In Chapter 31 of the Book of Numbers, God speaks to Moses in verse 2 saying: “Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; then you shall be gathered to your kin.”
(In Parashat Balak at Numbers 25:1, we read that the Israelite men had profaned themselves with Moabite women while encamped in Shittim. But it is a Midianite woman who was involved in the episode at Numbers 25:6, being killed by Pinchas along with her Israelite lover. One explanation for the fact that Midian and not Moab is the target of this war of vengeance is that the true culprits were Midianites who lived in the area of Moab. Other explanations are offered but the issue remains unclear.)
Moses responded immediately to God’s command even though he knew he was to die when the war was completed. He sent a thousand men from each tribe out to battle the Midianites and he sent Pinchas, the son of Eleazar, serving as priest on the campaign.
So, one thing that we know about Moses’ interpretation of God’s command is that it does not require that all of the men of war-going age be dispatched to obtain vengeance. This is an important point because we know that there is a distinction made between the requirements for participation in different kinds of wars. More to that point below.
It is also notable that Moses relayed God’s instructions “to the people”. Even if he wanted to communicate God’s charge to the entire people we might expect at this point that specific responsibility for organizing and leading the war would fall to Joshua. Joshua had already been appointed the leader who would take the people into the land.
At Numbers 27:21 God tells Moses specifically that: “at his (Joshua’s) word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation”.
Is it not logical that Joshua would lead any substantial military action at this point? And yet it appears that Moses bypasses him here. He is not mentioned.
The Israelites were victorious. They killed all the male Midianites and returned with all the women and children as captives and with all the wealth of Midian as spoils of war. The text suggests that the commanders and Pinchas considered this to be a fulfillment of their duty as given by Moses. There is no indication that Pinchas, whose job was to interpret the law on the battlefield, saw the situation any differently.
But Moses becomes angry and chastises them. More precisely, he chastises the commanders. (There is no indication that he chastised Pinchas.) They should not have allowed the women to live, he tells them. It was the women of Midian who had led the Israelite men astray “in the matter of Peor” he says.
As noted, this is not as clear cut as Moses would seem to have it. We know of one Midianite woman who led an Israelite man astray (if it’s true that she was the instigator). But we read of Moabite women – plural – involved in the activities at Shittim.
Moses’ anger puzzles the great commentator, Nachmanides. He looks to the midrash for clarification and finds in midrash Sifrei that Pinchas said to Moses on the return of the army: “We have done as you ordered”. But Nachmanides says: “…I have no idea what this could be. In the text, he does not issue any specific orders. And if they had done what he had ordered, why would he be so angry?”
Indeed, we are given no clarification of the precise definition of the “vengeance” that the army is ordered to exact. This is an intriguing point.
What does “to avenge” really mean? The Hebrew used here is from the root nun-kuf-mem, which is rarely, but interestingly, used in the Chumash. We find it in the following places prior to its use in Mattot:
In Genesis 4:24 a form of the verb is used in a comparison of the vengeance of Cain versus that of Lamech.
In Exodus 21:20 a form of the verb is used in describing the penalty for a man unjustly striking a bondman or bondwoman with a rod.
In Leviticus 19:18, surely one of the most famous verses in all of Tanakh, we read: “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.”
In Leviticus 26:25 it is used as a part of the tochechot, or the verses of admonition, and it is used there in a form meaning the “vengeance of the covenant”.
None of these uses of the verb meaning “to avenge” gives us any real clue as to the specific requirements of the “vengence” commanded by God or the command that Moses then transmitted on God’s behalf.
However, if we look to Deuteronomy Chapter 20 we find the laws of war, which distinguish between wars that are commanded and those that are discretionary. Among the commanded wars are those against the nations listed in verse 19: the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perrizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites. In those cases, the text provides that “thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes”.
In the case of discretionary wars. though, to acquire additional land, for example, as we see in verse 14, the women, children and property of the vanquished enemies are to be taken as spoils.
Moses might have believed, and had it in mind, that the command to “avenge” in effect triggered the same destructive requirement as that provided in wars against the nations being dispossessed in the conquest of the land. Midian, however, was not within the geographical borders of the land that Israel was promised.
Did Moses understand that the war was “commanded” because of God’s directive to avenge? Or, perhaps he saw it as a commanded war because protection against the idolatrous practices that followed contact with the Moabite/Midianite women had a flavor of national self-defense? Defensive wars were also commanded wars and so would be subject to the rules of commanded war.
But in a commanded war, the entire population is to participate. In this case only 1,000 men from each tribe were sent. It would not appear to be a war being waged under the rules of Deuteronomy 20:19.
(It could be argued that this distinction becomes effective only after entry into the land but, if we accept that argument, and say that we can’t look to Deuteronomy 20 for guidance, the ambiguity of the situation only increases.)
Further, Pinchas, son of Eleazar was with the Israelite army. Rashi notes that Pinchas was the “Priest Annointed for Battle”. So, he had a specific legal role to play. He should have known the rules. If the commanders had a question, they would have presumably taken it to Pinchas to adjudicate.
It would seem that both Pinchas and the commanders of the army believed they were operating under the specification of Deuteronomy 20:14. But Moses appeared to be holding them to 20:19.
How might this have happened. Let’s look back at the verses containing the instructions again. In 31:2 God says to Moses “Avenge the Israelite people…” That was the communication between God and Moses. But what does Moses tell the people “to wreak the Lord’s vengeance on Midian.”
Are these the same thing?
Is avenging the Israelite people the same as wreaking the Lord’s vengeance? Rabbi Hertz in his Chumash, says they are. But is there room for confusion? It does seem from the few prior examples of the use of nun-kuf-mem that, without further elaboration, the direction given by Moses might well have been ambiguous.
Are there any other clues? In 31:6 we read that Pinchas went out “with the holy vessels and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.” Now the trumpets are discussed earlier, in Numbers 10:9 which reads: “When you are at war in your land against an aggressor who attacks you, you shall sound shor blasts on the trumpets, that you may be remembered before the Lord your God and be delivered from your enemies.”
But in our case it is clear that they are not actually in the land and it’s at least debatable whether the Midianites can be considered aggressors.
What did Moses really mean to say? Did he change the direction given by God? If so, was it deliberate, which seems unlikely, or inadvertent?
We are told that “Moses became angry” when the army brought back the women, children and property. Why would Moses have been angry? When did we last read of his anger?
In Parashat Chukat we are told that Moses was angry at the people for questioning the continued availability of water after Miriam’s death. And one of the explanations offered for his anger is that he was upset at the death of his beloved sister. Having to deal with the issue of water rather than being given some time to mourn his sister might have disconcerted him to the extent that he acted rashly. He struck the rock rather than speaking to it and he lashed out at the people in harsh language.
Do we find a parallel in this situation? In fact, I think there are several:
1. God’s command to Moses to make war on the Midianites is immediately followed by the news that Moses will die as soon as this war is over. Now, Moses already knew that he would die before crossing into the land, but this was a new level of specificity and could certainly cause some emotional distress.
2. It was to Midian that Moses fled from Egypt and it was there that he found sanctuary for all the years before he was sent back to liberate the Israelites. His wife was a Midianite. His father-in-law, Yitro, the priest of Midian, had been of great help to him. And now he had to send his people to war against them! How could he not be affected by having to attack and destroy a people who were really family to him? In fact, it is likely that the Midianites on whom vengeance was to be taken included some to whom Moses was related by marriage!
3. It appears from the text that Moses was unclear in his instructions to his commanders and possibly to the priest responsible for the war. If he believed that his lapse; perhaps because of the distraction caused by the issues cited in 1 and 2, above; had caused the war to be prosecuted improperly, he might well have been upset.
4. It seems possible that Moses was unclear in his instructions to the commanders partly because he knew he should be talking to Joshua (and Pinchas) and was distracted by his sense of impropriety even as he was acting inappropriately.
5. The laws of Deuteronomy 20 are a part of Moses’ second discourse to the people on the banks of the Jordan before his death. This came after the war against Midian. Is it possible that Moses forgot that he hadn’t yet instructed the people regarding these laws and was angry at himself over this lapse and at the possibility that a failure to act as God commanded had caused the people to unwittingly transgress?
6. Moses instructed the commanders of the army regarding the vengeance to be taken and he chastised them when they returned. Why wasn’t Joshua given the charge to lead the army against Midian? He was the designated leader and he was the warrior. Did Moses choose to bypass Joshua and, if so, was this another matter causing regret and embarrassment on his part? In Chukat, God’s instruction was given to Moses and Aaron but only Moses acted. Did he in this case, also, act unilaterally when a joint action was appropriate?
It seems reasonable to me to allow Moses the human reaction of a lapse of clarity in his communication regarding the precise objectives of the war against Midian. Both the issue of his impending death and the requirement to make war on Midian are understandable causes of lapses in attention and precision.
It seems reasonable to me that Moses, when he realized that his own failures were the cause of the problem he perceived upon the return of the army, that his frustration might understandably have been expressed in anger.
It seems reasonable to me that his anger might have triggered a recollection of the anger he felt in the episode of the striking of the rock and a recollection of what God’s reaction was to that transgression.
In this case his anger might well have been at himself as much as, or more than at the commanders of the army.
It seems reasonable to me that what we witness in this story is further evidence that Moses has reached the end of his period of effective, practical leadership. (I would quickly distinguish that from moral leadership, which he clearly continued to exercise.)
This encounter with his commanders has a quality of embarrassment about it. They know he wasn’t clear. He knows he wasn’t clear. They don’t want to witness his embarrassment and he wants to avoid punishing them for his own lapse. All need to save face.
The compromise found is between the provisions of Deuteronomy 20:14 and 20:19. There is more death required in the final instructions given the commanders than would be called for in a discretionary war but less than would be required in a commanded war.
No one openly questions the emotional lapses of the beloved but aging leader.
All parties are allowed to retain their dignity.
But the conundrum remains: what does the taking of vengeance really mean? What did God really command? Does the lack of clarity of the text reflect a lack of clarity by Moses? If so, are we to be critical or compassionate?
It seems to me that the tone of the compromise suggests compassion.
We call him Moshe Rabbenu, Moses our teacher. Even in their failures our leaders can teach us. Israel had a new leader for practical matters but her teacher still lived.
©Charles R. Lightner