Bostoner Torah Insights: Bostoner ‘Chassidus’ in English and Hebrew: Parshas Behaaloscha – 16 Sivan5784
Bostoner Torah Insights - Yerushalayim
Bostoner Torah Insights
Bostoner ‘Chassidus’ in English
Parshas Behaaloscha – 16 Sivan 5784
Bostoner Rebbe shlit”a – Yerushalayim
Secretariat Email: bosto...@gmail.com
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
“Remember that which Hashem did to Miriam…” (Devarim 24:9), is one of the six Zichronos that we should remember daily. The basis of this Pasuk are the events found at the end of this week’s Parsha. In reference to Miriam’s punishment for speaking negatively against Moshe Rabbeinu, Hashem says, “Had she spit in her father’s face, would she not be humiliated for seven days…” (Bamidbar 12:14) The Bostoner Rebbe zt”l would explain why Miriam’s ‘father’ is mentioned in this context as follows:
In the Talmud there is a difference of opinion regarding the obligation of Pru U’Rivu [be fruitful and multiply]. Beis Shammai maintains that two sons are needed to fulfill the Mitzvah, while Beis Hillel requires the birth of a son and a daughter. The practical difference arises when there are mitigating circumstances related to having further children.
Amrom, Miriam’s father, divorced his wife in Mitzrayim after Pharaoh’s decree that all Jewish male newborns be cast into the Nile. Miriam argued that her father’s actions would cause greater harm then the edict of Egyptian king, since Pharaoh’s decree eliminated all Jewish male children, however, Amrom’s example could result in the annihilation of all Jewish children – including female children. Subsequently, Amrom relented and remarried Yocheved, which led to the birth of Moshe Rabbeinu, the future leader of Klal Yisroel.
Seemingly, Miriam evaluated her father’s obligation of Pru U’Rivu based on the Halachic position of Beis Shammai. Since at this point Amrom had two children, Miriam (a daughter) and Aharon (a son), Amrom was only obligated to have more children according to Beis Shammai, who requires two sons. However, according to Beis Hillel, Amrom had fulfilled his obligation of Pru U’Rivu and was justified in remaining celibate, especially for the duration of Pharaoh’s decree.
Fast forward to Parshas Beha’aloschoh, where we find Miriam castigating Moshe for separating from his wife Tzipporah, at a time when Moshe Rabbeinu was already the father of two sons. This time, Miriam’s criticism of Moshe was squarely based on the opinion of Beis Hillel, that Moshe was still obligated in Pru U’Rivu until he and Tzipporah would be blessed with a daughter.
This is why Miriam’s ‘father’ is associated with her punishment according to the Rebbe zt”l. Either the Halacha must align with Beis Shammai or Beis Hillel – but not both. One cannot have it both ways. Thus, if Miriam was justified in correcting her father, she was wrong in correcting Moshe Rabbeinu. On the other hand, if she was justified in criticizing Moshe, she was wrong to criticize her father. Therefore, the punishment she received for improper speech was deserved, either for the former words or criticism or the latter.
To understand another approach for Miriam’s rationale, we must include a statement found in the Zohar, “The Shechinah is only found when a man is married, not when a male is alone”. According to the Zohar an unmarried man can never become a Navi, since the Shechinah will not dwell on him.
Perhaps this statement was the catalyst that influenced Miriam to believe that Moshe Rabbeinu was acting incorrectly by separating from his wife. If the Shechinah spoke regularly with Moshe as a Navi, it was proof that he was legally married to Tzipporah. Therefore, Moshe was obligated by the Torah to please his wife similar to every other Jewish husband.
In reply to Miriam, Hashem clarified that Moshe Rabbeinu is different from all other Niviim. “B’Chol Baysi Ne’eman Hu” (12:7) [In My (Hashem’s) entire home (spiritual abode), Moshe Rabbeinu is faithful]. It is true that normally the Shechinah only rests on a man living harmoniously with his wife and does not dwell on ‘a male alone’. However, Moshe had the unique status of, K’viyachol [if it were possible], building a Bayis Ne’eman with Hashem as his ‘spouse’. Consequently, Moshe and Tzipporah were no longer viewed by Halacha as being married, nor was Moshe neglecting any marital obligations.
However, we, the rest of Klal Yisroel, can only attain spiritual completeness when married. Judaism emphasizes that without female assistance, men alone would be deficient in bringing about spiritual fulfillment in Klal Yisroel. As related in Sotah 17a, a husband and wife who merit to create a peaceful home, have the Shechinah [divine presence] dwell amongst them.
May we merit fulfilling all of our Halachic obligations with children who are Oskim Ba’Torah U’ViMitzvos and continue building Bahsai Ne’eman B’Yisroel.
If you would like to be a sponsor: