TORAH SPARKS
Parashat Hukat
June 19, 2021, 9 Tamuz 5781
Torah: Numbers 19:1-22:1; Triennial 19:1-20:21
Haftarah: Judges 11:1-33
Hukat The Song that Wells Up from Inside
Ilana Kurshan
Parashah Hukat is about the death of a generation and its leaders. Miriam and Aaron die, and Moshe is informed by God that he, too, will die before entering the promised land. Moreover, the Midrash relates that by the time the Israelites arrive at the wilderness of Zin at the beginning of the parashah, the entire generation that was fated to die in the wilderness has been replaced. And yet the new generation does not seem all that different. As soon as they find themselves without water, they complain to Moshe: Why did you make us leave Egypt to bring us to this wretched place (20:4), they wail, even though it was in fact their parents generation who had been slaves in Egypt. Their complaints sound strikingly similar to those of their forbears, who cried out to Moshe when they found themselves without water following the splitting of the sea, If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt! (Exodus 16:3). What was the purpose of waiting for the generation of slaves to die out? Has anything changed? Is this new generation any more prepared to enter the promised land?
Towards the end of our parashah we find a hint that perhaps the Israelites have begun to mature at long last. The Torah, in chronicling the people s wilderness wanderings, relates that they came to a place called Be er, meaning a well of water. The issue of water has been very fraught for the Israelites, who first cried out in panic to Moshe when the waters of the Red Sea loomed before them and the Egyptians were giving chase; they then proceeded to complain each time they found themselves without sufficient water in the wilderness, as we have seen. And yet this time something has changed. When they arrive at Be er and God gives them water, the Israelites break out in song: Then Israel sang this song: Spring up, O well, sing to it, the well which the chieftans dug, which the nobles of the people started, with maces and with their own staffs (21:17-18). Upon receiving water, they do not just drink it, feed their animals, and move on; rather, they burst out in a song of gratitude.
Moreover, the content of the song at Be er suggests that the Israelites may have played an active role in procuring this water. They sing about how the well was dug by chieftains and started by nobles, perhaps suggesting that this time, instead of immediately turning to Moshe to complain about the lack of water, the people may have instead taken out their own maces and staffs and begun digging. They then celebrate the well they have dug, indicating that this generation was ready and able to provide for itself unlike their ancestors, former slaves who expected God and their leaders to cater to their every need. A generation that will dig its own wells is certainly more suited to conquer a new land and begin building a new society.
The Israelites song at Be er, introduced by the words Az Yashir, is all the more striking when considered in light of the earlier songs it echoes. These same words were used to introduce the Song of the Sea, which the Israelites sang immediately following the exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the sea. In the Talmud (Sotah 30b), Rabbi Akiva makes it clear that the Song of the Sea was Moshe s initiative: How did they sing this song? Like a man who recites Hallel, and the congregation listening merely recites after him the chapter headings. Moshe said I will sing unto the Lord, and the people said after him, I will sing unto the Lord. Rashi says the man in this analogy is someone who chants for the congregation so that they might repeat and thus fulfill their obligation, since they are unable to sing on their own. Another sage, Rabbi Nehemiah, draws the analogy to a schoolteacher who leads the Shema by reciting each blessing one by one for the congregation to repeat. According to both sages, the Song of the Sea was recited responsively, with the people merely repeating the words sung first by their leader Moshe. In contrast, the song at Be er was sung by Israel alone, of their own initiative.
The song at Be er does not echo just the Song of the Sea led by Moshe, but also a subsequent song led by Miriam. Following Moshe s song, Miriam takes a timbrel and leads the women in song, exhorting them to Sing to the Lord for He has triumphed gloriously (Exodus 15:21). Unlike Moshe, who leads the people in responsive chanting, Miriam urges the women to sing on their own. Rabbi Benjamin Lau, in his book Etnachta (Yediot, 2009, untranslated), suggests that perhaps Miriam is training the people to be more independent they need not merely echo the lines sung by Moshe, but can take their timbrels and sing of their own initiative. If so, then the song at Be er which appears towards the end of our parashah, after Miriam s death may reflect that the people have finally internalized Miriam s message. With Aaron and Miriam no longer among them, and with Moshe soon to die, the people realize that they can no longer wait for their leaders to initiate the singing. It has to well up from inside them.
The two words that appear in the Torah immediately following the song at Be er are and from Midbar, Matana (17:18). The Midbar is the Torah s word for the wilderness, and Matana means gift. Is the Torah merely telling us that the Israelites journeyed from a place called Midbar to a place called Matana? Perhaps. Or perhaps the Israelites, who sing at Be er of their own initiative, have finally learned to accept that even the wilderness can yield unexpected gifts. The Talmud (Eruvin 54a) teaches that Matana is a reference to the Torah, the gift given in the wilderness. As this new generation continues its journey through the wilderness toward the Promised Land, Torah will prove to be a gift that allows the people to find and to sing their own song.
A Small Story with a Wide Range?
Vered Hollander-Goldfarb
Our focus will be on 20:1.
Text: Bamidbar 20:1-12
1And the children of Israel, the whole congregation, came to the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people dwelt in Kadesh; and Miriam died there, and was buried there. 2And there was no water for the congregation; and they assembled themselves together against Moshe and against Aaron. . 7And the LORD spoke to Moshe, saying: 8 Take the rod, and speak to the rock before their eyes 10And Moshe and Aaron gathered the assembly 11And Moshe lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice… 12And the LORD said to Moshe and Aaron: Because you did not believed in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.
● What might be the connection between the two stories that appear here (v.1, and vv.2-12)?
● Who is expected to be affected by Miriam s death? In what ways?
● How many stories can you think of that connect Miriam to water?
● In what year(s) of the desert travels do you think that these events took place? Why?
Commentary: Rashi Bamidbar 20:1
The whole congregation The congregation in its entirety, for those who were to die in the wilderness in consequence of their sin had already died, but these had been expressly mentioned for life.
● In what year is the story taking place? What might be the significance of Miriam s death in that context?
Commentary: Rashi Bamidbar 20:2
And there was no water for the congregation Since this statement follows immediately after the mention of Miriam’s death, we may learn from it that during the entire forty years they had the "well" through Miriam’s merit.
● Why do you think the water supply is associated with Miriam? What might it suggest about her perceived position among the people? Why might it be coming to an end at this point in the journey?
Commentary: Ibn Ezra Bamidbar 20:2
And there was no water for the congregation: Scripture tells of two incidents. One, the death of Miriam. The second, the death of Aaron and Moshe and their failure to enter the land, so it begins to tell the cause of the latter.
● According to Ibn Ezra, how many stories do we have in this passage? Where is the end of the story according to this reading?
●
Compare his reading to that of Rashi. How does each of
them understand the events in context of the 40th year, on the cusp
of ending the wilderness life?
Claiming Land
Bex Stern Rosenblatt
How on earth can we mediate conflicting claims to land? What happens when competing claims are based on different sets of facts which each side believes to be true? Who gets to judge?
These are the questions which lie at the heart of this week s haftarah, Judges 11. The haftarah portion opens with brothers turning on their half-brother, Yiftach, son of their father and a prostitute, and declaring that he will not inherit the land of Gilead with them. Yiftach flees, going to a nearby land where he attracts a band of empty or worthless men who go raiding with him. After this first act of dispossession leads to the formation of a raiding band, the people of Gilead change their mind. They encounter a bigger threat to their territorial holdings. Ammonites, a non-Israelite people, go to war against Israel. And so the elders of Gilead look for a leader who is willing to fight the Ammonites and decide to ask the banished Yiftach, perhaps because of his experience fighting as a leader of raids. The man who once was forced out of power is welcomed back to an even bigger role when a more threatening enemy arrives.
However, despite his prowess as a raider, Yiftach chooses to engage in negotiations with the enemy rather than immediately turn to fighting. He sends messengers to the Ammonites saying, What is it with you and me that you have come against me to wage war in my land? It s a clever move. Yiftach is sending peace envoys who make very clear what his stance is on the issue of the disputed territory. Right away, he states that the land is his. Not only is Yiftach asserting the right of the Israelites to the land, he is also asserting his own right to it as leader of the Gileadites. He is making clear that the Ammonites are the aggressors.
The Ammonites respond with their understanding of history. They claim that the land where the Gileadites live, to the east of the Jordan, is Ammonite land taken by the Israelites wrongfully during the exodus from Egypt. Yiftach disputes their claim. He responds with the Israelite history, recounting eleven verses worth of the story of Israelite wars on the way out of Egypt. Citing material from this week s parashah, Yiftach explains that Israel never took Ammonite land because the land to which the Ammonites are now trying to lay claim was never theirs in the first place. The Israelites did take it from the Amorites after the Amorites refused them passage through the land and attacked them. Yiftach legitimizes the Israelites ownership of the land, saying that it had not been the Ammonites land and the Israelites won it fairly in a defensive war. Moreover, why did the Ammonites wait hundreds of years after the exodus to make this claim? Surely, Yiftach seems to insist, their claim is fabricated.
The King of Ammon does not listen to Yiftach s message. The negotiations end. With each side having recited its understanding of history, no further progress can be made. They disagree fundamentally and they both want the same land. The spirit of God comes over Yiftach, he goes to war and he wins decisively. The Israelites, supported by God, are vindicated in their possession of the land, in their version of history. And there our haftarah ends. But the story doesn t stop there. During battle, Yiftach had vowed that if he won, he would sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house when he returned home. That thing will be his daughter. Caught by his vow, Yiftach sacrifices his child. Even as he guarantees for himself the right to represent Israel, to inherit its Torah and its stories, he is unable to secure those stories and that legacy for the next generation.