Hebrew Insights into Parashat Ekev–Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 7:12–11:25
“And it shall be, because you hear these judgments, and keep and do them, even YHVH your Elohim will keep with you the covenant and the mercy which He swore to your fathers” (italics added)), is the opening verse of Parashat Ekev. “Because” is “ekev,” from the root a.k.v (ayin, kof, bet/vet) whose primary meaning is “heel.” In other words, taking the right step (of hearing and obeying) will result in the desired consequences. Our forefather, Ya’acov, was so named because he was born holding his twin brother’s heel (Gen. 25:26). He literally came in the footsteps of his brother, and thus his name, which means to “follow,” perfectly matched the birth condition. His, however, was not the kind of following of the faithful disciple, who walks in the footsteps of his master. The image of ‘heel-holding’ or ‘heel grabbing’ refers to hindering or trapping someone, such as we see in the following examples: “Dan shall be a serpent... that bites the horse’s heels” (Gen. 49:17 italics added); “The trap shall take him by the heel” (Job 18:9 italics added); “They mark my steps [heels]” (Ps. 56:6). In the following words of Psalm 41:9, we find an allusion to Messiah’s destiny: “My own familiar friend... which did eat of my bread has lifted his heel against me” (italics added). This type of follower will possibly steal quietly behind the one whom he follows, with a crafty intent (as was the case with Messiah’s “familiar friend”). Indeed, from the same root of “heel” and “follow,”(a.k.v.) stem words like “crafty, cunning, and deceptive,” as we see, for instance, in Yirmiyahu (Jeramiah) 9:4: “... surely every brother deals craftily [akov ya’akov]” (italics added). When Esav (Esau) was startled by his younger brother’s cunning, in B’resheet (Genesis) 27:34, 36, “He cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry: ...’Is not he rightly named, Ya’acov? For he has supplanted (“akav”) me...?’” (italics added). The prophet Hoshe’a (Hosea), many centuries later, traces the waywardness of the nation of Yisrael (who in this prophecy is called “Ya’acov”) to their progenitor: “In the womb he took his brother by the heel” (Hos. 12:4, italics added). In the wake of this ‘birth mark,’ Ya’acov (the man and the nation) remained true to his (and their) nature. “In the wake of” or “as a result of” - in short “because” - is “ekev,” such as is cited here. Quite often YHVH declares: “And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because (ekev) you have obeyed my voice“(Gen. 22:18 italics added). David answers the prophet Na’tan (Nathan), who told him a parable following his sin with Bat-Sheva (Bathsheba), and says: “He must make restitution for the lamb, because [ekev] he did this thing and had no compassion” (IISam.12:6 italics added). Thus, this little “ekev,” - “because” - becomes the fulcrum on which the balance of justice depends, much like the heel in terms of the physical body. And just as this section of the Parasha started with “And it shall be, because [EKEV] you hear these judgments, and keep and do them…” so it ends with: “So you shall perish; because [EKEV] you would not listen to the voice of YHVH your Elohim…” (8:20).
Parashat Ekev features two major themes, which alternate throughout; the physical conditions of the Land and the connectedness of these conditions to the people’s obedience to YHVH. The second topic is in the form of reflections on the people’s rebelliousness during their wilderness journey. The recounting of the latter is for the purpose of illustrating sin and rebellion, and warning the people in face of the new circumstances that they are about to face.
In 7:12-13, “keeping the judgments,” as we saw above, guarantees a promise of love, blessing, and multiplication, a promise which is built into the two-sided covenant (the other side being the curse incurred by disobedience to the “judgments,” as we shall see next week). “Covenant” is “b’reet,” of the root b.r.t (bet, resh, tav), leading to the verb “barot” whose primary meaning is “separate out the parts” [1], thus rendering the covenant as a very special agreement with a special and separated out people. “Blessings” – “bracha” is primarily “growth, or unhindered prosperity.” Its root, b.r.ch (bet, resh, kaf) is also the root of “berech,” which is “knee.” This all-important word, to “bless, or blessing," is surprisingly not attached to the imagery of the more regal hand-stretching posture, or to the mouth which is often an instrument of (verbal) blessings, but rather to the humble action of kneeling which connotes submission. Neither is there a special word to describe Elohim's blessings (so as to distinguish it from blessings conferred by men); time and again this ‘humble’ term, ba’rech" is used just as we see here: “YHVH your Elohim… will bless you”.
The words uttered in 7:12,13 are echoed in 8:13, in a manner that confirms the above-definition of “blessing”: “And your herds and your flocks will multiply, and your silver and your gold will have multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied…” However, this multiplication (of the root “rav”) may “rise up into your heart, and you [could and will] forget YHVH your Elohim who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves” (v. 14). Thus, the very blessing may turn into a temptation leading to sin which will, in turn, lead to destruction (ref. 8:20). The wilderness, therefore, was to serve as a place of refinement, humbling and trial (ref. 8:2,3,16) in order to obviate just this kind of outcome. Some of the blessings (in 7:13) will entail “the increase of your oxen and the wealth of your flock.” Here “increase” is “sh’gar”- “cast or throw” in Aramaic, hence “that which comes forth from the womb.” [2] “Oxen” in this context is “alafim,” which also means “thousands” (“elef” singular). We already encountered this term in Parashat Chayey Sarah (Gen. 23 – 25:18), where we found that its root, alef, lamed, fey, is also shared with “aluf” which means “prince or chief” and with “alef,” the name of the first letter of the alphabet). The prominence of “alef” makes it, by implication, also of great numerical value – hence “elef” - a “thousand.” Thus, the oxen mentioned here allude to great wealth. The “wealth of the flock” is the rare “a’shtarot” (used in this way only in Dvarim) of the root a.sh.r (ayin, shin, resh), related to “osher” – “wealth” and to “eser,” which is the figure “ten” (and is also connected to Ashtaroth, the goddess of fertility, hence multiplication and riches).
In Shmot (Exodus) 23:27, 28 (Parashat Mishpatim), we read the following promise: “…and I will confound all the people among whom you come. And I will give the neck of your enemies to you. And I will send hornets before you which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite before you” (italics added). Here, in 7:20 we read again: “And YHVH your Elohim shall send the hornets among them, until the ones who are left perish, even those who hide themselves from your face” (italics added), and in verse 23: “And YHVH your Elohim shall…. confuse them into great confusion until they are destroyed” (literal translation). Both “confound” in Shmot 23:28 and “confusion” here in 7:23 are of the root h.m.m (hey, mem, mem) meaning to “make noise, confuse or discomfort” (and is an onomatopoeic word, just like the English “hum”). This, then, in not only a promise for the future; but also in looking back, the Israelites could recall that YHVH had “confused – “va’yaham” - the camp of the Egyptians” (Ex. 14:24), when they were emerging out of the “house of bondage.”
In spite of all the material wealth and the increase promised, both in the beginning of the Parasha and later (in 8:7-10), sandwiched in between these two passages, in 8:3, is the following: “And He has humbled you, and caused you to hunger, and caused you to eat the manna, which you had not known, and your fathers had not known, in order to cause you to know that man shall not live by bread alone, but man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YHVH” (italics added). All material goods, whether plentifully or scantily supplied, are the outcome of a “word that proceeds from the mouth of YHVH.” One way or another He ‘calls the shots’. Moreover, it is not these provisions, again whether in great or small quantities, which determine life or the quality thereof but “every word that proceeds from the mouth of YHVH.” When Yeshua cited this very scripture, in a situation somewhat similar to that of Yisrael which was (according to 8:2,3,16) “tried,” like Him, in the wilderness, He passed the test and overcame his trial. The word “bread” - “lechem” - is many times translated “food,” as indeed it is a generic term for man’s sustenance. The root of “lechem” is l.ch.m (lamed, chet, mem), with the last two consonants - ch.m - making up the word “chah’m,” meaning “hot” or “warm.” Only by baking the dough in a hot oven will it turn into the desired edible substance. Hence, heat, energy and effort are all part of the bread-making process. Another noun that shares the root l.ch.m is “milchama,” which is “war,” as does the verb to “fight, or struggle for one’s existence or survival” – “lachom.” The closeness of these two terms is well illustrated by two verses in Mishley (Proverbs) 23. Verse 1 says: “When you sit down to eat with a ruler, look carefully at what is before you.” The Hebrew for “eat” reads here “lilchom,” which literally means “to fight,” but because of l.ch.m’s dual meaning it is possible to read the verb as “eat” or more literally “to partake of bread.” Verse 6 of the same chapter, says: “Do not eat the bread of one who has an evil eye, and do not desire his delicacies.” Here “eat” is “tilcham,” which again could be read as “fight.” Thus, we may infer that man cannot live solely by the bread of his own fighting and striving neither “by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, says YHVH of Hosts” (Zech. 4:6).
The circumstances awaiting the Israelites in the land will differ vastly from those that prevailed in the desert, yet just as until now every detail pertaining to their lives and needs was determined by “every word proceeding out of the mouth of YHVH,” so will it continue to be the case in their new home. But for this principle to stay afloat, the people must keep and guard His every word and live in accordance with it. The section of 8:7-10 is regarded “as the classic description of the fertility and other wonderful qualities of the holy land. But we must not ignore its other implication. The Torah sings the praises of the land to emphasize too the moral dangers and pitfalls that such gifts might bring with them. Although the life of the Israelites in the Promised Land would no longer be dependent on water being extracted from the rock or on manna dropping from heaven, nevertheless even the normal rainfall and all the natural gifts of the land were similarly derived from the Creator and not in virtue of their own power and might of their hand.”[3]
The land YHVH promises to Yisrael is a land “in which you shall eat bread without poverty – miskenot” (8:9). “Misken” (of the same root, s.ch.n) is a “poor person, one to be pitied” (e.g. Ecc. 9:16). In Shmot (Exodus) 1:11, we are told that the storage cities that Yisrael built for Par’oh were “arey miskenot.” Ironically, the Hebrews themselves were very “miskenim” (plural of “misken” - poor and to be pitied) when they built those “miskenot cities.” Now, not only will they not experience poverty and want, neither will they have to labor for someone else. In fact, last week we read in 6:10,11 about their future dwelling places: “…to give to you great and good cities, which you have not built, and houses full of every good thing which you have not filled…” Moreover, there will be so much provision that they will not even need to erect for themselves “arey miskenot,” cities of storage, as storing up for the future will not be called for. However, this plenty will require “watchfulness” lest they forget YHVH (ref. 8:11), who “took you out of Egypt… who led you through the wilderness,” and “who fed you” (vv. 15, 16). There is always the danger of saying in one’s heart: “My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth” (v. 17), while it is YHVH “who gives to you power to get wealth” (v. 18). Wealth is a translation of “cha’yil.” Remember “not by might…” (Zech.4:6)? “Might,” in Z’chariah 4:6, is also “cha’yil.” Thus, it is only YHVH’s spiritual might – cha’yil - which is able to grant all this wealth. It is therefore paramount that you should “remember YHVH your Elohim, for He gives to you power – “ko’ach” - to get wealth.” Again, Z’chariah’s “nor by power” (4:6) is “lo be-ko’ach,” but it is by YHVH’s “ko’ach”.
Chapter 9 continues to center on YHVH’s promises of “consuming the enemies” in the land, and also recounts Yisrael’s golden calf rebellion and the need that arose then to inscribe anew the two tablets of the Torah. It opens with the famous words: “Hear oh Yisrael…” implying that Yisrael is to hear and obey, as “hearing the voice…” is a Hebrew idiom for obeying, as is evident from the previous verse (the last one in chapter 8): “…You shall perish; because [EKEV] you did not listen to the voice of YHVH your Elohim” (v.20, emphasis added). In 9:6,13 reference is made to Yisrael’s “stiff neck,” or literally “hard nape.” Having a “stiff neck” implies a literal inflexibility, which does not allow one to turn one’s face (panim - “face” - from the root p.n.h which is also the root for the verb “turn,” while “pina” is “corner”). Thus, the proverbial stiffness of the neck speaks of a head that is facing in one direction only, and of a person who is headstrong and unable to turn (from his old ways). We have already noted in the past that “panim” - “face” - stemming from the verb “to turn,” exposes the essential nature of YHVH’s approach toward us, and that is His relational nature of which we are to partake. Yisrael’s “stiffness” and “hardness” of neck and uncircumcised heart are addressed in the following: “And you shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and you shall not harden your neck any more” (10:16). “Such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it [that is, of the exhortation], and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it”. [4] In chapter 30:6 there is a promise that YHVH will circumcise their heart, so that they may love Him, thus laying the foundations for the new covenant of the heart, in the course of which the latter becomes the ‘parchment’ on which the Torah is inscribed (ref. Jer. 31:33).
The Parasha ends with another look at the land; “a land which YHVH your Elohim cares for; the eyes of YHVH your Elohim are constantly on it, from the beginning of the year to its end” [5] (11:12). “Care for” is “doresh,” whose literal meaning is to “seek.” YHVH is very intent in His constant surveillance of the land, “from the beginning of the year to the end…” (1:12), meaning that He is involved in every part of the natural cycle to which this land is subject. And as pointed above, Yisrael’s conduct toward Him will also have its ramifications on the land (e.g. 11:13 – 17). These words of YHVH were to be inscribed on the hearts and are also to be for a sign on frontlets – “totafot” – between the eyes and on the hand (ref. 11:18). One of the explanations for “totafot” is that it is a derivative of the Egyptian hair ornament “tataf.” [6]
Above we noted that multiplication (of the root “rav”) of both people and livestock is mentioned several times in our Parasha. In summation of the Parasha we read: “And you shall teach them [YHVH’s commands] to your sons by speaking of them as you sit in your house, and as you go in the way, and as you lie down, and as you rise up. And you shall write them on the side posts of your house, and on your gates, that your days and the days of your sons may be multiplied [“yirbu”, again of the root “rav”], and the days of your sons in the land which YHVH has sworn to your fathers, to give to them, as the days of the heavens over the earth” (11:19-21). These “heaven and earth,” according to last week’s Parashat Va’etchanan (4:26), are YHVH’s witnesses in His dealings with the people of His choice, both here and also when He proclaims a new covenant in Yimiyahu (Jeremiah, 31:37).
1 Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, Rabbi Matityahu Clark, Feldheim Publishers,
Jerusalem. New York.
2 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson. Publishers,
Peabody, Mass. 1979.
3 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.
4 Online Bible, Gill Commentary.
5 The spelling of the word used here for “beginning,” “reshit”, is irregular. This spelling of
“reshit” hints at “ree’sh,” which is poverty (ref. Parashot Matot/ Masa’ey), since the beginning
of the year in the month of Aviv occurs at the end of the winter dormancy.
6 Chumash Dvarim with Daat Mikrah comentary, Pub. Mossad Harav Kook, Jm. 2001.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Va’etchanan – D’varim (Deuteronomy) 3:23 – 7:11
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Va’etchanan – D’varim (Deuteronomy) 3:23 – 7:11
If there is any one term that typifies D'varim, it is "transition" - or "avor" in Hebrew, stemming from the root. e.v.r, (ayin, vet/bet, resh) meaning to "traverse, cross over, pass by or through, transgress, get angry/crossed, side, for the sake of and fords, or passageway," being also the root for the word “Hebrew.” This term, with some of those derivatives, shows up many times in Parashat Va’etchanan, which is why we will follow it not only here, but also throughout the entire book of Dvarim (Deuteronomy). This excursion will also provide an opportunity to observe, once again, patterns of the Hebrew mindset and the compactness of the language, as well as the mutual effect of thought and language (on each other). We will see how “avor” lends D’varim its special character, and in turn how it expresses the calling of the People of Yisrael.
In Sh'mot (Exodus) the Hebrews 'passed over’ from one state of existence (slavery) to another (freedom and redemption) and also to a new geographical location, by "crossing" the Sea of Reeds. Here, in Dvarim, they are about to experience another "crossing." This time, it is the Yarden, which is to become the passageway that will lead them into the land promised them by YHVH. They will, once again, go through a change of status, ceasing to be nomads. In the past, we have noted that "Hebrews"- "Ivrim" - are those who are destined for transitions of one form or another. This group of people is seen here (and throughout Scripture) fulfilling this very destiny, already alluded to by the name of their progenitor Ever (Eber) who is mentioned in B’resheet (Genesis) 11:14,15, six generations before Avraham. However, nowhere is the "passing" or "crossing" – designated by e.v.r - more evident than in D'varim, where the term is used in several connotations, forming, as it were, a series of milestones that enable us to follow the Israelites through their journeys as depicted in this book.
Already in the opening verse, we see Moshe addressing "all Israel on the side of the Jordan – Ever ha'Yarden" (1:1 italics added). Ever is one of the words for "side," thus rendering the Yarden's eastern bank, or shore, "Ever haYarden." It was also at "Ever ha'Yarden" where Moshe "began to explain the Torah" (1:5). Sometime later Yehoshua (Joshua) reminds the Israelites of another "ever," the place where their forefathers came from, saying: "Thus says YHVH the Elohim of Israel: `Your fathers Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side [ever] of the River in old times; and they served other gods. Then I took your father Abraham from the other side [ever] of the River, led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him Isaac'" (Josh. 24:2,3 italics and emphasis added).
In recounting the wilderness journey and its adventures, Moshe says, "We came through [a'va'rnu] the nations which you passed by [a'va'rtem]… " (29:15 italics added). About these nations he comments, recalling YHVH’s words to him: "You are passing [ovrim] by the border of your brothers, the sons of Esau" (2:4). And as to the actual event: "And we passed [va'na'vor] beyond our brother the sons of Esau… and we turned and passed [va'na'vor] by way of the Wilderness of Moab" (2:8). “ And the time we took to come from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed over [avarnu] the Valley of the Zered was thirty-eight years, until all the generation of the men of war was consumed from the midst of the camp, just as YHVH had sworn to them" (2:14). Preceding the crossing of this river, YHVH exhorted the Israelites: “Now rise up, and go over [ee’vru] the river Zered! And we went over [va’na’avor] the river Zered” (2:13, italics added).
The next “crossing over" [over, in Hebrew] (2:18) was through Moav and Ammon, whose people, according to YHVH's word, were not to be disturbed. But the command to "cross [e’e’vru]" the River Arnon, was different! The land of Sichon, the Amorite king, was to come under Yisrael's dominion. The Amorites ignored the message, "Let me pass through [e'ebra] your land; I will keep strictly to the road, and I will turn neither to the right nor to the left. You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through [e'ebra] on foot, just as the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir and the Moabites who dwell in Ar did for me, until I cross [e'evor] the Jordan to the land which YHVH our Elohim is giving us" (2:27,28 italics added). Instead, we are told that, "Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through [ha'a'virenu]" (v. 30 italics added). Thus, the land of the Amorites was conquered. A similar fate awaited Og the king of Bashan, whose land was also conquered by the Israelites. Moshe recalls: "We took the land from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan [Ever haYarden], from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon" (3:8 italics added). This was also the land requested by the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe, who had to meet one condition: "All you men of valor shall cross over [ta'avru] armed before your brethren, the children of Israel" (3:18 italics added), in order to help them take control of the Promised Land, while promising to Yehoshua, "YHVH will do to all the kingdoms through which you pass [over]" (v. 21), what He had done to the former kingdoms.”
In addition to the above promise, there is an even greater one, (preceded by "Sh'ma Yisrael - Hear O Israel" 9:1): "Therefore understand today that YHVH your Elohim is He who goes over [ha'over] before you as a consuming fire" (9:3 italics added). And moreover, "YHVH your Elohim Himself crosses over [over] before you; He will destroy these nations from before you, and you shall dispossess them. Joshua himself crosses over [over] before you, just as YHVH has said" (31:3 italic added). The "crossing over [ovrim] to possess" or "inherit" the land, is also an inseparable part of the description of the Land itself as everything about its conditions constitutes a major change-over and transition from the setting of the desert (ref. 11:10 -12).
And while Moshe is thus preparing the nation, which he has so greatly nurtured and has been willing to give up his life for, he does not hide from his listeners and from posterity the sad fact that he had "pleaded with YHVH at that time, saying: `O my Adonai YHVH, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand… I pray, let me cross over [e'ebra] and see the good land beyond [ever] the Jordan, those pleasant mountains, and Lebanon. But YHVH was angry [va'yita'ber] with me on your account, and would not listen to me" (3: 23-26 italics added). Yes, "angry" in this context is also made up of the root ayin, vet/bet, resh! Thus, there is more than one way to 'cross over'. ‘Crossing over' to the 'wrong side' and 'crossing' YHVH's will, will incur His anger (“evrah”).
Moshe continues to relate his plight, as pronounced by YHVH: "Go up to the top of Pisgah, and lift your eyes toward the west, the north, the south, and the east; Behold it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over [ta'avor] this Jordan. But command Joshua, and encourage him and strengthen him; for he shall go over [ya'avor] before this people…" (3: 27,28 italics added). Just before Moshe's death on Mount Nevo (Nebo), called here “Avarim” (32:48) - the Mount of Crossing - he is once again reminded by his Elohim, "I have caused you to see it [the land] with your eyes, but you shall not cross over [ta'avor] there" (34:4 italics added). In Psalm 106:32 this story is repeated: “They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes [ba’a’vu’ram]” (italics added). The singular form “ba’avu’r” comes from “a’vur”, which literally is “one who has been caused to pass over.” Thus, even a common preposition such as “for” is rooted in e.v.r, - “crossing or passing over” - pointing to the centrality of this term and to an active force, or agent, greater than one’s self, who acts as the Prime Cause.
In our text, the covenant and the commandments are not 'passed over' either. In his discourse, Moshe elaborates extensively on these issues. YHVH made another covenant with the Children of Yisrael "in the land of Moab besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb… that you may enter [le'ov'recha] into covenant with YHVH your Elohim" (29:1,12 italics added). Thus, in “entering” this covenant, they were literally "crossing" into it. "Transgressing" YHVH's commandments, according to 26:13, is also referred to as "crossing" [a'varti – literally, “I transgressed/crossed”]. Some of these commandments are: "When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged [ya'avor] with any business…" (24:5 italics added), and, "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through [ma'avir] the fire…" (18:10 italics added). "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond [meh’ever] the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over [ya'avor] the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (30:11-14 italics added). According to these words, it appears that fulfilling Elohim's Word does not necessarily require a physical crossing or passing over; it is simply a matter of turning inwardly, to that which had already been deposited there by the Almighty (ref. Rom. 8:11).
Finally, "And it shall be, on the day when you [plural] cross over [ta'avru] the Jordan to the land which YHVH your Elohim is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones, and whitewash them with lime. You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over [be'ovre'cha], that you may enter the land which YHVH your Elohim is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, just as YHVH the Elohim of your fathers promised you. Therefore it shall be, when you [plural] have crossed over [be'ovre'chem] the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones, which I command you today…" (27:2-4 italics added). Thus, the "crossing over" is to be marked by stones that were to be a testimony of a genuine "crossing over" and a “change over” assumed by the Hebrews, the 'People of Transition'!
The root e.v.r, however, does not escape the enemies of the Hebrew people. Prior to the actual crossing, Yehoshua sent two spies to Yericho (Jericho). These two were pursued by men who themselves had to cross the Yarden’s "fords”. These “fords” are “ma’a’barot,” literally, “that which enables passage” (ref. Josh. 2:1-5).
In closing, let us pause briefly on “va’etchanan,” the name of our Parasha, which takes us back to the opening verse (3:23) where Moshe pleads with YHVH to let him cross the Yarden. “And I pleaded” or implored…” – etchanan – is of the root ch.n.n (chet, noon, noon), which means to “show favor or be gracious”; while “chen” (chet, noon) is “grace” (e.g. Zech. 4:7, 12:10). Thus, he who pleads with, and implores YHVH, knows he is invoking His grace, cognizant of the fact that even the pleading itself is linked to YHVH’s compassion and favor working in the one who pleads with an expectancy for a response.
Note: In the synagogue, the Torah scrolls are places in an ark called “teiva.” When the representative of the congregation who prays on behalf of the community, acting as a facilitator, stands before the ark, he “passes [over] before the teiva.”
If there is any one term that typifies D'varim, it is "transition" - or "avor" in Hebrew, stemming from the root. e.v.r, (ayin, vet/bet, resh) meaning to "traverse, cross over, pass by or through, transgress, get angry/crossed, side, for the sake of and fords, or passageway," being also the root for the word “Hebrew.” This term, with some of those derivatives, shows up many times in Parashat Va’etchanan, which is why we will follow it not only here, but also throughout the entire book of Dvarim (Deuteronomy). This excursion will also provide an opportunity to observe, once again, patterns of the Hebrew mindset and the compactness of the language, as well as the mutual effect of thought and language (on each other). We will see how “avor” lends D’varim its special character, and in turn how it expresses the calling of the People of Yisrael.
In Sh'mot (Exodus) the Hebrews 'passed over’ from one state of existence (slavery) to another (freedom and redemption) and also to a new geographical location, by "crossing" the Sea of Reeds. Here, in Dvarim, they are about to experience another "crossing." This time, it is the Yarden, which is to become the passageway that will lead them into the land promised them by YHVH. They will, once again, go through a change of status, ceasing to be nomads. In the past, we have noted that "Hebrews"- "Ivrim" - are those who are destined for transitions of one form or another. This group of people is seen here (and throughout Scripture) fulfilling this very destiny, already alluded to by the name of their progenitor Ever (Eber) who is mentioned in B’resheet (Genesis) 11:14,15, six generations before Avraham. However, nowhere is the "passing" or "crossing" – designated by e.v.r - more evident than in D'varim, where the term is used in several connotations, forming, as it were, a series of milestones that enable us to follow the Israelites through their journeys as depicted in this book.
Already in the opening verse, we see Moshe addressing "all Israel on the side of the Jordan – Ever ha'Yarden" (1:1 italics added). Ever is one of the words for "side," thus rendering the Yarden's eastern bank, or shore, "Ever haYarden." It was also at "Ever ha'Yarden" where Moshe "began to explain the Torah" (1:5). Sometime later Yehoshua (Joshua) reminds the Israelites of another "ever," the place where their forefathers came from, saying: "Thus says YHVH the Elohim of Israel: `Your fathers Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side [ever] of the River in old times; and they served other gods. Then I took your father Abraham from the other side [ever] of the River, led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him Isaac'" (Josh. 24:2,3 italics and emphasis added).
In recounting the wilderness journey and its adventures, Moshe says, "We came through [a'va'rnu] the nations which you passed by [a'va'rtem]… " (29:15 italics added). About these nations he comments, recalling YHVH’s words to him: "You are passing [ovrim] by the border of your brothers, the sons of Esau" (2:4). And as to the actual event: "And we passed [va'na'vor] beyond our brother the sons of Esau… and we turned and passed [va'na'vor] by way of the Wilderness of Moab" (2:8). “ And the time we took to come from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed over [avarnu] the Valley of the Zered was thirty-eight years, until all the generation of the men of war was consumed from the midst of the camp, just as YHVH had sworn to them" (2:14). Preceding the crossing of this river, YHVH exhorted the Israelites: “Now rise up, and go over [ee’vru] the river Zered! And we went over [va’na’avor] the river Zered” (2:13, italics added).
The next “crossing over" [over, in Hebrew] (2:18) was through Moav and Ammon, whose people, according to YHVH's word, were not to be disturbed. But the command to "cross [e’e’vru]" the River Arnon, was different! The land of Sichon, the Amorite king, was to come under Yisrael's dominion. The Amorites ignored the message, "Let me pass through [e'ebra] your land; I will keep strictly to the road, and I will turn neither to the right nor to the left. You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through [e'ebra] on foot, just as the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir and the Moabites who dwell in Ar did for me, until I cross [e'evor] the Jordan to the land which YHVH our Elohim is giving us" (2:27,28 italics added). Instead, we are told that, "Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through [ha'a'virenu]" (v. 30 italics added). Thus, the land of the Amorites was conquered. A similar fate awaited Og the king of Bashan, whose land was also conquered by the Israelites. Moshe recalls: "We took the land from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan [Ever haYarden], from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon" (3:8 italics added). This was also the land requested by the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe, who had to meet one condition: "All you men of valor shall cross over [ta'avru] armed before your brethren, the children of Israel" (3:18 italics added), in order to help them take control of the Promised Land, while promising to Yehoshua, "YHVH will do to all the kingdoms through which you pass [over]" (v. 21), what He had done to the former kingdoms.”
In addition to the above promise, there is an even greater one, (preceded by "Sh'ma Yisrael - Hear O Israel" 9:1): "Therefore understand today that YHVH your Elohim is He who goes over [ha'over] before you as a consuming fire" (9:3 italics added). And moreover, "YHVH your Elohim Himself crosses over [over] before you; He will destroy these nations from before you, and you shall dispossess them. Joshua himself crosses over [over] before you, just as YHVH has said" (31:3 italic added). The "crossing over [ovrim] to possess" or "inherit" the land, is also an inseparable part of the description of the Land itself as everything about its conditions constitutes a major change-over and transition from the setting of the desert (ref. 11:10 -12).
And while Moshe is thus preparing the nation, which he has so greatly nurtured and has been willing to give up his life for, he does not hide from his listeners and from posterity the sad fact that he had "pleaded with YHVH at that time, saying: `O my Adonai YHVH, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand… I pray, let me cross over [e'ebra] and see the good land beyond [ever] the Jordan, those pleasant mountains, and Lebanon. But YHVH was angry [va'yita'ber] with me on your account, and would not listen to me" (3: 23-26 italics added). Yes, "angry" in this context is also made up of the root ayin, vet/bet, resh! Thus, there is more than one way to 'cross over'. ‘Crossing over' to the 'wrong side' and 'crossing' YHVH's will, will incur His anger (“evrah”).
Moshe continues to relate his plight, as pronounced by YHVH: "Go up to the top of Pisgah, and lift your eyes toward the west, the north, the south, and the east; Behold it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over [ta'avor] this Jordan. But command Joshua, and encourage him and strengthen him; for he shall go over [ya'avor] before this people…" (3: 27,28 italics added). Just before Moshe's death on Mount Nevo (Nebo), called here “Avarim” (32:48) - the Mount of Crossing - he is once again reminded by his Elohim, "I have caused you to see it [the land] with your eyes, but you shall not cross over [ta'avor] there" (34:4 italics added). In Psalm 106:32 this story is repeated: “They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes [ba’a’vu’ram]” (italics added). The singular form “ba’avu’r” comes from “a’vur”, which literally is “one who has been caused to pass over.” Thus, even a common preposition such as “for” is rooted in e.v.r, - “crossing or passing over” - pointing to the centrality of this term and to an active force, or agent, greater than one’s self, who acts as the Prime Cause.
In our text, the covenant and the commandments are not 'passed over' either. In his discourse, Moshe elaborates extensively on these issues. YHVH made another covenant with the Children of Yisrael "in the land of Moab besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb… that you may enter [le'ov'recha] into covenant with YHVH your Elohim" (29:1,12 italics added). Thus, in “entering” this covenant, they were literally "crossing" into it. "Transgressing" YHVH's commandments, according to 26:13, is also referred to as "crossing" [a'varti – literally, “I transgressed/crossed”]. Some of these commandments are: "When a man has taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war or be charged [ya'avor] with any business…" (24:5 italics added), and, "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through [ma'avir] the fire…" (18:10 italics added). "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond [meh’ever] the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over [ya'avor] the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (30:11-14 italics added). According to these words, it appears that fulfilling Elohim's Word does not necessarily require a physical crossing or passing over; it is simply a matter of turning inwardly, to that which had already been deposited there by the Almighty (ref. Rom. 8:11).
Finally, "And it shall be, on the day when you [plural] cross over [ta'avru] the Jordan to the land which YHVH your Elohim is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones, and whitewash them with lime. You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over [be'ovre'cha], that you may enter the land which YHVH your Elohim is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, just as YHVH the Elohim of your fathers promised you. Therefore it shall be, when you [plural] have crossed over [be'ovre'chem] the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones, which I command you today…" (27:2-4 italics added). Thus, the "crossing over" is to be marked by stones that were to be a testimony of a genuine "crossing over" and a “change over” assumed by the Hebrews, the 'People of Transition'!
The root e.v.r, however, does not escape the enemies of the Hebrew people. Prior to the actual crossing, Yehoshua sent two spies to Yericho (Jericho). These two were pursued by men who themselves had to cross the Yarden’s "fords”. These “fords” are “ma’a’barot,” literally, “that which enables passage” (ref. Josh. 2:1-5).
In closing, let us pause briefly on “va’etchanan,” the name of our Parasha, which takes us back to the opening verse (3:23) where Moshe pleads with YHVH to let him cross the Yarden. “And I pleaded” or implored…” – etchanan – is of the root ch.n.n (chet, noon, noon), which means to “show favor or be gracious”; while “chen” (chet, noon) is “grace” (e.g. Zech. 4:7, 12:10). Thus, he who pleads with, and implores YHVH, knows he is invoking His grace, cognizant of the fact that even the pleading itself is linked to YHVH’s compassion and favor working in the one who pleads with an expectancy for a response.
Note: In the synagogue, the Torah scrolls are places in an ark called “teiva.” When the representative of the congregation who prays on behalf of the community, acting as a facilitator, stands before the ark, he “passes [over] before the teiva.”
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Dvarim – Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 1 – 3:22
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Dvarim – Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 1 – 3:22
Dvarim is the book of Deuteronomy and lends its name to our Parasha. “These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan” (1:1)… These “words” are “d’varim” (singular - “davar”), of the root d.v/b.r, which is also the root for “midbar” that encountered in the Parasha by the same name (opening the book of Bamidbar - Numbers). Thus, the names of the books of Bamidbar and Dvarim (as well as their respective contents) are connected by the root d.v.r, alluding to the Word (“davar”) spoken in the desert (“midbar”). Dvarim is also known as “Mishneh Torah,” mentioned in 17:18 as part of the instructions for a future monarch. This term suggests the copying of Dvarim, since “mishneh” originates with the root sh.n.h, meaning to “repeat” (and hence copy). However, “mishneh” also means “secondary” (with “two” – “sh’na’yim” - sharing the same root, thus being related to “second”), possibly indicating that the book at hand is a “secondary Torah,” as it is a synopsis of the three previous tomes (not including B’resheet).
In 1:5 we read: “On the other side of the Jordan Moses began explaining this law,” but more literally it says that Moshe was “willing to undertake” (“ho’eel”, of the root y.a.l, yod, alef, lamed) to expound – “ba’er” - this Torah”, thus summing up the essence of this fifth book of the Pentateuch. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament sheds more light on “ho’eel”: “The primary meaning of this root is ‘to make a volitional decision to commence a given activity.’ … This volitional decision to begin an act clearly indicates the function of one’s mind to initiate… The verb concentrates on the volitional element rather than upon emotional or motivational factors. It stresses the voluntary act of the individual’s will to engage in a given enterprise, not what may have brought him to that decision… Theologically this verb strongly supports the concept of man’s freewill, for man can make decisions to initiate any given action (within human control), but God holds him responsible for that volitional decision.”[1] Thus we see here Moshe’s volitional resolve to “ba’er” the Torah to the People of Yisrael.
“Ba’er” (b.a.r. bet, alef, resh) is to “make distinct, declare, make plain, make untreatable,” and shares its root with “be’er” which is a “well or cistern.” Although it is not altogether certain whether there is an etymological connection between “making plain” and “well,” the fact that the word for “eye” and for “spring” is one and the same in Hebrew (“ayin”), indicates that while water is connected to the act of seeing, it may also be related to ‘understanding,’ which is another form of ‘seeing’. By expounding on YHVH’s words, Moshe was certainly providing the Israelites with clear, thirst-quenching, well-drawn living water in the dry desert.
The passage comprising of verses 1:9-33 is characterized by a repeated term, one that we have encountered time and again, particularly in Bamidbar (Numbers). As a matter of fact, there is also a Parasha named after this tem (Num. 4:21-7), and that is the verb “nasso,” to “carry or lift, bear a burden.” From Moshe’s speech we learn how heavy of a burden this people was for him at times, although the One who truly carried them and cared for them was the Holy One Blessed Be He (compare 1:9,12, which is Moshe’s response to v. 31, and where the Father’s heart toward His people is described). When Moshe stresses just judgment (in 1: 17) he says: “You shall not respect persons in judgment…” which in Hebrew is, “you shall not acknowledge, or know, or recognize [anyone’s] face in judgment,” as “recognizing” one person above another does away with impartiality, which is indispensable for meting out justice. The term “recognize a face,” as it is presented here, many times appears in a different form (yet with the same meaning), as: “carrying or lifting of a face” [“noseh panim”], such as in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:15, when reference is made to judging the poor. Yet for all the theme and usage of “carrying” in this passage, when reference is made to the ‘carrying out’ of justice, this common idiom of “to carry/lift a face” (that is, being partial) is strangely omitted.
Recently we took note of the fact that each of the references to the tribes was “ma’teh”, (“rod”), whereas the more common word for “tribe” (which also means “rod, staff, club, scepter” and also a live branch) is shevet (sh.v.t, shin, vet, tet). The “rod and staff [which] will comfort me” (of Psalm 23:4) are, respectively, “shevet” and “mish’e’net” (which is a staff for leaning on). In our Parasha every reference to the tribes is couched in the term “shevet.” The “shevet” is also the rod that if a father spares, may earn him the reputation of one who hates his son (ref. Prov. 13:24). The usage of “shevet,” which refers to didactic reproof (as preparation before entering the land and starting out a new life), is therefore quite appropriate in this 5th book of the Pentateuch!
One of the lessons Moshe wishes to draw from is the story of the spies. “Why did he not also refer to the sin of the Golden Calf? “Why did he select the sin of the spies and omit all the other historical experiences?” These are questions posed by Nechama Leibowitz, who then goes on to cite Hoffman who, “illuminatingly points out that Moses wishes to refer to an exactly parallel situation. The children of Israel were once again on the threshold of the Promised Land, just as their ill-fated parents had been, thirty-eight years previously. Let them not forfeit the Land once again…” Therefore Moshe is really concerned about warning “the children of Israel against once more forfeiting the land by their lack of faith…” [2]
The spies’ story truly serves to illustrate accurately the Israelites’ skepticism. In 1:22 we read: “And you came near to me, every one of you, and said, let us send men before us, and they shall search out the land for us…” It is significant that “every one of you” is mentioned as “coming [or drawing] near,” and requesting for a surveillance report of the land is interpreted as lack of faith. (This, in contrast to the original story in Parashat Sh’lach Le’cha, Bamidbar – Numbers -13-15; 32:8, where YHVH is presented as being the originator of the plan). Another “drawing near” is mentioned in the next Parasha, when Moshe recalls the scene at Chorev (Horeb). “And it happened, when you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain burned with fire, you came near to me, all the rulers of your tribes, and your elders, and you said… If we hear the voice of YHVH your Elohim any more, then we shall die. For who of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living Elohim speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and has lived? You go near and hear all that YHVH our Elohim may say, and you shall speak to us all that YHVH our Elohim may speak to you” (5:23, 24, italics added). We see that at the time of the giving of the Torah, the elders and leaders of Yisrael had a real concern about “drawing near” to YHVH, and instead “drew near” to Moshe and asked him to act on their behalf. If this was the leaders’ attitude, it is no wonder that some time later, the entire nation (“every one of you”) displayed a similar apprehension regarding YHVH’s promises, which is why that whole generation was condemned to die in the wilderness.
Moshe goes on to recount the sad episode, all those years back, in the course of which the ones who had previously displayed such unbelief, later insisted on “going up and fighting” the enemy (1:41), against YHVH’s wishes (as if to make up for their former attitude). YHVH declared, therefore, that they would be “struck” before their enemies (ref. v. 42). The word used for “struck” is “tinagfu” of the root n.g.f (noon, gimmel, fey). “Negef” and “mage’fa” mean “plague or pestilence,” and are usually divinely ordained for the purpose of discipline, such as in the case before us. In Bamidbar (Numbers) 17:13 we read about the plague (“magefa”) which followed the rebellion of Korach and his band, and later, in 25:8, mention was made of the “magefa” which struck the Israelites in the wake of the Baal Pe’or episode and the daughters of Mo’av, whereas in Sh’mot (Exodus) 12:27 it was the Egyptians who were “struck” while the Israelites remained untouched. Back to our chronology here as recounted by Moshe; In spite of YHVH’s warning, Yisrael “rebelled and … acted proudly and went up into the hills” (1: 43). “Acting proudly” reads here (va)ta’z’du" (root z.d., zayin, dalet). Back in B’resheet (Genesis) 25, in Parashat Toldot, Ya’acov was seen cooking a stew, which in Hebrew is: “va'ya'zed na'zid." We learned there that although “stew” is “nazid,” the root "zed” (z.d. zayin, dalet again) also means “pride, rebellion or presumptuousness.” Thus, Ya'acov was cooking up a non-too healthy stew (Gen. 25:29) for his brother, while his progeny’s conduct even surpassed that of their progenitor. It is no wonder, then, that Ya'acov's action and the behavior of his seed are presented with the same word.
The ensuing result of this failed attempt to go to battle is reported in 1:44: “And the Amorites who lived in that hill country came out to meet you and they chased you, as the bees do, and struck you in Seir, to Hormah.” In Shmot (Exodus) 23:28 it says: “And I will send hornets before you which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite before you.” However, because of disobedience and rebellion, they incurred defeat and were chased by so many (proverbial) bees, and were “struck” all the way to Se’ir and Chorma. The latter happens to stem from the root ch.r.m (chet, resh, mem), rendered “cherem” which in this case means “destruction.” In Bamidbar (Numbers) 21 (v. 1-3, Parashat Chu’kat) we read: “And king Arad the Canaanite…heard that Israel had come… and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. And Israel vowed a vow to YHVH, and said, ‘if you will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy [(ve)he’cheramti] their cities’. And YHVH listened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed [(va)yacharem] them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah [Chorma]” (italics and emphasis added). However, Moshe’s narration here lets us know that destruction (“chorma”) was also the lot of the Israelites, who then “sat and wept before YHVH,” but at that time He “did not listen to them” (1: 45).
In chapter 2 of the Parasha, Moshe reviews some geographical and historical facts. As part of preparing the young Israelites for their relocation, he wants them to have a geographical and historical orientation and perspective. This is particularly true in 2:9-12 and 20-23. Some of the names of the peoples mentioned are rather revealing. In 2:10 we read about the “Eimeem” (Emims). “Eima” is “fear, dread or horror” (for example, in the Covenant Between the Torn Pieces it is written: “… and behold a terror – “eima” – of great darkness”, Gen. 15:12). These “Eimim” are compared to the Anakim, who are the giants described by the spies (Num. 13:28). Following them, mention is made (v. 11) of the “R’fa’eem.” The root r.f.a. (resh, fey, alef) is used several times to describe the dead, or dwellers of She’ol. In Yisha’yahu (Isaiah) 14:9 we read: “Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead (“r’fa’eem”)….” The R’fa’eem were also considered among the giants (and are mentioned in B’resheet 14:5). According to verse 20, the giants were also called “Zam’zumeem,” and lived in the land that was “considered the land of the R’fa’eem” (literal translation). This latter fact may have rendered that land as the “land of the dead,” perhaps subtly hinting to the fact that YHVH will “begin to put your dread and your fear on the face of the people under all the heavens, who will hear your fame, and will tremble and writhe because of you” (2:25). Appropriately, the Parasha ends with the following: “Do not fear them for YHVH your Elohim, He shall fight for you” (3:22).
Before concluding, let us examine a leitmotif that reoccurs a number of times in our Parasha and is first seen in 1:8 (and then in 1:21; 39): “See, I have placed the land before you go in and possess [“r’shu” – wrest it by impoverishing its present residents] the land which YHVH swore to give to your fathers… and to their seed after them.” Last week we examined briefly “yerusha,” one of the words for inheritance, which is rooted in the verb “resh,” used here by YHVH in its imperative form. YHVH declares that He has already “given/placed” – “natati” - the land before His people, but that first it was incumbent upon them to do two things. First they had to “see.” That is, they had to realize, by exercising faith, that their heavenly Father had already accomplished this. Secondly, they had to go and take/wrest the land, based upon the former realization and premise, and do so, again, in faith. In 2:9 YHVH, likewise, declares that He “has given Ar (Mo’av) to the sons of Lot as a possession” [“yerusha” – the same term He uses for Yisrael’s inheritance or possession). However, in this case, even though He has “given” – natan, again - them their land, “before them” is significantly missing. Thus, although YHVH is sovereign over all peoples, He is notably treating His own in an exceptional manner. In 2:31, YHVH declares again to His people (literal translation): “See, I have begun to give/place – “natati” – Sihon and his land over to you. Impoverishing begin to impoverish his land.” In the case of Sichon and his people, Yisrael’s Elohim also announces that it is He who has “hardened his [Sichon’s] spirit and made his heart obstinate” (2:30), having mercy on whom He will, and hardening [the heart of] whom He desires (ref. Rom. 9:18).
While YHVH is totally sovereign and controls all people groups, He puts certain expectations upon Yisrael, who are to apply their conscious will (as we saw Moshe doing at the beginning of the Parasha) and act volitionally in faith and obedience to their Maker and King, who uses the Land of Promise as a venue for applying these principles and for continuing to practice them..
1. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press,
Chicago, 1980
2. 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.
Dvarim is the book of Deuteronomy and lends its name to our Parasha. “These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan” (1:1)… These “words” are “d’varim” (singular - “davar”), of the root d.v/b.r, which is also the root for “midbar” that encountered in the Parasha by the same name (opening the book of Bamidbar - Numbers). Thus, the names of the books of Bamidbar and Dvarim (as well as their respective contents) are connected by the root d.v.r, alluding to the Word (“davar”) spoken in the desert (“midbar”). Dvarim is also known as “Mishneh Torah,” mentioned in 17:18 as part of the instructions for a future monarch. This term suggests the copying of Dvarim, since “mishneh” originates with the root sh.n.h, meaning to “repeat” (and hence copy). However, “mishneh” also means “secondary” (with “two” – “sh’na’yim” - sharing the same root, thus being related to “second”), possibly indicating that the book at hand is a “secondary Torah,” as it is a synopsis of the three previous tomes (not including B’resheet).
In 1:5 we read: “On the other side of the Jordan Moses began explaining this law,” but more literally it says that Moshe was “willing to undertake” (“ho’eel”, of the root y.a.l, yod, alef, lamed) to expound – “ba’er” - this Torah”, thus summing up the essence of this fifth book of the Pentateuch. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament sheds more light on “ho’eel”: “The primary meaning of this root is ‘to make a volitional decision to commence a given activity.’ … This volitional decision to begin an act clearly indicates the function of one’s mind to initiate… The verb concentrates on the volitional element rather than upon emotional or motivational factors. It stresses the voluntary act of the individual’s will to engage in a given enterprise, not what may have brought him to that decision… Theologically this verb strongly supports the concept of man’s freewill, for man can make decisions to initiate any given action (within human control), but God holds him responsible for that volitional decision.”[1] Thus we see here Moshe’s volitional resolve to “ba’er” the Torah to the People of Yisrael.
“Ba’er” (b.a.r. bet, alef, resh) is to “make distinct, declare, make plain, make untreatable,” and shares its root with “be’er” which is a “well or cistern.” Although it is not altogether certain whether there is an etymological connection between “making plain” and “well,” the fact that the word for “eye” and for “spring” is one and the same in Hebrew (“ayin”), indicates that while water is connected to the act of seeing, it may also be related to ‘understanding,’ which is another form of ‘seeing’. By expounding on YHVH’s words, Moshe was certainly providing the Israelites with clear, thirst-quenching, well-drawn living water in the dry desert.
The passage comprising of verses 1:9-33 is characterized by a repeated term, one that we have encountered time and again, particularly in Bamidbar (Numbers). As a matter of fact, there is also a Parasha named after this tem (Num. 4:21-7), and that is the verb “nasso,” to “carry or lift, bear a burden.” From Moshe’s speech we learn how heavy of a burden this people was for him at times, although the One who truly carried them and cared for them was the Holy One Blessed Be He (compare 1:9,12, which is Moshe’s response to v. 31, and where the Father’s heart toward His people is described). When Moshe stresses just judgment (in 1: 17) he says: “You shall not respect persons in judgment…” which in Hebrew is, “you shall not acknowledge, or know, or recognize [anyone’s] face in judgment,” as “recognizing” one person above another does away with impartiality, which is indispensable for meting out justice. The term “recognize a face,” as it is presented here, many times appears in a different form (yet with the same meaning), as: “carrying or lifting of a face” [“noseh panim”], such as in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:15, when reference is made to judging the poor. Yet for all the theme and usage of “carrying” in this passage, when reference is made to the ‘carrying out’ of justice, this common idiom of “to carry/lift a face” (that is, being partial) is strangely omitted.
Recently we took note of the fact that each of the references to the tribes was “ma’teh”, (“rod”), whereas the more common word for “tribe” (which also means “rod, staff, club, scepter” and also a live branch) is shevet (sh.v.t, shin, vet, tet). The “rod and staff [which] will comfort me” (of Psalm 23:4) are, respectively, “shevet” and “mish’e’net” (which is a staff for leaning on). In our Parasha every reference to the tribes is couched in the term “shevet.” The “shevet” is also the rod that if a father spares, may earn him the reputation of one who hates his son (ref. Prov. 13:24). The usage of “shevet,” which refers to didactic reproof (as preparation before entering the land and starting out a new life), is therefore quite appropriate in this 5th book of the Pentateuch!
One of the lessons Moshe wishes to draw from is the story of the spies. “Why did he not also refer to the sin of the Golden Calf? “Why did he select the sin of the spies and omit all the other historical experiences?” These are questions posed by Nechama Leibowitz, who then goes on to cite Hoffman who, “illuminatingly points out that Moses wishes to refer to an exactly parallel situation. The children of Israel were once again on the threshold of the Promised Land, just as their ill-fated parents had been, thirty-eight years previously. Let them not forfeit the Land once again…” Therefore Moshe is really concerned about warning “the children of Israel against once more forfeiting the land by their lack of faith…” [2]
The spies’ story truly serves to illustrate accurately the Israelites’ skepticism. In 1:22 we read: “And you came near to me, every one of you, and said, let us send men before us, and they shall search out the land for us…” It is significant that “every one of you” is mentioned as “coming [or drawing] near,” and requesting for a surveillance report of the land is interpreted as lack of faith. (This, in contrast to the original story in Parashat Sh’lach Le’cha, Bamidbar – Numbers -13-15; 32:8, where YHVH is presented as being the originator of the plan). Another “drawing near” is mentioned in the next Parasha, when Moshe recalls the scene at Chorev (Horeb). “And it happened, when you heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness, while the mountain burned with fire, you came near to me, all the rulers of your tribes, and your elders, and you said… If we hear the voice of YHVH your Elohim any more, then we shall die. For who of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living Elohim speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and has lived? You go near and hear all that YHVH our Elohim may say, and you shall speak to us all that YHVH our Elohim may speak to you” (5:23, 24, italics added). We see that at the time of the giving of the Torah, the elders and leaders of Yisrael had a real concern about “drawing near” to YHVH, and instead “drew near” to Moshe and asked him to act on their behalf. If this was the leaders’ attitude, it is no wonder that some time later, the entire nation (“every one of you”) displayed a similar apprehension regarding YHVH’s promises, which is why that whole generation was condemned to die in the wilderness.
Moshe goes on to recount the sad episode, all those years back, in the course of which the ones who had previously displayed such unbelief, later insisted on “going up and fighting” the enemy (1:41), against YHVH’s wishes (as if to make up for their former attitude). YHVH declared, therefore, that they would be “struck” before their enemies (ref. v. 42). The word used for “struck” is “tinagfu” of the root n.g.f (noon, gimmel, fey). “Negef” and “mage’fa” mean “plague or pestilence,” and are usually divinely ordained for the purpose of discipline, such as in the case before us. In Bamidbar (Numbers) 17:13 we read about the plague (“magefa”) which followed the rebellion of Korach and his band, and later, in 25:8, mention was made of the “magefa” which struck the Israelites in the wake of the Baal Pe’or episode and the daughters of Mo’av, whereas in Sh’mot (Exodus) 12:27 it was the Egyptians who were “struck” while the Israelites remained untouched. Back to our chronology here as recounted by Moshe; In spite of YHVH’s warning, Yisrael “rebelled and … acted proudly and went up into the hills” (1: 43). “Acting proudly” reads here (va)ta’z’du" (root z.d., zayin, dalet). Back in B’resheet (Genesis) 25, in Parashat Toldot, Ya’acov was seen cooking a stew, which in Hebrew is: “va'ya'zed na'zid." We learned there that although “stew” is “nazid,” the root "zed” (z.d. zayin, dalet again) also means “pride, rebellion or presumptuousness.” Thus, Ya'acov was cooking up a non-too healthy stew (Gen. 25:29) for his brother, while his progeny’s conduct even surpassed that of their progenitor. It is no wonder, then, that Ya'acov's action and the behavior of his seed are presented with the same word.
The ensuing result of this failed attempt to go to battle is reported in 1:44: “And the Amorites who lived in that hill country came out to meet you and they chased you, as the bees do, and struck you in Seir, to Hormah.” In Shmot (Exodus) 23:28 it says: “And I will send hornets before you which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite before you.” However, because of disobedience and rebellion, they incurred defeat and were chased by so many (proverbial) bees, and were “struck” all the way to Se’ir and Chorma. The latter happens to stem from the root ch.r.m (chet, resh, mem), rendered “cherem” which in this case means “destruction.” In Bamidbar (Numbers) 21 (v. 1-3, Parashat Chu’kat) we read: “And king Arad the Canaanite…heard that Israel had come… and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. And Israel vowed a vow to YHVH, and said, ‘if you will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy [(ve)he’cheramti] their cities’. And YHVH listened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed [(va)yacharem] them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah [Chorma]” (italics and emphasis added). However, Moshe’s narration here lets us know that destruction (“chorma”) was also the lot of the Israelites, who then “sat and wept before YHVH,” but at that time He “did not listen to them” (1: 45).
In chapter 2 of the Parasha, Moshe reviews some geographical and historical facts. As part of preparing the young Israelites for their relocation, he wants them to have a geographical and historical orientation and perspective. This is particularly true in 2:9-12 and 20-23. Some of the names of the peoples mentioned are rather revealing. In 2:10 we read about the “Eimeem” (Emims). “Eima” is “fear, dread or horror” (for example, in the Covenant Between the Torn Pieces it is written: “… and behold a terror – “eima” – of great darkness”, Gen. 15:12). These “Eimim” are compared to the Anakim, who are the giants described by the spies (Num. 13:28). Following them, mention is made (v. 11) of the “R’fa’eem.” The root r.f.a. (resh, fey, alef) is used several times to describe the dead, or dwellers of She’ol. In Yisha’yahu (Isaiah) 14:9 we read: “Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead (“r’fa’eem”)….” The R’fa’eem were also considered among the giants (and are mentioned in B’resheet 14:5). According to verse 20, the giants were also called “Zam’zumeem,” and lived in the land that was “considered the land of the R’fa’eem” (literal translation). This latter fact may have rendered that land as the “land of the dead,” perhaps subtly hinting to the fact that YHVH will “begin to put your dread and your fear on the face of the people under all the heavens, who will hear your fame, and will tremble and writhe because of you” (2:25). Appropriately, the Parasha ends with the following: “Do not fear them for YHVH your Elohim, He shall fight for you” (3:22).
Before concluding, let us examine a leitmotif that reoccurs a number of times in our Parasha and is first seen in 1:8 (and then in 1:21; 39): “See, I have placed the land before you go in and possess [“r’shu” – wrest it by impoverishing its present residents] the land which YHVH swore to give to your fathers… and to their seed after them.” Last week we examined briefly “yerusha,” one of the words for inheritance, which is rooted in the verb “resh,” used here by YHVH in its imperative form. YHVH declares that He has already “given/placed” – “natati” - the land before His people, but that first it was incumbent upon them to do two things. First they had to “see.” That is, they had to realize, by exercising faith, that their heavenly Father had already accomplished this. Secondly, they had to go and take/wrest the land, based upon the former realization and premise, and do so, again, in faith. In 2:9 YHVH, likewise, declares that He “has given Ar (Mo’av) to the sons of Lot as a possession” [“yerusha” – the same term He uses for Yisrael’s inheritance or possession). However, in this case, even though He has “given” – natan, again - them their land, “before them” is significantly missing. Thus, although YHVH is sovereign over all peoples, He is notably treating His own in an exceptional manner. In 2:31, YHVH declares again to His people (literal translation): “See, I have begun to give/place – “natati” – Sihon and his land over to you. Impoverishing begin to impoverish his land.” In the case of Sichon and his people, Yisrael’s Elohim also announces that it is He who has “hardened his [Sichon’s] spirit and made his heart obstinate” (2:30), having mercy on whom He will, and hardening [the heart of] whom He desires (ref. Rom. 9:18).
While YHVH is totally sovereign and controls all people groups, He puts certain expectations upon Yisrael, who are to apply their conscious will (as we saw Moshe doing at the beginning of the Parasha) and act volitionally in faith and obedience to their Maker and King, who uses the Land of Promise as a venue for applying these principles and for continuing to practice them..
1. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press,
Chicago, 1980
2. 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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Masa’ey – Bamidbar (Numbers) 33 – 36
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Masa’ey – Bamidbar (Numbers) 33 – 36
We have come to the end of Bamidbar (Numbers), to Parashat Masa’ey. “These are the journeys of – “masa’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 (vv. 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 names of each of the places 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…”[1]
Chapter 34 details 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. It is here that He also appoints those “who will take possession of the land for you” (34:17). Following these instructions, the towns which are to be occupied by the Levites (among the other tribes’ territories), are listed. “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” is “migrash.” One of the words for “inheritance” is “yerusha” (33:52, 53), in which 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, is of the root g.r.sh (gimmel, resh, shin) and its primary meaning is to “cast" or "drive out.” Hebrew certainly does not conceal or embellish the hard-core ‘facts of life’, 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 refuge cities 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). Thus, the blood of Yeshua our High Priest has purified both our earthly inheritance and ourselves, 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.” 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) (35:11), 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 detailed 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” (36:7-10 emphases added). The word for “turn” here, in future tense, is “tisov” of the root s.v.v (samech, vet, vet). “Savov” is to “turn about” or ”go around.” It is indicative of mobility, unstableness and temporariness. The usage of this verb here lends 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 3:24 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 (35:34); it is no wonder therefore that He is so very particular about the set up of His abode.
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.
We have come to the end of Bamidbar (Numbers), to Parashat Masa’ey. “These are the journeys of – “masa’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 (vv. 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 names of each of the places 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…”[1]
Chapter 34 details 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. It is here that He also appoints those “who will take possession of the land for you” (34:17). Following these instructions, the towns which are to be occupied by the Levites (among the other tribes’ territories), are listed. “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” is “migrash.” One of the words for “inheritance” is “yerusha” (33:52, 53), in which 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, is of the root g.r.sh (gimmel, resh, shin) and its primary meaning is to “cast" or "drive out.” Hebrew certainly does not conceal or embellish the hard-core ‘facts of life’, 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 refuge cities 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). Thus, the blood of Yeshua our High Priest has purified both our earthly inheritance and ourselves, 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.” 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) (35:11), 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 detailed 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” (36:7-10 emphases added). The word for “turn” here, in future tense, is “tisov” of the root s.v.v (samech, vet, vet). “Savov” is to “turn about” or ”go around.” It is indicative of mobility, unstableness and temporariness. The usage of this verb here lends 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 3:24 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 (35:34); it is no wonder therefore that He is so very particular about the set up of His abode.
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.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Ma’tot – Bamidbar (Numbers) 30 – 32
Hebrew Insights into Parashot* Ma’tot/ Bamidbar (Numbers) 30 – 32
In the opening verse (30:1) of our Parasha, 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 (Num. 19 – 22:1) 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 abolition 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: “If in the day her husband hears, he prohibits her…” (emphasis added), the same verb is used. The latter part of Parashat Ma’tot 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 (Parashat Sh’lach Lecha, Num. 12-14), to the two tribes wishing to settle on the Yarden’s eastern shore. He interprets their plan as being one that would frustrate YHVH’s will, while at the same time incurring frustration in his listeners, who are no doubt concerned lest their leader would frustrate their plans. Frustration and a feeling of being hindered must also be the lot of the woman, mentioned above, who takes a vow and/or restricts herself in some way for Godly reasons and in good conscious and is later prevented from going through with the commitments she had taken upon herself.
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. Several 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” (such as in Gen. 40:3; Jud. 15:11,13; 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” (although its common usage is the metaphorical one rather than the literal).
Returning to Moshe’s exhorting address in 32:14 to the two tribes; the aging leader expresses his concern lest their actions would give rise to a “brood of sinful men.” 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 and Gaddaites would bring about an increase of evil and in this manner add to YHVH’s anger, adding disciplining measures, resulting in more suffering for the people as a whole.
Another issue dealt with 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). 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. 25:10). Thus, the literal rendering of 31:3 is: “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), 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 these vanguards were willing to venture and forge the way ahead of everyone else. The verb cha’letz’s additional meaning, which is “to rescue and deliver” (used a number of times in the Psalms), is totally compatible with the readiness of the two 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” (32:18, literal translation). In his response Moshe states that each of them is to be a “cha’lutz” for his brother, (while failing to do so, according to him, will be considered a sin “before YHVH” vv. 20-24). 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.” “Loins” in that text is “chalatza’yim” - the strong place. In the context of our story, the descendants of the promised “kingly” race find themselves having to take the lives of their enemies’ kings, who no doubt were clad in royal robes, as one of the terms for such clothing is “mach’la’tzot” (again of the root ch.l.tz). Yehoshua the High Priest was dressed in such robes in exchange for his filthy ones (ref. Zech. 3:4).
1 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson.
Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.
In the opening verse (30:1) of our Parasha, 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 (Num. 19 – 22:1) 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 abolition 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: “If in the day her husband hears, he prohibits her…” (emphasis added), the same verb is used. The latter part of Parashat Ma’tot 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 (Parashat Sh’lach Lecha, Num. 12-14), to the two tribes wishing to settle on the Yarden’s eastern shore. He interprets their plan as being one that would frustrate YHVH’s will, while at the same time incurring frustration in his listeners, who are no doubt concerned lest their leader would frustrate their plans. Frustration and a feeling of being hindered must also be the lot of the woman, mentioned above, who takes a vow and/or restricts herself in some way for Godly reasons and in good conscious and is later prevented from going through with the commitments she had taken upon herself.
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. Several 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” (such as in Gen. 40:3; Jud. 15:11,13; 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” (although its common usage is the metaphorical one rather than the literal).
Returning to Moshe’s exhorting address in 32:14 to the two tribes; the aging leader expresses his concern lest their actions would give rise to a “brood of sinful men.” 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 and Gaddaites would bring about an increase of evil and in this manner add to YHVH’s anger, adding disciplining measures, resulting in more suffering for the people as a whole.
Another issue dealt with 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). 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. 25:10). Thus, the literal rendering of 31:3 is: “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), 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 these vanguards were willing to venture and forge the way ahead of everyone else. The verb cha’letz’s additional meaning, which is “to rescue and deliver” (used a number of times in the Psalms), is totally compatible with the readiness of the two 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” (32:18, literal translation). In his response Moshe states that each of them is to be a “cha’lutz” for his brother, (while failing to do so, according to him, will be considered a sin “before YHVH” vv. 20-24). 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.” “Loins” in that text is “chalatza’yim” - the strong place. In the context of our story, the descendants of the promised “kingly” race find themselves having to take the lives of their enemies’ kings, who no doubt were clad in royal robes, as one of the terms for such clothing is “mach’la’tzot” (again of the root ch.l.tz). Yehoshua the High Priest was dressed in such robes in exchange for his filthy ones (ref. Zech. 3:4).
1 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson.
Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Pin’chas – Bamidbar (Numbers) 25:10 - 29
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Pin’chas – Bamidbar (Numbers) 25:10 - 29
The issue we encounter at the beginning of Parashat Pin’chas has already been introduced to us at the end of last week’s Parashat Balak. Pin’chas, A’haron’s grandson and 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 had smitten 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.” Pin’chas’ 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 (28-30) also makes a reference 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.” In this latter reference Pin’chas’ act is describes as – (vay)fa’lel (p/f.l.l) – which is interposing, intervening, mediating, as well as judging and pleading. It is from this root that the word “t’fila”, prayer, is derived. Pin’chas’ action seems to have been multi-facetted.
As mentioned, Zimri the son of Salu was one of the leaders of the tribe of Shim’on. The Midianite woman, Cozbi, was likewise 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 like that of last week’s, are also of interest. Thus, Pin’chas appears to be an Egyptian name, having the characteristics so typical of other Egyptian names, such as the name of the town of Tach’pan’ches (Jeremiah 44:1) and that of Tach’peh’nis Egyptian wife of Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:19, 20). But even more interesting is the name of the Midianite princess Cozbi, which is made up of the letters kaf/chaf, zayin, bet/vet, and yod. The first three of those, that is c.z.b/v, constitute the root for the word “cazav” (or, phonetically, “kazav”), which means to “lie, deceive, lying, deception.” Last week we read in 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 getting filled during the winter season. However, in the dry season such riverbeds dry up. 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 in a moment of dark despair to his Creator (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… to destruction and death, which was experienced by 24,000 souls (ref. 25:9) in Yisrael’s camp.
As noted above, Cozbi was a Midianite. Midian was a son of Avraham by his wife K’turah (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” - is 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 a people not totally unaware of the Elohim of Yisrael and of His ways (as illustrated by Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law and even by Bil’am himself) only made the “din” (‘judgment’), pronounced upon them by Yisrael’s Elohim more severe. Hence YHVH says to Moshe: “Vex the Midianites; and you shall strike them; For they are vexers to you, because of the wiles with which they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi the daughter of a ruler of Midian, their sister, who was struck in the day of the plague because of the matter of Peor” (25:17-18). Highlighted in this passage is the cunning stance and frame of mind of the Midianites, illustrated so typically by Cozbi. The order from on High here is “to vex and strike” the Midianites, since they “vexed you.” “Vexing or 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” (24:8 italics added), and next week, in Parashat Matot/Ma’sa’ey a condition will be placed before Yisrael: “And if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be, those whom you let remain of them shall be thorns in your eyes, and as goads in your sides. And they will vex – (ve)tza’ra’ru - you on the land in which you are living” (33:55 italics added). Haman, the Jews’ cruel adversary, is 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” or “jealousy.” The root of “jealousy” 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 “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” - 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, being 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-years 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) which 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 their (the Israelites) number. In chapter 27 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” (vv. 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.”
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). 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 underscores “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)? Regardless if 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 “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 cannot be categorized or classified as a disillusion, contrary to the description 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 from false sources that could not satisfy.
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
The issue we encounter at the beginning of Parashat Pin’chas has already been introduced to us at the end of last week’s Parashat Balak. Pin’chas, A’haron’s grandson and 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 had smitten 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.” Pin’chas’ 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 (28-30) also makes a reference 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.” In this latter reference Pin’chas’ act is describes as – (vay)fa’lel (p/f.l.l) – which is interposing, intervening, mediating, as well as judging and pleading. It is from this root that the word “t’fila”, prayer, is derived. Pin’chas’ action seems to have been multi-facetted.
As mentioned, Zimri the son of Salu was one of the leaders of the tribe of Shim’on. The Midianite woman, Cozbi, was likewise 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 like that of last week’s, are also of interest. Thus, Pin’chas appears to be an Egyptian name, having the characteristics so typical of other Egyptian names, such as the name of the town of Tach’pan’ches (Jeremiah 44:1) and that of Tach’peh’nis Egyptian wife of Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:19, 20). But even more interesting is the name of the Midianite princess Cozbi, which is made up of the letters kaf/chaf, zayin, bet/vet, and yod. The first three of those, that is c.z.b/v, constitute the root for the word “cazav” (or, phonetically, “kazav”), which means to “lie, deceive, lying, deception.” Last week we read in 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 getting filled during the winter season. However, in the dry season such riverbeds dry up. 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 in a moment of dark despair to his Creator (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… to destruction and death, which was experienced by 24,000 souls (ref. 25:9) in Yisrael’s camp.
As noted above, Cozbi was a Midianite. Midian was a son of Avraham by his wife K’turah (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” - is 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 a people not totally unaware of the Elohim of Yisrael and of His ways (as illustrated by Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law and even by Bil’am himself) only made the “din” (‘judgment’), pronounced upon them by Yisrael’s Elohim more severe. Hence YHVH says to Moshe: “Vex the Midianites; and you shall strike them; For they are vexers to you, because of the wiles with which they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi the daughter of a ruler of Midian, their sister, who was struck in the day of the plague because of the matter of Peor” (25:17-18). Highlighted in this passage is the cunning stance and frame of mind of the Midianites, illustrated so typically by Cozbi. The order from on High here is “to vex and strike” the Midianites, since they “vexed you.” “Vexing or 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” (24:8 italics added), and next week, in Parashat Matot/Ma’sa’ey a condition will be placed before Yisrael: “And if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be, those whom you let remain of them shall be thorns in your eyes, and as goads in your sides. And they will vex – (ve)tza’ra’ru - you on the land in which you are living” (33:55 italics added). Haman, the Jews’ cruel adversary, is 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” or “jealousy.” The root of “jealousy” 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 “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” - 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, being 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-years 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) which 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 their (the Israelites) number. In chapter 27 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” (vv. 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.”
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). 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 underscores “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)? Regardless if 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 “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 cannot be categorized or classified as a disillusion, contrary to the description 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 from false sources that could not satisfy.
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
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Hebrew Insights into Parashat Balak – Bamidbar (Numbers): 22 – 25: 9
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 shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field… there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me… for they are too mighty for me” (22:4,5), says Balak. In other words, ‘these numerous multitudes are liable to devour my land and my people, just like a hungry ox would 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 as “the eye of the earth.” The imagery of the “eye” (which has many and varied uses), is not utilized in this case for that which sees, but rather for that which is seen. Since the very theme of the Parasha centers on Bil’am’s visions, it only stands to reason 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: “Balaam the son of Beor has said, and the man whose eyes are open has said the words of Elohim, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling, with uncovered eyes” (literal translation, vv.3,4,16). Interestingly, the term for ”he 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 she-ass, when it was only after YHVH “uncovered the eyes of Bila’m” (22:31) that the latter was able to see what his animal had noticed so clearly.
The meaning of the name Bil’am, just like Par’oh’s (ref. Parashat Miketz, Gen. 41 – 43), 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.” “Frequently this word is used as a symbol of destruction and ruin: Lam. 2:2, 5:8; Isa. 3:12; 49:19 etc.” [1] In Psalms 52:4 “devouring words” are “divery bela.” Balak’s intention was just that. He intended for Bil’am’s words to become a source of destruction for Yisrael. The Theological Wordbook Book of the Old Testament goes on to say that “bela” and “am” [making up the name “Bil’ am”] mean “destruction of a people” which accords with his reputation as a charmer and a conjurer.” Albright believes that its origin is from the Amorite “yabil’ammu,” meaning, “the (divine) uncle brings.” [2]
“Come now therefore, I pray, curse [“ara”] me this people… 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 having to do with “cursing.” The most common is “kalel” (k.l.l, kof, lamed, lamed) which stems from “kal” meaning “light” and “easy,” inferring “of no esteem,” with its primal meaning being therefore, by default, “no blessing.” 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, and the 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 you are banned/anathematized from all the other animals and condemned be the soil on your account. 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 is 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 that 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 puts in Bil’am’s mouth: “There is no enchantment 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 “when Balaam saw that it pleased YHVH to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments [“n’cha’shim”], but he set his face toward the wilderness” (24:1).
An interesting encounter forms a prelude to Bil’am’s oracles about Yisrael. As he is about to walk with Balak’s messengers (“mal’achim”), “the angel – “mal’ach” - of YHVH stood in the way as an adversary – “(le)satan” - against him… with his sword drawn in his hand (22:23,32). Juxtaposing “mal’ach” with “satan,” in this particular context may allude to YHVH’s supremacy over all powers and to the control He exerts over them to the point of using them (simultaneously and/or intermittently) for His own purposes, much like using the mouths of a pagan diviner to bless and the mouth of a donkey to talk.
However, the would-be prophet, unlike his she-ass, is unaware of YHVH’s messenger. 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 ass with his staff (22:27). What ensues is the most improbable dialog between a man and his donkey. Thus, Bil’am not only finds himself mishandled physically, he also has to deal with his own 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: “And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I would have slain you, and saved her alive” (22:33). Bil’am forthwith admits to being wrong, and only then is given permission to “go with the men,” while at the same time he is warned to utter only that which YHVH will speak to him (ref. v. 35). In the dialog between Bil’am and his she-ass, 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?” is the question. “Sachen” (s.ch.n, samech, chaf, noon) 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 the she-ass had been in the past, and even more so in this particular case, acting as a tool in the hand of YHVH.
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). “Time” as referred to here is “an occurrence, event, or occasion.” The much more common phrase is “pa’am” (a word we briefly looked at in Parashat Tetzaveh, Ex. 28; 33, where we noted that it means, among other things, “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 advance 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 Parashat Chu’kat we met the spies that Moshe had dispatched (21:32), who were called “m’raglim,” again of the root r.g.l, not to mention “ragal,” which means “slanderer” (e.g. Ps. 15:3), thus taking us back to our protagonist.
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 (24:14-19).
After uttering the curses-turned-blessings, the angry king commands his appointee to flee, adding the following: “I thought to promote you to great honor; but, lo, 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 (perhaps because of the late date ascribed to it). 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 have 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 she-ass 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 1st Corinthians 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 confound the wise… [and] the things which are mighty; … and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence “ (vv. 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 actually begins next week’s 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 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). Thus we are introduced to both Ba’al and Pe’or earlier on; a premonition, as it were, to the tragic words: “And Israel joined himself [va’yitza’med – “clung”] to Ba’al 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”? Indeed the elders of the people were “destroyed before YHVH against the sun” (25:4). Here “destroyed” is from the root y.k.a (yod, kof, ayin), literally meaning to “dislocate or pluck out” from the roots. Thus, the leaders who did not take care to root out sin were now being “rooted out.”
1 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press, Chicago,
1980.
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
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 shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field… there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me… for they are too mighty for me” (22:4,5), says Balak. In other words, ‘these numerous multitudes are liable to devour my land and my people, just like a hungry ox would 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 as “the eye of the earth.” The imagery of the “eye” (which has many and varied uses), is not utilized in this case for that which sees, but rather for that which is seen. Since the very theme of the Parasha centers on Bil’am’s visions, it only stands to reason 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: “Balaam the son of Beor has said, and the man whose eyes are open has said the words of Elohim, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling, with uncovered eyes” (literal translation, vv.3,4,16). Interestingly, the term for ”he 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 she-ass, when it was only after YHVH “uncovered the eyes of Bila’m” (22:31) that the latter was able to see what his animal had noticed so clearly.
The meaning of the name Bil’am, just like Par’oh’s (ref. Parashat Miketz, Gen. 41 – 43), 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.” “Frequently this word is used as a symbol of destruction and ruin: Lam. 2:2, 5:8; Isa. 3:12; 49:19 etc.” [1] In Psalms 52:4 “devouring words” are “divery bela.” Balak’s intention was just that. He intended for Bil’am’s words to become a source of destruction for Yisrael. The Theological Wordbook Book of the Old Testament goes on to say that “bela” and “am” [making up the name “Bil’ am”] mean “destruction of a people” which accords with his reputation as a charmer and a conjurer.” Albright believes that its origin is from the Amorite “yabil’ammu,” meaning, “the (divine) uncle brings.” [2]
“Come now therefore, I pray, curse [“ara”] me this people… 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 having to do with “cursing.” The most common is “kalel” (k.l.l, kof, lamed, lamed) which stems from “kal” meaning “light” and “easy,” inferring “of no esteem,” with its primal meaning being therefore, by default, “no blessing.” 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, and the 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 you are banned/anathematized from all the other animals and condemned be the soil on your account. 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 is 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 that 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 puts in Bil’am’s mouth: “There is no enchantment 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 “when Balaam saw that it pleased YHVH to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments [“n’cha’shim”], but he set his face toward the wilderness” (24:1).
An interesting encounter forms a prelude to Bil’am’s oracles about Yisrael. As he is about to walk with Balak’s messengers (“mal’achim”), “the angel – “mal’ach” - of YHVH stood in the way as an adversary – “(le)satan” - against him… with his sword drawn in his hand (22:23,32). Juxtaposing “mal’ach” with “satan,” in this particular context may allude to YHVH’s supremacy over all powers and to the control He exerts over them to the point of using them (simultaneously and/or intermittently) for His own purposes, much like using the mouths of a pagan diviner to bless and the mouth of a donkey to talk.
However, the would-be prophet, unlike his she-ass, is unaware of YHVH’s messenger. 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 ass with his staff (22:27). What ensues is the most improbable dialog between a man and his donkey. Thus, Bil’am not only finds himself mishandled physically, he also has to deal with his own 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: “And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I would have slain you, and saved her alive” (22:33). Bil’am forthwith admits to being wrong, and only then is given permission to “go with the men,” while at the same time he is warned to utter only that which YHVH will speak to him (ref. v. 35). In the dialog between Bil’am and his she-ass, 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?” is the question. “Sachen” (s.ch.n, samech, chaf, noon) 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 the she-ass had been in the past, and even more so in this particular case, acting as a tool in the hand of YHVH.
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). “Time” as referred to here is “an occurrence, event, or occasion.” The much more common phrase is “pa’am” (a word we briefly looked at in Parashat Tetzaveh, Ex. 28; 33, where we noted that it means, among other things, “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 advance 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 Parashat Chu’kat we met the spies that Moshe had dispatched (21:32), who were called “m’raglim,” again of the root r.g.l, not to mention “ragal,” which means “slanderer” (e.g. Ps. 15:3), thus taking us back to our protagonist.
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 (24:14-19).
After uttering the curses-turned-blessings, the angry king commands his appointee to flee, adding the following: “I thought to promote you to great honor; but, lo, 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 (perhaps because of the late date ascribed to it). 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 have 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 she-ass 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 1st Corinthians 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 confound the wise… [and] the things which are mighty; … and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence “ (vv. 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 actually begins next week’s 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 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). Thus we are introduced to both Ba’al and Pe’or earlier on; a premonition, as it were, to the tragic words: “And Israel joined himself [va’yitza’med – “clung”] to Ba’al 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”? Indeed the elders of the people were “destroyed before YHVH against the sun” (25:4). Here “destroyed” is from the root y.k.a (yod, kof, ayin), literally meaning to “dislocate or pluck out” from the roots. Thus, the leaders who did not take care to root out sin were now being “rooted out.”
1 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press, Chicago,
1980.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)