“What defines political theory for any epoch or thinker is also conceived, at least in part, as threatening its dissolution. This becomes even clearer when we leave the consideration of epistemological concerns for ontological ones: across its disparate modalities, political theory takes its bearings from a tacit presumption of the relative boundedness and autonomy of the political. The existence of political theory qua political theory has depended heavily on defining the political as distinguishable (if not distinct) from the economic, the social, the cultural, the natural, and the private/domestic/familial. Nor does content exhaust this project of differentiation: political life is also tacitly circumscribed by its theorists in terms of a distinct ethos or sensibility, differentiated (albeit not necessarily sequestered) from the emotional, the psychic, the erotic, the poetic, the literary, and at times, the moral. For political theory to claim singularity and claim propriety over a territory of concern, it must set itself off from these other domains, practices, and sensibilities. But like political theory's epistemological others, each laps at the shore of the political, promising to subvert or undo it if certain policing measures are not undertaken.”
Those who insist that sovereignty is a sine qua non for political community are liable to dismiss the idea of a “Jewish” (as opposed to a Hebrew or an Israeli) political tradition as incoherent, given that rabbinic Judaism developed in diaspora, under conditions of statelessness. Thus, to dispel readers’ skepticism and affirm the tradition’s existence, scholars have had to abandon, or at least relax, received conceptions of the political. Framed in this way, projects for the tradition’s recovery invariably confront the question of sovereignty and its role as a defining horizon of the political. As Walzer (2012a, p. 124) puts it, the Jews’ success at sustaining political community in diaspora “raises what is perhaps the central question of Jewish political thought: Just how important is sovereignty, independence, and authoritative direction? How important is it to have, like the other nations, kings of one’s own, who appoint judges and fight wars?” […] a richer, more challenging conception of tradition could inspire renewed theoretical imagination about the institutions and practices that encourage Jewish political agency. Such imagination is key if the field is to realize its twofold promise—that of expanding the bounds of Jewish political discourse and that of expanding received conceptions of the political.
(א) וַיָּבֹ֣אוּ בְנֵֽי־יִ֠שְׂרָאֵל כָּל־הָ֨עֵדָ֤ה מִדְבַּר־צִן֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הָֽרִאשׁ֔וֹן וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב הָעָ֖ם בְּקָדֵ֑שׁ וַתָּ֤מָת שָׁם֙ מִרְיָ֔ם וַתִּקָּבֵ֖ר שָֽׁם׃ (ב) וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה מַ֖יִם לָעֵדָ֑ה וַיִּקָּ֣הֲל֔וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹֽן׃ (ג) וַיָּ֥רֶב הָעָ֖ם עִם־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ לֵאמֹ֔ר וְל֥וּ גָוַ֛עְנוּ בִּגְוַ֥ע אַחֵ֖ינוּ לִפְנֵ֥י ה'׃ (ד) וְלָמָ֤ה הֲבֵאתֶם֙ אֶת־קְהַ֣ל ה' אֶל־הַמִּדְבָּ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה לָמ֣וּת שָׁ֔ם אֲנַ֖חְנוּ וּבְעִירֵֽנוּ׃ (ה) וְלָמָ֤ה הֶֽעֱלִיתֻ֙נוּ֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם לְהָבִ֣יא אֹתָ֔נוּ אֶל־הַמָּק֥וֹם הָרָ֖ע הַזֶּ֑ה לֹ֣א ׀ מְק֣וֹם זֶ֗רַע וּתְאֵנָ֤ה וְגֶ֙פֶן֙ וְרִמּ֔וֹן וּמַ֥יִם אַ֖יִן לִשְׁתּֽוֹת׃ (ו) וַיָּבֹא֩ מֹשֶׁ֨ה וְאַהֲרֹ֜ן מִפְּנֵ֣י הַקָּהָ֗ל אֶל־פֶּ֙תַח֙ אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד וַֽיִּפְּל֖וּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶ֑ם וַיֵּרָ֥א כְבוֹד־ה' אֲלֵיהֶֽם׃ (פ) (ז) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (ח) קַ֣ח אֶת־הַמַּטֶּ֗ה וְהַקְהֵ֤ל אֶת־הָעֵדָה֙ אַתָּה֙ וְאַהֲרֹ֣ן אָחִ֔יךָ וְדִבַּרְתֶּ֧ם אֶל־הַסֶּ֛לַע לְעֵינֵיהֶ֖ם וְנָתַ֣ן מֵימָ֑יו וְהוֹצֵאתָ֨ לָהֶ֥ם מַ֙יִם֙ מִן־הַסֶּ֔לַע וְהִשְׁקִיתָ֥ אֶת־הָעֵדָ֖ה וְאֶת־בְּעִירָֽם׃ (ט) וַיִּקַּ֥ח מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־הַמַּטֶּ֖ה מִלִּפְנֵ֣י ה' כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּֽהוּ׃ (י) וַיַּקְהִ֜לוּ מֹשֶׁ֧ה וְאַהֲרֹ֛ן אֶת־הַקָּהָ֖ל אֶל־פְּנֵ֣י הַסָּ֑לַע וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָהֶ֗ם שִׁמְעוּ־נָא֙ הַמֹּרִ֔ים הֲמִן־הַסֶּ֣לַע הַזֶּ֔ה נוֹצִ֥יא לָכֶ֖ם מָֽיִם׃ (יא) וַיָּ֨רֶם מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶת־יָד֗וֹ וַיַּ֧ךְ אֶת־הַסֶּ֛לַע בְּמַטֵּ֖הוּ פַּעֲמָ֑יִם וַיֵּצְאוּ֙ מַ֣יִם רַבִּ֔ים וַתֵּ֥שְׁתְּ הָעֵדָ֖ה וּבְעִירָֽם׃ (ס) (יב) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְאֶֽל־אַהֲרֹן֒ יַ֚עַן לֹא־הֶאֱמַנְתֶּ֣ם בִּ֔י לְהַ֨קְדִּישֵׁ֔נִי לְעֵינֵ֖י בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לָכֵ֗ן לֹ֤א תָבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶת־הַקָּהָ֣ל הַזֶּ֔ה אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֥תִּי לָהֶֽם׃ (יג) הֵ֚מָּה מֵ֣י מְרִיבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־רָב֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶת־ה' וַיִּקָּדֵ֖שׁ בָּֽם׃ (ס)
(1) The Israelites arrived in a body at the wilderness of Zin on the first new moon, and the people stayed at Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there. (2) The community was without water, and they joined against Moses and Aaron. (3) The people quarreled with Moses, saying, “If only we had perished when our brothers perished at the instance of the LORD! (4) Why have you brought the LORD’s congregation into this wilderness for us and our beasts to die there? (5) Why did you make us leave Egypt to bring us to this wretched place, a place with no grain or figs or vines or pomegranates? There is not even water to drink!” (6) Moses and Aaron came away from the congregation to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and fell on their faces. The Presence of the LORD appeared to them, (7) and the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (8) “You and your brother Aaron take the rod and assemble the community, and before their very eyes order the rock to yield its water. Thus you shall produce water for them from the rock and provide drink for the congregation and their beasts.” (9) Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as He had commanded him. (10) Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock; and he said to them, “Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?” (11) And Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod. Out came copious water, and the community and their beasts drank. (12) But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.” (13) Those are the Waters of Meribah—meaning that the Israelites quarrelled with the LORD—through which He affirmed His sanctity.
(יג) אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה בְּאֵיזֶה פָּנִים אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ לִכָּנֵס לָאָרֶץ, מָשָׁל לְרוֹעֶה שֶׁיָּצָא לִרְעוֹת צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ וְנִשְׁבֵּית הַצֹּאן, בִּקֵּשׁ הָרוֹעֶה לִכָּנֵס לַפַּלְטֵרִין שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ אִם אַתְּ נִכְנַס עַכְשָׁו מַה יֹּאמְרוּ הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה הִשְׁבֵּיתָ הַצֹּאן. אַף כָּאן אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה, שִׁבְחֲךָ הוּא שֶׁהוֹצֵאתָ שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא וּקְבַרְתָּם בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְאַתְּ מַכְנִיס דּוֹר אַחֵר, עַכְשָׁיו יֹאמְרוּ אֵין לְדוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אֶלָּא תְּהֵא בְּצִדָּן וְתָבוֹא עִמָּהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לג, כא): וַיֵּתֵא רָאשֵׁי עָם צִדְקַת ה' עָשָׂה, לְכָךְ כְּתִיב (במדבר כ, יב): לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה, אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצָא עִמָּךְ.
(13) 13 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “With what countenance do you want to enter the land?” The situation is comparable to a shepherd who went out to feed the king's flock, and the flock was carried off. [When] the shepherd wanted to come into the king's palace, the king said to him, “If you come in now, what will the creatures say? That you caused the flock to be carried off.” Here also the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “[Would it be] your glory that you are the one who led sixty myriads out [of bondage] and buried them in the desert and are bringing another generation into [the land]. Now they will say, ‘The generation of the wilderness has no share in the world to come.’ Rather be by their side, and come along with them [in the future].” Thus it is stated (in Deut. 33:21), “[for there is an honored lawgiver's portion,] where he came at the head of the people....” Therefore it is stated (in Numb. 20:12), “therefore you shall not lead this congregation,” but rather [the one] that came out with you.
“This is a very righteous cause: ‘iustum enim est bellum quibus necessarium, et pia arma ubi nulla nisi in armis spes est.’* Circumstances are now very favourable indeed, and the difficulties to be confronted cannot be very great when the circumstances are propitious, if only your family will imitate the methods of the men I have proposed as exemplars. Moreover, very unusual events, which are signs from God, have recently been observed here: the sea has opened; a cloud has shown you the way; water has flowed from the rock; manna has rained down here. Everything points to your future greatness. But you must play your part, for God does not want to do everything, in order not to deprive us of our freedom and the glory that belong to us”
*Livy, IX, 1: ‘necessary wars are just wars, and when there is no other hope except in arms, they too become holy’
“In order to encourage Lorenzo to liberate Italy, Machiavelli reminds him of the miracles which God had performed before their eyes: ‘The sea has been divided. A cloud has guided you on your way. The rock has given forth water. Manna has rained.’ The miracles of Lorenzo’s time which indeed are attested to by Machiavelli alone, imitate the miracles of Moses’ time. More precisely, they imitate the miracles which were performed, not in Egypt, the house of bondage, but on the way from Egypt to the promised land—to a land to be conquered. […] Machiavelli’s certainty of divine intervention reminds us of his expectation of a spontaneous all-Italian rising against the hated foreigners. Just as that expectation is at variance with what earlier chapters had indicated as to the certainty of powerful Italian resistance to the liberator and unifier of Italy, so the expression of religious sentiment is at variance with earlier explicit remarks. According to those remarks, fear of God is desirable or indispensable in soldiers and perhaps in subjects in general, while the prince need merely appear religious, and he can easily create that appearance considering the crudity of the large majority of men. In the last chapter itself, Machiavelli calls the God-wrought contemporary events which resemble certain Biblical miracles not ‘miracles’ but ‘extraordinary’ events ‘without example’: he thus denies the reality of those Biblical miracles and therewith, for an obvious reason, the reality of all Biblical miracles.”
“Rabbinical interpreters point out that when Moses hit the rock not once but twice, he showed mistrust in god, striking a second time when, after the first strike, the water did not flow out right away (in effect acting like those people [of whom I am one, but I am working on it] who punch the elevator button repeatedly, not just once, and so exhibit an interventionist rather than a witnessing or prophesying disposition—a pre-thunder—showing himself, hubristically, to bring out the water with his rod rather than speaking and then witnessing, along with the Israelites, god’s work in a more self-effacing way. […] Instead, Moses and Aaron withdraw from the assembly upon hearing the people’s complaints. Moses Mendelssohn, the great Jewish Enlightenment thinker, says in his biblical commentary, Biur, that this withdrawal was the real cause of Moses’s punishment. Moses’s sin, says Mendelssohn, was that when the people began to complain of thirst, he and Aaron fled from answering them directly and went to the tent of meeting to speak to God. Moses’s sin was not his failure to bey god but rather the fact that he turned to god at all, and away from the people. Mendelssohn’s interpretation invites rumination on what it would have meant to ‘stay’ with the people.”