Ma'asei: Life's Lessons

I. The first verse of the parsha records that these are "their goings according to their journeys, and these were their journeys according to their goings"(33:2). The language is odd as it is both redundant and reverses the two main ideas.

Bachya tell us that the first us that the first part of the phrase refers to the past. We study the wanderings and actions of the past to learn what works and how to behave. The second part refers to the future. This is the blank slate that is waiting to be written. Inasmuch as the past provides clues for us it does not mean that we are stapled to what has already happened. We do not have to repeat what we or others have done before. God has given us the leeway to be free from addictive or well-trodden pathways.

The word that means "goings", motza'hem, comes from the Hebrew root word that means "find". The goings that we experience must always be fresh and novel. In truth, we never know what we will find on any day. It is vital that we do not become depressed or so blasé about ourselves that life becomes something that we cannot wait to get over.

Another commentator, Sefat Emet, observes that when we move out of our past –the Egypts of our lives – and move toward the future –- Israel – we experience a growth in our neshama, soul. Leaving behind us the baser elements of our past allows our soul to reach new spiritual heights.


II. The reading details the division of land between the various tribes of Israel. The single exception was the tribe of Levi. They were to be dispersed among the existing cities of the Israelites. They had a special mission. The Levites were to present moral behavior to the rest of the populace. As strangers among the people their job was remain slightly apart from the rest of the community and register whether others were going astray. Their function was to be the rudder for each of these communities. At the same time, each Levite lived in galut, exile. They did not have a parcel of land to hold as their own. There was no territory possess or defend. For the Levites, it was a long, seemingly endless exile.

Perhaps the Levites are supposed to be an example to us. With their lives living amongst foreign faces they were to function with their peers, study Torah, observe the mitzvot, and maintain a purposeful existence. We must never forget our covenant.


III. Who is the only person whose yahrzeit, date of death, is mentioned in the Torah? Aaron. He died on the first day of the fifth month, Av. There are not many Torah readings that coincide with the actual anniversary date of that event. The yahrzeit of Aaron is an exception. The first of Av comes now in the summer. Why is this date so noteworthy?
1. The month of Av is a time of deep mourning for the Jewish people. Terrible tragedies occurred throughout the epochs at this time.
2. The Clouds of Glory disappeared from the Israelite camp on the day Aaron died.
Both historical notes are important because they are antithetical to the life of Aaron. Remember this was the man who strove to make peace between husbands and wives, children and parents, and even avowed enemies. Now that he no longer traveled in the land of the living surely the plight of the nation would worsen. The death of Aaron would only fuel the pain of the people.

No. The point of his yahrzeit is to remind us that nothing is ever hopeless. We must never give up. In recalling the life of Aaron we are supposed to carry on his legacy of mending the brokenness inside and outside of us.


IV. The Torah reading tells the Israelites to establish Cities of Refuge. The purpose of these Cities was to be a haven for people to flee from vengeful relatives. Say a person dropped a stone on his peer and they died. The family of the dead person may be so full of rage that they want revenge on the poor person that killed their relative. In such an instance the person who committees the manslaughter may run for safety.

In the Talmud it informs us that the road to the Cities must be kept clear of any obstructions and needs to be wide. The Court is obligated to straighten the roads to the Cities of Refuge to both repair and widen them. They must remove all impediments and obstacles. REFUGE REFUGE was written at every crossroads so that no one would miss the route to the City.
- Mishneh Torah

It is so easy to be judgmental and unforgiving. All we have to do is look at pothers with a superficial superior air and with the facts at our disposal pronounce them guilty. It is one of the gravest acts that friends and neighbors do all the time to one another. Perhaps the law of the Cities of Refuge is to teach us that we must not impede someone from teshuvah, repentance, by blocking their way. When we form an opinion of them that we share with others we effectively seal the pathway to healing. The roadway must be kept wide, like our opinion, because we may also be totally wrong in our assessment of them.

Haftara Insight:

To remember is important. We are not to hold onto grudges and bitterness but recall the lessons of the past. God warns His people that we should gaze at the miraculous past and then understand the power of God. We are not alone. We have not been abandoned. The great sins of our life begin with forgetfulness. Even the creatures of the first remember their father. Why do we not recall ours? The prophet concludes with a word that is familiar and yet need repeating: Return.

A Matter of Law:

Cain murdered Abel and God protected him from retribution. Following the same line of thought, even the most heinous crime cannot be summarily dispatched by a person. Law requires and investigation, a tribunal and justice. Vigilante justice is not justice but evil disguised as virtue. That is the deepest meaning of the Cities of Refuge.

Mattot: The Legacy of War

How painful is the reading this week! That the Israelites were given instructions on making war against the Midianites is at once heartredning and difficult to understand. After all, everything that we learn from biblical instruction is antithetical to the idea of war.

We are told to emulate Aaron, to use a single example. Aaron always endeavored to make peace between feuding people and groups. Further, so many of the prayers we utter beseech God to send us an era when there will be no war. We pray for the Messiah who will release man from such pain. The prophets exhort the people to stop hating each other. What then are we to make of these laws that tell us to fight against the Midianite nation?

Were the laws to preserve the good people from the clutches of those who would destroy them? Certainly the cultures that surrounded the Israelite were worse than immoral, they were amoral. They had not gripes about child sacrifice. They were unconcerned with brutal force being used against the weak. That which is evil had become good; acts of goodness were construed as evil. Was the only response to this utter disregard for human life to wipe them out?

Moses was ordered to dispatch 12,000 men to the front; one thousand men from each of the twelve tribes. We can only imagine the absolute pain of this leader, Moses, who had fought so hard to preserve human life throughout his career.

The Torah indicates the rationale for the war in an earlier biblical segment: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Oppose the Midianites and attack them, for they opposed you with their wiles with which they beguiled you in the matter of Peor and in the matter of Kozbi, daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague on account of Peor (Numbers 25:16-17).

Perhaps the reason for waging war against the Midiantes was the survival of the nascent Jewish people. Could the Torah be speaking of the inability of the Israelites to morally conquer the Midianites? Had the Jews met them perhaps the Israelites would have turned their back on God and enwrap themselves in the ways of this evil nation? If this is so, consider how different the world would be today if God had not commanded the attack.

Think: Cannot we simply let people who think differently than we do (nations that torture their own people, rampant acts of brutality in subcontinents, murder camps for learning how to kill) live their own lifestyle? Is not religion about improving oneself and refraining from judging others? The way of peace is the way of letting others choose their own path, is it not? In Kings II, 15:16, a tale is told of a wicked despot, Menachem of Tirtzah, who attacked a town killing all the males and splitting open all pregnant women. What then? Is the rationale for fighting against evil to change the world for the better or at least protect the weak? Is it to stop the rampages of those who inflict pain and subjugate others? Defend the innocent from those who would use and exploit them?

Both reasons are correct. If we do not attempt to stop evil, it will eventually overtake us. We will ultimately become that which we hate. There is also the moral imperative that we are to champion the cause of the defenseless. As the past Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir once said, “To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don’t be.” At a time when we are confronted with evil, equivocation serves the purposes of the enemy. Perhaps the world ought to have learned this lesson at the time of the Holocaust. Or the Armenian genocide. Or Pol Pot. Or in Rwanda. Or in Darfur…..Yes, we have a responsibility to fight for the lives and wellbeing of others. We are “our brother’s keeper.”

The passage from this week also reveals, through the great teacher Rambam, that even when fighting an evil tyrant, you must never attack on all four sides. There must be an escape route for those who do not wish to fight. What does this say about the war on evil? That we are to allow them an escape route?

There is no getting around the issue that while we are taught the moral duty to fight against evil there is always the potential that we can become what we dread most. By waging war we may come to like the perverse notion that we enjoy hurting others. That is perhaps why we are also directed to not indiscriminately hurt those who want to flee conflict. And later, when we come to Deuteronomy 20:19 we will learn that a campaign that deforests tracts of land is also forbidden. The idea of the Torah is that at all costs we must preserve our own humanity, even while fighting evil. Perhaps this concept is best put by Golda Meir. “I can forgive the Arabs for hating us. I can forgive them for killing us. What I can never forgive them for is making our children into killers.”




Haftara Insight:
The great election of the prophet Jeremiah is told. Called upon by God, Jeremiah feels unworthy. God answers him by saying that he makes no mistakes. He is far more capable than Jeremiah recognizes or is willing to acknowledge. The Lord then spells out to His servant what He wants him to do. While the words are intended for Jeremiah they really speak powerfully to us.

A Matter of Law:
Words, vows, promises bear great legal weight in Judaism. When we say we are going to do something it is critical that we fulfill or word. Else wise, one brings their reputation, their people, and God into disrepute. Words are never so simple meaningless as to have no bearing on others or the universe. If one makes a vow and cannot do it they must seek release from the Court of Law. There are two kinds of vows: shavua and neder. Both are referred to in the great service of Kol Nidre.

Pinchas: Hero or Villain?

Psalm 106 tells the breadth of Jewish history through the eyes of King David. Recounting powerful episodes from the Torah, David uses this psalm as a vehicle for a prayer. In every act of the past. the poet expresses his awe at seeing the hand of the Almighty in all things.

When David comes to this reading, he understands Pinchas as having stayed the hand of God. Had it not been for his quick action, the Israelite nation would have suffered terrible consequences. A plague was about to strike at the heart of the Jewish people. Only Pinchas stood in the way. He acted so that God would not have to.

David was recalling the terrible plague that attacked the followers of Korach. Last week we read of a terrible insurrection that threatened Moses and the future of the people whom he led. God stopped the villains by causing the earth to swallow the worst of the evil ones. The remainder of the holders-on to Korach, were wiped out by plague. Understanding the dreadful consequences of disobeying the Lord, Pinchas assuaged the anger of God – so he thought based on what happened to Korach – and carried out the Law himself thus saving the rest of the nation.

Talmud: Interpreting the biblical text the Talmud reads the passage from psalms, Vaya’amod Pinchas Vayifallel as meaning Pinchas quarreled with God. How was Pinchas quarreling with God? The angels saw the zeal of Pinchas as he elbowed his way past them. They tried to stop him from reaching the Celestial Throne but God ordered his angels to leave Pinchas alone. The angels cried to their Master, “But he is a wrathful zealot, offspring of a wrathful zealot!” Still, God allowed Pinchas an audience.

Pinchas argued with God to not punish the Israelites because of the sin of one man, Zimri. The Holy One was not swayed by his plea, so Pinchas himself took action to protect his people.

In this interpretation, Pinchas is a hero, a protector of the Jewish people, willing to go to any lengths to shield them from harm. He went so far as to argue and even defy with God!

As a direct relative of Aaron, the man of peace, Pinchas learned how best to bring about the greatest peace for the nation of Israel. The Psalm of David mentioned above goes on to say that Pinchas was awarded a mark of righteousness to the end of time. This is probably a rewording of the episode where the Torah states that Pinchas was granted a “Covenant of Peace” as a reward for his quick action. Is this really a reward?

Midrash: In contemplating the mind of Pinchas on a yet deeper level one ancient teacher opines what Pinchas may have been thinking at the time. Rabbi Jose in an illuminating midrash explains, "Pinchas said to himself: If a horse risks his life for the day of battle even though he may die, he is nevertheless ready to give his life for his master. What should I do? Should I do less? But what can I do? Two people can overcome one, but can one overcome two?"

Pinchas weighed the options in confronting the sinful actions of Zimri. He knew that if he followed the Law he might die. After all there were two offenders. Pinchas nonetheless decided to intervene and risk his life for God.


The entire story is uncomfortable. We who live at a time when any kind of violence is seen as bad find it hard to be cozy with Pinchas. While Pinchas takes action what was everyone else doing? What were the bystanders doing? What were they thinking? What would you have done had you witnessed the event?

Moses was not happy with the brutal and swift act of Pinchas. The Talmud tells us that Moses actually wanted to place the ban on Pinchas. He wished to excommunicate him. The leader of Israel was horrified with Pinchas and his zealotry.

Another ancient source goes even further by imagining that had Zimri fought against his assailant and killed him, the Beit Din – the Court of Law - would have cleared him of guilt on the grounds of self-defense. Sanhedrin 82a. What then are we to make of Pinchas? Hero? Villain? Savior? Scoundrel?

Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, the first Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, was once asked why he was so sharp towards people who were irreligious and flaunted their lack of observance. Are not the righteous and most religious folk supposed to pray for the ones who have lost their way? Are they not supposed to try to change them through kindness?

Rabbi Sonnenfeld responded: When speaking to the people I make it clear that their behavior is unacceptable. They must know they hey are wrong and sinful. However, every day I say holy psalms and prayers and cry to HaShem on their behalf.




Haftara Insight:
The great Elijah confronts his two arch foes: Ahab and Jezebel tell their God-intoxicated enemy they are tired of the mouse and cat games. They issued a challenge to the prophet that would put an end to the vexations of Elijah and railings against their idolatrous practices. God meets his servant Elijah and assures him in the most powerful way that He will guide and protect him. It is a scene oft recounted by generations. The language is stirring and sated with meaning.

A Matter of Law:
Is zealotry allowable by Jewish law? In the instance of Pinchas, he killed two people committing a sin. Is this a mitzvah? There is no disagreement that Pinchas was justified in his actions. Does this mean his actions are endorsed? The reward for Pinchas was a Covenant of Peace. In other words, his reward was to not be in a position to do it again.
Talmud: Had Pinchas consulted a Sage they would have not permitted his violent act. It is like stealing a vessel for the sake of the Temple. While it may have a higher purpose we do not encourage such zealotry.
As we now approach the Three Weeks leading to Tisha B’Av we refrain from cutting our hair and not eating meat during the Three Weeks, except on Shabbat.