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.

Reuven and Bilhah

Between husband and wife, and father and son 

 Parshat Vayishlach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 Our tradition maintains that one merit Yaakov had over his father and grandfather is that all of his sons were righteous – no Eisav or Yishmael in the lot – allowing him to be the one after whom the Jewish nation is named – B’nei Yisrael, the children of Israel. 

 With this in mind, Bereishit 35:22 leaves us scratching our heads. “While Yaakov was dwelling [undisturbed] in the land, Reuven went and lay “et” Bilhah, his father’s concubine, and Israel heard about it… and Yaakov’s sons were twelve [in number].” 

 What happened with Reuven and Bilhah? Did he or didn’t he? Two factors need to be considered: 1. What is the meaning of the word “et”? 2. How well do we understand the words in the Talmud when explaining a seeming passage of narrative in the Torah? 

 Rabbi David Fohrman shares an important discussion of the meaning of the word “et” in his book, “The Beast that Crouches at the Door” (Devora Publishing, 2007, p. 117-124). Sometimes it means “with,” but sometimes it is a grammatical tool used to connect a verb to a direct object. Certainly the verse is not as simple as it seems. 

 The Talmud (Megillah 25a) goes so far as to say the verse should be read and not translated, due to the difficult nature of understanding the almost clear facts of the case. But the Talmud says elsewhere (Shabbat 55b), that anyone who claims Reuven sinned is mistaken, because the verse concludes saying Yaakov had twelve sons – meaning none of them were rejected. Instead, we are to understand that Reuven mixed up beds, and the Torah only “makes it seem as if” he had relations with his father’s wife/concubine, even though he did not. 

However, the Talmud also says (Shabbat 56a) that anyone who claims King David sinned is mistaken. But King David himself admitted that he sinned (Samuel II 12:13 and 24:10). 

If we assume, as the Talmud implies, that King David was correct in his actions with Batsheva and the census, according to King David we are mistaken. So let us assume for a moment that Reuven’s actions here are a faux pas. Having said that, what happened? 

 Ramban suggests Reuven was fearful of Yaakov fulfilling God’s command of 35:11 to have more children, because he thought he would lose out more of his inheritance. His “older” mother was no longer fertile, Rachel was dead, as was Zilpah. So he switched the beds around, which worked because Yaakov did not subsequently have more children.

Without apologetics, Bchor Shor and Ibn Ezra claim Reuven did what the Torah says he did. Chizkuni, Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch and others suggest, most likely on the coattails of the Tanchuma, that Reuven lay in the room, which discouraged Yaakov from going there. (Ro”sh says he slept on her bed many nights to discourage his father from coming back, even though he did not sin in the way we’d generally suspect.) Once that happened, Yaakov chose to remain celibate for the rest of his days. 

 The Sha’kh defends Reuven saying Yaakov understood Reuven’s sincere intentions, to keep the family unit intact, and to maintain the requisite number of children required to begin a new nation. Nachor, Yishmael, and Eisav combined with Seir each had twelve sons. Now that Binyamin was born, Yaakov had twelve sons. Perhaps Reuven thought, “If he has more children, some of his original 12 will be rejected. Perhaps he’ll start by rejecting some of Leah’s children.” So he took matters into his own hands to avoid the creation of more siblings. 

 Maskil L’David has the most innovative interpretation. Following the line of Reuven mixing the beds, causing his father to spend his evenings with Leah, he says the Torah is indicating the switch through the specific words it chooses. Mix around the letters of “Vayishkav” (וישכב) and you have “Vayachabosh” (ויכבש) (and he cornered). Mix around “Pilegesh” (פילגש) (concubine – an odd choice because Bilhah is elsewhere called a “wife”) and you have “She’pileg” (שפילג) (that he caused a rift). In other words, he cornered Bilhah, and caused a rift between her and his father, causing Yaakov to seek companionship elsewhere. In this vein, Reuven was punished “measure for measure.” Since he switched around beds, the letters in the Torah were “switched around” to make him look worse. 

 No matter how we look at Reuven’s deed, what he did was not nice. Whether Bilhah was now prohibited to Yaakov is one question, but that Yaakov chose celibacy as a course of reaction was his own free will – not Reuven’s fault. 

 Why did Yaakov get angry, as evidenced from the way he spoke to Reuven in Bereishit 49:3-4, “for having moved the beds,” particularly if his intentions may have been noble? Because no one has the right to cause a rift between a husband and wife. The relationship between spouses is holy and sacred. 

Not only should they view it that way, but everyone who meets them needs to understand boundaries in relating to a couple. Particularly when it comes to relating to a married person of the opposite gender, it is important to bear in mind the holiness of the person’s “kiddushin” and to respect space, privacy, and the individual’s personal commitment to the holy bond of matrimony.