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.