Dear Rabbi,
After I read the entire parshah of Matot-Massei, the first thought
that popped into my head was ”the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".
If I may reverse the Seventh and First Aliyahs, I will explain why I summed up part of the parshah the way I did. In the Seventh Aliyah, which by the way is a further explanation of last week’s parshah (so maybe I am not exactly skipping ahead), G‑d instructed Moses to give the daughters of the deceased Tzelafchad his portion in the land of Israel. The elders of Tzelafchad’s tribe now protested that this would cause Tzelafchad’s grandsons—who could possibly be of another tribe—to inherit their mother’s properties, thus possibly transferring land from the portion of their tribe to another. G‑d therefore instructs Tzelafchad’s daughters to marry men from their own tribe, so that the land they inherit will remain in their ancestral tribe.
Forgetting the incest this conjures up, the Almighty is adamant about allowing the females of a certain tribe, the right to keep the land that they will inherit, a truly radical thought for its time. Yet at the same time in the First Aliyah, we are shown the importance of a vow and how it cannot be broken by either a man or a woman, except under certain circumstances, a husband or father can annul vows made by his wife or daughter. This tolerance of a man overruling a woman with something as sacred as a vow just does not sit very well with me. I know you are going to come back with the line of “you have to understand that when the Torah was written, it was during a time of utter paternal dominance”, but then why does G-d allow for such a radical thought of a woman inheriting the land which is in the land of Canaan and therefor most sacred?
Speaking of our Lord and the person that spoke for Him, what is the rationale behind the killing of the Midian women that were captured after the war with the Midianites? I know the reason given was that those that had to be killed were involved in the seduction of the Israelites, but given everything I am told over and over again (see the paragraph above), it was a male dominated world at the time, so why is it beyond a possibility that these women did what they did at the command of their male “leaders”? For that matter, why are the Israelite men given a pass when all they could do was “think below the belt” when they took up with these women?
This parshah also could also be considered the cause of much of the unrest that is a part of the history of the Middle East. As a Zionist, I firmly believe that land that was described in this parshah is ours as determined by G-d, but what about the tribes of Reuben and Gad and their request to receive the land east of the Jordan River, which was granted by Moses after they agreed to lead the Israelites into battle to take the land of Canaan. Doesn’t this act as the claim for the Western Bank?
And while I am drawing up my own conclusions, let us examine the instructions of the Almighty in taking the land of Canaan, specifically at Numbers 33:52, wherein the following is stated:
“you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their temples, destroy their molten idols, and demolish their high places.”
It is very clear that those that were inhabiting the land must go and take the reference to the Midian women discussed above as the explicit guidance of what must be done. What really struck me in this Fifth Aliyah was the following at Numbers 33:55:
“But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle.”
Given what has been going on for the past seventy-three years, and for that matter all of the years from when we first entered the Promised Land, could there be any more prophetic words ever written?
I could go on with comments about other aspects of the parshah like the “Cities of Refuge”, but I will leave you to comment on a recurring occurrence, starting in Genesis and the creation of the world to what happens in the Fourth Aliyah and the description of recounting of the journeys of the Jews in the desert, the 42 journeys which took them from Egypt to the banks of the Jordan. Descriptions of how the High Priest is to be dressed goes on for whole parshahs but an amazing forty year history is described in one aliyah within a parshah. Wouldn’t you have liked some more detail as to what took place at each spot along the way? This is where your reliance on a Midrash can be explored and even expanded on to this very day.
If I may reverse the Seventh and First Aliyahs, I will explain why I summed up part of the parshah the way I did. In the Seventh Aliyah, which by the way is a further explanation of last week’s parshah (so maybe I am not exactly skipping ahead), G‑d instructed Moses to give the daughters of the deceased Tzelafchad his portion in the land of Israel. The elders of Tzelafchad’s tribe now protested that this would cause Tzelafchad’s grandsons—who could possibly be of another tribe—to inherit their mother’s properties, thus possibly transferring land from the portion of their tribe to another. G‑d therefore instructs Tzelafchad’s daughters to marry men from their own tribe, so that the land they inherit will remain in their ancestral tribe.
Forgetting the incest this conjures up, the Almighty is adamant about allowing the females of a certain tribe, the right to keep the land that they will inherit, a truly radical thought for its time. Yet at the same time in the First Aliyah, we are shown the importance of a vow and how it cannot be broken by either a man or a woman, except under certain circumstances, a husband or father can annul vows made by his wife or daughter. This tolerance of a man overruling a woman with something as sacred as a vow just does not sit very well with me. I know you are going to come back with the line of “you have to understand that when the Torah was written, it was during a time of utter paternal dominance”, but then why does G-d allow for such a radical thought of a woman inheriting the land which is in the land of Canaan and therefor most sacred?
Speaking of our Lord and the person that spoke for Him, what is the rationale behind the killing of the Midian women that were captured after the war with the Midianites? I know the reason given was that those that had to be killed were involved in the seduction of the Israelites, but given everything I am told over and over again (see the paragraph above), it was a male dominated world at the time, so why is it beyond a possibility that these women did what they did at the command of their male “leaders”? For that matter, why are the Israelite men given a pass when all they could do was “think below the belt” when they took up with these women?
This parshah also could also be considered the cause of much of the unrest that is a part of the history of the Middle East. As a Zionist, I firmly believe that land that was described in this parshah is ours as determined by G-d, but what about the tribes of Reuben and Gad and their request to receive the land east of the Jordan River, which was granted by Moses after they agreed to lead the Israelites into battle to take the land of Canaan. Doesn’t this act as the claim for the Western Bank?
And while I am drawing up my own conclusions, let us examine the instructions of the Almighty in taking the land of Canaan, specifically at Numbers 33:52, wherein the following is stated:
“you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their temples, destroy their molten idols, and demolish their high places.”
It is very clear that those that were inhabiting the land must go and take the reference to the Midian women discussed above as the explicit guidance of what must be done. What really struck me in this Fifth Aliyah was the following at Numbers 33:55:
“But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle.”
Given what has been going on for the past seventy-three years, and for that matter all of the years from when we first entered the Promised Land, could there be any more prophetic words ever written?
I could go on with comments about other aspects of the parshah like the “Cities of Refuge”, but I will leave you to comment on a recurring occurrence, starting in Genesis and the creation of the world to what happens in the Fourth Aliyah and the description of recounting of the journeys of the Jews in the desert, the 42 journeys which took them from Egypt to the banks of the Jordan. Descriptions of how the High Priest is to be dressed goes on for whole parshahs but an amazing forty year history is described in one aliyah within a parshah. Wouldn’t you have liked some more detail as to what took place at each spot along the way? This is where your reliance on a Midrash can be explored and even expanded on to this very day.
Shalom,
Mordecai
Mordecai
Dear Mordecai,
The phrase “The Lord giveth
and the Lord taketh away” is, of course, what we recite at funerals. It is one
of the few instances in which old English works better than modern English.
You point out a terrific contrast between the seventh and first aliyot regarding the subject of women. How does the same text that advances the idea that women should own property present such a retrograde view of women and responsibility? I think we can say with some confidence that the Torah is not a feminist document. Given that we live in a feminist era, we should – as you do – find the passage about vows jarring. I don’t think the purpose of studying Torah is making excuses for it. (This is called apologetics.) We have to be honest, as you are, with what we don’t like in the Torah. Its authority over us at this point is something that we choose, so the consequences of something retrograde being in the Torah is not nearly as consequential as it was in times past – say two hundred years ago.
You ask hard questions about the incident with the Midianites. You press the text to be logical, and it isn’t. Passages like the one about the Midianites and the order to kill their women should give anyone who believes the Torah was written word for word by G-d pause. What we see here is the human hand in the construction of our holiest document. To my mind, the whole section about the Midianites bears the imprint of human beings.
I believe you mean the Eastern Bank – that which is east of the Jordan – or are you referring to the “West Bank.” What’s interesting is that following the Balfour Declaration, the land that Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Menasseh became open to Jewish settlement. After World War I, the British gave the land east of the Jordan River to the Arab leader from Mecca and Medina who was ousted in the internecine struggle for leadership among the Arabs in the region surrounding those cities. In 1922, the British, having been awarded by the League of Nations the Mandate for Palestine, forbid the Jews from settling there. Instead they set up the Kingdom of Transjordan under the aforementioned Arab leader.
I would not have favored driving all the Palestinians out in the War of Independence. The Arab Israelis present one set of challenges and the Palestinians another. If you read the Book of Joshua, you will see that Israel did not drive every nation out. In fact, much of the Books of Judges and Samuel I and II are about the ongoing battles between bnei Yisrael and the nations still in the Land.
You raise a fascinating point about the respective lengths of the passages about the High Priest’s clothes and the 42 stops bnei Yisrael made. Where the Torah is brief and where it is lengthy is always intriguing. Apparently, the 42 journey points over 40 years did not involve enough sacred history to be recorded.
Rather than focus on that, I’d like to talk about another topic that comes up in our parsha, which is money. Reuben and Gad want to settle on the eastern bank of the Jordan River because that land is better for their property. Moses is critical of them placing such emphasis on their property, their wealth. Money is a regular topic. It’s on the news, neighbors discuss, strangers exchange it. We are selling our synagogue and consolidating because of a wont of money. Money has been an ever-present issue for me even though I never lacked it. As you know, I grew up in Scarsdale, and while many families were much richer than ours, when you live in Scarsdale, you have gained a significant amount of wealth. Perhaps because I grew up in the presence of wealth, I pursued a career in which money is supposed to be secondary or tertiary. Yet money is a part of my job, too. You know that as well as anyone since I negotiated my contract with you! I’m curious how you approach the issue of money.
You point out a terrific contrast between the seventh and first aliyot regarding the subject of women. How does the same text that advances the idea that women should own property present such a retrograde view of women and responsibility? I think we can say with some confidence that the Torah is not a feminist document. Given that we live in a feminist era, we should – as you do – find the passage about vows jarring. I don’t think the purpose of studying Torah is making excuses for it. (This is called apologetics.) We have to be honest, as you are, with what we don’t like in the Torah. Its authority over us at this point is something that we choose, so the consequences of something retrograde being in the Torah is not nearly as consequential as it was in times past – say two hundred years ago.
You ask hard questions about the incident with the Midianites. You press the text to be logical, and it isn’t. Passages like the one about the Midianites and the order to kill their women should give anyone who believes the Torah was written word for word by G-d pause. What we see here is the human hand in the construction of our holiest document. To my mind, the whole section about the Midianites bears the imprint of human beings.
I believe you mean the Eastern Bank – that which is east of the Jordan – or are you referring to the “West Bank.” What’s interesting is that following the Balfour Declaration, the land that Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Menasseh became open to Jewish settlement. After World War I, the British gave the land east of the Jordan River to the Arab leader from Mecca and Medina who was ousted in the internecine struggle for leadership among the Arabs in the region surrounding those cities. In 1922, the British, having been awarded by the League of Nations the Mandate for Palestine, forbid the Jews from settling there. Instead they set up the Kingdom of Transjordan under the aforementioned Arab leader.
I would not have favored driving all the Palestinians out in the War of Independence. The Arab Israelis present one set of challenges and the Palestinians another. If you read the Book of Joshua, you will see that Israel did not drive every nation out. In fact, much of the Books of Judges and Samuel I and II are about the ongoing battles between bnei Yisrael and the nations still in the Land.
You raise a fascinating point about the respective lengths of the passages about the High Priest’s clothes and the 42 stops bnei Yisrael made. Where the Torah is brief and where it is lengthy is always intriguing. Apparently, the 42 journey points over 40 years did not involve enough sacred history to be recorded.
Rather than focus on that, I’d like to talk about another topic that comes up in our parsha, which is money. Reuben and Gad want to settle on the eastern bank of the Jordan River because that land is better for their property. Moses is critical of them placing such emphasis on their property, their wealth. Money is a regular topic. It’s on the news, neighbors discuss, strangers exchange it. We are selling our synagogue and consolidating because of a wont of money. Money has been an ever-present issue for me even though I never lacked it. As you know, I grew up in Scarsdale, and while many families were much richer than ours, when you live in Scarsdale, you have gained a significant amount of wealth. Perhaps because I grew up in the presence of wealth, I pursued a career in which money is supposed to be secondary or tertiary. Yet money is a part of my job, too. You know that as well as anyone since I negotiated my contract with you! I’m curious how you approach the issue of money.
Shalom,
Rabbi
Dear Rabbi,
Was the choice of the tribes of Reuben and Gad driven by the incentive of money or was it because they chose to deal with live stock and the land on the other side of the Jordan River was not suited to their line of work? Rabbi, from what I know of you, which granted is not all that much, you had a calling within you and you ran it. Although money is something we all need, some of us chose a particular vocational field because that is what they wanted to do.
To answer your question about me, I will lead with a joke. An elderly Jewish man was struck by a car and when the ambulance arrived to render him aid, the the EMS responder bent over him and asked "How are you doing?" The elderly Jew looked up and in a distinctive Yiddish accent, answered, "I make a living."
I have always been fascinated with the law. At a young age my father asked me what I wanted to do when I grew up. I was going to be cute and state that I would play third base for the Yankees, but I knew that wasn't realistic and I said I wanted to be like Arthur Goldberg. My father was astonished at my answer and asked if I even knew who Arthur Goldberg was. Without any hesitation I told him that he was a great labor lawyer that was in fact the Secretary of Labor in the then President Kennedy's cabinet. The law to me was a sense of power. If I knew what the law was, I could use it to my advantage. Money was not my reason for becoming a lawyer but as the elderly Jew lying on the ground stated to the EMS responder, "I make a living."
Shalom,
Mordecai
Dear Mordecai,
What a terrific joke! Yes, I responded to a call from within, but I do wonder whether I was able to hear this call because of the financial comfort I had growing up. You are being generous with Reuben and Gad. If you read their dialogue with Moses carefully, you will note that they mention their livestock before they mention their children and in response, Moses corrects them and mentions their children before their livestock. My views of money have changed dramatically in the last decade. I suppose because of the antisemitic stereotypes around Jews and money, I feared money for a long time. Now, I can see that everybody thinks about money, but only the Jews are identified with it because of certain hang-ups in Western culture about money as opposed to land (property) and title (aristocracy).
Shalom,
Rabbi
Rabbi
Comments
Post a Comment