Hebrew Insights into Parashat Balak – Bamidbar (Numbers) 22 – 25: 9

 

Yisrael’s exploits and adventures (including the surprise attack of the Canaanite King of Arad, who defeated Yisrael) in the last Parasha, terminated with victory over the Amorites, which caused Balak, King of Mo’av (Moab) quite a concern. He, therefore, solicited the services of Bil’am (Balaam) son of Be’or the Midianite sorcerer, who was commissioned to put a curse on the people that constituted so great of a threat to the Moabite monarch. "Now this company will lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field …a people has come from Egypt. See, they cover the face of the earth, and are settling next to me! …they are too mighty for me” (22:4, 5, 6 italics added), says Balak (the latter’s paranoia is reminiscent of Paroh’s in Ex. 1:8-9). In other words, ‘these numerous multitudes are liable to devour my land and my people, just like a hungry ox would eat up green grass in a field. There are so many of them, that they cover every visible part of the land.’ The “face of the earth” or the " visible part" is rendered as “the eye of the earth” in the original text. The multifaceted imagery of the “eye” is not utilized in this case for that which sees, but rather for that which is seen.

Since the central theme of the Parasha are Bil’am’s visions, it is not surprising that sight, eyes, and other related terms are mentioned frequently (about 30 times). The very opening words of the Parasha are: “Now Balak… saw…”. In 24:1 we read that Bil’am “lifted his eyes…” and said about himself: “The utterances of Balaam the son of Beor, the man whose eyes are open [and] who has heard the words of Elohim, who saw with uncovered eyes the vision of the Almighty…” (literal translation, vs.3, 4 and 15, 16). Interestingly, the term for, “whose eyes are open” is “sh’tum ey’na’yim”. With a slight modification “shatum” becomes “satum”, making it “that which is covered, or not revealed” (e.g. Ez. 28:3). Truly, Bil’am’s assurance about his inherent ability to ‘see’ is more than questionable. This is demonstrated very graphically in the episode with the mare of the donkey. Thus, it was only after YHVH “opened the eyes of Balaam” (22:31) that he was able to see what his animal had seen much earlier on.   

The meaning of the name Bil’am, just like Par’oh’s (see Hebrew Insights into Parashat Miketz, Gen. 41 – 44:17), happens to be appropriate and relevant to its bearer, as it contains the letters that make up “bela” (b.l.a, bet, lamed, ayin), which is to “swallow or swallow down” (as we saw recently in Parashat Korach, Numbers 16:30,32,33). “Frequently this word is used as a symbol of destruction and ruin: Lam. 2:2; Isa. 28:7; 49:19 etc”. [1] In Psalms 52:4 “devouring words” are “divery bela”. Balak’s intention was just that. He aimed for Bil’am’s words to become a source of destruction for Yisrael. Thus, “Bela” and “am” [making up the name “Bil’am”] mean “destruction, or the swallowing up of a people”, befitting the sorcerer’s reputation as a charmer and a conjurer. Another meaning of the name is offered by Albright, who believes that its origin is from the Amorite “yabil’ammu”, meaning, “the (divine) uncle brings”. [2]. Balak's name contains the same consonants as the verb b.l.k (bet, lamed, kof) translated "desolate", "waste" or "devastate" (in its respective translations), as it appears in Yishayahu 24:1.

“Therefore please come at once, curse [“ara”] this people for me… for I know that he whom you bless is blessed and he whom you curse is cursed” (22:6), is the essence of Balak’s assignment for Bil’am. (Compare this with Genesis 12:3, the words said over Avram). When Bil’am quotes  Balak (ref. 22:11), he uses “kava” for “curse”. Hebrew is replete with verbs for cursing. The most common is “kalel” (k.l.l, kof, lamed, lamed) which stems from “kal” meaning “lightweight” and “easy”, that is “of no esteem” and therefore, by default, “no blessing”, or “making light of another’s honor”. However, a.r.r (alef, resh, resh) and k.v.v (kof, vet, vet), which are used in this narrative, are more ‘dynamic’. “On the basis of the Akkadian ‘araru’, the Hebrew arar is to snare or bind, with the Akadian noun “irritu” being a noose or a sling. Brichto, following Speiser, advances the interpretation that the Hebrew “arar” means to bind (with a spell), hem in with obstacles, and render powerless to resist. Thus the original curse in B’resheet (Genesis 3:14, 17: “cursed are you above all cattle” and “cursed is the ground for your sake) imply that the serpent was doomed to be banned/anathematized from all the other animals, while the soil was condemned as a result of man’s sin. “Kavav” connotes the act of uttering a formula designed to undo its object. The most frequent use of this root relates to the incident involving Bil’am and Balak. Certainly the ‘magical’ belief and intent of Balak are prominent here”. [3] 

Both a.r.r and k.v.v are used throughout the Parasha, denoting that the issue at stake is steeped in witchcraft. Several other terms found here verify this fact. In 22:7, the elders of Mo’av and Midian come with “divinations – “k’samim” - in their hands”. Again, in 23:23 we read the words that YHVH put in Bil’am’s mouth: “There is no enchantment – “nachash” - in Jacob and no divination – “kesem” – in Israel”.  And thusly “it shall be said to Jacob and to Israel what YHVH has wrought” (literal translation, italics added), and not that which the diviners and sorcerers have uttered. Therefore, “Now when Balaam saw that it pleased YHVH to bless Israel, he did not go as at other times, to seek to use sorcery, but he set his face toward the wilderness” (24:1).   

In this Parasha, YHVH’s supremacy over all powers and the control He exerts in order to achieve His purposes, much like using the mouth of a pagan diviner to bless, and the mouth of a donkey to talk is clearly evident. Bil’am, the would-be prophet, unlike his mare, is unaware of YHVH’s messenger who was sent to him as an “adversary” ("satan" ref. 22:22). When the animal is forced to divert from the path and to put its master in what appears to him as a compromising situation, Bil’am loses his temper and strikes the mare with his staff (22:27). What ensues is the most unlikely discussion - between a man and a donkey. Thus, Bil’am not only finds himself mishandled physically, but he also has to deal with his (unjustified) anger and express regret to a vindicated beast. And as if this is not enough when his eyes are opened, he comes out as the blind fool who incurs a rebuke from the angel: “The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live” (22:33).

In the dialogue between Bil’am and his mare, the latter justifies her conduct by asking (rhetorically) if she had ever caused her master any trouble “as a rule”. “A’has’ken his’kanti?” is the question in v. 30, using the root s.ch.n (samech, chaf, noon) twice, in two different conjugations. “Sachen” in this context is “customarily or habitually”. In other words, “Has it been my custom (to so treat you)?”  The root s.ch.n, however, also means to “be of use, benefit or service”, as indeed she had been in the past, and even more so in this particular case, acting as a tool in the hand of YHVH. Bil’am forthwith admits to being in the wrong, and only then is given permission to “go with the men”, having been warned to utter only that which YHVH will speak to him (ref. v. 35).

Three times in this text we encounter the phrase, “three times” (22:28, 32, 33). The word for “times” here is “r’galim” (“regel” singular) - an “occurrence, event, or occasion”. The much more common term is “pa’am” (a word we briefly looked at in Parashat Tetzaveh, in Ex. 28:33 where we examined the noun “bell”, stemming from the same root which is also at the core of “pulse” or “beat”). “Regel” on the other hand, is the word for “foot”. It is evident that both “pa’am” and “regel” connote movement, which of course is an indication of the passing of time, but also, and especially in the case of the latter (“regel”), point to purposeful progress such as walking. Since walking assumes an arrival, and arrival points to a specific destination (a place), we are led once more to the conclusion that in the Hebrew mind, there exists an interrelation between time and place (as we have already observed when we examined “mo’ed” – “appointed time”, in Leviticus 23, Parashat Emor). It was Bil’am’s crushed “regel” (“foot” in 22:25) which prevented him from arriving at his destination, thus perhaps prompting the usage of “r’galim” for “times”, rather than “p’amim” (both in the plural). Note that at the end of last week’s Parashat Chu’kat we met Moshe’s dispatched spies (21:32), whose commission was “le’ra’gel” (“to spy”), again of the root r.g.l, not to mention “ragal”, meaning “to slander” (found in Psalm 15:3) – an action fitting the agenda of our Parasha’s namesake. 

The extraordinary episode just experienced by Bil’am proves to be part of his preparation for speaking YHVH’s words, couched in four powerful prophetic oracles describing Elohim’s intended destiny for His people. “The three blessings are… differentiated in their relation to the time factor; the first one refers to the immediate present, to the generation of the wilderness facing him, the second to the immediate future, to the generation which would conquer the land, whilst the third concerns the distant future, to an era when wars and conquests will be no more and when the lion will lie down to rest after it has finished its task”. [4] However, there is also a fourth blessing, one which has not been solicited (as a curse) by Balak (24:14-24). 

Bil’am’s encounters with the Elohim of Yisrael are qualified by two different verbs. Twice “Elohim came to Balaam” (22:9, 20 italics added), in the two instances which preceded the confrontation with the mare. However, prior to the blessings that Bil’am uttered, later on, he met with Elohim, who put a word in his mouth (ref. 23:3, 4, 15, 16). The Hebrew verb used here for “meet” is rooted in k.r.h (kof, resh, hey), literally meaning “to happen”, or “to occur”. The usage of this term gives the impression that these meetings had a coincidental characteristic about them, rather than being preordained and appointed.   

After Bil’am uttered the curses-turned-blessings, the angry king commanded his appointee to flee, adding the following: “I said I would greatly honor you, but in fact, YHVH has kept you back from honor” (24:11). In his stubbornness and spiritual blindness, Balak dares to make the above statement! “Kept you back” is “mah’nah”, m.n.a, mem, noon, ayin, meaning “withheld”. It is at this point that Bil’am, now as a persona-non-grata, offers to speak out that which “this people [Yisrael] will do to your [Balak’s] people in the latter days” (24:14). What comes next does not please the Moabite monarch, but at the same time (surprisingly) does not incur his protest. At the end of a very significant prophecy pertaining to Yisrael and to some of its neighbors, the two men depart silently; one “to his place”, while the other is said to be “on his way” (v. 25). All the pomp and ceremony planned by Balak has just been deflated without as much as another word. 

The story of a pagan enchanter and magician, who is commissioned by an equally pagan king to lay a debilitating curse on YHVH’s people, and whose mouth utters some of the most profound words regarding the very people whom he is called to curse, is rather curious and stands out in the Torah narrative. The addition, the talking donkey episode. makes for an even more intriguing text. “The dialog between the man and the ass, [as interpreted by some of the commentators] is the Torah’s scornful commentary on the powers ascribed to sorcerers, its mockery of human gullibility, in believing in the power of the magician to curse and subject the supernatural to his will”. [5] Thus, the story of the mare of a donkey echoes that of Bil’am’s and his so-called wonder-working abilities. But, if an ass can talk, so can a con man be made to speak out YHVH’s words, calling to mind what 1st Corinthians 1 has to say about those who are wise in their own eyes: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. … Elohim has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise… [and] the things which are mighty … and things which are despised… to bring to nothing things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence “(vs. 19, 27-29). In the end, it is YHVH’s sovereignty that prevails far above any and all of man’s feeble attempts at controlling life.  

The last section of the Parasha is part of next week’s episode, related in Parashat Pinchas. That which was not achieved by war or by sorcery is now being accomplished by seduction. [6] In 25:3 we read: “And Israel joined himself to Baal of Pe’or”. In the former narrative, chapter 22:41, mention was made of Bamot Ba’al, the “high places of Ba’al”, as being one of the sites designated by Balak from which Bil’am was to curse Yisrael. Several places later, when Balak’s aspirations were not realized, he took the seer to Rosh (the “head of”) Pe’or (23:28). This introduces us to both Ba’al and Pe’or; premonitions, as it were, to the above-quoted tragic words, describing how Yisrael “joined himself [va’yitza’med – “clung”] to Ba’al of Pe’or”. Is it a coincidence that Pe’or is similar to the verb “pa’or” (p.a.r, pey, ayin, resh), which means to “open wide”, such as is employed by Yisha’ya’hu (Isaiah) in 5:14: “Therefore hell has enlarged herself, and opened [“pa’ara") her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoices, shall descend into it”?   

“Then YHVH said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before YHVH, out in the sun, that the fierce anger of YHVH may turn away from Israel’" (25:4). The verb used here for “hang” is quite unusual, it is of the root y.k.h (yod, kof, ayin) which also means “to dislocate”. Since the leaders did not ‘dislocate’ or ‘dislodge out of place’ the flagrant sins committed, together with the sinners, they are the ones who are to be ‘dislocated’ themselves, by being hung (but which appears not to have taken place).  

 

1 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press,  Chicago,  980.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 New Studies in Devarim, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y

5 Ibid.

6 Gill Commentary, Online Bible

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Chu'kat –Bamidbar (Numbers) 19 – 22:1

  

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) 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 the 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, pey/fey) employs the identical root for “burning” that is found several times in the course of the red heifer passage.

 

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.2 The serpents’ title points to their characteristic of “burning” or of being “firey” (“saraf”), with the word for serpent being “nachash” and therefore the bronze object made by Moshe was called “nachash” – serpent - ha’nchoshet” (of the) brass. The play on words and alliteration continues 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 is 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 Yisrael supposed to do so, especially as they were just about to enter the land He gave them! An example of a proverbial and potential response of rocks is stated by Yeshua. On His way to Yerushalayeem, 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: the people’s rebellion and Moshe’s ensuing action, and secondly, the Edomites’ retort, are characterized by “turning” and “diversions” (of the root n.t.h – noon, tet, hey) from YHVH’s intended path.

 

In the attempt to appease the Edomites (by approaching their king) Moshe says: “Thus says your brother Israel…” (20:4 italics added) is a gesture of creating peaceful coexistence between “Esav” and “Yaacov-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 Israelites 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.” 3   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 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 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 actually 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 from 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.  

Lift Up Your Eyes

 Lift Up Your Eyes

It is not unusual to be talking about the weather these days.  Here in Israel, the month of June is normally devoid of rain and temperatures can vary from hot to warm in just a few hours.  For our 41^st wedding anniversary, we decided to go to Eilat, which in the week before experienced sudden floods and this week a tremendous sand storm (all of which we were spared from), and do some snorkeling in the Reeds Sea. It is an activity that we both enjoy very much, as it takes us back, so to speak, to the 5^th day of creation, where and when one can experience what the scriptures meant by, “and Elohim saw that is was good” (Genesis 1:21).  Under the water the utter silence is quite remarkable. This quietness reminded me of the meaning of Yeshua’s words, “Peace be still”.  While your ears relish the lack of clamor, your eyes soon open to feast on the multitude of colors that are moving gracefully in front or below you, welcoming you into their world.  There seems to be an absence of fear in these sea creatures while they swim and move around you.  Even the rocks and the corrals illuminate the colors of the glory of YHVH’s throne room. Thankfully we didn’t run into any sea monsters; ) except for a few black creatures about our size with strange-looking humps on their backs.

Another experience that we had a couple of days ago, this time ‘in the 6^th day of creation’, was almost as dynamic as the underwater one.  What we witnessed was a scene that exemplified the two sticks of Ephraim and Judah being drawn closer to each other. This took place during the 60th-anniversary celebration of a very prosperous German-Canadian Christian kibbutz (Bet El). We attended one of the four celebration evenings, one in which 400 of the kibbutz’s 800 Jewish Israeli employees were present. The outdoor venue (their school’s play yard with an adjacent lawn) was beautifully decorated, booths of elegantly displayed food and drinks flanked the area and after milling around for some time, the program began, with many words of thanks to a variety of figures, groups, and towns for being helpful and welcoming to these “German non-Jews”, but gratitude was mainly directed to the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Although, truth be told, at first the community struggled greatly to be accepted here, but that part was not mentioned). The words of ‘this’ Elohim continued to accompany the ceremony by being projected on a large screen, being sung by the children and kibbutz members, and spoken in a long message (all in Hebrew) that was delivered by the CEO and head elder of the kibbutz community. When sharing chronologically on the development in the course of their 60 years in the land, the elder chose the theme that accompanied the Forefathers’ journey in the land, particularly focusing on how they had to “lift up” their eyes to keep seeing their awaiting promises. In the same manner, each further development and expansion of the Bet El community began with “lifting up” the eyes further, into the vision, and then taking the first steps toward it by faith.  

We were amazed and blessed by this analogy and comparison to the Forefathers of Israel, as by and large the members of the community see themselves as “foreigners” and “gentiles” who have come to bless us – Israel. At this point, I could not help but see how the blessings and prosperity enjoyed by them, the gift that they are to the land and its people, and also all the benefits of YHVH’s goodness that have been showered already on this nation, are akin to the parable of the prodigal son, whose older brother, although unhappy at his return, yet is reminded by the father that nothing has been withheld from him. But as to the younger brother, “he was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found” (Luke 15:24).  Most certainly, if it were not for “life from the dead”, this “Christian” - kibbutz community would not have been able to achieve what it has. More importantly, it could not have made such inroads of blessings penetrating almost every layer of Israeli society, for which it has gained recognition, appreciation, and love. 

Thus, if we “lift up our eyes” we will be able to look and see further, at what neither one of the above-mentioned groups has yet been able to envision, and that is how the Father is reassuring His older son of His love,  endeavoring to put confidence in his heart, and at the same time how He is in the process of welcoming back His prodigal, putting on him the “best robe… a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet”, killing “the fattened calf”, and commanding all to “eat and be merry” (Luke 15:22-23). 

What we were able to observe, that is Ephraim and Judah’s relationship as they are working daily side by side, even in the present conditions, is only a foretaste of what our Elohim’s faithfulness will accomplish when He takes the two sticks from the prophet’s hand, making them ONE in His hand and in His land.   

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Sh'lach Le'cha - Bamidbar (Numbers) 13 - 15

"And YHVH spoke to Moses, saying, 'Send out for yourself men and they shall spy out the land of Canaan…” (Num. 13:1-2). In the course of their second year of wandering in the desert, it was time for the Israelites to 'touch base' with the Promised Land. Twelve leaders of the tribes were therefore commissioned "to spy out" this piece of property (Cf. Dvarim 1:22-23, where it says that the people had initiated this expedition, which was looked upon favorably by YHVH).  These leaders were singled out individually, as we read in 13:2,3: “… from each tribe of their fathers you shall send a man, every one a leader among them… all of them men, heads of the children of Israel”.  The Hebrew is even more emphatic; for “from each tribe… every one…” it reads: “one man, one man” and continues, “every elevated leader… all of them men, the heads of the sons of Israel” (italics added). These individuals were assigned a complex task that potentially could turn in various directions, as the Hebrew verb for "spying out" - "tour" - implies. Aside from "spying out", "tour" also means "to observe, seek, search, reconnoiter, explore, examine and follow". However, "tour's" primal meaning is to “turn".1

  

In the middle of last week's Parashat B'ha'a’lot’cha we read: "And they set forward from the mount of YHVH three days' journey; and the ark of the covenant of YHVH went before them three days' journey, to seek out [“tour”] a resting-place for them" (10:33 italics added). We are thus informed that before any "touring" could take place, and before any human reports could be filed, it was first and foremost YHVH Himself who did the "seeking" - "tour" - of a resting place for His people. In that was also a promise that He would continue to do so not only in the wilderness but also in the land which they were about to enter and possess. Let us now follow the band of twelve on their journey.

 

Which way will they turn, as they set forth on their "touring" expedition? Will their mission be marked by genuine exploration and seeking YHVH's face, clinging to Him when faced with challenges (of which there will be no shortage in the new territory)? Will they see the land through His eyes, or will their experience prove to be a mere sightseeing tour, inspecting the 'attractions' of the land and expressing dissatisfaction if their expectations are not met? And above all, since these men were singled out so categorically, inferring that each of them was a strong individual; would they be able to come to an agreement at the end of the day?

 

When YHVH tells Moshe to send the twelve He says, "shla'ch le'cha", meaning "send forth for yourself [or, on your behalf]…" recalling a similar and a likewise vigorous call many years beforehand. “Lech le'cha", or "go forth (for yourself)" (Gen. 12:1), were the words that set off Avram from his "land and from [his] kindred, and from [his] father's house", toward the land which YHVH was about to show him. Both dispatches were marked by a certain sense of expediency and urgency to “get going". The first 'send-off’ was followed implicitly, resulting in a successful mission despite a number of setbacks. Although living as a nomad, Avram/Avraham was no "tourist" in the Promised Land. He took YHVH at His word, to “rise up, walk through the land, its length and its breadth, for I will give it to you" (Gen. 13:17). When Moshe heard the words "sh'lach le'cha", the centuries-old story of the father of the Hebrew nation must have resounded in his heart. What wouldn't he have given to be numbered among the twelve?! What, then, does he have in mind when he follows YHVH's instruction to "sent them to spy out, to examine, to check - "la'tour" - the land of Canaan…”? (Num. 13:17).

 

Moshe’s instructions are very specific: "And you shall see the land, what it is, and the people who are living on it, whether it is strong or feeble; whether it is few or many; and what the land is… whether good or bad; and what are the cities… whether in camps or in fortresses; and what the land is, whether it is fat or lean; whether wood is in it or not…" (verses 18-20). Moshe is seeking information of facts and figures that are necessary for strategic purposes, and not for scrutinizing Elohim's plan for the nation of Yisrael. Additionally, the responses of the delegates will expose their deep inner convictions, “whether strong or feeble”, “whether good or bad”, and ‘whether full of faith or following natural inclinations".

 

But regardless of what the intelligence will turn out to be, the Nation’s leader has a certain end view in mind: "And you shall make yourselves strong and shall take of the fruit of the land" (13:20, literal translation, italics added). Paraphrased, Moshe's words may sound something like this, "If you rely on YHVH's strength and on the power of His might, you shall succeed and partake of the fruit of the land". This appears, then, to be the nature of the "tour" that Moshe had intended for the dozen leaders. Hopefully, these leaders’ reports will be a testimony of encouragement, in order to build up their compatriots’ faith.

 

The Biblical narrative elaborates on the mission, and so we read the ‘headlines’: "And they went up and spied out the land… And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days… And they reported to him… "(13:21, 25, 27 italics added).  The faithful messengers apparently did according to Moshe's bidding, and in addition also found the land to be "flowing with milk and honey" (verse 27), evidence of which was the fruit that they had picked and which they were now bringing to their leader, just as he had asked them to do. So far so good…

 

However, what started out as a promising report suddenly came to a screeching halt: "e'fes!” "E'fes" translated here as "however" or “nevertheless” (13:28), is followed by the envoys' very negative descriptions.  The literal meanings of "e'fes" are: “to cease or come to an end" and hence "extremity" (such as "ends of the earth" in Deut. 33:17), as well as "naught or nothing" (Is. 34:12), and "only." "E'fes" turns what promised to be a positive report into an extremely negative one.  One of the characteristics, which the report attributed to the land, was that it “devours its inhabitants”, or literally “eats up” its inhabitants (13:32).  Verse 30 depicts a conflict of opinions, as Calev (Caleb) “stills the people", assuring them of their ability to take the land.  A little later on Calev and Yehoshua continue to exhort the people: “Only do not rebel against YHVH, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and YHVH is with us. Do not fear them” (14:9 italics added). Thus, instead of the land devouring them, they would devour (or consume) their future enemies, if they would only obey YHVH.

 

Additionally, the two faithful messengers observe, “their protection has departed from them”, which in Hebrew is, “their shadow has departed…” Calev and Yehoshua paint a totally different picture from the one that was just presented. They counter the description of “men of great stature, giants” (ref. 13:32,33) with a depiction that ascribes to the enemy “no shadow”, as if he has no substance at all, so as not to even cast a (proverbial) shadow.

 

But when the evil reporting does not cease, "Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, of those who spied out the land, tore their garments; and they spoke to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, saying, 'The land into which we passed, to spy it out, is an exceedingly good land'" (14:6-7 italics added). The eyes of these two devoted witnesses had seen something altogether different when they made their "tour" of the Land of C’na’an; evidently, they were of "another spirit" (v. 24), and thus both of them were to be rewarded by entering the land and possessing it (ref. v. 24, 30). As for the rest, their punishment was pronounced by YHVH: "By the number of the days in which you spied out [“tour”] the land, forty days, a day for a year, a day for a year; you shall bear your iniquities forty years…" (v. 34).  The "tour" of the other ten resulted in what became for the entire body of the People of Yisrael a wandering “tour” in the wilderness, while for those dispatched it spelled an immediate death by a plague (ref. v.37).

 

By following their own hearts and inclinations these leaders, who had been granted the privilege of walking ahead of the nation, brought calamity not only upon themselves, but also upon the entire nation.  This type of "going about after your own heart and your own eyes after which you go astray" (15:39, italics added) is, once again, defined by the verb "tour".  Thus, at the very end of Parashat Sh’lach Le'cha provision is made against the inherent condition of following, or going about after one's own heart and senses.  Hence the "tzitzit" (root tz.u.tz, tzadi, vav, tzadi meaning “bloom, burst out”, and by inference “protrude out” of one’s clothing, which explains the shape of the “fringes”), is introduced "to look at and remember all the commandments of YHVH, so as to do them and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined in order that you may remember to do all My commandments, and be holy to your Elohim” (15:39-40).

 

Let’s read part of this excerpt again, but in its literal translation this time: “And you shall not tour after your heart and after your eyes [leading] you to commit harlotry”. In other words, the unsteady and shifty heart is inclined to “tour”, followed by the eyes that are also easily given to deception, culminating in harlotry. The “touring” hearts and eyes in the previous section about the spies, certainly verified this description of the inner heart.

 

Appended to the tzitzit injunction are the words, "I am YHVH your Elohim who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your Elohim. I am YHVH your Elohim" (v. 41), to which we may add from Deuteronomy 1:33, "Who goes before you in the way to seek out ["la'tour"] a place for your camping, in fire by night, to show you the way in which you should go, and in a cloud by the day" (italics added, see also Ezekiel 20:6), as we also saw in last week's Parasha. Ultimately, for all of our own seeking, searching, and exploration - our so-called touring expeditions - it is YHVH who goes before us to “seek out - 'tour' – “a place” and “rest” for us, so that we, in turn, may turn to Him.

But as if to underscore that despite what has just taken place, the aftermath of the negative report, and the response of the people, the following chapter starts with "when you have come into the land you are to inhabit… and you make a burnt offering" (15:2-3). The promise to enter the land still stands firm and sure…  

 

 

Note: The English words "turn" and "tour" are derivatives of the Hebrew "tour", which we have just examined, having found their way to the English language via the Old French "tourner", meaning "to turn" (ref. The Word, Isaac E. Mozeson, Shapolsky Publishers, New York, 1989).

[1] The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson. Publishers,  Peabody, Mass. 1979.