Shalom, Africa
Vol. V, No. 32
Mattot
26 Tammuz 5769
July 17-18, 2009
Torah: Numbers 30:2 – 36:13
Haftarah: Jeremiah 1:1 – 2:3
Click here for the Parashat Mattot in English
Click here for the Parashat Masei in English
The Parashah summary and the discussion topic “Serving God and Man” were prepared by Rabbi Joyce Newmark for “Torah Sparks,” a weekly service of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.
I. Parashah Summary
Moses instructs the heads of the Israelite tribes about vows and oaths. When a woman makes a vow, it can be annulled by her father or her husband on the day he learns of it. If this is not done, the woman’s vow is binding and she must fulfill completely, just like a man’s vow.
Twelve thousand men, one thousand from each tribe, are picked to form the force that will wage war against Midian. The Israelites kill the Midianite males and take the women and children captive. Moses becomes angry that the women – the very ones who enticed the Israelites to sin – were spared. He orders the soldiers to kill the women and male children, leaving only the girls alive. Moses then tells the soldiers they must undergo a purification ritual. Eleazar instructs them about the purification of objects seized as booty. The captured property is divided among the warriors and the rest of the Israelites.
The tribes of Reuben and Gad ask to be allowed to settle on the east side of the Jordan, where there is ample land for their animals. They, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, are given permission to do so once they promise to join the rest of the Israelites in the battle for the land of Canaan on the other side of the Jordan. Moses records all the stages of the Israelites’ journey through the wilderness, from Egypt to the steppes of Moab.
God tells Moses to instruct the people that when they enter the land, they are to destroy the Canaanites’ idols and cult places. They are to remove the Canaanites themselves from the land, lest any who remain become a source of trouble in the future. God describes the borders of the Promised Land. Moses tells the Israelites that this is the land that will be given to the nine and a half tribes (excluding Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh). God names the men who will join Joshua and Eleazar in apportioning the land.
God tells Moses to instruct the Israelites to set aside 48 towns for the Levites. Six of these are to be designated cities of refuge, to which a person who commits unintentional manslaughter may flee to be safe from the victim’s family. Intentional murder is to be punished by death.
Leaders of the tribe of Manasseh express concern that when the daughters of Zelophehad, who were to receive their father’s share of the land, are married, the land they inherited would pass to their husbands’ tribes. Moses relays God’s instruction that women who inherit land must marry within their own tribes to preserve the integrity of the land.
II. Serving God and Man
And the land has been subdued, at the instance of the Lord, and then you return – you shall be clear [alternate translation – guiltless] before the Lord and before Israel; and this land shall be your holding under the Lord. (Numbers 32:22)
A. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “In the Torah, the Nevi’im, and the Ketuvim we find that a person must fulfill his obligations to his fellow-man just as he must fulfill his obligations to God, as it states, ‘be clear before the Lord and before Israel’ (Yerushalmi Shekalim 3:2). Our sages stressed that one must meet both obligations in the same way, and that just as a person cannot fulfill his obligations to God by lying or flattery, he cannot fulfill his obligations to man by lying or flattery. (Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, 1810-1883, Lithuania and Germany)
B. One of the students of the Hafetz Hayyim was offered a position as the rabbi of a village, and he asked the Hafetz Hayyim how he should act with his community. The Hafetz Hayyim told him: “The Torah says that one must be guiltless before the Lord and Israel. First, the rabbi must ensure his own proper observance of the Torah and the commandments, so that he is guiltless before the Lord. Afterwards he must also fulfill his obligations to his community. That is the order the Torah states for the fulfillment of one’s obligations. However, if a rabbi reverses the order and is interested first in being in the good graces of his community and only afterward in being in God’s good graces, he will not succeed in either.” (Hafetz Hayim (Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen), 1835-1933, Poland, citedin Itturei Torah, Rabbi Aharon Yaakov Greenberg)
Sparks for Discussion: Rabbi Yisrael Salanter reads our verse as a call to treat our obligations to God and to human beings equally. The Hafetz Hayim reads it as a call to place obligations to God before obligations to human beings. With whom do you agree? Why?
[Should] the Hafetz Hayim’s advice to his student…apply to everyone? How?
III: The Grazing Lands East of the Jordan, by Rabbi Michael Hattin, Yeshivat Har Etzion, Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
Sefer Bemidbar concludes with the reading of the double parshiyot of Mattot and Masei. Although these sections address a variety of topics, many of the matters pertain to the Land of Canaan and to the preparations of the people for their imminent entry. Thus, the Torah devotes discussion to the battle against Midian, to the Biblical borders, to the Levitical cities and to the Cities of Refuge, all of which are presented against the backdrop of Moshe’s impending death and the coming to an end of the wanderings in the wilderness.
Let us recall that a short while ago, at the end of Parashat Chukkat, we read of the astonishing defeat of the two mighty Amorite kings, Sichon and Og. After denying B’nai Yisrael rights of passage through his land, the belligerent Sichon had aggressively massed his troops and confronted them east of the Jordan River at Yahatz, only to be ignominiously beaten. Continuing northwards, the people of Israel were then confronted by the powerful Og, an imposing warlord of legendary physical proportions. Again, they were victorious, and thus found themselves in unexpected possession of a large swath of territory east of the Jordan River, stretching from the present-day Golan Heights in the north until Wadi Arnon located east of the Dead Sea in the south. This week, we shall focus our attention on that region, and, in particular, on the fateful decision of the tribes of Reuven, Gad and 'half' of Menashe to remain east of the Jordan and to settle it.
The Request of the 'Two and One Half’ Tribes, and the Reading of Abarbanel
The descendants of Reuven and Gad had great and numerous flocks, and they saw that the land of Yaazer and the land of Gilad was grazing land. The descendants of Gad and Reuven approached Moshe, Eleazar the Cohen and the leaders of the congregation, and said: “Atarot, Dibon, Yaazer, Nimra, Cheshbon, El'ale, Sevam, Nevo and Be'on are located in the land that God struck down before B’nai Yisrael. It is grazing land and we have livestock.”
They said further: “If we have found favor in your eyes, give us - your servants - this land as our inheritance, and do not cause us to cross over the Jordan River (to Canaan)' (Num. 32:1-5).
Impressed by the expansive and fertile territories located just east of the Jordan River, the so-called 'Two
and One Half' tribes express their desire to remain behind and to settle those areas as their own. It should be immediately noted that their aspirations are openly predicated on the fact that they have much livestock and herds.
Curiously, the Hebrew text inserts a pause in the midst of their petition, for after their mention of livestock and
herds (verse 4), there follows a paragraph break before the narrative resumes with their formal request to remain behind (verse 5). Rabbi Yitzhak Abarbanel (15th century, Spain) understands this textual cue as an indication of hesitation on their part, as if they were reluctant to openly express their desire to not accompany the other tribes into the Land of Canaan:
Behold, they initially stated their demand allusively and indirectly, for indeed they were ashamed to declare it explicitly. By making mention of their vast herds and drawing attention to the suitability of the eastern lands for grazing, they had implied their intent. Moshe, having understood their insinuation, remained silent and unmoved, and thus they were forced to restate their request openly and unambiguously.
Thus, for Abarbanel, the desire of the Two and One Half tribes to remain behind was understood even by them as inappropriate. This is presumably because their decision could undermine the confidence of the nation as they prepare to embark on wars of conquest westward, and could as well breed divisiveness among the tribes. As we shall see, however, the Midrashim on the matter detect even more ominous undercurrents in their words.
Moshe's Response and the Compromise
Moshe's immediate response to their request is at once forceful and straightforward.
Moshe answered [them] saying: “shall your brothers go to war while you remain here? Why are you discouraging B’nai Yisrael from crossing over into the land that God has given them? This is the same thing that your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land. They went as far as the valley of Eshkol and saw the land, but discouraged B’nai Yisrael so that they could not enter the land that God gave them. Now behold you have risen up in the place of your fathers, a brood of transgressors, to bring even more of God’s wrath upon Israel. If you turn away from Him, He will leave us in the wilderness and you will have destroyed this whole people" (Num 32:6-15).
Moshe vividly recalls the conduct of the Spies whose negative report dissuaded the people from entering the land, and thus brought disaster upon that generation. He perceives a similar threat in the request of the Two and One Half tribes, whose intentions, though not as sinister, could very well bring about a similar consequence.
No doubt prepared for his reaction, the tribes of Reuven and Gad soothe Moshe's misgivings by offering to settle their flocks and families eastwards, and then to provide a significant advance force to accompany the rest of the people of Israel over the Jordan River. They solemnly pledge not to return to their homes until the rest of Israel is securely settled in their new land. Moshe accepts their compromise and instructs Eleazar the Priest, Yehoshua bin Nun and the tribal leaders to ensure their compliance by not releasing the eastern lands to them until the wars of conquest have been completed. Thus, the crisis is averted.
The Challenge of Wealth
What is the reason that the Torah records this episode at such great length? How are we to make sense of the request of Reuven and Gad, and why does Moshe perceive it as such a threat to the continuity of the people of Israel? Were there any long-term consequences to the fateful decision of these tribes to remain behind, and if so, how were they a direct function of their initial motives?
The Midrashic literature tends to view the conduct of the Two and One Half tribes in a singularly negative light. Concerning the "great and numerous flocks" that precipitated their request, the Midrash comments:
Three “gifts” exist in the world, and the one who is in possession of even one of them merits to possess the most precious things of all. These are wisdom, might, and wealth. When is this true? When these things are gifts of Heaven and acquired through the strength of the Torah. But the might and wealth of flesh and blood is not worth anything. Furthermore, when these gifts are not acquired from the Holy One Blessed be He, they are not of a lasting nature. Thus, we find by the descendents of Gad and the descendents of Reuven that they possessed wealth and great flocks, and because they prized their flocks, they chose to dwell outside of the Land of Israel. Therefore, they were exiled ahead of all of the other tribes, as the verse states, “He (the King of Assyria) exiled the Reuvenites, Gadites and the half tribe of Menashe” (I Chronicles 5:26). What was the cause of their downfall? The fact that they separated themselves from their brethren on account of their wealth. (Bemidbar Rabba 22:7).
A Means or an End
At first glance, the language of the Midrash is curious. Within its frame of reference, when is wealth not a gift from Heaven and the result of Divine beneficence? Does anyone succeed in acquiring wealth in the world if it is not the result of God's all-powerful will? Rather, the Midrash seems to be suggesting “wealth and possessions that are gifts of Heaven and acquired through the strength of the Torah” is a description of not simply the source of these things, but of their essential value as well. To regard one's riches as a “gift of Heaven” means to realize that they have no intrinsic value but are only vehicles for the achievement of a higher purpose. When one's possessions acquire an essential value of their own and become the end rather than simply a means, the result is not infrequently estrangement from God and, more significantly, the spiritual despondency that tends to accompany that estrangement.
The Midrash proffers that the wealth of these tribes, the abundant flocks of cattle and sheep that constituted their assets, was not simply the motivation behind their request, but actually the ultimate cause of their premature downfall. The desire to remain on the eastern banks of the Jordan was not only a prudent decision of economics, but also a definitive statement of their misplaced values. To cross the river and to enter the land with the other tribes meant to embrace a national destiny that placed spiritual goals ahead of material ones, and the Two and One Half tribes were unable to make that commitment. The preference to remain behind was therefore a conscious decision to structure their lives according to a value system that championed material achievement ahead of all else. The opportunity to experience the intimacy of God's presence, the prospect of a unique spiritual dimension to living afforded by fulfillment of the Torah within the confines of the “Promised Land,” were insufficient to tear those tribes away from their concern for their flocks.
Proceeding one step further, the Midrash (also quoted by Rashi) maintains that such misplaced values may in fact be the cause of rather extreme consequences:
The descendents of Reuven and Gad treated things that are most important as secondary, and the secondary things as most important. They valued their possessions even more than the lives of their children, for did they not exclaim to Moshe 'we shall erect sheepfolds for our flocks and cities for our children' (32:16), thus showing more concern for their sheep? Moshe, in contrast, responded 'build cities for your young ones and erect fences for your sheep' (32:24), thus placing the children ahead of the possessions!" (BeMidbar Rabba 22:9).
It is of course very significant that in Biblical Hebrew, the word for flocks, appearing in this context as well, is 'miKNeH.' This term is derived from the root KNH, which signifies acquisition. Thus, 'mikneh' means the flocks that constitute one's possessions, for in ancient times flocks were an overt indication of one's material success. To possess flocks meant to be wealthy. In the modern age, where much of humanity lives in an urban setting, this measure is no longer relevant, but the challenge of wealth that faced the Two and One Half Tribes has not changed one iota.
The Assyrian Exile
Finally, the Midrash ascribes grave historical consequences to the decision of the Two and One half tribes to settle eastwards. In reality, the Jordan River constituted a natural boundary between these tribes and their brethren who dwelt in the Land of Israel proper, and this tended to accentuate their isolation from the national agenda even in times of peace (see for instance Yehoshua/Joshua Chapter 22). At times of conflict, this disconnection was even more pronounced.
When the Assyrian Empire began to push westwards in the 8th century BCE, many smaller kingdoms in the region were overrun and exiled. The so-called “Ten Tribes” that constituted the Northern Kingdom of Israel were also displaced by a series of hostile incursions by the Assyrian Kings, campaigns that culminated in the fall of the capital of Shomron in 722 BCE. Among the first tribes to be exiled to Assyria were the Two and One Half tribes that dwelt on the East Bank, since their region was geographically the most exposed to the Assyrian menace.
Utilizing an approach to be found in Biblical as well as in Rabbinic thought, the Midrash searches for the
underlying spiritual causes of the historical events associated with the exile, and detects faint echoes in the events of our Parashah. When a people loses sight of its national mission and its spiritual identity, and instead embraces material attainment as the only meaningful goal worth pursuing, then the inevitable result must be the dissolution of that national structure. It cannot be otherwise, for the life of a nation, like the lives of the individuals of whom it is composed, requires powerful ideas to sustain and nourish it. Only by maintaining a steadfast grasp on our heritage and remaining always cognizant of our spiritual objectives will it be possible to attain our national destiny, whether east of the Jordan or west of it.
IV: Our Relationship to Wisdom, by Rabbi Moshe Greene, adapted from the remarks of Rabbi Shlomo Freifeld zt”l
In this week’s parsha (35:9-34) we glean a most fundamental posture that one must establish toward wisdom. The Torah speaks of a person who accidentally kills someone. The example brought is of a man who is chopping wood in the forest; the axe head slips from the handle inadvertently killing a person (Deut. 19:5).
The murderer is forced to leave his home. He is sent to an ir miklat – a city of refuge. He goes alone; he is not allowed to take his wife and children. There is one exception. The Talmud tells us that if he is a Torah scholar, his [teacher-mentor] must go with him into exile. And conversely, if the [teacher-mentor] should kill unintentionally, his students must follow him.
The Talmud derives this law from the verse: . . . that the murderer, who killed without intent, should flee to one of these cities so that he will live (Deut. 4:42). The Rabbis interpret this to mean that all provision necessary to insure [the manslayer’s] survival must be provided: food, water and we see – the man’s connection to wisdom.
The Sages of the Talmud are teaching a profound insight. One’s attachment to wisdom is as paramount to life as water and food. They understood that acquiring tools to deepen our intellect, develop our humanity, and promote truth are essential for “living” - no less than the very basics we need to keep ourselves alive.
The Rambam forcibly writes, concerning this, [the teacher-mentor goes with his student] “for the lives of
wise men without wisdom is tantamount to death for them.” Such is the relationship of the wise man to his wisdom!
Wisdom is not a luxury or convenience. Knowledge for living should not be stored on a shelf – a nice tidbit of information to ponder from time to time. Rather, when one confronts truth, he must be ready to take it, ingest it and change accordingly. Just like food gets digested and is transformed into flesh and blood, so too, we must absorb wisdom and let it reconfigure our souls….
Wisdom is worthless unless it translates into change. King Solomon, the wisest of the wise, summed it up in one sentence: An increase in wisdom is an increase in pain (Eccles. 1:18). Wisdom is only wisdom when it promotes growth. Growth is change. And change only comes about through exertion – pain.
The Rabbis understood that to exist detached from wisdom was death. This is why they rule that his teacher-mentor must accompany the unintentional murderer into exile.
Each of us, on our own level, must strive to have the wisdom we contact, shape, mold and purify us. May HaShem help us to break out of the malaise around us and create a healthy relationship to the Torah’s wisdom.
V. Haftarah Commentaries, by Rabbi Mordechai (Mitchell) Silverstein, senior lecturer in Talmud and Midrash at the Conservative Yeshiva.
1. Jeremiah is known as the prophet of the destruction, not just because he presents a contemporary picture of the horrific events that led up to the destruction of the southern kingdom (Judea) and the First Temple, but even more so because he presented his people with a picture of the societal degeneration, which according to his estimation, caused this cataclysm. A society founded upon God's will could not betray God, could not flaunt its disloyalty, and certainly could not subvert the moral behavior upon which it was supposed to be built. Therefore it is no wonder that Jeremiah uses some pretty harsh language in his prophecy. Still, few of his pronouncements measure up in their seriousness to one jarring remark: "Though you wash with natron and use much lye, your guilt is ingrained [literally: stained; Hebrew: nikhtam] before Me (God) – declared the Lord God." (2:22)
This verse, in its context, is meant as a rhetorical admonishment to those who have denied or have tried to hide their wrongdoings from God. (See the following verse.) The rabbinic tradition, however, saw this verse as a contradiction to the idea of teshuvah - repentance, namely that a person is capable of repairing and "recreating" themselves. Commentators have searched high and low to reconcile this verse with this very important idea. (See my commentary for Parshat Matot-Mas'ei 5762 [below].) Rashi's explanation strays from this norm, suggesting a very different association. Commenting on the word "nikhtam", Rashi explains: "This [verse] concerns the sin of the [golden] calf, for this sin remains for ever, as it says: 'On the day that I make an accounting (remember), I will bring them to account for their sins." (Ex. 32:34) – every time, I [God] take an account for their sins, it will include a little for the sin of the golden calf.
Two questions arise from Rashi's comment: 1.What is the connection between this verse in Jeremiah and the sin of the golden calf; 2. Why does Rashi want the sin of the golden calf to resonate through the ages?
Rashi's association seems to be based on the word "nikhtam". Its Hebrew root is "kaf", "tav", "mem". In this verse, its usage is unique and it seems to mean "stained". "Ketem", though, also means "gold". Maybe it comes to mean "stain" because a stain is a yellow blemish on a piece of clothing? In any case, we now understand Rashi's association. Rashi sees this verse as an indication that the implications of the sin of the golden calf reverberate throughout the ages.
This idea also may explain the linkage of a series of tragic events which all occurred on Shiva Asar b'Tammuz, (the 17th Day of Tammuz) the fast day commemorated last week, as found in the Mishnah Taanit 4:6 - "On the seventeenth of Tammuz, the tablets of the Ten Commandments were broken, the daily offerings ceased, the city [walls of Jerusalem] were breeched, Apostomus burned the Torah, and he set up an image in the Sanctuary." One gets the sense from this Mishnah that the sin of the golden calf (the breaking of the tablets) precipitated the tragedies that followed.
These teachings appear to warn us that there are indeed wrongdoings that can be perpetrated which are not easily erased. Life as individuals and as a community should be lived with a consciousness of this idea. Our tradition takes a poetic tact in its reading of events to raise in us this awareness.
2. In this week’s Haftarah, Jeremiah paints a rather bleak picture of Israel’s fate. Israel’s disloyalty to God has created a seemingly hopeless situation. No image from the Haftarah portrays Israel’s dire state more poignantly than the following verse: “Though you wash yourself with natron (a type of detergent) and use much lye your guilt is ingrained before Me - declares the Lord God” (Jeremiah 2:22) The simple meaning of this verse probably intends to express God’s utter exasperation with the behavior of the people. It seemingly leaves them with no hope for repair. Rashi associates the harshness of this declaration with the sin of the golden calf, a sin which left an indelible stain on Israel’s relationship with God.
The rabbinic tradition is bothered by the implications of this verse. This dilemma is expressed in Sifrei Bemidbar, a midrash from the period of the Mishnah to the book of Numbers: “How can these two verses exist together in the same book? ... One verse declares: ‘O Jerusalem, cleanse your heart of wickedness so that you may be saved’ (verse 4:14) while another verse [from our Haftarah] states: “Though you cleanse yourself ... your guilt is ingrained before Me’ (verse 2:22)” (adapted from Sifrei Bemidbar Piska 42) The discrepancy between these two verses is obvious. One verse offers the hope of redemption through repentance while the verse from our Haftarah creates a hopeless situation. Isaac Abrabanel, the 15th century Spanish statesman and Bible commentator, cogently expresses the seriousness of the problem: “This verse seems to prevent teshuvah (repentance) ... and renders the mission and exhortations of the prophets worthless. Furthermore, it makes their prophecies false for they preach the primacy of repentance.” (Adapted translation)
Several solutions have been offered to reconcile this contradiction. Among them, the most obvious is that the verse from the Haftarah was probably meant to be understood hyperbolically, namely, that Jeremiah wanted to express God’s exasperation so he spoke in an exaggerated fashion. Radak, the 12th century Provencal scholar, asserted that this verse spoke of the situation in Jeremiah’s times where repentance would have saved the people from exile but would not have reconciled their relationship with God without some other form of punishment. Abrabanel rejects this explanation and offers his own interpretation: “This verse refers to insincere repentance. The people publicly repented while they privately continued to sin. God, of course, is aware of such behavior and will not abide it.” A variation on this theme is offered by Rabbi Meir Malbim, the 19th century Polish commentator. According to Malbim, people often convince themselves that they are not sinning even though they continue to sin. This is the worst sort of offense because the sinner has convinced him/herself that s/he is pure while, in fact, the opposite is true. This rationalization does not allow a person to affect teshuvah because s/he never comes to terms with his/her real state of being. The realization of the problem is the first step to reconciliation with God.
♥ ♥ ♥
May God grant us a life in which our hearts’ desires for goodness will be fulfilled. May God bless us all until we meet again.
Rabbi Howard Gorin,
Rockville, Maryland
Rabbi Howard Gorin
Tikvat Israel Congregation
2200 Baltimore Road
Rockville, MD 20851
(c) 301-518-5340
http://www.rabbihowardgorin.org/Home.html
Watch Some Amazing Videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/rovingrabbi
http://www.jtsa.edu/Conservative_Judaism/JTS_Torah_Commentary.xml