Mostly, The War on Midian
by R. Gidon Rothstein
Parshat Matot
Many Roads Lead to Nullification
Parshat Matot opens with some laws of nedarim, oaths. Anyone who takes such an oath must not desecrate it, we learn at 30;3, with the Torah using the word yachel for ‘desecrate,’ seemingly from the idea of chullin, must not make it ordinary or mundane. Onkelos writes la yevatel, s/he must not cancel or nullify the oath (by violating it).
I might have ignored the oddity except, verses later (30;9), the Torah has a husband’s right to dispense certain vows of his wife’s. It uses the word ve-hefer, translated by ArtScroll and Sefaria as annul. Onkelos again uses u-vatal, same root as before, cancel.
That’s two different Hebrew words he translated with the same Aramaic one; my Bar Ilan shows many others, more than once where the Torah uses the root of shabbat, to rest or cease. After the Flood, Bereshit 8;22, Gd decides yomam va-layla lo yishbotu, day and night will never again cease, and Onkelos has the batel root. With that same shavat root, Par’oh protests Moshe and Aharon’s giving the people a reason to work less, Shemot 5;5, for Onkelos again a matter of tevatelun.
The discussion between Par’oh and Moshe highlights the utility of batel for Onkelos. In the verse before the one we just cited, 5;4, Par’oh asks Moshe and Aharon lamah… tafri’iu, why would you hinder, interrupt, or distract, and Onkelos again has tevatelun; when the Jews complain about harsher work conditions, 5;8, Par’oh dismisses them as shirkers or lazy, ki nirpim hem, Onkelos again has batlanin. A verse later, when Par’oh tells them not to be involved with divrei shaker, false matters, Onkelos writes pitgamin batalin, words null and/or void.
While we just saw tashbitu about stopping slaves from their work, the verb can also refer to removing items from one’s presence, such as Shemot 12;15, Jews must remove all yeast and dough from the house for Pesach; Vayikra 2;13, we must not let salt cease from sacrifices (lo yashbit melach); Vayikra 26;6, Hashem will remove all destructive animals from Israel when the Jews act well; and Devarim 32;26, where Hashem threatens to erase the Jews’ memory from humanity.
Each time, Onkelos has the appropriate conjugation of batel.
Shavat struck me, I guess, because we think of it in terms of the day of rest, and in those contexts (such as the beginning of Bereshit 2), Onkelos translates it as we would expect, nach, rested, in Bereshit, and in the Aseret Ha-Dibberot Shabbata, the name of the day.
Still not done, though. After the Golden Calf, Shemot 32;25, Moshe sees the people are paru’a, running wild or out of control (English translations on Sefaria), or exposed in their sinfulness, according to Rashi. Again, Onkelos has batil. And Bamidbar 6;12 deals with the fallout of a nazir having contact with corpses, says the first days yippelu, will fall away, for Onkelos yevatelun.
Twice in our parsha, and many, many times elsewhere, Onkelos trusts batel to do the work of a range of words, shows the word to be highly useful, not batel at all.
Moshe Also Needed Atonement
With the command to go to war, 31;2, Hashem tells Moshe he will afterward be gathered to his people. Or HaChayim thinks it refers to a proper leaving of this world, having attained one’s full place in the World to Come. Moshe isn’t there yet, he needs the atonement of overseeing this war to remove a stain that would as of now keep him from his rightful place. What stain?
When Zimri stood up in the middle of the camp, halachah allowed (Or HaChayim seems to think called for) killing him, without a trial. Moshe failed to do so, a fact Bamidbar Rabbah noted disapprovingly. Or HaChayim thinks Moshe’s part in this war makes up for his failure. [The image of Hashem giving a person last chances to clean up unfinished business is powerful. I have known people who take advantage, a beautiful set of events to watch, and those who do not, a tragedy to behold.]
Revenge Well Served
R. Samson Raphael Hirsch seesotherunfinished business in Hashem’s telling Moshe to run this war, his need to reassert two pillars of the Torah he has been teaching since Sinai. The Midianites had lured the Jews into breaching tzeni’ut, proper discretion in all matters, including sexual, and faithfulness to Hashem. Moshe had to fix it.
The word nekama captures it for R. Hirsch. Nekama be-, on or at, is revenge, he says, but Hashem here calls for being nokem me-et, from, the Midianites, to him a way of saying the “revenge” is for the Jews, to let them distance themselves from the Midianites, remember they are different, hold different values.
[Sometimes, to restore our own values, we need to strike at those who purveyed the corrupted ones. Reminding ourselves we stand for discretion and service of God, with the Midianites intact, would not have been enough, R. Hirsch is saying. To restore ourselves to whom we had been, it was necessary to take violent action against those who stood for those other values. A longer conversation, about the need, at least sometimes, to remove evil, even if that means killing civilians, women, and children. Sometimes, it’s not enough just to stand for good.]
Fornication or Relationships
When the Jews come back with their plunder, including Midianite women, Moshe is angered, 31;16, noting that these same women—hein heinah, they themselves– had seduced Jewish men. Rashi says the specifying words show us the Jews recognized these women, knew which Jews had slept with whom.
The shocking implication seems to be that the encounter in the plains of Moab took longer than the few verses in the Torah might lead us to believe. One night stands wouldn’t seem to be identifiable across a camp, would seem to say these relationships, public and well-established enough that everyone knew who went with whom. [It also fits better with the idea the relationships led the Jews to idolatry, too.]
Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps Rashi did mean everyone knew who paired off with whom on this one crazy night. I’m not sure that’s better, that the Jews let themselves be drawn into a wild and public orgy, with no shame about letting themselves be seduced, to sex and to idolatry.
As a side point, it also says much about how much control Moshe had over the people, he’s still alive and well, and this happened, without his having recourse.
Goals of the War
In verses close to each other, Sforno gives different versions of the war. Moshe tells the soldiers to split the plunder with those who stayed back, 31;27, to fulfill Devarim 20;14, Sforno says, where Hashem promises Jews they will enjoy the plunder of their enemies, including their wives and children. It’s true of wars other than with the seven Canaanite nations, leading him to remind us this was a war of vengeance, on behalf of all the people, who had been wronged [he assumes they were all wronged, even though the Torah doesn’t insist all the Jews fell prey to the blandishments of the Moabite women].
After the war, when the commanders of the army bring an offering to Moshe, we see a different story. They explain, verse forty-nine, no soldier had died. This gift they were giving now, they say in verse fifty, was lechaper al nafshoteinu, to atone for our souls.
For what is not said. I’d have guessed it was a repayment for having survived the war. Sforno links it to Pe’or, the idolatry that started the plague, to which the Jews were lured by the seductions of the daughters of Moav. Except those had been killed in the plague Pinchas stopped, so what do they mean?
Sforno says they were atoning for their failure to be mocheh, to protest or remonstrate, what Or HaChayim had identified as the sin Moshe needed to exculpate, too. Jews must stay away from sin, and help each other do so, where possible. At Pe’or, they hadn’t done enough, were relieved Hashem had not used the war to punish them as they deserved.
Other than what I hope was an interesting awareness of Onkelos’ widespread use of batel, we saw questions of standing up, standing against, in the name of establishing what is right and good.
Other Comments We Saw On Matot
Rashi, Bamidbar 30;2, Zeh ha-davar
Emet le-Ya’akov, Bamidbar 30;2, Zeh ha-davar
Ramban, Bamidbar 30;3, Ish ki yidor
Rashi, Bamidbar 30;6, Va-Hashem yislach lah
Malbim, Bamidbar 30;6, Ve-im heni
Ha’amek Davar, Bamidbar 30;6, Kol Nedareha
Rashi, Bamidbar 30;16, Ve-nasa et avonah
Ramban, Bamidbar 30;16, Ve-nasa et avonah
Onkelos, Bamidbar 31;2, nekom nikmat benei Yisrael
Meshech Chochmah, Bamidbar 31;2, Nekom
Onkelos, Bamidbar 31;3, latet nikmat Hashem
Rashi, Bamidbar 31;3, Vay-dabber Moshe
Rashi, Bamidbar 31;5, Va-yimaseru
Chatam Sofer, Bamidbar 31;5, Va-yimaseru
Ramban, Bamidbar 31;6, Va-yishlach otam Moshe
Meshech Chochmah, Bamidbar 31;7, Va-yitzbe’u
Meshech Chochmah, Bamidbar 31;14, Va-yiktzof Moshe
Kli Yakar, Bamidbar 31;15, Ha-chiyitem
Onkelos, Bamidbar 32;3, Nevo
Rashi, Bamidbar 32;16, Nivneh
HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Bamidbar 32;20, Lifnei Hashem
Rashi, Bamidbar 32;41, Va-yikra ethen
Ibn Ezra, Bamidbar 32;41, Ve-Ya’ir
Parshat Mas’ei: Complexities of Finding Our Way From Wrong to Right
The Irresistibility of Cultural Influence
At the end of chapter 33, verse 52-55, the Torah commands the Jews to rid the land of its current inhabitants, then warns that whoever is left, allowed to stay, will be, ve-hayah, barbs in their eyes and thorns in their sides. Or HaChayim wonders about the use of ve-hayah, since Megillah 10b tells us it indicates good or happy events (va-yehi signals trouble or tragedy). Here, where’s the joy?
He suggests the verse recognizes the possibility Jews will happily let the Canaanites stay, in violation of Hashem’s command to remove them, either by death, fleeing, or conversion. Should the Jews fall prey to the temptation to let them stay as they are, they need to know already that these nations will be thorns and stings.
A decision Jews will make, happily, confident it’s in their best interests, only to find extra problems. [Most troubling to me, extrapolating from Or HaChayim’s idea, I fear they won’t even identify the source of the troubles, won’t realize these thorns and barbs happened because of their failure to do what they were supposed to.]
The Salt Sea
The Torah’s list of the boundaries of Israel includes Yam Ha-Melach, 34;12. In Scripture, it clearly means what we call the Dead Sea, says R. Ya’akov Kamenetzky; Rashi, Pesachim 28a, thinks the Gemara also means the Dead Sea when it uses the term. Rambam is a different story.
R. Kamenetzky tells us he had long thought Rambam read the phrase to refer toanysalty sea, particularly because in the Laws of Tzitzit 2;2, Rambam said the chilazon, the snail/fish from which we get the blue dye for techelet on tzitzit, is found in Yam HaMelach, where Megillah 6a says it is found in the tribe of Zevulun, who are nowhere near the Dead Sea. Rambam must mean the seas up there, such as the Kinneret, says R. Kamenetzky.
He waited to give voice to his view until he had more proof, and now (whenever that was), he has it. In the end of the Mishnah Commentary, Rambam shares biographical notes and refers to Yam HaMelach in a context where it could not be the Dead Sea; in the Commentary to Keilim 15;1, he speaks of ships that go from Alexandria to Israel by sailing Yam HaMelach, a geographical impossibility for the Dead Sea; in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Arachin 8;8, he goes out of his way to refer to the Mediterranean as well as Yam Ha-Melach to include any salty sea; and in Laws of Kil’ayim 10;1, he refers to Yam Ha-Melach in the context of a faraway place.
It’s not enough to have the idea, R. Kamenetzky models, we must then find support for it, proofs that tell us we are right.
When Everyone Is a Stranger…
Kli Yakar links the forty-two cities given the Levi’im, 35;6, to the forty-two stops the people had made on their way from Egypt to Israel. Just as the Jews were strangers in each place, a land not theirs, the Levi’im were strangers in their own cities, “guests” of the Jewish people, their cities given to them by the people rather than by God.
The Levi’im also populated the six arei miklat, cities of refuge for unwitting murderers. Although such people can also take refuge in an city of the Levi’im, those six belong to the murderers [for example: a murderer exiled to an ir miklat need not pay rent, where he must do so in an ir Levi’im], Kli Yakar thinks they were populated by the Levi’im, too, because the Levi’im would not be able to look down on the exiles for being strangers, aliens to the area. Since they, themselves, were always guests.
[What does it mean for Hashem to decide the people whose job was to teach Torah and guard the Mikdash should have no place of their own? In Yechezkel 44;28, Hashem says He is the nachalah of the kohanim.]
Two points he does not explain, but clearly mattered to him: Why is it so vital to protect the murderer from being jeered for his exile? It is punishment, after all, I might have thought a little discomfort would be right in line. He is sure not.
To get there, he must also assume the Levi’im maintained their sense of otherness in the Land. Generations down the road, he is sure they would still feel other, strangers, guests, such that any new person would be welcomed right in, no sense of this being an interloper. Whereas on the other hand, whatever the purpose of exile, for Kli Yakar it is not to discomfort the murderer about his/her right to be there.
A Very Complex Sliding Scale
On the same verse, Bamidbar 35;25, Sforno points out the range of atonements a murderer be-shogeg might need. Murderers come in a continuum, from having killed in a way totally out of their control to totally deliberate. Even within the shogeg range where a murderer is exiled, he means, there is shogeg closer to beyond his control and shogeg closer to deliberate.
To give the right atonement to each, Hashem has the killers wait out the present Kohen Gadol’s life. Some will wait more, some less, all arranged by Hashem, Who knows the punishment each needs. (A beautiful idea, Sforno would have to be sure all unwitting killings are directly overseen by God, a particular view of Divine Providence).
We can go wrong in life, by associating with the wrong people, even happily, or by being less careful than we should be. The sense of being off-kilter can be helpful in getting ourselves back to right, say our commentators to Parshat Mas’ei.
Other Comments We Saw This Parsha:
Rashi, Bamidbar 33;1, Eileh mas’ei
Ramban Bamidbar 33;1, Eileh mas’ei
Ha’amek Davar, Bamidbar 33;1, Eileh mas’ei
Onkelos, Bamidbar 33;16, Kivrot Ha-Ta’avah
Onkelos, Bamidbar 33;52, maskiyotam
Ramban, Bamidbar 33;53, Ve-horashtem
Onkelos, Bamidbar 33;55, le-sikim be-einechem ve-litzninim be-tzideichem
Rashi, Bamidbar 34;17, Asher yinchalu
Chatam Sofer, Bamidbar 34;19, Le-mateh Yehudah
Malbim, Bamidbar 34;17, Eileh shemot ha-anashim
Onkelos, Bamidbar 35;2, vehemtam and kol chayyatam.
R. Samson Raphael Hirsch,Bamidbar35;4, Mi-kir ha’ir va-chutzah
Onkelos, Bamidbar 35;9, be-fig’o bo
Meshech Chochmah, Bamidbar 35;10, Dabber
Meshech Chochmah, Bamidbar 35;13, Shesh
Rashi, Bamidbar 35;14, Et shalosh
Ramban, Bamidbar 35;14, Et shelosh he-arim
Ibn Ezra, Bamidbar 35;25, Ad mot
Meshech Hochmah, Bamidbar 35;28, Ki be-ir miklato
Ha-Ketav Ve-Ha-Kabbalah, Bamidbar 36;6, Zeh ha-davar
Rashi, Bamidbar 36;11, Machlah Tirtzah