By Matthew Nelson
As Jews we live a life based in text. We find ourselves reading the Torah every year collectively. This practice gives us a common text to ground our lives in. While the text might speak personally to each of us there is a larger intended meaning of the text that is independent of our encounter with it. It is often the case that when we are delving into the Torah we try to prioritize what we see as “pshat”–the straightforward meaning of the text–over our own personal experiences with the text. However, in the thirteenth century, Rabbi Abraham Abulafia had a radically different approach. He believed that the pshat was just a starting point and that our personal experience with the text was actually the highest level of Torah understanding. This is a common theme in his commentaries on the Chumash, known as the Maftehot (keys), and it is clearly on display in his writing on Parshat Beha’alotcha.
Parshat Beha’alotcha has a seemingly eclectic collection of narratives and laws, yet Abulafia sees the whole Parsha as a lesson in experiencing the text. In the beginning of the parsha Moshe is given the laws of the Menorah. In Abulafia’s interpretation the image of gazing into a flame is both used as an analogy for the experience of prophecy and for the experience of looking into the Torah:
’’כשנרצה להמשך בה אחר הכוונה האלהית הנבואית ונעמיק בה כראוי כמו שאו׳ ’הפוך בה והפך בה דכולא בה וכולה בך וכולך בה ובה תחזי ומינה לא תזוע’ (אבות ה׳ כב׳). וזה כי בעיונינו בנסתרות היא תעריך לנו אור נרותיה. וזה כי הנרו׳׳ת (661) ה׳׳ם התור׳׳ה (661)’’ (מפתח הספירות: פרשת בהעלתך)
“If you want to go after the divine prophetic intention and to delve into it as fit as it is written “turn it over and turn it over for all is in it and all of it is in you and all of you is in it and gaze into it and do not move away from it” (Pirkei Avot 5:22). And this is because in our contemplating of secrets it will set for us the light of its lamps. This is because the “lamps” (661) “they are the Torah” (661)”
Not only does Abulafia use the analogy of gazing into the candles, he also talks about looking into oneself. He does this by creatively adding to a well known statement originally attributed to Ben Bag Bag in Pirkei Avot. Ben Bag Bag says of the Torah that one should “turn it over and turn it over for all is in it”, Abulafia adds to this “for all of you is in it and all of it is in you”. Abulafia is teaching that just as you need to “turn over” the Torah, you also must look into yourself because there is also Torah in you. Abulafia enforces this by saying:
’’צריך לעיין בהבנת התורה על דרך שיכיר אדם עצמו בה כמי שמעיין במראה לראות פניו ועצמו וזולתו בה, ומשם יעלה הרואה בה בעיון אל הכרת קונו ית’’’ (שם)
“One must inquire into the Torah in the way that a person knows himself through it. Like someone who gazes into a mirror to see their face or themselves or the other in it. From here the gazer will ascend into knowledge of his Creator.”
By looking in Torah, one sees one’s reflection and through one’s reflection, one sees God.
Later in the Parsha there are a few dramatic narratives that occur, all of which inspire Abulafia’s commentary on reading ourselves into the Torah. There is the unrest in the camp that leads to the quail. This unrest leads to Moshe complaining to God that he cannot be carrying the weight of prophecy on his own. Moshe is then instructed to gather the seventy elders into the Tent of Meeting where Moshe experiences prophecy. The elders are then able to take from the divine spirit that Moshe received and experience prophecy themselves. After this ordeal most of the elders return, however two of them, Eldad and Meidad, stay in the camp and continue to prophesy. Joshua sees this as a problem and confronts Moshe about it. However Moshe responds by saying he would prefer for all of Israel to be prophets:
’’וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ מֹשֶׁ֔ה הַֽמְקַנֵּ֥א אַתָּ֖ה לִ֑י וּמִ֨י יִתֵּ֜ן כׇּל־עַ֤ם יְהֹוָה֙ נְבִיאִ֔ים כִּי־יִתֵּ֧ן יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־רוּח֖וֹ עֲלֵיהֶֽם׃’’
“But Moses said to him, ‘Are you wrought up on my account? Would that all GOD’s people were prophets, that GOD inspired them!’” (Numbers 11:29)
After this there is another narrative that seems unrelated to what we have just read. Miriam and Aaron are rebuked and punished for talking badly about Moshe on account of his marriage to a Cushite woman:
’’וַתְּדַבֵּ֨ר מִרְיָ֤ם וְאַהֲרֹן֙ בְּמֹשֶׁ֔ה עַל־אֹד֛וֹת הָאִשָּׁ֥ה הַכֻּשִׁ֖ית אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָקָ֑ח כִּֽי־אִשָּׁ֥ה כֻשִׁ֖ית לָקָֽח׃
וַיֹּאמְר֗וּ הֲרַ֤ק אַךְ־בְּמֹשֶׁה֙ דִּבֶּ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה הֲלֹ֖א גַּם־בָּ֣נוּ דִבֵּ֑ר וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יְהֹוָֽה׃’’
“Now Miryam spoke, and Aharon, against Moshe on account of the Cushite wife that he had taken [in marriage], for a Cushite wife had he taken.
They said: Is it only, solely through Moshe that YHWH speaks? Isn’t it also through us that he speaks? and YHWH heard.” (Numbers 12:1-2)
Abulafia finds some textual difficulties with these verses and the verses that follow in which God rebukes them. The main issue is that Miriam and Aaron’s words against Moshe don’t match up with the description of their criticism in the previous verse. The first verse seems to state that Miriam and Aaron criticized Moshe for marrying a Cushite woman, however their words that are quoted in their name are not about Moshe’s wife at all. Instead their criticism is about the fact that they too are prophets and Moshe’s prophetic ability is no more special than their own. This can also be seen in God’s rebuke of Miriam and Aaron, where He tells them that Moshe’s prophecy is greater than their own
Abulafia creatively solves these textual discrepancies:
’’והנה התורה קרואה בשם אשה כי שלמה קראה אשה בשיר השירים, ומפני שדרך התורה לכתבה בדיו שחורה קראה פה כושית. וכן שלמה קראה שחורה ונאוה שנאמר ’שחורה אני ונאוה בנות ירושלים׳.’’ (מפתח הספירות: פרשת בהעלתך)
“And behold the Torah is called by the name ‘woman’ for Solomon called her woman in Song of Songs, and because it is the way of the Torah to be written in black ink it is called here Cushite. In addition Solomon called her dark and beautiful as it is written ‘I am dark and beautiful o daughters of Jerusalem’(Song of Songs 1:5)”
Abulafia’s solution is to say that the Cushite woman is actually a metaphor for the Torah itself. This explains the discrepancy in the verses. The Torah is the embodiment of Moshe’s prophecy and therefore criticism of the Torah is a criticism of Moshe’s prophecy:
’’שתכלית הנבואה הכללית היא שיכתוב הנביא ספר הנבואה אחד או רבים שמועיל לדורות הבאים אחריו.’’ (שם)
“for the purpose of prophecy is that the prophet will write one or many books of prophecy that can be taken by the generations that come after them”
Abulafia says that the final form of prophecy is the book that the prophet writes, and for Moshe that book is the Torah. Abulafia goes on to describe what makes Moshe’s prophecy higher than other forms of prophecy using the flame metaphor with which he began . He explains that the elders experience prophecy from Moshe in the way that many candles are all lit from one original candle. Each candle has its own light but they all trace back to an original source..
How does this relate back to our experience of learning Torah? Just as the seventy elders were able to take from Moshe’s prophecy to experience their own personal prophecy we can do the same. We learned from Abulafia that the Torah is Moshe’s prophecy so our access to the Torah is our access to Moshe’s prophecy. When we apply the Torah to our personal lives we become like the elders who took Moshe’s prophecy and used it to experience their own.
While many of us think that our own subjective personal experiences of the text are not the main objective of text study, that quality is actually what makes the Torah eternal. We experience the Torah as ever relevant because of its ability to speak to each of us individually and collectively in every generation; that is what makes the text holy, and that is what enables it to shed light on our lives.
