Pinchas: Legacy

A major theme of Pinchas is continuity. The peoplehood, the religion, the tradition is handed over to the generations that follow. There is a reawakening of the awareness of mortality and, with that,  a rearrangement of priorities.

A census is done for the apportionment of land. This land is to be inherited indefinitely [we now know how long that lasted – it was not forever].  The bequest instructions, initially, totally ignore women. Then the five daughters of Zelophehad present themselves before the empowered. In an act of great courage, they argue that families that that have no male heirs should not be excluded from the inheritance. The triumvirate must bring their question to Gd.  Gd answers:

כֵּ֗ן בְּנ֣וֹת צְלׇפְחָד֮ דֹּבְרֹת֒ נָתֹ֨ן תִּתֵּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ אֲחֻזַּ֣ת נַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֣י אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וְהַֽעֲבַרְתָּ֛ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ן לָהֶֽן׃

“The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.

In an affirmation of a human idea, an issue raised by disenfranchised women, Gd grants these women – and all women under similar circumstances - a measure of economic status and rights:  an inheritance.  Given the exclusive maleness of the additional details about inheritance in the absence of progeny heirs, the revolutionary move of giving women inheritance ( under certain defined circumstances) need not have been part of the answer. The women could have been skipped and the remaining male dominated formula ( Uncles, grandfather, etc.) could have been invoked. Was this recognition of female business competence a special reward for the courage of the sisters? Maybe.

There is a suggestion of extraordinary nature of the interaction in the calligraphy. I am always moved when I see the extra-long, feminizing nuen  on mishpatan  ( אֶת-מִשְׁפָּטָן)in the Torah scroll, in the description of Moshe's bringing their case before the Lrd. Their female voices were heard...and accepted. Their courage still calls out to us.

This clarification of inheritance law is immediately followed by Gd reminding Moses that his time is nigh, he will soon die. In this telling, in context, Moses raises the problem of his successor. This time there is a strict avoidance of nepotism. Caleb, already singled out as a loyal scout who encouraged proceeding into the Promised Land when the others ( except Joshua) bemoaned the apparent impossibility, is ( according to the Midrash) married to Miriam, Moshe’s sister. Joshua

קַח־לְךָ֙ אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֔וּן אִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־ר֣וּחַ בּ֑וֹ

“Single out Joshua son of Nun, an inspired man,

Joshua had trained with Moses for at least 40 years. He had heard the revelry of the Golden calf; when Eldad and Madad prophesied in the camp, Joshua suggested they be imprisoned, an idea rejected by Moses. He was the second (and, only other) scout to side with Moses. He was the politically correct choice to succeed Moses as the anointed and consensus leader of the people.

Joshua and Pinchas and the daughters of Zelophehad are the paradigms of continuity, but they are not continuations.  The past was unique:  It was an age of miracles, intimate divine interactions. The next generation would preserve these remarkable memories, but they could not expect similar happenings. They were establishing a new thing: legacy.

They would have the annual cycle of festivals, initially with their meal offerings and libations. This was also a new thing set up to remember the foundational memories/myths.

 Unique events would occur in every lifetime, some worthy of commemoration, but the events at the beginning become the context for all that is subsequent. Legacy preserves the past … and distorts it.

Balak: Vision

Balak: Vision

This week's parsha, Balak, is a unique story. It has unique characters: Satan, the talking donkey; and the central character is Balaam: prophet for hire. It is the story of the non-Hebrew soothsayer with powers that seem real. This character highlights the cloudiness of our understanding of prophecy and how poorly we understand the ancient, prescientific world. Our interpretation of the story has implications for how we understand the Torah. 

The story assumes that Balaam did have extraordinary powers. Balak, the king of Midian, presumed that Balaam could use these powers, which involved a special relationship with the Almighty, according to his will. Balak wanted to buy some of this power to turn Gd, who had wrought miracles in support of the Hebrews, against this favored people, and thus help defend Balak's realm. Balaam could only report what his special powers revealed. He could not manipulate the Divine will. Balaam's power was vision, not manipulation. 

 Before his oft repeated, forced, praise of Israel ( mah tovuh), Balaam describes himself: 

וַיִּשָּׂ֥א מְשָׁל֖וֹ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר נְאֻ֤ם בִּלְעָם֙ בְּנ֣וֹ בְעֹ֔ר וּנְאֻ֥ם הַגֶּ֖בֶר שְׁתֻ֥ם הָעָֽיִן׃

Taking up his theme, he said:
Word of Balaam son of Beor,see
Word of the man whose eye is true,

The word that is translated here as "true" , שְׁתֻ֥ם, is a hapax legomena, a word that appears only once in the canon text, and, therefore, has an  ambiguous  meaning.  Generally, anything written in the Torah is ascribed a special level of truth, even if it uttered by a less than trustworthy character. I assume that Balaam did have this special power, and it had some relationship to vision... I am just not clear about what it was. 

Certainly, this special power of perception did not extend to all things. When Balaam sets out for Midian, after Balak's second summons and reluctant Divine permission, Satan, the obstructing angel, is, initially, invisible to him; but his ass, the animal that is the paradigm of stupidity, sees the danger and takes action. The loyal animal is rewarded for saving its blind master with beatings. Errors in vision, varying interpretations, can be destructive to everyone. A simple understanding is sometimes (often?) more important than a sophisticated interpretation. The scholar often underestimates the intelligence of the silent. Deep vision may require disregarding the obvious. 

On three occasions, Balaam invites the special vision. Balaam is brought to look upon the least appealing parts of the Israelite camp. Perhaps Balak hopes that Gd's vision will reflect the scope that Balaam sees. But the reports that are brought back are as global and specific as they need to be to foil Balak's plan of deprecation. They are poetic words of praise and support for Israel.

The third blessing of Balaam, when he turned away from the oracular,  and allowed the depths of his own mind's utterance, is traditionally recited daily: 

מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

How fair are your tents, O Jacob,
Your dwellings, O Israel!

Rashi directs us to the talmud, Bava Bathra 

What was it that Balaam saw that so inspired him? He saw that the entrances of their tents were not aligned with each other, ensuring that each family enjoyed a measure of privacy. And he said: If this is the case, these people are worthy of having the Divine Presence

 rest on them.

It is the variety of visions that affords the nation strength. It is the privacy that allows unmolested  personal and small group development that confers the blessing of freedom. 

Sometimes it is important not to look. 

Chukath: allotments

Chok, the root of the title word of this week’s parsha, implies the arbitrary, an edict that is not to be questioned.  In this sense, the word is derived from chokek, inscribe. A chok is validated because it is written.

Chok also means an allotment, a fixed amount designated by the government to a specified set of people.  It was the chok that Pharaoh distributed to the priests of Egypt that allowed them to keep their land and independence while everyone else became a serf.

Our parsha deals with both aspects of the chok: the arbitrary and the measured.

The parah aduma , the red heifer ashes that are required for the purification from corpse contamination ( tumath hameth),  is the apparent  chok; the unquestionable ritual, that chukath seems to refer to. The responsible priest is not Aaron, the high priest, but rather his son, (the sagan, the assistant high priest). [Ramban quotes Sifre that all subsequent red heifer rituals {there were a total of 9}were  brought by the kohen gadol, the high priest]. From a literary point of view, Elazar, the son, the next generation, supervising the rite, evokes the idea that the older generation will die.  These ashes will be needed to purify the young when the old pass away. Elazar will eventually replace Aaron.

 

The limit of lifespan is a chok in both senses. It is a defined allocation. The obituary usually starts with age; a person lives for a set number of years. Lifespan also has an arbitrary and indisputable quality. It is almost always too short. This theme of the limited lifespan appears immediately after the details of purification from corpse tumah ( impurity)  are stated.  Miriam dies.

[Bartenura points out that 38 years had past between the red heifer preparation and Miriam’s death (Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin z”l in his Chiba Yeteira commentary says that no one died during those 38 years, except those who succumbed to the enumerated events like the fiery serpents and Baal peor) .

Clearly, the text was arranged to juxtapose a death to the means of purification from the tumah that death brings.

The story that follows, which involves the fatal error of Moses and Aaron – striking the rock- presages the fact that Moses and Aaron will die before the nation  enters the Promised land

 

Toward the end of the parsha, there is a poem:

אָ֚ז יָשִׁ֣יר יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את עֲלִ֥י בְאֵ֖ר עֱנוּ־לָֽהּ׃

Then Israel sang this song:

Spring up, O well—sing to it—

בְּאֵ֞ר חֲפָר֣וּהָ שָׂרִ֗ים כָּר֙וּהָ֙ נְדִיבֵ֣י הָעָ֔ם בִּמְחֹקֵ֖ק בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָ֑ם וּמִמִּדְבָּ֖ר מַתָּנָֽה׃

The well which the chieftains dug,

Which the nobles of the people started

With maces, with their own staffs. And from Midbar to Mattanah,

 

Some commentators ( Chizkuni,Daath Zikanim) relate this song to Moshe and Aaron, presumably when they  hit the rock. The word ִמְחֹקֵ֖ק, translated here as maces, also means the ruler’s staff, the law giver,  as it is used in Jacob’s blessing of Judah.  Chok is embedded in this word . ְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָ֑ם, their staffs also hints at the event at the rock.  The violation of Gd’s instructions invoked the epitome of the human chok: death.

The death of Aaron is presented as a clean succession. The vestments are transferred to Elazar. Aaron dies by the Divine kiss ( euthanasia: the good death) . I am not sure any tuma was transferred.

There are several battles and threatened battles. The Israelites never settle lands apportioned to others. The counterattack on the Amalekites ( call Cannanites) involves no land acquisition.  The Edomites and  Moabites deny the Israelite requests for passage and they mobilize their armies, but there is no battle with them. They are on their assigned portions. When it comes to Sichon and Og, lands  occupied by foreign kings, that region is open to annexation and the conquest of the Promised Land begins. The Divine apportionment of the land is also a chok.

The red heifer tells us that the chok is not only arbitrary and unquestionable, it is also mysterious. I do not understand the world. I do not understand what I think I understand. That which purifies contaminates.

 

Korach: intimacy

Korach: intimacy

What did Korach want? The coda to this parsha, which describes the “gifts” that are to be given to the Kohanim ( the priests, the lineage designated as fit to perform the temple service) are enumerated. Kohanim could live off the taxes and levies that were to become their due ( income).  If Korach could join this favored group, he could assure his descendants an income for the foreseeable future. [ This is no longer true. Kohanim  no longer receive trumah and there are no sacrifices from which to apportion sections to the kohein).

Korach, based upon midrash [traditions that surround the text] was extremely wealthy, perhaps the richest man in the world. Reich vie Korach is the Yiddish idiom for an extremely wealthy person ( usually in the context of stinginess]. Affluent people seem to often want yet more, and it is possible that Korach was chasing the money. But that trivializes the struggle. Perhaps it deflects attention from issues that are harder to deal with.

The common reading of the story emphasizes the rebellion. All rebellions are about the transfer of power from the current leader to the insurgent(s). Read in the context of the preceding chapters, there is a political aspect that might separate the motives of Korach – a Levite with priestly aspirations – from his Reubenite followers ( Dathan and Aviram).  The followers of Korach simply wanted  a change of administration. Moshe had taken them out of a place of comfort, Egypt, which they describe as

הַמְעַ֗ט כִּ֤י הֶֽעֱלִיתָ֙נוּ֙ מֵאֶ֨רֶץ זָבַ֤ת חָלָב֙ וּדְבַ֔שׁ לַהֲמִיתֵ֖נוּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר כִּֽי־תִשְׂתָּרֵ֥ר עָלֵ֖ינוּ גַּם־הִשְׂתָּרֵֽר׃

is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, and dost thou also make thyself a prince over us?

They had witnessed the debacle of the first tablets at Sinai. Moses, personally appalled at the bacchanal that resulted from his prolonged absence, decided to break the tablets. There was an ensuing purifying civil war and plague. More recently, there had been the mannah fatigue which  was  chastised with the sickening slav birds.  This culminated in the edict of 40 years of wandering, not entering the Promised Land, in reaction to the scout induced cowardice. This Moshe administration clearly sacrificed the comfort and security of the people for some set of hard-to-understand higher values. The structure needed change. Selfish values could not be put aside. A change of leadership was needed: Vote Korach!

Korach aspired to the priesthood, or at least a democratization  of the service:

כִּ֤י כׇל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים

For all the community are holy, all of them

He wanted access to this exclusive experience.  His demand was answered by demonstrating the danger of the kodesh ( usually translated as holy).  Moshe invited those seeking change to try their hand at the incense service (which had killed Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, when they performed an unauthorized rite).  As expected, it was lethal for the pretenders.

Korah, Nadav and Avihu were not part of that group.  A special punishment, being swallowed by the earth, was reserved for them.  It came with a warning for others, presumably former followers, to separate from the leaders of the rebellion. This was a punishment that had been reserved from the last day of Creation.  Pirkei Avoth  5;6

עֲשָׂרָה דְבָרִים נִבְרְאוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, פִּי הָאָרֶץ

Ten things were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and these are they: [1] the mouth of the earth…,

פִּי הָאָרֶץ. לִבְלֹעַ קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ:

The mouth of the earth: to swallow Korach and his congregation.

Bartenura

 

This event could be predicted by calculation.

Kodesh is prominent in this week’s parsha. Kodesh is desirable and dangerous and exclusive. The firepans of the rebels, that cost them their lives, are kodesh.  They become part of the altar.

The  people complain to Moshe  about his handling of the rebellion:

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

But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Yisra᾽el murmured against Moshe and against Aharon, saying, You have killed the people of the Lrd.

It is difficult to accept the limitations of access to the Divine.

Is there an aspect of intimacy in the kodesh? The sacred rite is not just a magic, it is a kind of love, reserved for the partners that are chosen .  The choice may seem arbitrary to the outsider, but that does not change the fact.  I think that Korach wanted this special relationship. He was asking for infidelity and he could not have it. He manipulated the people by stoking their anger and appealing to democratic values. It was a ruse – one that works again and again; one that is popular in our times.