Friday, May 23, 2025

a hatred that never goes away

וְנָתַתִּ֤י שָׁלוֹם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וּשְׁכַבְתֶּ֖ם וְאֵ֣ין מַחֲרִ֑יד וְהִשְׁבַּתִּ֞י חַיָּ֤ה רָעָה֙ מִן־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְחֶ֖רֶב לֹא־תַעֲבֹ֥ר בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם׃

וּרְדַפְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם וְנָפְל֥וּ לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם לֶחָֽרֶב׃

 

 

Ohr haChaim asks: if וְנָתַתִּ֤י שָׁלוֹם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ , then what does the next pasuk mean וּרְדַפְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם?  If there is peace, then who are the enemies that need pursuing?

 

Many of the meforshim answer that the pasuk is not speaking about what takes place within Eretz Yisrael, but rather it is speaking about enemies outside Eretz Yisrael.  Ohr haChaim explains ומה שקרא אותם הכתוב אויבים, לא לצד שהם באים לצור על עיר הקודש שאם כן אין בטח ואין שלום ליושביה, אלא קרא אותם אויבים לצד אויבי ה׳ רשעי הגוים נקראים אויבי ה׳ ואויבינו.  He assumes that "oyeiv" means a physical threat, and he is therefore left with a problem: If there is peace in Eretz Yisrael, then there is no threat, so how does the term make any sense?  The O.C. does not consider the possibility that although we may have peace in Eretz Yisrael, there might still be Jews remaining in the diaspora who would have to deal with oyvim and physical threats.  Maybe idea that Jews would remain in disapora lands where they have to face the physical threat of oyvim when there is peace and bracha in Eretz Yisrael  is too silly and remote an idea to even consider. In any case, his solution is that oyvim does not just mean a physical threat, but can also mean אויבי ה׳.

 

The Ohr haChaim then adds something else.  I think the biggest mistake people have made in the past 2 years comes from not knowing this Ohr haChaim.  The history books are filled with the bloody and tragic stories of how Jews have been treated in Europe through the centuries: the endless cycle of pogroms, blood  libels, crusades, persecutions, inquisitions, and finally in our time, the Holocaust.  For some reason we thought this time would be different.  We thought this time the world had learned a lesson.  We thought barbaric attacks against Jews would not longer be condoned, and certainly not encouraged, by the "civilized" West.  Well, we were fools.  France is the same France of the Dreyfus trial; England is the same England that stopped Jews from escaping to Israel in the years preceding and during WWII, the same England that turned a blind eye to Arab violence against Jews under the Mandate.  Ohr haChaim writes  גם לצד שיודע ה׳ כי כל האומות שונא ישראל בטבע המתקנא והיא שנאה יסודית ואין לה תמורה.  And if you don't think that statement applies to the US of A, you are delusional.  


Are there individuals who are exceptions to the rule?  Of course there are.  But the exceptions are just that: exceptions.


I was reading Yardena Schwartz's book Ghosts of a Holy War: The 1929 Massacre in Palestine That Ignited the Arab-Israeli Conflict and every couple of pages she has to bring up the attack by Baruch Goldstein in Chevron, as if to provide something to stack up on the scale and provide balance against the litany of violance perpetrated by the Arabs.  What the author does not grap is that Goldstein is the exception that proves the rule.  For the most part, the Jews have not engaged in murder, in violent attacks, against the Arab population.  Goldstein was widely condemned by all segments of Israeli society.  The attacks against the Jews, however, are the rule.  The few Arabs who saved Jews during the Hebron massacre, the umos who saved Jews during the Holocaust, during other uprisings, had to stand against the masses who did engage in violance, and to this very day, celebrate that violence.  

 

The very next pasuk  וְרָדְפ֨וּ מִכֶּ֤ם חֲמִשָּׁה֙ מֵאָ֔ה וּמֵאָ֥ה מִכֶּ֖ם רְבָבָ֣ה יִרְדֹּ֑פוּ וְנָפְל֧וּ אֹיְבֵיכֶ֛ם לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם לֶחָֽרֶב׃ ends with exactly the same words וְנָפְל֥וּ לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם לֶחָֽרֶב׃ as our pasuk.  Why the word for word repitition?  Ibn Ezra answers: ונפלו אויביכם – פעם אחרת, שיפלו פעם אחרי פעם בלי תקומה.  Don't think that once you win the battle you are done.  We are dealing with, like the O.C. writes, a hatred that is built into the DNA of many people.  It will never go away.  Sadly, this is a battle that must be fought again, and again, and again.  

1 comment:

  1. I saw a nice thing. אתרג is a mnemonic for things that we ask for shleimus: אמונה תשובה רפואה גאולה.
    The Satmerer is quoted as having said pshat in refuah shleimah with reference to the Rambam's תשובה שלימה, that שיעיד עליו etc., so, too, refuah, that he'll be so cured that he'll never get that machala again. Could be he did say it, , but if he did, he would have said it better, i.e., that no shemetz remains. The only guarantee of not sinning is being six feet under. So יעיד עליו can't mean more than 'no roshem remains." That makes sense by refuah too. There's no such thing as guaranteed immunity. Same with anti semitism.
    Geula shleima, though, definitely means שיר חדש, a final end to tzaros. That is just impossible, בדרך הטבע.

    ReplyDelete