Political and Communal Insight

Last week's shiur emphasized Tanakh's psychological insight into the lives of individuals, and this week will focus on its wisdom regarding communal power structures. I want to reiterate that even though this series champions peshat more than derash, peshat considerations sometimes demand going beyond the explicit pesukim. If God tells a character not to be afraid, as in several cases we examined last week – a good reader must discern possible reasons for trepidation. If the precise motivation for building the tower of Bavel, our first narrative in this week’s shiur, remains a bit obscure from the Biblical account – we do our best to fill in what is missing.

Nine pesukim in Bereishit 11 inform us of a plan to build a tower "lest we scatter upon the face of the earth." This is not necessarily a sinister goal, and even though God breaks up the endeavor, He does not punish the builders harshly (contrast their lot with the fate of the generation of the flood). Indeed, some commentators explain that the plot was not evil but did run contrary to God's plan to settle the world, as the builders attempted to concentrate humanity in one location (see Derashot Haran, derasha 1). Rashi, who does see a more corrupt motivation behind the tower – either to wage war with God or to worship idols (commentary on 11:1) – feels a need to explain the light nature of their punishment. He says that Hashem likes it when humanity works together in harmony even when their work is religiously tainted, and that this factor mitigated the punishment (commentary on 11:9).

Totalitarian Society

R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv) wonders why the tower builders feared humanity scattering. He explains the purpose of the tower as creating a unified and centralized society where everyone would share the same opinions. The high tower would enable looking out on the surrounding areas; in other words, Big Brother is watching you (Ha'amek Davar 11:4).

The opening pasuk, "And all the earth was one language, one set of words," supports Netziv’s interpretation with its repeated usage of the word "one." The problem was in the excessive oneness and uniformity, more than the specific goal (Ha'amek Davar 11:1). It is remarkable that Netziv foresaw the dangers of totalitarian society even before the rise of communism and fascism.

Politics and Religion

Several textual clues link the tower of perek 11 with the character of Nimrod from the previous chapter. The beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was Bavel in the land of Shinar (10:10); the tower builders embark on their project in the land of Shinar (11:2) and the story bequeaths the name Bavel to that area (11:9). Thus, we can associate the tower project with Nimrod's kingdom.

Let us further posit that the tower may have served an idolatrous purpose, to encounter the gods, matching the usage of the ziggurat towers whose remains have been discovered in that geographic area. Seforno builds on the connection to Nimrod as well as the potential religious purpose and sees this episode as the first cynical use of religion by a politician: Nimrod's faction envisions everyone coming to worship at this tower, which will then strengthen Nimrod's hold on the population.

Political use of religion returns much later in Tanakh, in the Yarovam story. Although Yarovam rules ten tribes while Rechavam only has two, Rechavam has the immense advantage of the Beit Hamikdash being located within his territory. Yarovam worries that a desire to travel to Yerushalayim to participate in the sacrificial order will lead the people to gravitate towards Rechavam. He cleverly addresses this risk by setting up golden calves at the two edges of his kingdom, in Dan and in Be’er Sheva, providing his constituency with alternative sites for their religious needs (I Melakhim 12:26-30). The religious innovation of these calves was designed to strengthen his political position.

Politicians throughout history have understood what a powerful force religion is and attempted to coopt it for their side. Others have fought religion bitterly for the same reason. R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel, one-time chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, correctly suggests that Marxists do not hate religion because it is "the opiate of the masses." Rather, they desire a very controlling centralized government, and religion threatens that since it provides an alternate set of principles, values, and authority. (See my "Religious Responses to Communism," Tradition, Winter 2007, p. 17.)

Which Societies are Redeemable

Avraham prays for Sodom, trying to save not only the righteous within Sodom but the entire cluster of five cities. He asks God to spare the people if He can find fifty righteous individuals "within the city" (18:24). God utilizes the identical phrase when He answers that He will indeed not destroy them if fifty righteous people can be found "within the city." What is the significance of this phrase?

R. Shamshon Raphael Hirsch offers a very profound comment in which he contrasts two types of immoral societies. In one, corruption reigns but the corrupt tolerate those with greater moral character. They mock and scorn good people, but they let them be. In the second scenario, the evil ones make goodness into a crime. One thinks of Nazi Germany legislating that Poles who helped Jews would be killed. One can see a powerful example by looking up the fate of Jozef and Wiktoria Ulma from Markowa. R. Hirsch states that the first kind of society still has hope, since goodness remains part of the societal fabric. The second kind of society has no chance for rehabilitation. If the righteous exist "within the city," that means they are tolerated, and Sodom has a chance.

Dictators and Propaganda

Some people think that tyrants with absolute power can simply declare whatever they want and bully everyone into following. However, even in such governments, the populace may prove resistant, or at least unenthusiastic, and it is better to convince them of the worthiness of the cause. Stalin and Hitler certainly put a lot of effort into propaganda, the former with his show trials and the latter with years of anti-Jewish education leading up to the Final Solution.

Biblical tyrants knew this as well. Pharaoh tells his people: "Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and stronger than us" (Shemot 1:9). As a quantitative claim, it is hard to take this seriously. R. Dovid Tzvi Hoffman offers two interpretations. The first is that perhaps Pharaoh meant the Jewish people were too numerous "for us" rather than "than us." In other words, their numbers have reached problematic proportions – but not that they have outgrown the Egyptians. His second approach shows a deep understanding of the nature of propaganda:

In order to sway the heart of his advisors towards his plan, the king described the danger as much greater than the reality. Because it is certainly an exaggeration on Pharaoh's part to say that the Jews were more numerous than the Egyptians. (R. Dovid Tzvi Hoffman on Shemot 1:9)

Indeed, many rulers throughout history have described immigrant populations as greater threats than they truly are.

Ramban’s explanation of Pharaoh’s approach strengthens this point. Pharaoh says: "Come, let us be shrewd with them" (1:10), but it is unclear what is so clever about his plan. According to Ramban, Pharaoh reasoned that a direct command to kill the Jews would elicit resistance from both the Jews and his own people. Therefore, he chose a more subtle approach. First, he would wear them down with taxes, at a level that was considered normal for foreign residents. He then secretly commanded the midwives to kill Jewish male babies, with the hope of passing off the deaths as cases of stillbirth. Even when he instructed the entire Egyptian populace to kill the babies, he still functioned in a somewhat clandestine manner: Pharaoh would not admit to sanctioning the killings and did not utilize his official executioners, but made it known to the public that they should throw Jewish babies into the Nile; if the killers were accused, he would close the cases due to lack of evidence (see Ramban on Shemot 1:10). Here too, we see a tyrant using strategy and manipulating public opinion, rather than relying on power and intimidation alone.

Bosses and Their Workers

When Moshe first asks Pharaoh for a three-day religious retreat in the desert, Pharaoh responds: "Look, the people of the land are now many, and you would make them cease from their burdens" (Shemot 5:5). Why does the large number of Jews matter? The simplest explanation is that the loss of work is greater with a larger workforce. However, in his commentary on that verse, Ibn Ezra suggests an illuminating alternative. Moshe had said that his people might be struck by plague or sword if they do not bring sacrifices in the desert (5:3), and Pharaoh answers that there are many downtrodden Jews he can use to replace the workers even if they perish.

Throughout history, rich factory owners and the like have often been indifferent to the safety of their workforce, since other poor people will line up for the same jobs. In the Ibn Ezra’s view, Pharaoh exhibits that same attitude in this episode.

The Timing and Nature of Rebellions

Korach, the sons of Reuven, and two hundred and fifty chieftains join together to rebel against the authority of Moshe and Aharon (Bamidbar 16). What motivates the rebellion, and why does it break out at this juncture? Ibn Ezra posits that this was a bekhorite rebellion, as the firstborn were upset at losing their privileged position to the Levites. The tribe of Reuven joined in since their ancestor was also a rejected firstborn, who had lost his elevated status to Yosef. According to this understanding, the episode actually occurred earlier in Biblical history, when the firstborns lost their position, but the Torah places the story here. As we have seen (shiur 22), Ibn Ezra is quite comfortable suggesting events in the Torah are not in chronological order.

Ramban, who tends to stick to the chronological sequence as presented, does it here as well. He astutely reminds us that complainers and rebels know when to speak up. After Moshe had led the Jewish people out of Egypt in spectacular fashion and they had experienced the grand revelation at Sinai, the people as a whole admired Moshe, and those with complaints kept them to themselves. Following the episode of the spies, when God declared that the generation that left Egypt would perish in the desert and not merit to enter the land of Israel, unhappy grumbling ensued and those with grievances realized that they could now receive a sympathetic ear. Those with long-standing complaints therefore brought them out at that opportune moment.

Bible critics have tried to divide the story into two, based on the varying complaints: Datan and Aviram challenge Moshe, whereas the two hundred and fifty men take on Aharon. I believe this claim fundamentally misunderstands how rebellions work. Groups with different grievances often come together against a common enemy, the current authorities. If the rebels are victorious, the lack of deeper unity often manifests itself at that point, in splitting off and infighting. This is the story of both the French and Russian revolutions. Perhaps here, Tanakh reveals greater comprehension regarding the workings of uprisings than do modern Biblical academics.

I hope this shiur has shown how the Torah provides insight into the nature of power structures and communal dynamics. This sacred text from thousands of years ago contains profound wisdom for those who read it carefully, often through the lens of commentators from the medieval and modern periods, that remains quite relevant in today’s world.