A time of war and national crisis strips away pretenses, exposing the true character of a nation. It presents a stark contrast between absolute self-sacrifice and calculated isolation. During the battle led by Deborah and Barak, this dichotomy is vividly displayed through the actions of two tribes: Issachar, who threw themselves into the fray, and Reuben, who chose to stand on the sidelines.
The primary approach among commentators divides the function of the tribe of Issachar into two distinct roles. The tribal leaders, who were revered sages and scholars, sat alongside Deborah to teach Torah and provide legal guidance to the people. Meanwhile, the rest of the tribe followed Barak's command, descending directly into the battlefield [רש״י, מלבי״ם, אברבנאל]. Despite being spiritual men unaccustomed to warfare, these leaders displayed remarkable courage by personally joining the military campaign [מצודת דוד, רלב״ג]. Their dedication was so profound that they rushed into the valley entirely on foot, forsaking horses or chariots in their eagerness to fight [רד״ק, אברבנאל, מלבי״ם]. Some suggest that Issachar’s scholars even marched ahead of Barak into battle, ensuring they were seen as the leading force rather than merely trailing behind [אלשיך].
On an allegorical level, a contrast is drawn between the profound Torah wisdom of Issachar and the simpler standing of Barak. Deborah would send Barak to the Tabernacle in Shiloh—described metaphorically as a valley due to its lofty, difficult-to-reach spiritual nature. She specifically directed him to go during the pilgrimage festivals, a time when even ordinary individuals could achieve a level of purity and spiritual fellowship comparable to the esteemed scholars of Issachar [אדרת אליהו].
In sharp contrast to Issachar’s total mobilization, the tribe of Reuben chose to remain behind. They separated themselves from the rest of the nation, staying across the Jordan River rather than coming to the aid of their brothers [רד״ק, שטיינזלץ]. This abandonment provoked intense reactions. Many explain that Reuben’s absence generated profound bewilderment, prompting deep searching and attempts to comprehend why they would desert the campaign [מצודת דוד, רד״ק, אברבנאל]. Others view their absence as a source of deep heartbreak and sorrow, a tragedy magnified by the fact that during the days of Joshua, the tribe of Reuben had proudly served as the vanguard leading the camp [מלבי״ם].
However, a more critical perspective attributes their detachment to cunning and deceit. According to this view, Reuben’s division stemmed from cold political calculations; they sat safely on the border, waiting to see who would emerge victorious before deciding which side to join [רש״י]. This absence was not an isolated incident but part of a long historical pattern of factionalism. The tribe had previously separated from the nation during Korah’s rebellion, and later chose to settle outside the Land of Israel purely out of concern for their livestock [אלשיך]. This behavior exposed a deep hypocrisy. While they had argued during Korah’s rebellion that the entire congregation was holy, they ultimately prioritized the grazing lands of the Transjordan over the spiritual elevation found within the Land of Israel [אהבת יהונתן]. It is even possible that their initial choice to settle across the river was a deliberate strategy to evade participation in the nation's wars altogether [אברבנאל].