Trying to Be Above Suspicion

 

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parshiot Matot-Masei, 5766

 

The negotiations between Moshe and the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe regarding the conditions under which they would be allowed to take up residence outside of the land of Canaan is recorded in great detail at the end of Parshat Matot (BaMidbar 32).

 

32:1             The attraction to the 2 ½ tribes to take up residence on the near side of the Jordan River, i.e., they own considerable herds and this area is comprised of superior grazing land.

32:2-5          The original proposal to Moshe, whereby they would immediately settle on this land without crossing into Canaan.

32:6-15         Moshe’s angry rejection of this proposal and his  equating the 2 ½ tribes to the spies who due to their fear and reluctance to enter Canaan influenced the rest of the people to similarly refuse to follow God’s Plan, in turn causing God to Decree that the people wander in the desert until the entire generation dies out.

32:16-19       The submission by the 2 ½ tribes of a modified proposal whereby they would first help the rest of the people in their efforts to conquer Canaan, and only then return to the lands in which they desire to settle.

32:20-24       Moshe’s acceptance of the new proposal and his spelling out both what will occur if they fulfill their promise as well as what will be the result of any non-compliance.

32:25-27       The affirmation by the 2 ½ tribes of the conditions delineated by Moshe.

32:28-30       The making public of the agreement by Moshe’s informing Elazar and Yehoshua of what has been decided.

32:31-32       The public commitment of the 2 ½ tribes to abide by the agreement.

 

Perhaps the plentiful details of these proposals, counter-proposals and ratification of the final agreement are included in the Tora as a model of how two sides that begin quite far apart from one another, by means of reasonable give-and-take and in a spirit of compromise, can find common ground without bitterness or recriminations. Certainly from Moshe’s original response (32:6-15) one might have thought that the discussion was over. The Jewish leader recognized that agreeing to the request of the 2 ½ tribes had the potential to undo what had been achieved during the past 40 years, i.e., awaiting a new generation to be formed that would not be subject to the self-doubt and lack of faith of those who left Egypt. If this new generation loses heart in light of Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe’s apparent disinclination to enter the land, would the Divine Response be more desert wanderings or perhaps a fate even worse?[1] Furthermore, by the 2 ½ tribes returning with a “Plan B” (32:16-19), couldn’t they have been accused by Moshe of inordinate audacity, spiritual insensitivity and disrespect, resulting in additional verbal tirades by Moshe , or his turning to God out of frustration, as he had done several times before.[2] But, contrary to previous patterns of his behavior, Moshe surprisingly appears to listen to and seriously consider the alternate plan, not because God Instructs him to do so[3]—there is nothing explicitly mentioned in the text to the effect that Moshe receives instructions from God as to how to respond to the 2 ½ tribes—suggesting that he has undergone a “sea change” in attitude vis-à-vis responding to the Jewish people’s challenging his decisions. Several possible explanations for his markedly calm reaction in 32:20-24 come to mind:

 

a)  Rather than viewing the 2 ½ tribe’s “not taking ‘no’ for an answer” as a personal affront, Moshe realized that their agreement to participate in the military conquest would remove the danger of the rest of the people becoming fearful of what awaits them in Canaan, and therefore, from a rational point of view, there was nothing further to object to;[4]

b)  If anything, this would lead to greater peace among the tribes since each of the remaining groups’ portions in Canaan would be larger,

    and c)   Moshe had been deeply chastened by God’s Rebuke and Punishment in BaMidbar 20:12, and had learned from that fatal mistake[5] to be more respectful of the people and their desires.

 

One phrase that contextually is fully part of Moshe’s presentations during the course of this lengthy account, but that has implications far beyond the immediate negotiations regarding where Reuven, Gad and half the tribe of Menashe will ultimately take up residence, bears special scrutiny:

 

BaMidbar 32:22

And the land will be conquered before HaShem and afterwards you will return (to your holdings on the near side of the Jordan River) “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael” (and you will be innocent/pure/free of obligation from HaShem and from Israel) and this land will be to you for a holding before HaShem.

 

The commentary Akeidat Yitzchak associates this particular phrase in 32:22 with Moshe’s general attempt to get the 2 ½ tribes to realize that whatever they accomplish and whatever they eventually come to possess, it can only happen by means of God’s Assistance.[6]  When the words of the tribes’ counterproposal is contrasted with Moshe’s restatement of their offer, Moshe’s reframing of the plan in particularly spiritual terms becomes clear.

 

2 ½ tribes	Moshe
32:16 And they approached him, and they said: sheep pens we will build for our herds here, and cities for our children.	32:24[7] Build for yourselves cities for your children and pens for your flocks, and what has been enunciated by your mouths, you shall do.
32:17 And we will go ready and armed before the children of Israel until we have brought them to their place. And our children shall dwell in the fortified cities because of the inhabitants of the land.	32:20-21 And Moshe said to them: If you will do this thing, if you will go armed “Lifnai HaShem” (before HaShem) to war. And all of you will go armed over the Jordan “Lifnai HaShem” until He has Driven out His Enemies from before Him, and the land be subdued “MiPanav” (before Him).
32:18 We will not return to our houses until the Children of Israel have inherited every person his inheritance.	32:22 Then afterwards you will return and “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael” and this land shall be your possession “Lifnai HaShem”.
32:19 Because we will not inherit with them on the far side of the Jordan and further, because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side of the Jordan eastward.	32:23 But if you do not do so, then behold you have sinned “LaShem” and be sure that your sin will find you out.

 

Akeidat Yitzchak, Chapter 85

…Moshe, struck by means of his “verbal staff” three of their transgressions that are inherent within their words,[8] and which stem from the same essential issue:

 

a) Their attributing their prowess in warfare to themselves (32:17 “until we have brought them to their place”).  And behold he (Moshe), may he rest in peace, went out of his way to attribute their accomplishments to HaShem (32:21 “Until He has Driven out His Enemies from before Him), because success in battle is due to Him. And he explained to them that when they fulfill the conditions with the rest of the Jewish people by going armed “Lifnai HaShem”, then they will be “Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”.  But if they go before their brothers, but without thinking of/mentioning the Name of God, while they might be “Neki’im MiYisrael”, they will not be “Neki’im MeiEit HaShem”.

 

b) In terms of Moshe’s saying to them, “and this land shall be your possession ‘Lifnai HaShem’”… He spoke to them by means of subtle hint, i.e., pay attention to recognize your sin that you are transgressing whereby you are not attributing things to the Master Who is Responsible for them (32:19 “because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side of the Jordan eastward”).

 

c) He tells them, “Build cities for your children” but do not rely on the fortified cities for your children’s protection (32:17 “And our children shall dwell in the fortified cities because of the inhabitants of the land”), because (Mishlei 18:10) “A pillar of strength is the Name of God; the righteous run into it are safe”. Moshe also reverses their words (in the sequence of verses, the first thing that the 2 ½ tribes mention is the building of cities, whereas Moshe mentions it only after stressing how they have to do everything, including assisting their brethren to conquer Canaan, “Lifnai HaShem”.

 

Consequently, according to Akeidat Yitzchak, Moshe’s invoking HaShem in 32:22[9] as part of the phrase “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”, is completely consistent with his overall response to the 2 ½ tribes when he places emphasis upon God’s Involvement in every step of the process of conquering the Canaan. And the   tribes then incorporate Moshe’s “boilerplate” by saying, (BaMidbar 32:27) “But your servants will pass over (the Jordan) every man armed for war ‘Lifnai HaShem’ for war, as my master (Moshe) has spoken”.[10] Naturally it could be countered that if by virtue of the tribes wishing to reside some distance from the rest of the people, Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe are reflecting a lack of personal spirituality and a lack of desire to associate with the religious practices of the majority,[11] Moshe’s mere mentioning and reiterating God and His Name, and their formally following suit both privately (32:25-27) as well as part of the public ratification of the agreement (32:31) most probably does not reflect any fundamental change in their thinking or leads them to now remain more strongly connected to the Jewish people and the land of Israel. If in fact there is no real hope of reorienting the 2 ½ tribes in terms of their wrongful priorities, then Moshe might be repeatedly invoking HaShem’s Name more for the benefit of the rest of the people who, at least at the final, public stage of the negotiations, are onlookers and witnesses to the proceedings. If the rest of the Jewish people are left with the impression that God has Agreed to the plan of the 2 ½ tribes, the possibility of their becoming fearful over the prospects of conquering Canaan is significantly lessened.

 

Whereas Akeidat Yitzchak’s approach to the phrase in 32:22, “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael” is strongly anchored in Moshe’s overall iteration of “HaShem” when interacting with the 2 ½ tribes, Rabbinic sources have cited Moshe’s words to emphasize how one must satisfy not only God’s Expectations, but also those of other human beings, in effect stressing the “U’MiYisrael” portion of the phrase.

 

Pesachim 13a

It was taught: When the charity collectors have no poor to whom to distribute their funds, they must change the copper coins (and substitute currency made out of materials that would not be as subject to tarnishing and decomposition) with other people, rather than themselves (i.e., the exchanges must be made with other people’s money rather than with that of the charity collectors).

The overseers of the soup kitchen when they have no poor to whom to make a distribution, must sell (the food) to others, not to themselves.

Because it is said, (BaMidbar 32:22) “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”.

 

Yoma 38a

Our Rabbis taught: The house of Garmu was expert in preparing the Show Bread (bread that was placed upon the “Shulchan” in the Tabernacle and the Temple), but they would not teach it to others…

The Rabbis said to them: What is the basis for refusing to teach your art? They said to them: In our father’s house, they knew that this House (the Temple) would be destroyed and perhaps an unworthy man would learn it and proceed to serve an idol with it.

For the following was their memory honored: Never was fine bread (made with the type of flour used in making the Show Bread) found in their children’s hands, lest people say, These feed (their families) from the preparation of the Show Bread. In this way they strove to fulfill  

“ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”...

 

Our Rabbis taught: The house of Abtinas were expert in preparing the incense but would not teach it to others…

The Rabbis said to them: What is the basis for refusing to teach your art? They said to them: In our father’s house, they knew that this House (the Temple) would be destroyed and perhaps an unworthy man would learn it and proceed to serve an idol with it.

For the following was their memory honored: Never did a bride from their house go out perfumed, and when they married a woman from elsewhere, they expressly forbade her to do so, lest people say, From the preparation of the incense they are perfuming themselves, to fulfill  “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”.

 

Shekalim 3:2

…The person who would take out Shekalim (from the place where all of the contributions were stored) did not enter the chamber wearing a hemmed cloak or shoes or sandals or Tefillin or an amulet, lest if he become poor people will say that he became poor due to a sin that he committed in the chamber (according to the principle of “Midda KeNeged Midda” [punishment for a transgression should correspond and be a function of the transgression itself], if the individual stole money in order to enrich himself, the most fitting punishment would be that he would in the end become impoverished), or if he became rich, people might say that he became rich from the sin that he committed in the chamber. For it is an individual’s responsibility to be free of blame before men as before God, as it is said, “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”, and again it says, (Mishlei 3:4) “So shall you find favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man”.

 

One commentator subjects this last Mishna to a close reading and reaches an intriguing conclusion:

 

Bina LeItim, Part II, Sermon 35

…And I extrapolate that if their (the Rabbis in the Mishna) intent was to state that it is insufficient to only fulfill God’s Expectations, and that  one must also fulfill the expectations of human beings, why was the terminology employed, “to be free of blame before men ‘KeDerech’ (as) before God”, whereby being free of blame before men is made dependent upon being free of blame before God? Wouldn’t a simpler way of expressing the same idea be: One must be free of blame before God and men...

It would seem rational to say that avoiding the suspicions of other people is something that is logically understandable. It would be very compromising and it would lead to one being despised and disrespected among people if he leads them to suspect him of wrongdoing. Furthermore, he will cause himself damage and loss. For all these logical reasons one would wish to avoid causing others to have suspicions about him. Therefore, the Mishna is subtly suggesting that this is not the way to go about thinking why causing others to suspect you is to be avoided. But rather the essence is that it is not good in God’s “Eyes” for one to be suspected by other people. Consequently God Commands against and Warns regarding engendering suspicions in others. One should treat this responsibility as he does the fulfillment of any of the other of God’s Commandments, rather than avoiding it for reasons of self-interest…

 

Bina LeItim continues and interprets Moshe’s restatement of the 2 ½ tribes’ proposal with the addition of “Lifnai HaShem” as driving home the point that the reason why they should help the rest of the Jews to conquer Canaan is not because of what the rest of the people will think of them should they refuse to assist them, but rather what HaShem will Think of them. In effect, such an approach is another example of how the Commandments which are between man and God must be understood to intersect with the Commandments between man and man. Ritual law is often incorrectly understood as standing pristinely separate from laws governing interpersonal relationships. The most extreme manifestation of individuals who think   that such a dichotomy exists is the categories of “Tzaddik VeRa” (a righteous person who is evil) and “Rasha VaTov” (an evil person who is good).

 

Kiddushin 40a

Said Raba: R. Idi explained to me: (Yeshayahu 3:10) “Say of the righteous when they are good, that they will eat the fruit of their actions”—is there a righteous man who is good and a righteous man who is not good? But he who is good to Heaven and good to man, he is a righteous man who is good. Good to Heaven but not good to man, that is a righteous man who is not good.

Similarly you read, (3:11) “Woe unto the wicked man that is evil, for the reward of his hands shall be given to him”—is there a wicked man that is evil, and one that is not evil? But he that is evil to Heaven and evil to man, he is a wicked man that is evil. He who is evil to Heaven but not evil to man, he is a wicked man who is not evil.

 

The concern for enacting “Kiddush HaShem” and avoiding “Chillul HaShem” depends greatly on our recognition that our individual actions affect others in terms of how they look upon Judaism and belief in God. Consequently, caring about how we appear in the eyes of others is a religious obligation, just as at the same time our proper worship of God has a powerful social dimension.

 

Finally, Chatam Sofer has written that paradoxically it is more difficult to avoid suspicion on the part of people than on the part of God.

 

Chatam Sopher, Lekutai She’eilot U’Teshuvot, #59

All of my life, I have been troubled by the Biblical phrase  “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”. These two obligations, avoidance of suspicion on the part of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and on the part of His People Israel, they constitute a heavy double yoke upon our backs, and it is a greater possibility to fulfill the former obligation than the latter, because people think strange thoughts, and they engage in bizarre discussions, and there are infinitely greater punishments for causing people to suspect one, than when one does not live up to Heaven’s Expectations, God Forbid, as is indicated in the Talmud at the end of the chapter on Yom HaKippurim where regarding “Chillul HaShem” the Talmud states that there is no atonement, God should Spare us…

And due to our many shortcomings, it is common among people to say, “A scholar like that does such a thing?” and this is something that is quite typical conversation, and sometimes this is even said concerning a mere thought…

And I have wondered numerous times whether there is a single person in the entire world who has truly fulfilled this verse (“ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”). And perhaps this was Shlomo HaMelech’s intent when he stated, (Kohelet 7:20) “There is no righteous person in the world that does good and does not sin”, i.e., even when he does only good (in terms of actual Commandments), it is impossible that he does not sin in the second regard, not giving rise to suspicions on the parts of others. And I am not sufficiently worthy to cite the examples of our holy ancestors, nevertheless it is part of the Tora (and therefore subject to our scrutiny and interpretation). And I hesitate when I come to the examples of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven, about whom the text states, “ViHiyitem Neki’im MeiHaShem U’MiYisrael”, and by means of the recommendation of Moshe Rabbeinu, may he rest in peace, in accordance with HaShem,[12] did their part to remove from themselves suspicions, with regard to their going armed for 14 years into Canaan at the head of the Jewish army, nevertheless they did not fulfill their obligation totally, because not for nothing were they exiled before all of the other tribes…

 

In the same manner that the Mishna in Shekalim cited above warns against the conclusions that people will draw in the future regarding what happens to a person, whether it be inordinate tragedy or wild success, Chatam Sofer engages in similar speculation regarding the 2 ½ tribes, and rather than attributing their subsequent early exile to the fact that they resided in a dangerous place, were on the front lines should anyone attack Israel, were exposed to more alien religious and cultural influences  due to their location, etc., the commentator views their punishment as a result of their initial inability to put to rest the suspicions of their co-religionists.

 

While a person can tell himself that he must fight against being judgmental of others, it seems that such a perspective is part of human nature. We sooner find fault than give benefit of the doubt. At least to some degree, such an outlook is a defense mechanism whereby we control our sense of guilt and inadequacy by finding greater faults in others. However, I believe that religion is meant to combat negative natural tendencies and challenge us to transcend them. While it might be natural to criticize others, we are commanded to act supernaturally and seek out the good in our fellow man.  

 

During this period of danger for the Jewish people as well as commemorating the destructions of the two Temples, the second of which was attributed to needless hatred—the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza very much has to do with false suspicions—let us all strive to not only not give cause for suspicion, but not suspect others as well.

 

Shabbat Shalom.