Pinhas (Midrash)

Leadership and Respect for Individuality

In this parasha, we feel the narrative of the Torah, as the account of Moses’ ministry to the people of Israel, beginning to wind down. As he starts to anticipate his own approaching death, Moses asks God to arrange a suitable successor to carry on his life-work. (Num 27:15-23. For an interesting overview of the entire parsha in this light, see Sefat Emet, Pinhas, 5640, s.v. semikhat parshiyot, and my summary in HY I: Pinhas, “A Watershed Chapter?”). The midrash addresses this section in Numbers Rabbah 21.2:

“And Moses said to the Lord: Let the Lord [the God of spirits of all flesh] appoint [a man over the congregation]”; Num 27: 15-16]. Halakha: If one sees a vast number of people, one recites the blessing: “Blessed are You, O Lord God, King of the Universe, who perceives the secret things [hakham harazim].” Just as their faces are not similar to one another, so are their mindsets not the same to one another, but each one has a mind of his own. As it also says: “to give the wind [also: spirit] its weight” [Job 28:25]—for the spirit of each and every person.

Like the opening midrash of Shelah Lekha, which we brought a few weeks ago, this midrash also begins with a halakhic discussion, on a seemingly arcane point: what blessing should be said when one sees a large crowd of people? It is an interesting theological conception: the sight of masses of human beings is impressive, inspiring thoughts of reverence towards their Creator, specifically because of the thought that God creates so many individuals, with his own “secrets,” and that He knows each and every one of them in their innermost soul. In brief, the celebration of human diversity and individuality as one of the wonders of the Creation. This is an important point: in the modern age, thoughts of huge masses of people are more often associated with ideas of dehumanization, alienation, anomie, of mass culture and conformity, with all the attendant problems (one is reminded of the title of the book The Lonely Crowd by sociologist David Reisman, who died just over a month ago; indeed, several of his eulogists noted that, since the publication of the book in the 1950’s, sociology has become more of a quantitative science, eschewing the “big issues” of the problems of how the human being lives in modern society).

The word translated above as “mindset,” da’at, is problematic. It denotes both intellectual and ethical qualities, as well as possibly the personality of a person in an overall sense. It may thus be variously translated as “knowledge,” “opinion,” “mindset,” “character” or “personality.” In Biblical Hebrew it mostly refers to “knowledge” (as in Jer 9:24; Exod 33:13; etc.). On the other hand, Maimonides called that section of his Mishneh Torah concerned with overall ethical norms and traits Hilkhot De’ot, which clearly means “Laws of Ethical Traits” rather than “opinions” or “knowledge.” But however translated, its general sense in context is clear: that which makes human beings individuals, and as such so radically different from one another.

You should know that it is thus, for what did Moses request of the Holy One blessed be He at the time of his death? He said to Him: Master of the Universe, there are revealed and known before You the mind of each one, and the minds of your children are not similar to one another. When I die, I beseech you to appoint over them a leader who will relate to each and every one according to his mind, as is said: “May the Lord…”—it does not say “[God of] the spirit,” but “[of] the spirits.”

Not only is human diversity a fit subject for blessing God, but it is the first criterion to be applied in selecting a leader: not one who tries to force everyone into a particular mold (which is really the hallmark of fascism!), but who respects and has patience with the individual peculiarities of each and every one. The midrash derives this conclusion from a subtle (and obviously “midrashic”) turn of phrase: i.e., the use of the plural rather the singular form of the word “spirit”: God as the God of many diverse “spirits.”

This is what said in the Scripture: “Will you ask Me about My children, or command Me concerning the work of My hands?” [Isa 45:11]. To what may this be compared? To a king who married a woman, and who had a best friend. Whenever the king was angered with his wife, the best man would pacify him and make peace between the king and his wife. When the best man was about to die, he began to ask of the king: I beg of you, take heed of your wife. The king replied: If you are ordering me concerning my wife, you ought to order my wife concerning me, that she be careful about my honor.

The quotation of the verse from Isaiah marks a turning point. God doesn’t easily acquiesce to Moses’ request, as it seems from the peshat, but challenges him: What right do you have to ask things of Me on behalf of Israel? Perhaps you’d do better to ask them to do something on My behalf first.

The term shushvin, often rendered as “best man” or “groomsman,” and here rendered “best friend,” is really more than any of these, at least as understood in modern parlance. In the Mishnah it is often used collectively—shushvinin—to refer to the circle of the groom’s companions who help him to celebrate his wedding, and who reciprocate the favor to one another. Here, it seems to be a combination of best friend and a kind of Good Man Friday—a lifelong assistant and friend of the king, who seems to be subordinate to him, but who also watches out for his interests and counsels him and may at times also call him up on the carpet and give him a harsh talking to. (See our discussion of Moses’ unique role in this respect, somewhere between the human and the Divine realm; HY III: Ki Tisa). To my ears, the king’s response, assuming that he really did have a bad temper, sounds like many contemporary insensitive husbands who blame their wives for “inciting” them to domestic violence by their “disrespect”—and see the current discussion on patterns of marital abuse. Needless to say, in the ancient world these things were viewed rather differently, even before we turn to the Divine-human situation represented by this metaphor.

Thus, so to speak, did the Holy One blessed be He tell him [i.e., Moses]: Before you command Me concerning them—“Let the Lord appoint”—command them that they should take heed of My honor. What is written: “Command the children of Israel: my offering, my food…” [Num 28:2]. First arrange for them the sacrifices.

The main point of this passage is to find some innate, inherent connection between the different sections of our parasha, specifically between the appointment of Joshua and the lengthy section (all of chs. 28-29) about the daily, Sabbath and festival sacrifices. There is an overall problem in Book of Numbers, that many of its sections seem disjointed; beyond that, there is a general midrashic tendency to seek out the associative connections running throughout the entire Torah and connecting one passage to the next.