Parashat Matot/Masei: Why take revenge on the *Midianites?*

From Matot:

 

https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.31.15?lang=bi&aliyot=0

 

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם מֹשֶׁ֑ה הַֽחִיִּיתֶ֖ם כׇּל־נְקֵבָֽה׃ Moses said to them, “You have spared every female!

הֵ֣ן הֵ֜נָּה הָי֨וּ לִבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בִּדְבַ֣ר בִּלְעָ֔ם לִמְסׇר־מַ֥עַל בַּיהֹוָ֖ה עַל־דְּבַר־פְּע֑וֹר וַתְּהִ֥י הַמַּגֵּפָ֖ה בַּעֲדַ֥ת יְהֹוָֽה׃ Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against יהוה in the matter of Peor, so that יהוה’s community was struck by the plague.

 

But here’s the E source text from Parashat Balak, from Numbers 24:25:

 

https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.25.1?lang=bi&aliyot=0

 

וַיָּ֣קׇם בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ וַיָּ֣שׇׁב לִמְקֹמ֑וֹ וְגַם־בָּלָ֖ק הָלַ֥ךְ לְדַרְכּֽוֹ׃ {פ}
Then Balaam set out on his journey back home; and Balak also went his way.

 

This is followed immediately by the story of the Moabite women seducing the Israelite men into worshipping Baal Peor, from the J source:

 

25

וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בַּשִּׁטִּ֑ים וַיָּ֣חֶל הָעָ֔ם לִזְנ֖וֹת אֶל־בְּנ֥וֹת מוֹאָֽב׃ While Israel was staying at Shittim, the menfolk profaned themselves by whoring with the Moabite women,

וַתִּקְרֶ֣אןָ לָעָ֔ם לְזִבְחֵ֖י אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֑ן וַיֹּ֣אכַל הָעָ֔ם וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲו֖וּ לֵאלֹֽהֵיהֶֽן׃ who invited the menfolk to the sacrifices for their god. The menfolk partook of them and worshiped that god.

וַיִּצָּ֥מֶד יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְבַ֣עַל פְּע֑וֹר וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֥ף יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor, and יהוה was incensed with Israel.

Notice that there is no mention of Bil’am here.

Then one Midianite woman and one Israelite man had sex in a propriety-defying manner, and Pinchas killed them.  This is from the P source, and it doesn’t mention either Bil’am or Baal Peor!

So why were the Midianite women accused of luring the Israelite men into worshipping Baal Peor, and why were they the targets of genocide and enslavement, rather than the Moabites?  And who cooked up the charge of incitement to worship Baal Peor against Bil’am?

What was the Israelite men's sin:  sexual licentiousness or pagan worship?  The Torah can't make up its mind.

Parashat Matot/Masei: B'not Tz'lofchad, take 2

I forgot this one from my Friday, July 29, 2011 Masei post:

While it's true, and to the credit of biblical law, that the land of the deceased father who had no sons became the property of his daughters, it could also be argued that the daughters themselves became the "property" of their father's tribe. See Numbers, chapter 36.) You win some, you lose some.

Parashat Matot/Masei: On second thought . . .

From a Wednesday, July 20, 2011 post of mine about Masei:

 

• It's rather sad that a woman of the biblical era had to be protected from the right and ability of her father, or, after marriage, her husband, to prevent her from keeping her vows. But I suppose that her being excused from keeping a vow was better than being held responsible for actions that she was not allowed to take. Apparently, the only females of any age who were considered independent agents free to make and carry out their own decisions were widows and divorcees. (See Numbers, chapter 30, verses 2-17.)

 

On second thought, I missed something major here. 

See Bechukotai, Leviticus, chapter 27.

That entire chapter is about vows made to G-d (the ancient functional equivalent of Yom Kippur pledges), which were to be paid to the Kohanim/Priests. 

And every one of those vows cost money.

It wasn’t the women who were being protected—it was the men.  Any vow made by a married woman, or a single woman who’d never been married, cost her husband or father money, because those women had no authority over the family finances—they, themselves, did not own anything.  Only widows or divorcees had to pay out of their own pockets.  So much for the Torah giving women a break.

More questions re Parashat Matot/Masei

I'm swiping these from a couple of old posts of mine about Parashat Matot.

 

"Question 1: If the Israelites had cattle--and, apparently, they did, as they were called on to make a number of sacrificial offerings while still in the wilderness--how could they have been dependent on mahn/manna at the same time?

Question 2: If, on the one hand, the Israelites have always had cattle, why do only the children of Gad and Reuven say that they have cattle? If, on the other hand, the cattle was part of the spoils of war, how did only the children of Gad and Reuven end up with cattle?"

 

Also:

"Isn't there something missing in Numbers, chapter 32? The tribes of Reuven and Gad promised to lead the battle to conquer the promised land in return for the right to remain on the east bank of the Jordan, where they'd found good land for grazing, but the half-tribe Menasheh/Manasseh made no such promise. So how did Menasheh get cut in on the deal?"

 

This is the old stuff--I'm working on a new post.

"The most jaw-dropping line in the Torah"

I'm preparing a post on Parashat Matot/Masei, but I don't want to ignore this unpleasant but important reading: Parashat Matot, courtesy of Y. Block via DovBear's blog.

 

"I'm starting to wonder if Tosafot (Megilla 31b) are wrong: maybe we combine Mattot and Masei not to get the bad stuff out of the way before year's end, but so that we can bury the lead."

 

See here.

Parashat Pinchas, slight belated--my take on B'not Tz'lofchad (a rerun)

I think this 2020 post of mine is worth repeating.

 

"They were no fools, these women:  They knew that they couldn't ask for what they really wanted--the right not to be left destitute just because they had neither a father, nor brothers, nor husbands to support them--because, apparently, one simply didn't discuss the welfare of females. With property of their own, they would be in demand as wives.  But the only way they could get that property was to claim that they were simply seeking to preserve the memory of their father.  This wasn't just a matter of respect--it was a matter of survival.

If you want proof, just look at the Book of Ruth.  When Naomi returned to Bethlehem, everyone knew exactly who she was, yet no one offered her any help.  The only reason why she didn't starve to death was that Ruth went out to glean like any other beggar.  The same fate awaited the daughters of Tz'lofchad--any male relative would simply have taken their father's property and ignored them."

Candy would be dandy, if only it weren't so pricey--inflation hits the small stuff :(

Might as well start with my Thursday, August 05, 2021 post, Candy would be dandy, if only it were handy (sigh)

My current favorite candy--because it's gluten-free, dairy-free, and contains neither chocolate, nuts, nor seeds--is Jelly Belly jelly beans, especially when they come in portion-controlling one-ounce packages.  Unfortunately, the price of these packages has literally doubled since mid-May.  😢

Criminally negligent homicide? Old-fashioned femicide?

Copied from Facebook:

Posted as a story by Rabbi Marianne Novak:

 

The Mamattorney

@TheMamattorney

 

The Biden administration issue a new rule for physicians to provide abortions to treat emergency situations. The State of Texas just sued the Biden admin challenging this rule.

 

Nothing says “pro-life” like fighting in the courtroom for the legal authority to let women die.

This Ex-Republican Just Tweeted The Best Thread About What The GOP Is About. Ever.

Copied from Facebook Daily Kos, then posted to Facebook:

"Ethan Grey

@_EthanGrey

·

Jun 7, 2022

This is a thread on Republican messaging. The press doesn’t want to have a direct conversation with you about this. So as a former Republican who is now a consistent Democratic voter, I will. Thread.

Ethan Grey

@_EthanGrey

·

Follow

Here is the Republican message on everything of importance:

1. They can tell people what to do.

2. You cannot tell them what to do.

 

This often gets mistaken for hypocrisy, there’s an additional layer of complexity to this (later in the thread), but this is the basic formula."

 

You can read the rest here.

I had something I was going to say about Independence Day. . . .Then another young man climbed onto a rooftop in Highland Park and opened fire on a parade.

Copied from Facebook:

Scott Perlo

p

S

r

d

t

e

n

o

o

s

l

h

i

c

0

0

1

2

7

7

u

m

u

2

2

6

4

2

f

0

  ·

I had something I was going to say about Independence Day. It was really very good: something about the measure of your belief in a thing being the willingness you have to fight for it; neat and short; a good pastoral message.

Then another young man climbed onto a rooftop in Highland Park and opened fire on a parade. Six are dead. Dozens wounded. What words suffice the bodies of the dead who had the simple temerity to march down the street on a national holiday?

There are other words running a circuit in my mind now. I can't stop hearing them. They're the words of the Rambam, who was a physician, and who believed the soul was like the body: that it could be both healthy and sick. He said that there was a kind of illness where the sufferer would believe that that which was actually bitter tasted sweet. And so they would stuff themselves with horrible things: coal, earth, dust, mud - all the while believing that they were feeding their body something sweet.

The soul is like that too, he said. When the soul is sick, it will gorge itself full of filth and muck and call it good.

Call the doctor. We are sick. The problem is so far beyond the moral at this point, it's almost medical. When some members of the body politic keep killing the others, killing children, killing grocery store workers, killing July 4th marchers - what else do you call that disease but metastatic? And forgive me, but I'm not speaking of mental illness (which some use as a kind of absolution in these moments?), but of a deep and pervasive moral illness. And then someone keeps handing the diseased cells high powered weapons with bump stocks. What kind of treatment is that?

I have sat at many bedsides with many people waiting to hear the results of the biopsy. Of the many, many emotional reactions that can be in that moment, there is only one that is never present, and that is the feeling of certainty. Nobody ever hears the dreadful news and knows exactly what's going to happen next, knows exactly what to do, feels completely certain in the course of their treatment and their chances of survival. Even with the resolve that is so often present, the hidden strength that does reveal itself, what is always there is the fear that comes from not knowing what to do, and what will be.

So I have to ask: where is our earth-quaking, gut-shaking, straight-up doubt? Where is the holy trembling as a nation? Where is our fear, not only of the next shooting, but that we've chosen the right course - or any course - of treatment? How can we say, "God bless America," when what we really mean is, "will God bless America?" And what we really should be asking is, "what is upon us to do so that God could even see fit to bless America?"

You know, a clergyman like me once suggested to Abraham Lincoln that he hoped that "God was on our side." Lincoln responded, "I am not at all concerned about that,' replied Mr. Lincoln, 'for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

And people like to quote this story in pious tones and wise nods. Then they get back to the business of being right. But in truth should we not be up til late into the night worrying, worrying? And maybe the time is right to stop sending "thoughts and prayers," but to be thinking, be praying, be asking for anything - anything at all - that would set us upon a different path.