Naso
Num. 4:21-7:89
Précis: The parasha opens with a continuation of the listing of the Levitical families and their duties regarding the transportation of holy vessels. This is followed by a brief commandment concerning restitution for wrongs. The parasha then turns to a mysterious procedure for testing a wife’s fidelity when questioned by her jealous husband. Next, we have a discussion of the laws of Nazerites, and the recitation of the “Priestly Benediction.” The parasha concludes with the presentation of identical gifts by each tribe for the dedication of the Altar.
Num. 4:33 “Those are the duties of the Merarite clans, pertaining to their various duties.”
Nigel Savage has written about the meaning of ritual to contemporary Jews, particularly as it relates to our observance of mitzvot (JTS Parashah Commentary, 5/28/15). He notes that while it is easy to argue about the extent and particulars of halakha, it is hard to argue that we are a people with a halakhic tradition; that tradition is ingrained in us and in our history.
But it is a fact that most Jews are not particularly observant in any halakhic sense. So how are we to understand and relate to halakha?
One suggestion is that halakha should be viewed not as an imposed obligation, but rather as a community building activity. One may observe particular mitzvot because one wishes to identify with a community which observes them.
We can find in this week’s reading the tension between obligation and community in several instances. The Sages had a disagreement about why a Nazir is required to bring a sin offering at the conclusion of his period of asceticism (Num. 6:13-20). Nachmanides suggests that the sin offering is required because returning to the community somehow renders the Nazir less holy. The Rambam says that the sin offering is required because the Nazir separated himself from the community at the outset! These two views illustrate the tension that exists between obligation and community.
Savage notes that in the particular verse I focus on this week, the word “duties” is used as a translation for the Hebrew word “avodah.” We usually translate the word as “service.” This, in modern English, has a connotation of voluntariness. Therefore, he suggests, sometimes I might serve this way, and at other times, I might not. “Duty” has a far deeper sense of obligation.
So, do we see our relationship to halakha as a “duty” or as “service?” Is it a mandatory duty or a voluntary expression of our own decision? Are we obligated to join a shul, or do we do so merely because of personal volition?
In America today, all forms of “authority” seem suspect. While we desire community, we seem to want to reject the “duty” which being part of a community requires. However, obligation is part of being in a community, and supporting that community by our actions may provide a contemporary Jew more understanding of the role of halakha in modern life.
Savage also points out the we frequently read this parasha on the Shabbat following Shavuot (z’man torateinu) when we deal with this precise question: what is the nature of freedom, and how do we place limits on that freedom. We accepted Torah with the phrase “we will do and we will learn,” and these words are in the plural form. In Jewish tradition, obligation and community are always intertwined.
I have no real answers here, only questions. We need to reflect on the relationship between obligation and community. As we wrestle with it, we wrestle with God and with ourselves as well.
