English translation — מטו"מ

A.

In this week's Torah portion¹

it is told about the tribes of Gad and Reuben — that since they had "much livestock",

they asked that they be given their inheritance on the other side of the Jordan

(which was a "land of livestock")

; and finally Moses our teacher agreed to this²,

and — "And Moses gave to the tribe of Gad and to the tribe of Reuben and to half the tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph the kingdom of Sihon etc. Og etc."³.

The question arises: Half the tribe of Manasseh — where is his name mentioned?

! In all these discussions between Moses our teacher and the tribes of Gad and Reuben, it is not mentioned even once that also "half the tribe of Manasseh" participated in the request that they be given an inheritance on the other side of the Jordan⁴.

In the Yerushalmi⁵

it stands

(regarding the bringing of first fruits),

that there is a difference between the inheritance of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben and the inheritance of the half-tribe of Menashe: In connection with the inheritance of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben it is not fitting to say "which⁶

You have given me

(God)

" — because "I have taken for myself from myself"⁷,

And therefore

(according to the opinion of R. Yose HaGelili)

they did not bring first fruits,

but regarding "the half-tribe of Menashe did not take for themselves" — "Dotan⁸

gave to them Moses etc. is written,

and they did not choose for themselves initially like the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad".

One must have an explanation: Since "they did not choose [it] for themselves initially" — why did Moshe Rabbeinu offer them a heritage on the other side of the Jordan?

The Ramban

explains that "at first the tribe of Menashe did not come before him,

but when he divided the land for the two tribes, he saw that it was a land larger than was fitting for them, and he sought whoever would want to settle with them,

and there were men from the tribe of Menashe who wanted it, perhaps they were men of livestock, and he gave them their portion."

But superficially this is not understandable.

For Moses our teacher was indeed very dissatisfied with the request of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben "Let this land be given ..

as a possession"¹¹

(not "the land which He gave them

the L-rd"¹²),

until he compared them to the spies¹³

! It is only that after they promised "And we will be armed hastily etc."¹⁴

and accepted this with a double condition¹⁵

and so,

did Moses our teacher agree to it —

It is indeed completely perplexing: how does it come that Moses our teacher should initially seek and propose — "He sought whoever would want to settle with them"

(and not inherit in the "land which the Lord gave them")¹⁶,

and — therefore that "it is a land greater than the fitting"¹⁷

(for the children of Gad and the children of Reuben)¹⁸?

Or: from that which in the verse is not mentioned at all that half the tribe of Manasseh had a desire to take a part in Transjordan — they are mentioned only at "And Moses gave to them, etc."¹⁹

— it is implied,

that this came entirely from the side

Moshe²⁰

(And according to the simple language of the aforementioned Yerushalmi "they did not take from themselves").

2.

One will understand this with an introduction to what one finds in Midrash²¹

regarding the hints in the offerings of the princes for the dedication of the altar — that so many details of the offering of Menashe were connected with the inheritance of the land,

and one of them: "And for the peace-offering, two oxen" corresponding to the tribe of Menashe which was divided into two and took two portions in the land, half on the other side of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan.

From this it is understood,

that the half-tribe of Menasheh taking a portion on the other side of the Jordan,

is considered an advantage

(as we see by the other hints of the offerings of the princes²²,

that they indicated various advantages and good matters etc.).

It turns out,

that there is a fundamental difference between the inheritance of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven and the inheritance of the half-tribe of Menasheh²³

Regarding the inheritance of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben on the other side of the Jordan, it stands in the Midrash²⁴,

that even after they received approval for their request,

it is considered an undesirable matter — "You loved your cattle more than the souls ...

about them it is said²⁵

a hasty inheritance etc.";

But by half the tribe of Menasheh this was not only not a deficiency,

but on the contrary — a lofty matter,

which is connected with a special sacrifice to the Most High!

And they loved their money and settled for themselves outside the Land of Israel"<sup>26</sup>,

These are the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: You loved your cattle...

About them it is said: An inheritance hastily gained etc."<sup>24</sup>,

not mentioning thereby "half the tribe of Manasseh"<sup>22</sup>

— because that half the tribe of Manasseh took a portion on the other side of the Jordan — was not due to love of money<sup>28</sup>,

rather it was a good matter<sup>29</sup>

(and furthermore,

they did not choose it themselves,

rather Moshe Rabbeinu gave it to them,

as mentioned above)].

One needs an explanation: What is the virtue in receiving a portion on the other side of the Jordan?

Air: from the precision of the language of the Midrash²¹

— "corresponding to the tribe of Menasheh that was divided into two and took two portions in the land, half on the other side of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan" — implies,

that the advantage is not so much in their receiving a portion

(Air)

on the other side of the Jordan,

but rather that which "was divided into two".

It is not understood: wherein consists the superiority of dividing their inheritance "into two"³⁰?

that this is counted as a punishment — "Menasseh caused the tribes to be torn, therefore his inheritance was torn, half in the land of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan": but from this aforementioned Midrash by the offerings of the princes it emerges,

that this is a matter of superiority<sup>32</sup>].

3.

And one may say the explanation of this:

The Torah relates³³

"And Hashem showed — to Moshe Rabbeinu before his passing — all the land etc. And Hashem said to him: This is the land which I swore to Avraham etc. to your seed I will give it; I have shown it to you with your eyes etc."

And it is understood,

that this was not merely for the sake of seeing alone,

rather Moshe's seeing effected a matter of "sanctification"²⁴,

as the Gemara²⁵

says "Whoever

that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed to Moshe

(as it is written: And Hashem showed him etc.)

is obligated in tithe."

Essence of the explanations why specifically Moshe Rabbeinu had to see "the entire land"

(and perform the "Kiddush")

All matters which are connected with the essential existence of Jews were performed through Moshe Rabbeinu.

As we find regarding Torah — that Moshe received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it etc.³⁶,

and everything that a veteran student will innovate in the future was all given to Moshe from Sinai³⁷.

And it is known the saying³⁸

that "There will not be again another giving of the Torah."

Because also that which Mashiach will teach with Jews

(in the language of Rashi³⁹)

"the secret of reasons and hidden mysteries"

(of the Torah),

and furthermore

(in the language of the Midrash⁴⁰),

"A new Torah from Me shall go forth" — was already given at the giving of the Torah⁴¹

(by Moshe Rabbeinu),

and Mashiach will reveal it.

Similarly, one finds regarding the redemption of Israel,

that the entire matter of the redemption,

the atmosphere of the future redemption is connected with Moshe Rabbeinu⁴².

And this is also one of the explanations that at the redemption

that is to come in the future, the verse⁴³

emphasizes "As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders"

(And similarly in additional verses⁴⁴

the future redemption is compared to the Exodus from Egypt)

— because since the future redemption will be a greater redemption than the redemption from Egypt⁴⁵

(a complete and eternal redemption after which there is no exile)

— however, the redemption from Egypt

(through Moshe Rabbeinu)

is the root and gives the power for the future redemption⁴⁶.

And therefore also

(inheritance of)

the Land — being a fundamental matter in the existence of the people of Israel⁴⁷

(in addition to that this is a fundamental matter in the fulfillment of the Torah and mitzvos,

many of which are dependent on the Land⁴⁸)

— is connected with the action of Moshe Rabbeinu.

And therefore,

although "there you shall not cross"⁴⁹,

he had

(at least)

to have the "I have shown you with your eyes"⁴⁹.

D.

Regarding the matter of the inheritance of the Land one finds,

that in the future there will be a fundamental novelty — "Hashem your G-d will expand your border"⁵⁰

Jews will then come—

Come

(Not only the land of the seven nations,

but)

also the land of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite⁵¹.

And since all matters must “pass through” Moses our teacher — and as above,

that even the “new Torah that will go forth from Me,”

which the King Messiah will reveal,

was given through Moses — one must say,

that also the matter of the inheritance of the land of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite

(which were not included in the “And Hashem showed him”⁵²)

has a connection to Moses our teacher⁵³.

And it is to say,

that the reason why Moshe Rabbeinu gave a portion in Ever HaYarden to half the tribe of Menasheh,

because the matter of Ever HaYarden is more^{<b> </b>}

and analogous to the matter of "Hashem your G-d will enlarge your border",

it is an addition upon "your border".

Because even according to the opinions⁵⁴

that also Ever HaYarden is included in the lands that were promised to Avraham in the Covenant Between the Parts — it is nevertheless an addition upon "the land of Canaan according to its borders"⁵⁵

(as they are enumerated in Parshat Masei⁵⁶)

— analogous to ,

Hashem your G-d will enlarge your border".

that in addition to this that also the land of Keini Kenizi and Kadmoni — Edom Moav and Amon⁵⁷

— are in

(and adjacent to)

Ever HaYarden⁵⁸

— the conquest of the land of Sichon and Og included a part of the land of Ammon and Moav,

as Chazal⁵⁹

"Ammon and Moav were purified through Sichon"].

And it can be said that this is a fundamental difference between the inheritance of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven and the inheritance of the half-tribe of Menasheh:

The inheritance of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben on the other side of the Jordan is

(a)

came from their request,

(b)

because of that which "they loved their money" and

(c)

in a manner that because of this they were ready to forgo their portion in the land "which the Lord gave them"¹².

But not so by half the tribe of Menasheh, it was in the opposite manner — the portion on the other side of the Jordan Moshe Rabbeinu gave them,

and through this the inheritance of the land at the first entry was a likeness and example of the inheritance of the land in the future⁶⁰

And from this reason Moshe gave it specifically in a manner of "half on the other side of the Jordan and half in the land of Canaan"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

— to emphasize,

that by Menashe it was not a matter

of concession G-d forbid regarding an inheritance in the land of Israel — they have a portion in Eretz Yisrael!&lt;b&gt;6 — &lt;/b&gt;Rather this is an example of the inheritance of the land in the future that will be in a manner of "divided into two": part of the Jews will be in the land of the seven nations and a part — in the land of Keni Kenizi and Kadmoni.

5.

Based on this, one will also understand why Moshe chose to give a portion in Ever HaYarden specifically to the

(half)

tribe of Menasheh:

The tribe of Menasheh distinguished itself with an exceptional love for Eretz Yisrael.

As we see it

(earlier in Chumash⁶²)

from the story about the daughters of Tzelafchad

("for the families of Menasheh ben Yosef"),

that their love of the land⁶³

was to such an extent,

that — "and they stood before Moshe ..

and all the congregation etc."⁶⁴

(contrary apparently to a conduct of "all the glory of the king's daughter is within"⁶⁵)

and demanded "give us a possession"⁶⁶.

And the feeling of the daughters of Tzelafchad came from the love of the land of the tribe of Menasheh in general⁶⁷,

as one finds by the offering of Menasheh at the dedication of the altar,

that so many details were connected with taking a portion in the land

(as above in section b).

And since the tribe of Menasheh distinguished itself in the matter of love of the land — Moshe Rabbeinu chose him,

that in his portion in the land should be expressed the "spring and example" of the inheritance of the land in the future.

6.

And one may add explanation in this — as spoken several times⁶⁸

in the spiritual content of the service of Menasheh,

as hinted in his name "Menasheh" — on the name "For God has caused me to forget all my toil and all my father's house"⁶⁹

: his name reminds and warns that he finds himself in a place that makes one forget "all my father's house" and this itself calls forth in him the movement to remove himself,

"to jump away"⁷⁰

from the situation — that he should have a desire and resolution not to forget,

but to be attached to my father's house.

In spiritual service means: a Jew being in exile, the exile constantly reminds him that he finds himself in a situation which can lead to forgetting "the house of my father",

and this itself brings about that he should not forget.

He hears that this is not his place,

his place is in the house of my father the king⁷¹.

— points to the elevation

("He has made me fruitful")

which becomes

Accomplished through the service in

(and with)

the darkness of the exile

("Land of the Poor")

; but the essence of Menasheh is,

on the contrary,

that he cannot make peace with the exile,

rather he stands in a constant yearning to return to his father's house].

And since the true state of being in "my father's house" is when one is in a state of true redemption

(after which there is no exile),

therefore they specifically gave Menasheh his portion in the Land in a manner that it should be analogous to the inheritance of the Land in the future.

7.

Parshas Matos is always read during the Three Weeks — and from this,

that the aforementioned matter

(that from the yearnings of Menasheh for Eretz Yisrael they gave him a portion in the Land in the manner of the inheritance of the land in the future)

has a special connection to this time:

The Three Weeks is the time of mourning over the beginning of the destruction and exile in general.

And this movement to mourn over the destruction etc. comes from the ultimate feeling of "Menasheh",

that one cannot forget "my father's house" and one stands in constant yearning to return to

(the inheritance of)

the land etc.

And "whoever mourns for Jerusalem merits and sees in her joy"&lt;sup&gt;73&lt;/sup&gt;

— because,

as above,

the mourning itself expresses the longing and desire for Jerusalem,

and therefore our Father in heaven fulfills the yearning of the son and he "merits and sees in her joy",

In the true and complete redemption through our righteous Moshiach,

and these days will be turned to joy

and for joy and for good festivals⁷⁴,

speedily in our days literally.

<b>* * *</b>

8.

According to what was explained above — regarding the reason for giving a portion in Transjordan to half the tribe of Menasheh — one can also explain a puzzling matter in our parshah

(Parshas Masei)

In the sedra⁷⁵

it is told about the cities that the Most High designated to give to the Levites "to dwell",

and the verse⁷⁶

enumerates them — "the six cities of refuge etc. besides them you shall give forty-two cities".

And afterwards comes the section of the cities of refuge⁷⁷,

and the Torah says⁷⁸

that the six cities of refuge,

were "three cities" on the other side of the Jordan and three — "in the land of Canaan".

It is a wonder: since we see that the matter of receiving a heritage in Ever HaYarden was not a desirable thing

(as we see from that which Moshe Rabbeinu rebuked and very strongly and sharply the Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven)

— then how is it that the Almighty should command that one should give the Levites cities for dwelling in Ever HaYarden?

service

And service in the Temple

(not to occupy oneself with acquiring)].

— Indeed,

that they must be cities of refuge also on the other side of the Jordan

(And on the contrary,

more necessary than in the land of Canaan&lt;sup&gt;80&lt;/sup&gt;),

but this is not a reason that the Levites should settle there.

9.

According to plain meaning, one must say: when saying to give cities to the Levites "to dwell",

the verse⁸¹

is precise "Command the children of Israel and they shall give to the Levites from the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell".

d.

e.

It is not the explanation that the cities are given to them as an inheritance from the Most High⁸²,

rather this is an obligation upon the children of Israel,

that they must give a portion of their inheritance to the Levites

(in the manner⁸³

as they must separate tithe from their grain and fruits etc.).

And since Jews have actually received an inheritance in Transjordan,

therefore automatically the obligation applies upon the Jews to give a portion of their inheritance for the Levites⁸⁴.

In other words: this does not mean,

that the Torah initially established that the place of the inheritance of a part of the Levites is specifically in Transjordan,

rather the Torah obligated Israel to give a part of their inheritance for the Levites.

And it is no question — how is it that Levites,

whose essence is service and ministry in the Temple,

should have their cities in Transjordan?

— Because not all Levites were occupied

(at the same time)

in the service in the Temple; and as we see from this itself that they were given forty-eight cities⁸⁵

to dwell.

Moreover: it is explicit in Scripture that one must give the Levites "open land for the cities around them...

for their cattle and for their possessions and for all their living creatures"⁸⁶.

It can be,

that among the sons of Levi there were also cattlemen⁸⁷,

for whom it is fitting to live in Transjordan,

a land of cattle.

1.

After all, however, this is not entirely smooth.

Because knowing that the main place of the inheritance of Jews must be in the land of Canaan —

why should a Levite want to live in Transjordan?

And especially since we find that the tribe of Levi was not drawn into&lt;sup&gt;88&lt;/sup&gt;

the sin of the spies&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt;

(like the rest of Israel)

— then certainly there was among them a strong desire to enter the land of Israel!

According to what was explained above regarding half the tribe of Menasheh,

one must say,

that this is precisely the proof — and with emphasis:

The aforementioned matter,

that receiving a heritage in Transjordan is considered an undesirable thing,

is only when it is in the manner that the children of Gad and the children of Reuben wanted it

(because of that which "they loved their money").

But the very taking of Transjordan as a place of heritage can be,

is,

on the contrary,

a likeness and example to the inheritance of the land in the future to come,

as mentioned above.

And therefore,

is on the contrary: specifically by the tribe of Levi,

who were not ensnared in the sin of the spies,

because by them was love of the land most of all

(in the manner of Menashe&lt;sup&gt;90&lt;/sup&gt;),

by them was the settlement in the land as an example for the future,

that they had cities for dwelling

(not only in the land of Canaan within its borders,

but)

also in Transjordan&lt;sup&gt;91&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh of the year 5745;

<b>Shabbos Parshas Massei 5741)</b>