Parshath Mattoth-Massë‘ei (Numbers XXX,2-XXXVI,17) 7/9/10

A.

וידבר ד' אל משה לאמר: נקם את נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים אחר תאסף אל עמיך: וידבר משה אל העם לאמר החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא ויהיו על מדין לתת נקמת ד' במדין: אלף למטה אלף למטה לכל מטות ישראל תשלחו לצבא: ותמסרו מאלפי ישראל אלף למטה שנים עשר אלף חלוצי צבא: (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe to say, 'Take the vengeance of the bënei Yisra’él from the Midyanim; after, you will be gathered to your peoples. And Moshe spoke to the people to say, From amongst you men are to be equipped for the army, and they will be upon Midyan to wreak the vengeance of Ha-Shem on Midyan. A thousand per staff, a thousand per staff [elef la-matte] of all the staffs of Israel shall you send to the army. And there shall be given over from the thousands of Israel a thousand per staff, twelve thousand men equipped for the army”; XXXI, 1-5).

Israel had ample reason to wreak vengeance on Midyan, as we learnt in the last two parashoth. However, two oddities stand out in the passage supra which require comment, and suggest that this war was more than it seems on the surface:

(1) The change in language between G-d’s command to Moshe (niqmath bënei Yisra’él) and Moshe’s transmittal of that command to Israel (niqmath Ha-Shem); and

(2) The odd repetition of the phrase elef la-matte, occurring three times in the course of two verses.

B.

Hazal take note of the first issue: הקב"ה אמר נקמת בני ישראל ומשה אמר נקמת ד' במדין. אמר הקב"ה להם אינו אלא דיקו שלכם שגרמו לי להזיק אתכם. אמר משה רבון עולמים אם היינו ערלים או עובדי ע"ז או כופרי מצות לא היו שונאין אותנו ואינן רודפין אחרינו אלא בשביל תורה ומצות שנתת לנו. הלכך הנקמה שלך לתת נקמת ד' במדין: (“The Holy One, Blessed is He said, 'niqmath bënei Yisra’él,' and Moshe said, 'niqmath Ha-Shem bë-Midyan.' Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'It is only your injury which caused Me to hurt you.' Said Moshe, 'Master of the worlds, if we were uncircumcised, or idolators, or deniers of mitzvoth, they would not hate us and persecute us; rather, it is for Torah and mitzvoth which You gave to us. Therefore, the vengeance is Yours, "to wreak the vengeance of Ha-Shem on Midyan"’”; במדבר רבה פכ"ב סי' ב' וע"ע מתנות כהונה שם ד"ה בתנחומא ).

Rashi simply comments שהעומד כנגד ישראל כאלו עומד כנגד הקב"ה (“that one who stands against Israel is as though he stands against the Holy One, Blessed is He.”).

The Sifrei makes another point: that מואב ומדין מימיהם לא עשו שלום זה עם זה שנאמר "המכה את מדין בשדה מואב" וכשבאו להלחם עם ישראל עשו שלום זה עם זה ונלחמו בישראל (“since their beginnings, Mo’av and Midyan had never ,made peace, as it is written, ‘who smote Midyan in the field of Mo’av’ [Genesis XXXVI, 35], and when they came to fight with Israel, they made peace one with the other and fought against Israel”; פרשתנו פיסקא ה' בגירסת הגר"א), and the Nëtziv elaborates: דלכן קינא ד' יותר במדין ממואב משום שהמואבים הראו לישראל פנים של אהבה ולא גלו שנאת לבבם משום שהיו מתיראים שהיו שוללים אותם כו' אבל מדינים לא היו יראים מהם וגלו מצפוני לבבם ונתקוטטו ובזזו אותם וגו' (“that Ha-Shem was more zealous concerning Midyan than Mo’av, because the Mo’avim showed Israel a face of love, and did not reveal the hatred of their heart, because they were afraid of [Israel] that they would annihilate them... But the Midyanim were not afraid of them and revealed the sentiments of their heart and fought and plundered them....”; עמק הנצי"ב שם ד"ה אלא מאת מדינים).

It seems clear that the Midyani animus toward Ha-Shem and His Torah ran very deep and was of ancient origin, even pre-dating the founding of Israel, the Torah-nation, at Sinai, as evident from the Midyani hostility to Yithro, kohén Midyan, when he came to recognize the Most High (cf. Exodus II, 16-17), and from the later Midyani alliance with the equally implacable ‘Amaléq (cf., e.g., Judges VI, 3, I Samuel XIV, 6). It is plain that something very deep and significant was occurring in this war, something beyond a mere reprisal raid. What might it have been?

C.

The account of the Midyani War follows immediately on a passage concerning the laws governing oaths (shëvu‘oth) in Israel, which seems unrelated to the war. Yet, the account of the war begins with vav ha-hibbur, translated “and,” strongly suggesting a connection between the two.

The initial passage is also introduced oddly, Moshe saying, “this is the word (ze ha-davar) which Ha-Shem has commanded.” The Sifrei comments: כשם שנתנבאו כל הנביאים ב"כה אמר" כך נתנבא משה ב"כה אמר" ומוסיף "זה הדבר" (“Just as all the prophets prophesied with ‘Thus said [Ha-Shem]’, so did Moshe prophesy with ‘thus said’, adding ‘ze ha-davar’”; פרשתנו פיסקא א' בגירסת הגר"א).

The Bë’ér Moshe explains that the significance of this addition is that it denotes a revelation to Moshe, on a level far above that of the other prophets (and therefore certainly beyond us), of the metaphysical underpinnings of our universe. The universe came into being through G-d’s utterances, as a cursory review of Genesis I reveals. It continues to exist, and what we are pleased to consider the laws of nature remain consistent, because those utterances, those “words,” endure. This finds allusion in many biblical verses, e.g. לעולם ד' דברך נצב בשמים (“For the universe [lë-‘olam], Ha-Shem, Your word is established in the heavens”; Psalms CXIX, 89), or ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם ודבריו חיים וקיימים לעד (“And the word of our G-d stands for the universe [lë-‘olam] and His words live and exist for ever”; Isaiah XL, 8).

The essence of all physical objects and phenomena in this world, the information content, the DNA, as it were, necessary for them to exist, is contained in the combinations of letters of the words in the Holy Language which describe them, ואלו היו האותיות מסתלקות כרגע ח"ו וחוזרות למקורן היו השמים והארץ אין ואפס ממש והיו כלא היו כלל כו' וכן כל הברואים שבכל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים וגו' (“and if the letters were to vanish for an instant, G-d forbid, and return to their Source, the heavens and the earth would literally be negated and nothing, and would be as though they never were... and so it is with all created things in all the worlds above and below...;עיי' תניא שער היחוד והאמונה פ"א ).

This also applies to the organization of all of the nations; each of them is sustained by the letters, whether that nation has in general a positive function in the world, or a negative one (עיי' תיקוני זהר קט"ז: ). Even in the latter case, ועוד כח אחד של קדושה המחיי' אותם וכו' וכשאנו מסלקים אותו הנקודה המחיי' אותם אז היו ספירות דקליפה נשארים מתים ואין להם חהות (“there is yet a single power of sanctity which sustains them... and if we remove that point which sustains them, then the negative forces remain dead and have no vitality”; פרי עץ חיים שער הקרבנות פ"ה).

This was Moshe’s task, explains the Rebbe; Moshe was the only one who thoroughly understood the combinations of letters which had been twisted and debased by the Midyanim, and was therefore the only one able to clarify those letters and return them to sanctity, thus disabling the very real disruptive capacity of Midyan. The root of nëqama, “vengeance,” נק"ם, implies the primal root קו"ם, “arise, stand up,” שהרי משה שורש הדעת של ישראל, לפיכך ציוה לו השי"ת "נקום נקמת בני ישראל" ויתפרש הלשון "נקום נקמת" על הקמת האותיות הנפולות בידי המדינים (“For Moshe is the root of Israel’s knowledge, therefore Ha-Shem commanded him nëqom niqmath bënei Yisra’él, and the phrase nëqom niqmath is clarified in reference to raising up the letters [haqamath ha-othiyoth] fallen at the hands of the Midyanim”).

Midyan, of Avrahamic origin like Israel, product of his union with Qëtura (cf. Genesis XXV, 1) represented so fundamental a warping of those letters that only Moshe was capable of reaching out and down to untangle the skein of their combinations and restore the letters to their sanctity.

After that it was up to Israel to keep them straight, and that is where the phrase elef la-matte comes in.

D.

The root of the word elef, אל"ף, has several connotations which appear unrelated: There is a sense of primacy or leadership (aluf, “chief”); of intensive, immersive learning and teaching (the verbs alaf and illéf; cf. Job XXXIII, 33, ואאלפך חכמה [“and I taught you wisdom”]); and the number 1,000 (elef). In my humble opinion, the root is indicative of the potential resident in every individual (alef, first letter of the alphabet with a gimatriya of one), which can be multiplied a thousand-fold and rising to leadership through the power of learning, the diligent study of the Torah taught Israel by Moshe. Indeed, Hazal define אל"ף as a notreiqon: א'מת ל'מד פ'יך שתזכה לחיי העה"ב (“Your mouth has learnt truth that you will merit the world to come’; אותיות דר' עקיבא א').

For the stability of the universe is not a given, it is conditional. אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה, G-d told Yirmëyahu, חקות שמים וארף לא שמתי (“If My covenant does not exist by day and by night, I did not set the laws of heaven and earth”; Jeremiah XXXIII, 25; ע"ע עבודה זרה ב:, שבת פ"ח. וזוה"ק ח"ג קצ"ג. וקצ"ח: ). Once Moshe made the world safe for the Torah-nation, the rest is up to us.

We see today that implacable enemies of Israel, Leftists and Muslim fanatics who otherwise have nothing in common, are united in their hatred of Israel, much as Midyan and Mo’av were, (interestingly, the Muslims also originating from the union of Avraham with a woman other than Sara), the Leftists, whose timidity might have prevented them from venting that hatred, now emboldened to do so. The secret of untwisting the skein, of nullifying this unholy partnership, is in our hands; as our parasha teaches us, it was placed there by Moshe, when he fought Midyan.

Parshath Mattoth-Mas‘ei (Numbers XXX,2-XXXVI,13) 7/17/09

A.

וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות לבני ישראל לאמר זה הדבר אשר צוה ד' (“And Moshe spoke to the heads of the staffs [i.e., the tribes] of bënei Yisra’él, to say. Zeh ha-davar, This is the thing/word which Ha-Shem has commanded”). So begins our parasha, and promptly launches into a discussion of the laws pertaining to vows (nëdarim) and oaths (shëvu‘oth).

Rashi quotes the Sifrei on our verse: משה נתנבא ב"כה אמר ד' כחצות הלילה" והנביאים נתנבאו ב"כה אמר ד'" מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון "זה הדבר" (“Moshe prophesied with ‘Thus said Ha-Shem [Ko amar Ha-Shem] at about midnight’ [Exodus XI, 4] and the [other] prophets prophesied with ‘ko amar Ha-Shem’; Moshe was superior to them because he [also] prophesied with the expression ‘Zeh ha-davar’”).

As Rabbi Naftali Tzëvi Yëhuda Berlin (Nëtziv) notes, elsewhere in the Sifrei (עמק הנצי"ב פר' ראה פיסקא י"ז) we learn that Ko amar Ha-Shem is the standard introduction to a prophetic pronouncement, a fact which can be confirmed by simply paging through the books of the prophets in Tanach, where it recurs many times.

The midrash seems to suggest that Moshe’s prophetic superiority is somehow tied to his use of the expression zeh ha-davar instead of, or in addition to, ko amar Ha-Shem. Indeed, the Torah tells us לא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה, “No other prophet arose in Israel like Moshe” (Deuteronomy XXXIV, 10); Moshe’s unique status is on record; but what has zeh ha-davar to do with this?

B.

The Nëtziv comments on our passage in the Sifrei דלשון כה משמע דכה שמע דבר ד' אבל עתה מדבר מפי עצמו כאשר שמע ממש בלא שנוי וכבר נסתלק שפע רוה"ק מהם שהרי כל הנביאים בשעה שחל עליהם הנבואה כשל כח החושים ואין להם פה לדבר כו' אלא שזוכרים מה ששמעו בלי שנוי ומדברים מפי עצמן (“that the term ko means that thus [ko] did [the prophet] hear the word of Ha-Shem, but now is speaking on his own. Just as he had heard without any change, and already the abundance of ruach ha-qodesh [‘the spirit of holy things’] has been removed from them, for all the prophets at the moment prophecy comes into effect on them lose the power of [their] senses and have no ability to speak.... But they remember what they have heard without any change and speak on their own....”).

Thus, “ordinary” nëvu’a takes place in such an altered state that the navi’ is not really in this world, and is unable to sense or communicate in this world; however, the experience leaves an indelible, unforgettable impression upon him, so that he formulates in his own words exactly what he experienced and what he heard as the dëvar Ha-Shem (ע"ע רמב"ם הל' יסודי התורה פ"ז).

The Nëtziv contrasts this with Moshe: אבל משה מדבר והשכינה שורה עליו והיא מדברת מגרונו של משה, נמצא דבר משה עצמו זהו דבר ד' כ"י. וזהו דתניא במכילתא יתרו פרשה ד' "משה ידבר וד' יעננו בקול" מלמד שנתן הקב"ה כח וגבורה במשה והי' הקב"ה מסייעו בקול ובנעימה שהי' משה שומע בו הי' משמיע את ישראל וגו' (“But Moshe would speak whilst the Shëchina suffused him, and [the Shëchina, the “Divine Presence”] spoke through Moshe’s throat, such that the dëvar Moshe itself was the dëvar Ha-Shem, as it were. And this is what is taught in the Mëchilta...‘Moshe speaks and Ha-Shem answers him in voice’ [Exodus XIX, 19], teaching that the Holy One, Blessed is He gave power and strength to Moshe, and the Holy One, Blessed is He was supporting him with voice and tone/inflection, so that Moshe would hear in it and make it heard to Israel....”).

This seems a clear description of the difference between the two, but a little examination reveals that it is only a partial answer; Moshe also prophesied with ko, just as the other prophets did. So, again, what is the difference between the two?

C.

The Maharal mi-Prag provides us with the rest of the story.

Of the two fundamental levels of nëvu’a, the lower, more common one is שנתנבאו בה כל הנביאים על מעשה ד' והנהגתו בעולם לכל אשר נעשה בעולם (“in which all the other prophets prophesied concerning the acts of Ha-Shem and His conduct in the world concerning anything which is done in the world”). In other words, it involves the interpretation and understanding of events and phenomena as they happen in this world. The navi’ is granted a glimpse “behind the curtain,” as it were, enabling him to perceive the metaphysical impetus or initiative which results in phenomena in the physical world. This view “behind the curtain” affords the navi’ both some appreciation of the motivation behind a phenomenon and also of the phenomenon’s broader effects, the “ripples” spreading out through space-time from the original impetus.

והמדריגה של משה רבינו עליו השלום הי' כולל זה וכולל גם כן להתנבאות על המצות והתורה שציוה לו השם יתברך מפיו (“And our teacher Moshe’s level encompassed this and also encompassed the capability to prophesy about the mitzvoth and the Torah which Ha-Shem commanded him directly”).

The meaning of this distinction is profound: כי המדריגה הראשונה בדברים אשר יחדש ויעשה בעולם והמדריגה של משה רבינו עליו השלום היא התורה מה שהשם יתברך רוצה שיהי' נוהג תמיד בעולם מבלי שנוי והוא סדר מציאות כללי בעולם (“For the first level concerns dëvarim which [Ha-Shem] originates and does in the world, and our teacher Moshe’s level is the Torah, the way in which Ha-Shem wishes the world to be managed constantly, unchangingly; that is, the general order of reality in the world”).

Once the impetus perceived in the first level of nëvu’a makes its impact on our world, it proceeds according to what we consider the “laws of nature.” These are the generally very consistent manifestations of Ha-Shem’s will in running His world. What we understand to be “miracles” contrary to nature are singularities built into reality from the beginning, located in space-time along line-segments on the four axes; when the phenomenon has run its course and reached the terminus on the time axis toward which it is vectored, the “laws of nature” revert to their “normal” dispensation. The impetus itself, originating in the atemporality of the ‘alma dë-qushta, is perceived to make its impact in the past, present, or future/potential by our time-bound senses.

Moshe was also able to perceive such events, of course, and when he did, he, too, spoke in terms of ko amar Ha-Shem, though even when he did, his perceptions were made on a higher level (עיי' למשל רש"י לשמות י"א ד' ופי' רא"ם שם). But when he accessed his true potential, and spoke in terms of zeh ha-davar (or, as the Nëtziv also points out, such equivalents as zoth chuqqath ha-Torah, “this is the law of the Torah”; cf. e.g. Numbers XIX, 2), he did something far deeper, כי בתורה אשר נתן השם יתברך על ידי משה סידר את ישראל בסדר הכללי, לא בענינים המתחדשים בפרטים מן הסבה הראשונה (“for by means of the Torah which Ha-Shem gave through Moshe He set up Israel in the general order, not [merely] in terms of matters which originate in detail from the First Cause”).

Unlike the visions of the other prophets, which occur in terms of the physical world, Moshe’s were מופשטים מן החומר ומושכלים ביותר (“free of materiality and most abstract”), ובשביל זה הי' מתנבא "בזה הדבר" כו' כי מצות התורה הם בענינים בוללים לכך הם יותר מושכלים (“and for this reason he would prophesy with zeh ha-davar... for the Torah’s mitzvoth concern comprehensive things, therefore they are more abstract”).

Yet, as we all know, the mitzvoth by and large mandate concrete actions, often involving material objects; so what does the Maharal mean by “abstract”?

D.

Chazal famously tell us; "הליכות עולם לו" אל תקרי הליכות רלר הלהכות (“‘The ways [halichoth] of the world are his’ [Habakkuk III, 6], read not halichoth but halachoth”; מגילה כ"ה:). The halachoth, the practical details of mitzva-observance, are natural laws, part of the warp and woof of the cosmos, as much as, say, gravity or the law of conservation of energy are.

What Moshe was doing as he transmitted Torah to Israel in this constant, uniquely intense prophetic state, was wiring Israel into the cosmos, as it were, סידר את ישראל בסדר הכללי, מה שרוצה השם יתברך שיהי' נוהג תמיד בעולם , as the Maharal said supra. As a result, our performance of mitzvoth in this material world provides a feedback loop into the metaphysical realm, the ‘alma dë-qushta, for which provision was made from the very beginning: "אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי" כו' מלמד שהתנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית, ואמר אם ישראל מקבלין את תורתי מוטב, ואם לאו אני אחזיר אתכם לתהו ובהו “‘If My covenant is not [in effect] by day and by night, I have not set the laws of heaven and earth” [Jeremiah XXXIII, 25]... teaching that the Holy One, Blessed is He made a condition with Creation and said: If Israel accept My Torah, it is made well; and if not, I shall return you to chaos!”; עבודה זרה ג.). All of Creation was conditional and provisional until ma‘a-mad Har Sinai, when Moshe began hooking up the connections for the feedback loop already prepared for Israel.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ד', this is what G-d commanded, and Israel’s ability to “create facts” through the agency of nëdarim and shëvu‘oth which must be carried out exemplifies the feedback capacity.

Parshath Mattoth (Numbers XXX,2-XXXII,42)

A.

ומקנה רב היו לבני ראובן ולבני גד עצום מאד ויראו את ארץ יעזר ואת ארץ גלעד והנה המקום מקום מקנה: ויבאו בני גד ובני ראובן אל משה כו' ויאמרו אם מצאנו חן בעיניך יתן את הארץ הזאת לעבדיך לאחזה אל תעבירנו את הירדן: ויאמר משה לבני גד ולבני ראובן האחיכם יבאו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה (“And the bnei Re’uvén and bnei Gad had abundant livestock, very many, and they saw the land of Ya‘zer and the land of Gil‘ad and behold, the place was a place for livestock. And the bnei Gad and bnei Re’uvén came to Moshe.... And they said, 'If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants for a holding; do not make us cross the Jordan.' And Moshe said to the bnei Gad and bnei Re’uvén, 'Will your brothers go to war and you will sit here!?'” XXXII, 1-7).

The incident cries out to be explained. Whatever could have been the thoughts of the bnei Gad and bnei Re’uvén in making this request, not least in light of their certain knowledge (as Moshe went on to point out) that their parents’ generation had perished in the desert because they had disparaged the Holy Land and mutinied against the idea of conquering it? It seems unlikely that the real issue was their abundance of cattle; after all, all of the tribes of Israel had abundant cattle. Rather, it appears that the issue at hand was their reluctance to cross the Jordan, and it is that, and not their cattle, which Moshe seems to address in his rebuke.

Why, then, were these two particular tribes reluctant to cross the Jordan? And whilst we are asking questions, what is the significance of the change in order, the first verse referring to Re’uven and Gad, but the subsequent ones to Gad and Re’uven?

B.

Ramban asks our second question, and suggests that the bnei Re’uvén are mentioned first in the first verse as a matter of right, כי הוא הבכור ובן הגבירה וכן כשיספר הכתוב המעשה הזה יאמר "ולראובני ולגדי נתתי" (“For [Re’uven] was the first-born, and son of the senior wife, and so when Scripture tells this story [elsewhere] it says, ‘And to the Re’uveni and to the Gaddi I have given....’ [Deuteronomy III, 16]”). However, he goes on, the actual idea of settling in Transjordan had originated with Gad, and it was therefore the bnei Gad who took the lead in speaking to Moshe about the matter. Furthermore, he notes, Gad was militarily stronger than Re’uven (cf. ibid., XXXII, 20), and unafraid to dwell alone east of the Jordan (ע"ע אבן עזרא ובעל הטורים כאן).

The Kli Yaqar, for its part, notes the juxtaposition of the phrase עצום מאד, “very many” to the bnei Gad, and sees in it an allusion to the fact that Gad was richer in cattle than Re’uven, adding that their relative wealth imparted to them a certain chutzpa, a forwardness or assertiveness which was not altogether seemly, כי ע"י העושר הוא מתרומם (“for because of [their] wealth they were exalting themselves”).

This should serve to set the stage for understanding the first question.

C.

The Torah appears to mark the center of the epic conflict between Ya‘aqov’s original twelve sons by referring to the kthoneth ha-passim, the “striped coat” which Ya‘aqov had awarded Yosef (Genesis XXXVII, 3). Talmudic sources, for their part, tell us that the conflict centered on Ya‘aqov’s appointing Yosef his bechor, his “first-born” (עיי' למשל ברכות ז:). The nexus between the two may be found in Rashi’s comment on Genesis XXV, 31 that, before Mattan Torah, the principal issue at stake in primogeniture was the kehunna, and the Chazal confirm that Yosef’s distinctive garment was meant to mark that office (עיי' תורה שלימה לבראשית ל"ז ג' בשם מדרשים וירושלמי מגילה פ"א הי"ב דבגדי עשו היו בגדי כהונה וכתונת הפסים שנתנה ליוסף היתה ביניהם, וע"ע ערכין ט"ז.).

If we turn next to Numbers III, 12 we learn that a bechor for purposes of the kehunna, is defined as a פטר רחם, i.e. first-born not so much from the father’s side as from the mother’s (ועיי' רש"י שם). This means that Ya‘aqov had, in fact, four possible bechoroth: Re’uven ben Le’a, Gad ben Zilpa, Yosef ben Rachel, and Dan ben Bilha. Since Zilpa and Bilha were originally the maidservants of Le’a and Rachel, respectively, we can discern that the essential conflict over the bechora was between the “house of Le’a” (on the grounds that she was Ya‘aqov’s first, principal wife and Re’uven her bechor), and that of Rachel (on the grounds that she was Ya‘aqov’s true love, the only woman whom he had wished and intended to marry). It was Ya‘aqov, of course, who decided the winner of the argument.

The relevance of this ancient dispute to our parasha becomes clear from a comment of the midrash on Psalms LXXXVII, 13: הירדן לא נקרע אלא בזכותו של יוסף ותולדות יעקב לא באו אלא בזכותו של יוסף (“The Jordan was split only in the merit of Yosef, and Ya‘qov’s descendants came [across the river into the Holy Land] only in the merit of Yosef;” ילקוט שמעוני ח"ב רמז תתי"ז).

D.

Now we can understand the reluctance of Re’uven and Gad to chance crossing the Jordan.

Aware that the crossing was dependent on the merit of their old antagonist, Yosef, they could hardly be certain that that merit extended to them. They might never get across the river; worse, they might be caught in it and drowned.

Inspired by their abundant cattle, Gad looked around them at the lush pastures of Transjordan and conceived a solution to the problem. They convinced Re’uven, and took the matter of staying east of the river with Moshe.

Hearing their case, Moshe assured them that their fears were groundless; like their brothers, did they not wish to participate in the great mitzva of kibbush ha-aretz, the conquest of the Holy Land? If so, they could rest assured that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין, those embarked upon a mitzva are not harmed (עיי' זוה"ק ח"ג רע"ג. שמאמר זה הלכה למשה מסיני, וע"ע פסחים ח: ).

The bnei Gad and bnei Re’uvén responded enthusiastically that, if so, they would spearhead the assault, leaving behind their women, children, and cattle in Transjordan. But what of their return? After completion of the conquest, at war’s end, they would be making yerida, leaving the Holy Land for the pastures which had been wrested from Sichon and ‘Og. What zechuth would they have to see them safely back over the river?

ויתן להם משה לבני גד ולבני ראובן ולחצי שבט מנשה בן יוסף וגו' (“And Moshe gave [the land] to the bnei Gad, the bnei Re’uvén, and half of the tribe of M’nashe ben Yosef....” v. 33). If they would not have safe passage over the river in their own merit, they would surely have it accompanied by. Yosef’s descendants. This, I believe, is why M’nashe was added to the Transjordanian settlers, and why the verse seemingly unnecssarily mentions M’nashe’s father, as though we did not already know who M’nashe was.

Our story is a cautionary tale which goes to show how deep machloqeth, strife and division within Israel, can run, how its echoes can reverberate, even amongst succeeding generations, centuries later, in circumstances of which the original ba‘alei ha-machloqeth could hardly conceive.

Parshath Mattoth-Mass’êi (Numbers XXX,1-XXXVI,12) 7/13/07

A.

Divinely commanded to settle the score with their Midyani adversaries, Israel defeats them in battle: ואת מלכי מדין הרגו על חלליהם וכו' ואת בלעם בן בעור הרגו בחרב (“And the kings of Midyan they slew along with [the rest of] their fallen...and Bil’am ben Be’or they slew with the sword”; XXXI, 8). However, Bil’am did not meet his end during the fighting; rather, the Sifrei informs us, ר' נתן אומר בב"ד הרגוהו שנאמ' "ואת בלעם בן בעור הקוסם הרגו בני ישראל בחרב וגו'" (“Rabbi Nathan says, 'By order of a court they executed him, as it is said, "And Bil’am ben Be’or, the wizard, the bnei Yisra’él killed with the sword...." [Joshua XIII, 22]'” פרשת מטות פיסקא ה'). In short, Bil’am was tried by Moshe’s Sanhedrin, convicted, and executed.

The Êmeq ha-Netziv, commenting on the above from the Sifrei, notes ומדכתיב "הקוסם" למדנו שדנוהו כמחשף ודעת ר"נ שב"נ הוזהרו על הכישוף כו' ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף ומכש"כ מכשף דריה"ג סובר דדינו אפילו בישראל בסייף וגו' (“And from what is written, “the wizard,” we learn that they tried him as a m’chashéf [‘sorcerer’], and [that] in Rabbi Nathan’s opinion bnei Noach are admonished concerning kishuf [‘sorcery’]... and they are only executed by the sword; and especially a m’chashéf, since Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili holds that he is sentenced to [die by the sword] even in Israel....” עיי' סנהדרין דף נ"ו: ותוספתא דע"ז פ"ט לדעת רבי נתן, וסנהדרין ס"ז. לדעת רבי יוסי הגלילי ).

So the Netziv concludes that Bil’am’s sentence was justified. But was it?

B.

Elsewhere in the Talmud, we discover that Bil’am’s relationship with his athon (“female donkey”) was rather more intimate than it should have been. When the athon miraculously spoke on reaching Balaq’s camp, it blurted out, amongst other things, שאני עושה לך רכיבות ביום ואישות בליליה (“that [she] gave rides to [him] by day and carnal relations by night;” עבודה זרה ד:).

Now, the mishna tells us of Arba Mithoth Béyth Din, sqila (“stoning”), sréfa (“burning”), hereg (“death by the sword”), and cheneq (“strangulation”), in order from most severe to least severe, four death sentences which the Torah mandates can be administered by the Sanhedrin (סנהדרין מ"ט:).

Noting this, we move on a bit in the same massechta and find: אלו הן הנסקלין, הבא על האם ועל אשת האב, ועל הכלה, ועל הזכור, ועל הבהמה וגו' (“These are the ones who are stoned: One who has relations with his mother, or with his father’s wife, or with his daughter-in-law, or with a male, or with a beast....” שם נ"ג.).

Finally, we take note of one more eventuality: מי שנתחייב שתי מיתות נידון בחמורה כו' ר, יוסי אומר נידון בזיקה הראשונה שבאה עליו (“One who has incurred two death sentences, the more severe one is executed.... Rabbi Yossi says, 'The first instance which he incurred is executed;'” שם פ"א.).

Now let us think a bit: Regardless of whether we hold like the tanna qama (“first authority”) or like Rabbi Yossi in the last mishna, the result should be the same: Sqila is considered more severe than hereg, and presumably Bil’am’s relationship with the athon predated the kishuf in which he engaged concerning Israel; Bil’am, it seems, should have been liable for sqila rather than hereg.

At this point, the learned reader will ask to call a halt to the proceedings: Bil’am, after all, was a ben Noach, not a member of Israel, ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף, as the Netziv himself writes: Bnei Noach are only subject to a sentence of hereg, the other three mithoth Béyth Din can only apply to someone who is subject to Torah. So why should we engage in any speculation concerning Bil’am’s sentence?

When I first read the Netziv’s comment, I was bothered by one thing: Why did he continue, after telling us that Bnei Noach are only subject to hereg, to tell us that Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili holds that “even in Israel” a m’chashéf is executed by hereg. What relevance does it have, if Bil’am was a ben Noach and not a member of Israel?

C.

The answer, it seems to me, lies in the unique juncture in history which the events surrounding Mattan Torah represent.

Noach, on leaving the teiva, was given seven mitzvoth: He and all of his descendants were forbidden to engage in idolatry, forbidden to curse G-d (into which category Rabbi Nathan and others place kishuf), to engage in bloodshed, in sexual impropriety, to expropriate another’s property, or to eat part of a living animal, and enjoined to establish courts of justice to adjudicate these matters and such disputes as might arise amongst them (רמב"ם הל' מלכים פ"ט ה"א).

This was Noach’s covenant with G-d. Over the next three centuries, fidelity to this original covenant rapidly faded amongst most of Noach’s descendants.

Into this world, the Patriarchs, beginning with Avraham, were born. Already fervent observers of the Noachide covenant due, if nothing else, to their education in the yeshiva which had been established by Shem and Ever, they were unlike the others in their respective generations, and yearned for greater spiritual heights. Their intense longing for dveiquth, for oneness with Ha-Shem, gained them early access to the Torah, even before the moment which had been Divinely foreordained for it to come into the world, and be formally commanded.

One by one, the Patriarchs and the shvatim, Ya’aqov’s sons, assumed wholly voluntarily and enthusiastically the spiritual discipline and consequent obligations of the Torah, making them gérei tzedeq of a sort, righteous converts (עיי' גור ארי' לבראשית מ"ו י'). The spiritual tools of Torah observance enabled the patriarchs (and the matriarchs) to scale dizzying heights of spiritual accomplishment. As a reading of Genesis demonstrates time and again, they were nevi’im, prophets, in close, frequent contact with the Divine.

Torah sources tell us that, just before Mattan Torah, G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the world, before finally bestowing it on Israel (עבודה זרה ב:, זוה"ק ח"ג קצ"ב.). In preparation, therefore, should the nations have accepted it as Israel did, נביא הי' להם לאוה"ע כמשה, זה בלעם בן בעור (“The nations of the world had a prophet like Moshe; this was Bil’am ben Be’or;”במדבר רבה פי"ד סי' ל"ד, ע"ע מדרש תנחומא פר' צו א').

But, as already stated, nevu’a, prophecy, is a major spiritual accomplishment, one which requires and presupposes careful adherence to Torah practices, with all of the proper intentions and mental attitudes. As the Torah tells us, the patriarchs engaged in such practices. And, the midrash tells us, Bil’am, too, asserted that he observed the Torah (עיי' ספר פנינים יקרים בשמ המדרש ).

If Bil’am’s assertion to the authorities in Mo’av that he was Torah-observant had ever been true, this might serve to explain the source of his prophetical greatness as well. It would also mean, as with the patriarchs and shvatim, that at some stage of his life he was a gér tzedeq like them, and therefore, voluntarily, subject to Torah law. Had this “conversion” been at all sincere, it would also mean that his subsequent transgressions were also subject to Torah, and the Arba mithoth béyth din.

Herein, I believe, lies the significance of the Netziv’s aside, that “even in Israel”, a m’chashéf is liable for hereg.

So, if Bil’am had indeed subjected himself to the Torah, as we have suggested, and not merely to the seven Noachide commandments, why was he not sentenced to sqila because of the athon?
Because it was that unique athon.

Elsewhere in the Talmud, we find a discussion of possible birth defects, and the status of a fetus afflicted with one or another of them, where we learn: הכל מודים גופו תייש ופניו אדם, אדם (“Everyone agrees that [if] its body is a goat and its face human, [it is] human;” נדה כ"ג:). The reasoning is that the status agrees with the shape of the face; the superiority of a human being over an animal lies in the human ability to use language, and language requires the structures of the human face (רש"י שם דה"מ גופו תייש ובבראשית פ"ב ז'). Near the beginning of the discussion, Tosafoth clarify that the major question at issue in the status of each case is אם הרובע חייב סקילה כדין הבא על הבהמה (”If one who has relations [with it] is subject to sqila, like the sentence of one who has relations with a beast;” שם כ"ג. דה"מ ולאתסורי).

The unique, miraculous athon of Bil’am had been created with the power of speech; it was hence arguably similar to the case in the above gmara, the body of a beast with a human face, in which case, it seems, Moshe’s béyth din apparently ruled it human, for this purpose, and so Bil’am was acquitted on this count, and not sentenced to sqila, leaving him open to the sentence of hereg for kishuf.

D.

It remains for us to reflect a bit on how it was that Bil’am, who, the midrash asserts, had been a navi “like Moshe,” had sunk so low, whilst concerning Moshe the Torah testifies: ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה אשר ידעו ד' פנים אל פנים (“And there did not arise in Israel another prophet like Moshe, whom Ha-Shem knew face to face;” Deuteronomy XXXIII, 10). How had Moshe reached such a pinnacle of human perfection, and his counterpart Bil’am sunk so low?

The answer, I believe, lies at least in part in the following analogy: Imagine a young rabbi, a true talmid chacham, earnest and fervently observant himself, who accepts the leadership of a congregation of âm-horatzim, ignorant, lax in observance, and preoccupied with materialistic goals. Unless that young rabbi is a most outstanding and charismatic leader, and succeeds in relatively short order in transforming at least part of his congregation, he will be brought down by the congregation, and may even, over time, come to accept their norms and standards as his. On the other hand, his colleague who accepts a position in a thriving, vibrant Jewish community of learned, studious individuals, thirsty for Torah, will flourish, and will be elevated to even greater heights of achievement by the challenges posed by such a zealous congregation who take what he says seriously and are themselves earnestly ever striving upwards.

The first “rabbi” was Bil’am; the second, Moshe. Each came to embody the spirit and aspirations of his respective “congregation,” the nations of the world for Bil’am, and Israel for Moshe.