From: Dov (Bruce) Krulwich <krulwich@ils.nwu.edu>
Subject: Dvar Torah -- Parshas Ki Tetze -- Rabbi Alter -- Yeshiva Migdal Torah
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences, Evanston, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:26:34 GMT


    Parshas Ki Tetze 5750    Yeshiva Migdal Torah      Rabbi Avrohom Alter

(This drosha [talk] consists of two parts, the first in honor of the marriage
of of two Migdal Torah members and the second more generally about the parsha.)

                          ---------------------------

This week's parsha, Ki Tetze, opens up with a situation arising in a war
between the Jewish nation and an enemy.  "When you [singular] go to war against
your [sing] enemies [plural] , and the L-rd your G-d has delivered him [sing]
into your [sing] hands..."  [Deut 21:10].

Two questions arise concerning the tenses used in the posuk [verse].  First,
why are the Jews referred to specifically using a singular tense?  In general,
the Jews are referred to in the plural, as in the phrase "speak to the children
(pl) of Israel and say to them (pl)" which appears throughout the Torah.  Why
this time are we addressed in the singular?  Secondly, a funny change in tense
occurs in this posuk.  At the beginning of the posuk G-d refers to our enemies
in the plural, but when He mentions His delivering them into our hands the
reference is to "him."  What can we learn from this switch in tense?

The AriZaL explains that this posuk is teaching us something fundamental about
the proper relationship between the Jewish people.  We have often faced many
enemies, and it is when we are united, when we act as a unified nation, that
G-d will let us defeat all of our enemies as if they were only one.  History
has shown that as Jews we do not win our own wars, it is G-d who wins them for
us.  This was true when we escaped from Egypt, and it is true today.  Was it
really the B'nai Yisroel [children of Israel] who defeated the Egyptians?  No,
it was the Almighty who defeated them for us, because we were united in
following Him.  Similarly, can we understand how the modern state of Israel has
managed to defeat all of the Arab nations in 1948, 1956, and 1967?  Clearly the
Jewish people were united, and the Almighty responded by letting us defeat our
enemies as if they were only one.

A moshul [analogous story] is used to explain the power of being unified.  An
aristocrat was once traveling through Europe in a coach with a team of 6
beautiful steeds pulling him, when his coach got stuck in a ditch.  As hard as
he tried he couldn't get the coach out.  He drove his horses in every
direction, whipped all of them, but to no avail.  As he was doing this a small
wagon came along pulled by a pair of skinny horses that looked far past their
prime.  "Excuse me sir," said the old Jew in the wagon, "but if you'd like I
can hook up my horses to your wagon and pull it out."  "Your horses?" replied
the aristocrat incredulously, "What can your horses do that mine can't?"  He
tried harder to pull out his coach, but still he was unable to.  The old Jew
sat in his wagon patiently, waiting to see if the aristocrat would need his
help.  Finally the aristocrat gave up and decided that he was willing to try
anything.  He unhooked his horses and motioned for the old man to hook his pair
of horses to the coach.  He did so and proceeded to give a single whip to one
of the horses, at which point the pair of them lunged forward and pulled the
wagon out of the ditch.  The aristocrat was amazed.  "How did they manage
that?" he asked.  "Tell me," the old Jew replied, "where were your horses
bred?"  "This one was the finest of the litter in Hamburg last year," replied
the aristocrat, "and this one won an award in Minsk, and this one won the race
in Vilna..."  "That's it," interrupted the old man.  "Your horses, as fine as
they are individually, are nothing more than individual horses.  They have no
connection between them.  My horses, on the other hand, were raised together on
my small farm.  They have worked side by side all their lives.  When you whip
one of your horses it hurts only that one horse, and by the time the next one
is whipped the pain has subsided in the first.  They never work as one.  When I
whip one of my horses they both feel the pain and lunge together, and together
they can accomplish much more than any collection of individual horses."

This is true not only for a team of horses and not only for the Jews as a
whole, but also for a couple who get married.  Two people who get married have
the potential to grow together and accomplish things that are much greater than
either of them could possibly accomplish themselves.  If a couple's goal is to
grow together and create a Jewish household, as one, there is nothing that they
will be unable to accomplish together.

                          ---------------------------

This week's parsha then tells us about an "eshes yefas toar" [an alluring
woman] who is captured during battle.  "When you go to war with your enemies,
... and you have taken them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful
woman, and you desire ("chashak") her, and want her for your wife, you shall
bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and [let her nails
grow long], ... and she shall bewail her mother and father for a full month,
and after that you shall go to her and be her husband....  And if you have no
desire ("chafatz") for her, you shall let her go..." [Deut 21:10-14].

At first glance it seems strange that the Torah would permit Jewish soldiers to
take a captive woman as a wife at all.  After all, the whole idea is contrary
to all notions of moral behavior and the relationship between a husband and
wife!  Our commentaries tell us that, indeed, this was only permitted as a
means of doing something that was not as bad as what would have occurred had it
not been permitted.  The Torah is not saying that this behavior is good, but
that if a soldier is in a situation where he is going to throw out his morals
and take a captive woman as a wife, he should do it within this framework.

What exactly does this framework accomplish?  The soldier takes the woman home
and gives her thirty days to make herself repulsive looking.  She lets her
nails grow, doesn't keep herself up, shaves her head, takes off her beautiful
clothes, and cries.  When the man sees this, his battle-induced desires are
melted away by the lapse of time and diminishing of her beauty, and he will no
longer want to take her as his wife.

We can look deeper than this, however, and learn something about the nature of
human desire.  In discussing this process, the Torah uses two different words
to discuss desires, "chashak" and "chofetz."  On the battlefield the soldier
feels chashak, and later at home he does not feel chafetz.  What is the
difference between the two forms of desire?

We can gather some insight into this by examining another time that these words
arise, in Parshas Vayechi, when Yaakov's [Jacob's] daughter is raped by
Shechem, the prince of Chivi.  After this happens, Shechem's father Chamor
approaches Yaakov and says that his son is interested in marrying Dina.  "And
Chamor said to them, 'my son Shechem's soul is desirous [chashak] of your
daughter, please give her to him for a wife'" [Gen 34:8].  Rashi comments on
the word "desirous," chashak, and explains that it means chafatz.  What is the
difference between them that Rashi needs to teach us?

After asking that Dina be given as a wife to his son, Chamor proceeds to
propose that the sons of Yaakov and the people of Chivi become one people, that
"your sons will marry our daughters, and your daughters with our sons, and you
will settle with us" [Gen 34:9-10].  Even in expressing the desire that Shechem
has for Dina he is casting it as a righteous desire, that Shechem's "soul is
desirous" of her.  Chamor is not merely saying that his son thinks that Dina is
beautiful, he's attributing moral and just motivations to his son's interest in
Dina.  As he would have it, his son is sincerely interested in Dina, his soul
is attracted to her, and this desire is part of an overall political interest.
This is the righteous desire meant by chashak.  To this Rashi says no, Shechem
is not feeling chashak, but is rather feeling chafetz, a basic animal desire.

This distinction between the righteous desire of chashak and the animal desire
of chafetz applies in our parsha, in the discussion of eshes yefas toar.  When
a soldier sees a pretty woman on the battlefield, he doesn't admit to himself
that he is reacting to a basic animal desire in the heat of battle.  "It's not
just her beauty," we can hear him say.  "I know that beauty is only skin deep,
but I'm interested in her as a person!  I want to draw her closer to G-d, to
make her part of our people, to make a home and family with her!  I'm not
feeling chafetz, it's chashak, really!"  There is nothing that human beings are
better at then rationalizing their desires, finding righteous motivations for
actions that are contrary to their moral beliefs.  Then, a month later, he sees
her in her disheveled state, and all of his supposedly righteous interests melt
away.  "So," we ask him, "why don't you want her now, if your interest in her
before was chashak?  Why does it matter that she's no longer as beautiful?
What happened to 'beauty is only skin deep?'"  "Um, er," he replies, "well,
it's true that beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes down to the bone!  I'm
simply not interested any more!"  To this the Torah says that while on the
battlefield he claimed to be feeling chashak, righteous desire, he sees now
that is was chafetz, animal desire, and that once this is gone all of his
interest is gone with it.

Further, it's interesting to note that all of the things that the woman does to
herself to make herself unattractive are very temporary.  A manicure, some
makeup, a hat or wig, some nice clothing, and she can be as beautiful as she
was before.  Even this fact isn't enough to maintain the man's desires,
however, because the motivation to rationalize is gone.

The lesson for us is clear.  When we find ourselves in a situation in which we
feel basic animalistic desires, the tendancy to rationalize acting on them is
very strong.  We must recognize, however, that we are truly reacting to the
basic desires, however, and that our rationalizations are simply figments of
our imagination.  It is only if we can see beyond the rationalizations and
examine our actual motivations for performing an action that we can truly act
according to the desires of the Almighty.

                                    Rabbi Avrohom Alter, Yeshiva Migdal Torah
                                          Parshas Ki-Tetze 5750, Sept 1, 1990
                                                  Transcribed by Dov Krulwich
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish