At the end of our parsha Miriam spoke critically of Moshe’s
having separated from his wife Tziporah.
Miriam did not understand Moshe’s actions, as she and Aharon were also
prophets and they did not separate from their spouses.
Hashem immediately intervened and faulted Miriam
for not appreciating that Moshe’s level of prophecy was far greater than that
of any other navi, including herself and Aharon.
The Torah then ends the rebuke by telling us
(11:9), “
Vayichar af Hashem bam va’yeilach,” Hashem was angry and Miriam and
Aharon and his presence departed.
Had
you asked me, that pasuk should have been the opening to Hashem’s rebuke.
You first get angry and then you let the
other person have it – not the other way around.
Why does the Torah place it here, at the end
of the section?
I found this Seforno:
וַיִּחַר אַף ה' בָּם. שֶׁלּא נִכְנְעוּ תֵּיכֶף כְּמו
שֶׁעָשָה דָּוִד בְּאָמְרו אֶל נָתָן "חָטָאתִי"
The anger of Hashem that the pasuk is referring to is not a
result of what Miriam said – that was already addressed by G-d’s rebuke. The anger of Hashem is a result of Miriam’s
lack of reaction to that rebuke. When
Nasan came and told David that he had done something wrong, David immediately
responded, “Chatasi,” with an admission of guilt. The Torah does not record a similar reaction
on the part of Miriam and Aharon. It’s
not what they said that kindled Hashem’s anger, but rather it was the lack of immediate
contrition once they knew they had done wrong.
hmm... but what about the story of the sefas emes (Ibelieve) who just remained silent when he got rebuked by his grandfather (CHR) -? It seemed to me that it was a positive that he was Mekabel the Tochacha in silent "approval".
ReplyDelete(and maybe ain hachi nami - they WERE contrite here),
DeleteAnother possibility: God is teaching us not to give rebuke/mussar from a place of anger. Hashem rebukes *before* he expresses charon af (ki-vi-yachol), not at the same time.
ReplyDeletevery true. maybe the charon af is part of the mussar -- it has to be shown as part of the process of tochacha, but is not itself the root cause of the tochacha.
DeleteThe Netziv makes a similar point -- he reads the "vayeilach" not as "G-d's presence departed" but rather as "the charon af/anger departed." Before giving Miriam her punishment, G-d waited for his anger to subside.
What a find!
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the baalei mussar that say that the tipping point of Adam's exile was that he blamed Chava which showed that his hakaras hatov to the ribono shel olam for giving her to him was imperfect. The similarities are that we are quick to assume we understand what the Ribono shel Olam is angry about, when sometimes it's actually something more subtle, and that the sin is sometimes easier to rectify than is the failure to react properly when it's pointed out.