“The Mysterious Case of the Shabbat Wood-Gatherer”

 

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parshat Shelach, 5765

 

Aside from the central series of events associated with the sin of the “Meraglim” (spies) recorded in Parshat Shelach,[1] a transgression dealt with in a far more curt and ambiguous fashion is the incident of the “Mekoshesh Eitzim” (the stick gatherer [on Shabbat]) (15:32-36).

 

And the Children of Israel were in the desert, and they found a man gathering sticks on the day of Shabbat.

 

And they who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moshe, Aharon and the entire congregation.

 

And they placed him into a guarded place because it was unclear what to do to him.

 

And HaShem Said to Moshe: The man will surely die; the entire congregation is to stone him with stones outside of the encampment.

 

And the entire congregation took him outside the encampment and they stoned him with stones and he died, as HaShem had Commanded Moshe.

 

The story of the “wood gatherer” does not appear to be intrinsically related to what  comes before—the laws concerning sin offerings[2]—or what follows—the Mitzva of “Tzitzit” (ritual fringes [needed for four-cornered garments])[3]—in the biblical text. Although the principle of “Ein Mukdam U’Meuchar BaTora” (there is no chronological order regarding the manner in which the Parshiot of the Tora are presented) could be invoked, leading to the conclusion that this event did not occur at the moment that the other stories and Commandments that surround it either took place or were first revealed,[4] nevertheless it would still be necessary to account for why the story is written at this point in BaMidbar, even if it actually already took place at some earlier period.

 

Several commentators try their respective hands at offering hypotheses explaining the positioning of the “Mekoshesh Eitzim” in the Tora, among them Rabbeinu Bachaya. One of the reasons he offers for the placement of this story in Parshat Shelach is that while the ostensible single reason for HaShem’s Decree that the Jews wander in the desert until the members of the generation of the Exodus have died, appears to be their lack of belief that they were capable of conquering Canaan even with Divine Assistance (15:34), in fact, other transgressions were also being committed, such as the violation of Shabbat, represented by the instance of the “Mekoshesh Eitzim”, and the failure to conform with the requirement of “Tzitzit” implied by the inclusion of both this Mitzva as well as the story of Shabbat transgression at the conclusion of Parshat Shelach.[5]  

 

There are at least two ways by which the violation of the Mitzva of “Tzitzit”, a positive Commandment that at first glance does not seem to be of such extreme importance,[6] could be considered particularly incriminating to the point where strong action on the part of HaShem, particularly during the period immediately following the receiving of the Tora, could be justified.

 

On the one hand, “Tzitzit”, by virtue of the numerical value of its letters, knots and strands,[7] symbolize the entire corpus of Jewish law.  The Tora unambiguously states that the wearing and seeing of these ritual fringes are intended to induce a state of  continuous cognitive awareness of one’s positive and negative religious responsibilities:

 

BaMidbar 15:39

And the “Tzitzit” will be yours, and you will see them and you will remember all of the Commandments of HaShem and you will carry them out, and you will not turn away following the vagaries of your heart and your eyes that you are susceptible to stray after them.

 

If we accept Rabbeinu Bechaya’s premise that people were ignoring the requirement to place “Tzitzit” on the corners of their four-cornered garments at the time of the sin of the “Meraglim”, was such non-compliance due to mere laziness or negligence, or did this omission constitute a premeditated protest against the sort of Tora lifestyle that all Jews were now expected to follow? Did people not wish to be reminded of their obligations, relatively soon after having collectively pronounced (Shemot 24:7) “We will do and we will hear” at Sinai? Could not wearing “Tzitzit” constitute a subtle manifestation of the same attitude that leads the people to doubt that HaShem will successfully Bring them into the land of Canaan? Apparently, certain actions may have more or less significance attributed to them depending upon the context and circumstance during which these actions enfold.

 

A second approach to reflecting upon the significance of “Tzitzit” from a cultural rather than purely religious perspective, particularly when the Jews have relatively recently been redeemed from their Egyptian bondage, is to place this Mitzva within the context of a well-known Midrashic assumption.

 

VaYikra Rabba 32:5

R. Huna said in the name of R. Kafra: Due to four things were the Jews redeemed from Egypt:

a)  They did not change their names,

b)  their language,[8]

c)  they did not report upon one another,[9]

d)  and no one was found among them who engaged in sexual promiscuity.[10]

 

Midrash Leket Tov

(Devarim 26:5) “…And they became there (in Egypt) a nation…”[11]

This teaches that Israel stood out distinctively there, that their dress, their food and their language was different from that of the Egyptians.

 

RITV”A in his commentary to the Haggada:[12]

And there are certain versions of this tradition that they (the Jews in Egypt) were recognizable by means of their dress in accordance with their particular practices, for instance “Tzitzit” on their clothing and the like, and this inference is drawn because of the phrase, “…And they became there a nation…” for behold since they had to endure so many generations during which they were enslaved to them (the Egyptians), how could they have remained a nation distinct unto themselves? It is only possible if they remained visibly different and outstanding by their cultural accoutrements, and all who would see them would recognize them as being the descendents of Avraham, God’s holy one.[13]

           

This Midrashic approach contains the possibility that “Tzitzit” was not an innovation that dated from Sinai, but had been a distinctive Jewish form of clothing that demarcated Jews from other national and ethnic groups from time immemorial. While the distinct manner by which to tie the “Tzitzit” and incorporate in them a thread dyed with “Techeilet” (a blue indelible dye derived from the murex truculous sea snail) may have been later developments, the concept of “Tzitzit” could have originated in the time of Avraham. Consequently, a Jew opting not to wear “Tzitzit” is not so much resisting a symbolic commitment to a life of Mitzvot, but rather refusing to visibly identify with the Jewish people.

 

While the above is a consideration of why the failure to wear “Tzitzit” could have contributed to HaShem’s decision to basically eliminate the generation that left Egypt before the Jewish people enters Israel, Rabbeinu Bachaya also contends that the lack of proper “Shmirat Shabbat” (Shabbat observance), represented by the “Mekoshesh Eitzim” was another issue that worked against the Jews who were not to die in the desert.   

 

While a simple reading of the biblical text suggests that Shabbat had been presented to the Jewish people on only two occasions, prior to the incident of the “Mekoshesh Eitzim”,[14] leading to a reasonable defense maintaining that not enough was known about this Commandment to earn the transgressor the death penalty, the Oral Tradition asserts that there had been additional times when the people were exposed to Shabbat. According to the Midrash, the Jews were first introduced to Shabbat while still slaves in Egypt.[15]

 

Shemot Rabba 1:28

(Shemot 2:11) “And he [Moshe] saw their [the Jewish people’s] burdens”

He saw that they did not have rest.

He went and said to Pharoah: Someone who owns a slave, if he does not allow him to rest at least one day per week, he will die. These are your slaves. If you do not give them one day off each week they will die.

He said to him: Go and arrange for them as you have said.

Moshe went and arranged for them the day of Shabbat to rest.

 

But it could be countered that at that point, the people did not necessarily view Shabbat as a particularly spiritual occasion, featuring rules, regulations and opportunities for inspiration that are comparable to the manner in which Shabbat is eventually presented at Sinai. Might it not have been a day off, pure and simple? It is reasonable to imagine that after six days of (Shemot 1:13) “Avoda BeFarech” (breaking work), the slaves would sleep as much as possible, as opposed to spending time reflecting upon their relationship with HaShem.

 

The first overt reference to Shabbat as a religious event once the people left Egypt is in association with the Manna, the food that would rain down virtually daily from the sky. While the Manna appears to primarily have been a response to the people’s plaint regarding their going hungry in the desert (Shemot 16:2), an introduction to aspects of Shabbat observance were folded into the practices that would be associated with the gathering and preparation of this Heavenly sustenance.

 

          a)  (Shemot 16:22) A double portion would be available on Fridays.

b)  (Ibid. 23) All food preparations for Shabbat involving “Melacha” (creative physical activity, represented here by baking and cooking) were to be completed prior to the advent of the day.

c)   (Ibid. 29) The intention of giving the people a double portion on Friday is so that they will remain “at home” on Shabbat.

d)   (Ibid. 30) Shabbat was a day of rest for the Jewish people (it is assumed that if they were to be able to stay “at home” then no journeying through the desert would ever take place on Shabbat.

 

While the above Shabbat principles do contribute to creating a restful atmosphere, nowhere in Shemot 16 is there any indication that serious consequences would be in store for a Shabbat violator. HaShem Expresses anger when some Jews, either out of curiosity or greed, or both, go out into the fields on Shabbat even after being informed that they will find nothing   there (Ibid. 27-29). Aside from HaShem berating Moshe (Ibid. 28), it does not appear that anything ever happens to those who inappropriately searched for the Manna on Shabbat. A careful reading of the verses describing the interchanges between Moshe and the princes of the tribes (Ibid. 22-27) reveals that while Moshe stated that Manna would not be found in the fields, he never explicitly says that one should not go out in search of it. Perhaps this accounts for why HaShem appears to be more dismayed with Moshe than with those who ignored his directives—Moshe had not made clear to the people what was required of them.[16]

 

Another allusion, as opposed to a clear-cut reference, to Mitzvot supposedly including Shabbat, is understood by Sanhedrin 56b to be found in Shemot 15:25, describing the events that took place at Mara.[17] Assuming that before being able to commit to accepting and fulfilling the totality of HaShem’s Mitzvot at Sinai, the Jewish people must be exposed to a representative sample of Commandments, the Talmud posits that along with “Para Aduma” (the Red Heifer) (BaMidbar 19:1-22), “Dinim” (a system of civil laws and the means by which to adjudicate and enforce them) and “Kibud Av VaEim” (respecting one’s father and mother) (Shemot 20:12; Devarim 5:16), Shabbat was included. However, the extent to which the punishments that were associated with Shabbat violations were discussed, if at all, is impossible to determine.[18]

 

Shabbat is presented in much more legalistic and clear-cut terms at Sinai, as part of   the Ten Commandments.

 

Shemot 20:8-11

Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it.

 

Six days you will work and accomplish all of your “Melacha”.

 

And the seventh day is a Shabbat for the Lord your God, you shall not perform any “Melacha”, neither you, nor your sons, daughters, male and female servants, animals and the sojourner who lives in your gates.

 

Because for six days HaShem Made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He Rested on the seventh day. Therefore HaShem Blessed the day of Shabbat and He Sanctified it.

 

But here too, no consequences for the Shabbat violator are delineated. It is only later in Shemot, first in Parshat Ki Tisa (31:14-15)

 

“…S/he who violates it will surely die, for whomever does ‘Melacha’ on it, and that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people…Whomever does ‘Melacha’ on it will surely die,”

 

and then in Parshat VaYakhel (35:2)

 

“…Whomever does ‘Melacha’ on it will surely die,”

 

where it is made completely clear that Shabbat transgressions are capital offenses, and it is possible that these presentations, associated with the construction of the Mishkan, occurred after the incident of the “Mekoshesh Eitzim”, and to some extent as a direct consequence of what had happened.[19]

 

Whether or not in the end we accept Rabbeinu Bechaya’s hypothesis regarding the possible role played by the lack of “Shmirat Shabbat” and the wearing of “Tzitzit” in the ultimate determination whether the generation of the Exodus had the potential to transcend their slave mentality and become true manifestations of God’s Chosen People, it should not be lost upon us how complying with the entire gamut of Mitzvot, from what appears to be relatively insignificant to a Commandment that is recognized as being quite central, constitute the means by which we fulfill HaShem’s Will. While there is no one who will perfectly fulfill every last aspect of the myriad number of obligation and responsibilities that leading a traditional Jewish life requires (Kohelet 7:20), each of us should strive to do as much as we can, as well as we can, so that we continually approach ever higher levels of “Kedusha” (holiness) and “Tahara” (purity).  

 

Shabbat Shalom.