Bemidbar Numbers 1:1-4:20
Naso Numbers 4:21-7:89
Beha'alotcha Numbers 8:1-12:16
Shelach-Lecha Numbers
13:1-15:41
Korach Numbers 16:1-18:32
Chukkat Numbers 19:1-22:1
Balak Numbers 22:2-25:9
Pinchas Numbers 25:10-30:1
Mattot Numbers 30:2-32:42
Mas'ei Numbers 33:1-36:13
At the Centre
CONTEXT: The first major subject of Sefer Bemidbar, the Book of Numbers, is the camp during the wilderness years. The people are numbered, and position of the Tabernacle and its appurtenances in the centre of the camp with the twelve tribes around it is established over the first three parashiyot.
Bemidbar, Naso' and Beha'alotcha: These three parashiyot speak of [just] one subject, namely the Tabernacle and those camped around it, who are united in three camps.
The first is the Camp of the Shechinah, i.e. the Tabernacle, where the priests were. The second is the Camp of the Escort (levayah), [who were] camped around the Tabernacle. The third is the Camp of Israel, where the four flags were. Similarly, with regard to the Sanctuary: the Sanctuary [itself] was the Camp of the Shechinah, the Temple Mount was the Camp of the Escort, and [then] all of Jerusalem within [its] four walls, which represent the four flags.
Isaiah HaLevi Horowitz (c.1570-1626), Shnei Luchot HaBrit (Jerusalem: 1975; reprint of 1863 ed.), v.2, p.62a.
COMMENT: In the second volume of Shnei Luchot HaBrit, where Horowitz offers interpretations and discussions about the weekly sidrot, he often considers several sidrot at once, if he feels that they share a common subject or theme, and this is clearly a case of that technique.
The camps he describes here refer, on the one hand, to the structure of encampment of the Israelites during the wilderness years, in concentric squares, with the Tabernacle at the centre, the Levites and priests around it (the root of Levi is connected to levayah, escort), and around them, the camp of Israel. On the other hand, he saw this structure paralleled in the setting of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Tabernacle made permanent.
This passage has always inspired me to seek parallels in the modern Jewish synagogue community. Most communities have a comparatively large proportion of their membership who rarely attend and who take little or no part in the running of the community, but at least pay their synagogue fees. They correspond to the Camp of Israel.
Then there is a second group. This is made up of those who attend from time to time, who take some part in running things, but perhaps not with the same enthusiasm and commitment as some others display. Often this group actually take community decisions as officers or council members. They correspond to the Camp of the Escort.
Then there are those who come to pray regularly, who study Torah regularly, who see the spiritual purpose of the synagogue. These people are the Camp of the Shechinah.
Each of these three groups needs the others. Those in the innermost circles would not have the wherewithal to do what they do if the outermost group did not pay their fees. The first and third groups need the second group to take responsibility for the day-to-day running of the community. And the two outermost groups need the innermost group if the synagogue is to remain a spiritual institution true to its principles, though sadly this is sometimes taken for granted.
However, there is one essential difference between Horowitz's three camps and the modern synagogue. In ancient Israel, you could not move between camps, because the system was based on the hereditary principle and the alignment of the tribes. In the synagogue, it is possible to switch between camps, and it is the duty of those in the two innermost camps to take active measures to try to bring those in the outermost camp into their midst, in order to avoid stagnation and the formation of permanent cliques.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Matter and Form
CONTEXT: The Book of Numbers opens with two verses that set the historical and geographic context of the first chapters of the book.
'Then GOD spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the Tent of Meeting...'
Numbers 1:1
For there are two aspects, which are four,....in matter and form. For in 'the wilderness', which [represents] matter there are two aspects: the first is one who is intent on their own pleasure, which is 'the wilderness' because there is nothing totally good in this, [while] the second aspect, called 'Sinai', which has a good portion in the 'wilderness' because one is intent for the sake of heaven... The two other aspects [i.e. those of 'form'] are called 'Tent of Meeting'. One sits in the 'Tent' of the Torah for one's own pleasure, [while] a second [does so] for the pleasure of the Shechinah, [which] is called 'Meeting' (mo'ed), as is well known, because it is the meeting-place of all living. Understand!
Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye (died c.1782), Toldot Ya'akov Yosef (Jerusalem, 1973), v.2, p.442b.
COMMENT: Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye is concerned here to explain the phrases 'the wilderness of Sinai' and 'the Tent of Meeting'. For him, on a spiritual level, each of these phrases is composed of two words in Hebrew which denote two aspects of the two basic components of existence.
Using terms borrowed from ancient Greek philosophy and its medieval offshoots, he calls these two components of existence 'matter' and 'form'. (In later writings, these often carried negative and positive connotations, respectively – but the Polonnoyer seems to be questioning this view.) And each of these two sides can itself be divided up into two aspects.
Thus, matter can either be wholly bad or 'unspiritual' (as represented by the term 'wilderness'), when we treat it as an end in itself, as existing purely for our own pleasure. Or matter can be 'spiritualised' ('Sinai') when we employ its properties in the service of God.
Similarly, spiritual activities, like Torah study, may be 'de-spiritualised' when we pursue them with the sole intent of gaining enjoyment from them ('the Tent'). Alternatively, we can engage in these religious pursuits out of a desire to serve God in this world, and then they become a Mo'ed, a meeting-point where spiritual and physical realms interact.
The point of this brief discourse seems to be that the physical and spiritual aspects of life are inherently neutral. They can either be put to selfish or altruistic ends. Even the spiritual life is not immune to abuse from self-seeking enthusiasts. Selfishness can be a trap in both the physical and spiritual realms, but the true service of God can liberate us in both.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Love Cannot Be Measured
CONTEXT: Why is it necessary to state that the instruction to take a census of the people was given in the Sinai Wilderness? Egypt is now well behind them, and they have yet to arrive in the Promised Land!
'...In the wilderness of Sinai...'
Numbers 1:1
This numbering which Israel does here is in order to teach them that there is a glory beyond glory, as it is said: 'For a high one is watched over by a higher and there are higher ones over them' (Ecclesiastes 5:7). For their number was [already] revealed and known before [God], but there are many things, in action or in speech, that need doing in order to bring them from potential into actuality, and the knowledge of them alone is not sufficient, for the supernal things need the activity of the lower.
Moreover, because the numbering alludes to the attribute of judgment (din) it therefore says: 'who go out to war' (Numbers 1:20 & frequently), for those between 20 and 60 years of age, when one still has one's strength and the elemental fire rules within, were numbered.
However, the priests, who represent the attribute of lovingkindness (hesed) were not numbered...
Menachem Ziyyoni (late 14th-early 15th century), Sefer Ziyyoni (Lvov, 1882; reprinted Jerusalem, 1964), pp.58a-b.
COMMENT: Ziyyoni addresses here the issue of why God ordered the census of Israel in the wilderness. Surely God already knew the number of fighting men among the people! Ziyyoni's reply is based on kabbalistic notions of a interdependent hierarchy of divine beings and potencies, angels and sefirot. The upper levels of this hierarchy require that certain actions be performed in the lower levels, so that the potential inherent above may be made manifest here below.
This suggested to me that we have to put our ideals into practice if they are to amount to any more than just empty words. The high principles we proclaim are only as good as our actions. Rooted those they are in spiritual realms, they need to come to fruition in our physical and social lives, if they are to have any meaning. And this in turn reinforces the spiritual dimension of our lives.
But I was also intrigued by Ziyyoni's notion that the fighting men, who he says represent the forces of judgment by virtue of their training for war, had to be numbered, while the priests, whose job it was to reconcile the people to their God and vice versa, and thus represent the forces of love, are not. In my view, this suggests that sternness, power, needs to be closely monitored. They have their place, but can easily overrun other aspects of our emotional and social life. Love and kindness, on the other hand, have to be allowed to flow freely, without being measured and calculated, throughout all the facets of life, if the world around us to be a better place.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
God in the 'Real' World
CONTEXT: In chapter 2 of Numbers, we have the arrangements for the Israelite camp, with four groups of three tribes arranged around the four sides of Tabernacle.
'The Israelites shall camp with each person near the flag having his father's family's insignia...'
Numbers 2:2
Look here: this too is a wondrous matter. For the prince who stood on the east with the flag of Judah was called Netan'el, the prince who stood on the south with the flag of Re'uven was called Shlumi'el, the prince who stood on the west with the flag of Ephraim was called Gamli'el, and the prince who stood on the north with the flag of Dan was called Pagi'el. You will find that none of the other [princes'] names conclude with the [divine] name 'El [meaning 'God'], apart from these four, who stood by the four flags, at the four compass points.
Rabbenu Bachya ben Asher ben Chlava (13th century), Perush 'Al HaTorah (Midrash Rabbenu Bachya) (Jerusalem: Blum, 1988), pt.4, p.7.
COMMENT: One has to think carefully about the array of the tribes as described in these chapters of Numbers in order to understand how Rabbenu Bachya draws his conclusion here. Around the tabernacle, at each of the four sides of a square, three tribes were camped. In chapter 2 they are listed in clockwise order, starting with Judah in the east. The first tribe in each group of three gave its name to that part of the camp, but apparently the standard for each part of the camp was placed in front of the second (middle) tribe in group. Hence, Netan'el, who, was actually prince of the tribe of Issachar, is listed here as standing with the flag of Judah, because his tribe was the second in the group headed by Judah. And the same applies to the other princes listed by Rabbenu Bachya.
Although Bachya goes on to make a rather different point, the description of four princes with the name of God in their names at the four compass points around the central sanctuary suggested to me the notion that God's name should always be before us wherever we turn, because God is always present wherever we turn. And God's presence, or rather, our awareness of God's presence, should help us to focus on the truly important, spiritual things of life, even when we are not engaged with the sanctuary, the 'official' religious institutions of our community. Religion is too important to be left solely to religious institutions.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Beyond Counting
CONTEXT: The main subject of chapter 3 is the counting of the Levitical clans and of the first-born of all the other tribes. Previously, the task of offering sacrifices had apparently fallen to the first-born male in each family, but now that task was to be given over to the Levites. Thus, an equal number of males in each group would be seen as balancing each other out, and the surplus first-born had to be ransomed – a ceremony still carried out to this day, known as Pidyon HaBen, when a first-born non-Levite baby boy is redeemed on the thirtieth day after his birth.
'And take (veSa', literally, lift up) [the number of their names].'
Numbers 3:40
[This word veSa' appears] three [times in the Bible]:
[1.] 'And take (veSa') [the number of their names]' (Numbers 3:40).
[2.] 'And lift up (veSa') your eyes to the west and to the north, [to the south and to the east, and see with your eyes, for you shall not cross this Jordan]' (Deuteronomy 3:27).
[3.] 'See my affliction and my pain, and forgive (veSa') all my sins' (Psalm 25:18).
For David was praying because he had taken (naSa') the number of the Israelites [against God's instructions, cf. II Samuel 24], and one who prays must turn their eyes downwards; hence it says: 'And lift up (veSa') your eyes to the west (literally, to the sea)' [meaning] that one should turn one's eyes downwards, and not turn one's eyes upwards (cf. Talmud, Yevamot 105b).
Jacob ben Asher (1268-1340), Perush Ba'al HaTurim 'al HaTorah (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1995), v.2, p.342.
COMMENT: The Ba'al HaTurim (as both the book and its author are traditionally known) has drawn our attention to the fact that the word veSa' occurs only three times in the entire Hebrew Bible, and with three different meanings. In Numbers, it means 'take [the number]', i.e. 'count'. In Deuteronomy, it means 'lift' (the basic meaning of the root NS'), while in Psalm 25, it is correctly translated as 'forgive'.
This is not coincidental, in his view, but indicative of deeper levels of meaning. Thus, he proceeds to weave a connection between these three verses: The sin David was asking forgiveness for was that of counting the people of Israel, and praying, as David did, should be carried out with one's eyes facing downwards, in humility, because Moses, even though he was told to 'lift' his eyes, was at the top of Mount Nebo, and consequently, had to look down to see the Mediterranean Sea.
Counting seems to be an essentially human activity, a way of attempting to control and own that which may in fact be uncontrollable and 'unownable'. (Even the money we think we have seems to have a life of its own, disappearing before we have realised quite where it has gone.) Certainly counting dominates much of our everyday thinking, especially, but not only in the financial sphere. But all counting, all controlling, must be set aside when we pray, because prayer is about facing that which is intrinsically beyond our control. When we face God in humility during prayer, there is only one number that is important: the number One. 'Hear O Israel, GOD is our God, GOD is One' (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Of course, much of the Book of Numbers is concerned with counting, hence its name, but one could argue that this is because each individual named and counted was considered precious, an essential constituent of the people of Israel.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Cheap Imitations
CONTEXT: This chapter details the number of the clans of the Levites, and specifies the tasks each clan had to undertake in the care and maintenance of the Tabernacle, and particularly when it had to be taken apart and reassembled during the wilderness wanderings.
'But they shall not go in to see when the holy thing is dismantled, lest they die.'
Numbers 4:20
That is to say that there is a hint here along the lines of what I heard from my master [and] grandfather [the Ba'al Shem Tov] – may the memory of the righteous be a blessing for the world-to-come – namely, that sometimes when one goes to a tzaddik in order to learn from his acts, the tzaddik may be in a state of 'smallness' (katnut), and one may receive some [inspiration] from him without realising that there is a warning in it [rather than an act to be emulated].
Something like this happened once when a man came to the famous master, our teacher, the rabbi Nachum(?) – may the memory of the righteous be a blessing for the world-to-come. He saw [the tzaddik] drinking coffee then with his tallit and tefillin on, so he went back to his own house and did the same also.
Hence the warning: 'they shall not go in to see' i.e. [the ordinary people should not go to a tzaddik] in order to see his acts and to receive [inspiration from] them, [for the text says] right after this 'when they are dismantled' – i.e. that there are times when [the tzaddik] is in a period of 'smallness,' when the holiness that is within him is 'dismantled,' and thus 'they die' – i.e. they [the people] fall from their rung. [So,] they should not enter to receive [inspiration] unless they see that it is a time of 'greatness' (gadlut); then they should receive [inspiration] from him. Understand this, for when the knowledge of those who hear is limited, they do not understand.
Moses Hayyim Ephraim of Sudlykov (d.1800), Degel Mahane Ephraim (Jerusalem, 1963), p.190.
COMMENT: Traditionally, leadership in the Hasidic community has been based on the tzaddik or rebbe, who by dint of his charisma and mystical insight could command the unswerving loyalty of his Hasidim. And because they were in touch with higher powers from supernal, spiritual realms, they were sometimes inspired (while is a state of 'greatness') to create new modes of behaviour that would then be liable to imitation by their followers. This, in turn, presents a problem, because the followers are not divinely-inspired, and might not understand the motives behind the rebbe's actions, and so be led into inappropriate activity. Or, alternatively, as Moses Hayyim Ephraim of Sudlykov points out here, the action which the Hasid seeks to emulate may not be divinely inspired at all, but something the rebbe did in a state of 'smallness', in which case the potential spiritual damage caused by imitation may be greater still.
We, who are not Hasidim, may wonder what message there may be for us in the Sudlykover's analysis. Our leaders usually make no claim to divine inspiration, but they may still demand our loyalty and even our adherence to norms of behaviour laid down by them. Hasidic teaching does demand unswerving trust in the rebbe, but the modern free society does not. In our context, the Sudlykover's teaching suggests to me that, however, good our leaders, we must never give them our adherence without question. We all have our good and bad ideas, and our leaders are no exception. Each idea must be scrutinised for its own merits, each must be subjected to moral and spiritual questioning, so that we may distinguish between the good and the evil and achieve our own spiritual independence.
Shouldering Our Burdens
CONTEXT: The opening verses of Naso' continue the subject of the number of the members of the Levitical clans and their tasks in transporting the Tabernacle.
'....You shall appoint them by names to the objects they are required to carry.'
Numbers 4:32
One has to comment on this anomaly, that this is said only about the sons of Merari [and not about the other clans of the Levites, the sons of Gershon and Kehat]. And one has to say on this that the meaning, in my humble opinion, is [as follows]:
Look, it is well known that 'the Ark carried those who carried it' (Talmud, Sotah 35a), that is, due to the magnitude of the spiritual light that was in it, and even in the case of something [apparently purely] physical, they would not have been able to bear to carry it, except as a result of some spirituality that was within it. Now, look, the sons of Merari had the burden of everything, and therefore, the Blessed One commanded [Moses] 'You shall appoint them by names to the objects they are required to carry.'
'You shall appoint' (tiFQeDu) is an expression [denoting] connection and unity, as [in the phrase] 'A man is obligated to "visit" (liFQoD) [his wife before going on a journey]' (Talmud, Yevamot 62b). Thus, [Moses] was to connect them to the Names [of God], that is [to] the spirituality that was within the objects they were required to carry. And by this means were they able to bear them. Understand!
Moses Hayyim Ephraim of Sudlykov (d.1800), Degel Mahane Ephraim (Jerusalem, 1963), p.190.
COMMENT: The Sudlykover addresses the question of why the Torah specifies that the Merari clan were to be appointed to their task by 'names'. Now, the usual understanding of this expression is that each individual male member of the clan was appointed to a specific task, but the Sudlykover is intrigued by the fact that the text says 'by names', rather than 'by name'.
He takes the view that the names in question are not those of the members of the Merari clan, but divine names. Moses, he suggests, taught the clan members the pertinent divine names, so that they could recognise the spirituality inherent in the items they were assigned to carry. In this way, the Sudlykover also explains the Talmudic dictum that 'the Ark carried those who carried it'.
I find it interesting that Moses Hayyim Ephraim does not attempt to specify which divine names were intended here, as a kabbalistic commentator might have done. It is as if he did not want us to focus on the names, as such, but on the spirituality they represent. For me, this idea, coupled with the quote from Yevamot he cites, suggested a way of thinking about the often mundane tasks we all face in life. After all, carrying the various items connected with the Tabernacle around the wilderness could not have been very inspiring for the Levites, in itself, but the consciousness of the important spiritual work they were doing would sustain them in shouldering their burdens. Might not the same approach help sustain us in shouldering our burdens?
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Learning Life's Lessons
CONTEXT: The majority of Numbers 5 deals with the laws of the 'sotah', the wife who is suspected by her husband of adultery. These prescribe a complex procedure in which curses are written on a parchment, then removed with water, which the sotah then drinks. If she has indeed been unfaithful, her body should rot away. As this is unlikely to happen, it has been suggested that this may be more of test for a jealous husband than it is for an adulterous wife. As our text points out, chapter 6 is concerned mainly with the laws of the 'nazir,' nazirite, who vows to refrain from wine and haircuts for thirty days.
'If any man's wife goes astray...'
Numbers 5:12
In the Torah, the section about the suspected adulteress (sotah, Numbers 5:12-31) precedes that of the nazirite, while in the Gemara, [the tractate] Nazir is placed before Sotah.
Look here, Sotah teaches that people realise their [moral] deficiencies and only later, restrain themselves and stand by the Torah-teaching that they need to set limits for themselves. Therefore, the suspected adulteress is written in the Torah and then the Nazirite, for truly, 'no one [really] understands words of Torah unless they have stumbled over them' (Talmud, Gittin 43a).
However, [the teachings of] our sages of blessed memory are called 'the Torah of your mother' [based Rashi on Proverbs 1:8 & Talmud, Berachot 35a, where 'your mother' is equated with the community of Israel, and its teaching with the Oral Torah developed by the sages]. That is, [our sages behaved like mothers] by loving people and desiring their good, [so] they placed Nazir before Sotah, so that people could restrain themselves from the beginning, before they stumbled over the Torah's teaching. Then it would be sufficient for them to meditate on the section about the suspected adulteress as stated in the Torah, and from the words of the Torah, they would understand in which ways they have to guard themselves, but without the stumbling.
Mordechai Joseph Leiner of Izbica (1814-1878), Mei HaShiloach (Bnei Brak, 1995), v.2, p.145.
COMMENT: Essentially, Rabbi Leiner's answer to the question of the different orders of the two subjects in the Torah on the one hand and the Mishnah and Talmud on the other is to say that they both describe ways of learning life's lessons.
The Talmud already records Rabbi Judah the Prince's view that the two subjects are connected: 'Why is the section of the nazirite next to the section of the suspected adulteress? To tell you that whoever witnesses a suspected adulteress in her disgrace should refrain from wine' (Sotah 2a), the presumption being that the adulteress probably sinned while in a state of intoxication. But now Rabbi Leiner expounds the different orders.
In his view, the Biblical order is based on the idea that we only really learn from experience, that we cannot really hear the Torah's lessons until we have been driven by our inner desires to violate them. Only then can we appreciate their wisdom and value for us.
On the other hand, the Talmudic order is based on the notion that we can learn the Torah's lessons in advance of our violating them, that we do not have to stumble before we can learn to walk more carefully.
Of course, both are true. We can prepare ourselves in advance for life challenges, but sometimes we just cannot learn its lessons until we have experienced its pains first-hand. Patently, it is good to learn from our mistakes, but would it not be better if we could avoid the pain and anxiety of those mistakes in the first instance?
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
A Gift from a King
CONTEXT: Chapter 6 of Numbers concludes with what is perhaps the most famous passage in the book: the three-fold priestly blessing (vv.22-27).
'May GOD lift up the divine countenance to you...'
Numbers 6:26
In the Midrash Rabbah [it says]: 'May GOD lift up the divine countenance to you...' (i.e. 'show favour') – but does the Holy Blessed One show favour? Hasn't it already said: 'Who does not show favour' (Deuteronomy 10:17)? The Holy Blessed One says: 'If they show Me favour, I will show them favour. How? I have written in My Torah: "And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless..." (Deuteronomy 8:10) If the Israelites sit down with their children and their household, but do not have enough to satisfy [their hunger], yet they show Me favour and recite the blessing [i.e. the Grace After Meals], and they take care even with regard to an olive- or egg-sized [morsel], then, "May GOD lift up the divine countenance to you..."'
Bemidbar Rabbah 11:7
This statement is wondrous to the understanding. Thus, it seems that its meaning is [as follows]: Look here, if an ordinary person gives an insignificant gift to a friend the one who receives it does not consider it important at all. This is not the case if the king gives him a gift, even though it might be an insignificant one. It will nevertheless be of great importance because it is the king who gave it. And so the one who receives it gets greater pleasure from it than if he had received a substantial gift from an ordinary person.
The image applies also to the Grace After Meals, for even though it says in the Torah that one has to eat until one is satisfied [before saying the Grace], this is from the side of those who receive. But when we realise that it is the Sovereign beyond all sovereigns Who gives bread to all flesh and Who prepares for each creature what it needs and what sustains it, then even if one has eaten only an olive-sized morsel, one considers it very important, and one gains very great pleasure from it, since it comes from GOD, according to the analogy above.
And this is the meaning of the midrash: 'How? [...] If the Israelites sit down with their children and their household, but do not have enough to satisfy [their hunger], yet they show Me favour and recite the blessing [i.e. the Grace After Meals]' – that is to say that they contemplate from Whom the food has come and recite the blessing, and because of the greatness and importance of the One Who gave it, they have pleasure from a small amount, and from this do they derive satisfaction and so recite the blessing. This is the meaning of the notion that they show [God] favour. Understand!
This is an attribute [of God] too, for the Holy Blessed One shows them favour and enjoys the insignificant service which they have performed before [God], because [God] contemplates from whom this service comes, [appreciating] that we are [merely] human and of limited intellect, but serve [God] just the same. This is the explanation of [the verse]: 'May GOD lift up the divine countenance to you...' Understand, because it is profound.
Simchah Bunam of Pshische (1765-1827), Qol Simchah HaShalem (Jerusalem: HaMesorah, 1986), p.87.
COMMENT: The midrash Rabbi Simchah Bunam quotes above clearly has the object of reconciling two opposing statements regarding whether or not God shows favour. Its answer is to suggest that God shows favour to those who remember their debt to God, particularly with respect to food, where Jewish tradition requires blessings both before and after eating. (Deuteronomy 8:10 is understood by the rabbis to refer specifically to the Grace After Meals.)
Simchah Bunam then adds an analogy of his own. A gift is more precious if it comes from someone we value. Its monetary worth will not matter. So, we can declare that we are content with a small morsel, provided we can recognise and acknowledge its divine origin.
But then he says that the analogy works the other way too. God, he suggests, appreciates the service that we do, our acknowledgment of dependence on God, even though in the grand scheme of the universe, such service may seem trivial.
I particularly liked the dialectic aspect of this teaching and its suggestion that God and human beings are inter-dependent. Just as we depend upon God for the things that sustain our lives, and our souls, so too God is dependent, as it were, on us to acknowledge divine rule. To do so not only connects us with One Who is greater than we, but also brings that One into human life in concrete, even intimate, ways.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Prayer as Ownership
CONTEXT:The longest chapter of the Torah begins with Moses' dedication of the Tabernacle. Then, on twelve successive days, the princes of the twelve tribes brought identical offerings as part of the dedication. Despite this, each prince's offering is listed in full detail.
'It happened on the day that Moses finished erecting the Tabernacle that he anointed it, declared it, all its vessels, the altar and all its vessels, holy; and anointed them and declared them holy.'
Numbers 7:1
'It happened on the day that Moses finished...' (Numbers 7:1). This is [in accordance with] what Scripture says: 'One who guards the fig-tree shall eat its fruit, and one who waits on his master shall be honoured' (Proverbs 27:18). The Holy Blessed One does not withhold the reward [due to] any human being, provided a person strives and gives one's entire soul to the thing. [Then] the Holy Blessed One does not withhold one's reward. Hence it says: 'One who guards the fig-tree shall eat its fruit...'
You should know that Solomon – peace be upon him – built the Temple, as it is said: 'And Solomon built the House of GOD' (cf. I Kings 6:14). But since David had given his soul for the building of the Temple, as it is said: 'Remember, O GOD, David, [and] all his afflictions. How he swore to GOD...I will surely not enter into the tent of my house...until I find a place for GOD...' (Psalm 132:1-5). The Holy Blessed One did not withhold his reward; rather [God] let it be written of him: 'A psalm, a song of the dedication of the House; Of David' (Psalm 30:1). Did David dedicate it? Surely Solomon dedicated it! But because David gave his soul for it, it was called by his name. So, Solomon spoke well [when he said]: 'One who guards the fig-tree shall eat its fruit, and one who waits on his master shall be honoured' (Proverbs 27:18).
Similarly, one finds [that this is the case] with the Tabernacle, even though all Israel made it, and gave their souls. All Israel made the Tabernacle: [The men] made contributions and the women spun the goats' [wool]. Hence it is written: 'And all the skilled people amongst those that did the work' (Exodus 36:8) and similarly, 'Betzalel and Oholiav made...' (Exodus 36:1). But because Moses had given his soul for it, it was called by his name, as it is said [in God's instructions to Moses]: 'Now look and make [it] after their pattern' (Exodus 25:40). So Moses went, and gave his soul to each and every thing, so that it should be made just as the Holy Blessed One had shown him on the mountain, without any mistakes. Hence in relation to each item it is written: 'just as GOD had commanded Moses' [14 times in Exodus 39 & 40]. And it is also said: 'And Moses looked at all the work, and look, they had done it [just as GOD had commanded it, so had they done it; and Moses blessed them]' (Exodus 39:43). What blessing did he give them? He said to them: 'May the Shechinah dwell in the work of your hands.' Said the Holy Blessed One: 'Since Moses gave his soul for the Tabernacle, I will only write about it using his name,' as it is said: 'It happened on the day that Moses finished [erecting the Tabernacle...]'. So, 'one who guards the fig-tree shall eat its fruit...' (Proverbs 27:18).
Midrash Tanchuma, Naso' §13
This midrash explains why it is written: 'It happened on the day that Moses finished [erecting the Tabernacle...]', for it is clear that Moses did not make the Tabernacle by himself. Moses did nothing really; it was all Israel and Betzalel. To [expound] this, [the midrash] brings the verse: 'One who guards the fig-tree shall eat its fruit' (Proverbs 27:18), for one who guards the fig-tree, even though he didn't plant it, but only protected it from being ruined, [still] eats its fruit. Similarly in [the case of] Moses: for even though Moses did not make the Tabernacle, but only prayed for it all to be made correctly, without mistakes, and gave his soul for it, for this [reason] it is called by his name. Understand this carefully.
Simchah Bunam of Pshische (1765-1827), Qol Simchah HaShalem (Jerusalem: HaMesorah, 1986), pp.87-88.
COMMENT: Once again, the rebbe of Pshische is using a midrash as the starting point for his own exposition of the Biblical text. The extensive midrash he cites is concerned to explain why the text says that Moses completed the Tabernacle. It is clear from the text itself that Moses did none of the physical labour involved in its construction, but, says the midrash, he gave his (heart and) soul to it, overseeing all its details so that it would be made exactly according to the divine specifications entrusted to him.
But Simchah Bunam seems to minimise Moses' involvement, quoting the midrash's proof-text from Proverbs to demonstrate that Moses may not have done more than protect the Tabernacle with his prayers. Of course, we do not know whether Simchah Bunam is correct about this, but the point of his teaching must be that one may forge a genuine connection with something (or someone, presumably) simply by praying. Indeed, prayer is precisely this type of activity: it is primarily a mental exercise in which one connects with one's tradition, one's people, others in need, with the universe, with God.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
The Voice from Within
CONTEXT: WITH THE Tabernacle now fully dedicated, Moses enters and there here the voice of God from between the two cherubim on the cover of the Ark. The Tabernacle is in full working order.
'[When Moses entered the Tent of Meeting to speak with [God], he heard the voice speaking to itself from over the covering that was over the Ark of the Testimony,] from between the two cherubim (Mibeyn SHeney Hakeruvim). [Then it spoke to him.]'
Numbers 7:89
The first letters [of 'from between the two cherubim (Mibeyn SHeney Hakeruvim)' spell] MoSHeH ('Moses'), for he was as important as the supernal cherubim. The voice is split into many fragments, and falls from the heavenly atmosphere to the covering, [as is clear from the phrase] 'I will speak with you from over the covering [from between the two cherubim]' (Exodus 25:22). From there the voice goes between the two cherubim. Now, the cherubim were hollow and ([people] heard) the word from the midst of the fire, as if the voice had come out from between the cherubim. Just as above, where the voice comes out from between the two cherubim on both sides of the hollow Throne [of Glory], so too below, [it comes out] 'from between the two cherubim.' It said: 'Moses, Moses.' Therefore, the first letters [of the last three words spell out] Mosheh. From there, the voice would separate and disperse into the Tent of Meeting, and [then] 'from the Tent of Meeting, saying' (Leviticus 1:1). Therefore, it says: '[He heard] 'et the voice' because the voice divided into many sparks of halachah.
KeRUVIM (cherubim, 20+200+6+2+10+40=278) has the same numerical value as MaR'eH KaVOD ('vision of glory', 40+200+1+5+20+2+6+4=278).
'Then it spoke to him' [but] not to the ministering angels, nor to the elders, nor to Aaron, for the voice came out of a channel [directly] into his ear (cf. Bemidbar Rabbah 14:19), [as it says]: 'And a way for the lightning of the voices (usually, thunder)' (Job 28:27), [and] 'The voice of GOD in majesty' (Psalm 29:4), [and] as at the beginning of the Gemara of [tractate] Yoma' [4b, where it says that all Israel heard the voice at Mount Sinai, but only Moses heard it in the Tent of Meeting].
Elazar ben Judah of Worms (c.1160-1237), Perush HaRokeach 'al HaTorah (Bnei Brak, 1986), v.3, p.31.
COMMENT: Rabbi Elazar of Worms was a key leader of the Hasidei Ashkenaz movement, the Pietists of Germany. One of the main features of their thought is the emphasis on 'codes' in the Bible, codes which they found in the numerical values of the letters, or in the first and last letters of words, but they also placed great stress on the mystical teachings available to them from midrashim and the Heichalot or Merkavah literature.
Here we see Rabbi Elazar making using of the rashei teivot, the beginnings of words, to teach us that Moses was the equivalent of a heavenly creature known as a keruv or cherub. He then goes on to draw upon midrashic sources in order to outline the transmission of the heavenly voice to Moses. This one voice produced the many halachic rulings, despite being only one voice, and, by using gematriot, numerical values, he 'proves' that hearing the voice from between the cherubim amounted to a vision of the glory of God. But his final comment, based on the Talmud, is to me the most telling. It indicates that to Rabbi Elazar the voice that Moses heard issuing from between the cherubim was essentially a psychological phenomenon which only he heard. This bears out a view of his opening remark that Moses was equal to a cherub, a being to whom God spoke directly.
Moses is unique in Jewish history, but we can all learn from what the Torah tells us about him. If Rabbi Elazar is correct, then Moses is setting an example for us, teaching us that the heavenly voice comes from within, even if we experience it as coming from without. And that sometimes we need to take time out from our hectic daily routine to try to hear that voice within ourselves. The text suggests that the voice speaks all the time but that we have to access it. That is, after all, why Moses went into the newly-dedicated Tent of Meeting in this chapter, to speak to God and to hear that divine voice.
The Innermost Light
CONTEXT: As part of the continuing description of the dedication of the Tabernacle, the instructions for lighting the seven branched candelabrum are given at the beginning of Numbers 8.
'...When you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light in front of the candlestick.' [But a very literal translation might be: 'In your lifting up with the lamps, to the face of the lampstand they will give light to the seven lamps.']
Numbers 8:2
'In your lifting up with the lamps...' [may be understood] along the lines of [the verse] 'For the commandment is a lamp' (Proverbs 6:23). A commandment is like a lamp because light dwells within it. Thus, its internal aspect is love and awe. Hence the meaning so far is beha'alotcha – 'when you lift yourself up' – 'et hanerot 'with the lamps' i.e. with the commandments.
'To the face of the lampstand they will give light to the seven lamps.' [may be understood] along the lines of the verse: 'Then God spoke all these words, saying: I [am GOD your God...]' (Exodus 20:1-2). The meaning is that through each commandment you may come to contemplate the 'I' [that is, Malchut]. And 'You shall have no [other gods before Me]' means that the love and awe of the 'I' is the love by which 'I brought you out of the Land of Egypt,' [that is] from all trouble. 'You shall have no other gods' means that you should not follow [your] desires, which may be [likened to] another god, 'before Me' [literally, against My face, panai] against the innermost (penimiut), for the innermost is the Holy One, blessed be He [=Tif'eret]. This is appropriate.
This is the meaning of [the phrase]: 'to the face (penay) of the lampstand' [namely] the innermost (penimiut), 'they will give light to the seven lamps,' [i.e.] to the seven 'days of construction', [namely] love, awe, beauty, etc. [referring to the seven lowest sefirot, aspects of God, and of ourselves].
Dov Baer, the Maggid of Mezritch (d. 1772), 'Or Torah (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1972), p.90.
COMMENT: Any religion that places as much emphasis on ritual activity as Judaism does runs the risk of producing mechanical observance without conscious thought. In this rather involved, kabbalistic, passage, the Maggid of Mezritch addresses this issue, promising us positive benefits if we can recognise the spiritual dimension of the rituals we perform.
To understand the passage, it is necessary to begin with a very literal translation, reflecting the word order of the original as closely as possible. First, the Maggid 'demonstrates' that the word 'lamp' refers to the ritual commandments, because of the divine light, the spirituality, they embody. The commandments thus become a means of lifting oneself onto a higher spiritual plane.
In discussing the next part of the verse, Rabbi Dov Baer makes an apparent detour to introduce the concept of 'I', in Hebrew, 'anochi. In terms of the traditional Kabbalah, 'anochi represents the lowest of the ten sefirot, Malchut, also known as the Shechinah. According to the Zohar (II, 85a), it was this aspect that brought about the liberation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Since it is the conduit between the realm of the sefirot and the created world, it is composed of the opposites of love and awe, the influences of Hesed and Gevurah, though that of Hesed was greater. And just as the verse 'I am GOD your God...' in the Ten Commandments leads directly on to 'You shall have no other gods...', so too, the recognition of the activity of Malchut should lead us to curbing our desires in the world, because these interfere with our appreciation of that which is innermost, namely, Tif'eret, the sefirah which focuses and unites the energies of all the others into Malchut, through Yesod. If we can access this innermost aspect, it will illuminate all seven lower sefirot.
This is apparently a traditional kabbalistic exposition of a Biblical text, offering us a vision of the enrichment of the supernal realms accomplished by our performance of the mitzvot. However, although the Maggid expresses himself in kabbalistic terminology, I believe that his intention is rather more Hasidic. He is concerned with personal illumination, more than supernal illumination. He is suggesting that appreciating the spiritual dimension of the rituals we do will purify our entire 'lower' being, namely our emotions and desires. Thus, following the Maggid, the entire verse may be 'translated' as follows: 'When you lift yourself up with the commandments, turn to the innermost, to God within you, and this will illuminate your "lower" aspects.'
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Fully Human
CONTEXT: Chapter 10 opens with a description of two silver trumpets which were to be sounded to assemble the people or the princes, to give the signal for the people to move off or to go to war, or on festivals and new moons.
'Make yourself two silver trumpets (CHaTZoTZRoT kesef).'
Numbers 10:2
The meaning is 'two half-forms' (CHaTZi TZuRoT), along the lines of [the verse] '...and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness like an appearance of a human being ('ADaM) up above it' (Ezekiel 1:26). For a human being is only Dalet-Mem, DaM ('blood'), yet the [divine] speech may rest upon a person. When one is attached to the Holy Blessed One, who is [known as] the Ruler ('Aluf) of the Universe, one [adds an 'Alef to the Dalet-mem and] is made into a [true] 'ADaM, a [true] human being. The Holy Blessed One performs many contractions (tzimtzumim) through many [spiritual] worlds in order to become united with a person, who would [otherwise] not be able to bear God's [full] brightness. And each human being must also separate themselves from the physical, until they ascend through the [upper spiritual] worlds to unite with the Holy Blessed One, until they are [as it were] annihilated from existence. Then they are [truly] called 'ADaM...
This is the [meaning of the verse]: 'Make yourself two silver trumpets (CHaTZoTZRoT kesef)' – for a human being is half a form, for [a human] is only DaM, blood, while the Holy Blessed One is called the Ruler ('Aluf) of the Universe. However, when they cleave together, they become one complete form. [The word] kesef ('silver') is an expression of desire [from the root kasaf, meaning 'to desire'] for one should always desire the Holy Blessed One, and then the Holy Blessed One will love you.
[This may be] explained by means of a parable: A parent loves a child and a child loves a parent [so much] that they are [as if] they were one body, and they have [a great] longing for each other. Each alone is not complete. Each is but half a form. But the two together become a complete form. The meaning is clear.
Dov Baer, the Maggid of Mezritch (d. 1772), 'Or Torah (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1972), p.45d-46a. (cf. Maggid Devarav LeYa'akov (edited by Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer) (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1976), pp.38-40.)
COMMENT: After 'analysing' the word chatzotzerot into the phrase chatzi tzurot, 'two forms', the Maggid of Mezritch takes an apparent detour to offer a traditional analysis of the word 'adam, a person. He divides this into dam, blood, representing the physical aspect of human existence, and 'alef representing God, the 'aluf, the ruler of the universe, meaning our spiritual aspect. A human being is thus, a combination of physical and spiritual aspects, but this combination only exists in potential. To reach fruition, a person must desire, indeed long, to be in union with God.
This desire must be a strong as the love between parent and child, for God is our true Parent, for when we unite our physical and spiritual selves we truly become children of God.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
The Limits of Humility
CONTEXT: Much of Numbers chapter 10 is taken up with telling us how the Israelite people marched from Sinai through the wilderness with the Ark of the Covenant, carried by Levites in the vanguard.
'And it happened, when the Ark set out, that Moses would say: "Arise, O GOD, and let Your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate You flee before You." And when it came to rest, he would say: "Return, O GOD, the myriads of thousands of Israel!"'
Numbers 10:35-36
[There is a] reversed nun [before and after this passage] because nun teaches [us] about awe/fear, hence it is bent. Therefore, all the letters have their faces turned [away from each other] because each is ashamed to look at its colleague. The principle is that a person should be modest in the awe/fear of God, as [in] the saying 'A person should always be [in awe of Heaven in public as well as in private]' [from the Morning Prayers].
But when a person wishes to raise sparks [of divine light], one must reveal [one's] awe/fear, and thus the spark too will be raised in the awe/fear of God. Now, the journeys of Israel through the wilderness were in order to raise sparks, so they were required reveal [their] fear/awe to all, in order for the sparks to fear GOD as well. Hence [the phrase]: 'And it happened, when the Ark set out' – for the Ark set out with Israel in the wilderness to raise sparks, and so they were required to reveal [their] awe/fear. This is hinted at because the nun, which teaches [us] about awe/fear, has its face reversed to reveal the awe/fear in order to raise the sparks.
Levi Isaac of Berditchev (1740-1809), Qedushat Levi HaShalem (Munkacs, 1829), p.73d.
COMMENT: In Torah scrolls and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, the verses quoted above are set apart from the rest of the text by two reversed nuns, one at each end. This is a puzzle, and Levi Isaac of Berditchev offers his own insight into this phenomenon.
Most Hebrew letters with open spaces, he reminds us, face the left; that is, the open space is open in the direction of the following letter, rather than the preceding one. To the Berditchever, this is a sign of humility, but specifically, humility in spiritual matters, meaning that one should not pride oneself on ones spiritual attainments.
However, in the case of these two nuns, the letters are reversed so that their spaces now face backwards. This he connects back to the actual content of the verses, namely the progress of the Ark through the wilderness. This progress was, he says, utilizing an image drawn from Lurianic Kabbalah, for the purpose of liberating the sparks of divine light entrapped in those places to which the Ark journeyed. The reversed nuns thus point out to us the fact that when it comes to liberating sparks, it is necessary to be forthright about ones spiritual attainments. Humility has its limits and must be put aside on occasion to accomplish authentic spiritual ends.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Accepting Yourself
CONTEXT: Chapters 11 and 12 both relate the stories of attacks on Moses. In Numbers 11, the people question his leadership and demand meat to eat. In the following chapter, Moses' brother and sister attack his personal life, alleging some unspecified problem regarding his wife. But, the Torah tells us, these attacks were unjustified: Moses was the most humble of people.
'Now the man Moses was very humble...'
Numbers 12:3
Rashi of blessed memory explains 'humble' [as] 'lowly and patient (SaVLan)'. Our holy teacher [Rabbi Simchah Bunam] used to speak about two [kinds of] people: Those who, if they think that they are not fit at all, are unable to live, and the second who know their lowly state but nevertheless are patient with (SoVeL) themselves, for the service of the latter is much superior, for they are lowly and accept their lowliness.
'Now the man Moses was very humble...'
Numbers 12:3
Rashi of blessed memory explains 'humble' [as] 'lowly and forbearing (SaVLan)', meaning: Even though Moses our teacher – peace be upon him – was lowly in his own eyes, that is, he knew the lowliness of his status, nevertheless, he was patient with (SoVeL) himself, as expressed in the verse: 'His heart was lifted up through the ways of GOD' (II Chronicles 17:6).
Simchah Bunam of Pshische (1765-1827), Midrash Simchah (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRYM Levin, 1988), v.1, pp.135-136.
COMMENT: These are clearly two versions of the same teaching by Rabbi Bunam, as put down on paper by two different disciples, no doubt. Both are included here because each has its own unique flavour.
The first points out that the text is speaking about everyone, about us, in other words, and not just Moses. It teaches us that humility that leads to a kind of moral paralysis in which we are unable to live in any meaningful sense is a trap. True humility means acceptance of one's self, failings and all, but not allowing the awareness of our failings to interfere with our lives and with taking moral responsibility for our actions and our world.
The second version, although it speaks more directly of Moses, still has universal application. Our awareness of our lowly status does not mean that we cannot achieve anything worthwhile. On the contrary, if we pursue the ways of God, there is no limit to what we can achieve. In this way, we accept ourselves, but exalt our hearts in and through the service of God.
Into Real Life
CONTEXT: The main subject of Shelach Lecha is the story of the twelve spies Moses sent into the Promised Land. They returned with two reports: the majority (10) said that the Land consumed those who live in it and the inhabitants were too strong to be defeated, while the minority (Joshua and Caleb) insisted that the Land could be conquered anyway, with God's help.
One might have considered the spies to be worthy, so that, at first sight, it would be very difficult to say that men of the 'Generation of Knowledge,' (dor de'ah) such as they were, could commit as serious a transgression as this, through rebellion and treachery. Therefore, one has to say that they were mistaken in this, for they saw that they had begun to enter into great perfection in the wilderness, as it is said: 'For GOD spoke with you face to face on the mountain' (Deuteronomy 5:4). This was a high [spiritual] level, beyond measure or limit. So they did not want to have to leave the wilderness, but [wanted] to remain there for much longer period, in order to enter into even higher levels, without any service ('avodah) at all. However, they truly were mistaken in this, because the essence of the acquisition of absolute perfection is, without doubt, only through great service, by occupying oneself with the commandments of the blessed God. And the essence of service [takes place] in the Land of Israel.
Menachem Mendel of Rymanov (d.1815), Divrei Menachem (n.p., 1935?), p.10.
COMMENT: The twelve spies sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan were high-ranking members of their tribes, according to Numbers 13:2, and thus, important members of what rabbinic literature calls 'the Generation of Knowledge', those who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai. So, the question is: How did ten of these leaders go so wrong? How could they allow themselves to be frightened by the Canaanites and then spread fear and panic among the people of Israel?
Menachem Mendel of Rymanov's response is to acknowledge that they were, indeed, at a high spiritual level, but they thought that that level was a result of being in the wilderness. They feared that settling down in the land would divert them from the spiritual goals. Somehow, they imagined that they could remain on that level without having to engage in the kind of service of God that living in the Land would entail. But, says the Rymanover, a truly high spiritual level can only be attained when we strive to put the spiritual lessons we have learned into practice in 'real' life.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Acts Unique and Inclusive
CONTEXT: In Numbers 13:2, God commands Moses to send out the spies, one from each tribe, twelve in all.
['Send men for yourself, that they may spy out the Land of Canaan.'
Numbers 13:2]
...When a person wants to serve God truly, one must have [in mind] two aspects:
1. The uniqueness of the act, i.e. that it is as if one were alone in the world, and therefore, the Holy Blessed One reveals [the Shechinah] to oneself without 'garments'. And as Rabbi Nachman of Horodenka [d. 1765] said, 'No one shall ascend with you' (Exodus 34:3) [means] When one wants to serve God, one is alone, and no one ascends with one... It is on this basis that I understand the verse, 'And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he [Aaron, the High Priest] goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place' (Leviticus 16:17). Understand!
[2.] There is another aspect [to keep in mind] for serving God, [namely] that one must [mentally] combine oneself with all creatures, from the smallest worm up to the wild ox that [dwells] in the Lebanon [mountains].... Thus one must unite oneself [mentally] with all souls, as is well known from [the teachings of] my grandfather, my elder, [the Ba'al Shem Tov] – may his memory be a blessing for the world-to-come – and combine oneself [mentally] with them...
This is what this verse hints at: [namely] these two aspects that must be present in one who serves God. Hence the verse says: 'Send (SHeLaCH) men for yourself'. Now, the Targum [the ancient Aramaic translation of the Torah normally renders the Hebrew] vayiFSHoT ('he took off') with veyiSHLaCH [which is its Aramaic equivalent], and thus [by taking PeSHaT as the meaning of SHaLaCH in our verse] one may understand it to mean, 'You should take off and set aside from you all human physicality.' 'That they may spy out the Land of Canaan' i.e. that there should remain to you only what is needed to unite with the Shechinah, as it were.
Moses Hayyim Ephraim of Sudlykov (d.1800), Degel Machaneh Ephraim (Jerusalem, 1963), p.196.
COMMENT: The Sudlykover has presented us with two meditations to be engaged in whenever we wish to serve God in whatever ways. The first is to remember that each act is unique, but more than that, to bear in mind that when we perform such an active of service, we inevitably do so as single individuals, even when acting within a group. If we think of ourselves as essentially alone, we will be worthy of a revelation of the Shechinah. (The sexual imagery is deliberate here, and draws on many kabbalistic precedents.)
The second meditation seems to be the opposite of the first, but in fact, the two are opposite ends of a continuum. Although we are essentially all single, unique individuals, we function within a social and environmental context, and that too must be born in mind as we undertake to serve God.
And both ideas, Moses Hayyim Ephraim suggests, can be found in Numbers 13:2. By translating the first verb into Aramaic, and then pretending that the resulting Aramaic root has the same meaning as its Hebrew equivalent, he has made the first phrase refer to the notion of divesting ourselves of the consciousness of our physical existence, and by implying the old kabbalistic symbolism by which 'land' or 'earth' indicates the Shechinah, he has made the second phrase allude to union with God's presence.
In my view, this is an important teaching. The true service of God can only be accomplished when we realise our uniqueness and individuality, on the one hand, and our place in the universe, on the other.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Beyond the Earthy
CONTEXT: The words quoted here from Numbers 13 are part of the spies' majority report. The Land, they suggest, is not worth conquering. It is not only that it will be difficult to defeat the Canaanites; the very influence of the Land will be corrupting.
['A land consuming those who dwell in it.']
Numbers 13:32
I heard concerning the Maggid, [Rabbi Dov Baer of Mezritch (d.1772)] – may his memory be a blessing for the world-to-come – that he gave an explanation of the verse 'A land ('eReTZ) consuming those who dwell in it.'' [Scripture] wants [to tell us that] the lower levels [of existence] known by the term 'earthy' ('aRTZiyut) 'consume' and destroy those who 'dwell' and remain there, for no one has permission to keep themselves in the [purely] earthly aspect, even for a single moment...
Ze'ev Wolf of Zhitomir (d.1800), 'Or HaMe'ir (Warsaw, 1883), pt.2, p.34. [Quoted in Dov Baer, the Maggid of Mezritch (d. 1772), Torat HaMaggid (edited by Israel Klepholtz) (Tel Aviv: Pe'er HaSefer, 1969), v.1, p.185.]
COMMENT: We have here a teaching from the Maggid of Mezritch, transmitted by one of his most original disciples, Ze'ev Wolf of Zhitomir. Its meaning is clear enough. If our minds remain on the purely earthly, mundane, physical levels of existence, we deny our inner spirituality, the God-spark within us. And thus, we deny our full humanity as well.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Words Too Cheap
CONTEXT: The report of the majority of the spies sends waves of panic throughout the Israelite camp. There are rumours of rebellion against Moses, and God threatens to destroy the entire people and start again with Moses alone. Moses manages to persuade the Almighty not to carry out this threat, but the people are still punished with a further forty years of wandering in the wilderness, until the generation that had been slaves can be replaced by their more self-reliant children.
['In this wilderness (bamiDBaR) they shall be consumed (yiTTaMMu) and there they shall die (yaMuTu).]'
Numbers 14:35
In the name of the Rav of Shepetovka [Judah Meir ben Pinchas, (d.1839)] who said in the name of the Rav [Pinchas of Koretz]: [The word] 'In the wilderness' (bamiDBaR) is an expression [meaning] 'speech' (DiBBuR), yiTTaMMu [is interpreted as if it were connected with TaM, perfect], 'they shall be perfect,' so as to able to acquire [God's] world with speech, and so too, the opposite. 'And there they shall die' due to evil speech. Obviously, [this means] gossip and the like, but [it] even [refers] to idle talk. One who engages [in this] violates [both] a positive and a negative command, as stated in the midrash: 'A person should not speak of worrisome matters' (Ecclesiastes 1:8, as interpreted in Talmud, Yoma 19b). The consonants of 'they shall be consumed/perfect (yiTTaMMu)' [and] 'they shall die (yaMuTu)' are the same, because some minor movement can make [one] into the opposite.
Pinchas of Koretz (1726-1791), 'Imre Pinchas (Tel Aviv: Arnberg, 1974), §100, p.36.
COMMENT: Here, it is the Rav of Shepetovka who is our source for his master's teaching. Pinchas of Koretz has effectively 're-translated' the verse by connecting midbar with dibbur, and yittammu with tam, so that it could now be rendered as: 'with speech they shall be perfect or they shall die'. And because yittammu and yamutu contain the same consonants, he makes the point that minor variations in the words we use, or in our intonation or facial expression, may make all the difference between words that bring perfection and words that bring destruction.
We often say that 'words are cheap', and indeed they are, when promises are not followed up by action, but we are also in danger of treating words too cheaply. We are bombarded with words in modern society, both printed and spoken, through the media and in our personal lives. Pinchas of Koretz reminds us that words can be destructive or constructive; indeed, they can make the difference between life and death.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
The Holiness in Food
CONTEXT: Chapter 15 of Numbers is primarily concerned with the laws of a number of different types of sacrifices. Verses 17-21 deal with the challah, not the plaited loaf that we eat on Shabbat and festivals, but a small portion of dough that had separated and given to the priests. Even though there is no sacrificial system, Jewish bakers and many Jews who bake their own bread still separate out the challah, and over the centuries the name was transferred to the sweet Sabbath bread.
'Speak to the Israelites: When you enter the land to which I am bringing you, and when you eat [of the bread of the land] you shall offer up a heave-offering to GOD.'
Numbers 15:18-19
Look here, the righteous holy man, our master Meshullam Zusil [Zusya] of Hanipol (d.1800) said:
When a person eats with desire, in accordance with their [human] form – since it is impossible to live without food and drink – it is certainly inconceivable that one might raise the sparks of holiness that are in the food. But if a person is wise and intelligent about this, and says in their heart: 'Isn't it certain that if the blessed Creator had wanted us to live without eating, it would certainly have been possible to exist as [we do] now, but it was the blessed Creator's will that the soul of all that lives be sustained by eating, and therefore, I am obliged to eat in holiness and purity, so that I might do the will [of God] in this way.' Then a person would have it in their power to raise the sparks of holiness [that are in the food] to their Root.
And this is the meaning of the verse: 'When you enter the land (Ha'aReTZ)' that is, into physicality (Ha'aRTZiyut), you should realise unquestionably [that that is a place] 'to which I am bringing you', for I have brought you to this, for hunger and thirst come from the blessed God, and satisfaction is also from [God]. Then, 'When you enter the land... you shall offer up a heave-offering to GOD.' Then you can elevate the holy sparks. 'And the words of a wise person's mouth are gracious' (Ecclesiastes 10:12).
Israel ben Shabbetai Hapstein, the Maggid of Koznitz (1733-1814), Sefer 'Avodat Yisra'el (Jerusalem, 1998), p.193.
COMMENT: In life, we are presented with many challenges, some we meet and achieve victory over, some we are defeated by, and some we try to dodge. But from the spiritual point of view, the hardest challenge in life is the physical things we have to do, represented here by eating and drinking, the physical activities that we engage in most often, and which are essential for our individual survival. Yet if we wish to dedicate our lives to God these present a problem. They are so pleasant in themselves, they might distract us from our spiritual path.
Rabbi Zusya's point is that eating and drinking may also become part of that path, rather than a distraction from it. And to this end, he offers us a little meditation. God could have made us in such a way that we would have had no need for these physical things, but that is not the way life is. These physical things also come from God, the need for them comes from God, and the satisfaction of them comes from God. So, why shouldn't they lead our thoughts back to God? Or, in Rabbi Zusya's terms, borrowed from the Lurianic Kabbalah, why shouldn't we raise the holy sparks within them back to the root in the divine realms?
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
An Impact Above
CONTEXT: The concluding section (vv. 37-41) of Numbers 15 deals with the requirement of putting tassels (tzitzit) on the corners of four-cornered garments. This is the origin of the Tallit or prayer-shawl, and this paragraph also forms part of the traditional Shema' in both morning and evening services, even though the Tallit is only worn in the morning. According to the Mishnah (Berachot 1:5), this is precisely because it mentions the Exodus from Egypt.
'I am GOD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God; I am GOD your God.'
Numbers 15:41
[Why is the phrase 'I am GOD your God'] repeated? The principle is that a human being should always be conscious [of the fact] that all one's words, thoughts and actions have an impact above. And therefore, a person must guard all thoughts, actions and words in the awe of GOD, for all one's actions have an impact above. This is a great principle in the service of the Creator, that a person should always be conscious [of the fact] that one's thoughts and actions have an impact above, for the Blessed God knows the thoughts of human beings and always looks intently, with concern for the particular (hashgachah peratit), upon all human behaviour. This is a principle of the human service [of God]: that a person should be conscious [of the fact] that the Blessed God is looking intently upon one's behaviour. Hence [the verse]: 'I am GOD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt' – [i.e.] let it enter your consciousness [that] 'I am GOD your God' – I look intently upon all your behaviour.
Levi Isaac of Berditchev (1740-1809), Qedushat Levi HaShalem (Munkacs, 1829), p.76b.
COMMENT: Perhaps one of the most straightforward passages in this book, Levi Isaac's teaching is typical of much of Hasidic thought in placing special emphasis on the consciousness of acting in the presence of God as the virtue that must underpin all our behaviour, not just so-called 'religious' activity. If we recognise and acknowledge God's constant and detailed scrutiny of all that we do, how can we sin on purpose? Mysticism or spirituality stands as the background to all religious observance and moral behaviour.
Back to the
top of the page?
Or
back home again?
The Ongoing Stuggle
CONTEXT: As its name implies, the main subject of this sidra is the rebellion of Korach, a descendant of Levi, against the leadership of his cousin Moses. Jewish tradition tends to see Korach as the archetypal self-seeking demagogue.
Korach is the reincarnation of Cain, and Moses is the reincarnation of Abel. Therefore, Korach opposed Moses and was jealous of him, thus awakening the ancient jealousy that Cain had for Abel. Moreover, the earth was cursed then, in so far as 'it opened its mouth to accept your brother's blood' (Genesis 4:11), while here Moses brings about its repair in that it opened its mouth to swallow Korach (Numbers 16:32). One opening [corresponds] to the other...
Jacob Zevi Jolles (c.1778-1825), Qehillat Ya'akov, (Jerusalem, 1971), s.v. Korach.
COMMENT: The concept of reincarnation (gilgul, in Hebrew) is much more common in Judaism that is usually imagined by non-scholars. Here, the author of an 'encyclopedia' of kabbalistic imagery and symbolism, expands on the figures of Korach and Moses, the antagonists struggling for power here in Numbers, and, utilising the doctrine of gilgul, equates them the first antagonists of Genesis, Cain and Abel.
In Genesis, Abel was defeated by his jealous brother's violence. Here, in Numbers, Abel/Moses is now victorious over Cain/Korach. There is violence – the earth opens and swallows up Korach and his band – but this is not Abel/Moses' doing, it is divine intervention. Perhaps Jacob Zevi Jolles is telling us that the struggle against evil is on-going, indeed, never-ending, in our state of limited human consciousness, but that we should never lose hope that ultimately, with divine help, good will emerge victorious and evil will be no more.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Spiritual Consequences
CONTEXT: Whether we consider it just or not, the figure of Korach comes in for a great deal of criticism in many Jewish texts.
R. Yose said: It is written: 'There is great peace for those who love Your Torah...' (Psalm 119:165). The Torah is called 'peace', for it is written: 'And all its paths are peace' (Proverbs 3:17). Now, Korach came to destroy peace above and below. So, he was punished above and below.
Zohar III, 176b.
COMMENT: As we gain in maturity as individuals, and hopefully, as a species, we learn that our actions have consequences at many levels. We have whole areas of research devoted to discovering the physical, social, ecological, and even psychological, ramifications of human activity. This passage from the Zohar reminds that what we do has spiritual ramifications as well.
According to various midrashim (cf. Bemidbar Rabbah 18:3), Korach was undermining the very foundations of Torah by presenting its provisions as absurd and even cruel. By doing so, the Zohar tells us, he was not only undermining the future of the Jewish people by encouraging dissent based on self-seeking, but bringing destruction to its spiritual source, which is Torah, which itself derives from the spiritual plane.
The destruction of peace below has spiritual implications above. The flow of divine energies is curtailed to communities, and individuals, who are caught up in conflict. Only peace, outer and inner peace, can open up the channels and allow divine energies and enlightenment to flow once more. Korach did not understand this – perhaps he did not want to understand this – and so he was punished by being deprived of peace in both communal and spiritual realms.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
Accessing the Holy
CONTEXT: The very first words of the Korach story present us with a problem: The verb 'took' has no object! What did Korach take? There are many alternative explanations and even more attempts to fill in this gap. But perhaps it is merely a way of indicating Korach's grasping nature.
'And Korach took.'
Numbers 16:1
Korach wanted to have the merit of praying in the Holy of Holies [which only the High Priest was allowed to enter on Yom Kippur], but it was hidden from him that that prayer can actually be said anywhere in the world.
Simchah Bunam of Pshische (1765-1827) from Siftei Tzaddik, quoted in Midrash Simchah (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRYM Levin, 1988), v.1, p.140.
COMMENT: Many Jewish commentators suggest that Korach motives for leading a rebellion against Moses included jealousy that his cousins, Moses and Aaron, had a more exalted role in the leadership of the nation than he did, and an overweening ambition to supplant them in that role. And why not? Korach had the genealogy: he was a Levite. He had the leadership capability, as evidenced by the numbers that did follow him. He had wealth according to numerous midrashim, and he (and his followers) knew the secret name of God, according to a midrash on the phrase 'anshei shem at the very end of Numbers 16:3, usually rendered 'men of renown' (cf. Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968), v. VI, p.100).
Rabbi Simchah Bunam agrees that jealousy and ambition drove Korach to rebellion, but he adds a Hasidic twist to the interpretation. Had Korach supplanted his cousin Aaron as High Priest, it would have been his task to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, and pronounce the Four-Letter Name of God, the holiest word of the Hebrew language. Simchah Bunam implies that Korach relished the power that would flow from such intimate contact with holiness, with the divine.
But, this was misguided. That holiness is accessible to anyone, not just to a High Priest. It can be accessed anywhere, not just in the Holy of Holies, and it can be found at any time, not just on Yom Kippur. Pride and hatred had blinded Korach to the reality of God's presence everywhere.
Now, all of us, I am sure, have been moved by religious sites of one kind or another. Many Jews have been inspired by being at the Kotel, the Western Wall in Jerusalem. For me, the reputed tomb of King David in Jerusalem, the fortress of Masada, and the hill top city of Safed (Tzfat) are special places. But I have also been moved in certain churches and holy places of other religions, places where one can feel the spiritual power, even if the traditions practised there are not one's own.
Yet, God cannot be confined to such places. If we truly believe that God is infinite, then God must be 'available' everywhere. But, as with Korach, selfishness may blind us to the Divine Presence around us.
* * *
Back to the
top of the page?
The Spirit in Flesh
CONTEXT: The rebellion of Korach and his band is gathering pace, and so have their attacks on Moses and Aaron. God intervenes with a threat to wipe out the entire people, but the two brothers appeal to God's sense of justice and fairness.
'[Moses and Aaron] fell on their faces. They said, "O God, God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You direct divine wrath at the entire community?"'
Numbers 16:22
'They said, "O God ('el), God of ('elohei) the spirits of all flesh,..."' [Moses] says the name 'God' ('el) because he perceived the increased arousal of the forces of judgment; so he mentioned God's loving-kindness (hesed) in order to 'sweeten' the forces of judgment.
And by saying 'God of the spirits of all flesh' he puts forward a claim that will be heard by the Creator, for GOD desires that all souls should accept the divine essence upon themselves while they are still in the flesh in this world. And so [Moses] says 'God of the spirits of all flesh'.... [By which he meant to say:] 'You desire that Your divine essence should belong to all souls while they are still in the flesh, but if You kill them, You will lack [the possibility of fulfilling] this wish. And it is not right to increase the force[s] of judgment that may damage the acceptance of Your divine essence by the spirits that are [still] in the flesh, which is Your greatest desire...'
Hayyim ben Moshe ibn Attar (1696-1743), 'Or HaHayyim (Jerusalem: A. Blum, 1994), pt.4, p.65.
COMMENT: Hayyim ibn Attar is addressing two separate questions in the text here. The first is: why do Moses and Aaron use two terms for God? They might just as well as have said simply: 'God of the souls of all flesh', so why use the apparently superfluous divine name 'El?
His answer employs kabbalistic symbolism whereby ea