Fresh from their victory over ‘Og, king of the Bashan and Sihon king of the Emori, east of the Jordan River, Israel approach the borders of Mo’av: וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי: ויגר מואב מפני העם מאוד כי רב הוא ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל: (“And Balaq ben Tzippor saw everything which Israel had done to the Emori. And Mo’av was very frightened by the people, for it was numerous [rav]; and Mo’av was revolted by the bënei Yisra’él”; XXII, 2-3).
At first blush, Mo’av’s terror seems obviously justified; as Rashi explains Balaq’s reasoning: אלו שני המלכים שהיינו בטוחים עליהם לא עמדו בפניהם אנו על אחת כמה וכמה (“These two kings on whom we relied did not stand before them; how much more so that we will not”). Yet, a little thought reveals that it is not at all clear that Balaq and Mo’av had anything to fear at all. As Moshe would later remind Israel, on the eve of their entry into the Holy Land, G-d had commanded אתם עברים בגבול אחיכם בני עשו הישבים בשעיר כו' אל תתגרו בם כי לא אתן לכם מארצם כו' אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה כי לא אתן לך מארצו וגו' (“...You are passing on the border of your brothers, the bënei ‘Ésav [also known as Edom] who dwell in Sé‘ir.... Do not challenge them, for I shall not give you of their land... Do not storm Mo’av and do not challenge them [with] war, for I will not give you of his land....;” Deuteronomy II, 4-9), and Israel’s non-response to Edom’s aggressive refusal to allow them passage through their territory would seem to constitute primâ facie evidence of serious commitment to this commandment.
Since Israel had not invaded Edom, what had Mo’av to fear?
The Holy Land had been conquered from the bënei Shém during the years immediately following the Great Dispersal of humanity from Mesopotamia. That conquest was ongoing when Avraham arrived in the country (cf. Genesis XII, 5, Rashi ad loc.); indeed, the fighting was probably the proximate cause of he famine which caused Avraham to go down to Egypt.
When the dust settled and the land’s subjugation was complete, sometime before Ya‘aqov left for Paddan Aram, seven ethnically related nations occupied the country: The Këna‘ani, the Hitti, the Hivvi, the Përizzi, the Girgashi, the Emori, and the Yëvusi (along with the ethnically unrelated Pëlishtim on the west coast). Even though the ethnic base of Sihon’s kingdom, at least, was also Emori (the ethnic composition of ‘Og’s is not clear), they were not a part of these seven nations concerning whom the Torah commanded לא תחי' כל נשמה (“You shall not allow a soul to live”; Deuteronomy XX, 16-17).
The issue was thus not ethnicity, but rather geography; Sihon’s people were not occupying the Holy Land, any more than were their Phoenician cousins in what is now Lebanon, with whom David and Shëlomo maintained good trade relations. For this reason, after ‘Og and Sihon had been defeated, the bënei Rë’uvén and bënei Gad felt the need to seek permission to settle on their territory with their cattle (Numbers XXXII, 1-4).
If it is true that they were not subject to the Divine imperative to conquer the Holy Land, because they were not resident in the Holy Land and so their ethnic identity with their cousins west of the river did not matter, why was permission given to assault and overrun their territory?
The answer can be discerned in Moshe’s subsequent account in Deuteronomy II, 24-30; just as he had done with Edom, Moshe sent emissaries to Sihon requesting safe passage through his territory to the bank of the Jordan, offering to buy whatever provisions might be needed on the way; Sihon’s response was similarly negatively aggressive, and the Emorim were not protected by any bond of kinship with Israel.
Now re-reading the first two verses, it appears evident that the Mo’avi king was only aware that when Israel’s way was blocked by the eastern Emori state, permission was granted them to destroy it; he seems not to have known what had gone before on the Edomi border. The logical conclusion which he drew was that preventing Israel’s approach to the Holy Land would bring in its wake his nation’s destruction as well. Hence, Mo’av’s great apprehension as Israel encamped on their border, and Moshe’s emissaries approached.
Which naturally leads to the question: Why stop them? One might argue that the eastern Emorim felt some kinship with the western Emorim of the sacred land who were slated for destruction, and therefore sought to bar Israel’s approach. Perhaps that was part of their motivation; Mo’av had no ethnic kinship with any of the seven Canaanite tribes occupying the Promised Land (cf. Genesis XIX, 30-37 for Mo’av’s ethnic origins, and ibid., X, 6, 15-18, for those of the Canaanites), so that would not have played a role.
Why, then, was Mo’av committed to holding Israel back?
The clue is contained in the final clause of our passage: Va-yaqotz Mo’av mi-pënei bënei Yisra’él. Rashi explains the verb as meaning qatzu bë-hayyeihem, (“they loathed their lives”), and the Raveh, in one of his parenthetical elaborations on Rashi, points to Rivqa’s use of the verb in her comment on the local Canaanite girls of her day: קצתי בחיי מפני בנות חת אם לקח יעקב אשה מבנות חת כאלה מבנות הארץ למה לי חיים (“I loathe my life [qatzti bë-hayyai] because of the daughters of Héth [i.e., the Hittim]; if Ya‘aqov should take a wife of the bënoth Héth, like these of the daughters of the land, why should I have life?”; ibid., XXVII, 46). Rivqa’s opinion was based on her experience with the foul idolatry and licentious behaviour of ‘Ésav’s Hitti wives (ibid., XXVI, 34-35, Rashi ad loc.).
That the bënoth Mo’av were cut from similar moral cloth is evident from the end of our parasha, where we read: ויחל העם לזנות אל בנות מואב: ותקראן לעם לזבחי אלהיהם וגו' (“...And the simple people [ha-‘am] began to lust after the bënoth Mo’av. And they called the ‘am to the sacrifices to their gods...”; XXV, 1-2), an invitation whose effectiveness becomes clearer when Hazal add the detail that these “religious” rites were being conducted in the nude (עיי' סנהדרין ק"ו.); not for nothing does the Torah warn us ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם וגו' (“and you will not follow after your heart and your eyes after which you lust...”; Numbers XVI, 38), i.e., be careful what you look at.
The matriarch Rivqa’s disgust at seeing this sort of behavior amongst the Hittim three centuries earlier is mirrored by Mo’avi disgust at the thought that Israel would soon be ensconced next door, that the standards of Torah morality would cast an actinic light on their own activities, showing them to be what they were.
The Zohar makes this same point through a pun on the word rav in our passage; as well as numerous, it means “great”, and can be taken as a reference to rabbinical leadership. Hence, says the Zohar their disgust was driven על שום רב עלאה דאזיל בהו, “by the exalted rav moving amongst them,” Moshe, who had received the Torah and inculcated it into Israel (זוה"ק ח"ג קפ"ד:).
D.
Earlier this year, I made note of the fact that the world, in its original disposition, came into existence and endured through pure Divine hesed, “kindness” (cf. A”z Yashir, Emor, 5771). Thus, for instance, King David sings כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה (“For I have said, the universe is built of hesed”; Psalms LXXXIX, 3). He also composed the wholly remarkable Psalms CXXXVI, which begins: הודו לד' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו , “Give thanks to Ha-Shem for [He is] good, because His hesed is the world’s”), continuing on for a total of twenty-six verses, each ending with the same clause, כי לעולם חסדו, “because His kindness is the world’s”.
Turning to the Book of Genesis, we begin to count: There are 10 human generations from the first man until Noah; another 10 (albeit shorter) human generations separate Noah from Avraham avinu, followed by Yitzhaq, Ya‘aqov, Lévi, Qëhath, and ‘Amram, the father of Moshe rabbénu. 26 human generations transpired from the advent of mankind, until Moshe rabbénu received the Torah and taught it to Israel; 26 generations living on Divine hesed.
The problem with living on hesed, even Divine hesed, is that the universe was designed to function in that way. One who is constantly given a hand-out comes to be demeaned, degraded, and loses all sense of his self-worth. As the Talmud puts it, דאכיל מן חברי' בהית מאסתכל בי' (“Who eats from someone else is embarrassed to look upon him”; ירושלמי ערלה פ"א ה"ג ). The hachmei ha-emeth term this condition nahama dë-chissufa, “the bread of shame.”
Rashi attests to this state of affairs in his famous remark on Genesis I, 1, שבתחלה עלה במחשבה לבראתו במדת הדין וראה שאין העולם מתקיים והקדים מדת רחמים למדת הדין וגו' (“that at first it arose in thought to create [the world] by means of the measure of judgment [din], and He saw that the world does not endure, and He placed the measure of mercy [rahamim] before the measure of din”).
Read Rashi’s words with great care: G-d placed rahamim (defined as an amalgam of hesed and din; cf. A”z Yashir, Hayyei Sara, 5771, ועיי' זוה"ק ח"א קי"ט., ניצוצי אורות שם). He did not supplant din with hesed, but alloyed the two, and placed the alloy first. Because of the din in the mixture, through all those 26 generations, the nahama dë-chissufa continued to build....
Hazal, too, tell us that this climax was planned from the start: התנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית וא"ל אם ישראל מקבלים התורה מוטב ואם לאו אני אחזיר אתכם לתהו ובהו (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, made a condition with Creation, and told it, 'If Israel accept the Torah, it becomes well; and if not, I shall return you to chaos'”; עיי' שבת פ"ח. וע"ע זוה"ק ח"ג קצ"ג. וחצ"ר:). Only Israel’s acceptance of the Torah and entry into the Holy Land to implement it would discharge the nahama dë-chissufa, by enabling the adam to begin earning his keep.
The level of depravity evinced by the Torah, in Egypt and Këna‘an alike (cf. Leviticus XVIII, 3-30, Torath Kohanim ad loc.), as well as amongst the Mo’avim, Midyanim, and others at the time of the Torah’s advent in this world, can be viewed as the direct result of leading a life with no responsibility, living on hesed with no greater purpose than the pursuit of physical comfort and pleasure; it was evident to Balaq and Bil‘am that the party was about to end, and that they might begin to be held accountable for the Seven Mitzvoth incumbent on all the descendants of Noah, which they were desperately trying to forget; this is what they were intent on resisting. The resistance, thanks to the strength and resolve of Israel under their exalted rav, Moshe, proved futile.
No comments:
Post a Comment