Matot

With God's help we are beginning to study the weekly portion Matot, and together with you we will read from verse 2 of chapter 30 of the book of Bemidbar.

So, Moshe gathers the Israelite chiefs and passes on to them the command of the LORD.

Let us stop at the verb lechalél (to empty, to defile, to dishonor), with the root chet-lámed-lámed. And with this root, with this word, one sad mistake is connected. There is another verb in Hebrew, very similar in spelling but completely opposite in meaning – lehalel (to praise, to glorify), with the root hei-lamed-lamed. Very often people who want to glorify the LORD, instead of the beautiful halelú – glorify, say chalelú – dishonor. The difference is only in one sound, and in writing – only in a small stroke between the letters hei (ה) and chet (ח), but the meaning is diametrically opposite. Therefore a person (since our verses speak of being attentive to one’s words) must be attentive in this matter as well, and try to pronounce correctly, so that the sound of the word allelúya (praise the LORD) does not resemble challeluya, which has an entirely different meaning.

So what does our verse say? A person who has made a vow to the LORD or sworn an oath, taking some obligations upon himself, binding himself with some obligations, forbidding (le'esór) himself something, let him not speak empty words, let his words not be empty; everything he has said, let him do.

The word néder (vow) means a situation when a person takes on obligations tied to a certain condition. A person, for example, says: “If my son recovers, I will donate five hundred dollars for the publication of the Torah. If I get a good job, I will do such and such.” There is a condition, there is an obligation that the person takes upon himself in case this condition is fulfilled.

The word shevu'á (oath) is what a person does without any connection to what is happening: he takes some restriction upon himself, forbids himself what is permitted to him. For example, a person may say: “I swear that I will no longer eat the fruit of the davidsonia (this is a tree that grows only in Australia),” or: “I swear that every day I will go to the very earliest morning prayer in the synagogue.” And if before it was allowed to eat these fruits, if before the person was not obliged to go to the earliest prayer, then now, having sworn, he has taken such an obligation upon himself.

A person has the right to decide and to take upon himself one restriction or obligation or another for his spiritual growth. It is another matter (this is very important to say) that, although the Torah speaks here about a vow and about an oath, this does not mean that it is good to make vows and oaths. One can simply make a decision, announce the decision and follow one’s words without swearing by the name of the LORD. It is very dangerous – to swear by the name of the LORD, because we do not actually know whether we will be able to fulfill the obligations that we take on. And the Torah here says how to act if a person has sworn after all.

With regard to oaths there is one more situation, which Yeshua Mashiach speaks about (Matt. 5:33–37). This is when people, for effect, in order to give their words weight, credibility, add an oath to them. A person does not simply say: “I was in Jerusalem,” he says (let us take the words of Baron Munchausen): “I swear by my tricorn hat that I was in Jerusalem.” It would be one thing if it were the tricorn hat: I swear by my head, I swear by heaven, I swear by something else.

A person has no power over what will happen a second from now. And he has no power either over his head or over heaven. Therefore, to add some oath to one’s words for beauty’s sake is simply a lie. In court it was customary to repeat twice: when a person confirmed something, he said ken, ken (yes, yes), and if he denied it, he said lo, lo (no, no). And that was enough. If you deserve trust, if you are truthful, then there is no need to add either I swear by Pharaoh or I swear by my tricorn hat, there is no need to add any other oath to it. All these verbal decorations are from the evil one; simply be faithful to your words, Yeshua spoke about this.

It is very important that Moshe says these words here, says them to the chiefs of Israel, that is, to the leaders. Today it is customary for politicians to make campaign promises, and only a naive person expects that they will be fulfilled. That is just what people say: “What, are you naive? Those were campaign promises!” As one very famous Israeli politician, Levi Eshkol, said: “I promised, but I didn’t promise that I would keep my promises,” and this is in the normal order of things. Moshe here begins with the leaders of the people of Israel, teaches that it is they above all who must be responsible for their words.

About prayer it is said that if a person with healthy hearing prays and does not himself hear his prayer, then it is as if it is not a prayer at all. Likewise, if a person preaches something, teaches something, wants to convey some thought to someone, then first of all he himself must hear his thought, begin with faithfulness to his own word, so that his words do not diverge from his deeds. Among other things, these two first verses of our weekly portion teach us this as well, and also teach us how to look at our leaders.

For example, she made such a vow: “If I marry well and I have a good, loving husband, then all day from morning to evening, while he is at work, I will fast and will not eat without him, I will fast and pray for his health.”

So, the father heard her vow, and the father kept silent to her. This means that the father agreed with her. Legally this means consent: if I have heard something and keep silent, then it means that I agree with what I hear. This is very important not only for this moment, it is very important for various other situations in life. You hear and keep silent – that means you agree. For consent one can sometimes even receive punishment: when you hear something and keep silent, see something and keep silent, it can end very badly. But in our situation we read that the father heard the vow which his daughter made and kept silent, and then all the obligations by which she bound herself, they are all valid. But it also happens differently.

Why suddenly is a certain control needed for a woman, for her vows? It is needed because a woman is more emotional than a man. If a man governs himself, acts in the world guided by logic and reason, then a woman acts more emotionally. This in no way means that a woman is more foolish than a man, and conversely, that a man is smarter than a woman. One can put it this way: if a man has a hundred units of mind and seventy units of emotions, then a woman has, let us say, two hundred units of mind and five hundred units of emotions. In a woman’s nature (we are speaking about most women, about female nature in general) emotions prevail, she often makes decisions emotionally. And therefore the father, who knows her, guided by common sense, can hold her back and say: “Don’t hurry, you don’t know how everything will turn out. Why are you taking such obligations upon yourself? Maybe everything will not be the way you picture it in your imagination.”

And so she got married, and in her past there are some vows. These may be vows that her father approved, or vows that her father does not even know about, or simply some words, simply some obligations that she took upon herself without an oath. She simply decided – here, I will do such and such. Here one must take into account a particular feature of people’s behavior in ancient times. Women, men, very often took ascetic vows upon themselves. A woman could say: “I will not wash except on Fridays; I will not comb my hair except on Fridays; I will not do laundry except on Fridays; I will not buy myself new dresses except for Pesach,” and the like. A woman could impose a multitude of all sorts of such restrictions on herself, moved by emotions.

So, the woman is married, she has a young husband, and she remembers (or the husband notices from her behavior) some vow which she took upon herself in her father’s house. For example, she does not change her dress for weeks, or the husband, returning home, sees that his wife has not eaten anything all day. And he asks his wife: “Dear, what is the matter?” And the wife tells him: such and such.

For example, a woman made this vow: “If I get married and a son is born to me, then after the birth of my son I will never eat passion fruit.” When the son was a month old, they went to the market, the husband saw it and said: “Do you want passion fruit?” And the woman answered: “You know, I promised myself that if a son is born, I will not eat passion fruit anymore.” The husband can say: “Well, that’s your business, I will not object.”

He held her back and, what is more, went and quite brazenly gave her a new dress or earrings as a gift. Just as a father could hold back his daughter, just so a husband can hold back his wife, and, beyond that, he can also practically help her and even break this vow together with her. Why is this possible? Because they are already one flesh, and it turns out that to some degree it is already the husband’s oath too. The husband can object to his wife refusing to buy herself new dresses or wanting to buy them only once a year. Therefore he can not just hold her back, but can simply buy her a dress and thereby break her vow.

Since a widow or a divorced woman is not under the authority, under the law of a man, she is of course responsible for fulfilling her vows. But if this divorced woman or widow marries again, then the husband will be able to review her vows.

It may happen that this woman took some new vow upon herself already in her husband’s house, or she simply made a decision and said: “I will do this and that.” And we read stories from the past when women decided not to wash, not to comb their hair, not to use cosmetics and not to grow their hair, and many, many other decisions connected with asceticism could be made by them. A husband could unexpectedly find out that his wife had stopped changing the bed linen, or had stopped combing her hair, or some other whim had appeared in her. Or maybe it was something good and kind.

And (as I already said) everything connected with tormenting oneself, with torturing oneself, with restricting oneself: “I will not sleep on anything soft, I will not warm myself by the stove, I will not eat while my husband is at work, I will fast, I will not comb my hair,” and so on, all such oaths the husband can confirm or annul.

 Regarding verse 14, which we have just read, there is a dispute. Some say that all vows, even if these vows, these oaths, these promises concern her personal asceticism (for example, fasts or a ten-hour daily reading of the book of Tehillim, or a whole heap of similar obligations), connected with some self-torment, with some suppression of the bodily, even those the husband can annul. And other commentators say that this verse 14 teaches us that the husband can annul only those vows which relate to exhausting oneself. And if, for example, a girl made a vow in childhood and said: “If a healthy boy is born to me, and the birth is easy, and everything goes well, then I will go and adopt three more children,” then this vow does not relate to self-torment, to some kind of self-flagellation, and her husband cannot annul it.

That is, according to one approach, all oaths, and even what concerns her body directly, the husband can annul on the basis of verse 14. And according to the other approach, the husband can annul only asceticism, and other promises he cannot annul. Why so? Because in fact the husband is not indifferent to his wife’s body, and if she takes some ascetic obligations upon herself (not to use soap, not to wash, not to adorn herself, not to dress in new clothes), then this directly concerns the husband too. The whole question is whether this verse expands the husband’s possibilities or narrows them, and there are different understandings.

It happens that the husband at first agreed with this, and then thought: “Well no, this is somehow too hard.” But if on the first day he kept silent, then that’s it, her vows are valid. And this is an important principle for many other situations. A decision is made once, and if a person said: “I agree,” then afterwards there is no need to think long and dig into why he agreed and so on. A person (for example, a judge in court) reasons and judges on the basis of what he can see, and in this way makes a decision. And a decision honestly made on the basis of what is in front of the person right now, on the basis of how he understands it now – this decision is the right one. Decide on the basis of what the LORD has revealed to you today, what the LORD is showing you today. If later you are going to think: “Ah, if only I had known this, if only I had known that, if the LORD had revealed it to me then, I would have ended up in a different place.” As a believer, remember: you ended up where God brought you, that is, here and now (if you walked with God, of course). Therefore do not start collecting data, do not open a research mission, make a decision on the basis of what you have seen, make a decision today. This is what the Torah says: “Today you either agree with this vow of your wife, or you break this vow.” But precisely today, on the day when you heard it, and there is no need to start stewing in it and thinking: “And what about her, why did she?” Decide here and now. This is very important, and not only in this situation.

If, however, after he has already kept silent on the first day, after he confirmed and as it were said: “Do, dear, what you have decided, this is wonderful, I am very glad for you,” if he suddenly for some reasons decides to put it in reverse and says: “This I cannot, I do not agree,” then in this case he bears her sin. He becomes responsible for the fulfillment of her vow.

So, this is the teaching which the Most High gave about the relations between a father and a daughter, between a husband and a wife. This should teach us much more than just vows, obligations and oaths: both with regard to making decisions, and with regard to trusting one another, opening up to one another, and with regard to many, many other aspects as well. This is how a man and a woman cooperate together, for she is a helper to him. And in a genuine union between a man and a woman they not only look at each other, but together they also look at the Most High. Therefore here the Most High himself takes care of the ordering of the family, takes care of peace between a man and a woman, of peace in the family. The Creator of the world, the Creator of the universe, the One Who governs many worlds, takes care that there is peace between husband and wife, and instructs husbands how to treat their wives, and wives – how to treat their husbands.

With God’s help, you and I continue studying the weekly portion Matot, and we will read chapter 31 of the book of Bemidbar.

In Hebrew vengeance (nikmát, nakám) is exaction, presenting someone with a bill, a demand that the one who did us harm, who caused us offense, settle up with us. Therefore the Most High says to Moshe here: “Exact vengeance for the sons of Israel from the Midyanites, exact from them on all accounts for the evil which they did to the sons of Israel.”

And what evil did the Midyanites do to the sons of Israel? At the time, on the advice of Bil'am, the Midyanites together with the Moavites sent beautiful girls to seduce the Israelites. The calculation was that if the people of Israel sank into fornication, this would lead them to idolatry and would put a crack in the relationship between Israel and the Most High, would make the people of Israel vulnerable, and then it would be easy to overcome them. But this did not happen, the calculation did not pay off, although very many Israelites perished: there was a great plague, we read about this in the weekly portion Pinchas. And here the Most High says to Moshe: “Exact it from the Midyanites before you die.”

We read in David’s Tehillim (58:11): “The righteous one will rejoice, for he has seen vengeance (nakám); he will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.” We read (Rev. 9–10) that the souls under the altar ask the Most High for vengeance. It is normal to want vengeance. Sometimes one must forgive, sometimes one must let go, bless one’s enemies, but there are cases when the Most High himself commands to take vengeance. And this is exactly such a case. The Most High says to Moshe: “Avenge the sons of Israel, exact the wrong done to the sons of Israel from the Midyanites.”

Why do they not take vengeance on the Moavites, who were also involved in this? The Most High has a special providence regarding the Moavites, and we know (Devarim 2:9) that there is a command to the people of Israel not to wage war with Moav.

The word chalútz means trailblazer, pioneer, that is, the word hechaletzú – make trailblazers, single out. The first settlers in the land of Israel, when the people returned to the land of Israel in the 19th century, were called chalutzím (pioneers, trailblazers). Here it means single out volunteers, brave people for a military operation.

If the Most High says to Moshe: “Avenge with vengeance for the sons of Israel,” then Moshe says: “With the vengeance of the Most High we will take vengeance. We take vengeance not for ourselves – we take vengeance for the LORD, against whom the Midyanites rose up.” Moshe does not say: “Let us take vengeance for us,” Moshe says: “Let us take vengeance for the LORD.” This is the interpretation Moshe gives to the words of the Most High. Yes, the LORD says: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” but we are God’s people, and sometimes the LORD takes vengeance through his people.

The host of Israel goes on the attack against the enemy with the holy implements of the Tent of Meeting, to the blowing of special trumpets.

Five kings are listed here: the Midyanites had many kings (princes), and they ruled jointly. And separately the Torah says that Bil'am, that very Bil'am on whose advice the Midyanite women tried to seduce the sons of Israel and who wanted to curse the people of Israel but blessed it, was also killed, killed with the sword.

The word tirá can also be understood as some kind of cult structure, as some kind of temple, but most likely what is meant is a castle of the nobility. All the cities of the Midyanites were burned, regardless of shacks, huts or wonders of architecture.

There is shalál (spoils) – this is property made up of inanimate objects: some precious jewelry, all sorts of expensive accessories, objects, dishes, things useful in the household – in a word, everything a soldier can drag off as booty. Malkóach is living booty among people and livestock. They took both the one and the other, but they took it without asking.

So, after the rout of the Midyanites, the warriors burned their cities, plundered everything that could be plundered, but did not divide the booty among themselves, but brought everything to Moshe, to Elazar the kohen and to the whole community of Israel, brought everything to the camp. But they are not let into the camp itself right away.

They went out of the camp to meet them, so that those returning from the war would not enter the camp right away. Moshe, Elazar, the heads of Israel – this whole delegation goes out to meet the victors, who have brought rich booty. How does Moshe react to the return of the victors? If anyone expected that Moshe would take out little medals and start handing them out to the commanders, no such luck.

Now the same story will start all over again: for these are the very women who, serving their god, came to seduce the Israelites. Do you really not remember? Why then have you again dragged here these women through whom the seduction came to the whole people of Israel back then?

This is a rather strange repetition, and this phrase can be interpreted like this: kill every woman who has reached the age when she can be with a man, and every woman who has already been on a man’s bed. All who even hypothetically could have taken part in seducing the sons of Israel must be killed, so that it all does not happen again through Midyanite women.

Seven days outside the camp, according to the law of the Torah, are necessary so that the one who touched the dead is purified with water with the ashes of the red heifer.

Why was such a command not given earlier? After all, the people of Israel had already taken part in many wars, and in other cases Moshe did not give the order that one must stay seven days outside the camp and be purified from the impurity of the dead. When the war was a war of the whole people and all the men of Israel went to war, then who could make whom pure, if all were impure? Therefore it was considered that if the whole people becomes impure, then the impurity is as it were canceled, it stops being contagious when everyone is infected. In this case there was a military operation of vengeance; here there is no seizure of lands, no conquest of a country. This is a combat operation with a definite, specific goal, a limited number of people took part in it – twelve thousand men. Now, if these impure people enter the camp, they can make the remaining part of the community impure. And Moshe demands that they go through seven days of purification.

We know that not only people but also objects can be ritually impure, therefore Moshe here begins to speak about the purification of that part of the spoils which is made of leather, wool, wood and so on.

In verse 21 we read that it is no longer Moshe but Elazar the kohen who continues to give instructions to the victors who returned from the war. Why does this happen? The commentators say: because Moshe became angry, because Moshe began to speak in anger, he did not remember everything that needed to be said. This is a lesson for us all, how dangerous it is to teach when you are angry, or to be angry when you teach.

With exactly the same phrase: zot chukkát hattorá asher-tzivvá adonáy (this is the law of the teaching which the LORD commanded), the instruction about the red heifer begins, from verse 2 of chapter 19 of our book. And what Elazar the kohen will say here is also directly connected with the law of the red heifer. Moshe is standing nearby, right here, but because of his anger he forgot what he was supposed to say, and Elazar says: “I am not adding this on my own, I am simply telling you one more part of what the LORD commanded Moshe.”

Among the trophies much tableware was taken which belonged to the Midyanites. They could cook in it whatever came into their heads. I cannot picture the Midyanites’ menu, but it is quite possible that they cooked pork, horse meat or something else forbidden to Jews as food. And, of course, when food is cooked in a vessel for a long time, the vessel absorbs part of these foods into itself. And in order to purify this tableware, it is heated to the maximum temperature. This is done, by the way, also before Pesach, when one prepares this or that pot for use on the holiday of Pesach, to draw out of it everything leavened. Here Elazar says to the people: “Everything that is put on the fire, heat it through, and it will become pure, but let it also be purified with water of purification.” That is, from the remains of some food, from physical impurity, this tableware is purified through heating, and ritual impurity is purified bemé niddá, through the waters of purification (with the ashes of the red heifer).

Tableware that does not come into contact with fire (all sorts of sauce boats, sugar bowls, serving dishes, plates, bowls and the like) is purified only with water of purification. According to some versions, from here (from the Torah) the law is derived that any vessel which a Jew acquires from a pagan must be immersed in a mikva and purified from the pagan’s impurity. This is one of the ways of understanding it. Today, if any Orthodox Jew who strictly observes the commandments of the Torah acquires some vessel that was made by a non-Jew, or buys a vessel not from a Jew, then he is sure to take it to the mikva. There is a special mikva where one can immerse vessels and thereby purify them.

The other way of understanding it is that any vessel which is not put on the fire naturally does not need to be heated through. It simply needs to be washed thoroughly in water and rinsed with water with the ashes of the red heifer. And after this all the tableware, all the objects, everything that was taken as spoils – all of it will be permitted for use.

To wash garments – this does not mean to take off the clothes and launder them, it means to immerse oneself in the clothes.

These are the instructions which Moshe was supposed to give, but, having become angry, he forgot to do it, and Elazar ben Aharon makes an addition to them.

That is, one must count exactly how many people and how many animals were taken captive. Moshe is not to keep account of everything taken as spoils alone, but together with Elazar and the heads of the communities, so that everything is fair, so that nobody suspects anybody. The bookkeeping is all open.

That is, of everything that was taken captive, from their own half, one five-hundredth part is given (literally – they raise a tribute to the LORD) by those who went out to the war. And what is to be done with this one five-hundredth part which the twelve thousand warriors will give?

Once again I will repeat: the twelve thousand warriors give from their own half one five-hundredth part: of the people, of the large livestock, of the donkeys and of the small livestock. And this is holy, this is a heave offering to the LORD, it is given to Elazar the kohen.

That is, from their own half the people of Israel, those who did not take part in the war, pay ten times more: instead of one five-hundredth they give one fiftieth part. Later, many centuries afterwards, David too will divide spoils in the same way.

Whoever has a calculator can check.

These people will serve at the Tent of Meeting, they will help the kohanim in service which is not connected with the sacred service: preparing firewood, water and similar work.

Here, unlike verses 37 to 40, where what is given to the kohanim, what is a holy donation, a holy heave offering to the LORD, is listed in detail, the Torah does not give a detailed list again. We might expect, as often happens in the Torah, that the list would be repeated, but the Torah does not say this, but says the following:

So, the war has been victoriously completed, the vengeance has been carried out, the spoils have been divided fairly, in accordance with the commands of the Most High. Moshe gave instructions about how the victorious warriors who went to the war will return to the camp, how they will purify themselves and the spoils. And after all this one more event takes place, a completely unexpected one.

We remember that these are the very people with whom Moshe became angry.

That is: “A miracle happened to us, we carried out a military operation and our losses are zero.”

Those commanders who were in danger, who took part in the military operation and returned in peace, understand the miraculousness of what is happening and say: “We want to bring a sacrifice to the LORD.” Moshe was not angry with the ordinary soldiers, Moshe was angry with the commanders, therefore the ordinary soldiers brought nothing from what they had plundered. It was precisely the commanders who decided to bring a sacrifice to the LORD.

They brought nothing as a sacrifice to the LORD, this is a voluntary matter. There is a certain connection between Moshe’s rebuke of the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, even if it was in anger, and their sacrifice, which they, having thought it over, decided to bring to the LORD. Those who did not receive a rebuke from Moshe brought nothing.

That is, in the Tent of Meeting, as in a kind of museum, these golden ornaments will be kept in memory of the fact that the LORD protects his people during war. In memory of the fact that a person can and must feel gratitude to the LORD because He protected him during war, feel this gratitude and give all his spoils (and in those times these spoils were sometimes the pay, the reward of a warrior) to the Most High. This is an instruction which the people of Israel received for long times to come.

With God’s help you and I continue the study of the weekly portion Matot and will read chapter 32 of the book of Bemidbar.

The lands of Yazer and Gil'ad are lands of the Amorites, which the Most High gave the people of Israel to conquer. There are not many places in the region that are suitable for grazing livestock, especially if your herds are very large. All over Israel small herds graze here and there, and although our ancestors were herdsmen, the land of Israel is, over most of its territory, poorly suited for raising livestock. But let us first recall what we are talking about when we talk about the land of Israel. At the covenant between the cut pieces the Most High promised Avraham to give him the land from the Prat to the brook of Egypt. We read about this in the book of Bereshit (15:18–21): “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Avram, saying: ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Prat (Euphrates): the Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Refa'im, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Yevusites.’” These lands which we are talking about now are part of these territories. At the covenant of circumcision the Most High says that he will give Avraham the land of Canaan. We read about this in chapter 17 of the book of Bereshit, in verse 8: “And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession…”, that is, the land which is beyond the Jordan, which the people of Israel still has to conquer, after crossing the Jordan. Two covenants and two parts of the territory of Israel. When the people of Israel is only in Canaan, as it were on a kind of island, then it is closed off from other peoples. In order to have contact with other peoples, the people of Israel has a wider territory, from the Prat to the brook of Egypt.

Let us imagine what would have happened if the sons of Re'uven and the sons of Gad had not spotted these lands. In that case these lands would have been deserted. What would the land of Israel have looked like? On one side – the sea, on the other side – those very deserted lands at which the sons of Re'uven and the sons of Gad are now looking. To the south – the Sinai desert, and to the north – where modern Lebanon is now, there were impassable forests. The land of Israel would have been like an island, separated by impassable forests, seas, deserts and fields from the whole surrounding world. And the people of Israel would have been isolated from everyone in this faraway fairy-tale kingdom, the people would have been shut away in a kind of spiritual incubator.

But there is also another option. The option where the people of Israel has contact with the nations of the world, and this is the promised territory from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates. And in this lies the special significance of the fact that the sons of Re'uven and the sons of Gad picked out this land. Now there will be a permanently populated territory connecting the land of Israel with other peoples.

So, they saw this territory. They saw that it is well suited for grazing livestock. But is it so simple to ask to settle on this land?

In the next verse they will list nine cities of the Amorites, describing the whole geography of the conquered land.

 Nine cities. They have practically outlined the geography of this land. All the names of these cities are Amorite names, except Nevo. Nevo is a Babylonian name, and this perhaps indicates that already in ancient times there was some Babylonian settlement there.

What is meant here is the population which the LORD struck on the territory given by the LORD to the people of Israel. Note that they seemingly address not only Moshe, but also Elazar and the heads of the community, yet they speak in the singular, as if Moshe decides everything here. They say: “…and as for your servants – livestock,” but they do not ask for anything directly. This is like a boy who, having seen some teddy bear in a store, says to his mom: “What a wonderful teddy bear, I love teddy bears so much.” The way they speak is, of course, also a way of asking, it is clear that this is a request. But Moshe is silent. And they continue:

At first glance something outrageous is happening, a rebellion is happening, and not only at first glance either. But we remember, we said that there are two promises to Avraham. And the lands which they are asking for are also promised to the people of Israel. Moshe sees a problem in this and answers the sons of Gad and Re'uven with a question in response to a question (or with a question in response to a request).

This is Moshe’s first grievance against these people. He does not say to them: “Why do you not want to enter the land into which the LORD was leading you?” He says: “How will it turn out that your brothers will be fighting, and you will be sitting here?”

That is: “Well, if everyone here starts settling, then nobody will want to go into the land. You are now weakening the people, you are now depriving the people of this impulse, of this desire to enter the land of Israel.”

We remember what happened on the return of the scouts, how with their talk they killed in the people every desire to go into the land, frightened the people and weakened its heart. And the Most High said that nobody older than twenty years would enter the land (this is chapters 13–14 of our book).

Are we really going to go around a second time?! The word tarbút in the modern language means culture. But here it means that which unites many people into one: a conspiracy of sinful people.

The main grievance which Moshe brings against the sons of Gad and Re'uven is that they refuse to go to war for the land of Israel, they refuse the common cause. They are as it were saying: “We are here on our own, and you go on further on your own. We have already found a good place for ourselves, we will not go further.” And so it will turn out that everyone who seizes some piece of land for himself will say: “But I will not go further. Everything suits me here too, I am fine here too.” Moshe, accusing them, says: “You do not want to go to war and by this you undermine the fighting spirit of the people. And the people will suddenly ask: ‘So what, it was allowed to do that, was it?’ And perhaps you will awaken the anger of the Most High, and He will become angry with the people. And as a result the people will again remain in the wilderness. This is what Moshe answers the sons of Re'uven and Gad.

But they are ready to confirm and to prove: despite the fact that they have already chosen land for themselves, they remain part of the people and will continue the journey together with the people.

That is, we will build here a place where our children and our wives will be able to wait for us. Pay attention, here they give away their priorities: first we will build pens for the livestock, and then houses for our children, that is, the livestock is more important to them than the children.

That is, we are with the people to the end. We will go to war, but we want to secure precisely this territory for ourselves.

So, in answer to the question, to Moshe’s accusation: “How can it be that your brothers will go to fight, and you will sit it out here?” they say: “No, we too will go to fight. And not simply go to fight, but go to fight as pioneers, in the front ranks. And we will fight until every tribe, every clan receives its allotment. We will be with the whole people to the end, and only then will we return to our own allotment (they do not yet know that this will last fourteen years). And to any territories there, beyond the Jordan, we lay no claim at all, because we will already receive our allotment here.”

Moshe says that if you break your word, then your sin (what is meant is the punishment for the sin) will overtake you. Just know this.

Here Moshe both agrees with them and corrects them. And like a true teacher he says: “Build for yourselves houses for your children and pens for your livestock, and everything that has come out of your mouths, do it.” That is, do as you said, but change the priorities: first the children, then the livestock, not the other way around.

Moshe, who knows that he will not enter the land of Canaan, issues a decision, announces his decision to all the heads of the people, so that afterwards there will be no disputes and differing readings. One can learn from Moshe how to stipulate the terms of an agreement: what will happen if they do it, and what will happen if they do not do it. If they really go in the front ranks of the warriors to fight for the liberation of the land, then after the final victory allow them to return to Gil'ad. And if they do not go, then let them receive an inheritance in the land of Israel on equal terms. It is an astonishing thing that Moshe here does not consult the Most High, does not turn to the Most High. There are questions which he can decide himself, that is, he has sufficient authority, sufficient understanding to decide this himself.

Their answer shows that they see in Moshe’s words a command of the Most High, that Moshe interprets the will of the Most High (even though he does not turn directly to the Most High).

Beyond the Jordan – this is in relation to the land of Canaan. And after they have made such an agreement in the presence of all the heads of Israel, before Moshe, before Elazar, after all the conditions have been stipulated and made public, Moshe grants their request.

A question arises: where did half the tribe of Menashe suddenly come from in this list? There are commentators who say: when they saw that these lands are simply enormous and that, perhaps, there would be too much of them for Gad and Re'uven, then part of the tribe of Menashe, not exactly half, but some part of the tribe of Menashe, also wanted to settle there. Others say: the very nature of the tribe of Menashe is memory, because when Yosef gave his son the name Menashe, he said: “The LORD has made me forget.” And from that time on, memory, remembrance of the land, of home, of Israel, is part of the nature of the tribe of Menashe. And therefore the tribe of Menashe remains with them in order to be a spiritual conduit between them and the land of Israel.

In this case the word built up must be understood as fortified, that is, they turned these cities from open ones into fortified ones, into some kind of fortresses with walls around them. And they built pens for livestock. This is what fell to the sons of Gad.

So that the cities would not bear the names of pagan gods, the names Nevo (the name of a Babylonian god) and Ba'al-Me'on (the name of a local god) were replaced.

This is how the settlements of the people of Israel beyond the borders of the land of Canaan came into being.

In our weekly portion Matot, in verse 3 of chapter 30, we read: “If anyone makes a vow to the LORD or swears an oath, binding his soul with a pledge, then he must not break his word: everything, as it came out of his mouth, he must do.” The simple meaning of what is said seems to be very clear. If a person has sworn an oath to the Most High, then he must fulfill this oath, and he must not break it, he must not disregard his oath and say: “Well, I swore, I was scared, tired, I swore without thinking.” Although under certain conditions an oath can be annulled, an oath before God must be fulfilled. That is the simple meaning.

Rabbi Yehuda-Arye-Leib Alter, also known as the Sfat Emet, tries to look a little deeper than the simple meaning and speaks about the following. The phrase lo yachél devaró, which is translated as he must not break his word, can be understood as he will not devalue his word, will not disregard his word, will not make it cheap. And this can be applied not only to this particular oath, but to any oath in general. If a person says, utters with his lips some oath, takes on some obligation, promises something and then does not fulfill it, then his word, all his speech is devalued. And the word which he speaks when he tries to study Torah, and his prayer as his word before the Most High, is also devalued, and this can be an obstacle in prayer. If I am dealing with some person who constantly breaks his word, but at the same time says: “I give you my word, I promise you, here is my word to you,” then he devalues his word. And not only those promises, that word which he broke, but in general all his speech is devalued – speech, which is a very important instrument in the life of a person and in the universe as a whole. We must not forget that the Most High created by the Word, and light appeared only because the Word light was spoken. The word is important in our life, and if we break our oaths, break our obligations – whether before the Most High or before a person – we devalue our word. And what then will our other words mean, the ones we speak, our thoughts, our prayers, for we also think and pray in words. All our communication, all our speech, as an instrument, will be devalued.

The Jewish sages give this definition: “A sage is one who can swear an oath even without a Torah scroll. He does not need to lay his hand on Scripture, to lay his hand on anything, in order to speak the truth. He values his word. And when he says about something he has found: ‘This is mine,’ he is trusted, because not for all the treasures in the world will this man break his word. Only such a person is considered wise.” Therefore it is very important not to devalue your speech by giving empty promises or false testimony, and saying what you do not know for sureiWord for word, the Russian sentence ends “and to say what you do not know for sure.” From the context it is meant as one more way of devaluing your speech, so it is translated that way..

In the Talmud a saying of Rabbi Shmuel is cited, that a wise person may go back on his word in only three cases (this is, of course, advice, not everyone will agree with it). Here is what he says: “One may go back on one’s word in three situations. The first is modesty: when people try to test your level of knowledge, you may, out of modesty, not reveal everything you know. The second situation concerns intimate life: if you are suddenly pressed in some situation to talk about it, say: ‘No, it didn’t happen, I don’t know.’ The third situation concerns hospitality, staying in someone else’s home. As the saying goes: when you enter someone else’s home, close your eyes, when you leave, close your mouth. Is it good in that home? Yes, everything is good. Were you received well? Yes, everything is good, wonderful hosts, a wonderful hostess, very tasty food.” That is, a wise person may, out of wisdom, depart from the truth, and in other situations it is better to keep silent than to tell an untruth.

Of course, each of these situations described by Rabbi Shmuel can be understood more broadly. It is better to add a reservation: “I will do this, I will try to do this, but I am not making a vow.” That is why among believing Jews you can so often come across the expression bli néder (without an oath), that is: I will try without a vow, I am not giving an oath, I will simply try to do this. One must be careful with one’s speech, so that it does not become cheap in the eyes of the Most High, in the eyes of other people, so that our prayers do not lose power, so that our learning does not lose its power. That is a short but, in my view, very important thought about our weekly portion.

Read also the portion Pinchas, the portion Naso about being a nazirite, the portion Bechukotai and the weekly portions of the Torah.