INSIGHT
5767 - #31
ENCOUNTERING THE OTHER
In advancing toward Israel, Bnai
Yisrael faced the challenge of how to enter the land.
To do so demanded of the nation to travel across another
country and so, we see in Bamidbar 20:14-17, the
request by Moshe, of the King of Edom, to travel through
his land on the way to Israel. Of course, as the Chumash
relates, this request was refused, to be followed by a
second request of a slightly different nature only to be
refused in an even more emphatic manner. What demands our
focus, though, is the very nature of these requests. Bnai
Yisrael is, effectively, a conquering nation at this
time. It is set to go to war; it is prepared for battle.
Its target is the land of Israel but in reaching its
target it must first encounter the nations that surround
this target. In the annals of history, would this not
simply make the surrounding nations new targets of
conquest? Would they not just be “gobbled up”
in the advance of the conquering army? What a strange
request, from this conquering army, for permission to
simply travel through Edom’s land?
Of course, we have knowledge of the fact that
Hashem declared that Edom not be attacked and, as such, Bnai
Yisrael really had no choice but to attempt to gain
permission from that country. Simply, without permission,
Bnai Yisrael could not go through Edom – but
does Edom know of this restriction? The challenge, in
understanding this request, is to attempt to see how Edom
looked at it. From Edom’s perspective, there is a
nation, ready for war, requesting to travel peacefully
through your land in order to wage war with your
neighbours, the Canaanite nations. Do you give
permission? Do you trust that this nation will traverse
your land in a peaceful manner? Why doesn’t this
nation simply attempt to conquer you first in its march
to Canaan?
Meshech Chochma seems to be bothered by
these very questions. In commenting on Moshe Rabbeinu’s
request, he wonders about why a nation would agree to let
a conquering army enter and travel across its land. Even
if one assumes that this conquering army would abide by
the rules they have set in this case, would they still
not benefit, perhaps in some future belligerence, from
the information they have gained during this crossing of
the land? Meshech Chochma, in fact, states that it was
with this in mind that Moshe made the commitment not to
veer from the chosen path. He was really saying that Bnai
Yisrael will not scout the land to gain information
for some potential, future battle. But, still, how could
one trust a promise of peace from an army ready for
hostilities and conquest? To understand this dialogue
between Moshe and Edom it is necessary to consider what Edom
was thinking. A possibility may be that Edom thought that
this army is asking for safe passage because while it may
believe it could defeat the target nations, it is
concerned about defeating Edom. Or maybe Israel is
worried that a battle with Edom will weaken it to the
extent that its real goal will be more difficult to
achieve. With either scenario, Edom’s response to
threaten battle is understandable; in fact would seem to
be the logical response. We don’t trust you; if you
try to enter our land we will fight you. Meshech Chochma
thus sees in Moshe’s words, not simply a request for
empathy for the Jewish People’s plight but, an
attempt to deal with Edom’s concerns. We are not a
violent nation of slaves who have just rebelled against
its masters and are now focused on conquering new lands.
We were, rather, taken out of Egypt through miracles
reflecting the Will of God. Our goal, as Rashi
explains in his comments on Moshe’s request, is our
ancestral home. In viewing the situation from a natural
perspective, Edom’s response was the one, not only
to be expected but, that should be expected. Moshe’s
words thus -- and this would seem to be the real point of
the Meshech Chochma -- were not intended to only simply
make the request but also were intended to explain why
the request had to be examined from a different
perspective. This is not a natural case of an army
requesting permission to travel on Edom’s land. This
is an army, a nation, under the direct supervision of the
Divine whose request should be viewed from this
perspective. Edom’s response, in maintaining the
appropriate natural response, as such was, actually and
essentially, a rejection of the acceptance of this
perspective.
Throughout the Torah literature, we encounter much
discussion on how we are to balance our recognition of
the Divine with derech hateva, the ways of nature.
There is a great variance of opinion on this matter.1
The focus, however, usually concerns the behaviour of the
Jewish People. In the case of Edom, we encounter how this
question affects the nations of the world. Edom responded
pursuant to the ways of nature; did it have an obligation
to consider the Divine within its response? Of course,
one could contend that the nations of the world may
reject our view of the Divine and thus how could we hold
them responsible for this standard? In the case of Edom,
however, the reality of God and the special relationship
that Hashem had with the Jewish People was evident from
the miracles that surrounded the nation in the desert.
Within Torah thought, the issue of how we are to
integrate the reality of the Divine with a commitment to
the path of nature is not a faith issue. The question
emerges even with the full recognition of the existence
of the Divine. So it was in the case of Edom. They knew
Moshe’s words were true. How could they then have
rejected the Divine perspective? How could they have not
let Israel cross their land?
Rashi’s understanding of the event focuses on
the nature of each nation, not how each nation viewed the
other nation. Within his perspective, Israel was
informing Edom that they simply have acted and will
continue to act as Israel. Edom’s response was that
its response will be similar -- to act as Edom, with the
sword. In effect, Edom was not just denying the reality
of the Divine; it was denying the limitation of any
reality. Yaacov Avinu is the model for us that
declares that we must always be true to ourselves. Yet
being true to oneself demands a recognition of the other
for one does not live in a vacuum. One’s behaviour,
even in the expression of self, must be with cognition of
reality and the other. Ultimately this was the fault in Edom’s
response. Edom simply wanted to be violent regardless of
whether the situation called for it or not. Its initial
response used the language of derech hateva but
when that perspective was denied, the truth was
forthcoming – Edom simply didn’t want to help Israel.
.
. 4.
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail
Footnotes
1 One of the major areas of
discussion in regard to this topic, and one that reflects
the divergent views is the story of the spies found in Bamidbar,
chapters 13 and 14. Ramban argues that the request to
send spies was a good one as we must attempt to follow
the ways of nature – and sending spies is part of
the way that nations do battle. Rashi argues that the
request was inherently wrong as the nation should have
trusted in God. A review of much of Bamidbar will
indicate that one of the most important issues within
this book of the Torah is this issue of how we balance
the Divine with the ways of nature.
© Nishma, 2007
Return
to top
|