The First War as Archetype

Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim.                                       Exodus 17:8

         The first battle fought by the Children of Israel was one of self defense against Amalek. It often happens that the first occurrence of an event serves as the archetype for that event’s recurrence. Indeed, there are practical lessons of the battle of Amalek which bear on Israel’s battles throughout the generations, including the battles of the Israel Defense Force.

       “And fought with Israel at Rephidim:” our Sages understood the place name “Rephidim” to mean “laxness of hands (rifyun yadayim) – the Israelites’ hands were lax in fulfilling Torah.” [Tanḥuma, Beshalaḥ 25] 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 individual coming to 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.

         Moses appointed his disciple Joshua to lead the Israelites’ battle against Amalek, instructing him to “choose men for us,” [v.9] and the first-century sage Rabbi Yehoshua understood Moses’ instruction 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.

            Moses, Israel’s “minister of defense” instructed Joshua, his chief of staff “go out and fight Amalek.” [v.9] Rabbi Yehoshua comments “Moses said to him: ‘go out from the protection of the Clouds of Glory and fight Amalek.’” [Mechilta d’Rebbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, 17:9] ibn Ezra phrases it thus: “leave the camp of Israel to fight against Amalek.” It is perfectly obvious that the battle must be joined outside the Clouds of Glory, which, according to Pirkei d’Rebbi Eliezer [43] protected the Israelite camp “as a city surrounded by a wall, so that no enemy or adversary could reach the Israelites.” The choice of a battleground outside the Israelite camp fits the IDF’s approach that battles are to be fought on the enemy’s soil, not within our borders.

            During the battle, Moses and all Israel were engaged in prayer, as 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.

                “Moses, Aaron and Hur ascended to the top of the hill.” [v.10] 

Lekaḥ Tov expounds:

This was to recall the merit of the Fathers and Mothers, as the verse states: “From the top of the rocks I see them, from the hills I behold them” [Numbers 23:9] (the verse is understood Midrashically to refer to the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, see Targum Yonatan on the verse).               

       Beyond simply expressing an appeal to the merit of the ancestors of Israel, the Midrash implies that the Israelite warrior draws his strength from looking to our past and his appreciation of the fact that he is the legitimate continuity of Jewish history endows him with the strength to fight even against overwhelming odds.

     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. Ultimately, it is the partnership between man and God which allows victory. (my father’s words)

Moses' Mission

And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush and said: “Moses, Moses,” and he said “Here I am.”   Exodus 3:4                                        

Moses’ first prophetic vision, and indeed, his appointment as a prophet took place at the burning bush, at Horev.

Zohar [1:85] notes that prophecy is given only in the Holy Land, and asks how Ezekiel was able to prophesy outside Israel. Zohar offers two answers: since Ezekiel prophesied on the banks of the River Kvar, the water, as it were connected him to the Holy Land; alternatively, Ezekiel’s prophetic career began in the Holy Land [though this is not stated explicitly in the verses] and therefore, he was allowed to continue prophesying even outside the Land.

Based upon the Zohar, Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz questions Moses’ appointment as a prophet. Neither of Zohar’s answers is applicable to Moses. Since the burning bush grew in a desolate area [Shemot Rabba 2:5 comments that just as the bush grew in a waterless place, so the Children of Israel; were bereft of Torah and good deeds], there was no water to connect it to the Land. Since Moses was not privileged to enter the Holy Land, the second answer offered by Zohar cannot explain Moses’ appointment as a prophet.

Rabbi Yehonatan states we are forced to accept the answer suggested by Rabbi Yehuda haLevi in his philosophical magnum opus, Kuzari. Ezekiel and Moses were able to prophesy outside the Land because their prophecies were for the benefit of the Land.

Devarim Rabba [2:8] states that Moses argued with God for the right to be allowed to cross the River Jordan and enter western Eretz Yisrael thus: “You appeared to me at the burning bush … and You have taught ‘one who begins a mitzva must complete it’, and I have begun the mitzva of bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but have not completed the mitzva by bringing them into the Land.”

Moses’ right to be a prophet rests upon the fact that his prophetic mission was to lead the Children of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt for the purpose of bringing them into their Land.

Indeed, this point is stated explicitly in the Torah [and mentioned in the Hagada]: “And He brought us out from there, that He may bring us in, to give us the Land which He swore to our fathers.” [Deuteronomy 6:23]

Connecting the Books

And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household.                                                                 Exodus 1:1

            The initial letter of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Torah, is the conjunctive “vav.” On the simplest level, Exodus continues the story of the descent of Jacob’s family into Egypt.

            However, it is possible to suggest a more specific connection. One of the last matters dealt with in Genesis is Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons, in which he insisted on giving primacy to the younger son, Ephraim over Joseph’s firstborn son, Menashe. We noted in a previous Dvar Torah that the Book of Genesis is replete with sibling rivalry, beginning with Cain and Abel, continuing with Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and culminating in the conflict between Joseph and his brothers. Menashe’s acceptance of his grandfather’s decision that his younger brother will exceed him represents the end of sibling rivalry.

            In Shemot, we are told that Aaron, Moses’ older brother went out to greet his younger brother, who had been appointed by God as the savior of Israel, “with gladness in his heart.” [Exodus 4:14]

            Thus, Aaron’s acceptance of his younger brother’s ascendency over him is the direct continuation of Ephraim and Menashe, and therefore the second book of the Torah commences with the conjunctive “vav.”

Tomorrow

Moses said to Pharaoh, "I give you the honor of setting the time that I should pray for you, and for your servants, and for your people, that the frogs be destroyed from you and your houses, and remain in the river only." "Tomorrow," (maḥar) he answered. Moses replied, "As you have said, so you may know there is no one like the Lord our God.     Exodus 8:5-6

            The word “maḥar” appears seven times in connection with the ten plagues (including once as “mimaḥarat”), and it therefore serves as a “leading word.”

            Maḥar is first spoken by Pharaoh, while the remaining six times the word is spoken by God or by His messenger Moses, in connection with the plagues of arov (“harmful creatures” or swarms of flies [Midrash Shemot Rabba 11:4, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemia, respectively]), [8:19,25] dever, (a plague on the Egyptians’ livestock) [9:5,6] hail [ibid. 18] and locust. [10:5]

            Pharaoh’s response to Moses’ offer to end the plague of frogs seems strange. Since Moses offered the king of Egypt the opportunity to choose the time for ending his nation’s suffering, we would expect Pharaoh’s answer to be “immediately!”

            Rabbeinu Beḥayye explains that Pharaoh assumed that Moses knew “that the time had come for the plagues’ removal, based upon the alignment of the stars,” thus Moses no doubt expected Pharaoh’s answer to be “immediately.” In order to demonstrate, from his perspective, that the plague was not under the control of God and His messenger, Pharaoh asked that the plague be removed the next day.

            Rabbeinu Beḥayye adds that in agreeing to Pharaoh’s request to delay the termination of the plague of frogs until the morrow, Moses demonstrated that the plague was not under the control of the celestial alignment, nor of nature, but God’s power. Indeed, this is Moses’ intention in saying to Pharaoh “So you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God.”

            Rabbeinu Beḥayye’s comments are related to Pharaoh’s first remark to Moses:

Pharaoh replied, 'Who is haShem that I should obey Him and let Israel go? I do not recognize haShem. Nor will I let Israel leave.'                                       [5:2]

            Our Sages understood the name haShem to be composed of “haya hoveh v’yihiyeh” (He was, He is and He will be), and Pharaoh’s declaration denies haShem’s existence in past present and future. “I do not recognize haShem” is stated by Pharaoh in the past tense, but is correctly translated to mean the present as well. The result of this denial is: “Nor will I let Israel leave,” that is, even in the future I will not accept haShem’s existence.

            Therefore, God informed Pharaoh that “tomorrow” is dependent upon His will, for it is He alone who rules past present and future.

Seven Versus Seven

And I have come down to take them out of the hands of the Egyptians, guiding them out of that land into a good and spacious Land, into a Land flowing milk and honey; into the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.                                           Exodus 3:8

            Rebbi Natan, the disciple and successor of Rebbi Naḥman of Braslav, comments that the seven nations of Canaan (of whom only six are mentioned in our verse) hide the sanctity of the Land:

They cover the sanctity of the Land of Israel, hiding the savor of the Land’s sanctity and keeping it secret.

It is our responsibility to reveal the Land’s sanctity.

            The seven nations of Canaan stand opposite the seven species for which the Torah praises the Land:

For the essential praise (of the Land of Israel) is that it is from her that the sublime grace emanates, which is the source of the taste of these fruits. Therefore, in opposition to the seven fruits which convey the praise of the Land, stand the seven Canaanite nations, who prevent the expression of Land’s quality.

            That is, the physical taste of the fruits of the Land of Israel express the Land’s sanctity.

            Based upon this thought, Rebbi Natan explains the wording of our verse:  “guiding them out of that land … into a Land flowing milk and honey; into the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite:”

For the matters are inter-dependent, since in order to conquer and overcome the seven nations, it is necessary to believe in the Land’s praise that it a Land flowing milk and honey; that is, that it exudes the sublime grace, which is the source of the sweetness of the seven species. It is through this appreciation that it is possible to subjugate and conquer all the seven nations, who represent the deterrents to realizing the sanctity of the Land, for the main deterrent is the failure to feel the Land’s sanctity.

            In order to overcome “Canaaniteness” and turn the land of Canaan into the Land of Israel, to reveal the spiritual facet of the Land and its sanctity, it is necessary to appreciate the Land in its physical level, and to understand that the Land’s material aspect expresses her spirituality.

With and Through Our Children

And Moses answered:  With our youth and with our aged will we go, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go…                                                    Exodus 10:9

          The prepositional letter bet, translated as “with”, can also be understood to mean "through". My saintly teacher, HaRav Mordechai Rogov, indeed explained the verse as meaning "through our children shall we go". Moses' answer to Pharaoh's questioning the Israelites' ability to achieve freedom from Egypt was "through our children and our elderly will we go". It is the unity of generations, which provides the strength to overcome all obstacles in the Hebrew's path to freedom. "Through our sons and daughters will we go", as long as the sons and daughters are "ours", are of the same spirit as the older generation, and follow in our belief in God, we will have the power to stay fast in our path and succeed. Moses continued "through our flocks and cattle will we go", so long as the sheep and cattle are ours, to be used in accordance with the divine will, we will be able to leave Egypt to worship God, despite any difficulties which we may encounter.

Brotherly Love versus Sibling Rivalry

Most years, the Haftara of Parashat Toledot is the opening chapter of the prophecies of Malachi, because of the verse [2] which states: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Says God...,” however, this year, since Shabbat is the eve of Rosh Ḥodesh, the haftara is “Maḥar Ḥodesh” [I Samuel 20:14-42]

We can discern a connection between the content of our Parasha and that of the haftara, even if only by contrast.

Among the similarities :

Y Esau is instructed by Isaac to take his bow [Genesis 27:3], while Jonathan fires arrows [I Samuel 20:36-38

Y Each of these biblical stories involves a meal: Isaac instructs that a meal be prepared for him [27:4], and King Saul and his entourage partake of a festive meal in honor of Rosh Ḥodesh [20:24].

Y Each of the stories involves crying: “Esau raised his voice and began to weep” [27:38], while both David and Jonathan cried [20:41]

 Y In each chapter, there is a plot of two conspirators against the father: Rebecca and Jacob against Isaac and Jonathan and David against Saul

Y In each, one of the main characters decides to kill another: “Esau said to himself, 'The days of mourning for my father will be here soon. I will then be able to kill my brother Jacob.'” [27:41], and King Saul decided to execute David [20:30-32]. (And Saul apparently actually tried to kill Jonathan (20:33).)

Y In each of the stories there is a stark contrast: what is beneficial for one of the central characters is decidedly the opposite for another. Isaac informed his first born son: “you will serve your brother,” and Saul informed his eldest son [v. 31] “for all the days that the son of Jesse is alive, you and your kingdom cannot be established.”

The essential difference between the two biblical stories is the abyss of internecine hatred (even if it is not reciprocal, Esau feels and expresses his hatred of his younger twin), versus the lofty love between friends. Jonathan no doubt knew the truth of his father’s words, that as long as David lived, he Jonathan would not reign. Jonathan understood that David’s success meant that he could not ascend to the throne of Israel. Nonetheless, out of his deep love for David, Jonathan acted against his own interest.

This essential difference receives expression in the crying of Esau versus that of David and Jonathan. Esau cried for himself, for his loss of his father’s blessing to Jacob, while Jonathan cried for his beloved friend “because his father had put him to shame.” [v.34] David and Jonathan did not weep for themselves, rather “one for the other.” [v.41]

It is not by chance that our Sages [Pirkei Avot 5:16] cite David and Jonathan as the prime example of love which is independent of anything tangible.