[This INTRODUCTION is from Pentateuch & Haftarahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz.]
THE BOOK OF NUMBERS
NAME. The oldest name for the fourth book of the Pentateuch is ‘the Fifth of the Musterings’; i.e., that one of the five of Moses which describes the numbering of the Israelites. Later it came to be known by the fourth word in the opening sentence במדבר Bemidbar, ‘In the Wilderness’—a name that lends a unity of time and place to be varied happenings and laws in the Book. The current English designation Numbers is derived from the Septuagint.
CONTENTS.
In contrast with Leviticus, which is almost entirely legislative in character, Numbers, like Exodus, combines history and law. The greater portion of the Book is devoted to the vicissitudes of the Israelites in their wanderings after the exodus till, thirty-eight years later, they are about to enter the Holy Land.
Numbers is no mere chronicle of the outstanding events during the journey in the wilderness.
- It interprets these events,
- and shows forth the faithful watchfulness of God in every distress and danger,
- as well as the stern severity of the Divine judgments against rebellion and apostasy.
- In addition to the story of this discipline,
- it records the laws and ordinances given during that journey;
- laws relating to the Sanctuary,and such civil and political ordinances as would enable the Israelites to fulfill the task God assigned to them among the nations.
- the camp,
- and the purification of life;
DIVISIONS.
1. Chapters I-X, 10 contain the laws and regulations given in the wilderness of Sinai:
- the first census,
- the choice of the Levites,
- the laws concerning the ordeal of jealousy,
- the Nazarites,
- the Menorah,
- and the Supplementary Passover.
- This section also includes the account of the consecration of the Altar and the Priestly Blessing.
2. Chapters X, 11-XXI
- cover the thirty-eight years’ wandering till the arrival at Moab.
- They relate the incident of Taberah,
- the ‘Graves of Lust’,
- the appointment of the seventy elders,
- the punishment of Miriam,
- the mission of the Spies,
- the rebellion of Korah,
- the sin of Moses,
- and the conquest of the Amorite kingdoms.
- This section contains the command concerning Tzitzis
- and the ritual of the Red Heifer.
3. Chapters XXII-XXXVI describe the final happenings in Moab—
- the Testimony of Balaam to Israel’s might,
- the zeal of Phinehas,
- the appointment of Joshua as the successor of Moses,
- the Midianite war,
- and the settlement East of Jordan.
- Alongside these events, we have the commands concerning the second census,
- festival offerings,
- and vows;
- the itinerary from Egypt to Jordan;
- and a group of laws in connection with the impending occupation of Canaan.
- This second of Numbers forms the transition to Deuteronomy, the Fifth Book of Moses.
ADDITIONAL NOTE TO NUMBERS
VOWS AND VOWING IN THE LIGHT OF JUDAISM
The Rabbis fully endorsed the Biblical demand for man uncompromisingly to honour his word, whether accompanied by a vow or not. Their position on this matter is absolutely clear:
‘Let they yea be yea, and thy nay be nay.
He who changes his word commits as heavy a sin as he who worship idols;
and he who utters an untruth, is excluded from the Divine Presence.’
A vow to be valid must be uttered aloud;
it must be made voluntarily, without any compulsion from without;
and the person making it must be fully conscious of its scope and implications.
A man may impose a restriction upon himself by vow; he cannot so restrict others.
Vows whose fulfillment is rendered impossible by force majeure are void.
Scripture discourages vowing.
‘If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee’ (Deut. XXIII, 23):
‘Be not rash with thy mouth …Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay’ (Eccl. V, 1, 4).
The post-Biblical teachers, whether in Alexandria, Palestine, or Babylon, shared this attitude towards vows.
Philo declares:
‘The word of the good man should be his oath, firm and unchangeable, founded steadfastly on truth. Therefore vows and oaths should be superfluous. Some men make vows out of wicked hatred of their fellow men; swearing, for example, that they will not admit this or that man to sit at the same table with them, or to come under the same roof. Such men should seek to propitiate the mercy of God, so that they may find some cure for the disease of their souls.’
The Rabbis were equally zealous in their attempt to dissuade men from vowing.
‘Do not form a habit of making vows,’ was an ancient Tannaite teaching;
while Samuel, the great teacher in Babylon, roundly declared: ‘He who makes a vow, even though he fulfill it, is called a rosho, a wicked man.’
In the time of the Mishnah, the habit of taking vows was considered a sign of bad breeding, and affected the honour of the vower’s parents, just as swearing would nowadays point to a man’s low origin. One exception was admitted. The making of vows was tolerated, when it was done in order to rid oneself of bad habits, or in order to encourage oneself to do good; but—says the Shulchan Aruch—even in such cases one should strive for the desired end without the aid of vows.
‘Even vows for charitable purposes are not desirable. If one has the money, let him give it straightway without a vow; and if not, let him defer his vow until he have it.’
The fact must, however, be recorded that the mass of the people did not rise to these moral heights, and the popular Oriental passion for vow-making continued unabated. And just because the Rabbis assigned such sacredness to the spoken word, they were faced with a grave problem. For altogether aside from imbecile and rash minds, men in time of danger or under momentary impulse would make vows which they could not fulfill. These self-imposed obligations or abstentions might clash with man’s domestic duties, or interfere with his proper relations to his neighbours. In such cases, the Rabbis would consider it their duty to afford a man the facility, under certain definite conditions and restrictions, of annulling his thoughtless or impossible vows. Such annulment could never be effected by himself, but only by a Beth Din of three learned men in the Law, after they had carefully investigated the nature and bearing of the vow, and had become convinced that its purpose was not, on the one hand, self-improvement; nor did it, on the other, infringe upon the rights of others.
For not all vows or oaths could be absolved.
A vow or oath that was made to another person, even be that person a child or a heathen, could not be annulled except in the presence of that person and with his consent; while an oath which a man had taken in a court of justice could not be absolved by any other authority in the world. Far from being animated by a loose regard for morality, the annulment of vows ordained by the Rabbis has an ethical intent, that of saving persons who have made virtually impracticable vows from the guilt of breaking them, and of preventing the hardship and injustice which their fulfillment would entail upon others (Z. Frankel, Schechter).
KOL NIDRE
The formula for the annulment of vows that ushers in the Service on the Eve of the Day of Atonement refers to such vows which we had voluntarily promised to the Almighty, and had not kept, or the fulfillment of which might prove to be beyond our ability to carry out.
‘But it does not in the least possible degree affect the promises or obligations entered into between man and man, as the latter can only be dissolved by the mutual consent of the parties, nor can it absolve any man from an official oath’ (Editor’s note, Sephardi Eve of Atonement Prayer Book).
The Kol Nidre has had a curious history.
‘The awe and solemnity with which it is pronounced, the beauty and pathos of the threefold chant, the scattered millions of Israel gathered in every synagogue in the world, are sure signs that the words of the prayer, written like an old inscription, are full of meaning; beneath them lurks a thought that is God-inspired, a conception of the sanctity of Truth’ (Editor’s note, Ashkenazi Eve of Atonement Prayer Book, in ‘The Service of the Synagogue’). And yet its introduction was opposed by some Gaonim over a thousand years ago: it was recast, though not improved, by a noted rabbi in the eleventh century; and has been a welcome weapon in the hands of anti-Semites, who, in defiance of all truth and justice, have used it to prove to their hate-blinded followers that ‘the word of a Jew cannot be trusted.’
The pioneers of Reform Judaism abolished it a century ago: and every now and then voices are raised in Orthodox communities that, in view of the misunderstandings to which it has given rise, the time has come for its official removal from the Festival Prayer Book. I append the reply I sent to an Overseas Congregation which recently submitted this suggestion to me.
‘Proposed alterations in the Liturgy, even of its non-essential portions, call for the greatest care and consideration. The question of altering the Kol Nidre prayer especially bristles with difficulties. Chief among them is this: the prayer as it stands has for centuries been a weapon of malicious attack by enemies of Israel. If, in consequence, the prayer is abolished, we are held as pleading guilty to their charges, and by our action seem to justify these charges. Historic Judaism has, therefore, ever braved these misrepresentations. Conscious of the sacredness and inviolability which attaches to an oath in Jewish Law and life, it indignantly repudiates the construction its maligners place upon this Prayer, and proclaims that the dispensation from vows in it refers only to those in which no other persons or interest are involved; and that no private or public vow, promise or oath which concerns another person, is implied in the Kol Nidre.’
‘One further consideration. Recent historical studies have shown the Kol Nidre to be a unique memorial of Jewish suffering and repentance. It arose in Spain, as a result of the Jewish persecutions by the West Goths, in the seventh century. Entire Jewish communities were then doomed to torture and the stake, unless they forswore their Faith, and by the most fearful oaths and abjurations bound themselves nevermore to practice any Jewish observances. In this way, even when better times came and the fury of the oppressor abated, the unfortunate members of those communities felt themselves perjured before God and man if they returned to their Holy Faith, or kept even the most sacred of its Festivals. It was to ease the conscience of these crushed and distracted men and women, that the Kol Nidre was formulated. In view of this origin of the prayer—which has only recently become known and which alone explains all its anomalies—various congregations on the Continent that had formerly abolished the Kol Nidre have reintroduced it, realizing that the awakening of historic memories, and the forging of links with the past, are vital factors in Jewish traditional life and worship.’