Matot and the following Torah portion (Masei) are typically read together, even during Hebrew leap years, except when due to calendar quirks.
Parashat Matot
פרשת מטות
במדבר
Chapter 30, Verses 2 through 17 – Taking of vows and oaths
Numbers 30:2 to 32:42
Moses usually addresses the Israelites directly. Here he addresses only the heads. Why? Perhaps he didn’t want to encourage the practice of undertaking vows. Note in verse 3 that a vow must be uttered (“crossed his lips”), not something that crossed his mind.
The Torah differentiates (vaguely) between a vow ((נדר, and an oath (שבעה). What is the difference? Good question. I have seen a few conflicting answers. One is that a vow is a promise to do something (e.g. promise to study Torah every day) and an oath is a promise to refrain from something permitted under Jewish law (e.g.: not to drink wine). Another possible definition is that a vow refers to a tangible thing that a person either prohibits to himself (e.g.: promise to stop smoking) or promise to take on (e.g., eat more fresh salad every day) and an oath is a promise to either do an act (e.g.: be a better citizen) or refrain from a negative act (e.g.: not to gossip). Once undertaken, a vow or an oath becomes obligatory to carry out. Perhaps for that reason, in contemporary Hebrew, it is not uncommon for someone when making an informal promise, to immediately follow up with a “disclaimer”: בלי נדר (without a vow).
Note that a male making a vow is fully bound to the terms of said vow, even if it was rashly committed. Not so for a dependent young female. Her father or husband can override. What does this tell us about her social status? Vows made by a mature single woman, a widow, or a divorced woman cannot be overridden. While the Torah does give her inherent rights and dignity, she is still in a subservient social status in a male-oriented society. As for slavery (or rather indentured servitude), the Torah deals with the realities of society as it existed at the time, not a fictional utopia. Perhaps the Torah had a limited objective, attempting to ameliorate some of the rough edges of society.
The Talmud discourages the taking of vows or oaths. A truly virtuous person has no need to. Further, by taking a vow, it is as if a person has built himself a personal altar outside of the Holy Temple, a forbidden act. Further, he is looking to separate himself from the rest of Jewish society with his own private rituals.
Chapter 31, Verses 1 through 24 – War against the Midianites
The campaign against the Midianites is especially harsh as their women are held to blame as the instigators of Israelite immoralities and indiscretions. G-d instructs Moses that the Israelites are to take vengeance (נקם נקמת בני ישראל) against the Midianites. Moses in turn orders the Israelites to wreak G-d’s vengeance (לתת נקמת ה’) upon them. When the men returned from battle, Moses was outraged that they spared the females and the children. Moses ordered them to go back and finish the job by slaying all the remaining males and females, sparing only young virgin girls.
Was this bloodbath really necessary? Couldn’t this tragedy have been averted by simply kicking the Moabite and/or Midianite prostitutes out of the Israelite camp and calling it a day? In Leviticus chapter 19 verse 18 we were enjoined not to take vengeance or bear a grudge against kin (לא תקם ולא תטר את בני עמך). True, this prohibition only directly applies to kinfolk, still, shouldn’t that signal a need for restraint generally? Also, note that G-d orders Moses that vengeance is for the Israelites. Moses turns this around and orders the Israelites to wreck G-d’s vengeance against the Midianites. Why?
With our modern sensibilities, the wanton violence, amounting to genocide appalls us. Reality is that this is how wars were fought in ancient times. If you went to war, this is what you did, else the other side did it to you. Perhaps the Torah is stripping war of any romantic or glorious trappings, and that we should think long and hard before engaging in it. This story is also troubling as the Midianites extended shelter to the young Moses when he fled Pharoah’s court. Curiously, even though the Midianites were totally vanquished here, they do appear again, in full force, in the Book of Joshua. Also, we previously saw (Chapter 22) that it was the Moabites that engaged Balaam to curse the Israelites, not the Midianites. Further (Chapter 25), we learned that it was the Moabites, not the Midianites who tempted the Israelites. Why is G-d’s wrath directed at the Midianites; Moab being spared? Rashi posits that the Moabites were acting out of fear while the Midianites were acting out of contempt.
Following the battle, Moses sees the necessity to prescribe a cleansing ritual outside the camp, perhaps as a vehicle to deal with trauma.
Why is Pinchas given command of this operation and not Joshua? Perhaps Moses knew that the zealous or fanatical Pinchas would follow orders where the more spiritual Joshua might balk.
Why is Balaam among the dead (31:8)? Was this a punishment or was he simply caught up in the “crossfire”? Balaam was not a Midianite, and we learned (24:25) that after his misadventures with Balak he returned home which was by the Euphrates (22:5), a long way off so what was he doing here? This is the same Balaam, as in both places he is referred to as son of Beor (בן בעור).
Moses is especially vehement, berating the military officers for sparing the women and their children. In verse 16, Moses states that the women did the bidding of Balaam and thus they should also be zapped. This is possibly from a different tradition than the previous story of Balaam. He orders the officers to finish the job, sparing only the young virgin women, presumably to be intended as brides to the Israelites.
Note the cleansing ritual for utensils. This is the basis for koshering rituals as developed in the Talmud.
Verses 25 through 54 – Dividing up the spoils of war
G-d dictates the rules for dividing up the booty, including the young women who were spared from the slaughter. Note that there were no Israelite casualties in this horrid war against the Midianites. This certainly strains credibility. The officers, but not the ranks, voluntarily offer a gold offering to G-d. Why didn’t the ranks contribute? Was this a class thing, or was it because they bore the brunt of the nasty business of slaughtering the Midianites?
Chapter 32, Verses 1 through 42 – Allocation of conquered lands east of the Jordan
Moses is faced with the fracturing of a united front to conquer Canaan, as the tribes of Reuben and Gad wish to remain in the lands suitable for grazing east of the Jordan River (Gilad). In this instance, instead of falling on his face and calling for a plague from G-d to deal with dissent, Moses shows his wisdom and reaches a reasonable compromise. His response is pragmatic: “… are all your brothers to go to war while you stay here?’’ (האחים יבאו למלחמה ואתה תשבו פה?). He reaches agreement that if the tribes first fulfill their obligation to the nation in the conquest of Canaan, and even be in the vanguard, they will then be free to sojourn east of the Jordan. Moses here shows the advantages of men crafting a win-win situation rather than calling on divine intervention.
Today, Moses could have asked the same of the multitudes of ultra-orthodox young men in Israel that shun their military obligation to the nation.
Curiously, even though they had no part in the discussions or negotiations with Moses, half of the tribe of Manasseh (חצי שבט מנשה) was also assigned a holding in Gilad, the other half settling in an allotment west of the Jordan River. No explanation is given for this allotment.
Parashat Masei
פרשת מסעי
במדבר Numbers 33:1 to 36:13
Chapter 33, Verses 1 through 49 – Recording all the encampments
G-d directed Moses to record the itinerary of all the encampments during the 40-year schlepp. The reason is not given. In addition to the 14 encampments noted in the Torah during the first two years (until the incident of the spies) and the final eight encampments in the fortieth year (after Aaron’s death), the listing includes twenty encampments during the intervening 38 years that are skipped over in the Torah. Was there perhaps an additional book or chapters detailing this long period that is lost to us?
Verses 50 through 56 – Call for ethnic cleansing
General instructions to the Israelites on the eve of their entering Canaan. Call for ethnic cleansing and erasure of all the former inhabitants’ religious sites and objects. G-d warns that failure to do so will result in the peoples being “a thorn in their side” and bring on divine retribution, as indeed, peoples such as the Philistines will be. This is a morally troubling command to our contemporary ears.
Chapter 34, Verses 1 through 15 – Boundaries of the promised land
This section sets the boundaries of the promised land. Israel only realized these expansive boundaries briefly, during the reigns of King David and King Solomon. Note that the geographical description is not inclusive of the two and a half-tribe allotment east of the Jordan that Moses agreed to. Why? Perhaps because these regions were not part of the original allotment, but Moses acceded to allow settlement there as a compromise, to preserve “Shalom Bayit”.
Verses 16 through 29 – Appointment of chieftains
G-d instructs Moses as to appoint a chieftain from each of the tribes to apportion the land. G-d goes as far as to name the chieftains to be appointed. Is an aged and tired Moses being “micromanaged” here?
Chapter 35, Verses 1 through 34 – Towns for the Levites
The Levites do not have any territorial allotments, but they are assigned towns, inclusive of six “cities of refuge” (ערי מקלט). Rabbis have later taken the dictated dimensions of the town’s pasture land (verse 4 – מגרשי הערים) as 1,000 cubits beyond the town wall to define “Techum Shabbatתחום שבת – ” or Sabbath Boundary, that is, enclosing the area within which a person can carry things on Sabbath. A further 1,000 cubits (according to Rashi) or 2,000 cubits (according to Rambam), if properly demarcated and marked, would constitute an “eruv – ערוב”. The actual maximum extent for an eruv is still a matter for rabbinic debate. We have here an early example of town planning. The area of the town is available for building, followed by an area of open space. Modern town planners would call this an “urban growth boundary”. The ideas in this section actually inspired the “Garden City Movement” in late nineteenth century England.
The Torah differentiates between willful homicide (first-degree murder) for which a death sentence is mandatory, and inadvertent death or negligent manslaughter for which the cities of refuge (ערי המקלט) are established. A person (either Israelite or resident alien) guilty of negligent manslaughter can flee to the nearest city of refuge and seek protection from any pursuer bent on vengeance.
A person’s guilt or innocence will be decided by his peers (העדה – the court or the assembly). The Torah does not distinguish between premeditated murder and willful homicide (second degree murder). The manslayer does not get off scot-free as he is in internal exile. His actions still bore consequences. This practice would perhaps serve to mitigate the multi-generational blood feuds that infect many middle eastern societies to this day.
Note that if the manslayer ventures outside the city of refuge before the High Priest dies, he may be slain in a crime of vengeance or vigilante justice. There is no historical or archeological evidence that cities of refuge were ever established.
To charge someone with murder (verse 30) there must be at least two witnesses. The Rabbis of the Talmud further elaborated that the two witnesses must be mature males, unrelated to each other.
A person accused of willful homicide cannot buy his way out of a sentence. Similarly, one accused of inadvertently causing death cannot pay to be exempt from having to flee to a city of refuge for his protection.
Chapter 36, Verses 1 through 13 – Further restrictions on the daughters of Zelophehad
We return to the previously resolved matter of the case of the daughters of Zelophehad. Their clansmen present Moses with an unresolved matter. If any of the daughters marry outside the tribe, their inherited allotment passes to the tribe of the husband. Here again, G-d presents Moses with a solution, albeit an imperfect one to our 21st century sensibilities. They must marry within the tribe so that their inheritance, that would pass to their husbands, remains within the tribe. Just as in the matter of the tribes of Reuben and Gad (Chapter 32), considering the circumstances of the time, compromise here leads to a reasonable solution that may not be ideal, but one that all sides can live with.
At the conclusion of the reading of any of the five books of the Torah, it is customary to recite:
חזק חזק ונתחזק
(Be strong, Be Strong, and we will be strengthened)
Cary Hillebrand was born and raised in Brooklyn. After university (Stony Brook University School of Engineering) Cary went on aliya to Israel. Inducted into the IDF, he performed military service in the Israel Air Force followed by countless tours of reserve duty. In civilian life, he worked for many years on operations and control systems for regional and municipal water systems, both in Israel and in the US. Retired, Cary resides in Cherry Hill with his family, remaining active in the Jewish community. In the past, he chaired Adult Education at M’kor Shalom and then Lifelong Learning at Adath Emanuel. Cary’s interests and hobbies include hiking, reading, Jewish studies, and keeping up on current events. A secular humanist Jew, Cary has a passion for Torah study (go figure!).
Cary can be reached at carycnb@outlook.com
Be the first to comment