Drawing conclusions "after the war, at six in the evening!"*

Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald – The Parasha in our everyday life – Beha’alotcha - 5781

Now, ‘after the war, at six o’clock in the evening’; as the sounds of war have faded (for now) and the dust dissipated, it is time to draw conclusions and make investigations. It's time to look back at what happened. And examine in depth the long-term meanings and implications.

The 'reality test' is the biggest test of any agenda and worldview. War brings to the 'test of reality' the basic assumptions, strategic and security perceptions of each side. “Operation Guardian of the Walls” מבצע שומר החומות)) put to the test some of them, those at the center of the political and security public discourse. For example: Is it possible to solve the problem of the security threat from Gaza using the 'rounds' method without Hamas' collapse, or is it a matter of strategic ‘procrastination'? Does the avoidance of 'ground maneuver' in Gaza stem from the fact that, to achieve the goals, it is not necessary, or does it stem from a deterrent to its price? And if so, does this mean that Hamas manages to 'deter', and create an equation of 'balance of deterrence' with Israel? Has Hamas succeeded in strengthening its power from a small and marginal organization to a leading factor in the conflict with Israel? What did the Iranians and Hezbollah 'conclude' from the results of the operation, did it strengthen the deterrence against them or weaken it? Can we get to the conclusion that we can deal with more massive rocket fire into the home front after this operation? And how about the resilience and strength of Israeli society in a crisis? Will the intensification of Hamas from 'round' to 'round', teach about the security consequences of getting out of control on the ground and the loss of direct security control? What does this indicate about the 'price' of the disengagement? And will they learn from this about the enormous danger of a 'Palestinian state' in Judea and Samaria, G-d forbid? By the Arab sector’s conduct during this past operation, can we learn anything about the future relationship between Jews and Arabs in Israel? Will the public internalize that the conflict is not about the '1967 border' but about the very existence of the State of Israel on '1948 borders'? Is there still a chance for 'coexistence'? Could the manner in which the police dealt with riots and violent disturbances have an impact on what might happen, G-d forbid, in the context of a more difficult war, such as the outline of a war with Hezbollah on the northern front, or a multi-arena war at the same time? Can we learn about the police effectiveness from the way it maintains public order in times of crisis, and the loss of its deterrence? What can we learn about our advocacy for Israel and Israel's public diplomacy in the world, and about Israel's status in the international arena?

The process of drawing conclusions requires thorough and in-depth investigation without prejudice and without preconceived opinions. Go into the depths of the facts and from them learn about the essence and the basic perceptions and not be satisfied with dealing with the symptoms. Only this way, will we be able to draw the right conclusions, correct and improve for the future, and preserve or even strengthen what turned out to be beneficial and successful. Only in this way will we be able to identify the warning signs that signal what we’ll expect in the future.

In our Parasha we read about the ‘Sin of the Complainers’, the first in a series of crises in the desert:

וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים רַ֖ע בְּאׇזְנֵ֣י ה' וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ע ה' וַיִּ֣חַר אַפּ֔וֹ וַתִּבְעַר־בָּם֙ אֵ֣שׁ ה' וַתֹּ֖אכַל בִּקְצֵ֥ה הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה׃

"The people took to complaining bitterly before Hashem. Hashem heard and was incensed: a fire of Hashem broke out against them, ravaging the outskirts of the camp". )Bamidbar 11:1)

The response to the sin was a strong one:

ירדה אש מן השמים והיתה קופלת בהם מתחתיה, עד שלא עמדו, לא בין החיים למתים ולא בין המתים לחיים.

“Fire descended from heaven and "rained blows" upon them until they could not tell the difference between the living and the dead." (Sifrei Beha’alotcha)

All corners of the nation, juniors and seniors were accomplices to the sin:

במוקצין שבהם לשפלות אלו ערב רב רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר בקצינים שבהם ובגדולים:

“those amongst them who were extreme in baseness — these were “the mixed multitude”. But R. Simeon the son of Manassia said: it means that the fire consumed the most distinguished and prominent ones among them”. (Rashi Bamidbar 11:1)

But what was their sin? And why was their punishment so severe? And why did the Torah not specify what the sin was?

למה יכסה הכתוב על חטאם ולא יגידנו, כאשר עשה בכל המקומות

“…for why would Scripture have concealed their sin, and not stated [clearly what it was], as it does in all other places!” (Ramban ibid)

 בשל כך ישנו מנעד רחב בהתייחסות של חז"ל לחטא

"This is the reason there is a wide variety of references on this sin from different Sages'” (Malbim ibid).

The sin of the complainants is surrounded by ambiguity. You can learn about the sin from its time and context - the imminent entry into the Land of Israel. On the 20th of Iyar, in the second year since the Exodus from Egypt, the people of Israel ended a period of about a year, of staying in the Sinai desert, and began a journey towards entering the Land of Israel. At the end of a little over a month (at the end of Sivan) they arrived at the entrance gates to Eretz Israel (from there the spies were sent on their mission for forty days and returned on the night of the ninth of Av).

The first expedition was an accelerated journey to hurry their entry into the land (according to Rashi) and therefore the complainants protested. It can be said, however, that the complainants' sin is not a one-off event. This is a symptom of a rooted problem that was revealed:

ויהי העם כמתאוננים. אין ויהי אלא שהיה להם דבר מתחילה. מלמד שהיו מקולקלים, וחזרו לקלקולם הראשון.

"And the people were ['vayehi'] as seekers of a pretext": "vayehi" connotes return to a previous condition, i.e., they were perverse to begin with, and they reverted to their original perversity”. (Sifrei Baha’alotcha)

An ancient and rooted problem in the lack of motivation to enter the Land of Israel:

כאוננים על מת, היו קצרי רוח ומתאבלים על שהיה רוצה הקב"ה להכניסם לארץ ויבאו למלחמה, כי היו יריאים ומקטני אמנה"

"As they mourned for the dead, they were impatient and mourned that G-d would bring them into the land and come to war, because they were fearful and had little faith” (Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor ibid).

With the Sages and commentators' help, we can draw a general profile of the complainants' sin: At the beginning of the journey to Israel, the willingness of the people of Israel to realize the vision of entering the land, was a test. For the leaders as well as for the individuals. Getting out of the comfort zone and face the difficulties. To bear the bloody price of war, for the country, and the achievement of political independence.

It is indeed expressed in a specific event. But the event was not the essence, but the symptom.

And this is perhaps the reason why it is not described in a specific way. This punishment was heavy and it was supposed to be a warning for the future. To what might happen in a short time in the sin of the spies. Unfortunately, the warning was not heeded and the known end led to weeping for generations.

Will we learn to draw conclusions…?

*"After the war at six o'clock in the evening!" (Czech: Po válce v šest hodin večer) Is a phrase that means a return to routine and normal customs after a war period.

The source of the phrase is in the book of the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek, "The Good Soldier Svejk" from the early 1920s. And also, after the Six Day War, following Yossi Gimzo's popular book, "At Six After the War."