True Vision

Seeing as Parshas Nasso includes the Pessukim that teach us about the concept of Nazir, it is fitting that the Haftorah tells the beginning of the story of Shimshon. In these Pessukim we learn that a Malach appeared to Eshes Manoach, who had until then been childless, with the good tidings that she would soon bear a son. This wonderful Besurah had a surprising proviso however: the son was to be a Nazir M’Beten, and his mother would therefore be required to begin keeping some of the Dinim related to Nezirus from that very moment.

Although the remainder of the Pessukim focuses on the subsequent meetings between the couple and the Malach, if we wish to use the Haftorah to better understand the message of the Sedra, it would seem appropriate to focus on this initial encounter, and the way in which the aspect of Nezirus is addressed.

When the Malach first speaks to Shimshon’s mother, he is rather direct: “Hinei Nah At Akara V’Lo Yaladit V’Haresia V’Yaladit Ben”. Although she had been baren until now, she would soon bear a son. The Malach then tells her the next part of the news: “V’Ata Hishamri Nah V’al Tishti Yayin V’Shechar…” She must immediately stop drinking wine, and be careful with Tumah. Lest she wonder why this Tzivuy was given to her, the Malach continues: “Ki Nazir Yihiyeh HaNa’ar Min HaBeten.” The son that is soon to be born will be a Nazi M’Beten, from the time he is born. The Passuk, and the encounter, ends with another piece of information about this boy: “V’Hu Yachel L’Hoshea Es Yisroel M’yad HaPelishtim”.

These final words require some explanation. If the Malach was telling Eshes Manoach that her son would save the Klal Yisroel from the Pelishtim, why include the word “Yachel”, which means “begin”? Was it not important that Shimshon would eventually defeat the Pelishtim, not that he would begin to fight them? What was meant by this word?

There seem to be two ways to address this question from the perspective of Pshat. Metzudos explains that while Shimshon would indeed begin to fight the Pelishtim, under whom Klal Yisroel had suffered for many years, he would not ultimately defeat them. His role was therefore explained aptly by the words “V’Hu Yachel L’Hoshea Es Yisroel”.

Radak, on the other hand, explains that Shimshon would indeed be the first to battle the Pelishtim, as the Shoftim who had come before him had not done so. He was, therefore, the “Yachel”, the one who began to fight back against the oppressing enemy.

While the approach of Radak certainly explains the presence of the word “Yachel”, Mahar”i Kra points out that the assumption that Shimshon was the first to fight the Pelishtim may not have been true. The Passuk, earlier in Sefer Shoftim, tells us that Shamgar ben Anas, one of the Shoftim, attacked the Peslishtim, “VaYosha Gam Hu Es Yisroel”. How then, asks the Mahar”i, can we say that Shimshon was the first of the Shoftim to take on the Pelishtim?

Mahar”i therefore explains these words in the context of the entire Passuk. The word “V’hu” connects the beginning of the Passuk, which speaks about the Nezirus of Shimshon, to the end which speaks about his fight against the Pelishtim. This, explains Mahar”i, tells us that it was the Nezirus of Shimshon that would allow him to begin the battle against the Pelishtim and be successful, “L’Hoshea Es Yisroel”. Others had tried, but the Pelishtim rebounded, maintaining their oppression of Klal Yisroel, but Shimshon, aided by his status as a Nazir, would turn the tide for good.

This, of course, leads us to the next question: what was it about the his Nezirus that gave Shimshon this Koach over the Pelishtim? Why might he succeed where others had failed based on his status as a Nazir M’Beten?

The most basic rule of warfare is that one most know their enemy in order to have any hope of defeating him. In this case, we must better understand the strengths of the Pelishtim if we wish to understand how they were felled by the Nezirus of Shimson.

The Gemara in Sota speaks about the life of Shimshon, and makes a Drasha based on this Passuk: the word “Yachel” was used to tell Shimshon’s parents that “Huchal Shevuaso Shel Avimelech”. Rashi there explains that the word “Huchal” means that the Shavuah was now Batul.

The Shavuah that the Gemara refers to is one that we learn about in Parshas Vayera. There, the Torah tells us that Avimelech came to Avrohom and asked him to make a Shavuah preventing the children of Avrohom from attacking those of Avimelech. Avrohom complied with the request of Avimelech, and the Torah details the ceremony that took place. The Gemarah here seems to be telling us that this Shavuah had been in effect all the way until the time of Shimshon, but that it was now Batul and Shimshon would therefore be able to defeat the Pelishtim, who were the offspring of Avimelech, relieving Klal Yisroel of their oppressors.

There are a few ways to understand why the Shavuah of Avimelech may have been Batul at that juncture. The simplest approach is that there was an expiration of sorts on the Shavuah that had now arrived, and so Shimshon would be able to defeat the Pelishtim. Given the way Mahar”i understands the Passuk, however, it seems that we could explain the Gemarah differently. If the Shavuah, which now expired, was the reason that none of his predecessors was successful, then Shimshon’s ability to save Klal Yisroel was unrelated to his Nezirus. We must assume that it was the Nezirus of Shimshon that caused the Shavuah to be Batul.

Why, in fact, was this true? How was the Shavuah made by Avrohom Avinu hundreds of years earlier affected by the Nezirus of Shimshon?

If we take a closer look at the way the Avimelech approached the Shavuah itself, we can better understand its force, and how it may have been undone.

When Avimelech came to Avrohom to request that he make the Shavuah, he began with a short preamble: “Elokim Imcha B’Chol Asher Telech”. Before asking Avrohom to make the Shavuah, Avimelech noted that Hashem was with Avrohom in all his activities. Why?

Sforno explains that Avimelech wished Avrohom to know that it was only because of this fact, because “Elokim Imcha B’Chol Asher Telech” that he made this request. Avimelech was not intimidated by Avrohom’s material wealth or his strength—only by the fact that Hashem was with him.

Why did Avimelech begin his request in this way? Why should his motivation play a role at all? Why did he need to tell Avrohom what caused him to ask for the Shavuah?

Perhaps we can answer this question if we understand a bit more about Avimelech himself.

Earlier in Parshas Vayera, the Torah tells us that Avrohom made a “Mishteh Gadol B’Yom Higamel es Yitzchok.” Rashi explains that this meal was so-called because the “Gedolei HaDor” were in attendance. Rashi then lists the Gedolim that graced the Mishteh: Shem, Ever and Avimelech. It seems, then, that Avimelech was, in some way, comparable to Shem V’Ever. How can we understand his Koach? What was it that put Avimelech on this plane, and how did it affect the Shavuah that he now asked Avrohom to make?

Avimelech makes another appearance later on, in Parshas Toldos, and uses a similar terminology when speaking to Yitzchok Avinu: “Ra’oh Rainu Ki Haya Hashem Imcha”. Once again we have an example of Avimelech telling one of the Avos that he sees Hashem is with them.

R’ Gedalyah Schor, in Oh Gedalyahu to Parshas Toldos, explains that from these words we see the essence of Avimelech.

As we know, the prime Middos of Yitzchok Avinu were Yirah and Gevurah, as opposed to the Ahava and Chesed personified by his father Avrohom. Yet we see, notes R’ Schor, that when speaking to Yitzchok, Avimelech used the term “Hashem”, which connotes Rachamim, and when speaking to Avrohom he used the term “Elokim”, which is related to Din.

This, explains R’ Schor, is the result of the first words of the Passuk: “Ra’oh Rainu”. Avimelech had the ability to look deeply, to see what was deeper, what lays below the surface. In the Chesed of Avrohom, he recognized the Din of Elokim, and in the Gevurah of Yitzchok, he saw the Rachmanus of Hashem. Avimelech knew take into account the entire picture and see what was really at play. We know that while each of the Avos excelled in certain areas or Middos, they subsumed all of the attributes of Hashem in their actions, and this was what Avimelech saw, as indicated by the words Ra’oh Rainu.

Based on this, we can understand Avimelech’s words in Parshas Vayera, and perhaps the Shavuah itself.

When he approached Avrohom to make the Shavuah, Avimelech made sure to tell him “Elokim Imcha B’Chol Asher Telech”, which was a way of signaling that he understood what was really at the core of Avrohom’s actions, an expression of “Ra’oh Rainu”. This was not merely an introduction, however, it was at the core of his request.

If we look at the Pessukim, Avrohom is not asked to make a Shavuah that his children would not fight or wage war. Avimelech asks him to swear: “Im Tishkor Li U’Linini U’linechdi”. The Lashon of “Im Tishkor” is not immediately understood, but R’ Hirsch explains this word in his inimitable style.

The Shoresh “Sheker”, explains R’ Hirsch, connotes the creation of something that did not exist prior. There are two types of Sheker, though: when one says something that it not true, or when one acts in a way that they should not. The first is a logical Sheker, and the second a moral one. Avimelech was asking Avrohom to swear that his children would not be guilty of moral untruths—that they would always treat the offspring of Avimelech as they deserved and not in a way that contradicted the real Emes.

This Shavuah was clearly in line with the Middah of “Ra’oh Rainu” exhibited by Avimelech. Because he had the ability to see the real truth, to see Chesed in Gevurah and visa versa, he asked that his offspring be treated accordingly.

The effect of such a Shavuah is that those protected by it cannot be defeated unless the battle is waged by someone acting with complete and utter Emes. If any personal, communal, or political bias exists, the Shavuah of “Im Tishko” is violated. This was the Shavuah that stymied Klal Yisroel in their battles against the Pelishtim—they could not arise above the “Ra’oh Rainu” of Avimelech and act with true Emes.

Until Shimishon, a Nazir M’Beten, arose. R’ Hirsch, in discussing Sheker, points out another word that is related: “Shechar”. When one is intoxicated, he sees things that are not real, and acts on ideas that are false. Only Shimshon, who never tasted Yayin V’Shechar was capable of seeing pure Emes, of combatting the Middah of “Ra’oh Rainu” in a way that allowed him to be effective against the offspring of Avimelech. It was Shimshon who could affect the reality of Huchal Shevuaso Shel Avimelech, and therefore be “Hoshea Es Yisroel M’yad HaPelishtim”.

While we do not have the concepts of Nezirus in our days, we can learn from Shimshon that even when we think we are battling L’Man Hashem, even when our enemy seems so clearly identified, we cannot be successful if we act without pure Emes. Only if we try to see the real truth, and put aside any other motives, can we be among those who are Hoshea Es Yisroel.