The Compromised Land

Parshat matot - This week, along with Rabbi Adam Mintz and Rabbi Raphael Davidovich  we discuss compromises and differences of opinion relating to the Biblical borders of the promised land and the modern State of Israel. We explore how these discussions might actually be the only way out of the current conflict.  So throw away your maps and pull out your sacred texts and lets discuss the Compromised Land.

Link to Sefaria Source Sheet here: www.sefaria.org/sheets/334569

Transcript:

Geoffrey Stern 

This week, we have a new episode in asking Moses for an exception to the rule. This week, the Jewish people after 40 years wandering in the desert have finally come to the border. They've actually already conquered some land outside of the land of Israel, just to get passageway they're about to cross over the Jordan River. And two tribes; the Reubenites and Gadites approach Moses. And the Bible starts by saying they owned a lot of cattle. And they noted that the land on the west side, the West Bank of the Jordan River, were really good for cattle. And they said, Would it be okay? If we stayed here? And Moses, as seems to be the standard falls on his face. And says to them, does that mean that you're questioning the whole endeavor, that you're not going to come and take the Promised Land. And he even talks and reminds them, that a whole generation, their parents, had also come close to the border, had sent the spies over, and then had had their second thoughts and doubts, and decided, again, not to engage in this endeavor of gaining the Promised Land. And he says, The Lord was incensed that Israel and for 40 years, he made them wander in the wilderness. And he says, and now you a breed of sinful men have replaced your fathers to add still further to the Lord's wrath against Israel. So again, he's shocked by their question, the way they phrase, their question is kind of interesting, too, because they say that what we want to do is we will build places for a cattle to graze, and we will go ahead and build places for our families to abode. And then we're actually going to come with you and help you conquer the land. And until the project of fulfilling the promise of the Promised Land is fulfilled, we will not go back to our settlement here on the West Bank. But until that time, we will fight along with you. And at this point, Moses comes back, and he talks not so much to God, but I think to the other leaders, and to Aaron, and the priests, and he says, if you will commit to do exactly that, then I will permit you to stay on the West Bank of the Jordan River. And it really goes on and on in terms of each of the different steps. And that I think is the last time .... I might be willing next week. But I think it's the last time that the people of Israel, or a segment from the people of Israel asked for an exception. And Moses came back and gave them the exception. So Rabbi, in your opinion, what makes this story worth a whole chapter in the Torah? And what are the lessons and what are the takeaways?

 

Adam Mintz 

Okay, first of all, this is an amazing story. It's about exceptions. But ultimately, in the end, it's about what commitments are the Land of Israel means, because what we have is we have the two tribes of Reuven and Gad. And basically, they're willing to say we're willing to put ourselves on the line, to be able to live where we want to live. Now, they didn't necessarily have to offer that. But they decided to offer that. And it shows what their commitment to the land is about. And I think that's very important. Yu know, the whole Torah, they're always complaining about going into the land of Israel, why'd you take us out of Egypt, we should have stayed in the land of Egypt and all of these things, right? The Miraglim, the spies come, and they say bad things about Israel. And now you have a group of people who are willing to say, we're putting ourselves on the line, to be part of Israel to fight the battles before anybody else settles down. We're gonna fight with everybody. I think that's a wonderful lesson.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

So it's interesting that you kind of see In the, the the members of these two tribes, someone who is virtuous, their intentions were good. And you would put them in the same category as the daughters of Zelophechad, or Jethro. They were good and well intentioned.

 

Adam Mintz 

that's a good term.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Well intentioned and in a sense, selfless, because what they were saying is they will fight for the rest of the nation to redeem the Promised Land, and then they would go back to the houses. But I sense in the commentators that there's actually a bias in the other direction. In other words, Rashi picks up on the fact that when they said, We will build sheepfolds for our cattle, and then they say, and we will go ahead and build homes for our children. Rashi said, "asu Ikar Ikar vehatfal tafal"  they actually were materialists that they show their colors, in terms of caring more about grazing rights and prosperity. And I think, in a sense, the way they're introduced also kind of places them as someone whose intentions in fact, were very materialistic. So how do you square that with your circle?

 

Adam Mintz 

Good. I mean, there is no question that Rashi is critical of them, or Rashi says that they're interested, they're interested in their self-interest, right? Where is it going to be better for us? I'm really taking a different view. Rashi decides that these tribes are no good. Rashi doesn't like people who break with the norm. Rashi thinks that everybody should do the same thing. I don't think that that's the way that we're necessarily trained. I think that we're trained that it's okay to be a little different. And that if you're willing to make a commitment, that it's okay to be different. So I understand Rashi, I'm not a traditionalist as Rashi in the same way, in terms of the fact that everybody needs to do the same thing.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Well, I think that's wonderful. That's why you and I are made for each other.

 

Adam Mintz 

Tere we go.  Madlik.  That's right.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

So so let's talk in biblical terms, it would be called the Promised Land, and in modern day terms, it would be called Zionism. In a sense, the Reubenites that Gadites, were the first Jews to live in the galut [Diaspora] so to speak, in other words, they were saying you can go into the land, we want to live outside of the land. I think historically, the fact that they live there, ultimately became part of Greater Israel. But in that moment, in any case, they were acting very similar to Jews, like you and I, who live in New York, who say, we are going to do everything we can to support you in the building the dream of Zion and the Land of Israel. But we're actually going to live on the other side of the river so to speak Is is this the first instance .... and it's funny, it's it happened even before they took the land, they already had these outliers.

 

Adam Mintz 

Yeah, well, I mean, by definition, it's the first example. They're just taking possession of the land. And they're outliers. I think the Torah is really making a comment about how they feel about these outliers. Now, Rashi has one view, and I presented another view. Obviously, there are different views about these outliers. But clearly, this is the story of the outlier. It's different than the daughters of Zelophechad .  The daughters of Zelophechad , are making sure that they get an equal portion. That's not about being an outlier. That's about protecting their own interest. It's really a different story than the daughters of Zelophechad .

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Well, absolutely. Do you do you give any import to the fact again, I've already mentioned that the Bible seems to go out of the way to say that they own cattle and that they were looking for land suitable for cattle, ...cattle cattle. Do you think that this is part of a tension throughout the Bible that we haven't discussed before, between agriculture and cattle grazing (herders and ranchers). Between vegetarianism, if you will, and a culture of raising cattle. Of the wanderer, the grazer and the land holder who prays for the rain, who tides the crops. There are so many laws of Judaism that have to do with agriculture, in a very positive sense that it almost becomes the paradigm. And cattle grazing and certainly of slaughtering animals was almost limited to the temple. I don't believe that it was even permissible to eat meat outside of the temple culture.

 

Adam Mintz 

That's right.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Is there any of that going on here?

 

Adam Mintz 

There might be. They're clearly making an argument to the fact we need more land, because that's the way our that's our livelihood, and our livelihood needs more land. Now, you wonder, I think, Geoffrey, this is an interesting question. What did the other tribes think about the request of Reuven and Gad. T Torah never tells us, but it's left open for our imagination. What do you think to Torah thought?

 

Geoffrey Stern 

It makes it seem that the key issue that Moses had was, number one, are you going to be included in the draft? Are you going to help the rest of the people? If we let you pursue your own private interests and your different lifestyle? Are you going to still be committed to the national movement? That was one thing, the other argument that Moses makes, which I find even more fascinating, is he harkens back to when the spies came back, any Harkens back at great length, because he says you're going to be doing the same thing, you're going to be taking away the idealism. We all were looking forward to going into the land until the spies punctured that bubble. And here you are at this precipitous moment, we're going into the land. And already you're taking away from from the whole, from Clal Israel, if you will, but he doesn't really put any words into the mouths of the leaders of the other tribes or to the priests either. So I don't know how to answer that. But I do find it fascinating, where his concerns were,

 

Raphael Davidovich 

that's interesting. You say he doesn't put words in their mouths. You wonder, about why the leaders of the other tribes, you know, when it came to the spies, they weren't so quiet, all of a sudden, here they are quiet? And you wonder why that is?

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Well, I mean, you know, again, we only can read what what's in the text, and we can't read in between lines. There are two words that are kind of interesting to me. One is they talk about, okay, so after you fulfill your obligation, you will come back here, and it'll be an "ahuza". It'll be a holding for you. And the other word is we're crossing the Jordan, you know, the word "Ivri" Hebrew comes from the word "L'avor" to go over. And certainly, one of the references or associations that we always have, is that we crossed over the Jordan, or in the case of Abraham over the Tigris, but the point is, we were coming home. And the cattle grazers are still wanderers so there's also that tension between coming home [to settle] and ending  the wanderings in the desert or of the diaspora. And then there is the other side of it is well, we've gotten used to this life and we like this untethered existence. And then there's this sense of what is the land to them anyway, is it is is something that ... we just passing through? What does "achuza" actually mean?

 

Adam Mintz 

So that's a very good question. What is what is the attitude of these people towards the land? These two tribes? What's their attitude? What about the other tribes? Do they have a different attitude towards the land? Does everybody recognize the holiness of the land? I think from the story in the Torah it's very hard.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Yeah. I mean, I think at the end it says "Vehoyta ha'aretz hazot  l'chem l'achuza liphney Hashem"  that this land will be to you, "achuza" a holding in front of God? You know, I'm reminded that actually does the land really belong to any of us? And that it doesn't talk about "achuzah L'olam" forever. So it does raise these questions. There's so much talk about coming into the Promised Land. What does that even mean? Is it our land to live on our or is it something that we own? You know, I don't think we'll ever know. But I know that these issues are there, even if we just look at the simple words. This conflict between a wandering people and people that comes home?

 

Adam Mintz 

Maybe we should open it up Jeffrey and see whether we have some some opinions Michael, anyone else who wants to hear their views? You kind of threw out a lot of ideas today

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Absolutely. So if there's anyone who would want to comment on what we've been talking about in terms of the first time that the Jewish people came to the land, and the first time that the kind of borders were started to be made both physical borders and borders between lifestyles, Raphael, welcome.

 

Raphael Davidovich 

Thank you. Fascinating conversations.  I just want to point out, that  it was mentioned that Rashi objected to the tribe of Reuben and Gad for their request. But that's not necessarily the case. You know, that's not necessarily the voice of the Torah itself. And I just wanted to make sort of a point, not so much in defense of Rashi. But more in defense of the point that Rashi makes. To me, it seems fairly clear from the narrative, not only of Reuben and Gad, but meaning the long arc narrative that you see at the end of the book of Joshua, that what Reuben and Gad's request, while it was honored, was not considered appropriate. And you see this in two ways. One way is that the fact that they were on the other side of the Jordan, led to their being separated from the Jewish people or the Israelite people at a much earlier stage. There's a Midrash that makes the point that they were exiled, leaving me for the remainder of the 10 tribes, and also that they had distanced themselves. And they almost started a civil war later on at the end of the book of Joshua for wanting to build an altar, which led to a big misunderstanding there. But sometimes, while a Jew might feel he wants a little bit of distance from other Jews, it's ultimately not really a good thing. And I think that's why Moshe never apologizes for his initial rant. It's not as if Ruben and Gad say no, no, listen we'll help as soldiers. And Moshe says, Oh, I apologize for the misunderstanding. You know, the point is left unresolved. And it seems to me that the narrative voice of the Torah feels that all things being equal, what they did was not considered appropriate. So I just wanted to sort of register that that voice, you know, that point of view,

 

Adam Mintz 

okay. I mean, you're you're reading it, within the Chumash [Text of the Torah], and I'm suggesting that there might be two ways to read the book.

 

Raphael Davidovich 

I understand. I heard that other way. But I think ultimately, given the distance. not only in Chumash. But like I said, there are many things in the Torah that foreshadow later stories that take place in the Nevi'im [Prophets]. And I think this one foreshadows the greater distance that would occur later. I think there's a strong point, not just in Rashi's way of looking at it.well,

 

Geoffrey Stern 

I think Raphael that what you emphasize, is this healthy discussion about the different ways that we can look at these tribes, and the unintended consequences in later history, but I think ultimately, like any situation like this, the real issue to me, the real excitement to me is that from day one, this Promised Land was a Compromised Land, meaning to say that these two and a half tribes came even before they got into the brand new car, they already had issues. And were talking about, can they add a trailer? Can they sit in the backseat? It was spanking new. We look at Israel today with all of the different factions and all of the different opinions about who owns what land and how we should cut our borders. And to me, the biggest takeaway is: There is one discussion that had relates to their intention, and where they fall within the commentaries and within history. But there's the other issue. And I want to bring it into the not the not so distant present already, that even from the get go, there were discussions about where the borders were, whether you were in or whether you were out whether you were a purist or were detracting from the movement. And that is pretty amazing .... that already from that time this occurred. If I wanted to take it up into the present in modern Zionist history, there was a big discussion between Weizmann and Ben Gurion on the one hand, and Jabotinsky, on the other hand about what the boundaries of the future State of Israel should be. And Weitzman and Ben Gurion were willing to compromise and Jabotinsky did not. And the main issue was whether the borders would be on both sides of the Jordan or the Jordan would actually be the border. So it's fascinating that the story that we have in front of us is actually a prequel to an argument that related to the founding of the State of Israel. Jabotinsky, wrote a song that became actually the anthem of Herut and the rejectionists who felt that Ben Gurion should not make the compromise. And he has verses in it. The refrain is "two banks has the Jordan, this is ours. And that is as well. It's stretching from the sea to the desert and the Jordan, the Jordan in the middle two banks has the Jordan, this is ours. And that is as well." And it's fascinating that this concept of enlarging the borders, so that what happened in the parsha that we're reading with the Reubenites, and the Gadities went ahead and said they wanted to live outside of the borders, that actually changed the facts on the ground, and it became a new border. And it just seems to me that it's so fascinating when we talk about what the borders of the land should be, and how we should even look at these borders, that we can't but help go back to that first moment when the Jews hadn't even passed over the river. And already they were having these kinds of discussions. And I should say, compromises .... so I wonder what everyone's thoughts are in terms of it almost becomes it's a land of compromise. And it's a land where different people have different visions from the get-go.

 

Michael Stern 

I kind of envision that the Promised Land and when the Israelites crossed over that that was like, opening up an oasis that would flood the whole planet, with the milk and honey with this divine consciousness and mistaken, of course, human frailties of thinking started to think about borders. And it was really just a key in a lock. And In came the Israelites in the alchemy was ready to flood the whole planet with divine consciousness. And so I just wanted to add that feeling that I have that we really could just forget about all the human limitations and borders and strife and see it as an oasis that was unlocked to release that to the world but humans got in the way.

 

Adam Mintz 

Nice idea. And Michael, finish up your thoughts. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Michael Stern 

Oh, I think it's a good thing that it isn't about borders and it's really about going back to the moment and put the key in the lock and let this be the work. To make one holy planet, and of course, you have to start with a seed. And why run after the leaves when you can go back to the seed and then grow a tree of life on the whole planet that goes everywhere and brings everyone together, and no borders and global citizenship and consciousness.

 

Adam Mintz 

Fantiastic... I love that idea.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

But I want to take maybe a little bit of what Michael was saying in a slightly different direction. And that is, yes, I think that Jerusalem and the Promised Land have always been both a reality and a metaphor. And there is absolutely no question, especially in their later history where the two could live simultaneously. But unfortunately, for people living on a particular piece of land, the metaphor doesn't help. And that, ultimately, is what borders and conquest and troop movements and relocation of citizens always ends up. So I would like to talk about an amazing situation that is happening as we speak in Israel. And the New York Times had an article in July 4th, and it talked about how the secular peace effort has pretty much died. And that this might be a moment in time for people who are knowledgeable and committed to religion, to actually start talking about the issues that are dividing the Palestinians and the Israelis. And the example that they give. And the reason why it's happening right now is as you may all know, there is a new party that is a part of the Knesset, and part of the coalition, the ruling coalition. It's headed by Mansur Abbas. And it's called Raam. And unlike what one would think that it's would be a secular party. It actually is a Muslim Brotherhood type of party, it's absolutely committed to Islam. It's one of those instances where exactly the type of person that you think, could not reach out and compromise, is seeing the ability to make the livelihood of his people better. And the times gave a history of this person who had a teacher named Sheikh Abdullah Nimr Darwish, who was put in Israeli jail because he was part of the Muslim Brotherhood and when he came out, he did a turnabout, and said that actually, the Muslims living in Israel, should try to obey the laws. And he met up with a Rabbi Michael Melchior, and the two of them ( he since has passed away. But Rabbi Melchior has continued and clearly his student who is the head of the wrong party has continued) seeing the future seeing the potential of religious people who can read a text like we're reading today, and can discuss the issues from the perspective of religious categories of thought that they in fact, are the ones who are most equipped to look for ways out I mean, even if it's the most basic thing that the concept of the state does not exist, either in Islam or in biblical, or Talmudic Judaism. The idea that you can make covenants and those covenants can be permanent, they can be temporary, the fact that you can live on the land, but every 70 years, the land reverts back to somebody else, and looks at land ownership, totally different. All of these categories are religious categories that we study week in and week out. And sometimes we look at ourselves and saying, why are we studying these texts that have no relationship with human affairs and politics and people's lives? And the truth is, it might actually be the opposite. And I'm just intrigued by this movement of religious scholars being able to sit down and to figure out ways that we can communicate, because clearly religious scholars have more in common than they have apart. And I'd like to open that up for a short discussion and comment or just leave you with that thought.

 

Adam Mintz 

That's a great thought. I think, Geoffrey, if we leave it at that, I think we've done a good job. And it's amazing that we took it back from Reuven and Gad and we took it to modern politics and some of the some of the real achievements in the State of Israel. That's really nice. idea, a good way to end this conversation about this parsha.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Fantastic well, Shabbat Shalom

 

Adam Mintz 

Shabbat Shalom to  everybody. Enjoy the parsha, it's a double parsha. I look forward to next the next week with everybody.

 

Geoffrey Stern 

Absolutely. Shabbat Shalom.