Paternalistic Parenting in the Desert

Continuing the theme of finding in Devarim innovative and alternate perspectives regarding what has been recorded previously in the Tora from Shemot through BaMidbar, Parshat Eikev advances a fundamentally different take on God’s Requiring the Jews to wander for 40 years in the desert, before entering Israel. Whereas BaMidbar focused upon the 40 years of punishment to the generation of the Exodus, Devarim draws attention to the 40 years of lessons taught to the subsequent generations of the Jewish people.

When we are first informed about the Divine Decree condemning the people who left Egypt, its purpose appears to be exclusively punitive in nature:

Say (Moshe) to them (the people who did not trust in HaShem and depended upon the negative report of the spies): As I Live, Says HaShem, as you have spoken in My Ears (indicating your unwillingness to enter the land—see BaMidbar 14:2), so will I Do to you.[2]

Your carcasses shall fall in this desert, and all that were counted of you (the census included those above the age of 20-see BaMidbar 1:18) according to your whole number, from 20 years old and upward, who have murmured against Me (the entire tribe of Levi as well as Yehoshua and Kalev were excluded from the Decree since they had not murmured against HaShem).

You shall never come into the land that I Swore to make you dwell there, except for Kalev son of Yefune and Yehoshua son of Nun.

But your little ones, about whom you said that shall be prey (BaMidbar 14:3), them I shall Bring in and they shall know the land that you despised.

And your children shall wander in the desert for 40 years and bear your infidelities, until your carcasses are consumed in the desert.

According to the number of days that you spied out the land (see BaMidbar 13:25), 40 days, each day for a year, shall you bear your iniquities, namely 40 years, and you will know My Displeasure.

I, HaShem, have Said: I will surely Do it to this entire evil congregation that is gathered together in the desert against Me. In the desert they will be consumed and there they shall die.

Upon reflection, it appears uncharacteristic[3] for HaShem to have Spread the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people over the course of 4 decades,[4] creating not only a tortuous situation for those waiting to die, but also seemingly needless discomfort and delay in reaching the Promised Land for those who were either too young to merit punishment, or if old enough, had nevertheless not demonstrated a lack of faith in HaShem. When various groups of people, Jews and non-Jews alike, had incurred God’s Wrath prior to[5] as well as following[6] the sin of the spies, their elimination was usually dramatic and unhesitating.

It is specifically in Parshat Eikev that we are apprised of the secondary purpose of the 40 years of wandering in the desert that relates specifically to those who were not Decreed to die as a result of the sin of the spies:

And you shall remember the entire way that HaShem, your God, Led you these 40 years in the desert, in order to Afflict you, to Test you, to Determine that which is within your hearts—will you observe His Commandments or not?

And He Afflicted you and He Starved you and Fed you the Manna with which you were unfamiliar, as were your fathers, so that He could Make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that Emanates from the “Mouth” of HaShem does man live.

When considering the exact parameters of the discomfiting trials, aside from the terror of impending death,[7] to which HaShem Subjected His People during their wanderings in the desert, a number of challenges to their sang- froid could be identified: a) the uncertainty of what lay ahead of them once they leave their familiar surroundings of Egypt,[8] b) the frustration engendered by the irregularity of the patterns of periods of journeying followed by encampments,[9] c) the potential dangers of desert heat in the day and cold at night as well as the wildlife indigenous to the area,[10] d) the possibility of being attacked by the peoples living in the desert and through whose lands they will need to pass,[11] and e) finding sufficient potable water.[12] And single one of these factors would be sufficient to try men’s souls, let alone all of them together.

However, if we treat Devarim 8:2-3 as an example of the hermeneutic rule of “Kellal U’Perat” (a general statement[13] immediately followed by a specific statement[14]) resulting in the conclusion: “Ein B’Chlall Elah Ma SheBeFerat”[15] (the preceding general statement is defined by and limited to the specific example that follows),[16] then the specifics of v. 3 define the generalities of v. 2, and apparently spending 40 years in the desert without any guarantee regarding the next day’s food supply,[17] constituted the specific affliction and test to which those who would eventually enter Israel were subjected, simultaneous to the dying out of the generation that had unduly lacked faith in HaShem’s Promises.

RaShBaM and Sephorno each understand the nature of the trial concerning the tenuous food supply from polar opposite perspectives:

“In order to afflict you”—It is a form of affliction when you have no bread “in your basket”[18] and your life is dependent upon Heaven every day.

“To test you”—Whether you will carry out His Will when you obtain bread and clothing without trouble/exertion/personal effort.

Whereas RaShBaM seems to understand the two infinitives in v. 2, “to afflict you” and “to test you”, as essentially synonymous, i.e., the affliction and the test are one and the same, in the sense that on a day-to-day basis, you did not know if you would have food resulting in significant emotional insecurity and a test of the extent that the people possessed trust in HaShem, Sephorno sees the two verbs in dialectical apposition to one another. Concerning the next day, there was uncertainty, and hence “affliction”; but the food was always forthcoming without personal effort beyond gathering it from the fields[19] and preparing it in its various forms,[20] constituting a subtle but substantive “test”. Sephorno would appear to base his interpretation of v. 3 wherein the issue of food is discussed on the continuation of the theme at the beginning of the following verse:

Your clothing did not wear out from upon you nor did your feet swell over the course of the 40 years.

Just as you never felt deprived with regard to your clothing, the same could be said about your food,[21] since it was regularly supplied to you.[22]

Consequently, according to Sephorno, a single individual might experience these two totally opposite spiritual challenges within each 24 hour period over the course of 40 years! An alternate approach to understanding Sephorno would suggest that there were relevant tests for different people’s sensibilities, i.e., for some how to deal with not knowing whether there would be food tomorrow presented the greatest spiritual challenge; for others having everything given to them was potentially most religiously destructive.[23]

The Tora presents a fascinating and intriguing metaphor in order to explain the secondary “teaching and testing” purpose of God’s Causing the people to wander for 40 years in the desert:

You shall consider in your heart, that as a man “YeYaser” (chastens) his son,[24] so HaShem, your God, “MiYasreka” (Chastens you).

The conceit of God’s Describing the Jewish people as His Child and therefore His Considering Himself their Parent, appears several times throughout the Tora, particularly in Devarim:

And you (Moshe) will say to Pharoah: So Says HaShem, “My Son, My Firstborn is Israel.”

And He Says to you, “Send forth My Son so that he can serve Me, and if you refuse to send him forth, I will Kill your firstborn son.”

And in the desert that you saw, where HaShem Carried you in the manner that a man carries his son throughout the entire way that you went, until you came to this place.

You are the Children of HaShem, your God; you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Is this the manner in which you treat HaShem, foolish people and unwise? Is He not your Father Who Acquired you? Has He not Made you and Established you?

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations. Ask Your Father and He will Recount it to you, your elders and they will tell you.

And He Said: I will Hide My Face from them; I will See what their end shall be. For they are a very perverse generation, children in whom there is no faith (in their Father).

Almost all of these verses containing the parent-child metaphor appear to suggest a tender, compassionate relationship between Father and son, i.e., the Parent Insisting that His Child be released from bondage, the Parent Carrying the Child when he cannot walk so far, the Parent Ordering the Child not to mutilate himself, the Parent Pleading with the Child to acknowledge how much is owed the Father, and the Child being advised that he should turn to the Father for guidance. Even Devarim 32:20 in which the Father Expresses exasperation with His “Offspring”, describes the Parent’s negative reaction to be essentially passive, whereby He will Absent Himself from the affairs of the Child, at least in an overt manner,[25] as opposed to the deliberate and proactive chastisement and testing cited in Parshat Eikev (Devarim 8:5). Furthermore, the “Afflicting” and “Testing” of Devarim 8:2-3 seem to be confined to how HaShem dealt with the Jewish people during the 40 years in the desert. Does a juxtaposition of Devarim 8:2-5 with Devarim 32:20 result in the conclusion that “active chastisement” by means of the almost daily allotment of Manna was a strategy that was tried for a time and after proving unsuccessful, ultimately abandoned in favor of “Hester Panim” (the “Hiding of the Face”)? Has the relationship changed from one of intimate involvement to where the Offspring have become a sort of “latch-key children”, expected to fend for themselves and educate themselves as best they can?

Several traditional commentators do not think that the experience in the desert constituted a “closed-ended” period in Jewish history, but rather see the “chastisements” as related to and designed to inform subsequent experiences and situations. Consequently, “Hester Panim” can set in much later, as opposed to beginning immediately after the desert wanderings are concluded.

“So HaShem, your God, Chastises you”—initially by means of the afflictions of the desert and the Manna, in order that your soul will find pleasant the goodness of the land and its fruits. Therefore it states afterwards, (Devarim 8:7-18)

For HaShem, your God Brings you into a good land, a land of streams of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills,

A land of wheat and barley and vines and fig trees and pomegranates; a land of olive oil and honey,

A land in which you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall not lack anything in it, A land whose stones are iron and out of whose hills you will dig brass.

When you have eaten and are full, you will bless HaShem, your God for the good land which He has Given you.

Beware that you not forget HaShem, your God, in not keeping His Commandments, and His Judgments and His Statutes that I command you this day.

Lest when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and dwelled in them,

And when your herds and flocks multiply, and your silver and your gold are multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied,

Then your heart be lifted up and you forget HaShem, your God, Who Brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Who Led you through that great and terrible desert in which were poisonous snakes and scorpions and drought, where there was no water, Who Brought forth water for you out of the rock of flint,

Who Fed you in the desert with Manna that your fathers knew not that He might Afflict you and that He might Prove you, to do good for you at your end.

But you should remember HaShem, your God, for it is He Who Gives you power to obtain wealth, that He may Establish the Covenant that He Swore to your fathers, as it is this day.

Although RaMBaN assumes that the trials in the desert were designed to create an appropriate attitude within the people once they reached Canaan, unfortunately a long-term carry-over of these lessons is not in evidence in light of the people’s rapid spiritual deterioration and involvement with idolatry, once Yehoshua’s generation had passed on.[26] Moshe indicates throughout Devarim his lack of confidence that the values of trust and fear in HaShem that the 40 years in the desert were designed to instill in the people would last for very long.[27]

NeTzIV on Devarim 8:2 approaches the trials and tribulations in the desert as an educational experience. He suggests that the 40 year period was necessary because according to at least one source in the Talmud, using the Jews’ desert wanderings as a paradigm, until 40 years have passed, it is impossible for a student to have properly learned the lessons of his teacher, in our case, Israel’s having learned the lesson “Devarim 8:2 “…Will you observe His Commandments or not”.

(Devarim 5:26) “Oh that there were such a heart in them that they would fear Me and keep all of My Commandments always…”—

Moshe said to Israel: Ingrates, sons of ingrates! When the Holy One, Blessed be He, Said to Israel, “Oh that there were such a heart in them”, they should have said, “You Assure that we remain righteous” (but they did not do so because they did not wish to be indebted to HaShem).

Furthermore, they were ingrates in light of its being written (concerning the Manna), (BaMidbar 21:5) “And our souls were disgusted with the unsubstantial bread”.

They were descendants of ingrates in light of its being written, (Beraishit 3:12) “The woman (Chava) that You (HaShem) Gave me (Adam), she gave me of the Tree and I ate.”

(Returning back to the first point regarding Devarim 5:26) But Moshe our Teacher did not refer to Israel’s possessing this trait until after 40 years had passed, as it is said, (Devarim 29:4) “And I led you for 40 years in the desert,” and it is written, (Ibid. 29:3) “But HaShem did not Give you a heart to know or eyes to hear until this day.”

Rabba said: Learn from this statement that a person does not fully grasp the thinking of his teacher until after 40 years.

…The fundamental underlying conception (is) exerting such an influence by which a variety of forces are brought into the same direction towards a purpose or goal, whether this impression is made by direct external means or internally by appealing to the mind. Teaching and culture, spiritual and moral education is, accordingly, the underlying concept of “Yesar”. The 40 years of wandering in the desert was nothing other than such an instructive, formative education; teaching of God’s ever-present, near and providing Presence; formative practice in trusting, cheerful giving oneself up to such guidance; both together founded the conviction that for us tot attain moral perfection by learning and practicing was a matter with which God’s Government was deeply interested in, by which it arranged our fate in accordance with the requirements of our spiritual education, and by the experiences which it makes us have in our lives does teach us and educate us in practicing. Of this conviction that God with His Management is like a Father to us, and all the joy and trouble He Sends to us aim at nothing else than our betterment and moral ennoblement…

Therefore, while the learning (as opposed to the trials and afflictions) may be confined to the desert experience, the lessons that have been reviewed and driven home over and over are intended to affect the student for an entire lifetime.

But as we have stated with respect to RaMBaN’s interpretation, the 40 years of study do not seem to prove all that long-lasting, certainly when one takes into consideration the life of a nation, as opposed to individual members of a particular generation.

Perhaps the most poignant as well as apt description of God’s ongoing Relationship with us which combines the desert mode with the “Hester Panim” mode is offered by Chafetz Chayim.

…Therefore like a compassionate father, who has an only son who has digressed from the proper path, and he turned him over to others who will punish him until he decides to return and accept the father’s rebukes, nevertheless if the father recognizes the nature of his son that he is weak, and the punishers are cruel and hard-hearted, and he fears lest the son be swallowed up by them, against his will, the father has to personally stand behind the door and the doorpost to see if his son has the wherewithal to withstand the punishment and at that time he must watch with both of his eyes much more so than during a time of peace. And sometimes when he sees that it is difficult for his son to withstand the punishments or that the son has repented with a full heart, it is incumbent for the father to immediately relieve the son of his oppressors. And how great is the pain of the father who has to restrain himself and to stand and watch with his eyes the afflictions of his only son and hear his cries to his father to save him. But what can he do? If he does not afflict him, and he continues to go in a wayward manner in accordance with his heart, he will destroy his soul for eternity...

Shabbat Shalom, and may we keep in mind the lessons learned during our long, glorious and difficult past so that “Parent” and “child” can be reunited lovingly and eternally.

[1] See fn. 24.

[2] Just as HaShem Allows people to do what they wish, even if it is not in their best interests in order to preserve the concept of human free choice, He also Allows them not to do what is appropriate for them. See RaShI on BaMidbar 22:35.

[3] Since HaShem by definition is sui generis (e.g., “Hu Echad VeEin Sheini LeHamshil Lo LeHachbira” [He is One, there is no second to compare to Him and to declare His equal]), it is impossible to make absolute statements about His Patterns of Behavior. Yet, based upon HaShem’s interactions as described in the Tora, we should be able to at least surmise what is typical and atypical with regard to the manner in which He Demonstrates His Displeasure with People.

[4] RaShI on BaMidbar 14:33 states that members of the generation of the Exodus did not die until each had reached the age of 60, therefore necessitating 40 years of wandering to allow for someone who was only 20 at Yetziat Mitzrayim to come of age and finally die in the desert. He does not offer a rationale as to why it was necessary for such an age to be achieved.

[5] See e.g., Shemot 12:29; 32:26-28, 35; BaMidbar 11:1, 33.

[6] See e.g., BaMidbar 16:32-35; 17:12; 25:9.

[7] Based upon a series of Midrashim, Louis Ginzberg (The Legends of the Jews, Vol. III, Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1964, pp. 281-2) summarizes the manner in which the people died in the desert:

Death, moreover, visited the transgressors in such a fashion they were aware that it was meant as punishment for their sins. Throughout all the year, not one among them died (!) On the 8^th day of the month of Av, Moshe would have a herald proclaim throughout the camp, “Let each prepare his grave.” They dug their graves and spent there the following night, the same night on which following the counsel of the spies, they had revolted against HaShem and Moshe. In the morning, a herald would once more appear and cry, “Let the living separate themselves from the dead.” Those that were still alive arose, but about 15,000 of them remained dead in their graves. After 40 years, however, when the herald repeated his customary call on the 9^th of Av, all arose and there was not a single dead man among them. At first they thought that they had made a miscalculation in their observation of the moon, and it was not the 9^th of Av at all, and that this was the reason why their lives had been spared. Hence they repeated their preparations for death until the 15^th of Av (!) Then the sight of the full moon convinced them that the 9^th of Av had gone by and that their punishment had been done away with. In commemoration of the relief of this punishment, they appointed the 15^th of Av to be a holy day.

[8] See Yirmiyahu 2:2.

[9] See BaMidbar 9:18-23.

[10] Although the Tora states that the people were shielded from these extremes in temperature and from the snakes and scorpions by the clouds that surrounded them, might they not have feared regarding what would happen should the clouds be removed? See Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael, Parshat BeShalach, on Shemot 13:21, quoted in “I’ve Looked at Clouds from Both Sides Now”, http://www.kmsynagogue.org/Behaalotcha.html

[11] Shemot 17:8; BaMidbar 14:45; 20:20; 21:1, 23, 33.

[12] Shemot 15:22; 17:1; BaMidbar 20:2.

[13] Devarim 8:2 “…to Afflict you, to Test you…” It is unclear from this verse what the nature of the afflictions and tests were.

[14] Devarim 8:3 “…He Starved you and Fed you the Manna…”

[15] E.g., Eiruvin 28a; Pesachim 6b; Sota 46a.

[16] See ArtScroll Siddur, p. 50. Although in the footnote on this page, the context of discussion is a “law”, the hermeneutic principles apply to the “Aggadic” portions of the Tora as well, as evidenced by the Baraita of R. Elazar beno shel R. Yosi HaGalili, containing a sum total of 32 (including as well as vastly augmenting the 13 or R. Yishmael) hermeneutic principles by which the Tora is to be interpreted. The Baraita is quoted and explicated in MaHaRZO’s introduction to Midrash Rabba.

[17] For Shabbat and Yom Tov, a double portion would fall the day before exempting the people from having to go out to the fields in order to gather food on these days. But these constituted the exceptions rather than the rule. See Shemot 16:23; RaShI on Shemot 16:26.

[18] A Rabbinic idiom connoting one having food for the foreseeable future, and therefore not feeling anxiety or pressure regarding meeting his fundamental needs. The idiom is also used sometimes metaphorically to apply to basic desires other than food. See e.g., Yoma 18b and 74b.

[19] Shemot 16:16 ff.

[20] Shemot 16:23. Sometimes it would be cooked; other times it would be baked in order to serve the Manna in different forms.

[21] The basic necessities of food and clothing provided by HaShem to His People in the desert echo aspects of the Garden of Eden story—Beraishit 2:16, 17; 3:21—as well as the obligations that a husband has towards his wife—Shemot 21:10.

[22] RaShBaM, of course, could counter that even though “at the end of the (i.e., each) day” there was food, you could never be sure the day before, which was not the case with regard to the clothing that always remained with you rather than becoming threadbare. Therefore v. 4 has nothing to do with v. 3, but rather constitute a fundamentally different aspect of the desert experience.

[23] A Rabbinic interpretation that supports such a dichotomy is the following:

Berachot 61b

(On the verse in Devarim 6:5 “And you shall love HaShem, your God, with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your might”)

It was taught: R. Eliezer said: If it states “with all your might”, why does it also state “with all your soul”; and if it states “with all your soul”, why does it also state “with all your might”? Because if there is a person whose body is more important to him than his possessions, it states, “with all your soul”. And if there is a person whose possessions are more important to him than his body, it states “with all your might”.

[24] Throughout the Tora text, the terminology is predominantly “male” with both God and the people being referred to by means of masculine pronouns and declined verbs. But in this instance, the reference to God as a “Father” and to the Jews as His “Son” within the context of the manner in which a father relates to his son by means of chastisement, begs the question of whether a mother-daughter relationship could be described in the same way. If one would conclude that a relationship of chastisement is unique to fathers and sons, then how are women to feel with respect to the metaphor in Devarim 8:5? Will they not be able to understand God in the same manner that men might since such interactions are more typical to male settings? Or do mothers chastise their sons and daughters just as fathers do and therefore nothing should be made of the paternalistic emphasis in this verse?

An interesting case in point is the parable that God Offers when explaining the punishment to be meted out to Miriam for having spoken critically about her brother Moshe:

BaMidbar 12:14

And HaShem Said to Moshe: If her father had but spit in her face, wouldn’t she have been ashamed for 7 days? Let her be shut out from the camp for 7 days and after that let her be received in again.

Would there be a difference in approach if this had been a relationship between a mother and daughter, a father and son?

A suggestion that there is a difference in approach between fathers and mothers towards their offspring is contained in the following Rabbinic interpretation:

RaShi on VaYikra 19:3 “…A person should fear his mother and his father…” (in contrast to Shemot 20:12; Devarim 5:16 “Respect your mother and your father”)

Here (in VaYikra) the father is mentioned first (in contrast to Shemot/Devarim) because a son (!) fears his father more than his mother (therefore the lack of innate fear for the mother is balanced by listing her first when it comes to fear). But with respect to honor, the father is listed before the mother because it is clear to HaShem that the son (!) respects his mother more than his father because she comforts him with words.

Once again, is the same true with respect to a daughter’s natural inclinations vis-à-vis each of her parents?

Another indication that there is an expectation that women will relate to children different from men is contained in the following complaint that Moshe directs at HaShem:

BaMidbar 11:12

Have I conceived this people, have I begotten them, that You should Say to me, “Carry them in your bosom, as a nursing father carries the suckling child, to the land which You have Sworn to their fathers?”

Whereas Moshe seems to think that he should not have to relate to the people in this manner, HaShem, by not taking seriously Moshe’s complaint, other than by ordering him to add 70 advisors so that the burden of leadership can be more broadly distributed (BaMidbar 11:16-17), appears to view Moshe’s comments as rhetorical and that he should assume the role of “nursing father”. See “Teaching with Clarity and Empathy—Moshe Reluctantly Becomes a ‘Nursing Father’” in Reflections of the Rav—Lessons in Jewish Thought, adapted from lectures of R. J.B. Soloveitchik by R. Abraham Besdin, Torah Dept. of WZO, Jerusalem, 1979, pp. 150-9.

According to NeTzIV’s and R. S.R. Hirsch’s redefinition (cited in the essay below) of the meaning of “YeYaser” and “MeYasreka” from “chastisement” to “education”, this question would appear to be rendered moot. But most do not translate the word in the manner that R. Hirsch does.

[25] See VaYikra 27:44-5.

[26] See Shoftim 2:8-13.

[27] See for e.g., Shirat Ha’azinu in Devarim 32.