I. The hurdles to aliyah are not new at all
In our rapidly and radically changing world, more people are staking the unequivocal, categorical claim that all Jews in the Diaspora should pack their bags now! Make aliyah plans now!
I believe that reality remains more nuanced, there being several legitimate reasons not to make aliyah right now, such as: If one’s children are liable to be negatively affected by being uprooted; or other familial obligations, such as aging parents. That said, many are resistant to the notion of aliyah without being able to clearly formulate what lies behind the resistance. A deep dive into last week’s parasha, Matot, illuminates many of the hurdles to making aliyah, which, at their core, are not new at all.
Matot features the exchange between Moses and two-and-a-half tribes of the 12 tribes regarding their future home. The entire Jewish nation was gifted the Land of Israel, but these tribes — Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh — are attempting to wiggle their way out of this privilege, preferring to live outside of the land of Israel. This was but another chapter in the bumpy journey from Egypt to the Promised Land as often our Israelite ancestors tried to undermine this promise of G-d.
The 40 years in the wilderness of Sinai were fraught with tension. Numerous times the people implored Moses to allow them to return to Egypt, seemingly with no regard for the destiny that awaited them in the land of Israel. The majority of these incidents were toward the beginning of their trek in the desert. The worst one, of course, was the incident of the spies, which triggered the punishment of the 40 years in the desert.
The essential idea of the punishment — or natural consequence — was that this earlier generation, which issued continuous criticism of Moses and accepted the spies’ evil unfounded report, should die out. The hope was that this generation’s unwillingness to enter Israel would die out with it (see Ibn Ezra, Numbers 14:13). A fresh wave — the next generation — would come forth, entirely enthusiastic about the proposition of inheriting and settling in the promised land.
But we see that even after the 40 years, many Israelites in the new generation still had qualms about going into Israel! Moses reprimands them for this and, when he compared them to the spies (32:14), he essentially begged for an answer as to how is it that they didn’t learn from the spies’ mistake.
And so the problem persisted, even a thousand years later. When attempting to rebuild the Second Temple, Ezra and Nehemiah had an all but impossible time getting a significant portion of the nation to return to Israel. And more than 2,000 years after that, we find the biggest opportunity to live in Israel for the first time since then.
What has made entering the land of Israel so daunting? Is life outside of Israel so inviting? Is life inside Israel so intimidating? Perhaps a closer look at the narrative of the two-and-a-half tribes and of the incident with the spies can shed some light on these questions.
II. National adventure vs. individual opportunity
The first detail that stands out in the request of the two-and-a-half tribes’ is their frequent mention of their abundance of cattle, their wealth. They already possessed great wealth, and they perceived even greater opportunities to increase it in lands outside of Israel. In fact, as the late Rabbi Avigdor Bonchek pointed out, there is only a single verse among the thousands of verses in the entire Hebrew Bible (Tanach) that begins and ends with the same word. That verse is in Matot, and that word is “livestock.” It conveys the perception of these two-and-a-half tribes. It is a frame, literal and literary, of their lives. Livestock obsesses them. They articulate “livestock” even before mentioning their wives and children.
Sadly, this concern seems to be the central, and perhaps only, reason driving their request to live outside of Israel. These tribes expressed no deeper values, nor a broader vision what would make a limitation on their wealth worth it.
The corollary here is their approach to the tension between personal advancement and national development. Granted, the vast wealth they foresaw east of the Jordan River could be a stepping stone to prominence. No doubt, some of the opportunities that awaited them individually outside of Israel held more promise than those they would likely encounter in Israel.
However, to enter Israel was to be part of something larger, to be a piece in the puzzle that is our national history. It was to help advance something greater than any personal achievement, but at a price. Their personal impact would likely diminish.
To be sure, personal advancement does not necessarily need to be sacrificed in order to be a part of the larger, national picture; yet, it is probable. It is only natural that when one is surrounded by a community that holds the same values and vision as oneself, it becomes much more difficult to distinguish oneself. This is doubly true on the national level, as one common thread connects everyone, but at a cost: the common bond leads everyone to sacrifice some personal potential.
Conversely, when one is unique, standing out amidst one’s surroundings, he will be counted upon to lead. The community will tap into his talents. Increasingly, he will find himself in positions of influence in his community. He will achieve prominence.
The million-dollar question is whether the importance of one’s personal advancement is sufficiently significant to justify not being part of the national picture, not joining the national project. This is not always an easy question to answer.
III. Livestock or life?
A question of values
Another crucial aspect of the two-and-a-half tribes’ mindset is revealed in the way they formulate their request of Moses to stake out their own territory, and the way Moses restates it. The tribes spoke at length (Numbers 32:16-19) about how they would not shirk their duty in conquering Canaan, and would indeed assist their brothers in doing so. Certainly, this is quite admirable, but when we look at Moses’ response (32:20-23), we notice something dramatic.
Moses invokes G-d’s name six times, three of which come in the context of “fighting before G-d,” in contrast to the tribes, who put G-d into the picture a grand total of zero times. Perhaps their omission was conscious, in which case the problem is obvious. If someone chooses to live outside of Israel specifically as an act of running away from
G-d, there clearly is much that needs to be improved.
However, it is plausible that their omission was subconscious.
Deuteronomy (11:12) states that G-d constantly watches over Israel and seeks to make Himself known there. There is an intuitively clearer sense of G-d’s presence in the land of Israel. When it is not only the strictly religious institutions (synagogues, schools) that affect one’s religious life, but also the national political ones (government, courts), then the sense of living in G-d’s shadow is much more comprehensive. It is only in Israel that the Jewish nation can establish a self-governing institution, and only in Israel that it can establish national Jewish courts (batei din).
It is only in Israel that taking a vacation can involve traversing the same mountainous trails that our forefathers did to arrive at the Holy Temple in Jerusalem on three festivals of Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot.
In short, it is nearly impossible for one to live an active life in Israel, engaged and in touch with one’s surroundings, yet shy away from the fact that G-d has made religious demands that one needs to respond to. This broader, sharper sense of G-d’s presence cultivates a sense of self-reinforcing responsibility to follow in G-d’s ways, and a sense of greater accountability if one fails to do so.
The two-and-a-half tribes envisioned their life continuing outside of Israel. I doubt they desired to decrease the awareness of G-d in their lives and therefore chose to live outside of Israel. Rather, I believe that as they chose to live on the other side of the Jordan River, and as they pictured their future there, G-d did not stand out as clearly. It was from this subconscious place that they omitted any mention of G-d as part of the willingness to join the war effort.
On the other hand, to live in Israel was Moses’ deepest yearning. For him, the worst punishment was for G-d to disallow him from entering Israel. He begged G-d to no end to change the verdict, to give him the opportunity to live in Israel. With a mindset like this, Moses couldn’t possibly discuss conquering and living in Israel without constant mention of G-d.
IV. Fear and therisk-reward equation
Going back to the incident of the spies, I believe there is one more fundamental difference between the generation that refused to enter the land of Israel and the next generation that finally did. A look at the spies’ report (Numbers 13:28-33) reveals one primary, underlying reason for their reluctance to move forward.
Fear.
The verses scream, “We’re afraid!”
“There are giants. Then we cannot go there!”
I believe that both the generation that left Egypt and the generation poised to enter Israel 40 years later had the same basic understanding: In Israel lay advantages and benefits that could not be had elsewhere, and presented dangers and risks that did not exist elsewhere.
The difference lies in how the two the older and the younger generations approached the risk-reward equation.
The older generation saw some benefits, but out of an intense fear of what could go wrong, they could not move forward. The younger generation, seeing the identical picture, zoned in on the blessings to be had. Though aware of potential pitfalls, they moved forward out of a deeply rooted trust that they would make it past these obstacles, and come to live their lives in Israel as G-d desired.
Perhaps we can suggest that these last two aspects — the fear of entering Israel and the salience of G-d’s involvement — are directly related. It is probably no coincidence that those tribes that visualized their lives outside of Israel, and consequently didn’t anticipate G-d’s intensive involvement, were those who were afraid to confront the challenges of living in Israel. Those who trusted that there would be Divine involvement had the strength and courage to take the leap and move forward into Israel.
V. Political differences
No doubt, there are also some today who are reluctant to move to Israel due to ideological and political differences.
For such people, those differences are precisely the reason to live in Israel, because as a socially involved citizen, with voting rights no less, anyone can help shape Israel’s values.
As Jenna Harris, a progressive Zionist, recently wrote:
“Why should we abandon the difficult work of holding these contradictions in tension, of teaching our children to love a place fiercely and to question it honestly?
“I cannot see how severing my connection to Israel will do anything to ease the wounds of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Far from being an act of integrity, it feels like cowardice and abandonment.”
VI. History unfoldsbefore our eyes
Taking that plunge into Israel never was easy and never will be. The Talmud (Berachot 5a) says Israel is one of three things acquired through suffering. Some aspects of life outside of Israel are especially inviting, and more aspects of life in Israel are especially intimidating. If this were a math equation, it wouldn’t add up to moving to Israel.
As we know, though, there’s much more than the physical equation involved, and for all the difficulties in moving to and living in Israel, life in Israel ultimately proves to be the most rewarding.
As I hope I made clear, the dilemma of whether to opt for further personal advancement in communal leadership outside Israel versus sacrificing this in order to be deeply integrated into the wider nation of Israel is not a simple matter. Certainly, if someone does not live in Israel, that does not automatically mean one is materialistic, full of fear or less aware of G-d.
It may be easier in Israel to move in the right direction on these matters, but, of course, anyone can make the right choices and move in the right direction anywhere. In fact, it is sometimes easier to maintain one’s religious commitment in a context where few people share that commitment. Contrast can serve as a motivator to uphold one’s unique position, while similarity can lead to apathy.
Ultimately, though, the Jewish nation’s ancestral homeland is Israel. So too, our present and future destiny is in Israel. This was true before Oct. 7 and it remains true after Oct. 7. May we be blessed to live in Israel, taking an active role in shaping the historical times that continue to unfold before our eyes.
© IJN 2025
