Matot- Masai

Parshat Matot & Massai Reuven & Gad Rabbi Ari Kahn The continuity or sequencing in Parshat Mattot is not immediately understood. The Parsha begins with a discourse on the laws of oaths. The heads of the community -"Rashei Mattot”- were gathered together to receive these laws, hence the Parsha’s name. Next, the Torah calls for vengeance against the Midianites, for their crime against the People of Israel. The Torah goes on to describe the ensuing battle, and the spoils of war with which the victorious army returns. The subsequent section tells about the tribes of Reuven and Gad, who requested that they be allotted the grazing land outside of Israel, on the east bank of the Jordan River, in order to accommodate their very large herds. Moshe chastises them for this request, and an arrangement is reached whereby these tribes will aid their brethren in the conquest, and only afterwards return to their lands across the River. The Torah adds that half of the tribe of Menashe, son of Yosef, will join them. The connection with the laws of oaths, brought at the beginning of this Parsha, is not immediately clear. A closer reading of the text reveals that there is, in fact, a common thread connecting the various topics in Matot: the power of the word. The Parsha began with the laws of oaths, which demonstrate clearly the power of words to effect change, and to create new reality. The next section of text recounts the vengeance against Midian. The wrath of Israel is centered on Bil'am who attempted to curse the Children of Israel: "And Bil'am the son of B'or was killed by the sword" (31:8) Finally, the Parsha ends with the "deal" which the tribes of Reuven and Gad reached with Moshe. Many details of the laws of conditions are derived from this deal, seen in the Halachic literature as the archtypical “condition”. R. Meir said: every stipulation which is not like that of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven is not a [valid] stipulation, because it is written, ‘And Moshe said unto them, if the children of Gad and the children of Reuven will pass with you over the Jordan, [. . . then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession].’ And it is also written, ‘But if they will not pass over with you armed, then they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan.’ (Kiddushin 61a) This last episode, involving the tribes of Reuven and Gad, deserves further attention. It seems quite strange that two tribes are willing to form an allegiance and avoid entering the Land of Israel. Yet these tribes have a number of things in common. First, they are both first-born to their respective mothers, Leah and

Zilpah. Furthermore, they have a common marching formation: the two were in the same group, and when they marched they surrounded the tribe of Shimon1. According to the Midrash, these two tribes were exceptionally wealthy, and therefore preferred the greener pastures outside the Land of Israel. Likewise in the case of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven, you find that they were rich, possessing large numbers of cattle, but they loved their money and settled outside the Land of Israel. Consequently they were the first of all the tribes to go into exile; as is borne out by the text, ‘And he carried them away, even the Reuvenites, and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Menashe’ (I Chron. V, 26). What brought it on them? The fact that they separated themselves from their brethren because of their possessions. Whence can we infer this? From what is written in the Torah, viz., ‘Now the children of Reuven... had a very great abundance of cattle.’ Furthermore, the Midrash sees the section dealing with the spoils of war as directed against these two tribes, as if to say, "If it is money which you seek, G-d has many ways of providing.” "Know that when He (G-d) wished the sons of Reuven and Gad to become wealthy he sent the Midianites before them. . What is written before this? ‘And the children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle’ (Num. XXXI, 9). And afterward it says, ‘Now the children of Reuven and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle.’ (Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 22:8) The Midrash goes to great lengths in pointing out the warped value system of these tribes. When they approach Moshe to argue their case and make their request, they mention their cattle before their children: We will build sheepfolds for our cattle and cities for our young children (32:16) When Moshe responds, he places the children before the cattle: Build cities for your young children and sheepfolds for your cattle (32:24) The Midrash explains the shift in order:

1

The plan was for them to positively influence the tribe of Shimon: Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar 2:10 From the South go forth dews and rains that bring blessing into the world; let therefore the tribe of Reuven be stationed there, for he was penitent, and penitence is a good characteristic, and the compassion of the Holy One, blessed be He, goes out to mankind when they show penitence. Therefore it is written, ‘the standard of the camp of Reuven on the south side’, etc. Next to him Gad, who commands many troops as it is said, Gad, a troop shall troop upon him (Bereishit 49, 19). Reuven, then, with his penitence, and Gad with his strength, had Shimon between them in order to make atonement for him. Therefore it is written, ‘and those that pitch next unto him shall be the tribe of Shimon... and the tribe of Gad... all that were numbered of the camp of Reuven... and they shall set forth second (Bamidbar 2, 12 ff.), for penitence is next to Torah.

The expression ‘A wise man's understanding is at his right hand’ applies to Moshe, while ‘A fool's understanding at his left’ applies to the children of Reuven and the children of Gad, who made the main thing the subordinate, and put the subordinate thing first. For they cherished their property more than human life, saying to Moshe: ‘We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle, and cities for our little ones’ (Bamidbar XXXII, 16). Moshe said to them: ‘That is not right! Rather do the more important things first. Build you cities for your little ones (ib. 24), and afterward folds for your sheep’ (ib.). Thus we have explained the expression ‘A wise man's understanding is at his right hand’ as applying to Moshe, and ’A fool's understanding at his left’ as applying to the children of Reuven and the children of Gad. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: ‘Seeing that you have shown greater love for your cattle than for human souls, by your life, there will be no blessing in it.’ Of them it says, ‘An estate may be gotten hastily at the beginning; but the end thereof shall not be blessed’ (Mishlei 20, 21). In the same strain it says, ‘Weary not thyself to be rich; cease from thine own wisdom’ (ib. 23, 4). And who is rich? He that is contented with his lot; as it says, ‘When you eat [the fruits] of the labour of your hands, you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you (Ps. 128, 2). (Midrash Rabbah – Bamidbar 22:9) The message is subtle but clear: Owning cattle is fine, but do not, even for one second, place material wealth above your children. We can only wonder at the confusion of values, which the text brings into focus. This same confusion may be discerned in another, related teaching: The Torah speaks of the cities built as refuge for those who killed accidentally. Three cities were built in Israel proper, while another three were built in the territory across the Jordan settled by Reuven, Gad, and Menashe. Rashi, drawing from the Talmud, pointed out this obvious inequity, the division so disproportionate to the relative populations. Why would two and a half tribes require the same number of cities of refuge as nine and a half tribes? (See Rashi, 35:14.) The tradition brought down in the Talmud explains that there was a disproportionate frequency of bloodshed in this small territory. Our Rabbis taught: Moshe had set apart three cities on the other side of the Jordan, and corresponding to them Yehoshua set apart [others] in the land of Canaan. And they were made to correspond on opposite sides like a double row [of trees] in a vineyard; Hebron in Judah, corresponding to Bezer in the wilderness; Shechem in mount Ephraim, corresponding to Ramoth in Gilead; Kedesh in mount Naphtali, corresponding to Golan in Bashan. ‘And you shall divide the border of thy land into three parts’ means that they shall form triads, [namely], that the distance from the Darom [southern] boundary to Hebron be similar to that from Hebron to Shechem; and that from Hebron to Shechem similar to that from Shechem to Kedesh; and that from Shechem to Kedesh similar to that from Kedesh to the North [boundary]. Were three cities [necessary] in Trans-Jordania [the same as] three cities for the [whole] land of Israel? — Said Abaye: ‘Because manslaughter was rife in Gilead.’ (Makkot 9b)

The obvious implication is that there was some sort of moral breakdown in that society. Something was wrong with the educational setup if people did not know how to take precautions which could save lives. This is a further indication of the bizarre value system, which favored possessions over children. By the time the fighters from these tribes returned after the years of conquest and division of the land, an entire generation had been raised in their absence, without the benefit of paternal guidance2. No wonder basic safety precautions were not taken. No wonder human life lost it value. The time and expense such precautions require might have cut into profits, and profits, not human life, were of prime importance. We can see how the moral breakdown echoed in the request of the two and a half tribes effected the future, but what was its origin? In B’reishit we see Reuven standing out on a number of occasions. One such instance is at the sale of Yosef, where he heroically jumps into the fray and attempts to save Yosef from his tormentors. At that particular point in the text, Reuven's motivation escapes us. Only later, when Yosef was sold by the others without Reuven’s knowlege, he "ripped his clothing (as a sign of mourning) .... and said, ‘the boy is gone and what will be with me?’" (B’reishit 37:29,30) What may have seemed like a noble gesture turned out to be merely an expression of Reuven’s responsibility as the eldest son. If something happened to Yosef, he felt that he would surely pay the price. Later, as the story unfolds and the Egyptian "despot" demands to see Binyamin before providing more food, Reuven offers that his own sons be killed in the event that Binyamin is not returned unscathed to Ya’akov3.(42:37) Needless to say, Ya'akov rejects this bizarre offer, but one can not help but wonder what type of effect this had on these children, knowing that their father was willing to exchange them. Perhaps we can take this question one step further: What motivated Reuven’s offer? Perhaps he suspected that because of his various indiscretions, he stood to lose the double portion of the first-born, and this offer was a gamble which could win that double portion back. He was willing to place his own children on the table as "markers" in this game of "high-risk poker". Whether or not this is the case, the fact remains that Reuven does not seem to have placed a very high value on the lives of his children. We should not be overly surprised when Reuven’s descendants prioritize in a similar fashion, i.e., possessions before children. Perhaps Gad, as a first-born, identified with Reuven’s “plight”, feeling that the double portion should rightfully be his. This may also give us insight into the selection of Menashe, the third tribe to join them. Why does Moshe choose Menashe? Perhaps they, as children of Yosef, know how to survive in a foreign 2

Midrash Rabbah – B’reishit 98:15: ‘Gad, a troop shall troop upon him’ (49, 19). When Israel were engaged in conquering and dividing the country, the tribes of Reuven and Gad were with them. They had left their children young: he who had left a child ten years old, found him twenty- four years old; he who had left a son twenty years old, found him now thirty-four. 3 B’reishit 42:36,37 “And Ya’akov their father said to them, ‘Me have you bereaved of my children; Yosef is not, and Shimon is not, and you will take Binyamin away; all these things are against me.’ And Reuven spoke to his father, saying, ‘Slay my two sons, if I do not bring him to you; deliver him into my hand, and I will bring him to you again.”

environment, having been raised in Egypt. Yosef himself serves as the prototype of the righteous individual who retains his values despite the temptations of the surrounding culture. On the other hand, it is fascinating that Menashe was also first- born of his mother, and he, too, was displaced in favor of his younger, more successful brother (see B’reishit 48:19). Perhaps these three, once united, commiserated on the inequity of losing the rights associated with being the older brother. Perhaps their pact was solidified around the decision to remain outside of the land which should have been theirs, more than anyone else's. There is another, more elevated approach which may provide us with further insight into the motivation of the tribes of Reuven and Gad, as well as the connections between the various sections of the Parsha. When G-d calls Moshe to ascend the Mount of Ivrim and see the Land, the Sifri explains: "When Moshe entered the portion of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven he was overjoyed, and said; 'It seems to me that my vow (the vow of G-d regarding Moshe) has been lifted! (Sifri, Pinchas section 23, cited in Rashi 27:12) After striking the rock, Moshe knew that he could not enter the Land of Israel; thus was the will of G-d, the word of G-d. But even so, could this vow not be broken?! The idea expressed in this Sifri has been explained and expanded in other Midrashic and chassidic sources. The Sfat Emet cites Rav Simcha Bunim from Prishischa, that the phrase "mikneh rav," vast herds, should be translated alternately as ‘an acquisition with their Rav’, their master. In other words, these two tribes were so dedicated to Moshe that they refused to part with him. In the Piskei Teshuva, a chassidic halacha compendium with strong leanings to the Gerer dynasty (authored by Avraham Petrakovsky), the same teaching is quoted in the name of the Chiddushei haRim, also following a teaching of Rav Simcha Bunim from Prishischa4, with the following explanation: "Their intention was for Moshe to enter into the Land of Israel, by virtue of this,... once their end of the bargain is kept, (capturing the land with the other tribes) their portion will achieve the status of Israel.... therefore, retroactively, when Moshe stands in their portion, he is standing in Israel, and the vow is broken, and he can then enter Israel proper. This was the intention of the children of Gad and Reuven, but in truth, prior to the capture and settling of the Land, this portion was not part of the Land of Israel at all (Piskei Teshuva volume 2, section249 -in a footnote) This teaching is based on technical knowledge of the laws of oaths. Suffice it to say that this is a loophole, a technicality. Simply put, G-d swore that Moshe would not enter the Land; the portion of Gad and Reuven is not part of the Land, but one day it will be. Therefore, if they ask to stay on the east side of the Jordan, where Moshe was permitted to enter, and go on to fulfill their side of the deal, then their 4

The teaching is cited in the name of Rav Simcha in the name of someone else, but the second name was expunged from the book. Perhaps the author is Kotzker Rebbe as the teaching is cited in his name in Emet MiKotzk Tizmach section 709.

portion achieves the same status as the rest of the Land of Israel, and effectively G-d’s vow is nullified5. In this light, the Parsha and its various parts becomes a more cohesive whole. Moshe teaches the laws and intricacies of oaths. One important part of these laws is that oaths can be challenged and rescinded. Once the tribes of Reuven and Gad hear this, they devise a plan for Moshe to join them in Israel. Perhaps they imagine that if the vow precluding Moshe’s entrance to Israel could be reversed, then perhaps the loss of the double portion of Reuven could be reversed as well. Moshe, for his part, does not seem interested in subterfuge. He continues his mission as the man of Halacha that he is. This may be evidenced by the middle of the Parsha, the vengeance against Midian. Moshe immediately sets a plan in motion to fulfill the Divine imperative. But did he have to? The Midrash makes the following comment: ‘Aavenge the vengeance of the Children of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered unto your people (31, 2).’ R. Yehuda remarked: If Moshe had wanted to live many more years he could have lived, for the Holy One, blessed be He, told him: ‘avenge’, and ‘afterward you shall be gathered,’ Scripture making his death dependent on the punishment of Midian. But the text apprises you of the excellence of Moshe. He thought: ‘Shall Israel's vengeance be delayed merely that I may live?’ Instantly, ‘Moshe spoke to the people, saying: arm men (anashim) from among you for the war.’ (Midrash Rabbah – Bamidbar 22:2) Delaying the battle and, as a result, his own demise, would have caused the Children of Israel to linger in the desert. Instead, Moshe sets off on his final mission, even though its completion will drawn his own death nearer. Even one unnecessary day in the desert was too high a price to be paid; the welfare of his followers, his students, came before personal considerations, and Moshe immediately, heroically, sends Yehoshua to battle the Midianites. Another Midrash offers some details of the events on the last day of Moshe's life, some of which are germane to this discussion. "A heavenly voice came out and said: 'You have but 3 hours in this world.’ Moshe said; 'Master of the universe, let me remain with the children of Gad and the children of Reuven, ... and Yehoshua will rule and bring the Children of Israel into the Land of Israel' (Otzar Midrashim Eisenstein page 356) According to this Midrash, Moshe himself makes the suggestion that he remain in the portion of Gad and Reuven6. G-d explains that such an arrangement is 5

6

This would create a parallel with the transgression of the spies as explained in Parsha Shlach, namely, the error which they committed was motivated by dedication to Moshe. This would explain why Moshe made reference to the spies in his response to Gad and Reuven. In another Midrash, Moshe makes this suggestion in order to save his brother Aharon: Midrash Rabbah – Bamidbar 19:17 AARON SHALL BE GATHERED (XX, 24] Moshe said to Him: ' Sovereign! Allow him to remain with the children of Reuven and the children of Gad!’ Said He to him: HE SHALL NOT ENTER INTO THE LAND WHICH I

impossible. If Moshe were alive and remained in Jordan during the major holidays, who would go to Israel, when they could be with Moshe? A person like Moshe cannot simply retire and slip out of the public eye. G-d explains that ultimately such an arrangement would destroy the Torah. Moshe surely does not want to be party to anything that would have a negative effect on the People or the Torah. The events described in this Midrash as occurring between the fourth and third hours before Moshe’s death are striking: Moshe offers various suggestions whereby he can surreptitiously enter the Land- by air, by sea, even cut into pieces. Each time, G-d responds that an oath is an oath, and can not be broken; here, the Midrash introduces the motif we have traced throughout, - the oath. Once he accepts the oath as irreversible, Moshe moves on to the next suggestion, that he remain with Gad and Reuven. Moshe’s approach differs from that of Gad and Reuven in that Moshe does not seek to harm the integrity of the Torah, or the Jewish people, whereas Reuven and Gad’s suggestion ultimately harmed their own children. The earlier indiscretion of Reuven himself, when he intimated that his children were expendable, reemerges to harm his descendants. Be it motivated by their love of money, or their twisted love for Moshe, the result of parents letting their children know that they are not their most valued “possession”, proved disastrous for these tribes. Children inevitably learn from the actions and values of their parents. Therefore, the east bank of the Jordan River became a place of violence and bloodshed, and the children of these tribes were the first to be exiled. copyright Rabbi Ari Kahn 1998

HAVE GIVEN UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL (ib.), implying: The delay in his death is holding back the giving of the Land. Do you wish that he should not die and that Israel shall not enter the Land? This is the reason why it says, WHICH I HAVE GIVEN UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.