Akeidat Yitzchak

Sefaria · Jewish Thought > Rishonim · 1,212 sections

_.72.1.6
(1) The counting had two basic objectives. 1) To demonstrate to each individual Jew that he had individual worth, not as Bileam had thought at first "the nation covers the visible part of the earth," i.e. that Jews are important only collectively. The count proved that each Jew is significant individually. Of the gentiles it is said "here the nations are as a drop in the bucket." (Isaiah 40,15) Of Israel it is said "who has been able to count the dust of Jacob?," i.e. even its dust deserves to be counted. (Numbers 23,10) Similarly, stars, constellations, are all individually counted by G'd. "Who counts the number of the stars and calls each one by name." (Psalms 147,3) So, although G'd had been aware of the total number of Israelites, the individual significance of each was demonstrated by treating each Jew like a star in the sky, and by assigning to him his position in the scheme of things. The concept had been familiar to them; but to see the physical realisation of it, brought the idea home more forcefully. Further, there is the element of the shekalim and atonement, as discussed in chapter 52. The second objective was to drive home the point that unlike the gentiles, the survival of the Jewish people would not be restricted to the survival of their species, but that each Jew would possess individual eternal existence, just as each individual star has a permanent existence. Of the stars it is said in Isaiah 40, 26, "not one of them is missing." This provides the rationale why G'd counts each star and names it. It is to establish its permanent purpose in the universe. They are counted collectively, yet they possess individual differences in quality. Compare our remarks about the letter vav linking the enumeration of the offerings of the princes at the time the tabernacle was dedicated. (chapter 58) The need to establish who belonged to which family, (not necessary on the occasion of the first count) was to remove all doubt about the purity of anyone's ancestry. As the Talmud says in Yevamot 42, "the shechinah cannot be present unless both the origin of the zera, seed, and the permissible family relationship is firmly established." The Talmud in Kiddushin 70, expresses the same thought somewhat differently. "The tribes of G'd are testimony for Israel." (Psalms 122,4) The prince, the leader of the tribe, is to the tribe what the sign of the zodiac is to each star in its group. The Levites were not counted yet, since also the last time they had not been counted at the same time as the other tribes. On that occasion, when the levy of the half shekel represented an act of atonement for the sin of the golden calf, the Levites who had not participated in that sin, had not needed to atone for their part. The Levites would camp around the tabernacle. When the right kavanah, intent, and concentration existed, namely that the shechinah in the tabernacle was the model towards which one should strive to orient one's life, then no harm , no ketzeph would befall the viewers. (2) We believe that the front of the encampment faced East, the West being in the rear. North and South were left and right respectively. This would make the camp of Yehudah the most important, facing East. East is not to be understood as a point, but rather as a solid front. The whole camp is to be considered a square, each of whose sides represents one of the compass directions mentioned. In physics, the primary direction, length is viewed as "senior"; the second dimension "width" is viewed as junior." Yehudah and Ephrayim being in the East and West positions are both "length" positions, whereas North and South are understood to be "junior," i.e. "width" positions. We then have no problem with the sons of the lesser wives occupying positions superior to those of the sons of the major wives of Jacob. The fact that when the trumpet blasts signalling the breaking up of camp is mentioned, only two directions are named, supports our theory that the two dimensional lines are meant when the order of the importance of the encampment around the flags is described. (Numbers 10, 6-7) The pictures on the flags correspond to the four facets seen by the prophet Ezekiel in his famous vision of the merkavah, Divine entourage. (Ezekiel chapter 1) (3) The fact that Jacob had already tried to reverse the principle of the sanctity of the "firstborn" is true, but the legitimacy of this was not really confirmed until the plague of "killing the firstborn." The legislation stemming from this reversal was not enacted until after the episode of the golden calf, which represented a wholesale failure on the part of the Jewish firstborn. Basically, while the firstborn performed priestly functions, he was allowed a dual role, both the mundane and the spiritual function. Since the failure of that system, the Levites who have supplanted the firstborn, have primarily religious duties, and are relieved of the mundane task of having to work for a living. (4) Covering the holy ark in a cover made of blue wool, indicates its prime importance, since the path to G'd leads via the tablets and the Torah that rest inside the holy ark. techeylet, skyblue, symbolises the Heavens and the throne of G'ds glory. The other vessels were also covered, but represented a path to G'd that is somewhat less direct, more "diluted." Therefore, there are different materials and colours for the covers of those vessels. The table also had a blue wool cover, but the blue was only on the outside, not as in the case of the cover for the ark, which was of blue wool both inside and out. The balance of the holy vessels had red covers, representing the malchut, majesty aspect of G'd. The menorah, candelabra had a cover that was blue wool on the inside, but tachash, hide, on the outside. The ark was covered more than the other vessels, since it had to be transported on the shoulders of the Kehatites. They were not, however, permitted to touch the ark itself. (5) The journeys of the Israelites described in Parshat Behalotcha in such agonising detail, teach that contrary to prevailing opinion, shared by Jews who had just left a country that based its philosophy on astrology and astronomy, the timetable of these journeys was determined only by G'd, not by astrological data. The Jewish people did not know from one day to the next if they were going to break camp. Calendar analysis, propitious times for journeys were all factors which were completely ignored when it came to decisions when and in which direction they would move. The Torah therefore emphasizes their obedience. "By the mouth of G'd they would journey," they observed G'ds instructions meticulously. (6) Since motion in a certain direction is conceived of as approaching some goal, and since by the nature of things, G'd, being perfect, He does not need to move at all, Moses proclaimed at each departure and arrival that the purpose of the move was for G'ds enemies to take heed and for Israel to return to constructive rest.
_.72.1.7
The many flags that the Jews displayed in the desert will be replaced in messianic times by a single flag symbolising "One nation, One G'd." (compare Isaiah 11, 12-13) Ephrayim, though the "senior," whose encampment in the desert was behind the tabernacle, and who harboured resentment of that fact, will no longer have cause for such resentment. A single flag will serve the entire nation alike. There will no longer be a need to have visible symbols to help concentrate on the presence of G'd, His hashgachah, etc. Rivalry between various parts of the nation, i.e. Yehudah and Ephrayim will cease at that time.
_.73.1.2
"When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit"
_.73.1.3
The Talmud Sotah 2, asks "Why is the portion about the Nazirite written in the Torah adjoining that of the Sotah, the woman suspected of infidelity?" Answer: "To teach that if one sees a Sotah in her state of disgrace, one should abstain from drinking wine."
_.73.1.4
Our sages tell us in Sotah 3, that man does not sin unless he has temporarily taken leave of his senses. They quote Numbers 12, 11, in support of this. Aaron says to Moses "because of our foolishness we have sinned." If this is indeed so, our sages seem to agree with Socrates who believed that man's intellect is apt to arrive at true, valid conclusions. We must ask that if sin is the result of a functional disability of the mind, how can a person be held responsible for such sin? The dilemma can be resolved in the following manner. We need to understand that there are three categories of people. The first category is composed of people in whom the intellect is predominant, and governs practically all their activities so that sin is almost inconceivable. The second group comprises people who are so enslaved to their physical urges, that their intellect is for all practical purposes paralysed. The third group comprises the vast majority of people, who face an ongoing confrontation between their physical urges, yetzer hara, and their intellect, i.e. yetzer tov. All the people belonging to this latter group suffer from the fact that gratification of one's urges is immediate or almost immediate. On the other hand, the price to be paid for having gratified one's urges is usually some time in the future, and therefore not of immediate concern. The reward for acting in accordance with the dictates of the yetzer tov, i.e. the dictates of one's intellect, may be quite some time away. For that reason, such an eventual reward may not play a decisive role when a decision is made between conflicting choices available. The reason that G'd has arranged matters in such a way is due to the fact that otherwise bechirah, free choice would not be a really viable option. In order to demonstrate that it does not pay to give in to physical passion when it leads to the performance of immoral acts, we have the example of sotah.
_.73.1.5
Since most physical passions beset young people whose blood is hot, the portion dealing with the Nazirite follows, to tell us how to combat excessive physical urges. Vows of abstinence can be a powerful tool against such excessive urges. The Talmud in Baba Metzia 5, states, that though a man may be suspected of dishonesty in matters concerning money, he can be believed in matters concerning an oath. This shows that a vow reinforces a weak person's determination to resist urges that bid him to act sinfully
_.73.1.6
Problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why was the subject of me-ilah, trespass against temple treasury property, divided between this Parshah and Leviticus 5, 15-16? 2) The language employed by the Torah about the doubts concerning the wife's infidelity, is strange. After all, she is to drink the waters that contain either the seeds of her destruction, or prove beneficial when her status is in doubt, not when her status does not seem to be in doubt? Rashi's explanation certainly does not follow the plain meaning of the text, nor does it deal with apparently superfluous statements. 3) When discussing the Nazir, the statement in verse four "from anything....he must not eat," covers all details. Why then list the details? Why is the sentence "all the days of his vow" repeated three times?
_.73.1.7
(1) The main reason for repeating the me-ilah legislation and adding new details is to impress on us the urgency of mobilising all our forces and making every effort not to be defeated in the ongoing struggle against the yetzer hara. The offerings, the confession etc. are all weapons given to us by the Torah for that fight. (2) The apparent repetition of the situation in verse fourteen, and again in verses twenty nine and thirty, are not repetitions at all. If the jealousy of the husband is justified, it will lead to the sotah being punished. If, as in verse thirty, we deal with jealousy of the husband only, the procedure prescribed in the Torah must be applied in order to exonerate the wife. Either way, clarification of the truth is an end in itself. The sotah may have sinned for a variety of reasons. A) Sexual urge. B) To affront G'd, the lawgiver. C) Because she does not believe that there is a G'd, a lawgiver. In the first situation, her punishment is simple. She is divorced, and loses her ketuvah, financial settlement. In the second case, the words u-ma-alah bashem, she has trespassed against the Lord applies, i.e. she has sinned intentionally; she deserves a much greater penalty. If she had only intended to sin against her husband, she will be afraid to drink the waters, take the oath etc., but will rather confess. If, on the other hand, she had meant to offend G'd, then she becomes the victim of two ke-na-ot , jealousies, that of her husband and that of G'd. Her death then will surely be the result. In that event, her husband will be shown to have been innocent of sin. Since this nation is deemed worthy of having the Divine Presence in its midst, Divine assistance is invoked to eliminate those whose conduct make the continued presence of the shechinah in our midst impossible.
_.73.1.8
"Shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the LORD"
_.73.1.9
(3) The Nazir legislation addresses itself to the often debilitating effect of wine or strong alcoholic drink. The repeated references to various grape products correspond to the various ways in which drunkenness affects man. Most instances in the Torah in which drinking is discussed, refer also to the undesirable after effects of drinking wine. (Genesis 9,21, 43,34, the story of Lot and his daughters) We have numerous other examples in the books of the prophets. 1) The first effect of drunkenness usually is a loosening of inhibitions. A person's behaviour becomes unrestrained, lawless. 2) A second effect is that when the lawmaker is drunk, he may legislate unfair laws while under the influence of strong drink. The misunderstanding of the teachings ascribed to Tzaddok and Bayssus are examples of heresy that may have been due to their having studied Torah while under the influence of wine. (Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 5) Judges must not sit in Court after having drunk wine. This is alluded to in the words mishrat anavim a liquid in which grapes had been soaking. The Talmud illustrated this by the example of a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine. The Torah criticises the elders who, while having a vision of G'd, ate and drank at the same time. (Exodus 24,11) They are described as like people who while having an audience with the king, bite into their bread. (Exodus Rabbah 15) The fourth and worst result of drunkenness is the loss of one's religious faith. The allusion in our text is the reference to "either fresh or dried grapes." (6,3) This refers to the harbouring of as yet unripe thoughts. The former are the contemplating of sinful conduct, already at the surface of consciousness, awaiting only execution, whereas the "dried grapes" refer to those ideas that will need to incubate somewhat longer before being translated into deeds. Generally, these problems occur with advancing age, and the Torah lists them in corresponding order. Young people react negatively to any kind of restrictions imposed on them. Once they have become a little older, they realise the need for an ordered lifestyle, but they tend to draw their inspiration only from their own personal experiences. Still later in life, they get around to study other people's wisdom and experience, and they even study some of the proper sources, but not necessarily with a clear head. Finally, when facing death, and an accounting for the way they have lived their lives, they have to confront what is true faith and what is not. In order to distinguish between these different periods of their lives, the Torah each time commences with the words "all the days," to indicate that successive portions of one's life account for changing attitudes. The Torah tells the Nazir that the discipline imposed on his lifestyle by not touching grape products, does not by itself guarantee progress towards his objective, but that he must not use a razor or shears to remove his hair. The lesson is that no individual is free to decide arbitrarily by himself what disciplines to impose upon himself. If the Nazir is to avoid ritual impurity during the currency of his vow of abstinence, this is to enable him to receive the full benefit of Torah study during that period. If his mind is to concentrate on matters spiritual, success can be guaranteed only when his body remains in a state of purity. Man's crowning achievement is the attainment of serenity based on his complete and unshakable faith in the goodness of his Creator, and his acceptance of whatever fate seems to have in store for him. Many great men, though guilty of individual acts of sinful behaviour, were saved from being entrapped by sin due to their all embracing faith in G'd and His Torah. A splendid example is Samson, whose dealings with Delilah, though sinful, did not turn him into a heretic or otherwise undisciplined person. Until Samson revealed that his strength lay in the hair of his head, at Delilah's fourth attempt, and that it represented spiritual powers and faith, he had been able to cope with all of Satan's (read Delilah's) efforts to drag him down. Once he desecrated the focus of his purity, he fell victim to the machinations inspired by Satan. (The Talmud suggests that the very name DELILAH means "weakening," watering down his strength) Shimon the Just, who is reported to have eaten only one Nazirite offering in his long career as High Priest, tells of an incident which he describes as a legitimate reason for adoption of the Nazarite's vows. (Nedarim 9) From his description it is clear that the reason he did not eat from other such sacrifices is not that none were at hand, but that he considered any other person in his lifetime who had taken upon himself Nazirite vows as having been frivolous.
_.74.1.2
"Thus you shall bless!"
_.74.1.3
Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Nasso 12, quotes Rabbi Yehudah ben Shimon as saying that when Moses entered the tabernacle upon its completion, he heard a beautiful voice. This voice (G'ds) said to Moses: "in the past there has been some hostility between Me and My children, some friction between Me and My children. Now that the tabernacle has been established, there is love between My children and Me, there is peace between My children and Me." Rabbi Joshua said that the book of Psalms seems unnecessary, since all the blessings are contained in this short portion when it states "G'd will raise His countenance towards you and grant you peace."
_.74.1.4
It is commonly supposed that "peace" is the restoration of harmony between parties that have been at odds with one another. People who conceive of "peace" as being merely that, deprive the concept of much of its value. If "peace" does nothing more than restore a balance where there had previously been an imbalance, it can hardly be considered a blessing. Shame is not a virtue, since it presupposes that an unworthy act had been committed which the perpetrator is now ashamed of. Actually, peace is more like the silver thread that joins two people or two entities combining them into a unified whole. Why is one of the names of G'd shalom, peace? Because He ties together worlds, keeps them united and preserves their appearance and format. (Midrash Chazit chapter 1) When we read in Samuel II 11,7, "David enquired after the "peace" of Yoav, the "peace" of the people, and the "peace" of the "war," there is certainly no reference intended to the cessation of the war. This war was still very much in progress. David merely asked Uriah whether these people or affairs were all well and proceeding according to plan. The word "peace" in that context describes that there was a common bond between the people or the animals described. A city of people who do not quarrel with one another, who tolerate each other's idiosyncrasies, cannot be said to be at peace with each other as long as they do not share a common purpose or goal. Furthermore, when there is no bond joining people, there is a degree of separateness which may eventually lead to disintegration, decay etc. Isaiah 45,7, has this in mind when he contrasts "fashions light, or creates darkness, makes peace or creates evil, I the Lord do all these." The relationship of ra, evil, to shalom, peace, is like the relationship between darkness and light. Peace, i.e harmony, is the fruitful interaction of the various energies of different bodies, elements. It was Aaron's special talent to have understood that it is the task of a leader to weave that thread, the fabric that binds people to one another, and thus help them to establish harmony by desiring for them what one desires for oneself. Moses, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the intellectual approach. He believed that without the benefit of Torah, whatever man does is of insufficient value to prolong our days on this earth. Without Torah, no degree of harmony can be achieved that would be capable of overcoming the dichotomy due to the fact that this physical universe has been made up of four distinctly different elements. The Talmud Shabbat 89, illustrates this line of thinking when it describes Moses' arrival on Mount Sinai before he had received the Torah. Moses is described as finding G'd "tying crowns to the letters." G'd asks him: "Moses, is there no "peace" in your city?" (are you people not in the habit of extending greetings of "peace be with you" where you come from?) Moses replies: "how can a slave contribute to the "peace"' of his Master?" G'd replies: "at any rate you should have assisted Me." Immediately, Moses said "now let the strength of the Lord become great as You have said." The lesson contained in that Midrash is, that even without the benefit of Torah, man's effort to weave the thread of togetherness, i.e. civilisation, is sufficient to improve his lot down here on earth. This is shalom; peace. When Hillel advised people to emulate the virtue of Aaron, namely to strive for peace, he was quite correct, inasmuch as this is a most positive character trait. Similarly, when Hillel said "do not separate yourself from the community," he was merely describing the other side of the coin. Tzibbur, community, after all, is what has been united by shalom, peace. The holiness of G'd depends on the community. Venikdashti betoch beney Yisrael, I will be sanctified within the community of Israel. When the community sins, one must abandon it. (Jeremiah 9,1) When only an individual sins, the community must see to it that the individual repents, or they must place him outside the tzibbur, into cherem quarantine. Since peace therefore is of vital importance to the existence of the community, it is clear that precisely at the time the tabernacle was put into service, G'd would pronounce the blessing of peace, as we have noted in our opening Midrash.
_.74.1.5
Some problems in the text of our Parshah.
_.74.1.6
1) Since all blessings emanate from G'd, what difference does it make that the priest transmits it? Does G'd need the priests' help?
_.74.1.7
2) Why does G'd not first give the command to bless, and then the formula, instead of vice versa?
_.74.1.8
3) What is the meaning of "they will place My name on the children of Israel?"
_.74.1.9
(1,2,3) Just as man is not allowed to enjoy nature's blessings without first reciting an appropriate benediction acknowledging G'd as the source, so the priests remind people of that fact when they say "may the Lord bless you." Constant reminders that G'd is the source of all blessings and well being are important. This too is the purpose of "they will place My name on the children of Israel and I will bless them." The priests' function is to keep Israel aware of this cardinal fact. The function of the priest in relation to G'd, is parallel to the aggadah about Moses assisting G'd in His task of tying the crowns to the letters of the Torah, that we mentioned earlier. The first part of the priests' blessing is essentially material in nature. The additional word "and may He preserve you," is the difference between human and Divine blessings. The former, however generous in nature, does not carry with it the guarantee that it will endure. G'ds blessings however, includes the blessing that it will endure. The second blessing revolves essentially around spiritual matters, the important feature being that the attitude of others towards you will be positive, generous, acknowledge your worth. The third section, "Peace," is relatively the most important of the blessings, as documented by many of the sayings of our sages. They teach that even in death, shalom, peace, is an indispensable attribute. "You will join your fathers in peace." (Genesis 15, 15) See also Jeremiah 34, 4, concerning the death of king Tzidkiyahu. We find a somewhat puzzling statement by Rabbi Eleazar Hakappor, who is quoted as saying "peace is great because even if Israel worships idols, as long as they have harmony, Satan does not touch them.” He bases himself on the verse in Hoseah 4, 17, "as long as the idol worshipping Ephrayim live in unity, leave them alone;" but it continues in chapter 10, 2, "when their heart is divided, now they will receive their punishment." How strange that those who destroy the fabric that binds them to their Creator by worshipping idols, should not also burst the fabric of harmony, peace? But the lesson is that the merit of maintaining harmony gives even sinners an extension before G'ds justice is executed. The three blessings then are 1) Provision of material needs including a healthy body. 2) Provision of the needs of the spirit and soul. 3) Assistance in establishing harmony between man and his Maker, which is true harmony. The tabernacle represents the totality of this world, a microcosm. The beriach hatichon, the central bolt joining all forty eight boards comprising the walls, are the thread shalom, i.e. "peace" that bonds everything together in harmony. When the Midrash says that when G'd created the world, He desired a dwelling down here, just as He has in the Heavens, the meaning is none other than that He wished to supervise and assist man's activities, just as He supervises all that goes on in Heaven. To that end, He endowed the world with blessings. Adam, unfortunately forfeited that relationship through his sin, and until the arrival of Abraham on the stage of history, the broken thread did not begin to mend. Finally, at the completion of the tabernacle, this thread had been fully restored. This is the reason the Torah records the blessings at this juncture. For this reason also, the Midrash talks about Moses hearing three voices. He called the first voice hadar, to paraprase material well being. He called the second voice naeh, to parapharase spiritual and mental well being. The third voice he called meshubach, "choice," since it is the crowning achievement of all. Moses was anxious to have G'ds message spelled out. G'd obliged, saying "I speak shalom, I harbour no ill feelings against My children." (Psalms 85,9.) Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says that there is no need at all to quote a verse from the book of Psalms, since the verse in the Torah is perfectly adequate. Since the Torah tells us about blessings, and continues with the line "it was the day the tabernacle had been completed," the word va-yehee, it was, always refers to the reestablishment of a situation that had existed at one time, but had been interrupted.
_.75.1.1
"And the people were as murmurers" etc.
_.75.1.2
The Talmud in Menachot 53, states: "may the good one come and receive that which is good, from the Good One, on behalf of the good ones." May the good one come, i.e. Moses, of whom it is written "she saw him that he was good." (Exodus 2,2) "And receive that which is good," i.e. the Torah of which it is written "for it is a good instruction that I have given you" (Proverbs 4,2) "From the Good One" i.e the Almighty, of whom it is said "The Lord is good to all." (Psalms 145,9) "On behalf of the good ones"-i.e. Israel, concerning whom scripture states "do good O Lord, to the good ones and to those whose heart is upright!" (Psalms 125,4)
_.75.1.3
The existence of ideal conditions is a prerequisite if a craftsman is to perform his art successfully.
_.75.1.4
Similarly, in matters of the spirit, success can only be guaranteed when all three major conditions for success have been fulfilled In material matters the ingredients that ensure success are: a) availability of the finest raw materials, b) excellent tools, c) an outstanding craftsman. Even a Betzalel could only function at his best when he had at his disposal the finest materials, the best weaving and embroidery equipment. Isaiah 28, 24-29, further illustrates our point, showing that even simple labours such as ploughing and threshing, require more than brute force or muscle in order to be performed successfully. The critical ingredient is "if he has absorbed the lesson taught him by His G'd." (verse 26) Sometimes even undertakings commenced at the behest of G'd, will appear to have counterproductive results, especially so when the approach adopted seems illogical. Still, even in such cases, success is the ultimate result. When it does materialize, the impact is longer lasting and far more dramatic. Moses' first interview at the Court of Pharaoh certainly seemed to contain all the ingredients of the failure of a mission, producing as it did, harsh counter measures by Paraoh. (Exodus 5,6-23) The appointment of David as future king of Israel and its Saviour, (Samuel I chapter 16 and onwards) seemed to lead to early failure. Samuel had to take the most unlikely tool when he commenced the mission, a young calf. The insignificant waters of the river Jordan were selected to cure the Syrian general Naaman of his skin disease. (Kings II 5, 1-18) On the other hand, we find the Jews who went to collect manna on the Sabbath, or who tried to preserve it from one day to the next, -perfectly reasonable sounding procedures-, fail, because they did not heed the lesson quoted from Isaiah earlier. We also find that Pharaoh's magicians failed to cope with the plagues which they considered themselves capable and trained to deal with. The meaning of our opening Midrash then is clear. "May the right craftsman Moses, come and receive the right tools, Torah, from the only One who can supply these tools, G'd, on behalf of Israel." The description of Israel as "the good ones," has a dual meaning. A) There will always be found some good people in Israel, people whose merit will suffice to insure the nation's survival, people such as the prophets whose very existence has made our people unparalleled among all the nations since Abraham. Psalms 87, 5-6, clearly reflects this sentiment. The psalmist extols virtuous individuals all of whom regard Zion as their spiritual birthplace. B) The Jewish people, though not always measuring up to their task individually, deserve the appellation "the good ones, in comparison to other nations. When Solomon talks about "the lily amongst the thorns,” in Song of Songs, 2,2, he refers to this goodness of Israel relative to other nations. Even though a lily is not a fruit bearing plant, the master of the parables could certainly have selected a different plant to compare Israel to, had he wanted to. The lily does not even provide shade for the weary traveller, but only delights by its fragrance and beautiful appearance. It is found amongst thorns, which do not please the eye or the sense of smell, and which actually cause pain to those who come in contact with them. Similarly, the Jewish people even when not at their best, stand out amongst the nations. For this reason the sages instituted the benediction "You have chosen us," in our liturgy. We will discuss later in this chapter how the wholesale death of Israelites which emanated from the "Good One" at kivrot hata-avot, when Israel became the victim of uncontrolled greed, could have happened.
_.75.1.5
Some problems tin the text of our Parshah. 1) When the Torah writes (Numbers 11, 1) "The people were as if complaining, wicked in the eyes of the Lord," what was it that G'd had heard? Why is it not spelled out? When the Jewish people are described as "crying again" in verse four, when was the first time they had cried? 2) How could the people say "who will feed me meat?," when they had enjoyed a regular diet of fowl, quail, since the second month they had been in the desert? How could Moses therefore appear to question G'ds ability to provide meat for the whole nation? 3) Why did Moses not relay the people's request to G'd as had been his custom? 4) If Moses simply wanted to reduce the burden of leadership from himself, why did the elders have to be assembled prior to the provision of meat? 5) The Torah seems extraordinarily long winded when describing how long the meat supply would last, i.e. "not one day, not two days etc. etc.." Why? 6) Moses' question "are You going to provide meat for six hundred thousand foot soldiers that I find myself amongst," seems peculiar? 7) Why did G'd supply this meat?
_.75.1.6
(1) The people were "as if complaining," refers to a trumped up charge, one not voiced openly. They were ashamed to voice their real complaint, and instead they voiced some diversionary complaint. Their real complaint, of course, had reached the ears of G'd who is familiar with what goes on in people's hearts. For this reason, G'd says later "you have wept in the earshot of G'd, who will feed us meat?" G'd had heard and was angry. At the time Abraham had weighed the money to Ephron for the burial ground he was purchasing for Sarah, he had also "heard" Ephron's unspoken words, not only the flattering offer of a gift. Despite Moses' prayer, which had stopped the fire consuming the people at tav-eyrah, the people sinned again for an entirely unprovoked reason. The assafsuff, the fringe elements, did not lust after meat. They induced in themselves lust after meat, a most despicable trait. Aristotele in chapter 9 of his book of ethics deals with this trait. When a person sees someone else enjoying something that he himself neither feels the lack of, nor the need for, he desires to be possessed of the urge to enjoy the same thing. If one observes a thirsty person slake his thirst with ice cold water, then such a person wishes to become thirsty in order to be able to quench his thirst. This is the basest way of enslaving oneself to physical greed and passions. Such people cannot even claim in defence of their behaviour that an outsider tempted them as Eve had done in Genesis 3,13. When the rest of the people observed the lust of the assafsuf, they wept again as they had done previously. This time however, they articulated their lust for meat. What displeased G'd most, was, that they had chosen to be free from moral imperatives (Torah) over freedom from enslavement to their physical urges. In Egypt, while they had been enslaved physically, Torah legislation had not yet regulated their freedom to partake of all the physical gratifications that presented themselves. Their food intake, sex life etc. had not yet become subject to Torah law and guidance. The fact that they now disdained the very thing that would lift them to the level of being truly free persons, particularly angered G'd. Whenever the Torah reports Israel as displaying a preference for Egypt, i.e. "we were better off in Egypt," the reference is to the exchange of physical freedom for the sacrifice of moral licentiousness. (see comment of Sifri on the word chinam, i.e. free from the yoke of the mitzvot,) The right to eat any fish without examining if such fish was equipped with fins and scales, was more important to them than to harbour the shechinah, Presence of G'd in their midst. After all, that shechinah, guided their destiny. (2+3) By their own admission,they had never eaten meat to their satisfaction; they only talk about sitting close to other people's fleshpots. But, even the memory of their erstwhile proximity to meat, was preferable to the availability of man, Heavenly food. At Refidim, when they did get quail, apparently it had not been to satisfy their bellies, since the fowl had not been described as performing that function. (as distinct from the "bread" which is described as lasovah, to satisfy. Exodus 16,8) Their complaint that they had nothing to look at but the man, underlined that they felt dependent daily on its re-appearance. The Torah says "who feeds you manna in the desert to keep you afflicted, unsatisfied, to test you, so that in the end you will be well off." (Deut. 8,17) G'd did not want Israel to gorge themselves on food, not even on man. When our sages in Yuma 74, tell us that blind people are never satisfied after having eaten, the reason is that they did not see the food. This places Israel's complaint into focus. "The only thing we can see is the manna." In other words, the only thing that they get their fill of is the manna. Abaye, in the same discussion in the Talmud, suggests that banquets should not be held at night, as one cannot enjoy one's food in the dark. Since the people had expressed themselves in a derogatory fashion about the manna, its appearance, its feel, etc.,the Torah proceeds to give us an objective report about its properties. In Proverbs 16,17, Solomon writes "better a dish of vegetables that is served and eaten with love, than a fatted ox which is served and eaten with hatred." He illustrates the attitude of the people towards the most delectable of dishes, handpicked by G'd Himself. The Torah's description of the layer of dew upon which the manna descended nightly, proves that the people's state of mind was not due to an inherent shortcoming of the manna.
_.75.1.7
Moses heard the people cry in family groups, it was bad in his eyes." Moses had only seen the outer manifestations of the people's complaints. He did not realise that the word "families" mentioned here, alluded to the deeper cause of the Israelites' dissatisfaction, namely the laws of purity forbidding various incestuous relationships. Moses therefore thought that it was the manna itself which was the cause of their dissatisfaction. The word ra, needs to be understood as tzorat ayin, envy, jealousy. The Torah commands that when the year of release approaches shemittah, overdue loans must be "released," i.e. forgiven. Prior to that, loans should not be refused out of fear that the debtor would be tardy in repayment in order to take advantage of the "release" mechanism. (Deut. 15, 9-10) According to the Sifri, Moses, in this instance worried less about G'ds honour. He was concerned that the people's request should not be granted, since it was unjustified. This is the reverse of what had happened at the time of the golden calf, when it had been Moses trying to convince G'd that it was not worth getting angry about. (Exodus 32, 11) For that reason, Moses did not even relay the people's request to G'd. Moses saw himself as unfit to provide satisfactory leadership, therefore he asked for help from G'd in the form of a management team. Failing this, he asked to be relieved through death, so that he would not have to witness the failure of his efforts to date. Moses listed three possible causes that can commit a man to provide for others. 1) Begetting a human being. This makes the one who begets responsible for his offspring's continued life and well being. 2) The natural instinct to raise one's young, something observed even in the animal kingdom. 3) Freely assumed obligations such as marriage, purchase of slaves etc. Moses underlines that in the case of the Jewish people, he has no responsibility for them arising from any of the causes listed. (compare chapter 11, verse 12) Foreseeing his own ultimate death as being due to frustration, he asks to be released before that happens, in the event G'd does not agree to appoint assistants for him. Verse 15, i.e. horgeyni na harog, "kill me dead," means "if You kill me, You will be killing someone who is already dead. A further argument used by Moses was that a leader who has at his disposal the means to satisfy his people's request, does have some responsibility in the matter. Since he, Moses, was however, in no position to provide the meat asked for, he felt no obligation in the matter. (4) G'd was displeased by Moses' request, although He acceded to it. By not providing additional ruach, spiritual power, but merely redistributing it amongst Moses and the seventy elders, i.e. "I will delegate from the spirit which is upon you" (verse 17), He demonstrated that He did not feel that the task allotted to Moses had been beyond his capacity. (6) Moses seemed unconcerned about G'ds reputation in the matter, concentrating on his own role in providing the meat, not worrying about the damage to G'ds image in the eyes of the people as an inadequate provider. G'd wished to show that even henceforth with the seventy elders, the combined leadership of the people would not be able to draw on an enlarged reservoir of spiritual resources.
_.75.1.8
(7)(3) The Midrash illustrates Moses' quest for relief by using the parable of an orchard whose owner had hired a general manager. During the term of the contract, said manager requests additional staff from the owner. The owner, while acceding to the request, refuses to pay the additional staff out of his own pocket, but deducts the wages for the additional staff from the salary of the general manager. The fact that G'd provided assistants indicates that basically, G'd was in agreement with Moses' request. Regarding the matter of the meat however, G'd seems to disagree with Moses, since He does provide it, even though Moses had not even relayed the people's demand. G'd considered it vital that the people not continue to view their situation as inferior to what their situation had been while they had still been in Egypt. For that reason, He provided such an enormous amount of meat. The fact that the people continued gorging themselves on the meat even while they had observed many dying as a result of their meat intake on the very first day already, seems to prove that they were thoroughly dissatisfied with their present situation, when compared to their former situation in Egypt. Had their real concern been the meat, their desire would have petered out as soon as they saw people die from eating meat. It was exactly these people who died for their unpardonable sin. The revulsion the people would ultimately feel for that meat, is punishment fitting the crime. (chapter 11, 20) They who had pretended that it was the meat they wanted, whereas in fact it was the moral strictures of Torah law that irked them, would see the object of their professed desire turn into something that revolted them. In this manner G'ds justice was displayed, since He did not have to devise a means to punish them, seeing their punishment was the natural result of being allowed to gratify their desires. The name kivrot hata-avah, given to that place does not refer to the original desire, but to the ultimate greed which raged until it had burned itself out, i.e. "buried itself." Ta-avah, greed, lust, is self consuming. This is the lesson taught in this chapter. Even the rationalisation that those who did not die from the meat were apparently immune to it, teaches volumes about the grip the ta-avah, had on the people. "Now you will see if indeed My word is dear to you or not." (11,23) The elders I have asked you to select, will indeed help you carry the burden. G'd implies that Moses had been somewhat hasty in rejecting the role of sole leadership of the people. Even at this time, when some of the worst traits of the Jewish people have been publicly displayed, it was easy to find seventy elders capable of providing leadership. Among them were such humble prophets as Eldod and Meydod who, though of the seventy two selected for potential leadership, drew blanks in the lottery that determined which seventy men were to fill these positions. Since they had been selected for potential leadership roles, their prophetic powers were not now curtailed. Joshua thought it strange that they could use their gift outside the holy tabernacle, just anywhere within the confines of the encampment. Moses, in his reply, expressed the wish that all of Israel would receive the gift of prophecy directly from Heaven, not like the seventy who had received their inspiration through him, since in the final analysis all of the people, being Moses' students had received their inspiration through him. From here we learn the source of the dictum in the Talmud that though most other things are the subject of envy and jealousy, a father or teacher is not jealous of his respective sons or pupils. (Sanhedrin 105) (5) Upon the seventy elders having been selected, G'd supplied the promised meat, the people not heeding the warning that it would be zarah, for them, i.e. loathsome. Otherwise, they would not have eaten from it in the manner described. Spending forty eight consecutive hours collecting fowl, (verse 32) shows us what a burning desire for meat there must have been. G'd demonstrated then that granting the people their own desire in abundance, led to tragic results, whereas nothing that G'd had provided for them, had ever proved harmful to them.
_.76.1.2
"Moses was the most humble person."
_.76.1.3
Midrash Rabbah Numbers 19, writes "the man Moses was more humble than any other human being." (Numbers 12,2) Man's wisdom illuminates his face. (Kohelet 8,1) Rabbi Yudan said: "the power of the prophet is great, for he can relate the grandeur of the Heavenly spheres to the form bound human being, as is written in Daniel 8,16, "I heard the voice of "Adam" when at the river Ulay." Rabbi Yehudah son of Seymon said this is proved from the verse "on the likeness of a Heavenly throne, a vision like "Adam" was upon it."(Ezekiel 1,26)
_.76.1.4
Just as a prophet is in a class distinct from ordinary people, so Moses was in a class distinct from other prophets. ...
_.76.1.5
As discussed in chapter ten, man's cognitive powers are twofold. Perception is possible by means of one's intellect, or by means of one's senses. Perception by intellect is divided into two categories. A) Things or beings that cannot be other than they are. B) Things or beings which are subject to change. We will call the perception of the first type the ability to "know," whereas we will call the perception of the second type, the ability to "calculate." There is a constant relationship between him who endeavours to know, and between the object that is being defined. If the object of one's perception undergoes a fundamental change, the faculty enabling us to perceive such object also undergoes some transformation. We observe a parallel phenomenon concerning perception with our senses. The sense of sight, vision, is affected by the object being perceived. Yet that same sense of sight remains completely unaffected by objects that are perceived merely by the sense of touch, for instance. Should an object that had been perceived as incapable of undergoing change be found to have changed nonetheless, the powers of perception applied to it will no longer be speculative reason, but practical reason. To determine the common denominator between man and bird for instance, we employ "wit," speculative reason. It tells us that both species are living entities, react to stimuli, breathe and move. To determine the difference between man and bird, we employ "sagacity," practical reason. The latter tells us of the ability of the birds to fly, their having wings etc. On the other hand, it tells us that man has the power of speech, the ability to express thoughts coherently etc. At any rate, we employ two branches of what may also be described as "soul power," when we engage in these perceptions. The reason "sagacity" is also known as "practical reason" is, that without it, almost no voluntary activity is possible. Being able to understand and analyse phenomena does not by itself lead to action. Therefore, the practical “reason” is an essential part of the cognitive process. Since speculative reason concerns itself with phenomena that are abstract, or at any rate immutable, everlasting, it too is constant. Practical reason, since it concerns itself with transient phenomena, is itself transient in nature. When departing this life and becoming a purely spiritual being, we will no longer possess this practical reason, since in the world of abstract beings there is nothing it could be applied to. This is in line with the statement in the Talmud that "the departed is aware of his own pain, but not of the pain of others." (Rosh Hashanah 18) Since all bodies die, he is aware of his own demise, since apart from this fact, each person's fate varies, he is unaware of other facts which would require practical reason in order to be appreciated. The term "life" is a constant, even though each individual living creature is bound to die at some point or other. Since the prophet perceives beings that cannot be perceived by other human beings with his soul, it follows that his soul's faculties are somewhat different from other people's faculties in this respect. According to Aristotele, the relationship between pure speculative reason and pure practical reason is similar to the relationship between Divine intellect and human intellect respectively. When G'd, at the time of creation, said that man was to be made in His image, He meant man in his ideal state. Picture for yourself the spiritual state of the people of Israel at the time they received the ten commandments at Mount Sinai. Our opening Midrash discusses a similar state of affairs. Since all the forces active in the universe are represented in man in some form, and he is therefore sometimes referred to as a microcosm, he had dominion over all the other creatures on earth, just as G'd had dominion over all things and spirits in the entire universe. Therefore, prophets, on occasion use the term "Adam" when referring to G'd, to describe Him in His capacity as the Omnipotent. See Daniel, 8,16, "I heard the voice of "Adam," or Ezekiel 1,2, "and on the likeness of the throne, a likeness such as "Adam " above." These terms are used only in order to facilitate understanding by human ears of all the anthropomorphical terms used for that purpose. Since it is permissible to employ the term "Adam" in this fashion, it is not surprising to find references to "perfect man" as "Adam" also. Chochmat adam ta-ir panav, "the wisdom of perfect man lights up his face." (Kohelet 8,1) It is this that is meant by Rabbi Yudan, when he stated that the descriptive powers of the prophets are very great indeed, since they can employ the form to describe its original Creator. When one considers that Moses gave of his spirit to the newly appointed elders, then one can understand the relationship between them and Moses as parallel to the relationship between G'd and His most superior creatures, i.e. the angels. According to Rabbi Akiva in Avot 3, 14, man is beloved since he was created in The image. The meaning is that since this image had been bestowed on him at the very beginning of the creative process, i.e. nivra, he has the potential to emulate Divine powers. However, not one in ten million reaches this lofty goal. Rabbi Akiva continues to single out the Jewish nation, which due to the gift of Torah, can hope to achieve the human ideal more easily than any other nation. The Jewish people are called banim, children, to show that they possess more of the traits of the "father," i.e. their Creator. Maimonides in the first section of his "Moreh," chapter 45, is at pains to explain that Ezekiel's visions describe his own image of G'ds throne, which image, though Divinely inspired, is not to be confused with the objectively true state of affairs. The greatness of Ezekiel lies in his describing the function of this image as being equivalent to the function of G'd Himself. Moses, being extremely humble, had his stature attested to by G'd Himself, who explains to Aaron and Miriam that his status is incomparably higher than theirs. When our sages say of Moses, that his face was like the sun, they mean that though the sun is only one of the planets, its stature is such that it is always mentioned separately, never lumped together with the other planets. Similarly, the prophetic powers of Moses cannot be lumped together with that of other prophets, as it is far too superior.
_.76.1.6
Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why do Miriam and Aaron discuss Moses' wife precisely at this point of the wanderings of the Jewish people? Why did they reinforce their argument by saying "did G'd not speak to us also?" 2) Why did G'd list four separate instances in which Moses was superior, whereas concerning Miriam and Aaron only two such instances are listed? What is the difference between mar-eh and mar-ah? Why was Aaron not afflicted with skin disease, tzora-at? 3) Aaron's plea to his brother Moses seems puzzling. (Chapter 12,11) How can he say "please lay not sin upon us, for we have done foolishly and we have sinned?" It is obviously justified to consider Miriam and Aaron as having sinned? 4) Why do we need to be told that the people waited for Miriam to recover before continuing their journey?
_.76.1.7
(1) We have to understand this whole story as a continuation of the previously reported incident, in which G'd had criticised Moses openly for having appeared to doubt His ability to supply the people with large quantities of meat. Under the circumstances, Miriam and Aaron also found reason to criticise Moses. They believed that Moses, having married a woman belonging to another nation, had now become ashamed of this, and that this was the reason he had separated from her. They were convinced that his status as a prophet had nothing to do with this separation, since they too were prophets, and this did not interfere with their family life. If Moses were to use the argument of his being a prophet, they considered that this would be showing off his piety. This was their second sin, in fact. G'd heard all this, and decided to reprimand them more severely than He would have done, had their criticism been more factual, and if they had not chosen a point in time when they believed Moses to be out of favour with G'd. First of all, by testifying to Moses' humility, the Torah squelches the thought that he could have been showing off his piety. Secondly, it states that the separation had nothing to do with Moses having developed a dislike for his wife. Matters which would be considered private by other couples who conduct their sex life in the confines of their bedrooms, would assume a quasi public character in the case of Moses, since he had to be available for communication from G'd on a seven day, twenty four hour basis. He could therefore not afford to be found tamey, ritually impure due to the emission of seminal fluid at any moment. Even the brief space of time it would require to immerse himself in a ritual bath, would mean that he would keep G'd waiting, on occasion. Because Miriam and Aaron did not appreciate the different level of Moses' prophetic powers and stature, they had arrived at an opposite conclusion regarding Moses' motivation. By addressing them suddenly, G'd wanted to demonstrate to Miriam and Aaron that whereas they had not been tuned in to this communication and had been totally unprepared for it, their brother was perfectly at ease, comfortable with this "sudden" communication. Miriam and Aaron were forced to remain outside the tabernacle, whereas Moses was inside it. Only through Moses being in the presence of the shechinah, did they receive any communication at all. (2) G'd then proceeded to outline the qualitative difference between Moses' prophetic powers, and those of Miriam and Aaron respectively. Im yihye nevi-achem, "if he were a prophet according to your definition of the term," G'd would speak to him in a dream or through a reflection. (verses 6-8) Other prophets receive their communications in one of four ways. A) In a dream. B) Through a reflected image, while remaining awake but in a state of trembling. C) In a parable, through a riddle, by means of an angel. D) After having prepared themselves spiritually to a state necessary to receive a communication. In chapter seven of his sefer hamada, Maimonides has elaborated on the Talmudic statement in Yevamot 49, explaining that the prophecy of Moses was in the nature of a "clear vision," whereas all other prophets received only "clouded visions." Our Parshah explains some of the aspects of prophecy discussed by Maimonides, as well as others not dealt with in his sefer hamada. Mar-ah, is the mirror which is the means by which the prophet receives his message while awake or asleep. There are four basic deficiencies when one receives a communication by means of a mirror. They leave the recipient unable to comprehend the message in its entirety. 1) The viewer sees only what is immediately opposite him, anything behind a curtain, for instance, would not be seen, since only the curtain itself is reflected by the mirror. In this way, prophets receive an external view of things, without comprehending its substance. Abraham's belief that Isaac was to be sacrificed is an example of this. Although it appeared as if G'd had changed His mind, lack of comprehension of the true nature of G'ds command, only affected the viewer. Similarly, Samuel erred thinking G'd had wanted him to appoint Yishai's eldest son, until G'd told him not to be guided by the "exterior." i.e. mar-eyhoo. Even at the beginning of his career, he had mistaken the call of Eli, the High Priest, his mentor, no less than three times. (Samuel I chapter 3) This kind of communication is described by Solomon in his Song of Songs as "behold, He was standing behind our wall, observing through the windows, peering through the lattices." (chapter 2,9) Concerning all this, G'd says "not so My servant Moses; he is at home in any part of My house." The second deficiciency when perceiving by means of a mirror, is that all communication is only visual; the viewer cannot hear anything that may be spoken by the figure appearing in the mirror. Consequently, understanding is liable to be fragmentary, the whole picture is not communicated. Gestures may be observed, but no sound is audible. Zacharyah 4, and Daniel 10, are examples of the inadequacy to the prophet of this kind of revelation, unless there is further assistance. Concerning this flaw which other prophets have to put up with when they receive G'ds communications, G'd says about Moses "I speak to him mouth to mouth." His ears, not only his eyes are part of his prophetic visions. The third disadvantage in perceiving by means of a mirror, is that one does not behold the actual form or shape of the object shown, but only its two dimensional reproduction, i.e. reflection. This is like making the recipient of the vision guess at the real essence of something. It is as if asking him to piece together parts of a puzzle, chidot. Mar-eh, spelled with the vowel segal, means a true image, not the reflected one. Moses receives mar-eh, not mar-ah. The fourth disadvantage of viewing by means of a mirror is that whoever wants to view things in a mirror, must first assume a position opposite, directly in front of the mirror. Whatever is seen however, appears inverted. What is right in reality and parallel to the viewer, appears as on the left of the viewer. The viewer must employ his brain to compensate for the distortion inherent in viewing things in a mirror. Moses, on the other hand, sees temunat hashem, the true image, not something distorted in a mirror. After G'd had outlined to Miriam and Aaron how different Moses' level of prophetic perceptions was from theirs, He challenges them "why have you not had enough reverence for him to talk about My servant etc." i.e. "about ME?" Here G'd makes the point that Moses is indeed the spiritual father of all prophets, and as such, a special reverence is required in our attitude towards him. When the Mishnah Avot 4, 15, says "may the reverence for your teacher equal the reverence for Heaven," our Parshah is its source. The sin of Miriam and Aaron was twofold, since in making derogatory remarks about Moses, they had actually criticised G'd by implication. Moses was G'ds chosen instrument, after all. Secondly, Moses' character was so perfect, that they had no right to impute base motives to any of his actions. When G'd had finished explaining to Miriam and Aaron how they had erred, He withdrew, and Miriam was struck by the skin disease, since it had only been she who had actually done the talking. Aaron had been included in the accusation, since by remaining a silent listener, he had become an accessory to the travesty committed. Proof that Aaron had kept silent, is the fact that the Torah does not say "Miriam and Aaron spoke," using the plural form, or the masculine form, which would have included Aaron. (3) The plea "do not lay sin upon us," means "since we have already admitted our guilt, do not reprimand us any further for this sin, but pray for us." In answer to Moses' prayer to heal Miriam of her affliction, G'd says "since even Aaron had not suggested that she go completely free, only that she should not die, her punishment would be temporary banishment. Her sin being also against her father in Heaven, said father would ban her from His presence temporarily." (4) The fact that the people did not continue their journey during Miriam's quarantine, was not an unmixed blessing for her. Though it reflected the fact that they held Miriam in high esteem, it was also the surest way of publicising what had happened to her, since the delay in travelling would lead to questions concerning the reason for the delay. All of this would result in increased respect for Moses and his prophetic powers. The Parshah teaches the lesson that one must be exceedingly careful when criticising one's leaders. Solomon, in Proverbs 18,12-14, summarizes the lesson to be learned from this Parshah. Moses, who enjoyed tremendous prestige and honour was exemplified by his humility, whereas Miriam the greatest prophetess, had let her pride cause her to slander her brother. The principal error to be avoided when criticising one's leaders, is not to apply one's own low standards of conduct to those of one's leaders.
_.77.1.1
Did the spies despise the land of Israel, or did they merely reject G'ds leadership?
_.77.1.2
Bamidbar Rabbah 16, describes the sending of the spies by a parable. Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi, compared Israel to a prince whose father had selected a beautiful wealthy bride from a first class family for him to marry. The prince said to the father "let me have a look at her first." This placed the father in an embarrassing position. If he refused the request, his son might think that the bride was really ugly, and this was why his father did not want him to examine her before the wedding. Therefore, the father reluctantly agreed to the son's request, saying "have a look if I really have deceived you." However, because you have displayed a lack of faith in me, I swear that you will not lead her under the wedding canopy, but I will give her to your son." So also in the case of the spies. In the end, G'd promised eretz yisrael to the next generation.
_.77.1.4
G'd has endowed man with an intellect, enabling him to measure and calculate his activities to avoid falling victim to pitfalls found in nature. Though nature may offer all the ingredients and raw materials necessary for life on this planet, it does not offer these raw materials ready for immediate use. Either the usable has not been separated from the unusable, i.e. ores containing a variety of metals that need to be refined, or there is an overabundance of certain materials which when used in the condition they are found in, may be very harmful, but which, if used in carefully measured quantities may be extremely beneficial. Man too, possesses a wealth of characteristics which, if allowed to express themselves in an unrestrained, unregulated manner, would bring about his destruction rather than his progress in this world. In short, man's advantage consists in his ability to discriminate in areas where nature has been quite indiscriminate. Since the guide to successful application of human intelligence is Torah, it has become the ladder by means of which man ascends toward Heaven on the one hand, and the Divine spirit descends earthward towards him. In the words of our sages, this ladder is called "Sinai," its Hebrew numerical value being the same as the Hebrew word for ladder, i.e sulam. (compare chapter 25) Also the word for "azure blue," techeylet, is spelled the same as tachlit, our ultimate purpose. He who performs the mitzvah of tzitzit, fringes, is equal to one who has achieved his tachlit, i.e. proximity to the Divine. The immediate mitzvah which represents this "ladder," or "intermediary" concept is that of tzitzit, fringes. The word itself, as in meytzitz min hacharakim, means to view. (Song of Songs, 2,9) We are commanded to wear tzitzit in order to help us remember the rest of the Torah. The techeylet, azure blue wool thread, more than anything, helps to remind us of our task to be both physical and spiritual beings, not abstract intellects such as angels, nor merely earthbound creatures like the animals. Just as blue is a colour halfway between the all absorbing black, and the all reflecting white, so Torah is an intermediary between us and G'd;as our sages put it-, yam, the ocean, rakiyah, the sky, kisseh hakavod, the throne of His glory, represent the progression and act as the catalyst to bring about the fusing of the material and the spiritual world. Whereas Aristotele considers a behaviour pattern which is based on the golden rule as the highest achievement man is capable of, Judaism considers any form of perception based on purely human criteria as deceptive and leading to faulty conclusions. Rather, our golden rule is the application of our intellect, reinforced by the revealed law of G'd. The function of the tzitzit legislation is to remind us of this moral imperative. At the same time, tzitzit teaches us to refrain from extremism in the application of all human characteristics. In Proverbs 4,27, we are exhorted "do not incline to the right or to the left; then your feet will avoid evil." When a person sees both black and white, then the presence of some blue can remind him of what blue represents relative to either black or white. If, however, a person wears a totally blue garment, looking at it will hardly remind him of either the ocean, the sky or the throne of G'd and what these represent. If Korach had claimed that totally blue garments should be exempt from tzitzit, he had failed to understand that no golden mean can be achieved without the presence of extreme right and extreme left. Striving for a golden mean does not mean desiring a world in which everything is equal, the same. The fact that there is to be only a single blue thread in our tzitzit, emphasizes the concept that there is only one proper way among the many choices man appears to have. For this reason, our sages in Menachot 43, state that whosoever observes the mitzvah of tzitzit is as if he had observed the entire Torah. Converesly, anyone who has failed to observe this mitzvah is as if he had failed to observe any of the other mitzvot. To teach the validity of this approach, the Torah itself proclaims "looking at the azure blue thread will prevent you from pursuing the desires of your hearts and eyes that you are prone to pursue. Sifri equates heart with heresy, eyes with immorality, quoting scripture to support that view. Tzitzit then are a form of insurance against seduction by our evil instincts, commonly referred to as the yetzer hara. The main activity of said impulse is to disrupt any progress man has made on the ladder linking earth with the Divine. Since observance of all the commandments will make man come close to the Creator, the Torah says "you will then become holy to the Lord." The word vee-heyitem should be translated as "you will remain," meaning that our state of holiness will then become our natural state of being. The conclusion of the paragraph recalling our liberation from Egypt, is to remind us of where the absolute truth of G'ds overlordship had been demonstrated beyond all doubt. Just as we have to follow the golden rule in our physical lives, avoiding excesses in food, drink, sex etc., so also our mental state. Excesses have to be shunned. Extremes of sorrow or exultation are not proper. Anything that is overemphasized can only be such at the expense of having underemphasized its counterpart. All pursuits that are indulged in to excess, are outgrowths of the yetzer hara. .(see chapter 12 about the families of Noach) Our life is composed of three major areas of concern. 1) Things that appear useful to us. 2) Things that seem to ensure our comfort. 3) Pursuits of the mind, intellect.
_.77.1.5
Anyone who interests himself too much in his comfort, can do so only at the expense of neglecting useful things and by not allocating enough time to the pursuit of the things his mind is capable of. On the other hand, he, who concentrates most of his energies on the pursuit of purely intellectual matters, will sacrifice some comfort and the attainment of useful things in the process. What is to be aimed at then, is the proper balance between the three disciplines. Anything that interferes with the pursuit of that objective is the fourth discipline, teshukah, adherence to the yetzer hara.. Our sages have described remedies against this teshukah for all the three disciplines. 1) If one is overly interested in one's bodily comfort, the regulatory device is the woman, i.e. one's wife. In other words, marriage is a regulator, safeguarding man against the excessive pursuit of physical comforts, gratifications. 2) The teshukah of rain is that it is restricted to falling on the earth. (in this way the danger of excess rain creating a deluge is regulated) 3) The teshukah of the Almighty (His wide ranging intellect) is that it is concentrated on Israel. This is a voluntary restriction that G'd imposes on Himself. 4) The teshukah of the yetzer hara is that it is restricted to Cain and the likes of him. This shows that even the yetzer hara is subject to self imposed limitations.(see the text of this in Bereshit Rabbah 20) Since all excesses in any of the aforementioned three areas are anathema to G'd, He gave the Jewish people a land, which, in the words of the Torah, supplies all our needs without leading to our indulging in excesses in any area. We read in Deut. 8,7, "for the Lord your G'd brings you to a good land, a land of wheat and barley, rivers etc., where you will not eat bread in paucity; you will not lack anything therein, you will be satisfied and bless the Lord. Be careful that you do not forget the Lord, and over-indulge..." In the paragraph quoted above, we can clearly see that the mitzvot are to act as built in regulators against excessive pursuits of material objectives. The Talmud Menachot 43, points out that the promise of the adequacy of that land to meet our needs, is followed by the line "what is it that the Lord your G'd asks of you, except to observe all the commandments etc." The word mah- is to be read as mey-ah, i.e. one hundred. There is a hint in this that we are to recite one hundred benedictions daily. Israel's trek through the desert for forty years taught them that man and be-er, the manna and the well, were adequate sustenance, that over-indulgence in food and drink were not our purpose.
_.77.1.6
We are told by the Midrash that G'd gave Israel three gifts, all of which were acquired through some deprivations. 1) Torah. 2) The land of Israel. 3) olam haba, eternal life in the hereafter.(Shemot Rabba 81) The scriptural proof for this quoted in the Midrash mentions deprivations yissurim in each case. These gifts are ours only if we practice a measure of self restraint. If, in the pursuit of Torah, someone becomes so one-sided that he neglects his debt to society, or fails to appreciate the world around him, he is guilty of Solomon's famous dictum "do not be too righteous." (Kohelet 7,16) Even Torah knowledge can be retained only through continence and self restraint. The Talmud says that every new born baby forgets all the Torah it has learned in the mother's womb, due to an angel striking it at the moment of birth. (Nidah 30) The idea behind this is as follows. While within the mother's womb, the fetus receives exactly what it needs, no excess. Under such conditions it can absorb Torah without impediment. When transferred to our world, these conditions change, and the pursuit of the physical, material, interferes with the acquisition of the spiritual values. The gift of olam haba is received via yissurim because the whole object of mussar, the root of the word yissurim, is to pave the way for life. Olam haba is life in its ultimate definition, attainable, naturally only via such a route. If one may be allowed to oversimplify, morality is nothing but a form of self restraint. In Jeremiah chapter 35, Yehonadav ben Reychav is held up as a shining example of someone who instructed his family to practice the noble art of self restraint concerning a variety of physical pleasures and material acquisitions. In appreciation of that family's having heeded their patriarch's instructions, G'd assures that family that they will provide leading personalities for the Jewish people for all future generations. Arichut yamim, longevity, is defined by our sages as participation in the life which is kullo aruch, of an unending infinite duration. The chapters of the Torah legislation dealing with the shemittah, yovel, ma-asser priestly gifts etc., are aimed at teaching us to practice self restraint when exploiting the bounty the land has to offer. The owner who wants to sell his slave at a good price, will overfeed him prior to the sale, to create the illusion that the slave is in good health and physical strength in the eyes of the prospective purchaser. The negative effects of that slave having been force-fed, will show up only after the sale has been concluded. A father who does not wish to part with his sons, will raise them on the kind of diet that assures their continued well being, and that builds up a resistance against harmful foreign elements in their bodies. (Deut. Rabbah 3) The menorah, candelabra in the tabernacle, was made with beaten gold. The trumpets were made out of beaten silver. The two cherubs on the lid of the holy ark were made of beaten gold. We observe that the purity of these vessels was achieved only after they had been hammered. Only then did the respective raw materials assume its enduring format. The trumpets represent the gift of the land of Israel, since they were employed to herald the Jewish people's approach towards that country. The menorah represents the gift of Torah, spiritual illumination. The cherubs symbolise olam haba, the world in which the angels abound, a world of the spirit, ruach.
_.77.1.8
The statement of the spies "we cannot go up, (Numbers 13, 31) embodies far more than physical fear of the people of Canaan. It expressed an unwillingness to elevate themselves spiritually. They were not willing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to merit the three gifts mentioned earlier. Their suggestion of the alternative, namely a return to Egypt, clearly shows that their orientation lay in the pursuit of physical and material pleasures, such as abounded in Egypt. Caleb's call "aloh na-aleh," we can go up, stands out in contrast. This is why G'd Himself describes it as ruach acheret, a different spirit. (14, 24) It fell to Joshua, a descendent of Joseph who had displayed the strength of character resisting physical gratification offered by the wife of Potiphar, to emulate the noble example of his ancestor.
_.77.1.9
Loss of the land of Israel to the Jewish people, is comparable to loss of the garden of Eden to mankind. Loss of Eden at the time was the introduction to the need of mortality. The Jewish people had conquered this mortality at Mount Sinai when they proclaimed the na-asseh venishma, the unqualified acceptance of G'ds law in its entirety. At that time, the domain of the angel of death was restricted, the Jewish people no longer being under his authority. The sin of the spies resulted in the angel of death regaining his authority over the Jewish people. (Bamidbar Rabbah 37) Life in the land of Israel is of a quality similar to what life in the garden of Eden had been. Midrash Eycha 1, states that whenever Israel is carrying out the Lord's will, it enhances His power. Whenever Israel fails to act in accordance with G'ds will, it causes His power to be diminished. The concept is based on the respective verses (Deut. 32,18) "The rock that begat you, you have weakened," as well as Numbers 14,17, "and now I pray let the power of G'd become great, as You have said for it to be proclaimed." The "weakness" of G'ds power referred to, does not stem from objective causes, but from a self imposed discipline that G'd has assumed. This fact, unknown to the gentiles, on occasion prevents G'd from displaying His power. When the Jewish people sin, and thereby forfeit G'ds promises or direct guidance, this may be perceived by the gentiles as a weakening of G'ds power. Similarly, when the Jewish people do perform the mitzvot, thereby qualifying for the reward promised them by G'd, the nations of the world who observe the good fortune of G'ds chosen people, will be impressed with His power correspondingly. When Moses prayed to G'd, pleading for the life of the nation, saying "now let Your power be great," he referred to this concept. Why, he asks, allow the nations to think that Your power has waned when they look at the misfortunes befalling the chosen nation? They will think that the denial of the land of Canaan to the Jews is simply proof of G'ds inability. They will not think that temporary causes have delayed the execution of G'ds avowed purpose. (as would be implied if we understood the word yecholet as a verb) Rather, they will be convinced that the task had proved somewhat beyond G'ds power. (using the word yecholet as a noun) Since, as we have seen, G'd Himself submits to the rules of laws He has created, to the point of allowing His freedom of action to be curtailed through the behaviour of others, we can understand the penalty of denying the land of Israel to the generation that accepted the majority report of the spies. The right to dispossess the Canaanites was embodied in the Jewish people’s superior moral conduct. Now the Jewish people had demonstrated that in spite of the revelation at Mount Sinai, and in spite of all the loving care lavished on the Jewish people ever since the Exodus, they had not risen to the challenge posed by the task of conquering the holy land. Now G'd had no legal means to expel the resident nation in favour of the Jews. The Jewish people belatedly declaring a readiness to risk their physical lives in order to achieve the conquest, had become meaningless. Once G'd had decreed that they would die in the desert, the only thing that they had left to lose was time. Therefore, they could not do the kind of teshuvah repentance that would demonstrate that their basic attitude had changed. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in our opening Midrash summarizes the whole episode by showing the bride possessing three desirable qualities. Beauty represents visible attractiveness, an appeal to the senses, man's physical comfort. Wealth represents the useful. Nobility of ancestry represents the bride's superior moral qualities. Since all three qualities were combined in a single woman, union with a man becomes not only permissible but desirable, and an expression of G'ds purpose for man. Such a union would result in a life of discipline. A land blessed with similar attributes, would also enable the people on it to live a life of discipline. When the son insisted on looking over the bride, this was not because he did not trust his father who had,after all, always provided for him. It was because he did trust his father and because he knew him. The son looked for a way to avoid the moral commitment implied by this marriage. The father, though he realised his son's motives, was in a quandary all the same. Had he refused the son's request, he himself would have provided the fuel for the son's rebellion. The despatch of the spies needs to be seen in the same light. Regrettably, throughout the millenia, ever since the first Tishah be Av, we have still not learned to use the land of Israel and its bounty to help us discipline our lives and to assure ourselves of chayim shekullam aruchim, a life of infinite duration.
_.77.1.10
Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah not report that Moses had been put under pressure by the people prior to the despatch of the spies, as is the case in Deut. 1,22, when Moses relates the same events? 2) Why were the "princes," not sent on this mission? Surely they represented the morally most steadfast? 3) If Moses saw fit to pray for Joshua, going so far as to change his name even, why did he not do the same for the other eleven spies? 4) Why did Moses give the spies potential ammunition for a negative report? He gave them such wide terms of reference that he actually invited problems! (verse 18-20) 5) Why did these spies cut off a cluster of grapes so heavy that it needed several (8) people to carry it? Surely that had not been what Moses had meant when he had instructed them to take from the fruit of the land? The report of the spies seems fair enough. Even the use of the word efess, employed elsewhere in scripture as meaning "but," does not seem too unfair! 6) Why did the spies proclaim the planned undertaking as hopeless only after Caleb had described it as feasible? (13,30-31) 7) Joshua's repeated stress on the "goodness of the land," something the spies had never disputed, seems pointless. 8) Why, in this instance, do we find punishment decreed after forgiveness? 9) Why did G'd respond to the fear the Jewish people expressed concerning their children's future, whereas He did not respond to the fear they expressed regarding their own future? 10) Why was the holy ark not allowed to accompany the people after they had expressesd their willingness to march against the Canaanites?
_.77.1.11
"Send thou men"
_.77.1.12
Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Eykev, and Midrash Shocher Tov comment on Proverbs 5,6, and Job 28,16, respectively. We find in those verses references to the mysterious way in which Torah sometimes reports the sequence of events. In the words of the Midrash, the apparent lack of cohesion is deliberate, as otherwise "every reader could heal the sick or revive the dead." We should ask therefore, why the sages endeavoured altogether to find meaning in the order in which events have been related? The truth is that our sages did not mean that there is absolutely no order in the sequences of the Torah's teachings; rather they teach that G'd arranged things in a manner that safeguarded certain secrets that He has reserved for Himself. (Isaiah 44,7) "Who but I can declare it and set it in order for Me, since I appointed the ancient people." This verse forms the background to our Midrashim. The enquiry why a particular event is reported at a particular point in the sequence of events, is quite legitimate, regardless of the general rule eyn mukdam, that the Torah does not claim to report events in the chronological order in which they occurred. That rule means, that even when the Torah does report events in historical order, this does not mean that the Torah's purpose is exhausted by having conveyed to us a little bit of history. Dissemination of slanderous information may stem from a variety of motivations. 1) A person may slander someone else in order to make himself look good by comparison. 2) On the other hand, someone may spread negative information about a third party, having no ulterior motive at all. The latter type is the real ba-al lashon hara, spreader of evil gossip. The first type is simply a glory seeker, the slander being incidental to his purposes. When the Talmud Erchin 15, describes animals approaching the snake asking the reason it attacks humans, it compares the lion and the wolf with the snake. The two former either wish to still their hunger, or at least to devour the prey. The snake however, seems to poison just for the fun of it, deriving no visible benefit from its action. Korach was not a classic example of a slanderer, since he merely used slander to enhance his own stature, and to further his ambition to become a leader. For this reason, Korach is described in our classic sources as a dissident, a quarreler. The spies, however, are described as "slanderers." Since Miriam's sin, though not as severe as that of the spies, was also in the nature of slander, the story of the spies follows that of the punishment of Miriam, to alert us to the fact that the spies had not absorbed the lesson contained in Miriam's punishment. (1) If the Torah skips the introduction about the circumstances that preceded the dispatch of the spies, in this instance, it is precisely to make sure that we would not confuse the issue, and would notice that the issue was the sin of lashon hara, slander. (2) The reason twelve men were sent, was to provide the maximum chance of success. People endowed with all the good qualities cited in the Parshah, would command enough moral fortitude to prevail over their human weaknesses, if anyone could. Their eventual report would be accepted without prejudice, since they represented a cross section of the people. Should the mission fail, it would not be due to inadequate planning. The princes mentioned in Parshat Nasso, having already assumed their respective functions, were not allowed to absent themselves from their posts for such an extended period. The Torah describes the twelve spies as each being a nassi, prince, in order to show that they were not inferior to the twelve princes whom we know already. The fact that Joshua is only ranked fifth amongst them, shows that all of them had been very eminent people at the time of their appointment for this task. That the Torah does indeed list them in the order of their qualities seems borne out by the fact that the order in which they are listed corresponds neither to the order of the "flags" of the encampment, nor to the order of birth of the various sons of Jacob whose tribes they represented. The Talmud Sotah 34, discusses the various names and comes to the conclusion that their various names contained hints of their eventual disloyalty to G.d. Since this is obviously an excercise in hindsight, the original selection must have been based on the positive qualities each one of the spies had displayed prior to his being chosen for such a fateful mission. The fact that Caleb and Joshua could not even persuade their own respective tribes to accept their minority report, shows that the spies had not been chosen for any popular following they might have enjoyed. (3) The verse dealing with the name Joshua must be understood as follows. "These are the names of the men...except for Hoshaya of the tribe of Ephrayim, whom Moses later used to call Joshua." (which is the name by which he is known to us in most instances when we read about him.) Observing the goodness of the land, entailed four separate considerations. 1) Did the inhabitants appear robust and healthy? 2) Was the terrain easy to cultivate and was there an abundance of it? 3) Were there urban centres the inhabitants were happy in and proud of? 4) Did the soil yield abundantly, and was the produce of high quality? (4) Moses wanted the spies to pay attention to all these factors, so that they would look forward to this all soon being theirs. (compare verses 18-20) Concerning the type of cities,-whether open or fortified,- Moses wanted to point out that if these people still lived in fortified cities, this reflected a lack of self confidence on their part. This would give Israel a psychological advantage when setting out to attack them. The book of Joshua in chapter 6,1, reports that Jericho was completely sealed off from the inside and the outside. Immediately afterwards we are told that the inhabitants had already reached the point of despair. Although it was early in the season, and the orchards would therefore be under close scrutiny by their respective owners, Moses instructed "fortify yourselves," i.e. get a hold of yourselves and take from the fruit to taste it. Moses' insistence stemmed from his conviction that the land was excellent. The fact that the nachal eshkol, valley of the grape cluster, was so named, was only in commemoration of the spies' visit. It proves that the grapes found there were not of exceptional quality. (verse 24) They were merely representative specimens of the quality the land produced. (5) The spies brought the fruit back in order to lend credibility to the report they were about to issue. When Moses saw the fruit, he was lulled into a false sense of security, overlooking the fact that they were not making their report to the commander-in-chief, but to the nation as a whole. The Torah indicates this by describing the spies as returning from latour, from touring the country, from emphasizing its good points. When one emphasizes weak points such journeys are described as rigul, spying. The opening remarks seemed to confirm Moses' optimism. (verse 27) As soon as they uttered the word efess however, they aborted their entire mission. The fruit became an instrument to describe the desirability of the land, and to contrast this with the physical prowess of its inhabitants. From having been reporters, they suddenly assumed the role of advisors. The careful description of who lived in the land, i.e. Amalek in the South, the presence of giants, three nations in the mountains, Canaanites by the sea and the river Jordan, all these remarks were designed to create the impression that conquest of such a country was not feasible. They did not yet dare to spell this out, however. When Caleb, knowing the tenor of their remarks, interrupted, he did so to give Moses a chance to be heard, and to create a climate in which his own report would at least get a hearing. For that reason he made it appear as if he too had something to complain against Moses' adventurous policy of attacking such physically superior residents of the land of Canaan. In fact, he hoped that by giving his own report, emphasizing his firm belief that Israel could conquer the land, he could squelch the despondency his colleagues had evoked with their innuendos about the hopeless nature of such an undertaking. He thought that the other spies would not dare come out openly against such a campaign in the very presence of Moses. At that point, however, the other spies started to use their arguments outright. They portrayed the presence of the giants (32-33) as proof of the futility of starting a war, citing the fact that these giants included men who had survived the deluge. To contrast this with their own feeling of inadequacy, they referred to their having felt like grasshoppers by comparison to those super-men. The fact that these giants had observed twelve strange men help themselves to grapes from their orchards without the owners having become galvanised into some form of counter action, they conveniently overlooked. On the contrary, they allowed it to be taken as proof that these men were not in the least bothered by such action. They considered any danger from Jewish spies as no greater than the threat posed to them by grasshoppers. They considered the country's fertility as only due to the superhuman efforts of these giants. By describing the land as one that devours its inhabitants, they hinted that ordinary people could not survive that climate. The reason there is no preamble to the despatch of the spies, is that the very mission, having as its objective the collection of factual observations, was perfectly permissible. What was wrong was that the people, upon return of the spies, allowed them to present their interpretation of what they had seen, and that they believed those interpretations. The people's belated concern (14,3) was only a cover for their, true motivation, that of despising the land G'd was offering to them. (14,31) The positioning of verse three, in which the people describe their own fate and that of their families, makes it appear that they preferred their families' deaths to their own dying by the swords. They do not describe the fate of their wives and children as the result of their own death in action. They express their preference to whatever fate would await them in Egypt. They go so far as to suggest the appointment of a leader for such a return. G'ds answer to all this is quite appropriate. He says, in effect: "your children will enjoy that which you have despised." But you who have consigned yourselves to damnation either way, and who are already considering yourselves as corpses, you will drop dead in the desert. (7) Joshua and Caleb rent their clothing, confirming only that the land was indeed excellent. Since this had been all that they as spies had been asked to report on, they expressed the conviction that if He wished, the Lord would surely bring them to that land subject to His considering them fit for this. (6) When the people realised that the whole logic of their position had been challenged by Joshua and Caleb, they did not react with reason but with their basest instincts, trying to still the voice of conscience by attempting to murder the authors of a report they did not like. They were restrained only by the appearance of the Divine glory that scared them. Moses, who continued to remonstrate with them, could not sway them. (Deut. 1,29-33) At that point G'd despaired of their ever demonstrating true faith, and decided to let them all die at once, meaning to replace them with a new people, with Moses as its patriarch. Moses used the well worn argument that the impression such action would produce on outsiders like the Egyptians, would be counterproductive to His image. Our sages describe active forces in terms of the masculine gender, whereas they describe passive ones in terms of the feminine. It does not matter in this context whether the mashpia, the active force is actually of the male gender or vice versa, in the case of the mushpa the passive force being actually of the female gender. In that sense, G'd is always the mashpia, and everybody or everything relative to Him is always the mushpa. When Moses in 15, 11, says to G'd "if this is what You are about to do to me," and he uses the feminine gender for the word "You," the sages interpret this to mean "You will undermine Your own strength." The idea is that he argues that G'd would henceforth appear as the mushpa instead of as the mashpia, G'ds traditional role. This is the reason Moses prayed "now let the power of the Lord be great," to demonstrate that "Your" strength is indeed the source of all Power. When Israel, speaking to Moses at the time they received the ten commandments, said to Moses "you speak to us," employing the feminine pronoun in referring to Moses the man, the human being, (Deut. 6,23) they convey the same idea. They are saying that although they will then be hearing the voice of G'd only from the mushpa instead of from the mashpia, at least they would survive. (8) The fact that the argument Moses used is of the utmost significance, is proven from the words of Ezekiel, in chapter thirty six. Concerning the advent of the redemption in the future, G'd is quoted as saying "Not for your sake do I act, family of Israel, but for the sake of My holy name that you have desecrated etc." Moses, as distinct from the sin at the golden calf, invoked the attribute of adnut, Omnipotence of G'd when he appealed for forgiveness. He had realised that after all the many acts of rebellion by the Jewish people, the kind of forgiveness which is total, could not be expected as an immediate outcome of his prayer. He therefore refers to the fact that G'd had previously raised the level of the sin to a lesser category - compare verse 19- "as You have raised this people until now, ever since they have come out of Egypt." G'd responds by saying "I have forgiven, exactly in accordance with your words." (the limitations you yourself have set) This is "for the people." However, the perpetrators will have to pay an immediate price and die by the plague. (verse 37) The entire nation who had witnessed G'ds miracles at the time of the Exodus in their adult years, would henceforth no longer qualify for similar miracles at the time they would conquer the land of Canaan. They have forfeited forever the right to such revelations of G'ds power on their behalf. This was a punishment on an individual level, though at first glance it might have looked collective, since none of them would enter the holy land. The individual nature of the punishment would manifest itself when each one of them would die on a different date. However, "the wicked congregation," i.e. the ten spies, would all die at the same time at once, receive collective punishment. (9) The need for the next generation to wait forty years to enter the holy land, is directly related to the sin of the parent generation. As long as some of the former remain alive, as living testimony to the disloyalty of their covenant with G'd, the miraculous protection of G'd cannot be extended to their children when they would try to enter the holy land. The ratio of forty years for forty days is again an expression of G'ds consideration for His people. Since the spies had taken forty days before returning with a negative report, G'd allows a year for each day of delay, spreading the punishment over a period of forty years, instead of letting everybody die at once. In this manner, the whole nation would learn that G'd is merciful even when He administers punishment. He does not thin out the ranks of the people all at once, but gradually, so as not to allow their decreased numbers to become an invitation to attack by their enemies. If G'd could be merciful even in such circumstances, what tremendous display of G'ds goodness must the people have forfeited by their conduct? G'd hastens to confirm the decree by swearing an oath (verse 28). He is only too aware that the people will be overcome by a feeling of remorse and will try to sway Him from His declared intention. (10) Since repentance induced by fear, duress, does not wipe the slate clean, the people did not deserve the presence of the holy ark in their midst in the campaign they now planned. The very fact that they dared to go ahead without it, showed that they still had not appreciated who it was that alone would guarantee their success. If we are taught in the book of Joshua that the sin of one man, Achan ben Karmi, who had not yet been punished for his crime, could be the cause of the whole Jewish people suffering defeat at the hands of the small city of Ai, what would happen when a whole army of unrehabilitated sinners would face the might of the Canaanites? (compare chapter 7)
_.78.1.2
Rava, in Nedarim 39, says that the verse "sun and moon stood still in their habitation," (Chabakuk 3,11) teaches that the sun and moon stood in front of G'd and said: "Lord, if You will judge Moses' case against Korach, we will assume our positions in our regular orbit; if not, we will not perform our tasks." G'd flung arrows at them, saying: "You are concerned about the honour of a mere mortal, yet you have never protested in defence of My honour!" This is why the verse continues "they are proceeding according to the light of Your arrows."
_.78.1.3
We observe in nature, that the more important and precious an item, the greater the precautions taken to insure its protection against damage or destruction. We observe the same phenomenon when examining certain parts of Torah legislation. An army assigns extra soldiers and guards to insure the safety of its commander-in-chief. When David had aged, his officers became concerned about his continued participation in battle, since protecting him would require extra efforts. They could not risk that he should be harmed. (Samuel I, chapter 21) Similarly, we find that nature has enclosed vital organs such as heart lung and liver in a protective cage within the body, to afford maximum protection for those organs. Proverbs 4, 23, tells us "more than anything else, protect your heart, because it is the fountain of life." There are numerous other verses throughout the Bible, containing similar messages, referring also to the brain. Torah legislation that concerns itself with fundamental concepts is repeated over and over. It is safeguarded in such manner against violation. Even acts that could lead indirectly to violation of the fundamental concepts, are prohibited. To preserve the concept of "I am the Lord your G'd" intact, the legislation calling for Sabbath and holiday observances ensures that the concept of anochi is ever present in our thoughts and deeds. Penal legislation is especially harsh when it concerns any vital concept of our faith.
_.78.1.4
Since the highest attribute man can achieve is the power of prophecy, and a nation aspiring to an intimate relationship with its G'd, needs prophets in its midst in order to achieve that intimacy, extraordinary measures are called for to preserve the spiritual standards of such a nation. At Sinai, every individual Jew had achieved a degree of prophetic stature, if ever so briefly. Israel is distinguished from other nations in three ways. 1) Its collective fate is subject to G'ds Personal guidance, hashgachah peratit. 2) They are aware that it is possible to achieve prophetic stature on a national basis, having experienced Divine revelation. 3) They are in possession of the holy Torah, something that transcends prophetic instruction, since it addresses itself to any facet of life, and its teachings are available to all those who study it. It is these three things G'd had in mind, when He said to Moses (Exodus 19,9) "Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever." This verse embodies the three ways in which Israel was distinguished. Since Moses was so important to our faith that even G'd made an effort to ensure that the people would have enduring faith in the authenticity of everything Moses conveys to them in His name, any attempt to challenge His stature must be disproved beyond any doubt. Just as an architect's reputation cannot be based merely on the excellence of his designs on the drawing board, but can be confirmed only after execution of his plans has stood the test of time, so the reputation of Moses could be confirmed only after it had stood up to the challenges of would-be competitors. In order to make the point that Moses was indeed superior beyond any doubt, the challenge to his leadership had to emanate from the highest quarters. 2) The nature of the challenge had to be plausible, so that if refuted, Moses would emerge as even greater in stature than had been believed up to that point. 3) The insincerity of the challengers' motives had to be demonstrated by showing that their actions had been at variance with their avowed purpose. It is true that after reading the glowing terms in which Korach and his followers are described, the reader may conclude that possessing all the intellectual and material assets of a Korach may be a handicap in life rather than an asset. However, the Torah teaches that the piety displayed by some people may only mask a wicked interior, on occasion. Such a wicked interior comes to light when one carefully observes the actions of the "pious person." It may be found that the mantle of piety is worn only in order to help one achieve some nefarious design. It is this the Talmud Nedarim 62, condemns, when it discusses a person who learns Torah in order to amass wealth, or earn a title. When we see such a person commit a sin, it is not the Torah scholar who commits the sin, but it is a sinful person whose personality has not changed in spite of the Torah knowledge he has absorbed.
_.78.1.5
The Midrash on Psalms 55,16, describes Doag and Achitofel as examples of such apparent Torah scholars whose true colours did not come to light till later, though their hearts had always harboured their wickedness. When one observes the sudden death of such people,- David says,- it reveals that the evil essence had not lost its mastery over the characteristics acquired due to Torah study and absorption of its values. These people are punished by sudden death, since they did not use Torah to refine their characters, but abused Torah to advance their egotistical goals. Korach's argument was that since everybody was holy, no one should be a leader. On the contrary, if holiness is a way of emulating G'd in Heaven, everyone in Heaven is certainly not equal, there are certainly leaders there. Why then did Korach use such a patently specious argument? His argument makes no sense at all. If everybody had been granted a degree of prophetic vision at the time of the revelation, part of the reason had been to demonstrate Moses' superiority. It demonstrated how superior Moses' relationship with G'd had been. The people had even asked him to be their go between. Arguing in favour of a leaderless society was absurd then. Therefore, it is better to understand the line "for the entire congregation is holy" as a sarcastic reference to what is supposed to have taken place at Sinai. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 1,1, "and has not sat amongst the scoffers," considers that statement as referring to the sarcastic comments Korach had made about the Jewish people. His comment then would read like this: "Enough already! have you peddled the idea of prophecy to the extent where you have convinced everyone that he is holy? Does everyone think that just because he heard the opening lines of the Decalogue from G'ds own mouth that they are prophets already? If this is indeed the message you have peddled, then why are you arrogating to yourselves superior status? The arbitrary appointment of a High Priest then is completely unjustified!" Korach's mockery is directed at three pillars of our faith then. 1) Rav lachem, enough already, questions the concept of prophecy altogether. 2) U-vetocham hashem, questions the Divine Presence, the concept of hashgachah peratit.) Madua titnassu? questions the authenticity of Torat Moshe, the specific commandments recorded in the Torah. Moses' reply, after he had been "floored," i.e. vayipol al panav, he "fell" on his face, by this challenge, is perfectly appropriate. Concerning denial of G'ds special Providence, Moses said "tomorrow morning you will see an example of that very Providence." boker ve-yauda hashem etc. (16,5) (2) Concerning the challenge to his own standing as a prophet, he says "whomsoever He will choose, He will bring close to Himself." (3) Concerning mockery of the institution of prophecy, Moses said "whosoever is holy, He will bring close." (referring to his older brother Aaron whose status as a prophet had preceded his own chronologically.) In his second statement, Moses addressed himself to the underlying motive of Korach's complaint in a more subtle manner. Ha-me-at mikem kee hivdil, are you not sufficiently aggrieved that the elevated position the Torah has granted you as Levites, prevents you from effective land ownership in the land of Canaan, that you want to assume the even heavier burden of the priesthood?" Besides, since you challenge the validity of priestly functions per se, your specific complaint against Aaron surely must hide a personal motive? Why else bother with this detail? Therefore, Moses continued, "I am convinced that you are in effect rebelling against G'd," i.e. ha-noadim al hashem, (16,11) not against us. Though you pretend to challenge our authority, you are challenging G'ds authority. The above is in keeping with what our sages taught in Avot, that any feud which is not designed to advance the cause of Heaven will not endure. However, when the objective of the argument is to further the cause of Heaven, both parties to the argument will endure. (Avot,5, 17) Since it is a fact that in either argument one side must be wrong, the statement of our sages is puzzling. Aristotele teaches that we use the terms "true" and "false" when referring to concepts of the mind. When we refer to physical phenomena or their absence, however, we use the terms "good" and "bad" respectively. Thus a statement that a triangle has three corners would be described as "true," whereas the statement that a particular triangle has four corners would be described as "false." The terms "good" or "evil" cannot be applied to such statements. We feel however, that when a concept lacks a basis in fact, it can be said to be bad. The three categories (a) true or false, (b) good or bad, and (c) extant or non-existent, are all closely intertwined. Mentioning Moses as a party to Korach's quarrel is inconceivable, since Korach had based his whole philosophy on the denial of G'ds authority, as we have explained. Since Shammai and Hillel based their respective disagreements on common ground, their respective opinions will endure, eyloo ve-eyloo divrey elokim chayim, the words of either party have been inspired by the Living G'd. Korach, whose argument was based on sheker, a lie, will, of course, not endure. The importance of the eyloo ve-eyloo concept just mentioned, is best demonstrated in Bamidbar Rabba 19, when G'd is portrayed studying the laws of the red heifer, and quotes a halachic interpretation by Rabbi Eliezer. The fact is that that opinion never became halachically accepted by the sages. Nonetheless, G'd Himself is shown as quoting it. This proves the dictum that any argument that is designed to further the cause of Heaven will endure, i.e. that even the opinion that had been rejected will merit being considered at all times. Korach's attack on the institution of prophecy proceeded as follows. He dressed the elders of the Supreme Court in garments dyed completely in techeylet azure blue, and asked Moses if these garments required tzitzit, "fringes." To Moses' reply that they did indeed require these "fringes," he scoffed, saying "how can a single blue thread accomplish something that an entire garment fails to accomplish?" What Korach was alluding to is this. Since man, nature's choicest creature, having been created in G'ds image, is equipped with the ability to know good from evil, to know what is beneficial and what is harmful, surely whatever any so-called prophetic insight could add to this knowledge would be so trivial as to be of no consequence. Moses' reply pointed out that logic, as characterised by Aristotele's concept of the golden mean, was not an infallible method to arrive at objective truths. Judaism is based on a Heavenly assist, which is symbolized by the single blue thread of tzitzit acting as the reminder that our inspiration derives from heaven. Korach's second question dealt with that of a house full of sacred texts. He wanted to know if such a house required a mezuzah, the traditional scroll containing part of the keriyat shma. Moses explained that in order for such a house to be considered sanctified, a mezuzah would still be needed. Only two passages out of a total of two hundred and seventy five passages had the power to sanctify the house. Korach challenged the authenticity of this statement, thereby challenging the principle of G'ds special Providence for the Jewish people, the second principle of Jewish faith. Korach and his sympathizers had known in advance the answer they would receive. They felt that when a group of highly placed men presented a challenge, such a challenge would be more formidable, and would be more likely to attract G'ds attention. This underlined the fact that they spurned the notion that G'd would concern himself with the wants or needs of any individual. Jewish philosophy does not hold that the whole is superior to its constituent parts, but rather that the whole is upheld by the merit of each constituent part. The story of Noach, for whose sake the earth was saved, is ample proof of the value of the individual part vis a vis the whole. Proverbs 10,25 puts it thus: "and the righteous is the foundation of the universe." The two passages contained in the mezuzah make the point that when we listen to Divine instructions, we will benefit by the special Personal Providence, and particular attention will be paid to our needs, superseding the normal bounty provided by nature. (Deut. 11, 13-21) The land of Israel will receive such special attention on a year round basis. (verse 11) There are many other such promises. The third argument presented by Korach and company, was intended to inflame the people's sense of outrage against Moses and Aaron. The subject matter was the method used to purify the Levites. Numbers 8,7, states that removal of body hair is a prerequisite for such purification. When Moses, personally, had performed this rite on Korach, he being the senior ranking Levite, the people had no longer recognised Korach minus beard etc. When asked who had done this to him, Korach accused Moses of having abused him personally in this fashion, whereas at the same time Moses had adorned his brother Aaron in the finery of the High Priest's garments. By portraying Moses as high handed, Korach hoped to convince the people that Moses had acted of his own accord. The survival of Korach's sons who did not share in their father's rebellion, demonstrated better than anything that Divine Providence acted selectively by picking only the guilty for the meting out of punishment. By demonstrating that even the most plausible sounding argument had been discredited, since those who presented it had been killed by Divine and supernatural action, the "father knows best" quality of Torah legislation was vindicated. The third point that was to be made, was to show that whereas Korach had intended to downgrade Moses and Aaron in the eyes of the people, their action had boomeranged, producing the opposite result. The greater the stature of the challenger, the more enduring the esteem in which the intended victim is held, after he has succeeded in defeating the challenge. We see therefore, that the reason the Torah first listed all the fine attributes of Korach and his assembly was to alert us to the fact that once this challenge had been disposed of, the "establishment" as it were, had emerged greatly strengthened. The twenty four types of gifts that priests are entitled to, are legislated immediately after this affair, since the prestige of the priests was now at a high, and no one would object when the latter were also rewarded for the duties they performed on behalf of the entire nation.
_.78.1.6
Coming back to the opening statement of our chapter, we now have a better understanding of the argument of the sun and the moon. We do not merely regard this as a parable, but just like our sages, we conceive of the celestial bodies as equipped with intelligence of their own, since they are described as inhabiting the sphere called zevul. They did not tell G'd that they would refuse to function, but that if ben Amram is not vindicated the institution of prophecy would be undermined, i.e. a fundamental pillar of Torah would be missing. If there will be no Torah, the raison d'etre of the entire universe will disappear, the world would revert to tohu, to the anarchy that had preceded the six days of creation. (see details about the Torah/universe relationship in chapter twelve) G'd flinging arrows at the sun and moon, expresses His rejection of their argument that the action of a few fools like Korach and his assembly would be allowed to bring about the undoing of G'ds entire handiwork. Since sun and moon must have been well aware of the fact that the world had not come to an end in spite of millions of people having worshipped them, (instead of G'd) why would they suddenly be concerned about the consequences of the actions of a Korach! It had not seemed to bother them that by having become objects of worship without their withdrawing their services, they themselves had in fact undermined the Honour and Glory of their Master! The reason the universe had been kept going then was for the sake of the true believers. There may have been an additional reason for this dialogue reported by Rava. The sun and moon were indignant about the challenge to the prophecy of Moses and Joshua respectively. The sun, possessing light of its own, was jealous of the honour of Moses, since the latter's kind of prophecy was similarly perceived as an emanation. (His face emitted rays of light) The moon, being merely the source of reflected light, was jealous on behalf of Joshua, who likewise seemed to reflect the inspirations he had received. G'd was angry since He perceived that both sun and moon had failed to understand that in challenging the authority of Moses, Korach had in fact challenged the authority of G'd Himself. Since G'd did comply with the request of the sun and the moon, why was He so angry? The answer may be that G'd did not use celestial bodies to orchestrate the punishment of Korach, but He used the earth. This showed the sun and moon that they had been guilty of a serious error. The insurrection of Korach would normally have elicited visible protests both from below and from above. Due, however, to the attitude displayed by the celestial bodies, the latter were not fit to become the instruments of Korach's punishment, seeing they were not free from guilt themselves. Although we are still plagued with Korach "types," the reason no supernatural events occur to punish those types, is the one quoted by Rava, namely that G'd decreed for the sun and the moon to carry on business as usual. All the foregoing underlines how right our sages were when they taught in Avot 5,2, that G'ds patience is so great, that He waited for ten long generations before bringing on the deluge in retribution for man's corruption.
_.78.1.7
Some difficulties in the text we have not yet dealt with. 1) Why did Moses announce the timing of the test, before he had even replied to the challenge? 2) If the group who had joined Korach were fit for the priesthood, how would the fact that some of them had already served as Levites, disqualify them from becoming priests? 3) Why did Moses feel it necessary to announce not only the time but also the site of the contest? Why is the argument that Moses had failed to bring the Jewish people to the holy land, repeated twice in the accusations levelled against his leadership? What did Datan and Aviram mean when they asked "are you going to put out the eyes of these people?" 4) When Moses asks G'd not to heed the arguments of the rebels, why does he add that he had not taken an ass or anything from anyone of them? How was that relevant to their accusation? 5) Why did Moses ask Korach and companions twice to appear before G'd armed with incense? Why did Korach agree to such a confrontation from which only one side would emerge alive? 6) When G'd told Moses and Aaron to stand aside from this "congregation," why did G'd threaten the entire nation? What had they done? On the other hand, if the entire nation had become guilty by indicating approval of Korach's challenge, how could Moses say to G'd " because of the sin of one man You will be angry at the whole congregation?" 7) Moses' surprise that one man's sin could trigger national disaster, is hard to understand. We have many instances of collective responsibility (golden calf, Achan ben Karmi, Zimri etc.) (see discussion in chapter 24) 8) When pointing to the miracle about to happen, why does Moses describe this as proof that Korach had angered G'd? It would have been reasonable to expect Moses to have pointed out that such an occurrence proved that he was the authentic leader? 9) Why were the pans in which the rejected incense had been offered up used as a covering for the altar? This looks as if they had been hallowed by the very abuse they had been put to?
_.78.1.8
Since it is well known that premeditation and planning of sinful conduct aggravates the nature of such a sin, (Yuma 29, "contemplation of the sin is worse than the sin itself") it is important to reveal the full extent of the qualities the people involved possessed. Men such as these were beyond acting impulsively, and could not be excused for having acted out of mere thoughtlessness. Korach was keenly aware that in order for his rebellion to succeed, he needed either massive support amongst the people, or the kind of collaborators who could compenstae for their lack of numbers by dint of their reputation amongst the people. This is why he included "princes, men of established reputations," "heads of the nation." With that kind of following, he did not fear to be accused of grandstanding, of selfseeking under the mantle of righteous indignation. For this very reason he excluded the firstborn, who might have been perceived as having an axe to grind, having lost their privileges to the tribe of Levi. Although Korach's main attack was directed against the priesthood, he could create the impression that he was prepared to forego his own privileges as a Levite by camouflaging his complaint as being directed against the whole tribe of Levi. This gave the impression that he was striving for everybody to be equal. He did not suggest that the people become leaderless because they were all holy, but argued that in every civilised society leadership positions are awarded based on personal merit. It would be inconceivable that in a holy nation, leaders would not be freely elected by their peers. (1) When Moses heard this heresy and impudence, he told them that at the first available opportunity, i.e. the following morning, G'd Himself would announce who it was who could claim to be close to Him. The very fact that G'd was amongst them,- Korach's own words,- would help settle the issue. Since Korach and companions claimed equal status for everyone, surely the attempt to offer incense could not endanger them, but would give them a chance to see whose incense would be accepted. (2) At that stage, Moses did not suggest that Aaron present incense also. Later, Moses turned to Korach's family, pleading that they use their intelligence and realise that they had already been accorded a superior status by G'd. If now, after challenging this arrangement they were not prepared to retract their demand to be accorded the priesthood also, they should realise that they were placing themselves in mortal danger by presenting incense alongside Aaron. After this warning, Moses added "and Aaron, how is he involved?" This means "do not blame Aaron if you will die as a result of your experiment." (3) When Datan and Aviram who had been present at the start of the argument, saw that Moses had turned this into a confrontation with the Levites, they stalked away in haughty disdain. Moses thereupon had to ask them by messenger, since he wanted to include them in the warning he had issued. However, they chose to poke fun at Moses, sarcastically parrying Moses' words of ha-meat mikem, "is it not enough for you?," with a line of their own, using the very same words. They revealed themselves as master demagogues. They managed to convey the impression that Moses had taken them out of a beautiful country, Egypt, against the people's will. Moses' leadership, they claimed, had caused the people's death in the desert. Whereas until now they had suffered in silence, they could not longer do so. Even supposing that Moses had taken them out of a bad country to lead them to a land flowing with milk and honey, he had failed. By what right then, did he want to blind the eyes of the people into accepting his leadership? (4) When Moses realised that the whole diatribe was directed only against what they considered his own dictatorial leadership, he responded. Since Datan and Aviram had claimed that Moses' leadership had "interfered with bringing the people to the holy land," he had to point out that he had not in any way benefitted from his leadership role. Therefore, this could not have been his motive to act in the manner he was being accused of. Mention of the donkey is not part of Moses' prayer to G'd, but part of his defence against accusations levelled against him personally. At this point, Moses orders Datan and Aviram to offer their incense jointly with Aaron. Moses explains, that originally, he had not wanted to involve Aaron, so as to make Korach and his group feel that the incense of at least one of them would be accepted. Now, however, he wanted all two hundred and fifty plus Aaron to participate in the test. Otherwise, his action would be viewed as high handed, and the value of the victory would be diminished if Aaron had not participated. The test had to be under conditions of everyone having the same chance of victory.
_.78.1.9
Korach may not have accepted this maneuver by Moses, since it diminished the chances of his incense being accepted. Since Moses is not reported as giving Aaron instructions to participate, and since the latter would hardly do so on his own, it is likely that Moses did not press the point. The text reports Moses and Aaron as being present, whereas Korach and Co. are reported as having carried incense. Since no memorial was made of the censer of Aaron, it seems he had not taken part. (5) The overwhelming desire to achieve victory made all those people so oblivious to the danger they were exposing themselves to. Korach's attempt to sway the people to switch to his side during the night, appears to have been thwarted by the appearance of the Divine Presence which silenced the people. (verse 19) The order to separate the whole nation from the "wicked community," was understood by Moses and Aaron as referring only to themselves,
_.78.1.10
(6) since no order had come to separate the whole nation. This is why they asked G'd why He would be angry at the whole nation on account of the sin of one man. In fact, G'ds instruction had meant "stop arguing with these people and stand aside." G'd thereupon responded to the plea of Moses and Aaron, and ordered everyone to stand aside from Korach's group. This time only Moses was addressed by G'd. This indicates that their previous understanding that unless the whole people separated themselves they would all share in the doom, had been correct. (7) The principle of collective responsibility is based on the fact that every individual is part of a whole, and inseparable from it. When, however, a part takes steps to separate itself from the whole, then he can be dealt with on his merits. (not share the fate of the whole necessarily) The object of Moses' prayer was to reverse the process of collective responsibility. He said that Korach was the one who had separated himself from the whole by virtue of his challenge. He had therefore become ish echad, a single dissenter. Why should the whole nation be considered as his fellow traveller then? G'ds reply was that just as Korach had demonstrably opted out, so the people would have to demonstrate that they did not make common cause with Korach. The practice of Jewish Courts of law to banish unrepentant sinners, has as its purpose to show that the community does not feel at one with that individual, and thereby wards off collective punishment which might otherwise befall it as a result of the sinner's actions. When Datan and Aviram had left centre stage, Moses followed by the elders, and disregarding the insult that had been flung at him, followed them to warn them of what would befall them. However, far from heeding the fact that the people had already moved away from their immediate vicinity, Datan and Aviram continued with renewed sarcastic outbusrts. Moses had to announce the nature of the impending punishment, since both his stature as a prophet and the priesthood had come under attack. Aaron's priesthood would be proved when, as heretofore, only his incense would be accepted. Moses' prophetic stature would be vindicated when his prophecy concerning the amazing manner in which Korach and Co. would die, would come true. The fact that an entirely new method of death would occur, would prove hashgachah peratit. (8) The fact that Korach's punishment was not only just, but fitted the crime, was impressed upon the people. He had endeavoured to undermine the fundamentals of Judaism, "to remove the floor," have the bottom drop out from beneath the spiritual underpinnings of his people. In retribution, "the bottom" fell out beneath them instead. When the Talmud in Baba Batra 74, tells that the spot where Korach went under reverted to primeval tohu, and that Koarch and Co. can be heard at the site proclaiming that both Moses and his Torah are true, the message is that we should appreciate the real target of his complaint. By having had to eat his words, this was demonstrated beyond doubt. (9) The memory of the end of the rebellion is kept alive by these censers, the final destiny of which is to partake in the very service that had been assailed by their former owners. Because Aaron had not been with the two hundred and fifty men when they offered their incense, it was their pans that would demonstrate that only priests could offer incense without penalty. The reason that those pans were used though they had belonged to the rebels, is that they had served to separate truth from falsehood. The same reason that had motivated David to keep the sword of the idol worshipping Goliath, applied here also. (Samuel I chapter 21) Achimelech had stored that sword in the temple, as a memento of the defeat of the blasphemer. When David bemoans the death of Saul, (Samuel II 1,27) he does not only bewail the loss of Saul the warrior, but also the loss of his weapons, the instruments of his victory. Although the weapons of an enemy, since they assisted the enemy could be presumed to be objects of disdain and hatred, the fact is that nothing is as beloved as the weapon once owned by a defeated enemy, which now reminds the victor of his triumph. Similarly, the flattened metal of the incense pans now assumed a greater degree of sanctity since their function had now proved the sanctity of Torah values as revealed by Moses. "They were offered before the Lord and became sanctified." (17,3) This means that they had become holy through the death of the rebels.
_.79.1.2
Parasha of Red Heifer
_.79.1.3
Bamidbar Rabbah 19, teaches that all those who are engaged in preparing the red heifer for use, defile their clothing. However it is the function of the ashes of the red heifer to purify clothing that had been defiled.
_.79.1.4
Logic has long stipulated that any prime cause producing certain effects, embodies the essence of the effect in itself. If honey cake is sweet, then the honey contributing to the sweetness of the cake must itself be sweet.
_.79.1.5
Our sages have recognised the reverse of this when they stated that the logic which is valid when one applies the "a fortiori" kind of reasoning, (kal vachomer) cannot be used to prove anything over and beyond the "a fortiori" facts. For instance: if twelve eggs are one dozen, then fifteen eggs are certainly not less than a dozen. However, we cannot say that fifteen eggs must be a dozen plus. (The fact that no other ingredient of the cake is sweet, dictates that it is the honey that must be sweet) This means that the effect is related to the cause, though it need not be stronger than the cause itself. If the Torah enjoins us ve-hadarta peney zakeyn, to honour the scholar, the idea is that by doing so one accords honour to the Torah itself, which is the cause for that Torah scholar to receive honour. (Kidushin 33) For this reason, the Talmud Makkot 22, points to the folly of the people who rise in the presence of a Torah scroll, but remain seated when the scholars appear. The lesson is that since the benefits of Torah are derived through contact with the Torah scholar and not through contact with Torah itself, the scholar deserves more recognition, since it is he who enlightens us. In terms of nature then, the honour due to Torah is primary, whereas in terms of study, the honour due to the Torah scholar is primary. Proof may be found in the words of the Torah arba-im yakkenu, i.e. "forty lashes one shall administer to him", whereas the sages ruled that the true number must be no more than thirty nine. (Deut 25,3)
_.79.1.6
From all this it seems clear, that if the red heifer contaminates all that it comes in contact with, surely the heifer itself must be the source of the contamination! The whole matter seems to defy our normal way of reasoning. Therefore, the use of the words "this is the statute of the Torah", at the beginning of this paragraph is to remind us that logic cannot be employed if we want to comprehend the meaning of this commandment. This is why our sages quote the wisest of men, Solomon, as admitting that comprehension of this mitzvah, or rather its mechanics, its halachic rulings, escapes him. People who try to philosophise about Torah, fall into two categories. Group one believes that everything written in the Torah needs to be understood at face value, literally. For instance, if the Torah refers to G'd "smelling the sweet fragrance of a sacrifice," they perceive G'd literally employing His sense of smell. Or, if the Torah reports G'd as descending on Mount Sinai, they understand this to have been a physical descent. The second group is aware that statements in the Torah are subject to interpretation. Some members of this group will interpret on the basis that the Torah employs human idiom in order to facilitate our understanding of certain concepts. This group will not interpret in a manner that conflicts with known Torah principles. A sub group of category number two, arrogates to itself the right to make its interpretations primary and Torah principles only secondary. This is done by most Christian and a few Jewish philosophers. Making one's own intellect supreme in the matter of exegesis is heretical, of course. Solomon refers to all three groups in Proverbs 14, 14-16. (1) The fool will believe anything. (2) The crafty one will understand in line with his principles. (3) The haughty fool will come to grief through exaggerated self confidence. The manner in which the Torah portrays the laws of the red heifer is a clear hint not to try and unravel that which is conceptually beyond the human intellect. The contradictions have been built into this legislation to warn us off trying to comprehend it.
_.79.1.7
We observe in nature that decomposition becomes more offensive in direct ratio to the esteem the decomposing object was held in while it was still functioning. When vegetables rot, the resulting compost is foul smelling and distasteful. When man or beast dies, the stench accompanying decomposition is overwhelming. Conversely, keeping one's distance from rotting objects is praiseworthy precisely in the degree of the rottenness involved. Keeping one's distance from wicked people or sinners makes one pure, good. Opposing bestiality however, makes one saintly, holy. We can apply this concept also to matters of the spirit, to moral matters. When a saintly person abandons his way of life, the disgust we feel with such a person far exceeds the disappointment one feels when an ordinary person sins. Again, a saintly person who has once abandoned his former saintly lifestyle, will be far more likely to adopt a diametrically opposite lifestyle than an ordinary person. Immoral acts committed by people who used to be pillars of morality, are far worse than destructive acts committed by wild animals, which will not act worse as they get older. When plants wilt, resulting in minor putrification as they turn back into earth, the Torah does not decree any law of impurity concerning them. Animals, which lose their body as well as their animalistic soul at death, decay and rot, and become quite putrid. The Torah decreed a relatively light degree of impurity concerning contact with cadavers. Man, who is possessed of the power of speech, proof of a higher soul and intellect, undergoes a far greater depreciation from his former lofty status when he dies. Therefore, the Torah decrees impurity not only upon contact, but even when merely in an enclosed space with the corpse. Seven days mourning is observed for one's family or highly placed individuals. One is tempted to view this as proof that the destruction of a human intellect results in negative emanations spiritually, similar to the foul smelling emanations from a decaying body. In the language of our sages, such emanations are called ruach tum-ah, the spirit of impurity. When one accepts the principle that only Jewish corpses convey such impurity even without contact, by merely sharing the same confined space, then this would demonstrate that the loss of a Jewish life is an even more serious occurrence than the loss of life per se. (Yevamot 61) We are told there that the line adam ki yamut ba-ohel, an Adam that dies in a tent, refers to a Jew. The meaning of the line then is: "only someone called Adam, i.e. a Jew can confer impurity by merely being in the same tent with the living." (compare Ezekiel chapter thirty four as to who qualifies for the title "Adam.") In Yadayim 4,6, the Rabbis stipulate that the degree of impurity that attaches to something is in direct relation to its belovedness in the eyes of G'd. This principle was acknowledged even by the Saducees, heretics in many other aspects of Torah interpretation. It is quite true that the basic concept of tum-ah, impurity, escapes us. We can only surmise by studying the applications of the regulations concerning tum-ah. The one thing that is certain is, that this impurity is not rooted in the purely physical part of man or beast, but is connected to the life force which does not exist in botany, in "plant life." Since, in the case of man, death causes the loss not only of the life force, but also that of the intellect, the degree of tum-ah that results, is more severe. Since a Jew is on a higher plane, his death causes still more tum-ah, seeing that even greater values have been lost through his death. In fact, tum-ah starts already during one's lifetime. Since the manner of one's lifestyle may hasten death, every unworthy act or thought may hasten the onset of such impurity. This is why our sages in Berachot 18, describe the wicked as "dead" already during their lifetime, since after death, tum-ah never departs from their souls, each one according to the amount he has accumulated. The righteous, on the other hand, the one whose conduct during his lifetime had been praiseworthy, retains an unsullied soul, and such soul does not become contaminated with tum-ah upon his death. The verse in Leviticus 11, 43, "do not become contaminated by them, else you will be contaminated by them," means "don't become tarnished by them during your lifetime, so that you will not find yourself tarnished by them when you die." On the other hand, the righteous are called "the living ones" even after their physical deaths. Since they have avoided the spirit of impurity, they have essentially remained alive. This is what is meant in the Midrash referred to earlier, that it is not death that causes impurity, nor is it the red heifer that imparts impurity.
_.79.1.8
Our sages illustrate the function of the red heifer by means of a parable. The child of a slave woman had dirtied the king's palace. The king decrees that the mother has to atone for the child, since the accident occurred due to faulty upbringing of the child by its mother. This had lead to its misdemeanour. The sin of the golden calf is to be atoned for by the mother cow, the red heifer. She endeavours to rehabilitate her young. Whoever helps the mother cow in her labours, helps bring about the rehabilitation of the young. At the same time, whoever assists in the preparation of the ash of the red heifer, also helps to bear the guilt that the red heifer is trying to remove from earth. Once the source of evil has been dealt with, its emanations can dissipate. Concerning our opening premise that in order to be the cause of certain phenomena, the relevant ingredients must be present in the cause itself, the question that can be raised is that many blind parents sire children with perfect vision. However, we must distinguish between such causes as are really only channels, conduits for the achievement of certain results, and others that are ultimate causes. If one is only involved in converting raw materials, the qualities of the end product need not be present in the refiner of such raw materials. Since G'd has already created all raw materials, no one can be more than a refiner, a converter. We do not expect the anvil to possess the qualities of the needle, i.e. one of its end products. The reason this is so, is that the anvil does not impart a new quality to the needle. All of this is true when the creative activity is merely of a preparatory nature. When the creative activity however, involves the final phase of manufacture or craftsmanship, such as the final shape and finish of a porcelain vase, the artist surely possesses the qualities he wishes his masterpiece to reflect. Therefore, as we have said, a honeycake cannot be produced by a baker who does not himself embody some of the honey's sweetness. The Creator surely embodies all the qualities we observe in the sun, the moon, the planets etc. Were this not the case, how could He have fashioned them? On the other hand, natural phenomena, plants, animals etc. are merely the results of the functions of celestial bodies. Similarly, the parents' function when begetting children is like that of the sun in promoting the growth of plants. In the larger scheme of the cosmos, men and women are the tools that fashion human offspring, though they can hardly produce a specific personality. That, i.e. the specific mix of genes, is contributed by G'd. It was He, after all, who had said "let Us make man in Our image." It is true to say that G'd is the original father. (Deut. 32,6) "He is your father, He has acquired you, He has made you, He has established you firmly."
_.79.1.9
Of course, it is not necessary that the Creator possess physically the characteristics of the creature He creates, just as the builder of a windmill need not be an expert miller. It suffices that he understands the process so that he can build an efficient windmill. Similarly, the verse "shall the One who creates the sense of hearing not be able to hear?" (Psalms 94,8) This does not mean that G'd has a physical ear, but that He understands the process of hearing.
_.79.1.10
The difference between a prophet and a wise man, concerning which the Talmud in Baba Batra 12, says that "the wise man is superior to the prophet," is something like this. The prophet, by reason of being privy to the king, overhears many palace secrets. Unless this prophet is specifically informed concerning details, his knowledge will remain very sketchy. He will not know the causes for the events he has foreknowledge of. The wise man, on the other hand, has calculated by means of his intellect and his logic that certain events ought to occur at a certain place at a certain time. Since he cannot be certain however, that the king himself is aware of the causes why such event should take place, he has no idea if the king intends to act in accordance with information at the disposal of the wise man. All this is based on the view that the prophet need not necessarily be the outstandingly wise man of his generation.
_.79.1.11
"This is the statute of the law"
_.79.1.12
Symbolically, the red heifer legislation can be understood in the following manner. The cow herself,- though reminiscent of the golden calf's mother, and thus indirectly responsible for her offspring,- is pure, much as the soul is pure at entry into the human body. The colour red represents the soul after having joined the body and becoming besieged by all the attractions of physical life here on earth. Sin is possible on three levels, parallel to the three life forces that are extant in man. Man possesses the life force of the plants, i.e. he responds to everything physical. He possesses the life force of animals, i.e. he is sensitive to all that goes on around him be it painful or pleasurable. Thirdly, he possesses intellect, being able to sin with it by preferring to pattern his life on heretical concepts. The requirement that the red heifer must not have worn a yoke in order for it to be capable of becoming an instrument of atonement, suggests that it represents the type of man who has rejected any and all limitations from a higher source concerning the manner in which he can conduct his life down here. The fact that only a minute amount of the blood of the red heifer is actually presented on the altar, indicates that the physical pleasures man is permitted to indulge in are minimal, so that he will be free to fulfil the will of the Lord. Removal of the red heifer from all three encampments of the Israelites, both from the most sacred as well as from the relatively least holy, indicates that man must remain free, or free himself from the demands made upon him by the three life forces that we have mentioned earlier. All the remainder of the red heifer is to be burned. The reason that burning of skin, flesh and blood is each mentioned separately, seems to symbolise the three life forces again. Each of these forces is more concealed from view than the next. Skin represents the exterior life force. Flesh is the middle life force; blood is the innermost life force. The use of both cedar wood, representing the tallest of the plants, and hyssop, representing the most lowly plant, is a reminder that we must observe the golden mean. By throwing the aforementioned into the fire, we are to demonstrate that we abandon the path of extremism. The priest washing his clothes, then his body, then re-entering the encampment, constitutes three stages of atonement. Washing one's body is symbolic of purifying the sense of touch. Washing one's clothing symbolises purification of the animalistic life force. Return to the encampment is symbolic of rehabilitating the mind, which through having been outside the encampment had been apart from the shechinah, G'ds Presence. At that point in the process, the rehabilitated are fit again to associate not only with the deputy leader Eleazar, but with the leaders themselves, i.e. Moses and Aaron. Had the whole procedure of the burning of the red heifer and the subsequent sprinkling of its ash contained in springwater, been performed on Moses and Aaron themselves, it might have subdued their anger at the Jewish people sufficiently to have prevented their having later on become guilty of hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. (Numbers 19,7-12) Perhaps this is the reason that this law is recorded at this point in the fortieth year of the wandering of the Israelites. The fact is that the law itself was promulgated already in the second year of their trek through the desert. The part of the purification legislation that requires eventide for completion of the process, may symbolise that the time of day when the body cools off is most suitable for reassertion of spiritual forces within us. Also, at such times, emotional responses are more likely to be tempered by one's intellect. Interestingly, the person who administers the sprinkling, required all three stages of the purification outlined. The person who burned the red heifer, however, needed only two stages. He did not have to leave the camp. Perhaps this is because his entire function had been to destroy the red heifer, the symbol of earthiness. The remains of the red heifer are handled only by ish tahor, someone already purified. The person handling the ashes needs only to wash his clothing, not even his body. Since the sins of man can stem from any of the three life forces, the ash of the red heifer was stored in three different places, as a reminder. (compare Mishnah Parah, chapter three) One part was kept within the precincts of the temple, one part on Mount Olives, and the third part was divided up amongst all the twenty four groupings of the priests, the mishmarot. The Torah describes three instances of a person becoming impure, hinting at the three parts of man that can incur impurity. The annual reading of this portion occurs chronologically after the celebration of the redemption of the Jewish people in the days of Mordechai, shortly before Passover, when we celebrate the redemption from Egypt, and before the month of Nissan which, according to tradition, will herald the coming of the Messiah. It is interesting that our sages,-when the four special readings in advance of the Passover holiday were arranged,- did not place the reading of parshat hachodesh, i.e. the reading of the portion announcing the coming of the month of Nissan, and the Passover legislation, before that of parshat parah. One would have expected them to do so, since, chronologically speaking, the tabernacle was put up on the first of Nissan, and the red heifer was burned only on the second day of that month. This may reflect their view that the concept of purity is so paramount in Jewish philosophy, that it can push historical, chronological considerations into the background. For that reason, though we lack the ash of the red heifer today, and are therefore unable to purify ourselves ritually from contact with a dead body, we still immerse ourselves in a ritual bath (especially prior to the holidays) in order to fulfil the rites of purification at least symbolically.
_.80.1.2
They are the waters of strife.
_.80.1.3
Rabbi Ami said in Talmud Shabbat, 55: "There is no death without sin, and no suffering without guilt." When the angels questioned G'd why He had decreed death on Adam, G'd said that He had commanded Adam only one single commandment, and the latter had been unable to handle it. Upon the question why Moses and Aaron, each of whom had fulfilled many hundreds of commandments had been condemned to die, G'd replied that the righteous and the wicked share the same destiny. This is the meaning of the verse in Kohelet 9,2, "the righteous and the wicked share the same fate." In a Baraita Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar elaborated, "Moses and Aaron died because of their sin."
_.80.1.4
Just as G'd is unable to make the diameter of a square equal the length of its sides at one and the same time, so He cannot make man "in His image and his own form," and at the same time keep him free from sin entirely. The reason is that the definition of being human includes being fallible, being prone to err. Infallibility is reserved for celestial beings that are devoid of bodies. Their perfection derives from their not being physical. Man's perfection on the other hand, is merely potential, inasmuch as his body has been equipped with a spiritual soul. That potential will be achieved only after much practice and study. The very necessity to attend to the needs of his body, creates a time frame during which man cannot concentrate on his spiritual tasks. The Midrash tells us that when the angels first beheld Adam, they wanted to worship him, since they marvelled at the spiritual powers man had been equipped with. Thereupon, G'd showed them man asleep. Only then did the angels realise that owning a body and therefore having physical needs, made man at times much inferior to what they had believed at first. When Isaiah 2,22, exlaims "leave man alone, for his soul is in his nostrils, in what way is he of any consequence?" the idea is that man cannot possibly be considered a deity, since he is matter-bound. Midrash Tanchuma tells us that the emperor Hadrianus, after having conquered much of the then civilised part of the world, wanted to be deified in Rome. There were three philosophers who expressed opposition to this idea. The first one said that it is not proper to start a rebellion while in one's king's palace. If one wants to start a rebellion, believing in the merit of one's cause, one first leaves the palace, and raises the flag of revolt outside. What this philosopher meant was quite simple. Once one has demonstrated one's ability to survive outside the king's palace, -in this case the earth,-which is G'ds palace, one may have established an a priori claim to provide an alternative to G'd. As long, however, as one depends on the palace, i.e. the earth, one should leave well enough alone. The second philosopher said that it was too late to start a rebellion, since both heaven and earth had been created already. There was therefore no way in which a new deity could possibly claim to demonstrate originality. The third philosopher offered to accept Hadrianus' claim on condition that the latter prove his worthiness by helping him out. The philosopher had a treasure laden ship that had run aground three miles from shore. He asked Hadrianus to rescue the ship and its contents. Hadrianus said that he would send a legion of soldiers to do the job. The philosopher told him that no soldiers were needed. All that was needed was a little wind, blowing in the right direction. To this Hadrianus replied: "where am I supposed to take the wind from?" Upon hearing this, the philosopher said to him: "if you cannot even control a little wind, how do you expect to control the whole universe?" Hadrianus returned home, bitterly disappointed. His wife said to him: "these philosophers have deceived you. You are a great king. If you will give me a security deposit, you will indeed become a deity." Said he: "what kind of security deposit?" Said she: "the soul in your body." Said he: "if my soul leaves me, I will be powerless." Said she: "if you cannot even make dispositions regarding your own soul, how can you expect to be a deity? You are only an ordinary mortal." The wife, of course, had hit the nail on the head. Man's potential is only capable of fulfilment within a physical framework, i.e. he cannot dissociate himself from his body; otherwise he dies and is unable to achieve anything at all. Since this is so, the question may well be asked: "what about his freedom of choice? If, by nature, man must sin, how can he be held responsible?" We must distinguish between two causes of sin. If sin is due to causes that are inherent in man's very nature, he is not held responsible for such sin. If sin is the result of a lapse on the part of the sinner, then he is held responsible. When Moses is described as "the most humble of all human beings," (Numbers 12,3) the emphasis is on the word "human being." His perfection is not absolute. To the extent that it is humanly possible, Moses had mastered that virtue, but only to the extent that it is humanly possible. This is in line with the statement by Solomon in Kohelet 7,20. "No human being is so righteous that he will do only good, and never sin." According to Maimonides, the sin Moses allowed himself to fall prey to, was anger when it was not justified. (introduction to Avot chapter 4) Maimonides endeavours to prove that the greater the stature of a person, the less is his tolerance for weakness in others who fail to achieve basic standards of behaviour.
_.80.1.7
The answer G'd gave to the angels in our opening aggadah then is this. Since G'd had asked Adam to perform a simple task, one well within reach of his capabilities, and still he had failed, such failure could only have been due to lack of effort on his part, not to the fact that he was a mixture of body and soul. At that point in the conversation came the angels' question why Moses and Aaron also had to die, seeing they had in fact complied with all the mitzvot that they had been commanded. The angels' question presumed that Moses and Aaron had in fact sinned, but since such sin had been minor, they should have deserved forgiveness. It is also assumed that the angels' statement that Moses and Aaron had observed the whole Torah, meant that any sins that they might have committed had surely been wiped out by their having repented them. Otherwise, one could not speak about fulfilling "all" commandments. G'ds reply was, that it was true that they had not sinned in the sense of having been remiss, but that their very nature makes them mortal, since their composition makes one hundred per cent dedication to spiritual perfection impossible. To that extent, both sinners and saints wind up leaving their bodies behind when they die. Even those sages who hold that death can occur without prior sin, (Shabbat 55) do not refer to involuntary sin, since we have a verse in Kohelet telling us that such sinlessness simply does not exist. Also, the so called etyo shel nachash, the poisonous residue of man's seduction by the original serpent in Eden, which is credited with having caused the death of four otherwise totally blameless individuals, refers only to the absence of the kind of sin that warrants the death penalty. That school holds that Moses and Aaron had been guilty of death, having violated their duties as prophets. ("because you have not demonstrated sufficient faith to cause My name to be sanctified." Numbers 20,12)
_.80.1.9
Some difficulties in the text of our Parshah. 1) What manner of people is this that wishes itself such a horrible death as that experienced by Korach and his followers? (20,3) 2) Why do these people harp on the fact that figs and pomegranates do not grow in the desert, while they are in the middle of accusing their leaders of causing their death from thirst? 3) Why did G'd insist on a verbal command to the rock in question? 4) Why do all the commentators have such problems in explaining the sin of Moses and Aaron, when chapter twenty verse twelve clearly spells it out for us?
_.80.1.10
In the original edition of this work, the author devotes much space to refuting various interpretations by the classic commentators.
_.80.1.12
A comparison between the first time Israel had suffered from a lack of water, at a place called Massa U-merivah, and this latest occasion almost forty years later, shows that the people's complaint was directed at Moses and Aaron. They thought that the latter had acted on their own when they had led the nation out of Egypt, and had now failed them. To disabuse them of that idea, G'd provided water from the rock in full view of the whole nation. The name of the place commemorated the fact that they had addressed themselves to Moses and had entertained doubts about the presence of G'd in their midst. (Exodus chapter 17) Psychologically, the people had been unable to entertain the idea that the all knowing G'd, the essence of Goodness, would allow any difficulties to impede the progress of His people. Hence, they reasoned, the very difficulties they experienced were proof that the entire journey had been engineered by humans, not by G'd. This suspicion surfaced whenever any problem arose during the many years of the Israelites' wanderings. For this reason, Moses had been prompted to say to G'd that the people would kill him if they had any more provocation. They had considered him a false prophet. G'd instructed that the rock be struck in public, so that suspicion of Moses and Aaron would not ever occur again. (1+2) Now, forty years later, there was a repeat performance. All the people who had witnessed the striking of the rock at that time, had died. The young generation, however, had seen Miriam die, the wandering well disappear, and the ground had thus been prepared for the old suspicions to re-surface. This generation was saying that even a horrible death such as that of Korach, would have been preferable, since at least that would have occurred by an act of G'd. Their impending death by thirst at this point however, would merely be the fault of Moses, since he had bee unable to bring their forty year old adventure to a successful conclusion. Their complaint was reinforced by the fact that the place Moses had taken them away from had been infinitely superior to the place where they were about to perish. Not only did this place not produce figs and pomegranates, but it did not even provide the basics for survival, i.e. water. The performance was to take place in front of the entire nation. Since this problem had occurred a second time, and since the revelation the first time had not left behind a permanent impression, and there were still doubts about Moses' having acted only as G'ds agent, the new demonstration would have to include some element that went beyond the lesson taught at Massah U-merivah. It was necessary to show that Moses did not even touch the rock at all, to implant the conviction in the people's mind that G'd alone had provided the water, not in conjunction with Moses, nor Moses by his own devices. The rock therefore had to respond to a command by G'd transmitted by Moses by word of mouth only. G'ds purpose had been threefold. 1) To aggrandize His name by showing that even inert rocks respond to His spoken word, just as humans do. 2) Sanctification of His name by demonstrating that Moses was a true prophet. 3) To show that the rock responded immediately, without any mechanical aids having been interposed. This would prove that G'd could provide immediately and directly all the needs of His people, whenever He felt so inclined. It was hoped that a demonstration like that would once and for all still all doubts any of the people entertained about who had taken them out of Egypt, and that Moses had never acted on his own. These three purposes of the demonstration are hinted at in the text itself in verse twelve, when the Torah mentions: A) You have lacked a display of faith. B) You have failed to sanctify My name, and C) before the eyes of the people. (3) Had the people observed Moses and Aaron address the rock instead of responding to the people's request by chiding them, it would have been the most impressive demonstration of faith. G'ds instruction in verse eight had not included anything about speaking to the people. Moses had only been asked to assemble them. Moses' and Aaron's emotional state may have caused them to misunderstand G'ds precise instructions. They were under stress, after all. The fact remains that they departed from G'ds instructions before approaching the rock already. They compounded their error when they allowed the impression to be formed that it was they themselves that would produce the water. (Shall we produce water for you from this rock? verse ten) Finally, by hitting the rock, they nullified all that G'd had intended to be proved by the whole demonstration. When they hit the rock a second time, the result was that by comparison to the time Moses had struck the rock at Massa U-merivah, they actually diminished the impact of the miracle, since at that time the rock had gushed forth water as soon as Moses' staff had impacted. The onlookers had certainly heard about the miracle that had been performed on that occasion. As a result of all this, the people were even more prepared to credit the production of water to Moses rather than to G'd. It would reinforce their belief that it had been due to an inadequacy on the part of Moses that the solution to their problem had been so long in coming. Moses would be reduced in their eyes to the level of the water diviner, of whom there must have been quite a few in that arid region. His only advantage over other such water diviners would be that whereas other diviners had to try many times before achieving success, Moses had achieved success already at his second attempt. We find the people's mistaken concept of what they had witnessed expressed in the very song of praise they sang. (Chapter 21, 17-18) In that song they describe their source of water as being due to their leaders, "a well dug by princes, delved by the nobles of the people, with their scepters and their staffs." They might even have attributed the production of the water to the proximity of the river Arnon, described in verse fourteen. We read there that they proceeded to the well of which G'd said to Moses to assemble the people so He could give them water. The distorted view that this spot had been a well, was only possible through Moses' and Aaron's error in not carrying out G'ds instructions precisely. The real facts were that water had been available already at Refidim, due to Miriam's merit. (Exodus 17, 1-3) With the death of Miriam, the source of that water dried up, causing the problems in the desert of Tzin. We observe therefore how Moses and Aaron thwarted G'ds entire purpose by their fateful error.
_.80.1.13
(4) The penalty Moses and Aaron had to pay for their error, is reported in different language on three separate occasions in the Torah. When we consider that their error was threefold, we can easily understand why the penalty is mentioned in three parts, each mention being the penalty appropriate for one of the errors committed. 1) (Numbers 20,12) "You will not bring this community to the land I have given them." 2) (Deuteronomy 32,51) "Because you have trespassed against Me." 3) (Numbers 20,24) "Because you have rebelled against My word." The first part of the penalty is concerned with the failure to fulfil the function of the prophet, the function of a leader. Therefore, leadership will be denied them when the people cross into the holy land. Moses refers to this at a later stage, when he explains that the fact that Joshua will become their leader is due to his having aroused G'ds anger. (Deut. 1,37) 2) They are denied entry into the holy land even as ordinary people, because of the sin of me-ilah, the downgrading of something sacred. They had diminished rather than enhanced G'ds stature. Therefore no upgrading for Moses and Aaron through setting foot on holy soil. 3) The decree that they would die before their appointed time. Sifri explains that such a penalty, karet, is always reserved for acts of rebellion against G'd. That is why G'd had stated "because you have rebelled." The reason that this decree could not be reversed by prayer and by repentance was, that G'd could not demonstrate in any other way that His plan had been frustrated, had not been executed in midbar tzin. Consider the following: A king, interested in raising his public image, instructed his major domo to forthwith receive visitors with pomp and ceremony to show that visitor that he was highly thought of. The major domo failed to heed the instructions, treating visiting dignitaries with disdain. The only way the king could prove that his major domo had not acted on the king's instructions, was by beheading the major domo. Similarly, in the case of Moses and Aaron. This is why the Torah tells us that kedushah, sanctity, was restored in the final analysis by the untimely death of Moses and Aaron. (Numbers 20,13. "He was sanctified by means of them.") When our sages teach that whenever a sin involves an element of desecration of the holy name of G'd in public, there is no forgiveness, this is one of the instances they have in mind. In such cases, repentance does not wipe the slate clean. (Yuma 86)
_.81.1.2
Moses sent messengers from Kadesh.
_.81.1.3
Midrash Rabbah Numbers 19, explains the following two verses in Psalms. Psalm 37,3 reads "trust in the Lord , do good, rest on earth and nourish faith." In chapter 34,15 the Psalmist says "keep away from evil, do good, seek peace and pursue it." The Torah does not tell us to pursue mitzvot, rather ,when the opportunity arises in instances such as kan tzippor sending away the mother bird prior to taking her young, you perform the commandment that is at hand. However, when it is a question of making peace, the Torah wants us to seek out every opportunity, to pursue every avenue. Do not seek it only by sitting at home, but travel in pursuit of it. So did Israel. Though the Lord had said "begin to inherit the land, find a pretext to provoke war against it," (Deut 2,24), nevertheless Israel sent out messengers to Sichon, requesting a peaceful passage.
_.81.1.5
The Torah demands on repeated occasions that we rid ourselves of negative virtues such as hatred, jealousy and the like. Not only are we commanded "do not hate your brother in your heart," (Leviticus 19,17) but we are even commanded to physically assist our enemies in loading or unloading his donkey, should the occasion demand it. We are asked to lend or to give alms repeatedly to the same people even, and to avoid doing so out of a feeling of distaste for such beggars. All this is designed to refine our character. We must not bear tales, avenge unneighbourly behaviour, and similar commandments. The Torah states as the general purpose of the legislation "so it will be good for you; so you will be well off; so it will be good for us." In other words, those who perform these mitzvot will refine their character by doing so. Not only will one merit external benefits from the performance of such social commandments, i.e. reward, but there will be an additional benefit for us, the improvement of our personality. Whenever the Torah considers a particular commandment of special importance, it repeats the demand to observe such a mitzvah. Sometimes the demand is repeated even more than twice. We are told "do not pervert justice, listen to both sides when sitting in judgment, do not give preferential treatment to either rich or poor, pursue justice with fairness." The greater the negative impact if one should fail to observe certain commandments, the greater the emphasis the Torah places on its observance. In fact, inheritance of the land of Israel is made conditional on the observance of these social statutes. Study of Torah is one of the categories of mitzvot that are the foundation of personal and national well being. This is so, since it not only leads to the development of positive virtues, but also helps us avoid the many pitfalls man is exposed to. For that reason, the mitzvah of Torah study is not like kan tzippor, something to be observed if it happens our way, yet not something that needs to be sought out, but it is a duty incumbent upon each of us at all times, and applies practically within any environment we may find ourselves in. It is immaterial whether a person is highly placed or in very modest circumstances. Joshua (Joshua 1,8) is commanded to have access to a sefer Torah, Torah scroll at all times. Kings are to write it and study it. (Deut. 17,18) History shows that whenever a Jewish king treated Torah as a most precious possession and source of inspiration, so did his people. On the other hand, as soon as the king ignored the Torah, the people were not long in following suit. The result was usually disastrous and not too long in coming. The reason the king is elected as a model for how to treat Torah, is simply that the king's safety is symbolic of the security of the entire nation. When the aging David could not longer actively participate in battle without endangering his life unduly, his generals were most concerned to keep him in a safe place, pointing out that his personal safety was the key to the nation's success in battle, and to the maintenance of morale among the population. (Samuel II chapter 8) The Talmud in Erchin 17, states "each generation according to its leaders." The meaning is that the fate of the generations is in large measure due to the actions of its leaders.
_.81.1.6
Since the attainment of peace is as central to successful life as is the well being of the king to its nation, the Torah urges us to do everything in our power to help achieve this goal and blessing. For that reason, the advice of Rabbi Massis, (Avot 4) to be the first to offer "peace," i.e. greeting to every person, represents the Torah outlook on life. It is not sufficient to grasp the opportunity for peace when it presents itself, but it must be actively sought out at all times. For that reason Hillel urged that one be a disciple of Aaron, the High Priest, who excelled in the pursuit of peace. Avot de Rabbi Natan 12, describes Aaron as going so far as to involve himself in family or other personal quarrels, unbidden, in order not to miss an opportunity to restore peace and harmony where it had been shattered. When he died, all sections of the nation cried, having been aware of his outstanding contribution to the unity of the people, and how his departure from amongst the living, might endanger the nation's well being.
_.81.1.7
During wartime, not only does one concentrate on hating and killing the enemy, but the values that are paramount during times of peace, tend to become perverted. Cruelty and murder occur even amongst brothers in arms, members of the same side. Actions which are unavoidable in war, have a way of developing into independent virtues in wartime, corrupting all normal norms. David already experienced this while he led a band of men (see chapter 30 Samuel I) near Tziklag. Again, when David instructed Yoav his commander- in- chief concerning the positioning of Uriah in an exposed part of the battlefield, (Samuel II chapter 11) he experienced the tendency of warriors to see moral values as somewhat blurred. It says "va-yitchazek David be-elokav,” i.e. David had to muster all his moral strength to prevent the degeneration by his comrades, whose trade had only recently been the killing and plundering around Tziklag. When David proclaimed (Psalms 120,7) "I am peace, and I speak out about it; yet they are only interested in war," he refers to this problem. We find therefore, that Israel, when offering peace to Sichon king of Emori, acted according to the principle "refrain from evil, seek peace," only to be rebuffed for its efforts. It is not enough to prepare for war and resolve that in the event a peace offer is forthcoming one will accept it; one has to make the first move in this direction. War is acceptable only because of the peace and justice that follow it. Midrash Rabbah Deut 5, reports that this was an instance in which Moses had acted on his own, and G'd agreed with him, seeing that G'd had only instructed him to make war. So we find that the precedent Moses set by his unilateral action was elevated to become halachic norm. Whenever a war outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael is contemplated, "you will have to call out "peace" to her." (Deut. 20,10-11) Since the Torah couples this legislation with the prohibition of cutting down fruit bearing trees of a city under siege, it is easy to understand that the Torah places even greater emphasis on the need to spare human life. Sifri, item 123, even states that the seven nations residing in Canaan at the time the Jewish people were about to invade them, had a chance to save their lives either by converting to Judaism or by emigrating. The instructions to wipe them out, women and children included, applied only if they failed to avail themselves of the choices mentioned.
_.81.1.8
The following matters deserve special attention in connection with the campaign against Sichon and Og. 1) Since it had been clear to G'd that Moses' offer to Edom would be rejected, why did He agree to Moses proceeding in such a manner, apparently causing Israel embarassment? 2) Why did Moses not also send a peace offer to Og? 3) Why did G'd tell Moses not to be afraid of Og? Would there not have been much more reason to tell him not to be afraid of Sichon, seeing that he was going to be the first one Moses would meet on the battlefield?
_.81.1.9
The answer to question number one is the fact that Sichon would interpret Moses' offer as a sign of weakness, not as a desire to avoid blodshed. By allowing Moses leeway, G'd succeeded in having Sichon adopt a more arrogant posture. This is why he deserved to be punished. Having observed that Israel had preferred not to fight Edom or Moav, Sichon felt sure he could get away with his refusal. Og, on the other hand, was so sure of himself that he did not have to be provoked into assuming a hostile posture. For that reason, Moses needed to be reassured so that he would not worry about Og's self assurance or about his many prior military successes.
_.81.1.10
Bereshit Rabbah 76, which tells about the two people who had been reassured by G'd, -Jacob and Moses,- refers to the fact that both of them seem to have harboured feelings of fear immediately prior to their respective encounters with Esau or Og. The truth is that neither one of them had really been afraid, they had only acted as if they had been afraid. One cannot order someone to become fearless. Fear is a natural attitude, not subject to legislation. However, when a person adopts a posture of fear, he can be instructed by G'd to abandon such a posture. So Jacob and Moses were told to adopt a posture of confidence also vis a vis their own people and to inspire them in this manner. The Talmud, of course, ascribes Og's confidence to the fact that he had been able to survive the deluge. He was believed to have been able to have done so due to his own merit already in the days of Abraham. Later on he had been instrumental in activating Abraham's pursuit of the kings who had taken Lot prisoner. The reason the Torah lists the measurements of Og's bedstead, is to explain why he had survived the deluge. It had not been due to any special merit but had been due to his size. He was one and a half times the height of the giant Goliath.
_.81.1.11
Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why did Moses tell Edom in his request for passage through its country, that Israel would not march through field or vineyard? Who has ever heard of an army deliberately setting out to travel through vineyards when they had just been given permission to traverse the country altogether? 2) Why is Aaron's death reported at this juncture and not his burial, which we read about only in Deut. chapter 10? 3) Why is the Torah so vague about the prisoners taken by the king of Arad? (21,1) 4) Why was this place chosen to report about the people's dissatisfaction with the Manna? Why the report about the snakes?
_.81.1.12
"And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh" etc.
_.81.1.13
(1) We must make a distinction between G'ds reasons and Israel's motivations. Israel was very interested in avoiding a major detour around the land of Edom, an inconvenience, which as we have seen in this chapter, resulted in many complaints. Therefore, the Torah credits Moses with the despatch of messengers, (20,14) i.e. G'd did not prevent the people from trying diplomatic means to secure passage through the country. He knew of the futility of the excercise, and that is why all the reasons are listed that could have persuaded the Edomites to grant Israel's request. Edom, in common with many other countries, had two kinds of roads that traversed it. The one used by armies would be far away from the built up areas so as to ensure that whoever travelled that route would not cause damage or interfere with either agriculture or civilization. The other road, the derech messilah, the paved main highway, was the link between the built up areas. On that route would be found suppliers of water and food for travellers. Israel first offered to travel the first kind of road. When refused, Israel suggested using the other type of road, offering economic benefits to the host country by using and paying for the facilities available. In the latter event, they wanted to reassure Edom that they would not cause destruction or damage in their wake, something the Edomites had reason to be afraid of, considering the size of Israel's army. (2) Aaron's death may have been reported, since he was able to see his son Eleazar take over his position, a zechut, merit, that might well have been the reason Moses wished himself a death such as that of Aaron had been privileged to experience. (Sifri Parshat Ha-azinu) He was not buried where he died, since there was concern that Edom might desecrate his grave, were the grave to be situated close to Edom's borders. When we read in Deut. 10,6, "there Aaron died and was buried," the word "there" does not necessarily describe an exact location, just the general area. (3) The absence of the tzaddik Aaron was felt, but not to the extent that lives were actually lost. After Israel had made the vow to destroy the Canaanite cities, the prisoners were freed as a result of renewed fighting. (4) The displeasure of the people was occasioned through the tedious detour around Edom, a march away from the direction of their eventual destination. The general dissatisfaction also led to the search for complaints against the manner of G'ds Providence. Their complaint was that all their provisions, both bread and water were due only to miraculous, supernatural means. They did not feel assured of the continuance of these supplies, and longed for a normal existence based on natural law. The appearance of the snakes reminded the people that an existence based on natural law would be precarious indeed, and that they therefore had no reason to quarrel with G'ds Providence. They realised this when they begged Moses to pray for renewed hashgachah peratit. (21,7) Actually, ever since the blessing Noach had received after he had offered the thanksgiving offering for having survived the deluge with his family intact, snakes ought to have been afraid of humans. (Genesis 9,2) An attack by snakes on humans, therefore, is an extraordinary phenomenon. However, the blessing bestowed on Noach, and through him on mankind, is conditional on mankind retaining its tzelem elokim, reflecting the Divine image accorded by its Creator. When man does not live up to the moral stature expected of him, the animals sense this and act accordingly. As long as Israel lived on a morally high plateau in the desert, the animals had kept their distance. However, as soon as they failed to maintain their standards, the predators also failed to keep their respectful distance. Animals who observe humans provided for by G'd, certainly are afraid to molest such humans. Reliance on help from above, just like during the first battle against Amalek, was demonstrated symbolically by the copper snake on a high pole. When our sages say that Moses actually threw the copper snake up into the air, and that it remained suspended there, that is precisely the point that they were making, namely that help comes only "from up there."
_.82.1.1
On the nature of Bileam's prophetic powers.
_.82.1.2
Midrash Rabbah Numbers, 20, states that the verse in Deut. 32,4 "the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, tells us that G'd has granted equal opportunities to the gentiles. If Israel possessed outstanding kings, so did the nations of the world. King Solomon's grandeur had been matched by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. Yet, whereas Solomon used his position to build a temple for the Lord, composed prayers and hymns, Nebuchadnezzar cursed G'd, and declared war against Him. (Isaiah 14,14) David used the wealth granted him to fund the building of the temple. Haman used his wealth to obtain permission to wipe out the Jewish nation. Since the Jewish people had been given the prophet Moses, G'd had assigned Bileam to the nations of the world. The difference between the two lay in the fact that whereas Moses and other Jewish prophets warned their people against sin, Bileam seduced people into sinful behaviour, causing them to forfeit their share in the world to come. Jewish people exhibited compassion not only for their own people, but also for other nations. (Jeremiah 48,36, Ezekiel 27,2) Bileam, on the other hand, was bent on the destruction of an entire nation that had not committed an offence. This portion of the Torah is recorded to explain to the world why G'd removed His holy spirit from the nations of the world forthwith.
_.82.1.4
Maimonides, in his "guide for the perplexed 32, section two, states, that though a man may have acquired both the moral and physical qualifications necessary to become a prophet, this does not mean that he will in fact become a prophet. Baruch ben Neriah, illustrious disciple of the prophet Jeremiah is a case in point. (Jeremiah 45,5) He was told that this did not reflect on him personally, but rather on the fact that his contemporaries had not been found worthy to have a prophet in their midst. Our sages tell us that Hillel had twenty students, each of whom possessed all the qualifications necessary to receive the gift of prophecy; however, the time was not propitious for the dissemination of that gift to their fellow men. (Baba Batra 13) The likelihood of a person who lacks the personal qualifications demanded of a prophet to attain that stature, is as great as that of frogs turning into prophets. Our sages (Berachot 7) explain that Moses prayed to G'd to make the gift of prophecy exclusive to the Jewish people. (Exodus 33,16) They infer that this was the meaning of Moses' request, from the answer given "also the thing you have said, I will do." This proves that the request for the Jewish people to have the distinction of the gift of prophecy, had been granted. Even though this might appear as an unfair advantage for the Jewish people, at first glance, the fact is that G'd knew that none of the other nations was inherently able to produce the kind of personality which would qualify for the gift of prophecy. Just as even the most enlightened horse will never be a philosopher, so a gentile would never make a true prophet. What a gentile could achieve however, was the ability, aided by consultation of horoscopes coupled with close observation of the laws of nature, to foretell certain events, as has been discussed in chapter twenty six. Having said all this, it is difficult to understand the sages in our Midrash who claim that Bileam was a prophet, and that G'd had matched the gift granted the Jews by giving similar powers to Bileam. Also the well known interpretation of the verse "there never arose in Israel another prophet such as Moses." (Deut. 34,10) We are told that the words "in Israel," mean that among the gentiles there was another such prophet, namely Bileam. Avot 5, describes Bileam and his students as being possessed of the "evil eye", hardly the inspirational characteristic one expects of a prophet. The Talmud in Sanhedrin 105 states, that the verse in which Bileam describes himself as "of the eye that is opened" (Numbers 24,3) refers to the fact that he had only one eye with which to see. If so, how is it that a person of such visible deformity became a prophet? In chapter fifty six we explained that the term "prophet" when applied to gentiles normally applies to astrologers and the like, people who are considered by their countrymen as seers, though they are not prophets in the true sense of the word. Also, the seers referred to in Isaiah 47,13, had their power supply cut off when the tabernacle was erected, and G'd established a new order. When our sages employ the term "prophet" in reference to gentiles, it is just like when they use the term "king" for the lion or the ox, describing them as the leaders of their respective species. Proverbs 6,7 or 30,27 supports the view that animals have leaders just as humans have. The word "prophet" then is merely an umbrella term. Our sages have been careful never to use the term "prophet" for a gentile without pointing out that it is a gentile who is being discussed. The reason the Torah has devoted an entire portion to the doings of Bileam, is precisely in order to show us why the gentiles had no further prophets. If Bileam represented the finest among the gentiles, one can imagine what other gentile prophets might have been like. The human qualities that are such essential ingredients in the prophet's makeup, were so sadly missing. Whenever Moses and Aaron performed miracles, they were certain beforehand that their efforts would be crowned with success, since G'd had communicated the miracle to be performed. Especially close was Moses' relationship with G'd, as the Torah testifies (Deut. 34,11) "G'ds intimacy with him was of a face to face nature." On the other hand, such prophets as Samuel or Elijah were almost always in need of a prayer before they could perform a miracle that they had set their minds to perform. Samuel in particular typifies that kind of prophet as we find in Mitzpah (Samuel I 7,5-13) as well as on numerous other occasions. If Psalm 99, describes Moses and Aaron as G'ds priests, and Samuel as someone who "called upon His name, that describes the difference between them. The former was a priest around the clock, so to speak, whereas the latter needed to call on G'd from time to time to await the time and place acceptable to G'd. They did not know beforehand whether G'ds response to their calls would be positive. Samuel, as the leading prototype of that group of prophets, possessed a great amount of confidence. This is why the Psalmist says of him "whenever he called.. G'd would answer." Other prophets such as Elijah or Isaiah were often not free of doubt if their prayers would be answered immediately. Moses, on the other hand, did not only not entertain any doubt, but had been instructed beforehand to perform each miracle. That is why he was able to point out to Korach and Datan and Aviram, when the latter accused him of being power hungry, that he had not ever acted from his own initiative. (Numbers 16,28). The few instances when Moses prayed for specific solutions to such problems as the bitter waters at Marah, when he was taught to use a certain variety of wood to sweeten the water, or when he prayed concerning the exact time the frogs were to be removed from Egypt, had no direct relationship to the miracles performed. For this reason, these instances were preceded by prayer.
_.82.1.5
In fact, since according to our sages, Moses had been handed the keys to all G'ds treasure chambers, he is criticized when he resorts merely to prayer instead of action, deed. At the sea, when threatened by the Egyptians who were close on his heels, G'd says to him "why are you crying out to Me, tell the Jewish people to get going!" (Exodus 14,15) Not for nothing did G'd say to him "see I have made you Lord over Pharaoh." (Exodus 7,1) Moses was like a deity who would employ Aaron as his prophet to impose his will upon Pharaoh. The contrast with Bileam is striking. The latter, by his own admission, had no idea when G'd would respond to his requests, and was certainly quite powerless to act on his own and display supernatural powers. Every utterance made by Bileam in his capacity as seer, needed approval by G'd. He did not even have latitude to depart from his prepared text. (Numbers 22,38) His utter lack of vision is best demonstrated when he said to his she-ass "if I had a sword in my hand I would kill you now." (Numbers 22,29) The Midrash that stated that among the nations there did arise a prophet, did not mean to compare Bileam with Moses, but to point out the contrast between the two. Even when a prophet does arise among the gentiles, there is no comparison at all. In every vital matter, Moses was far superior to Bileam. (see Sifri on Deut. 34,10) In order to convey G'ds messages, Moses did not need to hear them spelled out, since he always found himself on the right wavelength. Bileam, on the other hand, had to stress that what he conveyed was the word of G'd. The meaning of the Sifri in Deut. 34,10, that Moses did not know who was going to talk to him, whereas Bileam knew, is, that Moses did not need to prepare himself for an encounter with G'd, whereas Bileam had to. Moses communicated with G'd from an upright position, Bileam only while he was prostrate. The fact that Bileam was uncircumcised was a further impediment to his receptiveness for Divine communication. Prior to circumcision, even an Abraham received the word of G'd only while falling down. Not until after the circumcision when G'd addressed him, (Genesis 18,1) do we find him remaining seated. The gentile is communicated with only at night, since he is compared to a mistress, someone whom one visits discreetly during the hours of darkness. Israel, however, is like a wife with whom one communicates openly during all hours of the day. When Bileam describes himself as "one who hears the words of G'd, receives visions of the Almighty, (Numbers 24,4) one forms the impression that he was indeed on very familiar terms with the Almighty. However, this is misleading. Whereas the chef in the king's kitchen must be familiar with every ingredient in the king's meal, the maitre D' does not have to concern himself with every detail. When the Midrash, in apparent inexactitude, states that whereas Moses did not know "what was talking, whereas Bileam knew "what was talking," the reference is to the subject matter. Bileam who knew that a specific topic would be discussed with him without preamble, needed advance knowledge of that subject. Similarly, he knew when this subject would come up. This is why he could tell Balak's messengers to stay overnight till he would get instructions. Moses needed no advance knowledge of the subject matter, nor did he ever have to wait for an opportune moment. As soon as he entered the tabernacle, "he would hear the voice of the Lord talk to him." (Numbers 7, 89.) The somewhat peculiarly worded Midrash (Sifri) mentioned, has yet another meaning. Since Bileam's mode of communication with G'd was not on the level of "face to face," he could identify the source of what was speaking to him, since "it" assumed a certain form. Moses, on the other hand, while on the level of "face to face" communication had also been told by G'd "you cannot see My face, you can only see My rear, i.e. in retrospect." (Exodus 33,20) At the actual moment of the communication, he never knew how close to the "face to face" level the emanation from which he heard the voice actually was. Bileam had a kind of visual contact machazeh. Not so Moses, to whom a completely disembodied voice would not present a conceptual problem. The thrust of the whole commentary on the verse "there did not arise another prophet etc." is not to minimise the accomplishments of an Elijah in reviving the dead, nor to belittle Joshua arresting the sun and moon in their respective orbits. The commentary wishes to underline that no one other than Moses performed such miracles except by their own initiative. None were as privy to G'ds intentions as had been Moses. For that very reason, namely that he was on such intimate terms with G'd, it would have been practically impossible for Moses to have produced a miracle on his own initiative. If the whole portion is written to demonstrate the inadequacy of the most brilliant of gentile prophets, then we can understand Rabbi Yitzchak's statement that commencing with the functioning of the tabernacle, no more prophetic powers were granted to the gentiles.
_.82.1.6
Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) Since the Torah had forbidden the Israelites to attack Moab, why were the Moabites so worried? Why does the Torah use different terms for Balak's and his people's fears respectively? (Balak "saw-"the people "feared" Numbers 22,2 ) 2) Why did Moab turn to the elders of Midian? What did these two have in common? 3) The grammar used by Balak's messengers is faulty; they switch tenses, and they switch from singular to plural (verse 6) Why? 4) Since Bileam had been careful to avoid opposing G'd outright, had been truthful in relaying to Balak's messengers what G'd had said, why did G'd become angry at his going with them? After all, He Himself had permitted it! (verse 20) Why did Balak's messengers suspect Bileam of being greedy and vainglorious? 5) Why all this harping on how much honour Balak could bestow on Bileam? 6) Why did the angel try three different means of impeding Bileam's progress? 7) What was the need for the miracle of letting the she-ass talk back to Bileam? 8) Why did Bileam say “I have sinned when he had been totally unaware of the angel's presence until alerted by his she-ass? He certainly had not had an inkling of the angel's function! 9) How had Bileam's situation changed after the angel's exhoration? How were the angel's instructions different from the ones Bileam had received in his dream? 10) What sense does Bileam's exclamation "how can I curse when G'd has not cursed" make? Surely this is exactly why he had been summoned! Why did G'd give Bileam four separate opportunities to pronounce prophecies instead of having him do all this at one single site? 11) Why did Bileam constantly refer to both "Israel" and "Jacob?" 12) Why does the Torah drop the uncomplimentary vayikor during Bileam's third prophecy, and substitute "the spirit of the Lord remained with him?" 13) Why is the substance of the message repeated in 23,19? 14) In chapter 14 verse 7, Bileam describes Israel's future kingdom as "more exalted than that of Agog." Why is this so complimentary, after all Agog was not a famous king? 15) Seeing he has been dismissed in disgrace, why does Bileam bother to offer Balak gratuitous advice? (14,25)
_.82.1.7
(1+2+3) Since Balak had been aware of how Israel had tricked the Canaanites into confrontation after having appeared to sidestep Edom and Moab, his people were divided in their view of the Israelites. Some were afraid that Israel's tactics were designed to destroy Moab eventually. Of them the Torah says "vayagar, it was afraid. The other group was concerned about the encirclement that was taking place and that would eventually change the neighbouring countries. Balak "saw" the division amongst his subjects. Since Midian as one of Moab's neighbours would be the first country vitally affected by the Israelites' presence in that region, they were invited as allies. The message to Bileam telling him of the facts, especially the miracle that Israel had managed to escape from Egypt, made the request particularly urgent. Describing the apparent hopelessness of defeating Israel by warfare alone, Balak depicts the huge masses of people, suggesting by the use of the words "I" and "we" in the same sentence that possibly, through combined efforts of Bileam's curses and warriors led by Balak, Israel could be defeated. The reference to Bileam's ability to confer blessings, indicated that Balak was desirous of obtaining those blessings for his own people at the same time. Alternately, perhaps he committed a Freudian slip having reference to the blessings which Bileam would in fact bestow on the Jewish people, instead of curses. The reason that Balak's messengers took the magicians' instruments with them was to test the sincerity of Bileam. Our sages teach that the difference between the real prophet and the charlatan, the pretender lies in the former's ability to communicate the word of G'd at any time, whereas the pretender must wait for certain horoscopic constellations to appear in the correct correlation to each other. The ability of Bileam to respond immediately, would indicate that his response was genuine, was the word of G'd. As soon as Bileam asked the messengers to stay overnight till he could consult G'd, they realised that the undertaking did not meet with G'ds approval. This is why the elders of Midian, who were familiar with Bileam's mode of operation, did not even bother to wait. Only the Moabite elders stayed overnight, kessem, the magician's tool was the infallible instrument then, by means of which one could gauge G'ds real attitude as revealed by Bileam. That is why the elders needed the instrument, not Bileam. (4) Of all the improper enquiries that can be addressed to G'd, there is hardly one that could be more offensive than the request to commit an obviously criminal act and expect Divine blessing for such an act. If one were to ask a Rabbi's approval for commission of an act of adultery, surely this would be an insult to the Rabbi. If the questioner himself is known to be well versed in Jewish law, the insult would be even greater. Surely the first sin of Bileam consisted in asking G'd to curse a people so obviously His favourites. The very notion that G'd would undo all that He had done for that nation in order to enable Bileam to earn a fat fee from Balak is culpable. Therefore G'ds first reply was "what kind of people have come to you?" When Bileam uses Balak's terminology of describing the Jewish people, he adds insult to injury. Even though in the mouth of Balak, the descripition of the Jewish people is far from flattering, and Moab, owing its very existence to the patriarch of the Jewish people should have had every reason to refer to them with respect, Balak, who thought he had reason to fear them, looked at them from a distorted point of view. Bileam however, had no such excuse. In referring to G'ds chosen people in such derogatory terms, he made himself even more culpable than by his audacity in approaching G'd on the subject altogether. In keeping with his supposed stature, he should have categorically refused to involve his prophetic powers in such an undertaking. When the Talmud Shabbat 104, teaches that whoever wants to heap impurity upon himself is given an opportunity to do so, the question "who are the people that have come to you?" illustrates that dictum. Surely G'd had been aware who the people were, but Bileam deserved to enmesh himself more deeply in his sinful quest. The Jewish people to whom the term Adam applies, (chapter 3 essay 8) certainly deserves better of Bileam. Bileam seems at pains to deny the Jewish people's claim to four characteristics. 1) He refers to the Jewish people as nameless, describes them merely as " the people who came out of Egypt"; he makes it appear as if this people did not even qualify for a name of its own. 2) In referring to the Jewish people's departure from Egypt, Bileam seems intent to deny that G'd had played any role in that exodus. This is why he is made to emphasize later who it was that took Israel out of Egypt. "The Lord who took them out of Egypt." (Numbers 23,22-3. 3) He refers to Israel as "covering the earth," indicating that Israel lacks orderliness, and is comparable to a horde of wild beasts. Therefore, he is made to pay tribute to the civil and moral manner in which Israel has set up camp. ("How beautiful are thy tents" Numbers 24, 5) 4) In wishing to curse the Jewish nation, he denies them the basic distinction of having been made "in the image of G'd," an attribute that applies to all human beings and is rooted in the dominion G'd has granted man over the animal kingdom. To atone for this insult, he is forced later to prophesy that this very nation will produce the Messiah who will exercise dominion over all of mankind. Haman had also begun to denigrate the Jewish people by referring to them as being nameless. (Esther 3,8) Bileam has to atone for this subsequently, by referring to Israel by both its names, i.e. Israel and Jacob. Notwithstanding any of the above, G'ds reply to Bileam in this instance was very civil. "Do not go with them, do not curse this nation which is blessed." G'd is trying to tell Bileam that to accompany these people is improper, regardless of the purpose of the mission. In his wickedness, Bileam relates only part of G'ds reply, namely the part about not being allowed to go. The part about the futility of the undertaking he withheld. Understandably, this led the elders of Moab to believe that Bileam's refusal was motivated by considerations other than Divine opposition. (5+6) When, upon arrival of a more distinguished set of emissaries, they reproach him by saying "do not hold back in coming to me," Bileam has the audacity to ask G'd about the same undertaking a second time. G'd in His anger, answers him in such a manner that he will be embarassed publicly when he does go with them. The ambiguous nature of G'ds reply was designed to encourage him to go, in order that he humiliate himself in front of the princes from whom he was seeking honour and glory. When G'd in His reply said "if these men came to call you, go with them, only the word I speak to you you may do," (instead of "you may say") this gave Bileam leeway to think that he still possessed freedom of expression. When Bileam tried to use this apparent loophole in G'ds instructions, G'd became angry and sent His angel to intercept him. The three stoppages and beatings administered to Bileam's she-ass demonstrated clearly the nature of Bileam's sin and his subsequent chastisement. The first time the angel positions himself in such a manner that he could be bypassed without great exertion. Bileam should have refused the request by Balak's messengers. Instead, he chose to circumvent the will of G'd. The ass does likewise, arousing Bileam's anger. He strikes her, but not too severely. Balak too, when he hears Bileam bless Israel the first time instead of cursing it, admonishes Bileam when he says "I have called you to curse my enemies and you have seen fit to bless them." The second time the angel positions himself in a narrow passage, leaving the she-ass no way to pass him without hurting the rider in the process. This arouses more anger in Bileam, he strikes her again, presumably harder than the first time. This corresponds to Bileam's second sin, when he encouraged the elders of Moab to think G'd might change His mind in favour of the planned mission. Balak gives Bileam a tongue lashing by saying "if you cannot curse, at least do not bless." Bileam is forced to admit that he is quite powerless in the matter, and has to do what G'd says to him. The final confrontation between the angel and the she-ass is such that the latter cannot proceed against the angel without incurring death. Therefore, she lies down, the greatest protest imaginable against her master. Bileam reacts violently, striking her with a rod this time. In the ensuing dialogue between the she-ass and her master, Bileam is made to acknowledge that his longstanding and intimate knowledge of the she-ass's behaviour should have alerted him to the fact that only an unusual set of circumstances could have accounted for such a radical change in the behaviour of an animal whose primary function it was to serve as transportation for her master. Similarly, Bileam had reached the stage where he had to refuse Balak's request without even double checking with G'd whether it still pleased Him to bless Israel. When Balak became aware of this outright refusal of Bileam even to try to carry out the task he had been hired for, Balak sends him home in disgust. Bileam's humiliation is thus complete and corresponds to the manner in which he who had been privileged to enjoy visions other mortals had not been granted to see, had nevertheless rebelled against G'd. (6) The angel too had remonstrated with Bileam about his having struck the she-ass three times. Bileam who had accused the she-ass of having humiliated him, had himself been guilty of trying to manipulate G'd three times, and thus to humiliate Him. His punishment therefore fits his crime. When the angel finally becomes visible to Bileam, the latter admitting his sin, he volunteers to go home. Now, however, he has to carry on, in order to suffer public humiliation not only in the presence of the elders of Moab. Those elders, seeing that Bileam could not even control his she-ass, surely had developed their own opinion of the effectiveness of a man like this against the Jewish nation. The thrust of the she-ass's argument was that Bileam of all people should not have condemned her conduct without examination of the circumstances. He had known her long enough. Similarly, Bileam's longstanding familiarity with the ways of G'd, should have prevented him from accepting an assignment so obviously at variance with the friendship for Israel G'd had revealed in His relationship with that nation. If indeed, Bileam refers to himself as the shetum ha-ayin, the one who sees on one eye, he may well be referring to his lack of vision in a belated recognition of his own humble stature and lack of insight. His eyes were opened only after he had displayed blindness. This is the meaning of the words nofel u-gluy eynayim, "after he had fallen, his eyes were opened." (Numbers 24,4) Bileam, in acknowledging that he had sinned because he had been unaware of the angel's presence, acknowledges that ignorance itself can be sinful. If someone strikes his parents because he is unaware of a statute fordidding such an act, he cannot plead innocence, since it was up to him to realise that such conduct is intolerable in the eyes of the law. Similarly, a man of the intellectual stature of Bileam could not plead ignorance as an excuse, and should have been alerted by the animal's strange behaviour. The reason the animal itself did not disclose the presence of the angel, has been discussed in chapter ten. In chapter twenty one we have discussed why Bileam had chosen to ride a she-ass. (8) Now that Bileam had received an inkling of what was likely to be in store for him,- private as well as public humiliation-, he tries to back out and offers to go home to save himself further disgrace. But at this point the angel orders him to proceed and to travel with the messengers until he will have played the part that G'd had assigned to him. (Perhaps the use of the word im, describes the relationship with the messengers, underlining that he is now captive for the purpose of this mission) (9) The phrasing of the instruction "only what I tell you, you can say" (Numbers 22,35) robs Bileam even of the freedom of speech which he had previously thought he still possessed, when G'd had restricted him only with the words "it you must do." When he arrived in Moab, Bileam felt obligated to acquaint Balak with his impotence, and he downgrades the value of anything he may say beforehand, by explaining that he is acting under Heavenly compulsion. It appears that Balak had not wanted him to come to him, but rather to proceed towards Israel and curse that nation. Balak's request, (22,17) "do not hold back walking elay, means "on my behalf" rather than "towards me." Balak had meant to convey that he would compensate Bileam handsomely even if the latter never came to Moab, but would merely curse Israel from a suitable vantage point. Balak tries to forestall Bileam coming to the capital of Moab. Bileam stresses that even though he had "arrived" i.e. come, he did not "go." He is trying to tell Balak that his appearance is due only to coercion from on high. Whereas previously Bileam had been willing to "go" without "doing" anything of substance, now he was not even in a position to "say" something of his own free will. ("I am not even able to speak" 22,38) Whereas G'd had only forbidden action, the angel even forbade speech. Thus the angel is not merely repeating G'ds previous instructions. In spite of all this, resourceful Bileam proceeds to emulate Israel's sacrificial rites, when he builds seven altars and offers only pure animals, hoping that if this does not advance his cause, at least it will not hinder it. When he expresses the hope that "perhaps the Lord will meet with me,” (23,3) he admits that he can never be sure of establishing communication with G'd He is quite unlike Moses of whom the expression "he called" is always used. The one and only time G'd had in fact communicated with Bileam directly, is carefully described as vayikor, as a kind of "happening." Even this happening never seems to have occurred again. Bileam now had to employ his prophetic insights to compensate for his derogatory references to Israel previously. Instead of allowing Israel to remain nameless, he now uses both the term "Israel" and "Jacob" to describe it. (10) He confesses that Balak had dragged him down from what once had been a position of lofty grandeur. (23,7) He accords Balak his full title "king of Moab," not as previously. When Bileam says "how can I curse when G'd has not cursed?" he acknowledges that he had not had any business asking G'd about such a mission. Conversely, when David suffered curses at the hands of Shimi ben Geyrah, (Samuel II 16,8) the former could not believe that Shimi could have done so except if he had been so instructed by G'd. Once David became aware that he had been giving Shimi too much credit for having acted morally, he told his son Solomon how to deal with Shimi when the time would be ripe. Bileam now proceeds to extol Israel's virtues. "I view as towering higher than rocks;" (23,9) "they are in a world apart from others, a nation that dwells in isolated splendour."
_.82.1.8
Since the two letters heh and nun are the only ones that cannot be paired with another letter to produce the number 10 or 100 respectively, he uses the term hen to describe Israel's uniqueness. "May my ultimate future be like theirs." In other words, "I could not wish myself a nobler destiny than that of this people." Balak's reaction to all this is "I called you here to curse my enemies, at least do not bless them." Balak tries another location, again emphasizing that only part of the people would be visible from there. The idea of concentrating on part of the people rather than viewing them in their total encampment, must have been intentional, else the fact need not have been reported twice. We had already read in 22,40, that Balak took Bileam to a place whence a section of the people could be viewed.
_.82.1.9
If we reflect on the phenomenon that when sunlight is concentrated in one spot through the use of a convex lens, it intensifies to the point where enough heat is generated in a small area to start a fire, Balak's intention may become clear. He hoped that the power of Bileam's evil eye when applied to a concentrated area rather than when diffused over the entire mass of the people, would be that much more effective. When, later on, Bileam views the whole nation, and he no longer bothers with magic formulas, he is called "the one of the seeing eye." 12) This is because the spirit of G'd had come to rest on him, and he no longer attempts to oppose the will of G'd. At that moment Bileam's undistorted eyesight both physically and spiritually becomes operative. The references in 23,19, to the steadfastness of G'd in honouring promises once made are not a repetition, but rather explain the nature of broken promises. 13) There are basically two reasons for not honouring promises. These can be subdivided into four sub categories. 1) A change of mind in the heart of the person who has made the promise. 2) A lack of sincerity already at the time the promise had been made, one had never intended to keep it. Bileam says "the Lord is not like a man who deceives, i.e. G'd makes no phony promises. Concerning the other reason he says "nor is He human to have regrets." G'd does not change His mind in midstream. The other reasons for not honouring promises have to do with the inability of the one who has made the promise to honour it. This may be due to a change in the circumstances of the "donor" by the time the promise had to be made good. Alternately, outside pressure may be applied to the "donor" to prevent him from making good on his promise. Concerning the inability to make good on a promise, Bileam says of G'd "will He say something He cannot do?" Concerning the last possibility, Bileam says "would He say something that He could be prevented from making good on?" Bileam goes on to say "I have undertaken to bless, and I will not renege on the blessing." Concerning the other side of the coin, i.e. the recipient s fitness to receive the blessing, which could cause eventual non performance, Bileam says "I have not seen any injustice among Jacob i.e. there is no reason to renege on a promise made to this people, their conduct does not give rise to this. Bileam now hastens to confess that Israel's departure from Egypt had in fact been G'ds doing, not as he had previously tried to misrepresent it, Israel's own accomplishment. "The Lord took them out of Egypt," not as previously "the people who came out of Egypt." This nation does not require artificial and unreliable means such as kessamim and nechashim, various kinds of enchantments to aid them in realising their destiny, but rather, it is serene in its confidence of G'ds achievements. 11) Bileam now has to confess his third error, that of describing the Jewish nation as a disorderly herd, comparable to animals on the march. He extols the civilisation and morality of the Jewish people, exclaiming "how goodly are your tents, O Jacob!" Their progress in the world will be growing constantly, just as "little brooks turn into streams." Their dwelling places will be like gardens on river banks, but sufficiently elevated to be safe from flooding. 14) The reference to the kingdom of Israel being greater than that of the kingdom of Agag, refers to the kingdom of David. The idea is that the kingdom of David, representing as it does the concept of the Messiah, will commence immediately upon the death of the former. As soon as Saul had defeated the Amalekites, Samuel had been dispatched to anoint David as G'ds chosen king. Only after the formal defeat of the kingdom of Amalek, could the Messiah begin his career on earth. After all the wrangling between the forces of anti-G'd and Israel will have ended, Israel and its messianic king will emerge as mightier than the forces of the anti-G'd. The letters in the name David, when added to the letters in the name Agag, produce the holy number seven. If, say you have a gambling cube, you will observe that the numbers are arranged in such a fashion that opposite sides always total seven. For instance, the digit three will be opposite the digit four, the digit five opposite the digit two etc. If you were to arrange the cube with the letters in the names of David and Agag instead of using numbers, the same result would be achieved, seeing that the numerical values in the two names correspond to the digits 4-6-4, and 1-3-3. When suitably arranged, with the letters of David's name on top, the letters of the name of "Agag" will all be at the bottom. When Bileam extols the future feats of Israel in 24,8-9, he is in fact confessing that all the feats of grandeur he had once thought himself as capable of, will in fact be performed by Israel. In refusing to be ousted by Balak, he states "I will walk back to my people." 15) However, he offers Balak a free piece of advice concerning what Israel would do to Moab in the not so immediate future. (Thus he reassures Moab regarding its own future for some time to come) Concerning his own well being, Bileam says that he will be quite comfortable among his own people; however, in view of what he foresees about the future of Moab, he tries to convince Balak that to wage war against Israel would be futile. He does not, -as Rashi suggests,- advise the seduction of Israel to commit immoral acts, but expresses continuous thoughts all of which are summarised by the idea that opposing Israel would be an exercise in futility. All this, is of course, the exact opposite of what Balak had invited him for, and therefore completes Bileams' utter humiliation. When, finally, he announces the advent of the Messiah, he completes his repentance concerning his fourth sin, namely having denied the Jewish people their status as human beings. By allowing that it is Israel who will produce the redeemer of mankind in the person of the Messiah, he admits that Israel is more qualified than anyone to lead mankind to its ultimate goals. Contrasting the eventual fates of the Amalekites and the Kenites, he emphasizes that those who choose true values will survive, whereas those who choose to continue living by the values of Edom will ultimately perish. If the Torah describes Balak as "Balak went on his way this shows that he accepted Bileam's advice. If later, the punitive expedition is sent by Moses only against the Midianites, this supports the view that the Moabites had abstained from hostile action against Israel. Our commentary follows the tradition of our sages as recorded in Vayikra Rabbah 81, namely that Bileam's prophecies were aimed at benefitting Israel. This is also the meaning of the verse in Micah 6,5, "O My people, remember what Balak the king of Moab devised, but what Bileam the son of Peor answered him." Forcing Israel's enemy to bless her instead of cursing her, was the ultimate honour that could have been bestowed upon this nation. Just as Esau at the time had had to acknowledge that Jacob was entitled to his father's blessing, this was he highest accolade that could have been received.
_.83.1.2
"And Israel abode in Shittim"
_.83.1.3
Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Pinchas, and Sanhedrin 82, state: Rabbi Eleazar said concerning the verse in Psalms 106,30, Pinchas stood, entreated, and the plague stopped." The term for "pleading" is not the usual vayitpallel, but rather vayefallel. This means that he did marvellous things with his owner, the Creator. At that moment the angels wanted to obstruct him, but G'd said to them: "leave him alone, he is a descendant of zealots, a descendant of someone who had managed to assuage My anger." When the other tribes heaped abuse on Pinchas, saying that the grandson of an idol worshipper could hardly be the one to teach them proper Jewish conduct, the Torah lists his ancestry as son of Eleazar, son of Aaron. G'd told Moses to be the first one to offer greetings to Pinchas. This is the meaning of "here I grant him My covenant, peace."
_.83.1.4
The term echad, one, is applied to items that are whole, not to parts of any unit. Anything that is incomplete, either through being defective or being surplus, redundant, cannot qualify for the description "one." G'd will be perceived as "One" in the messianic age, even though to our limited intellect He may appear as possessing many facets. "He will be one, and His name will be one." (Zecharyah 14,9) The Jewish people are goy echad, one nation. We have a mission in life, in history, which requires all parts of the nation to be part thereof. "It was evening, it was was night, one day." (Genesis 1,5) A day is not a night plus a day, but the total of the twenty four hour period is one day, one unit. When Joseph told Pharaoh that the repetition of his dream showed that the dream was one, he meant that each dream separately was meaningless, only when viewed together did it form a unit. Anyone who transgresses a single commandment of the Torah, destroys the unity of Torah, and is as if he had transgressed all the laws. The same applies to anyone tampering with Torah by either adding or subtracting a single law from it. (5 species for the lulav for instance) Man without woman is not really man at all, he cannot fulfil his purpose in life. When one person sins, he destroys the unity of the nation, makes the nation unable to achieve its destiny, its purpose in G'ds universe. Our sages view the relationship between Israel and G'd in such a manner that the unity of G'd is impaired when Israel does not enjoy His favour through acting in a manner contrary to His wishes. When Achan sinned by concealing treasure captured at Jericho, the whole nation was considered as having sinned. "Israel sinned." (Joshua 7,11) As a result, the people lost the first battle of Ai. In the case of Korach, when Moses asked "shall one man sin and You will be angry at the whole nation?" Moses reasoned that since Korach's sin had been due to deliberate opting out from being part of the national purpose, such action should not come under the heading of collective responsibility. Moses was taught that he had erred. A few people, trying to collect manna on the Sabbath are considered as if the whole nation had refused G'ds commandments. "How long are you refusing to observe My commandments?" (Exodus 16, 28)
_.83.1.6
Here too only a few people were guilty in indulging in immoral acts, yet the Torah treats the matter as if there had been a wholesale collapse of morality. However, just as the act of a single individual at the right time and in the right place can redeem a whole nation, so can acts of individuals bring about national misfortune. When David fought Goliath, not for the sake of his own reputation, but to restore glory to the name of G'd, he becomes an "ish chayil," a man of valour. The degree of messirat nefesh, dedication, determines whether the act of an individual can be the catalyst that cancels evil decrees and brings in its wake salvation to a whole nation. (compare Talmud Berachot 20, Taanit 24) Matters in our Parshah that need clarification. 1) The Torah keeps harping on the words "the people." The people started to commit harlotry, the people ate, the people worshipped the Moabite deities. Israel joined itself to Baal Peor. Was all this nationwide? Or are "the people" perhaps only a few individuals? If the former, how could G'ds anger be assuaged by hanging just a few leaders? If the latter, why blame the whole nation? 2) Why did Pinchas "see" something no one else had seen? (25,7) Why did he act without instructions, and if what he did was proper, why had he not been instructed to do it? 3) Why does the Torah in verse thirteen say only that he was jealous on behalf of G'd? He was not only jealous, but he did something about it, he committed an irreversible deed? After all, G'd Himself testifies "he took My revenge." (verse 11) 4) Why does the Torah say "he atoned for Israel?" All he had done was settle the score with one sinner, the others remained sinners. Since when does the execution of one sinner exonerate all the remaining sinners? The answer to all these questions lies in what we have discussed before. The relationship of the individual to the community is the key to the entire matter. When one individual can disturb the equilibrium of the whole community, then another individual can also restore such equilibrium. This is what is meant by the Midrash quoted at the beginning. It does not say "he prayed," but "he did something," a word from the same root but instead of being used in the reflexive, the verb here is used in an active conjugation, almost aggressively, you might say. What Pinchas did, went far beyond what he was obliged to do as a good Jew. The angels who tried to obstruct him, must be understood also. Surely it is not in the nature of angels to hinder people who are trying to do good? We must consider that Pinchas in trying to do what he did, endangered his own life. Supposing that Zimri had desisted from completing his act of copulation with Kosbi before Pinchas had killed him, then halachically, Pinchas could have been guilty of murder. Again, had Zimri chosen to defend himself and Pinchas would have been killed by him in self defence, it would have been considered a legitimate act of self defence, and Pinchas' death would halachically have been considered as self inflicted. Moreover, Pinchas had to consider retributive action by Zimri's relatives. In that case also, his death at the hands of Zimri's relatives would have been laid at his own doorstep and would not have been unlike a suicide. Because of all the reasons cited, the angels considered that they were doing Pinchas a good turn by trying to obstruct him. The angels therefore must be viewed as having acted in Pinchas' own interest. Moses being the beyt din, Court, personified, was not allowed to do what Pinchas could do spontaneously. Perhaps this is the reason that Elijah who had personally killed four hundred priests of the Baal on Mount Carmel, having chosen to act like his predecessor Pinchas rather than like Moses and Aaron, did not reap the reward given to Pinchas. He had to flee for his life, endure extreme discomfort until he asked G'd to let him die. Why did G'd not appear to him at once and instruct him to anoint Chazael, Yehu and Elisha, instead of doing so after Elijah had travelled an exhausting forty days through the desert to Mount Chorev? Why did he not receive G'ds revelation on sacred ground within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael? G'd made him come to the spot where Moses at the time of the sin of the golden calf had not acted like Elijah, because his position as law giver and law teacher was similar to the position of Elijah in the latter's generation. At least that was the position Elijah had attempted to assume among his people. Elijah's repeated statement to G'd "I have been motivated by jealousy on Your behalf," when G'd had asked him what he was doing at Mount Chorev, only elicited the reply from G'd "go up to the Mountain." There he would learn that the spirit of G'd was not to be found in a variety of excesses of nature, but rather in the kol demamah dakkah, the almost inaudibly soft voice that superseded all the terrifying spectacles of nature run amok. The lesson was that the practice of kanna-ut, jealousy, i.e. making it a way of life, did not represent the spirit of the Torah. Not the spirit that moves man, not the fire, the enthusiasm that burns within him, but the yishuv hada-at, the calm considered approach, will have lastingly beneficial effect. When Elijah, apparently, had failed to absorb the lesson by repeating the statement that all his sincere kanna-ut notwithstanding, he had wound up an outcast at Mount Sinai, persecuted, unappreciated, G'd tells him that his work henceforth would have to be carried on by others, such as Chazael, Yehu, and Elisha. (compare Kings I chapter 19) In spite of all the foregoing, our sages seem to blame Moses for a degree of neglect, when they state that the reason Moses' grave remains unknown is due to his conduct during this episode. (see Bamidbar Rabbah 20) The reason is that Moses had failed to instruct Pinchas and others to proceed against Zimri in a judicial manner, i.e. bringing him to trial. Moses was in the habit of acting on G'ds instructions. When an opportunity occurred when he should have acted without waiting for instructions, and he failed to act independently, then our sages consider this "laziness," and teach us that G'd is so demanding of those close to Him that He punishes them even for so minor a sin of omission. (Baba Kama 50) Had Moses been legally required to initiate proceedings, his sin would indeed have been major, seeing that he had not done so. G'd told the angels, who for the purpose of the Midrash may even be synonymous with the chachamim, the sages-, "let him be"; he is descended from Levi who acted in pure spirit, in defiance of personal danger when he killed the people of Shechem on account of their implication in the rape of his sister Dinah. Furthermore, he is descended from Aaron, who by offering incense, without instruction, turned away My wrath. He has purity of motivation through heredity, and therefore is allowed to do what he has set out to do. G'ds assistance manifested itself in several ways. 1) Coitus, normally an act of short duration, continued until Pinchas had a chance to stab Zimri to death. 2) Neither Zimri nor Kosbi had a chance to cry out to alert those nearby. 3) Helping Pinchas's aim through the walls of the tent where the act was taking place. 4) Lengthening the blade so that it could penetrate both Zimri and Kosbi. (The Midrash lists eight other "assists") The point of these Midrashim is to show that Pinchas merely commenced the laudable deed, i.e. kinneh, was jealous. Heavenly assistance helped him complete the deed without his becoming defiled by contact with a corpse. (As a priest who has killed is halachically forbidden to perform the traditional duties of the priesthood) He himself needed only to express "kinnah" jealousy; the rest of the action could then be ascribed to Heaven. When Midrash Rabbah Numbers 21, tells us that this shalom, peace is especially precious, it is because it represents the true wholeness of the saintly personality. Such people preserve the "Divine image" with which they have been equipped in the perfect manner. (see our comments in chapter 15) Pinchas argued a point of law with G'd, (use of the word pelillim in the judicial sense). Vayefallel, he argued and prevailed. Pinchas' two outstanding accomplishments were 1) kanna-ut, totally dedicated personality. 2) His merit devolved on his people as a whole so that with his deed he was able to atone for their disgrace. Confirmation of this view is found in the nature of his reward. The "peace" that G'd granted him extends not only horizontally, i.e. to people of his own generation, but also vertically, lezaro acharov, to his future seed and generations. For this reason he was to take part in the punitive expedition against Midian. This is why his descendant the prophet Elijah will close the generation gap between fathers and sons and sons and fathers before the advent of the Messiah. (Maleachi chapter 3) In chapter two verses 4-7, the prophet describes the virtues and accomplishments of Pinchas/Eliyahu. The Talmud, Berachot 19, states clearly that whenever a question of chilul hashem, desecration of G'ds name is involved, one does not stand on ceremony, according honour or rank to one's leaders. When the prophet refers to Pinchas first as a Levite and subsequently as a kohen, a priest, the reference is to the upgrading of Pinchas' status subsequent to the affair with Zimri. At the end, the prophet refers to Pinchas as malach hashem tzeva-ot, an angel of the Lord of Hosts. This is a reference to Elijah's ascent to Heaven, there to await the proper time for his return to earth to complete his mission. This is the meaning of the prophet's statement "here I will send you My angel." It is most interesting to note that the law of lo tossifu velo tigre-u, do not add or detract from the laws of the Torah, (Deut 4,2 is coupled with a reference to the events of Baal Peor, our Parshah. From the text it is clear that those who had been guilty only by association had survived. Pinchas succeeded in restoring the unity of the people and the unity between the people, its Torah and its G'd. The fact that we do not find the instruction to hang all the leaders of the people as having been carried out, shows the effect of Pinchas' deed. Maimonides points out that had the hangings indeed taken place, the Torah would have had to confirm this by such statements as "they did so," or something along those lines.
_.84.1.2
"Harass the Midianites!"
_.84.1.3
The Talmud Ketuvot 67, relates that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was once riding on a donkey out of Jerusalem. His students were walking behind him. He observed a young girl collecting bits of barley from beneath the legs of the Arab beasts. As soon as the girl saw him, she covered her hair and stood before Rabbi Yochanan asking him for alms. Rabbi Yochanan asked her who she was, and she replied that she was the daughter of Nakdiman ben Gurion. (one of the three wealthiest men in Jerusalem at that time) Rabbi Yochanan cried out and said: "blessed be Israel, who as long as they carry out the will of G'd are beyond the reach of any other nation, but who when they fail to do G'ds bidding, are subservient not only to a lowly nation, but even to the beasts of burden of such a lowly nation."
_.84.1.5
We observe in nature that the more sophisticated a creature, the more fragile is its physical composition. On the other hand, if something appears to be of very durable construction, its function and potential is simple and uncomplicated. Stones are durable, their impact on, and contribution to life is minimal. Humans are extremely fragile organisms, but their potential and actual impact on life on this earth is tremendous. Put another way: Beauty of form equals weakness of substance. Brute strength equals unattractive form or packaging. Job 6,12, refers to this when he says: "Do I have the strength of stone, is my flesh made of copper?" He means that if he were indeed constructed of those materials, he could endure his suffering. We observe simple insects such as ants, able to build for themselves elaborate homes, storage facilities etc. Powerful animals such as lions, on the other hand, are unable to make provisions for themselves. Their bodies seem exposed to all kinds of danger. Farmers, uneducated people, usually possess a physique that enables them to achieve survival in a struggle with the elements, whereas the scholar usually seems quite weak, unable to cope with the challenge of physical survival in this world. It is further interesting to note, that things which are physically strong and intellectually weak, do not disintegrate completely after they have ceased growing. A dead tree remains a chunk of wood for instance, but a dead animal or human being disintegrates completely.
_.84.1.6
From the above it follows that the most advanced of nations, i.e. Israel, were it to perish G'd forbid, would disintegrate more than any other nation; less would be left of it than of any other more primitive society that ceases to occupy center stage in history. This is so because of the sophisticated nature of the body of the Jewish nation, which by implication implies fragility. When the prophet Ezekiel in chapter fifteen, describes the wood of the vines as utterly useless,- not even fit to be used in building,- he tries to tell us that unless it functions as the bearer of grapes, it is utterly without purpose. Similarly, the Jewish people. Unless the Jewish people fulfils its mission, it is utterly useless in the scheme of nature. The lumber of other trees, even if the tree itself is no longer bearing fruit, can serve builders; not so the wood of the grapevine. Gentiles, whose primary function is not the fruit of the intellect, mind or soul, may remain useful in some other capacity, not so Jews. They would only be good for firewood, serve by the very act of their own destruction. The whole purpose of the Jewish nation, allegorically speaking, is to produce the fruit of the vine. This fruit is available in three distinct qualities. 1) Unripe grapes. 2) grapes. 3) wine. Halachah reflects this view by assigning three different benedictions to the three stages of that fruit when one consumes it. For unripe grapes the benediction is borey pree ha-adamah, He who creates the fruit of the earth. Ripe grapes qualify for the benediction borey pree ha-etz, He who creates the fruit of the tree. Finally, wine qualifies for the benediction borey pree hagafen, He who creates the fruit of the vine. The type of benediction recited, corresponds to the degree of excellence of the product it is recited over. Man's function in the scheme of things is similar to the Jewish nation's function in the scheme of civilization, the scheme of nations. Our function embraces three stages of nature; the inert as represented by stone, the vegetative as represented by plants, and the animalistic, human, as represented by the fruits of various plants. G'd calls a human being "Adam when he fulfils his purpose on all three levels. (compare chapter forty four section one based on Talmud Baba Metzia 114) Justification of one's existence stems from one's having fulfilled one's purpose, one's destiny. When one fails deliberately to fulfil one's purpose, one forfeits one's right to exist. When the vine does not yield fruit, the wood supporting its leaves etc. deserves to be burned. When man does not contribute to yishuv ha-olam, civilization, he loses the right to exist. When Israel fails to make its specific contribution to the betterment of mankind, it loses its raison d'etre. This is what Rabbi Yochanan expressed in the paragraph from the Talmud Ketuvot quoted at the outset of this chapter. In the chapter dealing with the red heifer, we explained that impurity and its relative intensity, exists in direct relationship to the belovedness of the creature in the eyes of G'd. The less beloved, the less capable of becoming impure, the more beloved, the more subject to becoming defiled. Similarly, the higher the expectations that have gone unfulfilled, the more the fragility of the vessel becomes evident, the more total its collapse if and when it occurs. Only its continued proper use keeps it in good condition. The same lesson is conveyed to the prophet Jeremiah in chapter thirteen, about the belt buried near the river Euphratus that had been in disuse for many years, only to disintegrate by the time Jeremiah was to use it again. A belt has four functions which can be viewed as paralleling the tasks of the Jewish people. Garments to man are like character traits, as explained in connection with the special garmens of the High Priest and the priest at large. The belt assures the proper functioning of such garments. Leaving the belt buried somewhere, nullifies the value of the garments it was supposed to complement. The point of the parable is, that even a human being, equipped as he is with all the potential G'd has given him, goes to waste, unless he harnesses his potential in the proper manner. Girding oneself with the ezaur, belt, is like hashem oz hitazor, G'd girded Himself with strength. Man in emulating G'd, does likewise. Possibly, this is why Elijah is portrayed as wearing the belt around his loins when we see him function publicly as a prophet. Basically, linen is a durable material, much more so than wool. It is interesting that while wearing the belt, the prophet is not to wash it, though it undoubtedly would become soiled with perspiration. In the parable then, usage does not contribute to disintegration; on the contrary, careful preservation during disuse causes disintegration. When the Messiah is described in Isaiah 11, the belt appears as the well known symbol. The Messiah will wear a belt of righteousness and loyalty. The generation of Jews who had left Egypt had proven inadequate to their lofty mission. They had demonstrated unwillingness to be mosser nefesh, display acts of supreme dedication for Eretz Yisrael. Only the next generation deserved to inherit the land. Quite possibly, the esteem for Eretz Yisrael expressed by the daughters of Tzelofchod is the key to our understanding why that generation was granted entry, and why the sequence of events related in the Torah is such as it is.
_.84.1.7
Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why was Israel commanded to wage a punitive war against Midian, when it had been the Moabites that had seduced them? Although the answer of our sages, that Midian had gotten involved in an argument that was not theirs, is well known, it seems inadequate. Midian does not appear to have actually done anything. In fact the Midianite elders had not even waited to see if Bileam would change his mind about going to Balak! 2) Why does the Torah use the present tense in reporting the reason for this campaign? (25,17) 3) Why does 31,1, seem to repeat what had already been said in 25,17? Why is Moses' untimely death linked to this campaign? Why was the census of the people reported in the Torah between the command to go to war and the report of this command having been executed? 4) Why did Moses not personally carry out this command by leading the warriors into battle? Our sages' reason that since he had once found shelter amongst the Midianites, he was not to act ungratefully, seems inadequate when there had been a specific command by G'd? 5) Why did Moses not give specific instructions as to who should be killed, instead of becoming angry later? Why do we hear about all kinds of tum-ah, impurity regulations in this campaign, whereas that subject had not come up in or after the campaigns against Sichon or Og? 6) Why the lengthy report about the loot, the division, the repetitive details about the arithmetic involved? 7) Since the Torah reports Eleazar's share of the levy in such great detail, why does the Torah not also report the amount of the levy from the people's share, giving precise numbers?
_.84.1.8
Problems in the story of the daughters of Tzelofchod.
_.84.1.9
1) Why did G'd not spell out the right of daughters to inherit in certain situations when Moses had been instructed to share out the land? 2) The daughters of Tzelofchod are hard to understand. If it had been the custom for daughters to inherit in certain circumstances, why did they raise the issue at all? If, on the other hand, daughters did not inherit under any circumstances, how did they dare to raise the issue ? If, as Maimonides points out, it all had to do with the cause of their father's death, why did Moses have to ask G'd about the halachah, the ruling on this matter? 3) How could the daughters of Tzelofchod have seen something that had escaped Moses, and how could Moses have been expected to know something that had not even been legislated? 4) Why did the daughters say that their father had "died in the desert?" Everybody had died in the desert! Besides, how was this fact relevant to the issue? 5) Why was Moses asked to ascend Mount Avarim although the time for him to die had not come yet? 6) Why does Moses refer to G'd as "the Lord of the spirits?" When Moses describes the tasks facing his successor, why does he twice stipulate that that successor must "go out in front of the people and return in front of them?"

Akeydat Yitzchak by Eliyahu Munk. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://www.urimpublications.com Licence: CC-BY. Source.