7/30/2019 Maapilim

1/13

The Intellectual History of the Maapilim

By Akiva Weisinger

If you were to Google the , intending to do research for a bible paper, you would have to

dig deep into the results to find anything about the tragic subjects of Bamidbar 14-39-45. Instead, the

top result would be for the Hebrew Wikipedia page about ", the wave of immigrants to Israel

between 1934 and 1948. The fact that Israeli society has decided to refer to Sefer Bamidbar in

describing this movement is only surprising on the surface. Both the and the decided to

make their way into the Land of Israel against the wishes of powerful authorities. For the it was

the British Mandate, for the it was the word of God and his appointed messenger. Even more

interesting is the parallels between the of Bamidbar and the Zionist movement as a whole, as

both decided to go and conquer the Land of Israel without express divine permission. Small wonder,

then, that some 20th century interpreters of this story saw the Zionist movement as modern-day .

This, in turn, raises an important issue for discussing biblical interpretation. What role does the

surrounding world of the interpreter play in biblical interpretation? To what extent are interpreters of

the biblical text influenced by the world around them, in addition to the text in front of them? In this

paper, we will use the interpretation of this story in the 20th century as a case study to see how biblical

interpretation uses or ignores the world around it.

In order to understand the different paths taken by those 20th century authorities, we need to

understand the story itself and the essential questions for understanding the story, which will become

the paths of departure for differing interpretations. Our story comes on the heels of the sin of the spies,

who come back from scouting the Land of Israel to tell B'nei Yisrael that the land cannot be conquered,

for its inhabitants are too strong for the Israelites and their grasshopper-like dimensions. The people

believe them, and God decrees that they spend the next forty years dying out in the desert. As our story

begins, the people are rather sad about this development (14:39).

7/30/2019 Maapilim

2/13

Suddenly, though, the people are no longer afraid. They are going up to the mountain, saying

that they will go up to the place that God told them about, (the same place they believed the spies

about), for they have sinned (14:40). But Moshe is not impressed, and asks incredulously why they are

transgressing the word of God, warning them that it will not succeed (14:41), that the Amalekite and

Canaanite, the same nations they were terrified of in 13:29, will defeat them, because God is not with

them (14:42-43). But they ignore him and go up the mountain anyway, even though Moshe and the Ark

of the Covenant do not move (14:44), and indeed, the Amalekite and Canaanite rout them (14:45).

There are a number of questions to be asked about this story that an interpreter can choose to

focus on. Just a moment ago, these people were terrified of going into the land, and now they are

storming the mountain against the dire warnings of their leader. What prompts the sudden and complete

change of outlook? The text says that they admit to having had sinned ( ), and that somehow

provides sufficient reason to storm the mountain, but we do not know what sin they are speaking of or

how storming the mountain will address that sin.

Having acknowledged that this was prompted by recognition of sin, were their intentions

prompted by a desire to repent? Were their intentions possibly noble? If so, why were they defeated so

thoroughly? Their defeat seems to present us with two possibilities, both of which prompt further

questions. If their repentance was flawed, what was the flaw? And if there was no nobility to their

intentions, what is the meaning of this admission of sin?

Not all biblical interpreters will address every single one of these issues, but fundamentally, all

of the above questions boil down to two questions every interpretation must account for. Number one,

what was the motivation for the 's fateful last charge? Secondly, how can we account for their

crushing defeat? Asking those questions will enable us to see the fundamental differences between each

interpreter. Additionally, for the purposes of this paper, we will ask what relationship the interpreter

sees between the Zionist of his day, and the of Bamidbar.

The first interpretation we will look at is that of R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira (1868-1937) known

7/30/2019 Maapilim

3/13

aweas the Minchas Elazar, after the title of his responsa. R. Shapira, the Rebbe of the Munkaczer

Chassidim, was a virulent anti-Zionist, and that may be guilty of understatement, as he was also a

sworn enemy of the Aggudists and Yishuvniks who did not condemn Zionism strongly enough for

his liking

1

. It therefore should come as no surprise that he sees our story as prophetically foretelling of

the Zionist movement, explicitly making that comparison. He compares the actions of the and

the Zionists side by side; the stormed the mountain against God's command to go fight against

the nations and the Zionists went against the will of God as expressed by Chazal to go take up arms

against the nations.2 The left the Ark of Covenant behind in the camp, and the Zionists were

heretics who did not care for Torah. The ignored Moshe, and the Zionists ignored the rabbinic

authorities of their generation. The were routed by the Amalekite and the Canaanite, and the

Zionists were decimated by the 1929 riots3.

Beneath this comparison to current events lies a coherent explanation of the story. The

implication of the Minchas Elazar's peshat is that he sees the sin of the as disobedience to

authority. The , despite whatever intentions they may have had, possibly motivated by ignorance

(implied by connecting the Ark of the Covenant to Torah), possibly out of a desire for violence (implied

by stating that they want to go fight against the nations) disobeyed God by assuming that they could

reverse their punishment, and then compounded their mistake by disregarding Moshe, their religious

authority. Thus, the Minchas Elazar does answer our two fundamental questions. They storm the

mountain out of a mixture of ignorance and violence (The Minchas Elazar is no fan of either or

Zionists), and they are punished for disobedience of religious authority.

However our main concern is the relationship the Minchas Elazar sees between the Zionists of

1 Allan Nadler, The War on Modernity of R. Hayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkacz, Modern Judaism 14:3 (1994) 239(jstor.org) Somewhat unsurprisingly, his son-in-law and successor became a Zionist, to the chagrin of his followers. SeeAkiva Weisinger, Miracles in the Life and Thought of R. Baruch Rabinowicz,Kol Hamevaser6, 1 (2012): 16-17, alsoavailable at: www.kolhamevaser.com.

2 He may be referring to the Three Oaths, but does not say so explicitly.3 Hayyim Elazar Shapira, Sefer Hayyim V'Shalom, (Brooklyn, NY: Emes Publishing, 1999), 365 (Hebrew) available at

munkatcherseforim.org

7/30/2019 Maapilim

4/13

his day and the . He clearly sees them as extremely similar, and takes pains to paint those

similarities as obviously as possible. Yet, doing so involves emphasizing certain points in the story

above others. He does not pay much attention to the penitential intentions of the , ascribing their

motives to ignorance and violence rather than any sort of desire for repentance. He instead plays up the

disobedience of the and their fate, both of which he saw as represented in the Zionist

movement. Thus, his main goal is to fit the narrative of his day on top of the biblical narrative and

show the points of similarity, even if that means shifting the focus away from other aspects of the story.

Even though the Minchas Elazar answers both our fundamental questions, his main focus is on why

they were punished, and his understanding of their motivation derives mostly from his understanding of

their punishment.

The anti-Zionist Minchas Elazar is not the only interpreter to use this model. The same

similarities that the Minchas Elazar saw between the secular Zionists and the were noticed by

the secular Zionists themselves. A song written in 1919 by Levin Kipnis implicitly compares the

Zionists to the of Bamidbar4. The chorus of the song goes:

!!

!

! !

!

Being as the root only occurs in Tanach as a verb in our story, which prominently features a

mountain, there can be no doubt as to what he story he is referring to. And though the author assures us

that victory is imminent ( , ),the constant mentions of casualties (

., followed by . ?) is not very reassuring, making it

4 Shir HaMa'apilim, available athttp://www.zemereshet.co.il/song.asp?id=116

http://www.zemereshet.co.il/song.asp?id=116http://www.zemereshet.co.il/song.asp?id=116http://www.zemereshet.co.il/song.asp?id=116

7/30/2019 Maapilim

5/13

clearer that it is the 's doomed mission being referred to and that the allusion to imminent

victory is more bravado than statement of fact. Yet Kipnis focuses on the casualties only to underscore

the bravery of these , storming the mountain on a suicide mission to conquer the land of Israel.

The main point of Kipnis's song, like the Minchas Elazar's drasha, is to highlight the similarities

between his current situation and the one described in the text, while downplaying other elements. For

the Minchas Elazar, this meant focusing on the misdeeds and fate of the , ignoring any thought

of whatever bravery and good intentions they may have had. For Kipnis, it means focusing on their

love of the land and bravery in the face of death, and not focusing on their misdeeds and ignonimous

fate. Just like the Minchas Elazar, Kipnis focuses on one of our fundamental questions, their

motivation, at the expense of the other, their misdeeds and punishment. This model, one of comparing

similarities and downplaying differences, represents one way in which biblical interpreters relate the

world around them to the biblical text.

With that in mind, let us look at the interpretation of R. Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar (1887-1979)

inDivrei Yoel5. R. Teitelbaum, as one of the foremost anti-Zionists in the era of the State of Israel,

certainly did not lack for motivation to interpret this story as condemning Zionism6. He starts off by

delineating two ways that the Yetzer Hara causes people to sin regarding settling the Land of Israel.

The first is by refusing to settle the land when they are commanded to do so, which is what the entire

generation of the desert were guilty of, and for that sin they died off over a period of forty years. The

second, however, is by desiring to settle the land when it is forbidden to do so. Connecting this episode

to the Three Oaths, he concludes that storming the wall, to borrow the Talmud's expression, is a

much worse sin than not settling the land when commanded to7. For this most grievous sin, they are

5 R. Yoel Teitelbaum,Divrei Yoel(Brooklyn, NY: Jerusalem Publishing Co., 1980), 358 (Hebrew)6 See Norman Lamm, The Ideology of Neturei Karta According to the Satmarer Version, Tradition Vol. 12 No. 2 (1971),

38-53. Available at jstor.org7 He goes so far as to say that God had sworn not to bring that generation into the land as soon as the request was made. In

fact, God had acquiesced to their request and commanded Moshe to send spies for the express purpose of discouragingthem from attempting to conquer the land on its own. While one problem with the story of the spies is solved (why Godtold Moshe to send spies when the result was so disastrous) it creates an almost infinite array of other problems. Let usenumerate a small portion of them.1. God's plan fails miserably, not to mention that God is kind of a jerk in this scenario

7/30/2019 Maapilim

6/13

killed immediately. He ends by calling this story a reminder for future generations of the danger of

attempting to conquer the land ahead of its time.

At first glance, this interpretation seems to be similar to the Minchas Elazar's, in that both

explicitly compare the to the Zionists, and stress their misdeeds and punishment, focusing away

from their motivations. There are, however, subtle differences. As opposed to the Minchas Elazar, who

sees the sin as motivated by ignorance and violence, R. Teitelbaum sees the sin as caused by the

seductive wiles of the Yetzer Hara, who tricks the into thinking that they are doing the right

thing. Additionally, while the Minchas Elazar sees the sin as stemming from a lack of obedience to

religious authority, R. Teitelbaum sees it purely as the attempt to settle the land when not commanded

to do so. True, they were disobeying God by storming the mountain, but it is not for disobedience to

God they receive their dire punishment, but for disobedience to God on this particular issue.

The obvious explanation for these differences is that times have changed from the Minchas

Elazar's time to R. Teitelbaum's. The State of Israel has been established, Religious Zionism is now a

mainstream phenomenon, and the virulent anti-Zionism of Satmar finds itself on the fringes. R.

Teitelbaum can no longer claim that religious authority is overwhelmingly on his side, and therefore he

must interpret the nature of the sin differently than the Minchas Elazar. He must account for the fact

that most of the Orthodox world is against him, and thus the motivation of the sin changes to the

powerful and deceitful Yetzer Hara, who is capable of fooling people into "storming the wall." Like the

Minchas Elazar, his understanding of their motivation stems entirely from his understanding of their

sin, and both share a strategy of stressing the similarities between the Zionism of their particular era

and the biblical text.

A closer look at R. Teitelbaum's explanation, however, reveals another model of the role

2. It pokes a rather large hole in his own explanation of the sin of the spies as people who sinned by not wanting to go tothe land when they were supposed, being as they were never supposed to.3. If the spies were doing God's will by discouraging the nation from storming the wall, why are they punished?4. It makes theological claims that are both outlandish and inconsistent. God is sufficiently deterministic to know thatsending the spies will be disastrous, but provides enough humans autonomy to spoil his plans.

7/30/2019 Maapilim

7/13

awareness of current issues have in the formulation biblical interpretation. Having said that the

are killed immediately because of the grievous nature of their sin, he introduces a caveat. That was true

in the era of the generation of the wilderness, who were righteous enough to be immediately punished

for their sin. Our generation, however, because of its many sins, does not merit such direct divine

interaction, and instead the wicked flourish and the Yetzer Hara succeeds disguised as love of the land

and causes many to stumble.

What R. Teitelbaum is doing here is different from what we have seen before. What we have

seen previously is the tendency to emphasize the similarities between the text and current events, with

the implication being that one should take the lessons from the biblical text and apply it to the current

situation, even though the interpretation has been tailor-made for that purpose. What we have here,

however, is R. Teitelbaum emphasizing the difference between the world around him and the biblical

text. Unlike the , the Zionists are not punished immediately. Without doing so, the reader might

assume that the Zionists are better than the , being as the Zionists have succeeded in conquering

their mountaintop and establishing a state. Thus, R. Teitelbaum must assure his reader that this is not

the case, that differences exist between the current situation and the biblical text, and that one should

not make the mistake of assuming the same conditions exist.

As useful as this model is for R. Teitelbaum's purposes, it is definitely a more useful model to

Religious Zionists, who will emphasize differences between the and the Zionists so that they

not be associated with each other. Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook (1865-1935), in his

commentary on the aggadic portions of Masechet Shabbat8, addresses the in the context of a

passage identifying Tzelofehad, of which it is said , without specifying which sin, as one of the

. He explains this identification as an attempt to exonerate Zelofehad, as even though the

's fateful charge, in its specific context, was an act of rebellion, nevertheless being as this

8 R. Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook,Ein Ayah, 11:1 available at https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95

https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%90_%D7%95

7/30/2019 Maapilim

8/13

episode is representative of the eternal and unbreakable connection between B'nei Yisrael and the Land

of Israel, there is reason to judge Tzelofehad favorably.

Interestingly, R. Kook agrees with the Minchas Elazar, his almost exact contemporary, in that

the rebelled against authority and were punished for that reason. He merely disagrees as to their

motivation. Where the Minchas Elazar sees ignorance and violence, which stems from his

understanding of their sin, R. Kook sees a deep, noble, yet momentarily misguided yearning for the

land of Israel. Accordingly, they view the relationship between this story and the events of their time

differently. The Minchas Elazar, who saw the Zionists of the time as ignorant, violent people, sees the

story of the as exactly parallel. R. Kook, who saw the Zionists of the time as souls guided by a

deep yearning for the Land of Israel saw the in the same way. Unlike the Minchas Elazar, he

has separate, independent answers as to their motivation and their sin. Yet, if he were to stop there, he

would be saying that God will punish those who attempt to come to the land motivated by sincere love,

which is obviously unacceptable. In order to preserve his positive outlook on the Zionists, he must

show the difference between the and the Zionists. Though he does not make this distinction

explicit here, it is relatively safe to assume that knowing what we know about R. Kook and his

philosophy that he saw the difference in time period to be crucial, and he implies as much by stressing

that in the 's time, their actions constituted revolt, leaving the implicit message that in the

present, perhaps messianic era, the rules are different.

What is implicit in R. Kook is said explicitly by R. Tzadok Rabinowitz of Lublin (1823-1900). 9

In dense prose saturated by Talmudic and Kabbalistic references, he claims that the were

motivated by a sincere desire to repent. When Moshe told them that they should turn back, for God was

not with them, they nevertheless thought that they were obligated to repent even though God said not to

do so.10They, were, however, tragically wrong, because the time was not yet ripe for this trait of

righteous rebellion. R. Tzadok then asserts that while this well-intentioned form of rebellion may not

9 R. Tzadok HaKohen Rabinowitz, Tzidkat HaTzadik, 4610 This is a peculiar feature of R. Tzadok's ideas on repentance.

7/30/2019 Maapilim

9/13

have worked during that time period, it will succeed during the era of the footsteps of the Messiah.

Crucially, he identifies that time period as his own age.

Even though Herzl published his first book only four years before R. Tzadok's death, and this

piece was probably written long before that R. Tzadok seems to have had some sympathy for the

Zionist cause, specifically the Hibbat Tziyon movement11. It is possible that R. Tzadok had Hibbat

Tziyon in mind when writing this piece. However, what is more significant about this piece is the way

it is used by modern-day Religious Zionists. This piece of R. Tzadok is quoted by most Religious

Zionist treatments of the story of the , including pieces by R. Elhanan Samet12 and R. Dr. Benny

Lau,13and published by such Religious Zionist institutions as Yeshivat Otniel 14 and Yeshivat Har

Bracha15, to list only web sites from the first page of Google results for " ."

What makes this piece so attractive to Religious Zionists? R. Moshe Lichtman, in his "Eretz

Yisrael in the Parsha", a book of Zionist-leaning essays on the weekly parsha, quotes this piece of R.

Tzadok in full, with a footnote saying "This source is a very important one to consider when studying

the issue of the Three Oaths mentioned in Tractate Ketuvot (111a)"16. In that vein, let us compare this

Religious Zionist interpretation with R. Yoel Teitelbaums, which prominently features those same

Three Oaths. As we have said previously, R. Teitelbaum must come up with an explanation as to why

the Zionists have succeeded so wildly, despite their seeming similarity to the doomed . R.

Tzadok's explanation, by making an explicit distinction between the time of the and the current

messianic era, goes beyond merely explaining why the condemnation of the cannot be extended

to the Zionists of today. It provides an answer to R. Teitelbaum's problem which fits perfectly into the

11 Brill, Alan. Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Tzadok of Lublin. (New York: Michael Scharf Publication Trust ofthe Yeshiva UP, 2002) 47-50.

12 R. Elhanan Samet, Parshat Shelach: HaMa'apilim (Hebrew), available at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet2/18-2.htm

13 R. Dr. Benny Lau, HaMa'apilim (Hebrew) available athttp://www.bmj.org.il/article/54114 Matanya Sternberg, "On Obedience and Identity in the Episode of the Ma'apilim(Hebrew), available at

http://www.otniel.org/show.asp?id=4548415 R. Avinoach Berner, "Illegal Aliyah (Hebrew), available at http://yhb.org.il/?p=134716 Moshe D. Lichtman,Eretz Yisrael in the Parashah: Essays on the Centrality of the Land of Israel in the Torah : Plus

Commentary on Nearly Every Reference to the Holy Land in the Torah. (Jerusalem: Devora, 2006), 265.

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet2/18-2.htmhttp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet2/18-2.htmhttp://www.bmj.org.il/article/541http://www.bmj.org.il/article/541http://www.otniel.org/show.asp?id=45484http://www.otniel.org/show.asp?id=45484http://yhb.org.il/?p=1347http://yhb.org.il/?p=1347http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet2/18-2.htmhttp://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/samet2/18-2.htmhttp://www.bmj.org.il/article/541http://www.otniel.org/show.asp?id=45484http://yhb.org.il/?p=1347

7/30/2019 Maapilim

10/13

Zionist narrative. The reason why the 's mission failed and the Zionists' succeeded is because the

Zionists are living in the Messianic Era, and from there, it is a short step to claiming that the Three

Oaths that R. Teitelbaum sees as underlying the sin of the also no longer applies. Therefore, R.

Lichtman is correct in his assessment that this explanation of R. Tzadok can be a crucial part of a

Zionist interpretation of the Three Oaths. We see that R. Tzadok's distinction allows Religious Zionism

to not just understand the text as different from their own situation, but to understand that difference as

fitting, even bolstering, their own worldview.

Summing up what we have said so far, we have seen that biblical interpreters use different

strategies for relating the biblical text with their outlook on the issues of their times. Sometimes, they

will emphasize the similarities between current events and the stories in the biblical text, which usually

involves downplaying some of the elements of the story. Other times, they will make distinctions

between the biblical text and the events of their time, to prevent the assumption that the two are similar.

The latter approach does not need to downplay certain elements of the story, as adherents of the first

approach do. They can keep all elements of the text intact as long as they show the story is

fundamentally inapplicable to current events. There is not a hard and fast line between these two

strategies, and interpreters may make use of both. We saw R. Yoel Teitelbaum both emphasize the

similarities and differences between the and the Zionists, to accomplish the twin goals of using

the biblical text to condemn the Zionists while accounting for their current success.

However, it is important to note that the influence of the events of the time period is but one

factor that goes into the formation of any biblical interpretation. Just as some interpretations may make

heavier use of devices like gematria than others, some interpretations are more influenced by the events

of their time than others. Were this not so, it would be impossible for anyone with any opinion on

Zionism, or even existing in the same time period as Zionism, to put forth an explanation that is totally

objective.

That assumption, however, does not hold up. R. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1843-1921) is alluded to

7/30/2019 Maapilim

11/13

in a number of sources as having had some degree of sympathy for the Zionist movement.17Such

sympathy, however, is not reflected in his understanding of the story of the . In his commentary

on the parallel story in Devarim18, he understands the motivation of the as pure rebellion against

the divine decree, and they are punished for their disobedience to the divine decree and Moshe. If

anything, he is harder on the than the Minchas Elazar, who at least saw them as merely violent

and ignorant instead of out and out rebellious. His explanation certainly seems to have dire implications

for Zionism, even though he was sympathetic to its goals.

This does not mean that we need to historically reevaluate R. David Tzvi Hoffmann's opinions

on Zionism. An explanation of a biblical text is not necessarily indicative of his political opinions, and

no proof either way can be adduced from his interpretation here. All it means is that Zionism was not a

factor in his formulation of this interpretation of the biblical text. It is possible that if approached

personally he would have provided a reason as to why the are not like the Zionists, in line with

our second model. But that does not seem to form a part of his explanation of the text in question.

Additionally, this does not mean that R. Hoffmann was not affected by his age at all, as his attempts to

respond to biblical criticism would obviously have been out of place in the medieval period. It only

means that despite his Zionist sympathies, there was no attempt on his part to make the biblical text fit

within that specific worldview.

This model works in other ways as well. A commentary composed of insights from the

Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), asserts that even though the

were inspired by a sincere desire to repent for their sin of listening to the spies, nonetheless,

there was a necessary procedure to entering the land, which was violated by the . Thus even

though the repentance for their previous sin was accepted, it is that vioation of procedure the

17 Zinberg, David S. ""Rabbi David Hoffmann, ZL" by Eliezer M. Lipschuetz." SeforimBlog. N.p., 2 Jan. 2012. Web. 21May 2013.Alexander Marx, David Hoffmann in Alexander Marx,Essays in Jewish Biography, (Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety of America, 1947) 193-194. Available athttp://www.archive.org/stream/essaysinjewishbi000988mbp#page/n205/mode/2up

18 Peirush Rav David Tzvi Hofmann al Devarim on Devarim 1:41-42

http://www.archive.org/stream/essaysinjewishbi000988mbp#page/n205/mode/2uphttp://www.archive.org/stream/essaysinjewishbi000988mbp#page/n205/mode/2up

7/30/2019 Maapilim

12/13

are punished for19. He goes on to apply the text to his time. No matter what events may occur, there is

an established procedure for the coming of the Messiah which cannot be bypassed by human beings,

and we should submit to God's will rather than attempt to hasten the redemption on our own20.

At first glance, this appears to be part of the first model of seeking out similarities between

current events and the biblical text. However, even though the Lubavitcher Rebbe applies his

interpretation to modern-day issues, the way he interprets the text is not, in fact, exactly parallel with

his time period. We have previously noted that R. Teitelbaum of Satmar is forced to address the fact

that unlike the , the Zionists succeed in their goal. The Lubavitcher Rebbe makes no attempt to

address that discrepancy. In fact his point seems to be that the message of this passage is still applicable

despite the discrepancy with the current reality. Yet, this is not because, like other anti-Zionist

interpretations, he emphasizes certain elements of the text over others. In fact, every question we have

asked is satisfactorily answered and accounted for. The are indeed motivated by a sincere

desire for repentance, which is even accepted, but they are punished for procedural violations. Rather,

just like R. Hoffmann, the Lubavitcher Rebbe does not think the reality around him dictates how to

interpret the text in front of him. The fact of Zionist success has no bearing on how he will interpret the

text, because the text has the same message regardless of whatever is currently happening. It so

happens that the Lubavitcher Rebbe differs from R. Hoffmann's interpretation, and sees some parallels

between the text and his time period, but the text affects his understanding of the time period, and not

vice versa.

Thus, we have identified three different models of how biblical interpretation is affected by the

events of the times. The first model we saw, exemplified by the Minchas Elazar and Levi Kipnis, is to

emphasize the similarities between current events and the biblical texts, which necessarily involves

19 R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky. The Torah: Chumash Bamidbar : With anInterpolated English Translation and Commentary Based on the Works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot,2004.), 100. (Used this because I cannot read Yiddish.)

20 We are assuming that he is talking about Zionism here. That may, in fact, not be true. It is eminently possible that he isaddressing the often enthusiastic Messianism found within the Chabad movement. If only he was alive to clarify.

7/30/2019 Maapilim

13/13

focusing on some aspects at the expense of others. The second model, used by the Satmar Rebbe and

the Religious Zionists tries to draw distinctions between the biblical text and current events, by limiting

the scope of the biblical text so it does not contradict the interpreter's outlook on current events. This

model interprets the story in all of its elements, but makes a distinction that makes it fundamentally

inapplicable to current reality. The third does not see current events as having any bearing on the

interpretation of the biblical text, choosing to interpret them as objectively as possible. Even if the

interpreter may in fact see the biblical text as having applicability to current events, the essential point

is that the interpreter's outlook is not shaping the biblical text to fit the situation.

We see that the interpreter's outlook on any specific current event is one factor in the

formulation of biblical interpretation, but by no means a universal one. Some interpreters are heavily

affected by specific events of the day, and others are not, just like any of the other numerous factors

that go into the formulation of biblical interpretation. It seems that this variety in approaches is a

natural outgrowth of differences in temperament and personality of interpreters, and the world of

biblical interpretation is made better by the multitude of different approaches. The same applies to the

models we have outlined in this paper. It goes without saying that there is always a simple explanation

of the text which should be free of the bias of the current age, but such interpretations are often

inadequate for providing guidance to the Jews of that particular time. A Zionist Jew looking at R. David

Tzvi Hoffmann to understand the would not come away with a satisfied answer, and an Anti-

Zionist looking to the Lubavitcher Rebbe to understand the success of the Zionists would come away

underwhelmed. Thus, the fitting of biblical texts to their time, imperfect as those fits may sometimes

be, and the interpreters who make use of the models and strategies we have described, are nonetheless

an important aspect of biblical interpretation.