חקת

The Mystery of Parah Adumah

The Parah Adumah passage is enigmatic for a number of reasons. The ritual bears many similarities to a Korban, but also contains a number of key differences. It is slaughtered like a Korban, but outside the confines of the Mishkan. It must be blemish free like a Korban, but has the added condition that it must be perfectly red/brown and never have carried a yoke. The blood is collected and sprinkled in the direction of the Mishkan by a Kohen, but never reaches the Mizbe’ach itself. The burning of the cow resembles a Korban, but the purpose is to generate the ash rather than to create a ‘pleasing aroma’. The impure individual sprinkled by the ashes is purified (similar to the function of the blood of a Korban), but paradoxically those performing the ritual are contaminated.[1]

Beyond the ritual itself, and perhaps befitting its mysterious nature, there are three major literary anomalies.

The first relates to location. Seemingly it would have been far more appropriate to include these laws in Sefer Vayikra which deals comprehensively with the various categories of impurity and their purification. Yet for some reason this chief category of impurity from a human corpse is omitted. To make matters worse, there are numerous prior references to the existence of this form of impurity, but the details of how the impurity transmits, the period of impurity, and how purification is achieved, is deferred until now with no obvious link to the surrounding sections.[2] 

The next challenge relates to the introductory verse:

זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה ה׳ לֵאמֹר: (במדבר י״ט, ב) 

This is a unique formulation. In all other cases, laws are described as either a ‘Chok’ or as a ‘Torah’, but they are never combined in the same phrase.[3] In this verse Chukkat appears in construct form with the word Torah as the referent, but with no indication what the ‘Torah’ refers to. Basing himself on the Midrash, Rashi interprets the term Chukkat HaTorah as alluding to Parah Adumah’s role as the archetypal Chok in the Torah which defies human logic. This interpretation, however, is anachronistic as the use of the word Torah to refer to the entirety of the Torah (i.e. the Pentateuch) was a later development. [4] 

The third issue relates to the structure. The Parah Adumah passage comprises two main sections of identical length (146 words). The first section (vv. 1-10) deals with the initial preparation of the ashes which are then stored until needed. This represents a communal requirement to always ensure ashes are available for purification. The second section (vv. 14-22) deals with how the impurity transmits, and how the purification process involving the sprinkling of the ashes is performed in individual cases.[4] The ordering here seems strange insofar as the elaborate preparation of the ashes is described without revealing its purpose. It is only after the details of the preparation process that we learn what the ashes will be used for.

A more logical flow would have been to first introduce the laws of impurity and only then move on to the preparation of the ashes as an extension of the purification process. This is the order in every other instance of ritual impurity even where there is an elaborate purification process (e.g. Metzorah).  

One might counter, on chronological grounds, that preparation of the ashes is mentioned first as it takes place prior to the death which creates the impurity. However this doesn’t explain why there is absolutely no allusion to the purpose of the ashes in the first section. It also shifts the question to why the Torah mandated a pre-emptive procedure in the first place thereby distinguishing it from other cases of purification. As we shall see, the pre-emption point is indeed a critical component but it must be understood as more than a mere technicality. 

What emerges from both the second and third point is that the Torah treats the preparation of the ashes as an end in itself, not merely as a means to purification.[5] The idea behind this needs to be understood.

Between Chok and Torah

To address all these different issues we will start with a rather technical discussion of the difference between ‘Torah’ and ‘Chok’.

A Chok is a law which is absolute and unconditional. The classic Chok is a law of nature:

כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אִם־לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא־שָׂמְתִּי׃ (ירמיהו ל״ג, ל״ה)

הַלְלוּהוּ שְׁמֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְהַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר  מֵעַל הַשָּׁמָיִם… וַיַּעֲמִידֵם לָעַד לְעוֹלָם חׇק־נָתַן וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר׃ (תהילים קמ״ח, ד-ו)

Within a legal framework, a Chok refers to a non-contingent statute which applies under all circumstances and for all time. This is distinct from a Torah which describes a specific set of actions or a process which must be followed in a given situation. It is informative that out of the 30 references to Chok to describe a specific law, 23 of those utilise the phrase Chukkat Olam. Examples of a Chok include the Pesach service and eating Matzah, prohibition of eating blood and fats, and fasting and resting on Yom Kippur.[6] The fixed nature of the law in these contexts does not just reflect its enduring character, but also its absolute non-contingent character.  

On the other hand, ‘Torah’ describes a particular process to be followed under prescribed circumstances. Classic examples of Torot include the procedures for offering various Korbanot (Olah, Asham, Chatat, Shelamim) and certain purification procedures (Metzorah, Yoledet, Zav). 

Given this background, we can understand why the second section which sets out how to apply the ashes for purification is introduced as a Torah: 

זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי־יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל כׇּל־הַבָּא אֶל־הָאֹהֶל וְכׇל־אֲשֶׁר בָּאֹהֶל יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃ (במדמבר י״ט, ד)

Since the second section dealing with the purification procedure is described as a Torah, the phrase Chukkat HaTorah introducing the first section means the specific Chok which underpins that Torah i.e. the preparation of the ashes. The preparation of the Parah Adumah ashes meets the definition of a Chok as the essence of the law is that there must always be ashes ready for purification, whether or not there is a specific need for them at any given moment.[7]

Pre-empting death

The unique introductory phrase ‘Chukkat haTorah’ highlights the special nature of the Parah Adumah law which consists of a universal Chok (to prepare the ashes) which pre-empts and facilitates a particular Torah (purifying the contaminated individual). This stands in contrast to other purification procedures which comprise only a Torah to be carried out when the need arises.

The broader spiritual implication of this Chok is that anticipating the possibility of death is made into a fixed feature of life. To understand the deeper meaning here we now turn to the basic symbolism of the ritual itself. 

Within the conceptual world of Korbanot (to which Parah Adumah belongs), animal sacrifice is a metaphor for human life. In the unique case of Parah Adumah, the blemish-free perfectly red/brown cow is a symbol of beauty and life (symbolised by the reddish colour). The slaughter and burning of the cow is a graphic depiction of the transformation of a symbol of life into ash – the ultimate symbol of death. Ashes represent the transience of life and inevitability of death. All living beings, however large and impressive they were in life, eventually return to the earth the same way. The fact that the cow is burnt before it has ever carried a yoke is also a sober reminder of unfulfilled potential which is almost always felt when death strikes.  

When Adam and Eve partake of the Tree of Knowledge, they acquire knowledge of their mortality:

בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם עַד שׁוּבְךָ אֶל־הָאֲדָמָה כִּי מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ כִּי־עָפָר אַתָּה וְאֶל־עָפָר תָּשׁוּב׃ (בראשית ג:יט)

Consciousness of one’s own mortality requires a deep level of self-awareness, which is both a distinguishing feature of human life and a reflection of the image of God – a key theme of the first two chapters of Genesis. Paradoxically, it is the contemplation of life’s finite nature which also reminds us of the limits of the God likeness. This is part of the significance of the pre-emptive preparation of ashes of the Parah Adumah and their continuous storage for potential use. It acts as an ongoing reminder of human mortality and is a call to act with humility in life.  

From אפר to עפר

In addition to the above, Parah Adumah also provides a positive perspective which protects against a descent into nihilism. At the end of the day it is the same ashes which cleanses the impurity caused by the corpse. The word used for ashes is אפר, however in the last instance describing the ashes being sprinkled over the impure individual, the word used is עפר. Although linguistically and visually related, the effect of the ע and א exchange is to create a word pair with related but divergent meanings.[8] Whereas ash is the end of life, earth is the source of life. Returning to Genesis, this idea is represented by Adam being created from the soil: 

וַיִּיצֶר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ (בראשית ב׳, ז)

Both the terms עפר and אדמה used in this verse which relates the physical origins of man, are referenced or alluded (אדמה=אדומה) to in the Parah Adumah passage. From a biological perspective, it is of course the earth which nourishes and sustains life, especially when combined with water. Ash is what remains when life has been entirely consumed, but even ash is able to provide fertility to the soil to enable new life to emerge. The all important message is that whilst death may be inevitable, there is continuity through offspring, and the influence of one generation shapes and molds the next.[9] 

It is the awareness of mortality on the one hand and generational continuity on the other, which enables one to maximise potential in life.[10] This is the significance of the Parah Adumah belonging to the world of Chok which requires proactive engagement with issues of mortality, rather than as a Torah which is only reactive to the tragedy of death itself. 

Let us now use this discussion to better understand why Parah Aduma is in Sefer Bamidbar and not Sefer Vayikra. The focal point of Sefer Vayikra is the Mishkan. The Mishkan and by extension the Kohanim embody regularity and order which is also a reflection of God’s immutability. In the words of R Sacks:

"The priestly mind sees the universe in terms of distinctions, boundaries and domains, in which each object or act has its proper place and they must not be mixed. The Kohen's task is to maintain boundaries and respect limits. For the Kohen, goodness equals order." (R' Sacks, introduction to the Yom Kippur Machzor)

Sefer Bamidbar on the other hand focuses on the real-world events outside the bubble of the Mishkan. That presents us with a more dynamic environment where there is disruption and spontaneity, failure and revival.[11] A static world with no development and growth is not a human world, yet the cost of that growth includes inevitable failure.

The finality and tragedy of death which Parah Adumah attempts to come to terms with, necessarily excludes it from the regularity expressed in the laws of Sefer Vayikra.[12] To be sure, death does feature in Sefer Vayikra but as an extraordinary event which creates conflict with the overarching theme of purity. When Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu are suddenly killed, Moshe expects Aaron to carry on with the service as if nothing happened. We also learn about how Kohanim are generally prohibited from contact with the dead altogether. It was therefore necessary to remove the portion of Parah Adumah which actively engages the tragedy of death from Sefer Vayikra – just like the ritual itself takes place outside the Mishkan. 

Generational Continuity

We can perhaps go a step further to explain the specific location of the passage. The establishment of the Mishkan containing the ark with the Luchot and Keruvim, is undoubtedly a conceptual remodelling of the Garden of Eden. Within the Vayikra eutopia, the Divine presence resides in the Mishkan and projects outwards encompassing not just the Kohanim but the entire nation. Under this model, there should be no death – as there was no death in the original Garden. Within the real-life narrative of Sefer Bamidbar however, failure leads to the death of the first generation. But as the Rambam sensed, there is a strong sense of inevitability in the story – a generational change was fundamentally required to meet the new challenges for entering the land.[13]

It is precisely at the point of transition between the first and second generation that we are introduced to the Parah Adumah. Parashat Korach takes place at the beginning of the 40 years and Chukkat picks up the narrative at the end of the 40 years – the only intervening passage is Parah Adumah. To highlight this transition it is Elazar, the son of Aaron of the second generation, who is identified as the Kohen who supervises the ritual rather than Aaron himself. 

Locating the Parah Adumah passage at this particular point, imparts the comforting message that this is not a story of wholesale replacement (as was indeed threatened at the time of the golden calf), but one of continuity and development. The new generation emerges from the ashes of the first but its persona and resilience is shaped by the first generation, and builds off its achievements and failures.

The Chok of Parah Adumah pre-empts the tragedy of death – not only from a legal and conceptual standpoint – but also in terms of the wider literary structure as it prepares us for the demise of the first generation. In fact, straight after the Parah Adumah passage we read about the deaths and impending deaths of the three generational leaders – Moshe, Aaron and Miriam. In this respect the placement of Parah Adumah prepares us to come to terms with the deaths of the leaders. Like the Parah Adumah they were blemish-free and innocent, but died as part of the generational transition.[14] Like the blood of the Parah Adumah which is slaughtered outside the camp and whose blood is sprinkled towards – but not quite reaching – the Mishkan, so too the leaders die outside the Land of Israel, just short of their destination. Their legacy (the ‘ashes’) however, lives on and guides the new generation who will be the ones to enter the land and complete the mission.[15]        

—---------------

[1] Ramban (Deut. 21:5-8) saw Parah Adumah as part of a group of three special Korbanot performed outside the Mishkan (the other two being Eglah Arufah and Se’ir HaMishtale’ach). The quasi Korban status has far reaching halachic implications, see for example the debates in Mishnah Parah 2:3 and 4:1 about how far the Korban comparison goes. 

[2] This is especially strange as the Rashbam repeatedly tells us that the Torah always provides background and context ahead of time (what he refers to as הקדמות – see for example Rashbam Bereishit 1:1).

[3] The only other place the combined phrase ‘Chukkat HaTorah’ appears is Bamidbar 31:21 in the context of purifying the vessels following the battle with Midian, however that usage is clearly intended to link back to our passage.

[3] The term Torah is used in Sefer Devarim in a broader way than the earlier books, but still does not mean the entire Torah.

 

[4] This division of the passages is based on R’ Elchanan Samet’s article here. This is characteristic of his general tendency to divide passages into two halves of equal length. He argues (convincingly in my view) that the verses between the two main passages (vv. 11-13) act as a bridge between the two sections.  

[5] For this reason, the Rambam classified the preparation of the ashes as an independent Mitzvah to the purification process. 

 

[6] The reference to Pesach and Matzah as a Chok is probably to highlight the ongoing obligation in contrast to the one-off events of the night of the Exodus. It also sets it apart from every other individual Korban.  

[7] In the words of the Rashbam:

זאת חקת התורה - ולפנינו יפרש באיזו תורה הוא מדבר, דכתיב: זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל - כלומר: חקת התורה שאמר למשה זאת התורה.

[8] Other examples include: פאר-פער, אור-עור, אושר-עושר, גאל-געל

[9] This is perhaps the reason a cow is used which was a well known symbol of fertility in the ancient world.

[10] In the story of Adam and Eve, they gain knowledge of childbirth at the same time as they acquire knowledge of mortality. 

 

[11] I discussed this at greater length in other contexts here and here

[12] Tzoraat may be unusual and cause immense suffering, but at the end of the day the person is expected to recover and return to the camp.

[13] See Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim III:24). Rambam generally believed that the Torah drives positive evolutionary change across generations – which sits well with our discussion. We have discussed previously how man’s original sin was also an inevitable outcome expressing the innate human desire for self-fulfilment. Following man’s original sin, immortality is replaced with progeny, and here too the second generation steps into the shoes of the first generation – perhaps creating a parallel between the two sins (which requires much further discussion).

[14] That Moshe died before entering the land primarily due to being the leader of the first generation – rather than as a direct punishment of hitting the rock – was discussed here. 

[15] Joel Kahan pointed out to me that the idea that Parah Adumah bears an allusion to the death of the leaders and creates a framework which enables everyone to move on, can be read into the Gemara:    

לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה מִיתַת מִרְיָם לְפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדוּמָּה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה פָּרָה אֲדוּמָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת — אַף מִיתָתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים מְכַפֶּרֶת. (בבלי מועד קטן כ״ח.)

The Gemara is quoted by Rashi (19:1) but the Parah Adumah reference in the answer is substituted for Korbanot more generally.         

 

בהעלותך

Skin-Deep Vision

Miriam is punished for speaking negatively against Moshe, yet what she actually means is unclear.

וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל־אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי־אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח׃ וַיֹּאמְרוּ הֲרַק אַךְ־בְּמֹשֶׁה דִּבֶּר ה׳ הֲלֹא גַּם־בָּנוּ דִבֵּר וַיִּשְׁמַע ה׳׃ (במדבר י״ב, א-ב)

According to Rashi (based on Chazal), Miriam disapproved of Moshe’s decision to separate from his wife Tzipporah — ostensibly due to his proximity to God which he believed demanded abstinence. This is related to the statement in the second verse where Miriam apparently downplays Moshe’s prophetic uniqueness by equating it to their own prophetic experience.     

There are several problems with this approach. First and foremost, we do not see anywhere that Moshe divorced or separated from Tzipporah following their reunion in Ex. 18. The verse in question implies the exact opposite — the issue was that he “took” the Ishah HaKushit, not that he divorced her (see Ibn Kaspi’s very sharp criticism of this approach due to it directly contradicting the plain meaning). Second, there is clear significance to the fact that his wife was a Kushite which is twice mentioned in the verse, yet this fact plays no material role within this explanation. 

Ibn Ezra tries to address the second issue by suggesting that Miriam accused Moshe of separating from Tzipporah as Moshe perceived her to be lacking in beauty. He then explains the second verse as presenting Miriam’s reasoning of why Moshe could not have been acting with sincere spiritual motive as Moshe’s prophecy was not really unique.   

Rashbam takes a wildly different approach. He says that the Ishah HaKushit was not in fact Tzipporah as Tzipporah was from Midian (modern day Saudi Arabia) and not Kush (modern day Sudan or Ethiopia). He quotes an unfamiliar Midrash that says Moshe ruled over Kush for 40 years during which he married one of the local princesses. Miriam disapproved of Moshe marrying a woman descended from Ham, unaware that he had never been intimate with her. The main problem here is that there is no other mention of this mysterious woman (and none at all about the abstention). Second, why would this criticism only surface now if they married so long ago. Finally, it would seem cruel and purposeless to marry her but then never consummate the marriage.       

A third explanation is offered by Shmuel David Luzatto (Italy, 1800-1865) and this is the approach I’d like to build on. He identifies the Ishah HaKushit as Tzipporah like Rashi, but he relates Miriam’s issue to the fact that Tzipporah was of non-Israelite origin — similar to Rashbam. Not only was she a non-Israelite, but she was a Kushite — a term that Miriam seems to use pejoratively. The second verse adds that Miriam thought Moshe was acting as a law unto himself due to his prophetic superiority. 

As for the geographical issue, Ibn Ezra already points out that some references in Tanakh seem to equate Kush and Midian suggesting ethnical overlap: 

תַּחַת אָוֶן רָאִיתִי אׇהֳלֵי כוּשָׁן יִרְגְּזוּן יְרִיעוֹת אֶרֶץ מִדְיָן׃ (חבקוק ג׳, ז)

It may also be the case that the Kushite reference is figurative and describes Tzipporah’s appearance — notably her dark skin, even though she was an ethnic Midianite. From other biblical references it is indeed clear that skin colour was perceived as a defining feature of a Kushite:

הֲיַהֲפֹךְ כּוּשִׁי עוֹרוֹ וְנָמֵר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָיו גַּם־אַתֶּם תּוּכְלוּ לְהֵיטִיב לִמֻּדֵי הָרֵעַ׃ (ירמיה י״ג, כ״ג)

In any event, it seems reasonable to assume the Kushite woman in this passage does indeed refer to Tzipporah.

Black vs white

The significance of Tzipporah being referred to as the Ishah HaKushit and not by her real name, lies in the fact that her ethnicity (and perhaps her skin colour) was precisely the target of Miriam’s slur. When Miriam speaks “concerning the Ishah HaKushit which he took” we anticipate some sort of explanation of what the problem was. Instead the verse simply repeats word for word the earlier part of the verse: “for he had taken an Ishah Kushit”. The repetition highlights that Miriam took issue with the very fact that she was a Kushite and there was nothing deeper to it. This point is especially forceful if the term Kushite is meant figuratively to describe skin colour rather than ethnicity.   

To add salt to the wound, Tzipporah together with Yitro had demonstrated tremendous self-sacrifice in leaving their homeland to join the Jewish people. The name Tzipporah evokes the homing instinct and fidelity of a bird and probably reflects her loyalty and dedication in returning to Moshe even after he had “sent her away”:[1]

וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֶת־צִפֹּרָה אֵשֶׁת מֹשֶׁה אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ׃ (שמות י״ח, ב)

Despite her loyalty, she was now being dismissed as an outsider. Since Miriam’s transgression was to speak negatively about Tzipporah by casting her as an outsider, the onset of Tzara’at — an unsightly skin affliction — was a fitting punishment: 

וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג (י״ב, י)

Miriam marginalised Tzipporah on account of her (black?) skin colour, so Miriam was excluded from the camp for a 7 day period on account of her diseased (snow white) skin.

There is also a sharp irony in the way Miriam touts her prophetic capacity to support her criticism of Moshe. A prophet is supposed to have a deep powers of perception which enables them to envisage the future.[2] In sharp contrast to these qualities, however, Miriam's perspective on Tzipporah was merely skin-deep. On the other hand, it was specifically Tzipporah's father that has demonstrated prophetic qualities which enabled him to predict the tragic events described in the prior passage...[3]

Yitro - the deep-sighted outsider 

The Miriam passage is embedded in a sequence of passages which commences with Yitro (=Chovav) leaving the camp and ends with the tragic episode of the spies. By understanding the Miriam passage in this way it fits neatly into the broader theme of these passages.

In that earlier passage, Moshe attempts to convince Yitro to stay on as their guide on account of his ability to act as “the eyes” of the camp:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי  עַל־כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם׃ (במדבר י׳:ל״א)

The direct meaning relates to the experienced vision of a guide. However, it might also allude to Yitro's far-sighted vision demonstrated when he established the judiciary (Ex. 18). In that earlier episode, Yitro sensed that Moshe's autocratic leadership was unsustainable. Through his plan to decentralise the leadership and invite, he was able to relieve the pressure on Moshe and empower the people. However, as soon as Yitro departs and his influence wanes, his earlier predictions come true. This is the story of the next passage:

נָבֹל תִּבֹּל גַּם־אַתָּה גַּם־הָעָם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר עִמָּךְ כִּי־כָבֵד מִמְּךָ הַדָּבָר לֹא־תוּכַל עֲשֹׂהוּ לְבַדֶּךָ׃ (שמות י״ח, י״ח)

לֹא־אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי לָשֵׂאת אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי כָבֵד מִמֶּנִּי (במדבר י״א, י"ד)

The Divine response to the situation follows Yitro's blueprint. New spiritual leaders are appointed who will share the burden of leadership with Moshe and add a new spiritual dimension to counter their base desires. The theme of eyes and perception is prominent in this passage as well:

וְעַתָּה נַפְשֵׁנוּ יְבֵשָׁה אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל־הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ׃ וְהַמָּן כִּזְרַע־גַּד הוּא וְעֵינוֹ כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח׃ (במדבר י״א, ו)

The next passage deals with Miriam's negative speech which, as discussed, was driven by the superficial perspective about Moshe's wife. The same theme then continues its way into the spies passage and lies behind the downfall of the spies the land. Every indication of the fertility and beauty of the land is perceived by the spies as a threat. This shallow perspective caused them to see everything as outsized and intimidating. 

וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק מִן־הַנְּפִלִים וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם׃ (י״ד, ל"ג)

Like Miriam, they were led astray by superficial vision which couldn’t penetrate the surface of what met their eyes. 

Finally, a call for a deeper perception stands at the heart of the Tzitzit passage that appears at the end of next week's parashah:[3]

וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כׇּל־מִצְוֺת ה׳ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא־תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃ לְמַעַן תִּזְכְּרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת־כׇּל־מִצְוֺתָי וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם׃ (במדבר ט״ו, לֹ״ט-מ)

These verses contain a number of allusions to the spies episode where it was the inability to see beyond the harsh reality that caused the fear and failure. Only through a conscious awareness of a deeper reality beneath the surface, can the nation develop the spiritual fortitude to enter the land and overcome their outsized enemies.

---------------------------

[1] Interestingly, Moshe convinced Yitro to join them when he spoke about (אודות) the nation — the same phrase as used in the Miriam passage. But in this context it is not slander, but quite the opposite — Moshe conveys how God responded to their distress and saved them:

וַיְסַפֵּר מֹשֶׁה לְחֹתְנוֹ אֵת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ לְפַרְעֹה וּלְמִצְרַיִם עַל אוֹדֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כׇּל־הַתְּלָאָה אֲשֶׁר מְצָאָתַם בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיַּצִּלֵם ה׳׃ (שמות י״ח, ח)

[2] The Ko'ach HaMedameh in the terminology of the Rambam (see Moreh Nevuchim II:36)

[3] The irony actually runs even deeper. I've suggested previously that a careful reading of the earlier Yitro passage shows that Yitro’s reforms placed emphasis on diffusion of power, democratization of knowledge, and individual responsibility which was a critical prelude to Matan Torah. Accordingly, the mass revelation and prophetic experience at Mt Sinai was directly related to Yitro’s intervention. If this is correct then the very prophecy which Miriam enlists to back her criticism of Moshe, was enabled as a result of Yitro — inspired by his sensitivity to the need for broader inclusivity.   

     

[4] The roots ראה, תור, זנה from the Tzitzit passage feature prominently in the spies episode, for example:

אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לָתוּר אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן־נוּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ׃  (במדבר י״ג, י״ז)

וּרְאִיתֶם אֶת־הָאָרֶץ מַה־הִוא וְאֶת־הָעָם הַיֹּשֵׁב עָלֶיהָ הֶחָזָק הוּא הֲרָפֶה הַמְעַט הוּא אִם־רָב׃ (במדבר י״ג, י״ח)

וּבְנֵיכֶם יִהְיוּ רֹעִים בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וְנָשְׂאוּ אֶת־זְנוּתֵיכֶם עַד־תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר׃ (במדבר י״ד, לֹ"ג)

 

כי תשא

Two Stories of Faltering Hands – Amalek and the Golden Calf

The Torah readings of this week bring together two different episodes involving Moshe on top of a mountain. Parashat Ki Tissa relates Moshe’s presence on top of Mt Sinai as the people sin with the golden calf down below. On Purim we read about Moshe’s ascent of the mountain whilst Yehoshua leads the battle against Amalek. 

The outcome in both cases is of course very different. Yehoshua successfully defeats Amalek whereas the episode of the golden calf represents a colossal failure. Yet a close comparison of the two episodes demonstrates that the contrasts run far deeper.

1) In the battle of Amalek, Aaron and Chur ascend with Moshe whereas Yehoshua fights down below. When it comes to Mt Sinai, Yehoshua escorts Moshe to the mountain whilst Aaron and Chur stay in the camp (but fail to prevent the sin):

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם מִי־בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם׃ (שמות כ״ד:י״ד)[1] 

2) The theme of Moshe’s hands is central to both passages. In the battle with Amalek, though Moshe struggles to maintain his posture, Aaron and Chur succeed in holding his hands aloft. However, when Moshe sees the golden calf whilst standing alongside Yehoshua, his hands falter and he smashes the tablets. If we accept the view of the Rashbam that Moshe’s actions were not intentional, rather his hands weakened upon seeing the golden calf, the contrast is even starker. (Yehoshua’s helplessness here must also be considered alongside his complete misreading of the situation, a point we will shortly return to.)         

3) The description of the two tablets recalls the positioning of Aaron and Chur on either side of Moshe:

וַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים׃ (שמות

ל״ב:ט״ו)

וִידֵי מֹשֶׁה כְּבֵדִים וַיִּקְחוּ־אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו וַיֵּשֶׁב עָלֶיהָ וְאַהֲרֹן וְחוּר תָּמְכוּ בְיָדָיו מִזֶּה אֶחָד וּמִזֶּה אֶחָד וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה עַד־בֹּא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ׃ (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

4) In the battle with Amalek, God instructs Moshe to inscribe in a book the requirement to ‘erase’ the memory of Amalek. In complete inverse, at Mt Sinai Moshe asks that he be ‘erased’ from God’s book. 

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאׇזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּי־מָחֹה אֶמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ (שמות י״ז:י״ד)

וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם־אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ׃ (שמות ל״ב:ל״ב)

5) A number of other commonalities, which may seem insignificant on their own, further sharpen the contrast when combined with the above: 

וַיִּקְחוּ־אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

פְּסׇל־לְךָ שְׁנֵי־לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים (שמות ל״ד:א׳)

מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל־רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה (שמות י״ז:ט׳)

וֶהְיֵה נָכוֹן לַבֹּקֶר וְעָלִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר אֶל־הַר סִינַי וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִי שָׁם עַל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר׃ (שמות ל״ד:א׳)

וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

וְגַם־בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם (שמות י״ט:ט׳)

The view of Yehoshua – rinse and repeat

It is not just the reader that hears echoes of the battle of Amalek. This is exactly what is going through Yehoshua’s mind when he declares to Moshe that he hears the sounds of battle:

וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־קוֹל הָעָם בְּרֵעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קוֹל מִלְחָמָה בַּמַּחֲנֶה׃ (שמות ל״ב:י״ז)

Yehoshua seems to think it is a repeat of the last time. He confidently informs Moshe that there is a battle in the camp suggesting that all Moshe needs to do is raise his hands and they will be victorious. 

Moshe immediately corrects him that this is not the case and he has completely misread the events:   

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ׃ (שמות ל״ב:י״ז)

The allusion here to the previous battle of Amalek is unmistakable and is picked up in various Midrashim:[2]

וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל… וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת־עַמּוֹ לְפִי־חָרֶב׃ (שמות י״ז:י״א-י״ג)

Moshe reproaches Yehoshua for not correctly discerning the voices, a critical function for the future leader of the nation. 

This leads us to what is perhaps the most significant difference of all. In the battle with Amalek, the position of Moshe’s hands determines the fate of the battle below. At Mt Sinai, the fate of Moshe’s hands (and by extension the covenant represented by the Luchot) is determined by the actions of the people. 

This is the key point Yehoshua misses. Whilst he has set up base at the foot of the mountain focussing on what is happening at the top of the mountain, the real story is happening in the main camp. If Yehoshua had stayed or returned to the camp, similar to the battle against Amalek, perhaps they would have been in with a fighting chance.[3] Aaron and Chur on their own clearly could not contain them. As future leader, Yehoshua’s will need to lead from within the camp with his finger constantly on the pulse, and not from the ivory tower of Mt Sinai.

Though it is apparent that Yehosua’s appointment as Moshe’s successor is due to his attachment to his master, he must come to realise that his leadership role will be very different. A similar criticism is conveyed in the next story in which Yehoshua appears. When Eldad and Meidad are prophesying from within the camp, Yehoshua leaps up in protest:

וַיָּרׇץ הַנַּעַר וַיַּגֵּד לְמֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה׃ וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם׃ (במדבר י״א:כ״ט)

Yehoshua seems to believe that prophecy does not belong inside the camp, only outside the camp among the chosen few (in this case the 70 elders). As before, Moshe corrects him that this is not the case:[4]

וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה הַמְקַנֵּא אַתָּה לִי וּמִי יִתֵּן כׇּל־עַם ה׳ נְבִיאִים כִּי־יִתֵּן ה׳ אֶת־רוּחוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם׃ (במדבר י״א:כ״ט)

The goal is not that holiness and prophesy remains confined to the top of the mountain, or the Mishkan for that matter. Holiness is meant to diffuse through the entire camp and enable prophecy to emerge from within. For this reason, Yehoshua’s place is in the camp and not on the top of the mountain like Moshe. 

The appointment of Yehoshua

This shift in leadership responsibility from Moshe to Yehosua is discernible in the passage in which Yehoshua is appointed. When Moshe requests that God appoint a leader, he describes the role as that of a shepherd who comes and goes in front of the people.

אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עֲדַת ה׳ כַּצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לָהֶם רֹעֶה׃ (במדבר כ״ז:י״ז)

When God responds, however, the emphasis changes subtly:

וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן יַעֲמֹד וְשָׁאַל לוֹ בְּמִשְׁפַּט הָאוּרִים לִפְנֵי ה׳ עַל־פִּיו יֵצְאוּ וְעַל־פִּיו יָבֹאוּ הוּא וְכׇל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתּוֹ וְכׇל־הָעֵדָה׃ (במדבר כ״ז:כ״א)

According to the revised version, the people will not follow behind Yehoshua but move alongside him. The new leader will not be set apart from the people, but stand with them shoulder to shoulder in front of God.   

[1] The separation of Moshe and Yehoshua from everyone else is further highlighted when we take account of the parallel to the Akeidah where Avraham and Yitzchak part ways with their attendants to continue their ascent of Mt Moriah in private:

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם (שמות כ״ד:י״ד)וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶם פֹּה עִם־הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד־כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם׃ (בראשית כ״ב:ה׳)

[2] Not just the echoes of the battle of Amalek, but also the underlying criticism of Yehoshua and the question around his leadership ability is addressed the Midrash:

אמר רבי אחוה בריה דרבי זירא שני דברים דבר יהושע בפני משה ולא נגמל חן בעיניו, ואלו הן, אחד במנוי הזקנים, ואחד במעשה העגל. במנוי הזקנים, דכתיב (במדבר יא, כח): אדני משה כלאם, אמר לו כלם והעבירם מן העולם (במדבר יא, כח): ויאמר לו משה המקנא אתה לי, אמר לו יהושע בך אני מתקנא, הלואי בני כיוצא בך, הלואי כל ישראל כיוצא בך (במדבר יא, כח): ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים וגו'. ואחד בעגל, שנאמר (שמות לב, יז): וישמע יהושע את קול העם ברעה, אמר לו משה, יהושע, אדם שעתיד להנהיג שררה על ששים רבוא אינו יודע להבחין בין קול לקול. אין קול ענות גבורה, האיך מה דאת אמר (שמות יז, יא): וגבר ישראל. ואין קול ענות חלושה, האיך מה דאת אמר: ויחלש יהושע. (קוהלת רבה, ט׳:י״א)

[3] It is notable that in the battle with Amalek, God commanded Yehoshua to fight the battle with the people. In the other passages Yehoshua acts of his own volition (he was in fact never even instructed to accompany Moshe up to Mt Sinai).

[4] The connection between these two episodes Yehoshua is noted in the previously cited Midrash:

שני דברים אמר יהושע לפני משה ושניהם לא יישרו בעיניו. זה הראשון. והאחר אדוני משה כלאם.