Here is the blessing to Reuven at Deuteronomy 33:6: “Yechi Reuven veal yamot, viyehi metav mispar.” Those last two words mean “few in number.” The similar expression “metei mispar” appears five times in Tanach: at Genesis 34:30, Deuteronomy 4:27, Jeremiah 44:28, Psalms 105:12 and Chronicles 1, 16:19. It is evident in each case that the meaning is “few in number.” It is when individuals are few in number that they are countable.

When the Tanach wants to refer to something as numerous, it refers to it as “not being able to be counted.” See, e.g., Genesis 16:10. “Metim” means “men.” (Its singular, not in Tanach, would probably be מת—“mat.”) “Metav” means “his men.” (“Metei” means “their men.”)

A prayer for a tribe to be few in number sounds like a request for a dim future for the tribe. It would be very easy for this statement to be interpreted as a continuation of Yaakov’s negative feelings towards the tribe expressed in Genesis 49:4. The message here would be that the tribe should survive but not flourish. But 33:6 is part of a section of blessings by Moshe. “Bracha” has a positive connotation. Moreover, if we look at what was said to the other tribes here, they all seem to be positive statements. Therefore, almost all traditional interpreters and scholars try to figure out a way to turn our phrase into a positive statement—or at least a non-negative one.

Here are some of their attempts:

The statement is merely a prophetic one—not a prayer or blessing.

Asking for the tribe to live and not die is a blessing on some minimal level.

The request is that Reuven not be few in number. One should read ואל as applying to the second phrase as well. (E.g., Rabbi Saadia, Ibn Ezra, King James Bible and Daat Mikra.)

(There are other verses in Tanach with a negative that need to be read this way. But in this section of blessings divided into stitches, this interpretation is unlikely.)

Insert the word “though.” See, e.g., JPS Commentary (1996, Jeffrey H. Tigay): “May Reuben live and not die, though few be his numbers.” See similarly Ralbag and “The Living Torah.” (But was the tribe of Reuven really few in numbers? At the last census, its count was 43,730. Shimon had less with 22,200, as did Ephraim with 32,500 and Gad with 40,500.)

Insert the words “in that.” See the 1917 JPS of America translation (included in the top in the Hertz Chumash): “Let Reuben live and not die in that his men become few.” Here are the comments by R. Hertz: “Living in Transjordania, he was exposed to constant attacks from numerous enemies,” —

“May his population be included in the count.” This is the translation offered by the ArtScroll Stone Chumash, following Rashi. Something like this is found earlier in the various Targumim. The explanation is that Jacob had been angry at Reuven. The prayer by Moshe now is that the tribe be forgiven and that Reuven always be counted and share an equal portion as a tribe (even though not the double portion that a first-born is usually entitled to). See similarly the end of Rashi on Genesis 35:22.

Nachmanides advocates for the above interpretation and suggests that מספר can be read as if it were במספר. He writes that there are many other examples in Tanach of a letter ב that needs to be read in. For example, at Exodus 30:20, “yirchatzu mayim“ obviously means “yirchatzu bemayim.” If our word can be read as במספר, we are no longer dealing with that idiom of “few in number.”

The tribe should have the right to be counted first in a census.

The tribe shall succeed when crossing the Jordan to fight for the other tribes, and shall not lose any of its members. (Many suggest this. The “live” and “not die” can refer to these upcoming battles.)

The tribe should always have a large population and strength so that it will always merit being counted as an independent tribe and not be considered טפל (secondary) to another tribe and omitted (like Shimon was here). This approach is taken by Shmuel David Luzzatto, even though he realizes that elsewhere in Tanach our phrase is a way of referring to a small population.

“Its worthless, ignoble members at all times would be…few in number.” This is the interpretation of Rav S.R. Hirch who takes “metav” to be a reference to “worthless, ignoble individuals.” (It never has such a meaning elsewhere.) Malbim is similar. He claims the reference is to weak men who are unfit for battle. (He attempts to derive this meaning of the word from Deuteronomy 2:33-34.) Daat Mikra also mentions the “weak men” approach here. See also Daat Mikra to Deuteronomy 2:34 and Isaiah 41:14. (But Shmuel David Luzzatto—on Deuteronomy 2:34—claims “metim” fundamentally means “strong” men!)

It is also possible to interpret this section of Moshe’s blessings as beginning with one negative statement, this one, followed by the remaining statements which are all positive ones.

After all that, what do I think? (I wish I still had my friend Sam Borodach, zt”l, to discuss this with!) I am going to think about this more and decide the likeliest interpretation in a future article.

—————

What did happen to the tribe of Reuven? From Chronicles 1, 5:26, we learn that Tiglath Pileser—king of Assyria—exiled the tribes of Reuven, Gad and (half tribe of) Menashe. This would have been in the 730s BCE.

What about prior to that? According to the Mesha Stele (a Moabite monument), the Moabites reclaimed many territories on the east side of Jordan, in the second part of the 9th century BCE. The Stele mentions the Moabites fighting against the tribe of Gad but does not mention the tribe of Reuven, even though we would have expected it to. This would suggest that the tribe of Reuven may no longer have been recognizable as a separate tribe at this time. Even if it was, the outcome of this war would seem to have left it without a territory of its own.

—————

Going back to our words, “metim/ metei/metav,” isn’t it surprising that a word with root letters מת refers to individuals who are alive, despite the fact that מות means “to die?” The truth is that we have this phenomenon already in some of the Indo-European
languages. For example, in English, we have the word “mortal” which is derived from “mort—death.” These English words are derived from Latin, where “mori—die,” “mors—death” and “mortalis—mortal.” The explanation is that man has always been viewed as a frail creature that will die eventually. This is in contrast to the ancient gods, who were believed to live forever. Another Indo-European language reflecting this belief is Greek. Here, “thanatos” is the word for “death,” and “thnitos” is the word for “mortal.”

In Deuteronomy 33:6, we have both our מת words in the same sentence! Of course, this may just be wordplay and the roots may not be connected. But, maybe, there is a connection in Hebrew (and not necessarily the same connection as the one above). This remains a profound mystery!

While still alive, Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. After that, he hopes his address will be something like [email protected] and hopefully not: [email protected].