Vision Test

יָבוֹא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֶת הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִי יָרֵא, וְיִפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקים

In Parshas Beshalach , we learn about several important milestones that followed Yetzias Mitzrayim . Besides Krias Yam Suf , and the Shiras HaYam, we learn about the events of Marah and Rephidim, as well as the advent of the Monn. The final episode discussed in the Parsha, however, is the one with the longest-lasting impact.

The Torah tells us וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְפִידִם, we were attacked by Amalek, and responded with force. Although the Torah tells us that Amalek was vanquished, ending the battle, it seems that the war persists, as the Parsha concludes: וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי־יָד עַל־כֵּס קָהּ מִלְחָמָה לַיהֹוָה בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר and Rashi explains: נִשְׁבַּע הַקָּבָּ"ה שֶׁאֵין שְׁמוֹ שָׁלֵם וְאֵין כִּסְאוֹ שָׁלֵם עַד שֶׁיִּמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק כֻּלּוֹ. The attack that is described in these Pessukim had ramifications that endure to this day, only to be resolved when Amalek is destroyed in totality.

This being the case, it seems important to learn any lessons that might help us understand how to eliminate this most destructive enemy once and for all.

After telling us that Amalek attacked in Rephidim, the Torah speaks about the reaction of Moshe Rabbeniu: וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר־לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק. He immediately instructed Yehoshua to assemble an army to engage Amalek the next day. In a way, the appearance of Yehoshua in this Passuk is somewhat surprising: this is the first time he is introduced in the Torah, yet he is not introduced as others are when they are first mentioned.

This sudden introduction of Yehoshua leads to the question asked by the Medrash here: לָמָּה לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ? Why, in fact, was Yehoshua chosen to lead Bnei Yisroel into this war? The Medrash offers several answers to this question, all of which are predicated on one fact: Yehoshua was from Shevet Ephraim and therefore a descendant of Yosef HaTzaddik, a lineage that uniquely qualified him to defeat Amalek.

The various answers given by the Medrash explain why this is the case—why a descendant of Yosef, in this case Yehoshua, had to be the one to lead the fight against Amalek. Among the answers, we find the following: זְקֵנְךָ אָמַר אֶת הָאֱלֹקִים אֲנִי יָרֵא, וּבָזֶה כְּתִיב וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים. Yosef Hatzaddik, when speaking to the other Shevatim in Parshas Miketz , declared אֶת הָאֱלֹקִים אֲנִי יָרֵא, while Amalek is described, in Parshas Ki Seitzei , with the words וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים. Concludes the Medrash: יָבוֹא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֶת הָאֱלֹקִים אֲנִי יָרֵא, וְיִפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים. It is fitting that the grandson of Yosef, who was an avowed יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים defeat the nation that is described with the opposite term: לֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים.

On one hand, the Medrash seems deceptively simple: Yosef Hatzaddik was outstanding in the Middah of יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, and he could therefore serve as a foil for Amalek, who is defined by the words וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים. But if we think about it, this requires some explanation. Why does the fact that Yosef Hatzaddik was a יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים mean that his descendant, in this case Yehoshua, would be able to defeat Amalek? What does the יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם of Yosef have to do with the lack thereof displayed by Amalek?

By the same token, one wonders why Amalek is indeed defined by these words. The Gemara in Brachos asks: אַטּוּ יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם מִילְּתָא זוּטַרְתָּא הִיא, suggesting that the Middah of יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם is not easily acquired. If therefore seems axiomatic that Amalek lacks יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם, and certainly there were behaviors or attitudes that were more destructive than a lack of this apparently lofty Middah . Why, then, does the Torah specifically tell us וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים, and why is it this deficiency that makes Amalek susceptible to descendants of Yosef HaTzaddik?

It is interesting to note that this Medrash seems to highlight one significant reason that Yehoshua, a descendant of Yosef, was chosen to lead the battle against Amalek: יָבוֹא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֶת הָאֱלֹקִים אֲנִי יָרֵא, וְיִפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים. It seems, however, that there are a number of reasons that this may have been the case.

The Tanchuma , on the words וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים in Parshas Ki Seitzei , indeed brings this Memrah , but then adds several others. For example: זֶה כָּתוּב בּוֹ נַעַר, וְזֶה כָּתוּב בּוֹ קָטֹן, the Pessukim refer to Yosef as נַעַר and Esav as קָטֹן. Another connection between Yosef and Amalek is found in the fact that זֶה גָּדַל בֵּין שְׁנֵי צַדִּיקִים וְלֹא לָמַד מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם, וְזֶה גָּדַל בֵּין שְׁנֵי רְשָׁעִים וְלֹא לָמַד מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם. Both grew up in the home of Tzaddikim but Yosef learned from the ways of his parents, while Esav rebelled against his. Also, זֶה גָּדַר עַצְמוֹ מִן הָעֶרְוָה וּמִשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְזֶה טִנֵּף עַצְמוֹ בְּעֶרְוָה וּבִשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, Yosef resisted the Aveiros that presented themselves to him, while Esav did not. In all, the Medrash recounts eight ways in which Yosef and Esav are reflective of each other, each one a reason that Yehoshua, the progeny of Yosef was selected to fight Amalek, the heir of Esav.

We see from the Tanchuma that there were many reasons that the descendants of Yosef were well-suited to oppose Amalek, yet the Medrash here, on the Pessukim that describe the actual battle, chose only one. Why? Why did the Medrash only speak about the difference between the יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם of Yosef and Amalek, which as we have pointed out, was almost to be expected? What do the words יָבוֹא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֶת הָאֱלֹקִים אֲנִי יָרֵא, וְיִפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים teach us?

There is another important question that must be raised as we think about this Medrash.

After telling us that Yehoshua went out to battle with his army, וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר־לוֹ מֹשֶׁה לְהִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק, the Passuk adds: וּמֹשֶׁה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עָלוּ רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה. Moshe, Aharon and Chur—the leaders of Klal Yisroel—ascended a mountain, where those on the ground could see them. The Pessukim continue: וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכַאֲשֶׁר יָנִיחַ יָדוֹ וְגָבַר עֲמָלֵק. When Moshe’s hands were raised, Bnei Yisroel overpowered the army of Amalek, but when his hands were lowered, they were less successful.

The Gemara in Rosh Hashana points out that these Pesuskim cannot be taken literally: וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה. Rather, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים. The success of Klal Yisroel depended on their Teffilos and Bitachon —when they placed their hopes in HKBH, they were successful in battle.

It emerges that although the Torah credits Yehoshua with the military victory, וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת־עַמּוֹ לְפִי־חָרֶב, it was the Teffilos of Klal Yisroel that actually carried the day. If so, why was it necessary to send Yehoshua specifically to fight the war? It seems that it was only Yehoshua who could effectuate the victory that was made possible כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה—why? If the army was but a tool for the Hashgachas Hashem, as the Gemara makes clear, why did it matter who led them?

The answer to these questions, and gain a better understanding of the Medrash, it is necessary to explain the Middah of יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם in a new light.

The Gemara in Sukka makes a statement: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט, כְּאִילּוּ מִילֵּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ חֶסֶד. If one acts with righteousness, it is as if he has filled the entire world with Chessed , as the Passuk in Tehillim says אוֹהֵב צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט חֶסֶד ה׳ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ. The Gemara continues, explaining that this is not an easy task, as another Passuk teaches: מַה־יָּקָ֥ר חַסְדְּךָ֗ אֱלֹקִים, true Chesed is indeed rare and precious. One should therefore not assume that just anyone can fill the role expressed by the words כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט, כְּאִילּוּ מִילֵּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ חֶסֶד.

The Gemara concludes with a rejoinder, however: יָכוֹל אַף יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם כֵּן, one might think that the same is true of a יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם, but the Passuk in Tehillim tells us: וְחֶסֶד ה׳ מֵעוֹלָם וְעַד עוֹלָם עַל יְרֵאָיו. What is the connection between the two? Why does the Gemara make the point that a יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם is different in this regard?

R’ Shlomo Wolbe , in Da’as Shlomo on Shavuos, explains that the seems to be telling us that a יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם would have an easier time accomplishing the mandate of כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט, כְּאִילּוּ מִילֵּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ חֶסֶד, because his יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם allows him to achieve greatness in Chessed . This is because, although it may seem otherwise the two are not unrelated Middos . Rather, חֶסֶד and יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם are adjacent to one another—a reality that the Mashgiach goes on to explain.

The worst Middah a person can have, explains R’ Wolbe , is self-absorption. Although a certain amount of self-preservation is necessary for one to survive in the world, a person must also be able to see past his own self-interest. This idea can be explained through a Mashal brought by R’ Yisroel Salanter : glass is translucent, but if the proper backing is applied it becomes a Mirror. Similarly, if a person becomes totally obsessed with themselves and their own needs, they are only able to see themselves and not the world around them.

If a person finds himself in this situation, he has no capacity for empathy, no ability to put himself in another’s place and understand their needs. As such, he is unable to do Chesed, for this requires a person to see beyond himself, into the world of another. R’ Wolbe adds that even if a person who suffers from this malady understands the needs of another, he certainly will not be able to perform the Chessed in a way that makes the recipient comfortable and proud. This is because proper execution of Chesed requires a certain level of Chochma and Pikchus that a self-absorbed person just cannot achieve. The proper performance of Chessed , it seems, requires vision and the same is true, explains the Mashgiach, of Yiras Shamayim.

It is no coincidence tha the words יִרְאֶה and רְאֵה are so closely relate, because יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם also requires vision, as the Passuk in this weeks Parsha, just prior to Shiras HaYam, tells us: וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה...וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם. If a person cannot see beyond himself—his own needs and wants, his own ambitions, insecurities and tendencies—he has no ability to achieve יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם. A person must be able to see the world around him to fully appreciate the יָּד הַגְּדֹלָה, the Hashgacha Elyona that dictates every aspect of this world. If a person is blind to everything outside his immediate four Amos, he has no hope of achieving יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם .

This, explains R’ Wolbe , is the message of the Gemara in Sukkah: if a person is a true יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם, he has conditioned himself to see the world clearly, without self-interest, and he can therefore accomplish greatness in Chesed. Because the two Middos require the same sense of vision, a יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם can more handily reach a level of כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט, כְּאִילּוּ מִילֵּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ חֶסֶד.

Perhaps this idea can help us understand the relationship between Yosef and Amalek, as expressed by the Medrash.

Of course, there are many connections between Yosef and Amalek, as the Tanchuma explains, but at the heart of them all was one difference: clear vision. Yosef defined himself as a יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם, telling his brothers אֶת הָאֱלֹקִים אֲנִי יָרֵא, and this led to all his other accomplishments. He learned from the ways of his parents, and later avoided terrible Aveiros , because he could see the world clearly. Esav, on the other hand, was totally self-obsessed, as he tells Yaakov Avinu : הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ לָמוּת וְלָמָּה־זֶּה לִי בְּכֹרָה. He could see only his own world, only that which mattered to him, and the בְּכֹרָה which would have gone to his children, therefore had no value. It was this trait that was passed on to his heir, Amalek, who is defined by the words וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹקִים.

The Medrash is telling us that the clash between the ways of Yosef and Amalek was not incidental—it was elemental. Yosef Hatzaddik had clarity of vision that led to יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם , and it was this Middah that would ultimately defeat Amalek who has no sense of vision at all.

This idea can help us understand the Gemara in Rosh Hashana as well: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים. If we think about it, why was it necessary to give Bnei Yisroel something to look at—why not just instruct them to Daven? Even the words מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה are curious—why did they have to look up towards Hashem?

The answer is now clear: the army of Bnei Yisroel was led by Yehoshua, the scion of Yosef Hatzaddik , to pass on a message. If we hope to defeat Amalek, then or now, we must be able to see clearly. If we are מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה , if we recognize the יָּד הַגְּדֹלָה that runs this world, we will attain the levels of יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם necessary to vanquish the descendants of Esav. It is only through this clarity of vision that we can hope to bring about the ultimate destruction of our most persistent enemy, bringing about the advent of a new reality in which שְׁמוֹ שָׁלֵם וְכִּסְאוֹ שָׁלֵם .