Matot, Masei and the Three Weeks

         

We (naḥnu) will pass over as the vanguard before the Eternal into the land of Canaan …          Numbers 32:32

The sons of Gad and Reuven use the unusual form “naḥnu” rather than the common “anaḥnu,” which Ba’al haTurim relates to two other verses which also use the form “naḥnu”:

We are all the sons of one man …  Genesis 42:11

We have sinned and rebelled… Lamentations 3:42

My father explained the connection among the verses. Whether it is the vanguard going to fight God’s battles or the sinners of Israel, “we are all the sons of one man.” Every Jew must feel a sense of responsibility for all fellow Jews. Through this bond of unity and feeling of mutual responsibility, the sons of Gad and Reuven were empowered to enter the Promised Land as Israel’s vanguard. Ultimately, the tribes’ acceptance of their communal responsibility, rather than focusing on their narrow personal interests, is the guarantee of their success in liberating the Holy Land.

This message of the importance of feeling common kinship and unity is especially timely, as Parashat Matot is always read during the period of three weeks of mourning the destruction of the Temple, since the second Temple was destroyed as the result of baseless hatred (sin’at ḥinam) among the Jews.

            The Hassidic master, the Rebbi of Skolin noted that Parashat Masei is always read during the Three Weeks, the period of national mourning from the 17^th of Tammuz until the 9^th of Av, and explained that there is a valuable lesson to be learnt from this timing.

            All the journeys of the Children of Israel and all their travail in the desert were for the purpose of reaching the Promised Land. So too we must be aware that all of Israel's journeys through the long and bitter exile are for the purpose of purifying us until we reach the final redemption which will bring Israel's return to its Land.

The Great Treachery

            In no fewer than four parashot, Tzror haMor attacks the “treachery” of the Tribe of Gad, who “despised the Desirable Land, the Land flowing milk and honey, and chose to settle in an unclean land, full of idolatry and the spirit of impurity.” Gad was guilty of two evils: “failure to see the sanctity of the Land of Israel and to love it,” despising the Land which is “desired by all nations, and give (to Israel) by the hand of God,” “not wanting to enter the Land of Israel, the Holy Land;” and “they failed to see the impurity and ugliness” of the land outside the Holy Land.”

            The Request of the Tribe of Gad to remain east of the River Jordan was “against the Divine will and against that of Moses’” and in making this request, the sons of Gad followed the approach of the spies in despising the Land, as well as the approach of Koraḥ, who dissociated himself from the congregation.

            In despising the Land, the sons of Gad “turned away from God, and were comparable to idolaters, as our Sages taught ‘Anyone who lives outside the Land is considered as one who does not have a God.’” [Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 110b] Indeed, the nine and a half tribes who settled west of the Jordan suspected the tribes of the eastern side of the River Jordan of “rebellion against the Lord.” [Joshua 22:16]

            Tzror haMor sees the name “Gad” itself as conveying the treachery. Concerning the naming of Gad, we read:

Good fortune has come (ba gad) and she (Leah) named him Gad.                              Genesis 30:16

The words “ba gad” are written in the Torah as a single word and without the letter aleph, the spelling of the word which means treachery. Tzror haMor suggests that Leah’s choice of name conveyed a prophetic insight of the “great treachery” destined to be committed by the Tribe of Gad in choosing to remain in an impure land and abandon the desired Land, the Holy Land.

            Tzror haMor labels Gad’s preference for an inheritance east of the River Jordan not only as “treachery” but as well as a “great rebellion” against the Divine will. The motivation for Gad’s choice was the fact that the tribe was shepherds and their fear that the Land would be insufficient for their needs. In this consideration, Gad “failed to see that ‘No one ever said the place is too narrow.’” [Avot 5:5]  As well, Gad “failed to see that ‘the Land expands when Israel is upon her and contracts when they are not.’” [Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57a]

            In addition, the Tribe of Gad ignored the fact that the Land is called “the desirable Land because the fathers of the world (our Patriarchs) desired it and it was given to them by (Divine) oath, as Scripture states ‘to your descendants will I give this Land’.” [Genesis 12:7]. As well, Gad ignored “all that Moses had done in order to enter the Land.”

            (The reason that the Tribe of Gad, and not Reuben is the subject of Tzror haMor’s strong criticism is the fact that “the sons of Gad advised Reuben to join them, and they (Gad) initiated the treachery. Thus Gad sinned and encouraged Reuben to sin along with him.” The verses are consistent in presenting Gad as the spokesperson, indicating that he was the initiator.)

            We may comment that Tzror haMor attacks Gad for choosing the eastern side of the River Jordan, which, though it is not the Land of the Shechina, has the sanctity of the Land. That is, “the eastern side of the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel, though its level of sanctity is below that of the main part of the Land (west of the Jordan).” [Talmudic Encyclopedia – Eretz Yisrael 208]

            Given this fact, what would Tzror haMor have to say about our brethren who choose to remain on foreign soil, in places completely devoid of sanctity, which are totally outside the Land!?!

Numbers and Joshua

Bemidbar, the fourth book of the Torah, deals with the preparations for Israel’s entry into its Land, and as such, presents a quantum change, from a lifestyle which is centered on miracles (the clouds of glory, manna, Miriam’s well, etc.) to one which must be lived on a natural level.    

            Bemidbar, in a real sense is the precursor to the Book of Joshua (since Deuteronomy is essentially Moses’ review of the experience of forty years in the wilderness). The events described in the early chapters of Joshua convey a gradual weaning of the Israelites from dependence upon overt miracles.

            To enter the Promised Land, Israel crossed the River Jordan in a miraculous manner:

… When the feet of the Kohanim who carried the ark dipped in the edge of the water (of the Jordan), the waters flowing from above stood and rose up in one heap …                Joshua 3:15-16

The Israelites took no part in the miracle of crossing the Jordan; it was exclusively God’s work.

            Israel’s first conquest in the Land, Jericho was accomplished miraculously, as we read:

Encircle the city and march around it once. Do this for six days. And seven Kohanim shall carry seven rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, circle the city seven times, with the Kohanim blowing the shofarot. Have them blow a long blast on the shofar, and when you hear the blast, have all the people shout a mighty shout, and the wall of the city will collapse…  And the vanguard went before the Kohanim who blew the rams’ horns, and the rearguard went after the ark …            Joshua 6:3-5,9

            While the conquest of Jericho was miraculous, the Israelites participated in effecting the miracle.

            The second conquest in the Land, the capture of Ai, was achieved without relying on an overt miracle, as described in Joshua 8:3ff.

            Thus, we see a progression from overt Divine intervention with no human component to God and the Israelites acting together to the Israelites acting without overt Divine intervention. It is to be noted, that lack of overt intervention by God, of course, does not imply lack of His providence over His chosen people. (In fact, God instructed Joshua: “Stretch out the javelin in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your hand,” [Joshua 8:18] which was the sign to begin the attack on Ai.)

            In the battle which Joshua fought after capturing Ai, the Battle of the Ayalon Valley, he and the Israelites benefitted from two overt miracles: at the Bet Ḥoron descent, God cast stones from the heavens upon the fleeing Amorites soldiers, killing more soldiers than were killed by Joshua’s troops, [ibid. 11] and the sun stood still long enough for Joshua to complete his victory over the coalition of five Amorite kings. [Joshua 10:12-13] This apparently reverses the trend and reverts to God’s open intervention. 

            However, as Yigal Ariel noted in his commentary on the Book of Joshua, Joshua did not request the first miracle. Thus the message is that when Israel is ready to its part, God, as it were, is not averse to performing miracles in support of Israel. It seems clear that had Joshua not acted in a natural manner, God would not have intervened on his behalf.

Focus of the Seven Lamps

And God spoke to Moses, saying: “Speak to Aaron and say to him: when you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light towards the body of the menorah.”   

                                          Numbers 8:1-2

          “The body of the menorah” is the central branch [Rashi, verse 2], and therefore Kli Yakar posits that the verse should have stated “the six lamps shall give light towards the body of the menorah,” since the verse teaches that the wicks of the six lights are turned toward the light of the central branch of the menorah.

       My father suggested that the verse teaches that even the central light, which represents the light of Torah, must be turned, as it were, internally, that Torah is to be studied for its own sake.

          The six branches of the menorah represent “wisdoms” other than Torah, and this concept provides an additional answer to Kli Yakar’s question: it is only when all seven lights shine together, with Torah at the center, that the other “wisdoms” can be of real value.

The Time of Accepting Torah

            Our liturgy refers to the holiday of Shavuot as “the time of giving the Torah,” yet it seems to me that it more exact to refer to the holiday as “the time of accepting Torah.” Had Israel stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and chosen not to accept Torah, there would have been no one to whom to give the Torah, and the Divine revelation at Sinai would have been an orphaned act. It was Israel’s acceptance of Torah which endowed the experience at Sinai with eternal significance.

            This approach, that in essence, human action is necessary in order to complete God’s work, is consistently the approach of Torah.

            Giving/accepting the Torah was the continuation of the Exodus from Egypt, but rather than being the culmination it was a step in the process of bringing Israel into its Land. Perhaps surprisingly, nowhere does the Torah tell us that God took His people out of Egypt in order to present them with Torah. The verse, quoted in the Haggada, which explicitly states the purpose of the Exodus tells us that it was in order to bring Israel into its Land. However, this too is incomplete and merely a further stage in the process begun with the Exodus. The ultimate purpose of God’s bringing the Children of Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land was that the Israelites fulfill His commandments within His Land, the place most suited for the mitzvot.   

The Land and Torah: Inseparable

            Among the classical commentators there is an approach that the motivation for the majority report of the ten spies that Israel would be unable to capture the land of Canaan was their desire to remain in the wilderness under the wings of the Shechina. In the wilderness, the Israelites were free of earthly endeavors, since all of their needs were provided miraculously, while upon entering the Land, they would need to work their land, and their lives would no longer be completely spiritual. Ḥassidic Master Rabbi Menaḥem Mendel of Riminov (1745-1815) phrases the point thus: “They believed that they would be able to achieve Divine service more easily in the wilderness than in the Land.” Shem MiShmuel writes: “Being ‘a knowledgeable generation’ brought them to reluctance to engage in plowing and planting, which are earthly activities, and they preferred to remain in the wilderness, engaged in Torah and spiritual service.”

            Rabbi Yitzḥak Nissenbaum (1868-1942), one of the early thinkers of religious Zionism, writes that the spies “attempted to separate the Land and Torah.” The spies saw Torah and the Land as being in opposition and contradiction to each other, with the nation having to choose between the two. The ten spies thought that entry into the Land would put Torah observance at risk, and chose Torah over the Land. In essence, the spies’ approach was that Torah could be observed only in the wilderness, where Israel was isolated from other nations and cultures.

            Against the ten spies, Joshua and Caleb argued that God had clearly expressed His will that His chosen nation enter the Chosen Land in order to fulfill His mitzvot specifically within her. Their message to the Israelites was: “if you truly wish to fulfill Torah - ascend to the Land.”

            The nation, of course, accepted the majority report, and rejected that of Joshua and Caleb, and in so doing caused generations of crying. “As a result of their sin we remain in exile today, and God revisits the sin of the fathers on the sons, the sin of the spies, because the sons are guilty of the fathers’ sin, separating Torah and the Land, deciding that there can be Torah without the Land.”

            Following the night of crying brought on by the spies’ report, we read:

And they rose early in the morning, and got up to the top of the mountain, saying: ‘Behold we are here, and will go up to the place which the Lord has promised, for we have sinned.’ Numbers 14:40

           At first glance, this would appear to constitute repentance, realizing the sin of the spies and rectifying it. However, Rabbi Nissenbaum writes, those who were ready to “go up to the place which the Lord has promised” as well separated the Land and Torah. “They too believed Torah and the Land cannot be united, however, they chose the Land over Torah. Their approach was that Torah and the Land are incompatible, and they chose to leave Torah in the wilderness and ascend to the Land. They believed that the Land can be Israel’s without Torah.” As such, this is actually the “flip side” of the sin of the spies. Both groups erred in thinking that is possible to separate God’s Torah and His Land.

           Rabbi Nissenbaum’s conclusion (his words were published seventeen years before Israel achieved statehood) was: “without the Land our lives are missing numerous organs of the body of Torah. Indeed, the nation of Israel must understand the necessity of the combination of the Land of Israel and the Torah of Israel.”

Leadership Lessons

            The argument between Koraḥ and Moses, which is the main theme of the early part of the parasha, presents two major practical lessons, the proper nature of leadership and the importance of a unified people.

Koraḥ and Moses differed in their approaches to leadership.

            Koraḥ saw leadership from the perspective of privilege, Moses from that of responsibility.

            Our Sages teach that Koraḥ’s symbol was t’chelet, the blue dye used for ẓiẓit. Ẓiẓit are composed of strings of white and t’chelet. The t’chelet is wrapped around the white strings and is what holds them together. T’chelet thus symbolizes leadership, since it is a leader’s job to unite his people. However, though the string of t’chelet does unite the remaining strings, it stands out from the others, and thus symbolizes Koraḥ’s approach that a leader is above the people.

            Moses instructed Koraḥ’s rebels to bring incense. As my father explained, the incense serves as a symbol of true leadership. The incense was so fragrant that our Sages tell us that when the Temple stood, a bride in Jerusalem never required perfume. Yet of the eleven spices which composed the incense was, one, ḥelbana, was by itself foul smelling. When mixed with the other ten spices, ḥelbana lost its foul smell and contributed to the beautiful aroma of the incense. As our Sages explain, the lesson of ḥelbana is the importance of including all Jews as part of the congregation, even those who seem “foul smelling.” My father explained the lesson for leadership: rather than lowering the standards to accommodate those who are on a low level, a leader must raise the weaker members of the community to a higher level. A true leader is one who serves the people, not his own ego. A leader serves his people by elevating them to the highest level possible.

            A true leader does not raise himself above the people, but rather raises the people with him.

            Moses, in choosing incense as his symbol, stressed the importance of unity. The eleven spices of the incense, including the ḥelbana, are ground into a single entity, with no single spice evident.

            In Jewish tradition, privilege results from accepting responsibility. Thus, by accepting responsibility for raising the people with him, Moses personifies one of the great lessons of Parashat Koraḥ.

            In using incense as his symbol, Moses demonstrated the second great lesson of the parasha, the ultimate importance of the unity of the people of Israel.

            This Dvar Torah is sent in honor of the bar mitzva of my senior grandchild, Uriel Magence, with the prayer that the lessons of the parasha always guide his life.

             

             

No Figs, Grapevines or Pomegranates

Why have you led us up from Egypt to bring us to this place without grain, figs, grapevines and pomegranates, or even water to drink.                                                        Numbers 20:5

            Rabbi Ḥayyim Paltiel (c.1240 – c.1300) questions why the Israelites waited until the fortieth year in the wilderness to complain about the lack of fruit. In his first answer, Rabbi Paltiel suggests that as long as the Israelites had water provided by Miriam’s well, they were able to grow figs, grapes and pomegranates in the wilderness, but with the disappearance of the well following Miriam’s death, they were no longer able to grow these fruits. The second suggestion is that perhaps the manna did not take on the taste of these fruits. (While Rabbi Paltiel does not offer an explanation for the reason the manna did not take on these specific tastes, the Talmud [Yoma, 75a] does present an opinion that though the manna “had the taste of every species,” there were exceptions.)

            Meshech Ḥochma, who did not see Rabbi Paltiel’s comments (since the latter’s commentary was published only in 1981, based upon a manuscript) notes that the people mentioned only three of the five fruits included within the seven species for which the Torah praises the Land, but not olives or date honey, since these two were included in the taste of manna, as we read: “and its taste was like cakes made with honey” (in the Bible “honey” typically refers to date honey) [Exodus 16:31] and “its taste was as the taste of fresh (olive) oil.” [Numbers 11:8]

            It is noteworthy that in their complaint, the Children of Israel mentioned specifically the three types of fruit which the spies brought from the Land. [Numbers 13:23]  The compliant was made by the younger generation, which will enter the Land, and we may suggest that, despite their shortcoming in complaining about the lack of water, the new generation learned the lesson of the sin of the spies and their mention of these three fruits conveys a longing to enter the Land and partake of the fruits for which she is praised.

Etzion-geber and Tarshish

And God said to Moses and Aaron at Mount Hor on the border of the land of Edom.                                  Numbers 20:23 This teaches that since they chose to befriend the evil Esau (father of Edom), a breach was made in their works and they lost this righteous man (Aaron). Similarly the prophet said to Jehoshaphat: ”Because you have formed an alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy your works.” [II Chronicles 20:37]                 Rashi

            The background to Rashi’s example of the verse’s lesson of the negative impact of joining forces with an evil person is presented in the two verses which precede that quoted by Rashi:

After this Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, formed an alliance with Ahaziah, King of Israel who acted wickedly. He joined together with him to build ships to go to Tarshish, and the ships were made in Etzion-geber.                                                    ibid. 35-36

            In partnership with the wicked Ahaziah, Jehoshaphat prepared a merchant fleet, and therefore “the ships were broken and unable to go to Tarshish.” [the end of the verse quoted by Rashi] As punishment for his alliance with a wicked person, Jehoshaphat’s fleet was “broken” and never set sail for Tarshish.

            The problem presented by the Biblical account is geographic: the shipyards of Etzion-geber, where Jehoshaphat’s ships were made, are located somewhere along the Gulf of Eilat,  in the vicinity of Eilat and Aqaba, while the destination, Tarshish,  is somewhere in the Mediterranean basin (Abravanel identifies Tarshish as Carthage, on the north African coast, Malbim locates it within Spain, while others suggest southern Turkey as the location of Tarshiah). It seems illogical to build ships at the Red Sea for a journey to the Mediterranean.          

            This problem brought Don Yitzḥak Abravanel to a radical (and perhaps shocking) suggestion: that Ezra the Scribe, author of the Books of Chronicles made a mistake! In I Kings 22:49 we read that Jehoshaphat “made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold.” It is possible to understand that verse’s use of the phrase “ships of Tarshish” as referring to a type of ship used for long sea voyages, and Ezra may have misunderstood the phrase as denoting the ships’ destination.

            Malbim attacks Abravanel’s suggestion and writes:

We cannot accept the suggestion that the author of Chronicles was mistaken and he was unaware that it is not possible to sail from Etzion-geber to Tarshish in ships.

            Malbim himself suggests that “it is well known that the Red Sea connects to the ‘Great Ocean’ (the rabbinic name of the Atlantic); thus the ships built in Etzion-geber could have sailed between Ophir and Tarshish.” That is, the ships could have sailed south through the Red Sea and circumnavigated the African continent via the Cape of Good Hope, continuing north to reach the Mediterranean and Tarshish.

            It is fascinating that the ancient historian Herodotus reports that Phoenician sea-farers (sailing in the service of Egypt) indeed sailed from the Red Sea, circumnavigated Africa, reaching the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians completed this voyage about the year 600 B.C.E., approximately two-hundred and fifty years after Jehoshaphat built his fleet to sail to Tarshish. Thus, Malbim’s suggestion does not seem unrealistic.

What Anti-Semites Fail to Appreciate

And God opened the mouth of the donkey and she said to Balaam: “What have I done to you that you have hit me these three times?”                                                    Numbers 22:28 “These three times” hinted to him that he wishes to uproot the nation which celebrates (the pilgrimage festivals) three times per year.                  Rashi, based upon Midrash Tanḥuma

                Based upon Rashi’s comment, Kli Yakar suggests that the three venues where God’s angel stood to obstruct Balaam’s donkey correspond to the three pilgrimage festivals.

            The field [verse 27] represents Sukkot, the holiday of gathering the agricultural yield from the fields. The message (which, of course, Balaam failed to understand) was “you seek to uproot the nation which celebrates the harvest festival, which depends on the fields,” yet even more, during this holiday, Israel offers sacrifices on behalf of the seventy nations of the world, “and ending these sacrifices risks ending the nations.”

            The “narrow path through the vineyards” [v. 24] hints at Passover, the time of the exodus from Egypt, since the nation of Israel is compared to a grape vine, as the Sweet Singer of Israel wrote: “You brought a vine out of Egypt…” [Psalms 80:9]  Further, the vine hints at the four cups of wine drunk at the Passover seder, which correspond to the four redemptions of Israel from Egyptian servitude. Once again, there is  a message which eluded the one who claimed to “understand the Most High’s knowledge” [Numbers 24:16]: “it is fitting to uproot the weeds and thorns and plant vines in their place, yet you, Balaam, want to do the opposite; uproot the vine to allow thorns to grow in its place.” The point is strengthened in light of our Sages’ teaching that against the four cups of the seder, God is destined to cause the nations to drink the “cup of wrath,” [Breishit Rabba 88:5] thus the plan to uproot the vine will exact a price from the nations of the world.

            The third place where God’s angel stood to obstruct Balaam, “in a narrow place, where there was no room to turn to the right or to the left” [v.26] symbolizes Shavuot, the time of giving the Torah’ of which the verse says: “Length of days is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.” [Proverbs 3:16] Here as well, there was a message lost on he who purported to “hear the words of God” [Numbers 24:4’16]: “Had Israel not accepted Torah, the world would have returned to chaos and disorder.” [Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 88a]

            Balaam, whose goal was to uproot the nation which celebrates three times per year failed to understand that this would negatively impact all nations and the entire cosmos. As a true anti-Semite, Balaam failed to appreciate how much the world and he gain from the presence of Jews.

Contemporary Lessons

And the Lord spoke to Moses. “Execute vengeance for the Israelites against the Midianites.  After that you will be gathered to your people.” And Moses spoke to the people, “Arm men from among you for military service, to execute God’s vengeance upon Midian. Send a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel to war.”  Out of the thousands (or divisions) of Israel, one thousand per tribe were recruited, twelve thousand men armed for war. And Moses sent them to war, one thousand per tribe, along with Phinehas, son of Eleazar the priest, and the holy vessels and the trumpets for giving signals.                                                                                                                                                 Numbers 31:1-6

            Thus the Torah presents the order of the day for Israel’s last battle fought under the leadership of Moses.

            The details of the order convey contemporary lessons.

            The order “Arm men from among you” is interpreted by Yalkut Shimoni as referring to righteous men, as is the case with the first century CE Aramaic transition of Yonatan ben Uziel. In the first battle fought by the Children of Israel, against Amalek, the Master of all Prophets instructed his disciple Joshua to “choose men for us,” [Exodus 17:9] which Rabbi Yehoshua understood to mean “valiant men who are God-fearing.” [Midrash Lekaḥ Tov] Based upon these Midrashic comments, in times of Israel’s wars, the place of the righteous is not sequestered in their houses of study, but at the front lines of the battles.

             Ba’al haTurim points out that verse four commences and concludes with the letter aleph (whose numeric equivalent is one), and suggest that this hints that all the soldiers were  a single heart focused on their Father in Heaven. [Based upon the Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 61a] Indeed, one of the most consistent lessons of Jewish history is that unity is the secret of Israel’s success. It is likely that this unity brought about the amazing success of the campaign against Midian, that “no man among us is missing.” [Numbers 31:49]

             Ba’al haTurim also notes that the words “twelve thousand men were recruited for war” (which literally translated is: “were given”) can be understood to mean that the recruits willingly gave themselves to sanctify God’s name to save Israel. This parallels Maimonides’ definition of a mandatory war as “saving Israel from its enemy who has come upon them.” [Laws of Kings and Their Wars 5:1] Maimonides describes what is required of a soldier who enters battle:

Once he enters battle, he must rely on the Hope of Israel and its Savior in times of distress, and he must know that he wages war for the unity of God’s name, and therefore he should place his soul in his hand and not be fearful, and he must not think of his wife or children, but totally remove them from his heart and free himself from all matters to focus on the battle. One who begins to think and reflect (on extraneous matters) during battle and frightens himself violates a negative commandment, as the verse states:  Do not be fainthearted, etc.  [Deuteronomy 20:3] Furthermore, the blood of all Israel hangs upon his neck, and if he did not enter battle with all his heart and soul, it is as if he shed the blood of all Israel, as the verse states “Lest he cause the heart of his brothers to melt.” [Deuteronomy ibid. 8]

                           Laws of Kings and Their Wars 7:15

            This truly is most demanding, but it can be achieved.

            While the simple meaning (p’shat) of the verse is that the army number twelve thousand warriors, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, nonetheless Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion is that each tribe recruited two thousand men, and the expeditionary force numbered twenty-four thousand [Midrash Sifrei 157]. Verse five, which states that the fighting force numbered twelve thousand apparently explicitly contradicts Rabbi Yishmael’s understanding. However, Malbim explains that Rabbi Yishmaels’ opinion was that each tribe dispatched two thousand soldiers, one thousand as combat troops, the remaining thousand as support troops. It is to be noted that later, at God’s instruction, Moses divided the spoils of the war against Midian equally between the combat soldiers and their support comrades. [31:27] Malbim opines that this was the precedent for David’s decision that “the share of those who went to battle and that of those who stayed with the supplies shall be equal.” [I Samuel 30:24]  

            Surprisingly, there is a third opinion, that the force numbered thirty-six thousand men: “one third combatants, one third support troops and one third to pray.” [Midrash Aggada on v. 31:6] Israel’s army cannot rely on its strength alone, but must raise its eyes in prayer to the Master of the World. Conversely, prayer alone is insufficient to bring victory to God’s nation.