To Defeat An Enemy

Parshat Masei

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When the war with Midian did not originally go as planned, the Torah told us (31:14) that Moshe became angry at the appointed officers. The “Ish Yehudi” explained Moshe’s anger, in light of Moshe being a humble person with a checked demeanor, suggesting that the Torah is showing that when the going was tough, Moshe was powerful, resolute and strong. During war, the Ish Yehudi said, there is no place for softness and emotions, and not for giving in and for forgiving.

           

Really, war is meant to destroy enemy infrastructure (31:10), so they can give up any desire to fight and focus only on rebuilding and bettering their lives, rather than thinking only of killing the enemy.

            

As General Patton said in his famous speech to the Third Army during World War II, prior to the Normandy invasion, “I don't want [to hear] any messages saying 'I'm holding my position.' …We're advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding anything…Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We're going to go through the enemy…to absolute victory.”

            

The beginning of Masei reminds us of another epic battle waged against an Israelite enemy. As it recounts the journeys, the Torah says “And Egypt was burying those who had died when God struck the firstborns and destroyed their gods.” (33:4) The only “proportional response” to Egyptian treachery was to hit them where they’d lose the will to keep the slaves any longer.

            

And even when they chose to chase after the Children of Israel, Egypt’s aims seemed to be to attack civilians. Was it a traditional battlefield? Hardly. Did all of Israel have their backs to the sea? Yes. And thank God, He carried the day and wiped out the Egyptian army so they would have no desire to fight the Israelites anymore – we don’t hear from them for over 500 years! There is even an alliance between Egypt and Israel during the time of King Solomon! The first attack of Egypt against Israel takes place in the fifth year of Solomon’s son, Rahavam’s, reign. (Kings I 14:25) A very different time, and a very different set of circumstances. It would be similar to Britain attacking the United states in the year 2276.

            

In anarticle written in March 2012, during a different Gaza operation, Rabbi PhilipLefkowitz (Agudas Achim in Chicago) quoted a WWII veteran who explained how wars are won. Using Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples, the veteran said wars are won when the leadership no longer has the support of the devastated population.

            

Or, as we saw in ancient Egypt, when the enemy army is annihilated.

            

Of course, assuming the election in 2006 was legitimate, and that, as I’ve read, Hamas gained power most likely on account of PA corruption, one wonders how things would go were there to be another election in Gaza.

            

Silly me, thinking Hamas would ever allow an election.

            

There was another article in the Blaze about how there are over 1000 millionaires amongst Hamas leadership. You know, the same leaders who send others out as suicide bombers but personally and cowardly hide in bunkers. So much for ridding Gaza of corrupt “politicians.”

            

Gazans don’t have their backs to the sea. Israel has no interest in pushing them there. It just wants a peaceful, demilitarized neighbor.

            

Israel does its best to avoid civilian casualties – no army in the world does it better. And, I suppose, since Israel would prefer to live in peace with its Gaza neighbors (who have every opportunity, with proper anti-fighting leadership, to create a Singapore or Miami Beach!), it is not interested in pulling a Dresden, Hiroshima, or Warsaw to force the enemy to capitulate – even though militarily it seems like the most definite way to end Gazan fighting and infiltration once and for all. Israel will continue its pinpoint strikes and put its own soldiers in harm’s way to protect the civilian population of Gaza.

            

I wish for the civilians in Gaza, who truly want peace, to live out productive lives with leadership who accepts Israel’s presence as a reality and acknowledges Israel’s right to exist. A leadership who is concerned more for their own civilians’ wellbeing than in any military actions against peace-wanting-and-loving Israel. And civilians who accept similar notions. Absent such an approach, there will never be peace in Gaza.

            

And of course, we pray for Israel’s safety, for the safety of Israel’s precious soldiers who are sons, brothers, fathers – too many of whom have been lost this week – and for peace to reign in the region. May the IDF and the Israeli government be granted insight from Heaven, and may they be guided through the darkness of war to achieve their goals and more, to bring about a resolution that can last at least 500 years.

At the Forefront of the Mind

Parshot MATOT-Masei 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Reading through Bamidar Chapter 32, one gets mixed feelings. The Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven (tribes of Gad and Reuven) look at the land the Israelites have recently conquered, East of the Jordan, and they realize they have a match made in heaven. The land is fertile, perfect for farm animals, and wouldn't you know it! – they have many farm animals. (32:4)

Would it be possible, they ask, for these two tribes to settle there, without entering the land of Canaan? 

Formalities need to be worked out. How could they sit back while the rest of the nation is fighting the inhabitants of Canaan?

Moshe instructs them to build homes for their families and animals, and then they are to lead the battles. And then he tells Yehoshua and Elazar that these tribes must lead the battles until all the land is conquered. Only when their mission is complete may they return home. And if they do not complete their mission, they may not settle East of the Jordan – they will have to be divided in the land amongst the other tribes. 

Gad and Reuven agree, and their completion of their mission is confirmed in the book of Yehoshua 22. 

There are different approaches to understanding their request and the subsequent way in which they are viewed. Is it proper for them to specifically want to live outside of the land which will become Israel? Why would their "punishment" (were they to not fulfill their condition) be to live in the land? Surely that is a good thing! How many times does the agreement need to be repeated and reworded and reemphasized? [At least three times!] 

In halakha, the proper form of making a two-sided condition is modeled in 32:29-30 (Talmud Kiddushin 61a). This would be a positive outcome of the exchange. The guarantee that these troops, often considered the best in the nation, would lead is also a positive outcome. 

But many point out that the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested, first and foremost, to be able to build housing for their animals (32:16). Moshe only agreed if they put their number one priority on building homes for their families (32:24). In the following verses (25-26) they agree to Moshe's condition, putting their families before their animals. 

The main question I suppose running through everyone's head at the time was, "Is this good for the Jews?" 

Moshe was certainly not impressed. He felt that the desire to live outside the land echoed the mistake made by the spies and the people in the tale of woe that condemned the nation to their 40 years of wandering. And yet, their promise to lead the battles seems to suggest that it is not that they don't appreciate the land. They just recognize a good thing when they see it, and the land East of the Jordan is good for their financial needs. In this respect, while they do not feel that they specifically need to live in the land of Israel, they do recognize, and clearly plan to militarily support those who will be living in the land. This is certainly good for the Jews. 


The presumed financial loss they will assume were they to break their promise is the reason why their "punishment" will be to live in the land if they do not fulfill their obligations. The punishment is not suggesting the land is no good. But it is aimed at hitting them in their pocketbooks. It is human nature to want to do whatever one can in order to avoid losing the financial windfall that will bring long-term economic security. 

The agreement is repeated over and over because it is important that everyone understand what is expected and what the outcome is. While this did not pre-date the concept of written documents, certainly the public nature of this Gentlemen's Agreement would help assure that there would be no backsliding or reneging in the particulars. 

The halakhic outcome of how to make a conditional agreement – "If you fulfill your responsibilities, the outcome will be X, whereas if you do not fulfill your responsibilities, the outcome will be Y" – serves as a model for all time how to make clear agreements without loopholes, so both sides can avoid being cheated, and can agree in a manner that everyone is clear as to what are the expectations. 

Which leaves us with their lost sense of priorities: how could they think of their animals before thinking of their children? 

I think that they viewed their financial stability as the means to be able to take care of their children. "If I can assure my income is set and stable, I know I'll be able to provide for my children." 

Moshe set the record straight for them, that as much as finances are important, the homes for the children need to be built before the homes for the animals. They "got it" right away, and proceeded accordingly. 

All in all, I think the Gad and Reuven episode was "good for the Jews" on account of the lessons it contains.  

Not every Jew needs to live in Israel, but every Jew should support its army. When a financial windfall passes your way, take it. Make sure you take every precaution in business dealings to give something in order to get something – make all stipulations clear, follow through with your end of the bargain, and make sure that in the end the other side of the agreement is fulfilled. Lastly, we must recognize that our priorities are our families and children. Every deal, agreement, undertaking, venture must be considered for its repercussions in advance, especially as it pertains to reputations and family, so we see that in whatever way possible, our children are taken care of, provided for, and always remain the foremost priority of our day-to-day existence.