Mobbed. Dealing with strong community opposition - Shelach

I sometimes find it challenging to deal with the tension of holding a particular position when people that I feel connected with strongly hold a different view. I recognise that as a Rabbi and bridge builder this is my obligation and privilege, what can my tradition tell me about this challenge?

Seeking Evidence after loss of faith

Moses led a people who had blindly followed him into the desert[1] but were struggling to maintain their faith in God’s plan to take them to the Promised Land. Moses finds himself approached by his nation[2], elders and youth all mixed together, the young pushing the elders, the elders pushing the leaders[3] all demanding that spies be sent to investigate the land that God had promised.

Reluctant approval

Although sending the spies’ mission technically had divine approval[4] and the ideas was ‘good in the eyes of Moses’[5], commentary tells a different story. “When they first approached Moses he did not want (it), he told them “God has already assured us”, the Jews said that the Nations know we are coming and were hiding their money (and the reason they wished to send spies was to find out about the treasures)… this way Moses fell into their trap”[6].

God tells Moses, “Send men for yourself,…[7]”, do this if you want to but not by God’s command[8]. “If it was from Me, we would not be sending them as they (the Jews) should have relied on Me”[9]. There is a hint here that sending the spies might be good for Moses (yourself) because it will prolong his life as the Jews wander the desert for 40 years as a punishment, but it will not be good for the people[10].

Destined to fail

The mission seems to have been designed by God with the expectation of failure. The spies must be leaders, so they will be considered important by the Jews “so that they should not say (after it all goes wrong) if we had sent important men, their hearts would not have melted, (or) they would not have slandered[11]. Moses also has a premonition of the risks. He changed Joshua’s name from the original Hoshea[12] so that God should save him from the counsel of the (other) spies[13].

Character of the mission

There is also some semantics at work here about what the nature of the mission. Three different words[14] are used to describe the work of the spies, “V’yaturu”[15] ויתרו  , V’yachpru[16] ויחפרו  and Vayraglu[17] וירגלו .

When Moses recounts the Jews disorderly approach to Moses the word is V’yachpru, which is related to the word חרפה disgrace, and find reasons not to go to the land[18].  It can be related to לחפור to dig and search for hidden things[19], the excuse that tricked Moses into thinking this was not about doubting God.  The word God uses when He gives grudging approval to Moses for the mission is V’yaturu, which means simply to explore. The words used to describe what the spies actually did is referred to as וירגלו Vayraglu[20] which has associations with maligning[21], gossip and telling lies about the land[22], although variation of the word “V’Yaturu[23] are also used. Neither of these words says anything about the treasure hunt it was ostensibly about[24].  

Defusing the pressure by caving in

Moses had hoped to defuse the situation by agreeing to the demand and that when they see his confidence in allowing them to check out the land they would trust him and drop their demand[25]. Instead they call his bluff. Moses admits to his agreeing to the mission in his reflection in Deuteronomy, but his reason for agreeing was based on the way they approached him and the fact that “all of you agreed about this”[26].

Crown Heights Riots and the alleged ‘cave-in’, “Let them vent their rage”

In preparing this I thought of another alleged ‘cave in’, that until last Saturday night, I believed had occurred during the Crown Heights Riots in August 1991. I had flown back from Australia to NY only to learn that an Australian Jew, Yankel Rosenbaum was murdered by a mob of black youth in the neighbourhood that I grew up in. This followed the tragic death of a black child named Gavin Cato, in a car accident involving a Jewish driver. The whole community was shaken with violence and a feeling of terror. I got off an international flight, came home, but left town within hours. Almost a week later, when I returned, there was still broken glass on the streets. Mayor David Dinkins, who happened to be New York’s first black mayor at the time, was believed to have said of the black rioters “let them vent their rage”.

The accusation still stands as fact in the Wikipedia entry on the Crown Heights riots[27] and is claimed to be based on. But I learned when I began to researched this and read a summary of the government initiated report[28] that the report found that although Dinkins failed in many respcets, it determined that there was no evidence to support the most extreme charges that the Mayor had instructed the police to let marauding youths "vent" their rage. It is sad to only find out 20 years later that I believed a discredited accusation. Perhaps I was also swept away with “group sentiment”. On the other hand there must have been other “leaders” who fanned the flames and told angry young mobs what they wanted to hear. They stand condemned.

An Insider silences the mob (at least temporarily)

In contrast to “leaders” who follow their followers like dogs who appear to lead as they run ahead of their master but are always looking over their shoulders[29], Caleb stands as a role model of standing up to the mob. “Caleb quieted the people for Moses, he said “we will go up, and inherit the land, as we can do it”[30]. He managed to get people’s attention, because he pretended to be on the side of the mob. “Is this all the son of Amram (Moses) did?!” he called out. The people expected more denigration of Moses so they became quiet to hear Caleb.  Then Caleb said, “He took us out of Egypt, he split the sea for us, and fed us the Manna, if he said ‘make ladders and ascent to the sky’, would we not listen to him[31]?!”

Caleb is praised as having a “different spirit”[32] to the other spies. Many years later Caleb reflects on being “40 years old when Moses the servant of God sent me…and I responded as in my heart”[33].  Joining the dots commentary suggests that he spoke what was in his heart but this was different to what came out of his mouth in his conversations with the other spies[34]. “It appears that when he was with them, until they arrived back to the camp he agreed with them so that they won’t kill him”[35].  Having preserved his status as a member of the group, he was later able to challenge its thinking. In the end he was unable to persuade the community, they persisted in their view, but he took a stand for what was right.

Conclusion

We see clearly the difficulty of the leader to stare down the mob but also how opportunities are sometimes there right from the start to read between the lines that caving in to the demands is essentially a bad idea. We see the temptation to tactically yield to the mob in a small way, in the hope that it will come right in the end. We also see the great value of an insider staring down the mob and the need not to squander “insider” status by showing your cards too early, but rather to take a stand at the right time. This does not make it all easy, but it is useful to understand the dynamic, the challenges and that there is a way through, some of the time at least. 

---

[1] Jeremiah 2:2 “I remember for you the affection of your youth, the love of your espousals; how you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown”

[2] Deuteronomy 1:22

[3] Rashi to Deuteronomy 1:22

[4] Numbers 13:2

[5] Deuteronomy 1:23

[6] Yalkut Shimoni 742

[7] Numbers 13:2

[8] Rashi

[9] Bchor Shor, Rabbi Joseph (born Circa 1140 Northern France)

[10] Klei Yakar, Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim ben Aharon Lunschitz, 1550-1619 Poland)  

[11] Bchor Shor

[12] Numbers 13:16

[13] Talmud Sotah 34b and Rashi to Numbers 13:16, alternative explanations are offered for the name change, 1) as a security measure because Joshua had been a minister of the army in the war against Amalek, so that he not be recognised (Tur), or that the name change had not happened at this time and was unrelated (Bchor Shor).

[14] Klei Yakar on Numbers 13:2

[15] Numbers 13:2

[16] Deuteronomy 1:22

[17] Deuteronomy 1:24

[18] Talmud Sotah 34b and Klei Yakar

[19] Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 1:22

[20] Deuteronomy 1:24

[21] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel (Hillel's most distinguished pupil Talmud Sukkah, 28a- last century BC)  and Pirush Yonatan on Deuteronomy 1:24

[22] Klei Yakar

[23] Numbers 13:21, 25, 32

[24] Ohr Hachayim on Deuteronomy 1:24

[25] Rashi on Deuteronomy 1:20

[26] Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 1:24

[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_riot#cite_note-25

[28] http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/21/us/crown-heights-report-overview-crown-heights-study-finds-dinkins-police-fault.html The report was overseen by Richard H. Girgenti, the state's Director of Criminal Justice. Some might argue that the report was commissioned by the democrat led state government, I think Director of Criminal Justice  must have has a significant degree of independence as can be seen by fact that the report was generally very critical of Dinkins.

[29] Talmud Sanhedrin 97a as interpreted by Rabbi Gershon Stern, Yalkut Hagershuni, quoted in Insights a Talmudic Treasury Weiss, R. Saul, (1990) Feldheim, Jerusalem/New York, p.301

[30] Numbers 13:30

[31] Talmud Sotah 35a and Rashi

[32] Numbers 14:24

[33] Joshua 14:7

[34] Midrash Tanchuma, and Rashi

[35] Radak on Joshua 14:7

Tensions and Trials of Trail Blazers - Bahalotecha 2011

Innovation will meet resistance.  Our Torah reading offers some insights into some expressions of resistance to a new path and some lessons about how to respond to these.

Losing a Mentor and an Elder Champion

A colleague told me about how she often feels like picking up the phone to call her recently departed mentor in matters of peace and conflict, the late Stella Cornelius. In the Torah reading, Moses anticipates losing a mentor-like figure with the announcement by his father in law, Jethro that “I will not go (with you to the promised land) rather I will go to my land and my birthplace[1]”.  Moses responds with a heartfelt plea, “please do not abandon us, for you have known our camping in the desert and you have been like a pair of eyes for us[2]”.  

Moses plea is interpreted as meaning “being that you see this people, that is in a bad state and all our encampments are with grumbling, controversy and complaints …I am afraid that (your) leaving us is related to the grumbling against the divine presence (and) the fact that we strayed from following God, therefore I worry that if you go away you will not return to us and even when you are with us, your thoughts will be on your birthplace, thinking ‘oh, who would give me a limb like a dove? I will fly and dwell[3] in peace’ there not like these encampments…therefore I request that you don’t leave us…(if you stay) the eyes of the Israelites will be on you and to learn from your example[4]…the main need for you to stay is that you will be thinking about your birthplace when you see the crumbling order between us (and the contrast)…and you will be the reason for us fixing our matters”[5].

Moses plea, reminds me of how I felt when more experienced people who have supported my work have told me, we don’t have the time to devote to this. My first impulse is to think but “I need you, I need your faith in me and the innovative work I am doing”. But of course, the Jethro’s and the Stella’s and others must move on and those who have drunk of their wisdom must continue without their presence, but still thinking “what would Stella say to this?”.

Fears justified – Complaints ostensibly about cucumbers and fish

Moses frustration with his people is given fresh justification only six verses later. The people were “like mourners[6]”. They were seeking a pretext[7], the complaints change quickly from a desire for meat[8], to memories of “free fish” in Egypt, to cucumbers, watermelons, leeks, onions, and garlic[9], then the nature of the Manna[10], and finally crying in their families which is interpreted to be about recently forbidden sexual relationships[11] such as between nephews and aunts. These laws were not a theoretical matters, Moses own parents were nephew and aunt[12] and therefore needed to divorce[13].   

Despair

Moses responds bitterly to this new challenge. In contrast to an earlier time, when his loyalty to the Jewish people leads him to say to God if you don’t forgive the Jews erase me from your book![14], he is ready to give up. His anger leads him to spurn his mission that was entrusted to him by God[15]. He cries out, “"Why have You treated Your servant so badly? …You place the burden of this entire people upon me? Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that You say to me, 'Carry them in your bosom as the nurse carries the suckling,' to the Land You promised their forefathers?...Alone I cannot carry this entire people for it is too hard for me. If this is the way You treat me, please kill me if I have found favor in Your eyes, so that I not see my misfortune.[16]"

Variation of Jethro’s advice

God’s response sounds remarkably like the suggestion Jethro’s made to a less tired and worn out Moses years earlier[17], delegate! Moses is instructed to gather 70 elders, some of his spirit of prophecy will be given to them and they will help him lead the people[18].  

Loss of Control

There are those who say “if you want something done well, do it yourself”. Others wish to delegate but keep absolute control. It seems to me that great leaders are those who can point a direction and leave it to others to freely work on the mission within certain constraints. The Lubavitcher Rebbe would say “God did not tell Abraham to take a knife” (when he commanded him to sacrifice his son). Moses’ planned 70 prophets, sees a curve ball when two more unauthorised prophets appear in the camp, Eldad and Medad[19]. Joshua is alarmed, my master Moses, destroy them![20] Load them up with communal work and that will destroy them automatically[21], or lock them up in jail[22].

Confidence and Vision

Moses response is “Moses said to him, "Are you zealous for my sake? If only all of God's people were prophets, that God would bestow His spirit upon them!" This shows Moses great humility, although this is something which every other person would be jealous of, he did not display jealousy[23]. Moses’ answer remains an example for all teachers and leaders, to make themselves, superfluous so that people will not require teachers[24]. Or as the then chairman of Together For Humanity’s board, Peter Stephinson, would often tell me, “Zalman, we want to make you redundant”.  The confidence Moses displays here, is also seen when he is approached by people who had not brought the Passover offering because they were impure with the impassioned complaint “Why should we lose out?![25]”, when Moses tells them stand (and wait) and I will hear from God what he will command for you[26], knowing that in fact he can count on it[27].

Conclusion

To lead and effort off the beaten track, requires courage and perseverance, some chaos and challenges should be expected when the status quo is challenged. Mentors and champions are invaluable, for as long as they are available. When they need to go, soldier on, their wisdom remains after their presence has moved on. Above all, the work must always be bigger than the worker, and as best as is practical and responsible, let go and see the movement grow.

(note: my first choice for this week was to discuss Moses’ “Black Wife” but someone beat me to it, see http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2007/07/moses-black-wife.html . Perhaps another time I can add my own thoughts to this)

---

[1] Numbers 10:30

[2] Numbers 10:31

[3] Psalms 55:7

[4] By a means of a “Fortiori” (Does anyone really use that word?), in Hebrew a Kal VChomer meaning a “Light and Heavy”, in which any heavy aspect found in a light/less serious case would be assumed to apply in a more seriour “heavy” case. Eg. If Jethro who has a comfortable life chooses to stay in the desert and follow the path God has set for them how much more so the Jews who had no other options should certainly stay on the path.

[5] Klei Yakar (Shlomo Ephraim ben Aharon Lunschitz, 1550-1619 Poland)  on Numbers 10:31

[6] Numbers 11:1

[7] Rashi on Numbers 11:1

[8] Numbers 11:4

[9] Numbers 11:5

[10] Numbers 11:6

[11] Talmud Yoma 75a, and Rashi quoting Sifre

[12] Moses’ father Amram was the son of Kehat who was one of Levi’s three sons (See Numbers 3:17 & 19), Moses’ mother was Jocheved the daughter of Levi (See Exodus 2:1 and Rashi’s commentary) and the sister of Amram’s father. 

[13] Targum Yohatan Ben Uziel (Hillel's most distinguished pupil Talmud Sukkah, 28a- last century BC)  on Numbers 11:26, Rosh, Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel - (1250-1328)

[14] Exodus 32:32

[15] Akedat Yitzchak Rabbi Yitzchak Arama, (1420-1494)

[16] Numbers 11:11-15

[17] Exodus 18:17-26

[18] Numbers 11:16-17

[19] Numbers 11:26, amazingly one commentary, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel states that they were Moses’ half brothers, their father Eltzafan son of Parnach who married Jocheved when Amram divorced her before Moses was born, .

[20] Numbers 11:28

[21] Talmud Sanhedrin 6, quoted in Rashi

[22] Sifre, also in Rashi

[23] Akedat Yitzchak Rabbi Yitzchak Arama

[24] Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch  first published 1867- 1878

[25] Numbers 9:7

[26] Numbers 9:9

[27] Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima

Sotah, Modesty, Suspicion & Peace- A Womanless photo & Strauss-Kahn. Naso

Photo that has two women photo-
shopped out

The editing of a photo to remove Hilary Clinton’s image was met with widespread ridicule. People who did not just fill in the blanks must have wondered ‘what were they thinking?’ In our Torah reading this week, the modesty issue raised is more substantial than Clinton’s face in a photo. Perhaps it is more like the situation involving Mr. Strauss – Kahn, the issue is the treatment of allegations of sexual misbehaviour. Like Strauss-Kahn's treatment in the court of public opinion, in the Torah’s case there is no presumption of innocence. However, unlike the case of DSK, the accused is female, the alleged act consensual and the whole scenario challenging to modern sensibilities. In this post I explore questions of the presumption of innocence, the treatment of women, modesty, sexual morality, the importance of marriage and peace in the home.  

“The Straying Woman”

We read the case of a woman accused of adultery. She is described as a “Sotah”  סוטה which is a word that is related to the idea of straying.  The procedure outlined in the Torah is no longer practiced for technical reasons [i]. Essentially, if a married woman was suspected by her husband of infidelity with a particular man, he warned her to stay away from him. If she was found alone with this man she would be given a choice to either accept a divorce or go through a humiliating [ii], public, and supernatural procedure in which she drank water in which God’s name had been erased and would die a horrible death if she was guilty (as did her lover [iii]) but if she is exonerated and proven innocent then she would be blessed [iv].  

The Torah Context

In the Torah adultery is not just a betrayal between two married people but also a betrayal of God. This is hinted at in the repetition of the word 'man' in the Torah verse that introduced the topic: 

אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל  “a man, a man if his wife will stray [v]”. The repeated word 'man' hints that she betrayed, the “Divine man of war” as well as her husband [vi]. While I don’t know how common adultery is in the non-religious world, there is definitely an advantage for marriages to exist within a worldview in which adultery is considered a shocking crime.

Modesty

Following the principle of “make a gate around the Torah”[vii] there are various laws designed to keep people away from compromising situations. The laws include a prohibition of “Yichud” (literally: being at one with), which is a prohibition for any man and woman not married to each other (except for immediate family) to be in a locked room together, unless others have keys and can come in at any moment. 

These laws combine with placing a high value on modesty. While modern observant Jewish women are far from invisible, orthodox Jewish thinking is guided to varying degrees by the phrase “all the glory of the daughter of the king is within”[viii]. This verse is interpret as relating to a standard of modesty[ix]. ‘Like Abraham and Sarah, Abraham is at the front of the tent welcoming guests[x] and Sarah is behind the scenes [xi] “in the tent”, shy and reserved yet also rising to the occasion whenever a crisis hits[xii] or critical action when it is called for’[xiii]. 

Taking it too far

Our tradition warns against husbands expecting women to stay at home all the time. The phrase “a man, a man”, according to one interpretation, hints at the husbands being perhaps too "manly”, seeking to keep women locked up at home. A story is told of Yehudah Ben Pappos who locked his wife in the house every time he left. This should not be done “because this causes hatred to arise between husband and wife and leads her to commit adultery”[xiv].

Male Dominance

I think today there is generally an egalitarian dynamic between Orthodox Jewish husbands and wives, reflecting the principle that a man must his honour his wife more than himself[xv]. Classical sources on this issue reflect other ideas, one the one hand, men are advised to be easy going and overlook problems in their house, if wine spills or there is damage he should not fight with his wife, but on the other hand it states “but if he hears something relating to his manhood/role as a husband, stand up like a man, to the one whose master you are show your authority with all your ability, that is why it say, a man, a man”[xvi]. The husband also brings an offering on his wife’s behalf[xvii].  Of course there is also no opportunity for a wife who suspects her husband of infidelity to warn her husband, nor is there a male equivalent of the Sotah. As someone who values and imperfectly practices equality (can do better with the house work), yet lives my life by the guidance found in these sacred texts this is far from comfortable.

You are a suspect based on this photo from 1968

Presumption of innocence and past misbehaviour

In spite of teachings about judging others favourably[xviii] and guidance not to accept reports about others’ wrongdoing as true there is clearly no presumption of innocence in this case. (Arguably the concept is not part of the Halachic system[xix]). In terms of process at least a judge is told “When the litigants are standing before you, let them be in your eyes as wicked[xx]”.  

It seems that the ethical imperative of giving people the benefit of the doubt is linked to having an untarnished reputation, “anyone who suspects “Kosher” (people) receives (the punishment of) lashes on his body”[xxi].  While this helps people with a record of being Kosher (Chezkat Kashrut), it is of little use to DSK who allegedly had a track record of improper behaviour around women. It also works against the straying woman, who in spite of the lack of sufficient proof must undergo the humiliating ordeal. Her hair is uncovered and un-braided, which is deemed culturally humiliating[xxii].  The reason for proceeding is because “this matters has legs, as he (her husband) had already warned her”[xxiii] on the basis of witnesses reports of her secluding herself with a man who was not her husband.

She is told during the process, [xxiv]וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ which in context would be translated as “And as for you, if you have gone astray [to another] instead of your husband”, homiletically the word כִּי (which could be understood as if) is interpreted in its more usage of “because”. She is presumed guilty at least of great immodesty and she is told “you are fitting for humiliation because you strayed, as your husband had formally expressed his jealousy and still you secluded yourself [xxv]. Quite jarring stuff.     

On the other hand when the offering is brought it is labelled “a remembrance of sin[xxvi]”, which one commentary explained it as being brought because of one of the two options, either the sin of the woman or the sin of the husband who suspects her[xxvii].  Another view is that even if the wife is proven innocent the husband is not considered to have sinned because he was required to deal with his suspicion because he would not be allowed to continue to be married to her without clearing up the matter [xxviii].

Peace in the home

It has been argued that the great shame involved in this ordeal would serve as a deterrent to both women and men, for the former to conduct themselves in a way that is always above suspicion, for the latter to avoid frivolous accusations. The end result of this fear would be to prevent domestic tragedies[xxix]. One of the messages drawn from this reading is the importance of peace between husband and wife. If she is innocent, she this procedure with her face shining, finding good will from her husband [xxx]…, the couple able to continue their marriage, hopefully putting this episode behind them. This is so important that the name of God can be erased [xxxi] in the pursuit of this objective.

None of this justifies removing the face of Hillary from a newspaper photo, nor does it all sit comfortably with modern ideas about equality and rights, but it opens a window into thousands of years of religious thinking about various ways men and women with the support of their communities can handle their urges and suspicions and preserve the sanctity of marriage.

---

[i] The procedure was only done when the people were at a higher level of righteousness. It was discontinued thousands of years ago, when it could no longer be expected that men who suspected their wives of infidelity were themselves innocent.

[ii] Her hair was uncovered, she brought a sacrifice of animal feed, a Cohen held on to her clothes and if they tore, they tore, if the stiches came apart, they came apart until her heart is revealed, (Mishna Sotah 1:5). There is a similarity to the text in Hoseah 2, where Israel is compared to an adulterous wife and is told “lest I strip her naked, and set her like the day she was born”. 

[iii] Rashi on Numbers 5:22

[iv] Numbers 5:11-31

[v] Numbers 5:12

[vi] Rashi

[vii] Pirkey Avot 1:1

[viii] Psalms, 45:14

[ix] Talmud Yevmot 77a

[x] Genesis 18 Genesis 21:9-10

[xi] Genesis 18:9

[xii] Such as the need to protect her son from negative influence of danger as in Genesis 21:9-10

[xiii] Soloveitchik Rabbi J.B, quoted in Insights a Talmudic Treasury, by Rabbi Saul Weiss, Feldheim, New York, Jerusalem,  p 202

[xiv] Talmud Gittin 90a

[xv] Maimonides, Laws of Marriage, 15:19.

[xvi] Bamibar Rabba 9:2, with commentary by M”HRZV, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol. 36, p.167

[xvii] Numbers 5:15

[xviii] Pirkey Avot 1:6

[xix] On the website “Jewish Virtual Library” a writer asserts “There is no explicit presumption of innocence in Jewish law; the requirements of proof of guilt are, however, so stringent and rigorous, and the possibilities of establishing a valid defence so wide and flexible, that a conviction is much more difficult and an acquittal much easier to obtain than under a rebuttable presumption of innocence.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06166.html see also  http://www.oceansidejewishcenter.org/rebmark/TORAH_TABLE_TALK/5769/TTTshoftim69.pdf

[xx] Avot 1:8

[xxi] Talmud Shabbat 97a, Yoma 19b

[xxii] Numbers 5:18 and Rashi’s commentary

[xxiii] Talmud Sotah 3a

[xxiv] Numbers 5:20

[xxv] Chizkuni on Numbers 5:20

[xxvi] Numbers 5:15

[xxvii] Chizkuni on Numbers 5:15

[xxviii] Bchor Shor on Numbers 5:31

[xxix] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:49, cited in Munk, Rabbi E, The Call of the Torah, Bamidbar p. 49

[xxx] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[xxxi] Numbers 5:23