Separating from Tzipporah

"Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses regarding the dark-skinned woman he had married." (Num. 12:1)

What exactly was their complaint against Moses?

The rabbinic commentaries explain that they were upset that Moses had separated from his wife Tzipporah, the dark-skinned daughter of Jethro. Miriam and Aaron were able to receive prophecy without resorting to celibacy; why did Moses feel it was necessary to separate from his wife?

The separation was in fact Moses' idea; God had not commanded him to do this. The Talmud explains that Moses decided it was necessary after witnessing God's revelation to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. He reasoned that

"The Shechinah spoke with Israel only on one occasion and at a predetermined hour. Nevertheless, the Torah cautioned, 'Do not come near a woman.' Certainly I, with whom the Shechinah speaks at all times and with no set hour, must do the same." (Shabbat 87a)

The Sages noted that Moses' reasoning was sound and that God approved of his decision. Their proof: after the revelation at Sinai, God told the people, "Return to your tents" [i.e., your families]. But God said to Moses, "You, however, shall stay here with Me" (Deut. 5:27-28).

Why was this separation something that Moses needed to work out for himself? And why was only Moses obligated to separate from his wife, and not other prophets?

Divine Perspective

Despite the soul's innate greatness, we are limited by our private lives and concerns. Compared to the Shechinah's all-encompassing light — a sublime light that illuminates all worlds and all that they contain — our private lives are like a feeble candle before the blazing sun. The cosmos are full of holiness — in all of their minutiae, in their processes of growth and advance, in their physical and spiritual paths. All of their heights and depths are holy; all is God's treasure.

In order to attain this higher perspective, a prophet must free himself from his narrow, personal viewpoint. The pristine dawn of elevated da'at (knowledge) must be guarded from all influences that could lead one to withdraw within a private love.

Moses, the faithful shepherd, could not be confined to the limited framework of private life — not even momentarily. Even from the natural perspective, his world was God's world, the all-inclusive world where everything is holy.

The necessity to separate from all private existence was Moses' initiative. From the Divine perspective, all is holy and such measures are unnecessary. For Moses, however, it was essential. It allowed him to raise his sights to the elevated outlook. Separating from his family allowed Moses' soul to be constantly drawn into the Soul of all worlds. It enabled the revelation of the Torah's unique illumination in the world.

Continual Light

What was so special about Moses' prophecy that, unlike all other prophets, he needed to avoid all private life? Rav Kook used the analogy of lightning to illustrate the qualitative difference between the prophecy of Moses and that of other prophets.

Imagine living in a pitch-black world where the only source of light is the light emitted by an occasional bolt of lightning. It would be impossible to truly understand one's surroundings in such a dark world. Even if the lightning occurs repeatedly, its lack of constancy makes this form of light inadequate. If, however, the lightning is extremely frequent — like a strobe light set to flash at a very fast frequency — its illumination is transformed into a source of constant light.

This analogy may be applied to spiritual enlightenment. One cannot truly recognize the elevated realm, its holiness and pure morality, the rule of justice and the influence of the sublime, without the illumination of continual prophecy.

Ordinary prophecy is like the intermittent light of an occasional lightning bolt. Only the Torah, the singular prophecy of Moses, is a light that radiates continually. By this constant light we are able to perceive the truth of the world's inner essence and live our lives accordingly.

(Adapted from Ein Eyah vol. IV, p. 174; Orot HaKodesh vol. I p. 275.)

Copyright © 2006 by Chanan Morrison