What does “Torah” Mean?
This is the chok of the Torah…
What does the word Torah mean… in the Torah itself? The word is found no fewer than 55 times!
Considering all of those examples, there seems to be a general and shared meaning: “Torah” seems to mean “Guide” or “Recipe” or “Teachings.” The use seems to apply to specific “recipes” like an offering or the rituals for a Nazir, as well as more general applications: On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this Torah.
And we know the Torah refers to itself as the Torah as well: When [the king] is seated on his royal throne, he shall have a copy of this Torah written for him on a scroll by the levitical priests. And When Moses had put down in writing the words of this Torah to the very end…
So what is the text, the Five Books that we refer to as the Torah, supposed to be? If we only use the word the way it is found in the text itself, is Torah nothing more – or less – than the Guide Book for our relationship, for our spiritual wellbeing and growth?
Is it productive and true to the text to see the Torah in this way? Is there any place where the text suggests that Torah means anything else?
Does it change our overall understanding of the Torah to see it as a recipe for how to grow holy relationships?
Is it thus helpful – or not – to suggest that if the Torah focuses on guiding us in growing holy relationships, then the Torah is not meant to offer information or advice on topics that may have nothing to do with holy relationships? Is there anything in the text that suggests that the Torah exists for another purpose, and if so, what purpose(s) might they be?
Punished for Not Respecting Process?
Moses and Aharon function, in a way, as the father and mother of the people. Moses leads and sets the moral tone, but Aharon creates and maintains the home (for both man and G-d) and seeks to find compromises at every opportunity.
The Torah tells us of how parents are supposed to deal with rebellion, a ben soreh o’moreh.
In the event that a son is rebellious, there is a process:
1: The parents must speak to the son, chastising him; and
2: Then the son must ignore their words. After which,
3: The parents can condemn the son and label him a “rebel.”
Parents may not jump out of sequence: the son must get a chance to change his mind before he is condemned.
What if the Torah gives us an example of this happening to someone? In the story of Moshe hitting the rock, did they not ignore the process?
1: They did not talk to the complaining people at all – they went to talk to G-d instead.
2: Moses did not chastise the people so that they had an opportunity to change themselves.
3: Moshe (without Aharon, his “co-parent”) calls them “rebels”, without giving them a chance to correct their ways.
What if Moshe’s refusal to follow the process of handling a rebellious son is the reason Moshe was not allowed to go into the Land? Moshe is not just a parent – he is also the exemplar of Jewish Law. Wouldn’t ignoring legal process disqualify one from ongoing leadership?
Does this answer handle the problem of ambiguity in the text? After all, there are many other explanations for why Moshe was punished for these events. They include: Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it; He hit the rock twice; Moshe’s initial reaction, which was to run away to talk to G-d, instead of confronting the people initially, showed a lack of faith; Moshe Moshe also may have used the wrong staff (when Moses extracted water from a rock at Massah, he used Aharon’s staff); Moshe condemned the people as “rebels,” losing both his temper and his ability to lead by example – remember that the first named sin in the Torah is Cain giving into his temper). All are connected to this idea of respecting the instructions and process, instead of giving in to momentary anger.
So is it possible that Moshe gives up on the people, and he does so prematurely, just like a parent who loses his temper before giving his son a chance to straighten out? And that this, not any one specific element, is the reason why Moshe and Aharan were not allowed to enter the land?
Diplomatic Fail?
[Moshe to Edom] Now we are in Kadesh, the town on the border of your territory. Allow us, then, to cross your country. We will not pass through fields or vineyards, and we will not drink water from wells. We will follow the king’s highway, turning off neither to the right nor to the left until we have crossed your territory.” But Edom answered him, “You shall not pass through us, else we will go out against you with the sword.” “We will keep to the beaten track,” the Israelites said to them, “and if we or our cattle drink your water, we will pay for it. We ask only for passage on foot—it is but a small matter.” But they replied, “You shall not pass through!” And Edom went out against them in heavy force, strongly armed.
Could a better result have been achieved by asking a different way? Was being aloof (“We are in Kadesh [holiness]”) and starting by insisting we would not even touch their water understood by Edom as arrogance?
What if we had proposed a commercial relationship at the start? Would a different “pitch” been more successful? Does this story speak to an immaturity in understanding how Edom would perceive our offer?