This week’s Parashat* Chu'kat (“statute of…”), not unlike
many of the other Parashot, deals with several issues, some of which are
unrelated or appear to be so. Moreover, a number of these topics are clouded
over with an air of mystery, or at least with insufficient information, leaving
us wondering as to their full meaning. Nechama Leibowitz lists for us some of
the queries which are raised by our Parasha:
1) Chapter 19: “The chapter on the red heifer… is one
of the most mystifying in the Torah… [which] even the wisdom of the wisest of
men failed to fathom.”
2) Chapter 20:7-13: “What was Moses’ sin for which he
was so severely punished?”
3) Chapter 20:14-21: “What was the point of referring
to all their [Israel’s]
travail [when approaching Edom]?
Did Moses wish to arouse their [the Edomites’] compassion?”
4) Chapter 21:1-3: “What made the King of Arad attack
the Israelites? Especially with a view to the
assertion made in the Song of the Red Sea that all the nations of the
world were terror-struck by the Divine miracles and dared not interfere with
Israel (Ex. 15:14-15)?”
5) Chapter 21:4-9: “The serpents’ description as
“firey,” which in Hebrew is seraphim [s’rafim], is curious in itself, but more
so is this method given to Moses to heal the victims [which] is somewhat
strange” and “has puzzled many commentators…”
1
Although for the most part, we shall not attempt to solve these puzzles,
word investigations may help us to connect some of the ideas and discover a
possible internal logic within Parashat Chu’kat.
The red heifer, described as being "without blemish (“t’mee’ma”),
in which there is no defect and on which a yoke has never come”, is “para
– cow – aduma - red” (19:2). As far back as Parashat B’resheet (Genesis
1-6:8) we noted that “man” – “a’dam” – is ‘rooted’ in “adama”, “earth”, and
that “dam” is “blood”, hence the color “red” (“adom”). Thus, the animal used in
the purification process, whose blood was to be sprinkled (ref. 19:4) was
‘earthy’, but was also without blemish or defect, recalling the humanity of
Messiah (who “was in all points tempted as we are”, Heb. 4:15), as well as His
perfection (“a lamb without blemish and without spot”, 1Pet. 1:19). Messiah is
also the One who turns our scarlet sins, making them as white as snow
and wool. Though the sins are red [“ya’adimu”, again, root of “dam” – “blood”
and “adam” – “man”] like crimson (shani), they shall be [as pure and white] as
wool” (ref. Is. 1:18). The purification mixture, at hand, was made of the ashes
of the red heifer, cedar wood and the “scarlet [shani] of a [special] worm
(tolah)”, referring to the same scarlet (of the sins) mentioned
above (in both cases literal translation). It was this mixture that was made
available to the impure for “cleansing” or “purification” (specifically when
touching a corpse). Notably, the verb used is “yit’cha’teh” (“shall cleanse
himself”, 19:12ff). The root letters of this particular word for “purification”
is ch.t.a (chet, tet, alef), which actually spells “sin” (as we have already
seen a number of times, e.g. Ex. 29:36; Lev. 14:49, etc.). Interestingly, those
involved in the preparation of this mixture intended for purification,
themselves became defiled in the process. Similarly, while being contaminated/defiled
by humanity's sin, the very blood of Messiah is given for humanity's
purification.
In previous Parashot we also noted that the remedy, or cure for
"missing the mark" (i.e. sinning), is already taken into account in
sin’s very definition (as we just observed above). This principle takes us to
another topic of examination contained in the Parasha - the bronze serpent:
“And it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall
live" (21:8). Once again, the very cause of the malady (the serpents) also
becomes, symbolically, its cure. Additionally, the rendering of the serpents as
“srafim” (meaning “fiery or burning,” of the root s.r.f –
shin, resh, carcass was to be burnt), as the identical root for
“burning” is employed several times in the course of the red heifer passage. Additionally,
these serpents, or "snakes" – nechashim – as rendered in the Hebrew,
are also "fiery" – "srafim", the latter is also the term
used in Yisha'yahu 6:2, where YHVH is seen seated on His throne above which
there were "fiery ones" – again, srafim.
Nechama Leibowitz points out that the verb “sent” - (va)y’sha’lach
- being in the “pi’el” conjugation and not in the more common “kal”
[“sha’lach”], connotes a “letting go” or “releasing” of
the serpents, whereas up until that time they (the serpents) were held back by YHVH,
who did not permit them to harm His people.3 The serpents’ title points to
their characteristic of “burning” or of being “firey” (“saraf”),
although the actual word for serpent is “nachash” and therefore the bronze
object made by Moshe was called “nachash” – serpent - ha’nchoshet”
(of the) brass. The play on words and alliteration continue in 21:9: “If a
serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived”. “A
serpent had bitten” is “nashach ha’nachash” (even though there no etymological
connection between these two words). This unusual ‘formula’ of looking at the
brass serpent and being cured, is interpreted for us by Yeshua: “And as Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted
up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John
3: 14, 15). The healing is found in lifting up one’s eyes to the Creator, while
the object (which has no power in and of itself) may serve as a reminder of
one’s sin and disbelief on one hand, and of YHVH’s power and grace on the
other.
At the very onset of the narrative, which leads up to Moshe smiting the
rock, the congregation gathers around him and Aha’ron and strives with them
(ref. 20:2,3). “Strive” is “meriva” (y.r.b/v, yod, resh,
bet/vet), and as it says concerning the Waters of Meriva in Parashat B’shalach
(in Ex. 17:7), here too we read: “This is the water of Merivah, because the
children of Israel
contended [“ravu”] with YHVH, and He was hallowed among them” (20:13).
Right along with the striving, rebellion and opposition also make their
appearance. In verse 10 Moshe addresses the “rebels” who are called “morim”
- “those who are contentious or disobedient”. The root is m.r.h (mem, resh,
hey) and it means, “oppose”.
Moshe, like Y’chezkel (Ezekiel), was not to be “rebellious [“meri”] like
that rebellious house [“beit ha-meri”]” (Ez. 2:8) of Yisrael, and although
commanded to “take the rod”, he was to speak peaceably to the rock (ref. 20:8).
Moshe and Aha’ron, however, failed and
thus proved their faith to be deficient (20:12), having acted much like their
compatriots. In speaking to the rock, they were to exemplify the obedience of an
inanimate object to YHVH’s word. Thus, if even the rocks obey Elohim, how much
more were the children of Israel supposed to do so, especially as they were
just about the enter the land that He has given them! An example of a
proverbial and potential response of rocks is stated by Yeshua. On His way to
Jerusalem, in what is called His triumphant entry, “as He was now drawing near
the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began
to rejoice and praise Elohim with a loud voice for all the mighty works they
had seen, saying: 'Blessed is the King who comes in the name of
YHVH!' Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!’ And some of the Pharisees
called to Him from the crowd, ‘Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.’ But He answered and said to them, "I tell
you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out"
(Luke 19:37-40 emphasis added).
Moshe’s “rod” is called “ma’teh”, which aside from being
rooted in the verb to “stretch out”, also means to “incline,
turn or turn away”.
It was the rod, symbolic of Moshe and Aha’ron’s authority, which the
people followed, while the two leaders had the power to turn their
subordinates either toward YHVH, or away from Him.
The next part of the chapter presents Moshe’s surprising approach to the
Edomites (20:14-21), whose compassion he appears to be seeking, with a promise
that the procession of Israelites will not trespass or trample down their land,
nor use anything of theirs along the road. Calling them Yisrael’s brothers,
Moshe’s messengers to the king of Edom said, among other things: “We will not
turn aside (“nita”, once again of the root n.t.h, connected to the “rod”
– mateh - that we just looked at) to the right hand or to the left” (v.
17). And when “Edom refused to give Israel
passage through his territory, Israel
turned away [“va-yet”] from him” (v. 21). Thus, the last two episodes
(1. the people’s rebellion and Moshe’s ensuing action, and 2. the Edomites’
retort) are characterized by “turning” and “diversions” (of the root n.t.h – noon,
tet, hey) from YHVH’s intended path.
The attempt to appease the Edomites (in approaching their king Moshe
says: “thus says your brother Israel…” 20:4) is a gesture of creating
peaceful coexistence between “Esav” and “Jacob-Yisrael”, and abolishing the enmity
between the two. The previous scene, of
drawing water from the rock (20:2-11) in the wake of the people’s complaint
that ended with an unsuccessful encounter with ‘Esau’, parallels another such scene,
which took place shortly after Yisrael left Egypt. In Rephidim, the people
contended with Moshe and asked for water (Exodus 17:2). The problem was
resolved by Elohim directing Moshe to hit the rock, from which water gushed out
(v. 6). Immediately after this scene (and perhaps because of it), the Yisraelites
were attacked by the Amalekites, who are Esav’s descendants (see Genesis 36:
9-12). What is the reason for these corresponding scenes? It seems that in the
present ones, in our Parasha (forty years later, this time with the younger
generation), there is an attempt at rectifying, or redeeming these two issues.
However, both these attempts ended with failures (i.e., the demand for water without
honoring the Almighty who provided it, and the consequent Edomites, Esav’s
progeny, rejection of the peaceful offer). Thus, with the two groups of
‘defendants’ (and also Moshe and A’haron) refusing to come clean regarding their
offenses, YHVH was now within His perfect right to pass judgment and declare
His verdict (to come into effect immediately or sometime in the future).
Following Aha’ron’s death on Mount Hor, the Canaanite King of Arad, upon
hearing of Yisrael’s approach, fights them and takes some of them captive
(21:1). As was already pointed out, the fact that he dared to do so is rather
curious. However, the citing, in that connection, of the “road to Atarim” led
Nahmanides to attach the sad spy episode to the present adversity, as “Atarim”
may share the root “tour” – to “survey” - which we looked at in Parashat
Sh’lach Lecha (Numbers 13-15). “What connection then was there between the
incident of the spies and this attack on the children of Israel? The latter had shown their
lack of confidence and fear of the future, by sending the spies. The Canaanites
fortified themselves with the knowledge of Israel’s sense of weakness and
inferiority. The lowering of the Israelites’ morale was followed,
automatically, by the rising morale of their enemies.” 2 If Yisrael were indeed coming by “the way -
or manner - of the spies/surveyors” it would have given the Canaanite king the
confidence to assail them.
In 21:17-18 we read the following: “Then Israel sang this song, ‘Spring up, O well. Sing to it.
The well which the rulers dug, which the nobles of the people dug with their
lawgivers’ staves and rods’”. Daat Mikra Commentary says: “The digging was
initiated by the ‘nobles of the people,’ being a reference to Moshe and Aha’ron
who dug it without using ordinary work tools, but with ‘m’chokek mish’a’notam’
(‘their lawgivers’ staves’). 4
A “m’chokek” is a prince, ruler or lawgiver, but it is
also another word used for a ruler’s staff (see Gen. 49:10). “M’chokek”
originates with the root ch.k.k (chet, kof, kof) and means to “inscribe
or engrave” (see Parashat Yitro, Ex. 18 – 21, where we examined this
root more extensively, e.g. 18:20), and is thus employed in the word “statute”
– “chok” or “chukka”, such as in the title of our Parasha
(“chu’kat” – the “statute of”). The content of this song, describing a source
of water that has been dug by a ruler’s staff of the law, is
set against the previous scene where water should have gushed freely from a rock
by the mere utterance of the word and not by the effort of “digging” by
the “staff of law”. Thus Moshe’s (mis)usage of the staff in order to bring forth
water may be the cause for the proverbial staff of the law having to be wielded
and for the sweat of the brow to be exerted in order to dig a well and obtain
water by human effort. This takes us back to the beginning of the Parasha,
where “statute/rule (chok) of the Torah” concerning the red
heifer is presented for “purification from sin”, reinforcing the idea that
“rules/laws/statutes” have to be wielded and implemented in the face of
rebellion (sin) against the ‘Water (of the Spirit)’ flowing from the ‘Rock’ at
the sound of the ‘Word’.
The encounter with the Amorites, after bypassing
Moav, resulted in a military victory and the possession of their cities (which
the Amorites had taken from Moav). One of those cities was their capital,
Cheshbon (Heshbon). This conquest
engendered a statement by the “those who use proverbs … ‘Come to Cheshbon…’”
(21:27). “Those who make use of proverbs” is “moshlim” – also
meaning rulers - while “cheshbon” is rooted in ch.sh.v (chet, shin, b/vet),
which means “important, to think, ponder, calculate”. Thus, the combination of proverb and rule,
as well as ponder and calculate led the commentators of the past
to view the above quote as a statement relating to the rule (control)
one should have over one’s natural inclinations (“flesh”) by self-examination
(pondering and evaluating). In the past,
we have examined the connection between “proverb” and “rule” in Parashat
Cha’yey Sarah (in Genesis 24:2).
The Parasha ends with another spying episode. Before the Israelites
ventured out to conquer the Amorites, it says in 21:32: “Then Moses sent to spy
out Jazer…” The word there for “spy out” is different than the one we
encountered previously, this time it is “ra’gel,” of the root r.g.l,
meaning “foot or leg” (“regel”), a term also used for the spies
who were later sent by Yehoshua (Joshua) to explore Yericho (ref. Joshua 2:1).
It seems that these spies (“footmen”) were not to “tour” – survey – the land,
but rather walk to their designated destination, one step at a time (one foot in front
of the other :).
See article below
* “Parashat” = “Parasha of…”
1. Nechama Leibowitz, Studies in Bamidbar, Eliner
Library, Dept.
of Torah Education and
Culture in the Diaspora, Joint Authority
for Jewish Zionist
Education, Jerusalem,
1995.
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. Da’at
Mikra, A’haron Mirski, Rav Kook Inst., Jerusalem,
2001
The following article, which is now
a chapter in our book Creation Revisited, deals with some of the
Parasha’s themes. The book may be downloaded from our site www.israeliteretun.com
Chapter 4 of the Gospel of John commences with a
description of Yeshua traveling north, from Judea to Samaria. It goes on to say that when He
arrived near the city of Shechem, in close proximity to a plot of land that
Jacob had purchased many years beforehand for his son Joseph (see v. 5), Yeshua
stopped to rest by a well while his disciples were in the city purchasing
supplies. Within a short time, a local (Samaritan) woman came there to draw
water. In her discourse with Yeshua, the woman mentioned that her people
had inherited the well from their “father Jacob” (see v. 12).
Yeshua proceeded to ask her for a drink. That a
Jew would stoop to talk to a Samaritan, a female, and then even make His need
known to her startled the woman. She, therefore, reminded Him that Jews did not
have any dealings with the Samaritans (who were considered a mongrel race and
hence inferior). But yet she continued, noting that the well was very deep.
The woman’s answer to this Jewish Man’s request
for a drink was met by the following words: "If you knew the gift [in
Hebrew – “mattanah”] of Elohim, and who it is who says to you, 'give Me a
drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water”
(John 4:10). Her reply, however, disclosed that she did not have
a clue as to the meaning of what He was saying: “Sir, You have nothing to
draw with, and the well is deep” (John 4:11a). The woman could only
relate to what she knew and understood about wells and water, and continued to
miss the point even after Yeshua promised: “Whoever drinks of the
water that I shall give him will never thirst” (John 4:14a). “Sir,”
she retorted, “give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor
come here to draw” (John 4:15). According to her way of
reasoning, Yeshua would somehow draw water for her from Jacob’s well or perhaps
even generate it from some magical source, so that she would never thirst
again, nor have the burden of drawing water every day. Still puzzled, the woman
felt that Yeshua had not answered her former query (see John
4:11b).
The Samaritan woman’s
unawareness as to the “living water” and its spiritual source, may serve as an
illustration for those who have been habitually drawing water from the world’s
resources. For example, when the Israelites were traveling through the
wilderness, just east of the Land, circumventing the Moabites and Amorites,
Moses promised that YHVH would supply them with water. So when they arrived at
a place called Be’er (meaning “well”) they broke out in a song: “’…Spring
up, O well! All of you sing to it -- The well the leaders sank, dug by
the nation's nobles, by the lawgivers, with their staves.’ And then they [Israel]
continued from Be’er and went to a place called Mattanah”
(Numbers 21: 17-18 emphases added).
Notice that after they left the well, which the
leaders, nobles, and lawgivers [“me’cho’kekim,” literally meaning “those who
engrave or dig in”] had dug with their staves, they went to Mattanah - “gift”.
To the woman’s declarations that the well was deep and that it was dug by “her
father Jacob” Yeshua responded: “If you knew the “gift” [mattanah] of
Elohim, you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water” (John
4:10).
Just like then, so today, many teachers,
philosophers, scholars, and lawgivers are digging wells for us, some of which
are very deep, from the world’s education system, making it necessary to use
(the proverbial) ropes and buckets in order to draw up the ‘water’ (just the
work itself makes one thirsty). However, we find that those wells of
water often leave us ‘high and dry' and thus thirsting for more. And when the
‘wells’ start drying up we, like the Israelites in the desert, are told to sing
to the “well”, so that the “diggers” can dig even deeper (until the ropes and
the work used for drawing the water all fail). Then, after being exhausted and
parched, we sometimes go looking for another such well. Or - do we let go and
make our way to the ‘Mattanah’ that Elohim has provided, and drink of the
living water of which Yeshua spoke?
Let us also ask: “From which source does Yeshua
get living water?” We may find the answer in a statement that He made to
His disciples "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world,
I am not of this world” (John 8:23). Is Yeshua referring here
to Genesis 1:7? “Thus Elohim made the firmament, and divided the waters
which were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament, and it was so” (emphases added).
Then, again, on the last day of the feast of
Succot, Yeshua repeated what He had said to the Samaritan woman: “…If anyone
thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the
Scripture has said, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water”
(John 7:37b-38). Obviously, He was not referring to natural
waters, but to the “waters above” that is, the Spirit of Elohim. “But this
He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for
the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Yeshua was not yet glorified”
(John 7:39). Hence the Holy Spirit of Elohim is the living
water.
