We have reached
the end of Bamidbar (Numbers), and this time we will examine the two Parashot that
conclude this book. In the opening verses (30:1-2), Moshe is seen addressing
the “heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel”. The word used here for tribes is “ma’tot”
(plural, while singular is “ma’teh”). In Parashat Chu’kat we discovered that
“ma’teh” is a rod or a staff (like the one Moshe used to hit the rock, Num.
20:8-11), and that this word is rooted in the verb to “stretch out” but that it
also means to “incline, turn, or turn away”. Thus, by implication, “ma’teh” is used for
“tribe”, emanating from the ‘rod of authority' in the hand of the respective
tribal leaders. (The other word for tribe, “shevet”, also means a “rod”.) In both our Parashot, “mateh” is used solely
for “tribe” or “tribes” (e.g. 31:4; 32:28).
In Vayikra (Leviticus) 26:26 we encountered another “staff”, that is “ma’teh
lechem” which is the “staff of bread”. There it was used metaphorically for
that which is leaned (or depended) upon, as indeed our bodies cannot do without
bread (used there as a generic term for “food”).
The first part of Parashat Ma’tot deals
with oaths and prohibitions, and their annulments (see Matt. 18:18-19). The
passage starts with the mention of a vow or oath undertaken by a man and
underscores the strict prohibition not to "break" them.
"Break" or "annul" here is "yachel", which is
rooted in ch.l.l, a multi-meaning root that we examined several times in the
past. Here it points to "profaning", implying the profaning of the
name of YHVH, as at the beginning of the verse it stated clearly that the oath
and/or vow were made to Him. Continuing, in 30:3-5 we read: “And when a woman
vows a vow to YHVH, and has bound a bond in the house of her father in her
youth, and her father has heard her vow… and her father has remained silent…
then all her vows shall stand... But if her father has prohibited her in the
day he heard, none of her vows and her bond with which she has bound her soul
shall stand. And YHVH will forgive her because her father prohibited her”. “Prohibited” in both instances in this
passage is “heh’nee,” of the root n.o.h (noon, vav, alef) meaning “hinder,
restrain, or frustrate”. Similarly, in verse 8, the same verb is
used: “If in the day her husband hears, he prohibits her…” (emphasis
added). (In this there is a fascinating connection to the book of Esther) **
The latter part of Parashat Ma’tot
(chapter 32) presents the story of the sons of Re’uven and Gad who express to
Moshe their desire to settle in the land of Gil’ad, on the eastern shore of the
Yarden (Jordan). However, Moshe, being concerned that they may be separating
themselves from their brethren and that their move could hurt the rest of the
people, voices his misgivings and says: “And why do you discourage the heart of
the sons of Israel from passing over to the land which YHVH has given to
them? So your fathers did when I sent
them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land. And they went up to the valley of
Eshcol and saw the land, and discouraged the hearts of the sons of Israel”
(32:7-9). Here we find the verb n.o.h
once again, but this time translated as “discourage or discouraged”.
Moshe attributes the same motives that operated in the hearts of the ten spies
(in Parashat Sh’lach Lecha, Num. 13-15) to the two and a half tribes wishing to
settle on the Yarden’s eastern shore. He
construes their wish as being one that would frustrate YHVH’s
will, while at the same time incurring frustration in his listeners, who no
doubt were concerned that their leader would frustrate their plans. Frustration
and a feeling of hindrance would also be the experience of a woman, who
after taking a vow and/or restricting herself in some way for Godly reasons and
in good conscience, is prevented from going through with her
commitments.
The origin of the verb n.o.h is “rise
with difficulty” [1] illustrating what we have noticed time and again, namely
that Hebrew is a very concrete language and thus most of its abstract terms are
borrowed from the tangible world. Two
other such terms in this Parasha are “bind” (see 30:3,4,5,6 ff), which
is “assor” (a.s.r., alef, samech, resh) and means “imprison or imprisoned”
(e.g. Gen. 40:3; Jud. 15:12-13; 1Sam. 6:7). Another one is “annul or make
void” – “ha’fer” (in 30:12), whose root is “porer” (p.r.r. pey,
resh, resh) and means to “crumble, break, shatter or destroy”.
Returning to Moshe’s exhorting address to
the two-and-a-half tribes; the agined leader expresses his concern lest their
actions would give rise to a “brood of sinful men” (32:14). The word
used there is “tarbut”, which is of the root “rav” meaning “much, many,
or great”, and is therefore simply a derivation of “increase or add”.
Thus, Moshe is talking about an increase or spread of evil among them, without
pointing to an existing grouping or a particular “brood”. In verses 14b and 15 he adjoins: “[Lest] you
still [will] add more to the burning anger of YHVH against
Israel. For if you turn away from Him, He will add more to His
abandoning of them [i.e. Yisrael] in the desert…” (literal translation). “Add more” here is “lispot” and “vayasaf”. The
first of these can be easily related to “safoh” (s.p.h, samech, peh, hey) which
often means “destruction” (e.g. Genesis 18:23). Moshe is concerned that the
actions of the Reuvenites, Gaddaites, and Menashites would bring about an increase
of evil and in this manner add to YHVH’s anger, adding disciplinary
measures, resulting in more suffering for the people as a whole.
Another main theme in our Parasha is the
command directed at Moshe to “execute vengeance… against the Midianites,
afterward, you [Moshe] shall be gathered to your people” (31:2). In the
preparations leading to this eventuality, Moshe calls out for men to be
“prepared for the army” (31:3 literal translation). However, “he-chal’tzu” (with root
ch.l.tz, chet, lamed, tzadi), which is the command used here for “be prepared”,
actually means to “draw, pull out, or remove” (such as
“removing” one’s shoe by pulling it, Deut. 25:9). Thus, the literal rendering
of 31:3 should be: “Draw out from amongst yourselves men for the army…” Rabbi
Mordechai Eilon, quoting Rabbi Yitzchak Arama, stresses that although the
expression “draw out from amongst yourselves” is about a select group, it points
to the ‘whole’ from which this group is to be drawn, implying the involvement
of the entire group. In this way, being represented by the “cha’luztim” (plural
for “cha’lutz”, “those who plod ahead;” see also 32:20, 21 translated “arm
yourself”), the whole army will be participating in the battle. Aside from
meaning “drawn out”, the root ch.l.tz also speaks of being removed from one’s
customary environment and comfort zone, indicating that the vanguards were
willing to venture and forge the way ahead of everyone else. The additional
meaning of the verb cha’letz - “to rescue and deliver” (used several times in
the Psalms) - is compatible with the
readiness of the two-and-a-half tribes to help their brethren.
Given this, when the Re’uvenites and Gaddites
declare later (in 32:17): “We shall ourselves go armed” (which reads,
“va’necha’letz”, again of the root ch.l.tz), their intent appears much clearer.
They are saying in fact that after making basic provisions for their families
and livestock, they will “remove” themselves from all that is familiar to them
and will “hurry and go ahead of the sons of Israel until we bring them to the
place which is theirs…” (32:17, literal translation). In his response, Moshe states that each of
them is to be a “cha’lutz” for his brother (while stressing that failing to do
so will be considered a sin “before YHVH” vs. 20-23). Their response is again marked by the term
“cha’lutz” (v. 27). Moshe repeats this condition; namely, that only if they
will act as “chalutzim” will they be entitled to land on the Yarden’s eastern
shore. In their reply, the Gaddaites and
Re’uvenites confirm their readiness to “go over… as chalutzim… before YHVH into
the land of Canaan, so that the land of our inheritance on that side of Jordan
may be ours” (v. 32).
Interestingly,
the first time the root ch.l.tz shows up in Scripture is in Genesis 35:11,
where the Almighty promises Abraham that, “…a nation and a company of nations
shall come from you, and kings shall come out of your loins” (sometimes
translated “body”). “Loins” in that text
is “chalatza’yim” - the strong body part. The root ch.l.tz also lends itself to
festive or royal robes. Yehoshua the High Priest was dressed in such robes
(ma’ch’la’tzot) in exchange for his filthy ones (ref. Zech. 3:4). Finally, in the Hebrew translation of Hebrews
6:20, Yeshua, as the forerunner who entered behind the veil for us, is called
“Yeshua he’cha-lutz”.
Aside
from declaring their willingness to go forth as a vanguard before their
brethren in their campaign to take over the land, the two tribes also use
another term (translated “ready to go”, 32:17) – chushim – which underscores
their determination and readiness to act “hastily” (see Is. 60:22). At the same
time, they also describe to Moshe their plans (regarding their land in the
eastern side of the Jordan), saying:” We will build sheepfolds here for our
livestock, and cities for our little ones...” (32:16). Moshe, for his part
repeats these words a little later, with a slight modification: “Build
cities for your little ones and folds for your sheep...” (v. 24). The
experienced leader resets their priorities, ‘take care of your families and
then attend to your flocks...’
Chapters
33-36 constitute Parashat Masa’ey, the last in Bamidbar, which starts with:
“These are the journeys of – “mas’ey” - the sons of Israel…
(33:1, emphasis added), “and Moses wrote their departures according to their
journeys by the mouth of YHVH. And these are their journeys, according to their
departures” (v. 2). Although Moshe is entirely familiar with the journeys and
the name of each location that the people of Yisrael had gone through, and/or
encamped at, the account which will now follow (vs. 3- 49) is dictated to him
“by the mouth of YHVH”.
Wondering
as to the importance of these technical details, some of the sages, including
Rashi, have concluded that this list was to serve as a reminder to the people
of YHVH’s watchfulness over them, and of His attention to every detail about
their lives and destiny. Thus, the name
of each place is used as a device to invoke in them the memory of YHVH’s care
for them. According to Maimonides, the
names of the places are a testimony intended to verify that they have indeed
stayed at the locations mentioned; places where only YHVH Himself could have
sustained them, thusly bringing to their minds the miracles that He wrought for
them. Sforno adds to this: “The Lord
blessed be He desired that the stages of the Israelites’ journeyings be written
down to make known their merit in their going after Him in a wilderness, in a
land that was not sown [ref. Jer. 2:2] so that they eventually deserved to
enter the land. ‘And Moses wrote’ – he
wrote down their destination and place of departure. For sometimes that place
for which they were headed was evil and the place of departure good… Sometimes
the reverse happened. He wrote down too the details of their journeyings
because it involved leaving for a new destination without any previous notice,
which was very trying. Despite all this, they kept to the schedule…’ In other
words, according to Sforno the Torah shows us both sides of the coin. We have
been shown am Yisrael “composed of rebels and grumblers, having degenerated
from the lofty spiritual plane of their religious experience at Mount Sinai…
Now the Torah changes its note and shows us the other side of the picture,
Israel loyal to their trust, following their God through the wilderness… They
followed Him despite all the odds, through the wildernesses of Sinai, Etham,
Paran and Zin… that was also a place of fiery serpents and scorpions and
drought where there was no water, where our continued existence would have been
impossible, were it not?for?the?grace?of?God…”[2]
Upon
completing the inventory of the (past) journeys, attention is now being turned
to the future: the boundaries of the land of Promise, the names of the men who
are to help the people possess their inheritance, the cities apportioned to the
Levites, and the cities of refuge. Thus, we read in Chapter 34 the details
regarding the extent of the territory of the inheritance. In an era when
defined borders did not exist, this was a novelty that underscores, once again,
the importance YHVH attaches to the land and its occupation. About the land of
C’na’an it says that it “shall fall to you as an inheritance” (v.2
emphasis added). The usage of this verb in this context demonstrates that
Yisrael’s lot was predestined and predetermined. Additionally, it “… is the land which you shall inherit
by lot, which YHVH has commanded to give to the nine tribes and the
half-tribe” (emphasis added). As to the land that was to be occupied by the two
and a half tribes, in 34:13b-15 (according to the Hebrew text), it is written
that the two and a half tribes “took” their inheritance. Hence, a clear
distinction is made between the land which is apportioned and the land
that is taken by choice. It is here that YHVH also appoints those “who
will take possession of the land for you” (34:17ff). As to the cities of the
Levites, who are to dwell in the other tribes’ territories, it says: “Command
the sons of Israel that they give to the Levites cities to live in, from the
land of their possessions, and you shall give to the Levites open land for the
cities” (35:2).
“Open
land” (or “common land”) is “migrash”. One of the
words for “inheritance” is “yerusha” (e.g. 33:52, 53, the latter
used there in verb form “yarashtem”). The term “impoverish” is embedded In both
words (being a reference to the party from whom one’s inheritance is wrested).
“Migrash”, which the Levites were to be granted, is of the root g.r.sh (gimmel,
resh, shin) with its primary meaning to “cast or drive out”.
“Yerusha”, taking possession, is of the root y.r.sh (yod, resh, shin), and
connected to another root, r.sh.sh (resh, shin, shin) which means to “beat
down, shatter” and lends itself to the noun “rash” – “poor, poverty-stricken”
(e.g. 1st 18:23; 2nd Sam. 12;4 and several times in
Proverbs).
Hebrew
certainly does not conceal or embellish the hard-core facts and does not make
attempts at being politically correct.
As a matter of fact, from Matthew 11:12 we learn that the Kingdom of
Heaven is also “seized by force”. Thus,
in taking hold of YHVH’s possession (and their inheritance), the Israelites had
to “impoverish” and “cast out” the inhabitants of the land. When “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the
Egyptian… mocking, she said to Abraham, ‘Drive away [“ga’resh”] this slave-girl
and her son, for the son of this slave-girl shall not inherit [“yirash” – will
cause another to be impoverished] with my son, with Isaac’” (Gen. 21:9,10).
The
next topic is that of the cities of refuge and their respective guidelines, one
of which states that if a person has slain someone unintentionally, he is to
remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest and only then
return to the “land of his possession [inheritance]” (35: 25, 28). Similarly, it is only through the death of
our High Priest that we too have been released, and may now come out of our
proverbial confinement into the freedom of our inheritance (ref. Acts 20:32;
26:18; Eph. 1:11; Col. 3:24; Heb. 9:15). This fact gains even more validity
when we read the last part of the chapter: “And you shall take no ransom [kofer,
of the root k.f/p.r – kippur] for the life of a murderer; he is
punishable for death, for dying he shall die. And you shall take no ransom
[kofer] for him to flee to the city of his refuge, to return to dwell in
the land, until the death of the priest. And you shall not pollute the land in
which you are, for blood pollutes the land. And no ransom [kofer] is to be
taken for the land for blood which is shed in it, except for the blood of him
who sheds it; and you shall not defile the land in which you are living. I
dwell in its midst, for I, YHVH, am dwelling among the sons of Israel”
(35:31-34). The blood of Yeshua our High Priest has purified both ourselves and
our earthly inheritance, and at the same time has also gained for us a heavenly
one (ref. 1Pet. 1:4).
According
to the English translation, the cities of refuge are to be “selected” or
“appointed” (35:11). The Hebrew, on the
other hand, reads: “You shall cause cities to occur (for yourselves)… “ve’hik’re’tem”
– root k.r.h (kof, resh, hey, which we encountered in Gen. 24:12, Parashat
Cha’yey and Balak Num. 23:4,16). This expression is an oxymoron, as one’s will
is either actively involved, or else things occur in a happenstance manner, or
(more likely) by Providence beyond one’s control. Once again, the Hebraic
mentality presents a challenge, pointing to the place where Providence and
man’s choice meet, even at the expense of defying human logic.
YHVH’s
meticulous attention to the place He has set apart is seen again in the last
chapter of Parashat Masa’ey, where we learn that “no inheritance of the sons of
Israel shall turn from tribe to tribe, for each one of the sons of
Israel shall cling to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And any
daughter that possesses an inheritance from any tribe of the sons of Israel to
one of the families of the tribe of her father is to become a wife of
the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel may each
possess the inheritance of his father. And the inheritance shall not turn
from one tribe to another tribe. For the tribes of the sons of Israel shall
each one cling to its own inheritance, as YHVH commanded Moses” (36:7-9
emphases added). The word for “turn” here, is in the future tense, is “tisov”
of the root s.b.b (samech, bet, bet). “Savav” is to “turn about or go
around”. It is indicative of
mobility, unstableness, and temporariness. The usage of this verb here lends an
extra emphasis to the issue at hand: “For the tribes of Israel shall each cling
– yid’b’ku, adhere, cleave like glue - to its own
inheritance, as YHVH commanded…” In
B’resheet 2:24 we read: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and
will cleave/adhere/cling to his wife and they will become one flesh”. YHVH declares
above that He dwells in the midst of the land, among the sons of Yisrael (Num.
35:34), it is no wonder, therefore, that He is so very particular about the
set-up of His abode.
The
above paragraph is about the appeal made to Moshe by "the chief fathers of
the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh,
of the families of the sons of Joseph" (36:1). These ones are concerned
that Tzlofchad's daughters who have obtained permission to inherit their
deceased father's property will marry into different tribes and thus the tribal
inheritance, as we read above, will be lost. Moshe and the other leaders are
attentive to this request and find the solution quoted in the above paragraph.
What is striking about the passage in 36:1-4, when compared to Bamidbar 27:1-4,
where the original request was made by the young women, is the usage of several
identical terms/words. The daughter of Tzlofchad, literally, "drew
near" (va'tik'rav'na)… before Moshe
and the other leaders, as do the "fathers of the families of"
Manasseh – "vayik're'vu". The daughters are concerned lest their
father's name "be diminished" – va'yi'gara – as is also the concern
of the group of men from Manasseh, that "their inheritance will be",
again, "diminished"- yi'gara – from the inheritance of our fathers…
so it will be diminished – yi'gara – from the lot of our inheritance"
(Num. 27:4; 36:3). Thus, whereas there are opposing interests at hand in this
particular case, the usage of the same terms, concerning each of the parties,
reflects the acceptance and understanding granted to meet the need of each –
truly a "win-win" solution.
*“Parashot” plural for “Parasha”
(whereas “Parashat” is “Parasha of…”, hence “Parashat Matot” or
“Parashat Mas’ey”)
** When
Mordechai begged Esther to plead the Jews’ case before King Achashverosh, he
added that she could forfeit her life if she were to “keep silent” (Esther
4:14). Esther was to go and try to annul the king’s “vow”, much like the
husband or father in our Parasha in the case of his wife’s/daughter’s vow
making. In the Parasha, if the male were to keep silent (same word used in
Esther) for more than a day, the vow would remain valid but the said male would
bear its consequences, if there were any, just as Esther would have done had
she kept silent. Typical of the book of Esther’s “technique of opposites”, it
is the female who was in the position to annul a harmful vow taken by her
husband.
This point was
extracted from Rabbi Fohrman’s study of Esther
https://www.alephbeta.org/
In Shmot (Exodus) 19:8 and 24:7,
at the foot of Mt. Sinai, the People of Yisrael made a promise (oath or
vow-like) to obey YHVH. But since Yisrael did not keep her word, the ill consequences
ultimately fell on her. Because YHVH, her husband, did not annul her ‘vow’, He
too was ‘held responsible for her sin of breaking her promise-vow. This is seen
very clearly by the fact that Yeshua “bore her guilt”, as it says in 30:15 (see
also 1st Peter 2:24).
1. The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon,
Francis Brown Hendrickson.
Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.
2
New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman, Eliner Library, Department for Torah
Education and Culture in the Diaspora, Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.
