Parasha: Matot · Aliyah: Sixth (Yesod)

ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן, And the members of the tribe of Reuven had a great amount of cattle, etc. The Torah had to give us this information in order to justify their request to settle in the lands which used to belong to Sichon and Og. The Torah simply testifies that their claim was based on solid facts. The reason that these two tribes had so much more cattle than the other tribes was that the soldiers of these tribes were exceedingly brave and captured more loot than the soldiers of the other tribes.

ויאמרו אל משה ואל אלעזר ואל נשיאי העדה, and they said to Moses, to Eleazar, and to the princes of the congregation, etc. We need to know why they were not content to speak to Moses alone; if there was no need for them to address also Eleazar and the princes in the matter there was also no need for the Torah to report this. Perhaps the reason was simply that they had noted that when the general legislation about distributing the land of Canaan was made public in Numbers 34,17-18, Eleazar and Joshua as well as the princes were present. Also the daughters of Tzelofchod had made certain that Moses, Eleazar, and the princes were present when they presented their claim (27,2). In order for this distribution to be valid and not subject to complaints at a later date, it had to be confirmed by the king, i.e. Moses (and subsequently Joshua), by the High Priest, i.e. Eleazar, and by the lay leaders, i.e. the princes. Each one of these leaders possessed an exclusive authority. Maimonides wrote in chapter four section ten of his treatise Hilchot Melachim that when a (Jewish) king conquers a country the whole country becomes legally his, and he can dispose of it to his servants as he sees fit. This shows that the king has overriding authority. As far as the princes are concerned, they enter the picture when the king wants to share out to every one of his people a fair share of the spoils. In such a situation all the representatives of the people, i.e. the princes, need to be present and arrive at an agreed formula at the time the shares are handed out. The function of the High Priest was to inform the people where their respective shares were located. In other words, the king might have decreed for everyone to receive 100 acres of land but did not say who was to get which parcel of 100 acres. You will note that each one of these three authorities had to contribute his opinion in order for the distribution to take place without friction. Furthermore, inasmuch as the function of the king could only be fulfilled after he had conquered the land and the people were settled therein but not at the beginning of the whole process of conquest, it certainly would not have been sufficient for the tribes of Reuven and Gad to submit their claim only to Moses for his adjudication. The word לאמור may mean that the princes were to convey the claim of Gad and Reuven to the people at large in order to secure their approval also. Alternatively, the word emphasises that their claim was presented in "soft language," i.e. אמירה; they were not aggressive in the manner in which they presented their request.

עטרות ודיבון, "Attarot and Divon, etc." Why did they have to spell out all the names of the cities they claimed for themselves as an inheritance? Why did they not simply say: "the land which G'd smote, etc.?" Or, they could have detailed districts as described in 32,1 i.e. ארץ יעזר ואת ארץ גלעד? Furthermore, What need was there for them to say הארץ אשר הכה השם? Were there then any other lands which G'd had smitten? Who would not have known which lands the tribes of Reuven and Gad referred to?

The fact is that these tribes were astute enough to present their claims in a manner which would not expose them to any objections. Theoretically, there could have been several objections. 1) Seeing that the lands in question had been conquered by the people as a whole, by what right did two tribes claim all of it for themselves? 2) How could these two tribes even have imagined that they would be allowed to live securely in a land which had already been conquered whereas the other tribes would have to face war in order to secure their heritage? Why wouldn't every other tribe want to be awarded the territory the tribe of Gad and Reuven were interested in, claiming that they too had no desire to endanger themselves in the forthcoming battle against the Canaanites? Moreover, these two tribes exposed themselves to the taunt that they had chosen to live outside the boundaries of the Holy Land!

The tribes Reuven and Gad were therefore careful to word their intial request with a view to neutralising the objections which we have just listed. They incorporated the answers to the three objections we described in their opening statement. This is why they mentioned both Attarot, etc. as well as "the land which G'd has smitten." Concerning the argument that the lands of Sichon and Og had been conquered by all the tribes, they replied that these lands had not been conquered by natural means but that G'd had smitten those kings, so that the claim of the other tribes to have waged a battle for these lands simply did not stand up to examination. As a result of Divine intervention these lands were G'd's to allocate and their claim did not interfere with the rights of the other tribes.

As to the second argument that the other tribes would have to endanger themselves while the tribes of Reuven and Gad were "sitting pretty," they said that such an argument would only be sound if the Israelites had to conquer the Canaanites by their own effort. Seeing that it was G'd who would fight on their behalf, the conquest of Canaan would proceed on the same lines as that of the lands of Sichon and Og. The other tribes would therefore not be in greater danger than they had been when the lands of Sichon and Og were conquered. Moses himself is on record in Deut. 3,21 as saying: "I have commanded Joshua at that time telling him: 'you have seen with your own eyes all that G'd has done to the two kings of the Emorites; He will do the same to all the kingdoms on the other side to which you will cross.'" In view of this assurance, Reuven and Gad felt that the other tribes had no argument that they were being abandoned and would have to face danger all by themselves.

These two tribes also countered the argument that they were placing themselves outside the Holy Land by residing on the East Bank of the Jordan river, pointing out that G'd had extended His protection to the Israelites to help them conquer these lands. Maimonides writes as follows in chapter one of his treatise on Trumot and Maasrot. "The land of Israel comprises every place which has been conquered by a Jewish king or prophet provided such a conquest had met with the approval of most of the nation. However, if an individual Israelite or even a whole tribe had made war on their neighbours and conquered their territory or part of it, such lands would not be considered as part of the Holy Land even if the territory in question had been part of the land promised by G'd to Abraham." Thus far Maimonides on the subject. He wrote further -in connection with the territories captured by king David,- "why were these lands not considered as on the same level of holiness as the land of Israel? Because David conquered these territories before Israel had conquered all the parts of the land of Canaan which G'd had commanded Joshua to conquer." The basis of the הלכה that also lands outside the boundaries of what we call ארץ ישראל proper will be incorporated halachically is found in Sifri at the end of Parshat Eykev. It is based on Deut. 11,24: "every place that the ball of your foot will step on will remain yours." Seeing that conquest and possession of the land of Israel proper and its boundaries have been mentioned in Joshua chapter five, it is clear that the subject of this verse are lands outside the areas which constitute ארץ ישראל proper. Sifri explains that the reason this verse becomes operative only after the Israelites had dispossessed all the Canaanites within ארץ ישראל proper is so as not to transfer remnants of the impurities and abominations which the Israelites tolerated within their boundaries to newly captured territory. Thus far Sifri on the subject. It is clear from all this that if it had not been for the delay of hundreds of years in expelling or liquidating local inhabitants such as the Jebusite in Jerusalem, for instance, any land conquered by a majority of Israelites would have become incorporated as part of ארץ ישראל proper for all time. At any rate, the tribes Reuven and Gad referred to the territory they wished to settle in as equal in sanctity to that yet to be conquered seeing that G'd had smitten the kings and armies of those lands.

As far as a statement in the Sifri that territory conquered on the East Bank of the Jordan prior to the conquest of the lands on the West Bank does not enjoy the status of sanctity enjoyed by the lands on the West Bank is concerned, and that therefore the lands chosen for themselves by these tribes were not part of the "Holy Land," these tribes countered that this situation was exceptional in view of the fact that G'd had smitten these kings in contrast to their having been conquered by human effort. Hence the sanctity of the land of Israel did apply also to these lands. They were able to quote Moses himself who had stated in Deut. 2,31 that G'd had said to him (not to Joshua) "behold I have begun to deliver up Sichon and his land before you; begin to possess the land." In Deut. 3,2 G'd gave similar instructions to Moses concerning Og and his lands. All of this was proof that G'd had approved the early conquest of these lands. There was also good logic to support such a view as otherwise we would have dealt with two separate conquests, that of lands outside the boundaries of the Holy Land, and that of the West Bank. If this had been the case, the same accusation could have been levelled against the Israelites including Moses at the time that were levelled against David who conquered Aram Tzovah before bothering to conquer Jerusalem. [this is part of the Sifri, although somewhat difficult to confirm from Biblical sources. In fact, Samuel II chapter 9 and 10 both seem to indicate that Jerusalem had been captured previously. Whereas we are told in chapter 8 that David captured ארם צובה, he brought the prisoners to Jerusalem. How could he have done so without capturing Jerusalem first? Ed.] In our situation, the capture of the lands of Sichon and Og were a necessary prerequisite to the conquest of the West Bank. The Israelites had even requested passage to the West Bank through the lands of Sichon and Og but the latter had refused so that there was no other alternative. Conquest of those lands could not be compared to conquest of Aram Tzovah prior to the conquest of Jerusalem then.

Having mentioned all this we now understand why these two tribes spelled out the names of all the cities they were interested in. They wanted to show Moses that the only territory they were asking for was the territory which G'd had smitten. They claimed that all the places mentioned enjoyed the status of sanctity which applies to the Holy Land.

ארץ מקנה היא ולעבדיך מקנה. "It is a land suitable for cattle and your servants possesss cattle." With these words they wanted to forestall another objection. Even after Moses would have agreed to the justice of their claim, the other tribes would all be able to make the same claim based on the same arguments. This is why they had to point out that none of the other tribes had as many heads of cattle as they did.

ויאמרו…יתן את הארץ הזאת, They said:…"may this land be given to us." The word ויאמרו is necessary here although nobody had interrupted the spokesmen of the tribes of Gad and Reuven as yet. The Torah wanted to show by interposing this word that only now did these spokesmen address themselves to the real reason why they wanted just these lands. They did not say to Moses: תתן, "give," but יותן, "may it be given." The reason they formulated the request thus was because they were aware that it was not within Moses' authority alone to grant their wish, as we have already explained. They may have given Moses the option to allocate the land to them single-handedly seeing he was the king, or after consulting with Eleazar and the princes.

אל תעברנו את הירדן, "do not make us cross the Jordan." Baba Batra 109 explains the meaning of the word העבר as being similar to the same word in Numbers 27,8: והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, "you will transfer his inheritance to his daughter." It means that the daughter transfers the inheritance from its original place. The two tribes implied that if Moses were not to grant their request he would in fact transfer their rightful inheritance from its proper place.

They also intended to remove from themselves the suspicion that they chose this land in order to live more tranquilly and not enter the land of their enemies. This is why they explained that the reason they saw no point in crossing the Jordan was only that they did not stake a claim to any part of the land across the river. They were not motivated by a desire to escape their duty to take part in the war of conquest.

They even implied that the fact that they would not cross the Jordan enabled all the other tribes to each receive larger slices of land than they would have received if they had to parcel it out amongst 12 tribes.

It is also possible that they meant that no useful purpose would be served by their crossing the Jordan seeing G'd would do the fighting that had to be done anyway.

<b<span>ויאמר משה…האחיכם יבואו למלחמה…ולמה תניאון, Moses said: "are your brethren going to go into battle, …and why do you turn away the heart, etc.?" Moses understood full well all that the tribes of Gad and Reuven had in mind with their words, in accordance with what we have explained. However, he advanced counter arguments. Moses addressed the argument that the lands really belonged to G'd to do with as He saw fit, and that the other tribes had not established a claim to these lands. He also responded to the argument that in the future too G'd would do the fighting so that their participation was irrelevant. He told them that it was quite true that G'd would do the fighting, but the army of the Israelites had to be present and prepared to do battle. He did not say האחיכם ילחמו, "are your brethren to do battle?," but he said האחיכם יבאו למלחמה, "are your brethren going to be present in order to do battle?" He could not understand that these two tribes were not willing to be present at the time when the Israelites would conquer the West Bank. Moses accused the two tribes of contradicting themselves as they were well aware that even though G'd had done the fighting which resulted in the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og, nonetheless it had involved the soldiers in great fatigue. The same would occur in the future. By what right did they think they could shirk their duty to undergo this fatigue also? They were behaving like parasites collecting the reward for the fatigue suffered by the other tribes. This is why he asked them: ואתם תשבו פה? "and you are going to sit here?

Another aspect which Moses alluded to when he asked: "are you going to sit here?" (while the conquest of the West Bank will take place), was the fact that when these lands of Sichon and Og were conquered all the tribes were present, and their combined merit helped to ensure that G'd did all the fighting. If they were now going to remain behind, only ten tribes would cross the Jordan and their combined merit would be smaller, possibly with the result that also G'd's input into the battle would be smaller. Moses effectively demolished the arguments which the two tribes had advanced for wanting to stay behind on the East Bank.

ולמה הניאון "and why do you turn the minds, etc.?" Moses said that in addition to his objective arguments he also had a subjective, psychological argument aginst the proposal of these two tribes. How would their action be perceived by their comrades-in -arms? Moses conceded that the arguments of the two tribes may have been sincere, however the effect of such arguments would result in a lowering of the morale of the other tribes. These tribes might consider that the two tribes hid their fear of the Canaanites behind these arguments. Once the other tribes had the feeling that Reuven and Gad were afraid, what was to stop those tribes from becoming afraid also? Fear was what had resulted in the debacle 38 years earlier. Moses accused the two tribes of not considering the effect their attitude would have since Israel had experience in the matter. At that time ten men had succeeded in infecting a whole nation with their own fear when they said that the Canaanites were stronger than they were (Numbers 13,31). As soon as the people would observe that part of their number did not want to cross the Jordan they would have prepared the ground for a repetition of what happened at the time of the spies.

אשר נתן להם השם "which the Lord has given to them?" Here too, Moses referred to the argument of the two tribes that G'd had defeated Sichon and Og and that it was only up to Him to decide who would inherit these lands. He pointed out that there was a basic difference between the status of the lands they wanted and the status of the West Bank. G'd had given the West Bank to the whole Jewish people already in the days of the Patriarchs, something that was not the case with the lands which used to belong to Sichon and Og. Those lands were not included in G'd's promise to Abraham. Sifri section 2 item 299 quotes a Baraitha and writes as follows: "the words לתת לך (Deut. 7,13) "to give to you," exclude the East Bank of the Jordan which you took for yourself." Whereas this interpretation of that verse is only that of Rabbi Shimon while another scholar interprets these words differently, there is no reason to believe that any of the other scholars disagree with Rabbi Shimon on that subject.

We also find a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 7 that the East Bank of the Jordan is not a suitable place to erect the Temple, nor for the שכינה to settle. We have scriptural proof of this from Joshua 22,19, where it says that "if the land of your inheritance has become defiled (in your eyes i.e. the East Bank of the Jordan), cross over to the land of inheritance of G'd Himself, who dwells there in the Tabernacle and acquire an inheritance amongst us, etc." This tells you very clearly that there is a difference between the lands of Sichon and Og and that of ארץ ישראל proper. Perhaps this is the reason why Moses did not want to give each one of the tribes a share in those lands, and why he preferred that all of the tribes should accept their heritage on the West Bank which is holier. Compare what we have written on Deut. 3,13 on the words ההוא יקרא ארץ רפאים.

ויגשו אליו, They approached him, etc. The reason the Torah writes "they approached," seeing they were already standing before Moses, Eleazar and the princes may be to show that in view of Moses' reaction that they were no better than the generation of the spies they had felt rebuffed. The Torah therefore had to describe them as "approaching" when they continued their palaver.

Alternatively, after hearing what Moses had to say they realised that it depended on their actions if their wish would be granted or not. They therefore felt the need to approach him even more closely in order to convince Moses of their sincerity. They realised now that their original words had not convinced Moses.

גדרות צאן נבנה למקננו, we will build sheepfolds for our cattle, etc. Why did they have to make this statement altogether? All they had to do was to give Moses the kind of answer which would demonstrate that he had suspected them unjustly, namely that they would form the vanguard of the soldiers entering the land of Canaan (verses 17-18). We may be able to explain their statement with the help of what Maimonides has written in chapter eleven of his treatise Hilchot Mechirah. He wrote: "if someone sells his house to a neighbour or he gives it to him as a present on condition that the recipient go to Jerusalem with him on a certain day and the recipient meanwhile occupies the house in question he has acquired it as soon as he goes to Jerusalem with the former owner on the date agreed. If, however, the formula of the sale or gift was as follows: "if you go to Jerusalem with me on a certain day I will sell you or give you my house, and the other party did go to Jerusalem with him on the day in question, he does not own the house even if he had moved in in the meantime, as the deal was what is called an אסמכתא, the first party not having expected to have to make good on the deal as he expected the second party not to be able to meet the condition in question. Thus far Maimonides. In chapter one of the same treatise Maimonides writes: "What constitutes proper possession through occupancy? If he sold him a house, a field, or he gave it to him as a gift, the recipient must make some kind of improvement in the property under discussion in addition to mere occupancy in order for the transaction to be complete, (irreversible)." Thus far the wording of Maimonides.

The two tribes of Gad and Reuven were astute enough to appreciate the הלכות pertaining to the acquisition of permanent ownership. This is why they told Moses that seeing that their receiving these lands was conditional on their fulfilling Moses' terms, they would first demonstrate ownership of these lands by erecting sheepfolds, i.e. making the kinds of improvement which established their חזקה, undisputed ownership. The "cities for our children," were also meant to demonstrate their ownership.

You may ask that they could have done all this without making a public announcement about it beforehand as there is no halachic necessity to publicise these improvements. However, Maimonides also wrote in the chapter we quoted: "when are such improvements proof of the new owner's intention?, When he made them in the presence of the previous owner. If the new owner made these improvements without the previous owner being aware of it, then he has not made a valid acquisition until the previous owner has told him: 'go ahead and make symbolic improvement as a sign that you have acquired this property.'" The two tribes announced what they were going to do in order to elicit Moses' consent. This is why Moses said to them in verse 24: "build for yourselves cities for your children and sheepfolds for your sheep, etc." This was the equivalent of the formula Maimonides mentioned.

Nachmanides and his colleagues disagree with Maimonides in the matter of אסמכתא and hold that as long as fulfilment of conditions attached to the sale must be performed only by the buyer, the principle of אסמכתא is not involved and as soon as the buyer has fulfilled the relevant conditions the sale is closed. In order for the statement of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to make sense according to that opinion, the tribes mentioned the building of the sheepfolds and cities to tell Moses that until they had completed this they were not prepared to join the other tribes and cross the Jordan with them.

וישב טפנו בערי המבצר, "while our children will dwell in the fortified cities." This comment had to appear here and not previously when the two tribes mentioned the building of cities for their children (and women). They wanted to make it plain that once they could feel reassured about the safety of their families they could volunteer to add another undertaking, i.e. not to return to their own families until all the other tribes had taken over their respective inheritance. The time frame under discussion was 14 years, 7 years of conquest and another seven years for the distribution of the various lands. The two tribes made it plain that unless they left their families in a condition which made it unnecessary for them to worry they would only be with the other tribes during the seven years of conquest. This was why the Torah inserted these words in the middle of this verse although the statement נחלץ חושים should really have been followed immediately by verse 18.

The consideration about these tribes remaining with the main body of the Israelite army until after the distribution of the land also explains something which otherwise appears as contradictory. On the one hand they had said they would join and bear arms (verse 18) until התנחל, the other tribes would inherit; on the other hand they said in the earlier verse that they would participate until הביאותם אל מקומם, "until we have brought them to their place." If you accept our interpretation both statements make sense and are in place.

Moses added the word לכם when he encouraged the two tribes to build cities, etc. in verse 24 to show that he agreed with the purpose of their building the cities for their families' safety. In fact, this is what the two tribes did as we know from verse 34-38. The fact is that the soldiers of these tribes did not return to their homes until 14 years later.

כי לא ננחל אתם, "for we will not inherit with them, etc." They added this as the reason why they would wait until the other tribes had received their inheritance before returning themselves. They wanted to make it plain that they had excluded themselves from an inheritance on the West Bank. Alternatively, they wanted to demonstrate that the fact that they had chosen to remain on the East Bank had nothing to do with their being afraid to face the Canaanites as Moses had implied. Their reason was simply that they had already received their heritage.