He Ru Follow us: Make a7 your Homepage
      Free Daily Israel Report
      YouReport, Send us News & updates

      Arutz 7 Most Read Stories

      Blogs

      Judaism: Matot-Mase: Thoughts

      Published: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:27 PM
      Two issues: The tribes that prefer staying in the Diaspora and the five daughters who love the land of Israel are contrasted here.


      We'll Stay Here, Thanks

      Two and a half tribes decided not to cross the Jordan to live in the
      Promised Land (Num. 32). “We like it here!” was the message. “Don’t
      make us go any further!” Moses called them “tarbut anashim chata’im”,
      “a brood of wicked men” (verse 14) tried everything to change their
      thinking, even accusing them of disloyalty – “Your brethren will go to
      war whilst you sit here in comfort!” (verse 6). In the end a
      compromise was agreed; they would establish homes for their families
      on the east of the Jordan, go into the Land and help their brethren
      and then return to their eastern settlements.

      There is a rough analogy with our own day, when large segments of the
      Jewish people prefer to live outside of Israel though they mostly
      offer financial and other support to the State. But the circumstances
      of today are radically different in a significant way. No longer can
      it be said that the Diaspora is needed to bolster up the State, though
      its contribution is by no means unimportant; but now the spiritual and
      cultural identity of the Diaspora relies on the State, and those who
      think they can manage on their own are often living in a dream world.

      The Daughters of Tz'lofchad

      The long double sidra of this week ends with the story of
      Tz’lof’chad’s daughters. A family with daughters and no sons – what a
      The Hebrew equivalent for compassion is 'rachmanut', which is derived from the term 'rechem', meaning a woman’s womb.

      perplexing problem in a world in which the dynamics of life rest with
      the males and the females are left with a deep sense of deprivation.
      But to understand the male-female divide in this way is not our only
      option.

      There is a major essay by Rav Aaron Soloveitchik, “The Attitude of
      Judaism Toward the Woman”, in which he points out that though we all
      think that the man has the all-important task of “kibbush”, conquest,
      the subtler victories of “purity, sanctity, beauty, love and
      reverence… salvation, bliss and eternity… all that was done through a
      woman”.

      Man, says Rav Aaron, needs extra commandments in order to discipline
      and direct his aggressive energies, whilst “a woman’s natural make-up
      is in accordance with the Divine Attributes of compassion, tolerance
      and grace, and also in accordance with the spiritual and moral trend
      of humanity in the Messianic era… The Hebrew equivalent for compassion
      is 'rachmanut', which is derived from the term 'rechem', meaning a
      woman’s womb. Compassion is an innate quality in the woman.”

      In the light of this argument one might justly conclude that it is the
      family that has only sons and no daughters which is really deprived…
      One might also ask the historians to re-assess the way they tell
      Jewish history and say much more about women’s contribution to the
      unfolding events and trends of the narrative. We hear a great deal
      about Beruriah and the way she guided her husband and community.
      Surely we had many more Beruriahs. The story is one-sided without
      them.