Tribes on the March
The two portions of the Torah this week concern the route the Israelites took to reach their promised land.
And laws about the 12 Tribes, their land allocation, and how they should be governed.
The issue of tribes is controversial because, in effect, since the various exiles, tribes lost both their territory and any significant role within Jewish governance. The only remnant is the symbolic function of Cohanim and Leviim since the end of the Temple era.
The Torah gives various models of organisation and administration, from Mosheh, Aaron, and the priesthood, expanded to the 70 elders and judges, as well as the administrative-disciplinary corps, the optional monarchy, and a counter-authority: that of the prophet. Over the course of both the First and the Second Temples, different models of governance were tried and found wanting. After the Roman era, we no longer had a say in state governments until, of course, 1948 and the founding of the State of Israel. Although we did have a qualified rabbinic authority on internal matters. At various times and in various regimes. Thus, the time spent in the Torah on the tribal structure becomes more symbolic than practical.
It is obvious from human history that early peoples everywhere were divided into tribes of both administrative and social significance. And it is clear that we have now replaced tribes with religious denominations, sects, and social communities of varying composition, degree, and effectiveness. Of different degrees of faith and ideologies. You might argue that these are simply variations of tribes. But the Torah here gives us some very important qualifications and limitations on tribal authority.
After allocating tribal territory within the land of Israel, the Torah turns to the daughters of Tslofchad (whom we have dealt with before) regarding daughters inheriting in the absence of males. This event affirmed people’s right to bring legitimate claims to the leadership and be recognised and validated. So that the administrative ruling class had to be flexible in addressing the needs of individuals, allow them their say, and address their grievances.
The second example concerns the tribes of Reuben and Gad, later joined by half of Menasheh, who asked not to be included in the tribal allocations for the land of Canaan because, as cattle ranchers, they found the Transjordan far more suitable than the hilly country of Judeah. Mosheh’s concern was that splitting the tribes into two groups would be disastrous, both administratively and militarily. Above all, for the emotional connection between the people as a whole. Yet despite his reservations, he took the matter back to God as he had done with the daughters of Tslofchad. In both cases, the reply was to allow what appeared, on the face of it, to be a disaster or unfair to go ahead, provided there were precautions and qualifications. As we see in the allocation of Cities of Refuge, it implied that even more precautions would be necessary in Transjordan.
Even though both of these issues became irrelevant as circumstances changed, Mosheh’s reservations were proven right. The two and a half tribes were the first to disappear from the ranks of Israel; it was the concept that mattered rather than the practicality.
In effect, this is a message repeated throughout the Torah- that there are different kinds of governance, leadership and kinds of administration, there is no one single answer, whether on the right or the left, capitalism or socialism, even down to militarism and the importance of defence. Everything has to be animated and guided by the spiritual obligations of the Torah, yet flexible enough to cope with an ever-changing world.
Rabbi Jeremy Rosen lives in New York. He was born in Manchester. His writings are concerned with religion, culture, history and current affairs – anything he finds interesting or relevant. They are designed to entertain and to stimulate. Disagreement is always welcome.