ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף משלי 6:6

Man attains his ideal state via a threefold process. 1) He must fulfil his duties towards himself. 2) He must fulfil his duties towards his fellow man. 3) He must fulfil his duties towards G'd. The prophet Michah, in chapter six, describes man's tasks as follows: "What is it that the Lord asks of you, except a) to do justice, b) to practice loving kindness, and c) to walk humbly with the Lord your G'd." Duties towards oneself are easily understood, therefore the prophet refers to them by the word mishpat. When Manoach was told about the impending birth of Samson, he asked the angel "what is the mishpat of the boy, and how is he to be treated? (Judges 13,11) He meant "how can one ensure the boy's survival?" Duties towards oneself are to ensure one's survival. Performance of duties towards one's fellow man consists of putting acquired good character traits to practical use. David asked his son Solomon (Chronicles I 28,9) "and you my son Solomon, know the G'd of your father, serve Him with a perfect heart and a willing soul." Our sages display a negative attitude towards people who make vows. Prompt fulfilment of the vow is equated with offering a sacrifice on a private altar at times when private altars are forbidden. (Gittin 56) The reason is that though there clearly is a good intention, the venue is unwelcome. This is so when the subject of the vow is a devar mitzvah, something desirable in the eyes of G'd. When the subject matter of the vow is merely a devar reshut however, i.e. something merely permissible, the vow itself is viewed as reprehensible, since it presupposes that by accepting the gift, G'd indicates His need of it. What could be more laughable? Since vows are subject to annulment, the question why some famous vows have never been annulled is in order. Why was the vow of Yiphtach who offered the life of the first living thing that would come towards him when he would return from war victorious, and which resulted in his own daughter being that sacrifice, not annulled? Our sages blame the pride of both Yiphtach and the High Priest Pinchas. Supposedly, each waited for the other to make the first move. Both were punished for their pride. Pinchas no longer enjoyed the ear of G'd. (Chronicles I 9,20) Yiphtach's body was scattered all over the place, as parts of it were buried in different part of Gilead. (Judges 12,7) In the case of the aftermath of the pilegesh be-givah, Judges chapter twenty one, one must ask why the annulment procedure was not used to cancel the vow to kill all the men of Yavesh Gilead? Surely, this would have been even more important than to save the life of a single person, the daughter of Yiphtach at the time? Surely a lesson could have been learned from the former event? Also, why was the vow not to give daughters in marriage to the the remnant of the tribe of Benjamin not annulled? One of the main reasons for this national paralysis, could have been the absence of a central authority at that time. After all, the era has been characterised by the book of Judges as "in those days, there was no king in Israel." (Judges 19,1) Again, at the end of the book of Judges (Judges 21,25) we read "in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in." When an entire nation had vowed a vow, only an even greater authority can absolve from such a vow. Since many of the people had died since the vow had been made, it could not even have been annulled by an equal number of people. (Moed Katan 17) For that reason they had to resort to the subterfuge described there, i.e. letting the young men of Benjamin kidnap their brides to be. (see commentary by Kimchi) All of the above illustrates the severity of the laws concerning vows, once they have been made. Surely then it is preferable not to make vows in the first place. Man's tendency not to make payment promptly when he pledges a donation, is a sign that he overestimates his own value, and his effort to compensate for this when the time comes to make payment. The Torah, therefore, provides objective valuations, so that the person who promised a value to the temple treasury that equals his own value, would not shortchange the temple treasury. When the vow concerns a devar mitzvah, a duty that had to be fulfilled anyways, even if no vow had been made at all, the Torah warns "do not be tardy to pay it, the Lord will surely demand it from you." (Deut 23,22) For that reason the Torah continues: "if you fail to make vows, this will not be counted a sin against you."

Similarly, in matters of the spirit, success can only be guaranteed when all three major conditions for success have been fulfilled In material matters the ingredients that ensure success are: a) availability of the finest raw materials, b) excellent tools, c) an outstanding craftsman. Even a Betzalel could only function at his best when he had at his disposal the finest materials, the best weaving and embroidery equipment. Isaiah 28, 24-29, further illustrates our point, showing that even simple labours such as ploughing and threshing, require more than brute force or muscle in order to be performed successfully. The critical ingredient is "if he has absorbed the lesson taught him by His G'd." (verse 26) Sometimes even undertakings commenced at the behest of G'd, will appear to have counterproductive results, especially so when the approach adopted seems illogical. Still, even in such cases, success is the ultimate result. When it does materialize, the impact is longer lasting and far more dramatic. Moses' first interview at the Court of Pharaoh certainly seemed to contain all the ingredients of the failure of a mission, producing as it did, harsh counter measures by Paraoh. (Exodus 5,6-23) The appointment of David as future king of Israel and its Saviour, (Samuel I chapter 16 and onwards) seemed to lead to early failure. Samuel had to take the most unlikely tool when he commenced the mission, a young calf. The insignificant waters of the river Jordan were selected to cure the Syrian general Naaman of his skin disease. (Kings II 5, 1-18) On the other hand, we find the Jews who went to collect manna on the Sabbath, or who tried to preserve it from one day to the next, -perfectly reasonable sounding procedures-, fail, because they did not heed the lesson quoted from Isaiah earlier. We also find that Pharaoh's magicians failed to cope with the plagues which they considered themselves capable and trained to deal with. The meaning of our opening Midrash then is clear. "May the right craftsman Moses, come and receive the right tools, Torah, from the only One who can supply these tools, G'd, on behalf of Israel." The description of Israel as "the good ones," has a dual meaning. A) There will always be found some good people in Israel, people whose merit will suffice to insure the nation's survival, people such as the prophets whose very existence has made our people unparalleled among all the nations since Abraham. Psalms 87, 5-6, clearly reflects this sentiment. The psalmist extols virtuous individuals all of whom regard Zion as their spiritual birthplace. B) The Jewish people, though not always measuring up to their task individually, deserve the appellation "the good ones, in comparison to other nations. When Solomon talks about "the lily amongst the thorns,” in Song of Songs, 2,2, he refers to this goodness of Israel relative to other nations. Even though a lily is not a fruit bearing plant, the master of the parables could certainly have selected a different plant to compare Israel to, had he wanted to. The lily does not even provide shade for the weary traveller, but only delights by its fragrance and beautiful appearance. It is found amongst thorns, which do not please the eye or the sense of smell, and which actually cause pain to those who come in contact with them. Similarly, the Jewish people even when not at their best, stand out amongst the nations. For this reason the sages instituted the benediction "You have chosen us," in our liturgy. We will discuss later in this chapter how the wholesale death of Israelites which emanated from the "Good One" at kivrot hata-avot, when Israel became the victim of uncontrolled greed, could have happened.

Since man is composed of two parts, the physical and the spiritual, he needs to operate with two kinds of perceptions, one which enables him to recognise the material, the worldly, and the other which helps him recognise and relate to spiritual phenomena or spiritual aspects of other human beings. When we talk about "knowing so and so," we define "so and so" in terms of height, width, colour etc. We perceive that he is human by a different cognitive process, a process reserved for recognising intangible abstract concepts. The former process is called hakkarah, recognition, the latter yediyah, knowledge. When the brothers brought Joseph's blood-drenched coat to their father Jacob, they said "do you recognise if this is the coat of your son?" This is a term applicable only to material things. When G'd talks about Abraham, prior to revealing to him the impending destruction of Sodom, He says "for I know him, in order that he will command etc." This clearly describes cognition of Abraham's personality, something intangible. Since it is not easy to acquire the latter facility, our sages have frequently illustrated abstract concepts by employing parables. The phenomena described in such parables are a sort of crutch to help us translate these concepts into the abstract. The master par excellence of such parables is king Solomon, whose parables acquired international and enduring fame. He employed the double entendre for instance, when he advised the lazy man to learn from the ant which lays in a food supply in advance of the oncoming winter. (Proverbs 6) The hidden message is that man who has been given a brain should use and condition it, so that when the difficult time (winter) arrives, he will be prepared to cope with it, since he is aware of the purpose of difficult periods. The Torah also employs such parables on occasion. When Moses says in Deut 32,46, "pay attention to all the matters which I testify against you this day...for it is not an empty matter... but it is your life," the reference is to the fact that words of admonition are not to be understood only at face value, but they address themselves also to our ability to comprehend spiritual concepts. (see our commentary about G'd talking to Adam in Eden, chapter seven) A similar double entendre is contained in the Torah's legislation about warfare. The Torah legislates about physical warfare, of course; but internal struggles in the soul are being described at the same time. By overcoming internal foes, the soldier readies himself to overcome external foes and to conquer foreign lands. (Internal struggles may also include the fight of the body to overcome a virus it has been invaded by, for instance) A person's face reflects inner struggles, just as warfare between nations is something visible that cannot be concealed. We see this from the comment of Yonadav to Amnon. (Samuel II 13,4.) In order to treat such internal struggles, a doctor needs to be thoroughly familiar with the chemistry of the body, and he needs to be able to compensate for any chemical imbalances in the system of the afflicted patient. The most difficult war however, is the struggle between conflicting emotions or characteristics that goes on within one's personality. When love and jealousy battle with one another, when greed and generosity find themselves in conflict within the same person, this is serious indeed. When Artaxerxes accuses Nechemyah of a face which expresses sadness and anger, pointing out that the latter was not physically unwell, he alludes to the inner struggle that leaves its mark on a person's facial expressions. (Nechemyah 2,3) (compare our commentary chapter sixty seven) In spite of visible symptoms of psychological illness, the doctor who undertakes to cure same requires even more expertise than the one who cures physical ills. Since G'd is the greatest of all doctors, David proclaims: "favour me O Lord, for I am bowed down. Heal me O G'd, for my bones are afflicted; and above all my soul which is very afflicted. (Psalms 6,3-4, et al) Discussion of the verses in our Parshah will be divided into those dealing with physical warfare, and those dealing with inner conflicts. The three main objectives of a general in charge of a military campaign are summed up by Sancheriv. (Kings II chapter 18) They are: 1) words of the lips. 2) counsel. 3) bravery. In other words, a list of objectives, (words) strategic and tactical planning, (counsel) and heroism and bravery in the execution of such plans. Sancheriv accuses Chiskiyahu of breach of trust, and asks "on whom do you rely that you have dared to rebel against me?" This provided the excuse for his attack. He then ridicules any hope Chiskiyahu may be entertaining of making a successful defence, by describing Egypt and any other potential allies as useless. Thirdly, since Chiskiyahu's plans would be doomed to failure anyways, he asks who would display the heroism needed when they knew they were fighting for a lost cause! Whenever the Jewish people mobilise for warfare, the above mentioned three basic rules are observed and are described in our Parshah.