Readings for Saturday, August 3, 2024, and Rosh Chodesh Av

Readings for Saturday, August
3, 2024

Matot

(30:2-32:42) Bamidbar (Numbers)

Matot is the ninth sedrah
in Bamidbar (Numbers).  The sedrah
takes its name from the first significant word in the first sentence of the
portion, “And Moshe spoke to the heads (Matot) of the tribes of the children of
Israel saying.”  The text actually uses
the word “hamatot.”  In Hebrew the letter
“hay” placed in front of a noun may be translated as “the” so the text is
saying “the tribes.”  The sedrah divides
into three parts – Vows and Oaths, The War with the Midianites and The Land of
Rueben, Gad and Manasseh.

Vows and Oaths (30:2-30:17)

The first section of the sedrah deals
specifically with two kinds of obligations, the vow or “neder” and the oath or
“shevuah.”  (See Themes for a discussion
of the difference between the two.)  As
we shall see, the text provides a springboard for commentary on the importance
of the spoken word in Judaism.  In a
break from his usual practice, Moshe gives the rules about vows and oaths to
the heads of the tribes and not to the Children of Israel as a whole.  The leaders are expected to communicate these
rules to the people at a later time. 
Commentators give three reasons for this difference.  In seeking favor with their followers,
leaders may be tempted to use words people want to hear.  The words of leaders may lead the people
astray or to greatness.  According to
Halachah, under certain circumstances a leader or special court of three may be
able to annul an ill-considered vow or oath. 
The spoken word has great power in Judaism.  Creation was the result of words.  For example in creating man the word preceded
the deed.  “And God said, ‘Let us make
Man in Our image…So God created Man in His image.’”  And when one utters a promise invoking the
divine name, one is expected to honor that obligation.  “According to whatever comes from his mouth
he shall do.” (30:2).  However, all vows
and oaths are not equal.  The sedrah
presents a rather detailed formulary by which fathers and husbands may annul
the vows and oaths of their daughters and/or wives.  This portion of Matot certainly is not
consistent with our modern views of equality regardless of sex.  But we have seen the Torah is not necessarily
consistent when it comes to matters of equality between the sexes.  For example, commandments like honoring
parents or observing Shabbat apply to everybody regardless of sex.  Yet when it comes to inheritance laws or
offering sacrifices the Torah presents what we would call a sexist bias.  Regardless of one’s view on this question, we
must ask ourselves why the section on Vows and Oaths appears at this point in
Bamidbar.  Perhaps further reading of the
sedrah will provide a clue.

War with the Midianites (31:1-54)

Matot now picks up where the previous
narrative left off.  It returns to the
story of the Midianites versus the Israelites started in Balak and continued in
Pinchas.  Having defeated the Midianites’
attempts to overcome the Israelites, the Lord tells Moshe, “Take vengeance for
the Children of Israel against the Midianites” (31:2).  To fulfill God’s command, Moshe creates a
special army made up of an “eleph” from each tribe.  Accompanied by Pinchas this special fighting
force is to destroy the Midianites.  The
victorious Israelites kill, among others, the five kings of Midian and Balaam
of talking donkey fame.  However, when
the troops return, Moshe is furious because they have let the women live.  Moshe orders them to kill all the male
children and all of the women except for the virgins.  While this command may sound discordant in
our ears, from Moshe’s point of view it was quite sensible since it was these
women who had attempted to seduce the Israelites and turn them to
idolatry.  The chapter continues with the
ritual purification of the soldiers who had come in contact with the dead, the
purification of the booty and the division of the spoils.  The Torah provides a very detailed accounting
of all items taken and the distributions made to the soldiers, the general
population and the Kohanim.  The soldiers
are surprised to find that they have suffered no casualties and are moved to
give an additional offering to the Lord in thanksgiving for a bloodless (from
their point of view) victory.  This fight
with the Midianites is unique in that it was not about territory or any
temporal issue.  Rather it was a holy war
designed to bring the Lord’s vengeance on transgressors.  Also, the Torah’s account may lack for some
purely historical accuracy.  There are
later mentions of the Midianites and fights against them.  There may have been more than one group with
that name in the ancient world.  The
Israelites may have only destroyed one group. 
From Moshe’s point of view, there are two unique elements to this fight.  First, he does not lead it.  While no specific military commander is
named, Pinchas is the one who is commanded to go with the troops.  Secondly, and more importantly, God has told Moshe
that once the war is won, “you shall be gathered to your kin.” (31:2).  Could this knowledge that he was about to die
have accounted for some of Moshe’s rough attitude in talking to the troops and
dealing with the Midianites?  You be the
judge.

The Land of Rueben, Gad and Manasseh (32:1-42)

The leaders of these two and one half
tribes come to Moshe and tell him that that they want to settle on the eastern
bank of the Jordan.  Before they can
finish their sales pitch, Moshe begins to rebuke them for not being willing to
join their brethren in the fight for the Promised Land.  He compares them to the Generation of the
Spies, the generation that would not fight for the land.  In fact he is concerned that just as the
spies turned the Israelites away from entering the Promised Land, so will the
timidity of the two and a half undermine the courage of this generation of
Israelites.  They assure Moshe that he
has misunderstood them.  As soon as they
have built “sheepfolds for our flocks and homes for our children,” they will be
the shock-troops for the invasion Canaan. 
What is more, they will not return to their homes until the conquest is
complete.  Moshe accepts their promise.  (Now do you see why the sedrah started with a
section on the importance of fulfilling vows and oaths?)  Since Moshe will be dead by the time they
will have kept or broken their promise he tells Elazar and Joshua about the
bargain.  He also tells them that if the
two and a half tribes fail to keep their word, they will have to settle in Canaan
and give up their holdings in Trans-Jordan. 
Traditionally, Rueben, Gad and Manasseh have been criticized for their
decision.  By saying that they wanted to
settle outside of the Promised Land because it would be good for their cattle
and that they wanted to build shelter for their sheep and for their children
(instead of the other way around) they are seen as shallow and
materialistic.  And that may be a fair
assessment.  On the other hand, they may
just have been a little ahead of their times. 
As you know, the Torah gives more than one description of the boundaries
of the Promised Land.  Sometimes, the
eastern boundary is the Jordan River. 
But at other times it is the Euphrates River.  According to at least one source, this
Euphrates River boundary was for the time of the Moshiach.  So who knows, maybe the leaders of these two
and a half tribes were just a little ahead of their time, trying to hasten the
coming of the Moshiach.  This is not the
usual interpretation, but then this is not your usual Torah study either.  The sedrah ends with the two and half tribes
securing their hold on the land that will ultimately be their portion in the
future Kingdom of Israel.

Themes

Commandments

406.      The
specification and procedure for fulfilling ones vow (30:3).

407.       The specification and procedure for nullifying a vow when
necessary (30:8).

Biblical Literacy by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin

Vows and Oaths

The first section of Matot deals with
two distinct types of commitment.  The
first is a vow or in Hebrew a “neder.” 
The second is an oath or in Hebrew a “shevuah.”  As the notes in the Stone Chumash point out,
the term “neder” really means something more than just a vow.  It is more than a simple promise to do
something.  Rather, a “neder” gives a
person the right to do something that heretofore could be done only by
God:  to create a new halachich
status.  For example, one can make a vow
to deny himself something, for a limited period of time, which the Torah
permits.  The invoking of the “neder”
changes the nature of the thing itself. 
On the other hand, “by means of an oath or ‘shevuah’ one may either
prohibit oneself or require oneself to perform an act.”  To use Stone’s example, “if I have made an
apple forbidden to myself (this is an example of ‘neder’) the apple has the
status of a forbidden food to me and therefore I may not enjoy the apple.”  The status of the apple has changed.  But if I have taken an oath (“shevuah”) to
eat an apple, I have accepted an obligation but from the point of view of
halachah, the status of the apple has not changed.  This may seem a little esoteric, but it is a
concept with which we should have some nodding acquaintance as we go
forward.  (And that is all I have, a
nodding acquaintance.)   As Rabbi
Telushkin points out, vows are so important that “many observant Jews, when
announcing something that they plan to do, append the Hebrew words “bli neder
(without a vow), to protect themselves in case they cannot fulfill their word.

Kashrut

This
sedrah provides the basis for the method of purifying various items acquired
from non-Jews. (31:21-24).  More
specifically it provides the method of purification for utensils and kitchen
items so that may be used in accord with Jewish Dietary Laws.  In telling the soldiers how to purify some of
their booty the Torah states the following. 
“Any article that can withstand fire-these shall you pass through fire
and they shall be pure, except that they must be purified with water of
lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water
” (31:23).  This last statement about
purifying by water has led to a practice called toiveling coming from the
Hebrew word “tovel” meaning to immerse. 
For more information at the easy reading level, I suggest you look at
Spice and Spirit.

The Complexities of
Moshe

Moshe
continues to show himself to be both a great leader and a very complex
person.  When God told Moshe to wipe out
the Midianites, Moshe did not tarry.  He
moved quickly to obey God even though God told him in the same sentence (31:2)
that once this was done, Moses was going to die.  A lesser man might have stalled around; but
not Moshe.  Just as Abraham got up early
in the morning to take Isaac up to Mount Moriah, so did Moshe move with
alacrity.  This is a reminder that as the
sages say, a righteous man is quick to do the work of the Lord.

A Few Last Words about
Words

The
readings from the Tanya that are read at this time deal with the concept of
creation coming from the word of God. 
Perhaps this is coincidence.  Or
perhaps it is a way of reinforcing or expanding on this important concept found
in Matot.

“According
to the Hebrew Bible, God made the world with words.  God just spoke and the world became
reality.  The Aramaic for ‘I create as I
speak’ is avara k’davara, or in, magicians’ language, abracadabra.”  The Book of Words by Rabbi Lawrence
Kushner

Matot on
the Campaign Trail

The
sedrah reminds of the importance of words, especially of the impact of words
spoken by leaders.  In the 21^st
century the misuse of words has had a corrosive impact on our political and
social discourse.  Too often our leaders,
regardless of party or belief, use language that is intended to inflame and not
inform.  There are two things we can do
about this.  We can avoid this kind of
language in our own discourse and we can let our leaders know that we do not
want to hear this kind of language.  It
also reminds us of the importance of vows – promises.  It would behoove our leaders to only promise
that which they can reasonably deliver. 
And it would behoove us not to force them to make promises that they
cannot keep.

Masay

(33:1-36:13) Bamidbar (Numbers)

Masay is the tenth and
final sedrah in Bamidbar.  The
sedrah takes its name from the second Hebrew word in the first verse of the
portion, “These are the journeys (Masay) of the Children of Israel.”  Masay may be divided into three sections –
The Travelogue, Political and Social Institutions in the Promised Land, and The
Conclusion.  Masay marks the end of
Bamidbar.  It marks the end of the
Israelites’ time in Bamidbar, in the Wilderness.  It also marks the end of the narrative of the
Torah.  As you know from having read
Devarim, the death of Moshe is the only additional piece of the story of the
Israelites’ stay in the Wilderness that is not covered in Bamidbar.  Masay should be studied with this sense of
journeys in mind if we are to grasp its full meaning.

The Travelogue (33:1-49)

God commands Moshe to make a written
record of the journeys through the Wilderness starting with the departure from
Egypt and finishing with the encampment on the plains of Moab, across the
Jordan from the Promised Land.  The text
lists forty-two way stations or names forty-two journeys depending up which
commentator you read.  Editors of various
Chumashim all cite Rashi who contends that when you subtract the movement
during the first and last years, there were only twenty different encampments
during the remaining thirty-eight years. 
This would indicate that there was really only a limited amount of
travel by the ancient Israelites and that they spent a fairly long period of
time in one spot.  This more sedentary
view of things would certainly answer some of the earlier questions about how
the Levites and Kohanim were able to pack and move the Tabernacle without any
difficulty.  The text itself is quite
spare, giving only the names of the stopping places.  It doesn’t mention the events that occurred
at any of them such as the giving of the Ten Commandments, the appearance of
Manna or the episode of the spies.  This
would indicate that the names were well known to the reader and that the reader
connected these places with certain historic events.  It would be like mentioning Pearl Harbor or
Normandy.  Everybody knows without
further explanation that one marked the start of World War II for the United
States and the other is D-Day, the invasion of Europe.  Only when it comes to the mention of the stop
at Mount Hor does the text describe the events connected with a particular
place.  In this case it is the death of
Aaron and the meeting with the king of Arad. 
So far, I have not found an explanation for this apparent anomaly.  Yes, Aaron was a great man and his death is
worth mentioning.  But why mention the
king of Arad and not manna or the Ten Commandments?

Political and Social
Institutions in the Promised Land (33:50-35:34)

Having
dispensed with the history lesson the sedrah now turns to political and social
institutions to be adopted once the Israelites cross into the Promised
Land.  First, Moshe describes the manner
in which the land is to be conquered and divided (33:50-56).  The Israelites are to drive out the
indigenous population and destroy their places of worship.  In a world of idol worshippers, the land of
Israel will be the one place where there is no idolatry.  Here, only God will be worshipped in the
manner He has commanded.  If the
Israelites fail to do this, the inhabitants will harass the Israelites and God
will add His own punishment for good measure. 
There are those who think this portion was inserted at a later time to
explain the misery that befell the Israelites during the time of the Judges
and/or to justify the wars waged by Saul and David.  Moshe announces that placement of the tribal
lands will be by lot but the size of the allotment will be based on the
population of the tribe.  The Torah then
provides us with the boundaries of the land. 
It is important to mark these boundaries now because there are many laws
that only apply to Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel (34:1-15).  Also, the tribal apportionments, with the
exception of those in Trans Jordan, will occur within this landmass.

The
different Chumashim provide maps based on the description provided.  Unfortunately, there is some confusion about
some of the boundaries since we are not sure where all of these places are.  This is especially true when it comes to
fixing the northern border because there seems to be some controversy as to
where Mount Hor is located.  We do know
one thing for sure.  The Mount Hor
mentioned here is not the same as the Mount Hor mentioned in connection with
the death of Aaron.  Since the Torah
specifically mentions Canaan, the author may have been trying to describe the
land of Canaan when it was an eastern province or satrap of the Egyptians in
the twelfth or thirteenth century.  We do
recognize the broad outlines including the Mediterranean on the west, the Negev
to the south and the Jordan River and Dead Sea to the east.  Having taken care of the land for the other
tribes, Moshe now turns to the landless tribe of Levi (35:1-15).  The Levites may not own land.  One commentator says the decision to keep the
Levites landless was based on the experience in Egypt.  There, the Priestly Class was a major
landowner and sided with the wealthy over the common people.  By keeping them landless, the Levites should
be a force for morality favoring neither the rich over the poor or vice
versa.  But the Levites had to live some
place so they are assigned forty-eight cities in which to live.  The Torah goes into some detail describing
their land allotment.  The Stone Chumash
provides three detailed sketches of the holdings based on the interpretations
of Rashi, Ramban (Nachmanides) and Rambam (Maimonides).  Six of these cities were of a special
character.  They were Cities of Refuge.  Three were to be on the east bank of the
Jordan, where the two and one half tribes had settled.  The other three were to be on the western
bank of the Jordan in the Promised Land. 
The cities served two purposes. 
They provided a place of sanctuary for somebody who had taken a life but
whose guilt or innocence had not been determined by a court of law.  They also provided a place of sanctuary for
one whom the courts had decided was guilty of taking a life but not in a manner
that warranted the death penalty.  This
second category of miscreants was to remain confined until the death of the
Kohein Gadol.  The Cities of Refuge were
established to put an end to blood feuds. 
Having recognized that there are different circumstances under which one
might take a life, the Torah goes into great detail to describe each of them
and the penalty attached thereto (35:16-34). 
While the Torah allows for the death penalty, it is very scrupulous in
how it should be applied.  At the same
time, the Torah recognizes that human life is a gift from God and one may not
buy his or her way out the punishment for killing.  Unlike the concept of monetary compensation
that was attached to the “Eye for an eye” commands, the Israelites are
precluded from accepting “ransom” from convicted murders.  Additionally, the Israelites could not accept
“ransom” from one who had been confined to a City of Refuge.  Why so much law?  Why so many rules?  The spilling of blood “pollutes the
land.”  The Land of Israel is God’s
special place and He would not tolerate such pollution.

Conclusion (36:1-13)

We
are at the end of Matot.  We are at the
end of Bamidbar.  We are at the end of a
journey that started with the Exodus and finds the Israelites poised to conquer
the Promised Land.  So what is the
momentous conclusion to these events? 
There is no Hollywood ending. 
Instead we are faced with what appears to be a Biblical afterthought; a
piece of unfinished business from a previous sedrah.  We read about a continuation of the story of
the five daughters of Tzlaphchad. 
Remember; they were the women who went to Moshe and complained that the
laws of inheritance were unfair because they disinherited men who had no
sons.  So Moshe consulted with God and
re-shaped the laws of inheritance to take into consideration a variety of
contingencies, including the one they had brought to his attention.  The five daughters went away happy because
now they would have a portion in the Promised Land.  At the end of this sedrah, the leaders of the
tribe of Manasseh approach Moshe to point out a problem with these
modifications in the inheritance laws. 
(Manasseh is the tribe of Tzlaphchad.) 
If the daughters marry men outside of the tribe, the tribes of their
husbands will inherit the land and the tribal portion of Manasseh will lose its
territorial integrity.  It is interesting
to note that this concern is being expressed by one of the tribes that is
settling east of the Jordan; one of the tribes Moshe had previously accused of
turning its back on its fellow Israelites and the Promised Land.  This is another one of those bothersome
points for which I cannot find any commentary. 
Moshe sees their point and adds yet another addendum to the inheritance
laws.  Women who inherit from their
fathers must marry somebody from with their own tribe.  This will ensure territorial integrity.  But such women are to “be wives to whomever
is good in their eyes.” (36:6).  In other
words, they get to choose whom they are going to marry and they may not have a
mate thrust upon them.  The question
still hangs in the air.  How can we end
such momentous events with such a minor issue? 
For a possible explanation, see Themes below.  Matot ends with a final statement that what
we have read are all of the laws given by God through Moshe to the Israelites
since they encamped at the plains of Moab. 
These would be all of the laws starting with the sedrah of Balak.

Themes

Commandments

408.        
The
commandment to assign cities to Levites in which to live (35:2).

409.        
The commandment that murderers not be executed before they
stand trial and are convicted (35:12).

410.        
The obligation to confine inadvertent manslayers to a city
of refuge until the death of the Kohein Gadol (35:25).

411.        
The requirement that it takes the testimony of two witnesses
to convict and execute an alleged murder (35:30).

412.        
The prohibition against accepting money from a murderer to
save him or her from a death sentence (35:31).

413.        
The prohibition against accepting money from an inadvertent
manslayer to free him or her from banishment to a city of refuge (35:32).

Biblical Literacy by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin

The List
of Resting Places

The sedrah provides a detailed list of
places where the Israelites stopped during their wanderings in the desert.  Some critics claim that since these places
cannot be found, the list is proof that the Torah is something less than what
traditionalists claim it to be.  Oddly
enough, the Rambam claimed that God wanted all of the places written down along
with the miracles that occurred at those places so that future generations would
not doubt the authenticity of the events described.  Who has the better of the argument – Rambam
or some modern critics?  This sounds like
another question to consider as we continue our annual wanderings through the
Torah.

Wars of
Extermination

The
war against the Midianites and the commands about conquering the land of Canaan
sound harsh in our modern ears.  One of
the reasons they do is because the TaNaCh is filled with laws about social
justice, mercy and the like.  In the case
of Canaan, we know that the Israelites did not totally dispose of the
inhabitants because they had to keep on fighting with them long after the time
of Joshua.  And we know that some of our
ancestors went astray, following the idolatrous path of the natives just as had
been predicted.  I am not making a case
for genocide.  But it is worth noting
that there are great challenges in leading a Jewish life while living among the
temptations of the non-Jewish world.  It
was true three thousand years ago and it is true today.  Once again, the message of the Torah is
timeless.

The Land
of Israel

The
Torah contains different geographic descriptions of the Land of Israel.  But at one level, the geography is
unimportant.  The message of the Torah is
that the land of Israel is more than a piece of dirt.  The land of Israel is only the Promised Land
if it is a land of Torah.  Without the
Torah we may inhabitant the land but we will be like those with “stings in our
eyes,” “thorns in our sides,” “harassed in the land in which we live” and
punished by God in a manner He had reserved for our enemies.

Non-imperial
Israel

Alexander’s
Empire stretched from Macedonia to India and included parts of Africa.  The Roman Empire stretched from the British
Isles east to Mesopotamia from North Africa to the Banks of the Rhine
River.  The British Empire girdled the
globe to the extent that it was said “the sun never sets on the British
Empire.”  In each case, the size of the
empire was determined by the might of armies and navies; by the will of
politicians and the economic drive of merchants and manufacturers.

Now
consider the fate of the Israelites.  As
“God’s chosen people,” some might think that their domain would include the
entire planet or at least some large, bountiful portion thereof.  You would think that the Israelites would do
at least as well as those relying on the military.  Instead, the omniscient, omnipresent,
omnipotent Lord of the Universe gives His people a small, very well defined
slice of the earth.  What is the meaning
of this apparent disproportionate distribution of land?  First, God is the God for all people which
means everybody is entitled to a portion of land in this world.  Second, the Israelites were chosen to receive
and practice the law of God.  They needed
enough space to do this, but they did not need some immense imperial
domain.  Third, the land holdings that
were the basis for these empires have all disappeared.  Yet the basis of the Jewish greatness, the
teachings of the Lord are timeless and with us today as they were with our
forefathers on the plains of Moab.

The
Daughters of Tzlaphchad

One
of the messages of Bamidbar has to do with change.  The Israelites literally changed from a
nation of ex-slaves to a nation of free people ready to play their role in the
next act of history.  The Israelites took
the lofty words of Sinai and began to make them a part of daily life.  The various rebellions against Moshe were
about change – the wrong kind of change. 
For example Korach did not come to Moshe to discuss the matter of
leadership.  Instead, he set himself up
to replace Moshe and, in effect, to supplant the will of God.  The Daughters of Tzlaphchad showed the right
way to seek change.  (Once again, leave
it to the women to show the way.)  They
did not like the law.  But they did not
condemn it or ignore it.  Instead they
approached Moshe and made their case. 
Moshe then found a way to modify the law to meet their needs without
violating the original intent of the law. 
The request for further refinement by the leaders of Manasseh is a
fitting way to end the journey of change. 
They did not like the law.  But
like the daughters, they did not condemn it or ignore it.  They came to Moshe, made their case and he
refined the law even further.  Change is
a necessary part of Judaism.  It is our
ability to change in an effective manner that has kept us around for four
thousand years.  Effective changes, as we
can see from the Daughters of Tzlaphchad, includes being aware of the evolving
world in which we live, knowing what the existing rules and traditions are and
having leaders who are wise enough to know how to harmonize the two.  Maybe this is why Jews study this on an
annual basis.  Maybe this is why we have
made the journey through the Torah each year just as our ancestors journeyed
through the Wilderness.

Roots:  Linguistics Leads to Learning

The
book we have finished reading is called Bamidbar in Hebrew.  Hebrew is a language of roots, prefixes and
suffixes.  In this case “Ba” is a prefix
meaning “in the.”  In this case, the
Hebrew word “midbar” is translated as “wilderness” or “desert.”  Citing Maimonides, Susan Afterman reminds us
that in Hebrew “midbar” is spelled mem, dalet, beth, resh.  The Hebrew word for speech, utterance, or
talk is also spelled mem, dalet, beth, resh. 
This linguistic anomaly offers a variety of philosophic possibilities.  It was in the Wilderness that the Israelites
first heard the utterances speech of God. 
Elijah went to the Wilderness where he ultimately heard the speech of
God – in the still small voice.  People
go into the Wilderness or Desert to seek quiet and solitude.  In the peace and quiet of the Wilderness they
are able to talk with themselves and hear their own speech.  At the same time they hope that God will talk
to them and that they will be able to hear His Divine
utterances.

“Chazak!  Chazak! Venischazeik!  Be strong! 
Be strong!  And may we be
strengthened!”