Cattle, Cattle Everywhere: The Failure of Reuben and Gad

Transcription

1 Cattle, Cattle Everywhere: The Failure of Reuben and Gad Rabbi Shai Held As the Israelites inch closer to the Promised Land, the tribes of Reuben and Gad approach Moses with a request. They have acquired a great deal of cattle, they inform him, and the land east of the Jordan is cattle country. If we have found favor in your eyes, they say, let this land be given to your servants as a holding; do not make us cross the Jordan (Numbers 32:5). In order to understand what unfolds, it is crucial to remember that for most of the Torah, the land of Israel is limited to the territory west of the Jordan. 1 In asking to dwell in Transjordan, then, the two tribes advocate nothing short of a divided Israel, with part of Israel settling outside the land of promise. 2 Appalled by the request, Moses unleashes a torrent of anger, finally condemning the Reubenites and Gadites as a brood of sinners (32:14). What Reuben and Gad are asking is not entirely clear. The request do not make us cross the Jordan could mean that they do not Moses is terrified that the rest of the people will quickly grow disheartened and be unwilling to go forward. wish to settle in the land but fully intend to help the other tribes conquer it; or, instead, that they wish to settle in Transjordan and take no part in the conquest. Most scholars think the latter 1 Timothy Ashley, The Book of Numbers (1993), p Cf. e.g., Numbers 34; Deuteronomy 32:49; Joshua 22: ; and Judges 21:12. 2 Ashley, Numbers, p

2 is their intention: Happy with the lush land around them, they have no desire to go farther. 3 Moses, at any rate, takes this to be their meaning, and he is outraged: Are your brothers to go to war while you stay (teishvu) here?! (32:6). Bible scholar Timothy Ashley astutely points out that teishvu can mean to dwell or to sit. Thus, Moses is really attacking the tribes on (at least) two fronts. On the most basic level, he is incensed that they suggest sitting in Transjordan in the short term, leaving it to their brothers to risk their lives in battle. But at another, arguably deeper level, he is offended by their desire to dwell in Transjordan over the long term. The whole of Canaan (not the Transjordan) has been promised to the whole of Israel (not part of it). If Reuben and Gad dwell outside Canaan, it threatens the unity of Israel. 4 Why is Moses so angry? Having learned from bitter experience One wonders, too, at Moses personal about Israel s fearfulness, Moses is anger: He wants to go to the Promised terrified that the rest of the people will Land but is not allowed; they are not quickly grow disheartened and be only permitted but actively mandated to unwilling to go forward. If ten spies go, but they don t want to. could utterly demoralize Israel, how much the more so two whole tribes. 5 The people s demoralization will elicit God s wrath that yet again the people have refused to remain loyal. If the people turn away from God, God 3 Cf., for some examples, Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers (1981), p. 238; Ashley, Numbers, p. 608; and Dennis T. Olson, Numbers (1996), p But cf. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (1990), who insists that from the very beginning, the two tribes had every intention of participating in the conquest. On Milgrom s account, rather than offering a compromise in response to Moses anger, they merely issue a clarification. 4 Ashley, Numbers, p Aaron ben Elijah (Karaite scholar, ), cited in Milgrom, Numbers, p

3 will abandon them in the wilderness, and the two tribes will have brought calamity upon all this people (32:15). (One wonders, too, at Moses personal anger: He wants to go to the Promised Land but is not allowed; they are not only permitted but actively mandated to go, but they don t want to. What greater existential chasm can we imagine between a leader and his people than that?) 6 Why don t Reuben and Gad want to go? It is possible that they are afraid of the Canaanites (or at least, that Moses thinks so cf. Ramban to 32:1-2). One can perhaps detect their unease in the way they formulate their appeal: Do not make us cross the Jordan. But the Sages identify another motive underlying the desire of the two tribes to stay in Transjordan, and their insight may well contain the interpretive key to our story. When Reuben and Gad propose a Strikingly, they mention their flocks compromise they will fight with the before their children. rest of the tribes to conquer the land, and will even serve as shock-troops (32:17) the two tribes say something very strange: We will build here [on this side of the Jordan] sheepfolds for our flocks and towns for our dependents and then we will go off to war (32:16). Strikingly, they mention their flocks before their children. A midrash notes that they made the main thing secondary and put the secondary thing first, for they cherished their property more than human life (Numbers Rabbah 22:9). Subtly, Moses corrects them. In assenting to their offer, he is careful to reverse the order of their words: Build cities for your dependents, he says, and sheepfolds for your flocks (Numbers 32:24). The midrash pictures God saying, Seeing that you have shown greater love for your cattle than for human souls, by your life, there will be no blessing in it. 6 Cf. Michael Hattin, Passages: Text and Transformation in the Parasha (2012), p

4 Are the Sages over-reading here? I don t think so. In the opening verses of our chapter, the word mikneh, cattle, is clearly central. The narrator opens the chapter with that word translated hyper-literally, the first words read: Cattle in abundance did the Reubenites and Gadites have (32:1) and adds that the Transjordan was a region suitable for cattle (32:1). 7 When the tribes themselves speak, they inform Moses that the land is cattle country and your servants have cattle. The constant repetition of cattle both by the narrator and the tribes themselves indicates how central Reuben s and Gad s property is to their way of being in the world; indeed, it is probably no coincidence that the word for cattle used here is derived from the Hebrew root meaning to acquire (k-n-h). 8 Unconsciously, perhaps, Reuben and Gad repeatedly reveal what lies at the heart of their desire to stay where they are: acquisitiveness and materialism. Reuben and Gad repeatedly reveal what lies at the heart of their desire to stay where they are: acquisitiveness and materialism. A midrash teaches that three gifts were created in the world: wisdom, strength, and wealth. If a person is fortunate enough to possess one of them he can claim as his own one of the most precious things in the world. But the midrash introduces a critical caveat: This is only the case when the gifts are gifts of heaven and come through the force of Torah, but the strength and wealth of mortals are as nought. The examples of two rich men are brought, Korah from among the Israelites and Haman from among the nations of the world. Both were destroyed from the world. The reason given is pivotal: Because their gifts were not from the Blessed Holy One, but rather they grabbed them for themselves (hotfin otah lahem). 7 Noting that the verse describing the situation is enveloped by two uses of the word cattle, contemporary interpreter Moshe Sokolow comments: The world of Reuven and Gad began and ended with livestock. Hatzi Nehamah: Studies in the Weekly Parashah Based on the Lessons of Nehama Leibowitz (2008), p I am indebted for this point to Ronit and Avi Porton, The Conflict between Moses and the Tribes of Reuben and Gad: Commentary on Mattot-Mas ei, Oz Ve-Shalom # 658 (2010), accessed at 4

5 Likewise, the midrash concludes, in the case of the Gadites and the Reubenites. You find that they were rich, possessing large numbers of cattle, but they loved their money and settled outside the Land of Israel. Consequently, they were the first of all the tribes to go into exile (cf. I Chronicles 5:26). What brought it on them? The fact that they separated themselves from their brethren because of their possessions (Numbers Rabbah 22:7). Korah and Haman, we learn, failed because they grabbed their There is all the difference in the world possessions. Herein, I think, lies a between grabbing (or even taking) and core teaching of Jewish theology and receiving. spirituality: There is all the difference in the world between grabbing (or even taking) and receiving. In the first case, we believe we deserve and are entitled to everything we have; in the second, we remain ever aware of how much more we have been given than we have ourselves achieved, and we respond with gratitude rather than entitlement. Grabbing is entirely un-relational, even antirelational; receiving, in contrast, is profoundly relational and intertwined with generosity and giving. 9 Grabbing, acquisitiveness, and materialism are spiritual poison. Perhaps this is the double meaning of the midrash s statement that Reuben and Gad had separated themselves (hifrishu atzmam) from their brethren because of their possessions. On one level, of course, the meaning is geographic they chose to live apart from the people of Israel, outside the Land of Israel. At another, deeper level, however, the midrash intimates that in becoming so thoroughly preoccupied with their material possessions, they lost the ability to live in genuine relationship with the rest of Israel. Their geographic separateness was thus a manifestation of their existential separateness. They isolated themselves on every level. 9 For a suggestive discussion of taking versus receiving, see R. Eliyahu Dessler, Mikhtav Me-Eliyahu, vol. 1, pp On giving and taking more expansively, see pp

6 Reuben and Gad s acquisitive grabbing runs deep. A midrash asks: Given that the Transjordan had just been conquered by the whole people, how did Reuben and Gad end up with so much more cattle than the others? This teaches, the midrash answers, that the two tribes were quick to despoil what had been conquered (pashtu yedeihen bo, Midrash HaGadol to Numbers 32:1). Reuben and Gad see what they want and they grab (hatfu) and despoil (pashtu yedeihen) it. In light of all this, the two tribes lack of desire to enter the Promised Land takes on powerful symbolic weight. If the Torah makes one core assumption about land, it is surely that the earth belongs to God alone (Leviticus 25:23). For the Torah, divine ownership means that all property is ultimately received as a gift. 10 The Land of Israel is not a commodity but a covenantal gift (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-11 and 8:7-10). Reuben and Gad, so committed to acquiring (liknot) cattle (mikneh) again, two versions of the same word cannot allow themselves to live in a land that is so manifestly about receiving rather than grabbing. Materialism has another, related consequence: It clouds over the reality of God and the demands of covenant. Even as Reuben and Gad declare that they will send shock-troops to lead Israel in battle and then return to dwell in Transjordan, they still seem to lose sight of the fact that the land is God s, and that the journey there is undertaken in service of God and in faithfulness to God s promises. In reaching their compromise with Moses, the two tribes do not mention God at all; they speak of being the vanguard before Israel (lifnei benei yisrael, Acquisitiveness is a form of selfassertion one grabs and despoils and thus feels no debt to God. 32:17). When Moses responds, he notso-subtly corrects them, informing them that they will be a vanguard before the Lord (lifnei Hashem, 32:20). In a short speech, Moses repeats the words before 10 Jonathan Burnside, God, Justice, and Society: Aspects of Law and Legality in the Bible (2011), p

7 the lord three times and invokes God s name six times (32:20-24), as if to tell the two tribes: Do not let what you have amassed blind you to the reality of God. The spiritual implications of this are clear: Acquisitiveness is a form of self-assertion one grabs and despoils and thus feels no debt to God. Acquisitiveness thus goes hand-in-hand with ingratitude and, as a midrash notes, one who is ungrateful cannot accept the Kingdom of Heaven (Midrash HaGadol to Exodus 1:6). No wonder, then, that Reuben and Gad forget God. But it is not just God whom they So consumed are they by what they have ultimately forget. So consumed are they that they simply fail to see their by what they have that they simply fail brethren. to see their brethren. Reuben and Gad seem entirely oblivious to the unfairness of the scenario they envision: All of the tribes have fought and liberated the pastures these two tribes now wish to inhabit. But it does not occur to them until Moses lambasts them that they ought at very least to return the favor. They see cattle country for their cattle and everything else falls from view. This is not mere moralizing: A growing body of empirical research shows that to the extent that people take on materialistic values and beliefs, they are less likely to behave in ways that promote the wellbeing of other people, and they may actually behave in ways that hurt others. Materialism often yields objectification of others that is, it increases the likelihood that other people are treated as objects to be manipulated in pursuit of one s goals, rather than as unique, subjective individuals with their own desires, experiences, and needs. 11 Reuben and Gad s treatment of their fellow tribes is a biblical case in point. 11 Tim Kasser, Materialistic Value Orientation, in The Palgrave Handbook of Spirituality and Business (2011), ed. Luk Bouckaert and Laszlo Zsolnai, pp Passage cited is on p

8 Reading of the two tribes and their struggle with Moses, we are challenged to ask: Are we, too, Reuben and Gad? How often does our preoccupation with possessions (mikneh) lead us to forget God and other people? In our consumerist society, can we still reclaim the Torah s message that what we have is ultimately a gift from God? If we receive rather than grab, we open the door to genuine kindness and generosity of spirit. We open the door, in other words, to genuine service of God. In telling the story of Reuben and Gad in such detail, the Torah reminds us of the grave damage materialism can do to our relationship with God and to our concern for others. In our consumerist society, it is a message we can ill afford to ignore. Shabbat Shalom. Sign up to receive Rabbi Shai Held s weekly divrei Torah direct to your inbox: 8