The Profound Word

Parashat Ekev 5770-71

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Learning, Leadership and its Dangers II

The intensity of Neziv’s criticism of his own scholarly fraternity might be surprising to us. Usually we would expect to find members of this group defending the honor of their class despite serious disagreements with individual members from time to time. This dynamic might even be natural for any group which engages in constant study of any subject matter. There are disagreements possible on questions of data, interpretation and the long or short range policies that are suggested.

 

But Neziv goes further. The group of rabbinical scholars engaged in Torah studies consider themselves the natural leaders of the nation, their kings if you will. As such, Neziv holds himself and his colleagues to a very high standard. They must carefully weigh their thoughts and comments. They must understand that they are responsible for what happens to the community and that this responsibility obtains even when they are not to blame for a particular event.

 

Let us look, for example, at the opening of this parashah.

 

And it will be, because you will heed….

The word translated as ‘because’, ekev, is related to the word for ‘heel.’ This prompts a midrashic comment brought by Rashi:

If you will heed the minor commandments which one [usually] tramples with his heels.

That is to say, items that a person may treat as of minor importance.

 

I think that we would all agree that today there is a significant majority of even very serious Jews who treat many of the commandments in this manner. They believe in God and are very careful about many practices and traditions but are not convinced that many of the practices that were always considered to be as conforming to God’s will are still of great concern to God. This may result from inconvenience in today’s world or from some notion that modern values preclude a certain behavior. Without judging and responding to this phenomenon we must accept it as real.

 

We would also probably agree that rabbis would not be to blame for these attitudes. On the contrary, rabbis would certainly oppose them. However, what should be a proper rabbinical response? Should a rabbi withdraw from the general Jewish society with a group of loyal followers while denouncing the ‘rebels’ as heretics? Or, is a rabbi to take responsibility for them, find ways to teach them and include them, bringing them closer to God’s Torah and its obligations? It is in the context of this question that we must look at Neziv’s comments and ask what prompted his concerns.

 

 

The modern era presents Jews with many dilemmas. In responding to these challenges Jews have taken differing approaches and developed varying degrees of attachment to the traditional Jewish life guided by halakhah. Before modernity, it was assumed that the system of halakhah shaped every Jew’s life into a series of obligations and responsibilities that programmed daily life according to time, place and circumstance. Modernity shattered that assumption.

Those Jews who attempted to cling most intensely to the traditional lifestyle of halakhah became known as Orthodox, initially a derogatory term used by reformist elements of the Jewish community to describe its more conservative members. Since the Enlightenment, Orthodox and non-Orthodox tensions have become a permanent feature of modern Jewish life.

Orthodoxy can be understood as a resistance movement against the forces of dissolution Jews face in modern times. Reform also saw itself as resisting the enticements of conversion to Christianity. Today’s Conservative movement also claims that it resists the powers of assimilation. Seen in this perspective, Orthodoxy is the most radical of the resistance movements to the forces of assimilation and integration, displaying the highest degree of conscious rejection of modern values. As such, Orthodoxy is often characterized by its heightened sense of siege, while the other movements appear more at ease with modernity.

As there are varieties of non-Orthodox ideologies, so too there are varieties within Orthodoxy itself in the modern era. The nineteenth century saw these types crystallize into various distinct elements: Hasidic, Lithuanian Yeshiva, Hungarian and German Neo-Orthodoxy associated with Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. As constituents of Orthodoxy they share a common commitment to halakhic observance as a necessity of any authentic representation of Judaism. They disagree, however, on various attitudinal questions that shape their responses to the particular challenges of modern living. These are in the areas of general education, the role of women, and Zionism, to name but a few.

During the past decades intra-Orthodox tensions have escalated. Those who identify with the attitudes of Modern Orthodoxy have sometimes been overwhelmed by strident criticisms coming from the Ultra-Orthodox community. The latter have at times engaged in a campaign to delegitimize the positions of the former on a variety of subjects. Modern Orthodoxy has been portrayed as weak, compromising, and not truly committed to halakhic procedures and requirements.

 

Modern Orthodox representatives have sought models for their positions in earlier times. Many models have been found wanting, however, for they represent pre-modern views that purportedly fail to consider the new dangers that inhere in contemporary life. The question remains whether there are modern authorities who are aware of modern conditions and yet favor the positions that have come to be associated with Modern Orthodoxy.

One of the most intensely debated issues within Orthodoxy has been the question of the Orthodox relationships to non-observant Jews and to organizations that advocate a non-Orthodox or secular form of Judaism. Should observant Jews disassociate from them or engage them in some areas of joint interest?

As one of leading Orthodox rabbis of the nineteenth century, Neziv, confronted this issue in a number of his works. Let us see what he has to say.

I. On the Integrity and Unity of Israel

For Neziv, maintaining the integrity of Israel is a primary covenantal obligation. He derives this responsibility from his understanding of the covenant between God and Abraham, one that includes Abraham?s descendants as well. Neziv considers the specific obligation for Jews to keep themselves separate from other nations to be Biblical in origin:

“And He said to Abraham, your children shall be strangers in a foreign land. They will be enslaved and persecuted for four hundred years. I will then judge the nation that enslaved them and they will depart with great wealth,” (Genesis 15:13-14).

Neziv expounds on the fundamental significance of this imperative:

“In addition to being a prophecy that this will occur, it is an instructive warning for the future: your children shall be strangers, visitors among the nations and must not wish to mix with them, becoming similar to them in life-style and manners. Therefore, it is written of Jacob, He visited there [Egypt] (Deut. 26:5), which means that he did not go there with the intention to dwell permanently.”

He also discusses this theme in Harhev Davar to Genesis 15:14:

“Your children shall be strangers” This is also a promise. That is, because of all the troubles they will not have to assimilate, God forbid, into the nations they enter to be like them in order not to suffer any longer. Furthermore, this is a revelation of God’s will (gilui da’at Ha-Shem) that we be only strangers and not seek to better ourselves among the nations by being like them and as citizens. Although to human judgment it appears to be the opposite in that if we become citizens and be considered part of them they will not harm us. Thus we learn from the case of Laban that this is not so.

Neziv establishes the separate integrity of Israel that must be maintained for the future. He leaves open the question of what to do about unity when confronted with those who are casual about the integrity of the nation through their lack of observance of the traditional covenantal mitzvot. We will address this specific question as we move along, but first it is important to observe how the Neziv addresses the obligation to maintain unity among Jews.

Neziv discusses the concept of Jewish unity in numerous places. One of the most vivid of his points is made in regard to Deuteronomy 32:9, “Indeed, the Lord’s portion is His people; Jacob is the rope of His allotment.” Neziv seizes upon the image of the rope and comments:

The entire nation (umah) is here compared to a rope that is wound with many threads. In the Sifre the explanation is given: Just as the rope is composed of three strands so too Jacob is third of the Ancestors. According to my understanding the simile is that Israel is likened to a thick rope composed of tens of thousands of strands. At the top the rope is tightly wound while at the bottom the strands are individually distinct. Similarly, the Holy Blessed One, as it were, is the Soul of Souls to whom all the souls of Israel are tightly bound above. Below each one has an individual soul. This is why Israel is called “goy ehad”, one nation, for they are united in their root above. (Ha-Ameq Davar, Deut. 32:9)

In Genesis 49:24 he reiterates much the same point, but extends the image:

This is why the Sages teach (San. 84) that when an Israelite suffers the Shekhinah says:? have been disgraced. It is as if we moved one of the individual strands at the bottom of the rope. This would affect the top of the rope as well. This is the great Strength of Jacob (Avir Ya’akov) [an expression which the Neziv understands as a name of God.] For this reason it is forbidden to take vengeance against each other.

Neziv also connects this idea to Leviticus 19:18 the ‘love’ commandment: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord.” On this verse he comments:

From the language of the Yerushalmi I learned another explanation for the juxtaposition in this verse (i.e. the connection between not taking vengeance and being loving.) The Yerushalmi explains (Nedarim 9:4) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. This is like one who while cutting meat his hand slips and cuts his other hand. Will he now cut his hand [that had slipped while holding the knife to avenge its error?] [No.] It says be loving to your neighbor as yourself. Rabbi Akiva says: “This is a great principle in the Torah.”

This means that vengeance is like one who is carelessly cutting meat.? Would it enter his mind to now hit or cut the first hand in vengeance? This is why the obligation to be loving follows the prohibition of vengeance. Even though one’s own life and welfare have precedence over that of others the other is like oneself. It is improper for one limb to strike another. Even if one limb already did so no vengeance would be sought for it. So too one should not seek vengeance against someone who has hurt you. This is why it says ‘as yourself,’ for all Israel is one being (kol yisrael nefesh ahat).

Israel is God’s rope that descends into the world from above. Israel’s essence is derived from God in Heaven, her ‘Soul of Souls.’ As the rope descends its threads become more distinct, reflecting each Jew’s individuality. Israel is God’s portion, and as such the fate of the individual threads and the rope itself reflect the status of God’s name and glory in the world. If a Jew is injured by another Jew or by a gentile, God’s position in the world is diminished. That is, God suffers along with injured Israel.

This function served by Israel is not a voluntary one. Willy-nilly, every Jew belongs to this metaphysical category. All are part of the mystery. Just as we are human and cannot be otherwise, so too we are Jews bound in covenant with God and cannot be otherwise. Leviticus 19:18 serves as another metaphor for Jewish unity according to the Neziv. Israel is one being with distinct limbs. The limbs must never forget that they all belong to one being, and therefore vengeance upon another Jew constitutes an attack on one?s own body. As such, it is self-destructive, irrational and unjustifiable.

Rabbi Berlin often treats the question of Jewish communal harmony in the face of deep division of opinion on fundamental subjects. His comments often focus on the issue of sinat hinam, [gratuitous hatred] which the Talmud (Yoma 9a) maintains led to the destruction of the Temple and exile. Neziv believes that excessive intra-Jewish friction brought about the great tragedies in Jewish history. However instructive talmudic comments may be, they refer to an era safely removed from modern times. Nevertheless, Neziv applied these talmudic teachings to his contemporary reality and the intense divisions brought about by the various Jewish responses to modernity.

An article in the journal Mahazikei Ha-Dat occasioned the Neziv’s most thorough comments on the subject. In response to this article Neziv wrote a lengthy essay that was later printed with his responsa. It appears in Meshiv Davar as 1:44 entitled, “On Right and Left.” Neziv directly addresses the contemporary scene.

I saw an article entitled “Right and Left” in the journal Mahazikei Ha-Dat, Volume 3, by one of the editors in which an important question is raised. Since it is our responsibility to participate in efforts to strengthen the faith of Israel I could not desist from presenting my thoughts on this issue to the members of Mahazikei Ha-Dat, may God bless them. Anyone else who has anything to respond and clarify in these matters in another way let their words come and enlighten our lives. For although we are removed geographically from one another we are close to each other in our desire and willingness to arrive at the goal with the help of the knowing and guiding God.

The author of the original article attempted to divide the Jewish community into three parts: the Right (the righteous or saintly), who remove themselves from all earthly matters not even benefiting to the extent of a small finger?s worth; the Left (the wicked), who either out of ignorance or brazen willfulness throw off the yoke of Torah and religion; and the Center, who innocently follow the ways of the world without rejecting the Torah. Neziv took exception to this division, finding it confused and unacceptable:

With all due respect, I believe that the author does not follow through on his initial question. He began with the question of whether there are three different trends in our religion and faith and concludes that the Left is equivalent to a rejection of the Torah and religion. In other words, the Left is outside of our faith.

Also confusing is the expression ‘maybe’ concerning the three trends. What kind of question is this? We have always had three trends: the completely righteous, the wicked and the intermediate. The question really should be whether among the followers of our faith and religion, among those who do not reject Torah, there are to be found three groups. This is the question that should be properly researched.

Neziv moves the discussion towards the subjects of love of God and devequt, the intense connectedness to God. After all, these are the goals of Torah. If there are three trends in Judaism, they must be defined in terms of this over-arching objective. Neziv’s discussion of ahavat Ha-Shem, the love of God, also yields three trends, differently defined. The one who is on the Right is one whose mind is continually imbued with love and attachment (devequt) to God, and who closely approaches the Shekhinah. This is truly the way of piety (hasidut), which is impossible except for one who separates from the world. The one who stands on this exalted level finds it difficult to associate with other people even to teach them Torah and morals. Every interaction with others interrupts the intellectual connectedness that is impossible without isolation (hitbodedut).

Regarding the latter two categories, Neziv writes:

There is a second God worshiper who observes all the details of Torah but who does not know the taste of love and devequt. This one does not separate at all to achieve this love. These are called Leftists for they are removed from extreme closeness to the Shekhinah and the Spirit of Holiness (Ruah Ha-Qodesh).

There are also those who follow a middle path. During recital of keriat shemah and tefillah their minds approach love and devequt of God while the rest of the day they are occupied with worldly affairs. Those on this intermediate way are also called pious (hasidim), but in a different manner than the ones above: They are hasidim in deeds.

In this context he issues a warning on zealotry:

Now let us look at Levi and Pinhas who both were zealous against sexual immorality and were totally devoted on this issue. Yet Pinhas rose to the highest level, while Levi was rebuked by his father. There are many similar instances. The explanation is that [zealousness] requires great precision to evaluate the activity according to time and place. It is also necessary to understand many Torah principles that are not always clear. Thus it is impossible to be this type of hasid except through Torah study. The way of hasidut through love of God and devequt, which one imagines does not require Torah learning but only sincerity (temimut), isolation and intention for love of God, is not correct. Even the one who prepares for and clings to love of God requires at least being very careful not to deviate from the way of Torah. Holy desire and love ?more intense than death? should not lead away from reason.

Neziv insists that any disrespect for the middle group is sinful. In the middle are many hasidim, pious followers of the way of Torah:

The result of our explanation is that not all of those who follow the middle path in the service of God are to be considered middling [in their commitment], for many of the Centrists can be considered as sincerely pious [hasidim]. Not in the sense of those immersed in isolation in love and devequt, but in the sense of hasidim in deeds as we explained above according to the words of our Sages.We might think that those in the center are the ones who neither reject the yoke [of Torah] but are not careful in observance. However, it is clear that in the middle category there are many gradations ranging between the two poles of righteous and wicked.

Neziv continues his response to the author of the Mahazikei Ha-Dat article now focused on the question of those Jews outside the realm of commitment to one of the three trends. Should we disassociate ourselves from them? The original author is an advocate of separation, fearing that modern times threatens the middle hasid more than in the past.

Neziv describes the siege attitude that has characterized much of Orthodoxy in modern times. It can be summarized as follows: Judaism is in greater danger than ever before. Since this is the worst generation in history, there is much about which to be afraid. Isolation and separation are, therefore, the strategies to adopt. These strategies have come to be defining qualities of what is now called Ultra-Orthodoxy. Neziv strongly disagrees with this assessment of the historical reality:

We must realize that the facts are not as the writer reports, namely, that there has never been a generation so rejecting as our own. This is not true at all. Even when we first entered our Holy Land and for many generations following thereafter the desire for idolatry was prevalent and, indeed, burned as intensely as an oven as the Talmud (Sanhedrin 102b) says. It was obvious that no one could be certain of avoiding this idolatrous trend unless one behaved in the way of hasidut continually turning one?s mind to the way of God.

During the first Temple period idolatry was a major issue continuously addressed by the prophets, yet they never advocated separation from the idolaters. Since the passion for idolatry among Jews has long been overcome, those terrible times have passed. Today?s problems are different:

In our generation, however, there has been an increase in unbelievers with faulty ideas concerning the authority of the Talmud, for example. Our sages have said (Avodah Zarah 27b) that a person should not engage in business with a heretic. The Talmud explains that heretics attract others to follow them. For this reason one who is not cautious is in danger of being drawn to them after a while.

This is an obvious reference to the Reform movement, which questioned talmudic authority and is a different phenomenon than ordinary moral or spiritual weaknesses. It therefore requires a different response and a carefully well thought-out strategy. Thus Neziv passionately disagrees with the writer’s suggestion:

Now the author presents his thoughts and proposal to be careful of this generation and to separate completely from them as Abraham did from Lot. With the pardon of the writer, this advice is as harsh as swords thrust through the body and survival of the nation! When we were sovereign in our Holy Land -as during part of the Second Temple period- the land was lost, the Temple was destroyed and Israel exiled because of the dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees. This caused much gratuitous hatred (sinat hinam) leading to unjustified murder. Thus, when a Pharisee saw someone being lax in a certain matter, even though he was not a Sadducee but only sinning in this matter, because of tremendous sinat hinam he judged him to be a Sadducee who can be legitimately harmed. From this mistaken attitude numerous allegedly justified and holy murders multiplied. It is not far-fetched to think that this can occur today. A member of Mahazikei Ha-Dat might see someone and imagine that he does not follow his way in proper worship of God. He will then judge him to be a heretic and separate from him. They will then chase (rodef) each other (with intent to harm) in the erroneous belief that this is justified, God forbid. The entire people of God will be destroyed, God forbid.

This consideration is critical in the Diaspora condition, for only if we stay together can we resist the dangers of assimilation:

All this would be true even if we were sovereign in our own land. How much more certain when we are downtrodden in exile scattered like sheep among the nations. In exile we are likened to the ‘dust of the earth’ as the Holy Blessed One told Jacob: your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth. The nations are likened to flood waters as is written in Isaiah (17:12): “Ah, the roar of many peoples that roar as roars the sea.” There is no hope for a block of dust against floodwaters unless the dust becomes a solid rock. A flooding river would then only roll the stone from place to place but not altogether destroy it. Israel among the nations has no hope unless it becomes the ‘rock of Israel.’ If we become united into one union no nation or culture can destroy us. So, therefore, how can anyone advise us to separate from our fellow Jews? The nations would then wash us away little by little, God forbid.

This partial citation from the above mentioned article gives us a glimpse of Neziv’s concerns. They are worthy concerns with which we deal every day. Later on in our series we may return to some more of these issues as we come to the conclusion of Moses’ final speeches to his nation.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that what he is looking for is the model of leadership we saw with Joshua. [See the discussion in Parashat Pinhas] Not a person whose ‘spirit follows his flesh’, but a person of independent spirit, with a clear vision of the situation and its inherent responsibilities beyond his own selfish needs and those of others. If great Torah sages are to be leaders of the nation they too must display these qualities.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Av 20 5771

August 20, 2011

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

 

Parashat Va-ethanan 5770-71

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Your Wisdom and Your Understanding in the Eyes of the Nations:

Learning, Leadership and its Dangers

Moses continues his words, his final speeches to the nation. We have already seen from Neziv’s introduction to this book that a fundamental goal of Moses is to instill study as an important national commitment that will help insure the future. This week we see what else Moses considers as essential to Israel’s future in fulfilling its purpose.

 

Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord, my God, commanded me, to do so in the midst of the land to which you are coming to possess.

You shall keep [them] and do [them], for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations, who will hear all these statutes and say, “This great nation is a wise and understanding nation. [4:5-6]

Rashi explains;

 

You shall keep [them]: This refers to study.

and do [them]: according to its apparent meaning.

Doing the statutes and ordinances [or, judgments] for Rashi seems to suggest actual doing or observing, performing them. Keeping them involves study. Rashi uses the word mishneh or mishnah. As we know, these imply study.

 

Neziv agrees that keeping involves study. But he adds that mishnah refers to what has already been analyzed and decided. This is what we should keep. However, doing suggests that we should not be content with only what has been done in the past. We must?renew the study.

He taught that in every generation we should keep what has been analyzed and decided in the previous generation and add to it through further analysis in order to enhance the Torah.

It is this constant study and growing of the body of Torah knowledge which will lead to the view of other nations:

 

Through your abundant growing of Torah knowledge concerning the Written Torah, the nations will look wondrously on these developments of enhancing the Torah through the wisdom and understanding of Israel.

Through continuous intensive study God’s wisdom and guidance for the world is continually revealed.

 

Those same nations who want to know how this is done will hear about the methods through which the laws are derived.

Here Neziv is referring to the classic thirteen methods of interpretation that are applied to the Torah text in order to derive further knowledge.

 

They will say, “This great nation is a wise and understanding nation, ?for they can use these principles to so effectively explain the Torah commandments. This can only be done through the judgments that are derived through the power of the Talmudic process.

The nations, themselves, not having access to these principles, cannot know if in fact this method of study is necessary for Torah study. However, they will see something else that will be remarkable:

 

For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is at all times that we call upon Him? [7]

Neziv comments:

 

They will see the greatness of Israel in the eyes of God through the Talmud for through this it is that God is so near to us at all times that we call upon Him.

At the beginning of Tractate Hagigah (12b), the Sages say that whoever studies Torah at night will have a thread of grace above them during the day, as it says, “By day may the Lord grace you with faithful care, so that at night a song to God may be with me, a prayer to the God of my life” (Ps. 42:9). When will the thread of grace be drawn over them during the day? Through the fact that their prayers will be fitting and acceptable.

In Tractate Tamid (32b) the Sages comment that those who study Torah at night have the Shekhinah with them, for it says, “Arise, sing out in the night” -one should study Torah at night through the beginning of the watch-periods (ashmuroth) for this is the Song of Torah which continues until the end of the night through the watches, in order that a person be filled with loving devotion when standing for prayer at the beginning of the new day. In this way, “Pour out your heart like water in the presence of the Lord!”….

Thus, the nations see how great Talmud study in God’s eyes is.

 

Furthermore, says Moses:

 

And which great nation is it that has just statutes and ordinances, as this entire Torah, which I set before you this day? [8]

Neziv comments:

 

They will also marvel that the insights derived from careful study of the texts through the special methods will appear just and correct according to human reason as well. In any event all will be suggested at in the texts through the interpretations. This means that this wisdom as well [human reason] is necessary for the proper understanding of the texts. This is true in all parts of the Torah even those areas not based on human reason and are not accessible to the nations.

Moses now sounds a cautionary note. After the glowing celebration of Torah learning he worries that something fundamental will be forgotten:

 

But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children’s children,?the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, “Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children…. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. [9-10, 15]

Rashi explains Moses’ concerns:

 

But beware lest you forget the things:?Only then, when you do not forget them, and will [therefore] do them in their proper manner, will you be considered wise and understanding, but if you distort them because of forgetfulness, you will be considered fools.

For Rashi the question is about forgetting to observe the commandments. This will lead us to be looked at as fools.

 

Neziv expresses Moses’ concerns in a very different manner. As important as learning is, it is not the foundation of Israel’s commitment. That foundation can only be the memory of the awesome events at Sinai and the awe and reverence it inspired. That moment produced a profound Yirat Shamayim, fear of Heaven and genuine piety. That is the foundation of Torah study as well for without it Torah study can go awry. Only if the foundation of piety is secure can Torah learning perform its tasks as well.

 

Through Torah analysis it can happen that it turns into a danger.

There is a Talmudic discussion in Nedarim of the verse ‘Umenahliel bamot, umebamot hagay’. The words are broken down to mean: Those who inherited [the Torah, their special nahalah[=inheritance] are lifted up. But if from this lifting up one becomes haughty The Blessed Holy One will bring him down low.

I have already explained there [Nu.21:19-20] that the fall of a scholar from his values is a much greater tragedy than for an ordinary person who was never a scholar…. This is what happens to a scholar who lacks Yirat Shamayim, true piety.

We must understand that the Blessed Holy One wished to instill true piety in Israel at Sinai. Therefore, the Torah was given with sounds of thunder and flashes of light. At that time Moses said to Israel: “…for God has come in order to exalt you, and in order that His awe shall be upon your faces, so that you shall not sin.”?[Ex. 20:17]

I explained there that this means that that wondrous event should be fashioned in the souls forever to inspire true piety. So here Moses teaches to protect body and soul so that Torah study and analysis should not lead, God forbid, to forget that which you had seen. That is, you saw God speak and heard the Ten Words [Commandments] through the media of sparks and flames as is later explained here by Moses: [The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.] [12]

So, arrogance is a danger to scholarship and learning. A scholar must be rooted in Sinai, and humbled by it, like all others and not get carried away with self-importance.

 

But why this fear of the scholarly group getting involved in idolatry too? What is nagging Moses, and Neziv, to pursue this line of concern?

 

As the shift from the first tablets to the second took place, a shift in learning style occurred as we have seen described by Neziv in Parashat Ki Tissa. In order to include Israel in the covenant in a more active sense the power of innovation [hiddush] was born. After studying the received wisdom of their predecessors, the scholarly fraternity must engage in hiddush to provide guidance for the new generation. While this is encouraged, herein lies a danger as well. All this intensive learning and analysis can be misused as well to justify measures that would be against the Torah. Let us see how Neziv develops this point based on numerous Talmudic texts and brought at verse 14.

 

Now, Moses wishes to inform us of what will be even though it does not seem obvious…. It is the essence of this message. Moses here warns about all possible kinds of idolatry as he will explain.[14-24] All this continues from the beginning of our Parashah wherein Moses warns the scholars in particular who occupy themselves with statutes and judgments. From here we see that scholars are liable to fall into idolatrous depravity more so than ordinary persons.

This actually did happen in our history. For example, the Talmud in Helek reports that three outstanding scholars who were kings of Israel brought Israel to worship idols: Jeroboam ben Nebat, Ahab and Manasseh.

In the Book of Lamentations [1:9] we read: See, Lord, our suffering, for the enemy is great. I explained later [Deut. 28:59] in the name of a midrash that this refers to the evil inclination, for scholars have a greater evil inclination than ordinary people. This makes sense because the scholar in his wisdom can find ways to permit things [that should be forbidden] and reverse the living words of God. Furthermore, he distorts the mind so that we think it is not only permitted but commanded.

Neziv has entered into one of his popular and oft-addressed themes: the dangerous aspects of scholars and learning. It is quite remarkable that he is unafraid to attack his own group but feels that there is ample precedent for this in the ancient rabbinic texts. Rather than seeing study as the cure and prophylactic miracle for all ills, he also knows of its hazards. Wittingly or unwittingly, knowingly or unknowingly scholars can cause serious trouble for the community. If scholars are going to be leaders they must accept responsibility for the affairs of the community, even for its tragedies. They cannot blame others.

 

He cites a lengthy Talmudic discussion [Sukkah 52a] in which various rabbis comment on the Yetzer HaRa, the evil or selfish inclination found in all humans.

In Tractate Sukkah [52a] we find an interpretation of the verse: The northerner I will remove from you. [The words for north and hidden are similar which leads to the conclusion that] to mean that I will remove the selfish desire that is hidden in the human heart [for it lead to the destruction of the first Temple of Jerusalem]…. Abaye says, among scholars it is strongest.

This refers not to the ordinary selfish inclination that is visible in all people and inclines one to violate the Torah out of desire. This is the obvious inclination and not really hidden. But there is a hidden inclination as well which misleads us and convinces us that the sin is really a good deed required by God. In this regard, scholars have a greater evil inclination than ordinary folk who just wish to quietly follow their instincts.

Furthermore, when a scholar acts many others are disposed to follow him. Through his teachings and explanations he is able to engage hearts and minds which an ordinary person who sins cannot do.

This is why Moses especially warns the scholars concerning idolatry and presented to them the image of Torah revelation at Sinai as filled with awe and wonder. He hoped this would prevent them from stumbling and causing others to stumble as well.

Neziv is unstinting in his criticism of the scholarly class. Throughout his commentary he returns to this theme. However, at this time of the year he believes that the message is especially appropriate, for this Parashah always falls just after the conclusion of the three week mourning period commemorating both destructions of the first and second Temples.

 

In Harhev Davar he adds the following:

 

We should know that just as in the first destruction which was essentially caused by idolatry… and the chief instigators of this sin were the great Torah scholars, so too for the second destruction which came because of baseless hatred [among Jews, sinat hinam].

The foundation of this was excessive love of money as expressed in the Toseftah at the end of Menahot. This led them to what they considered permissible murder [of each other]…. Here too the great Torah scholars were the chief instigators….

Why then did Moses express his warnings here in regard to idolatry and not other possible failings? Neziv continues:

 

Moses emphasized in his warning the issue of idolatry because at that time in history this inclination was dominant. However, when we examine both of these sins [idolatry and love of money] which appear quite remote from each other we see that they really stem from one source: they concern human sustenance [parnassat ha-beriot]. This was expressed in the desire for idolatry during the First Temple era and the love of financial profit during the Second Temple period.

He concludes this dramatic indictment with the following:

 

And it is still dancing among us!!

Society and culture have changed through the millennia. However, human needs have not. If we look carefully at human behavior we see the same fundamental pressures continue to prevail in our world, challenging us to meet them within the guidelines of our laws and traditions.

 

Idolatry was part of a culture that promised sustenance to its adherents through the worship of various powers of nature that do provide us with our needs. It must have been extremely difficult to ignore idolatry as the lone nation in the world doing so. The temptations were real and involved serious economic, social and political risks. Hence, the First Temple era was dominated by this issue: prophets condemned while kings faltered.

 

During the Second Temple era we do not find idolatry as an issue in Jewish life. Human sustenance must be sustained but this was done without recourse to actual idolatry. Other issues of critical importance emerged. When they gave way to baseless hatred of other community elements the seeds of disaster were planted. One could pursue one’s sustenance without regard for others’ well-being. They could be removed for pleasure or profit. Ultimately there is no justification for hatred in the community. It is always baseless and most inappropriate when instigated by Torah scholars whose task is to be leaders of the community but can turn into its destroyers. Concerning this Moses and Neziv were worried. We should be as well.

 

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Av 13 5771

August 13, 2011

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

 

 

Parashat Devarim 5770-71

The Profound Word [II]

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

In honor of my mother, Miriam Joseph, on her 95th birthday: Eishet Hayyil and Eishet Yerushalayim.

 

Parting Words

 

The story is told about a questioner who asked Albert Einstein what figure from past history he would most like to meet and what he might ask on the occasion. Surprisingly he named Moses as that figure and said he would ask Moses if he ever thought that his teachings and laws would have lasted so long.

 

The final of the Five Books of Moses, Devarim, begins this week. While Moses is the central figure in three prior books, this book is different. It is presented not about Moses but Moses is presenting his review and his perspective on the events of his forty year leadership career. As well, he looks to the future of the nation. He alerts them of the dangers that lie ahead and appeals to their loyalty to the Covenant established at Sinai and confirmed at Horeb as the desert wanderings terminate. These are Moses’s words, Devarim. From here our final image of Moses the person, the leader will emerge.

These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel…. [1:1]

 

Again, we find that the book has another name in Jewish tradition which gave birth to the name Deuteronomy. The Hebrew is Mishneh Torah, not an easy term to translate. The term Deuteronomy suggests a copy or repetition of many teachings. However, the Hebrew Mishneh can have many other meanings. Let us see how Neziv approaches the name of this book and how his approach gives us insight into Moses’ vision for the continuity of Israel’s future. We will look at his introduction to the book.

This book is called Mishneh Torah. The Tosafists, at the beginning of Gittin, wrote that this term means to repeat what came earlier. This explanation was also favored by Ramban so much so that when he came to various commandments in the parashiot of Shofetim and Ki Tetzeh [roughly chapters 16-25] he interprets various commandments as being parts of earlier commandments already written [in Exodus, etc...] Thus, he claims that shiluah ha-ken [sending away the mother bird from the nest before hunting the babies] is part of the commandment of Oto ve’et beno [not slaughtering the mother cow and its calf on the same day.] This is very surprising to me. These commandments are far removed from each other.

 

Furthermore, repetition of mitzvot is found earlier [in Exodus] such as in the parashiot Mishpatim and Ki Tissah. None of these repetitions is superfluous as I explain in those places.

 

Also, in this book there are not that many repetitions. Again, what is repeated [has a purpose and ] is not superfluous.

 

Neziv thus dismisses these earlier views and tries to chart a new direction of thinking:

 

Therefore, it seems to me that the meaning of this name is as is explained in [the ancient Aramaic translation of the Torah] Targum Onkelos, and is found in chapter 17:18 [where the tem Mishneh Torah is found: patshegen Oraita. This means a commentary and explanation until the Torah is clearly understood.

 

Neziv makes this claim despite the fact that contemporary Hebrew dictionaries translate patshegen as being a copy or summary of a text. He is here following Rashi's understanding of Onkelos on 17:18 who says:

 

And it will be, when he the King] sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself two copies of this Torah on a scroll from….

 

Here Mishneh Torah is translated as ‘two copies’ based on Rabbinic tradition that the king had one scroll with him at all times and another remained behind in his palace.

 

Now Rashi:

 

two copies of this Torah-: i.e., two Torah scrolls, one that is placed in his treasury, and the other that comes and goes with him (San. 21b). [I.e., a small scroll, which the king carries with him. Thus the Talmud derives Mishneh from the Hebrew shenayim, meaning two.] Onkelos, however, renders Mishneh, as patshgegen, a copy. He interprets [the word] in the sense of repeating and uttering. [I.e., one copy of the Torah, which the scribe would write while uttering the words before he writes them, deriving Mishneh from the Hebrew shinun, studying.]

 

The Torah’s emphasis on writing a scroll is very suggestive. The Halakhic rules for such writing are many and quite detailed. They include the requirement for the scribe to utter the words before doing the writing itself. This becomes an act of study as well as one of writing.

 

The word Mishneh has many possible roots. In fact, however, the Book of Devarim uses the term shinun and many others as Moses emphasizes the paramount importance of Torah study for the future of the nation. This is Neziv’s point:

 

The principle and essence of this book is to alert us as to the importance of intensive Torah study to find out the precise meaning of text which we call Talmud.

All the instructions and the many words with which Moses encouraged them were for this purpose: that they take upon themselves the yoke of Talmud for many reasons as are explained throughout the book.

This is the reason why the book is called Mishneh Torah, based on the study of Torah, shinun.

 

There certainly is a strong emphasis in this book on study and many different terms are used for it. Shinun, as in the Shema paragraph: veshinantem le-banekhah, you shall teach your children. It is also the source of mishnah, the name for the earliest collection of rabbinic law. Also, ve-limadetem otam et beneykhem, again, teach your children. Here the root limud is the source of Talmud, which became the Rabbinic name for Torah study and eventually the name for the great work that collects the early rabbinic discussions which aim to clarify all the laws and commandments.

 

However, Neziv does not ignore the Talmudic text of Sanhedrin 21b brought by Rashi above. There the sense of Mishneh is double. But he interprets this in a different manner than heretofore. He points to another interesting aspect of the book.

 

If we were to wish to explain it in the sense of doubling… the intention would be towards the unique way of interpreting the texts of this book. Given the rabbinic principle that a verse does not depart from its most direct meaning we find that many verses in this book cannot be properly interpreted except with double meanings. For we find very often the expressions of keeping and doing the mitzvot, statutes and judgments [hukkim umishpatim.] The meaning of keeping and doing for mitzvot is unlike that of keeping the statutes and judgments. Keeping the mitzvot means performing them. However, keeping the statutes and the judgments means establishing the laws [Halakhah.] This [too] is meant by calling this book Mishneh Torah.

 

Neziv then points to a passage in the Book of Kings [2Kings 22:14] where the word Mishneh appears: she lived in Jerusalem in the mishneh. The ancient Aramaic translation called Targum Jonathan explains mishneh as Bet Ulpanah, a school. However, it also means between the walls. Hence, two possible or probable meanings are correct.

 

Neziv now treats the question of the king’s obligation to write a Torah scroll as found in 17:18.

 

And it will be, when he sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself Mishneh Torah on a scroll from [that Torah which is] before the Levitic kohanim.

He begins with a Midrash Rabbah [6] quote:

 

Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai said: The Mishneh Torah was emblematic of Joshua. When God revealed Himself to him he found him sitting with Mishneh Torah in his hand….

We learn from here that this books many kinds of teachings…. Even though the obligation of the king was to write the entire Torah, in any event the focus was on this book [Devarim]. The king should regularly look into it in order to achieve the purposes explained in it:

And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to perform them, so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers, and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, in order that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel. [19-20]

 

This book has a special role to play for the king. Although Moses was not called a king, in many ways he functioned as such. Joshua too did not have that title, but like Moses functioned as such. Devarim is Moses reflection on his vision of leadership for Israel and Joshua, his successor continues this tradition.

 

We understand from this that that whoever studies carefully the teachings herein which come from Moses and his spirit of holiness, each person will find milk and honey according to his position in life. So much so that Joshua, great teacher of Israel that he was, constantly studied it. Each one will understand according to his potential and will find the right path to follow according to his activities in the world. The light of this book will be a ‘lamp unto his feet.’

However, the primary teaching of the book is the strengthening of the statutes and judgments which is the Talmud of Israel., which effect the life of the nation and Judaism [Yahadut] in general. Concerning this [i.e., intensive Torah study] the second covenant was established at the plains of Moab and again at Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal, to establish [through study] the words of Torah.

This is a foundation stone for the elite: those who intensely study and those who support these endeavors.

 

This is the reason this book is called Mishneh Torah: to sharpen [le-shanen] the sword of Torah to strengthen and advance the battle of Torah forward. [May] This will bring us strength and light. Amen!

 

The final point adds another meaning to mishneh. It is also used in the sense of sharpen. This fits well with the rabbinic idea of the Torah as a ‘sword of Torah’, as the main weapon for Israel’s struggles to achieve its goals in the world.

 

So the first answer Moses would give to Professor Einstein would be that I did expect my teachings to continue for I insisted on the primacy of study. This includes personal study, teaching of children and public community study as reflected in the weekly Sabbath Torah reading and the institutions of learning, Yeshivot. If these commitments continue there is reason to hope that Moses’ teachings will last forever.

 

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Av 6 5771

August 6, 2011

 

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

 

Parashat Massei 5771

The Profound Word [II]

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Promised Land, Holy Land, Holy Borders II

The Issue of Manasseh

We return to the issue of Manasseh’s presence on the east side of the Jordan, together with the tribes of Gad and Reuben. Let us first look at Moses’s review of the events as found in Deuteronomy 3:

12 Of the land that we took over at that time, I gave the Reubenites and the Gadites the territory north of Aroer by the Arnon Gorge, including half the hill country of Gilead, together with its towns. 13 The rest of Gilead and also all of Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I gave to the half-tribe of Manasseh. (The whole region of Argob in Bashan used to be known as a land of the Rephaites. 14 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, took the whole region of Argob as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maakathites; it was named after him, so that to this day Bashan is called Havvoth Jair. 15 And I gave Gilead to Makhir. 16 But to the Reubenites and the Gadites I gave the territory extending from Gilead down to the Arnon Gorge (the middle of the gorge being the border) and out to the Jabbok River, which is the border of the Ammonites. 17 Its western border was the Jordan in the Arabah, from Kinnereth to the Sea of the Arabah (that is, the Dead Sea), below the slopes of Pisgah.

Moses here omits the requests made by Gadites and Reubenites and just tells of the results in land distribution. The inclusion of Manasseh is not an afterthought but fully integrated into the story. It even separates part of the story of the other tribes. What can we learn from this?

But first there are a lot of issues in regard to Manasseh, one of the two tribes, with Ephraim, descended from Joseph. Neziv has already explained that Manasseh was the worldlier of the two, with Ephraim being the more spiritual. This is how he explains Jacob’s blessing first to Ephraim and then to Manasseh. Also, in the two censuses recorded in Numbers, the more idealized first census has Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. In the later census, reflecting the reality just before entry into the land, Manasseh assumes priority. Not only is Manasseh worldlier, they seem to be very capable militarily. Our passage in Numbers 32 shows their military prowess as they alone conquer large areas of Transjordan territory.

 

39 The descendants of Makhir son of Manasseh went to Gilead, captured it and drove out the Amorites who were there. 40 So Moses gave Gilead to the Makhirites, the descendants of Manasseh, and they settled there. 41 Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, captured their settlements and called them Havvoth Jair. 42 And Nobah captured Kenath and its surrounding settlements and called it Nobah after himself.

 

Also, we know that Moses had a keen interest in looking after Joseph’s descendants. We see it during the Exodus when Moses himself remembers to take Joseph’s remains with them. This followed Joseph’s request to his brothers before his death that he be taken for re-burial in the Promised Land. As my wife, Norma, suggests, this showed some special concern by Moses for Joseph’s family. Moses also had a special relationship with Joshua, a descendant of Ephraim and the next leader of Israel. Did this relationship extend to Manasseh as well? Was he able to ask Manasseh to do a special job for him?

 

Another issue might be the very fact that Jacob doubled Joseph’s portion by giving full tribal status to the two sons. Did this cause resentment later on when the land was to be divided among the tribes? Of course, each tribe’s portion would be diminished by this doubling of Joseph’s tribal inheritance. Maybe Moses thought that by dividing Manasseh’s portion into eastern and western parts that this resentment might be cooled.

 

One more thought. The tribes of Reuben and Gad responded enthusiastically to Moses’s concerns. They quickly pledged to participate in the conquest while leaving their families in fortified cities in Transjordan. Was their response too exuberant and reckless? Who would protect their families even in fortified cities? Leaving the women and children alone would indeed be irresponsible amidst the remnants of a defeated and still hostile population. Maybe they could manage to graze the flocks but could they defend themselves if attacked? With Manasseh’s well established military prowess this issue could be properly addressed. Manasseh would protect the remaining families left behind until the Promised Land was successfully conquered.

 

So we do have a plethora of reasons and possibilities to explain the sudden and unexpected intrusion of Manasseh into the picture. Moses may have weighed all these considerations and came up with the strategy of part of Manasseh being located on the east of the Jordan.

 

Neziv does not mention any of these concerns. He moves in a very different direction. After all, Moses is the spiritual leader of the nation. He must worry not only about physical safety but spiritual matters as well. The actual Holy Land brings a higher relationship with God. With idolatry hopefully removed it will have fewer distractions and temptations. However, what will be the spiritual impact of living outside the Holy Land, contiguous with it but not within it? Neziv sees in Moses’ words hints about the spiritual issues at stake.

 

Let us go back to Numbers 32: 20-22:

 

20 Then Moses said to them, If you will do this -if you will arm yourselves before the LORD for battle 21 and if all of you who are armed cross over the Jordan before the LORD until he has driven his enemies out before him- 22 then when the land is subdued before the LORD, you may return and be free from your obligation to the LORD and to Israel. And this land will be your possession before the LORD.

In the Book of Numbers, Moses consults with God on various issues for which he has no answer. It would be very helpful to know what God thinks about this particular venture. If God would have given approval to this then we would know that habitations in Transjordan would be fully legitimate. In effect, the Holy Land borders would be expanded. But Moses did not consult with God on this issue of east of the Jordan settlements. He acted on his own. But notice that in just these few verses [20-22] the phrase before the LORD appears four times. The phrase and variants continue to appear as the discussion goes on:

 

23 But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the LORD; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out. 24 Build cities for your women and children, and pens for your flocks, but do what you have promised.

25 The Gadites and Reubenites said to Moses, We your servants will do as our lord commands. 26 Our children and wives, our flocks and herds will remain here in the cities of Gilead. 27 But your servants, every man who is armed for battle, will cross over to fight before the LORD, just as our lord says.

28 Then Moses gave orders about them to Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun and to the family heads of the Israelite tribes. 29 He said to them, If the Gadites and Reubenites, every man armed for battle, cross over the Jordan with you before the LORD, then when the land is subdued before you, you must give them the land of Gilead as their possession. 30 But if they do not cross over with you armed, they must accept their possession with you in Canaan.

31 The Gadites and Reubenites answered, Your servants will do what the LORD has said.

 

Moses’ words are taken as God’s Word. But more than that: there is a decided emphasis upon living before God; in Hebrew, lifnei Hashem. Living in the Holy Land is itself living before God. The Israelites in Transjordan will make an effort to also live before God. These words seem to be protestations of piety and commitment to the entire project of Israel’s destiny.

 

Now let us see how Neziv understands the meaning of this passage and the role of Manasseh:

 

then when the land is subdued before the LORD: When you said, We will not return to our homes until each of the Israelites has received their inheritance, this refers to the distribution of the land. This is not just to make sure that the rest of the Israelites will not complain but the meaning is that as long as the land is not distributed it is not really conquered.

before the LORD: for the holiness of the land greatly depends upon the distribution and clarification of the portion each person. This is reflected in the fact that until that time the laws of the Jubilee year and other laws that depend upon the Jubilee do not come into effect. This is God’s essential wish: that the land is settled in its holiness before Him. Then God?s Leadership and Providence will rest uniquely on the land. In this way you will have fulfilled your obligations to both God and Israel.

 

The land of Israel itself will not reach its holiness potential until there is complete settlement of it. Only then do all laws become operational reflecting the special sanctity of the land and God?s unique relationship to the land.

 

Neziv continues:

Moses added another practical implication to this: And this land will be your possession before the LORD. This land too, meaning Transjordan, even though it has really less holiness than that of the Galilee and Judah, nevertheless, it will become a possession that is also before the Lord when you will accept God’s Providence and all the practices of the Land of Israel just as the other ten tribes.

Neziv now addresses the issue of sinning or, failure, that is mentioned twice by Moses in verse 23:

 

But if you fail to do this: that is, make your portions before God.

you will be sinning against the LORD: You will have already fulfilled your obligations to Israel [by fighting for them across the Jordan]. For God wishes that you too will dwell under His Providence just like the other ten tribes.

 

Neziv now interprets the second mention of sin in the verse:

 

and you may be sure that your sin will find you out: You should remember that even if you fulfill all your commitments you are still liable to sin. This really did happen later on for they were the ones who first sinned by practicing idolatry. They also were exiled first before the other ten tribes. This is because the Land of Israel is more protective [against idolatry] than the Transjordan territory. Please see my comments to Deuteronomy 3:21.

 

Neziv is again reminding us there are consequences to everything. Even though they have Moses’ and God’s approval to live east of the Jordan; and, even though they will try to live before the Lord, there are still inescapable consequences. These may not appear until centuries later but they will appear.

 

Neziv picks up on this theme at Deuteronomy 3:12-22 in lengthy comments discussing Moses’ review of these events. He starts at verse 12:

 

It is important to give careful attention to this entire story beginning from verse 1: Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan…, until the end of the parashah, to see what moral lesson will be fashioned from it. It is clear that if the Reubenites and Gadites had not settled in Transjordan they would not have been exiled first. Transjordan territory has less sanctity than Israel proper and also the power of Torah is weaker there, as said in Midrash Rabbah 66:3: Another interpretation: OF THE DEW OF THE HEAVEN alludes to Scripture; AND OF THE FATNESS OF THE EARTH, to Mishnah; AND PLENTY OF CORN, to Talmud.

The midrash refers to the blessings of Jacob to Joseph which would apply in Israel proper, not east of the Jordan. Neziv continues:

 

Moses had already alluded to this when he said: you may be sure that your sin will find you out, as I wrote in Numbers 32:23. Furthermore, after the Reubenites and Gadites were exiled even the holiness of Israel proper was diminished, as it says in Tractate Arakhin 32b: For it was taught: When the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were abolished.

Neziv will now tie all this together with the original story of the spies almost forty years earlier which had provoked Moses? current fears. Again, Neziv sees the power of consequences:

 

All of this was caused by the sin of the Spies. For if Israel had left Kadesh Barnea through Edom for the land of Israel, the Edomite king would not have refused them passage through his territory for the fear of Israel was still intense after the Splitting of the Sea [of which we are told in the Song of the Sea: The chiefs of Edom will be terrified, the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling, the people of Canaan will melt away; terror and dread will fall on them. Exodus 15:15-16, hsj]. Then they would have first conquered Israel proper, divided it up equally and then come to Transjordan. Then also there would never be Exile an all the other tragedies.

However, after the episode of the Spies, when they tried to force their way into Canaan [against God's and Moses' wishes], they were roundly defeated. This led to the diminished fear of Israel by Edom and Moab until they necessarily reached Sihon. They then had to defeat Sihon and Og with the result that Transjordan was given to the Gadites and Reubenites, and everything else followed.

All this is the moral lesson that derives from the Spies and its impact. It also emphasizes what must be done by that generation in regard to protecting Torah study and the entire process of Talmud.

If!!!! If only they had had the courage to pursue the conquest when the surrounding nations had still been fearful of them, all of history would have been quite different. The calamity of the Spies changed it all. God did salvage the overall historical plan but not without serious consequences: Exile, destruction of the Temples and the other tragedies of Israel’s history.

 

Let us recall here what Neziv wrote just a few weeks ago in Parashat Shelah Lekhah:

 

In truth, the nation had refused to live on the supernatural and miraculous plane of existence. If they had remained willingly and carefully on that level, which leads to immediate punishment for sins, as was in the early desert period, then entering the land in this Glorious state would have led to God’s Glory and Worship being spread throughout the Earth. For after the Splitting of the Sea itself some nations in the area already knew of God’s Glory. Certainly, if they entered the land and lived there in this exalted state above the natural life in all other lands, they would have reached the goal in just a few hundred years. However, once they requested to live a natural life with Providence more hidden, then God’s Providence and Worship were not visible to the nations but only to His nation. Thus, the ultimate goal would not be achieved without the dispersion of Israel. Then the nations would see God’s nation devoted to sanctifying His Blessed Name. Everyone would see that no one could destroy them and that God?s Providence enabled their survival as wandering sheep among seventy wolves. Thus, through many generations the goal would be reached.

 

Finally, Neziv is ready to address the place of Manasseh in these events [verse 16]:

 

The order of the story is not consistent. In verse 12 Moses begins with the Reubenites and Gadites. He then stops and speaks of Manasseh’s portion. He then returns to the Reubenites and Gadites. This is not a meaningless matter.

It seems that Moses gave Manasseh large tracts of land, even greater than the two other tribes; and, he did not put all kinds of conditions on them as with the others. True, the Makhir families of Manasseh went and conquered these lands on their own but this is not sufficient reason to give them all to them. And why then give the Gilead to Makhir and the Argob with its sixty cities to Yair [another Manasseh group]?

Therefore, we must say that there is a hidden meaning in this for the Israelite settlement in Transjordan. It seems that Moses understood that the power of Torah was weak in this area. Therefore, he wished to plant in them Torah scholars who would enlighten them with their wisdom. We see this later in Judges 5:14 [in the Song of Deborah]: out of Makhir came down captains. [The Hebrew term translated as captains is Mehokkekim, also meaning legal experts] This term mehokkek is found in the blessing to Judah and is explained in tractate Sanhedrin 5a: this refers to the descendants of Hillel [in Palestine] who teach the Torah in public.

So we see that later on in the Bible that there are scholars living in Transjordan associated with the Makhir families. In another place the Talmud suggests that these scholars may even have from Judah itself and that Judahites were mingled with Manasseh. Neziv refers to Tractate Yebamot 62b where there is clearly a suggestion that descendants of Judah married into Manasseh. Neziv continues:

 

It therefore seems that Moses made great efforts to convince part of Manasseh’s tribe to settle in Transjordan. Therefore, he enticed them with large tracts of land until they agreed.

This then is the order of the text. Moses first began with the territories of the Gadites and Reubenites. However, he could not complete this until he spoke with Manasseh. He concluded with them until they were satisfied. Then Moses knew that he could complete the negotiations with Gad and Reuben. These events were known to all Israel at that time. Later on [in Deuteronomy] Moses told them of his great efforts to implant Torah scholars in Transjordan. From the important lesson will be learned for the future: that everyone should make a great effort to live in a community of Torah learning for Israel?s existence depends upon this?. Moses, our teacher, showed all of this for the future from what he did at that time.

Moses review of the events has a strong moral tone to it. We learn of the continuing impact of the Spies episode and what fears it sparked to Moses. We learn of the critical importance of Torah study for all future dynamic and faithful Jewish communities. Israel’s existence as God’s nation depends upon this.

 

We may also have an answer to our original question whether or not Israelites may live outside of the Land of Israel. They may now live in Transjordan not because of its contiguity with the Holy Land but because there are Torah scholars present to properly guide the community.

Which raises another question already hinted at by Neziv: what about living in areas not contiguous to the Holy Land?

 

Rabbinic tradition maintains a clear support towards the realistic circumstances which may find Jews far away from the Land of Israel. However, living in a place of Torah learning becomes the critical factor.

 

In the above passage Neziv quotes from Ketubot 111a:

 

[Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel:] As it is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for Babylon so it is forbidden to leave Babylon for other countries. Rashi explains: For there are many Yeshivot [Torah academies] there who continually teach Torah. Furthermore, the Sages say there that even to be buried one must do so in a place of Torah.

All this we learn from Moses’ insertion of Manasseh into the episode of the Transjordan settlement of Gad and Reuben.

 

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Tammuz 28 5771

July 30, 2011

 

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

 

Parashat Mattot 5771

The Profound Word [II]

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

 

Promised Land, Holy Land, Holy Borders I

The Problem of Transjordan

 

Chapter 32 presents us with a fascinating question: what are the borders of the Promised Land, the Holy Land? Until now we assume that all twelve tribes are headed for the west side of the Jordan, the classic Land of the Ancestors. However, reality gets in the way. It comes in the form of the resistance of various peoples east of the Jordan to Israel’s march to its land. Israel must fight its way forward and successfully conquers these territories. That means that they now control a lot of Trans Jordanian property as well as the booty taken in these wars. Some tribes end up with large livestock holdings and this leads to a new dilemma. These tribes notice that this area of Transjordan contains very suitable grazing lands. Therefore, they would like to settle in Transjordan.

 

1 The Reubenites and Gadites, who had very large herds and flocks, saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were suitable for livestock. 2 So the Gadites and Reubenites came to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the leaders of the community, and said, 3 Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo and Beon 4 the land the LORD subdued before the people of Israel are suitable for livestock, and your servants have livestock. 5 If we have found favor in your eyes, they said, let this land be given to your servants as our possession. Do not make us cross the Jordan.

This may seem like a reasonable request. However, what about the march towards the Promised Land? And, if they were to remain in Transjordan would this be an annexation to the Promised Land? Would it be included in the Holy Land? Would it require all the agricultural gifts similar to the Western side of the Jordan?

 

But these questions are not the ones posed in Moses’ initial reaction. They presumably lie under the surface throughout the report of the negotiations between the tribes and Moses. Moses takes a very harsh view of this request for it is reminiscent of the great crisis created by the spies almost forty years earlier.

 

6 Moses said to the Gadites and Reubenites, Should your fellow Israelites go to war while you sit here? 7 Why do you discourage the Israelites from crossing over into the land the LORD has given them? 8 This is what your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to look over the land. 9 After they went up to the Valley of Eshkol and viewed the land, they discouraged the Israelites from entering the land the LORD had given them. 10 The LORD’s anger was aroused that day and he swore this oath: 11 Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of those who were twenty years old or more when they came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 12 not one except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they followed the LORD wholeheartedly. 13 The LORD?s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone.

14 And here you are, a brood of sinners, standing in the place of your fathers and making the LORD even more angry with Israel. 15 If you turn away from following him, he will again leave this entire people in the wilderness, and you will be the cause of their destruction.

Moses first argues that their request is unjust. After all, all twelve tribes participated in the conquests in Transjordan. If you two tribes remain here then their forces will be diminished in the fight for Canaan. This is clearly unfair.

 

Moses then argues that this refusal to cross the Jordan will be interpreted by the other tribes as a capitulation to the same fears that prompted the earlier crisis. They will think that the Gadites and Reubenites believe that the conquest of Canaan is impossible. Moses had brought all the tribes to a point of confidence in their future. Now, all might be at risk because of this request.

 

Neziv notices that in the Hebrew text there is an uneven presentation of the two tribes. The way it reads is that the Reubenites had extensive livestock but that the Gadites had even more numerous amounts. This would help to explain the change after the first verse in which Reuben is mentioned first and Gad second. Subsequently, Gad is mentioned first. They had the greatest stake in the outcome of this discussion.

 

Ibn Ezra believes that Gad being now the first mentioned of the tribes when the actual request is made to Moses and the other leaders is because it was their idea in the first place. This seems to jibe with Neziv’s position.

 

Ramban suggests that the reason that they now emerge as the primary spokesmen is because they were noted warriors as seen in Moses’ blessing to them [Deuteronomy 33:20]. They were unafraid to remain in the hostile territories of Transjordan even without the support of the other tribes who cross the Jordan.

 

Neziv also notices that already their argument proceeds in stages.

 

Your servants have livestock: then they stopped speaking. This shows that they were only requesting in regard to the livestock. To that Moses agreed. However, the Torah does not leave it there for these words were not final for [in verse 5] they will add a request for these lands to be their inheritance. This helps to explain verse 16 later on.

 

If they had just requested these lands for grazing their herds Moses would have agreed. Only when they added that they would like these lands to be their portion and give up any claims on the west side of the Jordan did Moses react strongly. In verse 16 they respond to the criticisms and make it clear that they will participate in the crossing and conquests of Canaan:

 

16 Then they came up to him and said, We would like to build pens here for our livestock and cities for our women and children. 17 But we will arm ourselves for battle and go ahead of the Israelites until we have brought them to their place. Meanwhile our women and children will live in fortified cities, for protection from the inhabitants of the land. 18 We will not return to our homes until each of the Israelites has received their inheritance. 19 We will not receive any inheritance with them on the other side of the Jordan, because our inheritance has come to us on the east side of the Jordan.

Neziv points out that actually Moses’ criticisms can be divided into two wrongs, one against their fellow Israelites and one against God.

 

Should your fellow Israelites go to war while you sit here: this is a wrong against Israel that you will have a place already conquered by all the tribes while they will have to face the dangers of war [to conquer the west side of the Jordan].

Why do you discourage the Israelites: you will create bad feelings between Israel and their Heavenly Father, for the rest of Israel will say that it really is not because of the livestock but rather out of fear of warfare with the Canaanites. Or, they will think that you really do not want to enter the land which has the special Providence of God which is stronger in the land. In this way you will discourage them [and cause opposition to entry into the land].

 

Neziv now focuses on the word that was translated above as wholehearted. This appears in verses 11 and 12. There is a grammatical variation in the manner in which the word is vocalized as well as in the phrasing: in 11, they have not followed me wholeheartedly; in 12, they followed the LORD wholeheartedly. The same Hebrew word is used in the contrast between the ten spies who were not wholeheartedly committed to God, on the one hand, and Caleb and Joshua, on the other hand, who were faithfully committed to God. Neziv noticed that the middle letter of the Hebrew word is written softly, that is, without the usual emphasis, a dagesh, which this form of the word requires. In fact, in an earlier reference to Caleb, at 14:24, the dagesh does appear in the letter. Neziv believes that this requires our attention and explanation for: there is no empty matter in the Torah. In other words, the divinity of the Torah as God’s Word requires that we look at these anomalies and try to learn the message that they bear.

 

Neziv continues:

 

At first, we have to explain what it means to say to follow [wholeheartedly] after God. The matter is like what Jacob said [Gen 48:15]: May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully. In Genesis Rabbah [97:1] we find a discussion about this:

R. Berekiah [gave two illustrations] in the names of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish respectively. R. Johanan said: It was like a shepherd standing and watching his flock [before him]. Resh Lakish said: Like a prince who walks along while the elders precede him. On R. Johanan’s view, we need His honor. On the view of Resh Lakish, He needs us to glorify Him.

The explanation is as follows: the one, who says like a prince, understands the phrase God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully to mean that they walked before God to publicize God’s Divinity and fill the Earth with His Glory, for this is the purpose of the Creation. The example of the prince further shows that when the elders walk before him everyone understands that he is their leader.

The example of the shepherd suggests that the phrase God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully means to benefit from his Providence [just as the sheep benefit from the supervision of the shepherd], and not from any other power or astrological sign.

These examples explain the meanings of to follow [wholeheartedly] after God. If to enlarge his Glory, then it is as the prince example, as he walks before the elders. If as the shepherd then it is be solely sustained by God.

Neziv has now switched the walking before and after the prince for he believes they are interchangeable, depending upon the fashion of time or place. He explains:

 

This depends upon the custom of the time or place whether the prince goes before or after the elders. Today it is well known that the proper manners require that the prince enters first. (This was also the custom during the time of our Sages.) In the time of Jacob the custom was for the elders to go before the prince. In the time of Moses it was the opposite as we see in 16:25 that the elders walked behind Moses.

Now we can understand the differences in the verses [between walking after God and walking after Me]. The sin of the earlier generation who left Egypt was that they did not wish to walk after God and follow the Divine Providence. Caleb and Joshua were just the opposite. Not only did they wish to follow God [and trust in His Providence] but they wanted to do so wholeheartedly, meaning, that they encouraged others to do so as well. So, the meaning of walking after God is that they publicized and encouraged others to do so. Therefore, the expression is different: to walk wholeheartedly after God.

Now Neziv explains why the earlier reference to Caleb does have the dagesh in the word in the usual manner.

 

Now, back at verse 14:24 [But because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly], the meaning is not about proclaiming God’s Providence, for in this matter Caleb was no different than Joshua. Rather, the meaning is that in going alone and unafraid to Hebron to see the giants there, he put himself under God’s Providence. So, here the meaning is about him, he followed after God. Therefore, the usual grammatical rule applies and the dagesh appears in the word as usual.

It seems to me that what Neziv is suggesting is that in the current context the missing dagesh suggests that we understand the walking after God not just as a shepherd but as the prince. If we go back a few weeks to Parashat Shelah Lekhah, and recall the discussion about God’s Glory filling the earth, the same Hebrew root appears that here means following wholeheartedly after God but there means that the Glory of God will fill the earth. There, too, the dagesh is not in the middle letter of the root, but for obvious grammatical reasons. It might be that Neziv is showing the continuity from that dramatic failure to the potential one now forty years later. He wants us to see that while the ten spies were impediments to God?s ultimate plan, Joshua and Caleb were committed to the plan. Through them Israel’s continuity and purpose would prevail. All this he sees in the missing dagesh, a little dot in the middle of a letter.

Moses’ fears turn out to be misplaced. The response of the two tribes meets his concerns. They will fight with the other tribes to conquer Canaan. Afterwards, they will return to Transjordan where they will have left their families in protected cities during their departure. They also renounce any claims to property in Israel proper for they will be content with their lot in Transjordan. Thus, the negotiations continue:

 

20 Then Moses said to them, If you will do this, if you will arm yourselves before the LORD for battle 21 and if all of you who are armed cross over the Jordan before the LORD until he has driven his enemies out before him 22 then when the land is subdued before the LORD, you may return and be free from your obligation to the LORD and to Israel. And this land will be your possession before the LORD.

23 But if you fail to do this, you will be sinning against the LORD; and you may be sure that your sin will find you out. 24 Build cities for your women and children, and pens for your flocks, but do what you have promised.

25 The Gadites and Reubenites said to Moses, We your servants will do as our lord commands. 26 Our children and wives, our flocks and herds will remain here in the cities of Gilead. 27 But your servants, every man who is armed for battle, will cross over to fight before the LORD, just as our lord says.

28 Then Moses gave orders about them to Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun and to the family heads of the Israelite tribes. 29 He said to them, If the Gadites and Reubenites, every man armed for battle, cross over the Jordan with you before the LORD, then when the land is subdued before you, you must give them the land of Gilead as their possession. 30 But if they do not cross over with you armed, they must accept their possession with you in Canaan.

31 The Gadites and Reubenites answered, Your servants will do what the LORD has said. 32 We will cross over before the LORD into Canaan armed, but the property we inherit will be on this side of the Jordan.

The next verse is startling:

 

33 Then Moses gave to the Gadites, the Reubenites and the half-tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, the whole land with its cities and the territory around them.

How did the tribe of Manasseh get into the picture? We have no record of their interest in the Transjordanian lands. They also are not beset by any negotiated conditions as are the other tribes. How, then, did this come about?

 

Neziv is also surprised about the sudden intrusion of this new element of Manasseh?

 

They did not even make this request! But Moses asked them. The reason is explained in Deuteronomy 3:16.

In the Deuteronomy passage Moses is reviewing the current story. However, he adds certain information that is not included in our version. Also, the sequence of events is changed. The issue of Manasseh is there from the beginning.

 

We will continue to address this question next week. It might turn out that the whole legitimacy of settlement east of the Jordan River will depend on the tribe of Manasseh.

 

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Tammuz 21 5771

July 23, 2011

 

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Pinhas 5771

The Profound Word [II]

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

 

Lust, Idolatry, Anger, Zealotry and Murder:

Complications and Consequences

 

Leaders must be chosen for the next generation, the post-Mosaic and post-Wilderness generation, that will enter and settle the land. Last year we looked at Joshua, Moses’ successor as the national political leader [see: http://theprofoundword.com/?p=395]. We will now look at the religious leader, Pinhas, who will work beside Joshua in the Promised Land.

 

What do we know about Pinhas? Not much before the events at the end of last week’s and the beginning of this week’s portions. And, what we learn is quite shocking:

 

1 While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them.

4 The LORD said to Moses, Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD?s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.

5 So Moses said to Israel’s judges, Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.

6 Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The LORD said to Moses, 11 Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. 12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. 13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.

14 The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family. 15 And the name of the Midianite woman who was put to death was Kozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family.

 

Joshua is Moses’ loyal assistant for the wilderness period. Moses sends him to do battle but we also find him in the Tent of Meeting, presumably studying and guiding people with Moses.

 

Phinehas, or in modern popular expression, Pinhas, is a direct descendant of Aaron. He is in line to be High Priest. Yet, the first time we meet him he is engaged in heated and violent zealotry, reminding us of some of his Levite ancestors. It is a story of lust, idolatry, anger, zealotry and murder. Pinhas’ behavior is certainly not in keeping with the image of his grandfather, Aaron. Yet, twice he is linked to Aaron within a very few verses. How then can he merit being the future High Priest of Israel, the one with whom God creates a covenant of peace? At first glance, Pinhas and peace do not seem to go together.

 

Other questions arise. We have two forms of anger attributed to God, more clearly expressed in Hebrew as haron af and heymah. These appear here as fierce anger, fury, and anger respectively. Can we really attribute anger to God? What are we trying to say when we use these terms?

 

Last week we saw that during this period God did not get angry at all. It was a dangerous period for Israel and anger would have made it even more likely for Israel?s enemies to be victorious for God’s Providence would be diminished. If there was no real fury then what really did Pinhas accomplish? And, what is really his reward?

 

We see here the outbreak of a most dangerous conflict, a civil war that consumes 24,000 people before it is halted by Pinhas’ actions. While Moses charges the shofetim [probably in the sense of fighters, protectors as in the Book of Shofetim, and not really judges] to mete out punishment to those who worshiped Peor, Pinhas goes for the worst offender, Zimri, who dared to approach the Sanctuary with a Midianite princess in tow. The killing then stops.

 

Earlier in the wilderness experience idolatrous behavior might be met by an angry response of some kind of plague directly from God that kills the offenders. Here we see the shift from intense Divine Providence to that of Israel learning to manage its own affairs. It is messy. Even Moses does not know how to settle this matter. Only Pinhas succeeds. Because Pinhas succeeds God does not have to intervene.

 

So, God is grateful to Pinhas. Without him the story would be much worse.

 

Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal.

 

God does not have to intervene setting back the maturity process of Israel once again. Israel is learning to manage its affairs. The consequences for Pinhas are:

 

Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.

 

A special announcement will be made concerning Pinhas. It is not enough simply to give him the covenant of peace but it must also be proclaimed. Why? And, why must it be Moses who makes the announcement?

 

Let us pick up Neziv’s comments from here:

 

Besides giving it to him tell him that it is so. This is an extra measure of love as we learn in Avot [3:14]:

Beloved are Israel in that they were called children of the Omnipresent. It was a mark of] superabundant love [that] it was made known to them that they were called children of the Omnipresent, as it is said: you are children of the Lord your God.

This is also included in what the Sages taught in Tractate Shabbat [10b]: Said Raba b. Mehasia to him, Thus did Rab say: If one makes a gift to his neighbor he must inform him, as it is said, that you may know that I the Lord sanctify you.

So, the expression tell him is addressed to Moses: you yourself go and inform Pinhas of his righteousness and reward.

 

Why must Moses himself do this? Neziv continues:

 

I heard from my father-in-law, Rabbi Isaac of Volozhin, [Neziv's predecessor as head of the Volozhin Yeshiva and son of the famed founder, Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin] a helpful parable. [This interpretation is now found in Peh Kadosh by Rabbi Isaac.]

A general was facing a difficult military situation and could not find a plan how to exit from it. An ordinary soldier came with a plan that was successfully implemented. This soldier is worthy of being rewarded. The general is also worthy of some punishment and diminished honor since he failed. Therefore, the king ordered the general to bring the reward to the soldier. This would be a reduction of the general’s honor.

So, too, since Moses here had no way of exiting the crisis while Pinhas came up with a solution, Moses was commanded to inform Pinhas of his reward from God.

 

What is this reward that is called a covenant of peace? As we said earlier, Pinhas and Peace do not seem to go together. Why is this an appropriate reward for him? Neziv continues:

 

As a consequence of the fact that he brought calm to God by diminishing God’s anger, he was now blessed with the quality of peace: Pinhas would no longer be so severe and easily angered.

 

In other words, this is exactly the blessing that Pinhas required if he were to become the High Priest. In order to be the spiritual leader he would have to become more like Aaron, his grandfather, who is remembered as a man of peace: loving peace and pursuing it.

 

Neziv continues:

 

This is because the nature of what he did, killing another human being with his own hands, could easily leave a residual violent feeling in one’s heart. However, in this case, since Pinhas acted for the sake of Heaven, he was blessed that he should always be calm and peaceful, so that this event should not lead to a loss of heart.

 

So, despite Pinhas’ merit there are dangerous consequences to his behavior. He needs protection from anger and violence in the future. Pinhas pacified God; God now pacifies Pinhas.

 

Neziv sees further evidence of unintended consequences in the very spelling of the word Shalom, peace, in the traditional Torah text. The vav is shortened. He explains:

 

Pinhas was given the quality of peace even more than was proper. For later on, when he served as High Priest in the time of the Judges, he did nothing to protest idol worship such as the Mikhah Idol and others. Thus, the gift of peace pacified him too much and became a stumbling block. So, in effect, he was really punished [somewhat by the covenant of peace].

 

Pinhas had to be pacified. However, this prevented him from later doing his job and facing down idolatry when it emerged during his leadership. His covenant of peace was not always a blessing for him.

 

Neziv concludes by pointing us to a passage in Deuteronomy 13 dealing with a town condemned for idol worship. A similar dynamic as that of Pinhas emerges:

 

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, Let us go and worship other gods (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors because you obey the LORD your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes. [13-19]

 

This very severe condemnation of the town was understood more as lesson than a reality. In Rabbinic tradition, it was almost impossible to achieve all the conditions necessary to destroy the town. However, it does exemplify the severity of idol worship for Israel?s future.

 

Neziv points us to where the executors of this condemnation are blessed with mercy: will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. In his commentary there he explains:

 

One of the evils created by this activity is that a person who kills another can become cruel by nature. A person condemned to death in court is different because there professional court workers do the execution. But in order to kill an entire town many people have to be trained to do kill and be cruel [for men, women and children will be the targets].

 

Thus, after doing the deed, the executors need to be blessed with their compassion restored.

 

Neziv continues to analyze Pinhas’ reward:

 

A covenant of a lasting [or, eternal, perpetual] priesthood: As a reward for protecting Israel he is given the responsibility of effecting forgiveness in future generations. This means that he was given the High Priesthood. An ordinary kohen does not stand always before God except during his service period or on festivals. However, a High Priest is always in the Temple and serves constantly.

 

The priests took turns serving in the Jerusalem Temple on a regulated schedule, usually when their clan or family took a turn of service. Otherwise, they returned to their homes and villages. However, the High Priest, as chief administrator of the Temple, always served. Pinhas and his descendants would always be in the Temple.

 

Of course, this may be part of the pacification program for Pinhas to help maintain his anger, violence and zeal. The holy precincts will maintain a pacific influence on him and his descendants.

 

Neziv explains further, emphasizing the positive aspects of the covenant of peace:

 

Because he was zealous for the honor of his God: The covenant of peace is given to him not only because he pacified God’s anger but would have been given to him because he acted for the sake of Heaven. That is why he receives the covenant of peace.

And made atonement for Israel: The blessing of priesthood was not only because he prevented God’s killing off the nation. Even if such a degree of punishment had not been reached he would still have merited it because he brought atonement to Israel. Therefore, he deserves to continue to bringing atonement to them. For one who risks his life for a good deed is helped by Heaven for this deed in the future. From this Scripture teaches us knowledge to guide us in the future.

 

Pinhas took a great risk in going after Zimri, a powerful leader. The tribe of Simeon, also known for its zealotry, could easily have defended Zimri and attacked Pinhas. But, somehow, Pinhas’ actions brought home the message of the mess that was being created by the combination of idolatry and harlotry. Sobriety returned to Israel once again. For this, Pinhas received his complex of rewards.

 

The lesson for the future is that Israel needs people to stand up and face the errors of each generation with determination and conviction. Those who do so will be blessed with further strength to meet these challenges.

 

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Tammuz 14 5771

July 16, 2011

 

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Balak 5770-1

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Balaam: The Outside Consultant

Israel marches on towards its destination of the Promised Land. Fierce and successful battles end the last parashah. Two mighty ancient kings are defeated, Sihon and Og. Israel seems to have entered the world of natural law with a flourish. Understandably, other nations are nervous.

This is the setting in which our parashah opens:

Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. Moab became alarmed because of the people, for they were numerous, and Moab dreaded the children of Israel. Moab said to the elders of Midian, “Now this assembly will eat up everything around us, as the ox eats up the greens of the field. Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moab at that time. [Nu 22:2-4]

Balak’s solution is to hire a ‘consultant’:

He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of his people, to call for him, saying, “A people has come out of Egypt, and behold, they hide the view of the earth [for they are so numerous], and they are settled near me. So now, please come and curse this people for me, for they are too powerful for me. Perhaps I will be able to wage war against them and drive them out of the land, for I know that whomever you bless is blessed and whomever you curse is cursed.” [5-6]

Messengers are sent to ancient Babylon to bring Balaam for the task. The parashah becomes a lengthy dialogue between Balak and his messengers on one side and Balaam on the other. Some of the most beautiful Biblical poetry is a result, some of which entered into the daily Jewish prayerbook and other parts that were considered for inclusion but were considered too lengthy. These poems are filled with praise for the history and virtues of Israel. Balaam was indeed a true prophet of God. Yet, rabbinic tradition remembered him as Balaam the wicked, harasha. Later in the Book of Bemidbar he is killed by Israel in a very difficult battle.

What is the significance of this tale? Why is it included in the Torah? Why is Balaam considered evil despite saying so many nice things about us? These questions have generated numerous discussions over the centuries Neziv’s comments are varied, numerous and lengthy as well. We will look at a few of his concerns.

The profound theme of this story is the march of Israel through history as God’s people. This journey encounters various forces of opposition because of the very nature of Israel’s mission to change and enhance the cultures and civilizations of the world. This in turn inspires numerous plans by these forces to curtail and limit Israel’s effectiveness or even destroy Israel completely in a final genocidal fury.

Balaam is not an ordinary opponent but a true prophet, with Mesopotamian origins like Israel, who readily and easily communicates with God. He knows that he cannot depart from the word of God to win the acclaim of his patron. He thus represents the most noble of the opponents and is not just an ordinary thug. He knows he cannot ultimately stop Israel’s mission but he tries to cause some damage. It is possible that greed plays a role in this endeavor.

Neziv sees Balaam as representing the seven Canaanite nations inhabiting the land. We know from various passages in Leviticus that they have now come to the end of their term of settlement in God’s eyes because of their abominable behavior. None of these nations as well as the Moabites and Emorites are deemed natives of their lands but conquerors and settlers. The Land of Israel as a Holy Land will not tolerate these abominations indefinitely.

Yet Balaam is sympathetic to their plights. He asks Balak to begin the process with the construction of seven altars:

Balaam said to Balak, “Build me seven altars here, and prepare for me seven bulls and seven rams. [23:1]

Neziv comments:

[Seven is] for the seven nations that Israel is coming to remove.

Neziv now contrasts Balaam’s need for seven altars, the pagan way of worship, with Israel’s unified form of worship:

The congregation of Israel is exclusively attached to the Providence of God. Therefore, their community offerings are on one sole altar. We saw this earlier [in the Mekhiltah commentary to Lev. 9:6] This is the thing the Lord has commanded; do it, and the glory of the Lord will appear to you: Remove that evil inclination from your hearts and become one in faith and worship to serve before God. Just as God is unique in the universe so too your worship should be unique before God, as it is written, You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart…. [Deut. 10:16] Why so? For the God who says ‘I am the Lord your God’ is described further as the verses continue: For the Lord, your God, is God of gods and the Lord of the lords,…[17] If you do this [remove the evil inclination], then ‘the glory of the Lord will appear to you.’

However, among the other nations, each goes in the name of its god. Nevertheless, they are all rooted in their life force in God, the Cause of all Causes. For even the powers of impurity have no other source than in the source of holiness.

The idea of the unity of God requires that all be rooted in God. There cannot be other powers or gods. So, even impurity and evil is rooted somehow in the good. It cannot have any separate existence.

Neziv cites a Midrash Rabbah text [Bemidbar, 19:1] to support this idea:

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Is it not One? (Job 14:4). For example, Abraham out of Terah; Hezekiah out of Ahaz; Josiah out of Amon; Mordecai out of Shimei; Israel out of the idolaters; the future world out of this world. Who did this? Who commanded this? Who decreed this? Was it not the world’s Only One?

This means that from the fact that Abraham came from Terah and the like we see proof that God is the singular One of the world and not like those who believe there are two [ultimate] powers in the universe.[i.e., the facts of a varied universe of good and evil does not mean two ultimate powers but one who can bring change about from evil to good -hsj]

There is only one power but the influence affects each nation through its own independent intermediaries. That is why Balaam made seven altars. He believed that this is truly an honor to God in that He leads His world through many intermediaries. This is similar to the generation of Enosh as Maimonides explains the beginnings of idolatry.

Neziv is referring to Maimonides Code, Laws of Idolatry [1:1, in which he describes the origins of idolatrous worship:

During the times of Enosh, mankind made a great mistake, and the wise men of that generation gave thoughtless counsel. Enosh himself was one of those who erred.

Their mistake was as follows: They said God created stars and spheres with which to control the world. He placed them on high and treated them with honor, making them servants who minister before Him. Accordingly, it is fitting to praise and glorify them and to treat them with honor. [They perceived] this to be the will of God, blessed be He, that they magnify and honor those whom He magnified and honored, just as a king desires that the servants who stand before him be honored. Indeed, doing so is an expression of honor to the king.

After conceiving of this notion, they began to construct temples to the stars and offer sacrifices to them. They would praise and glorify them with words, and prostrate themselves before them, because by doing so, they would – according to their false conception – be fulfilling the will of God.

This was the essence of the worship of false gods, and this was the rationale of those who worshiped them.

Neziv now concludes analyzing Balaam’s thoughts:

If God were to accept Balaam’s thinking in this manner [that there is no direct individual Providence but only through intermediaries] it would then be easy to curse Israel which could not then harm Moab in any way.

Balaam represents the old pagan culture that must eventually be transformed. He will finally realize that he cannot really deter Israel’s mission. On verse 29 Neziv adds:

The matter of all these sacrifices is that Balaam realized that it was improbable that God would allow cursing Israel, for his prophecy began that the nature of creation is dependent upon Providence according to the Torah. This can only be accomplished through Israel His unique nation, and the initial purpose of creation cannot be changed. I wrote this on verse 19: God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?

On verse 19 he says:

Israel became the unique nation to lead His world through the Torah and the commandments. This is their greatness. Balaam says that this cannot be changed. For since the beginning of creation God wished to place His Presence on earth. However, the time had not yet arrived to give the Torah. Therefore, this period of time [until Sinai] was called the 2000 years of chaos [in A.Z. 9A]. These are as the the early childhood years during which the father cannot lead his home according to the child until he grows and matures and conducts himself according to individual Providence and then the father can lead the home according to the behavior of the child. So was the world in chaos until Abraham arrived and and began the process of Torah study. He and his household became entirely under individual Providence. Later on Israel received the Torah at Sinai. God’s Providential will in creating heaven and earth was then complete in that the conduct of the world should follow that of Israel.

So Neziv is building for us a philosophy of Biblical history. It begins with the imposition of order [din] on the primeval chaos. There is then a chaotic childhood period in which humanity strays into idolatry. At Sinai was not only a wedding, it now seems, but maybe what is now called a Bar or Bat Mitzvah: the coming of age, maturity and responsibility.

But Sinai provokes something else. Opposition, and even hatred. Maybe Balaam was eventually convinced otherwise but there were others to take up the challenge of halting Israel’s mission.

Chaos places an important role in this story. For his first attempt against Israel Balaam rose early in the morning [22:41]:

In the morning Balak took Balaam and led him up to Bamoth Baal, and from there he saw part of the people

Neziv comments:

During the first three hours of the day when he tried to catch the momentary anger of God expressed each day….He could have destroyed us with his wicked eye except for the fact God pitied us and did not get angry [those days]…. God had to change nature during that time for He had implanted this moment of anger into the creation.

What is this all about?

In 23:8, Balaam says to Balak:

How can I curse whom God has not cursed, and how can I invoke wrath if the Lord has not been angered?

Rashi comments based on a group of Talmudic discussions:

I myself am powerless, except that I can determine the precise moment when God becomes angry, and He has not become angry all these days since I have come to you. This is the meaning of the statement, ‘O my people, remember now what he [Balak king of Moab] planned and what Balaam answered him may you recognize the righteous deeds of the Lord (Mic. 6:5).

In other words, it was a special act of kindness of God towards us that the daily moment of anger was canceled. Balaam could not find the opportunity to curse Israel. But what is this daily moment of anger all about?

Here is one of the texts upon which the above comment of Rashi is based [Ber. 7a]:

Is anger then a mood of the Blessed Holy One?? Yes. For it has been taught [AZ 4a]: God has anger every day.[Ps. 7:12] And how long does this anger last? One moment. And how long is one moment? One fifty-eight thousand eight hundred and eighty-eighth part of an hour. And no creature has ever been able to fix precisely this moment except the wicked Balaam, of whom it is written: He knows the knowledge of the Most High. Now, he did not even know the mind of his animal; how then could he know the mind of the Most High? The meaning is, therefore, only that he knew how to fix precisely this moment in which the Blessed Holy One is angry. And this is just what the prophet said to Israel: O my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab devised, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him . . . that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord. What means ‘That you may know the righteous acts of the Lord?’? R. Eleazar says: The Blessed Holy One, said to Israel: See now, how many righteous acts I performed for you in not being angry in the days of the wicked Balaam. For had I been angry, not one remnant would have been left [of the enemies] of Israel. And this too is the meaning of what Balaam said to Balak: How can I curse whom God has not cursed, and how can I invoke wrath if the Lord has not been angered? This teaches us that He was not angry all these days. And how long does His anger last? One moment. And how long is one moment? R. Abin (some say R. Abina) says: As long as it takes to say Rega. And how do you know that He is angry one moment? For it is said: For His anger is but for a moment [rega], His favor is for a lifetime. [Ps. 30:6] . And when is He angry? Abaye says: In [one moment of] those first three hours of the day, when the comb of the rooster is white and it stands on one foot.

There is a very brief moment every day in which creation is shaky. What does this mean?

We must turn to Kabbalah, the Jewish mystical tradition, to guide us on this question. My teacher, a great-great-grandson of Neziv, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, on the basis of Kabbalist notions, wrote the following:

“When God created the world, He provided an opportunity for the work of His hands – man – to participate in His creation. The Creator, as it were, impaired reality in order that mortal man could repair its flaws and perfect it…. When God engraved and carved out the world, He did not entirely eradicate the chaos and the void, the deep, the darkness, from the domain of His creation. Rather, He separated the complete, perfect existence from the forces of negation, confusion and turmoil and set up cosmic boundaries, eternal laws to keep them apart…. However, the forces of relative nothingness at times exceed their bounds. They wish to burst forth out of the chains of obedience that the Almighty imposed upon them and seek to plunge the earth back into chaos and the void…. this relative “nothingness” is plotting evil, the deep is devising iniquity, and the chaos and void lie in wait in the dark alleyways of reality and seek to … profane the lustrous image of creation.” (Halakhic Man, p. 101-105)

The question of chaos thus leads us to the nature of God’s plan for the world, the unfolding of human history and Israel’s role in the drama. It is the background of the whole mission of Abraham and Sarah beginning with their call out of ancient Ur to go to ‘the land that I will show you.’ They understand the God who addresses them to be the Creator of heaven and earth, the God who in the process of creation tried to bring order out of chaos. They understand their mission as part of an ancient struggle, part of the very process of creation: God’s attempt to bring orderly creation out of chaos leaves residual forces of chaos present in the world. In fact, the Bible’s early stories point to these traces which continually erupt through human weakness or folly threatening the whole enterprise of creation with failure. Humanity repeatedly starts over again; promising beginnings yield disappointing results. The divine expectations for the world remain unfulfilled. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the violent generation of Noah that brought the flood, the Tower of Babel, all are instances of this failure, reflecting the human tendency towards selfishness that allows chaos to enter our lives in what we call evil.

What can be done to move out of the cycle of failures into a new mode of existence? In what way can the divine plan begin to advance? Must creation fail? Apparently, human beings, although created in the image of God, cannot on their own find the right way to live, the ‘way of the Lord.’ Time for some new initiative against the forces of chaos. Patience too. It will not happen in a day.

With the engagement of Abraham and Sarah in covenant the divine plan began to focus on the family that would become a nation and the promised land in which the plan would begin its actualization. This is the first, the ‘reishit’, the tithe of creation that will belong to God until others will join as well.

At Sinai the cause of the divine plan took a momentous leap forward laying claim to one people, Israel, who had now been committed to its fulfillment. However, the forces of chaos, now on the run, did not disappear.

The task was not without its dangers. The potential would always exist for head-on clashes between the covenanted people and the forces of chaos. These forces eventually become associated with a particular nation as well: Amalek. (The Zohar considers Amalek to be the ‘offspring of chaos.’) Balaam, the pagan prophet and sorcerer, commissioned to halt our ancestors’ march from Egypt to Israel, calls Amalek ‘reishit goyim,’ the first of the nations. The forces of chaos have their hopes pinned on Amalek as their champion.

Amalek has as its purpose the blocking of Israel’s march through history to its special destiny of being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, to promote the ways of kindness in the world. It attacks Israel on route to Sinai where it will receive its special commission to introduce holiness into the world. Amalek is the supreme antagonist of Israel’s mission for it is ‘lo yareh elohim,’ opposed to any morality which will restrict its actions. Amalek would like to be free to pursue any action it deems necessary without regard for issues of holiness, justice or morality. Amalek is, thus, the ultimate resistor to the mission of Israel to be a light to the nations. Amalek wants the world to remain bereft of that light. It resists God’s plan for the world. Amalek usually makes totally irrational accusations against Israel and tries to arouse the world to join in its hatred. The accusations tend to delegitimate our existence for they portray us as depraved, immoral, unreliable and unworthy of respect by anyone interested in decency. Amalek portrays itself as the champion of justice and right, masking its own contempt for human values.

The Sages believed that hatred was a phenomenon that would necessarily accompany us on our adventurous mission through history to be permanently defeated only at the Messianic end. Even Joshua’s initial victory against Amalek was incomplete. Foreshadowing the historic struggle the Torah says that Joshua weakened – vayahalosh – Amalek, but did not destroy them.

The Sages further traced the persistence of anti-Jewish hatred to the foundation of the covenant itself at Mt. Sinai when the Torah teachings and commandments were given. They expressed their view through a play on words, this time through the homo-phonic nature of two apparently unrelated words: Sinai, the mountain at which the great revelation took place, and sinah, hatred. In fact, they said, the name Sinai was given to the place “because from there hatred went forth into the world.” Thus, two great phenomena emanated from Sinai: the great mission Israel accepted as a people in covenant with God to help execute God’s plan for the world and the great hatred that wishes to block the actualization of the plan.

The champion of chaos, Amalek, attempted to block the establishment of the Sinai Covenant. Amalek emerges again after the destruction of the Temple and exile, before Israel can regroup, renew the covenant upon an even more resolute basis and find its way. This moment became enshrined in the Purim holiday when Haman, the Amalekite descendant, confronts a weak and demoralized people who should be an easy target for him. As his ancestors attacked the weak trailing behind the camp, so too would he strike and kill ‘all the Jews in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus,’ in effect, all the Jews of the world.

This is the never-ending story in which we are all important players. Balaam is caught right in the middle of it. Only a moment of chaos could earn him success. It was denied him. He wished to champion the victory of chaos over order. He chose the wrong horse. Despite his elegant and inspiring poetry he is remembered as Balaam the wicked.

Among the many lessons of this story is the importance of our choices. We can choose to support the forces of chaos and destruction for whatever short term gain we might imagine. Or we can choose the divine mandate to join the forces of creation and order, sometimes at great sacrifice, to promote the long-term well being of the world around us.

Sometimes we too may sense that daily moment of chaos that threatens to upset the order we have constructed in our lives. It may come from challenges to our health, our families, our communities, our economic welfare and even to a peaceful order in the world. At that time, unlike Balaam, we must rise to those challenges and keep the forces of chaos at bay.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Tammuz 7 5751

July 9, 2011

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

Parashat Hukkat 5770-71

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

A Rock Over Troubled Waters:

The Leader Stumbles

1. The entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at the wilderness of Sin in the first month, and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there.

2. The congregation had no water so they gathered against Moses and Aaron.

3. The people quarreled with Moses, and spoke, saying, Would God that we had died when our brothers died before the Lord!

4. Why have you brought up the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die there?

5.And why have you made us come out of Egypt, to bring us in to this evil place? This is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; nor is there any water to drink.

6. Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the Tent of Meeting, and they fell upon their faces; and the glory of the Lord appeared to them.

7.The Lord spoke to Moses, saying,

8. Take the rod, and gather the assembly together, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth its water, and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their beasts drink.

9. Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him.

10. Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them: Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?

11. Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he struck the rock twice; and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

12. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron: Because you did not believe me to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

13. This is the water of Meribah, because the people of Israel strove with the Lord, and He was sanctified in them. [20:1-13]

The passage seems to speak for itself. Moses and Aaron have failed in some tragic way in God’s eyes. This will lead to their removal from leadership before entering the land. What else can be said?

Nevertheless, this passage has generated countless lengthy and sometimes heated commentaries over the centuries. After all, the honor of Moses and Aaron is at stake. Their sister Miriam also appears at the beginning of the passage as we learn of her death. Why is she linked to the tragic failure of Moses and Aaron?

Another troubling issue is the relation of this story to an earlier one. In Exodus 17, soon after the Exodus itself, we read:

1. The entire community of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin to their travels by the mandate of the Lord. They encamped in Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink.
2. So the people quarreled with Moses, and they said, Give us water that we may drink Moses said to them, Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the Lord?
3. The people thirsted there for water, and the people complained against Moses, and they said, Why have you brought us up from Egypt to make me and my children and my livestock die of thirst?
4. Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, What shall I do for this people? Just a little longer and they will stone me!
5. And the Lord said to Moses, Pass before the people and take with you [some] of the elders of Israel, and take into your hand your staff, with which you struck the Nile, and go.
6. Behold, I shall stand there before you on the rock in Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, and the people will drink. Moses did so before the eyes of the elders of Israel.
7. He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the children of Israel and because of their testing the Lord, saying, Is the Lord in our midst or not?

Here Moses is alone against the people. Here he strikes the rock once and the water gushes. Here too the place name Meribah appears as a place of trouble and quarreling.

In our passage a date is given for the event. This is not a usual scriptural practice. In Exodus all we know is that it is just after the Exodus. We do see that the issue of water is constant throughout the desert experience just as we might expect. Why the change from hitting the rock to speaking to it? Why is Moses so angry that he seems to lose his temperate nature and not only hit the rock but chastise the people so severely?

Many commentators agree that our story [in Numbers] takes place in the fortieth year. If we follow Neziv’s over-all approach to the desert experience, by now we would expect the people to have adjusted to the more natural ways of living necessary for the real world as they must now enter their land. This really is a new people for the original refugees have almost now completely died out during the past thirty nine years. Will the descendants now fall into the same fearful patterns as their late ancestors?

Let’s see how Neziv proceeds.

1. This is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; nor is there any water to drink:

It is now forty years that they have been traveling in the desert without complaining. They knew that being in the desert was not their final destination but only until they will enter their settled land. Why did they now start complaining?

Neziv assumes that since the Torah does not describe any complaints for the intervening thirty-eight or thirty-nine years that there were none. Other commentators are not so sure as to the meaning of the Torah’s silence about this lengthy period.

Now Neziv returns to his thesis advanced in the introduction to the book and which we saw used as the explanation for the scouts passage.

It should be understood that the last year [in the desert] marks the end of the visibly miraculous ways of God’s glorious protection. Now they are about to enter the Land of Israel and conduct themselves according to the ways of nature with God’s Providence more hidden. That is why the Blessed Holy One treated them in this year in an intermediate fashion.

This is similar to a nursing mother who wishes to wean her child. She begins the process by gradually accustoming the child to solid food. Until the child is fully weaned she might nurse when it is necessary, for it is difficult to change one’s life in one moment.

In this way God began to separate them from the miraculous and try to establish them on the ways of nature. They had to learn what to do when Providence might punish them by preventing sufficient rain and other benefits. Moses, by whose requests everything was done, would not be around to help them.

Neziv borrows the image of a nurse to describe Moses’ role through the desert and now at the end of this experience. Moses had already referred to himself as such earlier Nu. 11:12:

Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that You say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom as the nurse carries the suckling,’ to the Land You promised their forefathers?

The Hebrew term for nursing mother is omeyn. It has the sense not only of nursing but educating or training. The fortieth year is one of training, weaning off of the miraculous to live a more mature and independent existence.

One of the miracles of the forty year desert experience was the constant availability of water. Talmudic tradition accords this to the merit of Miriam. Miriam’s Well accompanied them throughout the wanderings, a mobile source of water. Now Miriam was dead and they had no water:

From here [we learn that] all forty years they had the well in Miriam’s merit. [Ta'anith 9a] [Rashi on verse 2]

So the heading of our passage with the notice of Miriam’s death is directly relevant to the unfolding of the story. It relates to the changed status of the people. In Exodus they could legitimately complain about water and expect Moses to supply it. Now things are different.

Now that water had ceased from the [miraculous] well the people understood that this was not a punishment for some misdeed but rather to train them for natural living. [And] the essentials for water could be found in Kadesh.

So again our story heading is important. Kadesh is not a wilderness. As we see in verse 16 in the message to the king of Edom:

We cried out to the Lord and He heard our voice. He sent an angel, and he took us out of Egypt, and now we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your border.

In a city one could expect to find water. What should have happened now is that the new leadership of the nation should have sought out water from Kadesh. They did not do this but launched attacks against Moses and Aaron.

Going back to the gradual model of weaning Neziv comments:

That is why the Manna did not cease.

The Manna too was part of their miraculous voyage. To cause it to cease at the same time as the water would have been too much of an ordeal. The Manna stayed until the actual entry into the land.

Neziv adds:

This is how the people understood the situation.

In other words, it was part of their learning curve to prepare for their entry into the land. However, that might not be the whole story.

Neziv sees a leadership issue here. He notices that our passage unlike the Exodus text speaks not about ‘the people’ but about a ‘congregation’ and an ‘assembly’. He thinks that these are new leadership entities that now emerge to help lead the entry into the land. He believes that in some way they fail to provide sufficient water for the people by natural means causing the crisis.

Moses’ failure of leadership is also an issue yet to be explained. How does Neziv understand this failure?

Many commentators focus on Moses’ sharp and angry attack on the people. He calls them rebels. Losing your ‘cool’ during a challenging moment is not a great leadership model. But is this the sin, the failure? Neziv believes, rather, that it lead to the failure. For Moses’ overall task was to prepare them for more natural living within the bounds and demands of everyday life. Because of his anger he failed to teach them how to approach future water crises when he would be long gone.

Here Neziv explains that speaking to the rock is not meant literally. It means to speak before the rock, address those gathered there facing the rock. The rock is important because of the earlier Exodus story in which hitting the rock produced water and then somehow traveled with them and continued to provide water throughout the forty years.

But in that case it was the miraculous nature of the rod that produced the miracle. This was the rod that worked all the wonders and plagues of the Exodus and the splitting of the sea. By now it had been ‘retired’ and was kept in the Sanctuary from which Moses now retrieved it at God’s instruction. It symbolized the miraculous form of existence and was needed in case a more natural approach to the water crisis failed. It was the backup plan if words alone proved insufficient. What was plan A?

Neziv believes that the intention of God was that Moses instruct the people how to deal with future water crises through the power of prayer. Water shortage will be a constant issue in Middle Eastern life. The Talmud spends much time explaining what should be done to pray for rain: how the community should gather, what the leaders should say and even declare a day of fasting and repentance. In other words, the shortage of this basic necessity should inspire a closeness to God the source of all blessings. We should never take it for granted. Yes, we were to live a more natural life but behind the scenes of that life is always the subtle Presence and Providence of God.

Because Moses lost his focus out of anger he failed to teach this important lesson which would have sanctified God in the eyes of the people in this new relationship:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.

Moses was expert at directing the supernatural aspects of history. But neither he nor Aaron were going to lead the people further. That job will be given to another, Joshua, who appears from time to time in the Torah as the one being prepared to lead the entry. Again Moses failed in helping to move to the more natural realm. He ultimately invoked plan B and hit the rock to produce water. He fell back on the method he had used almost forty years earlier with success but was not relevant to the new reality that lay ahead.

Neziv adds that God had actually planned ahead in case something went wrong and the goal was not reached. That is why God told Moses to take the rod with him that symbolized the miraculous. It would make sure that the people would not go thirsty.

Jewish legend tells us that the well from which they drank during the desert wanderings was called? Miriam’s Well for as we saw it was in her merit that it accompanied them. This mobile well was apparently created at the end of the sixth and final day of creation. Hence, it’s miraculous power, not governed by the ordinary laws of nature. It is a symbol of God’s love and care and Miriam’s blessing for her people.

The well was no longer needed when they entered the land and began their more natural existence. But there is a tradition that it continued to exist. In the third century a rabbi is quoted as saying:

R. Hiyya said: One who wishes to see Miriam’s well should ascend to the top of the Carmel and gaze, and when he will observe a kind of sieve in the sea, that is Miriam’s well. [Shabbat 35a]

Neziv adds:

Scholars who scout the Earth testify that yet today there is a rock in the desert that gives water but not in abundance.

He may be referring to late-nineteenth century European archaeologists who were beginning to study the geographic areas of Biblical history.

Sometimes we might think that it would be wonderful to have it again become a source for all the Earth of fresh, clean and inspiring waters that we depend upon and so desperately need.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Sivan 30 5771

July 2, 2011

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.