Sunday, June 24, 2012

Bemidbar 21:5-9 (Hukkat) - Take a good look

Bemidbar 21:5 records that the people complained, why did G-d and Moshe take them out of Egypt? In response, G-d sent snakes to kill them, 21:6. This was the second time the new generation complained, but on the first occasion (20:4,5) they were not punished. Presumably, initially G-d gave the people another chance, but when they sinned a second time, they were punished.

S. R. Hirsch (on 21:6, 1989, p. 380) and N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 260-263) argue that verb for the word send in 21:6 means not that G-d specifically sent snakes, but that G-d removed his protection of the people in the desert. With this idea, there were always snakes in the desert, and only now were they able to attack the Jewish people. Also, with this idea, the snakes were not all over the camp, but 21:6 records that many people died. Maybe, the word many is relative, and the people thought that many people were dying from the snakes. Also, Devarim 8:15 records that not only were there snakes in the desert but also scorpions, so if G-d removed the people's protection, then they also should have been bitten by the scorpions. However, maybe G-d only partially removed the protection from the people, and they were still protected from scorpions.

Why did G-d send snakes, and not a plague as occurs by 17:11 and 25:9? Maybe the snakes had a double symbolism of the desert and of Egypt and more specifically of Pharaoh, who might have had an image of a snake on his crown. Milgrom (1990, p. 174) notes that the word seraph (21:6,8) connotes winged snake, which is similar to the winged Egyptian uraeus (cobra). This double symbolism could correspond to the two complaints, one, about leaving Egypt and two, about the mahn in the desert.

A different idea is that the snakes were because the people were complaining that their lives were bad since they had to eat the mahn, and hence they were punished with snakes that bit and burnt them, and then they were truly suffering.

Or, maybe the punishment of the snakes was because the cure was to make a copper snake, 21:9, but then the question is what is the message of the copper snake?

After people died from the snakes, the people said they had sinned, 21:7, and this was a form of repentance, which marks the second generation as being more worthy to enter the land of Israel than the first generation. One might have thought that this repentance would have been sufficient to end the attack of the snakes, but it was not. 21:8 records that in response to the people’s statement, G-d said to Moshe to make a seraf, and put it on a pole, which the people would be able to look at and survive. 21:9 then records that Moshe made a copper snake, and people who were bitten by a snake could look at the copper snake and live.

Rashi (on 21:9) notes that Moshe was not told to make a copper snake, but that he did this on his own since the word for copper, nechoshet, is similar to the word for snake, nachash. This is a nice literary idea, and also the sounds relate to the word biting, nashach in 21:6,8,9. A different idea is that Moshe learned from the incense pans used by the 250 “men of renown” in the rebellion of Korah, that they were made from copper and put on the altar afterwards, 17:1-4. Another possibility is that the word seraf, which today we do not know its meaning, is related to copper. Or, maybe copper was the most accessible and easy to use item to make the snake.

One unusual point of this incident is that making the artificial snake surely took some time, which might have meant that some people died during the time it was being made. This differs from the case of Aharon taking the incense to stop the plague that Moshe told him to go fast and Aharon ran with the incense, 17:11,12. Maybe the reason for the delay in the people’s salvation was because the attack of the snakes was because the people became inpatient when they had to march around Edom, 21:4, and hence when they were being saved, they had to learn to be patient.

The incident ends with the people being able to be saved if they were bitten by a snake, but it is not recorded that G-d stopped the snakes from attacking the people. It could be that for the rest of the time the people were in the desert, the people would need to look at the snake Moshe made if they got bitten. Thus, following N. Leibowitz’s understanding that G-d allowed the snakes to attack the people, this change was not revoked. This would be a partial step to learning to live normally, as people had to worry and make an effort not to be bitten by a snake, although being healed by seeing the snake on the pole was a miracle.

Why did the people have to look specifically at a snake? The looking was because the second generation had to participate in their repentance, like by Pinhas, 25:4-9, but why did they have to look at a snake? Is it just to show that the antidote comes from the poison?

The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 3:8, quoted by Rashi on 21:8) wonders how this metal snake could have healed the person, and it answers that the person was looking towards G-d in the heavens. Yet, if this was the point, then there was no need for there to be a snake on the pole since the people just had to look up to the heavens. Also, unless this pole was very high (three meters high?), the people were not looking up, but looking more horizontally than vertically.

A different answer following the idea that the snake symbolized the desert and Egypt is that the people had to look at the snake, to take an honest look at what was life in Egypt. If they took an honest look, then they would remember that they had been slaves and suffered in Egypt, and hence they should be grateful to G-d for taking them out of Egypt even if they did not like the mahn and even if they would not get into the land of Israel. Also, by looking at the snake they would realize what life in the desert is really like, and how G-d had protected them in the desert. This gratitude to G-d would save them from the snakes which was a punishment for their ingratitude towards G-d.

A different idea is that the image of the metal snake on the pole meant that there was a snake above them, maybe at the level of their heads, as well as snakes below them. The snake above them counters the curse said to the snake, but blessing to Adam and Havva in the Garden of Eden, that people would be above the snakes, Bereshit 3:15. Seeing this artificial snake would be a warning to the people that even though they were supposed to go to the land of Israel, if they kept complaining then they would not get there, just like the snake being above them was symbolizing that the blessing to Adam and Havva about snakes could be rescinded. With this approach the lesson to the people from looking at the snake above them was that blessings are conditional. Maybe the people understood this lesson, and we do not hear of the people again asking to go back to Egypt.

Bibliography:

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Bemidbar 10:29-32 (Beha`alothekha) - Confusion in the family

Bemidbar 10:29 records that Moshe spoke to Hovav? Who is this mystery man Hovav? 

10:29 records that he was the son of Reuel, Moshe's hoten, father–in-law. Reuel is mentioned before in the Torah. Shemot 2:16-21 records that when Moshe ran away from Pharaoh, he married Tzippora the daughter of Reuel, the kohen of Midyan. (Kohen can be priest or chief, see Rashi on Shemot 2:16.) This would appear to make Reuel, Moshe's father-in-law, and Hovav, Moshe's brother-in-law. However, Shemot 3:1 records that Yitro was the kohen of Midyan and that he was Moshe's hoten, father-in-law. This description of Yitro is repeated again in Shemot 18:1. How does Yitro relate to Hovav and Reuel?

One popular answer (see Rashi on Bemidbar 10:29, on Shemot 4:18, on Shemot 18:1, and the second explanation of Ibn Ezra on Bemidbar 10:29) is that Hovav really was Yitro, as the same person had two different names, and Hovav/Yitro was Tzippora's father. Reuel would then be Hovav's/ Yitro's father, Tzippora's grandfather, and when Shemot 2:18 records that Reuel was Tzippora's father, this means her grandfather.

Ibn Ezra's (first answer on Bemidbar 10:29) offers a slight variation on the first approach. Again, Yitro and Hovav are two names for the same person, but now he is Tzippora's brother. This approach accords with Shemot 2:18 that Reuel was Tzippora's father, but how then can Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Moshe's father-in-law when he was really Moshe's brother–in-law? Ibn Ezra answers that the term hoten in both verses, which we have been interpreting as father-in-law, can also refer to a brother-in-law.

Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 503-511) points out that while Yitro is referred to as the cohen of Midyan, Hovav is never designated with this term. Benno Jacob argues that Hovav and Yitro could not be the same person since Moshe could never have suggested to Yitro, the cohen of Midyan, to leave Midyan and accompany the Jewish people. Benno Jacob argues that Yitro and Reuel were two names for the same person, the father of Tzippora, and then Hovav was the son of Yitro/Reuel, and Tzippora's brother. Benno Jacob follows Ibn Ezra that Hovav is called hoten Moshe (Judges 4:11 and possibly Bemidbar 10:29) since he was Moshe's brother-in-law, Tzippora's brother.

Luzzatto (on Shemot 18:1) quotes two other opinions that Hovav was not Yitro. One, (R. Yonah ibn Janach, Spain, 990-1055), Hovav was the son of Yitro and brother to Tzippora. Luzzatto did not quote who R. Janach thinks is Reuel. If Reuel is the same person as Yitro, then this is the same opinion as Benno Jacob. Two, (Moses Mendelssohn, Germany, 1729-1786, on 10:29), Yitro and Hovav were brothers, the sons of Reuel, and Tzippora was their sister. Luzzatto rejects both of these opinions since he argues that the word hoten cannot refer to a brother in law, and he follows the first approach above.

The most reasonable approach is that different names signify different people unless we are specifically told that a person had two names as for example by Avraham, Yaakov and Sara. Thus, Yitro was not Hovav or Reuel, but both Yitro and Reuel were kohanim of Midyan. While Midyan could have had two kohanim at the same time, more likely, Reuel was the kohen of Midyan when Moshe first came to Midyan, but as Moshe was in Midyan for quite some time, Reuel died and was replaced by Yitro. Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Midyan's kohen because by then Yitro had replaced Reuel as the kohen of Midyan.

Yet, if Reuel and Yitro were two different people, how can Shemot 2:18 state that Reuel was Tzippora's father and Shemot 3:1 record that Yitro was Moshe's father-in-law, hoten? One possibility is to accept Mendelssohn's approach that Yitro, Hovav and Tzippora were the children of Reuel and Ibn Ezra's approach that the term hoten also refers to brother-in-laws. With this idea, Yitro and Hovav were brothers, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 could refer to Reuel (father-law) or to Hovav (brother-in-law).

Another possibility is that really the term hoten means a non-blood relative through marriage, and then Yitro could have married one of Tzippora's sisters. Another case where the term hoten seems to refer to relatives and not a father-in-law is by Shoftim 1:16, which refers to the Keni as hoten Moshe, and the term seems to means a group of people who were relatives of Moshe. Also, Kings II 8:27 refers to hatan bet ahav, and again it seems to mean a relative through marriage (through his mother!) to bet ahav. (For a discussion of this second definition see T.C. Mitchell, 1969.)

With this idea, Reuel was Tzippora's biological father, Hovav was Reuel's son and Tzippora's brother but not Yitro's brother, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 refers to either or both Hovav and Reuel. Yitro was then not Reuel or Hovav, but a different non-blood relative of Moshe.

According to these last two ideas, as Hovav was not Yitro, then the conversation in 10:29-32 is unrelated to Yitro's visit to Moshe in Shemot 18. Hovav might have arrived with Yitro, or he might have come at another time. Even if he came with Yitro, Yitro's departure (Shemot 18:27) would not have required Hovav to leave as well.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Mitchell, T.C. 1969, The meaning of the noun htn in the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum, 19, pp. 93-112.