Torah: Parashat Matot-Masee (Numbers 30:2-36:13), Comme

To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: Weekly Torah Commentary

Torah: Parashat Matot-Masee (Numbers 30:2-36:13), Commentary on the Weekly
Torah Reading for 26 Tammuz, 5759 (July 10, 1999)

by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

EFRAT, ISRAEL, Yom Revii (Fourth Day - "Wednesday"), 23 Tammuz, 5759 (July
7, 1999): As we read the concluding chapters of the Book of
Numbers (in Hebrew "BaMidbar" which literally means the Book of the
Desert), we return to the great sin of the desert period, the transgression
of the Scouts. Moses is haunted by this transgression, because it
prevented him from achieving the primary goal of his leadership. That goal
was to free the Hebrew slaves from Egyptian bondage and lead the Israelites
into the Promised Land wherein they were to become a holy nation and a
Kingdom of Priest-teachers of ethical monotheism to the entire world.

All of subsequent Jewish history is haunted by it. The Midrash identifies
the night when the Israelites heard and accepted the negative report of the
Scouts as the Ninth Day of Av, the tragic anniversary of the destruction of
both Temples, the initiating dates of the Jewish exiles and persecutions.
We are all haunted by the eternal question of why and how ten princes of
the tribes of Israel could have turned their backs on the Divine Promise
and the miracles they had witnessed by refusing to wage the war of conquest
and preferring to remain in the desert.

Only if we understand their motivations do we have a chance of preventing
the repetition of their grave error in our own generation.

Moses makes reference to the sin of the scouts in our Torah reading, within
the context of the request of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to remain on the
eastern side of the Jordan River -- that is, not to join the rest of the
tribes on the "West Bank." A careful study of the language expressed, and
not expressed, is fraught with contemporary lessons and teaches volumes
about fundamental Biblical theology.

Chapter 32 of the Book of Numbers opens with the words: "Cattle in
abundance was owned by the children of Reuven and the children of Gad --
very powerful; and they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead (East
Bank), and behold, the place was a place for (grazing) cattle....this land
which the Lord smote before the community of Israel as a land for cattle,
and your servants have cattle." [Numbers 32:1,4]

It is on this basis that they make their request: "If we have found favor
in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants as a possession; do
not bring us over the Jordan (to the West Bank)." [Numbers 32:5]

This seems like a fairly understandable and straightforward request.
Nowhere do these two tribes suggest that they will not do battle with the
rest of the Israelites for the other side of the Jordan, the rest of the
land of Israel. They are merely asking for permission to settle the East
Bank because of their special grazing needs.

Nevertheless, Moses responds with a lengthy harangue, comparing their bid
with the sin of the scouts, berating them for sitting on the East Bank
while their brothers are going to war, for dissuading the Israelites from
entering the Promised Land. He reminds them of G-d's anger against the
entire people as a result of the sin of the scouts, which was the cause of
the destruction of that entire generation in the desert, and concludes his
unmistakable comparison:

"And now you have risen up in your fathers' stead, a culture (tarbut) of
sinning people, to add more to the anger of the Lord towards Israel. For
if you turn away from being behind Him (G-d), and if you will once again
leave Him in the desert, you shall have destroyed this entire nation."
[Numbers 32:14, 15]

What has set off a red light in Moses' mind to have engendered such harsh
words and comparisons in response to what seems to be a fairly mild and
legitimate request? Moses' admonition is more than justified -- and is
borne out by the subsequent conversations recorded in the Bible. To
understand this, it is necessary to analyze the difference between the
desert experience and the entry into Israel.

The Almighty understood that an infant Israel would require His direct
intervention to take care of all of their needs just as a parent must do
for a young child. Hence the manna for food, the tabernacle rays of glory
for protection, the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night for direction.
All of Israel's physical needs were provided for in the desert -- on a
silver platter.

Beginning with the difficult conquest of the giant inhabitants and
fortified Cities of Canaan, Israel was expected to have attained the
maturity and responsibility of young adulthood. This battle would not be an
easy one -- and the initiative would have to be taken by the Israelites.
>From that point on, the Almighty would take a "back seat," as it were,
guaranteeing the success of the risks which the Israelites would be
expected to take as long as their goals remained ethical and spiritual, not
only materialistic and self-serving.

The Almighty promises national and universal redemption - but only if
Israel will take the first steps and remain a holy nation and a Kingdom of priest-teachers.

The sin of the scouts lay in their inability or unwillingness to grow up,
to leave the cocoon-womb of revealed Divine intervention and enter the real
world of partnership with a G-d who is often hidden from obvious view, to
leave the more comfortable child's world and enter the more difficult and
responsible world of an adult.

An adult Israel could not merely follow behind G-d. An adult Israel would
be expected to pave the way for G-d, to walk (and conquer) even before G-d
gets there. Only those who initiate the purification process will be
helped from on High. "Walk before Me and you shall be complete." [Genesis
17:1]

With the conclusion of the Book of the Desert and the death of the desert
generation, the maturity stage is about to begin -- with the difficult
conquest of the strong and fortified Canaanites. When at this point the
two tribes of Reuven and Gad -- clearly motivated solely by their material
needs of grazing land for their cattle - ask not to be taken to the other
side of the Jordan, Moses fears lest his nation will never grow up and take
responsibility.

Reuven and Gad describe the lands they wish to settle as areas which they
received on a silver platter, real-estate which "the Lord had smitten
before the Community of Israel". How different from the more problematic
West Bank, where the Israelites would have to pave the way for the Lord, do
battle even before G-d stepped in. G-d suspects a replay of the immature,
comfort-seeking generation of the scouts.

Moses' doubts are fortified by the response of the spokesmen of the two
tribes to his admonition and dire comparison. They clearly state their
willingness to do battle alongside of their brethren for the rest of the
land. However, their formulation leaves a great deal to be desired: "We
ourselves will be ready armed to (fight) as pioneers before the children of
Israel until we shall have brought them (through battle) to their place (on
the West Bank)."

The Akedat Yitzhak (R. Yitzhak Arrama) points out that Reuven and Gad are
ready to battle before the Children of Israel, but not necessarily before
G-d! They are not yet ready to take the kind of initiative that this
particular war will demand.

The second danger signal is built into their opening words: "We will build
sheep folds here for our cattle and cities for our children." [Numbers
32:16, 17]

For these two tribes, cattle seems to be a higher priority than children!
This materialistic concern defies the ethical monotheism of the mission of
Abraham: "For I (G-d) have known and loved (Abraham) to the
end that he shall command his children and his household after him to
observe the way of the Lord to do righteousness and justice." [Genesis 18:19]

While Moses is fundamentally comforted by the willingness of Reuven and Gad
to take part in the battle, he is disturbed enough by the formulation of
their words to insist on continuing his admonition: "If you will do this
thing: if you will be pioneers before the Lord to wage war, and every
pioneer of you will pass over the Jordan before the Lord...and the land
shall be subdued before the Lord...then shall you build cities for your
children and folds for your sheep." [Numbers 32:20-24]

Reuven and Gad must be ready to take the risk of paving the way for G-d,
and they must be motivated by the continuity of the tradition rather than
materialistic comfort. Otherwise, the result may very well be a
second, hedonistic culture -- rivaling and even surpassing the Holy Temple
culture of Judea -- on the other side of the Jordan! Moses wants a
trans-Jordan (or Tel Aviv) under the inspiration of Mount Moriah -- not
vying against it for cultural supremacy.

At last the tribes of Gad and Reuven understand Moses' point: "Your
servants will do as my lord commands. Our children, our wives, our flocks
and all our cattle shall be there in the cities of Gilead. And your
servants shall pass over (to the West Bank), every pioneer of warfare,
before the Lord to wage battle, just as my master says." [Numbers 32: 26-28]

We in our generation as well must be willing to brave the difficulties of a
Jewish State, attempting to pave the way for G-d (hopefully in peace and
not necessarily war), without expecting to receive everything ready-made on
a menorah-shaped platter. We must endeavor to create a culture which links
parents to children in the traditions of ethical monotheism, remaining
faithful to historical continuity as well as to democratic ideals. Only
with such a mandate will we not only survive, but we will share in redemption.

Shabbat Shalom

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
Efrat, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT RABBI SHLOMO RISKIN:

Rabbi Riskin is Chief Rabbi of Efrat and Chancellor and Dean of Ohr Torah
Stone Colleges and Graduate Programs.

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

From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To:           yhe-intparsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       INTPARSHA -38: Matot Masei

                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
      ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

            INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

                                by Zvi Shimon

               PARASHAT MATOT-MASEI

VI. Death of a Priest

      The exile of the unintentional killer is not
eternal. Scripture states that he must remain in the
cities of refuge until the death of the high priest. Why
should the length of the killers' tarriance in the city
of refuge be determined by the high priests' life span?
This question intrigued all the commentators. We will
begin with the explanation advanced by the Seforno (Rabbi
Ovadia Seforno, Italy, 1470-1550):

     "It has already been explained that exile is the
     punishment for one who kills in error. Now being
     that there are different kinds of unintentional sins
     which are disparate because some are closer to being
     considered accidental while others are closer to
     being considered intentional, therefore there are
     varying   periods of exile for one   who   kills
     unintentionally. For some, the unintentional act [of
     killing] is [punished by exile] for a brief period
     before the high priest dies, while some murderers
     die in exile before the death of the high priest.
     This occurs [according to] the judgement of God who
     punishes the unintentional sinner according to the
     degree of his error"

       Seforno   understands   the    residence   of   the
unintentional killer in the cities of refuge to be a
punishment. Not every case of unintentional manslaughter
is comparable. Some instances involve a greater degree of
negligence and hence culpability on the part of the
killer. Therefore, the Torah did not prescribe a definite
number of years to the exile but designated the high
priest's life span to be the determinant. God can thus
influence the length of the exile. If the killer is
deserving of a harsher punishment, the priest will live
longer,   but if the killer deserves only a    minor
punishment, God will not lengthen the days of the priest.
Do you see any difficulties in this interpretation.

       This interpretation is problematic on several
accounts. Why should the high priest's length of life be
impacted   by   the   degree of    culpability   of   the
unintentional    killer?    Moreover,    the     Seforno's
interpretation assumes the existence   of   only    one
unintentional killer. However, there were surely more
than one unintentional killer at a time and every single
one of them was a different case with different levels of
personal responsibility for the killing.

      The Bekhor Shor (Rabbi Yosef Ben Yitzchak Bekhor
Shor, France, 12th century) agrees that the killers'
dwelling in the cities of refuge is a punishment.
However, he offers a different explanation of    the
specification "until the death of the high priest":

     "We do not know how long the slain man would have
     lived   had he not been killed. We, therefore,
     estimate his life span through the high priest who
     is important, and it is known that it is unlikely
     that the slain would have lived longer than the high
     priest who serves God. According to the years which
     he shortened the life of the slain shall the killer
     dwell in exile"

      The Bekhor Shor offers a novel explanation. The
years in exile come instead of the years lost by the
deceased. The Torah states "an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth"(Exodus 21:24). According to the Bekhor Shor
we may now add 'a year for a year'. Exile is a form of
death, a detachment from one's natural life and habitat.
The price paid by the killer is "loss" of his own life
for the same amount of years taken from the deceased. One
who steals must return that which he has stolen. The
killer can not return life to the dead but he pays with
his own loss of time.

      The Abrabanel (Don Isaac Abrabanel, Spain, 1437-
1508) takes a very different approach in explaining the
specification that the unintentional killer remain in the
city of refuge "until the death of the high priest":

     "[The Torah] states that he [the unintentional
     killer] remain [in the city of refuge] till the
     death of the high priest because the high priest was
     a prince and a leader of Israel and was consecrated
     to God. Upon his death the whole nation would
     tremble and the living would recognize that the days
     of man are like a shadow. So why should he [the
     avenger] not shed from his thoughts the idea of
     avenging [the death] of his relative...for shortly
     the avenger himself will be led to his grave.
     Therefore his heart and anger will be placated and
     he will be consoled and forget his troubles and his
     zealousness will subside. This is the reason for the
     designation 'until the death of the high priest' for
     he is the great one through whom the heart of the
     avenger is pacified"

      In contrast to the explanations of the Seforno and
the Beckor Shor which consider the city of refuge to be a
punishment for the killer, the Abrabanel's explanation
considers the city of refuge to be a shelter protecting
the   unintentional   killer from   the    avenger.   The
unintentional killer must remain there so long as his
life is in peril. For how long does this continue; when
does   the   vindictive rage of the avenger subside?
Scripture informs us that this occurs upon the death of
the high priest. The death of a leader of the stature of
the high priest has a profound impact on the nation. We
might compare it to the impact that the death of a great
Rabbi would have on the community. The nation's grief
would be so great that it would eclipse all other sorrow.
The death of the high priest would cause the avenger to
forget his previous sorrow and stop pursuing the killer.

      The three elucidations offered so far for the
specification "until the death of the high priest"
explained it as a time designation. The death of the high
priest is a calendrical signpost revealing additional
data such as life expectancy or the duration of the
avenger's vengefulness. Other approaches propose a more
direct connection between the high priest and the length
of time the unintentional killer must reside in the city
of refuge:

     "He who kills a human being had no atonement until
     the Torah established atonement through the death of
     the high priest [as is written in Numbers 35:25]
     "and there he shall remain until the death of the
     high priest" (Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Yoma 7:3)

     According to our Sages, the death of the high priest
is not simply a calendrical designation; it provides
atonement for the unintentional killing of human beings
and consequently releases the unintentional killer from
the city of refuge. This approach is further elaborated
by Shadal:

     "The priests atone for unintentional sins through
     the offering of sacrifices, the high priest atones
     for even more, this being the reason for his
     functions on Yom Kippur, and the death of the high
     priest is the highest form of atonement which atones
     for unintentional manslaughter, the severest of
     unintentional sins"

      A transgression which was performed unintentionally
still requires atonement. This is one of the functions of
sacrifices and the priestly temple worship. In addition
to sacrifices, our Sages maintain that the death of the
high   priest   atones for unintentional manslaughter.
Sacrifices are of no use for such grave sins. The only
atonement is the death of the righteous high priest which
grants the whole nation atonement for unintentional
killings.

      The Rashbam (Rabbi Shemuel ben Meir, France, 1080-
1160) offers a different interpretation which also links,
albeit from a different perspective, the death of the
high   priest directly to the length of    time   the
unintentional killer must remain in the city of refuge:

     "Until the death of the high priest"- "According to
     the simple reading, throughout the days of the chief
     justice, as stated 'who never released his prisoners
     to their homes'(Isaiah 14:17)."

     The priests had several functions within the nation.
They   were responsible for offering sacrifices    and
performing the different functions in the Temple as
stated "They shall put incense before you, and whole
burnt sacrifice upon your altar" (Deuteronomy 33:10). In
addition, they were the judges of the people as stated:
"If   there   arise a matter too hard for   you   in
judgment...you shall come to the priests the Levites, and
to the judge thatshall be in those days" (ibid. 17:8,9).
Our Sages, cited earlier, explained the role of the high
priest in determining the time when the unintentional
killer may leave the city of refuge, on the basis of the
first priestly function, the sacrificial rite. Just as
sacrifices atone for sin, so does the death of the high
priest atone. In contrast to our Sages, the Rashbam
emphasizes the second role of the high priest as the
chief justice. The high priest sentences the killer to
dwell in the city of refuge. This sentence is determined
by the high priest and extends throughout the high
priest's life. The killer is not imprisoned in the city
of refuge forever. The high priest's death provides
clemency for the killer and ends the obligation to remain
in the city of refuge. Why should the sentence be limited
to the life the chief justice? Although the Rashbam does
not elaborate, the Hizkuni (Rabbi Hizkiya ben Manoach,
France, mid-thirteenth century) grapples with this very
question.

     "After the death of the high priest, the manslayer
     may return"(35:28)- "Since the city of refuge of the
     Levites are under the dominion of the high priest,
     and he [the unintentional killer] enters his [the
     high priest's] dominion, it is proper that he be
     released upon [the high priest's] death"

      The cities of refuge are closely connected to the
cities of the Levites. They appear in the same chapter in
the Torah (see Numbers 35:1-8 and 35:9 ff.). In fact, the
forty-two Levite cities function as cities of refuge (see
Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Murderer, 8:9). The
cities of refuge are under the jurisdiction of the
Levites, and more specifically, the high priest. When an
unintentional killer dwells within the city of refuge he
becomes the "property" of the high priest. He lives
within his city and therefore belongs to him. Although by
no means a slave, he still lives under the dominion of
the high priest. The same law governing the release of a
permanent Jewish slave upon the death of his master (see
Mishna, Tractate Kiddushin, 1:2) applies here.    The
unintentional killer may leave only upon the death of his
"master", the high priest.

      I would like to carry this interpretation a step
further.   I   believe it is possible to    view   the
unintentional killer not only as living under    the
dominion of the high priest, but as actually joining, in
some sense, the tribe of Levy. He no longer resides on
his plot of land, but, like the tribe of Levy, dwells in
specific cities. For the time being, he has no land
inheritance; he joins the ranks of the Levites. Textual
support for this novel conception may be found in a
precise, albeit novel, reading of an obscure verse in our
section:

     "And the assembly shall restore him to the city of
     refuge to which he fled, and there he shall remain
     until the death of the high priest WHO ANOINTED HIM
     with the sacred oil" (35:25).(In Hebrew- `ad mot
     hakohen   hagadol   ASHER MASHACH    OTTO   beshemen
     hakodesh')

      The obvious question is who anointed whom? Who is
the subject who did the anointing and who was anointed?
Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, France, 1040-1105)
offers the following interpretation:

     "According to its plain sense, this is one of the
     elliptical sentences- for it does not expressly
     mention who anointed him but it is the same as `the
     high priest WHOM HE WHO CARRIED OUT THE ANOINTING
     had anointed with the sacred oil'

      Rashi claims that our verse is abbreviated and can
only be understood by adding a subject. The unintentional
killer must wait till the death of the high priest whom
"the anointer" anointed with the sacred oil. This is the
accepted and obvious interpretation. The high priest was
anointed before serving in this capacity. The only people
to be anointed with the sacred oil are the high priests,
the   priest who goes out to war with the   nation
(Deuteronomy 20:2), and the kings of Israel (Rambam,
Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Utensils of the Temple, 1:7).
The anointing dedicates a person to a new position, in
service of God, or an object to the service of the
temple. Rashi, therefore, interprets that the high priest
was the one who was anointed. However, we must clarify
why the Torah uses this abbreviated and obscure phrasing.
"there he shall remain until the death of the high priest
WHO ANOINTED HIM with the sacred oil"! A simple reading
of our verse could lead one to mistakenly conclude that
the high priest anointed the unintentional killer!? I
would like to propose that the Torah's obscure wording is
meant to have a double entendre, a double meaning. In
reality, only the high priest was anointed. However, on a
conceptual plain, the unintentional killer was also to be
anointed! Why should a killer be anointed with sacred
oil? Is not manslaughter the antithesis of sanctity?

      To answer this question, we must return to the
interpretation of the Hizkuni. According to the Hizkuni,
the unintentional killer falls under the dominion of the
high priest. If we accept my claim that the unintentional
killer actually joins, in some sense, the ranks of the
priests, than it is clear why he is anointed. His entry
into the city of refuge is an entry into a new role, a
new position as a servant of God. He was not born a
priest and must therefore be consecrated for his new
status. However, this still begs the question: Why should
a killer be promoted to the status of a quasi-priest?

     The answer to this question is that his consecration
to the service of God is part of his atonement process.
All sinners must atone for their wrongdoing. A thief must
return that which he has stolen and pay a fine. One who
injures his fellow human being must pay damages and
compensation. How does the unintentional killer atone for
his negligence? More specifically, to whom is he liable.
The Torah informs us that he is liable towards God. The
killer has slain a human being, has taken the life of one
of God's creations. He can not revive the dead. His only
way of `repaying' God, of atoning for his sin, is
consecrating his life to the service of God. Human life
is sacred. If one spills blood unintentionally he must
atone for it. The Torah, which so values every human
life, wished to prevent the escalation of violence and
the further spilling of blood by the avenger. For this
reason, it commanded the establishment of cities of
refuge.   These cities prevented more bloodshed    and
simultaneously allowed the unintentional killer to atone
for his sin by joining the high priest in consecrating
his life to the service of God.

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

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

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