Parshat Matot-Mas'ey

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 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)

 

 

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 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