Two men in uniform were featured prominently in the news this week. Police Brig.-Gen. Nisso Shaham was charged with behavior unbefitting a police officer when he vulgarly ordered his troops to beat those religious protestors against the Disengagement. We also witnessed IDF Maj.-Gen. Elazar Stern threaten Hesder yeshivas that any yeshiva displaying posters calling for refusing Disengagement orders, or whose rabbis call for refusal, will be in abrogation of their arrangement with the IDF. One could certainly argue that the issuing of such orders to Hesder soldiers is a prior violation by the Israeli "Defense " Forces of its contract with Israel's citizenry, but I would like to present some thoughts from this week's parsha on this matter.
Rabbi Matis Weinberg (in FrameWorks, vol.4, Parshat Matot-Masei, "Ethnicity and Nationhood") writes that with the word "matot", the Torah introduces the conflict between sectors of society, and between the nation and its army (which, in the parsha, goes out to war against the external enemy, Midyan, not against its own citizens). Certainly, the Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 7;15) cites the Halacha that a soldier at war must forget all thoughts of self, becoming an instrument of the nation. On the other hand, this nation prides itself on taking the loss of every soldier as a family issue. Rabbi Weinberg points out that this may stem from this parsha, wherein we read: "Not a single man was lost." (Bamidbar 31:49)
And up until now, no other army in the world has prided itself so much in that its soldiers show so much initiative. This, too, stems from this week's parsha (Bamidbar 31:6 and Ramban), in which Moshe is angry at the troops for not carrying out orders that he never issued, but which he considered self-evident to Jewish soldiers. "The balance between selfhood and nationhood is addressed only through Matot," writes Rabbi Weinberg. A soldier is no longer a personal actor, but he is still a member of the Jewish tribe, and must feel and act as such. Conduct unbecoming a Jew is beyond the pale, including when it involves settlement and settlers.
There are red lines for Jewish soldiers, and it is their identity as Jews (of the Jewish mateh - family or "club") that provides the guidelines, not the billy-club of some bully like Shaham or Stern. Or even Ariel Sharon. Devoid of the requisite moral safety-net of Jewish identity, these military robots are reduced to issuing orders and threats against members of the club, fellow Jewish soldiers and citizens.
As we enter the three weeks of mourning for the Temple and the Exile, with the Sinat Hinam (hatred of fellow Jews ) that caused them, we would do well to ponder this lesson.
One last thought. This parsha begins with the commandment to fulfill vows. Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin writes that this section begins with the phrase "zeh hadavar", meaning "this is the issue of" or "these are the words" (Bamidbar 30:2). This phrase is repeated ten times in the Torah, each time to point out the importance of a Jew's speech. In this instance, vows, it comes to answer the following question: one can understand that the Almighty can issue a decree prohibiting something, such as non-kosher food (as in this parsha, in Bamidbar 31:22-23 ), but how can a simple Jew make something forbidden simply by his vow? And the answer is: that is the power of a Jew, his speech, and God transferred to the Jew the power to hallow an item so that it is changed in a spiritual sense, becoming as forbidden, as injurious to his soul, as pork. And the mitzvah of vows was given to the Rashei Hamatot, the "Chiefs of Staff", of the nation. For they, too, were "once regular items", regular citizens, and by the word of the nation, they have they become "Chiefs of Staff". Only by maintaining their relation to their roots in the Jewish "club" (including keeping their word, as in Sharon's campaign promises), do they fulfill their role as defenders of Israel.
Rabbi Matis Weinberg (in FrameWorks, vol.4, Parshat Matot-Masei, "Ethnicity and Nationhood") writes that with the word "matot", the Torah introduces the conflict between sectors of society, and between the nation and its army (which, in the parsha, goes out to war against the external enemy, Midyan, not against its own citizens). Certainly, the Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 7;15) cites the Halacha that a soldier at war must forget all thoughts of self, becoming an instrument of the nation. On the other hand, this nation prides itself on taking the loss of every soldier as a family issue. Rabbi Weinberg points out that this may stem from this parsha, wherein we read: "Not a single man was lost." (Bamidbar 31:49)
And up until now, no other army in the world has prided itself so much in that its soldiers show so much initiative. This, too, stems from this week's parsha (Bamidbar 31:6 and Ramban), in which Moshe is angry at the troops for not carrying out orders that he never issued, but which he considered self-evident to Jewish soldiers. "The balance between selfhood and nationhood is addressed only through Matot," writes Rabbi Weinberg. A soldier is no longer a personal actor, but he is still a member of the Jewish tribe, and must feel and act as such. Conduct unbecoming a Jew is beyond the pale, including when it involves settlement and settlers.
There are red lines for Jewish soldiers, and it is their identity as Jews (of the Jewish mateh - family or "club") that provides the guidelines, not the billy-club of some bully like Shaham or Stern. Or even Ariel Sharon. Devoid of the requisite moral safety-net of Jewish identity, these military robots are reduced to issuing orders and threats against members of the club, fellow Jewish soldiers and citizens.
As we enter the three weeks of mourning for the Temple and the Exile, with the Sinat Hinam (hatred of fellow Jews ) that caused them, we would do well to ponder this lesson.
One last thought. This parsha begins with the commandment to fulfill vows. Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin writes that this section begins with the phrase "zeh hadavar", meaning "this is the issue of" or "these are the words" (Bamidbar 30:2). This phrase is repeated ten times in the Torah, each time to point out the importance of a Jew's speech. In this instance, vows, it comes to answer the following question: one can understand that the Almighty can issue a decree prohibiting something, such as non-kosher food (as in this parsha, in Bamidbar 31:22-23 ), but how can a simple Jew make something forbidden simply by his vow? And the answer is: that is the power of a Jew, his speech, and God transferred to the Jew the power to hallow an item so that it is changed in a spiritual sense, becoming as forbidden, as injurious to his soul, as pork. And the mitzvah of vows was given to the Rashei Hamatot, the "Chiefs of Staff", of the nation. For they, too, were "once regular items", regular citizens, and by the word of the nation, they have they become "Chiefs of Staff". Only by maintaining their relation to their roots in the Jewish "club" (including keeping their word, as in Sharon's campaign promises), do they fulfill their role as defenders of Israel.