1

Avos Derebbi Nassan 9:2 says that Miriam criticized Moshe for being haughty by divorcing his wife.

אבל הוא מפני שדעתו גסה עליו פירש הוא מאצל אשתו

But Moses, because he is so arrogant, separated from his wife.

This is actually pretty logical considering that the Passuk immediately afterwards says:

והאיש משה ענו [עניו] מאד מכל האדם אשר על־פני האדמה

Now Moses was a very humble man, more so than any other man on earth.

However, Avos Derebbi Nassan then proceeds to walk back the claim that she criticized Moshe for being haughty somewhat by saying that they didn't judge him as being certainly haughty, merely as being possibly haughty.

ולא היו דנין אותו בודאי אלא בספק ספק שדעתו גסה עליו ספק שאין דעתו גסה עליו.

While this is a logical reading of the Pesukim in the end of Beha'alosecha, it is quite a striking claim. Does anyone else concur with this interpretation?

Even better would be if anyone can find someone who says this without walking it back halfway.

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    The Avos Drav Nosson doesn't seem to be retracting it seems to be clarifying.
    – Schmerel
    Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 14:07
  • @schmerel I agree with you but it reads pretty strange. It says that she accused him definitively without any qualification and then says afterwards that she only meant it as a Safek (although she didn't use words to imply that).
    – Eliyahu
    Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 14:14
  • 1
    Are you sure that דעתו גסה means, haughty? Not such a usual phrase. See Taanis 20a.
    – MichoelR
    Commented Aug 14, 2023 at 22:03

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

The first quotation: אבל הוא etc. is a direct quote from אהרון.

אהרן אמר: אלי היה דבור ולא פירשתי מאצל אשתי ואף אבותינו הראשונים היה דבור עליהם ולא פרשו מאצל נשותיהן אבל הוא מפני שדעתו גסה עליו פירש הוא מאצל אשתו

The next quotation: ולא היו דנין etc. is a comment/clarification of אהרון's words.

This does not seem to be backtracking. אהרון is quoted and his quote is then qualified.

Improve this answer
0
0

The point is not whether Miriam think or did not think (we can never know) - that is not the objective of the commentaries. Avos D'Rabbi Nathan is a commentary to meseches Avos by R. Nathan, who explained his understanding of the story based on tradition. Binyan Yehoshua comments here, that Rabbi Nathan held that Miriam was on the side of Tziporah in the story Bamidbar 12. Miriam and Aharon were Moshe's older siblings who certainly knew Moshe's character very well. The problem with such approach is that nobody has been ever judged for character traits, but people are judged for their actions.

Thus, the words דעתו גסה עליו means that his (Moshe's) mind became heavy, not arrogant. I.e. in the view of R. Nathan, Aharon replied that Moshe is preocupied with the Torah too much, meaning on his own, which is not required by Hashem. Arrogant is גס רוח, as we know from the Mishna Avos 5.19 about Bil'am.

When the Torah says that Moshe was עניו, it does not mean the present definition of modesty. It means, that Moshe did everything in accordance with Hashem's words better than anybody could ever do, did not add, and did not subtract. R. Nathan then draws conclusions based on his assumptions, why Miriam was punished: She and Aharon were judging without Moshe's presence and that they did not know for sure whether Moshe was doing something wrong.

At the same time, one can learn the story from Sifrei that Miriam was defending Moshe as I explained here, because Sifrei Bamidbar 99 argues on R. Nathan, it says: ומה מרים, שלא נתכוונה לדבר באחיה לגנאי אלא לשבח

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .