The Homeless Problem

But if the man has no relative to whom to make restitution, the debt which is restored to Hashem, [is to be given] to the kohen. [This is] besides the atonement ram through which atonement is made for him. (Sefer BeMidbar 5:8)

I. Restitution for theft

The Torah’s attitude toward geyrim – those who have joined the Jewish nation through conversion – is confusing. In some respects, we are required to relate to the ger with enormous respect and kindness. In other respects, the Torah limits the rights of the ger. This ambiguity is evident in Parshat Naso. 

The parasha deals with the obligation upon a thief to return the object he has stolen to its owner. In other words, if one steals from another, one is required to return the stolen object. If the object is lost, destroyed, or altered, then the value of the object must be restored to the owner. If the owner is no longer alive, then the object or its value is returned to the heir.

The above passage deals with a special case. The thief wishes to return the object or make restitution but discovers that the owner has died. He then searches and cannot find an heir. In this situation, the object or the restitution is given to the kohanim – the priests.

Rashi quotes a discussion of our Sages. They ask: How is it possible for a person to not have an heir? If one investigates, one will inevitably uncover a distant relative who is heir to the deceased. The Sages respond that the passage is dealing with a ger who passed away without children.[1] Non-Jewish relatives are not deemed to be the ger’s heirs. Only members of the family created after his or her conversion are heirs. If the ger did not create a family or if the members of this family pre-deceased him, then he has no heirs. If this deceased ger was the victim of the theft, then the thief makes restitution through returning the object or its value to the kohanim.

II. The ger’s unsettled status

Ramban – Nachmanides – asks: Why is this discussion placed in our parasha? Its proper place would be in the Torah’s discussion of civil laws. Here, the Torah is discussing the structure of the camp in the wilderness. It is assigning a location to each shevet – tribe – surrounding the Mishcan – the Tabernacle. It is describing the responsibilities of each family in Shevet Levy – the Tribe of the Levites – in the transport of the Mishcan from one encampment to the next. This is an unlikely place to present the law of returning an object stolen from a ger who died without an heir. This law is placed here to communicate a message. What is the message?

The positioning of tribes around the Mishcan determined the place at which virtually every member of the nation camped. When the nation traveled and each time the nation camped, a person knew his or her specific place within the nation’s procession or encampment. One traveled and camped in the placed assigned to one’s family, within one’s tribe. For example, a person who was a member of a family of Shevet Yehudah traveled with his family and tribe toward the front of the procession and camped to the east of the Mishcan.

A place was assigned to almost everyone but not to geyrim – converts. Geyrim were not members of one of the shevatim. They did not have an assigned place within the camp. Ramban explains that because geyrim were not assigned a place in the camp, the Torah introduces, at this point, its discussion of the ger who died without heirs.[2]

III. The special status of the ger

Ramban does not elaborate on the message communicated by this juxtaposition. A comment of Chizkuni is helpful. He explains that Hashem is the father of every ger. He is their heir. Restoration for the stolen item is made to Him and He assigns it to the kohanim – who are members of His household.[3]

Apparently, the Torah recognizes that the unsettled status of the ger within the camp may communicate the message that he or she is inferior. One might conclude that the ger is less significant and regarded as an alien. The Torah is addressing this issue in its treatment of the ger who passes without an heir. The Torah assigns an heir to the ger – Hashem. The ger’s heir is more prestigious than any living being.  

Nonetheless, one wonders at the Torah’s attitude. The ger is unsettled within the camp and nation. Can we identify any message in this treatment? An answer may be provided by a comment attributed to Eliyahu of Vilna – the Vilna Goan. 

IV. The Ger Tzedek of Vilna

The second day of Shavuot is the anniversary of the execution of the Ger Tzedek of Vilna – the Righteous Ger of Vilna. Count Valentine Potocki was a Polish nobleman who converted to Judaism. He was burned at the stake at Vilna on May 24, 1749.

The young Potocki and his friend Zaremba, left Poland to study in Paris. There, they encountered an old Jew whom they found poring over a large volume when they entered his wine-shop. They were intrigued by his explanations of the Old Testament, to which they were total strangers. They prevailed upon him to instruct them in Hebrew.  Over the course of the ensuing six months, they acquired proficiency in Hebrew and an intense interest in Judaism. They resolved to go to Amsterdam, which was one of the few places in Europe at that time where a Christian could openly embrace Judaism. Potocki followed through with the plan. He went to Amsterdam, converted to Judaism and adopted the name Abraham ben Abraham.

After a short time, he returned to Poland and lived among the Jews of the town of Ilye, near Vilna. Some of the Jewish residents were aware of his identity and protected his secret. While in the synagogue one day he chastised a young boy who was disturbing those praying and studying. The boy's father was so enraged that he informed against him to the authorities – revealing to them his true identity.

Potocki was arrested as a heretic. The entreaties of his mother and friends failed to induce him to return to Christianity. After a long imprisonment he was burned alive in Vilna, on the second day of Shavuot.  It was unsafe for a Jew to witness the burning. Nevertheless, one Jew, Leiser Zhiskes, who had no beard, mixed into the crowd and succeeded through bribery in securing some of the ashes of the martyr. These were later buried in the Jewish cemetery. (Adapted from the Jewish Encyclopedia)

So said Hashem, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Hashem of Hosts, "I am first and I am last, and besides Me there is no L-rd. (Sefer Yeshayahu 44:6)

V. The Goan of Vilna and the Ger Tzedek

There is a well-known report that the GRA – the Gaon of Vilna – visited the Ger Tzedek during his imprisonment. The Ger Tzedek shared with the GRA that he was worried that he would soon face Divine judgment without the merit of his parents or ancestors. His father and mother were gentiles who did not believe in Hashem.  The GRA responded, quoting the above passage. He shared the midrash’s interpretation of the passage. “I am first” for I have no father; “I am last” for I have no brother; “And besides Me there is no power” for I have no son.[4] What is the midrash teaching us? The GRA explained that the midrash addresses the ger. “I am first” for someone who has no Jewish father and came to bask in My shade; “I am last” for someone who doesn't have a brother; “And besides Me there is no power” for someone who doesn't have a son. I am better for him than ten sons." In other words, the GRA’s message is that Hashem is the family of the ger.

VI. The ger’s relationship with Hashem

It is difficult to determine whether this account is accurate. However, the historical accuracy of the account is not relevant to consideration of the message attributed to the GRA. The message is that Hashem selected the Jewish people and entered into a covenant with them. Every person who is born Jewish shares in this covenantal relationship. The person may not be observant or even aware of the covenant. Nonetheless, the person is bound by it, required to observe the mitzvot, and shares in the destiny of the Jewish people.

A non-Jew who converts and accepts the Torah was not bound to observe the mitzvot because of this covenant. His family was not part of the Jewish nation that stood at Sinai and entered into it. The ger elects to form a relationship with Hashem. The relationship between the ger and Hashem is not founded upon the ger’s membership within a family or shevet of Bnai Yisrael. It is much more direct. This is the GRA’s interpretation of the midrash. The ger is not a participant in the covenant because of his or her family affiliation. Hashem is the “family” of the ger. He is the ger’s father, brother, and son. This means that he or she is in a direct relationship with Hashem.  

This interpretation is beautifully reflected in the parasha. The ger does not have an assigned place within the camp. This communicates the message that the ger’s connection to Hashem is not derived from his or her family or shevet. However, the ger is assigned an heir – Hashem. This reflects that the ger participates in a uniquely close and direct relationship with Hashem.

[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 5:8.

[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 5:6.

[3] Rabbaynu Chizkiya ben Manoach (Chizkuni), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar, 5:8.

[4] Midrash Rabba, Sefer Shemot 29:5.