Gemara appends Resh Lakish’s claim that God congratulated Moses for shattering the tablets—indicating God’s approval of Moses’ reasoning.

[3] Returning to God’s requirement that the Israelites be celibate prior to Revelation, Exodus 19:10-11 says that God required celibacy for two days preceding Revelation, presumably so that the people would be in a state of taharah (ritual purity) to receive Torah. However, Exodus 19:15 can be understood to say that Moses extended this period to a third day. The Gemara explains Moses’ convoluted reasoning: God required two days. Since every day includes the preceding night (the day commences at sunset), the day God spoke to him was incomplete. Reasoning that two complete days were required, he added a day, arriving at three days total. Again, God confirms Moses’ reasoning: Revelation did not take place before shabbat, after the extra day Moses added.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

  1. Is there a danger in claiming that Moses—quintessential leader, prophet, teacher—remained celibate most of his married life in order to be in relationship with God?
  2. Do you think Moses was justified in shattering the tablets? What else might he have done?
  3. Torah understands certain bodily discharges (including semen) as incompatible with a state of ritual “purity.” Why do you think this is the case?

No comments:

Post a Comment