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 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). (In this there is a fascinating connection to the book of Esther) **
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 valley of Eshcol and saw the land, and discouraged the hearts
of the sons of Israel
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”
(see 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). 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 or add”. 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
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 making 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 land of Canaan ,
so that the land of our inheritance on that side of Jordan
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
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 tone
and shows us the other side of the picture, Israel
Upon
completing the inventory of the (past) journeys, attention is now being turned to
the future: the boundaries of the land of Promise land
of C’na Israel
Open
land” (or
“common land”) is “migrash”. One of the words for “inheritance”
is “yerusha” (e.g. 33:52, 53, the latter used there in verb form
“yarashtem”). In both words is embedded the term to “impoverish” (being a
reference to the party from whom one’s inheritance is wrested). “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”. “Yerusha”,
taking possession, of the root y.r.sh (yod, resh, shin), is connected to
another root, r.sh.sh (resh, shin, shin) which means to “beat down, shatter”
and lands itself to the noun “rash” – “poor, poverty stricken” (e.g. 1st
18:23; 2nd Sam. 12;4 and several times in Proverbs).
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
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
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
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 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 Israel Israel
*“Parashot” plural for “Parasha”
(whereas “Parashat” is “Parasha of…”, hence “Parashat Matot” or
“Parashat Mas’ey”)
** When
Mordechai begged Esther to plead the Jews’ case before king Achashverosh, he
added that she could forfeit her life if she were to “keep silent” (Esther
4:14). Esther was to go and try to annul the king’s “vow”, much like the
husband or father in our Parasha in the case of his wife’s/daughter’s vow
making. In the Parasha, if the male were to keep silent (same word used in
Esther) for more than a day, the vow would remain valid but the said male would
bear its consequences, if there were
any, just as Esther would have done had she kept silent. Typical of the
book of Esther’s “technique of opposites”, there it is the female who was in
position to annul a harmful vow taken by her husband.
This point was
extracted from Rabbi Fohrman’s study on Esther
In Shmot (Exodus) 19:8 and 24:7, at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the People of Yisrael made a promise (oath
or vow-like) to obey YHVH. But since Yisrael did not keep her word the
consequences ultimately fell on her, but because YHVH, her husband, did not
annul her ‘vow’, He too was ‘held responsible’ for her sin of breaking her
promise-vow. This is seen very clearly by the fact that Yeshua “bore her
guilt”, as it says in 30:15 (see also 1st Peter 2:24).
1. The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon,
Francis Brown
Hendrickson.
Publishers, Peabody ,
Mass.
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 Tools for Everyday
Use
Above we observed that the
root g.r.sh serves both the noun “lot” or “open land”, as well as the verb to
“cast out” or “expel”. The literal word for “bind” – “assar” - is more commonly
used in Modern Hebrew for “prohibit”, while the “binding” finds expression in
the term for prison – “Bet Sohar” (literally, “house of binding”). We paid
quite a bit of attention to the root ch.l.tz. When the pioneers started coming
to the land of Israel
On the lot there is a
prison
Al ha’mig’rash yesh bet sohar
The pioneers forbade the
usage of foreign culture (lit. “in culture/civilization foreign”)
Ha’cha’lutzim asru shimush be’tarbut zara
(“shimush” – usage, “zar”, “zara” – foreign,
m.f).
The pioneer did not expel
the sons of the land
Ha’cha’lutz lo ge’resh et
b’ney ha’aretz
For the (female) pioneers
the journey was difficult
La’cha’lu’tzot ha’massah
haya ka’sheh
