(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

We often encounter long lists in the Torah - in Parshat Noah, for example, or the generations of Esau. Why does the Torah provide us with such detailed lists? The common denominator in all of them is that we always find one element which differs from the others - something unusual, a discord, something that does not quite fit. For example, in the long list of the generations of Noah only one name - Mitzrayim - appears in the plural form. Why did Ham call his son Mitzrayim?

The passage translates as follows: (Genesis 10:7;13-14) "The children of Ham: Cush, Mitzrayim, Phut, and Canaan... And Mitzrayim begot Ludim, Aramim, Lehavim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Casluhim, whence the Philistines came forth, and Caphtorim".

My focus here is on the Philistines - we encounter them repeatedly throughout the Tanach. They are the only nation with whom Abraham and Isaac negotiated a peace treaty, but they are also the only nation with whom there was constant enmity. They were the only ones to whom Isaac said: "You hate me..." Whether or not the Philistines of Noah's time are the same as those we meet in the book of Judges is unimportant here but it is noteworthy that it is not clear where they come from, nor is it clear who their father is.

Rashi has the following comment: "And Pathrusim and Casluhim out of whom came Philistim - They (the Philistines) were descended from both of them, for the Pathrusim and the Casluhim used to live together in promiscuous intercourse, and the Philistines were their offspring".

It is interesting that Rashi finds it necessary to add this explanation. As a rule, he has very few comments to add to lists of genealogy. He finds it remarkable, however, that the Philistines are the only ones who "came forth" into Canaan. The difference between them and the other nations who are mentioned in Parshat Noah is that their origin is extremely questionable. This is the "discord", that which does not quite fit in the long list in the Parashah.

The Radak explains: "Even though the Philistines were from the seed of Mitzrayim (Egypt), the land of Egypt did not belong to them. And so they left Mitzrayim and came to the land of Canaan".

In other words, all the other nations remained in place, but the Philistines "intruded" into the land of Canaan. This would explain "whence the Philistines came forth" in a literal sense. The important thing to remember is that they "came forth".

The people who emerged after the Flood accepted the seven Noahide laws. The nations of the world came into being from this time. But there was one nation which was not in reality a nation. According to Rashi, this is because they "came forth". According to Radak, they had left Mitzrayim.

Henceforth, the people of Israel would be faced with two types of foes: those on the way to Canaan and those in Canaan - enemy nations and individual enemies intent on weakening Israel's dominance. These two types of hostility would accompany the people of Israel throughout history. On the one hand, Israel would be confronted by Moab, Sihon, Og and Amalek - one type of conflict - and on the other hand, there would be repeated confrontations with the Philistines, which constituted a completely different form of hostility.

The patriarch Abraham conducted lengthy negotiations with Avimelech, King of Gerar, culminating in a peace treaty. The treaty did not, however, extend to Abraham's son. When Isaac wished to reopen the wells dug by his father in Gerar, the Philistines stopped them up, effectively closing them. They drove Isaac away from the wells and he was obliged to find another place to live. This is not the type of warfare in which armies engage - Isaac is confronted by a multitude, but they are not an army, neither are they a nation!

Isaac had come to the land of the Philistines on his way to Egypt when there was a severe famine in the land. God appealed to him: "Do not descend to Egypt. Dwell in the land...". Isaac obeyed, settling instead in Gerar, and was rewarded for his faith and trust - for what he sowed, he "reaped a hundredfold; thus had Hashem blessed him" (Genesis 26:12).

So now Isaac finds himself in the land of Gerar, whose king had concluded a peace treaty with Abraham. This was a time of drought in the Negev - famine prevailed throughout the land. Isaac dug a well, and the Philistines promptly blocked it. What kind of logic is this? In the drought-ridden Negev, what kind of hostility finds expression in stopping up life-giving wells? Finally Avimelech sends Isaac away. The Philistines were simply jealous of him. Isaac eventually confronts Avimelech and his general Pichol with the words: "You hate me and drove me away from you!" - if you didn't hate me, you wouldn't block up my well. You don't want to rule in Gerar, you just don't want me to live in Gerar. You prefer to go without water than to have a sign hanging over the well 'Dug by Abraham'. Avimelech and Pichol admit they were jealous of Isaac because they saw that God was with him.

When Abraham had arrived in Canaan he had had no difficulty with anyone other than Avimelech King of Gerar, who coveted his wife Sarah. Later on, Isaac, too had problems in Gerar involving his wife Rivka. It is noteworthy that the episode of Abraham and Sarah took place in Mitzrayim "whence the Philistines came forth", as we saw previously! The sensitive issue of family and questionable origin is significantly recalled - one the one hand, Mitzrayim were the fathers of the Philistines, yet Mitzrayim was the grandfather of the Philistines, according to Rashi's explanation!

Isaac had come to Gerar because he wanted to go down to Egypt, and the route led through Gerar. The next time Israel would come this way, although ultimately they do not follow this route, is when they come out of Egypt.

(Exodus 13:17) "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had sent the people away, that God guided them not by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt".
God doesn't lead them by way of the land of Philistines because they will see war and want to return to Egypt.

Rashi has the following to say: "Because it was near - and it would therefore be easy to return by the same route to Egypt... When they see war - For instance it was mentioned in Numbers 16:45 'Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites came down etc'. If they had proceeded by the direct route they would then have turned back. This is evident, for what would have been the case? If, when He led them about by a circuitous way, they said (Num. 14:4) 'Let us appoint another chief and go back to Egypt' had He led them by a direct route how much more certainly would they have spoken so. Lest they repent - lest they change their minds about having gone out and set their minds on returning". Rashi interprets "when they see war" in this context to be any war, not necessarily a conflict in which they are involved.

Ramban, on the other hand, feels that the parties to the conflict are important. He explains "because it was near" as meaning "near in time". If the children of Israel see war soon after leaving Egypt, they will want to return to Egypt. It can be assumed that every nation they encounter will want to fight them, not necessarily only the Philistines. So it is preferable that they find themselves in an unfamiliar place with less chance of returning to Egypt. He also suggests "near" to mean that the Philistines are related to Mitzrayim. The Philistines will thus return the Israelites to Egypt because they are related to Egypt!

Israel comes into conflict with Sichon, Amalek, Moab and Og, among others. But this is much easier than dealing with the Philistines! When Israel goes up against the Edomites, it is a straight battle - army against army. The outcome is victory or defeat. If defeated, they will fight again another day. But the Philistines are not seeking victory! Throughout history, their aim was simply to thwart the rule and sovereignty of Israel. They wanted to wear them down. And Israel cannot overcome this!

Let's look again at the pshat - the plain text: "...when Pharaoh had sent the people away, that God guided them not by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near..." Those same Egyptians who cast the firstborn Hebrews into the Nile had emissaries in the land of the Philistines whence they came forth. They were not to be found in Upper Egypt like the Pathrusim, and Casluhim and the Caphtorim - they had come forth - they had departed to establish a mini-Egyptian state in the Land of Israel. If the children of Israel had fought the Philistines upon entering the Land it would have been preferable to the years of harassment and skirmishing that followed their entrance into Israel.

This is but the beginning. The book of Judges records many encounters with the Philistines, and the pattern always repeats itself: various groups and nations attempt to overthrow Israel, a judge arises and helps save the people, and then peace reigns for 30 or 40 years. The first such judge was Otniel Ben Knaz. Kushan Rishatayim succumbs to Otniel after a great battle, and all is peaceful for 40 years. After a battle with Moab, 80 peaceful years ensue. And so on. Until Shamgar Ben Anat fights the Philistines (Judges chapter 22). There is no mention that they succumbed to him or that they surrendered! Throughout the book of Judges, the Philistines never surrender! All other nations yield and surrender, but the Philistines - never! It is recorded that Shamgar ben Anat slew his foes with a ploughshare. We can deduce from this that the Philistines went to war against a nation of farmers and attacked a settlement! Six hundred men under Shamgar's leadership drove off the raiders. This is not a battle of army against army, this is a band of marauders who could not tolerate the fact of Jewish settlements. This is an entirely different type of conflict!

The list continues - Yavin of Canaan fought Israel and were defeated. Gideon led Israel in victorious battle against Midian. Yiftach defeated the children of Ammon. Yael murdered Sisera, Captain of the King Yabin's forces. Samson spends his life battling the Philistines, but they never surrender. In the entire book of Judges, the Philistines fight against two judges - and are never defeated! Samson spends twenty years waging war against them, sometimes single-handed, once armed only with the jawbone of a mule. These skirmishes are characterized by stealth and cunning. Judges 15:20 - 16::2 refers to "twenty years, the days of the Philistines" - this is a different kind of enemy. They have no nation! The people of Israel must fight other nations - but they must also deal with the Philistines, who are not a nation, and whose sole aim and purpose is to wear down Israel's faith and might.

Those who have first hand experience of the intifada, as I had during my army service, know that it's an entirely different type of warfare from that for which the soldiers are trained! The problems, the tactics, and the moral issues are all different. But this phenomenon is not new - it began with the Philistines "whence they came forth".

The tale of Samson ends in Hebron. The end is approaching, and he knows that he is losing the battle. Samson lifts the gates of Gaza, the Philistine capital, and carries them to Hebron, to the graves of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to invoke their aid. He returns to the patriarch Abraham, who had his own dealings with Avimelech and who was never quite sure whether these negotiations were successful or not. Rashbam says that Abraham felt strong enough, once he had a son, to make a treaty - but with whom? It is interesting to note, in this context, that throughout the Tanach there is never specific mention of a king of the Philistines!

To return to Samson - the Philistines, when they finally succeeded by guile in overcoming him, made a party for the express purpose of mocking him! They forced the blinded Samson to dance for their entertainment, because it gave them pleasure!

When David fled from Saul and hid among the Philistines in the city of Afek, they didn't kill him, although they were well aware that this was the same David who had earlier killed their champion Goliath. It was enough for them to see that David, the rightful king of Israel, was unable to claim his throne. Only after he was crowned king in Jerusalem did they go to war against him. They preferred the spectacle of David dethroned to seeing him dead. In the same way, they preferred to see Samson helpless than to kill him!

When David confronted the giant Goliath, the Philistine boasted "I do taunt the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together..." For Goliath, the concept of an organized army of Israel was intolerable. He preferred to combat individuals, one at a time. "Give me one man... don't bring me an army!". David is well aware that for Israel's army this is a humiliating condition. Incidentally, the word ("I have taunted") does not appear in the context of any other battle in the Tanach. When the king of Edom refuses the Israelites permission to cross his borders it is extremely discourteous of him - but it is not humiliating! It is reasonable military logic - not fair, perhaps, and certainly not just, but not degrading!

David asks: "What shall be done to the man that kills this Philistine, and takes away the taunt from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should have taunted the armies of the living God?" In David's eyes Goliath is the representative of orlut (the uncircumcised), because he has taunted and shamed the armies of the living God. He is a Philistine, whose forefathers came forth from there - once again the theme repeats itself!

It was to David's great advantage, in his combat with Goliath, that he was still a young boy. To go up against Goliath a certain degree of naivete was necessary - a degree of naive and innocent belief that this was the battle of the Lord of hosts. There was certainly no need for yet another military strategist here. It was the fight between the circumcised and the uncircumcised.

Goliath is not here because he comes from here, he is here because he comes from there - whence they came forth!

David knows very well that this enemy would like nothing better than to see him dance, as Samson was made to dance, and it's up to him to withstand the test. As for Saul, he agreed to permit David to fight Goliath because he understood that a young boy was what was required in this situation. Later, it was very hard for Saul to accept that David, in his youth, had succeeded where others had failed, but at the time he was able to accept David's simple faith.

To convince Saul, David the shepherd related that he had killed a lion and a bear that threatened his flock. The relevance of this tale in connection with Goliath was that like the lion and the bear, Goliath does not belong here.

Finally David confronted Goliath: "You come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. This day will the Lord deliver you into my hand..." I come to you as the representative of the forces of Israel, in the name of the God of Israel - because Israel has a God.

This, then, has been the argument between them since the time of Noah. The Philistines consistently deny the existence of the God of Israel - yet He exists!

"The Lord of hosts has delivered you into our hands"... David defeated Goliath and brought his head to Jerusalem. This recalls Samson, who brought the gates of Gaza to Hebron. It is a reminder that even when we are settled and secure in Jerusalem, we must always remember that there are two types of enemies with whom we must content. On the one hand, there are enemy nations, and on the other hand, there are the Philistines whence they came forth!

I will conclude with the Vilna Gaon's interpretation of a verse of Balaam's prophecy. The verse reads "And out of Jacob shall one have dominion, and shall destroy the remnant from the city". According to the Vilna Gaon, this refers to the Philistines, who sought to invalidate the kingdom and sovereignty of Israel, to render them null and void. Their strategy never varies - they never fight a pitched battle, army against army. It's always a few thousand here, a "remnant" there... They plunder, they maraud, they attack Israel when they plough their fields, when they tend their sheep...

Once Israel lost dominion over their land, through the First and Second Temple eras, the Exile and beyond, there is no more mention of the Philistines. For hundreds of years they had every opportunity to rule and control the country, yet not a word is heard about them. They returned when we returned!

And this is David's message, which we must always remember: the armies of Israel are the armies of the Lord of hosts. As long as we never lose sight of this, we can contend with "this Philistine" who has always been with us.

***

This lecture is dedicated to the memory of R' Shmuel Ben Yitzhak Yoel Rozenblatt
of blessed memory, from Liverpool, England, one year after his passing, by his family
on Kibbutz Lavie and in Liverpool, and to Professor Haim Yitzhak Schwartz of blessed memory