Parashat D'varim, Deut. 1:1-3:22

Today we begin to read the last book of the Chumash, Deuteronomy. Perhaps feeling his end is near, too, Moshe starts this last book – D’varim, in Hebrew (meaning “the things,” or “the statements”) – with a summary of all that has happened in the past forty years: What was done, where it took place, what was achieved, and, in particular, what is still in need of repair.

At first glance, this portion does not seem to reveal much new material, in particular to those who carefully followed the portions thus far. Accordingly, most commentators tend to virtually ignore it, emphasizing, instead, the fact that it is read on the Shabbat before Tisha’h Be’Av (the Ninth Day of the month of Av, the “saddest day in the Jewish calendar,” in which both Temples were destroyed).  From there those commentators proceed to discuss the meaning of that special day and its implications, instead of dwelling further on the portion itself.

But the portion – put under a magnifying glass, admittedly – does provide some gems. I want to focus on two today – one from the portion itself, and one from its Haftara.

The Legal Systems and Rewriting History

As you may recall, back in the day (Exodus, 18:14) we read on Yitro, Moshe’s father-in-law, who came to visit him and was struck by the fact that Moshe alone deals with all legal matters, small and large.

“And Moshe’s father-in-law saw all that Moshe is doing to the people, and he said: What is that which you do to the people; why would you sit all alone and all the people stand upon you from morning to night … [And Yitro said:] Not good is that thing that you do; you shall wither away, and so would the people, as this task is too heavy for you – you may not do it on your own. Now listen to my advice – I shall advise you and God shall be with you…”

Yitro then provided his famous “advice” to Moshe – to nominate lower courts, intermediate courts, even supreme courts, and only then to bring the most serious challenges personally to him, to Moshe (see last portion and the story of Zlophchad’s daughters as an example). And Moshe complies: “And Moshe heeded his father-in-law’s advice, and Moshe has done all that [Yitro] said.” (Ex. 18:24)   

I have quoted in length from Yitro’s speech, as this story – the creation of a multi-layered, fully functioning legal system – takes center stage in Moshe’s summary in today’s portion. Yet, astonishingly, both Yitro’s name and contribution are completely missing from the story, as if he had nothing to do with the creation of this judiciary system. Instead, the summary goes something along the following lines: Moshe tells, in the first person, about his experience with the people. You, he explains, became too many, “as many as the stars in the sky.” (Deut. 1:10) I (Moshe) therefore couldn’t handle all of you anymore, and so I have asked that you nominate political leaders to each of your tribe – a move you have all agreed too; I have also (claims Moshe) devised this hierarchical systems of judges – from the smallest matters to the largest – and have asked them to resolve all cases and controversies between you.

So, copyright on this McKinsey-scale advice aside, why did Moshe completely ignore the (major) role played by his father-in-law in this story? The simple answer – this is just another example of re-writing history after the fact (a practice copied, and then perfected, by leaders of all stripes in the thousands of years since) – is especially troubling in this case. This book is called “Mishne Torah” – it should serve as the summary of everything that has happened prior. Every first-year practicing lawyer knows that if his Closing Arguments would misrepresent the facts as were revealed during trial, the judge may disqualify his argument (or even call for a mistrial, in extreme cases).  Why would Moshe want to recreate history in this way?

But something good does come out of this second version of the story. Moshe takes this opportunity not only to rewrite history (again, it’s “his-story”), but also to improve upon it (another practice emulated by many a leader since).  Here he provides a short essay on legal philosophy, which is extremely important, though not necessarily grounded in fact. Moshe claims that he has instructed the judges he nominated  (nothing like this appears in the original version) as follows:

Hear out your fellow men and brethrens, you shall judge justly between a men and his fellow Israelite, and a men and his gentile. You shall not partial in judgment, one law you shall have; you shall listen to the small people as you have to the large; you shall fear no one, because the judgment is for God. And those matters that are too hard for you, you shall bring those to me and I shall hear it. (Deut. 1:16-18)

These always-timely principles should guide our lawyers, our judges, and all of us – even today.

The Beauty of the Text

Today Haftora, the beginning of the Book of Isaiah (1:1 – 3:22), may remind many readers one of the main reasons for the Bible being the biggest best-seller of all times: It is simply written beautifully.  The text is truly sublime. 

Thus, many years after the Bible was written, we find William Shakespeare (a noted bible scholar, as you all aware) putting these iconic words in the mouth of Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar: 

“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar.”

Long before that, we find a humble prophet, Isaiah, who begins the Book carrying his name with a stunningly similar tone:

Hear O heavens, and give ear O earth, For the Lord has spoken:

“Children I have raised and cherished, and they have sinned against me,”

An ox knows its owner, and an Ass his master’s crib;

[But] Israel refuses to know; my people refuses to observe.”

Though the content is almost unimaginably harsh, surely the sublime manner in which it is presented made it a great read then – and now, thousands of years later.

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron

  

Parashat Mattot-Massaei, Numbers 30:2-32:41

The two final portions of the Book of Numbers -- – Mattot (literally, “canes,” but here in the meaning of “tribes”), and Massa’ei (literally, “the travels of”) –

Which are often read together, are at once very ancient and very contemporary. They are ancient in the detailed manner in which they described a pedestrian 40-year walk through the desert – an unthinkable journey in today’s “twitter” speed world. And they are extremely up-to-date by describing issues of women’s equality, political leadership, and government structure in ways that are more pertinent to us than seems at first sight. Here are my two comments on this wonderful pair of Portions.

I. So Hot in the Desert …

The great heat wave that passed through the Eastern United States this week has caused me to reevaluate my assessment of the Israelites walking in the Desert. While the text sporadically mentions their complaints and hardships, I thought, they were much more resilient than any of us could ever be. Indeed, they were constantly walking, with their entire property, in the desert without much shade, in temperatures much higher than we have ever experienced, without air-condition, without running water, and, in fact, without any knowledge where they are going and when they would ever get there (if at all). To add to all that, this week’s portion (Mattot) demonstrates just how tough the Israelites really had it in the desert:

“And the Lord was furious on this day and he swore of the following: ‘None of the people who came up from Egypt from the age twenty and up shall see the land to which I have sworn to Avraham, Itzhak, and Yaakov, as they have never followed my orders.’” (Numbers 32:10-11).

Thus, it seems that even the single thing that seems to have hold this band of former slaves together – the belief in the Jewish God – was not satisfactory, at least not in His eyes. Even more, those walking in the desert, by and large, were destined to die there. What a horrible faith.

In light of all of the above, I thought that the image often painted of the Israelites – as a group of spoiled and stubborn people who frequently tend to recreate history by painting Egypt as the “pot of meat” – is grossly misconstrued. Then again, one has to remember that the text is very selective, and was written by the “winner” of the story (history is always the (his)story of the victor, to whom goes the spoils, including what – and what not – to report). Accordingly, it is possible that the complaints were numerous, and only a few were ever reported. Recall further that any and all hints of resentment or opposition to Moshe were met with terrible faith (We have discussed the story of Korach, as well as Aharon’s sons, in that cotext). That, too, may teach us something about the regime of fear that may have controlled these people. Still, in the last account,  these people were many – more than 600,000 – and Moshe was only one; at some point, had they – or a strong majority thereof – wanted an out, they would have gotten their way, and fairly easily. But at the end of the day they did not; for that, at I give them a big credit this week.

2. Zlophchad Daughters and The Obama Administration

In today’s note I would like to highlight a very interesting point that may teach us something about the current Obama administration.  If you may recall, Obama came to the White House on the wings of a “Yes We Can” campaign. He promised “Change,” and to do things differently in Washington DC. But then Congress happened. And when Harry (not Reid, but Obama himself) met Sally (pick your favorite conservative leader in either chamber) – all good intentions came to a screeching halt. Or, in other words, when the ideal and platonic notions of good, equality, human rights, and prosperity met with the realities politics, cynicism, and cold hard cost-benefit analyses, – most initiatives were eventually left out. (Take, for example, the fantastic idea of a public option and universal healthcare [well recognized in other Western Democracies] that would require all health insurance companies to reduce their rates and compete more vigorously – gone with the wind.)

How is all that even remotely related to the portion of Massa’ei? To properly understand that, we have to begin with last week’s portion (Pinchas) and the story of B’not Zlophchad (The Daughters of Zlophcahd). No doubt one of the very first feminist groups, these five brave daughters of Zlophchad – who, luckily for his daughters, failed to have a male son – were intelligent, well spoken, independent (and, according to Midrash, beautiful as well). In Numbers 27:1-11 we encounter their wonderful and very inspiring story. (Please go ahead and read it – it is self explanatory). In short, when their father passed, since he did not have a male son, he could not bequeath (give away after his death) his land to anyone; the five daughters, then, were left without any property. So they came before Moshe to plead their case. Now this trivial detail is not trivial as it seems: recall that Moshe had accepted, a while ago, an advice from his father-in-law to establish a much elaborated, multi-tiered legal system that would essentially bring before him only the hardest of cases. Here, not only that the five daughters (apparently) went through all the “lower courts,” but their case was heard – as the text emphasized – before Moshe, Elazar the Great Priest (Aharon, the first Great Priest, passed a short time beforehand), the Heads of the tribes, and “all of the community” -- and all that is happening in front of Ohel Mo’ed – the Tent of Meeting, where the tabernacle was housed. In short, this is the Supreme Court sitting in full session.

And their argument was unique. Like many feminists thousands of years later – Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes to mind most prominently – they clothed their case more in terms of human rights than in those of women’s rights (as, indeed, we have since learned: Women’s rights ARE human rights). Their claim was that their father and his memory will be hurt by erasing his name from the list of property owners after his death; in addition, the whole tribe would be disadvantaged, as fewer families would have land within it.

The case is so complicated, it seems, even for Moshe that he cannot make up his mind. Should he give these five unmarried (!) women their own land (for the first time ever), as their claims are just, plain, and reasonable, or should he continue with the “men-only” policy, which worked so well over the years (for men, at least). So Moshe “brought their case before the Lord” as some translations tell us, or, in the more beautiful Hebrew original suggests, he “brought the case closer to God.” And God did not hesitate: Not only did He give the Daughters of Zlophchad their land (in this specific case), but He also took the opportunity to announce a general law regarding all women (as He is, indeed, the Supreme Law of the land (cf. U.S. Const. Art. VI)) – who may, from now on, receive land from their deceased father  - but only if their father bore no sons; we are still, let us remember, thousands of years before the feminist revolution.

So that’s the ideal, “Yes We Can,” part of the story. In today’s portion, Massa’ei, we encounter “the heads of Congress” – the elderly members of the Tribe of Menashe, the tribe in which this story occurred. They, too, come to plead their case before “Moshe and the Heads of the Tribes” (though neither in front of the chief religious authority nor in front of the people). They, too, framed their arguments in terms of general public interest – nothing to do with women’s rights in particular. And here is what they had to say, in essence: (See Numbers 36:1-12): "You have provided the daughters of Zlophchad with real property. Now these women would eventually marry; and most likely, to people outside their Tribe. Once that happens, all five parcels would be reduced from our Tribe, and added to the land of the other tribe (As land parcels follow the husband, of course…). What should we do?"

Notice that this is somewhat of an appeal on a final Supreme Court decision (authored by God Himself, no less).  But Moshe is not too impressed; he doesn’t even need to summon God to solve this hard, after-the-fact appeal. Rather, he merely orders a simple solution – the women should marry inside the Tribe; thus, he argues, the lands would always remain within the Tribe. [The much simpler solution, that the land would actually follow its real owner, man or woman, apparently never occurred to him at this stage in history.] This is the law of Zlophchad daughters, and this is the law in general. And yes, the text adds, the daughters indeed married "inside their tribe" - they married their cousins, and everyone was happy, or so it seems. The interesting thing to me, at least, was the way Moshe chose to phrase his decree (of marrying inside the Tribe): “They may marry anyone they wish, provided they marry in to a clan of their father’s tribe.” (Numbers 36:7).

This reminded me of an answer that my late father, an extremely sharp lawyer, gave me when I asked him what is the meaning of the Israeli lawyer’s dress-code, which requires all lawyers appearing in court to wear “dark suits.” His answer, much like Henry Ford a century earlier was: “You may choose any color you like, provided it is black.”

But back to the Obama administration: I hope the President would remember he is still the President, and whatever the Republicans want should be met with cautious deference while maintaining the core of the President’s own set of values.

Shabbat Shalom. 

Doron 

Parashat Pinchas, Num. 25-10-30:1

This week’s portion, Pinchas – named after the grandson of Aharon the Priest, Moshe’s brother – is, in a way, a mirror image to the portion of Korah that we have read several weeks ago. There, if you recall, Korah dared to have challenged Moshe’s leadership in quite sophisticated a manner. That attempt, unfortunately, did not go so well - the earth “open its mouth” and swallowed” both Korah and his followers. (Interestingly, but not coincidently, a reminder of that story appears in this week’s potion as well – see Numbers 26:9-11).

The “mirror image” of this week’s portion is also a bit nuanced.  Here, we first learn – by reading the last verses of the last portion – that the Children of Israel were no longer wondering in the desert, but rather “sitting” or parking, as it were, at a place called Shittim (perhaps a play on words on “shotim,” fools). Next thing we learn is that they begin to “go out with” – or, in the biblical language, to “whore with” – the daughters of Moab, a local people from the other side of the Jordan. And soon thereafter, the Israelites begin worship those people’s gods. That, of course, makes our own God extremely angry (not for the first time, may I add); but rather than instructing Moshe, as he done in the past, to kill the entire people, God instruct him to take only the “ringleaders” and kill them. Moshe, in turn, instructs the Judges to do so (I am emphasizing this seemingly trivial fact in order to illustrate the fact that the notion of separation of powers was not quite developed yet: the judges were also executioners, or at leas so it seems.).

But the Israelites – who had “chutzpa” long before Alan Dershowitz were born – refuse to take the hint: A man – later known as Zimri, a president of some family of the Tribe of Shimon – goes out in public, and in front of Moshe himself and the entire people he “brought the Midianite woman closer to him”; the people of Israel, in response, began weeping.  (Num. 25:6)

And here comes the act that defines this week’s portion:

And Pinchas – the son of Elazar, the [grand]son of Aharon, the [Chief] Priest – saw this and he stood out of the community and he took a spear in his hand. … And he came after that man [Zimri]and he stabbed both of them: The man from Israel and the woman to her stomach, and the plague ceased to attack the Children of Israel.    (Num. 25:7-8)

Thus, at first glance, in Pinchas we have the exact mirror-image of Korah: Not only that he does what God ordered Moshe to do, he even “jumped ahead” of Moshe and killed the sinners even before Moshe – through his “judges,” in this case – was able to lift his hand.

A more careful examination, however, may demonstrate that the picture – as indicated earlier – is a bit more nuanced.  Recall the story of the (other) sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, who were put to death for (what I referred to) as “Rosh Gadol” – too much of a good thing, if you will. They sacrificed, without a specific permission, another fire – a “foreign fire” – to God; that time, their punishment was harsh and swift – they were put to death immediately. (See Leviticus 10:1-3).   Just like Pinchas, they wanted to show that they are “holier than thou” in the sense that they practiced a tradition – the providing of sacrifice – that demonstrates a great devotion to God, above and beyond what God ordered them.  For that they were punished (by death). Pinchas, in essence, did the same: He jumped ahead of Moshe and his men (judges) and pro-actively approached the sinner and the woman with him and killed them both. The response by God this time, however, was the complete opposite of punishment:

And God spoke to Moshe and Said: … I would provide him [Pinchas] with my covenant in peach; and he would have it for him and his posterity after him – a covenant of eternal priesthood for he was jealous to his own God and repent the sins of the Children of Israel. (Num. 10-13)

What is the cause to this stark difference? How come the first generation of Aharon’s sons, after trying their best to show their devotion to God were punished by death, while the grandson was blessed with eternal covenant with God for doing quite the same thing?

Obviously, one answer is that the two deeds are not the same. Sacrificing a “foreign fire” without permission is nothing like killing a sinner after God specifically instructed Moses to do so. But this is not a satisfactory answer. Recall the largest point made by both stories of Korah (“opposition equals death”) and the Sons of Aharon (“too much of a good thing” also equals death”). Brought together, these two stories should suggest that Pinchas’ act – as noble and pro-God as it may have been – was still in direct violation of Moshe’s authority and of God’s instructions (who told the Judges to kill the sinners). How come his life was not only spared, but blessed – and by God himself, for good measure?

To be honest, I don’t have a good answer to that.  (I’d be delighted to hear one from you, the readers.)  But I may surmise that these two former stories – Korah (who is, again, mentioned in this portion as well), and Aharon’s sons’ death – created a sense of awkwardness, not to say a sense of injustice by some readers. The overall impression was that it’s “Moshe’s word or death,” a tough pill to swallow, even for the most ardent of believers. Hence, we needed a story where Moshe was instructed to do X, but someone “jumped ahead” of him, executed God’s wish, and won an eternal award. Pinchas’ story provides just that. Now Moshe can rest assure, and nominate his successor – Joshua – without fear of too much resentment. 

Shabbat Shalom.

Doron

   

  

Parashat Sh'lach-Lecha, Numbers 13:1-15:41

This week’s portion, Shlach-Lecha (literally, “send over,” as in “send over people to Israel”) tells one of the most famous stories of the desert generation; indeed, a story that defines that generation - the story of the Twelve Spies.

The Story of the Spies

The story, in essence, can be summed up in the following way:  God instructs Moshe to send people to scope the Land of Canaan.  (This seemingly minor point – that it was God who instructed Moshe to send the spies rather than it was Moshe’s own idea – is quite important. More on that later.)  Moshe, in essence, sends an “all-star team” consisting of all the twelve tribal leaders. Among them are two that would become very famous later – Ye’ho’shu’a Ben Nun (also known as Joshua here), and Calev Ben Yefoo’nai (aka Caleb). Moshe does not satisfy himself with merely forming of the group, but provides them with a detailed framework of their spying mission: Where they should go, what should they look for (“Is the people sitting there strong or weak? Consisting of many or the few? And what is the nature of the country? Is it good or is it bad? Etc., etc., - Numbers 13:17-20).  He also instructs them to bring “from its fruit.” The narrator is kind enough to inform us that we are in the midst of grape harvest season (Num. 13:20).

The twelve spies were then sent on their way, and it took them 40 days to complete their mission (an important number, to which we shall return later). They do bring back grapes – hence the famous picture of two men carrying a huge cluster of grapes on a pole – as well as some other fruits. They also praise the Land as “flowing with milk and honey.” But then they come to the thrust of their report (and, interestingly, unlike most “spies-report” before and since, this one is issued in public, where the entire “we the people” may listen and respond):  “Alas, the people occupying in the Land is fierce, and the cities are as fortresses and very big, and we have also seen the offspring of the Giant.” (Num. 13:28).  This, understandably, upset the listening people to no end; Calev, in response, is required to “hush all the people,” and tells Moshe that “[despite all that] we could still do it”; or, in more modern parlance, “Yes we can.”  The rest of the spies, however, concluded differently: “No, we would not be able to come to this country, as the people there are stronger than us.” (Num. 13:31)

The rest of the story is well known: The people of Israel become incredibly upset – they weep the whole night and complain to Moshe and Aharon, demanding that they would return to Egypt; Calev and Jushua try to save the day, claiming this Land is “very, very good” (twice the text reads “very”) and begging the people to trust God. The people, in return, decide to stone them (nothing new here – just read some of the responses (called in Israel “talk-backs”) to the pieces published in the Israeli e-newspapers on the same Land today). God – not for the first time – has had enough; just like after the Golden Calf story, he confesses to Moshe on His wishes to destroy the people. Moshe pleads back – in one of the most moving and inspiring defense “closing arguments” ever heard (do read: Num. 14:13-19). God, in response (like any great Judge), decides to split the offer: While not killing all the people, He would “only” condemns them to wonder in the desert for 40 years – “as the number of days that you have wondered the Land; forty days – one day for each year” (Num. 14:34). In addition, God kills all of the spies – other than Calev and Joshua, of course – and then, to complete, kills (through the Amalekies, the eternal enemy of the Israelites) many other Israelis who dared challenge Him and climb to top of the local hill. End of story.

Lessons of the Story

The most obvious lesson of the story – as it is taught for years in Israeli schools, Sunday Schools, and otherwise – is that those who trust God are rewarded accordingly, and those who do not are punished accordingly.

Moreover, those who dare “libel” the Land of Canaan should be severely punished – by death, no less; while those who only sang its praises and describe its beauty and fertility will become the future leaders of the People of Israel.

So far, so good. Or is it?

As loyal readers of this blog may come to expect, some serious doubts may be raised regarding this narrative, in particular upon closer reading. First, it was neither Moshe’s nor the people’s idea to be sent as spies to Israel – God Himself gave the order. That, of course, leaves us scratching our heads: Why would God need to gather intelligence about the Promised Land? Is there anything He doesn’t know about it? “Of course not,” our religious friends would smile to us, knowingly, “He did not do that for Himself, He did it for the People – so they would know.” [Another option, according to which it was Moshe’s idea, but that he only invoked the highest authority possible to persuade the best-of-the-best to go, may not sound “religious” enough, so we can put it aside for the moment.] Let us assume, then, that this task was, in Lincoln’s famous words, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” So what went wrong?

The people who were sent – not shrinking violets are they – felt a duty to report things “as they saw it.” This is the most sacred duty of every spy and reconnaissance unit person ever since: as someone who was trained to perform this very same task more than 3,000 years later, I can personally testify that the value of “truth in reporting” is the most basic – and sacred – value that special units are taught to keep from day one; even – and in particular – if the news we had were not good news, we had to report them as is. Indeed, in military circles, good news are often very suspicious; the spies – or the reconnaissance people – are expected to bring bad news, so that the generals in HQ would be able to properly prepare for the worst.

The ten spies, therefore, didn’t “libel” the Promised Land at all. They told the story as they saw it (which, to be sure, is also extremely logical). And the way they saw it was this: There is a Land, at the heart of the Middle East, surrounded by deserts, hostile nations, and rough weather. Yet the Land is awesome – it is fertile, it is lush with milk and honey, and it is beautiful. Not surprisingly, this piece of land is dutifully guarded – the cities are fortified, and the people are fierce. It would not be easy – if at all possible – to concur it from them.

Any of that sounds not familiar today, 3,000 years later? Maybe they were not so wrong after all…

Shabbat Shalom.

Doron

P.S - Following the spies, the blog, too, will venture out to visit the Land of Milk & Honey. It will resume in a couple of weeks. 

Parashat Be'Ha'a'lot'cha Num. 8:1-12-16

This week’s portion, Be’ha’a’lot’cha – literally, “when you raise” (here in the unusual use of “when you raise the candles against the Menorah”) – provides us with a rare opportunity to discuss, although in a nutshell, a fascinating topic: Did you ever wonder what was it like to travel in the desert for forty years? Welcome to this week’s portion. Everything is here - from “when they went” to “what they ate” – all is in the text. Accordingly, this week’s post would be a bit different: instead of commenting on two points appearing in the text, I use the more popular format of Q&A to explore everyday life in the desert.  For the readers who are interested in a less-religious commentary, I also offer one at the end of each answer.

Life in the Desert: Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Did they actually travel every day?

A: Not always, but in most cases they did. The organizing principle, of course was the following: “According to God the People of Israel would go, and according to God they shall make camp.” (Numbers 9:18; and again, 9:23).  At times, the divine cloud remained stable over camp for several days allowing them to rest from traveling. But generally speaking, that cloud resided over the Mishkan in the evening, and was lifted in the morning – signaling that it is time to travel during most days. In some cases, however, the Israelites travel at night as well. In other cases, they walked for three days straight.

Non Religious Explanation: Life in the desert is tough.  Different terrain, changing weather, and continuing issues with this enormously large traveling group (over 600,000 grown up men) require flexibility in moving arrangements. A good pattern is to move every day, and to rest during the night, but that pattern has to yield to the various needs and objective requirements. Hence the frequent variations. 

Q: Was there a special order of traveling?

A: Yes. First in the group was the tribe of Judah, with their military commander (Nachshon – a name and title that, until today, signals (in Hebrew) “he who dares to stand in front” – usually in the military context, such the he or she is ready to run first to battle, even in the face of enemy fire). Then two other tribes (Yissaschar and Zvuloun), with their commanders. Then the Mishkan  - always in front, but never exposed. Then the tribes of Re’uven, Shimon, and Gad. Then, separately from the Mishkan, the Kahaties – those in charge of actually erecting and dismantling the Mishkan each time the People made camp.  Then the other tribes. And then, at the very end – as sweep – the tribe of Dan and its commander. (Num. 10:11-28)

NRE: Clearly, considerations of safety and utility played an important role in devising the correct order of travel. Thus, back then (much like today), the strongest part of the army was always in the lead; this has been a winning strategy for the Israelis since those days and until today. The strategic placement of the Mishkan – at the top of the group, but not the very top, as well as the separation between the Mishkan and its workers, all guarantee a smooth operation and quick set-up and breakdown. Another great example of Moshe’s superior organizational skills at work.

Q: What did they eat?

A: Despite the widely-spread myth about the plentiful  “Manna from Heaven” and how well it was received, the Israelites never hesitated to complain at times about the narrow selection and its uniformed taste (nothing new here, either).  This week, their complaint is especially detailed (and visual, I may add): “[And the People] cried and said:  Who would provide us with meat? We all well remember the sea-food that we have eaten in Egypt for free, and the squash, the water melons, the leek, the onions, and the garlic; and now our soles are dried – there is nothing but the Manna in front of our eyes.” (Numbers 11:5-6).  In response, occasionally, Moshe would provide some other culinary choices, such as meat. But that, in turn, would create some issues of its own – widespread food poisoning, for example, or other issues. (See Numbers 11:33-34). 

NRE: Constant (purified) water and food supplies are by far the hardest part of the entire exodus operation. The great thing about the Manna was its freshness – every day the people would only get enough for the next day (except for Shabbat, when they collected for the entire weekend in advance). Those who dared to collect more were severely punished – sometimes by God, sometimes by a severe food poisoning. Every deviation from this strict diet had its consequences, but Moshe had to balance between his limited resources and the People’s complaints – so he provided them meat (and other options) every now and again, only to prove them, once again, that the Manna is really the only thing to come straight from Heaven.

Q: Was Moshe the only person in charge?

A: We know, from many portions ago (Yitro, Exodus 18:18), that Moshe could not handle his judicial power obligations all on his own. Thus, his father-in-law provided him with an advice to devise a well-structured legal system based on himself in the entire Supreme Court and others (adequate people – see the post there) as judges below him. But today, we learn that his executive powers, too, were hard to handle over a group of such size, and for that long a duration. After pleading with God (See Num. 11:12 for a wonderful text: “Did I conceive all this people?”), Moshe receives assistance in the form of 70 elderly wise men who help him in carrying his executive mission. Later, this number would form the basis for the famous Sanhedrin, a joint legislative-executive body of the small Jewish community in Israel. (Note that despite his hardships in the Article II and III issues – executive and judiciary branches – Moshe leaves to God (and himself, by delegation) the sole authority of legislation.)

NRE: Clearly, the model of a single leader as the only legislator, executive, and judge is unattainable; but it is interesting to note that the request for help comes from Moshe himself – not from the people (who doesn’t seem to mind) or from God (who is apparently content with channeling all three branches to one person). Empirically speaking, it seems, the separation of powers is not only a wise poly-sci choice (just ask Motesquieu and then the Founding Fathers, who read him closely), but also a necessary fact of life.

Q: What about the occasional catastrophe?

A: This week’s portion alone tells us the story of three emergencies/mini-catastrophes: First, a fire consumes part of the camp (Num. 11:1-3); second, as we noted earlier, a food poisoning leaves several casualties behind (Num. 11:33-34); and finally, a mysterious skin condition afflicts Miriam, Moshe’s sister, perhaps in response to a bizarre derogatory comment she made in relation to her sister-in-law, Moshe’s black-skinned wife. (Num. 12:1, 10)  All these – and naturally, many others – are issues Moshe had to contend with on a daily basis, with the help of God, of course.

NRE: I believe these incidents, deliberately reported and included in the text forever, are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Moshe had to deal with on a daily basis. With no medical facilities (or much knowledge, for that matter), no sanitation, harsh conditions, and a huge group of people who were never used to long-term camping, those occasional catastrophes were probably part and parcel of the 40-year desert expedition. The fact that Moshe successfully brought all of them to the Promised Land is a true testament to his fantastic leadership skills – not only from the religious perspective, but also – and perhaps primarily – from the pragmatic, day-to-day leadership perspective. Not for naught does this portion concludes with the following compliment:  “And the person Moshe is very humble – more than any other person on earth.” Indeed, we had a very humble leader then. I wish we had some more like him today.

Shabbat Shalom.

       

Doron

Parashat Nasso, Numbers 4:21-7:89

This week’s portion, Nasso – literally, an order to count (as in “go and count the people of Israel”) – is the longest of all portions of the week. Then again, it is also a great example of the rule that quantity does not necessarily yield quality. But enough about me.

The portion’s main issue – other than the continuing last week’s discussion of the census and its importance (see last week’s post) – is infidelity.  More accurately, a married woman’s alleged infidelity and its consequences. In looking at this issue I will venture, almost for the first time in this blog, to the very muddy waters (more in a second on this choice of words) of the Torah’s view of women. I am well aware of how dangerous this terrain may be, yet still I would like to offer my two cents. I begin with what – thankfully – has by now become a standard criticism of the text.  I then move to suggest a surprising possible justification of the ancient practice described in this week’s portion. I conclude with some general thoughts of the text and its relation to women.

I. The Water of Bitterness

To summarize – and I strongly recommend that you read this passage (Numbers 5:11-31) – this week’s portion deals with adultery; more specifically, it deals with a proposed solution to a situation where a woman has committed adultery, or, more accurately is alleged to have committed adultery (since no witnesses are available). The proposed solution, in a nutshell, is a test; it is the test of the “water of bitterness.” According with this test, the alleged adulterous woman has to drink this bitter water. Should she (physically) responds well to it – she’s safe; if she’s ill (as most people would be), then she’s guilty.

At first glance, the entire ceremony of the “the water of bitterness and curse” may be viewed as a typical (and unfavorable) biblical treatment of women. To begin with, the text does not even mention, let alone discusses, a situation in which the husband – not the wife – is suspected of cheating while the wife is “fraught with jealousy.” Not here. Instead, all we have is a situation where the woman is suspected of being disloyal to her husband, to “have gone astray and broken faith” with another man (nice, creative translation by JPS here) (Numbers 5:12).  What would a husband to do in this situation?

According to this week’s portion, the husband has to go to the priest - the religious authority (which, coincidently, comprises of all men – then and now, more than 2,000 years later). In a description reminiscent of the later “Salem witchcraft trials” and the famous “drowning test” –if the accused woman has drowned, she was innocent, but had she lived she was guilty of witchcraft – the text goes in great detail through what the poor suspected woman has to go through:

“And the priest made the woman stand before God, making her hair undone, and then he gave unto her hands [holy water (mixed with) the soil of the Tabernacle…  this water shall be known as] … the bitter, cursing water.  And the Priest swore that woman in, and told her: If no man has slept with you, and if you have not gone sinfully astray under you man, you shall be cleared by this water of bitterness and curse . . . [but if not,] your stomach would distend and your thighs will sag . . . and the woman would say: Amen and Amen.” (The full description, which is heavily edited here, may be found in Numbers 5:16-31).

Importantly, the text provides a nice alternative to the likely physical response the woman may have to the bitter water: if her stomach would not “distend,” then the suspected woman would be cleared of all suspicion, declared as “pure,” and even be “planted a seed” (become pregnant) (Numbers 5:28). [Loyal readers of this blog may look back at the discussion we had on the first verse of Parashat Tazri’a (Levit. 12:1), where, again, our sages has shown clear preference against naming a portion “A Woman”; there, too, the verse deals with the planted seed in the woman’ womb.] 

While the text provides no data, one may only venture to guess how many poor women could actually survive the test – which their husbands, again, had no need to take under similar circumstances – and be declared “pure.” To reiterate, this ritual is not dealing with the case of well-proved infidelity cases. Rather, we are dealing here with mere suspicions, rumors, and innuendoes; all we have in fact is “the wind of jealousy” by the husbands.

When I first read this text, I was appalled. To me, it represented everything that was wrong with the Torah’s treatment of women. It reminded me of my first class of Jewish Law in my final year at the Hebrew University Law School. By then, we were no longer viewing our professors with the same awe and revere that were the staple of our first year.  So when the Instructor opened the class by announcing that the Israeli Law of Equality of Women’s Rights – a mainly declaratory, though still important, act of legislation passed by Israeli Knesset very early in the life of the Jewish State – that this Act has “violated a delicate balance struck over thousands of years by Jewish sages with regards to women’s rights” I could no longer take this. “It is quite the opposite” – I told the instructor, shortly before leaving the class for good – “The State of Israel has corrected an imbalance that lasted through thousands of years with regards to the rights of Jewish women, due mostly to sages of Jewish thought who intentionally and creatively discriminated against women.”

That was how I felt when I read the text initially. 

II. Later Developments – in Halacha and Within Me

In part, it seems that my sense of reprehension was at least justified in part. During the Mishna period, the “Water of Bitterness” test was abolished. (3 Mishna, Sotah, Chapter 9 mishna 9).  The reason stated to this surprising state of affair may be more telling than  the act of abolition itself: “Mi’she’rabu Ha’me’na’a’fim” – when cases of infidelities became too many, there was no longer need for the test.  In other words, the deterring effect of the test was lost in the “sea” of infidelity incidences. But a careful reading of the text shows an even more interesting feature: the Mishna does not say: “Mi’she’rabu Ha’me’na’a’fot” – when the women infidelity cases became too many; but rather “when the infidelity cases [by all!] became too many” then the test was abolished. Here we have an initial recognition – very implicit, very hesitant, almost secret – in the fact that perhaps the initial test was wrong, as it applied to women alone. Perhaps not only women should have been accused of such an act. Perhaps men, too, are fallible.

But not only have our sages changed their mind. I did, too. I came to view the test in a different light. I realized that – at the time, and within that context – women required a great degree of protection from their jealous husbands.  That, sometimes, these women were in a state of clear and present danger to their very lives, just by virtue of being suspected of committing adultery. (Hmm… Is that really so different from today?) And that by providing the test – horrible as it may seem to us today – the Jewish religion has stepped forward to end this situation and to protect those women (clearly in a manner less than satisfactory, but still).  To be more specific, the notion that a priest – the prime religious authority – may absolve a woman of that cloud, in a final manner and with the blessings of God, is a huge step towards the protection of women’s right. [Moreover, as I was poring some sugar into my baby son’s bitter medicine – he is seek this week – I was thinking that maybe some thoughtful Priests pored some sugar into those bitter waters back then, to make it easier on the women.]  Again, I don’t know if any of this is true. I don’t know how many women, if any, were absolved by this test. But the very option granted by our religion to clear a woman from any unfaithful suspicion – with the authority of God, no less – should, in my mind, be looked upon favorably, even if the actual means used to effectuate this thought were inhumane by today’s standards. At least for that thought, the Torah’s text should be absolved.

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron   

Parashat Ba'Midbar, Numbers 1:1-4:20

This week’s portion, Ba’Midbar (literally, in the desert) opens the penultimate book of the Pentateuch. It begins with an interestingly accurate time stamp – God speaks to Moses on the first day of the second month of the second year from the day they left Egypt – in other words, one year and one month, to the day, after the famous Exodus.

And what concerns God on that day? The exact number – or “Numbers” as the book is entitled in English – of the People of Israel.  In other words, God orders a census. And that brings me to a point I began talking about last week – that very little had changed between then and now.

The Census – Then & Now

Last year, during 2010 – much like during any other “decade” year – the federal government has held a census of the People of the United States, according to federal law.  To me, this latest census is strikingly similar to the first census ever taken – the one we read about this week in our Portion. Allow me to demonstrate.

           

i.                The term “People”; the exact number of which 

God orders Moshe to count the number of “people” of the Children of Israel. What does the term “people” encompass? Does it entail all people, men and women, adult and children, slaves and slaves owners? Not quite. The original biblical text refers to the term “people” as including only males (as opposed to males and females); only those who are over 20 years of age (as opposed to people of all ages); and only those who could bear arms (see Numbers 1:3). The original American Constitution’s notion of “person” was equally exclusive: In the period close to ratification, the constitutional term of “persons” was interpret to include only males (and not females); only “free” persons (as opposed to slaves); and mostly property and land owners (which excluded minors as well).

The number of those “people,” according to the biblical census, was precisely 603,550 (see Numbers 2:32).  This number is strikingly similar to the approximated number of people who left Egypt, according to the text, just a year earlier: “approximately 600,000 men, notwithstanding children.” (Exodus 12:37).

While this number is not similar in any way to the 310 million or so Americans living in the U.S. today, it certainly is identical to the number of people who conducted the census in America last year; or, in the words of the Census’ Director: “A Note to my 600,000 New Colleagues.” (available at http://blogs.census.gov/2010census/ ).

ii.              The Census’ Method

Today, just like the first biblical Census, the actual method of counting is based upon divisions. The entire group is divided into sections, or districts; those districts are divided further into lots; and those – into families. Each person conducting the count adds up to the grand total, which is received after accumulating a large group of data (in the U.S., a data gathered by 600,000 gatherers). The biblical text dedicates nearly an entire chapter – 46 verses, to be exact – to the accumulated data that led to the grand total; from which we may deduce the great importance accorded by the text to the census’ method (see Numbers 1:1-46). Indeed, it seems that the very method by which the census is conducted today is not very different, if at all, from the one used by the original biblical census. Indeed, this is probably one of the very few things that we do today precisely the way they were conducted thousands of years ago (and with the same amount of success, I may add).

iii.            The reason for conducting a census

Why a census? Today, we are all aware of the “formal” reasons – a proper allocation of federal grants and budget in a manner that is proportional (or number-dependent) to the amount of people in each state. Indeed, the census determines, to a large extent, the amount of dollars each state would receive to fund its education, police, infrastructure, and, in fact, almost anything that receives federal support. In addition, there are several other reasons why the census is important today (see “Why [The Census] Is Important?” http://2010.census.gov/2010census/why/index.php ).  Yet part of the reason so many people try to evade the census’ pollsters (and part of the reason the federal government had to recruit 600,000 strong to do the job) is that they fear additional knowledge would provide the government with additional of power – too much power, perhaps – than needed in order to govern over its citizens. Indeed, there’s a sense that knowledge is power, and absolutely accurate knowledge may lead to absolutely directed power. I would not like to dwell into this weak version of conspiracy theory, (“weak,” counter intuitively, because it does have some factual basis) but I would love to leave it to you to draw the proper analogy with the ancient ultimate pollster entity – and the reason He was interested in the exact number.

The Prophecy: Hypothetical, Not Actual

From the census – a scientific, data-oriented, fact-based, empirical experiment – we move this week into the world of moral philosophy – the untested, hypothetical, purposively inaccurate realm of biblical prophecy.

This week’s Haphtarah – Hosea 2:1 – begins with a statement that is quite contradictory to the subject-matter of this week’s portion: “And the number of the People of Israel has been like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted . . . [but God told them:] You are the children of the living God.” I will not dwell here on the heavier conundrum posed by the text – why would God have to wait until the Jewish People reached that nearly infinite number in order to break the good news to them (that they are the children of a living God), but instead concentrate on a much more mundane question:  Why does the portion text take so much pains to reach an accurate number, while the “prophecy version” insists on a number that neither countable nor measurable?

The answer to this seemingly trivial question is actually quite profound, and stands at the heart of the actual understanding the notion of Jewish prophecy (and for that matter, of all true prophets) over the years. And this true understanding can be summarized in the wonderful phrase – appearing originally in the Tosaphot (Yevamot 50, 71) and invoked countless times by Leibowitz – that “the prophet does not engage in prophecy but for the matters that are ought to be.” In other words, prophecy is not intended to describe the situation “as is” (descriptive), but rather intended to encourage certain desirable patterns of behavior (prescriptive). It tells us, in other words, in which direction we should go, not in which direction we are actually going. Indeed, for thousands of years many of the prophecies written into the text did not come true – an evidence, for many, that they were wrong (or that the prophets who made them were charlatans). But rather than seeing them as evidence of incompetence of the prophets, those unsubstantiated prophecies should only serve as evidence of our own incompetence – of our own inability to live up to their ideals. Still, those ideals are for us to reach, and they may always be there. And that, to a large extent, is the difference between the actual (census) and the hypothetical (prophecy). 

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron