Va-et’chanan
Deuteronomy 3:23 – 7:11
I. Summary
A. Va-et’chanan = “I (Moses) pleaded” (with the Eternal … to see the good land on the other side of the Jordan)
B. oses pleads with God to let Moses enter the Promised Land with the people, but God once more refuses his request. (Deut. 3:23–29)
C. Moses orders the Israelites to pay attention and follow the laws given by God completely in order to be worthy of the land they are about to receive. Moses warns the Israelites that if they “act wickedly”, they shall be “utterly wiped out”. (Deut. 4:1–40)
D. Moses sets aside specific areas of the land to serve as cities of refuge. (Deut. 4:41–43)
E. Moses calls on Israelites to study and observe laws and rules proclaimed by Moses (first of several references to Sh’ma ... “Hear O Israel”). Moses recalls the covenant at Sinai and sets out the Decalogue (not exactly the same as Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-18). Once again, the people are told to heed God’s commandments. (Deut. 5:1–30)
F. Moses speaks all the words of the Sh’ma and commands Israel to show their love for God and keep God’s laws and ordinances. Moses warns the Israelites again about worshipping other gods (Deut. 6:1–25)
G. Moses tells the Israelites how to deal with nations they conquer (Deut. 7:1-11), i.e. “doom them to destruction, do not intermarry with them, tear down their altars and … consign their images to the fire”. He warns them that if the conquered nations turn the Israelites away from God, then “the Eternal’s anger will blaze forth against you and promptly wipe you out”. (Deut. 7:4) For emphasis (apparently), Moses reminds the Israelites that God “instantly requites (avenges) with destruction those who reject God – never slow with those who reject, but requiting them instantly”. (Deut. 7:10)
II. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, prior Hevreh discussions)
A. Hearing v. seeing - Consider the primacy of hearing over seeing (“Hear O Israel”) and the enduring power of instructions heard and spoken, in contrast to the fleeting nature of the visual world. Moses fears that visual observation, even of common natural phenomena, can lead one to the mistaken belief that some power besides God is involved in the governance and maintenance of the cosmos. And so he teaches Israel to depend less on what it can see than on what it can hear. Even when retelling the story of the Revelation at Sinai, Moses downplays its memorable visual spectacle—the mountain engulfed in smoke and flame—and focuses instead on what Israel heard there. Only the words you hear originate in heaven, he insists; what you see is hopelessly earthbound (Deuteronomy 4:36).
B. “Enough for you” (Deut 3:26) – God’s impatience with Moses echoes God’s prior impatience with Israelites (Deut 1:6 – “Long enough you have stayed at this mountain” and Deut. 2:3 – “Long enough you have swung around this high country”).
C. Change in role of Moses - Moses is no longer the great intermediary between God and the people of Israel. After many examples of Moses' selflessness as a heroic leader, Moses now pleads with God to allow his entry into the Promised Land which arguably is a moment of selfishness. (Deut. 3:23-28)
D. Did God forgive Moses’ sin? – No, because of the public nature of the sin (failing to heed God’s command to speak to the rock to receive water from it rather than striking it), Moses’ act affected not only him, but also the entire community of Israel … it was the potential effect that his lack of obedience could have on all the populous that made Moses’ act so sinful. Contra, Yes, when Moses asked, “Let me cross over and see” and God complied in part by allowing Moses to “Go up and see” Promised Land; however, some say God’s answer to Moses’ prayer was God telling Moses to “Give Joshua his instructions, and imbue him with strength and courage …” Moses’ comfort was to know that someone else would continue what Moses had begun.
E. Free will – Deut 5:26 = proof text for free will in that Moses reports that God hopes Israel would always revere Eternal and divine commandments, i.e. implication that God does not know if Israelites will obey the words of God (contra, God always knows how people will exercise their free will). How do we explain God exercising a free will and making choices that don’t square with human concepts of justice?
F. Following laws completely - "You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it." (Deut. 4:2) "It will be therefore to our merit before Adonai our God to observe faithfully this whole Instruction, as God has commanded us." (Deut. 6:25) Consider the impossibility and impracticality of an individual following every Law as it is written all of the time. Contra, strict constructionist view intended to be limited to requirement to worship single God. Also, Moses’ words were intended to diminish any impression that Deuteronomy revised earlier laws and traditions.
G. Alternative interpretations of Sabbath reference in Ten Commandments - Exodus 20:8 says “zachor / remember” the Sabbath v. Deuteronomy says “shamor / observe" the Sabbath (Deut 5:12). Both setting Sabbath apart as holy time and action in refraining from certain activities are required.
H. Sh’ma (Deut. 6:4) – Typically seen as an assertion of monotheism but that view is anachronistic. In context of ancient Israel, Sh’ma served as proclamation of exclusive loyalty to Yhvh (but not deny existence of other gods). Monotheism became norm at time of Second Temple when Sh’ma also became central to liturgy through rabbinic interpretation to recite Sh’ma twice daily and recognized as legally binding oath to carry out requirements of Torah.
I. Sh’ma’s Adonai v. Elohim - Two names for God appear in Sh’ma -Adonai and Elohim. Adonai refers to God's merciful, compassionate side (stands for what ought to be) whereas Elohim (creates the world and all its dangers) indicates God's stern, judgmental aspect. Both views of God are necessary. We need to be reminded of nature's power, the law of consequences, and the omnipotence of our Creator. But we also need the hope and inspiration of Adonai.
J. Sh’ma’s “You shall love the Lord your God…." (Deut. 6:4-9) – 1) Can love be commanded? 2) How does one love God? … attention to mitzvot? … doing Godly deeds?). 3) Love and fear motivate us to do God’s will , but of the two, according to the Rabbis, love is superior. Note sources of full Sh’ma - Deuteronomy 6:4–9, Deuteronomy 11:13–21, and Numbers 15:37–41.
K. Sh’ma’s “bind them as a sign on your hand and … on your forehead” – Basis of tefillin on arm and forehead. Contra, Septuagint views law as metaphorical only (though “on the doorposts” always viewed literally).
III. Lessons for today
A. Dictates of Decalogue (Deut 5:6-18) – Specific commandments. Sets out requirements and prohibitions, i.e. substantive law.
B. Dictates of Sh’ma (Deut 6:4) – Sets out required motivation for following commandments, i.e. just following laws is not enough … awareness of laws must be continuous and grounded in deeply accepted faith in God.
(Revised 7/28/09)
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Deuternonomy D'varim
D’varim
Deuteronomy 1:1 – 3:22
I. Summary
A. D’varim = (These are the) “words” (that Moses addressed to all Israel).
B. Moses recounts 1) Israelite departing Egypt and going into wilderness, 2) Moses delegating dispute responsibility to tribal leaders 3) Israelite scouts scoping out Canaan and 4) Israelite cowardice growing from lack of faith (believing reports of pessimistic scouts and refusing to enter Canaan). (1:1–33)
C. Moses recounts 1) God mandating that Israelite generation that left Egypt (including Moses but excluding Caleb and Joshua) in wilderness, 2) God appointing Joshua to succeed Moses, 3) God ordering Israelites back into wilderness (rather than sending them into Canaan) and 4) God refusing to help Israelites against Amorites and resulting Amorite victory over Israelites. (1:34–45)
D. Moses jumps ahead 38 years and recounts 1) God refusing to allow Israelites to conquer territories of Edom or Moab, 2) death of all Israelite warriors who left Egypt (as God had intended) and 3) Israelite victory over two Amorite kingdoms. (1:46–3:11)
E. Moses recounts 1) apportioning of conquered land among Israelite tribes, 2) negotiated agreement with tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manessah (to temporarily participate in military occupation of Cannan and then return to east side of Jordan) and 3) Moses giving pep talk to Joshua and Israelites (telling them that God will be with them in future conquest of Canaan). (3:12–22)
II. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, prior Hevreh discussions)
A. Purpose of Moses’ discourse to Israelites – Why does Moses recount to Israelite experience since they left Egypt? - 1) For God – final opportunity to use Moses as vehicle to motivate and impress words of God on Israelites before they enter Promised Land. 2) For Moses – his last opportunity to function as Israelite leader and send Israelites into Canaan with proper mindset. 3) For Israelites – final opportunity to hear words which help them complete evolution into independent thinking people with commitment to live by God’s words.
B. Moses skipping middle 38 years of Israelites’ 40-year wilderness experience – Does fact that Moses does not recount middle 38 years take any significance away from that period? Presumably NO but why not? … possible reasons: 1) every day counts, 2) Moses’ focus on beginning and end helps Israelites see how they have evolved to an independent people ready for Promised Land but middle 38 years absolutely necessary to achieve that evolution.
C. Inconsistency in narrative of Deuteronomy v. Numbers - Deuteronomy recognizes only Caleb (v. Caleb and Joshua in Numbers 14:6) as the spy who spoke optimistically and therefore deserving of entering the Promised Land. Joshua is rewarded not because of his role as an optimistic spy but simply because of his role as Moses’ lieutenant and ability to lead the nation after Moses. Further, Deuteronomy says Moses denied entrance to the Promised Land as punishment for his individual sin of going along with judgment of pessimistic spies, i.e. sharing responsibility with Israelites (Deut. 1:37) v. Moses’ individual punishment for him hitting rock twice (see Numbers).
D. Validation of monotheism - God is recognized as the only God for all people i.e. Israelites and non-Israelites (Deut. 6:4). Monotheism is proclaimed in its full force
III. Lessons for today
A. Cumulative experience shapes who we are - Our moral make-up and priorities today are a function of the cumulative experiences of our ancestors … who we are today will add to the mix of the kind of people our descendants will be. This is both comforting (after our physical death, our life-force continues to live through our children) and burdensome (our children suffer from our mistakes).
B. Justification in Torah for co-existence of Israel and Palestine - Despite the anger we might feel toward the Palestinians, Deuteronomy 2:2–7 reminds us that God did indeed promise land to other nations in the region beside Israel. Despite our feelings, we must live according to our ethical and religious precepts. Reform Judaism has always maintained that the Palestinians are entitled to coexist side by side with Israel and has also challenged the efficacy of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
C. People are responsible for each other as well as themselves – Per Deuteronomy, Moses was punished (by being denied access to Promised Land) for sins of Israelites (believing pessimistic scouts and therefore not having faith in God). Suggests collective responsibility and accountability.
(Revised 7/25/09)
Deuteronomy 1:1 – 3:22
I. Summary
A. D’varim = (These are the) “words” (that Moses addressed to all Israel).
B. Moses recounts 1) Israelite departing Egypt and going into wilderness, 2) Moses delegating dispute responsibility to tribal leaders 3) Israelite scouts scoping out Canaan and 4) Israelite cowardice growing from lack of faith (believing reports of pessimistic scouts and refusing to enter Canaan). (1:1–33)
C. Moses recounts 1) God mandating that Israelite generation that left Egypt (including Moses but excluding Caleb and Joshua) in wilderness, 2) God appointing Joshua to succeed Moses, 3) God ordering Israelites back into wilderness (rather than sending them into Canaan) and 4) God refusing to help Israelites against Amorites and resulting Amorite victory over Israelites. (1:34–45)
D. Moses jumps ahead 38 years and recounts 1) God refusing to allow Israelites to conquer territories of Edom or Moab, 2) death of all Israelite warriors who left Egypt (as God had intended) and 3) Israelite victory over two Amorite kingdoms. (1:46–3:11)
E. Moses recounts 1) apportioning of conquered land among Israelite tribes, 2) negotiated agreement with tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manessah (to temporarily participate in military occupation of Cannan and then return to east side of Jordan) and 3) Moses giving pep talk to Joshua and Israelites (telling them that God will be with them in future conquest of Canaan). (3:12–22)
II. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, prior Hevreh discussions)
A. Purpose of Moses’ discourse to Israelites – Why does Moses recount to Israelite experience since they left Egypt? - 1) For God – final opportunity to use Moses as vehicle to motivate and impress words of God on Israelites before they enter Promised Land. 2) For Moses – his last opportunity to function as Israelite leader and send Israelites into Canaan with proper mindset. 3) For Israelites – final opportunity to hear words which help them complete evolution into independent thinking people with commitment to live by God’s words.
B. Moses skipping middle 38 years of Israelites’ 40-year wilderness experience – Does fact that Moses does not recount middle 38 years take any significance away from that period? Presumably NO but why not? … possible reasons: 1) every day counts, 2) Moses’ focus on beginning and end helps Israelites see how they have evolved to an independent people ready for Promised Land but middle 38 years absolutely necessary to achieve that evolution.
C. Inconsistency in narrative of Deuteronomy v. Numbers - Deuteronomy recognizes only Caleb (v. Caleb and Joshua in Numbers 14:6) as the spy who spoke optimistically and therefore deserving of entering the Promised Land. Joshua is rewarded not because of his role as an optimistic spy but simply because of his role as Moses’ lieutenant and ability to lead the nation after Moses. Further, Deuteronomy says Moses denied entrance to the Promised Land as punishment for his individual sin of going along with judgment of pessimistic spies, i.e. sharing responsibility with Israelites (Deut. 1:37) v. Moses’ individual punishment for him hitting rock twice (see Numbers).
D. Validation of monotheism - God is recognized as the only God for all people i.e. Israelites and non-Israelites (Deut. 6:4). Monotheism is proclaimed in its full force
III. Lessons for today
A. Cumulative experience shapes who we are - Our moral make-up and priorities today are a function of the cumulative experiences of our ancestors … who we are today will add to the mix of the kind of people our descendants will be. This is both comforting (after our physical death, our life-force continues to live through our children) and burdensome (our children suffer from our mistakes).
B. Justification in Torah for co-existence of Israel and Palestine - Despite the anger we might feel toward the Palestinians, Deuteronomy 2:2–7 reminds us that God did indeed promise land to other nations in the region beside Israel. Despite our feelings, we must live according to our ethical and religious precepts. Reform Judaism has always maintained that the Palestinians are entitled to coexist side by side with Israel and has also challenged the efficacy of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
C. People are responsible for each other as well as themselves – Per Deuteronomy, Moses was punished (by being denied access to Promised Land) for sins of Israelites (believing pessimistic scouts and therefore not having faith in God). Suggests collective responsibility and accountability.
(Revised 7/25/09)
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Numbers Matot Mas'ei (Double Portion)
Matot Mas’ei (Double Portion)
Numbers 30:2−36:13
I. Summary of Matot (30:2 - 32:42)
A. Matot = (Moses spoke to) “the heads” (of the Israelite tribes …).
B. Moses explains to the Israelites the laws concerning vows made by women (who may have the vows invalidated by their father or their new husband if the father and/or new husband objects) and men. Independent women (widows/divorcees) are bound to vows in same way as men. (30:2-17)
C. At God’s request, Moses dispatches Israelite militia to “wreak the Eternal’s vengeance on Midian.” Led by Pinchas (priest), Israelites successfully wage war against the Midianites, killing every male including the five kings of Midian and Balaam (“curser” hired by Balak … Num 22:2-6), taking women/other dependents captive and seizing all Midianite wealth. Moses is upset with army commanders for not killing every Midianite female so then commands Israelites to kill all Midianite male dependents and those Midianite women who engaged in sexual idolatry with Israelites. Moses instructs Israelites on how to then purify themselves. (31:1-24)
D. God instructs Moses on distributing spoils of war among combatants, Eleazar (as contribution to God) and Levites (“who attend to the duties of the Eternal’s Tabernacle”). (31:25-54)
E. Tribes of Reuben and Gad request permission to stay on the east bank of the Jordan River (“cattle country and your servants have cattle”) rather than entering Promised Land. Fearing that the tribes of Reuben and Gad will weaken resolve of those entering Promised Land, Moses criticizes those tribes for not going to war with others. Tribes then offer to enter Promised Land as shock troops and return to east bank after Canaan is conquered by Israelites. Moses relents and grants tribes their request. (32:1-42)
II. Summary of Mas’ei (Num 33:1 - 36:13)
A. Mas’ei = (These were the) “marches” (of the Israelites)
B. The itinerary of the Israelites through the wilderness from Egypt to Jordan is delineated (42 stops during 40 years). Aaron dies in the 40th year of journey at age of 123. (33:1-49)
C. At God’s request, Moses tells Israel to dispossess the inhabitants of Canaan, destroy their gods and allot their lands (by ancestral tribes). (33:50-56)
D. God tells Moses of the boundaries of the Land of Israel, the six Levitical cities (places of refuge) and an additional 42 towns. (34:1-35:15)
E. God makes a precise distinction re: intent and punishment between murder (intentional) and manslaughter (accidental). God sets out requirement of testimony of two witnesses to murder required for capital punishment. (35:16-34)
F. Moses instructs Israelites on the laws of inheritance as they apply to Israelite women (relying on mandates from God growing out of requests of Zelophedad’s five daughters to be able to inherit land from their father). If a woman marries a man from another tribe, her share of inherited property goes with her; however, women are mandated to marry within their tribe in order to prevent inherited land passing from one tribe to another (thereby maintaining original allocation among tribes). (36:1-13)
III. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, Hevreh discussions)
A. Vows v. oaths – A vow is conditional in that it binds an individual only after God fulfils a requested blessing. An oath is unconditional. A vow also “represents a promise to do” which means that silent intent is not sufficient . . . what one says must correspond to what one means.
B. Making and breaking vows - When unforeseen circumstances arise, letting go of a vow does not constitute betrayal. If engaged in thoughtfully, it may actually be a process that can usher us into growth, into new and better ways of being. Note connection to release from vows on Kol Nidre.
C. Explaining massacre of Midianites – Rationalized (poorly) by 1) interpreting narrative as schematic reconstruction of events rather than actual history (what should have happened rather than what did happen), 2) viewing Torah’s words within context of their times, 3) it was responsibility of Moses rather than God (perhaps knowing that this conquest will be his last (“Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; then you shall be gathered to your kin" … Num 31:1-2) twists thinking of Moses, i.e. maybe Moses thinks that if his acts respond beyond God's command, he might prove to be such a worthy servant that God will grant him a reprieve from his own death sentence and 4) God's rule had to be proven and maintained in eyes of Israelites, i.e. war was about God's power and predominance over other gods that were then being worshiped in region (further evidenced by campaign being led by Pinchas (priest) rather than Joshua which suggests it was a religious war).
D. Bothersome values- Reinforcing inferior status on women, super-militaristic attitude attending war against Midianites, Moses ordering the death of lots of innocents, specifics on spoils of war and Moses getting angry at tribes not wanting to enter/invade Canaan all point to a disturbing Israelite value system (at the time).
E. Boundary motif – Reinforced by 1) recitation of specific geographic boundaries Promised Land, 2) limitations placed on intertribal marriages, 3) limitations on validity of vows made by women, 4) boundaries separating murder from manslaughter, 5) limitations on who a woman may marry (within tribe) and 6) boundaries separating cities of refuge. Suggests the need for conditions, limits or some other modifying influence on virtually all aspects of our existence (to give life some predictability and order).
F. Significance of itinerary - The forty-two stops recounted by Moses represent forty years of wandering. If the first and last years are omitted, when the Israelites were constantly on the move, there were only 20 stations visited during 38years. Thus, it is incorrect to think of Israel as constantly on the march. Rather during most of the forty years in the desert, the Israelites were living normally at one oasis or another for years at a time. Each stop along the way had a purpose and ultimately equipped the Israelites for the next stage of their sojourn. In addition, the short listing of the stages of their wanderings was designed as reading material for the people to recall what had befallen them at each place, after they had settled in their land. Also, the stages had to be recorded for subsequent generations, who might think that the Children of Israel traveled in a desert that was near to cultivated land and in which it was possible to grow or find food. Their subsistence in the real wilderness is confirmed by the list of actual places so that in the future the magnitude of the miracle of our survival could be seen.
G. Purpose of cities of refuge – Three suggested purposes: 1) protective measure to let passions cool, 2) punishment for accidental killer and 3) isolate sin since killing understood to contaminate entire community. Also serves to protect two diametrically opposed constituencies: the inadvertent manslayer and the victim's family and friends. Provides an inadvertent transgressor with the opportunity to retreat, heal, and reenter society with a clean slate at the appropriate time. The victim’s family and friends are also protected from the temptation of blood vengeance.
H. Daughters of Zelpohedad – They initially focus only on their rights of inheritance (“Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen” … Num 27:4) but instance expanded to benefit all daughters. Also, the rules that fall out of this incident increases stability of land holdings among tribes which is important as Israelites prepare for occupation of Promised Land, i.e. reduces risk of internal strife which could get in way of achieving higher goal of successful entry into Promised Land.
IV. Lessons for today
A. Importance of keeping word – Discussion of laws concerning vows reinforces importance of keeping one’s word. Power of words also a function of who says them.
B. Everyone can play a role in their own way - In seeing how the Gadites and Reubenites pledged to serve as shock-troops, it can be noted that not all of us are fighters and risk takers. By providing temporary military support (balancing personal preference against needs of all Israelites – see next point), those tribes played a role.
C. Recognize and resolve conflict between what is good for individual and what is good for community – Evidenced by compromise … tribes of Gad and Reuben function as temporary shock troops and then return to land outside of Canaan east of Jordan River v. need for those tribes to fight along side other Israelites to totally conquer Canaan.
D. Appreciate the journey towards a goal – God intentionally gave Israelites an indirect route to Promised Land in order to allow them to evolve and get ready. Similarly, we should learn from our journeys and not get fixated on goals.
E. Don’t blame God for our misfortunes – One can view the death of Balaam as the death of an innocent bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whether he lingered in Midian or whether he went back, this pagan prophet (who was asked to curse Israelites by Balak but blessed them instead … Num 22:36-24:25) gave up his life under unfortunate circumstances. Suggests that we should not blame God for supposedly causing our misfortunes. God operates through the laws of nature, which we do not always understand (cop-out?) and is not the direct source of our adverse fates (contra, consider free will and personal responsibility for intentional/unintentional acts).
(revised 7/18/09)
Numbers 30:2−36:13
I. Summary of Matot (30:2 - 32:42)
A. Matot = (Moses spoke to) “the heads” (of the Israelite tribes …).
B. Moses explains to the Israelites the laws concerning vows made by women (who may have the vows invalidated by their father or their new husband if the father and/or new husband objects) and men. Independent women (widows/divorcees) are bound to vows in same way as men. (30:2-17)
C. At God’s request, Moses dispatches Israelite militia to “wreak the Eternal’s vengeance on Midian.” Led by Pinchas (priest), Israelites successfully wage war against the Midianites, killing every male including the five kings of Midian and Balaam (“curser” hired by Balak … Num 22:2-6), taking women/other dependents captive and seizing all Midianite wealth. Moses is upset with army commanders for not killing every Midianite female so then commands Israelites to kill all Midianite male dependents and those Midianite women who engaged in sexual idolatry with Israelites. Moses instructs Israelites on how to then purify themselves. (31:1-24)
D. God instructs Moses on distributing spoils of war among combatants, Eleazar (as contribution to God) and Levites (“who attend to the duties of the Eternal’s Tabernacle”). (31:25-54)
E. Tribes of Reuben and Gad request permission to stay on the east bank of the Jordan River (“cattle country and your servants have cattle”) rather than entering Promised Land. Fearing that the tribes of Reuben and Gad will weaken resolve of those entering Promised Land, Moses criticizes those tribes for not going to war with others. Tribes then offer to enter Promised Land as shock troops and return to east bank after Canaan is conquered by Israelites. Moses relents and grants tribes their request. (32:1-42)
II. Summary of Mas’ei (Num 33:1 - 36:13)
A. Mas’ei = (These were the) “marches” (of the Israelites)
B. The itinerary of the Israelites through the wilderness from Egypt to Jordan is delineated (42 stops during 40 years). Aaron dies in the 40th year of journey at age of 123. (33:1-49)
C. At God’s request, Moses tells Israel to dispossess the inhabitants of Canaan, destroy their gods and allot their lands (by ancestral tribes). (33:50-56)
D. God tells Moses of the boundaries of the Land of Israel, the six Levitical cities (places of refuge) and an additional 42 towns. (34:1-35:15)
E. God makes a precise distinction re: intent and punishment between murder (intentional) and manslaughter (accidental). God sets out requirement of testimony of two witnesses to murder required for capital punishment. (35:16-34)
F. Moses instructs Israelites on the laws of inheritance as they apply to Israelite women (relying on mandates from God growing out of requests of Zelophedad’s five daughters to be able to inherit land from their father). If a woman marries a man from another tribe, her share of inherited property goes with her; however, women are mandated to marry within their tribe in order to prevent inherited land passing from one tribe to another (thereby maintaining original allocation among tribes). (36:1-13)
III. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, Hevreh discussions)
A. Vows v. oaths – A vow is conditional in that it binds an individual only after God fulfils a requested blessing. An oath is unconditional. A vow also “represents a promise to do” which means that silent intent is not sufficient . . . what one says must correspond to what one means.
B. Making and breaking vows - When unforeseen circumstances arise, letting go of a vow does not constitute betrayal. If engaged in thoughtfully, it may actually be a process that can usher us into growth, into new and better ways of being. Note connection to release from vows on Kol Nidre.
C. Explaining massacre of Midianites – Rationalized (poorly) by 1) interpreting narrative as schematic reconstruction of events rather than actual history (what should have happened rather than what did happen), 2) viewing Torah’s words within context of their times, 3) it was responsibility of Moses rather than God (perhaps knowing that this conquest will be his last (“Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; then you shall be gathered to your kin" … Num 31:1-2) twists thinking of Moses, i.e. maybe Moses thinks that if his acts respond beyond God's command, he might prove to be such a worthy servant that God will grant him a reprieve from his own death sentence and 4) God's rule had to be proven and maintained in eyes of Israelites, i.e. war was about God's power and predominance over other gods that were then being worshiped in region (further evidenced by campaign being led by Pinchas (priest) rather than Joshua which suggests it was a religious war).
D. Bothersome values- Reinforcing inferior status on women, super-militaristic attitude attending war against Midianites, Moses ordering the death of lots of innocents, specifics on spoils of war and Moses getting angry at tribes not wanting to enter/invade Canaan all point to a disturbing Israelite value system (at the time).
E. Boundary motif – Reinforced by 1) recitation of specific geographic boundaries Promised Land, 2) limitations placed on intertribal marriages, 3) limitations on validity of vows made by women, 4) boundaries separating murder from manslaughter, 5) limitations on who a woman may marry (within tribe) and 6) boundaries separating cities of refuge. Suggests the need for conditions, limits or some other modifying influence on virtually all aspects of our existence (to give life some predictability and order).
F. Significance of itinerary - The forty-two stops recounted by Moses represent forty years of wandering. If the first and last years are omitted, when the Israelites were constantly on the move, there were only 20 stations visited during 38years. Thus, it is incorrect to think of Israel as constantly on the march. Rather during most of the forty years in the desert, the Israelites were living normally at one oasis or another for years at a time. Each stop along the way had a purpose and ultimately equipped the Israelites for the next stage of their sojourn. In addition, the short listing of the stages of their wanderings was designed as reading material for the people to recall what had befallen them at each place, after they had settled in their land. Also, the stages had to be recorded for subsequent generations, who might think that the Children of Israel traveled in a desert that was near to cultivated land and in which it was possible to grow or find food. Their subsistence in the real wilderness is confirmed by the list of actual places so that in the future the magnitude of the miracle of our survival could be seen.
G. Purpose of cities of refuge – Three suggested purposes: 1) protective measure to let passions cool, 2) punishment for accidental killer and 3) isolate sin since killing understood to contaminate entire community. Also serves to protect two diametrically opposed constituencies: the inadvertent manslayer and the victim's family and friends. Provides an inadvertent transgressor with the opportunity to retreat, heal, and reenter society with a clean slate at the appropriate time. The victim’s family and friends are also protected from the temptation of blood vengeance.
H. Daughters of Zelpohedad – They initially focus only on their rights of inheritance (“Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen” … Num 27:4) but instance expanded to benefit all daughters. Also, the rules that fall out of this incident increases stability of land holdings among tribes which is important as Israelites prepare for occupation of Promised Land, i.e. reduces risk of internal strife which could get in way of achieving higher goal of successful entry into Promised Land.
IV. Lessons for today
A. Importance of keeping word – Discussion of laws concerning vows reinforces importance of keeping one’s word. Power of words also a function of who says them.
B. Everyone can play a role in their own way - In seeing how the Gadites and Reubenites pledged to serve as shock-troops, it can be noted that not all of us are fighters and risk takers. By providing temporary military support (balancing personal preference against needs of all Israelites – see next point), those tribes played a role.
C. Recognize and resolve conflict between what is good for individual and what is good for community – Evidenced by compromise … tribes of Gad and Reuben function as temporary shock troops and then return to land outside of Canaan east of Jordan River v. need for those tribes to fight along side other Israelites to totally conquer Canaan.
D. Appreciate the journey towards a goal – God intentionally gave Israelites an indirect route to Promised Land in order to allow them to evolve and get ready. Similarly, we should learn from our journeys and not get fixated on goals.
E. Don’t blame God for our misfortunes – One can view the death of Balaam as the death of an innocent bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whether he lingered in Midian or whether he went back, this pagan prophet (who was asked to curse Israelites by Balak but blessed them instead … Num 22:36-24:25) gave up his life under unfortunate circumstances. Suggests that we should not blame God for supposedly causing our misfortunes. God operates through the laws of nature, which we do not always understand (cop-out?) and is not the direct source of our adverse fates (contra, consider free will and personal responsibility for intentional/unintentional acts).
(revised 7/18/09)
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Numbers Pincus
Pinchas
Numbers 25:10−30:1
I. Summary
A. Pinchas, Aaron’s grandson and son of Eleazar (incumbent high priest), is rewarded for killing the Israelite man (Zimri) and the Midianite woman (Cozbi). Pinchas’ act of passion for God stops the plague that God imposed on the Israelites for their immoral and idolatrous practices with women from Moab (previous parahsa). Pinchas is rewarded with the hereditary and permanent priesthood in Israel. (Num 25:10-15)
B. At God’s request, Israel takes vengeance on and defeats the Midianites for their prior immoral behavior with Israelites. (Num 25:16-18)
C. A second military census (of over 20 year old males able to bear arms) is taken the results of which are used to 1) prepare for battle with Midianites, 2) allot land in Canaan and 3) confirm a generational shift from the time of the first census (in B’midbar) prior to 40-year wandering. Descendants within each tribe are listed. Land is to be apportioned to all Israelites (except the Levites who receive no land) according to the number of family members who left Egypt rather than the number of family members who will enter it. (Num 26:1–65)
D. The five daughters of Zelophehad force a change in the laws of property inheritance enabling them to inherit the land designated for their father's descendants. The other rules of apportionment of the Promised Land are set out. (Num 27:1–11)
E. God tells Moses to view Canaan (as close as Moses is going to get) after which he will die, again citing Moses’ transgression “by means of water” (publicly hitting rock rather than speaking to rock to get water … see Num 20:11-13). God chooses Joshua to be Moses’ successor. (Num 27:12–23)
F. The sacrificial ritual for all festival occasions is described in detail. (Num 28:1–29:39)
II. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, Hevreh discussions)
A. Pinchas’ motivation for killing - Pinchas is rewarded not for his act of murder, but for stopping the plague and saving the Israelites. Pinchas’ impulsive deed was not merely a kind of battlefield execution, but reflected his apprehension that the demands of God needed human realization and required a memorable and dramatic example against permissiveness in the religious realm.
B. Zealotry to jealousy to anger - How does one characterize Pinchas’ killing of a sinning Israelite man and Midianite woman? Is Pinchas a zealot? What is zealotry? Translations often use the word jealous instead of zealous. Today, the word zealous implies eagerness and ardor, yet the biblical figures exhibited more than jealousy. Biblical jealousy goes deeper … to anger. Pinchas’ act of zealotry is disturbingly similar to murderous acts of today’s suicide bombers acting out of religious fervor. What are distinguishing and overlapping characteristics of zealotry v. jealously v. anger? Does each of said three emotions have a positive side? Do all rational emotions have positive sides?
C. Pinchas’ reward – While God does say Pinchas’ act was the reason God stopped the plague, was Pinchas’ (reflexive rather than premeditated) act of murderous passion a truly heroic act worthy of reward he received (hereditary and permanent priesthood in Israel)? Arguably, Pinchas was rewarded, in part, to prevent Pinchas from committing an overly extreme act out of zealousness, i.e. such acts would be clearly inappropriate for a member of the priestly class. Reward also legitimizes transfer of priestly role to Pinchas (arguably Pinchas, as Aaron’s grandson, would have received hereditary priestly role anyway; however, Rashi’s explanation is that hereditary priestly function applied only to people born after hereditary priestly function was given to Aaron and Pinchas was already alive at such time so was not in line to inherit priestly function)
D. Pinchas is not a leader - He is the quintessential follower and, as such, a very dangerous person. God wants something done; Pinchas goes and does it, no questions asked—he just does it. The text tells us that God is very angry at the Israelites' backsliding into idolatry, but is Pinchas' reflexive behavior the only way to act? Abraham convinces God to give Sodom and Gomorrah a chance; Moses, after the incident of the Golden Calf, deflects God's anger through argument. But Pinchas, the follower, murders. Num 27:16-17 says "appoint someone . . . so that the Eternal’s community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd". Ethical behavior is not just a leader's responsibility. A leader's community has equal responsibility in determining the road they all walk. The real leader lives in the conscience of each of us.
E. Intermarriage – Arguably, Pinchas episode addresses problem of intermarriage (slaying of Israelite and Midianite woman). Commentators have said that Pinchas was part Midianite (his maternal grandfather being Yitro, Moses father-in-law) so Pinchas episode is appropriate device for addressing intermarriage.
F. Pinchas as agent of God – Up to now, God carried out God’s mandates v. Pinchas now acting on behalf of God (murder by Pincus stops God’s plague against Israelites). Suggests that Israelites are evolved enough as they are about to enter Promised Land to carry out God’s words.
G. Moses’ heroic quality - Moses assumes a profoundly human quality and seems more deeply heroic. No longer appearing invincible, Moses is forced to face failure, frustration, and ultimately death. He lives to see his dreams not quite shattered but not quite realized, either. It is not his almost superhuman deeds that make Moses our hero. Rather, it is the supreme wisdom and courage with which Moses confronts his own humanity that endows him with a truly heroic stature.
H. Necessity for a new type of leadership - Moses spoke of the people as continuing to need a shepherd; however, God knew that more (what?) was required for the people to enter the Promised Land. Thus, although Joshua would be Moses’ successor, he would not have the same tasks that Moses had been given. New leadership was necessary to accomplish a new objective. Nonetheless, it needed to be leadership that was also inspired by faith and concern.
I. Getting into war v. getting out of war - Together, Moses and God articulate that the next leader will "go out before them [the people] and come in before them, and . . . shall take them out and bring them in . . ."(Numbers 27:17). It is the second half of Moses' concern that is striking. His successor is supposed to lead his men into war and bring them back out of war. Going to war may be something a leader feels is justified and necessary. However, he or she also is responsible for thinking about how to get the people out of war. For this, too, the leader is duty-bound. Think Iraq!
J. Joshua replacing Moses – Once Moses was denied entry to Promised Land, Moses had to be replaced. But why Joshua? Offered rationale (“an inspired individual” … Num 27:18) doesn’t seem like reason enough. Perhaps Joshua being one of only two optimistic scouts (with Caleb) was part of reason but then why was Joshua chosen over Caleb to replace Moses? Both demonstrated faith in God. Even though it was God who appointed Joshua, was it the fact that the people accepted him that made him their true leader?
K. Significance of Zelophehad's daughters – 1. Stark contrast with other sibling relationships - Unlike the dysfunctional sibling relationships found in Genesis (Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Rachel and Leah, and Joseph and his brothers), Zelophehad's daughters worked together in harmony rather than through deception or rancor to achieve their personal goals. 2. Just protest - They exemplify the politics of just protest, i.e. claiming rights for themselves and for others disenfranchised by the system. 2. Bottom-up source of biblical law - Shows that a biblical law can emerge not only from the top (from God to humankind), but also when persons identify a human need and initiate a process to address it. 3. Acts have consequences - Demonstrates that standing up against personal injustice, and doing so in a public and effective way, has consequences that extend beyond the personal.
L. Significance of including details on sacrificial ritual - The insertion of the details for sacrificial ritual implies that Joshua, unlike Moses, was to assume only military and civil control, while religious practices were to be removed from his authority.
III. Lessons for today
A. Spirituality more important than physicality - Pinchas’s murderous act was consistent with God’s word so reinforced priority of maintaining God’s word, i.e. survival of spirituality more important than survival of physical life.
B. Be aggressive to resolve conflicts in order to attain peace - Pinchas acted very strongly and confrontationally against those who were leading the Jewish people into self-destructive behavior. Pinchas' confrontational behavior was actually an act of peace that staved off a disaster.
C. Care about others - Being responsible and caring means not only caring about what will be best for ourselves, but also what will be best for the others. For example, when God told Moses he would soon die, Moses' main concern wasn't about himself, but rather that the people should have a good and worthy leader to take over for him (Num 27:17).
D. Question authority to remedy unfairness - Although we should respect authority, that doesn't mean we can't question authority if we feel something is unfair. Evidenced by Zelophehad's daughters.
E. Flexibility as an attribute of leadership – In carefully considering arguments made by Zelophehad's daughters and taking the matter up with God, Moses showed a willingness to change his mind in order to cure an inequity.
(revised 7/12/09)
Numbers 25:10−30:1
I. Summary
A. Pinchas, Aaron’s grandson and son of Eleazar (incumbent high priest), is rewarded for killing the Israelite man (Zimri) and the Midianite woman (Cozbi). Pinchas’ act of passion for God stops the plague that God imposed on the Israelites for their immoral and idolatrous practices with women from Moab (previous parahsa). Pinchas is rewarded with the hereditary and permanent priesthood in Israel. (Num 25:10-15)
B. At God’s request, Israel takes vengeance on and defeats the Midianites for their prior immoral behavior with Israelites. (Num 25:16-18)
C. A second military census (of over 20 year old males able to bear arms) is taken the results of which are used to 1) prepare for battle with Midianites, 2) allot land in Canaan and 3) confirm a generational shift from the time of the first census (in B’midbar) prior to 40-year wandering. Descendants within each tribe are listed. Land is to be apportioned to all Israelites (except the Levites who receive no land) according to the number of family members who left Egypt rather than the number of family members who will enter it. (Num 26:1–65)
D. The five daughters of Zelophehad force a change in the laws of property inheritance enabling them to inherit the land designated for their father's descendants. The other rules of apportionment of the Promised Land are set out. (Num 27:1–11)
E. God tells Moses to view Canaan (as close as Moses is going to get) after which he will die, again citing Moses’ transgression “by means of water” (publicly hitting rock rather than speaking to rock to get water … see Num 20:11-13). God chooses Joshua to be Moses’ successor. (Num 27:12–23)
F. The sacrificial ritual for all festival occasions is described in detail. (Num 28:1–29:39)
II. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, Hevreh discussions)
A. Pinchas’ motivation for killing - Pinchas is rewarded not for his act of murder, but for stopping the plague and saving the Israelites. Pinchas’ impulsive deed was not merely a kind of battlefield execution, but reflected his apprehension that the demands of God needed human realization and required a memorable and dramatic example against permissiveness in the religious realm.
B. Zealotry to jealousy to anger - How does one characterize Pinchas’ killing of a sinning Israelite man and Midianite woman? Is Pinchas a zealot? What is zealotry? Translations often use the word jealous instead of zealous. Today, the word zealous implies eagerness and ardor, yet the biblical figures exhibited more than jealousy. Biblical jealousy goes deeper … to anger. Pinchas’ act of zealotry is disturbingly similar to murderous acts of today’s suicide bombers acting out of religious fervor. What are distinguishing and overlapping characteristics of zealotry v. jealously v. anger? Does each of said three emotions have a positive side? Do all rational emotions have positive sides?
C. Pinchas’ reward – While God does say Pinchas’ act was the reason God stopped the plague, was Pinchas’ (reflexive rather than premeditated) act of murderous passion a truly heroic act worthy of reward he received (hereditary and permanent priesthood in Israel)? Arguably, Pinchas was rewarded, in part, to prevent Pinchas from committing an overly extreme act out of zealousness, i.e. such acts would be clearly inappropriate for a member of the priestly class. Reward also legitimizes transfer of priestly role to Pinchas (arguably Pinchas, as Aaron’s grandson, would have received hereditary priestly role anyway; however, Rashi’s explanation is that hereditary priestly function applied only to people born after hereditary priestly function was given to Aaron and Pinchas was already alive at such time so was not in line to inherit priestly function)
D. Pinchas is not a leader - He is the quintessential follower and, as such, a very dangerous person. God wants something done; Pinchas goes and does it, no questions asked—he just does it. The text tells us that God is very angry at the Israelites' backsliding into idolatry, but is Pinchas' reflexive behavior the only way to act? Abraham convinces God to give Sodom and Gomorrah a chance; Moses, after the incident of the Golden Calf, deflects God's anger through argument. But Pinchas, the follower, murders. Num 27:16-17 says "appoint someone . . . so that the Eternal’s community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd". Ethical behavior is not just a leader's responsibility. A leader's community has equal responsibility in determining the road they all walk. The real leader lives in the conscience of each of us.
E. Intermarriage – Arguably, Pinchas episode addresses problem of intermarriage (slaying of Israelite and Midianite woman). Commentators have said that Pinchas was part Midianite (his maternal grandfather being Yitro, Moses father-in-law) so Pinchas episode is appropriate device for addressing intermarriage.
F. Pinchas as agent of God – Up to now, God carried out God’s mandates v. Pinchas now acting on behalf of God (murder by Pincus stops God’s plague against Israelites). Suggests that Israelites are evolved enough as they are about to enter Promised Land to carry out God’s words.
G. Moses’ heroic quality - Moses assumes a profoundly human quality and seems more deeply heroic. No longer appearing invincible, Moses is forced to face failure, frustration, and ultimately death. He lives to see his dreams not quite shattered but not quite realized, either. It is not his almost superhuman deeds that make Moses our hero. Rather, it is the supreme wisdom and courage with which Moses confronts his own humanity that endows him with a truly heroic stature.
H. Necessity for a new type of leadership - Moses spoke of the people as continuing to need a shepherd; however, God knew that more (what?) was required for the people to enter the Promised Land. Thus, although Joshua would be Moses’ successor, he would not have the same tasks that Moses had been given. New leadership was necessary to accomplish a new objective. Nonetheless, it needed to be leadership that was also inspired by faith and concern.
I. Getting into war v. getting out of war - Together, Moses and God articulate that the next leader will "go out before them [the people] and come in before them, and . . . shall take them out and bring them in . . ."(Numbers 27:17). It is the second half of Moses' concern that is striking. His successor is supposed to lead his men into war and bring them back out of war. Going to war may be something a leader feels is justified and necessary. However, he or she also is responsible for thinking about how to get the people out of war. For this, too, the leader is duty-bound. Think Iraq!
J. Joshua replacing Moses – Once Moses was denied entry to Promised Land, Moses had to be replaced. But why Joshua? Offered rationale (“an inspired individual” … Num 27:18) doesn’t seem like reason enough. Perhaps Joshua being one of only two optimistic scouts (with Caleb) was part of reason but then why was Joshua chosen over Caleb to replace Moses? Both demonstrated faith in God. Even though it was God who appointed Joshua, was it the fact that the people accepted him that made him their true leader?
K. Significance of Zelophehad's daughters – 1. Stark contrast with other sibling relationships - Unlike the dysfunctional sibling relationships found in Genesis (Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Rachel and Leah, and Joseph and his brothers), Zelophehad's daughters worked together in harmony rather than through deception or rancor to achieve their personal goals. 2. Just protest - They exemplify the politics of just protest, i.e. claiming rights for themselves and for others disenfranchised by the system. 2. Bottom-up source of biblical law - Shows that a biblical law can emerge not only from the top (from God to humankind), but also when persons identify a human need and initiate a process to address it. 3. Acts have consequences - Demonstrates that standing up against personal injustice, and doing so in a public and effective way, has consequences that extend beyond the personal.
L. Significance of including details on sacrificial ritual - The insertion of the details for sacrificial ritual implies that Joshua, unlike Moses, was to assume only military and civil control, while religious practices were to be removed from his authority.
III. Lessons for today
A. Spirituality more important than physicality - Pinchas’s murderous act was consistent with God’s word so reinforced priority of maintaining God’s word, i.e. survival of spirituality more important than survival of physical life.
B. Be aggressive to resolve conflicts in order to attain peace - Pinchas acted very strongly and confrontationally against those who were leading the Jewish people into self-destructive behavior. Pinchas' confrontational behavior was actually an act of peace that staved off a disaster.
C. Care about others - Being responsible and caring means not only caring about what will be best for ourselves, but also what will be best for the others. For example, when God told Moses he would soon die, Moses' main concern wasn't about himself, but rather that the people should have a good and worthy leader to take over for him (Num 27:17).
D. Question authority to remedy unfairness - Although we should respect authority, that doesn't mean we can't question authority if we feel something is unfair. Evidenced by Zelophehad's daughters.
E. Flexibility as an attribute of leadership – In carefully considering arguments made by Zelophehad's daughters and taking the matter up with God, Moses showed a willingness to change his mind in order to cure an inequity.
(revised 7/12/09)
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Numbers Chukat/Balak (Double Portion)
Double Portion
Chukat (Numbers 19:1−22:1)
Balak (Numbers 22:2 – 25:9)
I. Summary of Chukat
A. Chukat = (This is the) “ritual” (law that the Eternal has commanded).
B. God gives Moses and Aaron the laws surrounding the sacrificial offering of an unblemished red heifer which is used for purifying those “Israelites and strangers” who come in contact with a dead person. (19:1-22)
C. The Israelites arrive at the wilderness of Zin. Miriam dies and is buried there. Israelites complain to Moses and Aaron that they have no water. God tells Moses to order the rock to yield water; however, Moses strikes the rock (twice) to get water (rather than ordering water from rock). God immediately tells Moses and Aaron that they will not enter the Land of Israel. (20:1-13)
D. Moses requests safe passage for Israelites from the king of Edom who refuses to let them pass through his land. Per God’s instructions, Moses strips Aaron of his priestly garments and gives them to Aaron’s son Eleazer. Aaron dies. (20:14-29)
E. Canaanite king of Arad battles Israelites and takes Israelite prisoners. With God’s help, Israel then defeats king. Israelites complain to Moses and God about the lack of bread and water. God punishes Israelites for complaining (with seraph serpents which “bit the people and many of the Israelites died”). The Israelites go to Moses to repent. God forgives Israelites (telling Moses to mount seraph figure on a standard so that anyone who was bitten and looks at it would recover from the snakebite). (21:1-9)
F. Israelites are victorious in battles against both the Amorites (who, like Edomites, refused to let the Israelites pass) and the people of Bashan (whose lands they capture and whose King Og Moses was told by God not to fear). (21:10-22:1)
II. Summary of Balak
A. Balak = “Balak” (… saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites).
B. When Balak, the Midianite king of Moab, sees the victory of the Israelites over the Amorites, he persuades the pagan (non-Israelite) soothsayer Balaam to curse the Israelites so that Balak can defeat Israelites and drive them out of the region. God forbids Balaam to curse the Israelites so Balaam denies Balak’s request. Balak again asks Balaam to curse Israelites. God now allows Balaam to go with Balak but only if Balaam agrees to obey God’s commands. (Num 22:2-20)
C. As Balaam is riding on his she-ass with Moabites back to Balak, the she-ass encounters an angel and swerves from the road. Balaam beats the she-ass (three times). The she-ass asks Balaam why he beat her. God “uncovered Balaam’s eyes” to allow Balaam to see angel as well. The angel gives Balaam permission to continue on trip but only if he heeds the word of the angel/God. (Num 22:21-35)
D. Balaam then blesses the Israelites (three times) instead of cursing them and prophesies that Israel’s enemies will be defeated. (22:36-24:25).
E. Israelites men consort with Moabite women and their god. God tells Moses to punish Israelites by publicly impaling ringleaders and bringing a plague on Israelites (which plague kills 24,000 Israelites!). The plague is stopped when Pinchas, a grandson of Aaron, kills an Israelite man and his Midianite companion. (25:1-9).
III. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, Hevreh discussions)
A. Significance of red heifer rules – Two possibilities: 1) a test of Israel’s unconditional obedience to God or 2) a reminder that our lives are made up of details, which individually may seem unimportant but together make us who we are … God is in the details. Note parallel between paradox of rules (the very ashes that made a Jew impure are the same ashes that are used to make someone pure) and paradox involving our poor choices (when our discontent with our past behavior becomes the impetus to change that behavior, i.e. negative behavior becomes the pathway for a purification of soul).
B. Significance of Miriam’s death – Fact that it is mentioned immediately prior to episode of Moses hitting rock for water suggests that Miriam could have been a dowser (who had no successor) so without Miriam, Israelites lacked water and hence their complaining about lack of water which led to Moses getting water from rock. Miriam’s death could also have suggested the end of the leadership generation that led Israelites out of Egypt and to Canaan as evidenced by the deaths of Moses and Aaron occurring shortly after death of Miriam, i.e. Miriam’s death prepared Israelites for the coming death of Moses.
C. Sin of Moses and Aaron – At least five possibilities: 1. Lack of faith - Words (ordering water from rock) would have demonstrated faith of Moses and Aaron in public whereas physical act of hitting rock did not do so. Hitting rock twice (rather than once) confirmed lack of faith. 2. Unrestrained ego - The sin of Moses and Aaron consisted of their saying, "Are we to bring you water out of this rock?" They should not have said "we" but rather "Shall the Eternal bring you water out of this rock?" 3. Anger - When Moses used the expression "you rebels", he committed sin of getting angry rather than being patient. 4. Prior sins - The Meribah incident is punishment for prior sins of Aaron (golden calf) and Moses (not limiting influence of pessimistic scouts or Moses’ killing of the Egyptian taskmaster). 5. Unknowable - The real sin was edited out to safeguard their reputation. We don’t need to know their sin. Just accept it.
D. Balaam as a sorcerer v. prophet – Traditional view sees Balaam as a sorcerer who ended up in hell (Rabbinic translation of “back home” in Num 24:25). Alternative view sees Balaam as prophet who left God and became a magician but was also one of many pagan prophets who turned other people to God so as not to allow other nations to say God was accessible only to Israelites other nations.
E. Why God prevented Balaam from cursing the Israelites – Four possibilities: 1) To teach Balaam a lesson, that he was not his own master. 2) To benefit Israel, i.e. since the Israelites grew up in Egypt where there was considerable superstition and sorcery, Israelites might take Balaam’s curses seriously and be demoralized v. being uplifted by his blessings. 3) God was concerned for Israel’s safety, i.e. had Balaam cursed Israel, the surrounding nations would have plucked up the courage and gone to do battle with Israel on the strength of his curses. 4) Balaam did not have it in his power either to bless or to curse.
F. Why God agreed to Balaam’s request go to Balak after previously denying request – It was the intent of God that Balaam go to Balak after God ordered Balaam to follow God’s words since God wanted Balaam to promote brotherhood between peoples and also that Israel be blessed by a prophet of the nations (and so Balaam erred by not telling this to Balak which angered God … – “God was incensed at his going” – Num 22:22). At first Balaak wanted to actively go along and curse Israelites v. in second instance, Balaak wanted to still go along but passively (and not curse Israelites). In first instance, Balaam’s actions driven by God v. in second instance, Balaam’s actions driven by free will.
G. Prohibition against opposite doors - Balaam praised the tents of Jacob (Num 24:5) because the arrangement of the entrances made it impossible for a family to see inside the tents of others, showing respect for privacy. This became the source for the ruling that one may not build a door directly opposite the door of a neighbor or make a window in line with a neighbor’s window.
H. Moses softens God’s order - God tells Moses to impale all “heads of people” (Num 25:4) i.e. including innocents. Moses seems to intercede when he instructs officials to slay only the guilty, i.e. “men who attach themselves to Baal-peor”. (Num 25:5)
I. Faith more important than military might - Was this entire Balak/Balaam episode God’s way of saying that Israelites need their faith in God to protect them even though they had military might, i.e. a way for God to reinforce the importance of faith as Israelites approach Promised Land? Perhaps explains juxtaposition of military encounters (with Arad king, Amorites and people of Bashan) with acts of God (divine guidance given Balaam directly by God and then indirectly by angel).
J. God’s participation in deception - Knowing of Balak’s expectations, isn’t God a partner in Balaam deception of Balak (misleading Balak into believing that Balaam will curse the Israelites)?
K. Turning curses into blessings – Do all bad things have the potential to generate good things?
L. Significance of Pinchas - Why is the murder by Pinchas viewed by God as worthy of God’s reward (stopping the plague and, in next parasha, Pinchas being given hereditary and permanent priesthood)? Is it an empty reward in that God already allowed the plague to kill 24,000 Israelites? Also, story of Pinchas shows us that there is a thin line between a passion for God and murderous zealotry.
IV. Lessons for today
A. How we travel the journey of life is more important than the specific destination we reach – Just as Moses arguably did reach the Promised Land (by virtue of leading the Israelites’ development as a people and bringing them to the doorstep of Canaan), so our personal Promised Land should be leading an ethical life rather than acquiring a certain amount of financial wealth, having the most friends, etc.
B. Remember and acknowledge the role of one’s faith in God and efforts of others in your own achievements - One reason Moses is not allowed into the Promised Land is his overestimation of his own worth and power. We must learn to acknowledge God's presence in our lives. If we can teach ourselves to recognize the role of God and of others in our own individual beliefs, we can learn to appreciate and enjoy our journey even more.
C. Desirable qualities of leadership – Solve the problems, have faith in God, respect the people and demonstrate strength, compassion and patience.
D. Accept and learn from our mistakes - If even Moses could make a mistake (instead of speaking to the rock, Moses mistakenly hit it with his stick), we shouldn't expect ourselves to be perfect. We have to try our best and learn from the mistakes we do make.
(Revised 7/5/09)
Chukat (Numbers 19:1−22:1)
Balak (Numbers 22:2 – 25:9)
I. Summary of Chukat
A. Chukat = (This is the) “ritual” (law that the Eternal has commanded).
B. God gives Moses and Aaron the laws surrounding the sacrificial offering of an unblemished red heifer which is used for purifying those “Israelites and strangers” who come in contact with a dead person. (19:1-22)
C. The Israelites arrive at the wilderness of Zin. Miriam dies and is buried there. Israelites complain to Moses and Aaron that they have no water. God tells Moses to order the rock to yield water; however, Moses strikes the rock (twice) to get water (rather than ordering water from rock). God immediately tells Moses and Aaron that they will not enter the Land of Israel. (20:1-13)
D. Moses requests safe passage for Israelites from the king of Edom who refuses to let them pass through his land. Per God’s instructions, Moses strips Aaron of his priestly garments and gives them to Aaron’s son Eleazer. Aaron dies. (20:14-29)
E. Canaanite king of Arad battles Israelites and takes Israelite prisoners. With God’s help, Israel then defeats king. Israelites complain to Moses and God about the lack of bread and water. God punishes Israelites for complaining (with seraph serpents which “bit the people and many of the Israelites died”). The Israelites go to Moses to repent. God forgives Israelites (telling Moses to mount seraph figure on a standard so that anyone who was bitten and looks at it would recover from the snakebite). (21:1-9)
F. Israelites are victorious in battles against both the Amorites (who, like Edomites, refused to let the Israelites pass) and the people of Bashan (whose lands they capture and whose King Og Moses was told by God not to fear). (21:10-22:1)
II. Summary of Balak
A. Balak = “Balak” (… saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites).
B. When Balak, the Midianite king of Moab, sees the victory of the Israelites over the Amorites, he persuades the pagan (non-Israelite) soothsayer Balaam to curse the Israelites so that Balak can defeat Israelites and drive them out of the region. God forbids Balaam to curse the Israelites so Balaam denies Balak’s request. Balak again asks Balaam to curse Israelites. God now allows Balaam to go with Balak but only if Balaam agrees to obey God’s commands. (Num 22:2-20)
C. As Balaam is riding on his she-ass with Moabites back to Balak, the she-ass encounters an angel and swerves from the road. Balaam beats the she-ass (three times). The she-ass asks Balaam why he beat her. God “uncovered Balaam’s eyes” to allow Balaam to see angel as well. The angel gives Balaam permission to continue on trip but only if he heeds the word of the angel/God. (Num 22:21-35)
D. Balaam then blesses the Israelites (three times) instead of cursing them and prophesies that Israel’s enemies will be defeated. (22:36-24:25).
E. Israelites men consort with Moabite women and their god. God tells Moses to punish Israelites by publicly impaling ringleaders and bringing a plague on Israelites (which plague kills 24,000 Israelites!). The plague is stopped when Pinchas, a grandson of Aaron, kills an Israelite man and his Midianite companion. (25:1-9).
III. Commentary (Plaut, various websites, Jewish Study Bible, Hevreh discussions)
A. Significance of red heifer rules – Two possibilities: 1) a test of Israel’s unconditional obedience to God or 2) a reminder that our lives are made up of details, which individually may seem unimportant but together make us who we are … God is in the details. Note parallel between paradox of rules (the very ashes that made a Jew impure are the same ashes that are used to make someone pure) and paradox involving our poor choices (when our discontent with our past behavior becomes the impetus to change that behavior, i.e. negative behavior becomes the pathway for a purification of soul).
B. Significance of Miriam’s death – Fact that it is mentioned immediately prior to episode of Moses hitting rock for water suggests that Miriam could have been a dowser (who had no successor) so without Miriam, Israelites lacked water and hence their complaining about lack of water which led to Moses getting water from rock. Miriam’s death could also have suggested the end of the leadership generation that led Israelites out of Egypt and to Canaan as evidenced by the deaths of Moses and Aaron occurring shortly after death of Miriam, i.e. Miriam’s death prepared Israelites for the coming death of Moses.
C. Sin of Moses and Aaron – At least five possibilities: 1. Lack of faith - Words (ordering water from rock) would have demonstrated faith of Moses and Aaron in public whereas physical act of hitting rock did not do so. Hitting rock twice (rather than once) confirmed lack of faith. 2. Unrestrained ego - The sin of Moses and Aaron consisted of their saying, "Are we to bring you water out of this rock?" They should not have said "we" but rather "Shall the Eternal bring you water out of this rock?" 3. Anger - When Moses used the expression "you rebels", he committed sin of getting angry rather than being patient. 4. Prior sins - The Meribah incident is punishment for prior sins of Aaron (golden calf) and Moses (not limiting influence of pessimistic scouts or Moses’ killing of the Egyptian taskmaster). 5. Unknowable - The real sin was edited out to safeguard their reputation. We don’t need to know their sin. Just accept it.
D. Balaam as a sorcerer v. prophet – Traditional view sees Balaam as a sorcerer who ended up in hell (Rabbinic translation of “back home” in Num 24:25). Alternative view sees Balaam as prophet who left God and became a magician but was also one of many pagan prophets who turned other people to God so as not to allow other nations to say God was accessible only to Israelites other nations.
E. Why God prevented Balaam from cursing the Israelites – Four possibilities: 1) To teach Balaam a lesson, that he was not his own master. 2) To benefit Israel, i.e. since the Israelites grew up in Egypt where there was considerable superstition and sorcery, Israelites might take Balaam’s curses seriously and be demoralized v. being uplifted by his blessings. 3) God was concerned for Israel’s safety, i.e. had Balaam cursed Israel, the surrounding nations would have plucked up the courage and gone to do battle with Israel on the strength of his curses. 4) Balaam did not have it in his power either to bless or to curse.
F. Why God agreed to Balaam’s request go to Balak after previously denying request – It was the intent of God that Balaam go to Balak after God ordered Balaam to follow God’s words since God wanted Balaam to promote brotherhood between peoples and also that Israel be blessed by a prophet of the nations (and so Balaam erred by not telling this to Balak which angered God … – “God was incensed at his going” – Num 22:22). At first Balaak wanted to actively go along and curse Israelites v. in second instance, Balaak wanted to still go along but passively (and not curse Israelites). In first instance, Balaam’s actions driven by God v. in second instance, Balaam’s actions driven by free will.
G. Prohibition against opposite doors - Balaam praised the tents of Jacob (Num 24:5) because the arrangement of the entrances made it impossible for a family to see inside the tents of others, showing respect for privacy. This became the source for the ruling that one may not build a door directly opposite the door of a neighbor or make a window in line with a neighbor’s window.
H. Moses softens God’s order - God tells Moses to impale all “heads of people” (Num 25:4) i.e. including innocents. Moses seems to intercede when he instructs officials to slay only the guilty, i.e. “men who attach themselves to Baal-peor”. (Num 25:5)
I. Faith more important than military might - Was this entire Balak/Balaam episode God’s way of saying that Israelites need their faith in God to protect them even though they had military might, i.e. a way for God to reinforce the importance of faith as Israelites approach Promised Land? Perhaps explains juxtaposition of military encounters (with Arad king, Amorites and people of Bashan) with acts of God (divine guidance given Balaam directly by God and then indirectly by angel).
J. God’s participation in deception - Knowing of Balak’s expectations, isn’t God a partner in Balaam deception of Balak (misleading Balak into believing that Balaam will curse the Israelites)?
K. Turning curses into blessings – Do all bad things have the potential to generate good things?
L. Significance of Pinchas - Why is the murder by Pinchas viewed by God as worthy of God’s reward (stopping the plague and, in next parasha, Pinchas being given hereditary and permanent priesthood)? Is it an empty reward in that God already allowed the plague to kill 24,000 Israelites? Also, story of Pinchas shows us that there is a thin line between a passion for God and murderous zealotry.
IV. Lessons for today
A. How we travel the journey of life is more important than the specific destination we reach – Just as Moses arguably did reach the Promised Land (by virtue of leading the Israelites’ development as a people and bringing them to the doorstep of Canaan), so our personal Promised Land should be leading an ethical life rather than acquiring a certain amount of financial wealth, having the most friends, etc.
B. Remember and acknowledge the role of one’s faith in God and efforts of others in your own achievements - One reason Moses is not allowed into the Promised Land is his overestimation of his own worth and power. We must learn to acknowledge God's presence in our lives. If we can teach ourselves to recognize the role of God and of others in our own individual beliefs, we can learn to appreciate and enjoy our journey even more.
C. Desirable qualities of leadership – Solve the problems, have faith in God, respect the people and demonstrate strength, compassion and patience.
D. Accept and learn from our mistakes - If even Moses could make a mistake (instead of speaking to the rock, Moses mistakenly hit it with his stick), we shouldn't expect ourselves to be perfect. We have to try our best and learn from the mistakes we do make.
(Revised 7/5/09)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)