This discussion of adultery is presented before Rosh HaShanna as a way of understanding the nature of sin and consequently how to do teshuva. Adultery is used as a metaphor for the Jewish people betraying G-d - either because of failure to submit to G-d's will or because of lust for other things. Adultery is explained differently for men and women. Women seduce a man primarily because of sexual or emotional needs. This is described in great detail in Mishlei (5:1–19), Mishlei(6:24–35) , and Mishlei(7:5–27).
This Kli Yakar explains that men in contrast, initiate an adulterous relationship from egotism - to have that which another man has exclusive rights. This is also the contemporary explanation for rape i.e., that it is an issue of power - not lust. The following is a cogent explanation of a puzzling assertion (Sanhedrin 110a), that Moshe was widely believed to have commited or was interested in committing adultery.
=================
Kli Yakar (Bamidbar 16:4): And Moshe heard and fell on his face – Sanhedrin (110a), “What rumor did he hear? This teaches that he was suspected of adultery as it says in Tehilim (106:15), Everyone was jealous of Moshe in the camp. That means that everyone warned his wife because of Moshe [and that is why Moshe moved his tent outside the camp].” This is very far from being indelible. We can’t learn this from Tradition because who said that this suspicion was exactly at this time - because the verse itself implies no such thing. Therefore I claim that the author of the Agada wanted to explain the verse, “That all the community were holy and therefore why are you elevating yourself above on the community of G‑d.” He was bothered by the question of what is the relationship between “holiness” mentioned at the beginning of the verse and the “elevation” mentioned at the end. And if you want to say that there is a relationship between them and that the holiness means it is correct to stop the elevation – then Korach should have simply asked, "Why are you elevating yourself above the holy community?" Obviously Korach was speaking to Moshe in a manner similar to Sotah (4b), "Whoever is conceited will eventually commit adultery" or alternatively (Sotah 4b), "Whoever is conceited is as if he violated all prohibited sexual relations." As is known that wherever you find holiness (kedusha) you will also find protection against sexual sins because sexual sins degrade holiness. This is what Korach said from on his own recognition (sevara), "All of the community is holy and they are protected against sexual sins so therefore why are you elevating yourself and lording it over everyone? Such behavior will cause you to stumble concerning adultery and that will bring about the profaning of the holiness of the people." That is why Korach referred to "the community of G-d" at the end rather than "the holy community" since Korach thought that Moshe had unjustly elevated himself therefore there was no holiness. That is because whoever is egotistical will in the end be involved in adultery and this causes a profanation of the holiness of the people. Moshe realized that Korach suspected him of adultery and that is why the Torah says, "And Moshe clearly understood what Korach meant and that is why the Torah said, "And he fell on his face." The underlying reason for the relationship of egotism and adultery that whoever is egotistical is continually checking all types of authority that he sees others have – with the desire to ultimately have everything under his control and authority. He is relentless in his looking into all types of authority until he eventually looks into the exclusive authority that a man has over his wife. The egotistical person wants to have control of this authority also. That is why it says "that in the end" because in truth it is at the end of the process of checking authority and the final barrier for everyone. This is a very valuable explanation that fits well with the language not only in this parsha but also the language of the gemora.
Update
Bamidbar Rabbah (9:3):.. There was an incident with a woman to whom a manmade advances. She asked him where he wanted to have their meeting. [After he told her] she went and told his wife. His wife went to that place and they had intercourse. He was very upset when he found out what had happened and prayed for death. His wife told him, “But it was your own bread that you ate from and it was from your own cup you drank.” She said that the cause of his trouble was that he thought that he was better than other men. The solution was to view himself as the equal of other men.
Update
Bamidbar Rabbah (9:3):.. There was an incident with a woman to whom a manmade advances. She asked him where he wanted to have their meeting. [After he told her] she went and told his wife. His wife went to that place and they had intercourse. He was very upset when he found out what had happened and prayed for death. His wife told him, “But it was your own bread that you ate from and it was from your own cup you drank.” She said that the cause of his trouble was that he thought that he was better than other men. The solution was to view himself as the equal of other men.
Perhaps the truth is that BOTH men and women may be driven by EITHER sexual or emotional needs OR egotism?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the source for the forced "contrast" between the sexes.
Chazal in Sanhedrin say כל המתיהר נופל בגיהנם - does that only apply to men? (I'm assuming יוהרא and egotism are related).
Men don't experience lust?
Why the reductionism?
The reductionism is not reductionism - it is reporting what the sources say. If you can show me a single source that describes women in adulterous relations the way the Kli Yakar describes men - then I will modify the post. I am simply reporting the contrast between Misheli and the Kli Yaakar.
DeleteMishlei is talking about men being seduced by lustful women. There is no mention of egotism. Kli Yakir is talking about when men seduce women it is the result of egotism. No mention of lust.
On what basis did the rabbis besmirch the greatest of all prophets?
DeleteI don't understand. Isn't it true that whether than man seduced the woman or whether it was the woman who seduced the man, at the end of the day in both situations both parties are equally guilty (and potentially subject to the death penalty)?
DeleteOn what basis did the rabbis besmirch the greatest of all prophets?
DeleteA rather strange question. You are suggesting that the rabbis made up a story which had negative connotations.
As the Leshem points out - the Rabbis did not things up about the great leaders - this is what happened. Once we have a historical fact that Moshe was suspected of adultery - then the rest follows.
"The following is a cogent explanation of a puzzling assertion (Sanhedrin 110a), that Moshe was widely believed to have commited or was interested in committing adultery. "
DeleteNo stranger than your comment above - a "puzzling assertion" - only puzzling (and an assertion) if you don't believe in the veracity of the comment.
Eddie I suggest you read what I wrote again - as well as your own comment. You comment doesn't make sense as English. What do you mean "it is only puzzling if you don't believe in the veracity of the comment?!" Perhaps you meant to say it is only puzzling if you do believe the veracity of the comment?
DeleteChazal made the assertion - are you questioning Chazal? Apparently you are - which is very problematic. If you accept the veracity of Chazal - then it is puzzling that such an accusation should be made. That is exactly what the Kli Yakar is explaining. What is it that you don't you understand? Or perhaps I should ask, What is it that you don't want to accept? I assume you are not familiar with the Leshem I mentioned?
The problem I have is with the allegation that chas'vshalom Moshe Rabbeinu was a sinner, i.e. the sin of adultery.
DeleteWhat is not clear to me, is whether this allegation is the lie told by Korach, and simply retold (as are other lies told by Korach), or whether the aggadata is also making such an accusation.
I am not familiar with the Leshem, but I am not obliged to accept it either. Previous generations did not take all aggadic statements literally, even Raavad said some of them can fry your brain.
The falseness of the claim, whoever made it , can be proven by its reference to the "tent" set up by Moses. The tent in question is none other than the Ohel Moed, (Shemot 33). Here was the amud haenan:
10 And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud stand at the door of the Tent, all the people rose up and worshipped, every man at his tent door.
11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he would return into the camp; but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the Tent.
It was not,. chas v'shalom, a love shack where a leader was fornicating with wives of men. I don't care who said such a thing, it is as false as claiming that Jesus was Moshiach or MOhammed was our true prophet.
Eddie you are simply not paying proper attention to the discussion. Chazal didn't say that Moshe was a sinner. They said he was suspected of adultery - and not just by Korach. The Kli Yakar is offering an explanation of why he was suspected.
DeleteRegarding moving his tent - it says no where that the tent was suspected of being other than a holy place. The Kli Yakar is simply explaining why Moshe had to move out of the camp.
Again Eddie you are not paying attention to the words and are instead reading some rather bizzare things into the text.
Regarding agada it is clear that not all were meant to be taken literally - but before you throw something out it is best to understand the issues first.
Regarding the Leshem - he deals with a related issue of why Chazal tell us that Yosef was apparently attracted to Potiphar's wife and that it was only the immage of his father that saved him. See the following
http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2011/04/words-of-our-sages-are-from-g-d.html
Korach and others made various claims. The issue is whether there is any truth to these claims. And what this particular aggada says about the veracity of such claims.
DeleteThe Kli Yakar offers an interesting interpretation, which lessens the force of these claims.
It was Rambam who said that the parables of the Sages should not be dismissed, and not always taken literally, but need interpretation. So the question remains, - are you suggesting, or better, are Chazal suggesting such claims to have had foundation in truth?
Even the ego claim is fiction - it was dreamed up by Korach's wife who was no more than an early version of Izzevel. The Torah tells us that Moses was the meekest man to walk the earth. Can the same Moses also be an egomaniac, simply because of what Mrs Korach plotted?
Eddie again you simply aren't paying attention to what I wrote. You are what is generally referred to as a quick study. someone who can skim through something and reconstruct what must have been the argument. However often the reconstruction is missing key factors - but it still is a coherent logical structure. But it is not what I posted nor is it what Chazal said.
DeleteLet me stop repeating myself with the words of the Seridei Aish
Seridei Aish (1:113): I frequently comment on the apparent contradiction found in Avos (6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah i.e. analysis of the students and faith in our Sages. Furthermore, what does faith in our Sages have to do with acquiring Torah? However, the explanation is that if one doesn’t believe in the truth of the words of the sages then one readily dismisses them for the slightest reason. With an attitude of condescension, one proclaims that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Consequently, one makes no effort to investigate and try to validate what they said. However, in the end we find that in fact we are the ones who have erred. … Therefore it is characteristic of the truly wise to presume that the sages have not erred, G d forbid! In fact we, with our limited perspective and limited understanding, have erred. On the other hand to blindly believe and not struggle to comprehend with our intellect the apparent difficulties, saying simply that they knew and we need merely to mindlessly rely on them - that is also not correct. We need to wrestle mightily with the apparent contradictions and doubts as if they are people like us. With this approach, we will come to a much profounder and sharper comprehension. Thus, we see that both factors - emunas chachomim (faith in our sages) and pilpul (intellectual evaluation) - work together to the purpose of the acquisition of Torah.
The Seridei Eish makes very good sense. The pilpul part is what I am trying to get at, and I would call it iteration.
DeleteSo far, it is still not clear to me if there was any truth to the claims made about Moses. Can you deduce this from reading any of the above? Please enlighten me if you can.
Faith in the Sages (or lack of it) would only be relevant if the Sages claimed the the allegations to be true. If they are just reporting rumours amongst the mob, then disbelief in the rumours is not disbelief int he Sages.
If you claim to be Superman, then my disbelief would be in you also as a Rabbi. however, if you simply relate a story about someone who walks in Jaffa Street wearing Superman kit, I have no problem in accepting your story, but I am not convinced the man can fly and carry out other feats of superhuman strength.
Final iteration
Delete"So far, it is still not clear to me if there was any truth to the claims made about Moses. Can you deduce this from reading any of the above? Please enlighten me if you can."
Not sure if I can enlightened you in this matter. Have failed misearable so far. One more time. The allegations were false. The issue is why these false allegations were made. Chazal are reporting that false allegations were made. What don't you understand? The Kli Yakar is offering an explanation why the false allegations were believed
Of course, they were false accusations, that has been my point all along. But it is not clear to me, from the aggada, that they were false or not. In fact, the Kli Yakar's attempt to lessen the weight of the story is also problematic - it suggests that there might be truth to the allegations of egotism. Or that Korach's strategy was to use the false claim of egotism. So my point is that even the more limited allegation of egotism is false.
DeleteEddie you keep repeating that you think that Chazal might have thought that Moshe in fact committed adultery.
Delete"Of course, they were false accusations, that has been my point all along. But it is not clear to me, from the aggada, that they were false or not. "
previous you wronte
"The problem I have is with the allegation that chas'vshalom Moshe Rabbeinu was a sinner, i.e. the sin of adultery.
What is not clear to me, is whether this allegation is the lie told by Korach, and simply retold (as are other lies told by Korach), or whether the aggadata is also making such an accusation. "
There is no such view that Chazal felt that Moshe was committing adultery - yet you keep repeating such an assertion and rejecting a view that never existed.
Chazal and the Kli Yakar are describing what Korach and his followers thought.
Again you simply are not paying attention to the material and you are criticizing something that was never said or implied.
You miss my point - I am saying that from the material presented, I cannot arrive at what the view of Chazal was. Since you can, i would like to know how you arrive at this conclusion?
DeleteSecondly, Kli Yakar , who is also unhappy with the allegations, reduces the allegations to egotism, as opposed to adultery, and points out the mechanism of how the former can lead to the latter. So in a way, he is "helping" Korach, in that the severity of the accusation is reduced according to this reading.
One final point - it does say that Everyone warned their wives, not just the Korach group. This is also baffling, since not everyone was part of Korach's rebellion.
We have to consider that nowadays there are two types of adultery. There is the classic one the Torah is concerned with, a man with another man's wife and there is the common alternative, a married man with a single woman. Would the halachic sources suggest that egotism is behind that kind of adultery as well?
ReplyDeletea married man with a single woman is not adultery in halacha
DeleteIs a married Jewish woman with a non-Jewish male considered adultery? Does it carry a death sentence?
DeleteWhat is worse in the following non-adultery situations? A Jewish man with a gentile woman or a Jewish man with an unmarried Jewish woman?
Thank G-d in the Orthodox Jewish community adultery is an extremely rare occurrence, unlike in the secular world where it is literally routine.
ReplyDeleteAdultery for the purposes of this discussion being a married Jewish wife ("eishes ish") having a physical sexual affair with any man other than her husband.
Just from mishlei 6) which refers to the MAN'S motivations...
ReplyDelete{כה} אַל תַּחְמֹד יָפְיָהּ בִּלְבָבֶךָ not sexual needs?
or כז) see ralbag.... כי בעד אשה זונה. .. כי כבר יש לה כח לצוד נפש
יקרה מצד קלות התפתות האדם אל המשגל : not the same?
or לא)see Ralbag ואולם לנואף ראוי שיבוזו כי הוא לוקח לעצמו חוק הבעל וגונבו ממנו לא למלא נפשו כמו הענין בגנב אבל ישחית עצמו בניאוף בחסרו החומר היסודי ולחותו הטבעי ברבוי המשגל ולזה הוא מבואר כי נואף אשה הוא חסר דעת וזה כי משחית נפשו הוא יעשה זאת הפעולה המגונה והוא ימצא נגע וקלון וגו' ----- ego?
You missed a crticial point. I am dealing with the starting point. Obviously if a man has lust aroused by a woman - he in fact has lust. The cases in Mishlei are where the woman seduces the man and arouses his lust.
DeleteThe Kli Yakar is saying that the starting point for a man to initiate adultery is egotism - to take control of something that belongs to another. He obviously isn't saying that lust does not happen - but it isn't the starting point.
D wrote:
ReplyDeleteI don't understand. Isn't it true that whether than man seduced the woman or whether it was the woman who seduced the man, at the end of the day in both situations both parties are equally guilty (and potentially subject to the death penalty)?
===============
Yes. But that isn't the issue. I proposing based on these sources that apparently the motivation to initiate adultery is different in men and woman.
There is an interesting Medrash (Bamidbar Rabba 9:2/3) which also indicates that pride is a catalyst for committing adultery.
ReplyDeleteHere is the text of the Medrash (copied from http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/raba4/9a.htm):
דבר אחר:
איש איש, הוי שוי לבני אינשא.
מעשה באשה אחת שנזדקק לה אדם אחד, ואמרה ליה: לאיזה מקום תלך.
מה עשתה האשה?
הלכה ואמרה לאשתו והלכה אשתו לאותו מקום ונזקק לה, אח"כ תוהה בו ובקש למות.
אמרה לו אשתו: מפתך אכלת ובכוסך שתית, אלא מי גרם לך?
שאת גס רוח, הוי שווה לבני אדם.
Bamidbar Rabbah (9:3):.. There was an incident with a woman to whom a manmade advances. She asked him where he wanted to have their meeting. [After he told her] she went and told his wife. His wife went to that place and they had intercourse. He was very upset when he found out what had happened and prayed for death. His wife told him, “But it was your own bread that you ate from and it was from your own cup you drank.” She said that the cause of his trouble was that he thought that he was better than other men. The solution was to view himself as the equal of other men.
Delete