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. 

 Behaalothecha: loneliness, despair and faith

I think that Behalothescha has the most complex narrative in the Torah. The capstone is the portrayal of  Moshe's deep depression. In his way, Moshe threatens suicide

וְאִם־כָּ֣כָה ׀ אַתְּ־עֹ֣שֶׂה לִּ֗י הׇרְגֵ֤נִי נָא֙ הָרֹ֔ג אִם־מָצָ֥אתִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ וְאַל־אֶרְאֶ֖ה בְּרָעָתִֽי׃ {פ}
If You would deal thus with me, kill me rather, I beg You, and let me see no more of my wretchedness!”

How can the star of the Torah be portrayed as sinking to this depth? How can the model of proper thinking express such a deeply sinful thought? The idea that a situation could be so dire that it merits self-annihilation challenges the doctrine of a unitary Gd that guides the world in all its aspects. Puny human understanding cannot fathom Gd's infinitely wise plan and should accept whatever comes as a manifestation of Divine will. 

Moshe's request for death with  dignity ("let my wretchedness not be seen") over life, is a very moving statement. In Washington State, a person with a disease deemed "terminal" by a physician can opt for physician assisted suicide, a process commonly called "death with dignity" I have met a number of people who have opted for this. Physical pain is not usually the reason a person asks for death. It is the loss of dignity, the reversion to infant, the need to depend on others, that makes continued life the inferior alternative. Moses prefers death to the indignity of failure. 

Moshe's depression comes with the first of the 30 journeys that the Israelites made in the wilderness after Mount Sinai. Now they were leaving the area of the Midianites and Moses invited Hobab, his father in law, to join them.  Hobab is a word derived from love. Rashi quotes Sifri 

"חוֹבָב" עַל שֶׁחִבֵּב אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וְכוּ' (ספרי):

 Hobab (חֹבָב) because he loved (חֹבֵב) the Torah,

Based upon Moshe's begging him to come and join and the Israelites, I suspect that the love aspect of Hobab's name also reflects personal feelings between Hobab (aka Jethro) and Moshe. When Hobab went back to his people, when he parted form Moshe, Moshe lost a dear friend. Perhaps this contributed to the depth of depression. The burning bush was in Midian, where Moshe lived with his father-in-law. It was Jethro who suggested the hierarchical administrative/legal system that that distributed justice over the people as a whole. It is in the parsha that bears Jethro's name that the Torah is given at Sinai. Leaving Midian and his in-law family was a great blow to Moshe.  

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אַל־נָ֖א תַּעֲזֹ֣ב אֹתָ֑נוּ כִּ֣י ׀ עַל־כֵּ֣ן יָדַ֗עְתָּ חֲנֹתֵ֙נוּ֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְהָיִ֥יתָ לָּ֖נוּ לְעֵינָֽיִם׃ 

He said, “Please do not leave us, inasmuch as you know where we should camp in the wilderness and can be our guide. *guide Lit. “eyes.”

It is possible that a meaning of  Moshe's plea that Hobab remain, based upon his suitability as a guide, does not mean that his sherpa talents. These were not needed. The people followed the cloud . Rather, he was an  organizational (and perhaps spiritual) light. 

The proximate cause of Moshe's despair is the repeated complaints of the nation that he is leading to the promised Land.  An undefined complaint angers Gd, causes a fire that is extinguished by the prayer of Moshe.  Then comes the cry for meat. This comes with nostalgia, the distortion of recall that idealizes the past and disparages the present and future.

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.

Why does Moshe feel compelled to grant this request?  Moshe takes it as a challenge. That leads to hopelessness (a common component of suicidal thoughts).

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!’

Moshe expresses doubt in Gd's omnipotence. The fulfillment   comes  through a manipulation of nature: blowing (migrating) quail off course; delivering the bird carcasses at the feet of the demanding people. I suspect that quelling Moshe's doubts about Gd's powers [and telling us that story] was at least as important as satisfying the nation's demands.

Within this story, the 70 elders who will lead along with Moses are selected. Are they a balm for the loneliness of losing Hobab?  Wisdom needs discussion. 

Inside this story within a story (within a story) there is the story of the Eldad and Medad (the Blues Brothers? [no, his name was Elwood]). Seventy elders assembled to help lead the people. Two stayed home. All 72 were granted prophecy, so  Eldad and Medad were sharing their prophecy outside the group. Joshua, Moshe's understudy perceived this as a threat. Did Joshua think that this was a threat to Moshe's authority and might  contribute to his depression? Was Joshua  concerned about the precedent, worried about competitors when  he led the people after Moses? Moses saw independent prophecy as a blessing. The Blues Brothers  prevail.

Miriam and Aaron's challenge  to Moses follows. They criticize his marital choices.  Is this a demonstration of the danger of unrestricted prophecy? Aaron and Miriam legitimize their complaints  saying that they, too, have a line of communication with Gd. Moshe's superiority  is  proven by his successful short prayer that heals 

 Miriam from the tzoraath inflicted upon her as punishment. Aaron begs Moshe to  pray for their sister; an assertion that Aaron  recognizes Moshe's superior relationship with Gd.

Next week's parsha opens with a continuation to the challenges to authority with the scouts reporting on the promised land. A pattern has been established.

Every person is the leader of the life granted them. Disappointment is a rebellion against the self.  No one lives up to all expectations. Faith is the ultimate source of hope and the escape from despair.

Behaalothecha: loneliness, despair and faith

Behaalothecha: loneliness, despair and faith

I think that Behaalothecha has the most complex narrative in the Torah. The capstone is the portrayal of Moshe’s deep depression. In his way, Moshe threatens suicide

(טו) וְאִם-כָּכָה אַתְּ-עֹשֶׂה לִּי, הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וְאַל-אֶרְאֶה, בְּרָעָתִי.“If You would deal thus with me, kill me rather, I beg You, and let me see no more of my wretchedness!”

How can the star of the Torah be portrayed as sinking to this depth? How can the model of proper thinking express such a deeply sinful thought? The idea that a situation could be so dire that it merits self-annihilation challenges the doctrine of a unitary Gd that guides the world in all its aspects. Puny human understanding cannot fathom Gd’s infinitely wise plan and should accept whatever comes as a manifestation of Divine will.

Moshe's request for death with dignity ("let my wretchedness not be seen") over life, is a very moving statement. In Washington State, a person with a disease deemed "terminal" by a physician can opt for physician assisted suicide, a process commonly called "death with dignity" I have met a number of people who have opted for this. Physical pain is not usually the reason a person asks for death. It is the loss of dignity, the reversion to infant, the need to depend on others, that makes continued life the inferior alternative. Moses prefers death to the indignity of failure. 

Moshe's depression comes with the first of the 30 journeys that the Israelites made in the wilderness after Mount Sinai. Now they were leaving the area of the Midianites and Moses invited Hobab, his father in law, to join them. Hobab is a word derived from love. Rashi quotes Sifri :

חוֹבָב" עַל שָׁחַבַּב אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וכו' (ספרי)" בגב because he loved the Torah, Q Search 

Hobab )ב( because he loved )חב( the Torah

Based upon Moshe's begging him to come and join and the Israelites, I suspect that the love aspect of Hobab's name also reflects personal feelings between Hobab (aka Jethro) and Moshe. When Hobab went back to his people, when he parted form Moshe, Moshe lost a dear friend. Perhaps this contributed to the depth of depression. The burning bush was in Midian, where Moshe lived with his father-in-law. It was Jethro who suggested the hierarchical administrative/legal system that that distributed justice over the people as a whole. It is in the parsha that bears Jethro's name that the Torah is given at Sinai. Leaving Midian and his in-law family was a great blow to Moshe.

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי וּ עַל־כֵן יָדַעְתָּ חָנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָנוּ לְעֵינֶיִם:

He said, "Please do not leave us, inasmuch as you know where we should camp in the wilderness and can be our guide. *guide Lit. "eyes."

It is possible that a meaning of Moshe's plea that Hobab remain, based upon his suitability as a guide, does not mean that his sherpa talents. These were not needed. The people followed the cloud. Rather, he was an organizational (and perhaps spiritual) light.

The proximate cause of Moshe's despair is the repeated complaints of the nation that he is leading to the promised Land. An undefined complaint angers Gd, causes a fire that is extinguished by the prayer of Moshe. Then comes the cry for meat. This comes with nostalgia, the distortion of recall that idealizes the past and disparages the present and future.

זָכַרְנוּ אֶת־הַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר־נאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם חִנָּם אֶת הַקָּשָׁאִים וְאֵת הָאֲבַטְחִים וְאֶת־הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִים וְאֶת־הַשׁוּמִים:

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

Why does Moshe feel compelled to grant this request? Moshe takes it as a challenge. That leads to hopelessness (a common component of suicidal thoughts).

מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר לָתֵת לְכָל־הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי־יִבְכּוּ עָלֵי לֵאמֹר תְּנָה־לָנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכַלָה:

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

Moshe expresses doubt in Gd's omnipotence. The fulfillment comes through a manipulation of nature: blowing (migrating) quail off course; delivering the bird carcasses at the feet of the demanding people. I suspect that quelling Moshe's doubts about Gd's powers [and telling us that story] was at least as important as satisfying the nation's demands.

Within this story, the 70 elders who will lead along with Moses are selected. Are they a balm for the loneliness of losing Hobab? Wisdom needs discussion.

Inside this story within a story (within a story) there is the story of the Eldad and Medad (the Blues Brothers? [no, his name was Elwood]). Seventy elders assembled to help lead the people. Two stayed home. All 72 were granted prophecy, so Eldad and Medad were sharing their prophecy outside the group. Joshua, Moshe's understudy perceived this as a threat. Did Joshua think that this was a threat to Moshe's authority and might contribute to his depression? Was Joshua concerned about the precedent, worried about competitors when he led the people after Moses? Moses saw independent prophecy as a blessing. The Blues Brothers prevail.

Miriam and Aaron's challenge to Moses follows. They criticize his marital choices. Is this a demonstration of the danger of unrestricted prophecy? Aaron and Miriam legitimize their complaints saying that they, too, have a line of communication with Gd. Moshe's superiority is proven by his successful short prayer that heals Miriam from the tzoraath inflicted upon her as punishment. Aaron begs Moshe to pray for their sister; an assertion that Aaron recognizes Moshe's superior relationship with Gd.

Next week's parsha opens with a continuation to the challenges to authority with the scouts reporting on the promised land. A pattern has been established.

Every person is the leader of the life granted them. Disappointment is a rebellion against the self. No one lives up to all expectations. Faith is the ultimate source of hope and the escape from despair.

 Nasoh: The Haftarah

The Haftarah is usually related to the themes of the parsha. It is a section from the prophets, the canon that is outside the 5 books of Moses, that ( in our current Shabbat synagogue service) is read immediately after the portion of the week. 

This week, the Haftarah ( from the book of Judges) describes the annunciation of the birth of Shimshon ( Samson). The most immediate(apparent) reference to our parsha is that the parents of Shimshon are told that the baby would be a Nazerite from birth. This is a unique Nazerism. Becoming a Nazir is generally the voluntary decision of an adult for a limited time period, not imposed  at birth and life long. Another significant difference involves corpse contamination. Contact with the dead did not affect Shimshon's Nazerite status. For the ordinary Nazerite, contamination by the dead was the worst violation. If a Nazerite had pledged to remain in the Nazir state for many months, and he drank wine, he would be subject to lashes for the violation of his vow and the duration of his Nazirism would be unaffected.  If he cut his hair, he would need to have a 30 period of hair growth, no matter how long his vow had stipulated. But if he was contaminated by a corpse ( or equivalent) the Nazerite would need to perform a sacrificial ritual and start again, from the beginning, and complete the duration originally stipulated. 

The theme of the husband who suspects his wife of infidelity which is described in the parsha, is also in this Haftarah. The circumstances of the meeting between [Ha]Tzeleponi (the Talmud's name for Manoach's wife, the mother of Samson) and the angel [who tells her not to drink wine because she will bear a special, Nazerite child] could raise suspicion. When she informs her husband, she uses a phrase: Ba aylai, which could imply intimacy. With her current husband she had been childless.  This new entity, whom she identifies as a man ( although the [omniscient] author previously identified it as a maloch, an angel), comes to me and behold! she is pregnant. Her husband Manoach [a name that implies serenity] does rush to conclusions, he does  not make accusations, he does not invoke the Sotah ritual. The haftarah is modeling better behavior. A meeting between a spouse and a man need not lead to suspicion that requires a demeaning ritual for relief. 

There is also a very indirect reference to the Priestly blessing: the capstone of the section of the parsha that contains the Sotah and the Nazir. The blessing begins with Yivorechechah, usually translated as May the Lrd bless you. The word Baruch, blessing, comes with a fundamental meaning of bowing down. One meaning [that I hold dear] is the bending of a tree branch into the surrounding soil, replanting the tree. The generation of offspring is a fundamental blessing.  Perhaps that is why the sentence ends with v'yishmerecha: "watch over you." Soon, parents have no control over the behavior of their offspring and Divine help is welcomed. Samson was a fairly wild character. Without the restrictions of his nazerism, he might have been worse. Imagine a drunk Samson!

Lack of confidence is a thread in the Haftarah. Manoach needs to hear the instructions [already accurately transmitted by his spouse] directly from the "man of Gd"  The being then proves his liminal nature by jumping into the flames at the feast prepared for him. The insecurity that runs through the haftarah points out the insecurity implicit in the parsha

 The accusations of the jealous husband demonstrate his lack of [self]confidence.  The priestly blessing reassured the Israelites that Gd takes note of them. The parsha ends with the description of the 12 identical gifts bestowed on the Tabernacle by the chiefs of the 12 tribes. The uniformity of the gifts, and the completeness of the repetitions is a way to handle insecurity. The nazir uses a ritual to reinforce a longing for purity of spirit that cannot be achieved without help. 

I find it interesting that my spellcheck does not recognize nazerism.  It wants to correct it to Nazism. The Nazir and the Nazi actually have some aspects in common. Both demand a deep immersion into an illogical ritual for the purpose of self validation. Both reflect a deep insecurity

 Confidence is always based on fiction. It can come in handy.