Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Leviticus 8, he takes pains to prove Moses’ integrity, an honest broker.
Specifically, Abravanel learns from our verses a basic tenet of Judaism: Moses simply acted as God’s
conduit, and had not acted on his own. Abravanel illustrates.
“And God spoke to Moses saying. Take Aaron and his sons with him,
and the garments, and the anointing oil…”
In the Book of Exodus, we read of the assembling of the Tabernacle, together with its accoutrements. At
this juncture, God commands His prophet to “take Aaron, his sons, and the priestly garments, and the
anointing oil”for purposes of consecrating them, as well as the Tabernacle.
The grand occasion was not to be a closed-door, hushed affair. Far from it, as it says: “And assemble you
all the congregation at the door of the Tent of Meeting.”
The entire nation was on hand to witness the grandeur, the pomp and circumstance. Why? It was
important for the people to watch the induction ceremony, let us call it, so that they would extend the
proper honor and acclaim to the high priest and his family.
Abravanel continues: “And Moses did as God commanded him. And the congregation was assembled at
the door of the Tent of Meeting.”The prophet addressed his brethren: “And Moses said unto the
congregation, This is the thing which God commanded to be done.”
Moses spoke unequivocally. No one present should harbor false notions about the great, unfolding
event of the inauguration of Aaron or the Tabernacle. Namely, no one should assume, let alone assert
that Moses personally convened the encampment for purposes of showering prestige upon Aaron and
his sons. Patently false.
The Hebrews heard that, in truth, the event had been Heaven’s directive. It was God’s, and not Moses’
initiative. “This is the thing which God commanded to be done.” Moses had not orchestrated the public
installment of Aaron and sons – one that brought the priestly family much honor.
Orders came exclusively from Above, Abravanel underscores.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. The subject of sin offerings began in Leviticus 4, and continues in chapter 5. Our
verse discusses the sin offering of a poor man. Given his dearth of cash (he can’t rub two nickels
together), what are his options for atoning for wrongdoing?
“But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons,
then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he has sinned, the tenth
part of an ephah of fine flour…”
The Torah, Abravanel notes, pities the poor. Accordingly, if a Jew is so impoverished that he cannot
afford to purchase “two turtledoves, or two young pigeons”, dispensation is forthcoming. “Then he shall
bring his offering for that wherein he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour…”
The Torah grants more financial consideration and leeway to the destitute. “He shall put no oil upon it,
neither shall he put any frankincense thereon, for it is a sin offering.”
Abravanel shares two rationales for the oil and frankincense exemption. One has to do with the fellow’s
financial dire straits, as noted above. God doesn’t want to further strain his dwindling bank account.
The second reason focuses on the sin offering itself. Specifically, the Torah draws a clear distinction
between a sin offering and a meal offering, though both feature fine flour. However, a meal offering is
mixed with oil and frankincense, while a sin offering isn’t.
Our verse is explicit: “It is a sin offering.”Insofar as the poor fellow transgressed and wants to make
amends through a sin offering, it would be inappropriate and misplaced to embellish it by adding lavish
ingredients such as oil and frankincense, giving it the appearance of a meal offering.
Notwithstanding the austerity of a poor man’s sin offering, “the priest shall take his handful of it as the
memorial part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of God made by fire. It is a sin
offering.”
“And the priest shall make atonement for him…and the remnant shall be the priest’s, as the meal
offering.” Just as the priest partook of his share of a meal offering, so too is he entitled to enjoy some of
the poor Jew’s sin offering of fine flour.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Biblical ethics takes front and center stage in Leviticus Chapter 18. Neatly, Abravanel
categorizes the two ancient cultures of Egypt and Canaan. Neither social structure, to be polite, were
enviable from the perspective of upright conduct.
“And God spoke unto Moses saying, speak unto the Children of Israel
and say to them. I am God your Almighty. After the doings of the land of
Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do. And after the doings of the
land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall you not do. Neither shall you
walk in their statutes.”
What were their respective moral shortcomings? Abravanel investigates.
Further, Abravanel asks why the Torah prefaced the commandment with allusions to Egypt and Canaan,
something Bible students don’t find elsewhere. Clearly, God could simply have skipped any mention of
both lands and peoples, and preceded directly to the ensuing verse: “My ordinances shall you do, and
My statutes you shall keep, to walk therein. I am God Almighty.”
Abravanel notes that the previous chapter (Leviticus 17) discussed the divine prohibition of dashing or
spilling sacrificial animal blood in the desert. The rationale for said ban had to do with the Torah’s
interest in distancing the Hebrews from Egypt’s devil worship practices; blood dashing played a central
role in their service to demons. God wanted to rinse clean from the Jews’ collective psyche any traces of
the sordid – and sanguinary – rite.
In sum, “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do” refers to idolatrous
behavior.
What stoked the Canaanites fiery passions? Well, for one thing, Canaan didn’t share Egypt’s blood fetish,
and did not make it a national beverage. Canaan did, though, act perversely and promiscuously; sex was
boundaryless – the kinkier the better. The Torah flags Canaan’s morass and moral climate, one that
broke every taboo imaginable.
“And after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall you not do. Neither shall you walk
in their statutes.” The God of Israel abhors sexual misconduct. Accordingly, He instructs the Chosen
People to have no part of it.
Biblical ethics conforms to the Creator’s rules, as a later verse states: “You shall therefore keep My
statutes and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them. I am God.”
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, penetrating scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. His lengthy introduction to Leviticus provides Bible students an excellent and thorough
overview of one of the Bible’s least understood and appreciated subjects: animal sacrifice. See
Abravanel’s World for the discourse in its entirety.
“And God called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the Tent of the
Meeting saying, speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them:
When any man of you brings an offering unto God, you shall bring your
offering of the cattle, even of the herd.”
Here we bring Abravanel’s opening remarks on that discussion, one that begins by showing how the
Book of Leviticus transitions easily from the books of Genesis and Exodus.
Genesis details the creation of the world – from nothing. Ensuing chapters chronicle early man’s
begetting and begetting and begetting. The narratives of the three patriarchs cover most of Genesis,
concluding with Jacob and family leaving famine-ridden Canaan for verdant Egypt.
Exodus records the Egyptian exile, marked by Jewish misery and enslavement. Divine redemption
studded with miracles broke the Hebrews’ bondage, Moses and Aaron leading the way. More wonders
met the Jews at the Red Sea, and along their desert trek. Then came Sinai, where each person
experienced prophecy. Directly from the Creator, they heard divine commandments.
Alas, trouble arrived. Hebrews built and prostrated themselves to a molten calf. Exodus also describes
how catharsis healed their egregious sin. The Maker issued instruction to build for Him a Tabernacle, a
sanctuary for His Shechinah. Subsequently, divine providence attached itself to the Chosen People. This
became evident to the encampment on the day when the Tabernacle had been erected (and thereafter),
as per the closing two verses in Exodus: “Then the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory of
God filled the Tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud
abode thereon, and the glory of God filled the Tabernacle.”
This, Abravanel says, sets the scene for the Torah’s third book, the Book of Leviticus. It pertains to the
service in the Tabernacle. Central to that holy service is animal sacrifice, performed by the priests for the
express purpose of aiding the Hebrews realign their religious priorities, and atone for transgression. In a
nutshell, we have laid out the opening remarks of Abravanel’s very lengthy prologue to Leviticus.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Leviticus 21, as in every other chapter in the Torah and prophets, Abravanel’s
commentary goes through each verse methodically. However, his writings also comprise dozens and
dozens of invaluable mini-essays (and some full-length discourses as well). And then sporadically,
Abravanel provides Bible students with synopses of swathes of Scriptural text.
“And God spoke unto Moses. Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron
and say unto them: There shall none defile himself for the dead among
his people. They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name
of God…therefore they shall be holy.”
In his opening remarks in this chapter, readers will find one such example of Abravanel’s flash
overviews. Below, we shall bring his short outline of the Book of Leviticus, one that affords Bible
students a glimpse into the whole picture, or to be colloquial, to see the forest for the trees.
For Abravanel, the Book of Leviticus is a retrospective in holiness. Of course, holiness in the Bible takes
on many guises and hues. Holiness conveys separateness or distinction. Abravanel asks: what
constitutes holiness, as per the Book of Leviticus?
Abravanel asserts that Leviticus demonstrates that which sets the Hebrews apart as a Holy Nation. The
opening chapters (Leviticus 1-4) pertain to sacrifices, several categories of them. Each type of offering
brings a Jew closer to his Maker. Next, the people attain holiness through diet (Leviticus 11). Which
foods contribute to wholesomeness, which scotch the path forward?
If the Hebrews misbehaved, an inner and delicate balance went haywire. It resulted in skin eruptions,
plus an array of bodily oozing (skin disorders are broached in Leviticus 14, 15, together with their
remedies). Holiness, Abravanel continues, also stresses venue or purlieu. Consequently, the Torah
demands maintaining the highest ethical standards – and spiritual purity – in the Tabernacle (Leviticus
16, 17).
The Holy Nation, if anything, is predicated on virtue in sexual conduct. Spousal intimacy is blessed; incest
and other forms of sexual indecency accursed (Leviticus 18).
A Holy People look to their leadership and teachers to guide them. In that capacity, priests officiated in
the Tabernacle (and Temple). Priestly regulations go beyond the high standards set for the Jewish body
politic. Indeed, priests are strictly governed in a manner designed to foster and achieve ever greater
holiness, codified in Jewish law (Leviticus 21-24).
Furthermore, Abravanel contends that holiness extends to homeland, to the Land of Israel. Accordingly,
Bible students will learn about the Hebrews’ observance of the laws concerning Sabbatical years and the
Jubilee in Leviticus 25. In Leviticus 27, we find commandments surrounding vows and valuations, as well
as tithing and a host of other gifts that Jews earmarked for the Tabernacle – another hallmark of their
distinction.
All told, Leviticus weaves one thread throughout this third book of the Torah. The nation strives for
holiness in a myriad of ways, as we have laid out.
Finally, two verses are at the heart of Abravanel’s foray into holiness: “Speak unto all the congregation
of the Children of Israel, and say unto them – you shall be holy for I God Almighty am holy” (Leviticus 19)
and “And you shall be holy unto Me, for I God am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples that
you should be Mine“ (Leviticus 20). Compliance with the multifaceted precepts brought in Leviticus to
acquire holiness brings promise, an assurance from Above that the divine Shechinah will reside amidst
the Jews.
Don Isaac Abravane, sometimes spelled Abarbanell (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Leviticus 10, he tackles one of the Torah’s most controversial topics: the
untimely deaths of Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron the high priest.
“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer,
and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire
before God, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth
fire from before God, and devoured them, and they died before God.”
What happened? What triggered the demise of Nadab and Abihu, both holy men of prominent stature?
Among the venerable rabbis, there was no shortage of opinions. Surrounding the bitter tragedy, indeed,
a plethora of theories swirl. For the full discussion, see Abravanel’s World.
In sum, Abravanel examined the Talmudic rabbis’ five distinct hypotheses, before surmising that if the
ancients couldn’t come to a consensus as to the root cause of Nadab and Avihu’s deaths, then that gave
him license and leeway to critique their respective explanations, before advancing his own theory. We
present it in abbreviated form now.
This much we know. In their generation, both young men were pious. We can also gather that both had
died simultaneously, and their deaths unnatural, as they had no co-morbidities or underlying health
issues.
Abravanel brings Scriptural support for Nadab and Abihu’s wrongdoings. Having said that, as mentioned
above, both men were otherwise upstanding. In closing here, Abravanel states that Temple service
followed strict guidelines. The slightest misstep was fraught with peril, even if unintentional. These
factors must all be considered, plus others, when studying the tragic demise of both righteous priests.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 22 provides more painstaking detail, as to what constituted kosher
animal sacrifices in the Tabernacle. Priests remained ever vigilant, and accepted those animals for
sacrifices that met the Torah’s rigorous demands. In this way, they vetted for altar activity only those
bulls, sheep, or goats that passed “inspection.”
“And God spoke unto Moses, saying. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons,
and unto all the Children of Israel, and say unto them: Whosoever be of
the House of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that bring his
offering…you shall offer a male without blemish of the cattle [herd], of
the sheep, or of the goats.”
Abravanel teaches that when the Temple stood in Jerusalem, Jew and Gentile flocked to the holy place,
bringing animal sacrifices. Let’s focus on foreigner visitors here. Some sacrifices brought by them may
have been obligatory, insofar as they may have uttered a solemn vow. Had no verbal promise been
spoken, the sacrificial designation would be considered a free-volition offering.
Be that as it may, the Torah instructed priests to be mindful of all visitors desiring to bring sacrifices –
regardless of creed. For our purposes here, as mentioned, we place the emphasis on visiting Gentiles,
per the upcoming verse: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of
any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them. They shall not be accepted
for you.”Abravanel asks: how should we interpret the term “corruption” here? Who/what does it
decry?
Abravanel writes that, on occasion, unscrupulous non-Jews may have been tempted to bring maimed
animals as sacrifices and try to slip them past officiating priests. Perhaps ill intent motivated these
unsavory or corrupt individuals. That is, foreigners may have wanted to show disdain for Temple
practices. Maybe, they sought to pour scorn on the Hebrew’s religion. If so, then corrupt hearts matched
the mangled animals they sought to sacrifice.
Alternatively, Abravanel advances, “corruption” mentioned in the verse does not refer to malicious
foreigners’ intentions. However, even if a Gentile’s intention was sincere, still and all, if his sacrifice did
not cut mustard with the Torah’s standards, and was deemed corrupt owing to its imperfections, priests
would not accept the animal from their hands.
In sum, all visitors to the Temple were treated equally, bound by Torah law. For foreigners, therefore, no
dispensation would be forthcoming. Failure to comply with the commandments brought in this chapter
would mar the priests’ reputation, let alone be characterized as a slight to God’s honor.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 23 pertains to the major Jewish festivals. In addition to Passover,
Shavuot, and Succot, this includes Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Why observe them, Abravanel asks?
“And God spoke unto Moses, saying. Speak unto all the Children of
Israel, and say unto them: The appointed seasons of God, which you
shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are My appointed
seasons.”
Abravanel’s response takes Bible students through a short breakdown of the last several Torah sections,
and may be viewed as the culmination of them.
Tying these various regulations together, an exhortation and rationale emerge: “And you shall not
profane My holy Name, but I will be hallowed among the Children of Israel. I am God Who sanctifies
you.” The Creator spells things out: Hebrews shall not tarnish His glory, to cheapen Him.
Where is Abravanel leading us here in our chapter, one that covers the major Jewish festivals in the
Bible? In a word, we segue into the underlying rationale guiding the holidays: remembrance. Jews
get trained in the calendar’s holiest days, through which they take time out every year to honor the
Creator, by reflecting upon His Egyptian and desert miracles and wonders.
Thus, God commands Moses to teach his brethren about the major Jewish festivals. Jews are meant
to rejoice in celebration. When the Temple stood, men made pilgrimages. Before the Almighty, they
ascended, and prostrated themselves on Jerusalem’s holy mount. There, they opened their hearts
and purse strings, distributing charity and gifts to the poor. Moreover, the giving spirit spilled over
and Hebrews lavished priests with presents, so they too could celebrate the holidays in good cheer.
Indeed, the Biblical festivals underscore and reinforce a major Jewish tenet: the Exalted One
watches over and shepherds His nation, His portion.
Abravanel’s World offers Bible students a classic and priceless treatment of each of the festivals.
Don Isaac Abravanel ,sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. A quarrel between two men in the desert quickly escalated. It is duly recorded in
the middle of Leviticus 24. And a horrid interjection it is, one that features blasphemy, cursing using
God’s name.
“And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went
out among the Children of Israel. And the son of the Israelite woman and
a man of Israel strove together in the camp. And the son of the Israelite
woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed.”
Abravanel asks about the camp’s violent drama, both in terms of the context as well as the particulars of
the ensuing court proceedings. Here, we’ll focus on the court case’s personalities that required Moses to
take a recess from the chamber, as it were, to consult with God.
Fisticuffs erupted in the encampment between two men. Things got worse. They spiraled out of control.
Tempers flared, and “the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed.” Make no
mistake. Cursing using God’s name is a capital crime.
Abravanel fills in the gaps about the case, enabling Bible students to better grasp the episode featuring a
couple of rowdies. Who was the nameless perpetrator, initially referred to only as a son of a Jewess?
Later we do learn more about his mother’s and his identity: “And his mother’s name was Shelomith, the
daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.”Why, Abravanel asks, are details provided at this later juncture?
Logically speaking, readers should have been apprised of this information when the story broke, not
after it unraveled.
As soon as the culprit uttered blasphemy, he was reported to Moses. “And they put him in ward, that it
might be declared unto them at the mouth of God.” Why was he imprisoned, Abravanel questions? The
law regarding blasphemy had been broached earlier in the Torah. Why hadn’t the death penalty been
applied, subsequent to due process?
The case turned on the question of jurisdiction and culpability. That is, had the blasphemer been born to
a Jewish man and woman, the docket on Moses’ desk would have been straightforward. As stated, a Jew
who invokes God’s name by vocalizing a curse gets the death penalty. But in our chapter, things became
murky owing to the defendant’s shady identity; he was born to an Egyptian. Maybe Jewish law doesn’t
cover instances of Gentiles (or at least Jews born to Gentile fathers).
“And God spoke to Moses saying…let all the congregation stone him.” Clarification descended from
Above. When blasphemy is involved, Jewish law extends its jurisdiction over Jew and non-Jew alike.
Next, Abravanel digs into the mom’s and son’s identity. Who was Shelomith? Who fathered the youth?
Intending to get to the bottom of this, Moses summoned her. Why the mystery surrounding mom, with
hardly any mention of dad: “And the son of the Israelite woman…strove together in the camp?”
In the deposition, Moses discovered, as the progression of our verses show, that Shelomith attempted a
cover-up. That is, she sought to protect and save her ill-tempered son. Her name – Shelomith – implies
as much, since the name resembles the Hebrew word for “peace.”
“No problem. All is good. Leave my son alone”, she insisted. Shelomith was the daughter of Dibri. Her
father’s name supplies another clue. Dibri suggests excessive talking, as the word “Dibri” conveys.
During her deposition, we may say, the lady doth blab too much.
And Moses extracted the truth from Shelomith. Her paramour, indeed, had been an Egyptian. Though
material facts emerged, the law didn’t. In cases of blasphemy, does Jewish law have jurisdiction over
Gentiles, or at least Jews born to Gentile fathers?
“And God spoke to Moses saying…let all the congregation stone him.” Moses, and the Hebrews, got
their answer. In cases involving blasphemy, Jewish law does extend to Jew and non-Jew alike.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Leviticus 7, he explains God’s attitude toward penitents.
“And this is the law of the guilt offering; it is most holy.”
Abravanel observes that both guilt and sin offerings are described in the Torah as “most holy.” On the
surface, this runs counterintuitively to our logic. Since they conjure up man’s wrongdoing, why should
they be so special, so very holy? Contrast sin offerings to peace offerings, brought by people who had
not transgressed God’s commandments. Second-class, per se, peace offerings get referred to as ‘holy
light.’
Abravanel suggests that the Torah imparts an insight about wrongdoers.
How does the Almighty relate to them? Does He disparage them, for having done mischief? Quite the
contrary.
People who acknowledge their wrongdoing, feel contrite about it, resolving to avoid such mistakes in
the future, need not sink into despair. Nor should they view themselves as inferior to righteous folk, on
account of having succumbed to temptation. It simply isn’t true. A penitent is not on a lower, moral level
when compared to the upright who always walks the straight path.
The truth be told, penitents are to be praised for having veered from God’s ways, and yet realigned their
steps, their wayward conduct. God holds such people in especial esteem. The Maker views them as if
they never transgressed, appreciating their efforts – and successes – to conquer evil inclinations.
In this reframed attitude toward penitents, Abravanel echoes the Jewish sages’ sentiment. They write:
In the place where a penitent stands, not even a tzaddik (rigteous person) can stand.
In sum, Heaven’s upbeat message about penitents gets Scriptural support. Guilt and sin offerings are
labeled “most holy”, illustrating that the Creator’s affection and appreciation for those who have done
wrong, yet have pulled them out of moral morass. Indeed, their sacrifices are most holy.
Numbers 10 comprises meaty topics for discussion. Here we bring Abravanel’s explanation of the verses
quoting a conversation between Moses and Jethro, his father-in-law.
“And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’
father-in-law. We are journeying unto the place of which God said: I will
give it you. Come with us and we will do you good, for God has spoken
good concerning Israel.”
First, Abravanel writes about Jethro’s multiple names in the Torah, here called Hobab. As for context,
the Hebrews had just spent nearly a year at the base of Mount Sinai, where they received the Torah.
Amidst trumpet blasts, the Jews packed up, setting off for wherever the divine cloud would lead. “And it
came to pass in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month…And the
Children of Israel set forward by their stages out of the wilderness of Sinai…”
“And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite” introduces their dialogue. Abravanel
states that Jethro is affectionately called Hobab, in Hebrew “beloved” or “dear.” This name of Moses’
father-in-law intimates a tight bond between both men. Indeed, Moses and Hobab held each other in
great esteem.
Next, Abravanel supplies personal details about Jethro, based on our verse: “Hobab, the son of Reuel
the Midianite.”Tradition relates that Jethro served as Midian’s high priest. Moses continued: “We are
journeying unto the place of which God said…” The prophet told his father-in-law, that even though the
Hebrews had tacked on nearly a year at Sinai, that wouldn’t always be the case.
Moses fully assumed that in no time flat, the Jews would arrive at Canaan’s doorsteps and liberate, “the
place of which God said: I will give it to you.”In this way, Moses hoped to induce Jethro to stick around.
The only reason why the Hebrews tarried so long at Sinai was because the Creator demanded it.
However, the Holy Land would be the people’s next stop, so believed Moses. In fact, God desired to
deed the nation the land posthaste.
But, on account of the spies’ scurrilous report, and the people’s fatal misstep and acceptance of that
report, the itinerary changed. God was not about to let an ungrateful, rotten generation take possession
of the storied land. That would soon unravel, unbeknownst to Jethro’s son-in-law.
At this juncture, though, Moses tried to coax Jethro into throwing his fate with the Hebrews. “Come
with us and we will do you good, for God has spoken good concerning Israel.”Abravanel understands
the words to mean that the Holy Land would be apportioned to the Jews, and as an inducement, Moses
offered prime real estate to Jethro.
Jethro didn’t bite. “And he said unto him. I will not go, but I will depart to mine own land, and to my
kindred.”In so many words, for Abravanel, the priest from Midian reminded Moses that he was a real
estate mogul, and possessed valuable property in Midian. Needless to say, Jethro wasn’t impressed by
the offer. A determined Moses sought to persuade Jethro to change his mind. To no avail.
Post-script: Abravanel says that for the entire year-long stay at Sinai, Jethro had resided in the Hebrew
encampment. As for running his real estate empire remotely, Jethro kept tabs on his holdings and
continued to conduct his affairs, with the help of his managers who regularly commuted between
Midian and Sinai.
Numbers 12 again shows the Hebrews in a bad light. This time it’s a family affair. Moses’ siblings, Aaron
and Miriam miserably misspoke, hurling reckless charges against the prophet. “And Miriam and Aaron
spoke against Moses”introduces a nasty tirade that threatened to rock the family, had the Creator not
come to Moses’ defense – to set the record straight. In his inimitable style, Abravanel rattles off a raft of
questions in order to better understand the siblings’ rancorous discontent.
“And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite
woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.”
For Abravanel, those questions are only the half of it. Talmudic sages and Biblical commentators suggest
that Moses’ siblings hit close to home as they meddled in the prophet’s and Zipporah’s spousal
relations. This particularly riled Abravanel and led him to wag his finger and bellow: “Who asked Aaron
and Miriam to be the custodians of Moses’ bedroom? Who appointed them sheriff over their brother’s
most intimate and private business, inner sanctum, and to barge in, so to speak?”
Abravanel’s World discusses these queries, and others, at length. We shall address one salient takeaway
here: How does the quality of Moses’ prophecy vastly differ from that of Aaron’s and Miriam’s? That
qualitative difference lies at the heart of the matter.
“And He said: "Hear now My words: if there be a prophet among you, I, God do make Myself known unto
him in a vision. I do speak with him in a dream.” God explains that among the prophets, the method by
which they heard the Creator and picked up divine communication had been via impaired or filtered
messaging broadcasts. In Torah parlance, “I, God, do make Myself known unto him in a vision.” Visions
are filtered through a man’s senses, and not pure intellect.
Additionally, the Maker might have communicated to the prophet “in a dream.” Dreams, of course,
carry rich or even fantastic imagery. Thus, when God appears to a seer in his sleep, still and all, the
communication leans heavily on a prophet’s imaginative powers. Imagination, too, rates lower than
pure intellect.
These limitations to perfectly lucid prophecies are the rule for ALL prophets, except Moses. When the
Creator reached out to Moses, no barrier blurred the conversation; messaging was pristine,
unadulterated. That’s what the Torah means when it says: “My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in
all My house. With him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches.”
To sum up: Moses’ prophecy was of a fundamentally different caliber than Aaron’s and Miriam’s.
Because Moses availed himself to hear God 24/7, it meant, among other things, that he spent time in
quiet solitude, apart from family. As an expedient, the prophet had separated from Zipporah.
But Moses’ and Zipporah’s love life was nobody’s business, not even Aaron’s and Miriam’s, though both
were prophets. When they blurted out, God let them have it: “Wherefore then were you not afraid to
speak against My servant, against Moses? And God’s anger was kindled against them…”
In closing, Abravanel shows us that what began as a catty invasion of Moses’ and Zipporah’s personal
life would rapidly develop into an invaluable lesson on the subject of prophets and prophesy.
Numbers 13 introduces the scandal that would rock the Hebrews for forty years in the desert, and well
beyond. We speak of the spy affair. “And God spoke to Moses saying. Send you men, that they spy out
the land…”
Here, we bring Abravanel’s opening remarks to the perfidious event that stoked the Maker’s wrath. In
the course of time, He would snuff out the lives of the spies (with Joshua and Caleb the exceptions), as
well as the adult male population that escaped Egypt’s clutches.
To qualify, Abravanel begins his discourse by citing the opinion of other Biblical thinkers. They held that
when the Hebrews came to Kadesh, situated on the Amorite border, Moses made a calculation. The
prophet knew that at an appointed time (the fourth generation from the time of Abraham), the Jews
would liberate Canaan. He convened his brethren, saying: “Behold. God your Almighty has set the land
before you. Go up. Take possession, as God your Almighty of your fathers has spoken…”
God, the Knower of all hidden things, however, calculated the appointed time differently than Moses.
The time for decisive battles had not yet arrived, the Creator knew. He had surveyed the Hebrew
encampment, where He beheld a bevy of backsliders. He gazed upon frenzied pagans, crazed to bow to
a tinny calf of gold.
The Creator saw more, and cringed more. He saw Jews who denied divine providence time after time
after time. God resolved that the generation of evildoers would not step foot into the Holy Land; their
children would.
This was the backdrop, according to those writers referred to above. And so, God issued a command:
“Send you men, that they may spy out the land of Canaan…” The idea was to forestall Jewish entry into
Israel, should the people fail the divine test.
Abravanel blasts that approach as preposterous and egregious. As such, it behooves readers to
categorically reject it. Sending a band of spies under those disingenuous guises, Abravanel continues,
qualifies as criminal entrapment. God forbid that He would intentionally set up people to fall, that He
would place a stumbling block before the blind. Unconscionable!
The truth is the opposite. In His boundless compassion, the Maker yearned to bequeath the land to the
Hebrews. If so, why would He place obstacles in their way, as those misguided writers suggested?
This concludes Abravanel’s preface on the topic of Moses and a band of spies, one that primarily
focuses on the nature of God. Clearly, it absolves the Creator of any ill-association with the botched spy
scandal.
To be sure, Abravanel’s entire essay will address the ignominious spy affair head on and flesh out the
guilty parties. But, for the time being, Bible students learn that the Almighty yearns to do good for the
Chosen People. He does not plot their demise by intrigue or any other cheap trick – ever.
“And all the congregation lifted up their voice and cried. And the people
wept that night.”
The spy affair is broached in Numbers 13. The Hebrew’s reaction to the slanderous report gets recorded
here in Numbers 14: “And all the congregation lifted up their voice and cried.”
Abravanel zeroes in on God’s fateful response to the faithless people’s histrionics, one that both deeply
frustrated and disappointed the Maker. “And God said unto Moses: Where will this people stop
despising Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, for all the signs which I have wrought among
them?” The Creator took the snub personally. Very much so.
Abravanel explains that the key to understanding God’s query to Moses lies at getting the right read on
the lead phrase: “WHERE will the people stop despising Me?” What does it mean?
God beheld the sorry sight of the sinning Hebrews in Egypt. The Creator, as it were, shrugged at their
backsliding and excused them. He said to Himself: The reason why the Jews transgressed in Egypt was
because of the bad influence of the pagan Egyptian milieu. I will bring them out, God vowed, and place
them under My guidance…and things will improve. Faith in the One Above would come.
At the Red Sea, God again beheld a sorry sight; Hebrews still sinned. And again, the Creator made
excuses for them, surmising that things will get better after the transmission of the Torah at Sinai. Soon,
God realized that the holiness of the Lawgiving event failed to move the needle in the faith department.
Trekking in desert wastelands witnessed more Hebrew faithlessness in the Creator. Perhaps, God
reasoned, wrongdoing is because the Jews experience desert hardships. If I, God continued, bring them
to Canaan, the people’s attitude toward Me will warm up.
And then the spies returned from the Holy Land, slanderous report in hand. “And the congregation lifted
up their voice and cried.” That’s when the lightbulb, to be colloquial, went off. “And God said unto
Moses: Where will this people stop despising Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, for all the
signs which I have wrought among them?”
God stopped making excuses for the generation He freed from Egypt. “Where will this people stop
despising Me?”The Maker realized that even in Israel, mischief makers would despise God. He pledged
that the older generation would not cross the Jordan River. A pledge became a decree: Male adults shall
perish in the desert.
Indeed, heaven’s sentence was a death knell for the older folks whose disdain for God seemed a
constant, regardless of location or circumstances. In contrast, their children would learn from their
fathers’ mistakes. They imbibed true faith; the land would be theirs to inherit.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. He takes on the fascinating phenomenon of the Nazir in Numbers 6. In particular,
Abravanel explores the juxtaposition of our chapter dealing with the laws of Nazirites with the previous
one pertaining to the sotah. What’s the connection, Abravanel asks, between a woman suspected of
infidelity and someone who foreswears life’s comforts?
“And God spoke unto Moses saying. Speak unto the Children of Israel,
and say unto them. When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow,
the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto God.”
“He shall abstain from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong
drink. Neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.”The Nazir refrains from
more: “All the days of his vow of Naziriteship there shall no razor come upon his head…he shall not
come near a dead body.”All told, the Nazir, on his own volition, adds to the Torah’s other prohibitions.
At the end of the Naziriteship – carrying a minimum obligation of thirty days – the Nazir went to the
Holy Temple. There he brought sacrifices. What does it all add up to? For Abravanel, context is all-
important, shedding light on the unkempt, teetotaler Nazir.
The Torah teaches about natural levels or strata within the Hebrew body politic. Accordingly, priests
chiefly stand apart as men who officiated in the Tabernacle. Levites, too, took their special societal
positions reserved for their tribe insofar as they assisted with Tabernacle tasks. As for the Israelites,
tribal formations and banners lent them an air of élan during the desert sojourn.
In God’s interest to assure an orderly Jewish encampment, more arrangements were established. He
commanded those people who contracted spiritual defilement to leave home until their spiritual purity
had been restored. Thieves and other ruffians, similarly, were escorted out of the Hebrew encampment
pending behavior rehabilitation. Finally, Abravanel puts forth, children born of unsanctioned sexual
relations were sent out of mainstream communal life. We’re speaking about heinous cases where a
sotah got pregnant from her paramour.
After this backdrop, Abravanel brings us to Numbers 6 and to the intriguing subject of the Nazirite. Of all
the layers and sub-tiers within the Jewish community, none rank higher than the Nazarite, a class unto
itself. The holiest of the holy, says Abravanel. Indeed, in certain regards, the Nazir reaches higher levels
than priests or Levites.
How so? Priests derive their loftiness by dint of their priestly fathers’ DNA. How different are Nazirites!
They are men and women who aspire to moral greatness on their own accord. Their religious trajectory
or upward journey begins with them, with solemn words uttered: “When either man or woman shall
clearly utter a vow…”Their arduous ride may be short-lived (30 days) or until their last days on earth.
A Nazir’s highly-regulated lifestyle surpasses that of priests. Priests, for example, may cut their hair. The
Hebrew etymology shines light on the Nazir. The term’s root implies separation and distinction.
Alternatively, Abravanel suggests, the word Nazir conveys “crown”, as in royalty. Does a Nazir not don
uncut hair as a king his crown?
Above all, Nazirites strove to enhance or bolster their relationship with the One Above, as the Torah
makes explicit: “When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to
consecrate himself unto God.”
See Abravanel’s World for the entire discussion of the Nazir, one that also delves into the rationale
behind the different sacrifices he brought at the conclusion of his Naziriteship.
“And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting
up the Tabernacle…that the princes of Israel…brought their offering
before God.”
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Numbers 7, Abravanel provides a helpful timeline and adds context, regarding
the sequence of events in the newly-minted Tabernacle. Peppering readers with questions, he asks:
To begin with, let us state that the chronicling of the building and inauguration of the Tabernacle has not
been neatly laid out in the Torah. As a result, divergent opinions abound as to what happened when.
Here is how Abravanel ties the disparate sources together.
The Tabernacle’s completion took place on the first day of Nissan, the Hebrew calendar’s first month. To
peg the event to a year, we are speaking about the first anniversary of the Exodus from Egypt (also in
Nissan). No sooner had the holy compound been finished than the priestly inauguration activities
commenced. With Moses’ coaching, Aaron and his sons took to their new tasks in earnest. Supervision
stretched over a seven-day period.
On day eight of Nissan, priests sacrificed animals on their behalf and on behalf of their brethren. For the
balance of Nissan, Moses put on the finishing touches, per se. They included anointing the Tabernacle
and its vessels together with the altar and its accoutrements. “And it came to pass on the day that
Moses had made an end of setting up the Tabernacle, and had anointed it and sanctified it…”
Abravanel continues with the Tabernacle timeline. On the first day of the second month (Iyar), God
commanded His prophet to take a national census. Assisting Moses were the twelve tribal heads or
princes of Israel. By name, the Torah records each and every chieftain. In this way, we learn of the
precise population by tribe, including a count of the Levites.
By now, the Tabernacle was spanking new, and operational. This brings us to our chapter, Abravanel
stresses. The twelve tribal heads saw fit to take the initiative. By that we mean they intended to be the
first Hebrews to enter the Tabernacle, and offer sacrifices. “That the princes of Israel, the heads of their
fathers’ houses, offered – these were the princes of the tribes, these are they that were over them that
were numbered.”
“And the princes brought the dedication-offering of the altar in the day that it was anointed, even
princes brought their offering before the altar.” What does “dedication-offering” mean, asks Abravanel?
For starters, he says, it is not literal.
In absolute terms, the princes were not the first ones to bring sacrifices on the altar. Their offerings had
not preceded those brought earlier by the priests; nor did they come before the sacrifices offered on
behalf of the nation. Instead, posits Abravanel, the princes were the first individuals, as opposed to the
public, to “inaugurate” the altar, or in Torah parlance to bring the “dedication-offering.”
Put differently, the princes pulled rank, we might say. They did so as private citizens, albeit most
distinguished ones. Hence, after the actual altar inauguration – on behalf of the public – our chapter
conveys how twelve select chieftains – as individuals – dashed to the head of the Tabernacle altar line.
Finally, Abravanel enters the princes’ headspace, as it were, and plumbs the depths of their prayers as
they took center stage one-by-one in bringing private sacrifices on the altar. Foremost on these leaders’
concerns was for their tribes’ welfare and prosperity. “My tribe should multiply beyond anyone’s wildest
imagination”they spoke in hushed tones to the Maker as they proffered lavish gifts to Him.
Indeed, the princes’ devotion in the Tabernacle during the “inauguration” could not have been more
fervent and focused. In the best sense of the word, these were noble and selfless leaders.
There are two topics discussed in Numbers 8. The first one talks about the menorah in the Tabernacle.
The rest of the chapter’s verses delve into the subject of the tribe of Levi.
“And God spoke to Moses saying. Speak to Aaron and say to him: When
you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light in front candlestick.”
In the menorah verses, Abravanel finds an opportunity to enlighten Bible students about Moses’
unparalleled prophetic prowess. What is the connection between Moses and the sacred light fixture that
stood in the Tabernacle’s sanctuary?
To preface, there is a rabbinic debate surrounding one aspect of Moses’ prophecies: Was he able to
harness divine messages 24/7 or only during daylight hours? One rabbi deduces the answer from the
juxtaposition of our chapter dealing with the menorah with the previous one that features Moses’
prophetic ability: “And when Moses went into the Tent of Meeting that He might speak with him, then
he heard the voice speaking unto him…” Since the menorah lit up the sanctuary at night, and since
Moses entered the holy chamber whenever he desired, the commentator inferred that Moses heard
Heaven’s messages around the clock.
The opposing rabbi learns that Moses only prophesied during daytime. Abravanel explains the rabbinic
debate that has its root going back to the Talmudic sages. Their opinion turns on another Torah verse:
“And it came to pass on the day when God spoke to Moses…” Underscore “on the day” – not night.
Abravanel takes issue with the side that seeks to show that Moses only prophesied in the daytime. He
focuses on the phrase: “on the day.” The words, Abravanel suggests, are not meant to teach about
Moses’ nocturnal prophetic capabilities or lack thereof. Instead, the phrase hints at something else
altogether. Moses had not received divine communication via dreams, when people sleep at night.
In other words, “on the day” conveys Moses’ superior quality prophecies. They had not arrived with the
help, so to speak, of nighttime dreams. Every other Biblical prophet had heard God’s voice while
sleeping, in a dream-like state. Not so Moses. He channeled prophecy via his intellect, his reason, his
cognition. Hence, Moses could attune to Heaven, regardless of the time of day.
In sum, Abravanel studies our verses pertaining to the menorah, and flushes out an integral component
of Moses’ prophecies. They arrived 24/7 and when the prophet was in a wakeful state. Abravanel finds
Scriptural support for his conclusion in a later verse. “And He said: Hear now My words: if there be a
prophet among you, I God do make Myself known unto him in a vision. I do speak with him in a dream.
My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house.”
A most mind-blowing aspect of the Hebrew’s desert trek gets duly recorded in Numbers 9: the cloud of
glory. For the entire essay and in-depth explanation of the heavenly escort, see Abravanel’s World. For
our purposes here, we shift to a stylistic query.
“And on the day that the Tabernacle was built up, the cloud covered the
Tabernacle, even the Tent of the Testimony. And at evening there was
upon the Tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until morning.”
Abravanel ponders an obvious question: Why was it necessary here in our chapter to relate “And on the
day that the Tabernacle was built up, the cloud covered the Tabernacle?” After all, that phenomenon, as
wild as it is, had already been imparted in the Book of Exodus: “So Moses finished the work. Then the
cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory of God filled the Tabernacle. And whenever the cloud
was taken up from over the Tabernacle, the Children of Israel went onward, throughout all their
journeys.”
Here is Abravanel’s response. When the Creator desired to convey the mode in which the Jews traveled
in the Sinai Desert, He introduced Bible students to the cloud of glory. That travel guide information was
given in the Book of Exodus.
Now we focus on our lead verse here, in the Book of Numbers: “And on the day that the Tabernacle was
built up, the cloud covered the Tabernacle…”The Torah is not providing new information about the
heavenly guard coddling the Hebrew camp. Instead, it’s a recap of information that had been discussed
earlier. Really, more than just a recap; new information will be conveyed.
First the recap: The Torah reminds readers that on the day when the Tabernacle had been completed,
the cloud had swaddled the Hebrews. Now here’s the new information that answers the question: Why
did the nation merit God’s affection, miracle? Our verse provides the rationale: “Even the Tent of
Testimony.” The chamber that housed the “Testimony”, the holy of holies with the Maker’s tablets,
prompted Him to dispatch the cloud that would become a fixture to accompany the Jews during the
desert trek.
Demonstratively, the mystical cloud of glory shows precisely God’s desire to bestow honor upon the
Torah tablets, housed within the Tent of Testimony. One classic commentator went further. He surmised
that the cloud had not spread out over the entire Jewish encampment. Rather, the cloud of glory only
hovered the Tent of Testimony.
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator.Parasha Tzav, Leviticus 6 discusses one aspect of a priest’s daily tasks in the Tabernacle. The
Tabernacle’s priestly sanitation department, let us call it, swept up the altar’s ashes, charred remains
from the previous day’s sacrifices.
“And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches
shall he put upon his flesh. And he shall take up the ashes whereto the
fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them
beside the altar.”
Abravanel explores how and when the priests went about this task, where they deposited the collected
altar’s ashes, as well as the theological implications thereof. Put differently, what does “and he put
them beside the altar” teach Bible students here?
Strangely, Abravanel observes, our chapter seems vague about the drop off place of the altar’s ashes.
That is, our chapter lacks clear-cut direction for priests to place ashes to the east of the altar. ‘East of
the altar’ does, however, appear at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus (chapter 1), in the context of
priests cleaning up the charred remains of burnt, bird offerings: “And he shall take away its crop with
the feathers thereof, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes.”
Here is Abravanel’s observation, one that leads Bible students to a fundamental, theological takeaway.
When it came to tidying up burnt, bird offerings (chapter 1), the Torah really did not need to spell out
“on the east part”, and could well have sufficed with a more generic phrase “in the place of the ashes.”
That information would have taught readers what the priests did with altar ashes, albeit in a general
sense. Namely, they were brought to a designated area – and discarded there.
But for Abravanel, “on the east part” imparts much, and is not superfluous. The phrase takes a jab at
paganism. They prostrated themselves to the sun. The Torah, thus, disparages the east, of all the four
directions on a weather vane. “On the east” is a not so veiled dig at idolators that believed the sun to be
a deity; they worshipped the great ball of fire, rising daily out of the east.
In our context, Abravanel conveys that for Judaism, the west holds the most esteem, as evidenced by
the holy of holies situated in the western most chamber of the Temple. In contrast, the east conjures up
the shame of the ancients. Their focus on the east, was for Hebrews, an anathema, a dumping station,
as per Scripture: “East of the altar” was merely a trash bin where priests chucked out unwanted altar
ashes of soiled bird feathers (and all other altar residue).
Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, penetrating scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Leviticus (Vayikra) 3 is devoted to peace offerings brought to the Tabernacle. Abravanel explains
the sequence, and importance, of peace offerings coming after the Bible speaks about burnt offerings
(Leviticus 1) and meal offerings (Leviticus 2).
“And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings, if he offer of the
herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before
God.”
Are some sacrifices holier than others? According to Abravanel the short answer is an emphatic YES.
Here is why.
If a man is inspired to bring an offering to the Temple, one that will be wholly dedicated to God, he
brings a burnt offering. If a man desires to bring an offering that is partly earmarked for the Maker, and
partly shared with the priests, then he’ll make it a meal offering.
Now we come to our chapter. If a man decides to bring an offering that will be split three ways –
between God, the priests, and himself (and family/friends), it is a peace offering.
When sacrifices are viewed along the lines of the recipient(s), Abravanel teaches, a picture of a clear-cut
hierarchy emerges. On top of the hierarchy is a burnt offering, seeing that it is the sole ownership of the
Creator. Beneath the burnt offering is the meal offering, as it is divided between God and the priests. In
Temple parlance, both the burnt and meal offerings get categorized as ‘holy of holies’ or ‘most holy.’
Third from the top of the sacrifice chart comes peace offerings. In the world of sacrifices, they are
designated as ‘holy light.’
Abravanel goes further in his discussion of ordering or sequence of offerings. Burnt offerings are
brought on the altar, God’s table, to use an anthropomorphism. The second table or offering domain
was found in the Tabernacle’s courtyard. There, the priests partook of their portion of the meal offering.
Lastly, certain sacrifices were enjoyed in Jerusalem – peace offerings. In the Holy City, the proprietors
(along with their guests) shared the meaty repast of peace offerings.
SeeAbravanel’s World for the full discussion of the sequence of animal sacrifices in the Temple,
including his Scriptural sources that bolster Abravanel’s findings.
Page 1 of 2