The sanctity of a leader's word
Parsha and its Implementation - Matot - Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald - 5779
Our Parasha begins with the laws of vows and oaths and addresses the chiefs of staff:
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־רָאשֵׁ֣י הַמַּטּ֔וֹת לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה ה'׃
אִישׁ֩ כִּֽי־יִדֹּ֨ר נֶ֜דֶר לַה' אֽוֹ־הִשָּׁ֤בַע שְׁבֻעָה֙ לֶאְסֹ֤ר אִסָּר֙ עַל־נַפְשׁ֔וֹ לֹ֥א יַחֵ֖ל דְּבָר֑וֹ כְּכָל־הַיֹּצֵ֥א מִפִּ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה׃
"Moses spoke to the heads of the Israelite tribes, saying: This is what Hashem has commanded: If a man makes a vow to Hashem or takes an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips". (Bamidvar 30:2-3)
Why is the law of vows and oaths, which is a personal and familial law, directed specifically at the leadership - for the chiefs of staff?
The Torah also emphasizes the obligation to fulfill the vows and oaths, in a special language that describes those who do not follow his words as sacrilegious: " לא יחל דברו This is the same as לא יחלל דברו (the root of יחל being חלל): He shall not make his own word to bear a secular character (חולין)". (Rashi ibid.) Why?
According to the Pshat, the special reference to the Chiefs of Staff is because they are entrusted with the fulfillment and observance of the laws of vows and oaths. "For the heads of the staff have more vows than the rest of the people" (Ramban ibid)
On the other hand, the Chatam Sofer pointed out that there is a special focus on leadership - in the chiefs of staff who serve as the leaders of the nation.
According to the Chatam Sofer, it is written about the "sanctity of speech" also in the reciprocal relationship between the leadership and the people, in the proper and dignified manner that the people are supposed to relate to it: "It should be said that Moshe spoke to Bnei Israel about the 'chiefs of staff'. That they should get used to say the words of the chiefs of staff". "This is what Hashem commanded." He wishes to say that whatever comes out of the judge's mouth will be in the eyes of the people of G-d as though G-d commanded him to do so" (Chatam Sofer ibid).
Another tradition, always current, attributed to the Chatam Sofer, was passed by his students and cited by the late Rabbi Hanan Porat. It is also related to the leadership and the reason why the reference to "he shall not break his pledge" is actually to the leadership: "The chiefs of staff and the leaders generally tend to vow and swear to ensure and not to comply. They are liable to change their words and retract their promises. Therefore, the warning is directed first and foremost at them "he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips" (Me'at Min HaOr- Matot).
The power of speech distinguishes man from the beast. Man is called 'speaker'. The power of speech is a Divine power that has holiness. And therefore, non-compliance with his speech and word; his vow or oath is called 'desecration' - as sacrilege.
This gets more important when it comes to the 'word' of a leader. The leader is called Dover-Spokesman- in part because his main tool of leadership is his speech. Through it, he leads and motivates the public to act. He must therefore "honor" his word. The leader's speech is meant to represent the truth and the values in a whole, to convey credibility and interest in decision-making, and to uphold his word and his promises. The "desecration" of a leader's word and failure to meet his promises (especially during the election period), the unreliable use of spins and the use of dirty and blunt language, fake- news and double standard words, "spoils" his speech and damages the public's trust and public respect for its leaders. Often, it also causes suspicion about the credibility of the leadership's motives (political and interest-based considerations rather than substantive considerations) and cynical and disparaging attitudes toward its leaders ("all talk"). And diverting public discourse from values and existential issues to personal issues.
There might be strategic prices to the trust in the leader and his considerations, if his "word's" value is damaged, such as reducing their political maneuvering space. Leaders are often required to harness the public to back up and legitimize difficult moves such as going to war, which can heavily cost in property and soul. They must convince the public of the necessity of the move. If the public does not believe in the honesty of the leaders' motives, they will not follow him.
We read our Parasha at the height of an election period. On this occasion, we will call upon each of the leaders to demand that "he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips"!
Parshat Mtot – Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald
These days we are commemorating a year after Operation "Tzuk Eitan" (Protestive Edge) and there is still a public debate about the outcome of the war. Some say we won and others say that even if we didn't lose, we didn't win either.
In this context, let us recall lines that were written last year at the height of the Operation, and see them in the perspective of the year that has passed since.
In our parsha we read about the mitzvah of inheriting the land and the need for decisive victory in the war for the land (Bamidbar 33:55): "And if you don't drive out the natives of the land from before you, then those who you allow to remain will be barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides." Yehoshua also commands the nation regarding this before his death. (Yehoshua 23:12) We see in the books of the prophets that Israel paid a heavy price for not winning a decisive victory when inheriting the land. The exception was the tribe of Issachar, about which is said (Bereshith 49:15): "He lowered his shoulder to bear a burden and he was a worker paying tribute." Rashi explains this according to the Targum: "To bear the burden of wars and to conquer the regions where they live on the border. And the enemy was defeated under him and served him by paying a tribute." Only the one who wasn't negligent in achieving decisive victory and conquest of his inheritance created the conditions to dwell in his region securely."
The Torah explicitly commands us to conclude the war for the land decisively (Devarim 20:19): "When you besiege a city many days to conquer it…lay siege on the city that battles with you until it falls." The siege has to reach the point of decisive victory "until it falls," meaning breaching its walls "until its walls fall." (Rashbam) However this will only be complete with the absolute conquest of the city (Onkeles). And this gain is not wholly realized until it is translated into complete rule and sovereignty, that it will be subservient to you. (Rashi) The battle cannot be considered a success until it ends with decisive victory even if we wear down the enemy and hit him hard. In war, there is no "victory by points", only by a kind of "knockout", a clear and unambiguous victory which will yield gains over the long term. From these verses the Sages learned that the need to complete the victory allows the Jews to continue the war on Shabbat (Talmud Shabbat 19a): "A city of heathens shouldn't be besieged less than three days before Shabbat, but if the siege was commenced, it isn't stopped. And thus said Shammai: "Until it falls-even on Shabbat."
King David said (in Tehillim 18:38): "I will pursue my enemies until I reach them, and I will not return until I have destroyed them. I will crush them and they won’t be able to rise, they will fall under my feet." We learned from him a few principles about war! The first: The pursuit after the enemies must continue until the mission is accomplished. Until then, "I will not return until I have destroyed them." The second: Even if accomplishing the mission involves much hardship and even danger, "I will not return" – the mission has to be completed entirely – "until I have destroyed them." The third – we have to act determinedly and unhesitatingly and with full force and strive for clear victory – "I will crush them and they won’t be able to rise." The fourth – we need to insure that the gains of the victory will be secure for a long time, so the nation's stamina won't get worn down by a drawn-out war which we will have to repeat again and again. This will give the nation the peace necessary to concentrate its national resources in creative and constructive ways.
The Natziv elaborates in HaEmek Davar (on Bamidbar 24:8) "About King Shaul, it is written 'he prevailed in all that he did', and about King David it is written 'and David was wise in all his ways'. But the difference between them is that one prevails in battle but doesn't conquer his enemy under him, only fells them and weakens them. The result is that he doesn't bring success to his nation. And one prevails and conquers under him. And this is the success of the nation..." Shaul only weakened his enemies and prevailed upon them. David conquered and stationed his guards from Edom to Moav and all the nations he conquered… because the one who prevails over his enemies only weakens them temporarily, until they become stronger few years later. Therefore decisive victory has to remain secure." (See also on Devarim 33:11)
This principle also guided the Hasmoneans in their war. The Natziv (Emek Davar on Devarim 33:11) explains Moshe's blessing to the Tribe of Levi: "And he gave them two blessings: 'He will pound the thighs of his enemies' ….'and his enemies won't be able to rise' which is greater than the first (blessing) which is only pounding and striking during the battle, but they (the enemies) are always liable to rise and overpower in a subsequent war. But this blessing is that the pounding will be such that they will not rise again, like in the Hasmonean war against the Greek empire.
Today there is an academic debate over the subject of decisive victory and how this materializes in a conflict like "Tzuk Eitan" – whether the current relative quiet is the sign of decisive victory or a quiet "time-out" for reorganization for the future. Our opinion is that the second statement is closer to the truth, and we try to utilize the interim to learn lessons and prepare for the future. At the same time, we should closely examine the subject of the Torah's requirement to strive for decisive victory.