Retribution Prophecy Against Edom Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz Vayishlach

Inside of that Good evening everybody. Uh today uh we actually get to finish a whole safer of Tanakh. Amazing because the smallest shortest safer in Tanakh is safer Ovadiah which is only 20 pesukim and that happens to be the haftarah for uh parshas Vayishlach. So today if you actually make a siyum we should have brought refreshments and and the like because a siyum on Nach you're permitted to to treat like a siyum on Mishnah. Uh but before we get into the haftarah I do want to talk a little bit about the parsha and the connection to the haftarah. Uh the parsha is the long awaited the long anticipated pegisha between Yaakov and Esav. Yaakov has been gone for many many years for more than three decades. Uh for some reason Esav did not pursue him in Lavan's house. Although Esav knew where he was but he figured if Yaakov is not taking advantage of the brochos anyway so I'll leave him alone. Perhaps Yaakov abdicated. But Yaakov is coming back. And uh Yaakov sends Esav a bunch of gifts. And then he hears that Esav is coming with 400 soldiers to kill him. Now it's a very important to understand that the reference to Esav taking the 400 men is only after Yaakov sent the gifts. Until Yaakov sent the gifts we don't hear about Esav coming after. The gift giving was not a response to any threat from Esav. It was what you might call a preemptive attempt to appease Esav. But the question is whether that backfired in and of itself. So really Chazal looked at the whole interaction of Yaakov and Esav in many many different ways. There is one view in Chazal that says it was entirely improper for Yaakov to even approach Esav. And it quotes a pasuk in Mishlei that says machzik be'oznei kalev over mis'aber beriv lo lo. Uh he who gets involved in stirring up a quarrel that he not doesn't need to get involved in is like a person who pulls up the ears of a sleeping dog. In English we have an expression let sleeping dogs lie. That's exactly what the pasuk is saying. That in a sense Yaakov incited the jealousy of Esav. In other words by Yaakov sending his possessions although he did so in the guise of a gift he's kind of rubbing Esav's nose and saying look at how successful I was and that brings back all sorts of bad memories bad associations. It rekindles the anger. Now it turns out at the end so to speak Esav did not carry out anything but at least initially uh it was Yaakov's ostentatiousness that actually stimulated uh Esav's uh initial negative reaction. And uh the Sforno says that indeed this has been the problem of Jewish people when they try to show off their wealth be'einei hagoyim uh there will often be a negative reaction. So according to one view Yaakov is faulted for at least unintentional ostentation may unintentional Is there such a phrase unintentional arrogance so to speak? That he's making himself look too good and that uh that invites the jealousy and the animosity of the umos ha'olam. You should know that in Europe at the time of the Maharal and the like not Maharal himself was an author of them there was a whole category of takanos of kehillos that were called anti-sumptuary laws that limited conspicuous uh consumption or expenses of weddings and and the like. And uh a lot of this was that the umos ha'olam should not be jealous of a Jewish people showing off their wealth and the like. Now of course what happened was this was abused as it is today because it became a revenue uh raising device. Meaning to say if you want to have more than 200 guests at your chasunah you will have to pay the kahal you know a certain amount of money for every extra guest. So instead of deterring people it just meant that if you were rich you just paid the extra money. Uh but in theory it was designed to deter conspicuous uh consumption. Yeah. Isn't there um a dramatic difference between conspicuous consumption and donations? Either to your enemy or to the doctor. No that's very true but but but I'm just drawing an analogy. I mean the point that the Midrash is making is that if Yaakov would have just come back quietly if Yaakov wouldn't have even have announced if Yaakov just would have done his own thing and not necessarily tried to demonstrate to Esav how successful he was Esav might have dropped I guess would have said I'll leave him alone. Uh what you know what's gone is gone what's it's water under the under the bridge or or whatever. Now there's an Yeah. I'm looking at this as a strategy here. Yeah I can And but but Rashi said it's only the pasuk says gamal u'chamorim tzon va'avadim v'shifchos. Okay. Yeah. And that's it and then Yaakov says "Hatzileini na miyad achi miyad Esav." Yes. So that and that's before the Yaakov sent all his presents to Esav. Well no not not really because maybe it's before the actual gift giving but it's not before Yaakov's statement because the parsha begins initially Vayishlach Yaakov malachim lefanav el Esav achiv. He sent messengers to Esav in which he describes I have shor vachamor I have all of these different things. Rashi interprets it being one. And it's not rubbish money or it's Sorry sorry no sorry Rashi Rashi says here it's it's plural but he also Rashi also says that this is rubbish money or it's you know. Yeah. And then it's all money Well well listen listen I mean there are there are many many different shitos. All all I'm saying is I'm I'm I'm quoting you a Midrash which is a view that says that Yaakov stirred up the trouble. Indeed. Now there is another view that also says Yaakov stirred up trouble in an opposite direction and that is he was too subservient. He was too subordinate to Esav. He referred to himself as avdecha your servant your slave. And he called himself eved as seven time eight times eight times. And indeed the Midrash comments another Midrash comments that we read at the end of parshas Vayishlach that there were eight kings who ruled in Edom in the Edomite territory of Esav before there was ever a king in Am Yisrael. And uh of course that creates a historical problem when was that written because that refers to the period after Moshe Rabbeinu. That's okay that's a the separate question of the Even Ezra who sometimes position that certain non-halachic pesukim may have been added at a later date uh which is a very daring idea. Uh others simply say the Torah is being prophetic which is the normal way we'd understand it. But be it as it may the Midrash says because Yaakov debased himself to a rasha and because he called himself your slave eight times in effect Edom had an ascendancy over uh all of Am Yisrael for eight generations besides what happened much later during the Bayis Sheini. Uh in fact uh there's another Midrash and actually it's a Gemara as well that says Amalek can only be defeated by the children of Rachel and cannot be defeated by the children of Leah. And you actually see this historically. The first war against Amalek right after we left Mitzrayim Amalek was the first nation that attacked us. Moshe appointed Hoshea bin Nun later became Yehoshua to be his warrior to be the general. And what tribe is Yehoshua bin Nun from? The tribe of Ephraim which is from Yosef which is from Rachel. The very first king of the Jewish people before David Hamelech was Shaul from the tribe of Binyamin who is from Rachel. And what was Shaul's primary mission which he didn't fulfill totally? The destruction of Amalek. In Purim which represents the reenactment of the struggle against Amalek which is Haman the protagonists are Mordechai and Esther who are from Binyamin. And finally before we have the Mashiach ben David that will redeem the Jewish people there is the enigmatic Mashiach ben Yosef who will be killed in the war of Gog and Magog but one of the roles of Mashiach ben Yosef is to be instrumental in the downfall of Amalek. You see in other words a consistent pattern and I'll connect it to this in a moment that Amalek gets defeated by zera Rachel either Yosef or Binyamin and not zera Leah. And by the way that is actually seen in the haftarah itself. The haftarah I'll go back to the general haftarah in a moment but the haftarah is a description of the eventual defeat of Edom. And it mentions vehayah beis Yaakov eish the house of Yaakov shall be a fire uveis Yosef lehavah and the house of Yosef shall be a torch a flame uveis Esav letash and the house of Esav will be straw that will be consumed by the flame. And in direct proximity what flame will consume uh the house of Esau, base Yosef, the house of Yosef which is Zera Rachel. Now, what is so magical about Zera Rachel? There are a lot of different reasons. One is the uh Rachel's love and compassion for her sister, her willingness to give up Jacob, but someone will learn the following, that all of the Shvatim bowed down to Esau with uh acceptance, except for Yosef who stood up to defend his mother and Benjamin who was not born yet. So, there is this concept, you subordinate yourself to the Russia, the Russia has power over you. Amalek comes from Esau. Amalek is the grandson of Esau. Esau had a son Eliphaz and Eliphaz uh had a mistress, a pilegesh Timna, and Amalek comes from Timna. So, it's only Zera Rachel that is immune from the kol of Amalek because it is only Zera Rachel that never made themselves subordinate to the kol of Esau. So, you see two different views in Chazal. Was Jacob too show-offy, too arrogant, or at least too ostentatious? Or was Jacob too submissive? But, the common denominator between the two views is he shouldn't have done what he did, he should have just been quiet, he should not stir up a sleeping dog. When a dog is asleep, right? If a dog is asleep, even if it's a friendly dog like a Labrador retriever or a beagle, right? You pull it up by the ears, you know, it's going to bite you. You know, what are you What are you bothering a sleeping dog? However, there's yet a third view in the Gemara that we actually derive very constructive lessons from what Jacob did. The Gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that before the Chachamim would go uh Shimon bar Yochai, before he would go to negotiate on behalf of the Jewish people with Rome, which we believe is descended from Esau, that's why we call the Roman Empire the galus of Edom, so he would study the lessons of Vayishlach to understand strategically what is the best way that you approach a potentially hostile entity. And they identified that Jacob Avinu employed three major strategies. Right? Very famous statement in the Gemara. On one hand, there was reconciliation, gift giving, submissiveness, showing that I love you and I care about you and I respect you. That's one approach. On the other hand, if that fails, you have to be ready for war if that becomes necessary. And the third, which is the most important of all, is you turn to Hakadosh Baruchu bitfila that you'll be successful in whatever particular path you have to go. Without Hakadosh Baruchu, there's not going to be any success. So, these are the three major steps. You try for peace, reconciliation, friendship. You are prepared for war if necessary, and you turn to Hakadosh Baruchu for siyata d'Shmaya in whichever path you wind up having to to choose. So, I would like to just offer a homiletical extension to this. That this is not limited uh only to the particular encounter with Esau, but in a sense, these are three different ways that we relate to a secular culture in modern times. And that is uh you know, we live in a world which is largely not committed to Torah. First of all, the vast majority are not Jewish at all and and most Jews are not fully committed to Torah yet and and the like. And the question is uh if a person wants to keep the Torah, a person wants to raise their family in accordance with the Torah values, how is one mit'yaches, how does one relate to a secular society? Now, there may be two opposite approaches that people have. Some people basically take the attitude that anything that is outside of the four walls of the Beit Hamedrash is pasul, treif, I want nothing to do with it. There is nothing the outside world offers to me, there is nothing of value. Homiletically, we might call that waging war against the Esau of the world. I reject it, it is totally invalid. There are others who want to be universalists, they want to be people of the world, they want to embrace everything. So, essentially, the dialectic of Jacob Avinu teaches us that neither approach by itself is entirely a good approach. Uh and that is Chazal do tell us, if someone tells you "Chachma bagoyim", there is wisdom, there is insight among the gentiles of the world, ta'amin, you believe them. There is insight. To simply say that the collective accomplishments of the human race outside of the Jews who are learning Torah are simply worthless and have no nothing to teach you is actually not true. There is chachma bagoyim. The great ba'al mussar, Rav Wolbe, uh when he was a young man and he was in Switzerland during World War II, he managed to escape from Germany to Switzerland, so he was very interested in mussar, he was interested in personality development, he was interested in how do you become a moral person, how do you become a good person. So, it happened to be that in Geneva at the time was uh really the world's greatest expert in uh child psychology and how children develop a sense of val- values, that was Jean Piaget, not not Jewish. And because Rav Wolbe was interested in how midos tovot are developed, he apprenticed himself, he became a research assistant uh to Dr. Piaget for a few months, and he felt that that was very very helpful in his understanding the dynamic of character building and personality development. Right? That's chachma bagoyim, chachma bagoyim ta'amin. So, essentially, what Jacob Avinu was telling us is that part of what's out there we need to affirmatively embrace and bring in, gift giving, welcoming. Part of it, we have to have the fortitude to reject and say no. And how do you know what to accept and what to reject? That comes through prayer where you get to connect to Hashem and you get to know yourself as well because it's a very difficult uh decision to make. You know, it is relatively easy to always have an all or nothing approach. If my position is everything out there is good, okay, that's how I live. Everything out there is bad, that's a little harder, but you know, that's at least you have a relatively clear demarcation point. But, to come to understand some is good and some is bad and some benefits and brings me closer to Hashem and some really destroys and impairs that relationship. That takes discrimination, that takes wisdom, that takes subtlety. That's not an easy thing. And that's why in a sense, I can understand the position that rejects everything because that position basically says the dangers are too much. Although, the truth of the matter is uh there's no such thing as rejecting everything. I mean, you know, people if you if you have a cell phone, you're using something that was invented by the non-Jewish culture. Although, some people are against cell phones, too, but okay. Um you know, so there's no such thing as as as a total rejection of everything, but I do understand the notion that the fear of modernity is so great that as a matter of the lesser of two evils, I want to have a very very little part of it. But, the insight is it is still the lesser of two evils. It is not the absolute good. The much higher level is to be able to integrate. And this we see uh from the bracha that Noah gave his third son, Japheth. Uh if you remember, uh when Noah got drunk after the flood, so his nakedness was exposed and uh Ham was mocking him. According to the Chazal, Ham may have castrated him and other even worse things. Uh and Shem and Japheth walked backwards with a cover and they covered the nakedness of Noah and they did not gaze at it. And because they respected him, Noah gave Japheth a bracha, and the bracha says, "Yaft Elohim l'Yefet", God shall give beauty to Japheth, "V'yishkon b'ahalei Shem", and he will dwell in the tents of Shem. Now, in English, that sounds bad, but remember, Shem is a name, so it is a positive thing. He shall dwell in the tents of Shem. So, here is what Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch said, and of course uh you're going to say that he's biased because he he is the greatest ba'al mussar of Torah im derech eretz, but this is in fact one of his main source texts. He says that Shem and Japheth had two different missions in the world, and this was passed down to their progeny. Shem is the one who brings God into the world, who spreads the message of holiness, spirituality, morality, restraint, limitation on power. Right? Shem is of course the ancestor of Abraham. The very word Semite comes from Shem, Shem and the like. So, Shem is given the mission of godliness and kedusha. Japheth, who was the ancestor of Yavan, Greece, represents the idea of beauty, but beauty in many many different realms. There is the physical beauty of sculpture and architecture and even the athleticism of the human body. There is the beauty of logic and geometry, right? If you If you're into math, you see a beauty, some people might find it very odd, but you see a beauty and elegance in geometry and the like. Literature, philosophy, of course. Uh you know, the Greek Greek philosophy has a very long history, even before Aristotle. When people think of Greek philosophy, they they they don't they typically only know two names. Uh maybe three names, Socrates, uh Plato, and Aristotle. But they were literally, although they are probably the most esteemed, but they are the tip of the iceberg. There was a huge iceberg of hundreds of years of philosophical thought. So, Yavan represents and Yefes represents the epitome of beauty in all spheres. The epitome of human accomplishment and productivity in literature, architecture, arts, philosophy, science. So, what is Noach saying? Noach is giving that blessing of beauty to Yefes. But he's saying, but when is it beautiful? When it dwells within the confines of shame, godliness, morality, and moral constraint. When Yefes uncouples itself from the tents of shame, then it becomes destructive and abusive. And indeed, the Maharal much earlier points out that the word noi noi is beauty has the same letters as Yavan, Greece. But Yavan, yud vav nun, is a Hebrew shoresh that actually means oppression. It is connected to ona'a. Ona'a, right? So, beauty, when it is uncoupled from godliness, can turn into a very destructive force. Uh it becomes egotistical, and it becomes a thirst for power and domination in different ways, in which when man puts himself as the center of all things. Inevitably, there will be abuses that will take place. Now, in a way, this is really the story of Hanukkah. Hanukkah is the story of the fight against Yavan. And of course, we have to remember that although Antiochus had many anti-Semitic decrees against the fulfillment of the Torah, or at least anti-Torah decrees, he actually was not anti-Semitic in a racial sense, but anti-religious decrees. But you have to remember that as a matter of fact, most of the Jewish people had gone along with his agenda way before he made those decrees. The process of Hellenization in the aftermath of Alexander of Macedon's conquest was largely a voluntary process. Many Jews, similar to today, assimilated. They went with the plan, and they did not look at the Maccabees as heroes. They looked at the Maccabees as fanatics who were simply making life difficult for them. And they basically would say, you know, why don't you be you know, just like somebody might say, why don't you be a 21st century person? So, they would say, yeah, you know, be a first century, uh you know, BC citizen of the world, meaning to say, why are you living this primitive way? So, essentially, the Maccabees, the Hasmoneans, the Maccabim, the relatively few few numbers of Jews. I mean, some have said it the those who were faithful to the Torah at that time were as small as 10%. And some have even given a number of only a thousand Jews. It is quite quite astounding that Judaism's survival depended on a thousand people standing up for the Torah against the Greek empire, Antiochus' Syrian empire. Which he technically wasn't from Greece at that point, but you know, it's uh the spiritual descendant of Alexander. Seleucus' empire in Syria. So, on one hand, it is a fight against Greek culture. But it's a fight against Greek culture when it is uncoupled from spirituality. But it is not a fight against the idea that chachma bagoyim time and chachma bagoyim time. So, that's one thing to look at in terms of the notion that there is much good in the world. You know, those of you that had the privilege of um knowing, or at least learning from uh Rav Ahron Lichtenstein, uh the final of bracha, would know that uh he was the person who uh taught this all the time. He had a PhD in English literature from Harvard. And in fact, his expertise was actually some Christian polemical literature, John Milton and and and the like. And yet, he was a person who was totally devoted to limud haTorah, really yoman l'laila, and midos tovot and the like. And uh although he was not a proselytizer, he would not tell somebody go to get a PhD in something, but he did draw on even his secular knowledge to enhance his avodas Hashem, because he saw a whole world and everything in the world can be used in a positive way uh to become closer to Hashem. This is what HaMelech says when he says, "B'chol d'rachecha da'eihu." Know Hashem in all of your ways, all of your encounters. There's even a journal, I think, by Relean Publishers. It's called the BGD Journal. It stands for "B'chol d'rachecha da'eihu." They they use that the kind of uh uh uh articulate that particular that particular agenda. Uh one other thing in the parsha before I I get to the haftorah, that is uh Yakov when Yakov prays, Yakov says, "Hatzileini na miyed achi, miyed Esav." "Save me from my brother, the hand of my brother, the hand of Esav." So, the question is very obvious. Yakov only has one brother. What is the superfluous reference? "Save me from my brother, save me from Esav." So, there's a famous vort, famous thought from the Beis HaLevi, that says Yakov is afraid of two different things. On one hand, Yakov is afraid of the Esav that wants to kill him. Yes, indeed. But Yakov is equally afraid of the Esav that comes in the guise of a friendly brother. Because if the Esav that comes to kill him will afflict the body, the Esav that comes to the as a brother may destroy the soul. Assimilation, intermarriage, losing your values, losing your moral compass. So, that's why Yakov was so afraid of being in love in South, or he had been so afraid of being in love in South because of the undermining of values. You know, in the 19th century, when Napoleon was going through Europe, and his last major campaign, of course, was uh against Russia, and uh he was ultimately defeated. But uh there was a machlokes among the Hasidic Rebbes in Russia and Poland, "Should we pray for Napoleon's victory, or should we pray for the victory of the Tsar?" Now, at that time, Jewish Jewish life in Tsarist Russia was tremendously oppressive. Uh the taxation was exorbitant, Jews were poverty-stricken. They were confined to only a small area, the Pale of Settlement, which constantly changed, so you often had to uproot your home with 24 hours of notice. There was the cantonists, in which children were forcibly taken into the army at the age of eight, eight to 10, and had to stay in the army for 30 years. And this was so bad that that parents would sometimes literally amputate fingers off their children, so their children could get an exemption from uh this military service, which was awful awful. Now, Napoleon, on the other hand, did promise, and he delivered to a large degree, emancipation, that Jews would have civil and political rights. They would be able to attend university. Uh they would have uh they would have access to professions. They could be doctors, they could be lawyers. So, many Hasidic Rebbes, so many Rebbes, they took the attitude, "Now, baruch Hashem, Napoleon will give us freedom. And with freedom, there'll be less oppression. Life will be better." So, the one dissenting opinion, very famous Hasidic Rebbe, this was the Baal HaTanya, the first the Balash Rebbe, who actually said, you know, "We're better off with the Tsar than Napoleon. Because the Tsar makes our life miserable. But the one thing we can't do in Russia is we can't assimilate. They don't let us. They don't want us. As a result, we are spiritually strong and spiritually vibrant. What's going to happen when all the barriers are pulled down and Jews could do anything that they want? They could become whatever they want. Although, it was somewhat of an exaggeration, but at least in theory, that's what Napoleon promised. At that point, they're going to abandon uh Judaism. There's going to be intermarriage, assimilation, and the like. So, because of this, it is recorded that the Baal HaTanya actually raised money for the Tsar's army. And after Napoleon was defeated, I think the Schneerson family got a medal or an award from the Tsar for their service in helping the military effort. Now, a hundred years later, the Russian Revolution, that was an excuse that the communists used to uh you know, harass Chabad, among other reasons, but they said, "You are imperialists. You are counter-revolutionaries." And the like, they actually used it against them uh in a negative in a negative way. Now, it is very true. As a truth of the matter, is the Alter Rebbe's prediction was actually correct, because uh if you if you if you correlate developments like the Reform movement and and the like, they really do follow uh the the aftermath of the French Revolution, emancipation, uh Napoleon uh opening the ghettos of Europe, etc. And therefore, it is very very true that, as sad as it is to say, we don't do that well with freedom. You know, obviously, we would hope to have an easier life, a more comfortable life, a more affluent life. You know, we we would like that. And you know, Hashem, you know, we should all be so to that. But the truth of the matter is, with affluence often comes an abandonment of a strong connection to Torah. I mean, even in a pragmatic way, if in the middle of Tsarist Russia you were a bright, smart, intelligent person, uh what else could you do but learn Gemara? There wasn't a lot of other avenues that were open. So, as a result, the best and the brightest became great Talmudic scholars. When all of the options are open, then obviously, you know, people are going to go in other directions, right? Now, now granted, one shouldn't just learn Torah because they're smart and they have nothing else to do. But nevertheless, for some that was a motivator and that that produced great Talmudic scholars. So, there is that that idea that Jacob is afraid not only of the Esau that wants to kill him, but Jacob is afraid of the Esau that comes in the guise of a brother. One more segment uh on this. Vayira Yaakov Me'od, Vayeitzer Lo. Jacob was very afraid, and Jacob was distressed. Again, you have a double language. Right, what is Vayeitzer Vayira? So, Rashi's language is Vayira Yaakov Me'od, one second here. Rashi says, Vayira, Shema Yeyhareg, lest he be killed. Vayeitzer Lo, he was very distressed. Im Yaharog Esau Achareim, lest he kill others. Now, this is a bit reminiscent, I say I have to have you of Golda Meir's famous remark, which you know, infamous remark depending on how you look at it, where Golda Meir once said that we can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. Again, I I don't accept that, but that's what she said. We can What What we cannot forgive the Arabs for making us kill their children. Mhm. Now, the first half, you know, again, many people feel was a very hurtful thing to say. But the second half has a certain resonance in our tradition. If you remember, by Kriat Yam Suf itself, when the Egyptians were drowning, and the Malachei HaShareit wanted to praise the Almighty, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "This is not a time for joy, and it's not a time for jubilation. My creatures are drowning in the sea." I'm not pacifist, and we're not pacifist. According to Jewish law, if somebody is coming to kill you, you kill them. But you don't kill them with joy and enthusiasm. You kill them with sadness, because they too were made in the image of God, and they too had the potential had the potential to be good. And if they became wicked and had to be destroyed, that is not a cause for joy. That is a cause for sadness. And the Jacob was expressing this idea according to Rashi, which is from the Talmud, that my fear is I'll get killed, but I'm also distressed if I have to kill and destroy others, because a Jew does not get pleasure in the downfall of the enemy. Uh this is the passage in Mishlei again, which the Midrash quotes on this. Binfol Oyevcha Al Tismach. The downfall of your enemy, do not rejoice. And there's a famous, beautiful word from Rabbi Kook. You know, Shemoneh Esrei originally had 18 blessings. That's why it's called Shemoneh Esrei. But then Rabban Gamliel, after the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Gamliel added or he needed to add an extra blessing, number 19, against the heretics and against the missionaries and against those who do bad things to the Jewish people. But he was looking for an author. Who is able to write a blessing against the heretics and missionaries? And he finally identified a rabbi who was called Shmuel HaKatan, Shmuel the modest, the humble. And Shmuel HaKatan was the author of what is called Birkat HaMinim, the blessing against the heretics. So, Rabbi Kook asks in his famous on the Siddur, "What's the big deal? I mean, who wrote I mean, the same way you wrote you wrote the other ones, uh write this one. What is so special about this one, and what is so special about Shmuel HaKatan?" So, Rabbi Kook said that the blessing of the heretics is very unique, because every blessing in the Amidah asks God to give us something good, like healing, livelihood. This is the only blessing that asks God to punish and destroy and wipe out. Now, here Rabbi Kook says the following. When you ask God to punish and destroy, you can't be motivated out of hatred, bitterness, and animosity. You have to be motivated out of a greater love for the Jewish people, in which because of my love for the Jewish people and because of my love for God, I want these impediments to be removed. But it doesn't become a personal animosity. So, Rabban Gamliel's problem is, when we look at the missionaries and the Romans and the Christians, it's not even clear exactly who the exact target is. Who is capable of not feeling personal hatred and resentment? But you can't come to God with that attitude. So, what's so great about Shmuel HaKatan? Pirkei Avot quotes Shmuel HaKatan, Hu Hayah Omer, this was his mission statement, and it's not even his, it's a passage. But he used to say it all the time. Binfol Oyevcha Al Tismach. When your enemy has a downfall, do not rejoice. Only that person is the person who can do Birkat HaMinim, because he's not acting out of hatred. He's acting out of a greater love for the Jewish people. Now again, I I don't want to Okay, I mean, I don't want to be guilty of of the same offense. But you know, when you consider, for example, the um the demonstrations that are going on here in Jerusalem by by a certain by a certain group. And I couldn't get Well, okay. I'm a little upset because I I could literally could not get to a wedding Sunday night that I had to get to uh because I couldn't get a cab. I was at the central bus station. And uh I waited over an hour. Whatever it is, I you know, so so the demonstration was my free enemy. But again, but I'm only a tiny little thing. But uh ambulances couldn't get through, etc. But you see that I I I mean, I can't I can't give you the motivation of everybody. But but overall, the overall impression just by watching it is that this was treated like a game. This was treated as fun. This was treated as a break from the base matters. This was not something in which we love the Jewish people so much that we're hoping and we're praying that the Torah will be increased in our ministry, etc. And it wasn't it wasn't that way. And uh once again, uh you know, if one is engaged in a demonstration of this type, it's got to come because of your love for Hashem and your love for the Jewish people and your care and your concern, whether you're right or wrong on the underlying issue. That's a separate matter. It isn't because, "Oh, these are secular people or non-religious people and then blah blah blah blah blah." And because then you're acting out of hatred, you're acting out of resentment, and that is not a proper motive, even against people that you consider are not following the right path, even if you consider it that way. That's what Rabbi Kook says. And Rabbi Kook Rabbi Kook has exemplified this in his own life. Rabbi Kook said, "It is the way of the wise to to generate light and not to curse darkness, to create wisdom and not to criticize folly." That you know, you create goodness in the world by creating goodness, not by so much fighting, criticizing, and demeaning what other people are doing. Okay, that's a little bit of an editorial comment. Okay. So, these are some connections in the in the portion. Now, the Haftarah is the entire book of Obadiah. Obadiah, of course, is a is a name that itself means servant of God. And Obadiah has his own book, the shortest book in the Bible. It's one of the 12 smaller prophets, and it's only one chapter. But actually, Obadiah, the name Obadiah, is mentioned in the Book of Kings. So, there's a whole discussion is this the same person? Uh but it says that Obadiah was a servant. He was the chief uh butler, so to speak, of Ahab, king of Israel. And Obadiah at his own expense maintained 100 prophets at a time when Ahab had a death sentence on anyone that was a prophet. And Obadiah at great personal risk and at great expense, but it's but more than it's more than the money, he was putting his own life in danger, took care of uh 100 prophets. In fact, the Talmud takes it further. If you recall, when Elisha resurrected the child I'm sorry, when Elijah rather resurrected the child of a widow, child that died, according to the Talmud, she was the widow of Obadiah, because she said to Elijah, "You know that my husband was God-fearing. My husband had fear of God from his youth." The Talmud says that's none other than this great man of Obadiah. Now, this place is Obadiah much much earlier because that means Obadiah is in Ahav's time, that means he was way before the destruction of the first base of Mikdash. He was way before the exile of the 10 tribes. Now, since Obadiah does make repeated references to the destruction of the base of Mikdash, then obviously you'd have to understand this literally as he's describing a future that he did not yet experience. The alternative would be it's a different Obadiah and it's much it's much later. And Hazal say, why was Obadiah given the mission of prophesying about the eventual downfall of Edom? Because Obadiah lived with two reshaim, Ahav and Izevel, and he did not learn from their bad deeds. Therefore, he gives musar to Esau who lived with two tzadikim, Yitzchak and Rivka, and didn't learn from their good deeds. It's exactly the opposite. Esau had wonderful environment and didn't learn. Obadiah had very very bad environment and didn't learn. So, they both neither of them learned from their environment but in opposite in opposite directions. According to yet another Hazal, Obadiah was not even born Jewish. Obadiah in fact was a ger tzedek. And Obadiah was a non-Jew who became Jewish and some say he himself came from Edom. He was an Edomite. So, once again, he is chosen to be the the vehicle. Now, what Obadiah describes is he describes how Edom uh was jubilant as the Jewish people were suffering. Now, contextually, he is not describing the destruction of the second temple. The second temple was destroyed by Edom, Rome. But he is describing the Edomite reaction to the suffering of the Jewish people at the time of the first base of Mikdash, Hurban Bayit Sheni. Now, Edom at that time was a relatively insignificant province to the south of Eretz Yisrael. That's called Mount Seir, the series of mountains. Mount Seir, in fact, the the Jordanian city of Petra. And some people like to go to Petra that has what, sculptures or something that's what is that, rock formation? Something in Petra that people like to like to go see. Petra is said to be the ancestral capital in Mount Seir of of Edom. And he describes coldness and indifference. He says, let me read you a pasuk here. Mehamas Ahicha Yaakov, from the violence that you perpetrated against your brother Yaakov, tehascha busha, may shame and humiliation cover you. Venichrata leolam, may you be cut off forever. Beyom amodcha minneged, the day that you stood from afar, beyom shevos zarim cheilo, the day that strangers plundered the wealth of Yaakov, venachrim bau sha'arav, and the nachrim, the foreigner, came into the gate, ve'al Yerushalayim yadu goral, and they cast lots over Yerushalayim, and you rejoiced. So, it's interesting that in the first part, because there's kind of a historical survey here. In the first part, Edom is not criticized for the evil that it did to Yaakov. It is criticized for the indifference and not just the indifference but the joy that it experienced as the Jewish people were suffering. Now, in some ways I have to admit, this is a little hard for me to get a grasp on because it would seem to me on some level it's almost human. I mean, if Esau had been wronged by Yaakov taking the brachas, and then hundreds of years later, Esau is witness to the Babylonians, this is after Obadiah's time, that's what he's talking about. The Babylonians plundering, then it might be quite natural for Esau to rejoice in what is happening to Yaakov as if to say, God is punishing you for what you did. Because in this part of Haftarah, the navi is not criticizing Esau for any actual bad things Esau did, but he's criticizing because how could you abandon your brother in time of need? Doesn't a brotherly relationship count for something? So, again, it's a bit of a tzarich iyun. I I don't have a clear understanding myself of why are we so hard on Esau that he didn't love Yaakov enough to intervene to protect Yaakov. Edom as one man. Which means what? You are like one of them. You also like one of them. You also joined in. You also joined in. Okay, it depends how you translate it. In other words, uh some translate it that that refers to the punishment and you will be punished. So, so so it depends. If it actually means you joined in, then I think you're right. We're saying that you were not just a spectator, you were an active an active participant. And by the way, I want to point out to you the Abravanel points out that these references to nevi'im are very much the In other words, it's not just a single thing. On one hand, it's referring to the Hurban Bayit Rishon in the hands of the Babylonians, but it also refers to the Christian, because remember, there is a concept which appears in Hazal and is certainly taken up by many many meforshim, that the Christian church, particularly the Catholic church, which was situated in Rome, is considered to be a spiritual successor of Esau because the Catholic church succeeded, so to speak, the Roman Empire. And you know that it was the position of the Catholic church until relatively recently that all of the exile of the Jews and the persecutions of the Jews are God's punishment because we crucified or we delivered for crucifixion for crucifixion Yashka. It's like even during the Holocaust, there were there were Christian clergy who refused to intervene to help Jews. And not because they were in danger. That's one question. If you said it's dangerous, that's okay. That's that's an excuse or something. But they actually said, "What is happening to you is God's decree because of what you did." So, in a sense, there's a certain powerful contemporary you know, resonance here in which you stood by as everything was happening to Yaakov. And Hashem says, "I'm not going to forgive the indifference, the coldness, and the joy that you take in the sufferings of your brother." Right? So, it both refers to the first base of Mikdash and it refers to the Christian theological position that whatever happens to the Jews is what's coming to them and we don't have to take any steps to alleviate their suffering. This was the theological justification for anti-Semitism. And as the Abravanel says, nevu'ot are layered. They refer to many many different things. Now, towards the end, there's already a reference to the second Hurban which will happen much later in which it mentions you actively destroyed the temple. Right? But that's not the same event. That's in the year 70 when the Romans destroyed the the base of Mikdash. Now, there there's a I already I already mentioned the pasuk to you that Beit Yaakov will be a torch and Beit Esau will be straw and they will be burnt up. Right? That's the reference the Gemara says that Amalek will fall by the hands of Rachel, the children of Rachel, not the children of Leah. Uh but then I just want to show you a pasuk. If you look at the or I'll read it. Next to the last pasuk is a very very interesting reference to the extent of the exile. And it's not clear historically what period it's referring to. Uh it's something Rav Chaim Kanievsky questioned. Where is France mentioned in Tanakh? Where is Spain mentioned in Tanakh? The answer is in this Haftarah. The pasuk says, the galut hacheil hazeh, What what pasuk is it? What what pasuk is This is in the pasuk yud tet, verse 19 of Haftarah of Obadiah. Perek pasuk yud tet. The galut hacheil hazeh livnei Yisrael asher kinanim ad Tzarfat vegalut Yerushalayim asher biSfarad, your shoe Esau hanegba. That this is a prophecy about the ultimate redemption, the ultimate Mashiach, the shivat Tzion in which the Jewish people who have been exiled will come back to Eretz Yisrael and they will even settle the Arava and Negev. This doesn't mean Arava and Negev, this means further south. They will settle the territory of Edom. And it were and it mentions the galus that goes all the way to Tzarfat. Now, what is Tzarfat? So, here we have a big machlokes of meforshim. The Malbim somewhat modestly simply says Tzarfat refers to a city in the north of Eretz Yisrael. Like Tzarfat, Yeshayahu Tzarfat, you actually have that. But the Abravanel said Tzarfat is France. As in modern Hebrew, called France. And Sefarad is Spain. And it mentions already that we're already from the time of the first churban, the first churban the rabbinical says, "People make a mistake when they think that all the Jews were exiled to Babylonia. And then they went to Persia. It's a big mistake. At the time of the galus Bavel Jews were scattered all over the place. And they had already come to Europe. And they had come to Spain and they had come to France. And in fact, we even have later traditions, again, we're not sure if they're historically accurate, in which when Ezra came from Eretz Yisrael to to Bavel. I'm sorry, from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael. And the second Temple was going to be rededicated. So, messages were sent to Jewish communities in Germany. Already in Germany, inviting them to come back. And one response was given you you know, we have our little Yerushalayim here and you have your big Yerushalayim there. And we will send donations, but we're very very happy we've settled here. Which means actually that there are Ashkenazic communities or there were, there were Ashkenazic communities in France in Germany, although Germany is not mentioned here. Spain, although we would call calling them calling it Sefardim as we call it is an anachronism because there wasn't a distinct Sefardim there. But in terms of when Jews got to the Iberian Peninsula and when they got to France is as early as maybe even earlier, but at least as early as the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash. Quite amazing. The first Beis Hamikdash the historical date that's given for the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash is typically 586 BCE. Now, some say under Jewish chronology you have to make it a little around 130 years later. Because otherwise it doesn't agree. If you make it 130 years later so you're talking about 4 450 BCE. Four centuries before the common era. And that is how old these communities were. Now, some say you actually had them from Hamelech already. Okay, but that's that we don't necessarily have any proof of. Uh in fact, this is interesting. Um when the Babylonian Talmud was completed the Gemara was completed around uh the year in the 600, 7th century, 600. And the Babylonian Talmud was sent to these communities in Europe. Some of them didn't want to accept it because they said "We have minhagim that are older than the Gemara, you know, the Gemara is is innovating. Our minhagim are before. Hundreds of years we've been here." 1,000 years, 586 BCE to 600 common era, it's it's 1,000 years. Right? So, it's quite quite amazing. So, this pasuk is one of the references that the Abravanel and other meforshim use for the presence of Jewish community. Of course, the Abravanel was in Spain and he uses this to show that the Jewish presence in Spain is extremely ancient uh dating from the churban of the of the Beis Hamikdash. And then the Haftorah ends with a pasuk that we actually say every day at the end of Az Yashir, but it's not from it's not part of Az Yashir. But after it says, "Ve'alu moshi'im behar Tzion." Eventually, there will be saviors that will reclaim Mount Zion, which Mount Mount Zion here really means the Temple Mount. It's interesting. We have another Mount called Mount Zion, but Har Tzion is the Makom Hamikdash. Lishpot es Har Esav. And the mountains of Esav this which means the great ones of Esav, the leaders of Esav shall be judged and held accountable for Hashem Hamlucha. And then God's kingdom will be established. Let me just say end with um a very interesting hora'ah of the Vilna Gaon. The Vilna Gaon says that there's a difference between melech and moshel. Both of them mean a ruler, king. But a melech is a king whose subjects have voluntarily accepted him out of awe and reverence and love. A moshel is a ruler who imposes his rule on you without your acceptance, like a dictate. So, that's why the pasuk says earlier ki Hashem Hamlucha u'moshel bagoyim. These are they, the nations of the world who don't accept Hashem. He is the moshel. But for Am Yisrael Hashem is the melech. We accept him. So, I think the Haftorah is making the point that when the ultimate Mashiach comes and Hashem's glory is revealed in the world ki Hashem Hamlucha the whole world will accept Hashem as melech. It will no longer be a moshel. Uh one final thing, earlier in the Haftorah it mentions that you know, there's a reference to the various wars that will occur before Mashiach comes, but it says "U'vehar Tzion tihiyeh pleitah." There will be a remnant of Jews that will survive in Har Tzion, which is really Yerushalayim. U'hayah kodesh. And that remnant will be holy. V'yarshu Beis Yaakov es morasheihem. And the house of Yaakov shall inherit those who tried to inherit them. So, this pasuk was quoted. Now, the Chofetz Chaim uh was once asked about uh I'm not sure if it was the country, maybe it was World War I. World War I when when when Jews were trying to escape Europe, he died before World War II, but uh they tried to escape Europe, go to Eretz Yisrael, but the truth of the matter is that it was very very dangerous. And of course, even in World War II, we had very similar situation where Hitler had Rommel Rommel was conducting a North African campaign. And had he not run out of uh uh gas and and supplies it is very probable that he would have gone to uh Eretz Yisrael at that time and and would have aggressively tried to get the Jewish population even there. That's how much they wanted to uh do it. So, there was some concern that was expressed that maybe Jews shouldn't go to Eretz Yisrael because they're putting themselves in a dangerous environment. And this pasuk was quoted that that no matter how dangerous the world is, no matter how dangerous Eretz Yisrael is there will always be a pleitah behar Tzion. There will be the remnants in the holy land that God is going to protect. So, you know, one of the arguments people make sometimes, even today, is they don't want to make aliyah because um it's too dangerous to live here. Now, you know, it's kind of funny funny in a sense. Well, yeah, sure. Uh much more dangerous than Paris and much more dangerous than London and much more dangerous than New York. Uh you know, the world is dangerous. And Eretz Yisrael has its share of danger, but comparatively speaking uh on a day-to-day level, it is actually a safer place to live than most of the world. But even if in theory it wouldn't be uh the problem is this. If you're living in a dangerous world anyway then you might as well live dangerously here instead of live dangerously somewhere else. Because there's a special protection I just had a comment that there was my relatives all all of them my relatives are outside Jerusalem. Yeah. And they're always wondering only sort of against me like living outside of Jerusalem because they say like "Oh, it's so dangerous." When you say outside of Jerusalem, are are they in Israel or are they different? In Israel. Oh, in Israel. And they feel Jerusalem is more dangerous. Well, may maybe traffic-wise, that I might agree with. But Baruch Hashem, I mean you know, listen, I mean obviously we have we have terror attacks and uh the nature of it is that uh we are a small country and a close-knit country and Jews care about Jews, so every time there's any people uh it's something that affects us very very deeply and then we pray uh that there should be shalom. But but all in all, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's rachamim has been very very great. And the haftacha of the navi that in Har Tzion there will be pleitah there will be the remnant that will flourish and survive and uh be successful in in many many ways. Baruch Hashem, we we have seen it in our in our day, God willing it can only get better and better until the time that we are zoche to be goel shalem.