Balak (Part 3) - Numbers 22:2-25:9

Who wrote the tale of Balaam?

The tale of Balaam, which goes across 3 chapter, and for 93 verses, is one of the longest story arcs to include a non-Israelite protagonist in a major role other than Pharaoh.

But who wrote it?

Moses was nowhere to be found in the story, and there were conversations and dealings that were taking place that are not referenced in any other text that mentions Balaam. It is as if the other books were aware that someone named Balaam was involved with the Moabites, and that it didn't turn out well for them, but that's it.

In fact, some of the other mentions of Balaam say things that we don't find in our narrative, such as "Yahweh would not listen to Balaam", and "God turned [Bilaam's] curse into a blessing".

So there was a general idea of someone who had a connection with Yahweh, and that he was hired to curse Israel, but Yahweh wouldn't listen, and He turned the curse into a blessing instead.

But that's not our Balaam story.

Let's look at those other 9 verses, that are outside of the main story, which talk about Balaam:

Numbers 31:8 - And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them who were slain; that is, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian; Balaam, the son of Beor, they also slew with the sword.

It should be noted that at the beginning of the story (22:4-7), we are introduced to the elders of Midian (and of Moab), who were apparently diviners since they carried their divining object back with them as they left Moab. and no "king of Midian" were even mentioned, never mind five kings.

And at the end of the story (24:14), Balaam tells Balak that he is returning back to his people, and gives the blessing, and then he leaves the presence of the king to "return to his place" (24:25).

So in Numbers 31, when Israel attacks Moab, there were no kings of Midian, and there certainly was no Balaam to be found. Putting aside his powers of prophecy, it was common sense for him to be as far away from the disappointed king as possible! This is something that Moses did not seem to be aware of, nor the writer of these other verses.

Numbers 31:16 - Behold, these caused the people of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

 Nowhere in the Balaam story can you find Balaam telling the king to send sexy women into the Israelite camp, nor telling the king to seduce the Israelites into worshiping Baal Peor. Nor are any other Gods even mentioned.

As for Baal Peor:

Deuteronomy 23:5 - Because [the Midianites] met you not with bread and with water in the way, when you came out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.

An area that maybe had several thousand people, and the people saw several million people coming towards them, and the Moabites were afraid because these millions had just conquered the Ammomites. The idea that they weren't giving up their food and water to the approaching invaders is a strange complaint to make, never mind that there was not enough food and water to satisfy the Israelites. It's a justification.

As for hiring Balaam, we read in two places where he tells the king's men (22:18), and, later (24:13), the king, that it doesn't matter how much silver and gold they give him, whatever Yahweh wants, Balaam is not going to go against His desires. And this frustrated king Balak to no end!

Did the king actually hire Balaam?

We read (22:16-17) that the king asked Balaam to come, promising to honor him and that he would follow Balaam's instructions. The king never offers money, and none is mentioned with the exception that Balaam tells the king that gold and silver isn't going to change the outcome.

So "summoned" seems more suitable than "hired".

Deuteronomy 23:6 - Nevertheless, your Yahweh-Elohim would not listen to Balaam; but your Yahweh-Elohim turned the curse into a blessing to you, because your Yahweh-Elohim loved you.

Where in the Balaam story does it say that Yahweh would not listen to Balaam? It says (23:4-5) that Balaam prepared and waited for Yahweh, who then put an "utterance" in the mouth of Balaam, who simply repeated it. At no point does it say that Balaam planned to curse, only that he was waiting on Yahweh (23:3) to tell Balaam what to do.

Yes, a curse was what Balak had in mind, but it was not what Balaam intended, who simply wanted to find out what Yahweh wanted, and speak that.

Joshua 13:22 - Also Balaam, the son of Beor, the sorcerer, did the people of Israel slay with the sword among those who were slain by them.

As already noted, how they got to slay him when he went back to his own people, whoever they were, is unknown. Also, the Hebrew word kosem (קוסם) is an odd title to give a man whose life seemed about listening and serving Yahweh. It's a belittling title when compared to Moses.

Joshua 24:9 - Then Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and fought against Israel, and sent and called Balaam the son of Beor to curse you;

This isn't the story at all. Moab didn't rise up to fight Israel, and then sent for Balaam. In fact, they fought only after the event with the pretty ladies, and then blamed Moab because the Israelites were cavorting with them.

But at least he doesn't use the term "hired".

Joshua 24:10 - But I (Yahweh) would not listen to Balaam; therefore he blessed you; so I saved you from his hand.

As already noted, there is nothing in the story which says that Yahweh wouldn't listen to Balaam. In fact, it says that Balaam sought only to listen and await instructions from Yahweh.

Micah 6:5 - O my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab planned, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from Shittim to Gilgal; that you may know the righteousness of Yahweh.

This one actually gets it right.

 Nechemia 13:2 - Because they did not meet the people of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them; but our God turned the curse into a blessing.

This is a repeat of Deuteronomy 23:5 (above) with only a few variants, and, like that other verse, it doesn't reflect the story in Numbers 22-24.

Summary

The story of Balaam and Balak is an interesting story that none of the other books (with perhaps Micah) were aware of. Even the later chapter of the Book of Numbers gets it wrong.

So that leaves the question: Who wrote the story of Balaam?

It is quite possible that there was some folklore about a magician hired by the hated Moabites, and even he couldn't fight Yaheweh, and the Moabites lost. And perhaps this tale grew and grew and the result was inserted into the Book of Numbers, to become chapters 22-24.

It is apparent that the people who wrote the rest of the Book of Numbers were not aware of the details of the longer version of the story, nor were most of the other authors of the other books.

And even if Moses did exist, there is no way that he would have known the details (excluding "God told him about it"), and then get them wrong a few chapters later when relating what little he did know to the Israelites.

It's something that is interesting to ponder.

Balak (Part 2) - Numbers 22:2-25:9

Could it be...Satan?!

Satan is an interesting word for an interesting character.

Granted, there are times when the word is just an adjective (describing a thing) or a verb (describing an act). But there are other times where it is an object unto itself. This is especially true in later books, such as Samuel and Job, where he is obviously an agent of Yahweh, but seems to sometimes be like Puck in A Midsummer's Night Dream - servile, but with his own agenda.

In the Torah, the word שטן appears only 3 times - one time in the Book of Genesis, and two times in this week's Torah portion.

In Genesis 26:21, a well that people fought over is called Sitnah (the feminine form of "Satan") because two groups of people were accusing each other over it, claiming that the other had no right to it.

There is a tradition that the meaning of a word is often based on how it first appears in the Torah, and Satan, according to Jewish tradition, is known as the Enticer (or the etzer haRah, which literally means "evil inclination". Wanting to eat that pint of Ben & Jerry's, while dieting, is considered an expression of one's yetzer haRah). He is also known as the Accuser, based on the use of the name in Genesis and, as we will see, in Numbers. He is also called the "Angel of Death", meaning, that after one has been enticed, and accused and prosecuted before God, he sends you to Sheol, the land of the dead where the evil as well as the righteous reside after death. (Think of Sheol as akin to Hades.)

Oddly enough, the Book of Deuteronomy does not mention Satan at all, even though it is a later text, perhaps even later than Samuel and Job.

The two verses in Numbers

22:22 - And Yahweh's anger was kindled because [Balaam] went [with the princes of Moab]. And an angel (מלח) of Yahweh stood in [Balaam's] way l'satan lo (לשטן לו). And [Balaam] was riding upon his she-ass, and [Balaam's] two servants were with him.

22:32 - And an angel (מלח) of Yahweh said to [Balaam], why have you beaten your she-ass these three times? Behold I (אנכי) have come forth l'satan (לשטן), because your way is in opposition to me.

It appears that l'satan is in the piel (active verb) form in the same structure as "to speak" (l'dabair). And so we could read the first example as "An angel of Yahweh stood in [Balaam's] way to accuse him" or "...to contend with him". And the second expression is "...I have come forth to accuse/contend because...".

So it would appear that this is just a piel verb form and we can leave it at that. Right?

The Commentators

The Rambam (12th century), who is usually a rationalist, wrote that verses 21-35 were all part of a dream. After all, animals don't speak (and as for the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden, that entire episode was a metaphor and was not to be understood literally). From his point of view, nobody can see angels, and if there's a mention of them, then they were either symbolic, or part of a dream. As far as angels go, the Rambam was a monotheist and saw the term to refer to any expression, natural or supernatural, that God uses to get something done.

Ibn Ezra (11th century) who is also normally a rationalist and held many of the same views that the Rambam would form, commented on these verses, saying that the Angel of Yahweh was Satan, reading 22:32 as "Behold, I have come forth as Satan", meaning a supernatural adversary.

While it is not a bad way to read it, it is an oddity from someone such Ibn Ezra.

Joseph ben Eliezer, as 14th century Ibn Ezra commentator wrote about this anomaly, writing that while Ibn Ezra did comment that the angel was Satan, that Ibn Ezra also held the position that the Rambam would one day hold: that additional supernatural beings don't exist in reality and that the entire episode was a dream.

The verdict

One can read into this story a supernatural Adversary, and that the Accuser is also an Angel of Yahweh. The episode is about an adversarial relationship that formed between Balaam and Yahweh due to Balaam being willing to talk to the Moabite king.

And so, perhaps the episode was a dream, since that explanation makes the rationalists more comfortable.

And perhaps it wasn't.

The text isn't clear in either direction, and the use of "Angel of Yahweh" cannot easily be dismissed as a metaphor or a dream sequence every time that it is used.

Either way, it makes for a fun reading of the text.

Balak - Numbers 22:2-25:9

Preamble: The Problem with Parroting

After decades of listening to sermons and students, I now realize that most people don't learn or teach Scripture - they simply parrot it as they had it parroted to them.

I can go into any synagogue on any given Saturday, and pretty much tell you what parts of the Torah portion will be discussed, what parts will be avoided, and which famous commentator will be quoted, and which Midrash or Talmudic saying will be inserted.

On rare occasions I am wrong, but, for the most part, I am spot on.

For a long time now, there is a policy of sticking to traditional interpretations of the text. Granted, there are a refreshing number who don't, but they are the minority.

And that brings me to one of this week's major characters: Balaam.

I can count on most sermons next week mentioning him in some way, and it will be something negative. The Midrash that he had sex with his she-ass is pretty common for the adult audience (some will say "girlfriend"), or that she was smarter or more spiritually adept than he was, since she saw the angel first.

The main sources for speaking badly about Bilaam are The Neophyti and Pseudo-Jonathan Targums, Philo, and, of course, the Mishna and most of the Talmud. The writings of Josephus and Numbers Rabbah, which pulls him down are also negative texts to support a negative view.

But it wasn't always that way.

The Virtues of Balaam

There was a time when teachers and students extolled the virtues of that character.

Pseudo-Philo presents Balaam as a tragic hero. According to that author, Bilaam didn't hate the Israelites, wasn't interested in any money for his services, and wasn't all that interested in helping out King Balak except that, on the one hand, it seems to have been God's will, and, on the other, Balak deceived Balaam to bring him on-board. Once Balaam realizes he is caught in a web from which there was no escape, he plays his role as God's pawn.

Sifrei, which is a collection of Midrashim, not only speaks highly of Balaam, but puts him at a higher spiritual level than Moses! The additional abilities that Sifrei assigns to Balaam is to know when Yahweh spoke to him, and he had knowledge when this would happen, and he could speak with Yahweh even when lying down! This is repeated in Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 14:20.

The Talmud normally speaks badly about Balaam, but there is the occasional tidbit that seems to be in his favor. In one case, it is said that he was the only man in the world who could tell, at the exact moment, when Yahweh would lose His temper, momentarily, each day, and could give Him a command to wreak havoc on anyone of his choosing. That's a pretty awesome superpower! Although, to be honest, nowhere in Scripture does Balaam ever use this power.

Targum Onkelos is pretty even-handed with the text and occasionally softens it to give Balaam a more positive image, especially during his interaction with the she-ass, complaining about her mocking, rather than the more accurate, "you acted ruthlessly". Onkelos also inserted the word "prophecy" into the text, giving Balaam an ability that would put him on par with Moses. 

Avot d'Rabbi Natan (2:5) calls Balaam wicked, but he also wrote that Balaam was born circumcised, something that is often assigned to the greatest prophets, such as Moses (indicating that God performed the rite Himself).

Other Quotes

There never arose philosophers the likes of Balaam the son of Beor - (Eichah Rabbah Pesikta 2)

Balaam was the last of the prophets of the [gentile] nations. There was nothing in the world that [God] did not reveal to Balaam, who surpassed Moses in wisdom. - (Tanna d'Bei Eliyahu Rabbah 28)

He was of the family of Kemual, father of Aram. He spoke through ruach haKodesh (prophecy) - (Lekach Tov, Bamidbar 22:5)

Some say that he was, at first, a dream interpreter, then he became a sorcerer, and then he attained prophecy. - (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:77)

Seven prophets prophesied to the [gentile] nations of the word: Balaam and his father, [Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Barachel] - (Bava Batra 15b)

Balaam was greater than his father in prophecy; secrets that were hidden from the [other] prophets were revealed to [Balaam] - (Targum Yonaton, Bamidbar, 24:3)

What prophet did the [gentile] nations of the word have who was like Moses? Balaam. (Bamidbar Rabbah 14:20) 

 

 

 

Chukat (Part 2) - Numbers 19:1-22:1

An Abusive Relationship

In verses 21:5-9 we have the Hebrews complaining about the food and water, and Yahweh conjuring up fiery serpents to attack them. The text doesn't tell us how many were killed, but it does tell us that Moses had to make a copper snake that resembled a fiery serpent, mount it on a pole, and those who were attacked, if they looked at the copper snake, they would live.

End of story.

If this short story sounds a bit too familiar (the Hebrews want food, they whine a bit, and Yahweh attacks them), then you have been paying attention! This is a repeated theme in the Torah. It is repeated so much that one has to wonder: could all of these be the same story, but from different story tellers, with each one trying to outdo the other in the fantastic ways that God could kill?

As we read last week in 17:27-28, the Hebrews were waking up to the fact that Yahweh wasn't the cuddly kind of God that they were hoping for. The Targum expresses it very well:

But the Israelites said to Moses, "Behold! Some of us were killed by the sword (golden calf episode). Behold! Some of us were swallowed by the earth (Korach rebellion). And Behold! Some of us died in the death (plague for asking for meat). Everyone who approached, who approaches the Tabernacle of Yahweh dies! Indeed, we are all doomed to die!"

The word "love" only appears 24 times in the Torah, and most of those have to do with humans loving humans. When it comes to humans an God we have:

• Exodus 20:6 - God will destroy all who hate him, but will be merciful to those who love Him AND obey Him.
• Deuteronomy 5:10 repeats this.
• ibid 6:5 - You are commanded to love God with all your heart.
• ibid 7:7-9 God claims to have saved the people out of His love, and because of an oath. 
• ibid 7:13 - God will love you if you keep His commandments.
• ibid 10:12 - You must love and serve God.
• ibid 10:15 - God loved the patriarchs and their seed, and the Israelites He saved.
• ibid 11:1 - You must love God and obey Him.
• ibid 11:13 - You must love God with all your heart.
• ibid 11:22 - You must love God and walk in His ways.
• ibid 13:4 - God will send false prophets to test to see if you love Him.
• ibid 19:9 - You must love God and walk in His ways.
• ibid 30:6 - You must love God with all your heart.
• ibid 30:16 - You must love God, walk in His ways, and obey Him.
• ibid 30:20 - If you don't follow Him, you will die. If you chose to follow him, you will live so that you may love Him.

Of course, when I say God, the text says "Yahweh". "Elohim" is never referred to as wanting or giving love. And only the later book of Deuteronomy does the author indicate that Yahweh loves the Israelites. It's an odd book that often contradicts the other texts. A classic example is the first chapter retells the story of the spies and of Korah's rebellion, but the changes are so drastic that they appear to be completely different stories.

So, in total, there are 5 verses that speak of Yahweh loving, ans 12 verses where the Israelites are commanded to love God, obey Him, and walk in His ways with the oft-repeated threat that if you don't, He'll kill you.

And it is from there that we read of His attacks against the Israelites, and not for disobeying, but for being whiny, for the most part!

Look at these three examples which have striking similarities:

• Exodus 16:3-17 - Israelites complain about no food, reminisce about Egypt, God promises them food from the sky (manna), and then promises them meat (it's not mentioned later). The manna falls and they eat. Nobody gets killed.

• Numbers 11:4 -  Israelites complain about no food, reminisce about Egypt, and they hate manna. God sends them food from the sky (quail) which falls in mass quantities (11:31), and the people who eat it die from a plague (11:33). The number of people died is not mentioned, only that "Yahweh struck a very mighty blow against the people".

• Numbers 21:5 - Israelites complain about no food, reminisce about Egypt, and they hate the insubstantial bread. God sends fiery snakes and large numbers die. (21:6). A ritual and some begging by Moses is needed to get Yahweh to stop.

Each of these stories is about the people whining about the food. And the response is more and more intense, from God giving in, to killing people with plagued food, to supernatural serpents of fire. In the Book of Numbers, Yahweh isn't very loving, and in fact, the word "love" is not found anywhere in the book. And I am suggesting that all of these stories are really the same story, just told different ways with different views by the different storytellers.

Summary

We have the same gist of the story being related in different places. The people want decent food, and Yahweh, in Exodus, is OK with that, but in the Book of Numbers, any little complaint sets Him off!

In verse 21:7, the word התפלל (pray) appears, as a way to get Yahweh to stop killing.

And it should be noted that this word appears only 7 times in the Torah, and each time it is used, it is to beg Yahweh to cancel His desire to kill. It isn't to request food, but to survive.

This begging is to a Deity who demands complete obedience, servitude, and threatens anyone who leaves Him with death, and kills anyone who complains about the way things are.

It is only in the Book of Deuteronomy where a few sentences say that Yahweh loves His people, but only on condition that they obey and follow His ways.

It's a rather dysfunctional relationship, to say the least!

Chukat - Numbers 19:1-22:1

This weeks reading is titled "Chukat", as in "laws".

And the the first law given is the law of the parah adumah, or the "red heifer", and how it's magic is supposed to work.

According to the text, this creature had certain magical properties that, unfortunate for her, only became available by killing her and burning her corpse until nothing was left but ash. And it were these ashes that had special powers to do...well, nothing, actually. At least not in the sense of anything observably measurable.

Tamai and tahor

According to the Torah, a Hebrew person can become tamai (often translated as "impure") as well as tahor ("usually translated as "pure"). These were two metaphysical categories that, Rabbinically,  only applied to the Hebrews, and could not be seen or measured. For example, a Hebrew walking over the grave of another Hebrew would immediately become tamai. This view has been taken to the extreme where some zealous Jewish men will buy special "anti-tamai bags to sit inside of while in a plane, which might fly over a grave.

From this we learn several things:

1. Tamai can extend miles int the air, and perhaps beyond this planet.
2. Special plastic bags which can stop this unseen force are more powerful than the material of the plane.
3. The more zealous you are, the more gullible you probably are.

The actual story about this fellow is interesting to read in that he was obediently following his Rabbi's orders. You can read the story at this link.

The laws about the ashes of the red heifer are this: if someone was tamai ("impure"), and he or she then performed the appropriate rituals, and if these ashes were sprinkled upon the afflicted person, then the person would no longer be tamai, but would become tahor. On the other hand, if a person, such as the priest, was tahor when touching the ashes, then he would become tamai.

I explain this process as well as tahor and tamai in greater detail at this other post.

Logically, we can see this as a form of "the emperor has no clothes". You cannot measure if someone is tamai in most cases, and one can unknowingly be in this state. And furthermore, it is impossible to become tahor without this special ash, which is why Jews who believe that they are descended from Aaron, avoid graves because they can never be tahor again, and only a tahor priest, one who cannot be verified to be tahor, can slaughter and burn the red heifer, if and when it is ever found.

So you can see the quandary that these people are in.

Now if they can only find that special red heifer!

And here's the rub - they may never do so. And this is not because a biblically mandated baby cow that is red will never be born, but because one will not meet the definition of a parah adumah as defined in halacah, Rabbinical definitions of the law.

Remember, the Rabbis who made up all of the descriptions and rules and the minutia about the red heifer never saw one themselves.

They might have seen a biblically acceptable one, but they wouldn't have known that.

How could this happen?

It's because of how halachah works within "Torah observant" Judaism.

To understand this, I want to also explain two other halachically affected commandments.

Ritual Circumcision

It is important that you know that the form of ritual circumcision done today, that which is halachically accepted, is only about 1900 years old. (I explain all about the in this other post). Prior to that, the crown, or edge, of the foreskin was cut away, leaving most of the foreskin and all of the glands and membranes beneath it intact. This was referred to as brit milah. The later form that was instituted by the Rabbis is brit periah, and the entire foreskin is removed and the glands/membrane beneath it is scraped away. People incorrectly refer to this replacement form as brit milah, but it isn;t. Even so, this is the only halachically permissible form of circumcision permitted. Anything else is not considered "kosher", or "fit".

Etrogs

In the celebration of Sukkot (aka "Festival of the Booths"), one is required to acquire and shake a fruit that is hadar, meaning, beautiful. Today, the only halachically permissible fruit is the etrog, which is not native to the land of Israel! In the context of the Torah commandment, it appears that it is supposed to be a fruit from the land where the Jews were to reside. But is wasn't until the Roman occupiers brought etrog trees from their homeland to Israel, perhaps to use the fruit as offerings to their Gods, that this fruit became available. The Rabbis, for some reason, love this fruit and declared it is the fruit that the Torah commanded the Jews to shake on the holiday, even though these fruits were unknown during the time of the writings.

Red Heifers

And this brings us to red heifers. 

As you can see, it doesn't matter what the writers of Scripture were thinking when they wrote about a red heifer. To the "Torah observant" Jew, what matters is what the later Rabbinical leadership declared as being the correct view, the halachic view. It is forbidden for such people to step outside of halachah when it comes to these this things. There are many books, full of minutia, on what is a kosher brit and what is a kosher etrog. And, of course, what is a kosher para adumah. And it doesn't matter if the Rabbis were right, because they cannot be wrong.

And that brings us to the problem of the red heifer. Do a search on YouTube and you will see people proclaiming that the found one, year after year. And they often have a Rabbi with a magnifying glass inspecting every single hair. What they don't show you is that the Rabbi will look up and shake his head, "no".

Rabbinically, there cannot be a single spot of non-red on the heifer.There cannot be a spot where hair is missing. No blemish of any kind. If a single hair is not red, the entire cow is not kosher. And this is just the beginning!

No farmer is likely to ever produce a calf that will meet the criteria of the Rabbis, one that is perfectly red from the tip of her nose to the tips of her hoofs. One Christian in the USA had been cross-breeding Red Angus cows specifically for that purpose, and every time a representative from the Temple Institute in Jerusalem, a group committed to recreating the objects needed to create a Third Temple, travels to inspect the latest claim, he returns home disappointed.

Now one way to force it to work is to lower the standards of the Rabbis, as the Temple Institute did when it commissioned a "pure" gold menorah to be built, just as the Torah describes it. 

A menorah for a non-existing Temple is one thing, but to create ashes that would completely change halacha is something else, and it is unlikely that the Rabbis will ever lower the bar on that one. One such suggestion was, "The Ancient people, when they wrote "red" also meant "brown" as well!" But the Rabbis aren't going with that one.

And it doesn't matter, because the halachah has already been written. Just as bee-honey is kosher because, even though a bee is not kosher, the Rabbis erred in saying that the honey was produced from outside of the bee, and nothing from the inside of the be was introduced. Even though this is an error, the halachah stands. It is permitted to kill kinim (head lice) on the Sabbath only because the ancient sages ruled that since that were not born from eggs, but spontaneously were created from the air, that killing them was allowed. And even though they were incorrect, the halachah stands.

Summary

There can never be a Third Temple without a red heifer. And based on how the Rabbis transformed their requirements to be greater than the Scriptural requirements, there should be nothing to worry about - the bar for the perfect red heifer was raised extremely high a long time ago. And the inability to create the perfect red female calf is a reflection of most laws of the Torah that were rewritten by the leadership a long time ago.

And besides, to create a cure for something that cannot be objectively measured is a bit odd. And because it makes no sense, it is called a "chok", a law that only God understands, and because it is not understood, the claim follows that this is evidence that it must have come from God.

Korach (Part 4) - Numbers 16:1-18:32

We Need to Talk about Reuben

When you study ancient folklore, you start to see patterns emerge, and one of these patters are political alliances. If you are friendly with another group, you create a story about how, a long time ago, each of your ancestors were good friends. And if you were unfriendly with another group, you would create a story about how the other's ancient ancestor was a jerk, or was born of a bad seed, or something like that. And if you once had a bad relationship with a group and it improved (or the other way around), you created new stories that showed a new status.

One of these examples is the kingdom of Moab. Using a play on words, the ancient Israelites told a story how "Moab" means "from daddy", but not from God, but from a human incestuous act between Lot and his daughter. And later, God forbids the Israelites from having any relationship with a Moabite with a caricature of the people as uncaring and selfish. And yet, centuries later, that relationship changed and Moabites became acceptable to marry, as in the Book of Ruth.

This brings us to this week's Torah portion and the Reubenites attempted coup against the existing priesthood (Aaron) and ruler (Moses).

In verse 16:1 we read:

"...Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth the sons of Reuben..."

There are problems with this verse, of course. Eliab was not a descendant of Reuben, but of Zebulun, and so this is read as Dathan, Abiram, and On were all from the tribe of Reuben. This implies a cooperative relationship between the Mediterranean seafaring group, Zebulun, and the Dead Sea group, Reuben. Although, clearly, Reuben was the most represented, and so the focus of this story.

Now, what does the Book of Genesis tell us about Reuben?

Who was Reuben?

First, there are two possible reasons for the name, depending on which story you are reading. One is that it means "God has seen my misery" (named by his mother, Leah, who was not the favorite), or "he will love me", where "he" is her husband, Israel.

In other words, a positive and a negative view.

As the status of the first-born, Reuben should have been the leader of the other tribes. And yet, after Israel's favorite wife dies (Genesis 35:19), Reuben takes Bilhah as his own to his bed (Genesis 35:22). Israel hears of it, and does nothing. End of story.

The next story is when Reuben, with his brothers are in Dothan (which is spelled the same as Dathan in the coup story) decide to get rid of Joseph. Reuben stops them from shedding blood, but recommends a different strategy - to put him in a position where he will be without food and water and would die from "natural causes". It is interesting to note that Judah is not in this story, which is part of the historical problem of Judah not being part of the original tribes.

And yet, later in the story, we read of a different Reuben, not the one who determined that it would be better to cause the death of Joseph through starvation and thirst, but one who tried to stop them entirely, the good guy! (Genesis 42:22)

And continuing on as the hero, Reuben tells Israel that he will go save his favorite, Benjamin, and if he fails, Israel can kill the sons of Reuben. If you take this story at face value, telling a grandfather that he could go kill his grandsons if his eldest son doesn't save the youngest is odd at best!

The last story of importance is the blessing that Israel gives to Reuben, which is really a warning about the future. In Genesis 49:3, Israel praises Reuben as being the firstborn, of being Israel's strength, and the first of his vigor. But in the next verse, he gives a warning:

"Haste like water, do not exceed. For you went up your father's bed, then you defiled. My couch, you went up."

"Haste like water" has been generally interpreted as "You are reckless", he exceeded his boundaries, took what wasn't his, defiling for his self-gratification.

A Bit of Folklore

The Genesis story of Reuben paints two different characters, which is likely from the changing relationship between that tribe, and Israel. According to the later portion of the Joseph story, Reuben was the strong leader who tried to stop the other tribes from attacking Joseph, but was willing to sacrifice his own holdings in order to save the tribe of Benjamin.

It is interesting to note that there was a point where the tribe of Benjamin was nearly wiped out (See the Book of Judges, chapters 19-21) because one from that tribe raped a concubine from a Levite and collective punishment ensued. Perhaps that story in Genesis is referring to that period. After all, just as it is Judah who saves Benjamin in the end, Benjamin is eventually absorbed into the tribe of Judah.

The folklore reflects the views of the time. And as relationships change, so do the stories.

In another version of Reuben, which is carried through in the Book of Numbers, Reuben was the ambitious one, who sought to put himself as equal to the leadership of all the tribes by taking Bilhah ("unworried"), and his act was not opposed until Israel at the end said, "you are overreaching".

And in the Book of Numbers, the sons of Reuben (descendants) are reaching out to take control of the priesthood and the leadership, and would be stopped by God, and would have lost many in this final confrontation, only to recede to the background, letting the tribe of Levi retain it's religious power, and, later, Benjamin, then Judah, to retain the governing power.

Summary

The story of the rebellion of the sons of Reuben is related to the story of Reuben in the book of Genesis. They all have the same thing in common: they are folklore created to speak positively or negatively about a relationship between the storyteller speaking for Israel, and the collective who is either friendly or has antipathy towards the nation as a whole.

The Torah isn't history. It's a collection of stories reflecting the views of the storytellers of their day, telling them over an evening campfire, where they would be remembered, embellished, and eventually be written down centuries later by those who felt that these stories should be remembered.

Korach (Part 3) - Numbers 16:1-18:32

Fun With Anthropomorphisms

This week's Torah portion has a lot of expressions for Yahweh that seems to make Him more like one of the guys, than a supposed "resides outside of time and space" kind of God, which, admittedly, is a concept foreign to the writers of the Torah.

There is an overused expression that responds to such things: "The Torah was written in the language of man", meaning, "It doesn't mean that literally!"

Of course, the Targum Onkelos, the Aramaic interpretation of the text is also written in the language of men, but it worked hard to remove as many anthropomorphisms as possible. And it was by comparing that text to the Torah, I was able to see what bothered the Targumist, and thus, create this list.

It's not so much that "The Torah was written in the language of men" as much as "The primitive people of ages long past imagined a God with a form, and expressed this in their stories and songs. The fact that we have become more sophisticated in our choice of Gods doesn't change the text."

Many of the verses cited below are often badly translated, depending on the translation that you are using. So I have translated them for you.

So let's get started!

Korach (Part 2) - Numbers 16:1-18:32

Where's Korach?

As I noted in last week's Torah portion, the story of the spies in Numbers and Deuteronomy have a lot of differences, so much so that they appear to be two completely different stories with only a few core ideas shared between them.

Korach and his sons are mentioned in passing in 2 verses in Exodus (6:21,24).

In the Book of Numbers, Korach is mentioned 9 times in chapter 16, where he is killed, 2 times in chapter 17 as a warning reference, and a reminder that 17,500 men were killed because of him and his company.

Then there are 3 times in chapter 26, two of which mention the company of Korach and their fate, and one that says that the sons of Korach did not die, even though 16:27 says that Korach stood with his wives and children in front of their tents, and 16:32 says that the men and all that was theirs went into the pit.

There are lots of apologetics to explain how and why the sons of Korach survived.

Finally, chapter 27 has one mention of Korach's company when comparing him to someone who did not rebel against Yahweh.

And that's it.

Korach is never mentioned again in the Torah.

And remember, Deuteronomy, the first chapter, recounts the events of the spies, and chapter 6 speaks of the rebellion, and names the same men as those in Numbers 16:1, Dathan and Abiram.

But there's no mention of Korach.

It's as if the writer of Deuteronomy was not aware of the Levite, Korach, as being part of the rebellion at all.

The "sons of Korach" were later added as superscriptions (the first line) of 11 different Psalms, but no mention of them or their father was part of the original text.

There are 3 verses in Chronicles that mention Korach and his sons (misspelling one of their names, which is typical of Chronicles), but no reference to any rebellion.

So it appears that this rebellion was restricted to the 4 chapters in the Book of Numbers, and that no reference to it appears anywhere else.

And that should strike everyone as being quite odd. And the possibility that the story about Korach as being one of the last stories added should be considered.

I want to end this with a Jewish legend about what happened afterwards (Talmud, Sanhedrin 110a):

Rabbah bar bar Chanah (3rd century, CE) said, "Once, I was going on my way, a Bedouin said to me, "Come, I wll show you the place where Korach's company was swallowed up in the desert." I went and saw two holes from which smoke was rising. He soaked woolen fleeces in water, put them at the tip of his spear, and passed them over the holes. They were singed. "Listen!", he said to me. "What do you hear?" I heard them saying, "Moses and his Torah are true, and we are liars." [The Bedouin] said to me, "Every thirty days, Gehinnom turns them like meat roasting in a pot and they say, "Moses and his Torah is true, and we are liars!"

(Added note: Gehinnom is not in the Torah, and is a Rabbinical invention. The Torah text speaks of Sheol, which is more like Hades than Purgatory. Although, the Rabbis, affected by Christianity, slowly evolved Gehinnom to be something akin to Hell when it suited their purposes.)

Korach - Numbers 16:1-18:32

In this post, I will be focusing on some of the spelling and grammatical issues of the Torah portion.

But first, I want to explain my use of the term "Masorites".

Masorites

Mesorah is the Hebrew word for "tradition", and so, those in the second half of the first century CE who established, traditionally, what collections/"books" should be included in the Tanach (Old Testament) with edits that seem to differ from the Septuagint (LXX) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) on occasion. They also established the traditional pronunciations and vowel points were invented to maintain these traditional ways of pronouncing the words in the text.

Here is an example of how different the DSS, MT, and LXX texts can get (click on the image to enlarge):

As you can see, the so-called "word of God" is quite fluid!

There was also another group prior to that, about 2,400 years ago, that I sometimes refer to as "Masorites" as well, and that tends to confuse people. These were the folks who took the oral folklore and gave it a written form, and in doing so, decided what texts would compose a particular book, and what order the texts would appear in the book. There are many books that they assembled that the later Masorites rejected. There is a term, "Men of the Great Assembly", who appear in Jewish legends to have been doing similar work at that time, but the legends surrounding them are unlikely to be historically accurate, and so I hesitate to use that term.

So in order to make things a bit more clear, I will be using "pre-Masorites" when speaking of the BCE group, and the "Masorites" when speaking of the CE group.

So let's look at the texts:

Shelach (Part 2) - Nimbers 13:1-15:41

Since this week;s Torah portion (verses 15:38-39) speaks of tzitzit (ritual fringes that religious men Jewish men often wear), I though that it would be fun to explain what they are and the man misconceptions about them.

What's a tzitz?

In Exodus 28:36-38 we read about a headgear worn by the High priest. It will contain a thread of techelet (a color), and be put on the front portion of gold of his headdress, where it would always be seen by Aaron as it was before his eyes.

Most commentators interpret tzitz (ציץ) as a "protrusion" or "extension", and some as the plate of pure gold rather than a protrusion from the plate. But the use of having it connected to a thread of techelet where it could be seen by the people is similar to the description of tzitzit (ציצית).

And just as there are multiple interpretations as to the design of the menorah, so too are there multiple interpretations concerning this tzitz.

Here is one created by the Temple Institute in Jerusalem, which is committed to making "perfect" recreations of things required for Temple practices in preparation for the building of the Third Temple (which is unlikely to ever happen).

Other than the metal and the words on it, the rest of it is just artistic fantasy. It also seems to be missing the all-important techelet.

In any case, there is a narrative and implied connection between tzitz and tzitzit, and because of this, it is generally understood to be an extension of the corners of one's garments.

But Scripture does not describe what they are. So how do we get from "extension" to "8 strings with 5 knots"?

In order to explain that, I need to explain a bit about gematria and dismiss a common trope: that the Torah has 613 commandments (mitzvot).

613 Commandments?

At some point in history, the ancient Rabbis came up with an arbitrary number of commandments in the Torah: 613. They got to this number through gematria, which is the process of adding up the numerical value of each Hebrew letter that makes up a Hebrew word. In this case, the letters that compose the word "Torah", or (ת ו ר ה – T + O + R + H) each of which has a value (T=400, O=6, R=200, and H=5) which came up to 611. And for some reason, 2 was added, and there is some conjecture as to why. According to the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Makkot, 23b), two more were added to include a belief in a God, and a lack of belief in other Gods. Another thought that I have heard is that it was to include the concept of a written and an oral Torah.

A lot of these commandments are redundant, such as the positive commandment to only serve Yahweh, and the negative commandment to not serve other Gods. Other commandments that were generic were broken into individual components to be more specific. So while the commandment to not covet your neighbors property (wife, male slaves, female slaves, oxen) should only be one, it was expanded to be listed as 4 separate ones.

Also, not all of these commandments can be performed. Some are for men, some for women, some for priests, and so forth. And because of the elimination of a Temple, a functional priesthood, slavery, and religiously imposed capital or corporal punishments, that number is actually very small, and it varies depending on the source, but one could use 200 as a decent round number.

What you may not know is that there are multiple lists of 613 commandments by different Rabbinical leaders and none of them contain the same 613. This number was not arrived at by looking for commandments and then counting them, but having a number and forcing it to be 613.

For example, Rav Shimon Kaira (author of the Bahag, of the 8^th century) had his list, and did not include the belief in a God as a commandment. Later, the Rambam (Maimonides, 12^th century) was uncomfortable with that list and wrote his own, and added that YHVH demands that you believe in him by saying “I am YHVH”, and made that #1 on his list in his book Sefer HaMitzvot.

Tzitzit Design

Because of the gematria of tzitzit is 600, and because the Rabbis wanted to impose a "613" value upon them, the tzitzit people wear has 8 strings and 5 knots.

None of this is in the Torah, and all of this is an imposition of the number "613", which was imposed to force a gematria value where none existed in the text.

Now, there have been arguments over this. Joseph Ibn Kaspi, connecting tzitzit to tzitz wrote that this refers to the 4-cornered headscarf that Jewish men wore, that they wrapped around their head for protection against the sun (as many Arabs do today), and the fringes were to dangle in front of the face. Most commentators saw it as a form of beautification of the garment that covered the body. The early Karites saw this command to put these on garments to adorn the wall, so that you would see them. 

And different people have different styles of knot-typing. The Chassidic style is different than the typical Ashkenazi style, for example. 

And that brings us to techelet

What is Techelet?

Techelet is a color. But nobody is 100% certain what that color is. The word is often translated to "turquoise" for lack of a better description.

According to Rashi, the color was extracted from a now-extinct mollusk or snail and was the palest of green, like the end of a leek, or the color of one's skin who is nauseous. While others accept the type of animal this came from, they prefer a deep blue. Others combine these ideas and have a blue-green. And then you have purple.

Nobody knows for sure what the color was. At the techelet museum in Israel, there are over a dozen different colors on display, each of which has its fans that call it "techelet". And because of that, the Rabbis rules that no color was to be added. But by doing that, they rendered the commandment moot, since techelet is part of the commandment, and so it was decreed that it is praiseworthy to wear white fringes as a "memory of the commandment". In recent years, however, some people have gotten to having a colored string be included, with each person becoming a fan of a specific color.

From light green (an unpopular color) to Mediterranean Blue and beyond, folks are doing this because they believe that this is what God wants them to do, even though they aren't sure if they have the right color, knots, design, or if tzitzit is something else. Some wear them but tuck them in their pants. Some wear a square cloth on the outside of the clothing. Some under the clothing. One fellow who is well known to those who visit the Western Wall wears many squares of cloth and is referred to some as the "Tzitzit man".

Summary

So the commandment to wear tzitzit is still carried out today by religious Jewish men (women used to wear them at one time, but the later Rabbis changed the rules) even though they don't know what they were, how they looked, or what color their string was and even though they don't normally wear a garment with corners. And many will kiss them during prayer:

And that's how it goes when you want to obey God's perfect word!

Shelach - Numbers 13:1-15:41

Preface

This week, we read about the spies checking out the land and coming back and their report. This is such a pivotal event that Jews have a yearly fast that commemorates that disaster (among others).

And yet, unless you have been trained to see it otherwise, there is not a single "spy vs spy" story, but two of them, written by different authors at different times and, most likely, for different audiences.

If you compare the story in Numbers 13:1-14:2 with the version in Deuteronomy 1:22-42, you will plainly see that while there are key points that they agree upon, the differences are so great that they are, for the most part, two completely different stories.

And that bothers the fans of these stories. It bothers them a lot.

If you read the classic commentators, such as Rashi, the Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and others, it sounds like an argument in a bar, "That's can't be right? You're just making it worse. Let me tell you how to reconcile this. No, that makes no sense at all!"

So here's a quick overview of the Numbers the Deuteronomy versions so you can see for yourself.

Comparisons

Num 13:1 - Yahweh tells Moses to send spies.
Deut 1:22 - The people tell Moses to send spies.

Num 13:4-15 - Lists the heads of the children of Israel who were selected. None are from Levi.
Deut 1:23 - Doesn't list who went. Says the heads of every tribe.

Num 13:17-20 - Moses gives them instructions.
Deut - Moses doesn't give instructions.

Num 13:22 - The spies arrived at Chevron where they saw giants, sons of giants, and named them.
Deut - No mention of Chevron nor of the giants (!?)

Num 13:23 - They arrive as Eschol ("cluster") and collect gigantic fruit. It was so big that it took two men to carry a single cluster of grapes.
Deut 1:24-25 - They arrive at Eschol ("cluster") and took some fruit to take back. Nothing unusual.

Num 13:26-27 - They return, show the fruit and say the land flows with milk and honey.
Deut 1:25 - No mention of the fruit, and they all said that the land was good.

Num 13:28-29 - The spies also warned of the giants and of all of the other enemies waiting.
Deut - The spies did nothing of the sort, but only said, "the land is good". 1:28 might be referring to the spies, or might not.

Num 13:30 - Caleb jumps in and tries to rally the people. "We can do this!"
Deut - Caleb is never mentioned saying this. In fact, all of the spies only spoke good of the place.

Num 13:31-33 - The other spies counter Caleb, reminding him of the giants, the Nefillim, all of whom were so gigantic, that the spies were like grasshoppers in comparison.
Deut 1:28 - This exchange never happens. There is a reference to giants and cities of giants later on (such cities are not mentioned in Numbers).

Num 14:1-5 - The people cry out from the news and decide to fire Moses and Aaron (who silently fall on their faces and say nothing).
Deut 1:29-33 - Moses never falls on his face and goes on a long tirade to try to convince the people that they should change their minds.

Num 14:6-9 - Joshua and Caleb (not Moses, see previous) go on a tirade to try to convince the people to change their minds.
Deut - Joshua and Caleb aren't mentioned as having this discussion.

Num 14:10 - The people are fed up with Joshua and Caleb and want to stone them. The "Glory of Yahweh" appears and intervenes.
Deut 1:25 - No mention of the people wanting to stone them, but Yahweh heard them and got angry.

Num 14:37 - Yahweh kills 10 of the spies, the ones who gave a bad report.
Deut - There was no mention of bad spies, nor of Yahweh killing them.

Summation

As you can see, some of the basic points are the same, but many of them are not. 

The author(s) oof Deuteronomy wanted Moses to be the strong leader who did his best, and not the Numbers version where he is incompetent, falls on his face, needs other people to speak on his behalf, and so on.

Like the two stories that tell how Israel got his name, this story also has a similar problem with enough variation to cause the critical reader to see that these are talking about a general even that both knew about, but some of the significant details, such as a city of giants that stretched to the firmament, and giants so tall that the spies were like grasshoppers in comparison, and the giant fruit. Some of the most dramatic imagery in one is missing in the other.

Another significant point is the version which names the sons of the giant. It is a small detail that likely indicates that the audience of the time would have recognized them. Perhaps they were characters in other stories long lost.

In any case, the story of the spies is another example of two versions of the same story being told, but with enough significant changes as to make them unique unto themselves.

Beha'alotkha (Part 3) - Numbers 8:1-12:16

The Singing Nuns

Unless you look in the Hebrew page of the text, you would never notice something (which I have circled in red) quite odd that is found in this week's Torah portion.

Traditionally, these pair of letters "nun" are used as brackets on either side of a single sentence. This sentence is considered so important that it is sung by the congregation every time the cabinet (aron) is opened and the Torah scroll is taken out.

It is a verse that is so important that the Talmud declares that if the verse wasn't so  short, that it should be a book unto itself, and according to one opinion, there are SEVEN books of Moses because of that, not just five.

The letter nun looks like a bracket (נ) and some scribes and publishers will actually invert the second nun so it appears more like a bracketing than two letters standing apart. Here is the same text, but me using actual brackets.

The bracketing of this line is a tradition from the current period (CE) and it not, as far as we can tell, from some ancient original. It is possible that a scribe was writing it and went, "Hmmm, this looks interesting. Let me highlight this!" And the tradition was started.

And yet, you have people who see every letter in the Torah as having some special significance, and will use gematria and other odd interpretations to see secret messages from God.

If you want to read how crazy it can get, check out this explanation by one who believes in such things.

But what is this special sentence?

As I said, religious Jews will sing this to the Torah every time it is removed.

"And it would happen that when the ark would travel, and Moses would say, "Rise, Yahweh! Scatter Your enemies! And let those who hate You flee from before You." And when [the ark] rested, [Moses] would say, "Return Yahweh! [Back to the] myriads [of] thousands of [the people of] Israel!" (Numbers 10:35-36)

Remember that, depending on the verse, Yahweh resided above, upon, or within the ark. It depended upon the view of the specific author. It appears that this one has Yahweh within it, and like a magic genie, he is commanded to rise up from His resting place, attack the enemies, and when the deed is done, He is commanded to return to his resting place.

In fact, the entire story seems to describe Yahweh as a sort of magic Genie who will obey those who own His magic box. Sort of like:

And so, when Jews are singing this to the resting place of the Torah while it is being opened up, and it is picked up (rises up) and is brought forth, it is treated with special sanctity. People will reach out and touch it's special garments or crown, and will kiss it. People will stand when it rises up to be in their presence. And when someone stands before it, he is required to bow down before it ("Baruch" - bend knees, "Atah" - bow, "Adonai" - stand erect...). And after it is read, it is dressed once more (unless it is in an ornate carrier, in which case no dressing is needed), crowned, and lifted up for all to point at and declare, "THIS is the Torah that Moses placed before the children of Israel...". They sing to it as it returns to its resting place, and the cabinet is closed, and it is then that people may sit. (Some variances occur depending on tradition).

In other words, the traditions have evolved to the point where the book is almost equal to God. Because when God isn't showing up like the Book claims he did, religious Jews need something to believe in, even if it's just the Book.

So why is this verse so important?

It seems to indicate that God will defend the Jewish people, and when called to do so, He will come out of His hiding place, kill His enemies which is also the enemies of the Jews, of course), and return to His hiding place.

But, of course, that has never happened, especially when it really mattered.

The people still sing the sentences to command God to appear several times a week, but not with as much conviction as they used to.

It's the lesson of the nuns.