Original Torah: Ancient Words in a Modern Light

A number of years ago I was preparing to read Torah. I noticed a number of different section in this parashah had a different cadence and theme than the rest. At the time, I was trying to learn Yemini cantillation. So, I chanted Dt. 2:10-13, 20-23 in a different trope. Nobody noticed, but I have thought about it since then.

2:10 It was formerly inhabited by the Emim, a people great and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. 11 Like the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim. 12 Similarly, Seir was formerly inhabited by the Horites; but the descendants of Esau dispossessed them, wiping them out and settling in their place, just as Israel did in the land they were to possess, which the Lord had given to them. —

2:20 It, too, is counted as Rephaim country. It was formerly inhabited by Rephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zamzummim, 21 a people great and numerous and as tall as the Anakites. The Lord wiped them out, so that [the Ammonites] dispossessed them and settled in their place, 22 as He did for the descendants of Esau who live in Seir, when He wiped out the Horites before them, so that they dispossessed them and settled in their place, as is still the case. 23 So, too, with the Avvim who dwelt in villages in the vicinity of Gaza: the Caphtorim, who came from Crete, wiped them out and settled in their place. —

3:9 Sidonians called Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir — 10 all the towns of the Tableland and the whole of Gilead and Bashan as far as Salcah and Edrei, the towns of Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 11 Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaim. His bedstead, an iron bedstead, is now in Rabbah of the Ammonites; it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide, by the standard cubit!

(See also Gen 6:1-4 14:5, 15:20, 36:20, Josh 3:13, 13:13, MAP)

In the book of Numbers, we read quotes from the book of Wars of YHWH. In Joshua and other books, we read of the book of Yashar. In the book of Kings, we read of the Chronicles of the Kings. So, it is not uncommon for the Bible to quote other books. Sometimes the poems, such as Exodus 15 or Numbers 21:27-30 are quoted without reference. I believe these two sections in Dt. 2 were copied from another source.

I will not write, now, about textual criticism, however. I will write about the function these sections serve in explaining Israel’s conquering its northern border.

Emim, Refaim, Zamzumim words of fear, more on this later.

Yehi retzono shel manhig haolam lehafkiah einei hasonim vetokfim, leharbot shalvah veshaanan beolam velehafshir hafsharot tovot al kol mahklokot bein shehem lesheim shamayim, o lo lesheim shamayam. Ve she nire shalom veyehesim tovim bimhera beyamenu, amen

May it be the will of the ruler of the world to open the eyes of the haters and attackers, to increase tranquility and repose in the world and to make good compromises whether for the sake of heaven or not for the sake of heaven. and that we should see peace and good relations soon in our days. amen

Chapter 31 begins with God commanding Moses’s last act, to correct (NQM M) what the Midianites did, and to separate out fighters in order to reprove (NQM B) Midian for their sin. These two uses of NQM in parallel teach the intent of the bloodshed that follows, to return the Israelites to God by punishing the Midianites. (note: parallel)

While the story as written is unlikely to be historical, it nonetheless shows a middle stage in the relationship between Israel and the wide-ranging kingdoms of Midian. When Moses was young, he lived among them and married a Midianite priest’s daughter. Her father maintained strong ties to Moses (Exodus 19).

In this story all Midianite men and female non-virgins are killed (while the virgins may be married). By the time of Ezra and Nehemia, any intermarriage with the surrounding nations was prohibited. (Deuteronomy lays out different conditions for taking women in war).

That being said, if the sin in this story is related to Bilaam and Baal Peor (an idol), then why the later complete prohibition of marriage with other nations under Ezra and Nehemia. In the story of Dinah and Schechem (Gen 34:21), for example, intermarriage is seen as a exemplary of a peaceful relationship, just as Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai later intermarried (Eruvin 13b?) in Deut 7:3

3 You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. 4 For they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods, and the Lord’s anger will blaze forth against you and He will promptly wipe you out. 5 Instead, this is what you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred posts, and consign their images to the fire.
6 For you are a people

Only the Moabites and Moabites are completely forbidden to intermarry, for a historical sin Yevamot 76b (except Ruth and Orpah 4:13). The Bible seems to have a mixed message on intermarriage. Joseph married the daughter of an Egyptian priest (Gen 41:45), so presumably, idol worship wasn’t a forbidden trait in wives then.

Going back to the parashah, what had the Midanites done to deserve a virtual genocide? If the crime was sexual licentiousness on the part of Midianite women and Israelite men, why are the Midianite men killed? Is the tradition correct that Bilaam asked the Midianite women to engage in cultic sex with the Israelite men at Baal Peor (San. 106a; Yer. ib. x. 28d; Num. R. l.c.) ? Shouldn’t the punishment then be to anyone involved in the act, not just the non-virgins? Isn’t collective punishment, especially collective near genocide something to be frowned upon? How could God command this as Moses’s last act?

It is strange, by comparison, that everyone who worshipped the Golden Calf was killed, but not all Israelite men who cohabited with Midianite women were killed.

Looking at the quasi-historicity of the text, it appears that later events, perhaps in the time of Judges (21:10-12) recast the story to tell the contemporary audience of the importance of monotheism, of worshipping YHWH— not as even later texts would consider it as a matter of intermarriage.

To summarize, the writers of the early Bible (Torah, Neviim), saw deviance from strict monotheistic worship as a captial offense. Anything that diluted the Godly purity of the Israelite people would be punished. Foreign worship (עבודה זרה, עכו”ם) not only led away from God, it made you a bad person. Since Israel became a nation, the writers of the Bible were concerned with not just a loss of belief in God, but a loss of the moral system that such a belief necessitates (Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.) Viewed in that light, where the Torah sees foreign worship as immoral for Israelites (Deut 4:19), we begin to understand the severity of the crime.

In today’s terms, though breaking with the Jewish people should not be considered a capital offense, we can perhaps use the metaphor that moral behavior is Jewish behavior (note, this emphasize has shifted to legalism in some communities). It is therefore our job to revive those dead to Jewish values (i.e. moralism) through an understanding of the moral demands of being Jewish. Above all, we must do so diplomatically, and not as our forefathers did.

Dvar Peor

See Balak, women whoring with men, Pinhas ended it.

Parallel Command

Bemidbar 25:17-18 TzRR

יז צָר֖וֹר אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים וְהִכִּיתֶ֖ם אוֹתָֽם׃ יח כִּ֣י צֹֽרְרִ֥ים הֵם֙ לָכֶ֔ם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶ֛ם אֲשֶׁר־נִכְּל֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם עַל־דְּבַר־פְּע֑וֹר וְעַל־דְּבַ֞ר כָּזְבִּ֨י בַת־נְשִׂ֤יא מִדְיָן֙ אֲחֹתָ֔ם הַמֻּכָּ֥ה בְיוֹם־הַמַּגֵּפָ֖ה עַל־דְּבַר־פְּעֽוֹר׃

Unlikely To Be Historical

Some debate as to the historicity of the story p.178 based on utter destruction, numbers, booty, no injuries

Marry Midianites

31:15 Moses said to them, “You have spared every female! 16 Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so that the Lord’s community was struck by the plague. 17 Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, and slay also every woman who has known a man carnally; 18 but spare every young woman who has not had carnal relations with a man.

Moses Married a Midianite

Moses Exodus 2:21, Bemidbar 12:1

Ezra Nehemia on Intermarriage

Forbidden Ezra Nehemia 10:2-3,44, Nehemiah 10:31

Deut on Taking Women in War

Okay Devarim 21:10-14

Deut 21:10 When you take the field against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your power and you take some of them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her to wife, 12 you shall bring her into your house, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, 13 and discard her captive’s garb. She shall spend a month’s time in your house lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. 14 Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her.

There are two transmissions in parashat pinhas, the transmission of authority to Joshua before Moses is “gathered unto his people”(27:13), and the apportioning of the land of Canaan to the males living at that time.

There are two traditions regarding how the torah was given. Reish Lakish says at Sinai all at once (תורה חתומה ניתנה), whereas R’ Yohanan says it was given scroll by scroll (מגילה מגילה ניתנה) (Gitin 60a). This parashah strongly supports the latter theory as not only does Moses not know the answer to whether fatherless, brotherless daughters should inherit their ancestral land (27:1-11), but that this divine decision is later challenged and changed at the end of the book (31:1-13). The Revelation at Sinai clearly was not enough to rule in this case.

The word used for Moses to transmit his authority is SMK סמכ, meaning to lean. The words normal usage in this sense is that the an animal to be offered was leaned upon to display the selection of the animal and, in some cases, the transmission of sins to the animal.

Now, the word for inheriting land that is used for males is YRSh/ירש or NTN/נתנ, both the more common usage. The word used in this parashah for daughters inheriting land is ‘BR/העברה, passing or transmission of the land. The distinction being made is that men rightfully inherit land that is theirs, whereas women are “passed the land”אין לך מעביר במנכלה אלא בת: מפני שבנה ובעלה יורשים אותה” (Sifri beMidbar 134). “It is passed from the appropriate, to the not appropriate.ממי שראוי אל מי שאינו ראוי (ibn Ezra, Olam haTanakh p.169)” Moreover, only the fatherless, brotherless daughters can be passed the ancestral land. Mothers, Aunts, Sisters, etc. cannot.

In other words, the triumph of the women in this story is very clearly within an established patriarchy, where even the language belies that women are only passed the land so that it stays within the (patriarchical) tribe.

Both the language of transmitting authority and inheriting land denote a direct interaction between the giver and the receiver. The Torah is essentially allowing women a passive role in transmitting land from male to male.

The story, therefore, teaches us two things. One, that the revelation is open to challenge and to rewriting. And two, that even the revisions may be revised. The Torah may have been progressive in its time, but in our time, we must used its own principles to judge its conclusions.