Matot (Numbers 30, 2 – 32, 42) – the Bible is Zionistic but not anti-diaspora

 

There is a remarkable passage in the Torah reading of Matot in which the tribes of Reuven and Gad have a discussion with Moses concerning the conquering of the land of Israel (Numbers 32, 1-32). The Israelites are on the other side (the east side) of the Jordan river in the plains of Moab prior to their crossing the Jordan and entering the land of Israel – and, the tribes of Reuven and Gad request of Moses that they be given land on the east side of the Jordan for a possession and to settle there instead of crossing over the Jordan with the other Israelites to settle within the land of Israel (Numbers 32, 1-5).

 

This is actually a request on the part of the tribes of Reuven and Gad, from the very beginning of Jewish history, of Jews to live in the diaspora outside the land of Israel. The ensuing discussion between the two tribes and Moses is very interesting from a religious point of view – but, strikingly, what stands out by its absence is any discussion between them concerning the desire of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to live in the diaspora implying that there is no problem at all in their choosing to live in the diaspora. I want to examine the discussion before returning to the issue of the diaspora.

 

From the beginning of the discussion, the tribes of Reuven and Gad reveal their reason for wanting to live in the diaspora – economic. The two tribes have cattle, and the area where they want to settle outside of Israel on the east side of the Jordan is a good land for cattle – “Now the children of Reuven and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle; and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was a place for cattle, the children of Gad and the children of Reuven came and spoke unto Moses…the land which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel, is a land for cattle, and thy servants have cattle” (Numbers 32, 1- 4). Notice that this passage begins with a description of the tribes having cattle and a description of the place where they want to settle as a place for cattle – and, the passage ends with the tribes themselves saying that the land they want to settle is a place for cattle and that they have cattle. Not only is the word cattle being repeated, but the order here is “a, b, b, a” – the tribes having cattle, the place as one for cattle, the tribes saying the place is one for cattle and the tribes saying they have cattle. The picture drawn of the two tribes is of their being preoccupied with cattle (as if their world begins and ends with having cattle) – and, clearly then, their reason for wanting to live in the diaspora is materialistic. They want a comfortable lifestyle in the diaspora.

 

When the tribes of Reuven and Gad say that the land that they want to settle is a place for cattle and that they have cattle (Numbers 32, 2-4) – there is no response from Moses (as if Moses is shocked). The tribes then (Numbers 32, 5) make explicit their request to settle outside the land of Israel east of the Jordan – “And they said, if we have found favor in your sight, let this land be given unto your servants for a possession; bring us not over the Jordan”.

 

Moses responds by ignoring not only the desire of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to live outside Israel but also their materialism and concern with cattle. Rather, Moses very harshly criticizes the two tribes and accuses them of not being willing to cross over the Jordan to help their brethren conquer the land – ”shall your brethren go to war, and shall you sit here?” (Numbers 32, 6). The tribes respond by clarifying that they will be willing to cross the Jordan and help their brethren conquer the land – “We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle, and cities for our little ones but we ourselves will be ready armed to go before the children of Israel, until we have brought them unto their place” (Numbers 32, 16-17). Moses agrees to this proposal – but, he emends their proposal in two significant ways.

 

First, Moses emends the proposal of the two tribes by adding God. In their proposal, the two tribes did not mention God at all. Moses inserts and repeats the phrase “before the Lord (YHVH)” in his emendation of the proposal (Numbers 32, 20-22):

 

If you will do this thing: if you will arm yourselves to go before the Lord to the war and every armed man of you will pass over the Jordan before the Lord, until He has driven out His enemies from before Him, and the land be subdued before the Lord, and you return afterward; then ye shall be clear before the Lord, and before Israel, and this land shall be unto you for a possession before the Lord.

 

I want to clarify here that Moses is not speaking as a theologian or philosopher but as a political and religious leader. Moreover, the great revolution of the Hebrew Bible is not a theological revolution. Rather, the great revolution of the Bible is a moral revolution in which God is conceived as a moral God who demands morality. This moral revolution is reflected in the story of the burning bush, which is a story of revelation – of the revelation of the very name of God (YHVH) to Moses. The essence of the name of God (YHVH) is that God demands morality, as expressed in Psalm 23 – “the Lord (YHVH) is my shepherd…He restores my soul, He leads me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His name” (Psalm 23, 1-3). This is the essence of the revelation to Moses at the burning bush (that God demands morality) where God first reveals God’s nature as a God of history as opposed to a power of nature (as in the pagan conception of gods as powers of nature) – “Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, the Lord (YHVH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you; this is My name for ever…I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt” (Exodus 3, 15-16). God, in the verse here, is depicted as having seen the oppression and persecution that the people Israel have suffered in Egypt, and the mentioning that YHVH is the name of God in the verse signifies God’s moral opposition to such oppression and persecution.

 

Moses then is not a theologian but a political and religious leader who is preparing the people Israel for their entering the land of Canaan that was dominated by Canaanite city-states that were superior to the nomadic Israelites militarily and technologically. The message that Moses, as a political and religious leader, is delivering to the people Israel is that the only thing that can maintain their unity as a people, without a land of their own, and upon entering the land of Canaan dominated by powerful Canaanite city-states and cultures, is their voluntary loyalty and devotion to YHVH, the God of Israel. In the absence of a land of their own, it is only their religion, and worship of YHVH, the God of Israel, that can hold the people of Israel together and allow them to survive. Thus, the message of Moses is not that of a philosopher or theologian but of a political and religious leader whose message is directed to a particular people, arising out of a concern for their survival and welfare.

 

If we return to the passage in which Moses inserts and repeats the phrase “before the Lord” to the tribes of Reuven and Gad, Moses is, in my view, reminding them that they are a part of the people Israel and that not only do they have a moral duty to help their brethren in conquering and settling the land of Canaan that is to become the national homeland, Israel, of the people Israel – but, it is their voluntary loyalty to YHVH as the God of Israel that can hold the people Israel together especially considering that the two tribes want to settle outside the land of Israel.

 

Second, Moses emends the proposal of the tribes of Reuven and Gad not only by adding God but also by changing the order in their formulation regarding their cattle and children. In the proposal of the tribes, their cattle came first reflecting their materialism – “We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle, and cities for our little ones” (Numbers 32, 16). Moses in agreeing to their proposal reverses the order – “Build you cities for your little ones, and folds for your sheep” (Numbers 32, 24). The tribes clearly accept the two emendations of Moses in voicing their acceptance of the agreement – “Our little ones, our wives, our flocks, and all our cattle, shall be there in the cities of Gilead but thy servants will pass over, every man that is armed for war, before the Lord to battle” (Numbers 32, 26-27). Notice that here they put their children and wives before their cattle, and they add the phrase “before the Lord” in saying that they will cross the Jordan to help the brethren in the conquest of the land of Israel.

 

Strikingly, in this discussion between Moses and the tribes of Reuven and Gad, no mention is made of the desire of the tribes to live in the diaspora. There is no question that the land of Israel is an integral part of Judaism as a culture and way of life of the Jewish people. Judaism is a religion not in the sense of a faith commitment but in the sense of a culture and way of life of a particular people with a particular language (Hebrew), homeland (Israel) and history.

 

Zionism is an expression of the national aspirations of the Jewish people to live in our own national homeland – the land of Israel. The term Zion is a Biblical term and refers to Jerusalem (the city of David) and later came to refer more broadly to the land of Israel. Zionism then is a nationalistic longing for Jerusalem and for the land of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. The roots of Zionism are in the Bible. Psalm 137 begins by expressing the longing to return to Jerusalem of the Jewish exiles after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the exile of Jews to Babylonia – “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, we also cried, when we remembered Zion” (137, 1). Psalm 137 continues by asking “How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land? (137, 4) and also expresses the love of the Jewish people for Jerusalem and that we are not to forget Jerusalem – “If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill, my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my greatest joy” (137 5-6).

 

After being exiled from Israel by the Romans and no longer having a Jewish nation in the land of Israel, the national homeland of the Jewish people, Jews nevertheless maintained a continuous presence in the land of Israel from the Roman period until the establishment of the modern state of Israel – continuing to live in Israel through the centuries even though the numbers were small. Most important, Jews maintained an attachment to Jerusalem and the land of Israel especially reflected in traditional prayers from the Roman period until the establishment of the state of Israel – in keeping with the words of Psalm 137. The modern political movement of Zionism of the 19th and 20th centuries leading to the establishment of the modern state of Israel was a nationalistic movement to reestablish the Jewish nation in its own ancient national homeland – and, the roots of the modern movement of Zionism are clearly in Psalm 137 and the Bible.

 

In the beginning of the 20th century when the Zionist movement had just arisen, which was in large part a secular movement, the British offered land in East Africa (the Uganda plan) as a refuge for the Jewish people from persecution and anti-Semitism. The offer was rejected even by secular Jews who understood that Judaism is a culture and way of life of the Jewish people. Could it really be imagined that there would be a Jewish state in East Africa? How could such a state function as a state of the Jewish people when the history and culture of the Jewish people has been so intimately linked to our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel (even when the great majority of the Jewish people were living in exile outside of our homeland following the Roman expulsion until the establishment of the modern state of Israel)? Christianity can be adopted as a religion outside the land of Israel, the birthplace of Christianity, without any problem because Christianity is a universal religion in the sense of a faith commitment, and such a faith commitment is not dependent in any way upon living in any particular land. However, Judaism is a religion in the sense of a way of life of the Jewish people and nation – a way of life that can truly only be lived in our ancestral and national homeland in which we speak our ancestral language.

 

Yet, shockingly, the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses) ends with the Israelites in the plains of Moab outside the land of Israel raising the question as to why the Torah should not have been six books including the Book of Joshua recounting the entering of the land of Israel by the Israelites – especially considering that the land of Israel is such an integral part of Judaism as a religion in the sense of a culture of the Jewish people. In my view, the reason that the Torah is composed of only five books and ends prior to the people Israel entering the land of Israel is to teach us that in spite of the great importance of the land of Israel as our national homeland, the Jewish religion is nevertheless not dependent upon our possessing our homeland as a people – and, indeed, we managed to survive as a people for some two thousand years after the Roman expulsion until the establishment of the modern state of Israel. This is clearly not an ideal situation to be without our national homeland – but, it is possible for us to survive without possessing our homeland.

 

Thus, even though Judaism is a religion in the sense of a way of life of the Jewish people and the land of Israel is an integral part of our religion, nevertheless the Jewish religion is independent of possessing our national homeland of the Jewish people. The birthplace of the Jewish people was outside the land of Israel in the land of Egypt, and the birthplace of our religion was outside the land of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. Most important, although Zionism is an integral part of the Bible (and of Judaism), the Bible as reflected in the story of the discussion between Moses and the tribes of Reuven and Gad, is not anti-diaspora.

Jeffrey Radon

Author of orthopraxjudaism.com

Leave a Reply