‘Father-in Law’ Parashat Beha’alotecha 5784

The Portion of Beha’alotecha is one of my favourite portions in the entire Book of Numbers. The reason for this predilection is that the portion is made up of bite-sized episodes that are just waiting to be analysed. If a person cannot find something that interests him in the Portion of Beha’alotecha, he simply isn’t trying.

In this essay, we will delve into an episode in which Moshe tries to convince his father-in-law to remain with the Jewish People instead of returning to his ancestral land of Midian. The entire episode consists of only four verses [Bemidbar 10:29-32]: “Moshe said to Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moshe’s father-in-law, We are traveling to the place about which G-d said, I will give it to you. Come with us and we will be good to you (ve’hetavnu lach), for G-d has spoken of good fortune (tov) for Israel. He said to him, I will not go, for I will go to my land and my birthplace [of Midian]. He said, Please do not leave us, because you are familiar with our encampments in the desert and you will be our guide. And if you go with us, then we will bestow on you the good which G-d grants us (V’haya ha’tov ha’hu asher yeitiv… ve’hetavnu lach.” A number of questions jump out at the reader:

1. The episode concludes without resolution of the argument: Does Hobab agree to stay or does he go home?
2. The word “good (tov)” is a key word in this episode as it appears in some form or another no less than five times. What is its significance?

One more question must be asked but it requires a bit of background. Jokes about in-laws have always been a mainstay of comedy. The humour is based on the premise that the average in-law often considers his child’s spouse to be unsuitable for his child and so the relationship between the two is often tense. These jokes are typically stereotypical and, perhaps for this reason, typically elicit a chuckle, at least from this student of comedy. I suggest that the episode of Moshe and Hobab could form the basis for a classic in-law joke: The preceding episode begins with the following words [Bemidbar 10:11-12]: “On the twentieth of the second month in the second year, the cloud rose up from over the Tabernacle (Mishkan). The Children of Israel traveled on their way from the Sinai desert [to the land of Israel], and the cloud settled in the desert of Paran.” The Torah then discusses how the Jewish People traveled in a single file by order of tribes until they reached their destination, where they would set up camp surrounding the Mishkan, with each tribe in its designated location. The episode concludes with the following words [Bemidbar 10:28]: “These are the travels of the Children of Israel according to their legions, and then they traveled”. Now here is where the humor comes in: Moshe is trying to convince his father-in-law to stay with the Jewish People but they have already left the premises. Imagine a modern-day version of this story at an airport in which a person begs his father-in-law to join him and his family on a holiday in Hawaii, when the flight had already taken off two hours earlier. Hilarious.

Our answer to these questions begins with yet another question. Immediately after Moshe’s conversation with his father-in-law, the Torah records the following verse [Bemidbar 10:33]: “They traveled a distance of three days from the Mountain of G-d (Sinai), and the Ark of the Covenant travelled three days ahead of them to seek for them a place to settle.” Wait a minute – didn’t the Jewish People already leave Mount Sinai to head for the Land of Israel before Moshe’s conversation with his father-in-law?

I propose that the episode immediately preceding Moshe’s conversation with his father-in-law is talking about something else entirely. An indication that it is not discussing an actual journey of the Jewish People can be found in the English translation to a seemingly innocuous verse. The on-line Chabad “Complete Jewish Bible” translates the verse as follows [Bemidbar 10:13]: “This was their first journey (Vayis’u ba’rishona)”. The default JPS 2006 translation on the Sefaria website translates the verse completely differently: “When the march was to begin…”[1]. According to  the JPS translation, the verses preceding Moshe’s conversation with Hobab are not a description of a trip that had already taken place, but, rather, they serve as a guidebook for how they were to travel whenever they would be commanded to travel: “Then they travelled” should be translated as “Then they would travel” The Jewish People only left on the first leg of their journey after Moshe’s conversation with his father-in-law.

The next step in our solution lies in a comment made by Rabbi Yonatan Grossman[2], writing in “Torat Etzion”. According to Rabbi Grossman, the outcome of the discussion between Moshe and his father-in-law is not mentioned because it is far less important than the basis of their disagreement. I propose that the disagreement between the two men pertained to the way in which the Jewish People were commanded to travel. After the exodus from Egypt, Hobab visits the Jewish People and he sees Moshe inundated by court cases [Shemot 18:13] “from dawn to dusk” in which he alone must adjudicate. He recommends to Moshe that he could reduce his burden by instituting a system of higher and lower courts. This only partially solved Moshe’s problem. Moshe’s case-load did not result merely from the fact that he was the only judge. The second part of the problem was that the Jewish People were, in the words of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks[3], “quarrelsome and rebellious” and would by their nature spend inordinate amounts of time in court. One reason for their “quarrels and rebellions” was the highly disparate natures of the twelve tribes of Israel. Each of them exhibited a trait particular to their tribe. Jacob calls out these traits when he blesses his sons before his death. Here are some examples: The Tribe of Reuben would vacillate. This was not necessarily a bad thing. While the rest of Israel was referred to as [Shemot 32:9] “a stiff-necked people”, the Tribe of Reuben were not locked into one way of thinking. The Tribes of Levi and Simon were passionate and had no patience for those who did not share their passion. The Tribe of Judah was regal – they were destined to serve as Kings of Israel. They demanded honor and deference. The Tribe of Issachar was obstinate. One can imagine Issachar becoming disgusted with Reuben’s lack of conviction, while Levi and Simon become increasingly agitated because people are wasting their time arguing.

In the beginning of the Book of Numbers, G-d instructs the Jewish People to camp in the desert by implementing tribal division. Three tribes would camp on each of the four sides of the Mishkan. It is plausible to suggest that one reason for this division was to reduce the amount of “quarrels” by reducing inter-tribal friction. This was the source of Hobab’s disagreement with Moshe. Hobab posited that the way to reduce the case-load in court was not to stifle healthy discussion by keeping the warring sides apart, but to make the courts more efficient. When Moshe announces that not only will the tribes be separated when they camped, but, also, when they travelled, Hobab announces that he is heading home.

Moshe’s response to Hobab is heavily peppered with word “good (tov)”. The Mishnah in Tractate Avot [6:3] teaches that “Good” means nothing but Torah – the Word of G-d. Moshe is telling Jethro that while the Jewish People are one unified nation, each tribe embodies one shade of G-d’s truth and one way of connecting with G-d. Segregation between the tribes emphasizes that each of these ways are legitimate, albeit not simultaneously. When we worship G-d, there is a time for passion, a time for obstinance, a time for deference, and a time that we must bend to His Will, and not He to ours. Only with this goodness can we inherit “the place about which G-d said, I will give it to you”.

Ari Sacher, Moreshet, 5784

Please daven for a Refu’a Shelema for Shlomo ben Esther, Sheindel Devorah bat Rina and Esther Sharon bat Chana Raizel

[1] This translation is also proposed by the Netziv in “Ha’amek Davar”.

[2] Rabbi Grossman is an associate professor in Bar-Ilan University and Herzog College

[3] Rabbi Sacks was the Chief Rabbi of England between 1991-2013. He is considered one of the greatest philosophers and religious spokesmen of our generation.