Mattos: Understanding G‑d’s Ultimate Intent

Bamidbar 32:1.

Ibid. 32:4.

Ibid. 32:5.

Ibid. 32:6-8.

Alshich raises a similar question in his commentary on the parshah (question 12).

Ramban (in his commentary on Bamidbar 32:2) states, “Moshe suspected that they made these statements because of their fear of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan…. They answered him: ‘Heaven forbid that we should fear them. On the contrary, we will proceed as the vanguard.’ ”

It appears from Ramban’s words that even at the outset, the tribes of Gad and Reuven were willing to cross the Jordan. According to a simple interpretation of the passage, however, their statement, “Do not have us cross the Jordan” (not “do not grant us an inheritance” or the like), indicates that they did not desire to enter the land of Canaan at all. Moreover, it is difficult to say that Moshe misunderstood their intent. Therefore (according to the simple meaning of the verse), the interpretations of Alshich and Or HaChayim – cited further in the main text – appear most appropriate.

In his commentary on Bamidbar 32:3, Alshich offers a similar explanation.

Bamidbar 32:14.

Ibid. 13:31.

Alshich explains Moshe’s intent in saying, “This is what your ancestors did,” as follows:

Perhaps this is not what is in your hearts. Although your [actual] words are neither perverse nor devious… [and] you have begun in a praiseworthy manner, [nevertheless,] you may conclude in an undesirable manner. This is what your ancestors did. At the outset, they showed signs of purity and began [speaking] by praising [Eretz Yisrael,] but they concluded [by speaking] negatively…. Perhaps you too have the same [intent] in your hearts.

This explanation, however, requires clarification: Since the words of the tribes of Gad and Reuven were “neither perverse nor devious” and Moshe merely suspected that “[they] might conclude in an undesirable manner,” why then did he condemn them with such conviction, employing strict words of censure, “You have arisen in the place of your ancestors, disciples of sinful people”?

Bamidbar Rabbah 22:9 and 22:7.

Mishlei 20:21.

Rashi (in his commentary on Mishlei, ibid.; see similar statements in Bamidbar Rabbah 22:9) states that the tribes of Gad and Reuven “spoke rashly…, making entities of primary importance secondary, for they mentioned their sheep before their children.”

Nevertheless, after Moshe reproved them, saying (Bamidbar 32:24, see Rashi, Bamidbar 32:16), “Build cities for your children [first] and [afterwards,] pens for your sheep,” we can certainly presume that they followed Moshe’s directive (as indicated by Bamidbar 32:36, which speaks of “fortified cities and sheepfolds,” indicating they followed that order). It is not logical to assume that they were exiled before all the other tribes just because, originally, they mentioned their sheep before their children. Instead, we must assume that they actually did something that was undesirable.

Thus, the fundamental dimensions of their mistake in taking “an inheritance seized hastily at the outset,” is reflected in the statements Rashi made previously, that the phrase refers to the fact that “they hurried to take their inheritance in Transjordan.” Similarly, Bamidbar Rabbah 22:7 explains that their error was that “they settled outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, they were exiled before the other tribes.”

See also the Matnos Kehunah (quoting Rashi) commenting on Bereishis Rabbah 72:1 which states, “They took [an inheritance] in Transjordan which became available to them first even though Eretz Yisrael was superior to it.” See also Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 50b, which explains that this is what is meant by “an inheritance seized hastily at the outset.”*

* Likkutei Torah states: “What was incorrect in their actions was that they gave primacy to entities of secondary importance.” This seems to run contrary to what is stated in the main text of the footnote – that the fundamental mistake was taking a land other than Eretz Yisrael as inheritance. However, to resolve this apparent contradiction, it could be said:

a) This explanation is quoted in Likkutei Torah, loc. cit., in continuation of the interpretation of Bereishis Rabbah 72:1, that cites the verse (Mishlei 22:6), “Educate a child according to his path,” and highlights that “it is desirable and praiseworthy to follow” such an approach. Although the path attractive to a child focuses on externals, it is nevertheless important to train him in this way so that he conducts himself in a desirable manner (see Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah, ch. 10).

The beginning of the maamar in Likkutei Torah, however, does not follow that approach and states, “Note the interpretation of the simple meaning [of the Midrash’s intent in quoting the verse] given in Matnos Kehunah and Yidai Moshe – i.e., the explanation in the main text and the body of the footnote – which cites the explanation of Rashi. It is correct.”

b) Even after explaining the advantage of “land fit for herds,” Likkutei Torah states, “Eretz Yisrael is [unique]... They, however, chose to permanently focus on the approach to spirituality inherent to a land fit for herds.”

Note also the commentary of Or HaChayim (to Bamidbar 32:3 and 9) which states that by saying “the land which G‑d has struck down before the congregation of Israel,” they also answered “the complaint that they rejected the Holy Land.” For since the Jewish people as a communal entity conquered the land, their land is also considered as part of Eretz Yisrael and is granted the sanctity of the Holy Land. With the words, “to the land which G‑d grants them,” Moshe was explaining that the lands of Sichon and Og were “not included in the land which G‑d gave to Avraham. Consult that source.

See Keilim 1:6; Bamidbar Rabbah 7:8, 22:7 (cited in the previous footnote); Or HaTorah, Bamidbar, Vol. 4, p. 1340; and Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 7, p. 279, Vol. 13, p. 124, and footnote 20, et al., which explain the status of Transjordan.

See Tzror HaMor on this verse, which writes, “Moshe replied to them…, ‘This land is cherished above all lands. It is given [to us] by G‑d. How can you reject it…? You are angering G‑d and repudiating the holy land.’”

Bamidbar 13:27. See Sotah 34a; Rashi, Bamidbar 13:23 which explains that the spies’ intent was to imply that just as the fruits of Eretz Yisrael are uniquely large, so too, are the people who dwell there.

Bamidbar 13:28.

On the basis of the explanation above, we can appreciate the translation which Targum Yonason ben Uziel offers to Bamidbar 32, verses 7 and 9, that Gad and Reuven’s decision would “nullify the will of the Children of Israel,” and “would nullify the desire of their heart.” On the surface, if the question was fear of war, not only would they lack the desire to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, their desire would have been the direct opposite.

Nevertheless, in this situation, we are speaking (not about an argument like that of the spies, who said, “We cannot ascend,”) but only an insinuation that Eretz Yisrael is not a good land. (More specifically, the tribes of Gad and Reuven – in contrast to the spies – did not speak negatively about Eretz Yisrael. They just stated that, for them, there was an advantage in the lands of Sichon and Og.) Thus, this claim only negated the will of the Jewish people to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, but it did not create a desire for the opposite.

Rashi (in his commentary on Bamidbar 32:7) states, “They will think that you are afraid to cross [the Jordan] because of the war.” It is, however, difficult to say that only because “they will think that you are afraid,” Moshe would condemn the tribes of Gad and Reuven so severely, saying, “You have arisen in the place of your ancestors, disciples of sinful people.”

Thus, it can be said that Moshe’s arguments involved two dimensions:

a) “Why discourage?” – because they will think that you are afraid; and

b) “This is what your ancestors did” – speaking unfavorably about the land itself, as explained.

Bamidbar 32:7, 9. See Tzror HaMor on Bamidbar 32:7, which states that because of the actions of the tribes of Gad and Reuven, the remainder of the Jewish people might have thought that there is a great defect or a hidden difficulty in the land.

Bamidbar 32:9.

Ibid. 13:24.

Ibid. 32:17.

Ibid. 32:20ff.

Bamidbar Rabbah 22:7. See also footnote 11. Note also the commentary of Rav Ovadiah Seforno (on Bamidbar 32:33) which states that Moshe agreed to their suggestion only so as not to create a controversy.

Bamidbar 32:33.

The question becomes even stronger with regard to the half-tribe of Menasheh who, according to the simple meaning of the passage (see Ibid. 32:33, 40), did not seek to settle outside of Eretz Yisrael, as Ramban explains. Instead, they were granted these lands by Moshe. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 28, p. 210ff., which focuses on this matter at length.

See Or HaTorah, Mattos, p. 1339, and the maamarim entitled U’Mikneh Rav, 5629 and 5666.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 74, footnote 59.

See Toras Chayim, Bereishis, Parshas Vayechi, p. 102b.

See the sources cited above in footnote 26. The analogy of a chariot is taken from Bereishis Rabbah 47:6, 82:6. Its intent is that just as a chariot has no will of its own and is totally dependent on the will of the driver, so too, the Patriarchs were devoted entirely to carrying out G‑d’s will. See Tanya, chs. 23, 34, and 39.

See Likkutei Torah, beginning of Parshas Shlach; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1041 (translated on p. 184ff., above), et al., where these concepts are explained at length.

For this reason, the Torah was given on this mortal plane. See Shabbos 88b ff., and the maamar entitled Vichol HaAm, 5700, et al.

See Torah Or, Parshas Terumah; note also our Sages’ discussion with regard to which is the higher rung of Divine service: Torah study or actions (Kiddushin 40b; Tikkunei Zohar 6a); see also Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, end of Epistle 9.

See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 5 (p. 109a); the Mitteler Rebbe’s Biurei HaZohar, Parshas Vayeishev (p. 25a, b) and the Tzemach Tzedek’s Biurei HaZohar, Vol. 1, p. 134.

See Rashi on Devarim 33:18, where he explains that “[the tribes of] Zevulun and Yissachar entered into a partnership [with the following agreement: The descendants of] Zevulun would dwell at the seashore and go out in ships to trade. With their profits they would support [the descendants of] Yissachar, who would be engaged in Torah study.” As explained in many sources (Torah Or, p. 80b ff., et al.), such a pattern – involving not only these two tribes – has continued throughout our national history. There were those who have devoted their energies to Torah study and others whose endeavors are primarily in the business sphere.

See Tanya, ch. 36.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1054, where this concept is explained at length (translated on p. 238ff. above).

Similarly, within every individual’s Divine service, there must be a fusion of both types of service. Therefore, even working people are required to study at least a minimal amount, one chapter in the morning and one chapter in the evening, each day.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 5, p. 245 (translated in Selections from Likkutei Sichos, Bereishis, p. 559ff.), which explains that the concept that G‑d’s Essence must ultimately be revealed is not an ancillary or secondary matter, but rather is fundamental to drawing down His Essence itself. For something that is essential cannot be compelled to remain hidden forever. Since our world is a dwelling place for G‑d, not only is His Essence found here, but ultimately, that Essence will be revealed here.

This concept explains why “A person should always occupy himself with the Torah, even when it is not for the sake of [the Torah], since involvement [in Torah study] that is not for the sake of [the Torah] will ultimately result [in involvement for the sake of the Torah] (Pesachim 50b; see the sources cited there).

Since G‑d’s Essence defies being defined by either concealment and revelation, if G‑d’s Essence, which is drawn down through the observance of mitzvos, were forced to remain hidden, that would prove that His Essence is not being drawn down.

Nevertheless, since His Essence is drawn down through the observance of mitzvos, the actions themselves – not the accompanying intent – are of primary importance.

Devarim 11:14. See Berachos 35b which states, “Many followed the approach of Rabbi Yishmael [who advocates combining worldly activity and Torah study] and they were successful. Others followed the approach of Rabbi Shimon [who advocates dedicating oneself solely to Torah study] and they were not successful.”

Shmos Rabbah 12:3; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Va’eira, sec. 15.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 8, p. 117ff.

Indeed, we find that with regard to the students of the Torah themselves, it is said (Avodah Zarah 17b), “Anyone who occupies himself with Torah study alone is considered like one who does not have a G‑d,”* and (Yevamos 109b), “Whoever says. ‘I possess only the Torah,’ does not even possess the Torah.” Instead, as both sources emphasize, the study of the Torah must be coupled with deeds of kindness. See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 5a.

* Characteristically, in the original, the Rebbe does not include the harsh words included at the end of the quote.

This concept can be associated with the passage that begins this Torah reading, “And Moshe spoke to the heads of the tribes” (Bamidbar 30:2 ff.), which concerns vows. As our Sages say (Avos 3:13), “Vows are a protective fence for piety.” Piety parallels the Divine service of shepherds, who remain separate from worldly activity, as is appropriate for those dwelling in “a land fit for herds.”

Releasing the vows – i.e., that one does not have to separate oneself from material activity, and on the contrary, one should refine and elevate the world’s material substance – parallels the Divine service of Eretz Yisrael. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1076ff. (translated on p. 500ff., above).

The potential for the “heads of the tribes” to release vows – and carry out the counterpart in Divine service, elevating material existence – came when Moshe spoke to them (Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar 85b; the end of the maamar entitled Vayi­daber Moshe, 5672). Similarly, it was Moshe’s rebuke which empowered the tribes of Gad and Reuven to carry out the Divine Service of mesirus nefesh for Eretz Yisrael.

This approach is not appropriate after the Giving of the Torah.

A parallel can be drawn with the conduct of Ben Azzai who did not marry, because he desired to devote all of his energies to the study of Torah (Yevamos 63b). “There is no prohibition at all involved if a person desires to study Torah throughout his life and never marry at all” (the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Hilchos Talmud Torah, Kuntres Acharon, the beginning of ch. 3). Nevertheless, “This is not… the counsel of the wise who instruct a person to choose an appropriate path” (ibid.).

It can be explained that after the tribes of Gad and Reuven volunteered to proceed as a vanguard for the Jewish people, their efforts were considered as “a level of holiness.” Therefore, Moshe agreed to it. Afterwards, however, this approach led to “an inheritance seized hastily.”

To develop the parallel to Ben Azzai’s conduct: At the outset, his unwillingness to marry because, “What can I do? My soul desires the Torah” (Yevamos, loc. cit.), reflected a level of ratzo, yearning for G‑dliness, within the approach of Tikkun (the gestalt that governs our present frame of existence). Nevertheless, this approach ultimately led to his entry into the Pardes (the profusion of mystic experience possible via the practice of the Kabbalah) at which time he “peered in and died” (Chagigah 14b), an approach which paralleled the ratzo of Tohu, the gestalt that led to the spiritual cataclysm described as the “breaking of the vessels.”

With regard to both the tribes of Gad and Reuven and Ben Azzai, at the outset, there was a positive tendency – but one which reflected a slight deviation from G‑d’s intent. Ultimately, this approach led to a greater deviation which had more far-reaching negative consequences.

By contrast, Rabbi Akiva – although he studied 24 years while separated from his wife – did this with her permission. Indeed, she sent him. And, ultimately, he returned to her (Kesubos 62bff.). Similarly, when he entered Pardes, he “entered in peace and departed in peace” (Chagigah, loc. cit.). His ratzo reflected the balanced aspect of the realm of Tikkun. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 990ff., which explains the passage from Chagigah cited here and the spiritual service of the two Sages mentioned.