Lessons of the Nachash Nechoshet (Copper Snake)

The incident of the Copper Snake in Parshat Chukat seems to be a case of an “accident waiting to happen”, an artifact that the Jewish people, if given the opportunity, almost certainly will turn into the focal point of idolatry. It is fabricated as a result of a plague[1] precipitated by the people’s sin.

And they traveled from the mountain of Har, by way of the Sea of Reeds in order to circumvent the land of Edom;[2] and the spirit of the people became “short”[3] on the way.

And the people spoke against God and Moshe, “Why did You Bring us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? For there is no bread and there is no water and our souls are repulsed by the empty/worthless bread (a disparaging reference to the Manna).

God “VaYishalach” (Sent forth/Released) against the people “burning” snakes and they bit the people, and a great many people of Israel died.

And the people came to Moshe, and they said: We have sinned by having spoken against God and you. Pray to God so that He will Remove from us the snake. And Moshe prayed on behalf of the people.

And HaShem Said to Moshe: “Aseh Lecha” (fabricate for yourself) a “Saraf” (lit. a burner, something that Moshe understands as a reference to a snake) and place it upon a pole. And it will be that anyone who was bitten, he will see it and live.

And Moshe make a copper snake, and he placed it on a pole, and it was that if the snake bit someone and he would stare intently at the copper snake, that he would live.

Do not fabricate an idol nor a 2-dimensional representation of anything in the heavens above, or on the earth below, on in the water beneath the earth.

even if the construction of the Snake sculpture was directly Ordered by God (21:8), nevertheless, since mere looking at this object appears to result in miraculous healing for whomever had been bitten, it would be next to impossible for individuals with either idolatrous tendencies or direct experience not to attribute to the “Nachash HaNechoshet” supernatural powers.[4] The Jewish people’s early penchant for idolatry is clearly indicated not only by the sordid incident of the Golden Calf (Shemot 32), but also the worship of Ba’al Pe’or (BaMidbar 25). Furthermore, numerous warnings are given throughout the Tora, particularly in Devarim, regarding the future vulnerability of the people to becoming corrupted by idolatrous practices, as in the following verses in Parshat Ha’azinu:

They will sacrifice to demons, no-gods, gods they have never known, new ones who came only recently, who never stirred your fathers’ fears.

The fact that these dire predictions are eventually born out is documented throughout the early and later Prophets, and worship of the copper snake regrettably became one manifestation of this trend.

And he (King Chizkiyahu) removed the “Bamot” (private altars—Shemot 34:13), and he destroyed the “Matzeivot” (single stone altars—Devarim 16:22), and cut down the “Asheirot” (trees that were worshipped—Devarim 16:21), and ground up the Copper Snake that Moshe had made,[5] for until this time the Jewish people had offered incense to it, and he (Chizkiyahu) referred to it as “Nechashton” (the diminutive of the word “Nachash”, i.e., “little snake”, in order to demystify and desanctify the object).

They thought that this image had Divine Powers since 1) Moshe made it, and 2) anyone who had been bitten by the living snakes was healed when he looked at it…

One biblical commentator makes the case that the worship of the “Nachash HaNechoshet” may have been unique to the period immediately preceding Chizkiyahu’s reign, because, otherwise it would have been expected that prior kings known to have campaigned against idolatry, should have already eliminated it in light of its negative potential:

…and this Snake had remained from the time of Moshe as a remembrance of the miracle (whereby looking at it cured the snake bites), similar to the container of Manna (which was preserved in the Aron as a commemoration of that almost daily miracle—see Shemot 16:33).[6] And Assa and Yehoshofat[7] who did not destroy the Copper Snake, even though they did destroy other forms of idolatry, this was because when they assumed the kingship, they did not see[8] that people were worshipping and sacrificing to the Snake. Consequently they left it alone as a remembrance of the miracle. But Chizkiyahu decided to destroy it as he had destroyed other forms of idolatry because during his father’s reign,[9] people worshipped it as they had other forms of idolatry.[10] And despite the fact that the pious (continued to associate the Snake with the miracle, he (Chizkiyahu) decided that more was lost by people worshipping the snake than gained by people using it to remember the miracle.[11]^,[12]

Just as the claim that the worship of the Copper Snake may have been limited to a certain period of time, thereby taking some of the onus off the previous generations that did nothing about these conditions, another approach[13] argues that perhaps the “Nachash Nechoshet” was not in fact legally considered an idol, which in turn removes from its worship the tag of idolatry. Such a position is found within the context of a legal debate in the Talmud concerning the extent to which Chizkiyahu’s actions complied with the letter of the law, even if they were in accordance with the law’s spirit.

Rav Yosi said…: It has already been stated (II Melachim 18:4) “…And he ground up the Copper Snake that Moshe had made…” (supporting his contention in the Mishna on 43b that one of the ways to dispose of an object of idolatry is by rendering it to dust and allowing the wind to scatter it.)

They (the Rabbis) said to him: From that case comes a proof (that one has to completely destroy an object of idolatry)? Behold it (the Tora) states: (BaMidbar 21:8) “And God Said to Moshe: Make for yourself a ‘Saraf’”—“for yourself”, i.e., belonging to yourself—the Snake is legally part of Moshe’s property—and no one is empowered to make prohibited something that is not his own (i.e., even if the people treated the Copper Snake as an object of idolatry, since it is not their property, they cannot render it subject to destruction as a result of their actions). Consequently there (in the case of Chizkiyahu), it would have been legally proper for him not to have destroyed the snake (since it never became an actual object of idolatry regardless of how the people treated it). But since he (the king) saw that the Jewish people were being led astray by its presence, he rose up and destroyed it.

But why was the existence of the Copper Snake and its potential to turn into an object of idolatry ever have to become Chizkiyahu’s problem? Once it had served its purpose, why wasn’t the snake either destroyed or removed from public view? Even more basically, why was it important that this snake had to be made in the first place? Why couldn’t the plague of snakes have been stemmed in some other manner, perhaps by Moshe’s prayer alone (BaMidbar 21:7)?

From the implication of a citation by RaShI of a well-known Rabbinic comment, one can hypothesize why this time Moshe’s prayer alone might have been Deemed by HaShem insufficient to remove this particular plague, despite his prayers having proved adequate to quell or change dangerous circumstances in numerous past instances:[14]

…And our Rabbis have said: (Rosh HaShana 3:8) “…And does the [living] snake cause death or the [Copper] Snake give life? But rather when Israel focuses upwards towards Heaven, and subjugates its heart to its Father in Heaven, they would be healed, and if not, they would be destroyed…”

Although it has been assumed in the past that Moshe was to serve as the “Shliach Tzibbur” (the leader of prayer on behalf of the Jewish people)—see RaShI on Shemot 33:19[15]—the implication of the story of the Copper Snake in light of the Mishna in Rosh HaShana is that this time, in order to remove this particular plague, the Jewish people are expected by HaShem to pray on their own, as opposed to relying vicariously on the prayer of someone else. The Copper Snake then becomes a “prop” to enable the people who are not used to praying properly and deeply, to more easily learn how to fend for themselves in asking for forgiveness via prayer.

And if you ask, if so (as the Mishna in Rosh HaShana states, that the snakes were not intrinsic to either the plague or the recovery from it, but rather everything depended upon the degree to which the people would be able to direct their hearts to HaShem), why must a Snake be fabricated at all, and why must it be placed atop a pole…? And it would appear, therefore, that the Holy One, Blessed be He Commanded that this object be placed upon a pole, in order to assure that they would look upwards, for it is impossible for one who already is looking upwards, that he does not see and direct his heart towards Heaven. And as far as making a snake is concerned (the assumption being that any object could have served as a prop to get them to look in a certain direction), since when a person actually looks upon something that has caused him harm, he concentrates even more on that which has harmed him since he is literally seeing it before him. For this reason He Commanded that a Snake be placed upon a pole, for by means of these two actions (making the Snake and placing it upon a pole) they will have that much more intention in their prayers—because it is on a pole, they will look upwards, and when they see a representation of that which caused them harm, they will have that much more intention in their prayers and thereby be healed.

One would think that by coming to Moshe and asking him to intercede on their behalves with HaShem, that the Divine Intention to make them realize their dependence upon God would have been achieved and the plague could have been brought to an end right then and there, without the additional steps involving the making of and then looking at the Copper Snake. Perhaps the key to why HaShem Wanted the people themselves to pray this time, just as He Wanted the people themselves to fight against Amalek in the lone other example cited in Rosh HaShana 3:8,[16] is the specific sin, in both instances something that at least some of the people verbally expressed, that precipitated these onslaughts, first by a group of desert raiders, and then by masses of snakes.

In the case of Amalek, the sin that immediately precedes that attack was the theological question that the people posed when they found themselves once again without potable drinking water, reflecting both a lack of belief as well as lack of appreciation for past kindnesses:

...Because of their testing of God by saying, “Is God in our midst or isn’t He?”

This story (regarding the battle against Amalek) is juxtaposed next to the previous one (describing the people’s lack of faith as soon as they encountered hardship), in order to illustrate the following (shortcoming of the people and how God Tries to get the people to change “their tune”): I am continuously in your midst and ready to meet all of your needs, and you have the audacity to ask: Is God in our midst or not? By your very lives, the “dog” will come to bite you and you will cry out to Me and in this manner you will come to know where I am. A parable: A father places his son on his shoulders and goes out on his way. The child would see something that he desires, and he would say, “Father, acquire that object for me” and he would give it to him. The same thing would happen repeatedly. When they met someone, the child said to the person, “Have you seen my father?” His father said to him, “You don’t know where I am?” He threw him off (his shoulders), and the dog came and bit him.

When the people are believers, but they are unable to articulate their desires and needs, then a “Shliach Tzibbur” like Moshe is in order. However, if they have demonstrated a lack of belief, then when someone prays for them, they have no awareness that any change in the situation comes from God; perhaps they will attribute any improvement to the powers of the one who prayed on their behalves. Consequently, a direct prayer to HaShem is the only way that the situation can be ameliorated and they can repent for their inappropriate comments.

Turning to BaMidbar, we see that the sin immediately before the beginning of the plague of snakes is parallel to the question of whether God is truly concerned about the Jews as recorded in Shemot 17.

The people once again complain about how God is not Taking care of them, how they believe that they will die in the desert. The only manner by which they can undo their demonstration of lack of confidence in God is by appealing to Him themselves, personally and with deep feeling. Furthermore, according to Nechama Leibowitz,[17] the form of the verb in 21:6, “VaYishalach”, the “Pi’el”, in contrast to “VaYishlach”, the “Kal”, suggests not so much that God “Sent” the snakes, but that He “Allowed” them to go on their natural course. In other words, the people were taking for granted that they were not being bothered by snakes, scorpions and other denizens of the desert. What they didn’t realize was that the absence of these creatures was due to God’s Intervention,[18] and for this they should be appreciative rather than acting as ingrates.

As far as the retention of the Copper Snake well after the plague had ended, a different dynamic might be in play, one that has great relevance to contemporary Jewish practice. While there may be certain individuals who are spiritually gifted, and for whom prayer comes easily and feels natural, for so many others, prayer is difficult if not impossible. Gur Aryeh assumes that if you want the people en masse to pray, you have to supply them with props, with step-by-step instructions, with contexts which are psychologically conducive to prayer. For us to dismiss the generation of the desert about to enter Israel as a group of people with whom we have nothing in common would be missing this particular point. Meaningful prayer has always been a problem for not only the less-religious, but even those who consider themselves quite pious. It would be interesting to try to figure out what our “Copper Snakes on poles” should be for today. We may not have a plague of snakes, but we do have a plague of assimilation, intermarriage and frustration over not being able to summon up the requisite “Kavana” to make the Mitzvot meaningful. But we can’t just give up! Shabbat Shalom.

[1] There is no consistent pattern with regard to plagues in the Bible. Some such as the plague of the first-born, those who worshipped the Golden Calf, the spies who returned with an evil report about Israel, and the 250 men who wished to share power with Aharon, are allowed to run their course until everyone who was defined as subject to the plague has either become ill or died. There are other plagues, however, where human intervention makes a difference, such as some of the earlier plagues in Egypt whereby Moshe’s prayers caused them to cease, Moshe’s prayer once Miriam is afflicted with “Tzora’at”, Aharon’s standing with the incense pan in the midst of the people, and the case of the Copper Snake. Perhaps the distinction that must be made is between plague as “punishment” as opposed to plague as “wake-up-call”. There is no remedy for the former since for some sins only death will atone. But re the latter, once enough people “wake up” the plague is no longer relevant.

[2] The King of Edom refused to grant safe passage through his country to the Jews, forcing the people to adopt an extremely circuitous route.

[3] The same idiom is used in Shemot 6:9 to describe the state of the mind of the Jews that caused them not to listen to Moshe when he came to them in Egypt a second time promising them God’s Redemption. NeTzIV on Shemot 6:9 interprets the phrase as indicating a loss of patience, i.e., they were unable to accept that their redemption would take any longer. The commentator similarly states that once the people were confronted with having to take a circuitous route, rather than through the land of Edom, they became that much more angry and frustrated than they had already been.

[4] It has always seemed to me that similar problems could be engendered by the two Cherubs atop the Aron Kodesh in the Holy of Holies in first the Tabernacle and then the Temple. While some say that because there were two rather than one, and others point out that the sculptures were not free-standing but rather molded out of the same piece of gold which was turned into the Aron’s cover, the danger of the Cheruvim being viewed as idols was negated, the fact the God Commanded that these images be constructed, and that HaShem’s Voice would emanate from between these two statues when He would Converse with Moshe would seem to constitute sufficient cause to attribute to these figures, as to the Copper Snake, supernatural qualities.

[5] Grinding up an object of worship is first undertaken by Moshe in Shemot 32:20. See the discussion in Avoda Zora cited below.

[6] Avot D’Rabbi Natan 41:12 lists the following, among other things, as associated with the Aron and even secreted within it: a) the broken tablets, b) the whole tablets, c) a container of Manna, d) Moshe’s staff with which he performed the various miracles in Egypt, e) a container of anointing oil, and f) the staff which sprouted and thereby ratified Aharon’s position.

[7] Both of these kings are referred to in the Biblical text as particularly or at least relatively righteous individuals—I Melachim 15:11-3; 22:43-5.

[8] Of course, RaDaK’s description of what was happening in prior periods with regard to the “Nachash Nechoshet” is subject to at least two interpretations: The Snake was not being worshipped and therefore objectively there was nothing to see, or these practices were not officially noticed or were not extant to the point where they would be deemed a reflection of the national mentality with regard to idolatry and required concerted efforts to eliminate them. Such an analysis would parallel the commentaries regarding Yitzchak’s inability to “see” Eisav’s iniquities (Beraishit 27:1)—was Yitzchak literally unable to see, or did he simply not want to see.

[9] Although previous references are made to Jewish idolatrous practices, the Bible goes out of its way to inventory rampant and comprehensive sinfulness when describing what took place during Chizkiyahu’s father’s (Achaz) reign over Yehuda (II Melachim 16:2-4) as well as the spiritual state of Yisrael at the same time under Hoshea ben Eila (Ibid. 17:2). The sinfulness in both kingdoms at this particular point in time is identified as the immediate cause of the Assyrian invasion and all of the hardships that resulted (Ibid. 17:7-23).

[10] RaDaK suggests that during a period when idolatry becomes a widely accepted form of religious worship, in contrast to when it has to remain “underground” out of fear of being caught and punished (see commentators on Shaul’s meeting with the necromancer in I Shmuel 28. The irony of that story lies in Shaul being associated with a campaign to rid the country of all those practicing black magic, and yet when he becomes desperate, he stoops to violating his own policies.), new expressions of this type of spirituality are constantly sought out. Therefore, something like the Copper Snake that had been only revered as a commemoration of a miracle during the travels in the desert took on new significance during an epoch of unbridled idolatry.

[11] RaDaK ends his commentary with regard to Chizkiyahu’s destroying the Snake by citing Chulin 6b—When R. Yehuda HaNasi is challenged for permitting something that the religious leaders of the previous generations including his ancestors had forbidden, he gives the following analysis of the actions of Chizkiyahu vis-à-vis the Copper Snake: Is it possible that during Asa’a rule he did not destroy it, and during Yehoshafat’s rule he did not destroy it? Behold, all of the idolatry in the world Asa and Yehoshofat destroyed them! (In both cases, however, the Bible goes out of its way to stress that they did not destroy the “Bamot” [private altars] during their respective reigns. One could argue in their defense that the worship that took place on the private altars was not idolatrous, since it was directed at HaShem. What was wrong with the use of “Bamot” was that it was a decentralized sacrificial service, and therefore Halachically unacceptable. See the discussion regarding the desires of the 250 followers of Korach in light of RaMBaM’s Guide for the Perplexed at http://www.kmsynagogue.org/Korach3.html). The failures of Asa and Yehoshufat was actually a conscious effort to leave room for their offspring to contribute and make improvements in Jewish life. So too in my case, those who came before me left room for me to make my contributions to the improvement of Jewish life.

I personally find such an explanation strange. It is hard to imagine that individuals in a position to correct errant practices would deliberately ignore them in order that subsequent generations could make needed improvements and thereby get the credit. It makes more sense to me to interpret ChaZaL’s comment quoted by RaDak as reflecting the reality that only so much can be done during one lifetime or one reign, that even the best of leaders has to “choose his battles” with the recognition that there will be others to follow who once certain and more pressing problems have been dealt with, will turn their attention to what remains, an exercise in Rabbi Tarfon’s comment in Avot 2:16 “The ‘Melacha’ is not up to you to complete, but you are also not free of responsibility to engage in it”, i.e., being a maximalist and engaging in only those few projects that one can successfully complete is not appropriate. Each person must strive to do as much as he can, realizing that just as he has followed upon and built on the heels of his ancestors, there will be future generations to do the same.

It also seems to me that the case of the not eating produce without tithing in certain parts of Israel which may not have been included in the original conquest of the land by Yehoshua, is a more reasonable thing to prohibit for the time being and allowing a future generation to address the issue, since what is entailed, i.e., tithing before eating perhaps even without a blessing due to the doubt involved is not aiding and abetting people to sin, but rather asking them to apply a stricture to a particular situation. On the other hand, allowing the Copper Snake to remain and be worshipped would seem to be a clear violation of VaYikra 19:14 “Before a blind person one must not place a stumbling block”. By extension the same issue would appear to apply to God Himself, as it were, for having Commanded Moshe to make this artifact in the first place, without a doubt Recognizing the spiritual danger that having such an object around will cause.

[12] The dilemma that RaDaK describes confronted Chizkiyahu, i.e., concerning objects that simultaneously are treated reverently and idolatrously by different segments of the population, must one be chiefly concerned with those who are being led astray or those who retain proper faith and observance, was similarly dealt with by Moshe when he descended from Sinai with the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, only to be faced with the people worshipping the Golden Calf (Shemot 32:19). The “Luchot” would most certainly serve as inspirations to the Levi’im who did not participate in this terrible sin (32:26); yet their preservation would support those who saw nothing wrong with the construction and worship of the Calf. While some Midrashim and commentaries insist that Moshe inadvertently dropped the Tablets due to his suddenly losing the strength to continue to hold them, literal readings of Shemot 32:19; 34:1; and Devarim 9:17 all suggest that Moshe deliberately threw them down in order to destroy them.

[13] Even if the need for such an object in BaMidbar 21 could be substantiated, once its purpose had been served, it could have been destroyed or removed from public notice, as opposed to preserved within the Aron or in some other location and thereby venerated down through the generations.

[14] Not only had Moshe’s prayers proven effective after sins of the Jews such as the Golden Calf and the spies, but his prayers precipitated by Pharoah’s requests were able to stem many of the plagues that were afflicting the Egyptians.

[15] See “Achieving Divine Forgiveness Using God’s Own Words” at http://www.kmsynagogue.org/Shelach2.html

[16] Concerning the war with Amalek in general, and the Biblical reference to the correlation between Moshe’s raising his hands and the tide of battle turning in the Jews’ favors (Shemot 17:10), the Mishna asks rhetorically: Do the hands of Moshe fight the war or lose the war? But rather to say “when Israel focuses upwards towards Heaven, and subjugates its heart to its Father in Heaven, they would be victorious, and if not, they would be defeated…”

[17] Studies in BaMidbar, trans. and adapted Aryeh Newman, WZO, Dep’t. for Tora Education and Culture in the Diaspora, Jerusalem, 1980, pp. 261-2.

[18] See Mechilta D’RaShBi, Parshat BeShalach, quoted in http://kmsynagogue.org/Behaalotcha.html