Parshas Matos -Masai: Defiantly in Plain View

In this week’s Parsha, Parshas Matos Masai, the thirty-third chapter of Sefer Vayikra provides a repetitively phrased detailing of the travelling of Bnei Yisrael. They traveled here. They travelled there. They travelled here. They travelled there, and so forth and so on.

Not surprisingly, the great list of journeying begins in Mitzrayim: “They set out from Ramses in the first month…” However, rather than just recording the journey, as is done for most of the rest of the perek, the Torah includes some extra details: “It was on the morrow of the Pesach offering that Bnei Yisrael started out defiantly, in plain view of all the Egyptians. And the Egyptians were burstory. We all known the joke about Jewish hoying the dead that Hashem had struck down among them – every first born – whereby Hashem executed judgement on their gods” (Vayikra 33:3-4).

These details are fascinating because, if you think about it, these two brief, dare I say poetic, verses stated a truth about Jewish history. The Mitzrim are the protype of our oppressors throughout hilidays– they came to kill us, we won, let’s eat… well, except for the eating part. Remember, almost all of our great enemies are gone from the world, but we are still here.

One of the hardest truths for we as people to understand is that every great oppression that we as a nation faced was purposeful. Let’s take a biblical step back to Bereishis. The oppression of Bnei Yisrael in Mitzrayim was not a twist of fate; it was divinely orchestrated. The Mitzrim, on a celestial level, were given a Divine role to help shape the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov by pressuring them – as promised to Avraham at the Bris Bein Habaturim. And the common question is: If Hashem told Avraham that the people would be oppressed, why were the Mitzrim punished in such a devastating way. The answer: they took it too far. And, really, it’s all there in the Torah.

If you think back to Shemos, the enslavement of the Israelites began with what could be seen as a logical concern. They were worried about a minority population taking power. Slavery seems like a terrible and drastic measure to us, but not 100% impossible to understand. This logical concern was the permitted oppression – the oppression that Hashem foretold to Avraham during the bris bein habaturim. However, Pharoah and his Egyptians found more and more reasons to be paranoid of the Jews. When Pharoah started ordering babies killed, this no longer had anything to do with the oppression Hashem needed Bnei Yisrael to go through. This was when they took the power Hashem had given them and abused it, and this is the reason that the Mitzrim eventually suffered so drastically that they could barely acknowledge Bnei Yisrael were leaving (as noted in our quoted pasukim, Vayikra 33:3-4).

In an era like the one that appears to be unfolding before us now, the world keeps trying to point to a legitimate reason for their hatred. They point to Israel but attack all Jews because, really, anti-Semitism is the super-natural vehicle pushing Bnei Yisrael in the direction of redemption. And in such an era, we cannot lose sight of these verses: “…Bnei Yisrael started out defiantly, in plain view of all the Egyptians. And the Egyptians were burying the dead that Hashem had struck down among them…” It is an incredible reminder. This too shall pass, and we shall remove ourselves from our enemies in their clear view, but they will be too busy picking up the pieces to be able to witness the Divine hand.

Those who have chosen to go beyond reason and logic in their hatred of the Jewish people will be struck down, and we, who have held fast to our faith, will walk out defiantly and in plain view.

Am Yisrael Chai and Shabbat Shalom.

 

Parshas Matos-Masai: Lessons in Communication

 Warning: This Dvar Torah may upset people with strong feminist views.

 Parshas Matos-Masai begins with a topic that, on first read, might seem troubling to a modern-day woman. After one verse (30:3) stating that a man who makes a vow is required to uphold that vow, the Torah goes into a rather detailed explanation of the vows of women and, some might say, how easily those vows can be nullified.

 Bamidbar 30:4 begins with basic terminology: v’eesha ki tidor neder – If a woman makes a vow… but the first example is quickly explained to be a woman still living in her father’s house for reason of her youth. This woman, living in her father’s house, can make a vow or a self-imposed obligation and must keep it…unless her father objects (30:6) that day. If she has taken it upon herself while single and then gets married, her new husband can nullify that vow (30:9). Verses 11-17 describe the similar rules that apply to a married woman making a vow or a self-imposed obligation but in more detail, details that offer us great insight into the importance of communication in marriage.

 The husband of a woman who makes a vow has the ability to nullify the vow of his wife, but only if he does so within the day of hearing of her vow. This, it should be pointed out, is an interesting use of language. The nullification does not have to occur on the day the vow was made, but rather on the day that her husband learns of the vow. She is not, it appears, under an obligation to tell her husband about her vow, which allows her time to lay down the foundations for him to understand her actions so that when he does learn of them, he will not object.

 The Torah is then very explicit: “If her husband offers no objection from that day to the next, he has upheld all the vows or obligations she has assumed: he has upheld them by offering no objection on the day he found out” (30:15).

 The Torah goes to great length stressing that the husband has one day to object to the vow or self-imposed obligation. If he objects two weeks later, or even two days later, he shall bear the guilt for every time his wife does something contrary to her vow or obligation.

 The Torah wants marriage and family to succeed. It recognizes a dynamic in the pairing of male and female for him to seek a sense of being respect and her to seek affection and “protection” (yes, this is a broad generalization and a far more complicated discussion). The husband is given the role of head of the house because he needs that respect. That role does not mean he is greater/she is lesser. It is practical in that, until most recent history, a man’s role was to be protector and provider. He needed a strong sense of importance to do his job well, a sense of others depending on him. This need has not changed, even in the world of white-collar jobs and two income families. Torah philosophy consistently defines the masculine as the giver, and the giver thrives on being needed and respected for his efforts.

 The feminine, on the other hand, is the receiver and thus the one who feels fulfilled by being given to. These definitions create the dynamic brought to fruition in halacha for a “Head of the Household.” This dynamic is precisely the issue at play in the question of vows, and the unstated solution to a sense of restriction is communication.

 It is easy to see the subject in these pasukim as seconding women, except that there are some very specific words that show it is not about women per se but about a woman’s place in her family. The first halacha stated above is for a woman living in her father’s household due to her youth. This may set off concern to the modern-day reader, but the actuality is clarified in the Shulchan Aruch: “After six months of adulthood (physical maturity as defined by halacha), she is fully independent, and the father no longer has authority over her vows” (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 234:1). One could see the time when the father can restrict her vows as the tumultuous time period of early adolescence, which to many parents might make sense.

 Bamidbar 30:10, set in-between the young bride whose husband nullifies vows she made in her youth and the vows of a wife, states: “The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, however, whatever she has imposed on herself, shall be binding upon her” (30:10). They are the same category as a woman not living under her father’s household.

 A woman is not seen as less capable or less reliable than a man in determining her future. Rather, the Torah is here recognizing that the role of Baal HaBayit (Head of the House) is given to the man. He is set as the captain of the ship so that he may best fulfill his role of giver, as protector and provider. To maintain this dynamic, the Torah restricts ways in which a woman might undermine her husband but, at the same time, limits the ways in which a man might manipulate his wife. And this leaves us at a critical juncture in which reading deeper provides a valuable lesson. If a wife wants to make a vow that will affect the household (and that covers most things since each member of a household is a cog in its functioning), she should discuss it with the head of that household. If a husband does not like changes made by his wife by having taken a vow, he cannot just nullify it once it has been accepted; rather, he must speak to her in order that she agrees to nullify it for herself.

 And, thus, we come to the age old lesson on the importance of communication.

 I wish you all a beautiful Shabbas.  

 

 

 

 

Parshas Matos-Masai: Learning from War

 War… It means far more to us today than it did a year ago. Indeed, after the actions of this week it means far more to us today than it did a month ago. The war we hoped would come to a quick and victorious end hovers on the precipice of regional escalation. And this calls to the question the conundrum of the very existence of war.

 

One would think that in the ideal world there would be no such thing as war. Utopian fantasies are often premised on the very idea of a society so advanced and enlightened that there is no fighting. And, in truth, there are certainly ideas that in the coming days of Moshiach (bimhera, byamenu) the “lion shall lie down with the lamb” and “"nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” But that’s the dream of the future, and this week’s parsha, parshas matos-massai, is just one of several parshios in the Torah that discuss Bnei Yisrael going to war.

 

Perek lamed -aleph actually presents a particularly relevant call to arms. “So Moshe spoke to the people, saying, ‘Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of the Lord against Midian’” (31:3). God has instructed Moshe to arm Bnei Yisrael to fight the Midianites as his final leadership act before he dies.

 

Quite clearly, this is neither a war of defense nor a war of conquest, but specifically a war of revenge against the Midianites. To those of us raised in the 20^th or 21^st century Western culture, the idea of a war of revenge seems anything but religious or Godly. Nevertheless, that is exactly what Hashem ordered.

 

What was it that needed to be avenged? Parshas Balak, it may be recalled, contains two nations trying to interfere with the Jewish people. Balak was the king of the Moabites, and, according to the commentaries, they had reason to be concerned about the Israelites. Chizkuni, on pasuk 25:17 states: “whatever the Moabites had done, they had done because they had believed that they had a legitimate reason to fear for their lives from the Israelites. Furthermore, the Israelites had already taken possession of lands which used to be theirs before Sichon had conquered it from them in war.”  The Midianites, however, also busied themselves with Balak’s war, and Rashi points out on Bamidbar 31:2 – “The Moabites entered into the matter out of fear, because they feared that they might plunder them, since about them it was stated only, (Devarim 2:9) “Do not contend with them in battle”; but the Midianites, however, had got excited (had interfered) in a quarrel that did not concern them.”

 

This is not so different from the world we live in today, when everyone seems to have an opinion and a sense of a permission to get involved in a quarrel that does not concern them.

As much as we may disagree with their ideology, the Palestinian battle has a morsal of reason to it (which is not to say that any of their means of fighting are legitimate or that their distortions of history are acceptable. There is a country for Palestinians as understood by the term as those who lived in the Ottoman entity of Palestine and that is the Kingdom of Jordan that was created from the majority of the original territory…but I digress). However, what have Houthis of Yemen to do with it? What does Iran have to do with it?

 

But there is a deeper issue at hand as well. What was it that the Midianites did to the Israelites? They followed the advice of Balaam of Moav and attacked Israel on a moral level. They lured them into licentious behavior so that Hashem would turn His favor away from them.

 

So much of the world today seems to believe that Israel wants to be aggressive, that Israel deserves to be judged and condemned. That sentiment is not just about Israel and Zionists, but as we see through the general increase in anti-Semitism, it is about all of Klal Yisrael. The global situation today, while it is actually bringing many Jews closer to their Judaism and the community, is derailing the Jewish nation from their greater responsibility, which is to be an Ohr LeGeula, a light unto the nations.

 

We are not in a world today where Hashem directly communicates. We have no great leader to tell us exactly what to do and how. But we do have to recognize that through all the trials and tribulations our nation is going through, it is up to us to remember our mission. It is up to us to make an even greater effort to make a Kiddush Hashem and show the world who we truly are. We also have to know and recognize that it is okay to fight, it is okay to engage in war, to let the truth shine through.

 

May Hashem protect Israel and all of the brave men and women who must stand strong in the face of so much danger and who protect our nation both physically and spiritually.

301 – BRING THEM HOME, please Hashem.

 

Good Shabbas

Parshos Matos-Masai: Using Our Roles

WARNING: THIS DVAR TORAH IS NOT POLITCALLY CORRECT BY 21^ST CENTURY STANDARDS

The Book of Numbers, Sefer Bamidbar, concludes just as Bnei Yisrael are ready to enter the Promised Land. All that remains is Moshe’s final speech, which is Sefer Devarim, the Book of Deuteronomy. In the last parshiot of Bamidbar, Matos-Masai, which are usually read together, we learn some interesting lessons on the importance of societal strength over personal happiness in the realm of family values.

One of the more well-known and “fun” to discuss portions of the parsha is the section pertaining to the tribes of Reuven and Gad. These two tribes see the lovely pasture-land where they are encamped and decided that they wish to remain there. When they ask Moshe for permission to do so, he rebukes them for stating: “Pens for the flock shall we build here for our livestock and cities for our small children” (Bamidbar 32:17). Their values are mixed up, he tells them. They understand then that their responsibility is to build cities for their small children and then pens for their livestock. But this passage does not just help them realize that their families come before their material security. In specifying that the men of Gad and Reuven must first build cities and pens and then leave to go and fight for the Promised Land, Moshe is subtly reinforcing the idea that as comfortable as a man’s home may be, he cannot enjoy the comforts of home until he has ensured its security and protection (which in this case means assisting in the conquest of Eretz Yisrael so that all of the people could build for their families).

To the 21^st century ear, this sounds old fashioned. We do not think of the world as dangerous in the ways it once was. And women can, and do, go out into the world to support and protect themselves and their homes.  Indeed, there is much that is in the parshios of Matos-Masai that would raise an eyebrow of any feminist – and perhaps of most women raised in modern society. In fact, the parshios are bookended by such subjects! Parshas Matos begins with the laws of vows and focuses heavily on the circumstances under which a woman’s vow is upheld or invalidated by her father or husband. And Parshas Masai concludes with the men of Menashe seeming to want to undo Hashem’s ruling that Tzelaphchad’s daughters – who had no brother – could inherit their father’s land. A complaint to which Moshe brings Hashem’s response that the five sisters, and any future women in a similar situation, can only marry men from within their tribe.

Shalom – peace – is a primary goal of halacha. Shalom comes from shelaimus, completion, and the societal dynamics set out by the Torah are meant to guide Bnei Yisrael into creating an ideal, Torah society. This is not about individual wants and needs, it is about the weave of the fabric of a strong, sustainable society.

Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsh wrote the following at the conclusion of the opening section of Matos:

…the general declaration of the gravity and binding force of the spoken word is only mentioned here as introduction and indeed as a contrast. A man has no power whatsoever to annul his own vows, for that he has to go to his national contemporaries, but towards his young daughter and his wife he has restricted authority to intervene… The calling of woman is, to be absorbed into the home of a man as the most important factor of the component parts of that home. But it is not her calling to found a home independently….

 

To this should be added his comments on 30:4 (earlier in the section on a woman’s vows):

The moral greatness of the woman’s calling in life itself demands entering and adopting herself to a position in life created by another. The woman herself does not provide the house. She enters the home provided by the man and rules in it as the happiness-bringing administrator of all that is to be found there, in the sanctity of manners, and morals and feeling directed towards God. Still more than the man has the woman to guard against making restrictions, abnormal arrangements in the course of her life, they could permanently stand in the way of the fulfilment of her calling…

The power of a father or husband to annul a vow is not about the individual. A woman can make a vow, but that vow cannot go against the current or future possibility of creating a peaceful home by creating a conflict with her husband (or future husband). And we know that a woman can make a vow because it is clearly stated that a vow made by a widow or a divorcee is binding. 

Understanding of the distinction between individual need and societal need is also important to understand the ruling at the end of Masai that states: “And every daughter that has an inheritance from the tribes of Bnei Yisrael shall marry one of the tribe of her father” (36:8). To maintain the larger society, property had to stay in its rightful portion, to its proper tribe. One must look at it from that point of view rather than a modern, feminist point of view as the suppression of women’s independence. If that had been the goal, then God’s immediate response through Moshe would not have been: “They may marry anyone they wish. But they shall marry into a clan of their father’s tribe.” The first statement is a woman’s right to make her own decisions, a very important point of Jewish law.

Twenty-first century society places a great deal of emphasis on making oneself happy. The Torah ideal, however, is to use one’s position in the world to find fulfillment and build toward shalom, then one can be happy. Yes, there are limitations, but those limitations – those rules and roles – are meant to help the larger society attain the ultimate goal of a society dedicated to Hashem.

Underlying the Action (Matos)

The narrative of the Shevatim of Reuvain and Gad seeking land east of the Jordan River is fascinating in its many nuances. Indeed, one of the most popular divrei Torah on this section comments on the subtle way Moshe corrected the petitioners’ emphasis on their sheep to remind them of the importance of placing the needs of their families first.

Reading through this narrative, it is interesting to note that, in responding to their request, Moshe refers – somewhat lengthily - directly to the actions of the scouts. In fact, he lays out the story in cold hard facts, making certain that they understand that this was the cause of the death of a generation and their extensive time in the wilderness. He concludes by challenging them: "And now you, a breed of sinful men, have replaced your fathers, to add still further wrath against Israel. If you turn away from Him and He abandons them once more in the wilderness, you will bring calamity upon all this people" (32:15).

Jewish tradition seems to have a strong ideology against holding one's familial background against them - a convert is not to be asked about their background, baalei teshuva should not be inconsiderately reminded of their past lives - so is not it unfair for Moshe to make such a seemingly strong accusation?

One could certainly get into psycho-analyzing Moshe’s reaction. He is old and knows he is about to be "gathered unto his fathers," so the idea of anything keeping the people out of the Promised Land creates a particularly strong reaction from him. Indeed, he might even have felt quietly resentful of the actions that seemed to have determined that his death would be in the wilderness (whereas 40 years earlier he would have led them into the Promised Land).

The Reubenites and the Gadites hear his message and immediately change the presentation of their request to one that attaches them to the Promised Land and their fellow tribes by including themselves in the upcoming war. It is also revised to place their families ahead of their flocks. The plan is modified to include half of Menasha, and it is approved.

This incident has many potential lessons. For those of us living in these times, perhaps the most poignant is to remember how each action we take is about more than just ourselves and our personal needs. We have to always remember how our actions, be they individual or group, might affect the entire People of Israel. Reuven and Gad wanted the land, they saw how they could use the expanse of grazing land for their cattle and sheep. Theirs was a legitimate, purposeful desire, but they neglected to stop and think about how their request might be understood by the rest of the nation. Every day, we go out into the world as individuals. We strive to make a living, to run our homes and families, to accomplish our goals, and so it is very easy to think only of how our actions might affect ourselves or those immediately around us. The truth, however, is that we must constantly be asking ourselves about the greater impact of our actions. Are we influencing someone else in a negative way? Are we making a Kiddush Hashem? Might we be doing something that will cause a negative reaction for Klal Yisrael as a whole? Moshe recounted the story of the spies to remind Reuvain and Gad how the wrong attitude of a few became contagious and hurt the people as a whole, and the while their intended actions may seem innocuous, they needed to make certain that their attitude was properly aligned. It is a lesson that is pertinent to every generation.