Shelach: Planning

The Israelites are consigned to forty years of wandering in the desert in this week’s parsha.  This is the paradigm of exile as punishment. It is an ironic penalty since it is granting the request of the insurgent.

The scouts return with an honest report.  The land is good, it produces spectacular fruits. The land is populated and there are some very big people there – people one would  prefer not to fight.  The problem arises when the scouts  judge that entry  into the land is not possible. The people say it would be better to die in the desert than confront this mighty force:

וַיִּלֹּ֙נוּ֙ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֔ן כֹּ֖ל בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַֽיֹּאמְר֨וּ אֲלֵהֶ֜ם כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֗ה לוּ־מַ֙תְנוּ֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם א֛וֹ בַּמִּדְבָּ֥ר הַזֶּ֖ה לוּ־מָֽתְנוּ׃

All the Israelites railed against Moses and Aaron. “If only we had died in the land of Egypt,” the whole community shouted at them, “or if only we might die in this wilderness!”

The requested alternative, dying in the wilderness, is granted. That is the punishment.

The section that follows this tale of exile resulting from a lack of courage and faith describes the libations and meal offerings that would become part of the sacrificial rite when they entered the Promised Land

כִּ֣י תָבֹ֗אוּ אֶל־אֶ֙רֶץ֙ מוֹשְׁבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶֽם׃

When you enter the land that I am giving you to settle in,

The juxtaposition serves to restate Gd’s promise to the ancestors. Eventually the people will enter the land.  It also emphasizes what will be lost during the exile. The libations required wine, the meal offerings were made from wheat.  These delicious luxuries required agriculture, they required settlement on the land. This could not happen for forty years.

The statement of the changes in the sacrificial rite after  meat and wine would be available bring the sin and punishment into focus.  The scouts, lacking the faith in Gd and themselves, did not adequately look at the consequences of their pronouncements. There was actually no alternative to proceeding into the land. Without divine intervention, they would die in the wilderness ( Gd’s first stated choice  אַכֶּ֥נּוּ בַדֶּ֖בֶר  I will strike them with pestilence). Through the mercy elicited by Moses, their offspring would survive, but the generation of insufficient faith would be denied bread and wine.  The earlier complaints about the lack of dietary variety would now be their fate for the rest of their lives.

The juxtaposition of the libation and meal offerings, immediately following the rebellion,  means that the proper performance of the divine temple  rite was delayed. Things would not be done in the ways preferred by Gd; and the people would not benefit from the service as it was intended. The fabric of the universe was rent.

The scouts undoubtedly felt threatened when they were on their mission. They were committing a capital offence against the people they were spying on.  The haftarah is more explicit that spies would not be treated with any mercy. Yet, they undertook the mission and all returned.  They brought the pilfered fruit on a pole:

וַיָּבֹ֜אוּ עַד־נַ֣חַל אֶשְׁכֹּ֗ל וַיִּכְרְת֨וּ מִשָּׁ֤ם זְמוֹרָה֙ וְאֶשְׁכּ֤וֹל עֲנָבִים֙ אֶחָ֔ד וַיִּשָּׂאֻ֥הוּ בַמּ֖וֹט בִּשְׁנָ֑יִם וּמִן־הָרִמֹּנִ֖ים וּמִן־הַתְּאֵנִֽים׃

They reached the wadi Eshcol, and there they cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes—it had to be borne on a carrying frame by two of them—and some pomegranates and figs.

They went down the road broadcasting their mission.

  If they were able to do this, why did they doubt that the people could conquer the land? Did they think themselves special and the Israelite nation ordinary?

The exile is an underestimation. It disparages the power of Gd and it belittles the self. The exiled person is out of place and cannot find the center or the source. Achievement requires belief in self, belief in others, and the suspension of disbelief that is faith.

 

 

Behalothescha: Relationships

This is among the most touching of parshiot.  It tells stories that involve relationships.  The relationship between people, the Israelites  in particular,  and Gd is explored in an especially relatable manner.

 

The story of the slav, the quail, brought to satisfy the people’s desire for variety in their diet, brings the parental – like relationship between Gd and the people into focus and question. We are told that the complaints of the people brought a destructive heavenly fire to the camp, quenched by the prompt prayer of  Moses. The nature of this complaint is not specified . Rashi says that the basis of complaint was not only unimportant, it was the complaint itself that was the point.

כמתאננים — The term מתאננים denotes [people who seek] “a pretext” — they seek a pretext how to separate themselves from following the Omnipresent.

כמתאננים. אֵין מִתְאוֹנְנִים אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן עֲלִילָה — מְבַקְּשִׁים עֲלִילָה הֵיאַךְ לִפְרֹשׁ מֵאַחֲרֵי הַמָּקוֹם, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן (שופטים י"ד), "כִּי תֹאֲנָה הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ" (ספרי):

This was an adolescent rebellion. The disagreement was not rational, it was hormonal.  This was a modern political ploy. A challenge to authority  through an appeal to any available  dissatisfaction for the sake of election and  attaining power.  Argument for the sake of argument is really argument for the sake of power.  It is appropriate that the prayer of Moshe,  representative of the challenged administration, stops the fire.

Immediately, there is the cry for flesh:

וְהָֽאסַפְסֻף֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּקִרְבּ֔וֹ הִתְאַוּ֖וּ תַּאֲוָ֑ה וַיָּשֻׁ֣בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗וּ גַּ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מִ֥י יַאֲכִלֵ֖נוּ בָּשָֽׂר׃

The riffraff in their midst felt a gluttonous craving; and then the Israelites wept and said, “If only we had meat to eat!

This comes with nostalgia for Egypt, the distortion of recall that idealizes the past and disparages the present.

זָכַ֙רְנוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּגָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם חִנָּ֑ם אֵ֣ת הַקִּשֻּׁאִ֗ים וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֲבַטִּחִ֔ים וְאֶת־הֶחָצִ֥יר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִ֖ים וְאֶת־הַשּׁוּמִֽים׃

We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic.

וְעַתָּ֛ה נַפְשֵׁ֥נוּ יְבֵשָׁ֖ה אֵ֣ין כֹּ֑ל בִּלְתִּ֖י אֶל־הַמָּ֥ן עֵינֵֽינוּ׃

Now our gullets are shriveled. There is nothing at all! Nothing but this manna to look to!”

We are then told that the Manna was delicious.

When Moshe hears the people crying to their families, he laments his role as the leader of this people.

הֶאָנֹכִ֣י הָרִ֗יתִי אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אִם־אָנֹכִ֖י יְלִדְתִּ֑יהוּ כִּֽי־תֹאמַ֨ר אֵלַ֜י שָׂאֵ֣הוּ בְחֵיקֶ֗ךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשָּׂ֤א הָאֹמֵן֙ אֶת־הַיֹּנֵ֔ק עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖עְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָֽיו׃

Did I produce all these people, did I engender them, that You should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom as a caregiver carries an infant,’ to the land that You have promised on oath to their fathers?

מֵאַ֤יִן לִי֙ בָּשָׂ֔ר לָתֵ֖ת לְכׇל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּֽי־יִבְכּ֤וּ עָלַי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר תְּנָה־לָּ֥נוּ בָשָׂ֖ר וְנֹאכֵֽלָה׃

Where am I to get meat to give to all this people, when they whine before me and say, ‘Give us meat to eat!’

Why does Moshe feel compelled to grant this request?  It does not seem to be a good thing; the complaint has been identified as ra, evil, in the eyes of Gd and Moshe. Perhaps the best parenting approach is to just say: No. That was not the decision here.

Did Moshe and Gd feel that this is a reasonable request? It appears not. Moshe takes it as a challenge. How can so much meat be acquired ( quickly) ? Failure to provide the meat will be seen as weakness, as if (kivar yachol) Moshe does not yet understand Gd’s omnipotence; and when the people see a limit to Divine power, the new societal structure will be challenged.

Gd fulfills the ill advised request through a manipulation of nature: blowing (migrating) quail off course; delivering the bird carcasses at the feet of the demanding people. The punishment comes through nature as well: those who indulge get sick.

This may have been  a situation in which failure to accommodate  the demand would lead to revolution and an end to the enterprise. Gd has  a promise, made to Abraham, to bring his descendants into the Land. If the relationship between Gd and the people is severed, the agreement  will not be fulfilled.. That cannot happen.

Then there us the final, very complex story:

וַתְּדַבֵּ֨ר מִרְיָ֤ם וְאַהֲרֹן֙ בְּמֹשֶׁ֔ה עַל־אֹד֛וֹת הָאִשָּׁ֥ה הַכֻּשִׁ֖ית אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָקָ֑ח כִּֽי־אִשָּׁ֥ה כֻשִׁ֖ית לָקָֽח׃

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had taken: “He took a Cushite woman!”

This is a story of family dynamics, sibling interaction, if not rivalry. It also comes in the context of the dissemination of prophecy, at Moshe’s request, among a broader citizenry.

וַיֹּאמְר֗וּ הֲרַ֤ק אַךְ־בְּמֹשֶׁה֙ דִּבֶּ֣ר יְ

And they said, Has the Lord indeed spoken only with Moshe? has he not spoken also with us

There is a misunderstanding about levels of prophecy leading to disrespect for Moshe.  The woman is an excuse.

The racism (which is minimized by Onkelos’ translation of Cushite as beautiful ( Shapira) ) is emphasized by the  aptness of the punishment:

וְהִנֵּ֥ה מִרְיָ֖ם מְצֹרַ֣עַת כַּשָּׁ֑לֶג

and, behold, Miryam was snow white, stricken with żara῾at;

Mirian gossiped about Moshe’s dark woman. She was stricken by the disease of whiteness.

Once more, seven words from Moshe effects a cure (but it takes a week) .

 

We survive by the grace of the Torah’s sense of humor.

 

Naso: Hair

Hair is a central character in this week’s parsha. When I was a teenager, the play,”Hair”, appeared.  It was about free love ( Sota) and hippies ( Nazir), the core stories of this week’s parsha. What is hair all about?

 The exposure of the hair of the suspected wayward wife (the Sota) is the ( stated) basis for  the Orthodox custom of covering a married woman’s hair.

וּפָרַע֙ אֶת־רֹ֣אשׁ הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה

the priest shall bare (pora)  the woman’s head.

Rashi

ופרע. סוֹתֵר אֶת קְלִיעַת שְׂעָרָהּ, כְּדֵי לְבַזּוֹתָהּ, מִכָּאן לִבְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁגִּלּוּי הָרֹאשׁ גְּנַאי לָהֶן (כתובות ע"ב):

ופרע AND HE SHALL PUT IN DISORDER [THE WOMAN’S HAIR] — i.e. he pulls away her hair-plaits in order to make her look despicable. — We may learn from this that as regards married Jewish women an uncovered head is a disgrace to them (Sifrei Bamidbar 11).

Sifrei Bamidbar 11:

R. Yishmael said: From here (i.e., from the fact that he is to uncover her hair) we derive an exhortation for the daughters of Israel to cover their hair. And though there is no proof for this, there is an intimation of it…

 

(Note: the Hebrew and English renditions of Rashi differ in the proof text quoted by Sefaria)

 

This word ( pora)פָרַע֙ is also used to describe the hair of the other major character in this weeks’ parsha, the Nazir. The Nazir, the formalized nonconformist, must let his hair grow wild, a condition designated by the same word:

גַּדֵּ֥ל פֶּ֖רַע שְׂעַ֥ר רֹאשֽׁוֹ׃

The hair of their head being left to grow untrimmed.

 

The traditional explanation for the relationship between these adjacent sections is given in Rashi, who  quotes the Talmud

Why is the section dealing with the Nazarite placed in juxtaposition to the section dealing with the סוטה? To tell you that he who has once seen a סוטה in her disgrace should abstain from wine, because it may lead to adultery (Sotah 2a).

But clearly they are also related in other ways, by wild hair.

 

What does hair mean? Humans have traded fur, covering most of the body, for hair in a few locations. Some of that hair is always covered by clothing in public  in Eurasian traditions. The hair atop the head is a crowning decoration, a way that people try to make themselves attractive. It is an invitation to intimacy.

The head hair conveys information about health ( nutritional deficiencies thin the hair and cause it to fall out) and age ( it loses its color and gets thinner).  The color and curl of the hair reveals aspects of tribal affiliation. The arrangement of the hair reports on personal care and grooming. Hair can be an important point in mate selection. Hair is an identifying characteristic; it does much to distinguish the individual.

When the hair of the suspected wife (sota) is exposed in a pora, messed up, way, the concept of monandry (a unique husband) is challenged. The individualized arrangement is cancelled, and the universality of the lust instinct emphasized. This woman is accused of abandoning the self-denial that the male-dominated society demands. The identification of paternity has been brought into question. The particularity of love is cast in doubt. The play “Hair” supports the  Sota of the 1960’s .

 

The nazir’s hair is a denouncement of the worldly, the dating and mating game. It is another way of cancelling the behaviors that bring one, regardless of gender ( a Nazir can be male or female), to the conflict between passion and norm.

In the context of the haftarah, the message is mixed. The haftarah describes the annunciation of the birth of Samson, a process that hints at the Sota (The annunciating angel generally confronts the wife of Manoah when she is alone). Samson was famous for the long haired, Nazerite state that afforded him super-human strength and his passion for duplicitous Delilah. Things get mixed up. Many hippies found love because of/despite their long, wild hair.

The pora, wild hair of the Nazir also distinguished him from the Kohen ( priest) who was forbidden to have such hair.

 

The leper, shunned because of the possibility of contagion also has this pora hair

וְהַצָּר֜וּעַ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֣וֹ הַנֶּ֗גַע בְּגָדָ֞יו יִהְי֤וּ פְרֻמִים֙ וְרֹאשׁוֹ֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה פָר֔וּעַ

And the diseased man in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow long,

Presumably, the leper’s hair made her repulsive, making it easier for the uninfected to avoid this diseased person.

 

Shaving the hair is a purification process. The Levites have all their hair shaved as a part of their initiation into the sacred. The leper shaves all her hair as part of the re-entry into society.  The Nazir shaves all his hair at the termination of his vowed time.

The Nazis shaved the hair of those interred in concentration camp. That haircut reduced the lice infestation, and it also reduced the sense of dignity and self of the victims.

I never saw the play “Hair”. I could not afford a ticket… not just the money, it was also the conflict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bamidbar: Citizenship

 

Bamidbar: Citizenship

We are rapidly working toward Shavuoth, the festival of that ambiguous word, whose root, sheva, can mean  the (mystical and lucky) number seven or an oath. Shavuoth, seven weeks after Passover,is  associated with the assembly [rock concert] at Sinai, the light show surrounding the Divine communication of the Torah. The Torah, given at Sinai, is the document to which the Hebrews, and their descendants, the Jews, pledge their allegiance.

This week’s parsha, the beginning of the fourth book of the Torah, Bamidbar, is set some time after the events at Mt Sinai. It begins with a census. The census defines the status of those counted.  The records were supervised by tribal chieftains who presumably confirmed the ancestry ( and perhaps the loyalty) of each counted individual. This census had an economic impact. Only the descendants of those counted would obtain a portion in the Promised Land. They would be the landed and enfranchised citizens. The status of the excluded is not as good.

The text emphasizes the location: the midbar, the wilderness. They have gone from a world of oppression to a place that might not be able to sustain human life. Perhaps the unification into a nation and the accompanying compulsory military or ritual service soothes the terror of being lost and insecure. During the long exile of the Jews, with its alienations from the ambient culture and persecutions, that belonging served those that survived.

The science of evolution has an implicit post-hoc approach. The survivors have traits, and by virtue of being survivors, those traits are  presumed to have   served in the cause of survival. The remnant of European Jews, for the most part, initially kept their Jewish identities in one form or another. Had that helped them survive the persecution they suffered because of it?

This journey into the insecure is everyone's life story. Group identifications are necessary for most people in our complex world. Will the group have you? Do they allow Jews?

What about the survival of the group? The sacrifice of  the individual for the group is part of the deal that allows belonging.  This is the oath of loyalty. Fascism is a distortion of this mutuality. The individual serves the state without question; the state, in turn, benefits the individual. Outsiders are either burdens or enemies. All for one, one for all; us against them.

The Shavuoth experience is finding a destination in the wilderness. It is a great, broad unification. There is also an implicit oath of loyalty to a principle that supersedes the nation. Sometimes it is hard to find the right loyalty.