Eternal Dispute

The Haftorah for Parshas Chukas is taken from Sefer Shoftim, and includes the Pessukim in which the Navi introduces us to Yiftach HaGiladi. Yiftach was one of the Shoftim—in all he served for six years before passing away—but he also led a very complicated, sometimes controversial, life. These initial Pessukim discuss Yiftach’s rise to power, itself the result of a complex situation.

The Haftorah begins by telling us about Yiftach, born to Gilad, who had something of a spotty heritage, as the Passuk tells us: “V’Hu Ben Isha Zonah”. As a result, his brothers did not allow him to participate in their father’s Yerusha, and Yiftach left their area, called Gilad, and ran to Eretz Tov, where he settled down. A while later Amon fought with Bnei Yisroel, and the front lines were at Gilad. At that time the Ziknei Gilad went to Eretz Tov, to summon Yiftach back to his ancestral home and lead the fight against Amon.

Perhaps surprisingly, Yiftach does not turn them down outright. He admonishes them for their apparent duplicity, and then lays out the terms of his involvement. Yiftach was willing to lead the war against Amon, but there would be a compensation for his success: “Anochi Aheyeh Lachem L’Rosh”, he would be appointed as a leader in Gilad. The Zekeinim agree to this stipulation, and Yiftach returns to Gilad.

Yiftach was presumably selected for this role due to his physical prowess—indeed his story is introduced with the words “V’Yiftach HaGildadi Haya Gibor Chayil. His initial engagements with Amon, however, are not military, but diplomatic. Yiftach first sends a simple message to the Melech Bnei Amon: “Mah Li v’Lach Ki Ba’asa Eilai L’Hilachem B’Artzi”. Metzudos explains that Yiftach termed the question in first person, but he was really asking what argument existed between the two nations that necessitated war. The Melech Bnei Amon responds with a rather familiar-sounding claim: “Ki Lakach Yisroel Es Artzi B’Aloso MiMitzrayim”. Bnei Yisroel, insists the king of Amon, were occupiers, having seized the land of Amon when they came up from Mitzrayim. This being the case, suggests the king: “V’Ata Hashiva Eshen B’Shalom”, a peaceful surrender is in order.

Just as we might in the modern era, Yiftach responds to these claims by first attempting to set the historical record straight. He sends back the following message: “Lo Lakach Yisroel Es Eretz Moav V’es Eretz Bnei Amon”. The claim of Amon was simply not true: the land included in the bounds of Eretz Yisroel had never belonged to Amon or Moav. These facts are supported by the travels of Bnei Yisroel at the end of their time in the Midbar, as Yiftach goes on to detail.

Yiftach continues, making a different sort of argument: “Halo Es Asher Yorishcha Kimosh Elohecha Oso Tirosh”. The god of Amon was called Kimosh, and Yiftach suggested that the Melech Bnei Amon should be satisfied with that which his deity has granted him, just as Yisroel only enjoys that which Hashem has benn Morish them.

Neither of these arguments are successful, and so the Navi goes on to tell us that Yiftach was forced to engage in battle with Amon, in which he was victorious.

There are many questions that can be asked on these Pessukim. First, what was Yiftach’s overall strategy? Why did he engage in diplomacy at this point? Rashi, at the beginning of the Haftorah, tells us that the war with Amon had been ongoing for a while, why attempt to negotiate in this way now? Second, what was the tactic behind the two approaches of Yiftach: why did he first discuss the historical fact, and then try to appeal to the faith the Melech Amon may or may not have in his god, Kimosh?

Perhaps in order to better understand the actions of Yiftach here, we should examine one of the details he included in his message.

Yiftach’s discussion of the ownership of Eretz Yisroel, and the rights Bnei Yisroel had to the land, starts very far back, from the point of “B’Alosam MiMitzrayim.” Then, he briefly discusses our travels in the Midbar: “Vayelech Yisroel BaMidbar Ad Yam Suf VaYavo Kadesha.” From that point he speaks about the various negotiations between Moshe Rabbeinu and the Malachim whose territories bordered Eretz Yisroel, some of which begin in this week’s Sedra.

At first glance, the beginning of Yiftach’s presentation seems out of place: why did he mention the Yam Suf at all? The interactions between Moshe and the Malachim of Edom, Emor and Moav were certainly relevant to the issue at hand, but why speak about the Yam Suf?

Rashi, perhaps sensitive to this point, explains that Yiftach was speaking about the Yam Suf that is “B’Daroma Shel Eretz Edom”, at the southern border of the land belonging to Edom. The Yam Suf forks off in two at its northern terminus. One arm goes to the right, towards Eilat and the other to the left, towards Eygpt. Rashi is explaining that Yiftach here refers to the right-hand fork, which is in the area that Bnei Yisroel traveled during their final months in the Midbar. According to Rashi, the Yam Suf referenced is different than the one with which we are familiar, but it indeed contributed to the next part of Yiftach’s narrative.

Radak, on the other hand, explains that the Yiftach was indeed speaking about the left-hand fork of the Yam Suf—the one that we crossed a few days after leaving Mitzrayim. He goes to great lengths to explain the way that Yiftach described the Mas’aos and why he may have done so in this way, but in the view of Radak it is clear that Yiftach here makes reference to Krias Yam Suf.

Why? What relation does Krias Yam Suf have to the disputed territories of Eretz Yisroel? Why mention the Yam Suf when speaking to Melech Amon about the land he was claiming, which lay so many miles away?

The truth is that there seems to be a connection between Amon and Krias Yam Suf, which might help us understand this Passuk.

In Shiras HaYam, Bnei Yisroel speak of the reaction the nations of the world had to the Nes: “Az Nivhalu Alufei Edom Eilei Moav Yochazemu Ra’ad Nemogu Kol Yoshvei Cannan”. The chiefs of Edom are said to have been dismayed, and the tribes of Moav—which generally includes Amon as well—afraid. The Mechilta here asks a question: why would Amon and Moav been nervous? Bnei Yisroel had a direct Tzivuy not to confront these nations or try to sieze their land—what did they have to fear?

The Medrash explains that they had a fear beyond any land conflict: “Amru Achshav Hem Ba’im L’Aror Meriva Shebein Avinu LAvihem”. The nations of Amon and Moav were nervous that Bnei Yisroel would now come to adjudicate a Merivah of old, the one that took place between Avrohom Avinu and Lot, the ancestor of Amon and Moav.

It seems that the events of Krias Yam Suf somehow awakened in the Bnei Amon a memory of the Merivah between Avrohom and Lot, and a fear that the argument would somehow be reignited. We must of course understand why that may be true—what was it about this Nes that brought to mind the argument of old?

The Meriva itself is discussed in Parshas Lech Lecha with very little detail. We are told only that there was a Riv between the shepherds of Lot and those of Avrohom, and that rather than attempting to mend the rift, Avrohom and Lot split apart.

Rashi, and the Meforshei HaPshat explain that the Merivah was caused by the Roei Lot acting as if they already had been Yoresh the entirety of Eretz Yisroel, which the Passuk tells us was not true: “V’HaCanani V’HaPrizi Az Yoshev B’Aretz.” That said, one cannot help but assume that there was a deeper, more elemental argument between Avrohom and Lot, one that indeed caused them to split from one another.

R’ Shlomo Kluger, in a Kehilas Yaakov for Rosh Hashana, provides just such an explanation.

As we know, there is a concept of “Zeh L’Umas Zeh Bara Elokim” which means that everything in existance has an exact oposite. Therefore, just like HKBH is the “Kodesh MiKol HaKEdoshim”, there is a force that is the opposite, known as the Sitra Acher. Klal Yisroel, which is Kodesh, is connected to HKBH, and the Umos HaOlam to the Sitra Acher—each earthly representation being sustained and affected by its Ruchnias counterpart.

Kneses Yisroel, explains R’ Shlomo, are known as “Avrom”, their ultimate forebearer, and the Sitra Acher is refered to in the Zohar as “Lot”. These two forces Avrom and Lot are in constant battle, one always prevailing over the other.

Based on this, R’ Shlomo explains that the Torah is speaking about the Merivah between the Koach of Avrom and that of Lot. The Ro’im spoken about in the Passuk are the leaders of Klal Yisroel and those of the UMos HaOlam, who engage in a constant battle, each wishing to control both Olam HaZeh and Olam HaBa’ah. Rather than allowing this battle to rage, however, Avrom suggests a Pshara: Lot and his followers can have dominion over Olam HaZeh, and Avrom, represented by Kneses Yisroel, will take Olam Haba’ah. As we know, when Lot left Avorohom he headed to Sdom—so to anyone who chooses the path of Lot travels toward depravity.

This arrangement, the division of the two Olamos, is not an absolutely permenant solution, however. R’ Shlomo explains that there will be a time in which Avrom, and therefore Kneses Yisroel, will receive control of both Olam Hazeh and Olam HaBah. In the days of L’Asid Lavo, the Sitra Acher will be defeated, and the Ro’ei Lot will lose their grasp on This World, finally ceding it to the Ro’ei Avrom.

Perhaps this can help understand the Mechilta: when the Eilei Moav saw the Nissim of Yetzias Metzrayim, and specifically Krias Yam Suf, they became concerned: “Amru Achshav Hem Ba’im L’Aror Meriva Shebein Avinu LAvihe”. Maybe, they feared, the arrangement reached so many years before, in which the two Olamos were divided, would now come to its end. The Nissim of Krias Yam Suf may have seemed like they heralded the Yemos HaMoshiach, and the victory of the Kochos of Avrom, thus causing the descendants of Lot much consternation.

If this is the case, this may have been the message that Yiftach sought to send as well. By mentioning the Yam Suf, he set the tone for his entire communication. This was not a negotiation based on history, land rights, or heritage—it was a representation of the Meriva between Avrom and Lot. Just as the ancestors of Melech Bnei Amon had trembled at the thought of the Meriva being adjudicated anew, the current ruler would do well to reconsider his actions. The peace that had been negotiated millennia before, in which Lot took Olam HaZeh and Avrom Olam HaBaah, was merely temporary, and at any minute the Umos HaOlam could lose their grip on the physical world.

In referencing Kimosh, then, Yiftach was not changing tacks, he was continuing this line of discussion. The god of Amon was certainly a representation of the Sitra Acher, and by mentioning him Yiftach was reminding Amon that their ancestor had set the path on which they tread. Before resorting to warfare, Yiftach tried to reframe the discussion, reminding Melech Bnei Amon that Klal Yisroel represented Olam HaBaah and would ultimately be successful in their battle against the forces of Lot.

When we read these Pessukim, then, we must recall our part in this battle. We are still engaged in the Merivah of Avrom and Lot—we battle the Sitra Acher every day. By making the choices that bring us closer to Avrohom, and further from Lot, we can hasten the arrival of the day in which this Meriva will be settled once and for all.