The word of the lord came to me:

What do you see, jeremiah?

I replied: i see a branch of an almond tree.

(From the haphtarah of Parashat Mattot, Jeremiah 1:11)

 

Said Rabbi Munah: Both according to those who opine that the city wall was breached on the ninth of the month and according those who opine it was on the seventeenth of Tammuz, from the date of breach until the destruction of the temple, twenty-one days passed. Said Rabbi Eliezer, let this be the sign (Jeremiah 1) "I see the branch of an olive tree" - just as twenty-one days pass from the time this nut blossoms until its fruit is complete, so did twenty-one days pass from the breach of the wall until the fall of the Temple. According to those who hold that the Temple was destroyed on the first day of Av, the wall was breached on the ninth of the month; according to those who maintain that the temple was destroyed on the Ninth of Av, the wall was breached on the Seventeenth of Tammuz. Said Rabbi Yochanan: Eighteen thousand priestly youths fled into the stoves of the Temple and were immediately burned, and none survived other than the high priest, Yehoshua ben Tzadok, as is written (Zechariyah 3) "For this is a brand plucked from the fire."

(Talmud Yerushalmi, Taanit 23:1)

 

 

Between those who bore arms in battle and the entire community

Moshe Meir

After the war with Midian, it was necessary to decide upon the division of the spoils:

And the lord said to Moshe, saying, "Count the heads of the spoil of captives both human and beast, you and Eleazar the priest and the heads of the fathers of the community. And you shall divide the spoil in half between those who bore arms in battle, who went out to the army, and the whole community. (Bemidbar 31:26)

Two options for dealing with the spoils faced the leadership. Either the warriors alone receive the spoil, or the spoils are shared equally with the entire community. According to the latter possibility, the warriors, the smaller of the two groups, receive a greater portion, but nevertheless the others receive a portion.

The Bible records another event, in which both options receive expression. David defeats an Amalekite force at Tsiklag:

David took all the flocks and herds, which [the troops] drove ahead of the other livestock; and they declared, "This is David's spoil." When David reached the       two hundred men who were too faint to follow David and who had been left at the Wadi Besore, they came out to welcome David and the troops with him; David came forward with the troops and greeted them.

But all the mean and churlish fellows among the men who had accompanied David spoke up, "Since they did not accompany us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we seized, except that each may take his wife and children and go."

David, however, spoke up, "You must not do that, my brothers, in view of what the Lord has granted us, guarding us and delivering into our hands the band that attacked us. How could anyone agree with you in this matter? The share of those who remain with the baggage shall be the same as the share of those who go down to battle, they shall share alike."

So from that day on it was made a fixed rule for Israel, continuing to the present day.(I Shmuel, 30:20-31)

The 'mean and churlish fellows' demand sole possession of spoils whereas David decides on an equal division. [Incidentally, it should be notes that, contrary to the event in Bemidbar, captives are not part of the spoils].

A third event joins the above two. Avraham rushes to the aid of his nephew Lot, smiting his captors.

And the king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the folk, and the substance take for yourself." And Abram said to the king of Sodom: "I raise my hand in oath to the Lord, the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will take not a single thread or sandal strap of all that is yours, lest you say, 'I have made Abram rich'. Nothing for me but what the lads have consumed. And as for the share of the men who came with me, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, let them take their share." (Bereishit 14:21-24)

Abraham waives his share, requesting only the shares for those who accompanied him. He does so lest his future wealth be attributed to the king of Sodom. Were Abraham not to have declined his share, how would the division have been carried out? At first glance, there would seem to be no problem. The reward is to be shared by the combatants alone - there is no 'the whole community'. It can be reasonably assumed that in this campaign, too, there were those who actively fought and those who 'remained with the baggage'. Abraham makes no distinction between the two groups ands therefore it would seem that his division resembled that in the Book of Shmuel and not that of Bemidbar. Our Sages, with their literary sensitivity, weighed the relationship between the two divisions:

'From that day va'maalah ['and onward'. Lit. 'and above'] on it was made a fixed rule for Israel, continuing to the present day' (I Shmuel, 30:20). Said Rabbi Yuden: It says not 'va'hal'ah ['and forward'] but rather va'maalah. From whom should you learn? From Abraham, as is written 'Nothing for me, but what the lads have consumed. And as for the share of the men who came with me, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, let them take their share.'. (Bereishit Rabba)

The plain reading of the word va'maalah implies precedent, the creation of an innovation by David. The sages changed it into a word which implies roots, relating to the way of Avraham. In any case, the sages seem to lean towards an unequal distribution rather than the system employed in Bemidbar. It could be that the Book of Bemidbar offers a middle- of-the-way possibility, between the position of the 'churlish fellows' and that of David.

Today, when there are segments of society who do not pull the yoke with the community, perhaps the proper moral resolution should be different. But when the problem is not one of motivation but rather of ability - 'those too faint to follow' - David's moral judgment should set the example. The division should not be according to ability, but should be based on partnership and responsibility.

Moshe Meir is an educator and moderates beit midrash groups. Has a doctorate   in Jewish Philosophy. His book "Two Together" on a new religious-secular philosophy, is soon to be published.

 

 

And Moses spoke to the leaders of the tribes

There is no doubt that all of the commandments including all of their principles and details were spoken to Moses to Sinai. However, Moses did not teach them immediately, but rather at the appropriate times and places. There was no reason for him to teach anyone the laws of the annulment of vows while he was still alive because he, may peace be upon him, served as the unique expert of his generation, annulling vows and oaths whenever necessary. Now, however, his death was nearing, and he saw fit to teach the leaders of the people the laws of the annulment of vows, for they would replace him in this matter. That is why he only commanded the leaders of the tribes; there was no reason to teach the laws of vows to all of the Israelites. It may have even been necessary to hide these laws from them lest they make oaths frivolously, but he did teach the law to the tribal leaders.

(R. Yitzhak Reggio, Bamidbar 30:2)

 

And Moses said to the Children of Gad and to the Children of Reuben: "Shall your brothers come to war while you stay here?"

(Bamidbar 32:6)

 

Shall your brothers come to war

Usually Scripture uses the expression "went out to war" [yatza lamilhama], while the expression "came to war" [ba lamilhama] is unusual. Moses uses the latter when addressing the children of Gad and the children of Reuben: Shall your brothers come to war. He who goes out to war sets forth to battle promptly and willingly. He takes joy in combat, going out to fight beyond his country's borders. In contrast, one who comes to war or especially one who comes towards war [ba milhama] (Bamidbar 10:9) takes the dangers of combat upon himself only after finding himself entangled in war. The war came without provocation on his part, and he is forced to endanger himself. That is why Moses asks: Shall your brothers come to war? while in contrast, you sit here. Your brothers want to reach rest and claim their estates just as you do. However, war is necessary, it has come to us, and your brothers must enter the fight - and you would shrug off that duty?

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bamidbar 10:9)

 

Expansion of Boundaries: Halutziut [pioneering] or Concern for Possessions

For the western boundary you shall have the coast of the great sea; that shall serve as your western boundary.

(Bamidbar 34:6)

 

Among the Sons of Gad and the Sons of Reuben were many wealthy people, and they possessed much livestock and they loved their possessions, and therefore they settled outside the land, and they separated themselves from their brothers for the sake of the property. Therefore they were first of the tribes to go into exile, as is written (I Chronicles 5) And they exiled them, the Reubenites, and the Danites, and half the tribe of Menasheh.

(Rabeinu Behayey on Bamidbar 32:2)

 

This is to say, their adding territory to the Land of Israel was in no way a matter of halutziut; rather, they were concerned about their own property. "Therefore they were exiled first"... The series of dispersions began with the exiling of the tribes of Reuben and half of Menasheh which had settled on the eastern side of the Jordan, and since these tribes had split from their brothers because of their property, they were the first to go into exile.

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashiyot ha'Shavu'a p. 746)

 

READERS REACT

Judges Are Preferable to Kings

I read with interest Benjamin Salant's article (" Korach" issue), in which he expresses support for Shmuel and the monarchy. The article is deserving of consideration.

I should like, however, to present a contradicting religious position according to which the mishaps at the end of the Book of Judges ("Micha's Idol" and "the Concubine at Giv'ah") - are batel b'shishim - "voided in sixty" [a halachic rule in which the presence of one part of a substance in sixty parts of another is considered to be non-existent], compared with severe and continuing misfortunes occurring throughout the monarchy, as has been already discussed - deeply and at length - by Don Yitzchak Abarbanel. The conclusion (extensively developed by Martin Buber] is that the Holy One prefers the decentralized system of Judges over the coercive and centralized rule by king. Sometimes the monarch does "make order' in the kingdom, a positive aspect ("…were it not for the fear of the government men would swallow each other alive"), but unfortunately, more than he brings order, he brings corruption to the world, because "power corrupts." How can one who accepts the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven accept upon himself the kingdom of flesh and blood? Conclusive proof of my argument is that after God decrees Moshe's death (Bemidbar 27), He does not demand appointment of a successor (God alone is king); He accedes to do so only after Moshe's plea ("And the congregation of God shall not be as sheep without a shepherd"). The great puzzlement is that Moshe's successor is not his son, but rather Yehoshua; and Yehoshua's is not his son, but someone else, and so on with all the Judges. This is an extremely powerful phenomenon which has not received sufficient attention, and which is totally contrary to processes which favored dynasties, from the ancient world even until this very day. The problem is that dynasties create power, and "power corrupts". Yet more, almost every judge came from a different tribe (= so as to broaden as much as possible the power of government). Such was the case until Shmuel - finally "redemption comes to the world" when, in his old age, the judge - in keeping with universal custom - bequeaths his position to his sons in Beer Sheva. Consequences are quick to come: "…they were bent on gain, they accepted bribes, and they subverted justice" (I Shmuel 8:3)

The conclusion is that God seeks sincerity, not strength; compromise, not compulsion; judge is preferable to king.

The above is a synopsis of a recently-completed composition which argues the case for religious anarchism ("Religious Jewish Anarchism")

Amnon Shapira is a member of Tirat Zvi

 

Benjamin Salant replies:

Amnon's claim - that extended leadership is likely to corrupt - is correct. We saw as much in the case of judges and throughout the period of the Judges until this very day. This holds true irrespective of type of leader, be he judge or king or prime minister.

Shmuel, the pre-eminent leader, realizing in old age that new leadership has not sprouted from among the people, fearing lest "the congregation of God be like sheep who have no shepherd", sensing responsibility for the nation's destiny and impelled by immediate need of a military leader to fight the enemy (Philistines and Amonites), understands from the people's demand and God's acquiescence ("And God said to Shmuel, "Listen to the people") that a leader (let us say, a king) is a necessity. It is interesting to note that the case of Shaul proves that dynasty is not an absolute necessity. And finally, I wonder how one can consider the terrible case of the concubine in Giv'ah, in which tens of thousands were killed and a tribe of Israel almost ceased to exist, to be "batel b'shishim" as against events which occurred during the Judean monarchy.

Biyamin Salant., Kibbutz Saad

 

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

 

Home	The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help!	What's New Activities and Current Events	Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel

Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English)	Search Our Site	Links To Peace Movements

Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
© Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.