Nasso: Nurture Above Nature

Sometimes when we learn the Haftorah it can be difficult to determine the connection to the Parsha that led Chazal to select that particular passage. Other times the connection is quite overt, as seems to be the case this week. The Haftorah comes from Sefer Shoftim, and tells the story of the parents of Shimshon who were told by the Malach that he was to be a Nazir. Because the the Parsha of Nazir appears in this week’s Sedra, the intentions of Chazal seem clear. That said, as we examine the Pessukim of the Haftorah, perhaps we can identify another connection, this one to an even larger portion of the Parshas Hashavuah.

The basic outline of the story is relatively simple: the Navi tells us that there was a man named Manoach, and his wife was barren. A Malach appeared to Eishes Manoah and told her that she would soon have a son who is destined to be a savior for Klal Yisroel and would therefore be “Nizir Elokim…Min HaBetten”. The remainder of the Haftorah tells of the reaction Manoach had when he heard his wife’s report, and a subsequent encounter between he couple and the Malach. Seeing as Eishes Manoach is not even named in the Pessukim, the main character in the story would seem to be Manoach himself. that being the case we must ask ourselves: who was Manoach, and why was he Zoche to have a son like Shimshon?

In a sense, there is very little to go on in terms of answering this question, as the Passuk tells us almost nothing about Manoach, other than that he was “Ish Echad MiTzara MiMishpachas HaDani”, and even within the Divrei Chazal there seem to be some conflicting ideas.

On one hand, there seems to be evidence that Manoah was a remarkable person. The Medrash in Bamidbar Rabba tells us that the words “Ish Echad” are themselves notable, because: “Kol Makom Shenemar Echad Gadol Hu”, the term “Echad” denotes Gedulah, the prime example being the words “Hashem Echad”. When the Passuk refers to Manoach as a “Ish Echad”, then, it is telling us that Manoach was an Ish Gadol. This notion seems to be borne out later on as well.

After his wife tells Manoach about her initial encounter with the Malach, it seems that he wishes to hear the news for himself, and so he Davens to Hashem that the Malach return. The Lashon used in the Passuk to describe his Teffilos is “VaYe’etar Manoach El Hashem”, which is the same as the was the Torah refers to the Tefillos of Yitzchok Avinu, “Vayetar Yitzchok LiNochach Ishto”. In fact, the Medrash tells us that the term “VaYe’etar” refers to “Teffilas Tzaddikim”. We see, once again, that Manoach was in fact an Ish Gadol and a Tzaddik

On the other hand, the Navi does not tell us anything about his Gadlus, and nowhere in the Pessukim do we see any acts of Tzidkus, all we know is that he was “MiMishpachas HaDani”. In fact, to some extent it seems that Manoach was somewhat secondary to his wife. The Malach originally appeared to Eishes Manoach and she had to tell him about it later. Then, when Manoach Davened that the Malach return—about which the Passuk says “VaYishma HaElokim B’Kol Manoach”, that his Teffilos were answered—the Malach appears to his wife once again. This time the Passuk pointedly tells us “V’Hi Yosehves BaSadeh U’Manoach Isha Ain Imah”—she was alone and Manoach was not there, so she went to get him.

Upon hearing that the Malach had reappeared, the Passuk tells us “VaYakam VaYelech Manoach Acharei Ishto”. The words “Acharei Ishto” seem to be extra, as the Metzodos points out that only she knew where to find the Malacha, so of course Manoach had to follow here. Rashi therefore tells us that these words mean “Acharei Atzasa”. Even now, when Manoach saw that his Teffilos were answered, he went based on his wife’s suggestion, and not of his own volition.

In some way we must understand this apparent dichotomy: Manoach was an Ish Gadol but was also in some way almost Battul to his wife.

The only other detail that the Navi seems to highlight is his lineage—both at the beginning of the story, and at the end, his membership in the Shevet of Dan is mentioned. He was “Mimishpachas Hadani” and he raised his unique son “B’Machaneh Dan”. this seems to perhaps be the most significant aspect of Manoach’s life discussed in the Pessukim.

In Parshas Vayechi, when Yaakov offers Brachos to each of the Shevatim, the theme of each Bracha speaks to the character of the Shevet. For example, when Yehuda is told “Lo Yasur Shevet M’Yehudah”, it is a Bracha L’Doros: the Melucha will ever be in the hands of Yehuda’s offspring. Similarly, the Brachos that refer to the learning of Yissachar, and the Hachzakas HaTorah of Zevulan, apply to those Shevatim in perpetuity. When it comes to the Bracha of Shevet Dan, however, a distinct change is notable. The entire Bracha is centered on one individual: Shimshon.

As part of the Bracha, Yaakov Avinu refers to Dan as a “Nachash Ali Derech”, a snake in the roadway and the Meforshei HaPshat offer various comparisons between Shimshon and a snake. Sforno, for example, explains that just as one snake can kill many people, Shimshon singlehandedly slaughtered many Pelishtim. Indeed the Medrash Rabba explains the entire Bracha in this fashion.

A similar idea is seen Parshas Nasso as well. The Nasi of Shevet Dan brought his Korban on the tenth day of the Chanukas Hamizbeach, and the Torah identifies him as “Achiezer Ben Amishadai”. The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh writes that this name was a Remez to Shimshon: “Achi”, my brother, “Azar” will help or save. It seems that there can be no mention of Shevet Dan without some reference or connection to Shimshon.

It follows, then, that in some way Shimshon represented the pinnacle of Shevet Dan. It was in his lifetime that the Tafkid of this Shevet was revealed, as if the entire history of this Chelek of Klal Yisroel led to that point.

If we think about it, however, Shimshon was destined to this role. He was, as the Malach told Eshes Manoach, “Nizir Elokim Min HaBetten”, set aside before he was even born. His role, within Klal Yisorel but especially within his own Shevet, did not come because of his own actions or Zechuyos—what then was their source? One would conclude that it was the Zechus of his father, Manoach. It must be that somehow Manoach was the one who was worthy of bringing a Shimshon into this world, of producing the child that would be the standard-bearer of their Shevet, as Shimshon seems to have been. Aa we noted, however, there is little evidence as to where the Tzidkus of Manoach lay, how he was exemplary, and why he would indeed have been worthy of this Zechus.

Perhaps if we understand a little bit more about Shevet Dan, whom Chazal refer to as “Yerudim Shebeshevatim”, the lowliest of the Shevatim, we will be able to explain how this came about.

When Moshe Rabbeinu gave a Bracha to Shevet Dan prior to his Petirah he said two things: “Dan Gur Aryeh”, comparing the strength of Dan to a lion, and “Yizanek Min Habashan”, which Rashi explains refers to the fact that the Yarden begins in the Bashan, which is in the Chelek of Dan.

The Chasam Sofer asks: how are the two relared? Why, in a Bracha referring to the strength of Shevet Dan, comparable to that of a lion, does Moshe Rabbeinu see fit to make reference to a geographical detail? He explains that this is an allusion to the main characteristic of this Shevet.

The Gemara in Meseches Pesachim tells of a man that constantly said “Danu Dini”, judge my case, and the Rabbanim concluded that he was from Shevet Dan. This, explains the Chasam Sofer, indicates that Shevet Dan is marked by their tendency to instigate argument. This is why Moshe makes reference to the Yarden in his words to Shevet Dan. The Yarden, explains the Chasam Sofer, starts in the Bashan as a small stream, and eventually becomes a large river—arguments are the same way: they begin small and seem insignificant but can quickly escalate wreak havoc. There is a similar example of this in the way the Torah refers to the offspring of Dan ben Yaakov.

When counting the seventy people who came to Mitzrayim, the Passuk says “U’Bnei Dan Chushim”, using the plural form, Bnei, for just one person. The Gemara in Bava Basra, however, explains that perhaps the word Chushim does not refer to single son, but to the fact that Dan had so many children, that they were “K’Chushim Shel Kana”, like a group of reeds. The Chasam Sofer explains that here too we have an example, relating to Shevet Dan, of something that seems small, just the word Chushim, but expands quickly into a group. So too, he concludes, the arguments for which Shevet Dan is known, have the tendency to become quickly outsized.

With this in mind, let us turn back to Manoach.

As we go through the Pessukim in the Haftorah, a pattern emerges: not once does Manoach respond to something someone says to him. Eishes Manoach comes home and tells him a fantastic tale—a Malach appeared to her and said that she, who had been barren for years, would have a child, making all sorts of predictions about the future of this son and proclaiming him a Nizir MiBetten, with the attendant requirements. Manoach was aparenlty skeptical of her report, as evidenced by his subsequent Teffilah, but he does not say a word, he just begins to Daven that he be able to corroborate her story himself.

Then, when his wife comes back and tells him that the Malach has appeared once again, “Vayelech Achrei Ishto”, he follows her, making no issue of the fact that he had asked Hashem to send the Malach. Later, at the end of the Perek, Manoach becomes distraught at the notion that they have spoken to a Malach, clearly understanding the impact of such an encounter, and he says: “Mos Namus Ki Elokim Ro’inu”. His wife responds, arguing that this was not the case, but the Passuk makes no mention of a rejoinder on his part, the conversation concludes with her statement.

Lest we think that this Derech was limited to the interactions between Manoach and his wife, we see a similar behavior when he speaks to the Malach. After hearing what the Malach had to say, Manoach asks him: “Mah Shimecha”, something he apparently learned from Yaakov Avinu who asked the same question when he encountered Saro Shel Esav. The Malach demuered, just as in the time of Yaakov Avinue, refusing to reveal his name, but here the similarities end. Yaakov insisted, asking the Malach a second time “Hagida Nah Shimecha”, but Manoach does not repeat his request—he moves on.

Perhaps, then, this is the defining the Middah of Manoach: to avoid conflict or argument, even it seems, when it was painful. The Medrash points out that when the Malach first appears to Eshes Manoach he says “Hinei At Akara”, which seems out of place because clearly she knew that she was barren. The Medrash explans, however, that the Malach said this because Eishes Manoach would blame her husband for their childlessness, when it was in fact due to her own physiological inability. Manoach then lived in an environment of Ketata, one that reflected the heritage of his Shevet, but he rose above it. Despite the pain of his own challenges, and contrary to the Middah of his Shevet he appears to have been non-argumentative, averse to conflict or confrontation.

Perhaps this is why Manoach was chosen to bear Shimshon, the savior of Klal Yisroel. As a member of Shevet Dan, Manoach should have been prone to argument, as the Chasam Sofer explained—and his life situation could have magnified this propensity—but Manoach perfected his Middos beyond what could have expected of him. He became an Ish Gadol, one who was willing not to have the last word, to let others take the lead even at the expense of his own Kavod. It was in this Zechus that he had a son that would be the crowning glory of their Shevet, eventually rising above his own challenges to save Klal Yisroel.

In the Parsha we read the Korbanos of the Nesiim. Chazal tell us that although each brought the same Korban, they did so coincidentally—each had his own Cheshbon in brining these specific items. In this way, the particular Kochos and Hashpaos of each Shevet was put into the Chanukas Hamizbeach. The Parsha thus teaches us that every member of Klal Yisroel has something to offer, an impact to make.

The Haftorah teaches us that this is true in Tikkun Hamidos as well. Each person has certain characteristics that are inborn, maybe even indigenous to his culture, his family or his entire Shevet. This, however, is not an excuse but an opportunity. At the time of Manoach, the Passuk tells us that there was a great distance between Klal Yisroel and Hashem, so much so that the Pilishtim were allowed to rule over us for forty years. The only one who was Zoche to bring about change in that environment was Manoach, who overcame every obstacle in becoming an Ish Gadol, one who avoided conflict. Every one of uscan be achieve this success on our own level, working to perfect even those Middos which are inborn and most ingrained in our very being, becoming Anashim Gedolim in our own right.