Matos-Massei: The (United) Tribes of Israel

Matos-Massei:

וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה יְ

Moses spoke to the heads of the Israelite tribes, saying: This is what Gd has commanded

This introduces the last reading in the narrative Torah. Moses now presents the law to an assembly, the heads of the tribes.  The implicit single nation  is now addressed as a federation of tribes. Each tribe has been allocated a territory in the, soon to be occupied, Promised land.  This is an ancient example of state's rights...a response to universal ideas. 

From my liberal perspective, state's rights are mostly an instrument for evil.  In the USA, the first association is with slavery.  The legality of slavery was determined by the individual state.  It was the war that denied secession, that insisted on the unified nature of the United States of America, that did away with this ugly, evil, ancient, injustice. 

The tribes, hence states, of Israel are based on (imagined or actual)  descent from on of the 12 - make that 13- patriarchs, the sons of Jacob. The stories of their birth and lives imbues each with a distinctive character. Their natures are the subject of the cryptic farewell address of Jacob that ends, and thus implies some of the purpose of,  the first book of the Torah.

The tribal nature of the  nation is hardly mentioned in Exodus. This is a volume of unification. Although in Hebrew the book is designated Shemoth, Names; and it begins by  naming the sons of Jacob, the events are those that unify this people: their slave-bondage, their liberation by a combination of unified action and Divine intervention, acceptance of a common code of law, and  the construction of a  central shrine, funded by a universal flat tax. 

Bamidbar,  Numbers, the book we conclude this week, recounts the division of the nation into sections and tribes. The initial counting is done by patriarchal houses and divided by tribe. Much of Matoth, the first of this week's chapters, deals with the agreement that allows the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Menashe to occupy the territory conquered from the Emorites ( Sichon and Og), while the other 9½ tribes remain homeless. This is the  divisive struggle between those who have claimed resources and those who need their help to acquire. ( Perhaps all the non-combatants, regardless of tribe could be sheltered in the fortifications east of the Jordan) 

Massei begins with an enumeration of the journeys through the desert. The names of the places are reminders of the travails the nation endured  together. It is fusion though shared memory. This introduces the borders of the Promised Land, the area to be divided among the tribes on  the basis of lottery and population. A national system of refuge cities, open prisons, for the non-capital homocide, is required. Perhaps this is a nod to Cain and Moses and Pinchas. 

The last passage involves handling the novelty introduced three chapters ago: inheritance by women. Inheritance involves unanticipated complexities. Gd had decided to upset the patriarchal "order" ( in some, rare circumstances). This leads to questions.  How far  will the law stray from  the old ways? Will women be allowed to make business decisions that depend upon promises and oaths? (Only if they are adult and  independent of attachment to a man).  What will happen if  a woman owns land and  marry out  the tribe? The founding women, the daughters of Zelophchad  shied away from confronting that issue: they married within the clan.

We read the end of Bamidbar, this book of division, in the week prior to Tisha Ba'av, the memorial day of loss of political power.  Tu'BaAv, six days later,  is a  day of celebration.   The Talmud  ( Taanith 30b) states:

אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּאָב מַאי הִיא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: יוֹם שֶׁהוּתְּרוּ שְׁבָטִים לָבוֹא זֶה בָּזֶה.

What is the fifteenth of Av? Rabbi Judah quoted Shmuel: it is the day that the tribes were allowed to marry each other

It is the day when the restriction placed upon land-owning   women was lifted.  They  could now marry out their tribe. Division into tribes was over. 

I met my wife on Tu Ba Av. We were from different places: America, the holocaust. We were from the same places.  It worked out. 

  

Pinchas: Conclusion

Pinchas, the zealot who killed the prince from the tribe of Simon and the Midianite princess in flagrante delicto,  was introduced long ago. He is the last of the cast of characters introduced in Exodus (6;25)

וְאֶלְעָזָ֨ר בֶּֽן־אַהֲרֹ֜ן לָקַֽח־ל֨וֹ מִבְּנ֤וֹת פּֽוּטִיאֵל֙ ל֣וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֔ה וַתֵּ֥לֶד ל֖וֹ אֶת־פִּֽינְחָ֑ס אֵ֗לֶּה רָאשֵׁ֛י אֲב֥וֹת הַלְוִיִּ֖ם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָֽם׃ 

And Aaron’s son Eleazar took into his [household] as wife one of Putiel’s daughters, and she bore him Phinehas. Those are the heads of the ancestral houses of the Levites by their families.

What does that mean for the story placed here, close to the end of the narrative Torah?  It reveals the planned structure of the story to be told. The novel is the artform that tickles the sense of memory. This had always been the plan: to end the story with Pinchas. 

Immediately following the ascension of Pinchas to a legacy of (high) Priesthood, war is declared upon Midian

Who is this daughter of Putiel?  Rashi quotes part of the Talmud in Sotah 43a

מבנות פוטיאל ONE OF THE DAUGHTERS OF PUTIEL — of the family of Jethro (cf. Rashi on Exodus 4:18) who used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous sacrifice, and of the family of Joseph who overcame (פטפט, who talked or argued with) his passion (Sotah 43a; Bava Batra 109b).

The authors of the Talmud and Rashi had seen what is revealed in our parsha, the end of the story. Pinchas was leading the battle against his mother's nation of origin. 

The relationship between Midian and Israel is complex. Jethro is the primary representative of Midian. Moses is homeless, as he flees from the Egyptian authorities after he kills the Egyptian taskmaster ( his own act of [spontaneous] zealotry).  Jethro, the sheik of Midian,  instructs his daughters to bring the Egyptian fugitive, Moses, into his camp.  Moses marries one of his daughters, Ziporah.  Jethro advises Moses to democratize the judicial system and establish a hierarchy to make adjudication more efficient.  Moses experienced the revelation that initiated the Israelite protests and culminated in the Exodus, while in  Jethro's employ in the land of Midian.  Ultimately, Jethro rejects an invitation to join the nation of Israel. 

Elazar, this purest of Levites, married out. Was it the internal struggle that drove Pinchas to his act of zealotry?  Perhaps Moses  experienced a similar internal conflict when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster, the act of zealotry that launched the Exodus narrative. Moses knew from the inside the depth of the antipathy toward Israel, the murderous nature of the demeaning hatred. That justified  the (pre-emptive) homicide of the taskmaster.  Perhaps Pinchas knew similar, deeply engrained and hidden, secrets of the mystical Midianites by virtues of his contacts with  his mother's family.  He understood the unstated dangers that came from the adoption of Midianite ways. ( Where are the Midianites now?)

Perhaps the most important zealots in the parsha are the daughters of Zelophchad. They present their case for (some modicum of) inheritance rights for women so convincingly that Moses is dumbfounded and must turn to Divine consultation.( Note that the past cases of Divine consultation had yielded death sentences: for the blasphemer [son of an Egyptian father and Hebrew mother]  and the Sabbath desecrator  [ Rabbi Akiva identifies him as...Zelophchad, the father of the litigating women, see Rashi 27;3].)  Gd recognizes the possibility that women have property rights. This is a lasting zealotry... and the fight  goes on. 

There are injustices that call for the courage of battle. Some of us know the secret depths of their evil. Can this narrative  encourage us?

Balak:  Propaganda

Strange: there is no great  battle between Moab and Israel. Balak's fear of being overrun  by the Israelites has no basis. Moab and Amon are not zoned for conquest and settlement. Yet, an influencer, a propagandist, is hired to degrade the people. Antisemitism does not require any real threat  The peril is best left vague.

It is possible that absent Balaam and his terrifying description of Israel as a lion, there would have been a battle. Balaam was to encourage the Moabites and their army by laughing at the meek, sidelocked, befringed, ridiculous Jews. Instead, he described them as Israelis... strong and ready for battle. 

The parsha provides lessons in propaganda. (1) Identify the target  (often an audience of one). Balaam is hired by Balak, but Balak is not the audience. Balaam is delivering a message to posterity, a forever text. Balaam, as a seer of truth, knows that Gd is the only listener that counts

(2) Use truth and ambiguity. For all the money in the world, Balaam cannot utter  a falsehood. Balaam is not like a modern politician... he cannot lie expecting that even his videotaped statements can be retracted.  A great propagandist  tells a (deeply distorted) truth; the facts are not for sale.  Reality is viewed through a new mirror, specks of dust  in the microscope lens are interpreted.  Lets look at motive, fairness, nationalism, possibilities.  It is us against them... isn't it?

(3) Try again. It takes two sets of messengers to start Balaam on his journey to Moab.  Donkey troubles will not stop him. He makes three attempts to fulfill the desire of his employer. Repetition  creates the illusion of truth

 (4) Look for angles . Balak has Balaam view sections of the Israelites from three different overlooks.  Much, perhaps all, depends upon the point of view. 

Ultimately, Balaam's praise is a pivot for downfall. Balaam presents Israel's favored status based upon their singular qualities: keeping to themselves:

 הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן 

They are a nation dwelling onto themselves. 

The choice of   יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן, yishkon, derived from neighbor , can imply that they are a  community.  It may also  communicate that Israel will not conquer Moab, they will be a neighbor that keeps to itself.

כִּ֤י לֹא־נַ֙חַשׁ֙ בְּיַעֲקֹ֔ב וְלֹא־קֶ֖סֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל

There is no augury in Jacob,
No divining in Israel:

 The serpent  the nahash נַ֙חַשׁ֙ ,makes an appearance here.  There is a sarcastic element in this word choice. The copper snake ( nachash)  of cure appeared in the last parsha.  Peering upon this image detoxified the bite of the fiery serpent.  I do not understand the world and take my cures wherever I find them. 

This nachash  also echoes  the serpent-tempter of Eden,  the entity that leveraged a miscommunication  between man and wife into their downfall. ( Adam had told Eve not to touch the tree; he amplified Gd's instruction not to eat of the tree. When  she saw that touching the tree was without consequence, she took the next step, she ate.)

 

מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב 

How fair are your tents, O Jacob,

Rashi quotes the talmud: 

מה טבו אהליך HOW GOODLY ARE THY TENTS — He said this because he saw that the entrances of their tents were not exactly facing each other (Bava Batra 60a; cf. v. 2).

Respect for privacy merits the reward of Divine protection. ( I entertain myself thinking that Louis Brandeis injected the right to privacy into the US constitution [ see Seek and Hide by Amy Gajda) on the basis of his Jewish culture which treasures privacy.)

As the parsha closes, these foundations of blessing are violated by Israel's adulteries with the  Moabites, their new attachment to the Baal Peor idolatry, and the public pornography with  the   Midianite. Twenty four thousand die in the extirpation of these sins, two thousand for every tribe. 

Was the state of blessing restored? It might depend on your point of view. 

Chukath: the staff

 Chukath: the staff

There are two poles in Chukath, this week's parsha: One staff that famously hits the rock that pours forth water  for the thirsty and complaining Israelites in the desert.  The other is the scepter that supports the image of the copper serpent that rescued those bitten by the fiery snakes sent to punish the complainers.  Striking the rock was the capital offense that consigned Moses to death in the wilderness.  The caduceus may be the origin of the Jewish doctor. 

The parsha starts with the red heifer. It opens with the words: 

זֹ֚את חֻקַּ֣ת הַתּוֹרָ֔ה

This is the chok of the Torah

The work chok ( I have discussed it before) means "apportionment"  It is a prescribed quantity or rule. A chok defies questioning. It is arbitrary. Based on this linguistic construction, the red heifer is assigned the status of the most mysterious thing in the world. The purifier is polluted.

The mystery is not so much the red heifer; it is the stain of death that these inanimate ashes come to cleanse. And death informs the greater mystery, the life that precedes it.  The complexity of life makes it inscrutable .  Add  to that the wonders of interaction with the environment and consciousness...Death is the cancellation of wonders. 

There is an immediate recognition of legacy. The ritual is to be preformed by Elazar, not Aaron. Aaron is still alive, but it is his son, Elazar who receives the heifer, sprinkles its blood toward the tabernacle (from a distance), and before whom the carcass is burned to the purifying ashes.  It will not be long before those ashes are used to cleanse the mourners of his aunt Miriam and his father Aaron. 

The healing copper snake adds to the legacy of Moses.  Gd told Moses to create this therapy. It is clear that Moses' effort is a part of this miracle cure. ( The stick that supports the image of the serpent is called a nais, a word that also means miracle).  Six hundred years later, king Hezekiah  destroys this magical implement. The partnership between Gd and Moses... and the object Moses created at the behest of Gd,  could be misunderstood. The image had been created as an antidote to the bite of the fiery serpent.  The fiery serpent had been sent to punish the people for their complaints against Gd and Moses. The object was intended to restore the reputation of  both Gd and Moses.  When power was ascribed to the object itself, it had to be crushed. 

Hitting the rock was a tiny transgression, a bit reminiscent of preforming the incense service incorrectly [cf  Nadav and Avihu and Korach].  Moses and Aaron had acted as if  their actions had brought the water from the rock. They were supposed to bring the staff and talk to the rock. Moses hit the rock. (In my worldview, rocks may [sometimes] feel the pain of injury).  Moses  weaponized the staff.  The staff had been used to bring several of the plagues that brought the expulsion from Egypt.  It is only the plague of lice, the plague recognized by the Egyptian engineers of magic as the finger of Gd, that involved striking the land with the staff.  In all the other plagues, that involved the staff, the rod was extended, no object was stricken. 

The problem that devolved from Moses taking a more active physical role in the eliciting of water from stone is reflected in a poem quoted in the parsha. 

יז  אָז יָשִׁיר יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת:  עֲלִי בְאֵר, עֱנוּ-לָהּ.	17 Then sang Israel this song: Spring up, O well--sing ye unto it--
יח  בְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִים, כָּרוּהָ נְדִיבֵי הָעָם, בִּמְחֹקֵק, בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָם; וּמִמִּדְבָּר, מַתָּנָה.	18 The well, which the princes digged, which the nobles of the people delved, with the sceptre, and with their staves. And from the wilderness to Mattanah;

The poem is the legacy of memory;  it is how the people remember the event.  The legend of the event recalls princes and staves, not Gd. 

The scepter mentioned in the poem is special. It is a mechokayk, it is an emblem of the power to make arbitrary decisions, to apportion sustenance, to mete out life and death. It is imputed to the princes and nobles.  There is really only one source to which all are subject. 

 

Korach: Election

 

The mishkan, the Tabernacle, was the great the centerpiece of the Israelites.  It was surrounded by layers of defenders.  It was the most special thing in the world, the locus of the clouds of glory that marked the Divine manifestation, the meeting site for communications from the Almighty. It was also dangerous.  The most connected people, Nadav and Avihu, the eldest sons  of Aaron died because of a tiny error in the service.  Their timing was off and they used the wrong matches.

 

The most powerful job in the world was minister of the mishkan.  The past decade in America has colored my  understanding of  the events described in the parsha.

 

Korach recognizes the appeal of presiding over the Tabernacle. It is a position of the greatest prestige and could also yield great wealth. The rules for the designation of High Priest have not been established to the extent that they cannot be changed. Korach calls for an election – and he can count on the votes of most of the electoral college.  Appeals by Moses and Aaron to key electors are rejected.  The rebels will not even hear their arguments because these leaders are blamed for economic conditions and broken promises. Everyone is watching the channel that supports their position and ignores the other side.

Is Korach qualified to be the High Priest? Is anyone? Korach is battling the elite.  Moses has grabbed all the prominence for his clan. What about the principle of primogeniture, the right of the first born?  The tribe of Reuben, his allies, the first born of Jacob, should be recognized. Furthermore, Moses had made mistakes. He sent the scouts to the Promised land and failed to anticipate the power of social media that would devolve from it and the resulting wilderness exile.

 

Moses sets up the incense contest, the bake-off. Each side will bring their incense to the Mishkan.  This is a trick.  Moses knows that any deviation from the prescribed incense service is lethal. (I do not know if this was general knowledge) That is how Nadav and Avihu died. The incense service is a trap for the novice. The snare works.  250 Korach supporters die.

The popular response to this demonstration of Divine favor is:

 

וַיִּלֹּ֜נוּ כׇּל־עֲדַ֤ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ מִֽמׇּחֳרָ֔ת עַל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר אַתֶּ֥ם הֲמִתֶּ֖ם אֶת־עַ֥ם יְ

Next day the whole Israelite community railed against Moses and Aaron, saying, “You two have brought death upon the nation of Gd”

The people say that the reaction to the Korach challenge was excessive. Was there a variation in perception of the events? Moshe (and Gd) saw a rebellion; the Israelite community saw an innocent question: what are the rules of succession? A group of patriots had come for a peaceful tour of the Capitol.

 

The ultimate qualification for the High Priesthood is selection by Gd.  This is demonstrated by the blooming almonds on Aaron’s staff.  The election of Aaron is settled.  The people react to this definitive demonstration:

 

וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר הֵ֥ן גָּוַ֛עְנוּ אָבַ֖דְנוּ כֻּלָּ֥נוּ אָבָֽדְנוּ׃

The Israelites said to Moses, “Lo, we perish! We are lost, all of us lost!

Everyone who so much as ventures near  Gd’s Tabernacle must die. Alas, we are doomed to perish!”

 

The tabernacle was a fatal attraction. The populace could avoid the sacred, but that would remove too much meaning from their lives. The hereditary priesthood and Levitical work assignments was the solution. The people could have a (distant) relationship to the sanctum; the actual (dangerous) service would be done by the Kohen.  From the earliest times the temple service was central to the worldview and peripheral to the experience of the people.

 

The haftarah repeats the error of populism.  Samuel (descended from Korach) is the last of the leader- prophets.  He anoints Saul (and later David), kings who will become the new commanders; as the prophets fade into an advisory role. Leadership is favored over insight.  Politics.

 

Merit is the rational basis for choice. Gd’s pick does not always look rational. The popular choice is something else entirely.