Recently, a reader named Dawn submitted a few questions in our comments section that I believe deserve to be featured here on our front page, so I'm going to take this time to answer these inquiries in full. The questions concerned both a comment I made in a previous article about interracial relations in the Jewish community, and one of the more striking events from the reading that includes Numbers 12.

Replying to my comment that Jews, a majority of whom are white-skinned, have spent much of history being forbidden to closely associate with people of color, Dawn asks,

"didn't Moses marry an Ethiopian woman, the wife who Miriam and Aaron did not like? Shouldn't we have learned something from this?"

Before I answer, I want to thank Dawn for her comments and questions. We always welcome any inquiry on this blog. Now, to dive right in.

When I wrote about racial restrictions, I was referring to those imposed by the larger secular world. Regardless of what Jewish philosophy says about race, it sadly does not trump the pressures of an entire society. Judaism, like any other faith, does not exist in a vacuum free from the customs of the world around it. For example, to be white in America in 1950 carried the racist custom of not closely associating with people of color, especially when it came to romantic pairing. It didn't matter if the white person in question was Jewish or of any other background.

Considering the indefensibility of being Jewish and supporting racial segregation, many Jews were and continue to be instrumental in the fight for civil rights. As far as modern Jewish philosophy goes, racial equality is the only moral position.

Dawn also asked,

"Further... why did only Miriam get stricken with leprosy when it was both Aaron and Miriam who spoke against Moses?.. Yes, Miriam is listed first in Numbers 12:1 but it was an Aaron holding the greater office, having even the greater level responsibility (or at least recognized as so). I believe Miriam was stricken and not Aaron because the people were still following her over Moses but that was not in alignment with what was the will of God in the deliverance of the people. Yes she was to serve as a bridge between the people she had always known and a Moses who had not, but it was not a permanent assignment for her. But she did nonetheless serve as a de facto leader (if I can use that term in this way!). The entire camp even refused to move until she was able to rejoin it.

Concerning the punishment of Miriam, there are a few things to consider. First, the Israelites did not follow Miriam in the same way they followed Moses. God made Miriam the sole source of water for the people as soon as they left Egypt, so it would only stand to reason that the people wouldn't move on without her. They would have died of thirst. They depended on her for sustenance just like they depended on Moses for judgment under the law. Miriam was a mother figure for an entire nation and Moses was no king.

As for why Miriam was given leprosy but not Aaron, there are again several items to consider. First of all, this is a narrative device meant to make us concentrate on the importance of the women in our lives. The contention concerned Moses's new wife, a Cushite woman. By attempting to disrupt the stability of that pairing, which had been at least tacitly approved by God, Miriam and Aaron implicitly disrupted the very concept of wifehood and motherhood, thus the cursing of the symbolic mother of all Israelites.

Furthermore, Aaron was the head priest of the Israelites and would have been permanently disqualified from the priesthood by having leprosy as described in a previous parsha. His sin was significant, just not significant enough to strip him of his responsibilities.

As always, Judeo Talk welcomes any and all questions. Thank you for your comments, Dawn. I hope we have all learned from this discussion.