Shmuel I: 14 tells the story of Shaul haMelech making an oath that no one may eat until the war against the Plishtim is finished. Not knowing of his father's oath, Shaul's own son, Yehonason, licked some honey to regain his strength while pursuing the enemy. Yehonasan's heoric valor brought the people victory and the Plishtim were defeated. When the battle ended, however, Yehonasan faced the death penalty for violating his father's oath. The people protested (14:45):
? וַיֹּאמֶר הָעָם אֶל-שָׁאוּל, הֲיוֹנָתָן יָמוּת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הַיְשׁוּעָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
The story ends that the people redeemed Yohanasan and he was not killed.
The simple reading of the people's response is that they refused to accept that their hero should be put to death for a minor crime. However, the Ramban at the end of Bechukosai understands this pasuk as saying much more. Ramban introduces a theological principle: G-d does not deliver miracles through sinners. The pasuk can now be read as advancing a theological argument: Had Yohanason been guilty of intentionally violating his father's oath, then the miracle of victory over the Plishtim could not have come about through his hands -- the very fact that Yehonasan was the instrument of "yeshua gedolah", a great deliverance, proves his innocence!
At the end of this week, if you spend a moment thinking back about the events of 1967 (it's not on my kids' school calendar, and when I asked one about it last night she did not even know what Yom Yerushalayim was), think about this Ramban. I heard a Rav who subscribes to Satmar ideology say that there was no "yeshua gedolah", as he dug up some CIA documents that showed that intelligence agencies had predicted the Israeli's would win, so the victory was no big deal. I personally find that ludicrous. Yet, if a yeshua gedola did occur, we must accept that it was brought about through soldiers many of whom were not particularly religious. Or were they? A Ramban worth reading...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ill just ask the following here b/c i dont know where to put random comments: the gemara learns thats theres only yeshiva in the azarah for malchus beis dovid from the pasuk in shmuel beis perek zayin right after nossons nevuah "vayavo hamelech dovid vayshov", i was bothered that there wasnt any beis hamikdash yet. i looked around for the kasha and didnt see anyone discuss it. anyone got anything?
ReplyDeleteChaim, that Ramban is a great find. Why, though, did you wait until this week to put it up? This is something that deserves to be discussed at Shabbas tables all over America. Although I have to disagree with your implication that the early Zionists were innocent of sin...nobody would say that those vitriolic enemies of Torah were saints. So either the Ramban is just saying what the people thought, but really Shaul was right, or their bravery and their dedication to Jewish people was a greater factor than their sins, as Reb Meir Simcha says by the shiras hayam about the generation of Achav.
ReplyDelete>>>So either the Ramban is just saying what the people thought, but really Shaul was right, or their bravery and their dedication to Jewish people was a greater factor than their sins,
ReplyDeleteIMHO neither of these approaches fits the text of the Ramban. Other meforshim discuss why Yehonasan was innocent (e.g. the oath of Shaul was on achila, not te'ima) -- not that he was guilty but had other zechuyos to weigh the scales in his favor. Anyway, being innocent of sin w/o being a saint is also a nice madreiga.
Look at the Maharsha in SOTAH
ReplyDeleteBut in the case of Yohanason it's THROUGH the "sin" (licking honey to regain his strength) that the yeshua comes. IOW the sin and yeshua are directly connected.
ReplyDeleteIn 1967 (or Entebbe - according to Satmar) the case is very different. There we are simply dealing with those who happen to have, incidentally, a "sinful" lifestyle. Sims were not directly connected to the yeshua.
Haven't we seen flawed people accomplish great things somehow for the tzibbur? That's in the merit of the tzibbur!
ReplyDeleteTo complete that thought---why do we assume the victory gained in the cited story was miraculous?
ReplyDelete>>>it's THROUGH the "sin
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. The Ramban is not saying that yeshua cannot come through cheit -- he makes very clear that it is a din in the gavra, that yeshua cannot come through a chotei. Big difference.
>>>That's in the merit of the tzibbur!
That does not diminish the Ramban's point that G-d does not act even in the merit of the tzibur through sinners.
>>>why do we assume the victory gained in the cited story was miraculous?
Because the Plishtim were fully armed and the Jewish people were not. Hard to win a war without weapons.
>>>it's THROUGH the "sin
ReplyDelete"Irrelevant. The Ramban is not saying that yeshua cannot come through cheit -- he makes very clear that it is a din in the gavra, that yeshua cannot come through a chotei. Big difference."
That's your interpetation. All the Ramban says is that since the nes happened through him, the people knew that what he did was be shoggeg and not be maizid. He quotes a Targum Yehonasan ben Uzziel to that effect.
Meaning that a nes would not come about through an aveira be meizid, but could through a chet be shoggeg.
That is very different than saying that a nes cannot come about through a rasha whose rishus is not directly connected to the maaseh nes.
Incidentally, this point was a Machlokes between the Satmar Rov and the Brisker Rov. The former felt that a nes cannot come about through wicked people. The latter famously stated that Hashem can even make a nes through snakes and scorpions.