מטות

B"H Okay, let's break down this Sicha (discourse) from the Rebbe. The goal here is to understand the Rebbe's message step-by-step, providing background and explaining the concepts clearly for someone less familiar with these topics. **Introduction: Setting the Scene** The Rebbe begins by focusing on the weekly Torah portion, Parshas Matos. He points out that this portion discusses two distinct types of war involving the Jewish people: 1. **The War Against Midian:** This war actually happened during Moses' time. The Torah describes how it was fought. 2. **The Future War to Conquer the Land of Israel:** This war hadn't happened yet in the narrative. The portion mentions it in the context of the tribes of Gad and Reuven, who promised to be the vanguard, the "armed legion before G-d for the war" (`חלוץ צבא לפני ה׳ למלחמה`), helping the other tribes conquer the land before settling their own portion on the other side of the Jordan River. **Section A: The Core Difference Between the Two Wars** The Rebbe emphasizes a fundamental difference between these two wars, which is evident from the biblical verses themselves: * **War Against Midian:** G-d commanded this war as an act of vengeance: "Avenge the Children of Israel against the Midianites" (`נקום נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים`). The goal, as stated later, was to "kill every male" (`ויהרגו כל זכר`) as retribution for how the Midianites had harmed the Israelites (specifically, by enticing them into sin and idolatry, leading to a plague, as described earlier in Numbers). * **Key Point:** The Rebbe highlights that the text *doesn't* say the Israelites fought Midian to take over and settle their land. In fact, the opposite happened: "They burned all their cities... and all their encampments" (`את כל עריהם... ואת כל טירותם שרפו באש`). They took spoils – captives ("the women of Midian and their children") and property ("all their cattle... and all their wealth they plundered") – but the primary objective wasn't *settlement* or *conquest* in the sense of acquiring the land itself. It was about *revenge* (`נקמה`). * **War for the Land of Israel (involving Gad & Reuven):** Although the tribes of Gad and Reuven weren't going to settle in the main part of the Land of Israel themselves (they chose land east of the Jordan), their participation in the war across the Jordan was explicitly about *conquest* and *settlement* (`כיבוש`, `ישוב`) for the *other* tribes. Their goal was to dispossess the enemy (`הורישו את אויביו מפניו`) so the rest of Israel could settle. They stated this clearly: "We will arm ourselves readily before the Children of Israel until we have brought them to their place" and "We will not return to our homes until the Children of Israel have inherited, each man his inheritance." * **Key Point:** This war's explicit purpose was to take possession of the land and enable the Jewish people to live there. **Section B: A Halachic Problem – The Raavad's Question on Maimonides** Now, the Rebbe uses this distinction (Revenge vs. Conquest) to address a question raised by a famous medieval commentator, the Raavad (Rabbi Avraham ben David), on a ruling by Maimonides (the Rambam). * **Background – Maimonides' Ruling:** Maimonides discusses the laws concerning the Tribe of Levi (which includes the Kohanim, the priests). He states that the Levites were forbidden from inheriting land in the Land of Canaan (the main part of Israel) and from taking a regular share of the spoils (`ביזה`) when cities were conquered. * Maimonides then adds a crucial clarification: This rule *only* applies to the specific land promised by covenant to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which their descendants inherited and divided. *However*, regarding *other lands* that a Jewish king might conquer, the Kohanim and Levites *do* share in the land and the spoils just like all other Israelites. * **The Raavad's Challenge:** The Raavad questions Maimonides based on the War against Midian. He points out: "But regarding the spoils of Midian, they [the Kohanim and Levites] did not take a share like Israel, only the *Terumah* (a designated portion) by the command of the Creator!" * **Why this is a problem:** Midian was *not* part of the Land of Canaan promised to the Patriarchs. According to Maimonides' ruling, when conquering such "other lands," the Levites *should* have received a regular share of the spoils like everyone else. Yet, in the case of Midian, they received only a specific, smaller portion mandated by G-d (called *Terumas HaMeches* – a heave-offering from the tax). This seems to contradict Maimonides' distinction. It suggests that even in wars outside the Land of Canaan, Levites *don't* share equally in the spoils. * **The Kesef Mishneh's Answer (and the Rebbe's Issue with it):** Another commentator, the Kesef Mishneh (Rabbi Yosef Karo), defends Maimonides. He argues that the case of Midian actually *supports* Maimonides. Since in the Land of Canaan, Levites got *nothing*, and in Midian, they *did* get *something* (the Terumah), this shows Midian falls under a different category – the "other lands" where Levites *do* participate in the spoils. The fact that they didn't get an *equal* share in Midian, the Kesef Mishneh suggests, was a unique, one-time decree (`גזירת הכתוב`, `הוראת שעה`). * **The Rebbe's Dissatisfaction:** The Rebbe finds this explanation difficult (`צע"ג` - requires clarification). The portion the Levites received in Midian wasn't really a "share of the spoils" (`חלק בביזה`) in the normal sense; Maimonides himself calls it *Terumas HaMeches*, a designated priestly portion, not a standard division of loot. It seems fundamentally different from getting a regular share "like all Israel." * **The Rebbe's Initial Resolution (Based on Section A):** The Rebbe offers a simpler solution based on the distinction made earlier. Since the War against Midian *wasn't primarily about conquest and settlement* but about *revenge*, it doesn't fit into the category Maimonides discusses ("other lands that a king... conquers"). Maimonides is talking about wars whose *purpose and nature* are conquest. The Midian war had a different definition (`גדר`); its goal wasn't taking the land but enacting G-d's vengeance. Therefore, the rules about spoils from that war have no bearing on Maimonides' ruling about spoils from standard wars of conquest in "other lands." The Raavad's question is resolved because Midian is simply a different type of case. **Section C: A New Problem – Maimonides Seems to Contradict This!** Just as we think the issue is settled, the Rebbe raises a counter-question based on another ruling by Maimonides himself: * **Maimonides' Ruling on Sieges:** Maimonides states a law regarding warfare: "When besieging a city *to capture it* (`לתפשה`), one may not surround it on all four sides, but only on three sides, leaving a path for escape for anyone who wishes to flee for their life." * **The Source of the Law:** Maimonides says we learn this principle "by tradition" (`מפי השמועה`) from the verse describing the War against Midian: "And they massed against Midian, *as G-d had commanded Moses* (`כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה`)." The tradition teaches that G-d's command included leaving one side open. * **The Problem:** The straightforward meaning (`פשטות הלשון`) of Maimonides' words suggests that he *does* consider the War against Midian to be an example of "besieging a city *to capture it*." If he learns a general rule about capturing cities from the Midian war, it implies Midian *was*, in some sense, a war of capture/conquest. * **Further Question:** If the goal was purely revenge – "to kill them" – why leave an escape route? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? * **The Rogatchover Gaon's Insight:** The Rebbe mentions the Rogatchover Gaon (Rabbi Yosef Rosen), a brilliant scholar, who explains that a debate in the Sifre (an ancient commentary) about whether Midian was besieged on three or four sides hinges on this very point: was it *war* (requiring an escape route) or *revenge* (potentially not)? The Rogatchover implies that for *war*, leaving an escape route is standard. * **A Possible Reconciliation (and why it's still not perfect):** The Rebbe acknowledges a potential reason to leave an escape route even in a war of revenge: strategy. If the enemy has no way out, they will fight desperately ("strengthen themselves against us"), potentially causing casualties among the attackers. Leaving an escape route weakens their resolve. * [The Rebbe even speculates parenthetically that Maimonides' two phrases "leaving a place *for the fugitive* (`לבורח`)" might refer to a revenge war like Midian (where you want the targets to flee), while "and for *anyone who wishes to save his life* (`ולכל מי שירצה להמלט על נפשו`)" refers to other wars where killing everyone isn't the primary goal.] * **The Lingering Issue:** Despite this strategic possibility, the fact remains that Maimonides *includes* the War against Midian under the general heading of "besieging a city *to capture it*" and derives the general rule *from* Midian. This strongly suggests that, for Maimonides, the Midian war *does* share common ground (`צד השוה`) with other wars whose purpose *is* conquest. * **The Raavad's Question Returns:** If the War against Midian *is* similar to the wars of conquest in "other lands" (as Maimonides' ruling on sieges implies), then the Raavad's original question comes back: Why didn't the Kohanim and Levites receive a regular share of the spoils in Midian, as Maimonides says they should in such wars? **Section D: The Rebbe's Deeper Resolution – A Dual Nature** The Rebbe now proposes a more nuanced understanding: * According to Maimonides, the War against Midian possessed *both* characteristics: 1. It was primarily a war of "revenge for the Children of Israel." 2. *Simultaneously*, it also had aspects *like* a war of conquest (`כעין מלחמת כיבוש`), similar to the wars fought to conquer "other lands." * **How does Maimonides see the "conquest" aspect?** Even though the Bible doesn't explicitly state that the Israelites inherited the land of Midian, the Rebbe suggests Maimonides infers this aspect from the details of the aftermath: * The Torah says the Israelites *took captive* the women and children, and *plundered* all their animals and wealth. They took "all the spoil and all the booty, man and beast." * Moses' objection was only to *keeping the adult women alive* ("You let every female live?!") and he commanded killing only the male children and non-virgin women. * This contrasts sharply with the command regarding Amalek, where *everything* was to be utterly destroyed: "man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." * **The Inference:** The fact that spoils and captives *were* taken in Midian (unlike Amalek, which was pure annihilation) indicates that while it was a war of revenge, it wasn't *total* destruction. It had elements resembling conquest, where spoils are a factor. * **Reconciling Maimonides' Rulings:** * **Siege Law:** Because the war wasn't about *total annihilation* (unlike Amalek), Maimonides rules that the standard siege tactic applies: leave an escape route ("do not surround it on four sides, but on three"). This rule, learned from Midian, then applies even more so (`ובמכש"כ` - a fortiori) to regular wars of conquest ("besieging a city to capture it"). * **Spoils Law:** However, because the *primary* purpose (`עיקר`) of the Midian war *was* revenge ("kill every male," "every woman who has known man") and *not* conquest for the sake of acquiring property (land and movable goods – the spoils/`ביזה`), the rules regarding the *division of spoils* are different. It doesn't follow the pattern of "other lands... that a king conquers," where the Levites share equally. Instead, it has the unique structure of the *Terumas HaMeches*. * **A Remaining Question:** But wait, if the war was mainly for revenge, why was there *any* requirement to give a portion, even the *Terumas HaMeches*, to Elazar the Kohen and the Levites? Shouldn't spoils be irrelevant if the goal isn't acquisition? **Section E: Another Unique Feature of the Midian War – Levi's Participation** To answer this, the Rebbe introduces another special aspect of the War against Midian: * From the verse "For all the tribes of Israel, you shall send to the legion" (`לכל מטות ישראל תשלחו לצבא`), Rabbi Akiva learns that this included the Tribe of Levi (`להביא את שבטו של לוי`). The Levites *also* participated in the War against Midian. * **The Rogatchover's Connection Again:** The Rebbe again cites the Rogatchover Gaon, who explains that the debate in the Sifre about whether Levi fought in Midian depends on whether it was classified as *war* or *revenge*. According to Maimonides, Levites don't normally fight in wars (`למלחמה אין יוצאים`), but if it's *revenge* (`נקמה`), they *do* participate. * **The Underlying Question:** Why this distinction? Maimonides explains that Levites don't fight regular wars because they are "separated from the ways of the world" (`הובדלו מדרכי העולם`) to serve G-d. So why *would* they participate in a war of *revenge*, like the one against Midian? **Section F: Explaining Levi's Role and the Spoils** The Rebbe now provides the explanation: * **Levi's Purpose:** Maimonides states that the Tribe of Levi was "set apart to serve G-d, to minister to Him, and to teach His upright ways and righteous statutes to the masses... Therefore, they were separated from the ways of the world... They are the legion of G-d (`חיל השם`)." * **The Connection:** Since Levi is dedicated to G-d's service and are "G-d's legion," it makes sense that a war which is *not* about worldly conquest ("the ways of the world") but is specifically connected to G-d Himself, *should* involve the Tribe of Levi. * **Midian as G-d's War:** The War against Midian is described explicitly as "to inflict *G-d's* vengeance upon Midian" (`לתת נקמת ה׳ במדין`). The essence of this war was that Midian stood *against G-d*. * **Levi's Obligation:** Therefore, the Tribe of Levi, as "G-d's legion," not only *could* participate, but *had* to participate. Carrying out "G-d's vengeance" is precisely their role and function. * **Explaining the *Terumas HaMeches*:** This understanding also explains why a portion of the spoils was given to the Kohanim and Levites. The command was: "You shall levy a tax for G-d... give it to Elazar the Kohen as a *Terumah* (offering) for G-d" (`והרמות מכם לה׳... ונתת לאלעזר הכהן תרומת ה׳`), and subsequently, "you shall take one portion out of fifty... and give them to the Levites." * This wasn't a standard division of spoils acquired through conquest. It was a symbolic act demonstrating that this war was different – it was fought to carry out "G-d's vengeance." Giving a portion of the "booty... man and beast" to the Kohanim and Levites, who represent G-d's service ("G-d's legion"), highlighted the war's divine purpose and affirmed their unique role in it. **Section G: A Final Halachic Puzzle** The Rebbe points out a potential consequence of this reasoning that needs clarification: * **Linking Levi's Roles:** In Maimonides' text, the statement that Levites "do not wage war" (`לא עורכין מלחמה`) comes immediately after and seems linked to the statement that they don't inherit land or spoils in Israel. He writes: "And why did Levi not merit the inheritance of the Land of Israel and its spoils with his brothers? Because he was set apart to serve G-d... Therefore, they were separated from the ways of the world; they do not wage war like the rest of Israel, nor do they inherit, nor do they acquire things for themselves by their physical strength." * **The Implication:** The way Maimonides connects these two ideas ("Therefore... they do not wage war... nor do they inherit...") suggests they are interconnected (`הא בהא תליא` - one depends on the other). * **The Puzzle:** If this connection holds, then in situations where Levites *do* share in spoils – namely, the conquest of "other lands" outside Israel, where Maimonides says "the Kohanim and Levites [share] in those lands and their spoils like all Israel" – it would seem logical that they *should also participate in fighting* those wars. * **The Question:** But why? These wars to conquer "other lands" are seemingly *not* for "G-d's vengeance" (`נקמת ה׳`), but for conquest. What connection would these worldly wars have to the Tribe of Levi, who are "separated from the ways of the world"? **Section H: Resolving the Final Puzzle – Analyzing Maimonides' Precise Language** The Rebbe finds the answer by carefully examining the specific words Maimonides uses to describe the two types of land: * **Maimonides' Description of the Land of Israel:** When stating the exception (where Levites *don't* inherit), Maimonides is very detailed: "This only applies to the land upon which a *covenant was made* (`נכרתה עלי׳ ברית`) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and *their children inherited it* (`וירשוה בניהם`), and it *was divided among them* (`ונתחלקה להם`)." * **Why So Specific?** The Rebbe asks: Why all these details? Wouldn't just saying "the Land of Canaan" (as he does elsewhere) be enough? Why mention the covenant, the inheritance by the children, *and* the division? Even if he wants to connect it to the Patriarchs, saying "the land given to Abraham" might suffice. What do these extra phrases add? * **The Explanation:** The Rebbe explains that this precise language highlights the fundamental difference between the Land of Israel and "other lands": * **The Land of Israel:** This land has an intrinsic, pre-existing holiness and connection to the Jewish people. It's defined by the *covenant* G-d made. The concept of a covenant (`ברית`), often symbolized by passing between divided pieces (`בין הבתרים`), signifies becoming one entity. The land became intrinsically bound to the Patriarchs and, through inheritance (`וירשוה בניהם`) and division (`ונתחלקה להם`), to the entire Jewish people. Conquering it wasn't about creating a new reality but about actualizing this pre-existing bond and settling there ("You shall inherit the land and dwell in it"). The conquest needed to be followed by *division* (`חלקו`) for the inheritance to be complete. * Therefore, the Tribe of Levi, being "separated from the ways of the world," has no part in this *worldly inheritance and settlement*. * **"Other Lands":** These lands are conquered by a Jewish king. While they attain a status similar to Israel regarding certain laws ("like the Land of Israel conquered by Joshua in all respects"), the *reason* for conquering them is different. It's not necessarily for the Jewish people to acquire a physical homeland (they already have Israel for that). Rather, Maimonides states the king fights these wars "to *expand the border of Israel* and *increase its greatness and renown*." * The Rebbe adds a crucial Chasidic interpretation: "Israel's greatness and renown" ultimately means *G-d's* greatness and renown, as Israel represents G-d in the world. * **Levi's Connection:** Therefore, these wars *are* connected to the Tribe of Levi's purpose. Conquering "other lands" to expand the influence of holiness and increase G-d's glory *is* part of the mission of "G-d's legion" (`חיל השם`). This explains why Levites *would* share in the spoils of these lands (as Maimonides rules) and, logically, why they *would also participate* in fighting these specific wars. **Section I: The Practical Lesson for Everyone (The Hora'ah)** Finally, the Rebbe extracts the practical, spiritual lessons (`הוראה`) from this entire discussion for every individual's service of G-d (`עבודה רוחנית`): * **The "Levi" Within:** Maimonides himself writes (at the end of the Laws of Shmitta and Yovel) that the special status of Levi – being dedicated entirely to G-d – isn't limited to the biological tribe. *Anyone* ("every single individual") whose spirit moves him (`נדבה רוחו`) to separate himself for G-d's service ("to stand before G-d, to serve Him, to know Him") becomes "consecrated as holy of holies," and "G-d is his portion and inheritance... just as He granted to the Kohanim and Levites." * **Avoiding Detachment:** Such a person might think: Since I am dedicated to G-d and "separated from the ways of the world," what do I have to do with the world around me? * **The Lesson from Midian:** The Sicha teaches the opposite. Precisely *because* you strive for the level of Levi, you have a connection – indeed, a *special* connection and responsibility – to engage in the spiritual equivalent of "G-d's vengeance against Midian." This means actively combating and nullifying whatever opposes G-dliness in the world. * **Specifically:** The Rebbe emphasizes combating the internal "Midian" – the divisiveness and baseless hatred (`שנאת חנם`) among Jews, which caused the Temple's destruction and continues the current exile (`גלות`). As "G-d's legion," one must work to instill, in a settled way (`התיישבות`), baseless love (`אהבת חנם`) and unity among *all* Jews, connecting everyone back to the One G-d. * **The Lesson from "Other Lands":** Furthermore, one might think it's enough to focus on overtly holy matters – Torah study, prayer, mitzvahs. * The Sicha teaches that the Kohanim and Levites (and thus, those striving for their spiritual level) must also participate in "conquering other lands" – elevating even mundane aspects of the world (`ענינים של עולם`) that don't seem intrinsically necessary for Judaism. We must "expand the border of Israel" spiritually, utilizing *everything* in the world for G-d's service and "to increase His greatness and renown." **Conclusion: Hastening the Redemption** By engaging in both these spiritual tasks – eliminating negativity ("Nekamas Hashem") and elevating the mundane ("conquering other lands") – we address the root cause of exile ("Because of our sins, we were exiled from our land"). This actively hastens the end of exile and brings the true and complete Redemption (`גאולה האמיתית והשלימה`). At that time, the Jewish people will inherit the entire Land of Israel according to its divinely promised borders, including the lands of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite. Furthermore, G-d will expand Israel's borders (`ירחיב ה׳ את גבולך`), and ultimately, the holiness of the Land of Israel will spread to encompass the entire world, with the coming of Mashiach (the Messiah), speedily and truly (`בקרוב ממש`). **In Summary:** The Rebbe takes a complex Halachic discussion involving different types of wars, the spoils system, and the unique role of the Tribe of Levi, tracing it through questions and answers from classic commentators. He resolves the apparent contradictions by carefully distinguishing the *purposes* of different wars (Revenge vs. Conquest vs. Expanding G-d's Glory) and showing how the Tribe of Levi's role as "G-d's legion" applies differently in each case. Ultimately, he derives powerful practical lessons: those dedicated to G-d must not withdraw from the world but actively engage in combating negativity (especially internal division) and elevating the mundane, thereby transforming the world and hastening the ultimate Redemption.