The Smell of Messiah

Last week I had a second round, face to face interview with a hiring manager regarding a position I had applied for a couple of weeks ago.  Almost four years had passed since my last such interview, the one for my current job at a healthcare facility that, unfortunately, will cease to exist come fall.  After taking my navy skirt suit out of storage and considering my jewelry, make-up, and hairstyle choices, the last thing I did was to call my sister the night before the interview was scheduled.  In her 20 year career as an RN encompassing multiple positions in a number of specialties, my sister has never once been turned down for a job that she interviewed for.  She is naturally outgoing, extremely articulate, and the world’s best interview coach (in my opinion).  

After spending a couple of hours coaching me on various details my sister ended with a final reminder regarding perfume.  Having been a hiring director at one time she related that overpowering perfume or cologne can be a hindering factor regarding a positive job interview.  On the interview day I avoided any perfume that might be too strong or lasting.  Instead I opted for a light floral variety that is hardly noticeable shortly after applying it.  In this tight economy it would seem that every imaginable detail must be considered, even down to the sense of smell of the one conducting the job interview.

The second half of this week’s double Torah portion, parashah Masei, begins with a recounting of the Wilderness journeys of Israel with forty-two encampments specifically listed (Numbers 33:1-50).  Interestingly, the final stop of the forty-two journeys, Jericho (יְרֵחוֹ), alludes to the sense of smell, being a name derived from the same root as rayach (רֵיחַ) the Hebrew word for smell.  It is commonly taught from a kabbalistic perspective that the encampment at Jericho speaks of the future Messianic redemption due to its connection with smell.  This is derived from Sanhedrin 93b which teaches that Mashiach will be able to judge a person merely by smell, based on Isaiah 11:3;

 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, (ESV)

 The Sages note that the Hebrew phrase translated “and his delight” (veharicho/ וַהֲרִיחוֹ) contains within it the root word for “smell” which is also the root of “spirit” (ruach).  From this it is derived that since Mashiach will not judge with his eyes or ears he will judge via smell, the most spiritual of the senses, ultimately judging every situation in the most perfect means possible, by the spirit of holiness within him.  

Yeshua speaks most of his authority or role of judge in the Gospel of John.  Here he seems to present a mixed message explaining that he “judges no man” while yet affirming that his “judgment is true” (John 8:15-16).  The key perhaps is that Yeshua does not judge “according to the flesh” in the normative ways of man which rely on the testimony (hearing) of eye witnesses (sight) in order to make a right judgment. Yeshua instead judges by his spirit through which he “sees” and “hears” the will of the Father (cf. John 5:30). 

The spiritual significance of the forty-two encampments is especially considered as Masei is read during the three weeks (of distress regarding the destruction of the Temple between 17 Tammuz and 9 Av).  The encampments in the Wilderness are understood to speak of forty-two levels of repentance and spiritual refinement that Israel accomplished in leaving Egypt and that must yet again be accomplished, since the destruction of the Temple, before Mashiach will come.  “Jericho”, the encampment highlighting “smell” and/or “spirit”, in which Mashiach will arrive and function, signifies the redemption ahead.  In like fashion, Yeshua, in the Synoptic discourses regarding the destruction of the Temple and the signs of his coming/end of the age, related occurrences and situations along the way that will lead to the final redemption.

Over the past couple of years I have divided up Yeshua’s prophecies regarding the Temple destruction (Matthew 24:6-15:13, Mark 13:1-37, Luke 21:5-36) into twenty-one readings for the season of the three weeks.  Ironically, with these prophecies and warnings fresh on my mind, I have also recently come across an argument presented from a Divine Invitation/Bilateral Ecclesiology perspective based on Romans 16:4.  Here Paul’s greeting to “the churches of the Gentiles” is seen as proof that non-Jews established their own communities, distinct from their Jewish brethren who remained in the synagogues, under Paul’s approval and/or instruction.  

From this proof text it is posited that although initially the early Gentile believers assumed the role of G-d Fearer within the synagogues, eventually, due to their non-obligation toward Torah and the Sinaitic Covenant as a whole, they established their own separate communities while the Jewish brethren remained in the Torah observant synagogue setting.  This is understood as the original and intended model for the body of believers in which Jews and Gentiles worship G-d and live out their faith in His Messiah in distinct communities (church vs. Messianic synagogue) occupying separate roles. Yet, this entire argument undermines and overlooks the prophecies of Yeshua regarding Jewish believers within the synagogue setting.  In the Synoptics, Yeshua stresses that the disciples and their fellow Jewish believers will be beaten in the synagogues, brought before councils, imprisoned, hated and even killed by those who are closest to them (siblings, parents, children).  In John 16:1 he says;

 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.  (ESV)

 According to Yeshua the synagogue would quickly become a toxic environment for believing Jews, and not the safe and exclusive haven of worship and Torah observance that the Bilateral Ecclesiology view understands it to have been.  The book of Acts speaks extensively of this in details that uphold Yeshua’s very words. It seems untenable to assume that believing Jews remained in the synagogues under these conditions while Gentiles met in their own distinct communities.  Based on the evidence of the Apostolic Scriptures, intense and unrelenting persecution would have driven both Jewish and Gentile believers out of the synagogue proper, just as Yeshua had prophesied.  Instead of understanding the “churches of the Gentiles” which also can equally be translated “the assemblies of the nations” to be speaking of distinct Gentile communities, it would seem that such a term was used to describe the communities of believers in general located within and throughout the nations (outside of Israel).

More important than merely refuting this argument, the underlying motivation for its existence has been troubling and mournful to me, especially in reflecting upon this season of the three weeks.  As Jews all over the world consider the distress of the Temple destruction, mourn and repent of past sins, and look hopefully toward the Messianic redemption ahead, their believing counterparts are consumed and driven by concerns regarding marginalization and identity. They judge by what they see and hear; the past abuses of the church, anti-Semitism, lawlessness, assimilation etc., and rightfully so.  But yet the “smell” is being overlooked, the spirit of the believing community as one body in Messiah.  How terribly far we seem to be from “Jericho” in this regard.  

. . . . . . . . . .

As I arrived for the interview last week, I found myself in a unique setting.  Because the job I had applied for was with a new hospital scheduled to open in the late fall, interviews were conducted en masse.  I and other candidates (for various RN positions) were taken to a large conference room in which tables were set up along the periphery where managers would perform individual interviews.  As I sat and waited with the others scheduled for the first interviews of the day, I couldn’t help but noticed how they were dressed. Without getting into details, in general the dress represented ranged from summer picnic casual to a hot night on the town.  There I was, the obvious oddball, dressed in a navy business suit with a strand of pearls around my neck, careful to wear a subtle perfume lest I offend the nose of my interviewer.  Ultimately I was glad for my sister’s advice, and for my attention to detail down to even the scent of my perfume.  For such detail speaks not only of motivation in finding employment or furthering a career but also shows sensitivity toward the very spirit of nursing itself as a legitimate and noble profession.

As I don my blue business suit again early next week, for another interview involving a different position at a different hospital, my choice of perfume will remain the same. But as I apply it I will also be reminded of the spirit of this three week season,  the longing for the smell of Messiah which will bring true clarity and right judgment to the entire world, and the assembly of believers in particular (including me).

Treading Lightly vs. Treading Deliberately

One of my favorite places to go for an evening bike ride in the summer months is a state park not too far from my home.  This park, situated around a natural glacial lake, boasts campgrounds, a marina, public beach, golf course, vacation cabins, and a stunning English-tudor manner house lodge.   Starting at the campgrounds I ride through the various areas of the park coming last to the manner house.  At this point I always take a little break.  Parking my bicycle, I walk to the rear yard of the manner house, to a terraced deck furnished with natural wood rocking chairs.  Sitting there for a while I sip my bottled water and enjoy a fabulous view of the lake from the hillside upon which the Tudor mansion is built.

This past week, as I enjoyed this most familiar and enjoyable resting spot, I noticed a sign for a hiking trail, located in a wooded area just beyond the manicured lawn.  Next to a large sign stating the name of the trail was a smaller sign with the familiar slogan; “tread lightly, take only pictures and leave only footprints”.  These signs are very popular in many parks and trails throughout the United States being part of the “Leave No Trace” movement promoting outdoor ethics through the low impact use of public natural lands.

Ironically, it would seem that the Children of Israel through the leadership of Moses were the first to promote such eco-friendly traveling habits.  In parashah Chukat, among the highly dramatic scenarios of Moses’ striking the rock, the subsequent judgment from HaShem, Aaron’s death upon the mountain, and the incident of the fiery serpents, is found Israel’s requests for travel through the regions of Edom (Numbers 20:14-17) and Ammon (Numbers 21:21-22).  In both instances the emissaries of Israel promised that the people would “tread lightly” by not damaging “field or vineyard” and by abstaining from drinking water from the wells.

However, Rashi (citing Tanchuma) understands that the Jews promise was to abstain from drinking their own water (supplied through the miraculous well that followed them in their journeys) and eating the daily supply of bread from heaven.  This is based on the unusual wording of the Hebrew in Numbers 20:17 and 21:22 in which the singular form of well, “be-er” (בְאֵר) is used to describe what Israel would not drink.  In the most literal sense, the promise involved abstaining from “a well” and not from “every well” or numerous “wells” throughout the regions. Therefore, the singular “well” is understood to describe “Miriam’s Well” or the miraculous rock that supplied water to the people in their journeys. 

By not partaking of the miraculous water supply (and by extension of the manna from heaven) the people’s focus would not be upon “treading lightly” but upon benefitting the economy of the region by paying for food and water while traveling there.  From this Rashi extracts a Torah lesson in courtesy in which a guest should make practical efforts to benefit his host, especially regarding his livelihood if possible. [1]

Although this provides an inspiring and practical lesson, a difficulty seems to arise due to the fact that the bread and water Israel promised to abstain from were spiritual food and drink.  Much is written in rabbinic literature regarding the spiritual benefits given to Israel through the manna and the water from the rock.  In Talmud (Yoma 75b) Rabbi Akiva teaches that the manna was the “food of angels” which literally allowed Israel to partake of G-d’s presence through the veneer of food.  The midrash speaks of the waters of Miriam’s Well having supernatural healing properties and also of creating a spiritual bond of intimacy between husband and wife as these waters were used as the mikvah to cleanse a woman after her time of menstruation.  How could Israel so willingly set aside the benefits of such supernatural sustenance while traveling through regions of foreign lands?  If anything, one would think that they would need supernatural assistance and the fortification it provided while traveling through areas filled with pagan peoples.  

Both the manna and the miraculous well are considered two of ten things created at twilight prior to the first Shabbat, according to Pirkei Avot 5:8.  The Maharal (Derek Chaim) explains that this twilight between the sixth and seventh days of creation was unique.  It was an in-between time that was neither completely mundane (as the normal days of the week which were already created) nor completely holy (as the Sabbath which was about to be created).  Therefore the ten things created at that time occupy a place of being more than mundane but still less than completely holy — containing some aspects of the natural world yet functioning in a supernatural way. [2] In this way they might be considered a connection between the mundane and the holy.

Commentators note that the first three of the ten things listed in Pirkei Avot as created at twilight are described as having “mouths”; the mouth of the ground (which swallowed Korah, Dathan and Abiram), the mouth of the well (the water giving rock in the wilderness), and the mouth of the donkey (Balaam’s).  These initial items, described as “mouths” provide a general characteristic to the ten things as a whole.  As unique creations these things have something to proclaim, just as the mouth which is the organ of speech.  The items created at this special twilight require a response from man, even as words uttered from a human mouth also demand a response.  A beautiful example of this is found in Chukat itself, as Israel is described as responding or “singing to” the miraculous well in Numbers 21:17.  

With these thoughts in mind, the miraculous water and bread from heaven as two of the unique creations of twilight occupy a role of connecting the mundane with the holy by requiring a response from G-d’s children.  Not only did the water and bread physically sustain the people it also was a means of spiritually elevating them. 

Surely, if Israel had traveled through Edom and Ammon while still partaking of the miraculous water and manna day by day, they would have treaded lightly, leaving behind nothing more than temporary footprints in the dirt and sand.  These pagan regions would have gone untouched, yet, they also would have gone without any benefit from Israel’s presence there. By abstaining from the water and manna, and purchasing food and water from the people of the region, Israel would have benefitted them through financial gain and also through human interactions with righteous individuals.  Such deliberate involvement would have achieved the very purpose for the miraculous water and manna as Israel acted in a spiritually elevated way that went beyond the standard “just passing through” mentality.

Yeshua too, in referring to himself as a source of water, or “spiritual well” also demanded a response from people regarding this message of sustenance and life.  When the Samaritan woman requested the water Yeshua spoke of, he instructed her to call her husband — not only revealing himself as a prophet but also providing opportunity for the people of her town to benefit from interaction with him (John 4).  During the Feast of Tabernacles, in inviting the crowds who thirsted to come to him and drink, the promised outcome of such belief in him was not personal satiation or fullness, but the pouring out of such spiritual benefits as “streams of living waters” upon the entire world (John 7).

In the thinking of secular society, which focuses on the physical, the mantra of “live and let live” reigns supreme.  The natural order is seen as an end in itself and therefore “leaving well enough alone” is the most ethical of concepts.  Being careful to “not leave a trace” is seen as the highest good. Yet man was given the ability to elevate what G-d has created, by not only living in the garden but also by “tending” the garden as well.  Such an opportunity requires deliberately getting involved in ways that bring benefit and blessing.

. . . . . . . .

As I relaxed in the natural wood rocker, a glacial lake stretching out before me and the soft scent of peonies filling the air, I realized the hour was growing late when the mosquitoes began to bite.  My usual 15-20 minute rest break during an evening bike ride at the state park this past Sunday had turned into almost an hour of contemplation, as the details of parashah Chukat in the context of the “tread lightly” trail sign– swirled around in my mind. Biking quickly back to the campground parking lot I began to pack up and was eager to return home before dark. 

As I was about to get into the car, an older couple riding in a golf cart approached me.  They introduced themselves as one of the campground hosts.  With the campgrounds being mostly empty on this Sunday evening it became apparent that they were seeking out some conversation.  At first I felt annoyed with all the chit-chat as the hour was growing late.  It would have been easy for me to pardon myself, noting the darkening sky, and quickly leave.  In doing so I would have achieved a truly “low impact” visit to the park, treading lightly in every way possible.  

But instead I decided to stay for a while to talk with these relative strangers who enjoyed acting as hosts and were proud to be volunteers in this park.  At the end of the conversation the couple informed me of their campsite location and invited me to stop by any time I came around for a bike ride.  I didn’t leave the park until well after 9:30, but hopefully my little bit of deliberate involvement with the campground hosts that night left behind more than mere tire marks from my bicycle along the way.

_________________________________________________________________

[1]  Rashi as cited in, Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, N.Y. 1994 p. 847.

[2]  The Maharal as cited in, Mrs. Shira Smiles, Parshat Chukat:  The Well of Miriam, available here 

A Matter of Verification

The other night I received a call from a person claiming to represent the US Census Bureau with an “important government phone questionnaire” that I was required to answer. Seeing that I had already filled out the official census form and that nothing regarding a phone questionnaire was indicated in the information I received, I immediately was suspicious of the nature of the phone call.  Interrupting the caller mid-sentence I explained that I preferred not to answer such questions and promptly hung up.  More than likely this was a telephone scam of some sort because over the phone there is no way to verify the caller’s identity or authority.

In parashah Korah, Moses identity as G-d’s chosen representative and his authority over the people of Israel is called into question to the greatest degree possible. In order to verify himself as being from HaShem, Moses requests that a “phenomenon” literally be created at that moment, one in which the earth would open up its mouth to swallow up Dathan, Abiram, Korah and all that was theirs (Numbers 16:28-30).  The sages understand this phenomenon to be a unique occurrence and not merely an earthquake in which the ground split under the tents of the rebellious leaders.  According to Pirkei Avot 5:8 the “mouth of the ground” was created on the sixth day, at twilight prior to the first Shabbat, and awaited its appropriate moment in history to be displayed in order to verify Moses as sent from HaShem Himself.   Just as with a human mouth when eating a specific piece of food, the earth opened up, swallowed up the three rebellious leaders, their families and possessions, and closed up again. Certainly such a miracle would be undeniable verification of Moses authority as the righteous one sent from G-d . . .or was it? 

Curiously, in Torah, miracles are not the means by which a prophet or any representative of HaShem is to be identified.  Moses himself later emphasized this truth in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 by teaching that one who claims to be a prophet should not be believed based on signs or miracles alone.  Why then would Moses evoke HaShem to create a unique miracle in order to verify his authority and position before the people, when such a miracle, in itself, could not conclusively produce such verification? 

It’s interesting to note that Moses requests the miracle after instructing the people to move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.  The Sages note that Moses words of warning were embellished as compared with G-d’s original instructions.  HaShem said that the people were to be warned to get away from the dwelling places of the three men (cf. Numbers 16:23).  Moses, however, calls the men “wicked” and warns that the people must move away “lest you perish because of all their sins” (cf. Numbers 16:26), adding details and descriptions that HaShem did not command. 

Significantly, the people are warned to move away from Korah, Dathan and Abiram before being given any indication that a miraculous phenomenon was about to occur. They were not aware at this point that the mouth of the earth was about to open up and consume the three men and their families.  Although  immanent judgment of the sinful individuals was in view, the Ohr HaChaim points out that by labeling the men “evil” Moses inspired the people to move away from them for spiritual reasons and not merely for the physical reason of self-preservation alone. Moses focus was that the people move away from what was evil and contrary to G-d’s will.  

The importance of this spiritual focus is seen in the miracle itself which was very individualized and limited to just three men and their families.  Practically speaking the people could have remained in their places, close to the rebel leaders and their families and not suffered any physical harm at all.  For this unique miracle was created to swallow up and consume only the guilty parties.  By instructing the people to move away from the men because of spiritual concerns, Moses actually downplayed the miracle which was about to occur.  How spectacular it would have been for people standing just feet away from the sinful individuals to experience the unbelievable phenomenon of their departure into the earth while yet remaining completely unscathed by it.  Instead, the people, due to Moses command, witnessed the miracle from a distance, after moving away because of his warning.  

In a most thought provoking teaching, Rabbi Akiva Tatz explains that the minimizing of the miraculous is the verifying sign of the greatest or highest level of tzaddik, the completely righteous person who is intimately connected to G-d.  In G-d’s economy miracles always require some form of action from man, as evidenced through abundant examples in Torah.  Noah had to build an ark, although G-d surely could have saved all the animals of the earth without it.  Moses was required to climb Mt. Nebo to see the Promised Land, although the altitude of the mountain was insignificant, for the Land was viewed via a miraculous vision.  Although such actions were practically unnecessary, for G-d can do whatever He desires apart from the interaction of people, the world is created in such a way that physical actions are keys to the spiritual world.  [1]

Therefore, the tzaddik of the highest magnitude performs miracles in a manner that minimizes his ability.  He resists doing anything which would appear to be the result of his own greatness exclusively.  He requires a “token” action in every miraculous event in order to show that he himself is empty of all independent existence and that HaShem is “all in all”.  Although the tzaddik fully understands his total dependence upon Hashem he performs miracles with a physical component involved in order to benefit those who experience them.  [2]

If Moses did not warn and command the people to move away from the evil Korah, Dathan, and Abiram prior to the miracle occurring, what benefit would the people have experienced?  An awesome display of supernatural power would have been the only outcome.  But in moving away, at Moses command, the people benefitted from the miracle spiritually by distancing themselves from that which was sinful.  This downplaying of the miraculous through the involvement of the people was the essential verification of Moses being from HaShem, which the miracle itself was only used to confirm.

With these thoughts in mind, Rabbi Tatz questions the necessity of Mashi’ach, as one who demonstrates G-d’s presence in the world.  When the time comes for HaShem to reveal Himself openly in the world He certainly could do so without a human representative, making human kingship unnecessary, in order that His Divine Kingship would be the ultimate reality. But as Tatz explains;

“. . . the message of the Messianic King is to teach the deepest level of human striving and achievement, the ultimate purpose of human existence in its most potent form, which is the work of sacrificing the self, of yielding the ego in the service of HaShem:  the Mashiach will be the most developed and exalted individual imaginable, by far the most powerful and mighty king ever to rule, and yet he will show that he himself is empty of all independent existence; all is HaShem, and all dominion is His”   [3]

There are many things that believers consider unquestionable validation of Yeshua as Messiah, most of which focus on his transcending this physical world, and that maximize his independence to the highest degree.  Yet, there is not one witness of Yeshua in the gospels that would prove Rabbi Tatz understanding of Mashi’ach to be false. When John the Baptist questioned if he was the expected one, Yeshua pointed to his miracles as proof of who he was.  Through those miracles, time and time again, Yeshua proclaimed that he could do nothing of himself, proving his complete and profound dependence upon HaShem, never once doing anything independently. 

Even in his most profound miracles an action was performed.  For example, before raising Lazarus the stone was rolled away from the grave. Was this really necessary?  If Yeshua had the power to raise him from the dead certainly he could have managed to cause the stone to miraculously move out of the way too. By commanding the stone be moved away, and evoking the embarrassment and concern of Lazarus’ sister regarding the stench that would ensue, Yeshua minimized the miracle, involving the crowd in a physical sense, in an active process of belief, in order to make the miracle spiritually meaningful to them and to bring glory to G-d. 

But perhaps Yeshua’s greatest miracle and clearest validation  as one sent from G-d is to be found in John 9 and the healing of the man born blind.  In the same sense as the mouth of the earth opening up to validate Moses, so too the healing of a man blind from birth was completely unique and unheard of, being something that had never occurred “since the world began” (John 9:32).  Although other prophets, such as Elijah, had raised individuals from the dead, no prophet in all of history had restored vision to one born blind.  In this way the man receiving his sight could be understood as a phenomenon created at the very moment in order to validate Yeshua as sent from G-d.

Much attention is given in both Christian and Messianic commentary upon this miracle occurring on the Sabbath and Yeshua’s application of a mud paste made from his spittle and dirt to the man’s eyes.  This mixing of dirt and spittle according to Talmudic law  is considered a form of kneading and a type of work forbidden on Shabbat.  Christian commentary understands this to indicate Yeshua’s clear rejection of Oral law, while Messianic commentators go to great lengths to glean proofs from Talmud itself that the application of healing salve to the eyes on the Sabbath was a machloket or disputed issue among the Sages and likely a law “not set in stone” at the time of Yeshua. 

What is overlooked in this type of focus is the involvement of the man himself in the miracle that occurred. Surely Yeshua could have merely spoken a word and the man would have regained his sight.  Yet, by applying the paste to the eyes and instructing the man to wash in the pool of Siloam, Yeshua downplayed the miracle by requiring the man to be physically involved in it.  This involvement led to the man being questioned repeatedly by the Pharisees which greatly strengthened his understanding of what had happened to him.  Although he was put out of the synagogue, the man was so spiritually strengthened by the miracle and his involvement in it, that he believed Yeshua to be Messiah. 

. . . . . . .

A couple of weeks ago I received a knock on the door on a sunny Friday afternoon.  Standing there was a gentleman from the US Census Bureau, with a clear photo identification tag hanging from his neck. I knew exactly why he had come.  Somehow I had misplaced the census form that had come in the mail weeks earlier and had forgotten about it.   Now the census taker was at my door to gather the information required by law.  

After filling out the required information, we chatted a bit, as he told me some details about what the census taker job required. I was surprised to find out that the census taker is responsible to hunt down individuals and even travel to people’s workplaces to confront them there, if other avenues to reach them have been unsuccessful. The gentleman explained that he had gone to a few workplaces so far and that people were completely surprised and shocked that he knew where they worked.  Inevitably, “the government knows everything” we both agreed. Surely, more than anything else, this was proof positive that the man truly was sent by Uncle Sam himself : )

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

[1] Akiva Tatz, WorldMask, Feldheim Publishers, New York, 1995, pp. 39-42.

 [2] ibid.

 [3] ibid., pp. 46-47.

Facing “Lagging Indicators” From a Spiritual Perspective

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.  It is the one that is most adaptable to change.”

 This past Wednesday morning I listened to this quote, attributed to Charles Darwin, as it was spoken by the CEO of the hospital system I work for.  It was used to summarize and conclude a presentation regarding the state of healthcare in the United States, the State of Ohio, and the present status of our healthcare system throughout the region.  As the applause ended and people began to exit the packed lecture hall an eerie silence and atmosphere of seriousness ensued.  Everyone was aware that we, perhaps more than any other entity run by this healthcare corporation, would have to take the wisdom of Darwin to heart.  In concluding the presentation, the CEO announced that “serious decisions” regarding the future of our facility would take place in the next two to three months.  In other words, it is likely that we will be closed by the fall, causing all of us to face an unexpected and sudden change.  

 Coming home that evening and reflecting on the CEO’s presentation, the phrase “lagging indicator” remained in my mind.  Although the system I work for experienced the most lucrative year on record in 2009, by April 2010 drastic changes had occurred as hospitalizations and elective medical procedures nationwide dropped by 4-5%.  Suddenly, the seemingly invincible healthcare sector is now experiencing this lagging indicator of the recession, combined with uncertainties regarding the effects of National Healthcare Reform.  Hiring freezes are in place, pay-raises are on hold, and the least profitable facilities, including the one in which I work, will be phased out before year’s end. 

 The phenomenon of a “lagging indicator”—despite being the jargon of economists used to describe an economic indicator that changes after the overall economy has changed– seems to find a spiritual connection in parashah Shelach.  Here the overwhelming focus is the sin of the spies (meraglim) in scouting out the Land and bringing back a bad report and the immediate change that resulted of forty years of wilderness wandering.  But contained in this parashah is also a lagging indicator of this situation, a change after the fact, that is easily and often overlooked, as found in the mitzvot of menachot and nesachim; the grain offerings and wine libations commanded in Numbers 15:1-16.

 Sforno (Bemidbar 14:3-4) points out that grain offerings and wine libations were unknown before the giving of Torah on Sinai.  Abel, Noah, and Abraham offered burnt sacrifices to HaShem as a “sweet savor” without the additions of grain or wine.  After the sin of the golden calf such offerings were commanded to be presented along with the daily burnt offering representing the nation as a whole.  After the sin of the spies grain and wine offerings were commanded as necessary components of the elevation offering and peace offering brought by individuals. 

 Sforno suggests that this implies a weakening of spiritual standards, first for the nation, then for the individual.  No longer could a burnt offering alone present a pleasing sacrifice to HaShem as it had for Abraham and other righteous individuals of the past.  Instead, additional elements were required to make the sacrifice complete and valid.  In this way, the menachot and nesachim could be viewed as lagging indicators; or changes that occurred in the way Israel presented national and individual offerings to HaShem after the profound and immediate changes of two great national sins had taken effect.  In Sforno’s view the menachot and nesachim were negative changes that would forever require Israel to offer the lower form of vegetable life (grain and wine) along with the higher form of animal life due to past sins and weakening of spiritual standards. [1]

The Shem MiShmuel, in considering Sforno’s view, also sees the grain and wine offerings as lagging indicators, but in a positive sense.  When an animal is offered, its life source, or soul, provides atonement for the soul or “life” of its owner.  The animal represents the most basic definition of an offering or korban meant to draw one closer to HaShem spiritually.  The unique spirit of man, created in the image of G-d, desires to draw closer to Him.  As Shem MiShmuel explains, the difficulty in drawing closer spiritually is the “dragging along” of the reluctant body or “the flesh” which opposes what the human spirit desires to achieve.  In bringing animal sacrifice alone, righteous individuals, prior to the giving of Torah on Sinai, did what they could to draw closer to G-d spiritually, and this was a sweet savor to Him. [2]

Only after Matan Torah, was Israel given the ability to draw close to HaShem in both spirit and body through the practical/physical mitzvot and the service of the Tabernacle.  The body drawing close to G-d is represented by the lower vegetable life of grain and wine which is connected to the ground from which the body was formed. When “the flesh” of the nation rebelled in the most profound situations of the golden calf and sin of the spies, grain and wine were commanded to be presented along with the burnt offerings to symbolize a drawing close to HaShem in both body and spirit, for the nation as a whole as well as for the individual.  [3]

Remarkably, the lagging indicator of grain and wine finds another representation in the sacrifice of Messiah, through whom the consequence of death due to human rebellion and sin was reconciled and overcome by his resurrection from the dead.  As we partake of the elements of bread and wine we proclaim the ability to draw close to HaShem in body and spirit in an eternal and perfect sense, through a resurrected existence, because of Yeshua’s sacrifice.  Yet, ironically, just as the Sages have differing views of the menachot and nesachim, so believers throughout the centuries have also held differing views regarding the bread and wine of the Communion meal.  The meaning and symbolism of the Supper as well as the frequency and timeframe of participating in it presents various shades of understanding based on one’s denominational persuasion.  But for the Messianic believer the focus is upon the original form.  How did the early believers celebrate the Supper?  Typically the Seder meal is understood to represent most profoundly Yeshua as our Passover, but yet Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 seem to indicate additional  times of meeting together when the Supper was partaken of. 

In reading an online version of Risto Santala’s “Paul, the Man and the Teacher in Light of Jewish Sources”, I came across an interesting conjecture regarding the Supper as celebrated by the first century believers in the form of a Melaveh Malkah – a meal partaken of after havdalah on Shabbat in which the “Queen” (Sabbath) is escorted out solemnly as the regular week begins. Santala bases his conjecture on the account of Acts 20:9-11 where Paul is described as teaching an assembly of believers late into the night while in Troas.  After young Eutychus falls asleep and survives a three story plummet from his window seat,  a “breaking of bread” is described indicating a meal being partaken of at a curiously late hour after midnight.   

Although Melaveh Malkah, and the messianic themes associated with it, gained prominence in the later writings of the Zohar, Santala shows that the origins of a post-Sabbath meal can be traced to the early Sages (Tannaim) of the Talmud, making it contemporary with first century Jewish thought and practice.  Santala also sees liturgical parallels between the post-havdalah meal of Shabbat and Paul’s teachings regarding the Supper in 1 Corinthians 10 & 11.  Specifically, Paul’s warning of condemnation for those who do not carefully distinguish the elements when participating in the Supper is compared to the admonitions of Chazal who present similar themes regarding the final meal and conclusion of Shabbat. Santala also relates an ancient Syrian and Near-Eastern church custom of celebrating the Eucharist at the “second hour on Saturday evening”, a tradition understood to have originated in the Apostolic Age.

A Saturday evening, post-Sabbath setting for Acts 20:9-11, although debatable, is upheld by several Messianic commentators including David Stern and Daniel Lancaster.  Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, assumes the late night meeting at Troas to have occurred after Shabbat being that Jewish believers, who would have been accustomed to prolonging the Sabbath, constituted the core of the congregation.  He also points out the practical difficulties of the Ephesus congregation to assemble again on Sunday, one day after the Sabbath and on a “work night” so to speak, in order to meet with Paul and consider his teachings throughout the evening and into the dawn hours.  [4]

Lancaster finds the description of “many lights” in the upper chamber of the house (Acts 20:8) to allude to a post-havdalah meeting.  In the first century the relighting of lamps after the Sabbath would have required re-stoking of coals in the hearth of the home in order to produce a flame from which lamps could be lighted. Therefore it might be assumed that when the believers met together in a designated home for havdalah they would bring individual lamps with them to be re-lighted from the stoked coals in the meeting place.  The lamps would then be carried back to their own houses after the late night assembly concluded.  In this way, many lamps would be present in the meeting place, lit from the same fire source, after the Sabbath had ended. [5]

Although it is just another conjecture, Santala’s thoughts present a very appealing and fitting setting regarding the early believers’ adaptation to change in the form of the Communion meal.  Such an adaptation would have provided weekly opportunity to proclaim the Messiah’s death and coming again, in a traditional Jewish context, in which the Mashi’ach and his kingdom were in view.

. . . . . . . .

After the initial silence and shock of the announcement from the CEO on Wednesday morning, the remainder of the work day showed great evidence of people trying to “adapt” to such an unexpected change.  Various groups gathered in impromptu fashion throughout the afternoon to talk, complain, conjecture, and cry in a general atmosphere of anger and disbelief. Personally, I began the adaptation process by avoiding these groups.  Instead I sat down at the computer, signed into the career center and submitted my resume for several clinical nurse positions at a new regional hospital in our system, scheduled to open in August.  Less than 24 hours later I received a call from the human resources department to set up an interview next week for one of the job positions I had applied for.

Although I don’t prefer to start a new job at a new hospital 24 miles away from my home (instead of 2.5 miles away), in a position that will require me to defend my Sabbath observance and explain its importance to management and co-workers (a process that had been comfortably reconciled at my present position) – I must admit – that the idea of change has invigorated me in some ways.  Hearing the CEO speak of the changes in healthcare prompted me also to set up a meeting with a graduate advisor at a local university to seek out options regarding pursuing a Master’s degree – a  dream I had allowed to lapse for several years because my present job was “comfortably perfect”.  

_________________________________________________________________________________

[1]  Sforno as cited in Shem MiShmuel, Selections on the Weekly Parashah and Festivals, rendered into English by Rabbi Zvi Belovski, Targum Press Inc., Southfield, MI, 1998, pp. 327-328.

[2] Shem MiShmuel, ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, Jewish New Testament Publications, Clarksville, MD, 1996, p. 298.

[5] D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume 4, B’Sorat HaMashiach, First Fruits of Zion, Littleton CO, 2002, p. 1086.

A Daughter of Zelophehad

“If this is the case, then I’ll gladly call myself a sister of Sarah”!

These spontaneous words issued from my mouth during a lecture on Genesis 20 which I presented to an interdenominational women’s Bible study I was teaching in 1997.  The opportunity to teach women from a variety of denominational settings, for a seven year period of time (1996-2003), was certainly one of the most memorable periods in my spiritual journey thus far.  Although I worked hard every week during the class year (from September-May) to study and prepare a lecture that would be inspiring and practical, perhaps of all the thousands of words the women heard from me, the above statement made the most lasting impression.

In Genesis 20, Abraham and Sarah make a second journey to Egypt and Sarah is abducted by king Abimelech and brought into his harem.  The incredible thing being that Sarah at this point is 90 years old.  Obviously her physical beauty had not waned and she was attractive enough to be desired by a very powerful monarch.  As I expounded on this scenario, I couldn’t help but let a bit of humor slip regarding the “youthful” 90 year old Sarah, and my desire to be just like her in this physical sense. 

Unaccustomed to such spontaneity (for this study group was quite scholarly and serious) the women burst out in laughter and applause.  Afterward, numerous members approached me with smiles on their faces and agreed that they desired to be “a sister of Sarah” too.  These words were not quickly forgotten and for years afterward I would have women refer to me as “a sister of Sarah”, always with a wink and a smile and as a way to compliment and encourage me regarding my physical appearance as I reached and passed my 40^th year during the time of teaching that study.

Yet in considering the concluding chapter of the book of Numbers this past week my attention was drawn to a very unique group of sisters, the daughters of Zelophehad.  As the Children of Israel are preparing to enter the Promised Land, with the borders of the Land outlined and instructions regarding the Cities of Refuge given, a group of men from the tribe of Manasseh approach Moses regarding Zelophehad’s daughters.  The men are concerned because the daughters will inherit their father’s portion of land (being that their father is deceased and had no sons as heirs, Numbers 27) but are yet unmarried.  If any of the daughters were to marry a man from a tribe outside of Manasseh (their family tribe) then the portion of land that daughter acquired would become the property of the tribe of her husband.  In this way, the tribe of Manasseh is threatened with the possibility of permanent loss of inheritance in Eretz Yisrael which could never be regained.

With this potential dilemma in mind, HaShem commands the daughters of Zelophehad by saying;

 . . . “Let them be wives to whomever is good in their eyes, but only to the family of their father’s tribe shall they become wives.” (Numbers 36:6 Stone Chumash)

The sages recognize a discrepancy in this verse, for how can the daughters have the freedom to marry “whomever is good in their eyes” while yet being restricted to marry men from their father’s tribe of Manasseh.  What if there were no worthy men within the familial tribe?  Are the sisters then to remain unmarried?

For an “average” Israelite woman this question would be redundant for certainly among the available men of Manasseh a worthy match could be found.  But the daughters of Zelophehad, as described in Midrash and Aggadah, were not your “average” women. 

These sisters are considered by the commentators to be among the most righteous and wise women in the entire Torah for HaShem saw fit to use them as a vehicle through which a mitzvah was established.  This most rare and unusual occurrence (of G-d’s revelation and mitzvah being given via someone other than Moses) is seen only one other time, in the establishment of Pesach Sheni (Numbers 9:6-14). 

Bava Batra 119 b states;

“The daughters of Zelophehad were wise women, they were exegetes and they were virtuous.” 

The sages understand their wisdom as the ability to speak “at the opportune time“.  According to R. Samuel and R. Isaac, Moses was expounding on Levirate marriage when the daughters approached him in Numbers 27.  It was at this time, when the importance of a male heir was being considered, that the daughters brought their claim to Moses; that they were “as good as sons” and deserving of their father’s inheritance of the Promised Land.  If this were not the case, they reasoned, then Moses should allow their mother to be subject to the law of the Levirate marriage, in order to produce a male heir for their father.   

Traditionally it is understood that the daughters were adult women approaching their middle years.  Therefore their widowed mother would have been very elderly, if alive at all. A Levirate marriage to one of her husband’s brothers would have been in vain as Zelophehad’s widow would have been too elderly to conceive a male heir.  Therefore the daughters understand that they, as the only children of Zelophehad, should be his rightful heirs.  By bringing up their claim to Moses while his mind was focused on the topic of male heirs, these wise women spoke at the most opportune time.

The fact that they were exegetes is based on the wording of Numbers 27:5 in which “Moses brought their claim before HaShem“.  The Ein Yaakov points out that the women brought their “judgment” (mishpatan literally “their law”) before G-d, which was much more than merely a personal request or a question.  The daughters followed a line of reasoning based on Torah laws and principles to come to a proper decision.  In this way their petition included a legal argument and its ruling. [1]

In the Torah scroll the word mishpatan of Numbers 27:6 is spelled with an oversized nun.  Although there are various opinions regarding this, the numerical value of nun is 50 which alludes to the giving of the Torah on Sinai, traditionally understood to have occurred on Shavuot, 50 days after the Exodus.  The rabbis understand that after leaving Egypt the Children of Israel progressed and “ascended” spiritually for the next 50 days until they merited the ability to hear the words of G-d from HaShem Himself.  At this point, the nation was at its pinnacle spiritually. 

In the same way, when describing the daughters’ claim regarding their right to inherit their father’s portion of Land, the Torah uses an oversized nun to emphasize the spiritual pinnacle they occupied at this time.  For the judgment they came to was the very “word of G-d” itself although it had not been revealed to Moses or proclaimed through him.  As Rashi explains the enlarged nun alludes to the fact that these women merited the privilege of “writing a section of the Torah”, [2] due to their ability for exegesis, and “seeing what the eyes of Moses did not see”. [3]

The virtue of these women is understood by the fact that “they were married to such men only that were worthy of them” (Bava Batra 119b).  R. Eliezar b. Jacob elaborates that none of them, even the youngest, was married before the age of forty.  This is understood from Numbers 36:6 which encompasses two admonitions.  First, the daughters were to marry men whom they thought were the best or most worthy to be their husbands (whomever is good in their eyes). 

Secondly, they were advised to marry from within their familial tribe.  From this the sages understand that the sisters were not required to marry men from the tribe of Manasseh but rather that Scripture is suggesting this as good advice to them (Bava Batra 120a).  The most important thing was for the sisters to marry men of equal or superior spiritual caliber to themselves. Otherwise, they would end up in frustrated and unfulfilling marriages where their gifts and abilities would not be realized to the fullest extent.

In the simplest sense the male role  is one of giver while the female is receiver. “Barnyard logic” (i.e. simple anatomical differences between the two) speaks of this. Of course a man can receive and a woman can give, within various roles in a relationship. But in general the basic make-up of a man is most fulfilled in giving (his abilities, talents, personality, goals, visions etc.) to a woman who can take what he has to offer and can use those “raw materials” to the fullest, in a way that creates meaningful outcomes. This is best accomplished when a man is able to give to a woman in a way that challenges her to grow and excel (to be able to receive even more) and the woman is able to receive from a man and create outcomes that challenge him to provide and give back to a greater extent (grow and excel). 

For women like the daughters of Zelophehad, who were wise and virtuous exegetes, women who not only discerned the correct content of a situation but also spoke forth their judgment at the right time, finding men who would be suitable “givers” to their “receiver” role in marriage would not be an easy task.  This task would be even more limited in considering men from their familial tribe alone.  Yet, based on the Talmudic understanding the sisters followed the advice of Scripture and waited to marry husbands who were suited to them, from their own tribe, which necessarily meant that none of them were married before the age of forty. 

. . . . . . . . .

Although the thought of being alluring and beautiful at age ninety is certainly an appealing idea that any woman would desire to experience, I realize now that my “off the cuff” comment made in a lecture years ago, did a disservice to the spiritual greatness of the matriarch Sarah.  For although this woman did maintain a physical beauty of miraculous longevity, being a true “sister of Sarah” would involve much more than mere physical attraction in the eyes of a man.

In teaching through the Pentateuch in the ladies Bible study of 1997, the daughters of Zelophehad barely received mention in lectures that I gave which included Numbers chapters 27 and 36.  How easy it is to overlook their righteousness and wisdom.  To see these daughters as helpless individuals who beg for Moses attention and mercy and later are commanded to marry men of their own tribe. 

Women who fight for inheritance and land issues typically are not viewed as glamorous, and marrying within the family line is certainly not exciting.  Being careful and diligent in discerning matters of Scripture and having the discipline to wait until the right moment to speak forth a judgment are not qualities that typically cause men to “show up” on one’s doorstep : ) Putting one’s social life on hold in order to follow the “suggestions of Scripture” does not evoke the attention or admiration of others. Yet, truth be told, after studying the sisters’ story from the lens of the Midrash and Aggadah this past week, I would consider it a tremendous honor to be called “a daughter of Zelophehad”. 

Perhaps it requires a feminine perspective over the age of forty (and drawing ever closer to age 50) to recognize the profound spiritual beauty and attractiveness of these women . . . an attractiveness that far outlives and outweighs the advantages and attention of physical beauty alone. 

 

 

[1] Ein Yaakov as cited in; Sarah Schneider, The Daughters of Zelophehad Speaks, available at:  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2222/jewish/A-Daughter-of-Zelophehad-Speaks.htm

[2] Rashi as cited in; Menachem Persoff, Special Features for Parashat Pinchas, available at: http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5762/pinchas62/specialfeatures.htm

[3] Rashi, Numbers 27:7

The Devil in the Details

“What has been your greatest success over the past year?”  “What motivates you?”  “What is most important to you in the work environment?”  “What could improve your current work situation?”  Last week I found myself contemplating these and additional similar questions as I filled out my annual job performance review.  There’s something about answering such questions that always causes me to have an initial blank feeling and uncertainty about what to say.  Yet, once I think about it for a while the ideas begin to emerge and the words begin to flow.   

 The front side of the performance review contained the goals and aspirations of my employer toward me as its employee including inspirational promises to encourage and empower me in order to enable the most fulfilling career possible.  This was followed by instructions regarding completing the review which involved 12 questions in three categories to be answered on the reverse side of the paper.

 After contemplating the questions and feeling enthused and inspired by the  company’s promises and the opportunity to express my performance details in writing, I turned the review form over and quickly found myself disappointed.  On the reverse side was a table of three columns, each approximately three inches high by two inches wide.  Each column was labeled with one of three categories.  Within these three small columns I was to record my answers to the twelve questions given on the front page, four questions per column. 

 I couldn’t help but feel somewhat offended that a space of 6 x 3 inches was considered adequate for recording the details of an entire year of job progress and insights, which would determine a potential raise, any advancement in my position, and would be part of my permanent record.  As I began to record my answers and insights in the tiniest handwriting I could muster my initial enthusiasm started to wane. I wondered just how important my input really was to those who would make important decisions regarding my career in the year ahead.  Did these details really matter at all?

 With this disappointment on my mind I found myself considering Numbers 27:15-23 in which HaShem appoints Joshua as Moses successor.  After considering the case of Zelophehad’s daughters, Moses is told by HaShem that his life is nearing an end and that he shall have opportunity to see the Promised Land from the mountain of Abarim prior to being “gathered to his people” in death.  Facing his own mortality, Moses requests that HaShem appoint a leader over the assembly.  Moses offers no suggestions regarding who might fill his leadership role but requests that the man chosen be one “who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall take them out and bring them in; and let the assembly of HaShem not be like sheep that have no shepherd” (v. 17).  When HaShem appoints Joshua to fill Moses position, the natural reaction is to think “of course”!  Didn’t Moses realize this all along?

Based on the details of Torah, Joshua certainly seems to have been the obvious choice to succeed Moses. Shortly after the exodus from Egypt, Joshua led the Israelites into a victorious battle against the Amalekites (Exodus 17).  He accompanied Moses to Mt. Sinai and waited for him there 40 days and 40 nights as the Law was being given (Exodus 24). He was a constant companion and student of Moses who would not “depart out of his tent” (Exodus 33).  He was concerned to protect Moses honor regarding the prophecy of Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11) and was one of only two individuals to spy out the Land and bring back a good report (Numbers 14).  From this it was evident that Joshua had military ability and first hand knowledge regarding the Land.  He displayed personal fortitude while maintaining humility in service and discipleship toward Moses.  Why is it that these details seem to be overlooked by Moses and not even mentioned in his petition to HaShem regarding his successor? Why was it that Joshua’s past performance didn’t seem to influence Moses at all in considering the person most fit to assume his job?

The commentators offer several opinions regarding Moses state of mind at this time. According to Rashi, in facing the inheritance issues of Zelophehad’s daughters and afterward being told by HaShem that he would be gathered to his people “as Aaron your brother was gathered in” Moses mind naturally focused upon his own sons.  In both cases Moses had experienced firsthand the process of offspring inheriting from their father; as the daughters inherited Zelophehad’s property in the absence of a male heir, and Aaron’s son Elazar inherited his father’s role as High Priest upon his death.  These situations prompted Moses to consider and question if his sons might inherit his position as well. [1]

Another detail that was fresh on Moses mind was the situation with Phinehas who had zealously killed Zimri and Kozbi during their forbidden sexual encounter and by doing so upheld HaShem’s honor and provided atonement for the Children of Israel.  Phinehas had suddenly emerged as a flamboyant and uncompromising leader among the people, who perhaps was a suitable candidate to be Moses successor. 

Although Joshua had certainly proven himself to be an able military leader and devoted disciple of Moses, the sages recognize subtle weaknesses in him as recorded in his reaction toward Eldad and Medad’s prophecy (Numbers 11) and his appointment among the men to spy out the Land (Numbers 13).  Although Joshua strongly requested that Eldad and Medad be forbidden to prophecy in the camp due to his concern regarding Moses honor, Moses admonished Joshua that this was not the right attitude to have (Numbers 11:29).  According to Ramban, the listing of the spies in Numbers 13 is based on the order of their personal greatness and wisdom, with Caleb being listed third and Joshua fifth in line.  In this way Joshua was shown to occupy a lesser status regarding being one of the greatest or wisest among the leaders of Israel. [2]

With these various thoughts in mind Moses addressed HaShem as “the G-d of the spirits of all flesh” regarding his successor.  The Midrash Tanchuma understands this title to be referring to G-d’s ability to know the inner workings of all humans and to be fully aware of the diversity of temperament and personality of each individual. According to Rashi, Moses addressed G-d in this way because his successor would need to have the ability to understand and relate to a diversity of people despite all their peculiarities.  This is the “spirit” that G-d referred to as being within Joshua in v. 18.  [3]

 Yet, the Netziv (Rabbi Naftal Tzvi Berlin) understands “G-d of the spirits of all flesh” by saying ” . . spirit is comparable to flesh in that they both follow one’s self-interested desires . .. “.  Each person’s consciousness or “spirit” is affected or influenced by self-centered desires of the “flesh”.  Only G-d alone knows how and to what extent each individual’s spirit is controlled by the flesh whether due to personal desires or the outward pressures exerted by others. When G-d told Moses to appoint Joshua as the next leader because he was “a man in whom there is spirit” He was pointing out that Joshua was independently minded and not swayed or diverted by self-centered desires or other outward pressures. In Joshua was a spirit that was not controlled by the flesh; that did not give in to self-indulgent desires and was not easily swayed by the crowds. [4]

Although Moses was fully aware of the outward details regarding a potential successor including the possibility of his own sons’ inheritance, the newly displayed abilities of Phinehas, and the past accomplishments and weaknesses of Joshua, the inward details that were most important in a new leader could only be discerned by HaShem Himself.  In Joshua was found a leader who could relate to a diversity of individuals while yet maintaining a focus on truth that would not be swayed by those he would lead nor by his own personal desires. 

In this way, Joshua would be the leader “who shall go out before them and come in before them“, a phrase used to describe the details of war which Moses successor would inevitably have to face in bringing Israel into the Promised Land (cf. 1 Samuel 8:20, 2 Samuel 5:2).  Through an understanding spirit that could relate to unique and diverse individuals, Joshua would be an effective military commander.  Yet, Joshua also would be a leader who would “take them out and bring them in” in the sense of leading in such a way as to make the people successful, due to an unwavering spirit that would remain focused on truth despite personal desires and popular opinions.  As A.Z. Friedman (Wellsprings of Torah) puts it;

“Leaders who truly lead their people will raise them to their own level.  They have a chance to ‘lead them out’ of corruption and to ‘bring them in’ to holiness.  Leaders who trail behind their people will finally be dragged down by them to their own level.” [5]

Joshua’s make-up was perfectly suited to his unique leadership position as Moses successor, one that involved the hand of Moses being placed upon him as well as receiving “some” of Moses majesty (v. 18-21). Rabbi Jonathan Saks likens this “double investiture” to the Midrash Rabbah (Bereshit 21:15), which compares the giving up of power to “a pouring out from one vessel to another” while the giving up of influence is like “the kindling of one candle from another candle“. [6]

A person of power who shares or gives part of his power to others inevitably ends up with less power than he had before.  The giving of power always results in the decrease of power for the giver. In this way the giving up of power is like “a pouring out from one vessel to another“. Just as a person cannot share a glass of wine with another person without having less for himself, so a person of power can only give over power to another by decreasing his own personal supply of it. 

However, a person of influence who shares or gives his influence to others increases his personal influence by giving it away.  The sharing of influence always results in more influence for the giver. In this way the sharing of influence is like “the kindling of one candle from another” for when a lit candle is used to light another, the first candle loses nothing in giving to the second candle, but instead the light in the room is doubled. 

Moses leadership role was one of both power and influence, for he held both a kingly role and the role of a prophet.  Therefore, Moses was to give Joshua of this double investiture. In laying his hand upon him, Moses publicly gave Joshua authority or influence over the people.  Like “one candle kindling another” Moses influence would be propagated because of Joshua’s spirit of understanding in relating to various types and personalities of individuals as he led them via the truth of G-d’s Torah.  

By telling the people of Israel that at Joshua’s word they would participate in war, Moses placed “some” of his majesty (or power) upon him. Although, Joshua, like Moses, had the power to command the people in warfare, he yet was instructed to inquire of Elazar the High Priest and the “Urim before HaShem” before issuing any orders.  Therefore, the power Joshua received was less than the power Moses had held, for Moses never had to inquire of Aaron but went directly to G-d Himself before commanding the people. This was a most unusual situation for Moses was a unique individual.  In what society does a new ruler take office with only partial power given over to his control?  Yet, Joshua was the perfect person to accept such an arrangement, a perfect “vessel” into which Moses could pour some of his power, because the spirit within him was not controlled by selfish desires or popular opinions of others, or what would be considered the societal “status quo”. 

Inevitably, Joshua’s absolute suitability as Moses successor caused Moses to “lean his hands upon him” and command him as HaShem had spoken (v.23).  The rabbis recognize that although G-d had commanded Moses to lean his “hand” (singular) upon Joshua (v.18), ultimately Moses leaned both of his “hands” upon him instead.  From this the rabbis derive the halachah of  ordination (had haSemikhah, the “laying on of hands”) which traditionally is interpreted as the “handing over” of authority from a master to his disciple.   Yet, the Hebrew word samokh (סמך) in the most basic sense means “to lean upon” and carries with it the idea of dependence. 

Rav Soloveitchik explains that when a Master hands over his authority to one of his disciples he does so with “great yearning and expectation”.  The Master realizes at the moment of ordination that he now depends upon the disciple to continue the teachings he has learned and to carry on the traditions he has been taught to the next generation. [7] Perhaps in the same way, Moses, by leaning both hands upon Joshua was showing his great and total dependence upon his successor to lead the people with the power and influence he had been given, through a spirit of tolerance and understanding toward every individual tempered with a fierce conviction to follow only the truth of Torah. 

. . . . . . . . . . . .

A few days after filling out my performance review, I read it over one last time before turning it in to my manager.  This time instead of feeling offended by the small space in which to write the details of my past year’s work performance, I felt somewhat embarrassed by the tiny printing that filled up every imaginable space of the 6 inch x 3 inch box allotted for this.  Because my words were written in ink there was no way to alter what I had written or to be more succinct in what I had said. 

Although all the necessary details were there and every question had been answered thoughtfully I couldn’t help but think that the most important things had been left out and not even accounted for.  Two simple details that would have easily fit in a 6 x 3 inch space with plenty of room to spare. The same details that Moses desired to know about Joshua apart from his extensive and well known performance over the years. 

a.) That I desire to have an understanding and tolerant attitude toward people of vast diversity in my workplace (and my life).

b.) That I desire to be personally accountable to follow G-d’s truth and encourage others to do the same. 

 

[1] Rashi, as cited in; Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash (Parashas Pinchas) p. 889.

[2] Ramban, as cited in; Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash (Parashas Shelach) p. 799.

[3] Rashi, as cited in; Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash (Parashas Pinchas) p. 889.

[4] The Netziv, as cited in;  Rav Alex Israel, Parashat Pinchas, found at:  http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kcGgEuX4b1oJ:vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha/bemidbar/41-59pinhas.doc+rav+alex+israel+parashat+pinchas&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[5] A.Z. Friedman, Wellsprings of Torah, p. 337.

[6] Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks, Korach (5767)-Power vs. Influence, found at: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ar-index.html

[7] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Parshat Pinchas, found at: http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5766/pinhas66.htm

Facing Pipe Dreams

“It’s nothing but a pipe dream”.  I found myself thinking this cliché numerous times over the past week.  For some reason, HaShem has allowed me to face the unrealistic dreams of grandeur and fantastic hopes of several people I have encountered in a fairly short space of time. Dreams that have little basis in reality and are likened to the “high” one experiences while indulging in an opium pipe.   At work I faced several well meaning family members last week who expressed unwavering confidence in the complete recovery of a loved one who is experiencing multiple organ failure and has irreversible brain damage.  In my personal life I faced a couple of people who disagreed sharply with me and continually accused me of not understanding and estimating situations erroneously because I refuse to buy into their dreams. 

How does one handle a person who is in the midst of a pipe dream?  Is there any hope of reasoning or even trying to rationalize with them?  Is it better to ignore them and not even try to make an effort, or to smile politely and show sympathy in order not to cause problems? 

Incredibly, in Numbers 25:10-13, I found myself in the midst of what could easily be considered another pipe dream.  For it is here in Torah that Phinehas zeal in violently killing Zimri and his illicit Midianite lover is rewarded by HaShem with a covenant of peace and an everlasting priesthood.  The rabbi’s marvel at this outcome in the face of Phinehas violent and stunning actions.  How is it that HaShem, who typically responds to our actions “midah keneged midah” (measure for measure), would deal with Phinehas’ killing of two people by giving him a covenant of peace?  How fantastic and unrealistic it seems that zeal which led to violence would result in peace. 

This passage presents two textual oddities that allude to underlying meanings behind the opposing concepts presented here.  The first oddity is found in Phinehas name itself.  In Hebrew “Pinchas” is spelled pay-yod-nun-hay-samech (פּינחס).  In Numbers 25:11 this name is written with the yod being much smaller than usual.  This “diminished yod” is understood in various ways.  First, the letter yod is understood to allude to G-d’s presence, as the Sacred Name (tetragrammaton/YHVH) begins with this letter.  Traditionally, Moses changing of Joshua’s name in Numbers 13:16, by adding a yod to the beginning of it, is seen as a continual reminder to Joshua that HaShem was with him.  Therefore a diminution of the yod in Phinehas’ name suggests G-d’s presence had been diminished due to the violent, albeit well meaning, nature of Phinehas zeal against Zimri and Kozbi. [1]

The first usage of the name YHVH comes in Genesis 2:4.  Prior to this, throughout the entire initial account of the creation in chapter one, G-d’s name Elohim is used, a name that denotes strict justice.  According to Rashi the ideal state would have been for man to be judged according to his deeds without the need for G-d’s special mercy.  Yet, G-d knew that man could not survive without his forbearance. [2] Therefore, in preparing the Garden for Adam and Eve and blowing the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils (making him into His own image), HaShem’s name YHVH was incorporated.  Of all the created order, G-d’s dealings with mankind illustrates most clearly His justice tempered with compassion.

Therefore, the decreased yod in Phinehas name alludes to G-d’s mercy being hindered or hidden due to Phinehas’ actions which were based on pure justice and zeal alone.  If the decreased yod is not considered in the reading of Phinehas name here, and is overlooked, so to speak, because of its smallness of size, two Hebrew words remain; “pen” (pay/nun) and “chas” (chet/samech) which literally mean “do not have mercy”. [3] In this way by not having mercy and acting out of sheer justice alone, Phinehas diminished G-d’s presence in his life through the actions he displayed.

The second textual oddity is found in the word “shalom” (שׁלום) as describing HaShem’s covenant of “peace” with Phinehas in v.12.  The “vav” in shalom is written as a broken strophe, a straight line broken in half at the middle forming two discrete sections (this vav is referred to as “vav ketia” or “cut up” vav). 

The sages of the Talmud (Kiddushin 66b) see in this irregularity an illustration of the law that the service of a blemished priest is invalid. Because the vav ketia (broken vav) in shalom lacks a means of pronunciation (it cannot be pronounced), the resulting root word (shin/lamed/mem, שׁלם), in its most basic sense means “complete”. [4]  In this way G-d’s covenant of peace is understood as describing the covenant of eternal priesthood given to Phinehas which in essence demanded a wholeness or completeness of himself and his offspring.

Yet, commentators also see in the vav ketia an allusion to the fact that zeal which lacks mercy and leads to acts of violence results in a “peace” which is never whole or complete.  The presence of the vav ketia illustrates a peace that is broken and incomplete.  The vav ketia produces “shalom” that is visually broken . . .but yet is linguistically whole.

An interesting meshing of these opposing concepts is presented by 19^th century Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin (Netziv) who understands G-d’s covenant of peace with Phinehas and the rewarding of the eternal priesthood to be a cure for Phinehas behavior rather than a reward for it.  [5] Although Phinehas was a highly motivated and valuable zealot who had G-d’s glory in mind in all of his actions, he was yet missing one essential ingredient in his life, which kept “shalom” from being whole. This ingredient was a formal organization or structure in which he could exercise his natural zealous tendencies in the most productive way possible. 

Phinehas, being of the tribe of Levi, had an inborn or natural tendency toward uncontrolled anger and zeal as seen in his ancestors in Torah, especially in the account of Simeon and Levi’s actions in avenging their sister Dinah and killing the men of Shechem in Genesis 34:25-31.  Jacob as well, in pronouncing his deathbed blessing upon his sons, related this extreme tendency in Levi and denounced the fierce wrath and divisiveness that went along with it (Genesis 49:5-7).  Therefore, by giving Phinehas and his descendants the priesthood G-d placed him in a formal organization where certain structure must be maintained.  G-d moved Phinehas from radical freedom to a more ordered life where his energy and zeal would be channeled into worthy goals. 

Apart from the priesthood Phinehas zeal lead to an incomplete peace, a cessation of the plague (which killed 24,000 individuals) that was accomplished through actions of strict justice which diminished G-d’s characteristic of mercy in his life.  But through means of the priesthood, Phinehas could exercise his zeal in an environment of structure in which G-d’s mercy would be exemplified. Only through the priesthood could Phinehas truly be made whole, could he truly be made complete.

. . . . . . . . . . .

To think that someone who had committed a double homicide would be blessed with G-d’s peace and completeness is as fantastic of a pipe dream as could be imagined.  Imagine the headline:  “G-d awards man who killed two people involved in immorality with top spiritual position in all of Israel”. 

As a student nurse (not too many years ago) doing a required rotation on a psychiatric floor, the first thing we were instructed never to do was to disagree or argue with a patient about their delusions.  Mentally ill people cannot handle having their pipe dreams challenged, it only sets them back in the progress they might make and the realizations they might come to themselves through compassionate, gentle and patient understanding and questioning. 

But I think the truth is that all of us have pipe dreams of one sort or another.  Unrealistic desires that stem from very natural tendencies that we wish could be fulfilled more significantly.  G-d’s “pipe dream” approach with Phinehas was the perfect means of leading him to wholeness and providing him the means to be complete.

The people in the midst of pipe dreams I have encountered over the last week or so are definitely not mentally ill.  They are intelligent and caring, sincere and loving.  To simply ignore the fantastic hopes their hearts and minds are set upon would be to do them a disservice.  Instead, when the cliché rings in my mind and I find myself shaking my head regarding such unrealistic dreams and thoughts, I must try to see the people for who they are.  To discern the natural tendencies and abilities that are causing them to dream in such ways, and with HaShem’s help to suggest avenues through which such tendencies can lead to wholeness and completeness for them as unique individuals.

 

[1]  Kolel Parshah Study; Pinhas, found at:  http://www.kolel.org/pages/5765/pinchas.html

[2]  Rashi as quoted in Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash (Parashas Bereishis), p. 11

[3] Rabbi Meyer Friedman, Parshat Pinchas, found at:  http://www.shiur.com/shiur_more.php?id=1614_0_6_0_M208&s_id=208

[4] Rabbi Yonatan Kolatch, Masters of the Word (Ktav Publishing House, 2006), p. 98

[5] Kolel Parshah Study; Pinhas, found at:  http://www.kolel.org/pages/5765/pinchas.html

Getting Beyond The Natural

לא  תעשׂה  לך  פסל  וכל  תמונה  אשׁר  בשׁמים  ממעל  ואשׁר  בארץ  מתחת  ואשׁר  במים  מתחת  לארץ׃

I attend Hebrew class every Tuesday night.  Before our lesson begins the instructors assign a passage of scripture to be read-around by the class members.  Each person takes one verse, reads it in Hebrew and then translates it.  This past week our passage was a very familiar one, Exodus 20:1-17, the 10 Commandments.  My turn to read and translate came at “dalet” or verse 4.  Though I’m fairly fluent at reading, the instructors are  strict about proper pronunciation and will interrupt if a word is pronounced incorrectly.  I was doing pretty well, reading along, until I reached the words in red (above), “mitachat”. The problem for me comes with the “ch” (chet) sound, one of the “throaty five” (guttural) letters in Hebrew.  Because English has no gutturals, such pronounced sounds are foreign to native English speakers. In other words, it’s just not natural. Early on in our classes the instructors would let us get away with a hard “h” sound for chet, but not anymore.  We are expected to pronounce it correctly with the throaty, wet, rolling sound that could easily make one sick to their stomach.  We are pushed to go beyond the natural and pronounce it right, no exceptions now.

Not only is it completely unnatural for an English speaker to pronounce a guttural, I’m also convinced there is a gender bias to it.  The men in my class seem to have no problem manipulating their saliva in order to produce a sound likened to preparing to spit on the ground.  The women have more trouble with it, because it’s so “unlady-like” I suppose. There’s just something difficult in producing a sound that reminds me of one of my patient’s at the hospital badly in need of having their throat suctioned.  In this way I would label myself “gutturally impaired”.  It usually takes me a couple of tries before I can relax my throat and get the saliva to flow in a way that produces the correct sound.   

But once I got past the reading and pronunciation and began to focus on translation, the details of the commandment itself began to unfold.  “Do not make for yourself an idol (carved image) of any (all) likeness that is in heaven (from) above and that is in earth (from) below and that is in water (from) below the earth”.

With this commandment fresh on my mind I found myself considering Numbers 21:4-9 as part of my parashah study for the week. The next generation of Israelites (the offspring of those who died in the desert during the 40 years of wandering) are very close to entering the Promised Land.  They are literally a “stone’s throw” away.  A short journey through Edom and they will have arrived.  Unfortunately the king of Edom refuses to permit them passage through his land. Shortly after this disappointment, their beloved High Priest Aaron dies, after which they are attacked by the Amalekites. After being delivered by the hand of HaShem the Children of Israel now face a long and round-about journey, back into the desert in order to reach the Land. In the midst of their frustration and disappointment they grumble against Moses, complaining that they are disgusted with the water (from the miraculous rock) and the daily manna which is nothing but “insubstantial food”. Suddenly, fiery serpents begin to attack them.  After praying to HaShem, Moses constructs a serpent of brass and places it upon a pole for the people to look at and be healed. 

Of course this is a familiar story for believers in Yeshua for he used it in referring to himself in John 3:14.  Yet, I couldn’t help but have an uneasy and odd feeling as I read it.  Why would G-d instruct Moses to fashion an image? Isn’t this dangerously close to idol worship?  Didn’t this very image lead to later idol worship and the necessary destruction of the brass serpent by King Hezekiah 100′s of years later (2 Kings 18:3-4)?  Why would such a questionable event be used by Yeshua in referring to himself?

The sages are adamant that this scenario in no way encompasses idol worship for certainly HaShem would not command Moses to fashion an idol.  In the Midrash of Talmud Rosh Hashanah 29a, the sages pose the question; “Now did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive?”  The emphatic answer is “no” with the explanation given that; “when Israel turned their thoughts above and subjected their hearts to their Father in Heaven they were healed, but otherwise they pined away“.   The sages understand that the brass serpent had no power of its own, it had no potential to heal, it possessed no magical or miraculous qualities.  So what is going on here, and how were the people healed through this event?

The first thing to consider is why the fiery serpents caused problems in the first place.  This was due to the people’s complaining regarding the water and manna being “insubstantial”.  Some commentators conjecture that they were just sick and tired of the miraculous at this point.  They were looking forward to going into the Land and living like “normal people”, planting and raising crops, raising cattle and enjoying the satisfaction of personal achievement and doing for themselves.  Now that their journey had been prolonged and they were back in the desert, the miraculous water supply and daily manna seemed “insubstantial” it seemed light and unsatisfying as they longed for “hands on” physical work that life in the Land would involve.  

With this desire for the natural and dissatisfaction with G-d’s miraculous provision, HaShem literally gave  them a taste of the very thing they desired.  In v. 6 he sent fiery serpents into the camp. Expounding on this verse, Rabbi Hirsch notes that the Hebrew word “to send” (vay’shalach) is not in the “qal” or simple conjugated form but rather is in the “pi’el” or intensive form.  Normally, in the “qal” form shelach would indicate sending or putting something in motion toward a goal.  Because the “pi’el” form (vay’shalach) is used the meaning is “to let go of something” or to “leave it to its natural way” or “not to hold back”.   

 Therefore in the literal Hebrew G-d didn’t send the serpents into the camp, instead he simply let them go, he didn’t hold them back.  He allowed the snakes to do what is natural in a desert environment, to wander into the camp and wreck havoc with the people. In Deuteronomy 8:15 Moses elaborates that G-d protected the people as they traveled through “the great and terrible wilderness of poisonous snakes, scorpions and drought“.  Since the people focused on the physical and desired the natural rather than what G-d provided for them, He now allows them to experience the natural consequences of traveling in a desert wilderness.  By withdrawing His protection, HaShem allowed the Israelites to experience the desert in the most natural and physical way, snakes and all. 

The people come to Moses and ask him to pray an unusual request.  Instead of asking for the “serpents” to be removed, the people ask for the serpent (hanachash)(singular) to be removed. In this the sages understand an allusion to the evil inclination which is embodied in the form of a nachash in Genesis 3:1.  The primeval serpent is in itself a fascinating subject of study.  For although he is a beast of the field, he yet walks, talks and displays intellect and reason.  Embodied in this first nachash are uniquely human characteristics with an “animal edge” so to speak.  He is referred to as nachash not only as a literal serpent but also with the idea of being serpentine or twisted.  For just as a serpent has a twisted body and moves in a serpentine fashion, so the nachash of Genesis 3:1 represents human thinking and reasoning that is twisted and opposed to G-d’s will.  The serpent in essence is the evil inclination that focuses on the physical, natural and experiential and sees it as more substantial and fulfilling than the spiritual benefits of obeying HaShem which in comparison seem light, insubstantial or lacking in some way.

This is the serpent that the people wanted removed from them, the evil inclination and its twisted thinking that craved the natural and physical and downplayed the spiritual.  The inclination that ultimately led to experiencing the natural apart from G-d’s protection and guidance which resulted in horrible consequences of pain and devastation.

Interestingly, though we are told that Moses prayed for the people (v.7) he does not pray for the serpent to be removed and G-d doesn’t remove the evil inclination from them. For the yetzer ra is a natural and important part of human life on this earth. Without an evil inclination and the option or “pull” to do evil, mankind would have no recourse for exercising his free will. The evil inclination was in the Garden and was part of creation so it is a reality that needs to be dealt with and not annihilated or removed. Therefore G-d instructed Moses regarding a way in which the people could deal with the serpent by making a fiery serpent and placing it on a pole that those who had been bitten could look upon it and live (v. 8).  Although HaShem didn’t tell Moses how to construct the serpent figure, in verse 9 we are told that Moses fashioned it out of brass.  

G-d’s original instruction was for Moses to make something “fiery” (saraf), for often in scripture pure lust or purely physical desires are described as burning within the very being of a person. Brass, being a bronze-like (reddish/yellow) color would outwardly give the glowing appearance of fire.  The commentators also recognize that brass is an alloy, a man-made conglomerate of copper and zinc, and is not a natural metal. In this way Moses fashions a serpent which not only has the appearance of fire and is created via a firing process, but is also a combination of two metals, a mixture. This serpent is a fitting representative of the serpent (the evil inclination) with its fiery burning passions and its manmade mixture of twisted thinking as opposed to the pure and right thinking and will of G-d.   

Although G-d’s original command to Moses involved the people merely looking at (ra’ah) the serpent, in v.9 we are told;

” . . .if the serpent bit a man, he would stare at the brass serpent and live” (Stone Chumash)

The afflicted individuals were not merely to look or glance at the brass serpent they were to literally stare at it.  The Hebrew word in v. 9 is “v’hibit” whose shoresh (nun-bet-tet) means “to behold” or “to consider”.  From this the sages understand that the stricken people were to actually “look beyond” the figure of the serpent itself and to contemplate the meaning behind it.  The serpent cannot be taken away, but it can be lifted up, it can be elevated and brought closer to HaShem.  The evil inclination cannot be removed, but it can be made subject to the Father in Heaven and submissive to the will of G-d.  According to Rav Chaim Velozhin (Nefesh Ha’chayim), by subjugating their thinking to G-d and believing that G-d’s power exceeded and could overturn the serpent (evil inclination), in the punishment itself was found the cure.

Rav Hirsch understands that by concentrating on the serpent the individual meditated on the fact that G-d’s gracious power was the only thing that could keep the serpents at bay and at a distance.  Just like living in a desert wilderness, the journey of life is filled with the serpents (the evil inclination) ever awaiting the opportunity to attack and sting with burning desires and longings for the natural, physical and self-gratifying.  Only G-d’s mercy can keep such “serpents” at bay and in-control for those who look to Him.

But how does this imagery and its lessons regarding the evil inclination fit in with Yeshua’s use of this scenario in John 3:14-15?

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (KJV)

Typically Yeshua’s description of being “lifted up” in these verses is understood to be relating to his death, his being “lifted up” on the cross.  Indeed, Yeshua does use the same words “lifted up from the earth” to “describe the manner of his death” in John 12:32-33. Yet, in 3:14 he doesn’t add the qualifier “from the earth” but merely indicates being “lifted up”.  The Greek hupsoō (ὑψόω) (translated “lifted up”) means to literally “elevate” but can also mean to “exalt” and is translated “exalt” or “exalted” numerous times throughout the AS (Matthew 11:23, 23:12, Luke 1:52 et al.).

In the verses just prior to John 3:14-15, Yeshua, in explaining to Nicodemus the reality of his future ascension and exaltation, uses Moses brass serpent lifted up on the pole to illustrate this truth.  For it was not a dying serpent that the Israelites looked upon and contemplated in order to gain life, but an exalted, elevated and lifted up form of the serpent (evil inclination). In the same way it is Yeshua’s exaltation, his resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven in a perfected human body that provides life for those who believe in him. Yeshua’s resurrected and exalted state represents the human condition elevated and freed from death, the composite of flesh and spirit, evil inclination and good inclination subjected completely to HaShem Himself.  

Yeshua’s death on the cross (being lifted up from the earth) would “draw all men” to himself (John 12:32).  His death would literally cause all of mankind to identify with him for all men die and are under the judgment and penalty of death. The lifting up of the cross did not provide a cure but simply an identification.  Yeshua’s exaltation (being lifted up) through his resurrection and ascension into heaven, is the means through which a cure for the natural human condition is found.  For in Yeshua’s resurrection the punishment (death) becomes the cure (resurrection), the natural becomes the supernatural.  And the person who believes in him has the joyously task of looking intently into and contemplating fully truths that go well beyond what is natural.

. . . . . .

“Mee-tah-chaaaah-t”.  As my instructor corrected my pronunciation and lack of guttural emphasis by producing a drawn out and exceedingly moist manipulation of his throat, I attempted to mimic him as best as I could.  Truth is my throat automatically tightens up when I try to do this.  “Paula” he said “you need to just do it and not think about it so much”.  He instructed me to look at the word and “just say it” quickly and let the guttural roll out.  After a while it will “just happen”, he assured me.  Starting from the beginning of the verse he instructed me to read naturally without interruption.  On the second read-through I felt more relaxed and a guttural “chet” did actually issue from my mouth (albeit weak).  With a little more confidence I read the verse a third time through and nearly spit in the instructor’s face (twice).  ”You got it” he said with delight. 

As the person sitting beside me began to read verse 5 of Exodus 20 in Hebrew my mind began to wander.  I imagined myself in the upcoming kingdom, speaking the holy tongue with other believers and happily showering them with my impeccable guttural pronunciation in the process.  Of course there is much more to look forward to than just a perfected “tongue” in times to come.  Better things that will go beyond the natural in ways that I cannot fully imagine, but yet, can look forward to intently.

 

Reference:

Zvi Shimon, Parashat Chukat, The Snake that Heals, at http://www.vbm-torah.org/ip-bemidbar.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without Hesitation

“Welcome to the School of Graduate Studies”.  As I sat in my office late one evening last week, with my feet propped up on the desk, my computer on my lap and my reading glasses perched on my nose, I found myself browsing websites of local colleges and universities offering advanced degrees in nursing. The desire to go back to school has been on my mind for a while now. The truth is, at heart I’m a perpetual student who just adores an academic environment. As I browsed the Catholic college website offering a Master’s in Nursing Education that I am interested in, I felt excited and hesitant all at the same time.  To teach on the college level would be a dream come true, but taking a pay cut and living on a “faculty salary” is another matter.  To be back in the classroom as a student again sounds wonderful, but working it around the full time job I now have would be challenging.  To study at a reputable private college would be an honor, but paying for it would necessarily be a burden.

At the moment I am a bachelor’s prepared RN working as a staff nurse in a critical care setting.  I work 2.5 miles away from home, three 12 hour shifts per week, full time benefits with hospitalization, and every Shabbat off. I have tremendous job security, and to add to all the perks, I also make a comfortable living at what I do. My employer offers tuition reimbursement for continuing education, 3,000 dollars a year to be exact.  Sounds pretty good until you add up the numbers. The private college I would like to attend charges 775 dollars per credit hour, with the majority of graduate classes being 3 credit hours a piece that’s $2325 per class.  If I took two classes a year (one per semester) the cost would be $4650, leaving me $1650 to pay out of pocket (not including the cost of textbooks and other assorted fees). My present salary makes me ineligible for financial aid and I don’t want to take out any loans.  If I took only two classes a year the 39 credit hours needed to earn the degree would take me seven years to complete. Though the desire is there, the details of returning to school are something I cannot consider without hesitation.

Perhaps it was the personal hesitation I felt during this past week that caused me to marvel at Moses’ brother Aaron as I studied Numbers 17-18. After witnessing the divine punishment of Korah and his 250 followers by means of the earth swallowing them up and fire from heaven consuming them all, the Children of Israel came to Moses and Aaron the following day with the accusation that they had “killed the people of HaShem” (17:6).  Because of this rebellion, HaShem sent a plague within the camp and the people immediately began to perish.  Moses instructed Aaron to take his fire-pan and place coals from the altar upon it, along with incense, and go out to the assembly to make atonement for them.  Incredibly, Aaron did exactly what Moses instructed and “ran to the midst of the congregation” without any hesitation at all.

What was Aaron thinking here?  The stakes were incredibly high.  Moses had instructed Aaron to burn incense in a manner that Torah did not describe, to bring an incense offering outside of the Mishkan itself.  Aaron’s own sons, Nadab and Abihu, had perished for bringing non-prescribed incense within the Mishkan, and 250 Israelites had been consumed by heavenly fire in the same way, less than 24 hours earlier, for bringing non-prescribed incense outside of the Mishkan. Not only that, the High Priest was also forbidden to have contact with the dead lest he be defiled. Yet, Aaron didn’t hesitate to do Moses bidding . . . how could this be so?

The answer perhaps is to be found in the scene which follows. After the plague had been checked by Aaron’s act of heroism, Moses provided final proof that Aaron and the Levites alone were to serve in the Mishkan.  This proof came by means of Aaron’s staff which sprouted among the 12 staffs representing the tribes of Israel that were placed in the Mishkan overnight by Moses.  Numbers 17:23 describes the outcome of this event;

 ”On the next day, Moses came to the Tent of the Testimony and behold! The staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had blossomed; it brought forth a blossom, sprouted a bud and almonds ripened.” (Stone Chumash)

There are various opinions among the sages as to what actually occurred here.  According to Rashi, though it was a miracle that Aaron’s dry staff produced vegetation, the vegetation itself underwent the natural process of producing mature almonds (though in an accelerated manner).  When Moses came into the Tent he saw the staff with almonds upon it and the blossoms which had fallen off (as part of the maturation process) upon the ground.  Moses then brought the staff with its almonds out for the people to see and in his hand he carried the blossoms as well so they could witness both. 

The Rashbam understood that Moses found Aaron’s staff in the flowering stage within the Mishkan and when he brought it out to the people the flowers quickly matured, right before their eyes, producing mature almonds.  Arbarbanel believed that Aaron’s staff contained every manner of maturing vegetation upon it and that miraculously there were flowers, immature fruit (buds) and mature almonds upon it all at the same time.

The Talmud (Yoma 52b) in giving the account of King Josiah hiding away the Ark of the Covenant and other holy items prior to the impending invasion of the Babylonians, describes Aaron’s staff as having both “almonds and blossoms”.  Based on this account the Raboteinu Ba’alei Ha-Tosefot commentary claims that the flowers blossomed in two different locations upon Aaron’s staff.  On one side the flowers blossomed without producing fruit and on the other side the flowers blossomed and produced almonds.  Therefore Aaron’s staff contained both blossoms and almonds upon it. This can also be deduced by the wording of 17:23 which states that Aaron’s staff “blossomed” and that it “brought forth a blossom”.  This wording would seem to be redundant if the blossoms merely went on to maturation. [1]

Yet, despite the various conjectures, the fact remains that Aaron’s staff underwent both miraculous (production of vegetation from a dry staff) as well as natural (maturation of almonds) phenomenon. In this way the people would witness a sign which was partly miraculous and partly natural.  According to the Likutei Sichos Aaron’s staff communicated very important concepts regarding his appointment as High Priest and the Levites being chosen over the firstborn of Israel to serve in the Mishkan.  The people needed to realize that such appointments were not only divinely inspired but also naturally given. [2]

Aaron’s appointment as High Priest and G-d’s choosing of the Levites had already been substantiated via three terrifying miracles; the opening of the earth which killed Korah, Dathan and Abiram and their families, the fire from heaven which killed the 250 followers, and the plague which killed more than 14,000 Israelites.  Yet, if Aaron and the Levites positions were only the result of divine favor or miraculous appointment the people would not be satisfied and would be tempted to continue to complain, for the miraculous knows no favorites.  G-d can do a miracle on behalf of anyone he so chooses, and in this way any of the Israelites would have been equally able to receive G-d’s favor. The claim that the people where all equally holy in the way that Aaron and the Levites were holy would have been true. 

But by having the staff produce almonds through the natural process of maturation, G-d showed that not only where Aaron and the Levites divinely appointed, they where also naturally suited for the positions given to them.  The almond, in itself, is a plant that ripens to maturity very quickly.  Through this G-d was communicating that the tribe of Levi had the characteristic of alacrity, of serving G-d with quickness and with vigorous devotion. [3] They were the tribe that matured very quickly spiritually and had the natural tendency to grasp and incorporate spiritual truths. This characteristic is perhaps best seen in the account of Exodus 32:26-27 where, in the midst of the sin of the golden calf, the Levites quickly heeded the call to side with the L-RD by gathering themselves to Moses, and without hesitation, went throughout the camp and slay their own brothers and companions according to G-d’s command.

In the same way, without hesitation and with great spiritual insight and trust in Moses as HaShem’s representative, Aaron took his censer of coals and incense and ran out among the people of Israel who were perishing in the plague. Ultimately, Aaron understood that concept of Pikuah Nefesh, that Torah commands (except for murder, adultery or idolatry) can be violated when human life is at stake.  By going out among the dying throngs at Moses command, without hesitation, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he alone was most suited of any man in Israel to be the Kohen Gadol. 

Yet, sometimes natural tendencies and inborn characteristics not only bring confirmation and life, but can also lead to despair.  This truth is seen in the peculiar reaction of the people to the testimony of Aaron’s budding staff, in Numbers 17:27;

“The Children of Israel said to Moses, saying ‘Behold! We perish, we are lost, we are all lost.  Everyone who approaches closer to the Tabernacle of HaShem will die.  Will we ever stop perishing?’” (Stone Chumash)

Though there are a number of varying reasons among the sages as to why the Children of Israel reacted as they did here, I couldn’t help but wonder why the people were in such despair, why were they carrying on like this when logically all they needed to do was to keep their distance from the Tabernacle in order to be safe?  If getting too close or approaching too much will surely lead to death, then, don’t approach; don’t attempt to get too near.  Just bring the minimal offerings at the times they are required and be done with it.  HaShem will certainly understand, for human life is at stake here.  

Yet, the actual words of the people are very insightful.  In v. 28 they say in the literal Hebrew kol haqarev haqarev or “all (of us) the closer the closer”.  The Ha’amek Davar notices the cantillation mark (psik) here that separates the repeated words with a symbol that looks like this “l”.  This symbol indicates that the reader is to pause between the two words “closer”  l  “and closer”.   By emphasizing this duality of words with a pause the Ha’amek Davar understands that everyone in the entire community wished to draw closer and closer to HaShem via means of approaching the Mishkan for this was the place of intense union with Him.  [4]

By speaking in one voice kol (all or whole) the people admit that this zeal and desire to draw closer and closer to Hashem was something that all of them had in common.  This wasn’t just something they would like to do, it was something they couldn’t help but do.  The desire for sanctification and to become more holy, to draw closer to HaShem was “built into them” so to speak.  Therefore they were all doomed, for this desire could not be alleviated and such zeal within them was now their worst enemy, it threatened their very lives.

Therefore in Chapter 18, HaShem speaks to Aaron and charges the priests and the Levites with the duty of safeguarding the sanctuary to protect the people from their own zealous tendencies.  But how this safeguarding is accomplished is much different than we might think.  It wasn’t a matter of having guards around the Mishkan or repeatedly warning the people to not come too close.  G-d’s safeguarding comes in the most wonderful of ways that is subtly seen in 18:9-10.  In these verses the “heave-offerings” of the Children of Israel are the focus.  These offerings are to be readily received by the kohanim, and consisted of twenty-four differing gifts; 10 of which were eaten by the priests only in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, 4 of which were eaten by the priests anywhere in the city of Jerusalem, and 10 of which were eaten by the priests in any city throughout Israel. [5]

In verse 9 the offerings themselves are twice described as kodesh hakodashim (holy of holies), and in verse 10 the place where the priests would consume the gifts is called the same; “in the most holy shall you eat it”.  In this way G-d safeguarded the people not by warning or guarding them against the Mishkan, but by allowing them to participate in the holiest of ventures through the giving of the heave-offerings to the priests.  By bringing their offerings to the priests they participated in something described in the same terms of holiness as the central part of the Mishkan containing the Ark of the Covenant itself.  And in consuming these gifts the priests brought the same level of holiness (holy of  holies) out to the people, to the courtyard, to the city of Jerusalem, and even throughout any city within Israel itself. 

If the priests’ duties were merely to protect the Mishkan by not allowing any “alien” or non-kohen/Levite to approach too closely, the outcome would have been to frustrate the people by attempting to squelch their natural zeal. Instead, the people were given opportunity to express their natural desires and characteristics by offering  gifts to the priests themselves, and without hesitation to draw closer and closer to HaShem in the process.

 . . . . . . . . . . .

Inevitably I am hesitant to go to graduate school because every practical reason seems like an impossible mountain to conquer.  Ironically, it was the practicalities that lead me to a nursing career in the first place.  I cannot make the honorable claim that I always “wanted to be a nurse” or that for years I “dreamed of being a nurse”.  The only reason I went into nursing, after stepping out of more than 14 years of Christian ministry, was because I knew that as a middle-aged woman pursuing a new career path I would be welcomed into nursing without discrimination and that jobs would be plentiful and flexible due to the “nursing shortage”. 

Three years later, I find myself very pleased with my choice as nursing has turned out to be a more fulfilling career than I anticipated.  But last February, in filling out my yearly performance review, I wrote down one of my long-term goals to be “attend graduate school, some time in the future”.  Since then I have spent many a late night with computer on my lap and feet propped up on my desk, browsing graduate degree options. I often have found myself shaking my head and questioning what I am doing.  Why would I want to leave behind my current job which is “practically” perfect?

The only reason is that the desire to study and to teach is “built into me”, it’s something I can’t help, it’s the reason I write this blog.  My current job, though challenging and interesting doesn’t allow for this part of my character to be employed to its fullest extent.  In this way I feel like the Israelites of Numbers 17, destined to be doomed by my own natural zeal.  Destined . . .  to squelch a very basic desire within me – or – to face the dire consequences of taking on unnecessary debt, getting burned out by working and going to school at the same time, and inevitably ending up in a job that doesn’t pay as much as I make now. 

At the bottom of the “Welcome to the School of Graduate Studies” page are the following italicized, bolded words, written in red; “all application materials are due April 1, 2009″.  My printer starts its familiar hum as I print out the application, I scribble down the names of three people who I could ask to write referrals for me.  Sigh!  The process is underway despite the hesitation, as I look to HaShem to make a way to express this most natural and unending of desires within me.

 

[1] Raboteinu Ba’alei Ha-Tosefot as cited in, Rav David Silverburg, Parashat Korach, found at:  http://vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-bemidbar/38-10korach.htm

[2]  Likutei Sichos vol. 23, pp. 118-120

[3] R. Hirsch as cited in, Rabbi Nosson Scherman, The Stone Edition Chumash (Parshas Korach), p. 831

[4]  Ha’amek Davar as cited in, Rabbi Avraham Fischer, Parshat Korach (July 4, 2003) found at:  http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/korach63.htm

[5]  Rabbi Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says (Bamidbar), pp. 241-242

A Very Touchy Subject

This past Tuesday, I did the same thing that approximately 38 million American’s did that day.  I watched the inauguration ceremony of President Barack Obama.  Having the day off from work I turned on the TV at approximately 11:30 and muted the sound as I went about other business in the house.  Glancing from time to time at the screen, when I saw President Bush come onto the platform I knew the historic time was drawing near.  For the next 45 minutes I sat down and watched the uniquely American process of the commencement of a new term of the President of the United States.  To watch the swearing in of the new President is something I have done for many years now. From the Carter days to the present I have always found it interesting and inspiring to watch the transition of power take place.

 A few days later, as I was enjoying Oneg with my Torah community, I decided to bring up the inauguration as a point of small talk.  “Did anyone watch the inauguration”? I asked.  After a moment of icy silence one person answered with “absolutely not”.  Another guy said he didn’t watch because he was at work that day.  A lady sitting across the table from me sighed and admitted that she “had to” watch the inauguration because she works as a teacher’s assistant at an elementary school and of course there was an assembly that day for that very purpose.  After chatting about certain details for a few minutes, another lady spoke up and admitted that she had watched the inauguration too. I asked both ladies what they thought of Rick Warren’s invocation especially the recitation of the Shema and the use of Jesus Hebrew name, Yeshua.  One lady admitted that she couldn’t remember the details of the invocation very well, but the one thing that she did notice was that Obama did not recite the Lord’s Prayer at the end of it. 

 I personally hadn’t noticed Obama during the Lord’s Prayer as I watched that day, but I had found myself overwhelmed as the cameras panned along the crowds of approximately one million people on the National Mall and for the most part, most people were reciting the prayer in unison. Yet, the fact that Obama was not praying along incited this lady so much that she readily expressed her doubts regarding his “Christian veneer”. Suddenly a conversation that was icy and forced at best, took on fluidity as others seemed eager to join in.  Questions regarding the “meaning” behind Obama’s sudden and inexplicable worldwide appeal, and other topics of suspicion and speculation about him began to be aired.  Fortunately, the fall-out was short lived, as the couple leading Torah study interrupted and focused our attention on the parashah at hand. 

 As I sat there with my Chumash opened in front of me, I felt somewhat stunned.  What would normally have been a topic of interest for any American had turned out to be a very touchy subject.  My mention of this most Patriotic event had turned out to be a source of tension that I never would have anticipated, and my innocent desire to evoke conversation had turned me into a rabble-rouser of sorts.

 As happens many times for me, HaShem used my unexpected faux pas as an ironic segue into a parashah involving perhaps the most famous rabble-rouser of all time, a Levite by the name of Korah, in Numbers 16.  At the very heart of this most famous scenario is a very touchy subject presented by Korah and his following of 250 people in v. 3

 “They gathered together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “It is too much for you!  For the entire assembly – all of them – are holy and HaShem is among them; why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of HaShem?” (Stone Chumash)

In Exodus 19 before the ratification of the Covenant at Sinai, Moses explained G-d’s intention; that Israel would be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”.  In Numbers 15, after the sin of the spies, the mitzvah of the tzizit is given and the people are admonished to be “holy to your G-d” (v.40) Yet, the priesthood was given to Aaron and his sons and the Levites were assigned the other duties of the Tabernacle. If the entire nation was to be a kingdom of priests how could this be so?  If all of Israel was to be holy, why were Moses and Aaron and the Levites given special roles?  The holiness of the nation was a very touchy subject and one that led to a heated encounter between Moses and Korah and his followers.

In Judaism, dealing with touchy subjects that cause dispute or disagreement is known as makhloket. The Talmud (Avot 5:17) describes two-types of makhloket.  There is Makhloket L’Shem Shamayim (dispute/disagreement for the sake of Heaven) and there is Makhloket Shelo L’Shem Shamayim (dispute/disagreement not for the sake of Heaven).  Makhloket in itself has to do with divine disagreements, with matters of Torah and obedience to G-d that are not agreed upon or that even lead to argumentation. According to the Fathers in the Mishnah, a disagreement that is for the sake of Heaven “will survive” while a disagreement not for the sake of heaven “will not survive”.

Generally a disagreement that is for Heaven’s sake and does “survive” is one in which the outcome will have lasting value for good, even if the parties do not see eye to eye.  It is a disagreement that builds up and strengthens those who participate in it and that leads to understanding truth.  Such godly disagreements may even lead to longer life (personal survival) giving the participants further opportunity to engage in more Torah disagreements ahead.  A makhloket not for the sake of heaven doesn’t survive, for not only are there no lasting principles or truths achieved by it, but this type of dispute tears down and destroys instead of building up. 

In the Talmud, Makhloket Shelo L’Shem Shamayim (not for the sake of Heaven) is considered best exemplified by the story of Korah in Numbers 16. This type of ungodly disagreeing is also warned about in the book of Jude.  It is there that Korah is mentioned for the only time in the Apostolic Scriptures, as Jude warns against the “gainsaying” (dispute) of Korah which inevitably will cause one to “perish” (and be destroyed) (Jude 1:11). 

So, what details from Numbers 16 can one find warning about regarding disagreements that are not for the sake of Heaven?  First, such disagreements do involve the truth.  What Korah and his followers presented to Moses was true.  The people were to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.  Yet, the truth also was that Aaron and his sons were selected by G-d to serve as priests specifically in Exodus 28.  The sages understand from this that originally the firstborn of the twelve tribes were to serve as the priests, but after the sin of the golden calf Aaron and his sons were chosen instead as the priests who would perform the services of the Tabernacle. Because the Levites rallied to Moses at that time, they merited the right to perform other duties in the Mishkan. Generally, the motivation Korah was presenting was correct and good; it was a motivation to draw closer to G-d. 

But through this is seen a second detail regarding disagreements which are not heavenly minded in that such disagreements often perceive the truth in only one way. The people wanted to draw close to G-d and the only way they thought they could do it was by participating in the avodah through the office of the priesthood.  Unless representatives from all the tribes could serve as priests, the tribes did not have equal opportunity to grow closer to G-d.  For this reason, some commentators believe that the 250 followers of Korah were all firstborn sons, from various tribes [1]. 

But in v. 8, in speaking to Korah himself, Moses explains that G-d segregated him and his family of Levites (the Kohathites) to perform specific work in the Tabernacle (carrying the Ark of the Covenant and holy objects during time of travel) in order to “draw you near to Himself”.  Korah’s mistake was to believe that sanctity could only be achieved in one way when in reality a person can be sanctified and draw near to HaShem in the very place or “lot” in life which has been given to him. 

Another mistake that Korah made in his makhloket with Moses was to make presumptions regarding the motivation of his opponent.  The midrash relates that the evening prior to the test of burning incense, Korah invited the public to a lavish banquet.  During this banquet Korah told the following tale;

“There was once a poor widow with two daughters, who possessed a single field.  When she wanted to plough it, Moshe warned her, ‘ Do not harness an ox and donkey together.’ When she was about to plant seed, Moshe told her, ‘Do not sow two species in your field!’ When harvest time arrived and she cut the grain, Moshe commanded, ‘Leave over leket, shikcha, and pai’a (the harvest gifts separated from the crops).  After she collected the wheat, he cautioned her, ‘Separate the dues of teruma, ma’aser rishon, and ma’aser sheni’.

The poor widow decided that it did not pay for her to keep her field.  She sold it and bought two sheep.  She planned to use their wool for warm clothing and to slaughter their young.  When the ewe gave birth, Aaron appeared and ordered her, ‘Give me the first-born; Hashem said it is mine.’ When she sheared the sheep, Aaron came again, telling her, ‘The first of the shearing belongs to me’. 

‘How much more will this man demand?’ thought the widow.  ‘Let me slaughter my sheep and eat them.’  As soon as the sheep were slaughtered, there was Aaron again claiming his right to the shoulders, jaws, and stomach.  ‘You are insatiable,’ said the widow.  ‘I prefer to donate the sheep as a chairem to HaShem. ‘Perfect,’ cried Aaron jubilantly, ‘now they are altogether mine for HaShem commanded, ‘Every chairem belong to the kohanim.’  Aaron took away everything, leaving the poor widow and her two daughters weeping. [2]

Through such tales Korah assumed that Aaron’s appointment as High Priest was nothing more than nepotism on Moses part.  That the mitzvot surrounding the priesthood were laws set in place by Moses to benefit his brother and nephews.  This was an extremely serious charge.  For if it was true then the entire Torah which Moses had given to Israel would be suspected of being illegitimate.

Another detail regarding disputes which are not for the sake of Heaven is that they involve extremes.  This is seen in the two different punishments that were given by G-d to those who participated in Korah’s rebellion.  Korah, Dathan and Abiram received a very “earthy” punishment.  They literally were swallowed up into the ground and “went down into the pit alive.”  Moses prayed for this miraculous punishment as it best fit their crime, for according to the midrash all three of these men desired earthly positions of prominence and leadership.  They really were not interested in spiritually growing closer to G-d as much as they desired to have power and control over Israel.  Korah wanted to be High Priest and spiritual leader of the people, while Dathan and Abiram wanted to usurp Moses and Aaron’s leadership positions and set themselves up as political leaders. [3]

This is why Dathan and Abiram didn’t participate in the incense offering with the 250 followers.  As soon as Moses announced the test of burning incense, the two of them walked back to their tents.  In their opinion it was ridiculous to risk their lives for a possible “spiritual high” they were not even interested in.  When Moses desired to talk to Dathan and Abiram personally they refused to “come up” to him even if he might “gouge out their eyes” for refusing to do so. 

The actual Hebrew word to “come up” (naaleh) can also allude to ascending in rank or importance.  To “gouge out ones eyes” could allude to a bribe which in scripture is likened to blindness (Deuteronomy 16:19).  Therefore, Dathan and Abiram perhaps were suggesting that even if Moses was to bribe (blind) them with positions of importance they would refuse to “come up” or ascend in this way.  Some commentators understand in this that Dathan and Abiram were actually giving a subtle hint to Moses that this was exactly what they wanted.  If Moses would offer to bribe them with positions of leadership, they would indeed side with him. [4]

The opposite extreme is seen in the punishment of the 250 followers that involved fire from heaven which consumed all of them.  This punishment was identical to that of Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu in offering unbidden fire during the dedication of the Tabernacle (Leviticus 8).  Unlike Korah, Dathan and Abiram whose focus was on earthly extremes, the 250 sought what was purely heavenly and thereby focused on spiritual extremes.  Like Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu they had a misplaced zeal that yearned for G-d in a way that was unrestrained and that completely disregarded the importance of their own physical existence in order to be truly sanctified and holy.  The test of the fire censors was taken at the risk of the death penalty, for a non-kohen who offered incense was liable to death.  This was a suicide test that the 250 were willing to take in order to have the spiritual experience of presenting incense as a priest would.

But perhaps the most somber outcome of a disagreement that is not for the sake of Heaven is the fact that a majority can be deceived by the false understandings that result from it.  When Korah and the 250 came with fire censers in hand on that fateful day, the entire assembly of Israel joined with them at the Tent of Meeting.  There was an air of excitement and anticipation as the people waited to see if G-d would restore the priesthood to the firstborn.  No one voiced a complaint against Korah and because of this G-d accused the people of rebellion and threatened to destroy them.

As Moses instructed the people to move away from the tents of those who were about to be destroyed he emphasized the fact that the three men were “wicked” (v.26). The Ohr HaChaim (a classic 18^th century commentary on Torah) understands this description to be a vital component in turning away from an untruth, especially one embraced by a majority. To simply instruct the people to run away in order to spare their lives would be to miss the point of the entire scenario.

As a matter of fact, at this point Moses had not yet announced the horrible fate of being swallowed up in the earth that awaited these men.  It wasn’t as if the ground was beginning to break apart and open up and the people were running away out of fear. The tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram were very much in-tact. Dathan and Abiram themselves stood at the entrance of their tents, along with their families, seemingly to display their confidence that the destruction Moses was predicting was a fallacy. 

Through Moses instructions the people moved away not based on what they saw but based on what they understood.  They moved away not out of fear for their lives per se, but out of a desire to consciously turn from that which was evil and contrary to G-d’s will.  Certainly as they fled from the tents of the three ring-leaders they inevitably saved their own lives.  But ultimately, on a deeper level, they internalized a repulsion for evil as they walked away from the majority opinion regarding a very touchy subject when the issues at hand were clearly understood to be in serious error. [5] 

 

[1]  Rabbi Moshe Weismann, The Midrash Says (Bamidbar), p. 210

[2]  Ibid. p. 208

[3]  Ibid. p. 209-210

[4]  The Jewish Eye; Parashas Korach, available at:   http://www.thejewisheye.com/rev_pkorach.html

[5] The Ohr HaChaim as cited in, Korach’s Quake, available at:   http://www.tfdixie.com/parshat/korach/001.htm