A.
Our parasha tells of the time when Israel’s desert sojourn was drawing to an end, as they sought to approach the Holy Land by way of the territory of its neighbor to the southeast, Edom. The Edomim refused them safe passage through their land, and turned out in force to enforce the ban, ויט ישראל מעליו (“And Israel turned away from him”; XX, 21).
ויאמר ד' אל משה ואל אהרן בהר ההר על גבול ארץ אדום לאמר: יאסף אהרן אל עמיו כי לא יבא אל הארץ אשר נתתי לבני ישראל על אשר מריתם את פי למי מריבה (“And Ha-Shem said to Moshe and to Aharon at Hor the mountain on the border of Edom, to say: Aharon will be gathered to his people, for he will not come to the land which I have given to the bënei Yisra’él, because you rebelled against My word at Mei Mëriva”; ibid., 23-24).
Rashi comments on the Torah’s little geography lesson by quoting the Midrash Tanchuma: מגיד שמפני שנתחברו כאן להתקרב לעשו הרשע נפרצו מעשיהם וחסרו הצדיק הזה וכן הנביא אומר ליהושפט "בהתחברך עם אחזי' פרץ ד' את מעשיך" (“[It] relates that because they had joined together here to approach ‘Esav ha-rasha‘ their works were breached and they lost this tzaddiq; and so does the prophet say to Yehoshafat, ‘By your associating with Achazyahu, Ha-Shem has breached your works’ [II Chronicles XX, 37]”).
The implication is that there is some similarity between the two episodes, but it is hard to see where it is: Israel were approaching the border of Edom (whose ancestor had been ‘Esav) only to pass through to the Holy Land, whilst Yehoshafat had entered into a treaty with Achazyahu ben Ach’av. One sees why the prophet calls Yehoshafat’s action “association,” but it is hard to see why Chazal so characterize our parasha.
We may also ask: Since verse 24 clearly spells out the reason for Aharon’s death, why did Chazal see a need to offer another reason in the midrash?
B.
The Sëfath Emeth asks our second question, and offers in answer hat whilst it is true that Aharon had already been told that he would not survive to enter the Promised Land, no date had been fixed for the sentence to be executed. After all, Moshe was under the same sentence (note the second person plural verb in the last clause of verse 24), yet he survived to lead Israel in their battles with Sichon and ‘Og, after this episode, and lived to deliver his farewell address on the plains of Mo’av. Aharon could have been there with him.
Thus, he suggests, what Chazal are telling us is not why Aharon had to perish, but why Israel had to suffer the pain of losing him at this juncture, as is made clear from the third person plural verbs of the quoted midrash (“since they had joined together...they lost this tzaddiq....”). It is Israel’s loss that Chazal are addressing (מובא במעינה של תורה). But what, really, had they done?
The Bë’er ba-Sadeh explains: י"ל כיון שלא נתן מלך אדום לישראל עבור בגבולו הי' להם להתרחק מגבולם, והם היו הולכים קרוב לארצם לקנות מהם אוכל ושאר דברים והיו נושאים ונותנים עמהם כאנשים אחים ועל זה נענשו שחסרו את הצדיק והוא מדה כנגד מדה שהם היו יוצאים מתחת ענני הכבוד שהוא בזכות אהרן כדי להתחבר עם אדום לשאת ולתת עמו דאי אפשר לזרע עשו לבוא אצל ישראל תחת העננים אלא ישראל היו יוצאים להתחבר עמהם ולזה חסרו את הצדיק ונסתלקו העננים (“It may be said that since the king of Edom had not allowed Israel to cross his border, they should [immediately] have moved away from [the Edomi] border, and they were moving close to [Edom] to buy food and other things, doing business with them in brotherly fashion, and for this they were punished and lost the tzaddiq; and this was measure for measure, for [Israel] were coming out from under the ‘ananei ha-kavod, which were in Aharon’s merit, in order to associate with Edom and do business with them, for it was impossible for the descendants of ‘Esav to come to Israel under the ‘ananim, but Israel were going out to associate with them, and for this reason they lost the tzaddiq and the ‘ananim vanished”).
In short, Israel’s continued association with Edom, hugging their border on the way north to Mo’av, after Edom’s decisive rejection was at Israel’s initiative; since Israel came out from under the ‘ananei ha-kavod, the “clouds of glory” which had, in honor of Aharon’s presence amongst them, ere now shielded Israel from the desert sun to associate with rësha‘im, they lost Aharon’s presence and with him, the ‘ananim.
C.
To answer our first question, we need to back up a bit. When Israel were encamped at Qadesh, near the border with Edom, Moshe sent ambassadors to the Edomi king, instructed to say: כה אמר אחיך ישראל אתה ידעת את כל התלאה אשר מצאתנו: וירדו אבותינו מצרימה ונשב במצרים ימים רבים וירעו לנו מצרים ולאבותינו: ונצעק אל ד' וישמע קלנו וישלח מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים והנה אנחנו בקדש עיר קצה גבולך: (“Thus says your brother Israel, You know fully all the travail which has befallen us. And our fathers went down to Egypt, and we settled in Egypt for many days, and the Egyptians maltreated us and our fathers. And we cried out to Ha-Shem and he heard our voice and sent a representative, and brought us out of Egypt; and here we are in Qadesh, a city at the edge of your border”; XX, 14-16), whereupon they asked to be allowed to pass through.
Rashi explains why Moshe prescribed this preamble: אמר לו אחיך אנחנו בני אברהם שנא' לו "כי גר יהי' זרעך" ועל שנינו הי' אותו החוב לפרעו. לפיכך פירש אביכם מכל אבינו "וילך אל ארת מפני יעקב אחיו" מפני השטר חוב המוטל עליהם והטילו על יעקב (“[Moshe] said to [the Edomi king], We are your brother, sons of Avraham, to whom it was said, ‘Your descendants will be strangers [in a land not theirs’; Genesis XV, 13], and that debt was on both of us to repay. For this reason, your father fled from our father ‘and went to [another] country because of Ya‘aqov his brother’ [ibid., XXXVI,6], because of the bill of account incumbent on both of us, and imposed it on Ya‘aqov [alone]”).
In short, ‘Esav had ducked his duty, and left Ya‘aqov “holding the bag”, as it were. Moshe’s words strongly implied that Edom, as descendants of ‘Esav, owed Israel (descendants of Ya‘aqov), as the saying goes, “big time”. His apparent hope was that he could still awaken brotherly feelings in Edom, and sought to show the Edomim the advantages of joining Israel on the winning side, where G-d would fight their battles, as He had fought Israel’s in Egypt.
Now consider the episode involving Yehoshafat and Achazyahu.
Near the end of Yehoshafat’s reign over the southern kingdom of Yehuda, his country was suddenly invaded by the combined armed forces of ‘Ammon, Mo’av, and Edom. The pious king prayed for deliverance as he marshalled his forces to resist, and received confirmation from a prophet that his prayer had been answered. He was directed to take his army to meet the enemy, but advised that he would not have to fight; his salvation would come from G-d. So the army of Yehuda met the invaders at a town called Tëqoa‘, and watched their enemies fall apart before their eyes, as ‘Ammon and Mo’av first ganged up on Edom, and then set to fighting each other. Yehuda won a stunning, bloodless victory over the eastern coalition (II Chronicles XX, 1-30).
It was immediately in the wake of this resounding victory, we are told, that Yehoshafat entered into a joint commercial venture with Achazyahu ben Ach’av, king of the northern kingdom of Israel. It seems not at all farfetched to think that Yehoshafat’s motivation was much like that of Moshe, i.e., following on such stunning evidence of the advantages of having G-d on one’s side, he approached the northern king in a brotherly fashion, and reached out to him. But Achazyahu was very much the son of his father and mother, the unspeakable Izevel, and was not at all interested in reform. The venture came to naught; the ships were broken up, and never sailed, and another navi rebuked Yehoshafat, as we have seen, for not having recognized what Achazyahu actually was.
D.
So Moshe’s motivation for approaching Edom, and Yehoshafat’s for approaching Achazyahu, appear to have ben the same, a desire to engage in qiruv rëchoqim, bringing back the estranged, which did not pan out. Can we learn something about the parameters of qiruv from this?
Chazal tell us: הרחק משכן רע ואל תתחבר לרשע (“Stay away from a bad neighbor, and do not associate with a rasha‘”; אבות פ"א מ"ז), and all of the commentators explain that one should keep one’s distance from rësha‘im lest they come to influence their more righteous neighbor. Yet, we also have a mitzva of ahavath Yisra’él, a positive mitzva to love one’s fellow Jew. We are lead to approach our less observant and estranged brothers as a noble expression of this miztva; how do we reconcile the two principles?
The late Ozherover Rebbe זצוק"ל comments on the mishna above: שאם כי מוטלת עלינו החובה לאהוב אפילו אלו שהתרחקו כו' וכן כתב התניא (פל"ב) הגם שמצוה לשנאותם מצוה לאהבם גם כן ושתיהם הן אמת, שנאה מצד הרע שבהם ואהבה מצד בחינת הטוב שגנוז בהם שהוא ניצוץ אלקות שבהם. אמנם עם כל זה שומה עלינו להשגיח שלא להתחבר עמם חלילה כו' ועל כרחך הכונה הוא לאהבה שאין עמה התקרבות יתירה בפועל ממש, אלא רק אהבה פנימית בלב, וכך חייבת להיות האהבה לרשעים תוך כדי שמירת גדר הריחוק מהם שלא להמשך אחריהם (“For if indeed the duty is laid upon us to love even those who are estranged... as the Ba‘al ha-Tanya wrote (32), Even though there is a mitzva to hate them, there is also a mitzva to love them, and both are the truth, hatred for the evil in them, but love because of the good aspect hidden within them, which is a spark of Divinity within them. However, with all this it is placed upon us to guard that we not associate with them.... One is forced to conclude that the intent is a love which is not accompanied by excessive closeness in actual practice, but only an internal love in the heart; so the love for rësha‘im must be together with the preservation of distance from them, that one not be drawn after them”).
Obviously, each case requires careful insight and rabbinical consultation, but we must recognize that, as much as we wish to approach our estranged brethren and bring them close once again to their precious heritage of Torah u-mitzvoth, there sometimes comes a point at which one is wasting one’s time, even courting spiritual danger to oneself and one’s family, which must be recognized, whether it is demonstrated by an overt message, as in the case of the Edomim in our parasha, or by a complete lack of interest, as appears to have been the case with Achazyahu ben Ach’av.
No comments:
Post a Comment