בהעלותך

The Underlying Cause of the Failure of the Spies

This week's parashah features the people's complaints against the Manna and their demands to be fed meat.

וְהָאסַפְסֻף אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבּוֹ הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ גַּם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר׃ זָכַרְנוּ אֶת־הַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם חִנָּם אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים וְאֶת־הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִים וְאֶת־הַשּׁוּמִים׃ וְעַתָּה נַפְשֵׁנוּ יְבֵשָׁה אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל־הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ׃ (במדבר יא:ד-ו)

A careful reading suggests this episode forms a backdrop to the episode of the spies and provides insight as to the source of that failure. Aside from the juxtaposition, the episodes share certain textual similarities. First, the complainers' recollection of the good of Egypt is repeated in identical fashion in the episode of the spies:

כִּי־טוֹב לָנוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם (במדבר י:יח)

טוֹב לָנוּ שׁוּב מִצְרָיְמָה (במדבר יד:ג)

There are several occasions where the people contemplate a return to Egypt, however these are the only occasions in which this particular phrase is used. Second, the crying in the earlier episode is replicated when they later cry for fear of entry to the land:

מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר לָתֵת לְכָל־הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי־יִבְכּוּ עָלַי לֵאמֹר תְּנָה־לָּנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכֵלָה (במדבר י:כט)

וַתִּשָּׂא כָּל־הָעֵדָה וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶת־קוֹלָם וַיִּבְכּוּ הָעָם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא (במדבר יד:א)

Once again, with none of the other national complaints do we find that the people 'cried'. Note that these are not random words, but are central to the description of their attitude and reactions in each case.

The struggle against slave mentality

The common denominator between the spies and the complainers can be better understood in the context of the slave experience of nation. The nature of slavery is such that it strips an individual of his/her self-autonomy to the extent that the slave not only lacks control of their decisions but forgets how to exercise that faculty all together. Every day there is a new quota of monotonous work and that is all that matters. Back in Egypt, this was of course part of Pharaoh's plan to kill off their dreams of freedom:

וַיֹּאמֶר נִרְפִּים אַתֶּם נִרְפִּים עַל־כֵּן אַתֶּם אֹמְרִים נֵלְכָה נִזְבְּחָה לַה' (שמות ה:יז)

As Pharaoh correctly realizes, if they are completely preoccupied with the present task, they will stop thinking about the future. Indeed, his plan initially succeeds:

וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתִי אֶת־יָדִי לָתֵת אֹתָהּ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב וְנָתַתִּי אֹתָהּ לָכֶם מוֹרָשָׁה אֲנִי ה'׃ וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה כֵּן אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה מִקֹּצֶר רוּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה׃ (שמות ו:ח-ט)

When the people now recall the 'free' food they are recalling the way they were fed as slaves. As slaves, they received their food allocations in the same mindless way that they prepare bricks. There is no choice, no initiative, and no independence. The Manna was intended to steer them away from such dependency by introducing an element of initiative. We are accustomed to thinking of the Manna as a type of fast food takeaway, however the reality seems more nuanced. The Manna was a raw material which required no small measure of human effort in terms of collection and preparation. This quality is highlighted in the following verses:

וְהַמָּן כִּזְרַע־גַּד הוּא וְעֵינוֹ כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח׃ שָׁטוּ הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ וְטָחֲנוּ בָרֵחַיִם אוֹ דָכוּ בַּמְּדֹכָה וּבִשְּׁלוּ בַּפָּרוּר וְעָשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עֻגוֹת וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן׃ (במדבר יא:ח-ט)

This educational tool was intended to foster independence (combined with faith, to be sure) and inner freedom; however, this became the very subject of the people's complaints.

The spiritual impairment caused by the slavery can also be seen in the specific request for meat as the constant stress of the physical labour and deprivation results in a materialistic wishlist. This mental state was famously documented by Viktor Frankl based on his personal experiences in the holocaust.

"It can be readily understood that such a state of strain, coupled with constant necessity of concentrating on the task of staying alive, forced the prisoner’s inner life down to a primitive level. Several of my colleagues in camp who were trained in psychoanalysis often spoke of a “regression” in the camp inmate – a retreat to a more primitive form of mental life. His wishes and desires became obvious in his dreams. What did the prisoner dream about most frequently? Of bread, cake, cigarettes and nice warm baths." (Man's Search for Meaning, p.40)

This certainly seems to correlate with the people's demands to be fed meat. The generational challenge was whether they could lift themselves above this primitive plane of existence as they emerged from slavery. In order to extricate them from this materialism, a spiritual counterbalance was required which was provided in the form of the seventy elders.

Between רוח and בשר

The conflict between spiritual and material values – between the בשר and the רוח - is evident throughout the passage. In fact, it is inherent in the very structure. The Torah moves back and forth between the story of the transfer of the רוח from Moshe to the elders, and the people's desire for meat. Clearly the appointment of the elders was not simply a strategy to deal with Moshe's isolation, but was intended to increase the spiritual capacity of the nation in order to counteract their materialistic disposition. This can be seen from the fact that the words בשר and רוח appear as key repeat words (leitworts) with בשר appearing a total of eight times and רוח a total of seven. The back and forth movement in the text between these opposing forces is also designed to reflect this underlying struggle.

This provides the important background to the spiritual immaturity which is later exhibited in the episode of the spies. Much like they expected their meals to be spoon-fed to them, the same was true in terms of faith. As we have discussed on various occasions what characterised the Exodus (and the era of Moshe's leadership) was the almost total dependency on God and constant need for open Divine intervention. This climaxed at the splitting of the sea where they were specifically instructed to passively 'stand and watch' whilst God would fight their battle.

The dependency on the Egyptian masters to provide them with their next meal was thus mirrored in their perception of their relationship with God. When it came to the episode of the spies the thought of initiating military action as required for the conquest of the land paralysed them with fear. Perceiving God from within the battlefield, would require a spiritual agility and depth of faith which the former slaves lacked at this stage. To follow God into the wilderness - לכתך אחרי במדבר לארץ לא זרועה - is one thing, but to walk in front of Him – התהלך לפני והיה תמים - demands a whole new level of faith. This would take a much longer time to develop and require the emergence of the next generation.

I mentioned before that there are seven recurrences of the word רוח in our passage. According to Cassuto, to qualify as a leitwort a word should generally recur seven times or in multiples of seven (though repeats of eight and its multiples are also prominent). Someone who counts in the passage of the complainers, however, will only find six recurrences. Nevertheless, given the relatedness of the episodes of the complainers and the spies, perhaps the seventh and final רוח of the unit should in fact be identified with the 'other' רוח which resided in the person who stood up to the spies:

וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ וַיְמַלֵּא אַחֲרָי וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בָּא שָׁמָּה וְזַרְעוֹ יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה (ויקרא יד:כד)

נשא

The Nazir and the Inauguration of the Mishkan

Our parashah returns us to the inauguration of the Mishkan which abruptly broke off in parashat Shemini following the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The reason for the split in presentation of the inauguration ceremony is related to the essential difference between sefer Vayikra and sefer Bamidar. Whereas the narrative of sefer Vayikra is focussed on the Mishkan itself, sefer Bamidbar deals with the dynamic interaction between the Mishkan, the Kohanim and the rest of the nation.[1]

Sefer Bamidbar starts off by detailing the encampments of the 12 tribes around the Mishkan. The geographical location of the Mishkan at the centre of the camp signifies the centrality of the Mishkan to the nation as a whole. The three sets of laws which follow all discuss some form of interaction between the Mishkan or the Kohanim (beyond their role in performing the Avodah) and the rest of the camp. 

The first of these laws requires sending out categories of impure people from the camp:

צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן־הַמַּחֲנֶה כָּל־צָרוּעַ וְכָל־זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ׃ מִזָּכָר עַד־נְקֵבָה תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה תְּשַׁלְּחוּם וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת־מַחֲנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי שֹׁכֵן בְּתוֹכָם: (במדבר ה:ב-ג)

The need to maintain the purity of the camp as a consequence of the Divine presence residing within it, is clearly linked to the Mishkan itself:

וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם׃ (שמות כה:ח)

The presentation of this law, therefore, draws an equivalence between God's presence in the Mishkan and in the wider camp.

The next law is that of the Asham Gezeilah. The focus here is specifically on stealing from a Ger who has no heirs. In such a case and in the event that the victim dies, the thief must make restitution to the Kohen instead. Effectively the Kohen steps into the place of the victim to ensure that the thief cannot escape justice following his exploitation of a vulnerable member of society.[2] This aspect was notably absent in the presentation at the end of parashat Vayikra.

The third law deals with the Sotah, the case of the suspected adulteress. As already noted by Chazal, the key role of the Kohen here is to preserve and restore marital harmony in the wider camp:        

לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה: שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים  (בבלי סוכה נג:)

This is particularly poignant when we consider that the usual function of the Kohen is to enable God's presence to dwell in the Mishkan, yet here he is erasing God's name (not to mention the specific prohibition in Devarim 12:2-4).[3]           

Consistent with the above, the elements of the inauguration ceremony which feature in sefer Bamidbar are also those where the Israelites are prominent. These include Birkat Kohanim, where the beneficiaries of the blessing were the Israelites, and the donations and sacrifices of the princes of each of the tribes (excluding Levi).[4]   

The lesson is clear. The success of the Mishkan is dependent on the ability of the Kohanim to engage the wider community, and the reciprocation of the people. Only in this way can the ideals and values of the Mishkan permeate the entire camp.

The Nazir compared to the Kohen Gadol

Against this background we can now turn to the placement of the laws the Nazir. This comprises the final law section prior to the return to the narrative of the inauguration of the Mishkan.

Through numerous parallels it can be seen that the Torah intends to draw a comparison between the Nazir and the status of the Kohen Gadol:

	Nazir	Kohen / Kohen Gadol
Prohibition to drink wine	מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר חֹמֶץ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה (במדבר ו:ג)	יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל־תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד (ויקרא י:ט)
Prohibition to contract טומאת מת even for close relatives	עַל־נֶפֶשׁ מֵת לֹא יָבֹא׃ ְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לְאָחִיו וּלְאַחֹתוֹ לֹא־יִטַּמָּא לָהֶם בְּמֹתָם (במדבר ו:ו-ז)	וְעַל כָּל־נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא (ויקרא כא:יא)
Special crown	כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹקיו עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ (במדבר ו:ז)	וְנָתַתָּ אֶת־נֵזֶר הַקֹּדֶשׁ עַל־הַמִּצְנָפֶת (שמות כט:ו)
Holy to God	כֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ קָדֹשׁ הוּא לַה' (במדבר ו:ח)	כִּי־קָדֹשׁ הוּא לֵאלֹקיו (ויקרא כא:ז)

The message underlying these parallels seems to be that every person, whoever they are and whatever their assigned role, can attain the spiritual heights of a Kohen Gadol. This universalistic message, communicated just prior to the climax of the inauguration of the Mishkan, serves to counterbalance the exclusivity of the Kohanim which is a hereditary determination. Whilst there may be a functional purpose of having a single tribe dedicated to the priestly service, true holiness is equally accessible to everyone. 

The social distancing of the Nazir

A significant challenge to the above is that the requirements of the Nazir hardly present an accessible model of spirituality. If we briefly consider the laws of the Nazir we notice that the laws are intended to set them apart in three key spheres of life. The wine prohibition prevents them from participating in joyous celebrations, the contamination prohibition separates them from their own family members even at death, and the wild hair growth acts as a continuous social barrier. It would seem, therefore, though everyone may indeed become holy like the Kohen Gadol, it requires complete detachment from normal life. Drawing such a conclusion, however, would miss an important nuance.

As is well known, Chazal expressed an ambivalent attitude towards a Nazir with some seeing such commitment as fundamentally problematic.[5] 

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר וּמָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה (בבלי נזיר יט.)

On the other hand, it seems clear that there is no specific sin that can be attributed to the Nazir in the literal sense. As for the Chatat which the Nazir brings, it appears to have a similar function to the Chatat which is brought by various categories of people emerging from their state of impurity referred to as MeChuserei Kapparah, including a Zav/Zavah, Yoledet and Metzorah.[6] Although attempts are made to link their respective Chatat offerings to a specific sin, the straightforward interpretation is that Chatat is a necessary preparatory step for transitioning to a more elevated position. In the case of the MeChuserei Kapparah, it prepares them for re-entry following the spiritual exclusion inherent in the contamination process.[7]

This opens up the fascinating possibility that the Nazir’s return to society is in fact the highlight rather than the lowlight. The significance of this cannot be understated. One would be led to believe that the Nazir reaches the zenith of his spiritual ascent during his Nazirite period at the end of which he ‘descends’ back to normal life. However, the Torah turns the table on this assumption. The period of Nezirut was in fact a period of reflection and isolation intended to facilitate a return to a more meaningful but integrated life. The period of his Nezirut where he is ritually pure but socially distanced corresponds to the period of contamination(!) for the other groups mentioned above. The MeChuserei Kapparah transitions out of a period of impurity, whereas the Nazir transitions out of a state of a extreme purity. The Nazir's re-engagement with society corresponds to the ability of the MeChuserei Kapparah to re-enter the Mishkan.[8] The renewal of the contaminated person's connection with God is thus paralleled to the Nazir's reconnection with his fellow man.

Whereas for the Metzorah the climax of his re-entry is ואחר יבוא אל המחנה, for the Nazir it is ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין. The emphasis on the permission to once again drink wine elevates the return to society as the culmination of the entire process.

איל מילואים v איל נזיר

As noted, the laws of the Nazir appear immediately before the finale to the inauguration of the Mishkan. There is more to this connection than at first meets the eye. The offering of the Nazir upon completion of his Nezirut closely resembles the offering used for the inauguration of the Kohanim referred to as the איל המילואים. In both cases a ram (accompanied by a Chatat) was brought as a Shelamim[9] and the parts offered up (breast/thigh) were waved together with one of each of the types of Matzot. In both cases there is no Chametz eaten alongside the Korban, unlike the regular Todah form of Shelamim where one of the four types of loaves is Chametz. These specific features are unique to these ceremonies. In view of these wider correspondences, it seems clear that there is an intended linkage between the  מלאת ימי נזרוand the 'Millu'im' of the Kohanim.

What emerges from the above is that both types of Millu'im are preparatory for the new statuses of the Nazir and the Kohen, but directionally they are opposite. The Millu'im of the Nazir returns one to the mundane world whilst the Millu'im of the Kohanim prepares one to immerse in the world of holiness. The איל מילואים transformed Aaron and his sons to the lofty status of priests whilst the איל נזיר returns the Kohen Gadol-like Nazir to the privileged rank of ‘ordinary’ citizen. The fact that the Torah equates them in full view of their disparate roles, is a profound statement of their fundamental equality in the eyes of the Torah.

Consistent with this inverse model, at the Millu'im ceremony we read about Aaron putting on the נזר הקדש for the first time (i.e. the Tzitz) thus setting him apart from everyone else:

וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת־הַמִּצְנֶפֶת עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ וַיָּשֶׂם עַל־הַמִּצְנֶפֶת אֶל־מוּל פָּנָיו אֵת צִיץ הַזָּהָב נֵזֶר הַקֹּדֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֶת־מֹשֶׁה (ויקרא ח:ט)

The Nazir meanwhile, is instructed to cut off his נזר (i.e. his hair) and place it in the fire together with his offering: 

וְגִלַּח הַנָּזִיר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶת־רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְלָקַח אֶת־שְׂעַר רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְנָתַן עַל־הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תַּחַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים׃ (במדבר ו:יח)

The hair which outwardly symbolised his separation from society becomes part of the offering brought in anticipation of his return to society.

This is the crucial message of spiritual equality which the Torah wished to convey to those witnessing (but not participating in) the inauguration ceremonies of the Mishkan. 

Postscript

The above brings to mind the words of the Rambam at the end of Hilchot Shemittah ve-Yovel. After discussing how the Levites are set aside to exclusively serve God and therefore released from certain worldly burdens, the Rambam closes the section with the following comment: [10]

וְלֹא שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ מִכָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אוֹתוֹ וֶהֱבִינוֹ מַדָּעוֹ לְהִבָּדֵל לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי ה' לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְעָבְדוֹ לְדֵעָה אֶת ה' וְהָלַךְ יָשָׁר כְּמוֹ שֶׁעֲשָׂהוּ הָאֱלֹהִים וּפָרַק מֵעַל צַוָּארוֹ עַל הַחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹת הָרַבִּים אֲשֶׁר בִּקְּשׁוּ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה נִתְקַדֵּשׁ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים וְיִהְיֶה ה' חֶלְקוֹ וְנַחֲלָתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וּלְעוֹלְמֵי עוֹלָמִים וְיִזְכֶּה לוֹ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה דָּבָר הַמַּסְפִּיק לוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁזָּכָה לַכֹּהֲנִים לַלְוִיִּם. הֲרֵי דָּוִד עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם אוֹמֵר "ה' מְנָת חֶלְקִי וְכוֹסִי אַתָּה תּוֹמִיךְ גּוֹרָלִי" (הל, שמיטה ויובל יג:יג)

This is not the place for a detailed analysis of these words. Suffice it to say that it is clear the Rambam had no intention of making the Levite status a free for all. The Rambam is absolutely clear elsewhere (to the point of extreme) that one is obliged to support oneself and under no circumstances may he cast himself on to the community to mimic the position of the Levites.[11]

The Rambam's point here is precisely the opposite. To obtain the status of Kodesh Kodashim, according to the Rambam, one need not be a member of any elite tribe. One need not even be a Jew. Certainly one need not disengage with physical life. Rather, any person may sanctify their life by placing God at the centre. The change is in life priorities rather than function.  

Interestingly, the Rambam’s words appear immediately before the commencement of sefer Avodah, the unique territory of the Kohanim. This matches the Torah’s own structure as described above where the section of the Nazir is placed immediately prior to the inauguration of the Mishkan to set out this same message of equality.

 

 

 

 

-       

---

[1] This is admittedly a simplification as the second half of sefer Vayikra deals with issues of holiness which expand beyond the confines of the Mishkan. In any event, the function of the Kohanim as described in Vayikra is orientated around the Mishkan.   

[2] Notably the relative is referred to as a גואל based on his duty to redeem his relative if circumstances require. This may suggest that receiving the stolen item on behalf the deceased is akin to an act of 'redemption' thus highlighting the tragedy when there is no such relative - compare to Vayikra 25:26.

[3] For discussion of how the ordeal of the Sotah is primarily aimed at protecting marital harmony, see article here by R. Elchanan Samet. Some take it further and see it as a way of protecting the woman from an abusive husband. Based on ancient Near East norms, husbands and local clans had a great degree of latitude to harm and even kill women suspected of adultery. Such 'honour killings' remain a regrettable feature of certain religious societies even in the modern age. The Sotah procedure provided an avenue for the woman to 'demonstrate' her innocence and calm down the jealous husband and mob. (See R. Moshe Shamah, p.708)

[4] It is also noteworthy that the climax of the inauguration as described in sefer Bamidbar is God communicating with Moshe (see Bamidbar 7:89) from between the Keruvim, whereas in sefer Vayikra it is the heavenly fire on the Mizbe'ach which descended as a consequence of the Avodah of the Kohanim. 

[5]  This approach is adopted by the Rambam (see Hilchot De'ot 3:1). The Rambam would presumably explain the purpose of the Nazir institution to provide for a remedial deviation from the golden mean as he discusses in De'ot 2:2. 

The Ramban (6:12) favours the alternative approach, namely that the inevitable spiritual decline upon conclusion of one's Nezirut is the reason for the Chatat requirement. (It should be noted that R. Elazar HaKapar himself was not stating the reason for the Chatat offering.)

[6] Mishna Keritut 2:1 presents a view which groups the Nazir together with the other categories of MeChuserei Kapparah. 

[7] That the Chatat in these cases is not linked to sin is pretty much explicit from the Mishna cited above. It should be noted that the root ח-ט-א in the context of the Mizbe'ach generally refers to a cleansing or purification process without a particular ‘sin’ association. See previous discussion here.

[8] Technically the איל מילואים is never explicitly referred to as a Shelamim but it is certainly closely related. On the reason for this nuance, see article here by R. Yonatan Grossman.

[9] See article here by R. Yoel Bin Nun. He also considers the lack of Chametz accompanying the Shelamim (in contrast to a regular Todah) as related to this same point i.e. the completion of the Nezirut is only the start of his journey whilst Chametz is associated with a completed process.

[10] It has been pointed out that this the 13^th law in the 13^th chapter at the end of the 7^th section of the 7^th book (out of 14) highlighting its centrality in the Rambam's thought - see Menachem Kellner, Reinventing Maimonides in Contemporary Jewish Thought, p.159-160.

[11] Commentary to the Mishna Avot 4:7 and Hilchot Matnot Ani'im 10:18. See R. Chaim Rappaport, "שבט לוי" בספר משנה תורה להרמב"ם ובזמן הזה, https://seforimblog.com/2007/11/rabbi-chaim-rapoport-on-contemporary-of/, where this Rambam in analysed in full detail.

בהר - בחוקותי

Final sections of Vayikra - גאולה or געילה?

The end of the book of Vayikra consists, predominantly, of the following structure:

- Shemittah – cessation of agricultural activity during the seventh year
- Yovel - return of land to the original owners
- Emancipation of slaves and various ancillary laws
- Blessings and curses
- Laws pertaining to consecrated items, their monetary value and redemption

I will discuss, from a limited perspective, the positioning of these sections in relation to each other, and in relation to Vayikra as a whole.     

Shemittah and Yovel as conclusion to Torat Kohanim

The first half of Vayikra is generally focused, in one way or another, on the kedushah of the Mishkan, the world of Korbanot, and the specific role of the kohanim. This focus peaks at the beginning of Chapter 16 where the Yom Kippur service describes the exclusive entry of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh Kodashim subject to a special procedure that only he is authorised to carry out. One might have thought that such an intense concentration of the three dimensions of Kedushah (space-time-individual) would be a fitting climax to Torat Kohanim, as Chazal refer to the book of Vayikra. The Torah, however, sees this is as the departure point for a wider-reaching agenda. As we enter the second half of Vayikra we are presented with a system of holiness which spreads beyond the confines of the Mishkan and encapsulates every individual in their day to day life:[1]

דַּבֵּר אֶל־כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹקיכֶם׃ (ויקרא יט:ב)

Against this backdrop it is possible to understand the role of Shemittah and Yovel as widening the circles of holiness to encompass the entire land of Israel and the entire nation.

Related to this extension of kedushah, attention should be drawn to the significance of the day designated to declare the emancipation of the Jewish slaves. If the description of Yom Kippur in Vayikra Chapter 16 seems like an exclusive affair of the Kohen Gadol, then Vayikra Chapter 25 expresses the other side of the coin in which Yom Kippur (being the day on which the shofar of Yovel is blown) heralds the return of every Jew to his position of glory as an exclusive servant of God.

Thus, a correspondence exists between the holiness of the Mishkan and the kohanim on the one hand, and the holiness of the nation and the land on the other.[2]    

The nation-priest paradigm is reinforced by the fact that, as the commentators are all quick to note, the introduction to the Shemittah and Yovel sections take us back (in some form) to Mt. Sinai:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר׃ דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַה'׃ (ויקרא כה:א-ב)

For our purposes, this is significant as it was specifically at Mt. Sinai, just prior to the giving of the Torah, that the nation-priest paradigm was originally set out:

וְעַתָּה אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים כִּי־לִי כָּל־הָאָרֶץ ׃וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (שמות יט:ה-ו)

This verse is in fact intimately linked with our parashah as the following table shows:

ויקרא כה-כו	שמות יט-כ
וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת כִּי־לִי הָאָרֶץ כִּי־גֵרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים אַתֶּם עִמָּדִי	כִּי־לִי כָּל־הָאָרֶץ
אִם־בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת־מִצְוֺתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם... וְאִם־לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ לִי וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כָּל־הַמִּצְוֺת הָאֵלֶּה	וְעַתָּה אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי
וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹקים וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם	וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים
וַהֲקִימֹתִי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי... לְהַפְרְכֶם אֶת־בְּרִיתִי	וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־בְּרִיתִי
אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם	אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים

The idea of a גוי קדוש is also alluded to at the end of Vayikra with important ramifications which will be shortly discussed.

Relationship of Shemittah and Yovel to the Tochacha

As mentioned, during Yovel, slaves are freed and the land returns to the original owners. The centrality of the theme of redemption is highlighted by the fact that the root גאל appears no fewer than 18 times. Above we explained why Yovel and the surrounding passages form a fitting conclusion to the main body of the book of Vayikra. However, the significance of the themes of redemption and return also relate to the proximity to the subsequent section – the blessing and curses - which threaten the loss of land and exile.

Specifically at this juncture, as one reads these harsh passages, the echoes of redemption reverberating from the previous section may provide hope that all is not lost. This emerges from the fundamental proposition of the Yovel that God's land may not be sold into perpetuity, and God's people may not be permanent enslaved:

וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת כִּי־לִי הָאָרֶץ כִּי־גֵרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים אַתֶּם עִמָּדִי׃ (ויקרא כה:כג)

וְאִם־לֹא יִגָּאֵל בְּאֵלֶּה וְיָצָא בִּשְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ׃ כִּי־לִי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹקיכֶם׃ (ויקרא כה:נד-נה)

We may therefore take comfort in the knowledge that the Jewish nation will not remain eternally exiled and subjugated to foreign powers.

I think this point also comes across through a certain wordplay. On just five occasions the Torah makes use of the root ג-ע-ל - all of which appear in this chapter of the Tochacha. The words געל and גאל are phonetically linked as both ayin and aleph are guttural letters with similar sounds. Moreover, they have closely related yet inverse meanings. גאל means to redeem and restore a prior relationship, whereas געל means to abandon and sever an existing relationship. We can see a similar effect of the ayin and aleph interchange in other word pairs.[3] Of particular note, is the intense wordplay between אפר and עפר in relation to the para adumah where the difference between 'earth' and 'ash' is quite literally the difference between life and death. In our context, the wordplay alludes to the fact that the Jewish people have been eternally chosen as God's nation and therefore will eventually be redeemed (גאל) and not abandoned (געל).

The קדושת הגוף of the Jewish nation

This brings us to the final section. At first glance, the location of this final set of laws is difficult to understand. The topics all relate – one way or another – to consecrated property and their monetary redemption or exchange.

The general principle is that if a consecrated item is not eligible to be offered as a korban then its status is one of קדושת דמים. Such an item is considered the financial possession of the sanctuary but may be redeemed by the original owner provided a fifth is added to the principal. However, where the consecrated animal is fitting to be used directly in the service of God (i.e. as a korban), then the animal obtains a status of קדושת הגוף and cannot be redeemed.[4] This state of kedusha is of a higher order and not merely a consequence of physically ownership, therefore its status cannot be expunged. In such a case, if one attempts to exchange the consecrated animal for another animal, the law is such that the original animal remains consecrated and the second animal also becomes consecrated. This is applied twice in the final section of Vayikra - once at the beginning and once at the end (according to the Masoretic division):

וְאִם־בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קָרְבָּן לַה' כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה' יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ׃ לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא־יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ־רַע בְּטוֹב וְאִם־הָמֵר יָמִיר בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ׃ (ויקרא כז:ט-י)

וְכָל־מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ לַיהוָה׃ לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין־טוֹב לָרַע וְלֹא יְמִירֶנּוּ וְאִם־הָמֵר יְמִירֶנּוּ וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל׃ (ויקרא כז:לב-לג)

Another noteworthy observation is that the root גאל appears again throughout this last section. More importantly, it features as the final word - prior to the concluding verse - within an apparently extraneous clause (compare to verse 10 where this clause – לא יגאל - is absent). Note also that this section is the only place in the Torah where redemption of consecrated property is referred to in terms of גאולה as opposed to the more common term פדיון (see Shemot 13:13; 34:20; Bamidbar 18:15-17). All this does not seem to be coincidental and serves to create a link back to the previous sections where this word or its derivative was so prominent. But for what purpose?

One might suggest that this is an allusion to the קדושת הגוף which inheres within the Jewish nation and which guarantees they will never be abandoned by God.[5] As mentioned above, an item which has קדושת הגוף obtains an inalienable state of kedushah which cannot be removed or redeemed.

Whilst the notion of the Jewish people as a גוי קדוש was explicitly stated just prior to the giving of the Torah, the context there may be understood as a mission statement rather than an inalienable status - similar to the calls to holiness recurring throughout the book of Vayikra.[6] Do we see anywhere that a state of קדושת הגוף was vested in the nation in the model of a korban? The answer to this is affirmative – on two separate occasions. The first time was at the Akeidah when Yitzchak was designated as a korban. True, Yitzchak was never actually sacrificed, and Avraham offered a ram 'in his son's place'. However, as we have just seen, the law in such a case is clear and the originally designated korban retains its state of kedusha - וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ.[7]

Thus, Yitzchak's consecrated state is forever attached to the Jewish people. This newly obtained status of Yitzchak explains why immediately subsequent to the Akeidah the contingent promises previously made are restated in almost identical terms, but now as a unilateral commitment from God (notably the term שבועה is used for the first time and no act is demanded of Avraham).[8] The implication is that even if the people renege at their end, God's commitment remains.

The second occasion was on the eve of the exodus. As discussed at length here, the symbolic purpose of the Pesach ritual was to transform the Jewish home into a representative altar via which the people on the inside became eternally consecrated to God.

We therefore have two historical precedents to apply the principle of קדושת הגוף to the Jewish nation to underwrite God's commitment to never forsake the Jewish people.

 

 

---

[1] This is true in broad strokes but is an oversimplification. A comprehensive discussion of the structure of the book of Vayikra would need to account for the fact that parashat Emor returns to the subject of the kohanim and the furnishings of the Mishkan. For an interesting hypothesis of the structure of the entire book by R. Menachem Leibtag see here.

With respect to the first half of Vayikra, an analysis of the list of korbanot in parashat Vayikra in contrast to parashat Tzav shows that it is the owners – and not the kohanim – who are the primary audience of the first list. See Ramban Vayikra 6:2. 

[2] This is particularly noteworthy as a contrast to the surrounding cultures of the Ancient Near East where the priests were a privileged class which acted to distance the commoner as far as possible from the Temple to retain their dominance. See article by Prof. Yonatan Grossman here.

[3] Consider the following examples where the interchange of the aleph to the ayin inverses the perspective:

פאר – פער
אור – עור / עוור
אושר - עושר

[4] Determination of the parameters of קדושת הגוף and קדושת דמים is a complex area as far as halacha is concerned and has numerous implications (e.g. Me'ilah). However, the fundamental distinction emerges directly from the text. Note that a חרם may also not be redeemed (see verses 28-29) due to its heightened state of kedusha (described as קודש קדשים).   

[5] One might challenge this analogy by the fact that קדושת הגוף can be removed after an animal becomes a בעל מום. This law is in fact derived from the very next verse:

וְאִם כָּל־בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קָרְבָּן לַה' וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֵן׃

Commenting on this verse, Rashi references the Sifra:

ואם כל בהמה טמאה. בְּבַעֲלַת מוּם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לְהַקְרָבָה, וְלִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאֵין קָדָשִׁים תְּמִימִים יוֹצְאִין לְחֻלִּין בְּפִדְיוֹן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֻמְּמוּ

The simple meaning, however, is that it refers to an animal which is not of the variety which can be offered up. What forces Rashi (and most other classic commentators) to interpret the verse as referring to a בעל מום is the repetition in verse 27. Nevertheless, the tension with the plain meaning of the verse is evident and noted, among others, by the Netziv. Either way, it is instructive that the plain reading does not give us the impression that there is any redemption option.

[6] This contrasts to the book of Devraim where the holiness of the people is presented as a given (see Devarim 7:6; 14:2)

[7] I apologise here if I have crossed the line between derash and peshat

[8] This is an important point as many have wondered what was the added value of the blessing that Avraham received after the Akeidah given its similarity to previous blessings. According to the above, the difference is more in the form of the commitment than the specific content. Grossman provides a similar answer (Avraham: Sippuro shel Massa, Hebrew, p.321-326)