The word of the lord came to me:

What do you see, jeremiah?

I replied: i see a branch of an almond

tree.

(From the haphtarah of Parashat Mattot,

Jeremiah 1:11)

Said Rabbi

Munah: Both according to those who opine that the city wall was breached on the

ninth of the month and according those who opine it was on the seventeenth of

Tammuz, from the date of breach until the destruction of the temple, twenty-one

days passed. Said Rabbi Eliezer, let this be the sign (Jeremiah 1) "I see the branch of an olive tree" –

just as twenty-one days pass from the time this nut blossoms until its

fruit is complete, so did twenty-one days pass from the breach of the wall

until the fall of the Temple.

According to those who hold that the Temple

was destroyed on the first day of Av, the wall was breached on the ninth of the

month; according to those who maintain that the temple was destroyed on the

Ninth of Av, the wall was breached on the Seventeenth of Tammuz. Said Rabbi

Yochanan: Eighteen thousand priestly youths fled into the stoves of the Temple and were

immediately burned, and none survived other than the high priest, Yehoshua ben

Tzadok, as is written (Zechariyah 3) "For

this is a brand plucked from the fire."

(Talmud Yerushalmi, Taanit 23:1)

Between those who bore arms in battle and

the entire community

Moshe Meir

After the war

with Midian, it was necessary to decide upon the division of the spoils:

And the lord

said to Moshe, saying, "Count the heads of the spoil of captives both

human and beast, you and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers of the

community. And you shall divide the spoil in half between those who bore arms

in battle, who went out to the army, and the whole community. (Bemidbar 31:26)

Two options

for dealing with the spoils faced the leadership. Either the warriors alone receive

the spoil, or the spoils are shared equally with the entire community.

According to the latter possibility, the warriors, the smaller of the two

groups, receive a greater portion, but nevertheless the others receive a

portion.

The Bible

records another event, in which both options receive expression. David defeats an Amalekite force at Tsiklag:

David took all the flocks and herds, which [the troops]

drove ahead of the other livestock; and they declared, "This is David's spoil."

When David reached the       two hundred men who were too faint to

follow David and who had been left

at the Wadi Besore, they came out to welcome David

and the troops with him; David came

forward with the troops and greeted them.

But all the

mean and churlish fellows among the men who had accompanied David spoke up, "Since

they did not accompany us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we

seized, except that each may take his wife and children and go."

David, however, spoke up, "You must not do

that, my brothers, in view of what the Lord has granted us, guarding us and

delivering into our hands the band that attacked us. How could anyone agree

with you in this matter? The share of those who remain with the baggage shall

be the same as the share of those who go down to battle, they shall share

alike."

So from that

day on it was made a fixed rule for Israel, continuing to the present

day.(I Shmuel, 30:20-31)

The 'mean and

churlish fellows' demand sole possession of spoils whereas David decides on an

equal division. [Incidentally, it should be notes that, contrary to the event

in Bemidbar, captives are not part of the spoils].

A third event

joins the above two. Avraham rushes to the aid of his nephew Lot,

smiting his captors.

And the king

of Sodom said

to Abram, "Give me the folk, and the substance take for yourself."

And Abram said to the king of Sodom: "I raise my hand in oath to the Lord,

the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will take not a single

thread or sandal strap of all that is yours, lest you say, 'I have made Abram

rich'. Nothing for me but what the lads have consumed. And as for the share of

the men who came with me, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, let them take their share." (Bereishit 14:21-24)

Abraham waives

his share, requesting only the shares for those who accompanied him. He does so

lest his future wealth be attributed to the king of Sodom. Were Abraham not to have declined his

share, how would the division have been carried out? At first glance, there

would seem to be no problem. The reward is to be shared by the combatants alone

– there is no 'the whole community'. It can be reasonably assumed that in this

campaign, too, there were those who actively fought and those who 'remained

with the baggage'. Abraham makes no distinction between the two groups ands

therefore it would seem that his division resembled that in the Book of Shmuel

and not that of Bemidbar. Our Sages, with their literary sensitivity, weighed

the relationship between the two divisions:

'From that

day va'maalah ['and onward'. Lit. 'and above'] on it was made a fixed

rule for Israel,

continuing to the present day' (I Shmuel,

30:20). Said Rabbi Yuden: It says not 'va'hal'ah ['and

forward'] but rather va'maalah. From whom should you

learn? From Abraham, as is written 'Nothing for me, but what the lads have

consumed. And as for the share of the men who came with me, Aner, Eshkol,

and Mamre, let them take their share.'. (Bereishit

Rabba)

The plain

reading of the word va'maalah implies precedent, the creation of

an innovation by David. The sages changed it into a word which implies roots,

relating to the way of Avraham. In any case, the sages seem to lean towards an

unequal distribution rather than the system employed in Bemidbar. It could be

that the Book of Bemidbar offers a middle- of-the-way possibility, between the

position of the 'churlish fellows' and that of David.

Today, when

there are segments of society who do not pull the yoke with the community,

perhaps the proper moral resolution should be different. But when the problem

is not one of motivation but rather of ability – 'those too faint to follow' – David's

moral judgment should set the example. The division should not be according to

ability, but should be based on partnership and responsibility.

Moshe

Meir is an educator and moderates beit midrash groups. Has a doctorate   in Jewish Philosophy. His book "Two

Together" on a new religious-secular philosophy, is soon to be published.

And Moses spoke to the leaders of the tribes

There is no doubt that all of the commandments including

all of their principles and details were spoken to Moses to Sinai. However,

Moses did not teach them immediately, but rather at the appropriate times and

places. There was no reason for him to teach anyone the laws of the annulment

of vows while he was still alive because he, may peace be

upon him, served as the unique expert of his generation, annulling vows and

oaths whenever necessary. Now, however, his death was nearing, and he saw fit

to teach the leaders of the people the laws of the annulment of vows, for they

would replace him in this matter. That is why he only commanded the leaders of

the tribes; there was no reason to teach the laws of vows to all of the

Israelites. It may have even been necessary to hide these laws from them lest

they make oaths frivolously, but he did teach the law to the tribal leaders.

(R. Yitzhak Reggio,

Bamidbar 30:2)

And Moses said to the Children

while you stay here?"

(Bamidbar 32:6)

Shall your brothers come to war

Usually Scripture uses the expression

"went out to war" [yatza lamilhama], while the expression

"came to war" [ba lamilhama] is unusual. Moses uses the latter

when addressing the children of Gad and the children of Reuben: Shall your brothers come to war.

He who goes out to war

sets forth to battle promptly and willingly. He takes joy in combat, going out

to fight beyond his country's borders. In contrast, one who comes to war or especially one who comes towards war [ba milhama] (Bamidbar

10:9) takes the dangers of

combat upon himself only after finding himself entangled in war. The war came

without provocation on his part, and he is forced to endanger himself. That is

why Moses asks: Shall your

brothers come to war? while

in contrast, you sit here.

Your brothers want to reach rest and claim their estates just as you do.

However, war is necessary, it has come to us, and your brothers must enter the

fight – and you would shrug off that duty?

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bamidbar 10:9)

Expansion of Boundaries: Halutziut [pioneering]

or Concern for Possessions

For the western boundary you

boundary.

(Bamidbar 34:6)

Among the Sons of Gad and the Sons of

Reuben were many wealthy people, and

they possessed much livestock and they loved their possessions, and therefore

they settled outside the land, and they separated themselves from their

brothers for the sake of the property. Therefore they were first of the tribes

to go into exile, as is written (I Chronicles 5) And they exiled them, the Reubenites,

and half the tribe of Menasheh.

(Rabeinu Behayey on Bamidbar 32:2)

This is to say, their adding territory

to the Land of Israel was in no way a matter of halutziut;

rather, they were concerned about their own property. "Therefore they were

exiled first"… The series of dispersions began with the exiling of the

tribes of Reuben and half of Menasheh which had settled on the eastern side of the Jordan,

and since these tribes had split from their brothers because of their property,

they were the first to go into exile.

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashiyot ha'Shavu'a p. 746)

READERS

REACT

Judges Are

Preferable to Kings

I read with interest Benjamin

Salant's article (" Korach" issue), in which he expresses support for

Shmuel and the monarchy. The article is deserving of consideration.

I should like, however, to

present a contradicting religious position according to which the mishaps at

the end of the Book of Judges ("Micha's Idol" and "the Concubine

at Giv'ah") – are batel b'shishim – "voided in sixty" [a

halachic rule in which the presence of one part of a substance in sixty parts

of another is considered to be non-existent], compared with severe and

continuing misfortunes occurring throughout the monarchy, as has been already

discussed – deeply and at length – by Don Yitzchak Abarbanel. The conclusion

(extensively developed by Martin Buber] is that the Holy One prefers the decentralized

system of Judges over the coercive and centralized rule by king. Sometimes the

monarch does "make order' in the kingdom, a positive aspect ("…were

it not for the fear of the government men would swallow each other alive"),

but unfortunately, more than he brings order, he brings corruption to the

world, because "power corrupts." How can one who accepts the yoke of

the kingdom of Heaven accept upon himself the kingdom

of flesh and blood? Conclusive proof of my argument is that after God decrees

Moshe's death (Bemidbar 27), He does not

demand appointment of a successor (God alone is king); He accedes to do so only

after Moshe's plea ("And the congregation of God shall not be as sheep

without a shepherd"). The great puzzlement is that Moshe's successor is

not his son, but rather Yehoshua; and Yehoshua's is not his son, but someone

else, and so on with all the Judges. This is an extremely powerful phenomenon

which has not received sufficient attention, and which is totally contrary to

processes which favored dynasties, from the ancient world even until this very

day. The problem is that dynasties create power, and "power corrupts".

Yet more, almost every judge came from a different tribe (= so as to broaden as

much as possible the power of government). Such was the case until Shmuel – finally

"redemption comes to the world" when, in his old age, the judge – in

keeping with universal custom – bequeaths his position to his sons in Beer

Sheva. Consequences are quick to come: "…they were bent on gain, they

accepted bribes, and they subverted justice" (I

Shmuel 8:3)

The conclusion is that God seeks

sincerity, not strength; compromise, not compulsion; judge is preferable to

king.

The above is a synopsis of a

recently-completed composition which argues the case for religious anarchism ("Religious

Jewish Anarchism")

Amnon Shapira is a member of

Tirat Zvi

Benjamin

Salant replies:

Amnon's claim – that extended

leadership is likely to corrupt – is correct. We saw as much in the case of

judges and throughout the period of the Judges until this very day. This

holds true irrespective of type of leader, be he judge or king or prime

minister.

Shmuel, the pre-eminent leader,

realizing in old age that new leadership has not sprouted from among the

people, fearing lest "the congregation of God be like sheep who have no

shepherd", sensing responsibility for the nation's destiny and impelled by

immediate need of a military leader to fight the enemy (Philistines and

Amonites), understands from the people's demand and God's acquiescence ("And

God said to Shmuel, "Listen to the people") that a leader (let us

say, a king) is a necessity. It is interesting to note that the case of Shaul

proves that dynasty is not an absolute necessity. And finally, I wonder how one

can consider the terrible case of the concubine in Giv'ah, in which tens of

thousands were killed and a tribe of Israel almost ceased to exist, to

be "batel b'shishim" as against events which occurred during

the Judean monarchy.

Biyamin Salant., Kibbutz Saad

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to

appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a

movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to

promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have

always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares

a deep attachment to the land

of Israel and it no less

views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

4,500

copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are

written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel

and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on

our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il