by Baruch Sterman

In February 1985, Baruch Sterman — a researcher at AT&T Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey — posted this Dvar Torah to net.religion.jewish in the week of Parashat Terumah, just before Purim. It opens with an unusual Midrash: the command "Take for Me a portion" prompts the rabbinic tradition to choose three pairs of hero and villain from all of Tanach. What do Moshe and Korach, Pinchas and Zimri, Mordechai and Haman have in common?

Sterman's answer is careful and searching. In each case, the hero acted in a way that an objective observer might have condemned — Moshe assumed power without election, Pinchas executed a man without trial, Mordechai's stubbornness imperiled the entire Jewish community of Persia. In each case, the hero's only recourse was to fall on his face and say, in effect: God, you know my motives. That is all that matters.

The teaching closes with a reflection on why a name is more important than wealth — name as essence, wealth as the way others perceive you — and with a call for ahavat Yisrael, love of Israel, before Pesach. The net, Sterman notes, has been reading lately like a Democratic convention. The Midrash is offered as a corrective.

This past week we read Parashat Terumah. There is an interesting Midrash there that is relevant to the current time of year (Purim) and to the current tone of the net postings.

"Another view, 'Take for me a portion', this is what is said: 'Choose a name rather than riches.' Choose the name of Moshe rather than the riches of Korach... choose the name Pinchas rather than the riches of Zimri... choose the name Mordechai rather than the name Haman."

There are a number of difficulties arising from this Midrash. Why, of all the stories in Tanach, are these three chosen? What do they have in common, and what is the Midrash trying to tell us about them? Also, the Midrash is usually troubled by some literary obscurity in the text, so what does this all have to do with "viyikchu li terumah"?

Three Heroes in Moral Ambiguity

In each of these cases — Moshe vs. Korach, Pinchas vs. Zimri, and Mordechai vs. Haman — the hero is placed in a dubious moral situation where an objective viewer might justifiably side against the hero.

Korach's objection to the political structure of the desert society was perhaps a valid one. His call for social reform, "madua titnaseu al kehal Hashem," was not entirely irrational. In fact, when Korach pointed out that Moshe, who assumed office without election, might have been motivated by personal ambition rather than concern for the community, Moshe could only respond in one way: "vayipol Moshe al panav" — God, you know my motives and that is all that matters.

Pinchas as well committed a heinous offense. How dare he take the law into his own hands and execute his personal brand of justice? The Midrash explains that the Sanhedrin wanted to kill him for his deeds. "Vayaamod Pinchas vayephallel." In such a situation Pinchas' only recourse was to turn to God for strength in the knowledge that at least his acts were ultimately justified. God's judgment alone is important.

The story of Mordechai also reflects this type of moral dialectic. His stubborn determination in refusing to honor the king's official resulted in the threatened extinction of the Persian Jewish community. Were I to find myself in a similar predicament, my response would probably be to bow down and accept the responsibility for my actions, and commit a personal crime against God, that the rest of the nation might survive. This is perhaps the reason why I am not the hero in any Megillah. Mordechai understood the need to uphold a higher standard of morality and be consistent despite the ramifications. Nonetheless, between the time of Haman's decree to slaughter the Jews and its eventual revocation, Mordechai's conscience must have been brutally pained. "Umordechai yada et kol asher naasah vayilbash sak vaefer." His solace, if any came, from his belief that God knew and understood.

Name and Wealth

Judaism feels that a name is more significant than does Shakespeare. The name reflects one's essence, one's core. A change of name in the Bible signifies that the individual's fundamental personality is altered. God's name is holy because it somehow expresses what God is, and so He is referred to simply as "The Name." Psychologically, a person responds on a different level to his name than he does to anything else. Say "fire" to someone asleep and they will barely roll over, but whisper their name and they will probably respond.

Wealth, on the other hand, is an external, and heavily bound up in the way others perceive you. It is an artificial determinant of value. The Midrash is trying to explain that it is more important to be true to what you are than to let temporal variables influence your priorities. The stories of Moshe, Mordechai, and Pinchas are all examples of people who were able to see beyond the transient and act on principles that came from deep inside. The villains, despite their claims of lofty motives, prove upon closer examination to be nothing more than self-serving rationalizers devoted to their own interests. Unfortunately, sometimes only God sees the difference.

"Take for Me a Portion"

There is one word in the text — "veyikchu li teruma," "Take for Me a portion" — that is awkward. The word "li" is superfluous. From the context we realize that the donations are for the sanctuary, which is ultimately for God. The Midrash is sensitive to this and is therefore moved to explain that when one gives, God is not concerned with how much or what he gives. All that is important is that it be given.

Ahavat Yisrael

One of the most important things in Judaism is the notion of ahavat Yisrael. This time of year especially, unity is crucial. It is impossible to approach Pesach and the season where thoughts turn to hopes of redemption if we are busy infighting. The point I would like to make is that none of us know what the point is. Maybe the determination of one's religious worth should be left up to God. We all have our own ideas, and that's good, but too many times we engage in personal condemnation based on those views. It appears to me that if the readers and writers of the net are not homogeneous in their opinions, they are, at least, sincere. So let's keep that in mind.

Chag sameach — a very happy Purim to all.

Colophon

Posted to net.religion.jewish by Baruch Sterman ([email protected]), AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, New Jersey, 23 February 1985. Original Message-ID: [email protected].

Sterman was a physicist and researcher at AT&T Bell Labs and one of the earliest contributors of Torah scholarship to Usenet. The week of Parashat Terumah in 1985 fell in late February; Purim 5745 was 26 March. Sterman's teaching weaves together the Midrash Rabbah on Terumah with a pre-Purim meditation on moral courage and communal harmony.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲