The Weekly Dvar Torah
Volume I Issue #10
Adversity: The Impetus for Spiritual Growth
Parshas Mattos
Adapted from the wisdom of Rav Meir Simcha HaCohen of Dvinsk from the Meshech Chochmoh and Rav Tzadok HaCohen from Pri Tzadik and other works.
By Rav Yitzchak Schwartz Rosh Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Jerusalem
yschwartz@orchos.org.
This edition is dedicated to the merit of my daughter Tehila bas Hemda
In this week’s Torah portion we are told that God commanded the Jews in the wilderness to vanquish the Midianites. In chapter 31 verse 7 the Torah relates that “They (the Jews) encamped against Midian as Hashem commanded”. The Sifri (a commentary on the Torah written by the tannaim) records a dispute between the Sages and Rav Nassan regarding the meaning of the term “encamped” in the verse. The Sages understand this term to mean that the Jewish army surrounded the Midianites on all four sides. Rav Nassan disagrees and maintains that the Jews surrounded the Midianites on only three sides. One side was deliberately left open, thereby providing the Midianite enemy with a path to flee. Both the Ramban - Nachmanides and the Rambam – Maimonides, adopt the view of Rav Nassan, that the Jews left one side open as an escape route for the Midianites. The Ramban and Rambam then proceed to engage in a fascinating halachic debate concerning the extent to which Rav Nassan’s opinion is relevant for future Jewish military campaigns. The verse quoted above concludes by stating that the method of the Jews’ “encampment” was “as Hashem commanded”. The Ramban infers from this language that there is a halachically binding commandment as to how a Jewish army attacks enemy forces. We are instructed not to surround our enemies from all four sides. Rather we must leave one side open so that our foes have an option to retreat, as our forefathers did in their war against Midian. The Ramban counts this as one of the 613 commandments (see Ramban’s list of the mitzvot omitted by the Rambam, #5). The Ramban views this as a humanitarian imperative to teach us that even at times of war we should be merciful. He furthermore states that this is a clever military strategy. If the enemy feels pinned into a corner because they are surrounded on all sides, rather than giving up and surrendering, they are likely to muster up all of their strength and make a desperate attempt at fighting to the end.
The Rambam, on the other hand, does not count this as one of the 613 commandments. Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, explains the Rambam’s position. Rav Meir Simcha writes that the Rambam sees this as a non-binding, advisory mitzvah intended to reduce the chances of provoking the enemy to mount a fierce, final fight owing to their desperation.
Rav Meir Simcha goes on to point out that there is a second dispute in the Sifri between the Sages and Rav Nassan. The position of the Sages is that the soldiers in the battle against Midian in addition to being tzadikim, were also courageous heroes who eagerly volunteered to go to battle. Rav Nassan, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the soldiers did not volunteer. Rather, they were volunteered military style, i.e. they were forcibly conscripted by the generals who recognized them as pious men whom, due to their righteousness, had the best chance of winning the war.
Rav Meir Simcha offers an interesting approach demonstrating that in fact these two Tannaic disputes are related. He explains that the opinions of the aforementioned tannaim regarding whether or not the Jews surrounded the Midianites completely or partially, flows from their respective stances as to how the soldiers for this war were chosen. Rav Nassan, who holds that the soldiers did not excel in courage as is evident from the fact that they did not volunteer, also holds the view that the soldiers followed a cautious battle plan just as Hashem had instructed them to do. Inasmuch as they were not courageous heroes, they wanted to avoid arousing harsh resistance from the enemy and therefore left them an escape route. By contrast, the Sages hold that the soldiers were courageous, as is evidenced from the fact that they zealously volunteered to go into battle. Accordingly, the Sages opine that the Jews devised a daring battle plan to surround the enemy from all four sides in order to completely wipe out the Midianites. The Jews did this, say the Sages, despite the possibility that this course of action could foster a strong, desperate fight from the Midianites. In so doing, the Jews ignored the risk to their own lives, and even the cautious advice of Hashem.
As noted earlier, both the Ramban and the Rambam adopt Rav Nassan’s view . Although they disagree about the binding nature of the mitzvah of leaving an enemy army an opening to flee, the Ramban and Rambam do agree that extreme pressure and feelings of desperation may elicit an enemy’s greatest resistance and strength.
In light of this we can better understand a no less fascinating idea from Rav Tzadok HaCohen ob”m. The Torah portion Matos always falls in the period of national mourning between the 17th of Tamuz and the 9th of Av known as bein hameitzarim. During this period we are called upon to reflect on the historical tragedies that culminated in the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash and the exile of our nation. Our Sages ob”m teach us that just as we are in exile so is Hashem’s Presence - the Shechina.
Rav Tzadok quotes the great Hassidic master Rav Ber ob”m, an apparent reference to the Maggid of Mezeritch, that if one wants to meet the king, it is much easier to do so when the king is outside of his palace. Rav Ber uses this as a metaphor to introduce a revolutionary interpretation of the verse in Eicha 1:3. In this verse the prophet Yermiyahu - Jeremiah laments the national misfortune during this period that he dubs: “bein hameitzarim – between the narrows”. He warns that in every generation our enemies will try to pursue us during this period. The Hebrew reads like this: “Kol rodfeiha yasiguha bein hameitzarim, literally: all who pursue her [the Jewish nation] will grab hold of her between the narrows” Rav Ber employs a method of exegesis known as “d’rush” to turn the meaning of this verse upside down.
[If Hebrew grammar is not your cup of tea, feel free to skip the following paragraph. You will still be able to understand the continuation of the d’var Torah.] The Hebrew word rodfeiha is actually the construct form of two Hebrew words: rodfei = pursuers, and ha = her, that translates - pursuers of her. The last syllable stands for the word ‘her’ and is conveyed by the use of a singular Hebrew letter ‘hey’. The letter ‘hey’ is also the one letter initial the name of Hashem. Consequently the verse can be read like this: “all pursuers – seekers, of the ‘hey’ – Hashem, will be able to grab hold of her – the Shechina, between the narrows.]
This is the lesson Rav Ber ob”m wishes to teach us in his metaphor. When the King is not in his palace He is more accessible than when He is locked up in His home. Hashem is in exile. His home, the Beis Hamikdash, stands desolate. His family, the Jewish people are in exile. When Hashem is out of His palace the prospects of meeting Him are even greater than when He is at home. Despite the period of Divine concealment that is manifest during this period it can also be utilized to develop a remarkable connection with Hashem.
Rav Tzadok points out that the greatest spiritual achievements of our nation were achieved while we were in exile. The greatest proliferation of the Torah occurred in concert with the Babylonian and other ensuing exiles over the course of many centuries. According to tradition even the Moshiach, our figure of redemption is born on the unlikely date of tisha b’Av.
The bein hameitzarim period with all of its concealment is the crucible within which the greatness of our nation emerges. Extreme stress brings with it the potential for extraordinary achievement. The phrase bein hameitzarim conveys the image of being entrapped on all sides, the same situation that the Torah warns us could arouse extraordinary force from the enemy. That same stress and sense of entrapment can arouse extraordinary strengths within us. In fact it may be the only way to draw out the absolute best that lies dormant deep inside of us. Stress is a creative force that can create the greatest wonders. This is the deeper meaning of what Rav Ber said. “It is easier to grab hold of the King when He is out of the palace”.
When we feel overwhelmed by difficulties, obstacles and stress an overall feeling of abandonment begins to envelop us. During such times, it is worthwhile to recall that the King is out of His palace. We all have stress and pressure in our lives. Our approach to them need not be one of submissive surrender. Rather, we need to learn how to embrace stress, pressure and even adversity, as the catalysts that can bring out the absolute best within us. At these times in particular there is a great opportunity to ‘grab hold of the King’. Grasp the moment! It is just the right time to deepen our closeness with Hashem. He isn’t locked up in the palace. He is right here with us. Seek – and you shall find Him!
You can be a partner in disseminating these wonderful teachings.
Please contact us for dedication opportunities.
By Rav Yitzchak Schwartz Rosh Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Jerusalem
yschwartz@orchos.org.
This edition is dedicated to the merit of my daughter Tehila bas Hemda
In this week’s Torah portion we are told that God commanded the Jews in the wilderness to vanquish the Midianites. In chapter 31 verse 7 the Torah relates that “They (the Jews) encamped against Midian as Hashem commanded”. The Sifri (a commentary on the Torah written by the tannaim) records a dispute between the Sages and Rav Nassan regarding the meaning of the term “encamped” in the verse. The Sages understand this term to mean that the Jewish army surrounded the Midianites on all four sides. Rav Nassan disagrees and maintains that the Jews surrounded the Midianites on only three sides. One side was deliberately left open, thereby providing the Midianite enemy with a path to flee. Both the Ramban - Nachmanides and the Rambam – Maimonides, adopt the view of Rav Nassan, that the Jews left one side open as an escape route for the Midianites. The Ramban and Rambam then proceed to engage in a fascinating halachic debate concerning the extent to which Rav Nassan’s opinion is relevant for future Jewish military campaigns. The verse quoted above concludes by stating that the method of the Jews’ “encampment” was “as Hashem commanded”. The Ramban infers from this language that there is a halachically binding commandment as to how a Jewish army attacks enemy forces. We are instructed not to surround our enemies from all four sides. Rather we must leave one side open so that our foes have an option to retreat, as our forefathers did in their war against Midian. The Ramban counts this as one of the 613 commandments (see Ramban’s list of the mitzvot omitted by the Rambam, #5). The Ramban views this as a humanitarian imperative to teach us that even at times of war we should be merciful. He furthermore states that this is a clever military strategy. If the enemy feels pinned into a corner because they are surrounded on all sides, rather than giving up and surrendering, they are likely to muster up all of their strength and make a desperate attempt at fighting to the end.
The Rambam, on the other hand, does not count this as one of the 613 commandments. Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, explains the Rambam’s position. Rav Meir Simcha writes that the Rambam sees this as a non-binding, advisory mitzvah intended to reduce the chances of provoking the enemy to mount a fierce, final fight owing to their desperation.
Rav Meir Simcha goes on to point out that there is a second dispute in the Sifri between the Sages and Rav Nassan. The position of the Sages is that the soldiers in the battle against Midian in addition to being tzadikim, were also courageous heroes who eagerly volunteered to go to battle. Rav Nassan, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the soldiers did not volunteer. Rather, they were volunteered military style, i.e. they were forcibly conscripted by the generals who recognized them as pious men whom, due to their righteousness, had the best chance of winning the war.
Rav Meir Simcha offers an interesting approach demonstrating that in fact these two Tannaic disputes are related. He explains that the opinions of the aforementioned tannaim regarding whether or not the Jews surrounded the Midianites completely or partially, flows from their respective stances as to how the soldiers for this war were chosen. Rav Nassan, who holds that the soldiers did not excel in courage as is evident from the fact that they did not volunteer, also holds the view that the soldiers followed a cautious battle plan just as Hashem had instructed them to do. Inasmuch as they were not courageous heroes, they wanted to avoid arousing harsh resistance from the enemy and therefore left them an escape route. By contrast, the Sages hold that the soldiers were courageous, as is evidenced from the fact that they zealously volunteered to go into battle. Accordingly, the Sages opine that the Jews devised a daring battle plan to surround the enemy from all four sides in order to completely wipe out the Midianites. The Jews did this, say the Sages, despite the possibility that this course of action could foster a strong, desperate fight from the Midianites. In so doing, the Jews ignored the risk to their own lives, and even the cautious advice of Hashem.
As noted earlier, both the Ramban and the Rambam adopt Rav Nassan’s view . Although they disagree about the binding nature of the mitzvah of leaving an enemy army an opening to flee, the Ramban and Rambam do agree that extreme pressure and feelings of desperation may elicit an enemy’s greatest resistance and strength.
In light of this we can better understand a no less fascinating idea from Rav Tzadok HaCohen ob”m. The Torah portion Matos always falls in the period of national mourning between the 17th of Tamuz and the 9th of Av known as bein hameitzarim. During this period we are called upon to reflect on the historical tragedies that culminated in the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash and the exile of our nation. Our Sages ob”m teach us that just as we are in exile so is Hashem’s Presence - the Shechina.
Rav Tzadok quotes the great Hassidic master Rav Ber ob”m, an apparent reference to the Maggid of Mezeritch, that if one wants to meet the king, it is much easier to do so when the king is outside of his palace. Rav Ber uses this as a metaphor to introduce a revolutionary interpretation of the verse in Eicha 1:3. In this verse the prophet Yermiyahu - Jeremiah laments the national misfortune during this period that he dubs: “bein hameitzarim – between the narrows”. He warns that in every generation our enemies will try to pursue us during this period. The Hebrew reads like this: “Kol rodfeiha yasiguha bein hameitzarim, literally: all who pursue her [the Jewish nation] will grab hold of her between the narrows” Rav Ber employs a method of exegesis known as “d’rush” to turn the meaning of this verse upside down.
[If Hebrew grammar is not your cup of tea, feel free to skip the following paragraph. You will still be able to understand the continuation of the d’var Torah.] The Hebrew word rodfeiha is actually the construct form of two Hebrew words: rodfei = pursuers, and ha = her, that translates - pursuers of her. The last syllable stands for the word ‘her’ and is conveyed by the use of a singular Hebrew letter ‘hey’. The letter ‘hey’ is also the one letter initial the name of Hashem. Consequently the verse can be read like this: “all pursuers – seekers, of the ‘hey’ – Hashem, will be able to grab hold of her – the Shechina, between the narrows.]
This is the lesson Rav Ber ob”m wishes to teach us in his metaphor. When the King is not in his palace He is more accessible than when He is locked up in His home. Hashem is in exile. His home, the Beis Hamikdash, stands desolate. His family, the Jewish people are in exile. When Hashem is out of His palace the prospects of meeting Him are even greater than when He is at home. Despite the period of Divine concealment that is manifest during this period it can also be utilized to develop a remarkable connection with Hashem.
Rav Tzadok points out that the greatest spiritual achievements of our nation were achieved while we were in exile. The greatest proliferation of the Torah occurred in concert with the Babylonian and other ensuing exiles over the course of many centuries. According to tradition even the Moshiach, our figure of redemption is born on the unlikely date of tisha b’Av.
The bein hameitzarim period with all of its concealment is the crucible within which the greatness of our nation emerges. Extreme stress brings with it the potential for extraordinary achievement. The phrase bein hameitzarim conveys the image of being entrapped on all sides, the same situation that the Torah warns us could arouse extraordinary force from the enemy. That same stress and sense of entrapment can arouse extraordinary strengths within us. In fact it may be the only way to draw out the absolute best that lies dormant deep inside of us. Stress is a creative force that can create the greatest wonders. This is the deeper meaning of what Rav Ber said. “It is easier to grab hold of the King when He is out of the palace”.
When we feel overwhelmed by difficulties, obstacles and stress an overall feeling of abandonment begins to envelop us. During such times, it is worthwhile to recall that the King is out of His palace. We all have stress and pressure in our lives. Our approach to them need not be one of submissive surrender. Rather, we need to learn how to embrace stress, pressure and even adversity, as the catalysts that can bring out the absolute best within us. At these times in particular there is a great opportunity to ‘grab hold of the King’. Grasp the moment! It is just the right time to deepen our closeness with Hashem. He isn’t locked up in the palace. He is right here with us. Seek – and you shall find Him!
You can be a partner in disseminating these wonderful teachings.
Please contact us for dedication opportunities.