Parshat Chukkat

That they take you a perfect red cow

That has no blemish and on which no yoke has been put.

And you shall give her to eleazar the priest...

(Bemidbar 19:2-3)

 

We have already explained that the whole intention with regard to the Sanctuary was to affect those that came to it with a feeling of awe and of fear; as it says: Ye shall fear My Sanctuary. Now if one is continually in contact with a venerable object, the impression received from it in the soul diminishes and the feeling it provokes becomes slight. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have already drawn attention to this notion, saying that it is not desirable that the Sanctuary should be entered at every moment, and in support quoted its dictum: Let thy foot be seldom in they neighbors' house, lest he be sated with thee and hate thee. This being the intention, He, may He be exalted, forbade the unclean to enter the Sanctuary in spite of there being many species of uncleanness, so that one could - but for a few exceptions - scarcely find a clean individual. For even if one were preserved from touching a carcass of a beast, one might not be preserved from touching one of the eight creeping animals, which often fall into dwellings and into food and drink and upon which a man often stumbles in walking... Thus all of this was a reason for keeping away from the Sanctuary and for not entering it at every moment. You know already what [the Sages] literally say: Even a clean man may not enter the Hall for the purpose of performing divine service before having immersed himself [in water]. In consequence of such actions, fear will continue and an impression leading to the humility that was aimed at will be produced. To the extent that a certain kind of uncleanness was more frequent, purification from it was more difficult and was achieved at a later moment. Being under the same roof as dead bodies, more especially those of relatives and neighbors, is more frequent than any other kind of uncleanness. Accordingly one is purified from it only by means of the ashes of a [red] heifer, though these are very rare, and after seven days.

(Rambam, The Guide of the Perplexed, [Pines translation], III, 47)

 

[This may be explained] by homiletic exposition which appears in the commentary of Rashi z"l "That they take you a red cow" - they shall take you of their own, just as they participated in the sin of the calf and removed their gold rings as is written (Shemoth 12:3) "And all the people removed the gold rings', so shall they participate in the atonement and bring of their own. A cow - A parable may be drawn with a maidservant who soils the hall of the king. Said the king, Let the mother come and clean up her son's droppings, so shall the cow come and atone for the calf incident. Red - after the sin which is called red, as is written (Isaiah 1:18), "If your sins be like crimson, they shall become white as snow". Whole - as Israel had been whole and became blemished, let this [heifer] come and atone for them and they will return to their wholeness. On which no yoke has been put - as when they had removed from themselves the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.

To Eleazar the priest - because they had assembled against Aharon the priest to make the calf, and because Aharon had made the calf, he was not assigned this task, because a 'prosecutor cannot become counsel for the defense'. And he shall burn the heifer, just as the [golden] calf was burned.

(Rabbeinu Behaye, ibid. ibid.)

 

The copper serpent - between art and faith

Dov Abramson

In this week's parasha we read the surprising and extraordinary story of the copper serpent. This is a unique story of the meeting between art of the image and the prohibition against idolatry; it is one of rare instances in the Bible in which we can relate to the art of image not in the direct context of the injunction against idolatry.

God instructs Moshe, following Israel's attack by the burning serpents:

Make for yourself a viper ["Seraph" - lit. "a burning-snake"] and put it on a standard and so then, whosoever is bitten will see it and live. (Bemidbar 21:8).

We note than in God's instructions to Moshe, the word "serpent" [nachash] is not at all mentioned. Yet we assume that the word "seraph" is synonymous with the serpent. And what does Moshe actually do? "And Moshe made a "nachash" - a serpent - of bronze and he placed it on a standard and it was that if a serpent bit a man and he looked upon the serpent of bronze, he would live" (Ibid. ibid, 9).

As we mentioned, "nachash" [viper] and "seraph" [burning snake] are synonymous, Yet it is interesting to note that the material chosen by Moshe for the crafting - bronze- is also absent from God's directive. We must ask ourselves whether or not this was an independent artistic choice on Moshe's part. Rashi writes:

He was not ordered to make it of bronze, but Moshe said: The Holy One, blessed be He, calls it nachash, so I will make it of nechoshet [bronze], an alliteration [nechash nechoshet].

Rashi's explanation is puzzling for two reasons. If God had used the term seraph, then there is no alliteration. But a more basic question must be asked - what place is there for wordplay in a decision regarding the creation of the bronze serpent and the material from which it is made? In order to understand this, we should try to understand how the bronze serpent worked. The famous Mishnah in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (3, 8) reads:

The same lesson may be taught thus. [It is written], 'Make for yourself a fiery serpent and set it up on a pole, and it shall come to pass that everyone that is bitten, when he sees it, shall live'. Now, does the serpent kill? Does the serpent cure? No, [what it indicates is that] when Israel turned their thoughts heavenward and subjected their hearts to their father in heaven, they were healed, but otherwise they pined away.

This Mishnah is difficult to comprehend. Ostensibly, there is no connection between the serpent's mode of operation and its serpent essence. According to this Mishnah, if indeed the heart of the matter is the looking heavenward it would seem that Moshe could have placed on the pole a bat or a frog. Ibn Ezra, in his commentary, reinforces the approach which neutralizes the "serpent-ness" of the serpent; he is careful not to attach any special powers to the snake image:

Yet many erred, saying that this form can receive celestial powers. Forefend and forefend! - the object was fashioned at God's directive, and it is not for us to seek the reason why the serpent form was chosen.

The Ramban offers a completely different approach:

It would have been proper that those bitten by the fiery serpents never again see a serpent nor remember nor recall it at all. But the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moshe to make for themselves the image of the serpent which had killed them. Therefore Moshe found no other way to fulfill His command to create a serpent other than by making a bronze serpent, for it has the image of fiery serpent [...] and when a person looks with proper intent upon the bronze serpent which is strongly resembles the live scourge, he is informed that it is God who kills and cures.

Ramban voices an approach according to which Moshe's choice of bronze is not at all arbitrary. His choice stems from the profound principle that part of the cure lies in the fact that the substance which harms is the substance which cures, and thus we express God's being both life-taker and life-giver. This even intensifies the miracle essence of the act; God rules nature wherein the same element both harms and restores.

 

2. The serpent in the days of Hezekiah

The next time we encounter the bronze serpent is in the Book of II Kings, in the time of King Hezekiah:

He abolished their shrines and smashed the pillars and cut down the sacred post. He also broke into pieces [Hebrew -"v'kiteit"] the bronze serpent the Moshe had made, for until that time the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to it; it was Nehushtan. (II Kings 18:4)

Says the Talmud in Tractate Berachot (10b):

Our rabbis taught: King Hezekiah did six things; of three of them they [the rabbis] approved and of three they did not approve. Of three they approved: He hid away the book of cures; and they approved of it; he broke into pieces the brazen serpent, and they approved of it; and he dragged the bones of his father [to the grave] on a bed of ropes, and they approved of it. Of three they did not approve: he stopped up the waters of Gihon, and they did not approve of it; he cut off [the gold] from the doors of the temple and sent it to the King of Assyria, and they did not approve of it; and he intercalated the month of Nisan during Nisan, and they did not approve of it. (Soncino translation)

The Talmud quotes a beraita regarding six actions taken by King Hezekiah during his reign, three of which the Sages viewed positively and three negatively. Exceptionally odd is 'He hid away the book of cures', a document never even alluded to in the Bible.

Clarification is provided by a parallel beraita in the Palestinian Talmud (Sanhedrin 5b):

Hezekiah, King of Judah, did six things; of three of them they [the rabbis] approved and of three they did not approve. Of three they approved: he broke into pieces the bronze serpent, and they approved of it; and he dragged the bones of his father [to the grave] on a bed of ropes, and they approved of it He hid away the tablet of cures; and they approved of it. Of three they did not approve: He cut down the doors of the Sanctuary, and they did not approve; he stopped up the waters of Gihon, and they did not approve of it; he inter-calated the month of Nisan during Nisan, and they did not approve of it.

All of Hezekiah's actions recorded in the Babylonian Talmud are identical with those appearing in the Palestinian Talmud, excepting the former's replacement of "hid away the tablet of cures" with "hid away the book of cures. In his commentary "Iggude HaTalmud", the researcher Moshe Benovitz suggests that the hiding of the tablet of cures and the smashing of the bronze serpents are actually the same act, but because of editorial considerations they were divided into two different acts. Benovitz brings supporting evidence for the determination that the form of the bronze serpents was indeed like a kind of tablet.

At this point we must ask how is the act of smashing compatible with the act of hiding the book of cures.

A source in the Tosefta (Avodah Zara 4, 3) deals with this question:

Said to them R. Yosi: But it says "He also broke into pieces the bronze serpent the Moshe had made, for until that time the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to it". They replied: Was this idolatry?! Did not Moshe make it! This is to teach that Israel mistakenly followed it until Hezekiah came and hid it."

Benowitz writes: It seems that they interpreted "kiteit" as "struck" rather than as "smashed", as the verb is used in Hebrew and in the Babylonian Talmud. In other words, he struck the tablet once so as to remove it from the wall, and then hid it. Say then, that according to one tradition he hid the Nechushtan which stood on the banner and was hung, it seems, on the wall of the Temple, and it is likely that this was the tablet of cures that - according to R. Levi - Hezekiah hid, and this is "I did that which was right in your eyes".

 

3. Summing up the serpent

The uncommon reality of God himself commanding the creation of a sculpted figure opens the door to many questions about the nature of this figure's function and the manner in which it was perceived by the Jewish people, and the attitude of Chazal, exegetes and researchers towards it. This attitude oscillates between relating to the serpent's powers as a decree whose specific essence is not open to inquiry, and highly graphic explanations which relate the serpent's specific form and specific powers to natural and supernatural matters.

It is interesting to note that this serpent, created at God's command, could not help but enter the circle of idolatry. It is almost inevitable that such an object - from a Biblical perspective - should, sooner or later, become a focus of worship. Then along came King Hezekiah and - whether by a single hammer blow, or whether by crushing and smashing the Nechustan to fine powder - left us with the secret of the serpent to ponder forever.

Dov Abramson is a designer and artist who deals with contemporary Jewish-Israeli identity. His work "Zman Nekat" is on exhibit at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem..

 

God has no desire for human sacrifices

Thus says Scripture: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; A wise man captivates people." (Proverbs 11:30) If one be righteous, even if he be a tzaddik, but does not engage in Torah, he is empty handed. "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life" - this is Torah, for by being a ben Torah, he learns how to win over souls, as it written, "A wise man captivates people." For if he vows to order souls, he learns from the Torah how to do so. And if he has no Torah, he has nothing. So you find in the case of Yiftach the Giladi; because he was not a ben Torah, he lost his daughter. When? When he waged war against the people of Ammon, and vowed, as is written "And Yiftach made the following vow to the Lord... whatever comes out... shall be the Lord's and shall be offered by me as a burnt offering." (Judges 11:30-31) At that time, The Holy One, Blessed Be He, was angry with him. He said: Had there come out of his house a dog or a pig or a camel, it would sacrifice it before me? Therefore He arranged that his daughter come out. What is the purpose of this? So that all who vow will carefully learn the laws of vows and oaths, so that they do not err in their vows.

"There was his daughter coming out to meet him... on seeing her, he rent his clothes and said 'Alas, daughter... for I have uttered a vow to the Lord and I cannot retract" (Ibid, 34-35) But Pinchas was present!? Why did he say "I cannot retract"? But Pinchas said: I am a high priest, how can I go to a boor? Yiftach said: I am head of the judges of Israel, head of the officers - I shall go before a commoner?! Between the two of them, the poor girl lost her life. Both were liable for her blood. Pinchas - the Holy Spirit left him; Yiftach - his bones were dispersed, as is written: "and he was buried in the towns of Gilead" (Ibid. 12:7)

Because he wanted to sacrifice her, she cried before him. His daughter said to him, Father, I went out to greet you in joy, and now you slaughter me? Did The Holy One, Blessed Be He, write in his Torah that Israel should offer up before The Holy One, Blessed Be He, human sacrifices? Does it not say in the Torah "When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the Lord, he shall choose his offering from the herd" - from the herd, not from humans. He replied: My daughter, I vowed, "Whatever comes out of the door of my house... shall be offered by me..." Can one who has vowed not fulfill his vow? She said to him, Our father Jacob vowed, "From all that you will give me I will give a tenth, (Bereishet 28:22) and The Holy One, Blessed Be He, give him twelve sons, did he offer up one?... All these things she said to him, but he did not listen to her. When she saw that he was not listening to her, she said, give me leave and I will go before a Bet Din, perhaps they will find a way to release you of your vow . . she went before them, but they found no way to nullify the vow, because of their sin in slaughtering members of the tribe of Efrayim... for God had concealed the Halacha from them, so that they do not find a way to release Yiftach of his vow. He went up and slaughtered her. And the Holy Spirit screams out: Did I want to offer before me that "which I never commanded, never decreed, and never entered my thoughts". (Jeremiah 19:5) I did not command Avraham to slaughter his son, but I told him: "Do not raise your hand against the boy" - to notify to all the world of Abraham's love, who did not spare his only son from me, to perform the will of his Creator. I did not tell Yiftach to sacrifice his daughter.

(Tanhuma, BeHukotai, 5)

 

"Her paths are paths of pleasantness and all her ways are of peace"

"Now this is the Instruction for the slaughter offering of shalom ("Shelamim")": That which is written "Her paths are paths of pleasantness and all her ways are of peace" means that everything which is written in the Torah is written for the sake of peace. And even though the Torah speaks of wars, this too was written for the sake of peace. You find, that The Holy One, Blessed Be He, abolished his decree because of peace. When? When The Holy One, Blessed Be He said to Moshe "When you set siege on a city for many days" (Devarim 20:19), and all pertaining to that subject, The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said to him that no spoil may be taken, as is written "You are to devote them to destruction, yes, destruction" (Ibid. 20:17) But Moshe did not do so; rather he said, Shall I go and smite both he who sinned and he who sinned not? But I shall come upon them in peace, as is written, "Now I sent messengers from the Wilderness of Kedemot... words of peace, saying, Let me cross through your land" (Ibid. 2:26-27). When he saw that he (Sichon) did not come for peace, he smote him, as is written, "So they struck him and his sons and all his people" (Bemidbar 21:35). Said The Holy One, Blessed Be He, I said "You are to devote them to destruction, yes, destruction" but you did not do so! By your life, as you spoke so will I do, as is written, "When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall call upon it to make peace (Devarim 20:10). Therefore does it say, "Her paths are paths of pleasantness and all her ways are of peace" (Mishlei 3:17)

(Tanchuma Tsav, 3)

 

And from Mattanah to Nahaliel: the Torah Requires Humility

What is the purport of the Scriptural text, And from the wilderness to Mattanah, and from Mattanah to Nahaliel, and from Nahaliel to Bamot, and from Bamot to the valley (Bamidbar 21)? "If," the other replied, "a man allows himself to be treated as the wilderness upon which everybody treads, the Torah will be given to him as a gift [Mattanah = "gift"]. And so soon as it is given to him as a gift, he will become the inheritance of God as it says, and from Mattanah to Nahaliel [Nahaliel = nahalei El = "inheritance of God"]. And as soon as he is the inheritance of God he rises to greatness, since it says, and from Nahaliel to Bamot [Bamot = "high places"]. But if he is haughty, the Holy One blessed be He, humbles him, as it says, and from Bamot to the valley. If, however, he repents, the Holy One blessed be raises him, as it says, Every valley shall be lifted up (Isaiah 40).

(Eruvin 54a, Soncino translation).

 

 

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. 

Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il