Behaalosecha: Moshe’s Short[ened] Tefilah

Why was Moshe's tefilah for Miriam so short? Was this his intent or was he forced to shorten it? Either way, what implications does this have for our tefilah?

Jun 21, 2024

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-7:41

The Torah content for this week has been sponsored by an anonymous librarian who has helped me on many occasions by providing me with articles, texts, and books which have enriched my learning and teaching. Thank you!

Note: This insight comes from a shiur I gave earlier this week in which we analyzed several other aspects of Miriam’s tefilah. The link to the video of that shiur will be provided below.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

DALL-E 3’s depiction of Moshe tending to Miriam. It’s not up to my standards, but frankly, I spent WAY too long trying to make it work, and it’s late, and I’m done.

Behaalosecha: Moshe’s Short[ened] Tefilah

Miriam is punished with tzaraas (a divinely ordained skin affliction) for speaking inappropriately about her brother, Moshe. After Aharon asks him for forgiveness, Moshe cries out to Hashem, saying, “E-l na refa na lah – God, please heal her now!” (Bamidbar 12:13). The question is: Why was Moshe’s tefilah (prayer) so short?

Abravanel (ibid.) tacitly acknowledges this question, albeit in a somewhat hyperbolic manner, and then answers:

It is impossible for a prayer to be shorter than this, for it consists of only eleven letters. This, too, indicates that Moshe was like a member of [God’s] household and a faithful servant before his Master, as he made such a request with just a few words.

Miriam and Aharon had received a Divine rebuke for speaking of Moshe as if he were a regular navi (prophet). Hashem explained to them that nevuas Moshe (Mosaic prophecy) is a qualitatively different phenomenon. “Not so is My servant, Moshe; he is trusted in all My house” (ibid. 12:7). According to Abravanel, Moshe’s short tefilah reflected his lofty status: an average person must petition the king with a lengthy request, but a trusted member of the king’s household only needs to express his wishes in a few short words.

Rashi, however, provides a different explanation (ibid. 12:13, citing Sifrei Bamidbar Piska 105):

Why didn’t Moshe go on at length in tefilah? So that Israel would not say, “His sister is in distress, and he stands and prays excessively?!” [according to an alternative Midrash Aggadah: Why did he pray a short tefilah? Because if he had said a long tefilah, Israel would have said, “He prays at length for his sister, but for us he does not pray at length?!”]

Unlike Abravanel, who holds that Moshe didn’t need any more than a few words in his tefilah, Rashi suggests that Moshe would have prayed extensively for his sister if not for the concern that Israel would complain.

Rashi’s explanation raises a major question: Why should it matter what Israel might say? First, Miriam is Moshe’s sister, and he is entitled to pray for her just as anyone would for their loved ones. Second, it is none of their business how long he prays for her. Third, the length of Moshe’s tefilah should be determined by its own considerations: it should be as long or as short as it needs to be, regardless of public opinion! Should a surgeon truncate a lengthy surgery because another group of patients feels like they’re not getting enough attention?

One might be tempted to answer by pointing out the consequences that would ensue from the Israelites’ jealousy of Moshe’s intercession on behalf of Miriam. Perhaps this would erode their trust in Moshe, give them a pretext for rebellion, or lead to some other untoward consequence. These explanations are plausible, but they are extrinsic reasons. They presuppose that there would be nothing inherently wrong with Moshe’s lengthy tefilah and that the only reason he decided not to pray at length was to avoid causing trouble. But what if there was an intrinsic reason? What if Israel’s grievance would have rendered Moshe’s tefilah deficient?

Before we suggest such an answer, let us review what tefilah is. The three-letter root of the word “tefilah” (תפילה) is P.L.L. (פ.ל.ל.), which means "to judge" or "to evaluate." The verb form of tefilah is "le'hispalel" (להתפלל), in the reflexive, meaning "to self-judge." Thus, “le’hispalel la’Shem” means “to judge oneself in God’s framework.”

Tefilah is an act of self-judgment that requires amidah lifnei Hashem (standing before God). When you stand before Hashem, you must stand before Him as yourself. Moshe wasn’t just Miriam’s brother; he was also Moshe Rabbeinu: the teacher, leader, and prophet-in-chief of Israel. To ignore those facets of who he was while standing before God would be a pgam (deficiency) in his act of self-reflection. If Moshe attempted to compartmentalize, standing before Hashem as if he were only a brother praying for his sister and not the shepherd of the nation, his tefilah would be based on a falsehood. One cannot stand before Hashem in tefilah with a false self-conception. As we say three times a day: “Hashem is close to all who call Him, to all who call Him in truth” (Tehilim 145:18).

One might assume that only someone on the level of Moshe or in his position would need to be concerned about how his tefilah would be perceived by others. This assumption is negated by a Gemara in Berachos 34a:

The Sages taught: There was an incident where one student led prayers in the presence of R’ Eliezer, and he (i.e. the student) excessively prolonged his tefilah. The students said to [R’ Eliezer]: “How lengthy he is!” He responded: “Is this student prolonging his prayer any more than Moshe Rabbeinu? For about Moshe it is written: ‘I prostrated myself before Hashem for the forty days and forty nights etc.’ (Devarim 9:25).”
There was again an incident where one student led prayers in the presence of R’ Eliezer, was excessively brief in his tefilah. His students said to him: “How brief he is!” He said to them: “Is he abbreviating his prayer any more than Moshe Rabbeinu? For it is written: ‘Please, God, heal her now.’”

The Gemara doesn’t spell out the practical implications of these anecdotes. R’ Eliezer may have intended to teach his students that there is no fixed ideal length for tefilah; each prayer should be tailored to its specific situation. Indeed, the version of these anecdotes brought down in the Mechilta d’Rebbi Yishmael (on Shemos 15:25) concludes with that exact takeaway: “For he used to say: ‘There’s a time to shorten and a time to lengthen.’”

The Meiri (Beis ha’Bechirah: Berachos 34a) takes a different approach:

An individual who prays and lengthens or shortens his prayer is permitted [to do so], and we have no rule regarding the length or brevity as long as he is praying the fixed prayer [text]. If he lengthens exceedingly, it is said of Moshe Rabbeinu, "I prayed before Hashem for forty days." If he shortens, it is said of Moshe Rabbeinu in his prayer for Miriam, "Please, God, heal her now." Nevertheless, it is still appropriate for him to balance his ways so that people do not complain about him, saying how lengthy or how brief he is.

Had we encountered the Meiri’s interpretation on its own, we might wonder why a person should pay any attention to the complaints of others. But thanks to the insight we gained from Rashi, we can now understand the Meiri’s approach. Tefilah is an act of self-judgment before Hashem. You must stand before Hashem as yourself, and when you pray in a communal setting, you are standing before Hashem not as an individual but as a part of that congregation. Ignoring that you part of a community of worshippers, and that your manner of prayer affects those around you, is tantamount to standing before Hashem with a distorted self-conception.

The same principle applies – in theory, even if not codified in halacha – to other cases where your tefilah affects those around you. If you’re a rebbi and the manner in which you pray negatively impacts your students, that must be considered when you stand before Hashem. If you’re taking your sweet time davening while your annoyed family is waiting for you so they can make it to the movie on time, remember how Moshe had to “compromise” his ideal tefilah because the complaints of the Israelites, despite being baseless, were part of his reality.

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that, despite the vast differences between us and Moshe Rabbeinu, we can still glean practical insights for our own tefilah from his example.

Here’s the video of the shiur I gave earlier this week in which we analyzed other aspects of Moshe’s tefilah.

I’m interested in your take on Moshe’s short tefilah, but I’m particularly interested in what you think about this interpretation of Rashi.

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post