Matos
וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר נקם נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים אחר תאסף אל עמיך. וידבר משה וגו' החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא ויהיו על מדין לתת נקמת ה' במדין. אלף
(לא, א-ד) למטה וגו'
Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Avenge the vengeance of the Children of Israel from the Midyanites; subsequently, you shall be gathered unto your nation. Moshe spoke… arm from yourselves men for the army and they shall be against Midyan, to mete out the vengeance of Hashem against Midyan… One thousand per tribe…
There are a number of observations to make about these verses: 1) The double language of נקם נקמת; 2) Hashem referred to “the vengeance of the Children of Israel,” while Moshe spoke of “the vengeance of Hashem.” Why the switch? 3) Why specifically one thousand troops per tribe?* 4) And, as is our wont, what relevance is this narrative for posterity?
The Midrash** relates that when Moshe was given the above instruction regarding Midyan, he questioned Hashem, “Previously, you had commanded me not to touch Moav,*** yet now I am told to take vengeance from them? How does this add up?” To which He responded, “Initially, when I told you not to distress Moav, they were called after their father – as it says: And she called his name Moav.**** However, now that their law has changed between me and the Children of Israel, they are referred to as Midyanites.” What does this perplexing passage mean? Perhaps the beginning of the passage – which strangely conflates Moav with Midyan – can be understood in light of another passage in that midrash, that the double expression of נקם נקמת includes Moav in the annihilation order. It was this that Moshe protested as being contradictory to his previous orders. But that still leaves the end of the midrash to be resolved.
Turning to a different matter for a moment, the Rambam***** defines the term ערמה as permissible guile. This would seem to be contradicted by the verse****** that והנחש היה ערום, and the Serpent was crafty, as his guile was clearly for the worse. The answer, I believe, is stated in the verse itself: מכל חית השדה אשר עשה ה', [was craftier] than all of the beasts of the field which Hashem had made. Why the redundant אשר עשה ה'? Don’t we already know that it was Hashem who made the animals? I claim that this phrase qualifies the actions of the Serpent was being in accordance with Hashem’s intent in its creation, namely, to provide a test for Man so that he may achieve his reward through overcoming it. As the Zohar famously analogized it*******, it’s like a harlot who is hired by a king to attempt to seduce the prince so as to allow him to develop virtue. As such, the term ערמה is indeed in line with the Rambam’s definition.
Now, the Zohar******** states that temptation stems only from alcohol, as Yeshayah********* said הוי משכמי בבקר שכר ירדפו, Ho! Those that arise early in the morning, pursuing alcoholic beverage! Elsewhere, the Zohar********** demonstrates this from the case of Lot, whose daughters aroused his desire through wine. It may be that this is what they meant when they said אבינו זקן, our father is elderly,*********** alluding to the Evil Inclination who is referred to as מלך זקן וכסיל, an elderly, foolish king.************ They justified their illicit activity with the excuse that ואיש אין בארץ, there is no man left in the land, as if to say, there is no righteous man left, everyone is corrupt; as such, why should we not join them?
It would seem, then, that this incident is the origin, after a fashion, of the tempting nature of the Yetzer ha-Ra, emerging from the sinfulness of wine. It follows that the product of this event, Moav, is, in some sense, an embodiment of that force of temptation. That would add depth to its name, from the word מאב, from the father. For, as explained above, temptation is a messenger from our Heavenly Father, sent to provide an opportunity for challenge and growth.
This is only true, though, when things follow the plan, i.e., the Yetzer ha-Ra attempts to seduce Man to sin. However, sometimes it veers from this mission by posing as the Yetzer ha-Tov, presenting sin as a good deed. This is not mandated by Hashem, for, as the rabbinic rule goes, He does not act tyrannically with His creations.************* That is, it would be sadistic for someone to be punished for sinning when he was duped into thinking that he was doing a mitzvah. As I heard in the name of the chassid R. Yehudah Leib Pistyner:************** Tehillim states,*************** אם ראית גנב ותרץ עמו ועם מנאפים חלקך וגו' אלה עשית והחרשתי, If you saw a thief and joined with him, and if your lot is with the adulterers… you did these things and I was silent. That is, if the Yetzer ha-Ra engages in old-fashioned incitement to sin, Hashem doesn’t speak up against it, as that is its job. However, דמית היות אהיה כמוך, if you imagine that I would be like you, that is, if the Yetzer ha-Ra seemingly imitates Hashem in encouraging good deeds – but as a pretense for sin, that is too much for Me, אוכיחך ואערכה לעיניך, I shall rebuke you and arrange your sins before your eyes, for the Yetzer is straying from its allowed course of action.
An example of this is the sin of Ba’al Pe’or. How did the Jewish People stoop to perform such a debasing act of idolatry? Because they were under the impression that they were degrading the idol; in reality, that was also prohibited because it was its normal mode of worship. As the Alshich**************** notes, the Torah describes this sin as ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור, Israel clung to Ba’al Pe’or,***************** using the nation’s elevated title, Israel. I take this to mean that the sin was motivated by lofty motives.
Hence, the double נקם נקמת, alluding to the two types of enticements to sin discussed above. Eventually, אחר תאסף אל עמך, sometime after Moshe’s passing, the world will transcend both of these failings.
Moshe thus asked why it is that in the past Moav was not to be disturbed. In other words, if the “straightforward” Yetzer ha-Ra is simply doing its job, and that is why it has gone unpunished all these millennia, why does it deserve to be punished in the eschatological future? (The same question could be asked of the talmudic passage******************, as well as the Seder poem Chad Gadya, that depict the eventual slaughtering of the Evil Inclination.)
To this Hashem responds – as described in our midrash – that until now they were “called after their father, Moav,” yet now “their law has changed between me and the Children of Israel, they are referred to as Midyanites.” That means that until now the Yetzer has, seemingly, been doing its job – enticing to sin so as to be overcome and prompt the earning of reward. However, we now see that it is also going the extra mile of subverting people through the pretense of virtue; this demonstrates that its intent all along has been malicious! It truly wishes to create sin and punishment – hence its new name מדין, from the term דין, punishment. As such, it deserves to be destroyed in both of its manifestations, Moav and Midyan.
Thus, while Hashem described the campaign as motivated by avenging נקמת בני ישראל, for the duplicitous sin that Israel suffered under the guise of performing a good deed, Moshe realized that this was also נקמת ה', payback from Hashem for the Yetzer’s betrayal of its mission. And as such, the campaign must continue into the perfect world order of the Future, hence, החלצו מאתכם ויהיו על מדין, the future tense indicating the troops’ continuing presence. Furthermore, it explains Pinchas’ critical role here – in his guise of Eliyahu, harbinger of the Messianic Era.
_________________________________________________
* The answer to this question does not appear in this drashah. ** Yalkut Shimoni 785.
*** Devarim 2:9.
**** Bereishis 19:37. ***** Peirush ha-Mishnayos, Temurah 5:1. See Tosafos Yom Tov, ad loc., for other counterexamples, which he suggests may be resolved by assuming that Rambam was referring to rabbinic Hebrew alone.
****** Bereishis 3:1. ******* Terumah 163a.
******** Ibid., 154b.
********* .5:11 9
********** Va’yeira 109b.
*********** Bereishis 19:31.
************ Koheles 4:13; see Koheles Rabbah 4:9. 13 Avodah Zarah 3a. ************** Reb Yehudah Leib (d. 1745) was one of the original students of the Besht. Having studied in the famed Brody kloiz, where he influenced the young R. Yechezkel Landau, he served as maggid meisharim in Pistyn and Kolomyia. His teachings are widely quoted in the earliest sifrei Chassidus.
*************** 50:20-24****************See ed. Wagschal, Bamidbar, p. 200. ***************** Bamidbar 25:3.
****************** Sukkah 52a.