From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To:            yhe-parsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       PARSHA -42: Parashat Matot-Masei
                   
       
                  PARASHOT MATOT-MASEI

      Moshe's Speech to Gad and Reuven (32:6-15) -
         Justified Rebuke or a Misunderstanding?
                           
                  By Rav Elchanan Samet

a. WAS MOSHE'S REACTION JUSTIFIED?

      In  chapter 32 of parashat Matot, the tribes of Gad
and Reuven present their request to Moshe:
   (5)  "If  we have found favor in your eyes,  let   this
   land  [on  the east bank of the Jordan]  be  given   to
   your  servants as a possession; do not bring  us  over
   the Jordan [into Eretz Yisrael]."
  
      Moshe  responds with a lengthy and harsh   monologue
(verses  6-15)  accusing  them of  trying  to  evade   the
responsibility  of participating in the war  of  conquest
with  their brethren. He compares them to the  spies  who
had  turned the hearts of the nation from the mission  of
reaching the land:
   (14)  "And behold, you have risen up in place of  your
   fathers,  a  tradition of sinful men, to  stoke  again
   God's anger against Israel."
>From Moshe's perspective, their request is likely to lead
to  results similar to those of the sin of the spies,  or
even worse:
   (15) "You will destroy all of this nation."
  
     The two tribes respond to this rebuke by offering to
leave  their wives and children to settle the  east  bank
while  the men lead the Israelite forces in their war  of
conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Moshe's anger is assuaged  and
he accepts their proposal.

      How  are  we to understand Moshe's harsh monologue?
Does his accusation of the tribes of Gad and Reuven arise
from  a  misunderstanding of their intentions, such  that
following their clarification Moshe realizes his mistake,
or  does Moshe in fact understand their intention all too
well,  such that only his accusatory attack changes their
original  intention  and leads them to  their  subsequent
proposal?  The  answer to this question  depends  on  our
interpretation of the words of the two tribes in verse 5,
"Do not bring us over the Jordan." Do they mean that they
should  not be brought over at all, that they  should  be
left  in  the conquered territories, or is their  request
that  they  "not  be brought over" tantamount  to   saying
merely that they do not wish to inherit land on the other
side of the Jordan?

b. TWO UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY

      The commentators were divided on this question. The
Ramban  (32:5)  appears  to believe  that  the  situation
involved  a  misunderstanding on Moshe's  part,  and  the
Abarbanel says this explicitly:
   "The  children  of Gad and Reuven ... wished  to   tell
   Moshe   that   despite  his  great    wisdom   he   had
   misunderstood  their intention... Out of  respect  for
   him  they  approached him to tell  him  quietly,   'Our
   master,  you  have not understood our  words  and   our
   intention...   We   do  not  wish    to   settle   here
   immediately;  rather, we shall pass over armed...  and
   go to war with our brethren.'"
  
     However, R. Yitzhak Arama (Akeidat Yitzchak, chapter
85) believes otherwise:
   "Indeed  it appears that Moshe our master, of  blessed
   memory,  with  his wealth of wisdom, understood  their
   true  intention...  For their original  intention  was
   not  to  pass over with them to war. And this is  what
   they  meant when they said, 'Do not bring us over  the
   Jordan.'  Moreover, it is not written (in  verse  16),
   'And  the  children of Gad and the children of  Reuven
   said  to  him,'  but rather, 'And they approached  him
   and  said.' Meaning that they had heard what  he  said
   and  had  reconsidered, and thereafter they came  back
   to him with their answer."
  
      This is not simply a local exegetical debate on the
interpretation  of  one  particular  verse.  Rather,  the
question  concerns our perception of the entire point  of
the story. According to the Ba'al Ha-Akeida the point  is
clear:  Moshe Rabbeinu, the loyal shepherd of the nation,
took  up the challenge of this renewed danger of national
disintegration  -  a  danger which again  threatened  the
imminent inheritance of the land. Through his harsh words
he  treats  the  threat before it develops, straightening
out  the problem with the two tribes who are causing  the
danger.  But what is the point of the story if we  follow
the  interpretation of the Ramban and the  Abarbanel?  If
there was a misunderstanding between Moshe and the tribes
of Gad and Reuven, why does the Torah recount it - and at
such length?

      It  would seem that according to these commentators
the following conclusion is unavoidable: this story, like
the  incident of Mei Meriva which precedes it,  comes  to
illustrate  the  lack  of  understanding  between  Moshe,
leader of the generation that had left Egypt and had died
in the desert, and the generation that was about to enter
the  land. Moshe is haunted by the memory of the  sin  of
the  spies, and he sees its shadow in the actions of  the
new   generation.  But  this  generation  is  unlike   the
preceding  one.  On  the contrary:  they  are  eager   for
battle,  and  are wholeheartedly prepared  to  fight  and
conquer  the land. This misunderstanding exemplifies  the
distance between Moshe and the people about to enter  the
land, and provides further justification for the need for
a change in leadership.

      Thus we have directly opposing views of the purpose
of  the  story,  which disagree concerning  both  Moshe's
behavior  and that of the two tribes. This obligates  the
student  of  the  narrative  to  decide:  is  the    story
criticizing  Moshe, or is it praising him for  addressing
the  challenge? Is the story criticizing  the  tribes  of
Reuven  and  Gad for their request, or is  it  ultimately
meant to testify in their favor? Let us analyze the story
from   the   beginning  with  a  view  to   choosing   our
standpoint.

c. SETTING THE SCENE FOR THE STORY (VERSE 1)

     The beginning of the story - included in the setting
of  the  scene in verse 1 - is strange in that it  begins
with  the  object  of  the  sentence:  "Much   cattle  was
possessed  by  the  tribes of Reuven  and  Gad;  a   great
multitude"  ("U-mikneh  rav haya li-vnei  Reuven...").   A
typical  biblical sentence begins with the  verb:  "There
was  to the tribes of Gad and Reuven much cattle; a great
multitude,"  or  sometimes  a sentence  starts  with   the
subject:  "The  tribes of Gad and Reuven  possessed  much
cattle; a great multitude." What, then, is the reason for
the  unusual formulation of the opening sentence  of  our
story?

      There are some stories in which the opening word is
meant  to  fix  the  central message  in  the   linguistic
consciousness of the reader or listener (e.g.  the  story
of  those  who  desired meat, Bamidbar 11:4  -  "And   the
multitude (asafsuf) who were in their midst..."; see  our
shiur  on  Beha'alotekha). The same can be  said  of  our
parasha. The "cattle" is a central issue in the story. It
serves as the basis for the request by the tribes of  Gad
and  Reuven,  and  determines for  them  their  preferred
inheritance in the land. It is also dealt with further in
the  negotiations between them and Moshe  in  the  second
half of the story.

     The Torah uses a number of different terms to denote
the  herds and flocks of animals raised by man: they  are
sometimes  called  "tzon"  or "tzon  u-vakar,"   sometimes
"be'ir"  and  at  other times "mikneh."  This   last  term
emphasizes the possessive aspect - the fact that they are
the  property of their owners. The word "mikneh" is  used
six times in our story, as mentioned by the tribes of Gad
and  Reuven  or  in  connection with them.  Surprisingly,
Moshdoes  not  use  this word even  once.  Even  when   he
repeats their words he is careful to use a different term
(v.24):  "Build yourselves cities for your  children  and
sheepfolds for your flocks (tzonkhem)."

     It should further be noted that the scene-setting in
verse  1,  which opens with the word "mikneh,"  concludes
with  the  same word: "Behold, the place is a  place  for
'mikneh'   (cattle)."  Thus  both  the  two   tribes   are
characterized by ownership of "mikneh" and  the  land  is
characterized by suitability for "mikneh," and this is in
fact what links them.

d. THE REQUEST OF REUVEN AND GAD

      The  first words uttered by the representatives   of
Gad  and  Reuven to Moshe are also introduced in  a  most
peculiar way:
   (3)  "Atarot  and  Divon  and  Ya'zer  and   Nimra  and
   Cheshbon and El'aleh and Sevam and Nevo and Be'on;
   (4)   the   country   which  God   smote   before   the
   congregation  of  Israel, is a land  for  cattle,   and
   your servants possess cattle."
They  begin with a list of the names of nine cities which
were  honored  in the kingdom of Sichon, and  these  nine
names  occupy an entire verse. This is not a usual manner
of speech: one does not normally list details without any
introduction as to their meaning or context. They  should
have said, "The land which God smote, Atarot and Divon...
is  a  land  for cattle." But even had they worded  their
request thus, we could nevertheless ask as to the purpose
of the list of names of these cities.

      After  first presenting the geographic and economic
conditions  relevant to their petition,  Reuven  and  Gad
proceed to the actual request:
   (5)  "They said: If we have found favor in your  eyes,
   then  this land shall be given to your servants  as  a
   holding; do not bring us over the Jordan."
Why  does  the verse insert once again the phrase,  "They
said"?   No one seems to have interrupted their  remarks;
what does the new introductory phrase add?  Additionally,
we  must carefully examine their final comments: "Do  not
bring  us over the Jordan."  We already noted the dispute
between  Abarbanel and the Akedat Yitzchak  whether  this
refers  to  only their final settlement, which  will  not
occur  across  the  Jordan,  or  even  to  warfare,   thus
implying  that  Reuven  and  Gad  had  no  intention    of
assisting  their brethren in battle.  Which  of  the  two
explanations   better  accommodates  the  straightforward
meaning of the text?

      The  key to understanding the request of the tribes
of  Reuven  and  Gad lies in these final words:  "Do  not
bring  us over the Jordan."  The straightforward  reading
of  the  word "ta'avirenu" - "bring us over"  -   suggests
that they refer here to their bodies, not their permanent
residence.   Thus, we prefer the approach  taken  by  the
Akeidat  Yitzchak, that Reuven and Gad  had  intended  to
remain  on the East Bank of the Jordan even during  Benei
Yisrael's  conquest of the land.  If so, then  presumably
the representatives of Reuven and Gad sensed the inherent
problem  in their request: their receiving the land  most
suitable  for them by abandoning their brethren who  must
wage  war  to capture theirs.  They therefore decided  to
present  their  request in a subtle manner,  rather  then
asking  directly.  They figured they would simply present
the  facts to Moshe, who would hopefully suggest  on  his
own that these tribes remain in the land of Sichon.

      They  carefully crafted their remarks   accordingly.
First,  they  enumerated the nine  cities  in  the  newly
captured  territory  that came unexpectedly  under  Benei
Yisrael's control.  What will happen to all this  fertile
land  after they cross the Jordan?  Will they just  leave
it  empty,  inviting  the occupation of  the  surrounding
nations?

      Then comes the implied solution: "and your servants
possess  cattle"  (v.4).   From  both  a   political   and
economic  viewpoint, it is in the nation's best  interest
to  settle the land with cattle ranchers.  They  assumed,
therefore,   that  Moshe's  offer  would  be   immediately
forthcoming.

      Of  course, they could not expect Moshe to overlook
the moral difficulty of their absence from the war across
the  Jordan.   After  all, why should  they  receive   for
themselves the territory conquered by the entire  nation,
staying behind as the other tribes fight for their  land?
To mitigate this ethical dilemma, Reuven and Gad refer to
the  land  of Sichon as "the land that GOD HAS  CONQUERED
for  the  community  of  Israel."  The  Akeidat   Yitzchak
observes  that  they mention God nowhere  else  in  their
monologue except in this verse.  He thus concludes, "With
this  mention [of God] they intended to say that they  do
not  seek something for which Benei Yisrael risked  their
lives,  but only that which God conquered for  them,  not
with  their  swords  or  bows."   Since  God,   not  Benei
Yisrael,  captured the land of Sichon, the ethical  issue
of their annexing the territory for themselves is laid to
rest.

      Reuven  and  Gad finish speaking and await   Moshe's
response.   To  their  surprise  and  dismay,  they   hear
nothing  but  silence.  This uncomfortable  pause,  which
essentially  foiled  their plan,  accounts  for  the  new
introduction in the following verse: "They said."   Moshe
understands what they want, but he wants to hear them say
so explicitly.  He thinks to himself: Do they really plan
to  remain behind as their brethren go to war?  They then
present  their request directly, and Moshe realizes  that
the time has come for harsh rebuke.

e. MOSHE'S RESPONSE

      Moshe  formulates his response in a way  that   most
effectively expresses his somewhat startling message: the
"innocent" request of Reuven and Gad threatens  to  bring
about  a catastrophe similar to that which resulted  from
the mission of the spies thirty-eight years earlier.   He
opens  and  concludes his response  with  two  verses  of
rebuke  (6-7;  14-15), while in between  he  recalls  the
tragedy of the spies.  Wherein lies the specific point of
comparison between the tribes of Reuven and Gad, and  the
generation of the spies?

     Significantly, Moshe never accuses Reuven and Gad of
lack  of  trust  in  God, of unwarranted  fear  from   the
nations  of Canaan.  After all, Benei Yisrael - including
Reuven and Gad - had fought valiantly against Sichon  and
Og.   Their  request  to  remain  behind  during   warfare
involved no fear or lack of faith.  Similarly, Moshe does
not, in this monologue, point to any lack of trust on the
part  of the spies or their generation.  He rather  takes
the   tribes  of  Reuven  and  Gad  to  task   for   their
inappropriate  attitude towards "the land  that  God  had
given  them."   He  recounts that he sent  the  spies   to
survey the land, but they came back and "turned the minds
of  the  Israelites from invading the land that  God  had
given  them."   Anyone who spurns the land that  God  has
given  them  is  considered  disloyal  to  the   Almighty.
Therefore, only Yehoshua and Kalev merited entry into the
land,  "for  they  remained loyal  to  God."    Similarly,
Reuven  and Gad "saw the lands of Yazer and Gilad,"  just
as  the spies looked upon the land.  Like the spies, they
did  not  see  "the land that God had given them."    They
rather saw a land that suited their economic interests.

      Moshe  thus feared that these two tribes, like   the
spies,   could   easily  dissuade  Benei   Yisrael    from
continuing  on  to Eretz Yisrael.  After  all,  they  had
before them a large, spacious territory; they had finally
arrived  at  fertile grounds.  Why not settle  there  and
leave  the  task  of  conquering the land  for  a   future
generation?   If  they would influence the  rest  of  the
people,  God would react just as He did upon  the  spies'
return: "He will abandon them in the wilderness, and  you
will have brought calamity upon all this people."

      In  one  sense,  it now becomes clear   why  Moshe's
attitude  changes once Reuven and Gad agree to  join  the
other  tribes in battle across the Jordan.  He no  longer
feared  that  they  would persuade the  other  tribes  to
remain  on  the East Bank, since now not a  single  tribe
would settle its portion before the others complete their
conquest.  Secondly, the preparedness of these tribes  to
join the battle and even stand in the front lines attests
to  their proper attitude towards Eretz Yisrael.  Through
the  language of action, these tribes demonstrated  their
full identification with the destiny of God's nation: the
conquest  of  "the land that God has given you"  and  the
settlement  regardless of their decision to dwell on  the
opposite side of the Jordan.

      Nevertheless, it seems that there remains room  for
criticism of their preference of the land of Sichon  over
the  land of Jewish destiny.  How does their decision  to
join  the  other  tribes in war resolve this  problematic
issue?

f. THE REVISED PROPOSAL OF REUVEN AND GAD (16-19)

      Following  the end of Moshe's speech  in   verse  15
there  is a break of a "parasha setuma," and then we  are
told  (v.16):  "And they approached him and said..."  Why
did  the  representatives  of  Gad  and  Reuven  have   to
"approach"  Moshe again, even though they  had  not  gone
anywhere?  As  we  saw,  the Abarbanel  and  the   Akeidat
Yitzchak  are  divided as to the interpretation  of  this
verse.

      The  Ba'al Ha-Akeida maintains that they approached
Moshe  following  a  break  (illustrated  by  the   closed
parasha)  during  which  they  held  consultations  among
themselves,  and after formulating a new  proposal  which
would  cancel  the accusations which he  had  leveled  at
them.

     According to the Abarbanel, on the other hand, their
words  were an immediate response to Moshe's speech,  and
were  meant  to point out his misunderstanding  of  their
original request. Therefore they approached him in  order
to explain quietly, out of respect for him.

      Let us examine the contents of their words: if  the
Abarbanel were correct, it would have been sufficient for
them to point out the misunderstanding and to correct  it
-  in other words, to clarify to Moshe that they intended
to  fight AS EQUALS with their brethren. But in fact they
commit themselves to more than this: they promise to pass
over  armed BEFORE Benei Yisrael, and even to follow  the
process of their settlement in the land ("until they  are
brought to their place"). This commitment is surely  new,
and  requires  some consultation and decision-making.  We
therefore  find  ourselves returning  to  the  Ba'al  Ha-
Akeida.

     But the important question here is why the tribes of
Reuven and Gad made this commitment. It seems that it was
meant  to  serve as a counterweight to their  request  to
remain  in the land conquered from Sichon from  then  on,
after they understood from Moshe's words the severity  of
their  request. If this had been their original intention
-  to  participate  in the conquest together  with  their
brethren  -  and  Moshe  had  misunderstood  it,  as   the
Abarbanel  maintains,  then it  was  not  they  who   were
obligated to make some placatory gesture with a  new  and
magnanimous  commitment, but rather it  would  have  been
Moshe who should have somehow placated them.

      But  not only does Moshe not placate them following
his  seemingly baseless accusations, nor praise them  for
their  commitment; rather, he launches into  negotiations
with them, stipulating a dual condition, as if to say, "I
do  not  know  whether you have spoken wholeheartedly  or
whether it is simply deceit."

      It  is therefore clear that Moshe understood   their
original intention, which arises quite clearly from their
request, "Do not bring us over the Jordan," and he justly
accused them in his response. His monologue achieves  its
intended effect and reveals to the representatives of Gad
and Reuven the seriousness of their request. They in turn
consult  among  themselves and formulate a  new  proposal
which  addresses Moshe's accusations against  them.  Then
they  approach him and present their new proposal,  which
is  indeed acceptable to him, with minor changes -  which
also  teach us something of the materialistic perspective
of these tribes, and of Moshe's educational personality.

      And  so  we find ourselves interpreting  the   story
along the lines of the Ba'al Ha-Akeida. We discover  that
the story points its accusation against the tribes of Gad
and Reuven, while depicting Moshe as a loyal shepherd who
takes on the challenge posed by any danger to his nation,
conducting  complex and sensitive negotiations  aimed  at
bringing about a favorable conclusion.

      Even according to this interpretation we must point
out  that  ultimately our story also points to the  great
difference between the generation of those who left Egypt
and  the generation destined to inherit the land.  It  is
specifically  against the backdrop of Moshe's  comparison
of   these  two  tribes  with  the  spies  that   we  find
highlighted the fact the tribes in question are quick  to
deny  any  such similarity, and without any psychological
or practical difficulty they place themselves at the head
of the fighting forces for the conquest of the land.

(Translated by Kaeren Fish and David Silverberg)

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

********************************************************