The observations about the parsaha are striking. It's fantastic. And if you delve in further, you can find more. For example, Lavan is the tricker...you try this and he sends that. Hamas trade games.
This leads to foretelling "prophecies". I hope next week parshas vayeshev doesn't turn into internal strife where everyone gangs up on people that truly had everyone's best interests in mind claiming they didn't.
You claim to be researching the rationalist Rishonim's opinions, yet seem to have produced nothing!
Yaakov was scared even though he was promised. Why?
You have an 'obvious' answer, but an answer that is totally untenable. If a prophecy can be overturned, what is the value of prophecy? The Torah writes clearly that a prophecy that is not fulfilled disqualifies the prophet. A promise made by Hashem to a person MUST be fulfilled. Why was Yaakov scared?
The answer is easily accessible, especially to those who claim to learn the rationalist Rishonim, chief of whom is the Rambam.
But your casual mention of the question and the 'obvious' answer shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of the existence of this Rambam. Yet you pontificate as though you are the expert.
To everyone reading this blog, take a lesson from here. This is akin to an international human rights lawyer admitting never to having read the Geneva Accords, or a medical doctor who never heard of Germ Theory, an engineer who doesn't know what a right angle triangle is, or a Rabbi who thinks the Shulchan Aruch is a recipe book.
I don't know, is real prophecy a rationalist idea? If not, then what's your problem with this post? From a rationalist perspective, prophecy is not supernatural , but akin to an aspirational dream, like MLK's speech. He's explaining it rationally.
'Explaining' it without having seen the Rambam about it, is basically blowing smoke.
But Jewish law requires us to listen to a prophet and follow his message. It also tells us how to test a prophet to see if he is lying. If his prophecy does not come true, he is no prophet. Jewish law does not accept that prophecy is an 'aspirational dream'.
If Slifkin does not believe in prophecy, and thinks Yaakov Avinu was the same, let him say so. But that would still not free him from the claim of ignorance, when he did not even quote the Rambam on the topic.
Chazal tell us that Yakov was afraid because of "שמא יגרום החטא" - that he may have sinned in the meantime causing the promises to be rescinded. Is that why you were afraid?
Congratulations Slif, this is one of the first non-objectionable things you have written in a while. Ok, you quoted Yuval Cherlow, who is himself objectionable, and also said a mocking line about how Yaakov didn't send his sons to Yeshiva (but neither did he send them to the IDF). Otherwise not bad. Not exciting, but not bad either. But you shouldn't be a cynical skeptic. It's your cynical skepticism that sucks all the flavor out of religious Judaism for you, that causes you to mock the idea of Tehillim killing terrorists. I realize it's a hard call to change your personality, but you really need to work on yourself.
By the way, I didn't start off a cynical skeptic. I started out as a wide-eyed trusting person. It's the shtuyot in the charedi world that turned me into a cynical skeptic. Like so many others I know.
False revisionism. Your intellectual development looked more like this: As you matured, you began to learn there were many other approaches to parshanus hamikrah, including, possibly, the seductive methods of biblical criticism. You gradually realized what you had learned in grade school back in Manchester didn't fit with pshuto shel kra. You began to see the academic approach to Gemara and felt attracted to it, having never truly been enamored of lomdus. (You made an effort to get on board with some Reb Chaims, but never really bought in, and it never really spoke to you.)
The skepticism was thus always innate, a part of your contrarian personality. The cynicism came later, as you gradually found yourself detached from the charedi world you had tried to become part of. You thus morphed into the mizrachi world, attracted by the wholesome image they project and their programme of chibas tzion, but being forced to join a culture that lacked the undeniable vahrmkeit of the yeshivishe world, and also was plagued with youth leaving in droves. Thus, you became a cynical skeptic, nowhere truly at home, a mind forever voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone.
Also, you went from the shtuyot of the chareidi world to the infinitely greater shutout of your secular "rationalism". When it comes to that stuff, you somehow lose all skepticism, and you're endlessly credulous.
Where does it say he armed anybody? Sounds like he was trying to flee, actually. If we are conjecturing what's "likely", I say it's likely he sent his servants and sons to yeshiva.
Where do they say how he prepared for battle? How do you know it was likely he armed his sons? From the pesukim, it sounds like his preparation for battle was how to run away. Not saying he for sure didn't arm his sons, but I see no evidence of that.
The question is how you know? His sons were definitely armed for battle in fighting Shechem. You think that for this specific incident he relied entirely on mercenaries and only later armed his children? Evidence?
I must confess my error. Rashi indeed says that Yaakov prepared to fight (to allow the other half to escape), this slipped my mind. But no proof to Cherlow's silly line.
I have no idea if he prepared to fight Eisav. The pesukim that Rashi quotes make is sound like the preparation for battle was to flee from battle. But if you have evidence that they prepared to fight, by all means. Cherlow said a saucy line about how he didn't send his kids to yeshiva, but we don't see that he sent his kids to the IDF either.
" and also said a mocking line about how Yaakov didn't send his sons to Yeshiva "
Rashi is clear as to what preparations יעקב did for the confrontation. Yeshiva study wasn't one of them. And his actions are seen as instructive for future generations. Why then, did he not send his boys to the בית מדרש?
While it is true, that Rabbi Cherlow is controversial and is considered on the left, he does make a point, that should be addressed: Why didn't יעקב include Torah study as part of his preparations? I'm not why you consider Rabbi Cherlow to be mocking anyone.
"Rashi is clear as to what preparations יעקב did for the confrontation. Yeshiva study wasn't one of them. And his actions are seen as instructive for future generations?"
He divided his camp in 2 so that one would survive. He flattered Esav to no end. His family all bowed. How that translates into the modern state of Israel going to war is anyone's guess. Fruit Stand theology is dumb. And not rationalist. Or rational.
So…וישלך is about trading off and a “truce” and sadly mentions rape… then ויגש is about being taken prisoner and then מקץ is about being released from prison, and finally ויגש is about redemption and reuniting. Let’s see if we can keep up this streak…
Yaakov was frightened. But he spoke properly. He knew of-course Hashem keeps His promises but was worried if he might have done any actions to mess things up which might mean that the best thing for him now may be something else. He sure didn't say things that can be perceived to mean that Hashem doesn't have our best interests in mind. That would be very wrong.
A soldier should never let himself be afraid in battle. He should be fierce and courageous to hold his position and perform his duty.
Someone who has to take decisions for the people, on the other hand, is obligated to take fear into account. That's what Yaakov, Yirmeyahu, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakaï and many other leaders did.
We're not talking about WWI and the subsequent battles. The mechanics of war have greatly changed since the middle ages and even more so since biblical times. Until the napoleonic wars, the single most determining factor in winning or losing any battle was the ability of your soldiers to hold the line, and it remained very important until WWI.
But as a side comment, it really isn't clear that the palestinian custom of completing the reading of the Torah in three years and a half is any older than the babylonian custom to do it in one year.
Correct. The "triennial cycle", as its proponents call it, is or was heavily promoted by the conservative movement. As you note, we have no reason to think it any older than the annual cycle, and in all events, it fell out of use a long time ago.
I don't know history of this Minhag, but there were Jewish communities in Israel before there were the same in Bavel, even if Bavel later eclipsed Israel.
The Talmud doesn't say when we started to read the Torah with a particular order. It rather seems that at the beginning it was not the case (וידבר משה את מועדי ה' אל בני ישראל - מצוותן שיהיו קורין אותן כל אחד ואחד בזמנו).
Hence עזרא תיקן להן לישראל שיהו קורין קללות שבתורת כהנים קודם עצרת ושבמשנה תורה קודם ר"ה (you'll notice this works very well with the annual cycle).
By Ezra's time, of course, there were great jewish communities in Mesopotamia and Persia.
An interesting clue is that of the two haftarot for regular Shabbats mentioned in the Talmud to the best of my knowledge (one in the Mishna הודע את ירושלים את תועבותיה which is for parshas Shemos and the other in the Bavli עלותיכם ספו על זבחיכם which is for parshas Tsav) both are according to the babylonian custom (and even more interestingly they both fell out of favor in ashkenazi communities against the palestinian haftarot for the same sections).
This of course does not mean the palestinian custom was or is any less legitimate, as you rightly pointed out. But it isn't customary anymore (probably the appeal of reading shorter portions couldn't compete with the powerful idea of completing the Torah every year, especially after systematic translation was dropped off) .
שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם: בסדם אל תבא נפשי בקהלם אל תחד כבדי כי באפם הרגו איש וברצנם עקרו שור: ארור אפם כי עז ועברתם כי קשתה אחלקם ביעקב ואפיצם בישראל:
Are you suggesting only pshat is important and not what Chazal said IN THE TALMUD? Even if so, just read the few verses leading to your quote and you'll know what was Yaakov's stance on this "military feat".
But anyway, that guy also knew quite a bit about pshat, and says the exact opposite:
בסדם וג׳ – הרמז אל הבגידה בשכם ואין ספק כי שמעון ולוי שאמר בהם הכתוב ויקחו שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי [וג׳] לא נכנסו לבדם להרוג אנשי שכם אלא הם שהיו המנהיגים במעשה והראשים [להמון] אשר נקהלו להרוג ולשלול.
וטעם אל תבא [לדעתי] ״לא באה״ ואל תחד ״לא חדה״ כלומר כאשר ישבו בסוד להועץ על ההרג לא ידעתי בו וכאשר נתגלה מה שקבעו ונקהלו עם חביריהם להוציא את מחשבתם אל הפועל לא שמחה נפשי; וידוע כי בשעת ההתעוררות להתנקם תהיה חזקת הכעס בתכלית הרוגז ואחר שהוציאה את הנקמה אל הפועל תפוג אלימותה ותשקוט ולכן בהכרח היו (שמעון ולוי) בשעת כניסתם להרג בתכלית מן חוזק הרוגז ולכן אמר (יעקב) כי באפם הרגו איש ואחר ההרג שקט רוגזם וכאשר נכנסו ליקח שבי ושלל ולהחריב ולא היו במצב הרוגז אלא כשמחים בנצחונם אמר (עליהם יעקב) ע״ה וברצנם עקרו שור (ו)רמז בזה כי אז לא היו במצב הרוגז אלא במצב שקיטת הרוגז והוציא זה בלשון ״רצון״ ו(גם) לפי שהם התחילו בזה בדעתם הם ולא בקשו בו רשות ממני.
וברצנם עקרו שור – אמר המפרש ״קלעא סורהא״ והוא (כטעם) מאמר התרגום (״תרעו שור סנאה״) והמקרא (כפשוטו) טעמו עקרו גידי ברך של שור כלומר (הרגו) את מושלם (של אנשי שכם) כפי מה שגדולי העם נמשלו הרבה פעמים לפרים ואילים כמפורסם.
Rabbi Sacks' masterful analysis in 'Parable of the Tribes' (Covenant & Conversation), deciphering the lessons and values underpinning Torah's account of the destruction of Shechem in Parshat Viyashlach, is highly instructive in this respect. Rabbi Sacks explains how there are situations in which there is no right actions, where whatever you do is, in some respect, wrong. He illustrates this with a thought experiment developed by American thinker, Andrew Schmookler. It is worthwhile to quote at length as Rabbi Sacks expresses it better than I ever could:
"Imagine a group of tribes living close to one another. All choose the way of peace except one that is willing to use violence to achieve its ends. What happens to the peace-seeking tribes? One is defeated and destroyed. A second is conquered and subjugated. A third flees to some remote and inaccessible place. If the fourth seeks to defend itself, it too will have to have recourse to violence. “The irony is that successful defence against a power-maximising aggressor requires a society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power can be stopped only by power.”[8]
There are, in other words, four possible outcomes: [1] destruction, [2] subjugation, [3] withdrawal, and [4] imitation. “In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes.”[9] Recall that all but one of the tribes seeks peace and has no desire to exercise power over its neighbours. Nonetheless, if you introduce a single violent tribe into the region, violence will eventually prevail, however the other tribes choose to respond. That is the tragedy of the human condition."
Good vort, though the real takeaway is that Jews as a body politic are doing exactly what Yakov did. Some are focusing on the Godly element, some on the military element, and all are contributing materially. So lets have done finally with all the nonsense of who's doing what, shall we?
Btw, you forgot the single most significant thing Yakov did, and that was to RUN AWAY. The Rashbam says the mysterious Ish/angel came not to prevent Yakov from meeting Esav, but to prevent him from running away. Hitherto that had always been Yakov's way of dealing with problems, to run away. The angel taught him to face up to his problems head on. To confront them, rather than back away. The Israeli entertainer/educator Noam Jacobson has a phenomenally powerful short video on this, I would encourage all of us, from right to left, to watch it. It made a profound impact on me when I saw it last year.
Yes, he focused on all 3. He didn't focus on one and let "others" do the rest. As a society, it is correct that you only send some to fight: it's those age 17-18 on up until you get enough. The others do the rest including filling in the gaps left by those called up.
The observations about the parsaha are striking. It's fantastic. And if you delve in further, you can find more. For example, Lavan is the tricker...you try this and he sends that. Hamas trade games.
This leads to foretelling "prophecies". I hope next week parshas vayeshev doesn't turn into internal strife where everyone gangs up on people that truly had everyone's best interests in mind claiming they didn't.
You claim to be researching the rationalist Rishonim's opinions, yet seem to have produced nothing!
Yaakov was scared even though he was promised. Why?
You have an 'obvious' answer, but an answer that is totally untenable. If a prophecy can be overturned, what is the value of prophecy? The Torah writes clearly that a prophecy that is not fulfilled disqualifies the prophet. A promise made by Hashem to a person MUST be fulfilled. Why was Yaakov scared?
The answer is easily accessible, especially to those who claim to learn the rationalist Rishonim, chief of whom is the Rambam.
But your casual mention of the question and the 'obvious' answer shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of the existence of this Rambam. Yet you pontificate as though you are the expert.
To everyone reading this blog, take a lesson from here. This is akin to an international human rights lawyer admitting never to having read the Geneva Accords, or a medical doctor who never heard of Germ Theory, an engineer who doesn't know what a right angle triangle is, or a Rabbi who thinks the Shulchan Aruch is a recipe book.
I don't know, is real prophecy a rationalist idea? If not, then what's your problem with this post? From a rationalist perspective, prophecy is not supernatural , but akin to an aspirational dream, like MLK's speech. He's explaining it rationally.
isaiah was a prophet of the hebrews
'Explaining' it without having seen the Rambam about it, is basically blowing smoke.
But Jewish law requires us to listen to a prophet and follow his message. It also tells us how to test a prophet to see if he is lying. If his prophecy does not come true, he is no prophet. Jewish law does not accept that prophecy is an 'aspirational dream'.
If Slifkin does not believe in prophecy, and thinks Yaakov Avinu was the same, let him say so. But that would still not free him from the claim of ignorance, when he did not even quote the Rambam on the topic.
Great post, just one point:
Chazal tell us that Yakov was afraid because of "שמא יגרום החטא" - that he may have sinned in the meantime causing the promises to be rescinded. Is that why you were afraid?
Shabbat Shalom
Of course. Humans in all sectors, Jewish or Gentile are sinning all the time. Certainly you think that Yaakov is above anyone today, yet he feared.
No idea what you are talking about. You seem to have misunderstood my point.
The self righteousness is truly astounding.
Of yàakov avinu?
No idea what you are talking about. You seem to have misunderstood my point.
I guess you've never sinned, and have nothing to be afraid of. 🤡
No idea what you are talking about. You seem to have misunderstood my point.
Congratulations Slif, this is one of the first non-objectionable things you have written in a while. Ok, you quoted Yuval Cherlow, who is himself objectionable, and also said a mocking line about how Yaakov didn't send his sons to Yeshiva (but neither did he send them to the IDF). Otherwise not bad. Not exciting, but not bad either. But you shouldn't be a cynical skeptic. It's your cynical skepticism that sucks all the flavor out of religious Judaism for you, that causes you to mock the idea of Tehillim killing terrorists. I realize it's a hard call to change your personality, but you really need to work on yourself.
By the way, I didn't start off a cynical skeptic. I started out as a wide-eyed trusting person. It's the shtuyot in the charedi world that turned me into a cynical skeptic. Like so many others I know.
False revisionism. Your intellectual development looked more like this: As you matured, you began to learn there were many other approaches to parshanus hamikrah, including, possibly, the seductive methods of biblical criticism. You gradually realized what you had learned in grade school back in Manchester didn't fit with pshuto shel kra. You began to see the academic approach to Gemara and felt attracted to it, having never truly been enamored of lomdus. (You made an effort to get on board with some Reb Chaims, but never really bought in, and it never really spoke to you.)
The skepticism was thus always innate, a part of your contrarian personality. The cynicism came later, as you gradually found yourself detached from the charedi world you had tried to become part of. You thus morphed into the mizrachi world, attracted by the wholesome image they project and their programme of chibas tzion, but being forced to join a culture that lacked the undeniable vahrmkeit of the yeshivishe world, and also was plagued with youth leaving in droves. Thus, you became a cynical skeptic, nowhere truly at home, a mind forever voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone.
Five cents, please.
english plz
lol, yes, my comment was a little highbrow :)
bro?
Keep it real ride or die my bro
In the hood grindin hard you know
Life's a struggle but we still glow
Brotherhood tight yeah, that's the show
I come here to learn about them hebrews, bro
No need to use all that fancy lingio
That's the way of losers, to blame their problems on everybody else. Don't be a loser, be a winner. Own up to your issues and work on yourself.
Also, you went from the shtuyot of the chareidi world to the infinitely greater shutout of your secular "rationalism". When it comes to that stuff, you somehow lose all skepticism, and you're endlessly credulous.
You shouldn't have been so wide-eyed. Eyes and brains shut is the way to be a good chareidi :)
He armed his servants and very likely his sons.
Where does it say he armed anybody? Sounds like he was trying to flee, actually. If we are conjecturing what's "likely", I say it's likely he sent his servants and sons to yeshiva.
Virtually every single commentary Rishonim and Acharonim state he prepared for battle as well as prayer and tribute to Esau
Where do they say how he prepared for battle? How do you know it was likely he armed his sons? From the pesukim, it sounds like his preparation for battle was how to run away. Not saying he for sure didn't arm his sons, but I see no evidence of that.
The question is how you know? His sons were definitely armed for battle in fighting Shechem. You think that for this specific incident he relied entirely on mercenaries and only later armed his children? Evidence?
I must confess my error. Rashi indeed says that Yaakov prepared to fight (to allow the other half to escape), this slipped my mind. But no proof to Cherlow's silly line.
Schechem was later.
See Rashi on נזיר כט:
ויקחו שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי איש חרבו וגמירי שמעון ולוי בההיא שעתא בני י"ג שנה הוו והרוצה לחשוב יצא ויחשוב
And the דינה episode was after the confrontation with עשו. Do the math, they were too young to be soldiers at the time.
I have no idea if he prepared to fight Eisav. The pesukim that Rashi quotes make is sound like the preparation for battle was to flee from battle. But if you have evidence that they prepared to fight, by all means. Cherlow said a saucy line about how he didn't send his kids to yeshiva, but we don't see that he sent his kids to the IDF either.
"How do you know it was likely he armed his sons?"
They were still rather young at the time. Do the math. How long was יעקב living by לבן? How long before marrying לאה and ראובן being born?
Basic פשט would indicate those boys were underage.
" and also said a mocking line about how Yaakov didn't send his sons to Yeshiva "
Rashi is clear as to what preparations יעקב did for the confrontation. Yeshiva study wasn't one of them. And his actions are seen as instructive for future generations. Why then, did he not send his boys to the בית מדרש?
While it is true, that Rabbi Cherlow is controversial and is considered on the left, he does make a point, that should be addressed: Why didn't יעקב include Torah study as part of his preparations? I'm not why you consider Rabbi Cherlow to be mocking anyone.
IDF service wasn't one of the preparations either. So it's just a dumb line meant to mock.
"Rashi is clear as to what preparations יעקב did for the confrontation. Yeshiva study wasn't one of them. And his actions are seen as instructive for future generations?"
He divided his camp in 2 so that one would survive. He flattered Esav to no end. His family all bowed. How that translates into the modern state of Israel going to war is anyone's guess. Fruit Stand theology is dumb. And not rationalist. Or rational.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/pure-gold/comment/18304955
Huh! You might as say ארץ אוכלת יושביה
So…וישלך is about trading off and a “truce” and sadly mentions rape… then ויגש is about being taken prisoner and then מקץ is about being released from prison, and finally ויגש is about redemption and reuniting. Let’s see if we can keep up this streak…
וישלח
Yaakov was frightened. But he spoke properly. He knew of-course Hashem keeps His promises but was worried if he might have done any actions to mess things up which might mean that the best thing for him now may be something else. He sure didn't say things that can be perceived to mean that Hashem doesn't have our best interests in mind. That would be very wrong.
It could be an איסור דאורייתא to be afraid of the enemy in war.
See ספר החינוך,
מצוה תקכ"ה.
You're not talking about the same kind of fear.
Pray, do explain.
A soldier should never let himself be afraid in battle. He should be fierce and courageous to hold his position and perform his duty.
Someone who has to take decisions for the people, on the other hand, is obligated to take fear into account. That's what Yaakov, Yirmeyahu, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakaï and many other leaders did.
The right course is to act despite the fear. Any soldier in a combat situation that claims that he is not afraid is either a liar or a lunatic.
I guess the Hinukh would call your "acting despite the fear" being fearless.
Have you ever talked to folks who have been in combat? The soldiers who are lunatics without fear usually die pretty quickly.
We're not talking about WWI and the subsequent battles. The mechanics of war have greatly changed since the middle ages and even more so since biblical times. Until the napoleonic wars, the single most determining factor in winning or losing any battle was the ability of your soldiers to hold the line, and it remained very important until WWI.
https://acoup.blog/2021/02/05/collections-the-universal-warrior-part-iia-the-many-faces-of-battle/
I think you missed the point here . . .
A very good post.
But as a side comment, it really isn't clear that the palestinian custom of completing the reading of the Torah in three years and a half is any older than the babylonian custom to do it in one year.
Correct. The "triennial cycle", as its proponents call it, is or was heavily promoted by the conservative movement. As you note, we have no reason to think it any older than the annual cycle, and in all events, it fell out of use a long time ago.
It didn't fall out of use as illegitimate. It has the same validity as our current cycle. The conservative movement has nothing to do with that.
I don't know history of this Minhag, but there were Jewish communities in Israel before there were the same in Bavel, even if Bavel later eclipsed Israel.
The Talmud doesn't say when we started to read the Torah with a particular order. It rather seems that at the beginning it was not the case (וידבר משה את מועדי ה' אל בני ישראל - מצוותן שיהיו קורין אותן כל אחד ואחד בזמנו).
Hence עזרא תיקן להן לישראל שיהו קורין קללות שבתורת כהנים קודם עצרת ושבמשנה תורה קודם ר"ה (you'll notice this works very well with the annual cycle).
By Ezra's time, of course, there were great jewish communities in Mesopotamia and Persia.
An interesting clue is that of the two haftarot for regular Shabbats mentioned in the Talmud to the best of my knowledge (one in the Mishna הודע את ירושלים את תועבותיה which is for parshas Shemos and the other in the Bavli עלותיכם ספו על זבחיכם which is for parshas Tsav) both are according to the babylonian custom (and even more interestingly they both fell out of favor in ashkenazi communities against the palestinian haftarot for the same sections).
This of course does not mean the palestinian custom was or is any less legitimate, as you rightly pointed out. But it isn't customary anymore (probably the appeal of reading shorter portions couldn't compete with the powerful idea of completing the Torah every year, especially after systematic translation was dropped off) .
הכזונה נעשה את אחותנו?
שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם: בסדם אל תבא נפשי בקהלם אל תחד כבדי כי באפם הרגו איש וברצנם עקרו שור: ארור אפם כי עז ועברתם כי קשתה אחלקם ביעקב ואפיצם בישראל:
"אכן פשט הכתוב הוא כי כל הכתוב ידבר במעשה יוסף..." (אור החיים מ"ט, ו')
Are you suggesting only pshat is important and not what Chazal said IN THE TALMUD? Even if so, just read the few verses leading to your quote and you'll know what was Yaakov's stance on this "military feat".
But anyway, that guy also knew quite a bit about pshat, and says the exact opposite:
בסדם וג׳ – הרמז אל הבגידה בשכם ואין ספק כי שמעון ולוי שאמר בהם הכתוב ויקחו שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי [וג׳] לא נכנסו לבדם להרוג אנשי שכם אלא הם שהיו המנהיגים במעשה והראשים [להמון] אשר נקהלו להרוג ולשלול.
וטעם אל תבא [לדעתי] ״לא באה״ ואל תחד ״לא חדה״ כלומר כאשר ישבו בסוד להועץ על ההרג לא ידעתי בו וכאשר נתגלה מה שקבעו ונקהלו עם חביריהם להוציא את מחשבתם אל הפועל לא שמחה נפשי; וידוע כי בשעת ההתעוררות להתנקם תהיה חזקת הכעס בתכלית הרוגז ואחר שהוציאה את הנקמה אל הפועל תפוג אלימותה ותשקוט ולכן בהכרח היו (שמעון ולוי) בשעת כניסתם להרג בתכלית מן חוזק הרוגז ולכן אמר (יעקב) כי באפם הרגו איש ואחר ההרג שקט רוגזם וכאשר נכנסו ליקח שבי ושלל ולהחריב ולא היו במצב הרוגז אלא כשמחים בנצחונם אמר (עליהם יעקב) ע״ה וברצנם עקרו שור (ו)רמז בזה כי אז לא היו במצב הרוגז אלא במצב שקיטת הרוגז והוציא זה בלשון ״רצון״ ו(גם) לפי שהם התחילו בזה בדעתם הם ולא בקשו בו רשות ממני.
וברצנם עקרו שור – אמר המפרש ״קלעא סורהא״ והוא (כטעם) מאמר התרגום (״תרעו שור סנאה״) והמקרא (כפשוטו) טעמו עקרו גידי ברך של שור כלומר (הרגו) את מושלם (של אנשי שכם) כפי מה שגדולי העם נמשלו הרבה פעמים לפרים ואילים כמפורסם.
(פ' ר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם בראשית מט,ו)
Thank you
Rabbi Sacks' masterful analysis in 'Parable of the Tribes' (Covenant & Conversation), deciphering the lessons and values underpinning Torah's account of the destruction of Shechem in Parshat Viyashlach, is highly instructive in this respect. Rabbi Sacks explains how there are situations in which there is no right actions, where whatever you do is, in some respect, wrong. He illustrates this with a thought experiment developed by American thinker, Andrew Schmookler. It is worthwhile to quote at length as Rabbi Sacks expresses it better than I ever could:
"Imagine a group of tribes living close to one another. All choose the way of peace except one that is willing to use violence to achieve its ends. What happens to the peace-seeking tribes? One is defeated and destroyed. A second is conquered and subjugated. A third flees to some remote and inaccessible place. If the fourth seeks to defend itself, it too will have to have recourse to violence. “The irony is that successful defence against a power-maximising aggressor requires a society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power can be stopped only by power.”[8]
There are, in other words, four possible outcomes: [1] destruction, [2] subjugation, [3] withdrawal, and [4] imitation. “In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes.”[9] Recall that all but one of the tribes seeks peace and has no desire to exercise power over its neighbours. Nonetheless, if you introduce a single violent tribe into the region, violence will eventually prevail, however the other tribes choose to respond. That is the tragedy of the human condition."
I'd like to know why we can't go with the 4th option, later in the parsha, and go with Reuven and Shimon's approach?
Good vort, though the real takeaway is that Jews as a body politic are doing exactly what Yakov did. Some are focusing on the Godly element, some on the military element, and all are contributing materially. So lets have done finally with all the nonsense of who's doing what, shall we?
Btw, you forgot the single most significant thing Yakov did, and that was to RUN AWAY. The Rashbam says the mysterious Ish/angel came not to prevent Yakov from meeting Esav, but to prevent him from running away. Hitherto that had always been Yakov's way of dealing with problems, to run away. The angel taught him to face up to his problems head on. To confront them, rather than back away. The Israeli entertainer/educator Noam Jacobson has a phenomenally powerful short video on this, I would encourage all of us, from right to left, to watch it. It made a profound impact on me when I saw it last year.
He focused on all of them. He didn't say "I'm the learner, let others fight".
He said "he didnt send his sons to yeshivah to protect them with torah." Thus completely missing the point.
Yes, he focused on all 3. He didn't focus on one and let "others" do the rest. As a society, it is correct that you only send some to fight: it's those age 17-18 on up until you get enough. The others do the rest including filling in the gaps left by those called up.
First to comment! Thank you Rabbi Slifkin for your always invaluable insight. Shabbat Shalom!