A Thought On Parshas Matos
A Thought On Parshas Matos
"...nachnu na'avor chalutzim..."
"...we will travel through armed..." (32:32)
Our parsha closes with the steps taken by each of the tribes and by the entire nation as they summed up their forty year journey and prepared to move on to the Promised Land. As the parsha merges with Masei, which will be read next week, we are presented with a review of the sojourn through sea, desert and oasis.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notes that mention of the Yam Suf leg of our journey uses first the words "and they passed through the sea" (33:8) then later "and they camped on the sea" (33:10). The verbs imply different experiences. Did we pass through the sea and then pass by the sea? He first offers an explanation in the name of his great-grandfather, Rabbeinu Yaakov of Provence, who suggested that we traversed the sea twice. This earlier sage said that we first entered Yam Suf to flee from the pursuing Egyptians, then back-tracked, then entered from a different side and crossed the water.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel does not accept this interpretation of the two verses, rejecting it on grammatical grounds as well as because we have no tradition of two such crossings of the sea. He offers instead a perspective which gives us a glimpse of his awareness of European geography.
He observes that when someone crosses the channel from England to Dunkirk, then travels over land to Brest and from there to La Rochelle, given that those three towns are all on the shore of the Atlantic, he has crossed the sea and traveled inland yet he is still said to be camping on the shoreline. In the same way, we have to recall that the Yam Suf had both a length and a width. We first crossed the width of the sea, which is what our first verse notes. The second verse notes that we then traveled ahead along the shore of the sea, lengthwise, and each of those sojourns were also "along the sea" although no longer traveling through it. Even in our common speech, in English, we will refer to a boat as being "on the water" but will also say that a home or a parcel of land is "on the water."
What struck me about the explanation was his use of places which are now familiar to us. Who knows? Might the turning point of the last world war, the events at Dunkirk, have been shaped in some small part by this Torah learning, which was illuminated by utilizing those places as examples? Was there some grain of merit associated with that place because it was used to illustrate the meaning of a Torah verse?
Or perhaps there is another reason that Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel selected those three places as examples. We have all heard of Dunkirk but we do not all realize that it had a much earlier role in Jewish history, as did Brest (not to be confused with Brest, Lithuania which we know as Brisk), and as did La Rochelle. Those communities had a Jewish presence since the times of the Romans. However, during the Crusades, Jews were massacred there. La Rochelle also hosted an infamous Jewish apostate during that period. Perhaps Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel referred to those places in another of his subtle allusions to the many challenges presented to our people by the ruling Christians during his time. He may be citing these towns as symbols of those places where the Biblical Jews passed through and passed by in their trek from Egyptian bondage towards the Promised Land. By using them to demonstrate how we passed through and passed by locations near the sea, he may have been offering hope to his frightened followers, encouraging them that our nation and religion would survive. Looking on a map of France, you will note the triangle which is formed between Dunquerque, La Rochelle and Brest. There are many large cities in between. It may well be that this glimpse into geography reveals a deeper lesson.
Wishing you a good and encouraged Shabbos as we begin the Three Weeks. Mazal tov to the Fox family on the birth of a son to my son Rabbi Uri Fox of Passaic. D Fox
"...nachnu na'avor chalutzim..."
"...we will travel through armed..." (32:32)
Our parsha closes with the steps taken by each of the tribes and by the entire nation as they summed up their forty year journey and prepared to move on to the Promised Land. As the parsha merges with Masei, which will be read next week, we are presented with a review of the sojourn through sea, desert and oasis.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notes that mention of the Yam Suf leg of our journey uses first the words "and they passed through the sea" (33:8) then later "and they camped on the sea" (33:10). The verbs imply different experiences. Did we pass through the sea and then pass by the sea? He first offers an explanation in the name of his great-grandfather, Rabbeinu Yaakov of Provence, who suggested that we traversed the sea twice. This earlier sage said that we first entered Yam Suf to flee from the pursuing Egyptians, then back-tracked, then entered from a different side and crossed the water.
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel does not accept this interpretation of the two verses, rejecting it on grammatical grounds as well as because we have no tradition of two such crossings of the sea. He offers instead a perspective which gives us a glimpse of his awareness of European geography.
He observes that when someone crosses the channel from England to Dunkirk, then travels over land to Brest and from there to La Rochelle, given that those three towns are all on the shore of the Atlantic, he has crossed the sea and traveled inland yet he is still said to be camping on the shoreline. In the same way, we have to recall that the Yam Suf had both a length and a width. We first crossed the width of the sea, which is what our first verse notes. The second verse notes that we then traveled ahead along the shore of the sea, lengthwise, and each of those sojourns were also "along the sea" although no longer traveling through it. Even in our common speech, in English, we will refer to a boat as being "on the water" but will also say that a home or a parcel of land is "on the water."
What struck me about the explanation was his use of places which are now familiar to us. Who knows? Might the turning point of the last world war, the events at Dunkirk, have been shaped in some small part by this Torah learning, which was illuminated by utilizing those places as examples? Was there some grain of merit associated with that place because it was used to illustrate the meaning of a Torah verse?
Or perhaps there is another reason that Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel selected those three places as examples. We have all heard of Dunkirk but we do not all realize that it had a much earlier role in Jewish history, as did Brest (not to be confused with Brest, Lithuania which we know as Brisk), and as did La Rochelle. Those communities had a Jewish presence since the times of the Romans. However, during the Crusades, Jews were massacred there. La Rochelle also hosted an infamous Jewish apostate during that period. Perhaps Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel referred to those places in another of his subtle allusions to the many challenges presented to our people by the ruling Christians during his time. He may be citing these towns as symbols of those places where the Biblical Jews passed through and passed by in their trek from Egyptian bondage towards the Promised Land. By using them to demonstrate how we passed through and passed by locations near the sea, he may have been offering hope to his frightened followers, encouraging them that our nation and religion would survive. Looking on a map of France, you will note the triangle which is formed between Dunquerque, La Rochelle and Brest. There are many large cities in between. It may well be that this glimpse into geography reveals a deeper lesson.
Wishing you a good and encouraged Shabbos as we begin the Three Weeks. Mazal tov to the Fox family on the birth of a son to my son Rabbi Uri Fox of Passaic. D Fox
posted by Rabbi Dr. Fox at 9:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home