“The Torah is G-d’s libretto, and we, the Jewish people, are His choir, the performers of His choral symphony. And though, when Jews speak they often argue, when they sing, they sing in harmony, as the Israelites did at the Red Sea, because music is the language of the soul, and at the level of the soul Jews enter the unity of the Divine which transcends the oppositions of lower worlds. The Torah is G-d’s song, and we collectively are its singers.”
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks [1]
In considering the above words of Rabbi Sacks regarding the Song of Moses found in parashah Ha’azinu (Deuteronomy 32) I couldn’t help but think about my own experiences as a choir member over the years. Starting in elementary school, I had opportunity to be involved in many choirs and found myself invited to participate in various choral competitions in which I even won a few solo roles. Ironically, I have a very rudimentary knowledge of music and can read it only in the roughest manner, but yet I have been told I have a good musical ear and can pick up a melody quite easily by rote. As a young girl I sang soprano, but as I matured and my voice changed I was assigned the role of second or mezzo soprano within the choir. This required me to learn to sing in tension, in a role in-between that of alto and soprano.
At first this was quite awkward. Because I was familiar with singing soprano I would often sing too sharp (or too high) and slip into a soprano key when I should be singing the second part. The girl who sat beside me in the choir at that time was very adept in music and played several instruments. When she heard me slipping off key and beginning to sing in too high or sharp of a range she would motion with her hand for me to sing “lower” or to “bring it down”. With her help, after a while, I adjusted to this in-between role in the choir, a role that provided the subtle underlying tension needed to produce harmonious chords in various choral arrangements.
R’ Yechiel Michal Epstein observes that one of the reasons the Torah is called “a song” is because “a song becomes more beautiful when scored for many voices interwoven in complex harmonies”. [2] Inevitably, complex harmonies require underlying musical tension in order to exist. The harmony part is not attractive to the ear. If sung alone it would sound dull and uninspiring if not completely unnerving, but when placed among the other parts of the choir it provides a richness and tone that could not otherwise be achieved.
In like fashion the Song of Moses is considered to be a sketch of Jewish history; past, present and future. But within this song and its historical setting is to be found a subtle tension. After speaking the words of the Song to the people, Moses is commanded by HaShem to ascend Mt. Nebo where he will view the Land and be “gathered to his people” in death. Verse 48 explains that HaShem spoke these words to Moses “on that very day”, “b’etzem hayom hazeh” (בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה). In this innocuous phrase used throughout Torah, Rashi understands an underlying tension to be evident.
B’etzem hayom hazeh is used in conjunction with two pivotal events in Torah history, the account of Noah entering the ark prior to the flood (Genesis 7:13) and the exodus of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 12:41,51). According to the midrash in both circumstances large groups of people stood united and strong to oppose G-d’s will. The people of Noah’s generation, as they witnessed him constructing and preparing the ark, decided that if they saw Noah attempt to enter the ark they would stop him and destroy the boat immediately. In the same way, the Egyptians agreed that if they noticed the Israelites trying to leave the country they would take up weapons of war and kill them. In both instances HaShem declares, b’etzem hayom hazeh, “on that very day”, or in the middle of the day, in plain sight, His will would occur and nobody could stop it. In this way Rashi understands the phrase b’etzem hayom hazeh as used in Deuteronomy 32:48 to be alluding to an event that the nation as a whole would try to prevent, the ascent of Moses to Nebo and his death upon the mount. Therefore, in the middle of the day, in the sight of all Israel, Moses carried out G-d’s will and ascended the mountain.
From a literal viewpoint this seems like a nice traditional tale meant to highlight the nation’s great love and respect for Moses although the Biblical record presents a people passively silent in facing G-d’s command that Moses should die that very day. However, there are hints within the parashah itself that allude to resistance against G-d’s will on a national level that may have been the underlying mood although not the stated reality.
One such hint is found in v. 44 in which Moses’ successor is called “Hoshea” (הוֹשֵׁעַ) instead of the more familiar “Joshua”. Hoshea is Joshua’s given name as listed in Numbers 13 although throughout Torah he is referred to as Joshua. According to Talmud Sotah 34b, Moses prayed for Joshua prior to going out with the others to survey the Land; “May G-d save thee from the plan of the spies”. After which Moses added a “yod” to Hoshea’s name (transforming Hoshea to Yehoshua/Joshua) to remind him of this prayer of protection (for Yehoshua means “G-d save” or “G-d will save”).
Another view regarding Joshua’s name change draws on Talmud Sanhedrin 17a in which R. Simeon explained the prophecy of Eldad and Medad, (which Joshua vehemently opposed in Numbers 11:26-27), as predicting that Moses would die prior to Israel entering the Promised Land and that Joshua would lead the nation into Canaan. With this prophecy fresh on his mind Joshua would face an incredible temptation in journeying with the spies to survey the Land. Because of his love for Moses it was very possible that Joshua would agree with the spies bad report in order to delay or prevent the nation from going into the Land for such an event might result in Moses’ death. Therefore Moses prayed that Joshua would be saved from this temptation and added the “yod” to his name to remind him that G-d could indeed “save” him from such a mistake.
There are only three occurrences in Torah in which Joshua’s birth name “Hoshea” is used, two being in the genealogical listing of Numbers 13 and the third in Deuteronomy 32:44. Numerous conjectures are given as to why “Hoshea” is used in parashah Ha’azinu. Yet, if Joshua’s name was originally changed to protect him from the temptation to resist G-d’s will out of concern that it would lead to Moses’ death, it could be understood that in using his given name, Hoshea, such protection was no longer necessary. As Joshua proclaimed the words of the Song along with Moses on the day that Moses would ascend Mount Nebo to die, he did so as Hoshea, the man who did not need to be saved from the temptation to hinder Israel’s entry into the Land in order to prevent Moses’ death. Hoshea accepted G-d’s will that was about to transpire even though the nation may well have been planning to prevent such a fate.
Another hint of underlying tension in the parashah is found at the beginning of the Song in v. 4
The Rock! – perfect is His work, for all His paths are justice; a G-d of faith without iniquity, righteous and fair is He. (Deuteronomy 32:4 Stone Chumash)
This is the first instance in Scripture in which G-d is described by the metaphor of “Rock” (tzur). Of the 14 occurrences of tzur in Torah, eight are found in the Song of Moses here. In Deuteronomy 31 Moses announced that he would not cross the Jordan with the people. As the nation faced this reality and began to listen to Moses’ Song, the circumstances of Meribah-kadesh –where G-d had determined that Moses would not lead Israel into the Land due to disobedience regarding striking the rock instead of speaking to it– would have been on their minds. As G-d’s judgment upon Moses was literally unfolding before their eyes, the natural response of the people would have been one of sadness, regret and questioning the fairness of what was about to occur. Therefore, Moses referred to HaShem as “The Rock”; publicly alluding to G-d’s justice regarding the verdict that Moses would not enter the Promised Land. Moses did not want anyone to think that G-d was dealing with him unfairly. He perhaps did this in response to the underlying tension of the people in facing his departure.
Yet, in the literal Hebrew describing the events of Meribah-kadesh (Numbers 20) the word used to describe the rock that Moses was commanded to speak to is sela and not tzur. According to the midrash a miraculous rock followed Israel throughout their 40 year wilderness experience and provided water for the tribes wherever they encamped. This rock initially brought forth water as Moses struck it via G-d’s command in Exodus 17, in which the rock is described by the Hebrew word tzur. Forty years later, after the death of Moses’ sister Miriam, the rock stopped producing water. Moses is then commanded to speak to the rock to bring forth water from it for the people. The rock in this account of Numbers 20 is described by the Hebrew word sela.
Both tzur and sela are synonyms for “rock” in Hebrew, but with subtle shades of difference. Tzur describes a particularly hard rock that doesn’t crumble or wash away. [3]. Sela describes a crag, flinty rock, or a high outcropping of rock often used in Torah to describe a fortress of protection within which a person or soldier could find haven. [4] Tzur describes a permanent fixture or individual rock/boulder that is unyielding and strong. Sela describes a panorama of rock that an individual contemplates strategically in order to find protection within.
In a kabbalistic sense, tzur is related to the spiritual characteristic of malchut or “kingship”. For in kingship is found unbending and unyielding judgment that cannot be questioned or reversed. In Exodus 17 G-d commanded Moses to strike the rock (tzur) in order to bring forth water for the people. This was G-d’s unyielding judgment, in response to Israel’s testing of Him. [5]
Sela in kabbalistic terms is related to the higher spiritual quality of binah or “understanding”. After 40 years of being taught by HaShem in the desert the nation was on a higher or more mature spiritual level. When the rock stopped producing water Moses was commanded to interact with it as a sela, or a rock meant to be contemplated in order to find protection. He was thereby to use speech, involving human understanding and spiritual wisdom, to draw forth water instead of using physical force to do so. [6] When Moses struck the rock he treated it as tzur, as something hard and unyielding, instead of something meant to be contemplated and considered. Therefore, Moses faced G-d’s unyielding judgment. A situation that was meant to encompass sela, involving understanding in which protection could be found, was transformed into tzur, an inflexible judgment barring Moses from entering the Promised Land. This reality is reflected in Moses’ choice of the word tzur, in the Song of Deuteronomy 32 in which G-d’s inflexible judgment as “The Rock” (alluding to Moses inability to enter the Promised Land) is proclaimed as right and just.
In considering this, the disciple of Yeshua is reminded of the fact that the Master is also compared to a “rock” in the Apostolic writings (Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8). Interestingly, in all three instances, Yeshua being likened to a “rock” is presented in relation to Gentile status within Israel. In Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, both Paul and Peter draw on Isaiah 8:14 to describe Yeshua as a “rock of offense” over which Israel in general has stumbled. This stumbling is in response to Gentile believers, who have attained righteousness and are described as a chosen people in like covenant terms (such as “royal priesthood”, “holy nation”, “peculiar people”) with Israel, by means of the Messiah.
The meaning of “rock of offense” is considered in Talmud Sanhedrin 38a in which the story is told of Rabbi Hiyya and his two sons who are invited to dine at the home of their fathers’ rabbi. When the two sons remain silent during the meal the rabbi orders that they be given strong wine to drink. As the wine takes effect the sons expound on Isaiah 8:14 explaining that “David (i.e. Messiah) cannot appear until the two ruling houses in Israel shall have come to an end”. For it is written; “And he shall be for a Sanctuary, for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both houses of Israel”.
The rabbi exclaims that by bringing forth such an exegesis the sons have “thrown thorns in my eyes”, for he is a patriarch in Tiberias (or nasi according to Soncino Babylonian Talmud) and therefore involved in a ruling “house” of Israel which had authority in Palestine (the other ruling “house” being the Exilarchate which had authority over the Diaspora communities). [7] Incredibly, R. Hiyya does not scold his sons for such words that cause great pain and anguish to his rabbi. Instead the sons’ words are understood to be a deeper (sod) understanding of Isaiah 8:14.
In this way Messiah as “the rock of offense” is understood through midrashic exegesis as one who will necessarily do away with the ruling houses of Israel in order to set up a more perfect legal structure in the Messianic age. The offense is found in the understanding that Israel’s familiar legal structure must come to an end before Messiah will arrive.
Ironically, although every devout Jew prays three times a day for the coming of Mashi’ach and the restored and perfect era that he will bring upon the earth, R. Hiyya’s rebbe does not welcome the deeper understanding regarding Messiah presented by the sons. How curious that a nasi, one intimately familiar with the burden and fearful responsibility of establishing halachah (as related in Pirkei Avot and other writings within Talmud), did not react with joy and relief and gladly set aside his governing role as patriarch in order to hasten the coming of Mash’iach?
Although the rebbe doesn’t refute the sons’ exegesis he is incapable of accepting it. Not only does such a teaching cause him anguish but it blinds him as well, for one who has “thorns in his eyes” not only feels pain, but cannot see. In this way the rabbi fulfills the very words presented by the sons’ at his dinner table, as he stumbles over the rock of offense, the Mashi’ach, who will not come until the ruling houses of Israel come to an end.
Incredibly, the “rock” of offense, in Isaiah 8:14 is a tzur, a rock that is strong, unmoving, and inflexible and cannot be changed. In like manner to the tzur of Moses’ Song, an underlying tension is apparent within the Apostolic Scriptures regarding the “rock of offense” encompassed in the Gentile believer’s position within Israel through Messiah. The tension begins not-so-subtly with Yeshua’s words in the gospels that he has not come to bring peace but rather division within the very family structure of the nation itself (Matthew 10:34-37), and that his disciples will be severely persecuted within and thrown out of the synagogues (Matthew 23:34, John 16:12). From this the tension reaches a crescendo in the book of Acts, and retains an important focus in the Epistles that follow.
In discussions and articles I have read over the past week surrounding Divine Invitation theology much has been made of respecting and maintaining rabbinic/midrashic exegesis regarding the role of a Gentile believer within the nation of Israel, as such exegesis is understood to have been respected and heeded by the Apostles as well. In this way the Gentile believer assumes the role of a G-d fearer within the nation of Israel according to acceptable halachah of the first century, having no legal standing or specific obligation to Torah except to maintain four essentials necessary for fellowship within the synagogue. The Gentile, through faith in Messiah, has assurance of a place in the World to Come apart from conversion to Judaism and is invited to participate in Torah according to personal preference, desire and ability within the acceptable legal confines of G-d fearers within the synagogue. His citizenship within Israel is a spiritual or inward reality in this present life which will find fulfillment and realization in the Messianic Era ahead.
If this is true then how can it be that Yeshua is a “rock of offense” and stumbling stone to the Jew? Why would Gentile believers occupying legal and acceptable positions in the synagogues as G-d fearers, have sparked continual tension and difficulties within Israel as given in chapter after chapter of the Apostolic Writings? A tension that is not subtly suggested or carefully exegeted but blaringly and continually blatant.
How ironic that within the pages of Talmud is contained a midrashic exegesis presenting the understanding that, in some way, Israel’s ruling houses or “legal” system will necessarily come to an end before the fullness of the Messianic Age is realized, before Mashi’ach comes. So difficult and deep is this understanding that inevitably it leads to anguish and blindness, stumbling and offense, among even the wisest of those in Israel. Could such a tzur be at the very heart of the Apostolic writings, an inflexible judgment that would prompt a large and vast number of people to unite in an attempt to oppose G-d’s will? The understanding that in Messiah rabbinical rulings regarding the legal position of a Gentile believer has come to an end, as such a Gentile presently occupies a rightful and “real” (albeit distinct) position in Israel instead?
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Continuing to consider the Divine Invitation theology is much like taking on a mezzo soprano role in the choir. As I question things for myself I feel a sense of hesitancy and awkwardness in some ways, an inward nagging to “bring it down” (or let it go) and “quit being so sharp” (or pointed in my questioning). But through the study of Moses Song I find myself wondering if sincere efforts to reconcile underlying and even blatant tensions found in the Apostolic writings will lead Messianics toward a relationship with Torah that lacks definition, depth and richness. For Torah is a Song that is created to be sung by “many voices interwoven together” including voices in purposeful tension with each other to achieve the most beautiful and complex harmonies possible.
[1] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation (Nitzavim/Vayelech 5769), available at: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1537
[2] R’ Yechiel Michal Epstein, as cited in Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, ibid.
[3] Professor Dov Landau, Parashat Ha’azinu 5766 (Between a Rock and a Soft Place), available at: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/haazinu/lan.html
[4] Ibid.
[5] Rav Michael Laitman PHD, The Zohar, Annotations to the Ashlag Commentary, Laitman Kabbalah Publishers, Brooklyn NY, 2009, p. 253
[6] Ibid.
[7] Jewish Encyclopedia entry “exilarch” available at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=548&letter=E
