JULY 13 • 2023 | 61

understood the proposal and they are 
ready to stand by it. He extracts from 
them agreement to a tenai kaful, a double 
condition, both positive and negative: If 
we do this, these will be the consequences, 
but if we fail to do this, those will be the 
consequences. He asks that they affirm 
their commitment. The two tribes agree. 
Conflict has been averted. The Reubenites 
and Gadites achieve what they want but 
the interests of the other tribes and of the 
nation as a whole have been secured. It is 
a masterclass in negotiation.
The extent to which Moses’ concerns 
were justified became apparent many 
years later. The Reubenites and Gadites 
did indeed fulfil their promise in the 
days of Joshua. The rest of the tribes 
conquered and settled Israel while they 
(together with half the tribe of Manashe) 
established their presence in Transjordan. 
Despite this, within a brief space of time 
there was almost civil war.
Chapter 22 of the Book of Joshua 
describes how, after returning to their 
families and settling their land, the 
Reubenites and Gadites built “an altar to 
the Lord” on the east side of the Jordan. 
Seeing this as an act of secession, the 
rest of the Israelites prepared to do battle 
against them. Joshua, in a striking act 
of diplomacy, sent Pinchas, the former 
zealot, now man of peace, to negotiate. He 
warned them of the terrible consequences 
of what they had done by, in effect, 
creating a religious center outside the 
Land of Israel. It would split the nation 
in two.
The Reubenites and Gadites made it 
clear that this was not their intention at 
all. To the contrary, they themselves were 
worried that in the future, the rest of the 
Israelites would see them living across the 
Jordan and conclude that they no longer 
wanted to be part of the nation. That is 
why they had built the altar, not to offer 
sacrifices, not as a rival to the nation’s 
Sanctuary, but merely as a symbol and a 
sign to future generations that they, too, 
were Israelites. Pinchas and the rest of the 
delegation were satisfied with this answer, 
and once again civil war was averted.

PRINCIPLES OF NEGOTIATION
The negotiation between Moses and the 
two tribes in our parshah follows closely 

the principles arrived at by the Harvard 
Negotiation Project, set out by Roger 
Fisher and William Ury in their classic 
text, Getting to Yes. Essentially, they 
came to the conclusion that a successful 
negotiation must involve four processes:
Separate the people from the problem. 
There are all sorts of personal tensions in 
any negotiation. It is essential that these 
be cleared away first so that the problem 
can be addressed objectively.
Focus on interests, not positions. It is 
easy for any conflict to turn into a zero-
sum game: If I win, you lose. If you win, 
I lose. That is what happens when you 
focus on positions and the question 
becomes, “Who wins?” By focusing not 
on positions but on interests, the question 
becomes, “Is there a way of achieving 
what each of us wants?”
Invent options for mutual gain. This 
is the idea expressed halachically as zeh 
neheneh vezeh neheneh, “Both sides 
benefit.” This comes about because the 
two sides usually have different objectives, 
neither of which excludes the other.
Insist on objective criteria. Make sure 
that both sides agree in advance to the use 
of objective, impartial criteria to judge 
whether what has been agreed has been 
achieved. Otherwise, despite all apparent 
agreement, the dispute will continue, both 
sides insisting that the other has not done 
what was promised.
Moses does all four. First, he separates 
the people from the problem by making 
it clear to the Reubenites and Gadites 
that the issue has nothing to do with 
who they are, and everything to do with 
the Israelites’ experience in the past, 
specifically the episode of the spies. 
Regardless of who the 10 negative spies 
were and which tribes they came from, 
everyone suffered. No one gained. The 
problem is not about this tribe or that but 
about the nation as a whole.
Second, he focused on interests, not 
positions. The two tribes have an interest 
in the fate of the nation as a whole. If 
they put their personal interests first, God 
will become angry and the entire people 
will be punished, the Reubenites and 
Gadites among them. It is striking how 
this negotiation contrasts so strongly to 
the dispute with Korach and his followers. 
There, the whole argument was about 

positions, not interests — about who was 
entitled to be a leader. The result was 
collective tragedy.
Third, the Reubenites and Gadites 
then invent an option for mutual gain. 
If you allow us to make temporary 
provisions for our cattle and children, 
they say, we will not only fight in the 
army. We will be its advance guard. We 
will benefit, knowing that our request 
has been granted. The nation will benefit 
by our willingness to take on the most 
demanding military task.
Fourth, there was an agreement on 
objective criteria. The Reubenites and 
Gadites would not return to the east bank 
of the Jordan until all the other tribes 
were safely settled in their territories. And 
so it happened, as narrated in the book of 
Joshua:
“Then Joshua summoned the 
Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe 
of Manashe and said to them, ‘You have 
done all that Moses the servant of the 
Lord commanded, and you have obeyed 
me in everything I commanded. For a 
long time now — to this very day — you 
have not deserted your fellow Israelites 
but have carried out the mission the 
Lord your God gave you. Now that the 
Lord your God has given them rest as He 
promised, return to your homes in the 
land that Moses the servant of the Lord 
gave you on the other side of the Jordan.’” 
Joshua 22:1-4
This was, in short, a model negotiation, 
a sign of hope after the many destructive 
conflicts in the book of Bamidbar, as well 
as a standing alternative to the many later 
conflicts in Jewish history that had such 
appalling outcomes.
Note that Moses succeeds not because 
he is weak, not because he is willing 
to compromise on the integrity of the 
nation as a whole, not because he uses 
honeyed words and diplomatic evasions, 
but because he is honest, principled and 
focused on the common good. We all 
face conflicts in our lives. This is how to 
resolve them. 

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948-2020) was a 

global religious leader, philosopher, the author of 

more than 25 books and moral voice for our time. His 

series of essays on the weekly Torah portion, entitled 

“Covenant & Conversation” will continue to be shared 

and distributed around the world.

