English translation — מטות

A.

In our parshah it speaks about two wars of Jews with the nations of the world.

About the first war,

the war of Midian¹,

it is told how it was in actuality; and about the second war — the future war to conquer Eretz Yisrael — how the tribes of Gad and Reuven undertook to be the "vanguard before the Lord for war"².

The difference between the two wars is understood from the verses themselves: The war of Midian was,

as the Almighty said: "Avenge the vengeance of the children of Israel from the Midianites"¹,

the purpose of the war was "and they killed every male"³

as "vengeance"

(for what they had done to the Jews⁴)

; but it does not state that the Jews did this in order to settle their cities

(quite the opposite: "all their cities in their settlements and all their fortresses they burned with fire"⁵),

they only took captive the "women of Midian and their children etc. and all their spoil they plundered"⁶.

But the war of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben with the nations of the land of Israel,

although that for them

(for the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben)

this was only "drive out his enemies from before him"⁷

and they themselves did not settle there

(but — on the other side of the Jordan

eastward)

— however the intent of the war was to settle,

settlement — to conquer the land⁸,

as they said: "And we will arm ourselves quickly before the children of Israel until when <b>we have brought them to their place</b>" and further — "We will not return to our houses until <b>the inheritance</b> of the children of Israel, each man his inheritance"⁹.

2.

And based on this,

that the war of Midian was not for the sake of <b>conquest</b> — to take it so that it would become his¹⁰

and settle the land of Midian,

an objection is answered that the Ra'avad asks on the Rambam:

Regarding the law that "every tribe of Levi is warned that they shall not inherit in the land of Canaan, etc., that they shall not take a portion in the spoils at the time they conquer the cities"¹¹

the Rambam says¹²

: "It seems to me that these matters are said only concerning the land that was covenanted to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their children inherited it and it was divided to them,

but all the other lands that a king of the kings of Israel conquers, behold the priests and Levites in those lands and in their spoils are like all Israel."

The Ra'avad asks on this: "But behold, in the spoils of Midian they did not take a portion in Israel except in the terumah and in the commandments of the Creator of all, blessed be He" — one sees indeed from the spoils of Midian,

that also in the conquest of "all the other lands" the priests and Levites are not "like all Israel" and do not take any

(inheritance in the land and)

portion in the spoils.

The Kesef Mishneh answers¹³

: "And our master understands that on the contrary, from there is proof, for we see that in a land with which a covenant was made they did not take a share of the spoils at all, and in Midian they took¹⁴

it comes to reveal that Midian, since a covenant was not made with it, was not included in 'the priests shall not have a share in the spoils,' and the same applies to all other lands with which a covenant was not made; and that they did not take in Midian an equal share with Israel was a decree of the Scripture, a temporary ruling."

This is however difficult,

for that which in Midian they took was indeed not a share of the spoils,

but

(as the <b>Rambam</b>¹⁵

calls it)

"the tribute of the tax."

According to the above, but,

that by Midian "they did not take their land, only to take their vengeance they killed

them"¹⁶,

it is understood that this has altogether no connection to the "other lands" about which the Rambam says that the kohanim and Levites are in those lands and in their spoils like all Israel — because the Rambam speaks about such a war whose purpose and manner is that the king is conquering the land,

but the war of Midian has a different category,

its purpose is not to conquer the land of Midian,

only to take vengeance "the vengeance of Bnei Yisrael from the Midianites".

3.

One can, however, ask on this: the Rambam¹⁷

rules: "When besieging a city to capture it¹⁸

we do not surround it from all four sides, but from three sides, and leave a place for a fugitive and for anyone who wishes to flee for his life,

as it is said¹⁹

<b>And they encamped against Midian</b> as the Lord commanded Moses,

from the oral tradition they learned that with this He commanded him"²⁰

Which from the plain sense of the language implies,

that according to the Rambam, the war of Midian was also in the category of "besieging a city <b>to capture it</b>",

namely to conquer the city —

And furthermore: if the intention was "only to avenge their vengeance, kill them,"

then why "they leave a place for the fugitive and for anyone who wishes to flee for his life"?

And as the Rogatchover²¹

indeed explains,

that the two opinions in

Sifri²²

Regarding "and they besieged",

whether they surrounded from four sides or only from three²³,

they disagree whether this is war or revenge,

because in war certainly only from three [sides] is needed.

And although also in a war that is for revenge "to kill them" there is a place that one should leave the fourth side unbesieged

(not so that the city dwellers can save themselves,

but)

so that "they will not strengthen themselves against us"²⁴,

because with no alternative,

having no way to flee,

the besieged will strengthen themselves and this can, heaven forbid, cause casualties among Jews²⁵.

that this means the Rambam with the two expressions: "and they leave &lt;b&gt;a place for the fugitive&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

is related to a war of vengeance like the war of Midian; "and for anyone who wants &lt;b&gt;to flee for his life&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

— in other wars,

where the goal is &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;to kill them&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

But from the fact that the Rambam includes also the war of Midian in the law "When besieging a city to capture it, they do not surround it etc."; and moreover,

that the entire law

("they do not surround it etc.")

is derived from the war of Midian — it implies that also the war of Midian has in itself

(something)

a common aspect with the other wars whose purpose is to conquer the city&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;.

According to this, the question of the Ra'avad returns to its place: Since the war of Midian is similar to the wars of "the rest of all the lands that a king of the kings of Israel conquers"

(which the Rambam says)

then why do we find that "from the spoils of Midian they did not take

(the kohanim and the Levites)

a portion in Israel"?

D.

And it can be said,

that according to the opinion of the Rambam, the war of Midian had within itself both categories — purposes: It was a war for the sake of "vengeance of Bnei Yisrael",

and together with that it was also &lt;b&gt;like &lt;/b&gt;a war of conquest,

similar to the wars of the rest of all the lands that the king conquers.

And although one does not find simply in the verses that they inherited the land of Midian&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

the Rambam learns, however, that since the Torah relates that "And the children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods they plundered,

and they took all the spoil and all the booty of man and beast"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

(and Moses' complaint was only about that which "you have kept alive every female" and he commanded only "kill every male among the little ones"&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;)

— not like by the war against Amalek&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

where the command was&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

"and you shall utterly destroy all that is his and you shall not spare him, and you shall put to death from man to woman, from infant to suckling, from ox to sheep, from camel to donkey"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

— from this it is proven that it was a war of vengeance,

but not a war to eradicate, rather — at least a &lt;b&gt;semblance &lt;/b&gt;of a war of conquest.

And therefore,

regarding the law whether one must surround the city from only three or from all four directions,

since by Midian there was not the command to kill &lt;b&gt;all &lt;/b&gt;the inhabitants of the land,

the halachic ruling according to the Rambam is that "one does not surround it from four directions but from three directions" — and from this one derives

(and all the more so)

also regarding other wars which are entirely for the sake of conquest,

"when besieging a city &lt;b&gt;to capture it&lt;/b&gt;".

On the other hand,

since the war of Midian was

(also and)

<b>primarily </b>a war of vengeance³⁶,

"kill every male"³⁷

"and every woman who knows a man intimately",

not for conquest — that it should come to his possessions — in his land and in his movable property,

spoils³⁸

Therefore the matter of spoils here is not comparable to the spoils of "all other lands that a king conquers",

where "the priests and Levites in those lands and in their spoils are like all Israel",

but the tribute of the tax.

One must however understand: since the war was for revenge,

they should not have separated even the terumat hameches

(to Elazar the priest and to the Levites).

H.

Will one understand this with the introduction of what one finds another special matter by the war of Midian:

From the verse³⁹

"To all the tribes of Israel you shall send

to the army" teaches Rabbi Akiva⁴⁰

"to bring the tribe of Levi"⁴¹,

that also the tribe of Levi participated in the war of Midian — and the Rogatchover²¹

explains,

that in this consists the dispute in the Sifrei whether "the tribe of Levi was also in Midian,

and this depends on whether for war they do not go out⁴²

as the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: 'But if for vengeance they go out.'"

One must understand: the reason that the tribe of Levi "do not wage war" says the Rambam⁴³

Because "they were separated from the ways of the world

(and therefore)

they do not wage war like the rest of Israel"; then why in a war of vengeance

(like the war of Midian)⁴⁴

does the tribe of Levi also participate⁴⁵?

6.

And one can say the explanation in this⁴⁶

Since the tribe of Levi is⁴³

"was separated <b>to serve the Lord, to minister to Him </b>and to teach His ways

the upright and His righteous judgments to the many, etc. Therefore they were separated from the ways of <b>the world </b>etc., they are <b>the army of the Lord</b>",

it is understood that such a war which is not for the conquest of the land <b>as the ways of the world </b>— can also be relevant to the tribe of Levi,

and a war which is connected with "the Lord" is also as "the army of the Lord" must also

(specifically)

the tribe of Levi

(participate)

be in the war —

The war of Midian was "to take vengeance of &lt;b&gt;G‑d&lt;/b&gt; upon Midian"&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

: the nature and content of the war is,

because Midian stands against the Holy One, blessed be He,&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

against the Name&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

Therefore must

(also)

the tribe of Levi

(participate)

be in the war against Midian — this is its essence and function as "the army of G‑d",

to carry out "&lt;b&gt;the vengeance of G‑d&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;.

And according to this it is understood that which regarding the war of Midian was the command

"And you shall raise up from yourselves for the Lord etc. and give it to Elazar the kohen a gift of the Lord,"

and afterwards "you shall take one portion from the fifty etc. and give them to the Levites": with this is brought out,

that the war is not a war like all

wars

(because of the spoils and plunder)

but a war to carry out "the vengeance of the Lord" — and therefore they also from "the captives of the people and the cattle"

had to separate

(and lift up)

and give

to Elazar the kohen and the Levites

as "the army of the Lord."

7.

One must, however, understand:

The law that "they do not wage war" stands in the Rambam in continuation to the aforementioned halachah,

that they take no portion in the Land and in the spoils,

unlike in the other lands,

And this is the language: And why did Levi not merit a portion in the Land of Israel and in its spoils with his brothers? Because he was separated to serve God, to minister to Him, and to teach His upright ways and His righteous judgments, etc. Therefore, they were separated from the ways of the world: they do not wage war like the rest of Israel, nor do they inherit, nor do they acquire for themselves by their physical strength.

What from the continuation of the words of the Rambam is implied,

that the two laws,

"We do not wage war" and "We do not inherit",

are connected and dependent on each other

(and as is proven from the end of his words,

where the Rambam includes them together: "Therefore they were separated etc. We do not wage war etc. and We do not inherit etc.")

— and accordingly it must turn out,

that by

the wars of conquest of the rest of the lands,

where "the kohanim and the Levites in those lands and in their spoils <b>like all of Israel</b>",

can

(must)

also the kohanim and Levites participate in the war⁵⁶

— and prima facie, the war in the rest of the lands is not a "vengeance of Hashem",

rather to conquer; so what connection do the wars have with the tribe of Levi.

And one must say the explanation in this — and with an introduction to understand what the Rambam is precise and lengthy in his language: "that these matters are said only concerning the Land that a covenant was cut for it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and their children inherited it and it was divided to them,"

For at first glance: what is the practical difference of all the details and signs?

When he would have said here only "the land of Canaan" as he himself says it in the law before this,

one would already have known which land he means; and even if he wants to connect the land with the Patriarchs,

since that "their children inherited it"

(as)

their children",

he could have said "the land that was given to Abraham"

(and as we find the same language elsewhere in the Rambam⁵⁷)

— what is new in his detailing "that a covenant was cut for it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob" and in addition to this adding "and their children inherited it and it was divided to them"⁵⁸?

And one can say the explanation: in this language is emphasized the explanation of the difference between a land that a covenant was cut for it and the rest of the lands that a king conquers:

8.

The Land of Israel is a land that is still from before

(before the war)

distinguished from the other lands by that which "a covenant was cut upon it for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"

from then on it is

a land and reality which is bound and becomes one thing with the receiver of the land,

That this is indeed the matter of the covenant

(which one transgresses)

Between the Parts of <b>one</b> thing,

both pass <b>through</b> one body to become one⁵⁹

With <b>Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob</b>,

and it comes to Jews in actuality through “<b>and they shall inherit it</b>⁶⁰

their children and it shall be divided among them” —

One does not need to create a new reality in the Land of Israel⁶¹.

And the land was <b>divided to them</b>,

(seven)

<b>That they conquered</b> is not sufficient; it must be

(seven)

that they divided,

given to Jews on [the basis of] "And you shall possess the land and dwell in it"⁶²,

<b>Settlement</b> in it.

And consequently, the tribe of Levi,

being <b>separated</b> from the ways of the world,

is not relevant to this.

But not so “all the other lands that a king from the kings of Israel conquers”,

although this is considered “like the land of Israel that Joshua conquered for all matters”⁶³,

this is, however, not an obligation upon Israel,

the king “wages war with the rest of the nations”

(not so that Jews should have a land in the world as an inheritance

(field and vineyard)

to settle there,

but)

“in order to <b>expand</b> the border of Israel and to increase its greatness and fame”⁶⁴

(which is the greatness and fame of God⁶⁵)

— therefore the war regarding

the lands also belong to the tribe of Levi

(as “the army of God”).

9.

The directive for every one in his spiritual service:

A Jew whose spirit donates to be on the level of the tribe of Levi — as the Rambam <b>rules as law</b>⁶⁶,

that this applies to every single one: "Not the tribe of Levi alone, but <b>every single person</b> etc. whose spirit donates him and his intellect understands him to separate to stand before God to serve Him and to worship Him etc.",

which demonstrates "behold this one is sanctified holy of holies and God will be his portion and inheritance etc. as He granted to the priests and Levites" — can indeed think to himself: since he is separated from the ways of the world etc. and is standing before God to serve Him — what does he have to do with the world around him at all?

— one tells him,

that on the contrary,

because he is like the tribe of Levi,

he has a connection — and moreover: a <b>special</b> connection — to engage in the service of "the vengeance of God upon Midian",

to conquer and nullify those who are against the Holy One, blessed be He,

What in the service of God it means in particular,

to nullify completely and negate the division and baseless hatred that could, Heaven forbid, be between Jews, may God spare us,

which brought about the destruction of the Temple and the exile⁶⁷,

and this last exile;

And as "the army of God" — to bring in even to a manner of settlement love of Israel,

baseless love,

among Jews,

All Jews,

that this is connected and this connects every Jew with Hashem Echad.

Moreover: one can think that it is enough that he will do among Jews and in what pertains to Judaism — Torah and mitzvos —

So the lesson is that Kohanim and Levi'im must also participate in the service to make from "the rest of all the lands" a part,

a part of the border of Israel,

also such things of the world,

which in themselves they are not necessary for Judaism,

one must <b>expand</b> the border of Israel,

utilize them in the service of G-d and to increase His greatness and His fame.

And through all this one hastens the nullification of the exile

(through the nullification of the <b>sole</b> cause of the exile — "for because of our sins we were exiled from our land"),

and immediately we are redeemed — with the true and complete redemption,

when then Jews will receive the entire Land of Israel to its borders,

and also <b>to expand</b> the border of Israel, "<b>He will expand</b> G-d your border"⁶⁸,

also the land of the Keni, Kenizi, and Kadmoni⁶⁹,

and also — in the future the Land of Israel will spread over the entire world⁷⁰,

with the coming of Mashiach our righteousness,

very soon.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Matot-Masei, 5723)