Rabbi Aryeh Klapper on Behaaloscha-Voice at the Table- Moshe's offer to Yisro -Was it enough to get him to stay?

EQUALITY UNDER HALAKHAH: A MORAL DIALOGUE ACROSS GENERATIONS

Every once in a while a verse from Tanakh comes and just smacks you upside the head like a flounder. How could I not have known that? Why did the opposite always seem obvious?

   This week I was fishsmacked by Yechezkel 47:21-23:

:וְחִלַּקְתֶּ֞ם אֶת־הָאָ֧רֶץ הַזֹּ֛את לָכֶ֖ם לְשִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

וְהָיָ֗ה תַּפִּ֣לוּ אוֹתָהּ֘ בְּנַחֲלָה֒ לָכֶ֗ם

וּלְהַגֵּרִים֙ הַגָּרִ֣ים בְּתוֹכְכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹלִ֥דוּ בָנִ֖ים בְּתֽוֹכְכֶ֑ם

וְהָי֣וּ לָכֶ֗ם כְּאֶזְרָח֙ בִּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל

:אִתְּכֶם֙ יִפְּל֣וּ בְנַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ שִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

וְהָיָ֣ה בַשֵּׁ֔בֶט אֲשֶׁר־גָּ֥ר הַגֵּ֖ר אִתּ֑וֹ שָׁ֚ם תִּתְּנ֣וּ נַחֲלָת֔וֹ

נְאֻ֖ם אֲ-דֹנָ֥י יְקֹוִֽק: ס

You must divide this land to yourselves, to the tribes of Israel.

It will be that you will make it fall-by-lot as a homestead to you,

and to the gerim/converts who are gar/dwell among you, who have sired children in your midst.

They shall be to you like the ezrach/citizen of the Children of Israel;

 with you they will fall-by-lot into homestead,

 in the midst of the Tribes of Israel.

It will be in the tribe with which the convert dwells – there you will place his homestead. 

The word of Hashem Elokim.

    I always took for granted that converts did not have hereditary portions in the Land of Israel. How could they, when the Land was fully distributed in the time of Yehoshua?! Also, I knew that according to Mishnah Bikkurim 1:4, converts do not read the Bikkurim declaration “because they cannot say that Hashem promised to our ancestors to give to us”, and that Rabbeinu Tam went so far as to suggest that converts could not be obligated in Grace after Meals because the second blessing expresses gratitude for the Land.

True, we rule against Rabbeinu Tam, and many hold against the Mishnah that converts read the Bikkurim declaration, on the ground that the Torah etymologizes Avraham as “av hamon goyim”, “father of (converts from) many nations”. True, the land is overall given to the collective Jewish people, including the converts among us. But converts don’t have hereditary homesteads that their children inherit, do they? Perhaps this is one of the contradictions between Yechezkel and Torah that Chananyah ben Chizkiyah stayed up all night resolving in order to keep it off the banned books list (Chagigah 13a).

 None of the standard traditional commentaries seem bothered. See for example Metzudat David 47:22:

 אתכם יפלו = עמכם יירשו בנחלה

with you they will fall-by-lot = they will inherit homesteads together with you.

As for the land being fully divided amongst the “original” clans - Abravanel spells out the standard resolution:

But why was this not also so in Yehoshua’s division of the Land? Because the erev rav that ascended with Israel from Mitzrayim did not join them in their exile, and did not suffer their sufferings; rather, when they saw their success and redemption, they mixed into them, as Shemot 12:38 says: Also an erev rav/mixed multitude ascended with them, because they joined them only in their time of ascension, not before then, and also because they became a stumbling rock and tripping block to the Children of Israel in the Golden Calf episode and the other occasions of sin in the wilderness, and therefore it was not fitting for them to merit gaining homesteads with them.

But regarding the Future-To-Come, the prophet did not say here that the converts who would join them in the time of Redemption would homestead with the Children of Israel, because the Sages already said (Yebamot 24b) that “we must not accept converts in the Days of the Messiah”; rather he commanded this regarding the converts who dwelled among the Jews in Israel’s time of exile and accepted the holy covenant and endured the suffering of exile, because it is fit for them, that just as they became Israel to endure suffering, so too they should be part of the homesteading of the land, and this is what (Yechezkel 47:21-23) means . . . that they will take their share of the good which Hashem will give-as-benefit to Israel = שמהטוב אשר יטיב השם לישראל יקחו חלקם.

 On this understanding, contemporary converts and their descendants will have full hereditary shares of the Land when it is reapportioned in Messianic times.

I read Abravanel’s last line as a deliberate allusion to Bamidbar 10:33, where Mosheh promises his in-laws that if they remain with the Jews,

 וְהָיָ֖ה כִּי־תֵלֵ֣ךְ עִמָּ֑נוּ

:וְהָיָ֣ה׀ הַטּ֣וֹב הַה֗וּא אֲשֶׁ֨ר יֵיטִ֧יב יְקֹוָ֛ק עִמָּ֖נוּ וְהֵטַ֥בְנוּ לָֽךְ

It will be that if you travel with us,

then it will be that the good which Hashem will give-as-benefit to us, we will give as benefit to you.

In other words, Mosheh promised them a share in the Land. This reading is borne out by a beraita (Yerushalmi Bikkurim 1:4) which holds that specifically the descendants of Yitro could recite the Bikkurim declaration in full. (This connection is made by Torah Temimah. Note also that Kapot Temarim to Sukkah 34a explains that all converts can recite the declaration because it can be read as referring to the future - “to give to us” – and converts will have Hashem-given land in Messianic times.)

 Or HaChayyim takes a slightly more limited approach, suggesting that Mosheh offered a share specifically in the “Lands of Sichon and Og”, i.e. TransJordan, which was not part of the original Divine promise. This approach requires Mosheh to know in advance that Sichon and Og will refuse Israel permission to cross.

 Rashi, following Sifri, points to an even more limited approach. Mosheh offered Yitro the usufruct of a vast tract around Yericho, extending to Yerushalayim. According to some tannaim, this tract was left unapportioned so that the Temple could be built on unapportioned land. When the Temple was built, Yitro’s descendants were evicted after 440 years of tenancy.  

 These narrower approaches recognize that Bamidbar 10:32 is Mosheh’s second offer. His first offer is in 10:29:

:וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֗ה לְ֠חֹבָב בֶּן־רְעוּאֵ֣ל הַמִּדְיָנִי֘ חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁה֒

נֹסְעִ֣ים׀ אֲנַ֗חְנוּ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָמַ֣ר יְקֹוָ֔ק 'אֹת֖וֹ אֶתֵּ֣ן לָכֶ֑ם'

לְכָ֤ה אִתָּ֙נוּ֙ וְהֵטַ֣בְנוּ לָ֔ךְ

:כִּֽי־יְקֹוָ֥ק דִּבֶּר־ט֖וֹב עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

Mosheh said to Chovev ben Reuel the Midianite, Mosheh’s in-law:

We are traveling to the place about which Hashem said “I will give it to you”;

go with us and we will give good-as-benefit to you

for Hashem has spoken of giving good to Israel.

This offer is rejected in 10:30:

:וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֵלָ֖יו

לֹ֣א אֵלֵ֑ךְ

:כִּ֧י אִם־אֶל־אַרְצִ֛י וְאֶל־מוֹלַדְתִּ֖י אֵלֵֽךְ

He said to him:

I will not go

rather I will go to my land and my culture.

Sifri records a position in which Mosheh’s second offer is also rejected, presumably because it still implies second-class citizenship.    

  Sifri also records positions that greatly narrow the implications of Yechezkel 47. “If the verses cannot relate to homesteading; then apply them to atonement”, meaning that converts are atoned for by the sacrifices of the tribes they accompany; “If the verses cannot relate to homesteading, then apply them to burial”, meaning that converts have a right to be buried in the Land. These positions begin by reading Mosheh’s first offer as specifically excluding any land rights: “the place about which Hashem said “I will give it to you” – and not converts.”

 What sort of negotiation is taking place? Many commentaries understand Mosheh as interested in preserving Yitro’s status as a powerful symbol of the persuasive truth of Judaism: “If you leave now, everyone will say that your conversion was for gain, and you left when the gain was disappointing.” If that is correct, then perhaps Yitro’s reply should be understood as: “If your religion is true, then how can you not give converts’ genuinely equal status? Isn’t that both unjust and hypocritical, when your own Torah says there must be one law for them, for the convert and the citizen”?

 Chizkuni seems to acknowledge the moral force of Yitro’s argument, with Mosheh’s first response being that his hands are bound by Halakhah.

,והטבנו לך – מן השלל

אבל לתת לו חלק בארץ, לא היה הרשות בידם

we will give good-as-benefit to you from the spoils we take,

but to give him a portion in the land – they did not have the authority.

But when Yitro rejects that offer, Mosheh finds a loophole – the verse excluding converts did not apply to lands conquered beyond G-d’s original grant. Maybe that was enough to satisfy Yitro – Ramban thinks so - but maybe not.

 Keli Yakar adopts a wholly different approach.

ואח'כ הבטיחו בטובה רוחנית

שיהיה מכלל הסנהדרין

שנקראו עיני העדה

כמ'ש והיית לנו לעינים

After (Yitro rejected the first offer) Mosheh promised him a spiritual good

namely that he would be included in the Sanhedrin

which are called “the eyes of the congregation”

as 10:31 says “and you will be eyes for us”

Mosheh’s second offer was not land but authority itself – he promised Yitro a seat on the Sanhedrin, a share in making the laws. (We will leave for another time how this promise can be squared with the halakhah excluding converts from positions of serarah.)

 If Yitro accepted this version of the second offer, then he probably joined the Sanhedrin with the express ambition of modifying halakhah to give converts fully equal inheritance rights. Perhaps the verses in Yechezkel reflect his success. But then the Mishnah, and Sifri, and Rabbeinu Tam all pushed back against that outcome, and also met with some success. The moral history of halakhic interpretation is not linear.

 Yitro accepted all of halakhah as binding even while maintaining his moral critique, and that is a powerful lesson for our generation. But we must also recognize that Yitro accepted only after Mosheh acknowledged that all those subject to halakhah must have seats at the highest tables of halakhic conversation and decisionmaking. 

Rabbi Aryeh Klapper is Dean of the Center for Modern Torah Leadership, Rosh Beit Midrash of its Summer Beit Midrash Program and a member of the Boston Beit Din.

 

 

 

Rabbi Klapper is a widely published author in prestigious Hebrew and English journals. He is frequently consulted on issues of Jewish law from representatives of all streams of Judaism and responds from an explicit and uncompromised Orthodox stance.

 

 

 

The Yeshiva of Newark @IDT is proud to partner with Rabbi Klapper to help spread his scholarly thoughtful ideas and Halachic insight to as wide an audience as possible .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please visit

 

 

 

http://www.torahleadership.org/

 

 

 

for many more articles and audio classes from Rav Klapper and to find out about his Summer programs as well as Rabbi Klapper's own podcast site

 

 

 

https://anchor.fm/aryeh-klapper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please leave us a review or email us at [email protected] 

This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate