Mattos-Masei 5784: And Justice for All

GOOD MORNING! One of the more under-appreciated aspects of American History is how deeply the original settlers of the 13 colonies identified with the Israelites of the Bible, their struggle with Egyptian slavery, and their trials and tribulations on their way to the “Promised Land.” They viewed their own rebellion and subsequent war with King George III – whom they considered (perhaps unfairly) tyrannical – as echoing the struggles of the ancient Israelites.

(This ingrained sympathetic attitude towards the Jews and their connection to the Land of Israel plays a large part in the overall mindset of Americans and their inclination to support Israel to this very day. I am not discounting, whatsoever, the horrific antisemitism that was prevalent, both latent and manifest, in much of America in the latter half of the 19th and much of the 20th centuries. It is akin to kindhearted folk feeling very sympathetic to the plight of the homeless (or “unhoused”), but not wanting housing for them built in their neighborhoods.)

When it came time to design the Great Seal of the United States, shortly after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the first committee was formed to come up with a draft to be considered for adoption. The first committee members were quite an august group: Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. This was, after all, a big deal; the Great Seal is a symbol of the sovereignty of the United States and is used on official government business to authenticate the signature of the President.

The first image was mostly suggested by Benjamin Franklin and amended by Thomas Jefferson: “Pharaoh sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head and a sword in his hand, passing through the divided waters of the Red Sea in pursuit of the Israelites: Rays from the Pillar of Fire in the cloud, expressive of the Divine presence and command, beaming on Moses who stands on the shore and extending his hand over the sea causes it to overwhelm Pharaoh.” This image was to have the accompanying motto: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

Jefferson, for his part, preferred an image of, “The children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.” Ultimately though, neither image was used (it seems they were deemed too complicated) and the current image, which includes an eagle clasping 13 arrows and a 13 leafed olive branch, was approved in 1782. Still, Jefferson was so enamored with the motto “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God” that he used it as his personal seal.

This fascination with the Bible’s narrative of the Israelite experience, was not particularly reflective of Thomas Jefferson’s view of the God of the Bible. He questioned the veracity of the miracles in both the New and Old Testament and was not a fan of the Biblical God; “he’s cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust,” Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter. But Jefferson, like most politicians, was primarily interested in choosing an image that would resonate with voters, and in the America of the 1770’s there was a great affinity for the Biblical narrative.

Still, his terribly pejorative statement regarding the God of the Old Testament is not unique. Many critics, before and after Jefferson have leveled similar criticisms, and from a superficial reading of the Torah one might jump to the same erroneous conclusion. But the sages of ancient Israel never read anything in the Torah so superficially, and in this week’s column we will examine one such example found in this week’s Torah reading.

“God spoke to Moses, saying: Seek vengeance for the Israelites from the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered in to your people” (Numbers 31:1-2).

In this verse the Almighty commands Moses to launch an attack against the Midianites in retaliation for the harm they inflicted on the Jewish people. As we discussed last week, the Midianites joined forces with the Moabites to entice the Jewish men to sin, causing a devastating plague to befall the Israelites. This attack on the Midianites served as revenge for their treachery to the Jewish nation.

This is somewhat puzzling, since we know that the Torah itself prohibits one to take revenge, “Do not take revenge and do not bear a grudge” (Leviticus 19:18). This seems to indicate that there is something innately improper about exacting revenge, and that vengefulness is considered a character flaw. If that is the case, why did the Almighty command Moses to take revenge against the Midianites?

Furthermore, we find that God Himself sometimes commits acts of vengeance, “For He will avenge the blood of His servants, and He will bring vengeance upon His enemies” (Deuteronomy 32:43). If revenge is so undesirable, why would the Almighty engage in such acts?

Lastly, why were the Moabites not included in this retaliatory attack? After all, they were the ones who brought the Midianites into this fight with the Israelites in the first place!

In order to explain this incident, let us explore and try to understand why the Torah objects to taking revenge. If a person is wronged, why shouldn’t he retaliate?

I am going to paraphrase and modernize the sages’ explanation for the prohibition against revenge found in Leviticus: “What is the classic case of revenge? If I approach my neighbor and ask to borrow his lawn mower and he turns me down, and on the following day my neighbor approaches me and asks to borrow my drill and I refuse saying, ‘I am not lending it to you, just as you didn’t lend me your mower yesterday,’ that is the classic case of the prohibition of revenge.”

It seems clear that a key component of revenge is turning another person’s action into a personal affront. In the case of my neighbor who refused to loan me an object, he may have many reasons for his decision; it may be due to his own innate insecurity to part with a possession, he may require the object for his own use, or there may be some other factor at play and, in truth, he doesn’t owe me any explanation.

The fact that I decide to take revenge for my neighbor’s refusal means that I have taken the matter personally and interpreted it as a personal rejection. The Torah teaches us through this prohibition that we are forbidden to interpret the actions of others in such a way. In other words, I am prohibited from making another person’s actions about me.

Unfortunately, we do this all the time. If we see a person whom we know well on the street, and he ignores us or we think that he looked at us in a funny way, the first thought that generally springs to mind is something like, “What’s his problem?” or “What did I ever do to him?” In truth, he may be so distracted by some major issues in his life that he didn’t see us, or his preoccupied mind is reflected on his face and, either way, it had nothing to do with us. We are thus prohibited from starting a personal feud.

The Hebrew word for revenge – nekama – is derived from the root kam meaning “to stand” or “to rise up.” There is a human tendency to interpret other people’s actions on a personal level, even when the evidence does not necessarily justify that interpretation. This is almost always a reflection of our inner insecurities, and because of them we misinterpret the actions of others and (wrongly) feel diminished. We then take “revenge” to restore how we feel about ourselves – we “stand up” for ourselves. However, this is a tendency that the Torah commands us to suppress.

The prohibition against taking revenge means that a person should not lift himself up by unjustly putting another person down. The reason for the prohibition is that a person should not feel the need to lift himself up in the first place, for he should never have taken the other person’s actions – or inactions – as a personal attack.

By contrast, if we examine the way the sages translate the word nekama in this week’s Torah portion we see that it’s translated in this instance as “recompense” – as in paying back a debt. There had been a purposeful attack on the Jewish nation, for no other reason than to cause them to sin and to stray from the Almighty. It was absolutely a personal attack, and the Almighty commands Moses to balance the ledgers as it were, and to pay back the Midianites for causing intentional harm.

We can now understand why the Midianites were treated differently than the Moabites. The Torah testifies that the Moabites acted out of mortal fear; they trembled before the power of the Israelites. Regarding the Midianites, the Torah states that they became involved in a “quarrel that was not theirs” and they sent their daughters to seduce the Jewish men solely for the purpose of harming the Israelites.

This is why the sages always translate nekama as recompense when it is in the context of the acts of the Almighty; it’s never about revenge for the sake of being vindictive. God acts solely out of justice, and His acts are in strict accordance with a balancing of the ledgers. But God is the only one who can dispassionately mete out justice.

Of course, there are times when we do get personally attacked, and regarding these situations the sages of the Talmud teach the proper behavior (Shabbat 88b); “Those who suffer insult but do not insult back, those who are shamed but do not retort, those who act out of a love for God and freely accept their suffering – regarding them the verse states, ‘But those who love the Almighty are like the sun bursting forth with all its might’” (Judges 5:31).

Mattos-Masei, Numbers 30:2 - 36:13

Mattos includes the laws of making and annulling vows, the surprise attack on Midian (the 1967 War wasn’t the Jewish people’s first surprise attack!) in retribution for the devastation the Midianites wreaked upon the Jewish people, the purification after the war of people and vessels, dedicating a portion of the spoils to the communal good (perhaps the first Federation campaign), the request of the tribes of Reuben and Gad for their portion of land to be east of the Jordan river (yes, Trans-Jordan/Jordan is also part of the Biblical Land of Israel). Moses objects to the request because he thinks the tribes will not take part in the conquering of the Land of Israel; the tribes clarify that they will be the advance troops in the attack and thus receive permission.

Masei includes the complete list of journeys in the desert (the name of each stop hints at a deeper meaning and a lesson learned there). God commands the Jewish people to drive out the land’s inhabitants, to destroy their idols, and to divide the land by a lottery system. God establishes the borders of the Land of Israel. New leadership is appointed, Levite cities and Cities of Refuge (where an accidental murderer may seek asylum) are designated. Lastly, the laws are set forth regarding accidental and willful murder as well as inheritance laws only for that generation regarding property of a couple where each came from a different tribe.