Parshath Naso’ (Numbers IV,21-VII,89) 6/3/11

A.

Our parasha begins: וידבר ד' אל משה לאמר: נשא את ראש בני גרשון גם הם לבית אבתם למשפחתם: (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe to say: Raise up the head of the bënei Gershon as well [gam hém] to the house of their fathers to their families”).

This is, of course, the continuation of last week’s parasha, in which all of the tribes were counted, the last being the tribe of Lévi, and the Torah then began to differentiate between the various Levitical families and their functions during the desert sojourn and in the Mishkan. Thus, we read last week: נשא את ראש בני קהת מתוך בני לוי למשפחתם לבית אבתם (“Raise up the head of the bënei Qëhath from amongst the bënei Lévi to their families, to the house of their fathers”; IV, 2). The sharp-eyed reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will already have noticed that v. 22 in our passage differs somewhat from what we read last week. In particular, the verse concerning the bënei Qëhath retains the word order to which we had grown accustomed with all of the other shëvatim, placing the word lë-mishpëhotham (“to their families”) before the phrase lë-véyth avotham (“to the house of their fathers”), whilst ours reverses that order. Why should this be? What does the different word order signify?

B.

If we turn back to last week’s parasha, we find the sons of Lévi listed in the order of their birth: Gershon, Qëhath, and Mërari (cf. e.g. III, 17 and see also Genesis XLVI, 11). Clearly Gershon was the bëchor, the first-born. yet the first of the sons whose families are considered is Qëhath; Gershon is considered second, in our parasha. Why?

The midrash considers the question, and answers that Qëhath is counted first because amongst his functions was to bear the aron ha-qodesh, which contained the Tablets and Moshe’s séfer Torah. It was this preeminence which gave Qëhath pride of place, first amongst his brothers, even if he was not the eldest, and we find an allusion to this in his very name, whose meaning may be discerned from Genesis XLIX, 10: ולו יקהת עמים, “and his will be the peoples’ obedience [yiqhath]”. it was the supreme measure of the bënei Qëhath’s devotion to Torah which brought them this singular honor and distinction, and placed them before their brothers, the descendants of Gershon, the bëchor.

The primacy of Torah over every other sort of honor, and specifically that of primogeniture, may be learnt from Avoth: שלשה כתרים הן כתר תורה כתר כהונה וכתר מלכות וגו' (“There are three crowns, the crown of Torah. the crown of këhunna, and the crown of kingship....”; פ"ד מי"ז), and a bit later on we find: ואל תתאוה לשלחנם של מלכים ששלחנך גדול משלחנם וכתרך גדול מכתרם כו' גדולה תורה יותר מן הכהונה ומן המלכות וגו' (“...and do not lust after the table of kings, for your table is greater than their table and your crown is greater than their crown.... Greater is Torah than the këhunna and than kingship....”; שם פ"ו ה"ה-ו'). Kingship usually, and këhunna certainly are things to which one is born, just like primogeniture; Torah is acquired through diligent effort, and is accessible to all who wish to learn it.

This level of yihus ‘atzmi, of personal achievement and status, is also suggested by our verse’s change in word order, lë-mishpëhotham, reflective of a closer and more personal relationship than the patriarchal lë-véyth avotham, seems appropriately emphasized by its precedence in the case of the bënei Qëhath, but when the spotlight shifts to the bënei Gershon, the word order is changed, and lë-veyth avotham brought forward to show the zëchuth avoth.

C.

However, the midrash continues, the bënei Qëhath’s gain was not the bënei Gershon’s loss: ומנין את למד שגרשון לא איבד מחלתו לפי שהי' בכור? שכן את מוצא כשם שאמור בקהת "נשא את ראש בני קהת" כך אמור בגרשון "נשא את ראש בני גרשון". ומהו שאמר הכתוב "גם הם" שלא תאמר שלכך מנה בני גרשון שניים שהם פחותים מבני קהת לאו אלא כתוב "גם הם" שאף בני גרשון כיוצא בהם של בני קהת אלא שהקדימו הכתוב כאן בשביל כבוד התורה אבל במקומות אחרים הקדים לגרשון תחלה לקהת (“And whence do you learn that Gershon did not lose his inheritance because he was a bëchor? For you find that just as it is said of Qëhath, ‘Raise up the head of the bënei Qëhath,’ so is it said of Gershon, ‘Raise up the head of the bënei Gershon.’ And why does the Scripture state, ‘gam hém’? That you should not say that the bënei Gershon were counted second because they were inferior to the bënei Qëhath; it is not so, but rather gam hém is written because the bënei Gershon, too, were the same as the bënei Qëhath, but the Scripture put [Qëhath] first here for the honor of the Torah, but in other places it puts Gershon before Qëhath”; שם, סוף סי' ב').

The Haqal Yitzhaq tells us in what Gershon excelled besides his having been born first: וגרשון הוא העניו ושפל רוח שהוא כגר הארץ (“And Gershon was the most humble and modest, for he was like a stranger [gér] in the Land....”, based on wordplay in his name; cf. how Moshe defines his son, Gershom’s name in Exodus II, 22). In consequence of his humility, the Rebbe continues, יש להוסיף שע"י מדריגת גרשון שהוא הענןה ושפלות רוח ע"כ אינו מדבר לה"ר על חבירו כי הוא יודע בעצמו שהוא גרוע הרבה מחבירו ואיך ידבר בקלון חבירו מוטב לו לדבר בקלון עצמו ואחז"ל במצורע אם נתגאה כארז ישפיל עצמו כתולעת וכאזוב ויתרפא וא"כ עי"ז ניצולים מהצרוע כו' וע"כ י"ל דמש"ה נאמר ג"ם ה"ם שהוא נוטריקון ג'רשון מ'בטל ה'טומאת מ'צורע וגו' (“One may add that through Gershon’s level of humility and modesty he would never speak lashon ha-ra‘ of his fellow, for he held himself to be far worse than his fellow, and how should he speak ill of his fellow? Better for him to speak ill of himself; and Hazal say, ‘If one has been arrogant as a cedar, let him humble himself like a worm and a hyssop [a vine which stretches across the ground] and be healed [cf. Rashi on Leviticus XIV, 4], and if so, by this means one is rescued from tzora‘ath... And therefore one may say that for this reason 'gam hém' is said, for it is an acronym for Gershon Mëvattél Ha-tum’ath Mëtzora‘ [‘Gershon annuls the tum’a of a mëtzora‘,’ the Hebrew words being made of the initials of the Hebrew phrase]....”).

If Qëhath represents zealous obedience to Torah, providing an example and role model of how to comport oneself to all of Israel Gershon represents that quintessential quality necessary to learn from such an example and internalize it, the quality of humility. Thus both were equally tzaddiqim, equally worthy of being raised up as examples to their brothers.

D.

The Shëlah ha-qadosh famously notes the relationship between the season and the parashoth read during it, as has been cited numerous times in these pages. As we are nearing the culmination of our count, and Shavu‘oth, the anniversary of Mattan Torah, is scant days away, the apparently paradoxical concepts of elevation or exaltation through Torah, coupled with the humility which enables one to learn much Torah both seem appropriate.

The first Gerer Rebbe, the Hiddushei ha-Ri”m, notes that Naso’ is the longest single parasha in the Torah, comprising 176 verses in toto. He finds in this fact an allusion to what can happen when one humbly resolves to dedicate oneself wholeheartedly to Torah study, the result is a harvest of Torah beyond one’s wildest dreams, the gift of inordinate amounts of learning beyond “natural” human capacity to absorb and internalize.

Let us all resolve to renew and redouble our commitment to the mitzvoth of talmud Torah, and shëmirath mitzvotheha, that we may experience what the Rebbe confidently predicts lies in store for us.

Parshath Naso (Numbers IV,21-VII,89) 6/5/09

A.

ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן וימשח אתו ויקדש אתו ואת כל כליו וגו'(“And it was on the day Moshe finished erecting the Mishkan, and he anointed it and sanctified it and all its accoutrements....”; VII, 1).

Rashi, following the midrash, comments: "כלות" כתיב, יום הקמת המשכן היו ישראל ככלה הנכנסת לחופה (“‘Kalloth’ is written; [on] the day the Mishkan was erected, Israel were like a bride [kalla] entering [under] the wedding canopy [chuppa]”).

The Raveh (Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim, author of the parenthetical comments on Rashi printed in most editions) observes that the midrashic comment is a pun, based upon the pointing of kalloth, which resembles the word “brides,” where he would have expected the form kloth, “to be finished, completed, come to an end.”

It thus appears that Rashi is not concerned with the pshat, the simple meaning of the verse, but rather with midrash. What are the implications for pshat of the form kalloth instead of kloth, and how might that have a bearing on Rashi’s summary of the midrash here?

B.

If we turn to the actual midrash which Rashi summarises (במדבר רבה פי"א סי' ח'), we find the word kalloth cited as though it is written כלת, without the vav, such that, without vowels, כלת משה could be read kallath Moshe, i.e. “Moshe’s bride.” Several of the supercommentaries on Rashi take up the topic of why this should be so, since in our sifrei Torah the word is written with the vav (עיי' למשל נחלת יעקב, משכיל לגוג, צדה לדרך, ואור החיים הקדוש שם).

This issue need not concern us for several reasons:

1) Every edition of Rashi which I have consulted spells the word with a vav, as in our sifrei Torah.

2) The Rashba explicitly states that the difference in spelling is one of a small number of differences which he found between “eastern” and “western” sifrei Torah (מובא בבית יוסף לטור יו"ד סי' ער"ה ד"ה כתב בסוף הסימן).

3) The Zohar makes explicit reference to the “full” spelling with the vav (ח"ג רנ"ד. ברעיא מהימנא).

4) Finally, the Raveh explicitly states that the drasha is based on the pointing, that is, the vowels, rather than the consonantal spelling.

So what is the actual difference between these two words?

Kloth is the construct infinitve of the verb kala, a qal form which signifies “be complete, in a finished state, at an end,” as may be observed in, e.g., Ruth II, 23: ותדבק בנערות בעז ללקט עד כלות קציר השערים וגו' (“And she joined Bo‘az’s girls to gather [grain] until the end [kloth] of the barley harvest....”, and ויחזקום אחיהם הלויים עד כלות המלאכה וגו' (“And their brothers the Leviyyim supported them until the work was finished [‘ad kloth ha-m’lacha]; II Chronicles XXIX, 34).

Kalloth, on the other hand, is the construct infinitive of the verb killa, a pi‘el or factitive verb built on the same root as kala, and signifying “bring to completion, finish, end,” as evidenced in, e.g., Deuteronomy XX, 9: והי' ככלות השטרים לדבר אל העם וגו' (“And it will be when the shotrim finish speaking [k’challoth ha-shotrim l’dabbér] to the people....”, or ibid., XXXI, 24: ויהי ככלות משה לכתב את גברי התורה הזאת וגו' (“And it was when Moshe finished writing [k’challoth Moshe li-chtov] the words of this Torah....”).

It would appear from the above examples, which even reflect the idiomatic structure of our verse, that our verse is in fact worded exactly correctly, and kalloth is not anomalous at all. Why, then, does the Raveh expect to find kloth rather kalloth, such that he considers the latter odd enough to inspire our drasha?

C.

Ramban comments on our verse: לא נאמר "ביום הקים" מלמד שכל שבעת ימי המלואים הי' מעמידו ומפרקו ובאותו היום העמידו ולא פרקו בכך נאמר "ביום כלות משה להקים", אותו ביום כלו הקמותיו וכו' אבל איננו ראי' גמורה כי "ביום כלות" איננו דבוק על "להקים" בלבד אבל ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן ולמשוח ולקדש אותו ואת המזבח ואת כל כליו וגו' (“‘On the day [he] erected’ [b’yom haqim; cf., e.g., IX, 15] is not said, teaching that all seven days of the dedication [Moshe] was erecting it and dismantling it, and on that day he erected it and did not dismantle it, whence it is said ‘on the day Moshe finished erecting’, that day, [the Mishkan’s] erections ceased [kalu]... But this is not a complete inference, for b’yom kalloth is not only attached to l’haqim, but ‘on the day Mposhe finished erecting the Mishkan, anointing and sanctifying it and the altar and all its accoutrements....”).

Ramban’s source for this appears to be the Talmud (ירושלמי יומא פ"א ה"א), on which the Qorban ha-‘Eida comments: שנאמר "ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית הוקם המשכן" ודרשינן שהוקם מאליו וכתיב "ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן" משמע שמשה הקימו וקשיין קראי אהדדי אלא ודאי שאף ביום השביעי העמידו משה ופרקו ואח"כ בו ביום הוקם מאליו וגו' (“for it is said, ‘And it was in the first month in the second year the Mishkan was erected’ [Exodus XL, 17], and we interpret this to mean it was erected of itself [מדרש תנחומא פר' פקודי סי' י"א], and it is written ‘On the day Moshe finished erecting the Mishkan,’ meaning that Moshe erected it, and the verses contradict each other; but rather it is certain that even on the seventh day Moshe erected it and dismantled it, and afterwards on that very day it was erected of itself....”).

Clearly the Mishkan’s erecting itself must have been an awe-inspiring miracle of the first order; it therefore appears that the Raveh expected the verb to be kloth as indicative that its self-actuated erection was finished, alluding to the miraculous tent-raising. Ramban, it appears, would have agreed, save that kalloth refers not only to Moshe’s previous exercises in raising and dismantling the Mishkan, but also and primarily to the ancillary processes of anointing and sanctification which followed on the miraculous erection, and which also made the word kalloth grist for the rabbinic mill, available to be interpreted as “brides” (or “bride,” if one happens to be referring to the text in one of the “eastern” sifrei Torah mentioned by the Rashba).

And that, I believe, is what the Raveh wishes to tell us.

D.

What meaning can we glean from the statement that Israel at that moment were “like a bride who enters the chuppa”?

The great tent with its covering of tachash hides and t’cheleth stands in, of course for the chuppa, and the Netziv (העמק דבר פרשתנו ד' ו' ) explains the pale blue t’cheleth above the tachash hides as symbolic of the supremacy of Divine Providence and protection over that of mortals (symbolised by the hides). The great Rabbi El‘azar Man Shach זצ"ל, second rosh yeshiva of Ponevezh after it was transplanted to the Holy Land, says that, despite all of the elaborate previous preparations, the erection of the Mishkan and inauguration of the service in it was only the very beginning of Israel’s spiritual life with the Holy One, Blessed be He, much as a kalla, having spent her entire life ere now preparing for her marriage, is only just embarking on their new life together as she steps beneath the chuppa, a life in which she gains much subsequent insight from experience as the years together progess (מובא בספר אור האורות לרי"י גרוסמן).

Just as Israel have learnt and grown, in our three millennia of service to the Almighty.

Parshath Naso (Numbers IV,21-VII,79) 6/6/08

A.

Our parasha describes the ordeal of the sota, a woman whose husband has reason to be suspicious that she has been disloyal, but is unable to press a claim in court. The woman, of course, has denied all wrongdoing, but her denials do not allay her husband’s suspicions. In such a case, the Torah tells us, והביא האיש את אשתו אל הכהן וגו' (“And the man will bring his wife to the kohén....” V, 15), whereupon an elaborate ritual ensues. The purpose of the ritual is in part psychodrama, designed, as Rashi explains in an insightful comment, כדי ליגעה ותטרוף דעתה ותודה (“to exhaust her and fray her nerves so that she might confess”) in the event that she really is guilty, and thereby be spared the rest of the ordeal.

As the process nears its climax, we read: והעמיד הכהן את האשה לפני ד' ופרע את ראש האשה וגו' (“And the kohén will make the woman stand before Ha-Shem, and he will uncover the woman’s head....” ibid., 18) whence we learn, Rashi writes following the Sifrei, מכאן לבנות ישראל שגלוי הראש גנאי להן (“from here [we learn] that uncovering the head is a disgrace for daughters of Israel”). Which brings to mind an odd incident recorded in the Talmud.

B.

כי הא דרב אדא בר אהבה חזיי' לההיא כותית דהות לבישא כרבלתא בשוקא, סבר דבת ישראל היא, קם קרעי' מנה. אגלאי מלתא דכותית היא, שיימוה בארבע מאות זוזי. א"ל מה שמך? אמרה לי' מתון. אמרה לה מתון, מתון ארבע מאות זוזי שויא! (“Rav Adda bar Ahava once saw a certain non-Jewish girl wearing a provocative headdress in the marketplace; he thought she was a daughter of Israel, and arose and tore it from her. When it was revealed that she was non-Jewish, [the court] evaluated her damage at 400 zuz. [Rav Adda bar Ahava] asked her, 'What is your name?' She told him, 'Mathun.' He said, 'Mathun, Mathun is worth 400 zuz!'”; ברכות כ. ).

With a little help from the commentators, we can make this story a bit less cryptic. The Massoreth ha-Shas quotes the ‘Aruch as explaining that the headdress which the girl was wearing was considered unacceptable for Jewish girls שהוא פריצות ומביא לדבר עבירה (because it was immodest and [intended to] lead one into sin”). Hence, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s outrage when he thought that he saw a Jewish girl wearing such an item of clothing.

Rashi explains his odd remark on hearing the girl’s name: שמה גרם לי , “Her name caused me” to make a pun: Mathan is two hundred in Aramaic; thus, her name, repeated twice, was equivalent to 400, the amount of his fine. Alternatively, the name itself means something like patient, from the same root as the Hebrew word himtin, “to wait patiently, hold off, go slow”; hence, writes Rashi, Rav Adda bar Ahava was shaking his head ruefully, saying אם המתנתי הייתי משתכר ד' מאות זוז (“If I had held off, I would have been spared 400 zuz”). The Maharsha notes that the fine is in line with the Talmud’s assessment against anyone who embarrasses a Jewish woman in public by uncovering her hair (עיי' בבא קמא צ.).

Fair enough, but the Vilna Ga’on (Gra)is still bothered by the remark (עיי' ליקוטים שבסוף ספר דבר אלי' על איוב). It would have made sense, he argues, if the fine had been 200 zuz, to look for a hint in the girl’s name. What sort of hint is to be found by doubling the name, he wonders. What extra meaning can be gleaned from saying her name twice?

צריך עיון; the Gra leaves his question unanswered. Perhaps we can find an answer for it.

C.

To begin looking for an answer to the Gra’s question, we turn elsewhere in the Talmud, where we learn: כל האומר רחב רחב מיד נקרי (“Anyone who says, ‘Rachav. Rachav, immediately suffers a nocturnal emission;” תענית ה:). Why? Rachav, of course, was the “professional” woman who plied her trade in Jericho, and who befriended the spies sent by Yehoshua bin Nun to that city before it was placed under siege (cf. Joshua II). As to the doubling of her name, our attention is drawn to the midrash on Genesis XXII, 11: "ויקרא אליו מלאך ד' מן השמים ויאמר אברהם אברהם" תני ר' חייא לשון חיבה, לשון זירוז (“‘And the angel of Ha-Shem called to him from the heavens and said, Avraham, Avraham!’; Rabbi Chiyya taught, '[This is] an expression of affection, an expression of encouragement;'” בראשית רבא פנ"ו סי' ט' ).

D.

“Affection” and “encouragement” are a two-edged weapon. One can feel affection for, and encourage, someone engaged in an action wholly noble and admirable, such as Avraham complete faith in Ha-Shem, such that he did not hesitate when asked to sacrifice his entire future and legacy; or it is possible to entice and encourage someone in rather less admirable actions, such as Rachav was wont to do.

Both senses, I think, are operative in Rab Adda bar Ahava’s pun. On the one hand, regardless of the girl’s ethnicity or religious affiliation, it was apparently obvious from her mode of dress that she was advertising in the marketplace, and her comportment and dress were such that, when he thought he saw a Jewish girl behaving in this way, “Mathun, Mathun,” Rav Adda bar Ahava felt driven to action.

On the other hand, mathun, mathun is a principle which deserves to be encouraged; one should try to avoid precipitous action, think and consider. Perhaps Rav Adda should have approached the young woman, asked her who she was (presumably from the name “Mathun” it would have been suffieciently obvious that she was not Jewish), and thereby spared her the embarrassment, and himself the fine.