Ve'Ethchanan: The days after

Every week, I review the parsha, the chapter of the Torah we will read on the ensuing Shabbath.  I take a few minutes each day, mostly during the repetition parts of the prayer service, and generally finish by Thursday evening, so I can write something on Friday morning (now). This week's parsha is especially rich and going over it is especially difficult.  It is the parsha that is always read on the Shabbath after Tisha Ba'Av, called Shabbat Nachamu, the Sabbath of Consolation. 

Tisha Ba'av, the ninth day of the month of Av, is the worst day of the year.  It is the anniversary of the destruction of the Temples: the first Temple Built Circa 966–959 BCE by King Solomon.Destroyed 586 BCE by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II; and the second:  Construction began circa 538 BCE after the return from Babylonian exile and Destroyed 70 CE by the Roman army led by Titus.  It is also the day the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492. The day becomes the repository for memorializing tragedies including the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc.  It is a day of deep mourning, a fast day, the only day of the year on which it is customary not to study Torah.  That adds to my personal difficulty in going over the parsha, but I generally overcome this problem. 

My mother told me that she fasted  on the Tisha Ba'av 1944.  I think she was telling me that somehow that fast (in the midst of ongoing near-starvation  while living in a pit in the forest) helped turn the tide that led to her liberation. Gd was finally convinced! Perhaps it was not my mother's fast, by itself, that started the redemption, but the fast was her vote, her individual contribution. 

For me, that is a foundational story. My mother invested, through her fast, in her identity as a Jew. She saw that: even in the most dire and difficult circumstance, a person can have faith in a better, more normal, future. The story gives me a perspective in why Ve'Ethchanan is studied during the week leading up to Tish BA'Av and publicly  read on the Shabbath after it. 

On Tisha Ba'Av, the Orthodox service  is dominated by a body of Hebrew poetry called Kinoth: elegies about the various destructions , especially the destructions of the Temples. They are elaborate, stylized poems that are somewhat difficult for me to understand in the original Hebrew. But I understand enough of the Hebrew to appreciate that a great deal is lost (and misinterpreted) in the translation. From the combination of Hebrew and English, I can appreciate that some  these elegies can be interpreted as the poet questioning Gd's absence in allowing the tragedies to occur. Usually, the existence of Gd, despite the catastrophe, is justified by blaming the horrors on the sins of the Jewish people that "forces" Gd to punish the people based upon the principle of consistency.  Gd must do what Gd said Gd would do. This is an aspect of Unity ( Hear Isreael...Gd s One). But the poets, even Eleazar beRabbi Qallir (c. 570 – c. 640), the author of most of the Kinoth, has moments of questioning the severity and consequences of the punishments. The answer is in the fact that we recite the poems and fast. 

Irony is a core principle in the Judaism that I know. I see it in Ve'ethchanan. The parsha opens with Moses praying ( the usual translation of ethchanan) that he be allowed to enter the Promised Land. Request denied! Moshe goes on to remind  the Israelites of their perpetual contract, the ten commandments; and writes a "pledge of allegiance", the Shema.  Moses concentrates on all the tomorrows of the people who will have tomorrows: the Israelites that Joshua ( not Moshe) will lead into the land, and all of their future generations. On the week of Tisha Ba'Av we read about unanswered prayers... and the response to that disappointed state. What a resilient religion. 

Look with hope to tomorrow.  Do what needs to be done today. 

Dvarim: Shared decisions

In Cancer  Medicine, we have a concept of "Shared Decision." A shared decision arises when the doctor cannot make a clear recommendation for a course of action.  Treating bacterial pneumonia with antibiotics is not  a shared  decision. It is virtually certain that the appropriate antibiotics will help the patient and the probability of harm is very small. Taking toxic chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer is (supposed to be) a shared decision.  The chance that it will prolong life are well under 50% and the chance that it will have unpleasant side effects approaches or exceeds 50% . These decisions may be shared, but the votes are not equal. The doctor is guiding the conversation and comes with credentials that the patient is paying for. 

In Dvarim,  Moshe recalls important decisions that seem to be shared. The complex introduction to the chapter  is explicit

וָאֹמַ֣ר אֲלֵכֶ֔ם בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִ֖וא לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹא־אוּכַ֥ל לְבַדִּ֖י שְׂאֵ֥ת אֶתְכֶֽם׃ 

Thereupon I said to you, “I cannot bear the burden of you by myself.

A system of judges is established. Presumably, these judges also advised Moshe. 

When the nation approached the promised land, before the 40 years in the desert, Moshe characterizes the interaction as a request from the people: 

וַתִּקְרְב֣וּן אֵלַי֮ כֻּלְּכֶם֒ וַתֹּאמְר֗וּ נִשְׁלְחָ֤ה אֲנָשִׁים֙ לְפָנֵ֔ינוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ־לָ֖נוּ אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְיָשִׁ֤בוּ אֹתָ֙נוּ֙ דָּבָ֔ר אֶת־הַדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נַעֲלֶה־בָּ֔הּ וְאֵת֙ הֶֽעָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָבֹ֖א אֲלֵיהֶֽן׃ 

Then all of you came to me and said, “Let us send agents ahead to reconnoiter the land for us and bring back word on the route we shall follow and the cities we shall come to.”  

Moshe admits that he endorsed the plan.

וַיִּיטַ֥ב בְּעֵינַ֖י הַדָּבָ֑ר וָאֶקַּ֤ח מִכֶּם֙ שְׁנֵ֣ים עָשָׂ֣ר אֲנָשִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁ אֶחָ֖ד לַשָּֽׁבֶט׃ 

I approved of the plan, and so I selected twelve of you, one representative from each tribe.

This was a shared decision. It appeared to be a wise and prudent idea. There was a plan for conquest.  Tactics and strategy would be employed.  The armies  needed information to make the most effective plans. 

 The consequences of that decision were disastrous. The spies told truths about what they had seen: fortified cities, strong champions, a dug-in population. The probability of victory by the Israelites was small.  The nation heard these practical truths and cried. The Powers (through Moshe) was telling them to enter into a hopeless battle. Hearing their despair, Gd declared that they would not conquer the land... now. That generation would die in the wilderness and their children would conquer the land. 

Gd knew that people were terrified of war. When the Exodus is described in Beshalach:

וַיְהִ֗י בְּשַׁלַּ֣ח פַּרְעֹה֮ אֶת־הָעָם֒ וְלֹא־נָחָ֣ם אֱ

 דֶּ֚רֶךְ אֶ֣רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים כִּ֥י קָר֖וֹב ה֑וּא כִּ֣י ׀ אָמַ֣ר אֱ

 פֶּֽן־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ 

Now when Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although it was nearer; for God said, “The people may have a change of heart when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

The Israelites had been supported by miracles, they had been guided by a cloud and a pillar of fire.  The decision to send the spies was a practical human decision, an abandonment of the miracle-guidance. The reaction to the spies' report  meant that future events  would take place in a miracle-free world.  Human action, predictable forces, laws of probability would determine outcomes. They would not follow the order to ascend to the Promised Land because it violated their world-view.   

The contrite nation proved the truth of their logical conclusion. They attempted to enter the land, after Gd had forbidden it to them.  They were sorely defeated by the Amorites

Timothy Snyder (in Black Earth)  proposes that Hitler waged his war based on the belief that the earth's resources could not sustain the growing population. He would assure that the German people survived while others starved.  The supply of fertilizer was limiting and running out. The invention of fertilizer synthesized from air, creating a (near) limitless supply  of organic nitrogen (the invention of Fritz Haber, his own chief chemist) did not enter his world view. Limited vision can be very costly. 

The chapter goes on to describe attempts to reach the land  by passing through the lands of Esau and Moab. These (privileged) tribes refused to allow the Israelites passage. We are reminded that these peoples had conquered lands once held by Titans. Their successful replacement of the  Aymim (by Moab) and the Chorim ( by Esau)  indicated the possibility of victory over a strong nation of giants.  Those colonizations  rationalize the acts that Israel is now told to do: displace indigenous peoples. 

The Promised Land that is conquered in this chapter  has (recently?) been taken from the last conquistador.  Sichon had acquired his rule over Cheshvon  by victory over the Moabites.  ( Numbers 21;26)

כִּ֣י חֶשְׁבּ֔וֹן עִ֗יר סִיחֹ֛ן מֶ֥לֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֖י הִ֑וא וְה֣וּא נִלְחַ֗ם בְּמֶ֤לֶךְ מוֹאָב֙ הָֽרִאשׁ֔וֹן וַיִּקַּ֧ח אֶת־כׇּל־אַרְצ֛וֹ מִיָּד֖וֹ עַד־אַרְנֹֽן׃ 

Now Heshbon was the city of Sihon king of the Amorites, who had fought against a former king of Moab and taken all his land from him as far as the Arnon.

Thus, when Moses sends messengers to Sichon, asking to cross his territory, and reminds him of Israel's behavior with Esau and Maob, perhaps he was pointing out the distinction. Sichon had usurped power from Moab. Attacking  Cheshvon was  an act of liberation as well as conquest. When Sichon was offered a peaceful solution (allowing the Israelites to pass), he responded by amassing his troops and declaring war. That is how the conquest began. 

I have come to believe that our decisions do not change history. Human world view is too narrow for that. Our decisions determine our place in history; and no one, not even Moses, is right all the time. 

 Matoth-Massei: Boundaries

There are two subjects in these two parshaioth: oaths and boundaries. They are related concepts. An oath is a boundary: it defines a class of situations that constitute compliance ("inside") and a class of situations (every other state) that are out of compliance (outside).  All land boundaries  constitute a threat to prosecute (one way or another) any violator; it rests on a promise, an oath. The parsha also contains the principles of contracts, complex mutual oaths. A contract, by Talmudic standards, must explicitly state the consequences of compliance and the consequences of non-compliance for all parties to the contract. The validity of an oath or a boundary or a contract depended on the credibility of the enforcer. Can the statement be backed up with action.

The boundaries of the Promised Land are stated in this week's reading. These are lines established by conquest, deadly force. Israel will settle this land, and the current inhabitants will either leave or be killed. Of course, the current inhabitants defend their homes with all their means, including their lives.  This is the most extreme enforcement of statement: war. 

The second chapter that we read, Masei, starts by enumerating the stations of travel through the wilderness. Most of the 42 journeys taken by the Israelites after the Exodus from Egypt are relatively uneventful. The first few involve moves that entrap the Egyptian army in the Sea of Reeds. Toward the end, there are confrontations with larger nations, culminating in the conquest of Sichon and Og and the acquisition of this previously Moabite land that had been annexed by these Amorite kings. The bland travels, place names without events, reflect a peaceful, but unsustainable time, in the wilderness. The people needed the land for ongoing sustenance.  Gd needed to give them the land to fulfill the oath made to Abraham; and Gd would show that the necessary force was available. That people, Israel, would eventually survive for millennia  without a land of their own. In my lifetime, we are learning how to integrate the return to that land and dealing with the powers that enforce and threaten the dream of resettlement.

Talmudic contract law is based upon a story in this week's reading. That story begins by telling us that the Reubenites (the replaced first born)  and the Gadites were exceedingly wealthy. They owned a great deal of portable capital, cattle. 

וּמִקְנֶ֣ה ׀ רַ֗ב הָיָ֞ה לִבְנֵ֧י רְאוּבֵ֛ן וְלִבְנֵי־גָ֖ד עָצ֣וּם מְאֹ֑ד וַיִּרְא֞וּ אֶת־אֶ֤רֶץ יַעְזֵר֙ וְאֶת־אֶ֣רֶץ גִּלְעָ֔ד וְהִנֵּ֥ה הַמָּק֖וֹם מְק֥וֹם מִקְנֶֽה׃ 

The Reubenites and the Gadites owned cattle in very great numbers. Noting that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were a region suitable for cattle. 

They offered to take this land as their portion of the Promised Land. But the land was to be divided according to a lottery, so how could they claim this land? One possible answer: this was their lottery assigned land. A second possibility is that these lands, conquered from Og and Sichon, were not part of the Promise, they were extra, open  to be used at the discretion of Moses and the people. A third possibility: the tribes of Reuben and Gad were going to take this land, whether it came by lot or they would trade with other tribes to get it because it was the best resource for their cattle... and their wealth would enforce their decision. 

Regardless, these tribes made an offer to settle this land, which was most suitable for their cattle and probably less desirable for other tribes. Moses observes that this would diminish the army; if they did not fight for the land with the other Israelites, they were re-enacting the sin of the spies which relegated the Israelites to the 40 years of exile that were now ending. They made a contract: If they stayed with the Israelite army until the conquest was complete, they could get the land they desired. If they failed in this condition, they would lose this land and receive some lottery assigned land. This becomes the model contract: Reward, conditions for compliance,  consequence of non compliance. In this case Gd is  the agent of enforcement. 

Near the end of chapter Masei there is a discussion of the cities of refuge. These (originally six) Levite (tribeless) cities rescued the unintentional murderer from being (legally)  killed  by the Avenger of Blood (goayl hadam), a relative of the murdered person pursuing the killer. I can imagine this process in the context of the land-based economy of the time. 

The first exiled murder was Cain. He killed his brother Abel. Unpunished, that act would have made Cain the master of all the earth. Instead, the earth was made refractory.  He was banished and so he founded a city, he became urban, the city was his refuge

וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֙יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנ֥וֹ חֲנֽוֹךְ׃ 

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded a city, and named the city after his son Enoch.

The section of cities of refuge is full of details of killings that qualify for refuge and those that do not. What motivated those killings? Enforcement of land possession? The desire to possess additional land? Probably, sometimes.

The redeemer (goayl) is mentioned in the book of Ruth. The context of redemption in Ruth is not murder, but the Levirate marriage (marrying the childless widow of a close relative).  Boaz, who ultimately rescues the situation, must eliminate a closer relative who has the right of redemption 

 יֹּ֣אמֶר בֹּ֔עַז בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ֥ הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד נׇעֳמִ֑י וּ֠מֵאֵ֠ת ר֣וּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּ֤ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּת֙ (קניתי) [קָנִ֔יתָ] לְהָקִ֥ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֖ת עַל־נַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃ 

Boaz continued, “When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate.”

Redeemer (goayl) status includes a claim to property. I think this can be extrapolated to the goayl hadam, the Blood redeemer. This suggests an underlying economic motive for this system , now mollified by the Cities of Refuge.  The city of refuge has the state intervening in this process; becoming the enforcer of boundaries and, eventually, contracts. 

Many principles that govern the modern world evolved from the laws and stories in these chapters of the Torah. That process continues to evolve  through both compliance and rebellion. 

 

Pinchas: America

I grew up in the United States of America. I was circumcised as a Jew at 8 days. Is this an identity problem? For all of my life, I have been taught that it is not. 

Today is American Independence Day, the most significant national holiday in America. The holiday celebrates the declaration of independence from England. Thirteen (now, former) colonies of the greatest colonial power in the world declared that they would no longer be subject to the governance of the king and his parliament. This amounted to an act of rebellion. It set up a new economic order in the New World, forcing self reliance for all goods. The celebrated Declaration  contained new principles that justified the  the defection of the colonies; human equality and  government by consent.  These ideas  were latent in ancient literature, especially and  including the Torah (which was familiar to all the signers and  the vast majority of the colonists) and evolved into talking points that justified rebellion. 

The high school  understanding of the break between England and the nascent United States emphasizes the human rights aspect; it implies that the fight for human rights motivated independence and justified the war that followed. Having lived through the evolution of the United States up to the present, I think that economic considerations were foremost. It is, however, very pleasing that human equality and self governance were the rallying cry. 

One of the highlights in parshath Pinchas is the statement of inheritance law that follows the request of the daughters of Zelophehad: that women be granted inheritance rights. Zelophehad  had no sons, but he had five outstanding daughters. These women 

וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֜דְנָה לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֗ה וְלִפְנֵי֙ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְלִפְנֵ֥י הַנְּשִׂיאִ֖ם וְכׇל־הָעֵדָ֑ה פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃ 

They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said

Stop! These women (the verb is overtly feminine) stood before this assembly of every source of  male power  and governance. There is an implication of political power coming from various sources.  They did not go to Moses alone, they needed the buy-in of the sacred (Elazar, the High Priest [supreme court?]) and the princes (the Lords or the Senate) and the whole assembly ( the Commons or Congress). The Torah stated this presentation in a way that implies a distribution of power. This principle of distributed power had evolved in England, but the American constitution codified it and took it further.  The constitution allowed for evolution depending upon circumstances. We are watching that now. 

לָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵׁם־אָבִ֙ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ׃ 

Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!”

These women made a novel suggestion: Women could inherit land. Women are not specifically mentioned in terms of property law. Actually, up until this point, the laws of inheritance are not defined. 

Moses, and presumably this entire assembly, does not know what to answer. 

וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְ  Moses brought their case before GD

(I love that long, feminizing nun)

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 the Declaration of Independence it is written: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

The use of the word "men"  seems to exclude women. In our times, 250 years later, we would insist on a more inclusive noun. We do, however, know that these "men" did not include male (or female) slaves. I take that to mean that slaves (and women) were so far from the "men" referred to in the declaration, that there is no need to mention  beings that certainly have no rights. Slaves (and women) are simply not people. They are outside the scope of the document. 

The story of Zelophehad’s daughters is revolutionary. I could easily believe that it formed one of the foundations for women's suffrage in the US and elsewhere. The most significant part is that women are noticed. And Gd asserts that the women are correct. 

The United States was formed as  a rebellion of the (relatively) disinherited subsequent sons after the first born inherited the land. This practice, Primogeniture,  was  repealed during the revolution. Nobility was abolished. America was the land of opportunity Anyone could rise, regardless of birth status... unless you were  Black, Italian, a woman, etc. America was a place where prejudices were nurtured at home. The public requirements for equality were, nevertheless, a leap forward.  For a long time, the principle of equal opportunity was a serious consideration. Currently, it is undergoing a challenging redefinition. 

When I was a child, I watched  Howdy Doody,  a television show that taught young children how to be American. The villain of the show was the mayor of Doodyville, the opponent of fun: Phineas T Bluster. This was the first Pinchas character I met (Phineas is the English translation of Pinchas). What is the relationship between this Phineas and the Pinchas of our parsha? 

Phineas Bluster is portrayed as a conservative character.  His dress is 19th century.  He is resistant to change. While the other characters want to improve the town, Phineas wants things to stay the way they are. Pinchas seems to have the same values, but for Pinchas, the change, promiscuity with the Midianites and Moabites is portrayed as destructive to the nation; in Howdy Doody (America) change is improvement. 

Phineas Bluster has always been the mayor. We do not know how Phineas rose to his status, but presumably he inherited wealth and position -  since his own schemes always fail. His aristocracy is part of his villainy. Pinchas was an outcast, the son of a Midianite who was not anointed a priest. By his action, he is granted status....and legacy. Pinchas lives the American dream. 

The selection of Joshua as the next leader of the people is an abandonment of nepotism. Caleb, already singled out as a loyal scout who encouraged proceeding into the Promised Land when the others (except, eventually, Joshua) bemoaned the apparent impossibility, was (according to the Midrash) married to Miriam, Moshe’s sister.  He was from the overwhelmingly largest tribe. Joshua was chosen. Joshua was not a member of the family  and he was from the tribe of Ephraim. His choice was more inclusive, more diverse. 

As a Jew, I want to preserve my heritage and pass it along. As an American ( as I understood it until recently) I want to respect and  benefit all people - like emigrating to this country benefited my parents and then me. Those values do not seem to conflict, and perhaps they need not. 

Then there are the details. 

Chukath-Balak: Power

In physics, power has a mathematical definition. It is the amount of work (which is force X distance) divided by time.  In comic books, power is the manifestation (the -er) that delivers the POW. In my mind, the sanctity of the Torah requires that it works on both of those levels. These two parshioth , Chukath and Balak are written as simple narratives but they raise deep questions in the world of rigorous definition. Do humans have powers that are independent of Gd's?  Can Gd's power be manipulated by human entreaties? When should humans act and when should they defer to a greater force?

Chukath opens with a description of the Red Heifer (parah adumah) ritual which prepares ashes of purification.  Those ashes are spread on spring water to create the mixture that is sprinkled to purify a person or object from the tumah (impurity) that arises from contact with the dead.  

The parsha opens with 

זֹ֚את חֻקַּ֣ת הַתּוֹרָ֔ה

This is the chok (edict) of the Torah

Chok, the root of the title word of this week's parsha, means an edict, and executive order. It is arbitrary and can not be questioned. 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. 

The absolutist tone taken by the first statement in the parsha: THIS is the chok brings attention to a  double meaning. The instructions on the preparation of red heifer ashes that follows: is an inviolable rule. Failure to understand it does not exempt the nation from the rule. It is a chok. 

The ritual itself is necessitated by the great, natural chok (rule): Every person must die. At conception, every person is given an allotment (a chok) of  days and years of life. In a moment of frustration with humanity, Gd had declared that the human lifespan would be 120 years ( Moses lived exactly that long). After death, the corpse is the epitome of tumah (impurity). 

The chok is binding on the subject. It also restricts the power that issued the edict. It limits the ways in which the story can play out. Miriam and Aaron both die in parshath Chukath.  Their apportioned time was done.  

Chukath deals with the relationship between the Ruler and the dependents.  Gd has the power to make things happen.  Can human action  influence how that power is used?  The first thing we hear is that there is an unquestionable rule: [Every person must die and] There is a defined, unintelligible purification process. 

[Actually, there is a way to understand the purification process rationally. In context, the seven day ritual comes as a remedy for the problem of dying because of entering the sanctuary. 

כֹּ֣ל הַקָּרֵ֧ב ׀ הַקָּרֵ֛ב אֶל־מִשְׁכַּ֥ן יְ

יָמ֑וּת הַאִ֥ם תַּ֖מְנוּ לִגְוֺֽעַ׃ {ס}         

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

On the "spiritual" plane, entering the sanctum in a state of tumah (impurity) is a fatal error. Scientifically, the sanctuary was a crowded place, where infections could be transmitted. Some infections may have been fatal. The seven day purification process, complicated and prolonged by the burden of arranging the sprinkling of the ash-water was a quarantine. The contaminated person, the person exposed to the (microbes that caused) death was isolated and could not transmit the infection.  Maybe.]

Chukath contains the story of Moses striking  the rock to obtain water for the thirsty people. Moses was instructed by Gd to talk to the rock and, instead, he struck the rock with the (magic) staff. This becomes the reason that Moses and Aaron do not enter the promised land: 

 יַ֚עַן לֹא־הֶאֱמַנְתֶּ֣ם בִּ֔י לְהַ֨קְדִּישֵׁ֔נִי לְעֵינֵ֖י בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל לָכֵ֗ן לֹ֤א תָבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶת־הַקָּהָ֣ל הַזֶּ֔ה אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֥תִּי לָהֶֽם׃ 

But GD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.”

Gd demanded personal credit for the water. Striking the rock reflected a lack of faith that translated into a failure to sanctify, a failure to ascribe proper credit. This was a huge error!

 

This episode contrasts with a subsequent story.  The nation complains about the food and the lack of water. Gd sends fiery (poisonous?) serpents into the camp that bite the complainers. The people repent and ask Moses to intercede.  Gd tells Moses to make make a copper serpent on a staff (Caduceus?

) , the sight of which heals the bitten. Gd glorifies Moses through this intervention; that is hard to harmonize with striking the rock.  (Hezekiah ultimately destroys the copper serpent on the staff because it misdirects people toward a belief in magic). 

Chukath ends with the conquest of some of the territory surrounding the Promised Land: the victories over Sichon and Og.  The idea of chok is implicit. The Promise to Abraham becomes a chok, an apportionment [that needs no rational understanding]. As in any chok, the boundaries  are predefined.. When Moses approached the Edomites for a rite of way to that land, the Edomites refused, and Israel went around.  They did not challenge the Edomites.  But when the Amorites were approached,  Sichon  and Og  immediately offered armed resistance and were conquered by the Israelites. These were territories outside the bounds of the chok.  Oh well!

Balak is a story of perception. Balak, an Emorite king is justifiably frightened that those same invading Israelites will overwhelm his realm. He wants to use the ultimate weapon: Divine intervention. Balak believes that prophets, those with whom Gd deigns to communicate, can direct the Divine forces.  Balaam, the prophet he hires, repeatedly corrects that misconception. Balaam blesses the Israelites instead of cursing them.  The prophet can only transmit Divine will; the prophet cannot direct it. 

Balaam's travel is impeded by an angel that is invisible to Balaam, but his donkey sees. After numerous beatings, the donkey speaks to Balaam and points out the threatening angel. Balaam is blind to the danger.  Balaam has closed his eyes to Divine will. 

I feel like Balaam on the donkey. I cannot see the (often threatening) reality of the world.  The donkey only speaks at the last minute. I cannot wait that long. I must settle for the awareness that I do not understand.

 Korach: Misguided Sanctity

Korach is a prominent Levite, the paradigm of the arrogance that can come from great wealth. He challenges the ministerial position awarded to Aaron: High Priest ,Cohen Gadol.  The High Priest represents the people of the nation before Gd, but the people did not elect him. Moses informed the people that he had been selected by Gd. Korah and his compatriots claim

כִּ֤י כׇל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים וּבְתוֹכָ֖ם יְ

For all the community are holy, all of them, and GD is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above GD’s congregation?”

The Ibn Ezra informs us that the rebels had among them 

 קְרִאֵ֥י מוֹעֵ֖ד, those called to the (tent of assembly), presumably members of the elders who Gd had drafted to assists Moshe  two chapiters back, in Behaalothcha, when Moshe said that he could not carry  this entire nation alone  Banidbar 11;14

לֹֽא־אוּכַ֤ל אָנֹכִי֙ לְבַדִּ֔י לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֥י כָבֵ֖ד מִמֶּֽנִּי׃ 

I cannot carry all this people by myself, for it is too much for me.

When two of those selected, Eldad and Medad, did not come to the Ohel Moed, tent of meeting, and prophesied in the camp, Joshua asked if they should not be silenced (with prejudice). Was the Korach rebellion the kind of public prophecy that Joshua feared? A combination of truths that comes to a disastrously wrong conclusion. 

The Haftarah tells of a later popular movement to re-organize governance: the establishment of the monarchy. The people approach Shmuel, who has served as the guiding prophet of Israel, to abdicate in favor of a king. The king will be a champion in battle. Shmuel (incidentally, a descendant of Korach)  recalls  that the current system, headed by a prophet , has worked quite well. But Shmuel accedes to the will of the people. A new phase in history, complicated by this imperfect choice, ensues. Kings do a lot of damage in their struggles to retain power.  They are very expensive. 

Among non-Orthodox American Jews, there is a great deal of sympathy for Korach and his dream of decentralization ( which is [mis]interpreted as a call for democracy). Korach's motives were complex; his words may not have revealed all of his plans. 

Korach and his band of  250 are put to a test. They will offer incense and Aaron will offer incense. The Korach groups attempt to perform a semblance of the sacred service.  The result is that Korach is swallowed by the earth and the 250 with him are burned. 

The copper pans that the rebels used are now called kodesh, holy. Elazar is to have them beaten into a plate that will be incorporated into the altar in the Temple courtyard. Rashi  and many other after him, say that the plate made from the rebel firepans were a reminder of the consequences of rebellion. Ibn Ezra, and many others, say that using these firepans for a sacred rite, even though it was misguided, sanctified the objects. The rebellious intent did not disqualify the metal. 

This idea that misguided sanctity is, nevertheless, holy, should not shock. Orthodox Judaism is focused on practice, not intention.  There are many practices that I do not fully understand. The search for meaning in the rituals I perform is an ongoing source of insight.  Recognizing that I do not understand how things work and why things are a particular way is a very important lesson for me. Ritual is an effective way of dealing with my ignorance. 

On the other hand, I live in a world permeated by foreign rituals and beliefs. I need a position from which to question these accepted practices . The rituals of my ancestors gives me a place to stand. 

Shelach

This year, I am fascinated by the connection between this week/'s parsha and Behaalothecha, last week's parsha. It brings into focus a fundamental problem in the Torah: Gd's promises; figuring out  the extent to which we must use  human effort, and when  we must trust in a Gd that severely limits communication with humans. 

This week, scouts are sent to the Promised Land. This is the land promised to Abraham. It is currently occupied.  Military conquest is imagined as the route to settling the newly self-liberated nation on that land and the army must prepare.

The first words of chapter, shelach lecha, are in the imperative mood Gd seems to be commanding this human activity. Rashi transfers the blame to Moses by pointing out that the lecha [for yourself] addendum made the sending of spies optional.  Moses [in Deuteronomy] blames the insistence of the Israelites.  It did not turn out well; plenty of blame to go around. 

The scouting mission does not bring back a report of the terrain: the details of mountain passes and rivers, information needed for the practical planning of military strategy. Instead the spies confirm the fruitfulness of the land. The spies also offer their opinion about the prospects for military victory; most of them say that the Israelite position is hopeless. The Israelites cannot overpower these giants in a land that eats its inhabitants.  The Israelites are ready to hear that they cannot win in a war against the nations. The Israelites  cry about their desperate situation and express a desire to return to Egypt, to their slave lives.

Gd reacts by vengefully granting the people's request.  They will not be allowed to enter the land yet. Their children, the next generation, will enter the land. Perhaps the Israelites' expression of hopelessness necessitated their exclusion from the land. An easily broken people could not rise to the task of building a new nation in a new land.  The generation that had left Egypt had learned how to survive as slaves.  They had learned that being downtrodden was compatible with life; dignity was a luxury. The generation of the wilderness lived on miracles. They grew up with a different kind of self assurance: they knew that they would get the miracles that they needed. 

Moses had shown a similar misunderstanding. When confronted with  the Israelites' demand for meat, he did not believe it possible ot fulfill the demand. His frustration, his hopelessness, drove Moses to ask Gd for death, rather than face his defeat. Moses, like the Israelites who had heeded the warnings of the scouts, underestimated Gd's power. These are both stories of people looking at the feasibility  tasks  from the perspective of human limits. In the case of the spies, in our parsha, the failure to recognize superhuman capabilities, is punished by life-long exile. 

These stories echo Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The humans do not understand the literal nature of the Divine command not to eat  of the Tree of Daath. The King James committee translated the Hebrew daath as "knowledge." I think that the cognitive function best described by the Hebrew daath is "opinion" This is the cognitive function that a machine cannot have (although AI chat fakes it).  Daath is a hypothesis that is assumed to be true, it is a belief. The Ultra -Orthodox chareidim have a concept of das[th] Torah: a rabbi will give extraordinary advice on medical issues and other science (which he has no training in) based upon the purity of thought that devolves from the study of Talmud and other sacred texts. [Don't underestimate the value of Das Torah. The rabbi often has very expert connections and asks difficult questions].  Should the Israelites have sought Das Torah when the spies returned?

These stories are very confusing if they are applied to everyday life. Steve Jobs demanded the impossible when he produced the iphone... and he got it. Believing something can be done is a prerequisite to most  great achievements, even though the vast majority of attempts fail.

The application to the  modern state of Israel is difficult. The history (or myth) is based upon a phrase attributed to Theodore Herzl: im tirtzu, ain zeh agaddah, If you will it, this is not a legend. The convergence of the collapse of [an overt] colonial system, persistence of a legend and the belief it could be actualized, the international disenfranchisement of the Jews, the power of the wealth accumulated by some Jews, conspired to create the state [along with many other factors]. Some Jews believe that the modern state is the fulfillment of a prophecy, and act of Gd ( a position that I agree with, to an extent).  Some would use the biblical stories and injunctions to justify the killing of Gentiles in the land (a position that I find shameful and object to). 

The stories are a wild card. They can justify anything. They make a lot of trouble. They make a great deal of good possible. 

Gd seems to want us to make an effort and believe the result is a Divine intervention. We are always on the edge.