HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From: Ephraim Frank (shevet@netvision.net.il)
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: Parashat Pinchas

Hebrew Insights into Parashat Pin'chas - Numbers 25:10 - 29

The issue we encounter at the beginning of Parashat Pin'chas has already been introduced to us, as mentioned last week, at the end of Parashat Balak. Pin'chas, Aha'ron's grandson, Eli'ezer's firstborn, observed the sinful act committed by an Israelite, a leader of the tribe of Shim'on with a Midianite woman and slew both of them. He thus "made atonement" (25:13) for the sons of Israel and brought to an end the plague they had been smitten with. The word used here for "made atonement" is none other than "(vay)cha'per", of the root k.f.r, which we know as "kippur", or "covering". Pin'chas' action, along with the penalty paid by the two sinners, had propitiated for Israel's iniquity of "clinging to Ba'al Pe'or" (ref. 25:3). T'hilim (Psalms) 106 (28-30) also makes a reference to this episode: "They also were joined to Baal-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead; and provoked Him with their deeds; and a plague broke out among them. Then Phinehas stood and intervened, and the plague was stayed". In this latter reference Pin'chas' act is describes as - (vay)fa'lel (p/f.l.l) - which is interposing, intervening or mediating. It is from this same root that the word "t'fila", prayer, is derived.

Zimri the son of Salu was, as mentioned, a leader in the tribe of Shim'on. The Midianite woman, Cozbi, was likewise a daughter of a "head of the people of a father's house in Midian" (25:15). Leading Israel astray definitely ranked high on the list of priorities of the Mo'av-Midian coalition. This week again we find some of the protagonists' names to be of interest. Thus, Pin'chas appears to be an Egyptian name, having the characteristics so typical of other Egyptian names, such as the name of the town of Tach'pan'ches (Jeremiah 45:7,8,9; 44:1), and of Queen Tach'peh'nis (1 Kings 11:19, 20). But even more interesting is the Midianite princess' name, Cozbi, which is made up of the letters kaf/chaf, zayin, bet/vet, and yod. The first three of those, that is c.z.b/v, constitute the root for the word "cazav" (or, for phonetic reasons, "kazav"), which means to "lie, deceive, lying and deception". Last week we read in 23:19: "God is not a man that He should lie". The verb rendered there is "(vay)cha'zev", which refers particularly to "being unfaithful or untrue to one's commitment or promise". In a land so thirsty for water such as Israel, riverbeds hold a promise of getting filled during the winter season. However, that does not always happen. Hence a dry riverbed may be used as imagery for that which lets one down: "You surely are to me like deceitful - ach'zav - waters which cannot be trusted", complains Yirmiyahu in a moment of dark despair to his Creator (Jer. 15:18). Cozbi, too, was nothing but a bait of deception and enticement to the people of Israel (cf. Prov. 5), and especially to leaders like Zimri. Walking in the paths of temptation, away from He Who is the Way the Truth and the Life, leads not only to disappointment, but far worse... to destruction and death, which was experienced by 24,000 souls (ref. 25:9) in Israel's camp.

As noted above, Cozbi was a Midianite. Midian was a son of Avraham by his wife K'turah (Gen. 25:2). The name stems from the verb "dan" (dalet, noon), meaning primarily to "judge or mete justice", referring to all aspects of government. It is the root for the word "medina" - province. However, the particular form of the word "Midian" is related to "mah'don", which albeit of the same root means "strife or contention" (e.g. Prov. 15:18; Jer. 15:10; Hab. 1:3 etc.). Thus, far from being a people of judgment, in a sense of justice and proper government, the Midianites' affairs were handled by resorting to magic and witchcraft and all forms of deception, as was so evident in the character of Bil'am. The fact that they were a people not totally unaware of the Elohim of Israel and of His ways (as illustrated by Yitro, Moshe's father-in-law and even by some of Bil'am's own words) only made the "din" ('judgment'), pronounced upon them by Israel's God, more severe. Hence, YHVH says to Moshe: "Vex the Midianites; and you shall strike them; For they are vexers to you, because of the wiles with which they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi the daughter of a ruler of Midian, their sister, who was struck in the day of the plague because of the matter of Peor" (25:17-18). Highlighted in this passage is the cunning stance and frame of mind of the Midianites, illustrated so typically by Cozbi. The order from on High here is "to vex and strike" the Midianites, since they "vexed you". "Vexing or harassing" in this case is "tza'ror" (tz.r.r - tzadi, resh, resh), meaning, "showing hostility", while "tzorer" is an "enemy or adversary". In Parashat Balak we heard Bil'am say of Israel: "he shall eat up the nations that are his foes - tza'rav" (24:8 italics added), and next week, in Parashat Matot/Ma'sa'ey a condition will be placed before Israel: "And if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall be, those whom you let remain of them shall be thorns in your eyes, and as goads in your sides. And they will vex - (ve)tza'ra'ru - you on the land in which you are living" (33:55 italics added). Haman, the Jews' cruel adversary, is named in Esther 3:10; 8:1, "tzorer ha-Yehudim", the "foe of the Jews". Haman, the Agagite was a descendent of the royal house of Amalek, about whom it is said, "Amalek threatened the body of the people [of Israel], whilst Midian threatened its soul" .1

The opening section of the Parasha presents two words that are used several times within a few verses. The first is repeated four times in 25:11-13, and is "jealous" or "jealousy". The root of "jealousy" is k.n.a (kof, noon, alef), and it originates in the "color produced in the face by deep emotion" 2. It is especially related to marriage relationship and as "God is depicted as Israel's husband, he is a jealous God... Phinehas played the faithful lover by killing a man and his foreign wife, and thus stayed the wrath of divine jealousy". 3 The  other word that is repeated five times, in verse 14-18, is "smite or smitten", and "strike" (in other translations "slay and slain" is used etc.). In all these instances the verb "nako" (n.k.h, noon, kaf, hey) is used in a variety of conjugations. N.k.h is a very common root and may be used in many different ways, describing fall, defeat, and punishment, being beaten, smitten or hurt for a variety of reasons. In our case it relates to the punishment of death. However, because of the emphatic repetition of "jealousy", just previous to the reiteration of "nako", it would appear that the text is underscoring here a situation that has engendered YHVH's "jealousy", with the resulting "smiting unto death", thus conveying a clear cause-and-effect word picture.

Chapter 26 is devoted to the census of the heads of the congregation who are twenty years old and above, and who are therefore eligible for army service. Together with them are counted all the members of their clans. It is according to their relative number that the land of Israel is to be apportioned to them: "To the many you shall increase their inheritance; and to the few you shall diminish their inheritance" (v. 54 emphasis added). On the other hand, in verse 62 we read that the census of the Levites applied to "all males from a month old and upward", but it goes on to say that "they were not counted among the sons of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the sons of Israel" (emphasis added). "Inheritance" here is "nachala" (n.ch.l, noon, chet, lamed), a word that connotes "a permanent possession inherited by succession" (the Levites were told by YHVH that He was their portion - "nachala", Num. 18:20). A different conjugation transforms n.ch.l to "manchil", which is "to cause to possess" such as is seen in Dvarim (Deuteronomy) 32:8: "When the Most High gave - "hinchil" - each nation its heritage". In chapter 27 we meet Tzlofchad's daughters who demand their possession saying: "Our father died in the wilderness... and had no son. Why is our father's name taken away from the midst of his family because there is no son to him? Give us an inheritance among our father's brothers (vv. 3,4 emphasis added). Inheritance in this case is "achuza", of the verb achoz (root a.ch.z. alef, chet, zayin), meaning to "grasp, or hold" and hence to "possess and possession".

When Moshe is reminded by YHVH that his day of departure is close at hand, he expresses his concern regarding the future: "Let YHVH, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation who may go out before them, and who may go in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in, so that the congregation of YHVH may not be as sheep to whom there is no shepherd" (27:16,17). Evidently Moshe understands the integrated composition of man, being both flesh and spirit while at the same time also recognizing that YHVH knows his creatures through and through. In describing the need for a leader, Moshe underscores "going out before (the people)... going in before (them)... leading out... and bringing in..." Is Moshe making some subtle hints here regarding the next leader, lest his fate should be like his (that is, staying behind and not entering the land with the rest of the people)? But, even if that is the case, Moshe displays no bitterness when told to "take Joshua, a man in whom is the spirit" (v. 18), echoing the mention of "spirits" in verse 16 above. YHVH instructs Moshe how to ordain his successor, which Moshe follows implicitly; "as YHVH commanded" (v. 23), in spite of what no doubt was a grave disappointment. However, since Moshe had not been deceived, nor had he become embittered, his disappointment cannot be categorized or classified as a disillusion or (in Hebrew) an "ach'za'va" (remember c.z.v above?), such as was experienced by the faithless ones from among the people of Israel who sought gratification from that which cannot satisfy.

1 New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

2 The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson. Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.

3 Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, ed. R. Laird Harris, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980

********************************************************************

From: Ephraim Frank
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: Parashot Ma'tot/Masa'ey

Hebrew Insights into Parashot Ma'tot/Masa'ey - Numbers 30 - 36

We have come to the end of Bamidbar (Numbers), and this time we will be looking at the two Parashot with which this book ends. In the opening verse (30:1) Moshe is seen addressing the "heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel". The word used here for tribes is "ma'tot" (plural, while singular is "ma'teh"). In Parashat Chu'kat we studied this word, and found that "ma'teh" is a rod (like the one Moshe used to hit the rock, instead of speaking to it in Num. 20:8-11), and that this word is rooted in the verb to "stretch out", but that it also means to "incline, turn, or turn away". By implication "ma'teh" also means "tribe", emanating from the 'rod of authority' in the hand of the respective tribal leaders. (The other word for tribe, "shevet", has a similar meaning). In both of our Parashot, "mateh" is used solely for "tribe" or "tribes" (e.g. 31:4; 32:28).

The first part of Parashat Ma'tot deals with oaths and prohibitions, and the abolition thereof (see Matt. 18:18,19). In 30:3-5 we read: "And when a woman vows a vow to YHVH, and has bound a bond in the house of her father in her youth, and her father has heard her vow... and her father has remained silent... then all her vows shall stand... But if her father has prohibited her in the day he heard, none of her vows and her bond with which she has bound her soul shall stand. And YHVH will forgive her because her father prohibited her." "Prohibited", in both instances in this passage is "heh'nee", of the root n.o.h (noon, vav, alef), meaning "hinder, restrain, or frustrate". Similarly, in verse 8 we read: "If in the day her husband hears, he prohibits her..." (emphasis added), where the same verb is used. The latter part of Parashat Ma'tot presents the story of the sons of Re'uven and Gad who express to Moshe their desire to settle in the land of Gil'ad, on the eastern side of the Yarden (Jordan). However, Moshe, being concerned that they may be separating themselves from their brethren and that their move could have a negative impact on the rest of the people, voices his misgivings and says: "And why do you discourage the heart of the sons of Israel from passing over to the land which YHVH has given to them? So your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land. And they went up to the valley of Eshcol and saw the land, and discouraged the hearts of the sons of Israel" (32:7-9). Here we find the verb n.o.h once again, but this time translated as "discourage or discouraged". Moshe attributes the same motives that had operated in the hearts of the ten spies (Parashat Sh'lach Lecha, Num. 12-14), to the two tribes. He interprets their plan as being one that would frustrate YHVH's will, while his reaction, no doubt, also frustrates the proponents of the idea. Frustration and a feeling of being hindered must also be the lot of the woman, mentioned above, who takes a vow and/or restricts herself in some way for Godly reasons and in good conscious, and is later forbidden to go through with the commitments she had made.

The origin of the verb n.o.h, is "rise with difficulty" 1, illustrating what we have seen repeatedly, namely that Hebrew is a very concrete language and thus most of its more abstract terms are actually borrowed from the tangible world. Several other such terms in this Parasha are "bind" (e.g. 30:3,4,5,6 ff), which is "assor" (a.s.r., alef, samech, resh), literally meaning "imprison, or imprisoned" (such as in Gen. 40:3; Jud. 15:11,13; 1Sam. 6:7 etc.); "annul" - "ha'fer" (30:12), whose root is "porer" (p.r.r. pey, resh, resh), which means to "crumble, break, shatter or destroy" (although in the case of this verb, it seems to be always used metaphorically rather than literally); the tax that was being levied for YHVH from the men of war (31:28), named here "meches", of the root "kasos" (k.s.s., kaf, samech, samech), which means "compute", but literally is to "make small or pulverize".

Returning to Moshe's admonishing address, in 32:14, to the two tribes, the former expresses concern that their actions would give rise to a "brood of evil men". The word used there is "tarbut", which is of the root "rav", meaning "much, many, or great", and is therefore simply a derivation of "increase". Thus, Moshe is literally talking about an increase or spread of evil among them, without pointing to an existing grouping (such as a "brood"). Appending to it (v. 14b, 15) he says: [lest] you still [will] add more to the burning anger of YHVH against Israel. For if you turn away from Him, He will add more (literal translation) to His abandoning of them [i.e. Israel] in the desert..." Moshe is concerned that the actions of the Reuvenites and Gaddaites would bring about an increase of evil and in this manner add to YHVH's anger, adding disciplining measures, resulting in the further suffering of the people as a whole.

Another issue raised in the Parasha, which is conveyed by YHVH to Moshe, is the command to "execute vengeance... against the Midianites, afterward you shall be gathered to your people" (31:2). In the preparations toward this important eventuality, Moshe calls out for men to be "prepared for the army" (31:3). However, the word used here for "prepare" - "he-chal'tzu" - means something else. The root ch.l.tz (chet, lamed, tzadi) is essentially to "draw, pull out, or remove" (such as "removing" one's foot out of a shoe, Deut. 25:10). Thus, the literal rendering of 31:3 is: "Draw out from amongst yourselves men for the army..." Rabbi Mordechai Eilon, quoting Rabbi Yitzchak Arama, stresses that although the expression "draw out from amongst yourselves" is in reference to a select group, it indicates at the same time that there is a 'whole' from which this group is to be drawn, a fact implying the involvement of the entire group. Thus, the whole army, by virtue of being represented by those "cha'luztim" (plural for "cha'lutz", "those who plod ahead", see also 32:21), in a manner of speaking participates in the action. In addition to these insights, being "drawn out" also speaks of removal from one's customary environment and comfort zone, indicating that these men were willing to venture and forge the way ahead of everyone else.

In view of this, when the two tribes (Re'uven and Gad) declare later (in 32:17): "We shall ourselves go armed" (which reads, "va'necha'letz", again of the root ch.l.tz), their intent appears much clearer. They are saying in fact, that after they make basic provisions for their families and livestock they will "remove" themselves from all that is familiar to them and will "hurry and go ahead of the sons of Israel until we bring them to the place which is theirs" (32:18, literal translation). In his response, Moshe underscores that they are each to be a "cha'lutz" for his brother, (while failing to do so, according to him, will be considered a sin "before YHVH", vv. 20-24). Their response is again marked by the term "cha'lutz" (v. 27). Moshe repeats his conditions, that only if they will act as "chalutzim" will they be entitled to land on the Yarden's eastern shore. In their reply the Gaddaites and Re'uvenites confirm their readiness to "go over... as chalutzim... before YHVH into the land of Canaan, so that the land of our inheritance on that side of Jordan may be ours" (v. 32).

Chapters 33-36 constitute the next Parasha, which is Masa'ey. "These are the journeys of - "masa'ey" - the sons of Israel... (33:1, emphasis added), "and Moses wrote their departures according to their journeys by the mouth of YHVH. And these are their journeys, according to their departures" (v. 2). Although Moshe is entirely familiar with the journeys and the name of each location that the people of Israel had gone through, and/or encamped at, the account, which will now follow (vv. 3- 49), is dictated to him "by the mouth of YHVH". Wondering as to the importance of these technical details, some of the sages, including Rashi, have concluded that this list was to serve as a reminder to the people of YHVH's watchfulness over them and of His attention to each and every detail pertaining to their lives and destiny. Thus, the names of each of the places are used as a device to invoke in them the memory of YHVH's care for them. According to Maimonides, the names of the places are a testimony intended to verify that they have indeed stayed at the locations mentioned; places where only YHVH Himself could have sustained them, thusly bringing to their minds the miracles which were wrought for them by their Elohim. Sforno adds to this: "The Lord blessed be He desired that the stages of the Israelites' journeyings be written down to make known their merit in their going after Him in a wilderness, in a land that was not sown [ref. Jer. 2:2] so that they eventually deserved to enter the land. "And Moses wrote" - he wrote down their destination and place of departure. For sometimes that place for which they were headed was evil and the place of departure good... Sometime the reverse happened. He wrote down too the details of their journeyings because it involved leaving for a new destination without any previous notice, which was very trying. Despite all this, they kept to the schedule... In other words, according to Sforno the Torah shows us both sides of the coin. We have been shown an Israel composed of rebels and grumblers, having degenerated from the lofty spiritual plane of their religious experience at mount Sinai... Now the Torah changes its note and shows us the other side of the picture, Israel loyal to their trust, following their God through the wilderness... They followed Him in spite of all the odds, through the wildernesses of Sinai, Etham, Paran and Zin... that was also a place of fiery serpents and scorpions and drought where there was no water, where our continued existence would have been impossible, were it not for the grace of God..."

Chapter 34 lists in detail the extent of the territory of the inheritance. In an era when defined borders were far from being the norm, this was a novelty, which underscores, once again, the importance YHVH attaches to the land and to its occupation. It is here that He also appoints those "who will take possession of the land for you" (34:17). Following these instructions are listed the towns which are to be occupied by the Levites (among the other tribes' territories). "Command the sons of Israel that they give to the Levites cities to live in, from the land of their possessions, and you shall give to the Levites open land for the cities" (v. 2). "Open land" is "migrash". One of the words for "inheritance" is "yerusha" (33:52, 53), in which is embedded the term to "impoverish" (the party from whom one's inheritance is wrested). "Migrash", which the Levites were to be granted, is of the root g.r.sh (gimmel, resh, shin), whose primary meaning is to "cast or drive out". Hebrew certainly does not conceal or embellish the hard-core 'facts of life', and does not make attempts at being 'politically correct'. As a matter of fact, from Matthew 11:12 we learn that the Kingdom of Heaven is also "seized by force". Thus, in taking hold of YHVH's possession (and their inheritance), the Israelites had to "impoverish" and "cast out" the inhabitants of the land. When "Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian... mocking, she said to Abraham, 'Drive away this slave-girl and her son, for the son of this slave-girl shall not inherit
["yirash" - will cause another to be impoverished] with my son, with Isaac'" (Gen. 21:9,10). "Drive away", there, is also "ga'resh", (of the root just discussed).

The next topic is that of the refuge cities and their respective guidelines, according to one of which if a person has slain someone unintentionally, he is to stay in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, after which time he may return to the "land of his possession [inheritance]" (35: 25, 28). Similarly, it is only through the death of our High Priest that we too have been released, and may now come out of our place of confinement into the freedom of our inheritance (ref. Acts 20:32; 26:18; Eph. 1:11; Col. 3:24; Heb. 9:15). This fact gains even more validity when we read the last part of the chapter: "And you shall take no ransom [kofer, of the root k.f/p.r - kippur] for the life of a murderer; he is punishable for death, for dying he shall die. And you shall take no ransom [kofer] for him to flee to the city of his refuge, to return to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. And you shall not pollute the land in which you are, for blood pollutes the land. And no ransom [kofer] is to be taken for the land for blood which is shed in it, except for the blood of him who sheds it; and you shall not defile the land in which you are living. I dwell in its midst, for I, YHVH, am dwelling among the sons of Israel" (35:30-34). Thus, the blood of our High Priest has purified both our earthly inheritance and us, and at the same time has also provided for us a heavenly one (ref. 1Pet. 1:4). According to the English translation, the cities of refuge are to be "selected". The Hebrew, on the other hand, reads: "You shall cause cities to occur (for yourselves)..." (35:11), an expression which is almost an oxymoron, as one's will is either actively involved, or else things (seem to) occur in a happenstance manner, or (more likely) by Providence. Once again the Hebraic mentality presents a challenge, pointing to the place where Providence and man's choice come together, defying human logic.

YHVH's detailed attention to the place He has set apart is seen again in the last chapter of Parashat Masa'ey, where we learn that "no inheritance of the sons of Israel shall turn from tribe to tribe, for each one of the sons of Israel shall cling to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And any daughter that possesses an inheritance from any tribe of the sons of Israel to one of the family of the tribe of her father is to become a wife of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel may each possess the inheritance of his father. And the inheritance shall not turn from one tribe to another tribe. For the tribes of the sons of Israel shall each one cling to its own inheritance, as YHVH commanded Moses" (36:7-10 emphasis added). The word for "turn" here, in future tense, is "tisov" of the root s.v.v (samech, vet, vet). "Savov" is to "turn about or go around"; it is indicative of something mobile, unstable and temporary. The usage of this verb here lends an extra stress to the issue at hand, which we just quoted: "For the tribes of Israel shall each cling - yid'b'ku, adhere like glue - to its own inheritance, as YHVH commanded..." YHVH declares above that He dwells in the midst of the land, among the sons of Israel, and for this reason He is very particular about the set up of His abode.

Notes:
1. The New Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, Francis Brown Hendrickson. Publishers, Peabody, Mass. 1979.

2. New Studies in Bamidbar, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman, Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora, Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

**********************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


�2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.