Pensamiento judío sobre Números 28:15

And in Parshas Pinchas, Gur Aryeh writes:⁷Gur Aryeh, Bamidbar 28:15. Rav Abraham ibn Ezra sought to interpret the matter cleverly and explain that he did not see any difficulty in these verses (i.e., the apparent contradiction raised by the author of the passage mentioned does not present any difficulty for Rav Avraham ibn Ezra), for the intent of the phrase “the two great luminaries” is that they appear greater than the other stars. Nevertheless, the moon can aptly be called “the small luminary” when compared to the sun. These words are mere prattle. Our Sages⁸I.e., the Sages who debated the subject in Chulin 60b. could also have offered such an interpretation. As we already explained in the beginning of Bereishis, such an interpretation should not be offered, since the sun and the moon were created at one time, and it is not befitting that two utterly different entities – one being described as “great” and one as “small” – be created at the same time, for they are opposites. Throughout the Creation, when entities were created together, they were equal. We are compelled to say that the verse, “And God made… the two great luminaries” implies that the sun and the moon] were created as equals, because they were created at the same time.

The Talmud Chullin 60 quotes the following conversation between the moon and G-d, in the name of Ben Azzai. This conversation is to help us understand the verse (Genesis 1,16), "The Lord made great luminaries; the large luminary to govern by day, and the small luminary to govern by night, and the stars." The moon said to G-d, "Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?" The Lord said to the moon: "go ahead and govern both by day and by night." So the moon said "Who needs a lantern at noon?" G-d said, "Israel will count its days and years according to your movements." Even the days will be counted by reference to the moon as is written, "They will serve as signs, as fixed times, for days and years" (Genesis 1,14). He further said to him (the moon) that righteous people will be called like the moon (small) to wit Jacob and David (see Amos 7,5 and Samuel I 17,15). The moon, however, was still not placated. Thereupon G-d instructed that a sin offering be offered on His behalf to atone for G-d having reduced the size of the moon. It was Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who interprets the verse "one he-goat as a sin offering for G-d" (Numbers 28,15) to mean that the he-goat is to be offered on behalf of G-d, to serve as atonement for having commanded the moon to reduce its size. Ben Azzai's parable has the moon question its own function. This describes the age old dilemma of whether what we observe in nature is accidental or whether it is the result of intelligent planning. If it is the result of intelligent planning, G-d’s major functionaries wish to be taken into His confidence as to their precise purpose and place in His scheme of things. "Can two kings wear the same crown?" means, "Is there duplication in this universe, seeing that all is the result of mere chance?" The reason that the moon serves as the example in this imaginary dialogue is that it is the only celestial body which apparently does not originate its own light. The question if this could be accidental is quite appropriate. The "smallness" of the moon would point to its accidental place in the scheme of things. G-d’s initial reply "Reduce your size" means "You may be sure that you are part of an intelligent overall design. Upon hearing this, the moon wants to know, "If that is so, why is my status such and such, compared to Your other planets? Why am I the only one that does not have its own light to give? Why, by not being a source of light, am I the apparent victim of chance?" G-d’s answer "Go and shine by day and by night," is, of course, facetious, but it points out that the moon's particular contribution to the universe lies in its shining by night only, and with reflected light only. The moon understood that by day its contribution to the light in this world would pale into such insignificance, that no one would even be aware of its existence. But it found no solace, not having comprehended why it had been chosen for that particular role. So G-d said that the apparent deficiency in not radiating its own light, would be compensated for by the needs of the Jewish people for the moon, to aid Israel's calendar requirements. The moon argued, however, that since days are normally counted in terms of the sun's movements, why cannot the sun reduce its size? To this G-d replied that since the righteous will be called "small," the moon's reduction in size was very crucial. It was part of G-d’s plan that a visible link exist between cause and effect, i.e. between benefactor and recipient. Since the sun was the primary source of light, and the moon was only a secondary source, it would not be fitting for the primary source to be smaller than the secondary source. The moral Ben Azzai wishes to teach is, of course, that the truly righteous always understate their own importance in the presence of anything or anyone deserving respect. However, no matter how much one tries to explain to people that they should be modest and humble, they will always wonder if they would get their fair share of things by practicing humility, they need the he-goat offering to atone for such doubts about G-d’s justice. Since it had been G-d’s intention to show the Jewish people favored treatment, whereas the Jewish people suspected Him of putting them at a disadvantage, that sin offering then is due to G-d’s intention as expressed by His desire to diminish the size of the moon. If our method of interpretation is correct, this should be reflected in the liturgy of the Mussaph service of Rosh Chodesh. We do indeed find such evidence: 1) "The new moons You have given to Your people as season for atonement for all their generations, when they brought free will offerings." 2) "He-goats as sin offerings to atone on their behalf,-a salvation of their soul from its enemy..." The "soul's enemy" refers to the evil urge which has prompted our doubts about the fairness of G-d’s justice. Continuing and referring to the future, we say, "A new altar will You set up in Zion, at which time the he-goat offerings will be offered in a state of grace." There will then be no need to offer the he-goats as sin offerings, since there will be no evil urge, i.e. a philosophical enticement to act contrary to the will of the Creator.

(1) There is no firm evidence that the city of Shechem mentioned in the books of the prophets is identical with the town near which Dinah was raped. There are pointers that suggest that this was not the same city. If the brothers were tending sheep at Shechem while their homes were at Chevron, Shechem must be presumed to have been less than a day's walk away. It is unreasonable to assume that Jacob sent Joseph all by himself on a journey of several days, as would have been the case if Shechem mentioned there were identical with the Nablus of today. In particular, seeing that so much bloodshed had taken place there, it would have been irresponsible to send a seventeen-year old into such hostile country all by himself. Even the brothers themselves were hardly likely to provoke the local population by grazing their flocks in their vicinity. We must assume therefore that Ir Shechem means the city of Shechem in the same sense as Ir David means "the capital of David's kingdom." The author explains how to dispose of apparently contradictory comments by the Talmud in Sanhedrin 102. (2) The reference to Dinah being a daughter of Leah is undoubtedly complimentary. The Torah, by referring to her ancestry, emphasizes that she had nothing but the best of intentions, that her excursion did not indicate a departure from traditional Jewish conduct. The repetition of the three expressions "He took her, he lay with her, he forced her" indicate that she remained uncooperative during all three phases of what is being described; she did not weaken in her resistance in any way. The reason three actions are mentioned is because Jacob's family suffered three indignities: A) The shame suffered by the whole family; B) The damage done to the girl's innocence and the loss of her virginity; C) The physical pain caused Dinah when she had to submit to violence. The punishment for the first of these indignities prescribed by the Torah is boshet, compensation in financial terms. The second indignity which reduced Dinah's value as a prospective bride in the compensation for the victim. It is noteworthy that Dinah did not lose her appeal for Shechem on account of any of the indignities he had heaped upon her. "He cleaved to the daughter of Jacob" (34,3). The family of Jacob had not become sullied in his eyes; he loved her just as before (not like Amnon who lost all his desire for Tamar once he had raped her). Shechem tried to talk softly to Dinah's heart to help her recover from her pain. (3) The order in which the Torah describes the arrival of the sons, after Chamor had already arrived at Jacob's house, is to exonerate Jacob from any implication in his sons' subsequent actions, since there had not been an opportunity for them to consult. That is why Jacob on his deathbed refers to "in their secret counsel let my soul not be involved" (Genesis 49,6). It is to underscore that he had not been a party to their plan. Obviously, the sons could not have heard about the event while being in the field. Therefore, we must understand the sequence of events thus: (34,7) "When the sons came home and heard what a shameful act had been perpetrated against Israel, namely that a daughter of Jacob had been slept with, something that could not be tolerated." (4) Chamor uses the future course of events in order to compensate for an injustice that could no longer be undone. He emphasizes that he does not only want to legitimize his relations with Dinah, but goes far beyond this, and this constitutes a great honor for Jacob. The king offers the freedom of the country to Jacob's family. The sons' reason for deceiving Chamor has already been discussed in the first part of this chapter. (5) When the brothers use the term tame, defiled, when referring to the rape and subsequently suggesting a compromise, they are already using deceit, since they conveyed the impression to Chamor and Shechem that they had calmed down already and that their suggestions therefore could be taken at face value, could be believed. An exact examination of the text reveals that in fact the brothers did not breach any contract, nor did they retract from their original position. This is the reason Onkelos translates the word mirmah, slyness, deceit, simply as chochmah, cleverness, wisdom. They said, "We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man with a foreskin because it is a shame for us to forgive such an act." Chamor understood them to mean that the words "we cannot" refer only to the foreskin, not to the shame they had suffered. Similarly, Chamor understood their statement "if you will become like us," as referring only to the rite of circumcision, whereas the brothers used it in a wider sense meaning that they would have to embrace all aspects of the brothers' lifestyle and religion. Thereby they served notice that they were not going to forgive anything. We note that nowhere did the brothers promise that Dinah would become Shechem's wife. They only spoke in general terms, "our daughters," "your daughters," etc., and threatened to leave the neighborhood with their sister if their demands were not complied with. When Chamor reported in his city on these discussions, he represented the rape episode as having been resolved, and emphasized the future advantages to be gained by intermarrying with Jacob's family. The unexpected acceptance by the townspeople of the terms offered may have convinced the sons of Jacob that heaven had indicated its approval for their plan of revenge. (6) Possibly the "third day" referred to was the third day of the week, i.e. Tuesday, but in reality the first day after the circumcision. This day is under the constellation of Mars, and signals bloodshed. (7) The brothers had to prevent the wives and children from raising an alarm in the neighboring towns after they had killed the males. Therefore, the females and children had to be taken captive. Since abandoning the herds made no sense, and since their undertaking had evidently enjoyed the help of heaven, they felt entitled to acquire the livestock etc. The repeated outcry "May our sister be treated like a harlot?" underscores that to revenge such a misdeed, considerations of personal safety that are normally valid criteria, and which were part of the objections raised by Jacob, were not valid now. (8) Until now Jacob had not been certain that his dream about the ladder had been of a prophetic nature; he only became sure now that G-d spoke to him and identified Himself as having been the One to whom Jacob had made the vow at that time. (9) He was intent to remove any trace of idols that had been part of the loot his sons had taken from the city of Shechem and Chamor, and to remove any impurity acquired through contact with such idols. To this end, he instructed all his people to change their garments. Of course, the exhortation included the order to desist from any idolatrous practices that might have been picked up by his sons due to their contact with the idol worshippers. (12) The death of Deborah, a fine woman, may have been the final chapter in the sons' repentance of the whole Dinah episode, since we have a tradition that the death of righteous people provides atonement for the survivors. Inasmuch as all of Jacob's sons could qualify for the heritage promised to their forefathers, G-d repeats "to your descendants I will give the land," meaning to all of them, not like Esau or Ishmael who did not qualify though they too had been descendants of Isaac and Abraham respectively. (10) Contrary to the normal custom of a pupil departing from his master, in this case G-d departed from Jacob, the latter still remaining in his place. This suggests that Jacob's task had not yet been completed, prompting him to erect the monument and fulfil payment of his vow. It was here that the betrothal of Israel and G-d took place, later to be consummated by chuppah, a wedding ceremony at Mount Sinai. Details of this whole process will be discussed in Chapter forty-eight. (11) At the beginning of Rachel's labor, the midwife encouraged her saying, "Do not worry, this too will be a son for you." This gave rise to Rachel naming the child before she had even seen it. (13) It seems that Jacob had not been home at the time Reuben had rearranged the furnishings in Bilhah's bedroom. Reuben would not have dared to do this otherwise. The statement that the sons of Jacob were twelve may indicate that at that juncture Reuben lost his status as the firstborn, no longer counting as two (since the firstborn normally receives a double portion of the father's estate). More likely however, the Torah may stress that Reuben remained a full member of the Jewish people.