Chukkat: Consent of a Nation
The drama of Bamidbar continues as the Israelites make their way through the wilderness and toward Eretz Yisrael. While stationed in Kadesh, Moshe sends a message to the nearby king of Edom, hoping that the Israelites will be granted safe passage through Edomite territory.
נַעְבְּרָה־נָּ֣א בְאַרְצֶ֗ךָ לֹ֤א נַעֲבֹר֙ בְּשָׂדֶ֣ה וּבְכֶ֔רֶם וְלֹ֥א נִשְׁתֶּ֖ה מֵ֣י בְאֵ֑ר דֶּ֧רֶךְ הַמֶּ֣לֶךְ נֵלֵ֗ךְ לֹ֤א נִטֶּה֙ יָמִ֣ין וּשְׂמֹ֔אול עַ֥ד אֲשֶֽׁר־נַעֲבֹ֖ר גְּבֻלֶֽךָ׃
‘Let us, pray, pass through your land. We will not pass through field or vineyard and we will not drink well water. On the king’s road we will go. We will not swerve to the right or the left until we pass through your territory.’” (Bamidbar 20:17)
Edom responds harshly:
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ אֱד֔וֹם לֹ֥א תַעֲבֹ֖ר בִּ֑י פֶּן־בַּחֶ֖רֶב אֵצֵ֥א לִקְרָאתֶֽךָ׃
And Edom said to him, “You shall not pass through me, lest with the sword I come out to meet you.” (Bamidbar 20:18)
The Meshech Chochma wants to know why the Torah, when referring to the Edomite refusal, simply uses the word, “Edom.” Wouldn’t the king of Edom have been the one to refuse the Israelite request?
ויאמר אליו אדום. לא כתב "מלך אדום" [כמו בסיפור יפתח] כמו בסיחון, משום שהיה להם בית מועצת העם [פרלמנט]. ואמרו בעבודה זרה "קטן נתתיך בגויים, בזוי מאוד", שאין להם מלך בן מלך. ובמקום שאין המלכות ירושה, עיקר כדעת העם. לכן כתוב "ויאמר אדום" "וימאן אדום". אבל בסיחון שהיה ירושה לבנו, וכמו דכתיב בדברים (ב, לג) "ונך אותו ואת בנו", יעויין שם, לכן כתב (במדבר כא, כג) "ולא נתן סיחון", (דברים ב, ל) "ולא אבה סיחון".
And Edom said to him. It doesn’t say “the king of Edom” [like in the story of Yiftach (Shoftim 11:13)] as it says “Sichon,” since [the Edomites] had a national advisory body [a parliament]. And it says in BT Avodah Zarah 10a, “I have made you last among the nations, you are utterly spurned” (Ovadiah 1:2) since they don’t have kings who inherit from their father. And where there is no inherited kingship, the essence is like the nation’s consent. Therefore it says, “Edom says” and “And Edom refused” (Bamidbar 20:21). But with regard to Sichon, who did pass down kingship to his son, and as it says in Devarim, “we defeated him and his sons” (Devarim 2:33), see there, it therefore says “and Sichon did not let” (Bamidbar 21:23) and “Sichon did not let me pass” (Devarim 2:30).
There are two cases in our parsha in which Moshe and the Israelites ask a surrounding nation for permission to traverse their territory. The first is what we saw above, when they are refused passage by the Edomites and proceed to turn away from them when confronted with warfare. Then, when they ask for passage from the Amorites, they are met with refusal once again. This time, the Amorites come out to engage the Israelites in battle, where the Israelites complete a sweeping victory.
The Amorite refusal, in contrast to the Edomite refusal, includes the king’s name. When the Torah mentions the Edomite refusal, however, it comes only from “Edom,” as the Meshech Chochma points out to us.
In rabbinic literature, Edom is often associated with the Roman Empire and later with Christianity.1 Here, the Meshech Chochma draws the link to Rome, in particular to the Roman Parliament.
Since the Romans/Edomites had a parliament, the Meshech Chochma reasons, the decision to deny passage to the Israelites belongs not to a king but to all of Edom. Therefore, the Torah did not specify a king, and could suffice by simply indicating “Edom.” The Meshech Chochma not only associates this linguistic feature with the existence of a parliament but also explicitly with the lack of a hereditary monarchy, which the rabbis belittle in the baraita from BT Avodah Zarah.
In the Meshech Chochma’s comment, this societal responsibility rests on his use of the word דעת, da’at, which I translated above as “consent” but also could also mean “knowledge” or “understanding.” The Meshech Chochma says that Edom’s דעת is the key to why they are referred to without a king in our verse. When there is no king to unilaterally decree, the people become implicated in governmental decisions.
Even if we don’t accept the premise of the baraita in Avodah Zarah which seems to prefer a hereditary monarchy, there is still what to take away from the Meshech Chochma’s comment about the Edomite parliament and its consequence for the Israelites and for us.
The Torah assigns responsibility to all of Edom for refusing passage to the Israelites. There could have been Edomites who were more amenable to the Israelite request, but ultimately they seem to have been outvoted, quite literally according to the Meshech Chochma. The question then becomes: what does it mean for an entire society to be implicated in injustice or wrongdoing when the decision is made not by a monarch but by an entire society? What, if any, individual responsibility exists for the policies implemented by a larger collective?
We may not want to see ourselves as part of Edom--a distrusting, war-mongering people--even though that society is made up of our neighbors.
I would hope that a third path exists, one that identifies a nation, not by the rule of a monarch nor that of a wrongheaded populace. Instead, we could be a part of a populace that is undeserving of the tag--Edom--placed on a society that refuses passage to the vulnerable. Hopefully, we can become worthy of being known by a collective name that doesn’t imply coldheartedness and xenophobia, but rather one of welcoming and generosity. Shabbat shalom.
See this article by Dr. Malka Simkovich about how this came to be.