Parshat Bamidbar  29 Iyar 5763, 31 May 2003

By Shlomo Riskin

Efrat, Israel - For as long as I can remember, orthodox Judaism has been perceived by much of the world -- even the orthodox world -- as a conservative, sheltered, old-fashioned way of life unwilling to take risks in the face of new challenges, preferring to retreat into its own shell like a turtle.

A Midrashic comment on this week's portion of Bamidbar stresses a genealogical aspect concerning Nahshon, prince of the tribe of Judah, which rejects the idea that a conservative, risk-free existence are genuine Torah values. Certainly such values are not to be found in the person of Nahshon, known to us as the courageous individual who risked his life by leaping into the Red Sea when the fleeing Israelites found themselves being chased by the charioteers of Egypt; indeed, it was only after he demonstrated his fortitude and faith, that the Almighty went the next step and brought about the great miracle of the Splitting of the Sea.

The Midrash (also recorded in B.T. Bava Batra 91a) points out that this courageous Nahshon had four sons, including Elimelech, husband of Naomi, as well as Shalmon, father of Boaz; hence Nahshon was father and uncle of two major personalities in the Scroll of Ruth, which we read on Shavuot. Now we don't usually think of the Scroll of Ruth as a 'book of risks', but I would like to suggest that in presenting such a genealogy, the Midrash wants to stress not only the characteristics of risk-taking which inform these descendants of Nahshon, but also what kind of risks are favored by the Torah and what kind are not.

The fact is that courage and risk-taking - or the lack thereof - may be seen as an underlying theme of the whole book of Bamidbar. The fourth book of the Torah records the history of the Israelites' forty years of wandering in the desert. When it opens we do not yet know that the people will be punished to wander for forty years, but by the time the book closes it is clear that the Jewish people have failed their first major test. When the spies return with a frightening report about the Promised Land and the ability to conquer it [Numbers 13-14], the Hebrews demonstrate a total lack of resolve, courage and faith. They wail, they tremble, they plead not to go on with the mission. Apparently they have become too accustomed to the safe and secure desert life - manna providing a daily ration of food, a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night directing their travel plans - to take the risks into the unknown involved in the conquest and settlement of Israel.

But the Torah wants the Hebrews to act with courage, to make the first heroic and even dangerous moves which come with independence and responsibility. Nahshon at the shore of the Red Sea shines as the antithesis of a cowardly "desert generation". Because of his faith, and his daring, the people were saved. Indeed, the Gaon of Vilna points out that the Torah first describes the Israelites as having gone "into the midst of the sea on the dry land" (Exodus 14:22), and later "on dry land in the midst of the sea" (ibid. 29). The initial description refers to Nahshon and his followers, who risked their lives by jumping into the raging waters; G-d made a miracle for him, the waters splitting into dry land and serving as a wall (homa) to them on the right and the left. The latter description refers to the rest of the Israelites who only entered after the dry land appeared; for them the waters became a wall - but this time written without the letter 'vuv', which can also spell hema, which means anger.

Nahshon's remarkable ability to take risks - in contrast to most of the generation of the desert - was transmitted to his son and nephew. Hence, the Scroll of Ruth closes with the names of ten generations from Peretz (son of Judah) to King David, and Nahshon appears right in the center, the pivotal figure between the age of the patriarchs and the generation of the future messiah of the Jewish people. But while Nahshon and Boaz are to be praised for their risk-taking, Elimelech can only be reviled for his.

When a terrible famine descends upon Bethlehem in Judah, the home of Elimelech, he packs up his family and decides to start a new life in the land of Moab. Undoubtedly, this demonstrates courage on the part of Elimelech, the ability to risk the unknown in a strange environment. But his motivation was greed; he refused to share his bounty with his starving kinsmen, and he was willing to leave his homeland and his ancestral roots for the sake of his wealth. Hence, tragedy strikes. Elimelech dies, and his sons - logically - marry Moabite women. His progeny die as well, causing Elimelech to have reaped as his harvest in Moab only oblivion from a Jewish point of view.

In contrast, Boaz does not leave Bethlehem during the famine. And when the challenge arises to do an act of loving-kindness for Naomi and redeem Elimelech's land -as well as to marry the stranger - convert Ruth - Boaz assumes the financial obligation and takes upon himself the social risk involved in the marriage. And the descendant from this union turns out to be none other than King David, from whom the future messianic line emerges.

Elimelech's risk was based upon greed, and involved forsaking his land and his tradition; it ends in his death and destruction. Boaz's risk was based upon loving-kindness, and resulted in redemption. The Elimelech-Boaz dialectic is a perennial theme in the Jewish world. Risk is positive, and even mandatory, from a Jewish perspective. The question we have to ask ourselves is the motivation, and that determines the result.

Shabbat Shalom.

Return to Ohr Torah Stone