Miriam's affliction

[cellio]

On Shabbat we had a discussion about one part of the week's portion, where Miriam and Aharon speak critically about Moshe and Miriam (alone) is punished with tzara'at ("leprosy"). I found that translation hinders rather than helps understanding in this case.

JPS translates Num. 12:1 thus: Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married. "He married a Cushite woman!"

All the fluent Hebrew readers objected to this translation, pretty much at the same time, for not making use of the "ki" in the second sentence (among other objections). Further, there is no punctuation in the original torah text, so this is a matter of interpretation, and this particular rendering attributes a motive for the complaint that contradicts midrash. Granted that midrashim often disagree, but we found nothing to really support the idea that their objection is Moshe marrying a foreigner. (The midrash suggests that Miriam was coming to his wife's defense, so "because of" is better rendered as "on account of".)

The translation in the Sapperstein Rashi edition, which is also basically the one used by Nechama Leibowitz, punctuates it differently: And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.

There's still a problem, though. The Hebrew uses the feminine singular verb for "spoke", so if Miriam and Aharon both spoke then the grammar is wrong. They do both speak in the next sentence where they challenge Moshe's sole access to God, and the plural is used there, but not here. I'm not willing to call "editorial error" without first looking for a consistent interpretation.

So all this led me to wonder if we're reading it wrong. I humbly offer the following alternative translation of the Hebrew: [And] Miriam spoke, and Aharon was against Moshe on account of the Cushite woman he had taken [as wife], for he had taken a Cushite woman.

Miriam spoke, and in so doing incited Aharon. Both then went on to criticize Moshe, but Miriam as the instigator bears the punishment. That makes the account make more sense to me, but of course that doesn't mean this is a correct interpretation. Rashi says that Miriam spoke first, but he doesn't explain that further so I can't tell if he interprets it this way. I can, in fact, find no support for my interpretation anywhere in the sources I have to hand -- but nor can I find a problem with it. So I would very much welcome arguments either for or against.

Edit: I posted a question about this on Judaism.StackExchange and got some interesting answers there.

Comments

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

If you want more (lots more) about that passage, check out The Curse of Ham (http://www.amazon.com/Curse-Ham-Slavery-Christianity-Christians/dp/0691123705/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308103337&sr=8-1) by David M. Goldenberg. It's got lots about race (or what we'd now call race) and the ancient world.

Unfortunately, I don't remember what was said about that passage, just that he spent a while on various interpretations.

Great question!

[(Anonymous)]

PLEASE try it on judaism.stackexchange.com . This is perfect for there!

--Isaac Moses

Re: Great question!

[cellio]

Thanks for the suggestion. Done.

(I had considered posting there but wasn't sure if this was too far into "dvar" space. I recast the question a little over there.)

Re: Great question!

[moe37x3.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

Thanks! This sort of in-depth conundrum in trying to parse and understand the text is great for SE. It comes from genuine curiosity, it's not trivial, and it is presumably answerable because it's text that's been staring us all in the faces for millenia. Don't worry about getting "too far into 'dvar' space" in a J.SE question, if it helps to motivate the question. No reason people shouldn't learn as they read!