Send forth a vanguard of men from you for the army;

For them to be against midian

To exact the lord's vengence from midian

(Numbers 31:3)

"Men"

– Righteous Men, and similarly (Exodus 16) "Choose for us men" and also (Deut. 1) "Wise and renowned men".

 (Rashi ibid ibid.)

Send forth

a vanguard of men from you for the army. Rashi commented '" [Righteous

men] '. It must be understood why He commanded to choose tsaddikim,

also see Ramban. It seems to me that God was strict concerning Israel's honor,

therefore He said "Wreak the vengeance of the Israelites", but

Moshe said "To exact the Lord's vengeance from Midian, because

Moshe was concerned more with the Lord's vengeance, and this requires a high degree

of righteousness, to face the foe and think not about exacting vengeance from

one who did him evil, being concerned only with exacting the vengeance of the

Lord, and therefore Moshe said "Send forth a vanguard of tsaddikim"

who can control their spirit, and their entire intent will be only the

vengeance of Lord from Midian. And now we can understand that which is written"…

were delivered as vanguards"- against their will, because they did not

believe that they had such power of self-control, just as the tsaddikim who

do not trust themselves, and this is simple to understand.

(R. Avraham Shmuel Binyamin Sofer: Ktav Sofer, ibid.,

ibid.)

        Should the angels of destruction leave me…

Moshe Lanzeman

Shortly before the beginning of Parashot Matot-Massai, there appears

the command to strike Midian. The Midian revenge episode is puzzling from a

number of aspects. First, at the end of Parashat Balak, where the men of Israel are seduced into sacrificing to Baal Peor, we read: "And Israel camped in Shittim; and

the people began to go whoring with the daughters of Moab." Only

after the Holy One begins to punish the Children of Israel is mention made of

Cozbi daughter of Zur, who was chieftain of the leagues of fathers' houses in

Midian.

Second, the Holy One orders Moshe explicitly to strike Midian because

they are foes to the Israelites and because of Cozbi daughter of Zur, their

kinswoman. There is no commandment, however, of any physical retribution

against Moab; there is only an injunction against their "entering the

community." Yet more: there were more justifiable reasons for taking

revenge against Moab than against Midian, for in addition to the Moabite

daughters seducing the Children of Israel, the Moabites refused to permit the

Israelites passage through their territory. God's command to strike Midian (and

Moshe's understanding was that this included the daughters of Midian) seems, at

first glance, to be unjustified. It seems that the Midianites joined the

Moabites in their enlistment of Balaam son of Beor to assist them, but Moab – with Balak at their head – was the instigator, the Midianites being, it seems, dragged

along.

Third, Moshe's order to massacre the women and children is

incomprehensible, even considering acceptable practice in antiquity. Even for

the Israelite warriors who killed every male, this was something difficult to grasp.

And futhermore, this is the only instance recorded in the Torah where the Israelites

are ordered to undergo a process of purification following a military action.

Fourth, Moshe's father-in-law, Yitro, was a priest of Midian, and, of

course, Moshe's wife, Zipporah was a Midianite. Yet more, it would seem that

Zipporah was under sentence of death in as much as she was a Midianite woman "who

has known a man".

We can assume that this parasha was written to impart a

significant message, and this applies both to the content of the commandments

and the means by which they were transmitted to us, their significance

proportionate to their irrationality.

The ways Israelites relate to external threats are often an allegory

for internal relations. In our case, allegory invites itself, because the

context seems confused and the consequence is frightening. Therefore we ask:

What can we learn from our parasha about the forces raging between us

and ourselves.

In my opinion, the parasha invites a meeting between us and the evil resides

inside each of us. As we develop, we are witness to development of the ability

to empathize with the other and to understand the potential significance of actions,

to depart from evil and to do good. But each one of us also has an egoistic

component, inconsiderate and even violent, an element whose existence we often

deny, preferring that it never existed.

The psychologist Rollo May, in his classic volume "Love and Will"

writes about the daimonic (in contrast to the demonic, the satanic) element in

man. Man is born with a package of 'potentials', drives awaiting activation.

These potentials, motivated by the daemonic drive, are the source of both our

constructive and our destructive components.

As a rule, we like to believe that we are good people; consciousness of

the evil within us impairs our narcissistic needs. We want to think that there

are bad people and that evil resides only in them. We, however, are the good

guys, and thus we ignore evidence that the potential for doing very bad things

is in all of us. Denial of evil is actually liable to lead to its bursting out.

Many of our readers will remember the famous Milgrom experiment. Randomly

picked participants in the experiment were asked to teach a person (a member of

the experiment team) a list of words. For every error, the 'teacher' was to

press a button which supposedly to deliver an electric shock. (The 'student',

of course, would receive no shock, but the 'teacher' was under the impression

that a shock was delivered). With each subsequent error, the 'teacher' was to

increase the shock intensity by ten volts. The experiment conductor wanted to

learn what was the maximum shock intensity the participants were prepared to

deliver as a man in a white jacket would order them to continue with the experiment.

To the conductor's amazement, most of the participants agreed to deliver shocks

which, were they real, would have killed the student. Yet more – most of the

participants were stunned at the realization that they were capable of reaching

such a stage. The lesson learnt, from the experiment and our parasha, is

that the source of evil is not in bad people; it is in ordinary people who are

willing, in certain circumstances, to do bad things.

In Stanford University, a different experiment was conducted. Students

were randomly divided into 'prisoners' and 'turnkeys', and performed a prison

simulation in the university basement. They were asked to behave according to

their perceptions of their respective roles. They performed their jobs so 'well',

that the experimenters were forced to halt the experiment.

Coping with evil requires courage. Courage is a concept which expresses

the ability to overcome circumstances and arrive at the true freedom of choosing

between good and bad. Without the possibility of evil there is no freedom and

no true choice of the good; to desist from evil and to do good, when it is easy

and possible to continue towards the evil, is an act of courage.

In our parasha, the exemplification of courage is Yitro and, perhaps,

like her father, Zipporah. Yitro is not only a Midianite, he is a Midianite

priest. He recognizes the moral strength of Judaism, and, according to

traditional commentators, he even takes upon himself the yoke of mitzvoth.

Despite this, he chooses to return to Midian to struggle for the newly

discovered justice. Zipporah, married to Moshe yet before she was aware of

significance of her tie to him (and even before God's mission was revealed to

Moshe at the burning bush), does not understand at first the meaning of her son's

circumcision. But when she experiences from close up the struggle over Moshe's

life, on her own initiative she circumcises her son, and from that moment she,

in effect, leaves her conforming world and is tied emotionally to Moshe with a

covenant of blood. These acts of courage, when Yitro and Zipporah experience

the light unto the nations which radiated from Jacob's tents, became their way

of life which saved them from the fate of the Midianites.

The irrational command, as it were, is a metaphor for the inner

imperative within each of us to uncover the evil residing is us, which has its

source in the shadows of our life experiences, and which expresses itself even

in the potential for killing women and children. The way to avoid this passes through

awareness of this potential in order to gather the courage to escape from the

cycle of sin and punishment. The fact that the slaughter was actually realized

is necessary to demonstrate to us, for whom the book was written, the necessity

of choosing, in complete freedom, between real evil, which can literally

materialize, and the courage to resist and do good.

The courage to struggle for a more just world begins with acceptance of

the fact that each of us can be basically good, and still do abominable things.

From this harsh message, however, is derived the hope that if evil is so close,

good can also be a handbreadth away, if only we fulfill the obligation to choose

from freedom.

It was the poet Rilke who wrote:

If my devils are to leave me, I am afraid my angels will take flight

as well.

Dr. Moshe Lanzeman, psychologist, resides in Yerucham

Expansion

of boundaries: chalutziut or concern for possessions

Among the Sons

of Gad and the Sons of Reuven 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

Menashe."

(Rabeinu Behayey on Bemidbar 32:2)

This is to say,

in adding area to Eretz Yisrael there was no aspect of chalutziut, but their

concern… was for their wealth. 'Therefore they were exiled first'… The

series of dispersions began with the exiling of the tribes of Reuven and half

of Menashe 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: Seven

Years Of Discussion On The Weekly Parasah, p. 746)

An

Enlightened Country Does Not Punish Without Trial

"The

not die unless he

has

stood trial before the assembly".

 (Bemidbar 35:12)

A

murderer who killed intentionally, is not to be put to death, neither by the

witnesses nor by those who saw him, before he comes before the court and is

sentenced to death, as is written: "The manslayer may not die unless he

has stood trial before the assembly", and this is the law for all who

are deserving of death by a bet

din, persons who transgressed

and did the deed; they are not to be killed before their sentence is decreed

following due process.

(Maimonides, Laws of the

Murderer and Protection of Life, 1:5)

Whoever

kills someone can flee there. This will prevent the possibility of one being

killed before standing trial. Only the court may decide if one is deserving of

the death penalty or whether he is to go into exile or is free of all

punishment. The Mishneh (Tractate Makkot 9b), based upon Bemidbar 24:25 reads:

"At the beginning, both the unintentional murderer and the intentional

murderer rush to the cities of refuge; Beth Din sends agents to bring them from

there. Whoever is sentenced to death by the court is executed, whoever is not

guilty of the murder charge is set free, and whoever is deserving of exile is

returned to his place [the city of refuge], as is written, :And the assembly

shall return him to his city of refuge. The Talmud (Makkot

12a) learns a general

rule from our passage – Even if it is known with absolute certainty that one is

deserving of death – for example, if the murder transpired in the sight of the

entire court – the murderer may not be executed without due legal process: "From

where [do we learn] that a sanhedrin which witnessed a person killing a person

is not to be executed before he stands before a different court? The Torah

teaches: 'Before he stands before the assembly for judgement' – in a different court." According

to what is said here, that same legal procedure must be carried out before

other judges; those that were not present at the act. Those present can only

serve as witnesses; they may not serve as judges, for the sages said (Rosh

Hashanah 26a) regarding capital cases, a witness may not be a judge:

whoever was present at the act as witness cannot be a judge in that case, for

the duty of the court is to acquit the accused if at all possible. But since he

saw him kill a person, he will not be able to find [extenuating circumstances]

on his behalf. The act leaves its impression on all who observed, and they will

not be able judge him objectively and find cause for acquittal.

 (Rabbi Shimshon Rafael

Hirsch on Bemidbar 35:12)

Decrees Which Respond to the Demands of the Day

Commands beginning with the phrase 'this is the word' are usually only observed

temporarily. The limitation on marriage of a daughter who inherits was only

observed by the generation which participated in the conquest of the Land.

(S.R. Hirsch on Devarim 36:6-7)

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:

There were no better days for Israel than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Yom

Kippur makes sense – it offers forgiveness and atonement, [it is] the day when

the second Tablets were given. But what is there to the fifteenth of Av?

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shemuel: It was the day when the tribes were allowed to

intermarry.

How is it learned from a verse? This is the word that the Lord

instructed the daughters of Tzelofhad (Bamidbar 36:6) – This thing will only be observed in the present generation.

(Ta'anit 30b)

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

For responses and arranging to write

for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il