Shabbat BaMidbar
The Bible is the most amazing of documents on so many different levels.
rom its poetry to its language, to its different styles, laws and messages. Not to mention the personalities and the constant interaction between the human world and the divine world. Millions of words have been written over the millennia, explaining the meaning and significance of this remarkable series of documents. For those of us who read it who read the Torah Day-in-Day out, year after year, we keep on finding new ideas, new explanations and inspirations. And just when we think we know all there is to know, we suddenly discover that there’s a lot more that we don’t.
The new book we start this week, which we will read this week, is concerned mainly with the 40 years coming out of Egypt before entering the Land of Canaan. The structure of the Israelites, the division into tribes with their banners and leaders, the numbers and the marching orders. At the center was the collapsible Tabernacle that the camp revolved around and which went with them into the land of Canaan and ultimately was replaced by the temple.
Towards the end of this week’s reading, there’s a reference to an animal whose skin was used to make a waterproof tarpaulin to cover the ark. It was made out of the skins of something called a Tachash.
I don’t know of any word in the Torah that is described in as many different ways as this particular word. Six times it is used in the book of Shemot ( Chapters 25,26, 35,36.) when the Tabernacle is first mentioned. And then seven times in this week’s portion Bamidbar (Chapter 4 ).
Let me give you a selection of more traditional translations. And then we can look at the other more fanciful ones. The Jewish Publication Society calls it a dolphin. The Steinsaltz Humash calls it a dugong. Onkolus, the Aramaic translation describes it as a colored hide and the very kosher Art Scroll doesn’t even try to translate it and simply describes it as a Tachash.
Some medieval commentators called it a Unicorn! Others, badge, camel, mink, okapi, seal, stoat, weasel and zebra.
The MandelKern Concordance, by the Russian lexicographer ( 1846 to 1902), called it a camel or a giraffe. The more modern Even Shoshan simply calls it a hairy animal.
And the great rabbi known as the Chatam Sofer (1762 to 1839) described it as a unique miraculous creation the Almighty produced specially and uniquely for this function in the Tabernacle alone. It’s always good to rely on miracles when you can’t find any other explanation that works.
There’s another debate about the colour. Blue, purple, mauve, green or brown? There is a similar debate about the Hebrew word Techeylet ( Exodus Chapter 28) which also features in the Tabernacle, but also to a thread in the fringes on the corners of the Tzitzit or Talit. Was it blue, green, mauve , purple, turquoise, or ultramarine ?
We have been debating these seemingly minor issues for some 3000 years. You’d have thought by now there would be some sort of consensus but that’s simply not the Jewish way! Some people would see this as a fault. I whereas I rather see it as a wonderful testament to the ingenuity of our scholars who, over the millennia have tried to find both translations of words in the Bible that we cannot agree on and descriptions of objects in the Bible that we cannot agree. But surely debate is creative and essential. Consistency is boring.
One final example is the shape of the Seven-Branch Menorah in the Temple, which, according to the mainstream version, consisted of curved branches, three on one side and three on the other, with legs. Which we base our Chanuka Eight Branch Candelabra on and is the emblem of the State of Israel. But in engraving on the Titus’s Arch in Rome, celebrating the conquest of Judea, the Candelabrum depicted there has a solid base. Was this simply the mistake of the craftsman who worked on the arch or did it indicate that there was a difference between the menorah and the first temple and the menorah and the second temple? Once again, there is no consensus, just different opinions. And nowadays Chabad have popularised a candelabrum with straight arms ( only Maimonides agreed).
We like certainty. Whereas language, interpretations and translations are children of their times. And a document that has been around in one form or another for thousands of years is bound to challenge our powers of understanding and appreciation. Religion is often at the forefront of dogma and rules. Whereas I think it is very important to encourage a variety of ideas, laws and customs. We should value texts that offer us uncertainty as well and enjoy the challenges.
Bamidbar Chapter 1- 4:20
Rabbi Jeremy Rosen lives in New York. He was born in Manchester. His writings are concerned with religion, culture, history and current affairs – anything he finds interesting or relevant. They are designed to entertain and to stimulate. Disagreement is always welcome.
