Biblical

Interpretation


Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 www.brill.nl/bi

Divine Command and Human Initiative:

A Literary View On Numbers 25-31

Jonathan Grossman
Bar-Ilan University

Abstract
Numbers 25-31 is a literary unit that has puzzled many scholars. Between the divine
command to go to war against the Midianites and its fulillment appear stories and laws
that interfere with the logical expected narrative. his article suggests dealing with this
issue by looking into the ‘Deep Structure’ of these chapters. Opening this segment is
the story of God’s command to Moses. he command once fulilled is to pacify the di-
vine wrath now being inlicted on Israel. Immediately following this divine speech Phine-
has slays the sinners Zimri and Cozbi on his own initiative, and thus the divine wrath is
quieted. his episode raises the issue of divine command verses human initiative. he
chapters following Phinehas’ act, chs. 25-31, deal with this matter. hey do so through a
unique structure comprised of three pairs of stories or laws. hese pairs maintain a per-
manent interaction between divine command and voluntary human initiative relating
to that command. he unit expands on this interaction while focusing on three aspects
that have surfaced in the story of Phinehas’ zeal: the undermining of Moses’ authority,
women’s place in religious rituals, and the bringing of sacriice to God. Positioning this
unit between the command to attack the Midianites and its fulillment focuses the read-
er’s attention on the tension raised by the story of Phinehas, tension that unravels as the
unit advances.

Scholars have already noted how the process of redaction plays a criti-
cal role in conveying various messages and meanings in scriptural texts.
Smaller literary units, apparently divorced from each another in subject
matter, combine to create a larger, holistic message and outlook. his as-
sumption is found not only among those critics that are counted among
the “Redaction-Critical” approach,1 but also among those that tend to-
wards a literary, close reading of the text. hey note that the act of ed-
iting moves beyond the technical placement of literary units alongside

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156851507X168494

 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 55

one another, to a fundamentally creative and artistic act that imparts

meaning, sometimes new, to the edited texts.2 Understood in this fash-
ion, many smaller sections can only be fully understood within the larger
unit, whose sum is greater than its parts.
In the following paper, I will attempt to demonstrate how this editing
process is utilized to generate an overriding motif, the creation of tension
between divine command and responding human initiative, through the
placement of literary parallels and similarities among smaller subsections
and through the clever juxtaposition of these sections within the larger
literary unit. he unit spans from the Incident of Baal Peor in Numbers
25, from the Israelites’ heinous sin, the divine anger and its deterrence
through Phinehas’ actions; to the call for revenge upon Midian in chapter
31. Ater Phinehas’ act of vigilantism and God’s response, the chapter con-
cludes with a divine directive: “Trouble the Midianites and smite them”
(25:17). he direct continuation of this command is found at the begin-
ning of chapter 31: “God spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Avenge the vengeance
of the people of Israel upon the Midianites; thereater you will be gath-
ered to your people’ ” (31:1). However, six sections, which at irst glance
have no connection to the central subject—the war against Midian—
interrupt the continuity of the text:

1. he census of the Israelites on the plains of Moab (26:1-65)

2. he claim by the daughters of Zelophehad (27:1-11)
3. God’s command to Moses to ascend “Har ha-Avarim” (27:12-14)
4. Appointment of Joshua (27:15-23)
5. Public sacriices: daily sacriice and additional sacriices (28:1-30, 29)
6. Vows taken by a woman or a girl (30:2-17)3
his sequence puzzles most commentators. Licht, almost despairingly,
states:

1)
his approach is found predominantly among New Testament commentators, yet it has
made inroads among Old Testament commentators as well. See N. Perrin (1969); Stein
(1969:45-56); March (1977:87-101).
2)
For general discussions regarding this see Greenberg (1969:1-8); Fokkelman (1975);
Rosenberg (1975:67-94); Alter (1981:131-154); Polzin (1980:1-24); Berlin (1983:111-
134); Amit (1992:15-18).
3)
Most commentators perceive the intention of this section as limiting the woman’s
56 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

hus that section, at the end of ch. 25, serves as the introduction to our unit. We
must then ask why do chs. 26-30 interrupt between the opening of our unit and its
content…In the chapters separating between the halves of the story (i.e., 26-30), I
have found nothing that justiies their location here.4

For some of the interceding sections we ind internal associative links,

and some commentators propose that these connections are the basis for
their location. Milgrom, for example, explains the connection between
women’s vows and the sacriices that precede them in the text:

his section was probably placed here because vows (“votive oferings”) were men-
tioned in the last verse of the previous chapter (29:39), a connection that is further
strengthened by the fact that the payment of vows generally took the form of a sac-
riice.5

However, while this explanation—or others along the same lines—cer-

tainly applies to some of the section, it does not comprehensively explain
the entire unit.

he Tension Between the Divine and the Human

I would like to examine the matter from the basic assumption that a pro-
found tension arises in the story of Baal Peor and Phinehas’ act—a ten-

power to make a vow (rather than a discussion of the vows and oaths themselves). his is
clear in the references to this unit: Milgrom, for example, calls this section “he Annul-
ment of Vows and Oaths Made by Women” (1990:250); others have called it “A Wom-
an’s Vows” (Budd 1984:320; Ashley 1993:572) or “he Vows and Oaths of Women”
(Levine 2000:427). It would seem that the conclusion of the section—“hese are the
statutes that God commanded Moses between man and his wife, between father and
daughter in her youth, in her father’s house” (30:17)—conirms that this is the central
subject of the section.
4)
Licht (1985:112-3).
5)
Milgrom (1990:250). he irst commentator to point this out, to my knowl-
edge, was Rabbi Shlomo ben Meir (Rashbam): “First it is written, ‘hese you shall make
for God at their appointed times, aside from your vows and your free-will oferings’—
which must be brought on one of the three pilgrim festivals, in keeping with the rule ‘you
shall not withhold,’ as explained in tractate ‘Rosh Ha-Shana’. So Moses went and spoke to
the heads of the tribes—i.e., the judges—to instruct Israel as to the laws of vows.” (Rash-
bam on 30:2, and Nachmanides ad loc.).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 57

sion that is addressed, even if not explicitly, in all of the laws and stories
that comprise our troubling unit. In other words, the sections between
the act of Midian in Baal Peor (ch. 25) and its military response on the
part of the Israelites (ch. 31) serve to illuminate one of the fundamental
elements that arises from Phinehas’ deed.
Let us turn our attention to the way in which the narrator describes
the sin of Baal Peor and Phinehas’ zeal. Ater “Israel joined themselves to
Baal Peor” (25:3), God orders Moses: “Take all the heads of the nation
and hang them up before God against the sun, so that God’s burning an-
ger may be turned away from Israel” (25:4). here is some ambiguity as to
the identity of the people to whom the narrator refers in the word “them.”
A simple reading of the text would appear to indicate that it is the chiefs
of the nation who must be hanged—i.e., the leaders of the nation must be
publicly executed.6 hus Davies understands the verse:

Indignant at such a lagrant act of apostasy, Yahweh instructs Moses to take all the
chiefs of the people, and hang them in the sun before the LORD. Why the chiefs
of the people, rather than the ofenders, should be punished is not clear…But it is
preferable to leave the text as it stands, and to assume that the chiefs are here
singled out for punishment as representatives of the people, or because they had
neglected their duty of vigilance in permitting the Israelites to act in such a
fashion.7

However, it is possible to understand the direct object, “them,” as refer-

ring not to “the heads of the nation,” but rather to the sinners (who, ad-
mittedly, are not mentioned explicitly in the verse). According to this
view, God’s command is to take the heads of the nation and to hang the
sinners with their help.8 While some determine that this second reading

6)
Compare II Samuel 21, also dealing with the royal family (house of Saul).
7)
Davies (1995:286). Noth interprets similarly: “Yahweh’s anger at the apostasy leads irst
to a divine command to Moses to punish ‘all the chiefs of the people’, of whom it is not
said whether they themselves participated in the apostasy or only neglected their duty of
vigilance” (1968:197).
8)
Keil (1869:204-5). Compare with Cook and Espin (1871). See also Levine: “his
statement is probably to be taken loosely, because it is unlikely that all of the Israelite
leaders were to be slain. he sense is that all involved with pagan worship were to be put
to death…Here, however, the ‘heads, leaders’ are among the sinful, whereas the ‘magis-
trates’ presumably remained untarnished” (2000:285).
58 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

is less intuitive than the irst,9 most of the commentators accept it, since it
is this scenario that immediately comes to pass. Moses gathers the “judg-
es of the nation” (who, apparently, constitute the “heads of the nation” re-
ferred to in God’s command) and instructs them: “Let each one kill his
men who joined themselves to Baal Peor” (25:5).10 Even so, Phinehas’ act
apparently remained outside of the purview of the divine command.
According to Davies’ reading, Moses did not fulill God’s command
to the utmost, but the divine command is fulilled in the form of Phine-
has’ act.11 Phinehas slays the prince of the tribe of Shimon together with
the daughter of the chief of a tribe of Midian (25:14-15), thereby “turn-
ing God’s burning anger from the children of Israel”.12 In other words,
through his own initiative, Phinehas, without foreknowledge, fulills
God’s expressed will. Human initiative comes in response to the divine
command.
To further clarify this aspect, we must compare our narrative to the sto-
ry that occurred almost forty years previously, that of the Golden Calf.13

9)
Ashley (1993:517).
10)
About this theme, see also Seebass (2003:40-46). We can assume that this was the main
reason for BHS who conjectures that the root [r, “wicked,” may be intended rather
than ar, “head.” Ashley suggests: “he best solution seems to be that Moses here, per-
haps under the pressure of practicality, saw no way to accomplish Yahweh’s command
and so decided that only the guilty would be slain” (519).
11)
From our perspective of discussion it is of no consequence if there are two diferent
sources in this story, as many commentators thought. See Dillman (1886:167-9), Ba-
con (1894:237-8), Holzinger (1903:380-3), Gressman (1913:334 n. 2), and Simpson
(1948:270).
12)
he link between God’s command and Phinehas’ act is emphasized according to Doug-
las’s structure (2002:192):
A. Israel sacriices to Baal. A1. Ofence of Zimri and Cozbi.
B. Leaders to be punished B1. Execution of ofenders by
(God’s command). Phinehas.
C. Moses gives the order of execution. C1. Plague.
D. he people weeping. D1. Covenant of peace.
13)
From a historical perspective, creating a connection between the two stories forms a
tragic literary cycle in the Israelites’ journey from Sinai to the Plains of Moab. At Sinai,
the high hopes for the nation (as expressed by the fact of the Revelation) shatter in the
face of the nation’s actual condition. In the plains of Moab, ater nearly forty years of
wandering, the high hopes (expressed this time by Balaam; cf. Ashley [1993:515];
Levine [2000:292]) are once again destroyed when confronted with the reality of the
nation’s deeds (cf. Olson [1997:233-4]).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 59

Baal Peor and the Golden Calf

he two stories are similar in their general structures:14
1. In both stories the nation commits both idolatry and sexual immo-
rality. hese sins, intertwined in pagan culture,15 igure prominently in
both accounts:
Sexual immorality in the sin of the golden calf: “And they got up to
make sport” (Exod. 32:6); in the sin of Baal Peor: “And the nation began
to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab” (Num. 25:1).
Idolatry, expressed by the ofering and eating of sacriices to foreign
gods—in the sin of the golden calf: “And they ofered burnt oferings and
brought peace oferings, and the nation sat down to eat and drink” (Exod.
32:6); in the sin of Baal Peor: “And they called to the people to (partici-
pate in) the sacriices of their gods, and the nation ate and they bowed
down to their gods” (Num. 25:2).
2. It is no surprise that God’s reaction is similar in both stories, and the
expression “burning anger” characterizes both: “And now, let me be; let
my anger burn against them” (Exod. 32:10); “And God’s anger burned
against Israel.” (Num. 25:2). God’s burning anger inds expression in
both cases in the form of a “plague” (magefa): “And God struck the na-
tion (wayyiggōp̄) [with a plague]…” (Exod. 32:35); “And those that died
in the plague…” (Num. 25:9).
3. he connection between the two stories also stands out on the lin-
guistic level. Suice it to mention Moses’ instruction to the judges of Is-
rael: “Let each man slay his men who attached themselves to Baal Peor”
(Num. 25:5), which reminds us very clearly of Moses’ call to the tribe of
Levi ater the sin of the golden calf: “Let each man slay his brother, and
each man his neighbor, and each man him who is close to him” (Exod.
32:27). he human activity responding to the punishment in both cases

14)
Wenham (1981:184); Olson (1997:229-240). Douglas claims there is link between
this story and Gen. 19:30-38: “he daughters of Lot seduce their father, and so con-
ceive Ammon and Moab. he daughters of Moab seduce the men of Israel into apos-
tasy” (2002:100). For connections to the story of Miriam (Numbers 12), see Douglas
2002:199-203.
15)
Immorality and idolatry were especially intertwined in the Baal culture; see Kapelrud
(1952), Habel (1964), Margalit (1980), Smith (1986:313-39), Day (1993:545-9).
60 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

is deined as “atonement”: “Perhaps I shall make atonement for your sin”

(Exod. 32:30); “And he atoned for the children of Israel” (Num. 25:13).
4. A similar reward is given to the “men of the sword” in both cases.
Following the Levites’ punishment of those who worshipped the golden
calf, they are awarded an appointment related to the tabernacle and the
divine service (“Consecrate yourselves today to God, each man against
his son and against his brother, that God may give a blessing upon you
this day”). Likewise, Phinehas is given an appointment related to the ser-
vice of the tabernacle (“He and his descendants ater him shall have a cov-
enant of priesthood forever, because he was zealous for his God and he
atoned for the children of Israel”).16
Presenting the sin of the golden calf as background for the sin of Baal
Peor and Phinehas’ zealous response suggests the following. Moses, when
he descended and saw the golden calf, gathered the tribe of Levi and
killed those who had joined themselves to the calf. In his zeal for God,
Moses commanded the people of his tribe to take “each man his sword,”
and to kill all those who had “made sport” with women. Phinehas, over-
come with zeal for God, had simply internalized what “his teacher”, Mo-
ses, “taught” when he came down from Sinai. herefore, Phinehas took a
“spear in his hand” and killed Zimri ben Salu, who had gone to commit
harlotry with Kozbi bat Tzur.17
he connection between the two episodes also raises criticism of Mo-
ses’ lack of action: in the golden calf episode, Moses takes vigorous action
against the sinners; despite a direct command, Moses is able to intuit the
divine will through his own initiative. Here, however, he stands passive-
ly; only ater God’s command (v. 4) does he begin to gather the judges of
the nation and decide that “those who joined themselves to Baal Peor”

16)
In addition, Wenham adds: “Israel clearly did not know what was going on at Sinai
(Exod. 32:1), and it is highly unlikely that they were aware of Balaam’s blessings” (1981:
84).
17)
his direction is emphasized by Rav in his description of the dialogue that takes place
between Phinehas and Moses, before Phinehas takes up his spear: “It is written, ‘Phine-
has the son of Elazar saw…’—what did he see? Rav taught: He saw the act and remem-
bered the [relevant] law. He said to [Moses]: ‘Brother of my father’s father: did you not
teach me when you descended from Sinai that one who cohabits with a gentile woman is
to be struck by zealots?’” (Babylon Talmud, Sanhedrin 82a).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 61

will be killed. In this story, it is Phinehas who fulills Moses’ role; he steps
into his shoes and, without any explicit command, kills “the prince” of a
tribe of Israel.

hree Pairs
Phinehas’ act gives rise to the question of the relationship between divine
command and human initiative. I believe that this dialectic is one of the
most fundamental elements of the story, part of its “deep structure,” such
that it extends outwards to the laws that appear immediately ater the sto-
ry of Phinehas, severing it from its continuation—the story of the war
against Midian.
I must emphasize that not every individual sub-section necessarily ex-
presses the tension between divine command and human initiative, but
the general relationship between the laws listed in this unit represents an
extension of the concept, even if only covertly.
he six short sections may be divided into three pairs:

1-2: Census of the people of Israel + Daughters of Zelophehad

3-4: Moses’ vision of the land + Appointment of Joshua
5-6: Sacriices for the festivals + Vow oferings

I propose that every divine command that appears generated a corre-

sponding appendix consisting of human response:
1-2: he command concerning the division of the land (section 1)
prompts the following questions: what happens to the inheritance of a
man who has no sons? What about inheritance by daughters? (Appendix
= section 2.) Zelophehad’s daughters request to receive their father’s por-
tion in the inheritance of the land is profoundly connected to the pur-
pose of the census, which concerns the division of the land among the
families (“To these shall the land be divided as an inheritance,” 26:53).
he census itself hints of the appeal of Zelophehad’s daughters. he gene-
alogy of the families of the tribe of Manasseh states, “Zelophehad the son
of Chefer had no sons, only daughters. And the names of Zelophehad’s
daughters were Mahlah and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah” (26:33).
he text does not indicate why this information is included, and what the
signiicance of the daughters’ names is. It is reasonable to assume, there-
62 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

fore, that this seemingly parenthetical note comes to help us understand

the appendix—their approaching Moses and presenting their claim.18
3-4: Obviously, the appointment of Joshua arises due to Moses’ immi-
nent passing. When Moses hears that he is going to be “gathered to his
people” (section 3), he asks that another leader be established in his place
(appendix = section 4).19
5-6: he relationship between the festive sacriices (section 5) and the
section on women’s vows (appendix = section 6) was discussed above. Be-
yond the linguistic connection between “In addition to your vows (i.e.,
vow oferings) and free-will oferings” (29:39) and “If a person shall make
a vow to God” (30:3), these two sections are also linked in content. One
of the most elementary senses of the word neder (vow) is the consecration
of sacriices for the tabernacle.20 While ch. 29 deals with public sacriices
that have a set time, ch. 30 discusses—at least in terms of its general sub-
ject—the sacriices that an individual consecrates voluntarily to the tab-
ernacle, and thus this section may also be seen as an “appendix” to the
broader public command.21
If we examine the relationship between the irst section and the sec-
tion that represents its appendix, the tension between divine command
and human initiative arises over and over. his tension is not reader cre-
ated; rather, the sections themselves are set out in a way that encourages
such a reading.

18)
Budd (1984:293); Licht (1985:61); Milgrom (1990:250); Ashley (1993:541); Levine
(2000:321-2).
19)
he connection between these two sections is so tight that some commentators make
no distinction between them and treat them as a single unit. For example, see Moskowitz
(1998:339), who calls the entire unit (vv. 12-23), “the appointment of Joshua,” or Ash-
ley (1993:546), who calls it “Joshua named as Moses’ successor (Num. 27:12-23).” Ac-
cording to this approach, God’s command to Moses to ascend “Har ha-Avarim” and to
view the land are brought here only as a preface to the crux of the story—the appoint-
ment of Joshua.
20)
See especially Lev. 7:16, and Milgrom’s commentary ad. loc. (1991:419).
21)
“Vows were oten made in connection with sacriices, and both share the same generic
name qorbān, ‘ofering’. his is probably the rather thin thread that links this chapter to
the preceding two” (Sturdy 1976:209). Douglas includes those two sections in the same
unit (2002:103, 108-9,170).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 63

1&2: Census of the Israelites + Daughters of Zelophehad

God’s command to conduct a census of the people is given explicitly in
the text (26:1-2). Immediately aterwards we ind a “legal story”: the law
of inheritance by daughters (which is legislated here) arises out of the sto-
ry of the claim by Zelophehad’s daughters. his pattern exists in a few
other places, such as the law of the Passover at Sinai (Num. 9:6-14); the
law of a blasphemer (Lev. 24:13); as well as the continuation of the story
of Zelophehad’s daughters, concerning the limitation of eligible marriage
partners for daughters who inherit (Num. 36).22 he fact that a certain
law arises from the midst of a narrative has literary value—i.e., the story
surrounding the law contributes to its formation and the way in which we
understand it.23
Both the law of the Passover at Sinai and the law concerning inheri-
tance by daughters are anchored in instances of individuals seeking to be
part of the community. “Why shall we be prevented (niggāra‘ ) from of-
fering God’s sacriice at its appointed time among (betôkh) the people
of Israel?” (Num. 9:7), ask those people who are ritually impure and will
therefore be unable to ofer the Passover sacriice at its proper time. Sim-
ilarly, the daughters of Zelophehad ask, “Why shall our father’s name be
omitted (yiggāra‘ ) from among (mittôkh) his family?” (Num. 27:4). his
emphasizes the human initiative that brought about an amendment in
the law with certain accommodations made in light of their claim.
It is not only the plot that demonstrates the connection between the
initiative of Zelophehad’s daughters and the amendment to the law, but
also the linguistic presentation, which highlights the connection between
the individual situation of these women and the general law:

Zelophehad’s daughters (3-4): General law (8):

“Our father died in the desert “If a man dies
and he had no sons…” and he has no son—
“You shall transfer the inheritance of you shall transfer his inheritance
their father to them.” to his daughter.”

22)
Milgrom claims that only four cases were legislated this way (beside the cases written
above, he adds the case of the penalty for violating the Sabbath in Numbers 15). Wein-
green (1966:518-522) claims that it is preferable to see these laws as an example, and
there are more laws that were legislated in this way.
23)
About this way of writing laws, see Roth 1995.
64 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

hrough this parallel formulation, the narrator emphasizes how the

initiative of Zelophehad’s daughters and their demand for an inheritance
provide the basis for that the new law established by God.24 he very for-
mulation of the law as a divine response to an individual situation cre-
ates a contrast between the census of the heirs to the land, conducted by
divine command, and the amendment to the law of inheritance, which
comes in the wake of human initiative.
It would seem that the story’s desire to emphasize the women’s initia-
tive also inds expression in the mention of their names (v. 1).25 Ben Barak
writes in this regard:

he opening verse already presents the daughters of Zelophehad as the primary

characters of the story; they are the subject, and—what is principally emphasized—
they initiate. he continuation of the verse—the presentation of their genealogy
and a list of their names—places all the weight on their uniqueness and their
importance in this story.26

In fact, the use of the same verb in the women’s approach to Moses (“he
daughters of Zelophehad drew close…and stood before Moses” [vv. 1-
2]) and in Moses’ appeal to God (“Moses brought close their case be-
fore God” [v. 5]) creates a sense that Moses is merely the go-between. He
merely continues the direction of Zelophehad’s daughters, and is a sec-
ondary character in relation to the women.
Is there any textual support for my hypothesis that the women’s initia-
tive here is connected to the initiative of Phinehas faced with the sin of
Baal Peor? I believe that the answer is airmative, although the connec-
tion is veiled rather than explicit.
As mentioned, the verb brq (“coming close” or “bringing close”27)
plays an important role in the story of Zelophehad’s daughters, insofar
as it introduces the story (they “came close”) and concludes the narra-

24)
Ben-Barak (2004:54).
25)
Actually, they asked: “Why should the name of our father be done away from among
his family”, so in return the narrator emphasizes their names. On the signiicance of the
father’s name in this story, see Davies (1981:141-2), Bird (1991:97-108), and Idem
(1997:56).
26)
Ben-Barak (2004:36).
27)
BDB (898).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 65

tive section (Moses “brings close”). his verb is associated with the act
of Zimri, described as “bringing close before his brethren the Midianite
woman…” (25:6). his associative reading rests not only upon the verb
which is common to both stories, but also upon the social platform de-
scribed in both cases. Zimri “brings close” the Midianite woman before
his brethren, “before the eyes of Moses and before the eyes of all the con-
gregation of the people of Israel” (25:6). he daughters of Zelophehad
act before a similar audience: “hey stood before Moses…and before the
princes and all of the congregation” (27:2). In addition, both stories take
place in the same location. Phinehas arises from among the congregation
against the background of “they were weeping at the entrance to the tab-
ernacle of the congregation” (25:6), while the daughters of Zelophehad
head for the same address: “the entrance to the tabernacle of the congre-
gation” (27:2).28
he fact that both scenarios take place publicly and openly, in the pre-
cincts of the tabernacle of the congregation, is signiicant. By describing
the public nature of Zimri’s action, the text changes it from an individual
being overwhelmed by his desires to a deliberate act of rebellion. Corre-
spondingly, in his own act, Phinehas slays the sinner “against the sun”—
i.e., in the open. he claim by the daughters of Zelophehad must also be
presented openly and publicly—if only for the sake of avoiding com-
plaints in the future by those whose personal and family interests may be
harmed by the amendment to the law.29
In any event, the linguistic and thematic elements common to both
stories lead us to read one against the background of the other, and with-
in the general context of human endeavor coming to the fore alongside
divine command.30

3&4: Moses’ Ascent to Har Ha-Avarim + Appointment of Joshua

Here, again, it seems that the narrator leads us, in several diferent ways,
to pay attention to the tension between divine command and human ini-

28)
Regarding the fact that the sin of Baal Peor was also profoundly connected to women,
and that the narrative concerns women, see below.
29)
In addition, as Ashley claims, “his was the place where Yahweh met his people for judg-
ment” (1993:545).
30)
From this perspective, my discussion combines with McKay (1997:115-128).
66 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

tiative. Here, again, the human initiative is greeted with approbation,

even if tinged with a hint of reservation.
he element of command concerns, obviously, God’s instruction to
Moses to ascend the mountain and view the land, and to die “as Aaron
your brother was gathered” (27:13). his overt connection to the sto-
ry of the death of Aaron joins a collection of linguistic links, which also
serve to connect to Aaron’s ascent to Mount Hor, by God’s command, in
order that “Aaron may be gathered to his people” (20:24). In both sto-
ries, the reason for the death of these primary characters is emphasized,
using the same language: “Because you rebelled against my word at Mei
Meribah…” (20:24); “For you rebelled against my word in the wilderness
of Tzin, when the congregation quarreled…at Mei Meribah of Kadesh”
(27:14).31
he highlighting of Aaron’s death as background to the death of Mo-
ses gives rise to the obvious diference between the two deaths described
in the text. When Aaron is to die, Moses is commanded to take him to the
mountain, along with Elazar—Aaron’s son—and to dress the latter in the
priestly clothes of his father, thereby signifying the changeover of priest-
ly leadership. But when God commands Moses to ascend the mountain,
there is no mention of any successor. Is there to be a successor to lead the
people? Who is he? How is he to be appointed? All of these questions,
the answers to which were so clear when Aaron died, are let open in the
command to Moses.
Although we immediately read that it is Joshua who is destined to suc-
ceed Moses, and the process of the changeover is then set forth (“You
shall place your hands…and give of your glory upon him”), this informa-
tion emerges only in the wake of Moses’ request: “Let God, the Lord of
the spirits of all lesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who will go
out before them and come in before them, and who will take them out
and bring them back, so that God’s congregation will not be like sheep
that have no shepherd” (16-17).
Some commentators have even suggested that Joshua’s appointment
actually deviated from the original divine plan, and that had Moses not
requested it, no mortal leader would have taken his place. According to

31)
Levine (2000:352).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 67

this reading, our story should be viewed as an anti-royalty statement: the

ideal is for God’s kingship rather than a mortal king.32
Even if we maintain that Joshua’s appointment accords with the origi-
nal plan for the leadership of Israel, we must nevertheless admit that the
presentation of this unit demands some explanation: Joshua ascends the
literary stage only because of Moses’ request for a successor. From our per-
spective, this is of great signiicance, as it demonstrates another instance
of human initiative coming to the fore to correct (amend, expand upon)
the divine command.
Here again, it seems that the narrator hints at the tension. First, we
note the introductory formulation of Moses’ request, which initially
sounds very familiar, but upon closer examination turns out diferently
than we expected: “Moses spoke to God, saying, ‘Let God…appoint…’”
(27:15). While this echoes the heavily repeated pattern: “God spoke to
Moses, saying,”33 here the situation is reversed: it is Moses who is speak-
ing to God. his formulation appears nowhere else,34 and in this sense the
introduction to this narrative represents a sharp exception.
his change leads the reader to pay attention to the “reversals” in the
story: it is not God who commands Moses here, but rather Moses who is
commanding God—or, more accurately, requesting him—to appoint a
new leader for the Israelites.35
Aside from the two aspects mentioned—plot (appointment of Josh-
ua presented as a result of Moses’ request) and language (“Moses spoke to
God saying”)—I believe that the tension between divine command and
human initiative is emphasized in the text in yet another way, which in-
troduces a reservation and limitation to the power of human initiative.36

32)
See Assis in this regard (2004:25-42).
33)
Appearing approximately a hundred times!
34)
here is a similar reference in Exod. 6:12 (“Moses spoke before God saying”) and again
in the parallel section in v. 30 (“Moses said before God”).
35)
In the words of the medieval commentator Bachya ben Asher: “[he text presents it
thus] because of Moses’ greatness; in order to compare the student to his Teacher. As
we learn in the Midrash: ‘I spoke with you using the expressions “speech” (dibbur) and
“saying” (amira)’: And God spoke to Moses saying; ‘you, too, will speak before Me with
the expressions “speech” and “saying” ’. Moses spoke to God saying…’” (commentary on
Num. 27:15).
36)
Perhaps the way of appointment was also inluenced by this discussion. Regarding this
special appointment, see Coats (1977:34-44) and Mattingly (2001:191-208).
68 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

In Moses’ words to God, he asks for a leader “who will go out before
them and who will come in before them; who will take them out and
bring them in” (27:17). hese expressions refer irst and foremost to the
military function of the king (going out to war), as we read, for example,
concerning David: “Saul removed him from his presence and appointed
him a captain over a thousand, and he went out and came in before the
people…And all of Israel and Judah loved David, because he would go out
and come in before them” (I Samuel 18:13-16).37
When God accedes to Moses’ request and describes the procedure for
Joshua’s appointment, the same expression appears once again:

He shall stand before Elazar the priest and shall ask him for judgment by the urim
before God; by his word they shall go out and by his word they shall come in, he
and all of the people of Israel with him, and all the congregation (27:21).

Because of Moses’ appeal, which is the background to this verse, it ap-

pears at irst that “by his word”, i.e., by Joshua’s word, “they shall go out”
and that “by his word they shall come in.” But this merely serves to em-
phasize the discrepancy between the reader’s expectation (that it would
be Joshua who decides when they are to go out) and the actual content of
the verse, which refers, of course, to Elazar, who consults with the urim
for a judgment. In other words, it is through the word of God, as trans-
mitted by Elazar the priest, that the people of Israel are to go out and
come in.38
his is no mere esthetic play on words. What we see here is a profound
diference between what Moses asks for and what God provides in re-
sponse. God does establish a leader to replace Moses, but not in the way
that he intended it: the limitations on his leadership authority are appar-
ent in the very procedure of his appointment.39

37)
Sturdy (1996:197); Ashley (1993:551). See, also for example, Alter’s translation of I
Sam. 18:16: “But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he led them into the fray.”
38)
For a similarly misleading case compare II Samuel 11:13: “and at evening he went out to
lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house.” In the irst
reading the reader may think that Uriah went to “his bed” (in his house), but this is an
intentional misleading, meant to emphasize the gap between David’s plan and Uriah’s ac-
tion (See Sternberg 1985:200-1).
39)
Margaliot comments on the expression “a man of spirit”: “One may have thought—
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 69

From our perspective, it should be noted that this phenomenon con-

tinues to represent the relationship between divine will and human ini-
tiative, similar to the way in which the same tension was presented in
the previous pair of sections. here, too, God agreed to the initiative of
Zelophehad’s daughters, but limited their marriage possibilities (ch. 36).
Here, too, he agrees to Moses’ request, but in a way that entails certain
reservations and limitations.40

5&6: Daily and Additional Sacriices + Vow Oferings

While the command in this pair appears immediately, “Command the
people of Israel and say to them: my sacriices, the bread of my oferings
for a sweet savor to me, shall you observe to ofer to me at their appointed
time” (28:2), there seems to be no rationale for locating the section of sac-
riices here. Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman) suggests:

he reason for, … “Command the people of Israel and say to them, my sacriices,
the bread of my oferings…” is because ater he said, “To these shall the land be
divided,” he commanded that the teaching concerning the sacriices be completed,
that they may perform it in the land, for the additional sacriices were not ofered
in the desert…And although it is not stated here explicitly, “When you come to the
land,” it was already mentioned in the law of the libation oferings, and it is hinted
at in the irst section of the festivals.41

‘God’s spirit’, but that is not the case; ‘a man of spirit’ (lit.: with spirit in him)—specii-
cally not God’s spirit! For concerning Joshua we have not been told even once that
God’s spirit was upon him…Likewise in the book of Joshua there is no hint that God’s
spirit ever rested upon him, and God never calls him a ‘prophet’” (Margaliot 1991:115;
cf. Noth 1968:214. For an opposite commentary see Rozenson 2004:360-1).
40)
his tension is hinted at in Bamidbar Rabba: “To what can this be compared? To a
king who married a woman, and he had an attendant. Whenever the king would become
angry with his wife, the attendant would appease him, and the king was reconciled with
his wife. When the time came for the attendant to die, he asked of the king: ‘Please, pay
favorable attention to your wife.’ he king said to him: ‘If you’re telling me to consider
my wife, you should tell her the same thing concerning myself—that she should be care-
ful concerning my honor.’ his, as it were, is what God told Moses: ‘since you’re asking
me, “Let God appoint…”, command them that they should take care concerning my hon-
or’. hus it is written, ‘Command the people of Israel: my sacriices, the bread of my of-
fering…’ ”. In other words, he irst set forth the sacriices that they are to ofer (Bamidbar
Rabbah, 21, 2).
41)
Commentary on 28:2.
70 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

According to Nachmanides’ view, since this command is intended for the

period ater the nation enters Canaan, it appropriately appears in the sec-
tion devoted to the census of those who are to inherit the land, with its
appendices.
While other commentators accept Nachmanides approach,42 it is dii-
cult to reconcile with the literal text. he fact that these sacriices are to
be ofered only ater entering Canaan is mentioned nowhere at all in our
unit. Milgrom addresses this diiculty and claims that the connection is
clear based upon previous mention of the performance of festive sacriic-
es, from which we deduce that this law is to be performed speciically in
the land, and not in the desert.43 But even if he is correct, we would still
expect that this fact would be stated explicitly—since it represents the en-
tire reason for the sacriices being listed here.
In any event, the principle of divine command is clear here from the
very beginning of the section, to the extent that we may call this section
“the obligatory public sacriices that have a set time.”
Following this list of sacriices is another system—the sacriices brought
voluntarily by an individual. he conclusion of the irst set hints at the ex-
istence of the alternative system: “hese you shall perform for God at
their appointed times, aside from your vow oferings and free-will ofer-
ings, your burnt oferings, your meal oferings, your drink oferings and
your peace oferings” (29:39). Indeed, immediately ater this conclusion
the text moves on to address vows taken by a person of their own free ini-
tiative: “If a person makes a vow to God…he shall not break his word; he
shall do as everything that proceeded from his mouth” (30:3).44
In contrast to the previous pairs, where the personal initiative inds ex-
pression in human action making its way, as it were, into the divine com-
mand, with the intention of inluencing it, here the human initiative is
part of the law itself. he divine law stipulates that there is room for vol-
untary initiative in the realm of sanctity and divine service; a person may

42)
See Milgrom (1991:237).
43)
Lev. 23:9; Num. 15:2.
44)
Douglas suggests a surprising connection between those two sections: “he law of a
woman’s vows is located in the series of laws about the main feast days and the calendar
of sacriices, because in the Bible the Lord deals with his people as a husband, or a father”
(2002:170).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 71

establish their relationship with that realm with adjustments for their free
will. Here, the system of ixed sacriices does not stand in contradiction
to human initiative; on the contrary, these two elements complement one
another.
Does the text encourage such a reading, so that the section on wom-
en’s vows raises the subject of voluntarism (in contrast with the obligato-
ry sacriices)? I believe that the answer to this question is airmative.
Again, the introduction to the section surprises: “Moses spoke to the
heads of the tribes of the people of Israel, saying, ‘his is what God com-
mands…’ ” (30:2). Several commentators note the introduction’s con-
voluted phrasing: “God spoke to Moses saying….”, Ashley, for example,
comments:

he introduction to the passage is clear enough, even though it is literarily unusual.

First, normally Yahweh is said to speak to Moses (or Aaron) in direct speech,
whereas here he is reported to have spoken only by Moses…he indirect speech
does not reduce the force of the divine imperative, but merely expresses it in an
unusual way.45

As Ashley emphasizes, in contrast to the usual and expected formula-

tion, our section opens with Moses’ words to the heads of the tribes,46
and only in the middle does it turn out that, in fact, he is transmitting a
divine command (“his is the thing that God commands”). his fact is
mentioned once again in the concluding verse of the discussion: “hese
are the statutes that God commanded Moses between man and wife, be-
tween a father and daughter in her youth, in her father’s house” (30:17).
What is the reason for changing the usual formula? Why does the narra-
tor “pretend,” in Rashbam’s formulation, that Moses is giving this instruc-
tion “with no explicit instruction from God”?47

45)
Ashley (1993:576-7).
46)
his, apparently, is a shortened form whose meaning is “the heads of the fathers of the
tribes” (Milgrom 1991:250).
47)
“I was asked…concerning the literal text, where we ind any other unit that begins thus, with-
out our irst being told ‘God spoke to Moses, saying: If a man makes a vow…’ How is it that this law
begins as though it is Moses who is saying this, without any explicit instruction from God?” (Rab-
bi Samuel ben Meir, comment on Num. 30:2-3).
72 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

I suggest that here too, the basis for the diference is an attempt to al-
low human initiative and response to the divine command. As humanity’s
free will provides the entire basis for making vows or oaths, the narra-
tor opens the laws by ‘concealing’—at least at the beginning—the divine
command.48 hough the limitations of religious motivation and human
initiative are mentioned immediately and are included in God’s words,
the heading of the unit minimizes them.

Overall Structure
Summarizing the introductions to the sections discussed so far, we emerge
with an orderly structure that emphasizes at every stage the dialectic be-
tween the divine command and the human intervention that follows.
his tension resolves with a new divine command that regulates the hu-
man initiative within an orderly procedure:

1&2:
a. Divine Command: census of the Israelites—“God said to Moses
and to Elazar the son of Aaron the priest, saying” (26:1)
b. Human Intervention: the daughters of Zelophehad—“he daugh-
ters of Zelophehad came close…and stood before Moses” (27:1)
c. Divine Acceptance: “God spoke to Moses saying, ‘he daughters of
Zelophehad have spoken correctly’ ” (27:6-7)
3&4:
a. Divine Command: Moses’ ascent to mount Abarim—“God spoke
to Moses” (27:12)
b. Human Intervention: appointment of Joshua—“Moses spoke to
God, saying” (27:15)
c. Divine Acceptance: “God said to Moses: ‘Take Joshua the son of
Nun’ ” (27:17)
5&6:
a. Divine Command: Time-bound sacriices—“God spoke to Moses
saying, ‘Command the children of Israel’ ” (28:1)
b. Human Intervention: Vows and oaths—“Moses spoke to the heads
of the tribes of the Israelites, saying” (30:2)

48)
Compare Rozenson (2004:374-5).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 73

c. Divine Acceptance: “his is the thing that God has commanded”

(30:2)

We must still determine why speciically these sections were chosen to ex-
press the religious tension between obeying a given command and the at-
tempt to introduce a new dimension into it. I believe that here, too, we
must go back to the sin of Baal Peor and the act of Phinehas, and in light
of that episode examine the choice of these particular sections.
Since ater this there are no more stories of complaints by the people of
Israel in the desert, nor stories of sins punished by God’s anger, it is most
appropriate that immediately ater the last “death story,” the text deals
with those who are to inherit the land. In other words, all the Israelites
who survived the last plague at Baal Peor will merit to be among those
who inherit the land, and therefore it is itting that the census of the heirs
to the land be conducted here.49
Moreover, the sin of Baal Peor and Phinehas’ act rest upon three cen-
tral motifs:

1. As discussed above, Phinehas’ act served as a veiled criticism of Mo-

ses’ conduct as leader.
2. he active involvement of the women of Moab (and perhaps also
Midian) is perhaps the most striking feature. hey tempt the Israel-
ite men: “hey (the Moabite women) called the nation to the sacriic-
es of their gods, and the nation ate and bowed down to their gods”
(25:2). Aside from the verb “to call,” which certainly implies their
active incitement, the god that the people of Israel are called to
serve is also referred to at irst in the text in relation to the Moabite
women—“their gods,” and only aterwards do we read its full name:
“And Israel joined itself to Baal Peor.”50 hrough this description,
too, the text highlights the role of the women of Moab in the sin.51

49)
See Sturdy (1976:189), Ashley (1993:531), and Olson (1997:232, 235). Budd sug-
gested that the (second) purpose of the author here is: “To make it crystal clear that
Moses, not Joshua, was the original recipient of the command to divide the land”
(1984:292).
50)
“To begin with the Moabite god is not named, and then, without any earning, the name
‘Baal of Peor’ appears in the context of a quite unusual igure of speech” Noth (1968:195).
See also Ashley (1993:516-7) and Rozenson (2004:330).
51)
Although v. 1 seeks to place the responsibility upon the shoulders of the sinful
74 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

3. Aside from prostitution, the chief characteristic of the pagan wor-

ship described is the ofering of sacriices to Baal, and a sacriicial
feast: “hey called the nation to the sacriices of their gods and the
people ate and they bowed down to their gods” (25:2).

hese three motifs reappear in the sections that we discussed.

he women play a role in two of the sections describing human initia-
tive: at the beginning (daughters of Zelophehad) and at the end (wom-
en’s vows).52
“he oferings of their gods” are obviously echoed in the section of fes-
tive sacriices.
Finally, Moses’ failure of leadership is mentioned explicitly in the sec-
tion where he views Canaan and in the subsequent section dealing with
the appointment of Joshua. Here the elements are so closely connected
that it seems that God’s statement of the reason for Moses not entering
Canaan—“You rebelled against my word… to sanctify me through the
water before their eyes” (27:14) hints beyond the obvious reference to the
water of Meribah episode to Moses’ failure to sanctify God when faced
with Zimri’s sin. here, Phinehas sanctiied God before the eyes of all of
Israel; meriting entry into the land as a part of the new Israelite leader-
ship destined to arise.

he War against Midian

Having seen how the presentation of the sections between the command
“Trouble the Midianites” in ch. 25 and its fulillment in ch. 31 establish-
es and maintains the tension between divine command and human ini-
tiative, it is no surprise that this same tension exists in the story of the war
against Midian as well. Following a very detailed account of the distribu-

Israelites: “Israel dwelled by their tribes, and the nation began to stray ater the daugh-
ters of Moab.”
52)
Compare Levine (2000:434). As Sivan points out: “he last chapters of the book of
Numbers (XXV-XXXI) appear to bristle with women. From a mass of alluring Moabites
to an aristocratic Midianite (Num. xxv), through the daughters of Zelophehad (Num.
xxxvii, xxxvi), to vow-taking Israelite daughters and wives (Num. xxx 4-17) and to Midi-
anite virgins (Num. xxxi)” (2001:69).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 75

tion of the booty among the people of Israel, and following God’s com-
mand (“God spoke to Moses saying,” 31:25), regulating the portion that
the ighters must contribute from their takings to the priests and the por-
tion that the nation must give from their booty to the Levites, we sudden-
ly ind the senior military personnel (“those over thousands in the army”)
presenting themselves before Moses with a request to donate from the
spoils to the sanctuary, as a thanksgiving ofering for the fact that not a
single Israelite ighter was killed in battle. Moses accedes to their request,
accepts their donation and places it in the sanctuary, “a memorial to the
people of Israel before God” (31:48-54).53
he text emphasizes this voluntary contribution coming ater the do-
nation anchored in Divine command by describing Moses twice using
the same verb. At irst, “Moses took from the half of the people of Isra-
el one portion out of ity, of both man and beast, and gave them to the
Levites who kept the charge of God’s sanctuary, as God had commanded
Moses” (31:47); while following the oicers’ donation: “Moses and Ela-
zar took the gold from the oicers of the thousands and the hundreds and
brought it to the sanctuary as a memorial to the people of Israel before
God” (31:54).54 Moses “took” the contribution from the booty twice, but
while the irst taking is by God’s command, the second is a voluntary of-
fering from the oicers.55
he text’s presentation of the oicers’ initiative is reminiscent of the
irst human initiative that we encountered in the section of the laws—
that of the daughters of Zelophehad. he same expressions are used in
both cases:

53)
he obvious diference between those donations is: “Vv. 25-47 dealt only with the liv-
ing booty captured in the war…vv. 48-54 deals with booty, which had not been counted
in the previous section,” Ashley (1993:598).
54)
Noth claims that vv. 48-54 “conclude without having any connection whatsoever with
what has gone before” (1968:232). As we can see, they it the whole structure.
55)
Perhaps this also establishes the text’s preference: while the contribution that is given by
command is given to the Levites, the donation given voluntarily is brought into the sanc-
tuary, where it remains as a memorial before God.
76 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

Daughters of Zelophehad: Oicers of the army:

“he daughters of Zelophehad
came close and stood before Moses”
“Why shall our father’s name be
missing from among his family”
“Moses brought their case
near before God”
“he oicers of thousands of the army
came close before Moses”
Not one man is missing
from among us”
We have brought an ofering to God…
to atone for our souls before God”

Both narratives regulate the distribution of property (inheritance of

the land or spoils of war), and both involve groups that “come close before
Moses,” asking to efect some change in the law of distribution.56 Both
initiatives are greeted in a positive way, and the original law is adjusted
slightly in light of the human request.

Conclusion
Any textual discussion that focuses on juxtaposition of units by deini-
tion walks a ine line. Sometimes the juxtaposition in and of itself does
not convey any sort of message, and the editor simply places them in their
chronological order.57 However, when the order of the units is most sur-
prising, and their position alongside one another has no obvious expla-
nation, there is sometimes a general approach that serves to illuminate
all the units concerned, and it explains why one appears adjacent to the
next.58

56)
he diference is equally striking: the daughters of Zelophehad want to receive an
inheritance, so that the place of their father will not be missing from among his family,
while the oicers of the army want to give of their spoils, in thanks for the divine protec-
tion of their forces during battle. hus in the story of the women, Moses “brings close
their case,” while ater the war against Midian Moses “brings near their sacriice.”
57)
For example, this is Noth’s opinion on the location of the women’s vows: “Both from the
literary point of view and from the point of view of content, this passage stands on its
own. Without having any connection with what precedes or with what follows, it has
been included in the series of inal instructions which Moses, at Yahweh’s command,
gives to the Israelites” (1968:224).
58)
For similar discussions see Zakovitch (1995:509-24), Nel (1998:115-127), Olson
(2003:201-13).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 77

In our example above, the laws and the stories are arranged in such a
way as to express the profound tension between God’s command and hu-
man involvement. In some of the pairs that I discussed, the tension be-
tween these two ideas is obvious, while in others the ideas complement
one another.

Bibliography

Alter, R.
1983 he Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books).
1999 he David Story (New York: W. W. Norton and Company).
Amit, Y.
1992 he Book of Judges—he Art of Editing ( Jerusalem: Bialik).
Ashley, T.R.
1993 Numbers (NICOT; Michigan: Eerdmans).
Assis, E.
2004 “Divine Versus Human Leadership: An Examination of Joshua’s Succession,”
in M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds.), Saints and Role Models in Judaism and
Christianity (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers).
Bacon, B.W.
1894 he Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford: he Student Publishing Compa-
ny).
Ben-Barak, Z.
2004 Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East ( Jerusalem:
Graphit).
Berlin, A.
1983 Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheield: Almond Press).
Bird, P.A.
1991 “Israelite Religion and the Faith of Israel’s Daughters,” in D. Jobling, F.L. Day
and G.Y. Sheppard (eds.), he Bible and the Politics of Exegesis (Cleveland: Pil-
grim Press).
Budd, P.J.
1984 Numbers (WBC; New York: Paternoster Press).
Coats, G.W.
1977 “Legendary Motifs in the Moses Death Reports”, Catholic Bible Quarterly 39:
34-44.
Cook, F.C. and Espin, T.E.
1871 he Fourth Book of Moses Called Numbers (London: Cassell & Co.).
Davies, E.W.
1981 “Inheritance rights and the Hebrew levirate marriage”, VT 31: 41-42.
1995 Numbers (NCBC; London: William B. Eerdmans).
78 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79

Day, J.
1993 “Baal,” in D.N. Freedman (ed.), he Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 1; NY:
Doubleday).
Dillman, A.
1886 Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Joshua (Leipzig: Hirzel).
Douglas, M.
2002 In the Wilderness: he Doctrine of Deilement in the Book of Numbers (New
York: Oxford University Press).
Fokkelman, J.
1975 Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (Assen
and Amsterdam: Wisp and Stock Publishers).
Gray, G.B.
1903 Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: Continuum).
Greenberg, M.
1969 Understanding Exodus (New York: Behrman House).
Gresman, H.
1913 Mose und seine Zeit (Göttingen: Eerdmans).
Habel, N.C.
1964 Yahweh versus Baal: A Conlict of Religious Cultures (New York: Concordia
Seminary).
Holzinger, H.
1903 Numeri (KHAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr).
Idem, C.
1997 Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Pub-
lishers).
Kapelrud, A.S.
1952 Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: Fortress Press).
Keil, C.F.
1869 Numbers (tr. J. Martin; Edinburgh: T&T Clarke).
Levine, B.A.
2000 Numbers 21-36 (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday).
Licht, J.
1985 Commentary on the Book of Numbers: XXII-XXXVI ( Jerusalem: Magnes
Press).
McKay, H.A.
1997 “Writing the ‘Wrongness’ of Women: A Literary Device to Teach Men to be
Better?” Proceedings of the Twelth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusa-
lem.
March, W.E.
1977 “Redaction Criticism and the Formation of Prophetic Books,” SBLSP 11: 87-
101.
Margalit, B.
1980 A Matter of “Life and Death”: A Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (Neukirchen-Ver-
lag: Butzon and Bercker).
Mattingly, K.
2001 “he Signiicance of Joshua’s Reception of the Laying on of Hands in Num-
bers 27:12-23,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 39: 109-228.
Milgrom, J.
1990 Numbers ( JPS; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America).
1991 Leviticus (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday).
 J. Grossman / Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54-79 79

Moskowitz, Y. Z.
1988 Numbers (Da’at Mikrah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook).
Nel, J.P.
1998 “Juxtaposition and Logic in the Wisdom Saying,” JNSL 24: 115-27.
Noth, M.
1968 Numbers (OTL; London: Westminster John Knox).
Olson, D.T.
1997 “Negotiating Boundaries: he Old and New Generations and the heology of
Numbers”, Interpretation 51: 12-30.
2003 “How Does Deuteronomy Do heology? Literary Juxtaposition and Para-
dox in the New Moab Covenant in Deuteronomy 29-32,” in B.A. Strawn and
N.R. Bowen (eds.), A God So Near (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 201-13.
Perrin, N.
1969 What is Redaction Criticism? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Polzin, R.
1980 Moses and the Deuteronomist: a Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History
(New York: Seabury Press).
Rosenberg, J.
1975 “Meanings, Morals and Mysteries: Literary Approaches to the Torah”, Re-
sponse 9: 67-94.
Roth, M.
1995 Law Collections rom Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Rozenson, I.
2004 Words in the Desert: Exegetical Studies in the Book of Numbers ( Jerusalem:
Efrata College).
Seebass, H.B.
2003 “he Case of Phinehas at Baal Peor in Numbers 25,” BN 117: 40-46.
Simpson, C.A.
1948 he Early Tradition of Israel (Oxford: Blackwell).
Sivan, H.Z.
2001 “he Rape of Cozbi (Numbers xxv)” VT 51: 47-59.
Smith, M.S.
1986 “Interpreting the Baal Cycle,” UF 18: 313-39.
Stein, R.H.
1969 “What is Redakionsgeschichte?” JBL 88: 111-28.
Sturdy, J.
1976 Numbers (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Weingreen, J.
1966 “he Case of the Daughters of Zelophchad,” VT 16: 19-41.
Wenham, G.J.
1981 Numbers (TOTC; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press).
Zakovitch, Y.
1995 “Juxtaposition in the Abraham Cycle,” in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A.
Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells Studies in Biblical, Jewish and
Near Eastern Ritual Law and Literature (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 509-24.