Petition of the Two and a Half Tribes/2

Petition of the Two and a Half Tribes

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Moshe Judges Correctly

Moshe correctly inferred that Reuven and Gad did not intend to join the campaign against Canaan and viewed this as sinful, justifying his outburst.

Sources: RalbagBemidbar 32:1-24About R. Levi b. Gershom, Akeidat Yitzchak8585: (2)85: (3)85: (4)85: (5)85: (6)85: (7)85: (8)About R. Yitzchak Arama,¹ R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Bemidbar 32About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor),  NetzivBemidbar 32:1Bemidbar 32:6Bemidbar 32:13Bemidbar 32:16-23Devarim 3:12Devarim 3:16About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin

"אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן" – According to this approach, these words betray the tribes' desire not to join in the Conquest.²

What is wrong with the request? These sources maintain that the request was problematic both on the interpersonal level, and in relation to Hashem.

• Unfair burden – Netziv present Moshe as emphasizing the injustice of Reuven and Gad's request vis-a-vis the other tribes.³  Given that the lands of Sichon and Og had been conquered by the united effort of all the tribes, for two of the tribes to now claim for themselves the fruits of that combined effort and to leave to the others, alone, the burden of conquering Canaan was presumptuous and immoral.⁴
• Demoralizing the tribes – The tribes' decision not to join the campaign would further have a damaging psychological effect on the rest of the nation who would naturally conclude that their non-participation stemmed from fear and lack of trust in Hashem. This would, in turn, weaken the nation's own morale.  Moshe justifiably sees in their words a potential repetition of the episode of the spies whose fear had been contagious.⁵
• Rejection of the Land/God – R. Avraham Saba and Akeidat Yitzchak further suggest that the tribes' request betrayed a rejection of and disdain for the Promised Land.⁶  Like the spies before them, these tribes sinned in that  "וַיִּמְאֲסוּ בְּאֶרֶץ חֶמְדָּה".‎⁷  Netziv adds that the petition also suggests that they had no desire for God's providence which was strongest in Israel proper.

Status of the Eastern bank of the Jordan

The root of the problem: materialism – Akeidat Yitzchak and R. Saba, following Bemidbar Rabbah,⁸ interpret the emphasis by the text on the abundance of cattle owned by Reuven and Gad⁹ as evidence of their materialism.  They wrongly placed greater value on their wealth than on the spiritual importance of living in the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael.¹⁰

An indirect request – There are several hints in the text that tribes might have on their own sensed that their petition was problematic,leading to a certain hesitation on their presentation:

• "עֲטָרוֹת וְדִיבֹן וְיַעְזֵר" –The unconventional manner through which Reuven and Gad present their request, listing the names of the cities without first providing the general context of their request, suggests that the tribes were "beating around the bush", and only indirectly hinting to their petition.¹¹
• "וַיֹּאמְרוּ... וַיֹּאמְרוּ" – The phenomenon of the "double ויאמר" of verse 5,¹² might further suggest that the tribes had paused, hoping for Moshe to respond without the need for them to make their request explicit. When no reaction is forthcoming they are left with no choice but to state their request outright.

"הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה י"י" – Akeidat Yitzchak points out that throughout the negotiations, the two tribes never mention Hashem except once, when they refer to the land that they desire as "הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה י"י לִפְנֵי עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל".  He reads this as their attempt to neutralize any accusations that it is unfair of them to take land that all the tribes risked their lives to attain. Reuven and Gad point out that since it was really  Hashem who conquered the land, there is no ethical problem in their request.

"וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֵלָיו" – According to Akeidat Yitzchak, this phrase suggests that after hearing Moshe's rebuke the tribes took a step backwards to consult among themselves.  After rethinking their petition, they re-approached Moshe with a revised proposal.

A revised proposition

• וַאֲנַחְנוּ נֵחָלֵץ חֻשִׁים – According to these sources, these words constitute a revised plan, meant to address and allay Moshe's concerns.  The tribes concede the need to fight with the nation, and even commit to going first, thus alleviating any idea that they were motivated by fear.
• גִּדְרֹת צֹאן נִבְנֶה לְמִקְנֵנוּ פֹּה וְעָרִים לְטַפֵּנוּ – Netziv adds that this point, too, is meant to assuage Moshe's worry that they do not trust in Hashem or His providence. The tribes point out that they are willing to leave their children behind because they have faith that Hashem will protect them.
• לֹא נָשׁוּב אֶל בָּתֵּינוּ עַד הִתְנַחֵל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל – The Netziv  explains that the tribes even offer to wait until after the distribution of the lands, so that no one can accuse of them of being able to work their property before others have inherited.

Why does Moshe agree?

• According to Ralbag and the Netziv, as the tribes revised proposal addressed all of Moshe's concerns, he acquiesced to the request.
• However, according to R. Saba and Akeidat Yitzchak, who maintain that the request was a rejection of the land, the tribes' agreement to fight with their brothers should not have sufficed. R. Saba¹³

Moshe's rephrasing of the request – According to the Akeidat Yitzchak and the Netziv, Moshe rephrases the request because despite the tribes' revised proposal, there were still several lessons that they needed to be taught:

• לִפְנֵי י"י – Akeidat Yitzchak asserts that Moshe's repeated emphasis on Hashem is a reaction to the tribes rare mention of Him.¹⁴ They appear to rely on themselves,¹⁵ forgetting Hashem's role in the Conquest. As such, Moshe ensures that they recognize that all that they do is really "לִפְנֵי י"י".‎¹⁶
• " עָרִים לְטַפְּכֶם" – Akeidat Yitzchak also notes that while the tribes mention building fortifications for their cities, Moshe does not, again teaching them that it is Hashem, not their fortifications, which will keep thier families safe.
• "לְטַפְּכֶם... לְצֹנַאֲכֶם" – Bemidbar Rabbah22:8About Bemidbar Rabbah notes that while the tribes spoke first of their cattle and only afterwards of caring for their families, Moshe reverses the order teaching them how they shuold have prioritized.

Integrating the lessons – Reuven and Gad accept Moshe's subtle criticism and integrate what he says into their final response.  Thus, they speak of their families before their possession and no longer mention fortification (טַפֵּנוּ נָשֵׁינוּ מִקְנֵנוּ וְכׇל בְּהֶמְתֵּנוּ יִהְיוּ שָׁם), and learn to invoke Hashem's name, recoginizing His role in war (וַעֲבָדֶיךָ יַעַבְרוּ כׇּל חֲלוּץ צָבָא לִפְנֵי י"י לַמִּלְחָמָה).

Menashe

Moshe as leader – According to this position, Moshe demonstrated seasoned leadership and good judgment in the story.  His critical, yet calculated response managed to avert a potential crisis, convincing the tribes to modify their request, thereby diffusing the tension.  Moshe managed to educate the people without provoking further anger and even ensured for smooth implementation of the agreement under Yehoshua.

Repeat: the tribes in the time of Yehoshua

Moshe Misjudges

Moshe misunderstood the request of Reuven and Gad and assumed that they did not want to participate in the conquest, when in reality the tribes had always intended to battle with the rest of the nation.

Sources: perhaps PhiloOn the Life of Moses I : 319-330About Philo,¹⁷ Josephus, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 32:14About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanBemidbar 21:21Bemidbar 32:1Bemidbar 32:19Bemidbar 32:33Bemidbar 32:41About R. Moshe b. Nachman, AbarbanelBemidbar 32Bemidbar 32: (2)Bemidbar 32: (3)Bemidbar 32: (4)Bemidbar 32:(5)Bemidbar 32: (6)About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

"אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן" – In this statement the two tribes had meant only that they did not want to settle and inherit on the other side of the Jordan,¹⁸ not that they were unwilling to cross and take part in the military campaign.¹⁹

Other potentially problematic aspects of the request:

• "וּמִקְנֶה רב"– According to this approach, the introductory verse of the chapter with its focus on the word "מקנה",‎²⁰ might simply be Tanakh's confirmation of the truth of tribes' claim and not meant as a negative value judgement of their materialism.²¹  Similarly the tribes' own repeated mention of their cattle might simply reflect the reality of their situation which prompted their request.²²
• Enumeration of cities – The strange opening of the tribes' request²³ need not be read as evidence that the tribes were purposely indirect, knowing that they were to make a problematic request.  Rather, they might have been attempting to highlight the potential danger of having many uninhabited cities on the border of Canaan. If they were to remain unoccupied, they would have soon been inhabited by enemy populations on Canaan’s doorstep.²⁴ Thus, the tribes might be implying that by settling these lands and cities, they would serve as a ring of defense for the Israelites.

Why was Moshe upset? These sources claim that Moshe misunderstood the tribes' words and thought that their request stemmed from fear of fighting the Canaanites.  Moshe worried that their lack of trust in Hashem would sway the rest of the nation and lead Hashem to punish the people as He had done after the sin of the Spies.  Philo also has Moshe emphasize the tribes' error in the interpersonal realm, pointing to the injustice in their desire to inherit first, so that they would sit in peace while others went to war.

Status of the eastern bank of the Jordan? Since Moshe makes no explicit reference to the tribes' preference for the eastern bank, speaking only about their unwillingness to go to battle, it would seem that he did not view their request as a problematic rejection of the Promised Land.  It is possible that Moshe saw the miraculous victory over the Lands of Sichon and Og as the beginning of the Conquest,²⁵ and considered these lands to be part of Israel's inheritance.²⁶

"הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה י"י" – Abarbanel notes that Reuven and Gad intentionally refer to the land as "הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה י"י", emphasizing Hashem's role in the conquest to highlight how Hashem must therefore view the lands as an extension of the Promised Land and mean for them to be settled.

What led to Moshe's misunderstanding? It is possible that Moshe, haunted by memories of the traumatic episode of the Spies and the damaging effects of their words on the morale of the nation, read their mistakes back into the request of the two tribes.²⁷

"וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֵלָיו" – Abarbanel explains that Reuven and Gad came closer to Moshe, so as not to embarrass their leader when they explained to him his error.  They came to to whisper in his ear, as if to say, “pardon me, sir, but we have a misunderstanding, let’s clarify.“ ²⁸

The proposition: וַאֲנַחְנוּ נֵחָלֵץ חֻשִׁים – The tribes' words, "וַאֲנַחְנוּ נֵחָלֵץ חֻשִׁים", are not a revised proposal stemming from a desire to appease Moshe's anger but a clarification of their original intent.  They point out that they are not fearful of battle,²⁹ as Moshe believed, and are in fact even willing to risk their lives on the front lines.³⁰

Order of points in the proposal – The tribes speak first of settling their cattle and families, and only afterwards of fighting in the front lines.  According to Josephus and R"Y Bekhor Shor, this order does not stem from insolent insistence that they get their way.  Rather, the tribes explain that it is specifically because they will not be encumbered by children and cattle that they will be able to fight more expeditiously and act as the scouting force which runs ahead of the army.

"עַד הִתְנַחֵל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ נַחֲלָתוֹ" – Abarbanel suggests that the two tribes' request even had an added benefit for the rest of the nation. By not taking their inheritance in Canaan, this enabled all the other tribes to each receive a larger portion. Economic prosperity for the two Tribes would also be an asset for the rest of Benei Yisrael.³¹

"כִּי בָאָה נַחֲלָתֵנוּ אֵלֵינוּ" – Ramban claims that in these words, the two tribes had not meant to be haughty or combative.  They were not implying that the land was already theirs, but simply requesting that it would be.

"גִּדְרֹת צֹאן נִבְנֶה לְמִקְנֵנוּ.., וְעָרִים לְטַפֵּנוּ" – Misplaced priorities? This position could say, as does the Keli YekarBemidbar 32:1About R. Shelomo Ephraim Luntschitz, that Reuven and Gad mention building pens for their cattle before homes for their families, not out of misplaced priorities, but due to strategic concerns. They hope to settle their animals first, close to the border, so as to serve as a buffer between their families and enemies.³²

Moshe's rephrasing of the proposal – According to this position, Moshe's repetition and subtle rephrasing of the the proposal is not significant.  Moshe was simply confirming what had been said in his own words, in the manner of many negotiators.

Moshe as leader – Moshe’s hasty, over-reaction to the request of Reuven and Gad can perhaps be seen as an indication of the infirmities of age. In spite of unusual strength of body and spirit, Moshe may have been undergoing “burnout” and déjà vu.³³ He was unable to see that the new generation was not identical to the old, and that they had moved beyond the mistakes of their ancestors. It could be that Moshe was not permitted to go with his people into the Promised Land because his talents as a leader were no longer suitable to the new reality.

Other examples of Moshe's imperfection – For another examples where Moshe might exhibit less than perfect leadership skills or a disconnect to his people, see Did Moshe Need Yitro's Advice?³⁴ and Moshe's Misstep and Mei Merivah.  See also Dialogue with the Divine During Korach's Rebellion for another example where Moshe might have misunderstood another's intentions.

The sudden appearance of Menashe

• Ramban posits that Menashe had not been part of the original negotiations. However, after agreeing to Reuven and Gad's request, Moshe realized that the land was too vast for just two tribes and offered a portion to anyone who wished to join.³⁵ Machir and Gilad agreed and conquered their own territory.
• A commentary on Chronicles attributed to a student of Saadia Gaon, in contrast, claims that the sons of Menashe had actually conquered the territories mentioned in verses 39-42 much earlier, while their grandfather, Yosef, was still a vizier in Egypt. If so, it is possible that now that Moshe was apportioning the land, he honors their claims and right to settle there as well.³⁶

Repeat: The tribes in the time of Yehoshua

Moshe Had it Right!

The two Tribes’ original request had two components: one explicit, to receive their portion on the eastern side of the Jordan and one implied, that they would not be participating in the conquest. According to several sources, Moshe correctly inferred that R&G did not intend to join the campaign and saw this as an immediate threat to the success of the Conquest. By comparing their request to the Spies, Moshe is expressing his indignation that they would prefer to settle outside the borders that G-d had chosen for them. Therefore, his harsh response was justified.

Sources: PhiloOn the Life of Moses I 320-328On the Life of Moses I 329On the Life of Moses I 330On the Life of Moses I 332About Philo, Bemidbar Rabbah7:822:622About Bemidbar Rabbah , RashiBemidbar 32:7Bemidbar 32:16Bemidbar 32:17Bemidbar 32:19Bemidbar 32:24About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Bemidbar 32About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor), Akeidat Yitzchak85About R. Yitzchak Arama, MalbimBemidbar 32:6-7Bemidbar 32:14,16Bemidbar 32:31-32About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, NetzivBemidbar 20:10Bemidbar 32:1Bemidbar 32:6Bemidbar 32:7Bemidbar 32:7Bemidbar 32:11Bemidbar 32:13Devarim 3:16About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Samet Bemidbar 32:6-7Bemidbar 32:14,16Bemidbar 32:31-32About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Dangers in Not Participating in the Conquest

• Moshe's indignant exclamation "ה‎‏,³⁷"הַאַחֵיכֶם יָבֹאוּ לַמִּלְחָמָה וְאַתֶּם תֵּשְׁבוּ פֹ and his comparison to the Spies, implies and warns of the damaging psychological effect upon the other tribes, seeing their brothers already settled safe and sound while they yet faced long and dangerous struggles. This is elaborated by PhiloOn the Life of Moses I 323On the Life of Moses I 324About Philo. Following Bemidbar Rabbah22:6About Bemidbar Rabbah, that likens R&G to the rebellious Korach³⁸, commentaries, such as, Rashi, Bemidbar 32:7About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and the MalbimBemidbar 32:6-7About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, note that this situation, would weaken their morale and create jealousy and divisiveness³⁹.
• The NetzivBemidbar 32:6About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin points out that given how the lands of Sichon and Og had been conquered by the united effort of all the tribes, for two of the tribes to now claim for themselves the fruits of that combined effort and to leave to the others, alone, the burden of conquering Canaan was presumptuous and immoral.

Dangers in Receiving Land Outside of Canaan

• By their preference for land outside the boundaries of Canaan,Tzeror HaMor and Akeidat Yitzchak 85:2 accuse R&G of being guilty of,וימאסו בארץ חמדה⁴⁰ , that will further demoralize the rest of the Tribes.The promise of the Land is a central element of every revelation by G-d to all the Avot and is a component of the Birkat Avraham that accompanies and guides the Bnei Yisrael through their bondage and exodus from Egypt, and their wandering through the Wilderness. All the references to the Land, beginning with the promises to the Avot, speak of “the land of Canaan” which in the days of Moshe had a particular geographic referent. While its north-south borders were never considered definitive "מִנְּהַר מִצְרַיִם עַד הַנָּהָר הַגָּדֹל נְהַר פְּרָת",‎⁴¹ the natural borders of the Mediteranean Sea and Jordan River, determined its east-west limits. It did not include the lands east of the Jordan. For those situated on the east side of the Jordan, it was always, “when you will cross the Jordan”. And so, G-d said to Moshe while he was on the east side of the Jordan, "וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר תַּעַבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ"‎⁴² that is, the Land that G-d gives you as an inheritance is on the west side.⁴³

• Moshe fears that settlement of R&G outside of Canaan would be considered by G-d as a grievous sin, resulting in some sort of collective punishment just as it was in the case of the Spies,or perhaps as the NetzivBemidbar 32:13About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin suggests, an extension of the Spies' punishment of wandering the desert.

Failed Moral Compass

• Bemidbar Rabbah22:8About Bemidbar Rabbah followed by RashiBemidbar 32:16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Tzeror HaMor , and the Akeidat Yitzchak85:3About R. Yitzchak Arama, interpret the emphasis by the text of the abundance of cattle owned by R&G as a demonstration of their wrongly placed greater value on their material wealth than the spiritual importance of living in the sanctity and under the special providence of Eretz Yisrael. Bemidbar Rabbah22:6About Bemidbar Rabbah condemns their misplaced priorities and see that as the reason they were first to be exiled.

• The Tribes' wealth⁴⁴ and military victories over Sichon, Og and Midian may have had generated a sense of over confidence. The fact that this generation were not newly liberated slaves, but rather, had attained a certain degree of independence and self-sufficiency during their stay in the wilderness, may have further strengthened their self confidence. According to Akeidat Yitzchak85:4About R. Yitzchak Arama, this situation might have lead to a sense of ‎‏כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי and a lack of trust in G-d. This might explain their willingness to live alone in territories that were exposed to incursions and that lacked the natural defenses of Canaan⁴⁵.

Moshe Acquiesces

• In response to Moshe’s outrage, R&G now propose to send a military force, "נֵחָלֵץ חֻשִׁים" to serve as a vanguard to help the tribes conquer Canaan, and not to return to their families until each of the tribes have received their portion in Canaan, עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם הֲבִיאֹנֻם אֶל מְקוֹמָם...עַד הִתְנַחֵל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ נַחֲלָתוֹ" ⁴⁶". SefornoBemidbar 32:33About R. Ovadyah Seforno and Spero⁴⁷ suggest, that while strict authoritarianism would require that Moshe stick to the Divine plan and insist that the R&G settle in Canaan, Moshe had to weigh the possibility of popular rebellion, as was the case of Korach⁴⁸ and the Ma’apilim⁴⁹, if he refuses their request. As a sort of “lame duck” leader at this time, it would have been much more difficult to assert his authority. The immediate, positive gain of R&G’s willingness to send their men as a vanguard force, outweighed the possible negative.
• In regard to the question of: Did Moshe consult with G-d before he accepted their proposal? From the wordsאֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י "‏" ‎‏⁵⁰, it would appear that Moshe did receive Divine sanction for the agreement, affirmed by Moshe in Arvot Moav, י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם נָתַן לָכֶם אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְרִשְׁתָּהּ, and later by Yehoshua, יָּשֻׁבוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִשִּׁלֹה אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן לָלֶכֶת אֶל אֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזָּתָם אֲשֶׁר נֹאחֲזוּ בָהּ עַל פִּי י"י בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה.⁵¹

Moshe as Leader

• Moshe’s critical, yet calculated response is an example of crisis management and damage control aimed to educate and ensure for smooth implementation of the agreement under Yehoshua, as described by PhiloOn the Life of Moses I 328On the Life of Moses I 329About Philo, Akeidat Yitzchak85: (5)85: (7)About R. Yitzchak Arama, MalbimBemidbar 32:14,16About R. Meir Leibush Weiser and Samet⁵². These commentaries explain how only after Moshe's passionate and critical reaction, do the two Tribes take council with each other, modify their request with a generous counter proposal and the tension is diffused. Here, Moshe demonstrated seasoned leadership and good judgment.
• In order to further strengthen the legality of the agreement, Moshe spells out the terms of the condition: If you will do this thing…..and if you will not do so….. This is referred to in the Talmudic literature as תנאי בני גד ובני ראובן, which is the prototype for a condition to have legal standing ⁵³. According to Chanina ben Gamliel⁵⁴, the double condition is necessary to clarify that the Tribes' will not loose their right to a portion in Canaan, in the situation that they do not keep their side of the bargain.

• It would appear that the agreement was solemnized by the Tribes taking an oath, as it says, וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּם מֵי"י וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל ⁵⁵. Moshe then, brings the agreement before Elazar HaCohen, Yehoshua and the heads of the Matot, the same judicial bodies that will supervise the Conquest and portioning of the land in Canaan. The successful completion of the Tribe's mission and the fulfillment of the agreement will take place 14 years later, as described in Yehoshua 22.

Sudden Appearance of Menashe

• According to this approach that the very request of R&G was offensive and which triggered Moshe’s harsh response, how do we understand what seems to be Moshe’s unsolicited offer to settle clans from Menashe in Eiver Hayarden? Based on the chronology of the tribe of Menashe⁵⁶, the sons of Menashe , were probably not alive when the Bnei Yisrael were about to enter Canaan!  A commentary on Chronicles, attributed to a student of Saadia Gaon, claims that the sons of Menashe had temporarily conquered some territories in Eiver Hayarden much earlier, while their grandfather, Yosef,was still a vizier in Egypt. It is these earlier conquests that  are referred to in verses 39,41,42. Now that these lands had been “liberated”, Moshe honored their claims to the land and their right to settle there.⁵⁷

Textual Points

• וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי גָד עָצוּם מְאֹד וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ יַעְזֵר וְאֶת אֶרֶץ גִּלְעָד וְהִנֵּה הַמָּקוֹם מְקוֹם מִקְנֶה -The introductory words of the chapter that begin with the subject (and not a verb),already set the tone and direct the reader’s attention to the Tribes’ accumulated wealth. Samet ⁵⁸points out that the root קנ"ה that is mentioned twice in the introduction and twice in the Tribes’ first conversation⁵⁹ -focuses on the quality of possession/aquisition. Moshe avoids that subject-except when he uses a substitute word צנאכם⁶⁰.
• עֲטָרוֹת וְדִיבֹן וְיַעְזֵר וְנִמְרָה וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן וְאֶלְעָלֵה וּשְׂבָם וּנְבוֹ וּבְעֹן.-Rosenson⁶¹ suggests that the unconventional manner that R&G present their request by listing the names of the cities without providing their general context, and the hesitant, hinting manner of verses 4,5-as if “beating around the bush", suggests that they themselves sense that their request is problematic.
• הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה י"י –Akeidat Yitzchak85:6About R. Yitzchak Arama contends that the only mention of G-d by R&G in their initial request was perhaps an attempt to neutralize any accusation that they were acting immorally by taking for themselves, land conquered by a joint effort of all Bnei Yisrael. Their implicit argument is that these lands were primarily conquered through the help of G-d..and so, too, will Canaan be conquered with Divine intervention.
• The repetition of the word ויאמרו while in the middle of an uninterrupted conversation, that began in verse 2, is a textual phenomenon that might indicate a break in the continuity of the conversation that will have an impact on the 2nd half of the conversation. Samet⁶² suggests how Moshe’s lack of a response- his “deafening silence” (symbolized by the פרשה סתומה) is the break that will cause the Tribes to present their request in a straightforward way, יֻתַּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לַעֲבָדֶיךָ לַאֲחֻזָּה אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן".⁶³."
• להניע-להניא-להניח⁶⁴ - Samet⁶⁵ shows how Moshe’s play on verbs further connects the two Tribes’ and the Spies’ respective sins and punishments with each other.
• וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ - refers to R&G’s laying eyes on Eiver Hayarden, reminds us of Moshe’s instructions to the Spies, וראיתם את הארץ⁶⁶". People see the same scene through different lens. R&G saw Eiver Hayarden through the lens of self-interest, while the Spies were told by Moshe to see it in all its promising possibilities.
• אל הארץ אשר נתן להם ה and...את האדמה אשר נשבעתי לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב-By referring to Canaan as the Promised land, three times in his first response, Moshe is insinuating that the Tribes’ preference for Eiver Hayarden is misplaced.
• לבני ראובן ולבני גד...בני גד ובני ראובן.. According to ChizkuniBemidbar 32:2About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, Ibn EzraBemidbar 32:1Bemidbar 32:2About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and RambanBemidbar 32:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman, because of their greater wealth and military prowess, the tribe of Gad, were the initiators of the plan and therefore, are listed first throughout the chapter, except for the introductory verse-out of respect for Reuven, the biological Bechor. The NetzivBemidbar 32:1About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin supports this claim from the text that describes Reuven's holdings as רב, whereas, Gad's were עצום מאד.
• כִּי בָאָה נַחֲלָתֵנוּ אֵלֵינוּ -According to RashBemidbar 32:19About R. Shelomo Yitzchakii (as understood by the RambanBemidbar 32:19About R. Moshe b. Nachman), this sounds somewhat arrogant, as if to say that it was a “done deal”, before the negotiation was over.
• וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֵלָיו- Akeidat Yitzchak85:7About R. Yitzchak Arama and the MalbimBemidbar 32:14,16About R. Meir Leibush Weiser understand that Moshe’s harsh response, surprised R&G. They now drew closer to Moshe, and primarily to him, offered their modified proposal-perhaps out of a sense of embarrassment ( symbolized by the פרשה סתומה).
• עבדיך...אדני...עבדיך...אדני- The multiple expressions of humility reflect their attempt to ease the tension.
• גִּדְרֹת צֹאן נִבְנֶה לְמִקְנֵנוּ פֹּה וְעָרִים לְטַפֵּנוּ. -In their revised version, R&G suggest that they will settle the Eastern Jordan, where they will build fences for their livestock and then, cities for their children, to which Bemidbar Rabbah22:622:8About Bemidbar Rabbah comments, שעשו את העיקר טפל ואת הטפל עיקר. Following the midrash, RashiBemidbar 32:16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki points out that Moshe’s 2nd response will correct their faulty order of priorities,"בְּנוּ לָכֶם עָרִים לְטַפְּכֶם וּגְדֵרֹת לְצֹנַאֲכֶם". By their third response, R&G will integrate this lesson," טַפֵּנוּ נָשֵׁינוּ מִקְנֵנוּ וְכׇל בְּהֶמְתֵּנוּ".
• לפני הי- In contrast to R&Gs’ counter proposal which did not mention G-d, Moshe invokes G-d’s name 7 times in his response to their counter proposal (20-23). The Akeidat Yitzchak85:8About R. Yitzchak Arama point outs that Moshe is using this opportunity to educate the Tribes, that their actions be לשם שמים, that is, that they are fighting not only in the name of G-d, but by doing so they may be assured of the help of G-d.
• הְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּם מֵי"י וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל... וְאִם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן הִנֵּה חֲטָאתֶם לַי"י- From these words we can infer that the Tribes took a solemn oath before G-d to keep their promise ⁶⁷.
• וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה לִבְנֵי גָד וְלִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן יוֹסֵף -Menashe’s lineage is mentioned here to legitimize their claim to lands in Eiver Hayarden, which according to the Book of Chronicles, took place during the life-time  of Yosef ⁶⁸.

Moshe Misjudges

According to this approach, R&G had every intention of participating with all Bnei Yisrael in the Conquest. The only meaning of "אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן", bring us not over the Jordan”⁶⁹, was in regard to settlement and inheritance. However, fueled by memories of the traumatic episode of the Spies, and all the damaging effects that it had on the morale of the Bnei Yisrael, Moshe concluded that they are refusing to participate in the Conquest, as he exclaims,"הַאַחֵיכֶם יָבֹאוּ לַמִּלְחָמָה וְאַתֶּם תֵּשְׁבוּ פֹה ‏⁷⁰ "! Only after they are given the opportunity to clarify their original proposal, does Moshe reconsider and acquiesce. According to this view, the central problem of this chapter is with Moshe’s hasty, over reaction which leads to his misunderstanding the Tribes' request which may indicate a flaw in his leadership.

Sources: Josephus,4 7:3About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 32:14About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanBemidbar 21:21Bemidbar 32:1Bemidbar 32:19Bemidbar 32:33Bemidbar 32:41About R. Moshe b. Nachman, AbarbanelBemidbar 32About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,

Moshe's Indifference to their Request to take their Inheritance in Eiver Hayarden – Since Moshe makes no explicit reference to their preference to settle in Eiver Hayarden over the Promised Land, neither in his initial outburst nor even in his acquiescence to their clarified position, it would seem that this was not a problem. Perhaps this was because at some point he consulted with G-d and received Divine approval⁷¹. According to RashiDevarim 1:4About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki ⁷² RambanBemidbar 21:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman,and the AbarbanelBemidbar 32: (2)About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel it is also possible that Moshe ( as perhaps did R&G), saw the miraculous military victory of the Lands of Sichon and Og as the beginning of the Conquest and included in the commandהָחֵל רָשׁ לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת אַרְצוֹ...וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ י"י אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְפָנֵינוּ "⁷³," and, as such, subject to the laws of inheritance⁷⁴.

Was the Request of R&G Motivated only by Self -Interest? The request of R&G to settle in Eiver Hayarden may not have been motivated solely by personal interest but by the following concerns. Samet⁷⁵ points out that had these recently conquered lands been permitted to remain unoccupied, they would have been soon inhabited by enemy populations on Canaan’s doorstep. By settling these lands and cities, the two Tribes can serve as a ring of defense for the Israelites on the western side of the Jordan, against incursions from the Arabian Desert. In addition, by not taking their inheritance in Canaan, this enabled all the other tribes to each receive a larger portion⁷⁶. Economic prosperity for the two Tribes would also be an asset for the rest of Bnei Yisrael.
These wider concerns of R&G can be seen in the way they order the aspects of their clarified proposal. They first specify their intentions 1) to build fences for their livestock and cities for their children,2) to go first into battle as an expeditionary force and 3) to remain in Canaan until the land is apportioned among all the Tribes. As Josephus 4 7:3About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 32:14About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and ChizkuniBemidbar 32:2Bemidbar 32:17About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach point out, this can be seen as an argument that their ability to fight effectively and remain in Canaan for an indefinite period, will be enhanced by their knowledge that their families and livestock are safely settled.

Moshe as Leader – Moshe’s hasty, over-reaction to the request of R&G can be seen as another indication of the infirmities of age, as in the episode of the Mei Meriva, according to the NetzivBemidbar 20:10About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin. Although the Torah says about Moshe: "בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בְּמֹתוֹ לֹא כָהֲתָה עֵינוֹ וְלֹא נָס לֵחֹה ⁷⁷". Moshe admits about himself, "בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא ⁷⁸". In spite of unusual strength of body and spirit, Moshe may have been undergoing the painful experiences of “burnout” and déjà vu. It could be that Moshe is not permitted to go with his people into the Promised Land because his talents as a leader were no longer suitable to the new reality, and so we read," יַעַן לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָכֵן לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָהֶם⁷⁹".

The Sudden Appearance of Menashe – Once Moshe receives G-d’s approval to settle R&G in Eiver Hayarden, he can feel comfortable in offering other territory in Eiver Hayarden to the clans from Menashe. Especially since, as indicated (approach 1)⁸⁰, Moshe was merely handing over lands that they had previous claims to, that were now “liberated”. Or , as previously suggested, Moshe was handing over conquered lands that may be have been considered an extension of the Promised Land⁸¹.  
It may also be that Moshe was concerned about the possible dangers of the growing alienation between the tribes of the east and west of the Jordan. By positioning certain clans of the tribe of Menashe on Eiver Hayarden, this would enlist family and tribal ties that would connect the two communities separated by the Jordan⁸². The fact that their portion in Canaan was contiguous with their portion on the other side of the Jordan, would make them a good candidate for this task. The Moshav ZekeinimBemidbar 32:33About Moshav Zekeinim suggests that Moshe saw that the land in Eiver Hayarden was too vast for only Reuven and Gad to settle, and so for security reasons, offered a few clans from Menashe to join them. The NetzivDevarim 3:16About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin points out that the tribe of Menashe was knowledgeable in the Torah tradition and would make them a valuable asset to the isolated communities in Eiver Hayarden. According to this approach, conquests by the descendants of Machir the son of Menashe in Gilead,  took place as described in Bamidbar 32:39, after being invited by Moshe to join R&G in Eiver Hayarden. However, the text in Devarim 3:12-14 seems to imply that the conquests by the Menashe clans of portions of Gilead took place during the campaign of Sichon and Og. The RambanBemidbar 32:33About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that the Menashe clans had hesitated to make any requests for settlement, however, once the tribes of Reuven and Gad took that bold step, the clans of Machir followed suit.

Textual Points –

• וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי גָד עָצוּם מְאֹד וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ יַעְזֵר וְאֶת אֶרֶץ גִּלְעָד וְהִנֵּה הַמָּקוֹם מְקוֹם מִקְנֶה... וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן- The Or HaChayyimBemidbar 32:1About R. Chayyim b. Atar understands that this introductory verse with its focus on the word "מקנה", presents the facts and the context, in a very matter of fact way, and not meant as a value judgement. The Tribes’ accumulated wealth, was a function of the military prowess of Reuven and especially Gad, whose reputation –accounts for his name listed first, in most of the chapter.
• עֲטָרוֹת וְדִיבֹן וְיַעְזֵר וְנִמְרָה וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן וְאֶלְעָלֵה וּשְׂבָם וּנְבוֹ וּבְעֹן. - Convention would have dictated first to give the general context before listing the names of cities. Samet⁸³ points out that the verse’s strange sequence and the listing of all the cities, brings to focus the potential danger of many uninhabited cities on the border of Canaan⁸⁴.
• הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה י"י-The AbarbanelBemidbar 32: (3)About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel and Or HaChayyimBemidbar 32:3About R. Chayyim b. Atar claim that by referring to G-d’s help in the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og, R&G are claiming that these lands of Eiver Hayarden have a special status- that they are looked upon favorably by G-d and are extension of the Promised Land.
• ויאמרו אל משה...ויאמרו אם מצאנו חן-The repetition of the word " ויאמרו" while in the middle of an uninterrupted conversation that began in verse 2, is a textual phenomenon that might indicate a break in the continuity of the conversation that will have an impact on the 2nd half of the conversation. AbarbanelBemidbar 32: (4)About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel suggests that Moshe’s lack of a response- his “deafening silence”-(symbolized by the פרשה סתומה) is the break that will cause the Tribes to present their request in a straightforward way, יֻתַּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לַעֲבָדֶיךָ לַאֲחֻזָּה אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן.⁸⁵.
• וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֵלָיו- The AbarbanelBemidbar 32:(5)About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel describes how they came closer to Moshe, as if to whisper in his ear, "במחילות כבודו”, as if to say, “pardon me, sir, but we have a misunderstanding, let’s clarify “ – as does Yehuda before Yosef ⁸⁶.
• כִּי בָאָה נַחֲלָתֵנוּ אֵלֵינוּ - The RambanBemidbar 32:19About R. Moshe b. Nachman implies that this is manner of speaking and not meant to be haughty.
• גדרות צאן נבנה למקננו פה וערים לטפנו....טפנו נשינו מקננוו וכל בהמתנו יהיו שם-The difference in the order of activities need not be a reflection of the Tribes’ misplaced priorities, but rather they represent different settlement strategies- according to the Kli Yakar⁸⁷, to first build fences for the animals on the frontier, as a buffer,while according to the ChizkuniBemidbar 32:17About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, to first secure the families.
• לִבְנֵי גָד וְלִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן יוֹסֵף -Not being the sons of Yaakov, their tribal affiliation goes back to Yosef.

Addendum – Fourteen years later, the mission of the Two and half Tribes’ expeditionary force is successfully fulfilled as recorded in Yehoshua 22. The relief and sense of accomplishment, now, that the Land has been conquered and partitioned, finds expression in the text’s almost poetic use of the adverb," אָז יִקְרָא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לָראוּבֵנִי וְלַגָּדִי וְלַחֲצִי מַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה "⁸⁸. Ironically, the rest of their story also (approach II) leads to a misunderstanding because their intentions are not made clear, and are misperceived! In Yehoshua 22, the text describes how after fulfilling their mission, the two and half Tribes are returning home, and pause at the crossing of the Jordan where it states," וַיִּבְנוּ בְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וּבְנֵי גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ עַל הַיַּרְדֵּן מִזְבֵּחַ גָּדוֹל לְמַרְאֶה ",-“they built there an altar by the Jordan, a great altar to look upon.” ⁸⁹ This caused great consternation among the Bnei Yisrael, who accuse them of מעל"⁹⁰", treachery, for bringing unauthorized offerings. The serious confrontation is resolved only after the Two and half Tribes, clarify their intention that the alter was not meant for offerings but rather, only for a monument to show future generations their role in the Conquest of the Land. Among the booty given to the Two and half Tribes as their share for their part in the Conquest, there included וּבְמִקְנֶה רַב מְאֹד" ⁹¹". This, of course, coincides with their chief economic activity, as described in Bamidbar 32. While the accusation of " מעל" turns out to be mistaken in Yehoshua 22, in Divrei Hayamim I ⁹², that "מעל" is the serious cause of their being deported by Assyria.

¹ See also R" Samet, דברי משה לבני גד ולבני ראובן who does an extensive analysis of the opposing positions of R. Yitzchak Arama and Abarbanel, concluding that R. Arama's approach is the more convincing.

² Malbim explains that the two halves of the verse represent distinct requests. First Reuven and Gad ask to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan (יֻתַּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לַעֲבָדֶיךָ לַאֲחֻזָּה) and then they add a second request, that they not participate in the Conquest (אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן).

³ This is what emerges from Moshe's opening question, "הַאַחֵיכֶם יָבֹאוּ לַמִּלְחָמָה וְאַתֶּם תֵּשְׁבוּ פֹה"?

⁴ When the other tribes would see their brothers already settled safe and sound while they yet faced long and dangerous struggles, they would be filled with jealousy, leading to divisiveness amongst the nation.

⁵ R"E Samet points out that Moshe intentionally uses the same language ("וְלָמָּה [תְנִיאוּן] (תנואון) אֶת לֵב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל") when speaking of Reuven and Gad's actions as when describing the sin of the spies, ("וַיָּנִיאוּ אֶת לֵב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל").  In so doing, he emphasizes how the two sins are identical.

⁶ This could explain why Moshe repeatedly emphasizes that the land that they reject is "הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָהֶם י"י."

⁷ See Tehillim 106:24.

⁸ See also RashiBemidbar 32:7Bemidbar 32:16Devarim 1:4About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki.

⁹ The word "מִקְנֶה" appears four times in the first four verses of the chapter alone.  In addition, the formulation of the opening phrase of the chapter is unique in that it begins with the subject rather than a verb ("וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי גָד" rather than "ויהי מקנה רב..."), further directing the reader’s attention to the two tribes’ accumulated wealth.  R"E Samet (ibid) also points out that the text's choice of the root קנה further focuses the reader on the quality of possession. Moshe, in contrast, prefers to use different language, and speaks instead of the tribes' "צאן".

¹⁰ Bemidbar Rabbah22:6About Bemidbar Rabbah even suggests that these misplaced priorities were the reason they were first to be exiled.

¹¹ See Y. Rosenson, עיונים בפרשניים בספר במדבר‎, (Jerusalem, 2004): 397 who makes this point.

¹² Though the text introduces the tribes' speech in verse two with the word "וַיֹּאמְרוּ", verse 5 seemingly needlessly once again opens "וַיֹּאמְרוּ" despite the fact that no one else speaks in the interim. This textual phenomenon might indicate a break in the continuity of the conversation, in this case a pause in which the tribes are expecting a response by Moshe.   Another example of the phenomenon can be found in Bereshit 16 where three verses in a row open, "'ה‎ וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ".  There, too, one might posit that the angel had been hoping for a response from Hagar; getting none, he was forced to continue talking.

¹³ See Spero, who suggests that while strict authoritarianism would require that Moshe stick to the Divine plan and insist that the tribes settle in Canaan, Moshe had to weigh the possibility of popular rebellion if he refused their request.  In contrast to earlier rebellions, at this point, when Moshe is somewhat of a "lame duck” leader, it would have been much more difficult to assert his authority. See also Seforno.

¹⁴ The tribes only mention Hashem once throughout their speeches, while Moshe invokes His name 7 times in his response (six of which are in verses 20-23 alone).

¹⁵ The Tribes' wealth and military victories over Sichon and Og may have generated a high sense of self confidence leading to a feeling of ‎"‏"כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי and a lack of trust in Hashem. [See RambanBemidbar 32:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman who comments on the military prowess of the tribe of Gad, pointing to Moshe's blessing in Devarim 33:20 (וּלְגָד אָמַר בָּרוּךְ מַרְחִיב גָּד כְּלָבִיא שָׁכֵן וְטָרַף זְרוֹעַ אַף קׇדְקֹד.)  See also Divrei HaYamim I 5:18, "בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְגָדִי וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה מִן בְּנֵי חַיִל אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה".]

¹⁶ Thus, while the tribes say, "נֵחָלֵץ חֻשִׁים לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", Moshe corrects them, "אִם תֵּחָלְצוּ לִפְנֵי י"י לַמִּלְחָמָה", reminding them that "וְנִכְבְּשָׁה הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵי י"י" - the land will be conquered by Hashem, not the nation.  Similarly, in response to their somewhat arrogant statement, "כִּי בָאָה נַחֲלָתֵנוּ אֵלֵינוּ", Moshe tels them atht only after they fight, "וְהָיְתָה הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה לִפְנֵי י"י"

¹⁷ Philo is not very explicit but he has the tribes respond to Moshe, "We, therefore, as we have agreed before, will remain in our ranks and cross over Jordan in complete armour, giving no soldier any excuse for lagging behind", suggesting that they had always planned to join their brothers in the Conquest.

¹⁸ The two halves of the verse do not represent distinct requests, but rather clarify each other.  The tribes ask to settle on the eastern bank (יֻתַּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לַעֲבָדֶיךָ לַאֲחֻזָּה) rather than the left (אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן).

¹⁹ R"E Samet questions that the choice of language "אַל תַּעֲבִרֵנוּ" implies only that they did not want to physically cross into the Land, not that they were rejecting permanent residence.  If they had only meant to say that they do not want to settle in Canaan, they should have said "אל תנחילנו מעבר לירדן" or the like.

²⁰ The verse opens with an unusual formulation in which the object precedes the subject "וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי גָד".  (A more common formulation would have been: "'ויהי לבני ראובן ולבני גד מקנה"). The exceptional ordering leads the reader to focus on the word מקנה which some have interpreted as an implied criticism of the tribes' materialism. [See Bemidbar Rabbah above who uses the verse to criticize the tribes' preference for their sheep over the Land of Israel.]

²¹ See Or HaChayyimBemidbar 32:1About R. Chayyim b. Atar.

²² The tribes’ accumulated wealth was a function of the military prowess of Reuven and especially Gad.  Ramban explains that it is this reputation that accounts for the fact  that his (and not Reuven's) name is listed first in most of the chapter.

²³ Convention would have dictated that the tribes first give the general context of their request before listing the names of cities that were just conquered.

²⁴ See R"E Samet.

²⁵ Note Hashem's words when they embarked on battle, "הָחֵל רָשׁ לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת אַרְצוֹ"‎ (Devarim 2:31-33).

²⁶ See RashiDevarim 1:4About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki on Devarim 1:4 who has Moshe refer to the lands of Sichon and Og as "קצה הארץ".  RambanBemidbar 21:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman on Bemidbar 21:21, similarly states "כי ארץ סיחון ועוג ירושתם של ישראל היתה".  Despite this, Ramban asserts that had it not been for Reuven and Gad's request Moshe would not have settled Sichon's lands, preferring that the entire nation live together, especially as the Western bank had a higher level of holiness. It is not lcear what would have happened to the lands. Ramban maintains that they were to remain barren, and perhaps assumes that they were meant ot be an unsettled, buffer “security zone.”

²⁷ See R"E Samet who writes, "משה רדוף בזיכרון חטא המרגלים, והוא רואה את צלו גם במעשיהם של בני הדור החדש העומד להיכנס לארץ.."

²⁸ Abarbanel compares this to the similar language used when Yehuda approaches Yosef to plead for Binyamin (וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלָיו יְהוּדָה), explaining that there too, the approach was meant to enable a private conversation not heard by others.

²⁹ Ramban points out that the tribe of Gad were especially courageous in battle (as Moshe later says of them in Devarim 33:20: כְּלָבִיא שָׁכֵן וְטָרַף זְרוֹעַ אַף קׇדְקֹד) and this is in fact why they did not fear to settle alone on the eastern bank of the Jordan.

³⁰ Nonetheless, if this was simply a misunderstanding it is not clear why the tribes would feel the need to offer to lead the nation in battle and put themselves more at risk, rather than simply clarify that they had always intended to fight.

³¹ It is not clear if Abarbanel thinks that the tribes were trying to make this argument, or if Abarbanel himself is simply pointing out this benefit.

³² He has Moshe, nonetheless, rebuke them telling them that their plans betray a lack of faith that Hashem will protect their families.  He, thus, tells them to build cities (and not pens) close to the border to show the rest of the nation how they trust in Hashem's salvation.

³³ Although the Torah says about Moshe: "בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בְּמֹתוֹ לֹא כָהֲתָה עֵינוֹ וְלֹא נָס לֵחֹה ", Moshe says of himself, "בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא".

³⁴ Interestingly, in contrast to his position here, in Parashat Yitro, Abarbanel is loathe to criticize Moshe, writing, "Many have already spoken much about this matter, against the master of prophets, suggesting that he was lacking in civic leadership… And this is a lie, for the perfection of his ways demonstrates his knowledge of them. "

³⁵ Since this approach assumes that Moshe was not bothered by the concept of settling the eastern side of the Jordan (only of the possibility that the tribes would not join their brothers in the larger Conquest), it is understandable that he might offer the land to others as well.

³⁶ Their request is not connected to that of Gad and Reuven.  They are not motivated by a desire for grazing land for an abundance of cattle (which is why no cattle is mentioned by them) but by a desire to reclaim lands previously conquered by them.

³⁷ Bamidbar 32.6.

³⁸ Bamidbar 16:1-35.

³⁹ Earlier (Bamidbar 16:1-3),Datan and Aviram, from the tribe of Reuven, created dissent among the people and challenged Moshe's leadership. This tendency by the tribe of Reuven to separate themselves from the rest of Bnei Yisrael, appears again in the Song of Devora (Shoftim 5:15-16), where she criticizes them for not participating in the national effort. Bereshit Rabbah84:20About Bereshit Rabbah incorporates earlier family relationships to illustrate some of the inter- tribal dynamics. He remarks that since Reuven lost his Bechor status to Yosef, and kingship to Yehuda-now, as a tribe, they preferred not to settle with them for it was embarrassing that their younger brothers should rule over him, and so they joined the tribe of Gad in Eiver Hayarden. Gad was the first-born son of Zilpa, the maid of Leah, and so Reuven, the son of Leah, would feel perhaps, less threatened living with them. Helfgot (Tradition 32:2,1998 pp. 119-133) expands on this idea and suggests that as "first-born" sons who loose their unique status, the tribes of Reuven, Gad and Menashe may have feared this as a sign of their being excluded from the  covenantal line and destiny,as was Lot, YIshmael and Esav. By asking to remain  on the eastern  bank of the Jordan, they were attempting to  secede  from the covenantal destiny. Moshe's plea (Bamidbar 32:6) affirms that all the Twelve Tribes are brothers.

⁴⁰ Tehilim 106:24.

⁴¹ Bereshit 15:18.

⁴² Devarim 27:2.

⁴³ Elitzur, Y. and Kil, Y., in Atlas Daat Mikra, Mosad HaRav Kook,Jerusalem, 1993, pp.50-55.

⁴⁴ Moshkowitz, Daat Mikra Bamidbar 32:1, claims that in addition to their portions of spoils of war, R&G had acquired an expertise in raising livestock and offered to buy the livestock from those tribes who were less successful.

⁴⁵ The Ramban on Bamidbar 32:2, comments on the military prowess of the tribe of Gad. This is reflected in Moshe's blessing to them, ולגד אמר ברוך מרחיב גד כלביא שכן וטרף זרוע אף קדקד (Devarim 33:20), and in Divrei Hayamim I 5:18, בני ראובן וגדי וחצי שבט מנשה מן בני חיל אנשים נשאי מגן וחרב ודרכי קשת ולמודי מלחמה. The Tribes' promise to commit an expeditionary force,that is, to be away from their families and engage in warfare for an unlimited period, may seem somewhat reckless.This might explain why Moshe does not include it as one of the conditions of the agreement, rather it is R&G's private commitment.The fact that Moshe assigns three ערי מקלט to the Eiver Hayarden, equal in number to the amount assigned to the entire west side, seems to indicate, according to Rashi on Bamidbar 35:14, a kind of contentiousness to the tribes in Eiver Hayarden. Given all these direct and indirect references to the Tribes' military prowess, it is surprising that Josephus 4 7:3About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews and the Ramban( 32:21), for example, claim that Moshe suspected R&G of faint-heartedness!

⁴⁶ Bamidbar 32:17.

⁴⁷ Spero, S., Who Authorized Israelite Settlement East of the Jordan?.JQR, vol. 35, No.1, 2007, pp. 14-15.

⁴⁸ Bamidbar 16, 17.

⁴⁹ Bamidbar 14:40-45.

⁵⁰ Bamidbar 32:31

⁵¹ Yehoshua 1:12-18, 22:9

⁵² Samet,pp. 7-11.
, אלחנן סמט
"?דברי משה לבני גד ולבני ראובן-ביקורת צודקת או תוצאת אי הבנה"
ישיבת הר עציון -בית המדרש האלקטרוני-פרשת השבוע/ מטות -מסעי

⁵³ Kiddushin 3:4, Bavli 61; On the four components of תנאי כפול, see, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, Hilchot Ishut, halacha 1.

⁵⁴ Bavli Kiddushin 61.

⁵⁵ Bamidbar 32:22.

⁵⁶ Divrei Hayamim I 2:21-23; 7:14-27.

⁵⁷ Moshkovitz, Daat Mikra Bamidbar, note 32ג, page שצ, brings the commentary on Chronicles attributed to a student of Saadia Gaon, published by R.Kirchheim, Frankfurt on Mein, תרלד, page 12 and the Perush HaTora of Yehuda HaChasid, published by רי"ש לנגה, Jerusalem, תשלה. The AbarbanelBemidbar 32About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel suggests that perhaps these lands were originally purchased by Yosef during the years of famine or perhaps they were an inheritance from Machir's Amorite mother.

⁵⁸ Samet, pp. 5-6.

⁵⁹ Bamidbar 32:4.

⁶⁰ Bamidbar 32:25.

⁶¹ .'397רוזנסון, ישראל, עיונים בפרשניים בספר במדבר,תשסד, מכללת אפרתה ע

⁶² Samet, p. 5.

⁶³ Bamidbar 32:5.

⁶⁴ 32:7,8,9,13,15.

⁶⁵ Samet, pp. 7-9.

⁶⁶ Bamidbar 13:18,26,32,33.

⁶⁷ Smilar use of the term can be found Bereshit 24:41, Yehoshua 2:17,20.

⁶⁸ See footnote 22.

⁶⁹ Bamidbar 32:5. Samet pg. 5, argues that had the Tribes originally intended to participate in the Conquest, they would have requested, "אל תנחילנו" ,which is associated with land/inheritance and not "אל תעברנו" ,which is associated with persons.

⁷⁰ Bamidbar 32:6.

⁷¹ Bamidbar 32:31.

⁷² Rashi suggests that Moshe begins his final speech to Bnei Yisrael only after the victory over Sichon and Og, "שיכנס לקצת הארץ", that is, "by entering into at least a part of the Land", Moshe shows that he has the potential to fulfill his mission and bring the people in the Land and therefore, the right to reprove them before they cross the Jordan. In addition, a military victory for Israel against the kingdoms of Sichon and Og will still fear in the Nations, who saw how, up until now, the Bnei Yisrael avoided combat and steered clear of the kingdoms of Adom, Moav and Amon.

⁷³ Devarim 2:31,33.

⁷⁴ Although Eiver Hayarden does not fall into the definition of Canaan and its lands were actually forbidden to conquer because of family ties with Amon and Moav, once those lands were conquered by Sichon and Og, their status changes and become permissible for settlement, and so it states that after the conquest, " ויקח ישראל את כל הערים האלהו וישב ישראל בכל ערי האמרי" (Bamidbar 7:822:622:8About Bemidbar Rabbah21:25). This explains the words of Rav Papa, עמון ומואב טהרו בסיחון (Gittin 38:1). By virtue of their being conquered, these lands, according to some authorities (Sifri Devarim 11:12, Rambam Hilchot Terumot,1:1-2), enjoy a special status, and are obligatory מדרבנן in most מצוות התלויות בארץ. Not to mention the significance of sites in Eiver Hayarden where the Avot recieved Divine revelations, such as Penuel (Bereshit 32:29-31), Machanayim (32:2-3), and Sukkot (33:17).Rashi on Bamidbar 26:54,33:54 claims that the lands of all  twelve Tribes-on both sides of the Jordan-were apportioned  by the גורל-that supernatural mechanism associated with the Inhertance.   According to the MalbimBemidbar 32:2About R. Meir Leibush Weiser on Bamidbar 32:2 and Devarim 2:4, Eiver Hayarden was meant to be part of the original Promised Land, but was "detached" as a result of the Sin of the Spies. The Netziv Bemidbar 32:22Devarim 3:12About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlinon Bamidbar 32:22 and Devarim 3:12, understands that Eiver Hayarden was meant to eventually, be part of the Land, but only after the conquest of Canaan. On the other hand, the lands of Eiver Hayarden are referred to as ארץ טומאה (Yehoshua 22:18). Bemidbar Rabbah 7:8, ranks the lands of Eiver Hayarden as not worthy of the presence of the Shechina.

⁷⁵ Samet pp 5-6.

⁷⁶ MalbimBemidbar 32:19About R. Meir Leibush Weiser Bamidbar 32:19 and AbarbanelBemidbar 32: (6)About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel 32 (6).

⁷⁷ Devarim 34:7.

⁷⁸ Devarim 31:2.

⁷⁹ Bamidbar 20:12.

⁸⁰ see footnote #24.

⁸¹ See footnote #38.

⁸² Spero, pg 13.

⁸³ Samet, page 6.

⁸⁴ Alsheich 32:1 suggests that their mention of the city of נבו as part of their request-the site of Moshe's death-was deliberate to hint that it would not be proper for this site to remain outside the inheritance-it even gets mention in Moshe's blessing to Gad...וירא ראשית לו כי שם חלקת ספון (Devarim 33:21).

⁸⁵ Bamidbar 32:5.

⁸⁶ Bereshit 32:18.

⁸⁷ Bamidbar 32:1.

⁸⁸ Yehoshua 22:1.

⁸⁹ Yehoshua 22:10.

⁹⁰ Yehoshua 22:16

⁹¹ Yehoshua 22:8.

⁹² Divrei Hayamim I 5:25.