MG Mátot-Mászé

וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות, I was asked by people in some town in France, Anyon, where else we find a portion commencing with the words וידבר משה, without being told first that G’d had told Moses to deliver the message or legislation in question to the people. My answer to the question was that we had read in Numbers 29,39 אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם לבד מנדריכם ומנדבותיכם, “These you are to present to the Lord,” i.e. sacrifices which you have to present on one of the three pilgrimage festivals, seeing that everyone who is tardy is guilty of a serious misdemeanour, as we know from Rosh Hashanah 4. It was no more than natural that after he heard this Moses went and told the heads of the tribes, the judges all the details pertaining to all kinds of vows, including those between husband and wife, etc.

'וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות....זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, G’d had commanded the basic legislation at Mount Sinai when He had said (Leviticus 19,12) ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר וחללת וגו' “do not render a false oath in My name and thereby desecrate it.” The plain meaning of that verse had not been that you must not deliberately swear falsely, but that having sworn you must honour your oath in all its details. A woman who is married and therefore subject to restrictions imposed upon her by the authority of her husband, is not considered as having desecrated G’d’s name when violating her vows or oath on that account, provided her husband had declared her vow void.

אל ראשי המטות, to the leaders of the tribes, etc. What is so different about this commandment that Moses assembled the chiefs of the tribes to inform them of it and that they in turn were to tell the Israelites? Sifri claims that seeing in Numbers 10,3 in connection with the trumpets the congregation was mentioned before the leaders, and Moses was afraid that this would be misinterpreted to mean that the congregation at large took precedence over the princes, he made sure in 10,4 that the princes were referred to as the heads of the congregation. Moses did something similar here when he addressed the heads of the tribes first. In Nedarim 78 we are told that the reason the heads of the tribes are mentioned here was to hint that vows may be dissolved by a lone judge if he is an expert in the subject. All these comments are strictly allegorical. We need to understand also why the Torah writes המטות לבני ישראל. All Moses had to say was מטות בני ישראל. What is the reason for the extra letter ל? We must assume that the reason for the extra letter is to avoid a misunderstanding. Had the Torah not written לבני ישראל, we might have thought that the legislation was aimed only at the leaders of the people. By writing the extra letter ל, the Torah ensured that we would understand the legislation as applying to the leaders of the people as well as to the nation at large. The absence of the letter ו in front of לבני ישראל is not significant as the Torah has omitted that letter on frequent occasions where we would have expected it such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן, שמעון, etc.

AVENGE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OF THE MIDIANITES; AFTERWARD SHALT THOU BE GATHERED UNTO THY PEOPLE. It was decreed upon our teacher Moses not to cross over the Jordan, but on the other [eastern] side of the Jordan he fulfilled all the commandments [that were necessary] for Israel. Thus he conquered the two great Amorite kings, and divided their land up as an inheritance [amongst the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Menasheh], and it was he who was worthy of executing vengeance upon the enemies of the Eternal, leaving Joshua only the commandment of [conquering and dividing] the Land. Furthermore [this commandment was given to Moses because] the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him honor so that the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance, this being the meaning of afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses showed honor to Phinehas because he had begun the meritorious task [of punishing the Midianites, by killing Cozbi] and it was up to him to finish it, and therefore he appointed him the anointed priest for this war. It was not fitting that Eleazar should go [as the anointed priest of the war], because he was the High Priest [after the death of Aaron].

Them and Pinchas. Rashi explained that he sought to avenge Yoseif, his maternal forefather. The explanation of this is that Moshe trusted him not to have pity on the Midianites and that he would completely eliminate them, because in any case Pinchas hated them due to their involvement in the sale of Yoseif to Egypt. Egypt was a place heavily steeped in licentiousness, and now the Midianites followed their forefathers’ footsteps and attempted to cause the downfall of Bnei Yisroel through harlotry. Moreover, Pinchas began the mitzvah, which would assist him in bringing the matter to completion. This is because since it is so that “a mitzvah brings about another mitzvah” (Avos 4:5), then certainly a part of a mitzvah will bring about the completion of it. Moshe did not want to go, because he was raised in Midian. He was afraid that if the warriors would be lax in any matter, the people would blame it on Moshe, and say that he had pity on the place in which he was raised.

ויאמרו אל משה ואל אלעזר ואל נשיאי העדה, and they said to Moses, to Eleazar, and to the princes of the congregation, etc. We need to know why they were not content to speak to Moses alone; if there was no need for them to address also Eleazar and the princes in the matter there was also no need for the Torah to report this. Perhaps the reason was simply that they had noted that when the general legislation about distributing the land of Canaan was made public in Numbers 34,17-18, Eleazar and Joshua as well as the princes were present. Also the daughters of Tzelofchod had made certain that Moses, Eleazar, and the princes were present when they presented their claim (27,2). In order for this distribution to be valid and not subject to complaints at a later date, it had to be confirmed by the king, i.e. Moses (and subsequently Joshua), by the High Priest, i.e. Eleazar, and by the lay leaders, i.e. the princes. Each one of these leaders possessed an exclusive authority. Maimonides wrote in chapter four section ten of his treatise Hilchot Melachim that when a (Jewish) king conquers a country the whole country becomes legally his, and he can dispose of it to his servants as he sees fit. This shows that the king has overriding authority. As far as the princes are concerned, they enter the picture when the king wants to share out to every one of his people a fair share of the spoils. In such a situation all the representatives of the people, i.e. the princes, need to be present and arrive at an agreed formula at the time the shares are handed out. The function of the High Priest was to inform the people where their respective shares were located. In other words, the king might have decreed for everyone to receive 100 acres of land but did not say who was to get which parcel of 100 acres. You will note that each one of these three authorities had to contribute his opinion in order for the distribution to take place without friction. Furthermore, inasmuch as the function of the king could only be fulfilled after he had conquered the land and the people were settled therein but not at the beginning of the whole process of conquest, it certainly would not have been sufficient for the tribes of Reuven and Gad to submit their claim only to Moses for his adjudication. The word לאמור may mean that the princes were to convey the claim of Gad and Reuven to the people at large in order to secure their approval also. Alternatively, the word emphasises that their claim was presented in "soft language," i.e. אמירה; they were not aggressive in the manner in which they presented their request.

It is brought in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 91b):

And, behold, you are risen up in place of your fathers, a brood of sinful men, to augment yet the fierce anger of the Lord towards Yisra᾽el.

There are five damage-causing acts that an animal can perform twice and remain innocuous even when its owner was warned each time to prevent it from doing so. After the third time, the animal is rendered forewarned. In such cases, the owner is liable to pay only half of the damages. And there are five damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered forewarned, at times even if it had never caused damage in that manner. In such cases the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. An animal is not considered forewarned with regard to Goring, i.e., not for goring with its horns, nor for pushing with its body, nor for biting, nor for crouching upon items in order to damage them, nor for kicking. In these cases the animal is considered to be innocuous and its owner is liable for only half of the damages. Concerning acts of damage performed with the tooth, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it to eat. Concerning acts of damage performed with the foot, the animal is considered forewarned with regard to breaking items while walking. And there is a forewarned ox, which gored three times and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. And there is an ox that causes damage to the property of the injured party while on the property of the injured party. And there is the person, i.e., any damage done by a person. In all of these cases the one who caused the damage is considered to be forewarned, resulting in the obligation to pay the full cost of the damage. The mishna presents the halakha for wild animals: The wolf; the lion; the bear; the leopard; the bardelas, the meaning of which the Gemara will discuss; and the snake. These are considered forewarned even if they had never previously caused damage. Rabbi Elazar says: When these animals are domesticated they are not considered forewarned. But the snake is always considered forewarned. What is the difference between the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is considered innocuous and the liability incurred for damage caused by an ox that is forewarned? The only differences are that for damage caused by an innocuous ox, the owner pays half the cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the ox, and for a forewarned ox he pays the full cost of the damage from his higher property.