Parashat B'Midbar - Numbers 1:1 - 3:51

by Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah

B’midbar is the first parashah (portion) of the Book of B’midbar/Numbers:  Focussed on listing the names of the tribes and their leaders, the formation of the camp for the march through the wilderness, and the duties of the various families of the tribe of Levi, it does not make a very exciting read.  Nevertheless, it provides information that is essential for understanding the narrative that enfolds in succeeding parashiyyot (portions).

When we read the parashah carefully, we find all the clues we need to unravel later dramas:  the rebellion of Miriam against Moses’ leadership (B’ha’a lot’cha, Numbers 12); the catastrophic failure of the tribal leaders’ expedition to reconnoitre the land beyond the River Jordan (Sh’lach L’cha, Numbers 13-15); the anger of the tribal leaders marginalised by the primacy of the tribe of Levi, and, in particular, by the pre-eminence of the priests (Korach, Numbers 16-18).

Intriguingly, the first parashah of B’midbar provides the most detailed clues regarding the rebellion of Korach.   Like his first cousins, Aaron and Moses, Korach was from the K’hat family.  However, unlike the High Priest and his sons, Korach and the other men of the K’hat family, were excluded from contact with the sacred vessels.   All the Levite families had duties associated with bearing the Tabernacle and its furnishings through the wilderness – but the K’hat family had the duty that brought them closest to the exclusive domain of the priests.  We read (4:15):

When Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sacred furniture, and all the sacred vessels, as the camp is ready to journey on – after that the sons of K’hat shall come to bear them; but they shall not touch the sacred things, lest they die.

So near – and yet so far:  How unbearable was their task of bearing the most sacred parts of the Tabernacle; limited by that absolute boundary; carry, but do not touch.  No wonder Korach rebelled against his priestly cousins.

The explosive revolt of Korach and his disaffected cohorts, Datan, Aviram and On, of the displaced first-born tribe of Reuven, forms the centre-piece of the Book of B’midbar.  Yet the less dramatic, but actually, more shocking and telling rebellion of Miriam against the special status of Moses, which is the first of the ‘leadership’ challenges to be recounted in B’midbar, is just as significant for our understanding of the book:   The ‘evidence’ in the first parashah, pointing to the later revolt of the tribe of Reuven and the men of the K’hat-Levi family is explicit; it is screamingly obvious why they would rebel against Aaron and Moses’ leadership.   By contrast, the evidence in the first parashah for Miriam’s rebellion is simply an absence:   The leadership structure of the camp – presented as set out in formation, like a military encampment, (see chapter 2) – is entirely patriarchal, and the opening verses of B’midbar chapter 1, say it all (1:1-4):

The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year that they came out of Egypt, saying: / ‘Take the sum of all the congregation of the Israelites, by their families, by their father’s houses, according to the number of names, every males, by their polls; /  from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go out to war in Israel; you shall number them by their hosts, you and Aaron. / And with you there shall be a man for every tribe, everyone a head of his father’s house.’

Women – let alone Miriam – are completely absent from this first parashah of B’midbar.  The short chapter (12) that recounts Miriam’s rebellion – just sixteen verses in all – is, ironically, the longest narrative text about Miriam in the Torah; indeed, everything said about Miriam altogether in the whole of the Tanakh (Bible) fills up less than a sheet of A4 paper!   And yet, she was not just the elder sister of her two more prominent siblings; if it hadn’t been for Miriam’s initiative, Moses would not have grown up in the Egyptian court, ‘saved’ for his future role (Sh’mot/Exodus 2).  Further, in just two verses in the account of the Exodus, the Torah makes it clear that Miriam was a n’vi’ah, a prophetess, who led the women in dances with timbrels through the divided Sea of Reeds, and sang to the entire community (B’shallach, Exodus 15:19-20). 

So what went wrong?   The sad reality is that the exception, as always, proves the rule:   The Torah, for all its glorious features – both in terms of its stories and its teachings – is essentially written by men, about men, for men; women are either marginal and/or absent, and/or vehicles for a male-focussed story line, and/or portrayed from a male perspective, and/or subject to male-defined rules.  If you are not sure about this, check out the narrative about the ordeal of bitter waters for the woman suspected of adultery in next week’s parashah, Naso (Numbers chapter 5).  But before you read on, read this week’s parashah, and ask yourself:  What is the picture of Israelite community that it presents?

Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah

Brighton and Hove Progressive Synagogue