FOR THE WESTERN BOUNDARY

YOU SHALL HAVE THE COAST OF THE GREAT SEA;

THAT SHALL SERVE AS YOUR WESTERN BOUNDARY.

(Bemidbar 34:6)

 

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 they exiled them, the Reubenites, and the Danites, and half the tribe of 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)

 

 

 

CANCELLATION OF VOWS

AND LEADERSHIP WHICH IS UP IN THE AIR

Yair Eldan

 

Parashat Matot opens with the attempt to rehabilitate the spine of Israel's leadership: "Moshe said to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel, saying, This is what God commanded". The giving of power to the leadership of the tribal heads was the imperative of the hour before Moshe's approaching death. ("Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; then you shall be gathered to your kin"). It is interesting to compare this attempt with the attempt to build leadership when sending the heads of the tribes to scout the land. God's command to send the leaders of Israel to scout out the land (Parashat Shelach-Lecha) comes after Israel's showing signs of disintegration (the Graves of Gluttony, the prophesying by Eldad and Medad, the sin of Aharon and Miriam). The leaders of the tribes were due to build their leadership status by scouting the land, and they were chosen by Moshe - not by God - in order to strengthen their leadership which was not imposed from above. It is easy to imagine that the scouting mission's leadership failure - which dragged out the wilderness wanderings for another 40 years - was still echoing in the Israelites' ears four decades later. Now, on the verge of entering the land, just before Moshe's death, the heads of the tribes become the authorities in matter of vows and oaths. The connection between this subject and its being addressed to the heads of the tribes in particular is commented upon by the Ba'al Haturim: "This is to teach you that the heads of the tribes are empowered to enforce the bringing of vowed items and of pledges". Ramban writes: "And this is also an allusion to our teachers' exposition to the effect that the heads of the tribes have greater authority [lit. "monument and name"] in dealing with vows than do the rest of the nation, for a single expert can release a vow." The command regarding vows and oaths was chosen as the commandment for standing the national leadership on its feet. This choice is diametrically opposite to the parasha of the spies, in which the national leadership was to have been butressed by a clear act of leadership demanding courage, physical prowess, analytical skill, and ability to withstand pressure for long periods. In this case, however, the leadership is built in a completely different fashion. Generally, a person vows to impose upon himself prohibitions beyond the established commands of the Torah when he is in an extreme physical or psychological state. Great joy or sorrow, pain or suffering lead one to vow. The vow helps stabilize his world picture, by taking upon himself more prohibitions, or by conferring holiness upon some object. Granting the tribal chiefs authority in matters of the vow, positions them in the center of a meaningful crossroads in the life of a Jew. In order to validate, obligate, or release the vow, the heads of the nation must listen carfully to the intimate world of one who turns to them in times of crisis; in their hands are deposited intimate details of the vower's life. This authority grants them great power. The Mishna in Tractate Haggigah rules: The [laws of] release of vows float in the air - they have no basis [in Scripture]." In other words, the laws relating to releasing of vows have no explicit basis in the Torah. The relevant Talmudic text (Haggigah 10a) quotes a berayta which expressly disputes this assumption, quoting four Tanaim who contend that "they do have a basis." The Tanaim bring different Torah verses from which they derive (far-fetched) proofs that vows may be released. At the end of the discussion, we read the words of the Amora, Shmuel:

If I were there, together with the sages of the berayta, I would have said to them, My proof is better than yours, as is written: 'He shall not break his pledge' - he cannot break his pledge, but others can break it for him.

The placing of the commandments relating to vows and pledges in a context of rehabilitation of leadership authority clarifies somewhat the intuition that there is indeed a basis for the authority to release vows. The heads of the tribes received in their hands the passing on of the laws of vows and oaths to the people, thus becoming those to whom all questions of vows and oaths are directed; they are also those who have the power to affirm and to invalidate vows. Further on, the Talmud determines that: "All the other proofs can be refuted, but Shmuel's is irrefutable. Of it it is said, 'One sharp pepper is better than a basket full of pumpkins'".

Perusal of incidents following the chapter on vows and oaths indicates that this attempt to reconstruct the leadership of Israel also failed. After the military leaders and their soldiers failed to fulfill God's command regarding the killing of the Midianites, the heads of the tribes do not stand as leaders, but as adjuncts to Moshe as he admonishes the men of the army. Their deteriorating standing is also expressed in the story of the children of the tribes of Gad and Reuven remaining on the eastern side of the Jordan. The appeal to Moshe is made by "the sons of Gad" and "the sons of Reuven", and not by the heads of these tribes. The surprising joining of half (?) the tribe of Menasheh amplifies the leadership problem in Israel. Finally, exacerbating the problem yet more, Parashat Matot ends with a completely personal conquest initiative by the sons of Machir, son of Menashe. This acute leadership crisis leaves no alternative; in contrast to the parasha of the scouts, in which Moshe determined the roster of those going to scout the land, here the authority is determined from above - The Holy One, Blessed Be He, decides "the names of the persons who will settle the land."

The concluding incident in the Book of Bemidbar is the appeal by the heads of the families of the tribe of Menashe to Moshe and the heads of Israel. They are concerned lest the daughters of Zelophad marry men of another tribe, resulting in the transfer of their inheritance to that tribe. The solution given to the problem is the obligation of the daughters of Zelaphad to marry within the tribe of Menashe, so that the interitance remains within the tribe - "each one to the inheritance of his father's tribe is to cleave, among the Children of Israel." This resolution indicates resignation to the fact that the current leadership of Israel is unable to bring the sons of the tribe together and to bring unity to the tribes of Israel in general. In such a situation, the crystallization of a tribal identity is dependent upon an inheritance or an acquisition. The leadership mode of hatarat nedarim - releasing of vows - the leader's entry into the world view of his subjects - is laid aside for lack of leaders capable of employing it.

Yair Eldan participates in the "Amitey Shalem" program in Merkaz Shalem

 

 

 

The Holiness of Eretz Yisrael Is Dependent Upon Its Inhabitants' Aspiration to Holiness

The Haftara of Massey is Chapter 2 of Yirmiyahu - Yirmiyahu, the prophet of the destruction... Among the many subjects in Parashat Massey is the major and severe admonition against the shedding of blood. This warning, appearing after the passage stating that spilled blood corrupts the land, reads: "You are not to make tamei the land in which you are settling, in whose midst I dwell, for I am God, Dweller in the midst of Israel." God does not dwell in the land, He dwells in the midst of the Children of Israel. This is what gives the land its significance when the Children of Israel dwell upon it. God dwells in the midst of the Children of Israel only upon the condition that they have Him dwell in their midst. His dwelling in their midst is not automatic...

About 700 years after Moshe, appears the prophet Yirmiyahu. He brings no warning of what to do and what not to do, but speaks of what is and of what has been done. He says: "You have come and made My land tamei, and you turned my inheritance into an abomination." Moshe said: "You shall not make the land tamei". Yirmiyahu, 700 years later, says, "You have come and made My land tamei" That very same land, called the land of God, ("My land") and the inheritance of God, has no inherent virtue, and man's behavior can make the land of God tamei, and God's inheritance an abomination.

 (From Remarks About the Weekly Portion by Prof. Y. Leibowitz, p. 108-109)

 

"The Vengeance of Children of Israel - the Vengeance of God?"

"Seek vengeance, the vengeance of the Children of Israel..." We have already noted in our commentary on Bereishit 4:15 the relationship of "nakam" (revenge) to "koom' (stand)... vengeance restablishes justice which was trampled by iniquitous feet, or it lifts up the personality that was degraded to dust. The avenger identifies with that which he desires to raise up. From this we can understand the preposition "mem" - Avenge the Israelite people from the Midianites" The goal is not to subdue the enemy and to give them their just deserts; had the Torah wished to say that, it would have used the grammatical form for "take vengeance against - (using the preposition "bet")." But the goal is to return and raise up Israel from the Midianites, to liberate her spiritually and morally and to free her from the fear of their craftiness.

 (Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch on Bemidbar 31:2)

 

An Enlightened Country Does Not Punish Without Trial

"The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer may 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 he 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 hurry 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) in 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)

 

 

 

 

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by private donors

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
• 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.

Tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or PEF.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom, Shabbat Shalom project.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $50. FOR DONATIONS BETWEEN $50 AND $999 THEY ARE CHARGING A $50 SERVICE CHARGE. DONATIONS ABOVE $1000 ARE CHARGED A 5% FEE.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemptions. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

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 which 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.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 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

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians