Bemidbar 31:26-47 and 32:1-4 – The unequal split of the spoils from the war with Midyan: Efficiency over equality?

Bemidbar 31:12 records that the soldiers brough back many women and animals from the war with Midyan and gave them to Moshe and Elazar. While in modern times, it is considered wrong to keep booty from a defeated enemy, the Torah here is following the convention of the rules of warfare of antiquity that the spoils of war, the women and animals in this case, were considered the legitimate possession of the victors, see Bereshit 14:24. (Maybe the idea of getting booty was so ingrained to the soldiers that if the Torah had not given the soldiers the booty, then nobody would have been willing to fight in future wars?)

The question was then what was to happen with all these people and animals? Should the animals have all gone to the mishkan/ ohel moed? Should the women and animals have been equally divided amongst the people?

31:25,26 record that G-d said that all the people and animals from the spoils of the war should be counted. 31:27 then records that G-d told Moshe to split up the young women and animals that had been captured in the war with Midyan, that half would go to the soldiers who fought in the war (12,000 out of 601,700 men, Bemidbar 26:51 and 31:4) and half would be distributed amongst the rest of the population (589,700 men). 31:28,29 then records that of this booty, the soldiers had to give one five hundredth (0.2% or 0.002) of their spoils to the priests, and 31:30 records that the people had to give one fiftieth (2% or 0.02) of their spoils to the Levites. With this distribution, the Levites as a whole received ten times more than the priests as a whole, which roughly matches up with the difference in giving of terumah (if it was 1%) and ma’aser by the people, and also that each Levite would give 10% of the ma’aser he received to a priest, 18:12,21,26, see Milgrom (1990, p. 263). 31:31-47 records that the people fulfilled these instructions, and below we go through the calculations referred to in 31:32-47.

This division of the spoils means that the soldiers who went to fight received more spoils, around 33 animals per fighter as opposed to 0.67 animals for rest of the population, and more women captives since the soldiers were a small group within the population and their gifts (taxes?) to the priests were a smaller percentage than the general population's gifts (taxes?) to the Levites. In addition, the soldiers also got other assets from the war besides women and animals that the general population did not get a share of, 31:20(?), 50-54. 

The Jewish people were about to go into the land of Israel, and this unequal division of the spoils of the war meant that the people were not going to start living in the land of Israel from an equal economic base since the soldiers in the war with Midyan would have been wealthier and had a “first start” advantage over the rest of the population. While a person might claim it is fair that the soldiers should receive more of the spoils than the people who did not go to fight, still this meant that the people were not entering the land of Israel with equal wealth since the soldiers from the war with Midyan were wealthier than the rest of the population.

This question of the division of the wealth of the spoils relates to a general question, should society prioritize efficiency (production of goods) or equality? In general, if a society chooses to prioritize efficiency, then there will be less equality in society, while if society chooses to prioritize equality, then the economy will be less efficient, that is to say, there will be less goods overall for the people in society. In broad terms, capitalistic economics prioritize efficiency while socialist/ communist economies prioritize equality.

In this case, the unequal distribution of the spoils of the war would have led to greater efficiency since it would have encouraged more people to fight in the upcoming wars for the land of Israel in order to get more spoils, and historically in all societies, soldiers were rewarded for their fighting by being able to take spoils from the war, The fact that the Torah followed this practice with just a symbolic gesture to give the people who stayed behind some of the spoils, shows that here the Torah was favoring efficiency at the expense of equality.

This same question of equality vs. efficiency might also be applicable to the request of the tribes of Gad and Reuven for land on the east side of the Jordan River, 32:1-4. Moshe did not respond to them that the land that they were requesting was inferior to the land in Israel, which implies that the land on the east side of the Jordan river was fertile, so why should these tribes have gotten the land? This would seem to be an unequal distribution of land that these tribes were getting superior land. However, on the other hand, it was more efficient to give the two tribes land since then there would be more land for all the other tribes, which would lead to a greater production of goods. Also, in the end the tribes agreed to be the first fighters, which can be considered an increase in efficiency.

In conclusion, by the distribution of the spoils from the war with Midyan, and maybe by the agreement to give the tribes of Gad and Reuven the land on the east side of the Jordan River, the Torah was showing a preference for efficiency over equality in society.

Calculations:

The total number of women captives: 32,000 (31:35). The soldiers received half of these captive, 16,000 women, 31:40. Of these 16,000 women, 0.002 had to be given to the priests. This would be 16,000 times 0.002 = 32 women (31:40). This means that the soldiers received 15,968 women, and then each soldier received 15,968/12,000 = 1.33 women captives. It is not clear how the fraction of a person was distributed. The Torah does not give the calculation of the distribution of the women amongst the general population, but it should have been 16,000 times 0.02 = 320 women who were given to the Levites. The remaining women, 15,680 were then in theory divided amongst the civilian population, 15,680/589,700 = 0.027 women, which again has the problem of distributing a fraction of a person.

The total number of sheep was 675,000 sheep (31:32). For the soldiers’ share, this was divided in half, 337,500 sheep (31:36). 0.002 of this number of sheep (337,500*0.002), 675 sheep were given to the priests, 31:37, which means that 337,500*0.998 = 336,825 sheep remained to the fighters. This number of sheep is then divided by 12,000 (the number of soldiers), 336,825/12,000 = 28, which means that each soldier got 28 sheep. For the rest of the population, their share of the sheep that was given to the Levites, was 0.02 times 337,500, which is 6,750 sheep (10 times more than was given to the priests). The remainder of their share of the sheep was 337500*0.98 = 330,750 sheep. These sheep were then divided by the civilian population 589,670, and then each person who did not fight received 330,750/589,670 = 0.56 sheep.

This same calculation can be done for the distribution of the of captured cattle and donkeys (mules?). The total number of cattle was 72,000 (31:33) and then half of the cattle was 36,000 (31:38,44). We can multiply 36,000 by 0.002, 36.000*0.002 = 72, which means 72 cows were given to the priests by the soldiers, 31:38. The soldiers were then left with, 36,000 times 0.998 = 35,928 cattle. If we divide this number by the total number of soldiers, 12,000, then each soldier received, 35,928/12,000 = 2.99 cows. With regard to the general population, in total they received 36,000 cattle, of which they gave 36,000 times 0.02 =720, which means 720 cows were given by the general population to the Levites, ten times what the priests received. There remained 35,280 cows for the remainder of the population, and then on average each of the non-soldiers (35280/589700 = 0.06), received 0.06 cows.

With regard to the donkeys, the total amount of donkeys taken from Midyan was 61,000, 31:34. Again this number was split between the soldiers and the general population. The soldiers received 30,500 donkeys (31:39), and this number need to be multiplied by 0.002, 30,500*0.002 = 61, which means the soldiers gave 61 donkeys to the priest, 31:39. This left the soldiers with 30,500*0.998 = 30,439 donkeys, and if this number is divided by the number of soldiers, 30,439/12,000 = 2.54, then each soldier received 2.54 donkeys. With regard to the general population, as a group they received 30,500 donkeys (31:45). They gave 2% of this total to the Levites, 30,500 times 0.02, which equals 610 donkeys (again ten times the number of donkeys the priests received). The remaining donkeys, 30,500 times 0.98 = 29,890 donkeys, were then divided by the general population, 29,890/589,700 = 0.05 donkeys. This means that each person from the general population received 0.05 donkeys.

Altogether the people who went to fight received 28 sheep + 2.99 cows + 2.54 donkeys = 33.53 animals per fighter, and 1.33 women. The people who did not go fight received 0.56 sheep + 0.06 cows + 0.05 donkeys = 0.67 animals per person and 0.027 of a woman captive. Note, it is not clear which people from the population that did not fight received an animal and which type of animal since there were not enough animals for everybody.

Bibliography:

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bemidbar 32:33 (Mattot) - Menashe and the east bank of the Jordan River

Bemidbar 32:1-32 record negotiations between Moshe and the tribes of Gad and Reuven for land on the east bank of the Jordan River (see our discussion http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2011/07/bemidbar-chapter-32-other-side.html). Bemidbar 32:33 then records that Moshe gave some of the land on the east bank not just to the tribes of Gad and Reuven but also to half the tribe of Menashe. This is surprising since the tribe of Menahse had never been mentioned before in chapter 32 and had not requested land on the east bank. Why did Menashe get land on the east bank if they were not involved in the negotiations between Moshe and the tribes of Reuven and Gad? Why did only half the tribe of Menahse get land? Why was the tribe of Menashe divided by the Jordan River?

Ramban (on 32:33) explains that when the tribes of Reuven and Gad were granted land on the east bank, it was recognized that the land was too much for two tribes. Volunteers were asked who would want to live there and then some of the tribe of Menashe requested the land.

Luzzatto (on 32:33) suggests that after the deal with the tribes of Gad and Reuven was made, some members of the tribe of Menashe on their own took the initiative to conquer more land on the east bank, 32:39.

My guess is that since the deal with the tribes of Reuven and Gad separated these tribes from the other tribes due to the Jordan River, there was a desire to re-connect the tribes of Gad and Reuven with the other tribes. This was done by splitting another tribe that half of the tribe would be on the east side of the Jordan and half of the tribe would be on the west side. With this idea, we can apply the principle of transitivity. The tribes of Reuven and Gad would be connected with the split tribe on their side (the eastern side) of the Jordan River, the split tribe would be connected with its other half on the other side (the western side) of the Jordan River, and this half of the tribe would be connected with the remaining tribes who all lived on the western side of the Jordan River.

This same idea can also explain, why Moshe designated three cities of refuge on the east side of the Jordan River, see our discussion on Bemidbar 35:13,14 "Three and three."

Bemidbar chapters 22-25 – Bil'am: The bad, the good and the ordinary?

Bil’am has always been an enigmatic figure. Was he an evil sorcerer or a true prophet of G-d?

There are several reasons why Balak would seem to be a true prophet of G-d. First Bil’am consistently says that he will only do what G-d says. When the messengers of Balak came to him, he says that he had to ask G-d for permission and when G-d told him no he did not go, 22:8-13. When the messengers of Balak returned, he said that if he received a house full of silver and gold he could only do what G-d would tell him, 22:18. On this occasion, G-d agreed to let him go, so Bil’am went but when he met Balak again he said he would only speak what G-d put into his mouth, 22:38. He continues to repeat this phrase to Balak, even as Balak gets angrier and angrier at him for blessing the Jewish people, 23:12,26; 24:12-14.

Second, the very fact that G-d would speak to Bil’am would seem to give him significance, as G-d does not speak to everybody. Bil’am could even call on G-d as he told the messengers of Balak that G-d would speak to him in the night, 22:8,19. However, in our discussion on 22:8-35, "The wizard of Petor," (http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/bemidbar-228-35-balak-wizard-of-petor.html) I argue that G-d did not really speak to Bil'am in 22:8-11,19,20 and that initially, Bil'am' s statements that he would only do what G-d said was part of his act to bargain for more money. If this is true, then these first two reasons are not indicative of any goodness on Bil'am's part.

Three, the blessings he gives are not only favorable to the Jewish people but also have been interpreted as signifying some of the most significant future events such as the coming of the Messiah (Bemidbar 24:17-19). The Talmud (Berakhot 12b, also Yerushalmi Berakhot) quotes R. Avihu son of Zutrti in the name of R. Yehuda the son of Zevida that Chazal wanted to include Bil'am's prophecies in the regular prayers but did not do so only because they were too long and would be a burden to the public. Afterwards, the blessing, mah tovu, 24:5, stated by Bil’am was included in the daily prayers. Furthermore, in the last blessings, the Torah records “that he knew the knowledge of the Most High” (24:16) which would be knowledge that only a prophet of G-d could know. The positive view of Bil’am appears in the Midrash (Numbers Rabbah, 14:20, and Sifrei Devarim 357) which compares Bil’am favorably in some ways to Moshe.

On the other hand, there are many reasons to think that Bil’am was really a scoundrel. First, the fact that he would ask G-d to curse the Jewish people shows that he cannot be a prophet since how could a prophet of G-d want to curse the people who made a covenant with G-d?

Second, as indicated in Numbers Rabbah 20:14, the story of the donkey, is a parody of Bil’am, as the Midrash records “this villain was going to curse an entire nation…yet he had to smite a donkey!” A donkey, an animal, was able to see a malakh of G-d while Bil’am this supposedly great prophet did not know what was going on, 22:22-31. Presumably, G-d would not create a miracle of a talking donkey and send a malakh to make fun of a true prophet of G-d.

Third, after Bil’am finished his blessings, the Jewish people sinned with the daughters of Moav, and 31:16 seems to imply that this sin was due to the words of Bil’am. Rashi (on 25:1) quotes from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a), that after Bil’am failed to curse the Jewish people, he told Moav that they should seduce the Jewish people to get them to sin so that G-d would be angry at the Jewish people. How could a prophet of G-d desire to cause the people to sin?

Fourth, 31:8 records that the Jewish people killed Bil’am but as noted by Rambam (on 22:31) the Jewish people would not kill a prophet of G-d.

Fifth, N. Leibowitz (1980, pp. 284, 286) notes that Bil’am did not act like other prophets. Prophets usually attempt to refrain from being prophets while Bil’am “hankers after prophecy… to force it down from Heaven through the medium of seven alters, seven bullocks, enchantments and solitude.” Also, she notes that prophets usually state in their prophecy "thus said G-d," while Bil’am said "thus said Bil’am," 24:3,15.

Accordingly, there are many reasons to think he was a prophet and many reasons to think he was a scoundrel, what is one to think of this Jekyll and Hyde?

The overwhelming traditional approach views Bil’am as a scoundrel. For example, in Pirkei Avot 5:22, Bil’am is portrayed as having an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a proud soul. Yet, then all the apparent positive aspects to Bil’am have to be explained.

How could Bil’am offer such great blessings/ prophecies if he was a scoundrel? Sanhedrin 105b quotes Rabbi Yohanon that Bil’am was forced to say the blessings under duress. According to this idea, Bil’am was not a prophet at all, and would have been like a zombie when he said the blessings. Yet, this explanation in the Talmud only refers to 23:5 where the text records that G-d put words into his mouth, while afterwards, by 24:2 Bil’am is referred to as a prophet.

Hirsch (on 22:8) suggests that Bil’am was both a prophet of G-d and a scoundrel. For some reason, Bil’am had a belief in monotheism which enabled him to become a prophet and thus G-d would speak to him, but he happened also to be an avaricious soul. I do not understand this idea since I assume that if a person is a prophet who can speak to G-d, then he would also be a morally upstanding person. Is a belief in monotheism enough to make a person a prophet?

Ramban (on 22:31) understands that Bil’am was a temporary prophet for the sake of the honor of the Jewish people to say the blessings. He became a prophet at the end of incident with the donkey, when the text records “that G-d opened the eyes of Bil’am,” 22:31, to enable him to see the malakh. The idea would be that he was so humiliated by the donkey that he realized the errors of his ways. However, after Bil’am finished the blessings he reverted back to being a sorcerer, and thus he could have advised the daughters of Moav to tempt the Jewish people.

I like this idea of the Ramban that Bil’am was transformed by the incident with donkey, but I am bothered how Bil’am could have reverted backwards so quickly. Hertz (1960, p. 681) explains “that there is nothing improbable in this heathen prophet, when his enthusiasm for Israel and righteousness had died away, sinking back to the old sorcerer.” To me this seems highly improbable.

After Bil'am realized that he could have been killed by the malakh, he admitted that he sinned (22:34), which sounds like a genuine repentant. We see that during the blessings he stopped with his sacrifices and disregarded his enchantment methods, 24:1.

Furthermore, the blessings he uttered, would likely have reinforced his transformation. I doubt that after all the incredible blessings, Bil'am would deliberately sin against G-d by teaching Moav how to incite the Jewish people to sin. After Balak yelled at Bil’am after the third blessing, Bil’am responded by predicting that Moav would be wiped out by the Jewish people, 24:17. This prediction is incongruent with the idea that at that same time he advised Moav to provoke the Jewish people to sin so that Moav could defeat the Jewish people.

Ramban (on 25:1) notes that the simple sense of the Torah is that Bil’am did not advise the women of Moav or Midyan to seduce the Jewish men since this fact is not mentioned in chapter 25.  I believe that 31:16
should be understood to mean that after the people heard Bil'am's great blessings, they became euphoric, and this led them to chase after the women of Moav.

Why was Bil'am with Midyan (31:8) if he was not advising them to cause the Jewish people to sin? My geuss is that Midyan was the agent for arraigning Moav to hire Bil'am. The idea would be that Midyan had good relations with Bil'am, and hence either on the way home, 24:25, or some time after Bil'am returned home after stating the prophecies, he traveled to Midyan. Thus, he was with Midyan when the war with the Jewish people occurred.

Why was Bil'am killed if he did not advise Moav to sin with the Jewish people? Maybe, he was killed because he initially wanted to curse the Jewish people. Instead of the malakh killing Bil’am when he was riding the donkey the Jewish people killed him in the war with Midyan. His initial sin was so heinous that his repentance could not absolve him of punishment.

To return to the question of whether Bil'am was a saint or a sinner. My feeling is that initially Bil’am was a scoundrel, but he was transformed by the incident with the donkey to being a prophet temporarily. Afterwards, he did not revert to being a scoundrel since he did not advise Midyan or Moav to sin with the Jewish people. Yet, he also did not remain a prophet, but he became an ordinary person. This second change occurred already by the forth blessings when he was a big talker that he claimed that "he knew the knowledge of the Most High,", see our discussion on 24:14-25, "The fourth blessing" (http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2010/06/bemidbar-2414-25-balak-fourth-blessing.html)

The idea is that after going from one extreme to the other, Bil'am ended up in the middle. (This idea is similar, though in a different context, to the Rambam's idea that by temporarily adopting extreme character traits one is led to the mean character traits, see his Laws of opinions 2:2, and Shemonah Perakim.) Once, Bil'am was no longer a prophet, then he was killed for his initial sin.

 

Bemidbar (Numbers) 25:1-18, 32:2 - The war with Midyan: Kozbi

Bemidbar 25:1-3 records that the Jewish people sinned with the daughters of Moav, and G-d punished the people by sending a plague. The plague ended after Pinhas killed two of the brazen sinners, 25:6-8. 25:11-13 then records the rewards that Pinhas was to receive for his actions, and this apparently was the end of the incident. However, afterwards, 25:14,15 identifies the brazen sinners as Zimri, the son of Salu, a chieftain in the tribe of Shimon, and Kozbi, the daughter of one of the leaders of Midyan. The fact that the Torah identifies the sinners is not so unusual, but one would have thought that if the Torah was going to identify the sinners, then this would have occurred when they were first referred to in 25:6. Why initially did the Torah describe the sinners anonymously, and only after the episode was apparently over, did the Torah reveal their identity? (For some answers, see Ramban on 25:18 and Or ha-Chayyim on 25:14.)

My guess is that the Torah is trying to present the state of mind of Pinhas at the time when he acted. Just as the reader was unaware of the identity of the sinners until the episode was over, so too Pinhas was unaware of the sinner's identities when he acted. Moshe had ordered that the sinners were to be killed, 25:5, and Pinhas obeyed without inquiring who were the people sinning. This idea explain why the Torah initially presented the sinners anonymously, but then why is important for us to know their identity afterwards? The following verses suggest an answer.

25:16-18 record that G-d commanded the Jewish people to attack the Midyanites due to “the matter of Peor and the matter of Kozbi.” Is the “matter of Kozbi” identical with the events of Baal Peor? If yes, then why is it mentioned twice?

Ibn Ezra (on 25:18) suggests that 25:18 is listing two separate reasons why Midyan was to be attacked. One reason was for leading the people astray by Baal Peor and the second reason was that Midyan wanted to harm the people out of revenge for Kozbi's death, their Midyanite princess, because they blamed the Jewish people for her death. I understand this harm to mean that Midyan attacked the people after the events of Baal Peor.

A proof for this is that 25:18 uses the word, tsorerim, which implies ongoing hostility, see Milgrom, 1990, p.218. Furthermore, the Torah uses the same word, tsoror, assail, harass, when commanding the Jewish people to attack Midyan, 25:17. The double use of the same word implies that the attack was tit for tat, Midyan was to be attacked because they were attacking you. 25:18 could then be understood as “for they (Midyan) are attacking you with their craftiness (guerrilla warfare?), with which they were crafty with you in Baal Peor and in the matter of the death of Kozbi (that they blamed the Jewish people for her death).

In addition, when the command to fight Midyan is repeated in 31:2, the Torah records that the Jewish people are to take revenge on Midyan. Ibn Ezra (on 31:2) explains that the revenge is because Midyan caused the Jewish people to worship idolatry. Yet, Midyan did not force the people to commit idolatry. Instead, if Midyan had been attacking the people and were continuing to attack them, then it makes sense that the Jewish people were to seek revenge to stop these attacks.

This idea explains why the people were commanded to attack Midyan and not Moav who were also involved in the sins of Baal Peor. Rashi (on 25:18) explains that Moav was not to be attacked since Ruth was to come from Moav. Ramban (on 25:18) quotes a Midrash that Moav was not attacked since they had acted due to their fears while Midyan got involved in the sin of Baal Peor for no reason. Ramban also writes that Moav was protected due to their forefather Lot, as Devarim 2:9 records that G-d told Moshe the Jewish people could not fight with Moav. The idea that Midyan was attacking the Jewish people suggests another reason. Only Midyan was attacked since they attacked the Jewish people, while Moav was not attacked since they did not attack the Jewish people.

Finally, this idea also explains why Kozbi had to be identified. Midyan would only want to take revenge if the Jewish people had killed an important person, and from the identification of Kozbi we learn that she was a princess of Midyan. Thus, she is mentioned in 25:15 immediately prior to the command to attack Midyan, and the explanation that the command was due to the "matter of Kozbi." Therefore, had Torah not identified her we would not have understood why the Jewish people fought with Midyan.

We are left with the question why did Zimri have to be identified? Possibly once Kozbi was identified, then Zimri, her partner, was also mentioned.

My daughter, Talia, has suggested that Zimri was identified in order that Midyan should realize that Kozbi was not killed because she was a foreigner, but since she sinned, as a "high ranking" Jew, Zimri, was also killed. Thus, Zimri was identified to show that Midyan had no justification for their attacks on the Jewish people, and again the identification was recorded in conjunction with the command to attack Midyan, which was in response to the attacks from Midyan.

A third reason is that with the identification of Zimri we also learn that he was from one of the leading families of the tribe of Shimon, and then his death accorded with G-d's instruction to Moshe in 25:4, to kill the leaders of the people who were sinning. Moshe had not relayed this information to the people, 25:5, and hence when Pinhas acted he was consciously fulfilling Moshe's instructions and unintentionally G-d's instructions.

Bemidbar 32:1-24 (Mattot) – The request of the tribes of Gad and Reuven for land on the eastern side of the Jordan River

Bemidbar 32:1 records that the tribes of Gad and Reuven had a large amount of domesticated animals, mikneh. Does this verse mean that they had more animals than the other tribes or that all the tribes had a lot of animals but this fact is recorded in reference to the tribes of Gad and Reuven since it was the basis for their request for land on the east bank of the Jordan River? With the former possibility, it is unclear why they should have had more animals. Could it be that that since they camped in the south, they had more opportunities to trade with Moav which enabled them to acquire more animals than the other tribes? With the latter possibility, it is curious why they asked to remain on the eastern side, and various reasons relating to their status have been suggested, see Mordechai Breuer (1993, pp. 266-298), Nathaniel Helfgot (1998) and Lawrence Kaplan (1999).

32:2-5 records that the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested land on the east bank of the Jordan River (present day Jordan) because they claimed it was good land for their mikneh. Breuer (1993) and Helfgot (1998) note that this request was similar to the actions of Lot and Esav, Bereshit 13:10-13, 36:6, that all left the land of Israel due to their mikneh. Moshe was very unhappy with this request, 32:5-15, which led the tribes of Reuven and Gad to make a counteroffer, 32:16-19, which Moshe accepted, 32:20-24, and the book of Yehoshua, 22:1-4, records that they carried out their part of the bargain. Thus, in the end, the tribes received the land on the eastern side of the Jordan River, but they remained part of the covenant (see Devarim 27:13) unlike Lot and Esav who by leaving the land of Israel left the covenant of Avraham. Why did Moshe change his mind? Why were the tribes of Gad and Reuven allowed to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan River?

The simplest understanding of the discussion between Moshe and the tribes of Reuven and Gad is that Moshe thought that the tribes did not want to go fight. (Jacobson, 1986, p. 176 quotes this idea from Josephus, see also Rashi on 32:7, Bekhor Shor on 32:14 and Ramban on 32:2) This was troubling for two reasons. One, this was morally wrong, that only some of the tribes should fight as Moshe said, (32:6) “Should your brothers go to war, and you stay here?” Two, Moshe (33:7) compared their actions to the spies, that their act of cowardice could inspire other tribes to act similarly that nobody would want to go fight for the land of Israel. Accordingly, the tribes of Reuven and Gad answered that they would lead the fight for the land, 32:17, so instead of being considered as cowards they would take upon themselves the brunt of the fighting.

While this explanation sounds reasonable, I doubt that the people would have been scared to go to the land of Israel because of the actions of the tribes of Reuven and Gad since the people had just decisively defeated Sihon, Og and Midyan. N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 379-387) notes that the crucial issue here is the mikneh and not a fear of fighting in the land of Canaan. Did the tribes just mention their mikneh as a cover for their fear of fighting? Why did the Torah begin the episode by noting the tribes had lots of animals if this issue was not important? Finally, why should the tribes end up getting land outside of the land of Israel just because they were willing to be the lead troops?

The fundamental issue is what was the status of the land on the east side of the Jordan River? The land appears to be part of the promise land to Avraham in the covenant in Bereshit 15:18-21. Yet, based on the boundaries of the land of Israel, as delineated in Bereshit 10:19,20, it is outside the land of Israel. Thus, Moshe was on the east bank, but yet he never made it to the land of Israel, Bemidbar 20:12.

I believe the standard understanding is that the land on the east side of the Jordan River was considered a second stage to the land on the western side of the river, which was the land of Israel proper. This understanding raises the question what was to become of the land that the Jewish people had captured from Sihon and Og. The land was not to be abandoned since it was to be part of the land of Israel, but who was going to get the land? Ramban (on 21:21) writes that if the tribes of Reuven and Gad had not requested the land, it would have remained empty (a national park?) but this is difficult since surely other nations would have tried to settle there. Netziv (on 32:5) explains that the land on the east bank was supposed to be divided equally in 12 tribes. This is also difficult because then almost all the tribes would lack territorial contiguity between their land on the east bank with their land on the west side of the Jordan.

Thus, it must be that the land on the east bank of the Jordan River was supposed to go to some tribe(s), and realizing this, the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested this land. Maybe they did not initially offer to be the lead troops since they thought that their offer was beneficial to the other tribes who would now have more land in the land of Israel proper. Furthermore, I do not think that the tribes asked for land that they thought was not part of the promise land. Most likely, they thought that it was possible to receive the land before the people entered the land of Israel since once G-d had helped the people conquer Sihon and Og, then the conquered land was already to be considered part of the promise land. Thus, in 32:4 they refer to the land as the land that G-d had delivered to the people. (A friend, Meir Horden, also suggested to me that since the Amorites, Sihon and Og, were considered as Canaanites, then this also would be a reason why they thought the land on the east bank was already part of the promise land.)

Moshe was upset with their request for two reasons. One, he thought it was morally wrong for them not to fight when everybody else had to fight, 32:6, and two he was worried that just as they wanted to stay on the east bank because they thought it was good land so too the others tribes would also want to stay on the east bank for economic reasons, 32:7-15. It is not that the rest of the nation would have been scared of fighting, but if they agreed with the tribes of Gad and Reuven that the land on the eastern side was better land, then they would not want to cross over the Jordan River.

Furthermore, I think that Moshe also rejected their claim that the land on the eastern side was already to be considered as part of the promise land. Instead, first the land on the western side had to be acquired and only afterwards would the holiness spread to the eastern side. Thus, Moshe ended his retort by stating that if the people turned away from G-d, then they would be left in the desert, 32:15, since the eastern side of the Jordan was not yet considered as part of the land of Israel.

The tribes of Gad and Reuven had two responses for Moshe's two arguments. One, they would not shirk their duty to fight, but they would fight on the frontlines, 32:17. This more dangerous fighting would be their way of "paying" for the right to choose their land. Two, they would remain on the western side until all the people received their inheritance, 32:18. This second response shows that they understood that the land on the eastern side was not yet part of the promise land since the land on the western side had to be settled first. Moshe accepted their offer, and stated that after the land on the western side was captured, then the tribes would receive the land as an ahuzzah, 32:22. (It is not clear if Moshe thought that they just had to wait until the land on the western side was captured, 32:22 or that they had to wait until the land was parceled out as they had offered, 32:24, see Rashi on 32:24.)

Bibliography:

Breuer, Mordechai (1921-2007), 1993, Pirkei Moadot, Jerusalem: Horev.

Helfgot, Nathaniel, 1998, Shall your brothers go into battle while you remain here? An analysis of Numbers 32, Tradition, 32:2, Winter 1998, pp. 119-133.

Jacobson, B. S. 1986, Mediations on the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sinai Publishing.

Kaplan, Lawrence, 1999, Communications, Tradition, 33:3, Spring, pp. 116-118.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.