Year: 2019

Milchemes Reshus, Milchemes Mitzva, and War of VENGEANCE

Matot: The War Against Midyan: Classic War Of Vengeance

We find in Parshat Mattot, that when Pinchas and the Israeli army return from battling Midyan (after the Midyanite women caused Israel to sin), Moshe angrily questions Pinchas: “Have you saved all the women alive?!” Concerning this, the Ramban quotes the “Sifri”: “Pinchas answered Moshe: As you commanded us, so we did!”

The Ramban then asks the following: Nowhere in the Torah do we find that Moshe commands whom to kill and whom to leave alive. If so, what did Pinchas mean, “as you commanded us, so we did”? If Pinchas was given explicit instructions by Moshe whom to kill, surely he would have carried out the orders. What then happened here? That is, what is Moshe’s complaint, and what is Pinchas’s response?

Ramban’s answer to this question is that a misunderstanding occurred. Pinchas assumed that this war was the same as any other obligatory war (“Milchemet Mitzvah”) or permissible war (“Milchemet Rishut”), whose laws are outlined in Deuteronomy 20:10. In most of these wars, only males are to be killed (with the exception of obligatory wars against Amalek or against the nations who dwelled in the land previously, where all are to be killed including women and children). We can now understand what Pinchas meant when he said, “as you commanded, so we did.” He meant, as you commanded us in the Torah.

Circumstances Determine the Reaction

And so when Moshe saw that Israel left the females alive, he explains, “Behold, these (specifically the females) caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Bilaam, to revolt against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.” Moshe is teaching us a vital lesson here: There is another category of war – a war of vengeance. As opposed to the regular wars (both permissible and obligatory), where the laws are pre-set regarding who is to killed or spared (see Rambam, Laws of Kings, Chapter 6), the wars of vengeance are a direct response to what was done to Israel. It takes into consideration specific actions of the enemy in the past. Therefore, the way in which the enemy is treated varies from one war to another, depending on the specific circumstances. In the case of the war against Midyan, which was fought to avenge what the women of Midyan did, it would have been proper for the Jewish army to make the women of Midyan the very first victims. And so, we have learned a principle regarding a “war of vengeance” – that the type of vengeance which is exacted depends on what or who is being avenged.

“As They Did to Me, So I Do to Them”

This same concept appears in the form of Shimshon HaGibor (the mighty Samson) who avenged the honor of Israel. In the book of Judges, we learn that when the men of Judah come to arrest Shimshon and hand him over to the Philistines, they inquired to know why he terrorizes the Philistines so. Shimshon answered: As they did to me, so I do to them. (Judges 15:11) In other words: Measure for measure. This is similar to what the prophet Shmuel says to Agag, the Amalekian King, as he takes him out to be executed: “Just as your sword made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women”. (Shmuel 1, 15:33) It is incumbent upon the haters of Israel to know: Punishment will be exacted from them precisely according to the measure they oppress Israel!!

Such is the case with King David, warrior and conqueror. Our sages tell us that David’s war against the nation of Moav was retribution for the killing of David’s parents and brothers by the King of Moav after David had sent his family there when he fled Saul. His subsequent treatment of the Moavites was quite unconventional: “David measured his captives with a rope, laying them down on the ground and measuring two rope lengths to be put to death, and one rope length to be kept alive…” The commentator Radak explains: “It was an act of revenge and humiliation.” Once again, we see that treatment of the enemy during a war is tailored according to the circumstances at hand.

Israel’s Revenge = G-d’s Revenge

It is imperative to understand the concept of revenge in depth, especially in this generation when alien westernized culture has seeped into the yeshiva halls, turning the awesome concept of revenge into a dirty word. As opposed to personal revenge between one Jew against another, which is wrong and falls under the heading, “thou shall not take revenge”, here we are dealing with revenge by Israel against her enemies. This is not a personal matter! It is a matter of sanctifying G-d’s Name! You may ask: What does vengeance have to do with sanctifying G-d’s Name? This is what our sages ask, too. We find in our parsha, that when G-d appears to Moshe, He tells him, “take vengeance for the children of Israel against Midyan.” However, when Moshe relays the orders to Israel, he says, “arm men to inflict G-d’svengeance against Midyan.” Nu, so which is it? G-d’s revenge, or Israel’srevenge? Rashi answers the riddle: “Those who fight against Israel, it is as if they fight against G-d Himself.” It’s that simple. Since the nation of Israel is G-d’s Chosen Nation and His representative in the world, when someone hurts or degrades them, the name of G-d is desecrated. Revenge is not a primitive or Fascist matter, it is a lofty matter of Kiddush Hashem!

Moshe’s Craving…

Now we can understand why Moshe was so furious when the Midyanite women were kept alive. When the desecration of G-d’s Holy Name is at stake, there is no time to waste! Our sages teach: “Moshe craved to see vengeance taken against Midyan before his death.” When he saw that the vengeance he craved was not completed, he became furious. The sages continue: “If Moshe wanted to live a few more years, the power was in his hands. G-d had said to him, take vengeance, and then you will gathered amongst your people. The Torah stipulates Moshe’s death on his taking revenge against Midyan. This is to teach you Moshe’s greatness. He said, so that I shall live shall I delay the vengeance of Israel?!” (BaMidbar Raba 22:2)

From Kahane Resources, here.

אל תבזבז את המחשבה

משלי ס”פ י”ז:

חושך אמריו יודע דעת יקר רוח איש תבונה.

ביאור הגר”א:

חושך וגו’, מי שמונע אפי’ דבריו הנצרכים לו הוא דעת יקר רוח, כלומר מי שאצלו יקר אף מחשבה שאינו רוצה לבטלה הוא איש תבונה.

Judaism: Fighting TODAY’S War

Responding To The Times

By Rabbi Yaacov Haber

There was once a Chasidic Rebbe known as the ‘Rebbe Ha’Katan’. He was six years old when he inherited the mantle of the rebbe. Because of his age, he was assigned an uncle, a great person in his own right, to guide and teach him until he was ready to take over the full mantle of leadership.

His uncle once found him packing a suitcase on a Friday morning and asked the young Rebbe where he was going. The young Rebbe explained that he had just received an urgent message from a poor farmer in an isolated area. The message said that his only cow, the only means of the family’s sustenance, was due to give birth that Shabbos. He therefore requested that the Rebbe come to spend Shabbos to pray for the well-being of the cow.

The astonished uncle explained that the custom of the great Chasidic Rebbes was never to travel anywhere on Erev Shabbos. “In any case,” asked the uncle, “why can’t you just daven for the cow from here!?”

The young Rebbe responded: “I understood from the message I received that the cow was not the real issue. The family is isolated, poor and needed the inspiration of a shabbos in the presence of a Rebbe. He wants his children to know the Rebbe and make Kiddush together. I feel that this is the real issue and that is why I am traveling on Erev Shabbos.”

“If you can read that telegram and understand what it is REALLY asking you are a real Rebbe! You no longer need a mentor!”

Leadership is the ability to see the need of the moment. to see beneath the surface and read between the lines. To depart, if need be, from the ancient custom and respond to the need of the moment.

Pinchas is mentioned in our parsha as the grandson of Aharon. He could be presumed to have a similar approach to the world. Yet, his act of zealotry is the polar opposite of what we know of the peace-loving Aharon, who gently draws people to the Torah.

Not only that, but even in a comparable situation, their responses are worlds apart. When Aharon encounters the mass idolatry of the Golden Calf his response was calm. He didn’t rail and rage or charge with a spear. He took no action to stop the Golden Calf in its tracks. He gently and subtly tried to cause a delay, in order to give time for Moshe to return. Why didn’t he act like Pinchus?

Pinchas, in contrast, when faced with mass, public transgression, takes definitive, aggressive action which halts the problem immediately risking his own life.  The Zohar comments that Pinchas was the tikkun for Aharon.

I would suggest that each response was entirely correct, each for its own generation. The generation who made the Golden Calf had just left Egypt a few weeks earlier; they were spiritually immature. The Jewish people which Pinchas encountered, had been eating from Hashem’s hand for forty years and were ready to enter Eretz Yisrael. They warranted a different type of response.

The Talmud explains, that ‘Yiftach in his generation was as great as the Prophet Shmuel was for his generation’. The point is not to reminisce about the greatness of previous generations since the leadership G-d sends is generation-specific. The question of whether previous leaders were of greater stature is meaningless. The appropriate leadership for a generation is that which fully understands the context and needs of the people, and therefore how to respond.

From Torah Lab, here.

אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים – ביאור פשט המילים

בניהו בן יהוידע על גיטין נ”ה ב’:

אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים. הקשה הרב עיון יעקב ז”ל, קמצא לא עביד מידי, והוה ליה למימר אבר קמצא חרוב ירושלים, ע”ש. ונ”ל דכל מי שיש בידו למחות ולא מיחה נקרא הדבר על שמו, והכא קים ליה לתלמודא, בעת שבא בר קמצא היה קמצא אהובו של בעל הבית יושב, והיה בידו למנעו מן הדבר הזה שלא יוציאנו לבר קמצא מביתו, וכיון דלא מנעו, גם הוא נעשה שותף בנזק אשר נסתבב מחמת דבר זה. ולפי דעת מהרש”א ז”ל שהיו אב ובנו. א”כ קמצא ודאי היה יודע שיש שנאה ומריבה בין בעל הבית ובין בנו בר קמצא, והיה חייב לעשות שלום ביניהם מעיקרא וכיון דלא עשה שלום ביניהם נסתבב דבר זה, ולכן נקרא על שמו גם כן. והנה בודאי הא דלא פירש רש”י ז”ל כפירוש מהרש”א, שהיו אב ובנו, היינו משום דאי הוה הכי הוה ליה למימר אקמצא ובריה חרוב ידושלים.

ועוד נ”ל בס”ד כונת הש”ס במה שאמר אקמצא ובר קמצא, היינו רצונו לומר בשביל שלא דקדק השומע להבין ולשים לבו, בשינוי שיש בין תיבת קמצא ובין תיבת בר קמצא, נסתבב חרבן ירושלים, וכונת בעל המאמר בזה ללמדינו, שצריך האדם לדקדק בלשונו היטב, כמו שאמרו חכמים הזהרו בדבריכם, וכן השומע גם כן צריך לתת לב על הדברים שישמע, כי לפעמים בשביל תיבה קטנה שלא שם לבו עליה יצא מזה חרבן, דתא חזי בשביל הפרש קטן שיש בין מאמר קמצא לבין מאמר בר קמצא, שלא דקדק השומע היטב, חרבה ירושלים.

ע”כ.

ויותר נראה שאין שום אשמה על האיש “קמצא”, רק כלומר על חילוק קטן שבין שני שמות חרוב ירושלים, ודלא כבן יהוידע שהניח שגם הוא היה בסעודה ולא מיחה — משל היו וראו זאת — וקים ליה שקים ליה לתלמודא, אלא הכל ענין ספרותי, ופשוט מאד ותו לא מידי.