Politics of birthright privilege identities and the mixed cities

Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald – The Parasha in our everyday life - Naso – 5781

For several years now, there has been a lively discussion about the theory of 'identity politics' in Israeli society. It escalated over the last days, with an outbreak of disturbances by mixed cities' Arabs. The 'identity politics' largely dictates the media discourse, and especially the attempt to put events into a symmetrical pattern of 'civil war'. It fits well within the theory of ‘identity politics’ and denies that there is no symmetry. That there are unilateral riots here on a nationalist background. The criminal act in Bat Yam was a sporadic act committed by a number of unrepresentative violent people who are treated harshly by the authorities and do not create symmetry.

In the context of this discussion, there is also a debate on the question of whether there is a built-in struggle between "The First Israel" that seeks to preserve "preference" and hegemony versus "The Second Israel". To dictate the public agenda through the centers of power it controls, mainly the media, Law and Academia. This is despite the fact that it lost the majority advantage in the democratic political arena. According to this theory, "The First Israel" is the secular Ashkenazi elite that lives mainly in the center. Whereas 'The Second Israel' is mainly the periphery, the Sephardi (Middle-Eastern) religious and traditional religious communities. The first is more inclined to define the state as 'democratic' and the second as 'Jewish'. The claim to hegemony is related to the fact that "The First Israel" attributes to itself the right of seniority as the one who established the state, in blood and sweat, and its national social perception reflected the opinion of the "majority" in Israeli society at the time. This was the dominant hegemony in the early days of the state until the political 'upheaval' in 1977 and the rise of the Likud and Menachem Begin to power (thanks to the representation of the periphery and the middle eastern communities). A democratic "revolution" that "The First Israel" finds difficult to come to terms with to this day.

Those who reject this theory claim that it is unfounded and that it is impossible to make a dichotomous ethnic identification of who belongs to the 'First' and who to the 'Second'.

Basically, there is no denying that there is a human tendency, and in some cases even a justified, personal, and public need to preserve the ‘hegemony’ of those who have ‘preference’, even long after it no longer reflects and represents the existing demographic picture. And on the other hand, demographic, social, and political changes may cause the elite to lose its preference and hegemony. For the place it occupies in society depends on its contribution, on the present, on its national needs and its willingness to 'bear the burden' and pay the prices involved.

The same question of precedence in the public and spiritual arena arises in our Parasha. Within the priesthood family- between Bnei Kehat and Bnei Gershon. Our Parasha opens with the census of Bnei Gershon, who was the eldest of the priesthood family, but was already preceded by the census of Bnei Kehat at the end of the previous Parasha. Sages discussed the question of why the order was different and did not appoint the eldest first?

נָשׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן וגו ' יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים, מְדַבֵּר בִּקְהָת וְגֵרְשׁוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגֵּרְשׁוֹן בְּכוֹר וּמָצִינוּ שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם חָלַק הַכָּתוּב כָּבוֹד לַבְּכוֹר, לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה קְהָת טוֹעֵן הָאָרוֹן שֶׁשָּׁם הַתּוֹרָה הִקְדִּימוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְגֵרְשׁוֹן...

"More precious than pearls. Here they are talking about Kehat and Gershon. Even though Gershon is the firstborn, and we are told everywhere in the Torah, the firstborn gets the honor, but because Kehat carried the Ark with the Torah, he preceded Gershon in the scriptures!) Bamidbar Rabbah 6:1)

On this the Kli Yakar asks:

היא גופא קשיא למה לא מסר משא הארון אל הבכור לכבדו ביתר שאת ועוז התורה אשר לה משפט הבכורה.

"It is itself a question of why he did not hand over the burden of the ark to the more respected elder to honor him and the Torah, which has precedence". And his answer:

שרצה הקב"ה להראות שכבוד חכמים ינחלו כדי ללמד דעת את העם שיכבדו את לומדי התורה... ואילו היה נותן הארון לגרשון הבכור הייתי אומר שבעבור הבכורה מנאו תחילה ולא הייתי תולה החשיבות במשא הארון ע"כ מסר הארון אל קהת ומנאו תחילה וידעו הכל ליתן כבוד לתורה וללומדיה... כוונתו להורות שכתר תורה הפקר לכל וע"כ לא ניתן הארון אל הבכור שלא יהיה תפארתו לומר אני ראוי לכתר תורה יתר מזולתי אלא הכל שוין בה לכך נאמר יקרה היא מפנינים...

"The likely explanation for this is that the Holy One wanted to show that “the wise shall inherit honor.” The nation needed to be taught that they should honor those that study Torah... If the Aron had been given to Gershon, the firstborn, and his family was counted first, we might have thought he was counted first because he was the firstborn, and we would not have attached the importance to being the bearers of the Aron. Therefore, the Aron was given to Kehat and he was counted first. Thus, all would know to give honor to the Torah and those who study it. Another explanation: The task of carrying the Aron was not given to the firstborn so that he would not become haughty and think he deserves it all. Everyone has the same opportunity". (Kli Yakar Bamidbar 4:22)

There are areas not determined by birthright from the past but rather by belonging to something of public value in the present. And on the contrary, it is necessary to show that status and preference are determined matter-of-factly and not by virtue of precedence.

So also, the status of the whole tribe of Levi was determined because of their spiritual public devotion during the sin of the calf and therefore they replaced the birthright holders.