The Protopypical War

Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim.
                                                            Exodus 17:8
   The battle against Amalek, described at the end of Parashat Beshalaḥ, was the first the nation of Israel was forced to fight.
 Often, the first occurrence of an event serves as the prototype for repetitions of that event, and indeed, there are practical and contemporary lessons of the battle against Amalek.
Moses appointed his closest disciple, Joshua as the military commander; the greatest student of the pre-eminent rabbi of all generations was not instructed to cloister himself in the study hall, but to lead the Israelite warriors into battle. Beyond this, Rashi [commentary on 17:12], quoting Mechilta, notes that it was Moses himself who should have led the Israelite army into battle! Because Israel’s faithful shepherd was lax in performing the mitzva, his hands became heavy. According to this, rather than delegating the task of leadership in the battle to his student, Moses himself, the gadol hador, the greatest of his generation (and all generations) should have gone out to fight against Amalek.
Moses instructed Joshua to “choose men for us,” [Exodus 17:9] which the first-century sage Rabbi Yehoshua understood to mean “choose brave men who fear sinning.” [Lekaḥ Tov, Exodus 17:9] Yonatan ben Uziel translates “men who are brave and strong in fulfillment of mitzvot.” Alshikh (16^th century) comments that our verse refers to righteous men. The ideal Israelite/Jewish fighter combines bravery and righteousness.
The mitzva in whose performance Moses was “lax” is fighting Amalek, which is defined as a mandatory war (milḥemet mitzva), as Maimonides writes in Sefer haMitzvot [Positive Mitzva 188]. Yet, even if fighting Amalek were not a specific mitzva, Israel’s first battle would still have been a milḥemet mitzva, as Maimonides codifies the definition of a mandatory war to include “a war fought to save Israel from an oppressor who attacks them.” [Laws of Kings and Their Wars 5:1] Without question, the wars and battles the I.D.F. has been and is forced to fight are subsumed in Maimonides’ definition of milḥemet mitzva.
Though Moses did not join the battle, he did participate actively by ascending to the top of a hill with Aaron and Hur, raising his hand so that “It came to pass that when Moses raised his hand, Israel would prevail, and when he would lower his hand, Amalek would prevail.” [17:11] Our Sages [Mishna, Rosh haShana 3:8] note that Moses’ hand did not have the power to determine the outcome of the battle, rather ”As long as Israel turned their eyes upward and subjugated their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed, and if not they fell.” In essence, not only Moses did his part in the battle, but all of Israel participated, some in actual battle, others in prayer. Pirkei d’Rebbi Eliezer describes: “The Israelites went out of their tents and saw Moses kneeling and bowing on his knees, and they knelt and bowed on their knees; they saw him fall on his face, and they fell on their faces; they saw him raise his hands to heaven and they raised their hands to heaven.” Mechilta d’Rebbi Shimon bar Yoḥai [17:12] adds that the entire congregation fasted throughout the day of battle, teaching that even civilians on the home front have an important role in determining the outcome of the campaign on the field of battle.
 The inescapable conclusion and perhaps the essential lesson of the Israelites’ first battle is that physical strength is not sufficient to provide victory. The spiritual dimension, awareness of God’s protection of His people, must be added to the army’s physical prowess in order to achieve victory. In my father’s words, ultimately, it is the partnership between man and God which allows victory. The second indispensible requirement for Israel’s victory is national unity.
Indeed, our Sages understood the name of the battleground “Rephidim” to mean “laxness of hands (rifyun yadayim) – the Israelites’ hands were lax in fulfilling Torah” [Tanḥuma, Beshalaḥ 25]; hinting at the necessity of the spiritual component necessary for Israel’s victory. Kli Yakar adds that the name also implies internal disunity (pirud - detachment) within Israel, and explains that the detachment from God prevented the Israelites being saved by a miracle, while the internal disunity prevented the natural salvation of the individual coming to the aid of his comrade, since they were detached from each other. Indeed, until this day, the two keys to Israel’s victory are loyalty to God’s word and national unity. Thus, the name of the battleground conveys hints of each of the necessary components for Israel’s victory in battle.

 

               

Man and Tree

Rabbi Yisrael Ḥayyim Friedman (1868-1922) quotes the first Rebbe of Vishnitz, who related the comment of his father-in-law, Rabbi Yisrael of Ruzhyn; that the custom of ẓadikim was to wear holiday clothes on Tu biShvat, the “New Year for trees,” since “Man is the tree of the field.” [Deuteronomy 20:19]

The Talmud [Ta’anit 7a] wonders “Is man truly the tree of the fields?” The late Lubavitcher Rebbe comments that the Talmud’s intention is that the comparison between man and tree is not merely a partial or secondary description of what man is, but an expression of man’s essence – “Man is the tree of the field.” It is this equivalence between man and tree which brings us to celebrate the New Year for trees.

However, it is necessary to understand the connection between man, who is not only of the animal world, but a speaker as well, and therefore two levels above trees, which belong to the vegetative world. The Rebbe explains that in the vegetative world, plants must always have their roots connected to the source of their nurture, the soil. Should a plant be disconnected from its source it will cease growing. In contrast to plants, members of the animal world, all the more so of the speaking world, are not always connected to their source and continue to grow and develop independently. Within the plant world, the uniqueness of trees is that their existence is not ended when they yield fruit and that they are able to survive the change of seasons, continuing to exist winter and summer. This attribute of trees indicates the strength of their connection to their life source, which allows them to survive the seasonal changes and grow and thrive from year to year.

Based upon the Rebbe’s comments, we can understand that one of the practical lessons of the comparison between trees and man is that we must constantly remain connected to the sources of our spiritual lives, Torah and mitzvot, and, if you will, to the holy soil of the Land of Israel out of which the nation was hewn.

Based upon the verse “For like the days of the tree are the days of My people” [Isaiah 65:22], Rabbi Adin Even-Yisrael (Steinsaltz) focuses the point, noting that the comparison between man and tree applies primarily to the nation of Israel, God’s chosen nation.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe notes an additional aspect of the distinction between trees and grain: “In planting grain, what grows is of the same essence as the seeds which were planted, only greater in quantity; one who plants hands-full reaps bushels-full.” However, in planting trees, “what grows is vastly greater than the seed which was planted.” With the growth of fruits of the tree, “in addition to the increase in quantity there is a new quality.”

For us to be truly comparable to trees, it is incumbent that we strive to improve ourselves not only quantitatively, but qualitatively; that is in the spiritual realm.

 

Looking Forward and Looking Back

At that time that Judah went down from his brothers, and he turned away to an Adullamite man, named Ḥirah. Genesis 38:1

            Our Sages noted that the story of Judah and Tamar connects to the previous and subsequent parashot.

            Thus states Midrash Lekaḥ Tov:

(Rabbi Eliezer) says the verse connects between going down and going down; Rabbi Yoḥanan says it connects “please recognize” and “please recognize;” Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says it connects the matter of Tamar and the matter of the wife of Potiphar.

            The description of Judah as “going down from his brothers” can be understood simply in a geographic sense, but Rabbi Eliezer turns our attention to the words as meaning Judah’s status within his family was diminished as the result of the sale of Joseph, as Rashi comments:

This teaches that Judah’s brothers demoted him from his lofty position when they saw their father’s distress. They said “You told us to sell him; had you told us to return him, we would have obeyed you.”

            Rabbi Yoḥanan notes the use by both parashot of the words “please recognize.” Joseph’s brothers said to their father: “Please recognize whether it is your son's coat or not." [37:32] It is not by chance that Tamar addresses the same words to Judah: “"Please recognize whose signet ring, cloak, and staff are these?" [38:25]

            Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yoḥanan see the connection between the two parashot as looking back to the sale of Joseph, while Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani sees the connection looking forward to what will happen when Joseph is enslaved in Egypt, to the matter of the wife of Potiphar. [39:7ff.]

             Lekaḥ Tov notes an additional connection between Judah and Tamar and the sale of Joseph. Joseph’s brothers slaughtered a kid and dipped Joseph’s coat into its blood [37:31], while Judah promised to send Tamar (whom he did not know to be his daughter-in-law, but thought to be a prostitute) a kid as payment for her services. [38:17] Lekaḥ Tov comments:

Judah distressed his father with a kid, and Tamar distressed Judah with a kid.

            Quite clearly, Lekaḥ Tov saw great significance in the common usage of words and phrases in the stories of Joseph’s sale as a slave and Judah and Tamar. It seems that the message is that both parashot are parts of the same spectrum which is guided by He Who foresees history from the onset towards achieving redemption. Both instances involve a situation which is apparently not at all positive, and yet through this problematic situation, the process blossoms. This concept is clearly expressed in the words of Breishit Rabba [85:5]:

“At that time” – Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman expounded “For I know the thoughts:” [Jeremiah 29:11] – the tribes (i.e., Jacob’s sons) were occupied with the sale of Joseph, Joseph was occupied with his sackcloth and fasting (due to his situation), Reuven was occupied with his sackcloth and fasting (in repentance for the matter of Bilha [Genesis 35:22]), Jacob was occupied with his sackcloth and fasting (mourning the presumed death of Joseph), Judah was occupied with taking a wife; while the Holy One, blessed be He, was occupied with creating the illumination of the Messiah.

“At that time:” “Before she labored she gave birth,” [Isaiah 66:7] prior to the birth of the first subjugator, the ultimate redeemer was born. “At that time,” what is written above? “And the Midianites sold him to Egypt.” [Genesis 37:36, the verse immediately preceding ours].

 

 

Names and Anonymity

A man of the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi.         Exodus 2:1

            It is interesting to note that the participants in the story of the birth of Moses and his salvation as an infant are not named: a man of the house of Levi, a daughter of Levi, his sister [v. 4], the daughter of Pharaoh [v. 5], despite the fact that all their names are known. Perhaps it is ironic that this appears in the second chapter of the Book of Shemot (the literal meaning is “names”).

            Indeed, Rabbi Ḥayyim Paltiel (one of the later Tosafists, mid-13^th – early 14^th centuries) expresses his astonishment over this point and leaves the question with the comment “It requires reflection.”

            We may suggest that the anonymity of the participants in the story is intended to convey the message that they are not the true doers, rather everything is in the hands of God’s providence, and the participants are merely His means for realizing the Divine plan of the birth of the savior of Israel.

Indeed, Zohar [Shemot 11b] writes;

“And a man went” – this is Amram, “And married a daughter of Levi” – this is Yocheved; the Divine voice descended and instructed Amram to mate with Yocheved, since the time for the salvation of Israel by the son they would bear approached.

In a bolder comment, Zohar elucidates:  “Another thing, ‘And a man went’ – this is the Holy One, blessed be He.”

            Certainly according to Zohar’s latter statement, Amram and Yocheved are merely God’s tools to bring the savior of Israel into the world.

            This suggestion highlights the contrast between the description of Moses’ birth and his conversation with God at the burning bush. After asking God “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should take the children of Israel out of Egypt?” [Exodus 3:11], the second question the Master of all Prophets, was “(When) they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?” [ibid. v. 13] God’s answer to Moses was “Say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you' … This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation." [ibid. vs. 14-15]

            The names of the human actors who carry out the Divine program are not important; the only significant name is that of He Who plans and executes the program.

Nursing the World

And she said, "Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children, for I have borne a son to his old age!"

                                                                                   Genesis 21:7

            Our Sages raised the question which begs asking: since Sarah gave birth to one son only, why does she speak of nursing children?

            Thus the Babylonian Talmud presents its answer:

“Nurse children” - How many children then did Sarah nurse?  Rabbi Levi said: “On the day that Abraham weaned his son Isaac, he made a great banquet, and all the peoples of the world derided him, saying, 'Have you seen that old man and woman, who brought a foundling from the street, and now claim him as their son! And what is more, they make a great banquet to establish their claim!' What did our father Abraham do? He went and invited all the great men of the age, and our mother Sarah invited their wives. Each one brought her child with her, but not the wet nurse, and a miracle happened with our mother Sarah, her breasts opened like two fountains, and she nursed them all.” [Bava Metzia, 87a]

            Pesikta Rabbati [43] (edited during the Gaonic period) presents the result of Sarah having nursed all the children:

All those who convert to Judaism throughout the world and all God-fearing people within the world are the descendants of those who nursed the milk of Sarah.

            It seems that the comment of Pesikta is connected to the significance of the change of name from Sarai to Sarah [Genesis 17:15], as Midrash Agadda explains:

“You shall not call her name Sarai” – Sarai implies (that she is the mistress) of her nation only, "for Sarah is her name” indicating that (she is mistress) of the entire world.

That is, the name change indicates that our first matriarch will have universal influence. Indeed, according to Pesikta’s comment, Sarah influenced “all those who convert and all God-fearing people,” influence which encompasses the entire world and all of time.

The Darkness of Hell

The Lord said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the heavens, and there will be darkness over the land of Egypt, a darkness that can be felt."                                                 Exodus 10:21

Where did this darkness come from? Rabbi Neḥemiah says it was the darkness of hell, as the verse states: “A land of darkness like darkness itself; the shadow of death without orders, and where the light is as darkness.” [Job 10:22]                             Shemot Rabba 14:2

            One of the Ḥassidic Masters commented that the greatest hell is the gap between what a person can be and that which he is in fact. Perhaps this is related to the Egyptian’s inability to arise from their places during the days of darkness, as the verse states:

And for three days they did not move from where they were. [v. 23]

            During three days of the darkness, the Egyptians were unable to move, as Rashi comments:

One who sat could not arise and one who stood could not sit.

            The darkness of hell which descended upon Egypt and the Egyptians did not allow the Egyptian to change himself at all and indeed highlighted the chasm between his moral and ethical potential and what he was in practice.