Hebrew Insights into Parashot* Ma’tot/Mas’ey – Bamidbar (Numbers) 30 – 36

We have come to the end of Bamidbar (Numbers), and this time we will be looking at the two Parashot which conclude this book. In the opening verses (30:1-2), Moshe is seen addressing the “heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel.”  The word used here for tribes is “ma’tot” (plural, while singular is “ma’teh”). In Parashat Chu’kat we discovered that “ma’teh” is a rod or a staff (like the one Moshe used to hit the rock, Num. 20:8-11), and that this word is rooted in the verb to “stretch out” but also means to “incline, turn, or turn away.”  Thus, by implication, “ma’teh” is used for “tribe,” emanating from the ‘rod of authority’ in the hand of the respective tribal leaders. (The other word for tribe, “shevet,” also means a “rod”.)  In both of our Parashot, “mateh” is used solely for “tribe” or “tribes” (e.g. 31:4; 32:28).  In Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:26 we encountered another “staff,” that is “ma’teh lechem” which is the “staff of bread.” There it was used metaphorically for that which is leaned (or depended) upon, as indeed our bodies cannot do without bread (used there as a generic term for “food”).

The first part of Parashat Ma’tot deals with oaths and prohibitions, and the annulment thereof (see Matt. 18:18-19).  In 30:3-5 we read: “And when a woman vows a vow to YHVH, and has bound a bond in the house of her father in her youth, and her father has heard her vow… and her father has remained silent… then all her vows shall stand... But if her father has prohibited her in the day he heard, none of her vows and her bond with which she has bound her soul shall stand. And YHVH will forgive her because her father prohibited her.”  “Prohibited” in both instances in this passage is “heh’nee,” of the root n.o.h (noon, vav, alef) meaning “hinder, restrain, or frustrate.” Similarly, in verse 8, the same verb is used: “If in the day her husband hears, he prohibits her…” (emphasis added).

The latter part of Parashat Ma’tot (chapter 32) presents the story of the sons of Re’uven and Gad who express to Moshe their desire to settle in the land of Gil’ad, on the eastern shore of the Yarden (Jordan). However, Moshe, being concerned that they may be separating themselves from their brethren and that their move could have a negative impact on the rest of the people, voices his misgivings and says: “And why do you discourage the heart of the sons of Israel from passing over to the land which YHVH has given to them?  So your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land. And they went up to the valley of Eshcol and saw the land, and discouraged the hearts of the sons of Israel” (32:7-9). Here we find the verb n.o.h once again, but this time translated as “discourage or discouraged.”  Moshe attributes the same motives that operated in the hearts of the ten spies (in Parashat Sh’lach Lecha, Num. 13-15) to the two and a half tribes wishing to settle on the Yarden’s eastern shore.  He construes their wish as being one that would frustrate YHVH’s will, while at the same time incurring frustration in his listeners, who no doubt were concerned lest their leader would frustrate their plans. Frustration and a feeling of hindrance would also be the experience of a woman, who after taking a vow and/or restricting herself in some way for Godly reasons and in good conscious, is prevented from going through with her commitments.

The origin of the verb n.o.h is “rise with difficulty” [1] illustrating what we have noticed time and again, namely that Hebrew is a very concrete language and thus most of its abstract terms are actually borrowed from the tangible world.  Two other such terms in this Parasha are “bind” (e.g. 30:3,4,5,6 ff), which is “assor” (a.s.r., alef, samech, resh) and literally means “imprison or imprisoned” (e.g. Gen. 40:3; Jud. 15:12-13; 1Sam. 6:7 etc.). Another one is “annul or make void” – “ha’fer” (in 30:12), whose root is “porer” (p.r.r. pey, resh, resh) and means to “crumble, break, shatter or destroy.”

Returning to Moshe’s exhorting address to the two and a half tribes; the aging leader expresses his concern lest their actions would give rise to a “brood of sinful men” (32:14). The word used there is “tarbut,” which is of the root “rav” meaning “much, many, or great,” and is therefore simply a derivation of “increase.”  Thus, Moshe is literally talking about an increase or spread of evil among them, without pointing to an existing grouping or a particular “brood.”  In verses 14b and 15 he adjoins: “[Lest] you still [will] add more to the burning anger of YHVH against Israel. For if you turn away from Him, He will add more to His abandoning of them [i.e. Yisrael] in the desert…” (literal translation).  Moshe is worried that the actions of the Reuvenites, Gaddaites and Menashites would bring about an increase of evil and in this manner add to YHVH’s anger, adding disciplinary measures, resulting in more suffering for the people as a whole.

Another main theme in our Parasha is the command directed at Moshe to “execute vengeance… against the Midianites, afterward you [Moshe] shall be gathered to your people” (31:2).  In the preparations leading to this eventuality, Moshe calls out for men to be “prepared for the army” (31:3 literal translation).  However,  “he-chal’tzu” (with root ch.l.tz, chet, lamed, tzadi), which is the command used here for “be prepared,” actually means to “draw, pull out, or remove” (such as “removing” one’s foot out of a shoe, Deut. 25:9). Thus, the literal rendering of 31:3 should be: “Draw out from amongst yourselves men for the army…” Rabbi Mordechai Eilon, quoting Rabbi Yitzchak Arama, stresses that although the expression “draw out from amongst yourselves” is in reference to a select group, it actually points to the ‘whole’ from which this group is to be drawn, implying the involvement of the entire group. In this way, by virtue of being represented by the “cha’luztim” (plural for “cha’lutz,” “those who plod ahead;” see also 32:20, 21 translated “arm yourself”), the whole army will be participating in the battle. Aside from meaning “drawn out,” the root ch.l.tz also speaks of being removed from one’s customary environment and comfort zone, indicating that the vanguards were willing to venture and forge the way ahead of everyone else. The additional meaning of the verb cha’letz - “to rescue and deliver” (used a number of times in the Psalms) -  is totally compatible with the readiness of the two and a half tribes to help their brethren.

In view of this, when the Re’uvenites and Gaddites declare later (in 32:17): “We shall ourselves go armed” (which reads, “va’necha’letz”, again of the root ch.l.tz), their intent appears much clearer. They are saying in fact that after they make basic provisions for their families and livestock, they will “remove” themselves from all that is familiar to them and will “hurry and go ahead of the sons of Israel until we bring them to the place which is theirs…” (32:17, literal translation).  In his response Moshe states that each of them is to be a “cha’lutz” for his brother, (while stressing that failing to do so will be considered a sin “before YHVH” vs. 20-23).  Their response is again marked by the term “cha’lutz” (v. 27). Moshe repeats this condition; namely, that only if they will act as “chalutzim” will they be entitled to land on the Yarden’s eastern shore.  In their reply, the Gaddaites and Re’uvenites confirm their readiness to “go over… as chalutzim… before YHVH into the land of Canaan, so that the land of our inheritance on that side of Jordan may be ours” (v. 32). 

Interestingly, the first time the root ch.l.tz shows up in Scripture is in Genesis 35:11, where the Almighty promises Abraham that, “…a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come out of your loins” (sometimes translated “body”).  “Loins” in that text is “chalatza’yim” - the strong body part. The root ch.l.tz also lends itself to festive or royal robes. Yehoshua the High Priest was dressed in such robes (ma’ch’la’tzot) in exchange for his filthy ones (ref. Zech. 3:4).  Finally, in the Hebrew translation of Hebrews 6:20, Yeshua, as the forerunner who entered behind the veil for us, is called “Yeshua he’cha-lutz.”

Chapters 33-36 constitute the next Parasha, which is Masa’ey. “These are the journeys of – “mas’ey” - the sons of Israel… (33:1, emphasis added), “and Moses wrote their departures according to their journeys by the mouth of YHVH. And these are their journeys, according to their departures” (v. 2). Although Moshe is entirely familiar with the journeys and the name of each location that the people of Yisrael had gone through, and/or encamped at, the account which will now follow (vs. 3- 49) is dictated to him “by the mouth of YHVH.”  Wondering as to the importance of these technical details, some of the sages, including Rashi, have concluded that this list was to serve as a reminder to the people of YHVH’s watchfulness over them, and of His attention to each and every detail pertaining to their lives and destiny.  Thus, the name of each place is used as a device to invoke in them the memory of YHVH’s care for them.  According to Maimonides, the names of the places are a testimony intended to verify that they have indeed stayed at the locations mentioned; places where only YHVH Himself could have sustained them, thusly bringing to their minds the miracles which He wrought for them.  Sforno adds to this: “’The Lord blessed be He desired that the stages of the Israelites’ journeyings be written down to make known their merit in their going after Him in a wilderness, in a land that was not sown [ref. Jer. 2:2] so that they eventually deserved to enter the land.  ‘And Moses wrote’ – he wrote down their destination and place of departure. For sometimes that place for which they were headed was evil and the place of departure good… Sometime the reverse happened. He wrote down too the details of their journeyings because it involved leaving for a new destination without any previous notice, which was very trying. Despite all this, they kept to the schedule…’ In other words, according to Sforno the Torah shows us both sides of the coin. We have been shown an Yisrael “composed of rebels and grumblers, having degenerated from the lofty spiritual plane of their religious experience at Mount Sinai… Now the Torah changes its note and shows us the other side of the picture, Israel loyal to their trust, following their God through the wilderness… They followed Him in spite of all the odds, through the wildernesses of Sinai, Etham, Paran and Zin… that was also a place of fiery serpents and scorpions and drought where there was no water, where our continued existence would have been impossible, were it not?for?the?grace?of?God…”[2]

Upon completing the inventory of the (past) journeys, attention is now being turned to the future: the boundaries of the land of Promise, the names of the men who are to help the people possess their inheritance, the cities apportioned to the Levites, and the cities of refuge. Thus we read in Chapter 34 the details regarding the extent of the territory of the inheritance. In an era when defined borders did not exist, this was a novelty which underscores, once again, the importance YHVH attaches to the land and to its occupation. About the land of C’na’an it says that, it “shall fall to you as an inheritance” (v.2 emphasis added). The usage of this verb in this context demonstrates that Yisrael’s lot was predestined and predetermined. Additionally, it “… is the land which you shall inherit by lot, which YHVH has commanded to give to the nine tribes and to the half-tribe” (emphasis added). As to the land that was to be occupied by the two and a half tribes, in 34:13b-15 (according to the Hebrew text), it is written that the two and a half tribes “took” their inheritance. Hence, a clear distinction is made between the land which is apportioned and the land that is taken by choice. It is here that YHVH also appoints those “who will take possession of the land for you” (34:17ff). As to the cities of the Levites, who are to dwell in the other tribes’ territories, it says: “Command the sons of Israel that they give to the Levites cities to live in, from the land of their possessions, and you shall give to the Levites open land for the cities” (35:2).

“Open land” (or “common land”) is “migrash.” One of the words for “inheritance” is “yerusha” (33:52, 53), in both words is embedded the term to “impoverish” (being a reference to the party from whom one’s inheritance is wrested). Both “Yerusha” and “migrash,” which the Levites were to be granted, are of the root g.r.sh (gimmel, resh, shin) with its primary meaning to “cast or drive out.”  Hebrew certainly does not conceal or embellish the hard-core facts, and does not make attempts at being politically correct.  As a matter of fact, from Matthew 11:12 we learn that the Kingdom of Heaven is also “seized by force.”  Thus, in taking hold of YHVH’s possession (and their inheritance), the Israelites had to “impoverish” and “cast out” the inhabitants of the land.  When “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian… mocking, she said to Abraham, ‘Drive away [“ga’resh”] this slave-girl and her son, for the son of this slave-girl shall not inherit [“yirash” – will cause another to be impoverished] with my son, with Isaac’” (Gen. 21:9,10).

The next topic is that of the cities of refuge and their respective guidelines, one of which states that if a person has slain someone unintentionally he is to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, and only then return to the “land of his possession [inheritance]” (35: 25, 28).  Similarly, it is only through the death of our High Priest that we too have been released, and may now come out of our proverbial confinement into the freedom of our inheritance (ref. Acts 20:32; 26:18; Eph. 1:11; Col. 3:24; Heb. 9:15). This fact gains even more validity when we read the last part of the chapter: “And you shall take no ransom [kofer, of the root k.f/p.r – kippur] for the life of a murderer; he is punishable for death, for dying he shall die. And you shall take no ransom [kofer] for him to flee to the city of his refuge, to return to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. And you shall not pollute the land in which you are, for blood pollutes the land. And no ransom [kofer] is to be taken for the land for blood which is shed in it, except for the blood of him who sheds it; and you shall not defile the land in which you are living. I dwell in its midst, for I, YHVH, am dwelling among the sons of Israel” (35:31-34). The blood of Yeshua our High Priest has purified both ourselves and our earthly inheritance, and at the same time has also gained for us a heavenly one (ref. 1Pet. 1:4). According to the English translation, the cities of refuge are to be “selected” or “appointed” (35:11).  The Hebrew, on the other hand, reads: “You shall cause cities to occur (for yourselves)… “ve’hik’re’tem” – root k.r.h (kof, resh, hey, which we encountered in Gen. 24:12, Parashat Cha’yey and Balak Num. 23:4,16), an expression which is an oxymoron, as one’s will is either actively involved, or else things occur in a happenstance manner, or (more likely) by Providence beyond one’s control. Once again the Hebraic mentality presents a challenge, pointing to the place where Providence and man’s choice meet, even at the expense of defying human logic. 

YHVH’s meticulous attention to the place He has set apart is seen again in the last chapter of Parashat Masa’ey, where we learn that “no inheritance of the sons of Israel shall turn from tribe to tribe, for each one of the sons of Israel shall cling to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And any daughter that possesses an inheritance from any tribe of the sons of Israel to one of the family of the tribe of her father is to become a wife of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel may each possess the inheritance of his father. And the inheritance shall not turn from one tribe to another tribe. For the tribes of the sons of Israel shall each one cling to its own inheritance, as YHVH commanded Moses” (36:7-9) emphases added). The word for “turn” here, in future tense, is “tisov” of the root s.b.b (samech, bet, bet). “Savav” is to “turn about or go around.”  It is indicative of mobility, unstableness and temporariness. The usage of this verb here lends an extra emphasis to the issue at hand: “For the tribes of Israel shall each cling – yid’b’ku, adhere, cleave like glue - to its own inheritance, as YHVH commanded…”  In B’resheet 2:24 we read: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and will cleave/adhere/cling to his wife and they will become one flesh.” YHVH declares above that He dwells in the midst of the land, among the sons of Yisrael (Num. 35:34), it is no wonder, therefore, that He is so very particular about the set up of His abode.

  

·     “Parashot” plural for “Parasha” (whereas “Parashat” is “Parasha of…”, hence “Parashat Matot”   or “Parashat Mas’ey”)

1. The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown    

Hendrickson.  Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.

2 New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh   Newman,    Eliner Library,  Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora, Hemed    Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

                       

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Pinchas – Bamidbar (Numbers) 25:10 – 29:40

The issue we encounter at the beginning of Parashat Pinchas has already been introduced to us at the end of last week’s Parashat Balak. Pinchas, A’haron’s grandson who is his son’s El’azar’s firstborn, observed the sinful act committed by an Israelite, a leader of the tribe of Shim’on (Simeon) with a Midianite woman, and slew both of them. He thus “made atonement” (25:13) for the sons of Yisrael and brought to an end the plague that stuck them. The word used here for “made atonement” is none other than “(vay)cha’per,” of the root k.f.r, which we know as “kippur,” or “covering.”  Pinchas’ action, along with the penalty paid for by the two sinners, had propitiated for Yisrael’s iniquity of “clinging to Ba’al Pe’or” (ref. 25:3). T’hilim (Psalms) 106 also refers to this episode: “They also were joined to Baal-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead; and provoked Him with their deeds; and a plague broke out among them. Then Phinehas stood and intervened, and the plague was stayed” (vs 28-30).  In this latter reference Pinchas’ act is describes as – (vay)fa’lel (p/f.l.l, pey/fey, lamed, lamed) – which is interposing, intervening, mediating, as well as judging and pleading.  It is from this root that the word “t’fila,” prayer, originates. I fact, as we will find out, Pinchas’ action was multi-facetted.  In the second half of this article, His atoning act and its judicial aspects and parallelism to Yeshua’s, will be elaborated on.

The two persons involved in the said episode were, Zimri the son of Salu, one of the leaders of the tribe of Shim’on, and Cozbi a Midianite woman, who, likewise was a daughter of a “head of the people of a father's house in Midian” (25:15). Leading Yisrael astray definitely ranked high on the list of priorities of the Mo’av-Midian coalition. The protagonists’ names in this Parasha, are also of interest. Thus, Pinchas appears to be an Egyptian name, having typical characteristics such as the name of the town of Tach’pan’ches (Jeremiah 44:1) and that of Tach’peh’nis, the Egyptian wife of Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:19, 20). But even more intriguing is the name of the Midianite princess Cozbi, which is made up of the letters kaf, zayin, bet, yod. The first three of these, that is c.z.b, constitute the root for the word “cazav” (or, phonetically, “kazav”), which means to “lie, deceive, lying, deception.”  Last week we read in Bamidbar 23:19: “Elohim is not a man that He should lie...”  The verb rendered there as “lie” is “(vay)cha’zev,” which refers particularly to “being unfaithful or untrue to one’s commitment or promise.”  In a land thirsty for water as Yisrael is, riverbeds hold a promise of being filled during the winter.  However, in the dry season such riverbeds become waterless.  Hence a stream of water which dries up after the rainy season may be used as imagery for that which lets one down: “You surely are to me like deceitful – ach’zav - waters which cannot be trusted,” complains Yirmiyahu to his Creator in a moment of dark despair (Jer. 15:18). Cozbi, too, was nothing but a bait of deception and enticement to the people of Yisrael (cf. Prov. 5), and especially to leaders like Zimri. Walking in the paths of temptation, away from He Who is the Way the Truth and the Life, leads not only to disappointment, but far worse… and in the case before us, to destruction and death, which was experienced by 24,000 souls in Yisrael’s camp (ref. Num. 25:9).

As noted above, Cozbi was a Midianite.  Midian was a son of Avraham by his wife K’turah (see Gen. 25:2). The name stems from the verb “din” (dalet, yod, noon), meaning primarily to “judge or mete justice,” referring to all aspects of government. It is the root for the word “medina” – province.  However, this particular form – “Midian” – may also be related to “mah’don,” which albeit of the same root (as “judgment”) means “strife or contention” (e.g. Prov. 15:18; Jer. 15:10; Hab. 1:3 etc.). Thus, far from being a people of judgment (that is of justice and righteousness), the Midianites’ affairs were handled by resorting to magic and witchcraft and all forms of deception, as was so evident in the character of Bil’am.  The fact that they were not wholly unaware of the Elohim of Yisrael and of His ways (as illustrated by Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law and even by Bil’am), only made the “din” (‘judgment’) pronounced upon them by Yisrael’s Elohim more severe. Hence, YHVH says to Moshe: "Harass the Midianites, and attack them;  for they harassed you with their schemes by which they seduced you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a leader of Midian, their sister, who was killed in the day of the plague because of Peor” ( Num. 25:17-18).  

Highlighted in this passage is the cunning posture and frame of mind of the Midianites, illustrated so typically by Cozbi. The order from on High here is “to harass and attack” the Midianites, since they “harassed you.” “harassing” in this case is “tza’ror” (tz.r.r - tzadi, resh, resh), meaning, “showing hostility,” while “tzorer” is an “enemy or adversary.”  In Parashat Balak, we heard Bil’am say of Yisrael: “he shall eat up the nations that are his foes – tza’rav” (Num. 24:8 italics added). In Bamidbar (Numbers) 33:55 a condition will be placed before Yisrael:  “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be that those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall harass– (ve)tza’ra’ru -  you in the land where you dwell”. Haman, the Jews’ cruel adversary, was named in Esther 3:10; 8:1, “tzorer ha-Yehudim,” the “foe of the Jews.” Haman the Agagite was a descendent of the royal house of Amalek, about whom it was said, “Amalek threatened the body of the people [of Yisrael], whilst Midian threatened its soul.” [1]

The opening section of the Parasha presents two words that are used several times within a few verses. The first one is repeated four times in 25:11-13, and it is “jealous,” “zealous,” or “jealousy.”  The root of “jealousy/zealousness” is kano (root k.n.a. kof, noon, alef), originating in the “color produced in the face by deep emotion” [2]. It is especially related to marriage relationship, and as “God is depicted as Israel’s husband; he is [therefore] a jealous God… Phinehas [too] played the faithful lover by killing a man and his foreign wife, and thus stayed the wrath of divine jealousy”. [3] The other word that occurs five times in verses 14-18 is “smite or smitten” and “strike” (in other translations “slay and slain”). In all these instances the verb “nako” (n.k.h, noon, kaf, hey) is used in a variety of conjugations. N.k.h (or its derivation “hakot”) is a very common root and may be used in many different ways, describing fall and defeat, punishment, being beaten, smitten or hurt for a variety of reasons. In our case, it relates to the punishment of death.

However,/because/of/the/emphatic/repetition/of/“jealousy/ zealousness” - kano - just before the reiteration of “nako,” it would appear that our text is underscoring a situation in which YHVH’s “jealousy” has been provoked, resulting in a “smiting unto death.” Clearly, a cause-and-effect ‘word picture’ is being conveyed here, aided by a (subtle) play on words.

Chapter 26 is devoted to the census of the leaders of the tribes and of all those who were twenty-year old and above; that is, those eligible for army service.  It is according to their relative number that the land of Yisrael is to be apportioned to them: “To the many you shall increase their inheritance; and to the few you shall diminish their inheritance” (v. 54 emphases added). On the other hand, in verse 62 we read that the census of the Levites applied to “all males from a month old and upward,” but it goes on to say that “they were not counted among the sons of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the sons of Israel” (emphasis added). “Inheritance” here is “nachala,” the root of n.ch.l (noon, chet, lamed) is also a stream, and therefore connotes a downward flow, meaning “a permanent possession inherited by succession” (the Levites were told by YHVH that He was their portion – “nachala,” Num. 18:20). A different conjugation transforms n.ch.l to “manchil,” which is “to cause to possess” such as is seen in Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 32:8: “When the Most High gave – “hinchil” - each nation its heritage, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people of Israel.” And just as the Land of Yisrael was divvied out according to the size of each household, so was the rest of the world divided up by YHVH, who knew that His people would be scattered among the nations, according to the ‘quota’ of Israelites in their midst. In chapter 27 of our Parasha, we meet Tzlofchad’s daughters who demand their possession saying: “Our father died in the wilderness… and had no son. Why is our father's name taken away from the midst of his family because there is no son to him? Give us an inheritance among our father's brothers” (vs. 3, 4 emphasis added). Inheritance in this case is “achuza,” of the verb achoz (root a.ch.z. alef, chet, zayin), meaning to “grasp or hold” and hence to “possess and possession.” The stronger word for “possession,” used here by these daughters was intended to underscore their claim.

When YHVH reminds Moshe that his day of departure is close at hand, the latter expresses his concern regarding the future: “Let YHVH, the Elohim of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation who may go out before them, and who may go in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in, so that the congregation of YHVH may not be as sheep to whom there is no shepherd” (27:16, 17 italics added). Evidently, Moshe understands the integrated composition of man, being both flesh and spirit while at the same time also recognizing that YHVH knows his creatures through and through. In describing the need for a leader, Moshe highlights “going out before (the people)… going in before (them)… leading out… and bringing in…” Is Moshe subtly making reference to the possible fate of the next leader, lest it be similar to his own (that is, staying behind and not entering the land with the rest of the people)?  Whether that is the case or not, Moshe displays no bitterness when told to “take Joshua, a man in whom is the spirit” (v. 18), echoing the “Elohim of the spirits” mentioned in verse 16 above. YHVH instructs Moshe how to ordain his successor, which Moshe follows implicitly; “as YHVH commanded” (v. 23), in spite of what was no doubt a grave disappointment to him. However, since Moshe had not been deceived or embittered, his disappointment is not like the description found in Ee’yov (Job) 41:9: “Behold, your expectation is false [nich’zeva, of the root k.z.v examined above].” Neither/was Moshe’s experience like that of the faithless ones from among the people of Yisrael who sought gratification in the wrong places and from that which was not able to satisfy.  

In Parashat Balak (and Pinchas) we encounter the Israelites’ harlotry and idolatry instigated by the daughters of Moab and Midian (ref. 25:1-6). This act included sacrifices with the worshippers prostrating in front of idols, as well as sexual immorality./It/is/no/wonder,,therefore,/that/scripture/terms/it clinging/adhering/sticking to Baal Pe’or” (v. 3), who was the local deity. YHVH’s anger burned against Yisrael, and so a little later a plague broke out among them (25:8-9). YHVH addressed Moshe in no uncertain terms, commanding him to “take all the leaders of the people and hang them before YHVH, out in the sun, that the fierce anger of YHVH may turn away from Israel” (25:4 literal translation, emphasis added). YHVH held all the leaders responsible for these abominable acts, and His response was to have them hang in broad daylight and in view of all Israel in order to appease His righteous indignation.

Moshe, however, did not obey this very specific order accurately. Instead, He spoke to the nation’s judges, telling them to kill (not specifying how): “each man his men who were joined to Baal of Peor" (25:5).  This time Moshe’s delegation of power to his subordinates was not according to YHVH’s judicial order. That being the case, the plague continued and additionally a leader from the tribe of Shim’on, as we noted, dared to defy and blatantly rebel against YHVH by fornicating in the sight of all the congregation of Israel with a Midianite princess in front of the Mishkan. It was only after the two offenders were pierced to death that the plague (which took a substantial toll on the people – 24,000) came to a halt.

As we noted above, it was said about Pinchas that, in his jealousness and zeal for YHVH he atoned for the Sons of YIsrael, resulting in a covenant of peace, as well as in a covenant of an everlasting priesthood for him and for his seed (25:12, 13). As we have already seen, Psalm 106:30-31 adds a couple more terms regarding the scene at hand: “Then Phinehas stood up and intervened/ mediated/interjected, and the plague was stopped.  And that was accounted to him for righteousness to all generations forevermore” (italics added).

Thus, in order to appease YHVH, according to His specifications, in the case of this most horrendous act of sin and transgression there were several requirements and legalities. First, the leaders had to be held accountable with the consequential requirement of being hung in broad daylight. When that order was not followed implicitly, and another brazen act of defilement was performed in public, it took the piercing to death of the offenders to restore righteousness, interpose, atone, and propitiate for all YIsrael, who without that would have all perished (by the plague).

Moreover, in the act of the fornication of the masses, as well as the single act of the Simeonite leader Zimri, there was not only a clinging/joining/adhering to the idol of Baal Peor, but also a joining and becoming one with the enticing harlots. Thus, Yisrael as YHVH’s bride was joined to another, becoming one with Baal and its priestesses. Hence the Jealous Husband (see Numbers 5:11-31) had every right to activate the “law of jealousy” against His bride. Pinchas, however, appeased that too, and so we read in Bamidbar 25:11 that he “has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal.”

The above facts and especially the responses to the sin so flagrantly displayed, help shed light on the judicial aspects of Yeshua’s atoning act on His execution stake. YHVH, as the jealous husband, had to see to it that His bride’s inherent sinful condition by which she had been enticed to betray Him would be propitiated and atoned for. In the Baal Peor incident, it was also YHVH’s household that was defiled. Similarly, Yeshua responded to the peddling that took place in the Temple compound (see John 2:17), and the disciples associated it with T’hilim (Psalms) 69:9, which says: “…zeal for Your house has eaten me up…”

Above we referred to the reoccurrence of the verb n.k.h (smite, smitten, strike, stricken) at the beginning of the Parasha, which in Yisha’ya’hu (Isaiah) 53: in adverb form, is used to portray the One who was “smitten by Elohim” (mu’keh Elohim). Both Matthew (27:30) and Mark (15:19) give an account of how Yeshua was stuck/beaten/smitten on His head before being hung on the tree.       

 YHVH’s desired form of reckoning with the leaders of Yisrael, who had failed miserably, was to have them executed by hanging, so that the curse could be removed from the rest of the people, as it is written: “He who is hanged is accursed of Elohim”  (Deuteronomy 21:23). This was fulfilled in Yeshua, who redeemed us from the curse of sin and of betraying Eloim, by hanging on a tree (ref. Gal. 3:13). 1Peter 2:24 says: “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree…”  When the hanging did not take place in the Numbers 25 episode, and when further offense was committed, as we saw, Pinchas resorted to piercing the offenders with a javelin. Yeshua too was pierced, in that case, during His crucifixion (ref. John 19:34). In regards to the piercing, John adds, quoting Zechariah 12:10: "They shall look on Him whom they pierced" (John 19:37).

“…Elohim set forth as a propitiation by His [Yeshua’s] blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance Elohim had passed over the sins that were previously committed…” (Romans 3:25).  With the requirement of blood in order to propitiate for the sins committed by the Israelites, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22), Pinchas’ action fulfilled YHVH’s righteousness, or at least foreshadowed the ultimate act of righteousness that was to come.

Pinchas’ reward was a covenant of peace, and of everlasting priesthood (ref. Number 25:12,13). Later on, Yisrael too would be receiving the promise of a “covenant of peace” (Is. 54:10, Ez. 34:25, 37:26). Moreover, this covenant of peace was to be an everlasting one. It is no wonder, therefore, that the agent of propitiation, interposing and atoning (namely Pinchas) was also the recipient of this covenant. The greater covenant of peace comes into effect by the Prince of Peace (ref. Is. 9:6), who has promised, over and again, peace to His followers, has brought the Gospel of peace (ref. Eph. 2:17), and made peace through His blood (ref. Col. 1:20). And as to the everlasting priesthood… that same “agent” of righteousness was eligible for this kind of priesthood, as it says about Him: “…where the forerunner has entered for us, even Yeshua, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek… But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood” (Hebrews 6:20  7:24). 

Bamidbar (Numbers) 25, therefore, presents YHVH’s legal requirements for atonement in a most detailed and graphic way, both in what preceded Pinchas’ interposing act, and afterwards. Hence, when we gaze from this vantage point in Bamidbar further into the historical account, we see that Yeshua’s action and position met every requirement to the full and complete satisfaction of His Father.

[1] New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner

  Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed

  Books Inc.,   Brooklyn, N.Y.

2 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson.

   Publishers,  Peabody, Mass. 1979.

3 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody

   Press,  Chicago, 1980

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Balak – Bamidbar (Numbers) 22 – 25: 9

Yisrael’s exploits and adventures (including the surprise attack of the Canaanite King of Arad, who defeated Yisrael) in the last Parasha, terminated with victory over the Amorites, which caused Balak, King of Mo’av (Moab) quite a concern. He therefore solicited the services of Bil’am (Balaam) son of Be’or the Midianite sorcerer, who was commissioned to put a curse on the people that constituted so great of a threat to the Moabite monarch. "Now this company will lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field …a people has come from Egypt. See, they cover the face of the earth, and are settling next to me! …they are too mighty for me” (22:4, 5, 6 italics added), says Balak. In other words, ‘these numerous multitudes are liable to devour my land and my people, just like a hungry ox would eat up green grass in a field. There are so many of them, that they cover every visible part of the land.’ The “face of the earth” or the ‘visible part’ is rendered here in the original text as “the eye of the earth.” The multifaceted imagery of the “eye” is not utilized in this case for that which sees, but rather for that which is seen.

Since the central theme of the Parasha is Bil’am’s visions, it is not surprising that sight and eyes are mentioned frequently. Thus, in the beginning of chapter 24 we read that Bil’am “lifted his eyes…” and said about himself: “The utterances of Balaam the son of Beor, the man whose eyes are open [and] who has heard the words of Elohim, who saw with uncovered eyes the vision of the Almighty…” (literal translation, vs.3, 4 and 15, 16). Interestingly, the term for, “whose eyes are open” is “sh’tum ey’na’yim.” With a slight modification “shatum” becomes “satum,” making it “that which is covered, or not revealed” (e.g. Ez. 28:3). Truly, Bil’am’s assurance about his inherent ability to ‘see’ is more than questionable. This is demonstrated very graphically in the episode with the mare of the donkey. Thus, it was only after YHVH “opened the eyes of Balaam” (22:31) that he was able to see what his animal had seen much earlier on.  

The meaning of the name Bil’am, just like Par’oh’s (see Hebrew Insights into Parashat Miketz, Gen. 41 – 44:17), happens to be appropriate and relevant to its bearer, as it contains the letters that make up “bela” (b.l.a, bet, lamed, ayin), which is to “swallow or swallow down” (used also in Parashat Korach, Numbers 16:30,32,33). “Frequently this word is used as a symbol of destruction and ruin: Lam. 2:2; Isa. 28:7; 49:19 etc.” [1] In Psalms 52:4 “devouring words” are “divery bela.” Balak’s intention was just that. He aimed for Bil’am’s words to become a source of destruction for Yisrael. Thus, “Bela” and “am” [making up the name “Bil’am”] mean “destruction of a people,” befitting the sorcerer’s reputation as a charmer and a conjurer. Another meaning of the name is offered by Albright, who believes that its origin is from the Amorite “yabil’ammu,” meaning, “the (divine) uncle brings.” [2]

“Therefore please come at once, curse [“ara”] this people for me… for I know that he whom you bless is blessed and he whom you curse is cursed” (22:6), is the essence of Balak’s assignment for Bil’am. When the latter quotes the former (in 22:11), he uses “kava” for “curse.” Hebrew is replete with verbs for cursing. The most common is “kalel” (k.l.l, kof, lamed, lamed) which stems from “kal” meaning “lightweight” and “easy,” that is “of no esteem” and therefore, by default, “no blessing,” or “making light of another’s honor.” However, a.r.r (alef, resh, resh) and k.v.v (kof, vet, vet), which are used in this narrative, are more ‘dynamic.’ “On the basis of the Akkadian ‘araru,’ the Hebrew arar is to snare or bind, with the Akadian noun “irritu” being a noose or a sling. Brichto, following Speiser, advances the interpretation that the Hebrew “arar” means to bind (with a spell), hem in with obstacles, and render powerless to resist. Thus the original curse in B’resheet (Genesis 3:14, 17: “cursed are you above all cattle” and “cursed is the ground for your sake”( means that the serpent was doomed to being banned/anathematized from all the other animals, while the soil was condemned as a result of man’s sin. “Kavav” connotes the act of uttering a formula designed to undo its object. The most frequent use of this root relates to the incident involving Bil’am and Balak. Certainly the ‘magical’ belief and intent of Balak are prominent here.” [3]

Both a.r.r and k.v.v are used throughout the Parasha, denoting that the issue at stake is steeped in witchcraft. Several other terms found here verify this fact. In 22:7, the elders of Mo’av and Midian come with “divinations – “k’samim” - in their hands.” Again, in 23:23 we read the words that YHVH put in Bil’am’s mouth: “There is no enchantment – “nachash” - in Jacob and no divination – “kesem” – in Israel.”  And thusly “it shall be said to Jacob and to Israel what YHVH has wrought” (literal translation, italics added), and not that which the diviners and sorcerers have uttered. Therefore, “Now when Balaam saw that it pleased YHVH to bless Israel, he did not go as at other times, to seek to use sorcery, but he set his face toward the wilderness” (24:1).

In this Parasha YHVH’s supremacy over all powers, and the control He exerts in order to achieve His purposes, much like using the mouth of a pagan diviner to bless, and the mouth of a donkey to talk, is clearly evident.

Bil’am, the would-be prophet, unlike his mare, is unaware of YHVH’s messenger who was sent to him as an “adversary” (ref. 22:22). When the animal is forced to divert from the path and to put its master in what appears to him as a compromising situation, Bil’am loses his temper and strikes the mare with his staff (22:27). What ensues is the most improbable discussion - between a man and a donkey. Thus, Bil’am not only finds himself mishandled physically, he also has to deal with his (unjustified) anger and express regret to a vindicated beast. And as if this is not enough, when his eyes are opened, he is the one who is seen as the blind fool who incurs a rebuke from the angel: “The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live” (22:33). In the dialogue between Bil’am and his mare, the latter justifies her conduct by asking (rhetorically) if she had ever caused her master any trouble “as a rule.” “A’has’ken his’kanti?” (v. 30) is the question, using the root s.ch.n (samech, chaf, noon) twice, in two different conjugations. “Sachen” in this context is “customarily or habitually.”  In other words, “has it been my custom (to so treat you)?”  The root s.ch.n, however, also means to “be of use, benefit or service,” as indeed she had been in the past, and even more so in this particular case, acting as a tool in the hand of YHVH. Bil’am forthwith admits to being in the wrong, and only then is given permission to “go with the men,” having been warned to utter only that which YHVH will speak to him (ref. v. 35).

Three times in this text we encounter the phrase, “three times” (22:28, 32, 33). The word for “times” here is “r’galim” (“regel” singular) - an “occurrence, event, or occasion.” The much more common term is “pa’am” (a word we briefly looked at in Parashat Tetzaveh, in Ex. 28:33 where we examined the noun “bell,” stemming from the same root which is also at the core of “pulse” or “beat”). “Regel” on the other hand, is the word for “foot.” It is evident that both “pa’am” and “regel” connote movement, which of course is an indication of the passing of time, but also, and especially in the case of the latter (“regel”), point to a purposeful progress such as walking. Since walking assumes an arrival, and arrival points to a specific destination (a place), we are led once more to the conclusion that in the Hebrew mind there exists an interrelation between time and place (as we have already observed when we examined “mo’ed” – “appointed time,” in Leviticus 23, Parashat Emor). It was Bil’am’s crushed “regel” (“foot” in 22:25) which prevented him from arriving at his destination, thus perhaps prompting the usage of “r’galim” for “times,” rather than “p’amim” (both in the plural). Note that at the end of last week’s Parashat Chu’kat we met Moshe’s dispatched spies (21:32), whose commission was “le’ra’gel” (“to spy”), again of the root r.g.l, not to mention “ragal,” meaning “to slander” (found in Psalm 15:3) – an action congruent with the agenda of our Parasha’s namesake.

The extraordinary episode just experienced by Bil’am proves to be part of his preparation for speaking YHVH’s words, couched in four powerful prophetic oracles describing Elohim’s intended destiny for His people. “The three blessings are… differentiated in their relation to the time factor; the first one refers to the immediate present, to the generation of the wilderness facing him, the second to the immediate future, to the generation which would conquer the land, whilst the third concerns the distant future, to an era when wars and conquests will be no more and when the lion will lie down to rest after it has finished its task.” [4] However, there is also a fourth blessing, one which has not been solicited (as a curse) by Balak (24:14-24).

Bil’am’s encounters with the Elohim of Yisrael are qualified by two different verbs. Twice “Elohim came to Balaam” (22:9, 20 italics added), in the two instances which preceded the confrontation with the mare. However, the blessings that Bil’am uttered later on all followed Elohim’s meeting with him and putting a word in his mouth (ref. 23:3, 4, 15, 16). The Hebrew verb used here for “meet” is rooted in k.r.h (kof, resh, hey), literally meaning “to happen,” or “to occur.” The usage of this term gives the impression that these meetings had a coincidental characteristic about them, rather than being preordained and appointed.   

After Bil’am uttered the curses-turned-blessings, the angry king commanded his appointee to flee, adding the following: “I said I would greatly honor you, but in fact, YHVH has kept you back from honor” (24:11). Stubborn and blind, Balak dares to make the statement, “YHVH has kept you back from honor” (“kept you back” being “mah’nah”, m.n.a, mem, noon, ayin, meaning “withheld”)! It is at this point that Bil’am, now as a persona-non-grata, offers to speak out what “this people [Yisrael] will do to your [Balak’s] people in the latter days” (24:14). What comes next does not please the Moabite monarch, but at the same time (surprisingly) does not incur his protest. At the end of a very significant prophecy pertaining to Yisrael and to some of its neighbors, the two men depart silently; one “to his place,” while the other is said to be “on his way” (v. 25). All the pomp and ceremony planned by Balak has just been deflated without as much as another word.

The story of a pagan enchanter and magician, who is commissioned by an equally pagan king to lay a debilitating curse on YHVH’s people, and whose mouth utters some of the most profound words regarding the very people whom he is called to curse, is rather curious and stands out in the Torah narrative. The addition, the talking donkey episode makes for an even more intriguing text. “The dialog between the man and the ass, [as interpreted by some of the commentators] is the Torah’s scornful commentary on the imaginary powers ascribed to sorcerers, its mockery of human gullibility, in believing in the power of the magician to curse and subject the supernatural to his will.” [5] Thus, the story of the mare of a donkey echoes that of Bil’am’s and his so called wonder-working abilities. But, if an ass can talk, so can a con man be made to speak out YHVH’s words, calling to mind what 1Corinthians 1 has to say about those who are wise in their own eyes: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. … Elohim has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise… [and] the things which are mighty … and things which are despised… to bring to nothing things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence “ (vs. 19, 27-29). In the end, it is YHVH’s sovereignty that prevails far above any and all of man’s feeble attempts at controlling life. 

The last section of the Parasha is part of next week’s episode, related in Parashat Pinchas. That which was not achieved by war or by sorcery is now being accomplished by seduction. [6] In 25:3 we read: “And Israel joined himself to Baal of Pe’or.” In the former narrative, chapter 22:41, mention was made of Bamot Ba’al, the “high places of Ba’al,” as being one of the sites designated by Balak from which Bil’am was to curse Yisrael. Several places later, when Balak’s aspirations were not realized, he took the seer to Rosh (the “head of”) Pe’or (23:28). This introduces us to both Ba’al and Pe’or; premonitions, as it were, to the above quoted tragic words, describing how Yisrael “joined himself [va’yitza’med – “clung”] to Ba’al of Pe’or.” And is it a coincidence that Pe’or is similar to the verb “pa’or” (p.a.r, pey, ayin, resh), which means to “open wide,” such as is employed by Yisha’ya’hu (Isaiah) in 5:14: “Therefore hell has enlarged herself, and opened [“pa’ara”, root p.a.r) her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoices, shall descend into it”?

1 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press,  

   Chicago,  980.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 New Studies in Devarim, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner  

   Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed  

   Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y

5 Ibid.

6 Gill Commentary, Online Bible