Two Brothers and a Sister: The Family Team
The theme of sibling relationships first appears near the very beginning of the Torah. There, the relationship of the world’s first two brothers, Kayin and Hevel, could well be described as nothing less than a disaster. Things improve only slightly as we move on to Yitzchak and Yishmael, then to Ya’akov and Esav, Leah and Rachel and finally to the thirteen children of Ya’akov. In all of these stories, rivalry and jealousy are central forces at play.105We have admittedly skipped over mention of Shem, Cham and Yefet who, at least at one point, work in partnership. We have done so taking our cue from the Biblical text, which give us little detail about their relationship.
While each of the first four scenarios mentioned above consists of only one sibling versus the other,106Avraham’s younger sons from Ketura seem to be in a different category and so, for all practical purposes, don’t really figure in to the rivalry that we find between Yitzchak and Yishmael. the number of Ya’akov’s children complicates that story’s direct comparison to the others. But that narrative is more complex for other reasons as well. We now have many children, at least three of whom are vying for leadership.107I.e., Reuven, Yehudah and Yosef. See Redeeming Relevance in Genesis, Chapter 6. Moreover, these competitors are distinguished by being from different, yet ostensibly equal, mothers. In spite of these differences, however, the general theme is very similar: The competition for dominance leads to a situation where one of the brothers needs to be somehow eliminated – via either banishment or murder. In the case of Kayin and Hevel, the latter’s elimination is accomplished by murder. In the case of Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yishmael is eliminated by banishment. In the next story, it is the hero, Ya’akov, who gets banished in order to avoid being murdered. In similar fashion, Yosef’s brothers need to choose between the two options available, first preferring murder and subsequently reversing their decision in favor of banishment.108It is interesting to note that this motif doesn’t get fully played out in the competition between Rachel and Leah, which can perhaps be more accurately viewed as following the conventions of another familiar motif – that of rival wives (e.g. Sarah and Hagar, Peninah and Chanah, etc.).
In the Beginning, There Was a Problem
The problem that plagues one generation after another throughout the book of Bereshit is a major key in the development of mankind, namely, How does one cooperate with another human being outside of the nuclear family? (By nuclear family, I mean one’s spouse and children.)
Though the Biblical extended family may have been much more bound together than its modern counterpart, the Torah shows that any extended family is intrinsically disunified. The very existence of several nuclear families creates a zero-sum game, most powerfully manifested when it comes to the sharing of inheritance. This is dovetailed on a more global scale by the finite nature of goods available in the world at large. The latter is illustrated by a midrash about the fight between the first two brothers, wherein Kayin and Hevel divvy up the world, with one getting all the real estate whereas the other would get everything else. The former demanded that his brother not set foot on the entire world since it all belonged to him, and the latter demanded that the other surrender any clothing that he would want to wear since these all belonged to him (Bereshit Rabba 22:7).109Bereshit Rabba 22:7. The implicit irony of this midrash is produced by the finite limits of what can be possessed. If someone else possesses something, the only way for me to possess it is to somehow take it from him. As a result, and as in the case of Kayin and Hevel, if I want or need that item badly enough, it may not end nicely.
But the difficulty of brotherly cooperation goes beyond material goods. The institution of yibum (levirate marriage) and the resistance shown to it in its first appearance, when Yehudah’s sons were expected to perform it, is a good example of the natural resistance to cooperation within the extended family and especially among brothers (Bereshit 38:6–9).110Bereshit 38:6–9. Here too, the concept of zero-sum rears its problematic head. Even in this less tangible realm, it is unnatural to want to give something to someone else if by doing so, one is divesting himself of that same thing.
Lest we think this is limited to the male gender, the rivalry between Rachel and Leah is hardly less intense, turning sour when Leah accuses Rachel of stealing her husband (Bereshit 30:15).111Ibid., 30:15. A husband married to more than one woman is also a zero-sum situation and Leah knows that when Rachel is able to grab Ya’akov’s attention, it will likely come at the cost of time and attention – and perhaps even children – that he might otherwise have given her.
Difficult as it may be, creating a paradigm of cooperation beyond the nuclear family has tremendous ramifications in the building of a smoothly functioning society. Anticipating this issue, the Bible shows us long before Hobbes that without cooperation between different households, life would indeed be “nasty, brutish and short.”
The Paradigm Shift
When we eventually come to Moshe and his siblings, the motif of sibling interaction undergoes a radical transformation. The implicit competition for leadership that perforce exists between Moshe and his siblings does not turn into a quest for Moshe’s elimination. On the contrary, Miriam makes sure that he doesn’t die in infancy and Aharon goes looking for him to accompany him back from his exile.
Indeed, the Torah not only highlights the cooperation of these three siblings, it refers to them as brother, brother and sister with unusual frequency and in pointedly unusual ways. For example, Miriam first comes onto the stage without a name, but simply referred to as “his [Moshe’s] sister” (Shemot 2:4).112Shemot 2:4. It is true that Moshe’s parents are also described anonymously at this point, but they are also not described as Moshe’s parents in the way that Miriam is described as Moshe’s sister. Moreover, the Torah doesn’t wait as long to reveal their names. See also Ramban on Shemot 2:1. When she is first mentioned by name, much later in the narrative at the song by the Reed Sea, she is referred to as Aharon’s sister (Shemot 15:20-21).113Ibid., 15:20–21. To bring this full circle, in the genealogy of the Jewish people in the book of Bemidbar, she is referred to as their (Moshe and Aharon’s) sister (Bemidbar 26:59).114Bemidbar 26:59.
Similarly, the comparative lack of pathos when Moshe and Aharon reunite after many years of separation (Shemot 4:27)115Shemot 4:27. reveals a calm and unambivalent relationship. Absent is the falling on the neck and crying that marks the reunion of brothers and of fathers and sons in the book of Bereshit.Bereshit 33:4; Bereshit 45:14 and Bereshit 46:29116Bereshit 33:4, 45:14 and 46:29. The crying and the carrying on that appear in the other stories are a response to feelings of loss and regret at what could have been. In all of those cases, mistakes had been made and opportunities had been missed. And, as is the way of such situations, the feelings of loss could be fully recognized only after the changes that had taken place in the other person had been observed. This, of course, could occur only at the point of reunion. Unlike the stories in Bereshit, the separation of Moshe and Aharon appears to have been preceded by harmony and a lack of complexity. Thus, whatever missed opportunities elapsed on account of their separation resulted from events outside their control. The outcome of all this was Moshe and Aharon’s emotionally uncomplicated reunion.117The lack of complexity revealed in Moshe and Aharon’s reunion could also be due to the lack of previous exposure to each other, Moshe having grown up largely out of his home. At the same time, that doesn’t negate the fact that their reunion also reflects a lack of earlier conflict in comparison to the other stories.
But this is just icing on the cake of a narrative that shows tremendous cooperation between siblings from day one. Instead of rivalry, we encounter a division of labor based on respective aptitudes on the one hand and Divine election on the other. Moshe is the ultimate leader and the primary connection to God’s will. Aharon serves as the great communicator, translating Moshe’s message into human terms for both Jew and non-Jew.118See Targum Onkelos on Shemot 7:2, who writes that Aharon served as Moshe’s meturgaman (translator/public orator). (The priesthood, which is given over to Aharon, can also be seen as a mode of transmission of the Divine experience to the masses.) Finally – though we know less about her than we do about Moshe and Aharon – Miriam seems to provide a feminine dimension to the national leadership, displayed at the song by the Reed Sea.
The contrast between these siblings and the ones mentioned earlier deserves our attention. What is it that allowed the children of Amram to work together with such “brotherly” love when their predecessors did not?
One could point to Moshe’s unique trait of modesty119See Chapter 2. as the main feature that preempted any feelings of jealousy among his siblings. After all, Moshe mightily resisted taking the mantle of leadership and, according to many, campaigned with God that his older brother should take the position instead.120Rashi, Ibn Ezra et al. on Shemot 4:13. Certainly, this characteristic must have played a major role in the unfolding of their cooperation.
Another direction we could explore is the effect of Egyptian enmity on Jewish unity on the whole of Moshe’s generation. Indeed, when Moshe is still in Pharaoh’s court and sees a fellow Jew being hit by an Egyptian, the text tells us that he saw “an Egyptian man hitting an Israelite man, from among [Moshe’s] brothers” (Shemot 2:11).121Shemot 2:11. The notion of closing ranks in the face of a common foe is well-known. But the text quickly reminds us that this is not a universal response. Immediately after this episode, we read of two Jews first fighting with each other and then subsequently rebuffing Moshe’s attempt to settle the dispute. According to rabbinic tradition, it was actually these two fellow Jews who informed on Moshe, nearly causing his death at the hand of Pharaoh (Shemot Rabba 1:31).122Shemot Rabba 1:31.
In addition to the variables mentioned above, we also find a more historical process at play, whereby the mistakes of previous generations are slowly learned. It is precisely the conflict between Yosef and his brothers that brought the Jews down to Egypt to begin with. Hence, it makes sense that unity among siblings is one of the prime reasons for their deliverance from Egypt – a sort of national “tikkun” for what had previously gone wrong.
(It should be pointed out that conflict between siblings will not become a thing of the past once we arrive at this point in Jewish history. Sibling conflict and rivalry will reappear many more times before we are finished with the Biblical chronicle, most famously in the narrative of David’s children.123See II Shmuel 13:22–29 and I Melachim 1.)
It appears that several factors – none of which was likely the sole cause – came together to allow for the beautiful partnership between Moshe and his siblings. There may well be an additional factor that had a determinant effect on this unprecedented brotherly unity. Miriam’s active concern for baby Moshe (Shemot 2:5–9)124Shemot 2:5–9. is one example that leads us to the conclusion that the achva (brotherhood) of these siblings may have even preceded Moshe’s birth. Returning to the idea of learning from earlier mistakes, we should also consider the converse – that the children of Amram derived significant sustenance from events that occurred before they were even born. Previously developed positive teachings of how brothers (and sisters) can live together amicably informed their unity.
The End of the Beginning
We need not look too far before the birth of Moshe to find the key. Perhaps the most important lesson about brotherhood in the entire Bible is found right before the beginning of the book of Shemot in the blessings that Ya’akov gives his children at the end of his life (Bereshit 49:8–26).125Bereshit 49:8–26. Though difficult to read and understand, their importance should not be underestimated. In fact, they serve as a type of conclusion to the entire book of Bereshit – not only as the end of the saga of the Jewish family that would go down to Egypt and there become a nation, but also as a solution to the problem that plagues almost all of the major characters throughout the book and is the subject of this chapter, namely, how to forge a harmonious relationship with one’s potential competitors.126See also R. Jonathan Sacks, One People (London: Littman Library, 1993), pp. 199–203, for an alternative, albeit similar, understanding of this theme.
Even before the blessings, Ya’akov was already aware that not all sibling rivalry is due to ill will and the problem would not be solved by simply looking to blame one of the siblings for the conflict. The conflict between his children – as well as between his primary wives – proved that sibling rivalry and its manifestations does not emanate only from the presence of a “bad seed” such as Yishmael and Esav, but also among individuals that Ya’akov believed to be righteous.
By the time Ya’akov eventually finds a resolution to this issue and distributes the blessings, it comes as the culmination of his own experiences of struggle with his own brother. As we argued in Redeeming Relevance in Genesis, it is not clear that Ya’akov and Esav couldn’t have worked out their issues with each other. And had they been able to come to an understanding, they could have possibly cooperated on a variety of fronts. Thus, Ya’akov may well have pondered the wasted time and energy that he needed to devote to the affairs of the world – affairs which could have likely been handled more efficiently by his brother.127See Seforno on Bereshit 27:29, who claims that this was exactly Yitzchak’s intention in his desire to bless Esav. Instead, not only could Ya’akov not turn to his brother for assistance, he had to be on his guard from him to make sure that he would not be injured.
Presumably, this was now a problem that Ya’akov saw recurring with his own children, if on a more moderate scale. If he may not have seen the extent of the problem when he sent Yosef to find his brothers (Bereshit 37:13–14),128Bereshit 37:13–14. Ya’akov was certainly aware that there were ill feelings between the two parties. In fact, when the brothers proposed to kill Yosef, there was a marked similarity to Esav wanting to kill Ya’akov. In both stories, the point of climax in the struggle for the family succession was when the younger brother is sent into exile to clear the path for the older heir apparent. This déjà vu alone would be enough reason for Ya’akov to think seriously about how he would prevent history from repeating itself, as he must have done before giving the blessings. Looking more closely at them and at the subsequent lack of conflict between the brothers, we can see that Ya’akov had such a harmonious resolution in mind.
Through the blessings to his children, Ya’akov was the first to explicitly realize and subsequently formulate the idea that specialization of tasks is the key to group cooperation. Granted, this idea is already latent from the beginning, when the first two brothers pursue different and potentially symbiotic livelihoods. Nonetheless, it is never unambiguously formulated until Ya’akov blesses his children. With his carefully individualized and complementary blessings, Ya’akov provides an important teaching for his progeny – that leadership is only one of many indispensable roles that must be taken for a family to maximize its success. There is a need for the merchant as well as the scholar as well as the leader.129See Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, “Lessons from Jacob and Esau,” in Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, vol. vii (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1997), pp. 325–27. If one role may be more glamorous than another, specialization allows each brother to take on an essential function on behalf of the group. This strategy for familial harmony is as simple as it is brilliant. It enables each family member to excel in what he (or she) does best, thereby allowing for self-actualization, while defusing concern about being beaten out by a rival sibling. Furthermore, it creates interdependence, which results in a team scenario. Simply put, if my teammate does well, it benefits not only him, but me as well.
Indeed, finding a modus vivendi for siblings can serve as a paradigm for how to deal with other competitors as well. The direct rivalry for the same goods produced by an inheritance engenders a need for working things out that doesn’t exist with the same intensity among strangers. This need stimulates the creation of a model of cooperation, the urgency of which does not generally exist outside a family. Moreover, the bonds of familial love and shared history provide further impetus to construct this model. In short, the family provides fertile ground for the creation of a universal scheme of cooperation between independent competitors. And it is just such a scheme that comes to fruition after Ya’akov’s blessings.
Fraternity and Equality
The relationship between Moshe and his siblings is challenged at one famous juncture – the complaint made by Aharon and Miriam concerning Moshe’s apparent separation from his wife (Bemidbar 12:1–13).130Bemidbar 12:1–13. Though it is not clear from the text, we will follow the rabbinic interpretation that Moshe’s elevated level of prophecy led to a permanent separation from his wife (see Tanchuma, Parashat Tzav 13). The language of the complaint is highly unclear and as a result has been interpreted in many different ways. What is clear, however, is that God is not pleased with how Aharon and Miriam related to their brother there.
In their conversation, Aharon and Miriam compare themselves with Moshe. It appears that they feel there is no difference between them and Moshe since they too are prophets or, in the context of this chapter in the Torah, partners in Israel’s mission at this seminal juncture in Jewish history. Moreover, as suggested by the Midrash (Sifrei Bamidbar 100),131Sifrei on Bemidbar 12:2. their critique of Moshe is rooted in a comparison with other prophets who had come before them. Moshe’s action vis-a-vis his wife was hard for his siblings to accept since it lacked any precedent. Whatever its motivation, Aharon and Miriam’s conversation shattered the unity that had epitomized the relationship between the three up until this point.
Yet upon further consideration, we shall see that the disagreement between Moshe and his siblings represents a necessary fine-tuning of the strategy they inherited from Ya’akov’s blessing. The unity created by a team’s division of labor can give a false sense of parity – that since all the parts are necessary, they are also all equal. In our case, Miriam and Aharon felt free to use the same measuring stick on their brother that they used on themselves; they thought they could determine his value based on their own.
Of course, all necessary parts are equal in the sense that the greater organism cannot function if it lacks any one of them; this level of equality which gives individual self-worth is what makes the strategy work in the first place. Nonetheless, that does not make all the parts of truly equal importance. Some may play a more significant role than others. For example, even if a person cannot (normally) survive without a stomach, it would be difficult to argue that the stomach is as important as the brain. That is because the brain fulfills tasks of greater consequence than the stomach. Indeed, our brains are what define us as human beings. I have yet to meet anyone (and hope never to meet anyone!) whose stomach defines his identity.
When God makes this point and tells Aharon that Moshe is a different type of prophet and therefore not to be compared with anyone else (Bemidbar 12:5–9),132Bemidbar 12:5–9. Aharon quickly internalizes it. We see this immediately when Aharon addresses his younger brother as “my master Moshe” when requesting the latter to pray for Miriam’s recovery (Bemidbar 12:11).133Ibid., 12:11. Aharon’s submission to Moshe’s superiority134See R. Yitzchak S. Reggio (Perush haYashar) on Bemidbar 12:11. implied by his form of address tells us that he accepted God’s rebuke wholeheartedly. Granted, Aharon has good reason to accept it, as it came from God Himself, but we know that when the personality flaw of jealousy is behind a complaint, it can be so self-destructive that even Divine intervention is not enough to convince the guilty party to cease and desist. In our case, however, Aharon accepts and immediately adjusts to God’s view regarding the nature of his relationship with his brother. Moshe, for his part, also doesn’t appear to be upset by the incident, quickly responding to Aharon’s request to pray for Miriam – whom God was punishing for assuming herself to be his equal.
As seen from the behavior of all concerned, the source of the mistake appears to be misjudgment rather than envy. That Miriam and Aharon weren’t aware of Moshe’s singularity may actually tell us that Moshe wasn’t aware of it either. He knew that his level of prophecy was greater than that of his siblings, but that doesn’t mean he knew that the role that it allowed him to play was more important than the roles of his brother and sister.
The unusual disagreement that we have just discussed is the only exception to an otherwise harmonious sibling dynamic. Once it is over, our trio returns to the unified team they were previously. What occurred is what we should expect from a solid working relationship. When disagreements occur, they often provide the impetus to make the relationship even better. In this case, a possible misconception about the nature of a team was clarified. Specifically, the players learned that though teamwork may lead to harmony and maximum self-expression, it does not lead to a state of perfect equality.135Indeed, the concept of complete equality is, to a large extent, a modern myth. At base level, it is true that every human being is endowed with a sacred Divine image and it is precisely because of this that one life may not be sacrificed for another (Sanhedrin 74a). At the same time, it is plainly evident that some people play more vital roles than others and for this reason Jewish law proposes a hierarchy concerning the ransoming of captives, returning lost objects, etc. (Horayot 13a). That being the case, teamwork should not be mistaken for absolute equality.
Of Fraternity and Fratricide
Before we round out our discussion of Moshe and Aharon, it is worth reviewing Aharon’s use of the term “my master” for Moshe. First, it is not common to see any older brother using this term regarding a younger brother – even if we can readily think of Moshe as Aharon’s master. Moreover, Aharon uses the term in reference to Moshe only one time earlier: strategically when Moshe blames him for his role in producing the golden calf (Shemot 32:22).136Shemot 32:22. There too, Aharon is acknowledging his inferiority to Moshe; he had just aided in the performance of a sin while his brother was involved in the highest communion with God. But if this was really an acknowledgement of inferiority, then why does Aharon go back to viewing himself as an equal to Moshe in the later section that we just discussed?
Aharon’s culpability in the golden calf incident is not clear-cut. As Moshe’s go-between in the midst of an incipient rebellion, he had very few options. Had Moshe been in his brother’s place, would he have fared any better? It is precisely because of his willingness to be among the people in their worst moments as well as in their best moments that Aharon was mourned by the people more than Moshe (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 17).137Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 17, based on the comparison of Bemidbar 20:29 and Devarim 34:8. That being the case, Aharon’s first use of “my master” might have a tinge of irony – i.e., it is easy for the master who does not need to deal with the people to criticize, but perhaps, as the rabbis were later to say, one should not judge until he has been in the same situation (Avot 2:4).138Avot 2:4.
Whether the irony was intended or not, the simple message of Aharon’s subservience to Moshe becomes blurred by its problematic context. For even if Aharon was later to see that his role was not as central as Moshe’s, this may not have yet been clear to him – all the more so since it was Aharon and not Moshe who appeared to have the more difficult job.
Consequently, the expression “my master” used by Aharon after he is rebuked by Moshe appears as an alternative way of saying “I confess my mistake.” The fiasco with the golden calf could have been an opportunity for Aharon to internalize his inferiority to his almost superhuman brother. Still the Torah hints that this did not happen until later, when he would use the expression again – this time with more conviction. In other words, the scene with the golden calf opens up the discussion of their lack of equality and the argument over Moshe’s wife closes it. The Torah frames this subnarrative with Aharon’s unusual use of the phrase “my master” for his younger brother.
If the scene with the golden calf opens one topic, it apparently concludes another. For it is in this context that Moshe teaches us another stark limitation of brotherhood. When Moshe tells the Levites to kill anyone who was directly involved in worshiping the golden calf, he tells them that this includes their brothers and their relatives (Shemot 32:27)139Shemot 32:27. – an obvious redundancy,140See Ohr haChaim on Shemot 32:27, who notices this redundancy. Moshe may have mentioned the word “brothers” to send a chilling warning to his own brother, whose behavior he had implicitly just censored. That is to say, Moshe is passing judgment here on the admissibility of fratricide under very limited conditions.
As mentioned earlier, the theme of fratricide is already quite familiar from the book of Bereshit. We see it with Kayin and Hevel, and it reappears when Esav wants to kill Ya’akov and again when the brothers plot to kill Yosef. So long as fratricide is even within the realm of the possible, we cannot expect brothers to be able to work together. However, once we reach the end of Bereshit and have progressed to the paradigm of brotherly cooperation, we might easily think that killing one’s brother is unacceptable under any circumstances and that the death penalty is reserved only for strangers (a question closely related to one that the Talmud - Sanhedrin 85 - actually takes up regarding whether an executioner can put his own parent to death141Sanhedrin 85a-b.).
Moshe proclaims that in the same way society cannot function without cooperation between disparate member units, it also cannot function when that cooperation results in a willingness to look the other way when a member of the “team” acts in an immoral or lawless fashion. Indeed, the slogan, “My country, right or wrong,” is far from the Jewish prophetic tradition of harsh national self-criticism.
An individual is not expected to punish himself – it is incongruent with his God-given instinct for self-preservation. While this instinct can sometimes also be legitimate on the national level, Moshe teaches us that there is a need to distinguish between self-dispensation and extending that dispensation to other members of the team. Whereas the former is an intrinsic part of God’s design of man, the latter goes beyond that purview.
The upshot is that even if we need to work with our rivals and view them as members of our team, this should not include exempting them from the strictures of the law and from its enforcement. A team must be willing to sacrifice its members when they do not conform to the moral demands required for a properly functioning society of a humanity whose job it is to perfect itself in response to the Divine call.
◆ ◆ ◆
The lessons from Moshe, Aharon and Miriam go well beyond their immediate context. On some level, Amram’s children show us how to create an orderly society, because the relationship among siblings – ultimately independent and competing individuals who must somehow learn to live together – is really a microcosm of society at large.
Of course, one could readily argue that this paradigm will never completely be applicable at the global level. Even if we could fathom an entire nation working as a team through specialization, its citizens would still feel rivalry with other nations competing for the same zero-sum goods. Indeed, in the next chapter, we will discuss a different paradigm that will allow us to overcome the very real obstacles created by nationalism. Nonetheless, the current model of an extended family or nation that views itself communally as an interdependent team allows us to fathom the contours of a truly global consciousness. In this way, the seeds are planted for the peace of the messianic era, wherein “nation will not lift up their sword against another nation.”
Another problem that already exists even on the national level is that the larger the community, the less personal it is and, as a result, the less we identify with it. Truly, the modern nation is exponentially larger than the twelve families that first comprised the ancient Jewish nation. But as in other metaphors created by the Jewish tradition for things too intangible to comprehend,142For example, speaking of (the sensual joys of) Shabbat as a taste of the world to come (Berachot 57b). this model is meant to give us a sense of what community should feel like even if we can’t completely feel it today.
As shown in the book of Bereshit, the main alternative to brotherly cooperation is living apart. In the global village we now inhabit, however, there is almost no way to live apart from others. Once this is the case, the only option becomes the other possibility we saw in Bereshit, namely murder. Thus, as the stakes become greater, we have a greater obligation to understand and practice the paradigm of brotherhood exemplified by the Moshe-Aharon-Miriam family team.