In honor of our son, Rabbi Josh Joseph, upon his appointment as a vice-president of Yeshiva University.
“Take for yourself Joshua… a man of spirit….“
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill
The time has arrived. Moses’ glorious career of leadership will soon be over. He will pass away prior to the entry into the land.
The Lord said to Moses, “Go up to this mount Abarim and look at the land that I have given to the children of Israel. When you have seen it, you too will be gathered to your people, just as Aaron your brother was gathered.Because you disobeyed My command in the desert of Zin when the congregation quarreled, [when you were] to sanctify Me through the water before their eyes; these were the waters of dispute at Kadesh, in the desert of Zin. [27:12-14]
How does Moses respond? Although when he retells the story in Deuteronomy he suggests that he prayed to enter the land. Neziv suggests that he only meant to enter the land as a private citizen, not as the leader. Here, however, no mention is made of that request. Rather his first request is that a new and competent leader be selected.
Moses spoke to the Lord, saying: “Let the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,who will go forth before them and come before them, who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” [15-17]
Rashi cites a Sifrei Midrash text which lauds Moses’ selflessness:
Moses spoke to the Lord: This [verse comes] to let us know the virtues of the righteous, for when they are about to depart from the world, they disregard their own needs and occupy themselves with the needs of the community. [Sifrei Pinchas 23]
Moses is then told by God:
The Lord said to Moses, “Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun, a man of spirit, and you shall lay your hand upon him. And you shall present him before Eleazar the kohen and before the entire congregation, and you shall command him in their presence. You shall bestow some of your majesty upon him so that all the congregation of the children of Israel will take heed.” [18-20]
As we shall see, all of this raises the thorny questions of leadership of a community, society or nation. It also raises the question of what is a community? Why is it so difficult to govern? While today we may see democracy as the best form so far it is certainly not perfect and it may not be the best and final form forever. Let us look at Moses’ view of what are the requirements of good leadership.
Moses addresses God in an unusual manner:
Let the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,…
This is the second appearance of this name in the book of Bemidbar. The first mention was at 16:22:
They fell on their faces and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?”
Rashi there explains following the midrash:
O God, the God of the spirits: [God Who] knows the thoughts [of every man]. Your attributes are not like those of earthly beings. A mortal king against whom part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is, and, therefore, when he is angry, he metes out punishment upon them all. But as for You, all thoughts are revealed before You, and You know who the sinner is.? [Midrash Tanhuma Korach 7, Num. Rabbah 11]
In other words, the God of the spirits of all flesh is understood as the God who knows the true inner workings of each person.
Here as well, Rashi quotes a similar midrash focusing on God’s knowledge of the individual mind of each of us.
God of the spirits: Why is this said? He said to Him, “Master of the universe, the character of each person is revealed to you, and no two are alike. Appoint over them a leader who will tolerate each person according to his individual character.” [Mid. Tanhuma Pinhas 10]
This is indeed a wonderful statement of the challenges of leadership. Human diversity demands a tolerance and responsiveness to individuality on the part of a good leader. However, Neziv seems to sense that something important is missing from these comments. They ignore the choice of the term the spirits of all flesh. Why is this term of choice in this context? What is it about the fleshiness of humans that would lead to this usage?
At 16:22, Neziv begins to develop what he thinks this might mean. He cites his own comments on earlier and later instances of the use of flesh.
In Gen. 6:3 the Torah tells us God’s reaction to human failings:
The Lord said, “Let My spirit not quarrel forever concerning man, because he is also flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”
Neziv comments there:
The spirit which I placed in humans which is human intelligence and reason…. The spirit and reason become flesh which is a synonym for desire…. The meaning is that the spirit deteriorates a bit until it becomes as flesh. All this is a fact of nature but also made it known through [Biblical] prophecy.
So early in the Torah we find a warning that human reason is not to be overestimated. It sinks to the level of fleshly desire and does not always maintain its lofty potential.
Neziv continues this line of thought in our Bemidbar texts. At 16:22 he says:
All flesh: this means that the human spirit is soft and easily seduced, just as flesh is soft…. Furthermore, we can explain that the spirit is like flesh in that it pursues its own pleasure, just as the body pursues pleasure….
Now we return to our passage on the issue of leadership. Here he continues this line of thought:
We explained earlier that flesh refers to physical pleasure. In every person the spirit which is the power of reason follows their pleasure. Therefore, it is difficult to truly lead Israel and requires a person who is strong minded and not interested in his own pleasure.
Neziv seems to understand Moses’ request for an ish, a man, as a strong personality, who can put aside his own self-interest for the good of the community.
When God recommends Joshua as that person, he is called a man [ish] of spirit; the term flesh is absent. Neziv explains:
His spirit, that is his mind,is very independent, and is not drawn after a willfulness for his own benefit or for that of others.
The leader requires a strong independent spirit that is selfless as well as resistant to the demands of special interests and focuses on the needs of each person in the community. This is an immensely difficult task for even the quality of reason of individuals is not always independent and objective for each person is easily swayed by their desires. Reason can end up being a rationalization of our own particular needs and not an objective exercise searching for the welfare of the community. It is important to have a leader who understands this fleshiness of people, who knows how easily they can be swayed by their own not necessarily so noble desires as well as by someone such as Korah and his collaborators.
There is also in God’s instruction a sober alert as to the stresses of leadership.
…you shall present him before Eleazar the kohen and before the entire congregation….
The Hebrew term translated here as ‘present’ literally means to lift or stand him up. Neziv says:
This lifting up is for the purposes of establishing his leadership over them. Nevertheless, this is really servitude for he must serve them in that he leads them. That is why it says to lift him before Elazar the Kohen as well as later [v.21], He shall stand before Eleazar the kohen and seek [counsel from] him] which shows his secondary position [to the High Priest]. For truly, leadership is also subordination.
Yes. A leader is a public servant. His service involves servitude, the subordination of his own needs to that of the community. Yet, even so, even the most respected leader is somewhat secondary to the citizens who would like to go about their own affairs with as little interference as possible from their leaders. He also must consult with the other leadership institutions in the society as we see in v. 21. Neziv comments there:
He shall stand before Eleazar the kohen: here standing clearly means secondary and below him at the time when he asks of direction from God.
There is clearly some separation of powers here. The political leader, even the later kings, cannot be a totalitarian autocrat. He must write and keep a Torah scroll with him at all times. He must consult with the High Priest on major questions. After all, God is the true leader and discerning God’s will is necessary for proper governance.
This is why Joshua seems to be the right choice. Various midrashim speculate that Moses may have been hoping for one of his children to follow him. However, it was Joshua, Moses’ steady and loyal disciple during the entire desert experience, who was most prepared. He was with Moses in the Meeting Tent to hear the commands of God, to study them and help transmit them to the people. We also know of his military prowess. That is why we find our old friend lekhah, for yourself, in God’s instruction concerning Joshua:
Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun….
Neziv explains:
For your satisfaction, as Joshua was his most distinguished and long-standing disciple.
A truly satisfying moment for Moses, at last.
Shabbat Shalom
Hayyim Shemuel Yosef
Tammuz 215770
July 3, 2010
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.
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 145750
June 26, 2010
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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, What shall I do for this people? Just a little longer and they will stone me!
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.
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.
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.
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
Tammuz 75770
June 19, 2010
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.
16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, [took men];
2. They confronted Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel princes of the assembly, regularly summoned to the congregation, men of renown.3. They gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, You take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you lift up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?4. When Moses heard it, he fell upon his face.
The time is ripe for rebellion. As Ramban points out, for now that it had been decreed that the Exodus generation would die out in the wilderness and only their children would later enter the land after another thirty nine years, the mood has changed to one of embitterment. They doubted even their children’s destiny. But their greatest doubts were about Moses’ leadership abilities. Before, after the Golden Calf episode, Moses had successfully prayed on their behalf. Here, after the scouting debacle, he doesn’t even try. So in this general mood swing to bitterness and doubt attacks on Moses authority begin. It would also be natural if the smothered complaints would now emerge from those who were quieted by the general enthusiasm that had prevailed until then.
Thus, the opening verses describe a coalition of the unwilling: unwilling to trust in Moses’ leadership; unwilling to trust in his presentations of new legislation regarding the role of priests and Levites; and the disenfranchisement of the first-born from these posts. The personal nature of the attacks stun Moses.
Neziv tries to understand the motivation of each component of the coalition.
We can know and understand from studying all of the parashah in the manner of the disputes and punishments that resulted that they were not equal in their value and motivation. [We must divide them into three groups:] Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and the two-hundred and fifty men.
[One indication of this is] that we see that only Korah and the 250 men were involved in the fire-pans and not Dathan and Abiram. [see verses 5-7] Furthermore, God showed respect to the 250 men but not to Korah, Dathan and Abiram as I will explain later. So therefore, we must conclude that the 250 men were genuinely great people in every way including pious devotion to God. Their burning issue was the prevention of the priesthood from them for they saw the priesthood as inspiring closeness to God. They did not seek power and honor but rather sanctity through worship. They also knew that the word of God to Moses was true and should not be doubted. But inwardly they were questioning the word of God and now decided to risk their lives for their love of God as it is said in Song of Songs [8:6]: For love is as strong as death.
Prior to the new division of religious powers the first-borns had important religious functions. They could offer incense using their fire-pans. Now this was taken away from them and all Sanctuary activities were restricted to the Levites and Levitical priests. When Moses challenges them to compete with Aaron to see who God prefers to kindle the incense they fill their pans and actually commit trespass on the sanctity of the Sanctuary by doing so. Eventually, [verse 35] a fire emerges from the Sanctuary and consumes the 250 men illegitimately attempting the offering. The fire-pans are collected:
Say to Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen that he should pick up the censers from the burned area (but throw the fire away), because they have become sanctified, the censers of these who sinned at the cost of their lives, and they shall make them into flattened out plates as an overlay for the altar, for they brought them before the Lord, and have [therefore] become sanctified, and they shall be as a reminder for the children of Israel…. as a reminder for the children of Israel, so that no outsider, who is not of the seed of Aaron, shall approach to burn incense before the Lord, so as not to be like Korah and his company, as the Lord spoke regarding him through the hand of Moses. [17:2-3,5]
Rashi explains:
they shall be as a reminder: A remembrance so that people will say, ?These [plates] are from those who disputed the priesthood and were burnt.?
So, the Torah sees the the issue of the 250 men as a religious one. Their excessive piety misled them, carried them away beyond reason. Neziv sees this in a subtle midrashic comment brought by Rashi:
Were they not fools? For he warned them about it and they [still] took upon themselves to offer [the incense]. They sinned at the cost of their lives, as it says, ‘the censers of these who sinned at the cost of their lives’ (17:3). But what did Korah, who was astute, see [to commit] this folly? [16:7]
This shows that Korah had another motivation not the pious one of the 250 men who risked their lives for worship purposes and failed in the process.
We should keep in mind that the word translated as sinners [hataim] can also suggest failures. They failed at the cost of their lives to achieve a higher level of piety and holiness. As Neziv points out in his discussion here:
One who suffers himself to try and reach a higher level beyond his potential is called a sinner [or failure] at the cost of his life… which is certainly not God’s Will.
Neziv offers an example of this in the case of the Nazir in Numbers 6:11. Here too the Nazir is one who tries to go beyond his capacity to achieve holiness. When he fails and becomes defiled he is said to have sinned at the risk of his life.
Neziv now concludes his remarks on these 250 men and their strategy for joining Korah’s rebellious coalition:
It was not possible for them to take the fire-pans or do similar activities in the Sanctuary for the Levites were responsible to prevent strangers [i.e., the non-qualified] from approaching [the sacred areas restricted to the priests.] For this reason it was necessary to start a dispute against Moses and Aaron and to cross the line. This is how they thought and acted.
Because they acted for the sake of Heaven their punishment of fire emanated from the Holy of Holies in the Sanctuary. This was an honor to them. Furthermore, their deaths were mourned greatly by the people.
Now he moves on to the other members of the coalition.
Not so were Dathan and Abiram. They were far removed from this noble desire. They were natural trouble-makers and hated Moses even back in Egypt as our Sages say in Nedarim 64b.
The reference is to the view that Dathan and Abiram were the ones who told Pharaoh that it was Moses who killed the Egyptian taskmaster hitting the Hebrew slaves. This cause Moses to flee Egypt for Midian. They have a long record of hatred for Moses and now join the coalition:
Now that the decree was given [after the scouting episode] that they would die in the desert [along with everyone else] and not enter the land of milk and honey. For this reason they were punished by the swallowing of the earth [with Korah and not as the 250 men died] in the way of an animal’s death.
We see two different types within the coalition so far. What about the leader, Korah himself?
Korah, on the other hand,was truly a great man and worthy of the same holy desire as the 250 men, and appeared in this fashion to the public. However, his inner motivation was different: jealousy of power consumed him. Therefore, he participated in the fire-pan challenge with the 250 men but was punished [in the more degrading manner] like Dathan and Abiram.
This is what is meant in the midrash when it said what did Korah, who was astute, see [to commit] this folly. Korah knew that you cannot seek piety against God’s Will [as expressed in the commandments]. So we must conclude that he wanted honor. He was certain that he would stay alive. So why did he start a dispute with Moses, asked the midrash.
All these matters are explained later on [26:9]: …they are Dathan and Abiram, the chosen of the congregation who incited against Moses and Aaron in the assembly of Korah, when they incited against the Lord.
That is that the 250 men incited against God while Dathan and Abiram incited against Moses and Aaron. I will explain more at that time. This then is essence of this story. You should look further at Deuteronomy 11:5-6….
At that location we find Moses reviewing various highlights of the forty year period and the wonders the early generation witnessed. Among them he notes:
and what He did for you in the desert, until you arrived at this place, and what He did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben, that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up and their households and their tents, and all the possessions at their feet, in the midst of all Israel.
It is obvious that Moses considers what happened to Dathan and Abiram as a good thing but no mention is made of Korah and the 250 men. Neziv comments there:
I already explained in Parashat Korah that Dathan and Abiram incited dispute not for the sake of Heaven but out of their hatred for Moses. So Moses considers it a great benefit for Israel that they were swallowed by the earth. However, the deaths by burning of the 250 men caused great sorrow among the people as I explained. However, Korah himself, even though he was the foundation of the dispute he was not generally an argumentative type. Only at that moment did the spirit of jealousy overcome him. However, Dathan and Abiram were contentious people inciting disputes. They were stumbling blocks for Israel. There was great joy when they were removed….
Neziv then adds some insights into the nature of extremism and disputes.
It is well known that truly pious people cannot ignite disputes for in order to do so one has to collect grumblings and evil reports [lashon ha'ra] and the like. Thus the 250 men really believed in Moses and his teaching but found difficulty in accepting this particular law. By themselves they would not have started any dispute.
Dathan and Abiram, well-known agitators and enemies of Moses, by themselves could never create a following for who would be foolish enough to follow those who follow their desires without any control.
However, Korah, one of the eminent leaders of the generation had the ability to sway many good people. But it was not his style to speak with people at length. So he took Dathan and Abiram to his cause and trained them with his broad wisdom. They then went to the 250 men and convinced them to follow Korah. That is why the whole episode is called after Korah who was essential while Dathan and Abiram were intermediaries who helped widen the breach. That is why our story begins ‘Korah took’ and then are mentioned Dathan and Abiram and then the 250 of the most pious of the generation.
But how then can pious people fall into such error and be the cause of divisiveness? Neziv now offers one of his profound insights into the dangers of religious life.
It is said about them [Proverbs 21:16]: A man who strays from the path of understanding comes to rest in the company of the dead. The Hebrew refaim [the dead] is similar to peraim; peraim, however, means uncivilized; refaim means without the acceptance of the yoke of God’s rule or reverence for God. So this verse means that one who is a sincere believer but departs from the way of sekhel, understanding or reason, will end up in the company of refaim [those far removed from God]. He will become a heretic and scorn the Sages just like an ordinary heretic [who is not claiming to be pious]….
This is what occurred to these 250 men who departed from the way of reason. They were then pulled by the wildness of Dathan and Abiram and scorned Moses and Aaron.
Neziv’s warning on excessive religious enthusiasm is reminiscent of our earlier discussions [Parashat Shemini 5770 and Parashat Tazria-Metzora 5770]. There he emphasized the positive value of law as guiding and controlling excessive religious emotion. Here the issue is related: piety unbound by the sober guidance of human reason.
We may be tempted to think that the issues we face today of extremism in religious life are new phenomena. No. They have been around forever, such as, anti-intellectualism and a know-nothing approach to worldly reasonable knowledge. Neziv warns that these are mortal dangers for the religious life. Those who strive for true piety only subvert themselves by closing themselves off from reason. Their ironic fate will to be among the heretics of the age, ultimately cut off from the God they claim to seek. They become another dead-end chapter in the story of those who cannot manage the temptations of religious life.
Neziv often surprises us with his profound psychological insights into the minds of protagonists. Here he shows understanding of social-political realities as well. He knows that social and political movements are not simple entities but a complex of various interest groups who unite, each for their own purposes. His analysis of the Korah rebellion is loyal to the Biblical passages and rabbinic understanding. It also reminds me of a passage in Ethics of the Fathers which might have inspired him as well.
Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar used to say: Jealousy, desire, and honor remove a person from the world. [4:28]
This cluster of uncontrolled qualities is extremely dangerous for us. We can understand the Korah rebellion in the following way. Korah was moved by jealousy; Dathan and Abiram sought honor and deeply resented Moses’ position even back in Egypt; while the 250 men became carried away by their spiritual desire. Even excessive spiritual desire, just like material and physical desire,can take us out of our world.
The coalition of the unwilling turns out to be a coalition of the flawed. It was doomed to failure.
Shabbat Shalom
Hayyim Shemuel Yosef
Sivan 305770
June 12, 2010
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.
Scouts and Scouting: Between Natural and Supernatural History
The Lord spoke to Moses saying,
“Send out [for yourself] men who will scout the Land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelite people
You shall send one man from each for their ancestral tribes; each one shall be a chieftain among them.” [13:1-2]
They are now over one year away from Egypt. They have been to Mt. Sinai to establish the covenant. The portable Sanctuary is built and is in their midst. There is only one goal ahead: to enter the Promised Land, promised in covenant to Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and to Jacob and his family. This project may be the most formidable for a slave people newly freed. What might be just an eleven day journey will eventually take forty years.
The issue is not can they enter the land in the same wondrous manner that they left Egypt. But, can they enter the land under their own steam. The miraculous supernatural manner of the Exodus could also bring them into the land. However, one day they would have to learn how to stand on their own. God could continue to carry them ‘on eagles’ wings’ but for how long? When would they be ready to live in the natural world as a mature and responsible entity with their Divine partner taking a more hidden role in their affairs.
One more question is relevant. When will they shake off the influence of their Egyptian experience? As has been said: it is one thing to take them out of Egypt but quite another to take Egypt out of them. As we see, early challenges are quickly greeted with a let us go back to Egypt response. All of a sudden, Egypt appears as a wonderful place offering its products freely to them. Forgotten is the high cost of those products: slavery.
As we move along in this book of Bemidbar, In the Desert, these are some of the questions in our minds.
We begin with a seemingly benign and pragmatic project: sending scouts to the land. However, this passage has a companion passage in Deuteronomy in which Moses recounts the years of his leadership now coming to a close. Let us see how Moses retells the story and how the two stories can be understood as one.
Behold, the Lord, your God, has set the land before you; go up and possess it, as the Lord, God of your fathers has spoken to you; you shall neither fear nor be dismayed.
All of you approached me and said, “Let us send men ahead of us so that they will search out the land for us and bring us back word by which route we shall go up, and to which cities we shall come.”
The matter pleased me; so I took twelve men from you, one man for each tribe. [1:22-23]
Already we can see the textual issues. Whose initiative was this scout project? What was Moses’ role and why was he pleased? How does God fit in? After all, God had already scouted the land for them and promised them a good place. The elements of the story need explanation.
Rashi, citing Midrash Tanhuma, seems to take a very harsh position: God is somewhat perturbed about this expedition.
Send for yourself: According to your own understanding. I am not commanding you, but if you wish, you may send. Since the Israelites had come [to Moses] and said, ‘Let us send men ahead of us,’ as it says, ‘All of you approached me’ (Deut. 1:22), Moses took counsel with the Shekhinah. He [God] said, ‘I told them that it is good, as it says, I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt to a land flowing with milk and honey.’ (Exod. 3:17). By their lives! Now I will give them the opportunity to err through the words of the spies, so that they will not inherit it.’
The project is doomed to fail and will lead to Israel not inheriting the land. When the scouts return with a fearful report about the possibilities of the conquest the people are indeed frightened. Their morale is crushed and they do not enter the land. This is when the decision is made to wait for a new generation to arise while the Exodus generation dies off. The new generation, further removed in time from Egypt and unburdened by the fears of a slave people will have a better chance to engage the battles that must fought in order to enter the land.
This explanation is focused on the somewhat odd expression of shelakh lekhah, which could have been reduced to the first word only: shelakh, send. While the second word, lekhah, may be viewed as simply part of the expression and not adding any information, it can also be used for the above explanation of Rashi: lekhah, for yourself, if you think it is necessary. This word can shift the meaning away from a direct command of God to mean only that God’s permission is granted to Moses for the project if he thinks it necessary.
Now we must try to understand Moses’ place in this story. Moses is the guide and guardian of the supernatural history of the Exodus. The people consider him as acting with God for their liberation. After the crossing of the Sea we are told: and they believed in God and Moses His servant.
Moses now, however, must become the teacher. He must prepare them to live on the natural plain of history. Understanding this can help us through the story. This is where Neziv enters the picture.
Rashi’s explanation, according to your own understanding, I am not commanding you, [is difficult]. Certainly, the language shelakh lekhah by itself is no different than other instances [of lekhah] such as kakh lekhah [take], or lekh lekhah [go] which are clearly commands.
However, the necessity to explain [as do the Sages in the Midrash and Rashi who follows them], is caused by the description in Deuteronomy that indicates that the people demanded this of Moses.
However, this should not lead to a complete distortion of the text for we know [the Rabbinic principle] that Scripture does not depart from its simple meaning [which here seems to be a command].
We also should look at the question of why Israel made their request at this time and not [earlier] at Horeb [when they were closer to the land].
This is how we must explain these matters. Certainly, according to the ways of the natural world, sending scouts was necessary to learn how and through which direction the conquest could be made. Ramban already pointed this out [in his commentary].
Neziv is referring us back to the famous 13th century commentary of Nahmanides who writes here:
This is the correct guidance for anyone who plans to conquer a country….It is for this reason that Moses was pleased for Scripture does not allow a person to rely on a miracle in any affairs. Instead it commands those who go out to battle to arm themselves, to take all precautions, and to set ambushes [if needed] as described in many places. [based on the Chavel translation]
Already Ramban is sensitive to the ultimate preference for natural methods of living and conquest. We must not depend upon the miraculous in our daily lives.
Neziv continues this line of thinking which he will expand:
This is seen in the words of Israel [in Deut.] when they said “Let us send men ahead of us so that they will search out the land for us and bring us back word by which route we shall go up, and to which cities we shall come.” They actually did not ask to know about the land if it is good or bad or other matters to see if it is worthy to enter or not. They had not yet expressed any doubts about that. The questions they asked were correct and proper if the conquest was to be by natural means. However, if it were to be in a supernatural manner as they had traveled until now in the desert then there would be no place for sending scouts, for nothing could impede God’s Glory [by which they had traveled until now].
Neziv is saying that until now they were under the aegis of God’s glorious and direct Providence and never needed scouts or other natural supports in their voyage. Why now do they express this need? What has changed to convince them to pursue a more natural form of existence?
Neziv continues:
Now when they were at Horeb and in the beginnings of there journey from there, it was their intention to enter the land of Israel in this [miraculous] way which would not require any prior survey. However, during the three recent journeys they saw and understood that is difficult for them to stay on this exalted level. Since God’s Presence was always among them, everything they said improperly was always considered to be ‘in the ears of God’ as one who speaks in the king’s palace wherein any fault results in immediate dire consequences. They realized that they could not stand in such a constant and intensely cautious mode. They did not consider themselves to be ready to live in the palace of the King of the King of Kings. So they chose to stand outside the palace where the Shekhinah would be among them in a lesser manifestation [of Malkhut, which is closer to the natural mode of existence].
Similarly I explained in Deut. 5:4 the expression ‘Face to face, the Lord spoke with you at the mountain….’. It means that the face which a person brings to worship of God, in that very face the Holy Blessed One responds with Providence. Therefore, [now that they were going to function in a more natural manner] they agreed to send scouts to prepare for a natural entry into the land.
So, standing before God is a responsive exercise. We each stand at our own level of spiritual intensity. God is responsive to that level. We should not overreach ourselves. We must know ourselves, understand our own spiritual situation, try to advance when possible but always avoid the danger of trying to go beyond our capabilities.
Neziv now goes further in trying to find a precise trigger for this decision to ‘go natural.’
We can add to this according to an ancient rabbinic text [Sifrei], quoted by Rashi, on the verses “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp![Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' servant from his youth, answered and said, Moses, my master, imprison them!" [Nu.13:27-28] They were saying that Moses would die and Joshua would take them into the Land of Israel.
Now the decree that Moses would die prior to the entry into the land had not yet been made firm. Moses, too, would not have given up the hope that his prayer could reverse the decree. But this prophecy was certainly a good decree for Joshua… which Moses would never wish to reverse [by his prayer]. For Moses never asked to be the leader into the land but rather to have the privilege of entry to see it.
Now, [after the prophecy of Eldad and Medad] the people saw the opportune moment for their request. For all the while Moses was leader, and lead them in an elevated fashion [on the supernatural level] one could not diminish his power….
Therefore, when it came to the battle against Amalek [Exodus 17] which at the moment required to be a decisive battle in the natural manner, Moses removes himself and charges Joshua who holds the sword. Now that they heard the prophecy that Moses will die and Joshua will lead the entry they believed the time was appropriate to begin preparing for a change to a more natural existence. That is when they asked to send scouts.
Why then is Moses so pleased with their request? After all, it can be seen as a rejection of his leadership? Here Moses’ great leadership qualities become more apparent.
At the beginning of Deut., 1:8, it says that at Horeb God said to them: See, I have set the land before you; come and possess the land….
However, now here at Kadesh Barnea, Moses said on his own [Deut. 1:21]: Behold, the Lord, your God, has set the land before you; go up and possess it, as the Lord, God of your fathers has spoken to you; you shall neither fear nor be dismayed.
God made the suggestion knowing full well that they were not prepared to continue on in the supernatural mode and without scouts. Once they made their request to Moses he then also understood this and was pleased. This was in keeping with their actual potential so they would not be hurt and punished by trying to function on a higher level. Therefore, [in our Parashah] God also commands them to send scouts saying ‘Send out for yourself men…. This is in keeping with their manner for they were not prepared otherwise and they were fearful of standing ‘on the mountain of God, in His Holy Place.’ Therefore, I command you to send scouts to prepare to travel in a natural manner….
The meaning of lekhah as for your benefit [Moses' benefit] means that Moses was pleased that in this way Israel would not be endangered and destroyed as he himself remarked: I was pleased.
Wow. Another demonstration of Neziv’s intense psychological penetration into the minds of the participants: God, Moses, Joshua,and the people. Moses is not in this for his own glory. More than anything he wants this adventure to succeed which it can only do with a healthy measure of realism. One cannot rely on the miraculous in order to survive. One must know oneself and plan accordingly. Overreaching beyond one’s talents and training can lead to disaster.
Moses knows himself as the leader of the miraculous part of our history. He recognizes Joshua’s skills as a warrior and commander in chief of the eventual entry and has kept Joshua close to him. He is saddened at the thought that he himself might not live to see and experience that great moment and will continue to pray for it.
Moses and God are both pleased. As ‘parents’ and educators they are pleased when they see growth, maturity and responsibility in their children and students. They are thinking realistically. They are on the road to independence even though this particular episode of the scouts does not end well.
The majority of the scouts are overwhelmed by the formidable obstacles and challenges that face them. Their report demoralizes the nation. They are not prepared for the natural life to which they aspire. They are between the natural and the supernatural and cannot yet achieve their goal.
Moses must now emerge as the teacher of a new generation that will arise during the forty year desert period. He will try to instill the new morale of a free and just society realistically prepared to move on to their destiny. He will do a magnificent job and earn the rabbinic title of Moshe Rabbenu, Moses our teacher. His formation of our national character will always be appreciated. For him, the story will end there. Joshua will eventually lead them in but Moses will only see it from afar.
Again we see Neziv offer profound insights from just the opening words of the parashah. He has much more to say about even those few words as well as the rest of it as for him it is a turning point in Israelite history. We will have to save these for the future.
Note for Hebrew readers : There is a new edition of Ha’amek Davar now on the market. It is very clear with extensive and helpful notes by the editor Mordecai Yaakov Cooperman.
Shabbat Shalom
Hayyim Shemuel Yosef
Sivan 235770
June 5, 2010
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.
10:33. They traveled a distance of three days from the mountain of the Lord, and the Ark of the Lord’s covenant traveled three days ahead of them to seek for them a place to settle.
Rashi: The Ark of the Lord’s covenant traveled three days ahead of them: This was the Ark that accompanied them in battle. The broken pieces of the [first set of] Tablets lay in them. It preceded them by three days of travel to prepare for them a place to encamp. [from Sifrei]
Before we proceed we will bring in a selection from Deuteronomy [10:1-5]:
At that time, the Lord said to me, “Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me into the mountain, and make for yourself an ark of wood. I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you did break, and you shall put them in the ark.”
I made an ark of acacia wood, and hewed two tablets of stone like the first, and went up to the mountain, having the two tablets in my hand. He wrote on the tablets, according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord gave them to me. I turned and came down from the mountain, and put the tablets in the ark which I had made; and there they were, as the Lord commanded me.
The first tablets were the products and symbol of God’s Sinai Covenant. Despite the fact that they were broken their holiness was never surpassed. As we saw in Parashat Ki Tissa, Neziv makes a good case for the superior importance of the second tablets for they left room for more human participation. However, he agrees that the first tablets had more holiness.
So they were not left in pieces beneath the mountain. Although later Jewish tradition insisted that all formerly sacred objects be rendered for burial when no longer usable, the tablets were not buried. If you read carefully the Deuteronomy passage it seems to suggest that they with the new tablets should be placed in the ark made by Moses and waiting at the bottom of the mountain for his descent. Look again:
And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you did break, and you shall put them in the ark.
So the first tablets remained in an honored place with the new tablets. [Of course, it might have been considered to be dangerous to bury or leave around the broken pieces. Thousands of years later archaeologists could uncover them. Some fragments could read: murder, steal, commit adultery, work on the Sabbath. That certainly would cause some havoc among the faithful.]
Now the question is how many Arks were there? The ark referred to in Deuteronomy is certainly not the Holy Ark that later graced the Sanctuary. The former was made in the late Summer, or, early Fall, after the Sinai Revelation, when Moses descended from the mountain for the second time. He had succeeded in appeasing God and winning forgiveness for the people. He descended with a new set of tablets as a symbol of that success. According to Jewish tradition this day was none other than Yom Kippur which became the annual day of repentance, reconciliation and forgiveness.
The latter Ark was not ready until the following Spring when the portable wilderness Sanctuary was completed and dedicated. Did the Sanctuary have two Arks or was Moses’ a temporary one that was retired and stored away when the Sanctuary was completed?
From his comments above it seems that Rashi thought that there were always two arks. This is made clear in his comment to the Deuteronomy passage. That passage takes place at the time of Moses’ second ascent to the mountain for another forty days after he had been below already for forty days. Here is Rashi:
At that time: At the end of forty days [which was the first of Elul], God was reconciled with me and said to me, ‘Hew for yourself [two tablets],’ and afterwards, ‘make for yourself a [wooden] ark.’ I, however (see verse 3), made the ark first (Tanhuma 10), because [I considered that] when I would come down with the tablets in my hand, where would I put them?
This was not the ark that Bezalel made, because the Israelites did not occupy themselves with the Mishkan until after Yom Kippur [which was forty days later], for when Moses descended the mountain, he commanded them regarding the construction of the Mishkan. [Then] Bezalel made the Mishkan first, and only afterwards the ark and the [other] furnishings (Ber. 55a). It follows, therefore, that this was another ark, and that was the one that went out with them to battle, but the one Bezalel made did not go out to battle except in the days of Eli, and they were punished for it, and it [the ark] was captured [by the Philistines]. [Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:1]
Let’s now see how Neziv treats these issues here in our Parashah.
Rashi explained that the Ark of the Lord’s covenant referred to is the one that went out with them to battle. In it were the tablet fragments. He also says this in Deut. 10:1.
Ramban [Nahmanides, another medieval commentator] clarified that this is the view only of one Sage from the Talmud Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:1 which says: Rabbi Yehudah ben Lakish says that there were two Arks that went with Israel through the desert. One contained the Torah scroll and the other the tablet fragments. The one with the Torah always stayed in the Tent of Meeting as it says: the Ark of the covenant of the Lord and Moses, did not depart out of the camp (Nu 14:44). The one with the tablet fragments entered and left [the camp] when they did [to lead their desert travels or for battle.] However, the Sages say that there was only one Ark which only went out once in the time of Eli when it was captured [by the Philistines.]
Neziv then quotes another ancient document [Tosefta Sotah 7] that records this discussion but adds another element to the discussion. The reference is to a later battle against the Midianites led by Pinhas.
Nu 31:6. Moses sent them the thousand from each tribe to the army, them along with Pinhas the son of Eleazar the kohen to the army, with the sacred utensils and the trumpets for sounding in his possession.
Neziv continues:
In Tosefta Sotah 7 we find: with the sacred utensils, this the the holy Ark. Some say this refers to the priestly garments.
Neziv continues to quote the argument between the Sages and R. Yehudah ben Lakish as presented in the Tosefta. Some texts of Tosefta claim that R. Yehudah ben Lakish thought that the Ark that contained the Torah scroll went out to battle while the one with the tablet fragments always remained in the camp. However, Neziv insists that the text that conforms to the Yerushalmi Shekalim is the correct one.
However, there is a major problem that remains. According to R. Yehudah ben Lakish it is clear that there was an ark that went out before the people. The Torah says so in our portion and in reference to Pinhas. But, according to the Sages who say that there was only one Ark, how would we explain the verse:
the Ark of the covenant of the Lord, and Moses, did not depart out of the camp.
According to Rabbi Yehudah there was always an Ark in the camp, the one found in the Sanctuary and built by Bezalel. He can easily explain all the relevant verses. The Sages, however, have a problem. If the main Ark never left the camp what does it then mean that the Ark of the Lord’s covenant traveled three days ahead of them to seek for them a place to settle?
Neziv now tries to put this altogether.
So the view of Rabbi Yehudah ben Lakish is clear that the Ark that had the tablet fragments which went before the nation also went into battle with them in the time of Pinhas as it says ‘with the sacred utensils’; and so it was in the future. He would also explain the war portion [Deut. 20:4]: ‘For the Lord, your God, is the One Who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you’ according to the comment in Talmud Tractate Sotah: This refers to the camp of the ark. This means the actual Ark containing the tablet fragments.
However, the view of the Sages remains unclear as to how they explain all the relevant verses. We see from the Sifrei discussion that they believe that there never were two Arks. There was only one in the camp in the Holy of Holies in the Sanctuary built by Bezalel. This Ark traveled before them. If so, since we see that in the days of Eli the Ark went out improperly we learn from this that the Ark never went out for war.
In reference to Pinhas where it says ‘the holy vessels’ the Sages would support the other opinion that it refers to the priestly garments. The comment in the Tosefta would have to be explained about ‘For the Lord, your God, is the One Who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies’ according to the Tosefta as: the Name [ha-shem] which is found in the Ark. [I.,e., the actual Ark was not with them, but the name of God was with them.]
Neziv has explained the two sides of the argument and how each explains the relevant verses. But he is bothered by one more issue: the status of the second tablets.
At first glance it is difficult to understand why the Sages believe that the tablet fragments are what is found in the Ark of God’s Covenant while they did not mention that the second tablets were inside. However, if we look carefully into Rabbi Yehudah ben Lakish’s words, he says that the ark that remained in the camp contained a Torah scroll because it says that the Ark of God’s Covenant did not leave the camp. How does he know that there was a Torah scroll inside? Maybe it only contained the second tablets?
The answer is clear that for our Sages that an ark cannot be called the Ark of God’s Covenant if it only contained the second tablets for no covenant was established over them. The designation ‘Ark of God’s Covenant’ can only apply to the first tablets over which the initial covenant was established or about the Torah scroll with which a covenant was established through Moses after the Golden Calf episode….
Once again we see that for Neziv the first tablets retained their higher sanctity despite their shattered state. The second tablets, while intact, cannot be alone in an ark and earn the designation of the Ark of God’s Covenant.
The argument between Rabbi Yehudah ben Lakish and the Sages took place in the second or third century C.E., long after the desert wandering period described in the Torah. There was no longer an historical memory as to how everything was during the earlier period. Hence the sages of the later period struggled to recreate the reality that had been lost through careful analysis of the relevant Biblical texts in order to solve the puzzle.
Shabbat Shalom
Hayyim Shemuel Yosef
Sivan 165770
May 29, 2010
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.
Return, return [the] Shulamit; return, return so we might look at you. What can you see in the Shulamit? We are like a company of dancers.
[Song of Songs 7:1]
Changing Times
In modern times, Jews have had to wonder whether and what has changed in relation to the non-Jewish world in which we live. The issue has been divisive. Within the Orthodox community there is no unanimity on the question. In the so-called ultra-Orthodox camp there has always been a serious attempt to rebuild the ghetto walls which crumbled in the modern era. Every attempt is made to minimize outside influences that could allegedly contaminate the community. In the Modern Orthodox world this fear is greatly diminished. The encounter with non-Jews and their cultural products is not necessarily considered to be dangerous to Jewish survival and is viewed more as a challenge that can enrich our human experience.
In some Jewish circles you cannot say anything too nice about Gentiles. These people are afraid that if we say anything nice about the people among whom we live that it will lead to assimilation. It is safer, they believe, to live among hostile rather than friendly people. I disagree.
Jews living among hostile people tend to hide and cover-up their unique commitments. They try to look and behave like the majority Gentile society. Some deny their Jewishness altogether and even develop what is called Jewish self-hatred. They believe that this is the way to avoid persecution and humiliation. They resent Jews who visibly appear as radically different than members of the local society for they believe that this behavior jeopardizes all Jews. If Jews do not stand out too differently from others then they will be accepted and tolerated.
Hostility is not the way to build Jewish identity. We are a covenanted people engaged in a committed process to God, Torah and nation. A married person is loyal to his or her spouse not because everyone else is hateful. There are many nice people out there with whom one could form a special relationship. But you are committed to your spouse.
I believe that Jews living in a friendly society are more likely to remain Jewish. They do not try to hide their Jewishness and minimize their Jewish commitments. They can freely develop their own particularity without fear of ridicule or discrimination. If all these phenomena we are looking at today are genuine signs of new tolerance then so much the better. I believe that tolerance is not even the right word. These are signs that Jews are as much part and parcel of the society as anyone else. We are not tolerated guests. We are integral members of the community.
How do we adjust to this new reality? What guidance does our tradition provide to us for these changed circumstances?
Let us look at the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau. After many years apart Jacob returns to the homeland still fearing the anger of Esau. When they finally meet Esau embraces Jacob. This is the most famous hug and kiss in the Bible. Commentators wished to examine the nature of this hug. Is it the hug of the bear or the lamb? This is what the Bible says (Genesis 33:4):
Esau ran to greet him and hugged him. He then fell on his neck and kissed him and they cried.
We can look at the comments on this historically. Eighteen hundred years ago in the Rabbinic Talmudic literature there were varied opinions as to the genuine nature of this embrace. After all, Esau represented the power of Rome and later Christianity in the Jewish imagination. Rome had just defeated Jewish rebellions with great ferocity. Rabbi Simeon Bar Yohai? – who suffered at the hands of the Romans – is quoted as saying that it is an Halakhah, a known principle, that Esau hates Jacob. The kiss in this instance may have been a momentary lapse on Esau’s part from this pattern.
The great commentator Rashi [11th century] cites this remark. Rashi can be understood very easily for he too lived in difficult times witnessing the beginnings of the Crusades.
Now we jump to the 19th century, to the commentary of Neziv. He is living during the age of Enlightenment and Emancipation of Western Europe which has not yet affected his own Eastern European milieu. Yet his comment is extremely positive.
And they cried – They both cried. This teaches us that Jacob too was inspired to love Esau at this moment. Similarly for future generations. At a time when the children of Esau are inspired by a genuine spirit to recognize the children of Israel and their noble qualities, then we too are inspired to recognize Esau for he is our brother. Similarly, [in the second century] Rabbi [Judah the Prince] was a true friend with Antoninus [a Roman General]. There are many other examples as well. (Ha’amek Davar, Genesis 33:4)
Neziv is not finished with this issue. In his commentary to the Song of Songs called Metiv Shir – he elaborates(7:1):
Return, return [the] Shulamit; return, return so we might look at you. What can you see in the Shulamit? We are like a company of dancers.
The poet describes, in the spirit of Holiness, what the sages of the nations of the world recognize as the virtue of Israel and the benefit that they received while Israel lived in their midst.
In the future when the Blessed Holy One will be at peace with his nation, and will take them from their midst [to return them to their land], the nations will ask them to come back. They will say: Return, return Shulamit.
They will call Israel the Shulamit [which comes from the root shalem, complete] for they know that Israel helps to complete what is missing in the societies in which they live. This is similar to our explanation to Genesis 34:21, the statement of Shekhem and Hamor: These men are peaceful [sheleimim] with us, and they will dwell in the land and do business there, and the land behold it is spacious enough for them.
My late father-in-law, the Gaon Rabbi Isaac, of blessed and righteous memory, explained this to mean that when they are with us we will be complete. For every society is missing various items that they must bring from afar. They also have various products in surplus that can be shipped to others. So there is a necessity to import and export. [They were saying that] the Hebrews [Jacob's family] are very talented in these matters. In this way we and they are complete together. This was understood in every time and place. Therefore, the wise of the nations called Israel by the name of Shulamit.
They add: return, return so we might look at you. There is another benefit when you are among us, for we see in you good ethical and moral traits and learn from you. Everybody knows that when the world was empty of knowledge and civilization and idolatry was rampant, Israel was already imbued with Torah and their wisdom shone like the sun. As time passed and Israel spread throughout the settled world, the nations began to learn from the Torah of Moses ways to improve their faiths. It is well known that the teachings of the two major faiths that dominate the world are products of Moses’ teaching, as Maimonides wrote at the end of the Laws of Kings [11:4]:
[However, humans cannot fathom the thoughts (or, plans) of the Creator whose ways and thoughts are not like ours. All the matters of Jesus of Nazareth and the Ishmaelite (Mohammed) who followed him are only to straighten the path for the King Messiah and to prepare the entire world to serve God together....]
Furthermore, they learned much about civilization from Israel. The Prophet Jeremiah said [11:16]: The Lord called you a thriving olive tree. The Sages explained in Shemot Rabbah that just as olives light up the world [through their oil] so did Israel light up the world when evil was done to them and they were exiled and spread throughout the world.
Isaiah expressed it this way [42:6]: I the Lord have called you in righteousness, and will hold your hand, and will keep [or, form] you, and give you for a covenant of the people, for a light to the nations. Ve’etzorekhah, I formed you with a unique form through Torah and the commandments. Then, I gave you to be a covenant people, meaning, to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the kind of faith that is called a covenant, every person with their God….
Isaiah also says [49:8]: and I will preserve you, and give you for a covenant of the people, to restore the land, and to assign desolate inheritances to their owners….
This is another purpose: Israel must help the spread of human settlement in desolate places [and not just with the spiritual dimension]. For Isaiah had said earlier [45:18]: For thus says the Lord who created the heavens; God himself who formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited….
There were many desolate places in the world which the nations had not settled. However, through Israel they were eventually inhabited and brought into human settlement.
The wise of the nations know all this. Therefore, they will they will ask us to stay in their midst so they can see our good behavior and diligent activities so they can continue to learn from us….
Israel now responds: What can you see in the Shulamit? Actually, from the fact that they have learned much from us they have now really surpassed us in the sense that they live securely and peacefully as they continue to develop their cultures in tranquility. Israel, however, is hounded and persecuted, so much so, that we must expend much effort on sheer survival while neglecting the ways of civilization. On the contrary, it is often necessary for us to learn knowledge and culture from the nations.
In this way we become ‘like a company of dancers’. This means that just as one dancer dances and circles while the other dancer follows her lead and then they change roles and the second one takes the lead, so are we today. For now we must look at the cultures of the most enlightened nations for many enemies criticize us as being uncultured . We understand that this is correct. The troubles and persecutions caused our involvement with civilization to deteriorate. So we say to them: what do you see in us? On the contrary, we must now study from your most cultured people. But their sages say that we still need to learn from you as well.
And the dance goes on. This is wonderful image: dancers. Dancers get together to dance. After the dance they may or not see each other. Each goes his or her separate way and retains a separate identity. Each can choose to dance or not. When they are dancing they need each other to do a proper dance. Israel needs the world and the world needs Israel. There are important things to learn from each other. Together we will be complete.
If you recall Neziv’s commentary to the Sinai revelation he considers it to be akin to a marriage between God and Israel. [Please see Parashat Yitro 5770 and Parashat Mishpatim 5770.] The purpose of the union is to bring blessing into the world as a ‘kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ It is not a plan for estrangement and isolation from the world but for engagement. So despite our ‘marriage’ our Divine partner wishes us to dance with the world and to bless the world in what we do. We have to be holy dancers.
Actually, Neziv is saying that Jewish segregation from Gentile society is not the ideal. It prevents us from doing the dance with our natural partners. If we were meant to dance it cannot happen from behind ghetto walls and legal discrimination. We must be able to engage and interact.
Jews need the proper conditions in which to maintain a positive identity and commitment. When conditions change we must adjust our response to the environment. When the Messiah comes we will go back to our land and create a strong identity. But we will keep on dancing with the world.
We begin this week the fourth book of the Torah known as ‘In the Desert’ or ‘Bemidbar’ in Hebrew. The English name ‘Numbers’ derives from another ancient rabbinic Hebrew title Humash [or, Homesh, Homash] HaPekudim, the fourth Fifth of Censuses so named for the two censuses described at the beginning and near the end of the book. The first weekly portion is also called Bemidbar.
In his introduction to the book, Neziv concentrates on the unusual focus of the old rabbinic name as the Book of Numbers or Censuses. After all, the book has so many interesting events and personalities that do inspire much reflection and comment in Jewish literature. Why should the seemingly ordinary and bland enumerations warrant our focus as somehow the essence of the book? Let us see how he proceeds.
This book is called in the Mishnah [of Tractate Yoma, chapter 7] and elsewhere, as well as by Rabbi Haninah ben Gamaliel [in Tractate Sotah 36b]: Humash HaPekudim. So too by the author of Halakhot Gedolot [most probably authored by the medieval Rabbi Simeon Kayyara, who lived in Basra, Babylonia].
Our ancient Sages must have been impressed by the two censuses in the book more than the many unique matters also found in the book such as the episode of the Spies and the blessings of Bilaam and the like.
The reason for this is that the essence of this book is the changes in the lives of the People of God in the world which they experienced [fully] when they arrived in the Land of Israel from the way they lived in the desert.
In order to explain the difference he is suggesting Neziv draws on various Kabbalistic terms. Malkhut, Kingship, refers to ordinary every day life within the natural world. Tiferet, Glory, refers to life on a higher spiritual plane, above the ordinary. As he goes on he will explain what he means in using these terms.
In the desert, they were functioning on the level of Tiferet which walked at the right of Moses which is completely above the ways of nature [Teva]. In the Land of Israel they functioned in the ways of nature [Teva] in the way of hidden Providence of the Malkhut Shamayim, [Kingship of Heaven.]
This change actually began while still in the desert during the fortieth year as we explained [later] in Parashat Hukkat. According to this change they engaged in wars with the Canaanites and Sihon [King of the Emorites] in a natural manner. Also, the [miraculous] staff was no longer always in the hands of Moses except when needed according to great necessity.
In consideration of this process of change the Sages commented in Bereishit Rabbah [chapter 3] on the verse [Gen. 1:4], God separated between the light and between the darkness: This refers to the Book of Bemidbar that separates between those who left Egypt and those who entered the land.
For in the history of the refugees from Egypt the [Divine] Light of Providence was visible to all. This is the honor of God and the purpose of the Creation. This was not the case in the history of those who entered the land at which time Providence was hidden. Only those who looked with a good eye could sense that Providence similar to one who walks in the darkness of night. Or, [while in the land] periodically it was visible like lightning which illuminates the night’s darkness.
Indeed, this essential difference is recognizable in the two censuses which are actually two equal activities but were different according to the changed circumstances of Israel. Thus, we find the first census made according to flags of the tribes in each direction [North, South, East, West] for they were the Chariot of the Shekhinah [Divine Presence]. Here Ephraim was at the head and before Menashe [the older brother]. However, this is not he case later on [in Parashat Pinhas] as I explained in my comments to chapter 1:2.
Because of these changes the censuses made an impression on the Sages so they called this book the Fifth of Censuses.
It appears that this understanding is the basis of a statement in Tractate Shabbat [115a,b] concerning [Nu. 10:35-36]: It came to pass when the ark set forward that Moses said, [etc.] for this section the Blessed Holy One provided signs above and below, to teach that it ranks as a separate Book.
This Talmudic passage suggests that these two verses are to be considered as a separate book of the Torah for they are enclosed between two reversed Hebrew letters [Nun]. [According to this view we might really have six or seven books of the Torah for Bemidbar actually comprises three books: until the end of chapter ten verse 34; then these two verses; and then from chapter eleven onward.]
For Neziv, this passage indicates at least a break, a change in the story. Chapter eleven slowly begins this new phase of history in which life goes from supernatural to natural.
This teaches us that the beginning of the change occurs at Chapter 11 which begins: The people were looking to complain, and it was evil in the ears of the Lord. The Lord heard and His anger flared, and a fire from the Lord burned among them, consuming the extremes of the camp.
Because they were operating with the quality of Tiferet they were punished immediately after sinning for the shadow of Providence was to their right. This [high] level of Providence was difficult for them to tolerate. This [desire not to be operating at the Tiferet level] led to their sending spies to check out the land as will be explained later at the beginning of Parashat Shelah. From there further developments ensued until the change had taken hold.
Thus this little section separates between the two major modes of Israel’s history. We thus realize that each of the three sections of the book is really a book in itself. Each type of history is a story in itself. [I have already explained in Genesis that the word Sefer [book] refers to an important story [Heb. Sippur].]
Neziv sees the history of Israel in the Torah as moving from ‘glorious’ history to ordinary history. Coming off of the excitement of the highly visible miracles of the Exodus and Sinai experiences as described in the Torah Israel is riding ‘high.’ God’s protection and Providence are obvious to all. Actually, Israel is in its infancy and needs constant visible support. It must learn how to be a free and covenanted people. It is like the child that must be carried on eagles’ wings. However, this cannot last. It must come down to earth and learn to live on earth.
Living in the glory mode is not easy. At another place Neziv compares it to living in the palace. Every movement and gesture is seen at the highest level and will be immediately rewarded or condemned. There is no private space in which to experiment and make one’s own errors. Ordinary life can be more forgiving. There is time for reflection before unforeseen consequences emerge and often opportunity to correct them. This Israel must learn in forty years in the desert.
As it turns out, Bemidbar, in the desert, is also quite a descriptive name for the book. It partakes of a conceptual plan for even future individuals or groups who may choose to go into the desert for a period of renewal and learning. It can be free of the distractions and noise of urban and even rural life. Here Moses can become Moses, Our Teacher, Moshe Rabbenu. He can prepare us to enter our land and build our new society.
Shabbat Shalom
Hayyim Shemuel Yosef Sivan 25770 May 15,2010
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.
If you follow my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
And your threshing shall last to the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last to the sowing time; and you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.
And I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid; and I will remove evil beasts from the land, nor shall the sword go through your land.
And you shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
This portion seems pretty clear. God is in charge. The fulfillment of God’s commands will yield God’s blessings. As the text moves on it focuses on ignoring the commands and dire consequences of God’s punishments.
Neziv is be bothered by two questions:
1. Why does God speak in a conditional way. The verse begins ‘im’ – ‘if’ or even ‘when’ you follow my statutes?.
2. The Hebrew word translated as statutes, hukkot, is in the rare feminine form. The singular, hok, would yield the plural hukkim, the most usual form that appears in the Torah. Here the singular of hukkot would be hukkah, a rarely used Biblical word. What difference is made by this formulation?
This leads Neziv to a fascinating discussion of the consequences of our good and bad deeds.
He cites Midrash Rabbah which notes:
those statutes by the help of which I marked out heaven and earth; as it says, If My covenant be not with day and night, if I have not appointed the ordinances (hukkoth) of heaven and earth (Jer. 33:25); those statutes whereby I marked out the sun and the moon; as it says, Thus says the Lord who gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances (hukkoth) of the moon and of the stars for a light by night (ib. 31:35); those statutes whereby I marked out the sea; as it says, When He gave to the sea His decree–hukko (Prov. 8:29); those statutes whereby I marked out the sand; as it says, Who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, an everlasting ordinance– hok (Jer. 5:22); those statutes whereby I marked out the deep; as it says, When He set (behukko) a circle upon the face of the deep (Prov. 8:27). ‘Hok’ and ‘hukhoth’ serve the purpose of analogy. [i. e., the statutes of the Torah are essential to the survival of the world as are the laws of nature.]
Neziv now explains:
The suggestion here is that this is a condition requested by God that we follow [the statutes] so that the civilization will survive. For if it is only a description of the processes of cause and effect wherein there is no specific desire for us to fulfill them, why tell us that they are the ordinances of heaven and earth? [i. e., that God cares about them.]
Thus we have in various places that ‘im’ is an expression of requesting [Torat Kohanim and Tractate A. Z., 5a]: Our Rabbis taught: In the verse, If you follow my statutes, the word if is used in the sense of an appeal, similar to the verse, O that my people would hearken unto Me, that Israel would walk in my ways . [Ps. 21:14]
Now we must try to understand how our Sages knew this and why the Tannah [teacher] in the Midrash wants to teach us that God desires and asks of us to follow in the path of His commandments.
Neziv will now cite and explain a complex theological discussion, also found in Tractate Avodah Zarah, which concerns the topic of idol worship and worshipers. The issue is what is called the Seven Laws of Noah which Talmudic tradition considers to be the original commandments given to Noah after the Flood. The purpose of these laws was to prevent another decline in civilization leading to another calamitous destruction. The laws are against (i) idol worship, (ii) blasphemy, (iii) bloodshed, (iv) adultery, (v) robbery, (vi) for the establishment of courts of justice, (vii) against eating the limb torn off a living animal.[This list is from a footnote in the Soncino Talmud translation.] These were addressed to all human beings.
As the ancient Rabbis understood, civilization still declined for these commands were not fulfilled. This required a new Covenant at Sinai in which the nations of the world were released from the responsibility for upholding civilization and that task was given to Israel through the six hundred and thirteen commandments. The nations must still obey the Seven Noahide Laws but these are now seen as insufficient to maintain the survival of the world. From this discussion, Neziv will lead us to his understanding of how God’s laws should be construed.
Let us see how he proceeds:
However, as far as is further taught there [A.Z. 2b]: He sees and makes the nations to tremble [Habakuk 3:6] [the Hebrew term here can be translated as tremble or as released]; what did He see? He saw that the nations did not observe even the seven precepts which the sons of Noah had taken upon themselves, and seeing that they did not observe them, He stood up and released them therefrom. The Talmud asks: then they benefited by it; according to this it pays to be a sinner! Mar the son of Rabina said: The release from those commands only means that even if they observed them they would not be rewarded.
The Talmud asks: But why should they not? Is it not taught: [R. Meir used to say], Whence do we know that even an idolater who studies the Torah is equal to a High Priest? From the following verse: You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances which, if a man do, he shall live by them. It does not say “If a Priest, Levite, or Israelite do, he shall live by them,” but “a man”; here, then, you can learn that even a heathen who studies the Torah is equal to a High Priest!? What is meant, then, is that they are rewarded not as greatly as one who does a thing which he is bidden to do, but as one who does a thing unbidden. [For, R. Hanina said: He who is commanded and does, stands higher then he who is not commanded and does.]
All this requires explanation. How does the verse ‘He sees and makes the nations to tremble’ [i. e., He sees and releases the nations] suggest that even if they perform the commandments they do not get reward as one who is commanded? Furthermore, they are actually commanded and fulfill [i. e., they are still obligated to the seven Noahide laws.] Why should they not be rewarded. After all, the Holy Blessed one is Just and Righteous!
The intention here is the following. One should know that reward and punishment in regard to the commandments is not like the decree of a king, dependent upon his knowledge and will at each and every moment as he sees fit. It is more akin to a doctor who warns someone against eating certain harmful foods. The consequences do not depend on the doctor but rather he has informed the patient regarding the ways of nature. So, too, the good deeds and sins: God the Creator established the world in such a way that reward and punishment are dependent on their fulfillment or disregard…
The Midrash Rabbah to Deuteronomy says: “From the time in which God said “behold today I place before you blessing and curse,” “no (longer do) bad things and good come from the mouth of God”(Lam. 3:38). However, the good deeds have their own consequences and the bad deeds have their results as well.” This is similar to the results indicated by the doctor. For the doctor is not punishing the patient by virtue of the fact that he knows the consequences of violating his warning; the patient suffers because of his own doing, unlike the punishment of a king which comes only through his knowledge and decision….
The fact that repentance can be effective is again not like a king offering forgiveness but it is like healing [through changing one's deeds and hence the consequences] as it says in Isaiah 6:20: he will repent and be healed.
Now one can ask if it is the will of the Blessed Commander for us to fulfill the commandments [for like a king his kingdom will be strong]? Or, [are the commandments] like that of an impartial physician who advises and warns but has no personal stake in the outcome?
In truth, like the latter for God really wants us to follow the commandments. For it is like a physician treating his child. He really cares deeply that the child will be careful so that the child will be live and sustain the father’s world.
There is also a difference in the way the doctor prescribes for his own child as against others even though there is no difference in the advice. The difference is that in the case of his child he tells him that in addition to being healthy he will give him gifts [if he follows the advice] which he will not do for a stranger. The reason is that by the child being careful the physician’s world is sustained. This is not the case with an outsider.
This then is the difference between Israel’s observance of their commandments and the other nations observance of their seven commandments. For in addition to getting the inherent benefit from their acts they are rewarded for sustaining the world…. However, the sustenance of the world is not dependent on the idolatrous nations. Therefore, they only have the inherent benefit of their good deeds.
All this is included in the Prophet Habakuk’s expression: He sees and releases the nations. Until the Torah Revelation at Sinai the world’s existence depended upon all the nations. They were rewarded for both the fulfillment of the laws as well as sustaining the world. However, once God sees that they are not fulfilling their obligations, this could lead to the destruction of the world. Therefore, God released them, meaning, they were released from sustaining the world. Their performance of their seven laws is for their own benefit…. However, as for Israel, God asks them to follow the commandments and be rewarded for upon them depends the survival of the entire world….
All this is suggested in the opening verse: If you will follow my statutes. For the commandments [included in the statutes] are actually ‘the statutes of Heaven and Earth’ upon which all depend. Therefore, ‘im’, is an expression of request. God, as it were, asks us to fulfill the commandments so that the foundations of His world and the statutes of Heaven and Earth will be sustained.
God as King is thoroughly integrated in the Judaism of today and is found in numerous daily prayers and blessings, and especially in the High Holyday prayers. However, this designation seems to be a later arrival into Jewish consciousness. As of this point in our parashah series it has not yet directly appeared.
God as physician, as healer, is directly mentioned and not just in passing. It appears in Exodus 15:22 -26 following the splitting of the sea and drowning of the Egyptian army. As they travel on they come to a place named Marah, bitterness, so called for its apparently bitter waters:
Moses led Israel away from the Red Sea, and they went out into the desert of Shur; they walked for three days in the desert but did not find water. They came to Marah, but they could not drink water from Marah because it was bitter; therefore, it was named Marah. The people complained against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?? So he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord instructed him concerning a piece of wood, which he cast into the water, and the water became sweet. There He gave them a statute and an ordinance, and there He tested them. And He said, If you hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God, and you do what is proper in His eyes, and you listen closely to His commandments and observe all His statutes, all the ills that I have visited upon Egypt I will not visit upon you, for I, the Lord, heal you [or, am your Physician].
At this point, Neziv does not explain this section as he does in our portion of the week. However, I would venture to apply it there as well.
God shows Moses some desert tree or herb that sweetens the water. Then God gives them hok umishpat, statute and ordinance, that is, various laws and commandments; and also tested them, or, another possible meaning is ‘raised them up.’ A Midrash says that the laws of Sabbath and ‘dinin’, various social laws, were given at Marah. This would explain how they were raised up, elevated above their slave status and beginning to form a new and better society. They must be healed; moving away from the ills of Egyptian culture must begin even before Sinai. Finally, God says that if they listen to God’s commandments then all the ills of Egypt will be avoided for I am your Healer, your Physician.
Here we have a clear use of the healer model related to the effect of commandment observance. They can prevent all the ills of Egypt from entering the new society. For, I believe, the ills referred to here are not the plagues directed against Egypt during the Exodus story. They refer to all the corruption of Egyptian society which enslaves people and ignores the plight of its own suffering citizens. The immoral culture of Egypt is filled with abominations according to the Book of Leviticus. God’s commandments are prescriptions given by the Divine Physician to direct Israel in the creation of a new and better society. They will work through the processes of cause and effect built into the universe by its Creator who now offers guidance to the newly freed nation.
Neziv has expressed some major theological doctrines in explaining just the first three [Hebrew] words of this week’s [second] portion, Behukkotai. There are other places in which he returns to the theme of the natural processes of reward and punishment as cause and effect. We may be surprised at his very naturalistic, mechanistic approach. He certainly owes us a discussion of how natural law and prayer operate together. After all, he is a profound religious thinker.
Shabbat Shalom
Hayyim Shemuel Yosef
Iyyar 245770
May 8, 2010
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.
21:1. And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them….
We are in the midst of the book called Vayikrah or Leviticus, the ancient Greek name derived from the Rabbinic designation of the book as Torat Kohanim, the guide or book for the priests. The designated priests were from the tribe of Levi. The entire tribe continued to assist in Temple duties but the main role was limited to one family among them: the descendants of Aaron.
The question that comes to mind as we read this book is who are the kohanim being addressed. True enough the early parts reflect the worship activities during which the kohanim help the worshiper carry out the sacrificial activities in the Sanctuary. However, the commandments are not specifically addressed to the kohanim but to the population at large.
Then, as we continue, we find numerous other involvements of the kohanim in other religious activities but again the general population is being addressed. In the Parashah of Kedoshim again the community is the target of the challenge to live a holy life. Only very few of the prescriptions are exclusively directed to the priestly and levitical families. The beginning of our portion is one of those.
So the question comes to mind as to why this book received its designation as Torat Kohanim. Who is the main target of its message?
Our portion begins with a specific address to the Aaronide priests now charged with highest religious functions. It is obvious that the text considered it insufficient to just simply address the kohanim. They had to be identified as from the family of Aaron. This prompts Neziv to comment that the word kohen in the Bible can refer to important persons or leaders in a community:
as in Joshua 14 and many other places. So we might think the kohen referred to here is an Israelite who is an important person in his city and called kohen as David’s sons were called in II Samuel 8:18: the sons of David were kohanim. Therefore the Torah here specified that these were Aaron’s sons.
So it is clear that term kohen can be used in a broader fashion than just to designate the newly ordained family of Aaron who would now occupy the primary role as Holy People to minister to certain religious functions of the nation.
We should not forget the powerful charge at Mt. Sinai prior to the Ten Commandments:
you shall be to Me a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation.
Obviously, designating the entire people as kohanim cannot mean that they will function like Aaron’s family. So in what sense are they to be kohanim? [ See Neziv's comments brought in Parashat Mishpatim 5770. Here we will move in a different direction.]
In last week’s Parashah we saw how Neziv ends his discussion on the ‘loving? commandment with:
This is the meaning of ‘kamokhah’, as yourself, because all Israel is one being [nefesh ahat].
He the refers us to his comments:
on Deuteronomy 32:9 in explaining ‘For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.’ as well as at Genesis 49:24.
The word usually translated as ‘lot’ is literally ‘rope’. This is how Neziv explained the idea of the rope:
I explained there that the nation of Israel is compared to a rope made of many strands thickly knotted above but loosely hanging below with each strand individually separated. So, too, the Blessed Holy One is the Soul of the Soul of Israel so that when an Israelite is distressed the Shekhinah is disturbed as explained in Tractate Sanhedrin. This is like disturbing one of the hanging threads at the bottom of the rope. The thick knot at the top is also disturbed.
This is Jacob’s great power. For this reason the Torah later prohibits revenge among Israel.
What are the implications of this rope idea?
Neziv has touched upon an idea that is very much part of modern anthropology’s discussion of religious systems. Something that is holy functions as a link between heaven and earth, the divine and the ordinary. Holy Places, Holy Texts, Holy Persons and Holy Times all serve in this manner. Through them the individual or community feel closer to God. Visiting Holy Places; studying Holy Texts; being in the presence of Holy Persons and celebrating at Holy Times can all lift us from the ordinary routines of life to the extraordinary connection with God and godliness.
Neziv’s explanation of the rope symbol fits this pattern. For him Israel is a holy nation bound together like the rope strands. It is one being, organically united yet with enough individuality as the strands separate. It is tied to God above and descends to earth below. But Israel is also a kingdom of kohanim, Holy Persons whose role it is to minister to the other nations of the earth and helping them come close to the divine. The kingdom of kohanim and the holy nation are to be two aspects of the one unique nation of Israel. Neziv further explains in many places that through Israel they too should become covenant peoples as Isaiah says of Israel: you will be a covenant nation for all nations. That means that they too should develop social solidarity as one being, strive for holiness and bring elevation to others. In first choosing Israel, this is God’s ultimate plan.
The Book of Leviticus is, therefore, addressed to all kohanim: the entire community of Israelites as well as the specific priests who minister to Israel. It is Torat Kohanim for it offers Torah, guidance, teaching and instruction to all who might strive for holiness in living for themselves and others.
Shabbat Shalom Hayyim Shemuel Yosef Iyyar 175770 May 1, 2010
