Sandwiched between the many deaths that occurred in Korach last week, and the passing of Miriam this week, we have the account of the parah adumah, which provides the means of purification from corpse contamination. Parashat Chukkat also contains the Moshe’s anger management issue at Kadesh, the death of Aharon, and the initial conquests which bring B’nai Yisrael to the banks of the Jordan River. I’ll be focusing primarily on Miriam this week, because I don’t think Torah gives her sufficient credit for the important role she played in this story over the 126+ years of her life.
Parashat Chukkat, the shortest stand-alone parashah in Sefer Bamidbar, contains 4,670 letters, 1,245 words in 87 verses, and occupies approximately 159 lines in a Sefer Torah. In some years (those where the 2nd day of Shavuot falls on Shabbat in the diaspora, including this year), parashat Chukkat is combined with the subsequent reading, Balak, to synchronize readings with those in Israel. Parashat Balak contains 5,357 letters, 1,455 words in 104 verses, and occupies approximately 178 lines in a Sefer Torah.
Interestingly, Sefer HaChinuch[i] and Maimonides differ in the number of mitzvot contained in Chukkat; according to Sefer HaChinuch there are three positive commandments in the parashah, while Maimonides records only one. Both agree there are no mitzvot in Balak.[ii]
Chukkat
The issue of the parah adumah, which begins the reading, is a chok[iii] – a commandment that can’t be rationally understood. King Solomon, said to be the wisest of Torah scholars, admitted that the concepts were beyond his comprehension:
Solomon said, “About all these things I have knowledge; but in the case of the parashah on the red heifer, I have investigated it, inquired into it, and examined it… ‘I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me.’” (see the end of Bamidbar Rabbah 19:3)
The fact that it’s beyond comprehension hasn’t stopped commentators throughout the ages from attempting to explain it. Maimonides even devotes an entire tractate of his Mishneh Torah to this issue (Hilchot Parah Adumah).
Ultimately, since this process is the only way to remove the impurity engendered by contact with death, today no one is fully tahor; for this reason some authorities indicate it’s prohibited for Jews to enter the Temple Mount in Jerusalem lest they inadvertently cross the Holy of Holies in a ritually impure state:
In any case, many early and late authorities have ruled on the basis of Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Yohanan, Rav Huna and Maimonides that it is still forbidden to enter the Temple Mount today “lest he wander into the forbidden area in the Rampart or in the Court [of the Israelites] which is punishable by Karet even today” “and today we have all contracted ritual impurity by having been in contact with a corpse.” (from Golinkin, 2007)
Apparently there have so far been only nine red heifers that have met the qualifications to be used in this process (Mishnah Parah 3:5). According to Maimonides (Mishneh Torah Hilchot Parah Adumah 3:4, see last line), the tenth will come in the time of HaMoshiach.[iv] I guess until then we’re all tamay.
But enough about the parah adumah … on to Miriam.
Miriam had a vital role during the entire process of Israel’s liberation from Egypt and the time spent in the wilderness, up until the last year before the people entered the land. She was the older sister of both Aharon and Moshe, and prophesied, at an early age, the birth of the person who would “deliver the Jewish people to salvation” (BT Megillah 14a:14). She is described as being one of the midwives mentioned in Torah (Sotah 11b:13). She looked after her brother after he’d been placed in the Nile, and made sure that when Pharaoh’s daughter rescued him, his own mother would be selected to be his wet nurse (Sotah 12b:19-20). Miriam is first mentioned in Torah by name after the Exodus from Egypt when she led the women in song at the Sea (Ex. 15:20-21), demonstrating a role parallel to, if not equal to, her younger brother. According to midrash, she married Calev (Sifrei Bamidbar 78;1), who would later be one of the two “good” scouts, and had a son, Chur, whose grandson was none other than Betzalel (Ex. 31:2), who was selected for mishkan construction. She was also an ancestor of David (Sifrei Bamidbar, op. cit.)
Miriam served a leadership role in the desert, along with her brothers, in that when the camps set out, it was with Miriam at the lead (Sifrei Devarim 275:3). When she was stricken with tzara’at and had to leave the camp for seven days, there was no movement (Numbers 12:15).
Perhaps most of all, Miriam was associated with water, and the wells that followed the people through their 40 years. Talmud describes three branches of the vine from which the people of Israel emerged and blossomed – the man is associated with Moshe, the pillar of cloud with Aharon, and the well with Miriam (Chullin 92a). According to Talmud, Miriam’s well was one of the ten things created on erev Shabbat at the time of creation (Pesachim 54a:6). And when Miriam died, the water died along with her.
Despite all of this, Miriam’s death is treated with just half of a single passuk (Bamidbar 20:1) in Torah, followed by the mention of the community being without water (Bamidbar 20:2). At least some of the commentators accord her passing as being special, in that she and her brothers died “by the mouth of the Lord” (Bava Batra 17a:3), and that all three of them died on Mount Nevo (Sotah 13b:22).
What I find striking, however, is that there’s no mention of any mourning period, either by her brothers, or by the people as a whole. To me, this is unconscionable. None of this process would have happened without her, and she gets remarkably short shrift in the tale.
The editors of The Midrash Says also find it difficult to believe that there was no mourning period, so they apparently invent one: “Moshe and Aharon, who were sitting and mourning for their sister, saw throngs of people nearing their tent” (pg. 262) – but no reference or citation is given for any mourning practice, and I’m unaware of any reference of mourning for Miriam in Talmud or midrash.[v]
Torah continues, recounting how the people were angry because they were without water, which is reasonable enough. G-d instructs Moshe and Aharon to take their trusty rod, and order the rock to yield water (why is he told to take the rod if not to use it?), both for the people and for their animals (see Bamidbar 20:3-9). Moshe, however, instead of speaking to the rock, both insults the people, calling them “rebels”,[vi] and strikes the rock twice (op.cit., 10-11). Some say the first strike produced blood, and only the second produced water (The Midrash Says, pg. 268, cites Shemot Rabbah 3, but I can’t find a translation).
Both Moshe and Aharon are then told that as a result of their actions (Bamidbar 20:12), for not trusting/believing in G-d or sanctifying G-d’s name, neither of them would be present to lead the people into the Promised Land. Off hand, this seems a bit drastic to me, and the commentators wonder as well. One teaching is that, at that moment, Moshe and Aharon didn’t believe in G-d; had they believed they would not have died (Shabbat 55b:2). According to Rambam, it was because Moshe became angry with B’nai Yisrael. An interesting comment in The Midrash Says (pg. 270) says, “The debate as to wherein Moshe’s sin actually lay proves the subtlety of his error.” Not sure what that means, except that there’s no agreement as to why not only Moshe, but Aharon as well, are punished, after a lifetime of belief, teaching, and service. Certainly G-d also expressed frustration and anger towards the people multiple times, to a much greater extent than did either Moshe or Aharon.
I would like to offer my own midrash. Rather than focusing on the first part of the phrase, not believing, I think the second, not sanctifying G-d’s name, is more significant, and this points back to the lack of evidence regarding any mourning period being observed for Miriam, by either Moshe or Aharon. When we recite any Kaddish, including, of course, Kaddish Yatom, the Mourner’s Kaddish, we say Yitgadal v’Yitkadash Sh’mei Rabbah – Magnified and Sanctified be the Great Name. Moshe and Aharon had every right to grieve the loss of their elder sister, who was so instrumental in predicting, igniting, and shaping this liberation movement that ultimately defined the soul of a people. They had an obligation to serve as leaders themselves and set an example for the people. To mourn for their sister, who had such a vital role in implementing G-d’s plan, would certainly have served to sanctify G-d’s name. There’s no indication that they did this.
While it’s true that we each grieve in our own way, and it’s true that as leaders they had a responsibility to serve the people, it’s also true, and admittedly very difficult, that Moshe and Aharon needed to balance their public roles and their personal needs. Officials that don’t do this, and those that don’t use these moments as educational opportunities, will suffer, as will the people they lead. And sometimes that suffering manifests itself in lashing out inappropriately at others, as Moshe appears to have done in castigating the people and in striking the rock with his staff.
Did Moshe ever learn his lesson? Perhaps he did, because a short time later, when his other sibling, Aharon, died, he initiated a thirty day morning period (Bamidbar 20:29). If only he’d done the same for Miriam …
Balak
In parashat Balak, Balak, King of Moav, solicits Bilaam to curse the B’nai Yisrael as they move through contested territory and reach the Jordan River, prior to crossing into the Promised Land. The parashah includes a possible attempt at humor with the incident of the talking donkey (which demonstrates some of the roadblocks put in Bilaam’s way), several of Bilaam’s visions which might be curses and might be blessings, and ends with licentiousness, a deadly plague, and murder.
Balak is described as the “King of Moav at that time” (Numbers 22:4), but midrash interprets “at that time” to mean that he hadn’t been king, or even in the line of succession (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:4), but after Israel had defeated the King of Sihon and Og, King of Bashan (see parashat Chukkat), Moav was on high alert and appointed Balak as an expediency. The Midrash Says, pg. 301, cites Ramban as suggesting Balak himself was a Midianite (without a reference, but I found a reference in Rashi indicating that Balak was a Midianite prince), as a possible explanation for why Moav and Midian formed an alliance even though they were enemies (see Bamidbar Rabbah 20:4, op. cit.), and that they sought the counsel of the elders of Midian since Moshe himself spent time there, and they would know his character.[vii] Torah (Numbers 22:5) simply states that Balak’s kin reside in a place called Petor, which is where Bilaam lived, and it was based on this prior knowledge that Balak knew of Bilaam’s reputation.[viii]
Bilaam is contracted, after a bit of haggling, to curse the Israelites, but he puts conditions on the effort, after G-d tells him in a vision not to proceed. G-d then seems to relent, knowing Bilaam’s defiance, with the caveat that Bilaam that must act and say whatever G-d directs him to do (Numbers 22:20). In an action reminiscent of Abraham (see Gen. 22:3), Bilaam rose early the next morning (before G-d could reconsider?), saddled his own ass, and departed (see also Bamidbar Rabbah 20:12).[ix]
The incident that follows is of course that of the talking donkey.
On the way, G-d’s malach (messenger) stood blocking the path, but apparently only the donkey could see. The malach was ordinarily an angel of mercy, but because of Bilaam’s persistence it became a satan (adversary) to Bilaam (Num. 22:22). Bilaam tried to pass three times, and was unsuccessful. According to Midrash Tanchuma Balak 8:1, towards the bottom of the passage, the three attempts represented the patriarchs. In the first encounter, there was space on two sides, and if Bilaam had wanted to curse the children of Abraham, he could have agreed to curse the descendants of Ishmael or the descendants of Keturah. In the second encounter, the path was blocked by a wall on one side, where the donkey pressed Bilaam’s foot, and from which Bilaam developed a disability (see, for example, Sanhedrin 105a:16).[x] In this case, if Bilaam wanted to curse the children of Yitzchak, he could have cursed the descendants of Esav. In the third attempt, the way was so narrow there was no room either on the left or right (Num. 22:26), and so there was no opportunity to curse the descendants of Yaakov, B’nai Yisrael. It’s at this point that the donkey began to complain, asking why Bilaam was beating it. Bilaam threatened to kill the ass with a sword, at which point the donkey replied “You cannot kill me unless you have a sword in your hand. How do you intend to uproot an entire people with your tongue?” (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 9:1).[xi] Naturally this embarrassed Bilaam, especially in front of the Moabite delegation that remained part of his entourage[xii], possibly inciting him further.
Bilaam and company finally connect with Balak, and a series of altar building, sacrificing, and prophesying ensues. Altogether, Bilaam recites seven poems, or curses cum blessing, with some disconnected prophecy. Of these, the third (Num. 24:3-9) is the one that contains the phrase that begins the morning service – Ma tovu ohlecha Yaakov, mishk’notecha Yisrael (see our Siddur, page 61, for example). What is the intent of this verse? According to Rabbi Yohanan, as quoted in Sanhedrin 105b:17):
From the blessing of that wicked person, Balaam, you can ascertain what was in his heart. God transformed the curses that he planned into blessings. He sought to say that they should not have synagogues and study halls, and he said instead: “How goodly are your tents, Jacob” (Numbers 24:5), a blessing on their synagogues. He sought to say that the Divine Presence [shekhina] will not rest upon them, and he said instead: “And your dwellings [mishkenot] Israel.”
So what is it that Bilaam saw that resulted in the blessings? We learn in Gemara (Bava Batra 60a:5) that we are to arrange our tents our houses so that no two entrances or windows ever faced each other. And the source of this halacha? When Bilaam lifted up his eyes, he saw that the entrances of the Israelite tents where not aligned with each other, ensuring that each family enjoyed a measure of privacy, and were thus worthy of having the Divine Presence dwell among them.
However, almost immediately thereafter, we learn that while camped at Shittim, the Israelites became involved sexually with the Moabite women, and offered sacrifices[xiii] to the Moabite G-d, Baal-Peor, once again invoking G-d’s wrath, resulting in the deaths of another 24,000 people. The plague was only stopped when Pinchas, in an act of zealotry, impaled a couple who were intimately engaged, with a single thrust of his spear.
Makes me wonder whether Bilaam’s curses were at least partially successful after all, since about 4% of the men were killed (eight times more than at the sin of the Golden Calf), and two and a half tribes end up not entering the land.
L’shalom,
SRP
Compiled by Steven Pearlman
Main resource:
Weissman, Rabbi Moshe. 1983, new printing 2014. The Midrash Says, the Book of Bamidbar. Bnay Yaakov Publications, Brooklyn, New York
Additional sources:
Wikipedia – Chukkat, Balak,and various topical and bibliographical entries
Sefaria.org
Golinkin, Rabbi Prof. David. 2007. “Is it Permissible for Jews to Enter the Temple Mount in Our Day? …”
Meir, Tamar. Miriam: Midrash and Aggadah. Jewish Women’s Archive.
Mindel, Nissan. Miriam. Kehot Publication Society, Chabad.org
Zivotofsky, Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. “What’s the Truth about … the Parah Adumah?” JewishAction.com
Etz Hayim chumash
Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat and Festivals
Please note: This column is my last for a while. I’ve been writing about midrash for over two years, and have covered, at least in part, all of the parashiot. Most of the second year has been spent in ensuring that as many sources as possible have been cited and referenced, beshem omro, so that appropriate source credit is given. I hope that those who’ve read this blog have a better appreciation for midrash, and the efforts our Sages and Commentators have made across the centuries to explicate and reconcile issues that arise from reading the plain text of Torah, and I hope as well that at least some readers have now been exposed to, and have an appreciation for, sources with which they were previously unfamiliar. I’ll decide in a month or so whether to continue, or to embark on a new subject of analysis.
Thanks for reading!
Questions or comments? Please leave a comment or email me directly: steve.pearlman@sbcglobal.net
Notes:
[i] Sefer HaChinuch is an anonymous rabbinic text dating to 13-century Spain that discusses each of the 613 mitzvot in order. It is based on Maimonides list contained in Sefer HaMitzvot, from which it differs slightly. Also, while the organization of Sefer HaChinuch considers each of the commandments in order, Sefer HaMitzvot separates the positive and negative commandments, and doesn’t list them in parashah order, but rather by category or type of law. (For a listing of mitzvot in order from Maimonides perspective, see the Wikipedia article “613 Commandments” and expand the Canonical Order section). It’s worth noting that while these two sources agree on the mitzvot, they don’t necessarily agree on which Torah verse is the source of the commandment, and thus the number of mitzvot for each parashah may differ.
[ii] This post is a minor update to one that was previously posted to midrashsrp on 11 July 2022. The update consists primarily of more detailed referencing and inclusion of hyperlinks to sources when available, a switch in footnoting from Bookmarks to Endnotes to facilitate better navigation, as well as editorial corrections. Please note that on the occasions where I cite “The Midrash Says” as the source, it’s generally because the references to primary sources in that volume either can’t be found, or don’t have translations available. Specifically, for this parashah, references to The Midrash Says are to volume 4 of the 5 volume series: The Midrash Says – The Book of Bamidbar.
[iii] For a summary of the concept and the various midrashim see “What’s the Truth about … the Parah Adumah” from 2010
[iv] Several organizations have attempted to jump-start the Messianic era with red heifer breeding programs. An article from 2018 in Israel365 News announced the successful birth of an appropriate candidate, “paving the way for re-establishing the Temple service …” It’s been five years, and, unless I missed it, HaMoshiach hasn’t arrived and the Temple hasn’t been rebuilt. Maybe in a parallel universe.
[v] Granted, my knowledge is very limited. If anyone knows of a mourning reference for Miriam, please let me know. The only source of which I’m aware is Josephus. In Antiquities of the Jews, book 4, he wrote “She was buried upon a certain mountain, which they called Sin; and when they had mourned her for thirty days, Moses purified the people after this manner …”, to which he appends the ritual of parah adumah, by which the people are cleansed.
[vi] In an article called Another View, in The Torah: A Women’s Commentary (Ashkenazi and Weiss, 2008), Dean Ora Horn Prouser of the Academy of Jewish Religion notes that the word translated as “rebels” (morim) appears nowhere else in Torah in this form, but that in its unvocalized form is the same as the name Miriam. Maybe he was invoking his sister’s ruach rather than chastising the people.
[vii] On the other hand, Talmud suggests that Bilaam’s father, Beor, is none other than Laban the Aramean, Yaakov’s father-in-law (see Sanhedrin 105a:8), still intent on trying to destroy us. The Midrash Says (note on pg. 304) also cites a kabbalistic source, Sefer Zekukin Denurah, which suggests that Bilaam was the reincarnation (gilgul) of Laban, – but I couldn’t find the reference.
[viii] According to midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:1), G-d set up kings and prophets for both Jews and non-Jews, positing Bilaam as essentially parallel to Moshe, but it then goes on to describe how Jewish and non-Jewish prophets are different, and why, because of the actions of Bilaam, G-d removed the spirit of prophecy from non-Jews.
[ix] Since the parallel has been made by the Sages, one has to wonder whether Abraham’s early trip, without notifying Sarah, was also made against G-d’s specific wishes, no longer included in the Torah account
[x] See also Rashbam for a recognition of Bilaam’s limp, interpreting shefi as “limping” rather than “alone” as most translations of Num. 23:3 have it.
[xi] Perhaps worth noting that the “mouth of the donkey” was one of the 10 things created on erev Shabbat during Creation Week (Pirkei Avot 5:6)
[xii] Although some sources say that since Torah doesn’t report any reaction from anyone other than Bilaam, perhaps no one else heard the donkey. See, for example, Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 22:29.
[xiii] According to Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a:11) the “worship” in which the Israelites engaged was defecating in the presence of the idol
midrashsrp 