IMREI SHEFER BY RABBI SHLOMO KLUGER
Ki Seitzei
Imrei Shefer - Parshas Ki Seitzei
   

How must we reciprocate when Hashem saves us from our enemies?

(21,10) “When you go out to war against your enemies, and Hashem Your G-d will give him into your hands, and you will take him captive. And you see among the captives a beautiful woman…”

What does the posuk mean “and you will take his captives”? We can explain it according to what Chazal taught, that the Torah only allowed the matter of the “beautiful woman” during war because a person’s evil inclination is very strong at that time, and so the Torah made a provision for marrying such a woman by following a strict set of rules, as the Torah goes on to state.

Now, there are two types of war which Yisrael fights - there is war with the nations which is primarily for us, for the needs of the body, and there is also the war against the evil inclination, and this war is for Hashem and His honor. Therefore the Torah is telling us to act with Him measure for measure. The war with our enemies which is for us, this Hashem will do Himself, and He will deliver our enemies into our hands. And we will reciprocate and strive to deliver His enemy, so to speak, into His hand, to conquer the evil inclination and destroy it.

This is what the posuk is saying: “If you go out to war against your enemies”, against those who hate you, “Hashem will deliver him into your hands”. And when Hashem delivers those who hate you into your hands, then you will make sure to reciprocate, “and you take His captives”, the captives of Hashem, and conquer the evil inclination. How so? When “you will see among the captives a beautiful woman” - in this you matter you will conquer your evil inclination and not sin, by following all the rules that the Torah states.

What type of war is the Torah discussing?

(21,10) “When you go out to war against your enemies, and Hashem Your G-d will give him into your hands, and you take him captive. And you see among the captives a beautiful woman…”

The Yalkut Shimoni comments that this posuk is talking about a voluntary war. It seems to me the Yalkut is basing its comment on the Midrash on our parsha, which says that we learn from our parsha that a sin brings along other sins. We see this from the fact that it says “if you go out to war…and see among the captives a beautiful woman”, and this is followed by “if a man has a wayward and rebellious son”, which is followed by “if a man commits a sin which is worthy of death”. And that a mitzvah brings along a mitzvah we see from that which it writes “if a bird‘s nest chances before you on the road…you shall send away the mother”, which is followed by “when you build a new house, you shall make a parapet…”.

According to this the Yalkut had a difficulty - if a mitzvah brings along a mitzvah, how from war could a person come to desire a beautiful woman. Surely the war itself is a mitzvah. Therefore the Yalkut said that the posuk is talking about a voluntary war, and if so, it is not a mitzvah. But if the Torah is discussing a voluntary war, why should it permit “a beautiful woman” because of the evil inclination - don’t make war, and then you will not come to this. Therefore the posuk continues that the war is “against your enemies”, implying that they started with you, and so you had no choice in the matter.

Why was Shaul not completely successful in his war against Amalek?

(21,10) “When you go out to war against your enemies, and Hashem Your G-d will give him into your hands, and you take him captive. And you see among the captives a beautiful woman…”

It says further in the Yalkut that if you do everything that is mentioned in the matter, in the end Hashem will put them into your hands. This is a puzzle - what does it mean “everything that is mentioned in the matter”? Behold, until now it does not mention anything.

But it seems to me that the Yalkut is referring to the end of the previous parsha, which discusses the law of Eglah Arufah (decapitated calf). Because Shlomo HaMelech said in Koheles 8:5 “one who observes a mitzvah shall know no evil thing”, and yet Chazal taught in the gemora in Yoma 22b on the posuk regarding Shaul (Shmuel I 15:5) “and he fought in the valley” - concerning the valley, that Shaul argued from the parsha of Eglah Arufah against killing Amalek, and thus he did not fulfill the wiping out of Amalek. Thus we see that from the mitzvah of Eglah Arufah came his sin. How do we resolve this with the posuk in Koheles?

But the answer is this. If Shaul had at some time completely fulfilled the mitzvah of Eglah Arufah, then he would certainly be “one who observes a mitzvah shall know no evil thing”, and he would not have come to any mishap from it. But since this mitzvah never came to his hand, and so he had never fulfilled it, therefore there came from it a mistake.

Thus the Torah concludes the parsha of Eglah Arufah with the posuk “and you will remove the innocent blood from among you, when you will do what is right in the eyes of Hashem”. That is, you should not worry that there will happen to you from this any mishap when you go out to war against your enemies, that you will learn from this to have mercy upon them as happened to Shaul, and which resulted in the death of Shaul and his sons. Therefore the posuk says that I promise you that “you will remove the innocent blood from among you”, that no harm will come to because of this. And that is when you “will do what is right in the eyes of Hashem” and actually do this mitzvah. Then I promise you that when you go out to war against your enemy you will be assured that Hashem will give him into your hands, and not like Shaul who did not correctly succeed.

This is the meaning of the Yalkut - if you do all that is stated in the matter, and actually fulfill the mitzvah of Eglah Arufah, then I promise you that Hashem will give them into your hands.

From where did Chazal learn that one who marries a beautiful captive will have a rebellious son?

(21,18) “When there will be to a man a wayward and rebellious son who does not obey his father or his mother, and though they chasten him he will not listen to them.”

Behold, Chazal taught that one who marries a beautiful captive is destined to have a wayward and rebellious son, and it seems to me that that they expounded this teaching from the posuk itself. Because behold, the phrase “to a man” is superfluous since it should been sufficient to say “when there will be a wayward and rebellious son”. So why did the Torah need to write “to a man”?

But behold, it is written “a wise son will gladden the father, but a foolish son is the grief of his mother (Mishlei 10:1)”. From here it is clear that a foolish son comes from the mother, and the reason for this is that since when a woman gives seed first she gives birth to a boy, therefore a son comes from her and depends on her more. And the gemora in Niddah 31a also learns from the Torah that male children are attributed to the mother. Therefore in general a son’s wickedness comes from the mother.

But when one marries a beautiful captive and has a wayward and rebellious son, this does not come from the mother - since she is not from the Children of Yisrael she committed no sin. Only the father sinned, and thus the wickedness of the son must have come from his side.

This is what the posuk is saying: “When there will be to a man a wayward and rebellious son” - when a wicked son comes from a man and not from a woman, and when does this happen? When he marries a beautiful captive. Hence, Chazal learned from here that one who marries a beautiful captive is destined to have a wayward and rebellious son.

Why are the parents of a rebellious son believed to testify that their son is a drunkard and a glutton?

(21,20) “And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is wayward and rebellious - he does not listen to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.”

Behold, the posuk says that they do not immediately mention that he is a glutton and a drunkard (which is the main point), but instead they first mention his disobedience.

But behold, a wayward and rebellious son does not require independent witnesses to seal his fate - his father and mother are themselves believed to testify against him Yet if they would testify against him that he profaned Shabbos or some other serious sin they would certainly not be believed, as it says “sons will not die because of the fathers (Devarim 24:16)”, and Chazal taught that the posuk means that the sons will not die because of the testimony of the fathers. So why are the parents believed if they say about him that he is a glutton and a drunkard?

It seems to me that we can explain why they are believed according to what we see from the stories of Chazal, that in the majority of cases from a tzaddik (a righteous person) comes a tzaddik, and from a rasha (a wicked person) comes a rasha. We also see this from the Midrash in parshas Va’eschanan on the posuk “When you bear children (Devarim 4:25)”, which teaches that Eliphaz was righteous because he was raised by Yitzchok, and Amalek was wicked because he was raised by Eisav. And even though it sometimes happens that a tzaddik has a wicked son, this is only in the minority of cases, but in the majority of cases it is not so.

Therefore if a father and mother testify that their son is a wicked person - that he actually committed an evil deed - they would effectively be testifying that they themselves are evil, and since we have a rule that a person is not believed if his testimony would establish that he is wicked the parents cannot be believed.

Thus here also, if the parents were testifying that their son had actually committed a sin for which he is liable to be put to death, in which case his death would be a punishment for his wickedness, then the parents would not be believed. But since they are only saying that he is a glutton and a drunkard and thus not yet guilty of having committed a serious sin, even though he will be put to death based on their testimony, this is because the Torah is concerned that he will become a rasha, but it is not definite that this will happen.

Hence, since he is not yet definitely wicked it is not definite that his parents are wicked, and thus since they are not establishing that they themselves are wicked with their testimony they can be believed. Also, since their speaking out is a merit for him in order that he will die innocent of sin rather than die guilty, and also since the father and mother are obligated to guide their son upon the straight path and prevent him from sinning, they are believed.

This is what the posuk is saying - they say: “He does not listen to our voice” (he does not follow our guidance) but he has not yet actually sinned, because if so we would not be believed, rather “he is a glutton and a drunkard” only, and still innocent of sin. Therefore we can be believed in order to protect his future. The posuk now makes good sense.

When you print this page. Printer Friendly Layout