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). At the beginning of
the passage, mention is made of a vow or oath undertaken by a man, underscoring
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 being hindered were no doubt also 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 exhortive address to the two-and-a-half
tribes; the aged 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 concerned about the increase or spread of evil among them, but without
pointing to an existing source, group, 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).
Again, 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 “chalutz” (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, thus
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” – "cause
poverty", “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 attempt to be 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, while 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, 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, who are attentive to this request, find the solution, as
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment