Hebrew Insights into Parashat Balak Numbers 22:2 - 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), 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 such a great 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 is Bil’am’s visions, it is not surprising that sight, eyes, and other related terms are mentioned frequently (about 30 times), with the very opening words of the Parasha being: “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’. “Based on 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 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 he 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, before 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 impression created by the use of this term is that these meetings were almost coincidental or casual, 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 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 about Yisrael and 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 of 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’ the flagrant sins, together with the sinners, they are the ones who are supposed to be ‘dislocated’ by being hanged (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 provide insufficient information, leaving us wondering as to their full meaning. Nechama Leibowitz lists for us some of the queries that 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 'fiery, 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 several times, e.g. Ex. 29:36; Lev. 14:49, etc.). Interestingly, those preparing this mixture intended for purification themselves became defiled in the process. Similarly, although contaminated/defiled by sin, the blood of the 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 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 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 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). 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) as 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 this Parasha (forty years later, this time with the younger generation), there is an attempt to rectify, or redeem, these two issues. However, both attempts failed (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 “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, 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, now a chapter in our book Creation Revisited, addresses some of the Parasha’s themes. 

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.  

 

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Korah Numbers 16:1 - 18:32

 This week's Parasha features a central episode in the forty-year wilderness journey, the rebellion of Korach (Korah), Da’tan (Dathan), Aviram (Abiram), On, and 250 other leaders… princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown who… assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron…" (Num.16:2, 3). The above quotes, as well as the language employed in the rest of the discourse between the malcontents and Moshe, contain words and expressions which we have already encountered elsewhere. The use of these same words (or ones emanating from the same roots), albeit in different contexts, as well as the protagonists' method of echoing each other's expressions, intensifies the storyline and animates the characters and the issues at hand.

“And Korah the son of … took” are the opening words of the Parasha, continuing with the names of those who joined him. Although it does not say explicitly what Korach “took”, the list of the others who joined him and their collaboration underscores his underhanded opportunism, in an attempt to grab that which did not belong to him, or to any of the other men with him.

The "princes", with whom we commence the study, are called here "nesi'im" ("nasi" - singular, of the root n.s.a, meaning to "lift up"), just as were the leaders in Parashat Nasso (Num. 4:21ff). In the latter, we noted that "nasso", "lifting, carrying, raising", also means "to bear" and in 5:31 (of the same Parasha) it was used as the "bearing of sin" (re "being guilty"). However, the verb "bearing" may also indicate the bearing of another's sin in a sense of forgiveness, as is seen in Parashat Ki Tissa (whose title also means "lifting", being connected, in that case, to the census of the People). In the said Parasha (in Ex. 32:32), Moshe pleaded with YHVH on behalf of the people, in the wake of the Golden Calf episode, saying, "If you will forgive…" (or literally "bear"), in Hebrew: "eem tissa". In Bamidbar (Numbers) 11:11,12 (Parashat B'ha'alotcha), Moshe complains about "bearing" and "carrying" the people of Yisrael. “…You lay the burden (massa) of all this people upon me. Have I conceived this people? Did I bring them forth, that You should say to me, carry them (“sa'e'hu”) in your bosom like a nursing father carries (“yissa”) the sucking child, to the land which You swore to their fathers?" (Italics added). However, despite his momentary steam blowing, Moshe did in fact bear and carry the people. It was this very thing that gave him the right to be called a "nassi", one who is "lifted up", according to the words uttered by Yeshua, "whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant, and whoever desires to be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve…" (Mat. 20:26, 27).

Korach and company (who were of a different ilk) are also described here as "elect men of the assembly" (ref 16:2), or "k'ru'ey mo'ed". In Parashat Emor (Lev. 23:2-4), we recognized that the root k.r.a is to “call" and that "mikra" means "a called (out) assembly, a congregation, or a convocation". Thus, these leaders were not only "lifted up" but were also honored by being "called out" (translated here as "elect"). However, their "calling" does not stop there. They are also the "called out" of the "mo'ed", which is translated as "assembly", but if we refer again to Va’yikra (Leviticus) 23, we see that "mo’ed” stems from the root y.a'a.d (yod, ayin, dalet) and means "appoint, design, or designate". Thus, YHVH's special appointments, His feasts, are called "mo'adim", plural, and "mo'ed”, singular.  When we reviewed those concepts, we noticed that the people who are appointed and designated are collectively named "edah" (of the same root). Thus, the "nesi'im" (the “elevated ones”) are the "princes of the congregation", which is the "edah", or the "appointed assembly". 

How ironic that these "lifted up" individuals of the "appointed assembly", who have been "called", or "singled out", by "appointment" for special YHVH-designated" occasions, and who are also men of renown ("shem", i.e. "name"), are the very ones now "gathered… against Moshe and A'haron" (16:3)! These men did not understand that it was not for vainglory that they had been raised up. Although described as "men of name" (translated as "renown"), it was not their own names that were to be lifted, but the name of the One who had called and appointed them for His name's sake. Let us take note, though, that despite their flagrant behavior, their "company" (16: 5, 11,16, 21) is still termed here "eda," which is, as mentioned, an “appointed assembly".

These "nesi'im", in their blinded fury and haughtiness, decry YHVH's leaders of choice and dare challenge them, saying: "Why do you lift yourselves up [“tit'nas'u”] above the congregation of YHVH?" (16:3b italics added). Before that, they maintain: "This is too much ["rav"] for you, since all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and YHVH is among them" (16:3a literal translation, italics added). Moshe's initial response to these words is to fall on his face, after which he says: "In the morning YHVH will show who are His, and him who is holy, and will cause him to come near to Him; even him whom He has chosen, He will cause to come near to Him. Do this, take fire pans, Korah and all his company, and put fire in them, and put incense in them before YHVH tomorrow. And it shall be the man whom YHVH chooses, he shall be holy. This is too much ["rav", again] for you, sons of Levi!” (16:5-7 literal translation, italics added). This is too much for you" - "rav la'chem" - is the expression employed by the rebels. Moshe was not unaware of their every word, and answered them ‘tit for tat’. As he continues, he says, "Is it a small ("m'at" - opposite of "rav") thing to you that the Elohim of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near Himself to do the service of the tabernacle of YHVH and to stand before the congregation to minister to them? And He has brought you near…" (v. 9, 10, italics added). Notice above (v. 5), Moshe claims that the one whom YHVH chooses, that one "He will bring near" (k.r.v, the same root as "offering" or "sacrifice"), and now he states that they have already been brought near by their very position. But not being satisfied with their lot, they are coveting the priesthood too, "therefore you and all your company are gathered against YHVH" (v. 11, italics added). The "company", once more, is "eda", while "gathering against" is "no'adim", of the same root - y.a’a.d - which, as we have seen, means "appointed". 

Thus, those who used to take part in YHVH's appointed congregation, feasts, and service are now gathered for another 'appointment', this time engendered by their evil and rebellious intent against YHVH's servants. Still, in so doing, they are actually 'ganging up' against YHVH Himself. In last week's Parasha, an identical term was used in relationship to the "eda" (assembly), that was "gathered against" YHVH (14:35).

The sad story continues… Again, notice the wording, "And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. And they said, 'We will not come up. Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land that flows with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but must you also seize dominion over us?'" (16:12, 13 italics added). In their defiance, Da’tan and Aviram are determined to not "come up" ("na'aleh"), while this is followed by their accusation, "is it a small thing…" – ham'at" - echoing Moshe's words in verse 9: "is it a small thing to you that the Elohim of Israel…?" Their excuse for "not going up" (“lo na’alea”) is that it was Moshe who "brought them up" ("he'e'li'tanu", again of the root for “going up") from "a land flowing with milk and honey", and has not brought them into "a land flowing with milk and honey" as he had promised (v. 13, 14; see Ex. 3:8).  In this way, these two are responsible for twisting YHVH's promises and substituting truth for a lie by portraying the land of their slavery and bondage as a dreamland of the past. In contrast, the supposed grim present holds no promises for the future. They choose to make their point by not only repeating and twisting Moshe’s own words but also by employing the verb for “going/bringing up” (root a.l.h) in a way that imbues their statement with thick sarcasm. They maintain that the purpose for having been "brought up" to the desert was to "cause them to die", and so that Moshe could "dominate them with dominion" – tis’ta'rer hista'rer". "Sar" is the root of "dominion", and it also constitutes another word for "prince", from whence the term "Prince of Peace" ("Sar Shalom") is derived, as well as the names Sarah and Yisrael.  They seal their harangue by accusing Moshe of not having given them "inheritance in fields and vineyards", adding: "Will you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up ["lo na'aleh", again]" (16:14, italics added). Their ultimate end - of "descending/going down alive into Sheol" (v. 30) - sheds an eerie light on their repeated refusal to “go up".  Moreover, by stating so emphatically their refusal to go up, they were actually pronouncing their own doom. Indeed, “death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21).

Moshe's next comment, "I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of them" (16:15), is reminiscent of Shmu'el's soliloquy in Shmu’el Alef (1^st Samuel) 12:3: "Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed?"  The accusations hurled against Moshe are in stark contrast to his description in Parashat B'ha'alotcha. Miriam and Aharon's slander against their brother was met there by the words: "Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all the men on the face of the earth" (Num. 12:3). In light of this statement, the present malicious words against him seem even more unjust and deplorable.

Now Moshe is angry - "(va)yichar le-Moshe"! (16:15). In Parashat B’ha’a’lotcha we encountered the same term for anger, which was appended to the nose (ref. Bamidbar 11:1), and thus it was the “burning of/in the nose”. Moshe's anger here is followed by the injunction to the band of rebels to “light up” incense on their fire pans and to let YHVH judge them and the situation (v. 17). YHVH commands Moshe and Aha'ron to separate themselves from this "eda" (congregation, assembly), so that the latter may be "consumed" or "devoured" as by fire (v. 21). Finally, after Korach, Da’tan and Aviram, and some of their company, are swallowed up, "a fire came forth from YHVH and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered incense" (16:35, literal translation, italics added). In Bamidbar 26:11, it says, quite curiously, that “the children of Korach did not die”. Indeed, the sons of Korach are recorded as the writers of 11 of the Psalms (although they would have been of a later generation of Korach’s children). Here is a quote from Hebrew Insights into Parashat Bamidbar, which ties right into the matter at hand: "… the chosen family of K'hat (Kohath) was to dismantle the Mishkan when it was time to move on.  During this awesome procedure, they had to restrain themselves and avert their gaze from the holy articles, with the help of A'haron and his sons (Num. vs 19, 20). "They shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered, lest they die", is the Parasha's last verse, which literally says, "And they shall not go in to see, at the swallowing of the holy things [lest] they die". The usage here of "swallow" ("bela") for "covering" the Mishkan articles is very unusual. It may be alluding to the fact that an unwarranted gaze could bring upon the onlookers (that is, the members of the K'hat clan) the penalty of being swallowed alive (a form of punishment which was inflicted supernaturally upon offenders), such as in the case of Korah in Num. 16:30-34. Thus, those whose task was to carry the holy articles in their covering  (in such a manner as if to render them 'swallowed'), when discontented with this position, and deeming themselves holy, brought upon themselves a "swallowing.

In 16:9, we read that the Elohim of Yisrael separated Korach and his band in order to "bring you near Himself to do the service of the tabernacle". "Separated" there was "hivdil", being of the root b.d.l (bet, dalet, lamed), "to divide, separate, set apart, exclude, and single out".  Later, before punishment is meted out to this group, YHVH tells Moshe and Aharon to "separate" themselves from “this congregation" (v. 21). There too the root b.d.l is used ("hibadlu"). Thus, when those who have been called and separated out by YHVH, according to His order and method of selection, oppose His ways, they become separated and set apart from the rest of the community, but this time for reproof of the severest kind.  Further, YHVH says to the congregation (of Yisrael): "Turn away from the tents of these wicked men" (v. 26). "Turn away" is "suru", of the root "sur" (samech, vav, resh), whereas in verse 15 Moshe asks YHVH to “not turn" to these men's offerings, using the root panoh (with "panim – face” being its derivative). We have dealt with "p.n.h" several times, and found that it indicates a "turning toward", in contrast to "sur", which is a "turning away from".  A "sorer" (again, of the root “sur”) is a stubborn rebel (e.g., Deut. 21:18,20) – an apt description of these 250 and some individuals. 

Interestingly, the bronze fire pans used by the sinners were to be salvaged from the fire, reshaped and made into plates for the altar's covering, thus rendering these objects sanctified. This was to be a visible sign and a warning to and for the Children of Yisrael, so that in the future no one who was not of the seed of Aha'ron would attempt again to “come near” and offer incense before YHVH, “so that he may not be as Korah and as his company” (16: 40).

Only one day goes by, and the people begin to complain again, saying to Moshe and Aha’ron: "You have brought death [“ha'mitem”] on the people of YHVH" (v. 41, italics added), thus echoing the words of Da’tan and Aviram to Moshe in 16:13 ("you have brought us up here… to cause us to die - le'hamitenu"). In both cases, the root is "ma'vet", that is, “death” (m.v.t - mem, vav, tav). Once again, the cloud covers the Tent of Meeting and the glory of YHVH appears (ref 16:42), much like the description in verse 19, where the same thing took place in front of Korach and company. This time YHVH admonishes Moshe (and Aha'ron) to stand back, as He is about to “consume” the congregation, using the very same verb which we encountered above (in 16:21). Moshe and Aha'ron fall on their faces, as they did previously (see V. 22), contrary to what YHVH told them this time, which was to "elevate themselves" – hey'romu - of the root r.o.m (resh, vav, mem). What started out as a plague was halted by Aha'ron's action of kindling the incense on fire pans, with fire obtained from the altar.  Running through the camp, holding on to the fire pans to "make an atonement… for wrath has gone out from YHVH" (v. 46), Aha'ron brought the plague to an end (standing “between the dead and the living” v. 48). The "wrath" described here is termed "ketzef", k.tz.f. (kof, tzadi, fey), which is also found in verse 22, when Moshe and Aah'ron display their concern for the entire congregation of Yisrael upon the mutiny of Korach and his band, saying: "Shall one man sin and will You be angry [“tiktzof”] with all the congregation?" (Italics added). Thus, the entire congregation of Yisrael, far from learning the lesson displayed before them the previous day, re-enacted the mutinous scenario.

Following the major affront dealt to the office of the priesthood and the roles of the Levites, the rest of the Parasha is devoted to reconfirming their uniqueness by the blossoming of Aha'ron's rod, which is the ultimate evidence, witness, and testimony of YHVH's choice. It was for this reason that another title is being accorded here to the Tent of Meeting. Ohel Ha’edut, that is, Tent of the Testimony/Witness, replaces its usual title of Ohel Mo’ed (17:7).  A female witness happens to be “eda”, being the same as the word for “band or congregation” employed so often in our Parasha. This new term may be hinting at the (poor) ‘testimony’ of the assembly - “eda” - as compared to YHVH’s true witness, represented by the Tent of the Testimony (Ohel Ha’edut).

Aha’ron’s dead rod "had budded and had brought forth buds, and had bloomed blossoms, and had yielded almonds" (17:8). This is a display in front of the entire nation of the miracle of life, as it sprouts out of death - death that has been so characteristic of these last episodes. As we have already noted (in Parashat Trumah, Ex. 25:31-40 regarding the Menorah), almond is "sha'ked", which is of the root sh.k.d (shin. kof. dalet) meaning to “watch and to be diligent". The famous passage in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 1:11, 12 teaches us of YHVH's watchful determination to perform His word. Here too, after a line of incidents and insurrections, complaining, and disciplinary measures, YHVH is pointing to His irreversible will (marked by resurrection power) in carrying out His word and accomplishing it, despite and in the face of all opposition. 

The cynical tone which accompanied the dialogues between Moshe and the rebels does not cease, even to the very bitter end that finds the protagonists. The Hebrew text which describes the horrifying scene of their death refers to it thus: “And if YHVH creation will create [translated ‘will do a new thing’] and the earth will open up its mouth and will swallow…” etc (16:30). How is it that an act of “creation” is appended to this most morbid scene of death and annihilation? Yes, the “creation” here is referenced as a new action by the Almighty, albeit a negative one. But, at the same time, the root b.r.a (bet, resh, alef) for “bara”, create, is also used in the verb “ba’reh”, which means to “remove” (such as in Yehoshua 17:15,18 where it is “to clear” and “to cut down”). Thus, the “removal” of the rebels in this most unusual way was underscored by the usage of an equally unusual term.