VaYishlach

The Haftorah for Parshas Vayishlach is unique, as we Lein the entirety of Sefer Ovadiah. As we learn the Pessukim it is not hard to see why this Sefer was chosen by Chazal to be connected with our Sedra: the sole Nevuah of Ovadiah relates to Esav and his ultimate fate. In fact, Meforshim point out the Ovadiah was particularly suited to this Nevuah, because he in fact came from Edom and was Megayer.

In addition, Rashi tells us that Ovadiah the Navi is the same as the Ovadiah spoken about in Sefer Melachim. As the Pessukim there tell us, Ovadiah was a close consort of Achav and Izevel, but he did not learn from there ways. In fact saved the very Neviim that they sought to eliminate. It is therefore fitting, concludes Rashi, for Ovadiah to provide Tochacha to Eisav, who lived amongst Yitzchok and Rivka, but failed learn from their ways.

Although the Nevuah of Ovadiah is marked by biting criticism of Eisav, with phrases such as “Bazuy Attah Ad Meod”, the central message is that the faults of Edom will bring about its eventual downfall. It seems, based on the Pessukim, that Bnei Yisroel will have a role in this destruction, and it is important to understand how and why this is true.

Towards the end of the Nevuah, the Navi tells us: “V’Haya Bais Yaakov Aish U’Bais Yosef Lehava U’Bais Esav L’Kash”. These words are, of course, B’Derech Mashal as the Navi likens Bais Yaakov to a flame, Bais Yosef to a torch, and Esav to straw. When the time comes, it seems, the three will meet with predictable results: “V’Dalku Bahem V’Achalum”. Bais Yaakov and Bais Yosef will ignite the Kash of Esav, destroying him in the process.

Sometimes, when the Navi speaks B’Derech Mashal, it is hard to understand the Nimshal or purpose of the Mashal. In this case, this is not a concern: we understand that straw is quite flammable, and so, by comparing Klal Yisroel to a flame, and Esav to straw, the message of destruction is understood. Even if we understand the thrust of the Mashal, however, there are a few questions that must be answered.

First, and most generally, whenever the Navi turns to Mashal, we must ask why he did so. What do we gain from the Mashal that we would not have understood had the message be conveyed directly?

There are also two questions to be asked on the way the Mashal is said, as well.

Why does the Navi refer to Klal Yisroel as “Bais Yaakov” in this instance? We know that there are many names for our great nation, some of which are found more commonly, why use these words here? Radak explains that the Navi speaks specifically about “Bais Yosef” because Chazal teach us that “Ain Zaro Shel Esav Noflin Ela B’Yad Zaro Shel Yosef”. Because the involvement of Yosef’s offspring is critical to the destruction of Esav, it is understandable that the Navi mentions “Bais Yosef”. What then of Bais Yaakov? Why is this term used here?

Also, why did the Navi choose these materials specifically? There are other objects and elements that are incompatible, which could be used as a Mashal in the same way fire and straw are. For example, Esav could have been compared to fire and Yaakov to the water that would extinguish him. What is the significance of Aish and Kash which caused the Navi to use these terms in particular?

This final question is perhaps the easiest to answer and indeed Metzudos, the great arbiter of Pashut Pshat, explains the choice of the word “Kash”. Straw, he explains, burns very quickly once ignited. The Passuk is therefore telling us that when Esav encounters Bais Yaakov in Acharis Hayamim, he will meet with a swift downfall, just as a pile of straw would be quickly incinerated.

This Pshat seems to help us understand why the Navi chose to speak about Kash, and therefore Aish, but it is also subject to an important question.

The Passuk at the beginning of Shiras HaYam says: “Tehomos Yichasumu Yardu B’Metzoles K’Mo Aven”. We praise Hashem for causing the Mitzriyim to sink like stones to the depths of the sea.

Rashi, there, based on the Mechilta, asks a question: at various points in the Shira, the Mitzriyim are compared to Oferes, Even and Kash. The Medrash explains that the three materials are used to describe the fates of three types of Mitzriyim: the worst Reshaim were like Kash, and sunk the slowest, prolonging their suffering, the Beinonim sunk a little faster, like stones, and the Kesharim sunk like lead and therefor suffered the least.

We see from this Medrash that a quick destruction is favorable to a slow one, which causes more pain. Why, then, would the Navi tell us that Esav will burn quickly, like Kash? Would not we expect that our greatest agitator, the source of so much pain over the millennia, suffer a slow, and more painful, end? It is especially interesting that the same word, Kash, is used in one place to portend a slower death and in another a quicker one.

In fact, this question is even stronger if we look at another Mechilta later in the Shira, on the words “Tishlach Charoncha Yochalemo K’Kash”.

The Mechilta, there, notes that the word “Yochalemo” is in the future tense, and cannot then be speaking about the Mitzriyim. Indeed, explains the Medrash, the Passuk is speaking about the destruction of Esav that is predicted by the words “V’Haya Bais Yaakov Aish U’Bais Yosef Lehava U’Bais Esav L’Kash”.

It emerges that the two occurrences of the word Kash are related to one another, yet they represent conflicting messages. When the Mitzriyim are compared to Kash they suffered slow deaths, but when Esav is likened to Kash it will be a swift destruction. How can we understand this dichotomy?

Before answering these questions, let us turn to another Medrash that discusses this Passuk.

As we know, when Yaakov was left alone at Maavor Yabok, he encountered the Saro Shel Esav, and the two engaged in hand-to-hand battle. The Medrash Rabba there tells us that towards the end of the fight, the Malach sought to intimidate Yaakov, and show him “Im Mi Hu Osek”. He stuck his finger in the ground, and fire began to spurt forth. Yaakov took in this sight and responded with aplomb: “Im Da At Madchil Li Ana Kolei Minah.” Yaakov asked: “Are you trying to scare me with flames? I am made completely of fire.” The Medrash ends by quoting the words “V’Haya Bais Yaakov Aish”

Now, this Medrash can allow us to understand why the Navi chose the words “Bais Yaakov” when comparing Bnei Yisroel to Aish—Yaakov was Kolei Minah, made completely of fire—but what does this mean? In what way was Yaakov Avinu an embodiment of Aish?

R’ Gedalya Schorr, in Ohr Gedalyahu, explains that this Medrash personifies the essence of Yaakov Avinu.

As we know, the central Middah of Yaakov was Emes, but Rav Schorr explains that this is tied to the Middah of Netzach as well. Something that is Emes is unchanged, and stays that way always, but if there is a change, it is no longer Emes. That the word Netzach is of course related to the term “Nitzachon” is then unsurprising, because Emes will stand up against anything that represents Sheker. This was the Nisayon of Yaakov, to see how far he would take the Middah of Emes, and if he would be able to stand up against every form of Sheker.

The definition of Nitzachon, continues Rav Schorr, is the total and complete victory to the point that the victor subsumes the Kochos of the defeated. When taken to its fullest extent, the one who was defeated actually becomes part of the Menatzeach in some way. This is only possible when Emes prevails and stands unwavering in the face of Sheker, and it was this type of victory that Yaakov Avinu achieved when he fought the Malach.

After their battle, Yaakov asks the Malach to reveal his name. Asks Rav Schorr: Yaakov certainly knew who he had been fighting, why did he ask? He explains that because Yaakov had enjoyed a victory of true Nitzachon, he would be taking on the Kochos of the Malach, and wanted therefore to know its essence, which would be revealed by its name. Because the Malach would now become part of Yaakov Avinu, so to speak, he wished to know its true Kochos.

Rav Schorr also uses this concept to explain the Medrash: the Malach used fire to display his Kochos, and Yaakov scoffed because the Nitzachon meant that these abiliites would become his own: “Ana Kolei Minah”. The Malach could not intimidate Yaakov, because the Middas HaEmes would ensure that these very Kochos would soon be his.

Perhaps we can now explain the Passuk in our Haftorah.

“V’Haya Bais Yaakov Aish U’Bais Yosef Lehava U’Bais Esav L’Kash”

The period of Acharis HaYamim will be marked by the pervasion of Emes, as all come to know the Truth of our existence. At that time we will be able to face our enemies and experience true Nitzachon: nothing they do will be able to defeat our renewed convictions, our enhanced conception of Emes. We will face Esav, in the guise of Aish, the words “Ana Kolei Minah” will be true once again.

The victory against Esav in those days will be similar to the burning of Kash, swift and all consuming, because it will be a true Nitzchon. Whatever Kochos lie in Esav will be transferred to us, and he will simply cease to exist. The words “Yochalemo K’Kash” then portend the victory of a Nitzachon, not the punishment of an enemy.

We now understand why the Navi transmitted this message as a Mashal: so that we may understand the true nature of the victory for which we yearn. As we wait, we must build up our own conception of Emes so that we are ready for the day promised by Ovaidah HaNavi: “V’Alu Moshi’im B’Har Tzion…V’Haysa L’Hashem Hamelucha”